[HN Gopher] Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC ___________________________________________________________________ Egyptian Circumnavigation of Africa ~600 BC Author : KhoomeiK Score : 140 points Date : 2021-05-27 16:37 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.livius.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.livius.org) | thedogeye wrote: | Love that this page was created in 1996. | etrevino wrote: | As a data point in the story's favor: there was the Phoenician | Ship Expedition (conducted in, I think, 2010) which | circumnavigated Africa in a replica ship. I assume it managed to | get past Cape Bojador because of the boat's shallow draft. | sthnblllII wrote: | This is just Herodotus' account. I don't see any new evidence | here. | sthnblllII wrote: | This is just Herodotus' well known account right? I don't see any | new evidence here, only an informed guess "reconstruction" of | what the trip would have been like. | fsckboy wrote: | I'm skeptical. No matter how good the Phoenician sailors were, it | seems unlikely to me that they could have blithely sailed past | Cape Bojador[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Bojador Maybe | if they had small enough boats to stick close to the shore and | portage. | | Seafaring on the Mediterranean is simply a lot less complex than | it is on the open ocean. The European sailors were not able to | pass this point till the 15th century CE; not saying they were | better sailors, but that 2000 years later maritime technology was | a lot better. | | [1] I put in footnotes to point out how stupid footnotes are on | HN: just past the link into the text up above, it gets | highlighted and works just fine. | estaseuropano wrote: | I'm currently reading Clive Pointing's 'World History - A new | perspective'. >800 pages of well researched history with a | large Eurasian focus (due to the availability of sources, not | bias). | | He repeatedly makes the point that some technology that Europe | 'discovered' in the 13-19hundreds was in fact known in china | 1000+ years earlier. Most of recorded history Europe basically | played no role whatsoever. | | A few examples that struck me, taken from his snapshot pages | 'The world in xxxx' which are scattered throughout the book: | | 5000BCE * first smelting of copper in Anatolia and Elam | | 2000BCE * glass produced in south west asia * development of | the chariot in southwest Asia and china | | 600BCE * first production of cast iron in china * iron working | in west Africa | | 150CE * First use of paper in china * compass in use in china | | 600CE * 1200 mile long canal built in china * iron cables for | suspension bridges in china * horse collar used in china * | paper used in china and korea | | 750CE * first wood block printing in China | | 1000CE * vikings reach north America * first gunpowder weapons | in china * paper money in china * horse collar used in europe | | 1200CE * multi-,colour printing in china * European ships adopt | Chinese stern-rudder and compass | | ... | sthnblllII wrote: | With all these advantages, why did the industrial revolution | happen in Europe instead of Asia? | bigpumpkin wrote: | With all these advantages, why did the mobile revolution | happen with Apple instead of Microsoft? | fsckboy wrote: | I'm no expert, but China has much, much less arable land | than Europe. Something needs to finance industrialization, | and in preindustrial times, food was finance because that's | what supported a growing population. | gota wrote: | Isn't that largely offset by cultivating a lot of rice, | that being so much more efficient as a crop? | | What other things are at play, for example, in Japan's | bonkers hight population across history? | Hemospectrum wrote: | The industrial revolution was as much a product of | economics as technology. If wages for lower-class workers | hadn't been nearly so high, the technology might have come | and gone without making much of a ripple. In fact, there's | an argument to be made that it once did exactly that. | Steam-powered machines were known to the Romans, and seen | as a stupid novelty. | | Disclaimer: I don't know English history well enough to put | together a better explanation, but I'm sure this has been | the subject of a number of PhD theses. Maybe someone can | point to a source that goes into better detail. | kiba wrote: | _The industrial revolution was as much a product of | economics as technology. If wages for lower-class workers | hadn 't been nearly so high, the technology might have | come and gone without making much of a ripple._ | | The reason why the industrial revolution happened in the | UK as it did is disputed by historians. | | I would argue that high wage, while important as an | incentive for industrial development, isn't a fundamental | reason why the industrial revolution happens. | | Why? Because the very idea of deliberate invention and | continuous improvement must occur to a potential | inventor. Otherwise, no invention will occur at all | despite continual pressure and despite available low | hanging fruits. | | Once we have the idea, we can now invent as a whole | category of deliberate activity. Only then can incentive | drives what gets invented and don't. | | _Steam-powered machines were known to the Romans, and | seen as a stupid novelty._ | | Steam engine in the Hellenistic period were nothing but | toys. They can't do useful work. | c06n wrote: | You are completely ignoring philosophy. It was the ideas | of freedom, of the possibility of liberty for all, of | equality of men, that made the whole enterprise possible. | China had the tools, sure. But not the incentives. Their | emperor could not let lose a zoo of creativity, for fear | of destruction of the empire. | Tuna-Fish wrote: | That is a damn good question that historians still argue | over today. | | The short version is that the Song dynasty appeared to have | all the precursor technology needed for industrialization | by the 12th century, but then just didn't. The most | commonly held view is probably that society and economics | is as important than technology, and that while they at | that point had the kind of metallurgy that Europeans could | only dream of until the late 18th century, what they didn't | have was labor shortages and capitalism, which were what | made industrialization something people wanted to actually | do. But this is by far not the only proposed explanation. | | In general, because of the recent history of the west | appears like it, I think we are far too predisposed to view | of development as a linear progression towards something, | that history has a direction, and that direction is up. For | most of history, for most societies, this hasn't really | been true. As many societies have spent as long stagnating | or even regressing as have advanced. It's just that so long | as _one_ advances, eventually it 's going to influence it's | neighbors, either by taking them over or by having them | frantically play catch-up to not be taken over, and so the | whole thing has a direction. | | This leads to my pet theory for why Europe: Because Europe | has managed for almost the entirety of it's history to | avoid being conquered by a single empire, so everyone was | always afraid of their neighbors, yet there was a solid | enough foundation of international law that everyone wasn't | at war with all their neighbors all the time. This created | both a backdrop that forced states to push to be more | powerful, even over entrenched interests, and the | conditions where the best way to do this often enough | wasn't beating up your neighbors and taking their stuff. | boomboomsubban wrote: | This mentions the main problem is a sudden shift in wind | direction, but would that cause the same issues coming from the | south? | tastyfreeze wrote: | Footnotes are useful to not break the flow of a thought with | text that isn't meant to be read. Also, because of the link | included at the end of a sentence, you were not able to include | the conventional full stop immediately after the last character | of the sentence. | phist_mcgee wrote: | Pedantic, off-topic comments also break conversational flow. | ThalesX wrote: | It also helps for comments with multiple links to have a | footer with all of them. | fsckboy wrote: | we're going off topic here, but i always feel like comments | like yours assume that I'm a complete idiot and don't know | anything and need to be told something obvious :) | | what you say is so obvious, I'd prefer that you read your | comment first as representing the generally held wisdom I'm | arguing against, and then interpret my comment as a riposte | to that. My point was that, and this applies to printed books | also, what breaks up flow for me is to go searching for | footnotes which by their nature are any place but handy. I'm | a detail oriented person, and I want the illumination that | extra detailed footnotes provide, and it doesn't distract me | at all from what I'm reading--and especially not distracting | with regard to a highlighted link | | your comment about the missing full stop points out exactly | what I'm talking about: you give primacy to the rules of | punctuation over the interesting thoughts being conveyed, the | unique, human, creative part. I'll bet you just love C's | semicolons? (actually, I do love C's semicolons, because I | speak C, but I use it as an example because the average | person finds them infuriating... and in any case, I actually | LOVE when inserting an URL into text frees me from having to | add a full stop someplace, whose purpose adds nothing to the | information, it's simply a notional convenience to separate | one notion from another) <-- see, that R-paren frees me from | having to include a period! <-- but the exclamation is | required | | and I threw in an em-dash up there to show that I also find | emdashes--like this--much less distracting than parentheses | (parentheses really make the aside take over your train of | thought) in terms of figuring out where you are in the | original paragraph | | (omg, downvotes for the most interesting thing you've read | all day, something that points out a number of things you | never thought of before? pioneers always die of arrows in the | back!) | tastyfreeze wrote: | I made no assumptions of your competency. What I said was | obvious to me but, your comment indicated that you didn't | understand why people use footnotes on HN. To effectively | communicate ideas to the largest number of people it is | necessary to follow conventions. Bucking convention reduces | your possible audience size. | fsckboy wrote: | I think have higher standards for obviousness than you. | | My comment did not indicate that I don't understand | footnotes, not here nor in books, that was something you | read in. In fact, my comment indicated facility with the | subject. A person unfamiliar with footnotes wouldn't even | know to call them footnotes, and a person unfamiliar with | how they are used on HN would not say "(a) I disagree | with how they are used and (b) because links are | highlighted to stand out they are not a distraction". | What I just wrote there is obvious to me, why not to you? | | nobody knows at the beginning of a comment whether later | in the comment conventions are going to be bucked, and I | highly doubt in a 4 line comment whether inline links or | footnoted links are going to make a difference to | audience size, i mean seriously! | ghaff wrote: | I really like being able to use footnotes, which | unfortunately don't work well with Kindle-style flowing text. | | I find it useful to explain some concept that _most_ readers | probably know, to bulletproof ( "yes, I'm well aware there | are one or two edge cases but they're really not relevant in | general. Let's move on."), historical digressions that aren't | important to the general point, and references. (Of course, | if it's only references, those work fine as end notes.) | eloff wrote: | Fascinating. A passable route was discovered in 1434 by the | Portuguese. | | > Examining the Pilot Charts for this area, however, it becomes | clear that the main concern lies in the changes in winds that | occur at about the point at which Cape Bojador is passed in | sailing down the coast. It is here that the winds start to blow | strongly from the northeast at all seasons. Together with the | half-knot set of current down the coast, these conditions would | naturally alarm a medieval mariner used to sailing close to the | land and having no knowledge of what lay ahead. In the end it | was discovered that by sailing well out to sea--far out of | sight of land--a more favorable wind could be picked up. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | Not a particularly good assumption to make imo. | | For example, we now have multiple solid lines of evidence that | ancient Polynesians were making it all the way from Oceana to | Peru, and back, with some degree of regularity. We see this in | human genetics on both sides, as well as the introduction of | the potato to Oceana. The Polynesians had a very different | approach to navigation than europeans, one based on amassing a | great deal of knowledge about currents, bird and sea life | behavior, as well as intuitive celestial navigation. | | It seems likely the first folks to make this trip were forced | into it via a storm or such, but what's stunning is it's clear | some of them were able to map the path well enough to be able | to find their way back home later. There are still some people | who use these navigation skills today. Look up the maps they | make with sticks and twine. They're pretty interesting. | | In any case, my point is there's historically been a lot of | variation in sailing techniques and technology. If you looked | at an ancient Polynesian proa, you'd almost certainly assume | it's impossible they could cross such a vast distance. But they | did. No doubt many drowned, but we know as an empirical fact | some made it, and made it back. | | The ancient Phoenicians were brilliant mariners. They invented | the trireme, the keel, the amphora, etc. It's easy to think of | these as crude technologies, especially based on hollywood | portrays, but the reality is these were the NASA astronauts of | their era. Coordinating large number of rowers that are stuck | in the hull and blind to their surroundings is not as trivial | as it might seem. | | As another comment points out, triremes and similar vessels | usually beach at night. The sailors are capable of dragging the | things considerably away from the water line. In fact they have | to do so relatively often to let the boats dry out for some | number of days. Likewise we know of several places around the | med where ships were dragged considerable distances over | standardized portage/ferrying routes routinely. | | This is very different from the ships the Portuguese were using | in the 1400s. Their ships were bigger, with deeper draft, and | with rock ballast in the lowest hold for stability. They'd have | a limited capability to use poles/oars to push themselves | through shallows where they were partially dragging, but | covering longer distances on land with such ships is infeasible | without far more people. Combine that with an aversion to | sailing out of sight of the coastline, and you can see why | they'd face more issues in this area. | | In any case, I'm no authority on these topics, just another | curious person on the internet, but I find it entirely | plausible the Phoenicians simply walked their boats past this | obstacle. | | Modern humans have an unfortunate habit of projecting our own | perspective on labor onto ancient peoples. Humans are capable | of truly astounding things with nothing more than their bodies | when focused on a common goal for a sustained time. The best | example is neolithic architecture. There was no magic trick to | building Stonehenge. They just used a ton of people over a long | time to drag the rocks there, and then sea saw them into | position. | wazoox wrote: | Cape Bojador prevented travelling north to south for centuries, | but south to north maybe not so much. | narag wrote: | _' m skeptical. No matter how good the Phoenician sailors were, | it seems unlikely to me that they could have blithely sailed | past Cape Bojador_ | | You assume the coast was the same two milennia before. | | My hometown, a thousand km north, was in the coast two thousand | years ago. Now it's 5 km inland. | w0de0 wrote: | I'm trying to visualize the sailing conditions the Phoenicians | would have faced at Bojador - and not really succeeding, | because I don't know enough about their vessels. | | But I'm sure the challenge would be different, and potentially | less scary, from Henry the Navigator's bane. The Portuguese | were in high-freeboard open-ocean sailing carracks, with no | effective recourse to rowing. And Bojador, coming from the | north, presents a terrifying lee shore: the winds and current | push vessels towards it, with shoals extending from the coast. | Sailing close to a lee shore is a bit like walking on a slack | line: one mistake and disaster is inevitable. You need to | accurately predict your drift over the whole transit, you need | hope the wind doesn't veer, and because there's a ferocious | current too, the wind must not die. In short, it takes a | skilled captain and navigator (and the much better strategy is | just to sail offshore, which is what the Portuguese eventually | did). Even a modern Bermudan yacht would be challenged | attempting to transit Bojador southerly and close to shore. | | A Phoenician trireme-type-boat would not be able to sail upwind | at all - rowing would have been required for this part of the | journey. Maybe on a lull day they could out-row the current? In | any case, the challenges were different - and they would have | had the additional motivation of not being able to turn back | for home. | | [0] Source: I'm a sailor! | | Footnotes so formatted are a shibboleth of this community, not | a practicality. | w0de0 wrote: | Also, Hanno the Navigator's journey is slightly better | attested and includes traversing the cape north and south. | Here is a commented translation of the account, from a | Phoenician temple by way of Greek translators: | https://www.livius.org/articles/person/hanno-1-the- | navigator... | progre wrote: | Why not? The Phoenicians had rowers and could just take down | their sails. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trireme | they also beached their boats at night so they must have been | quite comfortable traveling over shallows. | simonh wrote: | Passing Bojador is something the Phoenecians had no relevant | experience for. It's an extensive shallows extending well out | to sea with subsurface channels that cause violent and | unpredictable surges. | | The only way to do it is to sail far out into open ocean, | well beyond sight of land, but the change in the winds drives | you even further out to sea. Even in the early 1800s it was | lethal, sinking as many as a handful of ships per year. Coast | hugging just isn't going to cut it. | alan-crowe wrote: | Doesn't "rowing" imply having lots of hungry rowers to feed | and therefore a limited range? | clint wrote: | Why do you think they were stopping every couple of months | to sow a whole harvest of grain before moving on? | kencausey wrote: | "every couple of months" is clearly an exaggeration and | they were stopping at most annually. That said, a large | number of hands may have indeed explained the need for | large quantities of food, or maybe just the passage of | years of time and limited storage space or planning. | legitster wrote: | I think beaching the boats at night and having large rowing | crews makes it less likely that they could have | circumnavigated Africa. You'd double the amount of time it | would take, 6x the amount of food and water needed, and | infinitely increase the chance of a hostile encounter. | | Not saying it couldn't be done, but the logistics boggle the | mind. | boomboomsubban wrote: | It took over two years and they stopped to plant crops | according to the story. Add in hunting and foraging, the | logistics don't seem difficult. | fsckboy wrote: | the problem is freeboard | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeboard_(nautical) , i.e. the | height of the "wall" of the sides of a ship to keep the | splashy water out. | | Oars need to be relatively close to the surface of the water, | and where there are oarlocks water can get into the ship. | Open seas are heavy seas, meaning the waves are very very | high; six foot seas are nothing in the ocean, but a bitch to | bob around in. And, in heavy seas you need deep draft--the | "height" of the boat under water--for stability. Also, the | "powerplant" and "fuel" for oars takes up too much space | limiting the freight capacity of a ship. This is basically | why rowing technology was abandoned for sailing around the | world or across oceans. Paddle steamers were used somewhat, | but the paddles just don't have the purchase against the | surrounding water to move a heavy deep draft ship. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | A lot of somehows and must-haves, which would need addressing | before this is more than a tall tale? | mabbo wrote: | > These men made a statement which I do not myself believe, | though others may, to the effect that as they sailed on a | westerly course round the southern end of Libya, they had the sun | on their right - to northward of them. | | It's 600BC. The idea that the world is a sphere isn't accepted | yet. Herodotus explicitly says he doesn't believe what these | sailors said- that the sun was to the north. Yet we know that if | a sailor had done what is being described, this unbelievable fact | _would_ have been seen (and is regularly seen today by those | living in the southern hemisphere). | | If they didn't do it, where would this odd fact have even come | from? | | To me, that leads a lot of credence to the tale. Lots of | challenges in the doing, but with the right experienced sailors | not impossible at all. | zamadatix wrote: | The article itself says they traded with Yemen and even that is | south of the tropic of cancer. Also doesn't take the world | being a certain shape for this to occur. | jmercouris wrote: | [?][?] that must have been a remarkable journey! | herodotus wrote: | "The Histories" by Herodotus is a wonderful read, but it really | matters which translation you use. The is the one I read: | https://www.amazon.com/Histories-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0... | | I also have a newer one translated by Tom Holland, and it seems | to be a good choice too. This is how Robin Waterford translates | the quoted section (Book Four, section 42): | | "After all, Libya us demonstrably surrounded by water, except for | the bit of it that forms the boundary with Asia. King Nech of | Egypt was the first to discover this, as far as we know; after he | abandoned the digging of the canal from the Nile to the Arabian | Gulf, his next project was to dispatch ships with Phoenecian | crews burg obstructions to return via the Pillars of Hercules | into the northern sea and so back to Egypt. So the Phoenicians | set out from the Red Sea and sailed into the sea to the south, | Every autumn, they would come ashore, cultivate whatever bit of | Libya that had reacjhed in their voyage, and wait for harvest | time; then, when they had gathered in their crops, they would put | to sea again. Consequently it was over two years before they | rounded the Pillars of Hercules and arrived back in Egypt. They | made a claim which I personally do not believe, although someone | else might - that as they were sailing around Libya they had the | sun on their right." | | Notice that the tone of this translation is informal, which is | partly why it is an enjoyable read. But notice also the key | difference in the final sentence: the once use in the article (de | Selincourt) adds "to the North of them". This is missing from | Waterfield and Holland. I suspect that. de Selincourt added this | as a clarification. I assume he took other liberties in his | translation too. | rsj_hn wrote: | Title is a bit misleading. It was the Phoenicians who | circumnavigated Africa, but the trip was _sponsored_ by the | Egyptians. Egyptian and Phoenician civilizations were not the | same, and the Phoenicians were the master sailers /travellers of | the mediterranean at that time, whereas the Egyptians were known | for other accomplishments (such as growing wheat, central | administration). | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | I'm blown away that the Phoenicians (w/ Egyptians) | circumnavigated Africa in 600BC and ... during 2000 years, it was | assumed that it was a legend, until being proved otherwise only | in 1488 - just a few years before America was (officially) | discovered. | edgyquant wrote: | I'm not convinced they did. Not only is this an account by a | notorious "liar" (as herodotus is known) but the Egyptians were | notoriously bad at sailing due to being spoiled by the Nile. | When they travelled in the Red Sea they famously hugged the | coast stopping at sundown and they hardly ever went far out on | the Mediterranean. | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | I do not have the knowledge to judge Herodotus (for his other | stories), however even if he lied purposefully on that one, | he is right about many things that practically none could | have guessed with the current knowledge of his time. | | 1- the position of the sun when navigating in the southern | hemisphere. | | 2- claiming a journey of 3 years | | It could be a coincidence of course. But then that would make | from him a very smart and lucky liar - smart because he had | to know the earth was round and lucky, because 3 years, it's | what it would likely take to do it. | detritus wrote: | As for one, at least, if the Ancient Greeks and Egyptians | knew the world was spherical (as they did, and had an | approximate measure of its dimension), this could be easily | predicted and might make part of whatever speculative | discussion they had that was the equivalence of HN or | general interested internerdery here. | | The second is harder to find an excuse for. | | (O/T) Of interest to me is something I learned from HN - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Bojador - a large rocky | shoal off the North Western African coast that scuppered | many attempts at sailing around that area. It was, somewhat | naively, the first thing in my long life that made me | really appreciate how challenging old sea faring would have | been. | kragen wrote: | Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of the Earth pretty | well in 00240 BCE. Aristotle claimed it was round around | 00350 BCE, and might have had a correct value, but | uncertainty about units of measurement means his error | could have been as large as a factor of 2, and the | roundness of the earth was still a matter of debate at | the time. | | Herodotus died around 00425 BCE and probably wrote closer | to 00435 BCE. | | They were all "ancient Greeks" (and Eratosthenes lived in | Egypt, so I guess he was an "ancient Egyptian" too) but | that doesn't mean they were contemporary. Imagine someone | in the year 04542 CE writing, "If the ancient Terrans | knew about nuclear energy (as they did, and had | unreliable and inefficient fission power plants and | nuclear weapons), then Lincoln could have easily used | atomic bombs in the US Civil War!" The timespan from | Lincoln to Hiroshima was 80 years, from Herodotus to | Aristotle about 100 years, and from Herodotus to | Eratosthenes about 200 years. And those were very | eventful centuries, much like our own. | briankelly wrote: | Yes, and there is a large chasm between discovery and | information that is widely known and accepted among the | population. For instance, many Europeans went with | Ptolemy's less accurate calculation (made hundreds of | years after Eratosthenes's) until the 16th century. | kragen wrote: | > _there is a large chasm between discovery and | information that is widely known and accepted among the | population_ | | There are even more extreme examples of this. The Moscow | Papyrus is from 01850 BCE, and it explains how to | calculate the area of a hemisphere from its diameter and | how to calculate the volume of a truncated pyramid, so | this information had already been discovered 3870 years | ago--perhaps for many centuries. | | Yet what fraction of people today know it? Try asking | your taxi driver next time you're on vacation in Peru or | the Philippines. Heck, I don't know the pyramid-volume | thing myself! I'd have to work it out by integrating a | quadratic. | | (I recall that studying the calculus as a kid was a bit | of a transition for me, because for the first time I came | face to face with the realization that most adults' | intellectual development was arrested around the year | 01583 for some reason. It wasn't that they took a long | time to grasp differentiation, or that they had some | weird irrational belief at odds with reality, but that | they _just stopped learning_ and _never_ grasped | differentiation in the decades and decades they lived, | converting themselves into intellectual dwarfs. I was | still young enough to imagine that somehow I would avoid | this...) | detritus wrote: | Mediterranean countries had artificial candle-or-whatever | light with which to play upon spherical fruit dangling | from trees, which otherwise in the daytime caught | specular light glimmering through leaves. | | Knowing the Earth was round, I don't find it hard to | imagine that interested minds of the day picked a fruit | and toyed with it in hand, squinting a bit and | considering the implications. | kragen wrote: | True, and surely some did--not just in the Mediterranean | but in Peru and in Punt, and not just 2500 years ago but | even a quarter million years ago--but, despite the whole | lunar-eclipse thing, nobody had a _really_ compelling | argument until Eratosthenes precisely measured its | curvature. | | That is, though the wise could imagine a spherical Earth | for as long as they have had fruit, they could just as | easily imagine a _non_ -spherical Earth. More easily, I | think, because, I mean, look around you, it looks flat. | It wasn't until Eratosthenes that the wise lost the | ability to believe that the Earth was flat. | wsc981 wrote: | There's this guy, Randall Carlson, who claims the great | pyramid of Cheops is a scaled version of the northern | hemisphere. If true, I guess it would mean the Egyptians | knew the earth was round. | | https://sacredgeometryinternational.com/the-great- | pyramid-de... | generalizations wrote: | That article is mostly just a hard to read description of | latitude, longitude and meridians. Didn't actually see | anywhere that the point was made. | Someone wrote: | _If_ they thought that was a scale model of half of | earth, they must have thought the earth has the shape of | an octahedron (possibly a slightly deformed one), not | that of a sphere. | FredPret wrote: | "Sacred geometry"? | | Beware this type of thing. It's an introduction to | madness. | | Some of these pyramid folks claim that they were built as | signposts for alien landing strips. And it gets more and | more nuts from there. | turndown wrote: | I'm not sure it's true either, but the fact that his account | does correctly describe the position of the sun in the sky | and the fact that Herodotus includes this information to | discount the story to me tells of at least some kind of trip | down to the southern portion of Africa. Total | circumnavigation, though, I do doubt. | | Edit: Also, it wasn't Egyptians that did this but Phoenicians | at the order of the Pharoah. | guga42k wrote: | well, this trip sounds way more plausible than Troy/Iliad | story. And Troy was discovered based on folk tales more or | less. So who knows, may be Egyptians did it. | | ps: for Russian speaking crowd: there is a YA book | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_of_Foam which is a | fiction version of would-be such a trip. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Second this, it is the first thing that comes to mind | whenever I hear about this voyage. Gives a very bright | picture of the ancient world, and it is also a great story | of love and friendship. | finiteseries wrote: | The Egyptians weren't sailing, Herodotus claims it was a | fleet manned by Phoenician crew. | fpoling wrote: | The story alleged it were Phoenicians, not Egyptians, who | sailed. And those were the best sailors at that time. | clint wrote: | The article does not contend that "Egyptians Circumnavigated | Africa" it says that Egyptians hired Phoenicians to engage in | an Egyptian-funded circumnavigation of Africa" | mgerullis wrote: | > When he started his reign, there were serious military problems | on Egypt's northeastern border. | | Funnily we are still having the same situation | tgb wrote: | The ancient Egyptian (or Persians?) built a Suez canal | predecessor? Incredible. Is it a tourist attraction? And imagine | building it only to realize that the surface height of the sea | and the Nile don't match. Oops! | | Also I like that the parts of the circumnavigation tale that | Herotodus thought unbelievable (sun on the "wrong" side) actually | now make it more clearly true and not just another of Herotodus's | exaggerations. | jccooper wrote: | Egyptian rulers of the Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom, Persians, | Greeks, (probably) Romans, and Fatimids all dug or redug (and | probably used, at least briefly) a canal or canals from the | Nile to the Great Bitter Lakes and Red Sea. The Ptolemaic | version even apparently had a lock to prevent salt water | intrusion. It went in and out of service (depending mostly, it | seems, on ability to maintain it) until it was closed 767 for | political reasons. | | It seems to have been easier to create, as the Red Sea was | closer, but hard to keep open due to silt from the Nile. | | I don't think it looks like much now, as I'm unable to find any | photos of it. The physical remains were unknown until | discovered by Napoleon's expedition, so it's probably been | quite swallowed by the desert save for archaeological traces. | jandrese wrote: | The Suez canal requires constant maintenance (dredging) to | avoid being swallowed up by the desert. It is not hard to | imagine most evidence of a canal that stopped maintenance in | 767 being lost to time. | hahahasure wrote: | What, you don't think the greatest harp player can summon a | dolphin and ride them across the sea? | | That said, his political stories are entertaining, and the | philosophy is interesting. It just hurts reading wikipedia and | seeing how his account vaguely lines up with archeology. | dukeofdoom wrote: | Up until recently I did not know there was a way out from the | Great Lakes into the ocean that does not involve going up North | all the way through St. Lawrence. You can go through the | Welland canal and shortcuts and end up going down South. | jws wrote: | You can also go out the Chicago River and down the | Mississippi. There is a path called "The Great Loop" which | takes you around the entire eastern United States. (well, | most people skip New England and Mississippi (the state), but | you could include them if you wanted.) | | https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/great-loop.html | baggy_trough wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs | jccooper wrote: | It's unlikely those camps left behind any identifiable evidence, | but wouldn't that be amazing? Makes me wonder if there are any | identifiable characteristics of 600 BC Mediterranean grains that | might be found out of place in South Africa. | dpeck wrote: | That is interesting and from a very layman's understanding it | would be unexpected. | | I'm just a casual fan of history and have listened to a lot of | lectures for Mediterranean history around bronze age, and my | takeaway was that the consensus among Egyptologists was that | ancient Egyptians never got very good at navigation & seamanship | because they didn't have to be. They had wind to go upstream on | the Nile and current to go downstream and hugged close to the | coast as a rule. | | Maybe one-off journeys happened? Handfuls of people do things | completely out of the ordinary for their culture from time to | time. But if someone did it, it didn't make much difference back | home. | dragandj wrote: | It was the Phoenicians who did this, while Egyptians ordered | and paid for it. | mytailorisrich wrote: | The article quotes Herodotus as saying that the Egyptians hired | a Phoenician crew for this. Phoenicians criss-crossed the Med | for trade and settlements. | not2b wrote: | I suppose they could have hugged the coast all the away around | Africa. It's also possible that the voyage never happened. | | But yes, being first doesn't matter as much as being first to | be successful and following up. Other Europeans got to the New | World first but Columbus kicked off Spain's colonization and | that led to everything else. | runj__ wrote: | >This page was created in 1996; last modified on 12 June 2019. | | I love the internet. | foreigner wrote: | If you haven't read it I highly recommend The History. Herodotus | can be very entertaining. He pretty clearly lays out things he | personally saw, things he heard from firsthand accounts, and | things he heard secondhand. It's fun to see how things get more | fanciful the farther you get away from the Mediterranean he knew. | | One thing that randomly sticks in my head is he said the | Ethiopians were there most beautiful people in the world because | they drank so much coffee, but beyond Ethiopia the land is | uninhabitable because of all the flying snakes. | rendall wrote: | Various readings of Herodotus on LibriVox: | https://librivox.app/book/12931 | HDMI_Cable wrote: | Wait the Ethiopians had coffee in 400BCE? | ithkuil wrote: | I remember having read the story that it originated a | millennium later. | marci wrote: | > One thing that randomly sticks in my head is he said the | Ethiopians were there most beautiful people in the world | because they drank so much coffee, but beyond Ethiopia the land | is uninhabitable because of all the flying snakes. | | Maybe a thirdhand accounts of the flying snake (?) | | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/facts/fl... | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16aGSx9gFO4 | pushswap wrote: | Herodotus isn't considered reliable at all by historians in any | of his writings whether his topic is close geographically or | not. | | Thucydides is a far better option , being at the beginning of | the record for the continuous record of reliable historical | writing. | benbreen wrote: | I'm a historian and I recently cited Herodotus in one of my | forthcoming papers. Is he reliable? We certainly can't assume | so. But the same goes for Thucydides and every other source | from the ancient world. It's all about triangulating between | different sources rather than relying on any one account. | | In my case, Herodotus was describing a Scythian practice (the | use of cannabis) that we've been able to corroborate, in its | broad outlines, using archaeological finds, which to my mind | makes it reliable enough to use. | | If anyone's interested, this is a quote from the paper, which | is a work in progress and not published yet: _When Herodotus | described the purification practices of Scythians following | elite burials, he wrote of a ritual involving the | construction of a tent-like enclosure of "wool mats." At the | center of this enclosure, the Scythians threw cannabis onto | "red-hot stones, where it smoulders and sends forth such | fumes that no Greek vapor-bath could surpass it." According | to Herodotus, "the Scythians howl in their joy at the vapor- | bath." The term Herodotus used here - kannabis, or kannabis - | was a loan-word from Old Persian (kanab). From Greek, it made | its way largely unchanged into Latin (cannabis) and from | thence into the Romance languages and English. "_ [Citing A. | D. Godley, trans. The Histories of Herodotus (Cambridge, MA: | Harvard University Press, 1920), 4.74-6.] | thaumasiotes wrote: | This is probably outside your wheelhouse, but do you happen | to know why the Persian word with a single N would have | come into Greek with a reduplicated N? | tombh wrote: | Obligatory: I love Hacker News | | Not only am I interested to hear that "hot boxing" is an | ancient practice, but also the sense of immediacy that I | now have with ancient Persia over our shared etymology of | _kanab_. | hallarempt wrote: | Check https://mainzerbeobachter.com/2021/05/25/loog-herodotos- | over... (by the same person who manages livius.net) on how | Herodotus sometimes isn't all that precise distinguishing | between things he knew first-had, and things he had by hear- | say. | fpoling wrote: | What is fascinating is how self-reliant Phoenicians were. Take | wheat. Then periodically during the voyage stop to saw it and | wait for few months to harvest. Then continue. | | This was very risky, as they had no idea about climate in new | places. But according to what we know was entirely possible along | African coast. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-27 23:00 UTC)