04-11-2007, 03:27 PM
When all you have is an old, old story and some arrowheads, then it's all you have. Disputing the accuracy of your sole surviving source is kindof pointless I believe because, in the absence of everything else, the story is the only thing that really matters. It doesn't matter if it's true, it only matters that somebody wrote a story, and the story survives. Maybe that's confusing. I'll try to say it another way.
Herodotus' story is 100% accurate in regards to what the Greeks believed to be their history. Therefore, the importance of the story is beyond dispute. Even if there was some way to get all the facts about the actual events, and if those facts disagreed with H. in every particular, we would *still* need The Histories wouldn't we?
If someone finds more evidence about history, certainly we all want to hear about it, but simply casting doubt according what one believes is plausible does nothing to increase our knowledge. Show me your evidence, and if you have none, then just sit back and enjoy the story for what it is.
Herodotus' story is 100% accurate in regards to what the Greeks believed to be their history. Therefore, the importance of the story is beyond dispute. Even if there was some way to get all the facts about the actual events, and if those facts disagreed with H. in every particular, we would *still* need The Histories wouldn't we?
If someone finds more evidence about history, certainly we all want to hear about it, but simply casting doubt according what one believes is plausible does nothing to increase our knowledge. Show me your evidence, and if you have none, then just sit back and enjoy the story for what it is.
Rich Marinaccio
