Witch Doctors



Greek Doctor and Patient i.e. Victim

One of the most closely forgotten secrets in the history of civilization is that the conventional story of the history of Medicine is largely a crock. That is the story of the long slow advance of Medical science over thousands of years, which saw the steady accumulation of knowledge and with Medicine steadily advancing and getting better and better until today, is largely false. 

Late 19th Century Imperialism

in the Hellenistic World

Map of Hellenistic World

 

There are many tiresome tendencies in scholarly writing, but one of the most tiresome is the Imperialist Judge scholar. This is the writer who judges resistance to what he/she views has progress has illegitimate and beyond the pale. In fact the very notion of resistance especially armed resistance to the "new" "progressive" order is by definition utterly wicked and unacceptable. That this is a reflection of contemporary attitudes reflecting a basic contempt for those of the present day resisting "progress" and "development" is rather painfully obvious.

Homer and The Song of Roland

Bust of Homer

The following is a brief look at some of the anachronisms and errors in the Epic The Song of Roland. I have in previous postings mentioned that Homer’s Iliad is not a valid guide to the social, much less historical aspects of Mycenaean society. It is extremely unlikely that given that we know that the epic is a very poor guide to Mycenaean social realities that it is a better guide to Mycenaean history.1 We know about the social reality of Mycenaean society through the decipherment of Linear B. The tablets contain no historical data or literature but they provide a clear glimpse of Mycenaean society and that society is not the society of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. In fact the society is very different from the society described in Homer’s epics, to such an extent has to be qualitatively different.2

An Historical Screw Up

Map of Mesopotamia

In the early part of the third century B.C.E., two priests of local long established civilizations attempted to introduce to the Greeks the culture and history of their respective civilizations. They were the Egyptian Priest Manetho and the Babylonian Priest Berossus. Both wrote short books giving an outline of the histories of their respective cultures going back to mythological times. In the case of Manetho, who I have discussed in an earlier posting,1 despite the apparent lack of interest by most Greco-Romans in his book enough survived, mainly because Christian writers preserved large sections of Manetho’s chronology. This gave to modern Egyptologists the familiar outline Egyptian history has a series of dynasties and it turned out to be reasonably accurate.2 Despite the fact that Manetho’s account used Ancient Egyptian records his short book was generally ignored by the Greco-Romans and in fact what was preserved by the later Christian writers, i.e., Manetho’s dynastic list was from summaries. It appears that the actual book had swiftly become a rarity and disappeared fairly rapidly. It appears for their history of Ancient Egypt the Greeks and the Romans preferred the mess of Herodotus or the fantasies preserved by Diodorus. So what the pagan writers preserved were cute stories and interesting anecdotes; only later Christian writers with a different mindset preserved much of the dynastic list provided by Manetho.3

With Berossus it is much, much worst. What we have is summaries of summaries of summaries etc., and the information is even more garbled than that of Manetho.

The Philosopher as Tyrant

Critias of Athens

Critias

One of the most common conceits among intellectuals is the fantasy / longing by so many of them to rule and to get rid of the “idiots” who actually run the world and thus get stuff done. This fantasy goes back to Plato in his various dialogues in which he indulged in various fantasies about the “ideal” society, which would of course be run by philosophers. Thus Plato’s dialogues, The Republic, The Laws which were in large respects Mary Sue fantasies about how if we (Philosophers.), ran the world how much better things would be. Well we have an idea right at the birth of Platonic philosophizing what would happen if a Philosopher took over a state.

That Sinking Feeling

Atlantis Part I

Plato’s Purpose

Destruction of Atlantis

One of the most popular of myths has been Plato’s tale of Atlantis found in two of his dialogues. The dialogues are the Timaeus and the Critias. Both dialogues were written late in Plato’s career as a philosopher and writer. They represent a late development in Plato’s ideas.

“They Are My Sons!”

Oedipus and His Daughters

Oedipus and his Daughters
at Colonus

In a previous posting I looked at the working of fate in the Theban plays of Sophocles.1 There I looked at Greek ideas concerning fate and how the idea of the “tragic flaw” that dooms the protagonist of Oedipus the King is in itself flawed given that what actually works out in the play is a tragic fate doomed by our protagonist to suffer from before he was born. Here I will examine another aspect of the plays or more specifically the one called Oedipus at Colonus that is Oedipus and his children.

The Death of Socrates

A Note

The Death of Socrates by David

One of the great tropes of the Western Tradition is the Death of Socrates. Mountains of philosophical literature have been written about and it can be argued that Plato’s entire philosophical system was based on it. In the end it boils down to a jury being convinced that the charges were true and convicting him.

Colonialism Sucks

Book Cover

It is a truism that the context in which a particular historical period is viewed affect how a particular historical epoch is viewed by then contemporary scholarship. 

The Nile and Diogenes

Lake Victoria, Lake Albert and the
Head Waters of the Nile



It is extremely unlikely that the overwhelming majority of people have heard about the explorer Diogenes who sometime in the first century C.E. was blown off course in the Indian ocean and ended up in the port of Rhapta on the African coast near, or at modernday Dars es-Salaam in modernday Tanzania. 

Homer Tilted into Absurdity

Ancient bust of Homer

The following is a slightly reworked version of a few postings1 I did a few years ago on the book Where Troy Once Stood2 Having read it I was amused but not convinced at all.

Afternoon in Eprius

Orestes murdering Clytaemnestra

In a previous posting I posted a part of a play I was writing concerning Andromache former wife of Hector and now 15 years after the fall of Troy Queen of Eprius. In that part I gave queen Andromache a long soliloquy has a prologue to the play. In this prologue Andromache gave the story of how she became Queen of Eprius and how a crisis is threatening her kingdom in the form of a Greek attack. In the prologue Andromache mentions that Orestes and Eleckra, the Son and daughter of Agamemnon of Mycenae wish to talk with her concerning this threat. Orestes and Eleckra father Agamemnon had been murdered by Clytaemnestra mother of Orestes and Eleckra who avenged their father by killing their mother. Both of them had been driven into exile as matricides. Andromache has reluctantly decided to see them. However a unforeseen guest has arrived in the form of Chrysothemis sister of Elecra and Orestes and hated by them for refusing to help in avenging their father.

In this scene it is early afternoon and Orestes, Electra are trying to justify their act of vengeance and antipathy towards their sister to the Queen Andromache. Chrysothemis is not interested in justifying her behavior, she sees her siblings as blinded by hate and delusion and utterly oblivious to actual justice.

Orestes and Eleckra see their dead father has a hero and cannot tolerate the truth about him, further they see their mother has the reason for their suffering they have and still are enduring. They see their act of revenge as justice. Their mother they see as unnatural, un-womanly and evil and thus deserving of death.

Chrysothemis sees revenge as poisonous and dangerous. She has no illusions about her father or for that matter her mother. She sees ambition as a corrupter of men's nature and sees her father as one so corrupted. Honour and nobility she sees as high ideals easily corrupted and perverted. Her mother she sees has someone corrupted by suffering and rage. Chrysothemis believes that Agamemnon's deeds against their mother Clytaemnestra and corrupted her the way ambition corrupted Agamemnon. She is also infuriated to no end by the double standard applied to Agamemnon's sexual behavior as against their mother's.

Note on some Nonsense and the Dark Ages

Book Cover

The following is a expanded version of a comment I left on the website Skeptical Humanities.1 It concerns some thoughts on pseudo-scholarship and the dark ages.

Its been almost 30 years since I’ve read Holy Blood, Holy Grail,2 and it has got to be one of the most flagrant examples pseudo-scholarship ever. What is remarkable is that the bibliography in the book is actually pretty good; but the main purpose of that bibliography is to support massive woo. What I found especially annoying was on one page they would introduce, tentatively, some far out speculation and then pages later would treat that speculation as a “fact” and use it to support some even more far our speculation and then pages later use….. And so forth.

The pseudo-scholarship in the book is used to give a aura of respectability to fantasy and out of control conspiratorial thinking, with virtually no evidence to support it. What I especially loved was how our authors danced the fact that there is NO early evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdalene at all. There is plenty of early evidence, from Gnostic sources, about Mary Magdalene being regarded as a Disciple of Jesus; but being married to him, not a sliver.3 In fact the earliest evidence I know of the belief that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is from anti-Cathar writings of the 13th century that attributed this belief to the Cathars.4 I note this is c. 1200 years after Jesus’ death! None of the Church fathers seem to know of such a belief and since they accused the Gnostics of believing all sorts of stuff that they the Church fathers found offensive. I would think they would have included this one if it had existed.

If you think Holy Blood, Holy Grail, is bad than don’t read The Jesus Papers,5 by one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Michael Baigent. In the book the author asks us to take seriously papers which he has seen, but which he can’t read, (The documents are in Aramaic), but which he assures us will rock the foundations of Christianity. Oh and the owner won’t let them be examined by scholars or studied. We can’t even get pictures of the documents. But we must take them seriously. ORLY!?

The Dark Ages are an interesting period. There is this bias that goes back to the Renaissance that regards The Greeks and the Romans as “like us” and in a sense our contemporaries and regards the period between as an age of obscurantist darkness.6 Well in many ways this is just nonsense. The foundations of modern Europe were laid in the “Middle Ages”,7 and frankly it is careless and in my opinion distorted thinking and writing that leads people to think that the Greeks and the Romans were “like us”.

I have found, for example, it a lot easier to get into the mind of Thomas Aquinas, despite the fact I’m a secularist and agnostic, than the mind of Cicero despite the fact that I share many of Cicero’s beliefs.

The Classicalist M.I. Finley wrote a brilliant essay called Desperately Foreign, (Its in a collection of essays he wrote called Aspects of Antiquity,8.), that describes the world of the Greeks and the Romans as only superficially like our own and in the end “Desperately Foreign”. This tendency of “modernizing” the Greeks and the Romans produces a mindset that sees kindred spirits in the thinkers and doers of antiquity and one that emphasizes the strangeness and irrationality of the Dark Ages / Middle Ages. The cultic, irrational elements of Greco-Roman culture are thus either down played or bluntly ignored. Thus we read that until the third century B.C.E., Greek art had, “nothing vulgar, coarse, or debasing”.9 This statement is simply, and utterly wrong. As any half decent examination of just vase paintings of the 6th and 5th century B.C.E., would reveal. The fondness of the Greeks and Romans for Mystery Cults, arcane mystical speculation, and their reputation in antiquity for frenzy and extreme behavior have to be ignored in the distorted view of them being modern rationalists.10

In fact in many ways the European world of the “Middle Ages” is less “Foreign” than the world of the Greeks and the Romans. To cite an example the pervasive influence of the Bible, given that our society is still in many respects Bible saturated, makes the “Middle Ages” more comprehensible to us, or me at least. Also much of European law and attitudes about law and the enforcement of law are related to Germanic and Customary law from the Dark Ages / Middle ages.11

As an interesting side note it appears likely that for the mass of the population their standard of living may have improved(!) with the fall of the Roman Empire. So that this great disaster which is still seen has a great retreat of civilization may have benefited most people.12

Thank you Michael Baigent for bringing back memories of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, that example of “scholarship” as cow muck.

1. See Here.

2. Baigent, Michael, Leigh, Richard, Lincoln, Henry, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jonathan Cape, London, 1982.

3. See Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979.

4. For example Peter de les Vaux-de-Cernay says concerning Cathar beliefs that:

Further, in their secret meetings they said that the Christ who was born in the earthy and visible Bethlehem and crucified at Jerusalem was “evil”, and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine – and that she was the woman taken in adultery who is referred to in the scriptures;… (From de les Vaux-de-Cernay, Peter, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge Sussex, 1998, s. 11, p. 11.)

5. Baigent, Michael, The Jesus Papers, Harper Collins Pub., New York, 2006.

6. To give but one example of this bias. See Gibbons The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The chapter on the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the first volume is especially revealing of this attitude. Given that copies of The Decline … are so easy to find on the web I will not be posting links to it.

7. A couple of books that go into the establishment of Europe during the Middle Ages are, Heather, Peter, Empires and Barbarians, Pan Books, London, 2009, Lewis, David Levering, God’s Crucible, W. W. Norton, New York, 2008, Wickham, Chris, The Inheritance of Rome, Penguin Books, London, 2009, Heer, Fredrich, The Medieval World, Mentor Book, New York, 1962, Herrin, Judith, The Formation of Christendom, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1987, Moore, R. I., The First European Revoolution, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2000.

8. Finley, M. I., Aspects of Antiquity, Second Edition, Penguin books, London, 1977. The essay Desperately Foreign can be found on pp. 11-15.

9. The Sociologist Sorokin quoted in Muller, Herbert J., The Uses of the Past, Mentor Book, New York, 1952, p. 115.

10. A good start on correcting this view is Dodds, E.R., The Greeks and the Irrational, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA., 1951.

11. See the books listed in Footnote 7 for more details.

12. See Wickham, pp. 203-231, Moore, pp. 30-47.

Pierre Cloutier

Notes on Pythagoras

Painting Pythagoras' Hymn to the Sun

The following story is told concerning Pythagoras the ancient Greek thinker.

It is related that while observing the stars one night he encountered a young man befuddled with strong drink and mad with jealousy who was piling faggots about his mistress' door with the intention of burning the house. The frenzy of the youth was accentuated by a flutist a short distance away who was playing a tune in the stirring Phrygian mode. Pythagoras induced the musician to change his air to the slow, and rhythmic Spondaic mode, whereupon the intoxicated youth immediately became composed and, gathering up his bundles of wood, returned quietly to his own home.1

The Greeks and Romans told lots of stories about Pythagoras most of them folkloric and amusing. The great majority were to indicate that Pythagoras was a strange wise man.

This story is a particular example of Greek and Roman beliefs about Pythagoras and how brilliant but strange he was. The point of the story is to indicate that Pythagoras was so brilliant and strange that he doesn't do the obvious thing and physically stop the man but instead adopts a solution based on his brilliance and strangeness.

It is unlikely that the real Pythagoras did anything like this. We know very little about the real Pythagoras. The sum total of anything like reliable information about him and his beliefs could be printed on less than 10 pages. All sorts of discoveries were attributed to him after his death along with a large corpus of folkloric stories that tend to grow around wise men.

It appears that Pythagoras wrote nothing and that he was the founder of religious cult that was obsessed with numerology, in southern Italy.

Pythagoras was later in antiquity credited with visiting Egypt and later still being educated into Egyptian secret knowledge. At least one account has him then going to Mesopotamia and getting educated there. The problem with this is that not only are the sources for this much later than Pythagoras' time but also that what we now about Pythagoras' actual beliefs do not show much influence from Egypt or for that that matter Mesopotamia, certainly nothing that indicates a comprehensive education in either of those places. Since Pythagoras was from Samos and Samos traded with Egypt it is possible he visited Egypt. But it is only a possibility. Herodotus for example discusses Pythagoras and also devotes an entire book to discussing Egypt. Even though Herodotus was big on detecting Egyptian influence on Greece he does not mention Pythagoras visiting Egypt. Herodotus does in fact think that the Pythagoreans got the idea of the transmigration of souls from Egypt. The problem with that is that it appears that the Egyptians did not apparently believe in the transmigration of souls or reincarnation. It appears rather unlikely that Herodotus would have failed to mention Pythagoras visiting, or being educated, in Egypt if Herodotus had known that Pythagoras had done so.

The first mention of Pythagoras being in Egypt is from one of the orations, Busiris, written by the Athenian Isocrates in c. 370 B.C.E. In that oration Isocrates is trying to drum up support for Athenian / Greek support for an Egyptian king against the Persians. Its historical validity is dubious. Isocrates speech the Busiris is like all of his speeches a rhetorical exercise. Isocrates reputation as a source of historically accurate information is not good. In this case he is referring to figures who lived more than a century and a half before his time.

Later it became a real cottage industry to have all sorts of revered figures from Greco-Roman antiquity visit Egypt. From King Numa of Rome, to Thales and even such figures as Plato who were all said to have visited Egypt and learned ancient wisdom. In one tale Pythagoras was supposed to have met the Persian Prophet Zarathustra. It is all dubious and more interesting as folklore than history.

The ancient Greeks and Romans claimed that Thales, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Democritis, Plato, visited Egypt along with many others to learn wisdom. In all the above cases it is dubious. For example did Democritis get his idea of atoms from Egypt? Almost certainly not.

The fact is both Thales and Pythagoras became shortly after their deaths the center of all sorts of tales concerning their lives, Pythagoras in fact became almost a supernatural figure of whom all sorts of miracle tales were attributed. As for Egyptian influence on their thought many later Greeks attributed the Pythagorean belief in reincarnation to alleged Egyptian influence. (Apparently starting with Herodotus, although he doesn't mention Pythagoras directly.) The problem is the Egyptians apparently didn't believe in reincarnation. Opps!

One story was that Pythagoras was in Egypt in 525 B.C.E., when Heliopolis was sacked, though it appears Pythagoras moved from Samos to southern Italy in c. 540 B.C.E.

During the life time of Pythagoras history writing was nonexistent and in fact writing of any kind was new to the Greeks. Even during the life of Herodotus the writing of "History" was a very new phenomena, written sources were few and far between for someone to use and it appears that neither Pythagoras or Thales wrote anything, certainly nothing as survived. This situation was ready made for people to fill in the gaps with "plausible" events that never happened.

The fact is Herodotus who is the earliest source for many of the Ionian philosophers did not report any such contact with Egypt by either Thales or Pythagoras or them meeting each other, which was another later story. The fact is both of these philosophers became associated with a large body of mythological / legendary material. The facts about either are frankly elusive. The later legends written about both by the Greeks are very poor guides to what they said and did.

Regarding Pythagoras the story of him going to Egypt apparently originated from his doctrine of reincarnation which Herodotus stated that the Egyptians had. Herodotus is apparently wrong and there is apparently not much of a indication of Egyptian influence in Pythagoras thought, in so far has we can make out what he taught from that of his successors.

Later this was elaborated by later writers to get the following fantasy:

In about 535 BC Pythagoras went to Egypt. This happened a few years after the tyrant Polycrates seized control of the city of Samos. There is some evidence to suggest that Pythagoras and Polycrates were friendly at first and it is claimed that Pythagoras went to Egypt with a letter of introduction written by Polycrates. In fact Polycrates had an alliance with Egypt and there were therefore strong links between Samos and Egypt at this time. The accounts of Pythagoras's time in Egypt suggest that he visited many of the temples and took part in many discussions with the priests. According to Porphyry Pythagoras was refused admission to all the temples except the one at Diospolis where he was accepted into the priesthood after completing the rites necessary for admission.

It is not difficult to relate many of Pythagoras's beliefs, ones he would later impose on the society that he set up in Italy, to the customs that he came across in Egypt. For example the secrecy of the Egyptian priests, their refusal to eat beans, their refusal to wear even cloths made from animal skins, and their striving for purity were all customs that Pythagoras would later adopt. Porphyry says that Pythagoras learnt geometry from the Egyptians but it is likely that he was already acquainted with geometry, certainly after teachings from Thales and Anaximander.

In 525 B.C.E. Cambyses II, the king of Persia, invaded Egypt. Polycrates abandoned his alliance with Egypt and sent 40 ships to join the Persian fleet against the Egyptians. After Cambyses had won the Battle of Pelusium in the Nile Delta and had captured Heliopolis and Memphis, Egyptian resistance collapsed. Pythagoras was taken prisoner and taken to Babylon.2

Both Porphyry and Iamblichus for example not only wrote more than 700 years after the life of Pythagoras but neither are considered to be reliable sources of historical information although they tell us a lot about what people of their time believed to be true. The biographer Diogenes Laertius also wrote more than 700 years after Pythagoras and is basically uncritical and unreliable.

The sources for the Egyptian trips of both of Pythagoras are very late and part of a tradition attributing all sorts of feats to him. The fact is written source material from the fifth is meagre concerning Pythagoras. And the first material alleging the Egyptian visit is from the early 4th century more than a century after their deaths. Although it is of interest that Plato does not mention such a visit. Written source material from the 6th century B.C. was quite minuscule and concerning Pythagoras apparently next to nothing survived. Some Greeks simply assumed Pythagoras, and others, went to Egypt filling in the gaps of their lack of knowledge of his life with "plausible" material.

The consensus of experts on the pre-Socratics is in fact that Pythagoras probably did not visit Egypt however much some may dislike their conclusion. There is no reason to accept late derivative sources over early sources which with the exception of Isocrates do not mention such a trip. Isocrates reputation for accuracy is not very good; he is notorious for sacrificing fact to rhetorical effect and proving some sort of connection between Egypt and Greece fit the rhetorical purpose of that oration.

The fact is evidence for going to Egypt by either is late and nothing in the philosophical material attributed to Pythagoras compels a conclusion that he went to Egypt to say nothing of being taught there. And since Pythagoras is not alleged to have been merchant why would he go? Of course there is the tourist thing and the student thing, both of which are of late development in the traditions and myths concerning Pythagoras.

Herodotus who is our earliest source about either says very little about Pythagoras and does not mention him going to Egypt.

The "extensive body of texts" some rely on are overwhelmingly late sources of dubious value. The fact is modern researchers and experts in this area believe Pythagoras never went to Egypt. There is no evidence in the surviving beliefs attributed to Pythagoras of much direct or frankly indirect Egyptian influence. I see nothing in the philosophy attributed to Pythagoras, (Who apparently wrote nothing.), that necessarily requires Egyptian influence and some that indicates non-Egyptian influences.

The Greeks / Romans became rather found of attributing all sorts of "trips" to the pre-Socratic philosophers, all of which are shall we say dubious.

Since Pythagoras apparently said anything indicating a trip to Egypt and in fact the one thing Pythagoras was supposed to have got from Egypt he did not; there is no need to assume a trip to Egypt for him. Herodotus although he mentions Pythagoras on more than one occasion does not mention him going to Egypt neither does he mention it despite his great interest in Egypt. And in fact he is not adverse to saying the Greeks took things from the Egyptians.

Given that Pythagoras apparently wrote nothing and little was known about him and he very soon after his death, began to acquire a "magical" reputation. It is likely that the Egyptian story was a invention like a lot of the stories about Pythagoras.

Regarding Pythagoras the contemporary consensus is has follows:

1, Pythagoras did not write anything. (The ancient authorities are divided about this but not a single scrap of his writing seems to have survived if he wrote anything, and considering how much the Greeks and Romans wrote about him and his school if he had written anything, that is rather strange.)

2, He was born on the Island of Samos c. 570 B.C.E.

3, About thirty years later, c. 540 B.C.E., he emigrated to the city of Croton in south Italy.

4, Pythogoras founded a school of thought at Croton.

5, Pythogoras became involved in politics in Croton and had to leave for the nearby city of Metapontum were he died.

6, He died c. 500 B.C.E.

That is about it.

After he died all sorts of beliefs, stories, miracles were attributed to him all of similar dubiousness.

1. NWO Library Here. 

2. Pythagoras of Samos Here.

For a collection of the fragments of the Pythagorans see The First Philosophers, Oxford World Classics, Robin Waterfield, 2000, p. 87-115, and Early Greek Philosophy, Second Revised Edition, Penguin Books, Jonathan Barnes, 2001, p. 28-35, also Kirk, G.S., & Raven, J.E., Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 214-238.

Herodotus in his Histories, refers to Pythagoras in Book 4, s. 95-96, and indirectly in Book 2, s. 123. Isocrates mentions Pythagoras in his oration Busiris, s. 28-29.

Pierre Cloutier

Stolen Fantasy

The Pyramids of Giza

The following is an old posting I did years ago in reply to a posting at the Website In the Hall of Maat concerning the Book Stolen Legacy by G. M. James.1 The posting can be fond at the In the Hall of Maat website.2 The posting is by Ra Hotep Amen and he posted in its entirety a review by Femi Akomolafe called Review of George G. M. James Stolen Legacy. All quotes from the review in italics.

I notice that the author, of the review posted, very carefully avoids mentioning that G. M. James in his book says that Aristotle stole Egyptian books from the Library of Alexandria. A truly remarkable feat given that the library did not exist until after his death.3 Has for the rest of the piece please find below some comments on selected excerpts.

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.- Ancient Egyptian saying, wrongly credited to the Christian bible.

Is it or is it not in the Bible and if it is how can it be "falsely" attributed to the Bible?

Question: To what country do we owe our Civilization, Philosophy, the Arts and the Sciences? Answer: Greece.

Who is this "We" and who the hell says this?

Question: Who is the wisest man the world has ever seen?

Answer: Aristotle

Says Who?

Question: Name the world three greatest thinker of all times?

Answer: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?

Says Who? and what about Jesus, the Buddha and Confucius.

Question: Who is the world greatest mathematician of all times, the [person] who invented the theorem of the Square of the Hypotenuse?
Answer: Pythagoras

Says Who?

All in all a collection of Agitation Propaganda points and assertions designed to generate much heat and little light.

I have quoted from an encyclopedia, which is often defined as 'volumes containing collections of human knowledge.' You don't argue with an encyclopedia, do you?

Why Not? and I certainly do!

You will be adjudged CORRECT and RIGHT if you give the above answers in an examination. But actually, none of the answers are TRUE. Based on what we know of history, they are FALSE.

Pure Agitation propaganda.

The greatest crime Europe committed against the world is the intellectual theft of Africa's heritage. Empires could be stolen, whole countries snatched and named after pirates rapists and swindlers. Palaces and monumental edifices destroyed could be rebuild. But when you steal a people's cultural patrimony, and used it to enslaved and insult them, you have committed unforgivable acts that border on the sacrilege.

I can think a few things more serious than alleged "theft" of intellectual ideas like, the slave trade and colonialism. Of course how can intellectual property be the collective property of a group and that use of it, borrowing it or being influenced by it can be theft?

That Greece invented philosophy, the Arts and the Sciences is the only basis on which the arrogance of Europe stands.It is those things credited to the Greek that made every European believed himself superior to other peoples\races. Conversely, it is the awe with which the other races view these grand ancient achievements, which made them cringe at the altar of supposed European superiority.

Again more agitation propaganda, the belief in European superiority rested mainly on the rather unpleasant fact that Europeans were able too by force impose themselves on most of the world and this lead to the belief in European superiority. Not just the idea that the Greeks invented philosophy, but also the idea that since the Europeans had steamships, the telegraph, etc., etc., a great many foolish Europeans thought they were superior to everyone else. This argument that European belief in their superiority rests entirely on a set of beliefs about the Greek achievements is hopelessly simple-minded. Besides it ignores the European belief in some sort of superiority based on the Christian tradition.

What course would the history of the world had taken if the European scholars[?] had not FALSELY claim for the Greeks what is certainly not theirs? Would the arrogance of Europeans not have been diminished if the truth about the contribution of Africa to human civilization have been correctly stated and interpreted? Would Africans have held themselves in such self-contempt if they have tried sooner to uncover the truth about their past? Would Africans be cringing at the altar of westernism if they know that almost every idea Europeans are using today was brazenly stolen from us? Would we be supplicating to a supposed son of an imaginary god if we knew that we gave RELIGION to the world?

So you are openly stating that your purpose is political and not a disinterested search for the truth. Some more agitation propaganda about "brazenly Stolen" ideas, again with the notion that ideas are collective property of a group and no other group may use them. Guess what no one society or people invented "religion" it is a universal.

Every European hold 'Greek Civilization' as an inspiration.

More agitation propaganda and besides it is not true.

They go around the world with volumes upon volumes celebrating Greek this, Greek that. From their original abode in Europe to the real estate they stole from other people, they shouted on top-voice about how they single-handedly invented and sustained human civilization! Sororities are created at institutions of higher learning. 'Great thinkers' waxed lyrical and sentimental about 'Greek Civilization.'

More useless polemics, designed to create heat and not light.

"The term Greek philosophy, to begin with is a misnomer, for there is no such philosophy in existence. The ancient Egyptians had developed a very complex religious system, called the Mysteries, which was also the first system of salvation." That was the opening statement from Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy, by George G.M. James.

Some Greeks did "philosophy", since some Greeks did Philosophy there is Greek Philosophy. QED. But then this is a insult to the Greeks arguing that they contributed very little. G.M. James Mysteries are very strange in that he tells us very little about the mysteries except that they were secret but he is sure that the Greeks ripped them off even though they were secret and little can be said about them.4

George James began his book by informing us that the Egyptian Mystery System was the oldest in the world and was 'also a Secret Order, and membership was gained by initiation and a pledge to secrecy. The teaching was graded and delivered orally to the Neophyte; and under these circumstances of secrecy, the Egyptians developed secret systems of writing and teaching, and forbade their Initiates from writing what they had learn.' - p.1

Thus G.M. James can avoid telling us much about it because it was secret. It removes the need to supply evidence on the part of G.M. James. This does not prevent him from pontificating about theft. Needless to say the Greeks are given no credit for getting these ideas into the light of day rather than being secret knowledge available only to a few.

The Egyptians have developed their systems and taught same to Initiates around the world long before the Greeks were allowed into the temples. It was only after the invasion of Alexander the Destructor (called the Great by western mythorians) when the temples and the libraries were plundered, that the Greek gained access to all the ancient books, on which Aristotle built his own school and his reputation as the wisest man that ever lived!

Lots of assertions and nonsense. Aristotle had established his own school more than twenty years before the conquest of Egypt by Alexander. And regarding the ideas that Alexander "ripped off", How he could have gotten his Politics, (a discussion of overwhelmingly Greek political systems) or his The Athenian Constitution from Egypt is beyond me. Most of Aristotle's writing are prior to Alexander conquering Egypt and of course there is little to no evidence that Aristotle ever went to Egypt. (he died in 322 B.C.E.)5

In the first chapter of his book, James masterfully destroyed the myth of a Greek philosophy. Pythagoras, the oldest of the so-called Greek-thinkers was a student in Egypt for several years. He was exiled when he started to teach what he had learned. Socrates was executed for teaching 'foreign ideas.' Plato was sold into slavery. Aristotle was also exiled. What we are asked to believed by western scholars was that these ancient Greeks were persecuted in a society that is sufficiently advanced in philosophy.

It is possible that Pythagoras went to Egypt although not likely. Regarding Plato he was not sold into slavery. Also Pythagoras was not the oldest of Greek thinkers that honour was given to Thales of Militus. What does the Greek persecution of Philosophers have to do with where the Greeks got their philosophy. The comment about persecution is pure polemics what does that have to do with anything? The French Philosophers of the Enlightenment were often persecuted and harassed also.6

On what basis do western scholars claim philosophy for Greece? Because the literature were written in Greece. As is still in existence unto today, most Orders prohibit their members from writing down what they learn. This explains why Socrates, as even the Encyclopedia Britannica admitted, did not commit anything to writing! The Babylonians and the Chaldeans, who also studied under the Egyptian Masters, also refused to publish those teachings. It is usurpers like Plato and Aristotle that brought into book forms all the secret teachings of Egyptian and claim authorship!

Mere assertion. Evidence please. Note the polemical flourish of describing Plato and Aristotle has "usurpers". I note that the touch that it was all oral saves the need to provide evidence.

George James pointed out the absurdity of this stance. The Hebrew scriptures, called the Septuagint, the Gospels and the Epistles were also written in Greek, why are the Greek not claiming authorship of them? 'It is only the unwritten philosophy of the Egyptians translated into Greek that has met such an unhappy fate: a legacy stolen by the Greeks.'

Maybe because specific works were specifically claimed to be the work of Plato, Aristotle etc. And maybe they wrote them! I note that Plato wrote dialogues about conversations that various people he knew allegedly had. I note that since the Greeks did not claim to have written the Septuagint it was because they didn't write it so that if they claimed they wrote something (i.e., a Greek wrote it) maybe they did.

This is not the only absurdities James pointed out in the book. Another instance: The number of books whose authorship is credited to Aristotle is simply impossible to be the work of one single man, even in our age when word-processing software makes writing a lot easier.

We know that a lot of Aristotle's books were lecture notes and he had students help him with projects. I note that Isaac Asimov wrote over 500 books.7

We also have to keep in mind that Aristotle was purported to have been taught by Plato. Plato, as the books, show was a philosopher. Aristotle is still regarded as the greatest scientist of antiquity. The question thus beggared is how could Plato taught Aristotle what he didn't know himself?

Plato did teach Aristotle any evidence otherwise (i.e., that someone else taught him?) Excuse me but can't Aristotle have found things for himself?

The truth of the matter was that Aristotle, aided by Alexander the Destroyer (some called him the Great), secured the books from the Egyptian Royal Libraries and Temples. 'In spite however of such great intellectual treasure, the death of Aristotle marked the death of philosophy among the Greeks, who did not seem to possess the natural abilities to advance these sciences.' p. 3

Aside from if the Egyptian knowledge was oral how could Aristotle find it in written form, what evidence that Aristotle pillaged Royal libraries in Egypt. The statement about Greek philosophy ending with Aristotle is completely false. The purest form of drivel.8

'The aim of this book is to establish better race relations in the world, by revealing a fundamental truth concerning the contribution of the African Continent to civilization. It must be borne in mind that the first lesson in the Humanities is to make a people aware of their contribution to civilization; and the second lesson is to teach them about other civilizations. By this dissemination of the truth about the civilization of individual peoples, a better understanding among them, and a proper appraisal of each other should follow. This notion is based upon the notion of the Great Master Mind: Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' Consequently, the book is an attempt to show that the true authors of Greek philosophy were not the Greeks; but the people of North Africa, commonly called the Egyptians; and the praise and honor falsely given to the Greeks for centuries belong to the people of North Africa, and therefore to the African Continent. Consequently this theft of the African legacy by the Greeks led to the erroneous world opinion that the African Continent has made no contribution to civilization, and that its people are naturally backward. This is the misrepresentation that has become the basis of race prejudice, which has affected all people of color.

How falsehoods and disparaging the Greeks will do this is beyond me.

To leave no one in doubt about the cogency of his impressive arguments, chapter one (Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy) opens with an examination of the stories of the so- called 'Greek Philosophers. Pythagoras, after receiving his training in Egypt, went back to his native Samos and established an Order as was the custom in those days. Anaximander and Anaximenes, native, Parmenides, Zeno and Melissus were all native of Ionia and they taught nothing but Egyptian mysteries. Ditto, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus. What we have to remember here is that Ionia was a colony of Egypt (readers are directed to Martin Bernal's, Black Athena, published by Vintage, especially vol. I, ISBN 0 09 988780 0). At the apex of its glory, Egypt held sway over much of the known world. The Ionians would later become Persian subjects after the fall of Egypt, before they even became Greek citizens.

Lots of assertions backed by no evidence. Pythagoras went to Italy, not to Samos, to establish his school. Ionia was never a part of Egypt.9

All of these Ionians did not claim for themselves the glory of philosophy or the sciences. The Persians and the Chaldeans were also introduced to the Ancient Mystery Systems, yet they did not claim authorship. It was the Athenians - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who usurped this African legacy and thereby distorted the reality of human history. What is quite clear was that it was Athens that those who taught the mysteries were persecuted the most until Alexander's time. We know with certainty that these philosophers were roundly persecuted by the Athenian Government for teaching foreign doctrines.

Any evidence? of course not.10

What is incredible about these 'Great Philosopher' is the total lack of any knowledge about their early lives. The world is asked to believe that these men who possessed all the super-natural abilities attributed to them had no education, no training, philosophy, mathematics and the sciences just came to them!

Again mere polemical assertion and agit-prop. Who says that they had no education after all Plato was a disciple of Socrates and Aristotle was a student of Plato and besides they could read the Ionian philosophers.

The only evidence adduced for this fraud was that the books were written by the Orders founded by the Athenian impostors. But as James repeatedly reminded us, the ancient Egyptians forbade their pupils from writing, and this injunction was obeyed by all but the Athenians. We have to excuse Socrates, whom James believed to be the only properly trained Initiate. Instead of divulging the secrets he had learned, he drank a poison. Both Plato and Aristotle fled. Yet they came back and claim the credits!

"Athenian impostors", let the useless, polemical insults fly! Has for not allowing them to write how convenient for G.M. James but of course our impostors get no credit for saving knowledge from obliteration. The stuff about Socrates is nonsense Socrates drank poison because he was tried and convicted for corrupting the youth, not to avoid telling secrets.12

The crucial question of how Aristotle got all the books that bore his credit is easily answered by the simple historical fact that he went with his friend, Alexander, in the latter campaign and conquest. After Egypt was conquered and destroyed, the Royal Library and the Temples were looted by Aristotle. It was with these books that he established his own school and, aided by his pupils, Theophrastus, Andronicus of Rhodes and Eudemus, started to copy the books. These men were also credited with the authorship of several books, and it was them who formed the organization of 'The Learned study of Aristotle Writings.' 'It would certainly appear that the object of the Learned Association was to beat Aristotle's own drum and dance. It was Aristotle's idea to compile a history of philosophy, and it was Aristotle's school and its alumni that carried out the idea, we are told." (p.19)

A collection of assertions and insults about Aristotle. The "simple historical fact" is that there is NO evidence that Aristoltle was ever in Egypt or that he looted libraries (of written down information that was supposidly only past down oraly!?).13

Chapter II, 'So-Called Greek Philosophy was Alien to the Greeks And their Conditions of Life.' Here James drew for us the conditions under which the Greeks were living at this period in history. According to the western mythorians, the period of 'Greek Philosophy' was located 640-322 BC.

The statement Greek philosophy was confined to the period 640-322 B.C.E. is simply false.14

'The period of Greek philosophy (640-322 BC was a period of internal and external wars, and was therefore unsuitable for producing philosophers. History supports the fact that from the time of Thales to the time of Aristotle, The Greeks were victims of internal disunion, on the one hand, while on the other, they lived in constant fear of invasion from the Persians who were a common enemy to the city states.

This is mere assertion Philosophy seems to have flourished in Europer in the past few centuries despite constant wars. I could also give China in the Era of warring states (c. 600-221 B.C.E.)15

When Western mythorians roll out Aristotle, Plato and Socrates, they fail to tell their audience how these guys were persecuted by their own government.

The Death of Socrates is one of the Cliches of the western tradition.16

These 'philosophers' were persecuted for the exactly the same reason - 'introducing strange divinities.' Socrates charge sheet read, in part, 'Socrates commit a crime by not believing in the Gods of the city, and by introducing other new divinities. He also commit a crime by corrupting the youth.' He was further accused of 'busying himself with investigating things beneath the earth and in the sky,a nd who makes the worse appear the better reason, and who teaches others the same thing.' Whereas astronomy was part of the required study in the Egyptian schools, the Athenian government was persecuting its citizens for pursuing such studies. Who, now, is the father of what?

More Agit-prop and so what how does this prove that Greek scholars did not write the books or make the discoveries atributed to them? Also Socrates new god was his personal "daemon" not a Egyptian deity. Oh and the story of Athens presecuting philosophers seems to be seriously exagerated. After all Athens attracted thinkers from all over the Greek speaking world.

The conquest of Alexander and the destruction of the Lodges and the libraries plus the edicts of Theodosius and Justinian suppressed the Egyptian mystery systems and the Greek philosophy schools alike, paving the way for christianity which is nothing but a badly mis-understood Egyptian religion.

After insulting the Greeks lets insult Christians.

In Chapter five through chapter seven, George James analyzed the doctrines of the so-called Greek philosophers and convincingly show their Egyptian origin. From pre-Socratic 'Philosophers' like Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Pythagoras to Eleatic 'philosophers' like Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno and Melissus, to the Ionian school of Heraclitus, Anaxagoras and Democritus, he showed that what history has attributed to these impostors were nothing but what they copied from the Egyptians.

"Impostors", more insults. Besides perviously our Author had said the Ionians were good guys unlike the evil Athenian three (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle). G.M. James shows no such thing except very vague alleged similarities.17

In these, the most important chapters, James concluded that the Greeks were guilty of plagiarism of the highest order.

Once again ideas are property of one particular group and of course the Greeks are guilty of "plagiarism", basically by mere assertion.

Chapter eight dealt with the Memphite Theology which 'is an inscription on a stone, now kept in the British Museum. It contains the theological, cosmological and philosophical views of the Egyptians. It has already been referred to in my treatment of Plato's doctrines; but it must be repeated here to show its full importance as the basis of the entire field of Greek philosophy.' p. 139. Here James show how portions of the philosophy of the Memphite Theology were assigned to the Greeks. This is a very important chapter as it throws enough light, not only on the whole argument of where the Greek got the ideas credited to them, but also about the true source of modern scientific knowledge.'

G.M. James chapter fails quite competly to show any influence on the Greeks of this theology or even that the Greeks were aware of it.

If the modern Nebular hypothesis credited to Laplace which holds that our present solar system was once a molten gaseous nebula is ever proven right, credit should go to the ancient Egyptians. Their cosmology is strikingly similar. They knew that the universe was created from fire. The Egyptian God Atum (Atom) together with his eight Created Gods that composed the Ennead or Godhead of nine, this correspond with our nine major planets. Atom, the sun God, was the Unmoved Mover, a doctrine which has been falsely attributed to Aristotle. Likewise, the injunction, 'Know Thyself,' was wrongly attributed to Socrates. As James pointed out, it was an inscription found on every Egyptian Temple. The Cardinal virtues, justice, wisdom, temperance and courage which was falsely credited to Plato owed their origin to the Egyptian Masters.

The idea that the world emerged out of swerling chaos is quite common. Again more vague similarities that G.M. James interprets as consistant with Greek thought, with little thought to providing a link to Greek thought. Oh and is our author asserting that the Egyptians knew of nine planets, (now eight since Pluto as been demoted)? If so our author as a serious case of woo.

In the concluding chapter nine, 'Social Reformation through the New Philosophy of African Redemption,' James wrote: 'Now that it has been shown that philosophy, and the arts and sciences were bequeathed to civilization by the people of North Africa and not by the people of Greece; the pendulum of praise and honor is due to shift from the people of Greece to the people of the African continent who are the rightful heirs of such praise and honor.

Open admission that this is designed to "steal the heritage" how revealing.

No one, IMO, should be allowed to teach African history who has not read Stolen Legacy. No one should call himself educated who has not read Stolen Legacy. The next time anyone brandishes a Ph.D in your face, your question should be, 'Have you read Stolen Legacy?'

Yes I have and it is very bad book full of distorions, falsehoods and insults all for a very clear political purpose to which honesty and accuracy and simple good scholarly etiquite are sacrificied.18

Aristotle

1. James, G. M., Stolen Legacy, Philosophical Library, New York, 1954.

2. In the Hall of Maat at Here.

3. Snowden, Frank M. Jr., Bernal’s “Blacks” and the Afrocentrists, in Black Athena Revisted, Ed. Lefkowitz, Mary R., & Rogers, Guy, Mclean, The University of Noth Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC, 1996, pp. 112-128, p. 121.

4. For early Greek philosophy see Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., & Schofield, M., The Presocratics, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983, Waterfield, Robin, The First Philosophers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, Barnes, Jonathan, Early Greek Philosophers, Second Revised Edition, Penguin Books, 2001. The above books contain the surviving fragments of the pre-Socratics with commentary.

5. See Aristotle, The Politics, Penguin Books, London, 1962, and his The Athenian Constitution, Penguin Books, London, 1984.

6. See Footnote 4 for more detail on Pythagoras.

7. See Wikipedia Bibliography of Isaac Asimov Here

8. For Greek Philosophy after Aristotle see Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N., The Hellenistic Philosophers, v. 1 & 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987. See also Walbank, F. W., The Hellenistic World, Fontana Press, London, 1992, pp. 176-199.

9. Footnote 9.

10. For an evaluation of the idea idea that Athens routinely prsecuted philosophers and how very dubious the whole idea is see Stone, I. F., The Trial of Socrates, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1988, pp. 231-247.

11. Footnote 3.

12. Footnote 10.

13. Footnote 3.

14. Footnote 8.

15. Nivison, David Shepherd, The Classical Philosophical Writings, in Loewe, Michael & Shaughnessy, Edward L., The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 745-789, Harper, Donald, Warring States, Natural Philosophy and Occult Thought, in Loewe, pp. 790-884.

16. Footnote 10.

17. For more about these Ionian Philosophers see Footnote 4.

18. For more about Afrocentrism see Howe, Stephen, Afrocentrism, Verso, London, 1999. See also the essays in Black Athena Revisted and Lefkowitz, Mary, Stolen Legacy ( or Mythical History): Did the Greeks Steal Philosophy From the Egyptians? In Skeptic, v. 2 No. 4, 1994, pp. 98-103, Appiah, Kwane Anthony, Beyond Race: Fallacies of Reactive Afrocentrism, in Skeptic, v. 2 No. 4, 1994, pp. 104-107. For Why people believe strange stuff see Shermer, Michael, Why People Believe Weird Things, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1997.

Pierre Cloutier

Homer’s World

Interior of the Treasury of Atreus

In a previous essay I talked about how Homer’s Epics The Iliad and Odyssey, although among the very greatest of man’s literary feats is not and cannot be used, except in the most general sense as a source for the Bronze Age history of Greece.

This view can be described as the standard view of today although it is possible and is in fact argued that perhaps kernels of actual history can be found in the poems.1

One thing does seem clear the social world described is most categorically NOT the world of the Mycenaean palace culture. How do we know this? We know this because we have impeccable contemporary documents. In this case Linear B tablets written in Greek. Now these tablets are almost always accounts. In other words filing records, of who did what work, who owned what, who got paid what, etc. They are indisputably exceptionally dull. However they are also indisputably entirely germane to telling us what Mycenaean society was like.2 Finally unlike Homer’s epics which were written / composed at least four centuries later the Linear B tablets are contemporary with the society that Homer was once thought to have been describing.3

Some resist the above conclusion with what amounts to statements of faith:

But in fact one wonders whether the very complexity and comprehensiveness revealed by the Linear B tablets may not giving a false impression of what life was really like in Mycenaean Greece.4

The implication is obvious, the above authors want to believe that Homer is describing the Mycenaean period. Of course just how Homer could be describing the Mycenaean period accurately when he lived over 350 years later is ignored. It is important to remember that the end of the Mycenaean period was characterized by massive devastation, mass movements of peoples and depopulation. In other words it was a disaster. To expect Homer to describe this period accurately is just not reasonable.5

Recent attempts like Michael Wood’s In Search of the Trojan War, both film and book, are ultimately not the slightest bit convincing in showing us that the world of Homer’s poems is Mycenaean.6

What the Linear B tablets show is a Palace centered culture in which the Wanax (King) has centralized control over agriculture, aided by a system of bureaucracy loyal to him, who administers the system. Further the tablets reveal that the system was feudal with the bureaucracy assigning land to be farmed. Further there is a system of labour obligations and tribute collection.7 perhaps the most revealing indication of the differences between Homer’s world and the world of the Mycenaean tablets is the following list of the eight most high status positions mentioned in the poems and in the tablets. The poem’s list is on the left hand side the tablet’s on the right.

Anax – Wanax
Basileus – Pasireu (basileus)
Archos-Damakoro
Hetairos-Eqeta (hepetes)
Hegetor-Korete (and Porokorete)
Koitanos-Lawagetas
Kreion-Moropa
Medon-Tereta (Telestas)8

What is notable is the difference between the terms used between the Iliad / Odyssey and the Mycenaean tablets. It should be pointed out that the term Wanax which Homer uses for King in his poems sometimes was soon to pass out of use entirely. Meanwhile Homer uses much more frequently the term Basileus for King and soon it was to take over the function of referring to King among the Greeks which it still has to this day. Interestingly among the Mycenaean’s the term Basileus referred to a bureaucratic individual in charge of stores. All of which indicates a break between the actual world of Mycenaean Greece and the world as described in Homer’s poems.9

In fact the entire Mycenaean system of tribute gathering, trade, legal obligation and the network of officials to collect, administer and finally record assets and tribute (taxes) owed to the king is entirely absent from the poems. In fact Homer’s Kings do not seem to have a functional bureaucracy at their command at all. In fact we learn from the Odyssey that one man keeps a record of all Odysseus’ possessions in his head.10

The Mycenaean King was head of bureaucratic machine and had significant institutional means of enforcing his will. Further the society he controlled had a hierarchy of status' and positions that are not reflected in Homer’s poems. For example It appears that a large segment of the Mycenaean population was en-serfed i.e., partially un-free. In Homer’s world status and position sem to be relatively simple men are free, slave and noble. Serfs of any kind don’t seem to exist in Homer’s world.11

Also in both the Iliad and Odyssey there is mention of assemblies. In the Iliad the soldiers meet and decide issues and the various Kings and warriors like Achilles vie for the approval of the assembly. In fact King Agamemnon seems to singularly lack any coercive means to enforce his will. He relies on persuasion to get his way. And the King is dependent on his pursasive ability in order to win support from the common warrior. No tribute system collected, stored and administered by a coercive bureaucracy enables him to collect tribute or enforce his will. Although the Mycenaean Wanax had such a coercive bureaucracy at his command.12

Thus in the poems:

Hence we should appreciate the fact that the epics mention so many meetings of assembly and council. This reflects a basic reality: an assembly is called, often combined with a council meeting, and public debate is arranged in a polis, army, or band of warriors whenever an important issue requires discussion and decision.

…

Normally, the leader makes conscious efforts to convince the assembly (hence the great importance attributed, among the leader’s qualities, to persuasive speaking) and, although there is no formal vote, respects the peoples opinion.

…

The assembly has an important function in witnessing and legitimizing communal actions and decisions, from the distribution of booty to ‘foreign policy’ to the resolution of conflicts.13

In fact this is a world were mere raids for cattle are considered worthy of heroic remembrance by Kings. For example by King Nestor of Pylos. In other words this is a world of small scale warfare and petty Kings and of many raids, small scale piracy etc. Once again it is not the world of the tablets.14

In the case of the Odyssey. Odysseus’ son Telemachus attempts to drive the suitors who are pillaging Odysseus’ wealth while ostensibly wooing Penelope from the palace, by appealing to the Demos or people at an assembly. They refuse to help feeling the matter is none of their concern. The Mycenaean Wanax did not need such an institution and his powers and authority were apparently uncontested legally at least. Such assemblies do not fit into the world of the Mycenaean tablets but they fit into the world of the Greek dark ages; in the period after the collapse of Mycenaean civilization.15

Perhaps the best indication of the difference between the two worlds is the central place given in the poems to gift giving. Unlike the world of the tablets were tribute / taxes are the major sources of wealth, a situation almost entirely absent from the poems along with written record keeping, gift giving is absolutely integral to the economy of Homer’s world.16

Gift giving is not just important for economic reasons but because:

Gift-giving too was part of the network of competitive, honorific activity. And in both directions: it was as honourable to give as to receive. One measure of a man’s true worth was how much he could give away in treasure. Heroes boasted of the gifts they had received and of those they had given as signs of their prowess.17

Just as the Feudal and Bureaucratic nature of the Mycenaean system is absent from poems so is the gift-giving system absent from the tablets.

In fact the need to win over by threats, by bribery and by persuasion etc., means that the Kings in Homer’s world signally lacked the coercive institutions at the command of the Mycenaean Wanax. Agamemnon simply could not order people about he must persuade and this includes the men in his own army who are from his own kingdom. This represents a Heroic age in which each warrior views himself as acting in his own interests and subject to no one’s orders except by a consent that can be withdrawn. Such a situation recalls other Heroic periods like the Viking Age and the ethos of Viking warriors not the palace culture of Mycenaean Greece.18.

Unlike the Mycenaean kings who had at their command a network of institutions to collect revenue in the form of taxes and tribute; kings in Homer’s poems rely on gift giving and much more importantly on the production of their privately held property. The Mycenaean tablets refer to a whole property regime that is entirely absent from Homer’s poems. In the tablets there is a form of state property, mainly of land, the use of which will be granted to individuals in return for services and or taxes / tribute. There are also state owned slaves and serfs and even property owned by the gods. There is also a system by which funds are paid for sacrifices and other services due to the gods.19. In Homer’s poems the situation is quite different.

Property is almost entirely privately owned. Homer’s kings rely on the production of their privately owned estates, state property seems altogether absent. The Mycenaean system of land use seems to be absent. Taxes seem to not exist and neither does regularized tribute of any kind. Religion also seems to be privatized also. Temples seem to be largely absent and no system of state support of religious activity seems to exist.20.

We get a conformation of the lack of any real institutional basis, unlike the Mycenaean kings as revealed in the tablets, for a Homeric kings power from what happened to Odysseus after he returns to Ithaca. There Odysseus is forced to rely almost entirely on personal support for himself in his efforts to reclaim his kingdom. No institutional system either helps or hinders him he must rely on his personal authority and on individuals willing to give him their support.21

Over thirty years ago the British writer / historian Michael Wood starred in the BBC documentary series In Search of the Trojan War. What the show should have been entitled was In Search of Michael Wood’s Critical Faculties, which were conspicuous by their absence in this show. The show was characterized by a gee whiz attitude and tons of romantic glop all centering around the trope that Homer was in his poem’s describing the Mycenaean period. Occasionally, very occasionally, Michael Wood would admit that Homer’s Achaeans were not Mycenaeans, but those moments would pass and the romantic treacle would flow in torrents. From a man who is so critical of things like the legend of Arthur to so fully surrender to a romantic myth is awe inspiring.22

Despite all of Michael Wood’s then and continuing efforts the fact, and it seems indeed to be a fact, is that the world described by Homer is not the world of the Mycenaean tablets. Socially at least the world of Homer is of the Greek dark ages.

Mycenaean Fresco
1. Finkelburg, Margalit, Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 1-3.

2. Finley, M.I., Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, Penguin Books, London, 1981, pp. 213-232.

3. Finley, M.I., The World of Odysseus, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1978, pp. 144-146.

4. Simpson, R. Hope, & Lazenby, J. F., The Catalogue of Ships in Homer’s Iliad, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1970, p. 9.

5. Finley, M. I., Early Greece, W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York, 1970, pp. 58-68, Osborne, Robin, Greece in the Making, 1200 – 479 B.C.E., Second Edition, Routledge, London, 2009, pp. 35-51, Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid, Decline, Destruction, Aftermath, in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Ed. Shelmerdine, Cynthia W., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 387-415.

6. Wood, Michael, In Search of the Trojan War, Revised Edition, BBC Books, London, 2007. The TV Show can be found at Here. Both the book and TV series show in abundance Michael Wood’s surrender of his critical faculties to romantic tripe.

7. Footnote 2.

8. Finley, 1981, p. 219.

9. IBID, pp. 217-222.

10. Finley, 1978, pp. 51-73, Shelmerdine, Cynthia W., Economy and Administration, in Shelmerdine, pp. 289-309.

11. IBID, Finley, pp. 74-107, Shelmerdine, pp. 289-309, Raaflaub, Kurt A., Homeric Society, in A New Companion to Homer, Ed. Morris, Ian & Powell, Barry, Brill, New York, 1997, pp. 630-633.

12. Raaflaub, pp. 641-645, Finley, 1978, pp. 92-93, 116-120, Shelmerdine, pp. 289-309.

13. Raaflaub, pp. 625-648, at 642-643.

14. Finley, 1978, pp. 108-141, Osborne, pp. 144-146.

15. Finley, 1978, pp. 92-93, Finley, 1981, pp. 199-232, Raaflaub, pp. 633-645, Osborne, pp. 141-144.

16. Finley, 1981, pp. 199-212, Finley, 1978, pp. 61-69, Donlan, Walter, The Homeric Economy, in Morris et al, pp. 650-667, at pp. 661-665, Osborne, pp. 146-149, Raaflaub, 637-638.

17. Finley, 1978, pp. 120-121.

18. Finley, 1978, 142-158, Osborne, pp. 146-149, Raaflaub, 634-636.

19. Finley, 1981, pp. 199-232, Shelmerdine, pp. 289-309.

20. Finley, 1978, pp. 51-107, Finley, 1981, pp. 233-248, Donlan, pp. 649-667.

21. Finley, 1978, pp. 84-88.

22. See Footnote 6. For Michael Wood’s critical treatment of the legend of King Arthur see Wood, Michael, In Search of England, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999, pp. 23-42.

Pierre Cloutier