Military →

The region of Aswan, Roman Syene, is first mentioned in book II 17 where Herodotus explains the dimensions and borders of Egypt. He sees the country as being vertically divided by the Nile in two parts and locates the southernmost border of Egypt at the First Cataract and the city (Greek: πόλις = polis) of Elephantine.¹ This geographic marker serves not only to define the geographic limits of Egypt, but it is also the limit of validated information for his narration since on his travels, Herodotus came only as far as Elephantine as he stated. However, already at this point his information drawn from autopsy reached their limit since the actual area of influence of the first nomos went beyond Elephantine and included likewise the goldmines of Wādī el-Hūdī ca. 35 km south-east of Syene.²

After Herodotus discussed the phenomenon of the rise of the Nile (II 19-27), he turns to the possible origins (πηγαί) of the river (II 28), a topic that had widely been discussed among ancient writers. In his commentary to the second book of Herodotus Lloyd groups prevailing theories into the Western, Eastern, Antichthonian, and Southern theories according to their understanding of where the Nile rises.³ Herodotus, like Promathus of Samos and Juba, favored a western origin of the Nile due to the observation that its course corresponds to that of the Danube river (Greek: Ἴστρος = Ister) so that it was assumed to have likewise begun in the west (II 33-34).

Herodotus explores his sources of information by verbal enquiry and autopsy. He quotes a scribe of the sacred treasury of Athene at the city of Sais (5th Lower Egyptian nome, Saites), who states the source of the Nile was to be found in the mountains of Crophi and Mophi located between the city of Syene and the Nile island of Elephantine.⁴ From there half of the water would flow north to Egypt and the other half to south Ethiopia. The scribe himself employs a historical eyewitness when he adds that the depth of springs had once been tested under the reign of King Psammetichos (II 28). In this account we find a stylistic device Herodotus often uses when talking about local circumstances and traditions. In order to raise credibility, he draws upon the testimony of a native, who in this case had even access to written sources. We find Herodotus not completely convinced by his source, but instead of doubting the eyewitness directly, he leaves the matter open by using another stylistic means stating that he cannot validate this information since he himself came only as far as Elephantine.⁵ His own efforts to provide further information on this matter failed since the locals at Elephantine did not know about Crophi and Mophi. By using other sources of testimony, by hesitation, restrain, and finally by negative and positive autopsy, Herodotus triggers interest in his audience. He gives as much information as he thinks might suffice for the reader to get his own image.

However, despite all attempts to create a realistic atmosphere, there are some scholars who deny that Herodotus visited the First Cataract and Elephantine himself. One of the most well-known representatives of what W.K. Pritchett called the “Liar school of Herodotus”⁶ is the Classical philologist D. Fehling. In his book from 1971 “Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot. Studien zur Erzählkunst Herodots” (engl. “Herodotus and his ‘Sources’’’ from 1989) he claimed that Herodotus’ travels and recounts are purely fictional.⁷ In his book, Fehling tries to refute Herodotus’ credibility by discussing individual parts in his work where the sources are fictious. One of his main points is that Herodotus’ “foreign” source-citations are products of Greek thought patterns which he transferred to regional sources.⁸ Fehlings theoretical predecessors were A. H. Sayce (1883) and H. Panofsky (1885). However, their deductions were disregarded by most scholars like G. Shrimpton and K. Gillis, who, while agreeing that Herodotus’ manner of source-citation is not consistent, did not draw the same negative conclusion as Fehling. They argued that although Herodotus trusted his sources and their accuracy, he often decided not to directly cite them. In case he had no confidence in his source he would attribute the account to its origin while simultaneously distancing himself from it.⁹ R. Bichler adds that Herodotus used the stylistic device of autopsy to enhance the credibility of problematic statements and to take directly or indirectly position towards them. Most of these claims of autopsy revolved around Egypt with Elephantine as the periphery for information that could be verified by Herodotus himself.¹⁰ Lloyd notes that the difficulties Herodotus had in getting information from locals led to some of his stories to include errors.¹¹ However, he does not go as far as to conclude that Herodotus never visited the First Cataract and Elephantine himself.¹²

Following his account on the sources of the Nile, Herodotus describes a travel from Aswan to Meroe and potential difficulties one could face on the journey (II 29).

“From the city of Elephantine as one goes up the river there is country which slopes steeply; so that here one must attach ropes to the vessel on both sides, as one fastens an ox, and so make one’s way onward; and if the rope break, the vessel is gone at once, carried away by the violence of the stream. […] and after this you will come to a great city called Meroe. This city is said to be the mother-city of all the other Ethiopians (…)” (II 29)

The hazardous waters south of Elephantine are also mentioned by other antique and modern travelers like Strabo (XVII 1.49) and Vivant Denon (Travels, II 143 ff.). Lloyd notes that already in the time of Senwosret III there was a canal to solve this problem and that south of the First Cataract, as far as the Second Cataract at Wadi Halfa, the river should be free from rocks and passable without much trouble.¹³

Biography • Geography • Military • Economy • Culture