A few years ago I answered a question on the sub about scythed chariots. In my post, I suggested that these weapons may have been developed by the Persians as a counter to Greek heavy infantry formations. This is the argument of an influential article by Alexander Nefiodkin that appeared in Historia back in 2004.

However, I found out the other week that this argument has recently come under criticism from Jeffrey Rop ('Reconsidering the origin of the scythed chariot', Historia 62.2 (2013) 167-181). Rop dismisses Nefiodkin's argument in detail, pointing out that it rests on some very convenient assumptions, and warning against the temptation to assume scythed chariots were intended to fight Greek hoplites just because we only hear about them from Greek sources. Due to the complete lack of textual or iconographic evidence from the Near East, the actual date and reason for their development is unknown. Greek claims that the weapon was first introduced by Cyrus the Great are of doubtful value (how could they have known?). However, Rop plausibly suggests that they may have simply been a further development of the Assyrian heavy chariot, which represented a specialisation of the chariot as a heavy assault weapon in pitched battle after the introduction of true cavalry made them obsolete as a missile platform. This would put their introduction hundreds of years before the Persian Wars - simply another feature of Mesopotamian warfare adopted by the new Achaemenid rulers of the region.

In addition, even the Greek sources we have don't actually describe the scythed chariot as a weapon to be used specifically against hoplites. At Kounaxa and Gaugamela they were deployed all along the front line, including the parts of that line that were held by light troops and horsemen. During Pharnabazos' attack on the ravagers of Agesilaos (which I mentioned in my earlier post as the chariots' only notable success from the Classical period), the Greek force under attack consisted almost entirely of light infantry with only a few hoplites present. Against these less organised troops, then, the scythed chariot was more successful; against heavy infantry they tended to achieve pretty much nothing at all.

In short, while the evidence I cited in my earlier post is still pretty much all we have, it's not quite justified to conclude that the Persians innovated with new weaponry in response to Greek superiority in pitched battle.

I've been doing a little reading on the history of Jewish summer camps in the US, and I want to do more. There's a terrific piece by Riv-Ellen Prell about summer camps and the civil rights movement/formation of Jewish identity and solidarity with other marginalized peoples: "Jewish Summer Camping and Civil Rights: How Summer Camps Launched a Transformation in American Jewish Culture" and I'm striving to get my hands on A Place of Our Own: The Rise of Reform Jewish Camping and "How Goodly Are Thy Tents": Summer Camps as Jewish Socializing Experiences, the latter of whose title had me laughing out loud. Does anyone have any recs for reading or listening on this topic?

Last week, I finally finished a massive paper on the Roman goddess the Magna Mater. The Magna Mater is interesting and complicated because her worship originated in Phrygia, but she was celebrated as a protector of Rome. Even more confusing, while the goddess was highly respected her eunuch priests, the galli, were despised.

I found that while you could trace the path of the goddess from Phrygia to Greece to Rome via her symbols in an archaeological/anthropological fashion, this doesn't help understand how the Romans saw the goddess. The Romans viewed her as a fully Roman goddess because of her role in guiding Aeneas to Rome and then protecting the city in the Hannibalic War. However, the galli were still despised because they were sexually active eunuchs, which confused and disturbed the Roman people. The paradox can be resolved by understanding the contempt as private, while the respect was public: while the Roman people may personally dislike the goddess's priests, they wouldn't dare disrespect them. One story in particular, of a visiting priest named Battakes, illustrated how anyone who insulted the goddess or her priests would be smited. In conclusion, the worship of the Magna Mater illustrates a classic pattern where the most important part of Roman religious worship was keeping the gods content and practicing rituals correctly.