A Different History of Ancient Geography?

• Published in: SHOLE. Filosofskoe antikovedenie i klassičeskaâ tradiciâ Vol. XVIII; no. 2; pp. 757 - 822
• Main Author: Shcheglov, Dmitry
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Russian
• Published: 2024
• ISSN: 1995-4328; 1995-4336
• DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2024-18-2-757-822

The article aims to assess the extent to which our understanding of the history of ancient geography (defined as a list of authors who contributed to it) is shaped by extant sources, and how different this history could have appeared, if we account for their limitations and selectivity? Consequently, an analysis of sources and references to authors of lost works yields divergent outcomes. Source analysis demonstrates that our knowledge of ancient geography is largely conditioned by random factors and thus must have significantly differed from its ancient perception. Conversely, citation analysis reveals that we know the majority of geographers who were famous in antiquity. This divergence can be explained, in part, by the tendency to cite the famous authors instead of those whose information was actually used. Comparing historiographic lists of geographers from different sources reveals more discrepancies than similarities between them, indicating that its version from our primary sources (Eratosthenes, Strabo, Stephanus of Byzantium) lacks widespread support. However, a consistent pattern emerges: the primary sources tend to draw upon the most famous authors and vice versa. A kind of “stress test” allows us to assess how sensitive our knowledge of the prominent geographers is to the loss of individual sources and, conversely, how many more geographers could have been included among them if better represented by sources. The overall conclusion is that alterations to our source pool would significantly impact our evaluations of most geographers but have minimal effect on their total number. Lastly, it is argued that the period in the history of geography from Strabo to Ptolemy lies in our “blind spot,” being the least illuminated by sources yet concealing some crucial missing links.