A new study published in PLOS ONE challenges traditional narratives surrounding the epic Battles of Himera, fought between the Greek city of Himera and the Carthaginian Empire. Researchers led by Katherine Reinberger of the University of Georgia leveraged the power of geochemistry to shed light on the composition of the opposing armies, uncovering discrepancies with historical accounts by ancient Greek writers.
The battles, which took place in 480 BCE and 409 BCE, have long been documented by prominent historians like Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. These accounts portray Himera’s success in the first battle as partly due to Greek allies, while suggesting they fought alone in the second and ultimately fell. However, the historical record, particularly from the victors’ perspective, can often be biased and incomplete.
Reinberger’s team employed a novel approach – analyzing strontium and oxygen isotopes from the tooth enamel of 62 soldiers unearthed at the battlefields. Isotopic variations act as a geographical fingerprint, revealing an individual’s place of origin during childhood when their teeth were forming.
The analysis yielded surprising results. While the historical accounts suggest a higher number of local soldiers in the second battle (around three-fourths), the geochemical evidence confirmed this. However, the data also revealed a fascinating twist – only about a third of the soldiers in the first battle were actually local. This confirms that Himera did rely more heavily on external assistance in the first encounter.
More importantly, the isotopic signatures indicated that a significant portion of these ‘outsiders’ were not necessarily Greek allies as portrayed in historical texts. The evidence suggests they were likely mercenaries, hired fighters from diverse regions beyond the Greek world.
This groundbreaking study highlights the invaluable role of archaeological science in verifying and enriching historical narratives. It demonstrates how geochemistry can act as a powerful tool to challenge potential biases and shed light on previously unknown details. The findings suggest that ancient Greek historians may have downplayed the significance of foreign mercenaries, possibly to project a more unified Greek front or to avoid a sensitive topic within their society.
The research also paves the way for future investigations into migration patterns within the Mediterranean region by providing a broader reference point for isotopic analysis. By combining archaeological evidence with historical accounts, researchers can gain a more nuanced understanding of the past, revealing the complexities and realities often obscured by the written word.
Source: Public Library of Science