Published in Göttinger Miszellen 201 (2004), pp. 63-67.

Herodotus on the extent of Egypt

GYULA PRISKIN

The figures Herodotus uses to describe the physical extent of Egypt – though they got
muddled up somewhere in the process of interaction between him and his informants – are
shown to have derived from the dimensions the Egyptians traditionally assigned to their land.

It is well-known to anyone even slightly interested in ancient Egypt that Herodotus, the 5th
century BC Greek traveller and writer frequently dubbed as the father of history, gives a fairly
detailed description of the Nile valley in the second book of his long narrative about the war
against the Achaemenids. Although it is beyond question that Herodotus did indeed visit
Egypt, then occupied by the Persians, and thus had first-hand experience of the country, the
credibility of his account has often been doubted, and on good grounds at that. It is quite
obvious for example that he throws the chronology of the rulers into complete disarray. He
has also been scorned – though not primarily and not only in connection with his Egyptian
travelogue, but as this sort of criticism has a special relevance to the subject of this paper, I
take note of it here – for his inability to give accurate numbers and figures, due to his
admiration for what is more numerous and marvellous (How & Wells 1912, 44). While on
certain issues he surely appears to be well-informed (for instance, he knew that the Delta had
been filled up by the deposits of the Nile), some other matters are still hotly debated; just to
mention one, the jury is still out there to decide how reliably he reports the circumstances of
the construction of the famous pyramids at Giza.
When we are fortunate enough, there is sufficient native, ancient Egyptian information
with which we can compare what Herodotus writes on the particular issue and can make a
judgement on the validity of his claims. Such is the case it seems with his description of the
physical extent of Egypt: for, on the one hand, Herodotus supplies a quite comprehensive list
of dimensions on the length and width of Egypt (Herodotus 2.7-29), while on the other there
exists a native tradition, going back at least as far as the White Chapel of Senwosret I (ca.
1950 BC), which also concerns itself with the measurements of Egypt (Lacau & Chevrier
1956, 242-245; Schlott-Schwab 1981, 3-5). Adelheid Schlott-Schwab (1981, 130-133) has
already made an attempt to place the two separate sources of information side by side and find
any similarities. However, she overlooked the subtleties of Herodotus’ account and some
crucial Egyptian evidence, and this meant that she failed to make the slight emendations
which – I hope to prove it in this paper – put the Greek traveller’s description in full accord
with Egyptian tradition.
Herodotus usually quotes the dimensions of Egypt in stades (from Greek ),
although he sometimes converts them into schoinoi (Greek , sing. ς schoinos;
Latin schoene, pl. schoeni), making it clear at the outset (2.6) that in his calculations sixty
stades make up one schoinos. In the same passage he also expressly states that the schoinos is
an Egyptian measure, and further down in his prose he does give us the clue by which we can
find its hieroglyphic equivalent: in 2.29 he writes that below Elephantine a distance of twelve
schoinoi must be travelled to a location called Tachompso. From various hieroglyphic
inscriptions dated to the Late Period and found in this region (Dietze 1994, 90-97) we know
that this section of the land was deemed to be twelve iteru (itrw) long by the native
inhabitants, a view certainly taken over by Egypt’s conquerors, as reflected by the name
Published in Göttinger Miszellen 201 (2004), pp. 63-67.

Dodekaschoinos introduced for the region beyond Elephantine in the time of Augustus (Sethe
1901, 32). Therefore the identity of Herodotus’ schoinos with the Egyptian measure of length
iteru was established by the earliest Egyptologists looking into the problem (Sethe 1901; Loret
1903), and their assumption, being so obvious and sound as it is, has been shared by all later
researchers.
In accordance with this, we can convert all the measurements given by Herodotus into iteru
and can put them in contrast with what we learn from Egyptian sources. In this way, as our
investigation is confined to the comparison of different textual sources, we can avoid two
pitfalls of ancient metrology: since there were different conventions as to how many stades
made up one schoinos/iteru, its length in terms of metres or other modern measures can only
be vaguely determined (all the more as the length of the stade is itself debated), and logically
following from this, nor can it be unambiguously ascertained whether the ancient distances
were meant to be ‛as the crow flies’, that is, straight-line distances, or itinerary lengths,
measured along the meandering river (although perhaps more arguments can be cited in
favour if this latter alternative). These uncertainties I think render the method of converting
Herodotus’ data into modern measures and comparing them with actual geographical
distances (Ball 1942, 10-15; Oertel 1970, 31-38), if not totally unsound, but surely always
open to an element of doubt. What is more, being ignorant of the results of the forthcoming
reasoning, all previous attempts of this kind have been based on an insufficient understanding
of Herodotus’ text.
In Table 1 are listed in a summary fashion the dimensions Herodotus gives for the different
parts of Egypt along the north-south axis of the country, from the Mediterranean coast to the
most southwardly point of Tachompso, a location the exact geographical coordinates of which
are yet to be discovered (Dietze 1994, 100).

Distance in
Passage Part of Egypt Distance in stades
schoinoi/iteru
2.7 Sea–Heliopolis 1500 25
2.9 Heliopolis–Thebes 4860 81
2.9 Sea–Thebes 6120 102
2.9 Thebes–Elephantine 1800 30
Circumference of
2.15 6120 102
Theban province
2.29 Elephantine–Tachompso 720 12

Table 1 North-south dimensions of Egypt according to Herodotus. The figures in italics are
absent from the text and are calculated from the equation that 60 stades = 1 schoinos.

As for native information on the extent of Egypt in the north-south direction, initially we have
three major sources to turn to: the White Chapel of Senwosret I (Lacau & Chevrier 1956, 242-
245), votive cubit rods from the New Kingdom onwards (Schlott-Schwab 1981, 3-7), and an
inscription on the enclosure wall of the Ptolemaic temple at Edfu (Chassinat 1931, 199-201).
All these three sources agree that the overall length of Egypt from the Mediterranean sea to
Elephantine equals 106 iteru. We cannot fail to notice that this is precisely the length
Published in Göttinger Miszellen 201 (2004), pp. 63-67.

Herodotus ascribes to the distance between the seacoast and Thebes, as 25 + 81 = 106 iteru,
and must therefore conclude that he recorded the Egyptian tradition corruptly, mistaking the
entire length of Egypt for the part between the sea and Thebes. That he was somewhat
confused by the different dimensions imparted on him is clearly shown by the third line of
Table 1: this distance, between the sea and Thebes, should have been the sum of the two
previous lines, but it falls short of the desired value by four iteru. Nevertheless, it is precisely
equal to what Herodotus describes as the circumference of the Theban district (the extent of
Egypt ab initio according to him), and must therefore have appeared as some sort of
interference coming from this latter value (cf. How & Wells 1912, 167). This must be so
because his figure for the circumference of the Theban province can again be traced back to
Egyptian sources.
In the tomb of the 26th Dynasty official, Padihorresnet (TT 196) an inscription informs us
that Upper Egypt, that is the Thebaid between Hermopolis and Elephantine, was – at least in
the Saite Period – thought to be 51 iteru long (Graefe 1971, 245; Schwab-Schlott 1972, 112).
Since we have examples showing that the Egyptians conceived of the large sections of their
land as a duality made up from the east and west banks of the river – for example on the
second pylon of the Isis temple on Philae we read about the Dodekaschoinos that “the land
[is] 12 iteru on the west and 12 iteru on the east, which makes 24 iteru altogether” (Junker
1958, 95) – in Herodotus’ 102-iteru circumference for the Theban province we can easily
recognize the duplication of 51 iteru. We also have to notice that if we subtract 51 iteru from
the 81 iteru signifying the Heliopolis-Thebes distance, which we should in fact read
Heliopolis-Elephantine, the result is 30 iteru, which Herodotus equates with the section
Thebes-Elephantine, but which in fact should be the distance between Heliopolis and the
northern border of the Thebaid. This interpretation is certainly justified because it is in
complete harmony with the antique tradition of dividing Egypt into three main regions: the
Delta, the Heptanomia, and the Thebaid (vividly depicted for example on Abraham Ortelius’
famous map from AD 1595, which he drew summarizing classical scholarship on Egypt, see
Baines & Málek 1980, 22-23).
So, from the collation of Herodotus’ testimony with Egyptian evidence we can reconstruct
the way the Egyptians divided their land along the north-south axis in the 5th century BC: the
Delta was thought to be 25 iteru long; from Heliopolis to Elephantine Egypt measured 81
iteru, but this part of the land was further divided into two smaller regions, the later
Heptanomia from Heliopolis to Hermopolis (or perhaps more precisely, to the southern border
of the Hermopolite nome) measuring 30 iteru, while the Thebaid from Hermopolis to
Elephantine measured 51 iteru. A further 12 iteru south of Elephantine made the picture
complete. This division of Egypt into four parts, or three, if we only take the distance between
the sea and Elephantine as Egypt proper, might have been invented in the 26th Dynasty; it
then – as the rod of Nectanebo II shows (4th century BC) – coexisted with an earlier tradition
preserved on the votive cubit rods that split Egypt into only two parts, Lower Egypt
measuring 20 iteru and Upper Egypt measuring 86 (Schlott-Scwab 1981, 5).
Having thus reconciled Herodotus’ account with Egyptian evidence on the north-south
extent of the land, the only task we are left with is to make a similar comparison in the east-
west direction. In 2.6-8 Herodotus writes that along the seacoast, from the Plinthinete gulf to
the Serbonian marsh, Egypt measures 60 schoinoi, or 3600 stades, and where the land is
narrowest between the eastern and western mountain ranges, it spans only 200 stades, which
Published in Göttinger Miszellen 201 (2004), pp. 63-67.

we may convert into 3 1/3 schoinoi/iteru. He also relates in 2.15 that according to the Ionians
the distance along the coast between the watchtower of Perseus and the salting factories of the
Pelusium equals 40 schoinoi, a figure very probably not coming from the Egyptians and thus
having little value for the purposes of our investigation. And if Herodotus seems to have not
much useful to say about the subject, Egyptian sources are even more laconic, for only in the
Edfu inscription do we find any reference to the breadth of the land. It is said there that
between the mountains delimiting it on both sides Egypt measures 14 iteru (Chassinat 1931,
200). This figure is clearly incomparable with any width measured at the coast, and while
seemingly falls in the same category as the second piece of information from Herodotus, it
obviously largely differs from the value of 3 1/3 iteru, too. So possibly the two sources do not
refer to the same thing: Herodotus describes the narrowest east-west stretch of the valley,
while the Edfu inscription perhaps gives what the Egyptians considered to be the average
width of their land (though in a future paper I intend to argue that the figure of 14 iteru is
included in the Edfu text for the sake of a symbolic numbers game).
In conclusion, Herodotus proves to be a credible witness as regards his account of the
physical extent of Egypt. Although he makes a little bit of a mess of the figures assigned to
the different sections of the land, they are not so much confused that the points of connection
with the Egyptian lore about the dimensions of the country could not be clearly seen. We do
not know, and very likely shall never find out, who was responsible for his slight errors. His
native informants who, perhaps not being in the inner circle of priests fully initiated into the
knowledge on the dimensions of Egypt, gave him wrong information? His translators who
perhaps misunderstood what was said to them and passed on the right information
incorrectly? Or the correct information did reach Herodotus, and it was he himself who got
lost with the numbers and jumbled them up? These questions are, however, unimportant
because what really matters is that with minor emendations Herodotus’ numbers can be put in
harmony with the existing Egyptian evidence. And given that this evidence is not so
abundant, we must be thankful for Herodotus that he offers us some valuable information
with which we can augment it.

References

Baines, J., & Málek, J., 1980. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Phaidon.

Ball, J., 1942. Egypt in the Classical Geographers. Cairo: Government Press.

Chassinat, E., 1931. Le temple d’Edfou vol. 6. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale.

Dietze, G., 1994. Philae und die Dodekaschoinos in ptolemäischer Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur Frage
ptolemäischer Präsenz im Grenzland zwischen Ägypten und Afrika an Hand der
architektonischen und epigraphischen Quellen. Ancient Society 25, 63-110.

Graefe, E., 1971. Eine Inschrift mit Angabe der Entfernung zwischen Elefantine und
Hermopolis. Chronique d’Égypte 46, 244-249.
Published in Göttinger Miszellen 201 (2004), pp. 63-67.

Herodotus 1966., with an English translation by A. D. Godley vol. 1. London & Cambridge
MA: Heinemann & Harvard University Press.

How, W. W., & Wells, J., 1912. A Commentary on Herodotus vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

Junker, H., 1958. Der große Pylon des Tempels der Isis in Philä. Wien: R. M. Rohrer.

Lacau, P., & Chevrier, H., 1956. Une chapelle de Sésostris Ier à Karnak. Cairo: Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale.

Loret, V., 1903. L’Atour et la Dodècaschène. Sphinx 7, 1-24.

Oertel, F., 1970. Herodots ägyptischer Logos und die Glaubwürdigkeit Herodots: mit einem
metrologischen Beitrag und Anhang. Bonn: Habelt.

Schlott-Schwab, A., 1981. Die Ausmasse Ägyptens nach altägyptischen Texten. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Schwab-Schlott, A., 1972. Altägyptische Texte über die Ausmaße Ägyptens. Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 28, 109-113.

Sethe, K., 1901. Dodekaschoinos, das Zwölfmeilenland an der Grenze von Aegypten und
Nubien. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

e-mail: priskin.gyula@gmail.com