saying that they have no institutions so they are barbarians?

Goes back to our readings that describe stone inscriptions as a way to honor the nobility for their contributions to the city. Aristocrats would be inclined to donate in order to receive the recognition. This would have caused the biblio-political revolution.

Assumptions can be made from the unsupported evidence that do not rely on the fiction to state what was historically accurate. These assumptions are: the library existed, scholars used it as a place of knowledge, and it had a reputation of a great library. It's interesting to see how little facts can actually be supported by evidence.

Shows how writings about the extravagance of the Library of Alexandria could have supported propaganda about Egyptian rulers as it showcased their wealth, philanthropy, and political prowess.Its interesting to see how important propaganda played in the early times. Was it due to the lack of spread of information?

the Letter cant be used as evidence as we can seperate which part of it is fact or fiction.Why was this Letter taken as evidence in other writings? What other evidence could not be as supported?

While the function of the library was not political its construction aided the aristocrats to have a positive relationship between the city and themselves. This can show how books were used more as donations as elites would donate for their physical value. Could this be beneficial because it influenced people to donate more books?

The belief in an unsupported reality leaves the truth from being discovered as many historians don't want to search for the truth in something that they already believe in.

The reality that has been passed through history does not necessarily relate to what the library actually was, but rather how it was characterized and used through history to inspire scholars. This can stop the development and the re-evaluation of histories creating facts that were supported by anecdotal and fictional evidence. I wonder if there are other histories based on these kinds of "truths".

According to the author the founding of the libraries was due to the political influence that aristocrats would get from book collecting and euergetism. The elites could have given books in order to gain favor with the public and the government. The euergetism would be on par with making donations.

This does seem particularly unlikely since the invention and then the spread of the library is probably not attributed to its spontaneous eruption.More likely it can be attributed to a gradual build up of book collecting and keeping institutions. A shift can probably seen from when from when the importance was from content to object.

Earliest evidence of a library comes from an inscription located on Kos that details aristocrats donating many and books to create a library. This can contradict any sources that put the development of libraries in Alexandria from the Ptolemies. This can create a new history from the one already known.

Not going in depth since this is about Roman developments.

Books began to matter less for their content and more for their value as an object and a symbol or aristocratic giving.

Mention the distinction between a library and a collection fo books, how a library is the coalition of political influnce.

As libraries first developed books still maintained their importance in their content as it was used for education.

At first books were valued for their content holding them in private collections.

Much of the evidence from Galen cannot be supported by physical or primary evidence that has credibility.

the interesting history of the invention from the libraries coming from the Ptolemies stops historians from analyzing the actual truth of the formation of libraries.

obtaining books by Ptolemy was a way for him to pay and give services to the jewish people of Judea which would have been seen as euergetism, however, it could be argued that this was just a way for rulers to "penny pinch" as it relates more to a wage for work rather than the giving of resources for the public.

form of the book mattered over their content.

While the facts cannot be supported the Letter gives us an understanding and support of libraries as a political institution.

No evidence showing the existence of a library as an institution before the one as Kos.

Books were used as currency for the elites as an offering to the public

Libraries were places for the elite to instill political culture into themselves.

collection of things

appear to be true

with doubtful authenticity; the author wont use doubtful sources

the famous library was just one of many libraries

shorten a word by dropping a sound

a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned

Beginning of the Library

The Library's history and importance should be taken at the face value of the evidence rather than to b speculated on.

Its interesting that majority of people still dont know the fallacies in the story of the library of Alexandria

When the royal and wealthy class gives away their wealth to the community

Another reference of a Greek god on a Scythian coin, maybe showing the Greek gods could have helped Scythia to spread the idea that their civilization was supported by. the gods?

The use of Greek mythology in Scythian coins shows the merging of the two cultures.

Since we ssw in our reading that much of Scythian metal working came from Greek colonies, i wonder if the Scythians also derived the skills of coin making from the Greeks.

Its interesting that it was known for matriarchal dominance since although having more freedom Scythian women were still subject to womanly duties as discussed in our first readings.

I wonder how true this information is since we know the history of the Amazons could be attributed to fiction.

This actually took me by surprise since often the Scythians are portrayed as pillaging people who always want to take more from people (i.e. get skulls and gold).

Many times the Scythians can be portrayed to not resist these pleasures thus making them out to be not developed.

I think this part takes a bit of focus away onto a different topic that is not discussed in your section.

What were they the most importance to?

I think we need a min of 5 references.

The use of then twice sounds repetitive. Also was the agreement the crowning of the future king? I wasn't sure by the wording.

Since the figure is really packed with images, would it be possible to just take one example from each art style and include it in your work side by side to see the comparison. So we also don't need to go to another site to see what you are talking about.

To me this part sounds like you are saying that the Scythians did not herd animals or ride horses at all. Would it be better to just mention the fact that these two groups differed through their warfare like you did in the part before?

I liked that you explained where it is since i had to clue where the Pontic steppes were.

Did you mean to use whose instead of who's(who is)?

This part confused me a little can you explain how it coincides?

I think this sentence would work better if its put after the first sentence, rather than shifting the writing to what they represent and then going back to physical descriptions.

I like that you added this section since its something we don't really read about in the readings!

I like that you highlighted some terms that people may not know!

Since these pages would also be meant for people outside our class should we introduce our authors from the readings first? So that people would know who Holt was and what he wrote about.

Do you guys think we should add a section about Scythians in battle? We can write about how important war was and the type of weapons/ battle styles they used.

I can work on this section and re-write/add-on details about the mounds and their importance.

Overall I think we can re-structure and re-write a lot of this. We can perhaps use the structure that Alanis suggested in the google docs.

We should include a lot more about the Amazons as it was a large part of the second reading, and stress the fact from fiction.

Repetition, first sentence already mentioned the turf.

Overall we should add more info to this section. We can add on that wives, children, and servants could also be buried in the mounds. Then we could also add on a brief version of how these mounds were built with the tunnels and then how they could have been added onto when another member of the family dies.

-We can include pictures of an excavated site.

Also called mohyly.

This does not fit with the topic "wild appetite".

I think tittle could be changed to the anecdotes of Scythians as this section contains the way that Herodotus portrayed the Scythians without much solid evidence.By changing the title we can also add other anecdotes that Herodotus and other writers/historians wrote about.

-We should stress that this info has no evidence from the Scythians since they did not keep written records. -Maybe we can say something like : through the view of Greek writers....

I think this section could also be re-written, this section although labelled "Scythians' Abode" does not discuss where the people lived rather their geographical locations. I think it would be best to change the topic tittle to discuss the living conditions of the Scythian people and then expand upon whats written by talking about the climate, diet, and life-style.

Does not fit within the topic.

They were nomadic people they did not really "live" at any one place. We can re-write to say what geographical locations were the Scythians found in.

I think this whole intro could be re-written to be more concise and relevant to who the Scythians actually were rather than what other writers and scholars believed them to be. The information in this paragraph doesn't seemed to be organized as it goes from what they are buried in to the fact that "they had dealings with many distant places", which is super vague.

We should describe a more specific geographical location. (Some people may not know where Parthia is)

Bickermann is obviously biased toward the Christian religion as evidenced by him calling the non-converted as “dirty”.

After reading about the prosperity of the Ptolemies its interesting to note that they were not the most successful of the Diadochoi, especially as it was previously highlighted that the Seleukids had to spend a lot of wealth of fighting battles.

It's interesting to see how the use of soft power over pure military strength was influential even at an age where information may not spread as easily at it does now.

It seems that when the Egyptian majority was recruited to fight in the battles started by the Greek controlling class the majority was able to see how little power they possess initiating these protests.

By keeping the Egyptian natives out of the Greek majority cities Ptolemy was also able to hide the change from the majority as any Greek influence was not showcased in the other districts.

As Ptolemy separated the Greek population in cities that carried greater governmental importance, did Ptolemy then ostracize the native population by keeping them out of the jobs that would carry some importance to the ruling of Egypt?

Many of the advantages of defending Egypt was its favorable geography that would leave attacking forces vulnerable to the desert and the nile the surrounded the "king's land".

The Hellenistic was ignored as much of its success was derived from the life of Alexander himself rather than that of the culture. That is why people looked further back to the classical time.

By having a feeling of freedom students don't need to feel forced in learning history, but rather they can choose to learn what they are interested in.

This allows for classrooms to use the game without the distractions and graphic content that the usual game would show.

The games gives players a fist hand perspective of life in Egyptian life creating an actual connection with thee students.