While I love Story of the World, I have found some inaccuracies in it and read about some others. Since I'm reading Story of the World to my child, editing these out is usually not hard. To save others the trouble of re-doing my search, I've included a list of what I found found below. Some are not so much errors as omissions or choices of one historical theory where there is some controversy among historians over what really happened. A lot of them are trivial, but I included any error I found just to be thorough.
I've added the following categories to these "errors," as well as whether I've had a chance to fact check through a secondary source. Well Trained Mind also has a list of corrections between the original and revised version.
TYPES OF "ERRORS" INCLUDED
Error -
Any clear error I've been able to fact check through a couple good sources
Minor Error -
Yes, it's an error, but it's minor/trivial.
Possible Error/ Not Fact Checked -
I've been told this was an error, or read this was an error in a homeschool forum or from some other similar source, but have not fact checked it through a more reliable source, or could not find info on it, or am still uncertain about it even after researching.
Outdated Info -
Occasionally a new archaeological or historical discovery
will change how we view things. So, if I'm aware this is a newer
discovery than when the book was written, I like to call it something
other than an error.
Historical Disagreement -
Historians disagree on this.
Simplification -
Sometimes history is complex, or not child friendly. Sometimes these are just incomplete explanations, and other times they could be considered errors, but may have been done on purpose to make things easier for children to understand. They are often about things that are not important for a general understanding of history.
Omission -
Some things some people think should have included. These were not errors but choices. I included just a few of these that I thought were worth noting and some may want to add these through supplementation.
Confusing Wording -
While it may not technically be an error, the wording could make you think it's saying something inaccurate.
Theological Issue/Extra-Biblical Content -
Anything related to how Biblical content was portrayed (some think too secular, some think not enough. While I don't personally dislike her framing of the Biblical stories, I thought this was worth including.)
CHAPTERS
Chapter 1
(Historical Disagreement/Possible Error/Theological Issue)
In this chapter it says "around 7,000 years ago families didn't live in houses and shop at grocery stores" but were nomads...some take issue with this because of evidence of cities dated to 10,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. If you believe in young earth theology and that those dates are misdated you might think that 7,000 years is too long. Dates are an easy fix, though, as you are reading to the child. You can even omit the dates altogether by saying "A long time ago" in stead of 7,000 years.
Chapter 3
(Error)
The description of how papyrus was made is wrong. The book says that the papyrus reeds were softened and mashed into a pulp. That is how modern paper is made (and probably some other later ancient papers too), but not how papyrus is made (now or ever). Papyrus reeds are cut into thin strips, pounded to flatten and soaked, woven into sheets and than pressed (now in presses, then, under stones). In the book it also says "But paper has a problem! When paper gets wet, the ink on it dissolves and the paper falls apart." The part about the ink dissolving in water is true, but unlike pulp made paper, papyrus can be soaked in water and does not disintegrate. You can wash off old paint and ink and re-use it. So, while her main point about loosing papyrus to time still stands, some of the finer details were wrong. (Interesting side note: Papyrus, which less sturdy in the short run than leather, in the long run, over thousands of years, holds up better than it...so we have more papyrus than leather scrolls from Ancient Egypt. But of course stone beats all in longevity).
(Error)
The cuneiform alphabet listed in the Activity pages for chapter 3 is fabricated. While I'm not an expert on cuneiform, and there are various alphabets that were used, the letters A, B, C in the SOTW activity were the exact same as the numbers 1, 2, 3 in this list of Babylonian Cuneiform numerals (and several others I found), which seemed highly unlikely. I've listed other cuneiform alphabets you can use in stead in my post on chapter 3.
(Simplification)
The Hieroglyphic alphabet in the activity is pretty accurate, though it is is technically a little different than the original too (because they didn't have some of our letters and have some letters we don't). This is a pretty common practice and not really a problem. You can learn a little more about that here and here.
Chapter 4
- (Simplification/Possible Error) Describes New Kingdom mummification practices in the section about the Old Kingdom and the pyramids. However...a new discovery in 2021 may push some of those "New Kingdom" mummification practices back as far as the Old Kingdom, if carbon dating proves that the mummy they found was who they think it is, and not someone mummified later and put in a borrowed tomb.
- (Possible Error/Have Not Yet Fact Checked) States that Pharoahs weren't buried in mastaba tombs when some may have been before the invention of the pyramid.
- - (Simplification) States that the pyramid capstones were plated with gold when they were plated with electrum, an alloy of silver and gold (OK, honestly, I think this "error" is nit-picky and only include it to be thorough. Electrum is "a natural or artificial alloy of gold with at least 20 percent silver"...since it contains gold I think gold is close enough for a children's text).
Chapter 6
(Theological Issue/Extra-Biblical Content)
Both secular homeschoolers and Christians have expressed concern with this chapters framing of the Bible stories. Secular homeschoolers sometimes feel these stories are presented more like history than religious stories. Some Christians dislike the use of extra-biblical sources and free interpretations which have been added in to the Biblical story. While it says the story is from the Bible, it's more of a interpreted retelling like you would find in many Children's Bibles. ( Finding another version of these stories in a Children's Bible is not hard if you do not like this one, and of course you can read the story straight from the Bible in stead as well.)
Chapter 10
(Minor Error) SOTW notes..."she could hear the noises of trading caravans, the sound of camel-hooves on stone," - Technically, camels don't have hooves.
Chapter 12
(Historically Debated)
From "Egypt Invades Nubia" section:
Whether Queen Kiye was from Nubia or not is debated, but regardless, during this period of time the part of Nubia she might have been from was actually part of Egypt, so she was certainly Egyptian even if she was of Nubian ancestry (which, I should note, is actually a different question then whether she was "black," a racial distinction that wouldn't have meant the same thing to the Egyptians as it does today--they didn't have the modern conception of race, and Egyptian art shows that native Egyptians had various skin tones, from very light to very dark. ) More on this here.
(Outdated Info In Original/Updated in Revised)
From "The Hyksos Invade Egypt" section:
There is a meaningful difference between the original and revised
version of Story of the World in this chapter. The revised version reflects more recent archaeological
evidence that shows that the Hyksos didn't suddenly
invade...they gradually settled in Egypt in large in numbers, and then
rose up and took over. (See more changes here )
Chapter 13
(Outdated Info )
The book said that Hatshepsut didn't fight any wars. But she did. According to the book 'Hatchepsut, the Female Pharoah' by Joyce Tyldesley, which came out shortly after the first edition of Story of the World, there is growing evidence of Hatshepsut's military prowess. During her reign wars were fought against Nubia, the nations of the Upper Nile, against the Ethiopians, and probably also against the Asiatics. However, the book also did say that "Hatchepsut's military policy is perhaps best described as one of
unobtrusive control; active defense rather than deliberate offense." (Note, there are various spellings for Hatshepsut, so that is not an error.)
(Simplification)
In this chapter it said that the only jobs women in Egypt were allowed to do
was to be a wife and mother, priestess, or dancer. This was somewhat
true for upper class women (though they could also be musicians or professional mourners,
and even being a wife involved managing the servants of the household,
so it was more than just taking care of and teaching children). But
among the lower classes there were many other jobs done by women.
Women could also be weavers, servants, cooks, perfumers, and even doctors. Farmer's wives worked alongside their husbands in the fields, and women were sometimes
known to manage farms or businesses in the absence of their husbands or
sons.
ASSYRIANS - Chapter 16
(Confusing Wording)
In paragraph 3 of the first section, it says "The Isrealites were
never allowed to return back to their own land again." But later in
SOTW it talks about how they were allowed to return under King Cyrus.
That was over a hundred years later, so those people who were driven
out by Ashurbanipal indeed wouldn't have returned (only their descendants),
which is probably what the author meant. Still, I felt like it was
confusing so I skipped that line.
CRETE/MINOANS - Chapter 18
(Simplification/Historical Disagreement)
There's criticism that she describes that the Minoan civilization was destroyed by the eruption of Thera when it really flourished two centuries after that explosion. While it's true that the Minoan civilization didn't end with Thera, it did have a profound impact on the civilization and may have caused an end to their "rise" as the apex of their civilization coincides with that event. And there is a second natural disaster (possibly and eruption of Thera) closer to end of the Minoan civilization that she could be referring to as well (and the dates of both eruptions are in question). So I think this is more interpretation differences than error (or maybe also simplification).
To quote another source: " there's still a lot of controversy over what happened. Susan Wise Bauer chose one theory. While it's true Crete wasn't deserted after Thera erupted, it certainly began to lose its primacy around this time to Mycenae. If anything, SWB is guilty of simplification, which is to be expected in an elementary history text."
GREECE -
Chapter 20
(Possible Error or Historical disagreement)
The book says that the Olympics got their name from mount Olympus. This is a common misconception...the Olympics actually got their name from the ancient city of Olympia where they were first held, which is nowhere near mount Olympus (Could that city may have derived it's name from they mythical Mount Olympus or the "Olympian" gods who lived there? Possibly. I couldn't find any info on how it was named. There is also a mythical Olympus, a mythical musician to whom the invention of the flute is ascribed, who it could have been named after. It was mentioned on Wikipedia that Olympian coins featured both Zeus and "the Nymph Olympia." but I couldn't find more about that. )
Chapter 24 - PELOPONNESIAN WAR -
(Multiple Errors/Omissions/Simplifications)
Various commenters mention problems with the chapter on the Peloponnesian War. Some mentioned things omitted, and not enough being said about Pericles...but those aren't really errors, just choices about what to include. One reviewer (a history teacher) said "the story of Alcibiades contains many untrue statements. I am not even planning to use this chapter with my students. Instead we will be reading the story of Alcibiades from "Famous Men of Greece." .... An example of this problem in the activity book is the picture of the Spartan boy hiding the fox: he is wearing Roman armor. Ironically this is one of the better drawings in the book, but I hope it has been removed in the revised version." (It was).
Another commenter said "I studied the Peloponnesian War well enough to know that she is misleading about some things and flat out wrong about others. The author makes it sound as though the war consisted of Sparta marching over and waiting outside the Athenian walls... no mention at all of the Athenian Navy and that that was how they were fighting the war. There is also another mistake that is not just a misleading summary. She states that the plague (as in epidemic) in Athens is caused by fleas on rats. Wrong. We still don't know what *disease* it was, let alone how it was transmitted. She is thinking of the black death and it blows my mind that she could make this mistake."
(I've confirmed the first part of this elsewhere, but not the part about the rats and fleas.).
Chapter 26 - NATIVE AMERICANS
(Error)
"The most substantial error I found in Volume is that it says native North Americans ate wheat, a grain which was not actually introduced to North American until after 1600 A.C.E. This is a big deal because it's a high protein crop that helped make denser population and labor specialization possible in Europe, and for which there was no North American equivalent. I'm surprised this wasn't caught before the second edition." (From review here, but I've confirmed this elsewhere)
CELTS
(Omission)
Quoted from Review...
"...although the Celts fall well within the time period of this book,
they are mentioned on just a few pages that relate to Julius Caesar's
military career and later in a short description of Boudicca's
rebellion. The latter section is missing from the index, by the way. And
she used the less-preferred spelling "Boadicea." Why were the Celts
largely omitted from this book? They beat the daylights of the Romans in
370 BCE and motivated the Romans to transform their military strategies
from the Greek phalanx to their own new and devastating style. The
Celts' never-unified territory spanned Europe from Turkey to Ireland,
but what we learn about them here is that "the people who lived in
Britain were called Celts. They were tall, muscular, warlike men." Hmmm .
. . I wonder how they managed to reproduce. This constitutes a serious
omission of a major ancient civilization. They didn't even get a mention
in the pronunciation guide." (From review here).
Chapter 39
Christians in the Catacombs
(Oversimplification/Outdated Info)
This chapter makes it seem like the persecution of the Christians lasted throughout the Roman empire, until Constantine. But really, it differed greatly depending on the emperor, with Christians being able to live in relative peace during some periods, to being severely persecuted in others. While they were never fully accepted in Rome until Constantine, they were not always being fed to lions.
Also, Christians probably, did not (at least not in numbers large enough to leave evidence) hide out or worship in the Catacombs (except for funerals and funerary feasts, which are well documented). More about that here, here, and here. Because both of these things are so integrated into this chapter section, I re-wrote it here.
Chapter 40
The British Rebellion (Boadicea/Boudicca)
(Historical Disagreement/Omission)
It said "In ancient times, women weren't considered very brave or
strong." That was the viewpoint of the ancient Romans, but not the
Celts (and even the Romans, who generally held that view, described
Celtic women, in general, as being fierce). I wish that SOTW had spent
a few words making that distinction between the Roman and Celtic view
of women.
Also, while not technically inaccurate, Chapter 40 made her attacks
sound like much less than what they were. I understand the need to
soften some of what happened for children, but I think she went too
far. What she describes as a "raid on Londinium" was actually a
massacre where everyone was killed and the city was burned to the
ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment