Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/590

562 PERSIA [MEDO-PERSIAN c. 715-634. otus the Medes freed themselves from the Assyrians, and lived for a time without a master till Deioces obtained the kingly power by stratagem. There reigned then Deioces 53 years ~ 5 Phraortes 22 / 70 yea S ?5 150 years. Cyaxarcs 40 Astyages 35 ,, / The totals show how the figures are arranged on an artificial system. The duration of the kingdom is exactly a century and a half, divided into two exactly equal por tions, each of which is occupied by the reigns of two kings. But further, according to Herodotus, the rule of the Medes over Upper Asia, i.e., the land east of the Halys, lasted 128 years, save only (jrape^) the twenty-eight years during which the Scythians ruled. It is easy to see that " save only "means "minus," and that thus the foreign supre macy of the Medes is reckoned at exactly 100 years, or two-thirds of the total duration of the kingdom. Obvi ously such figures can at most be only approximately correct. Now the number 128 is got by adding the reigns of the first king and the last two. This number is certainly due to an error on the part of Herodotus, who has com mitted similar mistakes. in arithmetic elsewhere ; in adding up he took the reign of Deioces for that of Phraortes. We may conjecture that the original statement received by Herodotus was that the supremacy, represented by the last three reigns, lasted a century, a round number being put for 97 (22 + 40 -1- 35). With regard to the indi vidual items, it is somewhat suspicious that the second half (75 years) is divided into its two most convenient fractions, 40 and 35. Consequently we cannot place much reliance on the figures representing the reigns of the first two rulers either, especially as it can be made probable that they also rest on an artificial basis. Now it can be proved that Ctesias s list of nine or properly ten kings was based on that of Herodotus, but with all the numbers doubled. Probably this list of Ctesias assigned 350 years as the total duration of the empire, which is the number given in Justin, i. 6, 17. The Mede from whom Ctesias derived his information, or the Median source on which his informant drew (there is no mistaking the Median colouring which pervades Ctesias s narrative), wished to glorify the empire of his people by the length of its duration, hence the doubling. The source from which the names of the Median kings in Ctesias are derived is still a mystery ; they are quite different from those of Herodotus. Even Oppert s hypothesis, that the names of the last four kings in Ctesias are the Iranian translation of the non- Iranian names in Herodotus and belong to the language of the second kind of cuneiform writing, though perhaps plausible at first sight, is on close examination untenable. In general there is no warrant for the assumption that as late as the time of the Median and Persian empires there was a large non-Iranian popula tion in Media, an assumption which conflicts with all tradition and originates solely in the difficulty of finding a home for the second kind of cuneiform writing. But the names of the kings in Herodotus are now all authenti cated, directly or indirectly, by the inscriptions lately dis covered. Probably too the reckoning of the total duration of the empire at a century and a half is about right. Indeed such chronological systems sometimes correspond better, on the whole, with the facts than their artificiality would lead us to expect. Ctesias s narrative opens with a highly-coloured descrip tion of a real event, namely, the destruction of Nineveh by the leader of the Medes, called by him Arbaces, with the helpof the Babylonian Belesys(the historical Nabopolassar). But the fact that by this event the position of Media as a great power was for the first time assured is mixed up by Ctesias with the beginning of the monarchy itself. In addition, he grossly exaggerates the duration of the empire; so that we arrive at the monstrous result that between GOG or 607, the real date of the destruction of Nineveh, and 550, the year of the fall of the Median supremacy, more than 300 years are supposed to have elapsed. Down to the destruction of Nineveh we must ignore Ctesias almost completely and follow Herodotus alone. We will not repeat Herodotus s naive story of the founda- Deioce; tion of the Median kingdom by Deioces, son of Phraortes, a story in which Greek and Oriental colours are charm ingly blended. We may assume as certain that Deioces possessed a principality, the central point of which was Ecbatana (or Agbatana ; Old Persian Hagmatdna, now Hamadan), a place which for thousands of years has held the rank of a capital. This principality probably never embraced the whole of Media (i.e., nearly the present provinces of Irak Adjemi and Azerbijan with a portion of Turkish Kurdistan), but by his successors it was enlarged into the great Median empire. Of course there was no smooth and formal con stitution, no fixed frontier, no exact determination of the prerogatives of different chiefs in the particular districts. From of old the Assyrians had made frequent attempts to subjugate the country of the Medes, but perhaps never quite possessed the whole land with its numerous inaccess ible mountains and warlike robber tribes. Nevertheless they made successful expeditions into the interior of Media even down to the time at which Herodotus regards Media as independent. 1 Neither the liberation of Media nor the foundation of the monarchy is an event which can be limited to a particular year, the thing took place gradu ally. In the period not long before Deioces, according to Herodotus s reckoning, very many tributary Median chief tains are mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions ; this confirms, in some measure at least, the statement that "anarchy" then prevailed. 2 In 715 B.C. there was carried off as prisoner one Dajaukku ; this is certainly the same name, perhaps the same person (for his captivity may have been brief), as Daiokes, which appears in Herodotus in the Ionic form Deiokes. We can certainly identify Herod otus s first king with the prince whose land, called Bit Dajaukku, i.e., land of Dajaukku, King Sargon of Assyria conquered in 713 B.C. The man who thus gave his name to the land must have occupied a high station. The date is not very remote from that assigned by Herodotus to Deioces ; for we get from Herodotus as the date of Deioces 709-656, or, if we correct his error in dating the end of the empire, 700-647. Deioces was not a king of kings ; he was forced to bow to the Assyrians repeatedly, but he was the founder of the empire. Three kings followed him. It is possible that there were really more, and that in the summary list the shorter reigns are passed over. Nor can we place much reliance on Herodotus s assertion that each successive ruler was the son of his predecessor. In perfect harmony with the conditions of development Phr of a small state into a great power is the statement of Herod- orte otus that the second king of the Medes, Phraortes (Fraivarti; according to Herodotus s reckoning 656-634 [647-625]), extended his sway beyond the limits of Media and first of all subjugated Persis, or Persia proper, the secluded moun tain-land south-east of Media. During all this time indeed, as we learn from Darius s great inscription, Persis had kings of its own ; but these were simply vassals of the sultan 1 For tins and what follows compare, besides the works of the Assyrio- logists, A. v. Gutsch mid, Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte des alien Orients, 87 sq. 2 That parts at least of Media were subject to Assyria at that period is further shown by 2 Kirrgs xvii. 6, xviii. 11 surer evidence than that of the inscriptions, which may not always be rightly interpreted, and contain, besides, many exaggerations.