The rise and fall of Media

International Journal of Kurdish Studies, Jan, 2002 by I.N. Medvedskaya

In his "History of Media" I.M. Diakonoff wrote that "till the middle of the last century the state of our knowledge of Media was approximately the same as of any other land of the Ancient Near East; only scant, fragmented, almost legendary pieces of evidence preserved by the Greek authors were available on Media, as well as on the neighbouring countries" [Diakonoff, 1956, p. 9]. Since that time scholars have acquired a vast amount of new materials, first of all cuneiform and archaeological. The history of Assyria, Babylonia and other countries of the Ancient Near East has long been restored on the basis of cuneiform texts. According to Diakonoff, "As for Media, its study was left aside from the main trends of historical science" [ibid., p. 9]. Not only have no written materials been discovered within the territory of Media dating to the "time of its being as a state"--therefore the scantiness of contemporary archaeological data--but mainly because the evidence of Herodotus is still considered "the only genuine coherent history of Media" [ibid., p. 9, 18]. Although Diakonoff, as no one before him, fully used the information available on Media in cuneiform texts, the crucial moments of its history he still verified by Herodotus.

Gradually Diakonoff began to doubt the relevance of such use of the cuneiform texts. He agreed with S. Zawadzki, who considered it a methodological error to use cuneiform sources to confirm primarily the evidence of ancient authors. On the contrary, in his opinion, cuneiform texts should form the basis of studies and, if two accounts conflict, the cuneiform sources should be given priority [Zawadzki, 1988, p. 98]. In the course of the Scythian discussion of the early 1990s ("Rossijskaya Archaeologia" 1992-1994) Diakonoff recognised the priority of cuneiform sources, their primary value being that they present evidence contemporary with the events they describe [Diakonoff, 1994, p. 115-116]. Still, the traditional research model has not been discarded. Works in which Herodotus is treated as the primary source on the history of Media are still published [Grantovsky, 1994, p. 25, 31-41; 1997, p. 285].

Meanwhile only the cuneiform sources describing contemporary events in Media allow us to reconstruct their most probable sequence and to verify chronology. At times the information provided by Herodotus can confirm or supplement descriptions of certain historical events, but it cannot help to date them. Of course this doesn't diminish the significance of ancient sources for the study of Median history. Herodotus is not the only coherent source. In fact, taken apart from the cuneiform texts, in some instances his information can even provide a distorted view of the history of the Medes. With all of this in mind, let us consider the three principal areas of interest regarding the Medes: the beginning of Median expansion, the role of Media in the destruction of Assyria in 612 B.C., and the end of the Median dynasty c. 550 B.C.

Assyrian kings were seeking to conquer Media for over 150 years. This became the primary aim in the military plans of Sargon II in 716-713 B.C. Sargon, however, managed to conquer only the western lands of Media and to include them into the provinces of Harhar and Kishessim [Medvedskaya, 1995, p. 150-155]. Subsequently, after 680 B.C., Assyria again concentrated forces on the eastern border. But during the peaceful respite that followed the campaigns of Sargon, the situation in the region had radically changed. The new anti-Assyrian forces which developed there were now able to lead the Iranian peoples on an offensive. But both of the eastern campaigns of Esarhaddon achieved almost nothing. In 679/678 Esarhaddon, if we are to believe his own words, managed to defeat the Mannaeans and their ally, Ishpakai the Scythian. Yet events of the following few years indicate that Manna was by no means weakened. While Esarhaddon, in his campaign of 677 B.C., penetrated the remotest eastern regions of Media and received tribute from only two local chieftains [Heidel, 1956, p. 16, II, 20-23, p. 25], in 713 B.C., on the same route, Sargon managed to obtain tribute from 45 chieftains of "the mighty Medes" [ARAB II, [section] 23-24; Medvedskaya, 1995, p. 154-155].

The Assyrian presence in western Iran was a constant threat to the independence of Media, Manna and other countries continually anticipating another Assyrian invasion. Between 672 and 670 B.C. an anti-Assyrian rebellion took place in the region. At the outset, the Mannaeans and the Cimmerians allied themselves with Media and later, over the course of the rebellion, Ellipi joined them [Starr, 1990, No. 43-45, 48-51, 62, 65, 76, 79, 80]. Our sources do not actually mention the Scythians as having participated in the rebellion, but shortly before that, they had allied with Assyria's enemies, attacking Assyrian troops sent to Iran to collect tribute [ibid., No. 66, 67, 71].

The rebellion is mentioned only in non-official Assyrian sources, in the king's queries to the oracle of the Sun god. They reflect Esarhaddon's worries over the Median alliance formed against him [ibid., No. 41-42]; over the loyalty of the Assyrian fortresses attacked or besieged by the rebels [ibid., no. 43-55]; the necessity of sending an army against the rebels [ibid., No. 60-63]; and the problems attendant on making a peace treaty with them [ibid., No. 56-57]. The fact that of all the rebels Esarhaddon personally named only three Median rulers, could possibly mean that the Medes were both the organisers and the driving force behind the rebellion. Many queries indicate that their chief leader was Kashtaritu, the Mede [Medvedskaya, 1995, p. 152]. Mannaeans aligned with Medes attacked the provinces of Harhar and Kishessim; they captured several Assyrian fortresses on the border between Assyria and Manna [Starr, 1990, No. 29-33]. Ellipi also became involved in the war, in all likelihood because its northern borders lay to the west of Harhar near the so-called Great Khorasan Road, the main Assyrian line of communication in the Zagros [Medvedskaya, 1999, p. 55, 63-67]. In essence the capture of Harhar became one of the strategic aims of the rebels, to deny the Assyrians the possibility of advancing through to the Hamadan plain and into Media. Ellipi could be of help in blocking Harhar.