Book Reviews

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14 (2009) 337-347 www.brill.nl/acss

Book Reviews

M. Meier, B. Patzek, U. Walter, J. Wiesehöfer, Deiokes, König der Meder. Eine Herodot-Epi- sode in ihren Kontexten. Oriens et Occidens 7. Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004, 99 p., ISBN 3-515-08585-8.

Th is book is an attempt to examine Herodotus’ famous account of Deioces and the beginning of the Median kingdom (I, 96-101) from various points of view. In the introduction M. Meier and U. Walter make apt reference to the wide range and diversity of Herodotus’ writing and to how this makes it extremely diffi cult to create a full and comprehensive commentary on his work, since such an undertaking would require the eff orts of scholars rep- resenting all manner of fi elds in the study of antiquity. Th e authors present this book to their readers as an attempt to create a full, comprehensive commentary of one episode in Herodotus’ work – the story of Deioces, which is examined from various points of view and in diff erent contexts. According to their opinion, this book should serve as a model for a future commentary of the whole of Herodotus’ work. It brings together articles by four authors, three of whom are specialists in Classics while the fourth is a specialist in the history of Ancient Persia, although one who has a background in Classical studies rather than Iranology. As logic would demand, this volume opens with the Greek text of the passage to be analysed (from the C. Hude edition) followed by a German translation. However, in order that fuller use might have been made of the text, it ought surely to have been provided with an apparatus criticus. It should be said that the problems of textology do not attract at all the attention of the authors of this volume, which is strange for a book presented as a full and exhaustive commentary. Th e fi rst article by J. Wiesehöfer Daiukku, Deiokes und die medische Reichsbildung (pp. 15-26) sets out to examine Herodotus’ narrative from an « eastern » perspective, based on comparing it with cuneiform sources. It is divided into three parts. Th e fi rst looks at the name Deioces itself. Th ere is not really anything to be added on this subject to the material already known and the author merely confi nes himself to repeating the conclusion drawn by R. Schmitt in 1973, namely that the Greek form Δηϊόκης, the Akkadian Daiukku and all variants of the Elamite form of the same name, as preserved in the tablets from Persepo- lis, can be traced back to the Iranian hypocorism *Dahyu-ka1. At this point Persian and Akkadian forms of names of other Median kings are also cited. Th e second part examines the possibility of identifying Herodotus’ Deioces with Sargon’s contemporary Daiukku, an idea that was widespread in the old literature. Th is possibility is appropriately rejected, yet in the exposition itself there are several signifi cant inaccuracies. It is incorrect to state that this idea was generally accepted till the beginning of the 1980’s and then rejected by

1 Schmitt 1973.

P. R. Helm and S. C. Brown. In actual fact the decisive arguments against this identifi cation had been formulated signifi cantly earlier and, incidentally, in more detail by E. A. Gran- tovskii.2 It is strange that Wiesehöfer had not been aware of Grantovskii’s work: despite the fact that it had been published in Russian, specialists in Iranian studies always made wide use of it, including R. Schmitt, who referred to it on several occasions in the above-mentioned article. Here Wiesehöfer also writes that there are two main arguments against the identifi cation of Daiukku in Sargon’s “Annals” with Herodotus’ Deioces: fi rst that in Sargon’s royal inscriptions Daiukku is referred to not as a Median but as a Mannean and, secondly, that his activities relate to an earlier period than is implied by Herodotus’ chronology. Only the fi rst of these bears any real weight, while the second can easily be dismissed, since it is common knowledge that Herodotus’ chronology is of an artifi cial nature and cannot be trusted. Yet there are other arguments as well as these: in actual fact not only was Daiukku a Mannean governor and not a Median king, but in addition he had been deported with his whole family to Syria and could not have become the founder of even a Mannean dynasty. Another fact which undermines the identifi cation is that the name Daiukku was clearly very widespread and several other bearers of the name are known to us: this in itself obliges us to treat with caution any identifi cation with Herodotus’ Deioces. Apart from the persons mentioned in the Persepolis tablets, this name was also borne by the ruler of Sapa- rda in 716 BC,3 who, of course, could not be identifi ed with Herodotus’ Deioces either. Th e third and fi nal part of the article is devoted to a question which has been widely discussed in recent years – the reality of the Median state and accordingly the authenticity of Herodotus’ description of it. Wiesehöfer’s position on this question is an extreme and hyper-critical one: he denies not only the authenticity of the Median conquests, but even the very existence of the Median kingdom within the territory of Media and the existence of a Median royal dynasty, declaring the whole of Herodotus’ account of Media to be a fi ction. Despite the fact that today it would be hard to fi nd anyone prepared to defend the historical authenticity of all the details in Herodotus’ account – particularly as regards the early history of the Median kingdom – there is no basis for this author’s conclusion and it even contradicts direct evidence of written sources. For example, the information provided by Darius’ Behistun inscription (II, 15, 81) to the eff ect that two of the insurgents who rebelled against him, the Median Fravartiš and the Sagartian Cisatahma, had declared themselves kings from the line of Cyaxares (Huvaxšθra), testifi es without doubt to the fact that the Median dynasty, of which Cyaxares (not Deioces, despite Herodotus) was regarded to be the founder, had indeed existed. Furthermore, during the reign of Darius as well memories of that dynasty loomed large: it still enjoyed considerable prestige and belonging to it was suffi cient for legitimization, otherwise there would have been no point in impost- ers declaring themselves to be descendants of Cyaxares. Nor are any arguments cited against the fact that Herodotus used eastern sources in his Median logos. At the same time his account of the emergence of the Median kingdom, while not being an exposition of historical events, might perfectly well refl ect a Median or Persian legendary tradition, i.e. the ideas held by those peoples themselves about how their state had been created. Certain parallels between the account of Deioces and various Iranian traditions concerning the fi rst

2 Grantovskii 1970, 249-252. 3 Levine 1972, 40, l. 47. Th is ﬁ gure is not mentioned by Wiesehöfer.