The Historians' History of the World 02 [Israel, India, Persia, Phoenicia, Minor Nations of Western Asia]

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 portions, 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 one hundred and twenty-eight years, save only (πάρεξ) the twenty-eight years during which the Scythians ruled. It is easy to see that “save only” means “minus,” and that thus the foreign supremacy of the Medes is reckoned at exactly one hundred years, or two-thirds of the total duration of the kingdom. Obviously such figures can at most be only approximately correct. But the names of the kings in Herodotus are now all authenticated, directly or indirectly, by the inscriptions lately discovered. 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.

We have listened to Herodotus’ naïve story of the foundation of the Median kingdom by Deioces, son of Phraortes, a story in which Greek and oriental colours are charmingly blended. We may assume as certain that Deioces possessed a principality, the central point of which was Ecbatana (or Agbatana; old Persian Hagmatana, 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 constitution, 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 inaccessible 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. 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 gradually. In the period not long before Deioces, according to Herodotus’ reckoning, very many tributary Median chieftains are mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions; this confirms, in some measure at least, the statement that “anarchy” then prevailed. In 715 B.C. there was carried off as prisoner one Daiaukku; 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 Herodotus’ first king with the prince whose land, called Bit Daiaukku (i.e., land of Daiaukku), 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’ assertion that each successive ruler was the son of his predecessor.