to the central Zagros area.
This now brings the Classical sources into play, for there is, for example, Herodotus' testimony that during an eclipse generally dated to 585 BCE, the Medes and the Lydians met at the river Halys in central Anatolia to forge an alliance. Although many historians still treat Herodotus as sourcebook, simply used like a quarry to rephrase history, it is increasingly clear that he has to be dealt with as a literary work completed during the Peloponnesian War, presenting a view on the past, first and foremost, through a Greek lens of around 420 BCE. In his Histories he skillfully elaborates ancient Near Eastern history as a sequence of empires, where empire is modeled according to the Persian‐Achaemenid empire of Herodotus' own time (Bichler 2000; Rollinger 2003c, 2014; Rollinger et al. 2011). This is also the guiding principle of Ctesias' work, which survived only in fragments, developing Herodotus' concept of a Median “empire” even further (Wiesehöfer et al. 2011; Waters 2017). It is Herodotus, and especially Ctesias, who formed the basis for later Classical sources that structured world history as a sequence of empires – a view that was adopted by late antique Christianity and passed on through the Middle Ages to modern times (Wiesehöfer 2003, 2005). It is mainly this reception history that saved for the Medes a prominent place in a Western view of world history canonized over a lengthy period. Both Herodotus and Ctesias describe Median history as a succession of kings ruling a united and far‐reaching territory from the beginning to the very end (Rollinger 2010, 2011, 2020a). Apart from the name of the last king, Astyages, however, they completely disagree about the number of these kings, their names, and the duration of the Median period. With indigenous ancient Near Eastern sources they share only two facts: it was the Medes who brought the Assyrian Empire to an end, and it was Cyrus who overcame Astyages. It was apparently the fall of the Assyrian Empire that directed historical attention toward the Medes, yet without much further information on what these Medes really were. Herodotus, moreover, reports a famous story about how the Medes established monarchy. But this story has been decoded as a mix of Iranian mythology and sophistic Greek theories of the end of the fifth century BCE on how states come into being (Panaino 2003; Meier et al. 2004; see also Gufler 2016, and Degen/Rollinger 2020). Whereas Ctesias' Medes control the entire Ancient Near East, those of Herodotus do not. Their reach extends as far west as the river Halys (Kızılırmak) where they allegedly share a border with the Lydians. This border looks very much like a Greek construction of the fifth century BCE to organize ancient Near Eastern history, however (Rollinger 2003a). And to prove such a construction it is connected with a legendary story. This is exactly the “historical” context for localizing the Median‐Lydian treaty at the Halys river and for the famous story about the sage Thales, who predicted an eclipse of the sun that brought Median‐Lydian strife to an end. The Medes might have been roaming through Anatolia for a very brief period of time, and they may indeed have concluded a treaty with the Lydians, but there was no permanent Median control of eastern – let alone central – Anatolia in the sixth century BCE.3
Finally, some additional evidence demonstrates that the claim for a Median “empire” lacks a solid basis.4 There are no archeological remains of imperial centers, nor are there documentary archives surviving from a supposed Median administration. Not a single document has come down to us from their supposed domain, since multiple documents previously thought to have done so have been shown to be untrustworthy. There is also no contemporary correspondence between foreign kings and Median rulers, neither from Babylonia nor from any other country. In the entire 3000‐year history of the Ancient Near East, the Medes would thus have established the only “empire” from which no kind of textual documentation, neither from inside nor from outside, has survived to this day.
In addition to these negative findings, which result from careful reevaluation of existing evidence, the model of a geographically and chronologically limited political “confederation” dominated by Iranian peoples has been developed as an alternative to the notion of a Median “empire.” In the short term, this confederation likely played an important role in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Neo‐Assyrian Empire, though it was never to develop comparable imperial structures. Indeed, a prime motivation of the members of this “confederation” is said to have been raids reaching as far as central Anatolia. There was no organized “rule” as such, no stable authority, as the “confederation” was in itself a short‐lived collective brought together by momentarily overlapping goals and ambitions. As such, it was more likely dominated by short‐term alliances and dependencies which would scarcely have endured beyond the next raiding season. If any coherent order of rule developed at all, as this theory goes, it could only have happened in the central Zagros region between Lake Urmia and Elam. The loose, mixed structure of the short‐termed Median confederation is also confirmed by the wording of the Nabonidus inscriptions, which carry clear connotations of disorder and chaos when dealing with the Medes. The Medes' appearance is characterized as a great flood and their military organization is described as a loose confederacy with primitive hierarchies. Significantly, this confederation revolving around a charismatic leader is circumscribed by the formulation of “Kings who march at his side” (Rollinger 2003a: p. 318). Moreover, particular verses in the Book of Jeremiah paint a similar picture by describing Median kings (plural!) as part of a larger federation (Liverani 2003).
It should be pointed out that, in all honesty, these arguments are likewise more probabilities than conclusive proof. There is room for interpretation, in any case: one may or may not agree on the applicability of the “secondary state formation” model and its implications for the Zagros region. Likewise, one may find the terminology of the Nabonidus inscriptions too vague or too obviously following Neo‐Babylonian preconceptions of Medes as “barbarians” to be helpful, or even doubt the historical value of biblical texts in general. The synonymity of “Medes” and “Persians” for Greeks could be explained in a different way: the relationship between Persians and Medes could still be conceived as one between vassals and overlords, and, finally, the new interpretation of Nabonidus Chronicle ii 16 could be challenged.
Still, taken together with negative evidence for a Median “empire,” the evidence presented in favor of a loose confederation of peoples does seem to comprise a sustainable basis for this hypothesis. It must, of course, remain a hypothesis, but one with a relatively coherent and dense line of argumentation that is more plausible than previous explanations.
REFERENCES
1 Adali, S.F. (2011). The Scourge of God: The Umman‐Manda and Its Significance in the First Millennium BC State Archives of Assyria Studies 20. Helsinki: The Neo‐Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
2 Bagg, A. (2020). Die Orts‐ und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, Teil 3: Babylonien, Urarṭu und die östlichen Gebiete. RGTC 7/3. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
3 Bichler, R. (2000). Herodots Welt: Der Aufbau der Historie am Bild der fremden Länder und Völker, ihrer Zivilisation und ihrer Geschichte Antike in der Moderne. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
4 Boucharlat, R. (1998). À la recherche d’Ecbatane sur Tepe Hegmataneh. Iranica Antiqua, 33, pp. 173–186.
5 Brown, S.C. (1986). Media and secondary state formation in the Neo‐Assyrian Zagros: an anthropological approach to an Assyriological problem. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 38, pp. 107–119.
6 Daryaee, T. (ed.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7 Degen, J., Rollinger, R. (2020). How Greek the Medes were? Herodotus’ medikos logos, Athens and the transformation of empire from symmachia to arche. In S. Badalkhan, G. P. Basello, and M. De Chiara (eds.), Iranian Studies in Honour of Adriano V. Rossi. Naples: UniorPress, pp. 273–289.
8 Fuchs, A. (2011). Das Osttigrisgebiet von Agum II. bis zu Darius I. (ca. 1500 bis 500 v. Chr.). In P.A. Miglus, S. Mühl (eds.), Between the Cultures: The Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 14. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, pp. 29–320.
9 Fuchs,