HERODOTUS MEDIAN CHRONOLOGY FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

BY

David HENIGE(University of Wisconsin Madison)

To adopt a comparativist approach can, of course, be risky. There is always adanger of minimizing the special character of the Hebrew Bible1.

Still, it has not been thought right wholly to discard the authenticity ofHerodotus where he is not absolutely contradicted by the monuments2.

There was very heavy pressure on scholars to produce an answer to everyinquiry about unclear details, genealogical or otherwise, and it seems that any

answer, absolutely incredible though it might be, was preferable to no answer inthe eyes of both the learned audience and the scholars themselves.3

If we take the study of the past to be the pursuit of truths, however elusive,then we are limited in the number of strategies we can employ. The easiest, aswell as the most popular, is to accept our sources more or less as read, cryEureka!, and proceed to use them to declare victory. Experience shows thatthis approach tends to find favor because all parties are pleased to believe thatmodern historiography, and not the refractory past, has triumphed. Anotherapproach, more cautious and less widely embraced, involves progressivelycircumscribing possibilities without necessarily embracing any one of them.In this respect, adopting a comparative approach is crucial, since only it cantranscend the need to argue in circles because of the exiguousness of theavailable localized evidence. Here I want to test this approach with respect tothe perennial question of the reliability of Herodotus Median chronology.

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIX, 2004

1 V.P. Long, Introduction in Israels Past in Present Research, ed. V. Philips Long(Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 71. Long went on to retract at least part of thisargument.

2 George Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World (3 vols.:New York, 1885), 2:572n.

3 Zoltan Szombathy, The Nassbah: Anthropological Fieldwork in Mediaeval Islam,Islamic Culture 73(1999), 86.

Our earliest, and in some ways only source for the history of the king-dom of the Medes are a few paragraphs in Herodotus in which he men-tions four rulers: Deioces, who ruled for 53 years; his son Phraortes, whoruled 22 years; Phraortes son Cyaxares, who ruled for 40 years; andCyaxares son Astyages, who ruled for 35 years until Cyrus the Great con-quered the Medes. Herodotus also mentioned a period of 28 years duringwhich the Scythians dominated the Medes, without going so far as to stateunambiguously whether these 28 years were subsumed into, or were addi-tional to, the dynastic chronology that he was outlining.

There would seem to be several reasons for impugning Herodotuscredibility in this matter. Many of Herodotus accounts have come undercritical scrutiny lately and only some have survived it4. The politicalchronology of the ancient Near East has been whittled down consistentlyfor a century or more, losing a couple of millennia in the process. Nor,other than the problematic references to Daiukku and Kashtariti mentionedbelow, is there a shred of independent evidence regarding Median regnalchronology that antedates Herodotus.

Nonetheless, for more than a century and a half historians have gener-ally credited Herodotus account, whether or not explicitly grudgingly, ifonly because monopolistic sources generally tend to attract belief. Nothingadds value to a product more than scarcity, and nothing demonstrates thistruism more than the ways in which historians treat unique sources. ForLongs the Hebrew Bible we can substitute Herodotus here, and amyriad of other sources in a myriad of other cases. The unpalatable factremains that uniqueness is an accident of passing time and cannot possiblylend gravitas to any source, even those that can pass the plausibly test.

This immunity continues to be conferred even while other aspects ofHerodotus testimony have received rather rude treatment. To some degreethis is surprising since there are several elements of Herodotus account, asit is expressed, that are at least implausible, even if they manage to escapeoutright refutation by other evidence. Here I want to discuss only thechronology of the Medes as Herodotus offers it, and argue that, when viewedconspectively, its implausibility teeters on the very brink of impossibility.

240 D. HENIGE

4 Particularly by Detlev Fehling, Herodotus and His Sources: Citation, Invention,and Narrative Art (Leeds, 1990), only partly refuted by W.K. Pritchett, The Liar School ofHerodotos (Amsterdam, 1993).

As Murphy noted, unnecessarily but accurately: [t]he regnal succes-sion of the Medes has perplexed researchers for over two thousandyears.5 Not surprisingly, this perplexity has found an outlet in the devis-ing of a variety of chronological schemata, which all depend on what dateis assigned to the deposition of Astyages and whether Herodotus Scythianperiod is treated as interregnal or intrarregnal6. Along the way, accessiondates of 700, 708, and 728 BC. have been assigned to Deioces7. Thechoices depend less on individual interpretations of Herodotus meaningthan on two historical data that exist outside Herodotus narrative.

Two references in the Assyrian records to putatively Mede chieftainsnamed Daiukku (ca. 715 BC) and Kashtariti (ca. 674) are intimatelyinvolved in the decision-making. For obvious reasons, it has becomehabitual to identify Daiukku with Deioces, while Kashtariti is conve-niently taken to represent the throne name of Phraortes. Accepting theseidentifications mandates that the Scythian period be given its own inde-pendent chronological niche, so that the four Median rulers can beassigned regnal dates of 728-675, 675-653, 653-585, and 585-550 respec-tively. A necessary presumption in this schema is the unlikely propositionthat Cyaxares lived in exile or hiding, or was under house arrest for 28years before finally succeeding his father Phraortes, after which he thenruled another forty years.

During the course of the debate, the date of 728 has sometimes beenaccepted without comment, sometimes implied by the dates given to Phra-ortes, sometimes by equating Daiukku and Deioces, and sometimes byimplying that Herodotus testified to a duration of 178 years and that thisperiod ended ca. 550 B.C. Along the way it has become, if not preponder-antly or explicitly, at least the plurality view of those who think it possible

HERODOTUS MEDIAN CHRONOLOGY 241

5 Edwin Murphy, The Antiquities of Asia: A Translation With Notes of Book II of theLibrary of History of Diodorus Siculus (New Brunswick NJ, 1989), 43n.

6 Whether or not treated as concurrent with Cyaxares forty-year reign, the Scythianperiod has been variously alloted anything from zero years (i.e., it never happened) to theHerodotean 28 years, and just as variously dated, from 653 to 625 (the most commonhypothesis) to as late as 622/17-594/589.

7 With the exception of Diakonoff, noted below. The middle date long ago droppedout of the competition once the fall of Astyages was fairly securely dated to ca. 550 BCintead of ca. 559 BC.

to date Median royal chronology precisely.8 Those who prefer the date of700 B.C. perforce disown the Daiukku=Deioces scenario9. Others exercisecaution by declining to date Deioces or even question his existence as adynastic founder10.

In a few cases, however, the date has not been only accepted, but force-fully advocated. Among these instances, J.A. Scurlock has argued onphilological grounds that Herodotus used certain words by which heintended to convey that any period of Scythian domination was excludedfrom the 40 years of Cyaxares. He concluded that the 28-year periodshould be assigned to Cyaxares, giving him an official reign of 68 years, ifan effectve one of only 4011. Scurlock was not unaware of the implica-tions, but felt that postulating an unusually lengthy term of office forKyaxares is certainly the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being therejection of all or part of Herodotos Median chronology. As he candidly

242 D. HENIGE

8 Included in one or another of these approaches would be A.T. Olmstead, History ofthe Persian Empire (Achaemenid Period) (Chicago, 1948), 23-29; Roman Ghirshman,LIran des origines lIslam (Paris, 1951), 80; Robert Drews, The Fall of Astyagesand Herodotus Chronology of the Eastern Kingdoms, Historia 18(1969), 7-11; idem.,The Greek Accounts of Eastern History (Cambridge MA, 1973), 27-29, 72-74; and I.M. Diakonoff, Media in Cambridge History of Iran 2: 112-13 Diakonoff presum-ably speaks for these when he asserts that this dating meets all the requirements of theindependent sources.

9 E.g., A.R. Millard, The Scythian Problem in Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studiesin Honour of H.W. Fairman, ed. John Ruffle, G.A. Gaballa, and Kenneth A. Kitchen(Warminster, 1979), 119-22; J.M. Cook, The Persian Empire (London, 1983), 3-4; andStuart C. Brown, The Mdikos Logos of Herodotus and the Evolution of the MedianState in Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory, ed. Amlie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (Leiden, 1988), 74. For a similar non-equivalence argument, withchronological implications for the earliest Achaemenids, see Pierre de Miroschedji, La fin du royaume dAnsan et de Suse et la naissance de lEmpire perse, Zeitschrift frAssyriologie 75(1985), 268-85.

10 E.g., Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, The Orality of Herodotus Medikos Logos, orthe Median Empire Revisited in Achaemenid History VIII, Continuity and Change, ed.Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Amlie Kuhrt, and Margaret Cool Root (Leiden: Neder-lands Instituut voor het Nabije Osten, 1994), 55, is content to argue that [t]his does notmean that I necessarily deny the historicity of these facts, merely that some scepticism tothe accepted chronology of these events might be useful. There Sancisi-Weeerdenburgemphasizes, and very rightly so, that relying on unattested Median oral traditions is adangerous course of action for more than one reason.

11 J.A. Scurlock, Herodotos Median Chronology Again?! Iranica Antiqua 25(1990),149-63. Brown, Mdikos Logos, 77, regarded such a reign length as improbable.

put it, echoing Rawlinson: I see no reason to impugn [Herodotus] accu-racy unless the evidence actually requires it.12 My argument here is thatthe evidence the comparative evidence, that is does ordain, if notabsolutely require, that we impugn Herodotus evidence.

A question Scurlock failed to ask is: just how unusual is a reign of68 years? At least as important, though Scurlock also does not raise it, is:how unusual is a four-generation/four-ruler regnal chonology that lasts178 years (or indeed more, assuming that Astyages would have ruled stilllonger, but for the Persians)13. Scurlock is hardly particularly at fault inthis oversight; no other student of the problem has raised this question,even to overrule it. Once raised, this question should not be answered fromthe chronology of the Ancient Near East alone14. For the area we mighthave one reign of over 90 years (Pepi II) if so, much the longest knownto history, but now at last under attack and another (Ramses II) of 67years, but the sample is smaller than it needs or ought to be.

Looking more widely, we find that a database of succession in 660dynasties, covering over 10,000 reigns reveals fewer than a dozen reignslasting 68 years or more about 1% or one in a thousand15. More to thepoint, we find only a couple of cases of a four-generation father-to-great-grandson ruling sequence that exceeds 178 years16. The first is the series

HERODOTUS MEDIAN CHRONOLOGY 243

12 Scurlock, Median Chronology, 159.13 Thus in the twentieth century, for example, Bao-Dai of Vietnam outlived his depo-

sition by 42 years, while Muhammad Zahir Khan, who was deposed as ruler ofAghanistan in 1973, remains alive as of late 2003. For that matter, and much closer tohome, it was once widely held that Darius Is grandfather Arsames, alive in 522 BC, hadbeen deposed by Cyrus nearly forty years earlier.

14 For a similar argument for other ancient Near East examples see David Henige,Comparative Chronology and the Ancient Near East: a Case for Symbiosis, Bulletin ofthe American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 261 (February 1986), 57-68.

15 David Henige, The Chronology of Oral Tradition: Quest for a Chimera (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1974), 71-94, 121-44. In the present discussion I omit the many casesamong the Princely States of India where adopted sons succeeded to the thrones bypermission of their British overlords. Often these sons were sixty, even seventy, yearsyounger than their predecessors. By the same token I have not included any lamaisticsuccession systems.

16 While we cannot be quite sure what Herodotus had in mind, all modern interpre-tations presume the biological-son option. In this sample therefore I use only cases thatare normative by our standards that is, where son means the biological issue of thepreceding ruler. Any cases where we know too little to be sure that other son-types (e.g.,classificatory, adopted, fictive) are not at issue are excluded.

Bernhard VII/Simon V/Bernhard VIII/Simon VI, who ruled the Germanprincipality of Lippe from 1429 to 1613, significantly assisted by Bern-hard VIIs rule of 82 years, the longest securely-documented tenure in his-tory17. Oddly, the other case is the succession in the related principality ofLippe-Biesterfeld from 1627 to 181018. There are several other four-gener-ation sequences that exceed, if barely, the 178 years assigned to theMedian rulers, but these involve collateral successions, that is, the periodsencompassed four generations, but more than four rulers. This is no sur-prise since collateral successions almost always have the effect of length-ening a regnal generation, sometimes to eighty years19.

In the abstract then the odds are roughly 1 in 2500 that four generationsof four rulers could encompass a duration of 178 years (no matter whatdates are put to it). In reality they must be accounted even longer. Thedocumented cases of such long sequences in the historical record outsidethe ancient Near East have occurred in far more benign circumstances thanthose that presumably obtained in and and around Media from the time inquestion, when warfare was endemic. There are no other cases where thefirst ruler acceded as a fully mature adult (as must have been the case withDeioces as Herodotus recounts the circumstances) and where the last rulerdid not die of old age but was deposed, meaning that computed averagesmust be based on 178+x years rather than 178 years.

It is especially implausible that the founder of the dynasty should becredited with a reign of 53 years, which virtually requires that he estab-lished his rule at a very early age, and if we presume that Astyages wouldhave ruled a few more years, given the chance, the implausibility growsapace. As noted, some have argued that Cyaxares reign included theScythian domination, reducing the duration of the dynasty to 150 years.This produces a slightly larger harvest for comparison, but would still

244 D. HENIGE

17 A.M.H.J. Stokvis, Manuel dhistoire, de gnalogie et de chronologie de tous les tatsdu globe, depuis les temps les plus reculs jusqu nos jours (3 vols,: Leiden, 1888-93),3:317. It is no surprise than Bernhard succeeded at the age of less than one year.

18 Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der europaschenStaaten (3 vols.: Marburg, 1953), 1:147; Die Grafen zur Lippe-Biestefeld, ed. WillyGerking (Bad Oeynhausen: Heka-Verlag, 2001).

19 E.g., the Southern Hsiung-nu, BC 31 to AD 45 (six brothers); Schleusingen, 1480-1559 (three brothers); Songhay, 1582-1656 (eight! brothers); and Liechtenstein, 1858 to1938 (two brothers)

represent an uncomfortably high four-generation regnal period andcarries the Daiukku incubus along with it.

This case is so outlandish that one imagines that intuition alone shouldhave raised a panoply of warning flags. Take the throne of Great Britainfor comparison. Going back 178 years takes us to the reign of George IV,and since his time six generations have held the throne, even including onereign of over 60 years and another one of over 50. Or to look at it anotherway, in American history 178 years takes us back to the days of the Mon-roe Doctrine. How many of us have great-grandfathers old enough to havefounded a kingdom in the 1820s?

In short, there is not a scintilla of internal or external plausibility toHerodotus schema. Scurlock mentions a few cases of modern skepticism,but his own appointed task is to rescue Herodotos chronology fromoblivion.20 Instead he has highlighted the need to side with skeptics in thematter. Whatever we might want to make of Herodotus testimony, and what-ever the virtues of probing ancient texts on a word-by-word basis, the plaincomparative evidence is overwhelmingly against accepting Herodotus (and afortiori Scurlocks) chronology and, by implication, any part of his testimonyregarding the Medes before Cyaxares21. Scurlock claims that he does notpretend to be an apologist for Herodotos, but in pressing for the lattersabsolute reliability in this matter and with less reason that Herodotus himselfwould have had, he only reminds us how beguiling the unique and coherentsource can be22.

Earlier, Robert Drews, basing himself on a large number of numbers inHerodotus, concluded uncompromisingly that [b]etween the accession ofDeioces and the fall of Astyages 156 years had elapsed.23 Drews echoesScurlock, writing that Herodotus figures are not exact, but are usedbecause we have nothing else.24 This awareness does not prevent Drewsfrom relying, even more than most, on Herodotus chronological testimony.

HERODOTUS MEDIAN CHRONOLOGY 245

20 Scurlock, Herodotos Median Chronology, 154, 16021 Just as there is no incontrovertible reasons for assuming the Daiukku was in any

way a Mede, whatever that meant at the time, and so somehow to be connected withHerodotus testimony.

22 Scurlock, Herodotos Median Chronology, 159. 23 Robert Drews, The Fall of Astyages and Herodotus Chronology of the Eastern

Kingdoms, Historia 18 (1969), 1-11. 24 Ibid., 5n.

It does underscore, though, the only sensible reason for the ongoing games-manship over Median and early Persian chronology use it or lose it25.

The temptation has been to suggest as few changes as possible to pro-duce a version that salvages most, even all, of Herodotus, while at thesame time interpreting the remaining evidence in ways that are guided byHerodotus version and the Assyrian evidence. Thus Labat chastisedanother author, who did no more than transfer Deioces 53 years to Phra-ortes, for overturning a good part of the chronology of Herodotus, pre-ferring a less radical solution himself26.

Cogent arguments against accepting Herodotus have been advanced,but the present argument has never been deployed, even though it is prob-ably weightier in the sense of probabilities than any of the others. Ofcourse, Herodotus testimony might be salvaged by an argument that theword we translate as son could also mean descendant or successor, butat this point the debate will have fallen on hard times. Still, the compara-tive data demand that such alternatives be deliberated. Among these wouldbe that more generations were represented, e.g., one (or more) of the rulerswas grandson of his predecessor, or not even related27; that, as was oftenthe case, Herodotus exaggerated and that the sequence actually ruled for amuch shorter time; that Deioces did not rule as long as Herodotus wouldhave it28; that there were more than one Deioces; that rulers names

246 D. HENIGE

25 Similar issues arise for the Mayan city-states of the first millennium, where the inci-dence of long reigns is extraordinarily high. More specifically, if modern interpretations ofthe epigraphic data are correct, three rulers in Copn spanned the 160 years from 578 to738 (50/67/43). No one seems to have noticed this striking datum, which qualifies as asuspicious circumstance and ipso facto throws doubt on either the data or their interpreta-tion. See, among others, Ren H. Viel, The Pectorals of Altar Q and Structure 11: AnInterpretation of the Political Organization at Copn, Honduras, Latin American Antiq-uity 10(1999), 377-99. Such a protracted three-reign period could occur only in a lamaistsuccession system or its simulacrum, the adopted son, and while succession practicesin Copn are uncertain, we can probably eliminate lamaism.

26 Ren Labat, Kastariti, Phraorte et les dbuts de lhistoire mde, Journal Asiatique(1961), 8, 11-12.

27 At one time some proposed to insert another Cyaxares between Deioces and Phraortes28 Brown, Mdikos Logos,75, regards Deioces ascribed tenure as implausibly but

not impossibly long, but this is to be much too charitable. In support of this belief,Brown (ibid., 81) refers to the 57 years ascribed to Alyattes of Lydia by none other thanHerodotus, and Victorias reign, but fails to note that she succeeded at the age of 18, didnot endanger herself on the field of battle, lived in a period of much better personal health,and was succeeded by a son who had already grown so old waiting that he managed to

dropped out before Herodotus set to work29. Whatever the case, the richcomparative data by themselves rule out the likelihood, if not quite thepossibility, that Herodotus was correct. Ingenious efforts at rehabilitationmust deal with this hard fact before proceeding. None has.

The failure of students of Median chronology to raise the issue biolog-ical implications of a 728-550 chronology is not surprising since theirparamount goal has been to harmonize Herodotus, Sargon, and Esarhad-don by duly equating Diaukku with Herodtous Deioces and Kashtaritiwith Herodotus Phraortes. If Herodotus can be shown to be right oreven not to be wrong then the credibility of his accounts of, say, Lydianand early Achemenid history are enhanced. It is not too much to suggestthat every attempt to determine Median royal chronology has as its pur-pose to sustain not only the chronological details in Herodotus, but thegeneralities. Thus, to take an extreme example, I.M. Diakonoff departedcompany from other scholars dates, but not with their purposes, when heassigned the reign of Deioces to 767 to 715 solely to accommodate Assyr-ian testimony that Daiukku was exiled to Hamath in the latter year, theassumption being that this event must have marked the end of his tenure30.In fact, the rush to assign and reassign dates to the four Median rulers inlight of the Assyrian evidence reflects and extends a similar effort for therulers of Tyre that resulted from the discovery of an Assyrian inscriptionmentioning a Tyrian ruler not included in Josephus wildly implausibleaccount of Tyrian history31.

Whatever its limitations, the historian who draws on a wide variety ofpast experience is likely to benefit from the narrowing of probabilities thatso often results from the greater catch from casting the net more widely.This can particularly be the case when we are dealing with bounded vari-

HERODOTUS MEDIAN CHRONOLOGY 247

reign only nine years himself, all very different from the context provided for Deioces.Ultimately Brown, like Drews, labors mightily on Herodotus behalf, and concludes thatno sound reasons emerge to lead us to doubt Herodotus basic chronology exceptthe episode of the Scythian interregnum.

29 In an extreme example of applying this alternative, Fl. de Boor, La dynastie djo-cide: une contribution lhistoire de Mdie, Le Muson 18(1899), 5-26, posited fourrulers beween 678 and 625 BC.

30 So stated in Roman Ghirshmans review of Diakanoffs Russian-language history ofMedia, Bibliotheca Orientalis 15 (1958), 258.

31 See David Henige, Historical Evidence and Argument, (Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 2004).

ables such as life expectancy. Conversely, failing to be aware of relevanthistorical experience from other times and places can lead to argumentsthat, when put into a context, can too easily be shown to be insufficientlygrounded. In the end, perhaps the greatest benefit of the broadly compara-tive method is that it vitiates suggestions like that of Long that certainsources or kinds of sources should be given special treatment. Byexpanding the search, the comparative method helps to destabilize fixatedthinking. This is turn allows unfortunately it does not force the his-torian to consider other lines of evidence, some of which can actuallyundermine prior arguments to the point where they are no longer safe.

Faith in Herodotus, like that in Homer, has its cyclical aspects. All theattempts to date Deioces and his successors spring from a desire to takeHerodotus testimony seriously, even literally. As always, one must distin-guish between a source and that sources sources. On that basis, the pre-sent argument is not necessarily a criticism of Herodotus per se, since weare uncertain either where he got his data or to what extent he transformedthese in his narrative, or even that he was solely responsible for the finalproduct32. Whether or not Herodotus, or his sources, provided the reignlengths and genealogical filiations as they have come down to us, neitherwould have been in as position to regard them as quite as outlandish as wenow must, given the database of comparative evidence available. No doubtit is the fact the we have Herodotus, and only Herodotus, to provide uswith information on an otherwise obscure time and place that bestaccounts for the pride of place and virtual amnesty his narrative has beengranted. The comparative evidence, however, suggests that this is entirelyunwarranted. In the future we might best emulate the latest comment onthe matter, which dismissively refers to Herodotus account as probablyfanciful and get on with better things33.

248 D. HENIGE

32 T.C. Young, jr., The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and theAchaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses in CAH2 4:5-6, 16-23, provides a well-stated and skeptical, though not nihilistic, view of Herodotus value.

33 Hans van Wees, Herodotus and the Past in Brills Companion to Herodotus, ed.E.J. Bakker, I.J.F. de Jong, and H. van Wees (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 335.