'I'he bibliography is impressive, and there is no possibility here of carrying out a systematic (and vain) review; an analysis can be found in Tozzi (1978b) and Murray (1988); see also Burn 1984: 193-217; Will 9tl-. 86-89; Walser 1984; 27-35; on the position and sources of Herodotus, consult the always pertinent pages of Nenci (1956: 156-91) and Tozzi (1978a: 23-74); Nenci 1994 (commentary on book V of Herodotus) reached me too late to be properly used here.
• The Thread of Events and the Problems Posed. Perse]3olis tablet Q 1809: see Lewis 1980; in contrast, to look for an allusion to the revolt in certain “lists of countries” (so Steve 1974: 25) seems to me a ho])eless exercise for, contrary to what Steve a. ssumes, a diachronic analysis of the country lists in royal inscriptions does not permit the historian “to follow the fluctuations of Persian expansion, the establishment of recently acquired provinces, the dismantling of ancient administrative units and their reorganization into a new ensemble." On this question, see chap. 5/2-3. The gaps in Herodotus leave some chronological problems open: cf Tozzi (1978b: 100-13) and Murray (1988: 473): “Within these limits [499-494] any detailed chronology is to some extant arbitrary.” 'I'hc author rightly stresses that there is a gap of several years in Herodotus’s tale. 'Phis documentary situation makes it difficult to answer the question “Why did the revolt last so long?”
• Ai) Economic Crisis? 1'he theory of the economic weakness of the Ionian towns as an aftershock of the Persian conquest has recently been revived by'Pozzi (1978b: 113—28) and Murray (1988: 477-78); the exact opposite theory in Roebuck 1988: 453-53; see also Picard 1980: 81-95 (Inith is conclusion on p. 90 seems to me too sudden); lonians at Memphis, cf Segal 1983 no. 26; on lonians and Phoenicians doing business side by side in a delta port at the time of Xerxes: see the very clear text 7’ADAE C3.1-29 (cf Porten and Yardeni 1993; Yardeni 1994; and Lipiriski 1994); Greek pottery from Asia Minor in the Near East: Perreault 1986; Ionian and Phoenician pottery on the site of 'Pell el-Maskhuta: Paice 1986-87 (although the Phoenician pottery is much more abundant).
• Civic lensions and Achaemenid Power. The link between social problems and revolt has already been put forth by Hegyi (1966, 1971); social conflicts and tensions at Miletus (last quarter of the fifth century): cf Robertson 1987: 375-77; contra Graf (1985), Austin (1990) expresses the idea that the Persians were in fact sy. stematically supported by the tyrants; I am not sure that the two interpretations are really antithetical, as 1 hope I have shown in the text; on the slogan "liberty for the Greeks of Asia” and its history, cf Seager and Tuplin 1980. I note also that according to
Muit;i5' (1988: 475-76), tlie Persians in Asia Minor could not find support from a “priestly caste" contrary to tlie situation in Babylon, ligypt, and Jerusalem; but, aside from tire fact that tire expression "priestly caste” is not really a|)propriate, 1 believe that the contrast he emphasizes (based on the letter from Darius to Gadatas: ML 12) is hardly substantiated (on this document, see below chap. 12/4). ’
• The Strategy of Aristagoras: The Beginnings of the Revolt. Concerning the logistical problems related to the fleet, 1 have accepted the fascinating explanations of Wallinga 1984. Otherwise it seems that the Athenians and Eretrians did not play a very important role, despite the claims of Lysanias of Mallus, cited by Plutarch (Mor. 861a-c; cf. Tozzi 1978b: 60-61). On the relations between Histiaeus, Artaphernes, and Darius, the mystery continues unabated, especially because Herodotus's chronology is very uncertain: Hegyi (1971) sees here a clash between two strategies Darius’s and his satrap’s, regarding the relationships to be established with subjugated populations-I am not convinced. On the role of Histiaeus, see also the reflections of Burn 1984: 207-8; Murray 1988: 486-87 [and Kienast 1994].
• The Persian Victory. On the very lax character of the organization at the heart of the Ionian League: Roebuck 1955; Neville 1979; Lateiner 1982; the Ionian League was not suppressed by the Persians after the revolt (cf. 'Pod no. 113), which implies that it did not represent much of a threat in their eyes (Murray 1988: 489). The exi. stence of a revolutionary coinage (Gardner 1911) has now been cast in doubt (cf. Graf 1985: 103 n. 22; but see Tozzi 1978b: 81-92). Reconquest: the excavations at Old Paphos on Cyprus have confirmed that the Persians destroyed sanctuaries there (cf Tozzi 1978a); they also illustrate the technical abilities demonstrated by the Persians during sieges (cf Herodotus IV200); in the excavations of the siege ranrp, 422 stone shot weighing between 2 and 12 kg were found —a discovery of something totally new, since it was generally believed that the invention of machines for hurling, such as the catapult, dated to Dionysius the Elder at the beginning of the fourth century (a point of view once again expressed by Y. Garlan, CAH VF [1994]: 682-84, where rather surprisingly there is no reference to the discussion started by the Paphos discoveries); the recent find of a stone ball at Phocaea dated to the siege of the town by Cyrus in 546 (Ozyigit 1994) now provides reinforcement for the hypothesis (cf bibliography and summary in Briant 1994h).
4. From Thrace to Memphis (492-486)
• The Mission of Mardonius in Thrace. See especially Castritius 1972; Balcer 1988; Hammond 1988b: 493-96; and now Zahrnt 1992. Regarding the expression used by Herodotus (VI.43) to describe Mardonius in 493 (“newly married to a daughter of the king, Artozostra”), cf PFa 5 with the remarks of Hallock 1978: 110 and Lewis 1984; 596.
• From Cilicia to Marathon. On the diflerent stages of Darius’s strategy, one may read with profit the lucid remarks of Will 1964: 73-78.
• The Conquest of the Islands 'lire famous Chronicle ofLindos (cf Blinkenburg 1912: 57985; 1941; 177-200 = FGrll 532), which lists donations to the sanctuary by Datis, has long posed many problems; vve start off by questioning the reality of the deeds reported: several authors he-lieve it is a useless fake; cf Baslez 1985: 138-41, remarking in particular that the Delian dedication attributed to Datis is certainly a later falsification; same opinion, Murray 1988: 468-69; but not all doitbts have been resolved; see Bresson, REA 1985/1-2; 155, explicitly opposing Baslez; Burn (1984: 218) places the episode during the Ionian revolt, Datis having acted on the initiative of Mardonius; citing for support information found on some Persepolis tablets, Heltzer (1989a) suggests the date 497, at the time of the attacks on Cyprus; an alternate hypothesis would be to date these donations to the time when Datis left Cilicia and headed toward Naxos.
• Persian Conquest and Greek Medism. Cf Graf 1979 and 1984; the work of Gillis 1979 is of little interest.
• Marathon. On the battle, cf Hignett 1963: 55-74; Burn 1984: 239-53; Hammond 1988b: 506-17; Lazenby 1993: 48-80; on the absence of the cavalry', cf the hypotheses of Whatley 1964 fjtl Evans 1987; on the exaltation of Marathon and liistorical distortions among the Athenians, cf. Loraux 1981: 157-73.
• From Marathon to Memphis. On the Egyptian revolt: Aristotle's phrase [Rhet. 11.20.3 = 1393B) does not add much to the discussion (cf. Tuplin 1991a: 266). Date of the death of Darius (Mov 486): it is established with the help of Babylonian tablets (Stolper 1992a); it is noteworthy that the most recently published tablets show that for three weeks after the death of the king (until 21 Dec.), scribes at Sippar continued to date their documents according to the reign of Darius, although at Borsippa the first document dated to the reign of Xerxes is from 1 December 486: cf. Zavvadski 1992.
World History
