1. The Pursuit of Territorial Expansion (520-513)
• Darius, Democedes, and the West. On the deeds of Deinocedes and the structure of Herodotus's tale, see the interesting analysis of Griffiths 1987, and the comments of Asheri 1990: 341-48,
• Darius, Syloson, and Samos. Asheri 1990: 2561F. and 348-54; Descat (1989: 79 and 1990a) thinks that after the execution of Oroetes at Sardis, Darius was supported by Otanes and Cappadocia; but this interpretation (which is based explicitly on the very suspect text of Diodorus XXXI, 19.2) assumes that Otanes was in fact satrap of Cappadocia, which in my opinion is veiy doubtful for the reasons given above, chap. 3/4: “The Saga of Otanes,” pp. 132ff.. [Herodotus’s tale of Syloson: Van der Veen 1995.]
• Darius, the Indus, and the Nile. On the date of the conquest of India, cf. Shahbazi 1982: 233 n. 218 (519b. c.) and Tuplin 1991a: 270-71 (around 518);on the expedition of Skylaxand the suggested connections with the creation of the canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, see especially the very strong warnings of Salles 1988:79-86 (p. 84: “The periplus of Skylax must be kept strictly separate from the stelas of Suez”), and Salles 1990: 117-18 (p. 118: “In the present state of our knowledge, it is better to see the periplus of Skylax as only an adventure, sufficiently daring to have struck the imagination, but only a unique adventure”); on Darius’s canal, the basic reference is nowTuplin 1991a, which, while adding (p. 271 n. 23) some nuances to Salles’s skepticism, nonetheless agrees with him overall (cf. his conclusion, p. 278) and, moreover, stresses quite opportunely (p. 242) that Herodotus’s passage does not imply that Darius wished to establish direct communication; see also chap. 12/1.
• Aryandes and Barca. The date is disputed: cf. discussion in Mitchell 1966; on Amasis the Maraphi, cf Briant 1988a: 160; on Herodotus’s Cyrenian excursus, cf. Corcella and Medaglia 1993:332E
2. The Persians in Europe
• Darius’s Scythian Expedition (513). The bibliography is expanding but continues to lack consensus, except that there is no doubt about the date, for it is now acknowledged [pace Cameron 1975) that the expedition led by Darius against the Sacian Skunkha (DB) had nothing to do with the one against Scythia in Europe (cf Harniatta 1976; Shahbazi 1982; the contrary attempt pursued by Petit [1984 and 1987; cf 1990: 108-9] has not convinced anyone). Pace Petit (1990:205 n. 421), the mission entrusted to Ariaramnes of Cappadocia (Ctesias 16-17) seems perfectly understandable to me, including the geographical aspects. In contrast, the objectives and consequences of the Scythian expedition remain widely disputed; to the bibliography cited by Gardiner and Garden (1987), add the important article of Moinigliano (1933) and the balanced perspective found in Nenci (1958: 144-156) and, since then, Fol and Hammond (1988: 235-43); on the geographical and logistical aspects, see the article of Nowak (1988), who depends too much on the assumptions of Engels (1978); Gallota’s 1980 article adds nothing. We may mention in passing that an inscription on clay attributed to Darius has been found at Gherla in Romania [DG/i in May-rhofer 1978: 16] and published, with many restorations, by Harmatta (1953); how much Darius had to do with the stelas that were inscribed during his expedition (Herodotus IV.87, 91) remains very hypothetical, since the authenticit)' of the stelas in question is far from proved (RIP 390 n. 278, as well as West 1985: 296 and Schmitt 1988: 32-36). [Paintings showing the Scythian expedition: Calmeyer 1992a.]
• The Persians in Thrace. Castritius 1972; Fol and Hammond 1988; on the Paeonian tribes on the lower Strymon River, see Samsaris 1983.1'he existence of a satrapy of'I’hrace at this date (a theory defended by Hammond 1988a-b) is generally deduced from the reference to western peoples in some lists of countries: the “Saka beyond the sea” (paradraya-, DSe, DNa), "Those beyond the sea" (DPe), and Skiidra (DSe, DNa, DSab, XPh), Yauna “with a hat in the shape of a shield" (Yauna takahara; DNa), Yauna “who live beyond the sea" (DSe, XPh). But it must be stressed that a reference to a people does not necessarily imply the existence of a satrapal govern-nient (cf the following chapter); it must also be stressed that the identification of these peoples continues to be problematic: Castritius (1972; 9-15) thinks (not without good arguments) on the contrary that the satrapal government dates simply from the Mardonius expedition. The theory of the integration of Macedonia into the satrapy is defended by Hammond (1979; 59-60), based especially on the case of Bubares, “governor or adviser to the governor of the satrapy"; on these problems, see the summary of Balcer (1988) who, corrtrt; Hammond, approves and specifies Castritius’s interpretations; and Borza (1990: 100-103); read also the related discussion of Hatzopoulos and Loukopolou (1992: 15-25). Status of Oebares at Dascylium; hyparch and not satrap according to Balcer (1988); doubts of Petit (1990; 183-85). On the Achaemenid influence in Thrace (discernible basically in the fourth century), cf Briant 1991c: 234 n. 42, where a bibliography is found; and a suggestion on the use of the word “parasang” by Arrian 1.4.4.
World History
