Between the ninth and seventh centuries bc, the historical and political developments taking place in the Iranian plateau are mainly attested in the Assyrian sources. The latter only inform us on the western side of the plateau, close to the Zagros. Even the archaeological evidence seems to be conspicuous and accurate more for the western, rather than the northern and eastern side of the Iranian plateau. The best attested states are: the kingdom of the Mannaeans, located to the south-east of Lake Urmia and tucked in-between Urartu, Assyria and the Medes; the kingdom of Ellipi in Luristan; and the Median tribes, settled in a large area between the Zagros, the central deserts and the Demavend (the Bikni mountain attested in the Assyrian sources). The rise of these western Iranian kingdoms, however, is not simply an impression given by the amount of evidence available. Being so close to the Assyrian empire, these states were constantly under pressure and strongly influenced by Assyrian culture. This situation, then, forced their transformation from tribal groups to more solid and defined political entities.
The Assyrian pressure led to several military expeditions, which peaked in the reigns of Sargon II and Esarhaddon, although it should be pointed out that these interventions were only the most extreme expressions of a vast series of commercial and political interactions. These interactions demonstrate the Assyrian interest in the strategic resources of the area and in transforming the aggressive nature of these peoples into a manageable and instrumental force for the empire. Direct Assyrian control did not manage to move far beyond the Zagros. The majority of attempts continued to be concentrated on the route (the Khorasan Highway) that from Babylon followed the Diyala River, passed through Kermanshah, crossed the watershed at Behistun, touched Ecbatana/Hamadan and continued to the north-east, reaching Central Asia. The initial plan, which proved to be short-lived, was to install a series of Assyrian provinces and centres along this route, transforming local Harhar into Kar-Sharrukin, and Elanzash into Kar-Sennacherib. The Assyrian attempt did not last, and led to a regression that affected even Zamua (which was part of the empire from the time of Ashurnasirpal II). However, it still brought several administrative, tributary and political improvements into the heart of Ellipi and Media.
Excavations have uncovered the monumental complexes of Hasanlu for the Mannaean kingdom, and of Godin Tepe, Nush-i Jan and Baba Jan for Media (where the capital Ecbatana has not yet yielded any remains for this phase) (Figure 32.1). These settlements feature tower temples, hypostyle halls, warehouses and fortifications suitable for local centres whose population was spread out throughout the territory. The nature of these cities recalls the Assyrian title of bel ali (‘lord of cities’), used to designate the leaders of the Median tribes. In terms of settlements, the presence of villages and seasonal camps corresponds to an agro-pastoral economy, while these fortified cities filled with storage spaces indicate a more commercial
Figure 32.1 The architecture of the Mannaeans and the Medes. Above: The palace of Hasanlu (level IV); Below: Fortifications and storehouses of Godin Tepe (period IV, phase 4).
And military economy. For instance, the renowned Ziwiye hoard (a collection of ivories and metal ware originally placed in a tomb and then sold in the illegal market) should be attributed to the Mannaeans. This treasure is a clear mark of the tendency towards the ostentation and accumulation of luxury goods existing among the tribal leaders of those mountains (Figure 32.2). This tendency was largely due to their control of the commercial activities existing between the Assyrian empire and the Iranian plateau. It also gives us an idea of the progressive, but fast formation of a local culture. The latter was marked by the prevailing Assyrian and Urartian influences alongside contributions from Central Asia.
Figure 32.2 Decorated bronze quiver from Luristan, eighth—seventh century bc.
Unfortunately, the other two important centres of development of Iranian ‘nations’ remain less well attested for the Assyrian period. The one in Persis (Anshan/Anzan) remained a part of the Elamite political system, but its population gradually declined (at least according to the archaeological evidence). This situation led to the almost sudden appearance of a Persian population and royal dynasty. The latter came into direct contact with Assyria once Elam collapsed. In the other centre of Iran, Bactria, some sort of unification of the eastern Iranian ‘nations’ is attested. For the time being, however, it seems precocious to define this unification as a ‘kingdom of Bactria’ or even a ‘Greater Bactria’, ruling over other ‘nations’. Due to its distance from the Mesopotamian empires, the political unification of north-eastern Iran would happen later on. On the other hand, influential examples from Central Asia could have inspired the hydraulic and urban interventions of the time.
Until the reign of Esarhaddon, the Medes remained a ‘distant’ (that is how they were stereotyped) and divided population for the Assyrians. In the historical sources, Esarhaddon lists three Median leaders: Uppis of Partakka (in the Esfahan area), Zanasana of Partukka (possibly Parthia), and Ramataya of Urukazabarna (possibly in the Hamadan area). In the loyalty oaths sealed in view of the succession to the Assyrian throne, the Median leaders, who provided bodyguards for the Assyrian crown prince, were far more numerous. In fact, having eliminated Partakka and Partukka (probably because these regions were too far away), Ramataya is attested alongside the leaders of Elpa (Ellipi), Karzitali, Nahshimarta, Zikrisi, Zamua and Izaya. This list, featuring a mixture of Iranian and Elamite personal names, covered the entire Zagros area. This confirms the political fragmentation of the area and its recognition of Assyrian hegemony around 670 bc.
This situation is in marked contrast with the account provided by Herodotus, who speaks of a single dynastic sequence for the Medes. The latter was allegedly established by Deioces (who united the Medes and built Ecbatana), and continued with Phraortes (who annexed Persia and died in a battle against the Assyrians) and Cyaxares. Considering the fact that Cyaxares is well attested between 625 and 585 bc, Herodotus’ chronology would place Deioces (who ruled for 53 years) and Phraortes (who ruled for 22 years) between 705 and 625 bc. This reconstruction would partly overlap with the Median phase described by the Assyrians as marked by fragmentation. In order to confirm Herodotus’ account, it has been suggested that Deioces should be identified with Daiukku (who, however, was a governor of Mannaea). In turn, Phraortes should be identified with Kashtaritu, attested in Assyrian oracles as a threat to Assyria. However, this Kashtaritu was not a king of the Medes, but a ruler of the city of Kar-Kashi. Moreover, the threats attested in the oracles mention several populations, from the Medes to the Mannaeans, Cimmerians and so on. Overall, it has to be pointed out that Herodotus’ account cannot be matched to the attestations in the Assyrian sources. Therefore, the latter, being contemporary to the events, should be considered the most reliable.
Only with Cyaxares, the Medes finally had a single ruler. According to Herodotus, Cyaxares initially had to face an invasion of the Scythians, but managed to defeat them, marking the end of their dominion. Moreover, he possibly managed to gain control over Bactria and other north-eastern ‘nations’ through diplomatic marriages. Be that as it may, it is certain that in 614 bc, beneath the walls of a destroyed Ashur, he sealed an alliance with the king of Babylon, Nabopolassar. Two years later, the allies destroyed Nineveh and effectively ended the supremacy of the Assyrian empire. Following this memorable achievement, Cyaxares enlarged his network of coalitions and his sphere of expansion. He then clashed with the kingdom of Lydia in a battle marked by an eclipse (thus allowing its precise dating) in 585 bc.
Greek historiography modelled its image of the state ruled by Cyaxares on the Achaemenid empire, and conceived it as part of a sequence of empires (from Assyria to Media, Persia, Alexander and then Rome). In other words, the image of Media was one of a large territorial empire extending from Bactria to Central Anatolia. Once again, it is far more sensible to use the evidence provided by the Assyrian sources and the archaeological excavations. Cyaxares appears to have been a charismatic leader, who managed to gain a prestigious position among an unstable coalition of peoples thanks to his anti-Assyrian interventions. Herodotus himself describes the kingdom of Media as characterised by banquets, hunts, hospitality, gift-exchange, betrayal and revenge, rather than a formal and organised administration (possibly due to the absence of writing). In this regard, even the archaeological evidence debunks the myth of a Median ‘empire’. The cities in the Central Zagros, which had been prosperous political and economic centres in the Assyrian period, seem to have experienced a crisis towards the end of the seventh century bc. Due to the collapse of military and commercial relations with their powerful neighbour (Assyria), these cities began to be occupied by ‘squatters’. Therefore, it seems that the Assyrian empire’s collapse also affected its periphery (which, ironically, inflicted the final blow on the empire), forcing it to return to a tribal state.
Cyaxares’ son and successor, Astyages, found himself at the centre of a network of matrimonial, military and commercial alliances tying Media with Babylonia, Lydia, Cilicia and Egypt (Figure 32.3). This situation led to around 30 years of peace in the Near East. Just as during the reign of his father, Astyages ruled over a state formation that is difficult to define as an ‘empire’. This was mainly for two reasons. First, the territories controlled by Media did not include the areas with the highest rates of concentration in terms of population and cities, namely, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus Valley. On the contrary, from a demographic point of view, the Median kingdom ruled over relatively ‘empty’ areas (or only inhabited in the many oases scattered throughout the kingdom), that were rich in resources. All these territories had always been part of the periphery of previous empires, rather than empires themselves. Second, the internal cohesion of the kingdom remained difficult throughout its history. Median hegemony was centred on a network of relations with the leaders of the various Iranian ‘nations’, thus preventing the creation of a tribute or provincial system. Therefore, the political traditions of the Medes could not support an imperial system. Despite being militarily superior (and equipped with specific traditions in this regard), the Medes do not seem to have been interested in pursuing an imperial strategy.
The few decades marking the hegemony of the Medes in the Near East, however, do show a considerable degree of political stability. This situation would change with the intervention of Cyrus II the Great, king of Persia. In a few years (between 553 and 550 bc), the king rebelled against Median control, ultimately achieving hegemony. Unlike the Medes, the Persians were supported by a far stronger tradition, namely, that of Elam (Susa and Anshan). Elam’s history was marked by military and political interventions in the heart of the Mesopotamian alluvial plain, and its control over the nearby mountain regions. Therefore, taking advantage of these Elamite political and organisational experiences, and combining them with the new military and ideological impetus of the Iranian ‘nations’, Cyrus paved the way for a new phase of the history of the Ancient Near East.
Figure 32.3 The Near East under the Medes and the Chaldeans, ca. 600—550 bc.
World History
