Древний Иран накануне империй (IX–VI вв. до н. э.). История Мидийского царства

Summary

The book surveys the history of the Median kingdom, the first Iranian state founded in the first half of the 7th century B.C. which continued to 550 B.C., when the Median throne passed to the Achaemenid dynasty.

Our notion of the Median kingdom depends mainly upon the location of the initial Median territory and the interpretation of the existing written sources reflecting the principal stages of the Median history. These are the two primary aims of the present study.

The reconstruction of the historical geography of North-West Iran in the Neo-Assyrian period suggested in this work demonstrates that the lands visited by the Assyrians occupied a vast area of the Iranian plateau. Some of these countries were situated to the east of 48° E, though it is usually accepted that their location only to the west of this line can be doubtless. Principally important is the identity of the city name Sagbat/Sagbita of the Assyrian texts and the Old Persian Haⁿgmatā(na) (Greek Ecbatana, Pers. Hamadan). Along with the suggested by E.A. Grantovskij identification of the Mount Bikni with the Demavend, the localization of Sagbat allows to define the limits of Media from the Zagros Mountains in the West to the Elburz and the Salt Desert (Dasht-i Kavir) in the East, up to 52–53° E. It allows to reject many historical reconstructions basing upon the proposed by L. Levine location of Media in the Zagros Mountains. Upon the location of Media either in the Zagros Mountains or the Hamadan plain depends our understanding of many features of its history, economy, daily life, culture and art.

At the same time the historical and geographic survey of Media allows to follow the development of the Assyrian military policy in the east in the 9th–7th centuries B.C., to see how it changed in connection with the Urartian expansion to Iranian territories, which resulted in the forming of an anti-Assyrian coalition.

In the present work we distinguish five principal stages of Median history.

1. An anti-Assyrian rebellion in Ancient Iran. The constant threat of an Assyrian invasion to the lands of Ancient Iran brought forth the consolidation of anti-Assyrian powers and caused a rebellion of 672/671 B.C. Unofficial Assyrian sources make us suggest that the coalition of the rebels (Mannaeans, Cimmerians, Medes) was directed by a Median leader Kashtariti. The rebellion was successful. The significance and the results of the rebellion were however underestimated by scholars, accepting that soon after it the Medes were conquered by the Scythians, whose domination, according to Herodotus, lasted for 28 years. At the same time Assyrian sources mention Scythians in Ancient Iran only on the eve of the rebellion. It allows to reject the theory of the presumed Scythian domination over Media.

2. The rise of Media and the beginning of its expansion. The development of the political situation in the region at the end of the 660-s B.C. presumes that after the anti-Assyrian rebellion in Media certain positive processes took place bringing forth the consolidation of the country and the growth of its power due to the conquest of several neighbouring smaller dominions, first of all those along the Zagros part of the Great Khorasan Road. It could radically change the balance of power in the region and make Media ready for new conquests. Already by 660 B.C. Mannaean rulers worried by the growth of Median power betrayed their former ally and formed a new alliance with Assyria. Assyrian texts mention Cimmerians, also the former members of the anti-Assyrian coalition, supporting the Mannaean case in the 660-s. By the end of the 550-s Media remained the only anti-Assyrian power in the region. Only to Media could be applied the archaic term Gutium listed among the allies of the rebel Babylonian king Samas-sum-ukm, who rose against Assyria in 652 B.C. The participation of Media in this rebellion is symptomatic. It is possible to suggest that Media began to look for new allies against Assyria. Though the first attempt turned unsuccessful, in due time Babylonia became the ally of Media in their joint struggle against Assyria.

The first major political achievement of Media was the conquest of the Urartian kingdom which took place probably not earlier than the end of the 640-s B.C. New Urartian texts and archaeological data make it possible to suggest that in the 650-s B.C. the Urartian kingdom encountered a serious political crisis. It caused the desolation and neglect of towns and fortresses in the last years of Rusa II not only on the borders but even in the middle of Uratian territories, which testifies against the suggested foreign invasion by the end of the 650-s. The civil war weakened Urartu and finally led to its désintégration during the reign of its last two kings, Rusa III and Sarduri III in the 640-s. Median king Phraortes took advantage of the situation and took part in the destruction and conquest of Urartu. There was no other power at that time, besides Media, interested in the downfall of Urartu and able to conquer it. In 609–608 B.C. 'the land of Urashtu' in Babylonian chronicles was a purely geographical term. In the 'Curse of Jeremiah' in 594/3 B.C. (51:27) the name of Urartu is applied to one of the administrative units within the Median kingdom.

The next acquisition of Phraortes became Persis, which is mentioned by Herodotus; in one of the Babylonian inscriptions dating to the reign of Nabonides (middle of the 6th century B.C.) the submission of the Persians by the Medes is also mentioned. It could not take place earlier than the 630-s. After these conquests Media and Babylonia began to prepare for the war which led to the destruction of Assyria.

The comparison of cuneiform texts and archaeological data with the evidence provided by Herodotus makes possible to distinguish the second period in the history of Media, to suggest a new scheme for the Median dynasty and to solve the Scythian problem. This period coincides with the reign of Kashtariti (678–625), an outstanding Median ruler whom Herodotus knew under the name of Phraortes. With the acquisition of Urartu this king began the conquest of the Upper Asia, accomplished, according to Herodotus, in the reign of his successor Cyaxares.

3. The alliance of Media and Babylonia in their war against Assyria. By the end of Kashtariti's reign a political alliance between Media and Babylonia, which in 627 B.C. began a new struggle for independence and declared war on Assyria, started to develop. It terminated in a treaty of 614 B.C. between Cyaxares and Nabopolassar. The désintégration of Assyria into two rival kingdoms of Aššur and Nineveh at the beginning of the 620-s was to the advantage of the allies. Although the first campaigns of the Medes against Assyria are testified by the Babylonian sources only in 615 B.C., one can not exclude the possibility of some actions in support of Nabopolassar in his war with Assyria as early as the 620-s. The Babylonian chronicle describing the events of 625 and 623 B.C. does not mention the Medes (the text, however, is not well preserved), though the actions of the Assyrians and of some unknown adversary of theirs coincide with the description by Herodotus of the last campaign of Phraortes and the events following it (I. 102). It is evident that in this case Herodotus became familiar with some primary source of information. He knew that Assyria was split into two parts, he is aware that the Medes fought against Nin/Nineveh. Phraortes was killed in the course of this campaign and his son took revenge on the same kingdom. These events can be tentatively reconstructed on the evidence of the records of 625 and 623 B.C. The suggested earlier Scythian invasion (in the capacity of the unknown enemy of the Chronicle) can be excluded.

The Babylonian war for independence took a long time. Only by 616/615 B.C. Nabopolassar gained control over the whole Babylonian territory and invaded Assyria. In spite of all the efforts of the Babylonian king the results of this stage of the war were not impressive. Only by the autumn of 615 B.C., when Media entered the war, the events started to develop rapidly. The survey of the actions of the allies taken in 616–612 B.C., the evidence of Ctesias and the interpretation by S. Zawadzki of the Gadd Chronicle demonstrate that the leading role in the war belonged to Media. Several times it saved Babylonia in desperate situations.

In 614 B.C. the Medes captured Assur. In 612 by the joint efforts of Cyaxares and Nabopolassar Nineveh was destroyed, and the agony of the Assyrian kingdom followed, which continued for the next seven years. The essence of the last stage of the war was the struggle for "the Assyrian heritage”, and its third participant was Egypt, the only Assyrian ally in this war. In the course of all these years Media continued to support its ally. Although gradually the leadership passed to energetic Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, there is no reason to underestimate the role of Media and to deny it a considerable part of "the Assyrian heritage", as it is sometimes done in the recently published works.

4. The Median kingdom after the downfall of Assyrian Empire. The distinguished role of Media in the defeat of the Assyrians turned it into an important factor of international politics, which allows to distinguish the fourth period of its history. Due to its considerable territorial acquisitions and its control over the Great Khorasan Road, one of the principal trade routes of the Ancient East, as well as the trade routes through Iran and Asia Minor, the Median kingdom gradually developed into an empire. In that very quality it was considered by the Antique and Biblical authors who defined the time of its domination between the Assyrian and the Persian empires. Though there is no definite evidence that the process had been accomplished, and the question of the Median Empire is still open, the rapid development of the Achaemenid Empire suggests that the Medes achieved quite a lot, and only the coup d'etat of 550 B.C. terminated their progress.

The part of the Cimmerians and the Scythians in the history of Media was significant in the 670-s B.C. The Cimmerians took active part in the anti-Assyrian coalition directed by Kashtariti. On the eve of the rebellion they fought the Assyrians side by side with the Scythians, though the last ones took no part in the rebellion. In later times no influence of these Eurasian nomads on the events in Media can be traced. All earlier arguments supporting the theory of the Scythian domination over Media have been refuted by recent investigations.

As for the Cimmerian and Scythian presence in Asia, in general it had practically no significant influence on the history of the lands of the region. The interpretation of the two texts enclosed — the letter of astrologist Akkullanu of 657 B.C. and the story of Herodotus (1.105) of the Scythian invasion of Palestine does not allow to view them as a definite prove of the Cimmerian power as well as of the Scythian domination of Asia.

The contradictions between the cuneiform texts and the evidence of Greek historians lie in fact that they describe two distinct periods when the Cimmerians and the Scythians were present in the lands of the Ancient East. The military and political leadership of the Cimmerians in relation to the Scythians, as it is reflected in cuneiform texts before the 640-s B.C. and testified by the Bible, is absent in Herodotus' narrative. Herodotus was aware of some of the events of 'the last chapter' of the history of these peoples in Asia Minor, in which the principal part belonged to the so called Scythians of Madius.

5. The end of the Median dynasty. Due to the coup d'etat of 550 B.C. a new dynasty came to power in the Median state. The throne was occupied by the ruler of a small vassal kingdom of Anshan in the south of the Median kingdom — Cyrus II the Achaemenid. Cyrus and his successors accomplished the process started by the Medes — they created the Achaemenid Empire. It was a continuation and at the same time a new stage in the development of the Iranian state founded by the Median kings.

The suggested solution of the problems considered here allows to understand the important part played by the Median kingdom in the history of the Ancient East. In spite of a comparatively short period of its domination, the written sources studied in this work reflect its importance. The Iranian religion, art and culture take roots in the Median period. Media was a cultural mediator between the lands of the Ancient Near East and the Achaemenid state. The Iranian state of the 7th–4th centuries B.C. can be considered as a Medio-Persian.