Notes on the Medes and Their ‘Empire’ from Jer. 25.25 to Hdt. 1.134

Offprint from A Common Cultural Heritage: Studies on Mesopotamia and the Biblical World in Honor of Barry L. Eichler CDL Press, 2011, ISBN 9781934309377 NOTES ON THE MEDES AND THEIR “EMPIRE” FROM JER 25:25 TO HDT 1.134* MATTHEW WATERS UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, EAU CLAIRE The 2003 publication of Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia (ed. G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, and R. Rollinger) heralds a renewed focus on the traditional view of the Median Empire in ancient Near Eastern history. The contributions to that volume revisit the central place that the Medes have traditionally held in modern scholarship as an integral component in a continuum of ancient Near Eastern empires from the Neo-Assyrian to the Persian. From that volume’s impetus, here are offered observations on some relevant biblical and Herodotean evidence for the history of the critical, yet poorly understood, period c. 650–550 BCE—from the denouement of the Assyrian Empire to the rise of the Persian Empire under Cyrus, i.e., the apparent zenith of Median power. The traditional view of the Median Empire, dependent primarily upon Herodotus’ account of the dynasty founded by Deioces (1.96– 107), is a retrojection of Greek conceptions, often stereotypical, of the Achaemenid Persian Empire at its height. In other words, for Greeks writing in the fifth and fourth centuries, it was reconstruction of the past based on a (mis)understanding of the contemporary. Mario Liverani’s contribution to Continuity of Empire highlights the use of the plural “kings” of the Medes in Jer 25:25, 51:11, and 51:27–28 in the historical context of the late seventh and early sixth centuries.1 In * 1 It is my pleasure to offer these brief notes in a volume honoring my esteemed teacher, Prof. Barry Eichler. This paper is a significantly modified version of a presentation given at the conference in Barry’s honor, “Tablet and Torah: Mesopotamia and the Biblical World,” in March 2009. Liverani, “Rise and Fall of Media.” Note especially his remarks (8–9) on the switch to the singular “king” in the Septuagint (influenced by Greek historiography); the translation followed herein is that of the NRSV, available via several online resources. Compare Tuplin, “Medes in Media,” 234–35. Note also Diakonoff, “The Near East on the Eve of Achaemenian Rule,” 223–30, though Diakonoff’s focus is different from that of Liverani and that presented here. The rhetorical and stylized language of these passages must be acknowledged. 243 244 MATTHEW WATERS conjunction with the Assyrian and Babylonian evidence these passages provide a comprehensible depiction of the geopolitical situation across northern Iran: a plurality of kings, rather than one singular king, ruling a unified, centralized, organizational empire. In an inscription of Nabonidus from the EÓulÓul temple in Sippar, for example, the king of the umman-manda (i.e., the Medes) is accompanied by additional “kings going at his side” (LUGAL.MEfi ⁄lik idiÍu).2 This description fits well with other evidence describing the Medes of this period and will be revisited below. In Assyrian sources there are, with two potential exceptions, no named Median kings. The first Mede attested by name, a certain °ana‰iruka, occurs in an inscription dated c. 820 (reign of fiamÍi-Adad V). °ana‰iruka is associated with a royal city, Sagbita, from which it may be extrapolated that he was a king, though he is not explicitly labeled as such.3 The other prospective exception is manifest in an inscribed bronze plaque attributed to a certain fiilisruÓ. There are a number of problems with this intriguing inscription: its reading, its interpretation, its provenience, its date, and thus its historical context.4 It was found near Hamadan; based on internal evidence, Diakonoff (followed by Radner) associates it with B‹t-IÍtar, the ruler of which is labeled a city-lord in the royal inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon. The fiilisruÓ plaque contains reference to a king (obv. 2 and 8), though it is not evident that the king mentioned in the inscription is the fiilisruÓ who apparently commissioned it. The word “king” does not accompany fiilisruÓ’s name as a title. Unless one assumes that the king referenced is the Assyrian king, an assumption that would lead to other questions, it is unclear to whom else it could refer. The assumption that fiilisruÓ was an authority figure seems straightforward enough, but he 2 3 4 Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids, 416–17 i 7–29 (l. 25 for LUGAL.MEfi ⁄lik idiÍu). For the use of the pejorative umman-manda, see Reade, “Why Did the Medes Invade Assyria?” 153 and Rollinger, “The Western Expansion,” 297–305. Note also Zawadzki, The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations, chapter VI. Grayson, RIMA 3, 185–86 A.0.103.1 iii 27–36; Radner, “Assyrian View,” 41. Whether or not °ana‰iruka was considered a king by the Assyrians, it is impossible to determine whether Assyrian labels matched Median usage. The superabundance of qualifications in this section reflects the uncertain interpretation of this inscription, which is treated only in brief here. See for discussion Radner, “Median Sanctuary,” 119–30. The inscription was (re-) published by Diakonoff, “Cuneiform Charter,” 51–59; see Diakonoff’s comments on the original find (and publication) by E. Herzfeld, with references. Note also Muscarella, Bronze and Iron, 238–40. THE MEDES AND THEIR “EMPIRE” 245 is otherwise unattested and thus his position cannot be corroborated. Locating B‹t-IÍtar—if that is the correct attribution—in Median territory and, by extension, assuming that fiilisruÓ (king or not) was also Median is a sensible, but certainly not ineluctable, progression.5 Radner also notes a city-lord of B‹t-IÍtar named Burburazu during Sargon II’s reign. If Burburazu is correctly identified as a Kassite name and if the name reflects its bearer’s ethnicity, its etymology testifies to the apparently not uncommon (nor surprising) phenomenon of city lords of varying ethnicities in the Zagros region.6 Appellatives of the Medes vary, and it is not clear what defines particular groups of people as Median. The Assyrians generally and consistently, however, label Medes as living in settlements ruled by b¤l ⁄l⁄ni (“city lords”). There are dozens of these city lords in the Zagros region mentioned in the extant documentation from Tiglath-pileser III’s and Sargon II’s reigns.7 In the case of the Median b¤l ⁄l⁄ni in the eighth and seventh centuries, their official position appears to be on par with tributary kings in the Assyrian organizational structure, as evinced, inter alia, by their occurrence in adê-agreements. A key component observed with the title b¤l ⁄li is its hereditary, i.e., dynastic, nature. This ought to be considered when modeling the confluence of Median power in conjunction with the overthrow of Assyria and its aftermath in northern Iran. The coalescence of broader authoritative power presumably had its origins in the interpersonal relationships among these Median b¤l ⁄l⁄ni. The transition from a collection of independent (at least from each other) Median city-lords to the force arrayed against Assyria in the 610s 5 6 7 Radner, “Median Sanctuary,” 122–23 asserts that the name fiilisruÓ is neither Indo-European nor Semitic and that the “king” in this inscription is fiilisruÓ. Note Diakonoff, “Cuneiform Charter,” 61: “We suppose that fiilisruÓ is a name belonging to an aboriginal language, perhaps akin to Elamite.” For Burburazu, see Radner, “Median Sanctuary,” 123 and R. Schmitt (PNA 1/2, 353). Another example of this phenomenon is HumbareÍ, the city lord of Median NaÓÍimarti (see Radner, “Assyrian View,” 60). That an Elamite—inferred from the apparently Elamite name (see PNA 2/1, 478)— held a position of authority in a Median area poses many questions about Assyrian administration and Median-Elamite connections, if this instance is not simply anomalous. See especially Lanfranchi, “Assyrian Expansion,” 87–89, 94–96, and 112– 16 on b¤l ⁄li (especially 95 for its shifting use over time in the Neo-Assyrian period) and Radner, “Assyrian View,” 49–50. Use and alteration of labels in these cases and others in the Neo-Assyrian period is a topic far beyond the scope of this paper and one in need of attention. 246 MATTHEW WATERS under UmakiÍtar/Cyaxeres remains unclear. Liverani has argued that the traditional view, so heavily influenced by Herodotus and the Greek tradition, is not only skewed but wholly inaccurate.8 In Liverani’s view there was no transition per se—i.e., an evolution from city lords to regional rulers (or kings) in some sort of hierarchical rubric—but simply a short-term unification under a primary Median king to strike at a vulnerable Assyria in the 610s and, thereafter, a rapid return to the status quo as pertained during the eighth and early seventh centuries. Yet such a reconstruction does not allow for a Median entity that appears to have been a major force in the late seventh and early sixth centuries through the rise of Cyrus. The deconstruction of the Median “Empire” has yet to be reconciled not only with the Medes’ prominent role in Assyria’s downfall but also with their function as a significant power on Babylonia’s eastern frontier well into the sixth century—considered as such in both Babylonian and Greek sources—as well as the Medes’ distinctive positions in the military and administration of the Persian Empire subsequently. It is one thing to attribute Median involvement in Assyria’s overthrow to a short-term coalition of Median (and other Iranian?) kings; it is another to extrapolate from such a coalition to a significant force—however labeled, even if many now would hesitate to term it an “empire”9—that appears to have played a major role in the ancient Near Eastern calculus of power for at least sixty years before Cyrus’ conquest. There is much that remains opaque, both in the interpretation of the extant source material itself and in its application to historical reconstruction. To approach this question from another perspective, one must also consider the Persians’ geographically proximate forerunners in Elam. 8 9 See Liverani, “Rise and Fall of Media,” 9 for just such an assessment, with which he concludes: “Once the exasperated tribes decided to put an end to the aggressive [i.e., Assyrian] empire, in the same time they put an end to their own political formations and reverted to the stage of tribal pastoralism.” Note Radner, “Assyrian View,” 61–62 on the significance of the lack of extant references to the Medes in documentation from the reign of Ashurbanipal; see also Lanfranchi, “Assyrian Expansion,” 116–17, and Reade, “Why Did the Medes Invade Assyria?” Rollinger’s emphasis, “The Western Expansion,” 296–305, on the Medes’ stereotypical place in Nabonidus’ inscriptions is appropriate; note also Jursa, “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Median Empire’,” 169–79. For a classic treatment on defining empire, see Doyle’s perspective on informal vs. formal and annexation vs. control, Empires, 30–47 (esp. 32). Note also Parker, The Mechanics of Empire, esp. 8–13 and 253–60 on such questions with regard to Assyria’s northern frontier. THE MEDES AND THEIR “EMPIRE” 247 Our knowledge of Elam at this period is also fraught with uncertainties. No less than six (at a minimalist counting) kings and rulers may be identified circa 650–550 BCE; their relationships, chronology, and extent of rule are all poorly understood, if at all traceable. Anchoring these individuals in a historical framework, within a wider rubric termed “Elamite-Persian ethnogenesis” or the like, has proven a frustrating task, despite its clear import for understanding the Persians’ rise.10 That Jer 25:25’s “kings of Elam” (emphasis on the plural) describes the geopolitical situation in southwestern Iran well enough does not mean, of course, that the passage’s corollary “kings of the Medes” for northern Iran is necessarily accurate.11 But when greater primacy is given to the Near Eastern sources than to the Greek, it strikes a more consistent chord. Cyrus’ conquest of Astyages and the Medes is, again, known to us mainly from Herodotus and the Greek tradition. How does one correlate Cyrus’ conquests of the Medes, the Lydians, the Babylonians, and, further, much of the rest of the Near East as well as tracts of south central 10 11 As a geo-political term, “Elam” in this period is essentially indeterminate and is applied herein mainly as a cultural and geographic term. For an excellent overview and discussion of the relevant issues, see Henkelman, Other Gods, chapter 1, with references. Note also the contributions to Alvarez-Mon and Garrison, eds., Elam and Persia. This rough accounting does not include the seemingly innumerable tribal groups of varying ethnicities in these areas; see the remarks of Henkelman, Other Gods, 36–37. One example of such groups is the Martenians (LÚmar-te-na-a-a) of ABL 879 obv. 3 and 9, whom one is tempted to connect with Herodotus’ Persian tribe, the Mardians (1.125). Such facile etymological bridges are always to be approached warily, of course, and this is no exception—not least among the difficulties is the geographic assignment of these groups. See Briant, History of the Persian Empire, 728–29 for discussion of the Mardians in classical sources and also Briant, État et pasteurs, 61–62, as well as Weissbach, “Márd¶i,” 1647–51 and Kaletsch, “Mardoi,” 876. To illustrate the problem of etymologically based links—independent of the attendant, historical questions—note the attested Martenoi of the Arabian desert (Grohmann, “Martenoi,” 2000). To recall the rhetorical character of some of these passages, cf. Jer 49:38, where the singular “king of Elam” is used, but in conjunction with plural “officials” (so the NRSV translation); contrast, e.g., May and Metzger (eds.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 981, which translates “princes” for sârîm. It is difficult to ascertain what significance, if any, such interchange may imply with respect to biblical (or, at least, Jeremiah’s) perspective on Elam. See, e.g., Holladay, Jeremiah I, 387–89. I thank Prof. Clyde C. Smith for sharing his insights on this passage. 248 MATTHEW WATERS Asia?12 The ancient Near Eastern sources (primarily Babylonian royal inscriptions and chronicles) present their own obstacles, but they offer critical chronology and perspective to balance the Greek tradition. What resounds through the sources, in varying degrees, is the prominent place afforded to the Medes both during Cyrus’ conquests (e.g., Mazares and Harpagus in Asia Minor; Hdt 1.156–177) and during the flourishing empire, in context of the Achaemenid military and administration (e.g., the Medes’ prominent place alongside the Persians on the Apadana reliefs). The majority weight of Continuity of Empire may thus be said to have stripped the Medes of much of their “empire,” though contrarian voices therein still maintain a case, especially for that nebulous but critical period under discussion here.13 Herodotus needs revisiting in this context, especially his description of Median rule at 1.134.3: ’Cpê d< Mjdon 9rxónton kaê Êrxc tà WÑnca 9lljlon, sunapánton m<n M£d¶i kaê tön /gxista ¶ükcónton sfísi, ¶Œt¶i d< aŒ tön 7m¶¢ron, ¶ï d< mála tön ûx¶mùnon, katà t]n aÿt]n d∏ lóg¶n kaê ¶ï Pùrsai timösê. pr¶ùbainc gàr d∏ t] WÑn¶& /rx¶n tc kaê ûpitr¶pe§¶n. When the Medes held dominion, likewise14 did the nations rule each other. The Medes ruled all together and (directly) those living nearest; and these, further, ruled their neighbors and so again, in turn, they theirs, according to the very same principle whereby the Persians esteem others. So indeed it proceeded, each nation both ruling and governing (its neighbor). 12 13 14 Only the conquest of Babylon may be firmly dated, i.e., October, 539. The conquest of Astyages may be dated to 553 or 550, with the latter (based on the Chronicle) typically given greater credence. The date of the conquest of Lydia may, formally, be considered wide open; a date in the 540s (though no longer 547/546) is typically applied. See Briant, History of the Persian Empire, 35–38 and Kuhrt, Persian Empire 1, 53 n. 5 (and all her chap. 3 for text excerpts, discussion, and references). With regard to the Lydian conquest in particular note also Stronach, “Campaign of Cyrus the Great,” 163–73 and Rollinger, “The Median ‘Empire’,” 51–65. Roaf, “The Median Dark Age” and Stronach, “Independent Media”; cf. Genito, “Archaeology of the Median Period,” 317–26. This “likewise” (or perhaps better, “similarly”—rendering Greek kaê here) refers to the immediately preceding, parallel point, i.e., how the Persians valued peoples relative to how far removed from the Persians they lived. Greek text from the online Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. THE MEDES AND THEIR “EMPIRE” 249 Despite the compressed Greek—and the acknowledged problems with its translation and interpretation (especially the last sentence15)— Herodotus’ depiction contains possibilities for reconciling the Medes’ prominence during and after the fall of Assyria with their previously thin record. If one leaves aside the search for a formal, organizational structure of a Median “empire,” since one seems unlikely to be found, a more productive approach converges upon questions of influence or authority, and the exercise thereof.16 Envisaging Median “domination” via a system of hierarchical, informal (but de facto) rule provides a model with which to work. Ctesias’ Persica, the extant parts of which exhibit no shortage of interpretive difficulties,17 supports such a perspective. Ctesias presupposes a close relationship between the Medes and northeastern Iran; Cyrus’ victory over Astyages resulted in the subsequent submission of the Hyrcanians, Parthians, Scythians, and Bactrians, who were subject to Astyages previously.18 If this report has any basis in historical reality, it provides a rubric for expansion of Persian authority into northeastern 15 16 17 18 See in particular Tuplin, “Medes in Media,” 227–28 and 243–45 for discussion of this passage and its problems. Tuplin argues that the last nine words (pr¶ùbaine gar d∏ t¯ WÑn¶& /rx¶n te kaê ûpitr¶pe§¶n) “should either be obelised or deleted as a gloss” (ibid., 245). My translation follows the sense of How and Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, 116, taking WÑn¶& (“people, nation”) as distributive; they translate: “each nation took its place in order as ruler and administrator”; similarly Liddell-Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, pr¶baíno 1470 mng. 3. The verb pr¶ùbaine is here rendered impersonally. Tuplin, “Medes in Media,” 234 and 242–43 argues for use of the word “domination” rather than “empire” or “hegemony” or the like. Note also Vogelsang, Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid Empire, esp. 177. Accepting, even with all appropriate caveats, Herodotus’ description here does not necessitate endorsement of his story of the foundation of Deioces’ power (1.96–107), whatever historical elements may be couched within. Those difficulties, including the infamous Scythian interlude, have been treated extensively elsewhere; see, e.g., Kuhrt, Persian Empire 1, chap. 2 for discussion and references. For text and commentary, see Lenfant, Ctésias de Cnide, and note Lanfranchi’s remarks, “Assyrian Expansion,” 118. Lenfant, Ctésias de Cnide, 108–9 (text) and lxi (discussion) with notes; Ctesias uses the more generic term archœn (“ruler”). See also Briant, L’Asie centrale, chapter 3 and Vogelsang, Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid Empire, 210–11. The voluntary submission of these regions may be seen as parallel to those of the Trans-Jordan regions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire as relayed in the Cyrus Cylinder (lines 28–30; Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids, 553 and 556); see Briant, L’Asie centrale, 36. 250 MATTHEW WATERS Iran. By extension, it offers specific (and expected) names that one may associate with Herodotus’ generic description of Median power at 1.134.3, as quoted above. Based simply on brief passages in Herodotus and Ctesias, it may be precipitous to assume that Median authority extended to such points eastward. But, at the risk of unwarranted conflation of the source material, one may suggest that the rulers of the Hyrcanian, Parthian, Scythian, and/or Bactrian ethnea (to use the Greek term) were the “kings going at his side”—of the king of the umman-manda in Nabonidus’ Sippar Cylinder—i.e., those who rode in support of, and presumably at the behest of, the Median king. The plurality of kings mentioned in Jeremiah (“kings of the Medes”) fits such a reconstruction: Median domination over multiple, neighboring peoples, each of whom owed allegiance, directly or indirectly to a Median overlord, chief, or king, however the Median ruler styled himself. It must be emphasized that there is no record, and it should not be presumed, that the Median kings ever used the title “king of kings.”19 However, the relationships described in Babylonian and Greek sources imply subordination to a Median ruler, regardless of which specific titles are applied. The phenomenon as it related to a period of Median primacy finds echoes in classical sources via acknowledgment of other kings, for example, of Armenia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia.20 One does not need to attribute a “Cyrus-sized” king to conceptualize the phenomenon at work nor does one need to insist upon consistency of specific titulary in the varied source material. The testimony for multiple kings of the Medes—in Jer 25:25 and other passages, biblical or otherwise—may be accepted at face value, if with qualification. In conjunction, Herodotus’ description of Median dominion at 1.134.3 is more credible than his account of Deioces’ dynasty. The evidence from Ctesias discussed above may also be read in support of a Median king holding authority over other regions without the structure of an organizational empire. Such a construct preserves Median reputation as a major power and concurrently explains why the trap19 20 I demur from the question of the Median origin, let alone use, of that title, regardless of purported etymological indications from Old Persian royal inscriptions; see Tuplin, “Medes in Media,” 230–31 with references. Note Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes, 318–20 for the long history of the title Íar Íarr⁄ni in Akkadian texts. Xenophon, Cyropaedia 3.1.31; 3.2.1–43; and 4.2.31. See Liverani, “Rise and Fall of Media,” 8 and note also Petit, Satrapes et satrapies, 20–66 and Radner, “Assyrian View,” 49–50 for the phenomenon in Neo-Assyrian times (e.g., kings in Cilicia and Cyprus). THE MEDES AND THEIR “EMPIRE” 251 pings of a centralized empire have not been found. For reasons that we may only speculate, the Medes did not (or could not) impose a centralized, bureaucratic structure on their dominion. That throws into greater relief the achievements of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius in having done so with the Persian Empire, and it confirms the opinions expressed so forcefully in many contributions to Continuity of Empire: that continuity in the workings of empire into the Persian period should be sought mainly via the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Elamites. WORKS CITED Alvarez-Mon, J., and M. Garrison, eds. Elam and Persia. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Briant, P. État et pasteurs au Moyen-Orient ancient. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. L’Asie centrale et les royaumes proche-orientaux du premier millénaire. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984. History of the Persian Empire. Translated by P. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Diakonoff, I. “A Cuneiform Charter from Western Iran (The Metropolitan Museum, Rogers Fund 1052, No. 52.119.12).” In Festschrift Lubor Matous, vol. 1, edited by B. Hruska and G. Komoróczy, 51–68. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, 1978. “The Near East on the Eve of Achaemenian Rule (Jeremiah 25).” In Variatio Delectat: Iran und der Westen. Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer, edited by R. Dittman et al., 223–30. Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2000. Doyle, M. Empires. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986. Genito, B. “The Archaeology of the Median Period: An Outline and a Research Perspective.” Iranica Antiqua XL (2005): 315–40. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858– 745 BC). RIMA 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Grohmann, A. “Martenoi.” RE 14/2 (1930): 2000. Henkelman, W. The Other Gods Who Are: Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts. Achaemenid History 14. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten, 2008. Holladay, W. Jeremiah I: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. 252 MATTHEW WATERS How, W. W., and J. Wells. A Commentary on Herodotus I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912. Jursa, M. “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Median Empire’ on the Basis of Babylonian Sources.” In Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 169–79. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. Kaletsch, H. “Mardoi.” Der Neue Pauly 7 (1999): 876. Kuhrt, A. The Persian Empire, vol. 1. London: Routledge, 2007. Lanfranchi, G. “The Assyrian Expansion in the Zagros and the Local Ruling Elites.” In Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 79–118. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. Lenfant, D. Ctésias de Cnide: la Perse, l’Inde, autres fragments. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2004. Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised Edition with Supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Liverani, M. “Rise and Fall of Media,” in Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 1–12. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. May, H., and B. Metzger, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Muscarella, O. Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: The Museum, 1988. Parker, B. The Mechanics of Empire. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. Petit, T. Satrapes et satrapies dans l’empire achéménide de Cyrus le Grand à Xerxes Ier. Liège: Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 1990. Radner, K. “A Median Sanctuary at B‹t-IÍtar.” In Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 119–30. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. “An Assyrian View on the Medes.” In Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 37–64. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. Reade, J. “Why Did the Medes Invade Assyria?” In Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 149–56. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. THE MEDES AND THEIR “EMPIRE” 253 Roaf, M. “The Median Dark Age,” in Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 13–22. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. Rollinger, R. “The Western Expansion of the Median ‘Empire’: A ReExamination,” in Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 289–318. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. “The Median ‘Empire,’ the End of Urartu, and Cyrus the Great’s Campaign in 547 BC (Nabonidus Chronicle II 16).” Ancient West & East 7 (2008): 51–65. Schaudig, H. Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik. AOAT 256. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001. Seux, M.-J. Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967. Stronach, D. “Independent Media: Archaeological Notes from the Homeland.” In Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia, edited by G. B. Lafranchi et al., 233–48. Padova: Sargon Editrice e Libreria, 2003. “The Campaign of Cyrus the Great in 547 BC. A Hitherto Unrecognized Source for the Early History of Armenia?” Aramazd: Armenian Journal of Near-Eastern Studies 2 (2007): 163–73. Tuplin, C. “Medes in Media, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia: Empire, Hegemony, Domination or Illusion.” Ancient West & East, 3/2 (2004): 223–51. Vogelsang, W. J. Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid Empire. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 3. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Weissbach, F. H. “Márd¶i.” RE 14/2 (1930): 1647–51.. Zawadzki, S. The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonia Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988.