Zusammenfassung Obwohl in letzter Zeit manche Gelehrte die Existenz des Mederreiches, das nach Herodot dem Perserreich voraufgegangen sein soll, zu leugnen versuchen, weisen die Medismen im Altpersischen darauf hin, daß die Meder eine Reichsideologie sowie Reichsinstitutionen entwickelt hatten, welche die Perser von ihnen übernahmen. Dies legt nahe, daß es ein Mederreich tatsächlich gegeben hat. Des weiteren bezeugen die vorderasiatischen Quellen ganz unabhängig von Herodot einen mächtigen medischen ‚Staat‘; Jer. 51,28 weist diesem ‚Staat‘ sogar Reichsbeamte zu. Des weiteren zeigt eine eingehende (...) Besprechung des medischen Logos bei Herodot, daß diese Partie so stark iranisch geprägt ist, daß man sie keinesfalls als Erfindung Herodots abtun kann: statt dessen ist vielmehr von iranischem Quellenmaterial zu reden, welches die Existenz eines Mederreiches von sich aus bezeugt. (shrink)

A major contention of our bookHellenism in the Eastwas that the most profitable way for making progress in understanding the Achaemenid and Seleucid empires was to try to evaluate, sensitively, the very disparate types of evidence within their own social and cultural contexts, however difficult this might be in practice. In the case of the Antiochus I cylinder we are confronted by an inscribed object whose significance lies as much in its physical form as in the content of the text (...) it bears. These aspects are inextricably intertwined as part of a tradition specific to Mesopotamian culture—object and text combined are the physical representation of a major, longstanding, sociopolitical institution for which a mass of earlier evidence exists. It is all too understandable that Greco-Roman scholars, who have been the primary students of the hellenistic world, should find it hard to know how to approach such material emanating from an unfamiliar cultural milieu. Yet, for once, this text isnotfragmentary—it is a long, well-preserved document, easy to read and readily accessible in translation which in itself demonstrates an acknowledgment by hellenistic historians of the potential importance of this non-Greek text for understanding Seleucid history. (shrink)

The little we know with certainty about Eupolis' Marikas can be summarised in a few lines. The play was produced at the Lenaea of 421 b.c. The demagogue Hyperbolus was satirised under the name of Marikas, and was represented as a man of little or no culture . Marikas/Hyperbolus was a slave. This has been denied in the past, but is now made clear by the commentary on the Marikas in P. Oxy. 2741 πρς [ν] δεσπότην Ὑπέρβολος. Aristophanes complained in (...) the Clouds we possess that Eupolis had availed himself of the Knights for his Marikas , and it is in fact possible that the idea of Marikas as a slave was borrowed from the Knights, because some of his traits seem to correspond to those of the Aristophanic Sausage-seller. The play apparently had two semi-choruses, one of rich and one of poor people. The point of the name Marikas has long been debated. Ancient sources are at least agreed that it is ‘barbarian’. Herodianus 1.50,12 Lentz does not go beyond stating that Marikas is an νομα βάρβαρον παρ τ κωμικ . Hesych. μ 283 Latte has more to offer: Μαρικν· κίναιδον. ο δ ποκόρισμα παιδίου ρρενος βαρβαρικόν. (shrink)