 |
|
Geoffrey & Françoise
Summers |
The identification has new and important implications for historical geography in the sixth century. Some recent studies have argued that there was no such thing as a Median Empire and questioned the reliability of Herodotus. At one extreme, it has been suggested that there was not even an Achaemenid "Empire" until the reforms of Darius the Great (Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1988; 1994), although these views have not met with universal acclaim (e. g. Muscarella 1994). The identification of Pteria with an impressive Median city on the Kerkenes Dağ has somewhat reduced the force of recent interpretations. Further, we might now be able to identify Median architecture, Median pottery (and perhaps in the future Median art) within Anatolia, an advance that has wider implications (Muscarella 1994). Firstly, the identification with Pteria, first proposed by Przeworski (1929), provides incontrovertible evidence that in the second quarter of the sixth century B.C. there was a Median Empire which possessed the ostentation typical of ancient empires. The extent of the empire is uncertain. The border between Media and Cilicia may have lain well to the north of the Taurus Mountains and it is unlikely that Median control extended over the Pontic Mountains to the Greek colonies on the Black Sea. Herodotus knew that Pteria lay due south of Sinop, so we might anticipate that further research will shed light on the nature and extent of contacts between Pteria and Greek colonies, and thus on the vexed question of Median influence on the ancient Greek world (Tuplin 1994; Muscarella 1994). Secondly, the Pterians were a foreign ruling elite with sufficient strength to impose their rule, to mobilise labour and command resources for construction of the city, for sustaining the urban population and gaining considerable wealth. This implies the existence of a highly organised system of command and administration. Thirdly, the establishment of imperial rule put into place an administration that could be taken over and extended by the Achaemenids, although the centre of Achaemenid control of Cappadocia (Achaemenid Kapataka), was transferred southwards to modern Kayseri. The choice of site for a new imperial city of grandeur and sophistication is evidence of an extraordinary vision. Strength, skill and confidence evident in execution of the vision indicate the imposition of imperial will by a power displaying pretension and might. The new city was surely intended to rival Sardis, the new ally, and was after all built by destroyers of Assyria and by a power that could cause an uneasy stir in Babylon (Summers 1997).
|
|
|
