Chapter Two: The History of the Medes
From Tribal Confederation to Imperial Catalyst
The Medes, though long overshadowed by the imperial grandeur of their successors — the Achaemenids — played a foundational role in shaping the sociopolitical and cultural contours of the Iranian plateau. Emerging in the highland valleys of the Zagros Mountains during the early first millennium BCE, the Median tribes represent a pivotal phase in the transition from fragmented tribal polities to a more unified vision of Iranian statehood.
Unlike the Elamites, whose culture crystallized into a coherent kingdom with centuries of textual and material legacy, the Medes are primarily known through the accounts of their adversaries — especially the Assyrians — and through scattered archaeological and linguistic traces. Despite this fragmentary record, a discernible picture emerges of a people defined by strategic adaptability, religious continuity, and a growing sense of political coordination in the face of regional pressures.
This chapter explores the Medes in the context of their interactions with neighboring powers, especially Assyria, Urartu, and Babylonia. It also considers the cultural and linguistic substrata from which the Median identity emerged, tracing their roots in the broader Indo-Iranian migration and their shared religious frameworks with the Vedic world. In doing so, we begin to reconstruct the outlines of Median society — not as a monolith, but as a complex network of highland polities with shared institutions, languages, and cosmologies that prefigured the imperial systems to come.
The Medes in Contact with the Assyrians and Babylonians
Assyrian historical records, beginning in the 9th century BCE, refer to the peoples living in the valleys of the Zagros Mountains — to the east of Assyria and south of the kingdom of Manna (corresponding roughly to parts of modern East and West Azerbaijan and northern Kurdistan) — as "Medes" (Madayu). This nomenclature likely stemmed less from strict ethnic classification and more from perceived cultural and religious affinities. The Assyrians applied the term broadly to numerous city-states across the Zagros region, even if these polities were not politically united or geographically contiguous.
With the rise of the formidable kingdom of Urartu between Lake Van and Lake Urmia, Assyria began to lose strategic control over northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia during the first half of the 8th century BCE. The critical turning point came in 754 BCE, when Sarduri II, son of Argishti of Urartu, decisively defeated Assyrian forces under Ashur-nirari V at Arpad, curtailing Assyria’s access to the vital horse-breeding lands of Anatolia.
Deprived of its northern equine supply lines, Assyria redirected its ambitions toward the Nisaean Plain — known in Greek as Nēsaion pedion — located around the city of Nahavand in central Media. This fertile region was famed for its swift and powerful Nisaean horses. The Assyrians launched repeated campaigns into Median territory, compelling the highland city-states to pay tribute — much of which took the form of horse levies. These military incursions accelerated the Medes’ transition from loosely organized tribal settlements to more cohesive defensive coalitions.
The Iranian highlands had long been home to a mosaic of tribal peoples, including the Kassites (Kasi), Guti, and various Elamite communities. These populations engaged in sustained trade and cultural exchange with the nomadic Dahe tribes, and by the early second millennium BCE, a complex process of intermingling had begun — linguistically, religiously, and socially. The spread of Mithraic religious traditions throughout this region linked the Medes with other Indo-Iranian groups.
Meanwhile, a separate branch of the Dahe migrated eastward into the Indian subcontinent, where they subjugated local populations and gave rise to a new hybrid culture. Their religious beliefs, fusing Indo-Iranian deities with indigenous South Asian traditions, became encoded in the Rig Veda, the foundational text of early Vedic religion. By comparing the surviving Avestan passages related to Mithra with the Vedic hymns, it becomes possible to reconstruct aspects of pre-Zoroastrian Iranian religious belief — offering valuable insight into the cultural fabric from which the Median worldview emerged.
The Indo-Iranian Migrations and the Formation of Median Identity
At the beginning of the first millennium BCE, the Iranian-speaking Medes and Parsuas migrated from the eastern steppes — specifically from the land of the Dahe, situated near the middle reaches of the Syr Darya River — toward the southern shores of the Caspian Sea and into the rugged heights of the Zagros Mountains. Accompanied by their strong and agile horses, these tribes gradually settled among the indigenous Kassite, Elamite, and Gutian populations. Through this cultural intermingling, a distinctive Mithraic religious and warrior culture began to emerge — one rooted in equestrian warfare, solar deities, and ritualized kingship. Gods such as Mithra, Anahita, and Bahram came to dominate the religious landscape of the central Zagros.
It is during this formative period that the Assyrian annals first record the term Ma-da-a (Medes), referring to groups resisting the rule of Shalmaneser III. The Assyrians describe the land of the Medes as extending from the Zagros Mountains eastward to the edges of the Salt Desert and the foothills of Mount Bakani — identified with Mount Damavand. These records also note alliances between the Medes and their Hittite counterparts in the Caucasus. The Hittite kingdom, based in Boghazköy (modern Boğazkale) near the Black Sea, extended its influence across the Armenian Highlands and into central Anatolia, forming a significant northern counterpart to Median power in the highlands.
However, even before the arrival of the Medes, Parsuas, and Manaean peoples in the Zagros, another equestrian society had made its mark on the region: the Mitanni. Around 1600 BCE, this warrior aristocracy settled in Upper Mesopotamia — covering parts of northern Iraq, southeastern Turkey, and northeastern Syria. Their Iranian or Indo-Iranian roots are inferred from their personal names and deities. Mitanni leaders bore names like Purusa (from Vedic puruṣa, meaning “man” or “spirit”), Tusrata (perhaps linked to Vedic ratha, “chariot”), and Suvar-Datta (a theophoric name meaning “given by the sun,” echoing Vedic suvar and Persian sū, meaning “light”).
Further linguistic evidence comes from the horse-training manual of Kikkuli, a Mitanni horse master, which employs Sanskrit-like numerals and terminology: eka (one), traya (three), sapta (seven), and aśva (horse). These lexical traces are unmistakably Indo-Iranian and provide strong support for the Mitanni's cultural and linguistic proximity to early Iranians. Additionally, the Mitanni-Hittite treaties invoked deities such as Mithra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya — all central to the early Iranian and Vedic pantheon. While some scholars classify the Mitanni as “Indo-Aryan” or “Indo-Iranian,” it is more accurate to view them as a western offshoot of the Dahe or other proto-Iranian steppe tribes, who shared religious and linguistic bonds with both Iranians and early Indo-Aryans. As David Anthony has argued, Hurrian kings may have employed Mitanni charioteers as elite warriors, drawn from a shared cultural sphere. Ultimately, the Mitanni kingdom was absorbed into the expanding Median and Assyro-Babylonian spheres.
The Median homeland eventually came to encompass the western Iranian plateau. The area from present-day Mazandaran and the Aras River in the north was referred to as Lesser Media, while Greater Media extended from Ragha (modern Rey) and Hamadan through Kermanshah to the foothills of Elam. The central city of Hegmataneh — later known as Ecbatana (“the place of assembly” or “unified body”) — became the capital of Media. Rich in natural resources, the region contained vast reserves of copper, iron, gold, lead, and precious stones. The mountain peoples relied on agriculture, animal husbandry, and especially horse breeding for both trade and warfare.
Claudius Ptolemy, writing in the 2nd century CE, referred to the Zagros range as the “Gate of the Sergetes,” a term likely derived from the Sargati, a nomadic Median tribe. According to Herodotus, the Sergetes were allied with Cyrus the Great in 550 BCE, though later, during the reign of Darius I, they rebelled. This revolt, led by Triantaechmes during the Bardiya crisis, ended with their suppression by Darius’ general, Tehmaspada, who exiled them to Derenga. The memory of this tribe is perhaps preserved in the name “Zagros” itself, deriving from “Sargati” or “Sargetos.”
Following the internal revolt in Assyria that toppled Shalmaneser III, the Median city-states briefly gained independence from imperial domination. However, new threats emerged. A Chaldean lineage from the Armenian highlands invaded Parsua and temporarily occupied it. In response, Shamshi-Adad V launched campaigns into the territories of Parsua and Mannai during the mid-9th century BCE. These conflicts were fluid and complex. Median polities lacked permanent unity and only formed coalitions in times of existential threat. While Assyrian campaigns generally had the upper hand during this period, the Medes occasionally repelled the invaders and won significant victories, foreshadowing their eventual rise to power.
As George G. Cameron noted in his 1936 History of Early Iran, two lists from the reign of Sargon II enumerate chieftains of the Zagros city-states who paid tribute to the Assyrian king. One list appears to duplicate the other, with some additional names. What stands out is the presence of many chieftains with clearly Iranian names, indicating a growing Iranian influence across the plateau. Rulers like Paiaukku and Mashdaiauku — whose names echo those of Deioces (Daiaukku) — appear in fragments from Nuzi, a Mitanni-dominated city-state in Mesopotamia.
Cameron observed that many names in these inscriptions can be confidently identified as Iranian. For instance, Auraparnu (from Ahura-Parna, “adorned by Ahura”) contains the divine element Ahura, later prominent in Achaemenid royal ideology as Ahura Mazda. Bagbarana recalls the Iranian term baga (“god” or “lord”), found in both Elamite and Kassite inscriptions and later rendered in Semitic as Bit-Ili (“House of God”). Titles such as Satarpanu (“governor,” linked to the Old Persian khshathra, or “domain”) and Ashpabarra (“horse-bearer,” derived from aspa + bara) reflect both political organization and equestrian culture. Meanwhile, the names Ushrai (likely Hushray), Hardukku (Hordadak), and Arbaku (Artabanak) point to a rich and varied Iranian onomastic tradition, partially obscured by the Assyrian scribes’ difficulty in rendering Iranian phonetics on cuneiform tablets.
The Kingdom of Deioces (Diao-Ak)
The emergence of a centralized Median kingdom is traditionally associated with the reign of Deioces — known in Greek as Dēiokēs (Δηϊόκης), in Assyrian as Da-a-a-uk-ku, and in Old Persian as Dahyu-Ak, a term which evolved into Middle Persian as Dahghan or Dehqan, meaning "lord of the land." According to Herodotus, who attributes his account to a Median informant named Harpagus (Harpagos), Deioces was a Magian of Mithraic faith — a charismatic figure who, in the early 7th century BCE, first gained influence through his reputation as an impartial and incorruptible judge.
At the time, Media was divided into loosely connected tribal city-states (kata komas, "village by village"), lacking a centralized government. In this vacuum of authority, Deioces distinguished himself by offering fair judgments to his fellow citizens. His growing reputation led the neighboring communities to seek his arbitration. However, after some time, he abruptly withdrew from his judicial duties, citing exhaustion. As lawlessness returned, the Median tribes gathered in council and, recognizing their need for order, unanimously chose Deioces as their king.
Herodotus recounts:
“Then all the people, with a great cry, named Deioces and praised him, until they agreed to appoint him king. And so he became king, and he ordered the construction of a city with seven concentric walls, one within the other, at the center of which stood his palace.”
This city, Hegmataneh — later known by its Greek name Ecbatana (Ἐκβάτανα, “place of gathering”) — was situated in the fertile highlands near modern-day Hamadan. Deioces instituted a centralized system of administration and surveillance. He appointed overseers and heralds across the land to report instances of corruption, rebellion, and disorder. Justice was administered through written petitions and legal reports submitted to his court, and verdicts were returned in writing, reflecting a deliberate and controlled legal process.
Herodotus lists the six main tribes of the Medes: the Busae, Parataceni, Struchates, Arizanti, Budii, and the Magi (Μάγοι) — the latter being the priestly caste of the Mithraic tradition. While these Greek renderings distort the original Iranian tribal names due to phonetic limitations, fragments of Avestan, Old Persian, and even Sanskrit roots can still be detected. For instance, the name Busae may relate to the Iranian buz (goat-herder or pastoralist), and Struchates could derive from stru (possibly related to war or stratification).
Beyond Herodotus’ literary embellishment, corroborating evidence from Assyrian administrative and commercial records reveals a more material rationale for Median unification. The persistent threat of Assyrian military incursions, along with the lucrative trade routes passing through Median territory — from the Caspian and Bactria to Mesopotamia and Anatolia — gave strategic and economic impetus to political centralization. Excavations at Hasanlu, Ziwiyeh, Tepe Nush-i Jan, and Godin Tepe have revealed fortified citadels, elite residences, and administrative complexes — signs of emerging regional authority. These sites collected tolls and taxes from caravans transporting lapis lazuli, turquoise, iron, copper, wool, livestock, and other goods, providing substantial revenue to ruling elites.
Ecbatana, strategically located and administratively sophisticated, thus became the nucleus of Median consolidation.
Not all historians accept the idea of a unified "Median Empire" in the strict sense. Dutch historian Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, for instance, questioned whether Media ever functioned as a cohesive imperial entity, citing the absence of anthropological and institutional hallmarks found in Assyria or Achaemenid Persia. In her view, the term “empire” was retroactively imposed on Media by Greek and later historians because it existed alongside the more clearly imperial states of Assyria and Persia.
However, this skepticism is not universally shared. Scholars such as Igor M. Diakonoff, Peyton R. Helm, and Stuart C. Brown have argued that both Assyrian records and the Mēdikos Logos of Herodotus support the view of Media as an emerging polity with proto-imperial characteristics. They point to evidence of institutional organization, social stratification, and centralized rule — even if not as bureaucratically formalized as later empires.
Herodotus, despite his occasional misunderstandings of eastern culture, captures a striking legalistic ethos in Deioces’ rule. He notes that Deioces intentionally distanced himself from his former peers, adopting royal seclusion and enforcing protocols of reverence — including bans on laughter and spitting in his presence — in order to cultivate authority. He administered justice through written communication, forbade direct audience, and deployed watchmen across his realm. Herodotus writes:
“When he heard that someone had committed a crime, he would summon him and impose a punishment proportionate to the offense. Petitions were sent to him in writing, and he judged their content and sent back his decisions.”
Such descriptions resonate more with Achaemenid administrative and ideological practices than with the traditional Greek notion of monarchy. As historian Christopher Tuplin cautions, modern scholars must resist the tendency to interpret all judicial rationality as inherently Greek. He writes:
“We are perhaps conditioned… to regard judicial behavior of this sort as Greek. But this is a conditioning we ought to resist — not only because of the data in Achaemenid royal ideology but because the role played by fair settlement of lawsuits in the Deioces story does not obviously conform to a Greek stereotype. Greek lawgivers are usually the product of political stasis; Greek tyrants do not characteristically emerge as lawgivers, but rather suspend legal process.”
With the support of archaeological evidence from Babylonia, Assyria, and Elam, modern historiography increasingly recognizes the Medes not merely as a tribal federation, but as a formative political entity in the architecture of Iranian imperial identity. The Assyrian kings — including Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, and Ashurbanipal — consistently referred to the Medes as dannu, a Sumerian-Akkadian term denoting “the powerful” or “the great,” often used for vessels consecrated to the gods. This honorific was not applied to other highland peoples, suggesting that the Medes were held in unique regard, even by their adversaries.
According to the annals of Sargon II (r. 722–705 BCE), a dramatic episode unfolded in 715 BCE when Deioces — now referred to in the Assyrian records as Da-a-a-uk-ku — joined forces with the Chaldeans to launch an attack on the kingdom of Mannai. Their coalition succeeded in capturing twenty-two fortified settlements in an effort to unseat Ullusunu, the Assyrian client ruler of that land. In retaliation, Sargon seized Deioces and his family, bringing them as captives to Assyria. The annals also suggest that the Chaldeans may have held Deioces’ son hostage, a fact that reveals the complex web of diplomacy, coercion, and military alliance in the region.
During this period, another anti-Assyrian leader, Mitatti of Zikirtu, was attempting to rally the Medes of Manae (south of Lake Urmia) into revolt. The pro-Assyrian local ruler, Iranzu, appealed to Sargon for aid, and in 719 BCE, the rebellion was forcefully suppressed.
This constellation of events — city-state alliances, shifting loyalties, and early centralization — marks the beginning of Median ascendancy on the Iranian plateau. Deioces' legacy, whether mythologized or real, laid the ideological and administrative foundation upon which his successors, especially Phraortes and Cyaxares, would build a regional empire capable of challenging Assyria itself.
The Fall of Deioces and the Contest for Median Sovereignty
The turbulent political landscape of the Zagros intensified in the years following Deioces’ alliance with the Chaldeans. In 716 BCE, three years after Iranzu's initial appeal to Sargon II, Iranzu’s successor, Aza, was killed in battle against Mitatti of Zikirtu and his Persian ally, Bagdatti of Mount Mildis. In response, Sargon returned to the region with renewed force, deposing Aza’s brother Ulusunnu, who had capitulated to the Chaldeans. Although Sargon reinstated the Aza lineage under Assyrian authority, Ulusunnu’s loyalty remained suspect, and he ultimately sought refuge with the Chaldeans. Sargon was once again compelled to intervene.
This campaign marked a significant expansion of Assyrian control into the Median heartlands. Sargon added six fortified towns to the territory of Parsua (or Parsavash-Media) and reestablished control over Harhar (also known as Kar-Sharrukin), a strategic city southeast of Zor city in the land of Elipi. Harhar, then ruled by King Talta, became the regional capital of the reasserted Assyrian presence in the Median borderlands. In this campaign alone, Sargon brought twenty-eight Median cities under Assyrian control and forced the submission of Diaoak (Deioces), whom he subsequently exiled.
In his annals, Sargon boasts:
"Mitatti of Zikirtu resisted me. He and his warriors fled to the forests, leaving no trace. I reduced Parda, his royal city, to ashes. I captured twenty-three of his surrounding strongholds and laid them waste. Suandakhul and Zurzukka in the land of Van, which had aided Mitatti, were taken and plundered. Bagdatti of Mount Mildis was captured and flayed. I exiled Diaoak and his kin to Hamath and resettled them there."
Sargon’s record continues:
"When Ulusunnu heard of my triumphs in the mountains, he fled like a startled bird and kissed my feet. I forgave his transgressions and restored him not to the throne but granted him two fortresses and twenty-two cities, taken from Urzaha and Mitatti. I worked to restore order in his lands. I made a likeness of my kingdom and inscribed on it the glory of Ashur, my god, erecting these monuments in the city of Izirti. I imposed tribute — horses, cattle, and sheep — on Iranzu, ruler of the river country, in Hupuskia, his capital."
This passage not only highlights the intensity of Assyrian campaigns in Media but also reflects the fluidity of political allegiance and the recurring fragmentation among Median polities. The use of strategic resettlement, royal hostages, and monument-building reveals Assyria’s dual strategy of coercion and symbolic domination over its highland neighbors.
By the end of Sargon’s campaign, most of the Median city-states had either been subdued or made tributary, but the spirit of resistance had not been extinguished. In fact, the geography of resistance is telling. Elipi — situated on the northern border of Elam and extending eastward to Nahavand — became a bastion of anti-Assyrian activity from the reign of Shalmaneser III through Esarhaddon. The fertile kingdom of Lullubi (Assyrian: Zamua or Mazamua), centered in the Zor city plain, continued its legacy of opposition dating back to the time of Naram-Sin.
Other Median-aligned kingdoms included:
-
Namri, located along the upper Diyala River;
-
Bit-Hamban, known in Greek sources as Cambadene and in Old Persian as Cāmabādān, a politically significant region south of the Lullubi lands;
-
Mannai, south of Lake Urmia, which oscillated between autonomy and Assyrian vassalage;
-
Parsuash, located west of Lake Urmia, which marks the earliest recorded settlement of the Persian tribes before their migration to Anshan in Fars.
These states, although politically fragmented, shared a common opposition to Assyrian dominance and maintained deep cultural ties — rooted in Mithraic religious traditions, highland tribal institutions, and shared languages — that eventually coalesced into the powerful Median confederation of the early 7th century BCE.
The Reign of Phraortes (Pharavartish) and the Rise of Median Resistance
Following the defeat and exile of Deioces (Diaoak) to Homs in Syria by Sargon II, power transitioned to his son Phraortes (Old Persian: Fravartiš; Greek: Φραόρτης; Assyrian: Kashtariti), who appears in both Assyrian inscriptions and Herodotus's Histories. The name Kashtariti is likely a Semitic rendering of the Old Persian Khshathrita, meaning "ruler" or "kingdom," a term that persisted in Middle Persian as Dahghan or Dehqān, denoting a landed noble. According to later Achaemenid records, a namesake general of Phraortes—possibly a relative—also led a failed revolt during the reign of Darius I, further attesting to the dynastic prestige of the name.
It seems likely that Sennacherib, successor to Sargon II, initially returned Phraortes from exile to Media as a loyalist figure, hoping to pacify the rebellious Median city-states through local legitimacy. If so, this strategy backfired. Phraortes did not act as a compliant satrap but instead began consolidating power in Media during a period of Assyrian vulnerability under Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 BCE), exploiting imperial distractions in the west and south.
Herodotus reports that after the death of his father, Phraortes succeeded him and sought dominion over more than just the Median city-states. He moved quickly to unite the Persians and other highland Iranian polities under his rule. As Esarhaddon suffered successive military setbacks—first in a battle against King Magallu of Melid in 675 BCE, then in an Egyptian campaign—Phraortes expanded his control over the Iranian plateau. According to Herodotus, once these powerful peoples (dynatoi, δυνατοί) submitted to his authority, he began a systematic conquest of the lands of Asia.
Phraortes' rise coincided with a crucial period of regional realignment. He appears to have been on amicable terms with several Elamite rulers—Huban-Haltash II, Urtak (Horak), and Tepti-Huban-Inshushinak (whom the Assyrians referred to as Te’umman)—possibly allying with Horak against Assyrian interests. When Urtak was defeated and forced to retreat to Elam, Phraortes joined forces with the Cimmerians in Hamon and launched a campaign toward Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, founded by Sennacherib after his father’s death.
Esarhaddon died in 669 BCE, possibly afflicted by depression or illness. He divided his empire between his two sons: Ashurbanipal became king of Assyria, while Shamash-shum-ukin took the throne in Babylon. Despite the formal division of power, Ashurbanipal exercised de facto control over the Babylonian provinces—Nippur, Uruk, Ur, and the Sealand region—leaving Shamash-shum-ukin with only ceremonial authority.
While Ashurbanipal was preoccupied with uprisings in Egypt—sparked by the return of Pharaoh Taharqa—Phraortes seized the opportunity to strike Assyria. However, the balance of power still favored the imperial center. The Assyrians, now supported by the Scythian king Madyes (Greek: Μάδιος), who had married an Assyrian princess, defeated Phraortes and decimated his forces. Phraortes was killed in battle around 658 BCE, and his tomb is believed to lie among the rock-cut royal burial complexes near Bisotun—either north of the city of Zur or south of Lake Urmia.
The Scythian Interlude
Phraortes' death marked a turning point in the history of the Medes. In the aftermath, the Scythian king Madyes exploited the power vacuum and Assyrian disarray to seize control over Media. Entering through the Caucasus from the northeast, likely via Dagestan, the Scythians had already launched prior raids on the Urartian Empire. Around 674 BCE, their chieftain Partatua (Greek: Προτοθύης, Prototheas) had allied with Phraortes, although he later defected to Ashurbanipal. His son, Madyes, now helped the Assyrians crush the Median coalition and assumed control of the Median lands.
According to Herodotus, the Scythians ruled the Iranian plateau for twenty-eight years:
"The Scythians ruled Asia for twenty-eight years, devastating the land through violence and rapacity. They not only levied tribute but plundered property and devastated entire cities. Eventually, at a feast given by the Medes, the Scythians were intoxicated and slaughtered, allowing the Medes to recover their kingdom, capture Nineveh, and subjugate nearly all of Asia—except for Babylon."
While Herodotus' chronology remains debated, his account broadly aligns with the pattern of Scythian occupation and later Median resurgence. However, many historians believe Herodotus may have misattributed the length or sequence of Median kingship—there may have been multiple rulers named Phraortes, or regional overlords not captured in his narrative.
Babylonian Revolt and the End of Assyrian Dominance
In the wake of Phraortes’ death, another significant event unfolded. After years of humiliation under Ashurbanipal’s authority, Shamash-shum-ukin finally led a full-scale revolt in 652 BCE. He formed a grand alliance that included Elam and the Median city-states of Gutium, Amurru, and Melluh. For three years, Babylon resisted. But in 648 BCE, the city fell. Assyrian inscriptions triumphantly declare that Shamash-shum-ukin died a painful death, “consumed by the fire of his own gods.”
The tide of history, however, was shifting. Even as Assyria reasserted control, it had overextended itself. The Medes would soon rally under new leadership.
Comments
Post a Comment