STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1, 9–33
He odo us on Bac ia be ween Achaemenid Mobili y and
Alexande ’scampaign. Some e lec ions
Ma co Fe a io
ABSTRACT
Thanks o a ecen monog aphic s udy by Chia a Ma a ese we a e now able o unde s and mo e clea ly
bo h he easons and he goals o aphenomenon, ha o he so-called ‘depo a ions’ cha ac e is ic o he
Achaemenid empi e. In addi ion, conside able a en ion has been de o ed in ecen yea s o he ways in
which classical au ho s pe cei ed e en s such as he dissolu ion o acommuni y agains he backd op o ,
o example, mili a y de ea s. All his makes possible an analysis o aHe odo us’ passage (IV, 204) which
has so a ecei ed less conside a ion han i dese es. On he basis o hese p emises, wo pu poses will be
pu sued in he ollowing pages.
Fi s , Iaim o show ha as udy o he a e– as ecoun ed by He odo us– o asmall communi y o G eeks
se led in Libya agains he backd op o he mobili y cha ac e is ic o he Achaemenid wo ld subs an ia es
he hypo hesis ha Cen al Asia (and Bac ia in pa icula ) was a less alien o he men al ho izon– and
in some cases o indi idual and g oup expe ience– han he ep esen a ion o his egion o he empi e as
a emo e pe iphe y a he edge o he wo ld has long sugges ed.
Secondly, adi ec consequence o his hypo hesis is ha , i indeed he p esence o aG eek diaspo a
in Cen al Asia was less spo adic han usually admi ed, he p ocess o (e hno)genesis o he i s com-
muni y o G aeco-Bac ians needs o be econside ed in he ligh o asocio-cul u al complexi y ha
his o iog aphy ends o conside a ea u e o Hellenis ic Bac ian his o y, whe eas he passage om
He odo us’ His o ies discussed in hese pages sugges s ha he e is an en i e p ehis o y o his phenom-
enon ye o be explo ed.
KEYWORDS
Achaemenids; Bac ia; displacemen s; diaspo a; He odo us; Hellenism; social memo y.
HERODOTUS, LYBIA AND BACTRIA
A he end o he Fou h book o he His o ies, He odo us ells us abou asmall Libyan com-
muni y, ha o he Ba caeans, whose inhabi an s had been besieged by ‘ he Pe sians ha
A yandes sen om Egyp o a enge Phe e ime’ (He odo us IV, 200.1). The Ba caeans esis ed
o many mon hs, bu a he end Amasis, he Pe sian gene al, ‘de ised aplo , knowing ha
Ba ce could no be aken by o ce bu migh be aken by guile’ (He odo us IV, 201.1). The ci y
e en ually ell o he Pe sians, who showed no me cy. He odo us desc ibes he a e o he
communi y in a e se pa ag aph. The ex uns as ollows: ‘As o he Ba caeans whom hey
had aken as sla es, hey ca ied hem om Egyp in o banishmen and b ough hem o he
king, and Da ius ga e hem a own o Bac ia o li e in. They ga e his own he name Ba ce,
and i emained an inhabi ed place in Bac ia un il my own li e ime’ (He odo us IV, 204). Since
we know e y li le abou he ela ionships be ween he G eeks and wha we migh call– pa -
aph asing he i le o aseminal monog aph by Rachel Mai s– he Achaemenid Fa Eas (Mai s
2014b) du ing he decades be o e Alexande ’scampaign, he passage abo e cons i u es a e y
10 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
ema kable es imony, he implica ions o which do no seem o ha e been ully explo ed by
con empo a y schola ship.1
To gi e bu some examples: in his 1993 commen a y on he Fou h book, Aldo Co cella
s a es simply ‘ he Bac ian spo is o he wise unknown’ (Co cellae al. 1993, 389). In he
Ox o d commen a y on he same passage, edi ed by Oswyn Mu ay and Al onso Mo eno, he
I alian schola lis s some bibliog aphical i ems ela ed o he ‘possible a chaeological aces
o he passage o he Pe sians’ (Ashe i– Lloyd– Co cella 2007, 721). Then he p o ides an
o e iew o he loci pa alleli e e ing o he depo a ions by he Pe sian kings, hus implici ly
suppo ing– so i seems– he au hen ici y o he in o ma ion as He odo us had i . As in he
1993 commen a y, he concludes he sec ion dedica ed o pa ag aph 204 saying ha ‘ he locali y
o Ba ce in Bac ia is o he wise unknown’.
In a2010 essay dedica ed o Cy ene, Ba ce and he Pe sians, Mau izio Giangiulio has aised
doub s abou he his o ical eali y o he in o ma ion p o ided by He odo us (Giangiulio 2010,
185).2 As he pu s i : ‘ he adi ion’ss ong enden iousness sugges aca e ul examina ion o
he possibili y ha he pic u e o he e en s as hey a e desc ibed may ha e been manipula -
ed. When i comes o Ba ce, i seems possible o aise doub s as much abou he ensla emen
o he inhabi an s as abou he Bac ian depo a ion, which could ha e been an e iological
his o y based upon apopula e ymology, since he ancien adi ion is awa e o an e hnonym
ha could ha e been e e ed o Ba ce’ (Giangiulio 2010, 185, oo no e 19). The e hnonym
which Giangiulio is e e ing o can be ound in C esias and in Cu ius’ His o y o Alexande .3
The poin aised by Giangiulio is indeed as ong one, bu i appea s o downplay He odo us’
s a emen ha ‘down o my own days’ he communi y o he Ba caeans li ed in Bac ia. When
He odo us uses a o mula like ‘περ ἔτι καὶ ἐς ἐμὲ’ o compa able exp essions, we a e dealing
wi h in o ma ion ha needs o be aken e y se iously.4 F om alinguis ic poin o iew, i is
impossible o demons a e beyond any doub ha He odo us’ in o ma ion is based on a alse
e ymology. Ce ainly, he e is also no possibili y o p o e he con a y, bu i should be he
scep ics’ bu den o p o ide e idence in a o o hei case. Al hough i has been said ha
he e a e o he examples o alleged displacemen based on assonances o popula e ymolo-
gies, as a as Iam awa e no such examples ha e so a been clea ly iden i ied in He odo us’
ex . Fu he mo e, one should emembe ha , in G eek, -ανιος is no asu ix: i in Βαρκανίοι
he e is no possibili y o ind an -ανιος su ix (because i has no mo phological au onomy),
he p obabili y ha in ou wo d abase Βαρκη- was pe cei ed becomes mo e likely. Finally, i
1 Ma e ese 2021, 45–56 p o ides o he bes o my knowledge he mos ecen ea men o he pas-
sage o be discussed in he ollowing pages.
2 The same pape was o iginally en i led G eeks and Pe sians in Cy enaica. The campaigns owa ds he
G eek ci ies and was deli e ed a he in e na ional con e ence (24 h–28 h o No embe 2008, Inns-
b uck) He odo und das Pe se eich / He odo and he Pe sian Empi e.
3 FG H 688 F 1b 3 (= 1b 3 Len an : Βορκανίων, which is o be ound again a FG H 688 F 9 (6) = 9a Len-
an ). Acco ding o C esias, u he mo e (apud Tze zes I, 90–103), Cy us es ablished asa apy o he
Ba canians (see Len an , 2004, 258–259). One should also emembe he pa amoun impo ance
o he o igins in he His o ies’ p ojec ( an Wees, 2002, 324–328): in o ma ion abou coloniza ion
and displacemen s a e hus o p ima y in e es o He odo us. C . also Cu ius III, 2.5.
4 Pa allel examples ecu abundan ly in He odo us’ na a i e (c . e.g., He odo us II, 154.5, III, 97.4, IV,
124.1, V, 115.1). In each o hese passages, he ph aseology o he con ex lea es open he conc e e
possibili y ha , e en hough he himsel was no adi ec wi ness o he e en s na a ed, he his o-
ian had access o i s -hand o al sou ces: ei he om di ec wi nesses o hose e en s o , a leas ,
om alocal adi ion wi hin which he episode(s) unde discussion had an ex emely impo an
unc ion o he collec i e memo y o he communi y conce ned. On his aspec o He odo us’
inqui y c . e.g., Mazza ino 1966 I, 166–172; Mu ay 2001.
11MARCO FERRARIO
is C esias who ci es he Βορκανίοι, no He odo us: i we assume his o be acase o popula
e ymology, which s ill needs o be p o ed, would i no be mo e logical o hink ha i is C e-
sias who depends on He odo us, and ha he o me migh ha e misunde s ood he la e , i
no delibe a ely manipula ed him in acco dance wi h his own (C esias’) na a i e agenda?5
I is p obably impossible o say mo e, and consequen ly, we need o e u n o He odo us.
The i s ques ion one should ask is: is he e any e idence ha he his o ian had access o local
knowledge s emming om he Pe sian Empi e, including i s eas e nmos e i o ies? And i
so, wha a e he implica ions in e ms o cul u al memo y, sel -unde s anding and s o ies ci -
cula ing– a leas acen u y and ahal be o e Alexande – abou aG eek diaspo a in he Eas ?
In wha ollows, Iwill i s ly a emp o ackle he p oblem o He odo us’ ela ionship wi h
he pas . The second pa ag aph changes pe spec i e and deals wi h he opic o popula ion
displacemen s om aPe sian poin o iew. The hi d pa ag aph is de o ed o econside ing
he siege and he (supposed) displacemen o he Ba caeans h ough he concep o wa auma.
Be he e en his o ical o no , Ia gue ha he s o ies ci cula ing abou he a e o he Ba cae-
ans– o which He odo us’ e sion should be seen as he e minal s age– could ha e wo ked
as a i s s ep in building a‘sha ed in e subjec i e eali y’ (Ha a i 2011, 209; Ha a i 2016,
344)6 ha played ac i ical ole in wo di e en , bu e y ela ed con ex s. Fi s ly, du ing he
bi e yea s o Alexande ’scampaign o Bac ia and Sogdiana; secondly in he o ma ion o he
i s G aeco-Bac ian se lemen s, wi h he ema kable consequence o ha ing con ibu ed o
he shaping o Classical sou ces’ sha ed iew (one may say acommunis opinio) ega ding he
e al way o li e o he local people. The conclusion assesses he pa amoun impo ance o he
in e play be ween o al his o y, social memo y, and he colonial and mili a y expe ience o
he bi h o he new G eek powe in Bac ia a he dawn o he Hellenis ic e a.
HERODOTUS AND THE PAST: SOME REMARKS
F om he poin s made abo e, i is clea ha any hin made by He odo us has o be aken e y
se iously: his is ue also when speaking o Bac ia. I , as, among o he s, Robe Rollinge
poin ed ou , he 12 h sa apy was loca ed in aplace pe cei ed as he ‘wo ld’send’, one aces
he p oblem o explaining how he de ailed piece o in o ma ion we ind in IV, 204 eached
He odo us (Rollinge 2017c, 198).
7
In ac , we a e dealing he e wi h an example o wha
Lu aghi called ‘local knowledge’: ha is, in o ma ion whose his o ical eliabili y canno be
dismissed ap io i, jus because i does no i he s anda ds o mode n schola ship (Lu aghi
5 Iowe he linguis ic obse a ion o p o .Alessand o Pa en i (Uni e si y o T en o), and o him goes
my g a i ude. I may also be ema ked ha in Old Pe sian a o m Va kāna (New Pe sian Gu gān)
is o be ound, ha is G eek Ὑρκανία (c . Diodo us II, 2 and Cu ius III, 2.5). Pomponius Mela also
dis inguished be ween he Pa icani, on he one hand, and he Bac ians, Sogdians, and Gandhā ans
on he o he (Pomponius I, 2, bu see also Pliny VI, 48). F om an insc ip ion da ed o he age o
Sa gon an e hnonym Ba ikānu is also a es ed. I seems hen ha he plausibili y o aHe odo ean
misunde s anding is o be scaled down.
6 See also, al hough in a e y di e en con ex and wi h a e y di e en aim han ha o Ha a i,
Fen ess– Wickham 1992, 51–59.
7 Acco ding o Rollinge , in he Achaemenid insc ip ions he mona chs did no call he sa apies
p o inces bu , ollowing aso o men al map, coun ies (sing. dahyu-, pl. dahyā a): he en i e
Achaemenian κόσμος elied upon his kind o opog aphy. In explaining he e m dahyu, Jacobs
(2017, 5) unde lines ha he e we a e con on ed wi h acho onym, no wi h an e hnonym, as i
has been usually e med bu see King 2021, 1-28 a o ing an e hnic unde s anding o dahyu-. On
Achaemenid ca og aphy and i s possible in luences on He odo us c . Rapin 2018.
12 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
2001, 138–160).
8
Al hough ou sou ces ell us no hing abou He odo us’ s ay in Bac ia, he e is
no p oo ha he in o ma ion is o be deemed un eliable, because, as Lu aghi has shown, hose
pieces o e idence– as Jacoby’s amous Epicho ioi Zi a e– a e an impo an indica o conce n-
ing he o igin o he in o ma ion i sel (Lu aghi 2001, 159).9 The sel -awa eness displayed by
He odo us in his wo k has been obse ed many imes. As an Wees pu s i , ‘[He odo us] deal
mos ly wi h o al adi ions ha a e a leas one gene a ion old and ex ending in o he ealm
o my h, so ha he o en el unable o es ablish he ac s and could do no be e han epea
wha he had been old, while keeping his c i ical dis ance’ ( an Wees 2002, 322). Acase in
poin is He odo us I, 5.4, whe e he his o ian says ha he is ‘no going o say whe he hese
hings happened in his way o in some o he manne ’ (He odo us I, 5.4).
10
Again, in an Wees’
wo ds, howe e , ‘whene e he el ha his e idence was eliable enough […], He odo us, no
less han any o his successo s, ied o ind he “ u h” abou he pas . The e may ha e been
agood deal o he poe and s o y elle in him, bu He odo us was abo e all ahis o ian inso a
as his main conce n was o make his eco d o he pas as much accu a e as possible’ ( an
Wees 2002, 322–323).
Re u ning o he Ba caeans, one has o admi ha , in ou case, we a e no con on ed
wi h one o hose si ua ions in which ‘ he Libyans say ha …’; none heless, ei he He odo us’
sou ces knew abou he exis ence o aCy enaic se lemen in he Pe sian Fa Eas , o hey
had good easons o conside he in o ma ion us wo hy.11 Saying mo e abou his passage is
isky; howe e , he ac ha He odo us his sou ce(s) and his audience hough i possible ha
acon ingen o men could be displaced wi hou signi ican p oblems om Libya o Cen al
Asia, makes he pic u e o Bac ia as a‘Las Thule’, comple ely isola ed as much om he es
o he empi e as om he Medi e anean Basin, simply un enable.12 The image o Bac ia as
a‘kind o Sibe ia’ (Rawlinson 1909, 23) is indeed o be ound in ou sou ces. Howe e , we
should ne e o ge wha kind o sou ce we a e dealing wi h: o ake apiece o in o ma ion
ou o he whole wo k’scon ex is usually dange ous, and me hodologically lawed. I is no
by chance ha he Sibe ia-like pic u e o Bac ia is o be ound in poe y: i is ali e a y τόπος
(p ecisely he one o he ‘exile’sspo ’) o , i one p e e s, a he o ical de ice, an ἀδύνατον.
13
The
ma e , howe e , is a mo e complica ed: as we will see below, ac and ic ion a e deeply en-
angled, and some imes appea o ha e been used oge he in o de o c ea e a e y powe ul
na a i e.14 Le us ake aclose look.
8 C . con a A mayo 1978a; 1978b; Fehling 1971. Less scep icism is o be ound in Do e 1998, al-
hough he lacks Lu aghi’sme hodological insigh .
9 In an impo an ecen essay, Robe Rollinge (2017a) has shown wi h b ead h o de ail o wha
ex en He odo us had access o Nea Eas e n cul u al adi ions ela ing e en o ex emely speci ic
con ex s, such as o acula olklo e.
10 δὲ περὶ μὲν τούτων οὐκ ἔρχομαι ἐρέων ὡς οὕτω ἢ ἄλλως κως ταῦτα ἐγένετο.
11 F om he na a i e’scon ex i seems possible o in e ha He odo us’ sou ce bea s all he hallma ks
o deeply en enched local knowledge o he Libyan con ex . Fo acompa able example, jus hink
o he men ion o die a y aboos a He odo us IV, 186.
12 To a gue, o example, ha he mo emen o asigni ican con ingen o human beings h ough he
Libyan dese would ha e exceeded he logis ical capabili ies o he empi e does no seem con incing,
gi en he e idence om he Pe sepolis a chi e, which a es s o hund eds o Cen al Asian ku aš
c ossing no less ugged e i o ies when heading o he Pe sian Gul (c ., Henkelman 2018 and
now King 2021, 266–314. In he ligh o such e idence, Ma a ese’s doub s seems unwa an ed).
13 Some examples: Vi gil Geo g. 2.138; Aen. VIII, 688; P ope ius II, 4.3, III, 1; Silius III, 613–615, XIII,
762–766.
14 On ac and ic ion in li e a y woks c . Lando 1993.
13MARCO FERRARIO
In he opening lines o he Six h book o he His o ies, he Pe sian gene als gain knowledge
o he Ionians’ lee . Fea ing no o be able o ame he insu gen s, hey summon hose who
ha e been ous ed by A is ago as (He odo us V, 37), and add ess hem wi h he ollowing speech:
‘Men o Ionia, le each one o you now show ha he has done good se ice o he king’shouse;
le each one o you y o sepa a e you own coun ymen om he es o he allied powe .
Se his p omise be o e hem: hey will su e no ha m o hei ebellion, nei he hei em-
ples no hei houses will be bu n , no will hey in any way be ea ed mo e iolen ly han
be o e. Bu i hey will no do so and a e se on igh ing, hen u e a h ea ha will es ain
hem: i hey a e de ea ed in ba le, hey will be ensla ed; we will make eunuchs o hei boys,
and ca y hei maidens cap i e o Bac a, and hand o e hei land o o he s’ (He odo us VI,
9.3–4). The h ea seems o con adic wha we ha e jus said, bu one should no o ge who
is speaking (Da ius’ lieu enan s), and ha hei wo ds ha e o be se in aPe sian con ex . As
no ed by B ian , om aPe sian poin o iew Bac ia was aland wo hy o coloniza ion, no
doub hanks o i s huge quan i y o esou ces (See also Rapin 1996; Mai s 2014a, 1–19). As he
F ench schola has s a ed in ela ion o Xe xes’ endea ou s o s eng hen he con ol o his
domains, ‘ oyal concessions we e pa o as a egic design o p o ec Achaemenid in e es s
in a i ally impo an egion. This coloniza ion mo emen did no con adic he expansion
o he impe ial diaspo a; on he con a y, i ein o ced i . To gi e bu one example, Pe sian
colonies we e ounded ‘in pa icula ly la ge numbe s in he alley o he Caicus and i s ib-
u a ies’ (B ian 2002, 563). This is a ac wo h men ioning, o i signals he Achaemenids’
a en ion owa ds he impe ial on ie zones, which needed o be a he same ime con olled
and exploi ed (agoal which migh use ully be ul illed by making use o wa a e p isone s and
o he kind o colonis s).15 I is impo an o s ess he e ha , in He odo us IV, 204, i is explic-
i ly said ha he Libyans we e gi en an amoun o land (χώρα). La e on (B ian 2002, 599),
B ian again s a es ha wi h no doub s he coloniza ion s a egy was pu sued wi h s eng h
al eady du ing Da ius’ days.16 One is hus allowed o ask i he Ionians o He odo us VI, 9 and
he Ba caeans o He odo us IV, 204 a e pa o he same pa e n. I is in e es ing o no e ha
Bac ia’ss a us is ma ked by ambigui y also in Pe sian image y. On he one hand, ap ospe -
ous land, wi h ag ea quan i y o esou ces and an adequa e wo k o ce o exploi hem; on
he o he hand, ‘aso o Sibe ia’, in Rowlinson’swo ds, ha could be used as asca ec ow o
o ce enemies– who appa en ly lacked he in o ma ion su ely a ailable o he Pe sian con-
ce ning wha Bac ia ac ually was– o su ende (Rawlinson 1909, 23).17 I could be wo h
mo e deeply in es iga ing he impac on he G eek pe cep ion o such (Pe sian) na a i es
conce ning Bac ia, i s landscape and i s ἒθνη (He odo us VII, 66–100) and he ole hey could
ha e played du ing he ha des yea s o Alexande ’scampaign in Cen al Asia.
HERODOTUS AND THE PERSIAN SOURCES: BEYOND THE MIRROR
We sugges ed ea lie ha he ul ima e sou ce o he Ba caeans’ a e could ha e been alocal–
ha is, aCy enean, o e en aPe sian one. I goes wi hou saying ha , in o de o suppo his
s a emen , we should ask ou sel es o wha deg ee He odo us had access o he eas e n (in
ou case, b oadly speaking, Pe sian) sou ces, and i and o wha deg ee he assump ions he
15 B ian is e e ing o Mysia, bu Bac ia was no less impo an .
16 C . B ian 2002, 751 on Bac ia’scoloniza ion as a esul o diaspo ic mo emen s inside he empi e
i sel .
17 Fo he ole played in he Pe sian sou ces and in he o ien al adi ion behind hem by bo de zones,
see Rollinge – Bichle 2017, 6.

14 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
made abou hem a e wo hy o conside a ion. As in he case conce ning his a els, many
c i ics ha e aised doub s abou he eliabili y o he His o ies when i comes o he ‘O he ’.
One o he mos au ho i a i e schola s in his ield, F ançois Ha og, has s a ed ha He odo-
us’ e hnog aphic w i ing could be compa ed o ami o : wha we a e able o gain om his
desc ip ion o o eign people– say, o example, he Scy hians– is a he e y bes his own
ep esen a ion o hem (Ha og 1991). Speaking o o eign sou ces, be hey Pe sian, Libyan,
Egyp ian o Scy hian, why should i be any di e en ?18
In o de o be e add ess his opic i may be use ul o ecall some hough s by he I alian
schola Mau o Moggi (Moggi 2005, 193–214).19 Speaking o Xe xes’ d eam in his Se en h book,
He odo us glosses ‘as i is said among he Pe sians’ (ὡς λέγεται ὑπό Περσέων; He odo us VII,
12.1). Acco ding o Moggi, He odo us ‘ akes o g an ed ha o him he in o ma ion abou
his e en , ha ook place a he King’scou , mus ha e come om Pe sia’ (Moggi 2005, 200).
To ackle only one amous example: e en i He odo us did no know any o ien al language
and was unawa e o he Bīsu ūn insc ip ions, acco ding o Moggi ‘ he conspi a o s’ lis and
he ea men o he whole episode imply ha He odo us had access o Pe sian adi ions, a
leas in some cases de i ed om documen a y sou ces, bu s ill di e en om he o icial
na a i e ha was eng a ed on Da ius’ o de – and whose o igins ha e o be e aced ei he
in he Pe sian a is oc acy’sbackg ound o in he impe ial bu eauc acy con ex ’ (Moggi 2005,
204).20 Such obse a ions a e wo hy o special a en ion, because hey gi e acomple ely
di e en alue o mos o he de ails ha a e displayed in He odo us’ wo k. They a e mo e
han anecdo es: especially in he Pe sian case, hey seem o poin in he di ec ion o a e y
p ecise, con ex -si ua ed knowledge o he e en s ega ding Da ius in he yea 522–511 BC.In
He odo us I, 130.2, o ins ance, epo ing As yages’ loss o he kingdom, He odo us s a es ha
‘a ala e ime hey epen ed o wha hey now did and ebelled agains Da ius; bu hey we e
de ea ed in ba le and b ough back in o subjec ion’.21 I we conside ha one o he nine Lia
Kings pic u ed a Bīsu ūn, F a a iš, calls himsel ‘King in Media’22 and p e ended o be ‘bo n
om Cyaxa es’ o sp ing’, i is emp ing o see in his passage an ex e nal p olepsis which,
in a e icen bu e y He odo ean way o s o y elling,23 hin s a aboundless unde b ush o
in o ma ion ha he his o ian possesses– and he o igin o which we a e ul ima ely unawa e
o because i is o en le implici (Giangiulio 2005, 95–110).24 This kind o na a i e de ice
eads he pas wi h he eyes o he p esen o e en in he ligh o u u e e en s: his is indeed
18 Apowe ul coun e a gumen o Ha og’sscep icism has ecen ly been pu o wa d by Skinne
2012; 2018, who has shown he deg ee o complexi y o he e hnog aphy sha ed h ough he A chaic
Medi e anean wo ld, ha is, decades, i no cen u ies, be o e He odo us’ bi h (which included
Scy hians as well, who we e no as exo ic o he G eek public as Ha og assumes).
19 I should be s essed ha he same was p obably ue also o He odo us’ audience. This is o pa -
amoun impo ance when i comes o he impac o such na a i es, which we e hough all he
mo e eliable he mo e ancien and au ho i a i e hei p o enience was.
20 On he insc ip ion c . also He z eld 1968, 289.
21 See also Diodo us XI, 6.3. Pompeius T ogus was also awa e o his adi ion i Jus in I,7.2–3 w i es
ha ‘ hose ci ies which once payed ibu e o he Medes […] ebelled agains Cy us, which caused
Cy us o igh ag ea numbe o ba les’ (‘ci i a es, quae Medo um ibu a ia ue an […] aCy o de-
ece un , quae es mul o um bello um Cy o causa e o igo ui ’).
22 In He odo us III, 65.5 Cambyses, on his dea hbed, exho s he nobles a ound him o ‘p e en he
Medes om aking powe again’ (‘τῆν ἡγεμονίην αὖτις ἐς Μήδους περιελθοῦσαν’).
23 See, o example, He odo us V,73.3.
24 This poin has ecen ly been made also by Skinne 2018.
15MARCO FERRARIO
he ex e nal ea u e o he p olepsis, which is ac ucial na a i e de ice connec ing he single
λόγοι o he whole pic u e o he His o ies (Ca aldi 2005, 130–150).
Thus, one should be ca e ul in dismissing he his o y o he Ba caeans as old by He odo us,
and his o wo easons: i he sou ce was aPe sian one, we ha e mo e han enough e idence
ha he had indeed access o e y eliable in o ma ion, coming e en om he highes s a um
o he Pe sian socie y. This is o ins ance he case conce ning Da ius’ plo agains Gaumā a.
I he sou ce, on he con a y, came om ‘local knowledge’, in ligh o he acquain ance He -
odo us clea ly had wi h he wo ld o G eek colonies and hei his o ies, as i has been shown
by Mau izio Giangiulio, he s o y mus be accep ed as eliable: ha is, i had an impo an
meaning o he Ba caean communi y’ssel -pe cep ion (Giangiulio 1981).
Assuming ha he displacemen o he Ba caeans could eally ha e aken place (o a leas
ha i was ega ded by he Libyans in He odo us’ ime as ha ing aken place, which in he
ligh o wha has been said seems beyond doub ), we ha e o look close a he phenomenon o
ἀνδραποδισμός (= ensla ing, selling in o sla e y, depo a ion). The Pe sians we e enowned o
his kind o p ac ice, and i ou a gumen s hold ue, he his o ies ci cula ing abou he a e
o he Ba caeans could ha e been o g ea momen um in shaping asha ed (G eek) na a i e
conce ning he des iny o adisplaced communi y in he Fa Eas .
THE PERSIANS, THE ἈΝΔΡἈΠΟΔΙΣΜΟΣ, AND WAR TRAUMA
In he o icial Pe sian discou se, iolence, including mass killing and displacemen , has o be
conside ed in ab oade con ex .25 This does no imply, o cou se, any kind o jus i ica ion; on
he con a y, i is necessa y in o de o unde s and why iolence was displayed. The King’sdu y,
as B uce Lincoln pu s i , was o es o e ‘happiness o mankind’ (Lincoln 2007; 2012): ha
is o say, he condi ion close o Ahu a Mazdā’spe ec c ea ion. I ha in ol ed he use o
iolence, he King was none heless no culpable o he colla e al damages ha his implied.
To use Aeschylus’ wo ds, ‘i my son [Xe xes, A ossa is speaking] should succeed, || he would
p o e o be ema kable indeed, || bu i he ails, he does no ha e o answe o he s a e; || i
he e u ns sa ely, he will hold sway in his land as he did be o e’ (Aeschylus Pe s. II. 211–214).
In ac , o he iolence and he e il o wa we e held accoun able hose who, unde he spell
o he Lie (d aûga) h ea ened he balance o he cosmos, o cing he King, on behal o Ahu a
Mazdā, o en e he ield o wa . Such apowe ul na a i e lea es li le space o inqui ing he
way wa and i s a e ma hs we e pe cei ed among he empi e’spopula ion. We gain adi e -
en pic u e when we u n o he G eek discou se as i was pe o med on he s age. This does
no mean ha he G eeks we e any be e han he Pe sians: i only acknowledges he ac
ha i is simply easie o look a he G eek public discou se abou wa and i s casual ies. In
doing so, we may see wha kind o s o ies could ci cula e in ela ion o acommuni y ha was
ἀνδραποδιζομένη as aconsequence o asiege. In wha ollows Iwill y o show wha kind o
consequences such acul u al pe cep ion bea s when speaking o indi idual and g oup iden i y.
I i is ue ha we know no hing mo e abou he Ba caeans’ descendan s, pe haps we can
none heless ake aclose look a one case in which he abo e-men ioned s o ies could ha e
been di ec ly ela ed wi h he ha oc ha ook place in u hes Cen al Asia. Iam e e ing
o he B anchidae, whose his o y will be discussed la e on.
‘When he ci y is cap u ed, an e il ope a es, || akes human o m, sp eads like smoke ||
down e e y s ee , || sickens wi h he kill enzy o A es’ pie ies’. So did Aeschylus summa ize,
25 On he opic see Mendoza 2016; 2017.
16 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
in his Se en Agains Thebes s aged in 467 BC, he o ces a play du ing aci y siege (Aeschylus
Sep .II. 336–344). The issue he e, as Ku Raa laub no ed, is no only apoli ical, eligious, o
ideological one bu , i s and o emos , ‘ he human and he social dimension o wa ’ (Raa laub
2014, 18). Al hough i has been sugges ed ha he scale and he c uel y o G eek wa a e
changed d ama ically only wi h he Peloponnesian wa and ha , a leas in A chaic G eece,
akind o code o honou exis ed in wa a e wi h he aim o p e en la ge-scale des uc ion,
he e is conside able e idence ha appea s o p o e he opposi e.
26
The o e whelming majo i y
o he se ile popula ion in G eece was in ac composed o ‘wa boo y’ ( an Wees 2003, 34,
66) and du ing asiege he slaugh e o ensla emen o he de ende s was commonplace (see
e.g. an Wees 2011). As an Wees pu i , ‘Nei he a chaic no classical G eece knew alaw, ule
o con en ion which ca ego ically p ohibi ed he killing o ade ea ed enemy […]. In comba ,
no special jus i ica ion was needed o aiming o kill as many men as possible, including hose
who ied o su ende , whose o e u es one was unde no obliga ion o accep ’ ( an Wees
2011, 104–105). When con on ed wi h such s a emen s, he cul u al impo ance gi en by he
G eeks o apa icula casual y o ancien wa , he p ocess o he ἀνδραποδισμός, is e en mo e
ema kable.27 In Aeschylus’ Se en, he cho us gi es us aclea insigh o i s meaning o aG eek
audience: in Meineck’swo ds, i ep esen s ‘no hing less han dea h o hei amily mem-
be s, ape, assaul , sepa a ion, abduc ion and ensla emen . Wha hey ea is he p ac ice o
and apodismos– he p ocess o so ing, killing, and ensla ing aci ilian popula ion– no only
amy hological ope bu a e y eal ace o classical G eek wa a e’ (Meineck 2017, 50).28 I
may be a gued ha ἀνδραποδισμός was pe cei ed as he wa auma pa excellence because o
i s impac on he πόλις sel -iden i y (Mendoza 2016, 100). To quo e an example: in his Agesilaus,
Xenophon desc ibes he pi o al impo ance o bu ying he dead (Xenophon Ages. 2.15–16. See
also Thucydides II, 34). The ἀνδραποδισμός dep i ed acommuni y o i s mou ning i uals and,
in doing so, o i s lieux de mémoi es, hus se e ely endange ing i s sel -awa eness. He e lies he
o ce o Eu ipides’ cho us in he T ojan Women (Raa laub 2014, 20–21). Thea e was indeed
a e y powe ul ool in linking ἀνδραποδισμός and (endange ed) ci ic iden i y. Two episodes,
one ollowing, and one p eceding he Pe sian wa s, p o ide as ong e idence in his sense. The
o me , once again, in ol es Aeschylus: ‘in 467 BC he audience o he Aeschylean ilogy ha
included Se en agains Thebes we e in i ed in o he sanc ua y o Dionysus Eleu he eus on he
sou h eas e n slope o he Ac opolis, di ec ly unde he scene o he Pe sian des uc ion. This
impious sca on wha Aeschylus desc ibed as “ he eye o he land o Theseus” (Aeschylus Eum.
1.102) has o be conside ed bo h aphysical and psychological backd op o he play i sel . I was
a i id and cons an eminde o he A henians ha hey na owly escaped and apodismos a
he hands o aba ba ian in ade ’ (Meineck 2017, 53). The la e is ela ed o Ph ynichus’ The
Sack o Mile us as epo ed by He odo us (He odo us VI, 21). I cons i u es ano he example o
he impac o he s o ies ci cula ing in he G eek communi ies, which in ol ed he de ea and
he ensla emen by aba ba ian oe: i should no go unno iced ha , in he case o Ph ynichus,
we a e only 16 yea s a e he all o Ba ce.29
26 On he concep o ‘la ge scale des uc ion’ c . Hanson ed. 1999.
27 On ἀνδραποδισμός see also F anchi 2016, 65–97, and now, om an Ancien Nea Eas e n pe spec i e,
Ma a ese 2021, 201–228.
28 In Diodo us XII, 82.2 we a e old o he comple e des uc ion (pu sued by G eeks) o aBi hynian
ci y, including child en and old men. C . Thucydides, III, 36–49 on he a e o he My ileneans (bu
many mo e episodes could be men ioned: II, 75–78, III, 52–68, VI, 62.3–4). Be o e him, c . He odo us
VI, 21 (Mile us) and, a e Thucydides, Xenophon Hell. II, 2.3. My hanks o Ma k Ma sh-Hunn o
his ad ice in Xenophon ic ma e s.
29 The play was s aged in 494–492 BC.The Libyan ci y ell in ca. 510 BC.
17MARCO FERRARIO
Asecond eason why ἀνδραποδισμός was so ea ed and became so s ongly linked wi h
aba ba ian ἦθος in ol es he e hnic consequences o such p ac ice, a leas as i was pe -
cei ed and displayed in G eek sou ces. Pe haps he bes summa y o his poin comes om
he 5 h cen u y and has been discussed by Meineck. His a gumen dese es ull quo a ion:
‘in Andocides’ speech agains Alcibiades we hea ha Alcibiades pe sonally pu chased
aMelian woman om among he cap i es a e he had pa icipa ed in he o e o and apo-
dizein he o me allied s a e. He hen b ough he back o A hens and had ason wi h he .
This is desc ibed as an unna u al ac on apa wi h Aegis hus, who was he o sp ing o he
inces be ween Thyes es and his daugh e . Alcibiades’ child was bo n o pa en s who we e
he deadlies o enemies: his a he ha ing commi ed a e ible a oci y and his mo he
ha ing su e ed one […] (Andocides 4.22–23).30 The accusa ion goes on by asking how could
his son become any hing bu a oe o A hens when his own a he had ensla ed his mo he ,
killed he a he and des oyed he home? Fu he mo e, he accuse hen asks his audience
how hey a e ho i ied by such hings when hey wa ch a agedy, bu indi e en when
hey pe cei e hem happening in eal li e. This accusa ion, hough made a he e y end o
he 5 h cen u y (Andocides came back o A hens a ound 403 BC), does p o ide a ascina ing
glimpse in o con empo a y a i udes o ἀνδραποδισμός: ha i was ab u al, e en shame ul
ac , and ha i would no ha e been no mal o A henians o keep sla e women om ci ies
hey hemsel es had sacked, le alone a he achild wi h hem. […] I we ha e es ablished
ha i was abno mal o A henians o keep cap i e sla e women om hei own campaigns,
we ha e also shown ha many o hem did house women and child en as sla es ha had
been cap u ed in o eign wa s and aded elsewhe e. Bu we a e s ill no close o knowing
wha happened o he G eek women and child en who we e ensla ed. Rosi ach a gues
ha once hese people los hei s a us as wi es, mo he s, sons and daugh e s hey became
“displaced pe sons” and simply disappea ed as pa o any kind o legal, economic o social
eco d, diminishing hei “G eekness”, he eby making i easie o o he G eeks o ensla e
hem’ (quo ed wi h u he e e ences in Meineck 2017, 57–58).
Tha ἀνδραποδισμός always implied aloss o he displaced people’sG eekness is disp o ed
by wha we know abou E e ia, on he e e o Ma a hon (and hus, again, no mo e han wen y
yea s a e Ba ce): ‘The Pe sians, judging by G eek accoun s, did depo en i e communi ies–
whe e possible, as on islands, soldie s ma ched in alinked chain ac oss he e i o y o ensu e
ha no asingle pe son a oided cap u e– bu again kep hem in ac . The people o E e ia,
depo ed a ew days be o e he ba le o Ma a hon and pu o wo k scooping pe oleum om
awell, s ill o med adis inc , G eek-speaking communi y deep in Pe sian impe ial e i o y
wo gene a ions la e ’ ( an Wees 2010, 249).31 Howe e , his is no he poin . Wha eally ma -
e s is he di e ence be ween he wo pe spec i es he e a play ela ing o he ἀνδραποδισμός:
i he Pe sians, in enac ing wha has been called a‘conspicuous des uc ion’( an Wees 2010,
240)32 pu sued, o pu po ed o pu sue, akind o heologically de e mined goal ( es o ing
‘happiness o mankind’), he G eeks iewed i as a h ea o acommuni y’ssel -iden i y.
33
30 C . also Plu a ch Alex. 16.4–5. Iowe he e e ence o Ma k Ma sh-Hunn.
31 The episode e e ed o by an Wees occu s in He odo us VI, 31, see also Ma a ese 2021, 75–92.
32 Van Wees explains he concep as ‘adisplay o o ce designed o asse he powe and s a us o he
pe pe a o in he ace o ape cei ed challenge’. See also an Wees 2010, 250–252. In p.252, an
Wees w i es: ‘In some cases, hen, he annihila ion o communi ies was no agoal in i sel , bu
me ely an inciden al consequence o a u hless pu sui o p o i . The ques ion o in en , howe e ,
is academic: sla e- aiding s a es could no ail o ealize ha he ul ima e esul o hei ac ions
would be genocide’.
33 Pe s. šiyā i ma iyahyā, as Da ius says in one o his insc ip ions (DNa § 1).
24 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
The his o y o he upcoming cen u ies shows ha Alexande ’ssuccesso s u ned ou o be
much mo e sophis ica ed in dealing wi h hei subjec s as hei he o ic o O he ness would
lead one o belie e, and indeed he Macedonian himsel (e en ually) p o ed o be an excellen
media o , a ac which accoun s o his ic o y o e Spi amenes.61 I would be e y di icul
o explain o he wise he h ee-cen u y-long las ing i ali y o he Hellenis ic wo ld in he
Fa Eas and, in he case o he wo-hund ed-yea -old Bac ian his o y, he expansi e igou
o he younges among he Hellenis ic kingdoms beyond he Hindūkūš. Bu discou se, as we
ha e ied o show in his pape , pene a es deep in o ag oup’scul u al memo y; mo eo e , i
is capable o s uc u ing he pa e n o ep esen a ions ega ding he O he in a ema kably
las ing way. And so i was ha , also hanks o an apocalyp ic ision conce ning he end o
G eek powe in Cen al Asia (Colo u 2009, 231–241), Bac ia and i s inhabi an s emained
hose po ayed by Onesic i us, S abo, and Plu a ch un il some ecen , e y impo an , cul-
u al u ns in he ield o (Hellenis ic) Bac ian s udies.
62
In he 2
nd
cen u y BC, he Yuèzhī
came and– so he na a i e goes – G eek ci iliza ion disappea ed: as Hol pu s i , i was as
i he G eeks had ne e come, and ‘ he De ou e dogs we e g owling again o e he bones o
he Bac ians’ (Hol 2004, 164).63
I he pic u e d awn so a can se e o econs uc he genesis o along-las ing s e eo ype
wi hin he Medi e anean cul u al landscape, i mus ne e heless be acknowledged ha
his is only one side o he coin. Wha abou he (sel )pe cep ion o ha same wo ld by hose
G eeks who– g udgingly– had emained in Bac ia?
THE OFFSPRING ISSUE
Acco ding o A ian, Alexande u ged e e yone who had a he ed sons wi h Asian women
o lea e hese child en wi h him, as no o spa k con lic s be ween o eign sons, bo n om
Pe sian women and he ones– and hei mo he s– who we e le in G eece (A ian Anab. VII,
12.2). This passage o he Anabasis, and ano he one, in book One (A ian Anab. I, 24.1), implies
ha no women had accompanied he soldie s who conque ed Pe sia. Bu his is no wi hou
consequences. How hen can we explain he exis ence o aG aeco-Macedonian communi y
li ing in Bac ia, once he new es ablished powe in Babylon had deal wi h he i s colonis s’
up ising?64 Acco ding o Ta n, who p obably had he business o B i ish India in mind, he
solu ion was qui e simple: he mo he s o he i s G aeco-Bac ian gene a ion we e local
women (Ta n 1938, 35). As he saw i , no o he solu ion was possible since, on he one hand,
A ian’spassage is an a gumen agains he hypo hesis o apolicy o amilia ejoining in Asia65
61 Fo adiscussion o he episode, i s backg ound and i s in e p e a ions c . ecen ly Kubica 2016
wi h u he li e a u e.
62 Who, in hei u n, we e likely elying on a e y long his o y, whose hin s a e o be ound as ea ly
as he His o ies o He odo us, as we ied o show in he p e ious pages.
63 Hol ’s‘as i he G eeks had ne e come’ is he las epigone in aline ha was pu sued by Ta n, by
D oysen be o e him and, be o e bo h, as we ha e seen, by Plu a ch, o example in De Alex. = Mo .
328D. He e we lea n ha , allegedly, ‘when Alexande was ci ilizing Asia, Home was commonly
ead, and he child en o he Pe sians, o he Susianians, and o he Ged osians lea ned o chan
he agedies o Sophocles and Eu ipides’ (‘ἀλλ᾽Ἀλεξάνδρου τήν Ἀσίαν ἐξημεροῦντος Ὃμηρος ἦν
ἀνάγνωσα, καί Περσν καί Σουσιανν καί Γεδρωσίων παῖδες τάς Εὐριπίδου καί Σοφοκλέους τραγῳδίας
ᾖδον’). C ., con a, Abdullae 2017, 39, wi h pla es.
64 C . Jus in XII, 5.13 and, among mode n his o ians, Colo u 2009, 130–134; Hol 1988, 87–91.
65 Bu c . Pa e son 1975, 322–330.

25MARCO FERRARIO
and, on he o he hand, e usal o any kind o ela ionship, be i ma iage o concubinage,
would ha e led o he ex inc ion o he would-be communi y.66
As i has been no ed, Ta n’s iew was based on wo passages in A ian’sAnabasis (IV, 4.1,
22.2–3), om which i seems possible o a gue in a ou o adi used policy o Bac ian bo n
se le s in he new colonies pu sued by Alexande . Acco ding o some schola s, such s a egy
aimed a ploughing e ile g ound o ‘ a e niza ion’ (and hence mixed ma iages) be ween
he conque o s and he na i es; wo ypical aspec s, as someone said, o any mili a y occu-
pa ion, in an iqui y as well as in ou days (Bu s ein 2012, 99). Howe e , as Hol unde lines
(Hol 1999, 49), a chaeological da a om Āï Xānum poin owa ds some deg ee o sepa a ion
be ween he G eeks and he local popula ion, a leas in he ini ial yea s; his should come
as no su p ise, since he yea s 329–327 BC we e no he bes s a ing poin o any p ocess o
communi y building.67
I his scena io holds o he i s gene a ion o colonis s, i mus be assumed ha wi hin
wen y yea s a mos (mo e o less one gene a ion) he pic u e became mo e complex. O h-
e wise, i is di icul o explain he sudden, s ong need o ( e)c ea e acul u al adi ion ha
one is con on ed wi h in eading he so-called ‘Clea chos’ insc ip ion’ (Robe 1968; Mai s
2014b). Fu he mo e, i should be emembe ed ha he G eek communi y o he diaspo a in
he eas om i s e y ou se was, p obably, socially much mo e complex as has been hough
un il qui e ecen ly. Sonja Plischke, o ins ance, s essed his poin a ew yea s ago (Plischke
2014, 31): in wha ollows Ishall y o add bu a ew oo no es o Plischke’se idence wi h he
aim o emphasize wha is hidden behind he displacemen desc ibed in Classical sou ces. In
doing so, we may be able o cas aglance– albei an oblique one– a he social milieu o commu-
ni ies such as hose ha lou ished as aconsequence o ac s o genocide as he one desc ibed in
He odo us IV, 204 and hus o he s o ies possibly ci cula ing in hose con ex s.68 In es iga ing
he demog aphy o such se lemen s may also help unde s and he cul u al landscape o he
ollowing cen u ies such as he one we ind, mos amously, a Āï Xānum.
Pilg im mo he s
A adically di e en solu ion om he one p o ided by Ta n o he issue o he women le
in Bac ia wi h he G eeks canno a oid an inqui y in o he sociology o ancien wa a e.
Acco ding o A is o le, o example, wa cons i u es ‘away o acquisi ion’ (A is o le Pol. I,
8.12 = 1256a),69 and he philosophe ’s iew sha es many simila i ies wi h hose o his men o ,
Pla o (Leg. VII, 823d). As o Thucydides (I, 5.1–2), he saw wa a e in he con ex o ap ocess
o αὒξησις, ha is ‘expansion’, ‘g ow h’ o G eek communi ies. In his ypology, ac s o pi acy
a e also included, which answe ed o e hical and cul u al no ms no so a emo ed om
hose o he con ex o wa a e (Home , Od. III, 73, IX, 52).70 As migh be expec ed, in all he
cases we ha e hus a examined he en i e ocus is on a e y speci ic sec ion o an ancien
ci y’spopula ion: he male ci izen(s). One ema kable excep ion, howe e , is p o ided by he
Iliad h ough he s o y o Ch yseis’ and B iseis’ (Home Il. I, 29–31, XIX, 291–298 des inies),
apowe ul pic u e o he meaning o he expe ience o wa o bo h women and child en in
66 This, inciden ally, in ac happened o he i s Chinese communi y in Jamaica. C . Pa e son 1975,
324.
67 See howe e Dumke 2015, 41. Wi h he– indeed ema kable– excep ion o he 23.000 insu gen s
men ioned by Diodo us (XVIII, 7.2–9), hose who s ayed we e ul ima ely o ced o ‘go na i e’.
68 an Wees 2016 p o ides ajus i ica ion o he use o he e m in p ecisely he con ex we a e dis-
cussing in his pape .
69 A is o le Pol. I, 8.12 (= 1256a): ‘κτητική πως ἒσται’.
70 C . la e in he 5 h cen u y Eu ipides T o. 634–670.
26 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
he ancien wo ld. In ligh o his, i may be no coincidence ha He odo us (I, 1–5) pu s achain
o women’skidnappings a he o igins o he bigges , mos impo an and c uelles con lic o
he en i e his o y, a leas un il his own days.
Swi ching om my hos o his o y, i should be emembe ed ha Alexande ’sἀνάβασις
had an an eceden , no only ega ding he s a egic and mili a y aspec , bu also he ela ion-
ships be ween na i es and newcome s: he Ten Thousand’sexpedi ion guided by Xenophon.
Judging om his i s hand accoun , i is no only possible o in e he p esence, along wi h
he me cena ies, o ano insigni ican numbe o women (ἑταῖραι), bu i is also possible o
deduce ha , du ing he jou ney back o G eece, hey changed hei s a us om wa boo y
(ἀνδράποδα), o conso s o hei mas e s (Xenophon Anab. IV, 3.19). Bo h we e in ac uni ed
by hei ex aneousness o he su ounding places, which hey we e none heless o ced o
pass h ough (c . Lee 2004, 154–165; Bu s ein 2012, 101). Bo h expedi ions, ha o Xeno-
phon and ha o Alexande , las ed en yea s, and he simila i ies be ween he wo, a leas
conce ning his opic, a e s iking. A Ty e, he Macedonian king– in dis inc i ely Pe sian
s yle– ensla ed (ἐξηνδραποδίσατο) women and child en (Diodo us XVII, 46.4),
71
and he
same happened a Gaza (A ian Anab. II, 27.7: ἐξηνδραπόδισεν). A e he all o Pe sepolis,
so w i es Diodo us, G eek oops wen on, ‘con e ing hei [‘ he inhabi an s’] cap i i y in o
sla e y’ (‘τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν δουλαγωγοῦντες’; Diodo us XVII, 70.6). Deep in he hea o Asia,
he sc ip emains unchanged: acco ding o A ian, he Macedonians ‘seized as plunde he
women, child en and o he spoils’ (Anab. IV, 2.4: ‘γυναῖκας δὲ καὶ παῖδας καί τὴν ἂλλην λείαν
διήρπασαν’, bu see also Anab. IV, 3.1.) and P olemy (FG H 138 F 15 = I . Alex. 37) s a es ha ,
once he eached and conque ed Cy opolis, Alexande ‘dis ibu ed he men [ he boo y seized
a Cy opolis] among his a my (‘κατανεῖμαι [αὐτν Ἀλέξανδρον] τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῇ στρατιᾷ’):
in all p obabili y, women we e pa o ha allo men .
Ci ies, o cou se, we e no he only sou ce o wa loo : om He odo us (He odo us VII, 187),
Thucydides (Thucydides II, 78; c . A h. 12.572–573; Lee 2004, 147), and o cou se om se e al
passages o Xenophon’sAnabasis (see again Lee 2004), we know ha , du ing he 5 h and he 4 h
cen u y, women usually ollowed a mies, G eek as well as he Pe sian ones: we a e pa icula ly
well in o med abou he comi a us o Da ius III a Issos and Gaugamela (which included many
o he Pe sian oyal women; Diodo us XVII, 35.3;72 Cu ius III, 12.12–13; A ian Anab. II, 12.9;
Jus in XI, 9). In he a e ma h o he ba le, he king le behind on he ield ahuge quan i y
o boo y, including he amous wa cha io s ha we e p e oga i e o he women o he cou
(Diodo us XVII, 17.35.2–4; A ian. Anab. II, 11.9).73
Women among he Macedonians seem o be acons an also a e Alexande le Bac ia:
A ian (Anab. VI, 25.5; Pe ipl. 6.4–5) lis s hem among he casual ies o he calami ies ha
a aged Alexande ’sa my du ing he hellish ma ch h ough Ged osia,74 an accoun which
helps explain he ema kable p esence o Pe sian p incesses a he Susan weddings.75 The
71 In A ian (Anab. II, 24.5) we ind ‘ἠνδραπόδισε’.
72 Diodo us men ions e en an ‘υς παῖς τὴν ἡλικίαν’.
73 Fo he wa cha io s see He odo us VII, 83, IX, 76; Xenophon Cy . VI, 4.41; Diodo us XV, 56.7; Plu a ch
Alex. 43.1; Them. 26; A ax. 5; Cha i on. 6.9; A ian Anab. III, 19.2; Cu ius III, 13.11, IV, 4.11.
74 C . S abo XV, 2.6, who quo es A is obulos and Nea chus (FG H 139 F 35 and FG H 133 F 18 = A ian
Pe ipl. 6.4–7).
75 See mo eo e A ian Anab. VII, 4.8, he Index o Diodo us’ book 2 (‘How i was ha king Ninus
ma ied Semi amis because o he i ue’, in he G eek o iginal ‘ Ὡς Νῖνος  βασιλεὺς ἒγημε τὴν
Σεμῖραμιν δι τὴν ἀρετὴν αῦτῆς’) and he Epi . R. Ges . Alex. 31 o p e ious episodes o ha kind. See
also (Bu s ein 2012, 102 and Boswo h 1980, 12) o an insigh ul in e p e a ion o he episode.
See also Plu a ch Alex. 48.
27MARCO FERRARIO
passage in he Anabasis76 quo ed a he opening o his sec ion p o ides explici e idence o
he ambiguous s a us o hose women, who we e soldie s’ p ope y sanc ioned by mili a y law
(Jus in XXXVIII, 10.2; Polyaenus VI, 6.13);77 howe e , along wi h hei child en, hey cons i u -
ed apo en ially explosi e social issue. Tha is why, one may a gue, Alexande a oided hei
epa ia ion. I some o ou sou ces dese e c edi (Diodo us XXVII, 110.3; Jus in XII, 4.2–10),
he new King o Asia hough o u ning he s a eless condi ion o his soldie s’ illegi ima e
child en o his ad an age, binding hem o him hanks o anew uni o ἐπίγονοι.78 In such
accoun s he e is, na u ally, no oom o sen imen alism o oman ic idealiza ion, bu i is
ama e o ac ha a ela ionship be ween asoldie and his wa boo y (ἀποσκευή) exis ed.
In a leas wo cases, u he mo e, we ha e e idence ha he shee physical p esence o hose
women in he a my anks was able o hea ily in luence he soldie s’ beha iou . Du ing he
ba le o Pa ae acene, o example, ins ead o ein o cing he posi ions hey had gained a e
hei ic o y,79 he soldie s un a e hei possessions (ἐπί τὴν ἰδίαν ἀποσκευὴν ἀναχωρεῖν).
Judging om he con ex , i is possible o in e ha women we e pa o he loo (ἀποσκευή).
Eumenes’ a e was e en wo se. Al hough he had de ea ed An igonus a Gabiene (316 BC), he
was sold o him by his own soldie s, because hey aimed a egaining hei women, who had
been cap u ed by he One-Eyed.80
A e ade ailed analysis o he li e a y sou ces, S anley Bu s ein (2012, 103) concludes
ha he ancien his o iog aphy we know o does no explici ly say whe e he mis esses (o
al eady wi es) o he soldie s ha Alexande se led in (o , acco ding o Clei us, exiled o?) he
Bac ian o s came om. Howe e , he compa a i e e idence discussed so a makes i e y
di icul o assume asho age o women bo n in many di e en egions o he Achaemenid
Empi e in he anks o he ‘colonial expedi ion’ (Diodo us XX, 41.1) ha eached Bac ia in
330–329 BC (C . Jus in XII, 4.2–3). Acco ding o Bu s ein, mode n in e p e e s ha e paid oo
much a en ion o episodes such as he Susan ma iages, s essing he ‘mel ing-po -policy’ wi h
he women o he Pe sian (and local) éli e pu sued by he highe anks o he Macedonians on
behal o Alexande . In doing so, Bu s ein goes on, in o mal ela ions ha we e a play among
he lowe anks o he a my ha e been o e looked. Howe e , he e idence poin s o apic u e
cha ac e ized ‘by he imposi ion o an occupying a my on popula ions wi h whom hey had
ew i any close ies. No su p isingly, he esul was ha he i s yea s o Macedonian ule
in Bac ia saw some o he mos b u al and sus ained igh ing o Alexande ’sen i e eign’
(Bu s ein 2012, 103).81
76 A ian Anab. VII, 12.2.
77 ἀποσκευή and γῆρας he e ha e o be unde s ood as e mini echnici.
78 Ano he ansla ion o he wo d ἂπολις is he English displaced: i is exac ly he si ua ion o he
Ba caeans (see also an Wees 2010; 2016). In he Pe sian heyday i was he G eeks who could as-
sume he s a us o adisplaced communi y, and, in ligh o he e idence we a e p o iding he e, one
should hink abou he consequences in e ms o e hnici y, sel -iden i y and social memo y o such
communi ies as he Ba caeans in He odo us.
79 O he e idence o his kind can be ound in Xenophon Hell. VII, 5.26.
80 Diodo us XIX, 43.7–9, who speaks o ‘τῆς ἀποσκευῆς ἀυτν ἡλωκυίας καὶ παρ τοῖς πολεμίοις ὂντων
τέκνων καὶ γυναικν καὶ πολλν ἂλλων ἀναγκαίων σωμάτων’. C . also Plu a ch Eum. 17; Colo u
2009, 127–128.
81 One could e en specula e why he same ‘social bomb’ ha caused Alexande no o epa ia e he
Pe sian-bo ne child en o G eece did no come o his mind when he se led he colonis s in Bac ia.
The spec acula ailu e o such ( e)se lemen policy could ha e been one o he easons behind he
up ising o he na i es as well as o he would-(no -)be colonis s.
28 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
CONCLUSION: THE STORIES BEYOND (AND BEFORE) THE HISTORIES
One is le o wonde whe he some hing simila o wha we ha e desc ibed conce ning he
his o y o Alexande ’scampaign and i s a e ma h migh ha e happened a he ime o he
displacemen o he Ba caeans (510 BC). As an Wees has epea edly poin ed ou ( an Wees
2010; 2016), causes, ways, and consequences o displacemen s in Medi e anean (and Eas e n)
an iqui y a e s iking simila : so was also, mos p obably, he e hnic componen o he a ec ed
communi ies. A e all, he ancien wo ld has always been a mo e connec ed han we a e
some imes eady o admi . Globaliza ion, and he ela ed p oblems, a e in no way amode n
phenomenon. This is ue also om asocio-an h opological poin o iew, al hough on ama k-
edly di e en scale. His o ies abou he bi h and des uc ion o communi ies, abou adi ions
ha we e o go en, o abou h ea ened iden i ies could ha e been ci cula ing hen as hey a e
oday. Thus, one should no be su p ised i some diaspo a s o ies lou ishing in one cul u al
con ex ( he Pe sian one, o example) we e ansla ed in o adi e en milieu ( he G eek one).
This is wha I ad Malkin has desc ibed as ‘c ea i e misunde s anding’ (Malkin 2002, 151–181).
In changing he con ex o ci cula ion, hose s o ies acqui ed a e y di e en meaning, hus
adically changing he e ic pe cep ion82 o an en i e egion and o i s inhabi an s: He odo us’
accoun migh well ha e been he s a ing poin o one o hese c ea i e misunde s andings.
To summa ize he main esul s o he abo e inqui y: on he one hand, i p ope ly amed
wi hin i s own socio-cul u al– and discu si e– con ex , he his o y o he Ba caeans’ displace-
men u ns ou o be asigni ican piece o e idence o he econs uc ion o he genesis o
an in e e a e p ejudice nu u ed by he in ellec ual adi ion o Classical An iqui y agains
Cen al Asia and i s inhabi an s. On he o he hand, asociologically in o med analysis o
Alexande ’sexpedi ion h ows a a he in e es ing ligh on he socio-cul u al complexi y o
he i s G aeco-Macedonian communi ies in Bac ia (o which he Libyan diaspo a known
o He odo us could cons i u e asigni ican p eceden ), which in u n would help o explain
many o he inconsis encies ( om an a chi ec u al as well as om a igu a i e poin o iew,
o name bu ew examples) cha ac e is ic o Āï Xānum’sci ic landscape as i is known om
he pos -Seleucid e a. This ha ing been said, wha he his o y o He odo us’ Libyan-Bac ian
communi y su ely accoun s o is he s unning ichness o he ‘laby in h’, as he His o ies ha e
been called: i eminds us, among o he hings, o how much he e is ye in i , wai ing o be
disco e ed (Nenci 1994, XXIII).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My wa mes hanks a e due o ou in aluable men o s, Si a on Reden, Mau izio Giangiulio,
Elena F anchi, and Gio gia P oie i (who happen o be also e y che ished iends) o ha ing
augh me o look a – and o y o speak o – ‘small and g ea ci ies o men alike’. Ma k Ma sh-
Hunn succeeded in he no i ial e o o u ning hese no es in o an academically accep able
piece o w i ing. As i his we e no enough, he was amo e han help ul and suppo i e iend
du ing an exci ing bu e y di icul He odo ean semes e . Many hanks also o Angela Alai-
mo, who showed me how o a el. This con ibu ion is dedica ed o Bea e Häbe le, in since e
g a i ude, o Tommaso, o ha ing walked wi h me along s e ch h ough he in ica e– and
some imes unbelie able– pa hs o his o y, o I oda and Mi aziz, o ha ing hos ed me in Sog-
82 In hese si ua ions, i is e y o en ha o he conque o , ha is, in oo many cases he only one
ha eally ma e s.
29MARCO FERRARIO
diana in wa m h and iendship, o Ca lo a, Giulia, Chia a and Anna, o being he wonde ul
iends hey a e, o Yılan, o alo ely jou ney in he pa hs o Tīmū , o Nega Mohammadi,
he bes elde sis e one could hink o , o La a Fabian, in unaba ed admi a ion, and inally o
Эльвира and Лада (снова, всегда), because hey a e wo beau i ul and e y much-lo ed oices
om wo lds a om he eyes, bu no (indeed ne e ) om he hea .
SOURCES
Aeschylus Pe s. = Aeschylus, The Pe sians. Ox o d Classical Tex s. Edi o : D. Page. Ox o d 1972.
Andocides = Andocides, Speeches. Ox o d Classical Tex s. Edi o s: M.R. Dil s– D.J. Mu phy. Ox o d 2018.
A is o le Pol. = A is o le, Poli ics. Ox o d Classical Tex s. Edi o : D. Ross. Ox o d 1963.
A ian Anab. = A ian o Nicomedia, Anabasis o Alexande . Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : A.G. Roos.
Leipzig 1907.
A ian Pe ipl. = A ian o Nicomedia, Pe iplus Pon i Euxini. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o s: R. He che –
A. Ebe ha d. Leipzig 1885.
Cha i on = Cha i on o Aph odisias, Che ea and Challi oe. An ike Tex e. Edi o : M. Sanz Mo ales. Heidelbe g
2020.
C esias = C esias o Cnidus, Pe sian His o y. Reihe Geschich e. Edi o : J.P.S onk. Duisbu g 2010.
Cu ius = Cu ius Ru us, Vi a Alexand i. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : C.M. Luciani. Leipzig 2009.
Diodo us = Diodo us Siculus, Biblio heca His o ica. Collec ion des Uni e si és de F ance. Pa is 1972–2018.
Epi . R. Ges . Alex. = Ince i auc o is Epi ome e um ges a um Alexand i Magni. Biblio heca Tuebne iana. Edi o :
O. Wagne . Leipzig 1876.
Eu ipides T o. = Eu ipides, T ojan Women. Ox o d Classical Tex s 2. Edi o : J. Diggle. Ox o d 1981.
FG H = F agmen a His o ico um G aeco um. Die F agmen e de g iechischen His o ike . Edi o : F. Jacoby.
Leiden 1923–1958.
He odo us = He odo us, His o ies. Ox o d Classical Tex s 1. Edi o : N.G. Wilson. Ox o d 2015.
Jus in = Jus in, Epi ome his o ia um T ogi Pompeii. Collec ion des Uni e si és de F ance. Edi o s: B. Mineo–
G. Zecchini. Pa is 2016–2020.
Pla o Leg. = Pla o, Laws. Ox o d Classical Tex s 5. Edi o : J. Bu ne . Ox o d 1963.
Pliny = C. Plinius Secundus: Na u alis His o ia. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : Ka l Mayho . Leipzig
1875–1906.
Plu a ch Alex. = Plu a ch, Li e o Alexande . Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : K. Ziegle . Leipzig 1994.
Plu a ch A . = Plu a ch, Li e o A axe xes. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : K. Ziegle . Leipzig 1971.
Plu a ch Eum. = Plu a ch, Li e o Eumenes. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o s: K. Ziegle – H. Gä ne . Leipzig
1993.
Plu a ch Them. = Plu a ch, Li e o Themis ocles. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : K. Ziegle . Leipzig 1969.
Plu a ch De Alex. = Plu a ch, De Fo una Alexand i. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o s: W. Nachs äd –
W. Sie eking– J.B. Ti chene . Leipzig 1971.
Plu a ch De se a = Plu a ch, De se a numinis indic a. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o s: W.R. Pa on–
M. Pohlenz– W. Sie eking. Leipzig 1972.
Polybius = Polybius, His o ies. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o s: L. Dindo – T. Bü ne -Wobs . Leipzig
1993–2001.
Pomponius = Pomponius Mela, Lib i de si u o bis es. Edi o : G. Pai hey. Be lin 1867.
P ope ius = P ope ius, The Elegies. Edi o : G. Gia dina. Roma 2005.
Silius = Silius I alicus, Punica. Co pus Poe a um La ino um. Edi o : W.C. Summe s. London 1905.
Thucydides = Thucydides His o ies. Ox o d Classical Tex s. Edi o : H. S ua -Jones– E. Powell. Ox o d 1963.

30 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
Tze zes = Ioannes Tze zes: His o iae. Lib e ia Scien i ica Edi ice. Edi o : P.A.M. Leone, Napoli 1968.
Vi gil Aen. = Vi gil, Aeneid. Ox o d Classical Tex s. Edi o : Roge Myno s. Ox o d 1969.
Vi gil Geo g. = Geo gics o Ve gil. Edi o : Roge Myno s. Ox o d 1969.
Xenophon Ages. = Xenophon, Agesilaus. Ope a omnia. Edi o : E.C. Ma chan . Volume V, Ox o d 1985.
Xenophon Anab. = Xenophon o A hens, Anabasis. Ox o d Classical Tex s. VolumeIII. Edi o : E.C. Ma chan .
Ox o d 1963.
Xenophon Cy . = Xenophon o A hens, Cy opaedia. Ox o d Classical Tex s. VolumeV. Edi o : E.C. Ma chan .
Ox o d 1963.
Xenophon Hell. = Xenophon o A hens, Hellenica. Ox o d Classical Tex s. VolumeI. Edi o : E.C. Ma chan .
Ox o d 1963.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdullae , K. 2017: Fune a y T adi ion o he Ancien Eas in Examples om Ana olia
and Bac ia – Ma giana. O igins o Pa allels? Tü kiye Bilimle Akademisi A keoloji De gisi
[Tu kish Academy o Sciences Jou nal o A chaeology] 20, 27–51.
Aime, M. 2005: L’incon o manca o. Tu is i, na i i, immagini. To ino.
Ashe i, D.– Lloyd, A.– Co cella, A. 2007: ACommen a y on He odo us. Books I–IV. Ox o d.
A mayo , O.K. 1978a: Did He odo us E e go o Egyp ? Jou nal o he Ame ican Resea ch Cen e in Egyp 15, 59–71.
A mayo , O.K. 1978b: Did He odo us E e go o he Black Sea? Ha a d S udies in Classical Philology 82, 45–62.
Ba oni, A. 2005: S ade, dogane e p o ince nei e i o i alpini in e à impe iale omana. In: L. Gambe ale (ed.):
I ine a i e I ine an i a a e so le Alpi dall’An ichi à al Medioe o. Con egno di S udio e Assemblea Nazionale,
T en o, 15–16 o ob e 2005. T en o, 827–840.
Bendezu-Sa mien oe al. 2015 = Bendezu-Sa mien o, J.– Lhuillie , J. – Mus a akulo , S.– Rakimo , S.K.:
The Mo ua y P ac ices o he Ea ly I on Age Popula ions. Recen Disco e ies a Dzha ku an in No he n
Bac ia. Bulle in o he In e na ional Ins i u e o Cen al Asian S udies 22, 26–46.
B ian , P.2002: F om Cy us o Alexande . AHis o y o he Pe sian Empi e. Winona Lake.
B ian , P.2017: Kings, Coun ies, Peoples. Selec ed S udies on he Achaemenid Empi e. S u ga .
Bu s ein, S. 2012: Whence he Women? The O igin o he Bac ian G eeks. Ancien Wes & Eas 11, 97–104.
Ca aldi, S. 2005: T adizioni e a uali à nel dialogo dei messagge i g eci con Gelone (E odo o VII 157–162).
In: M. Giangiulio (ed.): E odo o e il «modello e odo eo». Fo mazione e asmissione delle adizioni s o iche in
G ecia. T en o, 123–173.
Colo u, O. 2009. Da Alessand o aMenand o. Il egno g eco di Ba iana. Pisa.
Co cella, A.– Medaglia, M.S.– F asche i, A. (eds.): 1993: E odo o, Le S o ie. La Scizia e la Libia. Milano.
Dumke, G.R.2015: «Weil sie sich nach g iechische E ziehung und Lebensweise zu ücksehn en…». P obleme
und Auswi kungen de Ansiedlung g iechische Solda en im hellenis ischen Bak ien. In: C. Rass (ed.):
Mili ä ische Mig a ion om Al e um bis zu Gegenwa . S udien zu his o ischen Mig a ions o schung 30.
Pade bo n, 31–40.
Fehling, D. 1971: Die Quellenangaben bei He odo . S udien zu E zählkuns He odo s. Be lin.
Fen ess, J.– Wickham, C. 1992: Social Memo y. Ox o d– Camb idge, Mass.
Foucaul , M. 1971: L’o d e du discou s : leçon inaugu ale au Collège de F ance p ononcée le 2 décemb e 1970. Pa is.
F anchi, E. 2016: Die Kon lik e zwischen Thessale n und Phoke n. K ieg und Iden i ä in de g iechischen E in-
ne ungskul u des 4. Jah hunde s. München.
Geh ke, J.H. 1994: My hos, Geschich e, Poli ik– An ik und Mode n. Saeculum 45, 239–264.
Geh ke, J.H. 2000: My hos, Geschich e und kollek i e Iden i ä . An ike exempla und ih Nachleben. In:
D. Dahlmann– W. Pos ho (eds.): My hen, Symbole und Ri uale. Die Geschich smäch igkei de Zeichen in
Südos eu opa im 19. und 20. Jah hunde . Bonn, 1–24.
31MARCO FERRARIO
Geh ke, J.H. 2004: Was heiß und zu welchem Ende s udie man in e na ionale Geschich e? Ma a hon
und T oja als undie ende My hen. In: G. Mel ille– S.K. Rehbe g (eds.): G ündungsmy hen, Genealogien,
Memo ialzeichen. Bei äge zu ins i u ionellen Kons uk ion on Kon inui ä . Köln, 21–36.
Geh ke, H.-J.– Lu aghi, N.– Foxhall, L. 2010 eds.: In en ional His o y. Spinning Time in Ancien G eece.
S u ga .
Giangiulio, M. 1981: De o mi à e oiche e adizioni di ondazione. Ba o, Miscillo e l’o acolo del ico. Annali
della Scuola No male Supe io e di Pisa 11, 1–24.
Giangiulio, M. 2005: T adizione s o ica e s a egie na a i e nelle S o ie di E odo o. Il caso del disco so
di Socle Co inzio. In: M. Giangiulio (ed.): E odo o e il «modello e odo eo». Fo mazione e asmissione delle
adizioni s o iche in G ecia.T en o, 91–123.
Giangiulio, M. 2006: B icolage coloniale. Fondazioni g eche in Ci enaica. In: M. Lomba do– F. F isone
(eds.): Colonie di colonie. Le ondazioni sub-coloniali g eche a colonizzazione e colonialismo. A i del con egno
in e nazionale, Lecce, 22–24 giugno 2006. Lecce, 87–98.
Giangiulio, M. 2010: Memo ie coloniali. Roma.
Hanson, D.V. ed. 1999: Hopli es. The classical G eek ba le expe ience. London– New Yo k.
Ha a i, N.Y. 2011: Sapiens. AB ie His o y o Humankind. New Yo k.
Ha a i, N.Y. 2016: Homo Deus. AB ie His o y o Tomo ow. New Yo k.
Ha og, F. 1991: Le mi oi d’Hé odo e: essai su la ep ésen a ion de l’au e. Pa is.
Henkelman, M.F.W. 2018: Bac ians in Pe sepolis– Pe sians in Bac ia. In: J. Lhuillie – N. Bo o ka (eds.):
AMillennium o His o y. The I on Age in sou he n Cen al Asia (2nd and 1s Millennia BC). P oceedings o he
con e ence held in Be lin, June 23–25, 2014. Dedica ed o he memo y o Vik o I ano ich Sa ianidi.
Be lin, 223–257.
He z eld, E. 1968: The Pe sian Empi e. S udies in Geog aphy and E hnog aphy o he Ancien Nea Eas . Edi ed
om he Pos humous Pape s by Ge old Walse . S u ga .
Hol , F.L. 1988: Alexande he G ea and Bac ia. Leiden.
Hol , F.L. 1999: Thunde ing Zeus. The Making o Hellenis ic Bac ia. Aus in.
Hol , F.L. 2004: In o he Land o Bones. Alexande he G ea in A ghanis an. Be keley.
Jacobs, B. 2017: Kon inui ä ode kon inuie liche Wandel in de achämenidischen Reichs e wal ung? Eine
Synopse on PF, dahyā a – Lis en und den Sa apienlis en de Alexande his o iog aphen. In: B. Jacobs,–
M.F.W. Henkelman– W.M. S olpe (eds.): The Adminis a ion in he Achaemenid Empi e / Die Ve wal ung im
Achämeniden eich. Impe iale Mus e und S uk u en. Wiesbaden, 3–45.
Jacoby, F. 1930: Die F agmen e de g iechischen His o ike . Zwei e Teil B, Kommen a zu n . 106–261. Be lin–
Leiden.
King, R. 2021: The House o he Sa ap and he Making o he Achaemenid Pe sian Empi e, 522–330 BCE. Ph.D.
Disse a ion, Uni e si y o Chicago.
Kubica, O. 2016: The Massac e o he B anchidae: AReassessmen . The pos -mo em Case in De ence o he
B anchidae. In: K. Nawo ka– A. Wojciechowska (eds.): Alexande he G ea and he Eas . His o y, A , T a-
di ion. Wiesbaden, 143–150.
Lando, F. 1993: Fa o e inzione. Geog a ia e le e a u a. Milano.
Lee, J.W.I. 2004: “Fo he e we e many he ai ai in he a my”. Women in Xenophon’sAnabasis. The Ancien
Wo ld 34, 154–165.
Len an , D. 2005: C ésias de Cnide. La Pe se, L’In e, Au es F agmen s. Pa is.
Lincoln, B. 2007: Religion, Empi e, and To u e. The Case o Achaemenid Pe sia Wi h aPos sc ip on Abu G ahib.
Chicago.
Lincoln, B. 2012: Happiness o Mankind. Achaemenian Religion and he Impe ial P ojec . Leu en.
Lhuillie , J.– Mashkou , M. 2017: Animal exploi a ion in he oases. An a chaeozoological e iew o I on
Age si es in sou he n Cen al Asia. An iqui y 91, 655–673.
32 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1
Lu aghi, N. 2001: Local Knowledge in He odo us’ «His o ies». In: N. Lu aghi (ed.): The His o ian’sC a in
he Age o He odo us. Ox o d, 138–160.
Mai s, R.2006: E hnic Iden i y in he Hellenis ic Fa Eas . Unpublished disse a ion. Uni e si y o Camb idge.
Mai s, R.2013: The Hellenis ic Fa Eas . F om he Oikoumene o he Communi y. In: E. S a ianoupolou
(ed.): Shi ing social Imagine ies in he Hellenis ic Pe iod. Na a ions, P ac ices and Images. Leiden, 365–388.
Mai s, R.2014a: Achaemenid Ai Khānoum. A chäologische Mi eilungen aus I an und Tu an 46, 1–19.
Mai s, R.2014b: The Hellenis ic Fa Eas . A chaeology, Language and Iden i y in G eek Cen al Asia. Be keley.
Malkin, I. 2002: AColonial Middle G ound. G eek, E uscan, and Local Eli es in he Bay o Naples. In: L.C.
Lyons– K.J. Papadopoulos (eds.): The A chaeology o Colonialism. Issues and Deba es. Los Angeles, 15–181.
Ma a ese, C. 2021: Depo a ionen im Pe se eich in eispidisch-achaimenidische Zei . Wiesbaden.
Mazza ino, S. 1966: Il pensie o s o ico classico. Roma– Ba i.
Meineck, P.2017: Thebes as high-colla e al-damage Ta ge . Mo al Accoun abili y o Killing in Aeschylus’
Se en agains Thebes. In: I. To ance (ed.): Aeschylus and Wa . Compa a i e Pe spec i es on Se en agains
Thebes. Abingdon, 49–69.
Mendoza, M. 2016: La Anábasis o zada. Depo aciones en el impe io Aqueménida. Polis 28, 69–130.
Mendoza, M. 2017: Las depo aciones Aqeménidas. Pa alelismos y di e encias con neo-asi ios y neo-ba-
bilonios. In: A. Hue a Ba e a– A.M. Ce e a Ob egón (eds.): Los e ec os de la gue a. Desplazamien os de
población alo la go de la his o ia. Mad id, 27–50.
Moggi, M. 2005: A abano in E odo o. In: M. Giangiulio (ed.): E odo o e il «modello e odo eo». Fo mazione e
asmissione delle adizioni s o iche in G ecia. T en o, 193–214.
Mu ay, O. 2001. He odo us and O al His o y. In: N. Lu aghi (ed.): The His o ian’sC a in he Age o He odo us.
Ox o d, 16–44.
Nenci, G. 1994 ed.: E odo o. Le S o ie. La i ol a della Ionia. Milano.
Pa e son, O. 1975: Con ex and Choice in E hnic Allegiance. ATheo e ical F amewo k and Ca ibbean Case
S udy. In: N. Glaze – D. Moynihan (eds.): E hnici y. Theo y and P ac ice. Camb idge, Mass., 305–350.
Plischke, S. 2014: Die Seleukiden und I an. Die seleukidische He scha spoli ik in den ös lichen Sa apien. Wies-
baden.
Po úa, Á.M. 2001. Be nal Dìaz. His o ia e dade a de la conquis a de la Nue a España, México. Ciudad Real.
Raa laub, K. 2014: Wa and he Ci y. The B u ali y o Wa and i s Impac on he Communi y. In: P.Meineck–
D. Kons an (eds.): Comba T auma and he Ancien G eeks. New Yo k, 15–46.
Rapin, C. 1996: Indian A om A ghanis an. The Legend o Sakun ala and he Indian T easu e o Euc a ides a Ai
Khānoum. New Delhi.
Rapin, C. 2018: Aux o igins de la ca og aphie. L’ empi e achéménide sous Da ius I e Xe xès. Ancien Ci ili-
za ions om Scy hia o Sibe ia 24, 1–67.
Rawlinson, H.G. 1909: Bac ia. The His o y o aFo go en Empi e. Bombay.
Robe , L. 1968: De Delphes à l’Oxus, insc ip ions g ecques nou elles de la Bac iane. Comp es Rendus des
séances de l’Académie des Insc ip ions e Belles-Le es 112, 416–457.
Rollinge , R.2017a: Al o ien alisches bei He odo . Das wiehe nde P e d des Da eiosI. In: H. Klinko – N.
K ame (eds.): Zwischen Azu und A hen. Al o ien alisches in den His o ien He odo s. S u ga , 13–45.
Rollinge , R.2017b: Assy ia in Classical Sou ces. In: E. F ahm (ed.): Acompanion o Assy ia. London, 570–583.
Rollinge , R.2017c: Mona chische He scha am Beispiel des eispidisch – Achimenidischen G oß eichs.
In: S. Rebenich (ed.): Mona chische He scha im Al e um. Be lin, 189–215.
Rollinge , R.– Bichle , R.2017: Uni e sale Wel he scha und die Monumen e an ih en G enzen. Die Idee
unbeg enz e He scha und de en B echung im disku si en Wechselspiel. (Vom Al en O ien bis zum
Impe ium Romanum). In: R. Rollinge (ed.): Die Sich au die Wel zwischen Os und Wes (750 . Ch .–550 n.
Ch ) / Looking a he Wo ld om he Eas and he Wes (750 BCE–550 CE). Wiesbaden, 1–31.
Sa deli, M. 2017: John o Plano Ca pini s Simon o Sain – Quen in. 13
h
-Cen u y Emo ions in he Eu asian
S eppe. Golden Ho de Re iew 5, 494–508.
33MARCO FERRARIO
Schliehpake, C. 2019: On Alexande ’sT acks. Explo ing Geog aphies, Memo ies, and Cul u al Iden i ies along he
No h-Wes F on ie o B i ish India in he Nine een h Cen u y. S u ga .
Skinne , E.J. 2012: The In en ion o G eek E hnog aphy. F om Home o He odo us. Ox o d.
Skinne , E.J. 2018: He odo us and his Wo ld. In: T. Ha ison– E. E win (eds.): In e p e ing He odo us. Ox o d,
187–222.
Ta n, W.W. 1938: The G eeks o Bac ia and India. Camb idge.
Thomas, R.2001: He odo us’ His o ies and he Floa ing Gap. In: N. Lu aghi (ed.): The His o ian’sC a in he
Age o He odo us. Ox o d, 198–211.
Todo o , T. 1982: La Conquê e de l’Amé ique. La ques ion de l’au e. Pa is.
an Wees, H. 2002: He odo us and he Pas . He odo us in he Pas . In: E. Bakke – I. de Jong– H. an Wees
(eds.): B ill’sCompanion o He odo us. Leiden– Bos on– Köln, 321–349.
an Wees, J.G.B. 2003: Conque o s and Se s. Wa s o Conques and Fo ced Labou in A chaic G eece. In: N.
Lu aghi– S.E. Alcock (eds.): Helo s and hei Mas e s in Laconia and Messenia. His o ies, ideologies, s uc u es.
Washing on, DC– Camb idge, Mass., 33–81.
an Wees, J.G.B. 2010: Genocide in he ancien wo ld. In: D. Bloxham– D. Moses (eds.): The Ox o d Handbook
o Genocide S udies. New Yo k, 239–258.
an Wees, J.G.B. 2011: De ea and des uc ion. The e hics o ancien G eek wa a e. In: M. Linde – S. Tausend
(eds.): Bose K ieg. Exzessi e Gewal in de An iken K iegs uh ung und S a egien zu de en Ve meidung. G az,
69–110.
an Wees, J.G.B. 2016: Genocide in a chaic and classical G eece. In: V. Cas on– S.-M. Weineck, 2016 (eds.):
Ou ancien wa s. Re hinking wa h ough he classics. Ann A bo , 19–37.
Wiesehö e , J. 1994: Die “dunklen Jah hunde e” de Pe sis. Un e suchungen zu Geschich e und Kul u on Fā s
in ühellenis ische Zei (330–140 . Ch .). München.
Ma co Fe a io
Uni e si à degli S udi di T en o
Via Tommaso Ga 14
38122 T en o, I alia
ma co[email p o ec ed]