[will be published in: R. Rollinger / E. van Dongen (ed.

), Mesopotamia in the Ancient World: Impact,

Continuities, Parallels, Melammu Symposia 7, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 2014]

The Ancient Near East and the genre of Greek historiography *

Birgit Gufler – Irene Madreiter

1. Introductory notes
Ancient historiography is generally understood as a product of the so called Western world. In
this context two fields of research which have triggered an emotional discussion, play an
important role. The first one deals with the contacts between the Ancient Near East 1 and the
‘Greek World’. In this regard, the impact of the East on Greek culture versus the independent
development of the single city states in the Aegean region is disputed controversially. The
second one debates the genre of ancient historiography as a history of events and its narrative
character as well as the reliability of the ancient authors.
The analysis of elements from the Middle East and their meaning in Greek historiographical
(con-)texts is a desideratum for research and promises a better understanding of the genre of
historiography between fact and fiction. In our project “Altorientalische Elemente in der
antiken Historiographie: Herodot und Ktesias”, we analyze the Histories of Herodotus (5th c.
BC) and the Persika of Ctesias (4th c. BC).

In this paper we will expose some basic ideas underlying the topic respectively the project.
Our paper is divided into three main parts: we will start with some considerations about Greek
historiography. In the second part we will briefly focus on the scholarly debate on the contacts
between the Ancient Near East and the Greek world and on methodological aspects. By
giving two examples we will then illustrate how difficult it can be to evaluate individual
information in Herodotus and Ctesias.

*
Supported by funds of the Tiroler Wissenschaftsfonds, project “Altorientalische Elemente in der antiken
Historiographie: Herodot und Ktesias”. We thank Claudia Schwarz for correcting our English.
1
van Dongen, 2014 argues for abandoning the concept of the Near East. Nevertheless we use the terms
‘Ancient Near East’, ‘Near East’ or ‘Middle East’ as vague geographical indicators for the regions dominated
by Assyrians, Babylonians and Achaemenids in the first millennium BC. Being aware that the concept of the
‘Orient’ has been criticized since Saïd, 1978, we also sometimes refer to ‘oriental’ elements, denominating
the Eastern provenience of the material.
1
2. Phrasing the problem 2
The differentiation between research disciplines and an increasing specialization have led to a
separate handling of texts that originate in the Ancient World, i.e. the time of early literate
societies until the transformation of the Roman World and the area of the Near East and the
Mediterranean world. The period of institutionalization of the relevant disciplines (Ancient
History, Classical Philology, Classical Archaeology, Assyriology, Egyptology, etc.) until the
time after the Second World War was marked by a nationalist, ethnic and partly racist
thinking in intellectual history. The changing political conditions also had an impact on the
perspectives in the academic world. This led to the fact that, among other things, the notion of
peoples as homogeneous cultures was put into question. 3
Against this background it was possible to examine similarities that stood out between the
written and archaeological legacies from the Middle East and the Aegean and to discuss the
contacts between the allegedly separate spheres. It was no longer necessary to act on the
assumption of the birth of single accomplishments on the basis of a presumed Greek genius
(‘Greek miracle’). 4 Influences of literary works in Hittite and Assyrian languages on the epics
of the Greek Archaic period have been formulated and discussed. 5
The institutionalizing period of the disciplines dealing with antiquity and history in the 18th
and 19th centuries has shaped the approach to ancient texts and the assessment of individual
genres and text sources. According to scholars such as Albin Lesky, Klaus Meister or recently
Beat Näf, the genre of historiography has been understood as a product of Greek culture. 6
Exploring the past is regarded as an essential feature of historiographical writings. 7 This
includes, amongst other things, the use of specific methods such as autopsy or the questioning
of informants and a critical assessment of the sources. 8 The result is a certain claim for truth,
which had already been attributed to historical texts in antiquity and which also served as a
sign of quality of a historiographical work. 9 Exploring the legacies of Mesopotamia, Ancient
Iran, and Egypt played an important role for the assessment of historiographical works
because the new testimonies – texts as well as the archeological record – could not always be

2
This phrase is borrowed from Hall, 1997: 1.
3
Homi Bhabha, 1994. In regard to classical antiquity cf. e.g. Wenskus, 1961. Pohl / Reimitz, 1998. Hall, 1997.
Ulf, 2009. Ulf, 2014. Gufler, in prep.
4
Burkert, 1984. Burkert, 1992.
5
See for example Bernabé, 2004. van Dongen, 2010. Ulf / Rollinger, 2011.
6
Meister, 1990: 9f. Näf, 2010: 45–48. Indirectly Lesky, ³1971: 254. Rengakos, 2011: 326.
7
Näf, 2010: 45.
8
Characteristics of historiographical writings are listed in Meister, 1990: 199–205. Rengakos, 2011: 326.
9
On the fictional character of the Greek historiography in the Classical period see e.g. Bichler, 2007b.
2
harmonized with the reports of the ancient historiographers. 10 For some authors such as
Herodotus of Halicarnassus, the question of the quality of the sources which could be
attributed to the writer was discussed in this context. In a different way, doubts about the
veracity of Herodotus’ narrative were expressed by Detlev Fehling because he assumed that
the author had provided invented sources. 11 For this he has been strongly criticized by W. K.
Pritchett and others. 12
Some scholars have pointed to the literary character of Herodotus’ Histories, 13 which does not
exclusively conform to the design principles of modern historical writings, but has other
facets, too. François Hartog, for example, suggested that Herodotus’ narrative would have a
mirror function. 14 According to Kai Ruffing in his introduction to “Herodots Quellen – die
Quellen Herodots”, the question of truth and lie is not adequate any longer. 15 The debates,
however, differed depending on the claimed quality of the text of an ancient author. In regard
to Ctesias, for example, scholars have also discussed the genre of his work. Since this author
eludes attempts of a modern categorization, especially the literary value of his work on
Persian history has been emphasized in recent years. 16

Studies on Greek historiography usually deal with her origins. Scholars have argued that
historiographers recourse to elements – in form and/or content – of non-historiographical
texts,17 including references to poetry. Herodotus for example refers to Homer, Phrynichus or
Pindarus. 18 A well-known example of reception is Homer’s catalogue of ships in the Iliad, 19
which is paralleled by Herodotus’ register of king Xerxes’ armed forces in book 7. 20 Later
historiographical works also access elements of content from earlier historiographical writings
and treat them in a different way. Ctesias’ depiction of history led to controversies about the
reliability of his work since ancient times. Photius says in the Epitome that Ctesias differs in
his account of early Persian history not only from Herodotus, but also disagrees in some

10
Rollinger, ³2011: 139–143.
11
Fehling, 1971. Fehling, 1989.
12
Pritchett, 1993. See now Dunsch / Ruffing, 2013 [2014], with different positions.
13
See e.g. the relevant articles in: Boedeker, 1987. Luraghi, 2001. Bakker / de Jong / van Wees, 2002. Dewald /
Marincola, 2006. Baragwanath / de Bakker, 2012.
14
Hartog, 1980. For other aspects see e.g. Armayor, 1978. Bichler, ²2001. Bichler, 2007a. Baragwanath, 2008.
15
Ruffing, 2013 [2014].
16
Bichler, 2007c. Madreiter, 2012. Stronk, 2011. And more general Wiesehöfer / Rollinger / Lanfranchi, 2011.
17
Meister, 1990. Lendle, 1992. Marincola, 2007. For historiography in general see White, 1973. White, 1978.
18
Strasburger, 1972. Grethlein, 2010 and Boekeder, 2011 with further references.
19
Hom. Il. 2, 484–760. On the early Homer-reception see Graziosi, 2002. Haubold, 2002. Graziosi, ²2011.
20
Hdt. VII 61–99. Armayor, 1978: 7f. Waters, 1985: 61.
3
respects with Xenophon. 21 A reception of known elements can also be determined in the
literature on Alexander the Great, where various forms of references can be worked out.
There is an analogy between the Anabasis of Arrianus of Nicomedia and that of Xenophon of
Athens. But also elements of content could be re-used. There are parallels between the reports
of the marches of the Persian resp. the Macedonian army to the shrine of Ammon, in which
the army of Cambyses failed, but that of Alexander was successful. 22
In research, the received elements known from earlier Greek literature are treated differently
from those showing parallels to texts from the Ancient Near East. Due to the different
languages and the spatial distance of the texts questions are raised about the sources and the
channels of transmission. 23 Thereby, elements that are seen as a result of the investigation (of
the facts) by the ancient author are assessed in a different way than those whose historicity are
disputed or may be denied. The first group includes, for example, the story of Darius’ I
takeover in Herodotus’ Histories, which is similar to Darius’ report in the Bisotun inscription
in many details. The second group contains stories or parts of them that do not have a factual
background, such as Herodotus’ episode on the flying serpents of Arabia. 24

Another important problem regards the assumed uniqueness of Greek historiography: some
Classical scholars (at least) implicitly deny the existence of this genre in the Near East. They
postulate that historiography began in the Aegean world. 25 According to Martin Mulsow, the
question of the beginnings of historiography is strongly related to her definition. 26 He points
out that the understanding of (the beginnings of) historiography has changed in the scholarly
discussion. In antiquity, Strabo and Pliny stated that Cadmus of Miletus was the first
historian. 27 In Christian literature, however, Moses had been regarded as the eldest historian
until the 17th/18th century AD. 28 Significant changes in the question of the beginnings of
historiography are linked with the distinction between history and myth during the
Enlightenment. 29 In the 19th century this differentiation was amplified. In this time also
national and racial trends gained in importance. Against this intellectual background, Mulsow
asked: “Konnte echte Historiographie bei einem semitischen, nicht arischen Volk

21
Ctes. F *0a Stronk, 2010. Madreiter, 2012.
22
Müller, 2011.
23
West, 2011 ad Herodotus. See also Heller, this volume.
24
Rollinger, 2004. Rollinger / Lang, 2005.
25
See n. 6.
26
Mulsow, 2005: 25.
27
Mulsow, 2005: 19 referring to Strab. I 18 and Plin. NH V 112. VII 205.
28
Mulsow, 2005: 19.
29
Mulsow, 2005: 20–23.
4
vorliegen?“ 30 Following Mulsow’s analysis, the alleged non-existence of the genre
historiography seems to be the result of tradition.
Jacob J. Finkelstein calls attention to the “hazard of applying Western categories to
phenomena completely alien to us.” 31 He states that all societies had concepts of the past but
that they were crafted into different forms of historical writings. 32 The author discusses
selected genres, e.g. the omen-literature or the chronicles as sources which include historical
concepts. In his conclusion Finkelstein quotes two text-passages by Thucydides, whom he
calls “a most eloquent and rational historian”. 33 The first one reflects the aim of the
historiographer to present “[…] exact knowledge of the facts […]”. The second passage
shows that Thucydides underlines the magnitude of the Peloponnesian War by linking
extraordinary natural phenomena like eclipses, earthquakes etc. with the outbreak of the war.
By quoting this paragraph, Finkelstein emphasizes that even one of the most prominent Greek
historiographers includes aspects that do not fit all criteria of historical writing in a modern
sense.

3. Approaching the problem

Dealing with the impact of the Near East on Greek literature and art is a relatively new field
of research that has strongly gained in importance in Classical studies for about three decades.
There was a special interest in the Archaic period, the so called Orientalizing phase. As a
spiritus rector Walter Burkert has to be mentioned. In numerous works he pointed out the
manifold influences of the Near East on Greek culture. 34 Burkert as well as Martin West or
Stephanie Dalley focused mainly on analogies between motifs in literary sources. 35 In the
early 1990s, some studies dealt explicitly with questions of methodology of a supposed motif-
transfer within the ancient world. Jeffrey H. Tigay and Alberto Bernabé established criteria
that should help determine probable dependencies between motifs in texts from different
cultures. 36 They can be classified into criteria regarding to the relating texts on the one hand
and to the “circumstantial evidence” 37 on the other. 38 The first group includes, for example,

30
Mulsow, 2005: 24.
31
Finkelstein, 1963: 461.
32
Finkelstein, 1963: 461f.
33
Finkelstein, 1963: 472.
34
E.g. Burkert, 1984. Burkert, 1992. Burkert, 2004.
35
West, 1997. Dalley, 1998.
36
Tigay, 1993. Bernabé, 1995.
37
Tigay, 1993: 255.
38
Cf. Gufler, 2002: 115–120.
5
the specificity of a theme or the complexity of a motif. 39 Criteria concerning the second group
are, inter alia, the distance in time and space of sources or the traceability of the channels of
transmission between them. 40 A new impetus has been provided by Margret Miller’s
influential monograph Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C.: A Study in Cultural
Receptivity 41 because her focus is now on the recipient. Miller demonstrates the various forms
of handling with Persian goods through the Athenians, which could range from class-specific
adaption of foreign goods to their hybridization. The idea of hybridization was then picked up
several times. 42 Recently, Johannes Haubold has made a case for a close reading of Greek and
Mesopotamian texts, preferring the application of methods of comparative literature to the
simple listing of parallels or the search of contact zones. 43 Especially his emphasis on
Mesopotamian and Greek sources as literary texts with a specific audience is shared by us, as
it breaks down ideological boundaries between the disciplines.

For the Archaic period, the evidence of the existence of contact spheres between ‘East’ and
‘West’ was important in research. On the contrary, the question of an assumed transmission
between Persia and the Greek poleis is not the main problem in the Classical period because
everyone accepts the Greek-Persian wars as a fact. However, the channels of transmission still
remain elusive and a matter of discussion. The Ancient Near East as a topic gained in
significance in the Greek classical period. This becomes additionally apparent in new forms
of literature, particularly tragedy and historiography. The connections between the ‘Orient’
and historiography have thus been viewed in a number of perspectives. Case studies have
demonstrated analogies between Greek stories (or parts of them) and texts of the Ancient
Near East. 44 A new approach has been provided by the members of the Achaemenid history
project, initiated by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, who tried to analyze the sources without a
Eurocentric perspective. 45 Another research interest centers on historiography and the Ancient
Near East, for example on Herodotus, Ctesias, Berossos or the historians on Alexander the
Great. 46

39
Tigay, 1993: 251. Bernabé, 1995: 15f. 20.
40
Tigay, 1993: 255. Bernabé, 1995: 13f. 19.
41
Miller, 1997.
42
Ulf, 2009 provides a model of “cultural contacts”. Ulf, 2014. Ulf / Rollinger, 2011.
43
Haubold, 2013. See also Haubold, 2002.
44
Cf. n. 24; e.g. Huber, 2005. Rollinger / Ruffing, 2013. Rollinger, 2013 [2014].
45
Cf. the proceedings of the first workshops e.g. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, 1987. Sancisi-Weerdenburg / Kuhrt,
1987. Kuhrt / Sancisi-Weerdenburg, 1988.
46
Cf. e.g. the studies in the series Classica et Orientalia edited by Reinhold Bichler, Bruno Jacobs, Giovanni B.
Lanfranchi, Robert Rollinger, Kai Ruffing, and Josef Wiesehöfer.
6
The project “Altorientalische Elemente in der griechischen Historiographie: Herodot und
Ktesias” follows earlier studies insofar as it studies ‘oriental’ elements within the Greek texts.
The focus is now on the original context and the literary processing of these elements in
historiographical works with the explicit aim to reflect the character of ancient historiography.
Therefore we will analyze various source genres because there is no Near Eastern equivalent
to ‘Greek historiography’. 47 – We will not establish probable criteria for a genre of
historiography in the Ancient Near East but try to deconstruct historiography as
historiography in a modern sense. 48 – The material from the Middle East includes inter alia
cuneiform royal annals and the chronicle tradition of the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and
Achaemenid kings, 49 further ritual texts like the apotropaic Namburbi-rituals 50 or rituals in
connection to kingship. Other advantageous sorts of texts are prophecies and the omen
literature, as are literary texts like the Gilgamesh-epic 51.
By using approaches from literary studies 52, the leading question is the manner how the Near
Eastern source material is incorporated into a new literary, cultural and historical context.
This aspect is also stressed by the Anglo-Saxon reception studies. 53 Lorna Hardwick, for
instance, provided a “working vocabulary”, which helps to describe the relationship between
the involved texts.54 Based on this vocabulary we will try to create categories for our material.
Some of Hardwick’s terms are applicable to the description of elements known from the
Ancient Near East in the Greek material, especially adaptation 55, refiguration 56, and
transplantation 57. The estimation of their relevance and the defining of categories are to be
done in the future.

47
On this problem see Finkelstein, 1963. Michalowski, 1999: 70. Rollinger, 2014: 188f.
48
There might be useable approaches that discuss concepts of the past or analyze historical thinking, e.g.
Gehrke, 2005. Rollinger, 2014.
49
E.g. da Riva, 2012. Grayson, 1975. Grayson, 1996. Grayson / Novotny, 2012. Schmitt, 2009. Tadmor /
Yamada, 2011.
50
Maul, 1994.
51
George, 2003.
52
E.g. Schmitz, 2002. Grethlein / Rengakos, 2009. Recently de Jong, 2013/14 with further references.
53
Hardwick, 2003: 5: On reception studies in general see Graziosi, 2002. Martindale / Thomas, 2006. Hardwick
/ Stray, ²2011.
54
Hardwick, 2003: 5–11.
55
According to Hardwick, 2003: 9, an adaptation is a “version of the source developed for a different purpose”,
but no literal interpretation.
56
Refiguration denominates “selecting and reworking material from a previous or contrasting tradition”,
Hardwick, 2003: 10.
57
Transplantation means “to take a text or image into another context and allow it to develop”, Hardwick,
2003: 10.
7
4. Facing the problem: examples
In this chapter we will point to some of the basic challenges within the source material and
exemplify that Herodotus and Ctesias reworked more than one ‘historical’ source. We argue
that they used additional elements to craft their stories. The manner of the handling of these
elements in Herodotus and Ctesias is closely connected with their assessment in research as
representatives of the genre historiography. This assessment depends on several points, which
we will not discuss here any further. It includes, for example, the intention of the work, the
biography of the author (traveler, autopsy), his access to the sources (archives, indigene
informants etc.), the kind of his sources (written, oral, romance, royal inscription etc.), and his
interpretation of the material (following/not following the original structure, patterns etc.). By
using two episodes within the Histories and the Persika we concentrate on this latter aspect,
as we compile the correspondences and the differences to the Near Eastern sources.

Darius’ takeover is narrated in different genres and within different contexts. This story is the
main subject of the Bisotun inscription (DB) 58 ordered by Darius in around 520 BC and one
episode in Herodotus’ Histories 59 (III 61–88), written about 100 years later. The sources show
parallels and differences.
Some elements of narration correspond to each other. We summarize the main ones: Darius
and Herodotus report that king Cambyses murdered his brother Bardiya resp. Smerdis. 60 A
look-alike who pretended to be Bardiya resp. Smerdis became king. 61 Cambyses died. 62
Darius killed the usurper together with a few companions. 63 Darius became king. 64 According
to both sources Darius was assisted by six Persian nobles in slaying the imposter. 65 These
men are mentioned by name. Five of the six names of Darius’ companions match each
other. 66 Therefore, the two accounts show a high level of complexity of a motif. There are
further similarities in the narrations that vary in detail and additional aspects in Darius’ report
which do not match the account in the Histories. We just want to mention all the rebellions

58
The text was composed in different languages: cf. Weißbach, 1911. Schmitt, 1991. Schmitt, 2009. von
Voigtlander, 1978. Grillot-Susini / Herrenschmidt / Malbran-Labat, 1993. Greenfield / Porten, 1982.
59
Editions, translations are listed in Rollinger, ³2011: 181–184.
60
DB § 10. Hdt. III 61. This story is reported in detail in Hdt. III 30.
61
DB § 11–12. Hdt. III 61.
62
DB § 11. Hdt. III (62–)66.
63
DB § 13. Hdt. III 71–73 and 76–78.
64
DB § 13. Hdt. III 84–88.
65
DB § 68. Hdt. III 71–73 and 76–78.
66
DB § 68. Hdt. III 68–70. But see also the different narrative in Ctesias (e.g. the names of the conspirators,
Ctes. F 13 § 16 Stronk, 2010). Kuhrt, 2007: 141–173 mentions further sources.
8
which Darius cut off successfully. 67 This may be attributable to the source material Herodotus
could have referred to. The concrete channels of transmission are unclear. One does not have
to base the argument on the assumption that the author had been traveling. However, there are
other possibilities because the inscription was well-known. It seems that there have existed
several copies of the text, as mentioned by Darius in the inscription. 68 But there are additional
sequences in Herodotus’ story too, which seem to be his own makings. These include, for
example, the constitutional debate 69 between Darius and the six Persians before Darius
became king or the so called horse oracle. 70 Five of the six Persians declared that the one of
them should become king whose horse neighs first at sunrise. Darius was the winner.
Herodotus’ debate on constitutions has no parallels, neither in the Bisotun inscription nor in
any other cuneiform writing as far as we know. This addition is generally recognized as non-
factual and interpreted as an aspect of a Greek discourse. 71 The last part of the episode, the
horse oracle, can be traced back to different sources from the Ancient Near East. 72

The fall of Nineveh as reported by the Ctesias-tradition 73 reveals similar problems. In this
case the fragmentary state of the Persika makes it even more difficult to detect oriental
elements processed by him. We even do not know how many ‘oriental’ details are Ctesias’
own, or how many go back to Diodorus and other later transmitters of the Ctesian text.74
Some details within the plot of the siege of Nineveh correspond with official records, others
with literary texts or even omen-literature: the destruction of the city by a coalition of Medes
and Babylonians (a historical fact neglected in the Histories) shows analogies to written
accounts of the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib. Especially the flooding of Babylon
and the ritual deportation of ashes mentioned in the Assyrian annals strongly resemble
Ctesias’ account of events in Nineveh. 75 But Ctesias probably heard of this tradition without
knowing the cuneiform texts because the story was well-known across the Ancient Near East,
as is evident in the version of the prophetical book of Nahum. 76

67
DB §§ 16–54.
68
DB § 70. Cf. Schmitt, 1990: 302f. with further references. West, 2011: 265f.
69
Hdt. III 80–82.
70
Hdt. III 84–88.
71
Cf. How / Wells, ²1928: 277f. and Asheri, 2007: 472f. also mention studies which argue for a Persian
background of the debate of parts of it.
72
See Rollinger / Wiesehöfer, in prep.
73
Ctesias F 1b Stronk, 2010 (= Diod. II 25, 1–27, 3).
74
See the discussion in Lenfant, 2004: CLXXXII ff. Stronk, 2010: 60ff.
75
In detail Madreiter, 2011: 260–263.
76
Nahum 2, 7. 9.
9
Ctesias also used traditions about other Neo-Assyrian kings: the duration of the siege is
identical to the fratricidal war between Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šūmu-ukīn, but the besieged
town then was Babylon, not Nineveh. The famous suicide of Šamaš-šūmu-ukīn as recorded on
a prism of Assurbanipal but also on a demotic papyrus may have influenced Ctesias’
depiction of the last Assyrian king called Sardanapalus dying on a pyre. 77 Recently, also the
account of this Sardanapalus’ eccentric lifestyle was linked to elements of the Ishtar-cult and
prophetic literature. 78 Among the Neo-Assyrian we also find Neo-Babylonian traditions in the
Persika, just to mention the motif of revenge on Assyria for the destruction of Babylon
comparable to the Nabopolassar-epic and the basalt-stela of Nabonidus. 79 Again, the
dissemination of ideas or narratives across the Ancient Near East is obvious, but the exact
channels of transmission remain obscure. As a further problem Ctesias only provides scattered
pieces of a puzzle but no narrative patterns from the original. Therefore Ctesias’ modern (just
as much as ancient) assessment as historian of the Ancient Near East is negative. 80 The
transfer of stories from Babylon to Assyria is evidence that Ctesias used his models freely to
appropriate them for a Greek audience. The result is an alienation of the original sources
which corresponds to Hardwick’s definition of refiguration. 81

Darius’ rise to power as reported in the Bisotun inscription and in Herodotus’ Histories show
strong similarities. These similarities are used as an argument for the reliability of Herodotus’
information in modern research. 82 However, the differences are considered less in the
assessment of the author. The opposite seems to be true for Ctesias and the Persika. Although
there are obvious analogies between his fragmentary report and the sources from the Ancient
Near East, his mixture of sources and his garbled information led to a negative evaluation of
his historiographical method, especially when compared to Herodotus or even Thucydides.
Nevertheless, some hints of how Greek authors worked on their texts become clear:
historiographers did not only refer to one single source but incorporated material that
originated from different kinds of sources, different genres and sometimes also from different
centuries. Ctesias and Herodotus intentionally selected the source material, changed the

77
Ctes. F 1b Stronk, 2010 (= Diod. II 27, 1) and F 1q Stronk, 2010 (= Athen. XII 529 BD). Madreiter, 2011:
261 with further literature.
78
Lanfranchi, 2011: 211–216.
79
Madreiter, 2011: 262 with further references.
80
But cf. Sayce, 1883: XXXIII who lays the blame on Ctesias’ informants: “many of the charges of falsehood
brought against him (i.e. Ctesias) must be laid, not upon him, but upon his eastern friends.” The same
apologies also work for Herodotus, e.g. Rollinger, ³2011: 150.
81
Hardwick, 2003: 10.
82
Rollinger, ³2011: 139.
10
historical context and added further details. They adapted Near Eastern sources for a Greek
speaking audience in order to inform or entertain them. Elements from the Middle East served
to create an oriental flavor of the stories but also to legitimate the authority of the
historiographers as ‘serious’ writers of Ancient Near Eastern themes.

5. Concluding remarks
Within the last decades postcolonial and transnational approaches to history, literature and
arts led to a fracturing of the allegedly separated spheres ‘East’ and ‘West’. Nevertheless, the
existing academic division of Classics and Assyriology and their different methodologies
limited a broader look on the ancient world. The Melammu-project helped building a bridge
between the disciplines. 83
In the last decades also the understanding of (Classical) historiography has changed. Scholars
have stressed the narrative character of the texts. This has required a reappraisal of the genre
historiography between fact and fiction. The introduced project will analyze the significance
of ‘oriental’ elements in Greek historiographical texts, because the manner, in which they
were integrated into narratives of ancient authors, has influenced the assessment of
historiography by scholarship. It owes much to the methodological framework developed by
literary studies like narratology. Moreover the application of the vocabulary provided by
reception studies seems to be promising because it reveals the kind of reworking of the source
material. The aim of the project is a deeper understanding of historiography, as the ancient
texts transcend conventional genre boundaries. In postmodern times it seems no longer
adequate to keep hold on historiography in a modern sense.

83
See http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu.
11
6. Bibliography
Armayor, O. K., 1978: “Herodotus’ Catalogues of the Persian Empire in the Light of the
Monuments and the Greek Literary Tradition”. Transactions of the American Philological
Association 108, 1–9.
Asheri, D., 2007: “Book III”. In D. Asheri / A. Lloyd / A. Corcella: A Commentary on
Herodotus Books I–IV, with a Contribution by Maria Brosius, ed. by O. Murray / A.
Moreno. Oxford. Pp. 57–218.
Bakker, E. J. / de Jong, I. J. F. / van Wees, H. (eds.), 2002: Brill’s Companion to Herodotus.
Leiden / Bosten / Köln.
Baragwanath, E., 2008: Motivation and Narrative in Herodotus. Oxford.
Baragwanath, E. / de Bakker, M. (eds.), 2012: Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus.
Oxford.
Bernabé, A., 1995: “Influences orientales dans la littérature grecque: Quelques réflexions de
méthode”. Kernos 8, 9–22.
—, 2004: “Hittites and Greeks. Mythical Influences and Methodological Considerations”. In
R. Rollinger / Chr. Ulf (eds.): Griechische Archaik. Interne Entwicklungen – Externe
Impulse. Berlin. Pp. 291–310.
Bhabha, H., 1994: The Location of Culture. London / New York.
Bichler, R., ²2001: Herodots Welt. Der Aufbau der Historie am Bild der fremden Länder und
Völker, ihrer Zivilisation und ihrer Geschichte. Berlin.
—, 2007a: Historiographie – Ethnographie – Utopie. Gesammelte Schriften, Teil 1. Studien
zu Herodots Kunst der Historie, ed. by R. Rollinger. Philippika 18,1. Wiesbaden.
—, 2007b: “Geschichte und Fiktion – Bemerkungen zur klassischen Historie der Griechen.”
In R. Bichler: Historiographie – Ethnographie – Utopie. Gesammelte Schriften, Teil 1.
Studien zu Herodots Kunst der Historie, ed. by R. Rollinger. Philippika 18,1. Wiesbaden.
Pp. 75–89.
—, 2007c: “Ktesias ‚korrigiert‘ Herodot. Zur literarischen Einschätzung der Persika”. In R.
Bichler: Historiographie – Ethnographie – Utopie. Gesammelte Schriften, Teil 1. Studien
zu Herodots Kunst der Historie, ed. by R. Rollinger. Philippika 18,1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 229–
245.
Boedeker, D., (ed.), 1987: Herodotus and the Invention of History, Arethusa 20.
Boedeker, D., 2011: “Early Greek Poetry as/and History”. In A. Feldherr / G. Hardy (eds.),
The Oxford History of Historical Writing. Volume 1: Beginnings to AD 600. Oxford / New
York. Pp. 122–147.
Burkert, W., 1984: Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur.
Heidelberg.
—, 1992: The orientalizing revolution: Near eastern influence on Greek culture in the early
archaic age. Revealing Antiquity 5. Cambridge, MA.
—, 2004: Die Griechen und der Orient. München.
Dalley. St., 1998: The Legacy of Mesopotamia. Oxford.
de Jong, I., 2013/14: “Diachronic Narratology. (The example of Ancient Greek Narrative)”. In
P. Hühn et al. (eds.): The Living Handbook of Narratology. Hamburg. vide:
http://www.lhn.unihamburg.de/article/diachronic-narratology-example-ancient-greek-
narrative [view date: 28/03/2014].

12
Dewald, C. / Marincola, J. (eds.), 2006: The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cambridge
/ New York.
Dunsch, B. / Ruffing, K. (eds.), 2013 [2014]: Herodots Quellen. Die Quellen Herodots.
Herodot-Forschung 40 Jahre nach Detlev Fehlings „Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot“.
Classica et Orientalia 6. Wiesbaden.
Fehling, D., 1971: Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot. Studien zur Erzählkunst Herodots.
Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 9. Berlin / New York.
—, 1989: Herodotus and his „Sources“. Citation, Invention and Narrative Art. Translated by
J. G. Howie. Leeds.
Finkelstein, J. J., 1963: “Mesopotamian Historiography”. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 107/6, 461–472.
Gehrke, H. J., 2005: “Die Bedeutung der (antiken) Historiographie für die Entwicklung des
Geschichtsbewußtseins”. In E.-M. Becker (ed.): Die antike Historiographie und die
Anfänge der christlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 129. Berlin / New York.
Pp. 29–51.
George, A. R., 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and
Cuneiform Texts. 2 vols, Oxford.
Grayson, A. K., 1975: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley, NY.
—, 1996: Assyrian rulers of the early first millennium BC, Vol. 2: 858–745 BC. The royal
inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian periods 3. Toronto.
Grayson, A. K. / Novotny, J., 2012: The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria
(704-681 BC), Part 1. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1. Winona
Lake.
Graziosi, B., 2002: Inventing Homer: The early reception of epic. Cambridge.
—, ²2011: “The ancient reception of Homer”. In L. Hardwick / Chr. Stray (eds.): A
Companion to Classical Receptions. Oxford. Pp. 26–37.
Greenfield, J. C. / Porten, B., 1982: The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Aramaic
Version. Text, Transliteration and Commentary. Hand copy by Ada Yardeni. Corpus
Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part I: Inscriptions of Ancient Iran, Vol. 5: The Aramaic
Versions of the Achaemenian Inscriptions, etc., Texts I. London.
Grethlein, J., 2010: The Greeks and their past. Poetry, oratory, and history in the fifth century
BCE. Cambridge / New York.
Grethlein, J. / Rengakos, A. (eds.), 2009: Narratology and Interpretation. The content of
narrative form in ancient literature. Berlin / New York.
Grillot-Susini, F. / Herrenschmidt, C. / Malbran-Labat, F., 1993: “La version élamite de la
trilingue de Behistun: une nouvelle lecture”. Journal Asiatique 281, 19–59.
Gufler, B., 2002: Die Gorgo in der griechischen Kunst und ihre orientalischen Wurzeln.
Diplomarbeit, Univ. Innsbruck.
—, in prep.: Perser (und Meder) bei Herodot. Eine Untersuchung ethnographischer
Darstellung unter Berücksichtigung ausgewählter Quellen aus dem Vorderen Orient.
Dissertation, Innsbruck.
Hall, J., 1997: Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge.

13
Hardwick, L., 2003: Reception Studies. Greece and Rome: New surveys in the Classics 33.
Oxford.
Hardwick, L. / Stray, Chr. (eds.), ²2011: A Companion to Classical Receptions. Oxford.
Hartog, F., 1980: Le Miroir d’Hérodote: Essai sur la représentation de l’autre. Bibliothèque
des Histoires, NRF. Paris.
Haubold, J., 2002: “Greek epic: a near eastern genre?” Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society 48, 1–19.
—, 2013: Greece and Mesopotamia. Dialogues in Literature. Cambridge.
How, W.W. / Wells J., ²1928: A Commentary on Herodotus, with Introduction and
Appendixes. vol. 1. Oxford (reprint 1967).
Huber, I., 2005: “Ersatzkönige in griechischem Gewand: Die Umformung des šar puhi-
Rituale bei Herodot, Berossos, Agathias und den Alexander-Historikern”. In R. Rollinger
(ed.): Von Sumer bis Homer, Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25.
Februar 2004. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 325. Münster. Pp. 339–397.
Kuhrt, A., 2007: The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period.
London / New York.
Kuhrt, A. / Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (eds.), 1988: Method and Theory, Proceedings of the
London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop. Achemenid History III. Leiden.
Lanfranchi, G. B., 2011: “Gli AƩƩYRIAKÀ di Ctesia e la documentazione assira”. In J.
Wiesehöfer / R. Rollinger / G. B. Lanfranchi (eds.): Ktesias’ Welt / Ctesias’ World.
Classica et Orientalia 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 175–223.
Lenfant, D., 2004: Ctésias de Cnide. La Perse. L’Inde. Autres fragments. Paris.
Lendle, O., 1992: Einführung in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von Hekataios bis
Zosimos. Darmstadt.
Lesky, A., ³1971: Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Bern / München.
Luraghi, N., (ed.), 2001: The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Oxford / New York.
Madreiter, I., 2011: “Ktesias und Babylonien: über eine nicht-existierende Größe in den
Persika”. In J. Wiesehöfer / R. Rollinger / G. B. Lanfranchi (eds.): Ktesias’ Welt / Ctesias’
World. Classica et Orientalia 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 247–277.
—, 2012: Stereotypisierung – Idealisierung – Indifferenz: Formen der literarischen
Auseinandersetzung mit dem Achaimeniden-Reich in der griechischen Persika-Literatur
des vierten Jahrhunderts v.Chr. Classica et Orientalia 4. Wiesbaden.
Marincola, J., 2007: “Introduction”. In J. Marincola (ed.): A Companion to Greek and Roman
Historiography, 2 vol. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Malden / Oxford /
Carlton. Pp. 1–9.
Martindale, Ch. / Thomas, R. F. (eds.), 2006: Classics and the Uses of Reception. Oxford.
Maul, St. M., 1994: Zukunftsbewältigung: eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens
anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi). Mainz.
Meister, K., 1990: Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende
des Hellenismus. Stuttgart / Berlin / Köln.
Michalowski, P., 1999: “Commemoration, Writing, and Genre in Ancient Mesopotamia”. In
Chr. S. Kraus (ed.): The Limits of Historiography. Genre and Narrative in Historical Texts.
Mnemosyne Supplements 191. Leiden / Boston / Köln. Pp. 69–90.

14
Miller, M. C., 1997: Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C.: A Study in Cultural
Receptivity. Cambridge.
Müller, S., 2011: “Die frühen Perserkönige im kulturellen Gedächtnis der Makedonen und in
der Propaganda Alexanders d.Gr.”. Gymnasium 118, 105–131.
Mulsow, M., 2005: “Zur Geschichte der Anfangsgeschichten”. In E.-M. Becker (ed.): Die
antike Historiographie und die Anfänge der christlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche
129. Berlin / New York. Pp. 19–28.
Näf, B., 2010: Antike Geschichtsschreibung. Form – Leistung – Wirkung. Stuttgart.
Pohl, W. / Reimitz, H. (eds.), 1998: Strategies of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic
Communities, 300–800. The Transformation of the Roman World 2. Leiden / Boston /
Köln.
Pritchett, W. K., 1993: The liar school of Herodotos. Amsterdam.
Rengakos, A., 2011: “Historiographie: Gattungsgeschichte. Voraussetzungen”. In B.
Zimmermann unter Mitarbeit von A. Schlichtmann (ed.): Handbuch der griechischen
Literatur der Antike. Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft, 7. Abteilung, 1. Band. München. Pp. 326–328.
da Riva, R., 2012: The twin inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar at Brisa (Wadi esh-Sharbin,
Lebanon). A Historical and Philological Study. Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 32.
Wien.
Rollinger, R., 2004: “Herodot (II 75f, III 107–109), Asarhaddon, Jesaja und die fliegenden
Schlangen Arabiens”. In H. Heftner / K. Tomaschitz (eds.): Ad Fontes! Festschrift für
Gerhard Dobesch zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag am 15. September 2004. Wien. Pp.
927–944.
—, ³2011: “Forschungsteil”. In R. Bichler / R. Rollinger: Herodot. Olms Studienbücher
Antike, Bd. 3. Hildesheim / Zürich / New York. Pp. 109–202.
—, 2013 [2014]: “Dareios und Xerxes an den Rändern der Welt und die Inszenierung von
Weltherrschaft. Altorientalisches bei Herodot”. In B. Dunsch / K. Ruffing (eds.): Herodots
Quellen. Die Quellen Herodots. Herodot-Forschung 40 Jahre nach Detlev Fehlings „Die
Quellenangaben bei Herodot“. Classica et Orientalia 6. Wiesbaden. Pp. 95–116.
—, 2014: “Thinking and writing about history in Teispid and Achaemenid Persia”. In K. A.
Raaflaub (ed.): Thinking, Recording, and Writing History in the Ancient World. Malden /
Oxford / Chichester. Pp. 187–212.
Rollinger, R. / Lang, M., 2005: “Die fliegenden Schlangen Arabiens: Transfer und Wandlung
eines literarischen Motivs in der antiken Überlieferung – ein Florilegium”. In F. Beutler /
W. Hameter unter Mitarbeit von R. Beutler, M. Gerhold, V. Scheibelreiter, I. Weber-Hiden
(eds.): „Eine ganz normale Inschrift“ ... und ähnliches zum Geburtstag von Ekkehard
Weber, Festschrift zum 30. April 2005. Althistorisch-Epigraphische Studien Band 5. Wien.
Pp. 101–109.
Rollinger, R. / Ruffing, K., 2013: “‚Panik‘ im Heer? Dareios III., die Schlacht von Gaugamela
und die Mondfinsternis vom 20. September 331 v. Chr.”. Iranica Antiqua 47, 101–115.
Rollinger, R. / Wiesehöfer, J., in prep.: “Herodotus and the Persian Empire: The
Transformation of Ancient Near Eastern Motifs”. In E. Irwin / Th. Harrison (eds.): The

15
 Past in the Present. Interpreting Herodotus after Charles W. Fornara, 20.–22. September,
Columbia University, New York.
Ruffing, K., 2013 [2014]: “Einführung”. In B. Dunsch / K. Ruffing (eds.): Herodots Quellen.
Die Quellen Herodots. Herodot-Forschung 40 Jahre nach Detlev Fehlings „Die
Quellenangaben bei Herodot“. Classica et Orientalia 6. Wiesbaden. Pp. 1–5.
Saïd, E. W., 1978: Orientalism. London.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (ed.), 1987: Sources, Structures and Syntheses, Proceedings of the
Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop. Achaemenid History I. Leiden.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. / Kuhrt, A. (eds.), 1987: The Greek Sources, Proceedings of the
Groningen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop. Achaemenid History II. Leiden.
Sayce, A. H., 1883: The Ancient Empires of the East: Herodotos I.–III. With notes,
introductions, and appendices. London.
Schmitt, R., 1990: “Bisotun III. Darius’s inscriptions”. Encyclopedia Iranica IV, 299–305.
vide: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bisotun-iii (update 2013) [view date
29/04/2014].
—, 1991: The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great. Old Persian Text. Corpus
Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part I: Inscriptions of Ancient Iran, Vol. 1: The Old Persian
Inscriptions, Texts I. London.
—, 2009: Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden. Editio minor mit Übersetzung.
Wiesbaden.
Schmitz, Th. A., 2002: Moderne Literaturtheorie und antike Texte. Eine Einführung.
Darmstadt.
Strasburger, H., 1972: Homer und die Geschichtsschreibung. Sitzungsberichte der
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse.
Heidelberg.
Stronk, J. P., 2010: Ctesias’ Persian History, Part I: Introduction, Text, and Translation.
Reihe Geschichte 2. Düsseldorf.
—, 2011: “Ctesias the Poet”. In J. Wiesehöfer / R. Rollinger / G. B. Lanfranchi (eds.):
Ktesias’ Welt / Ctesias’ World. Classica et Orientalia 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 385–402.
Tadmor, H. / Yamada, Sh., 2011: The Royal inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744-722 BC),
and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-
Assyrian Period 1. Winona Lake.
Tigay, J. H., 1993: “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing”. In M. E. Cohen / D. C.
Snell / D. B. Weisberg (eds.): The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of
William W. Hallo. Betsheda, MD. Pp. 250–255.
Ulf, Chr., 2009: “Rethinking Cultural Contacts”. Ancient West & East 8, 81–132. [Reprint in
R. Rollinger / K. Schnegg, (eds.), 2014: Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: Vom
Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel. Proceedings des internationalen Kolloquiums aus Anlass
des 60. Geburtstages von Christoph Ulf, Innsbruck, 26. bis 30. Januar 2009. Colloquia
Antiqua 10. Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA. Pp. 507–564.]
—, 2014: “Eine Typologie von kulturellen Kontaktzonen (‚Fernverhältnisse‘ – middle
grounds – dichte Kontaktzonen), oder: Rethinking Cultural Contacts auf dem Prüfstand”.
In R. Rollinger / K. Schnegg (eds.): Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: Vom Denkmodell
zum Fallbeispiel. Proceedings des internationalen Kolloquiums aus Anlass des 60.

16
 Geburtstages von Christoph Ulf, Innsbruck, 26. bis 30. Januar 2009. Colloquia Antiqua
10. Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA. Pp. 469–504.
Ulf, Chr. / Rollinger, R. (eds.), 2011: Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers
Ilias. Darmstadt.
van Dongen, E. W. M., 2010: Studying external stimuli to the development of the ancient
Aegean. The ‘Kingship in Heaven’-theme from Kumarbi to Kronos via Anatolia. PhD
Thesis UCL, London.
—, 2014: “The Concept of ‘The Near East’: A Reconsideration”. In R. Rollinger / K. Schnegg
(eds.): Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: Vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel. Proceedings
des internationalen Kolloquiums aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstages von Christoph Ulf,
Innsbruck, 26. bis 30. Januar 2009. Colloquia Antiqua 10. Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA.
Pp. 253–267.
von Voigtlander, E. N., 1978: The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Babylonian
Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part I: Inscriptions of Ancient Iran, Vol. 2: The
Babylonian Versions of the Achaemenian Inscriptions, Texts I. London.
Waters, K. H., 1985: Herodotus, the Historian: His Problems, Methods, and Originality.
London.
Weißbach, F. H., 1911: Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 3.
Leipzig.
Wenskus, R., 1961: Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen
gentes. Köln / Graz.
West, M. L., 1997: The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and
Myth. Oxford.
West, St., 2011: “Herodotus’ sources of information in Persian matters”. In R. Rollinger / B.
Truschnegg / R. Bichler (eds.): Herodot und das Persische Weltreich / Herodotus and the
Persian Empire. Classica et Orientalia 3. Wiesbaden. Pp. 255–272.
White, H., 1973: Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe.
Baltimore / London.
—, 1978: Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism, Baltimore / London.
Wiesehöfer, J. / Rollinger, R. / Lanfranchi, G. B. (eds.), 2011: Ktesias’ Welt / Ctesias’ World.
Classica et Orientalia 1. Wiesbaden.

17