invisible, need real personalities to embrace them and translate them into action” (2007, 40).
Herodotus’ respect for tradition does not mean that he is without a critical spirit, since he disbelieves many fantastic tales and chooses among variant versions on occasion; nor is he easy to pin down in the realm of the divine, steering a middle course between credulity and skepticism. Herodotus’ geographical inquiries have their starting point in EPIC tradition and Ionian rationalism, and combine empirical observations with aprioristic models, credulity with criticism of predecessors; his models are regularly vitiated by a love of symmetry and parallelism. His notions of the past have the same starting point, but here Herodotus rejected very early times, seeing more recent history as the more reliable, confining himself to the spatium historicum, and refusing to give the same level of credence to early MYTHS. Even so, his chronological and genealogical studies show the same reliance on the epic tradition in making all people the descendants of gods and demigods (2007, 29–42).
In sum, Herodotus’ narrative persona combines the qualities both of the storyteller and the man of SCIENCE and philosophy. He bequeathed to later historiography the tradition of inquiry (HISTORIĒ) and criticism, of explanation (his is “a narrative that wants to make sense of historical events or reveal their direction”: 2007, 36), and of a focus on the more recent (and knowable) past; and most importantly the notion that “the real aim of historical research is not an accurate collection of facts … but the discovery of what is universal” as a way of “emphasiz[ing] the ethical, historical, and philosophical universal significance of what he tells” (2007, 56).
SEE ALSO: Historical Method; Reliability; Scholarship on Herodotus, 1945–2018
REFERENCES
1 Asheri, David. 1989. Erodoto. Le Storie, libro I: la Lidia e la Persia. Milan: Mondadori.
2 Asheri, David. 1990a. Erodoto. Le Storie, libro III: la Persia. Milan: Mondadori.
3 Asheri, David. 1990b. “Herodotus on Thracian Society and History.” In Hérodote et les peuples non grecs, edited by Giuseppe Nenci, 131–69. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
4 Asheri, David. 2003. Erodoto. Le Storie, libro VIII: la vittoria di Temistocle, edited by Pietro Vannicelli. Milan: Mondadori.
5 Asheri, David. 2006. Erodoto: Le Storie, libro IX: la battaglia di Platea, edited by Pietro Vannicelli. Milan: Mondadori.
6 Asheri, David. 2007. “General Introduction.” In David Asheri, Alan Lloyd, and Aldo Corcella, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV, edited by Oswyn Murray and Alfonso Moreno, 1–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7 Herman, Gabriel. 2001. “David Asheri.” SCI 20: 335–37.
ASIA (Ἀσίη, ἡ)
LOUISA DÉSIRÉE THOMAS
University of Kassel
Beginning with AESCHYLUS’ Persians, the Greek sources draw a dividing line between Asia and EUROPE. Earlier, however, a clearly defined meaning was connected to both concepts. “Europe” was originally limited to a region in the northeast of HELLAS, while “Asia” described the mainland mass of Asia Minor (Bichler 2014, 9).
Following the victories of CYRUS (II), the Persians assumed command over Asia (1.95), which as a result was increasingly equated with the dominion of the Persian Great King (Bichler 2014, 10). In the course of his Histories Herodotus mentions twice that the Persians claimed the whole of Asia to be their and their respective Kings’ rightful province (1.4.4; 9.116.3). In fact this view only partly corresponds with his geographic characterization of the continent.
We find Herodotus’ description of Asia within the context of two polemics against the division of the world into the three continents of Europe, Asia, and LIBYA (2.15–16; 4.36–45). Most modern scholarship considers the works of Ionian writers like Anaximander or HECATAEUS to be the object of Herodotus’ attacks (Thomas 2000, 80). Herodotus insists that the Nile DELTA needs either to be added as a fourth part to the conventional threefold division of the world (2.16.1–2) or that Libya and EGYPT should instead be seen as parts of Asia (2.5–18; 4.36–45). Europe is understood as the northern hemisphere, which exceeds Asia including Libya in its length (4.36.2) while Asia forms the second part of the contiguous continental mass of the Earth (Bichler 2014, 10). Herodotus assumes that the SEA surrounds Libya, which is only connected with Asia by a narrow land bridge (4.41, 42.2). In support, he refers to the results of several expeditions (4.42–44; 2.102) that are intended to provide empirical PROOF of his account.
A series of waterways passing from west to east distinguishes the boundary between Europe and Asia: starting at the PILLARS OF HERACLES it goes through the MEDITERRANEAN via the HELLESPONT, PROPONTIS, and the Thracian BOSPORUS into the EUXINE (Black) Sea. Subsequently, it runs to the eastern coast of the Euxine and the river PHASIS, then along the southern edge of the CAUCASUS and the CASPIAN SEA to the ARAXES RIVER, disappearing in the far east (4.40.1–2, 45.2; Prontera 2011, 182).
To the west the landmass of Asia is characterized by two headlands (ἀκταί). The first includes Asia Minor with SIGEIUM in the north and the Carian TRIOPIUM in the south (4.38). To the east it is bordered at its supposedly narrowest point (1.72.3) by the river HALYS, which separates “upper” from “lower” Asia and plays a major role as both a geographical and political dividing line in the Histories (Rollinger 2003, 317–20). From today’s perspective serious problems of consistency arise solely on the basis of Herodotus’ description of the course of the Halys, suggesting a lack of knowledge of the topography of central and eastern Anatolia (Rollinger 2003, 306–13). The second ἀκτή described by Herodotus is bordered by the region through which today the Suez Canal cuts, and it extends to Egypt and Libya (4.41.1).
Herodotus shows a reasonable knowledge of the coastal regions of Asia facing the Mediterranean, but uncertainties grow the farther his account leads him into the inland regions. For the east of Asia his statements are ultimately very vague (4.40.1–2; 2.204.1). His lack of detailed knowledge of Central Asia is apparent in the often list‐like descriptions of LANDSCAPES or local tribes. For example, he locates the Persians between the Persian Gulf and the Black Sea, while further to the north are the MEDES, the SASPEIRES, and finally the COLCHIANS (4.37).
The Herodotean SATRAPY‐list (3.89–97) demonstrates that the continent of Asia described by Herodotus includes areas that are beyond the influence of the Persian king. Some tribes like the ETHIOPIANS, Colchians, and ARABIANS render gifts voluntarily instead of TRIBUTE, while some Indians were not subjected to DARIUS I at all (3.97, 101.2). Exact geographical indications are missing from the satrapy‐list; rather, it seems to serve as a portrayal of the power and extraordinary WEALTH of the Persian Empire.
In his description of the ROYAL ROAD from SARDIS to SUSA (5.52–54) Herodotus gives distances in parasangs or daily stages, mentioning fortresses in PHRYGIA, CAPPADOCIA, CILICIA, and ARMENIA, as well as several passes. Again, the supposed border RIVERS are of particular importance, e.g., the EUPHRATES as a boundary between Cilicia and Armenia (5.52). The description of the Royal Road is embedded in his account of the journey of ARISTAGORAS (1) to SPARTA, trying to demonstrate the benefits of a CONQUEST of Susa. Striking contradictions arise from the information provided, for instance, about the localization of the MATIENIANS along the middle reaches of the Halys river in the immediate vicinity of the Phrygians and at the same time in the mountains between Armenia and CISSIA (Prontera 2011, 186–89). Modern scholarship attributes this either to the use of different SOURCES or to the fact that Herodotus attaches greater importance to the description of Asia’s riches (Bichler 2007, 75).
SEE
