Welcome to AHB, a Green Open Access Journal.

AHB promotes scholarly discussion in Ancient Mediterranean studies by publishing articles and notes on the history and culture of the ancient world from the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity. Submissions in English,  French, German, Italian, and Spanish are welcome. Early career academics and scholars from under-represented groups are especially encouraged to apply.

AHB publishes Digital content only and appears twice yearly (June and December) in double issues (1-2 and 3-4). Please see our Subscriptions page for information on rates and payment.

Questions or concerns may be directed to the Senior Editor: Timothy Howe: howe@stolaf.edu

Volume 39.3-4

Reza Zarghamee, A Contribution to the Discourse Regarding a Teispid-Achaemenid Dynastic Divide (86-124)

Keywords: Achaemenid dynasty, Bisutun Inscription, Cyrus II, Cyrus Cylinder, Darius I, Teispid, Persian history

Abstract: This paper evaluates the recent scholarly trend of characterizing Cyrus II and Darius I as belonging to two distinct dynasties: the former being a Teispid and the latter an Achaemenid. In the process, it seeks to address important methodological questions pertaining to the use of primary source material, such as the Cyrus Cylinder, Bisutun Inscription, and Herodotus. The ideologically charged Bisutun Inscription is of particular relevance, and comparative data is marshaled to show that, despite the obvious advantages to Darius of linking himself to Cyrus, neither the text itself nor the alleged circumstances of Darius’ accession compel a conclusion that he lied on the point of his claimed dynastic connection to Cyrus. In addressing the inconsistencies and difficulties in the arguments for a dynastic divide, the paper also addresses related theories that portray Cyrus II as an Elamite (as opposed to a Persian or Iranian) ruler or, alternatively, as a Persian or Iranian ruler with strong Elamite affinities. As part of its overall argumentation, the paper evaluates overlooked aspects of the terminology used in the Cyrus Cylinder, the limitations of David Stronach’s foundational arguments for Darius’ single authorship of the Pasargadae inscriptions, and onomastic evidence regarding members of the Achaemenid family mentioned by Herodotus. Without denying the hazards of accepting the Bisutun narrative uncritically or that much about the early history of the Persians (including the subject of this article) cannot be proved, this paper strives to show that the two-dynasty theory seems less likely when one takes a holistic view of the evidence and, as such, should not constitute the presumptive model for characterizing the history of the first Persian Empire.

Egidia Occhipinti, Xenophon the character and speeches in the Anabasis: moral teaching and ethical values (125-141)

Keywords: Good leadership, ethical values, exemplary stories, moral teaching, friendship

Abstract: The paper explores the interplay between Xenophon-as-character and Xenophon-as-narrator in the Anabasis. This narrative device is particularly telling not so much because it gives reason for enhancement in credibility (aside from Xenophon-the-author’s true motivations) or justifies Xenophon’s conduct and behaviour during the Ten Thousand’s enterprise; it rather helps the reader understand Xenophon’s views on leadership, moral teaching, and moral values. So, this paper argues that in the Anabasis Xenophon uses speeches to better define the leadership of Xenophon-as- character, that is, as distinct from Xenophon-as-narrator. This offers potential to further understanding of two of the most challenging aspects of Xenophon’s narrative techniques.

Waldemar Heckel, Karanos, a Fictitious Half Brother of Alexander (142-171)

Keywords: Athenaeus, Karanos, Kleopatra, legitimacy, Macedon, noverca, Philip II, polygamy, succession

Abstract: In JHS 67 (1947) 143, A. R. Burn wrote: “Mr Tarn has probably ‘settled the business’ of Caranus, the alleged son of Philip whom Alexander is supposed to have put to death in 336,” by which he meant that Tarn had proved his non-existence. That view was optimistic. Since then, Caranus as a son of Philip by one of his wives has been resurrected on numerous occasions. The most popular suggestion—that he was son of Philip’s last wife, Kleopatra-Eurydike—is also the least plausible. It has, however, been revived in numerous publications, and has even found its way into discussions of the occupants of the Royal Tombs at Vergina. In this paper I reiterate some of the arguments I first put forward in RFIC 107 (1979) 385–93, taking into account also the intriguing theory that Karanos was not, in this case, a personal name (though it is attested in Macedonia—indeed, even as the founder of the Argead dynasty) but the title (or rank) of karanos used for strategoi in the Persian Empire, especially (but not exclusively) those who exercised authority on the coast of Asia Minor. This was first suggested by E. Grzybek in 1986, though it has found little support. Oddly, Kleopatra-Eurydike’s uncle, Attalos (whom Diodorus and Justin wrongly identify, in this particular context, as her “brother”), would be a better candidate. But, in all likelihood, Karanos the alleged half brother of Alexander is the product of one of Justin’s many careless abbreviations of Trogus’ account.

Federico De Ponti, Su alcuni aspetti della storiografia di Giuba II di Mauretania: Ῥωμαικὴ ἀρχαιολογία e Ὀμοιότητες nelle vita plutarchea di Marcello (172-190)

Keywords: Juba II of Mauretania, Roman Archaeology, Plutarch, Marcellus, fragments, Resemblances

Abstract: This article aims to investigate certain aspects of the historiographical production of Juba II, King of Mauretania, known through fragments of his early works, i.e. the Ῥωμαικὴ ἀρχαιολογία (History of Ancient Rome) and the Ὀμοιότητες (Resemblances), a treatise on linguistics. Here, we will attempt to reconstruct the chronological scope and topics covered in both works and discuss the close link between them. The study of the highly peculiar use of these two works in Plutarch’s literary production may help to better outline their possible belonging to a unified historiographical project. We will see how Plutarch clearly relied on Juba’s work: he explicitly used the Ῥωμαικὴ ἀρχαιολογία as a source, but it is likely that there are numerous unspoken linguistic references in the Life of Marcellus relating to key moments in the consul’s life, which will be examined here, suggesting that they derive from Juba’s Ὀμοιότητες. Through the analysis of numerous fragments of the Mauretanian king handed down by Plutarch, we will attempt to demonstrate the validity that the latter recognised in Juba as a source, even in contrast to other historiographical traditions. Through the specific case of the Life of Marcellus, we will outline Juba’s important contribution to Plutarch’s work, including his role as a collector and mediator of sources, especially Greek ones, from which Plutarch drew.