The Herodotus Encyclopedia. Группа авторов
ALSO: Bosporus, Cimmerian; Boundaries; Geography; Sea; Ships and Sailing; Trade
REFERENCE
1 Güngerich, Rudolf, ed. 1927. Dionysii Byzantii Anaplus Bospori. Berlin: Weidmann.
FURTHER READING
1 Moreno, Alfonso. 2008. “Hieron: The Ancient Sanctuary at the Mouth of the Black Sea.” Hesperia 77: 655–709.
Müller II, 792–99.
1 Rubel, Alexander. 2009. “Die ökonomische und politische Bedeutung von Bosporos und Hellespont in der Antike.” Historia 58: 336–55.
2 Russell, Thomas James. 2017. Byzantium and the Bosporus: A Historical Study, from the Seventh Century BC until the Foundation of Constantinople. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BOTTIAEANS (Βοττιαῖοι, οἱ)
CHRISTOPHER BARON
University of Notre Dame
Region in northern Greece (BA 50 B3), also referred to as Emathia. Herodotus places Bottiaea between the regions of MYGDONIA (7.123.3) and MACEDONIA (7.127), the AXIUS RIVER forming its boundary with the former and the mouth(s) of the HALIACMON and LYDIAS separating it from the latter. Bottiaea became part of the heartland of the Macedonian kingdom in the classical and Hellenistic periods; the Bottiaeans themselves were driven out at an earlier period (Thuc. 2.99.3, who writes Bottia) and migrated to the Chalcidice region; this latter area is thus referred to by some ancient authors as Bottikē (BA 50 D4; Flensted‐Jensen 1995), though Herodotus does not do so. Herodotus includes the Bottiaeans in the list of peoples in EUROPE who contributed troops to XERXES’ invasion force in 480 BCE (7.185.2). Until that year, the Bottiaeans also inhabited the city of OLYNTHUS; but in the winter of 480/79, the Persian general ARTABAZUS besieged and captured Olynthus, slaughtered the population, and handed the city over to the Chalcidian Greeks (8.127).
SEE ALSO: Chalcidians in Thrace; Critobulus of Torone; Ichnae; Pella
REFERENCE
1 Flensted‐Jensen, Pernille. 1995. “The Bottiaians and Their Poleis.” In Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, edited by Mogens Herman Hansen and Kurt Raaflaub, 103–32. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
FURTHER READING
1 Mari, Manuela. 2002. Al di là dell’Olimpo: Macedoni e grandi santuari della Grecia dall’età arcaica al primo ellenismo, 23–28. Athens: Fondazione Nazionale per le Ricerche.
2 Zahrnt, Michael. 1971. Olynth und die Chalkidier: Untersuchungen zur Staatenbildung auf der Chalkidischen Halbinsel im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., 171–78. Munich: C. H. Beck.
BOUNDARIES
JAMES ROMM
Bard College
The Histories is a tale of invasions and military incursions, and thus at many points is concerned with issues of borders and boundary crossings. Herodotus interests himself in both natural and political boundaries and is especially intrigued by the ways these two categories overlap or diverge. The most important case in point is the water boundary between EUROPE and ASIA—the HELLESPONT—and other places at which RIVERS and straits separate one realm, or continent, from another.
The first invasion recounted in the Histories, the incursion of CROESUS into Persian territory, features a prominent crossing of the HALYS, the river characterized by Herodotus as the boundary between Persian and Lydian territory (1.72); the Greek sage THALES, according to a report Herodotus mistrusts but retells, was enlisted to split or divert the river to make this crossing possible. Later in Book 1, Croesus, now serving as an ADVISER to the conquering CYRUS (II), gives a lengthy speech at the banks of the ARAXES RIVER, urging Cyrus to cross it and fight the MASSAGETAE on the further side (1.207). Both leaders meet with DISASTER in the campaigns that follow these river crossings, though Croesus’ advice is presumably borne out in that the Persians, unlike the Lydians, maintain sovereignty over their own territory. Herodotus has linked these two episodes as a way of establishing, and problematizing, the theme of water boundaries; these can be risky to cross, especially by way of ENGINEERING schemes that subvert natural topography, but can also function as a defensive perimeter for empires with hostile neighbors.
Cyrus’ crossing of the Araxes, which he accomplishes by “yoking bridges” in Herodotus’ phrasing (i.e., lashing together anchored ships), has special significance in the scheme of the Histories in that Herodotus identifies this river as the boundary between Europe—defined here as the northern half of the oikoumenē—and Asia (4.40.1). The Persian campaign against the Massagetae, therefore, represents the first attempt in the Histories at an Asian invasion of Europe, anticipating the later attacks made by DARIUS I on the SCYTHIANS and by XERXES on the Greeks (both also accomplished by means of ship‐built BRIDGES). Intercontinental boundaries, in the patterning Herodotus establishes with these episodes, carry the greatest significance of all water barriers, and the rulers who cross them run the greatest risks. This motif may have been suggested to Herodotus by AESCHYLUS, who in the Persians plays extensively on “yoke” words (ζεύγνυμι, ζυγͅόν) as a way to link the idea of bridging rivers with that of enslaving neighboring nations.
While the boundaries between Europe and Asia are both clearly delineated by Herodotus and continually crossed by the rulers he portrays, the divide between Asia and LIBYA (Africa) creates a different problematic. In Book 2, in his excursus on EGYPT, Herodotus examines a theory he attributes to “the IONIANS,” whereby the NILE River constitutes this continental boundary. He objects to this theory because it creates an effective fourth continent, the Nile DELTA, and because the Egyptian people overspread this boundary by populating both sides of the river. Yet he does not replace it with any better system of his own for delineating Asia from Africa, and he never says to which continent the Egyptians should be assigned. A similar problem rears its head at the end of Herodotus’ excursus on global GEOGRAPHY in Book 4, where he admits that he knows of other schemes than his own for dividing Europe from Asia and regards all intercontinental boundaries as artificial and arbitrary (4.45).
In any geographic construct known to the Greeks, however, the Thracian BOSPORUS and Hellespont stood as important markers of both the separation of Europe from Asia and the possibility of connecting the two landmasses. The Bosporus bridge designed by Samian MANDROCLES, in preparation for Darius’ invasion of Scythia, is hailed by the king as a wonder of engineering (4.88); Herodotus himself seems mightily impressed by the larger, more complex Hellespont bridges of Xerxes, which required the weaving of especially strong, lightweight cables to span the entire mile‐wide waterway. Darius requires a second bridge of boats in order to reach Scythia, over the ISTER (Danube) River (4.118.1). This latter bridge, as well as Xerxes’ over the Hellespont, both comprise important episodes emphasizing their role in detaching or reattaching the continents. Darius’ bridge over the Ister is first broken up by the Ionians detailed to maintain it, then reconstructed in order to provide a retreat route for Darius’ army (4.136–42); Xerxes’ bridge is washed away by storms, causing Xerxes to INSULT and attack the Hellespont itself (7.33–35). Later, in an echo of the Ionian rescue of Darius, the Greek navy will elect to leave the Hellespont bridges in place and allow Xerxes to pass over them (8.108).
The river boundary that loomed largest in the Greek mind was formed by OCEAN, the “river” thought to bound and enclose the entire oikoumenē. Significantly, Herodotus, arguing on empirical grounds, rejects Ocean as a poetic invention (2.23) and insists on the unboundedness of northern Europe and eastern Asia (4.45). This was a radical move, given how widely the idea of a circumambient Ocean had been established in Greek thought (HOMER, for example, had used Ocean as the periphery