Although Herodotus forms a large part of any study of ancient Greek ethnography (as in J.E. Skinner, The Invention of Greek Ethnography: from Homer to Herodotus [2012]), this collection is devoted to one particular aspect of Herodotean ethnography: Herodotus’ treatment of Greek and non-Greek ethnicity and ethnic identity. The contributors are academics based in Brazil, Portugal, the UK or the US; as stated in the preface, the book represents an effort ‘to promote intellectual dialogue between Anglophone and Lusophone scholars of the ancient Greek world’ (p. xi). There are several excellent articles, including those by A. Agnolon, T. Figueira, G. Nagy, R.V. Munson, R. Gagné and R. Sousa.

The book consists of an introduction followed by fourteen chapters. In the introduction Figueira does not offer an overview of ethnicity in Herodotus (such as Munson, ‘Herodotus and Ethnicity’, in J. McInerney [ed.], Companion to Ethnicity [2014]), but rather gives an overview of scholarship on ethnicity and ethnography in general and specifically on Herodotus. S. Brandwood (Chapter 1) notes that interpreters (hermêneis), appearing in only six episodes in the Histories, mark points of ‘cultural translation’ and serve as analogues to and foils for the text's ‘arch-translator, Herodotus himself’ (p. 32). Figueira (Chapter 2) shows that ethnic identity for archaic and classical Greeks was based not on culture (contra J. Hall) but specifically on language or even dialect (e.g. Ionic or Doric): ‘[l]oss or deterioration of fluency in Greek could represent communal barbarization, a cultural disaster’ (p. 60). B. Hill (Chapter 3) explains that for Herodotus the term ethnos refers synchronically to a people at a specific point in time, while the term genos refers diachronically to a people's lineage or ancestry over time. E. Allen-Hornblower (Chapter 4) looks at displays of emotion (fear, anger or pity) as a way of revealing character for persons and ethnic groups in Herodotus’ work, whether the person/group is expressing or evaluating the emotion. Nagy (Chapter 5) makes the case that Ionians, as the primary transmitters of Persian civilisation to mainland Greeks, transmitted the term magos (‘priest/mage/magician’), which first appears in Darius I's Bisitun inscription as OP maguš. According to Munson (Chapter 6), the two aspects of political freedom (eleutheriê) in Herodotus – freedom ‘from external domination by a different ethnic group or state’ (p. 145) and ‘the constitutional freedom of the citizens within the state’ (p. 147) – are ‘strictly intertwined’ (p. 149) for Greeks, who were fighting to preserve both aspects during the Persian War. Herodotus filters stories about the Scythians Anacharsis and Skyles, Agnolon (Chapter 7) maintains, through both tragic tropes (tragic hero being punished for transgressing boundaries) and the ‘resistance myth’ (e.g. Pentheus being punished for resisting worship of Dionysus); the Anacharsis/Skyles stories are put in terms (tragedy/myth) that Greeks would understand. N.S. Rodrigues (Chapter 8) argues that in the Histories (Eleusinian) Demeter offers a Panhellenic goddess for Greeks that can be used to establish Hellenic identity, unlike the overly Spartan Apollo and the overly Athenian Athena. Sousa's (Chapter 9) thesis is that Herodotus’ most important sources of information in Book 2 were Egyptian priests of Ptah in Memphis, a multi-ethnic city where the priests might have spoken Greek as well as Egyptian and would have likely been more open than priests in Heliopolis or Thebes to talking to foreigners. Based on Herodotus’ presentation, M.F. Silva (Chapter 10) concludes that the Persians’ misunderstanding of Greek culture was a major reason for the failure of Xerxes’ invasion. Gagné (Chapter 11) demonstrates that Herodotus treats Aristeas (and his epic Arimaspeia) as a rival inquirer whom Herodotus surpasses in dealing with knowledge about eschata to the north; in rejecting the historicity of the Hyberboreans, moreover, Herodotus rejects Ionian/Hecataean views on the geography of the north and of the continents. M.C. Fialho (Chapter 12) posits that Herodotus focalises the story of Helen through the eyes of the Egyptian Proteus (2.112–15), for whom the Greeks (especially Menelaus) are barbarous, but the Egyptians are civilised (since they are hospitable, keep their word and do not kill strangers). D.F. Leão (Chapter 13) compares Solon's conversation with Croesus in Herodotus (1.29–33) with later accounts (including Plutarch's): whereas Herodotus focuses on universal ethics in the story, Plutarch contrasts Solon's Greek, democratic ethics with Croesus’ eastern, luxurious lifestyle. Soares (Chapter 14) points out that the first Portuguese writers on Brazil drew upon the Herodotean historiographical model not only in studying new or unknown lands and peoples, but also by privileging autopsy, trying to save knowledge from oblivion and concentrating on the marvellous and remarkable.

Among the problems in the book, there are almost 50 typographical errors in the English and Greek. Only a few, however, have the potential to mislead. The name of the Greek god Dionysos/Dionysus is misspelled ‘Dionysius’ (pp. 169, 260). E. Vandiver's name is misspelled ‘Van Diver’ (p. 266 n. 14). J. Mikalson's 2002 article in Brill's Companion to Herodotus is misidentified as ‘Mikalson 2012’ (pp. 193 n. 9 and 12, 194 n. 40, 196).

There are some problems with clarity. I do not understand Nagy's remark about ‘what happened 13 years earlier at Marathon’ (p. 139 n. 30); Nagy makes this remark in connection with the motivations Herodotus attributes to Mardonios for inducing Xerxes to attack Greece (Hdt. 7.6), and a date of 477 bce (i.e. 13 years after the Battle of Marathon) would not apply. In Hdt. 1.86.5 Brandwood translates the participial phrase ochlon perechontôn (referring to the persistence of Cyrus’ interpreters questioning Croesus on the pyre) as ‘forming a crowd’ (p. 26, cf. p. 27); a more metaphorical translation like ‘giving trouble’ would be better. Soares claims that Herodotus refuses to tell the reason why Egyptians sacrifice pigs at a particular festival (2.47.2) because Herodotus finds the reason ‘unreliable’ (p. 320 n. 24). What Herodotus says is that, although he knows the reason, it is not ‘proper’ (euprepesteros) for him to tell it; his reticence to speak appears to be borne out of a respect for religious customs.

Other problems are more substantial. Brandwood's argument goes astray whenever he tries to deduce the languages that were spoken in certain Herodotean passages, especially in the Croesus logos. Brandwood notes that no interpreter is needed between Croesus’ formerly mute son and the Persian to whom the son offers the plea, ‘Man, don't kill Croesus!’ (1.85.4); he tries to disentangle the Persian to Lydian to Greek translations that go on between Cyrus, the interpreters, Croesus on the pyre and Herodotus himself (1.86); and he suggests that Croesus, while on the pyre, was probably speaking ‘Imperial Aramaic’ (p. 38 n. 79). All this speculation is misguided because, historically speaking, Cyrus had most likely already put Croesus to death (on the pyre or elsewhere); Croesus’ execution seems to be confirmed by the Babylonian Nabonidus Chronicle 2.16 (see R.J. van der Spek, in M. Kozuh et al. [edd.], Extraction & Control [2014], p. 256 n. 184). To reconstruct the Persian view of the Greeks, Silva in her article focuses on Herodotus (and a little on Aeschylus’ Persians), but she does not make this focus clear to readers. It is therefore jarring when Silva speaks of ‘the lack of understanding persistently present in the Asian mind, epitomized by the king [Xerxes]’ (p. 230). By contrast, she brings in no Near Eastern evidence, except for one scholarly quotation that discusses imperial Persian ideology (p. 234 n. 15).

These criticisms aside, the collection as a whole succeeds admirably in shedding light on how Herodotus as a historian thinks about and even helps construct ethnic identity among the many Greek and non-Greek peoples in the Histories.