Two conceptions of the tribal geography of the Royal Scythian Empire in classical literary tradition

310 Pages·2017·30.23 MB·English

Two conceptions of the tribal geography of the Royal Scythian Empire
in classical literary tradition.
by
John R. Gardiner-Garden
Submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Classics,
Australian National University.
August, 1981.
This thesis is entirely my own research, though I would like to
express my great thanks to my supervisor Dr D.H.Kelly for his ready
assistance and criticisms throughout the researching, writing and
final preparation of this work.
— -
John R. Gardiner-Garden.
Dedicated to my parents.
Transliterations, translations and references.
Hellenized forms have been used for all Greek proper nouns except when a
Latin form is used in a quoted secondary source or translation or
is used to form an adjective, or where a common English form exists
(e.g. Thucydides). The original Greek or Latin text is quoted when
the wording is essential to the argument or when the text is thought to
be relatively inaccessible. English translations are given when it is
necessary simply to give the idea of a text or when it is my own trans­
lation and none other is available. Unless otherwise specified, all
English translations of Classical texts are from Loeb Classical Library
editions. Full footnote references are given for modern works upon their
first citation but references to ancient sources are abridged (see Biblio­
graphy for full reference), references to Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart) are abridged to RE
plus date and pages (volume number is shown in Bibliography if a supplement),
and fragments in Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker,
(Leiden, 1961) are referred to simply by the ancient writer’s name or his
Jacoby number,plus the Jacoby Testimonium or Fragment number (e.g. 1 F37).
Contents.
Introduction 1
Ch.l llekataios and llerodotos 4
Ch.2 Hellanikos 35
Ch.3 Damastes 62
Ch.4 Hippokrates 67
Ch.5 Thucydides 92
Ch.6 Xenophon 103
Ch.7 KLesias 114
Ch.8 Eudoxos 148
Ch.9 Ephoros 160
Ch.10 Theopompos 185
Ch.ll Alexander 207
Conclusion 243
End Notes
A. The Scythian trade route 248
B. Herodotos’ sources 250
C. Scythian Legends 253
D. Date of Darios’ Expedition 255
E. Miltiades' expulsion 258
F. Ps. Skymnos 261
G. The Oxo-Caspian trade route 263
Appendices
I The Royal Scythian Empire 265
II The early tradition 269
III The Scythian Expedition of 519 B.C. 279
IV Jordanes' sources and usages 285
Bibliography 291
1
INTRODUCTION
From the late 6th to the late 4th centuries B.C. there
existed in the lands between the Danube and the Don a confed­
eration of tribal peoples of various racial and linguistic
backgrounds under the overlordship of a nomadic Iranian­
speaking tribal group sometimes referred to by the Greeks as
the BaaiA.f|ioi ÜHUöai^ or 'Royal Scythians'. It is necessary
to use the word 'sometimes', as the subject of the present
research is in fact the varied conceptions in Classical Greek
literature of the tribal geography (the distribution and
inter-relation of the tribes) of this confederation. For
convenience the historical entity will be referred to
throughout this paper as 'The Royal Scythian Empire'. It is
not however the historical questions related to the birth,
development and dis .integration of this Empire which are the
concern of this research, but rather historiographical
questions: not such questions as how in reality the Empire
was organised, but how the Greek writers perceived the
2
Empire to be organised .
The Greeks had a long history of contact with the Royal
Scythians. The contact preceded the establishment of Royal
Scythians' European Empire and persisted after its demise.
Although there were but a few Greek writers who were them­
selves involved in these contacts, there is scarcely an
ancient author who omits to mention 'Scythians'. Study of
these Classical writings proves, therefore, to be above all
a study of literary traditions.
An attempt will be made, not simply to trace the course
of the traditions, but to identify two major and mutually
1 . BaoiA.r)iog is the Ionic form (in Herodotos) of the Attic BaoiAeiog.
See Her. IV.20.2; 22.3, 56, 57, 59.11; cp. 20.1 ia (3aaiAf|ta (of
their territory).
2. For an annotated bibliography of the major contributions to the
historical study of the tribal geography and organisation of the
Royal Scythian Empire, see Appendix 1.
2
incompatible conceptions. These may be described as follows:
on the one hand, there was a conception from which such a
concept as a 'Royal Scythian Empire' was totally absent,
and in which the entire region from the Danube to the
Jaxartes, and northwards as far as the encircling Ocean,
is considered to be Skythia and the inhabitants Skythai.
This wide definition of Skythia and Skythai was often accom­
panied by idealised descriptions of the tribesmen's customs,
way of life and tribal organisation, and by gross geographical
misconceptions. The first to make full use of this wide defi­
nition was Hekataios of Miletos. On the other hand, there
was a conception in which an appreciation of the identity
and nature of the Basileioi empire is evident, and in which
Skythai was used in the more particular sense of the over-
lord group, the Basileioi, or at the most for those within
the limits of their empire. The northern tribes outside
this empire were non-Scythians. This narrow definition of
Skythia and Skythai, was accompanied by a realistic descrip­
tion of the tribesmen's customs, way of life and tribal
organisation, as well as of the geography and nature of their
land. The first to use this narrow definition was Herodotos.
The first of these conceptions may be termed Hecataean
and the second Ilerodotean. Some of the materials for the
former were derived from Homeric poetry, while for the latter
some materials were drawn from the poetry of the adventurer,
3
Aristeas . It is the subsequent course of these traditions,
however, which is the main interest of this thesis.
The aim of this thesis is to demonstrate the strong
possibility that writings dealing with Scythians from the
time of Hellanikos to the Alexander historians, with but a
very few exceptions, derived their form, concepts and
contents from Hekataios and not from Herodotos, and that of
the two traditions, the Hecataean was the major and the
Herodotean the minor.
3. See Appendix 2.
3
This aim will be pursued by detailed analysis of the
works of the relevant Greek writers and investigation of
possible uses of either Hekataean or Herodotean material
or concepts.
4
CHAPTER 1
HEKATAIOS AND HERODOTOS
Before undertaking the task outlined in the introduction
several related questions may be raised. Who were Ilekataios'
and Herodotos' sources? To what degree may Herodotos himself
have been dependent upon his great predecessor? What are
the distinguishing characteristics of the Hecataean and
Ilerodotean conceptions of the 'Royal Scythian Empire'?
Chapter 1 of this Thesis will be devoted solely to these
preliminary questions.
The work to which the 'Hecataean' fragments dealing with
Scythians are attributed is one called the rgg nepiodog.
Within this work two divisions are found; a 'Eupcottp' and
' 'Aoiri'^. A subject which may be broached here at the outset
is that of the genuineness of Ilekataios' rfjQ nepiodog.
This was a question first raised in antiquity by Athenaeus
who qualifies his reference to Ilekataios' Asia on two
occasions; 'Ilekataios of Milet Os, in the Description of
Asia (granting that this book is a genuine work of the hist­
orian, since Kallimachos ascribes it to Nesiotes; whoever,
2
then, the author may be),...' and 'as Hekataios, or whoever
3
wrote the account of travels entitled Asia, makes clear'.
4
Arrian is later to echo these doubts . These doubts as well
as several other circumstances (such as what Pearson calls
'the somewhat surprising state of affairs' that with the
exception of Heraclitus and Eratosthenes, no authors quote
Hekataios' Ges Periodos prios to the 2nd century A.D.), have
given rise to the theory that Hekataios' Periodos either
never existed or was lost at an early date and that the copy
in the Alexandrian library was the work of another purporting
5
to be Hekataios . The above theory entered modern scholarship
in 1885 with Cobet conjecturing that the work's resemblance
1. 1 F37-359.
2. Own translation, Athenaeus II.70a=lT.15a.
3. Own translation, Athenaeus IX.410e=lT.15b.
4. Arrian, Anabasis V.6.5=1T.15c.
5. Lionel Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (1939, rep. 1975,
Oxford) p.31.
5
to Herodotos was a result of the forger's use of Herodotos^.
7
This theory was argued much further by J. Wells in 1909 .
Among Wells' arguments in favour of denying authenticity to
the extant fragments, are six arguments upon external grounds.
Firstly, the evidence that Herodotos used and alludes to such
g
a work of Hekataios is insignificant . Secondly, Hekataios'
9
fame was not as a geographer but as a mythographer . Thirdly,
Hekataios is not quoted by Aristotle - although Herodotos,
Thales and Anaximander were^°. Fourthly, Kallimachos is said
by Athenaios to deny genuineness to the 'Asia' book^. If
this book was in the Alexandrian library, why would Kallima­
chos denounce his own treasure without good cause? Eratos­
thenes, Kallimachos' successor as the Alexandrian librarian,
declared the work genuine, but did so out of literary
ignorance and a prejudice in favour of the geographical
12
sciences . Arrian did not accept Eratosthenes' decision
13
as final . Fifthly, Strabo's references to Hekataios (twelve
in number) are unimportant. Sixthly, the references by
Agatharchides, Agathemeros and Hermogenes to Hekataios as a
14
geographer, could well have been to the third century forger
Wells also argued upon several internal grounds. If the
Periodos was genuinely Hecataean then Herodotos would seem
to be on the one hand using Hekataios (thus, the passages in
common) and on the other, attacking him (such as with respect
to the encircling ocean); 'To use a man's book and at the
same time to sneer at him, and to call him names, is not an
honourable proceeding'. Accordingly Wells believes it
6. C.G. Cobet, 'Hecataei Milesii scripta Reuden t Yippee' Mnesmosyne XI
(1883) pp.1-7. See also Pearson, ibid., p.32.
7. J. Wells, 'The Genuineness of the rgq Txepioöoc of Hecataeus',
Journal of Hellenic Studies xxix (1909) pp.41-52.
8. Ibid., pp.42-44.
9. Ibid., p.44. See HerakMtos' assertion, Diogenes Laertius IX.1.
10. Wells, ibid., pp.44-45. The Spurious De Mirabilibus Ausoultationibus
contains the only possible allusion to Hekataios (128, 842 b 27).
11. Wells, ibid., pp.45-46. See note 3.
12. Strabo I.xi.
13. Arrian, Anabasis, V.6.5.
14. Agatharchides, De Eubro Mari 48 (2nd century B.C.); Agathemerus i.l
(c.200 A.D.); Hermogenes, De Genere Dieendi ii.12 (2nd century A.D.).
6
15
inconceivable . Wells could not bring himself to adopt a
position where: 'Herodotus becomes in his account of Egypt
the dwarf on the giant's shoulders, and the Father of History
is convicted of owing his reputation to other's researches,
and of using dishonourable means to conceal his obligations.'"^
Moreover, Herodotos' use of Hekataios was not asserted till
late (the end of the first century A.D.) and there are
inaccuracies in the details of some of the supposed Hecataean
geographical fragments^.
Those who argued in favour of the alternate verdict of
genuineness were never lacking. Prior to Wells, A. von
Gutschmid (1885) and Diels (1887) had already argued this
18
case . In 1910 M.O.B. Caspari would seem to have success-
19
fully disposed of every one of Wells' arguments . To Wells'
list of the internal inaccuracies in the fragments attributed
to Hekataios' Periodos Caspari is able to add several other
3
examples. Nevertheless, such inaccuracies indicate only the
defective condition of the extant text of the Ges Periodos
20
and not the spuriousness of the treatise as a whole . With
respect to Wells' external evidence Caspari makes several
observations. Firstly, Aristotle never cited Hekataios, but
21
nor did he refer to Hanno or Scylax by name . Secondly,
Strabo's brevity in dealing with Hekataios is simply due to
his confidence in the work of Eratosthenes. He found it unnec-
15. Wells, 'The Genuineness of the rgg nepLoöog', pp.48-9.
16. Ibid. s p.49.
17. Ibid. pp.50-51. See Porphyry FGrH 1 F 324A and Diony.
3
Hal. FGrH 4 T12.
18. A. von Gutschmid, 'De rerum Aegyptiacarum scriptoribus
Graecis ante Alexandrum Magnum', Philologus3 x (1885)
pp.522-42 (636-700); reprinted in his Kleine Schriften
3
i. pp.35f. H. Diels, 'Herodot und Hekataios' Hermes
3
xxii (1887) pp.411-44.
19. M.O.B. Caspari, 'On the Vf\Q nepiodog of Hecataeus ' , Journal
of Hellenic Studies xxx (1910) pp.236-48.
20. Ibid. pp.237-8.
3
21. Ibid. pp.239-40.
3