2. An´ alisis Factorial
2.4. An´ alisis Factorial Confirmatorio (AFC)
2.4.3. Fases del An´ alisis Factorial Confirmatorio
2.4.3.4. Evaluaci´ on del ajuste del modelo
Bactrians and India'. Ktesias in the 10th book of his Persika ' A land lies next to it, the Dyrbaioi, stretching
to Bactria and India. These men are happy, rich and very
just, neither wronging nor killing any man. If someone
finds on the road either gold or clothing or silver or any thing else, they do not touch it. These people neither make bread nor eat it, nor are they accustomed to [...] unless for the sake of sacred rites. They make barley finer than
the Greeks, and they eat cakes of grass.' This passage
is particularly significant for two reasons. Firstly, the
location of the tribe as next to Bactria and India suggests that the people may have been a Saka tribe. Secondly, the reference is to the tenth Book of Ktesias' Persika. In this book Ktesias is known to have dealt with Saka tribes under
King Amorges^0^ . It is therefore clear that not only might
these idealised Dyrbaioi be located within Saka lands, but that events involving Saka tribes were narrated in the same
105. Steph.Byz. 'Aupßaioi' - own translation. A. Riese, Die Idealisier ung der Naturvölker des Nordens in der griechischen und römischen Literature, Programm des Städtischen Gymnasiums zu Frankfurt a.M.
(Frankfurt a.M., 1875) p. 17.
106. Photius 6-7, own translation. 'But Kyros marched against the Derb- ikai, over whom Amoraios was king; and the Derbikai put elephants in ambush and they routed Kyros' cavalry. Kyros himself fell from his horse and an Indian man (for the Indians were allies of the Derbikai, from whom they obtained the elephants) struck Kyros, he having fallen, with a spear below the hip into the thigh - from which he died. At the time, however, his kinsmen picked him up still alive and hurried to their camp. In the battle many Persians and the same number of Derbikai died; for they numbered 10,000.
Amorges, having heard about Kyros, arrived on the spot hastily with 20,000 Sakai cavalry. And with war breaking out between the Persians and Derbikai, the Persian and Sakai army won overwhelmingly. And the king of the Derbikai, Amoraios was also killed; he himself and his
two sons. 30,000 of the Derbikai died and of the Persians 9,000. And the land went over to Kyros.'
book as this Utopian description. Did Book 10 actually
include passages idealising Saka tribes? It is unclear.
Ktesias was clearly capable of it. This capacity is further illustrated in Ktesias ' account of the romance between the Saka princess Zarinaia and a Median king.
Ktesias, though at times clearly using and polemicising against Herodotos, was largely independent of Herodotos in
giving an account of Scythian and Saka matters. Historically
conceivable matters which Ktesias records are even sometimes completely omitted by Herodotos (such as Ariaram^nes, Dareios1 retreat through the Chersonnese and the early Scythian and
Saka history). Ktesias' independence is evident not only in
matter, but also conception. Ktesias had no conception of
a 'Royal Scythian Empire', nor even of the separate identity of numerous tribes. The only terms he used were Skythai and
Sakai. Even these do not exactly correspond with the Hero-
dotean usage.Ktesias further demonstrated his independence of Herodotos by indulging in 'idealisation' of Saka tribes. Ktesias was not, as others had been doing, and were to con
tinue to do, following Hekataios. Gathering outside the
existing literary tradition many Persian and Scythian stories, Ktesias is perhaps the only writer to be dealt with in this paper who may be considered to have written to any significant degree outside both the Hecataean and Herodotean traditions.
CHAPTER 8 EUDOXOS
Eudoxos of Knidos was not only a famous mathematician and astronomer, but also a geographer. As a geographer he is not so famous. In his capacity as a geographer, Eudoxos123 role in the literary tradition concerned with the European Scythians was not insignificant. Nevertheless his role in this tradition has been overlooked by most writers^. When he is mentioned in this regard, his significance is often underestimated or reckoned as minimal. Thus, Borzsak wrote that Eudoxos 'scheint nichts von den nördlich des Istros
2
liegenden Gebieten gewusst zu haben' , though, as will be discussed shortly, it is evident that he did in fact deal at length with this very region in the fourth book of his Ges Periodos. The qualification Borzsak should have made is that Eudoxos had no personal knowledge of the tribes in this region. Like Damastes and Hekataios before him, Eudoxos simply wrote within the well-established literary tradition of Ionian geography, and only used material offered by this
tradition.
It has only been in very recent years that Eudoxos'
significance and place in a tradition of geographical writing has been perceived. In 1972 Müller observed that the title rf)£ TxepioöoQ was also that used by Hekataios and Damastes as the title of their geographies. Nevertheless Müller does not recommend either Hekataios or Damastes as Eudoxos' main source, but rather a whole range of sources: Homer, Hesiod,
3
Hekataios, Herodotos, Xanthos and Ktesias . Müller also wrote of Eudoxos' conformity to the Ionian model in his
1. For example, Rostovtzeff, Skythien u. Bosporus
,
Trüdinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechischen-römischen Ethnographie, van Paassen, The Classical Tradition of Geography. For one exception, see n.7. 2. St. Borzsak, Die Kenntnisse des Altertums über das Karpathenbecken3(Budapest, 1936), p.14.
3. Müller, Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung... p .145 .
attention to people, borders, mountains, climate, fauna, flora and languages, however, in doing so he was simply restating Gisinger's perceptions of 50 years prior, and still following Gisinger, concluded that Eudoxos was basic-
4
ally dependent upon Herodotos . As evidence for this conc lusion, Müller presents Gisinger's observations upon Eudoxos' definition of the Tanais as the boundary between Europe and
5
Asia , and upon Eudoxos' division of the oikoumene into three continents - Europe, Asia and Libya . In the second of the above respects, that is, in the definition of the three continents, Eudoxos may well have been following Herodotos. However, with respect to the definition of the Tanais as the continental boundary, as has been discussed on several occasions above, Hekataios was more probably Eudoxos' authority. Müller's complete dependence on
Gisinger, and apparent ignorance of Lasserre's work, leads him not only into the assumption that Herodotos was the main source, but into neglecting to examine the possibility that Hekataios, whom he earlier listed among possible
sources and whose correspondence with E u d o x o s ' work he noted with respect to titles, was Eudoxos' chief authority.
In 1976 Pedech included Eudoxos in his overview of Greek geography, commenting that he was a contemporary of Aristotle, of the Pythagorean and Platonic school, and had,
like Hekataios, written a Description of the Earth in seven
(-
b o o k s ’. Curiously, however, although having perceived the
4. Müller, Antiken Ethnographie3 p.146 'Mit Herodot gliederte er die bekannte Ökumene...' and p.147 'ob Eudoxus hier jedoch mehr als Herodot bot, darf, nach dem Erhaltenen zu schliessen, wohl be zweifelt werden.' Fr. Gisinger, Erdbeschreibung des Eudoxos von Knidos3 (Leipzig, 1921). Gisinger's thesis will be dealt with in
the following pages.
5. Müller, p.146; Gisinger p.18, 35f. This is evident from the dist ribution of extant fragments. Books I-III are devoted to Asia, books IV-VI to Europe. As the Massagetai and Sauromatai (said to dwell by the Tanais - that is, to the east of it) are subjects of book I and the European Scythians subjects of book IV, it is evident that the Tanais is considered to be the boundary. (Cf. 'Eudoxos', pd5.3) 6. Paul Pedech, La Geographie des Grecs3 (Paris, 1976), p p .67-68.
similarity of form between Eudoxos' and Hekataios' works, Pedech goes on to recommend Herodotos and Ktesias as Eudoxos' sources and thus, in much the same way as Müller had done, overlooked Hekataios as a possible source. It is to the questions of sources and the actual content and form of Eudoxos' work that the discussion will now turn.
In 1907 Hultsch, in his 'Eudoxos' article in RE, recog nises that Eudoxos wrote on the Scythians in his Ges Peviodo s 3 however he attempted no investigation of Eudoxos' sources
and arrived at a most improbable reconstruction of the work, 7
with respect to the placement of the 'Scythian logos' . According to Hultsch's reconstruction: in Book I Eudoxos deals with Armenia and 'ist denn nach Nordost zu den Massag- eten und nach Nord zu den Chabarenern und andern Umwohnern des Schwarzen Meeres, weiter auch zu den Sarmaten fortges chritten.' In Book 2 'erscheinen die Skythen und eine sonst unbekannte Insel Asdynis des Asowschen Meeres'. In Book 3
'aus welchem kein Fragment zitiert wird, ist den Völker schaften das Nordens gewidmet gewesen'. In Book 4 'von
Norden her dem eigentichen Griechenland sich nähernd,Thrakien, Makedonien und die Chalkidike (...) behandelt'. Such a
reconstruction is untenable. Although, as shall be discussed, Gisinger and Lasserre may differ in their respective identif ications of Eudoxos' main source, they agree that the Scyth ians must have been discussed in the fourth book. The fourth book was the first book of the periegesis of Europe. This reconstruction has the advantage of exhibiting a clear plan, wherein a periegesis was undertaken first of Asia, and then of Europe. A Scythian logos in Book 2 would be out of place in such a scheme. Moreover, by placing the Scythians in Book 2, Hultsch fails to find a place for the fragments of the work dealing with Egypt. Hultsch's proposed scheme could only be based upon the hypothesis that Stephanos' citation of Eudoxos in his entry under Asdynis has aidmitted a gross textual error and that the island Asdynis lay not in
the Moiptg (Mo ip lö o g ) Sea, as the manuscript cf Stephanos reads, but in the Maicoxtöog . The former sea is in Egypt, the latter in south Russia. That Hultsch was confident of the latter reading is suggested by his reference to 'eine sonst unbekannte Insel Asdynis des Asowschen Meeres' with
g
respect to Book 2 . Though Hultsch does not say so, he may have also been led to place the Scythian logos in the second book by the belief that the ev 6' in d e m o n L SLromaLei s V . o4.5 should be read as ‘ ev Geuxcpc::' , instead of 6' as i n tue numeral 4. Here the original text is indeed ambiguous.
The central question which may be directed at E udoxos, is whether in his Scythian related work he is following Hecataean or Herodotean tradition. Among modern scholars there has been one major advocate for each case. Gisinger
(1921) had argued strongly in favour of placement within the Herodotean tradition, while Lasserre (1966) has more
9
recently favoured the Hecataean . The fragments upon which the argument turns, and indeed upon which a reconstruction of the scope and content of the work on Scythians must be based, may now be considered.
The first fragment which may be considered deals not with the Scythians themselves but with Massagetai, Dioaenes Laertius writing: hcli MaoGayeiai u e v , cog (pgai xai EußoSog ev t r Ttpcoxg xgg Hepioßou, xoivag exouai xdg yuvaixag,
"EAAgveg ß'oü.8910 Gisinger points out the similarity between this passage and Herodotos 1.216: 'each man marries a wife, but the wives are common to all. The Greeks say this is a Scythian custom; it is not so, but a custom of the Massa- getae. There, when a man desires a woman, he hangs his quiver before her waggon, and has intercourse with her,
8. Ibid., 947.
9. Gisinger, op.cit.; F. Lasserre, Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos, (Berlin de Gruyter, 1966).
none hindering.'
Lasserre however suggests there is the possibility that though Eudoxos' statement may bear a strong resemblance to Her.I.216, this may rather be due to use of a common source, Hekataios^. Strabo also preserved this piece of infor mation on the Massagetai: 'Each man marries only one wife, but they use also the wives of one another; not in secret, however, for the man who is to have intercourse with the wife of another hangs up his quiver on the wagon and has intercourse with her openly'. Strabo's authority at this point is not named, but Gisinger believes it may have
13
been Herodotos or Eudoxos . As the passage corresponds so closely to the Herodotos passage, Herodotos may indeed be supposed to be the authority. This does not however sub stantiate Gisinger's further conclusion that Eudoxos also followed Herodotos on this point. As Gisinger himself appreciated, the woivwvia yuvaiMtov is noted of numerous people in antiquity"^.
A second fragment which might be considered in Stephan os' entry under Xupudxai • Lupudxai, ol Eaupoudxai, &>£
Eü5oE;os Ttpcoxcp "Tioxauöv xoü Tavaiöos Eupuaxap vtaxo ixe iv" .
Gisinger correctly points out that Eudoxos thereby places the tribe in the same region as does Herodotos in IV.21, 57, 116^. However, as Gisinger himself realised, Herodotos was not the only writer to place the Sauromatai in the region of the Tanais. Such a location was also favoured by Ps.-Skylax,
11. Lasserre, p.242. 12. Strabo, XI.8.6. 13. Gisinger p.26.
14. Among the Persians (Procopius3 bel.Pers. 1.5), Tyrrhenians (Athen. XII. 14p.517e), Nasamones (Her. IV.172), Agathyrsoi (Her. IV.104) and European Scythians (Strabo VII.3.9). On the political and philosophical significance of 'xoivcavia YUAxuivuuv'see H.L. Baldry,
'Zeno's ideal state', Journal of Hellenic Studies 79, 1959, p.9. Lasserre p.242. Gisinger p.26 n.4.
Ephoros in Ps.-Skymnos, Timosthenes, Artemidoros and Strabo Although all of the above are later than Herodotos, it need not be assumed that the information of all of them goes back to Herodotos. It may, particularly in the case of Ps . -
Skylax and Ephoros in Ps.-Skymnos, go back to a source common to Herodotos and themselves. This may have been
Hekataios. Though no arguments can be formulated to support such a possibility, it remains a possibility. Eudoxos,
therefore, need not have been dependent upon Herodotos at this point.
A further observation may be made. Both the above
fragments, that concerning the Massagetai and that concerning the Sauromatai, are cited from Eudoxos' first book. As
Lasserre notes, this would seem to suggest that Eudoxos 17 considered the two people as tribes from the same area As the Sauromatai were located on the Tanais, so might
Eudoxos have considered the Massagetai to have been located on this river - perhaps on its upper reaches. Such a geog raphical misconception may have arisen from a confusion of the European Tanais with the Central Asian Araxes, by which the Massagetai actually dwelt. The belief that the Tanais, which flowed into the Maiotis, was part of the same river
as that which rose in the Hindu Kush, was typically Hecataean. This would seem to be the only way in which the discussion of both the Sauromatai and Massagetai in the same book could be explained.
A third Eudoxos fragment is to be found in Clement of Alexandria:, ' 6o h o ö q l u o l n.oA.A.01 \idXiöTCL t o EtTog uovov nriEcxvTeg emOuciv (oq "Ape 1 ’ £o t i 6e Lhuögov t o t o l o u t o v,
16. Ps.-Skylax 68; Ps.-Skymnos 860-880; Agatharchides 1.7; Pliny, NH 11.246; and Strabo II.5.7 respectively. H.L. Jones' translat
ion of Strabo (Loeb e d .) errs gravely at this point in translating ' EaupopctTai ' as 'Sarmatians' and not 'Sauromatai'.
16
f " i t t 18
Haö&TiEp EuöoEog ev <6q riis Ttepioöou Ae y e l...' The similar
ity between this passage and Her IV.62 has been observed by Gisinger who considers this further proof that Herodotos
was Eudoxos' prime source . Not only does the Eudoxan
passage correspond with the Herodotean in the description of the religious custom, but also with respect to the attribution of this custom to the European Scythian tribes Gisinger argues that those writers were dependent upon
21
either Eudoxos or Herodotos . This may well be so, but
once again it cannot be assumed that Eudoxos was himself
also dependent upon Herodotos. As Lasserre has pointed
out, Eudoxos' account (as preserved in Clement) of the Ares worship differs from Herodotos' in a most significant
22
respect . Eudoxos stresses that the sword alone was used
for the ceremony. Herodotos, on the other hand, gives a detailed account of the structure atop of which the sword
is positioned: 'Every district (vouot) in each of the
governments (dpxcti) has in it a structure sacred to Ares, to wit, a pile of faggots of sticks three furlongs broad and long, but of a less height, on the top of which there is a flattened four-sided surface; three of its sides are sheer, but the fourth can be ascended. In every year a
hundred and fifty wagon-loads of stocks are heaped upon this for the storms of winter ever make it sink down. On this sacred pile there is set for each people an ancient scimitar
23
of iron, which is their image of Ares.' The nature of 18. Clement of Alexandria, HpotpETiTlROC Tipop "EAAgvag V.64.5: 'Many
seem to me to sacrifice, sticking in only a sword ,<_«> if tAres. It is the way of the Scythians, as Eudoxos says in the fourth book of his Ges Periodos. '
19. Gisinger p.73. 'Auf Grund dieser inhaltlichen Übereinstimmung... ist es woh] erwiesen, dass Herodot wie für die übrigen den Norden Euro pas und Asiens betreffenden Nachrichten auch für das Periodos frag ment 16 von Eudoxos als Quelle benützt wurde ...'
20. Similar descriptions can also be found in passages of Mela 11.15, Lucian, Tox 38, -Tov’. trag 42 and Scholia, Anach 34, Clem.Alex.
protrept. IV. 46.2, Arnob. adv.nat. VI.11. 21. Gisinger, p.73.
22. Lasserre, p.257. 23. Her. IV.64.
the difference betv/een the Eudoxos and Herodotos accounts is significant in itself. It would be possible to argue that Eudoxos has simply attempted to abridge the Herodotean account, were it not for the fact that the custom of wor shipping the sword alone is well attested with respect to Eurasian nomadic tribes. In the stories Ammianus^ and
2 5
Jordanes tell with reference to the Quadi, Halani and Huns there is no mention of a mountain of sticks being
involved in the worship. That the custom described in Clement's Eudoxan fragment should parallel that of such originally central Asian tribes as the Halani and 'Huns', may suggest that Eudoxos had drawn his information from a
source recording the custom accurately. This source may