trip in spirit and not in body, may be disputed). Karl Meuli, Scythica', Ilermcs LXX (1935) pp.121-176. See also Esser 'Uber ein skythlsches Männer 1 eiden' pp.347-53, and Balcay,who offers a detailed analysis of Scythian religion in terms of Shamanistic religion in the course of his investigation of the origin of Scythian rattles in the Carpathian Basin. Kornel Bakay, Scythian rattles in the
Carpathian Basin and their Eastern Connection (1971) pp.108-121,
ch. entitled 'The Function, Spiritual Background and Ritual Signif icance of the Scythian Rattles and Pole-Ends.' In modern scholar ship the identification is now accepted without challenge.
his more extensive explanation. Hippokrates may have worked directly from the earlier story. If Hippokrates had used Herodotos, it is hard to see how he could write at such
length on the question without alluding to any of the Herodotean details. The original story may have been collected independently by Herodotos and Hippokrates from the Scythians themselves, or may have been found in Hekataios.
Throughout his work on the Scythians Hippokrates may, therefore, be considered independent of Herodotos. There is much in this work that indicates original research. There is much too which indicates use of literary sources. When the latter is the case, the major source may be iden tified as Hekataios.
C H A PTER 5 THUCYDIDES
An opportunity to consider Thucydides' place in the tradition is afforded by his description in ii.96 of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Scythians and the G e t a i . Here Thucydides makes several significant observations.
The first o bservation of significance is that the Getai and others were neighbours (ouopoi) of the Scythians.'*' Most Getai in this period seem to have been settled south of the Danube, for when Sitalkes was preparing for an expedition against Perdikkas in 429 , he summoned among others: ene i ia xoug UTiepßdvTi Aipov Texas xal öoa a AAa ueph evxog xoö
"Iaxpou Tcoxauou Ttpog ödAaooav uaAAov xgv xoö Eu^e l v o u t io v x o u
» 2
xaxcpxpxo. If the Scythians were to be neighbours of southern tribes then either Thucydides did not consider the Danube
p r o h i b i t e d him from calling northern (Scythian) and southern 3
(Getai) tribes 'neighbours' or Scythians had actually
settled south of the Danube. The possibility that Thucydides h i m self provides evidence for the latter of these explanations being correct may now be investigated.
In Thucydides 11.97 the Odrysian empire is said to extend in this period as far north as the river Ister, and thus,
unless they were subjects, this wou l d seem to preclude the 4
presence of Scythian tribes south of the Ister . The closer exami n a t i o n of the composition of Sitalkes' realm afforded by the account of 11.96 would, however, seem to give a different picture. Sitalces summoned first of all 'the .1. Thucydides ii.96.1: eCol 6'oi Texai xal ol xauxg cpopoi xe xotg
ExuDaig xai oybaxeuoi ... ndvxeg ltttioxo^ oxai. 2 . Thuc.ii.9 6.1.
3. It is unlikely that the Scythians'frontier with these numerous south ern tribes (as there are more than one) could be perfectly linear, i.e. the Danube river.
4. 'Eyevexo 6e dpyri g *06puowv ueyeOog ext ysv ödAoooav xaöfixouoa dnb 'Aßorjpojv xoletog eg xov EüEeivov udvxov uexpi "Iaxpou noxayoü.
Thracians under his sway (oocov gpxe) between the mountains Haimos and Rhodope and the sea - as far as the shores of the Euxine and Hellespont' and then called upon a second group 'beyond Haemus, the Getae, and all the other tribes that are settled south of the river Ister in the general direction of the seaboard of the Euxine sea.' npwiov and
e t t s i t c x would seem to parallel the contrast between those
tribes over which Sitalkes ruled and those - the Getai and others - over whom he did not rule. These latter tribes Thucydides describes as being settled between the Haemus mountain range and the Ister, and as near the Euxine coast
that is to say, in the Dobrudja region.
A contradiction is apparent. In II.97.1 Thucydides defines the Odrysian Empire as extending right up to the Danube, but in II.96.1 it is evident that the Dobrudja region is conceived as lying outside the Empire. The problem may lie in part with Thucydides' terminology and f] dpxn q ‘Oöpuocnv may be a looser term than oocov qpxe • The course of the Danube itself may, however, go still further in explaining the apparent contradiction. As the Haemos mountains and the Danube run parallel for the greater
length of north Thrace they might equally be considered to define Sitalkes' northern boundary. Near the Euxine coast, however, the river and mountains part and between the two lies the Dobrudja. In the description of q dpxq q ' OSpuocov Thucydides has apparently not concerned himself with this area and simply set the Danube as the frontier, whereas in his preceding and more detailed account he gives the Haemos as the frontier and acknowledges the presence of several independent tribes in the Dobrudja region^. A 3. Ibid.
6. Gomme overlooks the difference in these accounts - omitting alto gether discussion of the description in 91.1 of the Ister as the Odrysian boundary. A.W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides3 2V (Oxford, 1966) pp.241-243.
further and better explanation of the inconsistency will be suggested shortly.
The conclusion that several independent tribes, includ ing the Getai, inhabited the Dobrudja region is all the more significant when Thucydides' account in II. 96.1 continues: E L G L 6 ' O L r £ TCX l H O L O L TCXU T p | Ö p i O p O l I E T O L Q XhUÖCXLC K O I
ouoGKEuoi, iravreg iruro Togo toil. The Scythians in the account
are not just the neighbours of the Getai, but of numerous people. The similarity Thucydides notes between these people may have been the result of direct Scythian influence in the culture of these southern tribes.
It is unclear from an historical point of view whether Ihe
CiAi»%£ ( / ‘ojxx
^the Scythian neighbours - who would plainly have been Basil- eioi - or from an earlier 'Scythian' people. The only
indications from archaeological evidence that the Scythian influence in Getai culture and lifestyle included a recent and possibly Basileioi influence, are the artefacts found in Getai cemetries of the fifth century in the north of the
7 8
Dobrudja . These artefacts include an iron cauldron , a
9 10
bronze sword emblem and a stone funeral statue , all bearing a great similarity to contemporary works in South Russia.
This influence may be attributed to the settlement of some Basileioi south of the Danube following the southern incur sions at the end of the sixth century. However, as the evidence is meagre no firm conclusions can be drawn. 7. The Murighiol region. For a general discussion see Dimitriu,
'Evenements du Pont Euxine de la fin du VIe s i e d e av. J.C. refletes dans l'histoire d'Historia,' Daoia3 VIII 1964, p.142 and Alexandrescu
'Les Scythes au Sud du Danube avant le roi Ateias', VIIIe Congres internationale d 1 archeologie classique3 pp.407.
8. See D. Berciu's article in Dacia (1958) p.!25f. (Not available for consultation but referred to by above articles.)
9. Berciu, Dacia (1958) p.63. (Not available for direct consultation.) 10. Alexandrescu 'Doua statui traco-scitice din Dobrogea', Studii si
cerceari de istorie veche IX, 2, (1958) p .291f ; and 'In legatur^ cu statuile scitice' Studii si cerceari de istorie veche3 XI, 2
The discussion may now turn to the place of this
Thucydidean conception in the literary tradition. This
question has been treated by three scholars: Gomme (1966),
Westlake (1969) and Pearson (1939).
Gomme makes three observations. Firstly, that Thucy
dides drew his geographical information either from Thracians, or even more probably, from his own travels in Thrace11.
Secondly, in a note on ii.97.6: Eh uOc u q ouoyvcouovoual
Tiaaiv dvxuJThvai Gomme writes 'It has been suggested that Thucydides is here intentionally contradicting Herodotos, who said that the Thracians were the largest single people
(after the Indians) and would be the strongest if they were
united into one kingdom. (Her.V.3). Perhaps; but Thucydides
too is emphasizing the great strength of a Thracian empire at this time, even though he adds that they would be inferior to a united Scythia’.1^ Thirdly, Gomme draws attention to the sentence: ou uhv o u 6' eg igv aAAqv eußouA.iav holI ^uveaiv
Tt epL tgov napovTcov e p t o v (3tov oLAA-o l q ouoLOÖviai commenting
'this denial of general good sense (political sense, that is) to the Scythians has been thought to be in reference to
Herodotos' praise of these, iv.46; but it is very guarded praise, and Herodotos would in general have agreed with Thucy dides ... the conventional Airs, Waters, Places of the Hippo cratic corpus, which may be of the fifth century, has a
different account of the Scythians (cc.19-22), but one which is hardly based on observation.'11 Thus, the outstanding
11. Gomme, Historical Commentary on Thucydides , pp.241 and 243. See