Rotaci´ on de factores

independently. Herodotos makes no mention of the episodes to which Strabo refers but does indicate clearly enough

that at the time of the Persian withdrawal some Greek cities on the Propontis were in revolt, for after relating Otanes' attack on Byzantion, Chalcedon, Antandros, Lamponion, Lemnos and Imbros, and the death of the Persian rulers of Lemnos, Herodotos concludes: 'he strove to enslave and subdue all the people, accusing some of shunning service against the Scythians and others of plundering Darius' army on its way

4 5

back from Scythia.' Though it is not clear here whether 'all these people' refers to just the Lemnians and Imbrians,

4 6 or the people of Byzantion, Chalcedon, and Antandros as well, it is evident that the Greeks had deserted during

service and/or had harassed Dareios' army - that is, they were in revolt.

As Herodotos had mentioned earlier how Megabazos had visited Byzantion and Chalcedon and 'EkAriOTiovTlcov t o u q uh undtCovxae H G .T sa rp e cp et o ' it is probable that the people of Byzantion, Chalcedon and Antandros had in fact, along with Lemnians and Imbrians, been members of the expedition, and had deserted and harrassed Dareios' withdrawing army.

The question of the historical accuracy of the account Ktesias gives of a Scythian incursion as far south as the Propontus is complicated by Herodotos' reference to Milti-

4 7

ades' expulsion from the Chersonese . This passage is riddled with ambiguities and difficulties, yet to be succ­ essfully resolved in modern commentaries upon the passage. It is nevertheless possible to understand this passage as 45. Her. V.27.

46. As Godley's and De Selincourt's translations demonstrate it is not clear whether these accusations were pronounced by Otanes (v.26.1) or Lykaretos (v.27) and thus de Selincourt has Otanes subjugate the cities, while Godley has Lykaretos. The ambiguity is caused by a lacuna in the text. Herodotus} tr. A.D. Godley 4V (Loeb, London,

1963); Herodotus, The Histories3 tr. Aubrey de Selincourt, revised A.R. Burn (London, 1972).

a record of a Scythian raid in 496 into the Chersonese, 4 8

resulting in Miltiades' expulsion

The various accounts of the Scythian incursion (those of Strabo, Ktesias, Herodotos) may be reconciled by

supposing that the incursion took the form of raids which followed different paths. The Scythians whom Strabo and Ktesias describe as pursuing Dareios may have reached the Bosporos end of the Propontis, for Strabo says Dareios

burnt the towns on the Propontis for fear of the Scythians 49

crossing , while Ktesias says they pursued the Persians who crossed the Bosporos bridge. A second group, those whom Herodotos describes as expelling Miltiades, may have

penetrated the Chersonese. If however, as is more probable, all three incidents were part of the same episode, it is possible that the variation in the accounts is the result of variant sources. Strabo, as his account can be recon­ ciled with that of Ktesias as preserved in Photios1 epitome, may in fact have drawn the account from Ktesias' original work. Ktesias in turn had drawn upon a source independent of Herodotos. But did Strabo use Ktesias directly? Strabo cites no authority for his passage on the Scythian incursion. The nearest citation is that of Theopompos as an authority on Sestos. After a description of the cities in the region

(especially Sestos and Abydos) where Xerxes bridges the Hep- tastadion, and Dareios burnt towns for fear of the Scythians crossing, Strabo concludes that: 'Theopompos says that

Sestos is small but well fortified, and that it is connected 50

with its harbour by a double wall ...' Whether, however, Theopompos was in fact Strabo's authority on the history of foreign presences in the region of Sestos is not clear.

Theopompos was certainly capable of such digressions, but as there seem to be no other clues identifying Theopompos, the 48. See End Note D.

49. Strab. XIII.1.22. The Pontus cities so destroyed are not named. 50. Ibid.

possibility that Theopompos was the intermediary between

51

Ktesias and Strabo must remain unsubstantiated

Nevertheless it would appear that the raid in which Miltiades was expelled from the Chersonese (as described by Herodotos) is to be identified with that which Ktesias and Strabo claim followed immediately upon Dareios' with­ drawal. The historical accuracy of Ktesias' account of Dareios' Scythian expedition, though differing -frondlerodotos ' account, once again seems to be substantiated.

Ill

When considering Ktesias' conception of the 'Royal Scythian Empire' and the place of this conception in the classical literary tradition, it is necessary to discuss not only K t e s i a s ' treatment of tribes that Herodotos would have called 'Royal Scythians', but also Ktesias' treatment of the other 'Scythian/Saka' groups. Accounts of the very early tribal history of the 'Scythians' are offered by numerous classical writers. Most notable are the accounts in D i o d o r o s , Justin and Jordanes. The correspondence between these accounts, their common divergence from the Herodotean accounts, and in some cases, their treatment of subjects upon which Herodotos was silent, arouses the suspicion that behind all these later accounts may lie a single original work dealing with the early history of the Scythians. Several questions arise. Did such an 'Early History of the Scythians' exist (though this title is used purely for convenience, it shall be retained throughout the

52»

following discussion as SHS J? If it did, what was the

51. On Theopompos as a possible source for Strabo with regard to Ateas, the fourth century Scythian King, see 'Theopompos', p p .200-204. 52. EHS may be defined as the original source of the fullest accounts

of the ear.1y history of the Scythians. It was most probably a section within another work. 'EHS' shall stand for material on the subject found in subsequent works.

nature of this work? Who was its author/source? Did Ktesias fill one of these roles? These questions may now be treated in turn. The treatment may commence with an examination of the relevant sections of Diodoros, Justin and Jordanes.

Justin in his epitome of Trogus Pompeius' work offers a very detailed history of the Scythian invasion of Asia, their confrontation with Sesosis of Egypt, their return and war with their slaves, their relationship to the Amazons

and their war with Dareios. A close analysis of Justin II.i-v provides grounds for the identification not only of sections which appear to correspond with sections of Herodotos' Histories3 but of material which appears to have been drawn from a non-Herodotean history of the Scythians.

In II.i. Justin introduces an element which assumes significant dimensions in stories which are to follow later, that of the roles of men and women in Scythian history (particularly with respect to the foundation of the Amazon, Parthian and Bactrian powers). There then follows a lengthy record of a debate between the Egyptians and Scythians on the issue of which people were the older. The issue of the antiquity of the Egyptians and Scythians

53

had been dealt with by Herodotos . Herodotos, however, dealt with the antiquity of these respective peoples quite separately and at no point draws the two people into a debate. In Herodotos the debate, which is at one stage

54

recorded, is between the Phrygians and Egyptians . Nor does Herodotos employ the same arguments as those invoked in Justin's account, where the concern is rather with

questions of natural philosophy and the manner of generation of life55.

53. Egypt - Her. II.2, 5. Scythia - Her. IV.5-12. 54. Her. II.2.

55. The supposition underlying Justin's account being that men might spring directly from the earth. Such was a common supposition. See Lucretius v.803; Ovid, Metamorphoses i.80; Diodorus Siculus i.10.

In II.ii. Justin offers a geographical and ethno­ graphical overview of 'Scythia'. The extent of Scythia is given as follows: 'Scythia autem in orientem porrecta includitur ab uno latere Ponto, ab altero montibus Riphaeis, a tergo Asia et Phasi flumine. Multum in longitudinem et

5 6

latitudinem patet'. The sense of the passage is not easily extracted. Three Scythian borders are defined: the Euxine Pontos; the Rhipean Mountains; and the Phasis

(apparently separating Scythia from Asia Minor). The relat­ ionship between these boundaries is far from clear. Were the Rhipeans conceived of as being simply another border, or as 'opposite' the Pontos? If the latter, does this place then in the north or east? Was the Pontos conceived to be the southern or western border, the Phasis to be the eastern or southern? These questions are unanswerable. The difficult question of source is thereby rendered even more difficult. The mention of the Rhipean mountains

57

excludes Herodotos as source . The reference to the Phasis would seem to exclude Hekataios as the direct source, as

for him the most important 'Scythian' river is the Tanais. If the immediate source was neither Herodotos nor Hekataios, then who was it? Ktesias? There are no other references which might indicate that Ktesias made mention of the Rhipeans and Phasis or that he attempted a geographical definition of Scythia. Even if Ktesias was the source

(pure conjecture) the problem of Ktesias' source would remain.

In Il.iii. Justin gives a short history of the Scyth­ ians' 'international deeds'. It is this section which is of greatest significance. This history first lists a number of outstanding Scythian successes: 'Darius, king of the

56. Justin II.ii.1-2. Throughout this thesis the Latin text of Justin