.php>
Map of the Roman Empire - Scythians
Scythians
O-1 on the Map
Ancient Scythians The Greeks called them Skythians and the Romans called them Scythians. The Scythae were the barbarians (non-Greek and non-Roman), the people north of the Black Sea, on the outer edge of the civilized world. The Bible mentions them in Col 3:11. The country of the Scythae comprised a vast area in the eastern half of Northern Europe, and in Western and Central Asia.
Col. 3:11 - Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Scythia - In Classical Antiquity, Scythia ((Old Iranian Sakā; Sacaeسیتیا ، سکاستان،سیستان ), Greek Σκυθία Skythia, pronounced /ˈsɪθiə/ or /ˈsɪđiə/) was the area in Eurasia inhabited by the Scythians, from the 8th century BC to the 2nd century AD. - Wikipedia
Scythia (Σκυθιά, and Σκυθικὴ sc. γῆ). A name variously used by
the ancients at different periods of history. The Scythia of Herodotus
comprises, to speak generally, the southeastern parts of Europe, between the
Carpathian Mountains and the river Tanaďs (Don). The Greeks became acquainted
with this country through their settlements on the Euxine; and Herodotus, who
had himself visited the coasts of the Euxine, collected all the information he
could obtain about the Scythians and their country, and embodied the results in
a most interesting digression, which forms the first part of his fourth book. He
describes the country as a square of 4000 stadia (400 geographical miles) each
way, the western boundary being the Ister (Danube) and the mountains of the
Agathyrsi; the southern the shores of the Euxine and Palus Maeotis, from the
mouth of the Ister to that of the Tanaďs, this side being divided into two equal
parts, of 2000 stadia each, by the mouth of the Borysthenes (Dnieper); the
eastern boundary was the Tanaďs, and on the north Scythia was divided by deserts
from the Melanchlaeni, Androphagi, and Budini. It corresponded to the southern
part of Russia in Europe. The people who inhabited this region were called by
the Greeks S???a?, a word of doubtful origin, which first occurs in Hesiod; but,
in their own language, S????t??, i. e. Slavonians. They were believed by
Herodotus to be of Asiatic origin; and his account of them, taken in connection
with the description given by Hippocrates of their physical peculiarities, has
been regarded as proof that they were a part of the great Mongol race, who
wandered, from unknown antiquity, over the steppes of Central Asia; yet the
general drift of opinion at the present time is toward assigning to them Aryan
affinities. Herodotus says further that they were driven out of their abodes in
Asia, north of the Araxes, by the Massagetae; and that, migrating into Europe,
they drove out the Cimmerians. If this account be true, it can hardly but have
some connection with the irruption of the Cimmerians into Asia Minor, in the
reign of the Lydian king Ardys, about B.C. 640.
The Scythians were a nomadic people, that is, shepherds or herdsmen, who had no
fixed habitations, but roamed over a vast tract of country at their pleasure,
and according to the wants of their cattle. They lived in a kind of covered
wagons, which Aeschylus describes as “lofty houses of wicker-work, on
well-wheeled chariots” (Prom. Vinc. 710). They were filthy in their habits,
never washing, fought on horseback, scalped their enemies, and drank out of
their skulls when slain. They kept large troops of horses, and were most expert
in cavalry exercises and archery; and hence, as the Persian king Darius found,
when he invaded their country (B.C. 507), it was almost impossible for an
invading army to act against them. They simply retreated, wagons and all, before
the enemy, harassing him with their light cavalry, and leaving famine and
exposure, in their bare steppes, to do the rest. Like all nomadic races, they
were divided into several hordes, the chief of whom were called the Royal
Scythians; and to these all the rest owned some degree of allegiance. Their
government was a sort of patriarchal monarchy or chieftainship. An important
modification of their habits had, however, taken place, to a certain extent,
before Herodotus described them. The fertility of the plains on the north of the
Euxine, and the influence of the Greek settlements at the mouth of the
Borysthenes and along the coast, had led the inhabitants of this part of Scythia
to settle down as cultivators of the soil, and had brought them into commercial
and other relations with the Greeks. Accordingly, Herodotus mentions two classes
or hordes of Scythians who had thus abandoned their nomad life; first, on the
west of the Borysthenes, two tribes of Hellenized Scythians, called Callipidae
and Alazones; then, beyond these, “the Scythians who are ploughers (S???a? ???t??e?),
who do not grow their corn for food, but for sale”; these dwelt about the river
Hypanis (Boug), in the region now called the Ukraine, which is still, as it was
to the Greeks, a great cornexporting country. Again, on the east of the
Borysthenes were “the Scythians who are husbandmen” (S???a? ?e?????), i. e. who
grew corn for their own consumption: these were called Borysthenitae by the
Greeks; their country extended three days' journey east of the Borysthenes to
the river Panticapes. Beyond these, to the east, dwelt “the nomad Scythians
(??µ?de? S???a?), who neither sow nor plough at all.” Herodotus expressly states
that the tribes east of the Borysthenes were not Scythian. Of the history of
these Scythian tribes there is little to state, beyond the tradition already
mentioned, that they migrated from Asia and expelled the Cimmerians; their
invasion of Media, in the reign of Cyaxares, when they held the supremacy of
Western Asia for twenty-eight years, and the disastrous expedition of Darius
into their country. In later times they were gradually overpowered by the
neighbouring people, especially the Sarmatians, who gave their name to the whole
country. (See Sarmatia.) Meanwhile, the conquests of Alexander and his
successors in Central Asia had made the Greeks acquainted with tribes beyond the
Oxus and the Iaxartes, who resembled the Scythians, and belonged, in fact, to
the same race, and to whom, accordingly, the same name was applied. Hence, in
writers of the time of the Roman Empire, the name of Scythia denotes the whole
of Northern Asia, from the river Rha (Volga) on the west, which divided it from
Asiatic Sarmatia, to Serica on the east, extending to India on the south. It was
divided by Mount Imaüs into two parts, called respectively Scythia intra Imaüm,
i. e. on the northwestern side of the range, and Scythia extra Imaüm, on its
southeastern side. The later Scythians overran Parthia (B.C. 128), and also
invaded Northern India, where they maintained themselves for several centuries.
The Jats and Rajputs of modern India have by some scholars been regarded as the
descendants of these Scythian invaders. - Harry Thurston Peck. Harpers Dictionary
of Classical Antiquities. New York. Harper and Brothers. 1898.
Scythia, at first a country of Europe, bet. Carpathus m. and the Tanais; afterwards, as Scythia Propria, understood by Ptolemy to be a country of Asia, extending bet. the Tanais and Serica, bounded s. by Sogdiana, Hyrcania, Margiana, &c. It was intersected by Imaus m., and distributed accordingly into Scythia intra Imaum w. and Scythia extra Imaum E. .scythia Minor, a province of Moesia Inferior, on the Euxine, bet. the Danube and Hsemus m., occupying the country previously called Pontus, and named from its original Scythian population. - Classical Gazetteer
Scythian Kings
Scylas (ca. 500 BC) – Herodotus describes him as a Scythian whose mother was
Greek, he was expelled by his people
Octamasadas (ca. 450 BC) – was put on the throne after Scylas
Ateas (ca. 429–339 BC) – defeated by the Macedonians; his empire fell apart
Skilurus (ca. 125–110 BC) – died during a war against Mithridates VI of Pontus
Palacus (ca. 100 BC) – the last Scythian ruler, defeated by Mithridates
Scythians
SCYTHIA SCY´THIA (ἡ Σκυθία, ἡ Σκυθική: Eth. Σκύθης, Scytha), the country of the
Scythae, a vast area in the eastern half of Northern Europe, and in Western and
Central Asia. Its limits varied with the differences of date, place, and
opportunities of information on the part of its geographers. Indeed, to a great
extent, the history of Scythia is the history of a
Name.--It is obvious that the term came from the Greeks to the Romans; in this
respect unlike Sarmatia, Dacia, and others, which, in form at least, are Roman
rather than Greek. But whence did the Greeks get it? for it is by no means
either significant in their tongue, or a Greek word at all. They took it from
one or more of the populations interjacent between themselves and the Scythae;
these being Thracians, Sarmatians, and Getae. Probably all three used it; at any
rate, it seems to have been used by the neighbours of the Greeks of Olbiopolis,
and by the Thracians on the frontiers of the Greeks of Macedonia. This is in
favour of its having been a term common to all the forms of speech between
Macedonia and the Borysthenes. Scyth-, then, is a Sarmatian, Thracian, and Getic
term in respect to its introduction into the Greek language. Was it so in its
origin? The presumption as well as the evidence is in favour of its having been
so. There is the express evidence of Herodotus (4.6) that the population which
the Greeks called Scythae called themselves Scoloti. There is the fact that the
Persian equivalent to Scythae was Sakae. Thirdly, there is the fact that in the
most genuine-looking of the Scythic myths there is no such eponymus as Scytha or
Scythes, which would scarcely have been the case had the name been native. Scyth-,
then, was a word like German or Allemand, as applied to the Deutsche, a word
strange to the language of the population designated by it, but not strange to
the language of the neighbouring countries. To whom was it applied? To the
tribes who called themselves Scoloti.
What was the extent of the term? Did it apply not only to the Scoloti, but to
the whole of the class to which the Scoloti belonged? It is safe to say that, at
first, at least, there were many congeners of the Scoloti whom no one called
Scythae. The number, however, increased as the term became general. Did the name
denote any populations of a different family from the Scoloti? Rarely, at first;
afterwards, frequently. If the populations designated by their neighbours as
Scythae called themselves by some other name, what was that name? Scoloti
applied only to a part of them. Had the word Scyth- a meaning in any language?
if so, what was it, and in what tongues? Both these points will be noticed in
the sequel, the questions involved in them being at present premature, though by
no means unimportant.
The knowledge of the Scythian family dates from the beginning of Greek
literature.
SCYTHIANS OF HESIOD, ETC.
Populations belonging to the Scythian family are noticed by Homer under the
names of Abii, Glactophagi, and Hippemolgi, the habit of milking their mares
being as definite a characteristic of a Scythian as anything in the way of
manners and customs can be. Hesiod gives us Scythae under that name, noting them
also as Hippemolgi. The Scythians of Homer and Hesiod are poetical rather than
historical nations. They are associated with the Mysi of Bulgaria (not of Asia),
[2.937] a point upon which Strabo enlarges (7.3. § § 7, 8). They are Hamaxobii
(?? ?p??a?? ???? ????te?), and ??a???. Aeschylus mentions them as e???µ??. The
apparent simplicity of their milk-drinking habits got them the credit of being
men of mild and innocent appetites with Ephorus (Strab. vii. p.302), who
contrasts them with the cannibal Sarmatae. There was also an apparent confusion
arising out of the likeness of ??µade? to ??µ??? (from ??µ?? = law). The
Prometheus of Aeschylus is bound to one of the rocks of Caucasus, on the distant
border of the earth, and the inaccessible desert of the Scythians.
Such are the Scythae of Aeschylus and Hesiod. The writers of the interval, who
knew them as the invaders of Asia, and as historical agents, must have had a
very different notion of them. Fragmentary allusions to the evils inflicted
during their inroads are to found in Callinus, Archilochus, &c. The notice of
them, however, belongs to the criticism of the historical portion of the account
of
TRANS-DANUBIAN SCYTHIANS OF HERODOTUS: SCOLOTI: SCYTHIANS OF HIPPOCRATES.
Much of the Herodotean history is simple legend. The strange story of an
intermarriage of the females who, whilst their husbands were in Asia, were left
behind with the slaves, and of the rebellion therein originating having been put
down by the exhibition, on the part of the returning masters, of the whips with
which the backs of the rebels had been previously but too familiar, belongs to
the Herodotean Scythians (4.1--6). So do the myths concerning the origin of the
nation, four in number, which may be designated as follows:--
* 1. The Account of the Scythians themselves. This is to the effect that
Targitaus, the son of Zeus by a daughter of the river Borysthenes, was the
father of Leipoxais, Arpoxais, and Colaxais. In their reign, there fell from
heaven a yoke, an axe (s??a???), a plough-share, and a cup, all of gold. The two
elder failed in taking them up; for they burnt when they approached them. But
the younger did not fail; and ruled accordingly. From Leipoxais descended the
Auchaetae (?????; from Arpoxais the Catiari and Traspies; from Colaxais the
Paralatai. The general name for all is “Scoloti, whom the Greeks call Scythae.”
This was exactly 1000 years before the invasion of Darius. The gold was sacred;
the country large. It extended so far north that the continual fall of feathers
(snow) prevented things from being seen. The number of the kingdoms was three,
the greatest of which had charge of the gold. Of this legend, the elements seem
partly Scythian, and partly due to the country in which the Scythians settled.
The descent from the Borysthenes belongs to this latter class. The story of the
sons of Targitaus is found, in its main features, amongst the present Tartars.
In Targitaus more than one commentator has found the root Turk. The threefold
division reminds us to the Great, Middle, and Little Hordes of the Kirghiz; and
it must be observed that the words greatest and middle (µe??st? and µ?s?) are
found in the Herodotean account They may be more technical and definite than is
generally imagined. In the account there is no Eponymus, no Scytha, or even
Scolotos. There is also the statement that the Scythians are the youngest of all
nations. This they might be, as immigrants.
* 2. The Account of the Pontic Greeks. This is to the effect that Agathyrsus,
Gelonus, and Scythes (the youngest) were the sons of Hercules and Echidna, the
place where they met being the Hylaea. The son that could draw the bow was to
rule. This was Scythes, owing to manoeuvres of his mother. He stayed in the
land: the others went out. The cup appears here as an emblem of authority.
* 3. The Second Greek Account. This is historical rather than mythological. The
Massagetae press the Scythians upon the Cimmerii, the latter flying before them
into Asia. This connects the history of the parts about the Bosporus with Media.
The inference from the distribution of the signs of Cimmerian occupancy confirms
this account. There were the burial-places of the Cimmerii on the Tyras; there
was the Cimmerian Bosporus, and between them, with Cimmerian walls, Scythia (?
S??????). This is strong evidence in favour of Scythian extension and Cimmerian
preoccupancy.
* 4. The Account of Aristeas of Proconnesus. This is a speculation rather than
either a legend or a piece of history. Aristeas (Mure, History of Greek
Literature, vol. 2.469, seq.) visited the country of the Issedones. North of
these lay the Arimaspi; north of the Arimaspi the Monophthalmi; north of the
Monophthalmi the Gold-guarding Griffins (G??pe? ???s?fa?????); and north of
these, the Hyperborei. The Hyperborei made no movements; but the Griffins drove
the Monophthalmi, the Monophthalmi the Arimaspi, the Arimaspi the Issedones, the
Issedones the Scythians, the Scythians the Cimmerians, the Cimmerians having to
leave their land; but they, as we learn elsewhere, attack the Medes. (Hdt.
4.5-16). No one had ever been further north than Aristeas, an unsafe authority.
The information of Herodotus himself is chiefly that of the Greeks of the
Borysthenes. He mentions, however, conversations with the steward of one of the
Scythian kings.
The Emporium of the Borystheneitae was central to the Scythia of the sea-coast.
In the direction of the Hypanis, i. e. west and north-west, the order of the
population was as follows: the Callipidae and Alazones (?????e? S???a?), sowers
and consumers of corn; to the north of whom lay the Scythae Aroteres, not only
sowers of corn, but sellers of it; to the north of these the Neuri; to the north
of the Neuri either a desert or a terra incognita (4.17, 18.) The physical
geography helps us here. The nearer we approach the most fertile province of
Modern Russia, Podolia, wherein we place the Scythae Aroteres, the more the
Scythian character becomes agricultural. The Hellenes Scythae (Callipidae and
Alazones) belong more to Kherson. That the Hellenes Scythae were either a mixed
race, or Scythicised Greeks, is unlikely. The doctrine of the present writer is
as follows: seeing that they appear in two localities (viz. the Governments of
Kherson and Caucasus); seeing that in each of these the populations of the later
and more historical periods are Alani (Ptolemy's form for those of Kherson is
Alauni); seeing that even the Alani of Caucasus are by one writer at least
called ????e?te? ??a????; seeing that the root ??a? might have two plurals, one
in -?? and one in -e?, he ends in seeing in the Hellenic Scythians simply
certain Scythians of the Alan name. Neither does he doubt about Geloni being the
same word,--forms like Chuni and Hunni, Arpi and Carpi being found for these
parts. At any rate, the locality for the Callipidae and Alazones suits that of
Ptolemy's Alauni, whilst that of the Scythian Greeks and Geloni of Caucasus
suits that of the Alans of the fourth and fifth centuries. [2.938]
The Scythian affinities of the Neuri are implied rather than categorically
stated; indeed, in another part there is the special statement that the Tyras
rises out of a great lake which separates the Scythian and Neurid countries (t??
S??????? ?a? t?? ?e???da ???). This, however, must not be made to prove too
much; since the Scythians that were conterminous with the Neuri were known by no
special name, but simply by the descriptive term Scythae Aroteres. [EXAMPAEUS;
NEURI.] In Siberian geography Narym == marsh. Hence Neuri may be a Scythian
gloss. There may also have been more Neuri than one, e. g. on the Narym of the
headwaters of the Dnieper, i. e. of Pinsk. A fact in favour of the Neuri being
Scythian is the following. The occupants of Volhynia, when its history
commences, which is as late as the 13th century, are of the same stock with the
Scythians, i. e. Comanian Turks. Not only is there no evidence of their
introduction being recent, but the name Omani (Lygii Omani) appears about the
same parts in Ptolemy.
East of the Borysthenes the Agricultural Scythae occupy the country as far as
the Panticapes, 3 days distant. Northwards they extend 11 days up the
Borysthenes, where they are succeeded by a desert; the desert by the Androphagi,
a nation peculiar and by no means Scythian (100.19). Above the Androphagi is a
desert.
The bend of the Dnieper complicates the geography here. It is safe, however, to
make Ekaterinoslav the chief Georgic area, and to add to it parts of Kiev,
Kherson, and Poltava, the agricultural conditions increasing as we move
northwards. The two deserts (???µ??) command notice. The first is, probably, a
March or political frontier, such as the old Suevi used to have between
themselves and neighbours; at least, there is nothing in the conditions of the
soil to make it a natural one. It is described as ???µ?? ?p? p?????. The other
is ???µ?? ???????,--a distinction, apparently, of some value. To be natural,
however, it must be interpreted forest rather than steppe. Kursk and Tshernigov
give us the area of the Androphagi; Kursk having a slight amount of separate
evidence in favour of its having been “by no means Scythian” (100.18).
The Hylaea, or wooded district of the Lower Dnieper, seems to have been common
ground to the Scythae Georgi and Scythae Nomades; or, perhaps it was
uninhabited. The latter extend 14 days eastward, i. e. over Taurida, part of
Ekaterinoslav, and Don Kosaks, to the Gerrhus.
The Palaces (t? ?a?e?µe?a ßas????a) succeed; their occupants being the Royal
Scythians, the best and most numerous of the name, who look upon the others as
their slaves. They extend, southwards, into the Crimea (t?? ?a??????), and,
eastwards, as far as the ditch dug by the offspring of the blind slaves (the
statement that the Scythians blinded their slaves on account of the milk being
one of the elements of the strange Servile legend previously noticed), and the
Maeotic Emporium called Kremni. Some touch the Tanais.
North of the Royal Scythians lie the Melanchlaeni (a probable translation of
Karakalpak == black bonnet), a different nation and not Scythian (100.20), with
marshes, and either a desert or a terra incognita above them. This distinction
is, almost certainly, real. At the present moment a population, to all
appearances aboriginal, and neither Slavonic nor Scythian (but Ugrian or Finn),
occupies parts of Penza and Tambov having, originally, extended both further
west and further south. To the north the forest districts attain their maximum
development. [MELANCHLAENI] The Royal Scythians may have occupied parts of
Voronezh.
East of the Tanais it was no longer Scythia, but the ????e? of the Sauromatae.
[See SAUROMATAE; BUDINI; GELONI; THYSSAGETAE; IURCAE.] The want of definite
boundaries makes it difficult to say where the Iurcae end. Beyond them to the
east lay other Scythians, who, having revolted from the Royal, settled there. Up
to their districts the soil was level and deep, beyond it rough and stony, with
mountains beyond. These are occupied by a nation of Bald-heads, flat-nosed and
bearded, Scythians in dress, peculiar in language, collectors of a substance
called ?s?? from a tree called p??t???? (100.23). Their flocks and herds are
few; theirmanners so simple that no one injures them, &c. [ARGIPPAEI; ISSEDONES;
HYPERBOREI; ARIMASPI.] In the parts about the mountains of the Argippaei trade
was carried on by means of seven interpreters. Let this be the caravan trade of
Orenburg, near its terminus on the Volga, and we shall find that seven is about
the number of languages that could at the present moment be brought together at
a fair in the centre of Orenburg. For the modern Russian take the language of
the Sauromatae; for the Scythian that of the modern Tartars. To these we can add
four Ugrian forms of speech,--the Tshuwash, the Mordwin, the Tsheremiss, and the
Votiak, with the two forms of speech akin to the Ostiak and Permian to choose
the fifth from. The Tshuwash of Kazan and the Bashkirs of Orenburg have mixed
characters at the present time,--Turk and Ugrian.
* RIVERS--The chief river of the Herodotean Scythia was the Ister [DANUBIUS],
with its five mouths; and then the Tyras (Dniester), the Hypanis (Bog), the
Borysthenes (Dnieper), the Panticapes [see s. v.], the Hypacyris [see CARCINA],
the Gerrhus [see s. v.], and the Tanais (Don); the feeders of the Ister (i. e.
the rivers of the present Danubian Principalities) being the Porata (Scythic, in
Greek Puretus), the Tiarantos, the Araros, the Naparis, and the Ordessus (cc.
47, 48). To these add, from the country of the Agathyrsi, the Maris (100.49), or
modern Maros of Transylvania. The difference between the ancient and modern
names of rivers is nowhere greater than here,--the Maros being the only name now
in use which represents the original one; unless we choose to hold that, word
for word, Aluta == Araros. Word for word, indeed, Naparis is Dnieper; but then
the rivers are different. This creates a grave difficulty in the determination
of the language to which the names of the Scythian rivers should be referred.
Yet the question is important, inasmuch as, in the names, as they come down to
us, we have so many glosses of some language or other. Upon the whole, however,
the circumstances under which they reached Herodotus suggest the notion that
they are Scythian: e. g. the express statement that Porata is a Scythian form.
Again; Hypanis is, word for word, Kuban,--a word of which the appearance in both
Asia and Europe is best explained by supposing it to be Scythian. On the other
hand, they are as little significant in the language which, amongst those at
present existing, best explains the undoubted Scythian glosses, as they are in
the Slavonic, Latin, or Greek. The physical geography of Herodotean Scythia was
a steppe, with occasional districts (chiefly along [2.939] the courses of the
rivers and at their head-waters) of a more practicable character.
* MOUNTAINS.--These were the eastern continuation of the Carpathians, and the
hills of the Crimea or Tauris. These were but imperfectly known to Herodotus.
* LAKES. [See EXAMPAEUS and BUCE.]
* TOWNS, exclusively Greek colonies. [See OLBIOPOLIS; PANTICAPAEUM.]
Beyond the Sauromatae (s. v.) lay “other Scythians, who, having revolted from
the Royal, reached this country,” i. e. some part of Orenburg (100.22).
Thirdly, there were the SACAE whom we may call the Scythians of the Persian
frontier. Their occupancy was the parts conterminous with Bactria, and it was
under Darius, the son of Hystaspes, that they, along with the Bactrians, joined
in the invasion of Greece. Their dress was other than Bactrian, consisting of a
pointed turban, a bonnet, leggings, native bows, daggers, and the axe called
s??a???--a word which is probably technical. There were Scythae Amyrgii, truly,
however, Scythae, inasmuch as the Persians called all the Scythians by the name
SACAE Under the reign of Cyrus they were independent. Under Darius, they, along
with the Caspii, formed the 15th satrapy (3.93). This connects them with their
frontagers on the west, rather than the east.
There is no difficulty, however, in fixing them. From Asterabad to Balk they
extended along the northern frontier of Persia, in the area, and probably as the
ancestors, of the present Turcomans and Uzbeks. The name Amyrgii will be noticed
in the sequel.
The Sacae, if not separated from the “other Scythians” by the greater part of
Independent Tartary, were, at any rate, a population that presented itself to
the informants of Herodotus under a different aspect. The Sacae were what the
Persians found on their northern frontier. The eastern Scythae were the
Scythians beyond the Sauromatae, as they appeared to the occupants of the parts
about the Tanais.
It is not difficult to see the effect of these three points of view upon future
geographers. With Scythians in Transylvania, Scythians in Orenburg, with
Scythians (even though called Sacae) in Khorasan and Turcomania, and with a
terra incognita between, the name cannot but fail to take upon itself an
inordinate amount of generality. The three isolated areas will be connected; and
the historical or ethnological unity will give way to a geographical. At
present, however, there is a true unity over the whole of Scythia in the way
both of
PHYSIOGNOMY AND MANNERS.
The physical conformation of the Scythians is not only mentioned incidentally by
Herodotus, but in a more special manner by Hippocrates: “The Scythian ????? is
widely different from the rest of mankind, and is like to nothing but itself,
even as is the Aegyptian. Their bodies are thick and fleshy, and their limbs
loose, without tone, and their bellies the smoothest (?), softest (?), moistest
(?) (?????a? ????tata?) of all bellies as to their lower parts (pas??? ???????
a? ??t?); for it is not possible for the belly to be dried in such a country,
both from the soil and climate, but on account of the fat and the smoothness of
their flesh, they are all like each other, the men like the men, the women like
the women.” (Hippocr. de Aere, &c. pp. 291, 292.) Coming as this notice does
from a physician, it has commanded considerable attention; it has, however, no
pretensions to be called a description, though this has often been done. In the
hands of later writers its leading features become exaggerated, until at length
the description of a Scythian becomes an absolute caricature. We may see this by
reference to Ammianus Marcellinus and Jornandes, in their accounts of the Huns.
The real fact inferred from the text of Hippocrates is, that the Scythians had a
peculiar physiognomy, a physiognomy which the modern ethnologist finds in the
population of Northern and Central Asia, as opposed to those of Persia,
Caucasus, Western and Southern Europe.
Their general habits were essentially nomadic, pastoral, and migratory; the
commonest epithets or descriptive appellations being ?µa??ß???, Fe???????, ?pp?t???ta?,
and the like.
RELIGION.
Concerning their RELIGION, we have something more than a mere cursory notice
(4.59). (i.) Tabiti (?aß?t?): This was the Scythian name for the nearest
equivalent to the Greek Histia (Vesta), the divinity whom they most especially
worshipped. (ii.) Papaeus: “Most properly, in my mind, is Zeus thus called.” So
writes Herodotus, thinking of the ideas engendered by such exclamations as ?ap??.
(iii.) Apia: This is the name for earth; as (iv.) Oetosyrus (??t?s????) is for
Apollo, and (v.) Artimpasa for Aphrodite, and (vi.) Thamimasada for Poseidon,
the God of the Royal Scythians most especially. To Oestosyrus we have the
following remarkable inscription (Gud. Inscrip. Antiq. p. 56. 2; see Zeuss, s.
v. Skythen): T??. S??????S???? (? S????? ??? ?????O?O. ????S???O. ??T??. ?.
??????S. ???????S. ??O????S. ???T (??????e) Here the connection is with the
Persian god Mithras.
The Scoloti sacrificed to all their gods, but to Mars the most especially; for,
besides the deities which have been mentioned under their several Scythian
names, Mars and Heracles were objects of particular adoration. The Scythian
Venus, too, was the ?f??d?t? ???a???. To Ares, however, they sacrificed most
especially and most generally; for there was a place of worship to him in every
??µ?? (mark the use of this word, which is applied to the divisions of the
Persian empire as well), where horses, sheep, and captives were sacrificed, and
where the emblem of the god was an iron sword,--even as it was with the Alani of
Ammianus and the Huns of Priscus.
Human beings were sacrificed, but no swine. Neither were swine eaten, nor were
they tolerated in the country. This is noticed, because in many of the nations
of Northern Asia, e. g. the Wotiaks and others, the hog, even now, is held in
abomination, and that by Pagan tribes untinctured with Mahometanism.
Notwithstanding the praises of the earlier poets, the wars of the “just and
illustrious” Scythians were of a piece with the worship of their war-god. They
scalped their enemies, and they used their skulls as drinking cups (cc. 64--65).
Once a year the monarch of each nome filled a vast vat with wine and apportioned
it to the warriors who had killed most enemies during the year. Those whose
hands were unstained got none, and were disgraced; those who had killed many
took a double allowance (100.66).
Their soothsayers, amongst other superstitions, practised rhabdomancy, amongst
whom the Enarees [2.940] (??d???????) are the most famous. They got their art
from Aphrodite, as they got their ailment. During the Scythian invasion of Asia,
a portion of the conquerors plundered the temple of the Aphrodite Urania in
Ascalon, for which sacrilege they and their children were afflicted with ???e?a
???d??, the names of the sufferers being ????ee? (1.105, 106). The nature of
this ???e?a ???d?? has yet to be satisfactorily explained.
The sacerdotal and regal relations are curious. When the king ails he calls his
priests, who tell him that his ailment comes from some one having foresworn
himself in the greatest oath a Scythian can take. This is “by the hearth of the
king.” Take it falsely, and the king will sicken. Upon sickening, however, he
sends for the offender, whom the priests have indicated. The charge is denied.
Other priests are sent for. If their vaticinations confirm the earlier ones,
death and confiscation are the fate of the perjurer. Otherwise, a third set is
called. If these agree in the condemnation of the first, a load of faggots,
drawn by bullocks, is brought in, the lying priests have their hands bound
behind them, the faggots are set a-light to, the beasts are goaded into a
gallop, the flames catch the wind, the men are burnt to death, and the bullocks
scorched, singed, or burnt to death also. The sons of the offending perjurer are
killed, his daughters left unhurt.
Their oaths were made over a mixture of wine and blood. The swearers to them
punctured themselves, let their blood fall into a vat of wine, drank the
mixture, and dipped in it their daggers, arrows, javelin, and s??a???.
The ferocity exhibited in their burials was of the same kind. The tombs of the
kings were on the Gerrhus. Thither they were brought to be buried, wherever they
might die. They were entombed with sacrifices both of beasts and men,
Hippothusia, Anthropothysia, and Suttee--all these characterised the funeral
rites of the Scythians d??a??tat?? ?????p??.
LANGUAGE.
The specimens of this fall into two divisions, the Proper and, the Common Names.
The former are the names of geographical localities and individuals. In one way
or the other, they are numerous; at least they appear so at first. But we rarely
are sure that the fact itself coincides with the first presumptions. The names
of the rivers have been noticed. Of those of the gods, none have been definitely
traced to any known language in respect to their meaning. Neither have they been
traced to any known mythology as Proper Names. Next come the names of certain
kings and other historical individuals, none of which have given any very
satisfactory place for the old Scythian.
With the Common Names (and under the class of Common Names we may place such
Proper Names as are capable of being translated) the results improve, though
only slightly. Of these terms the chief are the following:--
(i.) ??aµpa???==Sacred Ways==??a? ?d??, the name of a well-head. [See s. v.]
(ii.) ????pata== ??d???t????== Men-killers, a name applied by the Scythians to
the Amazons. Here ???? == man, pat?==kill (4.110). (iii.) Temerinda==Mater
Marks, applied to the Euxine. This is not from Herodotus, but from Pliny (6.7).
(iv.) Arimaspi==????f?a?µ??,==one-eyed==???µa==one, sp??==eye. (Hdt. 4.27.)
These will be considered under the head of Ethnology.
HISTORY.
The Herodotean view of the Scythians is incomplete without a notice of the
historical portion of his account; not that the two parts are, by any means, on
the same level in the way of trustworthy information. The geography and
descriptions are from contemporary sources. The history is more or less
traditional. Taking it, however, as we find it, it falls into two divisions:--1,
The Invasion of Asia by the Scythians; and 2, The Invasion of Scythia by Darius.
1. Invasion of Asia by the Scythians.
In the reigns of Cyaxares king of Media and of Sadyattes king of Lydia, the
Scythians invade Asia, bodily and directly. They had previously invaded the
country of the Cimmerians, whom they had driven from their own districts on the
Maeotis, and who were thus thrown southwards. The Scythians pressed the
Cimmerians, the Massagetae the Scythians. Chains of cause and effect of this
kind are much loved by historians. It is only, however, in the obscure portions
of history that they can pass unchallenged. The Cimmerians take Saidis during
the last years of the reign of Ardys (B.C. 629.) They are expelled by Alyattes,
his son. (Hdt. 1.15, 16.) It seems that the Cimmerians were followed up by their
ejectors; inasmuch as five years afterwards (B.C. 624) the Scythians themselves
are in Media; Cyaxares, who was engaged upon the siege of Nineveh (Ninus), being
called back to oppose them. He is defeated; and the Scythians occupy Asia for 28
years, Cyaxares surviving their departure. From Media they direct their course
towards Egypt; from the invasion of which they are diverted by Psammitichus.
Their attack upon the temple of the Venus Urania, in Ascalon, during their
passage through Palestine, along with its mysterious sequelae, has been already
noticed. The king who led them was named Madyes. (Hdt. 1.103, seqq.) They were
ejected B.C. 596.
There was a band of Scythians, however, in Media, in the reign of Croesus, B.C.
585, the account of which is as follows. Cyaxares, still reigning, receives a
company (e???) of Scythians, as suppliants, who escape (?pe????e) from Lydia
into Media. He treats them well, and sends his son to them to learn the use of
the bow, along with the Scythian language, until he finds that their habits of
hunting and robbing are intolerable. This, along with a particular act of
atrocity, determines Cyaxares to eject them. They fly back to Alyattes, who
refuses to give them up. But Alyattes dies, and the quarrel is entailed upon his
son, Croesus. The battle that it led to was fought May 28, B.C. 585, when the
eclipse predicted by Thales interrupted it.
The Scythian invasion might easily be known in its general features to both the
Greeks of Asia and the Jews; and, accordingly, we find sufficient allusions to
an invasion of northern barbarians, both in the Scriptures and in the fragments
of the early Greek poets, to justify us in treating it as a real fact, however
destitute of confirmation some of the Herodotean details may have been. (See
Mure's Critical History, &c. vol. iii. p. 133, seq.) Though further removed from
his time than
2. Invasion of Scythia by Darius.
It is, probably, a more accurate piece of history. Darius invades Scythia for
the sake of inflicting a chastisement for the previous invasion of Asia. This
had been followed, not by any settlement of the Scythians elsewhere, but by a
return home. The strange [2.941] story of the Servile War of Whips belongs to
this period.
When the approach of Darius becomes threatening, the Geloni, Budini, and
Sauromatae join with the Scythians in resisting it; the Agathyrsi, Neuri,
Androphagi, Melanchlaeni, and Tauri reserving themselves for the defence of
their own territory if attacked (4.119). To the three constituents of the
confederacy there are three kings, Scopasis, Ianthyrsus, and Taxacis, each with
an allotted district to defend. This was done by destroying the grass and
tillage, driving off the flocks and herds, and corrupting (we can scarcely
translate s????? by poisoning) the wells. The points whereon attack was
anticipated were the frontiers of the Danube and the Don. These they laid waste,
having sent their own wives and children northwards. The first brunt of the war
fell upon the Budini, whose Wooden City was burnt. Darius then moved southward
and westward, pressing the other two divisions upon the countries of the
Melanchlaeni, Neuri, and Agathyrsi. The latter warn the Medes against
encroaching on the frontier. Idanthyrsus answers enigmatically to a defiance of
Darius. Scopasis tampers with the Ionians who have the custody of the bridge
over the Danube. The Medes suffer from dearth, and determine to retreat across
the Danube. The Scythians reach the passage before them, and require the Ionians
to give it up. And now appears, for the first time, the great name of Miltiades,
who is one of the commanders of the guard of the bridge. He advises that the
Scythians should be conciliated, Darius weakened. A half-measure is adopted, by
which the Scythians are taught to distrust the Ionians, and the Medes escape
into Thrace--so ending the Scythian invasion of Darius. (Hdt. 4.120-142.)
Criticism of the Herodotean Accounts.
The notices of Herodotus upon the Scythae, though full, are excursive rather
than systematic. Part of their history appears as Lydian, part as Scythian
Proper. There is much legend in his accounts; but the chief obscurities are in
the geography. Even here the details are irregular. One notice arises out of the
name Scythae, another out of the geography of their rivers, a third out of the
sketch of Tauris. [See TAURIS and TAUROSCYTHAE] In this we hear that Scythia is
bounded first by the Agathyrsi, next by the Neuri, then by the Androphagi, and
lastly by the Melanchlaeni. The area is fourcornered; the longest sides being
the prolongations along the coast and towards the interior. From the Ister to
the Borysthenes is 10 days; 10 days more to the Maeotis; from the coast to the
Melanchlaeni, 20 days;--200 stadia to each day's journey. If this measurement be
exact, it would bring Tula, Tambov, Riazan, &c., within the Scythian
area,--which is going too far. The days' journeys inland were probably shorter
than those along the coast.
The Agathyrsi were in Transylvania, on the Maros. The evidence, or want of
evidence, as far as the text of Herodotus goes, is the same as it is with the
Neuri. Their frontagers were known as Scythae Aroteres, i. e., the generic name
was with them specific. Hence any Scythians whatever with a specific name must
have been contrasted with them; and this seems to have been the case with the
Agathyrsi. [HUNNI p. 1097.] Assuming, however, the Agathyrsi to have been
Scythian, and to have lain on the Maros, we carry the Herodotean Scythae as far
west as the Theiss; nor can we exclude them from any part of Wallachia and
Moldavia. Yet these are only known to Herodotus as the country of the SIGYNNES
The frontier, then, between the Scythae and Getae is difficult to draw.
Herodotus has no Getae, eo nomine, north of the Danube: yet such there must have
been. Upon the whole, we may look upon the Danubian Principalities as a tract
scarcely known to Herodotus, and make it Scythian, or Getic, or mixed, according
to the evidence of other writers, as applicable at the time under consideration.
It was probably Getic in the, East, Sarmatian in the West, and Scythian in
respect to certain districts occupied by intrusive populations.
Thucydides' evidence.
Thucydides mentions the Getae and Scythians but once (2.96), and that together.
The great alliance that Sitalces, king of Thrace, effects against Perdiccas of
Macedon includes the Getae beyond Mount Haemus, and, in the direction of the
Euxine sea, the Getae who were conterminous (?µ????) with the Scythians, and
whose armour was Scythian (?µ?s?e???). They were each archers and horsemen (?pp?t???ta?);
whereas the Dii and the mountaineers of Rhodope wore daggers. According to Ovid
(Ov. Tr. 5.7. 19), the occupants of the level country do so too:-- “Dextera non
segnis fixo dare vulnera cultro,
Quem vinctum lateri barbara omnis habet.
”
THE SCYTHIANS OF THE MACEDONIAN PERIOD.
Passing over the notices of Xenophon, which apply to Thrace Proper rather than
to the parts north of Mount Haemus, and which tell us nothing concerning the
countries beyond the Danube,--passing, also, over the notices of a war in which
Philip king of Macedon was engaged against Atheas, and in which he crossed Mount
Haemus into the country of the Triballi, where he received a wound,--we come to
the passage of the Danube by Alexander. In the face of an enemy, and without a
bridge, did the future conqueror of Persia cross the river, defeat the Getae on
its northern bank, destroy a town, and return. (Arrian, Arr. Anab. 1.2-7.) This
was an invasion of Scythia in a geographical sense only; still it was a passage
of the Danube. The Getae of Alexander may have been descendants of the Sigynnes
of Herodotus. They were not, eo nomine, Scythians.
When Alexander was on the Danube the famous embassy of the Galatae reached him.
They had heard of his fame, and came to visit him. They were men of enormous
stature, and feared only that the heavens should fall. This disappointed
Alexander, who expected that they would fear him. Much has been written
concerning the embassy as if it came from Gaul. Yet this is by no means
necessary. Wherever there is a Halicz or Galacz in modern geography, there may
have been a Galat-ian locality in ancient; just as, wherever there is a Kerman
or Carman-ia, there may have been a German one, and that without any connection
with the Galli or Germani of the West. The roots G-l-t and K-ron-n, are simply
significant geographical terms in the Sarmatian and Turk tongues--tongues to
which the Getic and Scythian may most probably be referred.
Such is the present writer's opinion respecting the origin of the statements
that carry certain Galatae as far as the Lower Danube, and make the Basternae,
and even the occupants of the Tanais, Germans--not to mention the Caramanians of
Asia Minor and Carmanians of Persia. In the present [2.942] instance, however,
the statement of Strabo is very specific. It is to the effect that the
ambassadors to Alexander were ???t?? pe?? t?? ?d??a? (vii. p. 301), and that
Ptolemy was the authority. Nevertheless, Ptolemy may have written Ga??ta?, and
such Galatae may have been the Galatae of the Olbian Inscription. [See infra and
SCIRI]
The next Macedonian who crossed the Danube was Lysimachus, who crossed it only
to re-cross it in his retreat, and who owed his life to the generosity of a
Getic prince Dromichaetes. This was about B.C. 312.
Our next authorities (fragmentary and insufficient) for the descendants of the
Herodotean Scythians are the occupants of the Greek towns of the Euxine. Even
those to the south of the Danube, Callatis, Apollonia, &c., had some Scythians
in the neighhood, sometimes as enemies, sometimes as protectors,--sometimes as
protectors against other barbarians, sometimes as protectors of Greeks against
Greeks, as was the case during the Scythian and Thracian wars of Lysimachus. The
chief frontagers, however, were Getae. Between Olbia, to the north of the Danube
(==Olbiopolis of Herodotus), and the native tribes of its neighbourhood, the
relations are illustrated by the inscription already noticed. (Böckh, Inscr.
Graec. no. 2058.) It records a vote of public gratitude to Protogenes, and
indicates the troubles in which he helped his fellow-citizens. The chief of
those arose from the pressure of the barbarians around, by name Saudaratae,
Thisametae, Sciri [see SCIRI], Galatae, and Scythae. The date of this
inscription is uncertain; but we may see the import of the observations on the
word Galatae when we find the assumption that they were Gauls of Gallia used as
an instrument of criticism:--“The date of the above inscription is not
specified; the terror inspired by the Gauls, even to other barbarians, seems to
suit the second century B.C. better than it suits a later period.” (Grote, Hist.
of Greece, vol. xii. p. 644, note.) What, however, if the Galatae of Wallachia
were as little Galli as the Cermanians of Persia are Germans, or as Galacz is
the same as Calais? The present writer wholly disconnects them, and ignores the
whole system of hypothetical migrations by which the identity is supported.
A second Olbia in respect to its Helleno-Scythic relations, was Bosporus, or
Panticapaeum, a Greek settlement which lasted from B.C. 480 till the reign of
Mithridates. [PANTICAPAEUM]
From Bosporus there was a great trade with Athens in corn, hides, and Scythian
slaves,--Scythes, as the name of a slave, occurring as early as the time of
Theognis, and earlier in the Athenian drama than those of Davus and Geta (Dacian
and Getic) which belong to the New Comedy,--Scythes and Scythaena being found in
the Old.
The political relations were those of independent municipalities; sometimes
sovereign, sometimes protected. The archons of Bosporus paid tribute to the
Scythian princes of their neighbourhood, when they were powerful and united;
took it, when the Scythians were weak and disunited. Under this latter category
came the details of the division of the Maeotae, viz., Sindi, Toraeti, Dandarii,
Thetes, &c. Of these, Parysades I. (a Scythic rather than a Greek name) was
king, being only archon of his native town. In the civil wars, too, of Bosporus,
the Scythians took a part; nor were there wanting examples of Scythian manners
even in the case of the Panticapaean potentates. Eumelus lost his life by being
thrown out of a four-wheeled wagon-and-four with a tent on it.
SCYTHIANS OF THE MITHRIDATIC PERIOD, ETC.
The Scythians pressed on Parysades IV., who called in Mithridates, who was
conquered by Rome. The name now becomes of rare occurrence, subordinate to that
of the Sarmatae, Daci, Thracians, &c. In fact, instead of being the nearest
neighbours to Greece, the Scythae were now the most distant enemies of Rome.
In the confederacy of the Dacian Boerebistes, in the reign of Augustus, there
were Scythian elements. So there were in the wars against the Thracian
Rhescuporis and the Roxolani. So there were in the war conducted by J. Plautius
in the reign of Vespasian, as shown by the following inscription: REGIBUS
BASTERNARUM ET RHOXOLANORUM FILIOS DACORUM . . . EREPTOS REMISIT . . . SCYTHARUM
QUOQUE REGE A CHERSONESI QUĆ EST ULTRA BORYSTHENEM OBSIDIONE SUMMOTO. (Grut. p.
453; Böckh, vol. ii. pt. 1. p. 82; Zeuss, s. v. Skythen).
Though the history of the Scythians, eo nomine, be fragmentary, the history of
more than one Scythian population under a change of name is both prominent and
important. In the article HUNNI reasons are given for believing that the
descendants of the Herodotean Agathyrsi, of Scythian blood, wore no unimportant
element in the Dacian nationality.
After the foundation of Constantinople the Scythian nations appear with specific
histories and names, Hun, Avar, &c.
The continuity of the history of the name of the Herodotean Scythians within the
Herodotean area is of great importance; as is the explanation of names like
Galatae and Germani; as also is the consideration of the sources whence the
nomenclature and information of the different authorities is derived. It is
important, because, when we find one name disappearing from history, and another
appearing, there is (according to, at least, the current criticism) a
presumption in favour of a change of population. Sometimes this presumption is
heightened into what is called a proof; yet the presumption itself is unreal.
For one real change of name referrible to an actual change of population there
are ten where the change has been merely one in respect to the sources whence
the information was derived, and the channels through which it came. This is
what occurs when the same country of Deutschland is called Germany by an
Englishman, Allemagne in France, Lamagna in Italy. This we know to be nominal.
We ought at least to ask whether it may not be so in ancient history--and that
not once or twice, but always--before we assume hypothetical movements and
migrations.
Now in the case of Scythia we can see our way to great nominal and but slight
real changes. We see the sources of information changed from Greek to Latin, and
the channels from Getic and Macedonian to Dacian.
If so, the occupants of Hungary, the Principalities, and South-western Russia
under the Caesars may be the descendants of the occupants of the same districts
in the time of Herodotus. That there are some differences is not only likely but
admitted,--differences in the way of admixture of blood, modification of
nationality, changes of frontier, differences of the kind that time always
effects, even in a stationary condition of nations. It is only denied that
[2.943] any wholesale change can be proved, or even reasonably supposed. Who can
be shown to have eliminated any definite Scythian population from any definite
Scythian occupancy? With the Greeks and Romans the negative evidence is nearly
conclusive to the fact that no such elimination ever took place. That the
Barbarians might have displaced each other is admitted; but there is no
trustworthy evidence to their having done so in any single instance. All
opinions in favour of such changes rest upon either the loose statements of
insufficiently-informed writers, or the supposed necessity of accounting for the
appearance and change of certain names by means of certain appearance and
changes of population.
The bearings of this will appear in the notice of the Ethnology of Scythia. They
appear also under HUNNI
Of the SACAE eo nomine, the history is obscure. In one sense, indeed, it is a
nonentity. There is no classical historian of the Sacae. How far the ethnologist
can infer them is a question which will be treated in the sequel.
Of the history of the populations akin to the Sacae, the details are important;
but then it is a history of the Massagetae, Parthi, &c., a history full of
critical preliminaries and points of inference rather than testimony.
The Scythia of all the authors between Herodotus and Ptolemy means merely the
country of the Scythae, the Scythae being such northern nations as, without
being, eo nomine, Sarmatian, were Hamaxobii and Hippemolgi; their habits of
milking their mares and travelling in tented wagons being their most genuine
characteristic. These it was which determined the views of even Strabo, whose
extension of Germania and Galatia (already noticed) left him no room for a
Scythia or even a Sarmatia; Sarmatia, which is to Ptolemy as Germania was to
Strabo: for the Sarmatia of Ptolemy leaves no room in Europe for a Scythia;
indeed, it cuts deeply into Asiatic Scythia, the only
SCYTHIA OF PTOLEMY.
The Scythia of Ptolemy is exclusively Asiatic, falling into, 1. The Scythia
within the Imaus. 2. The Scythia beyond the Imaus.
This is a geographical division, not an ethnological one. Scythae Alauni are
especially recognised as a population of European Sarmatia.
As Ptolemy's Sarmatia seems to have been formed out of an extension of the area
of the Herodotean Sauromatae, his Scythia seems to have grown out of the eastern
Scythae of the Herodotean Scythia, i. e. the Scythae of Orenburg. It did not
grow out of the country of the Sacae, inasmuch as they are mentioned separately;
even as the Jazyges of the Theiss were separated from the Sarmatians. The
continuator, however, of the Herodotean account must make the Sacae Scythians.
They may be disposed of first.
THE SACAE OF PTOLEMY
The Sacae of Ptolemy were bounded by the Sogdians on the west, the Scythians on
the north, and the Seres on the east. They were nomads, without towns, and
resident in woods and caves. The mountain-range of the Comedi (? ??µ?d?? ??e???)
was in their country; so was the Stone Tower (??????? ??????). The populations
were: 1, 2. The Caratae and Comari along the Jaxartes. 3. The Comedae, on the
Comedian mountain. 4. The Massagetae along the range of the Ascatancas (?s?at???a?).
5. In the interjacent country, the Grynaei Scythae; and, 6, the Toornae; south
of whom, along the Imaus, 7, the Byltae. (Ptol. 6.13.)
SCYTHIA INTRA IMAUM.
Bounded on the S. and E. by Sogdiana, Margiana, and the Sacae; on the W. by the
Caspian and Sarmatia Asiatica; on the N. by a terra incognita; and on the E. by
the northern prolongation of the Imaus. (Ptol. 6.14.)
Rivers.
The Rhymmus, the Daix, the Jaxartes, the Iastus, and the Polytimetus.
Mountains.
The eastern part of the Montes Hyperborei, the Montes Alani (observe the
reappearance of this name), the Montes Rhymmici, the Mons Norossus, the MM.
Aspisii, Tapyri, Syebi, Anarei,--all W. of the Imaus.
Populations.
The Alani Scythae (on the confines of the terra incognita), the Suabeni, the
Alanorsi, S. of whom the Saetiani, and Massaei, and Syebi; and (along the Imaus)
the Tectosaces and (on the eastern head-waters of the Rha) the Rhobosci, S. of
whom the Asmani; and then the Paniardi, S. of whom, along the river, the
district called Canodipsas, S. of which the Coraxi; then the Orgasi, after whom,
as far as the sea (i. e. the Caspian, in this chapter called Hyrcanian), the
Erymmi, with the Asiotae on the E. of them, succeeded by the Aorsi; after whom
the Jaxartae, a great nation along the river of the same name; then S. of the
Saetiani, the Mologeni and Samnitae, as far as the MM. Rhymmici. Then, S. of the
Massaei and MM. Alani, the Zaratae and Sasones; and further W. and as far as the
MM. Rhymmici, the Tybiacae, succeeded by the Tabieni, S. of the Zaratae, and the
Iastae and Machaetegi along the Mons Norossus; S. of whom the Norosbes and
Norossi, and the Cachagae Scythae along the Jaxartae. On the W. of the MM.
Aspisii, the Aspisii Scythae; on the E. the Galactophagi Scythae; E. of the MM.
Tapuri and the Suebi, the Tapurei; and above the MM. Anarei and the Mons
Ascatancas, the Scythae Anarei, and the Ascatancae and Ariacae along the
Jaxartes, S. of whom the Namastae; then the Sagaraucae, and, along the Oxus, the
Rhibii, with their town Davaba.
SCYTHIA EXTRA IMAUM
Scythia Extra Imaum was bounded by Scythia intra Imaum, the Sacae, the Terra
Incognita, and the Seres. It contained the western part of MM. Auxacii, Casii
and Emodi, with the source of the river Oechardus. (Ptol. 6.15.)
Its Populations were the Abii Scythae, the Hippophagi Scythae, the Chatae
Scythae, the Charaunaei Scythae; the designation Scythae being applied to each.
Districts.--The Auxacitis, the Casia (? ?as?a ???a), the Achasa (? ???sa ???a).
Towns.--Auxacia, Issedon, Scythica, Chaurana, Soeta.
The remarks that applied to the Sarmatia Asiatica of Ptolemy apply here. Few
names can be safely identified. Neither is it safe to say through what languages
the information came. Some words suggest a Persian, some a Turk source, some are
Mongol. Then the geography is obscure. That the range of Pamer was unduly
prolonged northwards is evident [IMAUS]; this being an error of the geographer.
The courses, however. of the Oxus and Jaxartes may themselves have changed.
The prolongation of the Pamer range being carried in a northern and
north-eastern direction, so as to include not only the drainages of the Oxus and
Jaxartes, but that of the Balkash Lake as well, gives us the line of the Imaus;
the terra incognita to the [2.944] N, being supposed to begin with the watershed
of the Irtish, Obi, and other rivers falling into the Arctic Ocean. Within the
limits thus described we may place the Nor-osbi and Nor-ossi, on the eastern
edge, i. e. in the parts where at the present moment the lakes distinguished by
the name Nor occur. It should be added, however, that the syllable is generally
final, as in Koko-nor, &c. Still it is a prominent element in compound names,
and indicates Mongol occupancy. The Byltae may be placed in Bulti-stan, i. e.
the country of the Bulti == Little Tibet, the gloss being Persian.
In Ascatancas (the Greek spelling is the more convenient ?s?a-t???-a?), we have
the Turkish-tagh == mountain just as it actually occurs in numberless compounds.
Karait is a name of common application, chiefly to members of the Mongol family.
Mass-agetae is a term full of difficulty. Can it have arisen out of the common
name Mus-tag?
In Scythia extra Imaum, the Casia and Achassa (???a?) may be made one and
identified with the Cesii of Pliny. The most reasonable explanations of these
names is to be found in the suggestion of Major Cunningham's valuable work on
Ladak (p. 4), where the Achassa Regio == Ladakh, and the Chatae, and Chauronae
Scythae == Chang-thang and Khor respectively.
Roughly speaking, we may say that the country of the Sacae was formed by an
irregular tract of land on the head-waters of the Oxus and the watershed between
it and the Jaxartes, a tract which included a portion of the drainage of the
Indus. It is only a portion of this that could give the recognised conditions of
Scythian life, viz. steppes and pasturages. These might be founded on the great
table land of Pamer, but not in the mountain districts. These, however, were
necessary for “residences in woods and caves” ; at the same time, the population
that occupied them might be pastoral rather than agricultural. Still they would
not be of the Scythian type. Nor is it likely that the Sacae of Ptolemy were so.
They were not, indeed, the Sacae of Herodotus, except in part, i. e. on the
desert of the Persian frontier. They were rather the mountaineers of Kaferistan,
Wakhan, Shugnan, Roshan, Astor, Hunz-Nagor, and Little Tibet, partly Persian,
partly Bhot (or Tibetan), in respect to their ethnology.
The Scythians beyond the Imaus.--These must be divided between Ladakh, Tibet,
Chinese Tartary, and Mongolia in respect to their geography. Physically they
come within the conditions of a Scythian occupancy; except where they are true
mountaineers. Ethnologically they may be distributed between the Mongol, Bhot,
and Turk families--the Turks being those of Chinese Tartary.
The Turcoman districts of the Oxus, Khiva, the Kirghiz country, Ferghana,
Tashkend, with the parts about the Balkash, give us the Scythia within the Imaus.
It coincides chiefly with Independent Tartary, with the addition of a small
portion of Mongolia and southern Siberia. Its conditions are generally Scythian.
In the upper part, however, of the Jaxartes, the districts are agricultural at
present; nine-tenths of this area is Turk, part of the population being Nomades,
part industrial and agricultural.
THE SCYTHIA OF THE BYZANTINE AUTHORS.
This means not only Hunns, Avars, Alans, and Sarmatians, but even Germans,
Goths, and Vandals. It is used, however, but rarely. It really existed only in
books of geography. Every division of the Scythian name was known under its
specific designation.
ETHNOLOGY.
If any name of antiquity be an ethnological, rather than a geographical, term,
that name is Scythia. Ptolemy alone applies it to an area, irrespective of the
races of its occupants. With every earlier writer it means a number of
populations connected by certain ethnological characteristics. These were
physical and moral--physical, as when Hippocrates describes the Scythian
physiognomy; moral, as when their nomadic habits, as Hamaxobii and Hippemolgi,
are put forward as distinctive. Of language as a test less notice is taken;
though (by Herodotus at least) it is by no means overlooked. The division
between Scythian and non-Scythian is always kept in view by him. Of the non-Scythic
populations, the Sauromatae were one; hence the ethnology of Scythia involves
that of Sarmatia, both being here treated together.
In respect to them, there is no little discrepancy of opinion amongst modern
investigators. The first question respecting them, however, has been answered
unanimously.
Are they represented by any of the existing divisions of mankind, or are they
extinct? It is not likely that such vast families as each is admitted to have
been has died out. Assuming, then, the present existence of the congeners of
both the Sarmatae and the Scythae, in what family or class are they to be found?
The Scythae were of the Turk, the Sarmatae of the Slavono-Lithuanic stock.
The evidence of this, along with an exposition of the chief differences of
opinion, will now be given, Scythia being dealt with first. Premising that Turk
means all the populations whose language is akin to that of the Ottomans of
Constantinople, and that it comprises the Turcomans, the Independent Tartars,
the Uzbeks, the Turks of Chinese Tartary, and even the Yakuts of the Lena, along
with several other tribes of less importance, we may examine the ŕ priori
probabilities of the Scythae having been, in this extended sense, Turks.
The situs of the nations of South-western Russia, &c., at the beginning of the
proper historical period, is a presumption in favour of their being so. Of these
the best to begin with are the Cumanians (12th century) of Volhynia. That they
were Turk we know from special statements, and from samples of their language
compared with that of the Kirghiz of Independent Tartary. There is no proof of
their being new comers, however much the doctrine of their recent emigration may
have been gratuitously assumed. The Uzes were what the Cumanians were; and
before the Uzes, the Patzinaks (10th century) of Bessarabia and the Danubian
Principalities were what the Uzes were. Earlier than the Patzinaks, the Chazars
ruled in Kherson and Taurida (7th and 8th centuries) like the Patzinaks, in the
same category with definitely known Cumanians and Uzes. These four populations
are all described by writers who knew the true Turks accurately, and, knowing
them, may be relied on. This knowledge, however, dates only from the reign of
Justinian [TURCAE]. From the reign, then, of Justinian to the 10th century (the
date of the break--up of the Cumanians), the Herodotean Scythia was Turk--Turk
without evidence of the occupation being recent.
The Avars precede the Chazars, the Huns the [2.945] Avars, the Alani the Huns. [HUNNI;
AVARES]. The migrations that make the latter, at least, recent occupants being
entirely hypothetical. The evidence of the Huns being in the same category as
the Avars, and the Avars being Turk, is conclusive. The same applies to the
Alani--a population which brings us to the period of the later classics.
The conditions of a population which should, at one and the same time, front
Persia and send an offset round the Caspian into Southern Russia, &c., are best
satisfied by the present exclusively Turk area of Independent Tartary.
Passing from the presumptuous to the special evidence, we find that the few
facts of which we are in possession all point in the same direction.
Physical Appearance.--This is that of the Kiryhiz and Uzbeks exactly, though not
that of the Ottomans of Rumelia, who are of mixed blood. Allowing for the change
effected by Mahomet, the same remark applies to their
Manners, which are those of the Kirghiz and Turcomans.
Language.--The Scythian glosses have not been satisfactorily explained, i. e.
Temerinda, Arimaspi, and Exampaeus have yet to receive a derivation that any one
but the inventor of it will admit. The oior-, however, in Oior-pata is exactly
the er, aer, == man, &c., a term found through all the Turk dialects. It should
be added, however, that it is Latin and Keltic as well (vir, fear, gwr). Still
it is Turk, and that unequivocally.
The evidence, then, of the Scythae being Turk consists in a series of small
particulars agreeing with the ŕ priori probabilities rather than in any definite
point of evidence. Add to this the fact that no other class gives us the same
result with an equally small amount of hypothesis in the way of migration and
change. This will be seen in a review of the opposite doctrines, all of which
imply an unnecessary amount of unproven changes.
The Mongol Hypothesis.--This is Niebuhr's, developed in his Researches into the
History of the Scythians, &c.; and also Neumann's, in his Hellenen im
Skythenlande. It accounts for the manners and physiognomy, as well as the
present doctrine; but not for anything else. It violates the rule against the
unnecessary multiplication of causes, by bringing from a distant area, like
Mongolia, what lies nearer, i. e. in Tartary. With Niebuhr the doctrine of fresh
migrations to account for the Turks of the Byzantine period, and of the
extirpation of the older Scythians, takes its maximum development, the least
allowance being made for changes of name. “This” (the time of Lysimachus) “is
the last mention of the Scythian nation in the region of the Ister; and, at this
time, there could only be a remnant of it in Budzaek” (p. 63).
The Finn Hypothesis.--This is got at by making the Scythians what the Huns were,
and the Huns what the Magyars were--the Magyars being Finn. It arises out of a
wrong notion of the name, Hun-gary, and fails to account for the difference
between the Scythians and the nations to their north.
The Circassian Hypothesis.--This assumes an extension of the more limited area
of the northern occupants of Caucasus in the direction of Russia and Hungary.
Such an extension is, in itself, probable. It fails, however, to explain any one
fact in the descriptions of Scythia, though valid for some of the older
populations.
The Indo-European Hypothesis.--This doctrine takes many forms, and rests on many
bases. The--get-in words like Massa-get-ae, &c., is supposed to == Goth ==
German. Then there are certain names which are Scythian and Persian, the Persian
being Indo-European. In the extreme form of this hypothesis the Sacae == Saxons,
and the Yuche of the Chinese authors == Goths.
If the Scythians were intruders from Independent Tartary, whom did they
displace? Not the Sarmatians, who were themselves intruders. The earlier
occupants were in part congeners of the Northern Caucasians. They were chiefly,
however, Ugrians or Finns; congeners of the Mordvins, Tsheremess, and Tshuwashes
of Penza, Saratov, Kazan, &c.: Dacia, Thrace, and Sarmatia being the original
occupancies of the Sarmatae.
If so, the ethnographical history of the Herodotean Scythia runs thus:--there
was an original occupancy of Ugrians; there was an intrusion from the NE. by the
Scythians of Independent Tartary, and there was intrusion from the SW. by the
Sarmatians of Dacia. The duration of the Scythian or Turk occupancy was from the
times anterior to Herodotus to the extinction of the Cumanians in the 14th
century. Of internal changes there was plenty; but of any second migration from
Asia (with the exception of that of the Avars) there is no evidence.
Such is the history of the Scythae.
The Sacae were, perhaps, less exclusively Turk, though Turk in the main. Some of
them were, probably, Mongols. The Sacae Amyrgii may have been Ugrians; the
researches of Norris upon the second of the arrow-headed alphabets having led
him to the opinion that there was at least one invasion of Persia analogous to
the Magyar invasion of Hungary, i. e. effected by members of the Ugrian stock,
probably from Orenburg or Kazan. With them the root m-rd == man. History gives
us no time when the Turks of the Persian frontier, the Sacae, were not pressing
southwards. Sacastene (== Segestan) was one of their occupancies; Carmania
probably another. The Parthians were of the Scythian stock; and it is difficult
to believe that, word for word, Persia is not the same as Parthia. The history,
however, of the Turk stock is one thing; the history of the Scythian name
another. It is submitted, however, that the two should be connected. This being
done, the doctrine of the recent diffusion of the Turks is a doctrine that
applies to the name only. There were Turk invasions of Hungary, Turk invasions
of Persia, Turk invasions of China, Assyria, Asia Minor, and even north-eastern
Africa, from the earliest period of history. And there were Sarmatian invasions
in the opposite direction, invasions which have ended in making Scythia
Slavonic, and which (in the mind of the present writer) began by making parts of
Asia Median. Lest this be taken for an exaggeration of the Turk influence in the
world's history, let it be remembered that it is only a question of date, and
that the present view only claims for the Turk conquests the place in the
antehistorical that they are known to have had in the historical period. With
the exception of the Mongol invasions of the 13th century and the Magyar
occupancy of Hungary, every conquest in Southern Asia and Europe, from the
North, has been effected by members of the stock under notice. [See SARMATIA;
VENEDI; FENNI; SITONES; TURCAE.] [R.G.L]
- Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Geography (1854) William Smith, LLD, Ed.