1. Τὰ ἔξω Ἰνδοῦ ποταμοῦ τὰ πρὸς ἑσπέρην ἔστε ἐπὶ ποταμὸν Κωφῆνα Ἀστακηνοὶ καὶ Ἀσσακηνοί, 2ἔθνεα Ἰνδικά, ἐποικέουσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὔτε μεγάλοι τὰ σώματα, καθάπερ οἱ ἐντὸς τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ ᾠκισμένοι, οὔτε ἀγαθοὶ ὡσαύτως τὸν θυμὸν οὐδὲ μέλανες 3ὡσαύτως τοῖς πολλοῖς Ἰνδοῖσιν. οὗτοι πάλαι μὲν Ἀσσυρίοις ὑπήκοοι ἦσαν, ἔπει<τα Μήδοισιν, ἐπὶ> δὲ Μήδοισι Περσέων ἤκουον, καὶ φόρους ἀπέφερον Κύρῳ τῷ Καμβύσου ἐκ τῆς γῆς σφῶν, οὓς 4ἔταξε Κῦρος. Νυσαῖοι δὲ οὐκ Ἰνδικὸν γένος ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἅμα Διονύσῳ ἐλθόντων ἐς τὴν γῆν τὴν Ἰνδῶν, τυχὸν μὲν [καὶ] Ἑλλήνων, ὅσοι ἀπόμαχοι αὐτῶν ἐγένοντο ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις οὕστινας πρὸς 5Ἰνδοὺς Διόνυσος ἐπολέμησε, τυχὸν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων τοὺς ἐθέλοντας τοῖς Ἕλλησι συνῴκισε, τήν τε χώρην Νυσαίην ὠνόμασεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρεος1 τῆς Νύσης Διόνυσος καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτὴν Νῦσαν. 6καὶ τὸ ὄρος τὸ πρὸς τῇ πόλει, ὅτου ἐν τῇσιν

  • 1I have restored the reading of A. Roos emended to τῆς τροφοῦ, cf. Anab. v 1, 6.



1. All the territory that lies beyond the boundary of the river Indus westwards to the river Cophen [Kabul] is inhabited by Astacenians and Assacenians, Indian tribes.1 But they are not, like the Indians2 dwelling within the boundary of the river Indus, tall of stature, nor as brave in spirit, nor as black as most Indians. They were subject long ago to the Assyrians,3 then to the Medes, and after the Medes to the Persians; and they paid such tribute from their land to Cyrus son of Cambyses as he commanded. The4 Nysaeans are not an Indian race, but part of those who came with Dionysus to India, perhaps Greeks who became unfit for service in the wars Dionysus waged with the Indians, perhaps also volunteers of5 the neighbouring tribes whom Dionysus settled there together with the Greeks. He called the country Nysaea from the mountain Nysa,2 and the city itself Nysa. The mountain near the city, on whose foot-6

  • xRoos’ notes refer to relevant ancient texts and some modern works. I adopt his spellings of proper names, normally without indicating where he, or other scholars, deviate from the manuscript. Sources for 1–17: App. XVII 1–9.
  • 1A. tries to reconcile E’s view that the Indus was the western boundary of India (App. XVII7) with the presence of Indians as far west as the Kabul by differentiating their qualities from those of Indians east of the Indus and by pointing out that they had been conquered before Al’s time, probably following Meg. (cf. 5, 4 ff.). There is no other evidence for Assyrian or Median rule even in the Kabul valley, i.e. in Gandara or Gandaritis (RE vii 696 ff.), but, already Persian at the accession of Darius I (c. 518 bc), it had probably been subdued by Cyrus (CHI 329 ff.); the report here is not incongruent with vi 24, 2 (N.) nor with Ind. 9, 10 (Meg.), if Meg. thought that the region was not part of ‘India’. He and every one had forgotten Darius’ conquest of Sind (App. XV). Astaceni (not named in Anab.): probably subjects of Astis, who ruled in ‘Peucelaotis’ (iv 22, 8); the forms Peucelaitis (cf. Meg. 4, 11) and Massaca (contrast iv 26, 1; 28, 1) show that A. is here following an authority, probably Meg. and not Ar. (App. XVII 5), different from that in Anab. iv 22 ff., probably Pt.
  • 2See v 1, 2 n.
DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.arrian-indica.1983