See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289474851

How the ancient krokottas evolved into the modern spotted hyena crocuta
crocuta

Article  in  Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 808

1 author:

Holger Funk

28 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Holger Funk on 23 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Q ua de r n i U rbi nat i
Di cu ltu r a cla s s i ca
 Direttore responsabile: Bruno Gentili.
Condirettori: Paola Bernardini, Maurizio Bettini, Carmine Catenacci,
Giovanni Cerri, Franca Perusino.
Segretaria di redazione: Maria Colantonio.
Collaboratrice di redazione: Liana Lomiento.
Comitato scientifico: Giampiera Arrigoni, Anton Bierl, Carlo Brillante,
Marcel Detienne, Giuseppe Giangrande, Pietro Giannini, Antonietta Gostoli,
E. Christian Kopff, Herwig Maehler, Agostino Masaracchia, Carles Miralles.
Corrispondenti stranieri: Francis Cairns (Florida State University),
Claude Calame (Université de Lausanne), Joachim Dalfen (Universität Salzburg),
Douglas E. Gerber (The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada),
Michael W. Haslam (University of California, Los Angeles),
Paul Mertens (Université de Liège), Gregory Nagy (Harvard University,
Cambridge Mass.), François Paschoud (Université de Genève),
Hélène Perdicoyianni-Paléologou (Brookline, Mass.),
Pietro Pucci (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.),
Ignacio Rodríguez Alfageme (Universidad Complutense de Madrid),
Joseph A. Russo (Haverford), Wolfgang Speyer (Universität Salzburg),
Eugène Vance (Université de Montréal), John Van Sickle (Graduate School
and University Center of the City University of New York),
Gustavo Veneciano (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina).
*
Direzione: Prof. Bruno Gentili, Via Bettolo 6, i 00195 Roma.
Redazione: Dipartimento di Scienze del testo e del Patrimonio culturale,
Università di Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Sant’Andrea 34, i 61029 Urbino,
tel. +39 0722 303550, fax +39 0722 303551, maria.colantonio@uniurb.it

Gli autori che desiderano collaborare ai «Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica»

sono pregati di inviare i manoscritti, redatti in forma definitiva, al direttore
Prof. Bruno Gentili, presso Dipartimento di Scienze del testo e del Patrimonio culturale,
Università di Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Sant’Andrea 34, i 61029 Urbino.
Per la migliore riuscita delle pubblicazioni, si invitano gli autori ad attenersi,
nel predisporre i materiali da consegnare alla Redazione ed alla Casa editrice,
alle norme specificate nel volume
Fabrizio Serra, Regole editoriali, tipografiche & redazionali, Pisa · Roma, Serra, 20092
(Euro 34,00, ordini a: fse@libraweb.net).

*
«Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica» is an International Peer-Reviewed Journal.
The Journal is Indexed and Abstracted in Scopus (Elsevier), in Arts and Humanities Citation Index
and in Current Contents/Arts & Humanities (isi Thomson - Reuters).
It has been Released in the jstor Archive and the eContent is Archived with Clockss and Portico.
anvur: a. erih Rank in Classical Studies International Journals: int1.
Quaderni Urbinati
Di cultura classica
nuova serie 101 · n. 2 · 2012
(vol. 130 della serie continua)

direttore: bruno gentili

P I SA · ROM A
FABR I ZI O SER R A E DITORE
MMXI I
 Rivista quadrimestrale

*
Abbonamenti e acquisti:
FABRIZIO SER R A ED ITOR E ®
Pisa · Roma
Casella postale n. 1, succursale 8, i 56123 Pisa,
tel. +39 050 542332, fax +39 050 574888, fse@libraweb.net
Uffici di Pisa: Via Santa Bibbiana 28, i 56127 Pisa
Uffici di Roma: Via Carlo Emanuele I 48, i 00185 Roma,
tel. +39 06 70493456, fax +39 06 70476605, fse.roma@libraweb.net
www.libraweb.net
I prezzi ufficiali di abbonamento cartaceo e/o Online sono consultabili
presso il sito Internet della casa editrice www.libraweb.net.
Print and/or Online official subscription rates are available
at Publisher’s web-site www.libraweb.net.
Modalità di pagamento: su c/c postale n. 17154550 intestato a Fabrizio Serra editore®;
mediante carta di credito American Express, Eurocard, Mastercard, Visa.

Richiesta di scambi:
Dipartimento di Scienze del testo e del Patrimonio culturale,
Università di Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Sant’Andrea 34, i 61029 Urbino, tel. +39 0722 303550

*
Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Urbino n. 1998/189.
Sono rigorosamente vietati la riproduzione, la traduzione, l’adattamento, anche
parziale o per estratti, per qualsiasi uso e con qualsiasi mezzo effettuati, compresi la
copia fotostatica, il microfilm, la memorizzazione elettronica, ecc., senza la preventiva
autorizzazione scritta di Fabrizio Serra editore®, Pisa · Roma.
Ogni abuso sarà perseguito a norma di legge.
Proprietà riservata · All rights reserved
© Copyright 2012 by Fabrizio Serra editore®, Pisa · Roma.
Fabrizio Serra editore incorporates the Imprints Accademia editoriale,
Edizioni dell’Ateneo, Fabrizio Serra editore, Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa,
Gruppo editoriale internazionale and Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.
Stampato in Italia · Printed in Italy
issn 0033-4987
issn elettronico 1724-1901
 SOMMARIO

poesia greca
Joseph Russo, Re-Thinking Homeric Psychology: Snell, Dodds and their
Critics 11
Paola Bernardini, Marialuigia Di Marzio, Alessandro, figlio di
Aminta, e una vittoria mancata: Pindaro, frr. 120-121 Maehl. 29
Mark Heerink, Apollonius and Callimachus on Heracles and Theiodamas:
A Metapoetical Interpretation 43

teatro greco
Giampaolo Galvani, Nota a Aesch. Choeph. 75-80 59
Marianna Tomasello, L’inno delle Erinni e il lamento di Cassandra:
canti performativi nell’Orestea di Eschilo 63
Daniel J. Jakob, Two Notes on Euripides’ Hecuba 91
Laura Gianvittorio, La narrazione melica nella tragedia. Modi del rac-
conto ed etopea del narratore (Aesch. Ag. 1072-1294; Eur. Or. 1369-1502) 97
Ariadne Konstantinou, The Lioness Imagery in Greek Tragedy 125

scienza antica
Holger Funk, How the Ancient Krokottas evolved into the Modern Spot-
ted Hyena Crocuta crocuta 145
Fabio Acerbi, I codici stilistici della matematica greca: dimostrazioni, pro-
cedure, algoritmi 167

note di lettura e recensioni

Emanuele Lelli, Folklorica ii 217
Nicola Serafini, I sentieri di Ecate 225
Hélène Perdicoyianni-Paléologou, Linguistique indo-européenne 235
 HOW THE ANCIENT KROKOTTAS E VO LV E D
I NTO THE MODERN SP OT T E D H YE NA
CROCUTA CRO C U TA
Holger Funk

Abstract
The names which today are used as systematic zoological designations for the
striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena) and the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) are docu-
mented by their oldest Greek describers Herodotus, Ctesias and Aristotle. Hyaena
is the Latinized form of ≈·ÈÓ· and etymologically goes back to y˜, the Greek term
for pig or hog. ≈·ÈÓ·, in turn, is the feminine form of the masculine y˜. Thus, ≈·ÈÓ·
originally meant a “hogess”. But how about the second hyena, the Crocuta? This
designation is the Latinized form of the Greek KÚÔÎÔ‡ÙÙ·˜, a variant of the more
common name KÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ about whose meaning some erroneous opinions and
speculations have been spread, but whose origin and transformation never have
been systematically examined. The goal of this paper is to provide such an exami-
nation in order to clarify prevailing misconceptions.

A Problematic Equation

T oday the Hyaenidae family comprises four extant members: the striped
hyena (Hyaena hyaena, Linnaeus 1758), the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocu-
ta, Erxleben 1777), the brown hyena (Parahyaena brunnea, Thunberg 1820),
and the aardwolf (Proteles cristatus, Sparrman 1783).1 In Greco-Roman an-
tiquity, three of these Hyaenidae occurred within the world known at that
time; only the brown hyena, whose habitat is restricted to southern Africa,
lived outside this area. But if we, to simplify matters, also exclude the in-
sectivorous aardwolf, which was not discovered to be a true hyena species

1 For zoological particulars see Mills-Hofer 1998 and Koepfli et al. 2006. The history of
the naming conventions is briefly as follows. The tautonyms Hyaena hyaena and Crocuta cro-
cuta are substitutes of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (iczn)
for the outdated designations Hyaena striata and Hyaena maculata. Parahyaena was intro-
duced instead of the original Hyaena brunnea in the 1970s in order to indicate the special sta-
tus of this species among the Hyaenidae. The artificial designation Proteles for the aardwolf
had been coined by the French anatomist Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in 1824. It is com-
posed of the Greek ÚÔ (at the fore) and ÙÂÏ‹ÂȘ (complete, perfect), thus the animal which
is “perfected at the forepart”. With this name Geoffroy intended to express that the aard-
wolf has five toes on the forepaws, in contrast to the other hyena species which only have
four. The attribute cristatus refers to the remarkable mane on the back.
146 holger funk
until the 19th century, only the striped and the spotted hyenas are left as the
two species that could have been observed and described by ancient histo-
rians, travelers or naturalists.
The striped hyena, whose habitat ranges from north and central Africa
through Asia Minor, Arabia, Persia down to the Indian subcontinent, was
recorded as early as in the 5th century by Herodotus (4, 192) under the name
≈·ÈÓ·.1 Thereafter, the most substantial description was doubtlessly provid-
ed by Aristotle in his History of Animals (6, 32 and 8, 5) and Generation of An-
imals (3, 6). All these ≈·ÈÓ· descriptions definitely refer to the striped hyena.2
The Greek term ≈·ÈÓ· was later adopted as a loan-word by the Romans, but
is not documented until the turn of the millennium in Ovid’s Metamorphoses
(15, 409).3 From then on, the name is widely used in Greco-Roman literature
and there is little discussion that whenever the beast ≈·ÈÓ· or hyaena was re-
ferred to, mostly the striped hyena was meant. This continued up to mod-
ern times, as can be seen in the case of Linnaeus’ authoritative 10th edition
of the Systema naturae from 1758, from which the striped hyena received its
modern zoological name Hyaena hyaena.4
As to the second species, the spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta, the case is
more complex. This animal was not taken into account in the Systema natu-
rae during Linnaeus’ lifetime, and only after his death was it included in the
final, extended 13th edition by J. F. Gmelin (1788).5 The name Crocuta is a Lat-
inized form of the Greek ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜. It was introduced into Latin as croco-
tas by Pliny the Elder, who also used the terms corocottas and leucrocottas.6
Somewhat later, Aelian was the first to clearly parallelize ≈·ÈÓ· and
ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜, albeit without any further differentiation.7 Based on such char-

1 The second Greek name ÁÏ¿ÓÔ˜ for the hyena is only recorded by Aristotle (Hist. an. 7,
5, 594a 31) who probably had heard it during his stay in Asia Minor (347 to 345). According to
Michael of Ephesus, a 12th century Aristotelian commentator, around his hometown in Asia
Minor the hyena was called Á¿ÓÓÔ˜; see Michael’s commentary in the edition by Hayduck
(1903, 149). Hesychius (Lex. s.v. Á¿ÓÔ˜) likewise records that this term is used by the Phry-
gians and Bithynians in Asia Minor as the designation for the hyena.
2 As to Herodotus see Benecke 1879; as to Aristotle see – representative for numerous
scholars – Aubert-Wimmer 1868, i 75.
3 Thus Steier 1924 and Witek-Braakmann 1993 in their standard articles on ancient hye-
nas. Probably an earlier Latin evidence is cited in Albertus Magnus’ De animalibus where a
hyena description by a certain “Iorach” is mentioned (Stadler edition, Münster 1921, sec. 106,
p. 1405). This Jorach has recently been identified by Anzulewicz (1996) as Juba II, king of
Mauretania (1st century B.C.), who was the author of a lost book On Animals; cf. Plin. Nat.
hist. 8, 45, 107.
4 Carolus Linnaeus, Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, Stockholm 1758, 40.
5 Carolus Linnaeus, Systema naturae per regna tria naturae i, Leipzig 1788, 72.
6 Nat. hist. 8, 30, 72 and 8, 45, 107.
7 Nat. an. 7, 22: K·ÎfiËı˜ ‰b ôÚ· ηd ≈·ÈÓ· qÓ Î·d ¬Ó Ê·ÛÈ ÎÔÚÔÎfiÙÙ·Ó, “A malicious ani-
mal indeed is the hyena, and that which is called korokottas”.
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 147
acterizations and inveigled by the modern zoological nomenclature, some
newer scientists had no reservations in identifying the ancient ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜/
crocotas with the modern Crocuta crocuta and the ≈·ÈÓ·/hyaena with the
striped hyena.1 Philologists, however, who had specifically dealt with this
question were more cautious,2 pointing out that in antiquity two kinds of
hyena were presumably known, which were by no means deliberately kept
apart and whose descriptions overlapped.
The general incertitude about ≈·ÈÓ· and ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ is not restricted to lit-
erary descriptions, but is evident in the rare pictorial representations of hye-
nas as well. Thus in the famous Nile mosaic from Palestrina (c. 120 B.C.),
which is the only case where a picture is captioned KPOKOTTA™ ,3 a hye-
na with stripes is shown – notably with horizontal instead of vertical stripes
(Fig. 1). In fact, there is no authentic representation of a spotted hyena ex-
tant at all, not in antiquity,4 the Middle Ages or early modern times (Re-
naissance). Identifications of animals as spotted hyenas, which have been
conducted by some scholars by reason of a dappled pelt, do not stand up to
closer analysis: if one takes as the basis a minimum naturalistic approach,
details such as a mane, erect instead of rounded ears or, especially signifi-
cant, a long tail, exclude the attribution of such representations to spotted
hyenas (compare Figg. 2-3 to Figg. 9-10).

As a result, neither art nor literature provides solid reasons for an equation
of ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜/crocotas with the spotted hyena. Moreover, the ostensible ab-
sence of reliable information gives rise to doubts whether any knowledge
about spotted hyenas ever existed in antiquity and the Middle Ages at all. In
order to avoid unsatisfying conclusions e silentio, we will make up here for
what has been missing ever since: first, a systematic scrutiny of ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜/
crocotas, which focuses on the earliest sources, rather than on those which

1 For instance Bodenheimer-Rabinowitz 1949, 45 in their translation of the zoological

fragments of Timotheos of Gaza from the 5th century A.D.; likewise Leitner 1972, 101
for Pliny. Solely Gossen 1935, 179 suggested for Aelian’s ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ the African wild dog, in
German also called “Hyänenhund” (Lycaon pictus Temminck).
2 See Keller 1909, 152 and Steier 1924.
3 We will not take into consideration the reclaimed drawing of a spotted hyena in the
much discussed Artemidorus papyrus, as long as its authenticity is not clarified (as to the
reproach of forgery, see Janko 2009 and Brodersen-Elsner 2009). The arguments of its
defenders Gallazzi-Kramer-Settis 2008, 330-332 are little compelling – to say the least; espe-
cially Kinzelbach 2009, 16-17 uses some legerdemains.
4 The same applies for ancient Egypt and the adjacent Nubia to the south, the genuine
habitat of the spotted hyena. While there is an abundance of highly realistic representations
of striped hyenas, none of a spotted hyena exists, see Osborn-Osbornová 1998, 97-105 and
our comments on Figg. 4 and 5.
148 holger funk
were derived from the former;1 and second, a historical investigation into
when and how the ancient term was actually applied as a zoological desig-
nation to the spotted hyena.

The Earliest Sources

The earliest sources for the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ date from the 5th to the 1st century
B.C. and are remarkably uniform. In chronological order, these are (we con-
tent ourselves with translations):
(1) Ctesias (5th/4th century), Indica fr. 76 Lenfant = § 60 Solomou:
There is in Aithiopia an animal called krokottas, commonly called dog-wolf.
It is marvellous in its strength. This animal is said to imitate the human voice
and to call people by their names at night so that they come closer in response
to the human voice. The animals then jointly fall upon the people and devour
them. This beast has the courage of a lion, the swiftness of a horse and the pow-
er of a bull, but it backs away from iron (my translation).
(2) Dalion (first half of the 3rd century):
Dalion says in the first book of his Aithiopica that there is in Aithiopia a beast
called crocotta [manuscript reading: ÎÚfiÙÙ·Ó]. This animal approaches the en-
closures to listen to people talking, and particularly to hear the names of the
children. Approaching during the night it utters the names, and when the chil-
dren come out devours them (tr. Eide 1996, 543).
(3) Agatharchides (3rd/2nd century), On the Erythraean Sea fr. 78a Burstein:
The animal found in Aithiopia and called the crocottas is a kind of compos-
ite of wolf and dog, fiercer than both and with much larger head and paws. It
is amazingly powerful, and its teeth and stomach are stronger than those of
other animals, for they easily crush every kind of bone, and quickly consume
the fragments. As for their power of digestion, they are indescribable. Although
some people say that these animals imitate human speech, they do not per-
suade us. They also add this further assertion, that the animals call men by
name at night, and when the men approach as though to a human voice, they
suddenly attack and eat them (tr. Burstein 1989, 124).
(4) Diodorus Siculus (1st century), Bibliotheca historica 3, 35, 10:
The animal called crocottas by the Aithiopians has a nature that is a mixture
of dog and wolf, but in its ferocity it is more fearsome than either. With regard

1 This targets mainly the much cited descriptions by Pliny and Aelian who, contrary to
their high esteem among the Linneans of all times, are zoologically of little reliability. Both
writers, Pliny as well as Aelian, did not conceal the non-scientific intention of their works.
Pliny states that he has written his Naturalis historia “for the common people, the mob of
farmers and of artisans, and finally for those who have time to spare for studies” (humili vulgo
scripta sunt, agricolarum, opificum turbae, denique studiorum otiosis) and “not for very learned
people” (nec doctissimis) (Praef. 6-7; cf. 12-13). Aelian, in turn, stresses the untechnical,
“popular language” (Û˘Ó‹ıË Ï¤ÍÈÓ) of his Natura animalium (Prooem) and claims for himself
to be one of the “learned poets” (ÔÈËÙ·d ÛÔÊÔ›) (Epilogus).
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 149
to its teeth it also surpasses all beasts, for it easily crushes any bone, however
large, and the fragments are digested in an extraordinary fashion. Some of
those who falsely tell fanciful tales have recorded that this animal imitates the
speech of men, but they do not persuade us (tr. Burstein 1989, 124-125).
The first fragment by the historian and physician Ctesias is the key text for
any analysis of the origin of the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜. It contains the essential char-
acterizations and seems to be the fundament for later writers. Unfortunate-
ly, this fragment has caused head-scratching ever since. It has come down to
us as part of Ctesias’ Indika, a work which he had written based on infor-
mation that he had heard from travelers and Indian visitors during his peren-
nial sojourn (probably from 405 to 398/397) at the Persian court serving the
royal family as physician.
The text is preserved as part of the extensive Bibliotheca of Photius, the
9th century Patriarch of Constantinople, within a manuscript entitled Ctesias
of Cnidus on the Wonders of the Inhabited World. So far only one version of this
manuscript was known, the codex Monacensis Graecus 287 (late 15th century),
but now Stavros Solomou (2007) has published together with the first codex
another version, the codex Oxoniensis, Holkham Graecus 110 (16th century).1
Aubrey Diller (1969) characterized the krokottas fragment as “worse than
worthless”, other scholars were somewhat milder in their judgment, but all
(except Solomou) are more or less skeptical about it and regard it as an in-
terpolation.
As to the authenticity of this fragment, it is difficult to come to a decision.2
According to Joan Bigwood (1989), Photius’ epitome provides on the whole
a reliable summary of Ctesias’ Indika. Moreover, the notorious fantastic con-
tortions that have often discredited the Indika as a serious historical source
might also be owed to Photius’ known predilection to the marvelous and ex-
otic, as Treadgold (1980, 101) has pointed out.3 But the crucial point with re-
spect to the question whether the fragment really belongs to Ctesias’ Indika,
is the geographical attribution to “Aithiopia”. It is a well-known fact that in
antiquity two Aithiopias were imagined, an African one, which roughly cor-
related to the present-day Ethiopia, and another “Eastern” (Asian) Aithiopia
by which today’s India was meant.4 Both Aithiopias marked the edges of the

1 For details see Diller 1969, Lenfant 2004, 334-335 and Solomou 2007, 13-16.
2 As to the following considerations I am very grateful to Dr. Andrew Nichols from the
University of Florida, who was kind enough to discuss the matter with me.
3 Likewise Hägg 1975, 201 has recommend caution in judging Ctesias’ Indika as well as the
Persika, his other great work, because we know them only in the filtered version of Photius.
4 This tradition stems from Homeric times, for details see Lesky 1966 and Dihle 1984, 50-
56. Schwanbeck 1846, 2-4 lists a series of real and fantastic people and creatures, which were
located alternately in Aithiopia (or “Libya”) and in India, among them the krokottas and the
martichora, another fabulous creature, which was associated with the hyena, see Plin. Nat.
150 holger funk
then known world1 and were regularly confused. On the other hand, Ctesias
apparently used the geographical terms Aithiopia and India deliberately, for
instance, replacing Herodotus’ statements about Ethiopians by Indian ex-
amples, and whenever he used Aithiopia he certainly meant Africa. Thus,
there are two options. First, Ctesias in fragment 76 actually meant the
African Aithiopia, possibly not being part of the Indika, but of another Cte-
sian work, for instance to the almost entirely lost Periplous, a geographical
treatise covering Asia, the Black Sea region and Egypt. The second option is
that the fragment indeed belongs to the Indika and “Aithiopia” is an error of
one of the scribes Photius used to engage for finishing his excerpts for the
Bibliotheca.2 In this case, ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ can only have referred to the striped hye-
na, which exclusively occurs in India, whereas in the latter case the spotted
hyena could also have been meant since both species can be found in East-
ern Africa. As a result, none of the two kinds of hyena can immediately be
excluded as the object of the Ctesian fragment, and one is compelled to an-
alyze the text in more detail. We will do so below.
In contrast to the Ctesian fragment, the locality in the next evidence is
without question the African Aithiopia. It is preserved in a collection of 67
excerpts of wonder-tales entitled Paradoxographus Vaticanus.3 The descrip-
tion is part of a lost work Aithiopica by the traveler Dalion, about whom lit-
tle is known.4 Around the beginning of the Ptolemaic dynasty (305-30 B.C.),
when Egypt was ruled by the Macedonian-Greek royal family of the
Ptolemies, Dalion was one of the first to describe the region south of Egypt.
Participating in an expedition under Ptolemy II (285-246), he reached as far
as Meroe, the capital of the Nubian Kingdom of Kush (now located in Su-
dan), and beyond.5 His report apparently was an important source for
Pliny’s Naturalis historia (6, 35; 183; 194). As mentioned, the regions Dalion
explored comprise the genuine habitats of both hyena species, the striped
and the spotted, but there is no indication whether his ÎÚfiÙÙ·˜ (ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜
is an emendation) specifically refers to one of those.6

hist. 8, 45, 107, Gesner 1551, 631. According to Burstein 2002 Aithiopia referred to the sub-
Saharan Africa in general and to the upper Nile valley and adjacent regions in today’s north-
ern and central Sudan in particular, but less to modern Ethiopia/Eritrea. To indicate this
difference, usually the spelling Aithiopia is retained.
1 For details on the ancient geographical knowledge, see Romm 1994, Sonnabend 2007,
and Dihle 1984. 2 See Treadgold 1980, 115.
3 The manuscript dates from the 15th century; for details see Ziegler 1949, 1162-1163.
4 See Berger 1901.
5 Dalion was preceded only by a certain Philon, who in around 274 participated in an
expedition to Meroe; see Török 1988, 129.
6 In the comment on his translation Tormud Eide 1996, 543 states that the striped hyena
was meant.
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 151
Dalion’s story of the beast’s ability to utter human names in order to lure
children into perdition is just a variant of what Ctesias had already said.1 In
fact, the capability to imitate human speech, names or vomiting noise2 is a
recurring motif in all ≈·ÈÓ·-ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ reports and by no means specific to
the latter: Aristotle (Hist. an. 7, 5, 594b 4) and Pliny (Nat. hist. 8, 44, 106) men-
tion this trait with respect to the ≈·ÈÓ·/hyaena, whereas Aelian (7, 22) assigns
it to the corocottas. We will encounter this lore again in Agatharchides and
Diodorus Siculus.

The third piece of evidence comes from the 5th book of On the Erythraean
Sea by Agatharchides, a compatriot of Ctesias from Cnidus in Asia Minor.
Erythraean Sea is the ancient designation for a huge maritime area, includ-
ing the Read Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea along to the Indi-
an coast. The 5th book of this work likewise came down to us through the
Bibliotheca of Photius, but this time in an unproblematic codex.3 The text
about the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ resembles much of the evidence given by Ctesias, ex-
cept for an important extension regarding the animal’s amazing powers of
cracking and digesting bones. As Agatharchides used Ctesias’ Indika4 and
derived his knowledge about the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ from this work, and, moreover,
as there is no apparent reason why Agatharchides should have invented this
physical trait on his own, one can conclude that originally Ctesias’ report
was not restricted to the rather marvelous features passed down by Photius.
Similar considerations apply to the fourth piece of evidence, the de-
scription in the Bibliotheca historica of Diodorus Siculus. This historian
used both sources, Ctesias as well as Agatharchides,5 but as a man of en-
lightenment, focused on “trustworthy” facts, he put in question the mar-
velous tale about the animal’s imitation skills.6 Beside that, Diodorus’

1 Török 2002, 480 suggests that it was originally a tale to protect children by frightening
them away from dangerous animals.
2 Remarkably, this legend, which appears most unlikely, has some connection with re-
ality: Hyenas do vomit, and roll in their own vomit, or in that of other hyenas. It is believed
that the sound of retching/vomiting attracts other hyenas (Personal message by Stephen E.
Glickman, Berkeley University). As to the empirical basis of this assumption, see Drea-
Vignieri et al. 2002.
3 Photius, Codex 250 of the Bibliotheca. Beside Photius, Diodorus Siculus and Strabo are
the other main sources, see Burstein 1989, 21-22, 37-38; for full particulars see Marcotte 2001.
4 Cf. Burstein 1989, 45, 17; Agatharchides evidently also used Dalion, as again Burstein
states 1989, 32-33. 5 See Bigwood 1980 and 1989, and Burstein 1989, 22, 37-38.
6 Diodorus evidently modified Ctesias. Thus he included Ctesias’ closing words about
the courage, swiftness and power nearly literally in his description of the “carnivorous bull”
immediately preceding the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ text (3, 35, 9). As a result, this carnivorous bull
(Û·ÚÎÔÊ¿ÁÔ˜ Ù·ÜÚÔ˜) tautologically has “the power of a bull” (®ÒÌËÓ ‰b Ù·‡ÚÔ˘). As Burstein
1989, 38 has noted, Diodorus manipulated texts of Agatharchides in a similar manner.
152 holger funk
text is nothing but a condensed version of that provided by Agath-
archides.
As to the identity of the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜, one can state that none of the four
writers associates this beast with the ≈·ÈÓ· – an animal that was not un-
known at these times and was described, for instance, rather lengthily by
Diodorus Siculus elsewhere in the Bibliotheca historica (32, 12, 2-3).
Attempts at Localization and Identification
Beginning with Ctesias, any attempt at geographical localization of
ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ remains uncertain. If we take Ctesias’ Aithiopia literally as point-
ing to the African region of that name, all the earliest sources cited above
indicate an African origin. Likewise, the African Aithiopia is clearly meant
by Artemidorus of Ephesus1 (around 100 B.C.), Pliny, and finally by the
grammarian Hesychius of Alexandria2 (5th century). All of these writers re-
ly on Ctesias and Agatharchides, except for Hesychius, whose sources in this
case are not known.
On the other hand, if we take Ctesias’ Aithiopia as being a genuine part of
his Indika and thus referring to the Eastern Aithiopia, i.e. India, we get as many
sources that point to Asia as the home region of the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜. In chrono-
logical order, such sources are the anonymous author of the Periplus of the
Erythraean Sea3 (1st century A.D.), the historian Cassius Dio4 (2nd/3rd century),
and finally the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry of Tyre5 (4th century).
No geographical specifications are given by Aelian for the ÎÔÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜,
but since we know that he relied on Ctesias and Agatharchides, Africa as
well as India is possible as habitat. In Nat. an. 15, 15, Aelian speaks of the
≈·ÈÓ·È in India, however at a locus corruptus. The final Latin mention of coro-
cottas by Julius Capitolinus (4th century) in his biography of emperor Anto-
nius Pius6 is likewise geographically undetermined.
Since no unambiguous locality for the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ can be obtained by
means of the geographical specifications in the Greek and Latin evidence,
we will try an etymological approach as a further step, cognizant of Linnaeus’
opinion that the proper name reveals “whatever has been ascertained
through the centuries about the object named this way”.7

1 As cited by Strabo, Geogr. 16, 4, 16. Strabo-Artemidorous has the spelling ÎÚÔÎÔ‡ÙÙ·˜.
2 Hesych. Lex. s.v. ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜: ˙ÑfiÓ ÙÈ ÙÂÙÚ¿Ô˘Ó AåıÈÔÈÎfiÓ.
3 See text and translation in Casson 1989, 82-83.
4 Cassius Dio, Rom. hist. 77, 1, 3-4: ÎÔÚÔÎfiÙ·˜ (…) ˙ÑˆÓ \IÓ‰ÈÎfiÓ.
5 De abst. ab esu an. 3, 4: ^H ‰’ \IÓ‰ÈÎc ≈·ÈÓ·, ≥Ó KÔÚÔÎfiÙÙ·Ó Ôî âȯÒÚÈÔÈ Î·ÏÔÜÛÈ (…).
The remainder is a reiteration of the well-known tale about the animals’s capabilties to im-
itate human voices. 6 Historia Augusta: Antonius Pius 10, 9.
7 “Quaecunque de nominato corpore beneficio seculi innotuere”: Carolus Linnaeus,
Systema naturae per regna tria naturae i, Stockholm 176612, 13.
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 153
First and foremost, some crude and vague speculations about the origin
of both designations, the ancient ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ as well as the modern zoolog-
ical Crocuta, have to be clarified. Keller 1909, 152 considered ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ to be
a “Libyan” word, whatever that should mean (a North African dialect?). An-
other nonsensical interpretation can be found in the internet, according to
which Crocuta is derived from the Latin loanword crocutus (= saffron-col-
ored, saffron-yellow, from Greek ÎÚfiÎÔ˜) in order to characterize the yel-
lowish pelt color.1 Equally ludicrous is the derivation from Latin cruciatus to
indicate the “crossbred” nature of this animal, being a hybrid of dog and
wolf.2
Suggestions that ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ might be of Ethiopian origin are more
serious because of the habitat of the spotted hyena in this region. Unfortu-
nately, none of the scholars3 took the trouble to retrace their own sugges-
tions. The classical language of Ethiopia in a narrower sense (i.e. approxi-
mately the area of the present-day state of the same name) is Amharic,
which belongs to the Semitic language family. In Hiob Ludolf ’s classical
Amharic dictionary, the author explains the entry for hyena by stating that
it “corresponds exactly to Crocuta, or even better to Hyaena”.4 However, the
Amharic word that Ludolf refers to is , consisting of the three charac-
ters tä-kw-la. According to the information of an expert,5 täkwla is actually
not the designation for the hyena, but for the jackal. The correct Amharic
word for hyena is (in transcription) ğŒb (pronounced /dschib/), which like-
wise has no similarity whatsoever to the Greek ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜. As result, with
respect to Amharic, the assumption that ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ is the Ethiopian desig-
nation of the hyena is not sustainable.

1 If ever, the correct spelling had to be Crocata, but the word was never used in this sense
in Greco-Roman sources; see Frisk 1973, s.v. ÎÚfiÎÔ˜.
2 Thus Kinzelbach 2009, 15. The terms cruciare/cruciatus just mean “to torture/the tor-
ture” and have nothing to do with crossbreeding.
3 Phillips 1962, 147; Meyboom 1995, 231.
4 Jobus Ludolfus (Hiob Ludolf ), Lexicon Aethiopico-Latinum (…), Frankfurt 1699, 266:
“propie est Crocuta, vel potius Hyaena”. Also in his Historia Aethiopica Ludolf refers to the
Amharic word täkwla (without phonetic notation), see Jobus Ludolfus, Historia Aethiopica
(…), Frankfurt 1681, section L. I. c. 10 (no pagination); Ludolf speaks at this place of the
“Hyaena or Crocuta which is connatural to it” (Hyaena, sive congener illi Crocuta). Ludolf was
the first investigator of Ethiopian languages and is honored today as the founder of Ethiopi-
an cultural studies.
5 We are much obliged to Prof. Rainer Voigt, Seminar for Semitic and Arabic Studies at
the Free University of Berlin, for specialist information. Lion 1823, 279-280 and Bähr 1824, 344
in comments on their critical editions of the works of Ctesias had already explicitly denied
that ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ is an Ethiopian word (Bähr: “Nam Aethiopibus hyaenam dici Tekula”), and
suggested that it might be derived from the Persian gurk-kut (“lame wolf ”), alluding to the
hobbling gait of hyenas. Lion additionally pointed out that in the northern part of India,
which Ctesias described, probably a Persian dialect was spoken.
154 holger funk
Actually, the name ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ is not of Amharic origin but comes from
an Indian language, from Sanskrit, where it designates the jackal. This ori-
gin has been known since the 19th century, but has been largely ignored
among contemporary zoologists. E. A. Schwanbeck, in the introduction to
his edition of the Indica by Megasthenes (1846, 3), has explained how by an
inversion of letters the originally harmless jackal (karataka) of the Sanskrit
changed in Greek into a powerful predator (krokottas), whose name is al-
ready reminiscent of another dangerous beast, the crocodile (ÎÚÔÎfi‰ÂÈÏÔ˜):
karataka → karakata → krakata → krokotta.1 Orientalist Christian Lassen
(1874, 650) somewhat later confirmed Schwanbeck’s derivation, only re-
placing karataka by the more common Sanskrit word for the jackal
kottharaka (from the strong form kroshthara). The transformation again
happened by inversion and confusion of letters: kroshthara → krotthakara
→ krokotta.2 Sanskrit terms for the jackal like kottharaka, kroshthara,
kroshthuka or krôshtri are all derived from kru® = to cry,3 which, in turn, is
in accordance with the howling habits of golden jackals.4 Thus, based on
the insights of Lassen, Schwanbeck and other experts,5 we feel entitled to
take for granted that ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ origininally designated the Indian golden
jackal and not the striped hyena which is likewise at home there. The later
transformation to Aithiopia and the assignment to the hyena (whichever
species) possibly took place by means of a flourishing oral tradition, due
to which animal lore migrated from India to Africa via the Islamic world
(Arabia).6

1 Schwanbeck’s explanation reads as follows: “Varias deinde fabulas de crocotta fictas

iisdem fere verbis repetere solent et qui Aethiopiam et qui Indiam tractaverunt: tamen sicut
fabulae ita etiam nomen ab Indis originem habet, quum in sanscrita voce carataca (i.e. can-
is aureus [golden jackal]) litteras T et K inverso ordine collocaverint Graeci, ut nomen ad
similitudinem vocum KÚÔÎfi‰ÂÈÏÔ˜ aliarumque reddant”.
2 The latter sequence is ours, Lassen’s explanations themselves are rather rough.
3 See the respective entries in Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit dictionary (2005, 322).
4 Cf. Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004, 159. In the 8th edition of their Greek-English Lexicon Liddell
and Scott deduce the Greek term for jackal ıÒ˜, akin to the Sanskrit krôshtri – kru®, from
ıˆ‡ÛÛˆ (to cry), characterizing a wailing animal; cf. Frisk 1973, s.v. ıˆ‡ÛÛˆ. The identifica-
tion of ıÒ˜ with jackal is however much debated, see Gossen-Steier 1921 and especially the
mammologist Ingo Krumbiegel 1934, who made some efforts to show that ıÒ˜ means the
stoat and not the jackal. Additionally, see Peck’s 1970 useful compilation of all ıÒ˜ descrip-
tions in Aristotle.
5 For instance Kruse 1856, 47 and MacCrindle 1881. Only the Irish zoologist Valentine Ball
1885-89, while accepting Lassen’s linguistic explanations, insisted that the spotted hyena nev-
ertheless must have been meant because in prehistoric times this animal would have been
indigenous to India. For details on the habitat of prehistoric spotted hyenas including the
Indian subcontinent, see Rohland-Pollack et al. 2005.
6 Hofmann 1988, 31-32 has stressed this point on the occasion of the jackal.
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 155
Given the Indian-Sanskrit origin of ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ and the linguistic and lo-
cal proximity to the jackal, and additionally taking into account the fabulous
context,1 the arguments for an identification with the spotted hyena appear
in a somewhat different light. Actually, all of the main features described in
the ancient reports can also be attributed to other species, not only to the
jackal but also to the striped hyena. First, there is the alleged imitation of
human names or sounds. This trait today is usually reduced to the notori-
ous cries (“laughing”) of the spotted hyena,2 which are typical for this
species and much less for the other three hyaenids.3 But, as mentioned be-
fore, jackals also communicate by howls; this seems to be very much a char-
acteristic of jackals, as the Greek designation ıÒ˜ as well as the Phrygian
variant ‰¿Ô˜, indicate: both probably meaning “the crier”, or more specifi-
cally “the retcher”.4 Next, we have the statement of the beasts falling “joint-
ly” upon deceived men or children and devouring them. Naturally, jackals
do not attack people, but they do hunt in small packs and occasionally cause
damage to livestock.5 Attacks on men are indeed reported for spotted hye-
nas, and likewise for striped hyenas; apparently they were not carried out in
packs.6 Finally, there are the mighty teeth and the amazing crushing and di-
gesting of bones, a feature to be found in Agatharchides and Diodorus, but
not in Ctesias. This certainly does not apply to jackals, but to hyenas. How-
ever, again these bone-cracking capabilities are not specific to the spotted
hyenas alone: in fact, striped hyenas also crush bones.7
We have discussed these examples to show that an unambiguous identi-
fication is hard to obtain in ancient animal description, a fact which was of-
ten deplored by scholars engaged in this matter. This applies particularly in
the case of predators located in the Sudanese-Ethiopian region. There are
some animals that are of a different size, but are similar in behavior and es-
pecially in their physical appearance. Thus the aardwolf looks like a minia-
ture specimen of the striped hyena (cf. Fig. 12),8 beside these, there are sev-

1 With respect to Ctesias’ Indika, Nichols 2011, 19 has pointed out that the traits of fauna
and flora often are described as being exceedingly large or small. This should be kept in mind
regarding the manifest accentuation of the extraordinary strength and ferocity of the
ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜.
2 For instance by Burstein 1998, 124 or Woelk 1965, 183-184 in their comments on Agath-
archides.
3 Of all four hyaenids, the spotted hyena has by far the richest repertoire of vocaliza-
tions. For details see Nowak 1999, 790, and specifically Peters-East et al. 2004, Holekamp-
Boydston et al. 1999.
4 See Keller 1909, 89 and Frisk 1973, s.v. ıÒ˜. The “retcher” is reminiscent of the vomit-
ing (âÌÔÜÛ·) tricks of the striped hyena documented by Aristotle, Hist. an. 7, 5 594b 4).
5 See Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004, 158-159. 6 See Mills-Hofer 1998, 87.
7 See Mills-Hofer 1998, 22; for details see Ferretti 2007.
8 Cf. Brentjes 1966.
156 holger funk
eral beasts with spotted or dappled pelts: spotted hyena, leopard, cheetah
(cf. Ctesias’ “swiftness of a horse”), African wild dog, black-backed jackal
(Canis mesomelas Schreber), serval, and some viverrids. Given the “unbe-
lievable disorder”1 in ancient animal designations, this multitude of more or
less similar canids and felids indicates that one should act with caution in
fixing ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ to the spotted hyena. Such an identification has a taste of
logificatio post festum, as Theodor Lessing (1921, 46) once put it.

Toward the Modern Determination

After the 4th century A.D. no more progress is to be observed with respect
to the ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜ for a long time. The widespread and numerous Greek and
Latin versions of the anonymous Physiologus only know the ≈·ÈÓ·-hyaena.2
Since these descriptions are strictly allegorical and of no zoological value,
they can be skipped here, as well as the medieval bestiaries with their occa-
sional reference to the hyena-like Plinian leucrocota,3 being a strange mixture
of wild ass, lion and badger.
The first scholar who brought motion into this stagnation by distin-
guishing between Hyaena and Crocuta more exactly was not a zoologist, but
the aforementioned orientalist Hiob Ludolf (1624-1704). Although Ludolf
had never been to Ethiopia himself, he possessed first-hand information
thanks to an Ethiopian friend, a Christian preacher by the Latinized name
of Abba Gregorius (originally Gorgoryos).4
Ludolf describes the hyena in his Historia Aethiopica (1681) in the section
about the fauna of the country. In the English translation from 1682 the de-
scription reads as follows:
As for their Wolves, they are small and lazie, such as Africa and Aegypt bred in for-
mer times, as Pliny testifies: But the Hyaena, or the Crocuta neer akin to the Wolfe,
is the most Voracious of all their wild Beasts; for she not only by Night and by
stealth, but openly and in the day time Preys upon all she meets with, Men or
Cattle, and rather than fail, diggs down the walls of Houses and Stables. Gregory
describ’d her to be speckled, with black and white spots.5

1 Gossen-Steier 1921, 401.

2 We refer to the Physiologus Graecus, edited by F. Sbordone, Physiologi graeci singulas var-
iorum aetatum recensiones, Roma 1936 (≈·ÈÓ·: 85-86), and to the Physiologus Latinus y and b,
both edited by F. J. Carmody, Physiologus Latinus, versio y (Univ. California Publ. Class. Philol.
12, 1941, 95-134, yena: 129), and Physiologus Latinus, versio b (Paris 1939, hyaena: 34).
3 Nat. hist. 8, 30, 72; see also Hassig 1995, 147 and Zajadacz-Hastenrath 1973. As to the non-
naturalistic character of the Physiologus and the bestiaries, cf. Hassig 1995, 91-92, 142 and
Henkel 1976, 139-146.
4 Information on Ludolf and Gregorius is provided by Tubach 1993 and Haberland 1986, 3.
5 H. Ludolf, A New History of Ethiopia, London 1682, 57.
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 157

Really new in this description is the remark at the end about the spotted pelt
of the hyena, which was apparently pointed out to Ludolf by his informant
Gregorius/Gregory.1 As we have indicated above, Ludolf considers Hyaena
and Crocuta to be closely related.2 However, even though Ludolf does not
articulate it clearly, the impression remains that he wanted to use Crocuta to
distinguish his special Ethiopian Hyaena from the Hyaena in general. This
impression is reinforced if one refers to Ludolf ’s self-commentary on his
Historia Aethiopica. Here Ludolf goes one step further by saying that in his
opinion the “Crocuta, however, is a species of its own” – Crocutam autem
speciem per se esse.3
Ludolf was definitely the first to associate the spotted Ethiopian hyena di-
rectly with the designation Crocuta. Quite obviously, it is owed to Ludolf
that in the course of time the spotted hyena could be distinguished more
clearly from the striped hyena and finally received the zoological name Cro-
cuta. He shifted the undetermined, fluctuating relation of Crocuta and Hyae-
na toward a stable situation, where the two terms designated two different
species. Until things could progress so far, however, insights based on per-
sonal experience were needed. They were provided by the first Europeans
who could obtain first-hand information by residents or had witnessed spot-
ted hyenas themselves in Africa, namely the Dutchman Willem Bosman in
West Africa (present-day Ghana), the German Peter Kolbe in South Africa,
and the Frenchman Jean ( John) Barbot again in West Africa (present-day
Angola). These amateur zoologists described the animal as a kind of jackal

1 In the Latin original Ludolf describes the hyena’s pelt as “checkered with white and
black spots – albis atque nigris maculis interstinctam”, see Ludolf, Historia Aethiopica,
section L. i. c. 10 (no pagination). In his self-commentary Ludolf again mentions the “the
white colour of the pelt with black spots” (“album pellis colorem, nigredine maculosum
esse”), see H. Ludolf, Ad suam Historiam Aethiopicam antehac editam Commentarius, Frankfurt
1691, 152.
2 See p. 153 n. 4. Ludolf used the spelling Crocuta in reference to Strabo’s ÎÚÔÎÔ‡ÙÙ·˜.
The spelling Crocuta apparently stems from the 13th century. One of the first to use it was
Vincent of Beauvais in his Speculum Naturale 19, 34, col. 1402 from around 1250.
3 Ludolf, Commentarius 153. The full citation reads: “Crocutam autem speciem per se
esse, & recte ΢ÓfiÏ˘ÎÔÓ dici, animal terribile, non quod ex cane & lupo prognatum sit, sed
quod ÌÂÌÈÁ̤ÓËÓ ÌbÓ C¯ÂÈ Ê‡ÛÈÓ Ï‡ÎÔ˘ ηd ΢Óe˜, mixtam naturam habeat lupi & canis, ut
recte Diodorus loquitur Lib iii. c. 168 [Bibliotheca historica 3.35.10]; Strabo Lib xvi pag. 775.
[Geographica 16.4.16]”. Ludolf ’s ambiguous formulation ascribes this new insight to
Diodorus and Strabo, while in reality it was entirely his own. Prior to Ludolf, the Swiss
anatomist Caspar Bauhin had stated that “Hyaenam non esse Crocutam”, but he did not
discuss further considerations; see Caspar Bauhin, De hermaphroditorum monstrosorumque
partuum natura, Oppenheim 1614, Caput xi: “Hyaenam non esse Crocutam, atque huius
historia, 510-515”.
158 holger funk
or dog (“Boshond”),1 or as a kind of wolf (“Tyger-Wolf ”2 and “Quumben-
go”),3 but they all did not realize its true character.
The momentousness of Ludolf ’s brief and scattered remarks regarding
Hyaena and Crocuta were not recognized for quite a long time. Not until 1771
did another shrewd scholar, the Welsh naturalist and zoologist Thomas Pen-
nant (1726-1798), draw the right conclusions from them and distinguished
the spotted from the striped hyena. Pennant4 was not an unknown scientist
at this time: he carried on a lively correspondence with Linnaeus and,
through the latter’s advocacy, had already been elected a member of the
Royal Society of Sciences at Uppsala in 1757.
In his Synopsis of Quadrupeds from 1771, Pennant was the first to differen-
tiate between the Striped Hyaena and Spotted Hyaena consistently.5 In the de-
scription of the striped hyena Pennant also referred to classical sources such
as Aristotle, Pliny and Oppian, but these writers were no longer considered
as authorities, but rather as conveyers of outdated conceptions. Instead of
these, Pennant relied on reports from newer researchers such as Engelbert
Kaempfer, Thomas Shaw, Alexander Russell and others. For the description
of the spotted hyena, Pennant only used recent sources, such as the afore-
mentioned Ludolf, Bosman, Kolbe, and Barbot. Based on them, Pennant de-
scribes the Spotted Hyaena as follows:
Hyaena with large and flat head: above each eye some long hairs: on each side of
the nose very long whiskers: short black mane: hair on the body short and smooth:
ears short, and a little pointed; their outside black, inside cinereous: face, and up-
per part of the head black; body and limbs reddish brown, marked with distinct
round black spots: the hind legs with transverse black bars: tail short, black, and
full of hair.
Inhabits Guinea, Aethiopia, and the Cape:6 lives in holes in the earth, or cliffs of
rocks: preys by night: howls horribly: breaks into the folds, and kills two or three

1 Willem Bosman, Nauwkeurige Beschryving van de Guinese Goud-Tand-en Slave-Kust ii,

Utrecht 1704, 27 and 90. English: William Bosman, A New and accurate Description of the Coast
of Guinea, divided into the Gold, the Slave, and the Ivory Coasts (…), London 1705, 246 and 317.
All early hyena descriptions mentioned in this section are available in English in my Hyaena
book from 2010.
2 Peter Kolbe, Caput Bonae Spei hodiernum, das ist: Vollständige Beschreibung des africani-
schen Vorgebürges der Guten Hofnung (…), Nürnberg 1719, 171-172. The English version
(London 1731) is insufficient, being rather a kind of summary than a true translation.
3 John Barbot, A Collection of Voyages and Travels (…) i-vi; vol. v: A Description of the Coasts
of North and South-Guinea (…), London 1732, 486-487 (Quumbengo is a Bantu term for “wolf ”).
4 To this day no monograph on the life and work of this eminent naturalist and writer
exists (except for an autobiography). A good survey is provided by Chalmers 1815.
5 Thomas Pennant, Synopsis of Quadrupeds, Chester 1771, 161-163. Reprinted slightly
modified in Thomas Pennant, History of Quadrupeds i, London 1781, 250-253.
6 These names refer just roughly to the present-day localities of the same name.
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 159
sheep: devours as much as it can, and carries away one for a future repast: will at-
tack mankind; scrape open graves, and devour the dead. M. de Buffon, misled by
Bosman’s name of the animal, makes it synonymous with the common jackal. Has,
till the present time, been undistinguished by naturalists. This description taken
from one shewn some years ago in London.
Attention should be paid to Pennant’s emphasis on his personal observation
of a captured spotted hyena at a show in London. On the basis of this ani-
mal Pennant added a drawing, which can be reckoned as one of the first au-
thentic representations of a spotted hyena (see Fig. 10).
Not until Pennant’s description did it really become clear that alongside
the well-known striped hyena another species existed, the spotted hyena.
Pennant’s description was so precise that in 1777 the German zoologist J. C.
P. Erxleben (1744-1777) included it in his Systema regni animalis by simply
translating Pennant’s text into Latin.1 Pennant’s text in turn was copied,
somewhat shortened, into the last edition of Linnaeus’ Systema naturae with
the Crocuta belonging to the Canis genus.2 In 1821, the Hyaenidae family was
established, including the striped but not yet the spotted hyena.3 Finally, in
1828 the Hyaenidae family was split up into two genera of their own, Hyae-
na (including Hyaena striata) and Crocuta (including Hyaena crocuta).4 As a re-
sult of this naming and classification, today we have Crocuta crocuta
Erxleben, 1777 as the valid zoological name, while actually Crocuta crocuta
Pennant, 1771 would be more appropriate.
Paderborn

Bibliography
Anzulewicz, H. 1996. ‘Marginalie zu Iorach’, Bull. philos. médiév. 38, 115-118.
Aubert, H. - Wimmer, F. 1868. API™TOTE§OY™ I™TOPIAI ¶EPI ZøøN. Aristoteles Thier-
kunde i-ii, Leipzig.
Ball, V. 1885. ‘On the identification of the Animals and Plants of India which were
known to Early Greek Authors’, Indian Antiquary 14, 274-287, 303-311.
Ball, V. 1889-91. ‘Further Notes on the Identification of the Animals and Plants of
India which were known to Early Greek Authors’, Proc. Royal Irish Acad. 1, 1-9.
Bähr, J. C. F. (ed.) 1824. Ctesiae Cnidii Operum Reliquiae, Frankfurt.
Benecke, B. 1879. ‘Die Säugetiere in Herodots Geschichte’, Wissenschaftl. Monats-
blätter 60-64, 104-112, 122-124.
Berger, H. 1901. s.v. ‘Dalion’, RE iv 2, col. 2022.

1 Johann Christian Polykarp Erxleben, Systema regni animalis per classes, Leipzig 1777,
578-579.
2 Carolus Linnaeus, Systema naturae per regna tria naturae i, Leipzig 178813, 72.
3 Gray 1821, 302. Gray used the spelling Hyaenadae.
4 By the German zoologist Johann Jakob Kaup (1828, 1144-1145).
160 holger funk
Bigwood, J. M. 1989. ‘Ctesias’ “Indica” and Photius’, Phoenix 43, 302-316.
Bigwood, J. M. 1980. ‘Diodorus and Ctesias’, Phoenix 34, 195-207.
Brentjes, B. 1966. ‘Einige Bemerkungen zur Darstellung der Hyänen, Erdwölfe und
Hyänenhunde in den Kulturen des Alten Orients’, Zeitschr. Säugetierkunde 31, 308-
314.
Brodersen, K - Elsner, J. (eds.) 2009. Images and Texts on the “Artemidorus Papyrus”.
Working Papers on P. Artemid, Stuttgart.
Budde, L. 1972. Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien ii. Die heidnischen Mosaiken, Reckling-
hausen.
Burstein, S. M. 1989 (ed. & transl.). Agatharchides of Cnidus. On the Erythraean Sea,
London.
Burstein, S. M. 2002. ‘Aithiopia. The Southern Periphery of the Graeco-Roman
World’, Ancient West & East 1, 55-58.
Casson, L. 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction, Translation
and Commentary, Princeton.
Chalmers, A. 1815. s.v. ‘Pennant, Thomas’, in General Biographical Dictionary xxiv,
London, 299-306.
Dihle, A. 1984. Antike und Orient. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Heidelberg.
Diller, A. 1969. ‘Some False Fragments’, in Classical Studies presented to Ben Edwin
Perry, Urbana, 27-30.
Drea, C. M. - Vignieri, S. N. - Cunningham, S. B. - Glickman, S. E. 2002. ‘Responses
to Olfactory stimuli in Spotted Hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) i. Investigation of
Environmental Odors and the Function of Rolling’, Journ. Comparative Psychol.
116, 331-341.
Eide, T. - Hägg, T. et al. (eds.) 1996. Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual Sources for the
History of the Middle Nile Region between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century
AD. ii. From the Mid-Fifth to the First Century BC., Bergen.
Ferretti, M. P. 2007. ‘Evolution of Bone-cracking Adaptations in Hyaenids (Mam-
malia, Carnivora)’, Swiss Journ. Geosciences 100, 41-52.
Firth, C. M. 1927. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for 1910-1911, Cairo.
Frisk, H. 1973. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch i-ii, Heidelberg.
Funk, H. 2010. Hyaena. On the Naming and Localisation of an Enigmatic Animal,
München.
Funk, H. 2012. ‘R. J. Gordon’s Discovery of the Spotted Hyena’s Extraordinary
Genitalia in 1777’, Journ. Hist. Biol. 45, 301-328.
Gallazzi, C. - Kramer B. - Settis, S. (eds.) 2008. Il papiro di Artemidoro (P. Artemid.),
Milano.
Gesner, Conrad. 1551. Historia animalium i. De Quadrupedibus viviparis, Zürich.
Gossen, H. 1935. ‘Die Tiernamen in Aelians 17 Büchern ÂÚd ˙шӒ, Quellen und
Studien Gesch. Naturwissenschaf. Medizin 4, 128-188.
Gossen, H. - Steier, A. 1921. s.v. ‘Schakal’, RE ii A1, cols. 399-401.
Gray, J. E. 1821. ‘On the Natural Arrangement of Vertebrose Animals’, London
Medical Repository 15, 296-310.
Gullini, G. 1956. I Mosaici di Palestrina, Roma.
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 161
Haberland, E. 1986. Three Hundred Years of Ethiopian-German Academic Collaboration,
Wiesbaden.
Hägg, T. 1975. Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur, Uppsala.
Hassig, D. 1995. Medieval Bestiaries. Text, Image, Ideology, Cambrigde.
Hayduck, M. (ed.). 1903. Ioannis Philoponi (Michaelis Ephesii) in libros De generatione
animalium commentaria, Berlin.
Henkel, N. 1976. Studien zum Physiologus im Mittelalter, Tübingen.
Hofmann, I. 1988. Hase, Perlhuhn und Hyäne – Spuren meroitischer Oralliteratur. Ein
Beitrag zur afrikanischen Komponente der meroitischen Kultur, Wien.
Holekamp, K. E. - Boydston, E. E. - Szykman, M. - Graham, I. - Nutt, K. J. - Birch, S.
et al. 1999. ‘Vocal Recognition in the Spotted Hyaena and its Possible Implica-
tions regarding the Evolution of Intelligence’, Animal Behaviour 58, 383-395.
Janko, R. 2009. ‘The Artemidorus Papyrus’, Class. Rev. 59, 403-410.
Kaup, J. J. 1828. ‘Ueber Hyaena, Uromastix, Basiliscus, Corythaeolus, Acontias’, Isis.
Encyclopäd. Zeitschr. 21, 1144-1150.
Keller, O. 1909. Die antike Tierwelt i. Säugetiere, Leipzig.
Kinzelbach, R. 2009. Tierbilder aus dem ersten Jahrhundert. Ein zoologischer Kommentar
zum Artemidor-Papyrus, Berlin.
Koepfli, K.-P. - Jenks, S. M. et al. 2006. ‘Molecular Systematics of the Hyaenidae:
Relationships of a Relictual Lineage resolved by a Molecular Supermatrix’,
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 38, 603-620.
Krumbiegel, I. 1934. ‘Die Thos-Tiere des Aristoteles’, Archeion 16, 24-37.
Kruse, Th. 1856. Indiens alte Geschichte, Leipzig.
Lassen, C. 1874. Indische Alterthumskunde ii, Leipzig (18491).
Leitner, H. 1972. Zoologische Terminologie beim älteren Plinius, Hildesheim.
Lenfant, D. (ed.). 2004. Ctésias du Cnide, La Perse, L’Inde, Autres Fragments. Texte
établi, traduit et commenté par D. L., Paris.
Lesky, A. 1966. ‘Aithiopika’, in Gesammelte Schriften. Aufsätze und Reden zu antiker und
deutscher Dichtung und Kultur, Bern, 410-421.
Lessing, Th. 1921. Geschichte als Sinngebung des Sinnlosen, München.
Lion, A. (ed.). 1823. KTH™IOY TOY KNI¢IOY TA ™øZOMENA, Ctesiae Cnidii quae supersunt,
Göttingen.
MacCrindle, J. W. 1881. ‘Ancient India as described by Ktesias’, Indian Antiquary 10,
296-323.
Marcotte, D. 2001. ‘Structure et caractère de l’œuvre historique d’Agatharchide’,
Historia 50, 385-435.
Meyboom, P. G. P. 1995. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina. Early Evidence of Egyptian
Religion in Italy, Leiden-New York-Köln.
Mielsch, H. 1986. ‘Hellenistische Tieranekdoten in der römischen Kunst’, Archäol.
Anz. 4, 747-763.
Mills, G. - Hofer, H. 1998. Hyaenas. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, Gland-
Cambridge.
Monier-Williams, M. 2005. Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Delhi.
Nichols, A. 2011. Ctsesias on India. Intr., Transl. and Comm., London.
Nowak, R. M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World i , Baltimore.
162 holger funk
Osborn, D. J. - Osbornová, J. 1998. The Mammals of Ancient Egypt, Warminster.
Peck, A. L. 1970. ‘Additional Note for vi, 580 a 26 ff. and other Passages: ıÒ˜’, in
Aristotle, History of Animals (Books iv-vi ), With an English Translation, Cam-
bridge MA-London, 377-379.
Peters, G. - East, M., Herzel, H. et al. 2004. ‘Spotted Hyaena Whoops: Frequent In-
cidence of Vocal Instabilities in a Mammalian Loud call’, Bioacoustics 14, 99-109.
Phillips, K. M. Jr. 1962. The Barberini Mosaic: sunt hominum animaliumque complures
imagines, Ph. D. Thesis Univ. Princeton.
Rohland, N. - Pollack, J. L. - Nagel, D. - Beauval, C. - Airvaux, J. - Paabo, S. - Hofreiter,
M. 2005. ‘The Population History of Extant and Extinct Hyenas’, Molecular Biol-
ogy and Evolution 22, 2435-2443.
Romm, J. S. 1994. The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought. Geography, Exploration,
and Fiction, Princeton.
Schwanbeck, E. A. (ed.). 1846. Megasthenis Indica. Fragmenta collegit, commentationem
et indicices addidit, Bonn.
Sillero-Zubiri, C. - Hoffmann, M. - Macdonald, D. W. (eds.). 2004. Canids: Foxes,
Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, Gland-Cambridge.
Smith, A. H. 1952. Claudius Water-colours in the Africana Museum, Johannesburg.
Solomou, S. 2007. The Indica of Ctesias of Cnidus: Text (incl. MSS Monacensis gr. 287
and Oxoniensis, Holkham gr. 110), Translation and Commentary, Diss. Univ. College
London. [Available at http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=1&uin=uk.bl.
ethos.445015]
Sonnabend, Hr. 2007. Die Grenzen der Welt. Geographische Vorstellungen der Antike,
Darmstadt.
Spatharakis, I. 2004. The Illustrations of the Cynegetica in Venice. Codex Marcianus
Graecus Z 139, Leiden.
Steier, A. 1924. s.v. ‘Hyäne’, RE SupplBd. iv, cols. 761-768.
Török, L. 2002. The Image of the Ordered World in Ancient Nubian Art, Leiden-Boston-
Köln.
Török, L. 1988. ‘Geschichte Meroes’ in H. Temporini - W. Haase (eds.), Rise and
Decline of the Roman World ii, Berlin, 107-341.
Treadgold, W. T. 1980. The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius, Washington D.C.
Trigger, B. G. 1976. Nubia under the Pharaohs, London.
Tubach, J. 1993. s.v. ‘Ludolf (Leutholf ), Hiob’, in Biographisch-Bibliographisches
Kirchenlex. v, cols. 317-325.
Witek, F. - Braakmann, H. 1993. s.v. ‘Hyäne’, in Reallex. Antike und Christentum xvi,
893-904.
Woelk, Dr. 1965. Agatharchides von Knidos, Diss. Univ. Freiburg.
Zajadacz-Hastenrath, S. 1973. s.v. ‘Crocotas - Leucrocota’, in Reallex. deutsch. Kunst-
geschichte vi, cols. 765-766, 784-786.
Ziegler, K. 1949. s.v. ‘Paradoxographoi’, RE xviii A2, cols. 1137-1166.
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 163

Fig. 2. Spotted beasts on the Barberini or

Fig. 1. Striped hyena on the Barberini or
Nile mosaic from Palestrina (c. 120 B.C.).
The caption reads KPOKOTTA™ . The
mosaic has been known since the end of
the 16th century; © Museo Nazionale
Prenestino in Palazzo Barberini a Roma.
For details on this cut-out of the mosaic,
see Meyboom (1995, 23, 231).
Nile mosaic from Palestrina; © Museo Na-
zionale Prenestino in Palazzo Barberini a
Roma. The caption reads £øANTE™ ,
possibly an unusual plural of ıÒ˜, by
which the jackal is normally meant. Ac-
cording to Meyboom (1995, 20-22, 115-118),
this inscription is erroneous, actually spot-
ted hyenas are shown. This assumption
was initiated by Gullini (1956, 43) and has
been accepted by several scientists, for in-
stance by Gallazzi-Kramer-Settis (2008,
328) and Kinzelbach (2009, 17). The long
tail and the mane clearly contradict this
opinion. Philllips (1962, 130-132) identifies
these animals as jackals. Interestingly,
the 5th century grammarian Hesychius ex-
plains ıˆ¿˜ in his Lexicon as a hybrid of
hyena and wolf.

Fig. 3. Spotted beast on the mosaic from

Adanna in Asia Minor (3rd century B.C.).
Budde (1972, 20, Figg. 14, 18) identifies this
animal as a leopard (“female panther”).
Mielsch (1986) and in his wake Gallazzi-
Kramer-Settis (2008, 332) doubt this iden-
tification and assume a spotted hyena in-
stead, ignoring the long tail and giving no
explanation how a spotted hyena reason-
ably could be depicted in Asia Minor. ©
Institut für Klassische Archäologie und
Frühchristliche Archäologie, Universität
Münster.
164 holger funk

Fig. 4. Leopard and striped hyena on a gold mace handle from a dynastic monarchy
grave (4th millennium B.C.) in Nubia, roughly today’s southern Egypt and Sudan; from
Firth (1927, 205-207), also reproduced in Trigger (1976, 43). Again, Gallazzi-Kramer-Settis
(2008, 331) and Meyboom (1995, 117) insinuate, contrary to Firth’s archaelogical report,
a spotted hyena.

Fig. 5. Pottery vessel decorated with striped hyenas from the Kushite culture in Nubia
(1st century A.D.), see Török (2002, 480-481) and the special study by Hofmann (1988).
 the ancient krokottas and the modern crocuta crocuta 165
Fig. 6. Illustration for the article ‘De
Hyaena’ in Gesner, Historia animalium i.
De Quadrupedibus viviparis, Zürich 1551,
624. Gesner’s comment states: “We found
this picture in some old Greek handwrit-
ten codex of Oppian’s poem: I do not like
it” (“Hanc imaginem qualemcunque in
veteri Graeco codice manuscripto poema-
tum Oppiani reperimus: mihi quidem
non placet”). The next figure shows the
model from the Oppian codex.
Fig. 8. Illustration of a ÎÚÔÎfiÙÙ·˜/Cro-
cuta from Johann Heyden’s German ver-
sion of Pliny’s Naturalis historia: Caij Plin-
ij Secundi, Des fürtrefflichen Hochgelehrten
Alten Philosophi Bücher und schrifften von der
Natur, art und eigenschafft der Creaturen oder
Geschöpffe Gottes, Frankfurt 1565, 129. The
woodcut was made by the famous Swiss
artist Jost Amman.
Fig. 7. Spotted hyena, killing a dog. Illus-
tration to Oppian’s Cynegetica (3, 282-292)
in the Venice codex Marcianus Graecus Z
479, fol. 48r, middle of the 11th century;
© Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice,
Italy. According to Spatharakis (2004, 221),
this “hyena” is a modified copy of a wolf
drawing in the same codex.
Fig. 9. First authentic drawing of a spot-
ted hyena, attributed to Hendrik
Claudius; © Museum Africa, Johannes-
burg, South Africa. Claudius, a German
apothecary (c. 1655-1697), served as drafts-
man for Simon van der Stel, the first Gov-
ernor of the Dutch Cape Colony, from
1681 to 1686. The drawing probably was
made during van der Stel’s expedition to
the Copper Mountains in 1685. Taken
from Smith (1952), pl. 8.
 166 holger funk

Fig. 11. Spotted hyena, from the so-called

Fig. 10. Spotted hyena, from Thomas
Pennant, Synopsis of Quadrupeds, Chester
1771, after p. 162. Pennant was the first to
provide a zoologically correct description
of the spotted hyena.
Gordon Atlas of the Dutchman Robert Ja-
cob Gordon. Gordon served in the Scots
Brigades at Cape Town from 1777 to 1795
and explored the South African fauna and
flora intensively. To date, the Gordon Atlas
is still unpublished as a whole, see Funk
2012; © Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.

Fig. 12. Drawing of a young aardwolf

(Proteles cristatus), from Isidore Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire’s description from 1824. Ge-
offroy Saint-Hilaire was the first to deter-
mine the aardwolf as a genus of its own.
The author named the animal Proteles La-
landii, in honour of the French naturalist
Pierre Antoine Delalande. Delalande had
captured the specimen during his expedi-
tion to the Cape of Good Hope between
1818 and 1821.

View publication stats