Exploring the Hospitable Sea: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 21-23 September 2012 9781407311142, 9781407340821

Table of contents :
Cover
Copyright
Introduction
Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters in the Black SeaRegion
The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad:Some Geographical, Philological and Historical Remarks
The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow
The Cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace in the Black SeaRegion
The Foundation of Pantikapaion:Greek Colonists and Native Populations on the NorthernBlack Sea Coast
Notes on the History of the Scythian Kingdom of Crimea
The Lower City of Tanais
Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region
State in Danger:Ideological Strategies of the West Pontic Poleis in the Faceof an External Threat
Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace
The History of Tieion/Tios (Eastern Bithynia) in the Lightof Inscriptions
Two Defence Units in the Pontic Kingdom:Çördük and Geyras Strongholds - Preliminary Results
Investigation of the Rural Settlements in NW of Amasyaduring the Hellenistic and Roman Periods by Using GIS
Romans in the North Black Sea Region:Greco-Roman Bilingualism in Olbia
Navigation in the Black Sea:A Case Study of Maritime Traffic in the Northern BlackSea Region from Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages(4th-7th c.)
Understanding the Function of an Eleventh Century ADMedieval Building Complex at Komana through the SpatialAnalysis of Archaeological Data:A Pilot Study
List of contributors

Citation preview

BAR S2498 2013

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

MANOLEDAKIS (Ed)

Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 21–23 September 2012 Edited by



Manolis Manoledakis

EXPLORING THE HOSPITABLE SEA

B A R Manoledakis 2498 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 2498 2013 16/04/2013 10:12:23

Exploring the Hospitable Sea Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 21–23 September 2012 Edited by

Manolis Manoledakis

BAR International Series 2498 2013

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2498 Exploring the Hospitable Sea © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2013 COVER IMAGE

Alex Zabusik)

The ruins of a medieval basilica on the seashore. Chersonesus, Sevastopol, Ukraine (photo by

The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407311142 paperback ISBN 9781407340821 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311142 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2013. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Table of Contents Introduction ii Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters in the Black Sea Region 1 Søren Handberg The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad: Some Geographical, Philological and Historical Remarks 19 Manolis Manoledakis The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow 39 Anca Dan The Cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace in the Black Sea Region 59 Kirill Tesle The Foundation of Pantikapaion: Greek Colonists and Native Populations on the Northern Black Sea Coast 67 Immacolata Balena Notes on the History of the Scythian Kingdom of Crimea 77 Stefania Gallotta The Lower City of Tanais 83 V. Kozlovskaya and S. M. Ilyashenko Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region 95 Sujatha Chandrasekaran State in Danger: Ideological Strategies of the West Pontic Poleis in the Face of an External Threat 119 Aneta Petrova Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace 133 Adela Sobotkova The History of Tieion/Tios (Eastern Bithynia) in the Light of Inscriptions 147 Bülent Öztürk Two Defence Units in the Pontic Kingdom: Çördük and Geyras Strongholds - Preliminary Results 165 Emine Sökmen Investigation of the Rural Settlements in NW of Amasya during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods by Using GIS 175 Coşku Kocabıyık Romans in the North Black Sea Region: Greco-Roman Bilingualism in Olbia 181 Alexey V. Belousov Navigation in the Black Sea: A Case Study of Maritime Traffic in the Northern Black Sea Region from Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages (4th-7th c.) 187 Mariia Tymoshenko Understanding the Function of an Eleventh Century AD Medieval Building Complex at Komana through the Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Data: A Pilot Study 197 Mustafa Nuri Tatbul List of contributors 211

i

Introduction It is an often quoted fact that, for reasons mainly to do with its geopolitical situation during the Cold War, the Black Sea region did not assume in the 20th century the position it deserved in international science, especially as regards the field of archaeology and particularly in comparison to the other important region of Greek colonial activity in antiquity, South Italy and Sicily. Similarly it has frequently been mentioned that the end of the Cold War also allowed the fall of the scientific wall that separated East from West Europe; the Black Sea region is now an area of continuously increasing scientific interest. During the last two decades, scholars from the former ‘east’ and ‘west’ worlds have come increasingly in touch with one another, with the result that we now have – not only in the Black Sea region but also in Western Europe, North America and Australia – dozens of research programmes, excavation teams, conferences and collective volumes, mainly in English, focused on the Black Sea in antiquity. Consequently one would expect that after 1990 the study of the Black Sea would have penetrated in the same impressive way into the sphere of university education. However, this has not happened, at least to the same degree that it has in the field of research. The history and archaeology of the Black Sea has, of course, been included in the programmes of relevant departments of many universities around the world, at undergraduate as well as postgraduate level. Indicatively we could mention the universities of Exeter, Melbourne, Moscow, Odessa, Komotini (with more stress on languages and philology) and many others. However, this aspect of studies on the Black Sea constitutes only an element of the studies in each department and in many cases an elective element, open to selection or otherwise by the student. In this context and having first thoroughly researched the postgraduate programmes available in Greece and elsewhere, the School of Humanities of the International Hellenic University created an English-speaking postgraduate programme (the first in Greece on a humanities subject) that is dedicated exclusively to the Black Sea region, the ‘Master of Arts in Black Sea Cultural Studies’. The approach is interdisciplinary. Attending this programme, one studies the Black Sea through the examination of its history, its monuments, its contemporary economy and its political situation through time. One sees the interaction of the histories of the peoples of the region, gets to know the archaeology, the monuments and the art of each period, the religions and mythologies, and, of course, one examines the modern economy and the political developments after the Cold War, the creation of new states, the migration and minority problems that have arisen and the relations of the Black Sea countries with both the European Union and Asia. Today, now in its third year, the programme has and is being attended by students from Russia, the USA, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, New Zealand, Cyprus and Greece. Specialists from all over the world are invited to give lectures, while the publication of a collective volume on the ‘Black Sea in Ancient Times’, with contributions of many of the world’s top specialist scholars, is already being prepared. In the context of this postgraduate programme, the School of Humanities organised an international workshop in Thessaloniki in 21-23 September 2012 on the theme of ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity’, aiming at bringing together young scholars from all over the world who specialize in research in this field. The choice, for the first time, of inviting exclusively young (in science as well as in age) scholars, was made for a rationale: The International Hellenic University, which as an educational institution is by nature addressed to young people and aims to create young scholars, believes that in a field of such significance and range, it is particularly important to give young scholars the opportunity to present their research, to discuss with each other all the issues that concern them and to publish these papers and discussions in a publishing house of the British Archaeological Reports’ authority. Sixteen young scholars (Doctors or PhD students) from eleven countries participated in the workshop, the proceedings of which are presented here. They presented research material either from their PhD dissertations, from their current research or from archaeological material from the Black Sea that has recently come to light in excavations in which they are involved. ii

I would like to thank them warmly, because from the very first moment they agreed to participate with enthusiasm and contributed to three fruitful days. I would also like to thank Professors Gocha Tsetskhladze, Tatiana Smekalova, Michael Vickers, Alexandru Avram, Deniz Erciyas, Sumer Atasoy, Sergei Saprykin, Vladimir Stolba and Nikola Theodossiev, who recommended many of the participants to me, knowing their work. Thanks are also due, of course, to the administration of the International Hellenic University and the School of Humanities for approving and supporting the proposal to organize the workshop and for the effort put in to creating, despite the negative current conditions, an international centre in Southeast Europe focussing on the research and teaching of the history and the cultures of the Black Sea region. We considered that it would be useful to include in this volume of proceedings those parts of the ensuing discussions, which contribute to wider deliberation as well as to clarification of the issues presented. We also thought that, given the particular nature of the workshop, it would not be advisable to set a more specific subject so that we offered the participants more freedom in their choice of topic of contribution. Thus, the reader of this volume visits the whole Black Sea region and gains insight into several aspects of its history and in several periods: colonisation, religion, local tribes and their relations with the Greeks, geography, written sources, inscriptions, archaeological research, antiquity, late antiquity, Byzantine period. To start with, some more general theoretical issues are developed: S. Handberg attempts to stress the underestimated role of the Aeolians in Greek colonisation in the Black Sea; M. Manoledakis tries to uncover the historical and geographical data arising from references to the Black Sea in the Iliad; A. Dan centres on the geographical and cartographic conception of the Black Sea as a Scythian bow, while K. Tesle examines the cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace in the Black Sea region. We then focus on the northern coast of the Black Sea, where we examine the foundation of Pantikapaion in connection with the relationship between the Greeks and the local people (I. Balena), the same relationship as it appears in the Scythian Kingdom in Crimea (S. Gallotta), and the preliminary results of geoarchaeological research in the Lower City of Tanais that started in 2009 are presented by V. Kozlovskaya and S. M. Ilyashenko. Afterwards we move to the eastern side of the Black Sea, the local tribes of which are examined by S. Chandrasekaran with the help of both linguistic and archaeological evidence. The western part follows, with A. Petrova dealing with ideological strategies of the West Pontic poleis that faced external threats and A. Sobotkova examining political and social aspects of life based on evidence from the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project, a recent landscape archaeology project in central Thrace. As far as the southern part of the Black Sea is concerned, B. Öztürk takes the reader on a journey through the history of the city of Tios with the help of inscriptions and other finds, E. Sökmen examines the importance of two fortresses of the Pontic Kingdom in the wider region of Komana Pontica, while C. Kocabıyık looks at rural settlements in NW Amaseia during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The last part belongs to the Roman and the Byzantine periods. A. Belousov examines ‘Greco-Roman bilingualism’ in Olbia, based on Roman inscriptions, M. Tymoshenko observes the changes in maritime traffic in the northern Black Sea from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages and M. N. Tatbul tries to help us understand the function of an 11th-century building complex at Komana through spatial analysis of archaeological data. For the editor of this volume, it was a great pleasure and challenge to cooperate with all these young scholars, to look at different approaches, learn some of the latest research results and see the products of dissertations supervised by scholars that have already offered so much to science on the subject of the Black Sea. I sincerely hope that the reader will share the same feelings reading the results of this first exploration of the authors in the ‘Hospitable Sea’. Finally, I would like to thank Sarah Edwards, for the careful proofreading of all the English texts, and Dr Georgia Aristodemou, academic assistant in our School, for a second proofreading of the contributions. And of course our sincere thanks are due to the British Archaeological Reports, who showed such a gratifying interest in publishing the proceedings of our workshop. Manolis Manoledakis

iii

iv

Map of the Black Sea with the most important places and tribes that are mentioned in the volume (created by the editor). More details are on the maps of each contribution.

Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters in the Black Sea Region Søren Handberg Abstract: According to ancient literary accounts, almost all of the early Greek colonies in the Black Sea area were founded by the Ionian city of Miletos. A connection to Ionia is indeed apparent from the large quantities of imported Ionian pottery at Black Sea sites. However, a substantial amount of local reduction-fired Grey Ware pottery that is closely related to Aeolian pottery can be identified in ceramic assemblages of the Archaic period in the early Milesian apoikiai. Moreover, recent archaeometric analyses have shown that a substantial amount of Aeolian pottery was imported into the Black Sea area. This article stresses the need to recognize a more active involvement of the Aeolians in the Greek colonial venture around the Black Sea, and specifically the migration of Aeolian potters. Keywords: Greek colonization in the Black Sea region, Milesian colonies, local pottery, Grey Ware pottery, Aeolis, Aeolian itinerant potters, pottery consumption.

Introduction

reflected in the diverse range of imported pottery found at the settlement.5 Furthermore, A. Greaves has recently suggested that some of the Milesian settlements might have been referred to as Milesian apoikiai not because the oikistes came from Miletos itself, but rather because the venture was sanctioned by Apollon Didymeus.6 Discussing the character of the early Greek foundations in the western Mediterranean, R. Osborne has convincingly shown that the state-organized foundations known from the Classical period cannot easily be retrojected back into the Archaic period. In fact, the varied composition of the material record and the rapid population growth observable in some of the early Greek settlements in the west, such as at Megara Hyblaea and Pithekoussai, strongly suggest that the networks of these early settlements were multifaceted and that people of diverse origins formed part of the early life in settlements abroad.7 A group of locally-produced, reduction-fired Grey Ware of Aeolian tradition suggests that Aeolian potters were among the earliest epokoi in such Greek settlements as Berezan, Istros, Olbia, and Apollonia Pontica (Figure 1).8 Throughout the Archaic period, this Aeolian-inspired Grey Ware pottery remained the predominant local tableware in most of the Milesian

Of all the Greek poleis that founded apoikiai on the Black Sea, Ionian Miletos takes pride of place. Pliny the Elder states that Miletos founded over 90 apoikiai, and according to Strabo, the Black Sea has been entirely colonized by Milesians.1 Even though modern scholars remain skeptical of this high incidence, it is clear that Miletos was regarded already in Antiquity as the most enterprising city on the Black Sea.2 Milesians were also, according to tradition, the first Greeks to settle permanently in the Black Sea area with the foundation of Borysthenes (Berezan) and Istros around the middle of the 7th century BC.3 In scholarly literature, the foundation of these early Milesian apoikiai on the Black Sea is often viewed as an exclusively Milesian enterprise, and although there is certainly considerable evidence to support a close connection between the Black Sea apoikiai and their mother city, there are reasons to question the exclusivity of Miletos in the founding of the early apoikiai in the northwestern Black Sea area. The archaeological evidence suggests that colonists from other areas, especially Aeolis, formed part of the early communities in these apoikiai. Although writing much later, Herodotus refers to Borysthenes as an emporion, thereby indirectly stressing the cosmopolitan character of the place.4 That Berezan was a very cosmopolitan place in the early phase is perhaps

Pottery from many different Mediterranean workshops arrived in the Milesian apoikiai within the first two-three generations; there is pottery from e.g. the North and South Ionian areas, Klazomenai, Chios, the Hellespontine region, Miletos, Kyme, Samos, Athens, Corinth, Cyprus, and possibly also Lydia and Anatolia, not to mention the indigenous handmade pottery of Scythian, Thracian, and Getian origin. 6 Greaves 2006, 18-19; 2010, 15-16. 7 Osborne 1998. For similar views see now also Anderson 2005 and De Angelis 2008. For a recent account of networks in the ancient Mediterranean including the western apoikiai, see Malkin 2011. 8 For the geographical extent of Aeolis, I follow Herodotus’ description (1.151), which includes, among others, the cities of Phokaia and Klazomenai. For discussions of the geographical extent of Aeolis in antiquity see also Iren 2008a, 29; Kerschner 2006b, 143; Rubinstein 2004, 1033-1036. 5

Pliny, N.H. 5.112; Strabo 14.1.6. Seneca mentions 75 Milesian apoikiai (Cons. Ad Helv. Matrem 7.2). For skepticism about the large number of Milesian apoikiai, see e.g. Bilabel 1920, 12; Graham 1964, 98; Morgan 1989, 26. Around 45 Milesians apoikiai have been positively identified, see Bilabel 1920, 60. See also Gorman 2002, 186-187 with note 13 for further references. 3 For Milesian foundations on the Black Sea, see e.g. Bilabel 1920; Dupont 2007a; Erhardt 1988; Greaves 2006; Gorman 2001, 59-85; Petropolous 2005; Tsetskhladze 1994; 1998; 2002; 2009. 4 Herodotus 4.17.24. See also Hind 1995-1996. 1

2

1

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 1. Map of the North Aegean and the western Black Sea area.

apoikiai. This particular consumption of Grey Ware marks a clear discrepancy in the otherwise close ties with Miletos and suggests that pottery was not, unlike architecture and religious practice, used as a marker of historical, social or political affiliation.

shores of the Black Sea around, or even before, the middle of the 7th century BC probably did not come from Miletos but originated rather in the North Ionian area.9 The amount of early imports of East Greek pottery that can be dated to the period around 650-610 BC (SiA Ib-c), i.e. roughly the first generation of the settlements’ existence is still very

Milesian Ktiseis in the Black Sea Area

The earliest Greek imports into the Black Sea area are the North Ionian bird-kotylai found at the indigenous sites of Nemirov and Trachtemirov, see Kerschner 2006a, 237-239. For a discussion of the date of these cups, see alsoTseskhladze 2007, 44; 2012, 329. 9

According to the available, though scarce, archaeological evidence, the first Greeks who found their way onto the

2

Søren Handberg: Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters

limited. 10 In a recent re-examination of the early East Greek pottery from the Milesian apoikiai, M. Kerschner has shown that the early imports at Berezan, Orgame, Istros and Olbia are roughly contemporary and consisted of both Milesian and North Ionian pottery.11 At the same time there is evidence for trade relations with the indigenous settlements in the hinterlands, and Milesian pottery has been found at several indigenous settlements in the middle Dnieper and Dniester areas as well as in the Crimea and further east.12 Even though the identity of the carriers of this early pottery remains unknown, a Milesian presence has often been inferred on the basis of it, especially because it has been found in the supposedly earliest houses of the Greek settlers.13 The comparatively small amount of Greek pottery dating from the first generation of the Greek settlements, the evidence of trade relations with the indigenous hinterland, and the lack of evidence of extensive agricultural land use around the settlements all suggest that the early Greek settlements were of modest size and primarily functioned as Milesian emporia.14

imports coincides chronologically with the emergence of much more varied evidence for a Milesian presence on the Black Sea. From around 580 BC a transfer of Milesian cults to its apoikiai on the Black Sea began, which was to include the worship of such deities as Apollo Delphinios and Ietros, Aphrodite and Leto.17 A correlation in religious practices also seems clear from the institution of the Milesian religious body of priests of Apollo, the so-called Board of Molpoi, in Olbia perhaps as early as the end of the 6th century BC - if not earlier, and slightly later possibly also at Istros.18Around the middle of the 6th century BC, Ionic style architecture was not only imitated at Olbia and Istros, but architectural terracottas were even imported from the mother city.19 Similarly, parallels to the layout and style of temples of the Archaic period can also be found in Miletos.20 A tumulus grave at Orgame dating to the end of the 7th century BC has been interpreted as the heroon of the Milesian oikistes.21 A close connection to the Milesian oracle-sanctuary at Didyma is found in an oracular answer inscribed on a 6th century BC bone plaque found on Berezan.22 Furthermore, it is likely that an agreement of isopoliteia between Miletos and Olbia and Istros already existed before the Persian wars, which, among other privileges, included dual citizenships and exemption from taxes.23 Even the Milesian calendar was passed on to Olbia.24 Finally, we may also note that by the time Herodotus visited the Black Sea around the middle of the 5th century BC, the inhabitants of Borysthenes (Olbia) referred to themselves as Milesians and the language spoken -or at least written- in all the early Milesian apoikia in the Black Sea was in the Ionian dialect.25

From the late 7th and early 6th century BC, i.e. the second stage of Ionian colonization in the Black Sea area,15 much more South Ionian (SiA Id) pottery has been found at the Greek settlements.16 This overall increase in pottery Throughout this paper, I use the chronology proposed by M. Kerschner and U. Schlotzhauer (Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005; 2007). 11 No early Wild Goat pottery (SiA Ia, ca. 670-650 BC) has so far been found in the Black Sea area. Some pottery at Berezan can be dated to the SiA Ib-c phases (650-610 BC), see Kerschner 2006a, 230-231, fig. 3; Kopejkina 1973 (cup with everted rim). There are three Wild Goat Style oinochoai (one South Ionian and two North-Ionian), see Il’ina 2000, 201-204, fig. 1; Kerschner 2006a, 231-233 fig. 4.6; Korpusova 1987, 36-37 fig.13.4-5, fig. 14. One fragment of a South Ionian Wild Goat oinochoe has been found in Olbia, see Farmakovskij 1914, 16, pl. 1.1; Kerschner 2006a, 234-235, fig. 10. Two South Ionian and three North-Ionian jugs come from Orgame, see Kerschner 2006a, 233-234, figs. 7-9; Mănucu-Adamsţeanu 2000, 196-202 figs. 1.1-5. The earliest pottery from Istros appears to be somewhat later. There is a trefoil-mouthed oinochoe from the sanctuary that Kerschner has recently re-dated to the SiA 1d phase (610-580 BC), see Kerschner 2006a, 229 with n. 23. Less is known about the early East Greek pottery from Apollonia, but much has been reported from the recent rescue excavations in the old town of Sozopol, cf. Nedev and Giuzelev 2001 (not consulted by the author of the present article), but see also Galabov 1952; Lazarov 2006; Reho 1986. 12 For good overviews of early Greek pottery at indigenous sites, see Kerschner 2006a, Tsetskhladze 2007; 2012; Vachtina 2007. 13 Early South Ionian pottery was found in the Archaic dugout houses of the late 7th-early 6th century BC in Istros, see Dimitriu 1966, but see now also the late 7th-early 6th century BC pottery from a bothros, cf. Domaneaţu 2006. On Berezan, early pottery has been found in some of the dugout houses, see e.g. Treister and Vinogradov 1993, 539 (mentioned in Tsetskhladze 1994, 117). 14 See e.g. Jailenko 1982, 266 ff.; Vinogradov 1989, 60-62; Tsetskhladze 1994, 118 (for the small size of the population); Solovyov 1999; Petropoulos 2005; Kerschner 2006a; Dupont 2007a. For the distinction between emporion as a settlement and an institution and the lack of distinction between apoikia and emporion in the Archaic period, see Greaves 2006, 10-13; Hansen 2006, but see also Hind 1995-1996; 1997. For a good discussion of the trade vs. agricultural models of Greek colonization in the Black Sea area, see Marčenko 1999. Here it might also be worth mentioning the extraordinary find of an early 6th century BC Ionian coin hoard on Berezan, see Gilevich 2001, 133; Karyškovskij and Lapin 1979. 15 Tsetskhladze 1994, 119-120; 2009, 337. 16 Tsetskhladze 2009, 338. Hundreds of SiA Id Wild Goat Style pottery fragments have been reported from Berezan (Bujskikh 2007, 500 n. 7), but these remain largely unpublished. See however, Puklina and Bujs’kich 2010. 10

While not denying the ample evidence for a strong Milesian connection, even a Milesian presence, in the early apoikiai in the Black Sea area, it is reasonable to suppose that citizens from other Greek poleis made up part of the early citizen body. The presence of people of other ethnicity at Berezan and Istros has indeed already been proposed (e.g. Chians, Boeotians, Anatolians and Ephesians), but the Grey Ehrhardt 1988, 145-147; Greaves 2004; Herda 2008; Vinogradov 1989, 30-31; Tsetskhladze 1994, 118. See also Rusjaeva 2003a, 95-96 for further references in particular for Olbia. The earliest graffiti from the western temenos in Olbia that mention Apollo Ietros date from 580-560 BC, see Rusjaeva 2006. For the cult of Leto, which is found in Istros and probably also at Berezan, see Avram 2003. 18 The attestation of the Molpos institution on inscriptions from the Apollo Delphinios sanctuary in Miletos dates back to the second half of the 6th century BC (Milet 1.3 nos. 122-129). For the Board of Molpoi and the famous so-called Molpos degree (Milet 1.3, no. 133), see Gorman 2001, 91-101; 2002; Herda 2006. In Olbia, several dedications of the Molpoi have been found in the western temenos, see Graf 1974; Rusjaeva 1992, 193-195; 2003, 99. See now also Nikolaev 2012. 19 Zimmerman 2007. For Olbia, see also Rusjaeva 2003a, 98 with note 25. 20 Bujskikh 1996. 21 Lungu 2000-2001. 22 Rusjaeva 1986. For the interpretation as an oracular answer, see Burkert 1990; 1994. 23 The agreement is preserved in an inscription from Miletos (Milet I.3 no. 136) dated to the period 330-323 BC. The text explicitly states that the agreement is a re-affirmation of a previous agreement. For the argument that the agreement goes back to before the Persian wars, see esp. Graham 1964, 98-108, but see also Gorman 2002. 24 See Rusjaeva 2003b with further references. 25 Herodotus 4.78; Greaves 2010, 17 with note 63 for further references. 17

3

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 2. Common types of Archaic Greek reduction-fired Grey Ware in the Black Sea. From Nadlimaskoe III (krater, bowl and one-handled cup, after Ochotnikov 2006, fig. 4.3-4, 7), and from Berezan (jug, inv. no. B71.252).

Ware pottery of Aeolian tradition provides what is possibly the best concrete evidence for the presence of immigrants other than Milesians.26

which probably represent waste deposit from nearby pottery workshops that were active around the middle of the 6th century BC, included Grey Ware pottery. 30 A local production on Berezan seems furthermore to have been confirmed by analyses undertaken by the Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik in Bonn.31 Chemical analyses also suggest that the early Grey Ware from Apollonia was locally produced, a claim which is perhaps substantiated by the large amount of Archaic Grey Ware that has recently been found during rescue excavation in the old part of the modern city of Sozopol, as well as some particularities in the style.32

The Early Pontic Grey Ware Production and its Aeolian Origin From the late 7th until the middle of the 3rd century BC reduction-fired Grey Ware pottery constitutes, together with oxidized plain ware, the largest local ceramic production in most of the Greek apoikiai in the Black Sea area.27 Exact quantifications remain a fundamental problem, but in the Archaic period the group makes up approximately 10% of the total amount of pottery at Berezan and Istros, whereas at Olbia it amounts to an average of as much as 25% of some ceramic assemblages (excluding transport amphoras).28 Results of archaeometric analyses as well as the presence of wasters indicate the existence of several different production sites across the northwestern Black Sea area. On the basis of chemical analyses undertaken by the Laboratoire de Céramologie de Lyon, P. Dupont has advocated the differentiation between the Grey Ware produced at Istros, Beidaud, Orgame, and Olbia/Berezan, and several wasters of Grey Ware pottery from Olbia have been mentioned in the literature.29 Two pits from Berezan,

In the Archaic period, a limited but uniform range of shapes was produced across the northwestern and western Black Sea area from Apollonia Pontica in modern Bulgaria to Nymphaion in Eastern Crimea. In this period, production consisted predominantly of shapes associated with the symposium, such as kraters, oinochoai and other jugs, amphoras, bowls and drinking cups (Figure 2).33 The earliest known locally-produced Grey Ware pottery belongs to the late 7th-early 6th century BC. Three shapes are characteristic of this period; a lekane with grooved rim, a bowl with in-turned rim and a one-handled cup with high handle and everted rim. Fragments of all three shapes have been found in the lowest stratigraphic layer in the Archaic habitation area in Sector X in Istros together with SiA Id Wild Goat Style pottery of the late 7th-early

For immigrants from Chios on Berezan, see Boardman 2000, 250. For Anatolians, see Dupont et al. 2010. For the presence of craftsmen from Ionia on Berezan and in Istros, see Treister 1998; 2010. 27 Within the last decade, the local production of Grey Ware in the Black Sea apoikiai has attracted more scholarly attention. For Apollonia and Southern Thrace, see e.g. Božkova and Nikov 2009; Nedyalkov 2008; Nikov 1999; 2005; 2009. For Istros, see e.g. Coja 1968; Alexandrescu 1972. For Olbia and its chora, see e.g. Bujskich 2006; Karjaka 2010; Kowal 2005; 2008; Krapivina 2007; 2009. For Western Crimea, see Handberg et al. 2009; Hannestad et al. 2002; Ušakov and Strukova 2008. Specifically for Grey Ware kantharoi, see Zajceva 1971; 1984. For a discussion of the typology, chronology, and a Pontic Grey Ware koine, see Handberg 2010. See also many of the contributions in the Pontic Grey Ware proceedings of a conference dedicated to the study of Grey Ware held in Rumania in 2008. 28 Handberg 2010, 175-180. 29 For the archaeometric analyses, see Dupont 1979; 1983; 1999; 2006; 2009; Dupont and Lungu 2010; 2011; Lungu et al. 2007. For the mention of Grey Ware wasters from Olbia, see Kapošina 1956, 243; Krapivina 2009, 97. 26

As far as the author is aware, the two pits and their contents unfortunately still await publication. For preliminary discussions, see Nazarov et al. 2003; Posamentir 2010, 67,  note  9. 31 The so-called BERa provenance group, see Arslan et al. 2009; Kerschner 2006b, 151-154. 32 The archaeometric analyses were undertaken in 2004 (Nedyalkov 2008, 14 note 5), but as far as the author is aware, these results remain unpublished as does most of the pottery. K. Nikov is currently preparing a larger publication of the Grey Ware from the rescue excavations in Apollonia. For a very brief preliminary account, see Nikov 2009. 33 I am grateful to S. L. Solovyov, the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, for kindly providing me with illustrations of the unpublished jug from Berezan. 30

4

Søren Handberg: Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters

Figure 3. Examples of Grey Ware pottery of the late 7th-early 6th century BC from the Archaic habitation area in Istros. A: Lekane (digitally redrawn after Dimitriu 1966, cat. no. 483). B: Bowl with in-turned rim (digitally redrawn after Dimitriu 1966, cat. no. 484). C: One-handled cup with everted rim (digitally redrawn after Alexandrescu 1972, 117, fig. 3.3).

6th century BC (Figure 3).34 These three shapes can be considered canonical of the early Grey Ware production in the Greek settlements in the Black Sea in the sense that they were produced at several places, and possibly with the exception of the lekane, on a large scale. Already around the middle of the 6th century BC they had a wide distribution across the northwestern and western Black Sea area.35 The Grey Ware pottery is quite homogenous in its appearance, which makes it difficult to differentiate visually between the different production centers. On rare occasions, especially in the Classical period, it is possible to distinguish between different workshops on the basis of idiosyncratic traits present on a few shapes, but this remains difficult for the Archaic period. Here, it must be emphasized that throughout the production of Grey Ware a ceramic koine existed in the Greek community in the northwestern Black Sea region which by the 5th century BC spread to much of the Thracian area as well.36

the one-handled cup is known from such places as Larisa, Kyme, Troy, Assos and Daskyleion.39 None of the cups from Larisa come from well‐dated undisturbed contexts, but J. Boehlau and K. Schefold nonetheless dated them to the 6th century BC. Grey Ware bowls with in-turned rims were also very common in the greater Aeolian area and known from, for instance, Lesbos, Pitane and Larisa.40 Good parallels are also found at Antissa on Lesbos, where Grey Ware bowls with in-turned rims are found in 6th century BC context.41 Although firm chronological fix points are lacking in Larisa, Boehlau and Schefold dated these bowls (their Group IV) to the first half of the 6th century BC. It is particular interesting to note that the Grey Ware one-handled cup and the open bowl do not have counterparts among the decorated pottery of the late 7th and first half of the 6th century BC.42 Some of the bowls with in-turned rims have a very characteristic incised groove on the upper part of the lip. This is, for instance, found on one of the bowls from the earliest layers in Istros (Figure 4).43 This particular trait is important because it potentially narrows down the place of origin of the type since bowls with similar grooves have only been reported from Lesbos, although unfortunately none have so far been published.44

By now it has become clear that the origin of the Pontic Grey Ware production must be sought in the Aeolian area. This pedigree was first seriously discussed by P. Alexandrescu in 1972.37 The Grey Ware one-handled cup is well represented in the Aeolian area where the shape can be found at several sites. In Antissa on Lesbos it is known from Late Geometric and 7th century BC contexts.38 On the Aeolian mainland,

Larissa: Boehlau  and  Schefold  1942,  114-119,  figs.  43.e.g, 122123, fig. 48; Bayne 2000, 175-177, fig. 48.10. Kyme: İren 2008b, 620622, 626, cat. nos. 22-23, 634, fig. 27. Troy: Troy IV, 257, pl. 317.3. Assos: Utili 1999, 581, fig. 34.581; İren 2008b, 622, n. 120. Daskyleion: Polat 1996, 94, cat. no. 486, pl. 92 (although there published as an oinochoe, which cat. no. 489 might indeed indicate). 40 Bayne 2000, 143-144, (his shape 7). Pitane: Bayne 2000, 194 fig. 55-10.11, 197 (with a single handle). Larissa: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 117, fig. 41a. 41 Lamb 1931-1932, 54, pl. 21.2. 42 Bayne 2000, 174. 43 Dimitriu 1966, cat. no. 481, pl. 59. 44 Lungu has stated that bowls with an incised groove have been found on Lesbos, see Lungu et al. 2007, 27. In a reprinted version of the same article, Lungu says that bowls with grooved rims have also been found at Kyme, see Lungu et al. 2010, 185 n. 11. However, according to the Italian excavators at Kyme, the type is unknown at the site; pers. Comm.. Prof. M. Frasca (2010) and Dr C. Colelli (2012). For the Grey Ware from Kyme, see Lagona and Frasca 2009. Furthermore the type is also absent at Klazomenai; pers. comm. Dr B. Hürmüzlü (2010). 39

One-handled cup: Alexandrescu 1972, 117, fig. 3.3; 1978, cat. no. 736. Bowls: Dimitriu 1966, cat. nos. 479, pl. 29, 481, 484-485, pl. 59. Lekane: Dimitriu 1966, cat. no. 483. A Grey Ware bowl with in-turned rim has also been found in a contemporary pit (no. 64) on Berezan, see Čistov 2006, 64, fig. 11.20. 35 For a good overview of the distribution of the bowls with in-turned rim and the one-handled cup, see Lungu et al. 2007, 27-32. 36 For the Grey Ware koine, see Handberg 2010, 246-255; For the spread of the koine to the Thracian hinterland, see e.g. Alexandrescu 1977; Božkova and Nikov 2009. 37 Alexandrescu 1972. The same point has been repeated several times since; see Alexandrescu 1978; 1990, 58; 1999, 138-173; Lungu et al. 2007. The similarity was already noted by M. F. Lambrino in 1938 (Lambrino 1938, 365-366) and M. Coja in 1968 (Coja 1968, 325). 38 Lamb 1931/1932, 55, figs. 8.16-17. 34

5

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Harmonassa on an island in the Kimmerian Bosporus.52 The later geographers Pliny the Elder and Stephanus Byzantinus state that Miletos and Phokaia both participated in the founding of a settlement called Antheia. This settlement is possibly to be located on the modern Atiya Peninsula north of Apollonia Pontica, since Pliny says that Antheia was the first foundation of Apollonia.53

Figure 4. Grey Ware bowl with in-turned grooved rim from the Archaic habitation in Istros (digitally redrawn after Dimitriu 1966, cat. no. 481).

Early Aeolian contacts with the Black Sea apoikiai are also evident from Archaic Aeolian pottery that found its way to the Black Sea in the late 7th and early 6th century BC. Lesbian Grey Ware amphoras in fact constitute one of the largest groups of imported transport amphoras in the Black Sea in the Archaic period.54 At Orgame north of Istros, Lesbian amphoras constitute more than 40% of all the transport amphoras in the late 7th century BC.55 At Istros, the Lesbian so-called Red-Clay amphoras were also extensively imported from the late 7th century BC.56 This strongly suggests that Lesbos had close ties with the area in the late 7th century BC, which was most likely facilitated by the island’s geographical proximity to the Hellespont. On the other hand, we may note that Milesian amphoras were not extensively exported to the Black Sea region at this time.57

Fragments of Grey Ware lekanai with horizontal grooves are generally regarded as a very common Aeolian shape.45 Although the shape is found later in other places in eastern Greece, it appears to be centered around Lesbos where the shape was most prominent, and examples from Mytilene, Pyrrha, and Antissa have been published.46 On the mainland, the type is represented at Troy, and 7th century BC examples have been found in Larisa.47 Although unambiguous evidence for local ceramic production during the first generation at Berezan and Istros is still lacking, it is clear that the earliest production that we do recognize at Apollonia, Istros, Berezan and Olbia consistently followed an Aeolian ceramic tradition. This is remarkably inconsistent with the otherwise extensive ties these apoikiai had with Miletos after the turn of the 7th century BC.48 This is certainly important in terms of the consumption practices of the first and second-generation Greeks in the Black Sea, and we may re-state the remark already posed by Dupont in 2007 ‘…on aurait pu penser que les premiers arrivants aient diffusé préférentiellement la céramique de leur cite d’origine’.49

Recent chemical analyses have also identified a large group of imports from the Aeolian city of Kyme on Berezan, at Olbia and Istros, that had not previously been recognized as such.58 The most remarkable products of Kyme that were exported to the Black Sea area are the many Wild Goat Style deinoi of the ‘London Dinos Group’ of the first quarter of the 6th century BC, which appear to be very well represented on Berezan and Istros together with some other Aeolian Wild Goat pottery, most likely also

Early Aeolian Contacts with the Black Sea At this point, we may rightfully ask what evidence is there for Aeolian participation in the colonization of the Black Sea littoral in the ancient literary sources. The Mytilenaeans on Lesbos are known to have participated in the colonizing enterprise; they founded Sigeon in the Troad and Ainos at the mouth of the River Hebros on the southern coast of Thrace at the site of a pre-existing Thracian settlement in the 7th century.50 In c. 600 BC the aristocratic poet Alkaios from Mytilene wrote about Scythian footwear,51 and a generation later (c. 580-570) Semandros also from Mytilene founded

Arrian (Bith. Fr. 55, Ross = FrGrHist 156, fr. 71). Other ancient authors, however, call Hermonassa an Ionian foundation, see Avram et al. 2004, 945. There is also some evidence to suggest that the Archaeanactidae, the ruling family of the first dynasty of the Bosporan Kingdom in the 5th century BC, originated from Lesbos, see Gallotta 2005. 53 Pliny HN 4.11.45; Steph. Byz. 96.3 s. v. Antheia (Meineke 1849, 96). For a discussion of Antheia, see also Avram et al. 2004, 929 (Antheia) and 931 (Apollonia); Erhardt 1988, 62. Archaic coins, pottery and a kouros statue have been found on the Antiya Peninsula, see Hind 1983-84, 73; Isaac 1988, 240-246 for further references. 54 Although there have been reservations about the origin of this class of amphoras, it is now generally accepted that they belong to a Lesbian production. For a historiography of the Lesbian amphora, see Lawall et al. 2010, 360. On the archaeometry and typology of Lesbian Grey amphoras, see now also Dupont 2011; Lungu 2011. 55 Mănucu-Adamsţeanu 2003, 230; but see also Mănucu-Adameşteanu and Bîrzescu 2006 (not consulted by the author of the present article). 56 Bîrzescu 2005; Bîrzescu forthcoming. 57 Dupont 2007a, 35. 58 The so-called ‘Provenance Group G/g’ (Kyme?) of the Bonn laboratory and the provenance group ‘Éolide  archaïque’ of the Lyons laboratory, which Dupont ascribes to either Kyme or Larissa. For ‘Provenance Group G/g’, see e.g. Kerschner 2002, esp. 84-92; 2006b; 2006c. For the ‘Éolide  archaïque’, see Dupont 2007b. Although both laboratories agree on an Aeolian origin, disagreement on the exact place of production prevails over a group of plates, which Dupont ascribes to the ‘Éolide  Archaïque’ group (Dupont  2007b,  fig. 6). A fragment of a very similar plate is, however, ascribed to ‘Provenance Group E’ (Klazomenai) by the Bonn laboratory, see (Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, fig.  2.3). 52

Boardman 1967, 135-136, cat. nos. 463-465. Mytilene: Bayne 2000, fig. 62.7; Pyrrha: Utili 2002, fig. 15; Antissa: Lamb 1931-1932, fig. 8.25. 47 Troy: Troy IV, pl. 319.12. Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 115-117, figs. 41.b, c, e. 48 S. B. Bujskick holds the view (Bujskick 2006, 31) that the earliest Grey Ware was brought to the Black Sea by the first Milesian settlers, but the chemical analyses mentioned above do not support this view. A group of Grey Ware plates of the second half of the 6th century BC may, however, have been imported from Miletos, see Dupont and Lungu 2008. 49 Dupont 2007a, 35. 50 For Sigeon, see Herodotus 5.94.1 and Strabo 13.1.38. For Ainos, see Başaran 1996; Isaac 1988, 147-148; Spencer 1995, 300 with note 298. Strabo (7.6.1) mentions the founding of Ainos on a pre-existing Thracian settlement. 51 As recounted by Harpocration, see Campbell 1990, 365 no. 318. 45 46

6

Søren Handberg: Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters

produced in Kyme.59 Another substantial Kymean import are the contemporary so-called ‘Schwarzbunte’ polychrome jugs, which are found in both a red and a black-slipped version with applied white and red paint. These are quite numerous on Berezan and examples are also known from Istros, although there it is more difficult to evaluate their relative numerical presence.60

particular on Lesbos.64 In fact, there seems to have been no production of figure-decorated pottery on the island, even though neighboring Chios, for instance, had a substantial production in the Late 7th and 6th century BC.65 The Archaic ceramic productions in the Greek colonies in the Black Sea region exhibit a similar striking lack of figuredecorated pottery. Apart from the obvious similarities in the Grey Ware repertoire between Aeolis and the Black Sea region, the areas therefore also appear to have shared certain conservatism in their pottery traditions. Hybridization of different styles can often be observed among early colonial ceramic productions, and the lack of other influences than Aeolian in the Pontic Grey Ware is noteworthy and again illustrates a conservatism particular to the Aeolian area.66

From both literary sources and the archaeological record then, it seems clear that Aeolians, and especially the Lesbians, were actively engaged in trade with the Black Sea area at the late 7th, early 6th century BC. Even though we do not hear of any Aeolian foundations there before Harmonassa around 580-570 BC, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that citizens of Aeolis settled in the area earlier. This is furthermore suggested by the joint foundation of Antheia by Miletos and Phokaia at Apollonia Pontica.

Secondly, no Aeolian Grey Ware imports that might have served as models for the early local Pontic productions have so far been clearly identified in the Black Sea area. Some Aeolian Grey Ware imports have been identified on the basis of archaeometric analyses. There is a lid from Berezan that probably originates in Troy and a 5th century BC jug with ribbed neck from Istros of possible Lesbian origin.67 Fifteen additional Aeolian Grey Ware fragments from Berezan and Istros have also been identified on the basis of chemical analyses.68 Possible Lesbian Grey Wares have been mentioned from other sites in the northwestern Black Sea area, but we have no more information on these pieces, and they are likely to be local Pontic Grey Wares.69 Regardless of these supposed Lesbian imports, it seems clear that Aeolian reduction-fired tableware was only exported on a very limited scale.70

Aeolian Potters in the Milesian Apoikiai In light of the substantial evidence for Aeolian activity in the Black Sea region, we should perhaps not be surprised to find a local production of Aeolian-style pottery. Ceramic production in Greek overseas settlements did not always follow the ceramic tradition of their supposed mother city.61 What is surprising, however, is the consistency in the local production at several places as well as their close typological and technological similarities to the Aeolian Grey Ware pottery. The easy answer, which is the one I will argue for here, lies with the immigrant potter. This is not, however, a straightforward conclusion. In 1990, Alexandrescu already proposed that immigrant potters from Mytilene on the island of Lesbos were responsible for the introduction of Grey Ware to Istros.62 Since Pontic and Lesbian Grey Wares were not decorated, except occasionally with a dark slip and some use of incision, it is difficult to trace any particular stylistic characteristics of individual painters, which is normally a prerequisite for identifying itinerant craftsmen.63 Tracing immigrating Aeolian potters therefore must be based on more indirect evidence.

Considering the close typological and technological similarities in the Grey Ware production in the Black Sea and Aeolis as well as the evidence for close Lesbian ties In the Late Geometric period reduction-fired Grey Ware was the main local production of southern Aeolis, and at Phokaia, for instance, it constituted more than half of all the pottery in the 8th and 7th century BC, see Bayne 2000, 185 (with reference to A. Akurgal’s excavations); İren 2008b, 35. For the preponderance of Grey Ware on Lesbos in the Archaic period, see Spencer 1995, esp. 301, 303. 65 For Archaic Chian decorated pottery, see Lemos 1991. 66 This is for example seen in the combined use of East Greek and Corinthian styles at Incoronata, see Denti 2000, and the use of Cycladic, Protoattic, Protocorinthian and East Greek styles on a series of kraters from Syracuse, see most recently Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 53-56. 67 Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 195, fig. 5.27 (lid); Alexandrescu 1978, 101-102, cat. no. 661, fig. 22 (ribbed-neck jug. The jug was included in P. Dupont’s chemical group 4, see Dupont 1979, 131132 and cat. no. 262. 68 The ones from Berezan and Olbia can be identified in the dendrogram in fig. 5 in Dupont and Lungu 2008, 79. Unfortunately, it remains unknown what shapes these samples refer to. 69 S. B. Ochotnikov claims to have identified some Late Archaic or Early Classical Grey Ware imports from Lesbos at the settlement of Nadlimanskoe III (Ochotnikov 2001, 99). Unfortunately Ochotnikov did not elaborate on these Lesbian imports, so exactly which features made him award these a Lesbian origin remains uncertain. The same can be said for A. Bujskich’s (2004, 40) possible identification of Lesbian Grey Ware of the second half of the 6th century BC in Olbia and P. Dupont’s (1983, 30) mention of Lesbian Grey Ware from the temenos area in Istros. Much imported Aeolian Grey Ware among the early assemblages in Apollonia has also been mentioned, see Nedyalkov 2008, 14. 70 See Dupont 1983, 30; Dupont and Lungu 2008, 168. Some larger Lesbian Grey Ware deinoi were, however, exported to Naukratis, see Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006, 58, fig. 11-13. 64

Firstly, there was a strong Grey Ware tradition in the Geometric and Archaic periods in the Aeolian area, and in

For the ‘London Deinos Group’, see Kerschner 2006a, 146 with further references in notes 99-100; Posamentir 2006, 164; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 188-194, figs. 2-3. For other Aeolian pottery on Berezan and at Istros, see Kerschner 2006b, 141-143 figs. 11-12. 60 For the “Schwartzbunte” jugs at Berezan, see Posamentir 2006, 159; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 107; 2007, 190, 192-193, figs. 3.5-6. For Istros, see Lambrino 1938, 274, IX. The jugs are also found in Kyme and Klazomenai, see Kerschner 2006b, 123, fig. 9. 61 On the search for parallels to the metropolis in pottery studies, see Posamentir 2006, 161. 62 Alexandrescu 1990, 58. This idea seems to have been accepted by F. Utili (1999, 72). 63 See e.g. Papadopoulos 2009. 59

7

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

with the area in the late 7th century BC, it seems most likely that Aeolian potters emigrated to the early Milesian apoikiai in the Black Sea, as Alexandrescu has already proposed. Explaining the Aeolian tradition in the local Grey Ware production by reference to immigrant Aeolian potters is, however, not entirely unproblematic. On the basis of the three earliest recognizable local Grey Ware types, it is clear that the same repertoire of shapes was produced not only in one place but in several different apoikiai. Even if we credit immigrant Aeolian potters with the introduction of the Pontic Grey Wares, how are we to understand the particular simultaneous appearance and popularity of Grey Ware in the Archaic period? Surely, it would be an extraordinary coincidence if several Aeolian potters emigrated at the same time to diverse places in the Black Sea area and started a production of exactly the same types of Grey Ware pottery. It would seem more plausible that the tradition of Grey Ware production spread from one centre in the Black Sea area to other workshops, either via itinerant potters or simply through emulations. It has already been proposed that the production of Grey Ware in Istros and Apollonia spread to the chorai and the hinterland. The expansion of Apollonia’s chora has not yet been traced satisfactorily, but much of the Grey Ware found at indigenous sites in the hinterland surely originated from the Greek city, and Grey Ware wasters from Čirpan suggest a production in the Thracian hinterland in the 5th century BC.71 By far the best evidence for the spread of the production can be found in the area around Istros. A local production of Grey Ware that encompassed bowls with in-turned rims, both with and without the grooved rim, and the one-handled cup has recently been identified at the indigenous site of Beidaud c. 20 km north-west of Istros.72 The earliest Greek transport amphoras at Beidaud cluster around the middle of the 6th century BC, which coincides with the expansion of the Istrian chora. Even though it has been proposed that the Grey Ware at the site was produced by indigenous potters, we cannot exclude the possibility that a potter from Istros established a workshop there.73

Figure 5. Archaic Grey Ware one-handled cup from Bothros 3/1979 in Istros (digitally redrawn after Alexandrescu 2005, cat. no. C7).

and other Greek imported pottery is, in various quantities, always found at the sites with Grey Ware. Similarly, M. Ju. Vakhtina has proposed the existence of a pottery workshop that produced both Ionian style and Grey Ware pottery at Nemirov, where some early East Greek pottery has also been found. Depending on one’s interpretation, the possible Greek letters scratched on a pot of indigenous shape might serve as additional evidence of the presence of early Greek traders or craftsmen at Nemirov.76 Even though the presence of Greek potters at the indigenous sites remains debatable, there is a clear pattern of dissemination of Grey Ware among the indigenous communities. But how did the Grey Ware tradition spread out among the different apoikiai? Our knowledge, especially in terms of a more exact chronology, but also in terms of quantities and distribution, is still lacking in detail, but the one-handled cup could serve as an example of how the Grey Ware tradition might have spread. As mentioned above, the onehandled cup is known from Lesbos from the second half of the 7th century BC. One of the earliest known cups of this type from the Black Sea area comes from bothros 3/1979 in the temenos of Zeus in Istros (Figure 5). The assemblage from the bothros is among the earliest identified contexts in Istros and can be dated to the late 7th-early 6th century BC.77 It remains unclear, whether this cup is in fact of local production or an import. The delicate appearance (thin walls and sharp angles) sets it somewhat apart from known local examples. If this is an import, it would constitute the only known example in the entire Black Sea area of an imported Archaic Grey Ware vessel that might have served as a model for the local production. We may note the incised horizontal lines on the body and the groove at the junction between the shoulder and the rim. These characteristic features appear on another cup, which was certainly produced at Beidaud in the second half of the 6th century BC (Figure 6).78 A similar

This production in the hinterland of Istros is perhaps not exceptional. Wheel-turned Grey Ware pottery of various types, including the bowl with in-turned rim and the one-handled cup have been found at various indigenous sites in the middle Dniester and Dnieper areas such as at Dolinjany, Kruglik, Zalesje, Ivane Puste and Žabotin.74 If one takes account of the micaceous clay, the Grey Ware at Dolinjany seems to have been produced at the site, and G. I. Smirnova has argued for the immigration of Greek potters to the site.75 At Dolinjany and Kruglik the Grey Ware can be dated as early as the late 7th century BC, For the chora of Apollonia Pontica, see De Boer 2002. For the spread of Grey Ware from Apollonia to the hinterland, see Nikov 1999; 2011. For the wasters at Čirpan, see Božkova and Nikov 2009. 72 Lungu et al. 2007; Dupont and Lungu 2010. 73 Lungu et al. 2007, 42. 74 For an overview of the discussion of the early introduction of Grey Ware at indigenous sites, see Levickij and Kašuba 2009, 248. 75 Smirnova 1999, 53. 71

Vachtina 2007, 35, see also Tsetskhladze 2012, 340-341. For the indigenous pot with a graffito of possible Greek letters, see most recently Braund 2008, 360-361, figs. 1-2. 77 Alexandrescu 2005, 202, 540, cat. no. C7. 78 Lungu et al. 2007, 53 pl. 4 1, 3. 76

8

Søren Handberg: Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters

Figure 6. Grey Ware one-handled cup from Beidaud (after Lungu et al. 2007, pl. 4 1, 3).

Figure 8. Grey Ware one-handled cup from Nadlimanskoe III (after Ochotnikov 2006, fig. 4,3).

Figure 9. Grey Ware one-handled cup from Antissa on Lesbos (digitally redrawn after Lamb 1931/1932, fig. 8.16).

Figure 7. Grey Ware one-handled cup from Berezan’ (Courtesy of S. L. Solovyov, St. Hermitage Muscum, St. Petersburg).

Figure 10. Grey Ware one-handled cup from the Archaic settlement of Staraja Bogdonovka II in the chora of Olbia (digitally redrawn after Marčenko and Domanskij 1988, fig. 7.3).

9

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

cup from Berezan was, according to chemical analyses, most likely produced on Berezan (Figure 7).79

Exactly when this immigration happened is still difficult to say. On contextual grounds, it is clear that Grey Ware was being produced at Istros at the time of the SiA Id phase (c. 610-580 BC), but since the Grey Ware cannot be divided into close stylistic phases this marks only a terminus ante quem for the production, which might have started earlier. Aeolian potters may therefore have been among the first group of Greeks to settle in the Black Sea area. Whether this migration was prompted by the Lydian expansion into western Asia Minor around the middle of the 7th century BC, of course remains uncertain, but the Grey Ware constitutes the earliest recognizable local ceramic production in all of the early Milesian apoikiai in the western and northwestern Black Sea area.83 It is a wellknown fact, that the ethnic origin of those who brought the pots need not necessarily be the same as the producers or consumers, but since potters were generally conservative in their work, the presence of Aeolians in the early Milesian apoikiai seems not entirely unreasonable.84

Among the early one-handled cups, there exists another variant, which has no incised grooves but instead a characteristic horizontal moulding set at the junction between the neck and body (Figures 8-10). This is seen on a cup from Nadlimanskoe III in the Dniester estuary (Figure 8).80 The same horizontal moulding below the rim is indeed also found on a cup from Antissa on Lesbos (Figure 9).81 Chemical analyses have identified imports of one-handled cups from the Dniester area on Berezan, and fragments with similar horizontal mouldings are known from Olbia and its chora (Figure 10).82 Although no cup with a moulding from Istros has been published, we should not be surprised if examples eventually turn up there as well. Here we might have an example of how a particular type travelled from Lesbos to Istros in the Black Sea and further up to Berezan and Olbia during the period from the late 7th to around the middle of the 6th century BC. It might indeed be significant in this connection that, on the basis of the currently available evidence, the one-handled cup from Berezan and Olbia has not been found in contexts earlier than the second half of the 6th century BC whereas it is known from Istros half a century earlier.

Although much other evidence suggests close ties with Miletos, there is, on the other hand, very little evidence for Milesian potters among the immigrants into the Black Sea area during the first two generations. So far, the evidence for immigrating Milesian potters in the northwestern and western part of the Black Sea area is limited to a few fragments of Wild Goat Style oinochoai and fikellura amphoras from Istros and Berezan of presumed local Istrian production, but the evidence is far from convincing.85 Around the second quarter of the 6th century BC a local production of Wild Goat Style amphoras imitating a North Ionian or Aeolian prototype, which Kerschner has named ‘Borythenes-Amphoras’, has been identified on Berezan.86 In the early 6th century BC there appears to have been a branch of a Milesian workshop in the Hellespontine region, possibly situated at Abydos that produced close imitations of Milesian pottery. The products of this Hellespontine workshop were extensively exported to the Black Sea region, and they occur much more frequently than the local imitations of South Ionian pottery.87 The comparatively sparse evidence of immigrating Milesian potters is surprising in the light of the evidence for migrating Milesian potters elsewhere in the Mediterranean. A potter, who was most likely trained in southern Ionia, possibly Miletos, was working in Incoronata near Metaponto

The consumption of Grey Ware in the Milesian Black Sea apoikiai is highly conspicuous, but we are still some way from fully understanding the process of distribution of the Grey Ware pottery. The example of the one-handled cup I have shown here might be regarded as one attempt at reconstructing the process whereby the Grey Ware tradition became so dominant in the northwestern Black Sea area during the Archaic period. If the scenario I have suggested can be elaborated further on the basis of future contextual publications of Grey Ware, we might reach a better understanding of both the symbolic value of the Grey Ware and its introduction into the Milesian apoikiai. Ceramic Consumption in the early Milesian apoikiai Above I have argued that the production of the Pontic Grey Ware most probably emerged as a result of immigrant potters from the Aeolian area, with Lesbos as the most likely place of origin. This view can be supported by the clear typological similarities to examples from Lesbos, especially in the case of the one-handled cups with a moulding and the bowls with a grooved rim, as well as the close contact between Aeolis and the Black Sea area at the end of the 7th and early 6th century BC.

For the Lydian expansion and the emigration of Greeks, see Perron 2010, note 60 with further references. 84 For the conservatism among potters in modern Crete, see London 1991. There are many examples of itinerant potters in the ancient world. For some that have recently been discussed, see Jacobsen et al. 2009; Papadopulos 2009; Perron 2010. 85 For the local imitations in the Black Sea region, see Cook and Dupont 1998, 66-67, 89-90; Dupont 1983, 36 fig. 15; 1999, 132 note 6. For a recent discussion, see also Tseskhladze 2012, 341-343. 86 Kerschner 2006a, 136-138, 140-141. 87 The products of this workshop, which is known as the ‘HellespontWerkstätten’, belongs to the ‘Provenance Group TRO-D’ (or Troy D) of the Bonn laboratory and the provenance group ‘Ionie du Sud 3’ of the Lyons laboratory, see Dupont 2008. For the proposition that this workshop is located at Abydos, see Kerschner 2006b, 148-151; Mommsen and Kerschner 2006. For products of the Hellespontine workshop exported to the Black Sea area, see Arslan et al. 2009; Kerschner 2006b, 148-151; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 113-117; 2007, 182-183, 198-199. 83

Dupont and Lungu 2011, 97, fig. 4. Ochotnikov 2006, 87 fig. 4.3. 81 Lamb 1931/1932, fig. 8.16. 82 For imports to Berezan of one-handled cups produced in the Dniester area, see the dendrogram in Dupont and Lungu 2011, 96, fig. 1 (the Dniester A and B groups). For published examples of the one-handled cups with a horizontal moulding from the Olbian chora, see Marčenko and Domanskij 1988, fig. 7.3 (from Staraja Bogdanovka 2) and Krapivina 2009, fig. 2.6. 79 80

10

Søren Handberg: Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters

in southern Italy and the (probably Milesian) so-called ‘Swallow-Painter’ settled at Tarquinia in Etruria.88 At least some contemporary Milesian potters therefore emigrated to places in the western Mediterranean with which Miletos had less contact (comparatively little Milesian pottery has been found in the western Mediterranean), but despite the close contacts none seems to have moved to its own settlements in the northwestern Black Sea area during the first two generations. If the presence of an immigrant Ionian -or even Milesian- potter who produced close imitations of East Greek pottery around the end of the 7th century can be demonstrated at Nemirov, it would possibly underline the symbolic importance of East Greek pottery to the indigenous community in the early period of Milesian presence in the area. If the early Milesian settlements in the northwestern Black Sea area were very modest in size with small populations, it was perhaps not conducive for potters to move there.

objects among the first two or three generations. Despite a close connection to Miletos in other aspects of society and material culture, the inhabitants were apparently satisfied with using everyday pottery that departed from what they were accustomed to from their mother cities. In this connection a passage from Herodotus (4.61.1) appears significant. In describing how the Scythians prepare a sacrificial meal, Herodotus provides a specific connection to Lesbos, when he tells us that the meat is cooked in cauldrons of the land, which he describes as “λεσβίοισι κρητῆρσι προσεικέλους” (i.e. similar to Lesbian craters). Why did Herodotus compare these vessels to Lesbian ones? One answer might be that he was comparing them to well known craters from Lesbos, but it could also be that a Lesbian pedigree of the Grey Ware pottery, which was the commonest pottery of the time and that Herodotus certainly must have been acquainted with from the Greek cities, was generally acknowledged by the inhabitants.

It light of this, it would make sense if the Aeolian potters arrived during the so-called second stage of colonization in the late 7th-early 6th century BC, when the settlements witnessed a dramatic increase in population. It is possible that the first potters, or group of potters, emigrated from Lesbos to Istros and set up a workshop of reduction-fired Grey Ware there. As the example of the one-handled cup shows, it is possible that the production of Grey Ware spread from Istros to other Greek apoikiai, either via immigrant potters or by emulation during the first half of the 6th century BC. Incidentally the spread of the Grey Ware pottery seems to coincide chronologically with the period between a decrease in the importation of East Greek pottery and the increase in importation of Attic pottery around the middle of the 6th century BC, when Pontic Grey Ware started to be produced on a much larger scale.

Abbreviations FrGrHist Jacoby, F. 1957. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Erster Teil - A. Genealogie und Mythographe. Leiden, E. J. Brill. Milet I.3 Kawerau, G. and Rehm, A. 1914. Das Delphinion in Milet. Bd. 1, Heft 3. Berlin, G. Reimer. Pontic Grey Ware Bozuanu V., Dupont, P. and Lungu, V. (eds.). Pontic Grey Wares. International Conference. Bucarest-Constantza, September 30th - October 3rd 2008. (Pontica 42, Supplementum I). Constantza, Museum of National History and Archaeology. SiA South Ionian Archaic Troy IV Blegen, C.W., Caskey, J. L. and Rawson, M. 19321938. Troy: Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1932-1938 (Troy I-IV). Princeton, Princeton University Press.

The fact that the Grey Ware pottery tradition became very dominant during the Archaic and later periods has implications for our understanding of the consumption practices in the Milesian apoikiai on the Black Sea. Apart from the possible Ionian potter at Nemirov, the subsequent Ionian potters who emigrated to the Black Sea region did not do so until after the Pontic Grey Ware had become well-established in the local production, and at any rate they seem to have soon abandoned the production of figure-decorated pottery, perhaps because the local demand for pottery was already satisfied by the large amount of imported pottery at this time.89

List of Bibliography Alexandrescu, P. 1972. Un groupe de céramique fabriquée à Istros. Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne 16, 113-131. Alexandrescu, P. 1977. Les modèles grecs de la céramique thrace tournée. Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne 21, 113-137. Alexandrescu, P. (ed.) 1978. Histria IV. La céramique d’époque archaique et classique. Bucarest, Academieri Republicii Socialiste România. Alexandrescu, P. 1990. Histria in archaischer Zeit. In P. Alexandrescu and W. Schuller (eds.), Histria. Eine Griechenstadt an der rumänischen Schwarzmeerküste, 47-111. Konstanz, Universitätsverlag Konstanz. Alexandrescu, P. 1999. L’Aigle et le Dauphin. Etudes d’archeologie pontique. Bucarest-Paris Alexandrescu, P. (ed.) 2005. Histria VII. Les résultats des fouilles. La zone sacrée d’époque Grecque (fouilles 1915-1989). Bucarest, Editura Academiei Române. Diffusion de Boccard.

This picture suggests that even though there is considerable evidence for close political ties with their mother city, it played little or no role in the inhabitants’ choice of everyday For the so-called ‘Swallow-Painter’, a Milesian potter working in Etruria, see Giuliano 2000 (with bibliography). For an Ionian potter, probably also of Milesian origin, at Incoronata in Southern Italy, see Denti 2000; 2001. 89 That the imported fine wares fully satisfied the local demand in the Black Sea apoikai around the late 7th-early 6th century BC is perhaps suggested by the fact that in contrast to later periods imported pottery was not repaired at this time, see Guldager Bilde and Handberg 2012, 467. 88

11

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Anderson, G. 2005. Before Turannoi were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History. Classical Antiquity 24, 173–222. Arslan, N., Bîrzescu, J., Karagöz, Ş., Mommsen, H. and Posamentir, R. 2009. Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaisch ionischer Keramik III: Funde aus den Hellespontstädten, Histria, Olbia und Istanbul. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 59, 35-50. Avram, A. 2003. An Istrian Dedication to Leto. In P. Guldager Bilde and J. Munk Højte (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas. Studies Presented to A. N. Sceglov on the Occasion of His 7th Birthday. (Black Sea Studies 1), 87-91. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2004. The Black Sea Area. In M. Herman Hansen and T. Heine Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, 924-973.Oxford University Press. Başaran, S. 1996. Ainos Kazilari (1971-1994). Anadolu Araştirmalari 14, 93-103. Bayne, N. 2000. The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia in the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age and their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements. Asia Minor Studien, 37. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bilabel, F. 1920. Die Ionische Koloniation. Untersuchungen über dei Gründungen der Ionier, dern Staatliche und Kultliche Organisation und Beziehungen zu den Mutterstädten. Philologus, Supplementum XIV, Heft I. Leipzig, Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung M. B. H. Bîrzescu, I. 2005. Die Handelsamphoren der ‘Lesbos Rot’-Serie in Istros. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 120, 45-69. Bîrzescu, I. forthcoming. Transport amphorae from the second half of the 7th to the early 6th century BC in Histria. Patabas III. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Constanza, 6-10 Octobre 2009. Boardman, J. 1967. Excavations in Chios, 1952-1955: Greek Emporio. London, British School of Archaeology at Athens. Thames and Hudson. Boardman, J. 2000. The Greeks overseas. The Early Colonies and Trade. (4th ed.). London, Thames and Hudson. Boehlau, J. and Schefold, K. 1942. Larisa am Hermos. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1902-1934. III. Die Kleinfunde. Berlin, W. de Gruyter. Božkova, A. and Nikov, K. 2009. La céramique monochrome en Thrace et ses prototypes anatoliens. Problèmes de chronologie. In P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds.), Les Productions Céramiques du Pont-Euxin à L’Epoque Grecque. Il Mar Nero 2004-2006, 47-55. Rome-Paris. Braund, D. 2008. Scythian Laughter: Conversations in the Northern Black Sea Region in the 5th Century BC. In P. Guldager Bilde and J. Hjarl Petersen (eds.), Meetings of Culture - Between Conflicts and Coexistence (Black Sea Studies 8), 347-368. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Bujskikh, A. V. 1996. L’architecture religieuse des villes greeques du littoral Nord-Pontique aux Vie-Ve siècles av n. è. In O. Lordkipanidza, and P. Lèvêque (eds.), Religions du Pont-Euxin. Actes du VIIIe symposium de Vani (Cholchide), 53-60. Besançon - Paris. Bujskich A.V. 2004. O keramičeskich kompleksach VI v. Do. N.E Ol’vii. Bosporskie čtenija V. Bospor Kimmeriiskij i barbarskii mir v period antičnosti i sredneveko’ja Etničeskie processy. Kerch, 36-42. Bujskich, A.V. 2007. The Earliest East Greek Pottery from Olbia Pontica. In J. Cobet, V. Von Graeve, W. D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı 26. September - 1. Oktober 1999, 499-510. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philpp von Zabern. Bujskich, S. B. 2006. Seraja keramika kak etnolokazatel’ Grečeskogo naselenija nižnego pobuž’ja v VI-I vv. do. N. E. Bosporskie issledovanija 11, 29-57. Burkert, W. 1990. Apollon Didim I Ol’vija. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 1990: 2, 155-160. Burkert, W. 1994. Olbia and Apollo of Didyma. A New Oracle Text. In J. Solomon (ed.), Apollo Origins and Influences, 49-60. Tucson-London, The University of Arizona Press. Campbell, D. A. 1990. Greek Lyric I. Sapho and Alcaeus. Loeb Classical Library 142. Harvard, Harvard University Press. Čistov, D. E. 2006. Raboty na ostrove Berezan archeologičeskom ekspedicii gosudarstvennogo. In Ja. V. Domanskij, Ju. V. Zuev, Ju. I. Il’ina, K. K. Marčenko and D. E. Čistov (eds.), Materialy Berezanskoj (nižnebugskoj antičnoj archaeologičeskoj ekspedicii). Tom. I, 57-112. St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum. Coja, M. 1968. La céramique grise d’Histria à l’Epoque Grecque. Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne 12, 305-329. Cook, R. M. and Dupont, P. 1998. East Greek Pottery. London-New York, Routledge. De Angelis, F. 2008. Ancient Greek Colonization in the 21st Century: Some Suggested Directions. Bollettino di Archaeologia on line (Roma 2008 - International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Meetings Between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean). De Boer, J. 2002. Apollonia Pontica and its Emporia, Ports of Trade. In M. Faudot, A. Frayesse, and E. Geny (eds.), Pont-Euxin et commerce. La genese de la 2route de soie. Actes du Ixe symposium de Vani 1999, 125-138. Besançon, Paris. Denti, M. 2000. Nuovi documenti di ceramica orientalizzante della Grecia d’Occidente. Stato della questione e prospettive della ricerca. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome: antiquité 112 (2000:2), 781-842. Denti, M. 2001. Linguaggio figurativo e identità culturale nelle più antiche comunità Greche della Siritide e del Metapotino. In L. M. Castelnuovo (ed.), Identità e Prassi Storica nel Mediterraneo Greco, 33-61. Milano, Edizioni ET.

12

Søren Handberg: Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters

Denoyelle, M. and Iozzo, M. 2009. La Céramique Grecque d’Italie Méridionale et de Sicile. Productions coloniales et apparentées du VIIIe au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Paris, Éditions A. et J. Picard. Dimitriu, S. 1966. Cartierul de locuinţe din zona de vest a cetăţii, in epoca arhaică. Săpături 1955-1960. In E. Condurachi (ed.), Histria II - Monografie arheologică, vol. II. Bucarest, 19-132. Domaneaţu, C. 2006. Două Complexe Arheologice din Epoca Arhaică Redescoperite la Histria. Pontica 39, 75-93. Dupont, P. 1979. Recherches de laboratoire sur les céramiques Gréco-Romaines. Essai de différenciation des productions locales, In  M. Coja and P. Dupont (eds.), Histria V –Ateliers Céramiques, 64‐165. Bucarest ‐ Paris. Dupont, P. 1983. Classification et détermination de provenance des céramiques grecques orientales archaïques d’Istros. Rapport préliminaire. Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne 27, 19-43. Dupont, P. 1999. Mise au point sur les céramiques locales d’Istros. In Villanueva M. C. Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard and A. Rouveret (eds.), Céramique et peinture Grecques. Modes d’emploi. Actes du colloque international École du Louvre 26-28 avril 1995, 129-135. Paris, Documentation française. Dupont, P. 2006. Les ceramiques locales d’Orgamé: Approche archeometrique. In M. Mǎnucu- Adamşteanu (ed.), Orgame/Argamum, supplementa 1. A la Richerche d’une colonie. Actes du collogue international. 40 ans de recherché archéologique à Orgamé/Argamum. Bucarest Tulcea - Jurilovca 3-5 octobre 2005, 141-147. Bucarest, Editions AGIR. Dupont, P. 2007a. Le Pont-Euxin archaïque: lac milésien ou lac nord-ionien? Un point de vue de céramologue. In A. Bresson, A. Ivantchik and J.-L. Ferray (eds.), Une Koiné Pontique. Cités Grecques, Sociétés Indigènes et Empirres Mondiaux sur le Littoral Nord de la Mer Noire (VIIe s. a.C. – IIIe s. p.C., 37-49. Bordeaux, De Boccard. Dupont, P. 2007b. Le vide phocéen vu d’Histria e de Bérézan. Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne 51, 177-183. Dupont, P. 2009. Recherches de laboratoire sur les productions céramiques du pont Ouest et Nord-Ouest état de la question. In P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds.), Les Productions Céramiques du Pont-Euxin à L’Epoque Grecque. (Il Mar Nero 2004/2006), 59-66. Rome - Paris. Dupont, P. 2011. Données archéométriques préliminaires sur les amphores du type de Lesbos. In Ch. Tzochev, T. Stoyanov and A. Bozkova (eds.), Patabs II. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Acts of the International Round Table held in Kiten, Nessebar and Sredetz, September 26-30, 2007, 171-178. Sofia, St. Kliment Ohridski University Press / National Institute of Archaeology and Museum (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences). Dupont, P. and Lungu, V. 2008. Plats Milesiens a couvert noire de Mer Noire. Anatolia Antiqua 16, 77-88.

Dupont, P. and Lungu, V. 2010. Beidaud. Un cas d’acculturation potière dans l’hinterland gète? In H. Tréziny (ed.), Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la mer Noire. Actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses³ (2006-2008), 493-498. Éditions Errance Centre Camille Julian. Dupont, P. and Lungu, V. 2011. Characterization of the Bug and Dnieper Limans workshop. Preliminary laboratory results and comparative typological studies. In E. Papuci-Władyka, M. Vickers, J. Bodzek and D. Braund (eds.), Pontika 2008. Recent research on the northern and eastern Black Sea in ancient times. Proceedings of the International Conference, 21st - 26th April 2008, Kraków, 95-108. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Dupont, P., Lungu, V. and Solovyov, S. L. 2010. Céramiques Anatoliennes du Pont-Euxin Archaïque. In P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds.), Synergia Pontica & aegeo-anatolica, 109-125. Pax Aura Mundi. Erhardt, N. 1988. Milet und seine Kolonien. Vergleichende Untersuchung der Kultischen und Politischen Einrictungen. Fankfurt am Main - Bern - New York Paris, Verlag Peter Lang. Farmakovskij 1914. Archaičeskij period na juge Rosii. Petrograd. Galabov, I. 1952. Apolonijski prinosi. Izvestija na archeologičeskija institut. Balgarska akademija na naukite 18, 93-118. Gallotta, S. 2005. I rapporti tra l’Eolide e la regione del Mar Nero. In A. Mele, M. L. Napolitano, and A.Visconti (eds.), Eoli ed Eolide. Tra Madrepatria e Colonie, 297305. Naples, Luciano Editore. Gilevich, A. M. 2001. Coins from the Excavations on Berezan Island, 1962-1991. In J. Boardman, S. L. Solovyov and G. R. Tsetskhladze (eds.), North Pontic Antiquities in the State Hermitage Museum, 127-154. Colloquia Pontica 7. Leiden, Brill. Giuliano, A. 2000. Ancora sul ‘pittore delle Rondini’. In I. Berlingo, H. Blanck, F. Cordano, P.G. Guzzo and M. Costanza Lentini (eds.), Damarato. Studi di antichitá classica offerto a Paola Pelagatti, 126-129. Milano, Electra. Gorman, V. B. 2001. Miletos, the Ornament of Ionia: A History of the City to 400 BCE. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press. Gorman, V. B. 2002. Milesian Decrees of Isopoliteia and the Refoundation of the City, ca. 479 BCE. In V. B. Gorman and E. Robinson (eds.), Oikistes: Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the Ancient World. Offered in Hounour of A. J. Graham, 181-193. Leiden-Boston-Köln, Brill. Graf, F. 1974. Das Kollegium der Molpoi von Olbia. Museum Helveticum 31(1974) Heft 3, 209-215. Graham, A. J. 1964. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Greaves, A. M. 2004. The Cult of Aphrodite in Miletos and Its Colonies. Anatolian Studies 54, 27-33. Greaves, A. M. 2006. Milesians in the Black Sea: Trade, Settlement and Religion. In V. Gabrielsen, and J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and

13

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6), 9-22. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Greaves, A. M. 2010. The Land of Ionia. Society and Economy in the Archaic Period. Wiley-Blackwell. Guldager Bilde, P. and Handberg, S. 2012. Ancient Repairs on Pottery from Olbia Pontica. American Journal of Archaeology 116.3, 461-481. Handberg, S. 2010. Greek Pontic Grey Wares. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Aarhus Univeristy. Handberg, S., Stolba, V. F. and Ušakov, S. V. 2009. Classical and Hellenistic Grey Ware from the Western Crimea. In V. Bozuanu, P. Dupont and V. Lungu, (eds.), Pontic Grey Wares, 167-185. Hannestad, L., Stolba, V. F. and Blinkenberg Hastrup, H. 2002. Black-Glazed, Red-Figure, and Grey Ware Pottery, In L. Hannestad, V. F. Stolba and A. N. Sceglov (eds.), Panskoye I. The Monumental Building U6, 127149. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Hansen, M. H. 2006. Emporion. A Study of the Use and Meaning of the Term in the Archaic and Classical Periods. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, Vol. 1, 1-40. Leiden-Boston, Bril. Herda, A. 2006. Der Apollon-Delphinios-Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma. Ein neuer Kommentar der sog. Molpoi-Satzung. Deutsches Archäologiches Institut, Milesische Forschungen 4. Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Herda, A. 2008. Apollon Delphinios - Apollon Didymeus: Zwei Gesichter eines milesischen Gottes und ihr Bezug zur Kolonisation Milets in archaischer Zeit. In R. Bol, U. Höckmann and P. Schollmeyer (eds.), Kult(ur)kontakte Apollon in Milet/Didyma, Histria, Myus,Naukratis und auf Zypern Akten des Table Ronde in Mainz vom 11.–12. März 2004, 13-75. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Rahden/ Westf. Hind, J. G. F., 1983-84. Greek and barbarian peoples on the shores of the Black Sea. Archaeological Reports (London) 30, 71-97. Hind, J. 1995-1996. Traders and ports-of-trade (emporoi and emporia) in the Black Sea in Antiquity. In P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds), Les Productions Céramiques du Pont-Euxin à L’Epoque Grecque. Il Mar Nero 2004/2006, 113-126. Rome-Paris. Hind, J. 1997. Colonies and Ports-of-Trade on the Northern Shores of the Black Sea: Borysthenes, Kremnoi and ‘other’ Pontic Emporia in Herodotus, In T. Heine Nielsen (ed.). Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, 107116. Historia Einzelscriften 117. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag. Il’ina, Ju. I. 2000. O novych nochodkach vostočnoGrečesko keramiki na ostrove Berezan. In Ju. B. Zuev (ed.). SYSSITIA. Pamjati Jupija Viktoroviča Andreea, 201-209. St. Petersburg. Jacobsen, J. K., Handberg, S. and Mittica, G. P. 2009. An Early Euboean Pottery Workshop in the Sibaritide. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 2008-2009 (n. s.) 15-16, 80-96.

İren, K. 2008a. Dark Age Pottery From Southern Aeolis. In D. Brandherm and M. Trachsel (eds.), A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology. (British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1871), 29-43. Oxford, BAR Publishing. İren, K. 2008b. The Necropolis of Kyme Unveiled: Some Observations on the New Finds, In İ. Delemen, S. Çokay-Kerçe, A. Özdizbay and Ö. Turak (eds.), Armağan Kitaplar Dizisi: 1. EUERGETES. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu zum 65. Geburtstag, 613638. Antalya. Isaac, B. 1998. The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society volume X. Leiden, Brill. Kapošina, S. I. 1956. Iz Istorii Grečeskoj Kolonizacii Nižnego Pobuž’ja, In V. F. Gajdukevič (ed.), Ol’vija i Nižnee Pobuž’e v Antičnuju Epochu (MIA 50), 211-254. Moskow. Karjaka, A. V. 2010. G Greyware pottery. In N. A. Lejpunskaja, P. Guldager Bilde, J. Munk Højte, V. K. Krapivina and S.Kryžickij (eds.), The Lower City of Olbia (Sector NGS) in the 6th Century BC to the 4th Century AD (Black Sea Studies 14), 289-222. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Karyškovskij, P. O. and Lapin, V. V. 1979. Denežnoveščevoj klad epochi grečeskoj kolonizacii. najdennyj na Berezani v 1975 g. In O. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Problemy grečeskoj kolonizacii Severnogo i Vostočnogo Pričernomor’ja. Materialy I Vsesojuznogo simpoziuma po drevnej istorii Pričernomor’ja. Cchaltubo - 1977, 105. Tbilisi. Kerschner, M. 2002. Die nichtlokalisierten chemischen Gruppen B/C, E, F, G und ihr Aussagewert für die spätgeometrische und archaische Keramik des nördlichen Ioniens und der Äolis. In M. Akurgal, M. Kerschner, H. Mommsen, W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Töpferzentern der Ostägäis. Archeometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien. Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes, Heft 3, 72-92. Wien, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Kerschner, M. 2006a. Zum Beginn und zu den Phasen der griechisen Kolonisation am Schwarzen Meer. Eurasia Antiqua 12, 227-250. Kerschner, M. 2006b. Zur Herkunftbestimmung archaischer ostgriechischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan im Akademischen Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn und im Robertinum der Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 56, 129-156. Kerschner, M. 2006c. On the Provenance of Aeolian Pottery. In A. Villing, and U. Schlotzhauer (eds.), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt – Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, 109-126. London, British Museum. Kerschner, M. and Schlotzhauer, U. 2005. A new classification system for East Greek pottery. Ancient West and East 4, 1-56. 14

Søren Handberg: Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters

Kerschner, M. and Schlotzhauer, U. 2007. Ein neues Klassifikationssystem der ostgriechischen Keramik, In J. Cobet, V. Von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı 26. September - 1. Oktober 1999, 295-317. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philpp von Zabern. Kopejkina, L.V. 1973. Samyj rannij obrazec raspisnoj drevnegrečeskoj keramiki iz raskopok na ostrove Berezan. Sovetskaja Archeologia 2, 240-244. Korpusova, V. N. 1987. Vostočnogrečeskaja raspisnaja keramik. In S. D. Kryžickij (ed.), Naselenija Ol’vii i ee okrugi v archaičeskoe vremja, 35-53. Kiev. Kowal, A. 2005. The Greek Grey Ware Fish-Plates from the Black Sea Region. Studia i Prace (Études et Travaux) 20, 87-93. Kowal, A. 2008. Grey Ware from the Koshary Site. In E. Papuci-Władyka, W. Machowski, Z. Robak and A. Ochał (eds.), Between Olbia and Odessa. Archaeological research of the Greek settlement at Koshary on the Black Sea (1998-2008). Catalogue of the Photography Exhibition at the Jagiellonian University Museum, Collegium Maius, April 21, 2008 – May 31, 2008, 7594. Krákow. Krapivina, V. V. 2007. Siroglinjana keramika Ol’vii VI-V st. do. n. e. Archeologia Kiev 2007, 98-106. Krapivina, V. V. 2009. Local Grey Ceramics of the 6th5th Centuries BC. In P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds), Les Productions Céramiques du Pont-Euxin à L’Epoque Grecque. Il Mar Nero 2004-2006, 97-117. Rome-Paris. Lagona, S. and Frasca, M. 2009. Le ceramica griga a Kyme e in Eolide. In V. Bozuanu, P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds.), Pontic Grey Wares, 285-304. Lamb, W. 1931-1932. Antissa. Annual of the British School at Athens 32 (1931-1932), 41-67. Lambrino, M. F. 1938. Les Vases Archaïques d’Histria. Bucharest. Lawall, M. L., Lejpunskaja, N. A., Diatroptov, P. D. and Samojlova, T. L. 2010. L Transport amphoras. In N. A. Lejpunskaja, P. Guldager Bilde, J. Munk Højte, V. K. Krapivina and S. Kryžickij (eds.), The Lower City of Olbia (Sector NGS) in the 6th Century BC to the 4th Century AD (Black Sea Studies 14), 355-405. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Lazarov, M. 2006. The Penetration of Ancient Greek Painted Ceramics into the Tracian Coast of the Pontos Euxeinos, In S. Conrad, R. Einicke, A.E. Furtwängler, H. Löhr and A. Slawisch (eds.), Pontos Euxeinos. Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Antiken Scwarzmeer- und Balkanraumes. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 10, 57-67. Langenweißbach, Beier and Beran. Lemos, A. A. 1991. Archaic Pottery of Chios: The Decorated Styles. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 30. Oxford. Levitki, O and Kashuba, M. 2009. Early Grey Wheel-Made Ware from East-Carpathian Region (on the basis of finds from Trincea-Izvorul Luca settlement. In V. Bozuanu, P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds.), Pontic Grey Wares, 93-118.

London, G. A. 1991. Ethnoarchaeological Evidence of Variation in Cypriot Ceramics and its implications for Taxonomy of Ancient Pottery. In J. A. Barlow and B. Kling (eds.). Reading the Prehistoric Record. Pennsylvania, 221-236. Lungu, V. 2000-2001. La tombe d’un ηρως et l’organisation de la nécropole d’une cité milésienne du Pont Euxin. Le tumulus T-A 95 d’Orgamé. Talanta 32-33 (2000-2001), 171-188. Lungu, V. 2011. Données typologiques préliminaires sur les amphores à pâte grise de Mytilene. In Ch. Tzochev, T. Stoyanov, A. Bozkova (eds.), Patabs II. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. Acts of the International Round Table held in Kiten, Nessebar and Sredetz, September 26-30, 2007, 179-189. Sofia, St. Kliment Ohridski University Press / National Institute of Archaeology and Museum (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences). Lungu, V., Dupont, P. and Simion, G. 2007. Une officine de céramique tournèe de type grece en milieu gète? Le cas de Beidaud. Eirene 43, 25‐57.  Lungu, V., Dupont, P. and Simion, G. 2010. Une officine de céramique tournèe de type grece en milieu gète? Le cas de Beidaud. In P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds.). Synergia Pontica & ategeo-anatolica, 181-226. Pax Aura Mundi. Malkin, I. 2011. A Small Greek World. Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Mănucu-Adameşteanu, M. 2000. Céramique archaïque d’Orgamé. In A. Avram and M. Babec (eds.), Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques périphériques. Hommage à Petre Alexandrescu à son 70e anniversaire, 195-204. Bucharest. Mănucu-Adameşteanu, M. 2003. Analyse quantitative des céramiques archaiques importées d’Orgamé, In B. Schmaltz and M. Söldner (eds.), Griechische Keramik im Kulturellen Kontext. Akten des Internationalen VasenSymposions in Kiel vom 24.-28.9.2001. Veranstaltet durch das Archäologische Institut der ChristianAlbrechts-Universität zu Kiel, 229-231. Münster. Mănucu-Adameşteanu, M. and Bîrzescu, I. 2006. Amphores commerciales archaïque d’Istros et d’Orgamè. Une approche quantitative. In M. Mănucu-Adameşteanu (ed.), Orgamè / Argamum. Suppl. I: À la recherche d’une colonie, 151-170. Bucarest, AGIR. Marčenko, K. K. and Domanskij, Ja. V. 1988. Kompleks vešestvennyx nachodok na antičnom poselenii Staraja Bogdanovka 2. Archeologičeskij Sbornik 24, 56-72. Marčenko, K. K. 1999. Osnovye aspekty i rezul’taty izučenija Greko-Varvarskick kontaktov i vzaimodejstvij v Severnom pričernomor’e skifskoj epochi. Stratum Plus 1999:3, 333–353. Meineke, A. 1849. Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae Supersunt. Berlin, Greimer. Mommsen, H. and Kerschner, M. 2006. Chemical Provenance Determination of Pottery: The Example of the Aiolian Pottery Group G. In A. Villing and U. Schlotzhauer (eds.), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in

15

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

the Eastern Mediterranean, 105-108. London, British Museum. Morgan, C. 1989. Divination and Society at Delphi and Didyma. Hermathena 147, 17-42. Nazarov, V. V., Pan’kov, S. V. and Nazarova, T. A. 2003. Raskopki na ostrove Berezan v 2002 g. Archeologični vidkryttja v Ukraini 2001-2002 rr., 203−204. Nedev, D. and Gyuzelev, M. 2001. Archaic Painted Pottery from Apollonia Pontica (According the Latest Data from the Archaeological Excavations in the Old Town of Sozopol). In Second International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities: local populations of the Black Sea littoral and their relations with Greek, Roman and Byzantine World and Near Eastern civilizations: abstracts. Ankara, Bilkent University. Nedyalkov, K. 2008. Local Pottery from Apollonia Pontica 6th-5th century BC. Archaeologia Bulgarica 12:1, 1-28. Nikolaev, M. I. 2012. Prosopografija y rannich epigrafičnich pam’jatkach Ol’vii. Tileja 58.3, 203-209. Nikov, K. 1999. ‛Aeolian’ Bucchero in Thrace. Archaeologia Bulgarica 1999:2, 31-42. Nikov, K. 2005. Za edna grupa sibi s’dove ot Jugoiztočha B’lgarija. K’m v’prosa za pojavata na sivite amfori v Trakija (kr. VII‐VI b. Pr. X.). In T. Stoyanov and L. Ognenova-Marinova (eds.), Heros-Hephaistos. Studia in Honorem Liubae Ognenova-Marinova, 331-347. Veliko Tarnovo. Nikov, K. 2009. Archaic Grey Pottery from Apollonia (Late 7th-6th Century BC). Occurrence, Origin and Distribution in Thrace (abstract). In V. Bozuanu, P. Dupont and V. Lungu (eds.), Pontic Grey Wares, 245246.  Nikov, K. 2011. The Meaning of the Regionalism in the Early Iron Age Pottery Decoration in South Thrace. In V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov and Hr. Popov (eds.), Interdisziplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Beiträge des Humboldt-Kollegs zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkaninsel, 19-22 November, 2009, 209-227. Sofia, Nice AN. Ochotnikov, S. B. 2006. The Chorai of the Ancient Cities in the Lower Dniester Area (6th Century BC-3rd Century AD). In. P. Guldager Bilde and V. F. Stolba (eds.), Surveying the Greek Chora. The Black Sea in a Comparative Perspective (Black Sea Studies 4), 81-98. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Osborne, R. 1998. Early Greek Colonization? The Nature of Greek Settlements in the West. In N. Fisher and H. Van Wees (eds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence. London, Duckworth Swansea, 251-270. Papadopoulos, J. K. 2009. The Relocation of Potters and the Dissemination of Styles: Athens, Corinth, Ambrakia, and the Agrinion Group. In J. H. Oakley and O. Palagia (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters. Vol. II, 232-240. Oxbow Books: Oxford-Oakville. Perron, M. 2010. Koinè ionisante ou mobilité artisanale? Regard sur les influences de la Grèce orientale en Macédoine aux VIe et Ve siècles av. J.-C. In P. Rouillard (ed.), Portraits de migrants, portraits de colons II, Actes du 6e colloque international de la Maison René-

Ginouvès, Colloques de la MAE 6, 13-50. Paris, De Boccard. Petropoulos, E. K. 2005. Hellenic Colonization in Euxeinos Pontos. Penetration, Early Establishment and the Problem of the ‛Emporion’ Revisited. British Archaeological Reports. International Series, 1394. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Polat, Y. 1996. Daskyleion ele geçen gri tek renkli seramiklerin form kataloğu. Unpublished Master Thesis, Izmir. Posamentir, R. 2006. The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story? In A. Villing and U. Schlotzhauer (eds.), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, 159-167. London, British Museum. Posamentir, R. 2010. Archaic Greek Culture: The Archaic Ionian Pottery from Berezan. In S. L. Solovyov (ed.), Archaic Greek Culture: History, Archaeology, Art and Museology. Proceedings of the International RoundTable Conference June 2005, St. Petersburg, Russia. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 2010, 66-74.Oxford, BAR Publishing. Posamentir, R. and Solovyov, S. L. 2006. Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan in der Ermitage von St. Petersburg. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 56, 103-128. Posamentir, R. and Solovyov, S. L. 2007. Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan in der Ermitage von St. Petersburg II. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 57, 179-207. Puklina, O. O. and Bujs’kich, A. V. 2010. Keramika z rozkopok Berezani u zbirci našional’nogo muzeju istorii Ukraini. Archaeologia Kiev 2010.4, 70-78. Reho, Μ. 1986. ‘Ceramica di tipo greco-orientale ad Apollonia’. Thracia Pontica 3 (1985), 216-217. Rubinstein, L. 2004. Aiolis and South-Western Mysia. In M. Herman Hansen and T. Heine Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, 1033-1107. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Rusjaeva, A. S. 1986. Milet - Didimi - Borisfen - Ol’vija. Problemy kolonizacii Nižnego Pobuž’ja. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 1986:2, 25-64. Rusjaeve, A. S. 1992. Religija i Kul’ty antičnoj Ol’vii. Kiev. Rusjaeva, A. S. 2003a. The Main Development of the Western Temenos of Olbia in the Pontos. In P. Guldager Bilde, J. Munk Højte and V. F. Stolba (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas. Studies Presented to A. N. Sceglov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Black Sea Studies 1, 93-116. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Rusjaeva, A. S. 2003b. Kalendar’ Ol’vii Pontijskoj: Istorija i Metodika Issledovanija. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 2003.2, 112-117. Rusjaeva A. S. 2006. Epigrafičeskie pamjatniki. In Ajbabin, A. I. et al. (eds.), Drevnejšij Temenos Ol’vii Pontijskoj.

16

Søren Handberg: Milesian Ktiseis and Aeolian Potters

Materialy po Archeologii, Istorii i Etnografii Tavrii, Supplementum 2, 117-135. Simferopol. Schlotzhauer, U. and Villing, A. 2006. East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research, In A. Villing, and U. Schlotzhauer (eds.), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, 53-68.London, British Museum Press. Smirnova, G. I. 1999. Ešče raz o seroj kružal’noj keramike iz ranneskifsckich pamjatnikov crednego podnestrov’ja. Archeologičeskij Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža 34, 44-57. Solovyov, S. L. 1999. Ancient Berezan: The Architecture, History and Culture of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea. Leiden, Boston, Köln, Brill. Spencer, N. 1995. Early Lesbos between East and West: a ‛Grey Area’ of Aegean Archaeology. Annual of the British School at Athens 90, 269-306. Treister, M. 1998. Ionia and the North Pontic Area. Archaic Metalworking: Tradition and Innovation. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, 179200. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Treister, M. 2010. Archaic Bronzes. Greece - Asia Minor - North Pontic Area. In S. L. Solovyov (ed.), Archaic Greek Culture: History, Archaeology, Art and Museology. Proceedings of the International RoundTable Conference, June 2005, St-Petersburg, Russia. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 2061, 109-120. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Treister, M. J. and Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1993. Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea. American Journal of Archaeology 97(3), 521-563. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1994. Greek Penetration of the Black Sea. In G. R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, 111-135. Oxford,Oxford University School of Archaeology. Tsetzkladze, G. R. 1998. Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models and Native Populations. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historia Einzelschriften 121, 9-68. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2002. Ionians Abroad. In G. R. Tsetskhladze and A. M. Snodgrass (eds.), Greek Settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. British Archaeological Reports. International series 1062, 81-96. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Tsetskladze, G. R. 2007. Pots and Pandemonium. The Earliest East Greek Pottery from North Pontic Native Settlements. Pontica 40, 37-70. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2009. The Black Sea. In K. A. Raaflaub and H. Van Wees (eds.), A Companion to Archaic Greece, 330-346. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Wiley-Blackwell. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2012. Pots versus People: Further Considerations of the Earliest Examples of East Greek Pottery in Native Settlements of the Northern Pontus. In Hermary, A. and Tsetskhladze, G. R. (eds.), From the Pillars of Hercules to the Footsteps of the Argonauts.

Colloquia Antiqua 4, 315-374. Peeters. Leuven - Paris - Walpole, MA. Ušakov, S. V. and Strukova, E. V. 2007. Seroglinjanaja keramika s černym pokrytiem iz rakopok XCVII kvartala Chersonesa Tavričeskogo, In Meždunarodnye otnošenija v bassejne Černogo Morja v drevnosti i srednie veka: Sbornik materialov XII Meždunarodnoj naučnoj konferencii, 45‐47. Rostov on Don. Utili F. 1999. Die archaische Nekropole von Assos. Asia Minor Studien, 31. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Utili F. 2002. Graue Keramik aus Pyrrha auf Lesbos im Archäologischen Institut Göttingen. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2002:1, 135-159. Vachtina, M. Ju. 2007. Greek Orientalising Pottery from Barbarian Sites of the Forrest-steppe Zone of the Northern Black Sea Coastal Region. In V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6), 23-38. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Vinogradov, Ju. G. 1989. Političeskaja Istoria Olvijskogo Polisa. Moscow, NAUKA. Jajlenko, V. P. 1982. Grečeskaja kolonizacija VII-III vekov do n.e. Moskow. Zajceva, K.I. 1971. Ol’binjskij seroglinjanyj Kanfar. Soobščenija Gosudarstvenogo Ordena Lenina Ermitaža 23, 88-90. Zajceva, K.I. 1984. Ol’bijskie Kubki i Kanfary VI‐IV vv. do. n.e. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ordena Lenina Ermitaža 24, 110-124. Zimmermann, K. 2007. Frühe Dachterrakotten aus Milet und dem Pontosgebiet. In J. Cobet, V. Von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı 26. September - 1. Oktober 1999, 631-636. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philpp von Zabern. Discussion Sujatha Chandrasekaran: You were talking about imitations of Milesian pottery and that there have been very few examples of this kind found. Could you maybe say just a little more on the imitations in general and how strong the trade with other Milesian settlements was at the time? I ask because, if there was strong trade and strong imports of Milesian wares in the first place, then why could it be necessary to imitate locally? Do you have any thoughts on that? Søren Handberg: In my opinion, the evidence for imitations of Ionian or specifically Milesian pottery is very meagre. Chemical analysis of one cup in a Fikellura Style from Istros seems to suggest a local manufacture and some unpublished Milesian and Fikellura style pottery from Olbia have been discussed. G. R. Tsetskhladze has also recently pointed out that he has seen some fragments in a South Ionian style from indigenous sites that do not seem to be of Milesian clay, so the possibility that Milesian potters were working at indigenous sites exists, something that M. Vachtina has previously proposed. I have myself been looking at the

17

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

relationship between the local pontic production of grey ware and imports of East Greek fine wares, and it seems that, although the production of grey ware pottery started earlier, its production increased around the time when the import of Fikellura and North Ionian Wild Goat style pottery ceased, so there is some kind of relationship there. My impression is that the demand for finely decorated pottery was satisfied by imports of East Greek pottery in the late 7th and early 6th c. BC; afterwards the Attic imports take over. What is, however, very surprising is the fact that imports are not imitated in the local grey ware production to any great extent. If we compare this to the Greek colonies in Magna Graecia for instance, we see that they always imitated imported pottery; first Corinthian pottery, then Black Figure pottery, and finally Red Figure pottery. This is not the case with the Black Sea colonies.

because we are also talking about multi-ethnic cities. At the same time, I strongly believe that it is possible, sometimes, to acknowledge ethnically or culturally determined usage of pottery in an instrumental way. There are some case, such as at the necropoleis at Pichvnari in Georgia and at SirisPolieion in Southern Italy, where we find local handmade pottery in some graves and Greek pottery in others. So in some cases it does seem possible to identify a relationship between cultural identity and pottery. In my paper, I emphasized the question: Why didn’t any potters from South Ionia immigrate to the Black Sea apoikiai before the mid 6th BC, and that relates to your second question: There certainly seems to have been a demand for finely decorated East Greek pottery at the time and we know from chemical analysis that there was a local workshop in the Troad, probably at Abydos, which produced a lot of pottery in a Milesian style that was exported to the Black Sea. So, why did Milesian potters not settle at Berezan much earlier? If Berezan was an emporion, as some have suggested, and pottery was distributed from there to other sites in the area, it would be an obvious place to settle in and produce pottery.

Anca Dan: I have two questions concerning the relationship between the archaeological material and the historical constructions. 1. What do you think about the connection between ceramics and ethnicity in general? When we speak of ‘Aeolian’, we refer to a Greek dialect and to an ethnos in the wider sense of the ancient Greek term (as a community sharing common linguistic features in a particular region). Speaking about ‘Aeolian ceramics’ could be seen as a relict of 19th-century or earlier 20th-century studies. Would you agree to change the designation of your material and to use not an ethnic but a geographical term, namely to speak about ceramics which are better attested or whose models come from ‘NW Anatolia’ or from ‘sites belonging to the historical Aeolis’? 2. How do you deal with the relationship between fine ceramics and identities? Can these very beautiful vases you have shown tell us something about the identity of the persons who transported or used them?

Adela Sobotkova: My question is what is the context of the consumption of these different types of pottery and how it relates to the different types of messages that the consumers of this pottery wanted to sent out to the community. Søren Handberg: This is a very interesting question and at the core of what I wanted to convey with my paper. The problem with this issue is that information on many archaeological contexts in the Black Sea has not been published in sufficient detail for this kind of enquiry. Regarding this question, it would be obvious to look at the spatial distribution of the pottery. In general, grey ware pottery, of all types, appear in sanctuary contexts, in necropoleis, and in habitation areas, so it was probably in use everywhere. What is important then is the question of the relative amounts in different contexts, but for this we really need more specific publication of the material, including catalogues and reliable quantifications. However, regarding the consumption and value of grey ware pottery, it is clear that whereas in the archaic and classical periods, imported Attic pottery was extensively repaired, we almost never find repairs on the locally produced grey ware pottery. Whether this is because they were less valued or because they were more easily accessible, or whether we have just two sides of the same coin, I am not sure. But there is a difference in this respect.

Søren Handberg: The relationship between ceramics and ethnicity is certainly a polemic one, and ceramics and ethnicity cannot automatically be directly related, because we have no idea who transported the pottery to the Black Sea area; we cannot even know if the ones who used pottery on Lesvos, for instance, considered themselves to be Aeolians. So in principal we should be very careful in relating these. However, it is also a matter of what we are looking for. Even if we could identify the ethnic origin of a potter or the carriers of pottery, this does not really bring us much further in itself. I think your suggestion is a good one,

18

The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad: Some Geographical, Philological and Historical Remarks Manolis Manoledakis Abstract: One of the most important questions concerning the history of the Greek colonisation in the Black Sea area that has not yet been answered with any surety is that of the chronology of the earliest colonies. Scholars are mainly divided into two groups: those who believe that the colonisation began in the 8th century BC, based mostly on the written sources, and those who speak for the 7th century, based mostly on the archaeological finds, although a lot of regions round the Black Sea remain unexcavated. The ‘Iliad’ is one of the texts that have often been used in the debate, since it is supposed to be one of the earliest Greek written sources. In its verses 2.851-2.857, several names of places and peoples of the southern Black Sea are mentioned. But from when are these verses dated and to what conclusions can they lead us? The paper examines these specific verses in terms of the geographical and historical data they can offer, bearing in mind the philological discussion in their regard. Keywords:Black Sea, Iliad, Trojan Catalogue, Paphlagonians, Halizones, Cytoron, Sesamus, Cromna, Colonisation, Homer.

Introduction: The Homeric passage referring to the Southern Black Sea1

period’, ‘adaptation period’, and the like.5 Unfortunately, discussion on the matter and hence the possibility of drawing solid conclusions is further impeded by the lack, for a variety of reasons,6 of excavation work on the south coast of the Black Sea.

In the history of Greek colonisation on the Black Sea, one of the most important questions for which research has not yet been able to furnish a solid and commonly accepted answer is, of course, that of the date of the first colonies. The different views that have been expressed on the matter may in general lines be grouped into two basic theories, with some minor internal variations: one theory holds that the first Greek colonies on the Black Sea were founded in the 8th century BC,2 and the other that they date from the 7th c.3 While the latter view is based on the absence of archaeological finds earlier than the 7th century BC that could demonstrate the existence of Greek colonies in the Black Sea region, the evidence of ancient Greek literature tends to point towards the first. For this reason, the debate is often described as a conflict between historians and archaeologists.4

The object of this paper is not to support a particular position regarding the chronological commencement of Greek colonisation; that and the question of the earliest Greek contacts with the Black Sea are matters that I am dealing with extensively elsewhere7. Here, rather, we shall be looking at one of the ancient texts that provides information on the subject, and in fact the oldest of these, in order to see what conclusions might be drawn from that source. The passage in question is from the Trojan Catalogue in the Iliad, and specifically lines 851-857 of Book Two of that epic. The Trojan Catalogue (2.816-877), which follows the Achaean Catalogue (2.494-760) enumerating the Greek forces in the Trojan War, lists the armies of the Trojans and their allies, stating in each case where the contingent came from and under whose command.

It should be noted that almost all researchers - from both camps - accept that the establishment of Greek colonies on the Black Sea coasts was preceded by a period of Greek reconnaissance of the region. The problem here is that there is no agreement as to when this period started or how long it lasted, nor even, apparently, as to its precise character, in which last regard the literature typically uses vague terms such as ‘pre-colonial’, ‘proto-colonial’, ‘reconnaissance

Interestingly, and there could be a variety of reasons for this,8 the Trojan catalogue is significantly shorter and less detailed than the Achaean. The passage in question reads as follows: Παφλαγόνων δ᾽ἡγεῖτο Πυλαιμένεος λάσιον κῆρ ἐξ Ἐνετῶν, ὅθεν ἡμιόνων γένος ἀγροτεράων, οἵ ῥα Κύτωρον ἔχον καὶ Σήσαμον ἀμφενέμοντο

I am extremely grateful to Professors Antonios Rengakos and Christos Tzitzilis, for their substantial assistance with questions of classical philology and linguistics respectively that arose in this study. 2 E.g. Drews 1976, 18-31; Graham 1958, 25-42; 1971, 35 ff.; 1989, 52-54; 1994, 4-5; Graham 1982, 123. 3 E.g. Cook 1946, 67-98; Boardman 1991, 387-390; 1999, 245-267. 4 For more on this difference of opinion between historians and archaeologists see more recently Tsetskhladze 1994, 111; 2009, 232; 2012, 335. 1

See e.g. Graham 1958, 25-42; 1989, 45-60; Petropoulos 2005a, passim; Petropoulos 2005b, 217; Summerer 2007, 29, 35; 2008, 264. 6 For a detailed analysis, see more recently Tsetskhladze 2007, 176-180. 7 See soon in M. Manoledakis, in: The Black Sea in Ancient Times (forthcoming). 8 See e.g. Simpson, Lazenby 1970, 176 ff.; Kirk 1985, 248-250, 262263. 5

19

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 1. Map of the Black Sea with the names mentioned in the Trojan Catalogue (Iliad), and also Heraclea, Tieion, Sinope, Cape Karambis and the four rivers of the examined region (created by the author).

obvious, since the Iliad is one of the oldest extant Greek texts and its citing of specific names therefore probably the earliest we have for them,9 with corollary implications for their dates and by extension for the date of the beginning of Greek colonisation.

ἀμφί τε Παρθένιον ποταμὸν κλυτὰ δώματ᾽ ἔναιον, Κρῶμνάν τ᾽Αἰγιαλόν τε καὶ ὑψηλοὺς Ἐρυθίνους. 855 Αὐτὰρ Ἁλιζώνων Ὀδίος καὶ Ἐπίστροφος ἦρχον τηλόθεν ἐξ Ἀλύβης, ὅθεν ἀργύρου ἐστὶ γενέθλη. And the Paphlagonians Pylaimeneos of the stout heart led from Enetoi, from where is the race of wild shemules, These held Cytoron and dwelt around Sesamus and had their famed dwellings around the river Parthenius and Cromna and Aegialos and lofty Erythinoi. 855 Besides, Odius and Epistrophus were leaders of the Halizones from far off, from Alybe, where is the birthplace of silver.

It is not, therefore, by chance that this passage has been used by scholars, for example Graham10 and Drews,11 to support the view that the first Greek colonies were founded in the 8th century BC. This, of course, assumes that the Iliad dates from that century, as was widely accepted in their day. But was the Iliad in fact composed in the 8th century? And if it was, does the Trojan Catalogue belong to its original core or is it, as has frequently been argued, a later addition? But let us take things in order. What do we learn from this passage? First of all, that the Paphlagonians took part in the Trojan War as allies of the Trojans. They were led by Pylaimeneos, who came ‘from the lands of the Enetoi’, known, according to this

These lines tell of the armies of the Paphlagonians and Halizones, who were allies of the Trojans, and our interest in the passage lies in the reference to specific personal, tribal and place-names from the south shore of the Black Sea, such as for example the Greek city of Cytoron, which is mentioned in other sources. The significance of this is

The question of the dating of the Iliad is discussed later in the text. Graham 1958, 35. 11 Drews 1976, 20-22. 9

10

20

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

(Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.566: by vowel shift (ο to α) Πυλομένης became Πυλαμένης, which by addition of ι became Πυλαιμένης), while elsewhere he says that after their commander’s death, the Paphlagonian troops made their way to the Veneto (Eustath. Dion. Per. 378; Strab. 12.3.8,25. Cf. Liv. 1.1.2). According to Pliny (Ν.Η. 6.5), it was Pylaimeneos who gave Paphlagonia its name, which was called Pylaemenia. This hero, according to the lines of the Iliad under consideration, came from ‘the Enetoi’, which was also the native territory of the race of wild mules. Apollodorus (Epit. 3.34-35) says that Pylaimeneos was the son of Bilsates. Some scholars think that this is a misspelling of a more familiar name, perhaps Bisaltes17 or Biasates18, or and more probably that it is a Paphlagonian name akin to the Paphlagonian ‘Biasa’ mentioned, according to Strabo (12.3.25), by Maiandrius.

passage, as the place from which the wild mules come. The Paphlagonians held Cytoron, Cromna, Aegialos and ‘lofty’ Erythinoi, and lived in the country around Sesamus, in places bathed by the river Parthenius. Also fighting alongside the Trojans, under their captains Odius and Epistrophus, were the Halizones, who came from a faraway place, Alybe, which was the source of silver. What we have here, then, are the names of two peoples (Paphlagonians, Halizones) and three commanders (Pylaimeneos, Odius, Epistrophus), one doubtful name (‘Enetoi’, see infra) and seven place-names, of which one is a river (Parthenius) and one a region (Alybe), while three are certainly cities (Cytoron, Sesamus, Cromna) and the last two describe natural landscape features but may also be names of towns (Aegialos, Erythinoi12). Let us see, then, what we know about each of these names from the other written sources we have.

As regards ‘the Enetoi’, things are not particularly clear. It appears from the passage we are looking at that they were a tribe - the most noble, according to Strabo (12.3.8) - of the Paphlagonians (cf. Plin. N.H. 6.5), whose territory was known as the breeding place of the wild and unruly half-ass, a cross between the donkey and the horse (Schol. Hom. Il. 2.852). Zenodotus, however, who in the 3rd century BC produced the first critical edition of Homer, emended ἐξ Ἐνετῶν to ἐξ Ἐνετῆς, identifying it as a city and specifically as Amisus, which Hecataeus describes as belonging to the ‘White Syrians’ (FGH 1a.1.F199). Zenodotus’ emendation is recorded by Strabo (12.3.8), who however appears not to agree with it, accounting for the disappearance of the Enetoi from Paphlagonia by their having been driven out to the Adriatic Sea (cf. Strab. 5.1.4). Strabo also notes that some people knew of a town called Enete on the coast, ten schoinoi from Amastris.19

Examining the Southern Black Sea names cited in the Trojan Catalogue The Paphlagonians are perhaps the only people mentioned in the passage about whom a fair amount is known (at least compared to the other names we are considering) from information contained in the sources.13 We know that their leader, stout-hearted Pylaimeneos (cf. Tzetz. Prooim. Alleg. Il. 822), was killed in the tenth year of the war by Menelaus (Hom. Il. 5.576-579. Cf. Hyg. Fab. 113; Tzetz. Alleg. Il. 5.81-82; Il. Lat. 519) or, according to other sources, by Achilles (Dictys 3.514) or Patroclus (Cornel. Nep. Dat. 2.2), and that he is said to have been buried in the Troad.15 Pylaimeneos, however, reappears later in the Iliad (Il. 13.643-659), weeping with the Paphlagonians over his son Harpalion, who had been killed by Meriones. Aristophanes rejected this passage as non-authentic, while Aristarchus held that it should either be rejected or taken as referring to another man with the same name (Schol. Hom. Il. 13.658-659), which seems improbable since it is clear from the text that the person concerned was the king of the Paphlagonians. Zenodotus tried to solve the problem by correcting the name in the second instance to Kylaimenes (Schol. Il. 13.643); this is equally unconvincing, for the same reason, as is the explanation that one was the king of the Paphlagonians and the other their captain. The problem was taken up by later scholars,16 but none of the interpretations proposed can be proved to be correct.

As regards the ‘wild mules’ of the Enetoi, Stephanus of Byzantium calls them ‘Ἐνετίδες ἵπποι’ (Ethn., s.v. Ἐνετοί) and Euripides ‘Ἐνεταί’ (Hippol. 231, 1131). Eustathius (Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.567-568) provides more information on these ‘Enetian horses’, giving a complete account of everything that had been said about them up to his day. He tells us that the she-asses of this species were ideal for farm work, but thinks that the reference to them in Euripides is an anachronism, arguing that these animals were unknown to the Greeks of the poet’s day, having been introduced into Greece after the 85th Olympiad when Leo of Lacedaemonia won the race with a team of these horses. As for Homer’s description of them as ‘ἀγροτεράων’, Eustathius interprets this not as meaning that they were wild, but as a reference to their habit of living in large, nomadic herds, while adding that some interpret the term as meaning ‘hard to domesticate’ while others translate it as ‘useful in the fields’.

Eustathius presents the name Πυλαιμένεος as a periphrastic type of the name Πυλαιμένης, and explains its derivation

There is a difficulty with Eustathius’ remarks about the supposed anachronism in Euripides, since we know that

For more on this question see infra. For the Paphlagonians and Paphlagonia see, indicatively, Ch. Marek, NP 9, 282-283, s.v. Paphlagonia; Tsetskhladze 2007, 193, with bibliography in notes 72 and 73. 14 Cf. the epigram from Laurion: V. Bérard, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 12 (1888), 246-248. 15 A. Stein, RE 23.2, 2106-2107, s.v. Pylaimenes. 16 For the references see O. Höfer, ML III.2, 3324, s.v. Pylaimenes and A. Stein, RE XXIII.2, 2106-2107, s.v. Pylaimenes. 12 13

Wagner 1891, 416. Höfer, op. cit, 3323. 19 Eustathius calls this town Ενετός: Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.567-568. See also the use of the name by Apol. Arg. 2.358. 17 18

21

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Leo won the chariot race in the 89th games (424 BC), not the 85th (440 BC). Anyway, both games took place during Euripides’ lifetime (480-406) and if there was indeed another Leo who participated in the 85th games, then the Hippolytus (428 BC) was written after them and in this case Eustathius was not correct in identifying the anachronism.

its name from Cytorus, the son of Phrixus (Ael. Herod.; Steph.; Eustath.), a tradition that Strabo (12.3.10) attributes to Ephorus. Other points worth noting are Strabo’s statement (12.3.10) that Cytoron was once an emporion of the Sinopeans23, and the information, supplied by Eustathius (Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.569), that the city had retained its ancient name up to his day (12th century), as had Cromna and the river Parthenius. The site of ancient Cytoron is now occupied by present-day Kidros at the bay Gideros24, obvious phonetic echoes of the ancient name.

The next place mentioned is Cytoron (Κύτωρον) (Hom. Il. 2.853; Schol. Hom. Il. 2.853; Apol. Arg. 2.942; Schol. Apol. Arg. 196.2; Strab. 12.3.5, 10; Marc. Menipp. Per. 9; Val. Flacc. Arg. 5.105; Arr. Per. 14; Anon. Per. 17; Ptol. 5.1.7, 9; Hesych. Lex. 4750, s.v.; Con. Porph. De them. 7; Ephr. Chron. 7532-7537), also known in the sources as Κύτωρος (Plin. Ν.Η. 6.5; Pomp. Mel. 1.104; Steph. Byz. Ethn. 399, s.v. Κύτωρος; Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.568-569; Etym. Magn. 541, s.v. Κρωβίαλος), Κύτωρις (Ps.-Scyl., Per. 90) or Κυτωρίς (Suid. Lex. 2170-2171, s.v. Κυτωρίς) and Κύτωρα (Theophr. Hist. Plant. 3.15.5). Aelius Herodianus (De pros. cath. 3.1.200) and Theognostus (Can. 791) cite two names, Κύτωρος and Κύτωρον, the former also attesting the variant Κύδωρος. According to Pseudo-Zonaras (Lex. s.v. Κύτωρις), there was a river called Κύτωρις, while Pliny (Ν.Η. 6.5) mentions a mountain named Cytorus. The ethnic appellative occurs in several variants in Greek, as Κυτωριεύς, Κυτωριάς, Κυτωρίται, Κυτώριος, Κυτωρία (Steph. Byz., op. cit.; Eustath., op. cit.),20 and appears in Latin as Cytorius (Catullus, 4.11).

Cytoron, it must be made clear, has nothing to do with Cotyora. The misunderstanding over their confusion by Strabo that we find in recent literature on the subject25 is something I have not been able to explain. It stems from Strabo’s reference to Cotyora as Cotyorus (12.3.17) and may have been reinforced by the statement in Suidas (s.v. Κοτύωρα) that the Sinopean colony of Cotyora was known to many at that time (10th century) as Cytora. In reality, however, there is no such confusion. In the Oxford and Teubner editions which I have seen, the cities are properly named as Cotyora (12.3.17) and Cytoron (12.3.10). The erroneous reading of Cytorus for Cotyora may perhaps appear in some edition used by other authors, but the error cannot be ascribed to Strabo. As for the information in Suidas that in the 10th century many people called Cotyora Cytora, this may simply be an error on the part of the lexicographer, since Eustathius two centuries later tells us that the city was still known by its ancient name, or a confusion on the part of his informant.26

In all the sources it is clear that this was a coastal city. The three Periploi that give distances place it between Cromna (90 stadia distant according to Arrian and Menippus, 90 stadia and 12 miles according to Anonymous) and Aegialos (60 stadia according to Arrian and Menippus, 60 stadia and 8 miles according to Anonymous), while Pseudo-Scylax places it between Sesamus and Carambis. Ptolemy gives its geographical co-ordinates as N 43° 35΄ and E 60° 45΄.21 Cytoron is described as a Greek city by Pseudo-Scylax and Suidas and as Paphlagonian by Aelius Herodianus, Stephanus of Byzantium, Hesychius, Eustathius, Etymologicum Magnum, the Scholiast of the Iliad and the Scholiast of Argonautica,22 while Strabo (12.3.5) states that it was held by the Enetoi.

The next place mentioned in the Trojan Catalogue is Sesamus. Pseudo-Scylax (Per. 90) says that it was a Greek city situated between the river Parthenius and Cytoron (proceeding from west to east). This position is confirmed by Apollonius of Rhodes (Arg. 2.941), who lists the places along this stretch of the coast in the following order (from west to east): Parthenius, Sesamus, Erythinoi, Crobialus, Cromna, Cytoron. The Scholiast of the Argonautica (195) notes that the city is near the mouth of the river Parthenius. Aelius Herodianus (De pros. cath. 3.1.381-382, s.v. Σήσαμον) and Eustathius (Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.570) report the tradition that Sesamus was built by Phineus. Another scholion on Argonautica 2.941-942 could imply a Carian foundation, although an Ionian foundation is supposed to be more probable27. According to Strabo (12.3.5), Sesamus was one of the four cities from which Amastris was formed,

According to Menippus and Arrian the city had a harbour for ships (σάλος). Apollonius of Rhodes describes it as a wooded place, while many authors mention the fine quality boxwood that grew abundantly in the area, which gave rise to the phrase for anyone engaged in a pointless activity that they were ‘carrying boxwood to Cytoron’ (Theophr.; Strabo; Paus. Att. onom. syn. γ8.2; Eustath., Etym. Magn.), as useless as ‘carrying owls to Athens’ or ‘fish to the Hellespont’. The city is traditionally said to have taken

For Strabo’s association of Cytoron with the founding of Amastris, see infra. Some scholars have proposed a Doric foundation of Cytoron (see in Ehrhardt 1988, 54-55). 24 Between the modern towns of Cide and Kurucaşile. Cf. also Counillon 2004, 126. 25 Ε.g. Avram et al., 2004, 959; Erciyas 2007, 1196; Tsetskhladze 2009, 233 n. 30. 26 Cotyora, a colony of Sinope in the territory of the Tibarenians, for which Xenophon is the chief reference (Anab. 5.5.3-11) and which is identified with present-day Ordu, will not be discussed here (see in this regard W. Ruge, RE XI.2, 1549, s.v. Kotyora; Avram et al. 2004, 959; Erciyas 2007, 1196), since that place-name does not occur in the Iliad. 27 On the issue see Ehrhardt 1988, 53; Counillon 2004, 126. 23

Avram et al., 2004, 959 are thus incorrect in their assertion that the city-ethnic is not attested in Greek. 21 For more on the question of the interpretation and reliability of Ptolemy’s co-ordinates, see the next chapter. 22 This may be no more than an apparent contradiction, if one descriptor is ethnic and the other geographical. See more on this matter in the similar case of the city of Choirades on the same part of the Black Sea coast, in Manoledakis 2010a, 137-140. 20

22

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

and was known as its acropolis. The - Greek, according to Pseudo-Scylax (Per. 90) - city of Sesamus is later mentioned as a city of Paphlagonia by Aelius Herodianus (op. cit.) and Hesychius (Lex. 534.1, s.v. Σήσαμος).28

Etym. Magn. s.v. Κρωβίαλος). The ethnic appellatives are Κρωμνίτης, Κρωμναῖος and Κρωμναιεύς or Κρωμνιεύς (Steph., op. cit.; Eustath., op. cit.). Stephanus of Byzantium is the only writer to add that in his day (6th century) the city was called Amastris and that according to others Cromna was a village on the outskirts of Amastris. We will discuss the participation of Cromna in the formation of Amastris in a later section, but for the moment we must note that Stephanus of Byzantium’s identification of the two cities as one is incorrect, as we shall see. Eustathius (op. cit.) in the 12th century mentions Stephanus’ opinion, but adds that in his own day Cromna still retained its old name, as did Cytoron. This of itself proves that these were two separate cities, and therefore the second version offered by Stephanus of Byzantium is more likely: 6th century Cromna may have seemed like a village compared to the nearby Amastris. The coins stamped with Cromna’s name all date from the 4th century BC.32 Modern opinion places the city on the site of present-day Kurucaşile33 or the neighbouring village of Tekkeönü.34 Cromna could, if it wished, join the pact agreed between Sinope and Heraclea in 353/2-346/5 BC, as could Sesamus (see supra, under Sesamus); we do not, however, know whether either of the two cities did so.

An inscription of 353/2-346/5 BC from Sinope29 mentions a defensive alliance between Sinope and Heraclea concluded by Satyrus and the sons of Clearchus, each city agreeing to help the other in certain cases of external aggression, a pact which was open to Sesamus and Cromna if these cities wished to adhere to it.30 Next in order comes the river Parthenius (cf. Hes. Theog. 344; Val. Flacc. Arg. 5.103. Today Bartin River), which is said by Arrian (Per. 13-14) to lie between Tieium (120 stadia distant) and Amastris (90 stadia), by Anonymous (Per. 13) to be 150 stadia from Tieium and 90 from Amastris, and by Menippus (Per. 9) to be 130 stadia from Tieium and 90 from Amastris. According to Strabo (12.3.5,8,10), the Parthenius rose in the interior of Paphlagonia and, in the coastal area at least, was the boundary between that land and the territory of the Kaukones. To the west of it lay Tieium, which belonged to the Kaukones, and to the east Amastris. Strabo says that the river owes its name to the flowers that grow in abundance in the country through which it flows, while according to another tradition it was given that name, perhaps by Callisthenes, because Artemis liked to bathe in its calm waters after hunting, before returning to her celestial abode (Apol. Arg. 2.936-939; Schol. Apol. Arg. 195; Schol. Hom. Il. 2.854; Ps.-Skymn. Per. 969-971; Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.570).

After Cromna comes Aegialos. This was both a stretch of coastline and a settlement, and while it is mentioned in many sources it is often unclear which of the two is meant. Describing the journey of the Argonauts, Apollonius (Arg. 2.944-945) says that after Cromna and Cytoron they passed the headland of Carambis at sunrise and immediately afterwards passed the Great Aegialos (Πουλύν Αἰγιαλόν), rowing all day and all night before they reached Sinope. This obviously refers to the coastline, which Strabo tells us (12.3.10) was a line of seacoast, in length more than one hundred stadia, while on it was a small town of the same name, which was mentioned by Homer. The Apollonius Scholiast says (196) that this stretch of coastline runs for a distance of 900 stadia, from Cape Carambis to Sinope.

It is worth noting that Parthenius, according to Hesiod (Theog. 344), was the son of Oceanus and Tethys, like many other personifications of rivers, and that he was depicted on Amastrian coins of the Roman era;31 another epic tradition (Schol. Apol. Rhod. 141, 145) describes him as the son of Phineus, the founder of Sesamus, which lay near the mouth of the river Parthenius, and Cleopatra.

The difference between 100 and 900 stadia is, of course, enormous, but that is not the only contradiction in the accounts given by the sources: while Apollonius clearly indicates that Aegialos lay to the east of Carambis, as his Scholiast specifies, Strabo says exactly the opposite, placing the promontory after the stretch of coastline and Sinope farther east still. The same order is given by both Arrian (Per. 14, who calls it Αἰγιαλοί, cf. Lucian. Alex. 57) and Anonymous (Per. 17), although these authors are referring to the settlement (Anonymous calls it a village) and not the seacoast, since they give precise distances from other places. Menippus (Per. 9) places Aegialos between Cytoron and Carambis. In any case, there can be no doubt that the settlement stood on the line of seacoast for which it was named, and therefore the sequence of places is essentially the same, the difference being in the relative distances given in each Periplus: while all three agree that Cytoron

The next line of our passage mentions the city of Cromna, which is also cited by Apollonius (Arg. 2.942) and Valerius Flaccus (Val. Flacc. Arg. 5.105; see also Plin. Ν.Η. 6.5; 9.176; Pomp. Mel. 1.104; Geogr. Rav. 96.17: Grognas). According to Arrian and Anonymous, it lay between Erythinoi (60 stadia, 90 stadia and 12 miles respectively; Erythinoi is discussed in more detail later) and Cytoron (90 stadia, 90 stadia and 12 miles respectively; Menippus gives the same distances), while Ptolemy (5.1.7) gives its co-ordinates as N 43° 35΄ and E 60° 35΄. Lycophron (Alex. 522) mentions the king of Cromna, Prophantus, while all the other sources describe it as a city of Paphlagonia (Schol. Apol. Arg. 196.1; Hesych. and Steph. Ethn. 388, s.v. Κρῶμνα; Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.569-570; For more on coins of the 4th century BC from Sesamus, see Avram et al. 2004, 960. 29 French 2004, I. Sinope 1. 30 For more on this pact, see Avram et al. 2004, 957. Cf. Tsetskhladze 2009, 238-239. 31 R. Hanslik, RE XVIII.2, 1891, s.v. Parthenios 1. 28

W. Ruge, RE XI.2, 1974, s.v. Kromna; Aram et al. 2004, 959. W. Ruge, RE XI.2, 1974, s.v. Kromna; Aram et al. 2004, 959. 34 Stückelberger and Grasshoff 2006, 483. 32 33

23

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

of place-names (Sesamus, Erythinoi, Cromna, Cytoron, Aegialos), albeit not in the same order.

was 60 stadia (plus 8 miles, in Anonymous’ account) from Aegialos, for the distance from Aegialos to Cape Carambis Arrian gives 60 stadia, Menippus 210 and Anonymous more than 230.

It is significant that all the other extant sources that mention Crobialus (Ael. Herod. De pros. cath. 3.1.159, s.v. Κρωβίαλος; Steph. Ethn. 387-388, s.v. Κρωβίαλος; Schol. Apol. Arg. 2.942; Val. Flacc. Arg. and Schol. 5.102; Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.570; Etym. Magn. s.v. Κρωβίαλος) describe it as a city of Pontus or Paphlagonia, citing as their authority either Apollonius or Strabo, who speaks of ‘some writers’. That means that the oldest of the texts available to us today that mentions the city is that of Apollonius. Strabo might, therefore, have been referring to Apollonius as the source of this textual emendation; but this seems unlikely, since Apollonius does not substitute C[r]obialus for Aegialos, but mentions both together. This is another question to which we shall return.

What is certain is that the same name designates both a long stretch of seacoast, which according to some writers was the natural extension of Pontus westwards, past the Carambis headland, into Paphlagonia (Ael. Herod. De pros. cath. 3.1.160. Cf. Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.570), and a small settlement at some point on that coast. Which does the Trojan Catalogue refer to? Strabo clearly states that the Aegialos mentioned by Homer is the village, and we would accept this without hesitation were it not that the Scholiast of the Iliad (2.855) affirms the opposite, namely that Homer meant the whole seacoast of Paphlagonia. We do not know how good a geographer of Paphlagonia the Scholiast of the Iliad was, or how good Strabo was at interpreting Homer (although he liked to quote from and comment upon his epics), nor of course whether either of them knew something that we do not. One thing to bear in mind, however, is that in listing the places Homer adds a qualifier (river, lofty) to the two place-names (Parthenius, Erythinoi35) that are not those of cities, which he does not for those that are (Cytoron, Sesamus, Cromna); but this does not, of course, necessarily mean much.36

The next place listed in the Trojan Catalogue is ‘lofty’ Erythinoi, the qualifier indicating a natural feature (a hilly or rocky place). Strabo (12.3.10) says that these are two reefs in the sea, which in his day were called Erythrini because of their red colour. The Etymologicum Genuinum (s.v. Σήσαμοι καί Ἐρυθῖνοι) says that Antimachus (4th c. BC) had already given this explanation of the derivation of the name. Apollonius (Arg. 2.941) calls Erythinoi ‘mountainous’ (his Scholiast, 195, calls them λόγους in Paphlagonia, obviously in error for λόφους, hills) and the Scholiast of the Iliad (2.855) calls them mountains in Paphlagonia or Pontus. Arrian (Per. 14) and Anonymous (Per. 17) place Erythinoi halfway between Amastris and Cromna (the former giving the distance from both as 60 stadia, the latter as 90 stadia and 12 miles).

Eustathius (op. cit.) makes the very interesting observation that Strabo (op. cit.) uses the word ᾐιών for this stretch of coastline, which is another word for αἰγιαλός (shore). He also mentions that Lycophron, in referring to the wellknown Thracian city of Eion, says that its name means Aegialos, by which name it is known in the sources (Steph. Ethn. s.v. Αἰγιαλός, Μακεδονία; Eustath., op. cit.), and wonders whether the Paphlagonian city of Aegialos is not the later Eionopolis. Modern scholarship has identified Eionopolis with Abonuteichos,37 which, however, is situated after the promontory of Carambis (cf. Strabo 12.3.10).

The remaining sources that mention Erythinoi, all of them subsequent, speak of a Paphlagonian city (Αel. Herod. De pros. Cath. 3.1.183, s.v. Ἐρυθῖνος and Peri orth. 3.2.511, s.v. Ἐρυθῖνοι; Steph. Ethn. 279, s.v. Ἐρυθῖνοι; Hesych. Lex. 6076, s.v. Ἐρυθῖνοι, where the word is also cited as the name of a species of fish; Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.570). Most of these writers, it is worth noting, specify that they mean the place mentioned by Homer;40 Stephanus of Byzantium (op. cit.) cites both Homer and Apollonius.41 On the other hand, Strabo and the Scholiasts of both writers clearly speak of a natural feature, whether rocks or hills or mountains, and in any case not of a city.

In any case, this Aegialos has nothing to do with the Bithynian Aegialos in Propontis mentioned by Ramsay,38 as Hirschfeld erroneously affirms39. At this point we come to a very interesting question, that of the city of Crobialus. Crobialus is not listed with the other places in our passage from Homer, but is mentioned by Strabo (12.3.10), who says that some writers emend Homer’s line ‘Κρῶμνάν τ᾽Αἰγιαλόν τε καὶ ὑψηλοὺς Ἐρυθίνους’ (Il. 2.855) to ‘Κρῶμναν Κωβίαλόν τε’. Although we do not know who Strabo was referring to, it is worth noting that the city is called Crobialus by Apollonius (Arg. 2.942) at the place in the Argonautica where he describes the very part of the south coast of the Black Sea that is presented in the Iliad, and together with the same group

What, then, might be the truth of the matter? Either one of the two groups is mistaken, or both are correct, and the city took its name from some eminence that was a characteristic feature of the landscape within which it was built. If this is the case, then the contradiction in the sources probably stems from some confusion which crept in over the centuries.

For the disputed case of Erythinoi, see below. We shall deal at greater length with this point later. 37 RE I.1, 106, s.v. Abonuteichos. 38 Ramsay 1890, 186, 190-191. 39 RE Ι.1, 957, s.v. Aegialos. 35

Matthews (1996, 394) does not exclude the possibility that Homer was referring to a settlement near some rocky peaks. 41 The place-name is given as Erythia in Val. Flacc. Arg. 5.106.

36

40

24

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

I am of the opinion that the existence of the city is extremely probable. The onomastic Ἐρυθῖνος cited by Aelius Herodianus, and the references in the literature of later antiquity to a city, and in one case also to a chora (Hesych., op. cit.), point to this. Moreover, the adjective αἰπεινούς, which Apollonius applies to Erythinoi, is used in the other sources to denote a place that is high or steep or located on a height (LSJ, s.v. αἰπεινός, with citations), and is thus appropriate for both a peak or headland and a city. In the Iliad we find it applied to the steep crest of Mycale (Il. 2.869; cf. Hom. Od. 6.123) and the steep streets of Ilium (Il. 9.419). Stephanus of Byzantium is not therefore necessarily wrong when he speaks of a city, citing both Homer and Apollonius, and even gives the ethnic appellative of its inhabitants. Further evidence is furnished by Anonymous’ use of the word χηλή in relation to Erythinoi. If we look at how the word is used in other ancient texts in similar circumstances, it is clear that a χηλή is more than just a ridge or spur of rock: it designates an engineering work intended to protect a harbour or shore from the force of the waves and to hold a roadway running out into the sea: that is, a mole or breakwater (see LSJ, s.v. χηλή II, where it is interpreted as a natural or artificial breakwater, citing references). If, as is certainly possible, this refers to the desire to build - and the construction of - a harbour, then the name Erythinoi could easily denote a settlement. A coastal settlement built in a place where there were rocks.

mean the Halizones cited by Homer and led by Odius and Epistrophus. The problem is that since Homer gives no indication of precisely where they came from, all those who followed him tried to situate them geographically, without however either agreeing among themselves or furnishing solid supporting evidence for their opinion. We thus have various versions of where the Halizones lived, and varied accounts of how they got their name. One of the most popular versions, for both matters, seems to have been that of Arrian (according to Eustathius, Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.572), namely that the Halizones were Bithynians and were so called because their territory was girded on all sides by the sea - on the north and east by the Black Sea, on the south by the gulf of Astakos, near Nicomedia, and on the west by the Propontis and the Bosporus (cf. also Lex. 618.22; Etym. Guid.; Ps.-Zon. Lex.; Etym. Gen.; Etym. Magn.; Etym. Sym., s.v. Ἁλιζῶνες ή Ἁλίζωνες) on which their lives were largely lived. This description points directly to the promontory on the Asian side of the Bosporus, west of Sangarius, in which case we must accept that the Halizones lived to the west of the Paphlagonians. According to Ephorus and Epaphroditus (as we know from Ael. Herod. De pros. cath. 3.1.27-28 and Steph. Ethn. 74, s.v. Ἁλιζῶνες), the Halizones owed their name to their arrogant pretensions (from Ἀλαζόνες, with a vowel shift from α to ι), because their land was very wealthy. Ephorus places them on the coast between Mysia, Caria and Lydia (FGH 2a.70.F114; Strab. 12.3.21), while Hellanicus, Herodotus, and Eudoxus attach the name to the Scythians above the Borysthenes (FGH 1a.4.F186; Strab. 12.3.21); these, be it noted, are the oldest sources after Homer that deal with the question. On the other hand, some others, according to Strabo (12.3.21), called them Ἀμαζώνες.

This settlement is probably the one cited in the sources (see supra) from the 2nd century AD on. That, of course, does not mean that it, and not the rocks, is also the Erythinoi mentioned in the Trojan Catalogue. If that Erythinoi is a city, then why is it qualified by a word (αἰπεινούς, lofty) denoting a natural, physical characteristic, especially when that qualifier designates height, when it is clear that the place described is by the sea?42

However, the ‘coast between Mysia, Caria and Lydia’ is far too long to be of any use in pinpointing the geographical location of the Halizones - it includes almost the whole of the Aegean coast of Western Asia Minor. Perhaps the mentioning of Amazones is due merely to a confusion of sound, and besides it must be noted that while the word Ἀλαζόνες is of course written with omicron and the smooth breathing, the name of the people in question, Ἁλιζῶνες, is written in both the sources in which the version occurs (Ael. Herod., op. cit.; Steph. Ethn., op. cit.) with omega and the rough breathing. If on the other hand this etymology is correct, then we should be looking for the Halizones in a region known for its wealth, which is less the case with the coast between Mysia, Caria and Lydia than the part of Pontus where the Chalybes lived.

There is no other evidence of the existence of mountains called Erythinoi, which are mentioned only by the Scholiast of the Iliad (2.855), and the general and alternative reference to mountains in Paphlagonia or Pontus could be considered as evidence of the author’s lack of definite knowledge. Finally, the location of Erythinoi given by Ptolemy (5.1.15), who places it much farther west, on the Bithynian coast, is certainly problematical, unless he was referring to other peaks with a similar name (it is true that he calls them Ἐρίθινοι rather than Ἐρυθῖνοι). These, then, were the places belonging to Paphlagonia. The next people named are the Halizones, led by Odius and Epistrophus from far-off Alybe, the land of silver, who Apollodorus tells us (Epit. 3.35) were sons of Mecisteus.

This brings us to another, and widely accepted, version, which places the Halizones east of the river Halys. The main exponent of this opinion is Strabo (12.3.19-25), who felt the need to respond first of all to Apollodorus’ theory (On Ships) that the Halizones could not have lived east of the Halys because no allied force came to the Trojans from beyond that river, and also to the views of a number of other

The Halizones are another particular and obscure case in Homer’s account of the Southern Black Sea region. They are subsequently mentioned by a number of other writers, until late antiquity, but in every case it is clear that they We shall be dealing more extensively with this matter in a subsequent section. 42

25

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

writers: Hellanicus, Herodotus, Eudoxus and Euphorus (see supra), Hecataeus (in his Periegesis, see FGH 1a.1.F217) on the city of Alazia in Mygdonia, Menecrates (in the Hellespont. Per.), who placed the Halizones above Myrleia (later called Apamea, in Bithynia), Palaephatus who thought that Odius and Epistrophus were the leaders of the ‘Amazons’, who at that time lived in Alope (cf. Steph. Ethn., s.v. Ἀλόπη) and later in Zeleia in the Propontis, and above all Demetrius of Scepsis, who argued (in Trojan Diac.) that the Halizones could have had no connection with the Chalybes.

There is a similar confusion in the sources concerning Alybe. According to Arrian (op. cit.) Alybe has nothing to do with mines or with the Chalybes, the first people to work iron. Hellanicus (in Steph. Ethn., 79, s.v. Ἀλύβη) calls it a Pontic lake, Apollonius (Lex. Hom. s.v. Ἀλυβή, accented on the final syllable) and Hesychius (Lex. s.v. Ἀλύβη) a city of the Troad, while the Etymologicum Magnum (s.v. Ἀλύβας) describes it as a mountain, citing also two alternative views, that it was a lake or a city. According to the Scholiast of the Iliad 2.856, it was a village in Bithynia, the native place of silver.46 The range of opinion is as diverse as that concerning the Halizones. Eustathius says (Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.571) that for Alybe some wrote Chalybe, some – like Menecrates – Alobe, and some Alope: here, in other words, we have two of the principal opinions concerning the location of the Halizones, in Bithynia and in the land of the Chalybes.

In order to answer these theories, most of them expressed in works since lost, Strabo opens a long parenthesis in his description of the south coast of the Black Sea, where he devotes seven whole chapters to dealing with them, and gives an analytical - and fairly persuasive - argument for placing the Halizones beyond the Halys and identifying them with the Chalybes (cf. also 14.5.24). Strabo does not think the aural similarity between the country called Alybe where the Halizones lived and the people called Chalybes is accidental, and argues that either the phrase τηλόθεν ἐξ Ἀλύβης (Hom. Il. 2.857) was a misreading of the original τηλόθεν ἐξ Χαλύβης (he does not say who propounded this theory, only that Demetrius disagreed with it), or that in Homer’s time the Chalybes were called Alybes43, offering several examples of names that had undergone alteration. For Strabo, the fact that the Chalybes were known for their mines (iron mines, and in his view, probably silver mines as well) accords perfectly with Homer’s statement that Alybe was the ‘native place of silver’.44

Unfortunately, the sources tell us nothing more about the Halizones (or Alybe). It is obvious that the ancient writers themselves were confused about who they were, as is clear from Eustathius (op. cit., 1.571-572), who tried to investigate every reference he knew of. Curiously, the Etymologicum Guidanum has an entry for Ἁλίζωνες, who are described as Bithynians, followed immediately by an entry for Ἁλιζώνων (genitive case), who are described as Paphlagonians. Hesychius mentions the ‘Alizoni’ (with the smooth breathing) as a Paphlagonian tribe (Lex., s.v. Ἀλιζῶνες). Others call them a tribe of Thracians (Schol. Hom. Il. 5.39), and even a Pontic tribe from Boeotia (Schol. Hom. Il. 2.856)! According to Eustathius (op. cit.), Strabo himself had trouble identifying the Halizones, saying that Homer speaks of some ‘unknown peoples’ (Strab. 14.5.23). However vehemently Strabo may disagree with Apollodorus, he must acknowledge the correctness of the latter’s observation that much confusion of the barbarian tribes had taken place from Homer’s times to his, since some of them had dispersed, some combined with others, and some vanished (14.5.27). Eustathius’ interpretation, however, is probably incorrect, since Strabo is more likely to mean that Apollodorus considered the Halizones (and the Kaukones) as foreign.47

The theory that the Halizones/Chalybes lived beyond the Halys also accords with the poet’s use of the word τηλόθεν (from afar). Here Strabo begins his long answer to Apollodorus (which is continued in 14.5.22-29), who as we have seen claimed that no ally of the Trojans came from beyond that river. According to Strabo, apart from the fact that there is nothing to support Apollodorus’ view,45 Homer has already cited as allies of the Trojans the Paphlagonians from ‘the lands of the Enetoi’, which in Hecataeus’ opinion was the White Syrian town of Amisus, situated east of the Halys. Here, however, in his attempt to reply to Demetrius, Strabo falls into a contradiction: he has previously (12.3.8) appeared (without actually saying so) to accept that the Enetoi were Paphlagonians and immediately afterwards (12.3.9) says that the boundary of the Paphlagonians to the east was the river Halys. This means that by his own account the Enetoi lived on the near side of the Halys, which demolishes the argument he puts forward in another, nearby passage.

It seems to me, anyway, that the identification of Alybe with the land of the Chalybes is very likely.48 It fits both phonetically and with the word τηλόθεν. Moreover, since -according to Strabo- (12.3.9. Cf. Con. Porph. De them. 7) the eastern border of Paphlagonia was the river Halys, this provides a sound basis for placing the Halizones immediately after the Halys, among the Chalybes, since the Halizones are mentioned in the Trojan Catalogue just after the Paphlagonians. In this case, however, what Strabo Cf. Thomas and Stubbings 1963, 305, who hold that both the Paphlagonians and the Halizones were thought to have lived north of Troy. 47 On this subject see, in greater detail, in the last chapter. 48 Cf. Page 1959, 141-142. For the indisputable extent of the territory of the Chalybes beyond the river Halys, see indicatively W. Ruge, RE III.2, 2100, s.v. Chalybes 1, with sources, and Tsetskhladze 2007, 181-182. The identification of Alybe with Chalybe is disputed by Allen 1921, 156 ff., Kullmann 1993, 144 and Kirk 1985, 259, who considers the whole Halizonian contingent simply a figment of the poet’s imagination. 46

Cf. also Counillon 2004, 104. 44 For the view that the name Alybe is the Greek form of a Hittite name see Allen 1921, 159-161; Thomas – Stubbings 1963, 304; Simpson, Lazenby 1970, 177. 45 In 14.5.28 of the Geography Strabo suggests that Apollodorus considers the Halizones to be a fabrication of Homer’s or of those who, without knowing who they were, wrote their name in several different ways and likewise fabricated the ‘native place of silver’. 43

26

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

does not succeed in explaining, and Homer of course does not spell out, is the identification of the Chalybes with the Halizones. If Alybe and the territory of the Chalybes are the same place, as Strabo says, and the Halizones are simply the same people as the Chalybes, then why did they have two names? Since Homer knew of (Ch)alybe, why did he call its inhabitants Halizones rather than (Ch)alybes? Even if the identification of Alybe with Chalybe is valid, reading the passage from Homer one would perhaps be more likely to assume that the Halizones were a tribe of the Chalybes, who came from that general area, or conversely that the Halizones occupied a more extensive territory, of which Alybe (where the two leaders named by Homer came from) was a part, which would mean that the Chalybes were a tribe of the Halizones. Reading Homer’s words, I do not think that Alybe can be taken to mean either a lake or a mountain. It could designate a city, but it seems to me more likely to indicate a territory of the Halizones, like the Enete of the Paphlagonians, which also fits better with the description of it as a place with mines.

Chalybes (Anab. 4.4.18, 4.5.34, 4.6.5, 4.7.15) and are described as subject to the Mossynoecians,50 appear to have lived even farther east.51 It is worth noting, moreover, that the Chalybes are not mentioned again after the 1st century (Strabo and Pliny). Concerning the leader of the Halizones, Odius, Eustathius notes that according to Arrian (Bith. fragm. 22, in Eustath. ad. Il. 21.2.857) he was originally called Rhodoites (῾Ροδοίτης), later altered first to Rhodius (῾Ροδίος) and then to Odius (Ὁδίος). The validity of this information is disputed, especially since no explanation is given for the strange progression from Rhodoites to Odius; but it is interesting that in the sources the name Odius is sometimes written with the smooth breathing (Ὀδίος: Hom. Il. 2.856, 5.39; Strab. 12.3.22; Apollod. Epit. 3.35; Etym. Gen. s.v. Ἁλιζῶνες; Schol. Hom. Il. 2.856) and sometimes with the rough breathing (Ὁδίος: Ariston. De sign. Il. 2.856; Arr., op. cit., Eustath., op. cit.; Ael. Herod. De pros. cath. 3.1.27, s.v. Ἁλίζων; Schol. Hom. Od. 24.304, or Ὅδιος: Steph. Ethn. 685, s.v. Χάλυβες; Eustath. Comm. in Dion. per. 767). It is also interesting that both Aelius Herodianus and Stephanus of Byzantium use the two versions with the rough breathing, although they are supposed to be reproducing Homer’s lines exactly. In the extant texts the version with the rough breathing appears for the first time in Aristonicus, that is, at the time of Strabo. This appearance may have to do with the unexplained derivation of the name given slightly later by Arrian or with some confusion with Hermes Hodius (Hesych. Lex., s.v. ὅδιος).

Stephanus of Byzantium (Ethn. 79, s.v. Ἀλύβη and 685686, s.v. Χάλυβες), fully concurs with Strabo (12.3.19-20) that the Halizones were the Chalybes, who were later, in the time of the two writers, called Chaldaeoi (not to be confused with the Semite Chaldaeans of Mesopotamia), although in his entry on that people (s.v. Ἁλιζῶνες, Ethn. 74) he also cites the opinion of Ephorus (see supra). Situating the Halizones in Chalybe also fits with the etymological derivation of their name from a people proud of their wealth, for the Chalybes had always been known for their mines. If this etymology is correct, then it could explain the alteration of the tribe’s name. Originally called Halizones, because their land was by the sea, their name was later altered in this way due to the wealth for which they had in the meantime become known to the Greeks, in a typical example of the Greek habit of naming a nation for some characteristic of its members or of its territory: for example, Μελάγχλαινοι (Black-cloaks, Herodotus 4.107), Ανδροφάγοι (Man-eaters), Μακροκέφαλοι (Long-heads), or Φθειροφάγοι (Lice-eaters, Strab. 11.2.19). And even if the name derives from the Amazons (see supra), this still points us to the same region, that is, beyond the Thermodon River, east of the Halys, according to the most widely accepted version of the location of the country of the Amazons. Nonetheless, the derivation from the - entirely fitting adjective ἁλίζωνος, ‘sea-girt’, remains the most likely: surely it is no accident that in certain sources, especially lexicons, the name is in fact spelled that way (Ἁλίζωνες).49

However that may be, the same phenomenon occurs with the other Odius mentioned by Homer (Il. 9.170), the herald of the Achaeans. It is perhaps also worth mentioning that according to Aelius (De pros. cath. 3.1.92, s.v. Ὁδιούπολις) and Stephanus of Byzantium (Ethn. 483, s.v. Ὁδιούπολις) there was a village called Hodioupolis in Heraclea Pontica. As regards the history of the Halizonian commander, we know that he was killed by Agamemnon, who leaped into his chariot, threw Odius to the ground and ran him through with his spear (Il. 5.38-41). Epistrophus, the other leader of the Halizones, is always mentioned in the sources together with his brother Odius (see the sources for Odius), with no confusion as to his name nor any further information about him. There are two other figures with the same name in the Iliad: Epistrophus the son of Iphitus, the leader (with his brother Schedius) of the Phocians, who brought forty ships to the war with the Trojans (Il. 2.517-525), and Epistrophus the son of Euenus, king of Lyrnessus, who along with his brother Mynes was killed by Achilles when the Greek hero sacked the city and captured Mynes’ wife, Briseis (Il. 2.688-694).

There remains the identification of these Chalybes with the Chaldaeoi (Strab. 12.3.19; Eustath. Comm. in Dion. perieg. 767). This identification is disputed, since in Xenophon the Chaldaeoi (Anab. 4.3.4, 5.5.17), who are also called Cf. LSJ, s.v. ἁλίζωνος, and also ἁλίζωος, that is, ‘living on or in the sea’, with citation of sources. It is typical of the general confusion that in our sources we find the name of this people spelled sometimes with the rough breathing (as in Homer) and sometimes with the smooth breathing.

This people may be the Armenochalybes mentioned by Pliny (Ν.Η. 6.12). 51 Cf. A. Baumstark, RE ΙΙΙ.2, 2062, s.v. Chaldaioi 2; W. Ruge, RE III.2, 2100, s.v. Chalybes 1 and Chalybes 2.

49

50

27

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Some geographical remarks

information more reliable, especially as regards the order in which the places are encountered, that is, their relation on the map, even if sometimes the writers differ as to the actual distances. In these sources the places occur in the following order, reading from west to east: Heraclea Pontica, Psylla, Tieium, Parthenius, Amastris/Sesamus, Erythinoi,53 Cromna, Cytoron, Aegialos, Carambis.

Before we move on to the purely historical observations, it is worth saying a few words about the specific Black Sea place-names of the verses 851-855 of the Trojan Catalogue. The best thing one might expect is to be able to identify them on a modern map. This, unfortunately, is not always possible, due in part to the deficiency of archaeological excavation on the south shore of the Black Sea and in part to the frequent lack of clarity in the written sources. When we speak here of sources, we mean the writers who refer systematically to all the place-names in question, that is (in chronological order): Pseudo-Scylax (Per. 90), Apollonius (2.930-945), Pseudo-Scymnus (953-976), Strabo (Geog. 12.3.5-10), Menippus (Per. 8-9), Pliny (Ν.Η. 6.5), Arrian (Per. 13-14), Ptolemy (Geog. 5.1.6-7,15), Pomponius Mela (De chorogr. 1.104) and Anonymous (Per. 12-17). Taking each place-name separately, if we compare the references in all the sources citing it we see that there are numerous points of disagreement between them, even as regards geographical order. In some cases, therefore, it is frequency of occurrence that leads us to accept a particular piece of information, rather than a conflicting version, as correct.

Consequently, the order of these places on the map may be taken as fairly certain, even if the distances between them are not.54 The same order is given by Pseudo-Scylax and Pseudo-Scymnus (although they omit some of the places), Apollonius, who adds Crobialus, and even Pomponius Mela, who mistakenly places Carambis between Tieium and the Parthenius. Only Pliny gives a different order (Tieium, Cromna, Sesamus/Amastris, Cytoron, Parthenius, Carambis), while Strabo dos not specify the order of the places between the Parthenius and Carambis. 5. All the sources place the cities in Paphlagonia, and most identify the river Parthenius as that country’s western boundary.55 We may thus say fairly confidently56 that the lines 851-855 of the Trojan Catalogue refer to Paphlagonia, situate that country between the Parthenius and Cape Carambis, and mention the following places (from west to east): Sesamus, Erythinoi, Cromna, Cytoron and Aegialos (Figure 1). The part of Paphlagonia referred to is clearly maritime, with a long stretch of coast, rocky headlands, and a city (Cytoron) with a good harbour for ships (Men.; Arr.,), which was also well-wooded and especially rich in boxwood (Apol.; Strabo).57

1. One typical example is the fact that all the sources situate Homer’s Black Sea place-names (of lines 2.851-855) between Heraclea Pontica (or Psylla, where it is named) and Cape Carambis, the only dissenters being Apollonius, who places Aegialos east of Carambis, Ptolemy, who places Erythinoi west of Heraclea,52 and Pomponius Mela, who puts everything after Carambis. These differences are clearly errors and cannot invalidate the rule. We also observe that:

Philological observations and historical remarks

2. Strabo, who tells us that Amastris was formed out of four towns, names one of them, Sesamus, as the citadel of the new city. Some other writers also clearly state, or imply, that the two places were the same, among them Pliny and Anonymous, who use the phrase ‘Sesamus, now called Amastris’. Menippus and Ptolemy mention Amastris, but not Sesamus, while Pomponius Mela does the reverse. The only conflicting evidence here comes from Stephanus of Byzantium (Ethn. 388, s.v. Κρῶμνα), who says that in his day (6th c.) Cromna was called Amastris, which is probably wrong.

Clearly, Homer gives us in this passage a fairly good picture of a part of the southern shore of the Black Sea, naming regions, peoples and places – most of them, fortunately, known from other sources as well, so that there can be no doubt of their historical existence. This Not mentioned by Menippus, and placed elsewhere by Ptolemy. Tieium-Parthenios: 130 stadia (Men.), 120 (Arr.), 150 (Anon.); Parthenios- Amastris/Sesamus: 90 stadia (all); Amastris/SesamusErythinoi: 60 stadia (Arr.), 90 (Anon.); Amastris/Sesamus-Cromna: 150 stadia (Men.), 120 (Arr.), 180 (Anon.); Cromna-Cytoron: 90 stadia (all); Cytoron-Aegialos: 60 stadia (all); Aegialos-Carambis: 120 stadia (Men.; Arr.), 230 (Anon.). 55 Menippus and Anonymous mention the Parthenius or Billaeus, Pliny and Constantine Porphyrogennitus (De them. 7) mention the Billaeus. West of this river lay Bithynia (Men., Arr., Anon.) or the country of the Kaukones and the Mariandyni (Strab., Ptol.). 56 It must not, of course, be forgotten that some of these sources relied on earlier ones from the same group, and even on the Iliad itself, which does not specify the geographical order of these particular places. 57 The 3rd - 4th century Itineraria Romana mention only one of the cities we are interested in (Geogr. Rav. 96.17: Grognas, i.e. Cromna), and in any case their accuracy is disputable. There has been much discussion of the interpretation and reliability of the co-ordinates given by Ptolemy, and recent studies have furnished some answers in this matter (Manoledakis 2005; Manoledakis, Livieratos 2006-2007). We note here that his longitudinal co-ordinates do not correspond to present-day readings, since his zero point was not Greenwich but the Canary Islands. There are, of course, many additional factors that have to be taken into account. 53 54

3. Pseudo-Scylax places Sesamus at the mouth of the Parthenius, just where Ptolemy puts Amastris. The city, whether called Sesamus or Amastris, is situated near but not on the river by Apollonius, Pseudo-Scymnus, Strabo, Menippus (90 stadia away), Arrian (90 stadia), Pomponius Mela and Anonymous (90 stadia and 12 miles). Only Pliny puts more distance between them. 4. Some of the sources note the distances between places (Menippus, Arrian, Anonymous) or give precise geographic co-ordinates (Ptolemy). Logically, this should make the 52

This may, as we have seen, refer to a different place.

28

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

passage should, then, be able to afford some assistance with our original problem, which concerned the beginning of Greek colonisation on the Black Sea. As we have seen, a number of twentieth-century scholars, among them Drews,58 relied on this passage and other sources, such as Hesiod, who also names places on the Black Sea (e.g. the rivers Sangarius and Parthenius in Theog. 344), and Eumelus, who speaks of Sinope (Cor. FGH 3b.451.F5), to support their view that Greek colonisation began in the 8th century BC. Much of course depends on the date of the Iliad, and more specifically of the Trojan Catalogue, and even more specifically on the date of this particular part of the Catalogue.

specifically to the booty taken by Assurbanipal in 663. Moreover, three further pieces of evidence65 point generally to the first half of the 7th century: 1. The precondition of the Messenian War (743-724 BC). 2. The military skills and weaponry mentioned in the epic, which are those of the first half of the 7th century. 3. The parallels between the scenes on Achilles’ shield and works of Cypro-Phoneician art of the first half of the 7th century. Clearly, then, the view that the first Greek colonies on the Black Sea must have been founded in the 8th rather than the 7th century BC can no longer be rooted in any written source other than the Iliad, since the new dating for the epics, both absolute and relative (today the more accepted relative - but not absolute - dating is that proposed by Janko66) makes all the texts subsequent to the Iliad, which is held to be the oldest of all.67 Both Hesiod and Eumelus are thus plainly later than the middle of the 7th century BC, which overturns the argument of those who dated them earlier and cited them as an authority for the founding of Greek colonies in the 8th century68.

The decades-long debate over the dating of the Iliad falls within neither the scope nor the object of this article. I have, however, studied all the opinions that have from time to time been put forward,59 and I must confess that to me, and here my archaeological training may play a role, the most convincing arguments are those of Burkert, West and Kullmann60, namely, that the Iliad must have been written in the period between c. 670 and no later than the middle of the 7th century BC.61 These arguments cite:

One may, indeed, say that the Iliad itself can no longer be cited in support of the so-called ‘historians’ viewʼ that the first Greek colonies on the Black Sea were founded in the 8th century BC, since that epic, the oldest text in which we find the names of places on that coast, was composed in the 7th century. At first glance, then, it would even appear that the Iliad argues in favour of the so-called ‘archaeologists’ view’ that the first Greek colonies on the Black Sea were founded in the 7th century.

1. The reference to the riches of Egyptian Thebes (Il. 9.381-384), which alludes to wealth of the city under the 25th Dynasty (715-663 BC) and the display of booty taken from it by Assurbanipal in 663 BC62. 2. The reference to the four-horse chariot (Il. 11.698-702), which was introduced into the Olympic Games (which gained Panhellenic renown after 700 BC) in 680 BC63. 3. The flood that washed away the fortifications of the Achaeans (Il. 12.17-33), which could be an allusion to the destruction of Babylon in 689 BC, when Sennacherib engineered a diversion of the river waters and flooded the city.64

The essence of the matter, however, is different: cities like Cytoron, Sesamus and Cromna are not among the most important colonies known to us in the Black Sea region, and indeed Strabo tells us (12.3.10) that Cytoron was once, probably in the early stages of its history, an emporium of the Sinopeans, which means that it was founded after Sinope. If these cities were in the first half of the 7th century BC so well-known to the poet who was narrating the tradition of the Trojan War, and so strong that they could send troops to Troy to take part in a war that was none of their concern, merely to aid someone else, then they must surely have been founded at least a generation or two before the time when the epic was composed, that is, no later than the end of the 8th century. If, indeed, Cytoron was founded by the Sinopeans as a trading post, then Sinope must certainly have been established before the end of the 8th century, and thus the first Greek colonies on the Black Sea (which are generally agreed to include Sinope) must necessarily have been founded in the 8th century. This, as I have argued elsewhere,69 is indeed eminently possible,

Based on these three points, I would say that that the composition of the Iliad could, given points 2 and 3, have begun a little before, at least from 680 BC; while as regards the first point, surely this should be taken as alluding to the entire prosperity period in that city’s history, and not Drews 1976, 20-22. These are summed up in Rengakos, Zimmermann 2011 and Andersen and Haug 2012. 60 See infra. 61 Cf. also Ulf 2011, 277. Dickie (1995, 51) extends this period to the second half of the 7th century. For bibliography on the earlier view, dating the Iliad in the 8th century, see indicatively Crielaard 1995, 223 n. 2. Cf. Drews 1976, 20-22. 62 Burkert 1976, 5-21. Kullmann 2002, 98. Cf. Kullmann 2011, 114; West 2012, 236. 63 West 1995, 211-218; Kullmann 2002, 101; 2011, 114; 2012, 220-221; West 2012, 236. 64 West 1995, 211-218; 2012, 236; Kullmann 2011, 114. West’s argument (West 2012, 229, 235-236) that the Iliad could not have been composed earlier than 630 BC, because that was when recognisable scenes from the epic begin to appear in Greek vase-painting, is less persuasive. The year 630 BC is nothing more than a terminus ante quem, and let us not forget that we are speaking only of definitely recognisable scenes. How many of these are there on Greek vases of the 7th century BC? 58 59

Mentioned by Kullmann 2011, 115. Janko 2012, 20-43; for the absolute dating p. 35. 67 Janko 2012, 28-30. 68 E.g. Drews 1976, 20-22. 69 Manoledakis 2010b. 65 66

29

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

especially in the case of Sinope, for reasons that have nothing to do with the matter in hand.

period (first half of the 7th century), or not? The answer to our original enquiry, I believe, is concealed in the answer to that question. Let us, therefore, take a closer look at the Trojan Catalogue.

The matter does not end here, however, for the dating of both the Achaean and the Trojan Catalogue is the subject of a whole separate debate, together with the question of whether these enumerations belong to the core epic (of, as we have seen, the first half of the 7th century BC), whether they are a later addition, or whether they belong to an earlier period, perhaps even being of Mycenaean inspiration or even origin.70 This problem is especially important to us, since it is the Trojan Catalogue that gives the Black Sea place-names. The literature on the subject presents arguments supporting all three views.71

The Trojan Catalogue lists an array of sixteen forces, of which the first five come from the region of Troad itself (Iliad 2.816-839). Next come the Pelasgians (840-843), the Thracians (844-845), the Cicones (846-847), the Paeonians (848-850), the Paphlagonians (851-855), the Halizones (856-857), the Mysians (858-861), the Phrygians (862-863), the Maeonians (864-866), the Carians (867-875), and lastly the Lycians (876-877). The region that concerns us is clearly the most distant from Greece, as a glance at a map could confirm. Here, however, a very important observation must be made: reading through the Trojan Catalogue, one realises that cities are rarely named after the Trojan forces have been presented (816-839). To be precise, in the description of the eleven allied nations (840-877) it is only in the case of Paphlagonia that so many towns are listed; for the rest, just two cities are named, Miletus (868) and the disputed Amydon (849). This listing of at least three cities in as many lines (853-855) does perhaps strike a false note, as other scholars have noted.74

Obviously, the question of which of these views is accepted is particularly important for the dating of the colonies, since we are precisely at the point between the two main positions concerning the founding of the first Greek colonies on the Black Sea: if the passage in question is earlier than the Iliad, then the colonies it mentions were founded at the latest in the 8th century BC and the ‘historians’ are correct; if it is later, then this view cannot be based on the Iliad; and if it is contemporary, that is, if it dates from the first half of the 7th century BC, then manifestly all that has been said above about the Iliad holds true.

There is, however, one detail in the Trojan Catalogue that seems to have attracted no attention to date, and that is that the three places named in the passage which are indisputably cities, Cytoron, Sesamus and Cromna, are not just any three towns on the south coast of the Black Sea. They are not, of course, the three most important, and whether or not they are the oldest we cannot say, since they are neither mentioned in the sources before the 4th century BC nor have yielded older coins,75 which makes it entirely reasonable to wonder why they should appear in the Catalogue when more important cities in the same region, e.g. Sinope, do not. They do, however, have one very important thing in common: these three, together with Tieium, are the cities that supplied the population for the city of Amastris (today’s Amasra).

Today, however, following a very long debate, Homeric scholarship is tending to accept that both catalogues, regardless of any influence from other lists drawn up for other purposes, belong to the original core of the Iliad. It is true that much more has been written about the Achaean Catalogue, while sensibly less attention has been paid to the Trojan, with opinion tending to follow what is accepted for the Achaean. The question is first and foremost philological, and it is difficult to disagree with the most recent view of the scholars in the field and their arguments72. The end result is that the most likely scenario places the composition of the Iliad, together with its two catalogues, in the first half of the 7th century BC.73

Amastris was the daughter of Oxyathres, the brother of Darius III, and her husband was Dionysius, the tyrant of Heraclea. After his death (306 BC), she married Lysimachus (302), who two years later abandoned her for Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy. Continuing to rule Heraclea alone, she proceeded to found the city that bore her name (Ps.Scymn., Per. 959-967; Ael. Herod. De pros. cath. 3.1.101, s.v. Ἄμαστρις; Steph. Ethn. 84, s.v. Ἄμαστρις; Etym. Magn. 79, s.v. Ἄμαστρις; Genes. Bas. 3.5)76. C. 284 BC she was murdered by her sons (Memnon frg. 4-5; Photius Bibl. 224.224-225). The city of Amastris was founded by the queen alone, ergo between 300 and 290 BC.77

If that is so, then, as we have seen, the case for the founding of the cities we are concerned with in the 8th century BC becomes much stronger. But is the Trojan Catalogue as we know it today in fact all of a piece, the product of a single See e.g. Page 1959, 137-154; Latacz 2001 (2010) 261-294; cf. Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 176-181. 71 All are included in Weber 2011, 242-244 and Kullmann 2011, 92-94, who subsequently re-affirms his view that the catalogue of ships in the Iliad was borrowed by the poet from another, slightly earlier but roughly contemporary, source or from an earlier composition of his own and transposed en bloc into the Iliad: Kullmann 2012, 210-223, esp. 210-214, with earlier bibliography (Kirk 1985, 263, holds a similar view). He notes, moreover, that the Catalogue is reminiscent of catalogues of a political nature, which were necessary in Greece after the pan-Hellenization of the Olympic Games (cf. e.g. the much later list of theorodokoi): Kullmann 2012, 221, 223. Cf. also Giovannini 1969, 51-71; Kullmann 1993, 147; 2009, 12. For Weber, (2011, 244) it is difficult to distinguish a historical period behind the two Catalogues. 72 See mainly Kullmann, in the previous note. 73 Kullmann 2011, 92-94, with earlier bibliography. For the Trojan Catalogue specifically see also Kullmann 1960, 169-176; Kullmann 1999, 189, 195. 70

Cf. Kirk 1985, 259. See supra, in the review of the individual cities. Demosthenes (see Ael. Herod. and Steph., op. cit.) associates the name of the city with an Amazon. 77 Allowing time before her death for coinage to be struck in her name as queen of Amastris. Cf. U. Wilcken, RE I 2, 1750, s.v. Amastris 7; Avram et al., 2004, 960. For the city of Amastris see also Erciyas 2003, 14191425, with bibliography. 74 75 76

30

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

According to Strabo (12.3.10), Amastris was formed out of four cities, Cytoron, Sesamus, Cromna and Tieium, the last of which soon withdrew from the newly-founded entity, leaving the other three. In some sources Amastris is called a city of Paphlagonia and identified with Cromna (Ael. Herod.; Steph.; Etym. Magn., op. cit.) or Sesamus (Plin. Ν.Η. 6.5; Anon. Per. 15); Strabo describes Sesamus as the acropolis of Amastris (12.3.10), while later sources mention Amastris separately from both Cromna (Menip. Per. 9; Arr. Per. 14; Ptol. 5.1.7; Anon. Per. 17; Ephr. Chron. 7534-5; Con. Porph. De them. 7; Georg. Pachym. Syng. Hist. 405) and Tieium (Menip. Per. 9; Arr. Per. 13; Ptol. 5.1.7; Claud. Ael. NA 15.5; Anon. Per. 13; Con. Porph. De them. 7; Georg. Pachym. Syng. Hist. 405).

possibly around the middle. Apollonius followed Homer to a considerable extent and in many aspects of his work, and one of the fragments of the epics that he used was the particular passage we are examining. It is worth noting that only five of the about 42 place-names in the south Black Sea region that are given in the Argonautica are cities, and these are Crobialus (see following paragraphs), Sinope, and the three from the Trojan Catalogue. There are, of course, bodies of opinion that place lines 853-855 either before or after the chronological period just stated. We have already seen that Apollonius added Crobialus to the list of southern Black Sea cities; and while he is the first of the known sources to mention it,80 he is not necessarily the origin of its inclusion in Argonautic tradition. Apollodorus, in the 2nd century BC, was - as we shall see - of the opinion that Homer knew nothing of the Black Sea coast, where all the cities mentioned in lines 853-855 are located. This means81 either that Apollodorus was unaware of these lines or that he rejected them as not genuine. The first possibility has in the past led to the interpolation being dated after Apollodorus, in the 2nd or even the 1st century BC.82 On the other hand there is, as we know, the evidence of the Etymologicum Genuinum (s.v. Σήσαμοι καί Ἐρυθῖνοι) that Antimachus, in the 4th century BC, knew of Erythinoi,83 which has led to lines 853-855 being dated before his time.84

The most important point here is the fact that the three cities remaining after the withdrawal of Tieium were Cytoron, Sesamus and Cromna, the three mentioned in the Trojan Catalogue. Can this be by chance? Theoretically, yes, but in reality it seems to me to be highly unlikely. What we have here are, as we have seen, three cities of no particular importance or historical interest. They were neither particularly powerful, to send troops to fight in the Trojan War, nor is anything significant recorded about them, or any indication that they were older or more important than other cities, such as Sinope, which one would certainly expect to be listed in the Catalogue once that particular region was included. There is nothing to explain the mention of these three specific cities, and yet there must have been a reason for it. And the only thing that could afford a possible explanation is that they were all involved in the founding of Amastris.

Neither of these facts, however, necessarily means very much. The later dating (2nd-1st century BC) must, I think, be rejected, if only because of Apollonius. And the earlier dating (4th century or before) is essentially based solely on Antimachus, which is far from sufficient, since all we know of Antimachus is that he mentioned Erythinoi and gave an explanation of the name. Only Erythinoi and none of the other places in our list.85 A writer’s citation of a placename, which happens to occur along with others in another text, does not mean that the said writer is referring to that text. It simply means that he, like many others, knew that place-name, and nothing more. No inference, therefore, can be drawn only from Antimachus’ citation of Erythinoi as regards the date of the passage in question.

If that is the case, then it inevitably follows that the passage in question is a later interpolation into the catalogue,78 dating from the period not only after the founding of Amastris but after the withdrawal of Tieium. Since this happened, Strabo tells us, not long after the establishment of the new city, one possible scenario is that it took place after the death of Lysimachus (281 BC), who after the assassination of Amastris had annexed her lands to his own territories. This gives us a terminus post quem, but the interesting thing is that we also have a very close terminus ante quem: these cities are also mentioned by Apollonius in his Argonautica (2.941-942), and we know that Apollonius lived in the 3rd century BC. The interpolation must therefore have taken place before the Argonautica was completed in its final form, that is, certainly before the end of the century79 and

We could, then, based on the above evidence, continue to argue that the lines containing the names of these particular cities are a 3rd century BC addition, inserted shortly before the time of Apollonius. Apollonius knew the passage, as

The lines have frequently been held to be an interpolation, e.g. by Kirk 1985, 250, 259, but without this specific argument. Drews 1976, 20-22, by contrast, holds them to be genuine. 79 Unfortunately we have no certain dates for Apollonius, not even for his birth and death. His birth has been placed anywhere from 305 BC to an excessively late 235 BC. His famous dispute with his master Callimachus, who died circa 240 BC, took place while he was still a pupil. At that time, the Argonautica had not yet been completed in its final form, and its author must still have been less than twenty years of age; it would, therefore, not be unreasonable to posit a birth date circa 270. In Rhodes he revised the Argonautica to its final and hugely successful form. This must certainly have been after the middle of the century, and therefore probably, based on the above, sometime between 240 and 230 BC. Indicative bibliography (indicating also the problem of the poet’s chronologies) in Mooney 1964, 2-12; Hunter 1989, 4-8; Green 1997, 1-8. 78

See in this regard supra, in the section on that city. As noted by Rengakos 1993, 128-129. 82 Allen 1921, 156 ff., who, however, later (1924, 350) revised his opinion; Page 1959, 147, 340 n. 36; Thomas and Stubbings 1963, 284, 304, 309-310 n. 1 and 22. Simpson and Lazenby (1970, 176) also doubt the originality of lines 853-855. 83 It has been argued that the addition of Crobialus may perhaps be ascribed to Antimachus himself. Cf. Wyss 1936, frg. 61. Rengakos 1993, 129 and Matthews 1996, 394-395, differ. 84 And in that case that Apollodorus had rejected them as spurious: e.g. Rengakos 1993, 129. See also Ivantchik 1998, 318-320. 85 The Etym. Gen. may give this information at the entry cited (s.v. Σήσαμοι καί Ἐρυθῖνοι), but it is clear that Antimachus dealt only with the latter. 80 81

31

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

he knew the version including Crobialus.86 He also knew that the authenticity of these lines was disputed (e.g. by Apollodorus), but he included them in his work, thus indicating that he thought them genuine.

not only travelled the coast and found a number of things to mention, but also, and more importantly, that he knew the region and knew it well? And should not this, an argument that would have settled the matter, have been the first thing he mentioned in his answer to Apollodorus? Yes, of course, but he did not do so. He cited only the Paphlagonians and omitted the better argument.

Treating this part of the Trojan Catalogue as a 3rd century BC interpolation may perhaps indeed provide a better explanation of why the Catalogue should include these particular cities as the only cities of a region far from the Troad while omitting other more important cities on the south coast of the Black Sea, such as Sinope; but it explains something else as well: We have already mentioned Strabo’s vigorous disagreement with certain of Apollodorus’ opinions on Homer’s narrative, and specifically as regards whether or not allied forces came to join the Trojans from beyond the Halys river. The dispute, however, does not end there. Strabo is even more critical of Eratosthenes’ opinion, with which Apollodorus concurs, that while Homer and other ancient writers knew Greece well, they were not familiar with distant regions, such as the Black Sea, as they were inexperienced in long journeys. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus were of the opinion, Strabo tells us (7.3.6-8; 12.3.26-27), that Homer obtained his knowledge of the history of the Paphlagonians of the interior from persons who had travelled through that country on foot, but that he cannot have been acquainted with the seacoast and the rest of the territory of Pontus, since he makes no mention of it, citing neither rivers nor cities nor tribes; this is explained by the fact that Pontus was in those days an ‘inhospitable’ place, due to the difficulty of navigating the coast and the fierceness of the local peoples.

Was this accidental? That is hard to accept. What it could mean is that Strabo knew that these lines (853-855) were a later addition and not Homer’s own words. Granted, Strabo was so much later than all the others that it would be truly surprising to find that he should know which parts of Homer’s work were authentic and which not, when Apollonius, also a serious student of Homer, did not know this in the 3rd c. BC. It is clear that this is a matter on which we cannot be more precise. Perhaps philological research will some day be able to show whether in antiquity there were already scholarly opinions about which lines were genuine and which not (implying that Apollonius held one view and Strabo another). In any case, Strabo’s omission of a clinching argument in his answer to Apollodorus certainly cannot be ignored. There remains one final and very fair question: what was the reason for this 3rd-century interpolation to the Catalogue? Of all the evidence presented, the only important thing about the three cities is their association with the founding of Amastris. Who would make interpolations in texts, and why? Could this have been a political act, to build up the public image of the city? Was the city so important in the 3rd century BC, then, that it could bring about such an interpolation in one of Homer’s epics? On the other hand, if that was not the reason, should we not expect to find other, more important, cities mentioned as well? These are questions that are very hard to answer, but I think it is not unreasonable to see this solitary mention of Black Sea coastal cities in the Trojan Catalogue and the fact that these particular cities were involved in the founding of Amastris as something more than just coincidence.

Strabo is so irritated by this opinion that he is driven to reply to it three times in his work, in books seven, twelve and fourteen (7.3.6-8; 12.3.26-27; 14.5.22-29, esp. 27-28). On the contrary, he says, Homer traversed the whole south coast of the Black Sea, but found nothing worth recording. If he does not mention the important cities like Heraclea it is because they did not then exist. Omission, in Strabo’s view, does not imply ignorance. If Homer knew nothing of the local tribes and their fierceness, then why does he call the country ‘inhospitable’? In any case, Homer was not a geographer and was not obliged to record places and peoples in his poems.

At this point, let us note Strabo’s information (12.3.5) that Callisthenes inserts two additional lines after line 855 (Κρῶμνάν τ᾽Αἰγιαλόν τε καὶ ὑψηλοὺς Ἐρυθίνους):

This latter point is certainly true, and in any case the Paphlagonians are a Black Sea nation, as are the Halizones; on the other hand, it is more difficult to agree with Strabo that Homer had traversed the whole length of the coast. But that is beside the point here. The most striking part of Strabo’s (12.3.26) answer to Apollodorus is that Homer traverses the whole of the coast and omits nothing of the things that were then worth recording, and it is not at all remarkable if he does not mention cities like Heracleia, which had not yet been founded. Yes, but he does mention other places: Cytoron, Sesamus, the river Parthenius, Cromna, Aegialos and Erythinoi (Il. 2.853-855). Would all this not have been the best proof for Strabo that Homer had 86

Καύκωνας δ᾽αὖτ᾽ἦγε Πολυκλέος υἱὸς ἀμύμων, οἵ περί Παρθένιον ποταμὸν κλυτὰ δώματ᾽ ἔναιον And the excellent Polykleos led the Kaukones, who had their famed dwellings around the river Parthenius Although the Kaukones are mentioned in two other places in the Iliad (10.429; 20.329. Cf. also Schol. Apol. Arg. 156), their location is not specified.87 According to Eustathius For the unknown Kaukones in this region, see RE XI.1, 66, s.v. Kaukones 2 (W. Ruge). Cf. Steph. Ethn., s.v. Ἀράβυζα, for their territory. The Kaukones of the Peloponnese are a different nation (RE XI.1, 64-66, s.v. Kaukones 1). 87

Cf. Rengakos 1993, 129.

32

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

(Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.571), Strabo found it very hard to identify the Halizones, commenting that Homer speaks of unknown peoples. Eustathius is here clearly referring to the passage (Strab. 14.5.23) where the geographer describes both the Halizones and the Kaukones as unknown. I think, however, that a closer reading of the passage shows that Strabo is saying that Apollodorus (and not himself) is the one who considered the Halizones and the Kaukones to be unknown peoples. Strabo, indeed, does not appear to have been unaware of them, for he discusses them at length in other parts of his work (e.g. Halizones: 12.3.20 ff.; Kaukones: 12.3.5, noting in 12.3.9 that in his day they had entirely disappeared, except for some living near Parthenius: 12.3.5). The lines on the Kaukones added by Callisthenes, the second of which is an adaptation of line 854 of the original (there on the Paphlagonians), were not accepted as authentic, as is apparent both from the work of Apollonius and from Strabo’s statement that they were inserted by Callisthenes.88

rocks, which may have been landmarks for sailors,91 would certainly have had a place in such a catalogue. Moreover, the Trojan Catalogue itself frequently cites place-names that are not cities, for example the mountains Ida (Il. 2.824), Tereia (829), Tmolus (866), Pthires (868), Mycale (869), the rivers Selleis (839), Axius (849), Parthenius (854), Maeander (869) and Xanthus (877), and also the Hellespont (845), without necessarily specifying that the place is a mountain, river, etc. The fact that later sources thought that Homer meant the cities of Aegialos and Erythinoi does not necessarily mean much, and could very well be due to the observation of those writers, centuries later, that it is chiefly in that particular part of the Catalogue that cities are mentioned. I think it therefore more likely that the Aegialos and the Erythinoi mentioned in the Trojan Catalogue are respectively a seacoast and a pair of rocks. To return to our original question concerning the possible contribution of the Iliad to the dating of the first Greek colonies on the Black Sea, if lines 853-855 are indeed a 3rd century interpolation, then obviously they can be of no assistance in the matter. This does not, however, affect the remaining lines in the passage we are considering. Both the Paphlagonians with their leader Pylaimeneos from the lands of the Enetoi (Il. 2.851-852) and the Halizones under Odius and Epistrophus from Alybe (Il. 2.856-857) must have belonged to the original form of the Catalogue and the epic. Pylaimeneos is mentioned, as we have seen, twice more in the Iliad (5.576-579 and 13.643-659), which shows that the poet was well acquainted with his name. As for the Paphlagonians themselves, they were certainly known to Homer, as even Apollodorus acknowledged (see supra).

There remain, finally, the dubious cases of Aegialos and Erythinoi and our original question of whether they were cities or, respectively, a stretch of coastline and a rocky outcrop. If they were cities, then this undermines our observations concerning the three cities associated with Amastris and thus the whole theory concerning the interpolation of lines 853-855 and its dating. But were they cities? From what has been said, it should be clear that there is nothing on which one can base an opinion in the matter, since even the ancient sources in which they are mentioned shed no light on the subject. Most of these sources are much later than the Iliad;89 later, too, than the interpolation, if we accept in the end that that this passage was added in the 3rd century BC. Over so many centuries it is natural that much had changed, and first of all that new cities had appeared, named for nearby natural features. This is most probably the case with the city of Erythinoi, as we have seen, which is described by Anonymous as χηλή, but it does not, of course, prove that the Catalogue was referring to cities.

Something similar applies to the Halizones, since the death of their leader Odius is described later in the tale (Il. 5.38-41). If the references to Pylaimenes and Odius in the Catalogue were later additions, then the remaining references to them must also have been subsequent interpolations, which seems improbable. The Halizones and Alybe have already been discussed at length, and it seems to me that the fact that, from the 5th century BC on, all the sources that mention them associate them with Homer is a fairly conclusive indication that the reference to them in the Iliad belongs to the original core of the work and is not a later addition. The Chalybes and their mines were certainly known to the Greeks well before the time of Homer.

One must of course also ask what reason the compiler of a list of allied forces could have for mentioning two rocks in his account of the territory where the Paphlagonians lived, alongside a number of cities and a river. Here again we must turn to the debate on the influences that helped shape the Catalogue. We have seen that some scholars see the influence of political recitals. It is equally, if not more, likely that this enumeration was influenced by geographical lists, which were both common and essential from the age of colonisation on. Let us not forget the practical example of the Periploi, nor the fact that each catalogue of places and place-names was de facto primarily geographical in nature (even those drawn up for political or administrative purposes).90 An important stretch of coastline and a pair of

Finally, it should be noted that lines 851-852 and 856-857 follow a characteristic pattern in their presentation of the allied forces, naming the nation, the leader or leaders, and the region from which they came, often with the qualifier τηλόθεν (from far off). Thus we have the Paphlagonians led by Pylaimeneos from Enetoi/Enete (851-852) and the Halizones led by Odius and Epistrophus from far off, from Alybe (856-857). This pattern is repeated another

For Callisthenes’ text, see Kirk 1985, 259; Rengakos 1993, 129, 129130 n. 5, with additional bibliography. See also Ivantchik 1998, 318-320.. 89 All, apart from Apollonius, date from the Christian era. 90 It is worth remembering that almost all the sources for the cities in question are purely geographical works. 88

This is implied by their inclusion in the Periploi, unless of course those works were referring to cities. 91

33

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

own emporia. This mixed and mutual form of settlement was the fundamental element of colonisation itself.96

four times in the enumeration of the nine remaining allied forces that came to join the Trojans, from line 840 to the end of the Catalogue: the Thracians were led by Acamas and Peirous from the Hellespont (844-845), the Paeonians by Pyraechmes from far off, form Amydon (848-849), the Phrygians by Phorcys and Ascanius far (τῆλε), from Ascania (862-863) and the Lycians by Sarpedon and Glaucus from far off, from Lycia (876-877). In other words, six of the eleven armies are presented in this way, while the only difference with the other five is that the name of the territory at the end is omitted. It is obvious, then, that if the Paphlagonians and the Halizones are a later interpolation, then the same could be true of most of the Trojan Catalogue, which we know is not the case. To put it differently, if the Trojan Catalogue as a whole belongs to the first half of the 7th century BC, then by the same token so do the references to the Paphlagonians and to the Halizones and Alybe, which probably refers to the Chalybes.

Given the above, it is my impression that, even if lines 853855, naming the cities, are a later (3rd century BC) addition, economic (at least) relations between the Greeks and the peoples of the Black Sea from the 8th century (at least) may be inferred without question. And since this article has made fairly extensive use of philological evidence, let us also point out that some of the colonies on the south coast of the Black Sea, cities that are mentioned in the (Greek) sources as Greek cities (see above), have names that are not Greek: linguistics has shown, for example, that the morphology of the names Cytoron and Cotyora is not Greek. Perhaps this is a clue to the mixed character of the emporia. Might these places have originally been native communities, which at some point attracted Greek traders (from Greece or from Greek colonies), who settled there, with the consent of the locals, for commercial purposes, to the benefit of the economies of both sides? And might these incomers have so strengthened their position there that later (Greek of course) sources assumed those cities to be Greek? After all, why should we expect pure Greek cities to be allies of the Trojans in a Greek epic tradition? Fortunately for the young research scholars to whom this workshop is addressed, there is still much to be studied and clarified.

It is, therefore, certain that Homer was acquainted with the south coast of the Black Sea, and indeed that he knew it fairly well. The Paphlagonians were known to the Greeks of the early 7th century BC, as were the Chalybes from beyond the river Halys, who were famous for their mines (whence their Greek name, which means ‘the steel people’). Both peoples had brave and renowned leaders, and armies capable of fighting in the ‘world war’ of the heroic age. What does this knowledge mean? Taken together with the information furnished by Apollodorus and certain archaeological finds of Greek pottery in the valley of the Halys92 that long predate the age of Homer (not to mention the myth of the Argonauts), it surely means that there had been contacts between the Greeks and the natives of the southern Black Sea region well before the 7th century. There is an on-going debate as to whether these contacts were made by land or by sea,93 and as to their precise nature. In general, they were contacts of a kind that is commonly described as ‘pre-colonial’, with no further clarification. As I see it, the difference between the ‘pre-colonial’ period and actual colonisation is exceptionally subtle, and only the organised foundation of Greek poleis (with all that the term polis implies94) and not only of emporia could to some extent differentiate the one from the other. Perhaps we should see the founding of Greek poleis (colonisation) as a stage in a process that began with what have been termed ‘pre-colonial’ contacts. In any case, however, we must consider it most likely that both the former and the latter, and especially the latter, were the result of endeavours driven by economic motives. Motives common to both the Greeks and the peoples of those lands, and endeavours that led to the creation of the form of settlement that is called emporion95 and that continued to exist after the founding of the colonies, some of which indeed later established their

Abbreviations FGH Jacoby, F. (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden 1926. LSJ Liddell, H. G., Scott, R. and Jones, H. S. (eds.), A Greek–English Lexicon. ML Roscher, W. H. (ed.), Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. ΝΡ Cancik, H., Schneider, H. and Pauly, A. F. (eds.), Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Das klassische Altertum und seine Rezeptionsgeschichte. RE Pauly, A., Wissowa, G. (eds.), Realencyclopädie der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. List of Bibliography Allen, T. W. 1921, The Homeric Catalogue of Ships. Oxford. Allen, T. W. 1924. Homer: The Origins and the Transmission. Oxford. Andersen, Ø. and Haug, D. T. T. (eds.) 2012. Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge. Avram, A, Hind J. and Tsetskhladze G. 2004. The Black Sea Area. In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, 924-974. Oxford. Boardman, J. 1991. Early Greek Pottery on Black Sea Sites? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10 (3), 387-390. Boardman, J. 1999. The Greeks Overseas. London

See e.g. Summerer 2007, 30-31; 2008, 262-267; 2009, 188; Tsetskhladze 2012, 349. 93 See indicatively, French 1982, 22; Tsetskhladze 2012, 350. 94 For a summary overview, see Tsetskhladze 2006, xxxviii-xlii. 95 For the emporia see more recently the detailed study of Hansen 2006. 92

I treat the question of the so-called ‘pre-colonial’ contacts and their economic character in M. Manoledakis, in The Black Sea in Ancient Times (forthcoming). 96

34

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

Kirk, G. S. 1985. The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 1. Cambridge. Kullmann, W. 1960. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Einzelschriften 14. Wiesbaden. Kullmann, W. 1993. Festgehaltene Kenntnisse im Schiffskatalog und im Troerkatalog der Ilias. In W. Kullmann and J. Alhoff (eds.), Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur, 129147. Tübingen. Kullmann, W. 1999. Homer und Kleinasien. In J. Kazazis and A. Rengakos (eds.), Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N Maronitis, 189-201. Stuttgart. Kullmann, W. 2002. Festgehaltene Kenntnisse im Schiffskatalog und im Troerkatalog der Ilias. In A. Rengakos (ed.), Realität, Imagination und Theorie: Kleine Schriften zu Epos und Tragödie in der Antike, 9-25. Stuttgart. Kullmann, W. 2011. Ilias. In A. Rengakos and B. Zimmermann (eds.), Homer-Handbuch. Leben - Werk - Wirkung, 78-119. Stuttgart. Kullmann, W. 2012. The Relative Chronology of the Homeric Catalogue of Ships and the Lists of Heroes and Cities within the Catalogue. In Ø. Andersen and D. T. T. Haug (eds.), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry, 210-223. Cambridge. Latacz, J. 2001. Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. Leipzig. Manoledakis, M. 2005. Η θέση των Αιγών στη «Γεωγραφία» του Κλαύδιου Πτολεμαίου (The Placement of Aegae in the “Geography” of Claudius Ptolemy. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και τη Θράκη (The Archaeological Work in Macedonia and Thrace) 19, 483-494. Manoledakis, M. and Livieratos E. 2006-2007. On the digital placement of Aegae, the first capital of ancient Macedonia, according to Ptolemy’s Geographia. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop ‘Digital Approaches to Cartographic Heritage’, 262-270. Thessaloniki. Also in e-Perimetron 2.1 (2007), 31-41 (www.e-perimetron.org). Manoledakis, M. 2010a. Choirades, Kerasous, Pharnakeia. Observations on three ancient placenames in the southern Black Sea. Ancient West and East 9, 137-155. Manoledakis, M. 2010b. On the cults of Sinope and the founders of the city. In E. K. Petropoulos and A. A. Maslennikov (eds.), Ancient Sacral Monuments in the Black Sea, 563-576. Thessaloniki. Matthews, V. J. 1993. Antimachus of Colophon, text and commentary. Leiden. Mooney, G. W. 1964. The Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. Amsterdam. Page, D. L. 1959. History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley. Petropoulos, E. K. 2005a. Hellenic Colonization in Euxeinos Pontos. Penetration, Early Establishment, and the Problem of the ‘Emporion’ Revisited. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1394. Oxford. Petropoulos, E. K. 2005b. Emporion und apoikia-polis in the Northeast Black Sea Area during the 6th and 5th c. BC:

Cook, R. M. 1946. Ionia and Greece in the 8th-7th cents. BC. Journal of Hellenic Studies 66, 67-98. Counillon, P. 2004. Pseudo-Skylax: le Périple du PontEuxin. Bordeaux. Crielaard, J. P. 1995. Homer, History and Archaeology. Some Remarks on the Date of the Homeric World. In J. P. Crielaard (ed.), Homeric Questions. Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology, 201-288. Amsterdam. Dickie, M. 1995. The Geography of Homer’s World. In Ø. Andersen and M. Dickie (eds.), Homer’s World. Fiction, Tradition, Reality, 29-56. Bergen. Drews, R. 1976. The Earliest Greek Settlements on the Black Sea. Journal of Hellenic Studies 96, 18-31. Ehrhardt, N. 1988. Milet und seine Kolonien. Frankfurt am Main. Erciyas, D. B. 2003. Heracleia Pontica - Amastris. In D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2, 1403-1431. Thessaloniki. Erciyas, D. B. 2007. Cotyora, Kerasous and Trapezous: The Three Colonies of Sinope. In D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 2, 1195-1206. Oxford. French, D. H. 1982. Mycenaeans in the Black Sea? Thracia Pontica 1, 19-30. Giovannini, A. 1969. Étude historique sur les origines du catalogue des vaisseaux. Bern. Graham, A. J. 1958. The Date of the Greek Penetration of the Black Sea. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 5, 25-42. Graham, A. J. 1971. Patterns in Early Greek Colonization. Journal of Hellenic Studies 91, 35-47. Graham, A. J. 1989. Pre-Colonial Contacts: Questions and Problems. Greek Colonists and Native Populations 91, 45-60. Graham, A. J. 1994. Greek and Roman Settlements on the Black Sea Coasts: Historical Background, Colloquenda Pontica, 4-10. Graham, A. J. 1982. The Colonial Expansion of Greece. In J. Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, part 3, 2nd edition, 83-162. Cambridge. Green, P. 1997. The Argonautika: the Story of Jason and the Quest for the Golden Fleece. Berkeley. Hunter, R. L. 1989. Appolonius of Rhodes Argonautica Book III. Cambridge. French, D. H. 2004. The Inscriptions of Sinope. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 64. Bonn. Ivantchik A. I. 1998. Die Gründung von Sinope und die Probleme der Anfangsphase der griechischen Kolonisation des Schwarzmeergebietes. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area, 297-330. Stuttgart. Janko, Ρ. 2012. Πρῶτόν τε καὶ ὕστατον αἰὲν ἀείδειν: Relative Chronology and the Literary History of the Early Greek Epos. In Ø. Andersen and D. T. T. Haug (eds.), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry, 20-43. Cambridge.

35

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

an Urbanistic View. In Pont-Euxin et polis. Polis hellenis et polis barbaron. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé et Pierre Lévêque. Actes du10e Symposium de Vani, 23-26 sept. 2002, 207-232. Franc-Comtoises. Ramsay, W. M. 1890. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London. Rengakos, A. 1993. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Stuttgart. Rengakos, A. and Zimmermann, B. (eds.) 2011. HomerHandbuch. Leben - Werk - Wirkung. Stuttgart. Simpson, R. H. and Lazenby, J. F. 1970. The Catalogue of the Ships in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford. Stückelberger, A. and Grasshoff, G. (eds.). 2006. Klaudios Ptolemaios. Handbuch der Geographie. Basel. Summerer, L. 2007. Greeks and Natives on the Southern Black Sea Coast in Antiquity. In G. Erkut and S. Mitchell (eds.), The Black Sea: Past, Present and Future, 27-36. London/Istanbul. Summerer, L. 2008. Indigenous Responses to Encounters with the Greeks in Northern Anatolia: The Reception of Architectural Terracottas in the Iron Age Settlements of the Halys Basin. In P. G. Bilde and J. H. Petersen (eds.), Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflicts and Coexistence, 263-286. Aarhus. Summerer, L. 2009. Influence of the Greek Pottery on the Late Archaic Architectural Terrakottas from North Anatolia. Il Mar Nero 6, 187-202. Thomas, H. and Stubbings, F. H. 1963. A Companion to Homer. London. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1994. Greek Penetration of the Black Sea. In G. R. Tsetskhladze and F. de Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation. Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman, 111-135. Oxford. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2006. Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 1, xxiii-lxxxiii. Leiden/Boston. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2007. Greeks and Locals in the Southern Black Sea Littoral: A Re-Examination. In G. Herman and I. Shatzman (eds.), Greeks between East and West. Essays in Greek Literature and History in Memory of David Asheri, 160-195. Jerusalem. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2009. Secondary Colonisers in the Black Sea: Sinope and Panticapaeum. In M. Lombardo and F. Frisone (eds.), Colonie di colonie: le fondazioni sub-coloniali greche tra colonizzazione e colonialismo (Atti del Convegno Lecce, 22-24 Giugno 2006), 229-254. Lecce/Taranto. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2012. Pots versus People: Further Consideration of the Earliest Examples of East Greek Pottery in Native Settlements of the Northern Pontus. In A. Hermary and G. R. Tsetskhladze (eds.), From the Pillars of Hercules to the Footsteps of the Argonauts, 315-374. Leuven/Paris/Walpole. Ulf, C. 2011. Homerische Strukturen: Status - Wirtschaft - Politik. In A. Rengakos and B. Zimmermann (eds.), Homer-Handbuch. Leben - Werk - Wirkung, 257-278. Stuttgart. Wagner, R. 1891. Die Sabbaitischen Apollodorfragmente. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 46, 378–419.

Weber, G. 2011. Der Troianische Krieg: Historische Realität oder poetische Fiktion. In A. Rengakos and B. Zimmermann (eds.), Homer-Handbuch. Leben - Werk Wirkung, 228-256. Stuttgart. West, M. 2012. Towards a Chronology of Early Greek Epic. In Ø. Andersen and D. T. T. Haug (eds.), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry, 224-241. Cambridge. Wyss, B. 1936. Antimachi Colophonii Reliquiae. Collegit, disposuit, explicavit Bernhardus Wyss. Berlin. Discussion Sujatha Chandrasekaran: You mentioned at the end that some of the names are not Greek. So, what are they? Manolis Manoledakis: This is a very good question, but unfortunately it is impossible to be answered yet. The only sure thing is that they are not Greek, something that is clear from the morphology of the names Kytoron and Kotyora. Could they have been of Iranian or another origin? I also asked this question to some of the top specialists on the matter, but there is not any secure answer until now. In order to answer the question a very thorough linguistic research is demanded, which has not been done yet. Anca Dan: I agree in major lines with your conclusions but I want to ask you what ‘interpolation’ means in the Iliad. Because, as you know better that anyone, the first evidence we have for the Iliad as a region text is Euripides, in the 5th c. BC. The first real text of the Iliad for which we can have an idea about geographical information is Strabo (1st c. AD). What happens between the two? Probably moving texts. And local editions. And we have evidence you have shown between Apollonius of Rhodes and Apollodorus, who base their research on different texts (they belong to two different Schools). You have mentioned the opinion of Strabo, who identifies the Halizones with the Chalybes. The problem is that we lost everything before Strabo and maybe Demetrios of Skepsis was right when he assumed that the Halizones were in Bithynia and this fits better with the geography of Homer and some archaic evidence, because the Halizones in Bithynia are attested by Hecataeus of Miletus in the 6th c. BC. Manolis Manoledakis: As far as the Halizones are concerned, there were various opinions on where they might have lived. I have already mentioned them: they were said to be Thracians, Scythians, Paphlagonians, Pontic tribes; so almost everything has been said about them. Others place them in the whole western Anatolian coastal region of the Aegean. The thing is that only Strabo’s opinion is known directly through his own texts. All the others came to us through other authors. Besides, putting all of them together, I think that, for all the reasons I mentioned, Strabo’s opinion seems to be the most convincing. Why should Demetrios of Skepsis be right? He is also a much later scholar and besides, he did not say that the Halizones were in Bithynia, as you mentioned, he just said that they were not the

36

Manolis Manoledakis: The Southern Black Sea in the Homeric Iliad

Chalybes. Nor did Hecataeus say that, he just talks about the city Alazia in Mygdonia! But are we sure that Alazia is connected with our Halizones? Only Arrian, even later than Strabo, placed them in Bithynia. Besides, why do you think that Bithynia fits better with the ‘geography of Homer’? What do we know about this ‘geography’? On the contrary, the term ‘from far off’ leads us much further than Bithynia. And the earlier evidence is not necessarily more credible than the rest, as the opinion of those who linked the Halizones to the Scythians above the Borysthenes indicates.

Anca Dan: Maybe for this part of the Catalogue the terminus postquem would be Callisthenes, so maybe at the time of Alexander the Great. Manolis Manoledakis: The time of Callisthenes has also been proposed but what are the arguments? There is a tendency to attribute many things to him, sometimes without convincing explanations. I still find it too ‘accidental’ to have only these three specific cities in this part of the Catalogue. There seems to be no other reason that could explain why exactly these and only these three cities are mentioned together there other than the fact that they are exactly those which contributed to the foundation of Amastris. They have no other connection with each other and nor are they the most important cities in the southern Black Sea.

As far as the issue of ‘interpolation’ is concerned, interpolations were continuously being added, from the time of Peisistratos, when the Iliad was compiled for the first time, until the later periods. So, we cannot know for sure which verse was interpolated and when.

37

The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow Anca Dan1 Abstract: The history of the perceptions and representations of the Black Sea in Antiquity corresponds to the invention and transformation of its comparison to the Scythian bow. This figure is significant from two points of view: its shape, more precise than that of a twofold sea, indicates that as late as the 1st century BC, Greek and Roman writers had a precise idea of the circuit of the Euxine Pontus and were able to express it through a planimetric image, easy to remember. The Scythian bow encoded not only cartographic but also ethnographic information: this specific weapon recalled the common association of the north-eastern part of the inhabited world with Scythian-ness and, thus, with violence and Barbarism. This paper discusses the geographical and historical implications of the representation of the Euxine through the symbol of the Scythian bow. It also traces its literary history, from Sallust to the followers of Dionysius Periegetes, and explains how this model was transformed by Ammianus Marcellinus. Thus, the Black Sea offers an exemplary illustration of how huge and remote spaces on the edges of the inhabited world were mentally constructed, communicated and reinterpreted in pre-modern geography. Keywords: Mental maps, sphragis, Scythians, archery, Strabo, Dionysius Periegetes, Ammianus Marcellinus.

The story of representations of the Black Sea region in Antiquity can be written as the story of its drawing in the shape of a Scythian bow. This figure marks the outcome of a diachronic process of collective construction and scholarly representation and conception of an area which remained inaccessible to most of the authors who described it.

are the cartographic implications of this equivalence in the case of the Euxine? In Socrates’ circle, everyone agrees that form, like color, size and orientation, characterizes things (Platon, Meno 73e ff.). Everything is made from simple shapes: on the basis of this assumption, every person who learns how to draw an object from the real world must be able to reduce it to basic shapes, easy to make and to combine together. Thus, specialists of developmental psychology recognize the universality of this mental process when studying children’s drawings. Of course, the opposite is also true, because the human brain is able to reconstruct complete forms from points provided by stimuli and unified by illusory contours: in the terms of the psychologists dealing with the Gestalt theory, this characteristic of human perception corresponds to the generative process of ‘reification’. Both processes of reduction of things to simple profiles and of deducting outlines from punctual information participate in the encoding of space into mental maps.

Before the era of aerial photography, the land all around the largest sea in our part of the world (‘μέγιστον τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐνομίζετο’), a kind of second Okeanos (‘τὸ πέλαγος τὸ Ποντικὸν ὥσπερ ἄλλον τινὰ ὠκεανὸν ὑπελάμβανον’, Strabo 1.2.10) could be perceived only with the mental eye, being much larger than any actual space the human eye would ever be able to see from the ground. Accordingly, its representation required an implicit agreement on the borderlines, consistency and nature of this area. In other words, the mental modeling of the Black Sea as a Scythian bow involves the appreciation of this sea basin and of its coasts as a region, with generally accepted core-form, characteristics, and meaning. In historical perspective, the result of this schematization can be analyzed from three points of view: a geographical, a historical, and a literary one. Each of them reveals patterns in the mental modeling of a remote area, more complex than the binary opposition center vs. periphery.

Such cartographic representations, even in their most schematic forms, are signs in the process of communication: the sender encodes spatial information in symbols that he or she transmits to a receiver, able to recognize and to interpret the code. Of course, the history of cartography is a search for the optimal code, which would allow the correct interpretation of ‘maps’ (in words and images) and avoid the dangers of polysemy. This search for clarity, through successive adjustments, is all the more important in that scholars from different epochs, from Antiquity to today, were conscious of the power of cartography: maps as cultural constructs are able not only to exchange messages but also to stimulate attitudes and actions, well beyond their social and cultural context of elaboration.

1. Mapping the Euxine Pontus Why represent a space through a symbolic shape? What Excellence Cluster TOPOI, Berlin / CNRS-ENS Paris. I am grateful to Dr. Manolis Manoledakis for the invitation at the conference in Thessaloniki, to Prof. Hans-Joachim Gehrke who offered me support and advices for this research, to Prof. Georges Tolias, Prof. Klaus Geus, Dr. Ekaterina Iljuschetschkina for very useful suggestions on this topic. Last but not least, I thank Dr. Valeriya Kozlovskaya and Dr. Michiel KleinSwormink, my first readers, for their corrections. 1

39

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

In Greek antiquity, traces of attempts at bi-dimensional representation of space go back at least to the 6th century BC2. Links between spaces larger than the capacity of perception of one human being and simple shapes are very common in the preserved texts, from Herodotus and Eudoxus onward. Eratosthenes generalized the system of sphragides to the whole inhabited world: thus, the earth could have been described like the sky, by referring points and surfaces to imaginary frames3. The proliferation of these shapes in Hellenistic and Roman astronomy and geography proves that they were efficient: through their simple or metaphoric name, such figures associated with a terrestrial or celestial region could transmit information not only between contemporaries, but also, through memorization and reuse, to later generations, provided that the code was accurately preserved.

types of representations: the hodologic, ‘road-oriented’ perspective (when one looks at the uni- or bi-dimensional itinerary that he or she follows) contrasts with the bi- or three-dimensional ‘survey view’, ‘ego-oriented’, when one looks at a space from an elevation, real (‘gaze-tour’ / ‘vue cavalière’) or imaginary (‘bird’s-eye view’)6. From these two fundamental types, I would distinguish a third perspective, which represents the privilege of a god: the viewer has no point of contact with the space he or she sees, with its visible and invisible elements; this view, ubiquitous, can be perpendicular to all the points of the area (and, thus, ‘isotropic’), or focus on one part of the world. Theoretically, when transposed in mental diagrams, these three perspectives can correspond to frontal, oblique or planimetric representations, depending on whether the objects composing the landscape are seen from the ground, with an elevation angle or perpendicularly from the sky. The simple shapes associated by the Greeks with different regions of the world and, in the case of the Black Sea, the Scythian bow belong to the third perspective (divine view) and to the third type of elementary representation (planimetric)7.

In the case of the Euxine Sea, the equivalence between the mentally reconstructed shape of the sea and the concrete shape of a bow is, for us, first attested in the 1st century BC, by Sallust, in his Histories (3.63): ‘Speciem efficit Scythici arcus / He presents the shape of a Scythian bow’. This passage was transmitted to our days only because it was quoted by the late–fourth–century AD grammarian Servius, in his Commentary on Vergil’s Aeneid (3.533): in order to explain Virgil’s description of the Castrum Minervae, the first place where Aeneas landed in Italy, a harbor bent into an arch by the eastern flow (portus ab euroo fluctu curuatus in arcum), Servius quotes the image of another sea-port from the Aeneid (6.42) and Sallust’s description of the Black Sea, through its particular colour and shape. On the basis of this short reference, it is impossible to understand who could have been the first inventor (πρῶτος εὑρετής) of the figure and in which context – on what grounds and for what purpose – he first expressed it. Nevertheless, it seems clear that this formula illustrates a further step in the development of geographical knowledge about this part of the inhabited world, after Eratosthenes’ description of the Euxine as the greatest gulf of the Interior Sea4.

It is true that in its oldest representations, the Black Sea could appear reduced to a negligible point: this is the case in the descriptions of the road to the Hyperboreans, in texts of the 5th century BC, such as Pindar (Olympian 8.46-49) or Herodotus (4.32-36). It could also be reduced to an implicit line – the horizon, seen by Zeus at the beginning of the 13th Book of the Iliad8. However, multidimensional views were necessary, at least as implicit knowledge, when dealing with the whole circuit of the sea: this was never covered by one ship, but always reconstructed in a scholarly context. So the oldest bi-dimensional shape of the Black Sea might have been a circle or an elliptical form. We infer this circularity from periploi, such as the one by Pseudo-Scylax, from the second half of the 4th century BC: this enumeration of sites and peoples gives no explicit indication of direction; yet, by describing a complete circumnavigation of the Pontus, one must achieve a complete mental tour of the European and Asiatic shores. This is the case of the itinerarium pictum on the so-called ‘shield’ of Dura-Europos (preserved in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Suppl. Gr 1354² V), dated between the very end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd centuries AD9 (Figure 1). The toponyms, corresponding to important cities, river mouths and navigation points and accompanied by distance values in miles, were probably posed on a circle, without interruption, anticlockwise, from east to west. Byzantium – thus, the South / South-West -

Mapping the Black Sea in a schematic figure involves the ability to deal with the Pontic space in two dimensions. During the last decades, the study of ancient geography was dominated by the theory of the hodologic space, widely accepted after the publications of Pietro Janni5. However, when one looks at the whole ancient literature, in general, and to the references to the Black Sea, in particular, one can find uni-, bi- and three-dimensional views, in three fundamental perspectives and through three main See Gehrke 1998, 2007. Cf. Van Paassen 1957. Cf. his reputation as a designer of σχήματα in Pseudo-Scymnos v. 112-114. For the concept of σφραγίς, see Kranz 1961. Cf. the similes studied by Dueck 2005. For the identification of constellations through symbolic figures, see Hübner 2008, Zucker 2008; also Aujac 1996. Cf. Charvet, Zucker 2001 and Pàmias, Geus 2007. More generally on Eratosthenes, see Geus 2002 and, lately with new elements, Geus, Tupikova 2013. 4 IIIB97 Berger = Book 3 fr. 134-135 Roller apud Strabo 2.1.40, 2.4.8 (cf. IIIB96 Berger apud Strabo 2.1.41). Cf. Pseudo-Aristoteles, De mundo 393a. More generally, see the commentary of Berger 1880, 329-335. 5 Janni 1984. Cf., several years before, the publications of Подосинов 1978, 1979. 2

3

Taylor, Tversky 1992; 1996. Also Trevsky, Franklin, Taylor, Bryant 1999. 7 Cf. the chlamys of Eratosthenes, studied by Zimmermann 2002 and Geus 2013. See also the analysis of Brodersen 2013. 8 Il. 13.3-6. See Ivantchik 1996; 2005, 18-52. 9 Arnaud 1989. Cf. Podossinov 2004 and Подосинов 2002, 77-99. For the general context, see Brodersen 2001 (with the remarks of Talbert 2002), Salway 2004 and 2012, as well as Talbert 2008. 6

40

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

Figure 1. The so-called “Shield” of Dura–Europos (after Cumont 1925 and Uhden 1932; cf. Arnaud 1989).

would have been in the top and the Cimmerian Bosporus at the right extremity. Despite the bi-dimensional aspect of the final planimetric representation, the space initially perceived and registered is road-oriented (the ‘road’ corresponding to the coast-line).

original – determined the overall narrowing of the inhabited world. The Pontic basin is represented as a ribbon; on its coast, several series of terrestrial and maritime roads, suggested by toponyms and names of peoples, have been inscribed, without consideration for the real orientation of the shores. Consequently, the second dimension of the space, valid in the cartographic, bi-dimensional source of the original, was atrophied by the dominant linear perspective in the final document: in the end, just like the ‘shield’ of Dura Europos, the relevant spatial information is hodologic.

The Tabula Peutingeriana presents a parallel case: the author of the ancient model (copied at the beginning of the 12th century and preserved until today only through this copy) took into consideration a bi-dimensional outline10 (Figure 2). But the itineraries orientated from west to east – the essential source of information for the author of the 10

This hodologic character must not be interpreted as a sign

See the new studies of Salway 2005 and Talbert 2010.

41

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 2. The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana (facsimile of K. Miller, 1887-1888, segments 8-10).

of primitivism, as a first stage of an evolution from one to several dimensions. The reduction of space to a series of landmarks fits the conditions of a discourse: in other words, the itinerary suits better than any other form of spatial representation a cultural context in which oral and written texts are the main mode of communication. Yet it does not exclude other, more sophisticated, representations. Bi-dimensional perceptions and representations of the Black Sea are attested as early as the 5th century BC. When considering the Greek sources preserved to this day, the century in question corresponds to the first attestation of the name of the Axine and Euxine Pontus, in Pindar’s 4th Pythian (verses 203-204) and 4th Nemean (verses 49-50)11. Several decades later, Herodotus – probably quoting the sixth-century BC Periodos of Hecataeus of Miletus – gives the first numeric estimations of the Black Sea and of the basins which connect it with the Aegean12. Although no precise shape is indicated, the proportions established between the maximal length (between the Thracian Bosporus and Phasis) and maximal width (between Sindike, on the Asiatic shore of the Cimmerian Bosporus, and Themiskyra) clearly attest the implicit representation of the Black Sea through a geometrical figure: an ellipse which can be simplified and measured as a rhombus.

ships always avoided oblique crossings through the western and eastern parts of the Pontus and followed the shores and the anti-clock currents to the shortest passage (Figure 3). This geographic discovery is generally connected with the intensification of the nautical traffic, which accompanied the development of commercial relationships between Heraclea-Sinope-Amisos on the Asiatic, southern side, and the sites of the Tauric Chersonesos and Pantikapaion on the European, northern shore14. The period of continuous travel during which the seafarer would never lose sight of land when looking to the north or to the south was variously estimated between one day and night and three days and two nights of navigation15. For mariners, this short passage might have represented a practical advantage - although, as modern explorers using ancient techniques have observed, this was not an easy task16. Thus, the proximity between Kriou Metopon and Karambis determined the definition of Pontus as διθάλαττος, a double or twofold sea. This image must have entered quite rapidly the common geographical knowledge of the Athenians (and probably of other Greeks) because it is attested as early as Sophocles (Antigone 966). Its success lasts for centuries: Strabo and his followers quote it, probably following the tracks of Eratosthenes, like Dionysius Periegetes17.

However, about the same period, the Greeks were perhaps already aware of the particular shape of the Black Sea and of its narrowing, between the Tauric peninsula (with its cape Kriou Metopon, corresponding to modern Cape Sarych) and the region of Sinope (with the Karambis promontory, modern Kerembe Burnu)13. The direction of the currents determined by this particular shape makes an even stronger impression on the navigators: before the industrial age,

At some unknown moment, in Hellenistic times, between Eratosthenes and Sallust, the double sea found a more impressive representation in the particular shape of the Scythian bow. This can be explained in a historical perspective through the ethnicity of the object and the ethnography of the Pontic region. Максимова 1956; Maximova 1959. For the identification of Kriou Metopon, see Minns 1913, 19; Агбунов 1984, 126-128; Braund 2000, s.u. Cf. Hind 2001. 15 Pseudo-Scymnos v. 953-957 Müller = 998-1000 Diller = fr. 28 Marcotte, for one night and day. Strabo 2.5.22 gives 2500 stadia, corresponding to two nights and three days (two and half νυχθήμερα); cf. 7.4.3, 12.3.10; also Dionysius Periegetes v. 150-155, and Eustathius, Commentary on Dionysius Periegetes v. 148, quoting Strabo (contra Radt 2002 ad loc., who corrects the distance to 1500 stadia). Pliny the Elder (4.86) gives 170 miles, which correspond to half of Strabo’s distance (2500 stadia: 7.5 = 350 miles) and is close to the estimation of Pseudo-Scymnos. 16 Severin 1985. 17 Strabo 2.5.22, cf. Geographiae exposition compendiaria §51, and Eusthatius, Commentarium on Dionysius Periegetes v. 148; Dionysius Periegetes v. 150-155. See Илюшечкина 2005 and Ilyushechkina 2010, 205-213. Cf. Kowalski 2011; 2012, 164. 14

For the history of the name, see with bibliography Dan 2008; on these first literary references, see West 2003. Cf. Danoff 1962, 950-955. 12 Herod. 4.85-88, cf. 1F196-197 apud Epimerismi Homerici, Cramer 1835, I p. 287 l. 28 with Herodianus vol. 3.2 p. 225 Lentz, as well as Ammianus Marcellinus 22.8.9; Figure 6. Cf., despite his positivistic views, Kimball Armayor 1978. 13 Although the first attestation of the narrowing of the sea, preserved until today, comes only from Ephorus 70F41 (apud Scholia in Apoll.Rhod. 2.360), the Megarian colonisation of Chersonesos could be a consequence of this geographical reality, understood by the Heracleotae. Moreover, exchanges on this route could go back to the 6th century BC and maybe to an earlier, Ionian occupation of this area: see, e.g., Zolotarev 2003 (with bibliography); cf. Hind 1998 and Avram 2009. 11

42

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

Figure 3. Black Sea currents (cf. Oguz et al. 1993, 1610; Stanev 2005).

2. The historical significance of the Scythian bow

utrimque introrsus pandis et patulis cornibus effigiem lunae decrescentis ostendunt, medietatem recta et rotunda regula diuidente.’

Why should the bow representing the Black Sea be specifically ‘Scythian’? The explanation lies in the composition of the bow called by the ancient Greeks ‘Scythian’ and in the ethnicity assigned to the peoples of the Black Sea, including its northern ‘Scythian Arc’.

‘… that while the bows of all other races are bent with the staves curved, in those of the Scythians alone, or the Parthians, since a straight rounded handle divides them in the middle, the ends are bent downwards on both sides and far apart, presenting the form of a waning moon.’ (translation J.-C. Rolfe, Loeb 1940)

One of the best ancient descriptions of the composite bow of the so-called Scythian type comes from the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus. This Greek- and Syrian-speaking elite officer in the Roman army participated in the Persian campaigns of Julian, after the middle of the 4th century AD. His analysis of Scythian or Parthian archery is based on first-hand experience in battle, presented in the light of an important literary culture18. Thus, in his description of the shape of the Black Sea, Ammianus (22.8.37) includes information about how a Scythian bow could be identified:

Today we have the opportunity to compare Ammianus’ double curved, ‘Scythian’ or ‘Parthian’ bow, with various composite bows reconstructed from archaeological discoveries covering all of ancient Asia, from Egypt to the northern and far eastern steppes19. The weapons themselves are very rarely preserved: we may suppose that in the north Pontic lands, just as in the Near East and central Asia, they were made of multiple parts of non-resinous wood, animal sinew and horn or bone, bonded together with glue made from dried fish, eventually protected with leather or

‘… quod, cum arcus omnium gentium flexis curuentur hastilibus, Scythici soli uel Parthici circumductis The debates between the specialists who accept or contest the identification of Ammianus with the Marcellinus from Antioch to whom Libanius addressed the Epistula 1063 Foerster go on, even after the work of Matthews 1994: with similar convictions, Kelly 2008; contra Barnes 1998, 55sq.; cf. the Ammianus Marcellinus Online Project at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (Accessed from: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~drijvers/ammianus). 18

Brentjes 1995-1996; Zuttermann 2003; more generally Karasulas, McBride 2004. 19

43

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

bow in paintings. Long before the Persian wars, the mental association between ‘Scythians’ and archery can be explained through the permanent danger represented by different Iranian groups for the Hellenic communities established on the shores of Asia Minor and the Black Sea24. Thus, if the most suggestive name for a northern Barbarian was the ‘Archer’ (Toxamis or Toxaris), it is no surprise that the best bow was Scythian25.

bark20. More consistent evidence is offered by the graphical representations. Together with some inscriptions, the Near Eastern reliefs show the utilization of the most ancient composite bows in the Mediterranean area from the 4th-3rd millennium BC. Nevertheless, bows with the double curvature of the ‘Scythian’ ‘B-shaped’ type appear in significant numbers in Asia only since the first half of the 1st millennium BC. Shorter than the composite bows generally associated with the Assyrians, the Anatolians and the Urartians, these bows arrived from the northern steppe and were better suited for fighters on horseback. In Herodotus’ time, their common use by some of the Persians and by Scythians was explained through the legend of the Median king Cyaxares, whose sons had been educated by Scythian archers (1.73, cf. 103107)21.

In several cases, however, one can find clear justifications for the Scythian-ness of the bow, even in mythological contexts: the development of the myths of the Amazons and their progressive identification with the historical enemy, from the 5th century BC onwards, explain the huge success of the ‘Scythian’ costume on the red-figure vases26. In earlier times, Heracles was the subject of a similar phenomenon: on the edges of the oecumene, the hero had become the main character of a Greek interpretation of the Scythian myths of origins. Herodotus, who had first-hand evidence from Borysthenes, in the second half of the 5th century BC, presents the ‘Greek’ legend of Heracles and Echidna as a parallel for the ‘Scythian’ myth of Targitaos and of his son Kolaxaios, at the beginning of the Scythian logos (4.5-10)27. The connection between a son of Zeus and the Scythian people was already known to the poet of the Hesiodic Catalogue of women28. But Lycophron is the first to allude to the story of Teutaros, who would have offered a Scythian bow to the Greek hero, besides the bow (plausibly Greek) given by Apollo29.

For more than one century, researchers have insisted on the particular significance of the bow within Greek culture, between the Indo-European symbolic heritage, the Eastern influences and the consequences of hoplite warfare22. In Greek mythology, transposed in epic and tragic texts as well as in vase paintings, the bows, when not associated with specific Greek heroes, are often attributed to nonGreek populations23: the ‘Scythian’ – therefore ‘nomad’, ‘Barbarian’ – costume becomes a symbol of what is inferior to the Greek citizen because the person who uses it avoids close combat. Among these, the Iranians – Scythians and Persians – wearing the particular double curved bow occupy an important place, from the second half of the 6th century BC onward.

Rightly or wrongly, Herodotus’ text was connected with the representation of the Scythian archer, bending his bow, on the Scythian gold vessel (Hermitage Museum, no KO 11) from the kurgan of Kul-Oba30 (Figure 4). Whatever the story behind these representations made of a Scythian society with Hellenic taste, the cultural hybridization of the north Pontic communities, in Classical times, is beyond doubt. The ‘Scythian’ bow was certainly an everyday reality in Olbia, where, by the middle of the 5th century BC, Heracles bends his bow on the coins wearing the inscription ΕΜΙΝΑΚΟ31. About the same time, a bronze miniature of a bow without string (ca. 10 centimeters long) was buried with a child32 (Figure 5). More than one century later,

Of course, just like the ‘Scythian costume’, the presence of a ‘Scythian’ bow is not necessarily a sign of ethnicity: different gods and heroes may use it, without a specific connection with the Barbarian world. The case of the ‘Σκυθικά παλίντονα βέλη’ mentioned by the chorus in Aeschylus’ Choephorae, (v. 161-163), when the return of Orestes is expected, is interesting, because it offers a clear literary parallel for this generalization of the ‘Scythian’ For the north Pontic archaeological traces, see Черненко 1981. Cf. Cernenko, McBride, Gorelik 1983, 11-14 and Černenko 2006. More recently, Godehardt 2009, with full bibliography. A bow dating back to the late 7th century BC has been discovered in the intact kurgan of Arzhan II in Tuva, published by Čugunov, Parzinger, Nagler 2010 (cf. also the online report http://www.dainst.org/en/project/russian-federation-tuvaarzhan). For the reconstruction of the bows, see Miller, McEwen, Bergman 1986; Dwyer 2003; Godehardt, Jaworski, Pieper, Schellenberg 2007. The identification of a ‘Scythian bow’ on a 4th millenium incised stone slab from Mari by Yadin 1972 was rejected by Hamblin 2006, 90. 21 Drews 2004, 108 ff. Cf., for a general overview, Ivantchik 1993. 22 More recently, see Lissarague 1990; Vidal-Naquet 1991², 193; Reboreda Morillo 1996. For the general, Indo-European context, see Sergent 1991. 23 So, the generic ‘καμπύλα τόξα’, ‘curved bows’ – formula which fits perfectly the end of a dactylic hexameter – are characteristic of the equipment of the Trojans and their gods in the Iliad 3.15-18; 5.97; 10.333334; 21.502-503. Cf. 12.372, where this bow is the weapon of Teucer, brother of Aias and son of Telamon, but nephew of the Trojan king Priam. In the Odyssey (9.156-158; 21.359, 362-365), Odysseus’ curved bow is the instrument for hunting and for the contest of the suitors: cf. Sauzeau 2002. This bow (21.11-12, 57-60 etc.), just like that of Teucer (Iliad 8.266; 15.442-444) and Dolon (Iliad 10.458-459), can also be described, with a second formulaic epithet, as a ‘παλίντονον τόξον’, ‘backward bent bow’. 20

Cf. the critical overview of the different theories in Ivantchik 2006, who takes the ‘army of the Medes’ as the model for the ‘Scythian’ archers on Greek vases. 25 Toxamis is the name of an archer on the François Vase (570-560 BC): Minto 1960, 35. Toxaris is the character created by the second-century AD sophist Lucian in his dialogues Scytha and Toxaris: Gorrini 2003 and Braund 2004. 26 We have discussed this issue in Dan, forthcoming. 27 Ivantchik 1999, 2000. Cf. Visintin 2000 and Rusyayeva 2007. For a detailed bibliography, see Corcella 2001, ad loc. (more recently in Asheri, Lloyd, Corcella 2007, ad loc.). 28 Fr. 150.16 Merkelbach-West. This interpretation of this very fragmentary text is supported by Diodorus Siculus (2.43) and Valerius Flaccus (6.48-64); cf. Ivantchik 2005, 27. Contra Most 2006, who bases his reconstruction of fr. 98 on Philodemus, On piety B7504-09 Obbink [= fr. 99 Most]. 29 Lycophron, Alexandra v. 56 with Tzetzes’ Scholia ad 50, 56, 914. Cf. Herodorus of Heracleia 31 F18. 30 Раевский 2006. More generally, see Bord, Mugg 2005, 9-28. 31 Черненко 1981. More generally, Зограф 1982. 32 Козуб 1973. 24

44

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

Figure 4. Kul-Oba vase (Hermitage Museum N° KO 11 after http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/index.html).

Figure 5. Miniature bow from Olbia (5th century BC) with a schematic reconstruction of a Scythian bow (after Черненко 1981).

orators Andocides (On the peace with the Lacedemonians § 5) and Aeschines (On the false embassy § 173), Aristophanes (in Lysistrata 426 ff. and in The Women of the Thesmophoria 929 ff.) attests the existence of a police of Scythian archers in Athens, in 411 BC34. Consequently, there is no wonder that an Athenian citizen of this time was able to recognize a ‘Scythian bow’: Agathon – the tragic poet mocked by Aristophanes in the Thesmophoriazousae and defended in court by Antiphon – compared the Greek letter ‘Σ’ with the shape of the Scythian bow, when an illiterate man tried to explain the spelling of the name

archery games were organized in the city: one inscription records that Anaxagoras, son of Demagores, shot an arrow a distance of 282 orgyiai (ca. 502m or more)33. Furthermore, the ‘Scythian’ bow seems to have been commonly present even in the Aegean and we can be sure that the Athenian artists painting the red figures were aware of the real form of the bow: as confirmed by the IOSPE I² 195 = Moretti 1953, no 32 = Dubois 1996, no 47; cf. McLeod 1965, 1-14, and Dana 2011, 108-109, with other evidence about archery contests in the Greek East. For the mix of Greek and Scythian elements in the army of Olbia, see Rusyaeva, Nazarov 1995 and Скржинская 2000, 61. 33

34

45

Cf. lately Couvenhes 2012.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

of Theseus35. For the description of the same letter, Euripides had used the comparison with a lock of hair36. An intermediary comparison was established by Lycophron, who used the metaphor of the ‘Scythian snake’ (v. 917) in order to designate the same type of bow. At that time, this figure had already become a symbol so widely known that it was present on Macedonian coins and Thasian amphora stamps37.

the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus. Before him, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is shredded by blasphemies.’ (translation P. Holmes, 1878, modified) The Scythian character of the Pontus is more than a loose poetical or rhetorical image: at the edge of the inhabited world, during the 4th century BC, the historian Ephorus assigned the whole North-East to the Scythians39. He continues a more ancient tradition: before Herodotus’ Scythian square, poets and logographers could have represented the Scythians as Nomads on the entire Eurasian steppe, between the Istros and the Araxes40. On the southern shore of this large Scythia, the Euxine Sea, with its Maeotic prolongation, must have appeared as a Scythian arc, between the Interior Sea and the Ocean.

How did this shape come to be considered a mental schema for the drawing of the whole twofold Pontus, well after Herodotus’ southern side of the Scythian square? Apart from the similitude of shapes, one has to consider the ethnical dimension of the Scythian bow, which matches perfectly the ethnicity generally assigned by the Greeks to the Pontic peoples. The Axine and Euxine Pontus is Scythian since the time of Alcaeus of Lesbos, who, at the end of the 7th century BC, presented Achilles as ‘lord of Scythia / ... ᾿Αχίλλευς ὀ τὰς Σκυθίκας μέδεις’38. It is still so for Tertullianus – the Latin theologian who reassembled all the negative literary topoi related to this area, when he wrote against the Gnostic Marcion of Sinope at the beginning of the 3rd century AD (Against Marcion 1.1):

Moreover, some parts of the Eastern and South Pontic coasts could have been attributed to ‘Scythians’. For example, an archaic and classical tradition credits the invention of iron to the Scythians. But no significant mines are attested in Antiquity on the northern or western shores. Thus, the Chalybians, inventors of iron and iron weapons, always located on the Anatolian coast, were of Scythian origin for Aeschylus41. It is, however, impossible to understand on what basis this Scythian ethnicity was assigned to different groups: were the Greeks able to realize the Iranian character of a language? Were they aware of cultural elements which defined “Scythian-ness”, apart from the geographical connection of the Scythians with the North and North-East? Yet, generally speaking, the Chalybians (Χάλυβες / Χάλυβοι) should have been more a caste of craftsmen than a people. If their name relates both them and the Chaldeans (Χαλδαῖοι / Χάλδοι) to the god Ḫaldi, one would expect them to be Hurrites (South-Caucasian) rather than Iranians42.

‘Pontus, qui dicitur Euxinus, natura negatur, nomine illuditur. Ceterum hospitalem Pontum nec de situ aestimes; ita ab humanioribus fretis nostris quasi quodam barbariae suae pudore secessit. Gentes ferocissimae inhabitant; si tamen habitatur in plaustro. […] Sed nihil tam barbarum ac triste apud Pontum quam quod illic Marcion natus est, Scytha tetrior, Hamaxobio instabilior, Massageta inhumanior, Amazona audacior, nubilo obscurior, hieme frigidior, gelu fragilior, Istro fallacior, Caucaso abruptior. Quidni? penes quem uerus Prometheus deus omnipotens blasphemiis lancinatur.’

Nonetheless, other toponyms and names of peoples from northern Anatolia provide arguments in favor of an important presence of speakers of Iranian languages, and, supposedly, bearers of Iranian traditions, between the Caucasus and the Taurus; a population of Skythênoi / Skytinoi is attested in the 4th century BC in Xenophon’s Anabasis (4.7.18 ff. Cf. Diodorus 14.29.2). The region they occupy in northern Cappadocia, between Erzurum - Sadak - Kelkit - Bayburt - Gümüşhane, corresponds to Strabo’s mountain Skydes (12.3.18). In the geography of the legendary Cimmerian and Scythian migrations, this was always the crossing point from the north-eastern Black Sea to south-western Asia. It is most likely that Iranian populations have lived since archaic and classical times on the southern slopes of the Caucasus - where the Kurds,

‘The Sea which is called ‘Euxine’, is selfcontradictory in its nature, and deceptive in its name. In fact, you would not account it hospitable from its situation: so, it is separated from our more civilized waters by a certain stigma of its barbarism. The fiercest nations inhabit it, if indeed it can be called ‘habitation’, when one lives in wagons […] Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than the Scythian, more wandering than the one who lives in a wagon, more inhuman than the Massagetean, more daring than the Amazon, darker than the cloud, colder than the winter, more frail than the ice, more deceitful than Telephos fr. 4.3 Snell TGF apud Athenaeus 10.80. Theseus fr. 382 l. 7 Nauck apud Athenaeus 10.80. 37 The Scythian bow appears with Heracles’ club on the reverse of Philip’s gold staters and on gold and bronze coins of Alexander III: cf. Le Rider 1977, 84-89. For the stamps, Федосеев 2008; for example, see Bon, Bon 1957, nos 717-718 (among other examples registered in the index, s.u. “arc”), with parallels at Histria (Avram 1996, no 244), as a symbol of Thasian magistrates called Ἡράκλειτος, between the 5th and the 4th century BC. 38 Fr. 354 [Z 31] Lobel‑Page apud Eustathius, Commentary on Dionysius Periegetes 306 Müller. 35 36

70 F30a‑b‑c apud Strabo 1.2.28; Cosmas Indicopleustes II, 148; Pseudo-Scymnos v. 167-182. 40 The two eventual literary echoes of this old tradition are Herodotus 1.202 and Philostratus, Heroicus §28 de Lannoy, 704 Olearius. See Dan 2011a. 41 Seven against Thebes 727-730. Cf. the itinerary of Io in Prometheus bound 709-716. 42 Cf., with bibliography, Dan 2011b. 39

46

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

Figure 6. Measures of the Black and Marmara Seas in Herodotus (4.85-88).

western Iranians like the ancient Scythians, still live. This situation might have been a supplementary argument for the association of the whole Pontus with the shape of the Scythian weapon par excellence.

of the Black Sea in Strabo, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder and Dionysius Periegetes, with his Latin translators. The second is derived by Ammianus Marcellinus from Dionysius Periegetes and shows how the mental construction of a space can evolve in different intellectual contexts.

If the mental association of the Black Sea with the Scythian bow was so appropriate, why was it not general? How can we explain the fact that in ancient cartography – especially in Ptolemy’s Geography, on the Tabula Peutingeriana (mentioned above) as well as in the late antique maps which served as models for the medieval mappae mundi – there is no trace of such a shape?43 The answer necessarily lies within the literary history of the Black Sea as a Scythian bow.

Strabo combines data from Eratosthenes’ and Hipparchus’ mathematical geography with information gathered by Hellenistic historians and commentators from more empirical sources44. Born in 63 BC – the year of Mithridates VI Eupator’s death – in Amaseia of Pontus, the Geographer is very well informed about the shape and the dimensions of both basins composing the twofold Euxine and emphasizes the place of the Black Sea within the Roman oecumene. Strabo is more precise than any other ancient author who had written about this region and compares it with a

3. The descriptions of the Black Sea as a Scythian bow After the short mention of the figure in Sallust’s Histories, the texts which try to explain the comparison of the Black Sea with a Scythian bow refer to two different forms (Figures 7 and 8). The first corresponds to the descriptions

Cf. Aujac 1966, Engels 1999 , Dueck 2010, and Bianchetti 2006. At his turn, Strabo was used by the anonymous author of the Ὑποτύπωσις γεωγραφίας ἐν ἐπιτομῇ (Geographiae expositio compendiaria, edited by Müller 1860-1861, II, 509, and, lately, by F. Mittenhuber in FGrHist V, n° 2021), § 52: ῾Η δὲ περίμετρος τοῦ σύμπαντος Πόντου δισμύριά ἐστι καὶ ε, ἐοικυῖα Σκυθικῷ τόξῳ. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ δεξιὰ τῇ νευρᾷ παρομοιοῦσι, πάντοθεν γάρ ἐστιν ἰθυτενῆ πλὴν τῆς ἀνεχούσης Καράμβεως, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν πᾶν τῷ κέρατι τοῦ τόξου διττὴν ἔχοντι τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν, ὥστε δύο κόλπους συνίστασθαι, ὧν ὁ ἑσπέριος κατὰ πολὺ περιφερέστερος ὑπάρχει τοῦ ἑῳθινωτέρου. 44

For Ptolemy, see the world maps reconstructed on the basis of the textual coordinates and Ptolemaic cartographic traditions in Stückelberger, Graßhoff 2006, 748-749 (1st projection) and 750-751 (2nd projection) and the regional maps 8 and 9 of Europe and 1, 2, and 3 of Asia. For the Medieval mappae mundi, see the evidence in Kochanek 2004 and Chekin 2006. 43

47

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 7. The Black Sea as a Scythian bow in Strabo (2.5.22) and Dionysius Periegetes (v. 156-162).

Figure 8. The Black Sea as a Scythian bow in Ammianus Marcellinus (22.8.10-43).

48

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

Scythian bow whose stave was composed of two uneven limbs (Strabo 2.5.22):

which the western is much more rounded than the other.’ (translation H.L. Jones, Loeb 1917, modified)

‘… τὸν Εὔξεινον προσαγορευόμενον πόντον. ἔστι δὲ διθάλαττος τρόπον τινὰ οὗτος· κατὰ μέσον γάρ πως ἄκραι δύο προπίπτουσιν, ἡ μὲν ἐκ τῆς Εὐρώπης καὶ τῶν βορείων μερῶν ἡ δ’ ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἐναντία ταύτῃ, συνάγουσαι τὸν μεταξὺ πόρον καὶ ποιοῦσαι δύο πελάγη μεγάλα· τὸ μὲν οὖν τῆς Εὐρώπης ἀκρωτήριον καλεῖται Κριοῦ μέτωπον τὸ δὲ τῆς ᾿Ασίας Κάραμβις, διέχοντα ἀλλήλων περὶ χιλίους σταδίους καὶ πεντακοσίους. τὸ μὲν οὖν πρὸς ἑσπέραν πέλαγος μῆκός ἐστιν ἀπὸ Βυζαντίου μέχρι τῶν ἐκβολῶν τοῦ Βορυσθένους σταδίων τρισχιλίων ὀκτακοσίων, πλάτος δὲ δισχιλίων· ἐν τούτῳ δ’ ἡ Λευκὴ νῆσός ἐστι· τὸ δ’ ἑῷόν ἐστι παράμηκες εἰς στενὸν τελευτῶν μυχὸν τὸν κατὰ Διοσκουριάδα ἐπὶ πεντακισχιλίους ἢ μικρῷ πλείους σταδίους, τὸ δὲ πλάτος περὶ τρισχιλίους· ἡ δὲ περίμετρος τοῦ σύμπαντος πελάγους ἐστὶ δισμυρίων που καὶ πεντακισχιλίων σταδίων. εἰκάζουσι δέ τινες τὸ σχῆμα τῆς περιμέτρου ταύτης ἐντεταμένῳ Σκυθικῷ τόξῳ, τὴν μὲν νευρὰν ἐξομοιοῦντες τοῖς δεξιοῖς καλουμένοις μέρεσι τοῦ Πόντου (ταῦτα δ’ ἐστὶν ὁ παράπλους ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος μέχρι τοῦ μυχοῦ τοῦ κατὰ Διοσκουριάδα)· πλὴν γὰρ τῆς Καράμβιος ἥ γε ἄλλη πᾶσα ᾐὼν μικρὰς ἔχει εἰσοχάς τε καὶ ἐξοχὰς ὥστ’ εὐθείᾳ ἐοικέναι, τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν τῷ κέρατι τοῦ τόξου διττὴν ἔχοντι τὴν ἐπιστροφήν, τὴν μὲν ἄνω περιφερεστέραν τὴν δὲ κάτω εὐθυτέραν· οὕτω δὲ κἀκείνην ἀπεργάζεσθαι δύο κόλπους, ὧν ὁ ἑσπέριος πολὺ θατέρου περιφερέστερός ἐστιν.’

Several decades later, in the oldest Latin Chorography preserved to our days, Pomponius Mela makes a short synthesis of the most common ideas about the Black Sea, at the end of his world tour through Africa and Asia45. He includes the comparison with the Scythian bow in an accumulation of motifs about the Pontic cruelty (Pomponius Mela 1.102): ‘hic iam sese ingens Pontus aperit, nisi qua promunturia sunt, huc atque illuc longo rectoque limite extentus, sinuatus cetera, sed quia contra minus quam ad laeuam et dextram abscessit, mollibusque fastigiis donec angustos utrimque angulos faciat inflectitur, ad formam Scythici arcus maxime incuruos. breuis, atrox, nebulosus, raris stationibus, non molli neque harenoso circumdatus litore, uicinus aquilonibus, et quia non profundus est fluctuosus atque feruens, olim ex colentium saeuo admodum ingenio Axenus, post commercio aliarum gentium mollitis aliquantum moribus dictus Euxinus.’ ‘Here now the mighty Pontus opens out, and – except where there are promontories – it extends to both the near and far sides in a long and straight line, even though the coast winds everywhere else. However, because the frontal shoreline recedes less than it does to the left or to the right, curves around with soft points until it makes narrow angles on both ends and is rounded very much like the shape of the Scythian bow. The sea is brief, cruel, cloudy; its stopping-off places are few and far between; it is surrounded by a shore that is neither soft nor sandy; it borders on the north winds; and it is billowy and tempestuous, because it is not deep. In the olden days the sea was called the Axene (‘Inhospitable’) Sea from the vicious disposition of the inhabitants, but later it was called the Euxinus (‘Hospitable’) Sea because of traffic with somewhat gentler nations.’ (translation F. E. Romer 1997, slightly modified)

‘… the so-called “Euxine” Pontus. This is a double sea, so to speak: for two promontories jut out at about the middle of it, one from Europe and the northern parts, and the other, opposite to it, from Asia, thus contracting the passage between them and forming two large basins. The promontory of Europe is called Kriou Metopon, and that of Asia, Karambis; and they are about 2500 stadia distant from each other. The western basin has a length of 3800 stadia, reckoning from Byzantium to the mouths of the Borysthenes, and a breadth of 2000 stadia; here the island of Leuke is situated. The eastern basin is oblong and ends in a narrow creek down over Dioskourias; it has a length of 5000 stadia or a little more, and a breadth of about 3000 stadia. The circumference of the whole sea is approximately 25000 stadia. Some compare the shape of this circumference to that of a bent Scythian bow, likening the bow-string to the regions on what is called the right-hand side of the Pontus (that is, the ship-course along the coast from the outlet to the creek down over Dioskourias); for with the exception of the promontory of Karambis the whole shore has but small recesses and projections, so that it looks like a straight line; and the rest they liken to the horn of the bow with its double curve, the upper curve being rounded off, while the lower curve is straighter; and thus they say that the other coast forms two gulfs, of

Also, soon after the middle of the 1st century AD, Pliny the Elder (4.76. Cf. 4.86) reproduces the same image in his Natural history, without further details: ‘dein uastum mare Pontus Euxinus, qui quondam Axenus, longe refugientes occupat terras magnoque litorum flexu retro curuatus in cornua ab iis utrimque porrigitur, ut sit plane arcus Scythici forma. medio flexu iungitur ostio Maeotii lacus.’ ‘Then comes the vast extent of the Euxine Pontus, formerly the Axene, which encroaches on a large area of the continent, and with a great bend of its coasts curves back into horns and from them stretches out on 45

49

See the notes ad loc. in Parroni 1984 and Silberman 1985.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

either side, producing exactly the shape of a Scythian bow. In the middle of the curve it is joined by the mouth of the Maeotic lake.’ (translation H. Rackham, Loeb 1961, slightly modified)

curves, on that side Asia, where it is bent to the shape of a Scythian bow…’ Valerius Flaccus 4.727-728 (translation J. H. Mozley, Loeb 1928)

The most recent writer belonging to this tradition is Dionysius of Alexandria: in the first half of the 2nd century AD, he synthesizes the qualification of the Black Sea as a double sea and its schematization as a Scythian bow in several hexameters (Dionysius Periegetes v. 156-162):

These verses show that the description of the Pontus as a Scythian bow, a common simile under the early Roman Empire, was not necessarily the invention of a mathematical geographer; it could come from any author aware of the advantages of describing the earth like the sky, by identifying regions and associating them with figures. This author may be Eratosthenes himself but also a post-Eratosthenian astronomer or cosmographer or even an historian, with a particular tendency for impressive descriptions of space.

‘ἐκ τοῦ δ’ ἂν καὶ Πόντον ἴδοις διθάλασσον ἐόντα, τόρνῳ ἐειδόμενον περιηγέος ἅμματι τόξου. ἀλλ’ εἴη νευρῆς σημήϊα δεξιὰ Πόντου, εὐθὺ διαγραφθέντα, μέση δέ τοί ἐστι Κάραμβις, γραμμῆς ἐκτὸς ἐοῦσα καὶ ἐς βορέην ὁρόωσα· σῆμα δ’ ἔχει κεράων σκαιὸς πόρος, ὅστ’ ἐπὶ δισσὴν εἱλεῖται στροφάλιγγα, βιοῦ κεράεσσιν ἐοικώς.’

For didactic purposes, the unknown author used a wellknown symbol, whose association with a Greek letter was obvious for a wide public. From this point of view, the comparison of the Euxine with the Scythian bow is similar to the description of the mouth of the Nile through the Greek letter Δ (already in Herodotus’ sources, cf. 2.13 ff.). In a similar manner, the course of the Nile was compared with a Ν (in Strabo 17.1.2), while the Hellespont formed a Φ (in Ammianus Marcellinus 22.8.4, 6). But the ethnographic implications of the shape of the weapon accentuated the historical meaning of this identification. The oldest parallel for this figure can be found only in Livy and Fabius Rusticus, quoted by Tacitus in the description of Britain: the most eloquent historians (eloquentissimi auctores) ‘have compared it to a small oblong shield or to a double battle-axe (oblongae scutulae uel bipenni adsimulauere)’46.

‘From that point, you could see the Pontus, a twofold sea, which, due to its curvature, looks like a bow, rounded by the cord. The right side of Pontus would symbolize the string, drawn straightly; Karambis lies in the middle: it stretches out the line and looks towards Boreas. The left pathway has the form of the horns: it rolls up in a double turn, like the horns of the bow.’ All these texts have a similar content: they refer to the names of Pontus and to its position between Europe and Asia, to the geometrical shape of the double sea and to the promontories which form it and, finally, to the Scythian bow. This is why one might be tempted to identify their ultimate source with Eratosthenes. But the echoes preserved from Eratosthenes’ description of the Black Sea are too scarce to support this hypothesis. Moreover, the sphragides are geometrical shapes associated with lands: the association of a figure with a sea appears as a unique exception.

So just like the shapes through which Eratosthenes and Aratos of Soles described the constellations, the weapons which symbolized the mental map of some barbarian countries had a story to tell. For Manilius, the story of the Scythian bow had to be related to Apollo; the archer god, associated with the extreme North of the Hyperboreans, was linked with another archer, Heracles. For the anonymous sources of Varro (Res rusticae 2.1.7) and Hyginus (Astronomica 2.22), the two sons of Zeus were identified with the Gemini, the sign of the Euxine in Manilius’ melothesia47.

A clue for the origin of the comparison could come from the verses of two epic poets of the 1st century AD, M. Manilius and Valerius Flaccus: ‘Euxinus Scythicos pontus sinuatus in arcus sub Geminis te, Phoebe, colit; uos Thracia, fratres, ultimus et sola uos tranans colit Indica Ganges.’

Manilius and Valerius Flaccus never finished their poems48. Thus, the most ancient work preserved until today which quotes the image of the Scythian bow and which had a clear impact on later texts is the didactic poem of Dionysius Periegetes. During the 4th and 6th centuries AD, Avienus and Priscianus published translations of the Periegesis in Latin hexameters. Both of them followed the Greek text without offering any personal reading for this comparison:

‘The Euxine Pontus curved like the Scythian bows cultivates you, Phoebus, under the sign of the Twins; Thrace and the Ganges, which crosses, at the end of the world, the Indian desert lands cultivate you, brothers…’ Manilius 4.755-757 ‘atque hac Europam curuis anfractibus urget, hac Asiam, Scythicum specie sinuatus in arcum.’

Agricola 10.4. See Callataÿ 2001, 43 n. 34. 48 For Manilius, see Hübner 1984 and Volk 2009. For Valerius Flaccus, see Hershkowitz 1998, 1-34. 46 47

‘… on this side it touches Europe with its winding

50

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

‘porro inter fluctus ac fusi marmora ponti / proxima celsorum sic sunt sibi dorsa iugorum, / quamuis uasta sali moles interfluit arces, / ut gemini sit forma maris. sed brachia pontus, / finibus arctois, eoae lucis in ortum,/ et qua prona dies atris inuoluitur umbris, / molliter inclinans, Scythici speciem facit arcus; / at tepidi de parte noti directior oram, / continuumque iacens, rigidi sub imagine nerui / tenditur: excedit confinia sola Carambis / in borean uergens.’ Avienus, Orbis descriptio 230-240

Bospori, as the poets say, because the daughter of Inachus, when she was changed into a heifer, once crossed through them into the Ionian sea.’ ‘Haut procul inde attollitur Carambis placide collis contra [septentrionem] Helicen exsurgens, cuius e regione est Criumetopon, Tauricae promuntorium, duobus milibus et quingentis stadiis disparatum. Hocque ex loco omnis ora maritima, cuius initium Halys est amnis, uelut longitudine lineali directa nerui efficit speciem, duabus arcus summitatibus conligati.’

‘Panditur hinc Ponti pelagus Titanis ad ortus; / quod petit obliquo boream solem que meatu. / Hinc atque hinc medio procurrunt aequore colles: / unus, qui ueniens Asiae de parte Carambis / dicitur australi; sed contra finibus alter / prominet Europae, hunc Criu dixere metopon. / Ergo conueniunt aduersi, gurgite tanto / distantes quantum ternis transire diebus / eualeat nauis. Bimarem sic aequore Pontum / aspicias similem cornu, quod flectitur arcus / neruo curuati distento: dextera neruum / assimilat (recto trahitur nam linea ductu, / extra quam, boream quod scandit, sola Carambis); / sed formam cornu geminatis flexibus edit / litus, quod Pontum cingit sub parte sinistra.’ Priscianus, Periegesis 138-152

‘Not far from there the hill called Carambis lifts itself with gentle slope, rising towards the Great Bear of the north; opposite this, at a distance of 2500 stadia, is Criumetopon, a promontory of Taurica. From this point the whole seacoast, beginning at the river Halys, as if drawn in a straight line, has the form of the string joined to the two tips of the bow.’ ‘Hactenus arcus apex protendi existimatur. Eius nunc residua leniter sinuata, subiectaque ursae caelesti ad usque laeuum Bospori Thracii latus, ut ordo postulat, exsequemur …’ ‘So far the peak of the bow is thought to extend; the remainder of it, gently curved and lying under the Bear in the heavens, we shall now follow as far as the left side of the Thracian Bosporus, as the order demands …’

The case of Ammianus Marcellinus, himself a late–fourth –century reader of Dionysius, is different: the historian tries to understand how the figure of the Scythian bow came to be used in descriptions of the Black Sea49. This explains why his interpretation, based on a personal reading of various sources, is very different from the rest of the tradition:

‘In medio autem spatio arcus, quod prolixae rotunditatis esse praediximus, quodque expedito uiatori diebus conficitur quindecim, Europaei sunt Halani et Costobocae gentesque Scytharum innumerae, quae porriguntur ad usque terras sine cognito fine distentas…’

‘Omnis autem eius uelut insularis circuitus litorea nauigatio uiginti tribus dimensa milibus stadiorum, ut Eratosthenes adfirmat et Hecataeus et Ptolomaeus aliique huius modi cognitionum minutissimi scitatores, in speciem Scythici arcus neruo coagmentati geographiae totius adsensione formatur.’

‘Now in the middle space of the bow, which, as I have said, is widely rounded out and is fifteen days’ journey for an active traveler, are the European Halani, the Costobocae, and innumerable Scythian peoples, which extend to lands which have no known limit.’

‘The complete voyage around its shores, as one would encircle an island, is a distance of 23,000 stadia, as is asserted by Eratosthenes, Hecataeus, Ptolemy, and other very accurate investigators of such problems; and according to the common opinion of all geographers it has the form of a drawn Scythian bow.’

‘Cum autem ad alium portuosum ambitum fuerit uentum, qui arcus figuram determinat ultimam, Peuce prominet insula, quam circumcolunt Trogodytae et Peucini minoresque aliae gentes, et Histros quondam potentissima ciuitas, et Tomi et Apollonia et Anchialos et Odissos, aliae praeterea multae, quas litora continent Thraciarum.’

‘Extremitates autem arcus utrimque tenues duo exprimunt Bospori e regione sibi oppositi Thracius et Cimmericus: hac causa Bospori uocitati, quod per eos quondam Inachi filia mutata, ut poetae locuntur, in bouem ad mare Ionium permeauit.’

‘But when we have come to another bend, abounding in harbors, which forms the last part of the curve of the bow, the island of Peuce juts forth, and around this dwell the Trogodytae, the Peuci, and other lesser tribes. Here is Histros, once a powerful city, and Tomi, Apollonia, Anchialos, and Odessos, besides

‘Now the tips of the bow on both sides are represented by the two Bospori lying opposite to each other, the Thracian and the Cimmerian; and they are called See Gualandri 1968. Cf. Den Boeft et al. 1995, ad loc.; Drijvers 1998; Feraco 2011. For Ammianus’ geography, cf. Sundwall 1996. 49

51

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

many other cities which lie along the coast of the Thracians.’ Ammianus Marcellinus 22.8.10, 13, 20, 37, 42, 43 (translation J.-C. Rolfe, Loeb 1940, slightly modified)

information might be integrated in this process but only at certain points and if in agreement with common opinion. The context of elaboration of this knowledge and its purpose remain purely intellectual, especially when they concern the edges of the known world. All they can teach us are indirect perceptions, common opinions and scholarly constructions and reconstructions of distant realities: the Scythian bow which symbolizes the Black Sea is a fact of Greek intellectual history, and neither a Pontic reality (both for the Pontians themselves and for those who visited them), nor a pure Aegean invention.

Aware of this unparalleled schematization of a sea which must be considered like an island, Ammianus might have been deceived by Dionysius’ orientation. As a rule in ancient periplography and historiography, the left side of the Pontus corresponds to the western coast, as would be natural for someone navigating through the Thracian Bosporus in a northern direction. Thus, when one does not follow Dionysius’ mental eye and does not look towards the east, with the southern Pontic coast on the right and the northern coast on the left, one reverses Dionysius’ bow: the string is orientated from the South-West to North-East50. Also, Ammianus probably misunderstood how the promontory of Karambis came to disturb the straight line which should have corresponded to the south shore of the Pontus and to the stretched string of the bow. By considering that the bow was bent and that the string made an angle orientated to the North-West at Karambis, Ammianus must have induced by himself that the two extremities of the sea were not Istros and Phasis (a fact which is never explicit in the previous texts) but the two Bosporus. This was actually a common opinion in Greek and Latin periplography: it appears in Pseudo-Scylax and was largely used in the mathematical geography of the Hellenistic and Roman times51. As early as the 2nd century BC, Polybius already offered a round value for the distance between the two Bosporus: his 500 miles were perfectly suitable for the construction of a mental, geometric image of the whole Black Sea52.

The Scythian bow represents the final stage of a long search for the contours of the Black Sea core-region. This natural space was not only so large that it went beyond the capacity of perception and the political, economic and military interests of one person – with the notable exception of Mithridates VI Eupator; it was also so far away from the main scientific centers of the Greek world that it was generally not accessible to those who spoke or were heard about in Antiquity and whose works are preserved to our days53. Without a doubt, this representation of the Pontus – as a bow, formed by an arc, corresponding to its Northern Shore, and by a string, symbolized by its southern, Anatolian coast – is not a fact of ‘common sense geography’, something which would have been useful to a person native to this area or to someone travelling there54. It is a planimetric representation, full of historical meaning, an intellectual construction which could be of interest only to scholars, in general discussions about the shape of the oecumene and about the significance of its parts. As confirmed by its literary parallels, its main purpose remains didactic: it is a tool which allows a more synthetic and pleasant illustration of geographic, ethnographic and historical information.

Consequently, Ammianus’ stretching of the bow is an imperfect synthesis of space representations in one dimension (periplus, itinerary), familiar to travelers and all those who preferred empirical views of the world, and the geography in two dimensions (cartographic sketches) used in the Eratosthenian tradition of Dionysius’ schoolbook. When the historian tries to implement his practical knowledge and scholastic deduction into a preexistent system, he simply creates a new image.

This diachronic overview of the texts referring to the Euxine as a Scythian bow proves that the history of the mental modeling of the whole Black Sea includes three important moments. As early as the 5th century BC, Greek authors already had a global idea about the twofold sea: this means that by that time, information gathered from those who had direct contact with this remote area had been used for the mental modeling of this region of the inhabited world and was already integrated into poetic, historical and geographical texts. At some unknown moment between the late Hellenistic and early Roman era, the Pontus was characterized as a Scythian bow. Most of the historic and cosmographic treaties published in Hellenistic times being lost, it is impossible to be more precise about the inventor of this image today. All we can do is to reconstruct its Roman history, when the representation of the Euxine as a Scythian bow was a widely known, literary topos, probably part of a common level of geographical knowledge. Finally, during Late Antiquity, this mental scheme was misunderstood, even by a Greek-speaking reader of the schoolbook of ancient geography, the Periegesis of Dionysius of Alexandria. It

Ammianus is a good example of the methods used in ancient representations of spaces: the main characteristics of pre-modern geography are its conservatism and determinism, because the ancient writers, more or less faithful to their sources of any literary genres, always used and reused previous evidence. First-hand, anonymous See the correct reconstruction of Ammians’ bow on the map included at the end of the Budé edition of Fontaine, Frézouls, Berger 1996. 51 Pseudo-Scylax §92. Cf. Pseudo-Arrian §91 Müller = 16v Diller = 120 Podossinov (in FGrHist V, no 2037). For the mathematical geography, one can mention the estimations of the periplous of the European and Asiatic shores of the Euxine in Eratosthenes IIIB65, 77-78 Berger = book 3 fr. 52, 115, 116 Roller (apud Strabo 2.1.39 ; Pliny the Elder 5.47, 6.3 ex correctione. Cf. Eratosthenes IIIB39 Berger) and also in Agrippa fr. 16 Riese (apud Pliny the Elder 4.77); fr. 17 Riese (apud Pliny the Elder 4.78); fr. 29 Riese = fr. 51 Klotz (apud Pliny the Elder 6.3). 52 Polybius (34.15.5. Cf. Pliny the Elder 4.77). The 500 miles correspond to 3750 stadia (if Pliny’s ratio was 7.5 stadia for 1000 paces) or to 5000 stadia (if he used the common, unofficial ratio of 10 stadia for 1000 paces). 50

53 54

52

I have fully developped these aspects in Dan 2009. For this concept, see Geus, Thiering 2012.

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

Braund, D. 2004. Scythians in the Cerameicus: Lucian’s Toxaris. In C. J. Tuplin (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World. Studies in the Black Sea History, Historiography, and Archaeology, 17-23. Leiden-Boston, Brill. Brentjes, B. 1995-1996. Waffen der Steppenvölker II: Kompositbogen, Goryt und Pfeil - ein Waffenkomplex der Steppenvölker, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus dem Iran 28, 179-210. Brodersen, K. 2001. The Presentation of Geographical Knowledge for Travel and Transport in the Roman World. Itineraria non tantum adnotata sed etiam picta. In C. Adams, R. Laurence (eds.), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, 7-21. London-New York, Routledge. Brodersen, K. 2013. Von Periplus zur Karte. Die Leistung des Gaius Iulius Solinus. In K. Geus, M. Rathmann (eds), Vermessung der Oikumene, 185-201. Berlin-Boston, Walter de Gruyter. Callataÿ, G. de. 2001. La Géographie zodiacale de Manilius (Astr. 4, 744-817), avec une note sur l’Énéide virgilienne, Latomus 60.1, 35-66. Černenko, E. V. 2006. Die Schutzwaffen der Skythen. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner. Cernenko, E. V., McBride, A., Gorelik, M. V. 1983. The Scythians 700-300 BC. London, Osprey Publishing. Charvet P., Zucker A. 2001. Le Ciel: mythes et histoire des constellations. Les Catastérismes d’Ératosthène. Paris, Nil Éditions. Chekin, L. S. 2006. Northern Eurasia in Medieval Cartography. Inventory, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Turnhout, Brepols. Corcella, A. 2001. Erodoto. Le storie IV. La Scizia e la Libia. Roma, A. Mondadori. Couvenhes, J.-C. 2012. L’Introduction des archers scythes, esclaves publics, à Athènes: la date et l’agent d’un transfert culturel. In B. Legras (ed.), Transferts culturels et droits dans le monde grec et hellénistique, 99-118. Paris, Sorbonne. Cramer, J. A. 1835. Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis Bibliothecarum Oxoniensium. Oxonii. Čugunov, K., Parzinger, H., Nagler, A. 2010. Die skythenzeitliche Fürstenkurgan Aržan 2 in Tuva. Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern. Cumont, F. 1925. Fragment de bouclier portant une liste d’étapes. Syria 6.1, 1-15. Cusset, C., and Frangoulis, H. (eds) 2008. Ératosthène: un athlète du savoir. Saint-Étienne, Université de SaintÉtienne. Dan, A. 2008. Du Pont à la Mer Majeure: notes de philologie et d’histoire, Peuce N.S. 6, 165-88. Dan, A. 2009. ‘La Plus Merveilleuse des mers’. Recherches sur la représentation de la mer Noire et de ses peuples dans les sources antiques, d’Homère à Ératosthène. PhD theseis, University of Reims. Dan, A. 2011a. L’Istros d’Hérodote, Dacia 55, 25-56. Dan, A. 2011b. Les Leukosyriens: quelques notes d’ethnographie sinopéenne, Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 16 (Actes du Colloque international Sinope. Un état de la question après 15 ans de travaux, Sinope/Turquie, 7-9 Mai 2009), 73-102.

became one of those productive errors which contributed to the development of pre-experimental science. Even if it did not enter the major cartographic traditions still to be found attested, this figure was very popular: its geometric, ethnic and anthropologic meanings must have been obvious for most learned readers. The information forming the basis of these interpretations was inspired, at some moment, by geographical and historical realities. But the mental modeling of the Black Sea as a Scythian bow must be seen as an example of the continuous construction and reconstruction, in the cultural centers of the Mediterranean, of an end of the world assigned to the Barbarian Other. List of Bibliography Arnaud, P. 1989. Une Deuxième Lecture du ‘bouclier’ de Doura-Europos, Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 133.2, 373-389. Asheri, D., Lloyd, A., Corcella, A. 2007. A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV (O. Murray, A. Moreno eds). Oxford, Oxford University Press. Aujac, G. 1966. Strabon et la science de son temps. Paris, Les Belles Lettres. Aujac, G. 1996. Sphère céleste et constellations chez Eudoxe, Aratos, Hipparque, Ptolémée. In B. Bakhouche, A. Moreau, J.-C. Turpin (eds.), Les Astres et les mythes. La description du ciel. Actes du Colloque international de Montpellier 23-25 mars 1995, 209-226. Montpellier, Université Montpellier III. Avram, A. 1996. Histria VIII.1. Les timbres amphoriques 1. Thasos. Bucureşti-Paris, Editura EnciclopedicǎDiffusion de Boccard. Avram, A. 2009. Héraclée du Pont et ses colonies pontiques: antécédents milésiens (?) et empreinte mégarienne. In M. Lombardo, F. Frisone, (eds.), Colonie di colonie: le fondazioni sub-coloniali greche tra colonizzazione e colonialismo, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Lecce, 22-24 giugno 2006), 209-227. Galatina, Congedo. Barnes, T. D. 1998. Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality. Ithaca-London, Cornell University Press. Berger, H. 1880. Die geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes, Leipzig, B. G. Teubner. Bianchetti, S. 2006. L’Eratostene di Strabone, Pallas 72, 35-46. Boeft, J. den et al. 1995, Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXII. Groningen, E. Forsten. Bon, A.-M., Bon, A. 1957. Les Timbres amphoriques de Thasos. Paris, École Française d’Athènes. Bord, L.-J., Mugg, J.-P. 2005. L’Arc des steppes: étude historique et technique de l’archerie des peuples nomades d’Eurasie. Aix-en-Provence, Éditions du Gerfaut. Braund, D. 2000. Map 23. Tomis-Olbia-Chersonesos. In R. J. A. Talbert, The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

53

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Dan, A. forthcoming. Le Thermodon, un cas d’homonymie géographique qui fait histoire (autour de Douris 76 F 38 Jacoby = fr. 6 Müller, apud Plutarque, Vie de Démosthène 19). In M. Mahé-Simon, V. Naas (eds.), De Samos à Rome: personnalité et influence de Douris. Actes du colloque international de Paris, 19-20 novembre 2010. Paris. Dana, M. 2011. Culture et mobilité dans le Pont-Euxin. Bordeaux, Ausonius. Danoff, C. 1962. Pontos Euxeinos, Real Encyclopädie Supplementum 9, 866-1175. Drews, R. 2004. Early Riders. The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe. New York-London, Routledge. Drijvers, J. W. 1998. Ammianus Marcellinus on the Geography of the Pontus Euxinus, Histos 2, (Accessed from: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/document s/1998.11DrijversAmmianusonPontus Euxinus 268278. pdf.) Dubois, L. 1996. Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont. Genève, Droz. Dueck, D. 2005. The Parallelogram and the Pinecone: Definition of Geo­gra­phi­cal Shapes in Greek and Roman Geography on the Evidence of Strabo, Ancient Society 35, 19–57. Dueck, D. 2010. The Geographical Narrative of Strabo of Amasia. In K. A. Raaflaub, R. J. A. Talbert (eds), Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre-Modern Societies, 236-251, Chichester, West Sussex, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dueck, D. 2005. The Parallelogram and the Pinecone: Definition of Geo­gra­phi­cal Shapes in Greek and Roman Geography on the Evidence of Strabo, Ancient Society 35, 19–57. Dwyer, B. 2003. Scythian-Style Bows Discovered in Xinjiang, Journal of the Society of Archer Antiquaries 48, 71-82 (Accessed from: http://stumbleinn.net/forum/ showthread.php?t=238). Engels, J. 1999. Augusteische Oikumenegeographie und Universalhistorie im Werk Strabons von Amaseia. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner. Feraco, F. 2011. Ammiano geografo. Nuovi studi. Napoli, Loffredo. Fontaine, J., Frézouls, E., Berger, J. D. 1996. Ammien Marcellin 3. Histoires livres XX-XXII. Paris, Les Belles Lettres. Gehrke, H.-J. 1998. Die Geburt der Erdkunde aus dem Geiste der Geometrie. Überlegungen zur Entstehung und zur Frühgeschichte der wissenschafltichen Geographie bei den Griechen. In W. Kullmann, J. Althoff, M. Asper (eds.), Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike, 163-192. Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag. Gehrke, H.-J. 2007. Die Raumwahrnehmung im archaischen Griechenland. In M. Rathmann (ed.), Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike, 17-30. Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern. Geus, K. 2002. Eratosthenes von Kyrene: Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. München, C. H. Beck.

Geus, K. 2013. Die Vermessung der Oikumene(n). In O. Dally, F. Fless, R. Haensch, F. Pirson, S. Sievers (eds), Politische Räume in vor­ modernen Gesellschaften: Gestaltung – Wahrnehmung – Funktion, 153-160. Berlin, De Gruy­ter. Geus, K. and Thiering, M. 2012. Common Sense Geography and Mental Modeling: Opening the stage. In K. Geus, M. Thiering (eds.), Common Sense Geography and Mental Modeling, 2-10. Berlin, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Preprint 426. Geus, K. and Tupikova, I. 2013. Anmerkungen zur Geschichte der Erdmessung im Altertum. In K. Geus, M. Rathmann (eds), Vermessung der Oikumene, 171184. Berlin-Boston, Walter de Gruyter. Godehardt, E. 2009. Der skythische Bogen. In M. Bittl et alii, Reflexbogen. Geschichte & Herstellung, 27-60. Ludwigshafen, Angelika Hörnig. Godehardt, E., Jaworski, J., Pieper, P., Schellenberg, H. M. 2007. The Reconstruction of Scythian Bows. In B. P. C. Molloy (ed.), The Cutting Edge: studies in ancient and medieval combat, 112-33. Stroud, Tempus. Gorrini, M. E. 2003. Toxaris, ὁ ξένος ἰατρός, Athenaeum 91.2, 435-43. Gualandri, I. 1968. Fonti geografiche di Ammiano Marcellino XXII 8, Parola del passato 23, 199-211. Hamblin, W. J. 2006. Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History. OxonNew York, Routledge. Hershkowitz, D. 1998. Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica. Abbreviated Voyages in Silver Latin Epic. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Hind, J. 1998. Megarian Colonisation in the Western Half of the Black Sea (Sister and Daughter Cities of Herakleia). In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, 131-152. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner. Hind, J. G. F. 2001. A Sea ‘Like a Scythian Bow’ and Herodotus’ ‘Rugged Peninsula’ (Hist. 4.99). In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology. Recent Discoveries and Studies, 25-31. Leiden, Brill. Hübner, W. 1984. Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 32.1, 126-320. Hübner, W. 2008. La Constellation du Triangle d’après Ératosthène et l’hiéroglyphe de l’île Éléphantine. In Cusset, Frangoulis 2008, 13-32. Ilyushechkina, E. 2010. Studien zu Dionysios von Alexandria. Doktoraat Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Ivantchik, A. I. 1993. Les Cimmériens au ProcheOrient. Fribourg-Göttingen, Éditions Universitaires Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ivantchik, A. I. 1996. Die hellenistischen Kommentare zu Homer Il. 13. 3-6. Zur Idealisierung des Barbarenbildes. Ephoros und die Philologen der alexandrinischen Schule. In B. Funck (ed.), Hellenismus. Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters: Akten des internationalen Hellenismus kolloquiums, 9.-14. März 1994 in Berlin, 671-692. Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr.

54

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

Minto, L. 1960. Il vaso François. Firenze, L. S. Olschki. Moretti, L. 1953. Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Roma, A. Signorelli. Most, G. W. 2006. Hesiod. Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia. Cambridge-London, Loeb. Müller, K. 1860-1861. Geographi Graeci Minores. Paris, F. Didot. Oguz, T. et al. 1993, Circulation in the Surface and Intermediate Layers of the Black Sea. In Deep-Sea Research I 40.8, 1597-1612. Pàmias, J., Geus, K. 2007. Eratosthenes, Sternsagen (Catasterismi). Oberhaid, Utopica. Parroni, P. 1984. Pomponii Melae de Chorographia. Libri tres. Roma, Edizioni di storia e letteratura. Podossinov, A. 2004. Das Schwarze Meer in der geokartographischen Tradition der Antike und des frühen Mittelalters. I. Lokalisierung von Trapezus, Ancient West and East 2.2, 308-24. Radt, S. 2002. Strabons Geographika I. Prolegomena, Buch I-IV. Text und Übersetzung. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Reboreda Morillo, S. 1996. L’Arc et les flèches en Grèce: à la fin de l’Âge du bronze et au début de l’Âge du fer, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 22.2, 9-24. Rusyaeva, A. S., Nazarov, V. N. 1995. A Shield Fragment from Olbia, Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 2.3, 251-60. Rusyayeva, A. S. 2007. Religious Interactions between Olbia and Scythia. In D. Braund, S. D. Kryzhitskiy (eds.), Classical Olbia and the Scythian World, 93-102. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press. Salway, B. 2004. Sea and River Travel in the Roman Itinerary Literature. In K. Brodersen, R. Talbert (eds.), Space in the Roman World: its perception and presentation, 43-96. Münster, LIT. Salway, B. 2005. The Nature and Genesis of the Peutinger Map, Imago Mundi 57.2, 119-35. Salway, B. 2012. Putting the World in Order: mapping in Roman texts, in R. J. A. Talbert (ed.), Ancient Perspectives: Maps and their Place in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, 193-234. Chicago-London, University of Chicago Press. Sauzeau, P. 2002. À propos de l’arc d’Ulysse: des steppes à Ithaque. In A. Hurst, F. Létoublon (eds.), La Mythologie et l’Odyssée. Hommage à Gabriel Germain, 287-303. Genève, Droz. Sergent, B. 1991. Arc, Mètis 6, 223-52. Severin, T. 1985. The Jason Voyage: the quest for the Golden Fleece. London, Arrow Books. Silberman, A. 1985. Pomponius Méla. Chorographie. ParisLes Belles Lettres. Stanev, E. V. 2005. Understanding Black Sea Dynamics. An Overview of Recent Numerical Modeling, Oceanography 18.2, 56-75 (Accessed from: http:// www.physoz.icbm.de/download/from_emil/stremp_ pap/18%5B1%5D.2_stanev.pdf). Stückelberger, A., Graßhoff G. (eds.) 2006. Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie. Basel, Schwabe Verlag.

Ivantchik, A. I. 1999. Une légende sur l’origine des Scythes (Hdt. IV, 5-7) et le problème des sources du Scythicos logos d’Hérodote, Revue des Études Grecques 112, 14192. Ivantchik, A. I. 2000. Un fragment de l’épopée scythe: ‘le cheval de Colaxaïs’ dans un partheneion d’Alcman, Mélanges en l’honneur d’Edmond Lévy, Ktèma 27, 257264. Ivantchik, A. I. 2005. Am Vorabend der Kolonisation. Das nördliche Schwarzmeergebiet und die Steppennomaden des 8.-7. Jhs. v.Chr. in der klassischen Literaturtradition: Mündliche Überlieferung, Literatur und Geschichte, Berlin-Moskau, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Eurasien-Abteilung. Ivantchik, A. I. 2006. ‘Scythian’ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases: problems of interpretation, Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 12.3-4, 197-271. Janni, P. 1984. La mappa e il periplo. Cartografia antica e spazio odologico, Roma, Bretschneider. Karasulas, A., McBride, A. 2004. Mounted Archers of the Steppe 600 BC-AD 1300. London, Osprey Publishing. Kelly, G. 2008. Ammianus Marcellinus: the allusive historian. Cambridge-New York-Melbourne, Cambridge University Press. Kimball Armayor, O. 1978. Did Herodotus Ever Go to the Black Sea?, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 82, 45-62. Kochanek, P. 2004. Die Vorstellung vom Norden und der Eurozentrismus. Eine Auswertung der patristischen und mittelalterlichen Literatur. Mainz, P. von Zabern. Kowalski, J.-M. 2011. La Terre vue de la mer, le regard des marins grecs sur le monde, La Revue maritime 490, 28-41 (Accessed from: http://www.ifmer.org/revuemaritime/les-revues/numero-490-janvier-2011). Kowalski, J.-M. 2012. Navigation et géographie dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine. La terre vue de la mer, Paris, Picard. Kranz, W. 1961. Sphragis. Ichform und Namensiegel als Eingangs- und Schlußmotiv antiker Dichtung. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 104.1, 3-46. Le Rider, G. 1977. Le Monnayage d’argent et d’or de Philippe II frappé en Macédoine de 359 à 294. Paris, É. Bourgey. Lissarague, F. 1990. L’Autre guerrier. Archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans l’imagérie attique. Paris-Rome, Éditions de la Découverte – École Française de Rome. Matthews, J. 1994. The Origin of Ammianus, Classical Quarterly 45, 252-269. Maximova, M. 1959. Der kurze Seeweg über das Schwarze Meer im Altertum, Klio 37, 101-118. McLeod, W. 1965. The Range of the Ancient Bow, Phoenix 19.1, 1-14. Miller, R., McEwen, E., Bergman, C. 1986. Experimental Approaches to Ancient near Eastern Archery, World Archaeology 18.2, 178-195. Minns, E. H. 1913. Scythians and Greeks. A Survey of Ancient History and Archaeology on the North Coast of the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

55

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Sundwall, G. A. 1996. Ammianus Geographicus, American Journal of Philology 117, 619-43. Talbert, R. J. A. 2002. CR. Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire, American Journal of Philology 123.3, 529-34. Talbert, R. J. A. 2008. Greek and Roman Mapping: twentyfirst century perspectives. In R. J. A. Talbert, R. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, 9-27. Leiden, Brill. Talbert, R. J. A. 2010. Rome’s World. The Peutinger map reconsidered, Cambridge (cf. Accessed from: http:// www.cambridge.org/us/talbert/; all the sites were seen on the 1st October 2012). Taylor, H. A., Tversky, B. 1992. Spatial Mental Models Derived from Survey and Route Descriptions, Journal of Memory and Language 31, 261‑92. Taylor, H. A., Tversky, B. 1996. Perspective in Spatial Descriptions, Journal of Memory and Language 35, 371‑391. Trevsky, B., Franklin, N., Taylor, H. A. and Bryant, D. J. 1999. Spatial Mental Models from Descriptions, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45.9, 656‑688. Uhden, R. 1932. Bemerkungen zu dem römischen Kartenfragment von Dura Europos, Hermes 67.1, 11725. Van Paassen C. 1957. The Classical Tradition of Geography. J. B. Wolters, Groningen. Vidal-Naquet, P. 1991. Le Chasseur noir. Formes de pensées et formes de société dans le monde grec. 2nd ed. Paris (1st ed. 1981), Éd. La Découverte. Visintin, M. 2000. Echidna, Skythes e l’arco di Herakles. Figure della marginalità nella versione greca delle origini degli Sciti, Herodot. 4, 8-10, Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 45, 43-81. Volk, K. 2009. Manilius and His Intellectual Background. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press. West, S. 2003. ‘The Most Marvelous of All Seas’. The Greek Encounter with the Euxine’, Greece and Rome 50.2, 151-167. Yadin, Y. 1972. The Earliest Representation of a Siege Scene and a ‘Scythian Bow’ from Mari, Israel Exploration Journal 22.2-3, 89-94. Zimmermann, K. 2002. Eratosthenes’ Chlamys-shaped World: a misunderstood metaphor. In D. Ogden (ed.), The Hellenistic World: New perspectives, 23-40. London, Duckworth. Zolotarev, M. I. 2003. Chersonesus Tauricus (sic). In D. V. Grammenos, E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 1, 603-644. Thessaloniki. Zucker, A. 2008. La Fonction de l’image dans l’astronomie grecque (Ératosthène, Hipparque, Ptolémée). In Cusset, Frangoulis 2008, 33-66. Zuttermann, Ch. 2003. The Bow in the Ancient Near East, a Re-evaluation of Archery from the Late Second Millennium to the End of the Achaemenid Empire, Iranica Antiqua 38, 119-65.

Агбунов, М. В. 1984. Материалы по античной географии Причерноморья, Vestnik drevnej istorii 171.4, 124-41. // Agbunov, M. V. 1984. Materialy po antichnoj geografii Prochernomorja, Vestnik drevnej istorii 171.4, 124-41. // Agbunov, M. V. 1984. Materials about the ancient geography of the Black Sea coast, Vestnik drevnej istorii 171.4, 124-41. Зограф, A. H. 1982. Лук и стрельба из него на монетах Северного Причерноморья. In Нумизматика античного Причерноморья, 5-14. Киев. // Zograf, A. N. 1982. Lik i streljba iz nego na monetah Severnogo Prichernomorja. In Numizmatika antichnogo Prichernomorja, 5-14. Kiev. // Zograf, A. N. 1982. Bow and shooting on the coins of the Northern Black Sea Coast. In Numismatics of the ancient Black Sea, 5-14. Kiev. Илюшечкина, Е. В. 2005. ‘Скифский лук’ как модель для ориентации в пространстве. In Т. Н. Джаксон (ed.), Древнейшие государства Восточной Европы 2003 год. Мнимые реальности в античных и средневековых текстах, 73-82. Москва. // Iljushechkina, E. V. 2005. ‘Skifskij luk’ kak modelj dlja orientatzii v prostranstve. In T. N. Dzhakson (ed.), Drevnejshie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy 2003 god. Mnimye realjnosti v antichnyh I srednevekovyh tekstah, 73-82. Moskva. // Iljushechkina, E. V. 2005. The ‘Scythian bow’ as a model for spatial orientation. In T. N. Dzhakson (ed.), Ancient states of Eastern Europe. The year 2003. Imaginary reality in the ancient and medieval texts, 73-82. Moscow. Козуб, Ю. И. 1973. Модель лука из Ольвии. In Скифские древности, 270-274. // Kozub, Ju. I. 1973. Modelj luka iz Olvii. In Skifskie drevnosti, 270-274. // Kozub, Ju. I. 1973. A bow-model from Olbia. In Scythian antiquities, 270-274. Максимова, М. И. 1956. Античные города юговосточного Причерноморья. Синопа, Амис, Трапезунт. Москва. // Maksimova, M. I. 1956. Antichnye goroda jugo-vostochnogo Prichermorja. Sinopa, Amis, Trapezunt. Moskva. // Maksimova, M. I. 1956, Ancient cities of the south-eastern Black Sea: Sinop, Amisos, Trapezus. Moscow. Подосинов, А. В. 1978. Картографический принцип в структуре географических описаний древности (постановка проблемы). In Методика изучения древнейших источников по истории народов СССР, 22-45. Москва. // Podosinov, A. V. 1978. Kartograficheskij printzip v strukture geograficheskih opisanij drevosti (postanovka problemy). In Metodika uzuchenija drevnejshih istochnikov po istorii narodov SSSR, 22-45. Moskva. // Podosinov, A. V. 1978. The mapping principle in the structure of the ancient geographical descriptions (the setting of the problem). In The method of studying ancient sources on the history of peoples of the USSR, 22-45. Moscow. Подосинов, А. В. 1979. Из истории античных географических представлений, Vestnik drevnej istorii 147.1, 147-66. // Podosinov, A. V. 1979. Iz istorii antichnyh geograficheskih predstavlenij, Vestnik drevnej istorii 147.1, 147-66. // Podosinov, A. V. 1979. From the

56

Anca Dan: The Black Sea as a Scythian Bow

history of some ancient geographical notions, Vestnik drevnej istorii 147.1, 147-66. Подосинов, А. В. 2002. Восточная Европа в римской картографической традиции. Москва. // Podosinov, A. V. 2002. Vostochnaja Evropa v rimskoj kartograficheskoj traditzii. Moskva // Podosinov, A. V. 2002. Eastern Europe in the Roman cartographic tradition. Moscow. Раевский, Д. С. 2006. Мир скифской культуры. Москва. // Raevskij, D. S. 2006. Mir skifskoj kuljtury. Moskva. // Raevskij, D. S. 2006. The World of the Scythian Culture. Moscow. Скржинская, М. В. 2000. Будни и праздники Ольвии в VI-I вв. до н. э. Санкт-Петербург (Accessed from: http://www.sno.pro1.ru/lib/skrzhinskaya/index.htm). // Skrzhinskaja, M. V. 2000. Budni i prazdniki Oljvii v VI-I vv. do n. e. Sankt-Peterburg. // Skrzhinskaja, M. V. 2000. Weekdays and holidays in Olbia, from the 6th to the 1st century BC. Sankt-Petersburg. Федосеев, Н. Ф. 2008. Изображения оружия на керамических клеймах. In Боспор Киммерийский и Понт в период античности и средневековья. Militaria. Материалы IX боспорских чтений, 279-284. Керчь. // Fedoseev, N. F. 2008. Izobrazhenija oruzhija na keramicheskih klejmah. In Bospor Kimmerijskij i Pont v period antichnosti i srednevekovjja. Militaria. Materialy IX bosporskih chtenij, 279-284. Kerch. // Fedoseev, N. F. 2008. Images of weapons on ceramic stamps. In Cimmerian Bosporus and Pontus in antiquity and the Middle Ages. Militaria. Materials of the 9th Bosporan symposium, 279-284. Kerch. Черненко, Е. В. 1981. Скифские лучники. Киев (Accessed from: http://historylib.org/historybooks/EvgeniyCHernenko_Skifskie-luchniki/). // Chernenko, E. V. 1981. Skifskie luchniki. Kiev. // Chernenko, E. V. 1981. Scythian archers. Kiev.

think that this is not necessarily an Eratosthenic tradition, at least for Strabo. In any case, this mental modelling of the Pontus must be a Hellenistic invention, Greek, because the Greeks had the habit of assimilating geographical – terrestrial and celestial – areas with geometrical figures. It is also possible that this association was not the invention of a geographer but that of an astronomer or of a cosmographer: this Scythian bow is mentioned by Manilius and by Valerius Flaccus, authors who dealt with astronomy and with cosmology in their scientific poems. In the 5th c. BC, we already have a clear historical-geometrical image of the Black Sea as a ‘double sea’ (Gr. ‘διθάλαττος’), a ‘σφραγίς’ if you want, but it is only in the Hellenistic period that astronomical-cosmological – maybe poetic – treaties made the association between the shape of Pontus – mentally constructed since classical times – and the well-known shape of the Scythian bow. Demetry Ogoltsev: A possible proposal. I know that generally there would be no evidence for this but an association with the bow seems like a cultural tradition that could have been used not necessarily for the purpose of an astronomical or geographical association; it could have been simply a tradition amongst seamen and navigators, that entered into the literary texts. Secondly, going back to the issue of “why Scythians?”, if you look at Herodotus, you have a quite complete picture of the Black Sea region with many geographical areas with different cultures and this is prior to these particular texts that you mentioned in your speech. As you said, the bow may have not been used only by the Scythians but throughout a vast geographical region from the 3rd millennium BC on. So why was it associated strictly with the Scythians in the end? Anca Dan: First of all, regarding the invention of the image by navigators, I think that this association between the real shape of Pontus as perceived by ancient people and the Scythian bow must be ‘un-common-sense geography’, a mental process which is not directly derived from practical experience. When you go by ship to the Black Sea, it is sure that you cannot see the Euxeine as a Scythian bow. You have this image only from space, if you look at it with the eyes of the mind, like a god, through a more complex intellectual process than actual human vision. It is sure that people who travelled to the Black Sea had in mind itineraries, so they knew about winds, about currents and colours of the sea, about realities which could really help them in their travel; they knew everything we do not know any more, because we have no direct textual evidence from the ancient navigators. I think the purpose of this association is only to communicate the space between people who are far away from this area; it is an expression of an elaborated geographical knowledge, in order to have a quick image of a region under discussion. Just like today, when calling France the ‘Hexagone’: this information does not help you to travel to France or to live there, but it allows you to have a general, mental image of Western Europe.

Discussion Ioannis Xydopoulos: Seeing your handout, there is no early Greek source describing the Pontus as a Scythian bow. That begins from Sallustius onwards. Could you have an explanation for the lack of such a connotation as s Scythian bow in Greek sources? I mean except for the lack of knowledge perhaps of a Periplous of the Black Sea? And if so, what makes you think that the Romans attributed the shape of the Scythian bow to the Black Sea? Elias Petropoulos: Probably they were inspired by the myth of the bow of Heracles and Echidna. Anca Dan: It is clear, I think, that the Black Sea was never presented as a Scythian bow before Eratosthenes. What I tried to show today is that we do not have to associate this Scythian bow with the σφραγίδες of Eratosthenes, because we have no traces of such a direct connection in the ancient tradition. Strabo writes that only ‘some’ (Gr. ‘τινές’) considered that the Black Sea could be compared with the shape of the bent Scythian bow: this ‘some’ makes me

As for the Scythians, this is the reason why I have spoken

57

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Problems of Interpretation, ACSS, 12 (2006)) and David Braund (Scythians in the Cerameicus: Lucian’s Toxaris, in C. J. Tuplin (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World: Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology, Leiden 2004, and In Search of the Creator of Athens’ Scythian Archer-Police. Speusis and the Eurymedon Vase, ZPE 156 (2006)). I think they are right: the Athenian vases offer no portrait of Scythian policemen in Athens in the 5th c. BC. The ‘Scythian’ costume is used in many heroic contexts for Greek characters and in some mythological and historical contexts for Barbarians (mostly Amazons, Persians). I do not think that this should be directly connected with the perception of the ‘Scythianness’ of the Black Sea and, in any case, not with representation of the Black Sea as a Scythian bow. In any case, there is a fundamental question, to which we cannot answer: how the Greeks identified the ethnicity of a community and of a person?

about the Chalybes and Iranians in the South Black Sea region: from the archaic and classical periods we have information about the presence of Iranian elements all around the Black Sea. Demetry Ogoltsev: Thank you, I just wanted to point out that in modern bibliography there is an issue that, for example, if you look at the representation of the Scythian archer in Athenian pottery, there have been the same suggestions that it is not actually a Scythian archer and that it is a misinterpretation which we need to reconstruct. Maybe you could make a similar connection to this issue. For me, a strong preoccupation with the Scythians seems to exist. Anca Dan: For the Athenian representations I follow Askold Ivantchik (‘Scythian’ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases:

58

The Cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace in the Black Sea Region Kirill Tesle Abstract: The study is devoted to the cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace in the Black Sea region in antiquity. The main aim of this study is to identify under what names these deities were worshipped in the region and to find out whether the cult can be traced to Samothrace directly. The first issue seems extremely important since there has been a long debate concerning the names of the Samothracian deities, whom some scholars refuse to identify with the Kabeiroi. The second is essential for understanding the character of the Samothracian worship as it reflects the dispute about the strong connection of ancient mystery cults with particular places. Keywords:Kabeiroi, Samothrace, Great Gods, mystery cult, Black Sea

XIV. 17-37; Philost. Vita Apoll. II. 43). The information provided by Philostatus is of major importance since he quotes an inscription made on an altar constructed by order of Alexander the Great, which proves that μεγάλοι θεοί and the Kabeiroi are the same gods as the altar is dedicated to ‘Πατρὶ Ἄμμωνι καὶ Ἡράκλει ἀδελϕῷ καὶ Ἀθηνᾷ Προνοίᾳ καὶ Διί Ὀλυμπίῳ καὶ Σαμοθρᾷξι Καβείροις καὶ Ἰνδῷ Ἡλίῳ καὶ Δελφῷ Ἀπόλλωνι’ or ‘To father Ammon and brother Hercules and Athena Pronoia and Zeus of Olympia and Samothracian Kabeiroi and Indian Helios and Apollo of Delphi’. This more or less authentic evidence is one of the most powerful counter-arguments to what Albert Schachter has stated.6

Since Ch. A. Lobeck wrote his famous ‘Aglaophamus’ at the beginning of the 19th century, there has been no doubt for European scholars that μεγάλοι θεοί of Samothrace were the Kabeiroi. In spite of this, in his recently published article ‘Evolution of a mystery cult: The Theban Kabiroi’, Albert Schachter claims historians of the past two centuries have been profoundly mistaken in associating the Great Gods with the Kabeiroi, for ‘there is no evidence in situ for the Kabeiroi at Samothrace, only the word of learned outsiders like Stesimbrotos, Herodotus and Mnaseas.’1 Schachter was not, however, the first to express such a thought. In his work ‘Die Kabiren’ Bengt Hemberg stated that Herodotus and Strabo were misinformed by the tradition that associated the Kabeiroi with the Samothracian Gods, which Hemberg believed to be false.2

Moreover, even though inscriptions do not call the Kabeiroi by name, Karl Lehmann managed to find several fragments of pottery with the single letter ‘K’ inscribed on them as well as an archaic amphora with an inscription ‘KA’.7 Lehmann himself believed that these abbreviations stood for Καβείροις.8 A similar inscription (‘KA’), made at the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th century BC, was found on a metal bull in the sanctuary of the Kabeiroi in Thebes, which A. Schachter believes to be sufficient evidence of the existence of the cult of the Kabeiroi in Boeotia at this time.9

Schachter is absolutely right that, as Jennifer Larson underlines, ‘inscriptions found on the island speak only of Megaloi Theoi (Great Gods) or Theoi (Gods).’3 The abbreviations ‘Θ’ or ‘ΘΕ’ have also been found on Samothracian pottery.4 Nevertheless, such doubts seem to us baseless since, as W. H. D. Rouse stated, votive offering from Greek sanctuaries does not always contain the name of a particular god as it was quite obvious to the believer to whom he was dedicating this or that thing5. With regards to the tradition, we should conclude that it is quiet unanimous in this case: practically all the ancient authors identify the Kabeiroi with the Great Gods of Samothrace. ‘Μυοῦνται δὲ ἐν τῇ Σαμοθρᾴκῃ τοῖς Καβείροις’ or ‘In Samothrace they are being initiated in the mysteries of the Kabeiroi’ – says the author of the Scholia on Apollonius Rhodius (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 917). The same can be seen when we consult other pieces of the literary tradition (Strab. X. 3. 7; Diod. III. 55. 9; Euseb. Praep. Evang. I. 10. 14; Nonn. Dionys.

In short, it is clear that the Ancient Greeks believed that the Great Gods of Samothrace and the Kabeiroi were the same deities. That is why a study devoted to the cult of the Samothracian Gods cannot omit the information concerning the Kabeiroi. However, the Kabeiroi were worshipped not only in Samothrace but also in other centers, such as Thebes and Lemnos. In Thebes only one Kabeiros (together with the son - παῖς) was worshipped,10 while in Lemnos they believed in several Kabeiroi, who were considered gods of I. H. Henderson (2003, 22) notes that it is hard to test the historical accuracy of Philostratus’ speech representations. 7 Lehmann 1950, 16. 8 Lehmann 1950, 16. 9 Schachter 2005, 126. 10 Kern 1890, 15; Burkert 1985, 281; Schachter 2005, 121-122. 6

Schachter 2005, 112. 2 Hemberg 1950, 74-76, 78. 3 Larson 2007, 174. 4 Lehmann 1950, 15-16; McCredie 1968, 115. 5 Rouse 1902, 324-325. 1

59

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

metallurgy.11 The Samothracian Kabeiroi were believed to help seamen in their journeys (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 917; Aristoph. Pax. 277-279; Anth. Palat. 6. 245; Paus. X. 38. 7; Euseb. Praep. Evang. I. 10. 14; Varr. De lingua lat. V. 58).

Σαμοθρᾴκιον; (…)

The cult of Samothracian Gods in Thrace

(…)

The existence of the cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace in the western part of the Black Sea region is well-attested. A number of inscriptions prove that these deities were worshipped in several Greek cities of the Thracian coast. The Samothracian Gods are mentioned in some way in inscriptions from Istros, Kallatis, Odessos, Dionysopolis, Tomis and Bizone. Some of the inscriptions are personal and some official.

be it resolved by them and their descendants: proxeny, citizenship, proedria, isoteleia for all things, whatsoever imported or exported, on property or loan, and tenure of land, and priority of hearing a cause, and the right of entering a harbour during war or peacetime safely and without a formal treaty, and should be given to them the right of first access to the Council and the assembly after sacrifices, while the overseer of sacred rites should inscribe the decree on a base of a stele and put it in the Samothracion.15

be it resolved by the Council and People

A fragmentary personal dedication from Bizone made in the 2nd century BC reads: [— — — — — — — —] [— — — — — —]Χ̣Ι̣Ο̣[— — — — —]μ̣ε̣νος [θε]οῖς [τοῖς ἐν] Σαμοθράικ̣[ηι]; (…)

There is also other evidence of the cult of the Great Gods in Odessos and participation of its citizens in the Samothracian mysteries. For instance, the initiation of the Odessian citizen Agathonymos is attested by an inscription on a marble fragment.16 There is also a decree indicating the participation of Odessians in the mysteries of Samothrace. The decree reads:

To the Gods Of Samothrace.12 Another similar dedication on a marble fragment from Kallatis reads:

Ἐπὶ βασιλέως [τοῦ δεῖνος] ψήφισ[μα Ὀδησσιτῶν] ὡς δὲ ἐν Ὀδησσῷ ἐπὶ [ἱερέω τοῦ δεῖνος]. ἔ̣δοξεν τῇ βουλῇ ἐπιμηνιεύ[οντος τοῦ δεῖνος]· [ἐπε]δὴ τοῦ δήμου διὰ προ[γόνων — — — —] [τῶν ἐν] Σ̣α̣μοθρᾴκῃ μυστηρίω̣[ν μετέχοντος — —] [— — — — —]τον ἀποδ̣ιδ̣[— — — — — — — — —] [— — — — —] δύναμιν [— — — — — — — — —] [— — — —˝— —]περο[— — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]

[Μεγάλων θεῶν τῶ]ν ἐν Σαμοθράικ̣ηι; Of the Great Gods of Samothrace.13 As Susan Cole has noted, decrees of three cities on the west coast of the Black Sea - Istros, Kallatis and Odessos - mention local temples of the Samothracian gods, none of which has been found.14 A decree of Odessos issued in the 3rd or the 2nd century BC reads:

During the reign of King (…) the decree of the Odessians during the priesthood of (…) in Odessus the council resolved under officer responsible for monthly sacrifices (…) as the people according to their ancestors’ tradition take part in the mysteries in Samothrace… (…)17.

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [δ]εδόσθαι δ[ὲ αὐτῶι καὶ ἐκγόνοις προξενίαν, πο][λι]τείαν, προεδρίαν, ἰσοτέ̣λ[ειαν χρημάτων πάν][τω]ν, ὧν ἂν εἰσάγωσιν ἢ ἐξά̣[γωσιν ἐπὶ κτήσει] [ἢ χρ]ήσει [καὶ ἐν]γείων ἔνκτη[σιν καὶ δίκας προδί][κου]ς κα[ὶ εἴ]σ̣πλουν καὶ ἔκπλου[ν καὶ πολέμου καὶ εἰρή][νη]ς ἀσ̣υλεὶ καὶ ἀσπονδεί, εἶ[ναι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔφο][δο]ν ἐπὶ τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δ[ῆμον πρώτοις μετὰ] [τὰ ἱερ]ά, τὸν δὲ ἱεροποιὸν ἀν̣[αγράψαι τὸ ψήφισ][μα τ]ό̣δε εἰς τελαμῶν[α καὶ θεῖναι εἰς τὸ]

Nora Dimitrova believes that the city sent theoroi to Samothrace, although it is not stated in inscriptions.18 Taking into consideration the information provided by the evidence, Susan Cole thinks that Odessos had close ties with Samothrace.19 According to her, it is not clear whether Mihailov 1970, no. 42. Dimitrova 2008, 115-116. 17 Mihailov 1970, no. 42 comm. 18 Dimitrova 2008, 242. 19 Cole 1984, 76. 15

Hemberg 1950, 160-170. 12 Mihailov 1970, no. 7(3). 13 Benndorf and Bormann 1896, 110, no. 67. 14 Cole 1984, 59, 75. 11

16

60

Kirill Tesle: The Cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace

the cults of Odessos, Kallatis and Istros originated under the influence of Samothrace or whether they had local origins, just as it is not certain whether the local god called Theos Megas was associated with Samothrace.20 At the same time, Hemberg argues that the people of these northern cities recognized in the Samothracian Theoi Megaloi their own local Theos Megas and that they identified Samothracian Gods with this male figure coupled with a female goddess with the attributes of Demeter.21 Anyway, it is clear that the cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace existed in the city and that its inhabitants took part in the mysteries, which means that there was a direct contact between the Samothracian sanctuary and the local center of worship.

same time, I. Yu. Schaub thinks that these items should be associated with the cult of Hermes or Dionysus.28 In fact the metal statuettes of bulls are frequently found in Thebes, a prominent center of the cult of the Kabeiroi.29 No such items were found in Samothrace but images of bulls were placed on a frieze of the Arsinoé rotunda. With respect to rams, these animals can be associated with Samothrace either in the context of the adventure of the Argonauts or because of the fact that bones of these animals are often found on the island (evidently because they were sacrificed to the Great Gods). In other words, there is no reason to associate the lead ram heads found in Olbia with the cult of the Kabeiroi, in contrast to images of bulls, which can be found in different centers of the worship.

Inscriptions from Dionysopolis, Istros and Tomis mention priests of the Great Gods. According to Susan Cole, the existence of these priesthoods is evidence that there were well-established groups of worshippers of the Samothracian gods in each of these cities.22 It seems likely to her that these local religious groups maintained some kind of contact with the cult center on Samothrace.23 Although only three inscriptions mention actual mystai, Cole maintains that it is likely that many of the worshippers were initiated.24

There are also other items associated by some researchers with votive offerings from Thebes. Among them are terracotta figurines of so-called ‘cloud demons’ found in the tombs of Borysthenes and in Olbia. A. A. Peredolskaya believed that these statuettes should be considered images of the Kabeiroi.30 The same opinion was expressed by S. L. Solovyov. 31 According to Peredolskaya, these figurines represent Mother Demeter-Kabeira, Father IasionosKabeiros and their son Plutos, while she considers coupled statuettes to be images of Hades-Kabeiros and PersephoneKabeira.32 A. S. Rusyayeva believes that the latter should be associated with Demeter-Kabeira and Persephone.33

Thus one can conclude that the cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace was widely spread throughout the western part of the Black Sea region. Citizens of several cities of the Thracian coast took part in the Samothracian mysteries and temples dedicated to the Great Gods existed in at least three cities, according to inscriptions. No matter whether these cults originated under the influence of Samothrace or not, it is clear that the cities of the Thracian coast maintained some kind of contact with the sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace. These gods were worshipped in the region under the name of ‘Great Gods’ or ‘Gods of Samothrace’ and not as the Kabeiroi.

The idea according to which the Kabeiroi are a triad of gods associated with the deities of Eleusis is attested by literary sources, together with the conception that the Kabeiroi are a pair of male gods: Mnaseas says the following: ‘Καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν δʹ τὸν ἀριθμόν· Ἀξίερος, Ἀξιοκέρσα, Ἀξιόκερσος, [Κάσμιλος]. Ἀξίερος μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἡ Δημήτηρ, Ἀξιοκέρσα δὲ ἡ Περσεφόνη, Ἀξιόκερσος δὲ ὁ Ἅιδης· ὁ δὲ προστιθέμενος τέταρτος Κάσμιλος ὁ Ἑρμῆς ἐστιν, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Διονυσόδωρος. Κάβειροι δὲ δοκοῦσι προσαγορεύεσθαι ἀπὸ Καβείρων τῶν κατὰ Φρυγίαν ὀρῶν, ἐπεὶ ἐντεῦθεν μετηνέχθησαν. οἱ δὲ δύο εἶναι τοὺς Καβείρους φασί, [πρότερον] πρεσβύτερον μὲν Δία, νεώτερον δὲ Διόνυσον’.

The cult of the Great Gods in the north Black Sea region Olbia The existence of the cult of the Kabeiroi in the north Black Sea region (even in the earliest times) seems evident for many scholars. For instance, Yu. I. Kozub believes that the sanctuary built at the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 5th century BC in Olbia was a sanctuary of the Kabeiroi.25 However, Schaub admits that the character of the sanctuary is Scythian rather than Greek and for this reason he believes that it was a sanctuary of some local gods.26

‘Concerning their names and number Axieros, Axiokersa, Axiokersos, [Kasmilos]. In fact Axieros is Demeter, Axiokersa is Persephone, Axiokersos is Hades, while the fourth added to them, Kasmilos, is Hermes, as Dionysodoros narrates. They are called Kabeiroi, as some people say, after Kabeiroi, mountains located in Phrygia, because that is where they came from. Others say that there are two Kabeiroi, the older one is Zeus, the younger one Dionysos.’ (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 917).

Some researchers also associate lead products in the form of a ram’s head with the cult of the Kabeiroi.27 At the

The fragment above, from the Scholia on Apollonius

Cole 1984, 76. Hemberg 1950, 223-231. 22 Cole 1984, 69. 23 Cole 1984, 69. 24 Cole 1984, 69. 25 Kozub 1975, 161-162. 26 Schaub 2007, 160. 27 Rusyayeva 1979, 90. 20 21

Schaub 2007, 206. Schachter 2005, 126-127. 30 Peredolskaya 1960, 24. 31 Solovyov 1999, 21. 32 Peredolskaya 1960, 24. 33 Rusyayeva 1979, 154. 28 29

61

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Rhodius, refers to Samothrace. However, it seems likely that the last passage describes the Theban mythology of the Kabeiroi, where only two Kabeiroi (strictly speaking Kabeiros and his son) were worshipped, which is attested by vase paintings studied by N. I. Novosadsky and A. Schachter.34

that there was a temple of the Great Gods in Olbia.40 I. Yu. Schaub, however, admits that the Kabeiroi were sometimes worshipped in temples of other gods as in the case of the temple of Apollo in Didyma.41

Among other items sometimes associated with the cult of the Kabeiroi, one should list a copper Olbian coin, an image on the obverse of which may be considered a Kabeiros head.37 However, the image is badly damaged and it is hard to define it for certain.

Thus, the cult of both the Kabeiroi and the Great Gods of Samothrace is attested by Olbian inscriptions. Taking into consideration the rich tradition of identifying the Great Gods with the Kabeiroi, one can come to a conclusion that Olbian citizens worshipped the Samothracian Kabeiroi, divine patrons of seafaring, who protected sailors and prevented their ships from sinking. I. Yu. Schaub affirms that the Samothracian gods performed this function and believes that they were worshipped in Olbia exactly in this hypostasis.42 He also underlines that the cult of the Kabeiroi has not been shown to have existed in Miletus and nor has the cult of the Dioskouroi (more patrons of seafaring), which also existed in Olbia.43 This notion seems to be not far from the reality.

In spite of this, the existence of the cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace in Olbia is quite clear. Three inscriptions attest this fact. The first one, made in the 4th century BC on the bottom of a black-glazed kylix, is a dedication to Demeter, Kore and the ‘divine Kabeiroi’. The inscription opens the door to discussion not only on the existence of the cult of the Kabeiroi in the city but also the possible connection between the gods and the deities of Eleusis.

The character of the cult of the Great Gods in Olbia, which took the form of the mystery cult in Samothrace, is not clear. Its origin also seems obscure. It seems likely that the cult originated without any direct contact with Samothrace and probably not earlier than in the late classical period (or maybe during Hellenistic times, when the Samothracian mysteries became widely popular throughout the Greek world).

Two more inscriptions name the Samothracian gods:

Chersonesus

With respect to the terracotta figurines of ‘cloud gods’, one should mention that anthropomorphous statuettes are often found in the sanctuary of the Kabeiroi in Thebes.35 However, it seems a little premature to discuss the Theban undertone of the Olbian cult of the Kabeiroi, as I. Yu. Schaub does.36

(1) Εὐβίοτος Ἀρίστωνος. Ἐπικράτης Νικηράτου τὸν θεῖον θεοῖς τοῖς ἐν Σαμοθράικηι̣ ἱερησάμενον;

Evidence of the cult of the Kabeiroi in Chersonesus includes terracotta statuettes, considered by some researchers to be images of these gods, and the inscription ‘KA’ found on vessels. The last argument was considered persuasive by M. Ye. Bondarenko.44 I. Yu. Schaub, however, believes these inscriptions to prove nothing.45

Eubiotos, a son of Ariston Epikrates, a son of Nikeratos for their uncle, who has performed as to the gods of Samothrace priest.38 (2) [Ἀνθεσ?]τήριος θε̣οῖ[ς ἐ]ν Σα[μοθράκηι];

In fact, similar inscriptions have been found in such prominent centers of the cult of the Kabeiroi as Samothrace and Thebes. Karl Lehmann has found the inscription ‘K’ on pottery several times and has once found an inscription ‘KA’.46 It seems perfectly clear that ‘KA’ stands for Κάβειροι. The inscription ‘KA’ has also been found on the metal figurine of a bull (made at the end of the 7th beginning of the 6th century BC) in the sanctuary of the Kabeiroi in Thebes, which A. Schachter considers proof of the fact that the cult of the Kabeiroi existed in the city in this period.47

Anthesterios to the Gods of Samothrace.39 As the first inscription (made in the 3rd or the 2nd century BC) names a priest, while the second was made (at the end of the 4th or in the beginning of the 3rd century BC) on an expensive piece of marble, A. S. Rusyayeva believes

In other words, there is some reason to believe that the cult of the Kabeiroi existed in Chersonesus, especially if one takes into consideration the fact that the Dioskouroi Rusyayeva 1979, 98. Shaub 2007, 279. 42 Shaub 2007, 230-231. 43 Shaub 2007, 228-231. 44 Bondarenko 2003, 107. 45 Shaub 2007, 281. 46 Lehmann 1950, 16. 47 Schachter 2005, 126. 40 41

Novosadsky 1891, 129-131; Schachter 2005, 123-125. Schachter 2005, 121, 127-131. 36 Shaub 2007, 230. 37 Gilevich 2001, 131-132. 38 Latyshev 1916, no. 191. 39 Knipovich and Levi 1968, no. 67. 34 35

62

Kirill Tesle: The Cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace

(sometimes associated with the Samothracian gods) were worshipped in the city.48 However, no conclusive evidence (unlike those of Olbia) has been found so far.

heads from Panticapaeum with the cult of the Kabeiroi,64 although it has already been stated that the connection between images of rams and the Kabeiroi seems doubtful. Peredolskaya also notes that hats of the Dioskouroi (often associated with the Kabeiroi) were depicted on Panticapaeum coins.65 Images of a ram’s head were also found on Bosporan coins.66 According to I. Yu. Schaub, such images should be associated with the cult of Hermes and not the Kabeiroi.67 Right or not, there is no good reason to link the ram’s image with the Samothracian or Theban Kabeiroi.

The Bosporan Kingdom Many scholars do not doubt the existence of the cult of the Kabeiroi in the Bosporan Kingdom. M. M. Khudyak, for instance, believes that a sanctuary of the Kabeiroi existed in Nymphaion since the mid 5th century BC.49 The belief is based on the argument that buildings of the sanctuary resemble those of the Samothrace temple complex, in that both have apse and rock altars.50 The latter were described by Karl Lehmann in detail.51 I. Yu. Schaub, however, does not agree with such an idea. According to him, there are some indications (including the image of ivy) that Dionysos was the one worshipped in the sanctuary.52

Coins from Phanagoria depicting beardless youngsters or bearded men are also associated with the cult of the Kabeiroi by some researchers.68 It is worth noting that such images were to be found on coins from Theodosia.69 H. von Fritze was the first to associate these images with the cult of the Kabeiroi.70 Schaub believes that von Fritze’s opinion was well based.71 However, one should bear in mind that no such images were found on Samothracian or Theban coins. The Samothracian coins depicted the head of Athena while Theban ones, Dionysos or Hercules, though more often just a shield or an amphora.

I. D. Marchenko writes that the Kabeiroi were also worshipped in the sanctuary on the Mayskaya mount (together with Demeter, Kore, Artemis and Aphrodite) as gods connected with afterlife.53 A. S. Rusyayeva54 and A. A. Peredolskaya55 also maintain that the cult of the Kabeiroi existed in the Bosporan Kingdom. Although he does no doubt the existence of the sanctuary itself, I. Yu. Schaub, believes that the sanctuary on the Mayskaya mount should be associated with the cult of some ancient local female deity56 and does not agree that it was a sanctuary of the Kabeiroi.57

Taking into consideration everything stated above, one can conclude that the evidence of the cult of the Kabeiroi in the Bosporan Kingdom seems doubtful. Images of rams on gravestones and coins, anthropomorphic terracotta figurines and images of young men on Bosporan coins do not seem to prove the fact that the Kabeiroi were widely worshipped in the Kingdom, as some scholars believe.

Terracotta statuettes of ‘temple boys’, ‘cloud demons’ and young men reclining, found in Panticapaeum, Nymphaion, Phanagoria and other sites, are also associated with the cult of the Kabeiroi. Figurines of the last type were found on the Mayskaya mount,58 Nymphaion,59 and Panticapaeum.60

The cult of the Great Gods in Bithynia The cult of the Samothracian gods in Bithynia is attested by inscriptions from Nicomedia and Samothrace. The inscription found near Nicomedia is a personal dedication, as Susan Cole notes.72 One inscription from Samothrace made after the middle of the 3rd century BC mentions theoroi from Chalcedon.73 Another, made in the 2nd century BC - 1st century AD and found in Samothrace, does not call the city by name but there are indications that it refers to initiates from either Byzantion or Chalcedon. The inscription reads:

One should note, however, that even though anthropomorphic figurines are found both in Thebes61 and Samothrace,62 many of them look nothing like those associated with the cult of the Kabeiroi by scholars studying the Black Sea region. Nevetheless, several statuettes of boys have indeed been found in Thebes, and these figurines may be compared with the Bosporan statuettes of ‘temple boys’ described by I. Yu. Schaub.63

[Ἐπὶ βασιλέως …]δώρου [… ἐπὶ ἱερομ]νάμονος […]ωνίου [μύσται εὐσε]βεῐς vacat [… Βε vel Με]νδιδώρο[υ] […] ΟΥ vacat

A. A. Peredolskaya links tombstones adorned with ram Shaub 2007, 282. Khudyak 1962, 19. 50 Khudyak 1962, 19 ff. 51 Lehmann 1950, 8 ff.; 1951, 2. 52 Shaub 2007, 301. 53 Marchenko 1974, 31. 54 Rusyayeva 1979, 92 ff. 55 Peredolskaya 1960, 23 ff. 56 Shaub 2007, 308. 57 Shaub 2007, 361. 58 Marchenko 1974, 32. 59 Skudnova 1970, 85, 89. 60 Silantyeva 1974, 5. 61 Schachter 2005, 127-131. 62 Lehmann 1962, 173-175. 63 Shaub 2007, 362. 48 49

Peredolskaya 1960, 24. Peredolskaya 1960, 24. 66 Zograf 1951, 167. 67 Shaub 2007, 363. 68 Shelov 1956, 49. 69 Zograf 1951, 162. 70 Fritze 1904, 114. 71 Shaub 2007, 364. 72 Cole 1984, 68. 73 Dimitrova 2008, 55-59. 64 65

63

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

[…]ΟΥΣ vacat … [During the reign of King …]doros [under hirom]nemon

doubtful. All possible arguments do not appear sufficient. No records of initiates from the north Black Sea coast have been found in Samothrace. This means that the belief shared by some scholars that the cult of the Kabeiroi was widely spread in the north Black Sea region does not seem well based.

[…]onios [mystae] pious

List of Bibliography

[… Be or Me]ndidoros […] OY […] OYS …74

Benndorf, O. and Bormann, E. (eds.). 1896. Archäologischepigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn. Vol. 19. Vienna. Bondarenko, M. Ye. 2003. The pantheon of Tauric Chersonesus. Moscow (in Russian). Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge (Massachusetts). Cole, S. 1984. Theoi Megaloi: The Cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace. Leiden. Dimitrova, N. M. 2008. Theoroi and Initiates in Samothrace: The Epigraphical Evidence. Princeton. Fritze, H. von. 1904. Birytis und die Kabiren auf Münzen. Zeitschrift für Numismatik, 24, 105-128. Gilevich, A. M. 2001. Coins from the excavations on the Berezan Island, 1962-1991. In J. Boardman, S. L. Solovyov and G. R. Tsetskhladze (eds.), Northern Pontic Antiquities in the State Hermitage Museum. Leiden, Boston, Köln. Hemberg, B. 1950. Die Kabiren. Uppsala. Henderson, I. H. 2003. Speech representation and religious rhetoric in Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii. Studies in Religion 32/1-2, 19-37. Kern, O. 1890 Die boiotische Kabiren. Hermes 25, 1-16. Khudyak, M. M. 1962. From the history of Nymphaion 6th - 3th centuries BC. Leningrad (in Russian). Knipovich, T. N. and Levi, Ye. I. (eds.). 1968. Inscriptiones Olbiae (1917-1965). Leningrad. Kozub, Yu. I. 1975. The most ancient sanctuary of Olbia. Olbia. Kiev (in Russian). Larson, J. 2007. Ancient Greek Cults. A guide. New York, London. Latyshev, V. (ed). 1916. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae. Vol 1 (second edition). St. Petersburg. Lehmann, K. 1950. Samothrace: Third Preliminary Report. Hesperia 19.1, 1-20. Lehmann, K. 1951. Samothrace: Fourth Preliminary Report. Hesperia 20.1, 1-30. Lehmann, K. 1962. Samothrace. The Hall of Votive Gifts. London. Marchenko, I. D. 1974. Terracottas from the sanctuary on Mayskaya mount (Blevak). Terracottas of the North Black Sea Region 4, 31-35 (in Russian). McCredie, J. R. 1968. Preliminary Report on the Campaigns of 1965-1967. Hesperia 37.2, 200-234. Mihailov, G. (ed). 1970. Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Vol. 1 (second edition). Sofia. Novosadsky, N. I. 1891. The cult of Kabeiroi in Ancient Greece. Warsaw (in Russian).

As Nora Dimitrova notes, Fraser commented that hieromnemones were eponymous officials from Byzantion, Perinthos and Chalcedon.75 Fraser himself believed that the inscription deals with Perinthos rather than other cities, but as Dimitrova underlines, the detailed analysis of this and other inscriptions from the region shows that neither Byzantion nor Chalcedon can be excluded as a possibility.76 In other words it can be stated that inscriptions do not only prove that the cult of the Great Gods existed in Bithynia but also show that people from this region (at least from Chalcedon) took part in the Samothracian mysteries. The origin and spread of the cult of the Great Gods in the Black Sea Region Summing up the results of the research, it should be noted that the existence of the cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace is attested in several cities of Thrace, Bithynia and Olbia. According to inscriptions from Istros, Kallatis and Odessos, these cities had local temples of the Great Gods. Citizens of Odessos took part in the Samothracian mysteries. Inscriptions from Dionysopolis and Tomis mention priests of the Great Gods. The Samothracian deities were worshipped in Thrace under the name of the Great Gods or the Gods of Samothrace. All these facts lead scholars to believe that cities along the Thracian coast of the Black Sea maintained some kind of contact with the center of worship in Samothrace. This seems probable, especially if one takes into consideration the relatively close geographical position of the sites (compared with the north coast, for instance) and the possible ethnic affinity of the inhabitants. The first argument may also refer to Bithynia, where the cult of the Great Gods is attested in Nicomedia and Chalcedon. With respect to the cult of the Great Gods in the north Black Sea region, one should admit that the cult is well-attested only in Olbia, where local inscriptions mention both the Gods of Samothrace and the Kabeiroi. The last fact shows that in this region the Great Gods were probably associated with the Kabeiroi. The existence of the cult of the Kabeiroi in Chersonesus seems likely but no decisive evidence has been found so far. The idea that the Kabeiroi were worshipped in the Bosporan Kingdom seems Dimitrova 2008, 216-217. Dimitrova 2008, 216. 76 Dimitrova 2008, 217. 74 75

64

Kirill Tesle: The Cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace

Peredolskaya, A. A. 1960. The traces of the cult of Kabeiroi in Berezan. Reports of the State Hermitage Museum 19, 23-24 (in Russian). Rouse, W. H. D. 1902. Greek votive offerings. An essay in the history of Greek religion. Cambridge. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1979. The agricultural cults of Olbia in pre-Getic times. Kiev (in Russian). Schachter, A. 2005. Evolution of mystery cult. The Theban Kabiroi. In M. B. Cosmopoulos (ed.), Greek mysteries: the archaeology of ancient Greek secret cults, 112-142. London, New York. Schaub, I. Yu. 2007. Myth, cult, ritual in the North Pontic area (7th - 4th centuries BC). St. Petersburg. Shelov, D. B. 1956. The Bosporan coinage. 6th - 2th centuries BC. Moscow (in Russian). Silantyeva, P. F. 1974. Terracottas of Panticapaeum. Terracottas of the North Black Sea Region 3, 5-37 (in Russian). Skudnova, V. M. 1970. Terracottas from Nymphaion. Terracottas of the North Black Sea Region 2, 83-89 (in Russian). Solovyov, S. L. 1999. Ancient Berezan: The Architecture, History and Culture of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea. Leiden, Boston, Köln. Zograf, A. N. 1951. Ancient coins. Materials and researches in the history of the USSR 16. Moscow (in Russian).

they were dedicated by Olbian citizens and not by some sailors. Because you particularly said that these gods were patrons of those who travelled by sea. So, could it have been possible that some sailors dedicated them? Kirill Tesle: There are not many such inscriptions and our sources concerning the Mysteries of Samothrace are also extremely scarce; we do not have much evidence even at the sites where the cult existed. There are three inscriptions from Olbia: the first one is from the 4th c. BC and the other two from the 3rd and the 2nd c. BC. It is very difficult to define the origin because these are simply dedications to the Great Gods of Samothrace. It is difficult to say whether the cult was connected with sea-people. The historiographical tradition believes that the cult existed in the city itself and I have no contrary argument. Søren Handberg: I want to ask you about the so-called sanctuary of the Chthonic Gods in Olbia, outside the city area. I believe it’s late archaic. Do you see a connection there? Kirill Tesle: There is a tradition of associating this sanctuary and, actually, several sanctuaries in the cities along the North Coast with the cult of Kabeiroi. But no dedications to Great Gods or to Kabeiroi were found in these sanctuaries and no decisive evidence has been found so far. For instance, there is a sanctuary in Nymphaion which some scholars believe to be a Sanctuary of the Samothracian Gods but the only argument they have is that the sanctuary looks similar to that of Samothrace. As I am not a professional archaeologist, I cannot disagree categorically. But I am very sceptical and I don’t believe this can be conclusive evidence.

Discussion Valeriya Kozlovskaya: You mentioned that Olbia is an exception because only there can you find evidence for the cult of Samothracian Gods, but the only evidence is the inscriptions. So, how many of them are there and do any of them mention the ethnikon, so that we know that

65

The Foundation of Pantikapaion: Greek Colonists and Native Populations on the Northern Black Sea Coast Immacolata Balena Abstract: This paper provides some details on Greek-native relations on the Northern Black Sea coast, through the examination of the available literary sources regarding the foundation of Pantikapaion and the contacts between Greeks and non-Greeks in the Cimmerian Bosporus. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of the relationships established between Greek Colonists and native populations. Overall, it aims to focus attention on how these relationships have played an important role in the reconstruction of the colony’s mythical past. Keywords: Colonization, Pantikapaion, Greek Colonists, Native populations, Literary sources, Scythians.

One of the most important features of the Greek colonies of the Northern Pontic area is the development of Greek-native interrelations. The present article aims to provide some details on Greek-native relations on Northern Black Sea coast by examining the available literary sources regarding the foundation of Pantikapaion and the relations between Greek and non-Greek in the Cimmerian Bosporus.

were harsher, the climate less humid and the sea level lower by around 5.5m. The Kerch Peninsula and the mountainous area of the southern Crimea represent the extreme ethnolinguistic limit of the nomadic peoples of the Eurasian Steppe and, at the same time, offered a natural corridor for migration. The eastern and northeastern parts of the Kerch Peninsula offered fertile ground, abundant and easily accessible water resources, naturally the ideal conditions for the settlement of the colonists. The location of the colony in the interior part of the gulf of the Kerch Straits, obviously offered a favorable geographical position on the maritime route between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. In fact, from Pantikapaion it was possible to observe and control the movement of all the boats that transited through the Strait of Kerch.

In the northern Black Sea area, periodic and seasonal movements from east to west involved large groups of peoples of the Eurasian Steppe specializing in animal husbandry. The colonists of Pantikapaion, the first Milesian colony installed on the Kerch Straits, came in contact with the representatives par excellence of this nomadic world: the Scythians1.

Written sources attest Pantikapaion to be a Milesian apoikia4. No dates however are given for its foundation, which the archaeological evidence, above all of the ceramics, puts between 590 and 575 BC. Archaeological excavation has demonstrated that the first Greeks lived in dug-outs; the beginning of stone architecture dates from the third quarter of the 6th century BC5, while the appearance of streets, monumental buildings and town planning dates in the last quarter of the 6th century BC6. At the time of its foundation, Pantikapaion probably had very small territory; the emergence of a proper chora - according to archaeological testimony - seems to have occurred as a secondary phase of the colonizing process.

It is first necessary to specify the ecological conditions the Greek colonists met in the Cimmerian Bosporus because its geography and natural environment were the key factors governing relations in this contact zone. The area corresponding to the Kerch Straits and particularly the coasts of the homonymous peninsula, represent - from the environmental and climatic point of view - a separate region compared to the rest of the Crimea. The territory of the peninsula, from the isthmus that separates the bay of Arabat from that of Kaffa (or the Bay of Theodosia), covers small elevated reliefs and the Greek city of Pantikapaion2 situated in the European part of the Cimmerian Bosporus3, and rises up on the slope of Mount Mithridates that at a height of over 90 m (91.4m) represents the highest point in the region. Comparing the actual conditions at the time when the Ionian colony was established, the temperatures

Literary sources usually ascribe the foundation to Miletus and give information related to the history of the colony

1 ‘Dans le savoir partagé de l’Antiquité, le Scythe représente le nomade par excellence’: Hartog 1979, 1137. Scholars place the arrival of the Scythians in this region from the end of the 7th century BC (cf. Marčenko and Vinogradov 1989; Melyukova1990; Ivantchik 2004; Vinogradov 2008). 2 Ps. Scyl. 68. 3 Strabo XI, 2, 10.

Strabo VII, 4, 4; Plin., N.H. IV, 86; Amm. Marc. XXII, 8, 36. Cf. Tolstikov 1996, 319; Tolstikov 2003, 713-714. See also Kuznetsov 1999 and Morel 2010, 283-284. 6 Cf. Tolstikov 1992, 56-61 non vidi; Tolstikov 1996, 320-321; Tolstikov 2002, 40-41; Treister 2002, 152; Tolstikov 2003, 716-717; Tolstikov, Žuravlev and Lomtadze 2004, 344-354; Tsetskhladze 2004, 236, 240. 4 5

67

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, essentially tied to the role of the city as capital of the Bosporan Kingdom. However, the tradition preserved by Stephanus Byzantinus -our fullest account of the colony’s foundation - is quite different7. According to this version of the story, Pantikapaion was founded by a son of Aietes, who received the district from the Scythian king Agaetes. Stephanus Byzantinus’ story about the foundation of Pantikapaion is a legend related to the myth of the Argonauts, since the most popular character of the Greek literature named Aietes is the king of Colchis, son of Helios and the Oceanid Perse8, brother of Circe and Pasiphae, and father of Medea. Apart from the myth of Golden Fleece, the name Aietes is irrevocably linked to the Colchis: Eumelus mentions Aietes’ departure from Corinth to Cholchis9; Mimnermus cites a city of Aietes10, which seems to be Aia, just as an ancient commentator claimed Aietes had received an oracle according to which he should found a city in Colchis with the name Aia11; Xenophon refers to a descendent (literally, grandson) of Aietes ruling over Colchis in about 400 BC12; Strabo reports that the name Aietes was locally current among the people of that region down to his day13 and in the 6th century AD Agathia mentions Aietes of Colchis giving an anti-Byzantine speech14. The lexicographer of Byzantium does not give the name of Aietes’ son, founder of Pantikapaion, probably because he had not found it in his source, but we know by the saga of the Golden Fleece that Aietes had a well-known daughter, Medea, as well as a son named Apsyrtus15. The absence of a name suggests that maybe our source did not consider it to necessarily mean Apsyrtus, the well-known son of Aietes. Nevertheless, it would be complicated to ascribe the foundation of Pantikapaion to Apsyrtus if we consider that in the Apollonius of Rhodes’ Argonautica, Jason murdered Apsyrtus on one of the Brygean Islands (an island sacred to the goddess Artemis and located in the modern Kvarner Gulf), where he was lured by Medea with false promises16. According to another tradition preserved by Diodorus Siculus, Aietes married Hecate, daughter of his brother Perses, who bore him a son, Aegialeus, and two daughters, Medea and Circe17. So if it is reasonable to admit that the Aietes quoted by Stephanus Byzantinus is the well-known king of Colchis, it is only hypothetically possible to identify the founder of Pantikapaion with the most known Apsyrtus, or with Aegialeus. However, there is no doubt that the founder of Pantikapaion, also reentering in the panorama

of the Greek mythical patrimony, was a personality well integrated in the local horizon18. According to Stephanus Byzantinus, in addition, the founder had taken the land for the settlement from the Scythian king Agaetes and he named the city Pantikapaion after Pantikape19, a river which flowed past. It is interesting to note that the Gothic historian Jordanes20 also remarked that the Greeks had established colonies on the northern shores of the Black Sea, with the permission of the Scythians. In Herodotus’s words, when crossing the Pantikapes and proceeding eastward of the Husbandmen we come upon the wandering Scythians, who neither plough, nor sow21. Many scholars hold that the toponym Pantikapaion comes from the Iranian word *panti-kāpa meaning ‘road of the fish’22, which may refer to the Strait of Kerch, an important region for fish migration, on the shore of which the city was founded23. So the city’s name, Pantikapaion, as well as that of the river Pantikapes, as in similar cases at Istros, Phasis, Borysthenes, Tyras, Tanais24, belonged to the local language and was adopted by the first colonists with the addition of a Hellenic suffix25. It could be thought that the references above, particularly the purely legendary account of the foundation by Stephanus Byzantinus, make it possible to conclude that in the second quarter of the 6th century BC Milesians concluded a treaty with the Scythians who lived there to obtain land26. Cf. Braund 2002, 73-74. Hdn., De prosodia catholica III, 1, 370, 6; Steph. Byz., sv, 13-16; Eust., Comm. 311, GGM II, 273. 20 Iord., Getica V, 32. Among these colonies on the northern shores of the Black Sea, Jordane doesn’t mention Pantikapaion but Myrmekion, probably founded as a result of an internal colonization of Pantikapaion. 21 Herod. IV,18; 19; 47; 54; see Plin., N.H. IV, 78; 83; Mela II, 5, 2; D., 314. For toponyms and hydronyms, see Ps. Scymn., F 15a = 837-860 Diller, which refers to information gathered by Ephorus (Eph., FGrHist 70 F 158). The river Pantikape has been variously identified with some modern rivers, such as the Inguleč, right tributary of the Dnepr (cf. Minns 1913, 29) or the Melek-Chesme river, small and shallow nowadays. Geological investigations showed that this river’s mouth had been in this area earlier in time, whilst later in antiquity the river moved further to the north (cf. Tolstikov 2003, 711). 22 Vasmer 1923, 67, 73; Abaev 1949, 170, 175, 193; Abaev 1958, non vidi. 23 On the fishing and the activities linked to fishing in the Kerch Strait and in the Sea of Azov, see Højte 2005, 141- 150; Stolba 2005, 121-124. 24 On several hydronyms iterated in the Pontic region, see Schramm 1973 (especially 178-179, on Pantikape). 25 The head of Pan frequently appears on the coins of the 4th century BC, perhaps in an attempt to reject the local element present in the name of the colony and to valorize the connection of the toponyms with the Greek god of nature, half man and half goat (cf. Kondakov, Tolstoï and Reinach 1891, 3). However, given the total absence of evidence of a cult of Pan in the colony (cf. Ehrhardt 1988, 177-178, 484 n. 977), scholarly opinion seems inclined to reject this interpretation and to deem the image simply the head of a bearded satyr (cf. Shelov 1978, 76-84, 217-223). The identification of the head as Pan has recently been re-asserted, this opinion seemingly supported by a proxenia decree of 4th century BC from Cyzicus for a citizen of Pantikapaion (cf. IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ1444; Lechat 1889, 514519, pl. IX), where the stone is dominated by a Pan-like bust (cf. Braund 2002, 75-76). 26 Saprykin 2004, 194: ‘Based on this legend, which goes back to the great period of Greek colonization and the time when the Milesians founded Panticapaeum in the first quarter of the 6th century BC, it is possible to conclude that the first Greek settlers could obtain land for establishing the colony directly from resident Scythian tribes “by a treaty” with their king’. 18 19

Hdn., De prosodia catholica III, 1, 370, 6; Steph. Byz., sv, 13-16; Eust., Comm. 311, GGM II, 273. For bibliographical references on Aelius Herodianus as source of Stephanus Byzantinus see Vattioni 1992, 128, n. 19. 8 Hom., Od. X, 137; Hes., Th. 958. 9 Eumel., Corinthiaca 3b, 451, F.2c.8-14; Schol. Pindar., Ol.13, 74 f. 10 Mimn., Fr 11a.1-3. 11 Schol. Pindar., Ol. 13, 13, 74 d. 12 Xen., Anab. V, 6, 37. 13 Strabo I, 2, 39. 14 Agathia III, 8, 7-9. 15 Apollod. I, 9, §23; Apoll. Rhod. III, 241; Schol. in Apoll. Rhod. III, 241; Hygin., Fabulae 13. 16 Apoll. Rhod. IV, 452-481. 17 D.S. IV, 45, 3-4. According to Diodorus, Circe was given in marriage to the king of the Sarmatians, whom some call Scythians. 7

68

Immacolata Balena: The Foundation of Pantikapaion

According to the archaeological evidence however, there is a time lag of several decades between the latest findings of non-Greek artifacts and the earliest finds of Greek provenance. We still have very little data, not only on early Greek and non-Greek contacts but also on any kind of non-Greek presence at all in this area, around the time of Pantikapaion’s foundation. The only evidence in support of the earliest Greek-Scythian contacts in the peninsula27 is the two well-known kurgans that have been frequently mentioned: the main burial in the burial-mound at TemirGora28, on a prominent site a few kilometers north-east of modern Kerch, and two groups of burial tumuli near Filatovka village on the Crimean Steppe29. Iessen in his book stressed the interdependence between the level of social and economic development of the local tribes and the Greek colonial activities in this region. According to his theory - which became known in the Soviet literature somewhat inaccurately as the theory of ‘two-sided colonization process’ - there was a mutual interest between the colonists and the local aristocratic élite, which aimed to yield further riches from transactions with the recently arrived inhabitants from Ionia30. Recent interpretations of the archaeological data seem to offer a pattern of development for early Greek and non-Greek contacts which differs from the customary approach to the question. The extremely poor archaeological findings in respect with the Scythian presence in this area31, as well as the fact that the

territory’s sites are not fortified32, do not indicate a kind of peaceful cohabitation between Greeks and locals during the colonization but show a relatively exiguous presence33 of Scythians here34. In spite of the rather meager compilation of archaeological evidences, the available literary sources regarding the relations between Greeks and non-Greeks in the Cimmerian Bosporus at the time of Pantikapaion’s foundation can provide crucial information. As Herodotus indicates, in winter time, when the sea - together with the whole Cimmerian Bosporus - is frozen, the Scythians would come from the east by crossing the Kerch Strait and driving their wagons over into the country of the Sindians35. Some scholars have claimed that this passage of Herodotus’ Historiae is a clue that Scythian population size was stable in Crimea and that these periodic movements were the most important factor for the demographic situation in the area36. Other scholars have considered Herodotus’ account of the Scythians’ winter crossing the ice towards the east side of the strait to be an episode of a Scythian military campaign carried on against Sindica in the 5th century BC37. Yet, some scholars deny the historical value of the winter crossing made by the Scythians, considering it merely one of the Herodotean exempla of the severe local climate38. However, it should be remembered that a scholium to Aristophanes contains a reference to the movement made by the Scythians eis allēn chōran39, while other ancient literary sources such as Strabo40 or Pliny the Elder41 confirm the possibility of a human movement across the frozen Kerch Strait. If paleogeographers are correct in their establishment of the level of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov at the time of Pantikapaion’s foundation, it is possible that the local inhabitants used to transfer their flocks periodically from one shore to the other in search of better pastures.

Cf. Kacarava, Kvirkvelja and Lordikipanidze 1999, 79. A large 4 x 3m grave pit filled with stones had been placed under an 8m high kurgan. Dating is based on a Milesian painted oinochoe, dated to 650-630 BC (cf. Cook and Dupont 1998, 36, fig. 8.5; Vachtina 2007, 31-33; Tsetskhladze 2007, 41, 44, 59). Some scholars consider that the vessel may well have come into the possession of a member of the Scythian élite (cf. Vachtina 1991, 3-7) during the seasonal migration from the Dnieper-Bug area to the Kuban region through the Crimea and the Taman Peninsula (Herod. IV, 28); the vessel most probably passed into Scythian hands somewhere in the Berezan area or even in the western Black Sea. However, according to the scientific research conducted so far (cf. Maslennikov 2001a, 294-295), it seems that even if some kind of migration across the Kerch Strait had taken place at the time of Herodotus, this did not hold for the time at which the Temir-Gora oinochoe was made. Another interpretation proposed by T. M. Kuznetsova (Kuznetsova 2002) is possible: there are grounds for supposing that the grave containing the oinochoe was that of a Scythian who had returned from the Near Eastern campaign and brought the object with him. We know that other Scythians who came back from this campaign brought with them several Near Eastern objects which ended up in their tombs in the northern Caucasus (cf. Tsetskhladze 1999c, 476-477; Tsetskhladze 2007, 50-51). 29 Another Scythian grave of the 7th century BC containing a RhodianIonian oinochoe belonging to the Vlastos group and dated to 635-625 BC (cf. Korpusova 1980; Korpusova and Lyashko 1990; see also Tsetskhladze 1998, 11). 30 Iessen 1947. This view of the situation, the ‘theory of the bilateral character’ of Greek colonisation, enjoyed considerable respect among scholars for a long time. Obviously in Iessen’s idea, commercial colonization was prior to the agricultural one. Many prominent Soviet scholars who investigated the history of the Northern Euxinus Pontus, such as S.A. Zhebelev (1930, 799-820; 1935, 48-73), V.D. Blavatskij (cf. 954, 7-44), V.F. Gajdukevič (1949, 7-25, non vidi), D. Kallistov (1949, 43-80) and others, accepted this approach to the question of the Greek Colonization at the Black Sea Region. In the 1960s this interpretation was subjected to serious criticism on the part of V. V. Lapin (1966; 1978) and his followers. He refuted the presence of an emporion period during the Greek colonization of the Northern Black Sea Region and refused to admit that commercial factors were at work in the process of colonization. See Koschelenko 2007, 21 for details. 31 For bibliographical references on the archaeological survey, see Kacarava, Kvirkvelja and Lordikipanidze 1999, 71. 27 28

Judging from the very small number of typically Scythian burials and sculpture dating from the 6th or even early 5th century BC42, as well as from the current tradition quoted by Herodotus, the Scythian presence at the area in this period was episodic43, probably coinciding with seasonal migration typical for nomadic societies specializing in animal husbandry44. However it is probable that the Cf. Tolstikov 1986, 168; Wasowicz 1986, 85. Cf. Koschelenko and Kuznetzov 1998, 262. 34 Cf. Maslennikov 2001a, 299-300; Maslennikov 2005, 155-156; see also Koschelenko and Kuznetzov 1998, 261-263; Kacarava, Kvirkvelja and Lordikipanidze 1999, 71; Ivantchik 2007, 9; Koschelenko 2007, 24. 35 Herod. IV, 28. 36 This is probably the reason why the Bosporans could not create a system of agricultural settlements around cities similar to that of the Olbia region (cf. Vachtina et al. 1980, 155-161; Vachtina 1991, 2-7; Vinogradov 2005, 214‑220; Vinogradov 2008, 14). 37 Cf. Maslennikov 2005, 159-160. 38 Cf. Koschelenko 2007, 22. 39 Schol. in Aristoph. Aves, 942. 40 Strabo VII, 3, 18. 41 Plin. N.H., IV, 87. 42 Cf. Maslennikov 2005, 156, n. 16. 43 Cf. Maslennikov 2005, 154-156. 44 Müller 2009, 101 : ‘Le passage du détroit de Kerch n’est certainement pas l’unique “parcours”, mais c’est le seul dont il reste une trace dans les sources écrites’. 32 33

69

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Scythians, although nearly absent in the coastal regions of the oriental Crimea, practiced a form of control on fluvial (by river) and terrestrial (by land) communication routes towards the inland45.

establishing a series of apoikiai in the territory: Theodosia51, Nymphaion52, Myrmekion53, Porthmion54, Tyritake55, Hermonassa56, Kepoi57, Patraeus58. Only in the second half of the 6th and the early 5th century BC did Greek cities of the western and northern shores of the Black Sea suffer a strong military and political pressure from the Scythians. These reverses are apparent first of all in the traces of large-scale fires in Porthmion, Myrmekion and Kepoi59. At approximately the same time the development of the Taganrog settlement ceased60. It was under these conditions that the Persians’ interventions against the Black Sea Scythians occurred: the raid conducted early in Dareius’ reign (519 BC) by Ariaramnes, the satrap of Cappadocia61 and Dareius’ expedition of 513 BC62. The objective of the Persian expeditions was evidently to strengthen the security of the territories but Dareius was not able to win a decisive battle against the Scythians and was forced to retreat from Scythia. The retreat of the Persian army caused a new phase of increasing instability in the Northern Black Sea area and in the second quarter of the 5th century BC the

Athenaeus, quoting Ephorus, comments in a moralizing manner that the Milesians bestrewed throughout the Black Sea with famous cities and bravely faced the Scythians, as long as they abstained from luxury46. The passage from the Deipnosophistae is interesting not only in terms of a remark about the Milesian tryphè47, but also because it mentions the conflict between the Scythians and the Milesians which could be identified with the apoikoi (colonists) of Pantikapaion. Perhaps an echo of the conflict between the Scythians and the Milesians is the tradition preserved in Strabo48, who reports that just as the Scythians had driven the Cimmerians out of the area, thus the Greeks in their turn, after having founded Pantikapaion and other cities of the Bosporus, ousted the Scythians. Therefore it is difficult to date the conflict between the Milesians and the Scythians to the time of Pantikapaion’s foundation, because at that time the Scythians were probably not numerous and lived a nomadic way of life49. It seems probable that the conflict took place at a more recent date.

Arr., PPE 19, 3-4; Anon., PPE 51. Cf. Bilabel 1920, 27, non vidi; Boardman 1986, 277; Koschelenko and Kuznetzov 1990, 73; Tsetskhladze 1997, 50; Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 951; Koschelenko 2007, 23. 52 Ps. Scyl. 68; Strabo VII, 4, 4. Cf. Koschelenko and Kuznetzov 1990, 68; Hind 1993, 101; Kuznetsov 1991, 33; Tsetskhladze 1997, 49; Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 948; Koschelenko 2007, 23. 53 Ps. Scyl. 68. Cf. Koschelenko and Kuznetzov, 71; Kuznetsov 1991, 33; Tsetskhladze 1997, 62; Butyagin, Vachtina and Vinogradov 2003, 805; Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 947; Tsetskhladze 2009, 239. 54 Hdn., De prosodia catholica III, 1, 289, 36; III, 1, 360, 17; Anon. PPE, 56; 91; 50; Anon., PPE II (c.l.), 28; Steph. Byz., sv Reimer 533; Scholia in D., append. 17-19. Cf. Treister and Vinogradov 1993, 547; Tsetskhladze 1997, 62; Butyagin, Vachtina and Vinogradov 2003, 822; Vachtina 2003, 37-38; Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 930; Vachtina 2005, 306; Tsetskhladze 2009, 242; 55 Hdn., De prosodia catholica III, 1, 315, 12; Anon., PPE 50; Steph. Byz., sv, 642. Cf. Koschelenko and Kuznetzov 1990, 71; Kuznetsov 1991, 33; Tsetskhladze 1997, 62; Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 952; Koschelenko 2007, 23. 56 Arr., Byth., F 55 Roos = FGrHist 156 F 71; Steph. Byz., sv Reimer 278, 11-12; Eust., Comm. 549, GGM II, 324. Cf. Kuznetsov 1991, 33-34; Tsetskhladze 1994, 119-123; Tsetskhladze 1997, 55; Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 945; Koschelenko 2007, 23. 57 Ps. Scyl. 72; Ps. Scymn., F17a = 895-8 Diller; Plin. N.H., VI, 18; Anon. PPE, 47, 11. Cf. Koschelenko and Kuznetzov 1990, 73; Kuznetsov 1991, 34; Tsetskhladze 1997, 57; Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 946; Koschelenko 2007, 23. 58 Hecat., FGrHist 1 F 214; Ps. Scyl. 72; Hdn., De prosodia catholica, III, 1, 238,1; Strabo XI, 2, 8; Steph. Byz., sv Reimer 512, 16. Cf. Tsetskhladze 1997, 64; Abramov and Zavoykin 2003, 1106, 1132. 59 Cf. Vinogradov 1999, 288‑290; Vinogradov 2005, 224‑225; Vachtina and Vinogradov 2001, 41‑45; Butyagin, Vachtina and Vinogradov 2003, 803‑804, Vinogradov 2008, 14. 60 Cf. Kopylov 1999, 9-10; Vinogradov 2008, 14. 61 Ctes., FGrHist 3c 688 F 13. Cf. Gardiner-Garden 1987, 326-350; Maslennikov 2005, 156-157; Nieling 2010, 125. Tsetskhladze 2008, 441: ‘… the period of preparation for the Scythian expedition of Darius was a turning point in the history of the Pontic Greek cities and of the local peoples surrounding them’. 62 Herod. IV, 83-143; Pherekyd., FGrHist 333 F174; Ctes., 3c 688 F 13 (20-21); Pl., Mx., 239E; Grg., 483D; Plb. IV, 43, 2; D.S. II, 5, 5; Strabo, VII, 3, 14-15; XVI, 1, 3; Nep. Milt., 3; Just. II, 5, 9; Oros. II, 8, 5; Iord., Getica, X, 63. According to Tuplin (2010, 303, n.1) the claim that a supposed 6th century substratum in Pseudo-Skylax’s account of the Black Sea reflects a Pontic voyage by the real Skylax (of Karyanda) undertaken ahead of Dareios’ expedition (cf. Gallotta 1980, 152, n.28, citing Baschmakoff 1948, 14, 22-29) is, to say the least, speculative. On Dareios’ expedition, see Balcer 1972; Parlato 1981; Gardiner-Garden 1987; Georges 1987; Hind 1994, 486-487; Nieling 2010, 125-127; Tuplin 2010. 51

There are sound reasons for assuming that the Greek colonial settlements have proceeded unhindered and without threats from external enemies. The general impression is that the first contact incidences between the Greek settlers and the indigenous tribes were and remained unstable. Hind recognized the fact that there was a ‘power vacuum and relatively empty land’ to the North of the Black Sea, which constituted an attraction to the first Greek colonists50. The almost complete Milesian monopoly of the Cimmerian Bosporus was caused by demographic factors. Greek appropriation of the littoral zone of the Strait of Kerch took place up until the middle of the 6th century BC,

Those using land and river routes (Khazanov et al. 1982, 14 : ‘ … les tendances politique et économique des nomades qui dominaient la Scythie étaient orientées, non pas vers la mer, mais en sens contraire’) may have had to pay a road-tax, an example of which is offered by an inscription regarding Pistiros (SEG XLIX, 911), a Thracian emporion near modern Vetren (cf. Müller 2009, 103). According to the well-known inscription originating from the court of King Kotys I, Greek traders living in Pistiros had to pay taxes on goods (cf. Bravo and Chankowsky 1999; Tacheva 2007). One might then be inclined to conclude that the Scythians, like the Thracians, exacted from Greek cities tribute-like payments masked as ‘gifts’. This conclusion is backed up by the reference of the ‘Scythian tribute’ in the letter-graffiti of Apaturion to Neumenios (late 5th century BC) originating from the excavation of Kerkinitis (SEG XXXVII, 665; SEG XL, 625; cf. Dana 2007). In the last passage of the letter we read: ‘find out, how great are the taxes due to the Scythians’. 46 Eph., FGrHist 70 F 183 apud Athen. XII, 26. Cf. Parmeggiani 2007, 120. 47 On the Milesian tryphè (Xenoph., F 3 West; Call. Com., CAF I, F 5; Herod. I, 43, 3; V, 69, 1), see Nenci 1983, 1022-1023; Imperio 1998, 211; Parmeggiani 2000, 83-92. 48 Strabo XI, 2, 5. 49 Cf. Koschelenko and Kuznetzov 1990, 74. 50 Cf. Hind 1994, 485. 45

70

Immacolata Balena: The Foundation of Pantikapaion

Greek colonies of the region found themselves in a very complicated situation. Numerous rural settlements in the lower Bug area and the Dniester area ceased to exist63, traces of fire were revealed in many Bosporan sites and defense installations were erected in some of them (Pantikapaion, Myrmekion, Tyritake, Porthmion, Phanagoria)64.

Spartacus - probably a Thracian according to his name69 - came into power70. Spartocus and his descendants introduced some serious changes in the administrative system of the Bosporus and carried out an active foreign policy. Pantikapaion pursued a policy of territorial expansion71, the Greek city of Nymphaion becoming the first victim and Theodosia and Phanagoria72 the next victima of the Bosporan kingdom’s expansion. Economic contacts between the Greeks and the local population increased and this strengthened the friendly political contacts. The rich Scythians, Sindians and Maeotians became able to settle down in the Bosporan cities and adopted the Greek culture, language, and customs. The richest burial tumuli, the socalled kurgans, of the Scythian nobles are concentrated on the outskirts of Pantikapaion and at Nymphaion, Phanagoria, Kepoi and probably Hermonassa73. These findings from the 5th century BC attest to an alliance between the Scythians and the Bosporans and highlight the allied character of the Scythian-Bosporan contacts. The objects relevant to this analysis consist of luxury manufactures of gold, electrum, and silver from the kurgans, mostly made by Greek craftsmen who lived or worked in Pantikapaion74. These masterpieces reveal a translation of Scythian art into Greek terms and were created in response to the immediate demand and according to the tastes of their consumers and at Pantikapaion these customers were obviously not Scythians from the steppe but members of an urbanized Bosporan aristocracy. The custom and technique of burial almost certainly emanated from Pantikapaion and can be traced to the architects who worked there and created a hybrid form of burial, a Scythian mound re-designed according to the possibilities of Greek monumental architecture75.

Scholars suggest that during this period the north Pontic region was invaded by another wave of nomadic Scythians which came from the north-western Caucasus putting pressure on the Greek territories65. It is possible that the integration of the Bosporan colonies into a military and religious league was a reaction to this pressure. The union was headed by the dynasty of the Achaeanaktids66, in power in Pantikapaion in 480 BC67. The Bosporan league became the basis for the strengthening of a long-lasting tyrannical power in Pantikapaion and the archaeological reconstruction of the defensive system at Tyritake and Myrmekion shows that in the first decades of the 5th century the league included Myrmekion and Tyritake68. Probably the first members of this league were the apoikiai of Pantikapaion itself and the small settlements of other metropoleis, whereas the most important cities of the region remained independent. The descendants of Archaeanaktos subdued at first the northwestern corner of the Kerch peninsula, and then some of the settlements along the Asiatic shores of the Bosporus. It is possible to recognize a change in the relationships between the local tribes and the Greeks. The situation on the chora of Pantikapaion confirms that stable and even good relations with the barbarians were maintained throughout the course of the Archaeanactid rule in 480 – 438 BC. In spite of the successes of the Archaeanaktids in the political and economic spheres, in 438 BC they were removed by a ‘coup d’etat’ and a new ruler, Spartocus or

These observations force us to look more closely at the possibility that the Spartokid kingship was itself an inspired hybrid of Scythian and Greek ideas of royalty. The Bosporan Greeks, their barbarian rulers and incorporated peoples, constructed a stable and original society and culture76. It is possible, therefore, that a similar cultural

Cf. Vinogradov 1980, 71; Marčenko 1982, 126‑136; Kryjitski 2005, 127. 64 Cf. Vinogradov 1980, 70‑110; Khazanov et al. 1982, 17-18; Tolstikov 1984, 26‑39; Tolstikov 1986, 168‑170; Vinogradov 1992, 107, non vidi; Vinogradov and Tochtas’ev 1994, 58; Vinogradov 2005, 238‑245; de Boer 2005, 280; Vinogradov 2008, 15. 65 Cf. Marčenko and Vinogradov 1989, 807; Vinogradov 1997, 74-132; Vinogradov 2008, 15. 66 Who were these Archaeanaktids? What were the circumstances of the power takeover, the system of rule and political actions? All these questions have different answers in modern historiography based on hypotheses and analogies with later times. It is supposed that they were Milesians in origin (cf. Brandis 1897, cc. 757-578; Zhebelev 1953, 7071; Gajdukevič 1971, 50-53; Vinogradov 1980, 66-67), or Mytileneans (cf. de Boze 1729, 549-564; Introductio CIG II, pars XI, 91; IosPE I2, xv-xviii; Blavatskij 1954, 37; Blavatskij 1964, 46; Blavatskij 1971, 33, nn.2-4.) on the grounds that an Archaeanax is known to have been active in each of these East Greek states in the 6th century BC (Alc. F 444 Lobel-Page; Sapph., FF 213 e 214 Lobel-Page; Strabo XIII., I, 38; FD III (4), 125, ll. 7-8; Milet I 3, 122, l. 11). Preference should probably be given to the opinion that the Archaeanaktids were an ancient noble family of Pantikapaion (Archaianaktidai = archaioi+anaktes+idioi) an aristocratic lineage like the Corinthian Bakchiads that monopolized key political and military offices (cf. Burstein 2006, 142). 67 D.S. XII, 31, 1. 68 Eph. FGrHist 70 F 158; Ps. Scymn., F 15a = 837-60 Diller; Strabo, VII, 4, 4; Plin. N.H., IV, 78; Amm. Marc. XXII, 8, 26; Anon. PPE, 49 (Cf. Gajdukevič 1971, 50-64; Hind 1994, 490; Vinogradov 1997, 100-132; Kacarava, Kvirkvelja and Lordkipanidze 1999, 75; Maslennikov 2001b, 247; Vinogradov 2008, 15-17). 63

He could have been one of the mercenaries or a governor (or both) of the Archaeanaktids. Cf. Minns 1913, 589; Rostovzeff 1922 67-68; Rostovzeff 1930, 564-565; Blavatskij 1964, 134; Gajdukevič 1971, 66-68; Hind 1994, 491; Ustinova 1999, 4; Archibald 2002, 60; Graham 2002, 90-1, 98-99; Archibald 2006, 125; Burstein 2006, 142. 70 D.S., XII, 31, 1. 71 Cf. Gajdukevič 1971, 65‑84; Vinogradov 1997, 115–116, 129-130; Vinogradov 2008, 16-17. 72 Satyros I (433/2-389/8 BC) occupied Nymphaion, tried to take Theodosia and acquired the fertile lands of Sindika (Polyaen., VIII., 55); Leukon I (389/8-349/8 BC) seized Theodosia, Phanagoria and the territories of a number of local tribes on the Asian side of Bosporos (D.S., XIV, 93, 1; XVI, 31, 6; SEG XLVIII, 1027; CIRB 6a, 6; 8; 1036; 1038; Sokolova and Pavlichenko 2002). Cf. Hind 1994, 495-502; Tokhtas’ev 2006. 73 Cf. Maslennikov 2005, 159; Vinogradov 2005, 245‑248; Vinogradov 2008, 15. 74 Cf. Boardman 1994, 196‑210; Rostovtzeff 1993, 86, 142; Gajdukevič 1971, 132. 75 Cf. Rostovtzeff 1922, 76‑79; Minns 1913, 194. There has never been serious doubt that Greek architects created the full typology of stonechambered kurgans of Bosporus, which also appears simultaneously and abundantly in Thrace. The stones of a kurgan still bear the Greek numeral signs that aided workmen in the assembly of the building: see Tsetskhladze 1998, 53. 76 Cf. Hind 1994, 510. 69

71

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

mixture occurred as early as the late 4th century BC among the Scythians as well as the local Greeks and inspired the legendary foundation tale quoted in the Ethnika of Stephanus of Byzantium.

Abramov, A. P. and Zavoykin, A. A. 2003. PatraeusCimmeris-Achilleon. In D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, I-II, 1103-1153. Thessaloniki. Archibald, Z. H. 2002. The shape of the new commonwealth: aspects of the Pontic and eastern Mediterranean regions in the Hellenistic age. In G. R. Tsetskhladze and A. M. Snodgrass (eds.), Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. BAR International Series 1062, 49-72. Oxford. Archibald, Z. H. 2006. The Central and Northern Balkan Peninsula. In K. H. Kinzl (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World, 115-136. Oxford. Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. R., 2004. The Black Sea Area. In H. M. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, 924-973. Oxford. Balcer, J. 1972. The date of Herodotus IV.1. Darius’ Scythian expedition. HSPh 76, 99-132. Baschmakoff, A. 1948. La synthèse des Périples pontiques. Méthode de précision en paléo-ethnologie, Paris. Bilabel, F. 1920. Die ionische Kolonisation, Leipzig Blavatskij, V. D. 1964. Pantikapei: Ocherki istorii stolitsy Bospora, Moskvá. Blavatskij, V. D. 1954. Arkhaicheskij Bospor, MIA 33, 7-44. Blavatskij, V. D. 1971. Zur Herkunft der bosporanischen Archaianaktiden, Klio 52, 33-36. Boardman, J. 1986. I Greci sui mari. Traffici e colonie, Firenze. Boardman, J. 1994. Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity, London. Brandis, C. 1897. Bosporus. In RE III, 1, 757-789. Braund, D. 2002. The myths of Panticapaeum: construction of colonial origins in the Black Sea region. In G. R. Tsetskhladze and A. M. Snodgrass (eds.), Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. BAR International Series 1062, 73-80. Oxford. Bravo, B. and Chankowsky, A.S. 1999. Cités et emporia dans le commerce avec les barbares à la lumière du document dit à tort ‘inscription de Pistiros’, BCH 123, 275-317. Burstein, S. M. 2006. The Greek Cities of the Black Sea. In K. H. Kinzl (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World, 137-152. Oxford. Butyagin, A. M., Vachtina, M. and Vinogradov, Yu. A. 2003. Myrmekion-Porthmeus. Two ‘small’ towns of the Ancient Bosporus. In D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, I-II, 803-840. Thessaloniki. Cook, R. M. and Dupont, P. 1998. East Greek Pottery. London-New York. Dana, M. 2007. Lettres grecques dialectales nord-pontiques (sauf IGDOP 23-26). REA 109. 1, 67-97. de Boer, J. G. 2005. The Greek colonies in the Pontic area during the 5th century BC. The rise of the ‘barbarian’ kingdoms and the Ionian revolt: an economic approach. Talanta 37, 269-287.

The most important element that this tradition, the result of late and erudite speculations, seems to bring to our investigation is that it is linked to the role played by the non-Greek component - not so much at the time of the colony’s foundation as for the following reconstruction of the mythical past of the colony. The identity of the oldest Greek colony in the Straits of Kerch was not only Greek but also Iranian77, as clearly revealed by the toponyms that came from the Iranian language and were adopted by the first colonists with a Hellenic termination (suffix). It is difficult however to suppose, according to the testimony of Stephanus of Byzantium, that the Milesians - while colonizing Pantikapaion - in the second quarter of the 6th century BC concluded a treaty with the Scythians to obtain land to live on along a narrow strip of land on the coastal zone. Mythical stories connected to the Argonauts’ saga and at the same time to the Scythian world were developed and used as the sinews of social and political life. The Pantikapeans, like other Black Sea colonial communities, were actively engaged in the construction of their own origins, by which they established their Greek credentials as well as they incorporated neighboring barbarians into their traditions78. Greek colonists responded differently to their individual and distinct situations, developing their own colonial identities as a direct result of their interactions with the particular locals they dealt with. Since colonial identity is a social construct, it is subject to modification and development over time as society itself changes. Abbreviations Abbreviations of journal titles and series titles follow the abbreviated forms used in The Année Philologique. There are only two exceptions: MIA Materialy i Issledovaniia po Arkheologii (SSSR), Moskvá/Leningrad. DB Drevnosti Bospora, Moskvá. Sources abbreviations of Greek authors follow the forms used in the Liddell, Scott, Jones, Lexicon of Classical Greek List of Bibliography Abaev, V. I. 1949. Osetinskij jazyk i fol’klor, I: Skifskij jazyk. Moskvá. Abaev, V. I. 1958. Pantikapaion. In K. Mijatev (ed.), Études publiées en l’honneur de l’académicien D. Dečev à l’occasion de son 80e anniversaire, 183-189, Sofia.

77 78

Cf. Gajdukevič 1971. Cf. Braund 2002,79 .

72

Immacolata Balena: The Foundation of Pantikapaion

de Boze, C. 1729. Des Rois du Bosphore Cimmérien. In Mémoires de Littérature tirés des Registres de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres depuis l’année M.DCCXVIII jusques & compris l’année MDCCXXV, Tome Sixième, 549-564. Paris. Ehrhardt, N. 1988. Milet und seine Kolonien: Vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen. Frakfurt am Main-Bern-New York. Gajdukevič, V.F. 1949. Bosporskoe Tsarstvo. MoskváLeningrad. Gajdukevič, V.F. 1971. Das Bosporanische Reich. Berlin, 1971. Gallotta, B. 1980. Dario e l’Occidente prima delle guerre persiane. Milano. Gardiner-Garden, J. 1987. ‘Dareios’ Scythian expedition and its aftermath’, Klio 69, 326-350. Georges, P. 1987(1995). Darius in Scythia. The formation of Herodotus’sources and the nature of Darius’campaign. AJAH 12, 97-147. Graham, A. J. 2002. Thasos and the Bosporan kingdom. AWE 1. 1, 87-99. Hartog, F. 1979. Les Scythes imaginaires: espace et nomadisme. Annales(ESC) XXIV, n.6, 1137-1154. Hind, J. 1992-1993. Archaeology of the Greek and Barbarian Peoples around the Shore of Black Sea (19821992). AR 39, 82-112. Hind, J. 1994. The Bosporan Kingdom. CAH VI2, 476-511. Højte, J. M. 2005. The Archaeological Evidence for Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region. In T. Bekker-Nielsen (ed.), Ancient fishing and fish processing in the Black Sea region, 133-160. Aarhus. Iessen, A.A. 1947. Greceskaja kolonizacija severnogo Pricernomor’ja. 1947. Leningrad. Imperio, O. 1998. Callia. In A. M. Belardinelli, O. Imperio, G. Mastromarco, M. Pellegrino and P. Totaro (eds.), Tessere. Frammenti della commedia greca: studi e commenti, 195-254. Bari. Ivantchik, A.I. 2007. Une koiné nord-pontique: en guise d’introduction. In A. Bresson, A. Ivantchik and J. L. Ferrary (eds.), Une koiné pontique. Cités grecques, sociétés indigènes et empires mondiaux sur le littoral Nord de la Mer Noire (VIIe s. a.C. – IIIe s. p.C.), 7-14. Bordeaux. Kacarava, D., Kvirkvelja, G. and Lordikipanidze, O. 1999. Les contacts entre les Grecs et les populations locales de la Mer Noire. Chronologie et typologie. In O. Lordkipanidze, P. Lévêque, A. Fraysse and E. Gény (eds.), La mer Noire, zone de contacts, Actes du VIIe Symposium de Vani [Colchide, 26-30 septembre 1994], Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 715, 65100. Paris. Kallistov, D. P. 1949. Očerniki po istorii Svernogo Pričernomor’ja antičnoj epochi. Leningrad. Khazanov, A.M. et al. 1982. Les Scythes et la civilisation antique. Problèmes de contacts. DHA 8, 7-51. Kondakov, N., Tolstoï, J. and Reinach, S. 1891. Antiquités de la Russie méridionale. Paris. Kopylov, V. P. 1999. The Place of the Taganrog Settlement within the System of the Early Greek Colonies in

the Region to the North of the Black Sea (New and unpublished materials from the museums of the Rostov Region and private collections). ACSS 6, 1-11. Korpusova, V. N. 1980. Raspisnaya rodossko-ioniiskaya oinokhoya iz kurgana u s. Filatovka v Krymu, VDI 2, 100-104. Korpusova, V. N. and Lyashko, S. N. 1990. Katakombnoe pogrebenie s pshenitsei v Krymu. SA 3, 166-175. Koschelenko, G. A. and Kuznetzov, V. D. 1990. La colonisation grecque du Bosphore Cimmérien. In O. Lordkipanidze, P. Lévêque, T. Khartchilava and E. Gény (eds.), Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs: sources écrites et archéologie, Actes du Ve Symposium de Vani [Colchide, 24-30 septembre 1987], Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 427, 67-84, Paris. Koschelenko, G. A. and Kuznetzov, V. D. 1998. Greek Colonisation of the Bosporus. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology. Historia Einzelschriften 121, 249-263. Stuttgart. Koschelenko, G. A. 2007. Les premiers contacts entre Grecs et barbares aux franges du Bosphore Cimmérien: écologie, archéologie et histoire. In A. Bresson, A. Ivantchik and J. L. Ferrary (eds.), Une koiné pontique. Cités grecques, sociétés indigènes et empires mondiaux sur le littoral Nord de la Mer Noire (VIIe s. a.C. – IIIe s. p.C.), 21-27. Bordeaux. Kryjitski, S. D. 2005. Olbia and the Scythians in the Fifth Century BC. The Scythian ‘Protectorate’. In D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks. Cultural Interactions in Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (sixth century BC-first century AD), 122-130. Exeter. Kuznetsov, V. D. 1991. Rannie apojkii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. KSIA 204, 31-37. Kuznetsov, V. D. 1999. Early Types of Greek Dwelling Houses. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East, Mnemosyne 196 Supplementum, 531564. Leiden-Boston-Cologne. Kuznetsova, T. M. 2002. Zagadki Temir Gory. In Zuev, V. J. et al. (eds.), Bosporskii Fenomen: pogrebal’nye pamyatniki i svyatilishcha II, 79-90. St Peterburg. Lapin, V. V. 1966. Greceskaja kolonizacija Severnogo Pricernomor’ja. Kiev. Lebedynsky, I. 2004. Les Cimmériens: les premiers nomades des steppes européennes: IXe-VIIe siècles av. J.-C. Paris. Marčenko, K. K. 1982. K voprosu o tak nazyvaemom predmest’e Ol’vii. VDI 3, 126-136. Marčenko, K. K. and Vinogradov, J.A. 1989. The Scythian Period in the Northern Black Sea Region (750-250 BC). Antiquity 63, 803-813. Maslennikov, A. A. 2001a. Varvary, greki i Bospor Kimmeriiskii do Gerodota i pri nem. DB 4, 291-323. Maslennikov, A. A. 2001b. Some questions concerning the early history of the Bosporan state in the light of recent archaeological investigations in the eastern Crimea. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology. Recent discoveries and Studies, Colloquia Pontica 6, 247-260. Leiden.

73

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Shelov, D. B. 1978. Coinage of the Bosporus VI-II centuries B.C. BAR International Series 46, Oxford. Sokolova, O. Yu. and Pavlichenko, N. 2002, Novaya posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Nimfeya. Hyperboreus 8/1, 99-12. Stolba, V. F. 2005. Fish and Money: Numismatic Evidence for Black Sea Fishing. In T. Bekker-Nielsen (ed.), Ancient fishing and fish processing in the Black Sea region, 115-132. Aarhus. Tacheva, M. The Pistiros Inscription: the Mirror of a New Thracian Society. In A. Iakovidou (ed.), Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World, Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology, [Komotini Alexandroupolis, 18-23 October 2005], 588-595. Athens. Tokhtas’ev, S. 2006. The Bosporus and Sindike in the Era of Leukon I: New Epigraphic Publications. ACSS 12, 1-62. Tolstikov, V. P. 1984. K probleme obrazovanija Bosporskogo gosudarstva. VDI 3, 24-59. Tolstikov, V. P. 1986. L’apport de la fortification dans l’histoire du Bosphore antique. In P. Leriche and H. Tréziny (eds.), La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec. Actes du Colloque International La Fortification et sa place dans l’histoire politique, culturelle et sociale du monde grec [Valbonne, décembre 1982], 167-178. Paris. Tolstikov, V. P. 1992. Pantikapej - stolica Bospora. In G. A. Koschelenko (ed.), Očerki archeologii i istorii Bospora, 45-99. Moskvà. Tolstikov, V. P. 1996. Panticapée archaïque à la lumière des dernières fouilles: à propos de l’origine de la ville. In O. Lordkipanidze, P. Lévêque, A. Fraysse, E. Gény and T. Khartchilava (eds.), Sur les traces des Argonautes, Actes du VIe Symposium de Vani [Colchide, 22-29 septembre 1990], Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 613, 319-325. Paris. Tolstikov, V. P. 2002. Pantikapaion. In B. Böttger and J. Fornasier (eds.), Das Bosporanische Reich: der Nordosten des Schwarzen Meeres in der Antike, 39-58. Mainz. Tolstikov, V. P. 2003. ‘Panticapaeum’. In D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, I-II, 707-758. Thessaloniki. Tolstikov, V. P., Žuravlev D. V. and Lomtadze G. A. 2003. Multichamber building complexes in the system of building acropolis of Panticapaeum in the VI-V centuries BC. Drevnosti Bospora 6, 307-350. Treister, M. Y. 2002. Excavations of Pantikapaion, Capital of the Kingdom of Bosporus. Old Finds, Recent Results and Some New Observations. In A. J. Todd (ed.), Greek Archaeology without Frontiers, 151-174. Athens. Treister, M. Y. and Vinogradov J. G. 1993. Archaeology on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea. AJA 97, 521-563. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1994. Greek Penetration of the Black Sea. In G. R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation. Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, 111-135. Oxford. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1997. A survey of the major urban settlements in the Kimmerian Bosporos (with a discussion of their status as poleis). In T. H. Nielsen

Maslennikov, A. A. 2005. The Development of GraecoBarbarian Contacts in the Chora of the European Bosporus (sixth–first centuries). In D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks. Cultural Interactions in Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (sixth century BCfirst century AD), 153-166. Exeter. Melyukova, A. I. 1990. The Scythians and Sarmatians. In D. Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, 97-117. Cambridge. Minns, E. 1913. Scythians and Greeks in South Russia. Cambridge. Morel, J. P. 2010. Quelques aspects de la culture matérielle dans le Pont Nord : vers une koinè entre Grecs et indigènes? In H. Tréziny (ed.), Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer noire. Actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses 2 (2006-2008), 279-289. Aix-en-Provence-Paris. Müller, C. 2009. Nomades Scythes et Etats Grecs du Nord de la mer Noire. In C. Moatti, W. Kaiser and C. Pébarthe (eds.), Le Monde de l’itinérance en Méditerranée de l’antiquité à l’époque moderne. Procédures de contrôle et d’identification, 93-112. Paris-Bordeaux. Nenci, G. 1983 Tryphé e colonizzazione. In Forme di contatto e processi di trasformazione nelle societa antiche, Atti del convegno di Cortona [24-30 maggio 1981], 1019-1031. Pisa-Roma. Nieling, J. 2010. Persian Imperial Policy Behind the Rise and Fall of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Last Quarter of the Sixth to the Beginning of the Fifth Century BC. In J. Nieling and E. Rehm (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers, Black Sea Studies 11, 123-136. Aarhus. Parlato, S. 1981. La cosiddetta campagna scitica di Dario. AION(archeol) 41, 213-250. Parmeggiani, G. 2000. Dalla ktisis alla tryphe: una lettura di storia milesia in Eforo di Cuma. In D. Ambaglio (ed.), Syngraphé. Materiali e appunti per lo studio della storia e della letteratura antica, 83-92. Como. Parmeggiani, G. 2007. I frammenti di Eforo nei Deipnosophistai di Ateneo. In D. Lenfant (ed.), Athénée et les fragments d’historiens. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg [16-18 juin 2005], 117-137. Paris. Rostovtzeff, M. 1922. Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. Oxford. Rostovtzeff, M. 1930. ‘The Bosporan kingdom’. In CAH VIII, 561-589. Rostovtzeff, M. 1931. Skythien und der Bosporus I. Kritische Ubersicht der schriftlichen und archaologischen Quellen. Berlin. Rostovtzeff, M. 1993. Skythien und der Bosporus II. Wiederentdeckte Kapitel und Verwandtes. Stuttgart. Saprykin, S. J. 2004. Chora and Polis in the Kingdom of Bosporus in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. In F. Kolb (ed.), Chora und Polis, Kolloquien des Historischen Kollegs 5 bis 8, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 54, 185-211, München. Schramm, G. 1973. Nordpontische Ströme. Namenphilologische Zugänge zur Frühzeit des europäischen Ostens, Göttingen.

74

Immacolata Balena: The Foundation of Pantikapaion

(ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Historia Einzelschriften 117, 39-81. Stuttgart. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1998. Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models and Native Population. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology. Historia Einzelschriften 121, 9-68. Stuttgart. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1999. ‘Between West and East: Anatolian Roots of Local Cultures of the Pontus’. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East, Mnemosyne 196 Supplementum, 469-496. LeidenBoston-Cologne. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2004. On the Earliest Greek Colonial Architecture in the Pontus. In C. J. Tuplin (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World. Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology, Colloquia Pontica 9, 225-281. Leiden-Boston. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2007. Pots and Pandemonium: the Earliest East Greek Pottery from North Pontic Native Settlements. Pontica 40, 37-70. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2008. The Pontic poleis and the Achaemenid empire: some thoughts on their experiences. In M. Lombardo (ed.), Forme sovrapoleiche e interpoleiche di organizzazione nel mondo greco antico [Convegno Internazionale di Studi Lecce, 17, settembre 2008], 438-446. Lecce. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2009. Secondary Colonisers in the Black Sea: Sinope and Panticapaeum. In M. Lombardo and F. Frisone (eds.), COLONIE DI COLONIE: le fondazioni sub-coloniali greche tra colonizzazione e colonialismo, Atti del Convegno Internazionale [Lecce, 22-24 giugno 2006], 229-254. Galatina (Lecce). Tuplin, C. 2010. Revisiting Dareios’ Scythian Expedition. In J. Nieling and E. Rehm (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers, Black Sea Studies 11, 281-312, Aarhus. Ustinova, Y. 1999. The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom: Celestial Aphrodite and the Most High God, Leiden-Boston. Vachtina, M. 1991. Skifskii put’ v Prikuban’e i nekotorye drevnosti Kryma v epokhu arkhaiki. In E. A. Molev (ed.), Voprosy istorii i arkheologii Bospora, 2-9. Belgorod/Voronezh. Vachtina, M. 2003. Archaic Buildings of Porthmion. In P. Guldager Bilde, J. M. Højte and V. F. Stolba (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas. Studies presented to A. N. Ščeglov on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Black Sea Studies 1, 37-54. Aarhus. Vachtina, M. 2005. The Porthmion Archaeological Expedition of the Institute for the History of Material Culture (IHMC RAS), BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA PETROPOLITANA 11.2, 306-309. Vachtina, M. 2007. Greek Archaic Orientalising Pottery from The Barbarian Site of the Forest-steppe Zone of

Northern Black Sea Coastal Region. In V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges. Paper delivered at the international conference of Sandbjerg, [Denmark, 27-29 May 2004], Black Sea Studies 6, 23-37. Aarhus. Vachtina, M. and Vinogradov, Ju. A. 2001. Ešče raz o rannej fortifikacii Bospora Kimmerijskogo. In V. Ju. Zuev et al. (eds.), Bosporskii Fenomen: Kolonizatsiya regiona, formirovanie polisov, obrazovanie gosudarstva I, 41-45. St Peterburg. Vachtina, M. et al. 1980. Ob odnom iz marshrutov voennych pochodov i sezonnych migracij kochevych Skifov. VDI 4,155-161. Vasmer, M. 1923. Untersuchungen über die ältesten Wohnsitze der Slaven, I: Die Iranier in Südrussland. Leipzig. Vattioni, F. 1992. Sui toponimi e le loro etimologie in Stefano di Bisanzio. SEL 9, 127-138. Vinogradov, Ju. A. and Tochtas’ev, S. R. 1994. Rannjaja oboronitel’naja stena Mirmekija. VDI 1, 54-63. Vinogradov, Ju. G. 1980. Die historische Entwicklung der Poleis der nördlichen Schwarzmeergebietes im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Chiron 10, 53-100. Vinogradov, Ju. G. 1992. Mirmekij. In G. A. Koschelenko (ed.), Očerki archeologii i istorii Bospora, 99-120. Moskvà. Vinogradov, Ju. G. 1997. Pontische Studien. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte und Epigraphik des Schwarzmeerraumes, Mainz. Vinogradov, Ju. G. 1999. Selected Findings from Myrmekion Acropolis. ÉtTrav 18, 279-293. Vinogradov, Ju. G. 2005. Bospor Kimmerijskij. In K. K. Marčenko (ed.), Greki i varvary Severnogo Pričernomor’ja v skifskuju epochu, 211-296. St Peterburg. Vinogradov, Ju. G. 2008. Rhythms of Eurasia and the Main Historical Stages of the Kimmerian Bosporos in PreRoman Times. In P. Guldager Bilde and J. H. Petersen (eds.), Meetings of Cultures – Between Conflicts and Coexistence, Black Sea Studies 8, 13-28. Aarhus. Wasowicz, A. 1986. Le système de défense des cités grecques sur les côtes septentrionales de la Mer Noire. In P. Leriche and H. Tréziny (eds.), La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec. Actes du Colloque International La Fortification et sa place dans l’histoire politique, culturelle et sociale du monde grec [Valbonne, décembre 1982], 79-93. Paris. Zhebelev, S. A. 1930. The Emergence of the Bosporan State. Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Sciences - Humanities Division 10, 799-820. Zhebelev, S. A. 1953. Severnogo Prichernomorija, Moskvá.

75

Notes on the History of the Scythian Kingdom of Crimea Stefania Gallotta Abstract: The Black Sea region, and especially the Northern coast, which has yielded more abundant documentation, constitutes a privileged area for the study of relations between Greeks and natives in a colonial reality, due both to the presence of a wide range of barbarous people with whom the Greek colonies are in close contact (Scythians, Taurians, Meotians, Sarmatians, etc.) and to the manner of living that was established over time. In this context, the Hellenistic period is of particular interest, because during this period the Hellenization of large sections of indigenous elites seems to have been accompanied by developments in relations with the Greek cities which often became conflictual, for a variety of reasons that are still under discussion; the case of the Scythians is exemplary in this regard. In particular in this paper, I will analyse the Scythian kingdom of Crimea, with its capital, Scythian Neapolis, which represents a particularly significant example of a Hellenized indigenous community. The Scythian Kingdom of Crimea has not been yet adequately explored by the scholars of the Greek world. Here, particular attention will be devoted to some inscriptions found recently, which require an in-depth study. Keywords:Scythians, Scythian Neapolis, Greek colonies, Hellenistic period, Olbia, Tauric Chersonesos

During the Hellenistic period in the Black Sea region, the conditions of peaceful coexistence and convenience between Greeks and barbarians (especially between Greeks and Scythians), which may have developed in the archaic and classical periods, seem to be moving into a phase of conflict and contrast, as it can be derived from written sources and the archaeological finds of the area.1 An example of this evolution is, in my opinion, the Scythian kingdom of Crimea, a very interesting state that has attracted the interest of Western scholars only in the last few years, thanks to recent excavations and new inscriptions which have allowed us to form a clearer picture of historical events in the area.2

are based on the most recent archaeological discoveries on the site of Scythian Neapolis. The last finds of Great Scythia would date back to the late fourth century and to the beginning of the third century BC, while more archaic finds of the Little Scythia seem to date back to the late third and the beginning of the second century BC, there is a gap of nearly 100 years for which there are no related findings4. The Scythian kingdom of Crimea was formed at the beginning of the second century and only in the middle of the second century it became a strong and powerful kingdom. Archaeological research continued sporadically in the 19th century, while systematic excavations of the settlement started in 1945. Since 1978 excavations have been carried out by Ukrainian archaeologists, most recently by Yuri Zajcev5. They have identified Scythian Neapolis as the capital of the kingdom, located on one of the massifs of the third ridge of the Crimean Mountains. On one side it is bordered by a steep inclining down to the river Salgir, and on the other by a deep canyon of the Petrovskaya. It lies not far from the city of Simferopol, near the present settlement of Kemerchick.

One of the most debated issues relating to the history of the Scythian kingdom of Crimea is its dating: does it follow on naturally from the Great Scythia mentioned by Herodotus or is it an independent phenomenon? Some scholars - including Rostovzeff - are convinced that this phenomenon is a natural consequence of the events that marked the history of Great Scythia from the end of the fourth century, when the Scythians, attacked by Sarmatians, lost their positions, keeping only the territories of low Dniestr, low Dniepr and some territories of central Crimea, where subsequently, in the second century, our Kingdom was established, achieving its apogee in the mid-century.3

Different stages of the settlement can be identified: in the first period, dating from the late third to the early second century BC, there are finds of farms and numerous Rhodian amphora stamps; subsequently there is a period characterized by the construction of numerous buildings, which were dangerously damaged by a fire (135-130 BC)6.

More recent opinions, however, seem to differ. They On the relations between Greeks and barbarians from the archaic period, see Tsetskhladze 1998; Braund 2005; Bresson, Ivantchik and Ferrary 2007. 2 On the history of the Kingdom, very interesting sources are included in Ivantchik 2004, 71-81; Muller 2010, 81-91; Zaytsev 2004. 3 On this opinion see Rostovzeff 1931, 56 ff. 1

See Ivantchik 2004, 71-81; Muller 2010, 81-91; Zaytsev 2004. Very detailed reports of the excavation are given by Zaytsev 2007, 789- 814. 6 For the Hellenistic period the stamps of amphora handles are extremely important; see Zaytsev 2004, 9-12. 4

5

77

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

The settlement was completely rebuilt, becoming - only in this period - the centre of the power of the Kingdom. Between 130 and 110 BC, Neapolis reached its peak; a heroon, the mausoleum, numerous buildings for worship and a megaron are all built during this period. Subsequently, Mithridates conquered the city and destroyed it again; it was rebuilt but from that point on the Scythian kingdom of Crimea no longer existed.

in Scythian Neapolis, where we often find the name of a certain Posideos who honours some Greek gods (Athena Lindia, Zeus Atabirium)11. Of particular interest is a dedication to Achilles, Lord of Leuke, made by Posideos, son of Posideos, Rhodian in origin but from Olbia by adoption (IOSPE I2 672). Posideos fought some pirates, the Satarchoi, under the command of a fleet ordered by a Scythian dynast, identified by most scholars as King Skiluros. We know that the Satarchoi lived in the northeastern Crimea and occupied the region looking over the Meotian Lake. They practiced the piracy as it can be determined by this decree: we read πειρατεύσαντας (peirateusantas).12 It seems difficult to doubt that this character was part of the entourage of Skiluros.

Recently uncovered inscriptions are very interesting, not only to understand the history but also to understand the relationships between the Scythian kingdom and other Greek cities. Together with other inscriptions already known, they give a clearer picture of the state, which still remains somewhat obscure7.

However, Posideos was probably not the only one to have relations with Olbia on behalf of the Scythian king, as it is suggested by another interesting inscription discovered recently in Olbia, dating from the mid-second century BC to the beginning of the the first century BC. Though the first lines have been damaged, the text is a proxeny decree for Stefanos (SEG 57 723)13. In line 18 we can read that Stefanos has some privileges: to participate in the council and the assembly (μετά τά ιερά και βασιλικά) ‘after the sacred and business gifts’. The passage is, as we see, fully interpreted, and the interpretation is generally accepted by scholars for the following reasons: the formulation meta ta iera, is well attested in several cities of the west coast (Istros, Callatis and Odessos), but the other interpretation, ta basilica is entirely new in the region of the Black Sea. This expression is clearly a reminiscent of the description of the business of the king, which we often find in the decrees of the Hellenistic age.

The best known king is Skiluros, who - together with his son Palakus - adopted a policy of aggression and conquest of neighbouring territories; we know from Strabo (7.4.3) that Skiluros and his sons built several fortresses not far from Chersonesos, to defend themselves from the attacks of Mithridates. Specifically, the geographer says (7.4.7): ‘In addition to the places in the Chersonesus which I have enumerated, there were also the three forts which were built by Skiluros and his sons - the forts which they used as bases of operations against the generals of Mithridates - I mean Palacium, Chabum, and Neapolis. There was also a Fort Eupatorium, founded by Diophantus when he was leading the army for Mithridates. There is a cape about fifteen stadia distant from the wall of the Chersonesites; it forms a very large gulf, which inclines towards the city. And above this gulf is situated a lagoon which has salt-works’. Palacium, Chabum, and Neapolis are also known as basileia, in the well-known decree of Diophantus (L.13), of which we will analyze later8. However, the king, who reigned from c. 130 to 114-3 BC, establishing a dense network of relationships, not always peaceful, also turned to the West. According to some scholars, even in the Hellenistic period, one could admit a powerful Scythian protectorate in Olbia. The existence of the latter in the fifth century, however, has been recently questioned9 and the debate is still going on among scholars. Those who support its existence rely primarily on the testimony of Strabo - according to whom the small Scythia extended to Borysthenes (7.4.5) - and more particularly on some coins dating back to the mid-second century BC which bear the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΚΙΛΟΥΡΟΣ and ΟΛΒΙΟ10.

But which king does the inscription refer to? Initially, scholars stated that the king was Mithridates Eupator, who took possession of the polis at the end of the first century BC. However, chronological problems mean that this one does not seem to be a correct solution. Which other king would have had special relationships with Olbia between the late second and early first century? According to other scholars, Skiluros was the king of the inscription, and thus ta basilika would be his affairs: it was probably he who sent Stefanos to Olbia (probably as his official, perhaps in the same role as Posideos). What about the Bosphoran Kingdom? In this regard, we must take a step back and consider that the relations between the two communities (Greek and Scythian) date back to the early second century BC and that ta basilika would therefore be related to another character, which some scholars have identified as the predecessor of Skiluros, Argotas14. He was certainly one of the Scythian nobility

If the hypothesis of a Scythian-controlled regional market, including not only Olbia but also Tomis and Istria, seems to be strongly suggested but not supported by substantial evidence, some indications of the relationship between Skiluros and Olbia are obtained by a number of inscriptions

On the regional market Frolova, 1964. I have studied this decree in Gallotta 2007-2009, 107-114. 13 Some scholars have studied it: Ivantchik 2007, 100-110; Muller 2010, 89-90. 14 On the history of the Bosphoran Kingdom and its relations with other pontic poleis see Gallotta 2010.

A description on these reliefs are in Treister 1999, 36-37; Vinogradov and Zaytsev 2003; Zaytsev 2004. 8 The decree has been widely investigated by Boffo 1989. 9 On this theme see Kryzhitskiy 2005,123-130. 10 Vinogradov 1989, 230-250; contra Muller 2010, 88-89. On the coins, see Frolova 1964.

11

7

12

78

Stefania Gallotta: Notes on the History of the Scythian Kingdom of Crimea

(the name is well known among the Scythians, as it is also mentioned on the famous ring of King Skiles of the 5th century), and he held power in Neapolis for some time.15



A Bosphoran queen has married Argotas, a Scythian man from Neapolis. Is he the same person we found in the previous epigram? We cannot say for sure, although the closeness of identification is very impressive. If we assume he is the same person, it would seem that at the time he married Comosarie he was no longer in power, given that there is no reference to a title in the inscription.17 In any case, the inscription serves to suggest a close relationship between the two communities. But the relationship seems to have been even closer with Skiluros.

Α slab found with a relief and an inscription mentioning Argotas is very interesting. The excavations revealed more than 200 fragments, not a few of which featured parts of inscriptions. The upper part is shaped as a cornice with traces of painting. A further fragment, belonging to the same work, preserves the representations of a male head in a headdress, a horse’s head and a vertically held spear shaft.16 The epigram is very interesting for several reasons. Firstly, it is a dedication made by Skiluros (ruler of Scythia in the text) for Argotas, who had freed the region from the barbarians. Beyond the clear intent of celebration, as the Thracians and Maeotians conceptually represent the East and West of the northern region of the Black Sea, the Maeotians could represent the Asian region of the Bosphoran Kingdom, which was inhabited by them. Argotas fighted against the latter in defence of the Greeks of the Bosphoran Κingdom. There is a connection between the two communities, but I would be cautious in defining it as a symmachia, as some scholars have done. I would rather speak of vassalage by Bosphoran kings.

In this regard, we recall another inscription found at Panticapeum, in the temple of Artemis Hecate (SEG 37, 674), a dedication in honour of Dithagoia, probably a Scythian deity, made for a Paerisades son of Paerisades - who can be identified with the last representative of the Spartocid dynasty. The most significant aspect, however, concerns the person who made the dedication: she is a woman, Senamotis, Skiluros’ daughter, the abovementioned king of the Scythians of the Crimea, and Heraclides’s wife, whose name suggests a connection to the Bosphoran nobility18. We are in the reign of Paerisades V, from 140 to 110 BC. The testimony of Strabo (7, 4, 4) is also significant: he recalls that the last king of the Bosphoran kingdom was not able to keep up with the barbaroi and had to pay a heavier phoros, in the end handing over power to King Mithridates VI of Pontus.

Argotas also features in an inscription found at Panticapeum. It is a dedication by members of a thiasus, when the king Paerisades III Philometor had died and was succeeded by his son, Paerisades IV (the date is 170-150 BC). From it we learn - and this is the most important aspect - that the widow of the king, Komosarie, had married Argotas (CIRB 75= IOSPE IV 19).

In the light of this source, the picture becomes clearer and confirms, in my opinion, the relationship between the Scythian kingdom and the Bosphoran kingdom as a vassalage.

We read (CIRB 75): Παιρισάδου. Καμασαρύης. Ἀργότου.

But why does Chersonesos request the help of Mithridates against the Scythians, and how is the Bosphoran kingdom involved?

{²corona}² {²corona}² {²corona}² 2 ὑπὲρ ἄ̣ρχοντος καὶ βασιλέως Παιρ[ι]σ̣άδου τοῦ βασιλέως Παι ρισάδου φιλομ̣ήτορος καὶ βασι5 λίσσης Καμασαρύης τῆς Σπαρτ[ό] κ̣ου θυγατρὸς φ̣ιλ[ο]τέκνου̣ [καὶ] Ἀργότου τοῦ Ἰ[σάν]θου βασ[ιλίσ] σης Καμασαρ[ύη]ς ἀνδρὸς [ὁ συνα] γωγὸς Θεόκρι[το]ς Δημη[τρίου καὶ] 10 οἱ θιασῖτα[ι] ἀνέθηκ[αν τὴν στή] λη[ν] Ἀφροδ[ε]ίτῃ Οὐ[ρανίᾳ Ἀπατού] ρου μεδεούσηι. Θεόκριτος Δημ[ητρίου], Παπίας Πα[πίου?], 15 Στράτων Ἀ.[— —] Παπίας Θ[— — —] [Π]απίας [— — —] 15 16

[Κ]αλλί[στρατος? — — —] [Π]οσ[ειδώνιος? — — —]

On the dynamics of the events, in addition to a complex reference of Strabo (7.4.3), who states that Chersonesos was invaded by barbarians and a prostates of Mithridates was sent to punish Skiluros and his children, we have an additional and significant testimony. It is a well-known inscription which probably dates to the last decade of the second century BC; the decree of Tauric Chersonesos in honour of Diophantus, a Sinopean general in the service of Mithridates VI Eupator (IOSPE I2 352). As the situation in the northern Pontus - and particularly in Crimea - degenerated in the second half of the second century, when the fortresses of Kalos Limen and Kerkinitis were overrun by the Scythians and the Taurians also began to attack the region violently, so Chersonesos decided to renew the Pontic alliance, asking for help to Mithridates. Chersonesos had formed a defensive alliance with Farnace,

See Vinogradov 1997. For the inscription see Zaytsev 2004, 1-3; Zaytsev 2007, 810-812.

17 18

79

Vinogradov and Zaytsev 2003, 49. Gallotta 2010, 87 ff.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

as we can see from a well-known text (IOSPE I2 402). I don’t want to dwell on a complex issue concerning the dating of the text; I only want to point out that the Pontic king and the polis of Chersonesos had already sworn a mutual alliance before Mithridates19.

understood21: Paerisades is defeated, Saumakus apparently takes royal power (as suggested by the fact that, once captured, he is sent as a prisoner to the kingdom of Pontus) and the conspirators also seek to stop Diophantus. The latter, however, escaped and returned with larger forces, freeing Teodosia and Panticapeum and restoring the rule of Mithridates. The Scythian kingdom of Crimea and the Scythian dynasty led by Argotas, Skilurus and Palakus, disappeared.

But let us return to the decree of Diophantus (IOSPE I2 352)20. The inscription contains a long and detailed account of the events which led to the arrival of Diophantus in the polis and to his activities: Chersonesos, we learn from the text, was threatened by the Scythian king Palakos (Skiluros’ son, who had taken power) and had therefore asked for a help of Mithridates, who sent Diophantus with an army. The gallant commander had intervened with two campaigns in the peninsula; a first expedition lasted little more than a year and saw the campaign against Palakus and his army, as well as an early but rather short intervention in the Bosphorus. The second expedition lasted about three years and conducted several military campaigns, during which Diophantus freed Chabon, Kalos Limen, Kerkinitis and finally Neapolis, defeating the Scythians and subjecting them to the authority of Mithridates. Finally, he returned to the Bosphorus, arranging the affairs of the place to the benefit of King Mithridates, indicating that the kingdom was probably incorporated into the Pontic kingdom. At this point, however, a serious complication arose: the Scythians under Saumakus, who had been brought up at the court of King Paerisades, rebelled and killed the king (l. 34-35: τῶν περὶ Σαῦμακον Σκυθῶν νεωτερίξαντων καὶ τὸν μὲν ἐκθρέψαντα αὐτὸν βασιλεᾶ Βοσπόρου Παιρισάδαν ἀνελόντων).

List of Bibliography Boffo, L. 1989. Grecità di frontiera Chersonasos Taurica e i signori del Ponto Eusino (SIG 3, 709), Athenaum 77, 211-261 and 369-405. Braund, D. (ed.) 2005. Scythians and Greeks. Cultural interactions in Scythia, Athens and the early Roman Empire (sixth century BC - first century AD). Exeter, University of Exeter Press. Bresson, A., Ivantchik, A. and Ferrary, J. L. (eds.), 2007. Une Koinè pontique. Cités grecques, sociétés indigene set empires mondiaux sur le littoral nord de la Mer Noire (VIIe s. a. C. IIIe s. p. C.). Bordeaux, Ausonius. Gallotta, S. 2010. Il regno del Bosforo Cimmerio: vicende storiche, aspetti institutionali economici e cultuali. Pescara, Opera Editrice Press. Gallotta, S. 2007-2009. Appunti sulla pirateria nel Mar Nero. Il mar Nero 7, 107- 114. Ivantchik, A. 2004. Le royaume scythe et ses relations avec les cités grecques de la Mer Noir eau II e siècle av. J.- C. Mediterraneo Antico 7, 61-71. Ivantchik, A. 2007. Une novelle proxénie d’Olbia et les relations des cités grecques avec le royaume scythe de Skilouros. In A. Bresson, A. Ivantchik and J. L. Ferrary (eds.), Une Koinè pontique. Cités grecques, sociétés indigene set empires mondiaux sur le littoral nord de la Mer Noire (VIIe s. a. C. IIIe s. p. C.), 99-110. Bordeaux, Ausonius. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 2005. Olbia and the Scythians in the Fifth Century BC: The Scythian ‘Protectorate’. In D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks. Cultural interactions in Scythia, Athens and the early Roman empire (sixth century BC - first century AD), 123-130. Exeter, University of Exeter Press. Müller, C. 2010. D’Olbia à Tanais. Territoires et réseaux d’échnges dans la mer Noire septentrionale aux époques classique et hellénistique. Bordeaux, Ausonios. Rostovzeff, M. 1931. Skythien und der Bosporus I. Kritische Ubersicht der schriftlichen und archaologischen Quellen. Berlin. Treister, M. 1999-2000. Toreutic Objects from the Scythian Kurgan Babina Mogila. In Il Mar Nero 4, 9-42. Tsetskhladze, G. 1998. The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Stuttgart, Steiner. Vinogradov, J. 1989. Der pontos Euxeinos als politiche, ökonomische und Kulturelle Einheit und die Epigraphik.

Diophantus, however, escaped with a Chersonese ship and, returning to the Bosphorus with an army and a fleet, took possession of Teodosia and Panticapeum and punished the leaders of the revolt. He took Saumakus prisoner and sent him into the kingdom of Pontus (l. 39 ff.). The decree provides, in my opinion, another important confirmation of the fact that, as we said before, the Bosphoran kings were in a relationship of vassalage to the Scythians of Crimea. My interpretation is that the Scythians had imposed Saumakus and his group on Paerisades, probably in order to control the kingdom and even to seize it after the death of the king. The arrival of Diophantus, moving into the Bosphorus from Chersonesus, however, changed this state of affairs. In the decree, the causes of his expedition are not specified. There are good reasons to think that the same Paerisades called him in to help to free him from the protection of the Scythians, and that on this occasion - and particularly during Diophantus’ second visit - the kingdom was submitted to Mithridates, as mentioned by Strabo (7, 4, 4). The intervention of Diophantus put an end to Saumakus and his group, who saw their opportunity to take over the Kingdom disappear. Their rebellion, in which I think we should recognize a palace coup and certainly not a revolt of subordinate categories, can easily be Very interesting is the analysis of Muller 2010, 93-95. On his expeditions, see Boffo 1989, 227 ff.; Gallotta 2010, 78 ff.; Muller 2010, 95-99. 19

On the rule of Saumakos, Gajdukevic 1971, 314-317; Boffo 1989, 380-390; Gallotta 2010, 80-82; Muller 2010, 98-99.

20

21

80

Stefania Gallotta: Notes on the History of the Scythian Kingdom of Crimea

Discussion Søren Handberg: I was interested in some of these Poseideos inscriptions and, if I understood correctly, you believe that the son of the same Poseideos in Olbia could be an ambassador from Skilouros. If I remember rightly, there is also a Poseideos mentioned in the construction of the city walls in Olbia (early 3rd c. BC) and there is also a proxeny decree from Delos that mentions Poseideos from Olbia. Could you elaborate a bit on the role of this Poseideos? Stefania Gallotta: The presence of Posideos from Olbia in Scythian Neapolis in the 1st c. BC is an example of the close relations between the two states. He was probably the commander of the fleet sent by Scylurus to defeat the Satarchoi pirates, as we can deduce from IOSPE I2 672. There are some inscriptions which attest the presence of Posideos in Neapolis but it is difficult to specify the relations between these persons with the name Posideos and the others from Olbia. The most interesting fact is, in my opinion, the close links between these two poleis (Olbia and Scythian Neapolis).

In Congrès International d’ épigraphie grecque et latine 9, 9-77. Sofia. Vinogradov, J. 1997. Pontische Studien. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte und Epigraphik des Schwarzmeerraumes. Mainz. Vinogradov, J. and Zaytsev, J. P. 2003. Novyi épigraficheskij pamjatnik iz Neapolja skifskogo. Arkhelogija 1, 44-53. Zaytsev, J. P. 2004. The Scythian Neapolis 2nd century BC to 3rd century AD. Investigations into the Graeco Barbarian City on the Northern Black Sea Coast. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, BAR Publishing. Zaytsev, J. P. 2005. Absolute and Relative Chronology of Scythians Neapolis in the 2nd century BC. In V. Stolba and L. Hannestad (eds.), Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c. 400-100 BC. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Zaytsev, J. P. 2007. The Scythian Neapolis and Greek Culture of the Northern Black Sea Region in the 2nd Century BC. In D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek colonies in the Black Sea. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, BAR Publishing.

81

The Lower City of Tanais V. Kozlovskaya and S. M. Ilyashenko Abstract: Situated near the point where the Tanais River (the modern Don) flowed into Lake Maeotis (the modern Sea of Azov), the Greek colony of Tanais was located on the frontier of the ancient Greek world. Founded in the first quarter of the 3rd century BC as a small trading settlement, the city gradually became a large center of commerce and a major emporion. The systematic excavations at this site began in 1955, but after almost one hundred and fifty years, the size of the ancient city, as well as its precise topography and lay-out, still remain largely unknown. From the 1990s onwards, more archaeological work has been undertaken in the territory of the Upper City outside the main part of the settlement, bringing to light new evidence. The part of the city about which we know the least is the area to the south of the citadel, where the Lower City must have been located. The present article discusses all available evidence that may help us to reconstruct the diachronic development of the Lower City of Tanais and indicate the possible location of the ancient harbor. Keywords:Lake Maeotis, Bosporus, harbor, lighthouse, emporion.

The starting point in the study of Tanais can be dated to 1824, when I. A. Stempkovskii claimed that he was still able to see the ruins of this city near the modern village of Nedvigovka, on the right bank of the river Don (ancient Tanais), where it flows into the Sea of Azov (ancient Lake Maeotis) (Figure 1). There, he found ‘remains of an acropolis, or a citadel, very similar to the one in Olbia, but a little bit smaller’ and noted that ‘these fortifications were surrounded by a deep moat, and at some places, on the rampart, there were piles of earth and stones that indicated the foundations of towers’1.

past must have served as an outer defense wall of the city. Despite the negative results of Leontev’s excavations, the existence of an outer defense wall was suggested again a hundred years later by T. N. Knipovich in her book Tanais. Basing her assumption on the analogies known to her, Knipovich was convinced that the city had had two ‘wings’ of residential quarters, which formed the eastern and the western parts of the settlement.4 Ancient authors provide very little information about this Greek colony: they perceived the emporion on the outskirts of the Classical world primarily as a geographical point on the river Tanais, which to them was ‘the boundary between Europe and Asia’ (Strabo XI.1.5; 2.1; VII.4.5).5 This is why the reconstruction of the city’s history is mostly based on archaeological material. Systematic excavations at the site, undertaken by the Lower Don Archaeological Expedition of the Archaeological Institute under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Sciences, have been taking place from 1955 onwards. Based on the results of these excavations, D. B. Shelov came to the conclusion that the hypothesis advanced by Knipovich was erroneous, at least in terms of the areas to the east and north of the settlement. He noted that only ancient waste dumps and a necropolis were found in this kurgan-free territory. Residential quarters of the last centuries BC were discovered only to the west of the citadel, in the area directly adjoining it.6

The first archaeological investigations in the area of Nedvigovka, conducted in 1853 by P. M. Leontev, confirmed Stempkovskii’s hypothesis about the location of ancient Tanais.2 In 1854, Leontev published the results of his excavation under the title Archaeological Investigations in the Territory of Ancient Tanais and its Surroundings. Already at that time he attempted to locate the remains of any residential quarters outside the visually detectable part of the settlement. He wrote that ‘the territories directly adjoining the settlement in the west, north, and east form an area where there are no kurgans, but where small and large depressions can be noticed, indicating the possible locations of ancient structures. In the western part of the area, near the slope leading to the water, stone pieces with inscriptions were found; we started to dig there, but did not find anything, and stopped our work’3. According to Leontev, this kurgan-free area was surrounded by an earthen rampart forming a broken line, which at some point in the

The last decade of the excavations has significantly expanded our knowledge of the site. The reconstruction of the initial period in the history of Tanais has changed completely: the early city is now considered much less ‘barbarian’ than it was thought before. In its foundation and development, we can now recognize many typical features characteristic of Greek colonies in general. Among

Stempkovskii 1854, 388. (Trans. from Russian by V. Kozlovskaya) Leontev 1854, 397ff. 3 Leontev 1854, 49. (Trans. from Russian by V. Kozlovskaya) 1

2

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Senior Research Associate of the Museum and Archaeological Preserve Tanais S. A. Naumenko and the Academic Secretary of the Museum and Archaeological Preserve Tanais L. M. Kazakova for their assistance in the preparation of this publication.

Knipovich 1949, 26. Trans. by H. L. Jones in the Loeb edition, 1924. 6 Shelov 1970, 91-93. 4 5

83

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 1: Location of Tanais in the Northern Black Sea region (after Yu. Ustinova, The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 1999, map 1).

the recent finds are, for example, pits for domestic needs discovered under the early street layers, as well as cellars -the so-called ‘closed complexes’- with important dating material, including amphorae and amphora stamps, blackglazed ceramics, terracottas, and coins. The combination of such diverse categories of finds yielded by these complexes makes Tanais one of the important chronological markers for the Hellenistic and Roman periods in this region.

life of the Bosporan Kingdom. However, this part of the history of Tanais is still not well understood. Strabo reports, among other things, that Tanais ‘was founded by the Greeks who held the Bosporus’. At the end of the 1st century BC, the city, most likely, became involved in a political conflict within the Bosporan Kingdom and, as a result, was destroyed by King Polemon ‘because it would not obey him’ (Strabo XI.2.3).8 This destruction ended the first period in the history of Tanais, which is conventionally referred to as ‘Hellenistic’.

Tanais: A Chronological Overview

Recent excavations have shown that the city structure of Tanais began to form at the end of the 3rd century BC and must have been finalized by the middle of the 2nd century BC. The history of Hellenistic Tanais can be tentatively divided in four stages. The first stage is the time of the emergence and existence of the emporion, lasting from the beginning or the first quarter of the 3rd century BC to the middle of the 3rd century BC. Numerous pits, usually dug into the bedrock, date to this period. They were mostly used as grain storages and cellars. Some pits, especially large ones, were probably parts of semi-subterranean dwellings. In some cases, a combination of earthen and stone constructions was used. Pits were found everywhere in the citadel, but only those located in the least destroyed areas (under street layers, under the pavements of later court yards, and in the spaces between the cellars of the Roman period) were studied. Such structures were also discovered in the Western District and in the Western Suburb. Most often they were filled with waste, containing

The emporion of Tanais, founded at the beginning of the 3rd century BC, gradually became the main economic center of a larger area to the northeast of Lake Maeotis. Serving as an intermediary between the ancient Greco-Roman world and the nomads from the steppes, it was a place of the great importance for the latter. Until the middle of the 5th century AD, when the city ceased to exist, Tanais ‘was a common mart, partly of the Asiatic and the European nomads, and partly of those who navigated the lake from the Bosporus, the former bringing slaves, hides, and such other things as nomads possess, and the latter giving in exchange clothing, wine, and the other things that belong to civilized life’ (Strabo XI.2.3).7 The excavations have demonstrated that wares -notably, wine in amphorae, objects of every-day life, and jewelry- arrived in Tanais from various production centers in the Pontic and Mediterranean regions. The city’s farthermost geographical location did not necessarily mean that it was excluded from the political 7

Trans. by H. L. Jones in the Loeb edition, 1924.

8

84

Trans. by H. L. Jones in the Loeb edition, 1924.

V. Kozlovskaya and S. M. Ilyashenko: The Lower City of Tanais

fragments of amphorae from Sinope, Rhodes, Chersonesos, and unidentified Aegean centers. In addition, there were fragments of painted pottery dating from the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd centuries BC. Above these pits usually lie habitation layers of the middle of the 3rd century BC.

The fourth stage lasted from the middle of the 2nd to the end of the 1st centuries BC. This period is considered the highpoint of the development of Hellenistic Tanais. City quarters and streets took their final shape, the construction of strong defensive walls with towers was finished, city squares appeared, and the city planning was completed. The majority of Hellenistic burials in the necropolis of Tanais date to this period. Moreover, the last few decades of excavations have revealed fragments of inscriptions and architectural details, made out of marble and local stone, dating from the 2nd to 1st centuries BC.11 These discoveries are particularly important since no inscriptions from the pre-Polemon period had been found at the site before. The end of this stage in the city’s history, as well as the end of the entire Hellenistic period in Tanais, was marked by the destruction of the settlement at the end of the 1st century BC.

The second stage in the history of Hellenistic Tanais lasted from the middle of the 3rd century BC to the 220s BC. Around the middle of the 3rd century BC, intensive building began in the city, including the construction of deep cellars. Structures with cellars were made out of stone and oriented along the north-south and east-west axes. Material from the second half of the 3rd century BC was found not only in the territory of the citadel, but also outside it (e.g., in the Western District). However, at the end of this period, for reasons yet unknown to us, the buildings were covered with earth and the surface was leveled to be used for new constructions.

We know that around that time Tanais was sacked by the Bosporan king Polemon, as mentioned before. With this event began a new period in the history of the city, conventionally referred to as ‘Roman’, which lasted from the 1st to the middle of the 3rd centuries AD. At the beginning of this period, the fortification system was destroyed, buildings were ruined, and the economic life of the city slowed down.12 According to Yu. G. Vinogradov, the city came back to life only under the reign of Sauromates I (c. AD 93-94 to AD 123-124), who permitted the defense structures to be rebuilt.13 But even before that development took place, during the reign of Aspurgus, who ruled in the first half of the 1st century AD, the population of the city may have increased owing to the arrival of new colonists, relocated there from the Bosporus. This conclusion is based on numismatic evidence: at around that time, metal coins entered the inner market of the city, and they are frequently found in the corresponding layers. It has been pointed out that the demand for small metal coins could only have come from the part of the population that had arrived from the Bosporus.14

The development of Tanais during this period was also characterized by the extent of its commercial relations. In this respect, the analysis of amphora stamps is particularly important. According to Shelov, amphorae from Rhodes formed the most numerous category of finds in Tanais of the Hellenistic period, and this situation is very different from the one observed in other settlements of the European Bosporus.9 However, a revision of the chronology of amphora stamps undertaken in the last few decades has shown that Rhodian amphora imports were not prevalent during almost the entire 3rd century BC, when they were outnumbered by Sinopean vessels.10 Sinope lost her leading role in trade with Tanais only at the end of the century, and this is clearly demonstrated by archaeological finds dating to the second stage of the Hellenistic period in the city’s history. The third stage in the development of Hellenistic Tanais lasted from the end of the 3rd to the middle of the 2nd centuries BC. Noticeable changes in the planning of the city took place during the last quarter of the 3rd century BC: many cellars in the central and southern parts of the citadel were filled in and streets were formed, which continued to function until the middle of the 3rd century AD. Defensive stone walls appeared at around the same time, including the western fortification line of the citadel that separated the territory of the main part of the settlement from the western quarters. Thus, by the beginning of the 2nd century BC, or even earlier, the city had a well-organized infrastructure, a city-plan, and fortification complexes. Presently, we identify three fortified parts of the settlement that co-existed in the Upper City: the main rectangular part (the citadel), the Western District, and the Western Suburb (Figure 2). It is also possible that the city grew significantly in size during this period. This expansion may have been prompted both by the natural increase of the population and by the influx of new colonists.

The general rebuilding of the city started almost immediately after its destruction by Polemon. Many residential complexes were raised already during the 1st century AD. The main part of the settlement (the citadel) expanded to the south and west, and structures were also built outside it. The spatial organization of the city became more economical and was based on a rectangular grid of streets. Excavations have revealed numerous house complexes that invariably possessed paved courtyards with water-collecting cisterns in the center. Each house complex, of which only one or two rows of superstructures are currently preserved, had one or several cellars. In the 2nd century AD, the main part of the settlement was already well fortified, surrounded in the north, east, Ivantchik 2008. Shelov 1970, 226-253. 13 Arseneva et al. 1996, 68-71. 14 Yatsenko 2001, 86. 11 12

9 10

Shelov 1975, 28. Fedoseev 1994, 188-190; Conovici 1998; Finkielsztejn 2001.

85

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 2: General plan of the site showing the areas of the main fortified part of the settlement, the western quarters, the Lower City, and the adjacent necropolis.

and west by a substantial moat, partly dug into the clayish soil and partly cut into the bedrock. A representative of the Bosporan king resided in the city at all times.15 The importance of Tanais in the political life of the Bosporus increased, owing to the city’s location on the frontier of the Bosporan kingdom and its role as an intermediary in the latter’s relations with Sarmatian tribes. The economic development of Tanais as the main commercial and production center in the large steppe region reached its highpoint. Rural settlements also appeared around the city during this period.

Don area of strong militarized nomadic groups from the east. From that time onwards, the presence of the steppe people in the city becomes evident and rich burials of local elite members appear in the area. At the same time, these destructions did not have any long-term effect. Tanais was quickly rebuilt, while waste and ash were taken out of the Upper City to the area adjacent to the river. The building activity reached its highpoint in the second half of the 2nd to the beginning of the 3rd centuries AD. Several inscriptions dating to the period from Sauromates II to Inensimeus testify to the restoration of the defense walls.16

The layers dating to the middle of the 2nd century AD revealed traces of destruction and a severe fire. These traces are particularly noticeable in the remains of the western fortification line of the citadel. The defense towers ceased to function around the middle of the 2nd century AD, and new towers, erected next to them or on top of them, continued to function until the middle of the 3rd century AD. In addition, the excavations of the 3rd-century-AD structures often expose partially buried remains of cellars dated to the middle of the 2nd century AD. These destructions can possibly be associated with the arrival in the Lower

In the middle of the 3rd century AD, Tanais and the surrounding settlements were destroyed and burnt. Traces of a large-scale fire were found everywhere in the excavated area. Tanais came back to life in the second half of the 4th century AD. That time was the beginning of the last period in the history of the city, referred to as ‘Late Antique’, which lasted from the second half of the 4th to the 5th centuries AD.17 In the last few years, excavations at the site have revealed relatively well-preserved structures of the

15

KBN 1242-1247; 1249-1252 (Korpus Bosporskikh Nadpisei / Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani, ed. by V. V. Struve et al. (MoscowLeningrad, 1965). 17 Shelov 1972, 307ff. 16

Shelov 1972, 261-263.

86

V. Kozlovskaya and S. M. Ilyashenko: The Lower City of Tanais

Figure 3: Topographical plan of the site with the excavated areas in the Upper and Lower City.

4th century AD, which differed from the buildings of the previous period in many respects. The planning of the city was also different: old streets and squares were covered by new houses and pits. So far, broad streets have not been discovered in the late city -only narrow paved passageways (c. 2m wide) between houses. During this period, houses, partly dug into the soil, were built carelessly on the ruins of the buildings of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD. Residential and domestic structures had no cellars. Three stages can be distinguished within this period, the first stage starting in the middle of the 4th century AD. However, there are no clear chronological markers for the layers inside the buildings, so that the chronology for this period still remains tentative.

have extended beyond the western border of the main part of the settlement, since the ruins of houses were found to the west of the western defense moat of the Roman period (excavation trench XXIX) (Figure 2).19 In the east, remains of seven houses dating from the 4th to 5th centuries AD were unearthed in excavation trench XXX (Figure 3, no. 79).20 No fortification structures of the 4th to 5th centuries AD have been detected anywhere in the area, apart from those found by Shelov in excavation trench IV (Figure 2).21 In the Upper City, buildings of the 4th to 5th centuries AD were built on the top of the ruined western defensive wall, and the western moat no longer had a protective function.22 All structures unearthed outside the main part of the settlement had one construction layer, which corresponded to the first construction level of the buildings in the main part of late Tanais. At the end of this period (i.e., at the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 5th centuries AD), the size of the territory occupied by the city decreased abruptly. The structures to the west and east of the main part of the settlement appear to have been abandoned. No houses of the later type, which were usually round in plan and built

The size of the territory of late Tanais is also not clear. Shelov maintained that the city rebuilt on the ruins occupied the same territory as it did during the pre-destruction period, although economically it was much weaker than in the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD.18 Discoveries made in the last few years confirm this hypothesis. The excavations undertaken from 2003 to 2010 outside the citadel (to the south, west, and east of it) proved particularly important for the topographical reconstruction of late Tanais. The limits of the city in the west are still unknown, but its territory must 18

Arseneva et al. 2010, 21. Arseneva et al. 2008, 117-118. 21 Shelov 1972, 312. 22 Arseneva et al. 2006, 58. 19 20

Shelov 1972, 312.

87

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

into the contours of the older structures, were found in those areas. The disappearance of several settlements on the right bank of the river and in the delta of Don can possibly be associated with the same developments.

amphorae from the first half of the 3rd century AD. These finds were interpreted as the remains of ancient storage facilities, which in all likelihood would have been located in or near the harbor district.24

Remains of structures tentatively dated to the second quarter or the middle of the 5th century AD have only been found in the territory of the main part of the settlement. Most of them were carelessly built and round in plan. It is not clear what caused the final decline of the city. There are no visible traces of destruction in the layers of the 5th century AD, but it is clear that Tanais was no longer able to remain the major commercial and economic center of the Lower Don steppes. Life in the settlement gradually came to an end, and it was abandoned and forgotten for many centuries to come.

Other sporadic finds, modern construction work, and rescue excavations in the area provided additional information about the Lower City of ancient Tanais. In 1977, a test trench (5 x 2.7m) was laid out on the first terrace on the bank of the river, south of the citadel (Figure 3, no. 76). The excavated layers revealed remains of reed-and-clay, mudbrick, and stone constructions, as well as household pits and burnt layers, which archaeologists dated to the 1st century AD. Other layers contained material of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD, but no architectural remains, and may have been disturbed during the earlier construction of the railway line. The excavation was interrupted prematurely and did not reach virgin soil, so that there is no information about possible earlier layers.25 The dates of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD were later supported by the finds from the small-scale excavation (4 x 5m) conducted in 2001 by L. M. Kazakova in the area located immediately to the west of the 1977 test trench.26 The results of both these investigations suggested that at least in the early centuries AD residential quarters must have existed in this part of the Lower City.27

Investigations in the Lower City of Tanais Presently, after almost one hundred and fifty years of excavations at the site, the size of the ancient city, as well as its precise topography and lay-out still remain largely unknown. For many years, archaeological work had focused primarily on the fortified main part of the settlement, as well as on a small area to the west of it with the remains of the buildings from the end of the 3rd to the 1st centuries BC, and on the necropolis adjoining the city walls in the east, north, and west. From the 1990s onwards, more archaeological work has been undertaken in the territory of the Upper City outside the main part of the settlement, bringing to light new evidence.23 The least amount of information available, however, concerns the area located south of the citadel. This area consists of two parts: the one immediately adjacent to the river and the first terrace on the bank of the river -a low slope, which in the north transforms into the steep second terrace, where the Upper City is located. The difference between the levels of the two terraces is c. 15m. Presently, the entire territory between the river and the beginning of the second terrace is densely covered by the buildings of the modern village. In addition, the railway line Nedvigovka-Taganrog runs along the river, and the station platform is located in the same area. As a result, the archaeological picture of this territory is much less clear and further large-scale archaeological investigations of this area are impossible. Yet, this part of the settlement is extremely important for our understanding of the topography of ancient Tanais -this is where the Lower City was located, including the harbor district and the harbor itself, as Shelov once suggested. His hypothesis was confirmed already in the 1960s, when a villager, who was digging a well for his household needs, discovered fragments of two large red-clay pithoi in the territory between the river and the railway line. Further investigations and modern construction work in the area to the south of the southeastern corner of the fortified main part of the settlement revealed several other pithoi of the early centuries AD, standing in situ, as well as an ancient subterranean structure with light-clay narrow-necked 23

Some archaeological work has also been undertaken to the east of this area, south of the southeastern corner of the citadel (Figure 3, no. 77). There, small-scale excavations conducted on the first terrace on the bank of the river in 1959 and 2001 revealed cultural layers filled with ceramic fragments of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD, as well as some earlier and later layers. The earlier layers, discovered in 2001, contained possible architectural remains, but the excavated area was too small to allow any further conclusions.28 Visual observation by archaeologists of work conducted by villagers on their private land in the same territory (Figure 3, no. XI and to the west of it) produced very similar results: layers with ceramic fragments of the 1st to 3rd centuries AD were detected, as well as burnt layers and possible remains of stone foundations.29 A test trench laid out in 1993 to the south of it, on the other side of the modern railway line, in the area adjacent to the river (Figure 3, no. 78), revealed layers with ceramic fragments of the 3rd century AD.30 Another test trench, excavated in 1994 much farther to the east (c. 600m to the southeast of the southeastern corner of the citadel), also on the other side of the railway line, yielded four burials of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD.31 Thus, it appears that in the early centuries AD the situation in the eastern part of the Lower City of Tanais roughly corresponded to that in the Upper City, Shelov 1970, 93-94. V. V. Chalyi, Otchet of raskopkakh shurfa v 1977 godu v portovoi chasti Tanaisa. Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. R-1, no. 6603. 26 Arseneva et al. 2002. 27 Kazakova 2004, 234. 28 Tolochko 2002, 182-184. 29 Visual observation by Ilyashenko in 2001 and 2009. 30 Il’jašenko 2005, 148-149. 31 Ilyashenko 2001. 24 25

Il’jašenko 2005.

88

V. Kozlovskaya and S. M. Ilyashenko: The Lower City of Tanais

Figure 4: View of trench XXVIII (photo by S. M. Ilyashenko).

where similar layers filled with ceramic fragments from the same period have been discovered east of the main fortified part of the settlement (Figure 3, no. 79). The latter did not contain any architectural remains and were tentatively interpreted as waste layers. In addition, the excavations undertaken to the east of the citadel confirmed that during various periods of the city’s existence that territory was occupied by a necropolis; in the 4th to 5th centuries AD, residential quarters, mentioned above, were located there.32

the main part of the settlement. In addition, a section of a massive wall (Figure 5, wall 14) was discovered southwest of the excavated building remains in trench XXVIII, also dated to the 4th century AD. It is possible that this wall protected the late residential quarters from the water during inundations. At the end of the 4th century AD, the inhabitants must have abandoned their houses in this area, leaving behind some of their belongings. Small test trenches laid out in the northern and southern parts of trench XXVIII also allowed archaeologists to detect habitation layers of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries AD, but further work was prevented by rising groundwater.33

Recent archaeological work in the western part of the Lower City also produced some evidence that adds to our knowledge of this part of the settlement. In 2003, trench XXVIII was laid out in the area adjacent to the river, 30m to the south of the southern end of the western protective moat of the citadel (Figure 3, no. 74). This area had been traditionally viewed as prone to frequent flooding, and therefore uninhabited in antiquity. The excavation of an 80m2 area revealed well-preserved remains of three houses, as well as parts of two streets, dating to the second half of the 4th century AD (Figure 4). Thus, we can conclude that the Lower City continued to function in Late Antiquity, similar to the Upper City, and that some residential quarters were located in the western part of it. It is also important that the structures discovered in the Lower City were no different from the contemporaneous buildings found in 32

Modern construction work undertaken to the east of trench XXVIII, on the first terrace on the bank of the river (Figure 3, no. IX), revealed cultural layers of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD. Once, after particularly heavy rainfall, contours of an ancient structure became visible in the middle of a busy road nearby (Figure 3, no. VIII), but no further investigations were possible, for practical reasons. An ancient coin was also found there in 2006, later dated to the middle of the 3rd century AD. Modern construction work in two parts of the area adjacent to the river, on the other side of the railway line, yielded ceramic material of the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD (Figure 3, no.

Il’jašenko 2005, 149 (with further references); Arseneva et al. 2008.

33

89

Arseneva et al. 2004, 122-123; 2006, 59.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

from north to south. A foundation pit for a new house dug on the opposite -western- side of the ravine in 2002 went down to virgin soil, but no habitation layers were found. Modern construction work in other areas along the western side of the ravine had similar results, sometimes producing ash layers with ceramic fragments of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD (Figure 3, no. III). On several other occasions, construction work undertaken by villagers in the western part of the first terrace and in the area adjacent to the river also revealed cultural layers of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD (Figure 3, no. V and, to a smaller extent, no. VI), as well as waste layers with ceramic fragments of the 2nd century BC to the 3rd century AD (Figure 3, no. IV) and cultural layers of the same periods (Figure 3, no. II).37 Based on all the evidence described above, we can conclude that most of the territory to the south of the Upper City must have been occupied, at least, during the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD, since cultural layers of that period, with traces of architectural remains, were detected everywhere in this area. Some of the small-scale excavations in the central and eastern parts also yielded material and possible remains of habitation layers dating to the 1st century AD, but not many finds of the 2nd to 1st centuries BC. The latter, however, does not necessarily exclude the possibility that these parts of the Lower City were occupied during the early periods -in particular, in view of the fact that only very few of the trenches excavated in this area reached virgin soil. In the western part of the Lower City, however, the earliest ceramic material, architectural ruins, and remains of cultural layers date to the 2nd century BC, while the latest date to the second half of the 4th century AD.

Figure 5: Plan of trench XXVIII with the remains of three houses and wall 14.

VII) and of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD (Figure 3, no. X), respectively.34

Presently, we cannot make any secure assumptions about the extent of the Lower City in the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD, when it seems to have occupied the largest territory. It is possible that its western border was formed by the western ravine, located c. 350m to the west, since test trenches on the western side of the ravine did not reveal any cultural layers or any other significant material, as mentioned above. Not much work has been done in the area to the southeast of the citadel, so that we have no information about the possible extent of the Lower City in the eastern direction, apart from the four burials of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD found much farther to the east, which can be (or not) a part of a larger necropolis located outside of the city. In the south, the natural border would be clearly formed by the river, but its precise location in antiquity is unknown to us. The only piece of evidence in this respect are the remains of the so-called ‘drainage pipe’, first discovered in 1870 by P. I. Khitsunov, who laid out several test trenches in the middle part of the south slope of the second terrace and in the area adjacent to the river, in order to investigate an underground channel, discovered by chance. In the course of his work, Khitsunov established that this channel went from the southern gate of the citadel down to the river,

Farther west, c. 350m to the west of the fortified main part of the settlement, trench XXIV (30m2) was laid out in 1998 (Figure 3, no. 73). The excavation produced a section of a paved street, c. 3m long and 2m wide. The street ran in the direction east-west and was bordered along the sides by large stones. The cross-section of the street showed that it must have functioned from the first half of the 2nd century BC until the middle of the 3rd century AD. Remains of structures and pits used for household needs were discovered to the north and east of the street, dating from the 2nd century BC to the middle of the 3rd century AD. Their lower layers were dated by Rhodian amphora stamps, while the upper layers yielded coins from the first decades of the 2nd century AD; on the top, there was a layer of fire destruction with remains of stone structures, dated to the middle of the 3rd century AD. This date corresponds to the date of the fire that destroyed all known buildings of the 3rd century AD in the fortified main part of the settlement.35 Another small test trench laid out nearby, in the area adjacent to the river (Figure 3, no. I), revealed a very similar stratigraphy.36 These two trenches are located on the eastern side of a ravine that cuts through both terraces Visual observation by Ilyashenko. Ilyashenko 2000, 92-93. 36 Arseneva and Ilyashenko 2001, 26-27; Il’jašenko 2005, 150-151. 34 35

37

90

Visual observation by Ilyashenko in 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2009.

V. Kozlovskaya and S. M. Ilyashenko: The Lower City of Tanais

where it ended.38 The purpose of the channel had not been satisfactory explained at the time of its discovery and is still debated nowadays. Recent excavations in the main fortified part of the settlement revealed other sections of the same channel under the street pavement dating from the end of the 2nd to the 3rd centuries AD. Inside the citadel, the channel went along the axis east/northeast - west/southwest, but outside the city walls it changed direction and ran from north to south, along the slope, down to the river. We may assume that the end point of this channel indicates the location of the river during the period in question and, thus, the farthest possible location of the southern border of the Lower City in antiquity (Figure 3). To summarize, we can tentatively suggest that the Lower City first emerged in the area adjacent to the river and on the first terrace on the bank of the river, to the south of the citadel and the Western District, and that it must have been in existence by the end of the 3rd century BC. This development was, most likely, associated with the general growth of the settlement and intensive construction work that began in the city around the middle of the 3rd century BC, as well as with its evolving commercial relations, mentioned above. Tanais flourished and gradually became what Strabo called ‘next to Panticapaeum … the largest mart of the barbarians’ (VII.4.5).39 The expansion of the Lower City probably continued during the second half of the 1st century AD, when the previously unoccupied areas farther to the east were settled. The development of Tanais reached its highpoint in the second half of the 2nd to the beginning of the 3rd centuries AD, and most archaeological finds and architectural remains in the Lower City come from that period. The latest structures, dating to second half of the 4 century AD, and thus to the last period of the existence of Tanais, have only been discovered so far in the western part of the Lower City, in the area adjacent to the river. This is, of course, also the area where the earliest evidence for the existence of the Lower City has been found and where, incidentally, the ancient harbor of Tanais may have been located.

Figure 6: Plan of trench IV with rooms S, T, and U (after Arseneva and Shelov 1974, tab. Ia).

it and adjacent to the western defense wall. The rooms were destroyed in the middle of the 3rd century AD. The excavations in all three of them revealed numerous fragments of light-clay narrow-neck amphorae dating to the first half of the 3rd century AD: in room T, fragments of over 300 such amphorae were found, most of them bearing dipinti, while room S yielded 229 amphora fragments with dipinti (Figure 7). The word NAFA -the modified Greek word NAFTHA (petroleum)- was visible on about 80 amphora fragments and intact vessels from room S, 12 fragments from room T, 4 fragments from room U, and 3 fragments found outside these rooms (Figure 8).40 Many of these amphorae and amphora fragments revealed traces of a dark pitchy substance. The chemical analyses of the residue performed in the 1960s in laboratories in Ufa and Moscow established that the substance in question was oxidized petroleum.41 The closest accessible petroleum deposits in the region are located on the Taman and Kerch peninsulas. In terms of its chemical composition, the petroleum from the Chongelek deposit, located 30km south of ancient Panticapaeum, is the closest to the substance found in the amphorae in Tanais.42 All three rooms where the amphorae were found were adjacent to the western defense wall of the citadel and to the southwestern defense tower. Shelov, who conducted the excavation, suggested that this tower might have functioned as a lighthouse since it was well visible

The Ancient Harbor of Tanais The only information we have about the possible location of the ancient harbor of Tanais is indirect and derives from archaeological material discovered in the Upper City in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, three rooms -S, T, and U- were excavated in trench IV in the southwestern corner of the main fortified settlement (Figure 6). Room T was adjacent to the southern and western defense walls of the citadel and to the southwestern tower of the defense complex; rooms U and S were located north of Shelov 1972, 51-52, with the references to P. I. Khitsunov, Izvlechenie iz zhurnala arkheologicheskikh razyskanii, proizvedennykh Nadvornym Sovetnikom P. Khitsunovym na razvalinakh drevnego Tanaisa. Archive of the Leningrad Branch of the Archaeological Institute, Izvestiya Arkheologicheskoi Komissii 10 (1869), 36; Otchet Arkheologicheskoi Komissii za 1870, 23. 39 Trans. by H. L. Jones in the Loeb edition, 1924. 38

Arseneva 1969, 117-118; Arseneva and Shelov 1974, 142, 149; Shelov 1989, 114-115, 120. 41 Shelov 1971,73. 42 Kostrikov 1971. 40

91

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 9: Reconstruction drawing by V. P. Tolstikov of the southwestern defense tower of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD in Tanais (after V. P. Tolstikov, Fortifikatsiya antichnogo Bospora, unpublished PhD thesis, Moscow State University, 1981, tab. 103).

Figure 7: Light-clay narrow-neck amphora with a dipinto from room S, trench IV (photo by V. Kozlovskaya, courtesy of the Museum and Preserve Tanais and S. A. Naumenko).

from the water (Figure 9). The fact that petroleum stored in the amphorae inside this tower could have been used for light also confirmed his suggestion.43 If, indeed, the southwestern defense tower in Tanais served as a lighthouse, then the harbor of Tanais had to be located in the Lower City to the southwest of the citadel. And, as mentioned above, the earliest and the latest archaeological remains in the Lower City have so far been found in the western part of it, indicating that this area must have been the busiest, the most important, and/or the most convenient to live in, for whatever reasons. It is, however, also possible that the harbor of Tanais changed its location throughout the time of the city’s existence. We know that in antiquity the river, on the one hand, was probably much closer to the site than it is now and that, on the other hand, it was much better suited for navigation. We also know that the sea -Lake Maeotis- must have been much closer to the city than it is presently: Strabo wrote about Tanais that it was the city ‘on the river and the lake’ (XI.2.3).44 It is clear then that the location of the harbor as well as the outlay of the

Figure 8: Fragment of a light-clay narrow-necked amphora with a dipinto from trench IV (photo by V. Kozlovskaya, courtesy of the Museum and Preserve Tanais and S. A. Naumenko).

43 44

92

Shelov 1971, 73-74; Arseneva and Shelov 1974, 149. Trans. by H. L. Jones in the Loeb edition, 1924.

V. Kozlovskaya and S. M. Ilyashenko: The Lower City of Tanais

harbor area and the entire Lower City, in general, depended very much on these factors. However, the material so far discovered in the territory of the Lower City is not sufficient for a more detailed reconstruction of this important part of ancient Tanais.

Ilyashenko, S. M. 2000. Shurf 1994 goda v yugovostochnoi chasti gruntovogo mogilnika Tanaisa. Istoriko-arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 1998 g., 92-93. Ilyashenko, S. M. 2001. Spasatelnye raboty v khutore Nedvigovka. Istoriko-arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 1999-2000 gg., 250-257. Il’jašenko, S. M. 2005. Die Ober- und Unterstadt von Tanais in der hellenistischen und römischen Periode. Eurasia Antiqua 11, 147-161. Kazakova, L. M. 2004. Eshcho raz k topografii gorodishcha Tanais (po povodu zametki B. A. Raeva). Istorikoarkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 2002 g., 229-235. Knipovich, T. N. 1949. Tanais (istoriko-arkheologicheskoe issledovanie). Moscow-Leningrad. Kostrikov, K. V. 1971. Issledovanie smolistogo osadka iz drevnikh amfor, naidennykh pri raskopkakh Tanaisa. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3, 264-265. Leontev, P. M. 1854. Razyskaniya na meste drevnego Tanaisa i v ego okrestnostyakh. In P. M. Leontev (ed.), Propilei. Sbornik statei po klassicheskoi drevnosti. Book IV, 397-524. Moscow. Shelov, D. B. 1970. Tanais i Nizhnii Don in III–I vv. do n.e. Moscow. Shelov, D. B. 1971. Neft v antichnykh amforakh. Priroda 8, 70-74. Shelov, D. B. 1972. Tanais i Nizhnii Don v pervye veka nashei ery. Мoscow. Shelov, D. B. 1975. Keramicheskie kleima iz Tanaisa Ш–Ι vv. do n.e. Moscow. Shelov, D. B. 1989. Dipinti na amforakh iz tanaisskikh kompleksov. Numizmatika i epigrafika XV, 97-125. Stempkovskii, I. A. 1854. Dva pisma Stempkovskogo o mestopolozhenii drevnego Tanaisa v Propilei. In P. M. Leontev (ed.), Propilei. Sbornik statei po klassicheskoi drevnosti. Book IV, 387-396. Moscow. Tolochko, I. V. 2002. Spasatelnye raskopki i razvedki v Tanaise v 2000-2001 gg. Istoriko-arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 2001 g., 171-187. Yatsenko, V. V. 2001. Sluchainye nakhodki (1998–2000 gg.) monet iz Tanaisa. Donskaya arkheologiya 3-4, 83-125.

List of Bibliography Arseneva, T. M. 1969. Raskopki v Tanaise, Arkheologichesksie otkrytiya za 1968 g., 116-118. Arseneva, T. M. and Shelov, D. B. 1974. Raskopki yugozapadnogo uchastka Tanaisa (1964-1972 gg.). In M. G. Moshkova and D. B. Shelov (eds.), Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Nizhnego Podonya I, 125-210. Moscow. Arseneva, T. M., Böttger, B. and Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1996. Novye issledovaniya v Tanaise. Vestnik drevnei istorii 3, 54-71. Arseneva, T. M. and Ilyashenko, S. M. 2001. Issledovaniya zapadnoi chasti khutora Nedvigovka. Istorikoarkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 1999-2000 gg., 22-27. Arseneva, T. M., Bezuglov, S. I. and Kazakova, L. M. 2002. Kholm u yuzhnoi okrainy Nedvigovskogo gorodishcha (itogi issledovanii 2001g.). Istoriko-arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 2001 g., 187-194. Arseneva, T. M., Ilyashenko, S. M. and Naumenko, S. A. 2004. Issledovaniya v Tanaise v 2003 godu. Istorikoarkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 2003 g., 121-124. Arseneva, T. M., Ilyashenko, S. M. and Naumenko, S. A. 2006. Issledovaniya v Tanaise v 2004 godu. Istorikoarkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 2004 g., 56-60. Arseneva, T. M., Ilyashenko, S. M. and Tolochko, I. V. 2008. Spasatelnye raskopki v Tanaise v 2006 godu. Istoriko-arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v g. Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 2006 g., 115-118. Arseneva, T. M., Ilyashenko, S. M. and Naumenko, S. A. 2010. O khronologii drevnego Tanaisa. SYMBOLA. Antichnyi mir Severnogo Prichernomorya. Noveishie nakhodki i otkrytiya 1, 11-21. Conovici, N. 1998. Les timbres amphoriques 2. Sinope. Histria. Les résultats des fouilles VIII, ed. by P. Alexandrescu. Bucarest-Paris. Fedoseev, N. F. 1994. Khronologiya sinopskikh magistratskikh kleim. In Problemy skifo-sarmatskoi arkheologii Severnogo Prichernomorya. Paper abstracts of the international conference in honor of the 95th birthday of B. N. Grakov. Zaporozhe. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Chronologie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ. British Archaeological Reports International Series 990. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Ivantchik, A. I. 2008. Tri nadpisi fiasov ellinisticheskogo vremeni iz Tanaisa (novye dannye o greko-iranskom vzaimodeistvii v Tanaise dopolemonovskoi epokhi). Vestnik drevnei istorii 2, 57-72.

Discussion Demetry Ogoltsev: I have a question about petroleum. If I am not mistaken, it was also used for warfare. And maybe this is why such large amounts were used. Do you know from which locations this petroleum came and to where it was exported to be used for purposes other than lighting – i.e., for something more warfare-oriented? Valeriya Kozlovskaya: Warfare was clearly an option because the structure where the amphorae in question were found was a defensive tower. The remains of some war mechanisms have been found in Tanais but nothing that could indicate that fire had been used for defence; still, it is a good hypothesis. As to your question about the origin,

93

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

this particular petroleum found in the amphorae in question seems to have come from the area of Panticapaeum. I do not know of any studies concerning other possible sources of petroleum in the region. In general, in the case of lighthouses, they very often also served as defensive towers, so that wherever we have evidence of lighthouses, it is very

difficult to differentiate between their various functions and the purposes for which fuel might have been used. They were multifunctional, even temples often were, as we know, multifunctional also in this area. Sometimes they might have served as watchtowers or navigational landmarks.

94

Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region Sujatha Chandrasekaran Abstract: The tribes of the Eastern Black Sea region played a crucial role in the political and economic affairs of the ancient kingdoms of the Bosporus and Colchis, i.e., at the edge of the Greek oikoumene. While ancient Greek and Latin sources refer to a number of these tribes by name, descriptions of them tend to be brief and biased. In order to understand the true nature of these peoples, and place them geographically, it is essential to examine both linguistic and archaeological evidence. Linguistic analysis of the tribal names and epigraphic evidence clearly attest to the distinct identities of these tribes. Archaeological evidence, however, plainly demonstrates a shared material culture of the Maeotians. Variations in the burial culture, together with the linguistic distinctions, allow us to classify the ancient tribes of the region as different sub-groups of the Maeotians, while also serving to establish their individual territories within the Eastern Black Sea region. Keywords:Caucasus, Eastern Black Sea, Maeotians, burial, ritual complex, fortifications, markets, slaves, indigenous tribes, identity

Introduction*

I. Ancient sources on the Eastern Black Sea tribes

This paper is aimed towards scholars of both Archaeology and Ancient History working on the ancient peoples and cultures of the Eastern Black Sea region from the onset of Greek contacts in the region. It addresses a question that frequently arises in this area – the identity and identification of the indigenous tribes. Written information is not extensive, often somewhat vague, complex and contradictory. Archaeological information, while much more abundant, is more homogenous and carries a clear material-based bias of the indigenous population. The objective of this paper is therefore twofold: first, to examine the manner in which ancient written sources – historians and epigraphy – approached the indigenous tribes, and second, to provide an overview of the archaeological material from this area that is currently at our disposal. This is necessary in order to exploit all written and archaeological information at hand to its fullest and produce an accurate picture of the native tribes and their role in this area.1

The classically-trained scholar2 studying the indigenous landscape of the Eastern Black Sea region will often do so with a view to understand the relations between the Greeks and/or the Bosporans with the indigenous tribes of the coast and Caucasus hinterland. The scholar’s classical background automatically leads to a one-sided or biased approach to this investigation, focusing on the Greek and/ or Roman aspects of the situation, which is intensified by the fact that practically all known written sources on the region are of a Greek or Roman background. The archaeologist specializing in this region,3 however, looks to written sources for confirmation of the indigenous material culture in this region. What he/she finds, however, is a barrage of tribal names, and little useful information on their precise geographic location or the specific topography of the Eastern Black Sea region and the interior. The written sources consist of various accounts by ancient historians and travelers and a corpus of inscriptions, mainly from the Bosporan Kingdom. The earliest mentions of indigenous peoples of this region (in following the ‘eastern tribes’) or Maeotians in particular are from the Classical period, e.g. from Hecataeus of Miletus4 and Herodotos,5 later Demosthenes and Xenophon during the 4th century BC. Interestingly, relatively little attention was paid in writing to the region during the 3rd-2nd centuries BC,6 but interest picks up again towards the end of the 2nd

In the first section, I will address the written evidence from the archaeologist’s point of view – asking the questions an archaeologist would ask in view of the available archaeological material. In the second section, I will give an overview of the archaeological evidence at hand. In the Conclusion, I will sum up the correlating evidence from both sides in order to address the question of tribal identity.

I would like to thank Dr Manolis Manoledakis and his colleagues for inviting me to present my work on this topic at the Black Sea Workshop in September 2012, and to the workshop participants for their feedback and discussions of the material – these were very useful for the final paper. I especially wish to express my gratitude to Dr Manoledakis for the support he has shown me throughout the process of writing this paper. 1 Not to be disregarded is also the fact that the bulk of archaeological literature on this region is in Russian, which often poses a problem to Western scholars. *

I.e. scholar of Classical Archaeology or Ancient History. Usually with a background in Prehistory or World Archaeology. 4 Lost, preserved in the writings of Stephanus of Byzantium. 5 See Gardiner-Garden (1986, 198, 203-212) for a detailed look at Herodotus’ accounts of the eastern tribes in particular. 6 Olbrycht 2001, 427. Olbrycht does mention other authors of this period – Agatharcides, Demetrios and Diophantos – whose works, unfortunately, have not survived. 2 3

95

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

century BC (e.g. by Pseudo-Skymnos, Artemidoros)7 and carries on into the 2nd century AD with authors such as Pomponeius Mela, Strabo, Diodorus, Pliny, Ptolemy and Polyaenus.8 This constantly changing interest in the region over time is a direct reflection of the constantly changing significance of the region itself for the politics and economy of the Greek and Roman world: as the grain basket for Greece, the Eastern Black Sea region - particularly the interior - was invaluable for the Greek economy during the Classical period;9 in the Late Hellenistic period, however, internal strife and economic hardship within the region itself reduced its trade contacts with Greeks to a minimum10 and subsequently shifted it away from the Greek sphere of interest; it was the activities of Mithridates VI in the region during the 2nd-1st centuries BC, and the ensuing military campaigns of the Romans, that drew the region back into the limelight with new zest, while providing contemporary historians and ethnographers with new, more accurate information.11

When looking at the many tribal names mentioned (mainly) in Bosporan context, three stand out by the frequency of usage. These are the umbrella terms Maeotians, Scythians and Sarmatians, used in reference to groups of tribes. Most authors are clear on the general location of the Scythians in the northwestern steppes of the Black Sea, between the modern Don and Dnepr Rivers.13 Maeotians and Sarmatians, however, are generically localized somewhere in the Eastern Black Sea region. Archaeology, however, has clearly demonstrated that the Sarmatians entered the Northern Caucasus steppes from the Volga River area.14 For this reason, and in order not to go beyond the scope of this paper and the Eastern Black Sea region, I will concentrate on the third relevant tribal group – the Maeotians. The full extent of written sources on and inscriptions from this region goes far beyond the scope of this paper, and their compilation and categorization have been carried out successfully elsewhere. Instead of addressing the abundance of sources, I will focus on what is probably the most informative account on the Eastern Black Sea region, Strabo’s Geography,15 as a basis by which to examine the following questions:

Not to forget are the other sources of ancient writing at our disposal – inscriptions. Particularly significant are the official Bosporan inscriptions, which contain much information – sometimes quite specific – about the political situation of the day.12 Another set of inscriptions to be considered are the so-called ‘nonsensical’ inscriptions on Classical vases. These contain particularly valuable linguistic information on eastern tribes and will be discussed in a separate section.

1. What were the various tribes of this region and the Kuban interior, and what information do the names give us about them? 2. How do Strabo and other sources define the territory of these tribes? 3. How do Strabo and others perceive and characterize the tribal lifestyle?

Ancient historians

Strabo and the Maeotians (Figure 1)

Scholars often debate on the accuracy of authors, and indeed, this is a point not to be taken for granted. However, for purposes of this discussion, I will focus on analyzing the following: what are these authors trying to tell us about the eastern tribes? What audience were they catering to? What are the perceptions of the day being rendered by these authors?

Strabo’s accounts on the tribes of the Eastern Black Sea region (in following ‘eastern tribes’) are found in Book 11 of his Geographica. Thus we have:

Olbrycht 2001, 427. Kamenetsky (2011, 155-176), for example, provides a detailed analysis of accounts on the Maeotians by Strabo, Mela, Pliny, Dionysius Periegetus and Ptolemy. For a discourse on Polyanaeus and his ‘Tirgatao story’ see Gardiner-Garden (1986, 194-207), see him also for Diodorus (215-225). 9 Hind 1994, 488-495; Gardiner-Garden (1986, 193-194) remarks on the character of Greek dependency on the Bosporans for grain. The Bosporans, in turn, were forced to communicate closely with the indigenous tribes along the eastern coast and in the interior, along the Kuban. The intensification of contacts between Bosporans and indigenous tribes is visible in form of increased mentions of the latter in ancient sources as well as in epigraphic material, e.g. coins and grave inscriptions of the period. Gardiner-Garden also notes the increased emphasis placed by the literary record on this period in particular. 10 See Hind (1994, 502-506) on the political and economic situation in the region during this period. 11 Olbrycht 2001, 426-430. Olbrycht notes that even Strabo remarks on the new wealth of information gained through Pompey’s campaigns. 12 These were most recently re-published in 2004 in A. Gavrilov, N. Pavlichenko, D. Keyer, A. Karlin (eds.) Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani: Album Imaginum.  St Petersburg:  Biblioteca Classica Petropolitana and the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (The album re-produces the inscriptions originally published in 1965).

(11.2.3): ‘…Tanaïs; it was founded by the Greeks who held the Bosporus. Recently, however, it was sacked by King Polemon because it would not obey him. It was a common emporium, partly of the Asiatic and the European nomads, and partly of those who navigated the lake from the Bosporus, the former bringing slaves, hides, and such other things as nomads possess, and the latter giving in exchange clothing, wine, and the other things that belong to civilized life.’

(11.2.1): ‘About Lake Maeotis live the Maeotae. And on the sea lies the Asiatic side of the Bosporus, or the Sindic territory. After this latter, one comes to the Achaei and the Zygi and the Heniochi, and also the Cercetae and the Macropogones. […] But since I have taken the Tanaïs River as the boundary between Europe and Asia, I shall begin my detailed description therewith.’

7 8

Hind 1994, 477, 496, 501, Map 15. Gardiner-Garden 1986, 222. The Sarmatians are also called Sirakoi by Diodorus, Strabo and Tacitus. 15 Olbrycht 2001, 429. 13

14

96

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

Figure 1. The Eastern Black Sea region according to Strabo. (After Kamenetsky 2011, Fig. 150)

(11.2.4): ‘… but the people who carry on the business at the Lesser Rhombites are the Maeotae themselves, for the Maeotae live along the whole of this coast; and though farmers, they are no less warlike than the nomads. They are divided into several tribes, those who live near the Tanaïs being rather ferocious, but those whose territory borders on the Bosporus being more tractable.’

latter being Rhecas and Amphistratus, the “heniochi” of the Dioscuri, and that in all probability the Heniochi were named after these.’ (11.2.14): ‘… After Bata Artemidorus mentions the coast of the Cercetae, with its mooring places and villages, extending thence about eight hundred and fifty stadia; and then the coast of the Achaei, five hundred stadia; and then that of the Heniochi, one thousand; and then Greater Pityus, extending three hundred and sixty stadia to Dioscurias. The more trustworthy historians of the Mithridatic wars name the Achaei first, then the Zygi, then the Heniochi, and then the Cercetae and […]’.

(11.2.11): ‘Among the Maeotae are the Sindi themselves, Dandarii, Toreatae, Agri, and Arrechi, and also the Tarpetes, Obidiaceni, Sittaceni, Dosci, and several others. Among these belong also the Aspurgiani, who live between Phanagoreia and Gorgipia, within a stretch of five hundred stadia; … As for the Asiatic Maeotae in general, some of them were subjects of those who possessed the emporium on the Tanaïs, and the others of the Bosporians; but in those days different peoples at different times were wont to revolt.’

Strabo’s approach is quite clear: he begins with an overall description of the region in question, the area of Lake Maeotis (11.2.1), and the tribes he names are qualified simply by living around the Maeotis. He then goes into some specifics – the history of the region, politics and trade, and adds a number of specific tribal names (11.2.11). After this, he moves further down the coastline, i.e. past the territory of the Sindians, and begins again with an overall description (11.2.12) and historical information (11.2.14).16

(11.2.12): ‘After the Sindic territory and Gorgipia, on the sea, one comes to the coast of the Achaei and the Zygi and the Heniochi, which for the most part is harborless and mountainous, being a part of the Caucasus. … They say that the Phthiotic Achaei in Jason’s crew settled in this Achaea, but the Laconians in Heniochia, the leaders of the

Note that I have not reproduced all of Strabo’s mentions of Eastern Black Sea tribes here. 16

97

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Maeotian tribal names

vicinity of the ancient city of Torikos. Strabo also includes an intentional toponym, Heniochi (Greek ‘charioteers’).22 He goes on to define this as a reference to the ‘heniochi’ of the Dioscuri, from which the tribal name was taken. This, of course, places the tribe in the region of the coastal city of ancient Dioscurias (modern Sukhum), in the Southern Caucasus foothills.

The first thing to catch the reader’s attention is the quantity of tribal designations. The term ‘Maeotae’ is immediately recognizable as one of the three umbrella designations for tribes in this region mentioned above. The remaining names clearly designate individual tribes and appear to be simple ethnonyms, e.g. the Sindi, Dandarii, Agri, Arecchi, Tarpets, Obidiaceni, Sittaceni and Dosci.17 These may be direct or slightly varied renderings of tribal endonyms. While the term Sindi and the territorial designation of Sindike are respectively understood by various ancient writers as qualifiers for each other, the other tribal designations do not appear to provide any information on the tribes’ concrete geographical location.18

Ethnographic names: Of Strabo’s tribal designations, Macropogones (long-beards) is clearly a Greek exonym evoking a visual image of the people it refers to. In another section, Strabo refers to the tribes in the Northern Caucasus foothills as Troglodytae, Chamaecoetae (‘people who sleep on the ground’) and Polyphagi (‘heavy eaters’).23 Such designations are used simply to give the reader an idea of the (supposed) ethnic lifestyle.24

Hellenic exonyms: Particularly interesting is Strabo’s mentions of the tribe of the Achaeans (Achaei), are not quite as surprising as they might appear upon first glance to the non-historian. Nonetheless, such Greek exonyms immediately raise questions as to the identity of the tribe and therefore deserve closer examination. The name is clearly meant to recall the Achaeans of Greece, and Strabo goes on to explain them through the myth of the Argonauts.19 Nonetheless, this is not reason enough to assume that a tribe of Greek origin nestled in this remote region, among a mass of indigenous, perhaps savage, tribes, so far away from the Hellenized centers in Colchis and the Bosporan Kingdom, let alone from Greece itself. D. Asheri examines the use of Hellenic ethnonyms in Greek rhetoric and notes that they would hardly have been used by historians for supposedly savage natives had these not demonstrated at least some minor Hellenic quality.20 As he points out, this may have been as simple as the fact that the tribes maintained regular contacts with the Greeks, as attested to by literary sources and archaeology. The reasons for imbibing them with a semblance of ‘Greek-ness’ may lie in the didactic advantage for the Greek or Roman author – who could then exploit either the Greek or ethnic component as fitting for their writings. As Asheri notes, this ‘had always been the practice of Greek colonists overseas in their changing relations with the native populations’.21 In view of these arguments, it is easy to accept a Hellenic ethnonym to designate a tribe of the Caucasus region, and it was probably used as a simple reflection of regular trade contacts which could reflect – in Greek eyes – the degree of Hellenization necessary to warrant a Greek name.

Names with linguistic information: Some names provide information on the tribes’ linguistic background. Thus, we see that the language of Strabo’s Aspurgiani was Iranian (Iranian root asp = horse).25 Equally interesting is the Caucasian origin of tribal designation Psessoi (or Psessi, Caucasian prefix pse = water)26 mentioned by Pliny and on various Bosporan inscriptions.27 What can we gather from Strabo’s lists of tribes? More often than not, he keeps to tribes that were already familiar to the ancient audience and enjoyed mentions in other works (11.2.1, 11.2.14).28 A number of the tribes listed in Geo. 11.2.11, however, are not found elsewhere in Strabo’s work or in other ancient writings.29 This discrepancy is explained by the fact that Strabo, like other ancient historians, reproduced information from different sources of different periods. Thus the brief tribal lists probably reflect a source of the Classical period and the level of common knowledge on the Maeotis region during this period.30 The longer list in section 11.2.11, in turn, reflects a source of a later period, perhaps even of the 1st century BC, as indicated by the mention of Polemon I in the same section. As described earlier, this was a period of greater exposure and familiarity with the Eastern Black Sea interior. Strabo’s mention of the Maeotian tribe Dosci, in particular, demonstrates that his source was familiar with the Bosporan politics of the Geo. 11.2.12. Geo. 11.5.7. 24 Olbrycht 2001, 433-434. 25 Mayor, Carusso and Saunders 2012, 6; Note the same root is found in the name of Bosporan ruler Aspurgus, known from coin inscriptions. See Abramzon, Frolova and Gorlov 2001. 26 Compare also with the ancient tribe of the Psenachai named on an inscription from Kerch. See Bowersock-Jones 2006, also the short mention in Vinogradov 1994, 74; Compare also modern names of the rivers Psou and Psekups, or the (now extinct) river Psenafa – site of a Maeotian settlement and burial grounds near Maykop excavated in 2012 – all in the Northern Caucasus. 27 A recently published inscription is Theopropides dedication from Nymphaion, which reads: ‘… Leukon, archon of the Bosporus, Theodosia, the whole of Sindike, the Toretai, Dandarioi and Psessoi’. See Tokhtasev 2006, 22-49. 28 Tribes such as Zygi, Achaei, Heniochi, Dandarii are mentioned by other ancient historians and in a number of inscriptions. Only the Macropogones (Geo. 11.2.1) do not occur elsewhere. 29 See Gardiner-Garden 1986, 207. 30 Gardiner-Garden 1986, 206. 22 23

Toponymic designations: A number of tribal designations bear clear reference to a geographical area or feature. Thus, Maeotians are clearly assigned to the area of the Maeotian Lake (Asov Sea), while the Toretai are logically based in the It is possible that the names bear reference to a territorial designation that is now lost. 18 Of course, it is possible that the names originally did bear reference to some geographic area or feature that remains unknown to scholars. 19 Geo. 11.2.12. 20 Asheri 1998, 283. 21 Asheri 1998, 283, also n. 51, in which he remarks on the similar behavior of Roman authors. 17

98

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

2nd half of the 4th century BC and the significance of Pairisades’ victory over the latest group of Maeotian tribes, including the Dosci.

around the Lake Maeotis.36 The same holds true of many ancient authors.37 Strabo then gives their relative placement on the map by listing tribes from north to south (11.2.1, 11.2.14).38 Even the elaborate list in 11.2.11 is nothing more than ‘Maeotian tribes’, i.e. those around the Lake.

In this respect, it is worth looking at the Bosporan royal inscriptions of the period, in particular those of Leukon I and Pairisades I. One of the later of Leukon’s inscriptions shows him to have added to his indigenous conquests the Sindi, Toreti, Dandarii and Psessi.31 A later inscription of Pairisades shows Pairisades to have added the Thatoi and Dosci. Neither Psessi nor Thatoi are named by Strabo. Gardiner-Garden points out that Strabo’s omission of these was not meant to suggest that they were not Maeotian, but simply to keep an already long list (11.2.11) short.32 And in this we see the main difference between Strabo and inscriptions: Strabo is presenting the reader with a ‘general picture’ of the Maeotians with information gathered over time, interspersed occasionally with details that carried some significance at a particular time.33 Bosporan inscriptions, on the other hand, have a representative function and are geared towards proclaiming the significant details of their time, such as the conquest of new peoples. They also, by necessity of the Bosporans’ direct involvement in local affairs, reflect a far greater awareness of local ethnicities than found in the works of ancient historians.34

In very few cases we do find some form of territorial precision. In 11.2.1, Strabo elaborates that the Asian Bosporus and the territory of the Sindi are located about Lake Maeotis. In 11.2.11, he defines Aspurgiani territory as the land between Phanagoreia and Gorgippia. A significant point is Strabo’s definition of the Tanais River (Don) as the boundary between Europe and Asia (11.2.1). This is later used to territorially separate the Asiatic Maeotians (11.2.11) from their European counterparts. Only once do we find an example of territorial elaboration through tribal characterization. This is found in 11.2.4, where Strabo emphasizes that Maeotians lived ‘along the whole of this coast’. However, in this case he adds further information about their character – they are warriors ‘no less warlike than the nomads’. This adds new meaning to the Maeotians, qualifying them no longer solely on grounds of their proximity to Lake Maeotis, but through the fact that they are not (the) nomads, who – we may surmise – therefore did not occupy any of this coast.

Territory

Thus, it is clear that Strabo is not interested in defining Maeotian or related territories in any great geographic detail. Instead, as with the tribal names, he is simply setting the background for his narrative by naming certain key features – Lake Maeotis and the Tanais River39 – which were probably already familiar to a Greek audience in connection with the Bosporan Kingdom. In this, he is again following sources of the Classical period,40 when little was known of the regional geography and ‘Maeotian’ was simply used as a territorial – not ethnic – reference.41

As noted by D. Braund,35 identifying the geographic features and tribal territories in the Eastern Black Sea region is rather problematic, mainly because ancient writers provide little and often questionable information. Braund points out that much of it appears to have been disputed even in antiquity. In most cases, the definitions are generalized or rather vague, such as in the case of Strabo, perhaps surprising in view of his origins in the southern Black Sea region (Trapezus), which could presuppose more familiarity of the eastern littoral on his part. At any rate, the modern scholar is often caught questioning the ancients’ knowledge of the area and the sources they used. However, instead of condemning ancient authors for their lack or vague use of knowledge, it is worth considering that full geographic accuracy and detail – things the modern scholar looks for – were not their prime objective. Therefore, we must ask what Strabo and others felt was important for their audiences to know?

Character and lifestyle Strabo’s narrative in 11.2.4 shows the Maeotians to be business-oriented, settled farmers (i.e. not nomads, as explained earlier), as well as warlike – some being ferocious, others more subdued. In terms of appearance, some apparently wear long beards (the Macropogones in 11.2.1). He does also tell us, in generalized terms, that they

Let us turn again to Strabo’s abovementioned passages. His territorial descriptions qualify tribes as Maeotian by the sole virtue of their proximity to the Maeotian Lake. This we observe in his opening description of 11.2.1, where he defines the Maeotians very simply as any peoples living

Compare with the more detailed list of tribes give by Strabo in 11.2.11. According to Gardiner-Garden (1986, 206), the ‘periplous nature’ of this description indicates yet again that Maeotians simply defines tribes around the Maeotian coast. 37 For example Herodotus 4.123.3; Mela 1.114. See Gardiner-Garden 1986, 206; Kamenetsky 2011, 164. 38 Particularly interesting is Strabo’s elaboration that the order of the tribes in 11.2.14 is in accordance with ‘more accurate’ Mithridatic sources. 39 Or in other sections the Caucasus Mountains, the Caspian Sea. 40 E.g. Herodotus and Hekataios. 41 As Braund (1996, 1201) states, ‘the Maiotai were very much the people of the Maeotis’. See also Gardiner-Garden (1986, 206, 211), who notes the same observation made by the Russian scholar L. A. Elinitsky (1961. Znaniya drevnikh o severnykh stranakh. 1961, p. 94); In this respect, it is interesting to note that Strabo and other authors of his time do not go out of their way to reproduce the newly won Roman knowledge of regional topography in their works. 36

CIRB 6, 1037-8. See Hind 1994, 496. Gardiner-Garden 1986, 208. 33 As Gardiner-Garden (1986, 224) notes, he is not interested in giving us a comprehensive catalog of Maeotians, ending his list in 11.2.11 with ‘…and several others.’ 34 Gardiner-Garden 1986, 208. 35 Braund 1996, 1201. 31 32

99

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 2. Detail from the New York Goose Play Vase. Tarporley Painter. New York, Metropolitan Museum, Inv. no. 24.97.104. (After Marshall 2001, Fig. 1)

(the Asiatic Maeotae, 11.2.11) were sometimes subject to Bosporan control and often prone to insurgency. All this Strabo tells us with giving specific examples or going into detail. However, he says nothing different from those authors who do give details or site specific incidents.42

reproducing foreign names in Greek or non-Greek form.43 The authors have analyzed the linguistics of a number of these inscriptions and identified them to be proper words or phrases of ancient Iranian or Caucasian (Circassian) origin, i.e. renderings of foreign speech.

Nonsensical names – a new set of evidence

An example of this is found on the well-known New York Goose Play Vase. Amongst the figures is a man dressed as a Scythian policeman about to flog an older man (Figure 2).44 The policeman is shown to be uttering the nonsensical word ΝΟΡΑΡΕΤΤΕΒΛΟ. Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders, however, clearly demonstrate through linguistic analysis that this is a form of Circassian and translates roughly as ‘This sneak thief steals from them over there’.

Another set of names for eastern tribes do not come from historical accounts or inscriptions, but from the Athenian vases. I am referring to vases from the Classical period that display so-called ‘nonsense inscriptions’ – strangesounding, seemingly unintelligible words strung together from a garble of consonantal sounds – together with depictions of ‘Scythians’ and ‘Amazons’. An innovative 2012 study by Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders examines this phenomenon within the Classical Greek tradition of

Further examples of nonsensical vase inscriptions that translate into Caucasian/Circassian names include:

Compare, for example, the story of Maeotian princess Tirgatao given by Polyaenus. See Gardiner-Garden 1986, 194-207.

42

43 44

100

Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012. Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012, 14-15.

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

Figure 3. North-Caucasian languages (modern). (After Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012, Map 2)

ΧΥΧΟΣΠΙ (‘Enthusiastic Shouter’ or ‘Battle-Cry’),45 an inscription shown next to a Scythian archer, ΠΚΠΥΠΗΣ (‘Worthy of Armor’),46 inscribed next to some Amazons, ΣΕΡΑΓΥΕ (‘Wearing (Armed with) Dagger or Sword’), next to an Amazon/Scythian (unclear),47 and ΧΕΧΓΙΟΧΕΧΟΓΕ (‘the one (chosen) from among the brave’),48 written along a Greek warrior’s back.49 It is worth noting that most of inscriptions studied by Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders have

turned out to be Northwest Caucasian languages – i.e. of the Eastern Black Sea region, Kuban hinterland and northern foothills, the territory of the Maeotians (Figure 3),50 and that they all denote the ‘barbarians’ depicted in the sense of warriors deserving consideration. The significance of such inscriptions for our study cannot go unnoticed. Not only may these pose the earliest known examples of Caucasian and other ‘barbaric’ languages in writing, as noted by Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders, but they demonstrate Greek contacts specifically with Maeotians, outside Maeotian territory.51 Just how the

Red-figure Euthymides vase from Vulci. Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012, 16. 46 A red-figure cup attributed to Oltos. Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012, 16-17. 47 A red figure amphora from Vulci. Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012, 17-18. 48 A red-figure amphore from Vulci. Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012, 20-21. 49 In this context the authors also note some ‘nonsense’ words of ancient Iranian origin, for example on a vase of the Sotades Workshop. They further point out that this workshop frequently produced vases with various exotic barbarian and Persian themes, and were often found at far-away sites such as Kerch and Egypt, suggesting their specific production for a foreign market. Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012, 22. 45

From the 16 inscriptions studied by Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders (2012), the majority were appear to be of northwest Circassian origin, 3-5 examples of western or southern Caucasian languages (Ubykh, Abkhaz, Georgian), and four of an Iranian background. 51 These inscriptions – particularly those in a Caucasian language – also force us to reconsider the Scythian identity (as seen by Greeks) of Athenian policemen, and the use of the term by Greeks as a generalization for indigenous peoples from the Eastern Black Sea area. 50

101

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Maeotians ended up outside their territory and collaborating with vase painters to produce linguistically authentic vase inscriptions – through marriage, mercenary work, as slaves, or even as members of the ‘Scythian’ police force in Athens, remains a matter for future investigation.52

the period between the 7th and 4th centuries BC, extending from the transitional stage of the Proto-Maeotian period and into the following ‘Maeoto-Scythian’ period.59 V. Erlikh defines the sites of this period as the ‘Proto-Maeotian group’. In following, I will use the term ‘Proto-Maeotian’ to refer to the chronological frame specified by Erlikh for this group.

II. Archaeological evidence on the Maeotians

Maeotian sites consist of burial complexes as well as settlements, whereby the burial complexes clearly dominate. The burial complexes manifest themselves as individual kurgans, kurgan groups or necropoleis, or as flat-grave necropoleis.60 Flat-grave burials dominate amongst the Maeotian burial complexes and have yielded a wealth of material.61 Further Maeotian material also comes from Maeotian kurgans – burial mounds containing a number of primary and often secondary burials. In most cases, the necropoleis are located in the vicinity of settlement sites,62 and in many cases, they are found near or within the constraints of a fortified settlement – especially the kurgan groups.63

Unlike the picture of ethnic diversity presented by written sources, archaeology demonstrates a homogenous Maeotian material culture spread over a wide territory. In order to understand the full nature of the Maeotians, then, it is necessary to examine the archaeological picture. Russian scholarship has produced two extremely useful and comprehensive studies on Maeotian material culture: a 2007 monograph by V. R. Erlikh and the more recent work by Kamenetsky in 2011. In the following, I will use these to provide a general overview of the current knowledge of Maeotian material culture, the types of Maeotian sites and their finds.

A significant feature of the Maeotian culture is the masses of ritual complexes found within the burial grounds or structures. In contrast, settlement sites are known with far less frequency. The reasons for this are manifold and will be discussed in the respective section of this paper.

The archaeological sites of the region east and south of the Asov (ancient Lake Maeotis) Sea, as well as further into the hinterland – along the Kuban River and its tributaries – are (not uniformly) numerous and date from the 7th century BC well into the Roman period. A look at these sites reveals a shared material culture which is classified as the Maeotian culture. Not only did this culture exist over an extensive period of approximately 1000 years,53 but it can be defined as ‘conservative’,54 i.e. demonstrating little significant change throughout its existence. This material culture has been identified and studied by Russian scholars over the last decades mainly on the basis of burial sites – kurgans and flat-grave complexes. Additional information is gathered from settlement sites, which, however, are not as well studied. Nonetheless, the available archaeological material provides more than enough evidence that the tribes of these areas were closely related in terms of their material culture.

Chronological development of Maeotian sites – burial and habitation – is based mainly on the actual finds, but also on small changes in construction of architectural features and burial structures, and variations in the basic burial rite. Burial sites V. Erlikh notes that the development of the Maeotian burial rite throughout the centuries is markedly conservative, with very little change over the 1000 years of its existence.64 Because of this, it is possible to use the sites of the ProtoMaeotian period – which make up the bulk of investigated sites – as a gauge for the rite as a whole.

Archaeological evidence demonstrates two main areas of Maeotian habitation (Figure 4): the main area being the Trans-Kuban region (along its left bank and its many tributaries), and the mouth of the Don River (near ancient Tanais).55 These areas of site distribution are further characterized by their chronological distinction: while the Maeotian sites of the Kuban date anywhere from the 8th-7th BC (the so-called ‘Proto-Maeotian’ period as specified by V. Erlikh)56 into the early centuries of the New Era, the Maeotian sites near the Don delta date only from the turn of the eras on.57 All Maeotian sites appear to have come to an end in the 3rd century AD.58

The Maeotians set up their burial grounds at around the same time as and in close vicinity to the relevant settlement.65 The typical Maeotian burial consisted of a single interment. The orientation of the deceased often varied within a single site. The individual was fitted with burial offerings: the poorer burials containing nothing more than a simple piece of local pottery and perhaps some crude jewelry or tools, the more elite burials outfitted with jewelry of precious metal, weapons, sacrificed horses Erlikh 2007, 12-13. Erlikh 2007, 11; Kamenetsky (2011, 201) notes that over 150 flat-grave necropoleis are currently known, with a total of at least 9600 excavated burials, if not more. He also lists a total of 172 kurgan necropoleis with a minimum of 795 excavated kurgans. 61 Kamenetsky 2011, 236. 62 Kamenetsky 2011, 237; Note that the settlements have often only been identified on the basis of survey and not excavation. 63 Kamenetsky 2011, 237. 64 Erlikh 2011a, 82. I am grateful to Dr. Erlikh for sharing his insights on Maeotian burial rites based on his extensive fieldwork in the relevant region. 65 Kamenetsky 2011, 236. 59 60

The bulk of the currently known Maeotian sites belongs to Mayor, Colarusso and Saunders 2012, 3, 27. Erlikh 2011a, 82. 54 Erlikh 2007, 11. 55 Kamenetsky 2011, 7. 56 Erlikh 2007, 12. 57 Kamenetsky 2011, 7. 58 Kamenetsky 2011, 7. 52 53

102

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

Figure 4. Areas of Maeotian habitation. (After Kamenetsky 2011, Map 17)

and other animals, elaborate examples of local and even imported pottery. Particularly wealthy examples sometimes even contain carriage remains. The overall composition of the assemblages varied frequently within a single site or complex.66 This, together with the varying orientation of the deceased, may be explained as a reference to the deceased’s status, clan affiliation or even religious conventions.67 In some cases, burials within a site or kurgan can be identified as belonging to a ‘family group’.68 Note that there were no grave markers of stone.69

V. Erlikh focuses solely on sites of the Proto-Maeotian period, analyzing the excavated material of ca. 30 burial complexes (over 400 burials) and ten sites of habitation. By analyzing details of the burial rite (burial structure, orientation of the deceased, position, burial assemblage), he is able to distinguish regional variations and subdivides these sites into three variants (Figure 5): those of the Black Sea coastal region just southeast of the Bosporan Kingdom (the ‘coastal/Abinsk’ variant), those located further inland, along the mid-reaches of the Kuban River (the central variant) and, finally, the sites in and around the Northern Caucasus foothills (the ‘foothill’ variant).70

A good overview of the full scope of burial possibilities is to be had by studying the figures in Erlikh’s 2007 monograph, which reproduce a number of the burial plans and assemblages. 67 Kamenetsky 2011, 236; Erlikh 2007, 42. 68 Kamenetsky 2011, 237. 69 Kamenetsky 2011, 237; Of course, one should not exclude the possibility of grave markers of other materials that have not survived. 66

70 See Erlikh 2007, 36-55; These geographic variants correspond to Kamenetsky’s groupings (Kamenetsky 2011, 201): coastal-Abinsk (Erlikh) = the western group, central and foothill variants (Erlikh) = the eastern group; See also Dmitriyev and Malyshev (2009, 61, n. 1), who also attribute the coastal-Abinsk sites to the Maeotian archaeological culture.

103

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 5. Distribution of Proto-Maeotian burial sites and their variants. (After Erlikh 2007, Fig. 12)

Figure 6. Coastal-Abinsk sites of the 6th-4th centuries BC on the Abrau Peninsula. (After Dmitriyev/Malyshev 2009, Fig. 1)

104

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

The coastal/Abinsk variant The coastal/Abinsk variant (‘primorsko-abinsky’) presently consists of a number of burial sites and two ritual complexes in and around the Abrau Peninsula,71 just south of the Bosporan border at Gorgippia (modern Anapa) and up towards the Kuban River near the modern town of Abinsk (Figures 5, 6).72 Note that no settlement sites have been identified with any certainty in this region.73 A number of burial elements distinguish this variant from the others. These include the occurrence of paired and collective burials (Figure 7) in addition to individual ones, as well as a general lack of bridle gear amongst the burial goods.74 As seen in Figure 5, the coastal-Abinsk variant can be further subdivided according to geography, which in turn seems to have resulted in some differences in burial construction. The coastal sites are found in and around coves and washes of the coastal mountains, near the ancient cities of Torikos and Bata (modern Novorossiysk and Gelendzhik)75 and consist of burials which use existing dolmens as well as stone cist tombs (Figure 8).76 The latter are particularly characteristic for this area and represent a distinct variation on Maeotian burials as a whole that appears to have grown under the influence of Greek-style tombs in the Bosporan Kingdom.77 The more easterly Abinsk sites are located in the lowland valley of the Kuban River left bank (Figure 5) and distinguished by burials using existing kurgans or burials tunneled into natural elevations.78

Figure 7. The pair-burial from the Voskresensky burial site. (After Dmitriyev and Malyshev 2009, Fig. 3.II)

The overall burial assemblage in the coastal-Abinsk complexes is quite similar to that found in central and foothill burials, and only minor details of the burial goods serve to them from those of other regions.79 Overall analyses of certain well-studied sites have revealed certain historical realities of the region. Particularly interesting is the Tsemdolinsky necropolis (1st century BC – 5th century AD) near ancient Bata (modern Novorossiysk, see Figure 6), where a strikingly high proportion of the overall burial goods (30%) were weapons. Based on this and the overall assemblages, it is possible to associate Tsemdolinsky with a military detachment in this area controlling a road that lead to the coastal settlements.80 A further site of significance is the Raevsky necropolis The bulk of the sites on the Abrau Peninsula date from the 6th-4th centuries BC. Dmitriyev and Malyshev 2009, 56. 72 See Erlikh 2007, 36. 73 Erlikh (2007, 36, n. 36) notes possible settlement remains of this type some distance from the main area of concentration, at ancient Patreus in the Bosporan Kingdom (modern Taman Peninsula). 74 Erlikh 2007, 37. 75 Erlikh 2007, 36. 76 Erlikh 2007, 37; See also Kamenetsky 2011, 238; Dmitriyev and Malyshev 2009, 62. 77 Kamenetsky 1989, 227; Dmitriyev and Malyshev 2009, 56. 78 Erlikh 2007, 37. 79 Erlikh 2007, 37. 80 Malyshev 2008b, 283. The excavators attribute the site to the Aspurgiani mentioned by Strabo (Geo. 11.2.11) and Ptolemy (5.19.17) based on the large number of elite military burials with saddled horses. See Malyshev 2008b, 280-281. 71

Figure 8. Cist tomb of the Hellenistic period – the Rassvet hamlet burial site. (After Dmitriyev and Malyshev 2009, Fig. 5.III)

105

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

(3rd-1st centuries BC), where a comprehensive analysis has revealed the complete disappearance of the local burial culture in the 3rd century BC, clearly demonstrating the southeast expansion of the Bosporan Kingdom in this period.81

and other warriors suggest participation in military campaigns. Note that the horses were usually laid down as complete skeletons.90

Central variant

A defining characteristic of the Maeotian archaeological/ material culture are the masses of individual find complexes within kurgans or flat-grave necropoleis that contain no human interment. These ritual complexes are referred to by V. Erlikh as ‘shrines’ or ‘sanctuaries’ (svyatilishcha).91 Such complexes occur in sites from the 8th century BC up to the 2nd century BC,92 and range from sacrificial hearths, horse sacrifices, even possible shrines or hoards of items. These cult complexes contain various ritual elements – fire, remains of horse and even human sacrifice, symbolic ritual items – in some cases suggesting a sacred space for dedications to the divine.93

Ritual complexes

The central variant (‘tsentralny’) refers to sites along the left bank of the Kuban River from modern Krasnodar to the confluence of the Kuban and Laba Rivers (Figure 5). Far more sites of this variant have been studied than of the previous one. The central variant is distinguished by individual flat-grave burials or in some cases elite burials using existing kurgans.82 The burial structure consisted of a pit without any fill. In most burial cases, approximately half the bodies are extended, the other half crouched. This has been explained by some as indicative of status and especially gender.83 Food remains indicate the practice of provisions for the journey after life.84 Elite burials are accompanied by the remains of horses, which occur almost exclusively as skulls and extremities only – this may be taken to indicate some kind of ‘stuffed horse’, where the horse extremities are retained and the remaining body prepared and stuffed with straw.85 The burial rite of this variant also includes pebbles, ‘cultic’ bones86 and flint chips.87

Horse sacrifices were carried out with system. The carcasses were laid out in a circle or half-circle around an altar-area (Figure 9 A). In some cases, the sacrificial area was covered by a tent-like structure: a roofing of thatch/reeds set atop long wooden posts (Figure 9 B).94 Especially striking are examples of human sacrifice in burial and ritual complexes. These are distinguished from regular human interment by the fact that the skeletons of the former are dismembered and often incomplete: a skeleton without hands or legs, the skulls only of three persons, or even two skulls together with the remaining bones dismembered.95 In some cases, the skeleton is found in an unnaturally cramped or strangulated pose that is not due to the forces of nature, sometimes with the hands placed behind the back (Figure 10).96 Significant is the fact that the sacrificed persons often clearly belonged to the Maeotian culture.97

As with the coastal-Abinsk variant, the burial assemblages here conform to those of the Proto-Maeotian group as a whole, with some small variations. Foothill variant The foothill (‘predgorny’) variant (Figure 5) is characterized by burial complexes without tumuli structures – these only begin to appear in the latest periods. Instead, they consist of stone constructions or stone-sided walls, stone fills and facing of the ensuing mound-like ‘bulge’.88 All burials are individual ones. Like the central variant, we have here the same combination of extended and crouched burials.89

Ritual complexes with human sacrifice appear with notable frequency in the Tenginskaya and Ulyap sites.98 Maeotians abroad: It is interesting to note that two Maeotian ritual complexes have been found in the southern Caucasus – on the territory of ancient Colchis, far from the usual habitat of the Maeotians. Both complexes are

Particularly interesting is the Fars necropolis. The markedly high proportion of elite burials here characterize it as an aristocratic necropolis, and the large number of horsemen

Erlikh 2007, 64-65. See Erlikh (2011a, 82-94) for the chronological development of such ‘shrines’ and ritual complexes and the four categories he distinguishes for their overall period of existence; Such complexes could be used only once or over a longer period of time. Erlikh 2011a, 94; Kamenetsky 2011, 244. 92 Erlikh 2011a, 84. 93 See an overview in Erlikh 2011a, 93-94; Noteworthy is Ulyap kurgan 5, which Leskov (1985, 38) interprets as a divine dedication, probably a local version of Ares. 94 Erlikh 2011a, 93. 95 See Erlikh (2011a, 85-88) for various examples of human sacrifice in ritual complexes; The Tenginskaya burial no. 140 also contains such examples. See Beglova 2002. 96 Beglova 2002, 298-299. 97 Beglova 2002, 303. 98 Details on the sacrifices from the Tenginskaya site are found in Beglova 2002. See also the other complexes with human sacrifice listed by Erlikh (2011a, 87-91). 90 91

Malyshev 2007, 243-244. Erlikh 2007, 42. 83 As described by Kamenetsky (2011, 238), the extended persons were male, the crouched were female; Erlikh (2007, 60-61) has observed that the burial poses are at best indicative of tendencies and cannot be viewed as absolute fact. 84 Erlikh 2007, 62. 85 Erlikh (2007, 42, 62) notes that the appearance of such ‘stuffed horses’ coincides with the transitional period into the Iron Age in this region; See also Malyshev 2008a, 133. 86 ‘Cultic’ bones, i.e. the kneecaps of cows. Erlikh 2007, 46. 87 Erlikh 2007, 62. 88 Erlikh 2007, 49. Note that in some cases the burials are actually secondary burials in existing Bronze Age kurgans. 89 As with the central variant, these poses do not clearly indicate gender. Erlikh 2007, 64. 81 82

106

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

Figure 9. The horse grave in Tenginskaya kurgan B. Roofing of the sacrificial area. (After Erlikh 2011a, Fig. 41, Pl. 5.2)

Figure 10. Human sacrifice in the Tenginskaya ritual complex (burial 140). (After Beglova 2002, Fig. 3)

107

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

of the 4th century BC and were located within the sites of two ancient Colchian towns – Gyenos (present-day Ochamchire) and Dioscurias (present-day Sukhum).99 Their presence on Colchian territory do suggest the movement of Maeotians into the southern Caucasus, and V. Erlikh suggests the possible existence of even more such Maeotian ritual complexes on Colchian territory that remain to be discovered.100

Almost all known settlements were located along a waterway – the Kuban or its tributaries – either along the high terraces or the actual river bank.107 It is worth considering that regional groupings of settlements may correspond to individual Maeotian tribes. The lack of known settlement sites between certain areas, such as between the Krasnodar and Ust-Labinsk groups (Figure 11B), may indicate a ‘neutral or border-area’ between what were two tribal zones.108 Not to be disregarded, however, are the effects Krasnodar Reservoir, which may have simply washed away existing sites along this stretch, or other sites that may have belonged to the ‘Krasnodar group’.109

Settlements and fortifications The settlements and fortifications of the Maeotians have not been studied with the same intensity and frequency as the burial complexes.101 Even though a significant number of settlements and fortifications have been identified through field survey, the results of such survey often remain unpublished.102 Additionally, only a few of the many known sites have actually been subject to methodical excavation.103 The most comprehensive information of Maeotian settlements and fortifications is found in two recent publications by S. Kamenetsky and P. Romanova,104 in which the respective authors define their major characteristics and offer a number of interpretations as to their development.

Fortified settlements The majority of the known Maeotian settlements are of the fortified type, with ditches and walls and a marked ‘citadel’ area110 upon an elevation.111 Fortified settlements were often located in visible proximity of each other – Kamenetsky and Romanova note that the visibility from any given settlement could extend as far as the neighboring two settlements in a given direction, if not further.112 Fortified settlements vary greatly in size, up to 13ha (the Tenginskoye II settlement). Kamenetsky notes the defining characteristics of a Maeotian fortified settlement to be ditches separating the individual sections and citadel.113 The ditches were probably strengthened by walls which have since diminished over time and are barely visible. In many cases, remains of further settled plots without ditches are visible just outside the existing fortifications – Kamenetsky suggests that the new inhabitants simply had not managed to set up the necessary ditches.

Regional concentrations Maeotian settlements are known mainly in the Transkuban region. However, it is important to keep in mind that this distribution does not necessarily mirror in full the complete areal of Maeotian settlement sites, but does partially reflect the preference for fieldwork in a certain region. The largest known concentration of settlement sites is observed in the Ust-Labinsk region (the ‘Ust-Labinsk group’) along the Kuban and Laba Rivers near their confluence (Figures 11A, 11B).105 Other areas of notable concentration (Figure 11B) are the so-called ‘Krasnodar group’ along the southern bank of the modern Krasnodar Reservoir and the ‘Ladozhskaya group’ with sites along the right Kuban bank.106

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that all settlements along the east bank of the Kuban were fortified. This indicates an increased need for defense along this bank – not surprising considering the Sarmatian encroachment from the north during the Hellenistic period.114 Non-fortified settlements

Erlikh 2011a, 91-92. Both sites are in present-day Abkhazia. The ‘Dioscurias’ complex was found in Akhul-abaa, a district of modern Sukhum; See also Erlikh 2004. 100 Erlikh 2011a, 92. 101 There are a number of reasons for this. Often the main topographic features such as walls, citadels and building structures have worn away over time, making their immediate identification difficult (unlike tumuli, which are immediately visible). Construction and agricultural projects have also damaged or completely destroyed a number of sites before they could be identified. This is particularly true of the last few decades, which has seen an explosion of such projects. 102 Kamenetsky (2011, 201) notes over 300 known fortified settlements and 170 of the non-fortified type; See also Erlikh 2007, 67; Kamenetsky and Romanova (2011, 40) note that systematic field survey of the Kuban region only began in the 1980s. 103 Kamenetsky 2011, 201. The reasons for this are many: unlike burials, the excavation of fortifications and settlements is a tedious and drawn-out process, seldom to be completed within one season and thus requiring more funding, and with finds that are often considered less ‘spectacular’ than those in burials. 104 See Kamenetsky 2011, 221-229; Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011. 105 Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 40-41. The authors note a total of c. 59 known settlements in this group. 106 See Kamenetsky and Romanova (2011, 41-43) for the ‘Ust-Labinsk’ and ‘Krasnodar’ groups, Kamenetsky (2011, 221). Only a few of 99

As Kamenetsky notes, material on non-fortified settlements these settlements have undergone proper excavation, for example the Tenginskoye II settlement of the 5th-4th centuries BC (Erlikh 2011a; Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming). 107 Kamenetsky 2011, 222. 108 Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 43. The authors note, however, that much material in this region has been washed away by the Krasnodar Reservoir, and the possibility of Maeotian settlements along this stretch cannot be fully ruled out. 109 Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 43. Survey and emergency excavation carried out over the last decade during periods of low tide along the Krasnodar Reservoir has revealed a number of new sites. 110 Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 41. 111 Kamenetsky 2011, 222. 112 Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 41; Kamenetsky 2011, 222-224. The author also notes that settlement size was influenced by the natural growth of the settlement, which could spread beyond the boundaries of the original fortifications, which with time would require further strengthening. This growth rarely preserved the original concentric placement of the original fortifications. 113 Kamenetsky 2011, 221. 114 See Gardiner-Garden 1986, 222.

108

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

Figure 11. Settlement distribution in the Trans-Kuban region. (A. After Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming; B. After Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, Fig. 6)

109

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 12. Mountain passes and river routes through the Caucasus. (After Raev 2006, Fig. 1)

is quite scarce and generally based on surface finds only.115 All known non-fortified settlements were located along the left bank of the Kuban or further south, along the Laba River and other tributaries (Figure 11).116 This may suggest a more secure environment in the left bank interior of the Kuban – more collaboration amongst neighbors and a shared culture.

Caucasus foothills and those up north serving the Bosporan Kingdom (Tanais). (Figure 12) From the Colchian coastline, the major routes followed rivers flowing through the Caucasus mountain valleys and ultimately leading to the mid-reaches of the Kuban River, which one could then follow upstream to reach the mouth of the Don and the Asov Sea. Such routes have been in use since ancient times up to the present-day.117 They were likely preferable to sea travel along the Eastern Black Sea,118 perhaps with regard to avoiding confrontations with pirates, but equally, if not more likely, because of the numerous trade opportunities posed to merchants by the numerous settlements along the rivers. Certainly, the mountain and river routes presented a more viable option to land-marches along the rugged and difficult stretches of coastline.119

Settlement distribution As already mentioned, the majority of the settlements are situated along rivers (Figure 11). While this placement may indicate the preference and/or use of rivers as natural borders separating ethnic groups or barriers (to attack), it also demonstrates the importance of rivers as trade routes for the Kuban interior and Caucasus mountains. In his 2006 article, Boris Raev has convincingly described the river routes and mountain passes used in antiquity to travel between the Northern and Southern Caucasus, i.e. between the major markets in Colchis (Dioscurias) in the southern

Finally, one cannot but notice the lack of information on Maeotian settlements along the eastern Black Sea Skakov 2006. Raev 2006, 305. 119 Raev 2006, 305; See also Chandrasekaran 2011, 67. D. Braund (2003, 189) also notes the relative lack of difficulty when traversing the seemingly formidable Caucasus Mountains. 117 118

Kamenetsky 2011, 221. Kamenetsky notes that in some cases it is possible to examine the cultural layer in some detail. 116 Kamenetsky 2011, 221. 115

110

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

Figure 13. Plan of a Maeotian housing unit in Podazovskoye. (After Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, Fig. 10)

coastline below modern Novorossiysk (Figures 5, 11). The topographic difficulties of this coastline – particularly between modern Gelendzhik and Sochi – have certainly discouraged archaeological investigation in the past,120 and this may be why we have practically no information on settlements in this area. One is even tempted to conjecture whether the ruggedness of this landscape may have acted as a deterrent to ancient settlement of these coastal stretches. However, this remains to be determined by future research.

other side of the street with the rear side facing the street. These units were spaced approximately one meter apart from each other123 and had a standardized area of 6x6m.124 Eleven of the units were sufficiently preserved to study their overall plan (Figure 13). Each of these was marked by a hearth in the middle. Two of the units revealed remains of what appear to be ovens (for bread).125 Amongst Maeotian housing we find mudbrick structures126 as well as wattle and daub constructions.127

Housing structures

Finds

Very few settlements preserve significant remains of Maeotian housing, which appear to have been rather simple constructions, generally containing a number of pits (storage?) and hearths.121 It was possible to study the remains of 34-36 housing units in the fortified settlement of Podazovskoye on the Don delta.122 A line of units were situated along a fortification wall, with the doors opening to the street. The next line of units was situated along the

The scope of this paper does not allow for an in-depth look into the full range of finds from Maeotian sites. However, they play an indispensible factor in identifying the Maeotian culture as a whole. I shall therefore give a brief overview of some of the find elements that allow us to understand the economic and political role of the Maeotians in the eastern Black Sea region and Western Caucasus. A similar proximity of housing units can be observed at the NovoDzhereliyevsky III fortified settlement. Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 52. 124 Kamenetsky 2011, 231; Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 52. 125 Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 55. 126 For example, from the Tenginskoye settlement. See Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming. 127 E.g. Kamenetsky 2011, 231. 123

Archaeological activity along the coastal area has picked up in recent years as a result of construction work being carried out in preparation for the 2014 Winter Olympics to be held in Sochi. The results of these investigations should shed new light on the situation in this area in ancient times. 121 Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming. 122 See Kamenetsky and Romanova 2011, 52-55; Kamenetsky 2011, 231. 120

111

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

The main cultural determinant is the typical Maeotian greyware pottery, which occurs in great amounts in burials.128 While the Maeotians appear to have been molding their pottery up until the end of the 5th century BC, it seems that the pottery wheel was already being implemented with great force by the mid-fourth century BC.129 Note that imported pottery also occurs with great frequency at Maeotian sites from the end of the 6th century BC into the 4th century BC.130 High-quality imports from the Greek and Roman world were frequent in Maeotian elite burials and speak for intense diplomatic contacts with the ‘outside’. These ranged from Panathenaic amphorae to Greek golden objects and Phoenician and Roman glassware (Figure 14). Additionally, the finds of the Hellenistic period show a pronounced affinity amongst Maeotian craftsmen for certain Greek elements or goods, as well as the knowhow to produce their own version of these. The former is demonstrated by the Maeotian pottery of this period, which produces clean copies of known Greek forms in the local grey clay (Figure 15 A).131 A good example of the latter are the gilded terracotta medallions of the Maeotians, made to imitate the golden versions of the Greeks at a lower cost (Figure 15 B).132 Figure 14. Greek and Phoenician-style imports from the Ulyap kurgans. (After Cat. Moscow, Fig. p. 11, Fig. p. 19, Fig. p. 27)

The finds from Maeotian sites clearly demonstrate close ties with neighboring states, especially the Bosporan Kingdom, as well as with Athens during the Classical period and the overall trade circuit of the Hellenistic and Roman world. The latter is demonstrated by finds of glass kantharoi from Syria and Asia Minor, which were probably diplomatic gifts attesting to the politics of Mithridates VI Eupator and the battles of the 1st century BC.133 The assemblages in ‘warrior burials’ of the 4th century BC can be used to understand the overall composition of the Maeotian armies. Foot-soldiers were armed with spears, while horseback warriors were armed with long Maeotian swords and spears. An overall analysis of the known assemblages of this type leads E. Beglova and V. Erlikh to suggest a proportion of one horseback warrior to every two foot-soldiers.134 The pronounced frequency of warrior assemblages in burials of this period suggest the direct involvement of Maeotians in the political events of their neighbors, such as the battle between Aripharnes and his brothers in 310/309 BC.

Figure 15. A. Maeotian kantharos-shaped cup; B. Gilded terracotta medallion. (A. After Cat. Moscow, Fig. 67; B: After Erlikh 2011a, Pl. 21.1)

128 Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming; Kamenetsky (2011, 298) notes that in addition to private use, local pottery was produced in great masses for selling on the market. 129 Beglova attributes this speedy assimilation of the wheel to direct contacts between local potters and the more skilled traditions of the nearby Bosporans. Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming. 130 Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming. 131 Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming. 132 Erlikh 2011b; Erlikh 2011a, 66-68. 133 Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming. 134 Beglova and Erlikh forthcoming.

112

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

III. Conclusion

stone Maeotian cist tombs along the Abrau Peninsula (Figure 8) may be an example of this ‘advanced’ degree of Hellenization. On the other hand, finds of valuable imported (Greek) goods are not restricted to the coastal area, but occur far into the interior. This distribution of imports, combined with the overall Maeotian control of the regional trade circuit, confirm that elite Maeotians everywhere – not only in the coastal regions – actively sustained contacts with the Greek world and enjoyed the profits and gifts of the Greeks.

What correlation do we find between the written and archaeological evidence? Archaeology indeed confirms much in Strabo’s narrative – that the Maeotians were settled around Strabo’s Maeotian Lake and neighbored the Scythians and Sarmatian tribes.135 Site distribution and significant amounts of imported goods validate their business sense as diplomats and traders. Weapon finds and distribution of fortified sites attest to their warlike character.

In terms of Maeotian identity, it is clear that ancient sources, for the most part, classified the various Maeotian tribes as barbarians. Just how did Maeotians view themselves? The level of self-representation in elite burials and ritual complexes demonstrates a great degree of self-pride. The numerous weapons finds validate the deceased as warriors. Armor finds of Greek type also illustrate the importance of their role as favored mercenaries.

The Maeotian warrior lifestyle is archaeologically evidenced on many levels. Self-defense against neighboring territories is demonstrated by the fortified settlements lining the Kuban right bank, indicating defense against aggression from the north, i.e. the aforementioned Sarmatian attacks. The large quantities of weapons finds speak for the Maeotians’ prowess as warriors to be feared. Elite burial sites with high percentages of warrior graves attest to Maeotian military campaigns – frequent uprisings against the Bosporans or mercenary collaboration with the Hellenized armies of the Bosporans or their enemies. The latter is evidenced to by the increase of Greek-style armor throughout the region in the 4th century BC.

Most importantly, however, the Maeotians clearly understood their value as controllers of the trade in the region, as demonstrated by the distribution of various goods and imports throughout the region. In this respect, they particularly valued trade and contacts with Greeks, together with the valuable gifts which they received from them and other outsiders and took to their graves. Local imitations of imported wares also evidence a certain affinity for Hellenistic production while simultaneously taking pride in local manufacture. At the same time, manufacture of imitations clearly demonstrates the main emphasis of Maeotian trade to have been regional and not easily affected by the decline in trade with the Greek world outside the Bosporus during the later Hellenistic period.

How involved were the Maeotians in the slave trade with the large regional markets mentioned by Strabo and others? As finds and site distribution clearly demonstrate, the Maeotians were not merely ‘involved’ in regional trade, but actually controlled the major transportation routes between the great regional markets of the Bosporan Kingdom (e.g. Tanais) and the Southern Caucasus (Dioscurias). Dioscurias, in particular, was heralded by Strabo and others as a major market for many goods, including great quantities of the best slaves.136 The presence of Maeotian sites nearby confirms their activities in this area, which were likely trade-related. In this respect, it is worth recalling Strabo’s accounts of Maeotians involved in kidnapping by land and sea.137 As discussed earlier, archaeology has shown Maeotians to have practiced human sacrifice on other Maeotians, who were probably either taken in battle or simply kidnapped. Could not other captured or specially kidnapped Maeotians have been led or transported along the river routes and through the mountain passes to the markets at Tanais or Dioscurias? It would appear that the Maeotians were both slavers as well as the enslaved. When one adds to this the clear evidence of Maeotians abroad – servants or slaves who helped vase painters compose their ‘nonsensical’ vase inscriptions in the languages of the Northern Caucasus – the significant role of the Maeotians in the slave trade with the Greek world cannot be underestimated.

Finally, the burial construction, burial rite and burial assemblage remained fundamentally Maeotian, clearly demonstrating a conscious indigenous identity. The high self-esteem of the Maeotians, who took obvious pride in their warrior qualities, but also their diplomacy, business and manufacturing skills, shows no great endeavors on their part towards identifying themselves with the Greeks (or Romans, for that matter). Yet, as neighbors of the Bosporans, they made some effort to be indispensible to them and the Greek trade circuit as a whole. Lack of correlation In certain cases, it is difficult to correlate the archaeological to the written evidence. For example, it is impossible to archaeologically verify whether any of the Maeotian tribes had a preference for long beards (Macropogones). Likewise, there is no evidence in written sources to indicate that Maeotian territory stretched from the Maeotian Lake far into the interior, as unmistakably demonstrated by archaeological material.

How Hellenized were the Maeotians themselves? As discussed earlier, Strabo’s tribal designation of the Achaeans along the eastern coast may imply a degree of Hellenization greater than that of surrounding tribes. The Greek-style Geo. 11.2. Geo. 11.2.16; 11.5.6. 137 Geo. 11.2.12. 135

Even more difficult is the attempt to attribute the individual

136

113

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Maeotian tribes of ancient sources to a specific region of what is archaeologically known as Maeotian territory.138 The varied designations and language backgrounds of the names given by ancient writings simply find no corresponding factor in archaeology. Perhaps the lesson to learn is not to look for points of tally, but take these sets of evidence as supplementing each other. They simply provide two sides of a picture which was probably correct – the Maeotians consisted of various tribes with varying language backgrounds, but all shared an overall material culture. As such, this image harmonizes with the picture of the Northern Caucasus and Kuban basin we see today – the modern peoples of the Northern Caucasus are many, their languages varied and of Caucasian or Iranian background, yet they share a similar culture and customs that are foreign to their non-Caucasian neighbors.

Perseus Digital Library Project. Ed. Gregory R. Crane. Tufts University. 03.03.2011.. Xenophon, Memorabilia (Mem.) -------------------------------Abramzon, M. G., Frolova, N. A. and Gorlov, Yu. G. 2001. Two hoards of Bosporan coins. Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 157, 287-303. Asheri, D. 1998. The Achaeans and the Heniochi. In G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, 265286. Stuttgart, Steiner. Avram, A. 2007. Some Thoughts about the Black Sea and the Slave Trade before the Roman Domination (6th-1st Centuries BC). In V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6), 239-252. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Beglova, E. A. 1991. Ventsy I – poseleniye epokhi rannego zheleza v Zakubane. Drevnosti Severnogo Kavkaza i Prichernomor’ya. Moskva, GMINV. Beglova, E. A. and Erlikh, V. R. forthcoming. Problema svyazey varvarov s antichnym mirom v rabotakh Kavkazskoy arkheologicheskoy ekspeditsii. Moskva. Beglova, E. A. 2002. Kopflos und gefesselt – Bestattungen der ganz anderen Art. Antike Welt 2002/3, 297-304. Bowersock, G. W. and Jones, C. P. 2006. A New Inscription from Panticapaeum. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Bd. 156, 117-128. Braund, D. 1996. Map 84 – Maeotis. In R. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (with Map-by-Map Directory on CD-ROM), 1201-1212. Har/ Cdr edition published September 15, 2000. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Open Library. Ed. T. Elliott. 22.11.2012. . Braund, D. 2003. Notes from the Black Sea and Caucasus: Arrian, Phlegon and Flavian Inscriptions. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, Vol. 9, Issue 4, 175-191. Chandrasekaran, S. 2011. The Black Sea Coast between the Bosporan Kingdom and Colchis. In E. PapuciWładyka, M. Vickers, J. Bodzek, and D. Braund (eds.) Pontika 2008. Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in Ancient Times. Proceedings of the International Conference 21st-26th April 2008, Krakow, 57-70. BAR International Series, 2240. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Dmitriyev, A. V. and Malyshev, A. A. 2009. Naseleniye predgory Severo-zapadnogo Kavkaza v VIII-IV vv. do n.e. In A. A. Malyshev (ed.), Abrau Antiqua. Rezultaty kompleksnykh issledovany drevnostey poluostrova Abrau, 53-73. Moskva, RAN. Erlikh, V. R. 2004. Meotskoye svyatilishche v Abkhazii. Vestnik drevney istorii 2004/1, 158-172. Erlikh, V. R. 2007. Severo-zapadny Kavkaz v nachale zheleznogo veka. Moskva, Nauka. Erlikh, V. R. 2011a. Svyatilishcha nekropolya Tenginskogo gorodishcha II – IV v. do n. e. Moskva, Nauka.

To conclude: The scope of this paper has allowed me to look at only some aspects of written and archaeological evidence on the tribes of the Eastern Black Sea region. As demonstrated by the above, even a limited amount of information is sufficient to produce a constructive overview on these tribes, their cultural background, their function within the region and their identity, all of which is essential for scholars studying the contacts between the Greeks/ Romans and indigenous populations of this region. Bibliography139 Diodorus Siculus. Libraries (Lib.), Book 22. In The Library of History of Diodorus Sicilus. Published in Vol. X of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1954. Lacius Curtius. Ed. B. Thayer. University of Chicago. 12.11.2012. . Herodotus, Historiae. In Herodotus, with an English translation by A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920. Perseus Digital Library Project. Ed. Gregory R. Crane. Tufts University. 27.05.2011. . Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia (N.H.) In The Natural History. Pliny the Elder. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A. London. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 1855. Perseus Digital Library Project. Ed. Gregory R. Crane. Tufts University. 01.09.2011. . Polyaenus, Strategemata. In Polyaenus, Stratagems of War. Adapted from the translation of E. Shepherd (1793. London, Ares Publishers). Attalus. Ed. Andrew Smith. 05.09.2012. . Pomponius Mela, De chorographia. In F. E. Romer. 1998. Pomponius Mela’s description of the world. Michigan, University of Michigan Press. Strabo, Geographica (Geo.) In Strabo. ed. H. L. Jones. The Geography of Strabo. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd. A possible exception is that of the Achaeans mentioned above. Russian titles have been rendered using the BGN/PCGN system, i.e. British Standard 2979 without diacritics. 138 139

114

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

Mayor, A, Colarusso, J. and Saunders, D. 2012. Making Sense of Nonsense Inscriptions Associated with Amazons and Scythians on Athenian Vases. Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics. Olbrycht, M. 2001. Die Aorser, die Oberen Aorser und die Siraken bei Strabon. Zur Geschichte und Eigenart der Völker im nordpontischen und nordkaukasischen Raum im 2.-1. Jh. v. Chr. Klio 83/2, 425-450. Raev, B. A. 2006. Svyatilishche na r. Mzymta i tranzitnye puti cherez perevali Severo-zapadnogo Kavkaza. Pervaya abkhazskaya mezhdunarodnaya arkheologicheskaya konferentsya, posvyashchennaya pamyati Iu. N. Voronova, 304-307. Sukhum. Shilov, V. P. 1950. O rasselenii meotskikh plemen. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 14, 110-111. Skakov, A. Yu. 2006. K voprosu ob ispolzovanii perevalov Zapadnogo Kavkaza vepokhu rannego zheleza. Proizvodstvennye tsentry: istochniki, „dorogi“, areal rasprostraneniya. Materiyaly tematicheskoy nauchnoy konferentsii, 80-85. St. Petersburg. Tokhtas’ev, S. R. 2006. The Bosporus and Sindike in the Era of Leukon I – New Epigraphic Publications. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 12/1-2, 1-62. Tsetskhladze, G. 1998. Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models, and Native Population. In G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, 9-68. Stuttgart, Steiner. Vinogradov, Yu. A. 1994. Greek Epigraphy of the North Black Sea Coast, the Caucasus and Central Asia (19851990). Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 1/1, 63-74. Vinogradov, Yu. A. 2003. Two Waves of Sarmatian Migration in the Black Sea Steppes during the PreRoman Period. In G. Bilde, J. M. Hojte and V. Stolba (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas, Studies Presented to A.N. Sceglov on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (Black Sea Studies 1), 217-226. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Erlikh, V. R. 2011b. Gilded Terracotta Jewellery from Meotian Sites of the Kuban Region: the Problem of Intercultural Contact in the Early Hellenistic Period. In E. Papuci-Władyka, M. Vickers, J. Bodzek, and D. Braund (eds.) Pontika 2008. Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in Ancient Times. Proceedings of the International Conference 21st-26th April 2008, Krakow, 113-128. BAR International Series, 2240. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Gardiner-Garden, J. R. 1986. Fourth Century Conceptions of Maiotian Ethnography. Historia, Bd. 35, H. 2, 192225. Hind, J. 1994. The Bosporan Kingdom. In D. Lewis, J. Boardman, S. Hornblower and M. Ostwald (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. VI. The Fourth Century B.C. 2nd edition, 476-511. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Histories Online. 16.06.11. . Kamenetsky, I. S. 1989. Meoty i drugiye plemena severozapadnogo Kavkaza v VII v. do n. e. – III v. n. e. Stepi evropeyskoy chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoye vremya. Arkheologiya SSSR. Moskva, Nauka. Kamenetsky, I. S. 2011. Istoriya izucheniya Meotov. Moskva, Taus. Kamenetsky, I. S. and Romanova, G. P. 2011. Posledstviya obmerov meotskikh gorodishch. In N. Gavrilyuk, A. Maslennikov and A. Zavoykin (eds.), Grechiskiye i varvarskiye pamyatniki Severnogo Prichernomorya. Metodiki rossiyskikh i ukrainskikh polevikh issledovaniy, 40-70. Moskva/Kiev. Kvirkvelja, G. 2002. Greek trade with indigenous societies of the Northern and Eastern Black Sea areas. In M. Faudot, A. Fraysee and E. Geny (eds.), Pont-Euxin et Commerce. La genèse de la “route de la soie”. Actes du IXe Symposium de Vani – 1999, 177-184. Paris, Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises. Leskov, A. M. 1985. Vvedeniye. In A. M. Leskov and K. A. Dneprovsky (eds.), Sokrovishcha kurganov Adygei. Katalog vystavki. Moskva. Leskov, A. M. 1990. Grabschätze der Adygeen: neue Entdeckungen im Nordkaukasus. München, Hirmer. Malyshev, A. and Treister, M. 1994. A Warrior’s Burial from the Asiatic Bosporus in the Augustan Age. Expedition vol. 36, nos. 2-3, 29-37. Malyshev, A. A. 2007. Zaklyucheniye. In A. A. Malyshev (ed.), Yugo-vostochnaya periferiya Bospora v ellinisticheskoye vremya: po materialam Raevskogo nekropolya. Nekropoli Chernomorya. T. 1, 243.-249. Moskva, RAN. Malyshev, A. A. 2008a. Pogrebalny obryad i planigrafiya Tsemdolinskogo nekropolya. In A. A. Malyshev (ed.), Aspurgiane na yugo-vostoke aziatskogo Bospora: po materialam Tsemdolinskogo nekropolya, 129-135. Moskva, RAN. Malyshev, A. A. 2008b. Zaklyucheniye. In A. A. Malyshev (ed.), Aspurgiane na yugo-vostoke aziatskogo Bospora: po materialam Tsemdolinskogo nekropolya, 279-284. Moskva, RAN. Marshall, C. W. 2001. A Gander at the Goose Play. Theatre Journal 53/1, 53-71.

-------------------------------Abbreviations Cat. Moscow = Leskov, A. M. and Lapushnyan, V. L. (eds.) 1987. Shedevry drevnego iskusstva Kubani. Moskva, Min. kultury SSSR -Vneshtorgizdat. CIRB = Struve, V. (ed.) 1965. Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani. Moscow, RAN. (In Russian). Discussion Manolis Manoledakis: I am very interested in all these geographical issues and the important thing here is to see how credible all these geographical sources are. You mentioned for example Strabo and Ptolemy. As for Pomponius Mela, I am very sceptical; a lot of data in his work is wrong. Strabo may be a bit more credible as he lived in the Black Sea, as you said, but he lived in the

115

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

southern Black Sea and who knows whether he travelled to all these remote places. This applies also to Ptolemy, who mentions 8000 place names but of course didn’t go to most of them. So, the interesting thing is that we look at some tribal names that are Greek, like Makropogones (long bearded), Heniochoi (the supposed charioteers of the Dioskouroi) and the Acheans (name of a very important Greek tribe). How did the Greeks give names to such people? We know this also from the southern Black Sea, for example, the Makrokephaloi or the Chalybes. Was it a wish to show that Greeks were everywhere? How were these names given and who were they, actually? Were they Maeotians, were they Sarmatians, do we know?

the Maeotic tribes, the second on the archaeological problem of the distribution of the barbarian settlements in the Taman region and the last on the ethnography of the Achaeans. The beginning of Strabo’s Book 11 could seem a bit complicated but, in fact, if one compares it with other books of the Geography, one understands Strabo’s method: he begins with the geographical frames offered by the major natural limits (Geography: 11.1-2.1); he continues with the description of the Pontic coast (periplous: 11.2.4-9, 14), and then he goes on with the details about the deltaic and continental regions, described from west to east (chorography: 11.2.10-13, 15-19). In order to understand better which tribes lived on the coast and which were inland in this North-Eastern part of Pontus, we may compare Strabo’s evidence with three types of sources: the first one is represented by the Periploi of the Pseudo-Skylax and of Arrian. To the second belongs to Diodorus, who gives some interesting data on the tribes and major settlements of the Hellenistic period and about their relationships with the kingdom of Bosporus (e.g. 20.22-25); finally, a very interesting documentation about the Maeotic tribes comes from the inscriptions of the Bosporus (e.g., CIRB 40), lately studied by Sergei Tokhstas’ev.

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: You would not believe it but this is pretty up to date. Actually, let’s start with the Greek names. For the Achaeans, one suggestion is that Strabo was probably trying to use other information he gathered from elsewhere, or authors tried to give local tribes some sort of Greek-ness through the name, thus showing that they were more grecified than other tribes. They would have behaved in a more Greek fashion and more civilized in order to facilitate ‘better trade, better connections’. That is one suggestion. It could also be that they are former Greek settlers who are now so wild that they are no longer officially considered Greeks but still have Greek tribal names. That is the other suggestion. So people are now looking at these Greeks names trying to find how they got onto the list.

Given the absence of indigenous settlements on the coast, one should think that it is probable that our littoral of the Taman peninsula does not correspond to the ancient coast. For the northern part of Caucasus, where Maeotic tribes are supposed to have lived, in the delta of the Hypanis / Kuban, the maritime coast must have been further inland (c.f., the recent articles of Udo Schlotzhauer and Denis Žuravlev).

Manolis Manoledakis: If the latter is the case, how long ago could they have arrived there? Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Something like 6th-5th c. BC is what ancient sources are saying, and these sources are mainly from the turn of the era, that is the 1st c. BC-1st c. AD. This is the chronological frame for their becoming assimilated with the local tribes. This is the discussion going on now. As far as the other tribal names are concerned, another thing people are trying to do is to identify their linguistic origins (such as Caucasian or Iranian origin). Some of the names do point to a Caucasian or Iranian origin (based on prefixes, such as -ps, etc.). Whether these were Iranian or not, it is very hard to see how Greek authors decided that someone was Iranian or not. Either authors got the tribal names from the tribes themselves and made them more Greek-like for their works or they simply made them up. In the case of Strabo, he mentions so many names but he doesn’t give much of a description and there is no distinguishing element amongst the different tribes that would ultimately match with the archaeological material, which presents very few distinctions. Nonetheless, there are some variations, e.g. geographical distinctions. But this matches up with the picture of the tribes in the Caucasus today. As we can see from the Caucasian tribes today, they all share a similar culture, yet they are multilingual.

Concerning the Achaeans, as Manolis already mentioned, it is true that the texts report traditions about their Greek origin. But they must have been Caucasian and had nothing to do with Greece, except maybe for some sensibility or some resemblance with the Greek civilization. We know a similar case of a so-called Greek people in the region north from Olbia: the Budinoi appeared to Herodotus (4.108-109) and to his sources as being of Greek origin, but they were very far inland, and it is sure that no Greek group of immigrants ever went there. This means that these people had a sedentary way of life, more similar to that of the Greeks than to the other Nomads. Sujatha Chandrasekaran: I completely agree with your last point. As to the level of the Black Sea coast then and today, that could play a role, but not necessarily, because whether we look at the material culture inland or on the coast, or whether you go a few more meters into the sea and excavate underwater, I do not think that you will find too many differences. Adela Sobotkova: I am also interested in a bit more information on the actual settlements. Specifically, you have mentioned that a large number of Kurgans and finds in the area don’t indicate a large population and, while we do not

Anca Dan: I would like to make three remarks, the first concerning Strabo and the geographical tradition concerning

116

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Identifying the Tribes of the Eastern Black Sea Region

have so much evidence of settlements from excavations, you mentioned that there are a lot of surveys done in the region and possibly these surveys have identified patterns in settlements, some sizes of settlements or their outlines or even settlement hierarchies. Do you have any information of that kind? Is there any evidence of a large sedentary population from these surveys?

can you trace influences from Scythian art or from Greek art in those local Maeotian products? Sujatha Chandrasekaran: When it comes to the Maeotian settlement material that we know of, I should say again that surveys have shown that there are quite a few Maeotian settlements; there are proper necropoleis and there are settlements usually surrounded by flat graves and tumuli. This indicates settled people, not nomads. That as regards your first question. Second, as to the artistic influences, or, actually, cultural influences: there is so much that influenced the Maeotians, as I already indicated. The general makeup of these burials is pretty much the same (types of items, pottery, weaponry, mirrors, etc.). Their style, of course, is always different; you can’t identify groups based on the style of items they are carrying. As for stylistic influences from the Scythians or Greeks, of course we do have this. In fact the Maeotians are known for not having depicted human figures before the Hellenistic period and the early depictions (ca. 4th c. BC) look like the typical barbarian as perceived by Greeks. This is probably the Maeotians accepting the Greek form of depicting the Maeotians and not necessarily how the Maeotians would have depicted themselves. It is just an example of production carried out for the Maeotian market.

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Yes and no. Good information from surveys for settlements is found for the Crimea. For the Eastern Black Sea region there is very little. I know that there are actually not many large settlements. This is a problem we have throughout the whole Kouban region. Sizes and structures of settlements are not always known. This would require more, proper excavation. Eleni Mentesidou: Herodotus in Book 4 gives us information on ethnographical characteristics of the Scythians and Sartmatians and also about their rituals. Maybe we can get some information also from there. About the size, can the lack of finds lead you to the conclusion that maybe there were nomadic tribes, who were constantly moving from one place to another, and that’s why you only find tumuli or tombs? And another question: can you distinguish the products of one tribe from the products of another tribe, or

117

State in Danger: Ideological Strategies of the West Pontic Poleis in the Face of an External Threat Aneta Petrova Abstract: The fear of an external threat is among the main motivating forces of human behaviour. The West Pontic cities were far from the interest of the ancient authors, so we know even less about their attitude towards the campaigns that have changed in general the ancient world. The information about both the political and ideological reactions which shaped public opinions and actions is very fragmentary. Ancestral right is among the main reasons for claims over a particular territory. It can be assumed that the West Pontic cities incorporated this right in their systems of beliefs. The case studies of Mesambria and Odessos give grounds to suggest that the myth about the founder of Mesambria and the cults of some local deities in Odessos were created as responses to an external danger that threatened the safety of the entire community. These reactions consciously incorporated Thracian elements to claim the sovereignty of both cities. Keywords:Western Black Sea coast, Odessos, Mesambria, Melsas, Thracian Horseman, Great God of Odessos, local cults, founder’s myth, political fear.

Introduction

in this region, which was regarded as marginal to the Greek koine. Nevertheless, some information has come to us. It should be noted that their information is often not firstor even second-hand. The epigraphic data gives a more precise but quite fragmentary information, due to the state of preservation, the controversial dating and attributions, etc. Archaeological evidence is also fragmentary due to its specificity and the state of research. In the following pages I will combine the information from the available sources in order to look at two cities - Mesambria and Odessos where different kinds of relations with the Thracians are detected at a more or less official level. I would argue that the contemporary events affected the necessity of such relations, which were strongly motivated by the need for the recreation of an identity and territorial claims.

The Western Black Sea coast had been settled by Greek colonists since the middle of the 7th century BC and several settlements were established there until the Roman conquest. Most of the new formations were politically organised as poleis, with the relevant governmental and religious structure. Despite following the main streams of political life at the time, as sovereign entities they present many variants of institutions and practices. Many of the peculiarities that may be observed are due to various circumstances encountered by the cities. It is hard to separate politics from religion in the ancient Greek polis. Political events and the religious and political structure of the polis are closely connected factors that shape the behaviour of both individuals and society. In the following paper I would like to look at the activities concerning the city policy and social changes as an operative, nonstatic series of decisions and events which are undertaken and modified throughout the very existence of the polis. As such, both the city policy and the social changes are dependent on many factors, both external and internal. Among the most important factors that affect city policy is the contemporary political and economic situation on a regional and on a global level. The study of the West Pontic poleis should take into account that they were created as colonies, i.e., established in a non-Greek environment. This fact may affect all spheres of city affairs and attitudes towards the indigenous population and may take different directions according to the current interests of the city.

Odessos Odessos is a colony founded in the early 6th century BC by colonists from Miletus2. Modern scholars often suppose that the Thracians played an important role in Odessos, despite the fact that they became more and more Hellenised in the course of time3. Reasonable or not4, this claim is usually supported by evidence concerning the religious life of the Pseudo-Skymnus, 748-750; Anonymi Periplus Ponti Euxini, 80, summarized most recently by M. Oppermann (2004). 3 Toncheva 1956; Gočeva 2001, 171; Oppermann 2006, 11-12, 89. 4 Among the arguments in favour of the thesis for local influence is the name Odessos, which is not Greek and some scholars have suggested that it is Thracian (Detschew 1976, 335-6; Oppermann 2006, 11) or pre-Thracian (Beshevliev 1974, 6). It should be noted that no reasonable connection between the Thracians and the first Greek settlers may be observed. In fact, there is no trace of Early Iron Age habitation at the location where the colony is established (Minchev 2003, 212). Damyanov (2010, 271-274) reasonably rejects many of the previously expressed archaeological arguments for strong Thracian influence in Odessos, but he does not discuss the cults presented here. 2

Unfortunately the ancient authors were not very interested I am very grateful to Dr Bisserka Gaydarska (Durham University) for editing the English translation of the text.

1

119

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

city – the cults of the Great God of Odessos and the Hero Rider, often defined as the Thracian Horseman. Although of differing weight, this evidence is among the strongest arguments in favour of these propositions. The Hero Rider Probably the most visible sign used by scholars to prove the connection between Odessos and the Thracians, apart from the name of the city, are several Late Hellenistic votive reliefs with a horseman. Two of them were found in the city. The first one is devoted to Heros Karabasmos. Together with a votive relief of Phosphorus, it comes from the Hellenistic stratum of a small rectangular building situated at the corner of 8th September Street and Primorski Boulevard (Figure 1)5. The building is interpreted as a temple of both deities6. The second relief, which is fragmented and unfortunately without a preserved dedication, was found during the construction of the modern Aquarium, in an unknown context7. Three other anepigraphic (non-inscribed) reliefs (Figures 2-4) were found in the Kaialaka locality, 2km south of Galata, in a Roman sanctuary of Heros Karabasmos, where a Christian basilica was later built8. The area of Galata had been part of the chora of Odessos at least since the late 4th century BC9. The excavator G. Toncheva suggests that the remains of a building which is earlier than the church are associated with the autonomous period of the city, though many changes took place in the Roman period10. The last two reliefs (Figures 5-6) devoted to Heros Perkos or Perkonos, were found in the Patrabana locality, 1.5km south of Galata11. All the horsemen are dressed with a chiton and a chlamys. On the monuments from the Kaialaka locality the horses are galloping. On two of the reliefs the rider is distinctly represented as a hunter, chasing wild animals (a stag and other) in the forest (Figures 2-3). The third galloping rider is in a more sacred environment, with a tree and an altar (Figure 4), reminiscent of the reliefs from the city and the Patrabana locality. The other monuments represent the horse at a slow pace (Figures 1, 6) or standing (Figure 5). The composition includes one or more additional human figures in front of the rider. An altar and a tree with a snake coiling around it are carved on the two reliefs from Patrabana. A small figure bringing a sacrificial animal is added on one of them. Most probably the fragment from the modern Aquarium, on which only the horse head and parts of three human figures are preserved, belongs to a similar relief.

Fig. 1. Votive relief to Heros Karabasmos, Odessos (after Oppermann 2004)

The monuments discussed here are dated on stylistic and - when possible - on palaeographic grounds. The earliest date, 3rd century BC, is attributed to two of the reliefs from Gočeva and Oppermann 1979, no. 28. Toncheva 1969, 353-364. 7 Gočeva and Oppermann 1979, no. 29. 8 Toncheva 1968, 22-23; 1969а, 13, figs. 10-12; Gočeva and Oppermann 1979, nos. 80-82. 9 Damyanov 2004, 54. 10 Toncheva 1968; Oppermann 2006, 92. 11 Toncheva 1951, 106; Gočeva and Oppermann 1979, nos. 96-97. 5 6

Fig. 2. Votive relief from Kaialaka locality, Galata (after Oppermann 2004)

120

Aneta Petrova: State in Danger

Fig. 3. Votive relief from Kaialaka locality, Galata (after Oppermann 2006)

Fig. 5. Votive relief to Heros Perkos, Patrabana locality (after Oppermann 2004)

Fig. 4. Votive relief from Kaialaka locality, Galata (after Oppermann 2006)

the Kaialaka locality (Figures 2, 4)12. The date proposed for the third relief from the same place (Figure 2) is the 2nd – 1st centuries BC13. A dating to the 3rd century BC seems quite early for these images and recently some scholars have preferred a later date for all three reliefs14. A later date is acceptable from the stylistic point of view, bearing in mind that the manner of representation of the tree can be seen on votive stelae of Apollo Kitharoidos from Miletupolis15. The votive stele of Heros Karabasmos is dated between Toncheva 1968, 19-21; Toncheva 1969а, 38, nos. 12-13; Gočeva and Oppermann 1979, nos. 80-81. 13 Toncheva 1968, 22 (late Hellenistic); Toncheva 1969а, no. 14. 14 M. Oppermann (2004, 265, n. 2726) does not give explicit dates but comments on these reliefs in the chapter about the West Pontic poleis in the 2nd - 1st centuries BC. 15 Pfuhl and Möbius 1979, no. 1379 (Troas or Thracian coast, 1st century BC, tree with a triangular crown), pl. 332 (Nikaia, tree with an extended crown); Palagia 1984, no. 964 (c. 119 BC); Carroll-Spillecke 1985, 46 (124-3 BC and 119 BC for both reliefs from Nikaia). 12

Fig. 6. Votive relief to Heros Perkonos, Patrabana locality (after Oppermann 2006)

121

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

(including Roman ones) as а distinct group, closer to the grave reliefs whose iconography they borrowed24. Observing the abundance of the iconographic details of the entire group in comparison with the other votives to the Thracian Horseman, she suggests that the Thracians from this area were so highly Hellenised that they needed much more explanation as to how to worship their chief deity than the other Thracians. To say the least, this seems odd; especially the notion that the cult images would serve as a guide to the believers on how to worship their gods. Taking into account the date of the earliest monuments, the iconographic peculiarities of the later reliefs may be better explained by the Hellenistic traditions in both iconography and cult practice.

the middle of the 2nd and the middle of the 1st centuries BC (Figure 1)16. Approximately the same dates are ascribed to the monuments from the Patrabana locality17. It is most likely that all the votive reliefs discussed here could be dated to the 2nd – 1st centuries BC. Some authors suggest an earlier introduction date of the cult based on the representations on the reverse of some bronze coins from Odessos, but this seems rather doubtful (see below). It is widely accepted that these monuments are devoted to the Thracian Horseman18 – a religious figure which was very popular during the Roman period. The sanctuary at the Kaialaka locality is believed to be the earliest location of the cult. The monuments considered here represent the earliest stage in the development of the iconography of the Thracian Horseman19. Despite the great number of votives (25003000) found up to now, the Thracian Horseman remains quite a vague character, since none of the ancient texts mentions him. Opinions about his nature are controversial and irreconcilable. Although the most abundant evidence comes from the Roman period, two important elements underwrite the concept of the ancient roots of the Thracian Horseman: firstly, the important role of horsemanship among the Thracian aristocracy and secondly, the references that Thracian rulers were immortalised and heroised after their death. The first is confirmed by representations of horsemen in different media as early as the 5th century BC20; the second is based on some literary sources and interpretations of some images, mainly found in funerary contexts21.

Some scholars take into account the location of the finds and the fact that Odessos is a Greek city. They often tend to see some kind of syncretism between Thracian and Greek beliefs. M. Oppermann sees a connection between the sharp headgear of the rider on one of the reliefs from the Kaialaka locality and the iconography of the Dioscuri, whose cult was popular in Odessos (Figure 4)25. He supposes that they are related, even syncretised, with the Thracian Horseman. D. Chiekova thinks that despite his Greek iconography, the Thracian Horseman fits the religious notions of both Greeks and Thracians since he expresses the heroisation notion of the former and the custom of immortalisation of the latter26. In fact, it seems that there is a kind of circular argument: on the one hand the large number of Thracians in Odessos and hence their strong influence there is used to explain the acceptance of the cult of the Thracian Horseman; on the other hand, however, the early existence of the cult of the Thracian Horseman in Odessos is used to point out the strong Thracian influence there27.

With respect to the Hellenistic reliefs from Odessos discussed here, there is a consensus that they are based on typical Greek hero iconography22. Some scholars regard these monuments as an expression of a cult whose followers - judging by their Greek names - are strongly Hellenised Thracians23. Z. Gocheva considered the stelae from Odessos

D. Boteva’s approach to the study of the monuments of the Thracian Horseman is more fruitful28. She claims that at least three elements should be taken into consideration in their analysis: the sender of the message, the message itself and the addressee. She thereby arrives at the conclusion that some of the votives with rider images found in Thrace are devoted to the Heros Equitans and not to the Thracian Horseman. D. Boteva pays special attention to the monuments from the Greek colonies on the Western Black Sea coast dedicated by persons with Greek names which, according to her, should not be labelled as Thracian. Her approach seems relevant since it takes into consideration the context, both geographic and cultural. In the case of the reliefs discussed here, I would add a third contextual factor – time, which is as important as the other two. It should not be overlooked here, especially since these monuments are considered to be the earliest of their kind. It is hard to believe that any kind of cult would remain unchanged for several centuries, especially when it is practiced under different political circumstances.

Toncheva 1963, 72 (early 2nd century BC); Toncheva 1969a, 23 (second half of the 2nd century BC); Mihailov 1970, 78bis (2nd-1st centures BC); Gočeva 2001, 171 (mid 1st century BC); Oppermann 2004, 265 (late 2nd – early 1st century BC); 2006, 8 (1st century BC). 17 Figure 5: Toncheva 1963, 74 (mid 2nd century BC); 1969a, no. 22 (2nd century BC); Mihailov 1970, no. 283 (late 2nd-1st centuries BC). Figure 6: Gočeva and Oppermann 1979, no. 97 (1st century BC-1st century AD); Oppermann 2004, 265 (late 1st century BC – early 1st century AD); 2006, 8 (late 1st century BC). In her comment on the banquet reliefs, M. Carroll-Spillecke (1984, 52) noted that the tree with its chopped branches, situated in the corner of the composition and partially hidden (behind the bed) is typical for the last third of the 2nd century BC, especially in the area of Cyzicus. 18 D. Boteva (2011, 85) is the only author who regards the monuments from the West Pontic cities as different from the votives to the Thracian Horseman, because of their different context (including cultural). According to N. Dimitrova (2002) the horseman is an iconographical convention for a male divinity. 19 Gočeva 2001, 171, 174; Оppermann 2006, 31, 91. 20 Kazarow 1938, 11-12; Oppermann 2006, 270-272. 21 Herodotus 4. 94; Pomponius Mela, De chorographia 2.18; Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabiliorum 10.2-3; Cf. Dimitrova 2002, 226-227. 22 Toncheva 1963, 78-9; 1969a, 23; Gočeva 2001, 170-171; Oppermann 2004, 265; 2006, 273-5; Chiekova 2008, 240-241. 23 Toncheva 1969a, 35; Gočeva 2001, 171, 174; Oppermann 2006, 93. Most of the names of the dedicators are Greek. There are some Roman names and only one stele from the late 1st – early 2nd centuries AD is devoted by a person whose name is by some scholars believed to be Thracian (Gočeva and Oppermann 1979, no. 83). According to G. Mihailov (1970, no. 286) the name is ‘Asian’. 16

Gočeva 2001, 171. Oppermann 2006, 92, 293. 26 Chiecova 2008, 245. 27 Cf. Oppermann 2004, 265, 282. 28 Boteva 2011, 85, 96-97. 24 25

122

Aneta Petrova: State in Danger

It seems that the only evidence for the link between the Thracians and the Hellenistic monuments with representations of a rider are the epithets Karabasmos and Perkos/Perkonos, and the connection with the ‘Roman’ votives of the Thracian Horseman. The time span of several centuries between their potential production makes this evidence controversial, because it assumes development and changes in the cult. Furthermore, the Thracian Horseman is very popular in the Roman period. Actually the local epithets are the only visible link with the Thracians. They link the cult to the place which is protected by the deity29. This link rather seems to signal a connection but by no means can be taken as evidence for the acceptance of a local cult.

Fig. 7. Silver tetradrachm with the Great God, Odessos (after Oppermann 2004)

The Great God of Odessos The Great God of Odessos is a deity firstly attested on the coins of the city. These are silver tetradrachms with an image of a bearded male figure in a long chiton, holding a horn of abundance and a libation bowl (Figure 7)30. Along with this figure is written THEOU MEGALOU ODESITON or ODE. It is generally accepted that the same deity is represented on the reverse of the first bronze coins of Odessos31. Although he is dressed in a long mantle that covers the lower part of the body, the attributes are the same. Only ODESITON is written on the base. More controversies are evoked by the bronze coins with a bearded deity that is reclining or riding - an iconography that is closer to that of heroes than that of gods. The reclining deity is represented either with or without his attributes32, but some authors suggest that the horn of abundance and the libation bowl are not enough to identify the Great God33. As a horseman, the bearded deity may be seen riding at a slow pace, dressed with a chlamys and a kausia, and holding a horn of abundance (Figure 8)34. Another issue represents a galloping horseman (with or without the chlamys), often holding a spear instead of the typical attributes of the Great God (Figure 9)35. Just as in the case of the reclining deity, the riding personage is not generally recognized as the Great God of Odessos.

Fig 8. Bronze coin of Odessos (photo: Igor Lazarenko)

Fig 9. Bronze coin of Odessos (photo: Igor Lazarenko)

The coins described are not very precisely dated and some of the dates are disputable. The silver tetradrachms are generally dated to the 2nd century BC, based on the legend KYRSA, which appears on Alexander-type coins of Odessos. According to some authors, they are minted in the second half of the century36, while others suppose an earlier date in the first half of the century37. Bronzes appear much earlier,

in the second half of the 4th or the first half of the 3rd century BC38, with both the standing and the reclining god figure on the reverse39. The coins with a bearded horseman Pick and Regling 1910, 154 (4th century BC); Gerasimov 1975, 58-59 (2nd century BC); Lazarenko 1997-1999 (second half or the 4th century BC); Topalov 1999, 87 (4th century BC); According to D. Draganov (1990, 19-25) the bronze coinage of Odessos started after the death of Lysimachus, in the period between 281-270 BC, since a contra-mark with a reclining bearded deity appears on bronze coins of types Philip II, Alexander the Great and Lysimachus. 39 B. Pick recognizes three issues with a reclining deity dated to the 4th (with a horn of abundance), 3rd (without a horn of abundance) and the late 2nd – early 1st centuries BC (with a horn of abundance and a libation bowl). D. Draganov (1990, 19-25) considers the former two as variants of the same issue and tends to date all to the 3rd century BC. I. Lazarenko (1997-1999, 53) suggests that the coins where the deity is without a horn of abundance are earlier than the others. 38

Goceva 1995, 288, 291. 30 Pick and Regling 1910, 524, nos. 2214-2215, pl. IV 1,2. 31 Pick and Regling 1910, 522-3, nos. 2177-2184, pl. IV 4-7. 32 Pick and Regling 1910, 522-523, nos. 2185-2188, pl. IV 5-6 (without attributes), nos. 2191-2198, pl. IV 10-12 (with attributes). 33 Želazowski 1992, 47-48. 34 Pick and Regling 1910, nos. 2200-2208. 35 Pick and Regling 1910, 524, nos. 2210-2212; Gerasimov 1960, 62-63; Topalov 1999, 229. 36 Pick 1898, 155 (on the occasion of liberation from some barbarians); Gerasimov 1960, 60 (140-130 BC). 37 S. Topalov 1999, 187-191 (on the occasion of a city anniversary in the 196/188-183 BC). 29

123

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

riding at a slow pace are dated to the 3rd century BC40; the others, where the horse is galloping, appear quite later, in the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC41.

Horseman and sometimes with the Thracians at all50. At the other end is the view that it is the Thracian Rider who has assimilated the attributes of the Great God51. The third group of scholars considers that the riding image of the Great God appears under Thracian influence and reflects some local beliefs which have influenced the religious life of the city52. This would seem to be reasonable, bearing in mind the hypothetical oldest sanctuaries of the Thracian Rider in Odessos.

It is impossible to precisely date the invention of the cult of the Great God in Odessos. Terracotta figurines that were found in the cemetery and were attributed to the same probably standing - deity are generally contemporary to the bronze coins. They are dated to the 3rd century BC42 - probably on stylistic grounds, since the other grave items remain unpublished. Apparently the cult could be traced to the 3rd century BC or to the second half of the 4th century BC at the earliest.

What makes an impression from the available data? The cult of the Great God of Odessos is attested in the 3rd century BC and there are no reasons to suppose that it existed much earlier than the late 4th or early 3rd centuries BC53. The earliest hint that there may be any connection with the Thracians is the image of a riding deity. It is hard to prove that the rider with kausia and a horn of abundance on the coins from the 3rd century BC is related to the Thracian Horseman/Hero Rider, since no contemporary images of the latter are known. Closer to the votives is the galloping rider with a spear and it is probably not a coincidence that these coins are minted in the late 2nd – early 1st centuries BC, when the votives became popular.

The nature of the Great God of Odessos is quite vague, though some Plutonic (chthonic) and Dionysian traits are expressed by the attributes (horn of abundance and an ivy wreath on the figurines), which suggest a chthonic and catachthonic character of the cult43. Beyond this, the opinions are almost as many as the scholars who have commented on the theme: some believe that he is connected to the anonymous god from the Eleusinian mysteries44 or to the Great Gods of Samothrace45; others, that Pluto and Dionysus are syncretized46; a third opinion holds that the iconography of the Greek deities is used to represent a Thracian deity47. However, two points are of importance for the scholars looking for a connection between the Great God of Odessos and the Thracians. The first are the representations of a rider, most often connected to the Thracian Horseman. The second is the name Darzalas/ Derzelas, which is attributed to the Great God of Odessos in the Roman period. This name is attested in three catalogues of ephebes of Odessos and in one other inscription from the 3rd century AD48. It is undoubtedly Thracian, despite the fact that its meaning remains unclear49.

On the other hand the presence of the epithet Darzalas/ Derzelas suggests a Thracian influence on the Great God of Odessos. There may have been an adaptation of some Thracian elements in the cult of the Great God which occurred only gradually, since the clearly visible signs appear only in the 2nd century AD. Mesambria The other example is Mesambria, a Doric colony founded in the late 6th century BC by settlers from Calchedon and Megara, which was probably resettled around a quarter of century later by citizens of Byzantion and Calchedon54. In contrast to Odessos, Mesambria was never considered to be as strongly influenced by the Thracians; little evidence of this has been put forward. Probably the most serious argument in this respect is the myth about Melsas, the eponymous founder of Mesambria.

As far as the horseman is concerned there are three main approaches to the problem: The first group of authors connects the riding figure on the coins with the Great God of Odessos, but excludes any connection with the Thracian Pick 1898, 161 (c. 200 BC); Topalov 1999, l76-265 (started c. 270 BC and c. 196/188 BC and is used until the end of the 1st century BC); Chiekova 2008, 182. 41 Pick 1898, 162 (2nd or 1st century BC); Chiekova 2008, 182; S. Topalov (1999, 197, 229, 269-270) proposes an earlier start of the coin representations of a rider without chlamys (179/178-168 BC), a later date (late 2nd-early 1st centuries BC) for the images of a rider with flying chlamys, and a return to the first representations in the late 1st century BC. 42 Gerasiomov 1951, 69-70, figs. 120-121; Toncheva 1952, 83-84, figs. 40-43; Dremsizova-Nelchinova and Toncheva 1971, nos. 72, 77-78. Probably one of the figurines (Dremsizova-Nelchinova and Toncheva 1971, no. 77), which is stylistically different from the others, should be re-dated to the 2nd century BC because of the similarities of the wreath with the garlands represented in other media, for example mould-made bowls (Laumonier 1977, nos. 1111-1112 - Comique à la canne workshop; nos. 3114, 3119, 8463, 8747, 8749 – PAR-monogram workshop). 43 Toncheva 1952, 83-84, 87, 90; Alexandrescu-Vianu 1999-2001, 73, n.10 ; Oppermann 2002, 50; 2004, 199. 44 Pick 1898, 161. 45 Salač 1928, 395-398. 46 Toncheva 1952, 87. 47 Rostovtzeff 1911, 15-16; Chiekova 2008, 198-199. 48 Mihailov 1970, nos. 47, 47bis, 48, 230bis. 49 Detschew 1976, 119; Gočeva 1998, 99; Želazowski 1992, 40. 40

The Founder of Mesambria The founder of Mesambria is known from the written sources. The ancient authors mentioned him in their comments on the name of Mesambria. According to Gerasimov 1960, 62-63; Želazowski 1992, 46-47; Topalov 1999, 197; Alexandrescu-Vianu 1999-2001, 74; Chiekova 2008, 183. 51 Kazarow 1938, 12. Most of the scholars supposed that the Great God of Odessos and the Thracian Horseman are syncretized (Pick 1898, 61; Rostovtzeff 1910, 14-16; Toncheva 1952, 88; Gerasimov 1960, 63; Delev 1998, 131). The most extreme and hardly provable is the opinion of G. Toncheva (1956, 57) that the Great God of Odessos is actually the Thracian Horseman. 52 Gočeva 1998, 91-100; Oppermann 2002, 51; 2006, 89, 199, 201. 53 The claims of some scholars that this was an ancient patron deity who had existed long before the foundation of Odessos seems improbable (cf. Chiekova 2008, 198-199). 54 Herodotus 6.33; Strabo 7.6.1; Pseudo-Scymnus 741-742; Anonymi Periplus Ponti Euxini 84. Recently summarized by Gyuzelev 2008, 87-88. 50

124

Aneta Petrova: State in Danger

Strabo, the name was previously Menebria, i.e., ‘the city of Mena’, which is a combination of the founder’s name and the Thracian world for ‘city’55. Melsa is the name of the founder of Mesambria according to the testimony of Nicolaus of Damascus, known from a scholion of Stephanus of Byzantium56. The third text is the medieval Chronography of Pseudo-Symeon, where it is mentioned that the name of the city derives from Menebria, because of the name of the founder, the Thracian Memnon57. A similar etymology is visible on the gravestone of Iulia, the daughter of Nikias, found in the village of Aheloi, c. 5km southeast from Mesambria58. Here it may be read ‘… Mesambria is my country – from (M)elsa and bria’.

the second to the mid 2nd century BC67 at the earliest. The decree from Dionysopolis is taken to be contemporary to the second monument from Mesambria, since the same person (Polyxenos, the son of Melseon) is mentioned on both of them68. The stamped amphorae from the Parmeniscos group are generally dated to the time span between the early 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC69 but the amphorae of - most probably - Mesambrian origin and with the fabricants’ names Antiphilos, Matrobios and Melseon may be related to the second quarter of the century70. The unusual names of Menas and Melsas, along with the information of Stephanus of Byzantium, suggest that the founder of Mesambria is a Thracian. As usual the interpretations about the nature of Melsas are numerous and the differences between them are sometimes quite vague. Particularly vague is the boundary between the mythical and real nature of the founder. Although not always explicitly mentioned, one gets the impression that most scholars accept that there was a real person, around whom a myth was woven and who came to be worshipped over time. L. Ognenova-Marinova even believes that two oikistes were honoured in Mesambria – the Thracian king (who is the eponym) and the leader of the Greek settlers71. The idea that Melsas was a mythical figure already by the first half of the 5th century BC is based mainly on numismatic evidence, which is not indisputable72. According to the most extreme version, Melsas was a mythical king-god for the Thracians long before the arrival of the Greek settlers who adopted him as the patron-hero of the city73. These opinions are based on the traces of occupation of the site where Mesambria was established during the Late Bronze and Early Iron ages74. Actually these traces can hardly be interpreted as evidence that Thracians and Greeks lived there together or successively. The Early Iron age contexts are separate from the finds of Greek origin, which date from the late 6th century BC75. In addition, the Early Iron age pottery is only dated generally and it is impossible to assign a date even with a hundred years’ precision.

These testimonies are quite distant in time from the date of foundation of Mesambria. Strabo and Nicolaus of Damascus worked in the late 1st century BC and the early 1st century AD. The Chronography of Pseudo-Symeon is even later, compiled in the 10th century AD. The gravestone of Iulia is typical of the Roman period and cannot be dated before the 2nd century AD. Some scholars find earlier clues to the founder of Mesambria in the coinage of the city. T. Gerasimov was the first to recognise the mythical founder Menas or Melsas in the image of the helmeted head with cheek pieces, on a series of 3rd century BC bronze coins59. Later on, I. Karayotov re-dated the beginning of this issue to the 4th century BC based on one coin included in the Kosharitza hoard, which was buried c. 320 BC60. Despite regarding both the date of the hoard deposition and the type of the coin as disputable, S. Topalov does not exclude that these coins were minted from the end of the 4th century BC onwards. He even believes that this issue is connected to a celebration of the city’s anniversary61. In addition, I. Karayotov interprets as Melsas the image of a Corinthian helmet depicted on the reverse of some silver and bronze coins minted from the first half of the 5th – 4th centuries BC on62. As additional evidence he points out the presence of this image as a contra-mark during the Hellenistic period.

In fact, there is no evidence that there was a real person who lived before or at the time of establishment of the colony. Even if I. Karayotov is right in his assumption that the frontal helmet is an image of the founder of Mesambria, there is nothing to suggest that this founder is a Thracian. The interpretations of the coin images as belonging to Melsas are quite controversial. I. Karayotov himself supposes that the helmet could depict Ares76. The helmeted

Another clue providing an earlier - than the written texts - date for Melsas is the name Melseon, which is regarded by some scholars as theophoric63. It is preserved on two inscriptions from Mesambria64 and one from Dionysopolis65, as well as on amphorae stamps of the so-called Parmeniscos group found in Kabyle, Seuthopolis and Iezeru66. The first inscription from Mesambria is dated to the 3rd century BC,

Venedikov 1980, 92 (second half of the 2nd century BC – 1st century AD for the three reliefs of strategoi); Karayotov 1994, 55-58 (relief no. 2; last quarter of the 2nd century BC). 68 Velkov 1990, 3 (second half of the 2nd century BC). 69 Grace 1956, 165. 70 Stoyanov 2011, 199. 71 Ognenova-Marinova 1982, 69-81; 1986, 241-244. Cf. Nawotka’s (1994) critical comment on this thesis. 72 Karayotov 2007, 363. 73 Porozhanov 2002, 221 74 Venedikov 1980a; Ognenova-Marinova 1982, 73-74; Bozhkova, Kiyashkina, Daskalov, Marvakov and Threndafilova 2008. 75 Marvakov 2011, 251-252. 76 Karayotov 2007, 358, 363 (Thracian Ares). 67

Strabo 7.6.1. 56 Mihailov 1970, 307. 57 Pseudo-Symeon 706, 12. 58 Mihailov 1970, no. 345. 59 Gerasimov 1950, 26. 60 Karayotov 1992, 12. 61 Topalov 1995, 45, 70-71. 62 Karayotov 2007. 63 G. Michailov (1970) included the name Melseon among the Greek names. 64 Mihailov 1970, no. 308 sexies; Mihailov 1997, no. 5103. 65 Velkov 1990, 2-3. 66 Stoyanov 2000, 412-413; 2011, 193. 55

125

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

head is not necessarily male, although T. Gerasimov excluded the possibility of it being Athena because the helmet has cheek pieces and the facial expression is typical for a warrior77. In fact, there is no evidence that the name of Mesambria really derives from Melsas, since the only data supporting this are the texts mentioned above, which chronologically are too far from the events. The coin legends in the early period of the Mesambrian coinage (450-375 BC) are MES and META78. META remains until c. 175 BC with a break in the second quarter of the 3rd century BC when it becomes METAM/BRIANON. In the Late Hellenistic period, ‘T’ is replaced by ‘S’ and there are some changes of ‘A’ with ‘E’, and a lunar ‘S’, but nothing like Melsa or Mena is known. In addition, K. Nawotka points out that there are no philological grounds for such a transformation79.

It is noteworthy that the name is of particular importance for both ancient people and modern scholars, though in a different way. In fact, there is nothing to suggest a Thracian connection in the discussed cases except the names or their interpretation. The epithets of the Horsemen Karabasmos and Perkos/Perkonos provide the connection with the Thracians. The name Darzalas/Derzelas, ascribed to the Great God of Odessos in the Roman period, demonstrates the same pattern in naming religious personages in Odessos. The model in Mesambria is different, with a Thracian explanation of the name of the city, at least in the word ‘bria’. Moreover, a Thracian ethnicity is assigned to its founder in the Chronography of Pseudo-Symeon. Clearly in Mesambria and Odessos there was some need to associate the city with the local people. An important factor in the construction of an identity is the difference between Oneself and the Other. It is hard to believe that there was no such contrast of identities between the Greeks and the Thracians in the early history of both colonies, when the settlements established there needed some land and a chance to survive. Even non-hostile relationships do not preclude a perception of difference83. Nevertheless, in the Hellenistic period it becomes important for the West Pontic cities to relate themselves to the Thracians, who were the ancient inhabitants of the lands that they have occupied.

Apart from the coin depictions, which cannot be said to belong to the founder of Mesambria (or) Melsas with any certainty, there is no evidence of the existence of a cult consecrated to him. There are traces of a myth and they are of a quite late date. The earliest clue that may be connected to Melsas is the name Melseon, which appears in the 3rd century BC. The literary and epigraphic data about the etymology of Mesambria are much later. K. Nawotka supposes that some unknown scholar from Mesambria created this explanation of the name of the city well before 20 BC80 and his work was used later by Strabo and Nicolaus of Damaskus in their accounts. A good indication about the popularity of the legend is the fact that it remained alive until the 2nd century AD. An additional argument for the creation of the myth of Melsas in the Hellenistic period lies in its very content. The practice of naming a city after an existing personage was invented by Philip II and became popular in the Hellenistic times81. Moreover, etymological stories that often include an eponymous hero are very popular in the Hellenistic and Roman periods82.

It is generally assumed that the existence of Thracian elements in some cults (or even the cults themselves) of Odessos is associated with the strong presence of Thracians. Since there is no serious evidence for this, the reason should be sought elsewhere, perhaps in the need to create and express a renewed identity. K. Nawotka assumes that the myth for Melsas was created during a time of prosperity for Mesambria, in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC84. He reasonably believes that some kind of social need forced the appearance of an etymological story of the city. This, however, would be valid for any period of the history of the city. His explanation of the choice of the content of the etymological story seems quite strange. He believes that Mesambria had so little importance that it could not pretend to claim any of the great mythological figures and thus Mesambrians created a legend for an eponymous hero. It is hard to believe that the citizens would have considered their city insignificant, and of course is also hard to prove that this was not the case. Yet, I would like to point out that Dionysopolis, which is not much more significant than Mesambria, claims the miraculous acquisition of a statue of Dionysus, after which the city was renamed from Krunoi to Dionysopolis85. It seems more likely that there is another reason behind the creation of the etymological myth of Melsas.

Discussion Several things may be observed in the examples presented here. Despite the widespread view among modern scholars that Melsas and the Hero Rider, who is believed to be the Thracian Horseman, have ancient roots, there is no undeniable evidence to support this. Furthermore, the detectable traces are quite late. The votive reliefs of the Horseman appeared around the middle of the 2nd century BC at the earliest, the myth of Melsas not before the 3rd century BC - if the name Melseon derives from it. Most probably all these Thracian elements were invented in the Hellenistic period, long after the cities were established. Gerasiomov 1950, 26. Karayotov 2007, 261-263. 79 Nawotka 1994, 224-225. V. Georgiev (1977, 18) and D. Detschew (1976, 295-296) also refuse such etymology. 80 Nawotka 1994, 225. 81 Leschhorn 1984, 117. I. Malkin (1985) mentioned some exceptions which are caused by some kind of extraordinary circumstances. Most of these examples seem more like foundation tales and naming attempts. 82 Nawotka 1994, 225-226. 77 78

The fact that most of the data derive from the Hellenistic, and especially from the Late Hellenistic, period, which is Dominguez 2006, 446-448 (for the West Greek colonies). Nawotka 1994, 225. 85 Psеudo-Skymnus 751-757. 83 84

126

Aneta Petrova: State in Danger

a difficult period not only for the West Pontic cities but also for all Greek poleis, is probably not irrelevant. Starting with the rise of the Macedonian Kingdom, which was hardly welcomed, the pressure on the sovereignty of the poleis grew significantly in the Hellenistic period86. The presence of Lysimachus in the late 4th century BC in the area of the Western Black Sea, and especially in Odessos, is well attested 87. In the early 3rd century BC a new danger occurs, the Celts, some of whom remained in Thrace, particularly in the area of Odessos88. Later on, the poleis of the region were involved in the politics of some of the other Hellenistic rulers89. One should here also mention the local conflicts between the West Pontic cities, for example between Mesambria and Apollonia in the mid 2nd century BC90, as well as the relations with the Thracian and the Scythian tribes that surrounded the colonies91. The Roman expansion to the east was another threat, especially after the middle of the 2nd century BC, when the pressure on Eastern Balkans increased92. During the Hellenistic period, the West Pontic cities were in a quite difficult situation trying to survive and to sustain some sort of independence. Independence, however, became the explicit ideal and goal of the Hellenistic poleis, since this primordial feature was contested in this period at first by the Macedonian kings and later by the Romans93.

legends are fictional97. They are often deliberately created to justify political control over particular territory. Such legends are very popular in the Hellenistic period and are a source of civic pride, since they provide cities with a history sometimes reaching back to mythical times. These legends are often connected to the name of the city. This may be observed in the case of Mesambria, where founder’s and eponym’s myth are combined. This myth, which is easily told and retold, explains and justifies the property rights of the city, which are legitimised by both ancient roots and the approval of the indigenous people. There is a strong tendency of the cults in the Hellenistic period towards political motivation98. In this period, when the kings claimed to be the head protectors of the cities, gods and heroes remained important when presenting the past. The occurrence of hero-cults is often connected with the rise of the polis and they are seen as a response to political and social changes99. It is suggested that they served to assert social positions and to claim the rights over particular land and territory. Social and political changes are not fixed in the 8th century BC. Probably the wide distribution of various kinds of hero-cults in the Hellenistic period is connected with the changes during this period, caused by the new political, economic and social structures, which are drastically different from those of the Classical era. The hero-cults are very appropriate in a time of crisis, when the community needs protection, since, being once mortal, heroes are much more closely connected to the people and a particular place than the gods are100. Furthermore, the fact that they are local makes them more attractive when an identity needs to be promoted101. In his comment on the local gods and heroes in the newly settled lands, I. Malkin claims that the idea of their existence is not in conflict with the Greek religion102. The local gods and heroes exist for, and only need to be revealed by, the humans. Since the very existence of the settlement depends on the good will of the deities, once revealed they may be honoured as local divinities or, better, identified with the ‘equivalent’ Greek gods. This flexibility in religious thought is used in Odessos but not at the time of the establishment of the settlement and probably not with purely religious intents. The Thracian epithet for the Hero Rider, no matter what his character (Heros Equitans or Thracian Horseman), provides endorsement by the local deities for the citizens of Odessos. The syncretism is better visible in the case of the Great God of Odessos, later named Darzalas/Derzelas, who can hardly be related to the time of the creation of the colony. Unlike the deities mentioned by I. Malkin, these received Thracian but not Greek epithets, i.e., Greek gods and heroes became somehow Thracian. Attaching local epithets to the heroes and gods of Odessos, people reinforced the link between the city and the land.

Political fear is caused by two major apprehensions – external threat and internal unrest94. It is intrinsically related to the fear of damage to the collective well-being of the community and as such it can influence and determine politics itself. Dangers like war and supposed loss of sovereignty (or at least of status quo) mobilizes society to look for a more explicit definition and affirmation of beliefs and identity. Very often this is done through the enhancement and appreciation of the deeds of the ancestors, who constitute the base of the existing order. These deeds may not be real, as, indeed, their doers may not. Identity making is often related to ancestors and their legacy, i.e., the past. The past is a matter of interpretation, so it is open for manipulation of the collective memory in order to serve some present idea or goal. Different symbols may construct the collective sense of imagination and may arouse a sense of nostalgia for the past95. Among the most respected symbols of identity is that of the founder (of a country, city, family, etc.), who provides the community with a symbol of its genesis96. In his research on the founders of cities, W. Leschhorn remarks that many foundation Jordanes Getica X, 65; Mihailov 1970, 80; Minchev 2003, 221-222. Diodorus XIX, 73, 2-3, XX, 12; Minchev 2003, 223-225. 88 Minchev 2003, 225; Preshlenov 2003, 180. 89 Polybius 25, 2; Mihailov 1970, nos. 40, 388; Minchev 2003, 227; Preshlenov 2003, 178, 180-181. 90 Mihailov 1970, 388bis. 91 Thucydides 2, 97, 3; Diodorus XVII, 62, 5-6; Dion Chrysostom, Orations 36, 1-4; Mihailov 1970, nos. 43, 46, 307, 312, 344; 1997, no. 5011; Minchev 2003, 229; Preshlenov 2003, 179-182. 92 Mihailov 1970, nos. 43, 46; Saprykin 1996, 152-160; Minchev 2003, 227-229; Preshlenov 2003, 181-182. 93 Shipley and Hansen 2006, 62-63. 94 Robin 2004, 2-5. 95 Galaty 2011, 110-113. 96 Malkin 1985, 114. 86 87

Leschhorn 1984, 116-117. Leschhorn 1984, 341. 99 Ekroth 2007, 103. 100 Ekroth 2007, 105. 101 Ekroth 2007, 111. 102 Malkin 2004, 351. 97 98

127

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Conclusion

Supplementary Series 82, 84-105. Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Божкова, А. Кияшкина, П., Даскалов, М. Марваков, Т. and Трендафилова, К. 2008. Спасително археологическо проучване на улица ‘Крайбрежна’ в ААР ‘Старинен Несебър’. В Археологически открития и разкопки през 2007, 304-307. София. // Bozhkova, A., Kiyashkina, P., Daskalov, M., Marvakov, T. and Trendafilova, K. 2008. Spasitelno arkheologichesko prouchvane na ul. ‘Kraibrezhna’ v AAR ‘Starinen Nesebar’. In Arkheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2007, 304-307. Sofia. // Bozhkova, A., Kiyashkina, P., Daskalov, M., Marvakov, T. and Trendafilova, K. 2008. Rescue excavations on ‘Kraibrezhna’ street in AAR ‘Old Nesebar’. In Archaeological Discoveries and Excavations in 2007, 304-307. Sofia. Burkert, W. 1983. Homo Necans. An Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London. University of California Press. Carroll-Spillecke, M. 1984. Landscape Depictions on Greek Relief Sculpture. European University Studies 38, Archaeology 11, Frankfurt am Main. Chiekova, D. 2008. Cultes et vie religieuse des cités grecques du Pont Gauche (VIIe – Ier siècles avant J.C.). Bern. Damyanov, M. 2004. Notes on the territory of Odrssos in pre-Roman times. Archaeologia Bulgarica 8 (2), 47-56. Damyanov, M. 2010. Greeks and natives in the region of Odessos. In. H. Tréziny (ed.), Grecs et Indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire. Bibliothèque d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne et Africaine 3. 265-276. Delev, P. 1998. Observations sur le Cavalier Thrace. Pulpudeva Suppl. 6, 129-135. Sofia. Detschew, D. 1957. Der Trakischen Sprachreste. Schriften der Balkankommision XIV, Wien. Dimitrova, N. 2002. Inscriptions and iconography in the monuments of the Thracian Rider. Hesperia 71, 209-229. Dominguez, A. J. 2006. Hellenic identity and Greek colonisation. Ancient West and East 4 (2), 446-457. Драганов, Д. 1990. Начало на бронзовото монетосечене на Одесос. Нумизматика 3, 19-25. // Draganov, D. 1990. Nachalo na bronzovoto monetosechene na Odesos. Numizmatika 3, 19-25. // Draganov, D. 1990. Beginning of the bronze coinage of Odessos. Numismatics 3, 19-25. Дремсизова-Нелчинова, Ц. и Тончева, Г. 1971. Антични теракоти от България. София. // DremsizovaNelchinova, Ts. and Toncheva, G. 1971. Antichni terakoti ot Balgariya. Sofia. // Dremsizova-Nelchinova, Ts. and Toncheva, G. 1971. Antique Terracotta Figurines from Bulgaria. Sofia Ekroth, G. 2007. Heroes and Hero-Cults. In D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 100-116. Георгиев, В. 1977. Траките и техният език. София. // Georgiev, V. 1977. Trakite i tekhniyat ezik. Sofia. // Georgiev, V. 1977. The Thracians and their Language. Sofia.

The complicated political situation along the Western Black Sea coast from the middle of the 4th century BC on and the lack of data about any internal conflicts in Odessos or Mesambria at that time suggest that some external factors are behind the notion for renewal and reinforcement of identity. The fear of loss of sovereignty and hence of identity causes different reactions intended to unite the community and to justify its independent existence in this particular place. The practice of inventing or adapting cults and mythological stories which are flexible enough to confirm even retrospectively these rights is not unknown in the period under discussion. The case studies of Mesambria and Odessos show that the local population is used here, not only the population surrounding the cities but also the population inhabiting the West Pontic area before the establishment of the colonies. Despite the two different strategies used to associate the city with the land and to demonstrate the approval of the local gods and people, they both include Thracian elements. No matter whether newly introduced (i.e. the Hero Riders in Odessos and the etymological story about Melsas in Mesambria) or introduced gradually (as Darzalas in the cult of the Great God), these inventions have a strong impact on public spirit and on shaping the identities of the citizens of these cities long after the latter have lost their independence. It seems clear that the relations between the Western Black Sea colonies and the Thracians were even more complex than is usually considered in the literature. The analysis presented here of some of the main arguments in favor of a strong Thracian influence in Odessos and Mesambria demonstrates that this influence is often quite exaggerated. This observation does not mean that there was no Thracian population in the poleis nor that there was no Thracian influence there (either in the cities or coming from outside). It only means that, unfortunately, at this point in the respective research, the place and role of the Thracians in Odessos and Mesambria remain unclear. List of Bibliography Alexandrescu-Vianu, M. 1999-2001. Théos Mégas. Dacia 43-45, 73-78. Бешевлиев, В. 1974. Към въпроса за името Одесос. Известия на Народния Музей-Варна 10 (25), 3-7. // Beshevliev, V. 1974. Kam vaprosa za imeto ODESOS. Izvestiya na Narodniya Muzei-Varna 10 (25), 3-7. // Beshevliev, V. 1974. Toward the question to the name of Odessos. Reports of the National Museum-Varna 10 (25), 3-7. Bodenstedt, F. 1973. Studien zur Elektronpragung von Phokaia und Mytilene. Revue Suisse de Numismatique 52, 17-56. Boteva, D. 2011. ‘The Thracian Horseman’ reconsidered. In I. P. Haynes (ed.), Early Roman Thrace. New Evidence from Bulgaria. Journal of Roman Archaeology,

128

Aneta Petrova: State in Danger

Gyuzelev, M. 2008. The West Pontic Coast between Emine Cape and Byzantion during the First Millennium BC. Burgas. Карайотов, И. 1992. Монетосеченето на Месамбрия. Бургас. // Karayotov, I. 1992. Monetosecheneto na Mesambria. Burgas. // Karayotov, I. 1992. The Coinage of Mesambria. Burgas. Karayotov, I. 1994. The Coinage of Mesambria I. Silver and Gold Coins of Mesambria. Thracia Pontica Series IV, Corpus Nummorum, Sozopol. Karayotov, I. 2007. Melsas, the Founder of Mesambria, on a coin from the 5th century BC. Thracia 17, 353-368. Kazarow, G. 1938. Die Denkmäler der thrakischen Reitergottes in Bulgarien. Budapest. Laumonier, A. 1977. La céramique hellénistique a reliefs. 1. Ateliers ‘ioniens’. Exploration archéologique de Délos 31. Paris. Лазаренко, И. 1997-1999. Начало и първи етапи на бронзовото монетосечене на Одесос. Dovrudzha 14-16, 51-64. // Lazarenko, I. 1997-1999. Nachalo i parvi etapi na bronzovoto monetosechene na Odesos. Dovrudzha 14-16, 51-64. // Lazarenko, I. 1997-1999. Beginning and first stages of the bronze coinage of Odessos. Dovrudzha 14-16, 51-64. Leschhorn, W. 1984. Gründer der Stadt. Studien zu einem politisch-religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte. Stuttgart. Malkin, I. 1985. What’s in a name? The eponymous founders of Greek colonies. Athenaeum 63, 115-130. Malkin, I. 1990. Territorialisation mythologique: Les ‘autels’ des Philènes’ en Cyrénaïque. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 16 (1), 219-229. Malkin, I. 2004. Postcolonial concepts and ancient Greek colonization. Modern Language Quarterly 65 (3), 341364. Марваков, Т. 2011. Спасителни археологически проучвания на УПИ VI-147 и УПИ-146 по плана на град Несебър. В Археологически открития и разкопки през 2010. София. 250-252. // Marvakov, T. 2011. Spasitelni arkheologicheski prouchvaniya v UPI VI-147 i UPI-146 po plana na grad Nesebar. In Arkheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2010. Sofia, 250-252. // Marvakov, T. 2011. Rescue excavations of UPI VI-147 and UPI-146 in Nesebar. In Archaeological Discoveries and Excavations in 2010, 250-252. Sofia. Mihailov, G. 1970. Inscriptiones grecae in Bulgaria repertae. Inscriptiones orae Ponti Euxini 1, Serdicae. Mihailov, G. 1997. Inscriptiones novae addenda et corrigenda 5. Serdicae. Minchev 2003. Odessos (6th century BC to early 1st century AD). In D. V. Grammenos, and E. K. Petroupoulos (eds.) Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 1, 209-278. Thessaloniki. Nawotka. K. 1994. Melsas, the Founder of Mesambria? Hermes 122, 320-326. Ognenova-Marinova, L. 1982. Thracia Pontica. Thracia Pontica 1, 69-81.

Герасимов, Т. 1950. Неиздадени автономни монети от Месамбрия на Черно море. Известия на Народния Музей Бургас 1, 23-33. // Gerasimov, T. 1950. Neizdadeni avtonomni moneti ot Mesambriya na Cherno more. Izvestiya na Narodniya Muzei Burgas 1, 23-33. // Gerasimov, T. 1950. Unpublished Autonomous coins of Mesambria on the Black Sea. Reports of the National Museum Burgas 1, 23-33. Герасимов, Т. 1951. Култовата статуя на Великия бог Дарзалас в Одесос. Известия на Варненското Археологическо Дружество 8, 65-71. // Gerasimov, T. 1951. Kultovata statuya na Velikiya bog Darzalas v Odesos. Izvestiya na Varnenskoto Arkheologichesko Druzhestvo 8, 65-71. // Gerasimov, T. 1951. The cult statue of the Great God Darzalas in Odessos. Reports of the Varna Archaeological Society 8, 65-71. Герасимов, Т. 1960. Принос към нумизматиката на Одесос. Известия на Варненското Археологическо Дружество 11, 59-69. // Gerasimov, T. 1960. Prinos kam numizmatukata na Odesos. Izvestiya na Varnenskoto Arkheologichesko druzhestvo 11, 59-69. // Gerasimov, T. 1960. Contributions to the numismatics of Odesos. Reports of the Varna Archaeological Society 11, 59-69. Герасимов, Т. 1975. Антични и средновековни монети в България. София. // Gerasimov, T. 1975. Antichni i srednovekovni moneti v Balgaria. Sofia. // Gerasimov, T. 1975. Antique and Medieval Coins in Bulgaria. Sofia. Гочева, З. 1995. Епитетите на Тракийския конник. В Палеобалканистика и старобългаристика. Първи есенни национални четения ‘проф. Иван Гълъбов’. Велико Търново, 285-296. // Gočeva, Z. 1995. Epitetite na Trakiiskiya konnik. In Paleobalkanistika i starobalgaristika. Parvi esenni natzionalni cheteniya ‘Prof. Ivan Galabov’, Veliko Tarnovo, 285-296. // Gočeva, Z. 1995. The epithets of the Thracian Horseman. In Paleo-Balcan and Old Bulgarian Studies. First Autumn National Readings ‘Prof. I. Galabov’, Veliko Tarnovo, 285-296. Гочева, З. 1998. Култът на Великия бог в гръцките колонии по западния бряг на Понта. Seminarium Thracicum 3, 91-100. // Gočeva, Z. 1998. Kultat na Velikiya bog v gratzkite kolonii po zapadniya bryag na Ponta. Seminarium Thracicum 3, 91-100. // Gočeva, Z. 1998. The cult to the Great God in the Greek colonies on the West Pontic coast. Seminarium Thracicum 3, 91-100. Гочева, З. 2001. Особености в иконографията на тракийския конник в Одесос и неговата територия. Seminarium Thracicum 5, 169-175. // Gočeva, Z. 2001. Osobenosti v ikonografiyata na trakiiskiya konnik w Odesos i negovata teritoriya. Seminarium Thracicum 5, 169-175. // Gočeva, Z. 2001. Characteristics of the iconography of the Thracian Horseman in Odessos and its territory. Seminarium Thracicum 5, 169-175. Gočeva, Z. and Oppermann, M. 1979. Corpus cultus equitus thracii I, Monumenta orae Ponti Euxini Bulgariae. Leiden. Grace, V. R. 1956. Stamped wine jars fragments. In Small Objects from the Pnix, II. Hesperia Supplements 10, 113-189.

129

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Ognenova-Marinova, L. 1986. Mesambria et la monde thrace entre le VIIe et le Ve s.av.n.e.. Thracia Pontica 3, 238-244. Oppermann, M. 2002. Überlegungen zum Kult des Theos Megas am Westpontos in vorrömischer Zeit. Izvestiya na Narodniya Muzey Burgas 4, 50-58. Oppermann, M. 2004. Die westpontischen Poleis und ihr indigenes Umfeld in vorrömischer Zeit. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 2. Langenweißbach. Oppermann, M. 2006. Der thrakische Reiter des Ostbalkanraumes im Spannungsfeld von Graecitas, Romanitas und lokalen Traditionen. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 7. Langenweißbach. Palagia, O. 1984. Apollon. In Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae II, Zurich-Munchen, 183-327. Pfhul, E. and Möbius, H. 1979. Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs 2. Mainz. Pick, B. 1898. Thrakische Münzbilder. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archoälogischen Instituts 13, 134-174. Pick, B. and Regling, K. 1910. Die antike Münzen von Dacien and Moesien II, Berlin. Порожанов, К. 2002. Тракийски царе-богове като хероиоснователи на елински апойкии в Мраморно и Черно море. Πιτύη. Известия в чест на проф. И. Маразов, 219-224. София. // Porozhanov, К. 2002. Trakiiski tzare-bogove kato kheroi-osnovateli na elinski apoikii v Mramorno i Cherno more. In Pitue. Izsledvaniya v chest na prof. I. Marazov, 219-224. Sofia. // Porozhanov, К. 2002. Thracian kings-gods as hero founders of Hellenic apoikiai in Marmara Sea and Black Sea. In Pitue. Studies in Honour of Prof. I. Marazov, 219-224. Sofia. Preshlenov, H. 2003. Mesambria. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petroupoulos, E.K. (eds.) Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 1, 158-207. Thessaloniki. Robin, K. 2004. Fear: the History of a Political Idea. Oxford University Press. Ростовцев, М. 2004. Роспись Керченской гробницы, открытой в 1891 году. В Сборник археологических статей, поднесенны графу А. А. Борбинскому, 119254. Санкт Петерсбург. // Rostovtzeff, M. 1911. Rospis’ kerchenskoy grobnitsy otkritoy w 1891 g. In Sbornik arkheologicheskikh statei, podnesennyi grafu A. A. Borbinskomu. 119-154, Sankt Petersburg. // Rostovtzeff, M. 1911. Mural paintings in the Kerch tomb found in 1891. In Collection of Archaeological Articles presented to Earl A. A. Borbinskii, 119-154. Sankt Petersburg. Salač, A. 1928. Le Grand Dieu d’Odessos-Varna et des mystères de Samothrace. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 52, 395-398. Сапрыкин, С. Ю. 1996. Понтийское царство. Государство греков и варваров в Причерноморье. Москва // Saprykin, S. J. 1996. Pontiiskoe tzarstvo. Gosudarstvo grekov i varvarov v Prichernomor’e. Moskva. // Saprykin, S. J. 1996. The Pontic Kingdom. State of Greeks and Barbarians in the Black Sea. Moskva.

Shipley, D. G. and Hansen, M. H. 2006. The polis and federalism. In G. R. Bugh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge University Press, 52-72. Stoyanov, T. 2000. Reflections on the ‘Parmeniskos’ group. Thracia 13, 409-415. Stoyanov, T. 2011. New evidence for amphora production in Early Hellenistic Mesambria Pontica. In Ch. Tzochev, T. Stoyanov and A. Bozkova (eds.), PATABS II. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black sea. Acts of the International round table held in Kiten, Nessebar and Sredetz, September 26-30, 2007, 191-201. Sofia. Тончева, Г. 1951. Материали за археологическата карта на България. Известия на Варненското Археологическо Дружество 8, 105-111. // Toncheva, G. 1951. Materiali za arkheologicheskata karta na Balgariya. Izvestiya na Varnenskoto Arkheologichesko Druzhestvo 8, 105-111. // Toncheva, G. 1951. Materials for the archaeological map of Bulgaria. Reports of the Varna Archaeological Society 8, 105-111. Тончева, Г. Принос към иконографията на Великия бог на Одесос. Известия на Археологическия Институт 18, 83-90. // Toncheva, G. 1952. Prinos kam ikonografiyata na Velikiya bog na Odesos. Izvestiya na Arkheologicheskiya Institut 18, 83-90. // Toncheva, G. 1952. Contribution to the iconography of the Great God of Odessos. Reports of the Archaeological Institute 18, 83-90. Тончева, Г. 1956. Тракийското влияние в Одесос. Известия на Варненското Археологическо Дружество 10, 51-64. // Toncheva, G. 1956. Trakiiskoto vliyanie v Odesos. Izvestiya na Varnenskoto Arkheologichesko Druzhestvo 10, 51-64. // Toncheva, G. 1956. The Thracian influence in Odessos. Reports of the Varna Archaeological Society 10, 51-64. Тончева, Г. 1963. Об иконографии и характере фракийского Хероса из Одессоса. Acta Antiqua Philippopolitana. Studia Archaeologica l, 71-79. Sofia. // Toncheva, G. 1963. Ob ikonografii i kharaktere frakiiskogo Kherosa iz Odessosa. Acta Antiqua Philippopolitana. Studia Archaeologica l, 71-79. Sofia. // Toncheva, G. 1963. About the iconography and the character of the Thracian Heros from Odessos. Acta Antiqua Philippopolitana. Studia Archaeologica l, 7179. Sofia. Тончева, Г. 1968. За датирането на светилището край село Галата. Известия на Народния Музей-Варна, 4 (19), 17-26. // Toncheva, G. 1968. Za datiraneto na svetilisteto krai selo Galata. Izvestiya na Narodniya Muzei-Varna 4 (19), 17-26. // Toncheva, G. 1968. About the date of the sanctuary near the village of Galata. Reports of the National Museum-Varna 4 (19), 17-26. Tonceva, G. 1969. Le sanctuaire du Héros Karabasmos d’Odessos. Actes du premier congrès international des etudes balcaniques et sud-est européennes II, 353-364. Sofia. Тончева, Г. 1969а. Скулптурата в Одесос от V-I в.пр.н.е. Известия на Народния Музей-Варна, 5 (20), 3-18. // Toncheva 1969а. Skulpturata v Odesos ot V-I v.pr.n.e.

130

Aneta Petrova: State in Danger

Izvestiya na Naroden Muzei-Varna 5 (20), 3-18. // Toncheva 1969а. The sculpture in Odessos during 5th1st centuries BC. Reports of the National Museum-Varna 5 (20), 3-18. Топалов, С. 1995. Месамбрия Понтика. Приноси към проучване монетосеченето на града в V–I в.пр.н.е. София. // Topalov, S. 1995. Mesambria Pontika. Prinosi kam prouchvane monetosecheneto na grada V –I v.pr.n.е. Sofia. // Topalov, S. 1995. Mesambria Pontika. Contributions to the research of the coinage of the city during 5th-1st centuries BC. Sofia. Топалов, С. 1999. Одесос. Приноси към проучване монетосеченето на града IV –I в.пр.н.е. София. // Topalov, S. 1999. Odesos. Prinosi kam prouchvane monetosecheneto na grada IV –I v.pr.n.е. Sofia. // Topalov, S. 1999. Odessos. Contributions to the research of the coinage of the city during 4th-1st centuries BC. Sofia. Велков, В. 1990. Из културната история на Дионисопол през 2 век пр.н.е. В И. Божилов и М. Димитров (ред.) Балчик. Древност и съвремие, 1-5. Балчик. // Velkov, V. 1990. Iz kulturnata istoriya na Dionisopol prez 2 vek pr.n.e. In I. Bozhilov and M. Dimitrov (eds.) Balchik. Drevnost i savremie, 1-5. Balchik. // Velkov, V. 1990. From the cultural history of Dionysopolis during the 2nd century BC. In I. Bozhilov and M. Dimitrov (eds.) Balchik. Antiquity and Modernity, 1-5. Balchik. Venedikov, I. 1980. Trois reliefs surprenants de Mesambria. In V. Velkov (ed.) Nessebre 2, 81-95, Sofia. Venedikov, I. 1980a. La Mesambria thrace. In V.Velkov (ed.) Nessebre 2, 7-22, Sofia. Želazowski, J. 1992. Le culte et l’iconographie de Theos Megas sur les territories pontiques. Archeologia 43, 3551.

these cult sites of Achilles marking the territory of Olbia and the Olbian state. But afterwards, it disappears entirely for centuries and then suddenly reappears during Roman times - not necessarily the Roman threat, but possibly rather as resistance to the foreign presence. And it reappears as the cult of Achilles Pontarches, which is a local cult. This cult exists only in the northern Black Sea region. So I see some parallels there to what you are suggesting, although in the case of Olbia, it is much clearer. The question is, however, whether there is enough evidence. I realize that your presentation was inevitably short and you were not able to present all the evidence you must have, so I very much look forward to your publication. Aneta Petrova: This is a very interesting parallel. I think that if we search in the other colonies on the Northern and Western coasts of the Black Sea, we will find similar reactions. I believe that these are reactions mostly to the Roman invasion. But it’s hard to prove.That’s why I prefer to speak only about the Hellenistic period. The question about the Thracian Horseman is very difficult and I am not sure that the studied monuments from Odessos belong to the same deity, which is so popular in Thrace during the Roman period. Anca Dan: I have two more questions: 1) How do you interpret the fact that Odessos is also a Thracian place-name and, more generally, what do you think about the use of a Thracian name when founding a Greek colony? (Because this seems to be the general tendency on the western coast of the Black Sea). 2) Could you explain what Derzalas or Darzelas is? Aneta Petrova: I don’t know what Derzelas or Darzalas means, and probably nobody knows; but this is the name of a local deity from the Roman period which seems to be a great god of Odessos, appearing on Hellenistic coins. It is generally believed that the name is of a Thracian origin. Most scholars think it is the same deity and this seems probable. The question is, when did he receive this name? Some believe that this is the name of the god from the beginning, from the Hellenistic period, when it is attested for the first time. I think that the cult changed in the course of time and that the Thracian elements are quite later.

Discussion Valeriya Kozlovskaya: This is a comment rather than a question: I found your hypothesis very interesting (if not entirely convincing) because just to the west and northwest of the region that you were talking about, we have a very similar case of local hero cults established in territories and lands that had to be claimed, for example, by colonies. I would like, however, to bring into the discussion the NW part of the Black Sea, where we have evidence for the cult of Achilles (the picture we have there is, of course, slightly different from the one you presented, because you were talking about a Thracian cult, whereas we are talking about a Greek cult there). This cult of Achilles is very prominent in the beginning: when the colonization starts, we have all

As for the name of Odessos, actually it is a difficult question. This is a contradiction without any obvious explanation. The name may just not be a Thracian.

131

Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace Adela Sobotkova Abstract: This paper compares several different categories of evidence that illuminate the concept of leadership and authority in ancient Thrace. Greek historians provide us with contradictory images of Thracians as rich and powerful warriors on one hand and impoverished peasants on the other. Material evidence also provides contrasting datasets: rich mortuary material from imposing burial mounds versus simple, often transient villages with little evidence of wealth or craft specialization.  Evidence from the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project (TRAP), a recent, large-scale landscape archaeology project in central Thrace, sheds further light on Thracian political unity and centralization. Examining preliminary results from this project within a broader, comparative study of the Thracians and their neighbours, I argue that Thracian political institutions never reached the level of a centralised state, as might be assumed from Thucydides’ account or a cursory examination of mortuary remains. Instead, authority remained very individualistic and ever changing, producing an unstable horizontal coherence and weak vertical integration of the society.  Keywords:Social complexity, states, ancient Thrace, archaeological survey, landscape archaeology

Introduction

is perhaps worthwhile to revisit the meanings of the terms ‘state’ and ‘complex society’.

The social structures of inner Thrace in the mid-first millennium BC have eluded characterisation despite the existence of considerable historical and archaeological evidence. Zosia Archibald highlighted this dilemma in her book The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace, where she underscored the fact that the Thracians managed to retain control over their territory throughout most of Classical Antiquity despite being wedged between complex and powerful polities such as the Persian Empire and the Greek city states.1 The historical evidence that the Thracians withstood outside pressure from state-level societies on their borders led Archibald to label the Thracian society variously as a ‘supra-tribal entity’ and a ‘state’.2 In later work she defined the Thracian ‘state’ as a ‘complex web of social groups, cities and other settlements’, underlining its non-hierarchical organization (similar to a Greek ethnos).3 Bulgarian scholars also remain divided in their interpretations of Thracian social organization despite 100 years of archaeological fieldwork and historical scholarship.4 This paper will explore the notion of a Thracian ‘state’ and review new and relevant archaeological information generated by the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project (henceforth TRAP; cf. http://www.tundzha.org).

The expectation is that complex societies have a larger population than simple societies, and that the former generate enough surplus to support specialist military and political elites along with other and other non-producers. As a result, a complex society is economically more differentiated, with more exchange providing a greater degree of integration amongst specialists.5 The members of a complex society also form socio-political hierarchies, and generally live in permanent or semi-permanent settlements, where they can be more easily controlled and taxed.6 The degree of integration and specialization in complex society can be monitored through the variability of settlement and mortuary treatment. Mortuary variability reflects the differences in social status of buried individuals. Large-scale construction indicates the mobilisation of corveé labour. Finally, settlement patterns should assume a hierarchical configuration, forming a lattice-like structure of communities of different sizes, each with patterns of habitation that indicate specialization and differentiation.7 However, such evidence should not be considered as a trait list, as social complexity exists on a continuum. Simple, egalitarian societies occupy one end and hierarchical, bureaucratic states the other with many cases between these extremes. The diversity of societies simpler than the state has produced recent focus on so called ‘middlerange societies’. Middle-range society is a term that spans anything from segmentary villages to complex chiefdoms.8 Inherent in the definition of middle-range societies,

Defining the State The problem involves not only evidence but also terminology. Before plunging into the main discussion, it Archibald 1998, 3-4. Archibald 1998, 4-5, 93. 3 Archibald 2000, 213-214. 4 Just to list a few: Nikola Theodossiev (2011) describes Thracians as a tribal confederacy, while Aneliya Bozhkova (2000, 81) speaks of protostates. Alexander Fol (2000) uses the Greek term basileia for the Thracian kingdom while others (Porozhanov 1998; Jordanov 2000; Dimitrov 2011) describe it as ‘state’. 1 2

Flannery 1972, 403-404; Claessen and Skalník 1978a, 21; Carneiro 1981. 6 Scott 1998; 2009. 7 Flannery 1998; Chang 1968, 2-3. 8 Rousseau 2006. 5

133

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

moreover, is the idea that states are fundamentally different from simpler societies. This distinction reflects Ealman Service’s ‘great divide’, which describes the gulf between tribal or chiefly (i.e., middle-range) societies and states.9

‘messy’ diversity of middle-range societies, making it easier for the administrative class to govern the state. Scott mainly discusses modern states, which are undeniably more effective regulators than their ancient counterparts. The impact of ancient states on the archaeological landscape can, however, still be recognised. States operate in F. Braudel’s category of ‘social-time’ which, transcending the brief life of the individual, produces deeper and more lasting social, economic, and cultural changes – changes that are significant enough to leave a mark on the largescale archaeological record.

States, therefore, comprise a special category of complex society, one that is fundamentally different from all simpler, non-state societies. For the purpose of this paper I will employ the description of the state proposed by Joseph Tainter: The ruling class tends to be professional, and is largely divorced from the bonds of kinship. This ruling class supplies the personnel for government, which is a specialised decision-making organization with a monopoly of force, and with the power to draft for war or work, levy and collect taxes, and decree and enforce laws. The government is legitimately constituted, which is to say that a common, society-wide ideology exists that serves in part to validate the political organization of society. And states, of course, are in general larger and more populous than tribal societies, so that social categorisation, stratification, and specialization are both possible and necessary.10

Whether long-term stability is a consequence or cause of state emergence, one additional characteristic of a state is its ability to produce durable social and political institutions. Ronald Cohen argued that state is an entity that does not ‘ordinarily undergo short-term cycles of formation and dissolution’.13 ‘Chiefly cycling’, a recurrent process of rising and failing chiefs that has been described in archaeological and ethnographic evidence is the counterpart of state-level institutions.14 In a state, long-term stability joins political centralisation and evidence for changes leading to larger-scale economic, social, and political systems. Material evidence reflects these qualities of the state at several scales. At a large scale, states restructure entire landscapes and stimulate the growth of more complex settlement patterns through the foundation of new urban sites and other infrastructure works. At local scales, there is evidence for the extraction of surplus and differentiated consumption of resources, serving the increasingly stratified but integrated population.

Many of the features invoked by Tainter are not only visible in written sources, but also leave traces in the archaeological record. As we shall see, the evidence for Thrace is ambiguous and often contradictory, but taken as a whole it does not support the existence of a state-level society prior to the Roman conquest. James Scott observes that states radically restructure society.11 He describes states as entities which engage (often blindly) in regulating their resources to render them manageable and fiscally ‘legible’ at a regional (or larger) scale. Scott uses for state the analogy of a beekeeper, who manipulates the internal structure of the beehive so that she can better assess and capture honey production, leaving the bees just enough honey to ensure the survival of the colony.12 This regulating effect of state can archaeologically be seen in the reorganization of the landscape. Ancient as well as modern states have striven to impose order on landscapes and populations in order to make the surplus extraction easier and more reliable. Direct evidence from landscape and monument archaeology, as well as ancient literary and art historical sources, attest to the resettlement of defeated populations, the foundation of new cities, the construction of regional defensive systems and hydraulic works, and other large-scale material undertakings, as well as less tangible measures such as the imposition of new laws, and the unification of language and units of measurement. Regional differences impede centralised control. These newly homogenised systems replace the

Written Sources – power, wealth and resources Zosia Archibald’s hesitation to define Thracian society as a state remains justified. The principal barrier to understanding the socio-political organization of the Thracians is not, however, that we lack sources, but rather that the sources we have are mutually contradictory. Starting with the written sources, most of what we know of the Thracians comes from the pens of Greek writers.15 Greek contemporaries wrote of Thracians only anecdotally and in passing, perhaps because being neighbours inspired a familiarity needing no explanations.16 As a result, we have no unified ethnographic treatise about the Thracians. Instead, we can distil from scattered sources three contradictory images that represent different attitudes of the Greeks to their Thracian counterparts. Rich and Powerful Thrace The first attitude, that of ‘rich and powerful’ Thracians, is outlined in the fifth book of Herodotus’ Histories and

Service 1975. An opposing argument is presented by Robert Carneiro (1981, 37-38), who observes states and chiefdoms (the preceding category of polities) differ in scale, but not in quality. 10 Tainter 1992, Kindle location 502 of 4018. 11 Scott 1998. 12 Scott 1998, Kindle location 127 of 6481. 9

Tainter 1992; cf. Cohen 1978, 4; Claessen and Skalník 1978b, 635. Flannery 1999; Webster 1975. 15 Cf. the collection of Greek and Latin sources for Thrace and Thracians by Katsarov and Dechev (1949) and Velkov et al.(1981). 16 Asheri 1990. 13 14

134

Adela Sobotkova: Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace

expanded in the second book of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.17 The Odrysian realm in Thrace is described by Thucydides as ‘a very powerful kingdom; in revenue and general prosperity surpassing all in Europe between the Ionian gulf and the Euxine, and in numbers and military resources coming decidedly next to the Scythians’.18 Besides control over a large territory and population, Thucydides focuses on the Odrysian ability to collect impressive revenues. He assesses the tribute that the Odrysians extracted from their subjects, to 400 talents in gold and silver plus another 400 talents in kind, including carpets, cloth and other gifts.19 For comparison, at the same time (c. 431-425 BC), the Athenian Empire collected some 600-1500 talents from its fellow Greek cities under a regime that was often considered exploitative.20 The fact that Thracians could collect some two-thirds of the revenue of the Athenian Empire points to the economic potential of the lands they controlled and the ability of the Thracian elites to extract surplus from the population. Indeed, when discussing social structures, Thucydides focuses on the king, his company of nobles, and occasionally the aristocratic class more broadly. The ability to martial these economic resources, combined with the large population of Thrace, led Thucydides to praise the ‘numbers and military resources’, and rank Thrace in the top tier of contemporary societies.

in impermanent structures which, to a citizen of a stonebuilt city, appeared barbaric. Yet Demosthenes wrote propaganda, speeches with a clear agenda, a fact that has made scholars sceptical of his observations about Thrace. Until recently, however, insufficient evidence has been available to decide whether his dire picture of Thrace is a misleading ploy engineered to strip Philip of his achievements, or whether it indeed describes some aspects of the Thracian society if, perhaps, in exaggerated terms. Desirable but Perilous Thrace The third and the most ambivalent picture of Thrace comes from the pen of Xenophon. In the Anabasis he describes the fighting retreat of ten thousand soldiers from a failed campaign in Persia. As they pass through the Thracian territory in the Bosporus, Seuthes II, a young and ambitious aristocrat of royal blood, hires them as mercenaries in order to win back his paternal lands.23 Xenophon describes the wealth of Thrace and the rewards promised to him by Seuthes: forts on the sea and his daughter in marriage.24 In the process, Xenophon experiences the intrigues, shifting loyalty, and volatile nature of Thracian leadership. When the news spread of Seuthes’ military victories using Xenophon’s forces, his retinue of Odrysian warriors starts growing. Finally, when Seuthes no longer needs Xenophon and his mercenaries, he banishes them without the promised pay.25

Despicable Thrace The second image that the Greek sources present is best encapsulated by Demosthenes’ speech On the Crown. Writing some 70 years after Thucydides, Demosthenes deals with Thrace indirectly in the course of denigrating Philip II of Macedon’s successful military campaigns there. Demosthenes scorns Philip’s conquest of ‘these wretched objects in Thrace’21; he complains of the ‘winter storms and deadly peril’, and marvels that Philip would ‘winter in that ruin of a place for the sake of the rye and millet of the Thracian store-pits.’22 For Demosthenes, Thrace was no prize, and its conquest a mere diversion from or prelude to Philip’s ultimate goal: the conquest of Athens, a much richer and more powerful land.

Over the course of his narrative, Xenophon agrees with Thucydides about the wealth of Thrace, calling it a ‘fair and prosperous country’.26 This claim is further illustrated by the fact that one limited area of the Thracian hinterland can easily support six thousand soldiers, even during the winter.27 Moreover, Xenophon underscores both the requirements and weaknesses of Thracian leadership. The culture of the mounted warrior-elite centers on acquiring wealth through raiding, and redistributing it through feasts, requiring constant military readiness.28 Social mobility is apparent in the rise to power of Seuthes, a regional princeling. The traditional ways of gaining power and retinue were through manipulation of internal and external alliances. Teres and Seuthes I, previous Thracian rulers, both used marriage as a strategy to gain support and to attract warrior followers. Seuthes II circumvents these traditional practices and usurps rule by hiring Greek mercenaries. While Seuthes’ means are innovative, his success relies on the same sine qua non as his predecessors: the loyalty of a military retinue, which he earns by winning and redistributing goods. Such system rises and falls with

Thrace in Demosthenes’ account is a distinctly bleak, impoverished and inhospitable place,. The Thracians are poor, subsist on a low-status diet of rye and millet, and live While praising the greatness of Thrace, both authors have reservations about political unity of Thracians (Thuc. 2.96.2; Hdt. 5.3.1). Thucydides uses the word arche (ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ Ὀδρυσῶν) for the ‘realm’ (Thuc. 2.97.2). 18 Thuc. 2.97.2-5. 19 Thuc. 2.97.3; Stronach and Zournatsi (2002) identify the contemporary Athenian agenda in Thucydides, especially in his critique of Thracian eagerness to receive gifts. They demonstrate that gift-reception was traditional among rulers of the eastern Mediterranean and Thracians present no exception. Bouzek (2002, 391) compares the Thracian revenue of Thucydides with another speech of Demosthenes (23. 110), which reports a tribute of 300 talents collected by Kersobleptes from the Thracian commercial centres during 4th century BC. The economic potential of Thrace was substantial, but could only be realized during political consolidation by a competent ruler. 20 Thuc. 2.13.1; ATL III, 70-89; IG I3 71. 21 Dem. 8.44. 22 Dem. 8.45. 17

Anab. 7.2.32. Anab. 7.2.38; For a list of other Greek aristocrats who succeeded and thrived in the service of Thracian kings please see the list by P. Delev (2002, 301-311). 25 Anab. 7. 26 Anab. 5.6.25. 27 Anab 7.7.23; 7.5.15. 28 Anab. 7.3.15; 7.3.26; 7.7.41. 23 24

135

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

the charisma, strength and success of its leader and is, therefore, highly unstable.

mortuary sphere provides support for Thucydides’ account of a wealthy and powerful elite able to extract surplus form the population, culminating in a king, who can use the power of his arche to produce the biggest and most impressive burial mounds. Mortuary evidence supports an image of Thrace as a complex society with socio-political hierarchy and economic specialisation.

Archaeological Evidence The ancient authors converge on description of Thracian society as a stratified one with ruling elites.29 The pictures diverge, however, in the value they ascribe to the natural and military wealth and resources that the elites command, the stability and centralization of the rule, and the overall degree of social and political consolidation of Thrace. Where Thucydides writes of an ‘empire’, Demosthenes sees barbarians, and Xenophon sees quarrelsome local elites. Like the written sources, different classes of archaeological evidence provide divergent pictures of Thracian society.

Settlement Archaeology Settlement archaeology has begun to produce a very different picture of Thracian society. Until recently, archaeological research in Bulgaria has been predominantly site-based, focusing on conspicuous features such as burial mounds and large settlements. The majority of these remains represent the products of Thracian elites. Far less is known of the earlier strata of Thracian society, making it difficult to judge its degree of complexity. Archaeological surface survey has, however, begun to reveal the ‘footprint’ of Thracian society, including the smaller, sometimes ephemeral, sites that may reflect non-elite habitation. 

Mortuary Archaeology The one category of material evidence that lends the most support to the account of Herodotus and Thucydides is mortuary archaeology. Burial mounds stand as the most ubiquitous feature of the Bulgarian archaeological landscape. Tens of thousands of these burial mounds can be found across the plains, river valleys and uplands of Thrace30. Their sizes vary considerably, from less than 10m to over 100m in diameter, as do the types of inner enclosures (from simple stone circles to elaborate stone chambers, to beehive and monolithic tombs). The diversity of mortuary assemblages speaks clearly to the unequal distribution of wealth in the Thracian society.

Survey archaeologists, when evaluating complexity, often search for a large, sedentary taxable population with specialists and administrators. The consensus is that at least three levels of administrative hierarchy in the settlement structure are required to indicate a state-level society.33 Settlements can be divided into tiers when their sizes differ by an order of magnitude. The basis for the assumption is that social dynamics will differ considerably in a community of 1000 people as opposed to one of 10,000.34 Discerning administrative hierarchy within the settlement hierarchy is the next task, which relies on functional differentiation within the settlements, especially the identification of public architecture.35

Elite tombs from the 5th to the 3rd centuries BC illustrate the ‘conspicuous consumption’ of Thracian elites and confirm Thucydides’ account of their love of precious metals and luxury goods31. The tombs vary between round and rectangular tombs, built of ashlars, stone plates or sometimes carved from single, large monoliths, featuring flat or corbel roofed and furnished with a dromos and occasionally an antechamber; their construction would have required skilled craftsmen commissioned by wealthy elites.32 The number and size of the earthen burial mounds speaks also of the deployment of manpower. All in all, the wealth of burial goods and the skills and labour invested into the construction of the tombs demonstrate the ability of elites to marshal resources. In short, the existence of the burial mounds and their grave goods attests to the surplus wealth available to elites in 5th to 3rd century BC Thrace, while the variation in size and contents manifest the differential access to that wealth amongst those elites. Existence of social inequality and stratification of Thracian society stands out clearly in the mortuary evidence. The

In Thrace the settlement structure after 60 years of excavations has been described as a network of urban centres, hilltop forts, elite residences, villages and hamlets.36 On the top of the settlement hierarchy are the cities, such as Seuthopolis, Kabyle, Philippopolis, Pistiros, Koprivlen and Sboryanovo (Figure 1).37 From this list, only Seuthopolis has been fully excavated. The caveat is that Seuthopolis, an early Hellenistic royal city, was a fairly short-lived and exceptional foundation. Its foundation has been dated to after the conquest of Thrace by Philip II, most likely after the return of veterans from the campaigns of Alexander Feinman and Marcus 1998, 16. Drennan and Dai 2010, 460. 35 Flannery (1998, 16) has made a crucial distinction here: While the former refers to the number of tiers of administrators in a system, the latter refers to the number of tiers of community sizes. Settlement hierarchy may be detectable through the comparison of site sizes, but administrative hierarchy need not be archaeologically detectable in societies without written texts. Administrative institutions may be indicated in some of the tiers of the settlement hierarchy, but often they can only be detected through the excavation of public buildings and residences. 36 Bozhkova 2000, 83; Balabanov 1990; Archibald 1998, 42-47. 37 A brief discussion of urbanisation in Thrace is provided in Bouzek (2005). A detailed overview of archaeological evidence for urban centres in Thrace as well as their parallels in west Balkans is provided by Popov (2000). 33 34

Even Demosthenes eventually admits to Thracian kings collecting and managing large revenue from the emporia (23.110). 30 Hoddinott 1975, 28. 31 Numerous authors have discussed the architecture and burial goods of individual burials and mound necropoleis from Duvanli by Plovdiv, Kazanlak valley, Sliven region and eastern Rhodopes, where elite burials are most abundant (Filov, et al. 1934; Kitov 1997; Stoyanov 2005; Venedikov 1982; Venedikov and Gerasimov 1975). The best synthesis of the elite burials in Thrace still remains Archibald (1998). 32 Hatlas 2002, 487; Tsetskhladze 1998. 29

136

Adela Sobotkova: Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace

Figure 1. Settlements of Ancient Thrace. Source: Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project (TRAP).

the Great. Emil Nankov has shown convincingly that the massive fortification walls and defensive towers of the city follow the early Hellenistic tradition of stronghold construction that became widespread only after the death of Alexander.38 Other cities that might be more typical than Seuthopolis do not provide sufficient evidence due to being obscured by layers of later occupation or modern urbanisation (often both)39, or because they have been only partially explored through rescue excavation.40 

Great Gods.42 All in all the residence of the king has not been identified given the lack of differentiation among the buildings of the city. Seuthopolis, however, may not be a ‘city’ at all if we use the term to mean the centre of commerce, public and political life of its environs, with a large population including specialists, administrative and elite classes. The size of the settlement is mere 5ha, which if we calculate with 100-200 people per ha could accommodate some 500-1000 inhabitants.43 The regular Hippodameian plan

Seuthopolis, despite its potentially atypical nature, thus provides the best evidence of a Thracian ‘city’. It was built on Hippodameian plan with massive defence system and regular urban structure of insulae and large houses. There is some controversy about the existence of public buildings in the city, as no structures for political activity have been securely identified. The interpretation of the fortified acropolis in the NE corner of the city oscillates between two different interpretations: the excavators and their followers classify it as a ‘citadel’ - a royal residence or a place of refuge41, while others interpret it on the basis of a local inscription (SEG XIII, I30) as a temple of the

Archibald 1999, 442-444; Rabadjiev 2000, 394-395. The inscription SEG XIII, I30 discovered in the ‘citadel’ states it was to be deposited in the sanctuary of the Great Gods. 43 As for the other sites, the extent of the Thracian predecessor of Philippopolis, Pupuldeva, remains unknown due to its burial under the modern city of Plovdiv. The city wall of Kabyle encloses some 20ha of territory, but little is known about its Hellenistic occupation, as they have been revealed only in a few sondages (Velkov 1990). The walled area includes a steep slope of the acropolis, which was probably not inhabited. The site of Pistiros at Vetren, Pazardzhik, spans 50ha according to Archibald (2000, 229). Yet this digit remains largely speculative, as only a 100m wall has been unearthed so far. Sboryanovo, a fortified site north of Haemus, encloses 20ha and has been taken as a prototype of Thracian urbanisation with workshops inside the walls (Stoyanov 2001). Koprivlen was only partially excavated during rescue excavations (Bozhkova and Delev 2002). While other Thracian cities are larger than Seuthopolis they are still fairly small in the context of the contemporary foundations in the Mediterranean and continental Europe. Seleucid foundations range from 45 to 200ha (Aperghis 2005, 31) and Celtic oppida range from 20ha at Levroux (Büchsenschütz 1995, 61), to 380ha in Manching in southern Germany (Sievers 2007). 42

Nankov 2008. E.g., Philippopolis, Kabyle and cities on the Black Sea coast. 40 E.g. Koprivlen excavations were commissioned as a rescue (Delev and Bozhkova 2002), and Pistiros has been severely damaged by the Maritza river (Bouzek, et al. 1996). 41 Dimitrov and Čičikova 1978, 48 ff; Nankov 2008. 38 39

137

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 2. Early Iron Age surface scatters in the valley of Kazanlak based on the TRAP survey data.

has blocks and houses of similar size with no marked distinction. Among the large peristyle and pastas houses there is little space for specialist workshops and dwellings of commoners, nor is there evidence for storage facilities and public buildings needed for the public functions of a city. Likewise, expensive furnishings indicating elite status are more or less equally distributed throughout the settlement. Archibald has suggested that Late Iron Age Odrysian Thrace saw an emergence of ‘urban centres reserved mainly for rather special people, their dependents, servants and specialists.’44 It seems likely that Seuthopolis was a residence for elites like those described by Archibald. The lack of differentiation among the house assemblages suggests little status differentiation among their elite owners. The impressive defensive walls and the missing house of the king too have an explanation. They are consistent with Sanders’ phenomenon of a chiefly society, whose rulers are powerful enough to commission monumental buildings for communal use, but not powerful enough to have palaces built for themselves.45

pedestrian survey were conducted in the Kazanlak valley around the reservoir now covering Seuthopolis itself. Our survey was searching for a system of administrative centres, agricultural or agro-pastoral villages, ritual sites, and other special-purpose locations needed to support a first-tier site like Seuthopolis. Figures 2 and 3 show the spatial distribution of sites in the survey area during the Early and Late Iron Age. The site types listed are interpretations, combining factors such as scatter size and surface material composition. Scatter sizes are derived from the scatter ‘nucleus’, the dense core of the scatter, which is most likely to correspond with the area once inhabited. The Early Iron Age map captures two tiers of sites, larger villages (c. 4-5ha) and smaller farmsteads, shelters, cult and special purpose sites (c. 0.5-2ha). Out of 27 documented surface scatters, 12 show signs of construction materials and some longer-term continuity. The rest produced no material indicative of permanent residential structures. In the Late Iron Age, the number of surface scatters increases to 44 scatters, of which 24 produced some construction materials. The quality of material increases (more wheel-made, high-quality Greyware pottery and imports). The majority of Late Iron Age scatters are still fairly small in extent (0.5-5ha). Given the small size of these scatters, the total area occupied during Late Iron Age rises only slightly (from 14 to 19ha) despite the absolute increase in the number of scatters from 27 to 44 in Late Iron Age. The small increase in the size of occupied area suggests relatively stable population levels

The principal question of TRAP was to better understand the structure of Thracian settlement, especially the number and size of settlements in tiers below that of Seuthopolis. The aim was to complement the data produced by decades of excavation focusing on cities, burial mounds, and other elite sites.46 Three seasons of systematic, intensive Archibald 1999, 440. Sanders (1974) cited in Flannery 1998, 21. 46 Christov 2008; Kisyov 2009. 44 45

138

Adela Sobotkova: Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace

Figure 3. Late Iron Age surface scatters in the valley of Kazanlak based on the TRAP survey data.

in the valley and reduces the impact of the high site count.47 Aside from the city of Seuthopolis, the other sites consist of small, fairly homogenous assemblages indicating villages or rural habitations (e.g., hamlets or farmsteads).48 Even the occasional elite site displays a fairly homogenous, if higher quality, assemblage. It proved difficult to distinguish any functional differentiation within or among the scatters beyond domestic activity and elite display. While the surface scatters varied in size and in purpose, they were devoid of evidence for intra-site stratification or administrative function, leaving Seuthopolis the only known (short-lived) administrative centre in the valley.

relatively static during the first millennium BC; despite the increased number of scatters between the Early and the Late Iron Age, their small average size does not leave much room for substantial increases in population. During the Late Iron Age, all we see in the hinterland of Seuthopolis is a diffuse, homogeneous and decentralised network of rural settlement. Survey results produced little evidence for widely diversified economy within the settlement of the valley. While economic differentiation and interdependence have been associated with the emergence of states and empires, scholars have warned that the evidence for economic differentiation and trade does not always coincide with social complexity.49 In Kazanlak, the functional differentiation followed these lines: three elite scatters produced evidence of consumption of prestige goods, two areas in the Sredna Gora hills suggested quarrying activity, while rural scatters mostly yielded and pottery for cooking, storing and serving foodstuffs.50 Some, but not all, scatters suggested permanent habitation through the presence of daub (for wattle and daub constructions) or architectural ceramics. The rural assemblages point to basic domestic

Most of the scatters that seem to represent more permanent habitations are fairly widely spaced and separated by streams and natural obstacles. Some scatters seemed to belong to clusters, but no clear signs of nucleation were noted. Settlement hierarchy is incipient, with two tiers of scatter sizes present. The overall population seems low and 47 Calculating ‘site’ sizes on basis of often discontinuous and multicentric surface scatters is not necessarily an exact science and site boundaries therefore need to be understood as interpretations, resulting from the analysis of quantity, quality and date of the surface material recorded. The advantage of the artefact survey, which is at the basis of TRAP, is that the resulting artefact distributions can be conveniently reinterpreted according to new thresholds. For the purpose of the settlement analysis TRAP distinguished two types of site boundaries: nucleus – the high concentration that could plausibly be connected with structures and habitation, and margin - lower density scatter around the nucleus. The latter one was deployed for cultural heritage management purpose and compliance with Bulgarian survey standards. 48 By ‘homogenous’ I mean featuring assemblages of similar structure with little indication of economic or functional specialization.

Social contexts and types of specialization in states are discussed by Sinopoli (2003) and Wright and Johnson (1975). Arguments for power of elites growing from sponsoring crafts and long-distance trade have been raised by E. Brumfiel and T. Earle (1987). However, ethnographic records of pre-modern societies show that complex trade networks may exist without complex social structure (Brumfiel and Earle 1987,4). 50 In TRAP survey the elite wares were mostly represented by high quality Thracian grey ware, cf. Nikov (1999). 49

139

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

subsistence activity. No evidence for large scale economic activity (kilns, workshops, storage and agricultural processing facilities) or system of regional exchange (intersettlement specialisation and exchange) was captured by the survey.51 All in all, the Iron Age population of the Kazanlak valley shows little tendency to aggregate in large centres or engage in intensive economic production. Instead, survey evidence suggests the core features of Iron Age society were shifting residence patterns and mixed subsistence strategies, incorporating mainly agricultural and pastoralist lifestyle.

both the elites and the commoners that frustrate any attempt at a centralized rule.54 In the second case, I propose to understand the majority of the written sources (Demosthenes excepted) not in terms of absolute political power and social complexity, but in terms of Greek perspectives on social power and wealth. Ruling or Raiding, what is the Difference? Herodotus describes the aristocratic ideal of Thracian elites in brief: ‘The idler is most honoured, the tiller of the soil most scorned; he is held in highest honour, who lives by war and robbery.’55 This ethos is consistent with the aristocratic culture of raiding and gift-giving (including feasting) attested in historical sources as well as Thracian material culture and elite iconography.56 While it motivated competition and shaped elite culture, this ethos failed to overcome the structural constraints on the monopoly of power that existed among the elites.57

The homogeneous and dispersed nature of rural settlement and the absence of evidence for large population do not constitute the expected footprint of a complex, state-level society. Unlike the mortuary realm, the settlement data correspond with the picture of the ‘barbaric’ (from Greek perspective) way of life described by Demosthenes, with its mud (wattle and daub) huts, and small settlements producing and consuming local, low-status foods. In anthropological terms, the small, dispersed settlements are indicative of segmentary or, at most, a chiefly society, where wealth is limited to the few local elites. This picture is reminiscent of Emile Durkheim’s ‘mechanical solidarity’ to describe the occupational sameness that exists between the members of such a society.52 Or, in Kent Flannery’s formulation: ‘search every craftsman’s house in the archaeological remains of chiefdom and you will usually find tools which indicate he was a farmer as well.’53 By these standards, Late Iron Age Thrace was a chiefdom at most, not a state.

The elites seem to have pursued more limited aims with non-elites at home: raiding to seize a surplus (perhaps supplemented by the related activity of exacting tribute from the conquered), and redistributing that surplus to attract and retain a military retinue, which in turn could facilitate further raiding.58 The lack of sustained economic initiative at home was offset by engagement abroad, especially in the Aegean and Mediterranean social and economic networks. This engagement included limited elite exchange that provided imported, high-status goods that secured Thracian elites the prestige and power in intra-elite competition at home. Thus, access to and consumption of foreign luxuries has supplemented raiding at home as a means of strengthening one’s social status and attracting a permanent military retinue.59

Discussion Two interpretive questions remain: (1) how do we explain the contradiction between mortuary and settlement archaeology, and (2) how do we explain the contradiction between settlement archaeology and the written sources? In the first case, excavation of burial mounds captures the special status of elites. This mortuary archaeology produces grave goods requiring considerable craft specialisation and skill. Settlement archaeology provides insights into the lives of the bulk of society. Here, little intra- or intersite functional differentiation was noted among the rural settlements. What can explain this divergence? I assert that elite status objects do not necessarily indicate a state, while homogenous settlements strongly argue for a simple society. Furthermore, negative feedback loops exist on the part of

Fine imports, gold rings, and high quality drinking vessels in burial mounds provide evidence for elite competition through wealth accumulation. Weapons, horse burials, personal accessories and military iconography attest to the military culture and coercive potential of the elites, yet the These disincentives are in essence similar to the ‘structural constraints on evolutionary potential inherent in well-developed ranked societies’ described by Webster (1975, 465). 55 Hist. V.6.2; for a comprehensive treatment of the aristocratic ethos see Walter Donlan’s The Aristocratic Ideal in Ancient Greece (1980). 56 Archibald 1998; Theodossiev 1998; Marazov 2005; Marazov and Fol 1998. 57 I also believe that this ethos did not provide sufficient incentive for the elites to establish a more thorough going control over their nonelite subjects, an idea that I will pursue in future. The elite behaviour in Thrace failed to stimulate the emergence of specialists, organize them in large cities for purpose of tax and policing, or pressure them into intensified production. The Persian Empire, Greek city states, and Macedonian expansion provided the necessary examples and tools for political and economic consolidation, yet the Thracians did not succeed in implementing them. Running an expansive bureaucracy requires the commitment of sustained labour and resources, not to mention the incentives to deploy both. From the material evidence it seems that there was no administrative class to undertake or coordinate such activity. Elite incentives were, therefore, not aligned with the emergence of a state. 58 Xen. Anab., book 7; Donlan 1980; McNeill 1992. 59 Blanton, et al. 1996; Donlan 1980; Archibald 1998, ch.10-12. 54

Survey evidence in Kazanlak brought minimal evidence for full-time specialisation beyond Seuthopolis. Specialization at the regional level, one where kin-based units or entire villages specialize in the production and trading of a particular good was not detected. The survey results do not suggest specialists were absent from Thrace. Excavations of both burial mounds as well as at the towns of Sboryanovo and Pistiros provide evidence to the contrary with remains of workshops and locally made goods. So far, however, the specialisation in Iron Age Thrace appears to be of the ‘independent’ kind, a fairly small-scale enterprise and limited to the towns and resources. 52 Papoulia 1994, 18. 53 Flannery 1972, 403. 51

140

Adela Sobotkova: Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace

high number of (competing) sumptuous burials underscores the lack of any monopoly of force in Thrace, a picture consistent with historical sources (especially Xenophon). David Webster has argued that the lack of centralization puts limits on territorial expansion and effective control over ruled subjects.60 Without consolidated rule, long-term military campaigns are not feasible as they overextend the polity, provoking internal stress, and precipitating chiefly cycling. Only through internal administrative specialization can a chiefdom achieve lasting military and political presence across a region and develop into a more stable, state-level society – a transformation that did not take place in first-millennium BC Thrace.

material expression of supra-communal authority, yet its short-lived span and small scale casts doubt on its lasting significance. Historical records mention the construction of roads and infrastructure by Thracian rulers (Sitalces in 5th century BC), but these have so far not been archaeologically attested.63 No other evidence of monuments that reflect an attempt to build legitimacy beyond the local level exists. Sources agree that Thracian rulers had extensive resources at their disposal, but archaeology suggests that surplus was mostly consumed at the community level by elites and their retinues. It seems not to have been regularly deployed at a supra-regional level to establish legitimacy across individual communities, or as a foundation for more effective rule at a distance.

As a result, it is not surprising that the managerial specialization and consolidation of rule is missing in the archaeological evidence from Thrace. While the finds in Thracian burial tombs are sumptuous, their repertoire (military and feasting themes) is rather uniform and does not indicate administrative specialization. Furthermore, the acquisition of luxuries for elite display relied more on trade and gift-giving, likely fuelled by wealth acquired through raiding, rather than specialization and mobilization of the domestic economy.61

Rational Peasants The elite interactions and sparse foundations seem to have had little effect on the life of their local community. Archaeology suggests that a majority of the population lived apart from the elites in rural settlements of small, dispersed, and sometimes temporary character.64 This arrangement does not preclude their engagement in the economy either as tenants on elites’ land, or as seasonal workers or conscript labourers.65 While some communities may have accepted this role willingly, historical sources indicate that many others tended towards autonomy.66 Midnight raids and other reprisals awaited communities that defaulted on or resented the tributary arrangements.67

The ideological reach of the luxury goods was also spatially limited due to their small and personal nature. The messages projected by these objects were visible only close at hand, and could hardly reach beyond the community of the nobleman and his retinue. Likewise, the burial mounds, despite their size, are personal monuments. Memory of their construction and their contents is stored at the local level in the group of funeral guests, family, and onlookers, and as such they remain effective only at the level of local community - an idea strengthened by the fact that they are endlessly repeated across the landscape.

The lifestyle and spatial configuration of the local communities suggested by the evidence from archaeological survey may simply appear ‘primitive’. Any such interpretation would, however, overlook the potential functional significance of such configuration. Socio-economic strategies that allow dispersed and mobile residence patterns, such as a mobile agro-pastoralist economy (emphasising animal husbandry and reliable but low-status crops) and little social differentiation provide a powerful barrier to elite domination. Similar strategies have been identified in living societies as means to frustrate attempts at control.68 I suggest that Thracian communities exploited those features of the environment, economy and social organization that boost their autonomy.

In sum, imported luxury goods and high status objects were important for intra-elite displays and rivalry, as well as to reinforce local authority, but they did not carry much weight outside the immediate community.62 Large scale monuments, inscriptions, or constructions that surpass the personal and local-communal sphere signal an attempt on the part of rulers to provide legitimacy, and to hold together disparate groups with a common ideological fabric. Archaeological evidence for such constructions in Thrace is sparse.

The lack of occupational differentiation and specialization

The foundation of Seuthopolis is the best example of

Thuc. 2.98.1. Archaeological remains from Early and Late Iron Age have produced a combination of long- and short-lived sites (Gotsev 1997). 65 See note 53 above. 66 ‘The Satrae, as far as we know, have never yet been subject to any man; they alone of the Thracians have continued living in freedom to this day; they dwell on high mountains covered with forests of all kinds and snow, and they are excellent warriors’ (Hdt. 7.111.1). Thucydides corroborates Herodotus as he is aware of groups of ‘autonomous’ Thracians in the Rhodope (2.96.2; 6.27.5). 67 Xen. Anab. 7. 68 Ethnographers of 20th century peasant societies in South East Asian bring corroborating evidence of peasants on the borders of states who adopt socio-economic strategies that limit and obviate the power of states and central governments (Scott 2009; Popkin 1979). 63 64

Webster 1998, 466. The ‘Pistiros inscription’ shows that the trade within cities was supported and regulated by Thracian kings (Domaradzka and Velkov 1994; Archibald 2004, 887). Written texts suggest the concept of land tenancy and bring evidence for Thracian kings using agricultural and pastoral when in need of cash (Athenaeus 6.271b; Fol 1970, 208-210). These activities build on the traditional agricultural and pastoralist economic strategies rather than intensified production and specialization in the Thracian hinterland. 62 The basic problem faced by states is that of integrating the isolated strata of elites and communities of agricultural producers (Gellner 1983, Kindle version 611 out of 2675). 60 61

141

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Conclusion

among the settlements offers no bottlenecks for elites to target and control.69 The dispersed, non-nucleated nature of settlement and emphasis on mobility (such as building with perishable material that could be quickly replaced, or keeping much wealth on the hoof) provides diminishing returns for raiders, as they hinder the effective capture of large, stationary populations or surpluses. The location of settlements near mountains and other areas with difficult access, furthermore, provides for an easy refuge by heading for the hills when under pressure (as occurs in Xenophon’s Anabasis when Seuthes attempts to exact revenge on the peasant for disloyalty).

In conclusion, archaeological surface survey of the Kazanlak valley by the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project provides no evidence for state-level society in first millennium BC Thrace. The hinterland of Seuthopolis showed no signs of having been restructured and conformed to the needs of a state. At most, a poorly-developed, two-tier settlement hierarchy is present in the hinterland, and surface concentrations show little inter- or intra-site diversity. Both the royal residence and the watchtowers guarding the major mountain passes remain too small-scale and short-lived to permanently impact the economic or social dynamics of the valley. Local inhabitants do not engage in large-scale specialized economic production that would be traceable through survey. Despite the presence of Seuthopolis and the mountain watchtowers, the majority of the local population still engages in the traditional, small-scale, Early Iron Age agro-pastoral economy with its impermanent habitation patterns. These socio-economic strategies are contrary to the stable, hierarchical structure required by a state. A combination of excavation and survey data indicate a local, chiefly society, at most, prior to the Macedonian conquest.

The configuration of the rural population provides a positive feedback to the aristocratic ethos. While commoners focus on maintaining their autonomy, elites focus on peer competition and direct their efforts outwards to interactions with other elites. Not only there is little incentive for the elites to rule their own subjects effectively and more oppressively, but the spatial organization of commoners makes it harder. Social Power versus Social Complexity The last question that remains is: If the Thracians are not a state, how did they earn their formidable status among the Greeks? This question begs a lengthy explanation but I will leave it with two brief suggestions. It is not uncommon for the Thracian society of the first millennium BC to be characterized as parallel to the Early Iron Age Homeric society in Greece as described by Bjorn Qviller and Walter Donlan.70 The Thracian elites with their aristocratic ethos and attitude may have reminded the Greeks of the Classical and Hellenistic period of their own heroic past. The other reason can be seen in the economic resources, in particular the fertile, well-watered land and abundance of large livestock, especially horses and cattle, which were difficult to maintain in Greece and thus associated with elite status. Recent studies have pointed out the significance of large animals as a source of status and social power in environmentally less fortunate Greece.71 If the ownership of large herds of horses and cattle equated to wealth, status, and power in Greek eyes, the abundance of these beasts in Thrace could have incited Greek admiration.

Nascent state-level institutions manifested in the foundation of Seuthopolis and the widespread urbanization and consolidation of inner Thrace appear in late 4th century BC (e.g., the fortification and expansion of Philippopolis, Kabyle and Pistiros). This process of internal restructuring is connected with Macedonian conquest and is severely disrupted by the wars of Successors. The decline of Seuthopolis only some two generations after its foundation marks the devolution of the nascent state-level institutions back into the ‘chiefly cycle’, where it remains until the Roman period. Unless settlement patterns in other parts of Thrace are proven to differ, it is unlikely that any region of ancient Thrace ever developed a state level society in the first millennium BC. The historical evidence for remarkably successful expansion in late 5th and mid-4th centuries instead reflects limited developments that impressed Greek observers, but that did not produce large-scale, long-term effects visible in the archaeological record.

Neither the nostalgia after heroic past nor envy of natural resources, which in Greece have a particular social significance, has anything to do with Thracian social complexity per se. Our confusion over Thracian social structure may originate from translation, with interpreters of the Thracian arche perceiving social complexity, where Greeks authors were describing social power.

Only one level of decision-making is apparent in the archaeological evidence: local elites. These elites engaged in a cosmopolitan lifestyle and competition with one another, and may have served as local military leaders with personal retinues, but overall there is weak vertical integration in the society across different social groups, or horizontal integration across individual communities. Commoners utilise impermanent settlements and other strategies to minimize the impact of surplus extraction and other forms of domination. Both elites and commoners negotiate their autonomy and resist external rule, and too few incentives exist to change these patterns and promote

Earle 1997, 7. Qviller 1981; Donlan 1980; Thucydides himself characterizes the Greek fringe areas as engaging in archaic lifestyle (1.5.3-6.2). 71 Howe 2008, esp. chapter 2. 69 70

142

Adela Sobotkova: Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace

the evolution of greater social, political, or economic complexity, integration and centralization. List of Bibliography Aperghis, G. G. 2005. City Building and the Royal Seleucid Economy. In Z. H. Archibald et al. (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing, 27-43. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Archibald, Z. H. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus unmasked, Oxford, Clarendon Press Archibald, Z. H. 1999. Thracian Cult - From Practice to Belief. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East, 427-468. Leiden. Archibald, Z. H. 2000. Space, Hierarchy and Community in Archaic and Classical Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace. In R. Brock and S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens, 212-233. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Archibald, Z. H. 2004. Inland Thrace. In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, 885-899. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Asheri, D. 1990. Herodotus on Thracian society and history. In O. R. Giuseppe Nenci (ed.), Herodote et les peuples non grecs: neuf expose´s suivi de discussion, 131-169. Vandoeuvres-Geneva, Fondation Hardt. Balabanov, P. 1990. The Cities of Ancient Thrace Before the Campaigns of Philip II. In V. Velkov (ed.), Terra Antiqua Balcanica, 34-41. Sofia, Acta Centri Historiae Terra Antiqua Balcanica. Blanton, R., et al. 1996. A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology, 37, 1-14. Bouzek, J. 2005. Urbanisation in Thrace. In J. Bouzek and L. Domaradska (eds.), The Culture of Thracians and Their Neighbours: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table ‘Archaeological Map of Bulgaria’, 1-7. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Bouzek, J. and Domaradska, L. 2002. More Than 300 Talents from the Emporia for Kersebleptes (with Reference to Demosthenes, Against Aristocrates 110) In A. Fol (ed.), Eighth International Congress of Thracology: Thrace and the Aegean, 391-398. Sofia, Yambol, International Foundation Europa Antiqua, Institute of Thracology - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Bouzek, J., et al. 1996. Pistiros I: Excavations and Studies. The Result of the Excavations Conducted in VetrenPistiros in the Collaboration of Bulgarian, Czech and British Teams, part 1, Prague, Karolinum. Bozhkova, A. 2000. Structures economiques en Thrace du sud-ouest aux VIe-IIe siecle avant J.-C. In M. Domaradski (ed.), Pistiros et Thasos. Structures economiques dans la peninsule Balkanique aux VIIe - IIe siecles avant J.-C., 79-86. Opole. Bozhkova, A. and Delev, P. 2002. Koprivlen, vol 1. Sofia, Nous. Brumfiel, E. M. and Earle, T. K. 1987. Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: an introduction. In

143

E. M. Brumfel and T. K. Earle (eds.), Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Socieites, 1-9. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Büchsenschütz, O. 1995. The Significance of Major Settlements in European Iron Age Society. In B. Arnold and D. B. Gibson (eds.), Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State. The Evolution of Complex Social Systems in Prehistoric Europe, 53-63. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Carneiro, R. L. 1981. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. In G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz (eds.), The Transition to Statehood in the New World, 37-73. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chang, K. C. 1968. Settlement Archaeology. Palo Alto, California, National Press Books. Christov, I. 2008. The Thracian Residence, Fortress and Sanctuary of the Odryssae Tsars in Sredna Gora. Fifth to Fourth Century BC. Po putya na minaloto. Sbornik nauchni statii po povod 65-godishninata na d-r Georgi Kitov, 213-221. Sofiya, APOC. Claessen, H. J. M. and Skalník, P. 1978a. The Early State. The Hague, Mouton. Claessen, H. J. M. and Skalník, P. 1978b. Limits: Beginning and End of the Early State. In H. J. M. Claessen and P. Skalník (eds.), The Early State, 619-635. The Hague, Mouton. Cohen, R. 1978. State Origins: A Reappraisal. In H. J. M. Claessen and P. Skalník (eds.), The Early State, 31-75. The Hague, Mouton. Delev, P. 2002. Some Greeks in Thrace. In A. Fol (ed.), Eighth International Congress of Thracology: Thrace and the Aegean, 301-311. Sofia, Yambol, International Foundation Europa Antiqua, Institute of Thracology Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Dimitrov, D. P. and Čičikova, M. 1978. The Thracian City of Seuthopolis. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Dimitrov, K. 2011. Sotsialni i religiozni aspekti na ‘tsarskia grad’ v rannoelenisticheska Trakia. P.1 Sevtopolis: gradat i obshtestvoto. Seminarium Thracicum, 7, 95-122. Domaradzka, L .and Velkov, V. 1994. Kotys I (383/2-359 av. J.-C.) et l’ Emporion Pistiros de Thrace. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 118, 1-15. Donlan, W. 1980. The Aristocratic Ideal in Ancient Greece. Ideals of Superiority from Homer to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Lawrence, Coronado Press. Drennan, R. D. and Dai, X. 2010. Chiefdoms and States in the Yuncheng Basin and the Chifeng region: A Comparative Analysis of Settlement Systems in North China. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 29, 455-468. Earle, T. K. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: the Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Feinman, G. M. and Marcus, J. 1998. Archaic states. Santa Fe, School of American Research Press. Filov, B., et al. 1934. Die Grabhügelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Südbulgarien. Sofia, Staatsdruckerei. Flannery, K. V. 1972. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3, 399-425.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Porozhanov, K. 1998. Society and State Organization of the Thracians. Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Qviller, B. 1981. The dynamics of the Homeric society. Symbolae Osloenses: Norwegian Journal of Greek and Latin Studies, LVI, 109-155. Rabadjiev, K. 2000. The Royal Palace in Seuthopolis. Thracia, XIII, 387-397. Rousseau, J. R. M. 2006. Rethinking social evolution: the perspective from middle-range societies. Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press. Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, Yale University Press. Scott, J. C. 2009. The Art of not Being Governed: an Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, Yale University Press. Service, E. R. 1975. Origins of the state and civilization : the process of cultural evolution. New York, Norton. Sievers, S. 2007. Manching: Die Keltenstadt. Stuttgart. Sinopoli, C. M. 2003. The political economy of craft production: crafting empire in South India, c. 13501650. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press. Stoyanov, T. 2001. The Getic Capital at Sborjanovo. Talanta, XXXII-XXXIII, 207-221. Stoyanov, T. 2005. The Mal-tepe Complex near Mezek. In J. Bouzek and L. Domaradska (eds.), The Culture of Thracians and Their Neighbours: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table ‘Archaeological Map of Bulgaria’, 123-128. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Stronach, D. and Zournatsi, A. 2002. Odrysian and Achaemenid Tribute: Some New Perspectives. In A. Fol (ed.), Eight International Congress of Thracology: Thrace and the Aegean, 333-344. Sofia, Yambol, International Foundation Europa Antiqua, Institute of Thracology - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Tainter, J. A. 1992. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press. Theodossiev, N. 1998. The Dead with Golden Faces: Dasaretian, Pelagonian, Mygdonian and Boeotian Funeral Masks. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17, 345-367. Theodossiev, N. 2011. Ancient Thrace During the First Millennium BC. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC, 1-60. Leuven - Paris - Walpole, Peeters. Tsetskhladze, G. 1998. Who Built the Scythian and Thracian Royal and Elite Tombs? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17, 55-92. Velkov, V. 1990. Excavations and Studies at Kabyle: 19821986. In V. Velkov (ed.), Terra Antiqua Balcanica. Sofia: Acta Centri Historiae Terra Antiqua Balcanica. Velkov, V. et al. (eds.) 1981. Izvori za Istoriyata na Trakiya i Trakite. Sofia, Bulgarskata Akademiya na naukite. Venedikov, I. (ed.) 1982. Megalitite v Trakiia, vol.2 Thrakia Pontica. Sofia, Nauka i izkustvo. Venedikov, I. and Gerasimov, T. D. 1975. Thracian art treasures. Sofia, Bulgarski Houdozhnik Pub. House.

Flannery, K. V. 1998. The Ground Plan of Archaic States. In G. M. Feinman, and J. Marcus (eds.), Archaic States, 15-57. Santa Fe, School of American Research Press. Flannery, K. V. 1999. Process and Agency in Early State Formation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9, 3-21. Fol, A. 1970. Demografska i sotsialna struktura na drevna Trakiia. I khiliadoletie predi n. e., Sofia, Nauka i izkustvo. Fol, A., et al. 2000. Ancient Thrace. Sofia, Europress. Gellner, E. 1983. Nations and nationalism. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers. Gotsev, A. 1997. Characteristics of Settlement System during the Iron Age in Ancient Thrace. Acta Hyperborea, 7, 407-421. Hatlas, J. 2002. Konstruktionsreiche Grabanlagen der thrakischen Aristokratie (5.-3. Jh. v. Chr.). In A. Fol (ed.), Eight International Congress of Thracology: Thrace and the Aegean, 487-499. Sofia, Yambol, International Foundation Europa Antiqua, Institute of Thracology Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Hoddinott, R. F. 1975. Bulgaria in Antiquity: an archaeological introduction. London, Ernest Benn Limited. Howe, T. 2008. Pastoral Politics: Animals, Agriculture, and Society in Ancient Greece [Online]. Claremont, Regina Books. Jordanov, K. 2000. Les Etats Des Thraces/Darzhavnostta Na Trakite. Seminarium Thracicum, 4, 49-70. Katsarov, G. I. and Dechev, D. 1949. Izvori za starata istoria i geografia na Trakia i Makedonia, Sofia. Kisyov, K. 2009. Arheologicheski prouchvania na trakiiski selishten centr ot klasicheska epoha krai selo Vasil Levski, obshtina Karlovo. Arheologicheskite Otkritia i Razkopki prez 2008, 237-240. Kitov, G. 1997. Valley of the Thracian kings. Il Mar nero, 3, 9-35. Marazov, I. 2005. The Thracian Warrior, Sofia. Marazov, I. and Fol, A. 1998. Ancient Gold: the Wealth of the Thracians. Treasures from the Republic of Bulgaria. New York, Harry N. Abrams, in association with the Trust for Museum Exhibitions, in cooperation with the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Bulgaria. McNeill, W. H. 1992. The global condition: conquerors, catastrophes, and community, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Nankov, E. 2008. The Fortifications of the Early Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis: Breaking The Mold. Archaeologica Bulgarica XII, 15-56. Nikov, K. 1999. ‘Aeolian’ Bucchero in Thrace? Archaelogia Bulgarica, III, 31-42. Papoulia, V. 1994. Ancient Thrace as a Historical Unity. In G. Selimis (ed.), Thrace, 13-34. Athens, Idea Advertising-Marketing SA. Popkin, S. L. 1979. The rational peasant: the political economy of rural society in Vietnam. Berkeley, University of California Press. Popov, C. 2002. Urbanizatsiya vuv vutreshnite rayony na Trakiya i Iliriya. Sofia.

144

Adela Sobotkova: Resisting Rule in Ancient Thrace

Webster, D. 1975. Warfare and the Evolution of the State: A Reconsideration. American Antiquity, 40, 464-470. Wright, H. T. and Johnson, G. A. 1975. Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist, 77, 267-289.

are differences in the quality of surface assemblages in these different regions. Kazanlak is mountainous, much more geologically active, erosion is heavier and materials are more worn. The Yambol region features an arable, rolling landscape. The archaeological remains are far better preserved in Yambol and it is easier to conduct surveys there. As for the surface materials, in the Yambol region we get a lot of highly diagnostic handmade Early Iron Age wares while in Kazanlak they are sparse and less well preserved. In the Late Iron Age in Kazanlak, we get micaceous grey wares, while in Yambol we often find imitations of the Black Slip. There are some regional differences in preferences, production and supply of pottery.

Discussion Siranush Khachatryan: As you mentioned, the sources that refer to the Thracians are very contradictory to each other and I was wondering whether the relations between the Greeks and the Thracians affected the way the former presented the latter.

Anca Dan: A short comment and a question: You have already given the answer for this ‘contradiction’ between the written sources. There are three authors speaking of three different places at three different moments. Thucydides described the Odrysians and was looking from the Aegean to the north; then you have mentioned Xenophon, speaking about the Propontian Thrace and looking from the east; finally you quoted Demosthenes, who spoke about an Aegean Thrace, which did not exist anymore being already conquered by Philip. The answer to the question of the difference between the sources lies in their different contexts and purposes.

Adela Sobotkova: Naturally, the Greek sources speaking of Thracians have a number of cultural attitudes and contemporary political agendas embedded in them. For example, in expressing his impressions of Thracians vis à vis the Persians, Thucydides underscores the contrast in mutual relations between the Athenians and these two peoples. Eleni Mentesidou: Can you trace any differences between the coastal settlements and the settlements in the hinterland of Bulgaria in terms of civilization, artefacts, art, or other elements?

My question concerns your own vision of Thrace, of the whole land between the Aegean, the Propontis and the Black Sea: do you, as an archaeologist, see it as a unitary space or not?

Adela Sobotkova: Yes, there are some differences among inland and coastal sites, in terms of social organization, population, etc. Many of the coastal sites are of Greek foundation or have a large component of foreign settlers. The inland sites, such as Sboryanovo, are of ‘indigenous’, local Thracian foundation, built on irregular plan and containing lots of workshops. Origins of the inland towns are hard to establish as the Early Iron Age is often represented by little more than a couple of potsherds. At Kabyle, knowledge of the Late Iron Age (Hellenistic) period is limited, known only from sondages, confirming that something was happening here. Despite limited evidence it seems that most of the inland cities have evolved organically and are not built from scratch like Seuthopolis. Seuthopolis is built on the Hippodameian plan after a Greek model. We know little about Pistiros as it was washed away by the Maritza River but what is left of the walls seems similar to Seuthopolis. The rest of the indigenous settlements in the interior of Thrace are mostly forts.

Adela Sobotkova: That’s an interesting question. As an archaeologist, I do not really see Thrace as being politically united. There is no archaeological evidence for it, even with the survey limitations, because we do not get large settlements or complex hierarchies, we do not get any idea of an overarching ideology that could hold the society together, there is very little horizontal coherence and vertical integration in the society. The burial mounds as the only monumental structures in Bulgaria are personal or community monuments. The memory of their contents and their construction is all stored at the level of the local community. The society operated really at the level of the individual communities with local lords and their kin or tenants. I see the Thracian society more as a bigman or chief-led society, whether we call them tribes or communities. I don’t see enough structure or organization in the hinterland of Thrace that would warrant any sort of centralized rule. I don’t think that the glorification of Thrace in Greek sources indicates that there must have been a statelevel society. Thucydides speaks highly of the power of Thrace, firstly because he is an aristocrat and the warrior lifestyle of the Thracian lords would have reminded him of the heroic past of the Greek Iron Age. Both Thucydides and Aristotle mention with some nostalgia that the northern tribes live like the Greeks used to in the archaic time. Thrace is ecologically much more fertile and supports lots of cattle and large animals, precious to the Greeks because

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Coming back to looking at the indigenous tribes of the interior in general, you have done surveys mainly in the Middle Tundzha area. Since you have studied settlements also in the Upper Tundzha area, do you see any differences in their material culture? Adela Sobotkova: Well, I see there are differences in the sizes of the scatters and some of the materials in the same period: in Kazanlak you have much more wheel-made grey ware of early 7th-6th c. BC, in the Yambol region we have more handmade Early Iron Age pottery – there

145

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

they were hard to keep in places like Attica. Thracians could have been associated with aristocratic status and social power because they had plenty of what the Greeks

considered elite resources. These could easily be the reasons for Thucydides’ praise and admiration.

146

The History of Tieion/Tios (Eastern Bithynia) in the Light of Inscriptions* Bülent Öztürk Abstract: The ancient city of Tios / Tieion, on one of the transit points between Eastern Bithynia and Western Paphlagonia regions in the ancient period, is located today in the township of Filyos in the Çaycuma District of Zonguldak province in the western Black Sea region of Turkey. In ancient sources, the city is spelt in various ways, including Τίειον, Τίον, Τήϊον, Τίος in Greek and Tieium, Tium, Tios in Latin. Tieion / Tios is narrated by the ancient authors to have been founded as a Milesian colony in the Greek colonization period. Dependent on various kingdoms during its Hellenistic period, the city fell under Roman control in c. 70 BC. The researchers who visited the city from the end of the 19th century onwards give an account of the inscriptions of Tieion / Tios in their works. As a result of the archaeological excavations and the surface surveys in the territory of the city and museum researches that were made under Prof. Dr. Sümer Atasoy between the years 2007 and 2012, new epigraphic materials have also been found. All of these inscriptions are dated to the Roman and Byzantine periods and consist of honorary decrees for officers, milestones, dedications to gods & goddesses, weights and gravestones. New information was forthcoming about the political, socio-economic, socio-cultural, and religious history of the Tieion / Tios from all these works, which will form the inscription corpus of the city. Keywords:Tieion, Tios, Inscriptions, Epigraphy, Black Sea, Bithynia, Greek colonisation

The ancient city of Tios / Tieion, which was located to the west of where the Filyos river discharges into the Black Sea and was one of the transit points between the Bithynia and Paphlagonia regions in the ancient period, is located today in the Filyos township of the Çaycuma District of the Zonguldak province in the western Black Sea region of Turkey (Figures 1-2). It is one of the few ancient cities along this coast line that has not entirely disappeared under modern buildings or deep silt deposits; it therefore offers a unique opportunity to investigate the structure, function and development of a long-standing settlement on the Black Sea coast.

addition to these researchers, several scholars who have not actually been to this site also wrote about the history, epigraphy and numismatic of Tios, including Paul Becker, Alexandre Boutkowski-Glinka, Walther Ruge and Peter Franke2. The archaeological excavations at Tios began in 2006 under the direction of Prof. Dr Sümer Atasoy, head of the Archaeology Department of Karabük University and continue until today. As a result of the excavations in the ancient city, new articles have been published by Prof. Atasoy and by members of the excavation team based on the new structures, finds and history of Tios3.

The territory of the Tios and Filyos region was visited and described by several archaeologists, ambassadors, travellers, missioners, scholars and epigraphists from the beginning of the 19th century, such as Eugene Boré, William Francis Ainsworth, Hommaire De Hell, Charles Texier, Walther Von Diest (Figure 2), Ernst Kalinka, Gustav Mendel, Louis Robert, Christian Marek and others1. In

According to Strabo and the Byzantine author Eustathius, the site of Tios was the capital of the Caucones, a Paphlagonian tribe living on either side of the river Billaios before the Greek colonization (Figure 1)4. During the colonization period, the site was colonized by Milesians in the second half of the 7th century BC5: Byzantine author Stephanus Byzantinus, quoting from Herennius Philon (c. 64–141 AD ) in his Ethnika, tells us that a Milesian priest Tios was the founder (= ktistes) of this colony, as the leader of other Milesian colonists6. His phrase apparently provides us with the explanation of where the name Tios comes from. Confirming this information we can see the depictions of (the priest?) Tios on Roman Imperial Period coins from

I would like to express my thanks to Prof. Dr Sümer Atasoy from the Achaeology Deparment of Karabuk University, the head of archaeological excavations of Tios, for letting me work on the new inscriptions of Tios and for informing me about the excavations; to the directors of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Karadeniz Ereğli Museum, Kastamonu Archaeological Museum, Sinop Archaeological Museum, Leiden Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, and also to the National Archaeological Museum for permission to work on the inscriptions of Tios; to Dr Hüseyin Sami Öztürk of the Ancient History Department of Marmara University for helping me with evaluating the inscriptions and also to Dr Manolis Manoledakis from the International Hellenic University for inviting me kindly to this workshop. 1 Boré 1840 I, 222-224; Ainsworth 1839, 230-232; 1842, 50-51; De Hell 1854, 329; Texier 1862, 624; Von Diest 1889, 73-76; Mendel 1901, 36-46, no. 185-190; Kalinka 1933, 53-55; 89-96; Robert 1934, 88-94; 1937, 266-296, pl. IX-XVI; 1977, 54-64; 1980, 165-190; Marek 1993, 257, Gesamtindex, s.v. “Tieion”; 2003, 192, index s.v. “Tieion”. For all itineraries and the modern literature that mention Tieion/Tios, see Öztürk 2012, 161-176. *

Becker 1852; 1853, 189-209; Boutkowski-Glinka 1864; 1867; Ruge 1936, 856-862; Franke 1966, 58-67. 3 Atasoy 2008, 91-97; Sönmez and Öztürk 2008, 133-146; Atasoy and Ertuğrul 2009, 1-14; Karaca 2010, 25-26; Atasoy and Yıldırım 2011, 1-16; 2012, 451-462; Yıldırım 2012, 25-27. 4 Strab. XII 3, 5; Eust. ad Il. II 855; ad Od. III 366-367. 5 Becker 1853, 191; Boutkowski-Glinka 1864; Bean 1979, 925; Ehrhardt 1983, 52; 136; Gorman 2001, 70; 249; Tsetskhladze 2004, 963 vd.; Tsetskhladze 2006, lxxii, Table 6, s.v. ‘Tieion’. 6 Steph. Byz. 624, 20. 2

147

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 1: Bithynia and Paphlagonia Regions, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, 2000: Paphlagonia

Figure 2: Map of Tios, Von Diest 1889, Blatt II: Itinerare in Phrygien und Bithynien

148

Bülent Öztürk: The History of Tieion/Tios

Tios (Figure 3)7. However, it is known that in the Roman Imperial Period the names of the cities were linked with Hellenic deities or heroes in order to establish a legendary foundation and Hellenic roots for their histories8. Stephanus Byzantinus, quoting from Demosthenes of Bithynia in the same paragraph, also gives a different explanation that Pataros, a Thracian leader who invaded the Paphlagonia region, established the settlement of Tios and named it in honour of Zeus, as Tios. He correlates the words Tios and Zeus. Other scholars think that the word Tios comes from Dios, the genitive form of Zeus9; in some new Phrygian inscriptions that were found in the regions of Galatia and Phrygia we see the genitive form ‘Dios’ converted into Tios10. Material for the period of colonization of the site is limited and nothing from Classical times is known for the site, except for its general layout. There are only a few examples of potteries dating from the last quarter of the 7th until the 5th century BC11. These were found in the excavations of the akropolis, which is considered to be the first point of settlement of the Milesian colonists.

Figure 3: Priest Tios on a coin of Tios, 2nd – 3rd century AD, Istanbul Archaeological Museums, inv. no. K.0.9060-52

Three grave inscriptions of people apparently from Tios were found in Athens, dated to the 5th–4th century BC (Figure 4)12. We do not know exactly who these people were and why they lived in Athens, but they are noted as slaves or liberated slaves living there; Tios was considered a slave market in the region, like Herakleia Pontika, Sinope and also Amisos13.

(284–305). Under Pompeius’ settlement of the region, Tios seems to have acquired some measure of autonomy15. Strabon in his Geographika described Tios as an insignificant town, a polichnion16; but Roman Period constructions of Tios, after Strabon’s time, prove that under the Roman reign the city underwent renewal and urban development. The constructions in the lower city (Figure 5) include a theatre (Figure 6), which has been cleared and partly excavated, an aquaduct with four surviving arches (Figure 7), a gymnasion found close to the arches of the aquaduct (Figure 7) and partly excavated, a bath with its hypocaust (Figure 8) and, on the akropolis (Figure 9) a temple platform (Figure 10)17. In addition to constructions, the inscriptions also suggest that Roman emperors and proconsuls encouraged the development of the settlement and it gained the status of a polis. At the excavations of Tios, three new honorary inscriptions were found, one for Emperor Antoninus Pius and the others for Caracalla. Moreover, Caecilius Aristo, as legatus pro praetore Augusti of provincia Pontus et Bithynia in AD 218, is honoured by the polis of Tios (Figure 11)18; this is the first inscription which attests him to having this office.

From ancient authors we learn that the settlement was dependant on various powers throughout its Hellenistic period, including the tyranny of Herakleia, the synoikismos of Amastris, the Bithynian Kingdom and the Pontic Kingdom14. After the dramatic defeat of the king of Pontus, Mithridates VI Eupator, in the Mithridatic Wars and following the Roman annexation in 70 BC, we see that Tios finally ended up in the province of Pontus and Bithynia by Pompeius in 64 BC until the reign of Diocletianus

Rec. Gén. ‘Tius’, 9-18, 142. Franke 2007, 22; Robert 1980, 412. 9 Lubotsky 2004, 229-230. 10 For the inscriptions, see MAMA 7, 312-314, 316, 318, 406, 454, 495; Drew-Bear et al. 2008, 109 no. 1, 111 no. 2; Woudheizen 2008-2009, 208, NPhr-33; 209, NPhr-76. For the prefix -ti- in the Phrygian language see Heubeck 1987, 70-85; Lubotsky 1989, 79-88; Lubotsky 2004, 229230; Woudheizen 2008-2009, 195, 205. There also some opinions that relate Tios with the palaic sky/sun god Tiyaz. See Hutter 2006, 81-88 and Vassileva 1999, 179. 11 For the materials see Atasoy and Erpehlivan 2012, 1-12. 12 For the grave inscription of Ma of Tios, see Kumanudes 1871 II, 217, no. 882; IG II2 10448; for Poseidaos of Tios, see Kumanudes 1871 II, 217, no. 883; IG II2 10449; for Tibeios of Tios (Figure 4), see Kumanudes 1871 II, 2458, no. 883; IG II2 10450; Papaspyridi-Karousou 1956, 135-137, pl. B. 13 For thoughts about the slave trade from the Black Sea to Athens, see Avram 2007, 137-140; for comments about Ma, see Avram 2007, 246 and about Tibeios, see Papaspyridi-Karousou 1956, 135. 14 Strab. XII 3, 5, 10; Memn. IV 10; XVI 6; XI; XIX 2; XXVII 1, 6; Diod. XX 109; XXIX 23; Phot. Bibl. 225, a30; Iust. XXV 2. 11; Pol. XXV 2; Const. Porph. de legat.299.29. 7 8

Tios was on the road network of provincia Pontus et Bithynia in the Roman Imperial Period, an important center along the coastal route19. Today we are able to see the Bean 1979, 925. Strab. XII 3, 8. 17 Atasoy 2008, 91-97; Sönmez and Öztürk 2008, 133-146; Atasoy and Ertuğrul 2009, 1-14; Karaca 2010, 25-26; Atasoy and Yıldırım 2011, 1-16; 2012, 451-462; Yıldırım 2012, 25-27. 18 Magie 1950, 1592; PIR2 C 22; Thomasson 1984, 250, no. 27: 52; Raepsaet-Charlier 1987, 676; Haensch and Weiss 2007, 193. 19 For the route see Marek 2003, Karte V. 15 16

149

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

district in 2011 during our research26 and are exhibited in Zonguldak, Karadeniz Ereğli Museum today. Tios lay at the mouth of the river Billaios (modern Filyos) and was also well positioned lying as it did along the river valley (Figure 2). The river was of central importance for the economy of Tios because it provided fertile land to the inhabitants along the river, access to the interior parts of Anatolia as the first 20km were navigable to boats of only a meter draft27 and it was used for the transport of agricultural products from the cultivated areas and timbers from forests. The River Billaios is depicted on the Roman coins of Tios as a personified River God28, leading us to understand that it was worshipped by the citizens as a sign of respect for what in effect was their lifeblood. On one type of these coins dated to the period of Antoninus Pius, Billaios is depicted with the Nymphe Sardo lying face to face with between them a statue of Dionysus holding grapes (Figure 17)29. This coin type may be an indication of the cultivation of vines in the Billaios valley as well as a reference to its use for transport30. A flood in 2009 in the Gökçebey Region, on the southern border of Tios allowed the remains of a construction to come to light that calls to mind a customs warehouse near the Filyos River where it meets with the Devrek River (Figure 18). During a surface survey in the field in 2010 we found two inscribed lead weights under water. We are also aware of seven other lead weights of Tios which have the same features in terms of shape and inscription (Figures 19-22)31. In addition to the names of councils boule and demos, these weights give us the name of an epistates named Arianos and they bear the deity depictions of Zeus, Dionysos and Hermes in the shape of busts and also kerykeion, axes, weights etc. At the beginning of September 2012 a survey research in the area was started by the Karadeniz Ereğli Museum and Assistant Professor Şahin Yıldırım and many potteries items and amphora handles have been found. All these inscribed weights and potteries found in the area give us a clue about the function of the construction. Possibly the agricultural production of the valley and timber from the famous forests of the region were brought to this customs warehouse by boats or by road in order to be taken to the city centre after the processes of weighing and payment of the taxes. Due to the lack of inscriptions, we are unaware of the organization of the customs. But it seems likely that after all the due processes, some of these products were brought to the agora in order to be sold. From their offerings we are aware of the agoranomoi of Tios (Figures 23-24), who would have been responsible for controlling the order of

Figure 4: Funerary Stele of Tibeios in Athens, 5th – 4th century BC, Athens National Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 2594

partial remains of these roads. It is well known, inscribed milestones are of vital importance for dating the renovation of these roads that lead to Amastris in the northeast and also inland to Klaudiopolis in the southwest. Gustav Mendel, Ernst Kalinka, Louis Robert and David French surveyed the territory and copied the milestones of Tios they were able to see on the surface. In the context of his work ‘Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor’20, Mr French also listed all the published milestones which are dated to the period of the Emperors Vespasianus21, Antoninus Pius (Figure 12)22, Septimius Severus-Caracalla-Geta23, Constantinus and Licinius24 as well as new milestones without inscriptions which dated to the periods of Caracalla, Decius and Etruscilla, Diocletianus and Maximianus (Figure 15), Constantius I and Galerius (Figure 16)25. During our survey in the territory in 2011, we found the three milestones (one with a double inscription) in the location he identified. Two new milestones of Tios dating to the periods of Septimius Severus-Caracalla-Geta (Figure 13) and Caracalla (Figure 14) were also found near the Filyos River in the Çaycuma

All the new milestones of Tios will be published in 2013 by the writer of this article. 27 Robert 1937, 276. 28 For the coin examples depicting the river god Billiaos see Rec. Gén. “Tius”, 42, 51 (Antoninus Pius), 74 (Marcus Aurelius), 101 (Commodus), 171 (Valerianus), 177 (Gallienus); see also Robert 1980, figs. 2-4. 29 Rec. Gén. “Tius”, 42; SNGvAulPontus 943; Robert 1980, 179, figs. 5-6; Franke 2007, 65, no. 202 (Antoninus Pius). 30 Wilson 1960, 153. 31 Triton (New York) 6 (2003) lot 293 = SEG 53, 1418; Kalinka 1933, 91, no. 58, fig. 36. 26

French 1988, no. 982-990; for the location of these milestones see French 1988, Map “Zonguldak”. 21 Mendel 1901, 39 vd., no. 188; Kalinka 1933, 92 vd., no. 62; CIL III Supp. 141883; French 1988, no. 982. 22 Robert 1937, 294-295, no. 3; French 1988, no. 989. 23 Robert 1937, 295-296, no. 4; French 1988, no. 990. 24 Mendel 1901, 43, no. 189; CIL III Supp. 141884; Kalinka 1933, 94, no. 64 French 1988, no. 985. 25 French 1988, no. 986-988. 20

150

Bülent Öztürk: The History of Tieion/Tios

Figure 5: Lower City

Figure 6: Theater, Roman Imperial Period

151

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 7: Aquaductus and Gymnasion, Roman Imperial Period

Figure 8: Bath, Roman Imperial Period

152

Bülent Öztürk: The History of Tieion/Tios

Figure 9: Akropolis

Figure 10: Akropolis, Platform of a Roman temple and a Byzantine Church

the marketplace: setting prices for certain goods, certifying goods, weights and scales, controlling money exchanges32. On these dedications, which are inscribed as agoranomikos, are depicted also the scales, bells and weights in order to emphasize their duties.

compete with those of neighbouring Heraclea Pontica and Amastris but it was one of the few natural harbours on the Southern Black Sea coast (Figure 25)33. The inscriptions lead us to think about the likely economic and political relations of Tios with other communities of the Black Sea, such as Pantikapaion, Tomis, Olbia and Khersonesos.

Products would also have been exported to the other shores of the Black Sea by ships from the port of the city. The port was an exposed and shallow anchorage which could never

In two grave inscriptions, naukleroi (shipowners and merchants) of Tios are attested; one of the inscriptions, found in Tios, belongs to naukleros Marcus Aurelius

For the dedications see Kalinka 1933, 90, no. 57; 92, no. 59, fig. 37; Robert 1937, 288, no. 14; 289-290, no. 17; 290, dn. 2.

32

33

153

Anderson 2009, 265.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 11: Honorary inscription mentioning Caecilius Aristo, 218 AD

Figure 12: Milestone, The period of Antoninus Pius

Figure 13: Milestone, The period of Septimius Severus

154

Bülent Öztürk: The History of Tieion/Tios

Figure 15: Milestone, The period of Diocletianus and Maximianus

Saturninus and his wife(?)34. The other inscription belonging to naukleros Tertius, son of Rufus, was found in Pantikapaion35. It is dated to the first half of the 3rd century AD and we understand from the text that his parent sent the funerary stele from Tios to Pantikapaion when he died. A further funerary stele of a family from Tios dated to AD 129 was found in Pantikapaion36. These three inscriptions give us a clue about the shipping trade of Tios and the last two lead us to think about the relations and trade between two cities in the Roman Period. There would also have been political and economic relations between Chersonesos and Tios in the Roman Period; in an inscription found in Chersonesos, the polis of Tios honours its own proksenos (honorary consul) in the late 2nd century AD (Figure 26)37.

Figure 14: Milestone, The period of Caracalla

Mendel 1901, 38, no. 185; Kalinka 1933, 91-92, no. 60; Robert 1937, 272, no. 1. 35 CIRB 732; Lifshitz 1968, 26-28, no. III; see also Robert 1977, 60, dn. 35. 36 CIRB 705; IOSPE II 301; see also Robert 1937, 273, dn. 1. 37 NEPKh, I 13; see also Robert 1977, 60-61, dn. 35. 34

155

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 17: God River Billaios, Nymphe Sardo and Dionysos on a coin of Tios, The period of Antoninus Pius

outside the Black Sea area we only find Miletos38. This inscription is a good example of political relations between the cities of the Black Sea. In a fragmentary inscription also from Olbia honouring the proconsul and patron Rufus we see the Bithynian cities of Tios, Prusias ad Hypium, Prusa ad Olympum, Prusias ad mare (Kios), Apameia and Nikomedeia acting together39. A dedication to Zeus Helios Sarapis and Isis Myrionymos found in Sinope by Stratonikos who had a double citizenship, both of Tios and of Tomis40, presents an expectative citizenship regulation or law between two cities (Figure 27). The inscriptions also give us some information about the religious history of Tios. Among them we see two dedications to Dionysos: one is inscribed as Dionysiakos41, the other as Dionysotrophikos42. This allows us to consider a Dionysiac association in the city as Dionysos is accepted as the deity founder of the Tios. The god is to be seen on the Roman Period coins as ktistes of Tios43, related with the cultivation of grapes and wine production in Tios, and attested in the Geoponica, an agricultural almanac compiled in the 10th century AD44. Both these dedications depict cista mystica, a known symbol of the Dionysiac cult45.

Figure 16: Milestone, The period of Constantius I and Galerius

A decree from Olbia between the late 2nd century AD and the early 3rd century in honour of a citizen (proksenos?) of Olbia named Theokles was erected by all the important cities of the northern coast of the Black Sea (Tyras, Olbia, Chersonesos and Bosporos), by all the important cities of the southern coast and the province of Pontus and Bithynia (Nikomedeia, Nikaia, Prusias ad Hypium, Apameia, Herakleia Pontika, Tios, Amastris and Sinope), by the chief cities on the western coast (Odessos, Tomis, Istros and Kallatis) and by the most important centres of the Propontis (Kyizkos and Byzantion); of the cities

In the southern part of the territory of Tios a statue is IosPE I 40; IPrusias T4; for comments see Rostovtzeff 1916/19171917/1918, 9. 39 CIL VI 1, 1508; IPrusias T1; Eck 1984, 201-217. 40 ISinope 115; SEG 44, 1021; Avram 1998-2000, 137-140. 41 Kalinka 1933, 94, no. 63, fig. 37; Robert 1937, 288, no. 13; Öztürk 2010a, 79. 42 Robert 1937, 289, no. 16, planche XV 1; Öztürk 2010a, 79. 43 Rec. Gén. “Tius”, 24 (Domitianus); 28 (Traianus); 67 (Marcus Aurelius). 44 Geop. V 2, 10. 45 Öztürk 2010, 170 and 179. For the coins of Tios depicting cista mystica see Rec. Gén. “Tius”, 18 (Priest Tios), 29 (Traianus), 55 (Antoninus Pius). 38

156

Bülent Öztürk: The History of Tieion/Tios

Figure 18: Customs Warehouse near Filyos (Ancient Billaios) River

Figures 19-20: Lead Weight depicting Dionysos and Zeus, Private Museum of Çanakçılar in Zonguldak

157

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figures 21-22: Lead Weight depicting a bell and a scale, Private Museum of Çanakçılar in Zonguldak

Figure 23: Offering of agoranomoi depicting a bell, Robert 1937, Planche XV 3

Figure 24: Offering of agoranomoi depicting a scale, Kastamonu Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 251

158

Bülent Öztürk: The History of Tieion/Tios

Figure 25: Ancient Harbour

dedicated to Herakles Aleksikakos (Figure 28). The epitheton Aleksikakos means ‘he who wards off ill and mischief’ and ‘the averter of evil’46. ‘The feet of a figure’, ‘a boar’ and ‘a club’ on the statue more likely represent a scene of the fourth of Heracles’ twelve Labors, that of capturing the Erymanthian boar. A dedication by a priest of Asklepios for his phyle in Tios is an indicator of a cultic institution of Asklepios in Tios47. An offering to Aleksandros, who is glorified as Hosios Dikaios by the side of Meter Theon (Figure 29), indicates the cult of the False Prophet Aleksandros of Abonouteichos and his snake god Glykon in Tios because ancient writer Lucianus of Samosata (c. 120–190 AD) mentions a dialogue between the priest Sacerdos and Glykon in Tios which is inscribed on a wall of Sacerdos’ house with gold letters48. Glykon is depicted on the coins of Tios49. The inscription also gives information about the worshipping of Meter Theon and Hosios Dikaios (Holy and Just) in the territory. Louis Robert published another dedication to a goddess from the ancient site50 and also one to Theos Hypsistos (the Most High God) in 1937, which are lost today51.

Figure 26: Honorary Inscription for proksenos of Tios in Khersonesos, NEPKh, I 13

Wentzel 1894, 1464-1465. For the worshipping of Herakles Aleksikakos in the Greek World see Von Heintze 1965, 14-40; Woodford 1976, 291-294. 47 Robert 1937, 286, no. 10; see also Ruge 1936, 861. 48 Lucian. Alex. 43. 49 Rec. Gén. “Tius”, 54; SNGCop. 611-612 50 Robert 1937, 286-287, no. 11. 51 Robert 1937, 287-288, no. 12. 46

159

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 27: Dedication to Zeus Helios Sarapis and Isis Myrionymos by a citizen of Tios and Tomis. Sinope Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 18.9.74

Figure 29: Dedication to Hosios Dikaios Aleksandros by the side of Meter Theon, Karadeniz Ereğli Museum, inv. no. A.00.14.2 Figure 28: Dedication to Herakles Aleksikakos, Karadeniz Ereğli Museum, inv. no. 2001.940

160

Bülent Öztürk: The History of Tieion/Tios

In the Late Roman Period after the reforms of Emperor Diocletianus (284–305), when Asia Minor was divided into three regions (= dioecesis), Tios was in the dioecesis of Pontica and also in the provincia of Honorias bordering with Bithynia in the west, Galatia Prima in the south and Paphlagonia in the east. In Iustinianus’ edict combining Honorias and Paphlagonia regions in AD 535, the name of Tios is seen among the cities of the provincia of Honorias52. Iustinianus’s reforms also abolished the dioecesis system in AD 535 but the results were not satisfactory and the dioecesis was reestablished in AD 548 until being replaced by the thema of Opsikion in the mid of 7th century AD. Emperor Constantinus V (741–775) set out to weaken the thema of Opsikion power by splitting off the new themae of the Boukellarion and the Optimaton53. In his work de thematibus in the 10th century AD, Constantinus Porphyrogennitos (905–959) mentions the name of Tios among the cities of thema of Boukellarion54. By the late 12th century AD, however, it was within the thema of Paphlagonia, which stretched from the river Sangarios to Amastris.

George Pachymeres mentions Tios among the Byzantine towns which escaped the attacks of the Seljuks in 126961. The precise date that Byzantine control of Tios ended is uncertain. When the Spanish envoy Gonzales de Clavijo sailed by the site in 1403, it was inhabited by Turks and the kale was ungarrisoned62. Ancient Literary Sources Abbreviations Const. Porph. de Legat. (Constantinus Porphyrogennitos, de Legationibus) = Boissevain, U. P., De Boor, C., Büttner-Wobst, T. (eds.) 1903. Excerpta historica iussu imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta, v.1. Excerpta de legationibus: pars.1. Excerpta de legationibus Romanorum ad gentes. pars.2. Excerpta de legationibus gentium ad Romanos.-reel 2 v.2., pars. 1-2. Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis.-reel 3. v.3. Excerpta de insidiis.--reel 4. v.4. Excerpta de sententiis, Berlin. Const. Porph. de Them, (Constaninus Porphyrogennitos, de Thematibus) = Pertusi A. (ed.) 1952. Costantino Porfirogenito. De thematibus. Studi e Testi, 160. Vatican City. Diod. (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheke historike) = Oldfather, C. H., Sherman, C. L., Welles, C. B., Geer, R. M., Walton, F. R. and Russel M. (transl.) 1933-1970. Diodorus of Sicily. The Loeb Classical Library, I-XI. London/New York. Eust. ad Il. (Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem) = Stalbaum, J. G. (ed.) 1827-1830. Eusttathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem. Ad fidem exempli Romani editi, Tomus I-IV. Lipsiae. Eust. ad Od. (Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam) = Stalbaum, J. G. (ed.) 1826-1827. Eusttathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam. Ad fidem exempli Romani editi, Tomus I-II,. Lipsiae. Geop. = Beckh, H. (ed.) 1994. Geoponica sive Cassiani Bassi Scholastici de re rustica eclogue. [Leipzig 1895], Stuttgart. Georg. Pach. (Georgios Pachymeres, History) = Failler, A. (ed.) 1984. Georges Pachymeres Relations Historiques. V. Laurent (transl.). Paris. Iust. (Iustinus, epitoma historiarum Philippicarum) = Yardley, J. C. (transl.) and Heckel, W. (commentary) 1997. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Clarendon Ancient History Series. Oxford. Iust. Nov. (Iustinianus, Novellae) = Scott, S. P. (ed. & transl.) 1932. Novellae. Cincinatti. Lucian Alex. (= Lukianos, Aleksandros) = Harmon, A. M. (transl). 1925. Lucian IV: Alexander The False Prophet (ΑΛΕΧΑΝΔΡΟΣ Η ΨΕΥΔΟΜΑΝΤΙΣ). The Loeb Classical Library, 162, 173–253. London/New York. Memn., FrGrHist (Memnon)

In the Byzantine period, Tios was also a suffragen bishopric of Klaudiopolis from the 8th to the 13th century AD55. Le Quien gives the names of bishops of Tios from the council lists56. We also have the inscribed lead seals of Tios’ bishops dated from the 8th century to the 12th century AD57. Confirming this information as a result of the excavations on the akropolis are the remains of a small church dated to the Mid-Byzantine period (Figure 10). On the sarcophagi found in situ we find two grave inscriptions dated to the Roman Period which give the names Diogenes, son of Diogenes and Rufus, son of Paulinus; it is clearly understood, however, that both these graves were possibly reused in this church in the Byzantine Period. As well as being a ecclesiastical centre, Tios was probably a financial centre in this period. This is attested by the lead seals of the 10th century AD, where we find dioiketes Leon58 and dioiketes (and also spatharios) Petros, who is responsible for the financial administration of the city. In the light of a seal of the 8th century AD that belongs to droungarios Theodoros from Tios59, there is also a probability that the city was a naval base60. Aside from the capital Klaudiopolis, the major cities were Herakleia Pontika, Prusias ad Hypium, Tios, Krateia and Hadrianopolis, Iust. Nov. 219; Darrouzès 1981, no 3, 1. 335; 13, 1. 238. 53 Ostrogorsky 1963, 13. 54 Const. Porph. de Thema. VI 17-24. 55 Darrouzès 1981, no 3, 1. 335; 13, 1. 238; Fedalto 1988, I 93. 56 Le Quien 1740, 575, i-v: Apragmonius at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Andrew in 518, Eugenius at the Council of Konstantinopolis in 536, Longinus at the Sixth General Council of Konstantinopolis in 681; Michael at the Seventh General Council of Nikaia in 787, Constantinus at the Eighth General Council of Konstantinopolis in 869; see also ACO II, 1, 1, 57 (no. 37) et passim; III, 65 (no. 13); III, 127 (no. 44) et passim. 57 For the seals of Bishops Kyprianos, Antonius, Basilios, Mikhael and Anthios see Laurent 1963, 479-483; McGreer et al. 2001, 24, nos. 10.410.5; Zacos and Veglery 1972, 1302, no. 2386; see also Belke 1996, 27677. 58 McGreer et al. 2001, 24, nos. 10.1-10.2. 59 McGreer et al. 2001, 24, no. 10.3. 60 McGreer et al. 2001, 23. 52

61 62

161

Georg. Pach. I 312. Clavijo 1928, 59.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

List of Bibliography

= Jacoby, F. (ed.) 1923–1969. Die Fragmente der griechi­ schen Historiker, I-XV, Berlin/Lei­den. Phot. Bibl. (Photios, Bibliotheca) = Henry, R. (ed.) 1959–1991. Bibliotheque, 9 vol. Collection Byzantine. Paris. Pol. (Polybios, Historiai) = Paton, W. R. (transl.) 1922–1927. Polybius: The Histories, I-VI. The Loeb Classical Library, 128, 137-138, 159161. [2010-20122] London/New York. Steph. Byz. (Stephanos Byzantios, Ethnika) = Meineke, A. (ed.) 1849. Stephani Byzantii: Ethnicorum quae supersunt ex recensione Augusti Meinekii. Berlin. Strab. (Strabon, Geographika) = Jones, H. L. (transl.) 1917–1932. The Geography of Strabo, I-VIII. The Loeb Classical Library, 49-50, 182, 196, 211, 223, 241, 267. London/New York.

Ainsworth, W. F. 1839. Notes on a Journey from Constantinople, by Heraclea, to Angora, in the Autumn of 1838. Journal of the Royal Geographic Society of London 9, 216–276. Ainsworth, W. F. 1842. Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, Armenia, I. London. Ainsworth, W. F. 1855. The Resources of the Anatolian Shores of the Black Sea. Bentley’s Miscellany 37, 235–241. Anderson, W. 2009. Late Byzantine Occupation of the Castle at Tios. Anatolia Antiqua 17, 265–277. Angold, M. 1975. A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204-1261). Oxford. Atasoy, S. 2008. Zonguldak-Filyos (Tios/Tieion/Tion/ Tianos/Tieium) Kurtarma Kazısı. In İ. Delemen, S. Çokay-Kepçe, A. Özdizbay and Ö. Turak (eds.), Euergetes: Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu’na 65. Yaş Armağanı, 91–97. İstanbul. Atasoy, S. and Ertuğrul, Ö. 2009. Filyos – Tios Kazısı 2007. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30/4, 1–14. Atasoy, S. and Yıldırım, Ş. 2011. Filyos – Tios 2009 Yılı Kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32/4, 1–16. Atasoy, S. and Yıldırım, Ş. 2012. Filyos – Tios 2010 Yılı Kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33/2, 451–462. Atasoy, S. and Erpehlivan, H. 2012. Filyos – Tios Kenti: İlk Yerleşmeye Ait Keramik Buluntular. In I. Şahin (ed.), İsmail Fazlıoğlu Anı Kitabı, 1–12. Edirne. Avram, A. 2007. Some Thoughts about the Black Sea and the Slave Trade before the Roman Domination (6th-1st Centuries BC). In V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges, 239–252. Aarhus. Avram, A. 1998-2000. Στρατoνεικoς Ευαρεστoυ Τιανoς o και Τoμειτης. Analele Universitatii Bucureşti, Studii Clasice 32, 137–140. Bean, G. 1979. Tios. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 925. Princeton. Becker, P. 1852. Essai d’explication d’une monnaie inédite, relative à la ville de Tius. Odessa. Becker, P. 1853. Zur Erklärung einer noch unedirten Münze von Tius in Bithynien. Archiv für Philologie und Pädagogik 19, 189–209. Boré, E. 1840. Correspondance et mémoires d’un voyageur en Orient, I-II. Paris. Boutkowski-Glinka, M. A. 1864. Recherches historiques sur la ville de Tium. Paris. Boutkowski-Glinka, M. A. 1867. Recherches historiques sur la ville de Tium [en Bithynie] et description d’une médaille inédite appartenant à cette ville, dont une atteste une épithète inconnue de Jupiter: Zeus Euresius. Supplemént. Heidelberg. Clavijo, R. G. 1928. Embassy to Tamerlane 1403-1406. In E. Power (ed.) and G. Le Strange (trans.). London. Darrouzès, J. 1981. Notitiae Episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Paris. De Hell, H. X. 1854.Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, I. Paris.

Abbreviations ACO Acta Consiliorum Oecumenicorum. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum. CIRB Struve, V. (ed.) 1965. Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani, Moscow. IG II2 Kirchner, J. (ed.) 1913-1940. Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd ed., Parts I-III, Berlin. IOSPE Latyschev, B. (ed.) 1965. Inscriptiones antiquae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, Volume I: Inscriptiones Tyrae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae aliorum locorum a Danubio usque ad regnum Bosporanum; Volume II: Inscriptiones Regni Bosporani Graecae et Latinae. Hildesheim. IPrusias Ameling, W. (ed.) 1985. Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 27. Bonn. ISinope French, D. (ed.) 2004. The Inscriptions of Sinope. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 64. Bonn. MAMA VII Calder, W. M. (ed.) 1956. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, VII: Monuments from the Eastern Phrygia. Manchester. NEPKh Solomonik, E. I. (ed.) 1964, 1973. Novye epigraficheskie pamiatniki Khersonesa I–II. Kiev. PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Rec. Gén. Waddington, W. H., Babelon F. and Reinach, T. (eds.) 1925. Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asier mineure, I.1: Pont et Paphlagonie. 2nd ed. Paris. SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. SNGvAulPontus Kleiner, G., Bosch, E. C., von Aulock, H. (eds.) 1957. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum  Deutschland. Sammlung von Aulock, Pontus-Paphlagonien-Bithynien, 1-1049. Berlin. SNGCop Breitenstein, N., Schwbacher, W., Mørkholm, O. Kromann, A., Christiansen, E.; Jenkins G. K. (eds.) 1944. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Copanhagen, 18: Bosporus Bithynia, The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals Danish National Museum. Copanhagen.

162

Bülent Öztürk: The History of Tieion/Tios

Marek, Ch. 2003. Pontus et Bithynia. Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens, Mainz. McGreer, E., Nesbitt, J. and Oikonomides, N. 2001. Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, 4: The East. Washington D. C. Mendel, G. 1901. Inscriptions de Bithynia. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 25, 1-92. Merkelbach, R. and Stauber, J. 2001. Steinepigramme aus dem Griechischen Osten. 2: Die Nordküste Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontos), München/Leipzig. Ostrogorsky, G. 1963. Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates. München. Öztürk, B. 2008. Kuruluşundan Bizans Devri Sonuna Kadar Tios Antik Kenti. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi 128, 63-78. Öztürk, B. and Sönmez, İ. F. 2009. New Inscriptions from the Karadeniz Ereğli Museum I. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi 132, 129-138. Öztürk, B. 2010a. Yazıtlar Işığında Roma İmparatorluk Çağı Küçükasyası’nda Dionysos Kültü. İstanbul. Öztürk, B. 2010b. Karadeniz’de Dinsel Yaşam ve Kültler. Aktüel Arkeoloji 18, 36-49. Öztürk, B. 2012. Seyahatnamelerde ve Modern Literatürde Tios / Tieion ve Territoryumu. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities 18, 161-176. Papaspyridi-Karousou, S. 1956. Bemalte Attische Stele, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 71, 124-139. Pfuhl, E. and Möbius, H. 1977-1979. Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs, I-IV. Mainz. Raepsaet-Charlier M. T. 1987, Prosopographie des femmes de l’ordre sénatorial (Ier-IIe siècles). Lovanii. Robert, L. 1937. Études Anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscrip­tions grecques de l’Asie Mi­neure, Paris. Robert, L. 1977. Documents d’Asie Mineure. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 101, 43-132. Robert, L. 1980. A Travers L’Asie Mineure. Athens. Rostovtzeff, M. 1916/1917-1917/1918. Pontus, Bithynia and the Bosporus. The Annual of the British School at Athens 22, 1-22. Ruge, W. 1936. Tieion. Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 11, 856-862. Sönmez, İ. F. and Öztürk, B. 2008. Batı Karadeniz’de Bir Antik Kent Kazısı: Tios (Filyos). Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi 127, 133-146. Texier, F. M. C. 1862. Asie mineure: description géographique, historique et archéologique des provinces et des villes de la Chersonnèse d’Asie. Paris. Thomasson B. E. 1984. Laterculi Praesidum, I-III, Göteborg. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2004. Tieion. In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, 963–964. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2006. Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation. In G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonization. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Oversees, I-II, xxiii– lxxxiii. Leiden-Boston. Vassileva, M. 1999. A Few Phrygian Onomastic Notes. Epigraphica Anatolica 31, 175-180. Von Diest, W. 1889. Von Pergamon über den Dindymos zum Pontus, Gotha.

Drew–Bear, T., Lubotsky, A. and Üyümez, M. 2008. Three New Phrygian Inscriptions. Kadmos 47, 109-116. Eck, W. 1984. CIL VI 1508 (Moretti, IGUR 71) und die Gestaltung senatorischer Ehrenmonumente. Chiron 14, 201-217. Ehrhardt, N. 1983. Milet und seine Kolonien. FrankfurtBern-New York. Evans, D. E. 1967. Gaulish Personal Names. Oxford. Fedalto, G. 1988. Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis, I: Patriarchatus Constantinopolitanus, II: Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus. Padua. Franke, P. R. 2007. Roma Döneminde Küçükasya. Sikkelerin Yansımasında Yunan Yaşamı, Turkish translation by N. Baydur and B. Thesis-Baydur. İstanbul. French, D. 1988. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. II, Ankara. Gorman, V. B. 2001. Miletos, the ornament of Ionia: a history of the city to 400 B.C.E. Michigan. Haensch, R. and Weiss, P. 2007. Statthaltergewichte aus Pontus et Bithynia. Neue Examplare und neue Erkenntnisse. Chiron 37, 183-218. Heubeck, A. 1987. Phrygiaka I-III. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 100, 70-85. Hirschfeld, G. 1883. Notes of Travel in Paphlagonia and Galatia. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 4, 275-280. Hutter, M. 2006. Die Kontinuität des palaischen Sonnengottes Tiyaz in Phrygien. In R. Rollinger and B. Truschnegg (eds.), Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante. Festschrift für Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag, 81-88. Stuttgart. Jones, A. H. M. 19832. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford. Kalinka, E. 1933. Aus Bithynien und Umgegend. Jahreshefte des Österreichhischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 28, Beiblatt, 45-112. Karaca, E. 2010. Filyos-Tios Kazısı 2009. Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler Dergisi 29, 25-26. Keune, J. B. 1923. Senianus. Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 3/2, 1461. Kumanudes, St. A. 1871. Ἀττικῆς ἐπιγραφαὶ ἐπιτύμβιοι. Athens. Laurent, V. 1963. Le Corpus des Sceaux de l’Empire Byzantine, Paris. Le Quien, M. 1740. Oriens Christianus, I-III, Parisiis, Graz 1958. Lifshitz, I. 1968. Épigrammes grecques du Bosphore. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 111, 23-36. Lubotsky, A. 1989. New Phrygian ετι and τι. Kadmos 28, 79-88. Lubotsky, A. 2004. The Phrygian Zeus and the problem of “Lautverschiebung”. Historische Sprachforschung 117/2, 229-237. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, I–II, Princeton. Marek, Ch. 1985. Katalog der Inschriften im Museum von Amasra. Mit Anhang: Die Inschriften von Amastris und die angebliche Pompeianische Ära der Stadt. Epigraphica Anatolica 6, 133-156. Marek, Ch. 1993. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynia und Nord-Galatia, Tübingen.

163

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Von Heintze, H. 1965. Herakles Alexikakos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 72, 14-40. Wentzel, G. 1894. Alexikakos. Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft I, Band 1, 14641465. Wilson, D. R. 1960. The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontus in the Greek and Roman Periods: A New Survey with Particular Reference to Surface Remains Still Visible. PhD Thesis, Oxford University. Woodford, S. 1976. Heracles Alexikakos Reviewed. American Journal of Archaeology 80/3, 291-294. Woudheizen, F. C. 2008–2009. Phrygian & Greek. Talanta 40-41, 181-217. Wüst, E. 1937. Tios. Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (2), XII, Band 6 A/2, 1411-1412. Yıldırım, Ş. 2012. Filyos-Tios Kazı Çalışmaları – 2011. Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler Dergisi 34 (Mayıs 2012) 25-27.

Manolis Manoledakis: What about the inscriptions? Do we have the same variety there as well? Bülent Öztürk: We have only Roman inscriptions not Hellenistic ones. And there, the city is mentioned as Tios. I still think that there must have been a connection with Zeus. Melina Touchtidou: You mentioned a slave market. I would like to ask whether we have any picture of the relations of the Greek citizens with the local tribes? Where did these slaves come from, from the hinterland? Do we have any information on that? Bülent Öztürk: Again Strabo gives information about the neighbour of Tios, Herakleia Pontika, when in the Greek colonization period, Tios made the local tribes slaves. They were sold to the rich people of Athens and other cities in big slave-markets. But in Tios itself, we don’t have enough relevant information. In two of the inscriptions I showed, we have male names without the fathers’ names. Alex Avram believes that this indicates slaves. Eleni Mendesidou: As far as the slaves are concerned, have you thought that those Tians may be not slaves but something else? We know about people from Sinope or Amisos that visited Athens or Delos for other reasons: they were merchants, etc. It seems more likely for a free man to have dedicated an inscription in the Acropolis than a slave.

Discussion Melina Touchtidou: Is there an explanation why there are so many names for the city? Manolis Manoledakis: I just wanted to add to this question whether we have any chronological distribution of the various names of the city. I mean, one name in the archaic and another in the classical period, etc.

Bülent Öztürk: As I mentioned before, this is one of the scholars’ opinion. But if we see the stele, we should think that this person was a slave. We also know that before the Roman period, Tios was a poor city.

Bülent Öztürk: This is a difficult and complex question. To summarize: the first mention of this ancient site is in Pseudo-Scylax, as Tieion. And Strabo uses the same form, Tieion. But in the Roman period, in the inscriptions and also in the sources, we find the form of Tios. Some scholars believe that Tieion comes from the place of Tios. There is also a legendary explanation that helps us, that there was a priest named Tios, according to Stefanus Byzantinus. Upon searching on the name, I also found some scholars’ opinions regarding connecting Tios with the genitive form of the name of Zeus, Dios; the form Tios is also thought to come from this genitive form. And in some Phrygian inscriptions we see the genitive form of Zeus as Tios. Also, in the Roman period, Zeus is the head God of Tios, as Zeus Syrgastes. There is a syncretism. The god Syrgastes is a Thracian God. Then, we can think about the Thracian routes of local tribes of this area. We say that they were Kaukones. Maybe there is a connection of Syrgastes with the Kaukones; it’s complex. Generally, I use the form Tios.

Eleni Mendesidou: We’ve seen in your inscription a Boule Tieion. Do you have any information about the political situation in Tios? Was it an autonomous city in the Roman Empire and, if yes, to what extent could this have been possible? Bülent Öztürk: I will start from the Hellenistic period. We have so little data: a coin that has an inscription ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ. So scholars have an opinion about its dating: generally, it is dated from the 3rd c. BC. Strabo says that in the synoikismos of Amastris Tios took place and that Tios soon withdrew and became autonomous. But afterwards we see Tios belonging to Heraklea Pontika again, or to the Bithynian Kingdom or to Mithridates. In all the Roman inscriptions we see that Tios was a polis. This indicates something about the status of the city but of course not in detail.

164

Two Defence Units in the Pontic Kingdom: Çördük and Geyras Strongholds - Preliminary Results Emine Sökmen Abstract: Defence had become increasingly important in Anatolian Kingdoms during the Hellenistic period, as evidenced by an extensive number of strongholds scattered throughout Pontos. The Mithradatic Kingdom was one of several native Anatolian states in the inner part of the Black Sea Region and had the first state organisation with enough power to systematically control the territory. This paper will aim to understand Mithradatids defence system by examining two examples identified by surveys. Çördük and Geyras strongholds were located on an important trade route crossing the middle of the kingdom. These two strongholds overlooked the road that passed through the city of Komana, an important religious center of the Kingdom, which had a quasi-autonomous structure owning vast areas of agricultural lands. Keywords:Mithradatic Kingdom, stronghold, defence system, Çördük, Geyras

Introduction

and Kabeira (the religious centres). The borders of the kingdom shifted considerably over its 200 years’ existence, but during the last ruler, Mithradates VI (120-63 BC), they extended to cover most of northern and central Anatolia, as well as northern and northwestern parts of the Black Sea region. Furthermore, Mithratatids are the first territorial power to have ever developed in northern Anatolia, and the first to have created a system of fortified sites in the area to maintain control of its main centres and communication routes. The construction of strongholds was an integral part of the permanent establishment of the Pontic sovereignty in the region as well as in newly conquered areas, and further grew in importance during the conflict with Rome. Strongholds were military bases and also accommodated part of the kingdom’s administrative activities. According to Strabo, Mithridates VI built more fortresses after occupying Armenia Minor (Strabo 12.3.28).

Archaeological and historical research throughout the Black Sea Region has gained momentum during the last decade. However, there are still very few excavation projects started in recent years. Unfortunately, the core of our knowledge about the region, which was called ‘terra incognita’ by scholars, is still based on the ancient sources and we still don’t have a thorough understanding of the concrete aspects of the Pontos region. Our research area is located in the city of Tokat in the Mid-Black Sea region of Turkey (Figure 1, inset A). This research has evolved in the light of findings and data coming from the Komana Archaeological Research project, which has been executed for the last eight years under the supervision of Burcu Erciyas from the Middle East Technical University.1 This paper can be taken as a preliminary research for my doctoral project, which focuses on the strongholds to the South of Tokat.

While the high Pontic mountain ranges running in an east-west direction create effective barriers that restrict movement, they are interrupted by the large alluvial plains of the Kelkit, Kızılırmak and Yeşilırmak rivers and their tributaries. These valleys represent the main natural routes today as in the past, as seen by the paths of the Roman roads (Figure 1, inset B), which probably largely followed those of the Hellenistic routes. In order to control the kingdom, one would have needed to control access to these valleys. Because these stronghold are located at the highest points in the landscape, we are encouraged to think that they were military installations guarding the travel and transport corridor through the region.

Historical and Geographic Background A study of fortifications is an essential part of the Hellenistic history, relating to many other aspects: economic, political, military and social. The unstable political environment during Alexander’s conquests and then Diadochian times, increased the importance of fortification. Fortifications appeared widely throughout Asia Minor, not only on the urban scale but also in rural environments. As Macedonians expanded their power through Asia Minor, several kingdoms emerged in the political unrest. The Mithradatic Kingdom was one of several native Anatolian states that appeared after the fall of the Persian Empire. Textual sources define its heartland around the cities of Amaseia (the political capital between 281-180 BC), Comana, Zela 1

Previous archaeological works Information about Pontos starts appearing in travellers’ notes from the 18th century onward. Two sources of great importance which specifically mention Mithridatic cities and strongholds are Anderson (1903) and Cumont

www.komana.org

165

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 1. Map of the Mithradatid kingdom at north-western part of Black Sea Region with the main centres. Inset A shows the location of the kingdom within the boundaries of modern Turkey, and inset B shows the area of the Comana Archaeological Project intensive survey area (in green), distribution of stronghold in survey area and some other Hellenistic strongholds which will analyze under this project (black squares) and the known Roman roads (black lines).

(1906). During their travels to this region, Anderson and Cumont provided detailed information about some of these strongholds and made suggestions about their possible ancient names. Some strongholds in the region, the stronghold of Çördük being one of them, were also visited by H. von der Osten and the tunnel structure of the stronghold was drawn2. Jerphanion provided data about strongholds in Pontos after his visit in 1928. In the 1960s, H. von Gall published an article about Anatolian stepped tunnels and provided a catalogue of some strongholds in Pontos.

with very little information about dateable materials and architectural plans.3 These strongholds have some common features in terms of architecture, such as the rock-cut tunnels with stairways, and can be seen throughout the Paphlagonia and Pontos regions. They were possibly built during the Hellenistic period and were re-used during both the Byzantine and Ottoman periods. The Çördük and Geyras strongholds, which are the subject of this paper, are two examples of a series of strongholds with identical construction techniques located in the area of the Kingdom.

Another important study is the elaborated mapping study by Olshausen and Biller in 1984, which included cities and strongholds of the Mithradatic Kingdom. They studied the whole area with the specific goal of tracing the picture of the Mithradatic Kingdom’s historical geography. As such, they compiled a voluminous catalogue of Hellenistic settlements and strongholds, founding their research on the published archaeological and epigraphic material available.

The typical Hellenistic structures which previous studies exclusively focused on were the rock-cut tunnels and stairways of these strongholds. The functions of the tunnels are almost impossible to investigate because of tunnel blockages. According to H. von der Osten, they were constructed to allow access to safe and secure water supplies within the complex for the stronghold4. Strabo also supports this idea by giving an example from Amaseia (Strabo 12.3.39). Another function of these rock cut tunnels was suggested by von der Osten and by Jerphanion (1912).

More recently, a range of archaeological surveys have investigated the area with various degrees of detail but their interest focused mainly on pre-classical periods. Information on Hellenistic settlements and strongholds, on the other hand, has generally been published only scantily, 2

Bilgi, Ö. et al, 2004. Samsun (Amisos) Bölgesi‘nin Kültürel Gelişimi Projesi: The cultural Development in Samsun (Amisos) Region, Belleten 68, 387-402; Ökse, T. 1998, Sivas Ili 1997 Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı I cilt XVI, 467-485. 4 von der Osten 1927, 130-133; von Gall 1967, 504-509. 3

von der Osten 1927, 131.

166

Emine Sökmen: Two Defence Units in the Pontic Kingdom

According to them, these tunnels were possibly used as hidden posterns allowing the armies to remain unseen while evacuating the stronghold. Another assumption came from Leonhard5, who claims that they could have been used for religious purposes, by attributing the example at Arsameia am Nymphaios in Commagene based on an inscription over the entrance of tunnel.

architectural features (e.g. tunnels, defensive devices), the subsequent reconstruction phases, the size (in terms of capacity of accommodating soldiers), the possible function (watchtower, stronghold, garrison) and the architectural similarities between the different sites. In both areas, site selection criteria for the location of the strongholds within the landscape will be analyzed in order to understand their interaction with roads/natural routes, valley systems (i.e. agricultural areas), larger settlements, and control points.

Methodology Military strongholds served as a small link in a defensive chain guarding the travel and transportation corridors through the territory, or, in the case of a conquered territory, to strengthen the hold of the conquerors upon surrounding districts.

Site-Stronghold Relationships Cities which were part of the kingdom’s geography throughout the Hellenistic period were Amaseia, Amisos, Chabacta, Gazioura, Kabeira, Comana, Laodikeia, Pharnakeia, Pimolisa and Taulara.6 Mitchell states that there were no cities constructed in the area other than Pharnakeia under the Mithradatic reign7. On the other hand, Marek indicates that the main element of this new state was formed of recently constructed units in the surrounding rural areas that did not possess a city tradition. He likens this formation to the work of Seleukos.8 The general consensus is that this area was dominated by villages.9 With the exception of Comana, these settlements were important strongholds in the kingdom.10 This would indicate that these strongholds played a part in the governmental structures of the kingdom. A fortress that is not mentioned here but has importance due to its location is Dazimon. Dazimon, which gave its name to the plain of Dazimonitis, was located in the centre of the valley and lay at the mouth of a pass to the South.

The functions of these strongholds are investigated with regards to whether they command roads, settlements or the borders of the kingdom. These questions headed by their role in defence, contributes to our reading of the strongholds of Pontic landscape. There are many known strongholds spread across the Pontic Kingdom which have been investigated by scholars. Many of them have been separately and roughly published and there are no studies available discussing these strongholds as part of a system of defence from a holistic perspective. This research investigates the purpose of these strongholds by analyzing the whole system of defence and aims to understand how they served the needs of the sovereigns of the region. Furthermore, it aims to define their role within the kingdom’s military and administrative organization by looking at their structure and location in the human and natural landscape.

We can make the assumption that the fortresses had a link with settlements within the scope of our survey area. By examining the presence of these military structures in the urban environment, we should be able to establish both settlements and strongholds and investigate their relationships. With that purpose in mind, distribution map of Hellenistic settlements was prepared based on survey results. The settlement locations are as noted in the survey results in Figure 2. The Çördük and Geyras strongholds were then added to the map. The roads indicated by grey lines on the map are drawn based on the Roman milestones discovered by Cumont, Hamilton, and French.11

My PhD research is constructed on two scales of analysis that mainly depend on the different level of available archaeological knowledge. The core area of the project is the territory of Comana Pontica (a total area of c.600km2), which was surveyed between 2004 and 2008 and which provides a detailed understanding of the Hellenistic settlement system and a reliable ceramic chronotypology linked with the Comana Project itself. The maximum extent of the study is mainly based on the data collected by Olshausen and Biller (1984), von Gall (1967), a very few archaeological surveys, and an uneven coverage of stronghold sites whose construction period is only loosely attributed to the Hellenistic period in absence of first-hand ceramic assessment.

Between the years of 2004-2008 during extensive surveys conducted in the area surrounding these fortresses, several Hellenistic settlements were discovered (identified with dots on the map). These settlements were located

In the core area, a study of the ceramics collected at the sites has already been completed by the Comana Project team and provided understanding of the earliest period of occupation of the strongholds and their subsequent reuse in Byzantine and Seljuk times. Also a detailed architectural study of the strongholds is currently under way and aims to provide an understanding of the function of individual 5

6 See discussion by Hojte (2009, 99) on administrative organisation of the kingdom. 7 Mitchell 2002, 58. 8 Marek 2003, 40. 9 Arslan 2007, 30; Erciyas 2006, 45. 10 Hojte, provides some general information about pontic military organization (Hojte 2009, 100-103). 11 Cumont and Cumont 1906; Hamilton 1842; French 1981. Considering the rough topography in the region, it can be assumed that similar roads existed in the same spots during the Hellenistic period, and probably even earlier.

Leonhard 1915, 239.

167

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 2. Hellenistic settlements and strongholds.

relatively to both fortresses and could be identified as rural settlements, as mentioned above. Fortresses could be thought of as recruiting places. Dazimon, which is another settlement and fortress, is thought to have had relations with Çördük and Geyras. All three provided views of the road that led to the sacred city of Comana. This map has not been entirely completed yet. The objective is to investigate the settlements’ relations with strongholds once all the stronghold locations have been marked with precision on the map.

In this season’s (2012) field work on Çördük and Geyras strongholds, the coordinates were collected by D-GPS in order to draw a plan of their layout. This study will identify the function and the typology of these strongholds, contributing to our knowledge about Pontic defence units. Çördük stronghold The Çördük stronghold is on a rock outcrop to the NorthWest of Çördük village on the Tokat-Sivas road, at an elevation of 905m. The stronghold is located at the point where the valley meets the plain. On the northern side of the stronghold, which can not be accessed due to the cliff face, no fortification structures were identified. On the southern side, fortification walls dating to the Byzantine period are still standing. The fortification wall is approximately 80m long and creates two crescents on the southern side of the rock outcrop (Figure 3).

Expected results There are two expected major outcomes of the GIS analysis conducted in this project. First, topographical variables (site selection criteria - predictive modelling) and site location relationships will be revealed via descriptive statistics. Second, these relationships will be discussed in the light of the historical background. These variables are subjected to analysis regarding proximity to roads, water sources and visibility.12

There is a monumental stairway above the stronghold to the north. This stairway consists of a main set of stairs in the middle and two narrower stair sets (photograph in Figure 4). The narrower sets of steps are 2.5m higher than the main stairway and they run down the shaft on either side. Having steps at two different levels might mean that there was a

Visibility analysis will be applied to determine whether each stronghold can be seen from its neighbour. This will provide information about the nature of communication and connection of strongholds with one another. 12

168

Emine Sökmen: Two Defence Units in the Pontic Kingdom

Figure 3. Çördük layout plan

miscalculation made during the construction of the tunnel. The narrow stairways on either side reach to the 90th step of the main stairway. Small symmetrical postholes which were possibly used to support a wooden structure were observed on the 48th and 108th step from the top of the stairway. The arch of the tunnel ends at a distance of 4m from the surface. The entrance of the tunnel is c. 2.5m wide.

commanders who served in the respective strongholds. Many ceramic and metal pieces that can be dated from the Hellenistic to Ottoman periods were distributed throughout the hill (Figure 8). According to Olshausen and Biller, Çördük can be identified as Taulara, an important fortified citadel minting coins during Mithridatids14. After the fall of Mithradatids it lost its importance. Considering its autonomous nature and its coin minting, it seems reasonable to think that it was one of the royal administrative centres of the Mithridatic kingdom (like Gazioura and Chabacta).

131 of the main stairway can be observed (Figure 4). It is difficult to measure the total depth of the tunnel, because it has been filled with debris and rocks. On the right wall of the tunnel there is a two-lined inscription or graffiti which is illegible.

The Geyras Stronghold

A cistern is located on the upper level of this tunnel but because of dense vegetation its depth has not yet been clearly measured. There is also the remains of a rectangular building on the northern side of the stronghold (Figure 5) measuring 12x4m. The holes on the northern wall show that the building was at least two storeys high.

The name of the Geyras stronghold can be found in the list prepared by von Gall (1967). However, no description of it has been made until now by any researcher or traveller. The Geyras stronghold is located on top of a cliff north-west of the Tokat-Sivas highway and 2.5km north of the Çördük stronghold. Its elevation is 960m. It is a typical Hellenistic stronghold with rock-cut tunnels and stairways. The visible length of the stairway into the vaulted tunnel is around 7m; this tunnel too was filled with earth and debris. The entrance of the tunnel is 3m wide. There are 20 visible steps. The steps are uniform in size throughout the length of the tunnel, having on average a 30cm riser and 25cm tread. The stairs cannot be followed because of the rubble fill (Figure 9).

There is a second stairway located just outside the fortification wall. The width of the shaft is 1.50m. Only the first 33 steps of this stairway can be seen; the rest is under the debris (Figure 6). The Çördük stronghold was built on top of a large cliff and there are two cleanly and precicely executed rock cut tombs on its eastern side (Figure 7). However, we could not reach them for investigation during this study season. Similarly, there are rock cut tombs located in the Samsun Asarkale, Amaseia and Tokat-Erbaa Mahalle Kale (Akgün) strongholds.13 These tombs might belong to military

A typical Mithradatic coin of Amisos with Ares on the obverse and sword in sheath on the reverse was found in this rubble fill (Figure 10). Geyras stronghold surface findings are only dated to the Hellenistic period. It was built in a location that was hard to reach and was used only during the period in which it was built. There is no fortification wall surrounding the stronghold.

De Jerphanion (1912, 135) has associated Caenum Chorium with the fortifications at Mahalle Kalesi, 24 km north-northwest of Niksar. It is typical of the late Hellenistic period citadels in Pontus, suggesting that the site functioned as one of the strongholds of the Pontic kings, and it may indeed be Caeunum Chorium. 13

14

169

Olshausen and Biller 1984, 55.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 4. Çördük stronghold tunnel and stairway

The remains of the walls of a rectangular building with two rooms can be observed from the surface to the south of the stronghold but it is hard to define its purpose. The rectangular building is 16x30m in size.

acommodated military personnel. The Geyras stronghold, in comparison, was a smaller sized stronghold, located in a protected, hard to reach area at a higher altitude and therefore containing less soldiers. One could also say that Çördük had indirect and Geyras had direct relations with the Dazimon stronghold. Geyras is located inbetween Dazimon and Çördük. The Dazimon stronghold is not visible from the Çördük stronghold. It seems probable that Geyras was constructed after Çördük to provide a link between Tokat and Çördük.

Conclusion The following can be stated with respect to this year’s research: Nothing was found belonging to the Roman period in the Çördük or Geyras stronghold. The strongholds had no place in the reorganisation of Pompeius, which was based on self-governing poleis, and in fact Pompeius had many of them destroyed (Strab. 12.3.38). This supposition is made as there seems to be no connection with urban structures during the Roman period.

These strongholds, which were positioned as links in the defence system, were control points located in strategic places by the Mithradates, who wanted to establish his dominion over the area. They played an important role in eliminating any threats that might have been directed against Komana from the south and the south east. In fact, the first step in the defence of a nation would be to defend its borders and territories and then defend its cities. Comana was established in the middle of a wide and fertile plain called Dazimonitis. The chain of strongholds can be thought of as a protective measure built to defend the sacred and fertile areas of Comana.

The examples of Çördük and Geyraz are two units of the kingdom’s defence system with two separate functions. When we consider the layout of the strongholds, the size of these architectural remains and the stronghold’s proximity, it could be suggested that the Çördük stronghold

170

Emine Sökmen: Two Defence Units in the Pontic Kingdom

Figure 6. Second stairway

Figure 5. Rectangular building

Figure 7. Rock cut tombs

171

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 8. Ceramic assemblages

Mihradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey. Leiden. French, D. H. 1981. Milestones of Pontus, Galatia, Phrygia and Lycia, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigrafhik 43, 149-174. Hamilton, W. J. 1842. Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, Armenia I/II. New York. Højte, J. M. 2009. The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom, In J. M. Højte (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Black Sea Studies 9), 95-107. Århus. Leonhard, R. 1915. Paphlagonia: Reisen unf Forschungen im Nordlichen Kleinasien. Berlin Marek, C. 2003. Pontus et Bithynia: Die Römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens. Mainz. Mitchell, S. 2002. In Search of the Pontic Community in Antiquity, Proceedings of the British Academy 114, 3566. Olshausen, E. and Biller, J. 1984. HistorischeGeographische Aspekte der Geschichte Pontischen und Armenischen Reisches. Wiesbaden. Von der Osten, H. H. 1929. Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor. Chicago (repr. of Explorations in Hittite Asia

After a complete understanding of the defence system is developed at the end of this study, we will have an answer to whether or not a border was being constructed for the kingdom. List of Bibliography Anderson, J. G. C. 1903. Studia Pontica I. A Journal of Exploration in Pontus. Brussels. Arslan, M. 2007. Mithradates VI Eupator: Roma’nın Büyük Düşmanı. Istanbul. Cumont, F. and Cumont, E. 1906. Studia Pontica II. Brussels. Von Gall, H. 1967. Zu den Kleinasiatischen Treppentuneln, Archäologischer Anzeiger 82, 504-527. De Jerphanion, G. 1912. Notes de géographie Pontique Kainonchorion, Mélanges de L’Université St. Joseph II, 135-141. De Jerphanion, G. 1928: Les Tunnels a escaliers de la région Pontique, Mélanges de L’Université St. Joseph XIII 1, 24-40. Erciyas, D. B. 2006. Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the

172

Emine Sökmen: Two Defence Units in the Pontic Kingdom

Figure 9. Geyras stronghold tunnel and stairway

Emine Sökmen: We cannot say concrete things about it. I feel I can say that it must have been Hellenistic. During our survey for these two examples, especially in Geyras, which is very far from everything actually, we only collected Hellenistic material – the one coin and pottery. Based on the type of the architectural structural remains, they must be Hellenistic. Sujatha Chandrasekaran: I asked this question because scholars often give very generic Hellenistic dating to things they don’t understand but the Hellenistic period is, you know, quite diverse.

Figure 10. Coin from Geyras

Emine Sökmen: Maybe it would be better to limit the period. I would like to say, e.g., that ‘it is Pontic’ and built under Mithridates Eupator reign, but I cannot. After we finish this huge project and after comparing and observing many more fortresses, maybe we will have more precise data.

Minor, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43 (1927), 73-176. Discussion

Eleni Mendesidou: Can you see any similarities between these fortresses and Amaseia? Could Amaseia have also initially been a fortress before becoming the capital of

Sujatha Chandrasekaran: Do you have any foundation dates for the fortifications?

173

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

the kingdom? And if there is such a similarity, could those fortresses be part of a political organization of the Hellenistic kingdom of Pontus?

a major new re-structuring of the landscape and a reorganisation of settlement. Could you comment very briefly whether there is any similar transition visible in the structure of the settlement in the surroundings of the fortresses? For example, growth of rural settlements or something similar?

Emine Sökmen: I want to rely on Strabo, who mentioned some of these fortresses as royal fortresses having a strong influence on the royal administration. For example, Gazioura is not far from fortresses (in the Tokat region); it minted coins and according to Strabo, the treasure of the kingdom was reserved there.

Emine Sökmen: It is really difficult to conduct a survey around Pontus and find settlements because of the modern agricultural activities and the erosion of the area. In one example, in Çördük, there are three small Hellenistic settlements but a bit far from the fortress. But we can’t see any shifting over a period of time, so I can’t say.

Adela Sobotkova: I have a question about the settlement content of the fortresses. The fortresses usually represent

174

Investigation of the Rural Settlements in NW of Amasya during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods by Using GIS Coşku Kocabıyık Abstract: The appearance of Anatolia changed basically between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd century AD1. Cities took the place of fortified refuges; settled village population was replaced with seasonal groups; cereal agriculture spread to areas previously devoted to pasture and stock-raising and thus supported a growing population. This paper builts upon research I have done for my master study examining the rural settlement pattern of Chiliocomum dated to the Hellenistic and the Roman periods. A special emphasis is paid to the environment’s impact on society and a comparison of the Hellenistic and the Roman settlement patterns using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Keywords:Mithridatic Kingdom, GIS, settlement pattern, Chiliocomum,

Study Area1

in NW Amasya. Unfortunately, there is lack of evidence to completely understand the rural settlement system of the study area. Thus, we may use other examples of rural settlement organization from other parts of Anatolia. There is certain amount of evidence indicating how potential for village organization could have developed under appropriate conditions. For example, inscriptions suggested that complex village organization was in existence at Nicomedia in Bithynia, which might have had a comparable political environment to the study area5. These regions were integrated into wealthy market economies willingly accessible to and influenced by civic culture and politics. However, even for the well-developed villages there is very little evidence concerning their administration system. Public accounting, controlling markets, creation of public buildings such as fountains, bath houses and shops were not activities to be found in most villages and less well developed areas of Anatolia but this level of urbanization existed in the communities of the hinterland of Nicomedia6. Since Amasya was the capital of the Mithridatic Kingdom in the Hellenistic Period and was one of the politically and economically important centers of the region, we may suggest that communities in the hinterland of Amasya may have contained similar services and spaces.

The setting of this study includes the total area of modern Gümüşhacıköy, Merzifon and Suluova districts of Amasya in Central Black Sea region of Turkey (Figure 1). The province which is in the transitional zone between the Central Black Sea coast of Turkey and Central Anatolian peninsula has fascinating landscape composed of various landforms and wide fertile plains, enriched by Yeşilırmak River and its branches2. Yeşilırmak River (ancient Iris) passes through Amasya and the study area begins from the north bank of the river and then it reaches up to the border of the Samsun Province. The area presents a varied topography and vegetation because of the variety of land forms and elevations it contains. Altitude of the study area varies between 310m and 2060m. The northernmost part of the area enclosed by the Tavşandağ Mountain to the east is bordered by the Akdağ Mountain which also represents the highest elevation of the study area with an altitude of 2060m (Figure 2). The western boundary of the study area is the Gümüşhacıköy district. The Gümüşsuyu stream emerges from there and adjoins the Tersakan River where the lower slopes of the study area exist. In the study area, there appears generally to be mountain ranges embracing the lower slopes which form the fertile plains3. The two mountain ranges of Amasya, Tavsandağ to the north and Akdağ to the east, dominate the landscape. Almost all of these soil groups are suitable for agriculture and are used as agricultural land in the study area.

Material and Methods Between 1986 and 2004 a survey project in the Amasya province was conducted by M. Özsait of the İstanbul University7. This survey covered the contemporary territory of the Amasya province. The initial aim of the survey project was to investigate settlements in the territory and register the pottery from the surface according to cultural context8 . In order to examine settlement patterns in the Hellenistic and Roman periods and their environmental

Rural Settlements in the Territory of Amasya Chiliocomum was called a plain with ten thousand villages4 Mitchell 1993, 241. Erciyas 2006, 36. 3 Amasya Environmental Status Report 2007. 4 Strabo 13.3.39.

Mitchell 1993, 181. Magie 1950, 1026. 7 Özsait 1988; 1989; 1990; 1996; 1997; 1998. 8 Özsait 1990, 64.

1

5

2

6

175

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 1. Location of study area (Image from Google maps).

context, a settlement database was constructed from the published results of this survey project.

total of six data sets were used during the study. These are the following: the settlement data, the topographic data, the vegetation data, the hydrology data, the Roman road network data and the soil data. Finally, four variables were accepted as the possible predictors for settlement locations: elevation, slope, aspect and proximity to road. The study of the topography involves the recording of relief or terrain, the three-dimensional quality of the surface, and the identification of specific landforms like mountains, plains, canyons and plateaus. In this study, SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) topographic data has been used to identify elevation, slope and aspect values of the study area and to locate ancient settlements. Others were used as promoter data for the discussion of the result of the analysis. Promising variables were subjected to proximity analysis. There are two major outcomes of the GIS analyses. First, individual environmental variable and site location relations were revealed via graphs and descriptive statistics. Second, these relations could be discussed in the light of historical background.

The total numbers of settlements in the Hellenistic and Roman periods which have been used in the study are forty three (43). Of these, twenty (20) were identified as Hellenistic settlements (Figure 3) while thirty three (33) were occupied in the Roman period (Figure 4). A number of eight (8) settlements were identified as occupied in both periods. The survey project used in this study met the objectives of this study only to a certain extent. The fundamental problem with the Amasya survey project is that the accessible data obtained is not coherent and is limited for a quantitive analysis. The geographical coordinates of the sites, dimensions of the settlements, and environmental descriptions are mostly missing because the project was not interested in assembling information concerning the settlement distribution, hierarchy or communication between sites. Pottery studies are also deficient.

Three main questions were posed: 1. What is the topographical preference of the Hellenistic and the Roman settlements in terms of elevation, slope and aspect values?

The first step in variable selection was based both on previous studies and empirical measurement of data. A

176

Coşku Kocabıyık: Investigation of the Rural Settlements

Figure 2. Elevation map of the study area (Photo of the author).

Figure 3. Distribution map of the Hellenistic Settlements (Photo of the author).

Figure 4. Distribution map of the Roman Settlements (Photo of the author).

177

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

2. Are there any visible differences in site selection criteria between the Hellenistic and the Roman settlements? 3. What could be the reason beyond site selection preference for both periods in terms of socio-political aspects? Results The subtraction of settlement and topography histograms for each topographic parameter are produced. Histograms of these percentages were extracted to find the final score for the preference. The positive numbers imply that the people settled in this topography more than the percentage provided by the nature. The negative number on the other hand, suggests that although the topography was available, people did not prefer to settle there.

Figure 5. Topographic parameters that were preferred or avoided by Hellenistic settlements (Photo of the author).

East facing low uplands was preferred because of their elevations which provide improved drainage and they were enclosed with fertile lands. Still, the masking analysis indicated that the Hellenistic settlements had a wider range of elevation preference. Settlements were distributed equally according to slope ranges at the edges of the relatively flat Merzifon plain and the mountainous regions on the west and south parts of the study area. Flat areas are mostly preferred, while east and south facing settlements are relatively more common than other directions. North and northwest directions were avoided by Hellenistic settlers (Figure 5). Frequently single period Hellenistic settlements in the study area were associated with roads. Dense settlement during the Hellenistic period was observed in two different areas, one in the SW margins of the Merzifon plain, and the other in the region of Suluova which forms the eastern margins of the study area. Both clusters are concentrated around the ancient trade routes. The first cluster in the southern margins encompasses the trade route which connects Sinope with central Anatolia. The cluster in the Suluova region, on the other hand, is attached to the major trade route linking Amisos to Cappadocia. Environmental variables are similar in both clusters due to milder slopes and fertile soils. Although the cluster with a lower density on the eastern margins is distant to the streams, the high density cluster is relatively close to the streams.

Figure 6. Proximity of the Hellenistic settlements to roads (Photo of the author).

nearby south facing margins of low uplands are good places for settlement. Roman settlements have a tendency to be located in faulted areas on the lower uplands of the Tavşandağı Mountain and the southern margins of the study area, which may have been a result of abundant hot springs as usual with fault zone. There is no archaeological evidence for water channels or water storage systems to support this idea. Different than the Hellenistic settlements, the Roman sites were concentrated on slopes with values between 6 degrees to 10 degrees. It can be suggested that the Roman period settlements are mostly observed on more gentle slopes of the Merzifon plain. Flat areas are mostly preferred while east and south facing settlements are relatively more common than other directions (Figure 7).

The detected mean range is 5km indicating that 63% of the Hellenistic settlements are thought to have been within the 5km of a trade route and the maximum distance is 20km. Settlements within 5km are observed mostly around the trade route that connects Sinope with inland Pontus. There is only one settlement situated within 5km distance to the Amisos-Cappadocia trade route. The most distant settlement is 15km from the trade routes which is situated on the eastern outskirts of the Tavşandağı Mountain (Figure 6).

Since the number of settlements increased in the Roman period, settlements within 10km of main roads were observed more frequently (42%). Moreover, the new settlements mostly preferred to be within the 10km between the trade road in the southern ranges of Merzifon plain and the Tavşandağı Mountain. It appears that in the Roman period the increase was based on agricultural production where people inhabiting the land benefited from natural resources (Figure 8).

The Roman settlements were mostly observed in lowlands in the flat areas that were irrigated with watersheds. The

178

Coşku Kocabıyık: Investigation of the Rural Settlements

of the plains surrounding the city11. Occupied by the Romans, or by Romanized natives, these villae cultivated intensively to produce a variety of crops. By the integration of the Mithradatic Kingdom into the Roman Empire, the change of power might have also showed itself in the distribution of the settlements and more intensive use of the land than practiced by the native groups inhabiting the region which was mainly the case in the Hellenistic Period in the study area. It may also be suggested that Amasya was a provider of surplus for the military troops during the Roman period, since it was the location for the troops of Mithradates VI12. This evidence emphasizes the importance of social phenomena at a regional level, and how behavioral actors create and negotiate their social realities within the geographic locations they occupy.

Figure 7. Topographic parameters that were preferred or avoided by Roman settlements (Photo of the author).

The road network, fertile soils of the area coupled with abundance of water sources may have resulted in dense and growing population. This shows that even though there are not valid sources of archaeological records in the area, settlement distribution within this area might have been related to socio-economic and political factors together with environment. If the result of GIS analyses which demonstrates visible differences in the pattern of distribution between two periods is combined with the theory of shift in the political control over the region and changes in economic structure, it would be possible to conclude that there is indeed a significant difference between the Hellenistic and Roman settlement patterns. List of Bibliography Bintliff, J. L. 2006. Issues in the Economic and Ecological Understanding of the Chora of the Classical Polis in its Social Context: A View from the Intensive Survey Tradition of the Greek Homeland Surveying the Greek Chora. In P. Guldager Bilde, and V. F. Stolba (eds.). The Black Sea Region in a Comparative Perspective, 13-26. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press. Cumont, F. and Cumont, E. 1906. Voyage D’exploration Archaéologique dans Le Pont et La Petite Arménie. Studia Pontica, II. Bruxelles, H. Lamertin. Erciyas, D. B. 2006. Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region. Leiden, Brill. French, D. H. 1988. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports International Series. French, D. H. 1990. Amasian Notes. Epigraphica Anatolica 15, 135-138. French, D. H. 1992. Amasian Notes 2. Epigraphica Anatolica 19, 63-68. French, D. H. 1996. Amasian Notes 3. Dated Inscriptions from Amasia and its Territory. Epigraphica Anatolica 26, 71-86.

Figure 8. Proximity of the Roman settlements to roads (Photo of the author).

The tendency towards settlement nucleation display itself with the new sites in the Roman period. Such a pattern was not observed in the Hellenistic period. This may suggest a change in the landownership and agricultural activity for benefit. Conclusion This shift in settlement distribution appears to represent a change from a political organization promoting urban concentration in Mithridatic Kingdom in the Hellenistic period towards a settlement pattern controlling large arable lands under the Roman Empire9. The changes in the structure of the ancient economy, as well as to a shift in the implementation of power and population, contributed to the increase in the lowland settlements in the Roman period10. In the system of land occupancy and the commercialization of agricultural production, Roman rule fostered intensive agriculture in order to support larger urban markets. During the first two centuries AD substantial agricultural mechanism, villae, dominated the economy 9 10

Mitchell 2005, 85. Mitchell 1993, 144.

11 12

179

Bintliff 2006. Maggie 1955,180.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Greene, K. 1986. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. Berkeley, University of California Press. Højte, M. J. 2006. From Kingdom to Province Reshaping Pontos after the Fall of Mithradates VI. In T. BekkerNielsen (ed.). Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanization and Resistance, Black Sea Studies 5, 15-30. Aurhus, Aarhus University Press. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Marek, C., 1993. Stadt. Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynia und Nord-Galatia. Tübingen, E. Wasmuth. McGing, B. C. 1986. The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden, Brill. Mitchell, S. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vol. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mitchell, S. and Katsari, C. (eds.) 2005. Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor. Swansea, The Classical Press of Wales. Özsait, M. 1988. 1986. Yılı Amasya-Ladik Çevresi Tarihöncesi Arastırmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, V, 239-57. Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi. Özsait, M. 1989. 1987, Yılı Amasya-Suluova Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, VI, 87301. Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi. Özsait, M. 1990. 1988, Yılı Gümüşhacıköy Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, VII, 367-81. Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi. Özsait, M. 1996. 1994, Yılı Amasya-Tasova Yüzey Arastırmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, XIII, 273-92. Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi. Özsait, M. 1998. 1995 ve 1996, Yıllarında AmasyaMerzifon ve Gümüshacıköy Yüzey Araştırmaları.

Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı XV 2, 143-62. Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi. Özsait, M., and Dündar, A. 1997. 1995, Yılı AmasyaGümüshacıköy ve Hamamözü Yüzey Arastırmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, XIV 2, 171-92. Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi. Özsait, M. and Dündar, A. 2003. 2001, Yılı Samsun ve Amasya Yüzey Araştırmaları. Arastırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, XX 2. Cilt, 127-140. Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi. Strabo Geography, Volume 13, Book 7. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Wilson, D. R. 1960. The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontus in the Greek and Roman Periods. Unpublished PhD thesis, Oxford University. Wheatley, D. and Gillings, M. 2002. Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. London, Taylor and Francisrancis. Discussion Anca Dan: A question about the ‘Hellenistic’ settlements: is there any spectacular change in the time of Mithridates VI Eupator in the urbanisation of the area you have studied, when compared with Eupator’s predecessors? Coşku Kocabıyık: We do not have significant archaeological remains suggesting that. I cannot say that there is an important change before Mithridates Eupator and after. I mean we have very few archaeological remains so far. So we do not have enough information to support this.

180

Romans in the North Black Sea Region: Greco-Roman Bilingualism in Olbia Alexey V. Belousov Abstract: An Olbian dedication to Achilles Pontarches made by a retiring priest includes the priest’s gratitude towards Achilles for ‘the continuance of the city’: ὑπ[ὲρ] τῆς πόλεως … διαμονῆς (IPE I² 140). The word διαμονή can be found in Greek inscriptions more than 200 times. In the majority of cases these inscriptions date from the Roman epoch and are made in honor of Roman emperors, the Senate and the people. This paper offers a classification of the ὑπὲρ τῆς διαμονῆς formulas. The analysis of the διαμονή-usages in the Greek inscriptions of the Roman epoch demonstrates that the Greek διαμονή in this formula is a calque for Latin aeternitas. The above mentioned Olbian inscription IPE I² 140 is an extraordinary exception: a deity is thanked only for Olbian ‘continuance’, without mentioning the Roman one. Another significant specimen of this sort is the CIRB 36 inscription, where an originally Roman cliché is attributed to Bosporan King Teiranes and Queen Aelia. The author thus proposes that we can observe a sort of ‘transmission’ of ‘Rome’s eternity’ to the periphery of the Empire, namely to the Greek city of Olbia or the Greek Bosporan Kingdom (CIRB 36). We can also see how the Greeks applied some phenomena of the Roman culture to themselves. Keywords: Black Sea, Olbia, Greeks, Romans, bilingualism, epigraphy

Research in the field of Greek-Roman bilingualism caught its second wind in the last decade1 and it did not happen quite by accident. Language contacts between the Greeks and the Romans can provide us with as much useful information for epoch reconstructions of classical antiquity as, for example, the construction efforts of the ancient city dwellers. One cannot state that the penetration of Latin elements into the language of the Black Sea region Hellenes had never aroused scholarly interest before2; however, the subject had never been the focus of a separate work. Recently the situation in this area of research has changed radically as important discoveries of great consequence to the whole picture of the history of the region in the Roman epoch came to light3.

of Septimius Severus, as it was this epoch that saw the beginning of the coinage with the names of the Roman emperor’s family members. In addition, statues dedicated to the emperor’s sons, Caracalla and Geta, were erected by the Olbian council and the people in the same epoch (IPE I2, 199). Another important piece of evidence corroborating this theory is the inscription bearing on the dedication of a bath complex to Geta and Caracalla by the Olbiopolitai (IPE I2, 174). This inscription lists a ‘governor of the province’ (ὁ διέπων τὴν ἐπαρχεῖαν) as one of the eponyms (the actual name of the governor is not preserved on the stone). A number of researchers, starting with V. Latyshev6, state the possibility of Olbia’s annexation to the Lower Moesia province in the Severan epoch but this theory is far from being a proven fact.

In this paper I would like to touch upon the issue of the influence of Rome’s official language on the language of the stone inscriptions of Olbia.

The supreme power in Olbia still belonged to the council and the people, and it was on their behalf that the dedication statues to Geta and Caracalla were erected (IPE I2, 199). The board of archons was still the supreme executive body (IPE I2, 174). The decree IPE I2, 42 dating from the Septimius Severus epoch has no formal differences from those decrees that do not belong to the era of the Roman political influence. In addition, Olbia retained the right to mint its own coins, albeit only copper ones, and even these bore visible signs of submission to Rome: they depicted emperors and members of the Roman royal family.

Data on Olbia’s relations with Rome4 can be found as early as the time of Augustus and Tiberius5. Pioneering research of Olbian history has already asserted that the city had acknowledged Rome’s supreme power in the epoch See the detailed bibliography on Greek-Roman bilingualism studies in the 19th-20th centuries in Rochette 1997, 26-35. See also: Adams et al. 2002 and Adams 2003. The collection of articles Biville et al. 2008 is also dedicated to Greek-Roman bilingualism and epigraphy. 2 See, e.g. Solomonik 1973, 269-270. 3 See, e.g. Tokhtas’ev 2011. 4 On Olbia and Rome see: Vinogradov 1990; Zubar 1993; Zubar 1998; 1995; Zubar, Krapivina 1999; Karyshkovskiy 1968; Knipovich 1968; Krapivina 1993; Latyshev 1887; Rostovtsev 1915; Braund, Kryzhitskiy 2007. 5 Olbian citizen Abab son of Callisthenes dedicated a portico (constructed with his own money) to the emperors Augustus and Tiberius and the IPE I2, 181. 1

I would like to put yet another important testimony of the Roman-Olbian connections on the scholarly agenda. As it

See: Latyshev 1887, 196; Krapivina 1993, 150; Vinogradov, Kryzickij 1995, 147; Zubar’ 1998, 120. 6

181

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

νης καὶ εὐποσίας καὶ διαμονῆς καὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ὑγείας χαριστήριον

is not as manifest as the others, it probably did not receive as much attention in the past. Achilles assumed the role of the supreme Olbian deity in the Roman period and was worshiped with the title of Ποντάρχης, which is attested by a great number (more than 40!) of stone inscriptions of Olbian magistrates: archons, strategoi, agoranomoi and priests7. In general the formula for these dedications adheres to the following pattern8: the inscription usually begins with the words Ἀγαθῆι τύχηι and immediately afterwards follows the name of Achilles Pontarches in the dative singular (Ἀχιλλεῖ Ποντάρχηι)9. Then comes the name of the dedicator and, if a dedication belongs to a magistracy, there is a list of its members’ names starting with that of its chairman: οἱ περὶ τὸν (name and patronymic) ἄρχοντες, στρατεγοί (names and patronymics of the college of magistrates). The final part usually conveys the purpose of the dedication: ὑπὲρ εὐσταθίας τῆς πόλεως, διαμονῆς, εἰρήνης, ἀνδραγαθίας, πολυκαρπίας and εὐποσίας. Often the following words are added as well: ὑπέρ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ/ἑαυτῶν ὑγείας10. Unlike dedications to Apollo Prostates and Hermes Agoraios, in inscriptions dedicated to Achilles Pontarches the words χαριστήριον or εὐχαριστήριον are almost always followed by the verbs ἀνέθεκαν, ἀνέθεκε or ἀνέστεσεν. Sometimes, however, the final formula consists of no more than the single word εὐχαριστήριον (IPE I², 155) or χαριστήριον.11 The χαριστήρια of Olbian magistrates present Achilles as the giver of fertility, water, health and wealth of the city, and one inscription from the pre-Get period calls him ‘the eternal father of Olbian archons’ (IPE I2. 53: Ἀχιλλε[ῖ Ποντάρχηι] ἀνέθεσα[ν οἱ ἄρχοντες] τῷ πατρί (α) ἰων[ίῳ]).

The word διαμονή can be found in Greek inscriptions more than 200 times namely in such formulae. In the majority of cases these inscriptions date from the Roman epoch and are erected in the honor of Roman emperors, the Senate and the People. Rare exceptions are connected with sacred mysteries (Eleusinian, for example, IG II2 4705), sanctuaries (of Apollo of Didyma, for instance, SEG 15.685) or other important public premises or institutions (Chios 18; Stratonikeia 5; ISmyrna 246; 707; IEph 27a; Iiznik 1131; EKM 1. Beroia 7 etc.). The most typical meaning of the word διαμονή itself (verbal noun originated from the verb διαμένω) for the Roman period is ‘eternity’, ‘continuance’. According to the Greeks of the epoch, this world is a precise equivalent of the Latin words aeternitas, divtvrnitas12 in these formulae. Greek inscriptions honoring Roman emperors mirror Latin wording pro aeternitate by ‘ὑπὲρ τῆς διαμονῆς’ formula. There are, however, several types of this formula, so I would like to present their general typology since no such typology has ever been compiled before13: ὑπὲρ τῆς διαμονῆς14, ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας καὶ τῆς διαμονῆς15, ὑπὲρ τῆς νίκης καὶ τῆς διαμονῆς16,

On aeternitas in Roman inscriptions see: Cumont 1888; Moore 1894; Cumont 1896; Aust 1893; Cumont 1893; Charlesworth 1936. On aeternitas in connection with διαμονή in Greek inscriptions in general see: Instinsky 1942 (but there is no research on the diversity of the epigraphic formulae in this work). 13 The proposed typology takes into account almost all the inscriptions with the word διαμονή known to date. The examples cited in this typology exhaust all the possible types of formulae containing the word in question. 14 Agora 15 322 [= SEG 12:94; IG II2 1073] (ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ] Αὐτοκράτορος  [Καίσαρος Τραϊανοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ Σεβαστοῦ αἰωνίου διαμονῆς] καὶ τοῦ σύμπαν[τος οἴκου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν πρυτάνεων καὶ ἀισείτων καὶ τῆς ἐξ Ἀρείου Πάγου βου[λῆς καὶ τῆς βουλῆς τῶν ἑξακοσίων καὶ τοῦ δήμου); IGBR III,1 1495 (ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν Σεβαστῶν διαμονῆς καὶ  τοῦ σύνπαντος αὐτῶν οἴκου καὶ ἱερᾶς συ[ν]κλ[ή]του καὶ δήμου Ῥωμαίων); IGBR IV 2002; V 5636; IPE 174; IScM II 89; IG XII,5 1097; Aphrodisias 152; Roueché, PPAphr 57; IKSmyrna 725; 594; IKEph 26; IMT Abrettene 2628; Marek, Kat. Amastris 26; Marek, Kat. Pompeiopolis 9; Ibidem 10; Haspels, Highlands of Phrygia 308, 31[1]; Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 601, 474; SEG 32:1387; Kayser, Alexandrie imp. 84 [= IGR I,5 1062]; IGR I,5 1145; I,5 1181; OGIS 702; SEG 26:1826. 15 IG II2 1349; IG IV 849; SEG 42:644 (ὑπὲρ σωτ[ηρίας καὶ αἰ] ωνίου δια[μονῆς τοῦ κυ]ρίου ἡμῶ[ν Αὐτ(οκράτορος)); Aphrodisias 68; 71; IMT Gran/Pariane 1104; IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1439 (ὑπὲρ τῆς Γαίου Καίσαρος αἰωνίου δια μονῆς καὶ τῆς τούτων σωτηρίας); Strubbe, Cat. Pessinus 20; Bosch, Quellen Ankara 79, 74; 94, 98; SEG 37:1100; SERP 333,12; 20:335; 20:339; 20:342; 8:91; IGLSyr 13,1 9057; IGLSyr 13,1 9059; IGLSyr 21,2 178; Gerasa 11; 12; 69; Breccia, Alexandria Mus. 78; SEG 40: 1578; IGUR I 34; I 189; IV 1659; I.Porto 2. 16 IGBR II 615 (ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κυρίου… καὶ νίκης αὶ αἰωνίου διαμονῆς καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος [αὐτοῦ οἴ]κου ἱεᾶς τε συγκλήτου καὶ δήμου Ῥωμ[αίων]); II 664; III,1 902; III,1 904; III,1 911; III,1 1074; III,2 1589; III,2 1590; III,2 1690; III,2 1710; IV 2058; IGBR I2 22 (2); IGBR I2 62; IGBR I2 252a; IGBR V 5599; Taşliklioğlu II:67,1; SEG 46:843; IScM I 81; CIRB 36; IMT LApollon/Milet 2196; IMT Olympene 2732; Marek, Kat. Amastris 25; St. Pont. III 68; SEG 31:1124; 32:1278; Lanckoronski, Städte Pamph. u. Pisid. II 228,210; Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 329,138; SEG 6:616; Portes du désert 12; Portes du désert 82; IGR I,5 1113; I,5 1185; I,5 1288; SEG 26:1826; IGUR I 30. 12

One of the Olbian dedications to Achilles Pontarches (IPE I² 140) is presented by a retiring priest who thanks Achilles for “the continuance of the city”: ἀγαθῇ τύχηι Ἀχιλλεῖ Ποντάρ χῃ Καλλίστρα τος Ἡρακλείδου 5 ἱερατεύσας ὑπ[ὲρ] τῆς πόλεως εἰρ[ή] See: Hupe 2006, 215-233, pl. 44-58. There are some new inscriptions: № 8 (see: Solovyov 1999a: 117, 119, fig. 108; Solovyov 2001, 138, fig. 13; 140 n. 18; SEG XLIX, 1999 (2002). № 1028 В), № 9 and № 10 (see: Nazarov 1995, 18 ff.). 8 For more details see: Belousov 2009, 310-312. 9 In the inscription of the priest Skartanes (IPE I², 142) not only the name of Achilles Pontarches is mentioned but also the name of his mother, Thetis: Ἀχιλλεῖ Ποντάρχηι καὶ Θέτιδι. 10 The gratitude for εἰρήνη, εὐσταθία and also for ὑγεία is regularly met in Olbian inscriptions dedicated not only to Achilles Pontarches, but also to Apollo Prostates, Hermes Agoraios and some other deities. For example, IPE I2, № 184: Σαράπι καὶ Εἴσι Ἀσκληπιῷ καὶ Ὑγείᾳ κ[α]ὶ Ποσειδ(ῶ) νι. There is a peculiarity to the Olbian usage of the word ἀνδραγαθία: in this case it relates not to some private persons who are being praised, but to the whole city (IPE I2, № 130; № 80, 81- τῆς πόλεως). It is quite probable that the plea/gratitude πολυκαρπία τῆς πόλεως also has a special semantic shade in Olbia. These words along with the word εὐποσία met in dedicatory inscriptions can prove to be quite important for our understanding of Achilles’ religious value in Olbia and in the Pontic kingdom in general. 11 As in IPE I², 133-134, 135; Boltenko 1953 et al. 7

182

Alexey V. Belousov: Romans in the North Black Sea Region

ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑγείας καὶ τῆς διαμονῆς17, ὑπὲρ τῆς τύχης καὶ τῆς διαμονῆς18 and their combinations19.

employed in the inscriptions without any direct connection to Rome or Roman power. In this case we are dealing with an even more profound aspect of the Roman influence on the Greek cities. The word διαμονή is not used in relation to Roman power or to Rome in general but by the Greeks in relation to their own city or, as in the case of the Bosporan inscription, to their own king. Therefore, we can observe a most interesting aspect of the influence exercised by Rome over the provinces and vassal cities of the Hellenic world: a certain ‘transfer’ of the idea of Rome’s and its emperor’s eternity to a Greek city. Taking the religious semantic value of the ‘eternity’ predicate, thoroughly studied by France Cumont as far as the Roman aeternitas is concerned20, one could suggest that the Olbian citizens accepted the word’s semantics along with the calque itself and reinterpreted it after their own fashion: the source of the ‘continuance’ of the Olbian polis was probably found in the principle deity of the time, Achilles Pontarches, whom Olbian archons call their πατὴρ αἰώνιος (IPE I2. 53) and whom they thank for all the blessings that keep the city and themselves wealthy.

We can see that in the majority of cases the word διαμονή is used as an element of standard Roman formulae. Greek inscriptions that contain prayers or gratitude for a city’s ‘eternity’ or ‘continuance’ are very rare. Moreover, in almost all cases these prayers for a local city’s wealth come after an enumeration of Roman officials (for example, the inscription from Miletus SEG 15.685: ταῦτα δὲ εἶναι εἰς εὐσέβεια[ν] / τῶν τε θεῶν καὶ τῶν Σεβαστῶν / καὶ διαμο/νὴν τῆς πόλεως). Olbian inscription IPE I² 140 is an extraordinary exception: a deity is thanked only for Olbia’s ‘continuance’, without mentioning Rome’s. Another significant example of this sort is the CIRB 36 inscription, where what would originally have been a Roman cliché is attributed to Bosporan King Teiranes and Queen Aelia: θεοῖς ἐπουραν[ί]/οις Διὶ Σωτῆρι καὶ Ἥρᾳ Σωτείρᾳ ὑπὲρ / βασιλέως / Τειράνου νείκης καὶ αἰωνί[ου] / διαμονῆς καὶ Αἰλίας βασιλίσσης.

Abbreviations

For now, it is too early to assert whether the usage of the word διαμονή in the epigraphic monuments of the northern Black Sea region proves whether this expression, which is rooted in Roman epigraphy, had already been assimilated into the Greek language of the epoch and stripped of its purely Roman connotations or, on the contrary, if these connotations were still strong. In the latter case we could view the usage of this expression as a political manifesto. In order to resolve this problem in Olbia’s case it seems vital to discern the political status of the city and its relation to the Roman Empire during the epoch in question. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate to draw the following conclusion:

Agora 15 Meritt, B. D. and Traill J. 1974. The Athenian Councillors. The Athenian Agora, 15. Princeton. Aphrodisias McCabe, D. F. 1996. Aphrodisias Inscriptions. Texts and List. The Princeton Project on the Inscriptions of Anatolia. The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (1991). Packard Humanities Institute CD #7, 1996. Bosch, Quellen Ankara Bosch, E. 1967. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum.Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan. Ser. 7. №. 46. Breccia, Alexandria Mus. Breccia, E. 1911. Iscrizioni greche e latine. «Service des Antiquités de l’ Égypte. Catalogue géneral des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée d’Alexandrie». Cairo. Corinth Meritt, B. D. (ed.) 1931. The Greek Inscriptions 1896-1927. Corinth, VIII,1. Cambridge (Mass.); West, A. B. (ed.) 1931. The Latin Inscriptions 1896-1926. Corinth, VIII,2. Princeton; Kent, J. H. (ed.) 1966. The Inscriptions 1926-1950. Corinth, VIII,3. Princeton. Dumont-Homolle Dumont, A. and Homolle, Th.1892. Inscriptions et monuments figurés de la Thrace.  Mélanges d’archéologie et d’épigraphie, par Albert Dumont. Réunis par Th[éophile] Homolle et précédés d’une notice sur Albert Dumont par L[éon] Heuzey. Paris. EKM 1. Beroia Gounaropoulou, L. and Hatzopoulos, M. B. 1998. Epigraphes Kato Makedonias (metaxy tou Vermiou orous kai tou Axiou potamou). Vol. 1. Epigraphes Veroias. Athens. IKEph 1979-1984. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Vol. I-VIII and Supplements. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11,1-17,4. Bonn. Fayoum Bernand, É. 1975-1981. Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum. 3 vols. Leiden, Paris.

The usage of the word διαμονή in the formulae in question is an important illustration of the Roman influence on the Olbian epigraphic language. However, this word is IGBR I2 297; MDAI(A) 20 (1895) 386, 5; IG XII, 3 324 (ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ … ὑγείας καὶ διαμονῆς καὶ ἱερᾶς συνκλήτου καὶ δήμου Ῥωμαίων); IG XII, 5 661; IG XII, Suppl. 238; Hyllarima 17; IKEph 412; IKEph 510-514; SE 799*2; Thèbes à Syène 15; IK Iznik 1502. 18 IGBR II 666 (Διεὶ καὶ Ἥρᾳ καὶ Ἀθηνᾷ ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν Αὐτοκρατόρων τύχης καὶ διαμονῆς); IScM III 65; IG XII, 3 325; IG XII, 5 1097; SERP 333, 12; Fayoum 1:88. 19 IG II2 3404; IG II2 5205 ([ὑ]πὲρ νίκης καὶ σωτηρίας καὶ ἀθανάτου δια[μο]νῆς τῶν δεσποτῶν τῆς οἰκουμέ[νης]); Corinth 8, 3 504; 8, 3 505; 8, 3 507; IG IV 849; IG VII 24; EKM 1. Beroia 68 (ὑπὲρ ὑγείας καὶ σωτηρίας καὶ νίκης καὶ αἰωνίου διαμονῆς τοῦ μεγίστου καὶ θειοτάτου καὶ ἀηττήτου κυρίου ἡμῶν Αὐτοκράτορος); EKM 1. Beroia 69; IG X, 2 1 137; IG X, 2 1 141; SEG 49:815; SEG 49:816; 49:817; Samsaris, BasStrymon 35 [SEG 30, 590]; IGBR II 615; II 660; II 664; III, 1 902; III, 1 904; III, 1 907; III, 1 911; III, 1 1074; III, 1 1374; IV 1917; IV 1982a; IV 2000; IV 2001; IV 2012; IV 2016; IV 2021; IV 2040; IV 2041; IV 2058; I² 17; I² 70(2); I² 252a; V 5333-35; V 5337; V 5692; V 5694a; V 5770-71; Dumont-Homolle 315, M; Perinthos-Herakleia 56; JÖAI 15 (1912) Bbl., 228, 31; SEG 42:646b; 45:878; IScM I 73; I 82; I 87; I 141; I 193; II 67; II 82-83; II 85; II 91; II 107; III 73A; V 259; Iscr. di Cos EV 102bis; IG XII, 5 662; SEG 44:721; Aphrodisias 29; Aphrodisias 607; IK Rhod. Peraia 514; Rhodian Peraia 31; CIG 6829 [IGR 4.468]; Bosch, Quellen Ankara 245, 184-185; IGR IV 548; IV 669; SERP 370, 30; 329, 3; 333, 12-13; SEG 6: 616; IGLSyr 6 2744; 13,1 2744; SEG 39:1663; I.Porto 3; SEG 35:1040/1732. Apart from these, there is one more type, however, it is represented only by a single inscription: Agora 15 411 [cf. IG II2 1800] ([ἐ]πὶ νείκηι [καὶ] [εἰς αἰῶ]να διαμονῆι τ̣[οῦ μεγ]ίστου Αὐ[τ]οκρά[τορος Καίσαρος] [Μ. Αὐρηλί]ου). 17

20

183

See Cumont 1896.

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Gerasa Welles, Ch. B. and Kraeling, C. H. 1938. Gerasa: City of the Decapolis. An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale University and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928-1930), and Yale University and t h e American Schools of Oriental Research (1930-1931, 1933-1934). New Haven [Conn.]. Haspels, Highlands of Phrygia Haspels, C. H. E. 1971. The Highlands of Phrygia. Sites and Monuments. 2 vols. Princeton. Hyllarima McCabe, D. F. 1996. Hyllarima Inscriptions. Texts and List. The Princeton Project on the Inscriptions of Anatolia. The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (1991). Packard Humanities Institute CD #7. I.Porto Sacco, G. 1984. Iscrizioni greche d’ Italia: Porto. Rome. IG Inscriptiones Graecae. IGBR Mihailov, G. (ed.) 1958-1970, 1997. Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae. 5 vols. Sofia. IGLSyr Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. IGR Cagnat, R. et al. (ed.) 1901-1927. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 3 vols. Paris. IGUR Moretti, L. 1968-1990. Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae. 4 vols. Roma. IKIznik Şahin, S. 1979, 1981-1982. Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia). 2 vols. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 9 und 10,1-2. Bonn. IMT Abrettene Barth, M. and Stauber, J. (ed.) 1996. Inschriften Mysia & Troas [IMT]. Leopold Wenger Institut. Universität München. Version of 25.8.1993(Ibycus). Packard Humanities Institute CD #7. IMT Olympene Barth, M. and Stauber, J. (ed.) 1996. Inschriften Mysia & Troas [IMT]. Leopold Wenger Institut. Universität München. Version of 25.8.1993(Ibycus). Packard Humanities Institute CD #7. IPE Latyshev, B. (ed.) 1916. Inscriptiones Tyriae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae. 3 vols. St. Petersburg 1885-1901. IScM Pippidi, D. M. 1983. Inscriptiones Histriae et vicinia. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. Vol. 1. Bucharest; Stoian, I. 1987. Tomis et territorium. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. Vol. 2. Bucharest; Avram, A. 2000. Callatis et territorium Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae.  Vol. 3.  Bucharest; Doruţiu-Boila, E. 1980. Capidava, Troesmis, Noviodunum. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. Vol.5.  Bucharest. Iscr. di Cos Segre, M. 1993. Iscrizioni di Cos. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente, 6. Roma.

JÖAI Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien. Kayser, Alexandrie imp. Kayser, F. 1994. Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines (non funéraires) d’Alexandrie impériale (Ier-IIIe s. apr. J.-C.). Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Bibliothèque d’étude, 108. Cairo. Lanckoronski, Lanckoroński-Brzezie, K. (ed.)  18901892. Städte Städte Pamph. u. Pisid. I Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. Unter Mitwirkung von G. Niemann und E. A. H. Petersen. 2 Vols. Wien. Marek, Kat. Amastris Marek, Ch. 1993. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia. Istanbuler Forschungen, 39. Tübingen. [pp. 157-187: Appendix 5, Katalog der Inschriften von Amastris]. Marek, Kat. Pompeiopolis Marek, Ch. 1993. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia. Istanbuler Forschungen, 39. Tübingen. [pp. 135- 155, Appendix 3, Katalog der Inschriften von Pompeiopolis]. MDAI(A) Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung (Berlin). OGIS Dittenberger, W.  1903-1905. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. 2 vols. Leipzig. Perinthos-Herakleia Sayar, M. H. 1998. PerinthosHerakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 269. Wien. PWRE Pauly A. and Wissowa G., Realencyclopaedie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics Ramsay, W. M. 18951897. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, Being an Essay of the Local History of Phrygia from the Earliest Times to the Turkish Conquest. Vol. I, Parts I-II. Oxford. Rhodian Peraia McCabe, D. F. 1996. Rhodian Peraia Inscriptions. Texts and List. The Princeton Project on the Inscriptions of Anatolia, The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (1991). Packard Humanities Institute CD #7. Roueché, PPAphr Roueché, Ch. 1993. Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Period. A Study Based on Inscriptions from the Current Excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria. Journal of Roman Studies, Monographs, 6. London. Samsaris, Bas-Strymon Samsaris D. C. 1989. La Vallée du Bas-Strymon à l’époque impériale. Contribution épigraphique à la topographie, l’onomastique, l’histoire et aux cultes de la province romaine de Macédoine. Dodone 18, 203-382. SE Alpers, M., Halfmann, H. with Mansfield, J. and Schäfer, C. (eds.) 1995. Supplementum Ephesium. Texte und Lemmata. Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Hamburg. SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. SERP Ramsay, W. M. 1906. Studies in History and Art in the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire, written for the quatercentenary of the University of Aberdeen by seven of its graduates. Aberdeen.

184

Alexey V. Belousov: Romans in the North Black Sea Region

Strubbe, Cat. Pessinus Strubbe, J. H. M. 1984. Descriptive Catalogue and Bibliography of the Inscribed Monuments of Pessinus. In J. Devreker and M. Waelkens.  Les Fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit te Gent à Pessinonte, 216-244. (Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses, 22). Brugge.

Cumont, F. 1888. Les dieux éternels des inscriptions latines. Revue archéologique, 3. Ser., ii, 184-193. Cumont, F. 1894. Aeternus (deus). PWRE, I, 696-697. Charlesworth, M. P 1936. Providentia and Aeternitas. HThR, 39, 107-132. Nazarov, V. V. 1997. Archäologische Untersuchungen auf Berezan‘. In K. Stähler (ed..), Zur graeco-skythischen Kunst. Archäologisches Kolloquium Münster 24.-26. November 1995. 4-21. Eikon 4, Münster. Rochette, B. 1997. Le latin dans le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain, Bruxelles. Rostovtsev, M. I. 1915. Voennaya okkupatsiya Ol’vii rimlyanami. Izvestiya imperatorskoy arkheologicheskoy komissii, 58, 1-16. Solomonik, E. I. 1973. Novye epigraficheskiye pamyatniki Khersonesa. Lapidarnye nadpisi, Kiev. Solovyov, S. L. 1999. Ancient Berezan. The Architecture, History and Culture of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea. Colloquia Pontica, 4. Leiden/ Boston/Köln. Solovyov, S. L. 2001. The Archaeological Excavation of the Berezan Settlement (1987-1991). In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.) Recent Discoveries and Studies, 117-142. Colloquia Pontica, 6. Leiden/Boston/Köln. Tokhtas’ev, S. R. 2011. Redkiy tip skloneniya antroponimov v bosporskikh nadpisyakh: -ᾶς -ᾶνος i t.p. In N. N. Kazanskiy (ed.), Indoevropeyskoye yazykoznaniye I klassicheskaya filologiya – XV, St. Petersburgh. Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1990. Ol’viya i Trayan. Vostochnaya Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’ye, 27-32. Tezisy dokladov, Moscow. Vinogradov, Ju. G. and Kryzickij, S. D. 1995. Olbia: eine altgriechische Stadt im nordwestlichen Schwarzmeerraum. Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava, Supplementum 149. Leiden. Zubar, V. M. 1993. Olviya i Rim v pershiy chverti II st. Arkheologiya, 4, 148-151. Zubar, V. M. 1998. Severnyi Pont i Rimskaya imperiya (seredina I v. do n.e. – pervaya polovina VI v.). Kiev. Zubar, V. M. and Son, N. A. 1995. K interpretatsii odnoy latinskoy nadpisi iz Ol’vii (IOSPE, I2, № 322). Vestnik drevney istorii, 3, 181-187. Zubar, V. M. and Krapivina, V. V. 1999. O rimskom garnizone Ol’vii v seredine III v. Vita Antiqua, 2, 76-83.

List of Bibliography Adams, J. N., Janse, M., and Swain, S. 2002. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text. Oxford. Adams, J. N. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge.  Aust, E. 1893. Aeternitas. PWRE, I, 694-696. Belousov, A. V. 2009. [Review] Der Achilleus-Kult im nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum vom Beginn der griechischen Kolonisation bis in die römische Kaiserzeit. Beiträge zur Akkulturationsforschung / Hrsg. von Joachim Hupe, Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf 2006. (Internationale Archaologie. Bd.94). Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 2–4, 310-312. Biville, F., Decourt, J.-Cl. and Rougemont, G. (eds.) 2008. Bilinguisme gréco-latin et épigraphie: actes du colloque, 17-19 mai 2004. Collection de la Maison de l’ Orient et de la Méditerranée 37; série épigraphique et historique 6. Lyon. Boltenko, M. F. 1953. Novaya nadpis’ Akhilla Pontarkha. Vestnik drevney istorii, 4, 130-135. Braund, D. and Kryzhitskiy, S. D. (eds.) 2007. Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD. Proceedings of the British Academy, 142. Oxford, Oxford University Press/ British Academy. Hommel, H. 1980. Der Gott Achilleus. Sitzungs­berichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Abh. 1, Heidelberg. Hupe, J. 2006. Der Achilleus-Kult im nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum vom Beginn der griechischen Kolonisation bis in die römische Kaiserzeit. Beiträge zur Akkulturationsforschung. Internationale Archäologie, Bd. 94. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf. Instinsky, H.U. 1942. Kaiser und Ewigkeit. Hermes, 77, 3/4, 313-355. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1968. Iz istorii pozdney Ol‘vii. Vestnik drevney istorii, 1, 167-179. Knipovich, T. N. 1968. K voprosu o rimlyanakh v sostave naseleniya Ol‘vii I-III vv. Antichnaya istoriya I kul‘tura Sredizemnomor‘ya i Prichernomor‘ya, Leningrad, 189197. Krapivina, V. V. 1993. Ol’viya. Material’naya kul’tura I-IV vv., Kiev. Latyshev, V. V. 1887. Izsledovaniya ob istorii i gosudarstvennom stroe goroda Ol’vii. St. Petersburg. Moore, F. G. 1894. Urbs aeterna and urbs sacra. TAPA, 25, 34-60. Cumont, F. 1896. L’éternite des empereurs romains. Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, I, 435-452.

Discussion Anca Dan: I have a question about Olbia in the Roman period: What are the traces of military presence in the territory of Olbia or, let’s say more generally, between Istros, on the Western Black Sea coast, and Crimea? Alexey Belousov: It is a big question whether Olbia was a part of the province of Lower Moesia or not. Some scholars support this, e.g., Latyshev, Krapivina and even Yuri Vinogradov. But some others think that we can’t now speak of Olbia as part of the Roman Empire because it was out of the ‘limes’. For example, it seems that Ivantchik

185

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

and Tartasyev don’t think that Olbia was part of a Roman province. I do not know, because there are good arguments from the former but in that case – if Olbia was part of Lower Moesia – it would have had a very special status as a city. I think that we need to wait for developments from archaeological investigation for this.

the Latin language. This is the case of official terms, e.g., veteranus, where this is direct borrowing. And we have cases where the borrowing was more passive; it was more a translation. The most difficult part is to find the borrowings that are not direct. Only recently, new investigations began to appear, as in for example, the monograph of Dubuisson about the Latin language of Polybius, where he presents the methods which help us recover the Latin syntactical constructions or suffixes in Polybius’ language. It is very difficult to classify now the ways these influences of the Latin language affected the Greek. A useful book is that of Adams about ancient bilingualism and about the influence of the Latin language on the Greek, as is the collection of articles on epigraphy, edited by Frédérique Biville, JeanClaude Decourt, Georges Rougemont (ed.), Bilinguisme gréco-latin et épigraphie: actes du colloque, Lyon, 17-19 Mai 2004.

Adela Sobotkova: How do you perceive the concept of the Roman influence in the inscriptions? Is this a passive reception of the clauses that were circulating and just put in the inscriptions, like ‘profuma’, or do you see this reception as genuinely coming from the city, being an act of actively embracing the authority of the Romans? Alexey Belousov: There are many directions of this influence of the Roman official language on the Greek language. There is an active borrowing of words from

186

Navigation in the Black Sea: A Case Study of Maritime Traffic in the Northern Black Sea Region from Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages (4th-7th c.) Mariia Tymoshenko Abstract: Navigation of the Black Sea became common from the period of the Greek Colonization and onwards. Ancient maritime routes were based on the hydrological features and had been used according to the climatic conditions. The distribution of archaeological materials is used as a source to determine the level of trading activity between the main production centres which was carried out by sea. Nevertheless, the map of the important coastal ports, well-known on the basis of the Ancient Periploi from antiquity, changed significantly from the 4th till the 7th century, in accordance with the political situation in the Northern Black Sea region. This paper considers the tendencies of decay of ancient harbours and the rise of new ones on the trade routes of the Black Sea, and issues of their location and functioning. Keywords:North Black Sea region, navigation, harbor, shipwreck, Crimea (Taurica)

People have navigated the Black Sea since ancient times. Navigation became regular; however, in the period of Greek colonization and thanks to maritime communications, this part of the periphery joined the Mediterranean civilization. Descriptions of the ports and harbours on the routes of the ancient seafarers are known from the so-called Periploi.1 The main sea routes ran around the perimeter of the Black Sea coast and specifically connected the southern and northern shores. The routes were in use up to the Late Middle Ages. A number of underwater expeditions in the coastal area of the Black Sea revealed new facts about the maritime history of the Northern Black Sea region or confirmed elements that had already been established. The underwater cultural heritage has been actively studied in the territorial waters of Ukraine. Systematic research has investigated the submerged parts of ancient cities, harbours and port areas of Olbia, Chersonessos, Sougdeya, Acra, Nympheum and others in the historical territory of Bosporus, surveyed along the Crimean coast and investigated shipwreck assemblages. The article aims to present to present the data retrieved from the archaeological evidence related to navigation in the period from the 4th to the 7th centuries.

and captured the Crimean steppes and the Western part of the European Bosporus; in particular Theodosia was destroyed.2 The Eastern part of the European Bosporus and its capital Pantikapaion did not suffer in the course of these events.3 Archaeological finds give evidence of the life and activity in the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries in Tiritaka, Kytaiya and other rural settlements on the coast.4 However, the constant process of movement of nomadic tribes led to the decline of navigation and trade in the region of the Don and the Sea of Azov in the period from the 4th to the 7th c.5 A certain victory over the Huns in the time of Zeno allowed the advance of the Byzantine position in the region of south-western Crimea. For the first time Bosporus and Cherson, independent with regards to their military and public administration, are unified under the rule of the doux of Cherson.6 The continuity in navigation practice along the Crimean coast for trade, diplomatic and military purposes is traced in written sources as well as through archaeological evidence. Navigation was also supported by the Byzantine government due to its essential significance for the control of this territory separated by the sea. Arrangements put in place by the empire in the region of Taurica were in common with the general Byzantine doctrine and its strategic and tactical order in the Northern Black Sea. During the 5th, 6th and early 7th centuries, the large scale building and restoration programme was led by the Byzantine administration. Attention was first paid to the urban centres, which maintained their importance as

In the period from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, the political situation in the Northern Black Sea changed significantly. Several surges of barbarian attacks led to the rustication and decline of most of the centres of the North West Black Sea region (Olbia, Tyras) and the North West Crimea (Kalos Limen, Kerkinitis). On the turn of the 4th to 5th centuries or in the early 5th century, the Huns penetrated the Crimean peninsula from the North

Aybabin 1999, 73, 77. Aybabin 1999, 73, 77; Maslennikov 1990, 98. 4 Zinko and Zinko 2008; Zinko 2008; Lyakhovskaya 2009; Bolgov 1998; Sazanov 2000, 236; Aybabin 1999, 141. 5 Karpov and Kogan 1994. 6 Hrapunov 2004. 2 3

Pseudo Scylax, Arr. PPE, Anon. PPE etc. have been analyzed in a number of publications in order to locate ancient sites and features of navigation. 1

187

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 1. Map of the Crimean coast (created by the author)

I. Nature bays involved in coastal navigation from ancient period (in the direction from west to east: mod. Balaklava bay (Symbolon); mod. Bay of Laspi; mod. Partenit bay (Lampada). II. Main ports of Taurica (early medieval period). III. Fortifications, mentioned by written sources (Procopius). IV. Fortifications, which could be related to the building program of VI century: 1. m. Castron (mod. Balaklava bay) (by Adaksina, Mytz 2007); 2. in bay of Laspi; 3. Kastropol; 4. Panea, Limena-Burun (near mod. Simeiz); 5. Ay-Todor II (near mod. Gaspra); 8. in Partenit bay; 7. m. Dzenevez-Kaya (Sougdeya); 8. Kytaia (2-8 by Woos 2010; 2006). V. Shipwrecks: a. near cape Tubek; b. near cape Plaka (Partenit bay). VI. Anchorages: a. near cape Opuk; b. near cape Panagia (reef Trutayevo).

significant port centres. Procopius of Caesarea wrote: ‘… in the case of the coastal cities Bosporus and Cherson, which lie on the shore … at the extremity of the Roman Empire, he found that the walls had fallen completely into ruin, and he made them remarkably beautiful and thoroughly safe’. Also: ‘In that region he built two fortresses, called Aloustou and the one among the Gorzoubitae’.7 In case of danger coming from the land rather than the sea, their main task was to secure the rearguard and ensure the logistics of the troops, supplied by sea, as well as serving the navigational facilities on the route between Cherson and the Bosporus.

be illustrated by the example of the Petrona expedition.10 A detachment was sent to build the fortress in the mid flow of the river Don. The journey to the destination point was realized in several stages, each bringing a change of ships. S. B. Sorochan analyzed the event from the sources and drew the conclusion that three types of ships were used during the expedition: ‘Chelandion’ of the imperial fleet and a fleet of Paphlagonia themata were used for crossing the sea from Sinope to Cherson. Then local ships, στρογγύλα πλοία, were collected in the port of Cherson for the cabotage traffic along the Crimean coast and Azov Sea, to the mouth of the Don. For the river section, the ships were exchanged for καματερά καράβια, suitable for rowing and navigating the river upstream.11 In our opinion, the differences of the sailing was not the only reason for using three types of ships. This could be also relevant to the features of the navigational facilities, and the practice of using local landmarks, which were familiar to local helmsmen, on the sea route along the length of the coast between Cherson and Bosporus.

The number of fortresses associated with the project dated to the second half of the of the 6th century (c. 534-565) should also be noted. There are fortifications of the burg type on the Crimean coast: on Cape Ay-Todor (near to mod. Gaspra); Castropol, on the rock of Paneya (near mod. Simeiz); on the mountain Dzenevez-Kaya in the bay of Dimitraki (mod. Uyutnoe).8 Also the coastal sites of Kytaiya, Phanagoria, Hermonassa, the Trapezus fortress and the island of Cimmerida were fortified on the shores of the Cimmerian Bosporus (mod. Kerch strait) in the course of the imperial programme.9

Port centres, which operated from ancient times, were located in natural bays, suitable to accommodate ships. The harbor infrastructure is still a matter for investigation. In most cases, it could not be preserved due to the effects

The order of maritime traffic along the Crimean coast could Procopius III. 10-12. Woos 2010, 165-174; Woos 2006. 9 Woos 2010, 165-174; Woos 2006.

Theophanes Continuatus III, 28. Constantine Porphyrogenitus § 42. 32-38. 11 Sorochan 2004, 390-392, comm. 167.

7

10

8

188

Mariia Tymoshenko: Navigation in the Black Sea

of hydrophysical, geomorphologic and anthropogenic factors.12 But there are some examples of man-made facilities in the harbours of the Northern Black Sea region. They are constructed from wood, stone and a combined technique. Wooden piles have been identified as the remains of a breakwater in the bay of Theodosia. Over 4000 pine piles were driven in rows into the muddy bottom at a depth of 4m. Construction was attributed to the ancient period (up to the 4th c. AD).13 The location and identification of the archaeological assemblage in the harbour area of Sougdeya in clusters form the basis for a hypothesis of the existence of the wooden pieces in the medieval period.14 Breakwaters have been traced (on the level of a visual fixation) in the harbour areas of the Bosporus and near the settlement on the Tepsen plateau.15 The latter breakwater was deemed dangerous for modern shipping traffic and was blown up in the 1930s. Dozens of the diorite blocks were found in the bay in the 1950s during an underwater survey and the breakwater could still be traced by its shape to the length of 100m.16 In the harbour areas of Sougdeya, Partenit and others, the natural reefs as well as rocks were used for the protection of the harbour area from winds and heavy seas.

number of internal and external anchorages lay at the mouth of the bay, operated for the purposes to regulate the traffic capacity of the port.21 Other nearby bays of the Heraclean peninsula served local shipping and fishing boats.22 The waters of Sudak-Limen Bay consist of an enfilade of smaller bays, serving the purposes of harbours.23 The archaeological collection of the Fortress Bay consists of a large number of lead seals, coins and other items indicating that the bay had been used for administrative service: customs, archive and storehouses.24 According to the finds of bronze nails parts of the shell with rivets used for the covering the hull of the vessels in the Tyha bay, it may have been used for the repair of ships and was perhaps a shipyard.25 The nearby bays (mod. Zelena, Goluba, Synya) are protected from the south-eastern winds and storms and served as shelter on the sea route from Cherson and Bosporus.26 Evidence associated with ship cargoes and shipwrecks has been discovered during underwater archaeological surveys.27 The shoreline of Taurica provides poor natural navigational facilities. Nevertheless some landmarks, between Cherson and Bosporus, served for such purposes in antiquity as well as in the medieval period. On the South-West coast of the Crimea, the main geographical features able to provide sheltered anchorages were the bays of Balaklava, Laspi and Partenit.

It is interesting to mention the structures that have been discovered in the port of Phanagoria (mod. Taman peninsula). The construction of the groyne takes the form of wooden cages filled with stones from the ancient period (reused). In order to prevent erosion, the construction was fenced in by wooden piles. Extending from north to south (in direction to the shore) it was associated with the substructure (basement) of some harbour facility, a lighthouse, for example.17

‘The harbour with the narrow entrance’ is well known from the ancient sources as ‘Symbolum portus’ (Συμβόλων λιμήν, Συμβόλου λιμένα) in the modern Balaklava bay.28 Strabo mentioned that it was dangerous due to local piracy, but it seems to have been used for a Roman naval base since the 60s of the 1st century AD.29 The unique Σ-shaped bay, of tectonic origin, provides a perfect shelter for ships in winds or storms. Justinian II the Rhinotmetus (c. 685/695705/711) used this harbour as a place to meet with his followers (companions in arms) and hire a ship for further travel, in the period of his exile.30

The Quarantine Bay of Cherson is considered to have been used for trade and the naval purposes of the ancient and medieval city.18 Structures for the servicing of ships have been identified on the western shore (south-eastern part of the city). Breakwater, piers, and sheds have been investigated during underwater archaeological surveys.19 The latter were discovered by using sonar. Rectangular shapes carved into the rock are parallel, 5-7m in size and situated at intervals of 1-1.2m. Over 10 to 12 such objects have been attributed, by I. Zolotaryov, as slipways (sheds) for the purposes of repair and winter shelters for the vessels.20 The construction was dated to the period of antiquity, in agreement with similar shipyard facilities in Rhodes and Thasos, but that does not exclude their usage in the subsequent, Early Medieval Period. The dockyards and customs were located in the Quarantine Bay, while the

The underwater archaeological exploration which has taken place in the bay has shed light on material mainly from the 3rd century BC - 3rd century AD and some from the 14th and 15th centuries.31 However, a fifth or sixth-century settlement has been identified in the central section of the bay.32 The harbour facilities may have been located on the coastal terrace behind or in the mouth of the bay to the Lebedinskiy and Pronina 2012, 69-70. Lebedinskiy and Pronina 2012, 63-73; Turovskiy 1998, 96-97; Filippenko 1998, 98-99. 23 Tymoshenko 2011. 24 Stepanova 2001; Stepanova 2005; Stepanova and Farbey 2006, 303306. Cf. also Bulgakova 2008; Bulgakova 2004. 25 Dzhanov 2010, 572. 26 Zelenko 2008, 124-143, 156-175. 27 Zelenko 2008. 28 Pliniy IV. 86; Strabo VII. 4. 2-3; Arr. PPE 30; Anon. PPE. 78, 81. 29 Zubar 2000. 30 Chichurov 1980, 39, 63-64, 126, 155, 163. 31 Sorokopud and Filippenko 1999, 71-74. 32 Ivanov1997. 21 22

Bukatov et al., 2010. Kolli 1909. 14 Kuzmanov 1997, 232-233. 15 Tunkina 2002, 120; Zelenko 2008, 110-111; Mayko 2004, 109-114; Zelenko 1999; Makarova 1991, 121. 16 Zelenko 2008, 110-111; Kuzin 1957, 1-4. 17 Fanagoria 2008, 40-49. 18 Alexeenko et al., 1995, 148-149; Alexeenko 2005, 1592-1593; Marchenko 1999, 62; Sorochan et al., 2000, 581-582. 19 Vishnevskiy et al., 1987, 20-21; Shapovalov 1987, 1-2; Zolotaryov 2004. 20 Zolotaryov 2004. 12 13

189

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 2. A. Medieval anchors from Taurica: 1-10. Anchors from Cherson and it’s vicinity (after Shapovalov 2004; Lebedinskiy 2012); 11-20. Anchors from Kerch strait and its vicinity (after Okorokov 1993);

B. Variations of T-shaped anchors (after Shamray 2010) D, E. Anchors types (after G. Kapitan): I. 1-6. Anchors of standard T-shape form; II. 1-2. Anchors made in combination of T-shape type and Y-shape form; III. 1-2. Anchors made in combination of T-shape type and U-shape form; IV. 1-2. Anchors made in combination of T-shape type and W-shape form; V. 1-2. Anchors made in combination of T-shape type and V-shape form.

190

Mariia Tymoshenko: Navigation in the Black Sea

right, where the Roman site was situated. The evidence, at the same time, is too poor to give us a precise location. The site on Cape Kastron, situated at the entrance to the bay, could be associated with a building programme dated to the end of the 6th century, in the view of epigraphic findings.

forms a curve that provides a good view of the bays from Ayu-Dag Mountain to Meganom Cape. One of the most significant ports, Theodosia (Θεοδοσία), operated here in antiquity.41 Strabo mentioned that its harbour was suitable for a hundred ships42 and it was also compared with the port of Bosporus.43 Athenaion, the port of Skythotavron (Ἀθηναιῶν, the λιμένα Σκυθοταύρων), also offered a safe natural harbour.44 Both are mentioned in the Periploi.45 However, this length of the coastline, which used to be a border zone between the Bosporus and Cherson, remained unpopulated after the fall of Theodosia up to the end of the 6th century AD, when the settlement and port of Sougdeya was founded.46 The first mention of the latter is made in the ‘Cosmographia Anonymi Ravennatis’.47 The site is under systematic archaeological study, including underwater surveys. The findings coming from its harbour area, which include a collection of lead seals and gold coins, show that it had direct connections with Constantinople and demonstrate the high level of sea port organization in Sougdeya.48 The construction of the first fortifications could be related with the creation of a network of defence points on the Crimean coast in the period of Justinian I (534-565) or even earlier (Dzhanov et al. 2012.).49

The next bay visible to ancient seafarers is the Bay of Laspi. It forms an amphitheatre with the capes of Laspi (Delikli burun) and Ayia. The latter has been identified as Kriou Metopon, the major landmark on the direct maritime route connecting the Northern and the Southern coasts of the Black Sea. It provided shelter from the easterly winds prevalent in autumn and winter but is open to southerly and south-easterly winds.33 A number of settlements existed in the valley throughout medieval times (5th - 15th c.).34 Partenit Bay is situated halfway between Theodosia and Cherson. The presence of water springs and the opportunity for the safe anchorage ensured the attractiveness of this location for seafarers. The ancient settlement was identified as Lampada (Λαμπάδα), mentioned in the Periplus.35 The area was densely settled in the medieval period as well. An active relationship with Byzantium can be traced through numerous findings of ceramic jars dated to the period of the late 6th up to the 16th century.36 This trading post was situated at the foot of the Ayiu-Dag Mountain in the southeastern part of the valley. Its natural harbour was shaped by the reef, which rises above the surface, serving as a breakwater. At the same time, however, a strong current flows at a distance of 300m from the coast in a direction from west to east, presenting a hazard for sailing vessels. Three shipwrecks have been identified in the vicinity of the reef which is the underwater continuation of the Cape. The sipwreck of the antique period found on the eastern edge of the Cape, and the medieval ones attributed to the 7th and to the 10th centuries AD, according to the ceramic evidence, that have been discovered on the west side.37

Α number of individual findings were found in the harbour area of Sougdeya Bay (Sudak-Limen). They include ceramics from the 1st century AD, coins of the Bosporan kingdom (3rd century AD), and weights (4th - 6th centuries AD). These findings could be considered as evidence of the use of the bay for natural shelter in these earlier periods. The city of Phoul was another ancient port, first mentioned by Menander in c. 57650. A number of scientists have identified it with a site discovered on the Tepsen plateau. According to the archaeological evidence, it operated as a craft centre and a port from the 8th century.51

The population of the south-western Crimea rose significantly in the early byzantine period (6th - 7th centuries).38 Settlements were formed in the natural landforms which were open to the sea: Laspi, Gurzuf, Partenit, and Alushta. They included agricultural and craft production centres, churches and border fortifications.39 The latter also operated as navigation landmarks and lighthouses.40

Anchors are the artefacts directly related to navigation and most often preserved in harbour areas and anchorages; on the reefs and shallows dangerous for navigation, they marked more rarely the sites of shipwrecks. In the period under consideration, new anchor modifications came into wide use in the Mediterranean, as well as in the Black Sea. Large numbers of such anchors have been found along the Crimean coast: in Cherson and its vicinity,52 in the bay of

The south-eastern coast of Crimea differs in the features of its landscape. The main ridge of the Crimean Mountains recedes from the coastline, leaving a gentle, hilly terrain. This change affects the navigational facilities. The coast

Gavrilov 2003. Strabo VII. 4. 4. 43 Demosth., Adv., Lacr., XXXV; Demosth., In Lept., XX, XXXIII. 44 Nowadays its localization is still disputable. The fortess in Kutlak Bay has been mentioned among others: Lancov 1999. However there are several quiet bays on the shore length from Cape Chicken to Karadag, appropriate to be used as shelters: Firsov 1972; Agbunov 1992. 45 Arr. PPE 30; Anon. PPE 77. 46 Dzhanov 2005; Yurochkin 2002. 47 Podosinov 2002, 194. 48 Tymoshenko 2011. 49 Woos 2006, 13. 50 Menander 1860, 416-422. 51 Zelenko 2008, 109-123; Mayko 2004. 52 Lebedinskiy and Pronina 2012; Shapovalov 2004; Zolotaryov and Shapovalov 1991. 41 42

Ivanov 2005, 16. Parshyna and Myts 1978; Mahneva 1967, 53-57; Parshyna and Myts 1979, 282-283; Parshyna 1977; Parshyna and Myts 1983. 35 Arr. PPE. 30; Anon. PPE. 78. 36 Parshyna 1991; Parshyna 2002; Parshyna and Soznyk 2012. 37 Zelenko 2008, 84-90, 93. 38 Bolgov 2008, 137. 39 Firsov 1990, 20; Dombrovskiy 1974, 5-55. 40 Ivanov 2001. 33 34

191

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 3. Amphorae assemblage from the shipwreck near the cape Plaka (after Zelenko 2008): A. 1-7. Amphorae of ‘Carrot’ type. B. 1-13. Amphorae of LRA-1 type.

Laspi, near the Adalary rocks,53 near Cape Opuk,54 in the Kerch strait (Cape Takil, harbour of Acra on the southwestern coast; at Cape Tuzla, at Cape Panagia on the coast of the Taman peninsula).55 The iron of the ancient anchors was fully oxidized in the water. Consequently, they are preserved as a ‘conglomerate shell’ in the shape of the anchor.

but differing according to the features of the regional anchorages and the particular qualities of the seabed. Despite the variations in shape and construction, the anchors were similar in weight, in a range of 50-70kg, up to 100kg in rare cases. This feature was indicative of the ship’s capacity. According to this parameter, the vessels could be assumed to be about 10-11m in length and 4-5m in width.59 This confirms the thesis about the tendency towards ships of smaller capacity involved in private trade.60

Anchors are classified as types ‘D’ and ‘E’ by G. Kapitan.56 The so-called T-shaped iron anchors had a long shank with the horns, perpendicular to the shank, turned up at the ends. A modification of the type ‘D’ was used in the period of the 5th-7th centuries. Differences in the shank section and in the construction of the horns allow their distinction at least into three chronological subtypes.57 Anchors of type ‘E’ had a long shank, circular in cross section and flat in the upper part. The horns of the anchor were flat, its endings turned up and parallel to the shank, sawn off to form trapezoidal blades. Anchors of this type had a heel on the lower part. However, it definitely dominated in the 5th - 7th century, but there is also a possiblity that they were in use later in the 7th - 10th centuries.

The anchorage near Cape Opuk should be noted as one of the most important navigational facilities of the Crimean coast, on the sea route from Cherson to Bosporus, and one of the most representative of such sites. The Island of Elken-Kaya lays 4.8km off the south coast of the Kerch Peninsula, to the south-east of Cape Opuk. Formed out of four separate rocks rising out of the sea it takes so-called “Ship” shape. It could be a landmark that was used when changing direction on the way from Theodosia to the Bosporus or an anchorage when waiting for favourable wind. Numerous anchors from a broad period of time (from antiquity to the Middle Ages) have been discovered in the nearest vicinity of this geological structure. T-shaped anchors, used in the Roman-Byzantine period, are markedly found on the north side. Water springs on the coast opposite the rocks also seem to have been in use.61

There are five subtypes based on the regional finds, in A. N. Shamray’s view.58 The variations occur as a result of the influence of anchors used during the same period Vahoneev 2009; Zelenko 2008, 102. Zinko and Shamray 2009; Shamray 2010. 55 Shamray 2010; Okorokov 1991. 56 Kapitan 1984. 57 Okorokov 1993. 58 Shamray 2010. 53

Shamray 2010, 285. To compare, the trade ship sunken near island of Yassi-Ada and seen as an average for its age, was 21-24m in length and 5.5m in width, and had a capacity of 40-45t: Bass 1971, 225. 60 Sorochan 1996. 61 Zinko and Shamray 2009; Shamray 2007.

54

59

192

Mariia Tymoshenko: Navigation in the Black Sea

The harbour and anchorage at the Cape of Panagia was used up to the period of late antiquity. The Trutayevo Reef would have been above the water surface in antiquity and provided shelter against the winds and stormy seas from all directions. It was active up to the 4th c. AD, but six iron anchors were found there which could be dated to the period of the 5th-7th centuries.62

space (erection of churches), was accomplished through an ideological distribution programme. Elements of church decoration and architectural details produced of Propontis marble were transported by the sea75 and have been traced as coming from the sites of Cherson, Gurzuf (Gelin-Kaya), Partenit, Bosporus and Tiritaka.76 Two shipwrecks on the Crimean coast from the Early Middle Ages can be noted with respect to maritime trade. The one is from the period between the second quarter of the 6th and the early 7th centuries. It was discovered near Cape Tubek, in the close vicinity of Cherson, at a depth of 5m. The ship was driven ashore by the wind and storm. The condition of the findings and the amphorae collection from the ship tell us that it was involved in local trade.77

Direct connections with the south coast gave definitive importance to Cherson in the Black Sea trading system. Due to its location at the cross-roads of the maritime traffic, the city acquired a primarily role as the entrepot for the Northern Black Sea region from antiquity.63 Situated on the border to barbarian lands, settlements in Taurica maintain their commercial importance due to the transit trade.64 Jordan mentioned, ‘the avaricious traders bring in the goods of Asia’ to Cherson.65 Ships from the provinces of the Pontus are mentioned by Pope Martin I, who was exiled to Cherson. Grain, olive oil and wine could be obtained from the ships coming in to collect cargos of salt.66

The second shipwreck, from the 7th century, was discovered on the eastern side of Cape Plaka, at a depth of 10m. Its cargo consisted mainly of two elements: Late Roman Amphorae (LRA)78 and carrot amphorae of the Sinopean type.79 All LRA fragments found at Plaka belong to amphorae with cylindrical bodies. The clay is light yellow, light red or cream-colored. Some fragments from the Plaka shipwreck contain the remnants of resin linings. All examples of ‘carrots’ are quite homogenous in type; they have a tapered body with two loop handles. The handles are attached to the middle of the neck and are oval in section. A high rounded neck with a heavy knobbed or beak shaped rim flares to the horizontal ribbing of the body. The conical bases are of two types - one tapering and one rounded and hollow inside. The vessels are made of pale-pinkish clay, and the outer surface is covered by a brown patina with organic impregnations as a result of long-lasting interaction with its seawater environment.80 Both types are widespread on the sites of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean region and in the shipwrecks of Yassi-Ada (Turkey) and near Sozopol (Bulgaria).81

Most of the agricultural settlements on the Heraclean peninsula declined by the second half of the 5th century and agricultural production faded into insignificance for the urban economy as compared to the rising importance of fishing, crafts and trade.67 Actually, the formation of the urban culture was in direct relation with the exploitation of the sea.68 The construction of fish-salting cisterns in Cherson, Bosporus and Tiritaka provides evidence for the continuation of this activity, traditional in antiquity, in the 6th and the early 7th centuries.69 Fishing is of course widely represented in the other coastal sites, but on a noncommercial level. The evidence of trading can be traced at the regional level of Taurica, as well as at the Black Sea level.70 In the case of the latter, imports from Asia Minor clearly dominated.71 The main trading partners were southern Pontic cities, especially in the regions of Bithynia and Paphlagonia. Against the background of traditional imports from Sinop and Heraclea, trade connections with Constantinople and Nicomedea come now in importance.72 The trade contacts with the West Coast of the Black Sea, active in antiquity, are traced through the production of Thracian workshops: Tomis, Istria, Odessos, Mesembria. They persisted until the late 6th and early 7th centuries.73 Mediterranean goods (luxury and cult items, tableware) seem to have come to the region of the Northern Black Sea through Constantinople, so evidence of them is limited in number.74 The development of urban Christian

In conclusion, the data above points to the continuity of the main sea routes in the region of the Northern Black Sea. However, changes in the geopolitical situation led to a decline of the influential ports of antiquity. In the period between the 4th and the 7th centuries Cherson and Bosporus are of particular importance as the main harbours of the Northern Black Sea region. Unified under Byzantine rule, a network of fortifications and navigational facilities was established in order to provide security for the maritime communications along the Crimean coast (between Cherson and Bosporus). Further development

Okorokov 1991. Kadeev and Sorochan 1989. 64 Sorochan 2005, 1236-1237, comm. 12; Bolgov 2004. 65 Iordanis V 37. 66 Borodin 1991. 67 Sorochan 1997; 2010. 68 Romanchuk 1996. 69 Zinko 2008; 2011. 70 Sorochan 2002; Kadeev and Sorochan 1989. 71 Ushakov 2011. 72 Sorochan 2005, 231-321; Zubar and Sorochan 1996, 126. 73 Zubar and Sorochan 1996, 128. 74 Kadeev and Sorochan 1989. 62

In connection to this fact, the shipwreck of the 5th-6th centuries with the cargo of tiles, used for the building programme in Anchialos needs to be mentioned: Lazarov1978, 78-81. 76 Sorochan 2005, 176; Zinko and Zinko 2008, 91-97; Firsov 1990, 158. 77 Lebedinskiy and Pronina 2012, 67. 78 Scorpan 1977, t. VIII; Antonova et al, 1971, no. 7. - С. 86, t. VIII-X; Jakobson 1979, 10, 13, t. 9; Kuzmanov 1985, 65, t. XIV; Sazanov 1991, kl. 12. 79 Empereur and Picon. 1989, 223-248. See also Jakobson 1979, 8-9, t. I; Kuzmanov 1985, 68, t. XI;, Romanchuk et al., 1995, 19-20, kl. 2. 80 Waksman et al. 2009. 81 Zelenko 2008, 85-87.

63

75

193

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

oreintale. In Amphore romane e storia economica: un decennio di ricerche, 223-248. Roma. Filippenko, A. A. 1998. K lokalizatsii portov i yakornyh stoyanok vblizi Hersonesa Tavricheskogo. Izuchenie pamyatnikov morskoy aheologii 3, 98-99. Firsov, L. V. 1990. Isary: Ocherki istorii srednevekovyh krepostey Yuzhnogo berega Kryma. Novosibirsk. Gavrilov, A. V. 2003. Feodosiya v antichnuyu epohu. Problemy istorii, filologii i kultury 13, 77-99. Hrapunov, N. I. 2004. Administratsiya vizantiyskogo Bospora v VI v. Bosporskiye chteniya V, 378-383. Ivanov, A. V. 1997. Etapy razvitiya i nekotorye cherty topografii Balaklavy. Chersonesskiy sbornik 8, 46-52. Ivanov, A. V. 2001. Navigatsionno-arheologicheskoe obozrenie poberezhya yugo-zapadnogo Kryma ot mysa Hersones do mysa Sarych. Morskaya torgovlya v Severnom Prichernomorie, 222-234. Kiev. Ivanov, A. V. 2005. Laspi: ot Ayya do Sarycha. Istorikogeograficheskie ocherki. Sevastopol. Jakobson, A. L. 1979. Keramika i keramicheskoe proizvodstvo srednevekovoy Tavriki. Leningrad. Kadeev, V. I. and Sorochan, S. B. 1989. Ekonomicheskie svyazi antichnyh gorodov Severnogo Prichernomorya v I v. do n.e. - V v. n.e. (na materialah Hersonesa). Kharkov. Kapitan, G. 1984. Ancient anchors - technology and classification. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 13.1, 33-44. Karpov, A. N and Kogan, V. G. 1994. Azovskiy flot i flotilii. Taganrog. Kolli, L. P. 1909. Sledy drevney kultury na dne morskom. Izvestiya Tavricheskoy uchenoy arheologicheskoy komissii 43, 125-137. Kuzmanov, A. V. 1997. Podvodnye issledovaniya v akvatorii buhty Limena-Kale. Mіzhnarodna. arheologіchna konferentsіya studentіv ta molodih vchenih 5, 232-233. Kuzmanov, G. 1985. Rannovizantiyska keramika ot Trakiya I Dakiya. Sofia. Kuznetsov, V. D. (ed.) 2008. Fanagoriya. Moskva. Lantsov, S. B. 1999. Kratkie svedeniya o bosporskoy kreposti Kutlak - Afineone Psevdo-Arriana // Vestnik Drevney Istorii, no 1, 121-136. Lazarov, M. 1978. Poteryannaya flotiliya. Leningrad. Lebedinsky, V. And Pronina, Y. 2012. Pamyatniki podvodnoy arheologii kak istoricheskiy istochnik v izuchenii istorii Chersonesa Tavricheskogo - Chersona Sevastopolya. In REGIONES EUXINUM SPECTANTES. Kulturnye, etnicheskie i religioznye otnosheniya na protyazhenii vekov, 63-73. Krakov. Lyakhovskaya, O. 2009. Rannevizantiyskiy gorod Kitey. Odessos, 118-122. Mahneva, O. A. 1967. Srednevekovye pamyatniki na poberezhe ot Laspi do Golubogo Zaliva Arheologicheskie issledovaniya na Ukraine 2, 53-57. Makarova, T. I. 1991. Bospor - Korchev po arheologicheskim dannym. In P. P. Tolochko (ed.), Vizantiyskaya Tavrika, 121-145. Kiev. Marchenko, L. V. 1997. Topografiya i planirovka Chersonesskogo gorodischa. Chersonesskiy sbornik VIII, 62-67.

of harbour infrastructure ensured facilities for merchant shipping as well. Evidence of navigation is well preserved by underwater sites. It illustrates the navigational activity of the ports and harbours of the Crimea on the level of transit trade, redistribution of goods (local trade) and fishing. List of Bibliography Agbunov, M. V. 1992. Antichnaya geografiya Severnogo Prichernomorya. Moskva. Alexeenko, N. A. 2005. Tamozhnya i kommerkiarii Chersona. In S. B. Sorochan (ed.), Vizantiyskiy Cherson, 1592 - 1626. Kharkov. Alexeenko, N. A. 2012. L’administration Byzantine de Cherson. Paris. Antonova, I. A. et al. 1971. Srednevekovye amfory Chersonesa. Antichnaya drevnost i srednie veka 7, 81101. Aybabin, A. I. 1999. Etnicheskaya istoriya rannevizantiyskogo Kryma. Simferopol. Bagryanorodnyy, K. 1989. Ob upravlenii imeriey. Moskva. Bolgov, N. N. 1998. Bospor Vizantiyskiy: Ocherki istorii. Problemy istorii, filologii, kultury 6, 116-123. Bolgov, N. N. 2004. Mezhdu imperiey i varvarami: final antichnosti na Bospore Kimmeriyskom. Ukrayina v tsentralno-Shіdnіy Evropі 4, 36-76. Bolgov, N. N. 2008. Osnovnye problemy vostochnorimskoy imperii i rannevizantiyskoy politiki na Severnom Ponte (seredina III - VI vv.). Aktualnye problemy vneshney politiki i voennoy istorii. Nauchnye vedomosti BelGU 1 (41) 5, 128-137. Borodin, O. R. 1991. Rimskiy Papa Martin I i ego pisma iz Kryma. In S. P. Karpov (ed.), Prichernomorie v srednie veka, 173-190. Moskva. Bukatov, A. O. et al. 2010. Vpliv gіdrofіzichnogo chinnika na stan pіdvodnih arheologіchnih pamyatok. Arheologіya 3, 111-118. Bulgakova, V. I. 2004. Podvodnye sfragisticheskie nahodki v Sudake: k harakteristike tipa obekta. In Prichernomore, Krym, Rus v istorii I kulture II, 35-39. Bulgakova, V. I. 2008. Sigillograficheskiy kompleks porta Sugdei (materialy podvodnyh issledovaniy 2004-2005 gg.). Sugdeyskiy sbornik III, 296-330. Chichurov, I. S. 1980. Vizantiyskie istoricheskie sochineniya. Hronografiya Feofana. Brevariy Nikifora. Moskva. Dombrovskiy, O. I. 1974. Srednevekovye poseleniya i ‘Isary’ Krymskogo Yuzhnoberezhya. In Feodalnaya Tavrika, 5-55. Kiev. Dzhanov, A. V., Maiko, V. V. and Farbey, A. M. 2012. To the question about the date of Sudak foundation. In V. V. Maiko (ed.) The Ancient and Medieval Taurica, 13-18. Donetsk. Dzhanov, A. V. 2010. Monastyr na myse Dimitraki. Sugdeyskiy sbonik 4, 569-573. Dzhanov, A. V. 2005. Sugdeya v III-VII vv. Sugdeyskiy sbornik 1, 45-74. Empereur, J. Y. and Picon, M. 1989. Les regions depro production d’amphores imperials en Mediterranee

194

Mariia Tymoshenko: Navigation in the Black Sea

Maslennikov, A. A. 1990. Selskie poseleniya rvropeyskogo Bospora (nekotorye problemy i itogi issledovaniy). Bosporskye issltdovanya I, 75-100. Mayko, V. V. 2004. Srednevekovoe gorodische na plato Tepsen v yugo-vostochnom Krymu. Kiev. Menander, Protiktor 1860. Prodolzheniye istorii Agafiyevoy. In Sp. Destunis (transl.) G. Destunis (comments), Vizantiyskiye istoriki Deksipp, Evnapiy, Olimpiador, Malkh, Petr Patritsiy, Menandr, Kandid, Nonnos i Feofan Vizantiyets, 416-422. Sankt-Petersburg. Mierow, C. C. 1915 (transl. 2006). The Gothic History of Jordanes. In English Version with an Introduction and a Commentary. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Okorokov, A. V. 1991. Podvodnye issledovaniya rifa Trutaeva. Izuchenie pamyatnkov istorii i kultury v gidrosfere 2, 28-41. Moskva. Okorokov, A. V. 1993. Datirovka i klassifikatsiya sudovyh zheleznyh yakorey III v. do n.e. - XI v. n.e. Bosposkiy Sbornik 2, 172-191. Parshyna, E. A. 1977. Issledovaniya v urochische Laspi. In Аrcheologicheskiye otkrytiya v. 1976 g., 350-351. Moskva. Parshyna, E. A. 1983. Raskopki v urochische Eski-Кеmеn i urochische Laspi. In Аrcheologicheskiye otkrytiya 1981 goda, 303-304. Moskva. Parshyna, E. A. 1991. Torzhische v Partenitah. In P. P. Tolochko (ed.), Vizantiyskaya Tavrika, 64-100. Kiev. Parshyna, E. A. 2002. Drevniy Partenit (po mat-lam raskopok 1985-88 gg.). Alushtinskiy region i Alushta s drevneyshih vremen do nashih dney, 89-109. Parshyna, E. A. and Myts, V. L. 1978. Issledovaniya v urochische Laspi In Аrcheologicheskiye otkrytiya 1977 goda, 268-269. Moskva. Parshyna, E. A. and Myts, V. L. 1978. Raskopki v urochische Laspi. In Аrcheologicheskiye otkrytiya, 282283. Parshyna, E. A. and Myts, V. L. 1981. Issledovaniya v urochische Laspi. In Аrcheologicheskiye otkrytiya, 303304. Parshyna, E. A. and Soznik, V. V. 2012. Amfornaya tara Partenita (po mat-lam raskopok 1985-88 gg.). In M. I. Gladkih (ed.), 1000 rokіv vіzantіyskoyi torgіvlі V-XV st., 7-42. Kiev. Podosinov, A. V. 2002. Vostochnaya Evropa v rimskoy kartograficheskoy traditsii. Moskva. Romanchuk, A. I. et al. 1995. Amfory iz kompleksov vizantiyskogo Chersona. Ekaterinburg. Romanchuk, A. N. 1996. Srednevekoviy Chersones (Otrazhenie v istochnikah osnovnyh funktsiy goroda). Chersonesskiy sbornik 7, 133-142. Sazanov, A. V. 1991. Amfornyy kompleks pervoy chetverti VII v. iz Severo-Vostochnogo rayona Chersonesa. Materialy po archaeologii, istorii i etnographii Tavrii 2, 60-72. Sazanov, A. V. 2000. Keramicheskiye kompleksy Bospora 570-580 gg. Drevnosti Bospora 3, 221-259. Scorpan, C. 1977. Contribution a la connoissance de certain types ceramiques romano-byzantins dans l; espace IstroPontique. Dacia 21, 155-188.

Shamray, A. N. 2007. K voprosu o lokalizatsii korabelsnoy stoyanki u evropeyskogo Kimmerika. Sbornik archeologicheskogo tsentra g. Kerchi. Kerch (internet publication http://www.mpac.ru/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=228). Shamray, A. N. 2010. Antichnye i srednevekovye zheleznye yakorya T-obraznogo tipa i Kerchenskogo proliva (katalog nahodok). Bosporskie issledovaniya XXIV. 469-496. Simferopol. Shapovalov, G. I. 2004. Pro znahіdki serednovіchnih yakorіv v Pіvnіchnomu Prichornomoryi. In N. M. Kukovalskaya (ed.), Prichernomore, Krym, Rus v istorii i kulture: Materialy II Sudakskoy konferentsii, vol. 2, 243-246. Kiev, Sudak. Skrzhinskaya, M. V. 1977. Severnoe Prichernomore v opisanii Pliniya Starshego. Kiev. Sorochan, S. B. 1996. Ob umenshenii vmestimosti vizantiyskih gruzovyh korabley i ‘temnye veka’. In Drevnosti 3, 74-82. Sorochan, S. B. 2002. Ekonomicheskie svyazi Hersona Tavricheskogo s Bosporom v I v. do n.e. - V v. n.e. Bosporskie chteniya III, 223-225. Sorochan, S. B. 2004. Rozhdenie femy. Cherson i Tavrika v sisteme vizantiyskih voenno- administrativnyh preobrazovaniy VIII-IX vv. Problemy istorii, filologii i kultury 14, 337-398. Sorochan, S. B. 2005. Vizantiyskiy Cherson. Harkiv. Sorochan, S. B. 2010. Ob solyanom i rybozasolochnom promyslah vizantiyskogo Chersona VI-VII vv. Bosporskie chteniya XI, 423-426. Sorochan, S. B., Zubar, V. M. and Marchenko, L. V. 2000. Zhizn i gibel Chersonesa. Kharkov. Sorochan, S. B. 1996. Novye dannye o polozheni Hersonesa Tavricheskogo v IV - pervoy polovine VII vv. n.e. Drevnosti Stepnogo Prichernomorya i Kryma VI, 123131. Sorokopud, S. and Filippenko, A. 1999. O podvodnyh arheologicheskih razvedkah v akvatorii Sevastopolya v 1993-1994 godah. Vita Antiqua 1, 71-74. Stepanova, E. V. 2001. Sudakskiy arhiv pechatey: predvaritelnye vyvody. Antichnaya drevnost I srednie veka 32, 97-108. Stepanova, E. V. 2005. Pechati iz Sudaka (K voprosu ob interpretatsii). Sugdeyskiy sbornik II, 537-545. Stepanova, E. V. and Farbey, A. M. 2006. Vizantiyskie svintsovye pechati, naydennye v Sudake v 2005 g. Prichernomore, Krym, Rus v istorii i kulture, 303-306. Strabon, 1994. Geografiya v 17 knigah. In Stratanovskiy, G. A. (transl.) Ladomir. Tunkina I.V. 2002. Russkaya nauka o klassicheskih drevnostyah yuga Rossii (XVIII - seredina XIX v.). Sankt Petersburg. Turovsky, E. Y. 1998. O dvuh predpolagaemyh gavanyah Chersonesa na Gerakleyskom poluostrove. Izuchenie pamyatnikov morskoy aheologii 3, 96-97. Tymoshenko, M. 2011. Materіali do rekonstruktsіyi portu Sugdeyi u vіzantіysky perіod (VII - XII st.). Arheologіchnі doslіdzhennya Lvіvskogo unіversitetu 14, 46-57.

195

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

ekonomicheskiy aspekty. Chersonesskiy sbornik 9, 118 - 132. Zubar, V.M. and Sorochan, S. B. 1996. Novye dannye o polozheni Hersonesa Tavricheskogo v IV pervoy polovine VII vv. n.e. Drevnosti Stepnogo Prichernomorya i Kryma. VI, 123-131.

Ushakov, S. V. 2011. Rannevizantiyskaya krasnolakovaya keramika iz raskopok ХСVII kvartala Chersonesa. Chersonesskiy sbornik 16, 217-213. Vahoneev, V. 2010. Pіdvodno-arheologіchnі roboty bіlya skel Adalar u Krymu v 2009 r. Arheologіchnі doslіdzhennya v Ukrayinі, 45-46. Vishnevskiy, V. I., Voytsenya, V. S. and Raniuk U. N. 1987. Tri goda podvodnyh issledovaniy v Chersonese. Problemy ohrany i issledovaniya podvodnyh istorikoarheologicheskih pamyatnikov Zaporozhya, 20-21. Waksman, S. Y., et al. Archaeological and archaeometric investigations of the amphorae cargo of late Roman shipwreck sunk near Cape Plaka, Crimea (in print). Woos, O. V. 2006. Vіyskovo-іnzhenerne zabezpechennya oboronnoyi polіtiki Vіzantіyi v Pіvnіchnomu Prichornomoryi (kіnets IV-VII c.). Unpublished PhD thesis. Іvan Franko National University of Lviv. Woos, O. V. 2010. Oboronna doktrina Vіzantіyi v Pіvnіchnomu Prichornomoryi. Lvіv. Yurochkin, Y. V. 2002. Geoplitika Sudakskogo regiona v pozdneantichnoe vremya. Sugdeya, Surozh, Soldayya v istorii i kulture Rusi-Ukrainy, 280-284. Zelenko, S. M. 2008. Podvodnaya archaeologiya Kyma. Kiev. Zinko, A. V. 2008. Bosporskiy gorod Tiritaka v rannevizantiyskuyu epohu. Po materialam raskopok 2002-2005 gg. Vizantiya v kontekste mirovoy kultury XLII, 329-337. Sankt Petersburg. Zinko, A. V. 2011. Etnokonfessionalnyy sostav naseleniya Bosporskogo goroda Tiritaki v V-VI vv. Bosporskiy fenomen: naselenie, yazyki, kontakty, 250-254. Zinko, V. N. and Zinko, A. V. 2008. Tiritaka v V-VI vv. n.e. Materialy po archaeologii, istorii I etnogrephii Tavrii 14, 91-97. Zinko, V. N., Shamray, A. N. 2009. Podvodnye arheologicheskie nabludenia I issledovaniya u gory Opuk. Bosporskie issledovania XXI, 393-397. Zolotarev, M. I. 2004. Portovye sooruzheniya Hersonesa Tavricheskogo v Karantinnoy buhte. Chersonesskiy sbornik XIII, 55-67. Zolotarev, M. I. and Shapovalov, G. I. 1991. Novye dannye dlya datirovki vizantiyskih yakorey v Severnom Prichernomore. In Mezhdunarodnye svyazi v srednevekovoy Evrope, 14-15. Kiev. Zubar, V. M. 2000. Ob rimskih voyskah v Hersonese i ego okruge v seredine II - pervoy treti III vv. v svete novyh otkrytiy In T. Sarnovskiy and O. Y. Savelya (eds.), Balaklava. Rimskaya voennaya baza i svyatilische Yupitera Dolihena, 252-264. Varshava. Zubar, V. M. and Sorochan, S. B. 1998. O polozhenii Hersona v kontse V - VI vv.: politicheskiy i

Discussion Anca Dan: What happens in the 7th c. AD, at the sites you know? Do we notice any great changes? Mariia Tymoshenko: The 7th century AD was the next stage of the development of navigation and the navigational facilities on the sites I have presented. The network of fortifications was established on the Crimean shore. The navigational facilities, used spontaneously in antiquity as anchorages, come into wide use as harbours between Cherson and Bosporus. The significance of the transit trade realized by maritime communications further turned these intermediate points into important trade centers. Flora Karagianni: What I find very interesting is the decline of the main Black Sea centres in the 4th c. AD, because looking at what is happening in the whole Illyricum in the late Roman and the early Christian periods, we see that the Christians continued the use of the main city ports. The need for the use of these ports still existed and they started Christianizing them. Was there something else happening in the Black Sea? Why did they not do that in the Black Sea as well? Can you identify this decline, using the archaeological material? Mariia Tymoshenko: A number of ports and harbours that operated in the Northern Black Sea region in Antiquity disappeared from the navigational map due to barbarian attacks and the change of the ethnic and geopolitical situation in the region. The navigational activity moved to the Crimean shore. The coast in between Cherson and Bosporus became the most navigable section. It was supported by the Byzantine government due to strategic goals. As part of an ideological distribution programme, the development of urban Christian space (the erection of churches) was provided. Elements of church decoration and architectural details made of Propontis marble have been transported by sea. This is known from the sites in South-Western Crimea and the Bosporus (Cherson, Gurzuf, Bosporus and Tiritaka).

196

Understanding the Function of an Eleventh Century AD Medieval Building Complex at Komana through the Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Data: A Pilot Study Mustafa Nuri Tatbul Abstract: The Middle Byzantine period in Anatolia especially in the 11th and 12th centuries AD witnessed political struggle between various groups. The social and economic impact of this instable period on the local Byzantine populations is a challenging topic for scholars. This obscurity also holds for the ancient site of Komana situated in the central Black Sea region. The 11th century AD is represented by a building complex on a hill at Komana. Although a large area has been excavated and architectural as well as archaeological data have been recovered, the function and the significance of this structure is unclear. Besides, the obscurity of its function, the economic and social structure of its inhabitants is unknown. The limitation in interpreting the function and organization of the site, solely based on archaeological features necessitates a spatial analysis of archaeological data in relation to architecture, utilitarian features and archaeological context. Therefore, the main future objective of this study is to contribute to our understanding of the use of space - as represented by the spatial distribution of archaeological material - and the economic and social status of the inhabitants of Komana during the Middle Byzantine period. This paper presents the preliminary results of the spatial analysis of both artefactual and ecofactual data collected from a pilot trench in HTP01 area. Keywords:Turkey, Tokat, Komana, Byzantine, Rural, Domestic, Spatial Analysis, Ecofacts

Introduction

Middle Byzantine sites were identified based on the pottery evidence collected from the surface; 18 Byzantine sites were recorded.2 Besides the pottery evidence, numerous Byzantine domestic units and religious structures (churches) were identified within the territory of Komana.

This paper introduces the preliminary results of a pilot study carried out at the Byzantine site of Komana. The aim of this study was to implement a detailed spatial data collection method and to show how advantageous it is in interpreting the archaeological record based on statistical observations in conjunction with architectural and utilitiarian features and the archaeological context. It also aimed to integrate artefactual and ecofactual data and to demonstrate how different conclusions can be drawn due to the mutual spatial inspection of these two different types of finds.

Komana is located 9km north-east of the Tokat Province of Turkey (Figure 1). The archaeological site is within the boundaries of Kılıçlı, a modern-day village on the junction of the Tokat-Niksar and Tokat-Almus highways. The site’s location is crucial not only because of its position on a major road network, but also because it is on the southern river bank of the Yeşilırmak (İris) River. Two major Roman roads are known to have existed from Amaseia to Neocaesareia and Nicopolis, and from Dazimon through Komana to Neocaesareia.3

The Site The five seasons of surveys conducted in and around Komana under the directorship of Burcu Erciyas of (Middle East Technical University) between 2004-2008, revealed a great number of archaeological sites ranging in date from the Late Chalcolithic to the Ottoman Period1. The surveys centered on Hamamtepe Höyük as the core of the settlement and its territory in order to investigate the significance and scale of Komana within the settlement hierarchy. Especially in the 2007 and 2008 survey seasons, a large number of

Komana is located in a tectonically depressed valley bottom filled with fertile alluvial soil and surrounded by high mountain slopes. Six geomorphological zones have been identified, and zone five, which is over 1000m, is dominated by Byzantine settlements.4 Erciyas and Sökmen 2010, 123. Erciyas and Sökmen 2010, 122. 4 Erciyas and Sökmen 2010, 122. 2 3

1

Erciyas 2006; 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010.

197

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 1. Location of Komana (Source: Google Earth).

century AD. The dating was mostly based on the coin evidence. However, characteristic pottery and metal finds dating from the Middle Byzantine period have also been helpful in dating the site (e.g., Gritille Höyük, Kilisetepe, Çadırhöyük, Beycesultan).

Hamamtepe Höyük, an important section of Komana, bears the character of a mound of dimension 250x150m (Figure 2). With its 25m elevated sheltered position from the flat level over a bedrock and its visible remains of fortification, Hamamtepe Höyük is the largest in scale of the sites identified during the surveys. Excavations at the site began in 2009 in order to understand the formation of the mound and its periods of occupation. Four years of excavations indicated that the site represents the citadel of a small-scale rural town surrounded by a fortification wall, which was a characteristic of the Middle Byzantine period settlements (kastron). It was observed that the site was not solely limited to intramural. Domestic spaces were exposed in the flat levels and extramural structures were identified through geophysical prospection. Due to the recovery of a great number of fire installations, such as hearths and ovens, and storage pits at the center of the mound within the walls, the primary function of the settlement core was identified as production.

Byzantine Excavations in Turkey Until recently, Byzantine archaeology in Turkey focused mostly on the administrative and religious buildings and revealing public architecture. Studies on major sites in terms of both finds and buildings dominated this area of research; secondary-type settlements, such as rural and domestic sites, were largely ignored. However, nowadays it is widely accepted that it is crucial to bring to light the latter ‘sine qua non’ sites to explain economic and social developments. Mark Whittow states: ‘Throughout the territories of the former Byzantine world urban development too often goes ahead with inadequate archaeological record, the less glamorous deposits attracting least attention. Considering how much of our knowledge of the western medieval economy comes from rubbish dumps, it is clear how much we have lost and are still losing for Byzantium.’5

It might have also been a local market place providing goods and services to the villages and farmsteads scattered within the territory of Komana. In both cases, we are dealing with a remarkable settlement type within the settlement hierarchy.

Furthermore, the historical texts also concentrate on administrative and religious issues and largely neglect rural

Based on the archaeological materials recovered from the workshop phase, the site was occupied during the 11th

5

198

Whittow 2008, 478.

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: Medieval Building Complex at Komana

Figure 2. Aerial view of Hamamtepe Höyük (Source: Komana Project Archive).

life, which underlines the urgent need to study rural and domestic Medieval sites.

In terms of research excavation projects, Amorium18, Yumuktepe19, Beycesultan20, Çadırhöyük and Komana are other sites contributing to Medieval Archaeology in Turkey.

Although limited in number, projects focusing on Medieval period excavations have taken place since 1960s. Contributions to Medieval archaeology in Turkey come from both rescue and research excavations. Aşvan Kale6 and Taşkun Kale7 in the late 1960s to early 1970s due to the construction of Keban Dam; Tille Höyük8 and Gritille Höyük9 in the late 1970s to early 1980s prior to the construction of Atatürk Dam; Zeytinlibahçe Höyük10, Mezraa Höyük11 and Gri Virike12 during the Ilısu-Carchemish rescue project; Kilise Tepe13 in the Göksu Valley dam project; and more recently Akmezar14, Güllüdere15, Minnetpınarı16 and Sazpegler17 were uncovered due to the construction of the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan Crude Oil Pipeline project.

All the excavations mentioned above represent medieval rural sites. Each of these sites includes simple wall foundations, fire installations, pits, the usual artefacts and ecofacts. Almost half of them deal with environmental remains and, whether rescue or research, contribute to our knowledge regarding the lesser known Medieval rural life of Anatolia. Historical Background The Dynastic stability established in the early 11th century AD by Basil I diminished after the reigns of his successors Basil II and Constantine VIII in AD 1028.21 Until the Komnenoi Dynasty began its reign in AD 1081, a succession of 13 emperors came to the throne, resulting in great political instability.22

Mitchell 1980. McNicoll 1983. 8 Moore 1993. 9 Redford 1998. 10 Deveci and Mergen 1999; Frangipane and Bucak 2000; Frangipane et al. 2002; Frangipane et al. 2004; Frangipane et al. 2011. 11 Ökse and Tekinalp 1999; Ökse et al. 2000; Yalçıklı and Tekinalp 2002; Yalçıklı and Tekinalp 2004; Yalçıklı and Tekinalp 2011. 12 Ökse 1999; 2000; 2002; 2004. 13 Postgate and Thomas 2007. 14 Görür and Ekmen 2006. 15 Şenyurt and İbiş 2006. 16 Tekinalp 2006. 17 Tekinalp and Ekim 2006. 6 7

Important military, political and administrative crises emerged in the last quarter of the 11th century AD. The Lightfoot 1994; 2003; 2012; Gill 2002. Caneva and Köroğlu 2010. 20 Wright 2000. 21 Laiou 2007, 19. 22 Holmes 2008, 271. 18 19

199

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Byzantine empire started to lose its power in the west, Seljuks overran Asia Minor and defeated Byzantine armies in AD 1071 at Manzikert, Armenia. Most of Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia fell under the rule of the Seljuk Turks. Melitene (1058), Sebasteia (1059), and Caesarea (1067) were destroyed by the Seljuks and Ani was occupied in 1067.23 Furthermore, the Northern frontiers were threatened by the nomadic tribes, the Pechenegs, in 1090.24

west, leaving Komana isolated from the Byzantine central authority and thus vulnerable to the struggle between different groups. In archaeological record, the effects of this power struggle on the local Byzantine communities in economic and social terms are still obscure. Therefore, understanding the organization and function of the Komana site during this unstable period will contribute to the knowledge of the economic and social dynamics of this period.

In contrast to the political disintegration, the economy boomed in the 11th century AD. Many urban and rural sites were established and monasteries, modifications of churches, and the establishment of small scale industrial units were observed.25

Aims The aim of this research is to define types of activities that took place within the rooms of the building complex recovered during the excavations at Komana, through the inspection of the material distribution. Two essential matters are thus to be considered: (1) definition of space (e.g., rooms, open yards) and (2) definition of activity in each defined space through the spatial analysis of the material distribution in relation to architectural features (e.g., walls) and utilitarian features (e.g., ovens, pits, storage pits, occupation floors). Thus, the features such as walls, floors, ovens, hearths, pits, storage pits constitute the platform of the data collected. This platform represents the activity locations. Movable objects such as ceramics, metals, glasses, bones, plants and other small finds, which were distributed within the platforms, are the items which will define the types of activites that took place in each spatial unit.

Whittow also claims that from the 9th century AD the number of urban and rural churches increased and continued to increase in the 10th to 12th century AD. Moreover, Byzantine glazed pottery, jars and amphorae became more common than before. There was rural growth in Greece, Cyprus, Crete and Anatolia during the Middle Byzantine period.26 Whittow also suggested that Middle Byzantine towns such as Amorium, Aphrodisias, Pergamon and Sardis were enriched with houses, churches, workshops, alleys, yards, cisterns and rubbish dumps rather than spectacular structures, which he considers an indication of active economic life. The roots of the livestock trade is attributed to Anatolia; for example, Euchaita is known to have had an important annual livestock market.27 The copper coins throughout the 11th century AD is another testimony to the vitality of the everyday economy in this period.28

This paper presents a pilot study of one of the trenches in which a detailed collection of data was carried out. It aims to demonstrate firstly that this type of detailed work is advantageous in interpreting the archaeological fills and secondly that integrating information obtained from both artifacts and ecofacts is essential in constructing better archaeological explanations.

In the late 11th - early 12th centuries AD, the general fo the rebellion, Alexios Komnenos I (1081-1118), reinforced relations with the Western empire, defeated the Pechenegs in 1091 and, with the support of the 1st Crusade, defeated the Seljuks at Dorylaeum in 1097. This enabled the Byzantine Empire to partly gain control of Asia Minor. As a result, the hinterlands running roughly from Trebizond to Ankara, to Amorium, and to Philomelion were regained.29 This was a revival for the Byzantine Empire, even if only for a short time.

Methodology An intra-site spatial analysis has many advantages in various aspects. In order to better understand the use of space and thus the function of the complex, quantification and statistical techniques help us to identify the spatial patterning of archaeological data within defined spaces, which in turn enables the interpretation of the latters’ organization and use. The distribution of archaeological materials whether randomly, regularly or clustered within a defined space grants us the potential to detect and interpret the activity areas. The contribution of spatial analysis to our research can be summarised as: (1) distributional analysis increases the quality of spatial data and the meaningful patterns resulting from this analysis expose the social action in the respective space;31 (2) an archaeology focus mainly on the context and analysis of spatial patterns has not been given much attention. However, the quantitative approach provides clarity in the demonstration of spatial trends, patterns and relationships. It, therefore, provides

In 1171, Manuel I was defeated at Myriacephalon by Kilidj Arslan and the Seljuks established control over Asia Minor. The region where Komana is located is significant in terms of its position within the heart of the struggle between the different groups: Byzantines, Danishmendids, Saltukids, Mengujeks, Georgians and Seljuks. The controversies certainly had an impact on the politics of the area.30 During this period, the Byzantine Empire withdrew to the Holmes 2008, 273. Laiou 2007, 20. 25 Holmes 2008, 272. 26 Whittow 2008, 473. 27 Whittow 2008, 474. 28 Holmes 2008, 272; Whittow 2008, 473. 29 Laiou 2007, 21. 30 Erciyas and Sökmen 2010, 127. 23 24

31

200

Barceló and Maximiano 2007, 3.

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: Medieval Building Complex at Komana

objectivity in analysis, replacing the subjective observations of the excavators; (3) quantitative techniques enable the researcher to deal with large amounts of data and to make predictions about the site; (4) spatial analysis is a confirmative tool to better understand the cultural and natural formation processes that effect the deposition of materials immediately over the occupation floors and fills.

the type of operation taking place in each area of the complex. Since the activities were thought to be not only industrial but also clearly domestic, the collection and integration of artifacts and ecofacts would give a better and more complete picture of how this complex was organised and functioned. Statistical observations in our pilot study revealed that the combined evaluation of artifact and ecofact distribution draws a different picture which is only possible through this integration of both types of materials. Consequently, artefacts (pottery, metals, glasses, small finds) and ecofacts (bones, plants) were inspected spatially in order to understand the room functions and their role within the complex.

In previous excavation seasons, the data were collected in the traditional way, that is, all data were recorded together under single defined layers. As a result, the process of formation of layer deposits and especially the lots immediately over the occupation floors was uncertain. With the new data collection method, both detailed horizontal (grids) and vertical (sublayers) locational references were recorded. This allowed a better assesment of the data in relation to the architectural features and the inspection of their distribution gradually within the sub-layers. In this way, it is possible to draw conclusions as to whether these sub-layers were a result of primary or secondary depositions during the habitation phase, abandonment or post-abandonment phases.

Preliminary Results of Pilot Work Study Area HTP01 Excavations in the Komana (Hamamtepe) archaeological site have been conducted in six areas; HTP01 (workshop area), HTP02 (western defensive wall), HTP03 (step trench), HTP04 (lower domestic), HTP05 (test trench) and HTP06 (southern upper area). The HTP01 (workshop) area is within the scope of the present research (Figure 3). Excavations in the HTP01 area have been continuing for four seasons. An area of 725m2 have been uncovered to date, with the implementation of 29 trenches, 5x5m each. The workshop area maintains its integrity even though a considerable amount of the large area has been unearthed and this continuity reinforces the identification of the area as a workshop complex. Furthermore, functional features such as ovens and storage pits increase in number as new trenches are made.

To apply this data collection method, grids were set on the trenches. An important issue was the decision on the size of the grid. The smaller the size of the grid, the more detailed spatial information can be obtained. Keeping the grids large means keeping the intervals large, which would result in the invisibility of moderate clusters and cluster boundaries. Since the aim was to understand the human use of space, 1x1m grids were chosen, judging that this size would provide a satisfactorily detailed presentation of traces of human behaviour. Each of these rectangular grids were regarded as the smallest spatial unit within the spatial integrity and the unit’s value was determined by the artifact/ecofact counts within its boundaries. As defined by Peregrine, quadrat methods are based on rectangular areas that are basic units of data analysis and interpretation. In the first step, the area of interest is divided into equal rectangular units. In the second step, items of interest are determined whether they are randomly distributed among the rectangular units.32

Sampling Strategy Among the many trenches, trench 282/608, of dimensions 5x5m, was chosen for the pilot study and divided into 25 equal square grids (1m2 each). Ten grids in every lot (sublayer) were picked by a computer programme (Microsoft Office, Excel) in order to provide random sampling numbers (1, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25). All the materials within the boundaries of the 10 sampling grids were collected and separately identified by sublayers and grid numbers (e.g., T03.1.18). The materials from the rest of the 15 grids were collected in one bag for each find type in order to calculate the total sublayer material counts. The sampling process started after the removal of the top soil. Although the workshop phase was expected to appear in the lower levels (c. Layer 3), upper layers were also sampled in order to observe the sequential composition of the fill. Every layer was divided into lots (sublayers) to observe the material densities within that layer itself. Artifacts and ecofacts within the limits of each grid were collected by hand (Figure 4). Every single artifact and ecofact was counted and the total counts represented the density values of each grid.

Comparison of the traditional collection method and gridding showed advantages of the detailed collection method in quantifying and evaluating the data sets. In the previous excavation seasons, the building complex with multiple rooms had been investigated, revealing over two dozen fire installations distributed within it. In some cases three or four fire installations were located in one room. A preliminary assessment based on the architecture and the large number of ovens suggested that the building complex had been a workshop. While an interpretation based on the architectural features was essential, it was necessary to investigate the material distribution within the rooms presumed as workshop units in order to determine 32

Peregrine 2001, 107.

201

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 3. Aerial view of HTP01 Area (Source: Komana Project Archive).

Figure 4. A view of workmen trowelling sublayers at Trench 282/608 (Source: Komana Project Archive).

202

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: Medieval Building Complex at Komana

Both vertical and horizontal examinations were made of the spatially referenced data through percentage tables.

T03

Vertical Inspection The vertical distributions of materials were inspected for the workshop phase, Layer 3, both in order to observe the entire material accumulation (density) and to follow the gradual increase or decrease of materials between the sublayers of Layer 3.

%

Ceramic Bone Metal Glass

616 2186 32 10

21,7 76,9 1,1 0,4

Total

2844

100,0

Figure 5. Table showing the distribution of find types collected from Layer 3.

Inspections was carried out on six data sets: (1) between ceramic, bone, metal and glass assemblages within the whole of Layer 3, (2) between total material quantities of sublayers, (3) ceramic, bone, metal and glass quantities within each sublayer, (4) ceramic counts between sublayers and (5) bone counts between sublayers. Set (6) contained distributions of sole metal and glass assemblages and were inspected individually in addition, due to their minor quantity among the total materials.

All Materials

Based on the data tables, the following observations can be made:

%

T03.1 T03.2 T03.3 T03.4

960 742 590 552

33,8 26,1 20,7 19,4

Total

2844

100,0

Figure 6. Table showing the distribution of all material counts in each sublayer of Layer 3.

1. Bones dominate the whole layer with 76.9% (Figure 5). 2. T03.1 has the highest material accumulation between the sublayers with 33.8%. The distribution gradually decreases from the top to the bottom sublayer (Figure 6). 3. The dominance of bone counts are continuous between the sublayers, ranging from 71.4% to 81.7%. The ceramic ratio changes between 17.7% to 28.0%. One can say that the overall ratios observed in the entire layer are continuous for the sublayers (Figure 7). Only in T03.3 does the ceramic ratio (28.0%) seem to increase with respect to that of bone (71.4%) but only very slightly. 4. The ceramic distribution between sublayers does not change considerably, ranging between 20.1% and 27.6% (Figure 8). The maximum count is 170 and minimum 124, indicating approximately 1.8 pieces of pottery per m2. 5. When compared to ceramic distribution among sublayers, bone accumulation changes notably between sublayers. The ratio ranges between 18.4% to 35.9% (Figure 8), in numbers from 402 to 784 respectively, i.e., almost double. Even the closest comparison shows a high bone quantity between T03.1 (784, 35.9%) and T03.2 (579, 26.5%). Though the same is not true for ceramics, in terms of bone accumulation T03.1 can be distinguished from the other three sublayers under it. 6. T03.4 is significant both for the metal (65.6%) and glass (50%) finds among the four sublayers of Layer 3 (Figure 9).

the material quantity of each grid had been calculated, different data sets were brought together to compare distribution patterns both in individual and between different find types. The horizontal distributions of materials are examined among the 10-cell grid of each sublayer. Inspections are grouped in five sets: (1) distribution of ceramics in the 10-cell grid of each sublayer, (2) distribution of bones in the 10-cell grid of each sublayer, (3) distribution of all materials in the 10-cell grid of each sublayer, (4) ceramic-bone ratios in each grid cell and (5) ceramic-bone ratios and total materials within each grid cell vertically. Findings Intra-grid general: It was observed that grids 15 (16.1%), 19 (18.3%) and 25 (15.5%) have high concentrations of materials (Figure 10). By find type, for bones the same patterns are in grids 15 (18.9%), 19 (22.1%) and 25 (18.0%). For ceramics, the same pattern was also observed as well in grids 15 (19.4%), 19 (20.4%) and 25 (19.4%), as well as in grid 16 (17.1%) on the western part.

Horizontal Inspection

Related to Features: It was observed that grids 15, 19 and 25, which have high quantities of finds, are clustered on the SE part of the trench. A major wall foundation is aligned at this point in a S-E direction and there is a stone alignment that might represent a minor wall running N-S.

Horizontal observations focused on understanding whether there are significant clusters among the sampled grids. Once

Related to Context: Layer 3 has been divided into two sequential contexts: (1) sublayers T03.1 and T03.2,

203

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

T03.1

%

T03.2

%

T03.3

%

T03.4

%

Ceramic Bone Metal Glass

170 784 4 2

17,7 81,7 0,4 0,2

157 579 4 2

21,16 78,03 0,54 0,27

165 421 3 1

28,0 71,4 0,5 0,2

124 402 21 5

22,5 72,8 3,8 0,9

Total

960

100

742

100

590

100

552

100

Figure 7. Table showing counts and percentages of different find types in each sublayer of Layer 3.

Ceramic

%

Bone

%

Metal

%

Glass

%

T03.1 T03.2 T03.3 T03.4

170 157 165 124

27,6 25,5 26,8 20,1

784 579 421 402

35,9 26,5 19,3 18,4

4 4 3 21

12,5 12,5 9,4 65,6

2 2 1 5

20,0 20,0 10,0 50,0

Total

616

100,0

2186

100,0

32

100,0

10

100,0

Figure 8. Table showing counts and percentages of different find types amongst the sublayers of Layer 3.

Metal

%

Glass

The vertical inspection also revealed that there were metal (65.6%) and glass (50%) concentrations in sublayer T03.4, which is part of the floor context.

%

T03.1 T03.2 T03.3 T03.4

4 4 3 21

12,5 12,5 9,4 65,6

2 2 1 5

20 20 10 50

Total

32

100

10

100

Comparing the material quantities overall, we have observed that the burnt patches context contains 67.6% of the total Layer 3 materials while the floor context contains 32.4% of the total (Figure 15).

Figure 9. Table showing the distribution of glass and metal finds amongst the sublayers of Layer 3.

Conclusion This pilot work exposed how the gradual observation of material distribution within archaeological fills is essential in determining data safely and demonstrates how we can make comparisons between individual data sets (manipulation) and maximize spatial interpretations.

representing a context with burnt patches, starting in T03.1 and ending in T03.2 (Figure 11), (2) sublayers T03.3 and T03.4, which relate to a rough compact soil floor located here and there in patches, having no signs of burning at any location (Figure 12).

Integration of artefact and ecofact assemblages within the analysis also gave good results. The combined inspection of bones and ceramics and their volume within contexts is essential.

The material concentrations in the grids of both sequential contexts were inspected: (1) In the burnt patches context, grids 15, 19 and 25 produced the richest assemblages for all the categories of finds. Bone proportions were stable amongst the grids. For ceramics the values were slightly different, grid 16 had the highest ratio while grid 19 had lower (Figure 13).

This pilot work showed that data clusters are more meaningful when they are related to architectural and utilitarian features and the archaeological context. Thus, future trenches with various features and spatial contexts have the potential to give effective results for the interpretation of the use and organization of space. Even though the pilot study trench provided very limited architectural and contextual variety, it proved that even in featureless spaces the data distributions are still highly interpretable.

(2) In the floor context sublayers, with regards to overall finds, grids 15, 19 and 25 on the SE part of the trench had the highest concentration, as for most data sets. For bones and ceramics the quantities vary slightly between grids but the material concentration is still highest on the SE beside the wall (Figure 14).

I believe that this method will give better results when

204

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: Medieval Building Complex at Komana

Figure 10. Intra-grid distributions of materials.

Figure 11. Burnt patches context (Source: Komana Project Archive).

205

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Figure 12. Floor context (Source: Komana Project Archive).

Figure 13. Distribution of materials within the burnt patches context.

206

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: Medieval Building Complex at Komana

Figure 14. Distribution of materials within the floor context.

Context

All Materials

List of Bibliography

%

Burnt Floor

723 347

67,6 32,4

Total

1070

100,0

Barceló, J. A. and Maximiano, A. 2007. Some Notes Regarding Distributional Analysis of Spatial Data. CAA. Caneva, I. and Köroğlu, G. 2010. Yumuktepe: A Journey Through Nine Thousand Years. Ege Yayınları. İstanbul. Deveci, A. and Mergen, Y. 1999. Zeytin Bahçeli Höyük: Preliminary Report. In N. Tuna and J. Öztürk (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1998, 97-118. Ankara. Erciyas, D. B. 2006. Tokat İli Komana Antik Kenti Yüzey Araştırması 2004. In 23. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, 30 Mayıs-03 Haziran 2005, 13-22. Antalya. Erciyas, D. B. 2007. Komana Antik Kenti Yüzey Araştırması 2005. In 24. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, 29 Mayıs-2 Haziran 2006, 155-166. Çanakkale. Erciyas, D. B. 2008. Tokat İli Komana Antik Kenti Yüzey Araştırması 2006. In 25. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt 28 Mayıs-1 Haziran 2007, 197-212. Kocaeli. Erciyas, D. B. 2009. Komana Antik Kenti ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırması 2007. In 26. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt 26-30 Mayıs 2008, 289-306. Ankara. Erciyas, D. B. 2010. Komana Antik Kenti Arkeolojik Araştırma Projesi 2008 Yılı Raporu. In 27. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt 25-29 Mayıs 2009, 355-374. Denizli.

Figure 15. Table showing the distribution of total number of materials in burnt context and floor context.

implemented in multiple associated trenches and when the data collected are examined in a larger scale. Acknowledgements I would like to thank a number of people who have helped with this pilot study, particularly the excavation Director and my PhD supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Burcu Erciyas for entrusting me with the study of these materials and contributing to the development of the paper; and also to my PhD co-supervisor Assist. Prof. Evangelia Pişkin, who devoted her valuable time and effort for endless discussions on the development of the methodology and the assessment of data, and encouraged me to continue this research.

207

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1999, 292337. Ankara. Ökse, A. T. 2002. Excavations at Gre Virike in 2000. In N. Tuna and J. Öztürk (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 2000, 270-308. Ankara. Ökse, A. T. 2004. 2001 Excavations at Gre Virike. In N. Tuna, J. G. Halgh and J. Velibeyoğlu (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 2001, 211240. Ankara. Ökse, A. T. and Tekinalp, M. 1999. Mezraa Höyük: Research in 1998. In N. Tuna and J. Öztürk (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1998, 175-214. Ankara. Ökse, A. T. et al. 2000. Research at Mezraa Höyük, 1999. In N. Tuna, J. Öztürk and J. Velibeyoğlu (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1999, 213251. Ankara. Peregrine, N. P. 2001. Archaeological Research: A Brief Introduction. Pearson. Postgate, N. and Thomas, D. (eds.) 2007. Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98 from Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia 1 (Text). BIAA Monograph. London. Redford, S. 1998. The Archaeology of the Frontier in the Medieval Near East: Excavations at Gritille, Turkey. AIA Monographs. Philadelphia. Shepard, J. (ed.) 2008. The Cambridge history of the Byzantine Empire c. 500-1492. Cambridge University Press. Şenyurt, S. Y. and İbiş, R. 2006. Güllüdere: An Iron Age and Medieval Settlement in Aşkale Plain. Baku-TbilisiCeyhan Crude Oil Pipeline Project Archaeological Salvage Excavations Project Documents: 2, Gazi University Research Centre for Archaeology. Tekinalp, M. and Ekim, Y. 2006. Sazpegler: A Medieval Settlement in North Eastern Anatolia. Baku-TbilisiCeyhan Crude Oil Pipeline Project Archaeological Salvage Excavations Project Documents: 3, Gazi University Research Centre for Archaeology. Tekinalp, V. M. 2006. Minnetpınarı: A Medieval Settlement in Eastern Kilikia. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Crude Oil Pipeline Project Archaeological Salvage Excavations Project Documents: 7, Gazi University Research Centre for Archaeology. Wright, G. R. H. 2000. Some Byzantine Bronze Objects from Beycesultan. Anatolian Studies 50, 159-170. Yalçıklı, D. and Tekinalp, V. M. 2002. Mezraa Höyük Excavations, 2000. In N. Tuna and J. Öztürk (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 2000, 188-232. Ankara. Yalçıklı, D. and Tekinalp, V. M. 2004. 2001 Excavations at Mezraa Höyük. In N. Tuna, J. G. Halgh and J. Velibeyoğlu (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 2001, 107-160. Ankara.

Erciyas, D. B. and Sökmen, E. 2010. An Overview of Byzantine Period Settlements around Comana Pontica in North-Central Turkey. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 34, No.2, 119-141. Frangipane, M. et al. 2011. The Investigations at Zeytinlibahçe Höyük (Urfa): The 2002 Campaign. In N. Tuna and O. Doonan (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 2002, 1-34. Ankara. Frangipane, M. and Bucak, E. 2000. Excavations and Research at Zeytinbahçe Höyük, 1999. In N. Tuna, J. Öztürk and J. Velibeyoğlu (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1999, 109-131. Ankara. Frangipane, M. et al. 2002. The 2000 Campaign at Zeytinlibahçe Höyük. In N. Tuna and J. Ozturk (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 2000, 41-99. Ankara. Frangipane, M. et al. 2004. The 2001 Excavation Campaign at Zeytinbahçe Höyük: Preliminary Results. In N. Tuna, J. G. Halgh and J. Velibeyoğlu (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 2001, 1-56. Ankara. Gill, M. A. V. 2002. Amorium Reports, Finds 1: The Glass (1987-1997). British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1070. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Görür, M. and Ekmen, H. 2006. Akmezar: A Hellenistic and Medieval Settlement in Çayırlı. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Crude Oil Pipeline Project Archaeological Salvage Excavations Project Documents: 4, Gazi University Research Centre for Archaeology. Jeffreys, E. et al. (eds.) 2008. The Oxford handbook of Byzantine studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Laiou, A. E. and Morrison, C. 2007. The Byzantine Economy. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge. Lightfoof, C. 1994. Amorium: A Brief Guide to a Late Roman and Byzantine City in Central Anatolia. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınlari, İstanbul. Lightfoof, C. S. (ed.) 2003. Amorium Reports 2: Research Papers and Technical Reports. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1170. Oxford, BAR Publishing. Lightfoof, C. S. and Ivison, E. A. (eds.) 2012. Amorium Reports 3: The Lower City Enclosure: Finds Reports and Technical Studies. Ege Yayınları. İstanbul. McNicoll, A. 1983. Taşkun Kale: Keban Rescue Excavations, Eastern Anatolia. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 168. Oxford. Mitchell, S. 1980. Aşvan Kale: Keban Rescue Excavations, Eastern Anatolia. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 80. Oxford. Moore, J. 1993. Tille Höyük 1: The Medieval Period. BIAA Monograph. London. Ökse, A. T. 1999. Gre Virike: Research in 1998. In N. Tuna and J. Öztürk (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1998, 119-155. Ankara. Ökse, A. T. 2000. Excavations at Gre Virike, 1999. In N. Tuna, J. Öztürk and J. Velibeyoğlu (eds.), Salvage

208

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: Medieval Building Complex at Komana

Yalçıklı, D. and Tekinalp, V. M. 2011. The 2002 Excavation Season at Mezraa Höyük. In N. Tuna and O. Doonan (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 2002, 143-173. Ankara.

Flora Karagianni: If we consider it as a castle, there are two possibilities: if it is the acropolis of a fortified city, this means that we have the acropolis and the main city downtown. On the other hand, it could be just a castle having these complexes, ruins, etc., inside. Which do you think it is in this case?

Discussion

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: This complex is in a very central part of the fortification. It is clear that there was a need to protect this complex. It might be a place of production, or a storage place, maybe in dangerous conditions. Maybe the dwellings were around the castle and the primary concern was the production area; in cases of danger, they left their houses and went into the castle.

Adela Sobotkova: When you speak of the sub-layers, were they spits? How did you actually proceed in excavating those randomly selected squares? Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: They are not layers as we know it in the usual excavation methodology, but actually after removing the top soil we started taking sub-layers, e.g., sub-layer 1, 2, etc.

Flora Karagianni: I am asking this because the usual image of the Mid-Byzantine period (mid 9th – early 13th c.) is that these kinds of production complex are not in the acropolis, which is only for military use. So, if the complex was indeed in the acropolis, perhaps you should examine the possibility that it was not a place of production but a place that all the military staff would use for their everyday needs. For example, the bones could come from their everyday food. And since you did not find a lot of glass (that means not a house), maybe it is a place of purely military use, not a workshop. My point is that you do not usually find workshops in the acropolis. You can also have in mind that this could be a two-storey building, so they could stay on the 1st floor and they could eat downstairs, since you find a lot of fires, plain pottery, etc.

Adela Sobotkova: One more question. Most of your digits were just plain counts, if I understood correctly. Did you use any corrections for differences in fragmentation and did you account for the wear of the artefacts, bones, etc.? Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: This is just a preliminary research. We are actually carrying out identification of bones and the artefacts, like pottery finds. We also have plant remains, very rich in this complex. There are good conditions to recover plant remains, because of the soil and because we have many pits and we check every burned area. All these data will be included in the final reports. Flora Karagianni: If I understood well, you found this complex within an acropolis.

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: We also try to understand the function of each room; we do not know if it was purely a dwelling place or if they just carried out production. Of course, we will consider all these things in the future, after the continuation of our research.

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul: Today it is 25m. from the surface but actually there is also an alluvial surface, which means that in the past it would have been much higher. There is also the Iris River, that brought alluvial deposits. The site is 628m above sea level.

209

List of contributors Immacolata Balena PhD Università del Salento, Dipartimento di Beni Culturali Lecce, ITALY E-mail: [email protected]

Middle East Technical University, Settlement Archaeology Programme   Ankara, TURKEY E-mail: [email protected] Valeriya Kozlovskaya PhD Independent scholar Address: 14 Fairbanks Street, Apt. 1 Brookline, MA 02446, USA

Alexey Belousov PhD Lomonosov Moscow State University, Department of Ancient Languages Moscow, RUSSIA E-mail: [email protected]

Manolis Manoledakis PhD, Lecturer International Hellenic University, School of Humanities Thermi, Thessaloniki, GREECE E-mail: [email protected]

Sujatha Chandrasekaran PhD University of Oxford, UK Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, GERMANY E-mail:  [email protected] Anca Dan PhD Topoi Excellence Cluster, DAI Berlin AOROC-CNRS Ecole Normale Supérieure 45 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris, FRANCE E-mail: [email protected]

Bülent Öztürk PhD Marmara University, Ancient History Department Istanbul, TURKEY Now: Assistant Professor Department of Ancient History Sakarya University, TURKEY E-mail: [email protected], bul.oztrk@gmail. com

Stefania Gallotta PhD Università di Napoli l’Orientale Napoli, ITALY E-mail: [email protected]

Aneta Petrova PhD New Bulgarian University Sofia, BULGARIA E-mail: [email protected]

Søren Handberg PhD Classical Studies, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University Aarhus, DENMARK The Danish Institute at Athens Athens, GREECE E-mail: [email protected], soren.handberg@ diathens.gr

Adela Sobotkova PhD University of New South Wales, School of Humanities Sydney, AUSTRALIA E-mail: [email protected] Emine Sökmen PhD Student Middle East Technical University, Settlement Archaeology Programme   Ankara, TURKEY E-mail: [email protected] 

Sergey M. Ilyashenko PhD, Professor Archaeological Museum and Preserve Tanais South Federal University, Rostov, RUSSIA E-mail: [email protected]

Mustafa Nuri Tatbul PhD Student Middle East Technical University, Settlement Archaeology Programme   Ankara, TURKEY E-mail: [email protected]

Coşku Kocabıyık PhD student

211

Exploring the Hospitable Sea

Kirill Tesle PhD student Lomonosov Moscow State University Moscow, RUSSIA E-mail: [email protected]

Mariia Tymoshenko PhD student Taras National Shevchenko University of Kiev Department of Archaeology and Museum Studies Kiev, UKRAINE e-mail: [email protected]

212