Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy 1443813257, 9781443813259

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
PART I
CHAPTER ONE
CHAPTER TWO
CHAPTER THREE
CHAPTER FOUR
PART II
CHAPTER FIVE
CHAPTER SIX
CHAPTER SEVEN
CHAPTER EIGHT
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

By

Peter A. Dimitrov

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy, by Peter A. Dimitrov This book first published 2009 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2009 by Peter A. Dimitrov All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-1325-7, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1325-9

To my children Vessela, Christina, and Georgi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ..................................................................................... ix Preface and Acknowledgments................................................................... xi Introduction .............................................................................................. xiii Part I: The Evidence Chapter One................................................................................................. 3 The Thracian Inscriptions Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 21 Legends from Coins Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 25 Evidence from Metal Vessels Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 37 The Greek Inscriptions Part II: Phonology and Morphology Chapter Five ........................................................................................... 121 Introduction. Phonology Chapter Six ............................................................................................. 129 The Components Chapter Seven ......................................................................................... 139 Thracian Numerals Chapter Eight .......................................................................................... 143 Analogy and Conclusion Bibliography............................................................................................ 149

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1-1. The Kyolmen Inscription Fig. 1-2. The Ezerovo Ring Fig. 1-3. The Gold Ring from Duvanlij Fig. 2-1. and Fig.2-2. Coins of the Thracian Tribe of the Derroni Fig. 3-1. The Silver Mug from the Bashova Mogila at Duvanlij Fig. 3-2. Silver Phiale from the Rogozen Treasure, Inv. No. 22329 Fig. 3-3. Silver Phiale from the Mogilanskata Mogila Tumulus, Inv. No. B-68 Fig. 3-4. The Phiale from Kazanluk Fig. 3-5. Gold Ring of Skythodokos Fig. 3-6. Silver Phialae from Shipka Fig. 3-7. The Silver Casserole Fig. 4-1. Inscription from Kyustendil (Teres Garytinos) Fig. 4-2. The Votive Plate from Kyustendil Fig. 4-3. Inscription with Kozimases from Alexandrovo Fig. 4-4. The Golden Plate from Sinemorets Fig. 4-5. Graffito from Sboryanovo

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe the reader a short explanatory note. First and foremost we should state that the material under study comes from direct sources such as inscriptions on stone, clay, and metalwork. Therefore, before starting to read the present study, we should keep in mind that we will be facing a situation that is extremely complex. There exists a methodological problem, originating in the past, which has caused various misunderstandings. It is due to the volume of different entries assembled in the goal to compile a thesaurus of the Thracian language. Somehow, during the last two centuries, there was a whole set of methods applied that were not in accordance with the progress made by linguistics. For example, the choice made in assembling the two main corpora so far, that of Tomaschek and Detschew, which present data from literary and epigraphic sources. These data combined were not at all times convincing. Sometimes controversial entries were included the interpretation of which provoked long discussions. More attention was paid to details, which in most cases were not concerned with the discussion of the whole body of evidence. One other point: whilst modern linguistics made a huge progress, Thracian scholars stayed within the general Indo-European theory of the Neogrammarians. The method I used (as I explain in detail below) rests on the description of Thracian onomastics obtained after phonological analysis, because I am concerned with the fact that every single phonologically attested form of phonemes and morphs is relevant. For, it helps to list all possible forms of names thus showing all of the graphemes independently. It was necessary to divide the material under study in sections in Part I. The Evidence. For purely practical reasons, it was deemed useful (and hereafter it will become clear from the presentation of the different sources) to repeat at some places some entries as cross-references, as this gives the study depth and facilitates the reader’s understanding of the intricacy of the way the Thracian material has come to our knowledge. It also provides to a larger extent the natural environment that fostered the creation of such various forms. An asterisk (*) is used before an entry in Chapter Four for reconstructions of place names based on gods’ epithets.

xii

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

In epigraphic texts the Leiden system of conventions is used. Last but not least, it is worth reminding that any linguistic situation is a part of the language development that has been termed “language change” for language tends to loom ahead and we only later become aware of its outcome. Once, a modest Swiss scholar was able to realize that besides the “history” of a language there is also a synchrony. While the historical record of facts of a language is a long and complicated row of events dutifully described and satisfactorily accounted for, synchrony is that missing link that makes us witness the birth of the record yielding to its origin. The name of the above mentioned scholar is Ferdinand de Saussure from the town of Geneva whose doctrine of phonological system allowed for the next generations to speak about linguistics as a science. My debts of gratitude are to all those who helped me with their remarks, observations, corrections, and guidelines. Above all, I am deeply grateful to the late Professor Georgi Mihailov under whom I started my doctoral dissertation back in the years. Also, I would like to thank many colleagues and friends; without their support, advices, and encouragements I would have long abandoned this project. I would like to acknowledge the expert help and advices of Dr. Maya Vassileva, Senior Researcher at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. My thanks also go to Dr. Thomas Corsten, Professor at the University of Heidelberg, Professor Stephen V. Tracy, former Director of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and Dr. Jaime Curbera. Generous financial support from the Mellon Foundation enabled me to spend three months as Senior Mellon Research Fellow at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens benefiting greatly of its research facilities. Ms. Davidoff and Ms. Todoroff were instrumental in the technical aspects of the preparation of this book for print and deserve acknowledgement for their endurance.

INTRODUCTION

Definitions The present study of the Thracian language is based on an updated collection of epigraphic material found in Bulgaria. Our knowledge of the Thracian language comes from evidence that has been assembled by modern scholars throughout the last two centuries from two types of documents: literary documents derived from Greek and Latin writers and inscriptions. Owing to the fact that epigraphy has furnished less information, many scholars undertook investigations that were not based but on one principle, to find any form of indication leading to any possible information on the Thracian. Methodologically speaking, this kind of “thesaurus at any rate” has produced only more confusion extant in many writings to the present day. The multiplication of errors and misunderstandings dating from Antiquity to modern times is responsible for “rapprochements” of personal, god- and place-names in the vast area of the Mediterranean region using onomastic material, glosses or commentaries of ancient grammarians and lexicographers irrespectively. 1 Therefore, the updated collection of epigraphic material found in Bulgaria is a kind of evidence that comes to reinforce our knowledge of Thracian names and Thracian words and phrases sporadically discovered and unveiled after years of scholarly work done by archaeologists, historians, and linguists. My goal as an author was to assemble the information from whatever direct epigraphic sources offered it, i.e. coins’ legends or graffiti drawn on precious metalwork (mainly phialae), and inscriptions on stones.2 In his Le dialecte éolien d’Asie (p.11-12), Hodot is differentiating the two possible sources of his study by pointing out that the literary tradition of the Lyrics rests on fragments and glosses that are “on le sait indissociables” as far as the literary works pass through the intermediary of grammarians, “les érudits de l’Empire”, and on the other hand the papyri “conservant l’essentiel de l’oeuvre des Lyriques dependent de la 1 2

See Fol, 2000, 65-66. For a thorough investigation based on direct documents see Hodot, 1990.

xiv

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

“vulgate alexandrine”. It is imperative to underline what Hooker (1977, 14) said of Apollonius Dyscolus’ reporting on Aioleis: “By Aioleis he means not ‘Aeolians’ as that term would be understood by a modern student of the Greek dialects, but “the Lesbian poets as displayed in the Alexandrian vulgate”. The need of such an update is all the more urgent given the growing interest in Thracian studies and language in particular, on the one hand, and the abundance of misunderstandings and variae lectiones within the context of the material used, on the other hand. In many articles and books, scholars have been referring to numerous forms of names or words without significant result due to the fact that a large number of newly published materials is missing in D. Detschew’s handbook Die Thrakischen Sprachreste, published in 1957. However, this is the one still indispensable handbook that each and every student of Thracian is counting on3. Yet, over the years it became clear that corrections alone would not suffice, and that a thorough investigation into the story of the appearance of any evidence was necessary to prove that unique “ethnologische Untersuchung über die alten Thraker” that W. Tomaschek offered to the public first in 1893 and then in 18944. Actually, it is the cultural value of the onomastic material that made the scholarly interest rise up and eventually provoked the re-evaluation of the items studied by Tomaschek and Detschew. Thus, of many speculations on the etymology of a name or word, nothing proved to be more important than the secure reading, the authentic Thracian sound that can be found only in inscriptions5. The one feature that makes this study different from those undertaken by Tomaschek and Detschew emerges from that very secure reading, for it gives us, along with many other important hints and insights through the phonology of the Thracian, the historical perspective and the relative chronology of a given language development. To this effect, Hodot comments (1990, 12) that “les documents du second type sont eux des documents directs: ce sont les inscriptions gravées sur la pierre, incisées ou peintes sur 3

See K. Vlahov 1963, in an attempt to add up new entries to Detschew’s handbook, and also I. I. Russu’s (1964) review. 4 W. Tomaschek, Die alten Thraker, Sitzungsberichte d. Akad. Wien, Bd. 128 (1893): I. Uebersicht der Stämme; Bd. 130 (1893): II. Sprachreste, 1. Glossen aller Art und Götternamen, Bd. 131 (1894): 2. Personnenamen und Ortsnamen. 5 For an interpretation of the method see Hodot 1990, 12: the literary tradition on Lesbian is “un témoignage médiatisé”.

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

xv

la céramique, frappées sur les monnaies. Il est inutile de souligner quel avantage sur les textes littéraires ou grammaticaux peuvent présenter ces échantillons du dialecte qui nous viennent tout droit des usagers eux-mêmes. Toutefois, pour que ces témoignages épigraphiques et numismatiques soient pleinement utilisables, il faut qu’ils puissent être datés, au moins approximativement, et surtout que ne se crée pas á leur propos une nouvelle sorte de ‘tradition’, non plus manuscrite, mais imprimée, qui aboutirait au même résultat : déformer l’aspect originel du dialecte”. 6 Yet another major difference lies in the effectiveness and clarity of the data accumulated; whereas in the past, criteria for words of Thracian language origin were based upon their being referred to as such by ancient Greek and Latin authors, in this study they must qualify and be listed as Thracian only if the inscriptions themselves indicate it. In many cases, a predicament emerges as to what to opt for, and the scholar is guided not just by explicit indications, such as e.g. the nation of a Thracian mentioned in the inscription but also by the already established tradition relying on the authority of scholars who have worked in the Thracian field. I found the principles discussed in Beschevliew’s book (1970) Untersuchungen ueber die Personennamen bei den Thrakern very useful to this effect. The author discusses the subject in greatest detail reviewing methodologies and approaches used by scholars in recent times. Moreover, in this study the geographical distribution of the names is limited to those territories, which are in the fringes of the Greek world. The organization of the lemmata is another element differentiating the present study. Etymological explanations have been included in few cases and only to help understand cultural or historical value. In many cases, out-of-date readings and variants were discarded from the list and about four hundred new names have been introduced. Thus, relying on a coherent body of entries, we were able to identify secure leads as to the structure of the roots in Thracian. Whereas earlier ideas were based on sometimes contradictory evidence, the disposition of the sequences is now well documented through more than one occurrence. We can be certain now (based on the entire collection), that stops rendered through or do not really exist in Thracian, do not appear in the beginning of the word, nor are they present in any other position. The few examples or are due to foreign word-editing and are a good containing example that some inscriptions were made by Greek nationals. One can 6

For the opportunities to follow the changes and the development of the Thracian language see also Fol 2000, 66.

xvi

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

compare Rolistene in one of the earliest original Thracian inscriptions on the gold ring from Ezerovo: -stene is in fact a Greek loan word (= sthenes “strong”). From forms such as -theithes, etc., we might assume that regressive assimilations in foreign loan-words from Asia Minor took effect at some point under the Late Roman Empire as the Thracians experienced a strong Roman influence. Again through that extensive evidence, we can be sure that the spirant s was rendered with the Greek letter theta, except between vowels where z was used. The inscriptions from Rogozen provided a secure lead to the mechanism of vowel prothesis in Thracian through , and . There are many names that appear only in inscriptions, in their , , .7 “unedited” form, e.g.

The Thracians: A Brief Historical Overview Thracian studies seem to have produced a solid record of topics exhaustively examined by scholars over the past one hundred and twenty years or so. Yet, the chronology that archaeology has produced through adjustments taken from various sites as well as later interpretations prove the existence of many points of indecision which need to be reformulated with precision in describing the inert model of Thracian reality. In this section, our concern is to provide essential information about how it all began. Therefore, I am offering only a brief overview. In no respect is it an exhaustive piece of history of Thrace, as some might expect. As tradition has it, the Thracians lived in numerous tribes spread over the islands of the Aegean and up north to the Carpathian Mountains. The islands of Euboia, Lemnos, Samothrace, and Thasos trace back a path of historical and mythical memory of Thracian culture. Beyond the mythology of movement of migrant populations and historical evidence, we find Thracians settled in the lands north of the Mediterranean according to the earliest literary and epigraphic evidence. Who were the Thracians then? A simplistic and inaccurate answer to this legitimate question would be to leave them unnamed, with indeterminate IndoEuropean origin and culture. Yet, their language is termed “Indo7

We shall refer to these and many other examples in Chapter Five.

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

xvii

European” by criteria that handbooks prefer not to discuss at length. The several old scripts on stone or precious metalwork are referred to as “inscriptions…, neither of which we understand”.8 Apart from the fact that in modern scholarship less attention is paid to the Thracians and their history, politics has come to play a rôle by no means indecisive in delaying and putting the investigation off. 9 Methodology was seriously influenced by approaches applied to standard western-like colonialism.10 The Early History of the Thracian lands is derived from literary texts 11; Homer provides the earliest and most abundant evidence.12 While Hesiod’s scanty passages, along with those of the lyric poets Archilochus 13 and Alcaeus14, are imaginative and hopeful, the important descriptions by Herodotus and Thucydides show the Thracians as numerous people about quite a territory, and with established cultural traditions, warriors, allies, inhabiting and dwelling in plains and mountains, along rivers and lakes. 15 We are also aware of the presence of newcomers around the end of the Eneolithic Age and on the eve of the Bronze Age. 16 They occupied the

8

Beekes 1995, 23; 331. Archibald 1998, 3: “Modern political divisions, geographical and ideological, have almost to the present day conspired to prolong the isolation.” 10 Tsetskhladze 2006, 26-27: “books …link ancient and modern colonization and ‘colonialism’(s)”; Owen 2000, 139: “Greek colonization of Thasos, and indeed of Thrace, is currently written from a wholly Hellenocentric and text-based perspective, behind which lies an unspoken and pervasive comparison with Western European colonolialism”. See more opinions in detail in Tsetskhladze 2006, 23-83. To this effct, see also Owen 2005, 5-7 etc. 11 See the comprehensive account of Mihailov 1991, 591-618, as well as Fol 2000. 12 Mihailov 2007, 9-42 [Homère comme source historique des états thraces]. 13 Frg 79a D(iehl): κἀν Σαλμυδ[ησσ]ῶι γυμνὸν εὐφρονέστ[ατα Θρήϊκες ἀκρό[κ]ομοι; Frg. 51 D(iehl): “ἄνδρας . . . ωλεῦντας αὐλὸν καὶ λύρην ἀνήγαγεν ἐς Θάσον κυσὶ Θρέϊξιν δῶρ᾽ ἔχων ἀκήρατον χρυσόν, οἰκείωι δὲ κέρδει ξύν᾽ ἐποίησαν κακά... ”; see also Homer, B 536-8, where he mentions the Abantes in possession of Euboia with Halkis, Erethria, and Histiaia. 14 See frg.77 (Diehl, E. Anth. Lyr. Greac., I, Lepzig, 1936). 15 Archibald 1998, 3, using modern geopolitical terms, stresses on the importance of the Balkan Peninsula whose “regions were closely linked to the eastern Mediterranean through the periodic movement of people and through networks of friendship, alliance, and exchange”. 16 Fol 2000, 63: newcomers appear at that time and it is not only the Varna necropolis that is a direct record of them but archaeological finds from other sites, as well. 9

xviii

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

territories south of the Carpathians to the fringes of the Greek world.17 In the 6th century BC we find the Thracians, under different tribe names and in various places, settled in the territories that stretch roughly between the ancient Euxeinos Pontos (Black Sea) to the plains of Axios (Vardar River) and north of the Aegean up to the Transdanubian lands18. The Greek historians noticed the political activity of the strongest Thracian kingdom, i.e. that of the Odrysians. Approximately at that same time, the earliest original Thracian inscriptions appeared. By the fourth century BC the contacts and interactions with the Greek world (and language) were very intensive.19 This was the time of the Odrysian political prime under king Kotys I (383-359 BC), the period during which the most spectacular Thracian tombs were built, as well as the most numerous inscriptions and graffiti on metal vessels were produced.20 The Thracian lands were involved in the politics of the Hellenistic world, while the armies of Alexander the Great and his generals brought many Thracian mercenaries as far away as Asia and Egypt. Some local peculiarities in the use of the koiné can be traced. Thracians served as soldiers in almost all provinces of the Roman Empire, after the Thracian lands had been incorporated in the Roman Empire and became provinces: Moesia (later Superior and Inferior) and Thracia in the first century AD.21 Despite the spreading of Latin as an administrative language, Greek continued to be widely used. A major part of the corpus of the Greek inscriptions found in Bulgaria originated from Roman Imperial times, thus offering opportunities to leads to Thracian language development. A large number of the 1 st - 3rd centuries AD votive inscriptions are dedicated to the Thracian Heros (Horseman) whose local epithets provide rich material for the present study. Perhaps we should start the discussion by laying down the evidence and leave the dubious interpretations aside for now. Because of gaps here and there, it is hard to determine which evidence is to be considered most relevant for that period. I would like to stress upon the rare occurrence of artifacts in tells being dated to the Late Bronze Age compared to those coming from necropoleis which are more numerous.

17 Fol 2000, 63: “These are located in the lands to the south of the Carpathians, on the Haemus Mountain and the Rhodopes, as well as in Hellas itself.” 18 Mihailov 19912, 591. 19 “In the period reaching the end of the 4th century BC, these relations led to recorded translations”: Fol 2000, 67. 20 Archibald 1998, passim; Marazov 1998, passim; Fol 2000, 67. 21 Velkov and Fol 1978, 46-52.

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

xix

Scholars are advancing the idea of a continuous habitation in nearly all of Thrace without breaks for the Late Bronze Age going into Early Iron Age (late second/early first millennium BC). 22 They speak of Thracians being present in the region all the way from as early as the Late Bronze Age.23 To place the Thracians in the context of the Eastern Mediterranean, we will follow the new lead offered by the study of W. Burkert. 24 Basically, this is a re-appraisal of the ‘provincial seclusion’ of civilizations in the Early Iron Age.25 With more publications supporting the idea of the relations that had existed between ancient Greeks and the East in Anatolia, the discovery of the Hittite language and culture and later on the decipherment of the Bronze Age Linear B tablets, it became clear that a somehow mixed Bronze Age culture, a Bronze Age koine, had been in existence26. Already in the Bronze Age Greeks had moved beyond the Balkan Peninsula on to the Aegean islands, Crete and Cyprus, along the coast of Asia Minor, and even southern Italy and Sicily.27 The civilizations of the East in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and westward Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia were by far more advanced and interaction with them in the second millennium, during the Late Helladic period, took place at a different pace. Roughly by the year 1200 BC all of these civilizations were affected by catastrophic waves of fires, floods and destructions and succumbed to obscurity. In the East, the important Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon, with south of them the Philistines, and up north the New Hittite Kingdom and the Phrygians, seem to have no recollection of bloody and aggressive battles along their way of establishing themselves in the fringes of the collapsed world of the Hittites. There is an apparent cycle of cataclysms happening: cultural interactions fluctuated in a way we can glean from literary and archaeological sources. Back to Thrace, the set of gold vessels found at Vulchitrun (northwest Bulgaria)28 dated to the mid-second millennium BC confirm the assertion of continuity by adding data that speak of lavish signs of rulers in the 22

Archibald 1998, 32-34; Georgieva 2001, 84. Fol 2000, 63. 24 Burkert 2004, 2: “Classical”… does not connote isolation.” 25 See Burkert 2004, 3 and Dornseiff 19592, 30. 26 Burkert 2004, 5: “There were contacts and interactions on all sides”. 27 Burkert 2004, 5. 28 Venedikov 1987. 23

xx

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

Thracian lands. The tripartite vessel is considered a unique one with evidencing special rites for mixing three different liquids.29 Mycenaean gold vessels and vessels from Alaca Höyük are said to exhibit comparable artistic traits thus paralleling the Vulchitran particularities. 30 The Northern Aegean appears to have been related to Mycenean developments in the sense that the Hellenes of the second millennium expanding toward the north might well have had visited the lands of the ancient Thracians. Recent archaeological finds provide the evidence for such an assumption as far as Linear A clay seals31 and a clay spool32 are concerned. Mycenean ceramic sherds have been unearthed in Koprivlen (southwest Bulgaria) near Gotse Delchev (previously known as Nevrokop).33 Furthermore, slabs engraved with spiral-like decorative motifs, were paralleled to gold objects found at Mycenae; a scene on one of them representing a male body with a sun-boat34 conveys an eastern Mediterranean theme. Recent discoveries offer more evidence on the 11th - 9th century BC life and culture in the Thracian lands.35 Most of this evidence comes from burial mounds, while metalwork contributed to its chronological specification. Early Iron Age finds display local variants: those would differ in the Dobrudzha region (northeast Bulgaria), in Babadag further up in the northeast, along the Black Sea coast, Insula Banului to the west and Chatalka and Pshenichevo to the south.36 Archaeological record speaks in favor of a continuous life over four centuries, from the 10 th to the 7th BC. 29

Venedikov 1987, 97-98 sees a similarity with Eleusinian mysteries” kykeon, a potion, that is known ever since Homer’s Od. 10. 290, 316. 30 Venedikov 1987, 60-62, 79-84; Sherratt and Taylor 1989, 121, fig. 4. 31 Matsas 1995, 242. 32 Fol and Schmitt 2000, 56-62. 33 Alexandrov 2005, 47-49: Six fragments of imported Mycenaean pottery were found comparable to that from Mycenaean centres and dated to the early/middle Late Helladic IIIB. 34 In the vicinity of Razlog (southwestern Bulgaria), seven slabs and fragments of at least ten more were found. See recently S. Ganeva’s article with bibliography of earlier accounts: Ganeva 2005, 147-51. 35 Chichikova 1972, 1977, who started publishing Early Iron Age archaeological materials (mainly pottery), was the first establishing Iron Age chronology for Thrace; 1990; Stoyanov 1997, 82 published the newly excavated site of Sboryanovo; Archibald 1998, 26-47 discusses chronological problems; see also Georgieva 2001, 83-94 and Gotsev 1994, 43-68. Gergova 1989, 231-40 pointed out to some specific traits of burial rites traced down in the transitional period through Late Bronze Age. 36 Stoyanov 1998, 164.

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

xxi

Considering the Thracians in Anatolia, K. Sams discussed the “open lines of communication between Phrygia and Europe” and a “cultural corridor”.37 Most probably as a tentative time mark of the Thracians’ south migration and southeastward expansion over the Bosporos into Asia Minor one could set the very end of the second millennium BC. The Gordion archaeological record at least speaks of newcomers from different areas in Thrace judging on EIA handmade pottery.38

Colonization Because of its huge cultural impact, the Greek colonization waives of various “comings” of Greek settlers, merchants, etc. into the lands surrounding the sea, we have a enormous source of information indirectly or more straightforwardly leading to the early presence of the Thracians and their practices. In terms of “earliest possible”, we need to better understand why we should abandon the model of violent conquest and subsequent “asymmetrical power relationships”39. There seems to be unanimity among scholars40 that in those remote times, the Thracians were not just passive observers of the ‘coming of the Hellenes’ up north; they were partners in creating a new environment for socio-cultural and economic development in the Aegean. It is very true, that the earliest literary sources in Greek poetry about the inhabitants known ever since as the Thracians were not exactly positive.41 Contacts between Greeks and Thracians were not necessarily on a hostile note for the entire period of their early interactions. The verse of Archilochos42 is to be interpreted in the light of modern scholars’

37

Sams 1994, 21 and 1995, 1147. See also: Vassileva 2005, 227-34 with bibliography. 38 Sams 1995, 1147-59, 1994, 21; 176. 39 Owen 2005, 6: “the assumption that asymmetrical power relationship, drawn along ethnic lines, existed in all ‘colonized’ areas from the Late Geometric and Archaic periods onwards is one which still pervades much of the literature”; and Owen 2005, 18. 40 See Tsetskhladze 1999 and 2006. 41 See Vassileva 2005, 227-34 with bibliography. 42 Frg 79a D(iehl): κἀν Σαλμυδ[ησσ]ῶι γυμνὸν εὐφρονέστ[ατα Θρήϊκες ἀκρό[κ]ομοι; Frg. 51 D(iehl): “ἄνδρας . . . ωλεῦντας αὐλὸν καὶ λύρην ἀνήγαγεν ἐς Θάσον κυσὶ Θρέϊξιν δῶρ᾽ ἔχων ἀκήρατον χρυσόν, οἰκείωι δὲ κέρδει ξύν᾽ ἐποίησαν κακά... ”;

xxii

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

perceptions about that as a major event in the Mediterranean world which customarily ancient historians use to describe as “Greek colonization”. 43 There is a clear contamination as to who, when, and how participated in the process of Greeks undertaking those periplooi.44 Thus, Archilochos was misinterpreted45 for being studied from too narrow a point. As I tried to explain elsewhere46 the third century BC Hellenistic poet Apollonios of Rhodes worked on a project to describe (and revive) the deeds of the glorious wanderers of the past in his Argonautika by way of literary (poetic) techniques, where a substantial part is devoted to the ethnography and geography of islands of the Aegean and especially that of Lemnos. We have a clear patch of remote historic events related skillfully enough to let us think of a movement, slow as it might have been, towards the northern territories. The Lemnian women led by Hypsipyle 47 imply a vision of developments going way back to the time of courageous people sailing the wine-dark sea on the northern approach. There is even a good and sound story as to the many generations of Thracian families, depicting the way Thracians gradually started leaving Lemnos in order to gain territories on the “Thracian coast” opposite of Lemnos. They left their Lemnian wives with their sons on the island. This has been done in several attempts to obviously colonize the “lands on the Thracain coast”. Every time the Lemnian women were observing ships coming to the island from their pyrgoi, they were uncertain as to who was coming, deprived of their husbands at that time. Apollonios of Rhodes seems to be very well informed as regards the geography of those events, describing what had been the most eyecatching mounts, their peaks, the coastal line along what is now Chalkidiki, as well as the islands of Lemnos and Samothrace. Was it just because in his time this was a socially calm and prosperous portion of the oikoumene, and therefore he felt at ease to describe it, or rather this is how it looked in the sources he used? My intention, accordingly, is to include these problems, and relate them to other theoretical approaches in the study of Thracian antiquities, in 43

Here see Tsetskhladze 1999, and 2006; Owen 2005. Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 1994. 45 See n.42 above. Owen 2005, 19: The author is of the opinion that a fragment of an inscription where Archilochos called the Thracians “dogs” was not correctly restored (after a 1930s scholar), and that it has no justification; it has rather a modern sounding. 46 Dimitrov 2006a. 47 Hypsipyle is not recorded in inscriptions. It is the name “of the one woman who dwelled the high gate” judging on the meaning of the name in Greek. 44

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

xxiii

which remnants of onomastics are interwoven in a remarkably complex way. A few words are needed to set the background of Thracian linguistics. We dispose of no other resource but the inscriptions. Again, for practical reasons inscriptions in the Greek language are considered in establishing the inventory of Thracian onomastics. Latin forms of names coming from Latin inscriptions are more of a supportive nature for two reasons: for being late or because of the fact that Thracian settlements were following a Greek tradition throughout the Roman imperial period, keeping Greek and less so Latin in their everyday administrative activities, with only a few exceptions. The Greek inscriptions have a history of their own in Thrace proper. Their geography may well be divided in three major parts: (1) Thrace as part of present-day Bulgaria (2) Thrace as part of present-day Greece (and all of the Greek territories in Antiquity), and (3) Thrace in present-day Turkey along with Asia Minor where traces of Thracians were found in inscriptions. This division alone makes for the innumerable difficulties in presenting the material.48 The legends on a limited number of coins were used in this study. Their complexity requires a separate way of investigation, and the evidence they provide was utilized with caution. 49 With many inscriptions found on metalwork, it became even more difficult to keep up with the line of equally treating all inscriptions and positive data at yield. For epigraphy developed its own way50 and therefore facts are hardly to be interpreted from a single point of view. For example, we cannot be sure that the value (in terms of alphabet reform, editing, and lettering) of an inscription found on the Athenian agora could be attributed automatically to an inscription found in Thrace. The situation is comparable to that found in similar fields, such as history of religion51.

48 Detschew’s Die thrakischen Sprachreste is a good example of the diversity of facts that at times do not help to solve the problem. Doing away with some of them is and always will be a problem of methodology in approaching the material. 49 See Dimitrov and Penchev 1984. 50 See Bodel 2001, 2, 10-15. 51 See to that effect among many other problems the one outlined by Archibald (1999, 431): “Archaeology can be expected to play a far more significant role in the interpretation of religious behavior, not simply because written sources are meager but because it provides evidence which no ancient writer was capable of giving.” And further on, p. 435, “our problem is how to define what was distinctive about the religious behavior of Thrace and how mutual interactions with other traditions affected this distinctiveness.”

xxiv

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

Phonology and Phonetics of the Thracian names based on the inscriptions found in Bulgaria The scanty evidence from the chronological layers does not yield to working with a wealth of examples, nor is it any easier to describe in an exact way the clusters in their succession one upon another through the time of transformations of the Thracian language. The outline of the theory of the phonological level in the name system is very important for practical reasons. The inscriptions on stone and metal, or graffiti scratched on clay vessels, have increased in number, presenting unconditionally precise records for the history of the Thracian territories. The history of research conducted and dedicated to the Thracian names so far, speaks for itself, supporting the assertion that the theory of their phonological level is essential to the understanding of the whole process. The system of the names at its phonological level is extremely interesting by its various developments, the latter being of high historical importance in solving a range of dubious problems. Owing to the fact that the phonemes in Thracian had not been the object of special interest for the 19th Century scholars, an impression was formed in modern scholarship leading to the conclusion that the whole system is hypothetical and therefore impossible. However it may be, it has been proved wrong by Dimiter Detschew, who undertook a passionate journey into the phonological and morphemic structure of combinations beyond the etymological explanation, within the general theory of the Indo-European phonology. In fact, this is the first attempt in the history of Thracian language studies. Due to the etymological approach, which later became a principle of methodology, we have many valuable observations and achievements at hand. Due to that same approach, there are also theoretical misunderstandings, which hindered the ongoing investigations into the system of the Thracian language. Having undergone research mainly by Bulgarian scholars, the Thracian language has also become the object of interest of foreign scholars, in regard to the study of the so-called “peripheral cultures” within the Hellenic world, such as the Asia Minor regions of Bithynia, and especially Phrygia. 52

52 See for example Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, Corsten 1990 and 2007, Gaertner 2001, etc.

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

xxv

There are several investigations, for which I have substantiated the necessity of theoretical outline, and have showed the lack of systematical presentations of the Thracian language wealth. This problem is connected to another range of developments, which only seem external, but in fact are the core of the same phenomenon: Thracian names are present in less than ten inscriptions in Thracian language, while thousands of them were found in inscriptions written in Greek and Latin, the latter being used in this study as supporting evidence because of their later origin. For centuries Greek had been the language of civilization in the Hellenic world, as well as in the adjacent transitional lands. Greek has been the official language of the Thracian kings and dynasts’ courts and administration until the time Latin took over. The several genuine Thracian inscriptions were written in characters of various Greek-like alphabets. Judging on the script used in the Kyolmen inscription we could imagine an epichoric variant, not necessarily derived from a Greek prototype.53 The method of presenting the material, adopted here, is based on the approach of the material used. It consists of studying the chronological layers of evidence. In the notion of chronology as part of the notion of phoneme (providing the phonemic variants and therefore the history of the language), the study is centered on the history of the linguistic transformation as evidenced in the Greek inscriptions found in Bulgaria, reflected in the history of the phonology of the Thracian names, as well as the rich cultural environment. The information that comes along with each text enhances the understanding of the layers. The latter, in the light of the interdisciplinary analysis, open new and unexpected perspectives of describing the culture that once flourished in these vast territories. Secondly, with using this approach in order to study the phonology, i.e. the theoretical value in the nature of the Thracian phonemes, only the epigraphic evidence is being employed, and mainly that from Bulgaria.54 Furthermore, the method of our investigation lies in the philosophy of the principles adopted: secure data with examples that can explain the developments under study by reaching a solution. The basis of this method is trying to comprehend the phonology of the Thracian language. We take into consideration the concept of the 53

Inscribing or carving letters on metalwork betrays an Iranian parallel as evidenced in Thrace and Persia. See to this effect Vassileva 1992-1993 and Zournatsi 2000. 54 It should be noted here that on several occasions occurrences found in Greece, Anatolia, and elsewhere around Thrace proper, were used as parallels to Thracian forms.

xxvi

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

phonological rule, for rules may change under certain conditions just like the language changes are made functional within a system. The method itself does not automatically guarantee results. 55 A number of procedures might have been lost due to impossible reconstructions within the Thracian language, e.g. lack of sufficient cases or insecure readings. In the categories of Thracian sounds, the interrelationships between various classes56 have been proposed and later perceived as theoretical entities that may change according to “sound laws” 57, an equivalence that should be the same for e.g. Ezbenis and Asbenoi. In their analysis, the fluctuation e/a is to be referred to the way these “sounds” were pronounced (closed or open pronunciation); the shift of s>z is a later development58, or a feature that is not marked by any specific conditions 59, or the shift was conditioned according to its word-initial or intervocalic position60. It is true that the intervocalic S normally changes to Z between vowels, however in our example we observe the same opposition between /s/ and /z/. If we take its chronology into consideration, S and Z are synchronic (as they appear in our Evidence) and therefore this opposition is irrelevant in regard to their morphophonemic involvement. There is a piece missing in this easy-to-solve puzzle. And it is namely that we are not dealing with sounds but rather with those ”unreal sounds” or abstractions.61 The underlying PIE */w/ and its treatment in Thracian through the Greek beta conditioned the shift. A plausible reason could be the word initial varying between /a/ and /e/.62 Hence, the above-mentioned classes may be distinguished for subclasses, called allophones,63 which can be analyzed for distinctive features; sonority is the one in our case. This very feature is crucial to the understanding of the phenomenon, for this “sound 55

Beekes 1995, 103. See Lehmann 1993, 8 for a brief but succinct presentation of the phonological theory. 57 See Dečev 1960; Georgiev 1983; Duridanov 1985. 58 Duridanov 1985, 108. 59 Dečev 1960, 162-63: “Es folgt daraus, dass im Thrakischen das ide. s teilweise unverändert bleibt, teilweise zu z wird”. 60 Georgiev 1983, 1173-74: “Ide. s ist im Thrakischen erhalten geblieben…. Im Anlaut vor Vokal und intervocalisch wird s oft zu z (wie im Deutschen)”. 61 Lehmann 1993, 12: “besides the perceived, articulated sounds, classes were proposed that were labeled ‘phonemes’. . . The classes… are abstractions”. 62 See Dimitrov 1994. 63 Lehmann 1993. 56

Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy

xxvii

change” that we identify as a principle has long been explained, and leads us to believe that generally one specific trait per se is involved.64 No doubt, sounds cannot be phonemes for they belong to a different category. Their functional analysis is also called phonetics.65 Only on the surface could one register the phonetic units, as they belong to the physiology of the articulation. We now arrive at the subsequent conclusion: first, there is no /z/ in Thracian as a continuant of PIE */z/ as the latter simply does not exist. Second, /z/ in synchrony is just an allophone, a variant of the phoneme /s/66. Third, there may be another condition involved, e. g. assimilation e-e. Fourth, only the phonemic analysis with the appropriate distribution of the phonemes can lead us through establishing the etymology of this Thracian etymon of e/asba from PIE * h1ek’w-o-s. Fifth, this conclusion would not be possible, if we were to disregard the information from our direct source and the method of the phonological (phonemic) analysis. 67 With those considerations in mind, I welcome you to Part One.

64

Lehmann 1993, 78; Lehmann 1952, 3. So Anttila 1989, 207-8: “Phonetics in this framework was called functional, and an enormous amount of work has been directed toward the principles and procedures for arriving at this level. These principles are generally known as phonemic analysis, and the functional phonetic surface units as phonemes.” 66 So Bonfante 1937, 127-29: In his critic of Jacobsohn’s (Festschrift Kretschmer 1926, 72 ff.) he examines a large group of words contrasting them against their correspondent cognates in other Indo-European languages to finally make valuable observations on the phonological and phonetic development in Thracian. Among other, he pointed out to the way Thracian sounds were represented through Greek script. 67 There is no mention of Asbenoi in Detschew, for this essential item was unknown to the literary tradition. 65

PART I: THE EVIDENCE

CHAPTER ONE THE THRACIAN INSCRIPTIONS

I. The Kyolmen Stone Inscription1 The publication of this inscription triggered a rapid increase of scholarly activity.2 Relevant archaeological sources as well as other indications emerging from the linguistic analysis make it clear that a number of problems arose ever since its first appearance in print. This state of affairs has been summarized in the last major account on the Thracian language made by Claude Brixhe and Anna Panayotou.3 The authors are concerned with the idea of the identification of the signs used, and with the reading of some characters.4 It is not clear whether they suggest deciphering the inscription as a whole or reading and interpreting it. No one so far has done both to decipher and interpret the text successfully, nor has anyone considered the entire evidence.5

The Inscription 1. The tombstone-shaped sandstone stele consists of two parts. The large piece measures 148x68x7-11.5 cm. A tractor broke off the two smaller pieces during agricultural activities in the fields of the nearby 1

The inscription is dated to the 6th century BC (Archeological Museum of Sofia, Inv. No. 6558). 2 See Woudhuizen 2000-2001 for an extensive list of almost all publications to present. 3 Brixhe and Panayotou 1994. (This publication for some reason is unknown to F. Woudhuizen) While they are not providing any interpretation of this particular inscription, they are of the opinion that the previous publications on the inscription failed to produce reliable facts and decisive evidence to solve the many problems arising from the very nature of the find. 4 Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 187. 5 See e.g. Georgiev 1966; Schmitt-Brandt 1967; Woudhuizen 2000-2001; Ancillotti 1986; Schmid 1987; Theodossiev 1997, for approaches which Brixhe referred to as “inteprétation parfois délirante” or “étymologies plus “acrobatiques” (Brixhe and Panayotou, 187, 193).

4

The Thracian Inscriptions

village of Kyolmen that consequently led to rescue excavations. The actual length of the two sections of the inscription is as follows: (1) 71cm; (2) 103 cm; (3) 34 cm.

Fig. 1-1. The Kyolmen Inscription 2. The above mentioned three sections of the inscription go from left to right, if we consider the position of the cutter, (referred to hereafter as (1), (2), and (3), see Figure 1-1); if facing the stone, (2) is situated on the lefthand side along the edge of the stone reaching its upper edge, and then turning to the right, i.e. horizontally where several more letters are carved; (1) starts from the right-hand side of the stele passing through the center and joining (2); and finally (3), being a little off the center goes vertically down, where nine signs are carved from the center and down: .

The Thracian Inscriptions

5

Ex autopsias, as I saw it in the Museum of Sofia, starting up from the right side, the inscription reads as follows: (1) (2) (3)

Archeology-related considerations 1. The inscription was found in grave No. 1 in the center of tumulus No. 1.6 The description of the grave construction and the grave offerings match the archaeological situation described by Filov for the Kukova and Bashova tumuli in Duvanlij.7 2. The four burial mounds,8 situated at a distance from one another, seem not to belong to one and the same necropolis.9 One or more slabs placed across or along the long side, covered the tombs.10 3. Dremsizova-Nelchinova is of the opinion that the two graves belong to members of the Thracian aristocracy, as the offerings found in situ 6

Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 207-208: The construction of the tomb was made in the following way: a rectangular pit, one meter deep was dug into hardpan, lined up with flat pieces of sandstone, partly cracked. Cremated bones covered with a clay bowl were found in the middle of the tomb. There were also 45 fragments of scale armor, parts of spears, a bronze clasp broken into three pieces, several iron rings from a harness, and most importantly, a handle of a black-figured lekythos and amphorae handles and body sherds. 7 Duvanlij is a 5th century BC Thracian tumular necropolis: Filow 1934, 62 and 187. 8 Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 217. 9 The first two tumuli were part of the necropolis of the settlement, now in the place called Ungi, five-six hundred meters away from it. The tombs found in three of the tumuli (no tombs in the second tumulus) are of the same kind: rectangular tombs oriented north-south, dug out in the rock 0.8-1 m deep, with walls reveted with sandstone slabs. Analogous tombs can be seen elsewhere in the villages of Kuylevcha, Ravna, Yankovo, and in the districts of Lovech and Teteven. The Kyolmen tombs stand out with their more elaborate construction. The burials were performed either through cremation (tumuli 1, 2 or 4) or through resting the bodies in the ground (inhumation). 10 In grave No. 1 a middle-aged man was buried (two of his teeth were found in the tomb) together with his armor and some weapons. Grave No. 2 (from that same tumulus No. 1) belonged to a woman judging by the ornaments (a gold button and a lekythos). An assumption is made that this is the beloved one, buried together with her dead husband, a well-known rite of the Getae. See DremsizovaNelchinova 1972, 218.

6

The Thracian Inscriptions

(precious and imported rare objects of art and luxury were placed within) indicate. The dates of the grave offerings range between the 5th and 3rd century BC. However, the burial in tumulus No. 2, being the oldest, is dated to the end of the 6th century BC. Based on this fact, she assumed that the existence of a necropolis from as early as the 6th century BC accounts for the use of the inscribed stone.11 4. The rock bearing the inscription is a gray-yellowish sandstone that is composed of thin, easily separable layers. Totev is of a slightly different opinion in describing the grave. At least four stones were used to cover the grave.12 The longer side of the inscribed rock (being 148 cm long and 6874 cm in width by either ends) falls short by at least 50 cm, and therefore could not have served as a cover slab. 5. There is sufficient archaeological evidence produced by Totev,13 and Dremsizova-Nelchinova,14 that the stele in question was found face down on the top of the tomb. Most recent publications follow DremsizovaNelchinova’s opinion that the inscribed stone had been worked on and then re-used.15

The Reading of the Inscription 1.

these inscriptions are (three variants). In the Greek inscriptions from Bulgaria, different signs for Greek letters have been found. The same is true for those written in the Thracian language. In this inscription we have a few S-like characters. We consider them graphemic variants in spite of what has been adopted in previous publications. It goes without saying that the signs, besides their usual identification belong with those of Greek alphabet, are also identified according to the sense they might make in the course of the reading. Sometimes the text itself solves many such problems. We will follow this path in exploring the reading.

11

The

letters

used

in

Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 218-28, see especially the French summary: 22829. 12 Totev 1965, 10: the grave measures 1.94 x 1.84 x 1.18 x 1.07 m, 1 m deep. The slabs were placed across over the longer sides, thus oriented east to west, while the grave itself was north-south oriented. 13 Totev 1965, 9-11. 14 Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 207-29. 15 Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 228.

The Thracian Inscriptions

7

2. The execution of the inscription betrays many turning points and hesitations, thus allowing to read and separate the words. However, a few points of clarification are necessary. Following the general discussion, which is at times very laconic, we will establish the points scholars agree upon: 1) As the evidence shows, the letters are of different size, between 2.5 and 6 cm high, and feature early 6th to the beginning of the 5th century BC usage of Greek characters. Scholars differ in their opinions as regards the epichoric alphabets used from that of Euboia to that of Megara. For example, the second sign in the inscription is interpreted either as or as . There is however one such sign in the short inscription which reminds us of the Greek word , where the sign > is to be read . that are 2) Yet the combination of two identical vertical signs read differently by some16 but mostly N by Schmitt-Brandt, Georgiev poses another problem.17 3) With all those difficulties in mind, there is no doubt that we are dealing with a local Thracian inscription, which was written and set in stone by a Thracian in the Thracian language. Despite all differences, there is no other more plausible assumption but to say that a Greek alphabet was used to write Thracian, at least as early as the 6th century BC in the proper Thracian inland.18 For example, the six-stroke sigma, seen in has been found for the first time used in an inscription from “the valley of the Thracian kings” near Kazanluk that was dated to the late 6th century BC.19 Following common logic alone, it seems that it was easier to adopt a variant of the Greek alphabet that was in circulation in the Thracian lands, rather than making the difficult assumption that the engraver had used diverse Greek-based characters that belonged to epichoric scripts. 16

Woudhuizen 2000-2001, passim. Schmitt-Brandt 1967; Georgiev 1966; 1983, 1161-63. 18 Tsetskhladze 2002, 86-87, in his comments about the spread of the Greek among the “local elites” is relying not on facts, but on interpretations. The alleged ars/art as “common prefix in Thracian names” simply does not exist. There are two epithets applied to Thracian deities that contain ars- or art- in compound names. However, they are not prefixes. (See Chapter Four and Chapter Six.The Components). Besides, his assumption that the Ionians influenced the Thracians, is based on contradictory evidence: the inscription from Kyolmen is not in Greek, is dated in the 6th BC, and was written with characters that do not seem to be necessarily of Ionian origin. 19 Dimitrov 1995, 23-25. 17

8

The Thracian Inscriptions

3. Suffice it to say that some of the earliest Greek inscriptions yet known come from Euboia, and the Euboians, who were Ionians, used sigma instead of san (M), and that the same is true of the Boeotians and some people from central Greece and Peloponnese including eastern Argolid, Arcadia and Elis as well as Sparta, Rhodes, and some Greek colonies in Italy; or Achaea and Epirus.20 After examining the stone it seems that the engraver had had tremendous difficulties in carving the characters. Therefore, his hesitating in orienting the inscription and its characters appear as a major technical difficulty coming from the texture of the stone; for limestone is soft but also fragile. Perhaps this is the reason why he avoided carving the joining hasta of the sign and making different S. n as word-divider, although preferred 4. The identification of the sign by Beševliev, followed by Woudhuizen and Ancillotti, does not solve the problem.21 On several occasions and especially in the case with the there is clear indication that the cutter was capable sequence of and (rendered by )22 since he of distinguishing between painstakingly carved a horizontal hasta in . His attempt at writing the resulted in carving a rather wide chunk off the soft limestone rock. On the other hand, he was consistent not to make the connecting diagonal hasta in any sign, as it was technically impossible. There is one more instance where he successfully wrote , precisely in the short nine-letter inscription . 5. Besides that identification there is also difficulty with the sign < , which occurs four times where three of the letters are oriented right to left, and one in the opposite direction. In this case, if we decided to read with the rest of the scholars as a Greek loan-word, we have solid grounds to consider the other two characters being of the same nature, i.e. signs for . Rests alone the left-to-right orientated character, which having absolutely the same shape, and should be read as , based on the fact that the cutter consistently shifted the position of the letters. One more observation: There are three equal signs in the sequence that would make sense only as N and I letters. Here we should also consider the conclusions we can draw from the distributional analysis; no other scholar has resorted to such analysis, 20

See Cook 1987, 9-10. Beševliev 1965a; Woudhuizen 2000-2001; Ancillotti 1986. 22 See Tod 1985, 253-54 where in a 332 BC inscription from Eresus the sign is frequently used for H or N. 21

The Thracian Inscriptions

9

although many seem to be much concerned with the linguistic aspect. Naturally, they try to contrast their views by gleaning details on the socalled archaic letters derived at times from too many epichoric Greek alphabets to make their argument agreeable. Following the oldest opinion, that of V. Georgiev, inconsistently did they try to read the -sign as either Y or , except for Beševliev. 6. The analysis of the inscription should start with identifying combinations of letters that make sense reasonably enough to get to understand it. The first striking detail is the sign that has been identified as N. We can say with some certainty that this is a negation. For this sign occurs a total of eight times in this inscription. By identifying this sign as a negation from nĕ, nē and nei,23 we come to the following observations on its distribution: (1) before L twice; (2) before E twice; (3) before I once; (4) before H once; (5) before B, and (6) in end-of-word (Auslaut) position at the very end of the inscription. 7. Our distributional analysis shows; (1) That the -sign in the first place appears before and only; (2) That the N-sign appears before consonants ( ) and vowels ( ). Therefore, we can consider of a stable phoneme but not a morpheme, bearer of meaning. The -sign, on the contrary, exemplifies a universal and qualifies for an independent morpheme, most probably to be connected with the negative particle *ne (Note 21). It is exemplified in the short separate part of the inscription where we most probably can read, based on the Greek , a formulaic “do not harm/destroy”. Most scholars are unanimous about it.24 Some seem not to be.25 On the other hand, although , IGBulg. III in our catalog (Compare the following names: 1222, 3rd century AD, a personal name. Not in Detschew; [ , IGBulg. IV 2286, 159 AD; according to Mihailov this is a female name; , IGBulg. V 5883, 77 AD; * , , IGBulg. I 77, 78, IGBulg. V 5883, 77 AD, a place name;

23

See Pokorny 19943, 756. Beševliev 1965a; Schmitt-Brandt 1967 and Georgiev 1966. Completely different reading in Woudhuizen 2000-2001, 294. 25 Theodossiev 1997, 223: his “contribution” consists in repeating statements y made by y others or just j already offering firsthand reversed readings, e. g. for , etc. See also his reports on Thracian inscriptions, composed in the same fashion with many mistakes and incorrect statements in Teodosiev 1991. 24

10

The Thracian Inscriptions

epithet of the Heros, 1st century BC in an inscription from Shumen, a female name. , epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. IV 1928, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , inhabitants of , IGBulg. III 1771, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , IV 2142, 2nd - 3rd century AD, epithet of Hera; , an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 1832, 1st - 3rd century AD; Spinopara, , a place name, IGBulg. IV 2192; , , IGBulg. III 1817, 1st - 3rd century AD), we don’t have many examples with Thracian names starting with N, the distribution is the same as in the one in the inscription. The inscription from Ezerovo offers the following distributions: N+E; N+H; N+T. The only missing examples are before L and before B. Based on this assumption we can divide the text in words that eventually will make sense. So, the first word we come up with is . However, another possible combination is to in and , because is already another combination divide that occurs twice here and once in the inscription on the gold ring from Ezerovo, where ASN follows a personal name just like this is the case here. Along with the interpretation of the Kyolmen inscription, scholars became aware of the resemblance of some of its sequences with those found on the inscription on a gold ring from Ezerovo.26 This has been a fruitful surmise that on several occasions we have the combination of or to be interpreted as a genuine Thracian word. It is a relative pronoun, which might also be an indefinite pronoun, from *ios, Old Indian yas, Greek hos and *ni, Prygian ios ni, Russian kto ni, etc. in both “whoever”, see numerous examples in Pokorny and Haas.27 inscriptions comes after a name (or at least this is our conviction that we and , the first being a compound should read name consisting of - and the Thracian version of Gr. , while the second consists of the genuine Thracian contrasting with the Greek graphemic version known ever since The Iliad as - or on the one hand, and ( ) to *dyaus, on the other). 8. The evidence is too scarce to ascertain that the final in is for a nominative ending, for the two sigmas, here and at 26

Consider the inscriptions from Rogozen, as well as other inscriptions written on metalwork in formulaic Greek, which gives us ground to say that the genuine Thracian inscriptions follow the same pattern. See Mihailov 1987. 27 See Pokorny 1994, 283 and Haas, 75 with more reference.

The Thracian Inscriptions

11

the end of are different in shape, if at all those graphemic variants display different relevant distribution. Were they to denote that sequence, remains to be one was a final ending and the other part of seen. However, we can assume that -// is inseparable. 9. And again, we should separate IL from ASN at least for the sake of following the already adopted logic of separation of words. IL might well be a pronominal stem “der, er” (for the L part see Pokorny 24-25 under alol- and compare to old Bulgarian and Bulgarian “lani” (last summer, or last year; from Bulgarian “leto” “summer” and “year”). Latin “ille” and Umbrian “ulo, ulu”) So, we can say with some certainty that this first portion of the inscription reads as follows: , . Another detail is the segment , Greek for “years”? 10. A third detail is the beginning of the second half of the inscription ( ) ( ), well known from later Greek where we can read , son of Seuthes III and inscriptions found in Thrace, e.g. 28 Berenike, ; Since this is an inscription in Thracian, we cannot expect to have the Greek form as in EBPY (the stem known since Homer) to the river name but rather EBAROZE without being syncope.29 11. Judging on the very consistent consonant-vowel frequency in both inscriptions, we can also assume that this was the Thracian language pattern whose one feature is characterized by open syllables.30 Furthermore, I believe that the assumption that the inscription should start to be interpreted from EBAROZE is correct. There are three considerations to be made at this point: (1) In a number of inscriptions the E-ending in a name indicates a genitive form, e. g. on four silver phialae from Duvanlij;

28

, son of Seuthes III and Berenike, IGBulg. III 1731 and Elvers 1994, end of 4th BC and , IGBulg. 538 from Glava Panega, 2nd BC (?). 29 ( ) for (compare Homeric ). As the genuine form has full-fledged shape with open syllables, so the syncopated form should be altered where possible. Liquids allow for that phenomenon to occur, while sibilants do not or at least show a different attitude and hence, no s-endings in a possibly nominative case form. 30 See Aristophanes’ Birds 1615: and 1628: .

12

The Thracian Inscriptions

(2) This idea is corroborated by the fact that -/ is inseparable being one word, and therefore there is no reason to read . (3) If these considerations are correct, then we have one clear part of ( ) and ending by the inscription starting with . From here we have to figure out the word divisions keeping in mind that we now know the end of this first part. Several considerations come to my mind: (1) Deduced from tombstone inscriptions in Greek and Latin, seems like another Greek loan-word for “years”, though still uncertain. (2) If this is correct, we probably have to cut the first word after A, as A was clearly added afterwards and hence the word corrected by the cutter i.e. ○ with a negative himself. So, we might have “n”. has been interpreted in many ways but mainly as a (3) perfect form = Gr. , “has lived” (Schmitt-Brandt, Georgiev).31 there should be Now, we think that after the genitive form a verbal form, plus something that explains the idea of possession. -// , and Whatever the meaning of look symmetrical and might be linked.

Conclusions 1) There are suggestions that the stele is a tombstone of a fallen soldier (dynast?) rather than a dedicatory inscription. The other two parts of the inscription speak in favor of that idea. 2) Based on the archaeological evidence, the existence of a necropolis from as early as the 6th century BC accounts for the use of the inscribed stone. 3) The size of the stele points to the fact that it could not have served as a cover slab. 4) There is sufficient archaeological evidence produced by Totev, and Dremsizova-Nelchinova, that the stele in question was found face down on the top of the tomb. Most recent publications follow DremsizovaNelchinova’s opinion that the inscribed stone had been worked with and then re-used. 31

Georgiev 1983, 1161-62; Beševliev 1965a, 321.

The Thracian Inscriptions

13

5) The text as regards the Thracian language leads toward a formulaic interpretation of the inscription in accordance with other grave-related texts coming from Greece and Phrygia. In my opinion, had the stele been attributed a major sacred function, it would have been placed elsewhere, e.g. on a top of a mountain. A soft sandstone would have not survived even a several-mile-long voyage. Practice shows that solid granite rocks had been re-used in construction. There is no evidence so far of a fragile rock being re-used for religious purposes. Let alone take the fact that ancient Balkan poeple had made rock-cut dedicatory or other monuments to last for millennia, as they did, for instance. One possible explanation would be that this rock has been removed from the nearby settlement to adorn the grave of a Thracian aristocrat, though a ritual performed on that occasion should not be excluded.32 As for the meaning of the text, we put forward a plausible reading based on phonological analysis. Our understanding is that we cannot go, at this point, beyond the level of some certainty; crossing over into complete uncertainty would be the same guessing.

II. The Ezerovo Ring The inscription in scriptio continua was found on a gold ring from a tumulus near Ezerovo, district of Plovdiv.33 The letters were incised in eight irregular lines and the last on the rim of the ring. The find is dated to the 5th century BC.

32

See Fol 2002, 326. See Detschew 566 for a full account on the find, as well as on various opinions expressed by nineteen other scholars. 33

14

The Thracian Inscriptions

Fig.1-2. The Ezerovo Ring

1. The inscription starts with , where the ending E is the same as in DADALEME on the phialae from Duvanlij34, and appears as connecting vowel in many names, e.g. Kerse-bleptes vs. its form Kerso – bleptes in inscriptions from the Roman period. I take it this is the genitive ending in Thracian. Compare Dios-pouris, etc. where Dios- is the genitive form of Zeus in Greek adopted in Thracian, too. It has become clear ever since the 6th BC from BLABA in the Kyolmen inscription and from the component –stene from Greek “sthenes” “strong” that Greek loan words were present in Thracian. As for Roli-, the personal name Roles will account for it.

34

Filow 1934. The author considered –e as a genitive ending.

The Thracian Inscriptions

15

2. AS is a problem if not combined with NE because of the S which normally is changed to Z between vowels. There are fluctuations in a large , number of inscriptions from the 1st century AD on, e.g.: , , , , , In many cases, S seems to be originally in positions where the allophone Z does not appear. At the end of a morpheme or where the allophone Z would create a misunderstanding the S is preserved between vowels, as long as they are not doubled with Z-forms. S- and Z- seem to be among the most numerous word-initial letters in Thracian. Some of them show the above mentioned vocalic variation, though most seem to reflect the etymological situation since PIE. Traces of possible assimilation or dissimilation played a decisive rôle in shaping the forms. Greek (through the cultural process of Hellenization) contributed to this effect as well. Sometimes, this can be attributed to bilingual texts, e.g. in .35 Under the circumstances AS should be interpreted as *so, anaphoric pronoun.36 Whether NE should be added up or not, is a possibility. In a previous scrutiny of the case37 it was pointed that AS could be part of ILAS in ILASNE, where the latter could be a deictic. Thus, ASNE means “of that same”, if put in Genitive. 3. Or we can cut NE and RENEA, a negative imperative (“do not remove”) from IE *r/or/r.38 If we have made the right observation, A in all the sequences, as in RENEA, TILTEA, NESKOA, RAZEA, would be equal to “or”. Then, TILTEA would be “do not lift” < *tl°-to, a suffixed zero-grade.39 4. Following the same pattern, NĒSKOA should be segmented in a negative N’ ĒSKO and A. It should be mentioned here that we have one example of this sequence among the entries in The Evidence (the Greek inscriptions): Niskatourme. For niska, Pokorny 311 under *en “in”, PIE *ni, Skt. ni-ja- ‘ingenuus’, Avestan ni-zənta-, Skt. ni-tya- “proper”, “bestaendig, eigen” = Gallic(?) Nitio-broges “akin to, apparenté”, 5. RAZE would make sense because of the intervocalic Z (=S) and A is “or”. 35

See Chapter Four, s. v. Beekes 1995, 202-203, 205: “that, the (just named)”. See also Watkins 2000, 81 and Pokorny 19943, 978. Cf. Avestan aeśa “this”. 37 See Dimitrov 2003. 38 See Pokorny 19943, 326-327. 39 Watkins 2000, 90; Pokorny 19943, 1060. 36

16

The Thracian Inscriptions

6. DOMEANTI40< *demo, dm°ə, see Pokorny 199-200; Lat. domo, Perfect domui; Watkins16, suffixed o-grade form *dom(ə)-o “tame”, subdue’, ‘adamant’ < *n°-dm°-nt-. 7. LEZYPTA “ying (up and) down on his (her) back”, see Watkins 94 at 6a. and 11 a. and b. under upo- “under, up from under, over”, Avestan upa “up to, at” in upasta-vaka “praise”, etc. 8. MI = “to me” 9. In HERAZHLTA, I see the following sequences: H = I and therefore IERA (=Greek, ‘sacred’) and ZHLTA, a past particle in -t, plural for “gold objects”. As regards a tentative translation of the inscription that will allow to get a working notion of this difficult text, I propose the following translation line by line: (belongs) To Rolistene (of that same) Do not remove Or do not lift Or (and) akin To the obeying Lying down To me sacred gold objects This rough text could be edited in this way: “(This ring belongs to me here) Rolistene, do not remove or lift the gold objects (that are) sacred to me, the obeying lying down.”

III. The gold ring from Duvanlij41 The find is dated to the 5th century BC. The ring is in bad shape and I was able to get but the following reading of the letters incised on the oval bezel: HYC vacat A on the upper side, and on the lower side, an image of a horseman riding to the left being in the middle. For (with the typical sign for Z) we have a parallel in Detschew 291 Mezanaia, a feminine name from Kavadarci, now in Former Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia. Therefore, MEZENAI seems to be a dative from *mez-/maz-, “big”, IE *magh- and suffixed with -a/eno-. As

40

Beekes 1995, 249 on the formation of participles: The participle was formed with –ent, Skt. adánt “eating”, yant “going” (* H1i-ent-), Thracian dome-ant-i “obeying”. 41 Filow 1934, 130.

The Thracian Inscriptions

17

for the other letters, due to the worn-out parts of the ring, I am not able to give any reasonable sequence. Detschew 291 proposed a different reading: he reads MEZHNΛI and considers it a genitive from MEZHNΛIΣ. Georgiev, followed by Duridanov, adopted a different way of interpreting it.42

Fig.1-3. The Gold Ring from Duvanlij

IV. Four silver gilt phialae from Duvanlij43 Four silver gilt phialae, dated to the 5th century BC, were found in Bashova Mogila, Duvanlij, bearing one and the same inscription: . As mentioned above after Filow and Detschew 110 this is a genitive form. This assumption is made on the existence of a widely . Georgiev44 made a whole spread hypocoristic personal name sentence out of it. Duridanov accepted his opinion and so did Katičić.45

V. Bilingual text In a number of Greek inscriptions there are names that to my mind are written in Thracian. I will interpret one of those bilingual texts here. , on a monumental tomb in Smjadovo, district of Shumen, northeast Bulgaria is a recent discovery (2000) after a rescue excavation a burial mound No 47, west of a Thracian settlement, 4th - 3rd century BC. Ed. pr. in Gicheva, R. and Rabadhziev, K. (2002, 55042

Georgiev 1983, 1160-61; Duridanov 1975, 90-91. Filow 1934, 63. 44 Georgiev 1983. 45 Katičić 1976. 43

18

The Thracian Inscriptions

557). In this case, we will divide the first word in three, GONI MA SHZH. This looks like a banal example of a funerary inscription in the accusative case. The editors of the inscription suggested a thoroughly unacceptable interpretation. We will follow and apply our method of internal reconstruction. First, I will argue the very structure of this whole line, as it appears on the tomb. As we have already made it clear, the Thracian /s/ between vowels changes to /z/. Therefore, one should expect the sigma to be a Z. And this is our first argument that the sequence starts from S on yielding a separate word . Then, we feel that we should , where MA is easily have two other separate words out of identifiable as possessive-pronominal stem from *ma- “my, mine”.46 As for we see a dative ending –i (already evidenced in many examples, e.g. , , etc.) from IE *gwn-i “woman, wife”. Following this logic of interpretation, we can get back to the Greek . translation “Seuthes’ wife” and follow up on the developments in We already know that there is no theta in Thracian and that the Greeks perceived the Thracian /t/ from IE */th/ as theta. The phoneme /t/ in its turn was subjected to assibilation and hence the result /z/, e.g. from *Di-, the dative form of the IE word for “light”. The development so far takes us to Seout, Seth, Sez because the diphthong existed in the Greek version of that royal name. But in fact, the original Thracian etymon was Sese. We are not sure about the nominative ending in Thracian and we prefer to consider that /s/ was not used as such. A good parallel is seen in Sese47 in an inscription from Germania Superior: Sese Lenulae f. D[a]nsala mil. ex coh. [IIII?] Thracum, etc.

VI. The Inscription from Sitovo In the hills near the village of Sitovo near Plovdiv, an inscription was found in the late 1920’s.48 Ex autopsias, L. S. Bayun suggested a new reading and a tentative translation in a Phrygian dialect.49 This gave

46

Bader 1986, 115. CIL 13, 7049, see Detschew 434. 48 See Guerassimova-Tomova 1989, 131-40, for a full account on the history of the problem with the inscription. Note that the title of her article in the original publication is in quotation marks and according to it “la formation rupestre près de Sitovo n’est pas une inscription.” 49 She considers the inscription genuine and dates it between the 3rd and the 1st centuries BC: Bayun and Orel 1991, 147-48. 47

The Thracian Inscriptions

19

grounds for the inclusion of the text in the Phrygian inscriptions.50 During my visit to that place on a steep slope of the Rhodope mountain, on what seems to be a rock-cut façade of a monument, I saw clear lines of an inscription. However, after examining the script, I came to the conclusion that this could not be a Thracian inscription.

50

Orel 1997, Th-01, 352-356.

CHAPTER TWO LEGENDS FROM COINS1

1. #1 2. #7-16

(

), ca. 500-480 BC , 475-465 BC, from the Velikovo Treasure

Fig.2-1 Fig.2-2 Coins of the Thracian tribe of the Derroni ( ), (‘of the Tyntenoi”), 500-450 and 475-465 BC 3. #2,3 4. #4,5 OPHΣΚΙΩΝ, 500-480 BC (However, see Dečev 345 s.v.: , quoted by Head (19113, 195; see also Youroukova 1992, 16), connecting the name to I, 268 in the Iliad, . This is a where the Centaurs are called mountaineers typical case of Volksetymologie, the Thracian name only seeming to be a Greek word. In fact, the Greeks might have had in view that they (i.e. the Oreskioi) were really dwellers of mountains. According to Yurukova (1992, 16) the Oreskioi, who did not happen to be evidenced in any other source, are a generalized appellation for those Thracians dwelling the Paggaios mountain. The only two hoards of staters from the Bulgarian lands, unfortunately dispersed, were discovered in the Upper Nestos course near Nevrokop. In both cases, archaic staters of Thasos have been discovered along with the Oreskioi stateres, similar in their iconography, which according to Yurukova belong to the same geographical region. As 1

The list has been compiled according to Yurukova 1992.

22

Legends from Coins

both types of coins were in circulation in the Upper Nestos course, one might assume that those were the territories of the Oreskioi; their mint was not far from Thasos in the region of Paggaios. 5. #17,18 ΜΟΣΣΗΩ, (i.e. “(belongs) to Mosses”), 475-465 BC, Detschew 325 quoting Head 19113, 200 gives and ΜΟΣΣΗΣ (Mωσσεω and Moσσεω); cf. also Detschew 325 and IGBulg. III 1473. 6. #19 GETA BAΣIΛEY HΔΩΝΕΩΝ, 476-465 BC, see Yurukova (1992, 25) for details. She claims that the coin and its legend are absolutely authentic and the only sources about this Thracian king. 7. #22-30 , 445-435 BC. This is a coin of the first Thracian king of the Bisaltae, who had minted coins in the area between the lower Struma and lower Vardar. , last decade of the 5th century 8. #31-37 BC, a type silenos/kantharos coin, see Yurukova (1992, 43-45).2 9. #38 and #39, #40-1, 40-2 , last quarter of the 4th century BC to 350 BC, Yurukova (1992, 47-48).3 10. #41,42,43 MHTOKO beginning of 4th BC.4 ( ) 387-383 BC. 11. #44-1,44-2, 45-48 12. #49-57 KOTY 382-359 BC. 13. #58-65 AMATOKO, i. e. Amotokos II. 14. #66, 67 351-350-347 BC, Teres II. 15. #68, 69 ( ) 356-352; the pi is shaped as gama; minted near Thasos. ( ), i.e. ‘belongs to Kersobleptes’, 359-346 16. #70-72 BC.5 , 340-316 BC. 17. #73-74 18. #75-105 ΣΕΥΘΟΥ, 320/315-316 BC. 19. #106 [ΒΑ]ΣΙΛΕΩΣ / [Σ]ΠΑΡΤΟΚΟΥ 281-279/277 BC. 20. #107-111 ΣΚΟΣΤΟΚΟΥ, 277-260 BC; 108, 109 - ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΛΥΣΙΜΑΧΟY ΣΚΟΣΤΟΚΟΥ. 21. #112 ΡΟΙΓΟΥ, first half of 3rd BC. 2

See also Dimitrov K. 1999. Dimitrov K. 1999, 175-180, claiming that these belong not to Seuthes I, but to Seuthes II. 4 Cf. the last reference on MHTOKO in Dimitrov K. 1999 with chronology; Schoenert-Geiss 1985; 1987, 27, 51-52; Yurukova 1992, 53-56, 62. 5 The reading belongs to Yurukova. I think that the correct one should be with an e after Kers-E-bleptes. 3

Legends from Coins

23

22. #119-120 ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΚΟΤΥΟΣ, ca. 270 BC; reverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΡΕΣΚΟΥΠΟΡΕΩΣ. 23. #121-122 …ΤΥ. . ΚΟΤΥΣ 171-167 BC; 122: [Β]ΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΣ] [ΚΟ]ΤΙ. 24. #133-139, 175-100 BC Mostis; [ΒΑΣ]ΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΟΣΤΙΔΟΣ ΕΠΙ ΣΑΔΑΛΟΥ; 134 ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩ(Σ) ΜΟΣΤΙΔΟΣ. 25. #140-143 ΚΟΤΥΟC (sic!) ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ; 142: ΚΟΤΥΟ(C), 143 [ΒΑΣΙΛ]ΕΩΣ [ΚΟ]ΤΥ[ΟΣ]. 26. # 144-146 ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΣ] ΣΑΔΑΛ[ΟΥ], 48-42 BC. 27. #147-150 ΡΕΣΚΟΥΠΟΡΙΣ 48-43/42 ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΡΕΣΚΟΥΠΟΡΕΩΣ. 28. #151 on the reverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ RΟΙΜΗΤΑΛΚΟΥ, 10 BC-12 AD, many instances.

CHAPTER THREE EVIDENCE FROM METAL VESSELS

Pre-Roman Times 1. If we go in chronological order, we should perhaps start this list with an urn (now in the museum of Karlovo) found near the principal route between Plovdiv and Karlovo inscribed with a two-line text Μιλητια / Επιαιος (the second line in retrograde)1. 2. , on two silver-gilt phialae, a silver mug and a silver rhyton from the Bashova Mogila at Duvanlij, Inv. Nos. 1515-1518. See Chapter One.

Fig. 3-1. The silver mug from the Bashova Mogila at Duvanlij

1

Archibald 1998, 148, n. 65, Domaradzka, addendum to Domaradzki 1993, 57, n. 7. The inscription is said to be dated in the 6th BC. The script would then be one of the oldest in the Thracian inland and comparable to that in the Kyolmen inscription. Is that really the case? Non vidi.

26

Evidence from Metal Vessels

The Treasure from Rogozen2 The inscriptions are grouped according to the way they were written. Mihailov distinguished between inscriptions where letters were made out of dots (en pointillé) and inscriptions carved on the surface of the metal. The different techniques used were found on a tray with a mythological scene (see below No. 2). Two people worked on it (two hands?). The treasure was found accidentally in a field near Rogozen, NW Bulgaria, by a farmer working on his property. The vessels were buried in two lots 50 cm deep into the soil. A total of 165 pieces made of silver, weighing 19. 91 kilograms were discovered on that spot situated north of the Haemus (Stara Planina) Mountain. The inscriptions include:3

Inscriptions en pointillé a. , on a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22327. G. Mihailov preferred this reading for a reading with - at the end. Although there is a sign resembling that of a upsilon, the rest of the finds show a consistent use of - and not a single instance of a - ending. b. , on a silver-gilt phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22304. c. Two instances of , on two silver phialae, Inv. No. NIM 22342 and 22346. Argiske/Ergiske should be localized in the lower Hebros valley and its name is related to the name of the small river Erginos, a tributary of the Hebros River, cf. Mihailov (1987, 1, 9). . On a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22343. d. For its localization, see above. . On a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22331. For e. Apros (later Roman colony Apri), localized near the Propontis, see Theopomp. FGrH 115, F 160 in St. Byz. 107. 5, Ptol. 3. 11. 7, Strabo, 7. frg. 55, Plin. NH 4. 47, cf. Detschew 20. f. . On a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22330. g. , on two silver phialae, Inv. Nos. NIM 22328 and 22340. Cf. No. 22 below. on a silver phiale, Inv. No. h. NIM 22329. 2 3

Mihailov 1987. Concerning the date of the inscriptions: Mihailov 1987, 1, 10.

Evidence from Metal Vessels

27

The damaged rim of the vessel does not allow for a secure reading of the delta in Disloias. According to G. Mihailov it is dubious, and he (lambda) a possible variant. I think that the considered an initial Thracian material offers every supporting evidence of phonological point of view to interpret this character as a delta rather than a lambda. (For further considerations to that effect see in the second part of this book dealing with the phonological theory of the Thracian material)

Fig. 3-2. Silver phiale from the Rogozen treasure, Inv. No. 22329 i. , a silver phiale, Inv. № NIM 22347. j. (also see below two other examples (the phiale from Alexandrovo and that from in a private collection), a silver phiale, Inv. № NIM 22345. . On a silver phiale, Inv. № NIM 22341. k. Because of the specific word formation of Thracian names, we can assume that this name is a composite one, where its components are in -, on the one hand, and , on the * other hand. (More information further on in Chapter Three and Chapter Five) l. , on a silver-gilt jug, Inv. No. NIM 22412. , on a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM m. 22344. For the variation Kerse-/ Kerso- in this name see further on in

28

Evidence from Metal Vessels

Chapter Five.4 For the ending e- in Kerse- compare DADALEME on the silver phialae from Duvanlij.5

Graffiti n. seems to be added 5 cm aside to the left of, on a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22345. (see above under No. 10). These letters have been carved (not dotted) by someone else. was incised at the bottom of a phiale from the treasure of o. Rogozen Inv. No. NIM . 22340. Cf. g. above. , then or p. A longer inscription beginning with (?) vacat vacat …, on the bottom of a silver jug, Inv. No. NIM 22418. G. Mihailov is not certain about the reading. The sequences do not yield to any known name or word. (see above b.) there is q. On the same vessel that bears . G. Mihailov gave no explanation. Some suggested this to also be the Greek adverb for “indeed”. However, this seems not to be the case. We will reconsider it later, in connection of the formulaic language of other inscriptions, e.g. on a phiale from Duvanlij, district of Plovdiv , on a gold ring (ancient Philippolis) a short inscription reads from Ezerovo inscribed with Greek letters in the Thracian language , etc. another one reads The following inscriptions on metal vessels (4. - 7.) belong to the first group A, made en pointillé.

Phiale from Vratsa < > on a phiale from the mound of Mogilanska Mogila in the same region as Rogozen (district of Vratsa). According to G. Mihailov, 1987, the inscriber committed an error writing ET instead of EG as it is clear from h.: . Actually, “errors” of that sort and others, such as omissions of letters, occur often times.

4

The two differently spelled forms did not go unnoticed. Badian 1983, 55 and n. 13. and Archibald 1998, 232 made note of it. The latter attributes the first to epigraphic texts and the second to literary ones. 5 Two silver-gilt phialae, a silver mug and a silver rhyton from the Bashova Mogila at Duvanlij: Filow 1934, 63, no. 2, 65, no. 3, 67, no. 4.

Evidence from Metal Vessels

29

Fig. 3-3. Silver phiale from the Mogil Inv. No. B-68.

Phiale from Alexandrovo anskata Mogila tumulus, , on a phiale from Alexandrovo (district of Lovech).

Phiale from a private collection or or on a phiale (probably from the region of Pleven, not far from Vratsa, private collection).

The Treasure from Borovo , on a rhyton and jug from Borovo (see Ivanov 1982, 22-35, pl. 27, fig 12, a, b, c). ( or or ) on a rhyton from Borovo. , as the inscription reads, is a misspelling committed by the inscriber.

Phiale from Agighol, Romania , on a phiale from Agighiol (district of Tulcea in northern Dobrudza, Romania) (see Berciu 1974, 57-59, fig. 14 (facsimile).

30

Evidence from Metal Vessels

Phiale from Branichevo , on a phiale from Branichevo, (district of Shumen, northeast Bulgaria). G. Mihailov’s comment (Mihailov 1987) about the last two words is that this was an addition made by someone else in bigger characters. All these inscriptions constitute a separate field in the interpretation of Thracian onomastics. Although written in Greek, they give us an idea of the formulaic language used in similar cases. Of particular importance to the material under study are the genitive forms. The proper (personal) names followed by a preposition and again a name in the genitive is the most common formula that occurs with these inscriptions. The second genitive is a place name. The meaning of those genitives seems to be clear. G. Mihailov thinks that the first one is to designate the owner of the vessel, while the second is assumed to be the place it is coming from. G. Mihailov argues that the interpretation of the second genitive (that of the place name) is not to be understood as the birth place of the owner. He is adducing the text of f. to support his translation, which is “(vessel) of Kotys, Satokos, etc. (proper names in genitive) from Beos, etc.” Mihailov made a good point observing that if the second genitive was to be understood as the names of the towns which offered gifts to Kotys, the prepositions or would have been used.6 Another interesting insight is the probability that the owner had a twofold intention by indications that not only these precious gifts were his property, but also that the towns were part of his estate. Looking at all these inscriptions, one cannot help noticing that Didykaimos, Satokos, Kotys, Kersebleptes, Teres, and Amatokos, all owners of precious vessels, could well be historical figures, members of the Odrysian royal family, end of 5th- first half of the 4th century BC: Satokos is known as the son of Sitalces; Kotys is the Elder Kotys, cruel king that lived between 383 and 359 BC; Kersebleptes, his son, ruled between 359 and 341 BC. Ergiske was a town on the lower Hebros river; Apros(n) is not far from there, in the Propontis region. Beos(-n) was not known, however the Roman station of Beo-dizos or Be-dizos was situated near Apros(-n).

6

Mihailov 1987.

Evidence from Metal Vessels

31

The phiale from Kazanluk On the bottom of a small phiale found during excavations conducted in the so-called “Valley of the Thracian Kings” near the town of Kazanluk, there is the following text in scriptio continua: , which I interpreted as follows: “(vessel of) Dyntas (Dyntos?), son of Zeila(s)”.7

Fig. 3-4. The phiale from Kazanluk The reading is based on autopsy. The signs of the letters were incised with a tool. Several observations are to be made about the possible reading: (1) Whoever incised the signs on the bottom of the phiale is not to be compared with his Greek counterparts as regards the form of the letters, and the way the short text had been edited; (2) Letters such as the “dzeta”, the hesitation in the orientation of “delta”, the “sigma” at the end; Besides, when deciding on the final reading, there are other considerations, such as the historical and cultural traditions of the inscriptions found in Bulgaria. This phiale is, in the first place, not to be isolated from the rest of the inventory of Thracian phialae, as the artistic form and the contents of the short texts show.

7

Dimitrov 1995, 23-25.

32

Evidence from Metal Vessels

The possible objections raised will be addressed elsewhere, but I will mention the most important here: after the name of ( ), which The case of the “irregular” In many ways, the Greek inscriptions should be in the genitive case: found in Bulgaria, follow a local tradition of competence in using a foreign language, and there are a number of parallel instances in that sense.8 Also, one should take into consideration the natural milieu in which these inscriptions were written and therefore should not venture into looking for exotic names or reaching for uncertain solutions. In the end, the main difficulty was primarily in identifying signs like “I” for “dzeta”, and the reading of the characters after ; it looks like a ligature (a ligature would be too strange to appear so early in the 6th -5th century BC), but to my mind it is, within the text of the inscription, a badly executed one after so many hesitations. The engraver was in fact not a professional one but rather a stranger who used Greek characters and language. The difficulty of the reading is in the “ligature” of A and Y. The name of the main character is interesting for us in several ways. First, both names appear for the first time here. For ( ) we can say - and ( ). The form with –s is not that it is a compound made of secure and this nominative could be restored to . The distinction between H and I (iota) make us think of at least one obvious conclusion. Namely, that the stem ZH was productive ever since the 6th BC. There are no examples of that time with Z for what seems to be PIE *dy-.

A gold ring , Filow 1934,105, on a gold ring with an image of a horseman, found in a 5th century BC burial. According to the practice in Thrace (see the inscribed phialae from Rogozen and elsewhere), this is a genitive case-form, translated as “belongs to Skythodokos”. This is a perfectly good Thracian name with a second element –dokos/-tokos (Detschew, 145, 462-463; Dečev 1960, 158-76; Beševliev 1965b, 13-14; 1-57; Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 190, 198). J. Boardman, in his work on 8

Nominative for Genitive: Meisterhans 1900, 203:” In Rechenschaftsablagen tritt hauefig fuer einem Genetiv, Dativ, Akkusativ oder praepositionalen Kasus in freierer Weise des Nominativ ein: bei Appositionen: CIA II. 809, c, 170 (325 v. Chr.); Hodot 1990, 116, n. 168 Nominatif employé pour le génitif?; 122 (n. 205) Mayser 1935-1970, 193 lines 4, 6, 25; 206.

Evidence from Metal Vessels

33

Greek gems and fingerings, advanced an explanation of the inscription which reads, as follows: “an odd name which should mean “friend” or “host of the Scythian” (Boardman 2001, 230). He is followed by other scholars (IGDOP, 13-14; SEG 44, 1999, No. 871).

Fig. 3-5. Gold Ring of Skythodokos

Two silver phialae and a bronze helmet from Shipka, from the Golyama Kosmatka tumulus 1. 2.

9

Kitov 2005a, 90; 2005c, 49, fig. 20, 51, fig. 22; 52

34

Evidence from Metal Vessels

Fig. 3-6. Silver phiale from Shipka

Roman Empire Times 1. , , an epithet of the Thracian Heros (Horseman) on a silver vessel from Brestnitsa, district of Pleven, north-central Bulgaria (Petkov 1960), 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. 2. , , made with gold inlay on two silver casseroles from Kyustendil, ancient Pautalia, southwest Bulgaria. It has been published by Manov (1994), 1st - 2nd century AD, where he read . The name is related to Koul- and -ktios, -k(t)us, -kous see above and Kout- and Cutiula, a personal name CIL 3, 7330, from Thessaloniki on a relief of the Thracian Heros (Horseman). A secure (see above) from Koul-kous-anos/parallel is the epithet enos. For the reading of this name, see the considerations in Chapter Four . Not in Detschew. below under

Evidence from Metal Vessels

Fig. 3-7. The Silver Casserole

35

CHAPTER FOUR THE GREEK INSCRIPTIONS

, a name (probably male) appearing only once in an inscription from Metodievo, northeast Bulgaria, see IG Bulg. II 771: , 1st - 3rd century AD. According to Mihailov the is not sure. See Detschew 2 for a division in - and the alternating / , although there is no evidence from inscriptions found in Bulgaria for an independent use of the latter.1 -, IGBulg. V 5687, - (vacat). Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2338, a strategia (military district), 3rd century AD. See Detschew 7. , IGBulg. IV 1927, 2nd - 3rd century AD, on a column inscribed with names (a sacred catalog?); an epithet of . * , see above. The name of the place, village or small town, where had been celebrated. , IGBulg. I, 322ter from Mesambria (3rd - 2nd century BC): [ ] Mihailov; II 560 f. “reperta in Asclepeio ad Glava Panega, (gen. ); nunc in museo Serdicensi conservatur (inv. 3883)”; II 845 3rd AD; , III 1690 III, 1204 b18, from Pizos, 202 AD; III 1735 from Viden, near ancient Seuthopolis in the sanctuary of the Thracian Heros, 3rd century AD. , a personal feminine name, IGBulg. IV 2338, around the end of the 1st century AD.

1

On the phonological variants

,

, etc., see Chapter Five.

38

The Greek Inscriptions

, a personal feminine name, IGBulg. III 974, in the vicinity of ancient Philippopolis: , 3rd century AD; Detschew 9 , masc., incorrect reading. vacat , an epithet of Asklepios, IGBulg. 5810, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , a personal name, IGBulg. IV 2233 line 2, probably from the 3rd century AD. See further discussion about Ai- versus Oi- and the names of a town in Homer Iliad, 6. 304 Steph. Byz. 487. 7: Pliny NH 4. 42: Oesyma. Not in Detschew. , a feminine personal name from Odessos, IGBulg. I 187, ] …, cf. considered Oriental by Mihailov: …[[ Zgusta KPN § 57, 1-33. Amazenes, in a funerary inscription Damanaeo Amazeni, from Cabyle, 150 AD, Mihailov 1961, 208 and Velkov 1991, 29. , a personal male name in IGBulg. III 1732: [ ] dated to the early 3rd . century BC. Cf. IV 2297 line 4 (near Sandanski) , a female personal name from Odessos, IGBulg. I, 178, considered Oriental by Mihailov: “… …”, cf. Zgusta KPN § 57, 1-33. Detschew 16 considers it Thracian. , a personal female name from Odessos, IGBulg. I, 178, considered Oriental by Mihailov. Detschew 16 considers it Thracian. , a personal male name from the Asclepeion in Glava Panega, IGBulg. II 532, 533, 534, from 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2217, 2218, 3rd century AD. This is the same person whose name is ( ) ( ) [ ] , see IGBulg. IV 2338, end of the 1st century AD, . (cf. the phiale from Branichevo in Metal Vessels) , a personal name from Lipnik, district of Razgrad, northeast Bulgaria, IGBulg. V, 5269: . Not in Detschew. , an epithet of Apollo IGBulg. III 1723, and see the lemma, 1st - 3rd century AD. (?), IGBulg. III 1074, 211 AD. , vel - , . A silver phiale from the Treasure from Rogozen, Inv. No. NIM 22331; , on a silver phiale

The Greek Inscriptions

39

from Rogozen, Inv. No. NIM 22330. For Apros (later Roman colony Apri), localized near the Propontis, see Theopompos FGrH 115, F 160 in St. Byz. 107. 5, Ptol. 3. 11. 7, Strabo, 7. frg. 55, Plin. NH 4. 47; cf. Detschew 20 (Cf. Chapter Three). , IGBulg. I, 281 bis, as a second name of a wife of a Thracian. Not in Detschew. The variant occurs in I, 77 as a priest’s name. , a town, from an inscription found in Dionysopolis, now Dobrich, northeast Bulgaria, IGBulg. I, 13, line 6. According to Mihailov in its original (see also Detschew 121) the name seems to be form, as there are many forms in from – , the word in ; around 48 BC. Thracian for “(market) town” besides , in two instances off , on two silver phialae, Inv. No. NIM 22342 and 22346. Argiske/Ergiske should be localized in the lower Hebros valley and its name is related to the name of the small river Erginos, a tributary of the Hebros River, cf. Mihailov 1987, . Not in Detschew. 1, 9. See , IGBulg. III, 1206 from Batkun, district of Philippopolis. Ethnicon: . Mihailov quotes an inscription from CIL 6, 2799 line 27 “M. Aur. M. f. Fl. Diza vico Ardileno” (from Philippopolis), which makes the ethnicon certain. , in Manov 2008, 126, 2nd - 3rd AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. Two short notes. There is a redundant phoneme variant rendered through beta as opposed to - ou. Therefore, we could make the assumption that the second component of this composite from *poris, *por. name is perhaps , IGBulg. IV 2074 from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , [ , an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. III, 1599 from Augusta Traiana, 1st - 3rd AD. Here belongs * , the name of the place where this local god was worshiped. From the name of the river ? , IGBulg. IV, 2003, epithet of Hera from Dolni Lozen, district of Sofia. , vel – , IGBulg. V, 5011 line 9. 1st century BC - 1st century AD. Place-name from Moesia inferior. , IGBulg. III 1588 from Karanovo but brought there from Augusta Traiana, see comments by , an epithet to Zeus Sebazios, 202 AD. Mihailov:

40

The Greek Inscriptions

, IGBulg. II 677, 678, an epithet of Zeus Sabazios from Nicopolis ad Istrum. , IGBulg. III 980, an epithet of Hera from Philippopolis, 3rd century AD. , , from an inscription on a column, see Dimitrov 2008 (forthcoming). , vel , IGBulg. III 1662, an epithet of the Heros from southern Thrace in Bulgaria. , IGBulg. IV 2319, an epithet of the Heros from Melnik, southwest Bulgaria. , IGBulg. V, 5883, line 8, from Kresna, southwest Bulgaria (see IGBulg. IV, p. 233) personal name that is considered Oriental by Zgusta (Zgusta KPN § 117,2). , Manov 2008, 124, not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1116 from Batkun, district of Philippopolis, a . Cf. also IV 2338 , another form military district for that same military district. , IGBulg. III 1393. , a Thracian male name, IGBulg. II 856, 1st- 2nd century AD. The is not certain, possibly ? The inscription is dedicated to the same god as in II 804 and 855. , an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 1859, 1860, 155-156 AD. , an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. I 353, near A Mesambria, 1st century BC; , V 5381, 3rd century AD, an epithet of the Thracian Heros; II 802, 841, 3rd century AD; V 5394bis, 1st - 3rd century AD, an inscription now in the Museum of the town of Poltava (Ukraine). This inscription has been found on the North Black Sea coast. ( ) , IGBulg. II 801, 3rd AD; III 1838, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1622 line 2; III 1838; III 1597; , V 5394, 3rd century AD, an epithet of the Thracian Heros. , IGBulg. III 1593 line 18, 1st - 3rd century AD. -, IGBulg. II 845; IGBulg. III 1522, 1528, 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5345 from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1524, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 275 from Odessos, 2nd - 3rd century AD (?).

The Greek Inscriptions

41

, IGBulg. III 1760, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 374, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 374, 2nd - 3rd AD; , I 402, after 19 AD, a dedication to his daughter; I 281 bis, from Ezerovo, 2nd - 3rd century AD; I 378, after 19 A. D; II 542 from Glava Panega; II 830 and 839; , IGBulg. II 846; III 1112, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1169, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1218, 2nd – 3rd century AD; III 1404 , 3rd century AD; III 1598, 1st III 1529, 2nd - 3rd century AD; rd st rd , III 1599, 1 - 3 century AD; 3 century AD; , III 1670, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1703, st rd 1 - 3 century AD; III 1690b 48, , 3rd century rd century AD; III 1690b 48 AD; III 1690c 21, 3 , 3rd century AD; III 1690 b 49; III 1690c 63, 3rd century AD; III 1690b 22, 3rd century AD; , III 1690 b 56, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 31, 3rd century AD; III 1690b , 56, 3rd century AD; III 1690 d 23; 1690b26 rd rd 3 century AD; , III 1690 b 68, 3 century AD; , III 1690 c 64, 3rd century AD; III 1713, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1832; , III 1806, 1st rd st rd century AD; III 1832, 1 - 3 century AD; – 3 , III 1846, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1852, 1 – 3 century AD; IV 2201, near Pautalia, 2nd- 3rdcentury AD; IV 3rd century AD; 2234 from Sportela (Rila) 2nd nd , V 5300, 2 - 3rd century AD; , V 5360 from ancient Marcianopolis, present-day Devnya. This occurrence does not exist in Detschew; V 5365, , 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5368; , in V 5380; V 5652, from Bizone, 3rd century AD; V 5824, from Daskalovo, 3rd century AD; , V 5380; V 5381; , V 5394bis. st

rd

42

The Greek Inscriptions

2nd- 3rdcentury AD.

, IGBulg. V 5343, from Marcianopolis, , IGBulg. II 677 from Nicopolis ad Istrum, 2nd - 3rd

century AD. nd

rd

, IGBulg. III 1734, 1st-3rd century AD; V

5467, 2 - 3 century AD. , IGBulg. I 278, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1316, 3rd century st rd A. D; III 1627, 1 - 3 century AD and Böttger and Halloff (1991, 478481), from Karasura. , IGBulg. II 838; IGBulg. II 841 ; II 868; , IGBulg. III 963, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1515 b 13, 14, 15, 27-28, 3rd century AD; III 1659, 1st - 3rd century AD; , III 1690 , III 1806, 1st column b line 25, 202 AD; 3rd century AD; III 1853, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1880, 1st - 3rd century AD; , V 5329, from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd nd rd century AD; V 5613, 2 - 3 century AD; V 5334, 161 AD. , IGBulg. V 5287, 5288, 5289, all from the sanctuary of Draganovets, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5291, 5290, 5292, all from the sanctuary of Draganovets, northeast Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5294, an epithet of the Thracian Horseman from the Draganovets sanctuary, northeast Bulgaria, and possibly in V (vel . . ), see Mihailov. Not in Detschew. 5306 .. , in , IGBulg. III 1816, from the sanctuary of the Thracian Horseman near Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 844, a Thracian female name. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1446, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1074 c 12, 3rd century AD; , III 1690 d 12, 202 AD; , III st , III 1814, 1 - 3rd 1690 d 19, 202 AD; century AD; IV 2074 from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2079 from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD: - or ; IV 1947 from

The Greek Inscriptions

43

Serdica, 2nd -3rd AD; , V 5436; V 5475, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. V 5011, 1st century BC - 1st century AD. According to Mihailov this place-name is Greek, however there is a more plausible explanation through the so-called ‘Greek interpretation’ of foreign (e. g. in this case Thracian) words, as it is e. g. Utlesbis about which Dečev 39 s. v. is advancing the hypothesis of it being a corrupt wrongly recorded version of Utesbis: ‘ja eine Dublettform des thrak. sein kann’. Yet another possibility to explain this name is through syncope, which occurs in many a case.2 , IGBulg. I 426 from ancient Apollonia (now Sozopol), 5th th 4 century BC, ethnicon to the Thracian tribe of the Apsinthioi, who inhabited the territory north of Thracian Chersonnesos. Detschew 39 rejects the possible link of this name to the herb name , which according to Hesychius has the form ( ) or according to Etymologicum Magnum the form , and derives it from the root ap- /ab- “water, stream” as in Apsus, a name for a river once on the territory of present-day Albania. On that same ground, Detschew 39 thinks that Apsus is a Thracian name. Mihailov, in IGBulg. I 426, is skeptical about its Thracian origin. He had rather take it for Greek “optime Graecum esse potest”. L. Robert considered it to be Thracian3. The Apsinthioi are mentioned in Herodotus 6. 34, as subduing the Thracian tribe of the Dologkoi in war. Strabo 7. frg. 58 provides information on the place name (the land of the Apsinthioi) which in his time was changed to ( ), belonging to another Thracian tribe. The same information is stated in Steph. Byz. 153. 8. For other occurrences see Detschew 39. Whether Apsinthioi is the true Thracian form, or it should be understood as a Greek version which was attested in this inscription of the 5th - 4th century BC and corroborated by the literary evidence, will be discussed later in Phonology. However, we have to state that this is so far the only occurrence of the letter psi in an inscription. Detschew 39 was not aware of this occurrence.

2

See also Duridanov (1976, 53). Perhaps our best supporting evidence comes from the Thracian inscription from Kyolmen, see above Chapter One, as well as Dimitrov 2003, 351. 3 Robert, L. 1959, 230, n. 1.

44

The Greek Inscriptions

, IGBulg. II 761. IGBulg. II 524. , IGBulg. IV 2173 from Caristorum, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 c 40, 202 AD: its inhabitants . , IGBulg. III 1690 c 40, 202 AD: the inhabitants of and III 1690 c 92, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1438, 3rd century AD. vel , IGBulg. IV 2077, from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 714, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, 3rd century AD. vel

, IGBulg. IV 2077, from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd

century AD. , epithet of Heros, IGBulg. II 706,707 from Paskalevets, district of Tirnovo, central Bulgaria. , in Manov 2008, 126-7, 2nd – 3rd century AD, from the town museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. , in Manov 2008, 131, 3rd century AD, a male name from Sandanski, southwest Bulgaria (see also Angelov 2003, 142). Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 48 line 7, 238 AD; II 566 from Glava Panega; II 590, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 1934, from Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5836, 2nd - 3rd century AD; 1953, from Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2078, , from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Mihailov considers this name to be either Thracian or Roman (Latin). , IGBulg. I 51c 9, cf. II 542, 566, I 48, 133, 3rd century AD (the latter not in Detschew). See also , i. e. “Bessus for himself” in Marazov et al. 1996, no. 45; Kabakchieva 2000, no. 57. It is hard to say whether Bessus is Thracian or Roman. End of third century AD. See also G. Mihailov’s comment (Mihailov 1977, 346). , IGBulg. IV 2350, from Novo Lyaski, on the Nestos river, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 440, 5th - 4th century BC. Not in Detschew.

The Greek Inscriptions

,

45

IGBulg. III 1488, 3rd century AD; , III 1690 c 42, 202 AD. , IGBulg. V 5328, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in

Detschew. , a town, now Hisar north of Plovdiv, IGBulg. II 1474, 3rd century AD. , inhabitants of

IGBulg. II 1474, 3rd century

AD. , IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 17; , IV 2234, from Sportela (Rila), southwest Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 15, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 19, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1338, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 d 21, 202 AD. IGBulg. II 512 from Glava Panega, northwest Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , III 1714, 2nd rd 3 century AD; Detschew 165: , cf. Detschew 439, IGBulg. I 354 quarter , 1st century AD (?); I 334 novies, DOYTOYBEH4 ?), a from Mesambria, according to Mihailov for female, 4th century BC; Mihailov after all is not fully persuaded for such a conjecture. , IGBulg. II 555; , II 694, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , rd III 1039, III IGBulg. II 843, 3 century AD; 1402 – a horseman, III 1474; III 1090 b 24, b 22, b25, 3rd AD; III 1516, whose father is ; , brother of III 947 line9; III 1398, , son of III III 1283, 1005, III 1419, III 1542, , who is a priest of the Syrian Goddess III 918, 4

See Dimitrov P. 2005, 61.

46

The Greek Inscriptions

,

who

is a Greek magistrate III 1430, III 1405, 3rd century AD, III 1439, III 1440, III 1441, III 881 line 8, III 1342, III 1057, III 1496, IGBulg. III 1465, Thracian (?) or Latin Cercius, III 1199, 3rd century AD; , III 1350, 3rd century AD; III 1332, III 951, III 1307, st rd III 1452; ,III 1559, 1 -3 century AD; , III ,III 1626, 1st – 3rd century AD; 1627, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1666, 222-231 AD; , III 1690 b 20, c 25, c 38 and d 42, 202 AD; III 1690 b 32, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 34, 202 AD; ,III 1690 b 57, 202 AD; ,III 1690 b 65, 202 AD;III 1690 c 35 , 202 AD; , III 1690 c 41, 202 AD and IV 2274 from Sandanski, southwest Bulgaria, 150 AD; , III 1690 c 22, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 42, 202 AD; , III , III 1690 c 67, 202 AD; 1690 c 66, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 69, 202 AD; , , III III 1690 c 70, 202 AD; III 1690 d 46, 202 AD; 1690 c 93, 202 AD; vel , III 1784, 1st - 3rd century AD; , an ex-voto for , and his wife , III 1803, 1st - 3rd century AD; , IGBulg. III 1804, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1833, 1st - 3rd century AD. , son of IV 2253, from Ilindentsi, near the border with Greece, on the Nestos river, IV 2134 from Dolna Dikanya, 2nd century AD(?); near Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2233 and IV 2234, , from Sportela, now Rila, southwest Bulgaria, nd rd , 198 AD; IV 2230, 2 - 3 century AD; IV 2311: , from Barakovo, near Blagoevgrad, southwest Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 1984 from Potop, near Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2341 , (a priest?), nd rd from Nicopolis ad Nestum, 2 - 3 century AD; , IV 2232 from Sportela, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2010 from Ivanyane, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2225 from Vaksevo, southwest Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century

The Greek Inscriptions

47

AD; IV 2346 from Nicoplois ad Nestum, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2261 from Ploski, southwest Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2322 , from Lehovo, southwest Bulgaria, 211 AD; , IV 2234; V 5589, 77 AD; 5861; 5883, 77 AD; , Manov not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1690 c 43, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 70, 202 AD; , V 5462, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2121 epithet of Heracles, 1st - 3rd century AD; Detschew 48 regarded it as derived either from * , a place-name, or from * , a non-syncopated form of the tribe name Bisaltai. The diphthong -ei- may well be a genuine Thracian one as the diphthongs tend to keep their form despite the Greek graphemic variants 5. (adj.), from an inscription in ancient Pistiros. See Velkov and Domaradzka 1994, 1-15; …. ; and see below. -, IGBulg. IV 2008, where the epithet is , q. v., 2nd - 3rd century AD. probably , IGBulg. III 1690 c66, 1st -3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1344, a female dedicant to the Nymphs, 1st nd BC - 2 century AD. , IGBulg. II 861, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 956, 1st - 2nd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1455, 1472, 3rd century AD; V 5534, 211212 AD. , IGBulg. III 1801, 1st - 3rd century AD; a rock vel , IV 2019 app. cr. Not clear. Very dubious; , a female name, IGBulg. III 1828, 1st – 3rd (?) , from Saladinvo near Pazardjik, century AD; Gočeva (1989, 113-115). Ed. pr. . However, see H. Plekett’s comment in SEG 41, 1991, p. 200 at 608: he reads . Gočeva did not date the inscription; the sanctuary being known to us by other inscriptions, we could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. See also

5

See Dimitrov 2007a.

48

The Greek Inscriptions

, from Burdapa, III 1347, 3rd century AD. Another graphemic variant of .6 , Kabakchieva (2000, nd rd 121), 2 - 3 century AD. A rectangular ex-voto made by the dedicant Bendis, wife of Dizza(s). , wife of Seuthes III, Elvers 1994, 241-66, end of 4th century BC, see also IGBulg. III 1731 from ancient Seuthopolis. , IGBulg. III 1690 d 52, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 c 17, 202 AD. a Thracian tribe in the Rhodope Mountain region, localized around Bessapara, as well as in the mountainous regions of ancient Orbelos and Haimos: IGBulg. I 344, line 3, 1st AD (see Hdt. 7. 111).7 See also on a votive stele (?) the personal name and then , which I believe should be restored to i. e. “Bessus for himself”. It is hard to say whether Bessus is Thracian or Roman (Marazov et al. 1996,116-18), end of third century BC. : , inhabitants of Bessopara, IGBulg. III 947, 3rd century AD. , inhabitants of Bessopara, IGBulg. III 947, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 856, 3rd century AD, an epithet of the Thracain Heros; see , IGBulg. II 804, 3rd century AD and rd , II 855, 3 century AD. , IGBulg. III 1542, an epithet of the Thracain Heros, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD; , III 1690 b 15. , IGBulg. III 1572 is a wrong reading for Teres, see ad 5560=1572 , see below at . , IGBulg. I 378, , V 5011. (sic) (sic), IGBulg. V 5329, 3rd century AD (?).

6

See also Masson 1988, 10. Sarafov 1972, 115-20; 1974, 135-38; see Mihailov 1980, 13-18 for an opinion different from that expressed by T. Sarafov.

7

The Greek Inscriptions

49

IGBulg. I 12, between 16 BC and 14 AD, during the reign of Rhoimetalkes I; II 719 , 3rd - 4th century AD; II 769 , 1st - 3rd century AD; , II 844 a Thracian female name; III 1283; III 1005 , 3rd century AD; III 1057 , 3rd AD; III 1342 3rd rd st , III 1802, 1 century AD; III 1649, 3 century AD ?; , IV 2322, 211 AD; , IV 3rd century AD; st rd nd rd 2337, 1 - 3 century AD; , in Manov 2008, 126, 2 - 3 AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. -, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. III 1750. , IGBulg. II 861, a Thracian male name, 3rd century AD. (?) IGBulg. V 5883, 1st century AD. Mihailov regards it as Thracian name, but it seems that this looks more to be the Roman name Vitulus. , an epithet of the Thracian Horseman, IGBulg. III 1834 =V 5645. , IGBulg. III 1516, b21, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 177ter, 185bis, 188, V 5067, 1st - 3rd century AD, were considered by Mihailov Oriental (from Asia Minor, cf. bibliography in volume I, p. 191) unlike Detschew 536 who thinks that it is Thracian. However, Mihailov is of different opinion in volume V, p. 28 at 5054 and at 5067, p. 32: “ quod nunc Thracium esse puto”; cf. , V 5067. : , IGBulg. IV 2216, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2216, 1st - 3rd century AD. (?) , from Saladinvo near Pazardjik, Gočeva LB 32, 113-115. However, see H. Plekett’s comment in SEG 41,1991, p. 200 . Gočeva did not date the inscription; the sanctuary at 608: he reads being known to us by other inscriptions, we could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. , an epithet of the Thracain Heros, IGBulg.II 714. , Mihailov: ‘loco incerto in valle Strymonis medii’ IGBulg. IV 2331, 144 AD: ‘…6. …. littera B, quae mutila est, non tamen certa est, P?’. Cf. Detschew 79, 95.

50

The Greek Inscriptions

, IGBulg. III 1690 b 19, III 1690 c 14, 202 AD. , III 1690 c 69, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1338, 1339 from Bourdapa, 2nd 3rd century AD; , III 1341, 3rd , III 1844 below. century AD; See , IGBulg. III 1844, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1340 , inhabitant of , inhabitant of Bourdapa, III 1341. See Bourdopa, and further on in Phonology about the different vocalic variation a/e, a/o, etc. , inhabitant of Bourdopa, IGBulg. III 1340 and , inhabitant of Bourdapa, 1341. See further on in Phonology about the different vocalic variation a/e, a/o, etc. , IGBulg. V 5264=II 744, 2nd - 3rd century AD, vel , is considered now Oriental by Mihailov. Detschew 81 regards it as Thracian. We think that this is a genuine Thracian name / - and in other Thracian names. judging on the components , IGBulg. III 1690, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1631, 1st - 3rd century AD; , IGBulg. III 1690 c 36, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD; st rd , III 1599, 1 - 3 century AD; III 1690 b 48 , 3rd century AD; , III 1690 , III 1690 b 59, 202 AD; b 57, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 60, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 37 and c 52, 202 AD; , III 1807, from the sanctuary in Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1194, from Batkun, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , a town whose inhabitants were the , IGBulg. III 1473, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1473, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1366, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 976, 1st - 3rd century AD; , III 1814, 1st - 3rd century AD. , a male name (?), III 1815, 1st - 3rd century AD. 202 AD;

The Greek Inscriptions

51

, IGBulg. III 1343, from Burdapa, 1st BC - 2nd century AD. , IGBulg. III 969, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 55, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 56, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 68, 202 AD; , III 1846, 1st – 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 917, 3rd century AD. , III 1593, 1st - 3rd century AD; , III 1593, 1st - 3rd century AD; , III 1690 b 70, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 47, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 28, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 51, 202 AD; , III 1690 e 94-95, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1631, 1st – 3rd century AD. (ς) , IGBulg. III 1355, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2251 from Gorna Gradesnica near the border with Greece, 3rd century AD(?); Detschew 87 , a male. , III 1430, 3rd century AD; Detschew 90 . , IGBulg. III 1430, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. V 5687. , IGBulg. IV 2117, an epithet of Hera, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 13, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 40, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 45, 202. , IGBulg. III 1829 inhabitant of Bosagura, 1st - 3rd century AD. , , IGBulg. III 1829 inhabitant of Bosagura, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 978, 3rd century AD.

52

The Greek Inscriptions

vel , IGBulg. V 5070. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 1954 from Sofia, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1408, 3rd century AD. , a dedicant to Asklepios, on a votive plate, not far from Pautalia, present-day town of Kuystendil, southwest Bulgaria, 3rd century AD.8 Not in Detschew.

Fig. 4-1. Inscription from Kyustendil

8

Dimitrov P. 2006, 247-251. I was able to inspect this votive plate together with two other fragments in the spring of 2006 thanks to the courtesy of Ms. Lidia Staykova-Alexandrova and Mr. Andrey Tonev, curators at the Regional Museum of History in Kyustendil.

The Greek Inscriptions

53

, a female name, , IGBul. IV 2349 from Kovachevitsa near Nicopolis ad Nestum, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1816, 1st - 3rd century AD, a name for the Thracian Horseman; Detschew 100 s. v. thinks that this is the first name of a deceased man who had been made a Heros and to whom in the aftermath this inscription had been dedicated. , IGBulg. III 1474, 3rd century AD. , an epithet of the Thracian Horseman as Apollo from the sanctuary in Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis, IGBulg. III 1813, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1810, an epithet of the Thracian Horseman as Apollo from the sanctuary in Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis (across the border in Turkey), 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1807 and 1808, an epithet of the Thracian Horseman as Apollo from the sanctuary in Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 d 27, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 c 20, 202 AD. , st rd , IGBulg. III 1811 inhabitant of Geupasa, 1 - 3 century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 d 12, 202 AD. , IGBulg. I 14c line 22, 3rd century AD; I 47c line 26. , IGBulg. III 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD; -, IV 2057 from Pautalia, 135 (138?) AD; Mihailov thinks this name might also be Roman. , from Saladinvo near Pazardjik, Gočeva, LB 32, 113-115; the author did not date the inscription; the sanctuary being known to us by other inscriptions, we could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1497, an epithet of the Thracain Heros, 3rd century AD. ῷ in the Ares Collection 1996, 43 by E. Penkova who has dated it to the 2nd century AD. As I have seen on the ex-voto, a small upsilon is inserted in the middle of a rather large sigma. To be sure, the first part of this compound is secure, and we know it from other names starting with -. , a Thracian tribe, IGBul. I 323, before 48 and around 55 BC.

54

The Greek Inscriptions

, a town near the sanctuary in Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis, IGBulg. III 1811, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1811, from the sanctuary in Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis (across the border in Turkey), inhabitant of Geupasa, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1346, 3rd century AD; , IV 2343 from Nicopolis ad Nestum, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1829 inhabitant of Bosagura, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1811 an epithet of the Thracian Heros at Geupasa, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 58, 202. , IGBulg. III 1814, an epithet of the Thracian Horseman as Apollo from the sanctuary in Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis (across the border in Turkey), 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1809, an epithet of the Thracian Horseman as Apollo from the sanctuary in Lozen, district of Harmanli, northwest of ancient Hadrianopolis (across the border in Turkey), 3rd century AD. IGBulg. IV1983 near Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2251 from Gorna Gradeshnitsa, southwest Bulgaria, 3rd century AD (?). , (genitive ) IGBulg. II 501. Detschew 107: 2nd - 3rd century AD (?). Cf. II 554 the genitive same as Detschew 107. , vel , IGBulg. V 5264=II 744, 2nd - 3rd century AD. vel , inhabitants of the ancient rd IGBulg. IV 2236, 3 century AD. , IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD.

. (. ) 202 AD.

. (. )

III 1690 d 64,

The Greek Inscriptions

55

IGBulg. II 868, 869, an epithet, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , V 5385, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 867 bis, an epithet, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 752. , on two silver-gilt phialae, a silver mug and a silver rhyton from the Bashova Mogila at Duvanlij: See Chapter Three. , a place-name, from , an ethnicon. below, in Velkov 1991, 26-27. See IGBulg. III 1794. Dodoparon, present-day Golyam Manastir, was situated several kilometers south of ancient Kabyle. According to Mihailov in 1794, Dodoparon was a village with a near-by sanctuary of Apollo. , an ethnikon, see above. Velkov 1991, 26-27. , ( ) IGBulg. V 5180, nd 2 century AD. Not in Detschew. cf. , IV 2153, in , etc. , IGBulg. V 5328, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. a place-name, from an ethnicon. Velkov 1991, 26-27. See below, in IGBulg. III 1794. Dodoparon, present day Golyam manastir, was situated several kilometers south of ancient Kabyle. According to Mihailov in 1794, Dodoparon was a village with a near-by sanctuary of Apollo. , IGBulg. III 1803, an exvoto for himself and his wife , 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1188 (=V 5486), 3rd century AD. Detschew 110 . , passim. The name of this Roman province is being mentioned in a number of Greek inscriptions in Bulgaria. Inasmuch as this is the Latin word Dacia, its Greek variant, known from literary sources after 2nd century AD, this not a reason to assume that the name is genuine Thracian. However, see Detschew 111. , IGBulg. III 1852, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 853. , IGBulg. V 5329, 3rd century AD (?);

,V

56

The Greek Inscriptions

5288, 2nd - 3rd century AD. The form is not in Detschew, but see ,Detschew 114. , IGBulg. III 1690 c 54, 202 AD. IGBulg. III 1690 c 13, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 d 30, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 d 63, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 50, 202 AD. in (?) , from Saladinvo near Pazardjik, Gočeva 1989, 113-15; the author did not date the inscription; the sanctuary being known to us by other inscriptions, we could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. See SEG 41, 1991, 200 at 608. The second name should be a genitive , from . Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1412, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 768, from Eski Djumaya, now Targovishte, 3rd century AD. See also Derzelaj. , IGBulg. III 1108, 3rd century AD, a dedicant to the Thracian . Heros -, IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD. , an epithet of Apollo, from ancient Karasura, Böttger – Halloff 1991, 481-88, 3rd century AD. The editors have made mention of the only name that comes closer, namely the place name (near Edessa, Steph. Byz. 222, 4) and its inhabitants with a typical suffix although “insgesamt aber als Parallele wenig überzeugt”, see also Detschew 122. Mihailov, relying on a photograph, misread this epithet, see IGBulg. V 5591. See also SEG 41, 590. Not in Detschew. a female name, IGBulg. IV 2292, from Laskarevo. (sic) , IGBulg. V 5329, 3rd century AD (?), v. . Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2288, 165 AD. , IGBulg. III 947, 3rd century AD. 9

See Galabov 1964, passim.

The Greek Inscriptions

57

, IGBulg. IV 2292, from Laskarevo. , IGBulg. IV 1938, a personal name, after the 2nd century AD: . , IGBulg V 5918, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 947, 3rd century AD; III 1348, , 3rd century AD; , III 1204, there is a spelling mistake in ; III 1452, , 3rd century Detschew 134: AD. , IGBulg. III 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg II 761, ? , a dedicator to the Thracian Horseman from a . , IGBulg IV 2214 line 12 from Dolistovo, southwest Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Mihailov is hesitating between Greek ( ) and Thracian, adducing the examples from III 1004 and 1616; see ”. Detschew 141 “ ,IGBulg. III 1283. , IGBulg. IV 2291 from Laskarevo, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2231 from Kocherinovo, 2nd - 3rd century AD; to be . Mihailov considers – , IGBulg. V 5294, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1514, 3rd century AD; Detschew 249 . , IGBulg. IV 2321 from Zlatolist, southwest Bulgaria, 125 AD. , a female name, IGBulg. IV 2119 from Gorna Sekirna, district of Breznik (near Serdica), 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2321 from Zlatolist, southwest Bulgaria, 125 AD. , a female name, in Manov 2008, 136, 2nd - 3rd AD, found near Sandanski. Not in Detschew.

58

The Greek Inscriptions

, (a female name), IGBulg. IV 2312 from Vranja, 2nd - 3 century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1338, 3rd century AD. rd

rd

, IGBulg. III 1846, 1st

– 3 century AD. IGBulg. III 1598, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1353, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 230 bis (genitive), one of the many . forms for the Thracian god, 2nd - 3rd century AD. See below at , a soldier on ex-voto, from Karanovo near ancient Augusta Traiana, Studia in Honorem G. Mihailov (1995) 76-77; see also SEG 45:847. , IGBulg. I 47, 215 AD, the Great Thracian god; I 47 bis: (genitive), 221 AD, Not in Detschew; I 48, Derzela (genitive), 238 AD, which Detschew 119 read incorrectly as and created another Thracian name ; around 48 BC; I 230 bis (genitive), 2nd - 3rd century AD; only one of these occurrences is included in Detschew. See also , II 768. , IGBulg. II 770, an epithet of the Thracain Heros, 3rd century , IGBulg. V 5329, 3rd century AD. AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 46, between 44-43B BC and 2-3 AD on a list of priests from Odessos; II 761, ? , a dedicator to the Thracian Horseman from a . , IGBulg. III 1358, 3rd century AD. , an epithet of Hera, Ares Collection,121, 2nd - 3rd century AD. A rectangular ex-voto made by the dedicant Bendis, wife of Dizza(s). , IGBulg. IV 1970, possible reading? Compare , in

etc., Corsten 1990, 178-180. The inscription is dated to the 2nd century AD.

The Greek Inscriptions

59

, from Saladinvo near Pazardjik, Gočeva LB 32, 113-115; the author did not date the inscription; the sanctuary being known to us by other inscriptions, we could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 312, in a decree from Mesambria on a stele in the temple of Apollo, 3rd - 2nd century BC. Father of a Thracian of the tribe of the Astai. -, IGBulg. V 5076. , IGBulg. III 1457, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 258, 2nd - 3rd century AD; in Detschew 538. , IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD, see . rd IGBulg. III 1516, 3 century AD; , III 1690 d 48, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 60, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 30, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 44, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 53, 202 AD and , III 1690 d 32, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 13, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1631, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 48, , 3rd . century AD; III 1690 b 61, , IGBulg. IV 2104 from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Mihailov saw a drawing of the copy of the inscription. See V 5781 where is accentuated. It seems that is a nominative form instead of an anticipated genitive. , on a silver-gilt phiale from Rogozen, Inv. No. NIM 22304. Cf. Chapter Three. , IGBulg. II 555. IGBulg. V 5861, Mihailov or a compound with -; see infra . See also , in the Catalogue of the Ares Collection, 121, 2nd – 3rd century AD. A rectangular ex-voto made by the dedicant Bendis, wife of Dizza(s); , in Manov 2008, 127, 2nd – 3rd AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in

60

The Greek Inscriptions

Detschew; , in Manov 2008, 136, 2nd - 3rd AD, found near Sandanski. Not in Detschew. vel IGBulg. III 1784, 1st - 3rd century AD. vel , IGBulg. III 1784, 1st - 3rd century AD; , IV 2134 from Dolna Dikanya, near Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Detschew 132 wrongly put IV 2226 from Frolos (?), 2nd - 3rd AD: The letter Z is inverted. , IGBulg IV 2116, , 3rd century AD, from Breznishki Izvor, near Breznik in the district of Sofia. , IGBulg. II 483; 753; , III 1116, 3rd century AD; , son of , III 1351, 3rd century AD; IV 2338, lines 1 and 14 , st end of 1 century AD; IV 2341, , (a priest?), from , 5826, 2nd - 3rd Nicopolis ad Nestum, 2nd - 3rd century AD; century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 d 39, 202 AD. , IGBulg. V 5380, from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , , IGBulg. II 511 from Glava Panega, 2nd - 3rd century AD; II 523, from Glava Panega, a ; dedication to Asklepios; II 560 from Glava Panega: IGBulg. III 917, 3rd AD; III 1005; III 1010; III 1106, 3rd AD; III 1166, 3rd rd century AD; III 1175, 3 century AD; III 1201 3rd century AD; III 1305, 3rd century AD; III (genitive), 3rd century 1310, 3rd century AD; III 1348, AD; , III 1782, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2104 from ancient Pautalia , 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 1922, 3rd , IV 1938; , IV 2015, century AD; IV 1927; a priest; , from Sportela, IV 2232, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , IV 2067, from Pautalia (Kjustendil), 2nd - 3rd century AD; , IV 2004, from Gorni Lozen, after 2nd century AD; , IV 2011, near Serdica, after 2nd

The Greek Inscriptions

61

century AD; IV 2027 from Opitsvet, area of Sofia, , 3rd century AD, the Z is inverted; IV 2130, 3rd century AD; IV 1927, 3rd century AD; from Lehovo, southwest Bulgaria, IV 2322, 211AD; ( ) , V 5858. On a fragment of a stele found in Mezdra, northwest Bulgaria, published by S. possibly a dedicant, 3rd Dremsizova-Nelchinova (1999), there is a century AD. See also SEG 49, 1999, no. 896. , IGBulg. V 5825, 1st rd 3 century AD. IGBulg. I 27bis, from Dionysopolis, father of quod vide infra, 3rd century B. C. (?). Not in Detschew. (- ) in the Ares Collection,121, 2nd - 3rd century AD. A rectangular ex-voto made by the dedicant Bendis, wife of Dizza(s). Not in Detschew. a soldier, II 541 from Glava Panega, 3rd century AD. vel [ ] IGBulg. IV 1942 from Serdica, 1st century AD? [ ] vel IGBulg. IV 1942 from Serdica, 1st century AD? , IGBulg. V 5328, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 709. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 709. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5281, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , a physician, (genitive), IGBulg. III 1776, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 800. Not in Detschew. , , IGBulg. IV 2067, from Pautalia (Kjustendil), 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. (?) for in , IGBulg. II 738 2nd rd , IV 1955 from Serdica, seems to be of pre3 century AD; Roman times (2nd - 3rd BC?). Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 738 2nd - 3rd century AD. In this case Mihailov prefers the reading for Not in Detschew.

62

The Greek Inscriptions

, IGBulg. II 737, 2nd - 3rd century AD. There is an inscription in IPE IV № 432; Catalogus agonisticus Pars B, Columna I, 23. [ Latyshev dated it to the first half of the 3rd century BC “[…esse referendum satis mihi videor demonstrasse in commentario prioribus editionibus addito]”. See also CIB, 670-676, № 1137, Б 1. 23: This is on a marble stele, inscribed on both sides in two columns, divided by a vertical line. Found in Anapa (Gorgipia). According to Dumberg and Skorpil, the inscription was made by two different cutters and probably in different periods. It is a list of athletes, winners in competitions. Latyshev believes that there was only one cutter to execute the inscription (on account of a decree from Gorgipia to commemorate the winners by inscribing their names on stelae, then to add other winners’ names, etc.) J. and L. Robert are of a slightly different opinion, i.e. that those winners were students in the local gymnasion (cf. CIB). The inscription is said to be dated in the 3rd century BC because of the genitive in –ou of names in –es. See also in V 5827, which belongs to another dedicant (of two), and is another form of (see the respective lemmata). It is to be noted here that theta stands for the genuine Thracian /d/ from *dh-, and is a good example how the Thracian /d/ was pronounced differently from what was perceived by the Greeks: therefore, voiced stops in Thracian are treatments of IE *dh-, etc. Chronologically speaking, the range of different forms gives the following perspective of evolution in Thracian: /d/ from *dh and /t/ from *d. 10 , IGBulg. II 730, 218-222 AD or 222-235 AD. IGBulg. IV 2121 from Rasnik, near Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5282. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1188, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2221 from Kamenik near Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , III 1593, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1392. Not in Detschew. , IV 2214 line 12 from Dolistovo, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Mihailov hesitates between Greek ( ) and Thracian, adducing the 10

On these developments see also Dečev 1960, 152-55.

The Greek Inscriptions

examples “

63

from III 1004 and 1616. See also Detschew 141 ”, which is a wrong reading. , IGBul. I 50, b line19, 4th - 3rd century BC; II 796, ; II 843 ; III 1073, 3rd century AD; III 1190 3rd century AD; III 1197, 1371; , III 1398, III 1520; III 1690 column b line 21, 202 AD; IV 2014 from Gurmazovo near Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD; (dative), V 5282, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5309, in both V 5577, 5578, found together in Augusta Traiana, first half of the 1st century AD; V 5592, first half of the 1st century AD, V 5634, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5011, 1st century BC – 1st in the catalog of the names found on century AD; see also phialae supra and a parallel from Gorgipia on the Black Sea coast. , a female name from Bithynia, on a tomb stele found in Hamzabey Köy near Inegöl. The inscription has been published by Corsten 1990, 264. , IGBulg. III 1616c, Dubious whether Greek or Thracian. 3rd century AD. Compare in III 1006. IGBulg. IV 2286 159 AD. * where the were, IGBulg. V 5589. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5589, near Augusta Traiana, inhabitants of * . Not in Detschew. , III 1690 d 17, 202 AD. IGBulg. III 1404 3rd century AD; Detschew 142 “richtiger ( )”, however the ending is as V 5858. Mihailov put it;11 from Kresna, southwest Bulgaria (now in a private collection), Ivanov 2004, 83-86. , , III 1690 d 20, 202 AD.

11

Mihailov 1943, 99-101.

64

The Greek Inscriptions

III 1690 d 44, 202 AD. IGBulg. V 5281, 1st – 2nd century AD. Not in Detschew. Mihailov suggested that it be compared with Diurpaneus in Tacitus quoted by Oros. 7. 10. 4. See also Detschew 150. we see clearly two elements: In (1) (2) The first element is easily identifiable as there are a number of -. personal names beginning with The second element presents itself in a very unusual form, which is and the partly due to the presumably genitive ending12 in homophonic beginning of . Both ending and beginning sharing the same graphemic configuration -ou, make us assume namely that the could also be either /o/ or /u/. While the treatment of the ou in – Indo-European syllabic resonants in Thracian is said13 to be ur/or, ul/ol, um, and un/in, we could posit a possible reconstructed form *r°p, from which we could get to urp/orp. There are just two sequences that exemplify the same configuration: Diurpagissa, CIL 3. 14547 (“cum Diurpagissa filio”) from Moesia Superior, and Diurpaneus, a leader of the Dacians, quoted in Tacitus (apud Oros. 7. 10. 4). Yet, there is another possible treatment of the syllabic resonant: to be substituted to l, as there are examples like Oroles: Oloros, Aloros/Arulos. There is also a male name, IGBulg. III 1324, 3rd century AD, from Varvara, near Pazardjik. On the ground of similar developments in / we could posit , IGBulg. III 1394, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 830 3rd - 2nd century BC see , II 856, 2nd - 3rd AD. see the controversial readings in Angelov 2003, 138-142 and Sharankov 2004, 200. Manov (2008, 131) accepts Sharankov’s reading. On the photograph Manov offered, one can read 12

For the formation of personal names in Thracian see Georgiev 1983, 1155; Dimitrov 1994; Boïadjiev 2000, 145- 50; e. g. Dadaleme vs. Kotyos on metal , and , etc., vessels. See the above-mentioned instances from Chapter Three (Mihailov, 1987, 5-19); Brixhe 1994, 186, n. 33. 13 Dečev 1960, 161; Georgiev 1983, 1156, 1167.

The Greek Inscriptions

65

restored to “ (?)”. This funerary stele is now in the museum of the town of Sandanski. Not in Detschew. , on an ex-voto made by a soldier to the Thracian HerosRider, from Karanovo near ancient Augusta Traiana, Studia in Honorem G. Mihailov (1995) 76-77; see also SEG 45:847. Probably to be dated around the beginning of the 3rd AD, but not before 212 AD. This epithet of the Heros appears for the first time. Not in Detschew. See and compare a personal name. a name of a town, IGBulg. II 727, 2nd century AD; II 728, end of the 2nd century AD; II 730, II 731, II 732, the beginning of 3rd century AD; II 733, end of the 3rd century AD; II 734, end of the 3rd century AD; V. 5257: IGBulg. I 438, 5th - 4th century BC. This same name has another genitive case reading in IV 2286. Not in Detschew. , on a silver phiale from Rogozen (see Chapter Three), Inv. No. NIM 22329. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 54, 202 AD. IGBulg. g III 1440 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1516 3rd century AD. vel IGBulg. III 1516, 1517 3rd century AD; III 1317, rd 3 century AD; III 1005 3rd century AD; III 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD; III st rd 1626, 1 – 3 century AD; III 1626, 1st - 3rd century , III 1690 b 14, 202 AD; AD; , III 1690 c 18, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 68, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 71, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 14, 202 AD; III 1690 d 16, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 17, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 19, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 29 and d 58, 202 AD; III 1690 d 47, 202 AD; III 1690 d 49, 202 AD; III 1690 d 57, 202 AD; , III 1709, 1st 3rd century AD;

66

The Greek Inscriptions

III, 1741, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2286 159 AD; according to Mihailov is a female name. V 5611; V 5827, 3rd century AD; vel IV 2002, 1st - 3rd century AD, between Kadijn most and Liljac; V 5611 , 2nd - 3rd century AD. (?) V 5827, 3rd century AD, Not in Detschew. Gerasimova-Tomova reads = under Latin Atiles,14 but Mihailov second-guessed the reading of is question.15 After inspecting the photograph, it is quite clear that the correct reading. The other name , which belongs to another dedicant, is another form of (see the respective lemmata). , in IGBulg. V 5577, first half of 1st century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 675 see , II 724 nd rd 2 - 3 century AD; III 1517, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 965, 966 (both from the immediate vicinity of Plovdiv), III 1209 (?) from Batkun in the Asclepios’ sanctuary. In all three . Pre-Roman times? III 1593, occurrences the name is written st rd 1 - 3 century AD; III 1690 b 66 from Pizos. vel , IGBulg. III 1767, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2014, from Gurmazovo near Serdica, 2nd -3rd century AD; according to Mihailov, the same person made a dedication in III 965, 966 (both from the immediate vicinity of Plovdiv, 1209 (?) from Batkun in the Asclepios’ sanctuary. All three occurances as . Pre-Roman times? , a female name, IGBulg. III 1701, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II, 771 “ ”,1st – 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 724, 2nd - 3rd century AD, see II 675 , IGBulg. III 1756, an epithet of Apollo, 3rd century AD. 14 15

Gerasimova-Tomova 1980, 69, no. 97; 115, no. 97. SEG 30, 1980, 769.

The Greek Inscriptions

67

IGBulg. III, 1759, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 868, from Abritus, 2nd - 3rd century AD. vel , IGBulg. IV 2202, 2286; III 1876, 1st – rd 3 century AD. IGBulg. III 1202 3rd century AD. IGBulg. I 168 from Odessos, wife of th rd and daughter off 4 - 3 century B. C. (?). vell IGBulg. I 334 novies, b1, 4th century BC for a different reading of this (?). The reading is not certain. See line as ( ). Not in Detschew. See also IGBulg. III 1464 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 744, a name of a Thracian’s wife, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. g I 14 b 19, father of Aurelius Victor, after 212 AD. Not in Detschew. , son of Moukaporis from Pizos, IGBulg. III 1690 c 32, 202 AD. IGBulg. IV 1929:… […, from Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , a military district (strategia) IGBulg. IV 2338, end of the 1st century AD. This name seems to be a compound made of * and . in both V 5577, and V 5578, found together in Augusta Traiana, first half of the 1st century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5385, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1690 c 47, 202 AD; III 1690 d 24, 202 AD; IGBulg. III 1690 e 94-95, 202 AD. , III 1690 d 20, 202 AD; III 1690 d 57, 202 AD.

16

For a different opinion see Boyadzhiev 2002a.

68

The Greek Inscriptions

, IGBulg. V 5162 from Serdar, northwest Bulgaria. On the stone: ; V 5736, 5746 from Slivnitsa in the sanctuary of Asclepius Limenos, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1347 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1690 column b line 16; III 1805, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5462, 2nd 3rd century AD. (o) , IGBulg. IV 2192 in an inscription of a collegium p at a temple of Asklepios, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2336, pre-Roman (?). Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 856, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1210 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. from Kazanlak, on a silver phiale, 6th - 5th century BC. See in V 5827, which belongs to another Chapter Three. See also dedicant (of two), and is another form of (see the respective lemmata). , IGBulg. III 1809 inhabitant of * , 1st rd - 3 century AD. , IGBulg. III 1809 inhabitant of * , 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1846, 1st -

rd

3 century AD. AD; , 202

AD;

,

AD;

IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century , III 1690 c 17, 202 AD; vel – III 1690 d 36-37, 202 AD. IGBulg. III 1690 b 58, , III 1690 c 22, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 43, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 45 and d 61, 202 AD; III 1690 c 49, 202 AD; III 1690 c 56, 202 AD; III 1690 c 58, 202 AD; III 1690 c 65, 202 , III 1690 c 71, 202 AD;

The Greek Inscriptions

69

,

III 1690 d 13, 202 AD; 1690 d 63-64, 202 AD. , in IGBulg. III 1794. Dodoparon, present day Golyam Manastir, was situated several kilometers south of ancient Kabyle. According to Mihailov in 1794, Dodoparon was a village with a sanctuary of Apollo nearby. This epigram might be dated to the 2nd - 1st century BC. in Detschew 161. See and compare above , an adjective from Dadopara, i. e. an inhabitant of Dadopara (near ancient Kabyle) an epithet of the Thracain Heros. Velkov 1991, 7-53. , IGBulg. III 967=III 1893, 3rd century AD. wife off IGBulg. 738, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. III

, from the inscription of Kyolmen, a personal name. See Chapter One.17 , IGBulg. III 1690 b 41, 202 AD. , son of Seuthes III and Berenike, IGBulg. III 1731 and Elvers 1994, 241-66, end of 4th century BC. This occurrence is Not in Detschew. Compare the legends on coins, as well, in Chapter Two, # 44-1, 44-2, 45-48 ( ) 387-383 BC. [ a nominative singular, in Manov 2008, 126, 2nd – 3rd AD, now in the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 538 from Glava Panega, 2nd century BC (?). ( ) 387-383 BC in Chapter Two. Legends from Coins. IGBulg. IV 2104, 1st - 3rd AD; IV st rd 2229, 1 - 3 century AD; , IV 2338, end of the 1st century AD, and IV 2338, end of the 1st century AD; IV 2343 from Nicopolis ad Nestum, 3rd century AD.

17

Dimitrov 2003.

70

The Greek Inscriptions

(. ) . (?), Uncertain reading IGBulg. III 974, 3rd century AD; Detschew 178 ; , IGBulg. V 5328, 3rd century AD; Mihailov recalls from II 719, which “non est legendum , ut in commentario Decevum sequens scripsi: non Graecum, sed Thracium esse nunc apparet”. On the account of the system of Thracian diphthongs, the name is regarded as genuine Thracian, as Thracian diphthongs were preserved in inscriptions as late as the 4th century AD, see Dimitrov 2007a. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5380, from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd century AD Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5380 from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd century AD Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5281,1st - 3rd century AD, epithet of the Thracian Heros. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 804 (sic), 2nd - 3rd century AD; II 848. , IGBulg. I 357, 358, ann epithet of the Thracian Heros, which in other inscriptions appears as an epithet of Apollo, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 858. IGBulg. II 771, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1474, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5060, 3rd century AD; on the account of the system of Thracian diphthongs, the name is regarded as genuine Thracian, as Thracian diphthongs were preserved in inscriptions as late as the 4th century AD, see Dimitrov 2007a. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg II 553 from Glava Panega: Mihailov “fortasse ”. The inscription reads: etc. See Detschew 167: “Thrakische Aussprache des griech. .” Regardless of the fact seems to be a Greek word, the evidence is still extremely that important for us because it brings up the question with the genuine Thracian pronunciation, but also that with the translation of a common epithet for the one of many names the Thracian people called their god, the Horseman. Therefore, this adjective should be translated as “the one God on horseback”. As it seems to me, there is an obvious connection between

The Greek Inscriptions

71

this name and Ez/sbenis, the latter derived from an etymon for “horse” in Thracian. IGBulg. IV 2103. The reading is dubious. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1690 b quod vide infra. Not in Detschew. 62, , IGBulg. III 1517 line 39, 3rd century AD; III 1302 rd , 3 century AD; III 1342 3rd century AD; III 1690 b 55, 202 AD; and I , son of 378, 19 AD, , I 77 from the Rhoimetalkes II, who was a strategos; ancient Odessos, present-day Varna on the Black Sea coast, a name of a ; I 281 bis, as a second name of a wife of a priest, see also nd rd Thracian, 2 -3 century AD; IV 2069, 1st –3rd century AD (?); IV 2031; IV 2232, 1st - 3rd century AD. ? IGBulg. III 1593, 1st - 3rd century AD. Obviously . ( ) , IGBulg. III 1739 from Viden, district of Kazanlak. , IGBulg. III 1302 from Patalenica near Batkun, 3rd century AD; III, 1739, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2116, , 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1079, 3rd century rd AD III 1255 (?) 3 century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 744, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , a female name, IGBulg. IV 2325, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 836, 3rd century AD; II 847, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 3rd century AD. 974 III 1166 IGBulg. IV 2214 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2234, from Sportela (Rila, southwest Bulgaria), 2nd - 3rd century AD. In this same inscription Epteikenthos is mentioned twice in line 6 and line 7. While in line 6 the first four letters are under some doubt as to their upper halves but were read clearly as EPTE by the editor G. Mihailov, line 7 has Ep(t)eikenthou thus confirming beyond any doubt the reading of this name on line 6. Nevertheless, Mihailov considered the latter not a mistake of the workman (‘quadratarius’), but is of the opinion that it reflects a linguistic peculiarity

72

The Greek Inscriptions

(“de phaenomeno linguistico agi videtur”). Detschew 167 followed the reading of Ernst Kalinka (1906, 214) reads [Et]eikenthos on line 6, and Eteikenthou on line 7. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1342 from ancient Burdapa, 3rd century AD Detschew 167: “ ( ) aus Saladinovo” relying on V. Dobruski, 1897, 123 n. 1 fig. 1.; IV 1922 on a column inscribed with names (a sacred catalog?); IV 2072, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2214, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 738, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. ( ) IGBulg. III 1335, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1341, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. g III 1690 b 35, 202; III 1690 b 38, 202 AD. IGBulg. III 1516 3rd century AD; III 1057 3rd century y AD; III 1097 3rd st rd century AD; IV 2337, 1 - 3 century AD. , , IGBulg. IV 1963 from ancient Serdica now Sofia, after 2nd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1733 is a second name of a wife of a Thracian. IGBulg. g IV 1959 (?); IV 2232, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. IV 2153, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 51, 202 AD; III 1690 c 58, 202 AD; vel , III 1690 d 23, 202 AD; III 1690 c 93, 202 AD. , a female name, IGBulg. IV 1959. IGBulg. III 1516 3rd century AD; III 1803, 1st-3rd century AD; III 1803, an ex-voto for , and his wife 1st - 3rd century AD.

The Greek Inscriptions

1701, 2nd - 3rd century AD; 3rd century AD.

73

, a female name, IGBulg. III IGBulg. V 5475, 2nd -

on an ex-voto dedicated to Asklepios for his daughter , IGBulg. III 1831, 1st - 3rd century AD. The reading belongs to the editor princeps Katsarov (1937, 284, n. 2 fig. 223; also J. et L. Robert Bull. Ep., 480 n. 214). IGBulg. III 1166 3rd century st rd AD; -? III 1626, 1 - 3 century AD; st rd -? III 1626, 1 - 3 century AD; III 1690 b 31, 3rd century AD; III 1690 column b line 34, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 46, from Pizos, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 17, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 21, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1593, inhabitants of (see Chapter Three), 1st - 3rd century AD. III 1690 c 59, 202 AD. Detschew 412 gave a different reading. , see Chapter Three, on a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22344. For the variation Argiske/ Ergiske see further on in Phonology. See also Dimitrov 1994, 86. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III, 1714 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2343 from Nicopolis ad Nestum, 3rd century AD. vel vel , III 1690 d 23, 202 AD. Not in Detschew. , an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 1766, 3rd century AD.

vel

, IGBulg. V 5070. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5918, 1st - 3rd century AD, cf. and . Not in Detschew. a female name, IGBulg. IV 2303, 146 AD; IV 2311, 198 AD.

74

The Greek Inscriptions

a female name, sister of a Roman soldier, Angelov 2003, 138. See also Sharankov 2004, 200 in his Corrigenda accentuating the . This name is obviously Thracian, so no need of name as accentuating. Not in Detschew. vel IGBulg. I 130, 2nd - 3rd century AD, wife of Flavius. Not in Detschew. a female name, (dat.), IGBulg. IV 2112, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1743 epithet of Apollo Heros. See also . Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 960, 961, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5585. Not in Detschew. , an epithet of Zeus, IGBulg. II 762 from Kardam, y AD; III 1773, III 1886, 1st – 3rd northeast Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century rd century AD; V 5612, 3 century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2216-2218, 1st-3rd century AD and on an ex-voto from Kyustendil, southwest Bulgaria,18 epithet of Zeus (Not in on an ex-voto from Cabyle, 3rd AD, Velkov Detschew); 1991, 24-25, Not in Detschew.

18

Dimitrov P. 2006, 247-251. I was able to inspect this votive plate together with two other fragments in the spring of 2006, thanks to the courtesy of Ms. Lidia Staykova-Alexandrova and Mr. Andrey Tonev, curators at the Regional Museum of History in Kyustendil.

The Greek Inscriptions

75

Fig. 4-2. The Votive Plate from Kyustendil , IGBulg. III 1656, 3rd century AD or later. In Detschew 427 , IGBulg. III 1654, slightly different form ending in –EI, see 3rd century AD (or later), III 1655. ( ) , a place-name, connected to below. 1457, 3rd century AD; III rd , 3 AD; III 1459; III 1460, III 1461, an 1458 epithet of Apollo (Heros), 3rd AD. IGBulg. III 1235, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 506, wrongly in Detschew 178 ; see also in that same inscription. , II 506 from Kunino, . , V 5067. northeast Bulgaria. Detschew 178: , IGBulg. IV 2175, after L. Robert (Revue de philologie ‘Les inscriptions grecques de Bulgarie’, 33, 1959, 180, n. 5). Detschew 178 ; see also Dimitrov 2007a for a full account on and similia. , IGBulg. IV 2048 from Krasno selo, a town of Sofia. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. in n IGBulg.

III

76

The Greek Inscriptions

IGBulg. III 973, a place name, see below. Not in Detschew. , an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. III 973, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 872. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 184, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2336, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1516 a line 28 from ancient Cillae. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 506 from Kunino, northeast Bulgaria. . Detschew 178: II 724 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2048 from Krasno selo, a town of Sofia. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 763 from Popovo, northeast Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1147 3rd century AD. from Piperitsa, district of Blagoevgrad, in Manov 2008, 108. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2294, from Laskarevo, southwest Bulgaria, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2286, 159 AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 1930, ann epithet of Apollo, from Serdica, after 2nd century AD. , a female name, together with a well-known male name, in Manov 2008, 125, 3rd century AD, district of Blagoevgrad. On a funerary marble stele, perfectly visible appear a bearded man and a woman, and the above mentioned inscription was clearly carved and easy to read. Though the name of the female person resembles the Latin Celsus, there are two features that might deem convincing as to its Thracian origin. First, the ending –us in Latin is rendered with -os in Greek, resp. Thracian, and second, the ending –ous is utterly convincing as belonging to a rare Thracian class of names. See Kortozous below. Not in Detschew. ( ) , IGBulg. III 1335, an epithet of the Heros, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5360 from ancient Marcianopolis, present-day Devnya. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1325, 1st - 3rd century AD.

The Greek Inscriptions

77

, IGBulg. III 1742, 1744, 1745 epithet of Apollo Heros; see , III 1743, epithet of Apollo Heros. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2153, from Caristorum, 1st -3rd century AD. Detschew 182: . , IGBulg. III 1473, 3rd century AD. (. ) , IGBulg. III 1473, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. a personal name on a silver phiale from Kazanlak, Dimitrov (1995, 23-25). See Chapter Three. VIII. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5703. Not in Detschew. , in an inscription from Nikaia, No1308 in Şahin (1982). , IGBulg. III 976, 1st - 3rd century AD. , a wife, IGBulg. III 1787. , a Thracian priest, in IGBulg. II 719 from theregion of Tirnovo: 3rd - 4th century AD. in Detschew 187. , IGBulg. IV 2211, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. I 47 c line 29, 221 AD. , IGBulg. IV 2289, 1st - 3rd century AD. See also Boyadzhiev 2002, 79-81. , IGBulg. V 5269. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 711, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , III 1201, 3rd century AD. nd , IGBulg. II 673, 2 - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 843, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1893 = IGBulg. III 967. , IGBulg. III 967, 3rd century AD, should be corrected to see IGBulg. III 1893. , IGBulg. II 872. , IGBulg. V 5067, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. (v. , IGBulg. V 5067).

78

The Greek Inscriptions

, IGBulg. I 171bis, 2nd - 3rd century AD, wife of some Greek. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5294, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 479 ter, 2nd - 3rd century AD, a Thracian female name. , IGBulg. V 5061, 1st - 3rd AD; this name could also be of Asia Minor origin, see Zgusta KPN, §§393-98 or belonging to Asia Minor people that have moved to Thrace. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5319. Uncertain reading. Name of a dedicant? See Detschew 194. , III 1690 b26 , 3rd AD; IGBulg. V5326(=II 790), 2nd - 3rd century AD. , , IGBulg. V 5287, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 162, 2nd - 3rd century AD A Thracian male. See IGBulg. III 1690 b 26 , IGBulg. II 765, 2nd - 3rd century AD , IGBulg. II 738, a name of the daughter of 2nd - 3rd century AD, = Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 24, an epithet of Herakles, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2338. Detschew 177: , IGBulg. III 1108, 3rd century AD, a dedicator to the Thracian Heros . , IGBulg. III 1324, 3rd century AD. A few words should be said here before we proceed with the numerous epithets of Asklepios found in the sanctuary of Batkun by Dimiter Tsontschev.19 As G. Mihailov has stated (p. 117, IGBulg III), a templum of Asklepios was found near the village of Batkun, where many monuments of different kind were discovered, and amongst them inscriptions on votive reliefs in Greek bearing the local epithet of Asklepios, as the god was worshipped there as Zymdrenos, Zumudrenos etc. (see below). Mihailov (l. c.) thinks that the local name of that place was *Zim(i)dra and not Sindrina as Tsontchev and others thought.20 19 20

Tsontchev 1941. Tsontchev 1941, 12.

The Greek Inscriptions

79

Before Tsontchev started his excavations, in many places around Batkun, e. g. Patalenitsa, Lyahovo, Varvara, and in the monastery of St. Peter and Pavel (Paul), many votive monuments were found. In his IGBulg. Mihailov made a number of amendments to the texts of the inscriptions but kept most of Tsontchev’s reading as far as our lemma is concerned. , a place-name, Tsontchev (=Cončev) 40 and IGBulg. III see below. , IGBulg. III 1178 , 1239 Tsontchev 63, an epithet of Heros, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1184, Tsontchev 42. Detschew 196 On the stone there is no rho. A nicely added a rho carved inscription in stoichedon. The zeta is I, not Z. This occurs often times in the inscriptions from that sanctuary. 1st - 3rd century AD. , an epithet of Asklepios IGBulg. III 1134, Tsontchev 33, 1136, Tsontchev 34, 1194, Tsontchev 52, 1226, Tsontchev 46, 1230, on the stone, Tsontchev 54 and Detschew 196 without zeta, 1236 (Tsontchev 62), all from Batkun, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Tsontchev 19 and IGBulg. III 1115, 1187 (Tsontchev 44) (a dedication of Seuthes, son of Kotys), 1228, (Tsontchev 61), 1232 (Tsontchev 47); 3rd century AD; an epithet of the Heros. Tsontchev 59 and IGBulg. III 1203, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Tsontchev 38 and IGBulg. III 1174, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1535, 3rd century AD. Tsontchev 46 and IGBulg. III 1189, 3rd century AD. Tsontchev 20; Mihailov added a small epsilon, which the carver added himself, IGBulg. III 1120, 3rd century AD. Tsontchev 18 and IGBulg. III 1117, 1121 (Tsontchev 20), 1191 (Tsontchev 48), 1225 (Tsontchev 54), 1234 (Tsontchev 56); all from Batkun, 2nd - 3rd century AD. (Tsontchev 26 ), IGBulg. III 1153, 2nd -3rd century AD. , Tsontchev 40 and IGBulg. III 1178, 1239 ( Tsontchev 63), an epithet of Asklepios (Heros), 3rd century AD.

80

The Greek Inscriptions

IGBulg. III 1119 ( Tsontchev 19), 1133, 1137-1140, 1161, 1163, 1171, 1177, 1186 , same style of writing as in 1184, 1195, 1224, 1227, 1229, 1233, 1237, 1238, ; 3rd century AD. 1277 ( , IGBulg. III 1286 ( ) Mihailov, epithet of Asclepios (Heros), 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1126, 1128, 1135 (Tsontchev 34 nd rd ); 2 - 3 century AD. IGBulg. III 1162 ( ), 3rd century AD. (Tsontchev 56) and IGBulg. III 1193, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Tsontchev 32 and III 1132, 2nd - 3rd century AD, an epithet of Hygia and Telesphor, 3rd century AD.

H , IGBulg. III 1112, an epithet of Hera 2nd - 3rd century AD. Detschew 197: “unsichere Lesung”. Mihailov is not pointing out to any difficulty with the reading. This inscription was found in Ellidere, now Vetren Dol, near Asclepios’ sanctuary in Batkun. , see Chapter Three.

-, IGBulg. II 845, an epithet of Thracian Heros, Mihailov: ? , IGBulg. V 5328, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Mihailov is questioning its Thracian origin. , IGBulg. IV 1963 from ancient Serdica now Sofia, after 2nd century AD; , IV 2004 from Gorni Lozen, near Sofia, after 2nd century AD; V 5827, 3rd century AD: the name , which belongs to another dedicant, is another form of (see the respective lemmata). a male name, IGBulg. III 1324, 3rd century AD, from Varvara, near Pazardjik. On the ground of similar developments in

The Greek Inscriptions

81

/ See

we could posit above. IGBulg. V 5634, 1st - 3rd century AD. Mihailov interpreted the latter as accusative plural feminine. , passim.

] on an ex-voto, an epithet of Hera (Marazov et al. 1996, 46, no. 52), 2nd - 3rd century AD. This is a new epithet, which appears here for the first time. It seems to me that the initial iota stands for eta, and therefore it should be restored to It is again a compound name with a first component Erg- as in and a second one / . We have all reasons to say that initial iota is unusual for Thracian and that the sequence iR- is all the more unlikely to appear. I believe the inscription was cut around the end of the third century AD when graphemic variants of such nature occur quite often thus betraying a phonetic [i] for [e]. To be sure, let remind that vocal quantity in Thracian was lost as early as the earliest inscriptions (6th - 5th century BC). Not in Detschew. , a river in Thrace, IGBulg. I 13, 65, 320; V 5215, 3rd century AD. , inhabitants of Istria, IGBulg. I 388, 260-250 BC.

(.) , IGBulg. IV 2120, 2nd - 3rd century AD, an epithet of the Thracian Heros. Not in Detschew. , a name of a Thracian town nearby the city of Sliven, IGBulg. V 5636, around 146 AD; IGBulg. III 1731 and Elvers 1994, 241-266, end of 4th century BC. , a name of a dedicant, IGBulg. III 1359, 3rd century AD. , Tiberius Claudius , IGBulg. II 561, from Glava Panega, 3rd century AD; II 874 V 5385, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew.

82

The Greek Inscriptions

was engraved at the bottom of a phiale from the Rogozen treasure, masculine personal name, see no. 22 from Chapter Three. Not in Detschew. , , IGBulg. III 1760, from Ovoshtnik, Kazanluk area, central Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD , IGBulg. V, 5883, 77 AD, line 8, from Kresna (see IGBulg. IV, p. 233), where is considered Oriental by Zgusta, KPN, § 117. 2. Mihailov (SEG 32, 1982, 640) thinks that it is the . Not in Detschew. same as , inhabitants of Kallatis, see below. , IGBulg. I 65, 307. See Detschew 223 with more evidence: he argues that the Greek-like form might well be derived from the name of a nearby lake, as it is pointed out in Etymologicum Magnum . There is also a possibility of a Bithynian origin. See s. v. (- ), IGBulg. V 5011, a town, perhaps another name for the town off a personal name and as presumably meaning “beloved” in inscriptions from Kyzikos, see Detschew 225 and four instances from Thasos (IG 12. 8. 307 and 309; 308 and 317). , IGBulg. III 1385, an epithet of Heros, from Gara Kricim, district of Pazrdjik, 3rd century AD. One could think of a placename from the Radomir-Kjustendil area related to it: present-day Kandjulica, where Kandj-(=Kandsch-) is from *Kandj- and –ica is just a common Slavic suffix. Wrong reading in Detschew 226: . This votive tablet was dedicated to the Thracian Heros for a “canis rabidus”, and hence speculations about the etymology of his epithet, see Mihailov. , IGBulg. V 5328, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 79, an epithet of Apollo Heros; I 284, 285, 286, 290; 2nd - 3rd century AD: , I 288; 287, 289, all occurances from Varna, ancient Odessos. (- ), IGBulg. V 5011, a town, perhaps another name for the town off Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 53, uncertain first and second letters, 2nd - 3rd century AD; II 484, uncertain reading, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III, 1312, 3rd . century AD; IV 2057, 135 AD; IV 2208 (?); V 5730. See

The Greek Inscriptions

83

* from m , IGBulg. II 837, epithet of the Heros, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 837, an epithet of the Heros from rd * 3 century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 172, a female name, from Odessos. a place name, or IGBulg. IV 2163, see app. cr. where G. Mihailov is hesitating (“duobus modis suppleri possis”) which is the correct one of either readings; see also IV 2050-57, 2162, 2164-2166, 2168 Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2150-57, 2162, 2164-2166, 2168, an IV 2163 epithet for the local gods and a place-name. (?). IGBulg. I 378, after 19 AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 1997, an epithet of Hera, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 36, 202 AD. , IGBulg. III 1806, 1st - 3rd century AD. in Manov 2008, 124, found in the district of Blagoevgrad, 2nd - 3rd AD. Not in Detschew. , an epithet p of Asklepios, IGBulg. V 5798, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , an epithet of Asklepios, p IGBulg. V 5787-5789, 5793, 5800, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. K( ) IGBulg. V 5792- 5794, 5797, 5838, epithet of Asklepios, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5786 epithet of Asklepios, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2253, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5883, 77 AD; V 5890 from Kresna, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5785 = IV 2125, 5823, epithet of rd Asklepios, 3 century AD. Not in Detschew. , an epithet of Asklepios, IGBulg. V 5801 ( ) , 5802, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , a place-name, IGBulg. IV 2338, end of the 1st century AD. The name appears in Procopius De aedificiis 4. 11 as , which according to Mihailov s. v. is the same as . However,

84

The Greek Inscriptions

the two places were not the same, one being in Haemimontos, and the other in Nicopolis ad Nestum. For various speculations on its etymology see IGBulg. IV 2338, commentary. Not in Detschew (p. 238 ). IGBulg. V 5329, from Dobroplodno, northeast Bulgaria. Not in Detschew. , a place-name of a mansio, Lat. Cillae, IGBulg. III 1519, 3rd century AD. , an inhabitant of , see above, IGBulg. III 1520, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 354quater, an epithet of Asklepios, 1st century AD. (?). Not in Detschew. See also Mihailov’s comments in V 5127 (=I 354quater): “Ex BIAB (i. e. Bulletin of the Bulgarian Institute of Archaeology) deprompserunt Ann. Ép. 1965, 133; J. et L. Robert Bull. Ép. 1965, 256 (ubi falso et ) et 1972, 298 (ubi recte ), (SEG 24, 1969, 906).” , an epithet p of a local god, IGBulg. III 1774, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , the name of a tribe (phyle), from the Ancient Theatre in Philoppopolis; IGBulg. V 5412; cf. SEG 34, 1984, 712. , an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 919, and 1002, from ancient Philippopolis, 3rd century AD. an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 917, 921, 998, 3rd AD; V 5435, which belongs to the inscriptions series of III 917-928, from ancient Philippopolis. a spurious epithet of Apollo, accepted by Detschew 239. However see the lemma at IGBulg. IV 1929 from Serdica, probably a completely different reading must be supplied. an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 918, 3rd century AD, from the territory of ancient Philippopolis. , IGBulg. III 1312, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 510, 3rd century AD Found in the sanctuary of Asclepios at Glava Panega. I. I. Russu, Dacia 11-12, 1945-47, 262, n. 8 (cf. J. et L. Robert considered it an error of the engraver for (Bull. Épigr. 1950, 22, n. 49). on stone. See also Dimitrova 2002, 217. Mihailov hesitated whether the name is Thracian or Latin. Not in Detschew.

The Greek Inscriptions

85

The name is of Thracian origin based on the following observations: 1) the genuine Thracian morph /kent/ alternates with /kenth/ as e. g. in , etc.; 2) on the other Kenthiaros (see above) hand the morph /enth/ alternates with /end/ and /ens/ due to the ambiguous rendering of Thracian phonemes through Greek ones; 3) There is room to assume that in the 2nd and 3rd century AD allophones appeared probably due to conflation between the two phonological systems (Greek and Thracian) when putting a Thracian word in writing. The phoneme /th/ alternates with /s/ in many instances. Here again one should keep in mind that /th/ is not a Thracian phoneme, but rather a Greek misrepresentation. 4) The /nth/ morph appears always in well known names but not in rare Thracian words (epithets, etc) that show a clear Thracian sound as e. g. in Skelentene, Sonketene, Tiditene, etc., where the structure of the original morph is preserved well into the Roman period. IGBulg. V 5932, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. See , Cerzos, Cersa in Detschew 229 for the first part of this name. , IGBulg. III 1408, 3rd century AD It should be mentioned here that this feminine personal name stands among a from inscriptions from Amphipolis and range of names such as Olbia, from Gorgippia (now in Ukraine), a name of a soldier, 300 BC, in IG II2 1956, Cerzus in Edonis, from Samos, and Cerza, feminine (CIL III. 8921). For more details see Detschew 229. See also *Karza, a reconstructed place name in Paphlagonia, based on the Zeus’s epithet Karzenos (Zgusta KON, §442). Duridanov (1987а, 42) considers *Karza as non-Thracian. an epitaph from Sozopol, ancient Apollonia, on the Black sea coast, 5th BC, IMB 4, 2002, 124, n. 20. See also SEG 52, 681. , IGBulg. V 5365, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. (?), IGBulg. IV 2196. See also no. 16 from Chapter Two: ( ) and example m. from Chapter Three: : the name of the Odrysian king who reigned 359-346 BC. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III, 1517, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1465, Thracian (?) or Latin Cercius. Not in Detschew.

86

The Greek Inscriptions

an epithet of Apollo worshipped by the , IGBulg. III 1711, 1st - 3rd century AD and see III 1712, an epithet of Apollo from Ezerovo, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 94, 2nd -3rd century AD; see V 5037 = I 94 from Odessos. The form was corrected in the addendum of IGBulg. I. IGBulg. I 270, 2nd - 3rd century AD Adjective to * a town. Detschew 243 read it differently: IGBulg. V 5790, 5791, 5799, epithet of Asklepios, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2017, an epithet of Zeus. Not in Detschew. , a place name whose inhabitants were called , see below. Böttger – Halloff 1991, 485-488, inhabitants of Not in Detschew. For a slightly different reading of the inscription see IGBulg. V 5591, where Mihailov, relying on a photograph, for and misread two words: for . On the other hand, his suggestion that (an ethnicon) is in the vocative case (“acclamatio in vocativo”), see his V 5677 = IV 1934 with the same use of the vocative, seems to be correct. Böttger and Halloff (1991) are of a different opinion. , epithet of Asklepios, IGBulg. V 5697, 2nd - 3rd century, AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1805, 1st – 3rd century AD, epithet of Zeus. Not in Detschew. , in an inscription found on a fresco in the tomb of Alexandrovo, near Haskovo, southern Bulgaria. See Kitov 2004; 2005b, 28; Gerasimova 2003, 177-78; Sharankov 2005. There is another example from Gazoros, near present-day town of Serres, northern Greece, that reads .21 In this compound, the first component / / is a allomorph of / / as in . Not in Detschew.

21

For more details and bibliography see Mihailov 1980b, 15.

The Greek Inscriptions

87

Fig. 4-3. Inscription with Kozimases from Alexandrovo. , IGBulg. III 1514, 3rd century AD; see , IV 2213 = V 5867. The latter Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1321, from Byaga, near Peshtera, centralsouthern Bulgaria, 3rd century AD. (gen.), on a golden plate from Sinemorets, on the Black Sea coast, near Tsarevo, south-eastern Bulgaria. Probably second half of the 2nd century BC. Not in Detschew.

22

I am thankful to Mrs. D. Agre, Institute of Archaeology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, for allowing me to examine the plate. A joint publication with all the details is forthcoming.

88

The Greek Inscriptions

Fig. 4-4. The golden plate from Sinemorets , IGBulg. I 301, inhabitants of a Not in Detschew.

, 3rd century AD

, IGBulg. III 947, from Philippopolis, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1559, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. I 46, between 44-43 BC and 2nd rd 3 century AD on a list of priests from Odessos; I 400, a female name; I 466, 2nd - 3rd century AD; I 469, possibly of the Byzantine period; I 51 bis a line 9, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , who is a priest of the Syrian Goddess III 918; III 953, 3rd century AD; III 971; Detschew 264 incorrectly: ; 3rd century AD . III 1080; . III 1116, 3rd century AD; III 1187, 3rd century AD; . III 1289, 3rd century AD; III 1293, 3rd century AD; rd century AD; III 1317, 3rd century AD; III 1303, 3 III 1353, 3rd century AD; III 1362, 3rd century rd AD; III 1538, 3 century AD; III 1626, 1st – 3rd century

The Greek Inscriptions

AD; [

]

89

III 1690 b 36, 202 AD; III 1895 = 1289 = 1091bis; Detschew 313 IV 1972; IV 2103; IV 2129; IV 2192; V 5338, 1st century AD; V 5466, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5741, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Cf. Chapter Two and Chapter Three. , IGBulg. I 306, 2nd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 971; Detschew 264 rd wrongly ; 3 century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2282. , , IGBulg. III 1846, 1st rd - 3 century AD. Not in Detschew. , , from Glava Panega, IGBulg. II 523. , IGBulg. IV 1934, epithet of Asklepios; V 5785, 231 AD; V 5786, 241 AD. According to Mihailov one more sigma might be added. However, on the photograph of V 5785 it is clear that the name has only one sigma. With the photograph of V 5786, exemplifying only one sigma on line 3, and with the previous lines missing, it is difficult to accept Mihailov’s supposition that a second sigma should be restored to . Here compare OYLKTIOY (sic) from an inscription on two silver casseroles (Manov 1994, 89-92), 1st - 2nd century AD. Manov says that “Die Inschrift lautet OYLK. TIOY” and further on he gives OYLK(ou) TIOY: “(Das Gefäß gehört) Ulkos, (dem Sohn) des Tios” (1994, 89-90). After inspecting the vessel, I still believe that a kappa should be restored at the beginning because of the vessel bearing severe fire damage and because of the technique of gold inlaid letters used. We understand that Manov’s intention was to interpret the inscription following an already established tradition in inscribing gold and silverware from Thrace. However, he went too far in supplying a genitive ending, thus cutting the one name in two in order to get to a very problematic Tios to fit his theory of an Asia Minor name. The fact that there is an ivy leaf separating [K]OYLK and TIOY should not be a reason to make two names out of one. It is more economic to read the name as one entity. We should understand that this kind of decoration occurs in many a case in inscriptions (for a similar division of a name see IGBulg. III 1117: (ivy leaf) ), just like the ivy leaf at the end of the one discussed above. So, in conclusion, as there are no such Thracian personal names as Oulkos and Tios attested so far, [K]OYLKTIOS seems to be in line with It is true though that both a personal and a

90

The Greek Inscriptions

place name Tios is found in Bithynia and elsewhere in Asia Minor.23 However, Oulkos would not make any sense in Thracian should it be derived from *wlko-s. Not in Detschew. (. ) , IGBulg. IV 2120, 2nd - 3rd century AD, an epithet of the Thracian Heros. Not in Detschew. , made with gold inlay on two silver casseroles. It has been published by Manov 1994, 89-92, 1st - 2nd century AD, where he read . The name is related to Koul- and –ktios, k(t)us, -kous see above and Kout- and Cutiula, a personal name CIL 3, 7330, from Thessaloniki on a relief of the Thracian Heros (see above) (Horseman). A secure parallel is the epithet from Koul-kous-anos/-enos. For the reading of this name, see the Not in Detschew. considerations above under from Manastir, district of Varna, on a votive tablet (Haralambieva and Ivanov 1987, 74-83), 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5367, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 23, 222-235 AD; II 835, 2nd - 3rd century AD vel , IGBulg. III 1690 c 34, from Pizos, 202 AD. IGBulg. III 947, from Philippopolis, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. I 258, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 47, 202 AD. , IGBulg. I 25, ethnicon for a Greek inhabitant of Dionysopolis 4th - 3th century BC. Detschew 270 considered it a genuine Thracian name. It is worth noting that this is the only example with Kuz- . The place name Kyzikos had been known ever since Herodotus (4. 14), and it makes us think of yet another interference of spirants (s, z) in Greek and their treatment in Thracian. While Thracian has had a solid steady z from I. E. *s, Greeks might had vocalized a Thracian intervocalic s and hence Kyz-ik-os from *Ku(ou)s-ik-, etc. a famous place name in Asia Minor, in Bithynia, see above the ethnicon . Strabo’s testimony about this ethnically mixed area speaks for itself - the region was inhabited by Bithynians (=Thracians), Phrygians, Mysians, Doliones, a Thracian tribe, and around Kyzikos by Mygdones and Trojans. Steph. Byz. 391. 4 quotes Homer to 23

Detschew 1976, 506; Zgusta 1964, 1558-5.

The Greek Inscriptions

91

say that the Thracians Doliones were inhabitants of Kyzikos. IG 7. 523 from Boiotia, gives us a (acc. pl. ). , IGBulg. II 557, 3rd century AD, an epithet of the Thracian Heros. , IGBulg. III 1339, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1712, an epithet of Apollo from Ezerovo, 1st - 3rd century AD; see above.

IGBulg. st

rd

III

1621, 1 - 3 century AD. Detschew 274 from Saladinvo near Pazardjik k Gočeva 1989, 113-15; the author did not date the inscription; the sanctuary being known to us by other inscriptions, we could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1326 from Malo konare, near Pazardjik. Mihailov considers it Asian or Thracian. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 868, 2nd - 3rd century AD See Detschew 274 due to confusion in reading the inscription. , IGBulg. III 947, near Philippolis, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. daugther of wife off IGBulg. I 27 bis, from Dionysopolis, 3rd century BC (?). Compare the second element in and . Not in Detschew. (?) , IGBulg. IV 2026, the reading is not sure. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 51bis, 2nd - 3rd century y AD, probably from a Bithynian Thracian origin. Not in Detschew. epithet of Asklepios IGBulg. V 5699 = IV 2029, V 5700 5715, 5705; all from the sanctaury of Asklepios Limenos at Slivniza near Sofia, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. (?) is just a possibility as Mihailov put it (see under , IGBulg. III 1385), epithet of the Heros 3rd century

92

The Greek Inscriptions

AD. See G. Mihailov’s comments: “Paene omnes litterae ligatae sunt…. ut NK=LYK legere possis”. Not in Detschew.

IGBulg. IV 2297, 1st - 3rd century AD; see at III 1732. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1478, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 501, 3rd century AD Not in Detschew. a female name from Piperitsa, district of Blagoevgrad, in Manov 2008, 109. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 77, 78, epithet of the Heros, 1st century BC. a female name, in Manov 2008, 126, 154 AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew See Monta below. IGBulg. IV 2268, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IGBulg. IV 2283 bis (?). Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 713. Not in Detschew. a female name, in Manov 2008, 130, 2nd - 3rd AD, from the Rupite, district of Blagoevgrad, now in the museum of the Archaeological Institute in Sofia. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 749, 2nd - 3rd century AD. a female personal name, belongs to the dedicant, cf. Detschew 291, from Kavadartsi, near present-day Skopje. See the on the gold finger ring from the Arabajiiska Mogila sequence at Duvanlij (Filow 1934 and The Evidence). IGBulg. I 345, 3rd century AD, a place in Thrace, the ancient town of Mesambria. a place-name, present-day Lovech, IGBulg. II 598. IGBulg. IV 2177. passim. IGBulg. IV 2284. IGBulg. V 5828, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew.

The Greek Inscriptions

93

IGBulg. IV 2214 1st - 3rd st rd century AD; IV 2214; 1 - 3 century AD; IV 2337, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2343 from Nicopolis ad Nestum, 3rd century AD; , IV 2350, from Novo Lyaski, on the Nestos river, near the Greek-Bulgarian border, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 589, 2nd - 3rd century AD. st IGBulg. IV 2337, 1 - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. IV 2337, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 751, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1727, early 3rd century BC. Not in Detschew. In Detschew 301 this same name is said to be from an inscription found at Delphi. IGBulg. III 1410, an epithet of the Heros 76 AD. Detschew 302: IGBulg. III 1349, 3rd century AD. IGBulg I 400, 1st - 2nd AD; IV 2288, 165 AD. (?), IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5867= 2213, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. a female name, IGBulg. IV 2228, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1773, 1st-3rd AD; IGBulg V 5011, 1st BC st 1 AD. IGBulg. IV 2015, a priest, 2nd - 1st century [ ?]. BC; wrong reading in Detschew 165: a female name, IGBulg. IV 2228, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Angelov 2003, 138 from Sandanski, southwest Bulgaria, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V, 5883, 77 AD. Not in Detschew. and , IGBulg. IV 2337, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2141. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 374, 2nd - 3rd century AD; II 542 from Glava Panega; Detschew 36 incorrectly: . (?), IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 469 bis, 3rd - 2nd century BC. Not in Detschew 312. . . from Glava Panega, IGBulg. II 576. Not in Detschew.

94

The Greek Inscriptions

IGBulg. III 1325, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1457, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1690 b 54, 202 AD. ? IGBulg. III 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD; , IGBulg. III 1816, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1670, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5825, 1st - 3rd century AD; see and Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 1922, 2nd - 3rd century AD, on a column inscribed with names (a sacred catalog?); , II century AD; II 677 539, from Glava Panega, 3rd ; III 1079 2nd rd rd rd 3 century AD; III 1516, 3 century AD; III 1396, 3 AD; III, 1752, 1st 3rd century AD; III 1895 = 1289 = 1091 bis; Detschew 313 . Here belongs also the false reading of (relying on Heydemann’ s reading 1874, 292 Detschew 221 IV 2337, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2203; IV 2222; no. 788). IV 2213, 2nd-3rd AD; IV 2194; IV 1923. on an ex-voto dedicated to Asklepios for his daughter , IGBulg. III 1831, 1st - 3rd century AD. The reading belongs to the editor princeps Kacarov (1937,, 284 n. 2 fig. 223; also J. et L. Robert Bull. Epigr. 52, 1939, 480 n. 214). IGBulg. I 538 from Glava Panega, 2nd century BC (?); IGBulg. II 769 , 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1073, 3rd century AD; III 1101, rd 3 century AD; III 1199, 3rd century AD; III 1351, 3rd century AD; , IGBulg. III 1760, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1793, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5805, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , an ex-voto for himself and his wife IGBulg. III 1803, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. IV 2015.

The Greek Inscriptions

95

IGBulg. II 754. IGBulg. III, 1736, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 846; III 1106 3rd centuryAD; III 1516, 3rd century AD; III 1583, 1st-3rd centuryAD; III 1593, 1st-3rd century AD; ? III 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD; ? 1626, 1st 3rd century AD; (accusative) IGBulg. III 1633, 3rd century AD; III 1690 b 66 from Pizos; III 1690 column b line 27, 202 AD; III 1690 b 52; , IGBulg. III 1690 b 52, 202 AD; IGBulg. III 1690 b 64, 202 AD; IGBulg. III 1690 b 65, 202 AD; III 1690 c 35 ; III 1690 c 32, 202 AD; III 1690 d 40, 202 AD; , IGBulg. III 1690 c 44, 202 AD; III 1690 c 50, 202 AD; III 1690 c 51, 202 AD; III 1690 d 38, 202 AD; III 1690 d 40, 202 AD and d 45; III 1690 c 63, 202 AD; III 1690 d 59, 202 AD; III 1690 e 15; 1736, 1st - 3rd century AD; III, 1741, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1773, 1st –3rd centuryAD; III 1806, 1st - 3rd century AD; , V 5300, 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5343, from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5611; V 5394bis, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5821, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1354, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5628, 1st-3rd century AD. ( ), IGBulg. IV 1922, 2nd - 3rd century AD, on a column inscribed with names (a sacred catalog?); IV 2196 (?); II 543, from Glava Panega, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1690 d 34, 202 AD.

96

The Greek Inscriptions

IGBulg. III 1289, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 511, from Glava Panega, after 1st century AD; III 1317, 3 century AD; IV 2142, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2151, 2nd - 3rd century AD; (dat. ) IV 2312, 2nd 3rd century AD; IV 2314, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2349 from Kovachevitsa near Nicopolis ad Nestum, nd rd 2 - 3 century AD; , IGBulg. V 5329, , in from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Manov 2008, 125, 2nd - 3rd century AD, district of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. both in Manov 2008, 126, 154 AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. The nominative in that same ends in –es, judging on the name of his son inscription, which reads ἱῷ…Not in in Manov 2008, 130, Detschew. 2nd - 3rd AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. in Manov 2008, 136, 2nd – 3rd AD, found near Sandanski. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2228, from Boboshevo, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. (dat.) IGBulg. IV 2312, 2nd -3rd century AD; V 5926, 158 AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2228, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1016, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 711, 2nd - 3rd century st rd AD; III, 1725,1 – 3 century AD. II 836, 2nd -3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 354, 355, 363, dedicator to the Heros, 3rd century AD.; II 556, from Glava Panega, 2nd - 3rd century AD; II 694, 2nd - 3rd century AD; II 836, 3rd century AD; II 843, 2nd - 3rd rd century AD; II 854; III 951, 3 century AD; III 1089, 3rd century AD;. III , III 1097, 3rd century 1093, 3rd century AD; rd

The Greek Inscriptions

century AD; III 1133, 3rd century AD; III 1303, 3rd century AD; rd , III 1430, 3 century AD; III 1367, 3rd century AD; III 1377, 3rd century AD; III 1405, 3rd century AD, 3rd century AD; , III 1438, 3rd st rd rd century AD; III 1593, 1 - 3 century AD; III 1516, 3 century AD; III 1621, 1st - 3rd century AD; -? III 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD; ? III 1626, 1st – 3rd century AD; III 1630,1st - 3rd III 1631, 1st - 3rd century century AD; AD; III 1631, 1st - 3rd century AD; III1690 b18; I rd II 1690 b 27, 202 AD; III 1690 c 64, 3 century AD; , III 1690 b 13, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 14, 202 AD; III 1690 column b line 20, 202 III 1690 b 21, 202 AD; AD; III 1690 b 33, 202 AD; III 1690 b 37, 202 AD; III 1690 b 38, 202 AD; III 1690 b 39, 202 AD; III 1690 b 40, 202 AD; III 1690 b 41, 202 AD; III 1690 b 43, 202 AD; III 1690 b 44 and d 55, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 46, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 51, 202 AD; III 1690 b 63, 202 AD; III 1690 b 64, 202 AD; , III 1690 b 19, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 14, 202 AD; III 1690 c 23, c 39, 202 AD; III 1690 c 24, 202 AD; , III 1690 c III 1690 c 26, 202 25, c 38, 202 AD; AD; III 1690 c 36, 202 AD; AD;

III

1107,

3rd

97

98

The Greek Inscriptions

III 1690 c 51, 202 AD; III 1690 c 52, 202 AD and c 33; III 1690 c 53, 202 AD; III 1690 c 54, 202 AD; III 1690 c 55, 202 AD; III 1690 c 56 and d 43, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 61, 202 AD; III 1690 c 62, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 27, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 28, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 29, 202 AD; , III 1690 d 30, 202 AD; III 1690 d 32, 202 AD; III 1690 d 34, 202 AD; III 1690 d 36, 202 AD; vel – III 1690 d 36-37, 202 AD; III 1690 d 38, 202 AD; III 1690 d 41, 202 AD; III 1690 d 42, 202 AD; III 1690 d 44, 202 AD; III 1690 d 58, 202 AD; III 1690 d 63-64, 202 AD; III 1690 d 71-72, 202 AD;III, 1717, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1723, 1st -3rd century AD; III, 1758, 1st - 3rd century AD; , III 1782, 1st III 1805, 1st - 3rd century AD; -3rd century AD; III 1806, 1st - 3rd century AD; , III 1816, 1st - 3rd century AD; , III 1846, 1st - 3rd century AD. III 1690 b 32, 202 AD; IV 2233 and 2234, from Sportela, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2074; IV 2114; IV 2224; V 5805, 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5275, V5863=2141 from Blateshnica, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5651; V 5665; V 5716; in Manov 2008, 109, found in Piperitsa, district of Blagoevgrad, 2nd – 3rd AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1303, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 257, epithet of the Heros, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew.

τῇ

The Greek Inscriptions

99

an inhabitant of a town, probablyy See IGBulg. V 5652, from Bizone, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , see below in IGBulg. IV 2195. Mihailov under question considers it to be a place name based on the epithet of Dionysos. It can hardly be a name of a town but rather an adjective connected to the local cult of Dionysos. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2195, from Tavalichevo near Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Possibly from *meudh ‘lament’, see , Old Bulgarian mislu “thought’ and Pokorny (19943, 743) Greek *worg ‘secret rites, orgy’, Watkins 100 and Pokorny (19943, 1168). See further on in Chapter Five under treatments of PIE *dh, etc. Mihailov did not make any comment in his lists of names. The Thracian origin of this adjective is secured by its formation, with the typical ending –enos (for this part in adjectives see in Chapter Five) and the treatment and development of both mut- and org- (from *worg, where *w after weakening is lost). Not in Detschew. IGBul. III 1621, 1st - 3rd century AD, an epithet to the Thracian Heros. IGBulg. III 1473, 3rd century AD.

IGBulg. V, 5883, 77 AD. IGBulg. V, 5883, 77 AD. IGBulg. IV 2286 159 AD; according to Mihailov this is a female name. IGBulg. III 1222, 3rd AD. Not in Detschew.

in

100

The Greek Inscriptions

etc., from Bithynia, (Corsten 2007, 131-33), 2nd BC. IGBulg. III 1347, 3rd century AD is another graphemic variant See also Masson 1988, 10. of passim, , IGBulg. V 5011, from Balchik (Dionysopolis), 1st BC - 1st century AD; see also V 5030, where the name is not explicitly mentioned. , IGBulg. IV 2015 rd IGBulg. III 1352, 3 century AD. IGBulg. I 233 bis, 3rd century BC. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 599 (= V 5197) from Kamenec; Mihailov In his 5th volume under no. 5197 redirects us to V 5634; 1st - 3rd century AD; Mihailov (with bibliography) established a connection with the cult of Jupiter Okkonenos in Bithynia, and his dissemination later in Thrace with the same epithet. Not in Detschew. See Detschew 340: for the inscription from Kamenec, corrected by Mihailov. For this reading we have to rely on Mihailov’s explanation. The stone was not preserved (“lapis non est servatus, ut lectionem conferamus”). For see Pleket (SEG 32, 1982, 679). There are two examples of cited by Şahin (1982, 118 and 1201). See also below. IGBulg. II 718, from Nicopolis ad Istrum, transferred later to Tirnovo and found there in some house, 1st- 3rd century AD. Mihailov mentions it again in V 5248, where he restores it to . See his reasons expressed above. IGBulg. II 804, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, 3rd , II 855, 3rd century AD and II century AD; see rd 856, 3 century AD. an epithet of Dionysos, IGBulg. III 1881, 1st - 3rd century AD. an epithet of a local Apollo, on a marble relief, a fragment of an ex-voto (G. Kabakchieva 2000, 67). Dated to the 3rd - 1st century BC by the editor G. Kabakchieva who reads Not in Detschew.

The Greek Inscriptions

101

, an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 1713 bis, 1st - 3rd century AD; Not in Detschew. See below. IGBulg. II 856, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, 3rd century AD 855; see II 856, 3rd century AD and rd II 804, 3 century AD.

ἱῷ… in Manov 2008, 126, 154 AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 430, 5th - 4th century BC. Not in Detschew. an epithet of the Thracian Heros IGBulg. II 832, 833, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 511, 536, 540, 544, all occurrences from the Roman period. IGBulg. II 874, , IGBulg. III 1817, 1st - 3rd century AD. There are different opinions as to the origin of this name. Detschew 370 considers it Thracian; Mihailov considers it to be either Thracian or Greek. Russu (Dacia NS 2, 1958, 538; 1967, 46) regards it as Greek rather than Thracian. , IGBulg. III 1018, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. I 76 bis, derived from , a dedicator’s name, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1018, 3rd century AD; see . Not in Detschew. ( ), IGBulg. III 884 a 23, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 884 a 23, 3rd century AD; see ( ). nd st IGBulg. I 283, epithet of the Heros, 2 - 1 century B. C; IGBulg. I 283 bis, 1st century BC. – 1st century AD, according to Mihailov “ut videtur”. IGBulg. IV 2251 from Gorna Gradesnitsa near the border with Greece, 3rd century AD(?). Wrong reading in Detschew 365. , IGBulg. IV 2233, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 831. Not in Detschew.

102

The Greek Inscriptions

IGBulg. I 289, reconstructed by Mihailov; II 848. vel ], IGBulg. V 5082=289. Not in Detschew. , a Thracian emporium, IGBulg. III 1690. , IGBulg. V 5329, from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd century AD, Thracian or Oriental. and versus and show the shift / Not in Detschew. * , IGBulg. III 1445, 3rd century AD; see . Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1445, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2322, 211 AD. IGBulg. III 1626, 1st – 3rd century AD; III, 1726, st rd 1 - 3 century AD; , III 1802, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2337,1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1760, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , a male name, IGBulg. III 1804, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 850, 2nd -3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 933, an epithet of the Heros, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1516, a female name, 3rd century AD. Detschew 377 IGBulg. III 1796, a male name(?), 1st -3rd century AD; Not in Detschew. inhabitants of the lake Prasias, from an inscription in ancient Pistiros. See BCH 118, 1994, 1-15 …. …Not in Detschew. (dat.) in IGBulg. IV 2312, 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5913= IV 2289, where is a . IV 2230: , wrong reading for nd rd from Barakovo, near Blagoevgrad, 2 - 3 century AD; IV 2278; IV 2281, 1st -3rd century AD; IV 2337, 1st - 3rd century AD IV 2346, (dat. ), 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2252, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2257; IV 2278, 1st - 3rd century AD; [

The Greek Inscriptions

103

IV 2286, 159 AD; , IV 2298; V 5918, 5921, 2nd - 3rd century AD; from Sandanski, southwest Bulgaria, in Angelov 2003, and from m Pipe 142; ritsa, district of Blagoevgrad, in Manov 2008, 108-9. Not in Detschew; , together with , a female name, in Manov 2008, 125, 3rd century AD, district of Blagoevgrad; the same name in Manov 2008, 127, 2nd – 3rd AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew; in Manov 2008, 130, 2nd – 3rd AD, from the Rupite, district of Blagoevgrad, now in the museum of the Archaeological Institute in Sofia. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 588, 704, 753, 754, an epithet of the Heros, 3rd century AD; V 5805, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 978, 3rd century AD; IV ; IV 2304, 162 AD, Detschew 387 2344, the reading belonging to G. Katsarov (1919-20, 10 fig. 6 = SEG 1, 1923, 295, cf. SEG 3, 1927-29, 112 add. et corr. ). an epithet of Thracian Heros on a siver vessel from Golyama Brestnitsa, district of Pleven, northcentral Bulgaria (Petkov 1960; Rousseva 2006, 61, no. 49), 2nd - 3rd century AD. IV 2289 1st - 3rd century AD; IV 2311, a female name, 198 AD; (dat. ) IV 2312, 2nd - 3rd AD; IV 2322, 211 AD; IV 2329, 1st - 3rd century nd rd AD; IV 2254, 2 - 3 century AD; IV 2257; IV 2273; IV 2275, 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5886, 222 AD; V 5927, 3rd century AD (?). (dat. ), IGBulg. IV 2330, 1st - 3rd century AD; Detschew 387 put it differently. on an ex-voto dedicated to Asklepios for his daughter , IGBulg. III 1831, 1st rd - 3 century AD. The reading belongs to the editor princeps, G. Katsarov (1937,, 284 n. 2 fig. 223; also J. et L. Robert Bull. Epigr. 52, 1939, 480 n. 214).

104

The Greek Inscriptions

IGBulg. IV 2214 1st - 3rd century AD. an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. IV 1928, 2nd - 3rd century AD. a place-name IGBulg. III 1185, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1185, 3rd century AD. from Saladinvo near Pazardjik k Gočeva (1989, 113-115); the author did not date the inscription; the sanctuary being known to us by other inscriptions, we could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2338, end of the 1st century AD, a female name. in Nos. 23 and 28 in Chapter Two. , IGBulg. IV 2025. , IGBulg. II 796 , III 1829 in in inhabitant of Bosagura, 1st - 3rd century AD. (cf. Chapter Two) IGBulg. III 1198, 3rd century AD; from Karasura, Böttger and Halloff (1991, 47488), 3rd century AD. According to the editors, the change ou to o occurs more often than o to u: “in zweiten Bestandteil des Namens” (Böttger and Halloff 1991, 474). However, this is not likely the case as o or ou are not in fact the graphemic variants of a morph /o/ but most probably a genetive ending in Thracian.24 from Karasura (Böttger and Halloff 1991, 474-88), 3rd century AD. Cf. supra, Not in Detschew. a military district (strategia) IGBulg. IV 2338, end of the 1st century AD.

24

Dimitrov 2003, 351. In a number of inscriptions the E-ending indicates a on four silver phialae from Duvanlij and genitive form, e. g. in the Kyolmen inscription, our earliest examples. In the case of Kerso-bleptes vs. Kersebleptes the genitive ending morpheme shows the variation o/e. In many cases, in compound names the Greek genitive ending morpheme -ou appears. Judging on the chronology of this Greek ending one should expect -o to p be used in inscriptions from the 5th century BC and before, whilst -ou from the 4th century BC on.

The Greek Inscriptions

105

IGBulg. II 750, 3rd century AD; II 868, 2 - 3rd century AD; III 884, 3rd century AD; III 933, 3rd century AD; III 1039; III 1132, 3rd century AD; III 1318 3rd century AD; V 5276, 2nd - 3rd century AD;; V 5394; V 5830, 2nd - 3rd century AD; (cf. No. 29 from Chapter Two). IGBulg. III 1293, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1115, 1st - 2nd AD; IV 2015, nd st 2 - 1 centuryy BC; (dat. ), IV 2112, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1132, an epithet of Hygia and Telesphor, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1690 b 37, 202 AD. IGBulg. III 1350, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. I 378, a military district, 19 AD; II 743. nd

, IGBulg. III 1090, 3rd century AD; V 5011, 1st century BC – 1 century AD; V 5638bis; , son of Seuthes III and Berenike, th III 1731 (Elvers 1994), end of 4 century BC; V 5011 ; V 5638 bis , from Kabyle, (see also J. et L. Robert Bull. Ép. 1976, n. 474 where they wrote which was not accepted by Mihailov ). Velkov 1991, did not included it in his . list. The verification on the photograph showed clearly Judging on the letter-forms this short inscription should be dated in the Roman Imperial period. See Corsten (2007, 133) with an example from Bithynia. IGBulg. III 1690 c 24, 202 AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2322, 211 AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 765, 2nd - 3rd century AD. st

106

The Greek Inscriptions

,

, III 1690 d 14, 202 AD. Not in

Detschew. IGBulg. I 382, 2nd century AD; III 947, 3rd rd century AD; III 1349, 3 century AD; III 1439, 1441, 3rd rd st rd century AD; III 1516, 3 century AD; III 1657, 1 - 3 century AD. III 1690 column b line 33, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 49, 202 AD; st rd III 1690 c 55, 202 AD; IV 1963, 1 - 3 century IV 2104, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5306, 2nd - 3rd AD; III 1690 c 59, 202 AD; III 1690 c 60, century AD; 202 AD; , III 1690 d 17, 202 AD; III 1690 d 26, 202 AD; III 1690 d 47, 202 AD; III 1690 d 59, 202 AD; III, 1746, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1460, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. II 510, 511,523, 539, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 564, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 532, 551, 552, 573; 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 529, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. II 525. IGBulg. II 512, 536. IGBulg. II 514, 521. IGBulg. II 517. IGBulg. II 537, 577, 587; 3rd century AD. an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. II 531, 540, 543, 554, 2nd - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5877= III 2246; Mihailov is correcting it back from - to -; also see V 5901-5905 and 5909 all from the so-called “Sanctuary of God Salenos” (Sanctuarium dei mentioned Saleni), around 230 AD. He thinks that the epithet in IV 2305 and the one from V 5610 should be etymologically connected and considered together with similar in meaning. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2348. Not in Detschew, but see Detschew 412 ( ) . at IGBulg. II 526. IGBulg. II 530 3rd century AD.

The Greek Inscriptions

107

, IGBulg. II 516. IGBulg. I 7 ter, 2nd century BC; I 42 line 10, 3rd - 2nd century BC. , IGBulg. III 1794, a place name, end of 4th century BC. IGBulg. I 154, 2nd - 1st BC, a female name. in a dedicatory inscription from Kabyle. The dedication is to the Thracian Heros. Velkov 1991, 26 dated it to the 3rd AD. He wrote but supposed that the epithet could be ( ). Such abbreviations are not known from inscriptions found in Bulgaria, and we think the correct reading is as we gave it here. Velkov’s reading was accepted in the publication in SEG 42:651. The epithet appears for the first time here. Not in Detschew. It should be mentioned that Detschew 425 listed Sassa (CIL 3, 14355. 15), a female person of Dacian origin and Saza (CIL 3, 14406a: Aurelius Saza), unsecure reading. It seems to me that there is no connection between Sases, etc. and the Thracian form Seusa (see below) of the name of the Thracian king Seuthes. , IGBulg. III 1430, 3rd century AD. , son of Seuthes III and Berenike, IGBulg. III 1731and Elvers (1994), end of 4th century BC. Cf. Chapter Three. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5635= IV1777, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD. an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. III , III 1655, 3rd century AD (or later). See . 1654, vel , III 1690 d 23, 202 AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III, 1588 from Karanovo but brought there from Augusta Traiana, see comments by , an epithet to Zeus Sebazios, 202 AD. Not in Mihailov: Detschew. IGBulg. IV 2286, 159 AD. See above. IGBulg. III 1690 b 59, 202 AD, which Detschew 437 thinks should be corrected to ; Mihailov, however says that on the stone it is written .

108

The Greek Inscriptions

, IGBulg. III 975, an epithet of the Heros, 3rd century AD. ( ), a male name from Sandanski, southwest Bulgaria (Angelov 2003, 142). Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2174. , a female name, IGBulg. III 1532 - 1534 (the same Flavia), 3rd century AD; III 1698, 3rd century AD. * , a place name linked to the epithet of Ares, see below. Not in Detschew. (?),V 5610 from Prilepci near Kardzhali, southeast Bulgaria, an epithet of Ares. Probably cognate to the toponym * . Cf. SEG 37, 610, SEG 41, 597 and Chaniotis (1991, 301, no. 75), who is the beginning of the name of the dedicant suggests that rather than that of a second epithet of the god. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 378, a military district, 19 AD. , town, present day Sofia, passim. , IGBulg. III 1316, 3rd century AD. IV 1902 from Serdica (present-day Sofia) around 180 AD: …; 1907 around 142 AD: … nd … 1914, 2 century AD: 1917, 2nd century AD: 1919, 2nd century AD: III 1316, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 1947 from Sedica, 2nd -3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 947, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2011, near Serdica, after in 1690 b line 59, 2nd century AD; Detschew 437 thinks that from Pizos, 2nd - 3rd century AD, should be corrected to , but . Mihailov says that on the stone it is written IGBulg. II 539, 1st - 3rd century AD; III st rd 1187, 3rd century AD.; III 1593, 1 - 3 century AD; III 1690 d 41, 202 AD; III 1690 d 50, 202 AD; III st rd st 1690 d 65, 202 AD; III, 1719 bis, 1 - 3 century AD; III, 1727, 1 – 3rd century AD; , i. e. Seuthes III, a Thracian king, from ancient Seuthopolis, IGBulg. III 1731(Elvers 1994), end of the 4th century BC; IV

The Greek Inscriptions

109

2336, pre-Roman (?); IV 2346, (dat. ), 2nd rd -3 century AD. Cf. Chapter Two. orr IGBulg. II 683, epithet of the Heros 3rd AD. Not in Detschew. (?) IGBulg. II 743, strategia, according to Mihailov, who is filling the vacat. IGBulg. IV 2230 , from Barakovo, near Blagoevgrad, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. a recent discovery on a gold signet-ring found in the Dalakova tumulus north of Topolchane, district of Sliven. Dimitrov ( in the genitive 2008a, 26-32. The inscribed text reads: case). The ring is dated to the 4th century BC. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. V 5436. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1690 b 45, 202 AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1593, 1st - 3rd century AD, an epithet of Apollo. , IGBulg. III 1771, 2nd - 3rd century AD. inhabitants of , IGBulg. III 1771, nd rd 2 - 3 century AD. a dedicant, III 1885, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. I 203 bis, of uncertain origin according to Mihailov. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1799; Mihailov thinks it could be Thracian; 1st -3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 133, genitive IGBulg V 5921, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. / / on a clay amphora from Sboryanovo, northeast Bulgaria.25

25 For an account on that archaeological site see above in Introduction, Stoyanov (1997).

110

The Greek Inscriptions

Fig.4-5. Graffito from Sboryanovo , IGBulg. IV 2100, an epithet of Asklepios. , a town ( ) of the see below. inhabitants of the town of the Skaptoparoi (now Gramada), IGBulg. IV 2236 in a dedicatory inscription to Caesar M. Antonius Gordianus, around 238 AD. IGBulg. II 804 (sic) 2nd -3rd AD; IV 1930, a personal name from Serdica, after 2nd century AD. orr IGBulg. IV 2163, see app. cr. where G. Mihailov hesitated (“duobus modis suppleri possis”) which is the correct one of either readings; see also IV 2050-57, 2162, 2164-2166, Not in Detschew. , (dat. ), IGBulg. IV 2330, st rd 1 -3 century AD; Detschew 455: . in Manov 2008, 109, found in Piperitsa, district of Blagoevgrad, 2nd - 3rd century AD. See above Not in Detschew. in Manov 2008, 127, 2nd - 3rd AD, from the museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. III 1803, 1st - 3rd century AD.

The Greek Inscriptions

1st - 3rd century AD.

of the

111

, IGBulg. III 1711,

, IGBulg. III 1711, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1445, 3rd AD Not in Detschew. vel , IGBulg. III 1690 column b line 12. Mihailov preferred the form with -d-, while Detschew 457 put the one with -l-. As it shows from the picture it sems that it is rather a lambda than a delta; 202 AD. , IGBulg. IV 2252, 1st -3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. vel , IGBulg. III 1690 column b line 12. Mihailov preferred the form with -d-, while Detschew 457 put the one with -l-. As it shows from the picture it sems that it is rather a lambda than a delta; 202 AD. IGBulg. II 731, 235-238 AD.; III 951, 3rd century AD; (genetive) III 1601, 1st-3rd century AD; st 1626, 1st - 3rd century III 1626, 1 - 3rd century AD; AD; III 1690 d 48, 202 AD; III 1690 d 49, 202 AD; III 1690 d 65, 202 AD; III 1690 d 60, 202 AD; IV 2281, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5560 is the same as III 1572, genitive ; st rd III 1593, 1 - 3 century AD; V 5565, same as previous; V 5592, first half of 1st century AD; V V 5717, V 5723, 2nd - 3rd century AD. 5595; IGBulg. II 722, 3rd century AD. vel vel , IGBulg. III 1690 c 12, 202 AD. , a name of a town, IGBulg. V 5011, 1st century BC – 1st century AD. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2025, an epithet of Apollo. , IGBulg. IV 2213 = V 5867 where a new reading is adopted based on a new inspection in situ of the stone after the archaeologist R. Georgieva was lucky enough to recover it; see also , II 501, Janakieva (1988); see further on in the tribe name 765, 766. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. I 162, 3rd century AD. -, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. IV 2115. III 1690 e 18, 202 AD. IGBulg. III 1523, 3rd century AD.

112

The Greek Inscriptions

, a genetive (Filow 1934, 105), see Chapter Three. (Filow 1934, 105), on a gold ring with an image of a horseman, found in a 5th century BC burial. According to the practice in Thrace (see the inscribed phialae from Rogozen and elsewhere), this is a genetive case-form, translated to “belongs to Skythodokos”. This is a perfectly good Thracian name with a second element – dokos/-tokos (Detschew 145 and 462-463; Dečev 1960, 15876; Beshevliev 1965b, 13-14; 1-57; Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 190, 198). J. Boardman, in his work on Greek gems and fingerings, advanced an explanation of the inscription which reads, as follows: “an odd name which should mean ‘friend’ or ‘host of the Scythian’” (2001, 230). He is followed by other scholars in his opinion (IGDOP, 13-14; SEG 44, 1999, no. 871). IGBulg. I 164, 354 quater, 1st century AD. (?); III 1406, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5067, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1090, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 544, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 587, Detschew 203, different wrong reading: , IV 2142, 2nd - 3rd century AD, epithet of Hera. from Kresna, southwest Bulgaria (now in a private collection: Ivanov 2004, 83-86). According to B. Gerov (1961, 325), the epithet may be derived from the name of the ancient village that is present day Baikalsko. During a recent visit to that place, upon my inquiries I was told by the local people that there is an epithet applied to that place-name, which at some point was used as the name for a small locality with a somehow large pond, still existing, upon which a temple of Hera once stood. It is located in a small valley, which because of the pond was called Chuklyovo Blato (= ? Pond). Therefore, Chuklyovo may well be the translation for Hera’s epithet, as B. Gerov put it. in Manov 2008, 109, found in Piperitsa, district of Blagoevgrad, 2nd - 3rd century AD. an epithet of the Thracian Heros, III, 1726, 1st – 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2139, an epithet of the Thracian Heros. , IGBulg. IV 2120; IV 2192. , IGBulg. III 975, 3rd century AD.

The Greek Inscriptions

113

, IV 2314, 2nd - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. III 1447. IGBulg. III 1293, 3rd century AD, an epithet of the Heros; V 5610 from Prileptsi near Kurdzhali, southeast Bulgaria (SEG 37, 610, SEG 41, 597). A. Chaniotis (1991, 301, no. 75) suggests that is the beginning of the name of the dedicator rather than that of a second epithet of the god. IGBulg. V 5329, from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 963, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1392; III 1690 b 68, 3rd century AD; III 1690 b 70, 202 AD; , III 1690 c 18, 202 AD; IGBulg. IV 2337, 1st - 3rd century AD IGBulg. I 27 bis, 175, 4th - 3rd century BC (?), whose wife is both occurrences not in Detschew. IGBulg. III, 1204 3rd century AD; rd III 1132, 3 century AD; III 1690 b 39, nd st 202; III, 1730, 2 - 1 century BC; the Thracian paradynast at ancient Kabyle, a contemporary (and relative?) of Seuthes III, III 1731 (Elvers 1994), end of 4th century BC. Cf. in Chapter Two. an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 1832, 1st - 3rd century AD. The reading belongs to the editor princeps I. Velkov 1934, 464-65. Detschew 477 is following him: However Mihailov believes that the right reading should from the epithet with shifted to to .26 be , a place name, IGBulg. IV 2192. , IGBulg. IV 2065, an epithet of Asklepios. Mihailov, eodem loco, thinks that this should be derived from a place-name . *Spinthopura, unlike Detschew 477, who derives it from IGBulg. IV 2232-2234, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 838, 3rd century AD; III 1804, st rd 1 – 3 century AD. 26

See Mihailov 1943, 65 and Schwyzer 1934-1970, 204, 210).

114

The Greek Inscriptions

, IGBulg. IV 2122, an epithet of Zeus and Hera. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. II 765, 766, epithet of the Heros, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. IV 2050, an epithet of Asklepios. Dečev 480 derives it from Latin stramen. However, Mihailov, eodem loco, recalls is a fortified place. Procopius (De aedificiis 4. 4), where , IGBulg. III 1690 column b line 24, 202 AD. , IGBulg. IV 2194. vel III 1690 d 62, 202 AD. , IGBulg. IV 1916. epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. V 5608. Not in Detschew. (genitive) IGBulg. III 1172, 3rd century AD; III 1190, 3rd century AD. IGBulg. III 1854, 3rd century AD or later? , an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. IV 2246, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2305, 221 AD.

, IGBulg. IV 2026, an epithet of Dionysos. Not in Detschew. , IGBulg. IV 2110, Apollini Tadeno on an inscription found in Kabyle, Velkov 1991, 23 (= Filov, B., IBAD 1, 1910, 227 (non vidi) and An. épigr. 1911, n. 17), an epithet of Apollo, ca. 150 AD. See also Detschew 487. IGBulg. III 1133, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. III 1133, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. (. ) , IGBulg. IV 2216, an epithet of Dionysos, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5328. IGBulg. I 354 quarter, 1st century AD(?). , IGBulg. II 489, , 2nd - 3rd century AD.

The Greek Inscriptions

115

, IGBulg. II 536, from Glava Panega, 3rd century AD; III 1064, 3 century AD; III 1516, 3rd century AD; III 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1690 b 17; IGBulg. III 1690 b 44, 202 AD; III 1690 b 22; III 1690 d 51, 202 AD; III 1690 d 55, 202 AD; III 1734, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1786, 1st - 3rd . III 1806, 1st - 3rd century AD; IV century AD; nd …;. IV 1934, after 1916, after 2 century AD: nd nd 2 century AD; IV 2015, 2 - 1st century BC; IV st rd 2022, 1 -3 century AD; IV 2112 ; IV 2133; IV 2214 st rd 1 - 3 century AD, IV 2074 ; IV 2234 . -, an epithet of the Heros, III 1879, 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. I 291, epithet of the Heros, 2nd century BC. (?) Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5462, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. vel IGBulg. rd rd III 1341 3 century AD; III 1317, 3 AD; III 1667, , 1st - 3rd century AD. IGBulg. V 5304. Not in Detschew. , whose son is , IGBulg. IV 2331, 144 AD, in an uncertain place on the middle course of the Strymon River; whose , q. v. at Mihailov: “loco incerto in wife’s name was valle Strymonis medii’ IGBulg. IV 2331…’6. …. littera , quae mutila est, non tamen certa est, ?”. Cf. Detschew 79, 95. , epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. g V 5617, 5618, 5619, 5620, 5621, 2nd century BC( ?). Not in Detschew. ( ) ( ), IGBulg. III 1355, 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2331, 144 AD from an uncertain place on the middle course of the Strymon River; his father’s name was and his mother was , q. v. at Mihailov: “loco incerto in valle Strymonis medii”; IGBulg. IV 23316: “littera , quae mutila est, non rd

116

The Greek Inscriptions

tamen certa est, ?”. Cf. Detschew 79, 95. See also the genitive formTeretos below. IGBulg. II 507; II 564, from Glava Panega, 2nd - 3rd century AD; , II 844; III 1111, 3rd century AD; IGBulg. III 1210, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1517, 3rd century AD; III 1593, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1593, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1595, 1st - 3rd century AD; , III 1690 c 41, 202 AD; III 1690 c 46, 202 AD; IV 2274, 150 , III 1690c 61, 202 AD; AD; III 1690 d 52, 202 AD; III 1690 d 54, 202 AD; [ III 1627, 1st - 3rd century AD, from Karasura. Böttger and Halloff (1991, 478-81) claim a different reading based on their having re-discovered the fragment that was first published by Dechev (1934, 7677, No. 9, Abb. 66). On the delineatio, provided by Dechev and used by Mihailov in III 1627 it is clear that the vertical hasta next to P in the restored [ could only be part of H or I, the latter not yielding to a plausible reading. Böttger and Halloff’s suggestion for orr is not convincing. Therefore, despite the difficulties, is preferable. , son of Seuthes III and Berenike, III 1731and th , 1st - 3rd Elvers (1994), end of 4 century BC; IV 2053; IV 2149; century AD; , 150 AD; IV 2291 , 1st - 3rd st rd century AD; IV 2338 IV 2338, century AD; 2330,1 - 3 end of the 1st century AD, 144 AD V 5560=1572, 550566, 5624, 5796, 2nd - 3rd century AD; 5829, 5667, 5638bis. , a dedicant to Asklepios, on a votive plate, not far from Pautalia, present day town of Kuystendil, southwest Bulgaria, 3rd century AD.27 Cf. Chapter Two and Chapter Three. a recent discovery on a gold signet-ring found in the Dalakova tumulus north of Topolchane, district of Sliven. Dimitrov 2008a, 26-32. The inscribed text reads: ( in the genitive case). The ring is dated to the 4th century BC (Not in Detschew). IGBulg. III 1418, an epithet of Hera 3rd century AD.

27

Dimitrov P. 2006, 247-251. I was able to inspect this votive plate together with two other fragments in the spring of 2006, thanks to the courtesy of Ms. Lidia Staykova-Alexandrova and Mr. Andrey Tonev, curators at the Regional Museum of History in Kyustendil.

The Greek Inscriptions

117

IGBulg. III 1005, 1010; 1348, 3rd AD; III 1633, 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. IV 2337, 1st- 3rd century AD; , and in Manov 2008, 108, found in Piperitsa, district of Blagoevgrad, 2nd - 3rd AD. Not in Detschew. , IV 2263, 158 AD. Not in Detschew. IGBulg. V 5288, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. an n epithet of Hera IGBulg. II 719. 3rd-4th century AD. Cf. IGBulg. III 1222, 3rd century AD. and Traidacus IGBulg. III, 1741 bis, 1st - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew. , , III 1690 c 71, 202 AD. IGBulg. II 860; , IGBulg. III 1709, 1st rd 3 century AD;V 5890 from Kresna (not in IGBulg. IV), 1st - 3rd century AD. , IGBulg. II 737, 2nd - 3rd century AD. an epithet of the Thracian Heros in n (sic!), from Royak, district of Varna Gočeva (1989, 113115); the author did not date the inscription; judging by the forms we could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. The author having not supplied photographs of any of the inscriptions discussed in her publication, we can only guess if both forms should be accompanied by iota subscript (sic), as it is obvious that both words are for the in the dative case (another (sic) is to accompany substituted for ), or not. She rejected the first element of the epithet to be related to on the ground of Detschew’s 515 comment28. It should be mentioned that Detschew, l. c., has in fact included this name in his Thracian corpus as such; his comments about it are that it could be , which is doubtful to be the same compared with the Phrygian 28

Gočeva (1989, 115): “Wir könen es wohl kaum mit Detschew für phrygish hält”.

vergleichen, das

118

The Greek Inscriptions

name because of the geminated ‘t’. There are numerous examples of forms of names alternating an omicron with an omega; it is well known that vowel quantity in Thracian, rendered by the means of the Greek letters, is hard to be evidenced ever from the 5th century BC on. So, most probably the first element of this compound epithet is .

, IGBulg. III 1817, 1st - 3rd century AD.

IGBulg.

IV 2027 from Opicvet, area of Sofia, , 3rd century AD. The Z is inverted. Not in

Detschew. , see

an epithet of Apollo Heros, IGBulg. I 281; , an epithet of Apollo, III 1713 bis, 1st - 3rd century AD.

PART II: PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY

CHAPTER FIVE INTRODUCTION: PHONOLOGY

This journey into the realm of the Thracians has been devoted to a study of the variative linguistic sign aiming to determine the system of those structures that could be made visible on the surface of mostlly onomastic material. This undertaking may also help us apply the methods used in other linguistic studies and solve problems of considerable quantity, magnitude and complexity. As stated in the introductory notes, the method is that of defining and describing layers and clusters from synchrony to diachrony.1 I an not certain if Labov is right when he says that he was able to obtain the most in systematic detail from changes taking place in the Germanic and Romance branch of I.-E. However, I have been facing a linguistic reality, which may present changes that could complete his evidence as far as sound change is concerned. For the Thracian has been the subject of many publications, out of which the number of articles is not decisively overwhelming compared to that of major publications or books. Brixhe and Panayotou,2 who recently have made a valuable comment looking over events, material, and publications, and who have severely criticized the lack of consistency among scholars concerned with Thracian, are of the opinion that Thracian was subjected to too many influences which accounts for the complexity of the linguistic problems themselves. 3 And indeed, Thracian variations seen through those “crosscutting influences”4 may appear even harder to study. Principles were sought for in many studies, but none were able to present a uniform image of what Thracian was. Nor were Brixhe and Panayotou able to point to a right direction to follow. Because of the fact that the Thracians did not develop a script of their own, their skepticism led them to asking the question who 1

See Labov 1994, 600, following the general strategy of using the present to explain the past. 2 Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 179-203. 3 Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 185. 4 Labov 1994, 600.

122

Chapter Five

the Thracians really were. Therefore, were there any Thracians? If their skepticism is justified, the fact that linguists are dealing primarily with glosses and onomastic material should discourage everyone. 5 Under what conditions were the remnants of the Thracian language shaped differently in one case or another, remains to be seen. Clearly defined cases, which account for the real situation, will lead to a new description of the facts. Dečev6 attempted one after Tomaschek,7 then Georgiev,8 Russu,9 and Duridanov.10 We will use facts and data discussed there. We will be concerned not that much with matching their interpretations, but rather making our observations of sound change and word shape of Thracian visible. We don’t know for sure what the value of all Greek letters was in rendering Thracian, but we should establish the guidelines, working hypotheses, based on the notion that Greek easily assimilates words of non-Greek origin. In dividing the material under study, we should say a few words about conclusions made after comparing the temporal layers. The Ezerovo ring and the Kyolmen stele together with some coins give the following: No sign was used to denote orr . The evidence from the rest of the inscriptions corroborates this. The several examples in Detschew’s Die Thrakischen Sprachreste cannot persuade anybody that they are of , where the composed Thracian origin.11 Nor would names like character psi has a different value, e.g. that in , which would make perfect sense.12 If one compares the frequency of signs used in the inscriptions dated to the 6th and 5th centuries BC, the following will be found. 5

Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 190 is certainly wrong to put just the “noms propres”, i.e. personal names. 6 Dečev 1960. 7 Tomaschek 1980. 8 Georgiev 1983. 9 Russu 1967. 10 Duridanov 1985. 11 Only a few of those will be found in this file there, e.g. , an ethnikon, where the y stands for another combination in the genuine name of this Thracian or ?). The are mentioned in tribe (why not Herodotus (7. 122). See also Detschew 444-46 for further evidence on this name. The - ending is also dubious, since from the few inscriptions in Thracian we have at hand there are no such Thracian endings. 12 See Detschew 39 s.v. and the lemma for this name in this book.

Introduction: Phonology

123

Based on our preliminary work on the inscriptions, we have now in hand numerous examples that point to developments that exemplify the history of the evidence of the Thracian language. Those developments will be our objective.13 It is now clear that the earliest stages of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) have become reconstructable. This has brought coherent credibility to the (PIE) phonological system through a number of revised and new examples from various IE dialects, especially Anatolian.14 The phonological system came to be portrayed as that of a language which underwent shifts of accent and, accordingly, also shifts of the vocalic system, e.g. of sonants and laryngeals. The phonological system of Thracian is reconstructable through the phonological system of PIE and IE. At first we have to deal with data that do not have secure correspondences, and therefore in reconstructing Thracian we will recur to a presentation that is not fully accountable for all shifts and intricacies of PIE. Nevertheless, internal reconstructions seem to be the only possible approach that helps to exemplify stages of linguistic developments. Let us look at some examples: The frequently used personal name Bi-t(h)-us is attested as early as the 4th century BC and throughout a period of seven centuries comes to us in the form of or , the latter attested in the 4th century BC.15 Since Greek koine used the grapheme EI for /ī/, we can posit*bī-t(h)-us from IE*wī-thu-s. The other possible way is to posit*bhi-thus> where bhi as ‘two’ looks theoretically plausible. Compare PIE* h2embhi, ‘around’: Skt. abhí-tas, Gr. , lat. amb-itus, ‘going around’ for the first component, and forms with –dh-i, Skt. ádhi, “on”, Gr. “where’?, ἰ “at home”, with -ti: Skt. íti, “thus”, Gr. , “against”, for the second component.

13

Brugmann 1904, 28-30: The “Indogermanist hat es demnach zu erster Linie mit den ältesten geschichtlichen Perioden der Einzelsprachen zu thun. In erster Linie, nicht ausschliesslich. Denn bei der trümmerhaften und die Sprache ihrer Lautung nach nur in rohen Umrissen zeichnenden schriftlichen Überlieferung alter Sprachen muss oft in später Zeit Auftretendes zur Erläuterung des zeitlich Zurückliegenden herangezogen werden…” 14 Lehmann 1993, 137. 15 Compare (sic!) in LGPN, where the earliest mentions are from Thasos and Eretria on the island of Euboia in the 3rd century BC.

124

Chapter Five

The two possible interpretations rest on secure examples, e.g.