Classical Olbia and the Scythian World: From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD

00 Prelims 1525

28/9/07

12:22

Page v

Foreword This volume collects the work of scholars in the UK and Ukraine who are concerned with the ancient history and archaeology of the north coast of the Black Sea, embracing both the Scythian and the classical worlds. In the Ukraine this has been a subject of high priority for some two centuries of intensive research and excavation. A whole wealth of issues and data has been uncovered and studied — on ‘Great Scythia’, on the Late Scythian peoples of the lower Dnieper region and Crimea, and also on the Sarmatians and others besides. Major strides have been taken in the advance of our knowledge of the classical cities of the region, such as Tyras, Chersonesus, Kerkinitis, Kalos Limen, and the Bosporan cities, among others. In all this work pride of place has been held by Olbia, not only the city itself but also its civic territory and the island of Berezan, which was in antiquity a peninsula. The study of Olbia has always been set apart through the outstanding results of its excavations and the splendour of individual finds there. Unfortunately, for the most part, the English-speaking reader has been denied systematic contact with this work for a series of reasons, not least the language barrier, since discoveries were published in Russian and Ukrainian. The present volume offers the opportunity to engage with some of the most pressing current issues in this field. P. P. TOLOCHKO Director of the Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine

00 Prelims 1525

28/9/07

12:22

Page vi

00a Introduction 1525

28/9/07

12:24

Page 1

Introduction DAVID BRAUND

THE ORIGINS OF THIS BOOK lie in a snowy Ukraine, where the British Academy supported a small conference in November 2001 in collaboration with the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of the Ukraine. Papers were read by Ukrainian and British colleagues in Kiev, with a memorable expedition to Poltava and the remarkable site of Bel’sk. However, while the authors of the chapters in this book were among those who participated in the conference, the chapters themselves have come a long way indeed since the meeting itself. In particular, whereas the conference embraced a wide range of topics and themes from antiquity, this book has a sharp focus on the interaction of the city of Olbia and the population around it, conveniently and conventionally included within the general term ‘Scythians’. However, while the theme and geographical scope have narrowed, the chronological framework remains expansive, from the emergence of Olbia c.600 BC to its local situation under the early Roman empire. As is usual, in history and archaeology, there is much about Olbia and its relations with its neighbours which remains controversial. The editors have made no attempt to iron out or expunge differences of interpretation, either between chapters within the book or between these chapters and other accounts and views to be found elsewhere. On the contrary, the more controversial matters are flagged within the book and/or brought out more explicitly here. The most significant divergences concern the literary and archaeological sources. As for the interpretation of archaeological data, handmade pottery and dwelling-type have for some time been a principal bone of contention. While some have sought to make large inferences from this material (especially about the ethnicity of those who produced the pottery or inhabited the dwellings), others have stressed the importance of the fact that settlers had to adapt to and cope with a challenging new environment. Berezan — which is now an island, but was in antiquity almost certainly a peninsula — has become a specific focus for this Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 1–6. © The British Academy 2007.

00a Introduction 1525

28/9/07

12:24

Page 2

2

David Braund

particular debate. Meanwhile, as for the literary material, Herodotus stands out, not only as relatively early and substantial, but also as the subject of a particularly diverse set of interpretations. At its most extreme, while some scholars have taken his statements on the region to be uncomplicated fact, others have insisted that he did not go there at all and/or that his account of the region is more or less fictional. More often, scholars concerned with Olbia look hard for some kind of middle ground, where, for example, text and archaeology can be set beside each other. Here too, however, the pursuit of ‘reality’ has tended to bring its own problems of method: we are left to plump for our own notions of what sort of reality (indeed, whose reality) is envisaged. These central issues dominate the early chapters of this book. In the first of his two chapters, S. D. Kryzhitskiy sets out in broad terms the progress of archaeology at Olbia, as one generation of scholars pursued their own work and then passed the baton to their successors, often their students. This sketch is of particular value in charting the main directions of the work at a site which has produced a wealth of data which can bewilder by its sheer quantity, diversity, and, at times, difficulty of access. In that spirit, it may also be read as a prelude to the compendious volume recently published in a very small print run by the current team of archaeologists at the site.1 Rather by contrast, in his second chapter, Kryzhitskiy moves from his account of steady progress to address key points of dispute, tackling head on the knotty central issue of criteria. If we wish to identify non-Greeks in early Olbia, what kind of criteria could we use, he asks. More concretely, what kind of criteria have been brought to bear? Are they valid? Here Kryzhitskiy’s perspective contrasts sharply with the arguments of K. K. Marchenko and others, who have sought to implement criteria which he finds misleading or unhelpful. While Kryzhitskiy centres his considerations upon Olbia itself, S. B. Buyskikh pursues a related line of argument with regard to a substantial portion of Olbia’s environs, considering Greek and non-Greek interactions on the lower Bug. Here he is especially concerned with the issue as part of the larger discussion on colonial settlement and the nature of dealings between Greek settlers and others. He pays particular attention to handmade pottery and dwelling-type, which — as Kryzhitskiy discusses at Olbia — have been taken to be clear signs of non-Greek presence. His 1 Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, in Russian. Note also Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, now a little out of date. See also Kryzhitskiy 2005.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

00a Introduction 1525

28/9/07

12:24

Page 3

INTRODUCTION

3

specific concern is a recent account and interpretation of the archaeology of Berezan, which he takes to present a wholly misguided conception of a site which was clearly fundamental to the beginnings of Olbia and was probably the Olbiopolitans’ emporion as mentioned by Herodotus.2 In the light of the arguments of Kryzhitskiy and Buyskikh, much more critical attention will have to be given to the archaeological basis for claims about our knowledge of non-Greek activity in early Olbia and its environs. Herodotus’ Histories have as a whole been a topic of particularly lively research and disputation in the past few decades. The next two chapters in this book present, inter alia, two quite different conceptions of Herodotus’ account of Olbia and its environs, which may not be reconcilable. For David Braund, Herodotus’ presentation of the region is strikingly accurate within the norms of the geography and cultural interactions of the later fifth century BC when the work was completed. He stresses that Herodotus’ account of the region (e.g. about its cults) coincides with the evidence of archaeology and epigraphy. At the same time, he finds nothing in Herodotus’ account which raises substantial doubts about the quality of his information (wherever and however acquired) or about whether he personally visited the region. After all, at around the time when Herodotus saw Olbia, the city was probably already an ally of the Athenians. Pericles himself had probably visited the city in the early 430s, some ten years before Herodotus completed his work.3 The lack of any detailed account of the city of Olbia itself is, on Braund’s view, entirely consonant with Herodotus’ larger concern in Book Four to sketch Scythia, Scythians, and so-called ‘Scythians’ against whom Darius mounts an unwise campaign which will fail and show the way to the Persian failure in Greece. By contrast, Stephanie West finds much in Herodotus’ account to raise suspicions, stressing the debt which Herodotus had to a literary tradition which, in her view, he chooses to conceal. This is a deceitful Herodotus, who may not have visited Olbia at all. If so, his claim to have held discussions with Tymnes, a prominent Scythian administrator, is a fiction, unless we suppose it to have taken place elsewhere. So too his other direct and indirect suggestions that he had personal knowledge of the region. Here we are close to a familiar debate about whether

2

The study in question is Solovyov 1999. On the identification of the emporion, see Braund and West in this volume. 3 On Olbia and Athens, see Braund 2005.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

00a Introduction 1525

28/9/07

12:24

Page 4

4

David Braund

Herodotus is in some sense a liar.4 As she indicates, West is led to be suspicious, at least in part, by her conviction that Herodotus’ claims about Egypt are false. And false they may be, whether deliberately or through misapprehension, but even so we are left to wonder whether even the greatest fictions about one region can tell us much about the claims made for another. For example, even if Herodotus never set foot in Egypt, that need have no bearing on whether he visited Olbia. In all this we are dealing with perceptions of peoples and places which are always both less and more than a simple truth. Be that as it may, there is at least common ground between Braund and West in the view that Herodotus shows no sign of having travelled extensively or for any length of time in the Black Sea region. As for the north coast in particular, there is no reason to suppose that he went beyond the limits of Olbia and its civic territory. More broadly and throughout, there is an abiding and fundamental question of our starting-point. Once Herodotus is seen as duplicitous, all kinds of details can be called into question. By contrast, if we begin by taking Herodotus at his word (explicit and strongly implicit), then such difficulties tend to evaporate. As for the present volume, the two chapters of Braund and West offer an indirect debate about which different readers will probably come to different judgements, often in accordance with the various predispositions from which they start, unwelcome as the thought may be to those who believe they have ‘an open mind’. Next, A. S. Rusyayeva centres her whole discussion on the religious dimension of contacts between Greeks and non-Greeks, a theme which crops up in many chapters. Herodotus also bulks large. She finds his perspective and information coherent with her broader conception of Olbia’s world. Further, while stressing the lack of support for Scythian influence upon the religious life of Olbia, she considers possible evidence for the introduction of cult and burial practices into Olbia by women from the wooded steppe to the north. As for Greek influences upon the religion and religious iconography of the Scythians, she offers a convincing picture of an impact largely limited to the local elite, in which ‘ordinary’ Scythians and indeed Thracians seem to have taken little part. 4 See the spirited Pritchett 1993 (in defence of Herodotus) against Fehling 1989 and those who share his views. At issue in the Black Sea is a bronze cauldron, whose size Herodotus evidently overestimates: cf. S. R. West 2000. Subsidiary claims that he mismeasures the Black Sea and imagines the Colchians as Ethiopians need not detain us: the size of the Pontus is mismeasured often in antiquity, while the Colchians are compared to Egyptians, not Ethiopians: see further Pritchett 1993, for example.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

00a Introduction 1525

28/9/07

12:24

Page 5

INTRODUCTION

5

In the next chapter we move decisively north from Olbia well into the wooded steppe. Here on a pronounced bend in the Dnieper towards Kiev stands the remarkable settlement at Trakhtemirov, centred upon an elevated promontory on the west bank of the river. Among the remarkable features of this site are its sheer scale and the evidence of exchange here with the Aegean in the archaic period, however mediated. Trakhtemirov, while important in itself, is also part of a much larger picture of the penetration of Greek products northwards in the archaic period, encompassing the possibilities of Greek travel and settlement. We may recall Herodotus’ belief that, further east, Greeks had moved from coastal trading-centres to settle deep in the hinterland at Gelonos. There is every reason to suppose that some Greeks did indeed find their way deep into the hinterland, enacting Aristeas’ dream-like poem in prosaic reality. For the desire for knowledge, profit, and land was a powerful stimulus.5 The increasing body of evidence for the penetration of Greek goods (and very possibly Greeks) far to the north reminds us that the classical perspective on the region is heavily weighted towards the south. Scholars concerned primarily with the Greek and Roman worlds can easily overlook or underestimate the importance of the northern hinterland to the dynamics of movement and exchange within which Olbia was established and developed. Meanwhile, any consideration of north–south interactions must embrace both the geography of the region, particularly the great river-ways and the shift from grassland steppe to wooded steppe, and the peoples who dwelt in this environment. Here Herodotus stands out, despite shortcomings, through his concern to make distinctions between the lifestyles and economies of the rather different peoples of the hinterland, about whom we may imagine much talk at Olbia. In the next pair of chapters N. A. Leypunskaya, an expert in Greek pottery, and N. A. Gavrilyuk, who has spearheaded the study of Scythian economics, follow different but convergent lines of enquiry into the exchanges which took place on and across the steppe. Rather like Herodotus, they each seek to locate and explore differences in the region across space and time, proceeding well beyond generalizations about ‘Scythia’ and the like. In the final chapters, Balbina Bäbler, V. V. Krapivina, and V. M. Zubar carry the discussion into the Roman empire. Here once more we find Olbia very much engaged with neighbours who were Greek and non-Greek. By 5

Few would now identify Gelonos as Bel’sk, which is fascinating in its own right: see further Rusyayeva in this volume. On Greek trade north, see Leypunskaya in this volume and Vakhtina forthcoming.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

00a Introduction 1525

28/9/07

12:24

Page 6

David Braund

6

now the Sarmatians have arrived, as diverse in their sub-groupings as the inhabitants of Herodotus’ Scythia. Olbia continues to negotiate for its very existence. However, as Zubar describes, there is now the further factor of the Roman empire itself and the activities of Roman forces at Olbia and elsewhere in the north-west Black Sea region. Meanwhile, Bäbler discusses Dio’s account of Olbia at the edge of the Roman empire by locating it in its literary, philosophical, and archaeological contexts, particularly in the light of Yuri Germanovich Vinogradov’s hypotheses on the history of the city’s dealings with its Scythian neighbours. Here evidence is limited, so that a new discovery can make a significant difference. The discovery from summer 2005 of parts of a diploma indicates the presence of a veteran from the classis Moesica at Olbia in the second century AD. If we suppose that he served in the city (which is not certain), this single find takes our knowledge substantially forward.6

Figure 1.

View of Olbia from the air. Photo A. Kremko.

6 The discovery will shortly be published by A. Ivanchik. Note also the Mithridatic inscription recently published from Olbia, Krapivina & Diatroptov 2005.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 7

The Main Results of the Excavations at Olbia in the Past Three Decades S. D. KRYZHITSKIY

THE LOCATION OF OLBIA WAS ESTABLISHED in the 1790s.1 Systematic excavations began there in 1901, after which the work was in the hands of three successive generations of scholars. The first of these was Pharmakovskiy and his school (1901–26).2 The work of the second generation proceeded under the leadership of Slavin (1936–71, at the Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences), Levi, and Karasev (respectively, 1936–74 and 1936–72, at the Leningrad section of the Soviet Academy of Sciences).3 The third generation took over from 1972, with almost the only sustained effort being provided by the Institute of Archaeology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, under the leadership of Kryzhitskiy (1972–95) and Krapivina (from 1995). This chapter sets out the contribution made by this third generation of scholars. 1

There followed a series of topographical plans through the following century and more, for the city and its necropolis: Karasev 1956; Tunkina 2002, pls.106–11. There were a few exploratory excavations, e.g. by Uvarov in 1853, Arkas and Brun in 1870, Zabelin and Tizengauzen in 1873 (Kryzhitskiy 1985, 19ff.; Tunkina 2002, 450). 2 Five main sectors were excavated, establishing the limits of the city on land, the northern gates, the multi-roomed towers of the south-west defensive line, the north-eastern part of the Roman citadel, dwellings (especially Hellenistic), plus stratigraphy. Two burial mounds of the early centuries AD were examined, as well as a significant number of other burials from the archaic period: Karasev 1976; Kryzhitskiy 1985, 17–27. 3 Excavations entailed the central temenos, with remains of two temples and altars; part of the agora (surrounded by a large stoa), with trading areas, gymnasium, and lawcourt; Hellenistic and later dwellings; kilns and wine-presses; what has been thought to be a headquarters building in the middle of the Roman citadel; parts of the northern wall and two towers of the lower city (Karasev & Levi 1976; Kryzhitskiy 1985, 27ff.). The Hellenistic (and later) necropolis was examined, as well as an outlying dugout structure of the fifth or early fourth century BC. This generation also took energetic steps in the study of the chora, which had previously been given only episodic consideration and had not been studied in connection with Olbia (Slavin 1976; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 5ff.). Key scholars in this work were A. V. Buyskikh, Diatroptov, Kozub, Leypunskaya, Nazarchuk, Papanova, Rusyayeva, and Samoylova, among others. Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 7–15. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 8

N

ern rth No

ravine

Northern gates

i

r e ’ s

l

o

( u t h

o

o

p

S

Central Quarter

c i t y

a

Central (Eastern) temenos

e d e r g b m u S

s

H Western gates

city

Upper city

Lower

Te r r a c e d c ity

Western temenos

e

n

r

r

Roma n Citadel

c

) v n

N

i

B u g

e

e s t u a r y

a

e

r

0

Figure 2.

100 m

Olbia: plan of city.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 9

EXCAVATIONS AT OLBIA IN THE PAST THREE DECADES

9

The excavations at Olbia during this time had three principal aims: (1) the study of the historico-archaeological topography and stratigraphy of cultural levels in the different parts of the city, including the underwater portion beneath the Bug estuary; (2) a focus on the least-studied stages of the city’s existence, notably the cultural levels of the archaic period and also those of the early centuries AD; and (3) rescue and conservation along the coastal portion of the city. Excavations in the Upper City produced especially important results. In particular, the Western Temenos was excavated (Sector VII), the earliest of its kind in the northern Black Sea region, revealing remains of a portico (Attic order), some twenty altars, the temenos wall, a unique assemblage of painted architectural terracottas, and the temple of Apollo Ietros, from the late sixth or early fifth century BC.4 To the west of the agora was discovered a set of structures which formed the defended western gates of the city in the fourth to second centuries BC (Sector X). Here for the first time were found remains of the defensive walls of c.400–350 BC, made from mud brick, and a piece of the defensive wall of the fifth century BC.5 Meanwhile, excavations in the south-eastern portion of the citadel (Sector XXV) allowed the examination of remains of the south-eastern defensive wall, towers of the citadel, terracing and supporting walls, domestic cellars of the second to third centuries AD, and a stylobate colonnade (Doric order) which doubtless belonged to a temple built in the Hellenistic period. Here, for the first time at Olbia, were studied dwellings of the fourth century AD across a significant area. It was shown that at the time of the third-century Gothic Wars Olbia was sacked twice and that subsequently habitation was finally ended there c. AD 350–75.6 Through work on the central elevations of the Upper City (Sector XX) it was established that in the second to third centuries AD the area was a crowded city-scape, which had been preceded, in the Hellenistic period, by a fine building, evidently of some key social significance. Here too was excavated a part of the city wall and a tower of the third to first centuries BC, in whose ruins were found many architectural details (both Ionic and Doric order), as well as the bases of statues of Zeus Eleutherios, Olympian Zeus, Apollo Delphinios, and more besides.7

4

Rusyayeva 1991b; Kryzhitskiy 1997. Kryzhitskiy & Leypunskaya 1988. 6 Krapivina 1993. 7 Rusyayeva & Krapivina 1992. 5

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 10

River Be

rezan

N

Staraya Bogdanovka

River Bug

Kozyrka

Chertovatoye

OLBIA Shirokaya Balka

Viktorovka

Kutsurub Beykush

Adzhigol Dmitriyevka Dneprovka

Ochakov

Berezan Island

Ki

nb

B L A C K S E A

ur nS

Tendra Spit

Figure 3.

Olbia and its environs.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

p it

Petukhovka

28/9/07

12:25

Page 11

i es

g Bu R.

n R. D ter

Olbia

.D n

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

er iep

Tanais

R

Tyras

Panticapaeum Phanagoria . Kuban R an u be R.D

NIKOLAYEV

Istros

Dionysopolis

Theodosia Gorgippia

BLACK SEA

Mesembria

Dioscurias

Apollonia

Phasis Sinope

Byzantium

Calchedon

Heraclea

Amisus

Trapezus

y

s

Shirokaya Balka Didova Khata

Tornis Callatis

Kerkinitti Chersonesus

Ha b R.

0

200 km

Oktyabrskoye Novaya Bogdanovka

Luparevo Semenov Rog

0 Aleksandrovka Shirokaya Balka

Stanislav

H Y L A E A

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 km

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 12

S. D. Kryzhitskiy

12

In the north-western corner of the Upper City (Sector IV) there has been partial excavation of the remains of a large structure of the fifth to fourth centuries BC: might these be the ruins of the ‘palace’ of Scyles described by Herodotus at Olbia? Be that as it may, pottery kilns occupied the site from the first century BC into the first century AD.8 The study of the Central Quarter in the region of the agora (Sector XII), started by Slavin, was completed.9 Excavations of the early levels on areas of the Western Temenos and Central Quarter near the agora (Sectors VII and XII) allowed a conclusive answer to the question of the earliest types of dwelling in Olbia: these were dugouts and semidugouts.10 At present these structures are known at the southern limits of the Upper City in Sector XXV. Some important work has been done on the terraced area. Here, in the north (Sector XXIX),11 have been excavated dwellings of the fifth to second centuries BC, and a rich, well-preserved house of the Hellenistic period

Figure 4.

Terrace of Olbia, overlooking the estuary of the river Bug.

8

Kryzhitskiy 1985, 121. Slavin 1964; 1975; Leypunskaya 1986; 1994. 10 Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978a. 11 As excavation proceeded it became clear that this part of the Lower City was built on terraces and is better regarded as part of the Terraced City, rather than the Lower City. 9

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 13

EXCAVATIONS AT OLBIA IN THE PAST THREE DECADES

13

was examined in the centre of the Terraced City (Sector XXXI).12 Beneath its remains was excavated a single-room above-ground dwelling of the late sixth to fifth century BC. All this work provided a wealth of new information about the plan of the city, its dwellings, and especially its terraced construction. Excavations in the Lower City were all conducted in the centre of its northern half (Sector XXX). The civic landscape here encourages the suspicion that this may be the agora. Meanwhile, work has continued on Olbia’s outer area in the fifth century BC and early centuries AD (Sector XI), and on the necropolis of the end of the fifth–third centuries BC in its south-western part. In 1971–7 a series of hydroarchaeological studies was conducted in the portion of the Lower City which has been submerged beneath the Bug estuary. It has been established that the ‘quay’ (or sometimes ‘bridge’), as the nineteenth-century scholars used to call it, is in fact the remains of a defensive complex, almost all of which consists of stone imported from elsewhere (Sector XXVIII). Accordingly, it has been

Figure 5.

12

Centre of Olbia, looking from the Bug. Photo. D. Braund.

Leypunskaya 1995; Kryzhitskiy & Leypunskaya 1997, 139.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 14

S. D. Kryzhitskiy

14

Figure 6.

The southern ‘ravine’, looking from the Bug. Photo. D. Braund.

established that an undisturbed cultural level in the submerged part of the Lower City can only be found beneath the massive remains of destroyed buildings of the classical period. Meanwhile, locations were established for the harbour and associated installations (Sector XXVII) and a building of the second half of the third century AD, as well as the remains of defensive walls (Sector XXVI). In general, the archaeological topography of the submerged area has become much clearer, which has allowed a more reliable assessment of the dimensions of the city at various stages in its life.13 In addition to all these activities in and around Olbia itself, the Institute of Archaeology has taken an expansive approach to the study of the city’s rural territory.14 Extensive survey on the lower Bug revealed a further 250 or so new locations, from various periods of the city’s ancient

13

Kryzhitskiy 1984; 1985, 95ff. Notably, S. B. Buyskikh, Burakov, Otreshko, and Rusyayeva. Also involved in this work have been the Museum of Nikolayev (Rudan, Snytko) and, from 1974, the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Archaeology of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, which conducted a series of fundamental excavations at settlements of the late archaic and classical period associated with the modern place-names Staraya Bogdanovka, Kozyrka, Kutsurub, and elsewhere (Domanskiy, Marchenko, Golovacheva, Rogov), bringing new insights, e.g. into construction methods (Golovacheva et al. 1999).

14

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 15

EXCAVATIONS AT OLBIA IN THE PAST THREE DECADES

15

history.15 This and ongoing excavation has enabled us to establish a chronology around the material and spiritual culture of Olbia’s chora across the different periods of the city’s history.16 The settlement on Berezan has also been the subject of systematic excavation.17 Worthy of particular attention is the discovery here in 1997 of a temenos and the well-preserved remains of a temple of Aphrodite, built around 500 BC.18 Such are the results of work in and around Olbia in the past three decades or so. They have been disseminated in a wide range of publications, ensuring their value as a source of knowledge for the archaeological community.19

15

Kryzhitskiy et al. 1990. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989. 17 Until 1994 the Hermitage also sent an expedition to Berezan (Kopeykina, Domanskiy, and Solovyov), subsequently incorporated into the expedition of the Ukrainian Institute of Archaeology. 18 Nazarov 2001; Kryzhitskiy 2001. 19 Namely, on coins, Anokhin 1989; early amphorae, Leypunskaya 1981a; terracottas, Rusyayeva 1982; Olbia in the first centuries AD (including its fortifications), Krapivina 1993; ideology and belief in Olbia, Rusyayeva 1979 and 1992; street plan, building techniques, reconstructions, and so on, Kryzhitskiy 1971, 1982, 1985, 1993; the classical and Hellenistic acropolis, Kozub 1974, Parovich-Peshikan 1974; the settlement of the early centuries AD, Burakov 1976. Note must also be made of the key publications produced by teams outside Kiev: on the political history of Olbia, Yu. G. Vinogradov 1989; coins, Karyshkovskiy 1988; handmade pottery, Marchenko 1988. 16

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:25

Page 16

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

02 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 17

Criteria for the Presence of Barbarians in the Population of Early Olbia S. D. KRYZHITSKIY

HISTORIANS OF THE ANCIENT STATES of the north coast of the Black Sea have been much concerned with the problem of how to estimate the presence of barbarians in the populations of particular communities, especially in the early stages of their existence. Of course, the simple fact of some barbarian presence here, as in the cities of the Mediterranean, has been well understood. The problem which scholars have struggled to handle is the quest for material remains which may shed light on the numbers and the social-ethnic characteristics of this non-Greek component. However, such attempts which have been made to generalize on these matters on the basis of archaeological evidence (as opposed to remarks on individuals) seem less than convincing. The key deficiency in such studies is the lack of firm methodology. We are concerned here not with those communities such as Kerkinitis1 or Kalos Limen2 in which an entire barbarian cultural layer can be established, but with cities which have no such separate level; there the scholar must struggle with a scatter of evidence. In consequence, the question of the presence and quantity of barbarians in such a city or its agricultural territory tends to be settled with arguments which owe much to emotion, rather than to developed methodology. In such cases one finds neglect of the full range of evidence: authors rely on a priori arguments in which very limited and statistically insignificant selections of some of the source material are taken to lead in one direction or another. In consequence, scholarly literature over the past fifty years or more has tended to exaggerate the quantity and significance of the barbarian presence in the populations of the ancient states of the north coast of the Black Sea. And that applies in full measure specifically at Olbia. 1 2

Kutaysov 1990, 25. Kutaysov & Uzhentsev 1997, 46.

Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 17–22. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

02 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 18

18

S. D. Kryzhitskiy

There are two aspects to the issue of a barbarian presence in the population of Olbia. The first is qualitative. Which artefacts, or assemblage, and how much of such material can attest the presence of individuals of certain ethnicities? The second aspect is quantitative. How many barbarians do we suppose? We shall begin with the qualitative issue. In general scholars have used, as criteria for the presence of barbarians, dwelling-types (specifically dugouts and semi-dugouts), handmade pottery (including shapes replicating the wares of barbarian peoples), burial practice (the discovery in tombs of Scythian weaponry, mirrors, stone dishes, crouched burials), ideological beliefs, jewellery, and prosopography. Clearly, we may provisionally accept that the coincidence of all these indicators, or of most of them, with regard to a specific individual or group may reasonably be regarded as an indication of their barbarian ethnicity. After all, the coincidence of all these criteria constitutes a complex which in archaeological terms we understand as a ‘cultural level’. But, to repeat the point, the entire problem is that we practically never find such coincidences in specific cases in Olbia. In Olbia a barbarian cultural level as such has not been found. In our case we do not have an interwoven complex of evidence. Our material is spread across different periods and, even where we hope to find at Olbia a concentration of indicators in a specific period, we are dealing with a span of at least twentyfive years. Furthermore our material is also spread across a wide area: that is, individual items come from different parts of the city (or from the city and necropolis) and there are no sufficient grounds for taking them together. At present we know of no single case in which an individual barbarian lived in a semi-dugout, used pottery of barbarian shapes, wore barbarian jewellery, and was buried in barbarian fashion. As a rule we have usually only one of these indicators (for example, a semi-dugout or handmade pottery of Scythian shape) or two (a dugout with handmade pottery). In short, even bringing together all our few indicators from across at least twenty-five years and from different places, we have no real grounds for making conclusions about ethnicity. Accordingly we must proceed to ask a different kind of question: how reliable can each of these indicators be in the search for ethnicities? For example, it was long believed that the presence of dugout or semi-dugout dwellings showed conclusively that there were barbarians, for such dwellings were taken to be the exclusive prerogative of non-Greeks. However, work on Berezan,3

3

Lapin 1966, 94; 1968; Kopeykina 1981b.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

02 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 19

THE PRESENCE OF BARBARIANS IN EARLY OLBIA

19

at Olbia,4 and in the Olbian chora,5 as well as in other states of the north coast of the Black Sea,6 has shown that this notion lacks any validity.7 It is now generally accepted that dugout and semi-dugout construction in the early phases of settlement on the north coast of the Black Sea was the work of Greeks and is to be understood as an initial phase of house building there. In fact the simple presence of dugouts or semi-dugouts does not allow us to be sure about the ethnicity of their inhabitants, whether barbarian or Greek. That question can only be answered on the basis of close comparison of constructions typical for barbarians or Greeks and by consideration of the materials used to create the buildings. Those who support the notion of a substantial barbarian presence in early Olbia make much of handmade pottery. That is understandable in so far as this pottery might be taken to be a single phenomenon and is well represented in the city. However, estimates of the quantity of handmade pottery in early Olbia give no clear answer to the abiding question of the ethnicity of those to whom this pottery belonged. One might certainly suppose that it was used by barbarians resident in the city, who may also have made it; one might suppose that local barbarian women had some role here. But one might also take a very different view. This was in essence cooking ware and was used as such by the Greeks of Olbia too, while its low value permits no statistical comparison with imported pottery that would shed light on the question of ethnicity. Meanwhile, the producers of this pottery may well have lived at some distance from the city. In any event the typology of barbarian handmade pottery was varied: scholars link it accordingly with Thracians, peoples of the wooded steppe, and Scythians. That raises a further question of substantial importance. For this pottery should perhaps be seen, not as evidence of the arrival at Olbia of an array of barbarian groupings, but as the outcome of a mix of stylistic influences, such as we see more obviously in Scythian imitations of the shapes of Greek wheelmade pottery.8 It might

4

Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978a; Kryzhityskiy 1985, 57–63. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 41. 6 Sekerskaya 1989; Tolstikov 1992, 59–61; Butyagin 1999; Yu. A. Vinogradov 1995, 157–8; Kutaysov 1990, 63; Zolotaryov 1990; 1998. 7 Kryzhitskiy 1993, 55; the point is not affected by the unsuccessful attempt to interpret semidugouts on Berezan as barbarian dwellings: contra Solovyov 1999, 43, on which see Buyskikh in this volume. The discovery in these dwellings of terracottas, graffiti, and indeed Greek pottery seems sufficient to show the Greek ethnicity of the inhabitants as Lapin demonstrated many years ago: Lapin 1966. 8 On the latter, see Gavrilyuk 1984. 5

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

02 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 20

20

S. D. Kryzhitskiy

be helpful to have some serious comparisons of this handmade pottery with the cooking ware and the like from around Miletus. Burial practice is no more conclusive a criterion for ethnicity.9 There has been much talk of the so-called Scythian features of burial practice in archaic Olbia. Scholars were trying to define what these might be as early as the 1940s.10 In consequence, two sets of Scythian elements have been claimed for men and women respectively.11 The key feature for male burials has been seen as the presence of Scythian weaponry, while for female burials it is the presence of stone dishes and platters as well as bronze mirrors. However, the deposition of weapons in male burials may not be a mark of ethnicity so much as an indication of everyday life in the city and its chora where we know of substantial fortifications in the sixth century BC. Moreover, although this weaponry is treated as Scythian, there is no doubt that Greeks used it as well as barbarians, as is especially clear from the study of arrowheads. We should observe a similar situation in the Bosporus where many scholars refrain from the ethnic characterization of burials on the basis of weaponry deposited therein.12 Scythian elements in female burials are no more helpful, whether we consider bronze mirrors, stone dishes, or even simply stones.13 As far as the mirrors are concerned, these can hardly be taken to be an indication of barbarian ethnicity. On the one hand, the extensive discovery of mirrors in burials among the Scythians shows the spread of this Greek product around barbarian culture. But on the other, the discovery of mirrors in Olbian burials (where they are linked with the cult of Demeter)14 owes nothing to barbarian traditions. We may make the same observation with regard to the appearance of such mirrors also in male burials at Olbia, linked with the cult of Dionysus.15 Meanwhile, we must observe also that the major9 We are not here concerned with crouched burials since their interpretation is wholly confused at present. 10 Kaposhina 1941. 11 Men: Kaposhina 1950. Women: Rusyayeva 1990, 26; 1992, 178; Bessonova 1991. 12 Tsvetayeva 1951, 68; Kastanayan 1959, 270; Maslennikov 1978, 30; 1981; Grach 1999, 28. 13 In her attempt to distinguish barbarian burials in archaic Olbia, Bessonova finds eighty-three such burials, which amount to about 30 per cent of all those excavated. But this cannot be right. Of these eighty-three, more than twenty are attributed to barbarians because they have weaponry, forty-five because they have dishes and the like (among which only seventeen may have several barbarian items, which is also a matter of dispute), and eighteen because they have knives: Bessonova 1991, 95. The attribution to barbarians of burials with knives is simply absurd. The upshot of all this is that we may reasonably consider only seventeen burials (not eighty-three) as possibly barbarian. 14 Kozub 1974, 83–5. 15 Rusyayeva 1992, 178.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

02 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 21

THE PRESENCE OF BARBARIANS IN EARLY OLBIA

21

ity of the twenty-six mirrors found in burials of archaic Olbia are clearly Greek, while only about ten are the so-called Scythian type.16 These socalled Scythian mirrors were made at a place unknown, but very possibly in Olbia. However, even if we go so far as to see them as barbarian products, their presence in burials at Olbia offers no sound grounds for regarding the deceased as being of barbarian ethnicity. As for the stone dishes, we do not really know their purpose. It has been claimed that they were used for sharpening weapons(?!), mixing paint, or in some sense for toiletries,17 or as altars.18 Quite apart from their presence at Olbia, these stone objects are known extensively among the barbarian peoples of the wooded steppe and also among the Sarmatians and Sacae,19 but they are not known in the burials of the Crimean part of the Bosporan kingdom. That raises a further question: why are they absent from the burials of the Bosporus, a state known to have contained barbarians (including Scythians) as well as Greeks? In the Bosporus one might have expected indications of cultural mix to have been more obvious. Meanwhile, in the burials of Olbia these dishes occur more frequently than in Scythian burials of the same period.20 It is hard to draw firm conclusions from these stone dishes when we know so little about them.21 Prosopography also fails to give clear indications about the ethnicity of the population of Olbia in the sixth and fifth centuries BC. About thirty names are known from this period,22 while the size of the population of the civic core of Olbia may be estimated as something in the order of 5,000 people,23 with a similar number living in the chora.24 Accordingly our sample of names is very small and may be wholly misleading. Meanwhile, it is of course important to remember that barbarian names might be sported by Greeks, if indeed those names which have been taken to be barbarian are really non-Greek. Finally, we must think more critically about quantities and statistics. The figures which scholars have often derived from studies of material remains do not, as a general rule, permit any inferences about the relative 16

Skudnova 1988, 24–7. Ibid., 31–2. 18 Rusyayeva 1992, 178. 19 Ibid., 179. 20 Bessonova 1991, 93. 21 On the Greekness of early burials in the Olbian chora, see Kryzhitskiy 2002, 210; see also Kryzhitskiy 2005. 22 Knipovich 1956, appendix 1; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1981, 134–5; 1989, 105 n.107. 23 Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978a, 24. 24 Kryzhitskiy 2002, 211. 17

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

02 Kryzhitskiy 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 22

22

S. D. Kryzhitskiy

percentages of particular ethnicities at Olbia or elsewhere. For example, how can one derive a figure for the percentage of a particular ethnicity within the population of Olbia from the percentage of handmade pottery discovered in the material record, whether on the basis of fragments or even if we consider only whole vessels, counted through bases, rims, and handles? In the first place, handmade pottery was probably not used at the same rate as wheelmade. During the life of a single wheelmade vessel several handmade vessels may have come and gone. Secondly, the quantity of handmade ware may very well have varied greatly across different families for a whole range of reasons. There is no reason at all to connect the quantity of pots with the quantity of people who owned them. Thirdly, we cannot exclude the possibility that this handmade pottery (though much has been made of its supposedly domestic production by foreign women) was in fact purchased. Handmade cooking ware is a commonplace find in the excavation of dwellings at Olbia. Accordingly, we may well suppose that poorer families might even buy such pottery for their cooking. While it is indeed possible that immigrants from the barbarian world made this pottery in Olbia, we must be aware that their output could ‘show’ an enormous percentage of barbarians supposedly resident in the city. In short, to build on such dubious calculations any conception of the ethnicity of the population of Olbia is extremely dangerous. We are in no position to offer any clear interpretation of handmade pottery (whether qualitative or quantitative) which might illuminate the problem of ethnicity in early Olbia. The observation that the early levels at Olbia contain some 3 per cent of ‘Scythian handmade pottery’ tells us almost nothing about the ethnic composition of the archaic city.25 In sum, all the foregoing considerations illustrate the fact that at the present time we have no objective criteria by which to establish the number of barbarians (absolutely or relatively) in the population of Olbia in the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Specific cultural features which might be connected with the barbarians are represented so slightly and in such a fragmented fashion that there is no reason to suppose that Olbia contained any substantial barbarian social stratum. We can only approach this whole matter at a very abstract level, which encourages the view that the city and its chora had a barbarian element, but not a particularly significant one.

25

Pace Marchenko 1988, 121.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 23

Contacts between Greeks and Non-Greeks on the Lower Bug in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC S. B. BUYSKIKH

THE REGION OF THE LOWER BUG has a special place among the areas of Greek settlement on the north coast of the Black Sea. For here, in the second half of the seventh century BC, began the extended and complex process by which the region was integrated into the sphere of Greek culture. On the lower Bug Olbia was founded, developed, and persisted for some thousand years, making a significant mark in the history of the whole Pontic basin. The study of Olbian antiquities began some two thousand years ago, but it has become notably more active in recent decades. That intensification is reflected not only in the remarkable increase in fieldwork there, but also in the substantial growth in the number of publications, including the appearance of a string of monographs, both in the Russian-Ukrainian tradition and in writings elsewhere, on a wide range of topics concerned with Olbia. Within this substantial literature a central concern abides undiminished: the exploration of the causes, nature, stages, and idiosyncrasies of the Greek colonization of the region. And that in turn includes the issue of Greek–native relationships in the settlement period, especially in the establishment of the Olbian state and in its subsequent development. The present discussion is not designed to review the extensive literature on Greek–native contacts on the north coast of the Black Sea in antiquity (or even in the archaic period). In any event that has recently been done.1 However, it is worth noting that the main (divergent) viewpoints on the colonization of the lower Bug are as follows:

1

Marchenko 1999. In this chapter the use of approximate numerical dates does not imply any more precision than is conventional in this field. Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 23–35. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 24

S. B. Buyskikh

24

1. The complete rejection of any contacts with a local population.2 2. The perception of the influence of the native population (in culture, economy, demography, etc.) on the lives of the Greek colonists as passive and of no particular significance.3 3. Explicitly on the basis of handmade pottery and type of dwelling (dugouts), the insistence that the local population had a significant role in the life and culture of early Berezan, Olbia, and its chora.4 It is to be noted also that, in the substantial modern literature, the overwhelming majority of scholars have shown that the settlements created in the course of the colonization of the lower Bug were Greek.5 Moreover, the view that these settlements were Greek is shared also by Scythian specialists, who stress that ‘no one now doubts their foundation by Greeks and that they belong to the chora of Olbia’.6 Meanwhile, there is what may be called a ‘compromise position’ in the literature, namely that the dugouts and semi-dugouts of the north Pontic colonies of the sixth century ‘in general should be somehow connected with the lifestyles of the Greek colonists’, allowing for the presence among them of non-Greek migrants from the hinterland.7 Nevertheless, recently, in a series of publications8 including a monograph,9 S. L. Solovyov has completely revised all this, taking the arguments of supporters of the ‘native conception’ (above no. 3) to an extreme which can only be described as absurd. The essence of Solovyov’s ‘innovative’ discoveries, subverting the agreed interpretation of Berezan (Borysthenis) as the most ancient locus of Greek colonization on the north coast of the Black Sea and of the situation on the lower Bug in the archaic period, may be summed up as follows: 1. The dugouts are basically the dwellings of natives. They and the handmade pottery found in them show that the overwhelming majority of the population of Berezan c.600–525 BC were not

2

Lapin 1966, 52, 142, 184–95, 233, 237. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989; Otreshko 1981; Rusyayeva 1994b; Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979. 4 Marchenko 1987; 1988; 1991; 1999; Marchenko & Domanskiy 1999; Kopeykina 1981a, 165; and many others. 5 Kryzhitskiy et al. 1987; 1989; 1990; 1999. 6 Melyukova & Yatsenko 1989, 87. See also Melyukova 1991, 5. 7 Kryzhitskiy & Marchenko 2001, 36. 8 Solovyov 1993; 1994; 1995; 1998; 2000. 9 Solovyov 1999. 3

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 25

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS

25

Greeks but native migrants from the wooded steppe (the banks of the middle Bug and middle Dniester) and from the steppe zone.10 2. From c.525 BC, only above-ground housing in mud brick and stone can be ascribed to the colonial activities of Greeks; on Berezan this is connected with the establishment of a permanent apoikia.11 As for the lower Bug settlements, appearing en masse at this time, in view of their dugouts and semi-dugouts, the majority of the population consisted once again of natives.12 3. Correlation of the assemblages of handmade wares with the physical shape of the dugouts leads the author to assert that the Scythian pottery predominates in dwellings which are rectangular, while Geto-Thracian ware predominates in the round ones.13 Indeed, the former are regarded as earlier (end of seventh/beginning of sixth century); from c.575–550 round dwellings are taken to have appeared beside these.14 The unreliable methodology used for all this is immediately evident. The fact is that leading figures in both Scythian studies15 and classical studies16 take the well-founded view that dwellings set below ground level (whether dugouts or semi-dugouts) cannot be taken to show ethnicity. Scholarly literature on a great deal of material evidence has long since established the fact that dugout dwellings in Berezan, at Olbia, and in the rural settlements of the lower Bug were created not by natives but by Greek colonists.17 Analogous dugout structures have now been discovered en masse elsewhere on the north coast of the Black Sea: in early Greek settlements on the lower Bug,18 in western Crimea at Chersonesus19 and Kerkinitis20 in the Bosporus, at Panticapaeum,21

10

Solovyov 1994, 90–3; 1999, 34ff. Solovyov 1994, 93; 1995, 161. 12 Solovyov 2000, 99. 13 Solovyov 1994, 87. 14 Solovyov 1995, 155; 2000a, 95–8. 15 Melyukova 1980, 21. 16 Kryzhitskiy 1993, 41. 17 Lapin 1966, 153–8; Kryzhitskiy and Rusyayeva 1978b, 24–5; Rusyayeva and Skrzhinskaya 1979, 27, 32, 35; Kryjitskij 1982, 11ff.; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 41ff.; Kryzhitskiy 1999, 82–5; Bujskich & Bujskich 2001, 667ff. 18 Okhotnikov 1990, 10–16. 19 Zolotaryov 1998, 32ff. 20 Kutaysov 1990, 63, 69, pl. 35. 21 Tolstikov 1987, 72–3; 1992, 59–62. 11

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 26

26

S. B. Buyskikh

Myrmecium,22 Tyrambe, and Phanagoria,23 and in an early settlement on the site of Gorgippia.24 At these locations, as on the lower Bug, dugout dwellings belonged to Greek settlers, not natives. However, Solovyov ignores this broader picture in all his writings, for otherwise it would be obvious to his readers (especially those unacquainted with most of this extensive literature) that, in the context of so widespread a phenomenon of Greek dugout dwellings all over the north coast of the Black Sea in the archaic period, Berezan would have to be regarded (in his view) as some kind of extraordinary local instance of non-Greek colonization, unlike all the other regions where we are dealing with Greeks. Moreover, both on Berezan and in all other north Pontic Greek colonies, the construction of dugout complexes (the so-called ‘colonists’ houses’) is strikingly consistent in plan (minor details notwithstanding) and constitutes a clear stage in the history of domestic architecture in the north Black Sea.25 It is important to note in this regard that similar dwellings, below ground level, are now known for the archaic period in Magna Graecia too, in the chora of Metapontum,26 where they are also explained as the building activity of colonists. That seems to indicate common factors at work in the colonial process in the Black Sea and Mediterranean basins, which prompted habitation below ground level.27 As for the lower Bug,28 the phenomenon is explained by the minimal development of the technology, production, and economy of the settlers in the early phase, together with natural climatic conditions. By contrast with the view that dugouts on the lower Bug belonged to natives who inhabited them, not only in the archaic period but also in the classical,29 the majority of scholars believe that local peoples (probably from the wooded steppe) gave the Greeks no more than the idea of building houses below ground30 and that the Greeks developed and improved 22

Yu. A. Vinogradov 1992, 101–5; Butyagin 1999, 112ff. Yu. A. Vinogradov 1999, 107. 24 Alekseeyeva 1991, 10–11. 25 Kryjitski 1982, 62–4; Kryjitskij 1982, 11–15, 45–6, 151; Kryzhitskiy 1993, 40–2. 26 Carter 1993, 344–51; Orlandini 1991, 19–24; 1992, 21–8; 2000, 15–22. 27 The attempt of V. D. Kuznetsov (1995) to deny the very phenomenon of dugout construction at classical sites of the north Black Sea has in my view been sufficiently rebutted by appropriate criticism (Zubar 1998a, 129ff.; Yu. A. Vinogradov 1999, 107; Kryzhitskiy & Marchenko 2001, 33ff.). 28 Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978b, 25; Kryjitskij 1982, 28–9; Kryzhitskiy 1993, 41. 29 Marchenko 1999, 163ff. 30 Kopeykina 1981a, 171; Kryzhitskiy 1993, 41. 23

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 27

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS

27

the concept.31 Meanwhile, there is also the rather controversial view that two traditions (Greek and non-Greek) coexisted side by side, quite distinct from each other.32 In my view, the use of fairly economical and relatively easy-to-build dwellings below ground level does not indicate inevitable (still less, total) occupation by natives on the lower Bug. Rather, it indicates the wisdom of settlers from Ionia in quickly adapting to the conditions of their natural and cultural environment.33 Much the same conclusions have been inferred for the dugouts built on the Bosporus.34 Meanwhile, the fact that dugouts on the lower Bug were the homes of Greek settlers and not natives is illustrated by the predominance of Greek religious and material culture therein, whether on Berezan, Olbia, or the string of settlements around them.35 Further, we must also give due weight to the following matters. First, Greeks used various below-ground structures not only for habitations but also for other purposes, including the domestic economy and cult. So much is immediately confirmed by a glance at the well-known shrine at Beykush where more than two hundred sacral finds have been discovered below ground (offering pits, artificial mini-grottoes, and especially structures for the collection of ritual paraphernalia, offerings, tables): in essence these are typical dugout structures. All are connected with the intensive celebrations here, c.525–470 BC, of the cult of Achilles, attested especially by a range of votive offerings which include many graffiti.36 We may compare, meanwhile, another fine example of the use of dugout structures for cult purposes, namely the excavated finds of the Western Temenos at Olbia.37 Secondly, close examination of the construction of the archaic settlements of the lower Bug has shown that the standard measurement used there was the Samian foot of 0.35m.38 This is clear evidence that the settlers transferred building practices from Ionia to the new colonial environment.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Rusyayeva 1979, 14. Butyagin 1999, 114; 2001, 41. Bujskich & Bujskich 2001, 667ff. Butyagin 1999, 115–16. Yu. G. Vinogradov 1989, 37–9; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 86ff. S. B. Bujskich 2001, 317ff.; Buyskikh S. B. 2001a, 34ff. Rusyayeva 1991b. A. V. Buyskikh 1990, 24ff.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 28

28

S. B. Buyskikh

Thirdly, in the general disposition of the dugout structures of the lower Bug we can see distinct elements of regularization in construction and planning. In particular we find variations on a repeated theme in settlements of different extents, namely a self-standing habitation-domestic unit or oikos.39 On average this unit occupies an area of half a hectare; it includes a core of dwellings which are dugouts or semi-dugouts with an adjoining structure for the needs of the domestic economy. Small farms comprise, by and large, one such unit. In settlements of medium size (2–8 hectares) the number of units varies from four to as many as sixteen. In major settlements (some 50–80 hectares) the number of units might reach 100–160.40 As for Olbia itself, excavations to the east of the Western Temenos showed that dugouts and semi-dugout dwellings stretched (irregularly spaced) in three rows along the main street of the Upper City.41 This disposition shows the existence in Olbia, at least in the latter half of the sixth century, of a distinct street-plan arrangement. None of this resembles contemporary construction of dugouts by non-Greeks. In their case statistical study of dimensions gives no sense at all of a single unit that might have been used.42 And a comparative analysis of below-ground buildings in Greek and non-Greek settlements shows how different they are:43 in size the non-Greek buildings are significantly larger, while the details of construction are also quite different. As for the evolution of semi-dugouts on the lower Bug, then (contra the aforementioned claims of Solovyov) all forms of below-ground structure have been shown to have existed here from the very beginning of the colonizing process.44 The same has also been established for the archaic settlements of the lower Dniester.45 When non-Greeks built on the north coast of the Black Sea (whether Geto-Thracians or Scythians), they tended to use all forms of dugout structure (circular, oval, rectangular) at the same time and at the same place.46 Moreover, it is worth stressing another fact of some importance: at Nemirov, one of the earliest Scythian settlements, at c.600 BC there 39 S. B. Buyskikh 1985, 8–9; 1987, 30ff.; Kryzhitskiy & Buyskikh 1988; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 25ff. 40 S. B. Buyskikh 1987, 33. 41 Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978b, 5, pl. 2; Kryjitskij 1982, 11–12; Kryzhitskiy 1993, 4. 42 A. V. Buyskikh 1990, 31–2. 43 Butyagin 2001, 38–40. 44 Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978b, 15; Otreshko & Mazarati 1987, 16; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 41ff. 45 Okhotnikov 1990, 10–16. 46 Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1983, 263, 267, 284; Shramko 1987, 38, 43; Nikulitse 1987, 42.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 29

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS

29

coexisted, at the same time, not only dugouts and semi-dugouts (in the various forms described above), but also above-ground dwellings.47 In fact, more generally in the wooded steppe to the west of the Bug, in the early and middle Scythian periods (c.600–500 and c.500–400 respectively) we find the coexistence of dugouts and semi-dugouts (circular, oval, and rectangular) with above-ground dwellings.48 Accordingly, with all this in view, the attribution of ethnicity to dugout structures in archaic Berezan and the lower Bug, as if they were entirely the buildings of non-Greeks, can hardly be treated as sound methodology. Nor too can we accept the associated attempt to attribute a particular shape of building to a specific ethnic grouping, whether Geto-Thracian, Scythian, or something else. The material foundation on which Solovyov bases his ethno-cultural and chronological interpretation of below-ground dwellings consists almost entirely of the handmade pottery which is found inside them.49 On this it is worth pausing to observe the apposite comment of A. S. Rusyayeva, taking issue with scholars who approach the topic of the non-Greek presence in the settlements of the north Black Sea by using only one criterion. As she stresses, the matter can only be considered with the full range of the available (and limited) evidence: ‘we must distinguish the fact of Greek borrowing and usage of non-Greek artefacts from such evidence as may reside in those artefacts for the actual presence here of non-Greeks. The artefact itself permits no conclusion either way in this regard until it is considered in context with the other evidence available.’50 By contrast, Solovyov’s methodology is to rip out of their context finds of handmade pottery alone to serve as a fundamental and universal index of ethnicity. That leads him to the bald conclusion that in the material culture of Berezan (c.600–525) any Greek cultural background is very slight.51 However, an objective analysis of the results of excavations of dugouts on Berezan, at Olbia, and in the string of settlements on the lower Bug shows not only the infill but also — on the very floors of dwellings — the presence of familiar artefacts of Greek everyday life: besides painted pottery, graffiti, terracottas, and the like, there is money in the form of arrowheads and dolphins, jewellery, and remnants of weaponry.52 47 48 49 50 51 52

Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1983, 285. Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 15–19, 23–4. Solovyov 1994, 87–90; 2000, 297–8. Rusyayeva 1979, 11. See further Kryzhitskiy in the previous chapter of this volume. Solovyov 1993, 40–1; 1994, 90; 2000, 298–9. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 83.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 30

30

S. B. Buyskikh

And what are we to make of Solovyov’s statistical methodology, based on a sample of 160 complexes,53 when the publications and reports of earlier scholars on Berezan show the presence there of dugouts and semidugouts in which (1) handmade pottery predominated over other pottery (apart from amphorae); or (2) wheelmade pottery substantially predominated over handmade; or (3) handmade pottery was completely absent; or (4) wheelmade was completely absent? The reality is still more elusive in view of the fact that all the complexes excavated on Berezan do not permit a dating that is well founded on the pottery, let alone a close dating. An exclusive focus on one part of the evidence (handmade pottery) cannot give a reliable picture of the construction or the history or the culture of early Berezan as a whole phenomenon. There are no real distinctions (in the sense of some ‘barbarization’) between the material and religious culture of dugout complexes on the lower Bug in the sixth century, on the one hand, and that of above-ground dwellings erected in the subsequent period, on the other.54 One may wonder where Solovyov imagines that his ‘non-Greek population’ of the dugouts c.600–525 are supposed to have gone after c.525 and the development of above-ground house building. When Solovyov deals with dugouts and semi-dugouts, he insists upon a correlation between them and handmade pottery, and firmly attributes a non-Greek ethnicity to them.55 However, when he deals with aboveground structures, he has nothing much to say about handmade pottery and writes instead about quarters, street systems, building regularization, and the like,56 as well as a transition in the composition of the pottery assemblages, in which we find a clear preponderance (with no indication of statistics) of wheelmade pottery.57 But if these assertions are made with serious intent, it is necessary to have a comparison of the percentages and composition of the whole pottery assemblage in question (including handmade wares in the below-ground and above-ground houses). This has not been done. Meanwhile, if a certain percentage of handmade pottery in the fill of semi-dugouts is taken to show the non-Greek ethnicity of their inhabitants, then why are finds of the very same handmade pottery in above-ground houses taken to show nothing at all? On the other hand, if we compare the ‘barbarian’ semi-dugouts of

53 54 55 56 57

Solovyov 1994, 87; 2000, 298. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 84. Solovyov 1994, 87; 2000, 298. Solovyov 1994, 90. Solovyov 2000, 100.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 31

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS

31

Berezan with the ‘Greek’ above-ground houses, then do we see any difference with regard to the handmade pottery? In fact, Solovyov’s case is a re-heated version of an old suggestion once advanced by Yu. V. Domanskiy58 to the effect that dugout buildings on the lower Bug belonged to ‘barbarians’, while above-ground houses belonged to Greeks. However, the extensive archaeology in the region thereafter did not support the suggestion.59 There is no substantial distinction between the material and religious culture of the inhabitants of semi-dugouts in the sixth century and that of inhabitants of the aboveground dwellings of the subsequent period. The ethnicity of the inhabitants of both kinds of dwelling seems evident enough on this evidence. In the region of Olbia,60 as in other places on the north coast of the Black Sea (especially in the Bosporus),61 both dugouts and dwellings above ground were the work of one and the same population group, namely Greeks, the principal movers in the process of colonization. As for Solovyov’s absolutism in giving serious consideration only to one aspect of the material evidence (handmade pottery), it naturally produces a one-sided picture, reflecting the subjective notions of the author rather than the actual reality. On that one can do no better than quote the comment made by V. V. Lapin as early as the 1960s: First and foremost, with regard to the thesis that ‘stone houses belong to Greeks, semi-dugouts to locals’, the conclusion is based upon finds of handmade pottery in the fill of semi-dugouts. But this same handmade ware is also found, in scarcely less a proportion, in the fill of stone houses! It follows that the choice of criteria for the definition of ethnicity is extremely undesirable.62

On handmade pottery, Solovyov follows K. K. Marchenko, the principal exponent of the notion (by no means generally accepted) that it is a straightforward sign of non-Greek ethnicity.63 Marchenko came to the conclusion (in view of the presence of handmade pottery in the assemblages of the lower Bug, in different shapes and with different decoration) that non-Greeks from the Geto-Thracian world and from the steppe and wooded steppe zones lived here permanently. However, in basing his arguments on only one part of the evidence, Marchenko clearly exaggerated

58 59 60 61 62 63

Domanskiy 1961, 31ff. Otreshko 1981, 35–6. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 82–4. Butyagin 1997, 98. Lapin 1966, 95. Marchenko 1980; 1987; 1988; 1991; 1999, 162ff.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 32

S. B. Buyskikh

32

the ‘barbarian’ element (in quantity and quality) in the population of the Olbian state and, accordingly, in the broad picture of its culture. We can accept the long-term presence on the lower Bug of a certain element of migrants from the various peoples of the north coast of the Black Sea, but if among the steppe Scythians, for example, ‘in every aspect of everyday life by and large, borrowing and copying from Greeks found expression’,64 then how much Hellenization should ‘migrants’ have experienced in the course of long-term settlement actually among the population of Olbia and its chora? In the contrast of the striking Hellenization of such non-Greeks,65 migrants could hardly stand forth as the bearers and champions of ‘local elements’ in the culture of Olbia and its rural environs, especially as they did not form any kind of single, consolidated ethnic grouping. Meanwhile, against the central claim that handmade pottery can be taken as some kind of straightforward indicator of ethnicity, we may well take the view66 that in a Greek community (whether city or settlement) it cannot serve at all as reliable evidence on ethnicity: ‘It could have come there by way of trade both with non-Greek peoples and within the town. We may certainly imagine craftsmen in the population of a Greek town, migrants from neighbouring peoples who made cheap and simple vessels for the poorest levels of society in the community. Moreover, even now we still lack comparative studies of non-Greek and Greek (especially Ionian) handmade wares.’67 As N. A. Onayko observed, it is difficult to believe that the Greeks themselves did not produce handmade pottery, especially as some of the forms of the vessels used in the towns have no analogies in non-Greek contexts. Further, the similarity of the handmade pottery found in the various towns is very well known, especially in the early period. Is the explanation not that the Greek settlers who came to the north Black Sea brought something of their own to the production of handmade pottery there? Did the Greeks really stand by waiting while non-Greeks made this pottery for them (non-Greek participation notwithstanding)?68

We should also ask why handmade pottery (pulled out of the general context of finds in the Greek settlements of the north Black Sea) should be evidence of the inescapable presence here of a so-called ‘barbarian ele64 65 66 67 68

Gavrilyuk 1989, 92. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 147. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 84 n.16. Ibid. Onayko 1980, 89–90.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 33

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS

33

ment’. In the pottery assemblages of the Scythian steppe, there are (besides local forms) elements drawn from the cultures of the wooded steppe, Thrace, the North Caucasus, and the Greeks. However, in this case scholars do not take these elements in the pottery to establish the ‘fact’ of the presence of external ethnic elements in the local population. Instead, quite properly in my view, this pottery is explained in terms of the Scythians’ ability to appropriate everyday features and items from their neighbours (including new shapes in handmade pottery) for good reasons and practical purposes.69 In the same way, the Greeks too, producing their own handmade pottery, could adapt to the use of different shapes, decoration, and technological innovations taken from non-Greek craftsmen, who in turn could also make use of Greek experience.70 Long since, V. V. Lapin, setting out the objective evidence for the presence of handmade pottery in the assemblages of the west Greek cities, stressed that, like wheelmade pottery, it played a significant role in the lives of the Greeks of the north coast of the Black Sea. He noted that handmade pottery was a part of their material culture which indicated the simplicity of their economy.71 Handmade pottery existed at every stage of Greek presence on the north coast of the Black Sea in antiquity, from its earliest times.72 Therefore, the idea that the Greeks of the lower Bug could themselves ‘share in and use handmade pottery for domestic purposes only from the end of the 4th century BC’73 carries no conviction, as others have noted.74 Is it not because part of the handmade pottery from the archaic complexes of Berezan and Olbia was made by the Ionian settlers themselves, that Marchenko and Solovyov cannot find analogies for it among the contemporary non-Greek complexes of the north coast of the Black Sea, while choosing to reject its Greek attribution?75 It is to be stressed that other scholars have hitherto distinguished Greek forms among the handmade pottery of the lower Bug region.76 Now, after studying a substantial assemblage of handmade pottery from excavations on Berezan (from 1979 to 1984), these other scholars have come to the conclusion that the so-called ‘Scythian steppe’ handmade ware found on 69

Gavrilyuk 1989, 92. Gavrilyuk & Otreshko 1982, 88–9. 71 Lapin 1966, 163–8. 72 Ibid., 168; Kastanayan & Arsen’yeva 1984, 232–3. 73 Marchenko 1988, 125. 74 Otreshko 1981, 38. 75 Marchenko 1988, 118–19; Marchenko and Solovyov 1988, 59. 76 Gavrilyuk and Otreshko 1982, 89. 70

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 34

34

S. B. Buyskikh

Berezan is the domestic production of the Greek settlers themselves, supplementing their other cooking ware.77 As for the ‘Scythian wooded steppe’ pottery of the archaic period in the complexes of Olbia and Berezan, we have the valuable idea of Boltrik, who considers that it could have been brought here with the seasonal trading caravans of the wooded steppe dwellers only as part of their travelling gear.78 This is not the place to review the whole argumentation in every respect about Greek/non-Greek interactions on the lower Bug or the emergence of the Olbian polis, which is portrayed in the various works of S. L. Solovyov (as also in his monograph) in a distinctly subjective fashion. However, it is by now evident that Solovyov makes much of the same sets of evidence (which are limited in their potential), while deliberately — to bolster his own conception — keeping silent about other evidence which has much more to say. The point has already been made by others elsewhere.79 It will suffice to say that Olbia, founded (on our latest evidence) about 575,80 appears in Solovyov’s work as ‘Parutino Settlement’, the northern guard-post of Borysthenes (‘Berezan Settlement’) until the end of the sixth century BC.81 He dates the foundation of a Berezan polis (Borysthenes) to about 550–525, and the foundation of the Olbian polis to the end of the sixth century.82 Yet, in so doing, he fails to make mention of the inescapable fact that already by 560 or so a temenos existed at Olbia, with shrines of Apollo and the Mothr of the Gods, laid out at the very time of the foundation of the city.83 Nor does he attach any significance to the well-known bone plate from Berezan, which bears an inscription which dates to c.550–525 and fortunately mentions the existence of the Olbian (not a Berezan) polis.84 Undeterred, Solovyov also posits, in 77 Otreshko and Gavrilyuk 1998, 17. Note their very acurate response to the supporters of the ‘native’ viewpoint in the interpretation of the Berezan material. ‘Handmade pottery is distributed very evenly over the site. That is, each square metre of the Berezan excavations gives the same density of handmade ware. It follows that each Greek on Berezan in the archaic period was something of a barbarian (a Scythian and at the same time (!) a Thracian and someone from the wooded steppe). It is surprising that, in the course of time, as the absolute number of the Scythian population of the steppe increased sharply, the rate of “Scythianization” of the pottery and the inhabitants of the classical centres does not increase at all, but, on the contrary, decreases.’ So Otreshko and Gavrilyuk 1998, 18. 78 Boltrik 2000, 124. 79 Yu. A. Vinogradov 1999, 108; A. V. Bujsilch 2001, 626f. 80 Vinogradov et al. 1990, 84; Rusyayeva 1998, 169; A. V. Buyskikh & Krapivina 2001, 48f. 81 Solovyov 1998, 205ff.; 1999, 87, 96; 2000, 98–9. 82 Solovyov 2000, 98. 83 Rusyayeva 1986, 52; 1994a, 101; and 1994b, 80ff. 84 Rusyayeva, 1986, 50–1.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 35

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS

35

about 600–560, a boundary between what he claims to be the two poleis along the Adzhigol valley — a boundary which in no way conforms to any kind of reality.85 He further comes to the conclusion that only in the middle of the fifth century (!) did the Olbian polis become a single political, economic and religious centre on the lower Bug.86 But all these imaginative notions are directly contradicted by the evidence we have for the lower Bug in the archaic period; they will be criticized more closely elsewhere. The purpose of the present chapter has been to show how doing clear violence to the evidence, by making too much of only two kinds of material (handmade pottery and below-ground dwellings), leads to a substantially skewed, partial, and unsupported account, which amounts to a seriously misleading depiction of an issue which is unquestionably of fundamental importance — namely, the nature of Greek/non-Greek interrelationships on the ancient lower Bug, especially in the early period, when a wide range of contacts were initiated between Greek colonists and the so-called ‘barbarian hinterland’.

85 86

Solovyov 2000, 101. Solovyov 2000, 106.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

03 Buyskikh 1525

28/9/07

12:26

Page 36

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 37

Greater Olbia: Ethnic, Religious, Economic, and Political Interactions in the Region of Olbia, c.600–100 BC DAVID BRAUND

THE CITY OF OLBIA has left a considerable epigraphic record which, together with substantial archaeology, allows us to contextualize and control the literary tradition, which is dominated by Herodotus. At the same time, these rather different kinds of evidence, taken together, amply attest the particular importance for Olbia of its dealings with its various neighbours, both Greeks, non-Greeks, and half-Greeks. The purpose of this chapter is to elucidate these various relationships, with as much concern for change across time as the evidence permits. The Olbia which emerges is a city at the head of a large region, though the nature of its routine dealings with its environs remains to be elucidated. At times Olbia’s mini-empire in the north-west Black Sea region included not only the city itself and the many agrarian settlements along the estuary of the river Bug, but probably also a range of settlements along the lower Dnieper, north-west Crimea, the outer estuary of the Dnieper (Hylaea), Berezan, and, to the west, the island of Leuke, as well as possibly other settlements reaching towards the Dniester. For all our uncertainty about the details, this large region may reasonably be termed ‘Greater Olbia’.1 This chapter will offer a broad picture of this region across several centuries and will attempt to characterize its key features, issues, and orientations.

1

Coin distribution tends to be over-interpreted in this regard: it shows only the area in which Olbian coinage might travel and at best be accepted; it does not in itself show the political or cultural reach of Olbia in whole or in part, pace for example Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 28–9, and the scholarship there listed. Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 37–77. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 38

38

David Braund

Herodotus’ Olbian world: settlement, cult, and economy It is easy to gain the impression from Herodotus’ concern with the archaic world that he is a writer of that world, but of course he is not. His account belongs to the later fifth century, probably completed in the early years of the Peloponnesian War around 426 or so. The fact is well known, but must be stressed here, for we must be fully aware from the first that the archaic period in Olbia is hardly attested in the literary tradition: the little that is known will be brought to bear in what follows. Consequently, for the archaic period, when the city was created and established, we must rely on the results of archaeology, which has often been preoccupied with later periods and which in any case is not well suited to providing a close historical narrative. Accordingly, much about early Olbia remains very obscure, depending substantially upon inference from comparative colonial experiences and/or retrojection from the account of Herodotus, which is itself much-discussed and contested.2 Of central concern is his claim (explicit and implicit) to have visited the region and asked questions of its inhabitants. Suffice it to say that everything that follows in the present discussion serves to confirm not only the likelihood of his visit but also the acuity of his perception and selection of information. Herodotus draws a sharp distinction between the city, its emporion (probably Berezan, then a peninsula), and its neighbours. Olbia’s immediate neighbours engage in agriculture, albeit together with pastoralism. They include not only Scythians, but also the Callippidae, ‘Greek Scythians’ (Hdt. 4.17). The Callippidae in particular have generated a substantial scholarly literature, bristling with hypotheses and sometimes obscuring the fact that we know nothing about them apart from Herodotus and one or two later notices of uncertain value.3 In particular, archaeology has been unable to identify them as a distinct cultural group, which in itself may well be the key observation about them. For their material culture, it seems, is not distinguishable in substance from that of Olbia and Berezan, save for the generally humbler lifestyle observable throughout Greater Olbia, from the seventh to the first century BC and

2

See West in this volume, offering rather different views on Herodotus. Marchenko 1983 (often mis-cited as a VDI article) offers a very full account of the many views expressed and re-expressed over the past century and more. The key text is Hdt. 4.17; cf. also Str. 12.3.20, p. 550, alluding to Hellanicus’ (and Eudoxus’) mention of the Callippidae, and Mela 2.1.7 on their territory. On controversy surrounding Ps.-Scymnus in this regard, see Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 30. 3

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 39

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

39

beyond, as we shall see. As for the Callippidae themselves, much has been inferred from their name, which has encouraged the idea that they were horsemen, had fine horses, or the like. Reasonably enough by analogy with the Melanchlaenae in their black cloaks or the supposedly man-eating Androphagi, though we must also bear in mind that the name might be no more than a Hellenization of a local name by which the Callippidae called themselves, in which case its literal Greek meaning might have no great significance (any more than it presumably has among the neighbouring Alazones).4 However, Herodotus’ choice of words is telling. For he states that the Callippidae mlomsai e’mse  E´ kkgme Rjhai: ‘they range about being Greek-Scythians’. The main verb indicates a pastoral lifestyle, as also does his explicit description of their mode of life as being the same as the Scythians except for their agriculture in grain and legumes. The view that their economy was in some sense semi-nomadic seems inescapable in the light of Herodotus’ evidence.5 Of course, Herodotus says nothing specific about horses among the Callippidae, though there is independent evidence that horses were hunted around the Bug estuary.6 Meanwhile, he gives only a general location for the Callippidae, on the coast north of Berezan; since Olbia is not included in his description here we have no clear idea about the relative extent of the territory occupied by the Callippidae and the Alazones. Nor are we told about the balance in each of their economies between pastoralism and crop-raising. However, it may be more than an interesting coincidence that we can identify archaeologically a pastoralist culture centred upon the Adzhigol valley, which is located exactly where Herodotus seems to indicate the presence of the Callippidae, namely on the mainland west of the lower Bug and on the coast north of Berezan. That is not to say, however, that the Callippidae restricted their movements to this valley: we should probably imagine that they exploited pastures and livestock as far afield as the river Tiligul, as Pomponius Mela seems to say,7 while their agriculture accords also with settlement. Certainly, we should resist the temptation to consider all (perhaps any) settlements in Greater Olbia as 4

Hdt. 4.107 is explicit on the black-cloaked Melanchlaenae; cf. 4.106 on Androphagi. On the Alazones, if so they were named, see Corcella & Medaglia 1993, 243–4. On horses, see below. 5 Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, esp. 35, make the case well, pace Marchenko 1983. Of course, the singular, Callippides, was also a well-known Greek name, as with the actor at Athens c.400 BC, on whom Braund 2000. 6 See below on the last line of the so-called priest’s letter, all the more relevant if the final word was indeed a mention of Tyras or its neighbours. 7 Mela 2.1.7 with Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 30.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 40

40

David Braund

Greek because they have, for example, Greek graffiti, terracottas, and the like.8 After all, Herodotus’ description of them as Greek-Scythians would work best if their culture did indeed have a great deal about it which seemed to him and local informants to be Greek. At the same time, the Callippidae in particular may very well have been and have been considered to be the result of mixed Greek and Scythian descent.9 The case of the Geloni invites comparison, despite some obvious differences (Hdt. 4.108–9), for Herodotus treats them as the descendants of Greeks who have moved inland to settle among the Scythian Budini. In so doing, they have kept much that is Greek, but have also taken on something of Scythia, so that their language (and that of the Budini too) is a mixture of Greek and Scythian. Certainly, in the case of the Callippidae it is not simply that they have a Scythian-style pastoralist economy together with Greek-style agriculture, for the neighbouring Alazones have the same mixed economy but are not termed ‘Greek-Scythians’. Nor does Herodotus mention language at all in their cases, nor yet settlements or religious practice, as with the Geloni. The special quality which the Callippidae are accorded seems only to be explained by a notion of descent, however grounded in fact that may or may not have been. The creation of Olbia itself had almost certainly entailed the intermarriage of Greeks and Scythians. Rather as elsewhere in colonial situations around the Mediterranean and Black Sea in the archaic period, we should expect most, if not all, Greek colonists to have been males, especially in the earlier stages of the colonial process. Accordingly, the pottery of archaic Olbia contains a substantial proportion of local handmade ware: the presence of Scythians, and especially Scythian women, in the population of the city has been inferred.10 But of course, as with other colonial foundations, the emerging city of Olbia preferred to stress its Greekness and, in particular, its link with Miletus, its mother-city.11 Presumably the Callippidae were different not only because they did not establish a city, but because their dominant identity was something other than simply Greek: they had retained their pastoralism, by contrast with much of the rest of the region and Olbia in particular. In the case of the 8

Pace Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 27. See further below on Mixellenes in the later third century BC. 10 See Marchenko 1988, for example, but note also the criticisms of Kryzhitskiy and Buyskikh in this volume. 11 On intermarriage and the construction of Greek identity, see Braund 1994 and the literature there cited. 9

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 41

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

41

Callippidae (by contrast with Olbia proper) something other than marriage between Greek males and local females may have been entailed.12 While details remain elusive, the easiest hypothesis seems to be that the Callippidae intermarried with the population of Olbia itself, very possibly including marriage between local males and Olbian females.13 Archaeology provides a startling picture of the region during the early part of the colonial process, which sets the Callippidae and their neighbours in a rather different light. While there was settled habitation of the lower Bug and its environs in the Bronze Age, the region seems to have had no fixed settlements thereafter as the embryonic community at Olbia developed. However, that is not to say that the region was, as often claimed, ‘uninhabited’ when Greeks arrived. The earliest painted pottery so far found on Berezan can be dated to the earlier seventh century, which chimes well enough with our limited literary tradition on Greek concern with the Bug region.14 The absence of local settlements at this time is usually taken to suggest that the region was easy meat for Greek colonists.15 Perhaps so in one sense, but we must consider also the reasons for the absence of local agriculturalists; given our lack of evidence on this important matter, we can only suspect problems of climate or physical security or both. For these lands were not completely empty: there were pastoralists (hard as they are to find in the local archaeological record) and those pastoralists had to be accommodated or somehow controlled by the colonists. It is worth pausing briefly to compare the pattern of settlements on the lower Dniester, to the west of Olbia. For there we find that the early rural settlements (from the late archaic period) are without exception situated on the eastern bank of the estuary. By contrast sites of the fourth and third centuries BC are spread more evenly, which indicates that the earlier absence of settlement to the west of the Dniester was not a lack of agricultural potential there. Rather, problems of security seem very likely 12

I take the self-images of those under discussion to be the main (but not the only) factor in assigning ethnicity to them. 13 Compare the rather different Geloni, who developed a culture that was a mixture of Greek and Scythian by being Greeks who had settled among non-Greeks: Corcella & Medaglia 1993, 243 with bibliography. 14 Kopeykina 1973 with Rusyayeva 1994a, 99–100. Even Solovyov 1999, arguing for a later date, allows the presence of Greeks on Berezan at around this time, though he prefers to minimize their numbers: see Kryzhitskiy and Buyskikh in this volume, critically. Note too the fact that about a thousand Greek graffiti remain unpublished, from Berezan, Olbia, etc.: see Rusyayeva 1987, 139, dating many of these to the earlier sixth and one possibly to the end of the seventh century. 15 e.g. Rusyayeva 1994, 100.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 42

42

David Braund

to have been the deterrent. We happen to know that the Dniester marked a boundary (albeit a porous one) between what we term ‘Thracian culture’ to the west and ‘Scythian culture’ to the east. It seems that on the lower Dniester in the late archaic period the ‘Scythian culture’ on the east bank of the estuary was more tractable and more open to agricultural settlement than was its ‘Thracian’ counterpart to the west. That is not to suggest, of course, that either culture was necessarily embodied in a single homogeneous political structure, though we are told of a Scythian king in and around Olbia. The point is rather that, for reasons as yet unclear to us, colonial settlement was possible east of the Dniester as far as Olbia and further, in a way in which it was not to the west. Accordingly, it was on the east bank of the Dniester estuary that the apparently Milesian colony of Nikonion was founded in the course of the sixth century.16 Nor is Tyras itself the exception that it might seem to be, for, while on the west of the estuary, it occupies an elevated promontory (across the estuary from Nikonion) that offers a fine defensive position, as has been appreciated by fort-builders in more recent times: this is the site of Akkerman.17 Conceivably the very existence of a Scythian ‘kingdom’ in this region meant that Greek colonists could more easily reach agreements and develop relationships to mutual advantage. Indeed, the kingdom itself may well have developed its power in the context of constructive relationships with Greek colonists. Be that as it may, the difference between the area to the east of the Dniester and to its west is clear enough both on the estuary itself and also in the larger pattern of settlement in the north-west Black Sea. For to the west of the Dniester there was little settlement until the Danube: this was the ‘Desert of the Getae’.18 Furthermore, it is surely more than coincidence that the agricultural settlements on the lower Bug in the archaic period show a distinct imbalance, albeit not as extreme as on the Dniester. Whereas the east bank of the Dniester was favoured, it was the west bank of the lower Bug, with only a few settlements across to the east towards the Dnieper. The conjoined impact of these two settlement patterns seems strongly to show an area between the lower Dniester and lower Bug which was relatively safe

16

Sekerskaya 2001 offers a useful starting-point. Kleyman 2001, esp. 64, observes the modest early settlement there at the far end of the promontory and the enthusiastic walling which accompanied its expansion towards the mainland. 18 On settlement on the Dniester, see Okhotnikov 2001. 17

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 43

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

43

and practicable as a place to settle and farm. The point seems confirmed by the archaic sites on the estuary of the river Berezan lying between, for here we find settlement spread evenly enough along both sides of the estuary.19 With that in view it is difficult not to see the emergence of Olbia and of settled agriculture in its extensive environs, such as described by Herodotus, as a developing symbiosis, with Olbia supporting the agriculture (and indeed animal husbandry)20 of its settled neighbours on the lower Bug and vice versa. All within a framework of reasonable stability and security provided by the relationship between Olbia and the Scythian king and his associates. If that is right, these neighbours were integral to Olbia from the first, and among them the Callippidae seem to have enjoyed the closest of cultural and presumably also economic relationships. There is also the large question of the extent of relationships between the region of Greater Olbia and the peoples of the forest steppe well to the north, perhaps most strikingly exemplified by the enormous site at Bel’sk. For the settled inhabitants of that region had much more in common in lifestyle with Greek settlers than either could share with the pastoralists who occupied much of the steppe land in between. That is no doubt why Greek imported pottery found its way to the forest steppe early. At the same time, the similarity of handmade wares in the region of early Olbia with those found in the forest steppe21 has further encouraged scholars to believe that forest-dwellers moved south down the Dnieper and Bug. Although the evidence remains fairly light,22 there is every possibility that this too was at least a contributory factor in the development of Greater Olbia. All the more so, since the hypothesis has the advantage of helping to account for the accretion of population to the region which seems to be entailed in the expansion of rural settlements.23 However, it must be stressed that, while we may allow some migration from the north into the region, the dominant culture of Greater Olbia was Greek in so 19

Solovyov 2001, 119 provides a very clear map of the lower reaches of the Tiligul and Bug in the archaic period. 20 Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 137–8. In the Adzhigol valley, animal husbandry was the key pursuit (cf. Solovyov 1999, 96 n.62 for description); on this and other ‘specialized’ areas within the chora, see Buyskikh 1986, 19 and the literature he cites. 21 Marchenko 1987, 113 offers a neat summary; see further Marchenko 1988. 22 Cultural influence does not require significant migration, nor does the ethnicity of the craftsman (or craftswoman perhaps) follow from the kind of vessel copied: observe, for example, the Greek models used also for handmade ware (Marchenko 1987, 115). 23 Solovyov 1999, 28–9, 46, is accessible and informative on earlier literature.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 44

44

David Braund

far as its written language was Greek and its religion was concerned with Greek deities, with the accoutrements of Greek cult. Much the same may be said for the possibility of migration into the region from Thrace, which has been inferred from strong Thracian influences in some of the handmade pottery of the region, notably at Beykush.24 In this case it is easy enough to accept the hypothesis of some migrants coming to settle in Greater Olbia, or being brought there perhaps as slaves or wives, not only from Thrace but also from the Crimea too.25 Indeed, the arrival of migrant population groups would explain also some of the differences in the assemblages of handmade pottery at different rural sites. For the prominence of Thracian-like ware at Beykush (by contrast with, for example, Shirokaya Balka, close to the south of Olbia) seems less surprising when we consider its geographical location on the western periphery of Greater Olbia, towards Thrace. However, while there is every reason to imagine settlement into the region from the north and west in particular, the main thrust seems to have come even so from the south with the arrival of Greeks by sea. Through the archaic period local differences and influences from elsewhere seem to have been amalgamated into a new identity, which was Greek or at least Greek enough.26 In particular, there is soon no significant distinction between the material culture of the city of Olbia or Berezan and that of the rural settlements, apart from the rather simpler lifestyle to be expected in small rural communities.27 Meanwhile, Herodotus calls attention to a matter of terminology, which tends to elide the Olbiopolitans with some of their neighbours, though he himself (as doubtless the Olbiopolitans) is at pains to clarify an ethnic and geographical distinction. He evidently follows regular Greek practice when he describes the citizens of Olbia as Borysthenites and notes their claim to being Milesian Greeks. Indeed, he is consistent in that usage (Hdt. 4.17, 53, 78–9; esp. 78 on Milesians). Yet he also notes 24

Marchenko 1987, esp. 111, 113. Marchenko 1987, 112–13 on parallels with so-called Kizil-Kobinskaya pottery, found in the Crimea, especially to the north of the mountains there. 26 See especially Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 91 on the important arguments of K. K. Marchenko; cf. Marchenko 1988 and Kryzhitskiy and Buyskikh in this volume. 27 Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 90–1 stress the point well, e.g. for religion and domestic buildings; cf. Wasowicz 1975, 81 on burial practices. However, some differences must be allowed, notably the markedly higher ratio of handmade pottery in archaic Berezan than at Olbia and the still higher ratios in rural settlements. Marchenko 1987, 105 gives the percentages of total pottery (omitting amphorae) as 1–4 per cent (Olbia), 8–14 per cent (Berezan), and up to 36 per cent in the chora (Kutsurub I and Shirokaya Balka). The figures are no more than indicative, but they seem to show a clear tendency. 25

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 45

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

45

that they term themselves Olbiopolitans and apply the name Borysthenites not to themselves but to Scythian agriculturalists who dwell on the Dnieper, the river Borysthenes (4.18). Intriguingly Herodotus says nothing of a distinct Borysthenite identity on the island of Berezan, which tends against some modern arguments about Berezan’s prominent identity in the region.28 The issue deserves attention particularly because it reveals very clearly the importance of distinguishing between local Olbian perspectives and the visions offered by external authorities, including Herodotus himself. For while Greek authors persist in giving the name Borysthenes and its derivatives to Olbia, the epigraphy of the city shows that Herodotus was quite right about local usage across the centuries: Olbians did indeed call themselves Olbiopolitans. After all, the inhabitants of the region knew full well that Olbia did not stand on the Borysthenes (the Dnieper) so much as on the Hypanis (the Bug). There abides a sense that, from the viewpoint of at least some Mediterranean Greeks, the distinction is nugatory: they are all Borysthenites, for Borysthenes was the best-known and biggest river of the region and Olbia’s location could be imagined as on the greater estuary of the Borysthenes. Meanwhile, Herodotus shows also the trading activity in Greater Olbia, when he introduces the ‘emporion of the Borysthenites’. That trade helps to account for what seems largely to have been a constructive relationship between the city and pastoralist Scythians, or at least some of their elite. However, it is unclear where precisely he means. Some have taken him to mean the ‘island’ (then almost certainly a peninsula) of Berezan, while others have thought that he means Olbia itself. The attraction of the former view is primarily that he elsewhere terms Olbia an astu and a polis, though these terms are notoriously slippery, to the extent that the same community might well be termed an emporion and a polis, for example. Modern attempts to invest such terms with transferrable meanings serve rather to underline the fact that ancient authors can use them with little short of gay abandon. However, since Herodotus seems to locate the emporion specifically on the coast (if that point can be pressed), the balance of evidence is slightly in favour of taking him to mean Berezan. Whether there or at Olbia proper, he is explicit that Greeks went from here and other emporia of the region to trade in the east (Hdt. 4.17 and 24). By contrast, Herodotus presents the self-styled

28

Notably Solovyov 2001, who explores distinctions between Olbia and the island which it later incorporated into Greater Olbia.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 46

David Braund

46

Figure 7.

Face of Demeter on Olbian coin of the fourth century BC.

Olbiopolitans (his Borysthenites) as ‘the Greeks who dwell beside the Hypanis’ (4.18; cf. 78), which is precisely what they were. The location of Olbian cult places further illustrates the extent of Greater Olbia at the time of Herodotus’ visit in the middle decades of the fifth century.29 South of Olbia and across the Bug estuary stood the hieron of Demeter, on the promontory of Hippolaus where the waters of the Bug and Dnieper meet. She duly appears on Olbian coinage.30 There is no doubt that Demeter’s sanctuary was the work of the Olbiopolitans, who probably also named the promontory, as also presumably the Callippidae. An intriguing insight into Olbia’s concern with cult at its frontiers is provided by a lengthy graffito which survives on a fragment of so-called Fikellura pottery made in Miletus c.550–530 BC and found quite recently at Olbia. The date of the graffito has become controversial, but it is undoubtedly late archaic and no later.31 The graffito has become known as the Olbian ‘priest’s letter’, though we have no clear idea as to its author.

29

See now also Bravo 2001. See, for example, Rudan & Ursalov 1986, 39 and the literature they cite. The site has not been located archaeologically: Wasowicz 1975, 84 on that and much else. For sanctuaries of Demeter outside (and inside) Greek cities, see Cole 1994, noting the apparent importance of water. 31 While it has usually been dated to the later sixth century, as the pottery date might suggest, linguistic arguments have been advanced for a strikingly later date, placing the text no earlier than 400 BC: see Dubois 1996, 56–7 for trenchant remarks on the whole issue, upholding the late date. However, a gap of well over a century between pot production and graffito, though not inconceivable, was always a worry. I am advised by the excavation team that the sherd was found in an archaic level, rendering Dubois’ arguments impossible and raising larger doubts about the reliability of such arguments tout court: A. V. Buyskikh pers. comm. 30

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 47

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

Figure 8.

47

The so-called ‘priest’s letter’. Drawing courtesy of A. S. Rusyayeva.

. . . presiding official ?32 honey and a ram . . . (and a pig ?) as you instruct (me/them/us ?) to send33 . . . (to ?) god-made places and around . . . by the promontory (?) . . . we women who let go (?)34 (the) sacred light35 . . . (of the ?) island (?) justly in Chalcene36 the women . . . (so that he might sail out ?) from there to Hylaea . . . again the altars have been harmed . . . of the Mother of the Gods and of Borysthenes and of Heracles . . . after the shipwreck the slaves, having landed37 . . . (with ?) the priesthood of Metrophanes,38 he left the sacred . . . and of the pine-trees . . . (a certain number ??) are bad, and of the trees . . . 200 . . . the hunters of horses have found, with risks, men of Tyragetans (? or Tyrans ?)39 . . . 32

Dubois 1996, 57 is attracted by the possibility of a poet (a hymnothete), but the more mundane and far more common agonothete seems more likely. He sees here a dative (though cf. line 10), while an accusative is possible: we do not know the syntax. Agones are likely enough from the earliest years of the city. 33 Or, restoring the verb not as an infinitive, but as a participle, ‘as you instruct when you send’: so Dubois 1996, 58. 34 These letters are clearly legible and seem to demand this translation. However, commentators have evidently been troubled (cf. Dubois 1996, 59), in recognition of which a little caution has been retained here. 35 Evidently a flame in the sanctuary, as Dubois 1996, 59 stresses. 36 Otherwise unknown: presumably a toponym. Rusyayeva interestingly suggests that it be linked with a metal-working site in the north-west Crimea (Yagorlyk, though bronze-working seems not to be clear there, as would seem to be required): Dubois 1996, 60 seems attracted by the idea. 37 Dubois 1996, 62 notes the ambiguity of the participle, which might or might not entail aggressive action: see below. 38 The name is strikingly relevant to a person who seems to be a hierophant, quite possibly of the Mother of the Gods: it may be an official more than a personal name. 39 Dubois 1996, 62–3 is especially helpful on this remarkable ‘ending’. He observes the Scythian use of horses in sacrifice (Hdt. 4.61) and the presence of wild horses (though Hdt. 4.53 locates them at a lake up the Hypanis above Olbia, not on its banks). Horse hunters here seem to imply wild horses in the area of Hylaea, or alternatively to the west where Tyras would be entailed, as one might wish.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 48

48

David Braund

While details remain murky, the text clearly concerns the performance of rites by women, probably in Hylaea, and damage done to the altars of the Mother of the Gods,40 Borysthenes (the river god or just possibly his daughter Borysthenis),41 and Heracles. The identity of those who caused the damage is not stated in the extant text: Scythians might be imagined, but the text mentions slaves who seem to have been shipwrecked there and might also be considered.42 It remains unclear how or indeed whether the cult of Cybele was linked with the sanctuary of Demeter. Both might be considered to be in Hylaea, whose extent is not really known to us:43 it is worth noting that Demeter and the Mother of the Gods could on occasion be melded into the same deity.44 Conceivably they were linked also in Greater Olbia in Hylaea, whose name indicates its many trees, for the whole region was evidently richer in woods than is apparent from the modern landscape, as faunal remains there confirm.45 However, we must also locate the grove of Hecate which is mentioned in one or two literary sources, for her identification with the Mother of the Gods was very commonplace elsewhere and is likely enough here too.46 Fortunately, the ancient geographers come to our aid: the grove of Hecate, at least, is firmly located on what is now Kinburn spit, the next promontory after the northern end of Tendra, the ‘Racecourse of Achilles’. Ptolemy the

40 For her cult elsewhere in Milesian colonies of the archaic Black Sea (Apollonia, Istros, and Myrmecium, as well as Olbia), see Alexandrescu Vianu 1980. In general, see the extensive discussion of her cult in LIMC Suppl. 41 The river god himself is preferable perhaps, in view of his recurrence on Olbian coinage and elsewhere: on him and Hypanis, see especially Dubois 1996, no. 82. 42 SEG 42 (1992) no. 710, republished as Dubois 1996, no. 24. Cf. also Rusyayeva 1987, 147, observing that slaves might be the culprits here, as also Dubois 1996, 62. Cult sites are to be anticipated all over the chora further north, but there identification is a major problem: see, for example, Golovacheva & Rogov 2001 for an awkward late archaic instance. 43 The graffito is damaged, so that we cannot, on this basis alone, be quite sure that the Mother of the Gods had her cult there on its evidence alone. However, Hdt. 4.76 seems to assuage all doubt: see further below. Dubois 1996, 130 limits Hylaea to the left bank of the Dnieper estuary. 44 See especially Euripides, Helen 1301. Rhea was more commonly identified with Cybele. 45 Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 96–7, with map. On faunal remains, Zhuravlyov 1983, 44. On trees, groves, and cults, Birge 1994. 46 LIMC s.v. on the Mother of the Gods and Hecate. For the grove of Hecate, see Ptol., Geogr. 3.5.2; Anon., Periplus 58. A graffito from Beykush has the word ‘alsos’ (‘grove’) but it remains most unclear whether that has any link with the grove of Hecate to the east in Hylaea: Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, pl. 31.1 gives a clear drawing. Note also that the sanctuary mentioned in SEG 42 (1992) no. 710 seems to have large numbers of trees, among which pine trees are specified by name: given the nature of the text as a whole, this is hardly the timber trade to Olbia, pace Rusyayeva 1987, 147. On groves and religion, see further the range of studies in Cazenove & Scheid 1993.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 49

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

49

geographer is quite clear on this.47 Rather less clear is the extant text of the anonymous Periplus of the Black Sea, which requires slight emendation to state: For the sailor who from Tamyrace has passed the aforementioned Racecourse, to the second tip,48 which is called the sacred grove of Hecate, is the aforementioned 1200 stades, 160 miles. From the sacred grove of Hecate into the navigable river Borysthenes, now called the Danapris 200 stades, 262⁄3 miles . . . And at the confluence of the two rivers Hypanis and Borysthenes has been founded a city, formerly called Olbia and then again called by the Greeks Borysthenes. (Anon. Periplus, 58–60)

In the light of Ptolemy, the Periplus, following the coast north-west past Tendra and round into the Dnieper, can only mean that the sacred grove of Hecate stood on the Kinburn spit, which is reached by those who have sailed up past the top of Tendra from the cult site of Achilles at its bottom end.49 If, as so often, Hecate is also the Mother of the Gods here, in Hylaea, we have a location also for her cult there. If that is right, the entrance to the Borysthenes river was marked by Demeter on the north side (Cape Hippolaus) after the not dissimilar Cybele-Hecate on the southern side (Kinburn spit). In any event, thanks to recent archaeology, we now have dedications to the Mother of the Gods also in Olbia itself, apparently in a shrine; as with Achilles, the cult in the rural territory (here in Hylaea) had a counterpart in the city of Olbia itself. For, like the cult in Hylaea, Olbian Cybele was also archaic, established around 525, if not earlier.50 Final confirmation of the link between the cult of Cybele in the

47

Ptol., Geog. 3.5.7–8 proceeds ‘Estuary of the Hypanis river, Grove of Hecate: a promontory, The isthmus of the Racecourse of Achilles, The southern promontory of Achilles’ Racecourse which is called Sacred Promontory’. 48 Diller 1952, 134 (as also GGM, 417) prints here ‘The sailor who from Tamyrace has passed Racecourse, on the second tip of the Racecourse of Achilles, which’ etc., but this makes no sense (for the Racecourse having been passed is reached again) and seems pleonastic (why mention the Racecourse twice ?). The second occurrence (here in italic) looks very much like a copyist’s gloss and is better omitted, especially in the light of Ptol., Geog. 3.5.7. Minns 1913, 16 thinks that the Periplus is simply confused, which is certainly possible. Rusyayeva 1989, 55 takes the Periplus to locate Hecate on Kinburn, as it seems, without any emendation, but also stresses the link between Hecate and Apollo, her brother. Dubois 1996, 104–5 stresses the cult of Achilles on Kinburn too, supposing that he had his own grove. A more economical hypothesis, in accordance with the evidence (Str. 7.3.19 with Dubois 1996, no. 53), would be a single grove at which both received cult. 49 On Achilles’ site and possibly games there, see Hedreen 1991, 318–19. 50 On Olbian Cybele, see Rusyayeva 1990, 52 and the work she cites; cf. also her persuasive case for early dating: Rusyayeva 1998. The more recent discovery of a dedication to the Mother of the Gods on a fragment of pottery made c.550 (SEG 44 (1994) no. 668) encourages confidence

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 50

50

David Braund

city and its counterpart in Hylaea, if such is needed, comes with the quite recent discovery of a graffito on a fragment of pottery dated to the first half of the fifth century BC and found in situ in the centre of Olbia: ‘To the Mother of the Gods, mistress of Hylaea’.51 Most important, however, is Herodotus’ origin story for the cult of the Mother of the Gods: Scythian Anacharsis, en route home and imbued with Hellenism, brought the cult with him from its centre at Cyzicus (Hdt. 4.76). And he was duly punished by his fellow Scythians with death. That story seems to convey a sense of the uneasy interaction of Olbiopolitans and their Scythian pastoralist neighbours, all the more important because our author evidently garnered it in or around Olbia itself. Although Herodotus does not say as much, what we have here is an Olbian tale. On the one hand, the Olbiopolitans trace their cult of the Great Mother back to the actions of a Scythian: that shows a measure of accommodation and a willingness to embrace something of Scythia among the Olbiopolitans. But on the other hand, Anacharsis is very much an atypical Scythian. Although his wisdom had roots in Scythia, he had imbibed Greek culture too. Culturally he seems to have much in common with the Callippidae, a mixture of Scythian and Greek. The Olbiopolitans could embrace such a cult founder without difficulty, especially one so famous among the Greeks. Needless to say Anacharsis is a fiction, but he is no less interesting because of that, for his story not only reveals Olbiopolitan notions of the foundation of the cult of the Mother of the Gods in Hylaea, but also and more broadly it gives an insight into a rather special kind of interaction between Olbia and a Hellenizing Scythian in Greater Olbia. Finally, the overwhelming probability that Herodotus gained much of his information in the region gains further strength from his location of Anacharsis’ Cybele correctly in Hylaea. And he seems also to have conveyed accurately the origin myth of the Scythians which he ascribes to the Greeks of the Black Sea (presumably Olbiopolitans in primis): the ‘priest’s letter’ seems to locate Heracles’ cult in Hylaea, while Herodotus’ (the Olbiopolitans’) Heracles mates with the snake-woman there too. That provides not only another confirmation of Herodotus’ worth, but also an indication of the myth which lay behind

in the early date. Of course, we do not know how long after production these dedications were made, but context confirms that these deposits are firmly archaic. 51 Rusyayeva 1990, 53–4; 1992, 143–8; cf. SEG 42 (1992), no. 709.2 for an accessible Greek text: the restorations seem utterly convincing. Also Dubois 1996, no. 81.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 51

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

51

the Olbiopolitans’ cult of Heracles in Hylaea. Furthermore, at least from a Greek perspective, Heracles offered another way in which the Scythians could be made less strange and even brought within Olbian culture. For, on an Olbian view, not only were they the descendants of Heracles, but, as it seems, that descent was memorialized and celebrated in Heracles’ cult in Hylaea.52 All that may account for the iconography of Olbian coins with a certain Eminakos (usually taken to be a Scythian ruler) on the obverse and Heracles on the reverse.53 Meanwhile, rather by contrast with wide-ranging Heracles, the cult of Achilles in the north-west Black Sea was strongly linked to Olbia, as dedications by Olbian magistrates show clearly enough.54 The marine significance of Thetis’ son could not be clearer here. For in the region, his cult stretched from the island of Leuke in the west through Berezan55 and on to the north-west coast above the Crimea, where the Racecourse of Achilles was located on the narrow bar of Tendra. Recent archaeology has underscored the significance also of the sanctuary of Achilles at Beykush, indicated, inter alia, by the earlier discovery of inscribed dedications (IOSPE i2 132–3, 143, 145).56 Indeed the cult offered an ideological underpinning to the security and even expansion of Greater Olbia. It may well be significant that one of the most westerly finds of a dedication to the god on the mainland of the north-west Black Sea was

52

Rusyayeva 1990, 52 also notes possibly rival claims to Heracles among the Chersonitans, settled from Heraclea Pontica. 53 On the relevance of the coin, see Dubois 1996, 61. On the paternity of Skythes, see also Hesiod, fr.150. 54 Of course, as the son of Thetis, Achilles could easily be seen as linked with the sea, and his cult duly appears in coastal and island locations. Hedreen 1991 (in part after Pinney 1983) collects examples; cf. also A. Kossatz-Deissmann, LIMC ‘Achilleus’, esp. 193–5. Hedreen 1991, 319 rightly notes that Achilles’ cult is attested (significantly) at the mouth of the Straits of Kerch on the Asiatic side (Anon., Periplus 25–8 on the telling location; Strabo, 11.2.6, the other key passage, stresses the particular narrowness of the straits here, also no doubt making the place special, with the evocative Myrmecium on the other side) Hupe 2006, an important collection, appeared too late for this volume. 55 e.g. IOSPE i2 131, 135; IOlbiae 87. Graffiti from Berezan (e.g. SEG 30 (1980) nos. 878–959) show concern there with a range of deities beyond Achilles, including Aphrodite, Artemis, Demeter, Dionysus, Hermes, and so on, even perhaps the river gods Hypanis and Borysthenes (no. 913, fourth century BC). No doubt many who reached Berezan had a dedication to make in gratitude and relief. 56 Solovyov 2001, 116–17 interprets Beykush as located ‘on the western fringes of the Berezan chora’. However envisaged, the cult significance of the place can hardly be stressed too much: see Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 86 on the sheer bulk of dedication graffiti there.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 52

52

David Braund

located close to the estuary of the river Tiligul’ and that it gave thanks for a victory.57 At the same time, however, the cult of Achilles should not be imagined simply as part of an Olbian ideology of domination, for example over Scythians. The local roots of the cult in the north-west Black Sea certainly tend against such a view. But still more telling is the Scythian taste for Achilles, particularly in the military paraphernalia of its elite, which rather suggests that Achilles could offer a constructive point of contact between Greek and Scythian culture. For scenes from the life of Achilles recur on four bow-cases found in different parts of the north Black Sea coast (in fourth-century burials at Chertomlyk, Melitopol, Ilintsy — towards Kiev — and near Rostov on the Don estuary). Although none of these was found in the vicinity of Olbia, they are important because they show that Scythians too might find images of Achilles attractive. How they understood these images and how far they connected them with cult remain debatable questions.58 However, it is surely suggestive that these items, deposited with elite Scythians in their burials, offered the vision of a warrior’s life and concluded with his mother Thetis’ conveyance of his remains for deposit in the region. We should not rush to presume that Scythians did not concern themselves with the Iliad: the epitaph of a Hellenistic Scythian king at Scythian Neapolis certainly shows that those Scythians more exposed to Greek culture might desire to have themselves memorialized in the language of Homeric poetry.59 The four bow-cases showing Achilles were evidently considered appropriate enough for deposit in the burials of the Scythian elite. All the more so if it was also understood that the remains of Achilles were brought to the northern Black Sea and Leuke. Around 600 BC, broadly synchronous with the early stages of Greek settlement in Greater Olbia, we have the poetry of Alcaeus, which includes the line ‘Achilles, lord of Scythia’.60 Since the fragment has 57 IOSPE i2 138 (found with 142, which includes Thetis), datable no earlier than the reign of Hadrian; 144 was found in the same general area. Note also IOSPE i2 140, a stone possibly used in the construction of Odessa and found in later building work: its ancient location remains doubtful; cf. 141, sold by a man from Akkerman, claiming its discovery in Olbia itself, where 53 was certainly discovered. 58 See the thoughtful remarks (with illustrations) of Heinen 2001, esp. 10–15, noting, inter alia, that even if we follow those who believe that the images show a purely Scythian tale (otherwise unknown!), these still indicate a Scythian affinity for the likes of Achilles. 59 Zaytsev 2004. 60 Alcaeus, fr. 354, Campbell. Note the ambitious discussion of Pinney 1983, who seeks to bring to bear evidence from painted pottery. Rusyayeva 1990, esp. 41–9, contextualizes the

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 53

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

53

survived without its original context, much remains uncertain about Alcaeus’ words. However, for the present discussion the very existence of the line is enough to confirm a powerful association in archaic Greek thought, c.600 at Mitylene, between the hero and Scythia. Whatever the Scythians made of the notion, it seems likely that the Greeks who came to settle in Greater Olbia arrived with a predisposition to see Scythia as the land of Achilles. After all, as we have seen, the Aithiopis even located Achilles’ final resting place in the region, a fact made all the more telling for Milesian settlement if we take seriously its ancient ascription to an author from Miletus itself, a certain Arctinus.61 We can only wonder whether Alcaeus too had this tradition in mind: it is at least a striking coincidence — and probably more — that the poet is said to have taken (a discreditable) part in battle for possession of Sigeum. For Sigeum on the Troad not only lay towards the Black Sea, but was also most notable for its claim to have the tomb of Achilles, as stated in Homer.62 Although much remains unclear (not least the relative chronology of poetry and warfare at Sigeum63), there seems good reason to believe that Alcaeus was very aware of traditions about Achilles’ resting place, if not his Scythian identity. Of course, all this matters particularly because, in imagining Scythia as Achilles’ land, the Greeks who came to the region anticipated a world there which was dangerous and alien, no doubt, but also connected with and even under the supernatural control of a particularly stalwart champion of Greek culture.64 All the more so if the cult of Achilles in Greater Olbia was a Greek interpretation of a local cult of the region, as many scholars have suspected: for the cult of Pontarches, as it became, does seem specific to the area and certainly lacks the kind of roots one might otherwise have expected in Miletus.65 fragment and Eustathius’ notion, while citing the fragment, that there were two heroes called Achilles. 61 See now West 2003, esp. 162, on Milesian Arctinus and the rest of the early poetic tradition, with useful philological bibliography. 62 Plut., Mor. (On the malice of Herodotus), 858a–b ⫽ Alcaeus, test.2, Campbell, with useful commentary. Plutarch objects to Hdt. 5.94–5 on Alcaeus’ flight; note there too the town of Achilleum. On Achilles’ tomb, Achilleum, and Sigeum, see Cook 1973, esp.159–65 on the tombs of Achilles and Patroclus. The problem of Achilles’ two tombs (in Sigeum and Leuke) could be resolved in favour of Leuke: see Hedreen 1991 on Philostratus’ Heroicus. 63 Though clearly at least some of his poetry post-dates the battle, notably fr. 428a, Campbell. 64 Rusyayeva 1990, 44 catches the spirit of this very well. 65 See Malkin 1987, 162–3 and the literature he cites, especially Bravo 1974 (on which letter, see now Dubois 1996, no. 23). A valuable survey of the evidence for Pontarches in the region is offered by Shelov-Kovedyayev 1988, publishing a verse inscription from Berezan in the first century AD. See now also Hupe 2006.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 54

David Braund

54

Meanwhile, there were other reasons too why Scythia was not so very strange to Greeks of the eastern Aegean by about 600 BC: while Alcaeus himself seems to know something of Scythian footwear, Sappho knew the colour of Scythian hair.66 We are probably safe enough to suppose that slaves, leather, and perhaps also curios were among the earliest exports from the region into the Mediterranean world. The island of Leuke marks the western extent of Olbian ambitions and responsibilities. The island was the home of a cult of Achilles which evidently had a significance beyond Olbia. The associated myth, that Achilles was buried there, seems to have been established already in the archaic period.67 In physical terms it was well placed as a port of call for shipping between the lower Danube and other parts of the north-west Black Sea, including Olbia, though to spend the night there seems to have been regarded as disrespect to the cult and its deity. Olbia’s link with the island seems to be suggested by the Eumelan mention of a nymph-cumMuse named Borysthenis (and presumably therefore imagined as a daughter of the river Borysthenes), who is best understood as a member of the entourage of Achilles’ mother, Thetis, who brought her son to Leuke and buried him there. Certainly, later inscriptions show Olbian protection of the island. Particularly evocative is an honorary inscription dated no later than the early third century BC: . . . Olbiopolitans . . . Since he killed those who had occupied the island for piracy against the Greeks and expelled from the island their associates and while in the city he served the People of the Olbiopolitans in many great matters, and for these things the People bestowed honours upon him in his lifetime and awarded him a public burial. Therefore the People of the Olbiopolitans resolved to erect a statue of him, so that his deeds might be remembered and so that the city might make it clear to the Greeks, that it has great care for the island in accordance with ancestral practices and that when men strive for the island the city gives them honour in life and due rewards upon their death. (IOSPE i2 325)

66 Alcaeus, fr. 328, Campbell (Scythian shoes, according to Harpocration, who preserves the fragment); Sappho, fr. 210, Campbell (preserved by Photius) indicates that she referred to wood which provided dye to lighten hair colour as ‘Scythian wood’. We should be cautious in accepting these late glosses. However, Sappho’s knowledge of Scythian hair colour could well result from Scythian slaves on Lesbos, while suspicion may linger that Alcaeus’ ‘shoes’ somehow allude to slaves also. 67 See West 2002 with the criticisms of Braund 2005.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 55

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

55

The Olbiopolitans who decided to erect the statue of their fellow-citizen on the island, as it seems, not only record the active protection of the place, but also and more specifically its protection for Greeks in general, including no doubt traders. Moreover, they assert that the policing of the island was an ancestral custom by the time the decision was made, perhaps around 300 BC. It is symptomatic of the special role of Olbia on Leuke that, whereas we have this one public and one significant private inscription on the island made by Olbiopolitans, we find no public inscriptions left there by other states, and even private dedications there by Greeks from other cities are elusive: the seventy or so inscribed dedications (almost all on pottery) seldom give anything that looks like an indication of origin. However, it is worth stressing that archaeology provides only a pale shadow of the wealth of dedications on the island which the literary tradition describes (esp. Arrian, Peripl. 21.2).68 Meanwhile, the sparse crop of inscriptions from Tendra does enough both to show a cult of Achilles there and to hint at the prominence of Olbia, for we find a dedication there (possibly by a Bosporan) dated by what seems to be an Olbian formula.69 Accordingly, we find Greater Olbia held together in broad ideological terms by several deities. Most important in this regard was Achilles, found in different parts of the rural territory, as we have seen, as well as in the city and the quasi-civic Berezan. More generally, the link between Hylaea and the city of Olbia is particularly well attested, thanks especially to the ‘priest’s letter’ and the odd further graffito, so that we may suspect an unevenness in our evidence. However, Herodotus too, with his Olbian-informed outlook, also brings Hylaea to the fore in his account of the region and its religion in particular. That in turn, taken together with the unpredictable survival of graffiti, seems to confirm that we should see the link between the city and Hylaea as a principal, if not dominant, axis in the ideological structure of Greater Olbia. After all, a glance at the map shows that the settlements of Greater Olbia were arranged along waterways. And it was by water that Greek visitors and traders came to Olbia, traversing part of Hylaea as they did so. Dio Chrysostom offers a particularly graphic image of the impression that Hylaea caused. At the 68

Cf. the private dedication IOSPE i2 326, dated no later than the fourth century BC. For the inscribed dedications, mostly small pieces of pottery with graffiti, see Okhotnikov & Ostroverkhov 1993, esp. 54–8, with a range of illustrations; they note a Chian, a Samian, and a Delian, if these are not personal names or some part thereof. Pottery helps dating, which indicates dedications from the sixth century BC onwards. Cf. SEG 30 (1980), nos. 867–77. 69 IOSPE i2 328–32; dating formula on 332.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 56

56

David Braund

same time, Hylaea could be considered a place of refuge (whether a goal or a stage in transit) for the population of Olbia; we do not know how often it was used in this way but it is firmly attested as such in the honorific inscription for Niceratus, usually dated to the first century BC.70 Hylaea mediated Olbia’s contacts with the rest of the Black Sea world and with the Mediterranean beyond, so that it is really no great surprise to find that the city placed a strong ideological emphasis on it. Of course, Achilles was among the key deities there too, as further afield in his thalassine guise as Thetis’ son and very probably also in his rather different guise as ‘lord of Scythia’. At the same time, some apparent absences require attention, even if they are currently beyond satisfactory explanation. For some deities which are very prominent indeed in the city of Olbia seem to be notably absent from Greater Olbia. Given the evident importance of Apollo in the city (whether as Ietros or as Delphinios), it is striking that he seems to have no strong presence in the rural settlements. Similarly, Zeus, Athena, and others from the Olympic pantheon. Although we can garner some graffiti and other minor indications of their presence outside the city, the main thrust of the evidence seems to be that their cults were urban, linked not least with the very business of colonization itself, sponsored by Milesian Apollo.71 Therefore, while we find no substantial gulf between the material culture of the city and Greater Olbia, we do seem to have a major difference in the prominence of different deities. It is not that Olbia is more Greek (or indeed less Greek!) than the rest of the region. Rather the creation and self-image of the city proper (and to a large extent also of its quasi-civic counterpart on Berezan72) seems to have centred upon Apollo, primarily, who has no profile elsewhere in the region. Apollo here is a city god, a founder of colonies, who is consequently rather out of place in the region at large, except as its vanquisher, ‘the conqueror of the north’,73 or as a dispenser of justice, such as Alcaeus imagines him even beyond the north, among the Hyperboreans. Indeed, since it was from Syll.3 730. The now classic study of Apollo’s role in the colonization of Olbia (and Berezan) is Rusyayeva 1986, reaffirmed thereafter (e.g. Rusyayeva 1998); cf. Ehrhardt 1983, esp. 129–61 on Apollo and his ‘family’. This is not the place to discuss Rusyayeva’s influential notion of a late archaic conflict between the followers of these two forms of Apollo, but hard evidence is surely required. Apolline cult on Berezan tends to confirm its colonial-urban nature in the region (cf. Solovyov 1999, esp. 96). 72 e.g. Dubois 1996, no. 93 and commentary. 73 Dubois 1996, no. 93.2, line 6 and side (b). Apollo is a ‘friendly archer’, perhaps by contrast with the Scythians; ibid., no. 93.1, line 3. 70 71

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 57

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

57

Figure 9. Kneeling archer of Scythian type, from Kerameikos, Athens, fourth century BC. Photo. D. Braund, courtesy of National Museum, Athens.

there that he went to Delphi, Apollo’s role in Olbia (not least in its foundation), as elsewhere in the north, might well be imagined not so much as a new enterprise but as a return to the north, from where his Hyperboreans continued also to send to Delos.74 Apollo is primarily of the city, beyond which we find instead especially gods of woods, waters, and the landscape, though of course as Delphinios Apollo might be seen there too.75 Rather more elusive is the god Dionysus. Herodotus’ account of Scyles’ disastrous initiation is centred upon Scythian alienation from his cult.76 And since Herodotus seems to have got so much right about 74

Alcaeus, fr. 307c, Campbell: on the nexus of myths, see LIMC ‘Apollo’. On these civic deities at Olbia, see Ehrhardt 1983, esp. 76. These considerations offer further support to Dubois 1996, no. 57, making Apollo Ietros ‘lord of Borysthenes’. I do not see why he does the opposite with his no. 90, Borysthenes’ genitive there notwithstanding. 76 Hdt. 4.79; cf. e.g. Braund 2001. 75

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 58

58

David Braund

Olbiopolitan religion, his account must be taken very seriously indeed as in all likelihood a tale told at Olbia. Further, that tale might seem to suggest that, after the manner of Apollo, Dionysus might be a god of the city and have a low profile in Greater Olbia. However, of course Dionysus is quite unlike Apollo in his distance from city foundation and his strong associations with the world of rampant nature. Meanwhile, the evidence is strikingly meagre: Dionysus is hard to find at all among inscribed dedications, though we must recall the famous bone-plates from the city and from Berezan.77 And yet there are some key artefacts, among which an inscribed bronze mirror stands out, no doubt used in ritual. Moreover, the religious calendar of the city makes it plain that Dionysus was indeed prominently celebrated: Herodotus is vindicated once more, while at Olbia as in other cities (not least Athens) Dionysus proves ambiguous and powerful.78 But what seems not to be ambiguous is his opposition to Scythian culture, at least, however we take that to play among the population of Greater Olbia. There we simply lack information or even grounds for confident inference, but Scyles’ fate hardly encourages belief in his widespread cult among the Scythians.79 While religion and Olbiopolitan ambitions are very much at issue here, there can be no doubt that trade was the principal cause of most of the movement entailed. Accordingly, when the Olbiopolitans sought to demonstrate their concern for Leuke to ‘the Greeks’, those Greeks most immediately to be impressed were seafaring traders. Moreover, the waterways extended also up the rivers of the region, so that Greek goods could penetrate a long way up even the Dnieper. The excavations at Trakhtemirov have provided important confirmation that this happened even early in the archaic period.80 It should not surprise us that only small amounts of fine Greek pottery have been found: it is hard to imagine that such goods were more than a curiosity among the local population of the wooded steppe. Metal goods presumably had a much more immediate appeal, which would not assist their survival: the deposit of several fifthcentury bronze vessels in what could be a burial at Peshchanoye south of Kiev at least attests the importation of Greek metalware far up the Dnieper. These particular finds are parts of a much larger picture of

77

See further Dubois 1996, no. 94, with discussion and bibliography. On the mirror, ritual (noting possible mirror making at Olbia), the text, and the cult of Dionysus at Olbia, see Dubois 1996, no. 92. On Dionysus and the polis, Seaford 1994, 235–80. 79 See further Rusyayeva in this volume. 80 See further Boltrik & Fialko in this volume. Note especially Vakhtina, forthcoming. 78

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 59

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

59

Figures 10 & 11. Stele of Leoxos. Fig. 10 (left) ‘Scythian’ side. Fig. 11 (right) ‘Greek’ side. Photos. D. Braund, courtesy of Kherson Museum.

Greek importation into the region. They also raise the question of the goods exported to meet the cost of imports. As for Olbia, there can be no doubt that salted fish was a key item of trade out of the region, but slaves and leather were probably more significant.81 Olbia was central to these widespread exchanges, both through trade in the city itself and through its wider role in the region, and indeed in the Black Sea world at large. For it is more than simple chance that we soon find Olbia bestowing privileges on Sinopians, even Timesileos its tyrant c.440: Sinope was a fine source of olive oil inter alia.82 Further, Olbia was well placed to facilitate the movement of goods not only up waterways but also across the steppe. For that required some kind of accommodation with local rulers. Olbia could manage that, most obviously by offering payments in some form, for example in metal or in imported wine and other prestige goods. When Herodotus was visiting the region he seems particularly to have based himself in and around Olbia; it is there that we

81

See Curtis 1991, 119 for valuable comment. On the coins, see further Rudan & Ursalov 1986, 36–40. Minns’ objection (1913, 483–4) that the fish-shaped coins are dolphins not tunny, etc., and inference that we have here magistrates’ names is typically acute, but remains less than completely convincing: the dolphin shape had the double attraction of being both fishy and redolent of Apollo (cf. contemporary IOlbiae 167 with Rusyayeva 1987, 135 and esp. 140–5). It is unlikely that the ancients worried greatly that these did not closely resemble tunny. For general discussion of the Olbian economy, see Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 136–43, more concerned with imports of oil and wine than with the fish trade. 82 Dubois 1996, no. 5 with commentary; cf. IOlbiae 1. The honours for Timesileos make much more sense if awarded before his removal from power at Sinope: Braund 2005.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 60

60

David Braund

should probably locate his exchange with Tymnes the epitropos of the Scythian king. Certainly, Olbia was a likely place to find a powerful Scythian, perhaps especially an epitropos, if the title indicates an economic role. After all, the logic of the story of Scyles is that a Scythian king might normally visit the city on a regular basis. Of course, Scyles came to a bad end, but there is no indication in the story as we have it that his visits to Olbia raised alarm among his Scythian subjects. Certainly, Scyles’ half-Greek background (from his Istrian mother) is used to explain his behaviour, but that too is a matter of some interest. We can only speculate how many women of Olbia might find themselves married to Scythians.83 For the whole position of Olbia, both the civic core and Greater Olbia, depended upon a symbiosis with neighbouring peoples and cities. At the same time, however, it would be naïve to imagine that relationships with all neighbours always ran smoothly, not least because Olbia could expect to be drawn into conflicts between different groupings in the region. In later periods, at least, there was also conflict with other Greeks of the region, particularly with Chersonesus in the south-west Crimea. When Niceratus of Olbia brokered a cessation of hostilities between the two cities in the first century BC, that achievement was one of the reasons for Olbia’s award of considerable public honours to him.84 Nor can we rule out conflicts even among the various rural settlements in Greater Olbia itself, where, for example, pastoralism may have clashed with settled agriculture from time to time. However, little can be inferred from finds of ‘Scythian’ arrows, which were used by all in the region and for hunting as well as fighting.85 The Leoxos inscription is a fine indication that Olbiopolitans might go to war, as did Leoxos, son of Molpagoras, who died and was buried ‘far from the city’ in c.500–480 BC, as we know from the very fine memorial erected for him at Olbia.86

83 The theme may have attracted a novelist, though that shows nothing about Olbian realities: on Kalligone, an Olbian woman’s adventures among Scythians and the like, largely located on the southern coast of the Black Sea and around Tanais, it seems, see Stephens & Winkler 1995, 267–76. 84 Syll.3 730. Niceratus had also been killed in ambush by unspecified enemies, whom he had heroically resisted, according to the inscription recording his honours, complete with equestrian statue. The identity of the enemy is elusive, though Getae may well be involved, as Dittenberger, for example, certainly believed (ad loc.; cf. 708 with Préaux 1978, 520–4). 85 Nazarov 1988 offers a judicious and informative survey of the archaic evidence and its worth. 86 IOSPE i2 270 to be replaced by e.g. Pfuhl & Möbius 1977, 121; Rusyayeva 1987, 137–8. For the most recent bibliography, interpretation of the images involved, and the Greek text, see SEG 41 (1991), no. 619 and the literature there cited.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 61

61

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

Herodotus happens to tell us something of Olbiopolitan travel around the hinterland. Indeed it has been argued with some success that Olbian traders even crossed as far as the Don region.87 Moreover, he presents an array of detail about the economy of Greater Olbia and its neighbours. But, although we can infer a great deal about economic (and, as we have seen, socio-political) relationships in the region, Herodotus chooses to give very little direct comment on the economy of Greater Olbia. Inscriptions tell us a little about the movements of individuals and hint at trading relationships (as with Sinope), but they too offer remarkably little. The brute and remarkable fact is that we can gauge little in any detail about the city of Olbia’s dealings with the rural settlements, for example, from epigraphy. We know nothing of the organization of its much-discussed chora, except for what may be inferred from Protogenes’ inscription and the very occasional additional toponym which cannot be located.88 So much so that it is a considerable act of faith to believe that the Olbian state took much interest in the rural settlements. Of course, food had to be grown and economic benefit was to be gained, not to mention considerations of defence and cult. There are also fundamental questions of property and landownership: as we shall see, Protogenes, for example, somehow possessed enormous supplies of grain, which probably came from his lands in the civic territories. Accordingly, we are a long way from being able to estimate the relative significance of different parts of Greater Olbia to the prosperity of the city. Nor can we do much more than guess at the relative importance of Olbia’s own produce (for consumption in the city or trade beyond it) on the one hand and its role as an entrepôt on the other. Meanwhile, especially in view of the waterside locations of the rural settlements, we can hardly assume that the city of Olbia mediated all or even most exchange between these settlements and, for example, Greek traders from the south or Scythians in search of goods from the north. These, perhaps rather alarming, considerations mean that it proves extremely difficult to chart the history of Greater Olbia in any kind of detail. We can do little more than infer what was more or less usual in the region’s economic relationships. The evidence of extensive archaeology has revealed one or two very large-scale changes over time, although these resist close dating, as ongoing debates about their close chronology 87

Especially Medvedev 1997. We know of a village called Nomia on a fragment of a second-century IOlbiae 34.

88

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

BC

honorific decree,

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 62

62

David Braund

illustrate well enough. It is only the extraordinary that finds a place in the historical record, especially through the epigraphic record of particular citizens’ contributions to the public finances of the city of Olbia itself, which in turn have major bearings upon the city’s ability to manage its resources and to ensure its security, whether through diplomatic gifts or through building up the city’s defences. In consequence, it is really very difficult indeed to estimate such moments of ‘crisis’ (a much-overused concept), because it is to a large extent from such ‘crises’ that we must also seek to understand what was more or less usual over the long period of Olbian history.

From Herodotus to Protogenes: the Olbian elite in action The history of the rural settlements in what I have called Greater Olbia tends to be understood by modern scholars in terms of three different types of cause. As often as not, scholars tend to argue for the importance of one of the three, whereas these are better seen as a nexus of causes interwoven one with another. First, there is the ‘barbarian menace’: stress is placed on incompatibilities and hostilities between Greeks and non-Greeks (especially ‘nomads’), whose destructive tendencies are seen as laying waste the chora from time to time. Secondly, there is climatic change: micro-analysis of temperature change (and especially reduced precipitation) is attempted for the region from century to century, bolstered by the observable fact that the sea level has risen here since antiquity, albeit by a process which remains to be set out in convincing detail and independently from substantial inference from the archaeology. Thirdly, recourse is had to (unattested) large social, economic, and political processes, which also do not stand up well under close examination. While much here is hypothesis, these three strands are not easily separated, and may be better left interwoven. For example, the pressure of reduced precipitation would tend to encourage political change and might very well lead to conflicts over resources, whether with nonGreeks or indeed with other Greeks too, both inside and outside the community. The evidence is limited in fact, but the picture is not wholly bleak: what we have is adequate for some reliable inferences. After expansion through the archaic period, from the early sixth century or so, the rural settlements experienced hard times from around 475 BC, when many were aban-

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 63

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

63

doned.89 Well before the end of the century, however, from c.430–400, they seem to have begun to flourish anew, occupying the same locations as in the late archaic period. There they continued until around 300–250 BC. As for the fifth-century abandonment, there is no sign of physical destruction or fire in the archaeological record, which tells against any crude notion of marauding nomads.90 However, it must also be acknowledged that the inhabitants may not have sat waiting for destruction: in principle at least, sites could have been abandoned as soon as the likely consequences of a breakdown in security became apparent. Meanwhile, the period of abandonment is quite narrow, so that one may wonder whether a wholesale abandonment should be imagined in the first place: we may perhaps be dealing rather with an extensive reduction of occupation and activity in these settlements, though that remains to be established archaeologically.91 At the same time, building in the ‘re-occupation’ of the chora involved the emergence of villa-style clusters, rather grander than the dugouts commonly found hitherto.92 A much longer period of abandonment is taken to have begun around 250 BC. The change is all the more remarkable in that it follows hard upon the heels of the most expansive rural settlement ever. For areas had been settled which had never been settled before, notably on the upper reaches of the estuary of the river Berezan, on the right bank of the Dnieper estuary, and on Kinburn spit. The rural territory stretched north as far as it had in the archaic period, to the environs of modern Nikolayev.93 The settlements themselves, as in the archaic period, were undefended for the most part, nor is there any sign of a defensive system. Only with a few villa-like establishments do we find substantial walls which would have

89

A link with Darius’ earlier invasion has been suspected, but any connection is at best obscure: e.g. Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 27. 90 As stressed by Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 95 against the views of, in particular, Yu. G. Vinogradov, expressed most fully in Vinogradov 1989, arguing for a ‘Scythian protectorate’ over Olbia, otherwise unknown. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 95–6 prefer to look for an explanation in (unspecified) social and political development in Olbia, but are open also to climatic arguments. 91 Cf. Marchenko 1983, esp. 74. The issue is all the more important because this short abandonment has been used to explain possibly unrelated matters, e.g. coin distribution; see the very valuable article of Rudan & Ursalov 1986, esp. 37. 92 Explanations are elusive, but we should probably envisage an extended process of change from dugouts to ‘villas’: see Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 28. 93 See further Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 99–101. I am not concerned here with the possible and fleeting impact of Zopyrion’s campaign, which shows Olbia responding to Macedonian attack with desperate measures: see most importantly Macrob., Sat. 1.11.33 with the judicious remarks of Bull.ép. 1984, no. 276.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 64

David Braund

64

served the purpose of at least temporary refuge, though these were wholly inadequate to resist a significant attack.94 This world was shattered around the middle of the third century BC, not only in Greater Olbia but also further west on the lower Dniester, where the rural settlements on both sides of the estuary were destroyed.95 As for Olbia, settlements on the west of the Bug were the first to show a sharp decline, despite the fact that this was the side on which Olbia itself was located and that this had been the first part of the chora to be substantially settled. There can be no real doubt that the source of destruction came from the west, encompassing the lower Dniester and stopping only at the west bank of the Bug. Rural settlements persisted more strongly on the east side of the estuary, at least until around 150 BC when they too seem to have been abandoned and the city itself was clearly in desperate straits, with central religious structures damaged and housing left empty.96 For a community under this degree of pressure the appearance of Mithridates Eupator’s forces must have seemed little short of a miracle. It seems that the city of Olbia had been hard pressed for a century or more before Mithridatic forces offered respite around the end of the second century. It is usual to see here the impact of Gauls, whose presence is amply attested in the famous decree made by the Olbiopolitans in honour of Protogenes. The inscription gives a sense of the fear and loathing which these invaders caused, however much we might wish to mitigate or qualify the point by reference to Gallic stereotypes (to which Greater Olbia evidently subscribed) or epigraphical rhetoric.97 Resolved by the council and the people . . .: Hieroson, father of Protogenes, has performed many great services for the city, which involved the expenditure of money and personal exertion; and Protogenes, having taken over his father’s goodwill towards the people has throughout his life constantly said and done what was best. First, when King Saitaphernes came to Cancytus and asked for the gifts due for his passage, and the public treasury was exhausted, he was called upon by the people and gave 400 gold pieces. When the magistrates pawned the sacred vessels to repay the city’s debt to Polycharmus for 100 gold pieces and could not redeem them and the foreigner was taking them to be

94

Buyskikh 1986 offers a thorough discussion; cf. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 100. Melyukova 1971. 96 Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 100–1. The chronology cannot be closely established: Wasowicz 1975, esp. 104–5, seems to think that these changes all came together c.150 BC, while the changes on the Dniester can also be located as late as c.200 BC: Samoylova 1988, e.g. 104–5. 97 On Gallic stereotypes in the Hellenistic world, see Mitchell 2003. As to rhetoric, it must be allowed that the contribution of Protogenes had to be presented in the best light and a Gallic threat served that end. 95

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 65

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

65

melted down, he himself paid in addition the 100 gold pieces and redeemed the vessels. When Democon and his fellow magistrates bought wine cheaply for 300 gold pieces but could not pay the price he gave the 300 gold pieces, called upon by the people. In the priesthood of Herodorus, when there was grain-shortage and grain was being sold at 5 medimni for a gold piece, and because of the looming danger the people thought it necessary to build up a sufficient stock of grain and invited grain-holders to do this, he was the first to come forward and promised 2000 medimni at 10 medimni for a gold piece and whereas the others collected the price on the spot he himself showed indulgence for a year and charged no interest. And in the same priesthood when the Saii came in droves to collect the gifts and the people was unable to give them and asked Protogenes to help in this crisis, he came forward and promised 400 gold pieces. When he was elected one of the Nine he advanced not less than 1500 gold pieces (to be repaid from future revenues), from which many chieftains were conciliated in good time and not a few gifts were provided for the king to advantage. When the contract for the equipping of the king’s residence was put to auction in accordance with the decree, which required that buyers should receive 300 gold pieces from the city, Conon bought it; but since the magistrates were unable to furnish the money as it was in the hands of the tax-collectors, Conon and his associates cancelled the contract. For that reason the contract was auctioned again, and Phormio bought it the third time. Then Protogenes, seeing that the city was risking great danger, came forward himself to the assembly and gave the 300 gold pieces. Again in the priesthood of Pleistarchus, when there was a severe shortage of corn and grain was being sold at 12⁄3 medimni for a gold piece, and it was clear that the price would rise further, as the medimnus immediately reached the price of 12⁄3 gold pieces, and because of this the people was in deep distress and thought it necessary to appoint a sitonia and that the wealthy should render services for this purpose, when the assembly met he was the first to promise 1000 gold pieces for the purchase of corn, which he brought and gave on the spot. Of this sum, 300 pieces were free from interest for a year, and 400 given as gold he took back in copper coin; and he was the first to promise 2500 medimni of corn, of which he gave 500 at a rate of 41⁄6 medimni for one gold piece and 2000 at the rate of 27⁄12 for one gold piece. And whereas the others who had promised grain in this crisis collected the price on the spot from the fund that had been established, he himself showed indulgence for a year and then took the price without interest, and because of Protogenes’ eagerness a great deal of money and a substantial amount of grain was provided for the people. When King Saitaphernes came to the other side of the river to receive favours, and the magistrates called an assembly and reported that the king had come and that the public funds were empty, Protogenes came forward and gave 900 gold pieces and when the envoys, Protogenes and Aristocrates, took the money and met the king, and the king reviled the gifts and flew into a rage and broke camp . . . the magistrates improperly, the people met together and were terrified . . ., and . . . envoys . . . The largest part of the city along the river was not fortified, nor was all the area along the harbour and the former fish-market as far as the hero Sosias.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 66

David Braund

66

Deserters were reporting that the Gauls and Sciri had formed an alliance, that a large force had been collected and would be coming during the winter, and in addition that the Thisamatae, Scythians and Saudaratae were eager to seize the fort, because they themselves were equally terrified of the savagery of the Gauls. As a result many were in despair and prepared to abandon the city. Furthermore, many losses had been suffered in the chora, in that all the oiketeia98 and the half-Greeks who live in the plain along the river bank had been destroyed, no less than 1500 in number, who had fought beside us in the city in the previous war, and also many of the foreigners and not a few of the citizens had left. In consequence the people met in an assembly in deep despair, as they foresaw the danger that lay ahead and the terrors in store, and called upon all who were able-bodied to help and not allow their native city, preserved for many years, to be subjected by the enemy. When no-one would volunteer for all or part of the demands of the people he promised that he would himself build the walls and would advance the whole cost of the construction, although not less than 1500 gold pieces had been advanced by him etc . . . (IOSPE i2 32)

There is a striking discontinuity — at least in nomenclature — between the peoples named by Herodotus in the fifth century (Callippidae, Alazones, Scythians) and the peoples active in the region in the later third century. It is not only the Gauls who are new since Herodotus: we have also Sciri, Saii, Thisamatae, Saudaratae, and a servile population linked with half-Greeks (the last two able to field 1,500 fighting men). Only Scythians are still to be found, though it is unclear exactly what the inscription means by the term. Also unclear is the nature of this servile dependency.99 So too any linkage between its half-Greeks (literally, ‘mixed Greeks’, Mixellenes) and Herodotus’ ‘Greek-Scythian’ Callippidae: difference seems to outweigh similarity, for the Callippidae are an identified people (unlike the Mixellenes, who are characterized only by their perceived mixture of Greek and non-Greek) and seem to have occupied an area on the coast to the south rather than the bank of the Bug north (as it seems) of the city. Moreover, since these Mixellenes and the oiketeiai are located beside the river, it is almost certain that they were the inhabitants of some of the rural settlements which cluster close along the Bug

98

The term continues to tantalize: quasi-helots are most probably meant; see SEG 40 no. 632. See also the next note. 99 Pippidi 1973, esp. 75, locates them within a larger tendency to dependent labour which he observes in the Black Sea region, though that is still elusive enough, with the notable exception of the Mariandyni at Heraclea Pontica. It remains to explain why the dependent labour in Greater Olbia was (as it seems) so localized to a specific area and not widespread over the rural territory.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 67

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

67

estuary, though, as we have seen, they seem indistinguishable culturally from the other settlements and even from Olbia itself. It is very clear that Olbia had different kinds of relationships with these various groupings. That too could benefit the city, for we may recall the busy diplomacy for which Histria honoured Agathocles, son of Antiphilus, as he travelled to and fro striving to use more tractable barbarians to deal with others.100 As for Olbia, the Saii and their king (as it seems, Saitaphernes) visit regularly though perhaps not very frequently, following pastures with the seasons of the year, we may suppose. They are demanding and put pressure on the city’s fragile public finances, but their aim seems to have been to milk the city and not destroy it, thereby putting an end to their own extortion. In so far as we can judge from the inscription, the relationship between Olbia and the Saii was steady enough. Accordingly, when the city was even required to fit out the king’s residence, the job was put out to auction like any other public works. In particular it is worth noting that the Saii seem to have come from east of the Bug, where archaeology shows that settlement in the chora persisted at least until c.150 BC, later than in the west. The Saii might be problematic, but they were tractable. By contrast, Olbia’s relationship with the Thisamatae, Scythians, and Saudaratae seems to have involved chronic tension, if not hostility. There is no sign that they can be satisfied with gifts, or that they come and go like the Saii. They seem to be resident in the area, albeit very possibly engaged in pastoralism as well as agriculture, for the term ‘Scythians’ tends to suggest pastoral practices. The inscription gives a picture of their panic. They have no adequate defences of their own, evidently, and for that reason they seek to occupy ‘the fort’, whose identification remains problematic.101 It is not at all clear whether they were the reason why the servile population and the half-Greeks had been lost to the city, whether killed, seized, preoccupied with their own fate, or possibly driven off their lands away from Olbia. However, these too could be accommodated. The Sciri appear as a very serious threat, as also the Gauls who are known for their cruelty, which in turn suggests that other enemies were considered relatively tractable and tolerable. The problem, however, is not the appearance of the Gauls, as seems often to be imagined, but the

100

ISM I. 15, dating it as early as the third century BC. The idea that it is simply Olbia cannot be ruled out, but the city is identified differently throughout the inscription. There might be forts in the region, as Dio Chrysostom (albeit c. AD 100) indicates. 101

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 68

68

David Braund

rumour of their confederation with the Sciri and their anticipated arrival in the near future. As separate peoples (perhaps at odds with each other) even these could be accommodated, but when imagined as a united force headed towards Olbia they evidently caused extreme panic in the city and among the peoples around. However, the inscription says nothing of any actual attack from this united force: the fact that it presents the whole affair in terms of rumours and a consequent panic which Protogenes did much to quell, tends strongly to suggest that the threat never actually materialized. In this case Protogenes may have saved the city, but he did so by saving it from an abandonment which might well have been an overreaction. Be that as it may, the very existence of the inscription attests to the city’s survival and encourages the view that the imagined force of Sciri and Gauls never came. The inscription relates the various difficulties of the city, all of which turn on a lack of public finance. The difficulties themselves largely fall into two categories, namely the provision of food at affordable prices and the management of variously difficult relationships with the peoples of the chora and beyond. It is worth noting that the two kinds of difficulty are hardly connected in the inscription. Of course, disturbance in the chora can only have damaged grain production around Olbia. However, there seems to be no real shortage of grain in the community as a whole. For Protogenes has not only a large amount of gold but also a large stock of grain. While his holdings may have been as exceptional as the honorific inscription tends to suggest, even here it is clear that other individuals also had substantial grain stocks. The shortage of grain at a price affordable to the general population of the city may be not simply the result of troubles in the chora, but also of hoarding and possibly speculation (whether for money or social status or both) among the wealthier figures in the city. While we are told nothing of climatic factors in the inscription, these too cannot be excluded. Of course, any threat to the grain supply, actual or perceived, would be a major spur to hoarding, which would in turn generate market shortage and price inflation. In this regard it is salutary to bear in mind the decree in honour of Callinicus, son of Euxenus, albeit fragmentary. For the decree is rather earlier than Protogenes or even his father. It is datable to the later fourth century BC. In the extant text (as also in the energetic reconstructions attempted for the rest), there is every indication of financial and, it may well be, social upheavals in the city of Olbia. However, while the food supply is unlikely to have escaped these troubles, it is not mentioned explicitly and there is no indication at all that Olbia had problems because

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 69

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

69

of pressure from neighbours. Yet Callinicus stepped forward and saved the day, rather as Protogenes was later to do. We cannot be specific about the nature of the troubles at Olbia, but the inscription is useful even so in that it seems to exemplify the a priori probability that Olbia might have major difficulties without special pressure from ‘barbarians’. Indeed, the date of the honours for Callinicus coincides with what archaeology indicates as a period of especially widespread settlement in Greater Olbia, as well as prosperity in the city itself. It may be in view of that apparent contradiction that an attempt has been made to connect the inscription with the brief siege of the city by Macedonian forces under Zopyrion. The probability seems to be less dramatic, however. Like many another Greek city, Olbia had problems which were predominantly internal and, if not chronic, at least recurrent.102 We can hardly postulate a special crisis to account for each inscription that turns up. For example, there was evidently another substantial problem at Nikonion c.300–275 BC, as a result of which neighbouring Tyras awarded public honours to a certain Autocles.103 The fragmentary inscription indicates that the honorand had intervened to assist inhabitants of Nikonion who had abandoned their homes. The abandonment is not explained in the extant text, but seems to have been remedied by Autocles’ arrangement and delivery of food supplies from Histria. It seems to follow that the pressure on the inhabitants of Nikonion had been food shortage. Since no mention is made (unless in a missing portion of the text) of any military threat to the city, there is a case for supposing either crop failure or, conceivably, some kind of interruption to regular imports. Tyras’ role is also unclear in detail, not least because the nature of its relationship with Nikonion is itself a matter of dispute. No doubt the city had benefited from Autocles’ activities, whether from Autocles’ imports, through the stabilization of Nikonion, or simply because Autocles was a leading figure of Tyras (if such he was). Here again the epigraphic evidence proves rather frustrating because of damage to the text, but for all that we find once more that cities of the north-west Black Sea region, including Olbia, had problems which were much more extensive than the much-vaunted ‘barbarian menace’. And situations could swiftly change: while Histria could furnish grain for 102

Vinogradov & Karyshkovskiy 1982–3 valuably saw that IOSPE i2 25 and 31 came from the same inscription (for Callinicus), offering extensive discussion of its contents (improved as SEG 32, no. 794). However, their basic notion that resistance to Zopyrion is at issue remains unpersuasive, as Bull.ép. 1984, no. 276 shows. 103 SEG 49, no. 1051 offers the most accessible and best text, with valuable commentary, touching most issues raised here.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 70

70

David Braund

Nikonion in Autocles’ day, at another time the same city could also suffer food shortage of its own, as its honours for Dionysius, son of Struthion show well enough.104 Accordingly, it is extremely hard to know much at all about why honours were bestowed in some cases, as with Olbian honours for Anthesterius, of which very little can be made, despite claims to the contrary.105 That is not to say of course that dealings with ‘barbarians’ and indeed other Greeks were not of great importance, for they clearly were. The point at issue is the balance and interplay between these different pressures on the city. More broadly still, we have a fundamental problem of evidence. The Hellenistic period shows a tendency not only to euergetism but also to elaborate public honours for benefactors, which are duly recorded in inscriptions which have survived for us.106 As we have seen in the honours for Protogenes, there is every sign that the city of Olbia navigated through a series of more or less recurrent difficulties involving relations with different peoples and the grain supply on the basis of an underdeveloped system of public finances, such as was usual in the Hellenistic world. Not only Protogenes but his father Hieroson too had stepped in to fill the breach, whether we see them as public benefactors or as beneficiaries of the city’s difficulties. Since we have similar inscriptions from elsewhere in the north-west Black Sea region, it is easy to suppose that the cities there came under special new pressure in the Hellenistic period. But we must balance that inference against the fact that, whereas cities’ difficulties may or may not be new in whole or part, the practice of creating such an inscribed record evidently was rather new, not only in the region but in the Greek world at large. For that reason the archaeology of the chora is all the more important: that confirms an ongoing process of abandonment over at least a century or so from c.250 to 150 BC. Our abiding problem is to locate — in particular — Protogenes’ inscription (which has itself dominated much of the archaeological work that might control it) within this

104

ISM I. 19, perhaps third century BC; cf. broadly contemporary ISM I. 20, indicating grain shipped in by a Carthaginian in time of need. 105 SEG 34, no. 758, with effective criticism of Yu. G. Vinogradov 1984. 106 See now Billows 2003, esp. 211–13 and the literature he cites on the Hellenistic phenomenon, including support for the food supply, across the Greek world. Billows stresses the positive advantages of benefactions to the city, which honours are designed to encourage (cf. Xen., Poroi 3.11 for the ideology inherent and sometimes explicit in the inscriptions). The darker side of the relationship between the democratic state and private wealth is perhaps less obvious, but is at least as important, as set out below.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 71

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

71

process, for its date can only be placed within some fifty years or so, perhaps c.225. Clearly Protogenes lived in difficult days for Olbia, as had his father Hieroson, albeit in ways unspecified. Broad-brush archaeology confirms that the period from about 250 to 150 BC was characterized by abandonment of rural settlements west of the Bug, but we are in no position to chart the process (evidently an extended one) in any detail. In that sense we may be sure that there was a period of difficulty for the city, often termed a ‘crisis’. However, we must also be clear that the ‘crisis’ persisted over a long period, so that Olbia was still there to receive the support of Eupator’s forces around the end of the second century. A crisis which could be endured for some 150 years is perhaps better considered a way of life. Certainly, as we have every reason to suppose for the archaic and classical periods,107 and as we know for the period after Eupator, Olbia could only exist by accommodating or at least tolerating the pressures and demands of its neighbours, both settled and pastoralist. A ‘crisis’ at Olbia was a time when accommodation and toleration no longer seemed possible even, but was managed nevertheless. Crucially, root causes remain out of reach: we can do no more than point to some combination of two principal problems within the larger framework of a fragile system of public finance which suited the elite by minimizing public taxation and maximizing the opportunity for acts of private ‘generosity’. These were problems of food supply, at least partially driven by climatic conditions,108 on one hand, and on the other a range of threats from neighbours, themselves surely affected too by significant climatic fluctuations and crop failures. It would be unsurprising to find major social and political upheavals in Olbia as a result of this nexus of difficulties, but they are harder to find in our historical record. On the contrary, inscribed honours for benefactors give rather the impression of a community which is firmly under the control and overtly in the debt of its elite. Indeed, the emergence of such ‘benefactors’ as Protogenes and his father is symptomatic of a broader tendency in the history and historical record of the Hellenistic world at large, not a special feature of Olbia or the Black Sea

107

Cf. Solomonik 1987, esp. 124–5 (and the literature cited, plus SEG 40, no. 625) for epigraphic evidence of what seems to be payment (perhaps in kind, such as salt fish) by the city of Kerkinitis in the western Crimea to neighbouring Scythians c.400 BC. She adduces Thuc. 2.97 on payments by the cities of the western Black Sea in the fifth century. 108 See Garnsey 1988, 11–12 on drought around Odessa in more modern times. Cf. also ibid., 14–15, putting Protogenes’ three interventions over food beside similar cases from Samos, Priene, and Erythrae.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 72

72

David Braund

region.109 Moreover, it is to be stressed that, as Garnsey has argued very effectively, food shortage was not particularly unusual in the Greek world anyway, even in the Black Sea region.110 By and large, when the going got especially tough, it seems that Olbia could expect scant support from the Greeks of the Mediterranean, or indeed of the Black Sea in large part.111 The Protogenes inscription shows these foreigners either contributing to the pressure on the community or simply rushing to leave town in the face of rumours. We can only recall Polybius’ trenchant remarks on the Greeks’ failure to come to the aid of the Byzantines (as with Protogenes, around 220) when they too were hard pressed to meet the demands of their non-Greek neighbours.112 Or indeed Dio Chrysostom’s later report of Olbian disdain for the Greeks who came to peddle their wares in the city around AD 100.113 That is what made Eupator different. He did send an army to support Olbia, as much of the rest of the region. The impact of his action (for all its self-interest) contrasted sharply with the neglect of the Greek world hitherto and was no doubt all the more remarkable and welcome for that. This was in the tradition of Eumelus of the Bosporus and more generally of the (not unalloyed) tendency of Black Sea communities to help each other against non-Greeks from time to time.114 Finally, it is perhaps worth pausing to speculate on Olbian attitudes towards what we choose to call its ‘chora’. The fact that we find little about it in the epigraphic record of the city may be explained away in terms of the accident of survival. Even so, the fact remains, despite the cluster of detail that happens to emerge from Protogenes’ decree. Moreover, on the exceptional occasion that we do find any detail about it, we hear of grain shortage, troublesome neighbours, and what seems to be a subordinated population along a stretch of the river, but nothing much

109 Garnsey 1988, 83 draws attention to the dark side of euergetism, noting also that even Protogenes expected to be paid for his grain eventually. 110 Garnsey 1988. Even if we wish to be sceptical and scale down the chances of food shortage radically from those inferred by Garnsey, then the key point still holds good. Food shortage was a fact of life and not a rare one. 111 In fact, aid was more likely to come from other Black Sea powers: as with Histria for Nikonion in the Autocles inscription, or the cessation of hostilities brokered for Olbia with Chersonesus by Niceratus; cf. also, for example, Eumelus and Callatis amongst others: Diod.Sic. 20.25.1. 112 Pol. 4. 46. 113 Dio Chrys. 36. 114 Note the recent discovery of an Olbian inscription dated to Mithridates’ reign: Krapivina & Diatroptov 2005. See p. 6, fig. 1, above.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 73

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

73

more. The Olbiopolitans were clearly very concerned indeed about the survival of their city, but there is little sign of great military endeavour to control the territory around it, with the apparent exception (though much remains murky) of the river-bank population and a ‘fort’. Outside the city itself, there is a clear concern with cult sites, but we simply do not hear of much else. Furthermore, these cult sites are very much dominated by water, whether in the timbered water-world of Hylaea, on peninsulas (Kinburn, Hippolaus, Tendra), or on islands — Berezan (probably a promontory in antiquity) and Leuke. For, although threats might also come by sea, the Olbiopolitans controlled the waters of the region in a way that they never could hope to control the land, whether against its established local population, against regular seasonal visitors, or in the face of dangerous newcomers. Meanwhile, the trade of the city could come and go by sea and up and down the rivers Bug and Borysthenes in particular, while the waters were, as we have seen, also rich in fine fish and offered a salt supply. Of course, none of that is to say that Olbia took no interest in the land around. Clearly it did: here lay the lands of the rich. The point, rather, is that the principal focus of the city, with its natural defences augmented by further defensive structures, was not so much on the land as on the water. Accordingly, settlement of the rural territory clustered along the banks of the Bug and its estuary with the Dnieper. Water linked these sites and offered swift passage for goods and people. Olbia could hope to survive when accommodation failed with those who could shatter Olbian control of the land (Scythians, etc.). The city could be plunged into serious difficulties outside its city walls, but it persisted even so, at least as long as traders kept coming and dealers based there chose not to flee the city in panic, as is said to have been imminent before Protogenes saved the day once more. We may recall the case of Histria, which also enjoyed significant waterways, but had a chora less orientated on water than that of Olbia. At Histria, as we hear in the inscribed honours for Aristagoras, perhaps c.100 BC, the chora was simply abandoned to ‘barbarian’ control for three years or more.115 If Histria could cope with that, so too could Olbia, however uncomfortable the situation might be. Throughout it is entirely usual for modern classical archaeologists and historians not only to describe the non-Greeks of the region as ‘barbarians’, with the opprobrium the term carries, but still more perniciously to assume that the breakdowns which occurred in relations between

115

Syll.3 708 ⫽ ISM I. 54, line 26.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 74

David Braund

74

Greeks and non-Greeks there were inevitably the fault of the latter. Of course, a moment’s reflection on the matter shows that we are in no position to apportion responsibility, or to accept the perspective of, for example, the Olbiopolitan description of the rage of Saitaphernes. We should not be too quick to assume that, despite poor public finances, the city of Olbia had always kept its end of the bargain with others in the region. Meanwhile, private prosperity may have encouraged Olbiopolitans to build walls against ‘barbarians’ rather than to maintain routine diplomatic bridges, about which it was more difficult to construct a grand inscription perhaps. We may compare Strabo’s generalizing observation on the difficulties of the Bosporan kingdom with regard to its Scythian neighbours, when walling was preferred to the maintenance of established payments: The nomads, then, are warriors rather than brigands. And they go to war over the payments (sc. due them). For they permit would-be farmers to have the land, for which they like to take set payments, moderate ones not excessive, to meet their everyday needs. And they go to war with those who do not pay . . . but if payments were made they would not go to war. However, people confident that their strength is sufficient to ward off or block attacks, do not pay. That, says Hypsicrates, is what Asander did when he walled off the Crimean isthmus by the Maeotis over 360 stades, with towers every 10 stades. (Strabo, 7.4.6, p. 311)

We can only wonder whether the likes of Protogenes, so quick to use his wealth and resources to the benefit of his community and himself, were tempted also down this road. If Saitaphernes was angered by Protogenes’ mission to him. Perhaps he had good reason to be. The details are simply not available, but we must at least envisage the possibility that the Olbiopolitans themselves had contributed to their difficulties with their neighbours, not only in the Hellenistic period but perhaps earlier too. That might explain why the difficulties of the city from c.250 BC followed hard upon its period of greatest prosperity.

Conclusions: the framework of Greater Olbia We have seen that the city of Olbia depended substantially upon the maintenance of broadly symbiotic relationships with a range of nonGreek neighbours. While that dependence was by no means complete, an Olbia at odds with its neighbours (or with too many of them at once) would be in dire straits indeed, if not sacked then at least under the kind

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 75

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

75

of pressure sketched for us by Dio Chrysostom, whether or not his account is to be taken at face value. The shifting population of the region complicated the city’s diplomacy with these peoples, not only as pastoralists came and went with seasons and pastures, but as newcomers arrived and even (as most feared in Protogenes’ day) came to arrangements amongst themselves against the city. Much easier to handle (at least in principle) was a dominant local ruler, who could be expected to control the peace of the whole region, such as the Histrians looked to through Aristagoras, son of Antiphilus, in the west. Ideally, such a ruler could be won over and even brought into the city itself, after the manner of Herodotus’ Scyles. Failing that, he could at least be kept on good terms through energetic and generous diplomacy, whether in person or through key associates, like Tymnes the epitropos who was evidently around Olbia for Herodotus to meet. Indeed, with these cases in mind it is easy enough to understand why Yu. G. Vinogradov came to the view that Olbia spent some of its history under a Scythian ‘protectorate’. The minting in Olbia of coins for Scythian rulers offers no more than superficial support for the notion: that was the kind of favour that might indeed be done for the king, rather as was the equipping of his residence about which we hear in Protogenes’ inscription. In fact, to envisage some such ‘protectorate’ is to go too far116 and thus miss the point, which was symbiosis: Dio Chrysostom was more attuned to the spirit of the relationship (again literal historicity does not matter) when he envisaged Scythians encouraging the re-foundation of Olbia after Burebista because they wanted access to the trappings of Greek culture.117 Paradoxically perhaps, it was to be the weakening of Scythian control and the arrival or emergence of apparently new peoples (as well as the Gauls, of course) which gave Olbia the more complex and rebarbative task of conciliating smaller groupings and trying, we may be sure, to play one off against the other. Meanwhile, the city had to face a series of different challenges, shared substantially with the rest of the Greek world. The democratic structures at Olbia look very flawed in the face of families as dominant as that of Protogenes and, it seems, a few others. The regular stresses of food supply seem to have contributed substantially to the emergence of ‘benefactors’ who could use their resources to corner the market and to dominate the society and politics of the city. Evidently at Olbia, as all over the Hellenistic world, public finances were inadequate to the task, 116 117

See the strong critique of Kryzhitskiy 2005. Braund 1995.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 76

David Braund

76

but at Olbia there was the particular expense of ‘gifts’ to neighbours and the construction of physical defences to augment the natural strength of the site. The resilience of the city resided especially in its orientation along waterways, whether the rivers (of course, the Bug in particular) or the sea. The religious life of Greater Olbia, like all else, was similarly orientated along riverine and marine routes. That in turn gave the micro-region much of its identity and sense of place, while keeping open passage for goods and people in and out of the area, to and fro from the city, up into the hinterland as well as south into the Black Sea world and beyond. Apollo Delphinios himself might be interpreted by some at Olbia as a water deity, while the ‘dolphins’ which constituted early Olbian coinage and continued to appear on the round coinage that followed, were also redolent of the waters, fish, and very possibly the deity himself.118 Meanwhile, the rural settlements which clustered along the Bug estuary in particular had their own history of rise, fall, and evolution, about which we can only speak in very general terms even after many years of careful archaeology. While the city of Olbia shows little sign of concerning itself publicly with these settlements, it surely did so. Still more surely, the likes of Protogenes sought to express their wealth and status (and to develop them further) by investment in landed property and agricultural activities, with or without associated trade, for example through the export of grain produced on their land. For the rural territory was heavily exploited for much of Olbia’s history. The abiding problem for the city was that it could not protect these lands in any systematic fashion. The best protection seems always to have been energetic diplomacy: while skirmishes could presumably be handled and might even form part of the diplomatic game, significant attacks could not be withstood; large-scale warfare could save little more than the city itself, and then with extreme pain. Modern scholarship on Olbia is much concerned with ethnic distinctions, although it is now also well understood that the allocation of ethnicity is actually extraordinarily fraught, even when we have far more insight than we can hope to have about anything in antiquity, let alone Olbia. We have seen that the material culture of the rural territory, as also its religious expression, varies little from that of the city of Olbia itself. Presumably that renders its population (or much of it) in some sense

118

See LIMC ‘Apollo’, notably 232 (though Olbia is not mentioned).

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 77

INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA

77

Greek, but on the rare occasion that we have direct evidence we find a certain distance envisaged from the perspective of Olbia at least, most clearly in the Protogenes text, where the rural territory is populated by halfGreeks and what seems to be a dependent labour force, both hitherto ready to fight for Olbia. Earlier, there were also Herodotus’ GreekScythian Callippidae. What of the other peoples mentioned? Should we envisage even the Scythian Alazones also in rural settlements? If not them, then what of the panicked Thisamatae and the rest from Protogenes’ time? Of course, we are not well placed to answer these questions, by virtue of the complexities of the issue, the lack of much evidence, and perhaps above all the simple fact that these names have no real meaning for us. But we need not be overly despondent, for the main point seems clear enough through all the fog of our ignorance. That remains symbiosis. Olbiopolitans may well have had all kinds of negative views of these peoples, but some Greeks were similarly contemptuous of Olbiopolitans themselves, it must be noted, for the very reason that their Greekness was imagined as having been contaminated by their neighbours.119 A glance at the personal names of Olbiopolitans shows a rich mix of traditional names familiar in the Greek world and some remarkably ‘barbarian’ ones, co-existing in the same families.120 However distinct and Greek the Olbiopolitans may have liked to think themselves, the key observation which emerges is the extensive cultural osmosis between Greek (itself a large term) and non-Greek in and around the city. We have seen this osmosis, and the more extensive symbiosis which it no doubt facilitated, across religion (notably the cult of Achilles), pottery, names, and more besides. Once again Dio Chrysostom’s novelistic exposition is true to the spirit of the place, one suspects, when he finds a young Olbian cavalryman steeped in old-fashioned Greek traditions of conduct and taste, who rides about in ‘barbarian’ clothing with his head full of Achilles.121

119

Braund 1997. SEG 1990, no. 631 offers a good starting-point on this issue. 121 On Dio’s account, see Bäbler in this volume. 120

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

04 Braund 1525

1/10/07

10:57

Page 78

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 79

Herodotus and Olbia1 STEPHANIE WEST

ANY GENERAL ACCOUNT OF HERODOTUS can be expected to make much of his extensive travels and there is an enduring fascination in the image of first-hand enquiry ranging from Egyptian Thebes (modern Karnak/Luxor) to the northern shore of the Black Sea. But this may be misleading. Herodotus is very forthcoming about his Egyptian experiences; we cannot call in question his claim to have visited Thebes (2.142) without raising doubts about his good faith in general and casting him as an ancient Sir John Mandeville. But he does not claim to have seen Olbia for himself, though if he was there it is surprising that he does not say so in plain terms. The only passage where he appears to report first-hand observation of anything in the north Pontic area (81.2) is his description of a gigantic cauldron at Exampaios, four days’ journey up river from Olbia, allegedly embodying the results of a census organized by King Ariantas, and this, as I have argued elsewhere, will allow another interpretation.2 His description of the climate (28), suggesting the Arctic

1

Where no book number is given in references to Herodotus, Book Four is to be understood; quotations are from Hude’s Oxford Classical Text (3rd edn, 1927). This chapter is pervasively indebted to the commentaries of Macan (1895) and Corcella & Medaglia (1993); I have thought repeated references to their notes ad loc. unnecessary. My translations are intended simply to help readers who find the original difficult; I have tried not to import anything beyond what Herodotus actually says, but it is hard to avoid this entirely. 2 ’ owim ’´ Translation of the crucial words a’ puaimm loi ey is problematic, but the imperfect tense is significant and probably best rendered ‘they offered to show me’; it is left vague who ‘they’ might be, but the phraseology is consistent with a hospitable offer of a guided tour ‘if ever you are in our part of the world’. On the problems of this chapter, see Bravo 2000, 85–8; his perceptive and stimulating study highlights many difficulties too long ignored or underestimated. The description of the appearance of human skin when flayed (64.3) reads rather like first-hand observation. But such grisly mementoes could have travelled, and in any case we should hardly judge Herodotus disingenuous if he took over these details from another. His comment on the difficulty of distinguishing between linen and fabric made from hemp (74) will bear little weight. At 1.105.4, if the text is sound, he seems actually to distance himself from those who have visited Scythia. See further S. R. West 2000. Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 79–92. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 80

80

Stephanie West

Circle rather than the Ukraine, rather argues against first-hand experience; it is significant that he fails to realize that conditions of near perpetual winter would have prevented keeping the herds of cattle and horses on which the Scythian lifestyle depended, as well as the cultivation of grain (contrast 17).3 It would be absurd to suppose that with such expressions as ‘the Scythians say’ (e.g. 5.1; 8.1; 27; 76.5; 105.2) he must report his own conversations with Scythians (or that it would have been impossible to talk to Scythians except in their homeland).4 Rostovtzeff sensibly stressed that the question as to whether Herodotus knew at least a small part of Scythia from autopsy or drew upon the accounts of his predecessors, is not of crucial importance for us. More significant is the fact that a considerable part of his account of Scythia undoubtedly goes back to the Greeks of Olbia, who were quite well informed about that part of Scythia which lay nearest to them and which was of direct interest to them.5 Undeniably Olbia is central to Herodotus’ account of Scythia. But what he actually has to say about the city is surprisingly scanty. It is easy for us to suppose that he tells us more than he does because commentators and handbooks supply background information derived from other ancient authors, excavation, and more or less plausible reconstruction of events. He does not even use the name Olbia, though he tells us that the Greeks who live on the Hypanis (Bug) call themselves Olbiopolitai (18.1). To refer to their town he uses various expressions: so` Boqthemeisxm a’´rst (78.3) (the Borysthenites’ city), Boqtrhmgy (78.5) (Borysthenes), Boqtrheeisxm g pkiy (79.2) ( the Borysthenites’ city ), perhaps also so` Boqtrhemeisxm e’lpqiom (17.1) (the Borysthenites’ trading centre). This toponymic informality, avoiding the ‘official’ name used by the citizens themselves, suggests that he did not overestimate Olbia’s importance. ‘The variation in the terms . . . and the omission of the actual name of the place here, seem to support the view that the passages are taken from various sources, and to augment the doubt whether Herodotus ever set foot in Scythia proper.’6 As we attempt to make sense of what he has to say about Olbia itself, it is worth asking whether what we find perplexing sometimes reflects confusion and uncertainty on his part. An assurance and a confident

3 4 5 6

On this chilly but widespread misconception, see further Backhaus 1976. For a nuanced discussion of Herodotus’ ‘source-references’, see Luraghi 2001. Rostowzew 1993, 31. Macan 1895, on 17.1. See further Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 936–8.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 81

HERODOTUS AND OLBIA

81

use of detail suggesting an eye-witness are part of his stock-in-trade, his approach to his subject matter being generally nearer to a modern journalist’s than we judge appropriate to a serious historian. It needs to be stressed that for Herodotus’ contemporaries the north Pontic coast was the back of beyond. Polybius regarded even  Byzantium as lying somewhat off the beaten track (4.38.11): paqa ` soi y pkei´rsoiy  ’ ’ ˜ a`cmoei rhai rtmbaime sg`m idio´sgsa jai` sg`m etuti  ´amsot so´pot dia` so` lijqo`m e’´nx jei˜ rhai sxm e’pirjopotle´mxm leqxm sg y oi’jotle´mgy (It came about that the region’s peculiar character and natural resources were unknown to most people because it lies a little outside those parts of the inhabited world generally visited). He seems not to have been there himself.7 For Propertius the banks of the Dnieper lie at the northern limit of the poetry-reading world (2.7.18). The only extant classical author who claims actually to have visited Olbia is Dio Chrysostom.8 It is not perhaps surprising that, a generation later, Arrian did not think that the city merited a detour when he made his tour of the Black Sea coast; had he visited it he would have been able to locate it more accurately: jasa` de` ’´mx pkomsi pkiy  Ekka`y ’o´mola ’Okbi´a pepkirsai so`m Boqtrhmgm a (Peripl. M.Eux. 20.2) (Upstream on the Borysthenes is a Greek city named Olbia). His mistake was not uncommon. ‘Herodotus and Dio alone grasped the fact that the city which its citizens called Olbia, and strangers Borysthenes, lay upon the Hypanis, the Bug, not upon the Borysthenes river, the Dnieper. The confusion was natural, but the site of Olbia could never have been determined from the texts.’9 It is worth considering the possibility that the Greeks who first settled in this area understood the name to denote the liman in which the southern Bug and the Dnieper unite and that only later was it interpreted as the name of the river. ‘The common estuary of the Bug and the Dnieper is one of the finest in Europe, its very size prevented casual observers understanding how the land lies.’10 Herodotus could not assume that his audience knew much about this or any of the Greek colonies on the north Pontic coast; he can hardly have expected many to be familiar with whatever Hecataeus had to say about these towns, though he himself must have been.11 It is thus 7

See further Walbank 1951. See further Bäbler 2003. 9 Minns 1913, 15, with river names modernized. 10 Minns 1913, 15, ditto; see further Schramm 1973, 100–3. 11 The surviving fragments of Hecataeus’ account of the region are slight and unrewarding (FGrHist 1 F 184–90; see Jacoby ad loc). 8

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 82

82

Stephanie West

instructive to observe how he presents information about Olbia and the surrounding region. His focus for most of Book Four is ethnographical and geographical, a pretext for his account of Scythia being provided by Darius’ foray across the Danube,12 and he generally takes it for granted that there has been no significant change in the seventy or eighty years between Darius’ day and his own, even though he himself, as we shall see, provides evidence that the relationship between Olbia and its Scythian neighbours was not static. The centrality of the Dnieper/Borysthenes to his account appears programmatically in his report of the native tradition regarding Scythian origins (5.1–2), where he tells us that they traced their ancestry back to Zeus (⫽ Papaios 59.2) and a daughter of the river Borysthenes, e’loi`   ot’ pirsa` kcomsey, kcotri d’ x’m (saying what I find incredible, but at all events it is what they say). His eulogy of the river (53.1–2) reads like a prototype of Virgil’s laudes Italiae (G.2.136ff.), even if it ends, prosaically, with the Borysthenes’ potential for trade in saltfish. (Should we detect echoes of a bid to encourage immigration to a promising colonial site?)13 Conveniently for our view of Scythian geography, the great river comes midway between the Danube, the region’s western boundary, and the Sea of Azov (101.2). Greek commerce near its mouth forms the  starting-point of Herodotus’ first section (17.1): a’o` sot Boqtrhemeisxm  ethnographic   ’ elpoqi´ot (sot so ca`q sxm paqahakarri´xm lerai´sasm e’rsi a´rgy sgy Rjthi´gy) a’o` sosot pqxsoi Jakkippi´dai mlomsai e’msey  ´Ekkgmey   `q de` sosxm ’´ Rjhai,14 tpe akko ’hmoy o i` ’Akifxmey jakomsai (Starting from the Borysthenites’ trading centre (for this is just in the middle of the Scythian coast) the first people are the Callippidai, who are GreekScythians, and beyond them is another tribe, called Alizones). Is this emporion 15 of the Borysthenites (cf. 24) to be identified with the town or city of the Borysthenites (78.3; 79.2), i.e. Olbia? As Olbia is not on the coast, some have thought that Berezan was meant, others that we should

12

On which see further Gardiner-Garden 1987; Georges 1987. Not to be overlooked, though not easily accounted for, is Borysthenis, daughter of Apollo, one of the strange troika of Muses ascribed to Eumelus of Corinth (F17 Bernabé ⫽ Fdub . 3 Davies ⫽ 35 West); one of her sisters is Kephiso, but the name of the last, given as Apollinis, must be corrupt, since all three are Apollo’s daughters: Gottfried Hermann suggested Achelois, M. L. West Asopis; see further M. L. West 2002, esp. 127f., 132. 14 The variant  Ekkgmorjhai looks like a conjecture. 15 On the term (not attested before Herodotus), see further Hansen 1997; Hind 1997, esp. 107–11. 13

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 83

HERODOTUS AND OLBIA

83

understand more generally an area of contact between Greek traders and the natives, a market for the region’s natural riches. Majority opinion probably favours Olbia. But Herodotus’ failure to see the potential difficulty is surely significant. Commercial contact almost inevitably brings ethnic and cultural interchange, and it should not surprise us that the adjacent group, the Callippidai, are of mixed race and/or culture, though Herodotus must have forgotten about them, together with the demographically more disconcerting community of Gelonus (108.2),16 when he insists on Scythian resistance to foreign ways (76.1; 80.5). These mixed populations are part of a larger problem: who really counts as Scythian (81.1)? The brief description is tantalizing; whatever subtleties of mixed marriages (following the precedent set by Heracles (8–10)) and Hellenization (or barbarization) are to be inferred from  ´Ekkgmey Rjhai, perhaps the most significant point is Herodotus’ failure to elaborate.17 But assimilation and integration involve change over time, and the Callippidai thus alert us to the artificiality of Herodotus’ timeless ethnography. We are more acutely aware of the defect when he cites Aristeas’ Arimaspeia as a source, even though he believed that Aristeas lived at least 240 years before his own time (15.1).18 It seems not to have occurred to him that important changes in the region’s demography might have occurred during the intervening period. To the west of the Hypanis we seem to get rather short measure; perhaps we are meant to understand that the people dwelling between the Hypanis and the Borysthenes also occupy the territory as far as Scythia’s western frontier. It is difficult for the modern reader to resist the temptation to transpose to a map the information which Herodotus gives here. But this misrepresents his conception; he plainly thinks in terms of the stages of a journey. The map view, the bird’s-eye view, was not a natural way for fifth-century Greeks to picture topographical relationships. That there is in this area a Greek settlement which could be dignified by the name of polis emerges rather obliquely (18.1): diaba´msi so`m Boqtrhmea a’o` haka´rrgy pqx som l`em g  Tkai´g, a’o` d`e sasgy ’´ amx

16

Where the development of a kind of patois (if Herodotus can be trusted on this point) implies that this community had been in existence for some time. 17 We should be cautious about invoking the Mixellenes of the decree for Protogenes some two centuries later; see further von Bredow 1996. 18 On Aristeas, more probably to be dated to the mid-sixth century, see further S. R. West 2004.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 84

84

Stephanie West

 i’ msi19 oi’ jotri Rjhai cexqcoi´, so`ty  ´Ekkgmey oi o’ijomsey e pi` sxi  Tp´ami posalxi jakotri Boqtrhee´isay, ruay d`e at’ so`ty ’Okbiopok´isay (If one crosses the Borysthenes starting from the sea one comes first to Hylaia (the Woodland) and then, if one continues inland, there are farming Scythians, whom the Greeks who live on the Hypanis call Borysthenites, while they call themselves Olbiopolitai). Herodotus seems to regard the ethnic as somewhat pretentious.20 We obtain a more precise indication of the town’s location at the end of his  ’ eulogy of the Borysthenes (53.6): s` o de ` lesan` t sx m posalx m sot´sxm   e`om ’ d`e at’ sxi i q`om ’´ elbokom sgy vqgy  Ippkex ’ajqg ´  jakesai, em  ’ idqtsai • pqgm de` sot i qot ep` ’ i sxi  ´Tpami Boqtrheme´isai D´ggsqoy em´ jaso´ijgmsai (Between these two rivers is a spit of land called Hippolaus’ Point, and on it is set a sanctuary of Demeter; opposite the sanctuary, on the Hypanis, the Borysthenites, are settled). Herodotus has no time here for nice distinction between Greeks and others. Comparison with his account of Egypt may explain his disregard for what might be supposed a point of some importance. In Book Two Herodotus gives the impression that his information derives from native sources, above all the priests of the temple of Ptah at Memphis. When he cites Greek sources, it is almost always to disparage them. This is not the place to evaluate his chances of gaining useful information from casual conversation with minor clergy. A Greek visitor to Egypt (and Herodotus cannot have spent long there) would have been imprudent if he had failed to draw on the experience of Greeks who had had the benefit of longer residence and were familiar with Egyptian manners and customs. But Herodotus camouflages what he must have owed to his fellow-countrymen, including his debt to literature. On the north Pontic coast the situation is foggier. He did not, we may suspect, want to advertise that he had no native informants and relied on Greek sources. ‘Borysthenite’ blurs a distinction which ‘Olbiopolite’ would highlight. Was Herodotus responsible for the failure of the latter term to win literary approval? 21 For an ingenious defence of a mhqxpoi (ABP) see Saerens 1997. Why is it not Olbieus? And when did the city actually get the name by which we know it? E’iq´gmg o’ kb´igi pki says the extraordinary text from Berezan, dated to the latter part of the sixth century and usually interpreted as an oracle from Didyma rich in hope for the future (SEG 36.694; 40.611; 52.731; Burkert 1990a; Dubois 1996, 146–54): is it right to capitalize o’ kb´igi? Did the oracle provide official sanction for the town’s name, marking its rise in status from a mere trading station? And should we infer from Herodotus that the name took some time to commend itself to the wider Greek world? 21 Apart from Dio’s usage, we may note that Bion is regularly designated as ‘Borysthenite’ and the same ethnic is used by Plutarch (Cleom.2), possibly wrongly, for his younger contemporary, 19 20

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 85

HERODOTUS AND OLBIA

85

The Borysthenites’ town is the scene of the second of the two episodes which Herodotus relates to illustrate Scythian cultural conservatism and aversion to Greek practices. His first story concerns the legendary Scythian sage Anacharsis (76f.); his previous reference (46.1) indicates that he expects the name to be familiar, though for us this is its earliest attestation.22 Anacharsis travelled to Cyzicus (and perhaps further), and brought home the worship of the Mother. His performance of rites in her honour so scandalized his brother, King Saulios, that he shot down Anacharsis in the act of worship. But since Herodotus says that the Scythians deny all knowledge of Anacharsis (as he sees it, damnatio memoriae arising from Anacharsis’ philhellenism (76.5)), we are here evidently dealing with a substantially Greek story. It serves as a foil for the following narrative: Anacharsis had to travel to learn Greek ways, but Prince Skyles absorbed them without leaving home (78–80). We should note the chronological insouciance with which Skyles’  rseqom Rjkgy  story is introduced (78.1): pokkoi ri de` j qsa eseri   ’Aqiape´iheoy epahe paqapk´gria sosxi. (Very many years later Skyles the son of Ariapeithes had a similar experience). It becomes clear from the links with the Thracian kings Teres and Sitalkes mentioned later (80) that Skyles’ vicissitudes are to be dated c.460, thus within Herodotus’ own lifetime; if he visited Olbia, the prince’s fate must have been vividly remembered by his older acquaintances. Skyles’ parentage in itself undermines Herodotus’ insistence on Scythian resistance to Greek influence. His mother (unnamed) came from Istria (like Olbia, a Milesian colony, as Herodotus tells us (2.33.4)), and from her he learned Greek language and script (g l´gsgq at’ s`g ckxˆ rr m ’ idane). (We may be reminded of a famous se  Ekk da ja`i cq llasa ed´ story in Asser’s Life of King Alfred.) Evidence for literacy among Greek women in the classical period is scanty; it implies respectable social status and home instruction.23 It is difficult to suppose that Skyles would have been allowed this educational advantage if his father had objected; the latter had established a precedent for philhellenism. Ariapeithes had sons by other women, but on his death it was Skyles who succeeded him. Herodotus adds the odd detail that Skyles took over Ariapeithes’ wife

Sphairos. Macrobius (Sat.i 11.33) calls the citizens Borysthenitae (in the context of Zopyrion’s assault). See further Bäbler 2003, 114. 22 On Anacharsis’ legend, see further Kindstrand 1981, esp. 1–30, 74–82. 23 See further Cole 1981; Harris 1989, 108. Instruction in even basic literacy might be expected to include some reading of literature.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 86

Stephanie West

86

Opoie, mother of Skyles’ half-brother Orikos. This has no obvious relevance; Herodotus presumably mentions it as illustrating Scythian custom. The legitimacy of their own customs for different peoples is an important principle for him (3.38.2–4), and it is not easy to detect disapproval. Now that Skyles has come to the throne the close connection between literacy and power provides food for thought.24 It hardly matters who taught the prince to read and write; bilingualism and literacy gave him formidable advantages, and the detail of his Greek education has taken on a new significance with the discovery at Nikonion of examples of his coinage bearing the legend RJTK or RJTKEX.25 As king, Herodotus tells us, he could indulge a preference for Greek ways, and took regular Hellenic holidays; his choice of Olbia, rather than his mother’s birthplace, Istria, for his royal residence indicates the city’s importance in Scythian eyes (78.3–5):

 ’ a’ c coi sg`m rsqas´igm sg`m Rjthxm ey ’ s`o Boqtrhemeisxm ’ rst (oi d`e etse  ’ Boqtrhemeisai otsoi kcotri ruay at’ so`ty e’imai Likgr´  ioty), ey sosoty o ´jxy khoi o Rjkgy,s`gm l`em rsqas´igm jasak´iperje e’ m sxi pqoars´ixi, at s`oy ´ ´  s`o sei voy ja`i s`ay p´tkay ecjkg´  de` ojxy ekh i ey ireie, s`gm rsok`gm apohlemoy  ’ am  `  Ekkgm´ida erhg   ` sasgm gcqafe ’ s`gm Rjthij`gm ´abe e am sa,  vxm d’ o’tse ´  ’ doqtuqxm epolmxm o’tse ´ a’´kkot26 ot’ demy (s`ay d`e pkay l´ g siy  eukarrom,  ’ ’ aso dia´isgi lim Rjthxm  doi e´vomsa sasgm s`gm rsok´gm), ja`i sa’ kka evq    Ekkgmijgi ja`i heo iri i q`a e’ po´iee jas`a mloty so`ty  Ekk´gmxm. ose  ´ d`e diasq´i  ’ ty s`gm Rjthij`gm rsok´gm. sa tsa weie lgma ’g` pkom sosot, a’ pakk rreso emd`  ’´ poierje pokk jiy, ja`i o’ij´ia se e’ de´ilaso e’ m Boqtrhei ja`i ctma ija ecgle ’ e’ y at’ s`a epivxq´ igm.27 (Whenever he led the Scythian host to the Borysthenites’ town (and these Borysthenites claim to be Milesians), whenever Skyles came to them, he would leave the host in the outskirts,28 and he himself, when he had gone inside the wall and closed the gates, would take off his Scythian clothes and change into Greek, and thus dressed would walk around the marketplace without any body-

24

See further Hopkins 1991; Bowman & Woolf 1994. Hind 1992/3, 92.  26 Some editions prefer the variant kao t.  27 ’ Bravo 2000, 85 argues that ja`i oi’ j´ia . . . epivxq´ igm and correspondingly (79.2) sgy . . .  ’ ’ ilaso . . . ja`i lm´glgm are interpolated. ‘The spuriousness of the clauses ja`i oi’ j´ia se ede´  e ivom ’´ ctmaija ecgle . . . is proved by the fact that in the following chapter, 79.2, we read that “Skyles owned in the town of the Borystheneitai an arcade encompassing a big and sumptuous house”: this statement, which is indispensable to the narrative and which therefore must be considered as authentic, presupposes that nothing has been said before about  a house belonging to Skyles in the town of the Borystheneitai, i.e. in Olbia. The clause sgy ja`i o’ki´cxi pqseqom sosxm ´ e ’ivom was obviously added by the interpolator to eliminate the incongruity.’ 28 ‘Offenbar verwendete Herodot in diesem Fall den Terminus pqo rsiom (iv 79) als eine räumliche und nicht als eine städtebauliche Definition’ (Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 33). 25

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 87

HERODOTUS AND OLBIA

87

guard or attendant (but they kept watch on the gates, so that none of the Scythians should see him dressed like this), and in other respects he followed a Greek way of life and he worshipped the gods in accordance with Greek custom. When he had thus spent a month or more, he would put on Scythian clothes and leave. He used to do this often, and built a house in Borysthenes, and kept there a local woman whom he married.)

This is a strange enough story so far. Skyles’ behaviour, a palmary example of the conflict of identity often experienced by those who belong to more than one speech community, sounds more like that of a schoolboy playing truant or a nineteenth-century nobleman seeking adventure incognito than what we expect of a steppe chieftain. But, notwithstanding Herodotus’ emphasis on the furtiveness of Skyles’ activity, it is clear that the prince exercised some authority in Olbia; there was more to his presence in the city than relaxation from the austerities of a nomad encampment. The nomad horde which Skyles left just outside the town could benefit from pasturing their beasts on land which the resident population would have preferred to farm. It seems an unavoidable inference that at this period Olbia and some other Greek cities were subject to a Scythian protectorate.29 Whether Ariapeithes had already exercised such powers over Olbia is not quite clear. Tymnes, Herodotus’ authority on the family’s lineage (76.6), is described as Ariapeithes’ epitropos, best translated here as ‘agent’; the word would cover a wide range of functions, including ‘governor’ (cf. 6.30.2), but Herodotus does not say where Tymnes exercised his office (nor where they met). How well did Herodotus understand the situation? Scythian control of Greek cities cannot have been easy to digest, and, apart from the blow to Hellenic pride, the will to dominate others casts a shadow over the Scythian zeal for liberty which is the mainspring of Herodotus’ narrative of Darius’ campaign.30 Not surprisingly, his narrative emphasises the attractions— seductions, we might say — of Greek culture for a Scythian nobleman. Herodotus’ designation of Olbia is grander now: so` B  eese´x a’´  (the Borysthenites’ town). Why does he at this point refer to the Milesian connection? The information has some relevance if we remember that Istria, Skyles’ mother’s home town, was a Milesian colony 29

See further How & Wells 1912 ad loc.; Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 132f.; J. G. Vinogradov 1996, 429. However, Kryzhitskiy 2005 shows that archaeological evidence should not be adduced in support of this inference. 30 ‘Like no other people in the Histories besides the Greeks, the Scythians are represented as a people who define themselves in opposition to literal and political slaves’ (Munson 2001, 112).

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 88

88

Stephanie West

(2.33.4). Of course, in our texts that is rather a long way off. But contrast and comparison between Egypt and Scythia are commonplace (compare the latter part of Hippocrates’ Airs, Waters, Places (12–24)), and he plainly has his account of Egypt in mind as he starts this section on   ai’ mxy cultural chauvinism (76.1): neimijo iri d`e mola´ioiri ja`i otsoi  vqarhai uecotri (they  too are exceedingly averse to adopting foreign  (they too) must refer to his similar comcustoms), where ja`i otsoi  ment on the Egyptians (2.91.1): uecotri   Ekkgmijo iri d`e mola´ioiri  ’ vq arhai, s`o d`e rlpam e’ipe im, lgd’ ’ ’akkxm ´ lgdalxm amhq xpxm ´ mola´ioiri (They are reluctant to adopt Greek customs, or, to speak generally, those of any other people).31 In his own mind the distance between the two passages might have seemed rather less. But if he merely meant to tell us that the town was a Milesian colony, it is odd that he ’ avoids the usual terminology of ’apoijoi ´ or apoij´ ig, and some have supposed him to mean that the Borysthenites claimed Milesian citizenship.32 It is not easy to believe that this point would have been immediately clear to a contemporary audience. By contrast, though Herodotus’ observations on Skyles’ change of clothing may prompt the thought that he nowhere actually describes what Scythians wore, their trousers were well enough known. As often, clothing has symbolic force; Skyles was very clearly moving between two worlds (compare Pausanias’ taste for Median dress (Thuc. 1. 130.1)), concretely demarcated, in Herodotus’ account, by the city walls. These have not yet been confirmed archaeologically, and we should bear in mind the possibility that if Herodotus had not himself visited the city, he might, without any intention to deceive, have added a non-existent feature from his own mental representation of events. It was finally his enthusiasm for Greek ecstatic cult which brought Skyles’ downfall, as it had Anacharsis’.33 In introducing this development, Herodotus uses a phrase which indicates that  he found Skyles’ ’ ’  ’ behaviour inexplicable ´ oi jajxy cemrhai, ecmeso  (79.1): epe´ise d`e edee ’ p`o pqou rioy soigrde (Since it was necessary for him to come to a bad a 31

Contrast between these two geographical and cultural extremes is suggested at the start of his account of Scythian origins (5.1), where their claim to be the newest of peoples gains point if we recall the opening of the Aigyptios logos and Egyptian notions of their own antiquity (2.2). Herodotus’ assertion that there are almost as many rivers in Scythia as there are canals in Egypt (47.1)— difficult to reconcile with Darius’ alleged problems over water supply (120.1) — also suggests that he expected his account of Egypt to be fresh in our minds. 32 See further Graham 1964, 103–8; Ehrhardt 1983, 235–7. 33 On this episode, see Harrison 2000, 217f.; Gould 2001; Braund 2001; Braund 2004, esp. 31f.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 89

HERODOTUS AND OLBIA

89

end, it happened as a result of the following cause).34 Dionysiac enthusiasm undid him. He decided to seek initiation to the cult of Dionysus Baccheios, Dionysus of the bacchoi. As he was on the point of being initiated his magnificent mansion was struck by lightning and burnt down. But notwithstanding this extraordinary portent, Skyles proceeded with the ritual. Architectural detail adds vividness to the tale, but may not be entirely reliable; Herodotus describes a type of architectonic decoration likely to appeal to a half-Greek nobleman with the resources to fulfil a taste for ostentation. But there is something perverse about such a palace for the prince of a people characteristically ueqoijoi (46.3) (carrying their houses with them). Skyles seems determined to transgress the established boundaries between nomadic and sedentary peoples. This works to the nomads’ advantage when he brings them to graze their herds in the Olbian chora, but his people might see the threat of creeping Hellenization in his own taste for city life. Heaven itself, it seems, disap’ proved of Skyles’ eclectic religiosity: o he`oy emrjgwe bkoy (the god hurled his lightning).35 Divine intervention is rare in the Scythian logos; the focus is strongly on human achievement and failure. Herodotus surely meant us to be shocked by Skyles’ persistence. But the circumstance might be differently interpreted. Lightning consecrates, and a place struck by lightning was abatos, not to be trodden by men; Dionysus was born in lightning, and death by the all-dreaded thunderstone was a form of apotheosis.36 To the single-minded devotee what others would have judged a clear warning to desist might appear rather as a sign of the god’s approval, even of his presence. The Scythians, says Herodotus, find fault with  the Greeks for cele’ ’ c q uari o’ij`oy e’imai he`om enetq´ irjeim brating Bacchic rites (79.3): o t  ´ ’ sotsom orsiy la´imerhai em cei a’ mhqxpoty ´ (for they say it is unreasonable to discover this god who drives people out of their minds). This looks like a clear example of the practice of criticizing one’s own society by presenting it from the standpoint of a hypothetical foreigner, reminiscent of

34

For the phrase cf. 1.8.2; 2.161.3; 6.64; 135.3; 9.109.2. ‘This is indeed the storyteller’s device, in which the end is retrojected to “explain” some earlier action, and by which the narrator draws attention to the fateful moment by anticipating the ultimate consequences’ (Flower & Marincola 2002, 43). See also Hohti 1975; Gould 1989, 73–85. 35 Cf. 7.10e. 36 See further Burkert 1960/1; Chantraine 1983, s.v. ’Gkriom; Mendelsohn 1992.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 90

90

Stephanie West

the Anacharsis legend (as with Montesquieu’s Lettres persanes).37 ‘Die polemische Art eines Heraklit (Vorsokr. 22B14) liegt Herodot fern. Aber er stellt gegeneinander, was nachdenklich machen soll.’38 The verb e’ netq´irjeim (discover) seems to imply doubt regarding Dionysus’ existence, and Herodotus’ catalogue of Scythian deities (59) offers no counterpart (contrast his Egyptian equation, probably drawn from Hecataeus, of Dionysus and Osiris (2.144.2)). In view of Dionysus’ essential role as god of wine we can scarcely be surprised at the lack of any equivalent in the pantheon of a people for whom wine was a foreign import.39 The god’s specifically non-Scythian character gives a particular importance to the details of his place in the religious life of the remarkable Graeco-Scythian town of Gelonus (108.2). One of the townspeople made trouble40 for Skyles by arranging for some Scythians to witness their king’s Bacchic cavorting from the vantage point provided by the city wall. Herodotus clearly supposes that Scythians did not normally enter the town. Direct speech lends vividness to the narrative; but since Herodotus cannot have had a faithful report of what was actually said on this occasion, it raises the awkward question of the extent to which he may have introduced further details Marte suo, in the course of speculative reconstruction of events. Horrified at the sight, the witnesses reported to the whole horde, and Skyles, on his return to his people, found that they had transferred their allegiance to his halfbrother, Oktamasades (80.1). Accordingly he fled to Thrace, but was surrendered to Oktamasades by King Sitalkes,41 and decapitated forthwith, apparently at the Danube, the boundary between Scythia and Thrace. Fratricide ends Skyles’ story, as it did Anacharsis’. We should not be too

37

Cf. 1.153.1. Somewhat similarly, Aristeas (F11 Bernabé, F1 Davies) made the point that Greek customs might appear as odd to foreigners as non-Greek practices did to Greeks. 38 Burkert 1990b, 22. 39 Fermented (or even distilled) mare’s milk was the traditional steppe intoxicant; a (wildly distorted) account of its preparation forms a fitting prooemium to Book Four (2); see further S. R.  West 1999. Wine is mentioned in his account of Scythian customs (62.3; 66; 70); if o’imoy’ is literally meant, Greek influence is implied, but the word could have been used as a translator’s expedient to refer to alcohol in some other form. 40 The verb used for the troublemaker’s act is uncertain. The MSS. give (di)epq´grsetre, otherwise unattested (diep´irsetre S is surely a conjecture). None of the various emendations suggested is very convincing. Legrand’s suggestion (ad loc.) is attractive: ‘probablement un mot d’usage local et familier’. 41 Herodotus does not actually tell us here that Sitalkes was king of Thrace; but cf. 7.137.3.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 91

HERODOTUS AND OLBIA

91

surprised: at the start of his account (2) Herodotus prepared us to regard shocking savagery as characteristically Scythian.42 We are left in no doubt of the importance of Dionysus in the religious life of Olbia, a point amply confirmed by archaeological discovery. ‘Here Bacchic initiations are neither a spontaneous outburst nor a public festival; admission rests on personal application, there is a preparatory period, a tradition of sacred rites, and finally the integration into the group of initiates.’43 Skyles’ story reads like a bizarre inversion of Euripides’ Bacchae.44 It also shows that Bacchic worship might take a rather different form from what is presented in Euripides’ play. Herodotus finds nothing surprising in the celebration of the god’s rites by bands of worshippers of both sexes within the city. He takes it for granted that Bacchic initiation depends on personal application; Skyles’ involvement rather suggests that devotees were not predominantly of low social status. Whether Herodotus’ explanation for Skyles’ overthrow is the whole truth we cannot hope to tell. His people might reasonably have been concerned that their king would lose the skills appropriate to nomadic life if he spent too much time fraternizing with his mother’s people. The military success of the steppe horsemen depended on a form of warfare which was only a minor adaptation of their normal activities. A leader who showed an inclination towards a sedentary lifestyle (whether Hellenic or, at the eastern end of the steppe, Chinese) obviously risked losing his authority. We have what appears to be a relic of Skyles’ flight in a ring, found c.1935 some 10 km south of Istria, bearing his name on the bezel and an enigmatic inscription on the band.45 Undeniably Olbia receives more attention from Herodotus than any of the other Greek towns on the north Pontic coast; but it was peripheral

42

It has been suggested that this internecine conflict is represented on the famous Solokha gold comb: see Alexseyev 2005, 50–3. 43 Burkert 1985, 291. On the cult of Dionysus at Olbia and its Orphic aspects, see M. L. West 1982; Zhmud 1992; Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 116f., 134. 44 Cf. E.Ba. 567–656 (the palace miracle), 1058ff. (spying from a high place). I leave to others the speculation that Aeschylus’ Lykourgeia may have influenced Herodotus’ narrative; on that trilogy, see M. L. West 1990, 26–50, esp. 27–32. As the scholiast on Iliad 6.131 notes, many had treated Lycurgus’ story, among them Eumelus. 45 See further SEG 30, 800; Vinogradov 1997a; 2000: Dubois 1996, 11–13. I find quite unconvincing attempts to make sense of this text as Greek and believe it to be Scythian. Many previously unwritten languages must have advanced to script as a result of the efforts of bilingual offspring of mixed marriages, applying the literacy which they enjoyed in one of their languages to the other.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

05 West 1525

1/10/07

10:58

Page 92

92

Stephanie West

to his interests. His avoidance of the city’s official, and auspicious, designation, the name preferred by its citizens, is not insignificant. He surely underplays its importance as the channel through which most of his Scythian information came. Valuable as it is, the Scythian ethnography was plainly not the product of long years of patient fieldwork by dedicated observers aspiring to objectivity, but synthesizes information collected unsystematically (as the disordered presentation involved in his threefold exposition of geographical and ethnographical material (16–31, 47–58, 97–117) indicates) and no doubt distorted by the foreigner’s tendency to generalize from single instances. (Thus, we might suspect that Herodotus’ description of royal obsequies (71f.) reflects a memorable occasion of outstanding extravagance rather than the norm.) Whatever the range of the adventurers for whom Olbia served as a base, they were not forerunners of Wilhelm Radloff among the Turkic peoples of Siberia or Waldemar Bogoras among the Chukchi. Belief in Scythian conservatism and resistance to foreign influence was convenient for Herodotus, allaying qualms about combining items of information gathered over a long period, but is not altogether borne out by his narrative. Unable to claim direct access to native Scythian informants on their own ground, he was naturally not keen to advertise the derivative quality of his material, and close attention to the Olbiopolitai might have exposed what he wanted to camouflage. Rostovtzeff judged it unimportant whether Herodotus had himself actually visited Olbia. This prudent agnosticism has a corollary: in assessing the reliability of his information, we cannot argue that Herodotus was there and should therefore know. We have to allow that details which contribute powerfully to verisimilitude may derive from his own assumptions and speculations (to be distinguished from deliberate invention), not from actual observation or the testimony of apparently trustworthy local informants. If he did not himself know the region at first hand, the presentation of his material is very likely to have been affected by the desire to avoid revealing that he lacked direct experience of the ways of the peoples whose manner of life held for him a fascination not unlike that exercised on Europeans by the native culture of North America some two thousand years later.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 93

Religious Interactions between Olbia and Scythia A. S. RUSYAYEVA

THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER is not the complete reconstruction of religious interactions between the Greeks of Olbia and the population of Scythia. Its aim, rather, is an overview of its key aspects (in so far as current knowledge permits) as embodied in interpretations of different sources from the late archaic and classical periods. On that basis, we may proceed to consider in more detail the various issues of this complex and neglected topic. Throughout we must be cautious about comparisons. Religious interactions between Greeks and non-Greeks in the Cimmerian Bosporus have been studied more intensively than in Olbia and its environs, from different perspectives and with different methodologies.1 However, we cannot extrapolate from one to the other, for the situation in Olbia makes comparisons uncertain. Unlike the Bosporus, the territory of Olbia and its environs was not permanently settled or visited by various non-Greek peoples, such as might permit complex religious interactions. Also in contrast with the Bosporus (and even in the fourth century BC at the height of Pontic Scythia), Olbia did not furnish the Scythian elite with large quantities of fine classical metalware, decorated with scenes from Greek and Scythian mythology; in the Bosporus that metalware was a principal catalyst in the formation of the world-view specific to Scythian culture, while it was also a basis for the whole ideas of Greek–Scythian syncretism, both in art and in religious belief. M. I. Rostovtzeff long since observed that ‘in the hands of Greek artists an iconic Iranian religion (sc. of the Scythians) was populated with the images of gods composed by Greek artists and undoubtedly accepted by Scythian believers’.2 His 1 2

Yemets 2002, 26–165 surveys the literature. Rostovtzeff 1922, 108.

Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 93–102. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 94

94

A. S. Rusyayeva

views and the general tendency to make much of the ‘gold’ of Scythia, with its rich tumuli, have had an enormous influence on the subsequent development of conceptions of Greco-Scythian religious syncretism. It is held that in the process of the mutual influences of the two religious or mythological systems of the north Pontic Greeks, on the one hand, and of the Scythian nomads, on the other, there arose specific cults and cult practices.3 But where is Olbia here? In all this general discussion, founded on hypothetical extrapolations and intensive debates about Greco-Scythian religious interactions (especially in the Bosporus), Olbia has not been accorded close attention and remains in essence substantially neglected. Nevertheless, it is possible in various ways to review some of our knowledge with a broad perspective. And the first point to be stressed is that almost all our data come from a period earlier than that in which the aforementioned metalware was produced, which further obstructs extrapolation and comparison. Meanwhile, we must be clear that ‘Scythia’ was reckoned by the Olbiopolitans (as by other Greeks, notably Herodotus) not as a single state but as a vast geographical area, within which lived not only a range of non-Greek peoples, but also the Greeks themselves. In the seventh to fifth centuries BC agriculturalist and pastoralist peoples of the wooded steppe were especially important, for with them the Greeks of Berezan and Olbia, above all, established unhindered, close contacts.4 Subsequently, the nomads who had come from the east, having seized the steppe expanses of what is now Ukraine (specifically the central part of pastoralist Scythia) made their greatest impact here in the later fifth and fourth centuries. However, these and other non-Greeks were at quite a different stage of development (politically, socially, economically, and culturally) from the Greeks, not least in the development of their religion. Accordingly when trade relations were established, from colonization onwards, there was no sudden surge, from either side, for the assumption of the others’ cults or the rites associated with them. So much is readily explicable: each people, of course, was committed to its traditional practices, especially in matters of religion. In that regard, we must observe Herodotus’ statement that the Scythians energetically avoid foreign usages, and especially those

3 See in detail Grakov 1950, 7–18; Artamonov 1961, 57–87; Blavatskiy 1964, 26–35; Rayevskiy 1977; 1980, 49–71; 1985; Bessonova 1983, 10–24, 37–55; Lelekov & Rayevskiy 1988, 215–26; Shaub 1998, 67–74; 1999, 207–23. 4 See in detail Rusyayeva 1999, 84–97.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 95

RELIGIOUS INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OLBIA AND SCYTHIA

95

of the Greeks (Hdt. 4.76). That was very probably the Greeks’ general perception. Meanwhile, the ‘invisible’ Scythian gods (who lacked an anthropomorphic form) were distinctly unlike the humanized and idealized Greek images of gods. This and the Scythian lack of myths (as far as we know) constituted a principal obstacle to syncretism or osmosis. Nevertheless, our sources seem to suggest that, in the foundation and formation of the settlements on Berezan and at Olbia, the Greeks deliberately produced a kind of cult propaganda for their own deities and heroes in order to establish rights over the land on which they had settled and over the lands around, together with the non-Greeks who dwelt in them. Heracles and Achilles were the key mythical figures in this regard, connected especially with the region of Olbia. Herodotus’ second origin story of the Scythians gives particular insight into Olbian ideological strategies (Hdt. 4.8–10). This story has been interpreted in very many ways. Specialists in Scythian studies focus particularly upon its implications for Scythian ideology, wherein Heracles is identified with Targitaos.5 However, many classical scholars consider the story to be Greek in origin.6 Comparative analysis of the story with other accounts of Heracles’ tenth labour (variously situated in the world of archaic colonization, complete with archaeology and epigraphy) leads to the conclusion that it was created in the earliest phase of Ionian colonization in the lower Bug region in the seventh century BC. Heracles was made a divine colonizer and civilizer of the three peoples of the area and even the progenitor of their eponymous ancestors. In broad terms, the story is to be located within a larger set of myths, which were notably popular among Greek colonists, linked especially with Heracles’ tenth labour. This story is profoundly symbolic, embracing in generalized terms symbols of the Scythian land and its ethnic markers: these range from the symbolic meaning of the bow to the common ancestor, Scythes. And here too we find striking expression of the outlook of the colonists of the lower Bug, who encountered at first three principal peoples—the Agathyrsi, the Geloni, and the Scythians. The story of Heracles’ encounter with Echidna (a local snake-woman, dwelling in Hylaea on the lower Dnieper, who bore the hero three sons and eponyms) is a developed mythological narrative. Here we find a clear reflection of the process by which the myth extended: it reflects initial empirical knowledge of the natural conditions of the region and the 5 6

See Dovatur et al. 1982; Rayevskiy 1985, 17–19; Bessonova 1983, 10–24. Rusyayeva 1990, 49–53, 1991a; 1992, 8–13; Koshelenko 1999, 149–50.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 96

96

A. S. Rusyayeva

various ethnic groupings which inhabited the lands known to the Greek settlers. Most important, however, is the essential opposition of Greeks and non-Greeks as represented by the two central figures, Heracles and Echidna. For Echidna, while mistress of her land and a mother, is nevertheless inferior to the representative of Greek culture and not only in matters of appearance. For she herself decides nothing: she merely follows Heracles’ advice and instructions. At the same time, the two figures also constitute two different aspects of ancient Greek religion, the chthonic and the Olympian. For, while Echidna is a cave-dwelling creature, Heracles is a great hero and the offspring of Zeus. Thanks to the sun-chariot of Helios which Heracles used to complete some of his labours, he rises to the deities of the world above. A similar force resides also in the bow which Apollo gave him. Meanwhile, wisdom forms a substantial part of the story. The hero is not only a man of action but also the dispenser of wise advice as to what should be done to bring about the future history of this land: the ruler must be the cleverest, the most adept and strong, that is in essence Heracles’ counterpart. Even the bow which Heracles left in the cave to test his sons carries a special symbolism, not only of prosperity and wisdom but even of life itself.7 Moreover, the story also reflects a positive relationship with the non-Greeks through the conclusion of the sacred marriage between the Greek hero and the local snake-woman, which could serve as an archetype for mixed marriages between Greeks and Scythians (at least at elite level) and also a closer interaction more generally between their separate deities and figures. The colonists of the lower Bug knew very well the structure of mythology and theogony with the whole gamut of the supernatural, presided over by the Olympian deities under the authority of Zeus. His rule can be inferred from the story of Targitaos, founder of the Scoloti (Hdt. 4.5), as well as through Heracles and his three eponymous sons: evidently, at the beginning of Greek settlement in the region, Zeus constituted a cosmic force as ruler and father of all peoples and gods all over the world, including Scythia. Such a conception of Zeus can only have facilitated the peaceful coexistence (if not the unification) of the Greeks and local confederations of the whole area. According to a single inscription around the middle of the sixth century BC (known as the ‘priest’s letter’), the Greeks built three shrines on

7

See in detail Rusyayeva 1992, 8–13.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 97

RELIGIOUS INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OLBIA AND SCYTHIA

97

the lower Dnieper, for the Mother of the Gods, for Heracles, and for Borysthenes; the altars here were destroyed, while one of the priests was apparently suffering from food shortage.8 However, the Olbiopolitans’ religious actions here were designed probably not to proselytize among Scythians, but for the ritual defence of the community’s boundaries at a time when pastoralist Scythians were based primarily in the north Caucasian foreland and around Kuban.9 The negative and hostile attitude of Scythians towards Greek deities in the sixth and fifth centuries is confirmed not only by the destruction of these altars in Hylaea, but also in the story of Scythian Anacharsis and the cult of the Mother of the Gods at much the same time in much the same area (Hdt. 4.76). For Herodotus’ vignette about this wise man tells how he was returning from Greece to Scythia when he saw the festival of the Great Mother at Cyzicus. It made such an impression on him that, once home, he made offerings to her and conducted her worship in the Greek fashion. In consequence he was killed by his brother. A no less brutal tale is also told of the Scythian King Scyles c.475–450. Scyles married an Olbiopolitan woman, adopted a Greek lifestyle, and sacrificed to the gods in the Greek manner. He adopted the cult of Dionysus-Bacchus and was initiated into his dancing rites in Olbia (Hdt. 4.78–80). These historical vignettes in Herodotus’ Histories confirm as clearly as possible that in the early period of Greco-Scythian relations, the Greeks did not prevent Scythians from adopting and worshipping the Greek gods. On the contrary, it was the Scythians themselves who took punitive measures against those Scythians who adopted foreign practices (Hdt. 4.80). Further, it was only in the later fourth century — and then from the Bosporus, not from Olbia — that gold and silver artefacts flowed into steppe Scythia with depictions very often of various Greek gods and heroes (including Heracles), so that it was probably then that the Scythian elite (at least) became familiar with and accepted anthropomorphic images from Greek mythology. However, this is all very late in Scythian history, so that we should hesitate to make great inferences from this luxury metalware about the Scythian adoption of Greek cults or syncretism. All the more so since these luxury items were current only among the elite and not the population in general. Therefore, Rayevskiy is probably right to argue that the images of Achilles and Heracles found in Scythia are

8 9

Rusyayeva & Yu. G. Vinogradov 1991. Murzin 1984, 11–47, 99–100.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 98

98

A. S. Rusyayeva

not evidence of Greek cult adopted by the Scythians, or of religious syncretism.10 Meanwhile, the story of Heracles and Echidna did not inspire a local cult of the hero at Olbia similar to that of Achilles, who was the great protector of the community by the Roman imperial period, with the title Pontarches. We have only the image of Heracles drawing his bow (complete with his lion’s skin) on rare silver coins minted in Olbia c.450–425 with the legend EMINAKO. These coins have sparked lively discussion. One interpretation takes the coins to show the dependence of Olbia upon the Scythians; on this view, iconography shows a key scene from the Heracles origin story, with the hero showing how his bow is to be drawn, while Eminakos is taken to be a Scythian king.11 Another interpretation takes the image of Heracles to be purely Greek, showing the hero with his usual attributes, while Eminakos is an Olbian.12 From time to time some scholars argue that idiosyncrasies of the cult of Achilles at Olbia emerge from the amalgamation of his Greek identity with a local divinity, variously regarded as Cimmerian, Thracian, or Scythian.13 However, such arguments neglect the fact that his earliest cult sites in the north-west Black Sea (including Olbia), both in the colonial and the pre-colonial periods, were in a region where there were no resident local peoples. Sometimes it is also suggested that Achilles was somehow identified with a snake worshipped by Scythians: this snake (it is claimed) and not Heracles was associated with the mythical snakewoman of Hylaea and, consequently, was the father of the three eponyms, or was her brother.14 We do have some indirect evidence that in the early period Olbia’s Greeks propagandized the cult of Apollo among the local population. Quite explicit in this regard are the myths which refer to Apollo’s links with the northern edge of the world, including the Hyperborean gifts to the god’s cult on Delos and the peaceful Apolline arrow linked with another figure of the north, Abaris (Hdt. 4.32–6). Moreover, it is well known that the first ‘coined’ money here (in the form of an arrowhead) was also the particular votive in the cult of Apollo the Healer at Olbia 10

Rayevskiy 1980, 67–71. Karyshkovskiy 1960, 179–82; 1984, 78–89; Rayevskiy 1977, 168–71; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1989, 93–4. 12 Rusyayeva 1979, 141–2; 1992, 124–6; Anokhin 1989, 15–16; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 152–3. 13 For literature, see Rusyayeva 1990, 49–61; Yemets 2002, 64–9. 14 Cf. in detail Rusyayeva 1990, 49; Okhotnikov & Ostroverkhov 1993, 80, 91–2; Zakharova and Moleva 1999, 45–54. 11

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 99

RELIGIOUS INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OLBIA AND SCYTHIA

99

and in the west Pontic cities.15 Its use in areas inhabited by peoples who had arrows as a matter of course can hardly be a matter of chance. T. M. Kuznetsova, after studying all the bronze mirrors found across Eurasia, came to the interesting conclusion that a specific type of panshaped mirror of the sixth century BC was introduced in the Black Sea region by the agency of two centres of Apolline cult (Delphi and Didyma) at the time of Greek colonization.16 On her view, discoveries of these mirrors show not so much trade routes from Olbia to the north (to the Volga region, the Urals, etc.), but ‘sacred routes’ to the lands of the Argippei and Issedones of Herodotus’ Histories (Hdt. 4.24–5), routes by which the cults of Apollo and Dionysus spread north into the country of the mythical Hyperboreans. However, there is no evidence for this whole conception, save for the animal figures which appear on the handles of mirrors (lions and rams), which are linked with the rituals and meaning of the cults of those gods in Greek shrines, perhaps located in these distant parts of the inhabited world. With regard to the possible penetration of the cult of Apollo from Olbia to the peoples of the wooded steppe, there is an important (and isolated) graffito on a red-figure kylix made early in the fifth century, which was found in a Scythian tumulus near the village of Zhurovka (Figure 12). It reads: ‘shared (cup) of Delphinios and Healer’.17 Of particular interest in this inscription is the fact that both forms of Apollo appear linked closely together, which is particularly characteristic of Apolline religion in Olbia.18 However, we can only speculate on the manner in which this vessel came to be deposited in the tumulus at a great distance from Olbia and whether the graffito was scratched upon it in a local context around Zhurovka. We cannot exclude the possibility, for example, that representatives of non-Greek peoples of the wooded steppe had

Figure 12. Graffito from Zhurovka, mentioning Delphinios and Healer (Ietros). Drawing A. S. Rusyayeva.

15 16 17 18

Rusyayeva 1992, 31 with further bibliography. Kuznetsova 1991, 66–91, 96–7. See further Onayko 1966, 61, no. 164, pl. 8; Yu. G. Vinogradov & Rusyayeva 1980, 31. Rusyayeva 1992, 29–55.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 100

100

A. S. Rusyayeva

spent time in Olbia, while the colonists made marriages with women of local elites in Scythia. For example, the man buried at Zhurovka may have lived in Olbia and adopted the cult of Apollo in its two forms. Evidently the introduction of the cult of Apollo Boreas at Olbia was also linked with the travels of its citizens to the northern edge of the world. The earliest extant dedication to this deity is a Clazomenian amphora of the mid-sixth century, inscribed on its lip, which was found in the Western Temenos at Olbia where the temple of Apollo the Healer was situated (Figure 13).19 On Yu. G. Vinogradov’s interpretation of the fragmentary inscription, a certain Anaperres, son of Anacharsis, a Scolotian, dedicated to Apollo Boreas ‘paternal honey’. And Vinogradov further contends that the dedicator was the son of the famous Anacharsis, the Scythian wise man, who had given his son a Greek name and an education in Greek letters.20 Be that as it may, we cannot take this discovery as firm textual evidence that a son of Anacharsis dedicated an amphora of honey in an Olbian temple of Apollo. We have here a hypothesis. However, in so far as Greeks obtained the honey of bees from the wooded steppe, we may find some indirect confirmation of the suggestion that Anacharsis belonged to the agriculturalist Scythians, while those scholars who perceive Scoloti in the first of Herodotus’ origin stories (Hdt. 4.5–7) may also find some encouragement in the graffito. In this regard we must also be aware of more than forty flat stone dishes from the archaic necropolis of Olbia, which were found in the most wealthy female burials; they seem originally to have been oval or lentoid in shape.21 Their function remains unclear. However, their association with a range of cult objects (especially mirrors, sacral vessels, and terracotta statuettes of different Greek deities), possibly indicating a link between the deceased and a priestly stratum, shows that these stone dishes may have been used in particular rituals. Be that as it may, it is

Figure 13. Dedication to Apollo on amphora from Clazomenae. Drawing A. S. Rusyayeva.

19 20 21

Yu. G. Vinogradov & Rusyayeva 2001, 136–7, pl.1.16.3. Yu. G. Vinogradov & Rusyayeva 2001, 141 n.14; Rusyayeva 2001, 86. Skudnova 1988.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 101

RELIGIOUS INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OLBIA AND SCYTHIA 101

interesting to observe that dishes of the same type were used at the same time in the burial ritual of the elite or of rich female burials in the wooded steppe of Scythia, as too were similar dishes on the broad territory inhabited by nomads, including Saurometae and Sacae.22 Both in Olbia and in the wooded steppe some of these dishes bear traces of ochre and sulphur, which has been taken to show them to be tables for domestic purposes, perhaps used for female adornment. But that kind of interpretation does not fit well with the relative rarity of these objects, nor with their form and material. It seems more likely that they had a ritual purpose, perhaps linked with the cult of fertility, child-bearing, and ritual cleansing. This burial practice common to the women of the Olbian elite and of the wooded steppe may be indicative. A specific connection is to be found here by a broad and intensive study of the objects and related evidence. However, for the time being, we can say on a priori grounds that there existed between Olbia (as earlier Berezan) and the inhabitants of the wooded steppe a relationship which extended well beyond trade alone.23 The transfer of a burial element, embodied in the stone dishes, may have come about through the colonists’ marriages to daughters of the elite of the wooded steppe, who (by virtue of their nobility and wealth) retained a special position among the women of Olbia. Further, to judge from the other elements of these burials at Olbia, these women from the wooded steppe were sufficiently influenced by their husbands and new context in the city to take up Greek deities, in particular Demeter and the Mother of the Gods, as well as something of a Greek religious outlook. No doubt in the enclosed family circle the process of Hellenization proceeded quickly. Accordingly, when these women from the wooded steppe died out, so too did the practice of depositing stone dishes in burials. In addition, Herodotus offers a famous account of the wooden city of Gelonos, with its celebration of Greek-style religion, including a regular festival for Dionysus. The Hellenic practices are explained as the result of Greek settlement in the interior from emporia of the south, so that the language of the Geloni is a mixture of Greek and the Scythian language of the Budini among whom the Greeks came to settle (4.108). In my view, this process of settlement can be dated to around 600–550 BC, when the Greeks tried to establish a more extensive trade with the local population or simply to make new lives amongst them. Under the impact of some extraordinary circumstances (e.g. raids by nomads) Greeks had not only 22 23

See further Bessonova 1991, 92–3; Rusyayeva 1992, 178–9. See further Rusyayeva 1999, 84–97.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

06 Rusyayeva 1525

28/9/07

12:30

Page 102

102

A. S. Rusyayeva

to abandon their emporia but also to move to more secure locations. In the ancient literary tradition, this is a unique indication of the preservation of various elements of Greek culture and religion in the midst of non-Greeks. However, despite the fact that some archaeologists insist on the identification of Gelonos with the site at Bel’sk,24 there is a lack of substantial and convincing evidence for the view. Be that as it may, at Bel’sk and at other sites of the wooded steppe of Scythia, there have been found many and various remains linked with ritual and sacred activity. Remnants of clay altars, sacral pits, archaic handmade figurines, and a range of votive offerings find parallels in the sanctuaries of Greek deities of the region of Olbia.25 Such parallels serve, without question, to connect the two areas and to show the interactions of the two societies in religion. In conclusion, our evidence shows, especially, Greek religious influence from Olbia upon the religious world of the non-Greeks. The solar associations of Apollo, together with his other roles (especially as an archer), were clearly suited to the outlooks of the Scythians, who could identify him with deities of their own. However, while we can make such an observation a priori, we must be clear that the great part of the Scythian population (as also the Thracian) stayed true to their own traditional cults and beliefs in their own lands. In so far as an interest arose among them in the deities of the Greek world, that interest was centred among the local elites. By contrast, in the absence of plausible evidence, there was no acceptance by the citizens of Olbia of any features at all of the religious practices and beliefs of the agriculturalist or nomadic Scythians, apart perhaps from the burials of women who had been brought from the north.

24 25

Shramko 1987. See further Rusyayeva 1999, 93–6 with bibliography.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 103

Trakhtemirov: A Fortified City site on the Dnieper YU. V. BOLTRIK & E. E. FIALKO

AMONG THE ANCIENT SETTLEMENTS of the Early Iron Age in the Ukraine the site at Trakhtemirov was one of the most important, occupying a central position in the wooded steppe. Trade routes and caravan paths met at Trakhtemirov which was located over three crossing points of the Dnieper. Its location on steep heights ensured the security of the settlement there: on three sides it was defended by the course of the Dnieper while on the other side it was protected by the plateau of the pre-Dnieper elevation, which was difficult ground with deep ravines as it passed Trakhtemirov. The city site itself was located some 100 km below Kiev, on hills of a promontory which jutted into the river from the west, in what is now Cherkassk region, between the modern villages of Trakhtemirov and Lukovitsa.

The context of Trakhtemirov In the Early Iron Age there was an agglomeration of proto-towns along both banks of the river Dnieper in its middle course. Trakhtemirov was located at the centre of this agglomeration, which included fortified settlements on the west of the river: Grigorovskoye, Buchatskoye, Bobrinetskoye (both: the name is given to two sites), Kanevskoye (all three), and two close to Pishchal’niki. Meanwhile, the portion of this agglomeration on the east bank of the river was defended by the huge earthworks of the city site at Karatul’skoye. This portion was largely made up of smallish settlements: Divichki, Stovpyagi, Komarovka, Tsibli, Khotski, and Leplyava (Doludayev). The importance of the site at Trakhtemirov is indicated by the presence there of some fifty archaeological monuments and levels from Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 103–119. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

104

12:31

Page 104

Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko DNI

EPER

PereyaslavKhmelínitskiy

Small Ditches

Large Ditches

Lukovitsa Place of excavation in 2000

Figure 14.

Trakhtemirov: plan of site. Drawing Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko.

different periods from antiquity onwards. The traditional role of this location as an administrative and political centre continued until quite recent times: in 1637 this was the site of the Cossack capital of Ukraine. As for antiquity, the most prestigious artefacts of the Scythian period in the wooded steppe are concentrated within a radius of 20 km around Trakhtemirov: gold appliqués from Sinyavki, gold and bronze plate from Beresnyag, red-figure mixing bowls from Grishchentsy and Bobritsy, and the so-called krater of the ‘Kiev master’ from Lazurtsy, as well as the silver cups from Bukrina and Bobritsy. In addition, numerous chance finds of tools, weaponry, and jewellery discovered around Trakhtemirov further encourage the view that this was a central place among the scattered sites of the middle course of the Dnieper.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

nie s

ter

Ca

R

r

t pa

hi

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved R. B

P

P

an Olbia

ug

M

n ou

tai

ns

Trakhtemirov and the hinterland.

E

R. D

er niep

Kamenskoye

0

Sea of Azov

Melitopol

Panticapaeum

Oguz

Chmyrev Solokha

Aleksandropol Chertomlyk

Chersonesus

E

R. Dni e

r

Black Sea

T

Motronino Zhurovka Pastyrskoye

Zhabotin

pe

Tyras

S

Il’intsy

Smela Ryzhanovka

Tanais

n R. Do

200 km

12:31

anube R. D

Grigorovka

Nemirov

Belsk

N

28/9/07

Figure 15.

.D

S T E P P E D E D W O O Trakhtemirov

Khotovo

KIEV

07 Boltrik 1525 Page 105

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

106

Page 106

Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko

General information Located on the right bank of the Dnieper, Trakhtemirov occupied the northern end of a large, high promontory (some 12 ⫻ 7 km), washed by the river on three sides. The site itself takes the form of an irregular quadrilateral: from east to west it is 3.5 km in length, its width is 1.5 km in the east and 2.5 km in its centre. The overall area of the site occupies 630 hectares. On the side away from the river its limit is marked by an earthwork and a ditch in front of it: today the local inhabitants of the area call it Large Ditches. The acropolis now known as Small Ditches is located in the north-west portion of the site on its own hill which measures 340 ⫻ 450 m. On its western side it is protected by an earthwork and on its south by a ravine which contains a stream, while on its east there is a deep depression which is heavily wooded. On the north flows the Dnieper. The first known description of the site at Trakhtemirov dates from 1864 and is the work of Pokhilevich.1 Here we find a description of the site’s defensive installations and the attribution of the remains to the Scythian period. Accordingly Trakhtemirov is mentioned in the Archaeological Map of Kiev Province by Antonovich.2 In the twentieth century the defensive installations and the area of the site were examined by Rudynskiy, Passek, Terenozhkin, and Petrenko who established the depth of the cultural layer (0.5 m) in the inhabited area and dated it to the sixth century BC. Kovpanenko, a Kievan archaeologist, takes credit for the full-scale study of the site. The work which she directed continued from 1964 to 1968; she was able to excavate the north-western part of the site almost completely, revealing its acropolis. She established also that this acropolis was the most densely populated area of the site.3 In 2000 the archaeological investigations of the defensive installations at the site were conducted by Boltrik who excavated part of the ditch and the earthwork in the southern part of the site not far from the village of Lukovitsa.4

1 2 3 4

Pokhilevich 1864, 592. Antonovich 1895, 80. Kovpanenko 1972, 188. Boltrik and Fialko 2001.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 107

TRAKHTEMIROV: A FORTIFIED CITY SITE

107

Constructions at the site The eastern part of the acropolis is separated from the rest of the site by a stone wall (0.5 m wide) which passes along the edge of the hill reproducing its contour. On the acropolis were found the remains of forty dwellings and more than fifty structures for storage and other economic uses. These buildings were spread in groups along the edge of the hill, leaving the central part of the hill free from construction. Each cluster of buildings consisted of six to eight units which were situated 2–10 m apart, with two or three pits and an outside oven with its own pit. Between each group lay an open area, some 50–70 m in extent. It seems that each cluster belonged to a large family. There were several types of dwelling at Trakhtemirov: dugouts, semidugouts, and buildings above ground. However dugouts are by far the most common. Semi-dugouts and dugouts are here distinguished only by depth, semi-dugouts being some 0.3–0.6 m below the surface and dugouts some 0.8–1 m. In form they are much the same: they are usually oval, though some round and rectangular ones have been found. Their dimensions vary from 21 to 50 m2. Their entrances are located on their southern side. Meanwhile structures above ground vary in size from 45 to 230 m2, with walls of clay, stone, and other materials. Unlike the dugouts these contain remains of stone hearths. A special feature of Trakhtemirov is the use of buildings of large dimensions and the extensive use of stone in the building of a variety of structures. Not all buildings were connected with habitation; some were for production. In three semi-dugouts potters worked; in two were found potters’ clay and in one of these, in a corner, there was a special pit with red and white potters’ clay. On the floor of the third was found a large quantity of crushed handmade pottery. Another building complex was used for leather-working. This was a large four-roomed semi-dugout. Its walls were made of wood covered with wattle-and-daub and on the floor of the largest of its rooms was a substantial pit, probably used for processing hides. Here were found special tools for leather-working: bone polishers, a horn with a smoothed edge, and a mallet of deer horn. A building complex discovered in the south-west part of the acropolis had a cult function. This was a dugout, rectangular in shape, some 6.8 ⫻ 3 m in area, and with a depth of 0.8 m. Here were found remains of a round clay altar (diameter about 1.5 m with a central depression). The altar was decorated with spirals in relief. On the surface of the altar, which was covered with soot, were discovered an upturned dish

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

108

12:31

Page 108

Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko

and a painted Rhodian kylix of c.550–525 BC. On the floor by the wall were found two large handmade pots, a zoomorphic vessel in the shape of a bird, and some animal bones. Evidently this was the shrine perhaps of a kinship grouping, designated for ritual celebrations during which fire burnt on the altar and offerings were made. Sacrificial places like this5 have no local prototypes on the middle course of the Dnieper.6 Their appearance at key settlements of the region (Zhabotin, Trakhtemirov, and Western Bel’sk) at the beginning of the early Scythian period is connected with the arrival of population groups, very probably from northern Thrace.

The economy and material culture The inhabitants of Trakhtemirov like all the population of the wooded steppe region were agriculturalists, who engaged in farming and stockraising. It is difficult to say which aspect of this economy was most important to those who lived at Trakhtemirov since the natural conditions of the area were as advantageous for farming as they were for the raising of domestic livestock. The bones discovered at the site indicate that among the animals used for agricultural purposes the pig (Sus domesticus) was important, rather more so than the horse and bovines. Least important were sheep and goats. The pigs here were large in size; it is worth observing that more than half the skulls discovered belonged to young pigs. However, the pigs of Trakhtemirov were of the same kind as those found at other settlements of the wooded steppe in the Scythian period.7 Most horses at Trakhtemirov were of small or medium size, though extremes of large and small are also represented. These horses were used primarily for riding, though probably also could be put to secondary use as draft animals. Moreover their meat (especially that of young individuals) was also a food resource. However, the horses here show no significant differences to those found elsewhere in the wooded steppe except that, taken as a whole, their size tends to be a little smaller.8 Bovines at Trakhtemirov were a hornless species. Younger individuals were used for food. However, the bovines here differ from the norm else-

5 6 7 8

Type 1 in the classification of Andriyenko 1975, 20. Bessonova 1996. Tsalkin 1966, 39. Belan 1982, 55.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 109

TRAKHTEMIROV: A FORTIFIED CITY SITE

109

where in the wooded steppe in the Scythian period by the large percentage of young ones that have been identified. Sheep and goats evidently constituted only a small percentage of the domestic livestock; however, they seem to have been much the same as those found elsewhere in the wooded steppe in the Early Iron Age and indeed in the period of Kievan Rus. In estimating meat production at Trakhtemirov, based on the weight of available animals, we may consider that the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov made most use of bovines (37.8 per cent), rather less use of horses (33.7 per cent), pigs (24.4 per cent), and sheep and goats together (4.1 per cent).9 In addition, a large quantity of remains of domestic dogs were discovered at Trakhtemirov (thirty-six individuals). These were dogs of medium size. Possibly they were used not only for hunting and guarding but also for food and as sacrificial offerings.10 At the same time the large number of pigs among the animals at Trakhtemirov distinguishes it from other sites of the wooded steppe west of the Dnieper where bovines usually predominate almost to the exclusion of pigs. We should probably look for an explanation in the fact that Trakhtemirov was very suitable for pig-rearing: it had numerous valleys and oak woods which were rich in food for pigs. At Trakhtemirov, as was usual elsewhere across Europe at this date and especially in the wooded steppe by the Dnieper, farming meant of course arable. Here arable farming was traditional.11 Evidently oxen and horses served as draft animals while scythes were used for the grain harvest. On the city site have been found the remains of iron scythes and sickles. The harvested grain was stored in special pits which took various forms (cylindrical, pear-shaped, and sloped). In general these pits were narrower at the opening and broader in their deeper sections. It is estimated that wheat can be stored in pits like this for up to fifty years and millet for up to ten.12 Grain was subsequently processed with the help of millstones and small hand-mills. We learn of the range of cultivated plants used at Trakhtemirov from the impressions of grains found on the bases and sides of handmade pottery. Palaeobotanical studies have shown that a variety of wheat was grown (Triticum compactum) and a form of barley (Hordeum vulgare), as

9 10 11 12

Ibid., 63. Bessonova & Skoryy 2001, 113. Terenozhkin 1961, 175; Krasnov 1968, 6; Shramko 1961 & 1972. Bessonova & Skoryy 2001, 116.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

110

12:31

Page 110

Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko

well as peas (Pisum sativum), hemp (Cannabis sativa), and millet (Panicum miliaceum). Moreover millet was evidently sown on virgin lands, and in terms of quantity this was the most important cultivated crop. In the Scythian period millet was especially widely grown, not only in the wooded steppe but also in the steppe region of the north coast of the Black Sea.13 The popularity of millet is to be explained first by its tolerance to different conditions and its high productivity, and secondly by the fact that it was used not only as food for humans but also as fodder for livestock. Indeed, as fodder not only the grain was used but also the rest of the plant.14 Hunting must also be included in the economy of the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov in which it played a significant role. The main quarry was wild boar and deer. In addition the people of Trakhtemirov hunted a range of other animals including elk, fox, beaver, and hare. Hunting provided not only food but also skins for clothing and bones for carving. However, it is curious to note that, despite the position of Trakhtemirov on the bank of the Dnieper, no equipment at all for fishing (for example, hooks or harpoons) has been found, nor any fish bones. This is quite different from the situation at Matroninskoye city site which is situated on the river Tyasmin, where such items have been found. Craftwork and domestic production were important to the economic activity of the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov. Accordingly we find a wide range of tools and artefacts made of metal, bone, stone, and clay, as well as fragments of bone and horn which have been worked together with pottery, iron, and bronze wasters. Clearly metal was produced and fashioned at the site, which suggests production which was more than domestic. It is thought that bronze smelters of the wooded steppe communities (as also those in the steppe) worked with raw materials which were imported, since there are no sources of the necessary materials in these regions.15 Besides arrowheads the main finds of bronze artefacts at Trakhtemirov comprised jewellery: rings, bracelets, and an array of nail-shaped brooches with a characteristic and uniform decoration. Metal-working in iron was also practised at Trakhtemirov: for this ore was readily available. High quality steel was produced, which together with iron was very widely used. Of course metal scrap was also reused. In

13 14 15

Kovpanenko & Yanushevich 1975, 148; Lebedeva 2000, 96. Pashkevich 2000, 107. Kosikov 1994, 28.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 111

TRAKHTEMIROV: A FORTIFIED CITY SITE

111

producing their work local smiths forged iron freehand while it was hot.16 A comparative analysis of the iron artefacts found at different settlements discovered that the standard of production at Trakhtemirov was not so good as elsewhere.17 The most important form of domestic production was pottery. Various clays were used, including red and white as we have seen. Local potters produced their wares by hand without using a wheel. The bulk of their production consisted of cooking pots (dishes and pots decorated in relief) and table ware (cups and other vessels with incised decoration). In addition they also made votive miniatures in the form of small vessels (often zoomorphic) which served cult purposes, as well as shuttles, loom weights, and bobbins. Moreover, the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov also worked in wood, bone, stone, and leather as well as in the production of textiles. Weaving in particular seems to have been important in every family unit there, for there are a great number of loom weights. Trade was encouraged by the advantageous geographical position of Trakhtemirov and the substantial production observable there. Barter was probably the main form of exchange, for no Greek coins have been found at the site. Indeed, we should hardly expect coins since these were only recently employed in the Greek cities of Asia Minor. Although it is true that coins were used on the north-west coast of the Black Sea as early as the sixth century BC it was much later that coins entered general usage in the hinterland.18 Trade at Trakhtemirov presumably included the purchase of horses from the steppe, since horses were important on the site as we have seen. That implies exchange with the pastoralists, whether Scythians or others. Meanwhile, trade with the Greek communities of the north coast of the Black Sea is indicated by the discovery of imported Greek pottery, painted jugs, and a kylix of Rhodian-Ionian production together with Ionian and Lesbian amphorae. The amphorae no doubt contained wine and oil. Meanwhile, some of the glass beads found at Trakhtemirov are also to be considered as probably of Greek origin. It has been suggested that in exchange the wooded steppe exported to the Greek colonies livestock, leather, wax, and honey.19 That may be true for the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov, though we have no hard information on the matter.

16 17 18 19

Voznesenskaya & Nedopako 1978. Nedopako 1999. Karyshkovskiy 1988, 32–4. Grakov 1971, 53; Shramko 1987, 121.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

112

12:31

Page 112

Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko

The system of defence The permanent threat of attack from the steppe in the Scythian period encouraged the inhabitants of the wooded steppe to employ various systems of defence. The most effective at this time were extended lines of earth embankments with ditches in front of them. At Trakhtemirov such an earthwork was well suited to the relief of the site. It passed along the tops of the slopes of ravines and depressions, filling gaps in the natural defences. Its height in various places reached 3–8 m with a width at its base of 12–15 m. Externally the embankment was reinforced by a ditch which sank to a depth of 5 m from the modern surface. The length of the defensive line visible today is some 6.5 km. The settlement also had additional internal fortifications which abutted the external earthwork. The acropolis was separate from the rest of the site. On the west it touched the outer edge of the settlement; on the east along the edge of the hill was built an additional wall of which a section has been excavated some 160 m in length; it consisted of stone and was up to 0.6 m wide at its base and about 0.2 m high. Presumably the wall incorporated an upper section, consisting of wood and making it still higher. Dwellings and other structures were built against it on the inside of the wall. A further earthwork divided the internal territory of the site. This passed in a southerly direction. It bounded almost a third of the site from the west and in that way provided additional defence for the acropolis. The length of this earthwork when complete is thought to have been about 1.5 km, though erosion has destroyed it by and large. The external earthwork contained wood as well as soil and was constructed in three periods. First the construction site was cleared with fire and provisionally set out. The ditch was dug and provided material for the earthwork mound. This method was widely used by the Scythian population of the wooded steppe. Next a ditch was dug (0.3–0.4 m wide and approximately 1 m deep) at a distance of about a metre from the outer edge of the mound. The soil from this ditch was added to the initial soil from the ditch on the other side of the mound. Wooden timbers were driven into the ditch to support the construction, spaced around 1 m apart. The gap between these vertical timbers was filled by thin sticks and branches woven together. This was the method used also for the defences of other such early Scythian sites including, for example, Kamenskoye, Lyubotynskoye, and Western Bel’sk.20 In 20

Moruzhenko 1975, fig. 4; Shramko 1975, 106.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 113

TRAKHTEMIROV: A FORTIFIED CITY SITE

113

consequence the first construction phase created an external defensive structure which consisted of a small earthwork of approximately 3–5 m in breadth and 1–1.2 m in height with a defensive wall in front of it. The height of the earthwork, when the ditch is included, was about 2 m. The wooden reinforcement rose to about the same height. At this stage the site did not yet have a proper defensive trench. An excellent example of such defensive installations (the only one from the fortified structures of thewooded steppe settlements) is the unique corridor, about 1 m wide, which was left between the wooden wall and the earthwork mound. It seems to have been used by the defenders to mount sudden forays against enemies. This arrangement lasted for a long time, during which the defences were improved and maintained. Subsequently the wooden structure was destroyed by fire. No doubt this fire occurred during an attack, for the earthwork was then made more substantial and further strengthened by a deep trench. This was the second construction phase, during which a trench was incorporated into the defensive installations. The trench was located about 2 m from the foot of the initial earthwork. It was 10–12 m wide at the top with a flat bottom, some 5.2 m below the base of the earthwork and some 1.7 m wide. The trench had a complex configuration: its outer slope was steeper especially towards the bottom. Its inner slope had a gentler gradient and a ledge up to 1.8 m wide at a depth of 1.5 m from the top of the trench. On the ledge there was a defensive wooden structure located in a narrow depression some 15 cm deep. At the same time as the development of the trench, the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov also built up further the earthwork mound using the clay they had dug out. The height of the mound now reached 5 m from the surface level of antiquity and was 8–10 m wide towards the bottom. Taken together the height of the defensive line viewed from outside the settlement reached 10 m, from the bottom of the trench to the top of the earthwork. After the passage of an unspecified period the base of the trench filled up to a height of about 1 m and the wooden defences on the ledge of the trench were destroyed by fire. Thereafter came the third construction phase, which might better be called the ‘reconstruction phase’. The trench was cleared and dug out to a depth of some 3.6 m; the soil was heaped up on top of the earthwork mound, which was also built up further with soil taken from the inside of the structure. The most vulnerable parts of the mound near the southern entrance were strengthened further with the inclusion of small stones. The use of stones in this

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

114

Page 114

Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko

way was familiar elsewhere on sites of the wooded steppe in the Scythian period.21 Unfortunately we are in no position to be precise about the chronology of the series of attacks which mark these construction phases. The relatively brief period in which the site was in use (from the second half of the seventh century to the end of the sixth) makes such dating still more difficult. Over this century and more there were no significant changes at the site which might be reflected in its material culture. As for the first construction phase, there are almost no artefacts in the earthwork mound. It may be that settlers at the site established the defensive line as soon as they reached Trakhtemirov. However, the second construction phase, during which a proper trench was dug and the mound enhanced, also lacked significant finds. As for the final construction phase we can say that it probably occurred about 585 to 575 BC. The date derives from artefacts discovered in the bottom of the trench together with arrowheads. Evidently there were at least three entrances to the site. The western gate led directly to the acropolis. The southern linked the settlement with the plateau in front of the Dnieper and the Zarubskiy ford. The eastern gate by the Large Ditches seems to have been located to the south-east of Markovaya hill. In the western section of the outer part of the earthwork mound by Small Ditches were discovered the remains of a complex construction: this consisted of burnt wooden blocks and two rectangular stones (2 ⫻ 1.5 m and 3 ⫻ 3 m respectively). Kovpanenko suggested that these were the remains of the bases of two wooden storage facilities

Figure 16. Reconstruction of the first phase (above) and second phase (below) of defences at Trakhtemirov. Drawing Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko. 21

Shramko 1975, 94.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 115

TRAKHTEMIROV: A FORTIFIED CITY SITE

115

linked with an entrance to the site.22 Possibly we have here the remains of a tower over the western gate. The gap between the two rectangular stones is approximately 2 m: it might be argued that this was the width of the passage through the gate. That kind of width seems plausible enough when we consider that this route led directly to the acropolis and that such a size would accommodate a wagon. No evidence is available so far to permit any reconstruction of the southern gate, but its probable location near the eastern sector excavated in 2000 is suggested by several considerations. First, it is at this spot that the corridor in the defensive installations of the first construction phase has its end. Secondly, it is also precisely here that the ledge in the trench of the second phase also comes to an end while the wooden fence also finishes here. Thirdly, 1.5 m to the east of the end of the ledge has been found a trough-like gulley (some 2 m wide at the bottom and 2.9 m at the top), the remnant of an ancient track. Fourthly, large stones have been found here reinforcing the slopes of the earthwork at vulnerable places. And finally, a great number of arrowheads, some showing signs of fire, may indicate that a point of attack was precisely here at the probable gate. It may be that over the gate stood a wooden tower which was burnt down in the fire whose effects are visible on the arrowheads. We do not have a great deal of information about the construction and design of gateways in the settlement sites elsewhere in the wooded steppe. However, in Eastern Bel’sk were found the remains of a gate tower with an entrance of 7.3–8.0 m. The lower part of the tower was strengthened with bricks which protected the wooden wall from damage by passing wagons. The eastern gate at Lyubotin had an opening which was 6.5 m wide and beside it a wicket gate some 3 m in width.23 It is worth noting that across the Dnieper opposite Trakhtemirov in the town of Pereyaslav-Russkiy (now Pereyaslav-Khmel’nitskiy, known from the tenth century), towers stood on earthworks at the town’s three gates.24 The same schema may well have applied also at Trakhtemirov. However, be that as it may, we know enough about Trakhtemirov itself to draw the following broad picture. By the middle of the seventh century BC settlements to the south of Trakhtemirov were brought to an end by fire which seems to have been the result of attack by pastoralists. In the wooded steppe proper, as the early 22 23 24

Kovpanenko 1968, 18–19. Shramko 1987, 28; 1998, 19. Sikorskiy and Shvidkiy 1983, 35.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

116

Page 116

Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko

Scythian period begins to the south, large settlements appear. The first act of those who inhabited these settlements was the construction of a line of defensive structures. These defences are sufficiently similar to those at sites abandoned further south to allow the possibility that their populations had come from the south to establish new homes further north. They brought with them experience and possibly also new knowledge gained from their mistakes, which may explain the creation of larger earthworks and a greater concern to ensure water supply in the event of siege. A certain similarity between the bronze and iron tools used in the north and south may be worth noting.25 The defensive structures of the first construction phase in most sites of the early Scythian period are marked by their small dimensions and the incorporation of wooden constructions. In essence, they were all destroyed by attacks and fire. The second phase shows a marked increase in the scale of defences. Where wooden constructions (largely fences) were renewed, they were made much more substantial. There followed a process of destruction and reconstruction in greater strength and scale. That process in itself gives an impression of the constant threat under which these communities existed, though we must also observe that the long period over which this process unfolded also included at least enough peace to enable the constructions to be completed.

Dating the site The chronological frame for Trakhtemirov itself can be traced with reasonable precision. The settlement began in the second half of the seventh century, and it came to an end around 500 BC, when its inhabitants left, evidently taking with them most of their valuable possessions.26 Particular finds allow some closer dating within that frame. Typical arrowheads of the early Scythian period were found, including a single instance of the earliest type (with double-lobed blade) which can be dated no later than the beginning of the sixth century BC. The rest of the finds here fall in the period 650–550, including an iron dagger dated c.600–575. Of particular value also is the oenochoe seen in Figure 17, which was made around the 580s. The oenochoe in particular establishes a dating (especially a terminus post quem) for the earthworks near the southern gate. 25 26

Terenozhkin 1961, esp. 118–32. Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 14, 142.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 117

TRAKHTEMIROV: A FORTIFIED CITY SITE

117

Figure 17. Oenochoe from Trakhtemirov, made around 580 BC. Photo. Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko.

Meanwhile, archaeological evidence of attack is clear enough not only in Trakhtemirov itself, but also in the approaches to the settlement. We have observed, for example, the finds from the base of the outer slope of the mound by the southern gate: the iron dagger, three pieces of iron armour, and sixty-seven arrowheads. The deformation of many of these arrowheads confirms their use and indicates that they struck a hard surface, evidently stones in the earthworks. These finds suggest a date around 575 for the attack. There are further traces of attack on the acropolis itself, including dozens of arrowheads and an iron axe, discovered during Kovpanenko’s excavations. The axe is far finer than any other such object at the site, except for the dagger, which encourages the belief that it was left by an attacker from outside. Further, in 1898 four bronze arrowheads were found by chance at Trakhtemirov, as well as an archaic iron spear, now kept in the Brandenburg collection of the Hermitage.27 On the acropolis itself was found also a collective burial by dwelling no. 30. Deposited in this burial were nine skeletons of adults and children. The skeletons were broken and the bones arranged to fit around the base of a round pit. We are inclined to see these bodies as the victims of Scythian attack. Be that 27

Galanina 1977, 58–9.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 118

Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko

118

Figure 18.

Iron dagger from Trakhtemirov. Photo. Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko.

as it may, the sheer scale of attack is indicated also by the discovery of some fifty arrowheads at Trakhtemirov and a further twenty-two at villages close around it. At the same time the coexistence in the same level of two types of arrow (two-lobed and three-lobed) has been taken to show the use of two kinds of bow: a simple longer bow and a short complex bow seem to have been in use together.28

28

Shramko 2002, 163, 166.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 119

TRAKHTEMIROV: A FORTIFIED CITY SITE

119

Figure 19. Above Arrowheads found in and around Trakhtemirov. Below The collective burial at dwelling no. 30. Drawings Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko.

Attacks on Trakhtemirov evidently came from the direction of the Zarubskiy ford, located about one hour’s march from the southern gate of the settlement. To reach the ford itself, Scythians had to overcome strongpoints on the east bank of the Dnieper: it is no surprise then to find archaic arrowheads lodged in their earthworks.29 If Scythian conquest of the steppe region to the south had driven its settled populations to move north and establish much larger fortified sites as their new homes, then it seems that the Scythians came after them, with a particularly destructive onslaught in the first half of the sixth century BC. It was as part of this larger tendency that Trakhtemirov was created, lived, and eventually died.

29

Rybakov 1949, 22; Fialko 1994, 13, 43–4.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

07 Boltrik 1525

28/9/07

12:31

Page 120

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

12:32

Page 121

Olbian–Scythian Trade: Exchange Issues in the Sixth to Fourth Centuries BC N. A. LEYPUNSKAYA

TRADE BETWEEN THE GREEK AND SCYTHIAN worlds on the north coast of the Black Sea has attracted substantial scholarly attention over many years. The topic tends to be treated under disparate heads for example, the date of the first contacts and their periodization thereafter on the routes by which Greek goods were distributed, with or without particular focus on specific production centres, as well as the character, scale, and terminology of economic interactions between the Greek and Scythian worlds at various stages of their history, and much else besides. However, among all these studies, and particularly with regard to Olbian–Scythian exchange, work on trade routes predominates and is particularly concerned to establish the scale of trade, in so far as our evidence permits.1 By and large, these studies are directed towards the larger issue of the significance for Scythian society of exchange with Greek cities. Much less attention has been devoted to the significance of such exchange for the Greek cities, notably for Olbia. Meanwhile only a very little work has been devoted to the change of such significance for Olbia across time. However, new evidence and especially the reinterpretation of the data, together with the review of some cherished viewpoints, demand a fresh look at Olbian–Scythian relationships, not least their beginnings and the subsequent stages of their development. The present chapter is designed to satisfy these demands with regard to economic exchanges. The early period of the penetration of Greek goods into the Black Sea steppe and wooded steppe is from the seventh to the beginning of the sixth century BC. From this period we have a fairly limited quantity of items, which come from Nemirov region (southern Bug), and the wooded steppe regions of Kiev-Cherkassk, Vorskla, Posul’skiy, and northern 1

Grakov 1947; Bondar 1955; Onayko 1966; 1970; Ostroverkhov 1978b; 1981b; Boltrik 2000.

Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 121–133. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

122

28/9/07

12:32

Page 122

N. A. Leypunskaya

Donetsk, as well as from the Crimean steppe.2 Single items give the earliest date, 675–650 BC,3 while a few more give 650–600 BC.4 For the seventh century it is evidently premature to talk in terms of Olbian–Scythian trade. These few finds can hardly be taken to indicate established classical– barbarian relationships: at most they are indications of ‘exploratory’ activities of individual traders and occasional happenstance. The Greek cities of the north Black Sea at this time did not yet constitute selfstanding economic units; in large part they did not exist at all. On the lower Bug and its environs we can talk rather of a settlement on the island of Berezan, which played a definite part in the penetration of early Greek pottery to different parts of the region, in the broadest sense of the term. In that regard we should note Domanskiy’s conception of the existence, indeed already in the sixth century, of a trade route from Berezan up the lower Bug as far as the region of Nemirov:5 clearly, such a route could be taken still earlier. Even in the period c.600–550 we cannot really talk about Greek– Scythian trade in terms of a substantial exchange of goods, although for that period we have a more significant amount of East Greek fineware, as well as amphorae, found in the regions already identified as places to which small quantities had penetrated in the previous century.6 However, there is a quite different viewpoint which is not to be passed by in silence. For some believe that the Greek communities traded with the Scythians not only as entrepôts for goods produced in the Aegean world but also as production centres which dealt in their own locally made artefacts by c.550. Of prime importance here is the production of metalware and glassware at Yagorlyk, where the workshops do indeed date to c.600–550.7 Not that there is complete consistency in dating among scholars. For instance, Ostroverkhov, writing about only a single workshop, dates it to c.550–5258 and the whole settlement simply to the sixth century.9 On that view, therefore, a Greek–Scythian market (i.e. an Olbian–Scythian market)

2 Vakhtina 1996, 86; Onayko 1970, 56–66; Radziyevskaya 1985; Bandurovskiy & Buynov 2000, 50–1. 3 Vakhtina 1996, 86; Shramko 1987, 125. 4 Onayko 1966, 38, 56ff.; Vakhtina 1996, 87ff.; Shramko 1987, 125; Radziyevskaya 1985, 257; Korpusova 1980, 101–3. 5 Domanskiy 1970. 6 Onayko 1966; Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 60. 7 Rudan 1980, 106; Ostroverkhov 1978b; Gavrilyuk 1999, 264. 8 Ostroverkhov 1978b, 10. 9 Ostroverkhov 1981a, 26.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

12:32

Page 123

OLBIAN –SCYTHIAN TRADE

123

was already in place by 550, founded upon these products.10 However, two considerations seem to have been neglected in all this. First, the amount of output which could have been achieved by the Yagorlyk workshops, which were seasonal,11 could hardly have been enough to have had an impact not only on the settlements in their immediate vicinity but also on exchange with the pastoralists. Although it is proposed that the settlement at Yagorlyk occupied some 1500 ⫻ 400 m,12 that is in fact the area from which all finds were gathered, which is not at all the same thing. As for the quantity of workshops, then we can only be sure of one.13 Even if there were several more, then the seasonal nature of their activities is hardly consistent with significant amounts of production, such as would suffice for an extensive trade with areas of Scythia. Clearly, we shall only make certain progress in these matters through further study of the site and concomitant statistical data. Secondly, local production on the lower Bug in this period was directed to another purpose, the fundamental needs of the developing Olbian economy.14 Of course, that is not to exclude the possible exchange of part of the production of Yagorlyk’s workshops with the Scythian world. But at the same time we should not imagine that all that production was destined for the Scythian market. Accordingly, it remains premature to suppose that Olbian–Scythian exchange was already well developed by the middle of the sixth century. Towards 550–525 the community at Olbia, which had already been functioning for some time, took a substantial further step in its development, as a civic core surrounded by an economic and religious microregion for which it was the principal focus.15 But, for all that, Olbia’s economic relations with the Scythian world were still conducted on the basis of a limited quantity of exchanged goods: in this Olbia was an entrepôt and this exchange had no overwhelming importance for the Olbians, or indeed the Scythian economy. The goods traded to the Scythians were largely imported from the Aegean world as valuable rarities for the population of the Black Sea — fine tablewares, metalware, fine weaponry, mirrors, jewellery, and wine in amphorae.16 Unfortunately 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Gavrilyuk 1999, 264. Marchenko 1980, 135. Ostroverkhov 1978b, 9. Ostroverkhov 1978c, 27–8. Leypunskaya 1979; 1991. Kryzhitskiy & Otreshko 1986, 12; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 347. Onayko 1966; Vakhtina 1984, 9; Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 75–101; Gavrilyuk 1999, 263–4.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

124

28/9/07

12:32

Page 124

N. A. Leypunskaya

Scythian specialists tend to vagueness on items of 550–500 BC, preferring to date a whole group to ‘sixth–fifth centuries BC’, all in small quantities. For 550–500 the goods imported into Scythia can be counted in some hundreds in the wooded steppe on the west bank of the Dnieper,17 while on the east bank items are numbered in their tens;18 in the steppe itself there are fewer: Gavrilyuk suggests thirty-three Greek finds in the steppe in this period.19 Despite the fact that amphorae and other items are found both on the steppe and in the wooded steppe, nevertheless for the sixth century we cannot suppose much more than the beginnings of trade between Greeks and Scythians — principally in wine but also in other goods, probably including salt. Some scholars used to imagine also a grain trade at this time, especially with the inhabitants of the wooded steppe,20 but the revisionist work of Shcheglov21 convincingly shows that this is to misapply a situation of a later period (on which more below); to extrapolate for the later sixth century circumstances which did not pre-date Herodotus is unwarranted. Towards the end of the sixth century there was significant change. There was substantial movement among the Scythians, on the steppe and in the wooded steppe: ‘North Pontic Scythia’ took shape as a state formation, embracing different ethno-cultural groupings under the leadership of pastoralists.22 However, this was still not the powerful entity familiar in later archaeology. At the same time, also towards c.500, Greek communities of the region (especially Olbia) were also better developed in their organization, though much was yet to come. Accordingly, from c.500, relations between the Scythian and Greek worlds also became more organized, with both Greek and Scythian communities taking a significant interest in the exchange. The pastoralists were certainly eager for imported goods. Since nomads were already by c.500 exploiting the economic potential of the steppe regions, they could offer to Greek communities the products of their herds in exchange for the goods they sought.23 This was not only a peaceful relationship but a fast-developing, dynamic one. Even so these 17

Kovpanenko et al. 1989. Onayko 1966; Il’inskaya 1968, 165; Bandurovskiy & Buynov 2000, 50–2. 19 Gavrilyuk 1999, 263. 20 Blavatskiy 1953, 9; Slavin 1959, 93; Brashinskiy 1963, 27; Rybakov 1979, 138; Ostroverkhov 1980, 34; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1983, 383. 21 Shcheglov 1990, 99–102. 22 Murzin 1984; Murzin & Toshchev 2002, 33. 23 Gavrilyuk 1999, 287–98. 18

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

12:32

Page 125

OLBIAN –SCYTHIAN TRADE

125

general changes in Greek–Scythian relations are not well marked in the archaeology of the lower Bug region in particular. They become clearer a little later, by c.470, when the local situation changed markedly: it was at this time that the Olbian chora was reduced in size.24 This is not the place to consider the much-discussed causes of that reaction and the hypothesis of a ‘Scythian protectorate’.25 It will suffice to observe that this change was more than simply the consequence of pastoralist pressure. Be that as it may, the loss of civic territory no doubt left the people of Olbia in need of additional sources of food and raw materials. At the same time, the Scythians retained their desire for imported Greek goods, especially in view of their inability to use kilns or to hope to produce wine. It is at this stage that we find a sharp rise in the scale of exchange and the geographical extent of dealings with Scythians. Consequently, Greek–Scythian trade becomes so busy that from the first half of the fifth century we can regard it as a key factor in the subsequent economic development of Olbia, albeit still not the main factor, which continued to be its agricultural base. Meanwhile, we must observe that the goods exchanged in the fifth and fourth centuries were far more varied than scholars used to suppose, when the sole emphasis was placed on grain, grown in the wooded steppe and sold to Olbia by pastoralist intermediaries. Indeed, it was further imagined that Olbian merchants sold on this grain into the Aegean world.26 However, as we have noted, Shcheglov’s revisionist study of Herodotus and recent archaeology, taking into account the specifics of the pastoral economy, lead to the firm conclusion that the pastoralists traded for imported goods not in grain but in the produce of their herds, hunting, and probably slaves.27 For to trade in grain — even as intermediaries—was alien to pastoral society and economy. Moreover, the settlement sites of the wooded steppe show no trace of wholegrain wheat, such as was specially suited to storage and export.28 Accordingly, the notion of a busy trade in grain from the north into Olbia lacks a basis in the evidence. Of course, that is not to say (especially in view of the reduced chora) that Olbia received no grain at all from the wooded steppe region,

24

Leypunskaya 1981a, 154. See now Kryzhitskiy 2005. 26 Blavatskiy 1953, 9; Slavin 1959, 98; Artamonov 1974, 108; Ostroverkhov 1980, 34; Shelov 1975, 42, 65, Vinogradov 1983, 383; Yaylenko 1983, 141, 146, and passim. 27 Pletneva 1982; Vakhtina 1984; Gavrilyuk 1999, 267–9. 28 Yanushevich 1986; Pashkevich & Geyko 1998, 40. 25

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

126

28/9/07

12:32

Page 126

N. A. Leypunskaya

but such as was obtained from there was most probably consumed locally in Olbia itself, when grain was in short supply. It is possible that locally made Olbian bronzework played a particular role in the city’s exchange with the Scythian world. Many scholars have supposed that Scythians even placed orders in Olbia for particular items.29 A variety of artefacts are at issue, but especially mirrors of the socalled ‘Olbian type’ and cruciform bridle decorations. These have often been considered not only for their origins but also to establish the extent of their distribution. However, the issue of origin cannot be regarded as settled: while some scholars consider them to be Olbian,30 others take them to have been made by Scythians on the west bank of the Dnieper in the wooded steppe, particularly in the Carpathian–Danubian area, Transylvania, and Pannonia.31 In any event, their production can scarcely be dated earlier than c.550 BC. So far the earliest mirrors discovered are dated 550–525 by their context in semi-dugout dwellings on Berezan.32 Meanwhile, the most notable developments in Olbian bronzeworking are located no earlier that c.500.33 It is believed that such mirrors ceased to circulate among Scythians around 500,34 while from c.450–400 Olbian artefacts with some sign of the Scythian animal style become isolated and rare discoveries.35 We may conclude that the production of bronze mirrors and other bronzework with animal style was short lived and began no earlier than the very end of the sixth century, most probably c.500 until perhaps c.470. It seems that part of this bronzework was destined for trade with Scythians, who might welcome animal-style designs. Grakov long since posited a trade route from Olbia to the east on the basis of Herodotus and the distribution pattern of so-called ‘Olbian’ mirrors.36 It is true that Grakov notes the absence from Herodotus’ text of indications that Olbia’s relations with Scythians were particularly commercial.37 However, there is scholarly unanimity that there was such a 29

Prushevskaya 1955, 330; Skrzhinskaya 1984, 121. Pharmakovskiy 1914; Grakov 1947; Prushevskaya 1955; Bondar 1959; Phurmanskaya 1963; Skrzhinskaya 1984; Ostroverkhov 1996, 94. 31 Skudnova 1962; 1988; Bartseva 1981; Ol’govskiy 1981, 75; 1982, 13; 1992; 1995; Skoryy 1985; Polidovich 2000. 32 Skrzhinskaya 1984, 123–7. 33 Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 61–9. 34 Skrzhinskaya 1984, 122. 35 Kaposhina 1956, 187: in the half century since this work was published the archaeological picture has not changed in this regard. 36 Grakov 1947, 32. 37 Ibid., 25 30

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

12:32

Page 127

OLBIAN –SCYTHIAN TRADE

Figure 20.

127

A bronze mirror of the so-called ‘Olbian type’.

route and that it was a trade route, or caravan route. This passed from Olbia across the Don along the Volga by the southern foothills of the Urals as far as Orsk. And from this principal route branched other routes, to north and south.38 It was known to Greeks even before colonization, from 700 BC or so, as is indicated by the mention of particular peoples, especially the Issedones, dwelling east of the Urals.39 Moreover, archaeology shows that this route had functioned still earlier.40 Grakov took the view that it remained important into the fourth century BC,41 while finds 38 39 40 41

Ibid., 36. Ibid., 36. Chlenova 1983. Grakov 1947, 37.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

128

28/9/07

12:32

Page 128

N. A. Leypunskaya

of Olbian coins along the Volga42 may indicate that it thrived still later, possibly serving not only commercial but also ideological purposes.43 Be that as it may, the very existence of this route is substantial testimony to the external trading activities of the population of Olbia in the fifth century, though of course we should in no way assume that the Olbian merchants penetrated into these far-distant regions. It is entirely possible that bronze mirrors, for example (or paterae, as they have also been taken to be),44 and cruciform bridle decorations were special and valuable enough to be passed from one people to the next on the route eastwards. As for the Olbian economy itself, many scholars believe that the fifth century saw it develop into one centred entirely on the mediation of trade instead of agriculture, as a consequence of Scythian expansion. Marchenko has written of a deliberate elimination by the Schythian elite of the Olbian periphery in order to assure Scythian monopoly in grain trade.45 Vinogradov claimed that the Olbian economy of the fifth century underwent a change of focus from agriculture and stock-raising to transit trade in goods received from Scythians and passed on to the Aegean world and also to craft production.46 However, both these views underestimate the scale and potential for agriculture and stock-raising in the civic territory which Olbia retained,47 while they also overestimate the role of the market as a separate concern or force in Scythian exchange. It was important to Scythians to obtain by whatever means the goods bought by Greeks, for a range of reasons and purposes (luxuries, wine, weaponry, etc.), but they were not concerned to sell goods of their own in order to amass resources. Scythian trade is not a clear mark of importance of profit in pastoralist society, but played a secondary role in the process of their exchange. Moreover, as noted above, the importance accorded to grain in this model is simply not convincing. Instead attention should be centred upon the goods which clearly did come from the Scythians: beyond pastoral products, mineral resources and slaves.48 However, this exchange notwithstanding, the economy of Olbia continued through the fifth century to be based upon agriculture.

42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Shelov 1969, 296–9. Kuznetsova 1990, 90–2 wonders about the conveyance of religious objects. See ibid. Marchenko 1980, 142. Vinogradov 1983, 403; 1989, 107. Kryzhinskiy & Shcheglov 1991. Gavrilyuk 1999, 266–78.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

12:32

Page 129

OLBIAN –SCYTHIAN TRADE

129

During both the fifth and fourth centuries Olbia’s economic relations continued to entail both pastoralist and settled peoples of the steppe and wooded steppe. However, in the course of these years there was important change in relationships between these peoples and the Greek cities, not least Olbia. First, with regard to Greek trade with the wooded steppe in the fifth century, objects from the Greek world are now found on both sides of the Dnieper, in settlements and burials, and in substantially greater quantities. However, most of these were discovered a century or so ago,49 with some recent additions50 which have not affected the larger picture in any radical sense. Archaeology here gives the impression that in the fifth century agricultural settlements of the wooded steppe were almost always (albeit in small quantities) kept supplied with wine and finewares. This is especially marked for the first half of the fifth century as, for example, at Bel’sk where the quantity of imported wares rises at that time,51 including banded Ionian ware, amphorae from Samos, Chios, Lesbos, and elsewhere, as well as fine Attic pottery. Contemporary burials show the same broad situation, though the range of artefacts is more extensive, as might be expected, including metalware, jewellery, decorated weaponry, and so on, with some precious metal, bronze artefacts, and mirrors.52 These are luxury goods, often unique items, as is entirely commensurate with their significance. This is not the place to repeat detailed descriptions of particular items, but it is worth stressing the general point that goods of high quality and high value penetrated into the wooded steppe, perhaps even specifically intended for deposition in burials. However, scholars have drawn attention to variation in quantity and quality among the finds from different locations in the wooded steppe. Accordingly, it is usually considered that the Kiev-Cherkassk group on the west of the Dnieper received a larger number of imported objects than the Vorskla area on the other side of the river. In this context the region of Kievshina requires particular attention, for there were so many imported objects here that scholars can even write of ‘mass imports’,53 though that is surely an overstatement of the reality, for, even including the most recent discoveries, the number of artefacts involved is quite limited.54 The Greek pottery even on settlement sites, where one might have 49 50 51 52 53 54

Onayko 1966; 1970. Il’inskaya 1968; 1975; Shramko 1987; Kovpanenko et al. 1989; Bandurovskiy & Buynov 2000. Shramko 1987, 126, 179. Onayko 1966; Il’inskaya 1968; Kovpanenko et al. 1989. Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1986, 105. Kovpanenka et al. 1989.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

130

12:32

Page 130

N. A. Leypunskaya

expected a variety of fragments, constitutes only a small part of the pottery assemblage as a whole, though detailed statistics have not been published. On the steppe the fifth-century picture looks rather different. Here we have principally grave-goods: forms of settlement are much less common or significant.55 In recent years the number of excavated burials has increased five-fold, at least, so that now we know some hundreds. We await an integrated conspectus of all the burials of Scythia, including especially these recent studies, which have been published case by case in a variety of places. It is clear enough, however, that about a third of all these burials are to be dated to the period 500–450 BC. Meanwhile, we may be sure enough that more of these contained imports than studies can show, for the simple reason that a substantial proportion of them have been destroyed and robbed. Of course, the robbers have taken the most valuable objects, primarily Greek imports. In addition, scholars date some seventy burial mounds to the fifth century, many probably being raised around 450. With all that in view, the first half of the fifth century can be taken to have seen an increase in exchange with the Scythians of the steppe. In the light of recent work we can therefore take the Scythian steppe to have received and retained far more Greek imports than could once have been safely imagined. It is not simply a matter of the raw number of Greek artefacts that have been excavated or can be posited. For we must also take account of the fact that these are burial contexts: they represent a selection of goods from the Greek world which were by their nature not necessarily items of mass exchange — gold, silver, and bronze jewellery, metal utensils, weapons and other militaria, wine in amphorae, blackglazed vessels, etc. We can only wonder whether ongoing research will provide a still greater number of imported items from the steppe and so erode the difference in scale of imports between the steppe and wooded steppe in this regard. However, in the period 450–400 BC the quantity of imports in the steppe and wooded steppe declines at much the same rate, for reasons which are not at all clear. Pehaps we should seek an explanation in terms of the expansion of the Olbian economy: towards the end of the fifth century an extensive civic territory is created, from which there is intensive exchange with Olbia proper, where craft production increases. It is held that the city shifted its primary interest towards the other

55

Gavrilyuk 1999.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

12:32

Page 131

OLBIAN –SCYTHIAN TRADE

131

communities of the Black Sea coast. On such a view, the exchanges with Scythians lost much of their importance for the Olbian economy. Be that as it may, the import of Greek goods increases once more from the fourth century, in both steppe and wooded steppe. This too is a time of great expansion in the Olbian economy, in every respect, including trading activity. For this period, key locations on the trade routes between Olbia, the pastoralists, and the wooded steppe, mediating exchange, were Kamenskoye and Kapulovskoye settlements. Kamenskoye in particular saw the passage of wine up the Dnieper to the Scythians, as well as pottery and other goods, not least luxury items.56 In the wooded steppe goods from the Greek world are found, as had earlier been the case, in greater quantity on the west bank of the Dnieper than to its east. However, by comparison with the preceding period there is some reduction in the overall amount of imports in the wooded steppe. Even so, we can observe a rise in their quantity on the agricultural settlements, largely in the form of amphorae but including also red-figure and black-glaze wares, weaponry, armour, and other metal artefacts. However, the available statistics on amphorae and tableware (respectively 434 and 80 examples on the west bank of the Dnieper) show the relatively small number of imports at issue.57 Greek imports are found also in the burial mounds of the wooded steppe, on both sides of the Dnieper as far north as the latitude and environs of Kiev (Borispol mounds, Steblevskiy cemetery (c.400–350), Rhzhanovka, and the mounds of the Kharkov region). Meanwhile on the steppe the quantity of imports increases substantially. It is true that recent years have seen intensive and extensive study of the steppe, much more than previously. Certainly, the number of known imports has recently increased greatly, not only from the great mounds but also less remarkable items, perhaps, from humbler burial contexts; we may wonder whether that has skewed our picture. However, in any event, the demography of ancient Scythia seems to have been a factor in this apparent change: the steppe became more densely inhabited.58 We may gain from a closer attention to chronology, not least with regard to the burial mounds of the fourth century. The overwhelming majority of the wealthy burial mounds date to the second half of the 56 57 58

Gavrilyuk 1999, 265. Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 109–11. Gavrilyuk 1999, 124.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

132

28/9/07

12:32

Page 132

N. A. Leypunskaya

fourth century BC and to not much later than 325, so that 350–325 looks like a peak period of such exceptional mounds, rich in Greek imports: Solokha (two burials, 400–380s), Berdyansk (370s), Tolstaya (350–330), Gaymanova (mid-330s), Oguz (350–325), and Melitopol (340–330), while Chertomlyk has a very slightly later date, perhaps c.325.59 The range of Greek imports, whether from such wealthy burials or their humbler counterparts, indicate much the same date: the amphorae of Thasos, Heraclea, and Sinope, black-glazed ware (especially moulded-rim canthari), silver kylixes, gold jewellery, and so on. Therefore, it is clear enough that Greek–Scythian (especially Olbian– Scythian) exchange had a complex history and significance. If in the fifth century the purpose of Olbian trade with the Scythians was the provision of supplementary goods (the products of pastoralism and perhaps also the crops raised in the wooded steppe, together with minerals and raw materials for crafts) to meet a shortage at Olbia, then the fourth-century situation was markedly different, for the settlements in the Olbian chora could not meet those needs; even in that case the shortage would not have been sufficiently pressing to account for the surge in Greek imports among the Scythians. As we have seen, there was a distinct reduction in imports from the end of the fourth century. Even in the mounds of the southern Bug, very near to Olbia itself, there seems to be nothing imported after c.325 BC.60 Towards c.300 there is a little on the lower Dnieper. However, towards about 250 active economic contacts between Olbia and the Scythian world come to an end. That ending is usually and reasonably linked with political, economic, and social changes on the steppe.61 As for Olbia’s sphere of influence, we may also explain its decline in terms of the Olbian economy itself. If it can be agreed that the reduction of Scythian–Olbian exchange fell in a period where Olbia was still flourishing and had yet to experience its crisis, then we can only wonder whether Olbia had simply lost its taste for the goods of the barbarians. At any rate, changes in Scythia itself contributed to such a development. Meanwhile, there remains the enormous question as to the involvements and interactions of the Bosporus and Chersonesus, as well as Olbia, in Scythian–Greek exchange of the fifth and fourth centuries. For the fifth century it is generally agreed that Olbia played the main role in 59 60 61

Murzin & Toshchev 2002, 39; Alekseyev et al. 1991, 132–3. Kovpanenko et al. 1978. Brashinskiy 1984, 184.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

12:32

Page 133

OLBIAN –SCYTHIAN TRADE

133

such exchanges. The Bosporus’ trading activities were much less significant at that time, with the possible exception of trade in weaponry.62 Of course, it is wholly unrealistic to imagine that these Greek communities had sharply distinguished spheres of influence, or to develop some notion of their economic competition. Any sense of that would have been an idiosyncratic and private matter. Accordingly, we cannot sensibly suppose that, for example, the extension of Bosporan trade caused a reduction in Olbian trade. Rather these cities and states were engaged in exchange activities which proceeded largely in parallel. Accordingly, since we know that in the fourth century the Bosporus was an important supplier of grain to Attica, it would be likely enough that expensive imports would find their way into Scythia via the Bosporan market. As for Chersonesus, it suffices to note the Chersonetan amphorae that found their way into steppe burials in the second half of the fourth century. Evidently, Chersonesus had its own contribution to make to exchange between Scythians and Greeks to the north of the Black Sea. By way of conclusion, we have seen that exchange relationships between Olbia and the Scythians, which had their beginnings in the sixth century BC, had persisted through the fifth and fourth centuries. The fourth saw the greatest scale of this exchange, as evidenced by archaeology on the steppe and, to an extent, also on the wooded steppe. It was only around the end of the fourth century that this exchange began to reduce significantly. The causes of these changes and continuities were no doubt complex. For Olbia the sphere of its exchange activities had been a major factor underpinning the development of its economy and its market. But, for all that, the city’s exchange was far from defining its whole economy: that continued to be based on agriculture.

62

Onayko 1966, 52.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

08 Leypunskaya 1525

28/9/07

12:32

Page 134

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 135

Social and Economic Issues in the Development of Steppe Scythia N. A. GAVRILYUK

THE STUDIES OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES in early societies have emerged from the encounter between archaeology and a series of other disciplines concerned with sociological aspects of traditional societies. The study of Scythia, or ‘Scythology’, offers a wealth of material evidence which should give it a primary role in the creation of socioeconomic models. Each of the major Scythologists has written on the mechanisms and peculiarities of the socio-economic development of Scythia. While there is no unity of vision on the social history of Scythia among scholars, there is at the same time no very substantial difference of view. Terenozhkin and Il’inskaya repeatedly underlined both the ethnic diversity of Scythia and the subordination of the peoples of the wooded steppe to the pastoralists of the steppe around 400 BC.1 Terenozhkin was paying tribute to the dominant ideology of the time (Marxist formationtheory) in writing of the emergence of class relations in Scythian society. In so doing he stressed that the class process developed among the Scythians in the context of pastoral society and was distinct from the classic forms of class origins, and that among the Scythians the state emerges only from the time of their establishment on the north coast of the Black Sea.2 Progress in the study of the social history of Scythia came with the work of Bunyatyan which was concerned with the reconstruction of society through archaeology.3 The analysis of a series of Scythian burial grounds containing numerous ordinary burials and a great deal of material evidence permitted plausible conclusions on the social structure

1 2 3

Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1983, 15–16. Terenozhkin 1977, 25–6. Bunyatyan 1985.

Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 135–144. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 136

N. A. Gavrilyuk

136

Figure 21.

The steppe north of Olbia. Photo. D. Braund.

of the ordinary Scythian population. Unfortunately Scythologists did not follow in the direction that Bunyatyan had shown. Contemporary discussion of the social history of Scythia does not differ greatly from the debates of the 1970s. The absence of new ideas in some quarters has encouraged the re-statement of old and well-known approaches albeit with some minor authorial twist. So, for example, despite the lack of any new important evidence, the ethno-social situation in the steppe and wooded steppe zones is now ever more often declared to be a single socioeconomic entity. Indeed, as time passes, ever more often we hear talk not only of a single Scythia but even of a unified Scythia.4 The absence of any fresh research is compensated for by the frequency with which such declarations are repeated so that a kind of mythology of the history of Scythia is advanced.5 Meanwhile those who study the pastoralists know very well that there has never been a ‘unity’ in pastoral and semi-pastoral structures. All the more so when we are concerned with the pastoralists and semi-pastoralists of the Early Iron Age where, even in non-pastoralist 4

Kryzhitskiy 1999, 40; Murzin & Toshchev 2002, 36. The mythologization of Scythian history is first to be found in the classical literary tradition which includes the notion of a powerful people of the north. Today the idea of the greatness of Scythia has arisen in an outpouring of semi-popular publications with much the same angle. 5

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 137

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES IN STEPPE SCYTHIA

137

socio-economic contexts, there was little to drive processes of unification. Early nomads not only did not have but could not yet have either economic or ideological or cultural integration such as would produce a complex and lasting political structure. That is why Terenozhkin and Il’inskaya, in their excellent understanding of the history and culture of the pastoralists, were so guarded in their observations on the statehood and unity of the Scythians. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the specific features of the socio-economic development and structure of Scythia, to examine the causes of changes there, and in that light to explore Scythian economic history. All scholars recognize regional and chronological differences in the material culture of the Scythians. Indeed it is change in Scythian material culture around 500 BC that provides the basis for Alekseyev’s theory of ‘two Scythias’. On this theory differences between the material culture of archaic Scythia and the Scythia of the fifth and fourth centuries are to be explained by the appearance on the Black Sea steppes in the fifth century of a new wave of pastoralists.6 Our conceptions of the unity of Scythia, or its lack of unity, are fundamental to our understanding of the key problems of the social, political, and economic history of Scythia. For example, should we speak of the Scythians as an archaeological culture, as a cultural-historical entity, as an ethno-political grouping, as a state, or as some kind of economic formation? What were the dynamics and limits of changes among the Scythians? What was the place of Scythia (as a pastoral or semi-pastoral entity) in the much broader social and economic system of the Early Iron Age? What was the nature of the relationships between pastoralists and the pastoralist society and the civilizations of classical antiquity? Can we observe in the economic and social history of Scythia features which are shared with other social formations of the Early Iron Age? Or can we see peculiarities in the early development of the history of Scythia? Meanwhile, as for terminology which has been developed across a range of disciplines, Scythologists have been rather slow and idiosyncratic in their use of the outcomes of theoretical archaeology. In general terms the following considerations represent the positions common to the majority of Scythologists, whether held unanimously or assumed without much discussion:

6

Alekseyev 1989, 85–7; 1992, 103–12.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 138

138

N. A. Gavrilyuk

1. The area of Scythian culture changes across time. Traces of Scythian culture do not correspond to the limits of Scythia as set out by Herodotus. At best they may indicate the presence (temporary or permanent) of an Iranian pastoral population. 2. The meaning of ‘Scythia’ is distinctly changeable. Accordingly whenever we consider its limits we must bear in mind the chronological context, so that, for example, we cannot simply transplant the murky Scythia of Herodotus on to Scythia of the fourth century BC that we know from archaeology. In socio-economic and ethno-cultural terms archaic Scythia bears little relation to the Scythia seen by Herodotus, while Herodotus’ Scythia in turn bears little relation to the Scythia of the fourth century BC. 3. There is no normative set of specific indicators of ‘Scythian culture’. Accordingly it is difficult to establish the limits of Scythia with great confidence.7 4. Written sources, both Assyrian and classical, show Scythia at various stages of its history. In using these sources it is vital to be very clear about the date at which they were written. Reflection on these basic assumptions soon leads to the conclusion that the history of Scythia must be understood across a broad set of assessments of social, ethnic, ideological, political, and economic history. Each line of approach (social, economic, etc.) foregrounds its own particular concerns. Therein we may suspect lies the reason for our conception of a smooth socio-political-historical development in steppe Scythia and for the contrasting gaps and disjunctures in its economic history. Indeed until recently Scythian economic history was much less often studied. Now, the pressing need is to bring together economic history and the social and political contexts within which it developed, which includes the issues surrounding the statehood of the steppe Scythians. It would be naïve to imagine that the structure of society and power did not change in Scythia in the course of its four-hundred-year history. It is worth comparing Carneiro’s discussion of social changes among Native Americans, for he describes the transition of the same tribes, over two hundred years, from a fairly primitive social structure and system of power to a complex social organization. Carneiro explains these changes not only as changes in ideas or conditions but also as the result of sub-

7

See Chlenova 1993, 50 for an attempt.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 139

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES IN STEPPE SCYTHIA

139

stantial influence from Europeans.8 Evidently in Scythia too socioeconomic changes not only depended on internal historical development but came also from contacts with neighbouring civilizations. As for which of the civilizations of antiquity influenced the pastoralists, much depended on the particular features and stage of the pastoralists’ development (economic, social, and cultural). A key purpose of the present discussion is to show, building on an economic framework, the particular features of the development of nomadic society in the Early Iron Age as represented in the archaeology of Scythian culture.

The archaic period The pastoralists of the north coast of the Black Sea in pre-Scythian and early Scythian times were particularly connected with the economic system of Near Eastern cultures as we can see from material remains (items of Near Eastern origin in Cimmerian and early Scythian burials) and numerous other attestations of close cultural and economic links with the Caucasus and the Near East.9 It is usual for scholars to include within the territory of archaic Scythia of the seventh to early sixth century BC both the north Caucasus and the region along the river Kuban. These were lands which from one side were located directly before the objectives of raids, while from the other side they were protected by the natural defences of the mountains from strikes from the south. In that sense it was quite natural that the pastoralists who came out of the depths of Asia chose the north Caucasus in particular as the place to stop. While pastoral society may retain its political independence and particular ethno-cultural identity, it cannot avoid entering the economic system of some neighbouring civilization, if only because it can obtain from that source vital tools, produce, and luxury objects. In the early stages of pastoral society one of the principal ways of obtaining vital goods and products was to mount raids which, unlike military campaigns, did not have the goal of seizing land. The produce of raids and extorted ‘gifts’ to prevent them constitute a form of exchange, which was of particular importance in Scythians’ relations with their neighbours in the archaic period. Scythian irruptions into the Near East were characterized by extreme cruelty, but apart from loss of life they had no other substantial 8 9

Carneiro 2002, 91. Il’inskaya 1982; Murzin 1978; Makhortykh 1991.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 140

140

N. A. Gavrilyuk

results. The roots of these irruptions (which might last several years) passed through and were directed against areas that were settled by farmers. However, while these ‘nomads from the north’ struck crushing blows as they went (sacking cities, laying waste whole provinces, and even destroying states), they did not attempt to replace the states of the Near East by establishing their own political structure or by seeking to make their control a reality in the long term. Pastoralist society was at this stage not sufficiently stable and not so organized as to have such an aim or to be able to achieve it.10Among the pastoralists society was organized according to kinship and genealogy, on a minimal basis.11 We can see elements of this socio-political organization among the Scythians who raided into the Near East. For the pastoralists seem not to have known what to do with the territories and populations which they had conquered. They could not at that time in their history assimilate the lands they had seized either in a political sense or in an economic one. The Scythian clans of the archaic period were certainly a major military threat but they lacked direction. Their lack of an integrated identity helps to explain why the Assyrian sources name them simply as pastoralists, giving rise to scholarly discussion about whether they are to be seen as Cimmerians or Scythians. In itself, the pastoralists did not need their steppelands. They needed the world around, a source from which to meet their needs in agricultural products and craft produce, such as to satisfy the steadily growing ambitions of their elite. That was the role played by the lands of the Near East for the Iranian pastoralists of the late pre-Scythian and early Scythian periods. In so far as the Scythians had political structures, they were brought together into tribal alliances especially for specific military purposes. They had neither the means nor the desire for anything more permanent. However, the achievements of these Scythian alliances in the archaic period did serve to demonstrate the potential benefits of unity. Meanwhile, their military leaders formed an established elite, so that temporary tribal alliances encouraged co-operation over extended military expeditions, with the adoption of new developments in military equipment and tactics. In consequence the Scythians were able to adapt militarily to meet the demands of a range of climatic conditions and to conquer far from their homelands.

10 11

Khazanov 2000, 243. Khazanov 1994, 119–22.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 141

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES IN STEPPE SCYTHIA

141

Accordingly the economy of this pastoralist society had a simple structure. It was limited to the rearing and exploitation of livestock. There was little domestic production, only enough to meet the minimal needs of pastoralists. It is hard to trace patterns of exchange: agricultural products seem usually to have been obtained by force. The economic drive of this society was directed to the organization of successful raids. Accordingly horses were selected for their suitability for use in raids, metalworking centres were subjugated, ironworking was developed, weaponry was devised, and there was further innovation in all things military. The whole economy was directed towards raiding while politics meant the pressurizing and terrorizing of neighbours. It is only in this period that raiding has such a role, despite the fact that some scholars seek to suggest that raids were and are at the base of the economy of all pastoral societies. However, an economy and political structure based on raiding could not persist indefinitely. In the final phase of the archaic period in Scythia the pastoralists were defeated by the mighty Persian empire. Evidently as early as about 560 the Persian army had acquired substantial experience in dealing with pastoralist attacks and had developed forces to meet them which included not only Persians but also pastoralists themselves. The Scythians were forced to withdraw from Asia. Their economy of raiding brought with it a social system in the form of tribal alliances which would later, under different conditions, on the territory of the north coast of the Black Sea, evolve as new socio-economic and political formations.12

Herodotus’ Scythia The events of Scythian history through the later sixth and fifth centuries BC were played out in a different geographical context. It was at this time that the Scythians established their homelands on the north coast of the Black Sea. Evidently this was the Scythia about which Herodotus learned from his informants. Accordingly this period is often known as ‘Herodotus’ Scythia’. This is a period of high population density in the wooded steppe and the beginning of large-scale movements by pastoralists into both the steppe and the wooded steppe.13

12 13

Gavrilyuk 2000, 141–3; 2000a, 44–5. Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1983; Skoryy 1996.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 142

142

N. A. Gavrilyuk

In the sixth century Greek settlements were established on the north coast of the Black Sea whose economic importance there was overwhelming, impacting on every aspect of the region. In that sense there was a ‘parallel’ occupation of the steppe by two different cultures, Greek and pastoralist. In fact, however, the Greeks had a good grasp of the economic potentialities of this world that was new to them and deliberately kept to the coastal zone, leaving the open steppe to the nomads who were better suited to it. This is the essence of the long-term relationship and symbiosis of Greek and pastoralist cultures. For the Scythians this was a period of purely pastoral economy. They now acquired the craft and agricultural produce which they needed not only through raids on the wooded steppe but also by maintaining reciprocal exchange relationships and by trade. A range of goods passed from the wooded steppe to the Greek colonies through the lands of the Scythian pastoralists: raw materials for metalworking (iron ore, charcoal), skins, honey,14 and manpower in the form of cheap slaves.15 There is no indication that the population of the wooded steppe had complex social organization such as might resist the expansionist activities of the pastoralists. Once the nomads had established control over the wooded steppe it became possible for them to begin the economic assimilation of the steppe zone with its minimal population. That is, the pastoralists no longer mounted raids into the steppe and wooded steppe, but achieved military conquests which permitted them to develop their strength and to assimilate extensive new territory. These Scythians were integrated especially on the basis of a common genealogy, as our written evidence illustrates. According to Herodotus, the Scythians claimed a single ancestor, Targitaos, who had three sons. Scythians at all levels could look to their heroic ancestor-forefather. It may be more than simple chance that it is only from the north Black Sea steppe that we have carved stone images of Scythian origin dating from the sixth and fifth centuries BC which are taken to be representations of this ancestor. In the wooded steppe these images do not occur at all, while in the steppe they disappear (or more precisely are Hellenized) at the beginning of the fourth century BC,16 as confirmed by the recent discovery of such an image among the burial mounds at Solokha.17 In this way Herodotus’ Scythia constituted a social structure with a system of power

14 15 16 17

Vakhtina 1984. Gavrilyuk 1996. Belozor 1996. Gavrilyuk 2002, 77–80.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 143

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES IN STEPPE SCYTHIA

143

configured around distinctive signs of a simple form of leadership. According to Herodotus, Scythian society at this time had all the elements of leadership which we tend to find among pastoralists in general. The emergence of this form of governance is characteristically driven by influence from outside nomadic society. Accordingly it tends to be particularly unstable.18 The socio-political structure of the Scythians in the steppe zone had developed under the constant catalysing influence of Greek culture. While in Herodotus’ own day this influence was resisted by traditionalist forces in Scythian society which constituted the majority of the population (cf. Hdt. 4.76–80), in the fourth century it becomes overwhelming both in the economy and in the culture of steppe Scythia.

Scythia in the fourth century BC The century after about 400 was marked by a pastoralist economy centred to the north of the Black Sea. In this period a new kind of economy emerged which was based not on raids and war but on the development of herding together with agriculture.19 This has been called the ‘period of the transformation of wintering into permanent settlements’.20 In one sense the Scythian economy of the fourth century achieved its greatest height, but in another, this was the period in which fundamental difficulties were created in Scythian society. Herding remained the fundamental part of the economy but a new economic activity was created — agriculture. By contrast with other areas in the steppe zones agriculture emerged predominantly from the needs of herding, especially to meet the demand for animal fodder which for various reasons was no longer available in sufficient quantities. Meanwhile domestic production became more varied and ambitious in structural terms: some features of it (especially metalworking) took on the appearance of full-scale craft production. Under these conditions there was a population explosion in the fourth century which is visible in the archaeological record.21 This period may be seen as one of complex leadership.22

18 19 20 21 22

On simple leadership in Scythia, see further Khazanov 2000, 284; cf. Service 1971. Gavrilyuk 1999. Pletneva 1982. For possible figures, see Gavrilyuk & Timchenko 1994. See Kradin 2001, 243–4; Earle 1997, 121.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

09 Gavrilyuk 1525

28/9/07

12:33

Page 144

144

N. A. Gavrilyuk

It is worth stressing, lest we forget, that when we consider the goods which the Scythians exchanged for imports from the Greek world we can no longer regard the grain trade as of any overwhelming importance.23 We should probably look rather to the slave trade about which we hear in a variety of sources concerned with various regions of the ancient world.24 In any event, connections with the Greek cities of the Black Sea coast played a massive role in the socio-economic and cultural development of fourth-century Scythia. While in the preceding period the contact zone between Greeks and Scythians was limited to the coast, in the fourth century the steppe around the Dnieper and the Bug was drawn into the zone of Greek influence. Moreover, we can see elements of Greek culture even at a mundane everyday level: local table ware is almost completely replaced by Greek ware, wine production is introduced, and Greek writing is adopted by some Scythians, or so some may infer from the presence of Greek graffiti on handmade pottery.25 For the fourth century we may talk of the advanced stage of Hellenization of the steppe Scythians in areas where they formed settled communities, especially around the Dnieper. In this period the structure of Scythian society becomes more complex. This is true not only of the upper strata of society,26 but also of the ordinary Scythians.27 As I have argued this was not only the evolution of Scythian society but also the origin of crisis in the Scythian economy and in social relations. The leadership of Scythian society had emerged, as we have seen, from shifting tribal alliances (the archaic period) through simple leadership (Herodotus’ Scythia) into the complex leadership of Scythia in the fourth century BC.

23 24 25 26 27

Kryzhitskiy & Shcheglov 1991. Braund & Tsetskhladze 1989; Gavrilyuk 1999, 261–88; Taylor 2001. See, however, Krizhitskiy in this volume, pp. xx–xx, on handmade pottery. Terenozhkin & Mozolevskiy 1988. Bunyatyan 1985.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 145

Dio Chrysostom’s Construction of Olbia BALBINA BÄBLER

Dio’s Olbia: people DIO CHRYSOSTOM CLAIMS TO HAVE GIVEN a first version of his thirty-sixth speech (the so-called Borystheniticus Or. 36) during his exile, when he happened to stay at Olbia, a half-ruined outpost of the Roman empire on the northern Black Sea cost. Titus Flavius Dio Cocceianus1 was born to wealthy parents c. AD 40–50 in the Bithynian city of Prusa. Why he was banished from Rome and Bithynia in the 80s is still not quite clear. Dio himself, who already enjoyed considerable literary success at that time, tells us that the reason was his friendship with a great Roman noble who had incurred Domitian’s wrath (Or. 13.1). Be that as it may, his exile ended with Domitian’s death in AD 96, whereupon he returned to Prusa. Or. 36 must have been written and delivered there shortly after his return, when his fellow-citizens’ interest in the exotic place which Dio had explored was still alive.2 Meanwhile, the themes of the Borystheniticus are ‘harmony, good order, and regular and predictable change on earth as in heaven’.3 However, there is a large introduction, concerned with the location of the speech in Olbia: it constitutes thirteen paragraphs in a work of sixty-one. Therefore the description of the exterior setting, the city itself, its inhabitants, and its surroundings must be intended as more than a mere introduction. First, we must consider Dio’s encounter with the inhabitants of this foreign place. They were Greeks like Dio, but they belonged to a community which had had its own development, far from its motherland, for

1

His last name probably indicates that he acquired Roman citizenship under the emperor Nerva. 2 Nesselrath 2003, 15. 3 Russell 1992, 19. Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 145–160. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 146

Balbina Bäbler

146

almost seven hundred years. In § 7 Dio describes how the handsome young Callistratus rides up in full Scythian gear: Suspended from his girdle he had a great cavalry sabre, and he was wearing trousers and all the rest of the Scythian costume, and from his shoulders there hung a small black cape of thin material, as is usual with the people of Borysthenes.4

However, in a way, the Greekness of the young man is preserved among all the foreign elements, for he has drawn his arm beneath his mantle ‘in very proper fashion’, as was good form for a Greek gentleman and can be seen on many statues. The Scythian trousers must look all the more strange in the context of such behaviour. What about the young man’s black cape? Dio was certainly acquainted with the Melanchlaeni described at Herodotus 4.20.2; indeed one might wonder whether Dio was more inspired by Herodotus than by Callistratus. Dio casually says that ‘the people of Borysthenes’ used to wear the black cloak. But the ‘real’ Melanchlaeni remain a ‘mystery of ancient ethnography’.5 Who the Melanchlaeni really were and where they lived continues to be a matter of dispute, especially since, in 4.20.2, Herodotus tells us that they were not a Scythian tribe. Unfortunately, he does not mention any rivers (usually the best markers in his Scythian geography) in connection with their territory but gives only the vague indication of their whereabouts that they can be reached from the sea in twenty days (4.100.2–101.2), that is about 740 km inland. Yet it might be possible that Herodotus by this only meant ‘far away from the sea’, for his Scythian topography is exact only in the areas he knew by his own visit, i.e. mostly around Olbia. As for his information about peoples far to the north, he had to rely on what his sources told him. In any event, attempts to link the Melanchlaeni with a specific place or material culture have so far failed.6 Although Herodotus (4.20.2) calls them non-Scythians, which might refer to their language, he also points out (4.107) that they practise Scythian customs, which very probably means in their funeral rites. The ambiguity which could already be seen in Callistratus’ appearance manifests itself also in the Olbiopolitans’ use of Greek. Living in the midst of barbarians, they are no longer able to speak the Greek language purely and correctly, yet they are exceedingly fond of Homer and know 4

Crosby 1940, 427. Rassadin 1997, 508. 6 Ibid., 510–11. For earlier Russian and Ukrainian literature, see the excellent commentary of Corcella & Medaglia 1993. 5

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 147

DIO CHRYSOSTOM’S CONSTRUCTION OF OLBIA

147

the Iliad by heart (§ 9). Their connection with Homer is again stressed in § 17, where more details of the outward appearance of Olbia’s inhabitants are given: all were like the ancient Greeks described by Homer, long-haired and with flowing beards . . .7

And this is not just a fashion, but indicates a certain state of mind as well, for, to elaborate his point further, Dio adds: only one of them was shaven, and he was subjected to the ridicule and resentment of them all. And it was said that he practised shaving, not as an idle fancy, but out of flattery of the Romans and to show his friendship toward them. And so one could have seen illustrated in his case how disgraceful the practice is and how unseemly for real men.

So the ‘real men’ in Olbia not only look old-fashioned, but seem to come directly from the heroic age of Greece. Indeed, when Dio mentions Callistratus’ machaera (in § 7), one may well feel reminded of another, similar description. When Thucydides (1.6.1) relates the customs of early Greece (a time before Greek settlements gained walls), he also mentions the following detail: The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected, and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians.8

A philosophically minded rhetor of Dio’s kind was not just indulging in an innocent reminiscence: his description of what he saw (or claimed to have seen) at Olbia was aimed at a larger public. Behind his picture of the Olbiopolitans as early Greeks (i.e. as courageous, tough, and bearing their weapons in the manner contemporaneous barbarians still did) probably lies a traditional and elaborate theory which is almost as old as Greek literature itself, namely the conception that technical and cultural evolution, development and progress of civilization came at the same time as moral degeneration. We may pause to consider a few prominent representatives of this conception who were certainly known to Dio. Around 700 BC, the Greek poet Hesiod wrote his Works and Days, in which (among other things) there is the myth of the five ages of mankind (lines 106–201). In describing these, Hesiod presents us with a rather sad story: the four metals gold, silver, bronze, and iron symbolize four stages

7 8

Transl. Crosby 1940, 437. Snodgrass 1971, 7–8 is overly critical of Thucydides here.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 148

148

Balbina Bäbler

of moral decline. Although this pattern is interrupted by the tradition of the heroic world described in early Greek epic, and although an aetiology of certain semi-divine beings is developed,9 Hesiod’s myth ends with a gloomy forecast of an increasingly corrupt and bitter future. For the Ionian philosophers of the sixth century BC, Hesiod was already a classic, as he remained throughout antiquity. This model of the development of the world on one side and the inevitable moral decline on the other was taken up again by the philosopher Empedocles of Acragas (494–434 BC). For him, though, the model was one of cycles, and when the world had ended in chaos, the force of love would again become stronger, whereupon the whole process — harmony and unity in the beginning, then more and more strife — would begin anew.10 A kind of foreshadowing of this cyclic pattern might actually be seen already in Hesiod, for he wishes (174–5) that he had either died before the present Iron Race or been born later.11 Plato shows in several of his dialogues (among others Critias and Timaios) how a human community develops towards hybris and moral decay until the divinity intervenes with an ultimate measure, usually a flooding that only a few people survive.12 At the time when Plato was writing, the Peloponnesian War had shattered the faith in a common Greek heritage. Old myths and traditional gods became increasingly rationalized, and the world, which had been clearly defined along a dividing line of ‘Greeks versus barbarians’ became insecure and questionable, especially since barbarian (i.e. Persian) gold was sponsoring one or the other side, depending on current alliances. At this moment of Greek history, ‘the reproachful phantom of the “Noble Savage” was waiting in the wings’.13 It started taking shape in the philosophy of the Stoics and especially the Cynics, who preached the return to a simple life. For them, barbarians were not inferior to cultivated, civilized Greeks, but the last people living in an original state of nature, a kind of Paradise Lost. More than two hundred years later came the philosopher, historian, and geographer Posidonius (about 135–151 BC). He has been called the ‘first true field anthropologist’,14 for he very probably undertook personal

9 10 11 12 13 14

Dodds 1973, 3. Müller 1997, 89–90. Dodds 1973, 3–4. Müller 1997, 1170–80. Dodds 1973, 10. Ibid., 19; cf. also Müller 1997, 312–16.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 149

DIO CHRYSOSTOM’S CONSTRUCTION OF OLBIA

149

studies among the Gauls15 and the peoples of Lusitania,16 and saw in their way of life a clue to the original condition of humankind. His conclusions about old forms of building are drawn from the still visible remains of ‘barbarian’ building activity. It is here we can grasp the fully elaborated idea that the barbarians at the edge of the world represent an earlier, and very possibly happier, stage of human development. A few decades after Posidonius, Diodorus Siculus explicitly observes in his descriptions of the Ligyans17 how harsh climate and poor soil exert their influence on that people’s way of life. The hardship of their existence makes them bold and courageous, not just in war, but in every other dangerous situation as well. Distance from Roman influences was taken to confirm that kind of toughness (cf. Caes, BG 1.1). The Scythians appear in much the same light in the Augustan work of Pompeius Trogus, as preserved by Justin. They constitute a moral example of hardened warriors, living a frugal life and having no interest at all in material goods, but craving only glory in war (Just. 2.1–3). Trogus stresses the Scythians’ frugality (continentia) which is the immediate cause of their justice (iustitia) in all their dealings, since they do not desire other persons’ property.18 Trogus wants to show that the Scythians still live in a natural way, and that this way of life is precisely the reason why they are not only healthy and strong, but moreover (and this is even more important) without any greed and jealousy. Therefore they live in peace and harmony, which makes them in fact superior to the most developed and civilized nations. On that view, the highest moral qualities belonged to the humans of remote and primitive times, and the Scythians (as well as other barbarians) were now considered as their last representatives. The Noble Savage that Dodds saw looming already much earlier in Greek literature had received his fully formed elaboration in early Hellenistic times. He was a Scythian. The corpus of the so-called ten Letters of Anacharsis, written in the earlier third century BC,19 is the oldest of the pseudonymous collections of letters of famous persons from Greek antiquity. Anacharsis was by then a well-known person (and nobody in ancient times doubted his reality). His sad fate is told by Herodotus 4.76. The son of a Scythian king, Anacharsis went to Greece

15 16 17 18 19

Posid. fr. 33 Theiler; 34 ⫽ 274 / 276 Edelstein-Kidd; 169 Theiler. Posid. fr. 22. 89 Theiler. 5.39 perhaps from Posidonius, cf. fr. 163b Theiler. Müller 1997, 388–91. Reuters 1963, 5.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 150

150

Balbina Bäbler

to learn and there became one of the Seven Wise Men. On his journey home, at Cyzicus, he was so impressed by the mysteries of Cybele, the Mother of the Gods, that he undertook a private celebration in her honour in Hylaea. But he was shot dead by Saulius, his own brother. A very similar fate was suffered by Scyles (Hdt. 4.79–80), king of the Scythians, but with a Greek mother from Histria, who had already educated him in Greek language and customs. Scyles had found a place to indulge his fondness for all things Greek at Olbia.20 In that sense Herodotus had already provided a kind of ‘model barbarian’. Of all the barbarian lands described by Herodotus, Scythia had a special place; it is a genuinely wild, natural place, where even the Persian Great King was bound to fail. So the Scythians are also a kind of model for the Greeks in the Persian wars. Herodotus also presents the Scythians’ pantheon, which is the largest of the non-Greek peoples he knows, and he can even mention the Scythian gods’ original names, together with their Greek equivalents. Among the barbarian peoples, only the Scythians have their own mythological background in Herodotus.21 Since they had become a model, the Scythians could also serve as a mirror in which one could see advantages and disadvantages of the Hellenic world. In this role, they served the anonymous author of The Letters of Anacharsis as well as Dio. These letters, which contain a good deal of Cynic philosophy, were a great success. Letter 5, which describes the Scythian way of life, was even translated by Cicero (Tusc. 5.90). When ‘Anacharsis’ criticizes the Greeks for making fun of his poor Greek and asks them to note that they are quite satisfied with the service of their Scythian ‘guest-workers’, one is immediately reminded of the Scythian archers at Athens, who were almost a running gag in Aristophanes’ comedies. Scythians were not just known from Herodotus as a half-mythical people at the edge of the world; they were also a quite familiar sight as slaves in Athens.22 By Dio’s time, then, the barbarian who had evolved into the Noble Savage had come to share much with the early ‘primitive’ Greek of the Golden Age. They resemble each other to a large extent, not least in their outward appearance. And remarkably enough, both can still be found at the edges of the known world: Dio shows an isolated outpost of Greek civilization and a kind of ideal, i.e. Homeric relic of the Golden Age, where pure and undiluted Greekness was preserved. What we can gather, 20 21 22

See Vinogradov 1997b on a ring with the name of Scyles from Histria. Braund 1999, 272; Bäbler 2002, 324–5. Cf. Bäbler 1998, 163–81; cat. 85a–91 for consistent images, both vase depictions and statuary.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 151

DIO CHRYSOSTOM’S CONSTRUCTION OF OLBIA

151

however, from the archaeological and epigraphic evidence provides a rather different perspective. The development of the city state of Olbia ran parallel to the development of Graeco-Scythian relationships. These relationships were at times strained, even hostile. On the other hand, Scythian protection allowed Olbia to prosper: around 480 BC Scythians and Thracians had concluded a peace treaty that provided welcome stability for the whole region. Together with some other Greek cities on the Black Sea coast, Olbia sought (and won) the protection of the royal Scythians. Their protectorate was apparently mainly of an economical kind and required the payment of tribute; it was ensured in Olbia by a Greek tyrant.23 Nevertheless, there may have been, at least in later times, also Scythian governors, of whom names like Arikhos and Eminakos are preserved. Together with these royal deputies, many more Scythians must have arrived in the city; epigraphical research, mainly by the late Yuri Vinogradov, has shown a remarkable increase of barbarian names, like Igdampaies, Skyles, Spokes, Saitylos, Pharnabazos, Sagaris, Kolandakes, in the prosopography of Olbia already in the fifth century BC.24 The steady increase of Scythians in the population of Olbia cannot have been without consequences, of a cultural as well as social kind. Scythian items—like akinakes or the bronze model of a Scythian bow — were found already in the graves of the archaic necropolis of Olbia.25 At the beginning of the fourth century BC, Olbia was apparently the scene of some deep social changes. The tyranny was overthrown, and the city possibly also managed to get rid of its Scythian overlords. In any case, a new cult of Zeus Eleutherios was installed, and the polis expressed its independence by extending and fortifying city walls with towers and gates. The fourth century BC was also a period of intense economic interaction with the Scythians. But the city served also as a trade centre from which painted Attic vases and amphorae from Chios, Thasos, and Cos were transported along the Dnieper and its tributaries in the east and on the Bug in the west. Greek imports have been found as far north as Kiev. At no point of its history, therefore, was Olbia an isolated, remote polis with enough autarkia to forgo contacts with the surrounding ‘barbarians’. To find a modus vivendi with the Scythians and to a certain extent to adapt to them must have been a fundamental matter of survival. 23 24 25

But see Kryzhitskiy 2005. Summarized with the earlier literature in Vinogradov 1997b, 146–64. Vinogradov and Kryzhitskiy 1995, 122–3.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 152

152

Balbina Bäbler

Moreover, Olbia could be seen as an isolated outpost only when all its Greek neighbour-cities were overlooked.26 Trade relations with the numerous other Greek (mainly Milesian) colonies on the Black Sea shore were at least as important as those with the Scythians of the hinterland. The next important stage in the relations between Greeks and Scythians at Olbia (which, according to Dio, were non-existent) is the siege of the city by Zopyrion, Alexander’s governor of Thrace, in 331 BC in the context of his military campaign against the Scythians. It ended with a total defeat of Zopyrion and his 30,000 soldiers. During the siege, the citizens of Olbia freed their slaves, granted citizenship to foreigners in the city, and cancelled debts; these emergency measures (related by the late antique writer Macrobius) contributed to their military success.27 The destruction caused by Zopyrion’s siege left traces in the city itself and even more in the vulnerable settlements of the chora, which were burnt down, but quickly rebuilt. Reconstruction and new building activities then started on a large scale in Olbia. The level of the Central Temenos was raised by about 70 cm and it was rendered. A new temple of Apollo Delphinius (a peripteros of 16 ⫻ 35 m) was built at the place of the old one. On the eastern side of it, a temple of Zeus was built (see below); it was a Doric prostylos, whose foundations of earth and clay have been excavated. Several more buildings and altars were built within the temenos as well; the agora gained a big stoa (17 ⫻ 45 m) with Ionian columns, a kind of big market hall (50 ⫻ 5 m) with nine rooms and cellars, a dikasterion and a gymnasion complex. Remarkably luxurious living quarters sprang up around this temenos and the agora, having several storeys, a courtyard (peristylion) in the middle, and richly decorated mosaic floors. The city also had an impressive water system with huge reservoirs at its disposal. This period saw the last and greatest flourishing of the city, and it led to a kind of ‘mass immigration’ of Scythians. The granting of citizenship to xenoi gave the possibility of a career in public offices also to non-Greeks. More and more barbarian names show up among the officials of the city, e.g. among the archontes, strategoi, and priests. From the first century AD an increasing proportion of those non-Greek names are also Sarmatian. The prospering city of Olbia went into decline from the middle of the third century BC, when almost all the settlements in the chora were burnt 26 27

Braund 1997, 131. Saturnalia 1.11.33.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 153

DIO CHRYSOSTOM’S CONSTRUCTION OF OLBIA

Figure 22.

153

Dedication by the sitones at Olbia.

down by the nomadic barbarians, which led to disastrous consequences for the economy, since the attacks not only destroyed the city’s own agricultural base, but interrupted its relations with the peaceful sedentary farming tribes. This led apparently to unrest within the polis; its finances were ruined, and food became scarce. The polis did all it could to get the better of the desperate situation, especially with the foundation of two new institutions: the sitonia was now responsible for the state’s buying of grain,28 while the sitometria distributed it for free among poor citizens. This latter institution was voluntarily sponsored by rich citizens. One of those rich Olbiopolitans, named Protogenes, also sponsored the fortification of the city walls with his own money. The so-called decree of Protogenes, where his actions are related, mentions the Mixellenes, to whom the citizens of Olbia turned for help, which they eventually gained at the price of their independence: Scilurus, the sovereign of the Scythian empire of the Crimea, now became the new governor of Olbia; his name appears on Olbian copper coins. Scilurus not only extracted tribute from the city, but also used Olbia’s fleet for his own trade activities, as well as 28

Vinogradov 1981 with pl. 7: votive relief of the sitones (see Fig. 22).

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 154

154

Balbina Bäbler

for battling against pirates, which in turn improved supply to the city. He also enlisted the services of rich Olbiopolitans, as advisers as well as generals for his campaigns. But who exactly were the Mixellenes named in Protogenes’ decree? Already Herodotus (4.17.1) calls the Callippidae, the closest neighbours of the Olbiopolitans, ‘Greek Scythians’. It has often been assumed that this term means more or less the same as Mixellenes; and it seems natural that the Scythians living around Olbia should be the most Hellenized. For Herodotus, their settled, agricultural lifestyle forms a considerable part of their Greekness: the farther away from Olbia, the more nomadic the Scythian tribes become. One recent explanation of the term Mixellenes is that they are purely Greeks settled in enclaves within the Scythian region; but this seems an unconvincing interpretation of the term. At any rate, only Hellenized Scythians (with reasonably friendly feelings towards the Hellenes) were capable of protecting the city.29 This survey of Olbian history indicates that at least a very substantial part of the city’s population at Dio’s time must have been mixed. Good relations between Scythians and Greeks were advantageous for both sides. After 331 BC, Scythians could rise to every official post in the city; in turn, their leaders apparently also sought the economic ‘know-how’ of Olbian citizens. Olbia needed the protection of the Scythians, to whom it could offer Greek goods. Is Dio’s speech, then, primarily a learned disquisition on cultural development in the tradition of Hesiod, Posidonius, Diodorus, and the like, that is a work which could have been written just as well without a journey to Olbia? Not entirely: some of Dio’s observations are certainly drawn from reality. The preservation of collective identity (even its exaggeration) is common for communities in foreign surroundings and can be observed also in non-Greeks in Athens: for example, Thracians imported their goddess Bendis, whose festivities even became an official state cult by 429/8 BC.30 The Phoenicians as well as the Egyptians had temples of their particular divinities in the Piraeus, and many immigrants like the Carians, Phrygians, or Phoenicians stressed their provenance on their grave stelae, on which they also often put bilingual inscriptions. The popularity of Homer at the edge of the Greek world is certainly no simple invention: a fragment of a black-glazed kylix of the fifth cen29 For the notion of Greek enclaves, see von Bredow 1996. The summary of Olbian history here is largely that of Vinogradov 1981. For criticisms see especially Kryzhitskiy 2005. See also Braund in this volume on Protogenes. 30 Bäbler 1998, 183–98: see esp. Plato, Rep. 1.327a–8a.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 155

DIO CHRYSOSTOM’S CONSTRUCTION OF OLBIA

155

tury BC, found in Olbia, shows on the reverse some verses of the Little Iliad, written in a clumsy hand; possibly it is the exercise of a young pupil.31 Similar finds, i.e. papyri with scraps of Homeric poetry obviously written as school exercises or homework, were made all over Egypt, even in remote little villages. The Iliad and the Odyssey were not only the most popular Greek literature during the whole of antiquity, but were also a basic means of learning Greek in the entire ancient world. Greek inscriptions of the Roman imperial period from Olbia show numerous Homerisms and attempts to imitate epic diction.32 The archaeological and epigraphic evidence also bears witness to the extraordinary worship of Achilles in the Black Sea area, which Dio in § 9 links with the Olbiopolitans’ fondness for Homer. Indeed, dedications of priests and archons of Olbia to Achilles Pontarches are so numerous that one may feel entitled to speak of a ‘state cult’. Dio mentions a temple of Achilles in the city itself as well as on the island ‘that bears his name’. Very probably he is speaking here of Berezan, situated about 40 km in the sea before the coast of Olbia; this former peninsula had been connected to the continental coast, perhaps until flooding made it an island sometime in the fifth century BC.33 Many early graffiti with dedications to Achilles have been found there.34 They were written on fragments of vases of 3–6 cm diameter. Since all of them were found in private houses and none in cultic contexts, there is no final agreement on their function.35 The more ancient cult on the island of Leuke also endured, so that the existence of two islands of Achilles was a source of confusion already in ancient literature.36 A cult of Achilles also already existed in the first half of the sixth century BC on the promontory of Tendra: this was the Racecourse of Achilles, where games were held later. The cult of Achilles seems therefore to have existed from the beginnings of the Greek colony of Olbia, enjoying a second remarkable prosperity during the second and third centuries AD.37

31

Vinogradov 1997, 385–96. Dettori 1996, 299–301; Dubois 1996, 83–5. 33 Wasowicz 1975, 192, pls. 26, 27; Vinogradov and Kryzhitskiy 1995, pl. 112, 1–3. 34 Dubois 1996, 97–103. 35 Hedreen 1991, 316 thinks they could have served as pieces for a game, since Achilles is often depicted as a player of a board game, cf. e.g. the vase of the Andokides-painter, which shows Achilles playing with Ajax. 36 Tolstoi 1918, 45–55; Hirst 1903, 45–8. Hommel 1980, 15 n.31 is convinced that Dio confuses the two islands, but I do not see any reason for this assumption. 37 Shelov-Kovedyayev 1990. 32

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 156

156

Balbina Bäbler

Why the cult of Achilles was so popular during such a long period in the Black Sea area is itself a matter of ongoing debate. What has Achilles to do with Scythia? Possibly we are dealing here with a phenomenon of syncretism, influenced by a local indigenous god.38 That would explain the antiquity of the cult. On such a view, when the Greek colonists arrived, they will have found some pre-existing cult, which could easily be adapted to Achilles.39 However we explain Achilles’ divine status in the region, his cult provided Greek colonists with an excellent reason to settle there; possibly they really believed that they had found the island of Leuke in Berezan. In any case, when one of the most famous Greek heroes was already there, the colonists could have claimed a legitimacy in the region. All in all, Dio’s Olbiopolitans are a rhetorically brilliant mixture of fact and fiction. His main reason for creating such a mixture was probably to lecture his audience at home in Prusa.40 The courage, unity, and stoutheartedness of the citizens of Olbia in the midst of danger and difficult living conditions is presented as exemplary, and even more so their preservation of ancient Greek culture and traditions. These were qualities which Dio thought to be at risk in his native city.

Dio’s Olbia: buildings It is Dio’s description of the city itself that tends to suggest that the ‘Homeric heroes’ he claims to have encountered are rather more fiction than fact. These heroes do not fit very well into their surroundings, which are, after all, those of a developed (if downtrodden) Greek city. Each Greek city had its own calendar, gods, and festivities, with temples in pride of place. Accordingly, Dio gives his great speech for the 38

Malkin 1987, 162. Hommel 1980, esp. 24–7 saw Achilles as originally Lord of the Dead on an island in the faraway sea, only later becoming a hero of the Trojan myth. But Hooker 1988 thinks Achilles’ immortality an invention of post-Homeric literature. Pinney 1983 stresses Alcaeus fr. 354, where Achilles is called ‘ruler of Scythia’, claiming that in some versions of the Trojan War, especially in the Aethiopis, Scythian archers were among the followers of Achilles, although there is no evidence of that, even in Proclus’ summary of the Epic Cycle. A more plausible interpretation is possibly that of Hedreen 1991, 324–8, who sees some kind of opposed pair in Achilles and his arch-enemy Memnon: both have divine mothers as well as weapons made by Hephaestus, and both are taken far away after their deaths, Memnon into the most southerly land of the world, Ethiopia, and Achilles to Scythia in the far north. 40 Braund 1999; Bäbler 2003, 126–7. 39

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 157

DIO CHRYSOSTOM’S CONSTRUCTION OF OLBIA

157

Olbiopolitans in front of the temple of Zeus (§ 17), which is especially fitting in view of its subject, as we have seen. There is a problem, however: there was no temple of Zeus at Olbia in the first century AD.41 However, Olbia had a cult of Zeus from archaic times; the Greek colonists always brought their pantheon with them, including Zeus. Judging from the dedications on stone and pottery, from the sixth century BC Zeus was entemenios theos together with Athena in the Central Temenos of Olbia, where a temple was built in the later fourth century BC. As mentioned above, a cult of Zeus Eletherios, too, was inaugurated at the beginning of the fourth century BC. Inscriptions also bear witness to one of Zeus Soter, protector of the city during Zopyrion’s siege. Other epithets of Zeus are attested as well. Yet he was obviously not the most important god of Olbia. The temple of Zeus was not even half the size of the temple of Apollo Delphinius in the same temenos. It was a Doric prostylos of 13.9 ⫻ 7.7 m,42 while the temple of Apollo, in comparison, was a peripteros of 16 ⫻ 35 m. Considering the small size of the temple of Zeus, it is difficult to imagine that this was the place where, according to Dio (§ 17) ‘they [sc. the citizens of Olbia] are wont to meet in council’ and where now the whole audience gathers to listen to the rare guest from the Greek motherland. The main problem, however, is that the remains of this comparatively small temple of Zeus have been found in the Temenos of the Upper City, which was destroyed during the sack by the Getic ruler Burebista in about 55 BC. It remained in a state of destruction, according to Dio as well as the archaeological evidence, because the city had shrunk to a third of its former area. So far, no temple of Zeus has been found in the post-Getic city. And it is hardly conceivable that Dio and his audience went into the destroyed area outside the new defences to listen to his grandiose cosmology in front of the remains of a small, ruined building. And yet, this passage of Dio has often been quoted as the ‘proof’ for the existence of a temple of Zeus at this time in Olbia.43 In my opinion, however, this problem might be solved if we ask ourselves why the temple of Zeus was made the setting for the speech in the first place. After all, Apollo Delphinius and Achilles Pontarches were more prominent in this part of the world. A building associated with one of those deities would have provided a plausible background in Olbia. But we have to remember that Dio was 41 42 43

Russell 1992, 220; Braund 1999, 274. See Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 49 f. 112 on problems of reconstruction. Cf. Bäbler 2003, 118–21 with bibliography.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 158

158

Balbina Bäbler

writing for his audience at home in Prusa. For the Prusans, a picture of cosmic world-order and heavenly harmony might well be linked with Zeus, the father of gods and men. By contrast, prominent local deities of a place far away would have made much less sense at Prusa. That every detail of the topographical and historical setting corresponded with local reality was not of the first importance for Dio, because his aim was to create an adequate setting for his philosophical speech, not to write a travel guide. By and large, the city of the Homer-loving and Homeric-looking Olbiopolitans is an exceedingly gloomy place on Dio’s account. Or was it? The city had lost two-thirds of its urban area,44 but it continued to exist, although on a much smaller scale, perhaps because the Scythians needed it still as an emporion (Or. 36.5). Earlier or later destructions, however, cannot be confirmed, so that Dio’s claim that they happened ‘often’ (§ 4) may be exaggerated. The post-Getic city comprised roughly the southern third of the former site; the newly erected walls and towers of the northern side are half a kilometre away from the pre-Getic ones. Dio calls these post-Getic defensive structures a ‘little wall . . . quite low and weak’ (§ 6). The excavations have shown that they were shorter and thinner than the massive pre-Getic structures, but we are still dealing with walls which are 1.7 m thick and contain towers of 7.1 ⫻ 8 m. This is certainly not as weak as Dio implies.45 It is even harder to believe that almost 150 years after the destruction of the city every statue was still damaged, and not only those of the funeral monuments in the necropoleis outside the city, but also within the temples (§ 6). Dio’s gloomy picture should not be taken at face value, so we should not struggle to reconcile his description with the archaeological remains which do not fit.46 As has been argued elsewhere, Dio’s sad description of Olbia is a rhetorical strategy that helped him to show a society almost on the brink of extinction, with its religious and historical identity severely threatened, but holding out, because the citizen community was strong and united under this external pressure.47 With this exemplar, Dio wanted to teach his audience, the inhabitants of Prusa, a lesson and to present a model of responsible behaviour. In Dio’s conception of Olbia, then, the ideal of the noble, oldfashioned, Homeric warrior is combined with the ideal of the classic 44 45 46 47

Wasowicz 1975, 241, pl. 123. On the Roman garrison there, see Zubar in this volume. On this tendency, see Bäbler 2002, 316–19. See Braund 1999.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 159

DIO CHRYSOSTOM’S CONSTRUCTION OF OLBIA

159

polis, itself a thing of the past. When Dio visited the city, it was under the protection of the Roman empire. Roman influence in Olbia had already been strong at the time of Tiberius.48 A citizen of Olbia named Ababus, son of Callisthenes dedicated a portico to this emperor and his predecessor, Augustus (IOSPE I2, 181). Several Olbian decrees of the first century AD bear witness to Olbian delegations seeking help from the Roman authorities in the province of Moesia. It has been argued that the emperor Nero transferred auxiliary troops to the environs of Olbia to protect the city, and that, for this purpose, new city walls were built as well as a citadel in the southern part of the Upper City, together with a trench dug in front of the northern wall.49 In the chora of the city, new fortified villages arose. Olbia was a place of strategic interest for the Romans, who would certainly not have wanted to leave a city totally ruined that could serve as an important military base near their frontier. Dio was no enemy of the empire, for all his mention of a lone Olbian mocked for his extreme demonstration of Roman affiliation. Dio was proud of his reputation at Rome and of his friendship with Nerva and Trajan.50 Rather Dio’s picture of this lone Olbiopolitan who adopted contemporary fashion serves particularly as a background to highlight the ‘primeval’ heroic style of the rest. With their coiffure these Greeks asserted that the era of their greatness was not yet past but lived on, as Zanker has shown for other cases.51 As for Olbia, Zanker’s conclusion on the hairstyles in Dio’s version of the city shows once more how interchangeable early Greeks and contemporary barbarians had become: ‘In actual fact the beards of these Borysthenians were probably those of Scythian barbarians, but that is of no consequence. What is important is the nostalgic search for ancient Greece that colors Dio’s view’.52 This nostalgic search for the Paradise Lost of ancient Greece was very probably also what gave the speech its name (especially the place and its citizens in Dio’s description). Although Dio claims that the city had taken the name from the river Borysthenes, the local usage was ‘Olbia’ and the city’s inhabitants were referred to as ‘Olbiopolitans’, as shown also by inscriptions elsewhere (e.g. Cos, Tenedus, and Byzantium). Dio’s use of the 48

Jones 1978, 63. Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 55, 58–9. However, see Zubar in this volume. 50 Russell 1992, 220; Braund 1999, 279–80. Dio’s remarks about the vilified Olbian who aped Roman manners (36.17) do not mean hostility to Rome, but a concern for Greek civic tradition and a distaste for crude flattery. 51 Zanker 1995, 217–33. 52 Ibid., 220. 49

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

10 Bäbler 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 160

160

Balbina Bäbler

name Borysthenes indicates the level of his literary stylization from the very start.53 Dio’s construction of Olbia is a brilliant picture, compiled from several sources (Herodotus, Hellenistic philosophy, and Dio’s own moral and rhetorical outlook), but also from elements of the city of Olbia as it really existed. However, while a significant portion of this picture is drawn from reality, Dio also ‘saw’ many things because he wanted to see them.

53

Cf. Braund 1999, 272.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 161

Olbia and the Barbarians from the First to the Fourth Century AD V. V. KRAPIVINA

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST CENTURY BC Olbia, already weakened by chronic difficulties, was sacked by the Geto-Dacians of Burebista. Those inhabitants who survived fled from the city so that life at Olbia came to an end for several decades. The Olbiopolitans probably had to take refuge in other Greek communities or among friendly barbarians as the inhabitants of Istria did in similar circumstances.1 Places of refuge for the Olbiopolitans probably included settlements on the lower Dnieper with their Hellenized population.2 Indeed, the arrival of Olbians probably accelerated Hellenization there around the beginning of the first century AD.3 At Olbia life returned no earlier than the end of the first century BC. The inhabitants returned to their old locations, a process which was facilitated by political change in the region and a new unity among the citizens of Olbia. Dio Chrysostom, visiting Olbia around AD 100, underlines the patriotism of its inhabitants and their unconditional regard for all things Greek. The regime of Burebista had soon collapsed after his death in 44 BC and from 29 BC the Romans had set about the pacification of the Getae who ceased to present a danger to their eastern neighbours. Meanwhile the settlements of the lower Dnieper came under pressure from Sarmatians who were moving westwards, so that Olbia and its environs received a new impetus from people who sought to avoid this pressure by moving south. Civil society began again in the city and its environs. There is reason to believe that all who participated in the renewal of Olbia (including Hellenized Scythians and others) received

1 2 3

Latyshev 1909, 243; Blavatskaya 1952, 154–5. Vyaz’mitina 1972, 183; Wasowicz 1975, 109–17; Krapivina 1993, 141. Gavrilyuk & Abikulova 1991.

Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 161–172. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 162

162

V. V. Krapivina

citizenship there, with the result that we find a large number of Iranian names among the officials mentioned in the city’s epigraphical record.4 In all probability this process lies behind Dio Chrysostom’s allusion to barbarian support for the restoration of the city. Conceivably barbarian involvement might explain, for example, the Olbians’ quasiScythian military clothing and the impurity of their Greek, as judged by Dio. However, in actual Olbian epigraphy there are almost no deviations from the norms of standard Greek.5 Indeed the use of ‘barbarian’ military clothing seems better explained by its greater suitability for local climatic conditions.6 After all Dio Chrysostom himself notes that the Olbiopolitans are Greek in character, have an Ionian appearance, have long hair and beards in the old style, worship Greek gods (Achilles and Zeus), love Homer and know it by heart, and some also know Plato. The inhabitants of Olbia, whether they bore Greek names, Iranian names, or some mixture thereof, considered themselves to be Greeks. They spoke in Greek. And whatever their names they held civic positions as archontes, strategoi, agoranomoi, and as the priests of Greek deities.7 At least some of these names may reflect influence from the Sarmatians. The use of non-Greek personal names indicates the impact of another culture, but it can hardly be taken to show the coalescence of different ethnic groupings within a single community.8 The examination of Sarmatian remains around the lower Bug shows a Sarmatian presence in the environs of Olbia from the middle of the first century AD.9 In the last decades of the first century Olbia was closely surrounded by a large number of Sarmatians.10 Probably it was in this context that Olbia developed the chain of settlements around the combined estuary of the Dnieper and Bug with a view to controlling its frontiers.11 Epigraphy shows that Olbia continued to be an independent state with a familiar civic structure wherein the various organs of a democracy continued to function.12 However, for all that, in the second half of the first century AD Olbia became to some extent dependent on the Sarmatians

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Krapivina 1994, 123–9. Latyshev 1887, 177. Podosinov 1984, 153. Latyshev 1887, 173–4; Krapivina 1994, 123–9. Bilets’kiy 1957. Simonenko & Lobay 1991, 86–7. Simonenko 1999, 116. Buyskikh 1991, 110–15. Karyshkovskiy 1982a, 6.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 163

OLBIA AND THE BARBARIANS

Figure 23.

163

Coins of Pharzoios. Drawings M. V. Rusyayeva.

and their kings Pharzoios and later Inismeus, based to the north-west of Olbia. For many years these kings were considered to be Scythians.13 However, Karyshkovskiy convincingly proved that they were the rulers of some part of the Sarmatians as all scholars now accept.14 Shortly before the middle of the first century AD a rather large issue of civic coinage was produced in Olbia bearing, on the obverse, the head of Zeus facing right and, on the reverse, an eagle with spreading wings facing three-quarters right or left and with the letters OKBIO. On some of the coins we find the letters sigma, zeta, eta, and theta, evidently numbers. Contemporary with these coins are issues of gold coins of King Pharzoios (Fig. 23). On their obverse they have the king’s head facing right; on the reverse they have an eagle facing three-quarters to the right and the letters OK, a monogram, and also letter-numbers like those on the bronze civic coinage. Sometimes the name Pharzoios appears on the obverse or the reverse.15 Around AD 80 the gold coins of Pharzoios were replaced by issues of the silver coinage of Inismeus (or Inensimeus). It is

13 14 15

Latyshev 1887, 160–1; Zograph 1930, 13; Gaydukevich 1955, 61. Karyshkovskiy 1982b, 73–5. Karyshkovskiy 1988, 108–12; Anokhin 1989, 58–9.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 164

164

V. V. Krapivina

supposed that the latter succeeded Pharzoios, not only because both rulers issued coinage in Olbia but also because of the similarity of their monograms. The monogram of Inismeus developed from that of Pharzoios in much the same way as monograms changed with succession from father to son in the Bosporan kingdom.16 However, the material culture of Olbia in this period shows no sign of substantial Sarmatian influence or ‘Sarmatization’. There is no significant change in the material or ideological culture which might be connected with the Sarmatians. The discovery of occasional Sarmatian artefacts indicates no more than the existence of contacts between the two cultures.17 Specifically in the Olbian necropolis of this period only a handful of objects have been found which might be connected with the Sarmatians: four mirrors, a jug, a bracelet, four stone slabs with Sarmatian marks, and a dagger.18 We may add the marble lions found in a burial mound of the Roman period: these were carved in the archaic period but are covered with Sarmatian marks and small indentations. In all probability they were used for religious purposes and the marks were made over a period by different individuals.19 Indeed these marks were made over a long period from Dynamis and Pharzoios until Rhescuporis IV and Radamsades. They contain also marks traceable to the Sarmatian-Alan aristocracy of c. 100 BC to AD 350 from various regions of modern Ukraine, the lower Don, and, to a lesser extent, the northern coast of the Sea of Azov. It has been suggested that the lions were deposited in the burial mound in the early medieval period.20 Meanwhile, in recent years a burial from the end of the first century BC has also been brought into this debate. Discovered in 1918 10 km north of Olbia, it contained two members of the Sarmatian elite. It shows elements of both classical and Sarmatian burial practice, while it contains various objects with Sarmatian monograms including a wooden harp.21 The evidence of Dio Chrysostom and the epigraphical record show that the situation around Olbia in these years was distinctly complex: the city suffered recurrent attacks, while Sarmatians and

16

Anokhin 1989, 70; cf., however, Yatsenko 2001, 49–50. Krapivina 1993, 145–6. 18 Solomonik 1959, 17, 30, 31, 36, 42, 120–3, 126, 127, 130, 131, 143–6; Denisova 1988; Simonenko & Lobay 1991, 86. 19 Solomonik 1959, 29, 87–97. 20 Yatsenko 2001, 66–7. 21 Bachmann 1994; Simonenko 1999. At first the location of this burial was mistakenly given as Olbia but more thorough examination of the record showed that it was discovered 10 km to the north. 17

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 165

OLBIA AND THE BARBARIANS

165

Scythians roamed in its environs. Mentioning Callistratus, an inhabitant of Olbia, Dio underlines that he is brave in battle and has either killed or captured many Sarmatians. He proceeds to describe a Scythian raid during which watchmen had been killed and others apparently taken prisoner. The city gates were bolted and a war banner was flown on the city wall. When the citizens of Olbia gathered to hear Dio’s address they were all bearing arms. The Olbiopolitans repeatedly sent embassies to the Scythians and to the Sarmatians, no doubt to forestall raids against the city by offering gifts or paying tribute.22 However, their success was limited since the raids and destruction did not stop. Meanwhile, we should note also that although Dio visited the city after the coin issues of Pharzoios and Inismeus over decades, he makes absolutely no mention of the city’s subservience to Scythians or Sarmatians. Evidently the city remained independent. Archaeology, numismatics, and epigraphy combined to show that Olbia was not ruled by Sarmatians. So much is now agreed, though much debate continues to surround the question of the particular Sarmatian peoples who were led by Pharzoios and Inismeus as well as their relationships with the Roman empire.23 Some scholars consider Pharzoios to have been pursuing an anti-Roman policy in Olbia. On their view he and his successor opposed Roman penetration into the region. Meanwhile the letter-numbers on the coins were explained by Karyshkovskiy as dates according to an ‘era of Pharzoios’ in Olbia which he saw as part of the general Sarmatization of the city.24 On this view Olbia, closely aligned with the Sarmations, was in some sense opposed to Rome. Another view holds that Pharzoios and Inismeus were rulers of the Sirakes, so that Pharzoios was the son of King Zorsines whom we know from Tacitus. On this view some of the Sirakes settled in Olbia together with Bosporan supporters of Mithridates VIII.25 However, the fullest exposition of the notion that Olbia was somehow opposed to Rome is provided by Shchukin. He stressed that the presence of the flying eagle on the reverse of the coinage of Olbia and of Pharzoios indicates the role of the

22

Latyshev 1887, 190. Anokhin 1971; 1989; Karyshkovskiy 1982b; 1988; Shchukin 1982; 1994; Yaylenko 1987b; Rusyayeva 1989; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1990; 1994; Krapivina 1993; 1994; Simonenko & Lobay 1991; Simonenko 1994; 1999. 24 Karyshkovskiy 1982a, 17–19; 1982b, 73–5, stressing the monograms on the coins as signs of independence. Of course, as we have seen, the material culture of the city shows no such Sarmatization. Shchukin 1982, 36 takes Pharzoios’ minting in gold to indicate independence because gold was forbidden for rulers dependent on Rome. 25 Rusyayeva 1989, 192. 23

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 166

166

V. V. Krapivina

king in the city. He argues that the king was the principal archon of Olbia. On this view it was also Pharzoios who instituted the issue of bronze coinage with Zeus and the eagle. Accordingly the end of this minting at Olbia in 58–9 is explained by Shchukin in connection with the activity of Tiberius Plautius Silvanus, who supported Chersonesus against the Scythians and established garrisons at Tyras and Olbia. A renewal of minting is dated to 68–9 when Roman forces left Olbia for the civil wars and Pharzoios re-established the independence of his regime.26 I would agree with Shchukin that a lack of data allows us to create only hypotheses, but I cannot accept his point of view on the relationships between Olbia, the Sarmatian rulers, and Rome. First, the presence of the flying eagle on Olbian coins could well symbolize the royal power of the Roman empire, not of Pharzoios.27 We find a similar eagle on the coins of Tyras at this time which no one would connect with Sarmatian kings.28 Later on the coins of Inismeus we find no eagle at all. Secondly, there is nothing to show that Olbia’s first issue of bronze coinage was instituted by Pharzoios. These coins bear all the signs of the coinage of an autonomous city. Indeed it seems more plausible to believe that Olbia minted coins for Pharzoios as a favour to him for services rendered, by arrangement with Rome.29 Of course, the larger strategic situation in the region was conditioned not by Olbia itself but by the two major protagonists there, namely the Roman empire and the Bosporan kingdom. For example, Roman expansion might be seen as the cause of Bosporan attempts to assert independence: that would be one view of the Roman– Bosporan war of AD 45–9. In that war Sarmatian tribes, notably the Aorsi, supported Rome while others, notably the Sirakes and Dandarii, supported the Bosporan kingdom. The war ended in 49 with Roman victory and increased Roman political influence, although Roman forces were not deployed in the Bosporus on a permanent basis.30 Chersonesus took part in that war on the Roman side and may now have begun a civic era.31 We have no hard evidence about Olbia’s role in these events, though Anokhin has argued for the introduction in 46 of a new civic era

26 27 28 29 30 31

Shchukin 1994, 212–18. Anokhin 1989, 62. See Anokhin 1989, no. 475. Anokhin 1971, 91; 1989, 59. Frolova 1986, 55–8. Anokhin 1971, 87–90.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 167

OLBIA AND THE BARBARIANS

167

in the city.32 We may reasonably doubt that Olbia participated directly in the Bosporan War, although we may be sure enough of the city’s relations with Rome. Already in the first half of the first century AD a leading citizen of Olbia, Ababus, son of Callisthenes used his own resources to construct a portico dedicated to the emperors Augustus and Tiberius and for the citizens of Olbia. At the same time we have archaeological evidence of Olbia’s trade with Italy, which seems to have increased from around AD 50.33 Since at Chersonesus and at Tyras local eras seem to reflect major events in the history of the city, connected with Rome, we may reasonably suppose that the introduction of a new era at Olbia was probably linked with Rome rather than with Pharzoios, although we should also be cautious in supposing that Rome and the king were anything other than allies. The king and his successor may well have been rulers of the Aorsi, as has been argued.34 In all probability Inismeus was buried near the village of Porogi on the upper reaches of the Dniester.35 There is every reason to imagine that the Roman empire encouraged and rewarded the Sarmatians in their constructive relationships with Olbia and other cities of the region. Meanwhile Sarmatian minting in Olbia tends to imply visits to the city by Sarmatian rulers or their representatives. In all probability, as earlier with Scyles, they left their retinue at the city gates, which might explain the discovery in the Olbian necropolis of lions of Greek workmanship but marked by Sarmatians. The representatives of Sarmatian rulers may even have spent extended periods in the city or in its chora overseeing the production of coinage and ensuring the safety of the city. That might explain the rich double burial of Sarmatians at the end of the first century AD in the chora of Olbia. In the Olbian decree of the first century AD which was found beneath Mangup, mention is made of embassies to the governors of Moesia for military assistance as well as to the great kings of Aorsia, which confirms Olbia’s relationships with Rome and the Aorsi.36

32

Anokhin 1971, 87–90; 1989, 61–3. Contrast Karyshkovskiy 1982b, 73–4 arguing that Olbia supported Mithridates VIII and connecting the Olbian dating system with Silvanus. On IOSPE i2 38, see Saprykin 1985, 72; Yaylenko 1987b, 84–5; Anokhin 1989, 59–60 for a range of ideas. 33 Krapivina 1993, 128, 138. 34 Simonenko & Lobay 1991, 84–8; Simonenko 1992, 148–62; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1994, 166–9. 35 Simonenko & Lobay 1991, 71–5, 84–6. 36 Sidorenko 1988, 86–7; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1994, 166–9. If Pharzoios and Inismeus ruled the Alans, as many think, that is of no great importance for the present argument since most accept the close bonds between the rulers of the Aorsi and the Alans: Skripkin 1990, 208–20; Yatsenko 1993, 83, 85. On the monograms, see further Yatsenko 2001, 49–50.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 168

168

V. V. Krapivina

It is believed that the Olbiopolitans supported the military activities of Silvanus.37 Subsequently through the 70s and 80s the Roman empire conducted sustained series of wars with Sarmatians and Dacians. Under Trajan a unit of infantry equipped with long shields was sent to Olbia to defend the city and its environs.38 However, we can hardly suppose that Roman units were stationed permanently in Olbia at this time; they presumably appeared there from time to time. So much is suggested by the outbreak in the middle of the 2nd century AD of the so-called Tauroscythian War which is hard to imagine if Roman forces were stationed in the city.39 Traces of destruction can be observed in all the settlements around Olbia, sometimes together with characteristic Sarmatian arrowheads of the second century which suggests that the so-called Tauroscythians were probably Sarmatians. The defensive system of Olbia, centred upon these settlements, absorbed the blow and thereby fulfilled its function: the city of Olbia itself remained free from damage.40 The Olbiopolitans had no time and, since they were themselves unable to repulse the attack, they turned for help to the Romans. Antoninus Pius sent forces which dealt with the Tauroscythians and imposed a peace to the advantage of the city of Olbia (SHA Pius 9.9). It is possible that this victory is mentioned in an Olbian inscription which states that the servants of the temple of Apollo decorated the temple in the aftermath of a military victory.41 Subsequent construction in the city of Olbia through the second century AD is accompanied by similar development in its agricultural territory. From about AD 200 the fortified settlements continued to occupy positions which were most elevated and defensible, whether on capes or on watersheds. The right bank of the Bug estuary was settled most heavily while the upper part of the estuary was much less occupied. The settlements were located at a distance which allowed intervisibility and the control of all the heartlands of the chora.42 The renewal of the city and its environs comes to an end from the 230s or so. The principal reason for this decline was the general situation in the Roman empire at large. In AD 214 in particular the invasion of the Carpi struck a series of

37 38 39 40 41 42

Yu. G. Vinogradov 1994, 166–9. Yu. G. Vinogradov 1990, 31. On the location of the Tauroscythians in Ptolemy, see Latyshev 1887, 190. Buyskikh 1991, 134. IOSPE i2 175 with Krapivina 1993, 148 arguing for a second-century date. Buyskikh 1991, 104–5.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 169

OLBIA AND THE BARBARIANS

169

cities in Moesia, with an impact that was felt also at Tyras.43 As far as we can tell Olbia did not suffer at this time; however, in the 230s transDanubian peoples crossed into the Roman empire, into Dacia and into upper and lower Moesia, Thrace, and Panonia. From the 250s barbarians mounted offensives by sea which had a major impact all around the Black Sea. In 269–70 the Goths and their neighbours attempted to settle on the lands of the Roman empire.44 In consequence of these recurrent barbarian assaults the cities of Tyras and Olbia were seized and burnt as also were cities of the Bosporan kingdom. However, our sources do not allow us to give a precise date to the sack of Olbia. It was long supposed that Olbia was destroyed in 232–5 in an early raid45 or in a much later raid in 269–70.46 Archaeological investigation of the south-eastern portion of the Upper City of Olbia (section R-25)47 has established the presence of two destruction levels in the third century, which allows us to accept both dates for destruction by the ‘Goths’ and to be a little more specific about the nature of those destructions.48 Here the term ‘Goths’ is to be used with caution since Goths proper are only known in Olbian archaeology from about AD 250, not earlier.49 There is every reason to suppose that the peoples who attacked Olbia in the 230s were Sarmatians; indeed, as we have seen, Sarmatian marks on the marble lions from Olbia can be dated as late as about 350. A thick layer of burnt material, found throughout Olbia in the Roman period, is to be connected with the first ‘Gothic’ sack of the city in the 230s. However, the swift reconstruction of the city thereafter suggests that the catastrophe was soon overcome. Epigraphic evidence from the reign of Alexander Severus sheds some light on these events at Olbia. We have building inscriptions, one of which specifies the reconstruction of the defensive wall by the archons.50 We also have dedicatory inscriptions cut by the strategoi.51 The generals make their dedications for the safety of the city and themselves, while the council and people bestow gold crowns on the generals, presumably for their services to the city.52 The suggestion 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Karyshkovskiy & Kleyman 1985, 129–31; Son 1986, 142–53. Budanova 1990, 82, 92–9. Latyshev 1887, 211; Gaydukevich 1955, 65. Karyshkovskiy 1969, 178–9. Excavated by A. V. Buyskikh and the author. Krapivina 1993, 47–9; 1993, 154. Magomedov 1987, 93. IOSPE i2 184–5; IOlbiae 52, on the wall. IOSPE i2 94, 107; also 97 with IOlbiae 83. Krapivina 1993, 154.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 170

170

V. V. Krapivina

of Zubar that this destruction layer at Olbia may be connected with the attack by the Carpi in 214 is rendered impossible not only by this epigraphic material but also by the discovery of a denarius of Alexander Severus in one of the buildings destroyed in the fire that engulfed the city.53 The second destruction layer brought the abandonment of the city. It covered the buildings constructed at Olbia after the first ‘Gothic’ sack and should no doubt be related to the years 269–70 when the greatest north Pontic invasions came. Olbia was utterly destroyed and its inhabitants abandoned the city. During these ‘Gothic’ wars a cultural grouping emerged which we know as the Chernyakhov culture. At first there were two views of the chronology of its emergence in the north-west Black Sea region. Some scholars placed it in the period between the second century and the middle of the third.54 That allowed the possibility of contact between this culture and the cities of Olbia and Tyras. However, the majority of scholars considered, rightly, that this cultural grouping emerged rather later, between about 250 and 300, and is to be linked with the appearance in the region of people bringing this culture from the north.55 At present this second view seems to enjoy general support.56 It is possible that we should relate the appearance of this cultural grouping with the Gothic invasion of 269–70, which not only destroyed Olbia57 itself but also put an end to the remaining settlements around the city58 as well as those on the lower Dnieper.59 Having destroyed all these settlements the invaders moved from the mouth of the Dniester by land and sea together with their wives and children on to the lands of the Roman empire, where they were vigorously repulsed in a series of battles. After 269 the Romans resettled some of the Goths on the Roman bank of the Danube.60 Although under Aurelian Roman forces and part of the Romanized population were withdrawn from Dacia,61 in 271 the Romans inflicted a 53

Zubar 1997a, 291–5. Magomedov 1987, 94; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 154–5. 55 Gorokhovskiy 1985; Gorokhovskiy et al. 1985, 36; Gey 1986, 77; Gudkova 1987, 16; Gudkova & Krapivina 1990. 56 Magomedov 2001, 134; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 339–40. 57 The deposit of a Chernyakhov burial in the northern part of the Lower City at Olbia (excavated by N. A. Leypunskaya) may be dated precisely to this period. 58 Gorokhovskiy et al. 1985, 37. 59 Pogrebova 1958, 235–7. 60 SHA Claud. 9.4. 61 Kolosovskaya 1955, 83–4; Kruglikova 1955, 154–5. 54

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 171

OLBIA AND THE BARBARIANS

171

crushing defeat on the Goths and in 272 they defeated the Carpi on the lower Danube. Thereafter the emperor Probus conquered or made allies of ‘all the Gothic peoples’ in 279, and in 280 he resettled the Bastarnae and others on vacant lands along the lower Danube.62 A similar strategy was pursued thereafter by Diocletian and Constantine. In all probability the arrival of the Chernyakhov culture on lands which had previously constituted the margins of Olbia is probably to be understood in the context of these large events and to be dated to the 280s. More specifically we should note Ammianus’ description of the gradual movement of the Tretungi towards the Dniester in the middle of the fourth century, which may well imply their presence in the vicinity of Olbia.63 Archaeology provides some confirmation: the Chernyakhov culture on the steppe between the Dniester and the Don is dated to the middle and later fourth century, while its density diminishes from west to east.64 However, it must be stressed that the territory of Olbia proper was not occupied by the Chernyakhov culture. In all probability a measure of life returned to the city before the bearers of this culture returned from their raids to settle in lands which had formed Olbia’s chora. This occurred no earlier than about 280: we have Roman coins here only with the head of Diocletian.65 The extent of the city was not greatly reduced. Production continued in the Lower City and in its terraced part. However, defensive structures seem to have been absent, at least in the south-eastern part of the city above the estuary of the Bug.66 By contrast the Olbian chora was sharply reduced: it now occupied an area with a radius of some 5–10 km from the city. Hitherto its economy had been based on agriculture; however, with the reduction of the chora stock-raising, crafts, and other forms of production took on a more important role. Trade was particularly important, although it was carried out at a level greatly reduced from the exchanges that had once taken place in the city. The Chernyakhov culture persisted on the lower Bug from the end of the third century to around 420 or so. The density of the population seems to have been twice that in the settlements around Olbia in the third century AD.67 The bearers of this culture tended to spread across hillsides and along the valleys of small streams, as well as sometimes on the steep slopes above the estuary, often beside 62 63 64 65 66 67

Budanova 1990, 105. Ammianus 31.3.1–5. Gudkova 1989, 16, 43. Karyshkovskiy 1968, 178. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 326. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 159.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

11 Krapivina 1525

28/9/07

12:34

Page 172

172

V. V. Krapivina

Greek remains. The upper part of the estuaries of the region tended to be settled especially densely. Usually Chernyakhov settlements are unfortified, show no planning, and do not have recognizable streets.68 There is considerable dispute about the nature of any relations between Olbia and the bearers of the Chernyakhov culture on the lower Bug at this time. For example, Magomedov considers that the city and its new neighbours formed a single economic and political entity.69 Or at the very least, that Olbia was under Gothic domination and that some part of its population belonged to the Chernyakhov culture.70 In my view the absence of defensive structures at the Chernyakhov settlements71 and at Olbia indicates the peaceful relationships between the two. There was trade between them, although we can scarcely suppose that Olbia was the only trading partner for the Chernyakhov peoples around it. Presumably craftsmen in Olbia met the needs of their new neighbours. However, Olbia retained its separate identity. It did not become the political, economic, or cultural centre of the Chernyakhov culture of the region. We have no evidence at all of the presence of Chernyakhov culture among the inhabitants of Olbia. On the whole the appearance of Olbia and the character of its material culture continue to be classical.72 The discovery of occasional artefacts in the city which may be connected with the Chernyakhov culture shows no more than the existence of contacts. At least for the time being we have no evidence to suggest more than that. Life in the city of Olbia came to an end no later than about 375, that is some half a century earlier than at the Chernyakhov settlements around the city. In all probability this occurred before invasions by the Huns. Its causes are probably to be connected with the economic position of Olbia. Evidently attempts to reconstruct the city’s economy on the basis of craft production did not succeed. Possibly it was more advantageous to craftsmen (primarily smiths and potters) to locate themselves among the customers for their wares, that is at the Chernyakhov settlements where we find traces of the presence of a Greek population.73

68

Magomedov 1987, 13–14. Magomedov 1985. 70 Magomedov 2001, 20, 138. 71 Two fortified settlements are known, but these are located well to the north of Olbia: Aleksandrovka on the Ingulets and Gorodok on the southern Bug. 72 Krapivina 1993, 155–7; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 325–9. 73 Magomedov 1985, 49; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 219. 69

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

12 Zubar 1525

28/9/07

12:35

Page 173

Roman Military Units in Olbia V. M. ZUBAR

AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST CENTURY BC Olbia, like other settlements of the north-western Black Sea, suffered invasion by the Getae (Dio Chrys. 36.4). It was either destroyed completely or abandoned shortly before its destruction.1 Life began again at Olbia in the first half of the first century AD. However, there is no reason to imagine Roman interest in the place until the middle of the first century: it lay far from the Roman empire proper. The attempts of some scholars to link Olbia with the events of the Roman–Bosporan war of AD 45–9 and the Crimean campaign of Tiberius Plautius Silvanus in the early 60s remain less than cogent for the simple reason that they rest on controversial interpretations of the sources.2 However, there is no reason in principle to reject the possibility that Silvanus may have played some part in the developing alliance of those years between Olbia and the Sarmatian ruler Pharzoios, which effectively protected the city against further barbarian pressures. Indeed, it is entirely possible that this was the context for the presence at Olbia of the evocatus Agathocles, for whom we have an honorific decree.3 However, we must be clear that all this is hypothesis.4 Yu. G. Vinogradov has pointed out that we have hard evidence for the presence of the Roman military in Olbia in the years c. AD 70–95 in the form of inscribed columnar bases, set up by a centurion of legion I Italica, M. Aemilius Severinus.5 He further brings to bear the discovery of a ‘coin-mirror’ at Olbia and the contents of an inscription discovered in the south-western Crimea beneath the escarpment of Mangup.6 However, 1 2 3 4 5 6

Anokhin 1989, 57–8; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1989, 263–72; Krapivina 1993, 141. Indeed, mistaken; Zubar 1998b, 35–6, 48–50. IOlbiae 45. Zubar 1994. Vinogradov 1990, 29; cf. Yaylenko 1987a, 73–6. Vinogradov 1990, 32 n.3.

Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 173–178. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

12 Zubar 1525

28/9/07

12:35

Page 174

174

V. M. Zubar

it is hard to follow him in any of this. First, we must explain the silence of Dio Chrysostom about Roman military in Olbia, where he visited around the end of the century.7 Secondly, we must observe that the inscriptions on the columnar bases, in contrast with other Roman military inscriptions of the region, are cut in Greek. Accordingly, we may well suspect that they were of a private nature. They cannot be taken as firm evidence of the deployment of Roman military forces at Olbia, perhaps as a garrison. We are in no position to link the appearance of a centurion on these bases with any specific turn of events in the city, though one might wonder about the possible relevance of Roman interest in the Olbian– Sarmatian alliance. As far as we can judge from the coins minted at Olbia in these years, the alliance began with the Sarmatian ruler Pharzoios and continued under his successor Inismeus, who remained in power down to Domitian’s Dacian Wars, which would suit the possibility that Severinus played some role for Rome in the Olbian–Sarmatian alliance of the later first century. Be that as it may, however, the evidence adduced by Vinogradov gives no more than an indirect indication of Olbian connections with the Roman empire.8 The first solid evidence of the presence of a Roman military unit at Olbia, apparently there to protect the city from the barbarians, can be dated to the years AD 106–11. This is the inscribed grave-monument of Athenocles, son of Athenocles, which indicates the existence at Olbia of an auxiliary unit equipped with long shields. These are not, however, legionaries.9 In all probability the appearance of this unit at Olbia, and of a Roman garrison at Tyras, is to be connected with Trajan’s measures to strengthen the Danube frontier after his Dacian Wars.10 It is hard to estimate how long this auxiliary unit remained at Olbia, but the absence of other evidence for its presence there tends to suggest that it was withdrawn after the completion of a specific tour of duty in the city. Three epitaphs were found in Olbia, dated to the beginning of the second century. They were the epitaphs of Bosporans.11 To this group may be added the two-line epitaph of Straton, son of Promachus, which has very close parallels in the funerary monuments of the Bosporus from the first and early second centuries.12 Although there are various opinions 7 8 9 10 11 12

Braund 1991, 25; Rusyayeva 1998. Zubar 1994, 220–1. Vinogradov 1990, 29–31. Zubar 1998b, 66–9. IOSPE i2 202–4. IOSPE i2 229: Rusyayeva 1992, 184; Zubar 1998b, 70–1.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

12 Zubar 1525

28/9/07

12:35

Page 175

ROMAN MILITARY UNITS IN OLBIA

175

with regard to these epitaphs,13 we must agree with Rostovtzeff that in the early years of Hadrian’s reign a cavalry unit was sent to Olbia by the Bosporan king on Rome’s behalf for the defence of the city from the barbarians.14 These forces were not part of the Roman army and are best seen as allies, such as the Roman administration used periodically for the performance of operational tasks on the imperial frontiers.15 Accordingly after the collapse of the Olbian–Sarmatian alliance (probably to be connected with Domitian’s Dacian Wars), the Roman empire began to provide occasional military assistance to Olbia in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. However, these were not regular troops from the army of Lower Moesia but troops best regarded as imperial allies. Despite the developing relationship between Olbia and Rome in the early second century, the nature of these troops indicates the very marginal importance of Olbia in Roman politics around AD 100–30. In view of the evidence of the Historia Augusta that the emperor Antoninus Pius provided help for Olbia in its struggle with the Tauroscythians, it was long believed that a regular Roman garrison from the Roman army of Moesia was established in the city precisely at this juncture.16 However, there are substantial reasons to doubt the accuracy of this statement in the Historia Augusta, so that we must hesitate to use it as the basis for the history of Olbia in the middle of the second century. The date of the establishment of a Roman garrison in the city remains to be discovered.17 The earliest firm evidence for the presence of a Roman legionary garrison stationed at Olbia is a Latin building inscription which mentions a vexillation of legions I Italica, V Macedonica, and IX Claudia under the command of a centurion. This can be dated to c. AD 170.18 In this regard it is worth stressing that the appearance of the Roman garrison coincides chronologically with the return of intensive construction to the city.19 The building inscription suggests that the Roman military took an active part in this construction. In all probability they established a defensive wall which ran for some 106 Roman feet (that is, 61 m).20 13

Yaylenko 1987a, 84–7; Krykin 1992, 144; D’yachkov 1993, 246. Rostovtzeff 1915, 12–13. 15 Zubar 1998b, 72–4. 16 SHA Ant. Pius 19.9. Rostovtzeff 1908, 66; Anokhin 1989, 72; Buyskikh 1991, 135; Krapivina 1993, 149. 17 Zubar 1993; 1997b; 1998b, 89–90. 18 IOSPE i2 322; Zubar & Son 1995, 52–4; Zubar 1998b, 90–1. 19 Kryzhitskiy 1985, 153–8; Krapivina 1993, 20. 20 Zubar & Son 1995, 53–4. 14

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

12 Zubar 1525

28/9/07

12:35

Page 176

176

V. M. Zubar

It is usually thought that a Roman citadel was established in the second century in the southern part of the Upper City as the base for Olbia’s Roman garrison.21 However, the Upper City of the early centuries AD cannot be identified as a Roman citadel with any confidence since here (by contrast, for example, with the Roman citadel at Chersonesus) excavation has not shown structures which indicate the deployment of Roman soldiers.22 At most we may suspect that the Roman garrison sent to protect the city was located in this part of Olbia, which had the best defensive position. Accordingly, until future excavations provide a clear answer on this issue, we must refrain from calling the Upper City a ‘Roman citadel’ and simply use the geographical term.23 The aforementioned building inscription indicates that the Roman vexillation at Olbia consisted of soldiers from all three of the legions of Lower Moesia under the command of a centurion of XI Claudia, by contrast with the Roman forces stationed in the Crimea under a tribune. A similar Roman garrison is known also at Tyras.24 Accordingly we may well suppose that, while the Roman troops in the Crimea were commanded by a military tribune based at Chersonesus, the vexillations of Olbia and Tyras were under the direct command of the military administration of Lower Moesia.25 It must be observed that, while at Tyras, at Chersonesus and its environs, and also at Charax we know of a relatively large number of Latin inscriptions mentioning legionaries, at Olbia we have only two from the later second and early third centuries.26 This can hardly be a matter of simple chance. At Olbia has been found a large number of so-called ‘Thracian dedicatory reliefs’,27 while as for Latin inscriptions — besides Roman ones — names of Thracian origin predominate.28 In view of the fact that in the course of the second century auxiliary units of the Danubian army began to be recruited from the local Thracian population, we cannot exclude the possibility that the Roman garrison at Olbia consisted largely of auxiliary troops, not legionaries.29 The discovery of

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Kryzhitskiy 1985, 150; Buyskikh 1991, 30–1. Zubar 1998b, 93–5. Ibid., 95. Son 1993, 33–4. Zubar 1998b, 97. IOSPE i2 236, 322. Zubar 1998b, 99–101. IOSPE i2 167, 237; Latyshev 1904, 6–7, 14. Holder 1980, 109–39; Mann 1983, 38, 66.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

12 Zubar 1525

28/9/07

12:35

Page 177

ROMAN MILITARY UNITS IN OLBIA

177

equipment appropriate to auxiliaries at Olbia tends to strengthen that possibility.30 Meanwhile some legionaries are attested at Olbia. We have the inscription which mentions three legions and a tombstone erected by Galerius Montanus for his 90-year-old mother. However, Galerius Montanus was no ordinary legionary. He belonged to the armatura of Legion XI Claudia and was one of the principales.31 Rostovtzeff, following Domaszewski, pointed out that such principales were the instructors of newly recruited soldiers.32 Accordingly Montanus may have been in Olbia to ensure the military preparedness of the garrison.33 The text of the epitaph shows that Montanus lived in Olbia with his mother and with a certain Procula, who is not called his wife and was probably cohabiting with him. Therefore we may have an upper chronological limit for this tombstone in the reign of Septimius Severus who legalized military marriages.34 Be that as it may, quite apart from such considerations, there is reason to believe that in Olbia around AD 200 there were not only Roman soldiers but also members of their families.35 From about AD 200 until about AD 250 we have no closely datable objects at Olbia related to a Roman garrison there. One might conclude that for some time in the first half of the third century Roman forces were withdrawn from the city. That possibility finds some support in the fact that, while Montanus belonged to Legion XI Claudia in about AD 250 (both at Olbia and at Chersonesus),36 we find soldiers from Legion I Italica and its auxiliaries at Olbia.37 Evidently there were changes in the configuration of the forces at Olbia and perhaps in Roman political attitudes towards the city in the middle of the third century. In Roman imperial strategy in these years the Danubian frontier and its environs played a very significant role. Philip the Arab and after him Decius Trajan waged a series of wars against the barbarians who threatened Moesia and Thrace.38 The latter died together with his son in 251 fighting against the Goths.39 It is precisely in the reigns of these emperors that we find Roman legionary forces stationed at Olbia and 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Son & Nazarov 1993. IOSPE i2 236; cf. CIL III 1663, 3336. Rostovtzeff 1908, 66–7; cf. Domaszewski 1967, 45; Dobson 1967, 15. Zubar 1998b, 99–106. Wesch-Klein 1998, 108–9. Zubar 1998b, 105–6. Vinogradov & Zubar 1995/6; Vinogradov et al. 1999. Zubar & Krapivina 1999; 2000; Zubar & Kozub 2002a; 2002b. Zosimus 1.20.1; Dexippus, 18; Jord. Get. 90–3. Zosimus 1.23.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

12 Zubar 1525

28/9/07

12:35

Page 178

178

V. M. Zubar

Chersonesus.40 Their presence in these cities is to be understood in terms of the larger imperial engagement with the barbarians on the Danubian frontier. The deployment of such forces, albeit only as small garrisons designed to defend the Greek population of these cities, made these places natural allies supporting the imperial frontiers and resisting the aggression of the barbarians. This was an important consideration in Roman imperial policy especially with regard to the ancient states of the north coast of the Black Sea at this time.41 After the death of Decius and his son, Trebonianus Gallus became emperor. He concluded a peace with the Goths which was considered a disgrace to the empire. The decision was soon taken to withdraw Roman garrisons from the cities of the north coast of the Black Sea, including specifically Olbia. At this time the empire was in desperate need of its military.42 A similar strategy was later followed by the emperor Aurelian who took the decision finally to withdraw from Roman Dacia.43 We may conclude that in the aftermath of upheavals on the Danubian frontier, no later than about AD 250–75 Roman forces were finally withdrawn from the cities of the north coast of the Black Sea.44 Moreover, the discovery at Olbia of an altar dated to AD 248 in particular accords well with this analysis.45 The years around AD 250 are to be seen as the end of almost a century of Roman legionary involvement in the city and the beginning of a new period in the history of Olbia.46

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

IOSPE i2 167; Zubar & Krapivina 1999; 2000; Zubar & Kozub 2002b. Zubar 1998b, 131. Jones 1964, 21–36; Alföldy 1967, 342–74. Scorpan 1980, 134. Zubar 1998, 142–50. Zubar 1998b, 130–1. Zubar 2001.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 179

References Abbreviations The following are standard abbreviations, but may be unfamiliar to some readers. ACSS AGSP AIU AKSP AP ASGE KSIA KSIIMK MAIET MAR MIA NE PAV PISPAE RA SA SAI SGE TGE VDI

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia Antichniye gosudarstva Severnovo Prichernomor’ya Arkheologicheskiye Issledovaniya na Ukrainye Antichnaya kul’tura Severnovo Prichernomor’ya Arkheologichni pam’yatky (Kiev) Arkheologicheskiy Sbornik Gosudarstvennovo Ermitazha Kratkiye Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii Kratkiye Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Material’noy Kul’tury Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii Materialy po arkheologii Rossii Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR Numizmatika i Epigrafia Peterburgskiy Arkheologicheskiy Vestnik Problemy istorii Severnovo Prichernomor’ya v antichnuyu epokhu Rossiyskaya arkheologiya Sovietskaya arkheologiya Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennovo Ermitazha Trudy Gosudarstvennovo Ermitazha Vestnik drevnyey istoriya

References Alekseyev, A. Yu. 1989: Great Scythia or two Scythias. In Scythia and the Bosporus: A Conference in Honour of M. I. Rostovtzeff, pp. 85–7. Novocherkassk. Alekseyeva, E. M. 1991: Greek Colonization of the North-West Caucasus. Moscow. Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 179–199. © The British Academy 2007.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 180

180

References

Alekseyev, A. Yu. 1992: Scythian Chronicle. St Petersburg. Alekseyev, A. Yu. 2005: Scythian kings and ‘royal’ burial mounds in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. In D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks, pp. 39–55, Exeter. Alekseyev, A. Yu., Murzin, V. Yu. & Rolle, R. 1991: Chertomlyk. Kiev. Alexandrescu Vianu, M. 1980: Sur la diffusion du culte de Cybèle dans le bassin de la mer noire à l’époque archaïque. Dacia 20, 261–5. Alföldy, G. 1967: Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des 3. Jahrhunderts. Darmstadt. Andriyenko, V. P. 1975: Agrarian Cults of the Wooded Steppe (7th–5th Centuries BC). Avtoref.diss., Khar’kov. Anokhin, V. A. 1971: On the question of the Olbian era. NE 4, 87–91. Anokhin, V. A. 1989: Coins of the Ancient Cities of the North-West Coast of the Black Sea. Kiev. Antonovich, V. B. 1895: An Archaeological Map of Kiev Province, suppl. to Antiquities, vol. 15, Moscow. Artamonov, M. I. 1961: Anthropomorphic deities in the religion of the Scythians, ASGE 2, 57–87. Artamonov, M. I. 1974: Cimmerians and Scythians. Leningrad. Avram, A., Hind, J. & Tsetskhladze, G. 2004: The Black Sea area. In M. Hansen & T. H. Neilsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 924–73. Bäbler, B. 1998: Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen. Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen und ihre archäologische Hinterlassenschaft. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Bäbler, B. 2002: ‘Long-haired Greeks in trousers’ Olbia and Dio Chrysostom (Or. 36, ‘Borystheniticus’). ACSS 8, 311–27. Bäbler, B. 2003: Behoste Griechen im Skythenland: Erscheinungsformen und Wahrnehmung antiker Kultur in ihren Grenzbereichen. In H.-G. Nesselrath, B. Bäbler, M. Forschner & A. de Jung (eds.), Dion von Prusa: menschliche Gemeinschaft u. göttliche Ordnung: die Borysthenes-Rede, pp. 113–27. Stuttgart. Bachmann, W. 1994: Die Skythisch-Sarmatische Harfe aus Olbia. In Sons originals, pp. 112–13. Liège. Backhaus, W. 1976: Der Hellenen-Barbaren-Gegensatz u. die hippokratische Schrift PEQI AEQXM, TDASXM, SOPXM. Historia 25, 170–85. Bandurovskiy, A. V. & Buynov, Yu. V. 2000: Burial Mounds of the Scythian Period: The North Donetsk Variant. Kiev. Bartseva, T. V. 1981: Non-Ferrous Metal-work of the Scythian Period. Moscow. Belan, N. G. 1982: The fauna of Trakhtemirov. Arkheologiya 38, 50–63. Belozor, V. P. 1996: Stone statues in the context of Scythian ethnography. Arkheologiya 4, 41–50. Bessonova, S. S. 1983: The Religious Ideas of the Scythians. Kiev. Bessonova, S. S. 1991: On elements of Scythian practice in the Archaic necropolis of Olbia. In A. V. Gavrilov (ed.), Problems of the Archaeology of the North Coast of the Black Sea (on the Centenary of Kherson Museum), pp. 92–9. Kerson. Bessonova, S. S. 1996: Clay altars of the wooded steppe along the Dnieper in the early Scythian period. Arkheologiya 4, 25–40. Bessonova, S. S. & Skoryy, S. A. 2001: Motroninskoye Settlement-Site in the Scythian Period. Kiev and Krakow.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 181

References

181

Bilets’kiy, A. O. 1957: On magistrates’ names in Olbian inscriptions. Arkheologiya 11, 21–5. Billows, R. 2003: Cities. In A. Erskine, A Companion to the Hellenistic World, pp. 196–215. Oxford. Birge, D. 1994: Trees in the landscape of Pausanias’ Periegesis. In Placing the Gods. S. E. Alcock & R. Osborne (eds.), pp. 231–45. Oxford. Blavatskaya, T. V. 1952: Western Pontic Cities in the 7th to 1st Centuries BC. Moscow. Blavatskiy, V. D. 1953: Agriculture in the Ancient Cities of the North Coast of the Black Sea. Moscow. Blavatskiy, V. D. 1964: The impact of classical culture on the lands of the north coast of the Black Sea (7th–5th centuries BC), SA 2, 13–26. Boltrik, Yu. V. 2000: The main trade route of Olbia into the wooded steppe west of the Dnieper. RA 9, 121–30. Boltrik, Yu. V. & Fialko, E. E. 2001: Traces of Scythian attack on Trakhtemirov. Museum Readings, 146–8. Bondar, N. N. 1959: Olbian trade relations with Scythia in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. SA 23, 58–80. Bowman, A. & Woolf, G. (eds.). 1994: Literacy and Power in the Ancient World. Cambridge. Brashinskiy, I. V. 1963: Athens and the North Coast of the Black Sea. Moscow. Brashinskiy, I. V. 1984: Trade. In G. A. Koshelenko (ed.), Ancient States of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 174–86. Moscow. Braund, D. 1991: Dio Chrysostom, Olbian trade and Olbia’s Tauroscythian war. Arkheologiya 1, 25–30. Braund, D. 1994: Georgia in Antiquity. Oxford. Braund, D. 1995: Fish from Byzantium. In J. Wilkins, F. D. Harvey & M. Dobson (eds.), Food in Antiquity, pp. 162–70. Exeter. Braund, D. 1997: Greeks and barbarians: the Black Sea region and Hellenism under the early Roman empire. In S. Alcock (ed.), The Early Roman Empire in the East, pp. 121–36. Oxford. Braund, D. 1999: Dio Chrysostom’s account of Olbia: literary tradition and philosophical imagination. In A. V. Podosinov (ed.), Drevneyshiye gosudarstva vostochnoy Yevropy, pp. 271–82. Moscow. Braund, D. 2000: Strattis’ Kallippides: the pompous actor from Scythia? In D. Harvey & J. Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes, pp. 151–8. London. Braund, D. 2001: Palace and polis: Dionysus, Scythia and Plutarch’s Alexander. In I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC, pp. 15–31. Athens. Braund, D. 2004: Herodotus’ Spartan Scythians. In Tuplin 2004, 25–41. Braund, D. 2005: Pericles, Cleon and the Pontus: the Black Sea in Athens c.440–421. In D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks, pp. 80–99. Exeter. Braund, D. & Tsetskhladze, G. 1989: The export of slaves from Colchis. CQ 39, 114–25. Bravo, B. 1974: Une lettre sur plomb de Berezan: colonisation et modes de contact dans le Pont. DHA 166, 110–87. Bravo, B. 2000: Pseudo-Herodotus and Pseudo-Thucydides on Scythia, Thrace and the regions beyond. ASNP (4th ser.) 5, 21–112.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 182

182

References

Bravo, B. 2001: Luoghi di culto nella chora di Olbia Pontica. In Problemi della chora coloniale dall’Occidente al Mar Nero, pp. 221–64. Taranto. Bredow, I. von 1996: Der Begriff der Mixhellenes. In Funck 1996, 467–74. Budanova, V. P. 1990: Goths in the Period of the Great Migration of Peoples. Moscow. Bujskich, A. V. 2001: Review of Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1998) (Historia: Einzelschriften 121), 336 S. 44 Abb., Eurasia Antiqua 7, 623–9. (See also A. V. Buyskikh.) Bujskich, A. V. & Bujskich, S. B. 2001: I sitti di Olbia e della sua chora nel periodo della colonizzazione Greca. In Problemi della chora coloniale dall’ Occidente al Mar Nero Atti del XL Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 2000, pp. 667–92. Taranto. Bujskich, S. B. 2001: Das Achilleus-Heiligtum in der Chora von Olbia Pontica aus archaischer Zeit. In Problemi della chora coloniale dall’ Occidente al Mar Nero. Atti del XL Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 2000, pp. 317–32. Taranto. Bunyatyan, E. P. 1985: The Methodology of Social Reconstructions in Archaeology from Materials of Scythian Cemeteries of the 4th to 3rd Centuries BC. Kiev. Burakov, A. V. 1976: Kozyrka Settlement at the Turn of the Early Centuries AD. Kiev. Burkert, W. 1960/1: Elysion. Glotta 39, 208–13. Burkert, W. 1985: Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass. Burkert, W. 1990a: Apollo of Didyma and Olbia (Russian with English summary). VDI 193, 155–60. Burkert, W. 1990b: Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen. In G. Nenci (ed.), Hérodote et les peuples non grecs (Entretiens Hardt 35). Geneva. Butyagin, A. M. 1997: On the transition to stone house-building at Myrmecium, Stratum plus 1, 94–100. Butyagin, A. M. 1999: Peculiarities of house building in the archaic Bosporus. In M. Vakhtina (ed.), Bosporskiy Fenomen 1, pp. 112–16. St Petersburg. Butyagin, A. M. 2001: Dugout construction in archaic Bosporus (origin and development). In V. Yu. Zuyev et al., Bosporan Phenomenon: The Colonization of the Region, Polis-formation and State-formation, 2 vols., vol. I, pp. 36–41. St Petersburg. Buyskikh, A. V. 1990: Some specific features of the shape of late archaic settlements of the lower Bug, Arkheologiya 2, 24–32. (See also A. V. Bujskich.) Buyskikh, A. V. & Krapivina, V. V. 2001: On East Greek pottery from the excavations at Olbia (new discoveries). In V. P. Kopylov (ed.), International Relations in the Black Sea Basin in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, pp. 46–9. Rostov-on-Don. Buyskikh, S. B. 1985: Some results of the study of the Olbian khora. In S. D. Kryzhitskiy (ed.), Problems in the Study of Olbia: Abstracts, pp. 8–10. Parutino. (See also S. B. Bujskich.) Buyskikh, S. B. 1986: Nekotorye voprosy prostranstvenno-strukturnovo razvitiya Ol’viyskoy khory (VI–II v. do n.e.). In A. S. Rusyayeva (ed.), Ol’viya i yeyo sal’skaya okruga, pp. 17–28. Kiev. Buyskikh, S. B. 1987: On early classical settlement-structures on the lower Bug. In V. S. Ol’khovskiy (ed.), Socio-economic Problems in the Development of Ancient Societies and Archaeology, pp. 30–6. Moscow.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 183

References

183

Buyskikh, S. B. 2001: The shrine of Achilles on Beykush Cape (preliminary results). In M. I. Zolotaryov (ed.), AMAVAQRIR. In memory of Yu.G. Vinogradov, pp. 34–43. Sebastopol. Buyskikh, S. B. 1991: The Fortification of the Olbian State (Early Centuries AD). Kiev. Buyskikh, S. B. (forthcoming). Beykush. In A. Bresson and A. Ivantchik (eds.), Ausonius series, Bordeaux. Carneiro, R. 2002: Was the chiefdom a congelation of ideas? Social Evolution and History l, 80–100. Carter, J. C. 1993: Taking possession of the land: early Greek colonization in southern Italy. In R. T. & H. R. Scott (eds.), Eius Virtutis Studiosi: Classical and Postclassical Studies in Memory of Frank Edward Brown (1908–1988), pp. 343–67. Hanover/London. Cazenove, G. de & Scheid, J. 1993: Les bois sacrées. Naples. Chantraine, P. 1983: Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris. Chlenova, N. L. 1983: The pre-history of the so-called trade route of Herodotus (from the north coast of the Black Sea to the southern Urals). SA 1, 47–66. Chlenova, N. L. 1993: Piecing together the components of material culture within the so-called Scythian world. PAV 7, 49–75. Coldstream, J. N. 1993: Mixed marriages at the frontiers of the early Greek world. OJA 12, 89–107. Cole, S. G. 1981: Could Greek women read and write? In H. P. Foley (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity, pp. 219–45. New York. Cole, S. G. 1994: Demeter in the ancient Greek city and its countryside. In S. E. Alcock & R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the Gods, pp. 199–216. Oxford. Cook, J. M. 1973: The Troad. Oxford. Corcella, A. & Medaglia, S. M. 1993: Erodoto, Le Storie, Libro iv. Rome. Crosby, H. L. 1940: Dio Chrysostom, Orations. Cambridge, Mass. Curtis, R. I. 1991: Garum and Salsamenta. Leiden. Denisova, V. I. 1988: A find with Sarmatian marks from Olbia. In Abstracts of the Papers of the Crimean Scientific Conference ‘Problems of Ancient Culture’, p. 237. Simferopol. Dettori, E. 1996: Testi ‘orfici’ dalla Magna Greca al Mar Nero. La Parola del Passato 51, 292–310. Diller, A. 1952: The Tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers. New York. Dobson, B. 1967: Introduction. In Domaszewski 1967. pp. 1–14. Dodds, E. R. 1973: The Ancient Concept of Progress and other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief. Oxford. Domanskiy, Ya. V. 1961: On the history of the population of the lower Bug in the 7th–4th centuries BC, ASGE 2, 26–44. Domanskiy, Ya. V. 1970. Notes on the character of Greek trade relations with the local world of the north coast of the Black Sea in the 7th century BC. ASGE 12, 47–53. Domaszewski, A. 1967: DIE Rangordnung des Römischen Heeres. Repr. Cologne. Dovatur, A. I., Kallistov, D. P. & Shishova, I. A. 1982: The Peoples of our Country in the Histories of Herodotus. Moscow. Dubois, L. 1996: Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont. Geneva. D’yachkov, S. V. 1993: Roman citizens in the Bosporus. MAIET 3, 244–8.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 184

184

References

Earle, T. 1997: How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Pre-history. Stanford. Ehrhardt, N. 1983: Milet und seine Kolonien. Frankfurt. Fehling, D. 1989: Herodotus and his Sources, English translation. Leeds. Fialko, E. E. 1994: Monuments of the Scythian Period on the Terraced, Wooded Steppe by the Dnieper. Kiev. Flower, M. A. & Marincola, J. 2002: Herodotus, Histories, Book ix. Cambridge. Frolova, N. A. 1986: A gold coin of 338 ⫽ AD 41. VDI 4, 54–9. Funck, B. (ed.). 1996: Hellenismus. Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation u. politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters. Tübingen. Galanina, L. K. 1977: Scythian Antiquities on the Dnieper. Moscow. Gardiner-Garden, J. R. 1987: Dareios’ Scythian expedition and its aftermath. Klio 69, 326–50. Garnsey, P. 1988: Food and Famine in the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1984: Scythian imitations of the shapes of Greek wheel-made pottery. Arkheologia 48, 7–12. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1989: The Domestic Production and Lifestyle of the Steppe Scythians Kiev. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1995: Herding in Steppe Scythia. Kiev. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1996: The economic aspect of relations between pastoral and settled inhabitants of the north coast of the Black Sea in the 6th and early 5th centuries BC. In Bel’sk Settlement in the Context of Other Sites of Early Iron Age Europe, pp. 286–92. Poltava. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1999: The History of the Economy of Steppe Scythia, 6th to 4th Centuries BC. Kiev. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 2000a: Great Scythia, two Scythias or three models of the economy of early pastoralists on the north coast of the Black Sea? Problems in the Archaeology of the Dnieper Region, pp. 141–3. Dnepropetrovsk. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 2000b: The Scythian economic cycle in the northern Black Sea area. In Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations: Abstracts, pp. 45–6. Moscow. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 2001: Great Scythia as an indicator of the terminological position of Scythology. RA 2,16–23. Gavrilyuk, N. A. 2002: The Bosporan vector of relations of the population of the ecologo-economical region of Kamenskoye. In V. Yu. Zuyev (ed.), The Bosporan phenomenon, pp. 149–57. St Petersburg. Gavrilyuk, N. A. & Abikulova, M. I. 1991: Late Scythian Remains on the Lower Dniester. Kiev. Gavrilyuk, N. A. & Otreshko, V. M. 1982: The handmade pottery of the archaic settlement of Bol’shaya Chernomorka II. In A. I. Terenozhkin (ed.), The Antiquities of Ancient Scythia, pp. 75–90. Kiev. Gavrilyuk, N. A. & Timchenko, N. P. 1994: The dynamics of quantity and reproduction among the population of Steppe Scythia. In The Paleo-demography of the Scythian Population of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 22–45. Kiev. Gaydukevich, V. F. 1955: The history of ancient cities of the north coast of the Black Sea. In G. A. Koshelenko (ed.), Ancient Cities of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 23–147. Moscow.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 185

References

185

Georges, P. 1987: Darius in Scythia: The formation of Herodotus’ sources and the nature of Darius’ campaign. AJAH 12, 97–147. Gey, O. A. 1986: On the date of the origin of the Chernyakhov culture on the north coast of the Black Sea. SA 1, 77–84. Golosovker, Ya. E. 1987: The Logic of Myth. Moscow. Golovacheva, N. V. & Rogov, E. Yu. 2001: Note on the rural temple on the northern edge of the archaic chora of Olbia. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, pp. 145–8. Leiden. Golovacheva, N. V., Marchenko, K. K. & Rogov, E. Ya. 1999: Les constructions insolites trouvées dans la zone septentrionale de la chora d’Olbia: règle ou hasarde’. In O. Lordkipanidze & P. Lévêque (eds.), Religions du Pont Euxin, pp. 65–73. Paris. Gorokhovskiy, E. L. 1985: The chronology of cemeteries of the Chernyakhov culture. In Abstracts of the Papers of the Soviet Delegation at the 5th International Congress of Slav Archaeology, pp. 21–2. Moscow. Gorokhovskiy, E. L., Zubar, V. M. & Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1985: On the date of some ancient settlements in the territory of Olbia. Arkheologiya 49, 25–41. Gould, J. 1989: Herodotus. London. Gould, J. 2001: Dionysus and the hippy convoy: ritual, myth and metaphor in the cult of Dionysus. In Myth, Ritual, Memory and Exchange, pp. 269–82. Oxford. Grach, N. L. 1999: The Necropolis of Nymphaeum. St Petersburg. Graham, A. J. 1964: Colony and Mother-city in Ancient Greece. Manchester. Grakov, B. N. 1950: Scythian Heracles, KSIIMK 34, 7–18. Grakov, B. N. 1971: Scythians. Moscow. Grakov, V. M. 1947: What were Olbian trade relations with the Volga and Ural regions in the archaic and classical period? Arkheologiya 2, 23–39. Gudkova, A. V. 1987: The Settled Population of the North-West Black Sea Coast in the First Half of the 1st Millennium AD (Avtoref diss.) Kiev. Gudkova, A. V. & Krapivina V. V. 1990: The Grey-Clay Pottery of Tyras, Olbia and Sites of the Chernyakhov Culture. Kiev. Hansen, M. H. 1997: Emporion: a study of the use and meaning of the term in the archaic and classical periods. In Nielsen 1997, 83–106. Harris, W. V. 1989: Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass. Harrison, T. 2000: Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus. Oxford. Hedreen, G. 1991: The cult of Achilles in the Euxine, Hesperia 60, 313–30. Heinen, H. 2001: Greeks, Iranians and Romans on the northern shore of the Black Sea: In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, pp. 1–23. Leiden. Hind, J. G. F. 1992/3: Archaeology of the Greeks and barbarian peoples around the Black Sea: 1982–1992. AR 39, 82–112. Hind, J. G. F. 1997: Colonies and ports of trade on the northern shores of the Black Sea: Borysthenes, Kremnoi and the other Pontic emporia in Herodotus. In Nielsen 1997, 107–16. Hirst, G. 1903: The cults of Olbia, Part II. JHS 23, 24–53. Hohti, P. 1975: Über die Notwendigkeit bei Herodot. Arctos 9, 31–7. Holder, P. A. 1980: Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to Trajan. London.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 186

186

References

Hommel, H. 1980: Der Gott Achilleus. SB Heidelberg. Hooker, J. T. 1988: The cults of Achilleus. RhM 131, 1–7. Hopkins, K. 1991: Conquest by book. In J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Literacy in the Roman World (Suppl. to JRA, 3, Ann Arbor), pp. 133–58. How, W. W. & Wells, J. 1912: A Commentary on Herodotus. Oxford. Hupe, J. (ed.) 2006: Der Achilleus-Kult im nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum vom Beginn der griechischen Kolinisation bis in die römische Kaiserzeit. Leidorf. Il’inskaya, V. A. 1968: Scythians of the Wooded Steppe East of the Dnieper. Kiev. Il’inskaya, V. A. 1975: Early Scythian Burial Mounds of the River Tyasmin Basin. Kiev. Il’inskaya, V. A. 1982: Images of Scythians at the time of their Near Eastern campaigns. In Antiquities of Steppe Scythia, pp. 38–47. Kiev. Il’inskaya, V. A. & Terenozhkin, A. I. 1983: Scythia in the VI–III Centuries BC. Kiev. Il’inskaya, V. A. & Terenozhkin, A. I. 1986: Scythia. In The Archaeology of the Ukrainian SSR, vol. II, pp. 43–184. Kiev. Jones, A. H. M. 1964: The Later Roman Empire. Oxford. Jones, C. P. 1978: The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, Mass. Kaposhina, S. I. 1941: Crouched burials at Olbia and Chersonesus. SA 7, 161–73. Kaposhina, S. I. 1950: Burials of Scythian type in Olbia. SA 13, 205–16. Kaposhina, S. I. 1956: On Scythian elements in Olbian culture. MIA 50, 154–99. Karasev, A. N. 1956: Nineteenth century plans of Olbia as a source for the study of the historical topography of the city. MIA 50, 9–34. Karasev, A. N. 1976: Farmakovskiy and Olbia. In P. O. Karyshkovskiy (ed.), The Artistic Culture of the Archaeology of the Ancient World, pp. 13–21. Moscow. Karasev, A. N. & Levi, E. I. 1976: Studies at Olbia after Farmakovskiy (1927–70). In P. O. Karyshkovskiy (ed.), The Artistic Culture of the Archaeology of the Ancient World, pp. 22–45. Moscow. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1960: On coins with the legend EMINAKO, SA, 1, 179–95. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1968: On the history of late Olbia. VDI 1, 168–79. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1969: The Coinage and Circulation of Olbia (6th Century BC to 4th Century AD) Avtoref diss. Leningrad, archive of LGU. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1982a: Olbia and Rome in the 1st century AD. In Remains of the Roman and Medieval Period on the North-West Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 6–28. Kiev. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1982b: On the coins of King Pharzoios. In Archaeological Remains of the North-West Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 66–82. Kiev. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1984: New evidence for the coins of Eminakos. In The Early Iron Age in the North-West Black Sea Region, pp. 78–89. Kiev. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1988: The Coins of Olbia. Kiev. Karyshkovskiy, P. O. & Kleyman, I. B. 1985: The Ancient City of Tyras. Kiev. Kastanayan, E. G. 1959: Cemeteries of the Bosporan cities in the 6th to 4th centuries BC and their local peculiarities. MIA 69, 265–95. Kastanayan, E. G. & Arsen’yeva, T. M. 1984: Pottery. In G. A. Koshelenko (ed.), Ancient States of the North Black Sea Coast, pp. 229–33. Moscow. Khazanov, A. M. 1975: The Social History of the Scythians. Moscow. Khazanov, A. M. 1978: The early state among the Scythians. In The Early State, pp. 425–39. Moscow. Khazanov, A. M. 1994: Nomads and the Outside World (2nd edition). Madison.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 187

References

187

Khazanov, A. M. 2000: Pastoralists and the Outside World (3rd edition). Almaty. Kindstrand, J. F. 1981: Anacharsis: The Legend and the Apophthegmata. Uppsala. Kirk, G. S. 1987: The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. I: books 1–4. Cambridge. Kleyman, I. B. 2001: Defensive structures on the territory of Tyras. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, pp. 53–65. Leiden. Knipovich, T. N. 1956: The population of Olbia in the 6th to 1st centuries BC on the basis of epigraphical sources. MIA 50, 119–53. Kolosovskaya, Yu. N. 1955: On the history of the collapse of Roman control in Dacia. VDI 3, 63–84. Kopeykina, L. V. 1973: Samyy ranniy obrazets raspisnoy drevnegrecheskoy keramiki iz raskopok na Berezan. SA 2, 240–4. Kopeykina, L. V. 1981a: Elements of local character in the culture of the Berezan settlement in the archaic period. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), The Demographic Situation on the Black Sea Coast in the Period of Great Greek Colonization: Second Symposium, Tskhaltubo 1979, pp. 163–74. Tbilisi. Kopeykina, L. V. 1981b: Peculiarities of the development of the settlement on Berezan in the archaic period (according to the results of excavations in the northwestern sector). SA 1, 192–208. Korpusova, V. N. 1980: A painted Rhodian-Ionian oinochoe from the burial mound at Philatovka in the Crimea. VDI 2, 100–4. Koshelenko, G. A. 1999: The Bosporan version of the myth of the fall of the Giants, Bosporskiye drevnosti 2, 147–60. Kosikov, V. A. 1994: The Production of Bronze Art-works in Scythia in the Seventh–Fifth Centuries BC. Donetsk. Kovpanenko, G. T. 1968: Excavations at Trakhtemirov. In Archaeological Research in the Ukraine for 1967, vol. II, pp. 108–11. Kiev. Kovpanenko, G. T. 1972: Trakhtemirov. In Materials of the 13th Conference of the Institute of Archaeology of the Ukrainian Academy, pp. 187–9. Kiev. Kovpanenko, G. T. and Yanushevich, Z. V. 1975: Cereal marks on pottery from Trakhtemirov. In Scythian world, pp. 147–52. Kiev. Kovpanenko, G. T., Bunyatyan, E. P. & Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1978: Excavations of the burial mounds at Kovalevka. In Burial Mounds in the Lower Bug, pp. 7–133. Kiev. Kovpanenko, G. T., Bessonova, S. S. & Skoryy, S. A. 1989: Remains of the Scythian Period in the Wooded Steppe West of the Dnieper. Kiev. Kozub, Yu. I. 1974: The Necropolis of Olbia in the 5th–4th Centuries BC. Kiev. Kradin, N. N. 2001: Empire of the Huns (2nd edition). Moscow. Krapivina, V. V. 1993: Olbia: Its Material Culture in the Early Centuries AD. Kiev. Krapivina, V. V. 1994: On the ethnicity of the population of Olbia in the early centuries AD. Arkheologiya 2, 123–9. Krapivina, V. & Diatroptov, P. 2005: An inscription of Mithradates VI Eupator’s governor from Olbia, ACSS 11, 167–80. Krasnov, Yu. A. 1968: On the origins of ploughing in the wooded regions of eastern Europe. SA 2, 3–22. Kruglikova, I. T. 1955: Dacia in the Period of Roman Occupation. Moscow. Kryjitskij, S. D. 1982: Les maisons d’habitation du littoral Nord de la Mer Noire dans l’antiquité, DHA 8, 61–90. (See also S. D. Kryzhitskiy.)

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 188

188

References

Kryjickij, S. D. & Bujskich, S. B. 1999: La dynamique d’amanagement du territoire rural d’Olbia Pontique. In M. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des cités grecques (BCH, suppl. 34), 273–88. Krykin, S. M. 1992: Deus sanctus porobonus. VDI 3, 140–7. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 1971: Dwelling Complexes of Ancient Olbia in the 4th–2nd Centuries BC. Kiev. (See also S. D. Kryjitskij.) Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 1982: The Dwellings of the Ancient Cities of the North Coast of the Black Sea (6th Century BC to 4th Century AD). Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 1984: Key results of the study of the submerged part of the lower city at Olbia. In The Ancient Culture of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 36–65. Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 1985: Olbia: A Historiographical Study of ArchitecturalConstructional Complexes. Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 1993: The Architecture of the Ancient States of the Northern Black Sea. Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 1997: The temple of Apollo Ietros in the Western Temenos at Olbia. ACSS 4, 15–35. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 1998: The temple of Apollo the Healer in the Western Temenos at Olbia: an attempt at reconstruction. VDI 1, 170–90. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. (ed.). 1999: The Ancient History of the Ukraine. Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 2001: The temple of Aphrodite on Berezan: a reconstruction. VDI 1, 165–75. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 2002: Olbia and the Scythians in the fifth century BC. On the question of the ‘Scythian protectorate’, PAV 9, 209–21. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 2005: Olbia and the Scythians in the fifth century BC: the Scythian ‘protectorate’. In D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks, pp. 123–30. Exeter. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. & Buyskikh, S. B. 1988: The structure of the archaic settlements of the lower Bug, Arkheologiya 1, 1–8. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. & Leypunskaya, N. A. 1997: Olbia: Excavations, History, Culture. Nikolayev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. & Leypunskaya, N. A. 1998: The western gate complex of Olbia. In Classical Antiquities of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 10–33. Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. & Marchenko, K. K. 2001: On the question of the earliest building complexes of the north Black Sea Greeks. In V. Yu. Zuyev et al., Bosporan Phenomenon: The Colonization of the Region, Polis-formation and State-formation, 2 vols., vol. I, pp. 33–6. St Petersburg. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. & Otreshko, V. M. 1986: On the problem of the formation of the Olbian polis. In A. S. Rusyayeva (ed.), Olbia and its Environs, pp. 3–17. Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. & Rusyayeva, A. S. 1978a: Dwellings of Olbia. Arkheologiya 28, 3–26. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. & Rusyayeva, A. S. 1978b: The earliest inhabitants of Olbia, Arkheologiya 26, 3–26. Kryzhitskiy, S. D. & Shcheglov, A. N. 1991: On the grain production of ancient states of the north coast of the Black Sea. Arkheologiya 1, 54–97. Kryzhitskiy, S. D., Buyskikh, S. B., Burakov, A. V. & Otreshko, V. M. 1989: The Rural Environs of Olbia. Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D., Buyskikh, S. B. & Otreshko, V. M. 1990: Ancient Settlements of the Lower Bug. Kiev.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 189

References

189

Kryzhitskiy, S. D., Kozub, Yu. I., Rusyayeva, A. S. & Buyskikh, S. B. (eds.). 1987: The Culture of the Population of Olbia and its Environs in the Archaic Period. Kiev. Kryzhitskiy, S. D., Rusyayeva, A. S., Krapivina, V. V., Leypunskaya, N. A., Skrzhinskaya, M. V. & Anokhin, V. A. 1999: Olbia: An Ancient State on the North Coast of the Black Sea. Kiev. Kutaysov, V. A. 1990: The Ancient City of Kerkinitis. Kiev. Kutaysov, V. A. & Uzhentsev, V. B. 1997: Kalos Limen (excavations 1988–95). In V. L. Mytz (ed.), The Archaeology of the Crimea, pp. 43–57. Simferopol. Kuznetsov, V. D. 1995: Early types of Greek dwelling on the north coast of the Black Sea, Bosporskiy Sbornik 6, 99–126. Kuznetsova, T. M. 1990: Greek trade routes or contact routes? In Problems in ScythoSarmatian archaeology, pp. 82–97. Moscow. Kuznetsova, T. M. 1991: Studies in Scythian History. Moscow. Lapin, V. V. 1966: The Greek Colonization of the North Coast of the Black Sea. Kiev. Lapin, V. V. 1968: Research on the Ancient Greek Settlement on the Island of Berezan. In Archaeological Research in the Ukraine for 1967, pp. 150–5. Kiev. Latyshev, V. V. 1887: Studies on the History and Civic Structure of the City of Olbia. St Petersburg. Latyshev, V. V. 1904: Epigraphical news from south Russia. IAK 10, 1–91. Latyshev, V. V. 1909: Pontika. St Petersburg. Lebedeva, A. Yu. 2000: Palaeobotanic remains of the agriculture of the Scythian period: problems of interpretation. In Scythians and Sarmatians in the Seventh–Third Centuries BC, pp. 91–100. Moscow. Legrand, P.-E. 1945: Hérodote, Histoires Livre iv. Paris. Lelekov, L. A. & Rayevskiy, D. S. 1988: External myth in Greek imagery. In The Life of Myth in Antiquity, 2 vols., vol. I, pp. 215–26. Moscow. Leypunskaya, N. A. 1979: On the role of trade-exchange relations in the economy of Olbia in the second half of the 6th century BC. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Problems of Greek Colonisation in the Black Sea Region. pp. 125–30. Tbilisi. Leypunskaya, N. A. 1981a: Coarse Pottery from Olbia. Kiev. Leypunskaya, N. A. 1981b: The economic bases of Olbia’s relationships with the local peoples of the north coast of the Black Sea. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), The Demographic Situation in the Black Sea Region in the Period of Greek Colonisation, pp. 148–57. Tbilisi. Leypunskaya, N. A. 1984: Pottery from the submerged part of Olbia. In The Ancient Culture of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 65–88. Kiev. Leypunskaya, N. A. 1986: Dwelling area at Olbia south-west of the agora (1972–77). In A. S. Rusyayeva (ed.), Olbia and its Environs, pp. 29–47. Kiev. Leypunskaya, N. A. 1991: Ancient settlement on the Lower Bug. Arkheologiya 3, 76–87. Leypunskaya, N. A. 1994: The central dwelling quarter of Olbia. Arkheologiya 2, 70–88. Leypunskaya, N. A. 1995: Excavations in the Lower City of Olbia, 1985–92: preliminary results. EMC 14, 23–43. Luraghi, N. 2001: Local knowledge in Herodotus’ Histories. In Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, pp. 138–60. Oxford.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 190

190

References

Macan, R. W. 1895: Herodotos: The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Books. London. Magomedov, B. V. 1985: Olbia and the Chernyakhov culture. In Problems in the Study of Olbia: Abstracts, pp. 47–9. Parutino. Magomedov, B. V. 1987: The Chernyakhov Culture of the North-West Coast of the Black Sea. Kiev. Magomedov, B. V. 2001: The Chernyakhov Culture: The Problem of Ethnicity. Lyublin. Makhortykh, S. V. 1991: Scythians in the North Caucasus. Kiev. Malkin, I. 1987: Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece. Leiden. Mann, J. S. 1983: Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate. London. Marchenko, K. K. 1980: The model of Greek colonisation on the Lower Bug: VDI 1, 131–43. Marchenko, K. K. 1983: Yeshcho raz k voprosu o kallipidakh. SA 1, 67–79. Marchenko, K. K. 1987: Lepnaya keramika. In S. D. Kryzhitskiy (ed.), Kul’tura naseleniya Ol’vii i yeyo okrugi v arkhaicheskoye vremya, pp. 104–16. Kiev. Marchenko, K. K. 1988: Barbarians in the Population of Berezan and Olbia, Second Half of the Seventh Century to the First Half of the First Century BC (According to Handmade Pottery). Leningrad. Marchenko, K. K. 1991: Greeks and Barbarians of the North-West Coast of the Black Sea, 7th–1st Centuries BC. Avtored. diss., St Petersburg. Marchenko, K. K. 1999: On the problem of Greek–barbarian contacts. Stratum Plus 3, 145–72. Marchenko, K. K. & Domanskiy, Ya. V. 1999: Two settlements of the lower Bug in the archaic period (an attempt at the comparative characterisation of the material culture of the sites), Stratum plus 3, 26–74. Marchenko, K. K. & Solovyov, S. L. 1988: A new group of handmade pottery from the lower Bug in the late archaic period, Arkhologiya 63, 56–9. Maslennikov, A. A. 1978: The ethnic composition of the population of the Bosporan cities in the 6th to 5th centuries BC. SA 1. 24–37. Maslennikov, A. A. 1981: The Population of the Bosporan State in the 6th to 2nd Centuries BC. Moscow. Medvedev, A. P. 1997: Ol’viyskiye torgovye puti i stepen’ dostovernosti etnogeograficheskikh dannykh Gerodota. Arkheologiya 4, 24–8. Melyukova, A. I. 1971: Naseleniye nizhnevo Podnestrov’ya v IV–III vv. do n.e. In Problemy skifskoy arkheologii, MIA 177, pp. 39–54. Moscow and Leningrad. Melyukova, A. I. 1980: The settlement of Nadlimanskoye III on the shore of the Dniester liman. In P. O. Karyshkovskiy (ed.), Studies in the Classical Archaeology of the South-West of the Ukrainian SSR, pp. 5–23. Kiev. Melyukova, A. I. 1991: Innovation in the study of key problems in scythology, KSIA 204, 3–10. Melyukova, A. I. & Yatsenko, I. V. 1989: B. N. Grakov and some problems of current Scythian studies. In Yu. G. Vinogradov (ed.), Problems of Scytho-Sarmatian Archaeology on the North Coast of the Black Sea. Abstracts of a Conference to Mark the 90th Birthday of B. N. Grakov, pp. 86–8. Zaporozh’ye. Mendelsohn, D. 1992: Ra: dithyrambic language in Dionysiac cult. CJ 87, 105–24. Minns, E. H. 1913: Scythians and Greeks. Cambridge.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 191

References

191

Mitchell, S. 2003: The Galatians: representation and reality. In A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the hellenistic World, pp. 280–93. Oxford. Moruzhenko, A. A. 1975: The Defensive Structures of the Settlements on the Vorskla in the Scythian Period. Kiev. Müller, K. E. 1997: Geschichte der antiken Ethnologie. Hamburg. Munson, R. V. 2001: Telling Wonders: Ethnographic and Political Discourse in the Work of Herodotus. Michigan. Murzin, V. Yu. 1978: Scythians in the North Caucasus, 7th to 5th centuries BC. Arkheologiya 22, 22–35. Murzin, V. Yu. 1984: The Scythian Archaic Period. Kiev. Murzin, V. Yu. 1992: The Emergence of the Scythians: The Main Features of the Formation of the Scythian Ethnos. Kiev. Murzin, V. Yu. & Toshchev, G. N. 2002: Great Scythia: A Course Book. Kiev and Zaporozh’ye. Nazarov, V. V. 1988: Novye nakhodki nakonechnikov strel iz arkhaicheskikh poseleniy nizhnevo Pobuzh’ya. In V. A. Anokhin (ed.), Antichnye drevnosti Severnovo Prichernomor’ya, pp. 179–83. Kiev. Nazarov, V. V. 2001: The shrine of Aphrodite on Berezan: VDI 1, 156–65. Nedopako, D. P. 1999: Iron-working at Motronninskoye settlement. Arkhaeologiya 1, 161–72. Nesselrath, H.-G. 2003: Einführung in die Schrift. In H.-G. Nesselrath, B. Bäbler, M. Forschner & A. de Jong, Dion von Prusa. Menschliche Gemeinschaft und götttliche Ordnung: Die Borysthenes-Rede, pp. 11–26. Darmstadt. Nielsen, T. H. (ed.). 1997: Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis. Stuttgart. Nikulitse, I. T. 1987: The Northern Thracians in the Sixth to First Centuries BC. Kishinev. Okhotnikov, S. B. 1990: The Lower Dniester Region in the Sixth to Fifth Centuries BC. Kiev. Okhotnikov, S. B. 2001: Settlement in the lower reaches of the Dniester (6th to 3rd centuries BC). In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, pp. 91–115. Leiden. Okhotnikov, S. B. & Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1993: The Shrine of Achilles on the Island of Leuke. Kiev. Ol’govskiy, S. Ya. 1981: The basic stages of the development of non-ferrous metallurgy on the Lower Bug. In Current Problems in Archaeological Studies in the Ukrainian SSR, pp. 74–5. Kiev. Ol’govskiy, S. Ya. 1982: Non-ferrous Metal-work in the Greek Cities of the North-West Black Sea Coast. Avtoref. diss., Moscow. Ol’govskiy, S. Ya. 1992: The origins of mirrors of the so-called Olbian type. Arkheologiya 3, 14–21. Ol’govskiy, S. Ya. 1995: The origins of cruciform appliqués of the Scythian period. Arkheologiya 2, 25–32. Onayko, N. A. 1966: Ancient Imports along the Dnieper and Bug in the 7th to 5th Centuries BC. Moscow. Onayko, N. A. 1970: Ancient Imports along the Dnieper and Bug in the 4th to 3rd Centuries BC. Moscow. Onayko, N. A. 1980: Ancient Torikos. Moscow.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 192

192

References

Orlandini, P. 1991: Lo scavo e il problema delle fosse di scarico dei due insediamenti. In Ricerce archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. 1. Le fosse di scarico del saggio P. Materiale e problematiche, pp. 19–24. Milan. Orlandini, P. 1992: Lo scavo del saggio T. In Ricerce archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. 2. Dal villagio indigeno all’emporio greco. Le strutture e i materiali del saggio T, pp. 21–8. Milan. Orlandini, P. 2000: Lo scavo del saggio G. In Ricerce archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. 4. L’oikos del grande perirrhonterion nel contesto del saggio G, pp. 15–22. Milan. Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1978a: An ancient smithy at Yagorlykh. Arkheologiya 25, 41–9. Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1978b: The Economic Links of Olbia, Berezan and Yagorlykh Settlement with Scythia (7th to mid-5th Centuries BC). Avtoref. diss., Kiev. Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1978c: On ferrous metal-working at Yagorlykh. Arkheologiya 28, 26–36. Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1980: The stages and character of economic relations along the Dnieper and Bug. In Studies in the Classical Archaeology of the South-West of the Ukrainian SSR, pp. 28–39. Kiev. Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1981a: Non-ferrous metal-working at classical settlement sites. Arkheologiya 36, 26–37. Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1981b: Olbia and the trade routes of Scythia. In Antiquities of the North-West Black Sea Coast, pp. 84–94. Kiev. Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1996: Animal style and the classical cities of the north coast of the Black Sea. VDI 2, 85–102. Otreshko, V. M. 1981: Kallipidy, alazony i poseleniya nizhnevo Pobuzh’ya. SA 1, 27–42. Otreshko, V. M. & Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1998: Handmade pottery of the settlement on Berezan. In S. D. Kryzhitskiy (ed.), BORYSTHENIKA. Abstracts of Readings Dedicated to the 70th Birthday of V. V. Lapin, pp. 17–18. Kiev. Otreshko, V. M. & Mazarati, S. N. 1987: Semi-dugouts and dugouts. In S. D. Kryzhitskiy (ed.), The Culture of the Population of Olbia and its Environs in the Archaic Period, pp. 8–17. Kiev. Parovich-Peshikan, M. 1974: The Necropolis of Olbia of the Hellenistic Period. Kiev. Pashkevich, G. A. 2000: Palaeobotanical studies at Scythian sites of the steppe zone of the north coast of the Black Sea. In Scythians and Sarmatians in the Seventh to Third Centuries BC, pp. 100–9. Moscow. Pashkevich, G. A. & Geyko, A. P. 1998: Paleo-botanical remains and pottery production in the Scythian period in the wooded steppe east of the Dnieper. In Archaeological Chronicle of the East Bank Ukraine, pp. 1–2, 38–40. Poltava. Pfuhl, E. & Möbius, H. 1977: Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. Mainz. Pharmakovskiy, B. V. 1914: The archaic period in the south of Russia. MAR 34, 15–78. Phurmanskaya, A. I. 1963: Bronze smelting in Olbia. Arkheologiya 15, 61–71. Pinney, G. F. 1983: Achilles lord of Scythia. In W. G. Moon (ed.), Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, pp. 127–46. Madison. Pippidi, D. M. 1973: Le problème de la main-d’oeuvre agricole dans les colonies grecques de la mer noire. In M. I. Finley (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne, pp. 63–82. Paris.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 193

References

193

Pletneva, S. A. 1982: Pastoralists of the Middle Ages. Moscow. Podosinov, A. V. 1984: Ovid and the Black Sea Coast: An Attempt at the Historiographical Analysis of a Poetic Text (The Most Ancient States on the Territory of the USSR). Moscow. Pogrebova, N. N. 1958: Late Scythian settlements on the Lower Dnieper. MIA 64, pp. 103–247. Moscow and Leningrad. Polidovich, Yu. B. 2000: Scythian cruciform appliqués. Arkheologiya 1, 35–48. Pokhilevich, L. 1864: Accounts of the Settlements of Kiev Province or Statistical, Historical and Ecclesiastical Observations on all Towns, Villages and Inhabited Places within the Province. Kiev. Préaux, C. 1978: Le monde hellénistique. Paris. Pritchett, W. K. 1993: The Liar School of Herodotus. Berkeley. Prushevskaya, E. O. 1955: Artistic metal-working. In G. A. Koshelenko (ed.), Ancient Cities of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 325–55. Moscow and Leningrad. Radziyevskaya, A. E. 1985: Kurgans of the sixth century BC by the village of Kolomak in Kharkov region, SA 1, 257–60. Rassadin, S. E. 1997: Die Melanchlainer. Eurasia Antiqua 3, 507–12. Rayevskiy, D. S. 1977: Studies in the Ideology of the Scythian-Sakian Tribes. Moscow. Rayevskiy, D. S. 1980: Greek gods in Scythia? (On the semantics of Greco-Scythian art), VDI 1, 49–71. Rayevskiy, D. S. 1985: The Model of the World in Scythian Culture. Moscow. Remennikov, A. M. 1954: The Struggle of the Tribes of the North Coast of the Black Sea with Rome in the 3rd Century AD. Moscow. Reuters, H. 1963: Die Briefe des Anacharsis. Berlin. Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1908: New Latin inscriptions of south Russia. IAK 27, 55–67. Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1915: The military occupation of Olbia by the Romans. IAK 58, 1–16. Rostovtzeff, M. 1922: Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. Oxford. Rostowzew, M. 1993: Skythien und der Bosporus. Bd ii. Wiederentdeckte Kapitel und Verwandtes, edited by Heinz Heinen, with G. M. Bongard-Levin and Ju. G. Vinogradov (Historia Einzelschriften 83). Stuttgart. Rudan, V. V. 1980: On the dating of the Yagorlykh settlement. In Research in the Classical Archaeology of the North Black Sea Coast, 104–14. Kiev. Rudan, V. V. & Ursalov, V. N. 1986: Istoriya denezhnovo obrashcheniya na sel’skoy territorii Boristhenidy i Ol’vii dogetskovo vremeni. VDI 4, 31–53. Russell, D. A. 1992: Dio Chrysostom, Orations VII, XII, XXXVI. Cambridge. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1979: Agricultural Cults in Olbia in the Pre-Getan Period. Kiev. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1982: Ancient Terracottas of the North-West Black Sea Coast (6th–1st Centuries BC). Kiev. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1986: Miletus–Didyma–Borysthenes–Olbia. Problems in the colonization of the lower Bug, VDI 2, 25–64. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1987: Epigraficheskiye pamyatniki. In S. D. Kryzhitskiy (ed.), Kul’tura naseleniya Ol’vii i yeyo okrugi v arkhaicheskoye vremya, pp. 134–54. Kiev. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1989: On the history of Olbia’s relations with the Sarmatians. In Problems in the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Population of the Ukraine: Abstracts, pp. 192–3. Kiev.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 194

194

References

Rusyayeva, A. S. 1990: Ideological conceptions of the ancient Greeks of the lower Bug region in the colonial period. In V. M. Zubar (ed.), The Rites and Beliefs of the Ancient Population of the Ukraine, pp. 40–61. Kiev. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1991a: The Pontic legend of Heracles: notion and reality. In The Spiritual Culture of Ancient Societies, pp. 96–116. Kiev. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1991b: The studies of the Western Temenos of Olbia (preliminary results). VDI 1, 123–38. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1992: The Religion and Cults of Ancient Olbia. Kiev. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1994a: The basic features and peculiarities of the cultural-historical development of the lower Bug region in the colonial period. VDI 4, 99–106. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1994b: Investigations of the Western Temenos of Olbia, ACSS 1, 80–102. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1998: On the Ionian foundation of Olbia. VDI 1, 161–70. Rusyayeva, A. S. 1999: The penetration of Greeks in the Ukrainian wooded steppe in the archaic period, VDI 4, 84–97. Rusyayeva, A. S. 2001: Scythian Anacharsis. Kiev. Rusyayeva, A. S. & Krapivina, V. V. 1992: On the history of Olbia, 4th–1st centuries BC, Arkheologiya 4, 17–33. Rusyayeva, A. S. & Skrzhinskaya, V. M. 1979: Ol’viyskiy polis i kallipidy. VDI 4, 25–36. Rusyayeva, A. S. & Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1991: Der Brief des Priesters aus Hylaja. In Gold der Steppe. Archaologie der Ukraine, pp. 201–2. Schleswig and Kiev. Rybakov, B. A. 1949: Excavations of Pereyaslav-Khmel’nitskiy 1945. APURSR 1, 21–5. Rybakov, B. A. 1979: Herodotus’ Scythia. Moscow. Saerens, C. 1997: Le désert scythique: à propos d’une abréviation chez Hérodote iv.18. In R. De Smet, H. Melaerts and C. Saerens (eds.), In Honorem Aloysi Gerlo (Studia Varia Bruxellensia ad orbem Graeco-Latinum pertinentia iv), pp. 235–45. Leuven. Samoylova, T. L. 1988: Tyras in the 6th–5th centuries BC. Kiev. Saprykin, S. Yu. 1985: Olbia and the Bosporus in the 1st century AD. In Problems in the Study of Olbia: Abstracts, pp. 72–3. Parutino. Schramm, G. 1973: Nordpontische Ströme. Göttingen. Scorpan, C. 1980: Limes Scythiae. Oxford. Seaford, R. 1994: Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-state. Oxford. Sekerskaya, M. N. 1989: Ancient Niconium and its Environs in the 6th to 4th Centuries BC. Kiev. Sekerskaya, N. M. 2001: Nikonion. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, pp. 67–90. Leiden. Service, E. R. 1971: Cultural Evolutionism: Theory and Practice. New York. Shaub, I.Yu. 1998: Barbarian elements in the cult of Apollo in the Bosporus, Klio 1, pp. 57–74. Shaub, I.Yu. 1999: The cult of the Great Goddess among the local population of the north coast of the Black Sea, Stratum plus: Skifskiy kvadrat 3, 207–23.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 195

References

195

Shcheglov, A. N. 1990: The north Pontic grain trade in the 7th to 5th centuries BC: written sources and archaeology. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), The Black Sea Region in the 7th to 5th Centuries BC, pp. 99–121. Tbilisi. Shchukin, M. B. 1982: The kingdom of Pharzoios: an episode in the history of the north coast of the Black Sea. SGE 47, 35–7. Shchukin, M. B. 1994: At the Turn of Eras. St Petersburg. Shelov, D. B. 1969: Olbian coins along the Volga. In Antiquities of Eastern Europe: MIA 169, pp. 296–9, Moscow and Leningrad. Shelov, D. B. 1975: The North Black Sea Coast 2000 Years Ago. Moscow. Shelov-Kovedyayev, F. V. 1988: Berezanskiy gimn ostrovu i Akhillu. VDI 3, 49–67. Shelov-Kovedyayev, F.V. 1990: A Berezan poem for the island and Achilles. VDI 3, 49–63. Shramko, B. A. 1961: On the agricultural techniques of the peoples of the Scythian period in eastern Europe. SA 1, 73–90. Shramko, B. A. 1972: On the date of the appearance of ploughed agriculture in south-east Europe. Arkhaeologiya 7, 23–35. Shramko, B. A. 1975: A fort of the Scythian period at Bel’sk. In Scythian World, pp. 10–35. Kiev. Shramko, B. A. 1987: Bel’sk City Site in the Scythian Period (the Town of Gelonos). Kiev. Shramko, B. A. 1998: Lyubotinskoye settlement. In Collected Scholarly Papers, pp. 9–131. Khar’kov. Shramko, B. A. 2002: A new metal-working mould from Bel’sk: the history of weaponry among the Scythian peoples. RA 1, 163–6. Sidorenko, V. A. 1988: A fragment of a decree of the early Roman period from the excavations beneath Mangup. In Problems of Ancient Culture: Abstracts, pp. 86–7. Simferopol. Sikorskiy, M. I. and Shvidkiy, D. T. 1983: On the Ground at Pereyaslavskiy. Kiev. Simonenko, A. V. 1992: Pharzoios and Inismeus. VDI 1, 27–42. Simonenko, A. V. 1994: A complex with Sarmatian marks from Olbia. In Olbia 2000: Abstracts, pp. 118–21. Nikolayev. Simonenko, A. V. 1999: Sarmatian objects with tamgas on the territory of the Olbian state: Arkheologiya 1, 106–18. Simonenko A. V. & Lobay, B. I. 1991: The Sarmatians of the North-West Coast of the Black Sea in the 1st Century AD. Kiev. Skoryy, S. A. 1985: Cruciform appliqués of the Olbian type in the CarpathoDanubian region: In Problems in the Study of Olbia: Abstracts, pp. 75–6. Parutino. Skoryy, S. A. 1996: Pastoralists of the pre-Scythian and Scythian Period in the Wooded Steppe West of the Dnieper. Avtoref.diss., Kiev. Skripkin, A. S. 1990: Asiatic Sarmatia: Problems of Chronology and History. Saratov. Skrzhinskaya, M. V. 1984: Mirrors of the archaic period from Olbia and Berezan. In The Ancient Culture of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 105–29. Kiev. Skudnova, V. M. 1962: Scythian mirrors from the archaic necropolis of Olbia. TGE 3, 5–27. Skudnova, V. M. 1988: The Archaic Necropolis of Olbia. Leningrad.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 196

196

References

Slavin, L. M. 1959: The periodization of the historical development of Olbia. In Problems in the History of the North Coast of the Black Sea in the Ancient Period, pp. 86–107. Moscow. Slavin, L. M. 1964: Olbia: Temenos and Agora. Moscow and Leningrad. Slavin, L. M. 1975: Quarters in the region of the Olbian agora (excavations 1961–1970). Olbia, pp. 5–50. Kiev. Slavin, L. M. 1976: Some results of the study of the Olbian khora. In The Artistic Culture and Archaeology of the Ancient World, pp. 180–6. Moscow. Snodgrass, A. M. 1971. The Dark Age of Greece. Edinburgh. Solomonik, E. I. 1959: Sarmatian Marks of the North Coast of the Black Sea. Kiev. Solomonik, E. I. 1987: Dva antichnykh pis’ma iz Kryma. VDI 3, 114–31. Solovyov, S. L. 1993: The formation of a civic and polis structure in the settlement on Berezan, PAV 3, 39–43. Solovyov, S. L. 1994: New aspects of the history and archaeology of ancient Berezan, PAV 8, 85–95. Solovyov, S. L. 1995: The periodization of dwelling-construction on ancient Berezan, PAV 4, 153–63. Solovyov, S. L. 1998: Archaic Berezan: historical-archaeological essay. In G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, Historia: Einzelschriften 121 (Stuttgart), 205–25. Solovyov, S. L. 1999: Ancient Berezan. The Architecture, History and Culture of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea. Leiden. Solovyov, S. L. 2000: On the history of the poleis of the lower Bug: Borysthenes and Olbia. In S. L. Solovyov (ed.), The Ancient Black Sea Coast, pp. 94–111. St Petersburg. Solovyov, S. L. 2001: On the history of the city-states in the lower Bug area: Borysthenes and Olbia. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Northern Pontic Antiquities in the State Hermitage Museum, pp. 113–25. Leiden. Son, N. A. 1986: On the history of late antique Tyras. In Ancient Culture in the Early Centuries AD, pp. 62–76. Kiev. Son, N. A. 1993: Tyras in the Roman Period. Kiev. Son, N. A. & Nazarov, V. V. 1993: Finds of Roman equipment in Tyras and Olbia. Arkeologiya 1, 120–3. Stephens, S. & Winkler, J. 1995: Ancient Greek Novels: The Fragments. Princeton. Taylor, T. 2001: Believing the ancients: quantitative and qualitative dimensions of slavery and the slave trade in later prehistoric Eurasia. World Archaeology 33, 27–43. Terenozhkin, A. I. 1961: The Prescythian Period on the West Bank of the Dnieper. Kiev. Terenozhkin, A. I. 1977: The social structure of the Scythians. In A. I. Terenozhkin (ed.), Scythians and Sarmatians, pp. 3–28. Kiev. Terenozhkin, A. I. & Mozolevskiy, B. N. 1988: Melitopol’ burial mound. Kiev. Tolstikov, V. P. 1987: Archäologische Forschungen im Zentrum von Pantikapaion und einige Probleme der Stadtplanung vom 6. bis zum 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. In W. Schuller, W. Hopefner & E.-L. Schwandner (eds.), Demokratie und Architektur. Konstanzer Symposion vom 17. bis 19 Juli 1987, pp. 69–78. Konstanz.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 197

References

197

Tolstikov, V. P. 1992: Panticapaeum, capital of the Bosporus. In G. A. Koshelenko (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Bosporus, pp. 45–99. Moscow. Tolstoi, I. 1918: The White Island and Crimea in the Euxine Pontus. St Petersburg. Tsalkin, V. I. 1966: Ancient Animal Husbandry among the Peoples of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. MIA 135. Moscow. Tsvetayeva, G. A. 1951: A cemetery of Panticapaeum. MIA 19, 63–86. Tunkina, I. V. 1994: The beginning of the study of Olbia. Arkheologiya 2, 7–18. Tunkina, I. V. 2002: Russian Scholarship on Classical Antiquities of the South of Russia (18th–Middle of the 19th Century). St Petersburg. Tuplin, C. J. (ed.). 2004: Pontus and the Outside World: Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography, and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica 9). Leiden. Vakhtina, M. Yu. 1984: Greco-Barbarian Contacts in the 7th to 6th Centuries BC According to Archaeological Materials from the Steppe and Wooded Steppe Zones of the North-West Black Sea Coast and Crimea. Avtoref diss. Leningrad. Vakhtina, M. Yu. 1996: Greek painted pottery of Nemirov city site. Arkheologiya 4, 85–93. Vakhtina, M. Yu. (forthcoming): In V. Gabrielsen & J. Lund (eds.), Trade in the Black Sea Region. Aarhus. Vinogradov, J. G. 1981: Olbia. Geschichte einer altgriechischen Stadt am Schwarzen. Meer and Konstanz. (See also Yu. G. Vinogradov.) Vinogradov, J. G. 1996: Zur Klassifizierung der griechisch-barbarischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse der vorrömischen Zeit im pontischen Raum. In Funck 1996, pp. 427–37. Vinogradov, J. G. 1997a: L’anello del re Skyles. Storia politica e dinastica degli Sciti nella prima meta del V sec. a.C. In Vinogradav, Pontische Studien (Mainz), pp. 613–33. (First published in Epigraphica 43 (1981), 9–37.) Vinogradov, J. G. 1997b Pontische Studien. Mainz. Vinogradov, J. G. 2000: Review of Dubois 1996. Gnomon 72, 324–30. Vinogradov, Yu. A. 1992: Myrmecium. In G. A. Koshelenko (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Bosporus, pp. 99–120. Moscow. Vinogradov, Yu. A. 1995: Some controversial problems of Greek colonization in the Cimmerian Bosporus. VDI 3, 152–60. Vinogradov, Yu. A. 1999: The Greek colonization and Greek urbanization of the north coast of the Black Sea, Stratum plus 3, 101–15. Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1981: Barbarians in the prosopography of Olbia: In O. Lordkipanidze (ed.), The Demographic Situation in the Black Sea Region in the Period of Greek Colonization, pp. 131–46. Tbilisi. (See also J. G. Vinogradov.) Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1983: The polis on the north coast of the Black Sea. In Ancient Greece, vol. I, pp. 366–420. Moscow. Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1984: Dekret v chest’ Antesteriya i krizis Ol’viyskovo polisa v epokhu ellinizma. VDI 1, 51–80. Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1989: The Political History of the Olbian Polis 7th–1st Centuries BC: An Historico-Epigraphical Study. Moscow. Vinogradov, Yu. G 1990: Olbia and Trajan. In Eastern Europe in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Abstracts, pp. 27–32. Moscow. Vinogradov, Yu. G. 1994: A study of the military-political history of the Sarmatians in the first century AD, VDI 2, 151–70.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 198

198

References

Vinogradov, Yu. G. & Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1982/3: Kallinik, syn Evksena. VDI 4, 26–46, and 1, 21–39. Vinogradov, Yu. G. & Kryzhitskiy, S. D. 1995: Olbia: Eine altgriechische Stadt im nordwestlichen Schwarzmeerraum. Leiden. Vinogradov, Yu. G. & Rusyayeva, A. S. 1980: The cult of Apollo and the calendar at Olbia. In Studies in the Classical Archaeology of the North Black Sea Coast, pp. 19–64. Kiev. Vinogradov, Yu. G. & Rusyayeva, A. S. 2001: Graffiti from the shrine of Apollo in the Western Temenos at Olbia. In M. I. Zolotaryov (ed.), AMAVAQRIR. In memory of Yu. G. Vinogradov, pp. 134–42. Sebastopol. Vinogradov, Yu. G. & Zubar, V. M. 1995/6: Die schola principalium in Chersonesos. IL MAR NERO 2, 129–41. Vinogradov, Yu. G., Domanskiy, Ya. V. & Marchenko, K. K. 1990: A comparative analysis of literary and archaeological evidence on the problem of the early history of the north-west Black Sea coast. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), The Black Sea Coast in the 7th–5th Centuries BC: Fifth Vani-Symposium 1987, pp. 75–98. Tbilisi. Vinogradov, Yu. G, Zubar, V. M. & Antonova, I. A. 1999: Scholar Principalium at Chersonesus. NE 16, 72–81. Voznesenskaya, G. A. & Nedopako, D. P. 1978: The technology of production of metal artefacts from Trakhtemirov. The Use of Methods of the Natural Sciences in Archaeology, pp. 25–36. Kiev. Vyaz’mitina, M. I. 1972: Zolotobalka Cemetery. Kiev. Walbank, F. W. 1951: Polybius on the Pontus and the Bosphorus (iv 39–42). In Studies Presented to David M. Robinson, vol. I, pp. 469–79. Saint Louis, Miss. Wasowicz, A. 1975: Olbia Pontique et son territoire. Besançon. Wesch-Klein, G. 1998: Sozial Aspekte des römischen Heerwesens in der Kaiserzeit. Stuttgart. West, M. L. 1982: The Orphics of Olbia. ZPE 45, 17–29. West, M. L. 1990: Studies in Aeschylus. Stuttgart. West, M. L. 2002: ‘Eumelos’: a Corinthian epic cycle?. JHS 122, 109–33. West, S. R. 1999: Introducing the Scythians: Herodotus on koumiss (4.2). MH 56, 76–86. West, S. R. 2000: Herodotus in the North? Reflections on a colossal cauldron. SCI 19, 15–34. West, S. R. 2003: The most marvellous of all seas: the Greek encounter with the Euxine. Greece and Rome 50, 151–67. West, S. R. 2004: Herodotus on Aristeas. In Tuplin 2004, pp. 43–67. Yanushevich, Z. V. 1986: Cultivated Plants of the North Coast of the Black Sea: PaleoBotanical Studies. Kishinev. Yatsenko, S. A. 1993: Alans in eastern Europe from the mid-1st century AD to the mid-4th. Petersburg Archaeological Journal 6, 83–8. Yatsenko, S. A. 2001: Tamga-marks of the Iranian-speaking Peoples of Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Moscow. Yaylenko, V. P. 1983: Archaic Greece. In Ancient Greece, vol. I, 128–93. Moscow. Yaylenko, V. P. 1987a: Material for the corpus of lapidary inscriptions from Olbia. In A. I. Pavlovskaya (ed.), Studies in the Epigraphy and Languages of Ancient Anatolia, Cyprus and the North Black Sea Coast, pp. 4–105. Moscow.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 199

References

199

Yaylenko, V. P. 1987b: Some Greek graffiti and a so-called Sarmatian inscription from Berezan. In Ancient Balkan Studies, pp. 147–54. Moscow. Yemets, I. A. 2002: Greco-Barbarian Religious Interactions on the Cimmerian Bosporus. Moscow. Zakharova, E. A. & Moleva, N. A. 1999: Achilles in Greece and the Northern Black Sea Coast. In On the History of Ancient Society: Inter-University Collection of Scientific Works, pp. 45–54. Nizhniy Novgorod. Zanker, P. 1995: The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley. Zaytsev, Yu. P. 2004: The Scythian Neapolis, BAR International Series. Oxford. Zhmud, L, 1992: Orphism and graffiti from Olbia. Hermes 120, 159–68. Zhuravlyov, O. P. 1983: Zhivotnovodstvo, okhota i landshaftnye osobennosti antichnovo Ol’viyskovo gosudarstva. In Morfologicheskiye osobennosti pozvonochnykh zhivotnykh Ukrainy, pp. 38–45. Kiev. Zograph, A. N. 1930: Roman coins from Olbia. IGAIMK 6, 4.5–15. Zolotaryov, M. I. 1988: The early stages of street-construction in early Tauric Chersonesus, Khersonesskiy Sbornik 9, 26–35. Zolotaryov, M. I. 1990: On the early stage of settlement in ancient Chersonesus. Arkheologiya 3, 68–76. Zolotaryov, M. I. 1998: The early stages of street building in Tauris Chersonesus. Khersonesskiy Sbornik 9, 26–35. Zubar, V. M. 1993: The reliability of a literary source on the history of Olbia in the mid-2nd century (SHA Pius, 9.9). SA 2, 185–8. Zubar, V. M. 1994: Olbia, the Sarmatians and Rome in the second half of the 1st century. VDI 3, 218–22. Zubar, V. M. 1997a: On the history of Olbia in the 1st half of the 3rd century AD. In Niconium and the Ancient World of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 291–5. Odessa. Zubar, V. M. 1997b: On the so-called Tauroscythian war. RA 2, 85–90. Zubar, V. M. 1998a: On the interpretation of dwelling-complexes in the early phases of the ancient settlements of the north coast of the Black Sea, Arkheologiya 1, 129–36. Zubar, V. M. 1998b: Northern Pontus and the Roman Empire. Kiev. Zubar, V. M. 2001: The final stage of the history of Olbia, VDI 1, 132–8. Zubar, V. M. & Kozub, Yu. I. 2002a: A new epitaph of a Roman legionary from Olbia, Arkheologiya 2, 102–9. Zubar, V. M. & Kozub, Yu. I. 2002b: A new tombstone with Latin epitaph from Olbia, ACSS 8, 199–210. Zubar V. M. & Krapivina, V. V. 1999: On the Roman garrison of Olbia in the middle of the 3rd century, Vita antiqua 2, 76–83. Zubar, V. M. and Krapivina, V. V. 2000: A new Latin inscription and some issues in the history of Olbia in the middle of the 3rd century, Stratum plus 6, 239–47. Zubar, V. M. and Son, N. A. 1995: On the interpretation of a Latin inscription from Olbia, VDI 3, 181–7.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

13 References 1525

28/9/07

12:36

Page 200

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved