The Achaemenids, the Black Sea and Beyond: New Evidence and Studies: A Volume Dedicated to the Memory of Prof. Alexandru Avram: Volume 40 (Colloquia Antiqua) 9042950641, 9789042950641

Citation preview

The Achaemenids, the Black Sea and Beyond New Evidence and Studies

Edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (†)

PEETERS

THE ACHAEMENIDS, THE BLACK SEA AND BEYOND

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA Supplements to the Journal ANCIENT WEST & EAST

FOUNDER

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE (†) (UK) EDITORIAL BOARD

M. Dana (France), J. Hargrave (UK), M. Kazanski (France), A. Mehl (Germany), M. Manoledakis (Greece), A. Podossinov (Russia), J. Wiesehöfer (Germany) ADVISORY BOARD

S. Atasoy (Turkey), L. Ballesteros Pastor (Spain), A. Baralis (France), Sir John Boardman (UK), H. Bru (France), S. Burstein (USA), B. d’Agostino (Italy), J. de Boer (The Netherlands), A. Domínguez (Spain), S. Günther (Germany/China), S. Kovalenko (Russia), R. Morais (Portugal), M. Pearce (UK), D. Potts (USA), R. Rollinger (Austria), N. Theodossiev (Bulgaria), M. Tiverios (Greece), C. Ulf (Austria), J. Vela Tejada (Spain)

Colloquia Antiqua is a refereed publication

For proposals and editorial and other matters, please contact the Series Editors: The Gallery Spa Road Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ER UK E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA ————— 40 —————

THE ACHAEMENIDS, THE BLACK SEA AND BEYOND New Evidence and Studies A volume dedicated to the memory of Prof. Alexandru Avram

Edited by

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE (†) with JAMES HARGRAVE

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2023

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-5064-1 eISBN 978-90-429-5065-8 D/2023/0602/48 © 2023, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

The Achaemenid Impact on the Greek Cities and Local Peoples of the Northern Pontus Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (†) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

The First Destruction of the Temples from the Sacred Area in Histria. Late Archaic or Early Classical? Iulian Bîrzescu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

Xerxes and Pontus (An Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoria) V.D. Kuznetsov. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

A Fragment of a Marble Slab with part of a Cuneiform Inscription(?) from Theodosia M. Akhmadeeva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85

Xenophantos, the Spartocids and the Achaemenid-Persian Reach Josef Wiesehöfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

Achaemenid Elements in the Elite Culture of the Cimmerian Bosporus Yuriy A. Vinogradov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

Gold Appliqués in the Achaemenid Style from the Baksy Kurgan in the Eastern Crimea Mikhail Treister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117

Achaemenids and the Southern Black Sea Manolis Manoledakis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141

Local Identities under the Achaemenids: Two Examples from Lycia and Phrygia Maya Vassileva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

155

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Early Zoroastrian Religion of Anatolia: The First Shrine in the Iron Age, the Hall of Worship and Atashkadeh of Oluz Höyük Mona Saba and Şevket Dönmez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173

Additional Abstracts Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

201

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

203

PREFACE

Alas, this could never be the volume that it was intended to be on account of the premature and untimely death of Gocha Tsetskhladze, a fine scholar and a kind man, who devised it as a tribute to another fine and kind scholar, Alexandru Avram. I had the privilege of knowing them both. It had been planned initially as the publication of the proceedings of a small conference/workshop about the Achaemenids and the Black Sea, scheduled to be held in Constanţa, which had to be postponed in light of the disastrous and futile public policy response to a cold virus, and subsequently abandoned. An intention to publish despite the postponement of the conference attracted sufficient support, including that of Alexandru; but then events took two unwelcome turns. Illness prevented Gocha from writing his own chapter – some scribbles for an outline existed in his working papers. In consequence, a cut-down version of his 2019 paper, less focused than that was on the Phanagoria inscription, is presented as some form of substitute: he would have wanted to contribute out

Gocha Tsetskhladze (1962–2022) with Alexandru Avram (1956–2021), Prague, May 2015.

VIII

PREFACE

of his great regard for Alexandru (a kindred spirit, serious and devoted to his work rather than to advancing himself). What can be said is that Gocha had long shown himself a supporter of the idea that the Achaemenids had, however unobtrusive in the written and physical record, played a greater role than had been assigned to them on all shores of the Black Sea. His interest, naturally enough, started in his native Colchis: ‘Colchis and the Persian Empire: the problems of their relationship’. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3 (1993–94), 11–49; and ‘Colchians, Greeks and Achaemenids in the 7th–5th cc BC: a Critical Look’. Klio 76 (1994), 78–102. Both are revisionist pieces. The former paper excited the wrath of O.D Lordkipanidze, grand panjandrum/godfather of Georgian archaeology during the Late Soviet era and beyond (whose Nasledie Drevnei Gruzii was subject to particular criticism by Gocha), who claimed (Vani IX [1996], 109) that its first six pages, equipped though they were with over 70 footnotes (including 15 references to Lordkipanidze himself), plagiarised some 45 pages of his various writings, setting a hare running that others have followed without (1) doing the maths or (2) realising that using the same evidence to draw different conclusions from it is not a sane person’s definition of plagiarism – as n. 168 of the Silk Road piece states: ‘I [GT] cannot accept the interpretation of Achaemenid objects from Georgia adopted by my Georgian colleagues or the way in which they determine where such objects were produced.’ In other words, a reputationcrippling ‘denunciation’ was actually of a summary of the same (published) evidence in English, a précis of the arguments advanced by Lordkipanidze and others, taken back to the sources. Fools rushed in (to an already simmering interpretative dispute between the official Colchian-Georgian nationalist line of Lordkipanidze – endogenous, no outside influences or largely immune to them, nothing to see here, move on1 – and Gocha’s heresies, pointing west to the Greeks 1

Though the temptation be ever present to identify modern ethnic groups with their ancient ‘predecessors’, ‘There is no culture that has existed “since time immemorial” and no people that is aboriginal in terms of their contemporary culture with a specific piece of real estate’ (as remarked in the much-cited G.R. Tsetskhladze and P.L. Kohl, ‘Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology in the Caucasus’. In P.L. Kohl and C. Fawcett [eds.], Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology [Cambridge 1995], 149–74 – at p. 151). Gocha’s principal contribution is at pp. 162–68, on ‘Greeks and “Georgians” in ancient Colchis’, with a clear comparison between his Silk Road piece (above), and especially his Die Griechen in der Kolchis (historisch-archäologischer Abriß) (Schwarzmeer-Studien 3) (Amsterdam 1998), and Lordkipanidze’s Nasledie Drevnei Gruzii (Tbilisi 1989), where, in one instance, ‘Scholarship here descends into mythology’ (p. 165); and ‘In short, what for all other people and states is seen as a source of pride – namely, direct contact between their culture and Graeco-Roman civilization – is unacceptable for certain Georgian archaeologists… Today no-one doubts that a highly developed civilization existed in the first millennium BC within the territory of what is now western Georgia, a culture which at the same time enjoyed close political, economic, and cultural links with both the Mediterranean and the Eastern (particularly the Achaemenid) worlds. Like any other highly developed culture,

PREFACE

IX

and east to the Persians as having played some part in developments, and not just by tangential influence). I hope I have belled the cat, for the false reasoning of ‘no smoke without fire’ cast a pall over Gocha’s activities in Germany and Australia without anyone bothering to dig into the evidence (who reads Georgian?). Gocha rose high above this, achieving an international reputation that eclipsed those of his stuttering tormentors. He nestled his wrath for many years, but he was deeply wounded within. Gocha, like many, was severely shocked by the sudden death of Alexandru, an apparently healthy man. Gocha was not in the prime of health for many years, but he persisted with his work despite this (he was dictating e-mails from his hospital bed); and his death, some 400 days after Alexandru’s, was also sudden. A terrible symmetry. Tributes to Alexandru, more perceptive and eloquent than I can pen, will be found in the next issue of his journal, Il Mar Nero. Other contributions had originally been promised, deadlines missed, apologies received. I thought it better to speed things to a close. Perhaps the work will appear uneven, but the circumstances of its birth in two deaths must surely excuse this. An appendix contains abstracts of the various papers not received. As the chapter bibliographies confirm, J. Nieling and E. Rehm (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea: Communication of Powers (Black Sea Studies 11) (Aarhus 2010) remains an essential first stop for those interested in the Achaemenids and the Black Sea. For Alexandru’s latest thoughts on the northern Black Sea, see A. Avram, ‘519 BC: Persians Occupy the North Pontic Coast’. In J. Boardman, J. Hargrave, A. Avram and A. Podossinov (eds.), Connecting the Ancient West and East: Studies Presented to Prof. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (Monographs on Antiquity 8) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT 2022), 75–108. I should like to thank Bert Verrept at Peeters for making production as painless as possible at a painful time. He knew Gocha and admired both his scholarship and his standards as editor, standards I shall aim to maintain until permanent editorial arrangements are made. Rest assured, the series continues. Finally, let us commend Alex and Gocha to the gods and be grateful for their lives, their work and our privilege in knowing them. May they be re-joined in Eternity for one last drink and one more cigarette. Human, all too human – both free spirits gloriously unsuited to life in the modern degree mills (where scholarship is a secondary concern at best, and rarely mentioned). James Hargrave Acting Series Editor Colchis absorbed and refashioned the achievements of the Greek and Achaemenid civilizations. This should be seen as progress, not the opposite’ (p. 168).

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER 1 (Tsetskhladze) Fig. 1.

Map of the Black Sea showing major Greek cities and local peoples.

Fig. 2.

Map of the Taman Peninsula showing major Greek colonies. Not to scale.

Fig. 3.

Old Persian inscription from Phanagoria.

Fig. 4.

Drawing of Old Persian inscription from Phanagoria.

CHAPTER 2 (Bîrzescu) Fig. 1.

Sacred Area at the end of the Archaic period.

Fig. 2. Plan of the southern part of the Sacred Area with the indication of the two contexts. Red: burned layers; blue: rubble layer south of temple M (plan by Monica Mărgineanu Cârstoiu, Virgil Apostol and Ștefan Bâlici). Fig. 3. 2005).

Destruction layer inside the naos of the temple of Aphrodite (after Alexandrescu

Fig. 4. West of the temple of Aphrodite before the excavation of the destruction layers in 2007. View from the east (2007). Left: the burnt layer before being excavated; in the centre: a Late Roman well. Fig. 5. North-western part of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: architectural fragments. View from the east (2011). Fig. 6. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: flat and cover tiles. View from the north-east (2007). Fig. 7. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: cover tiles and antefixes. View from the west (2011). Fig. 8.

West of the temple of Aphrodite, painted antefix (drawing by Argeș Epure).

Fig. 9. layer.

West of the temple of Aphrodite, terracotta revetment from the destruction

Fig. 10. West of the temple of Aphrodite, drawing of the same terracotta revetment (drawing by Argeș Epure). Fig. 11. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: capital fragments. View from the west (2010). Fig. 12. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer and the Archaic wall. View from the south (2011).

XII

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 13. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: terracotta revetments. View from the west (2011). Fig. 14. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: terracotta revetments. View from the south (2011). Fig. 15. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: terracotta revetments. View from the south. Fig. 16. West of the temple of Aphrodite, planum of the terracotta revetments (2008). Fig. 17. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: burnt wooden beams. View from the north-east (2007). Fig. 18. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: burnt wooden beams. View from the west (2011). Fig. 19. West of the temple of Aphrodite, Archaic wall and the destruction layer (2011). Fig. 20. West of the temple of Aphrodite, Archaic wall and the destruction layer. Underneath: the neck of a Chian transport amphora (2011). Fig. 21. Neck of a Chian amphora, found directly under the destruction layer (2011). Fig. 22. Istrian coin found in the destruction layer near the burnt beams (2007, inv. no. His 07 T 42.1). Fig. 23. Istrian coin found in the destruction layer near the burnt beams (2007, inv. no. His 07 T 42.2). Fig. 24. Temple M. View from the south (2007). Fig. 25. Temple M, burnt layer. View from the south (2007). Fig. 26. Ionian ceramic perirrhanterion from the burnt layer inside temple M and from outside the temple (2007). Fig. 27. Terracotta protomes from the burnt layer inside temple M (2007). Fig. 28. Painted terracotta rooster from the burnt layer inside temple M (2007) (drawing and reconstruction of the painting by Cristina Georgescu). Fig. 29. Fragment of an ivory from the burnt layer inside temple M. Fig. 30. Gold from the burnt layer inside temple M. Fig. 31. South of temple M, mid-5th-century BC layer with unburnt architectural terracottas. View from the east (2008). Fig. 32. South of the temple M, mid-5th-century BC layer with unburnt architectural terracottas. View from the east (2008). Fig. 33. Painted antefix from temple M. Fig. 34. Painted kymation from temple M. Fig. 35. Painted sima from temple M.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XIII

CHAPTER 3 (Kuznetsov) Fig. 1.

Map showing location of Phanagoria.

Fig. 2. Plan of architectural features discovered in the Upper City of Phanagoria (540–480 BC). Fig. 3.

Schematic plan of the defensive walls of Phanagoria.

Fig. 4.

The cellar with Chian amphorae.

Fig. 5.

Sanctuary (dedicated to chthonic deities?).

Fig. 6.

South-west corner of building no. 681 with traces of fire.

Fig. 7.

The fragment of the Persian inscription in situ.

Fig. 8.

The position of the fragment in relation to the wall of building no. 681.

Fig. 9.

The inscription just found after initial cleaning.

Fig. 10. Traces left on the stone by fire and charcoals. Fig. 11. Traces left on the stone by fire and charcoals. Fig. 12. Four areas on the surface of the inscription fragment with varying degrees of exposure to fire. Fig. 13. The back and the edge of the fragment with two areas unaffected by fire. Fig. 14. The back and the edge of the fragment with two areas unaffected by fire. Fig. 15. The edge of the fragment with the areas unaffected by fire. CHAPTER 4 (Akhmadeeva) Fig. 1.

The location of Farmstead A in the near suburban area of ancient Theodosia.

Fig. 2.

Farmstead A. Aerial view.

Fig. 3.

The fragment of a marble slab. Drawing.

Fig. 4.

The fragment of a marble slab. Side A.

Fig. 5.

The fragment of a marble slab. Side B.

CHAPTER 6 (Vinogradov) Fig. 1.

Large lekythos of Xenophantus (the State Hermitage Museum, inv. P. 1837.2).

Fig. 2.

Finds from burials of Bosporan priestesses.

Fig. 3.

Crypt of the Baksy Kurgan.

Fig. 4.

Gold plaques from the Baksy Kurgan.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XIV

CHAPTER 7 (Treister) Fig. 1.

The appliqués from the Baksy Kurgan. Place of preservation unknown.

Fig. 2. The appliqués in the form of lion heads from the Baksy Kurgan. Place of preservation unknown. Fig. 3. The appliqués in the form of lion heads: 1–2 – Chicago, Oriental Institute, inv. A 28587; 3 – Halicarnassus, Mausoleum, inv. no. 6369; 4 – Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. B 1960/11. Fig. 4. The appliqués in the form of rosettes: 1 – Baksy Kurgan; 2 – Gaimanova Mogila; 3, 4 – Chertomlyk. Fig. 5.

A warrior on a relief from Susa. Detail. Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum.

Fig. 6. A rhyton with a protome of a horse with a rider. Erevan, Erebuni Museum, inv. no. 20. 1 – general view: 2–3 – details. Fig. 7. A felt carpet from Pazyryk Kurgan no. 1. Detail of the border. State Hermitage, inv. no. 1295-52. Fig. 8. Attic red-figured kylix by Douris from Chiusi. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, inv. No. B8. CHAPTER 9 (Vassileva) Fig. 1.

The Antiphellos tomb.

Fig. 2.

Groove for the sliding door of the Antiphellos tomb.

Fig. 3.

Leg of the northern kline.

Fig. 4.

Detail of border of the southern kline.

Fig. 5.

The frieze of the dancing women in the Antiphellos tomb.

Fig. 6.

The ‘Broken Tomb’ in the Phrygian Highlands.

CHAPTER 10 (Saba and Dönmez) Fig. 1.

Oluz Höyük and its vicinity in the Late Iron Age.

Fig. 2.

General view, Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 3. Burnt seed residues, 7B2 Hittite Collapse Period (1200–1150 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 4.

Altar of Kubaba, Architectural Layer 4B (600–550 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 5. Atashkadeh and the Hall of Worship, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 6. Hall of Worship, Atashkadeh, Persian Road, Architectural Layer 2B (450– 300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XV

Fig. 7. Hall of Worship, Atashkadeh, Persian Road, Architectural Layer 2B (450– 300 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 8.

Atashkadeh, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 9.

Atashkadeh, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 10. Hall of Worship and Atashkadeh, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 11. Sacrificial channel, Architectural Layer 2B (450 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 12. Krater fragment with lion figure found in the Hall of Worship, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 13. Pottery fragment with geometric figures uncovered in sacrificial channel, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 14. Stele with the depiction of a sacrificial ritual, 5th century BC, Daskyleion. Fig. 15. Mud-brick structure where the sacred ashes were stored, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 16. Cross section of mud-brick structure where the sacred ashes were stored, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük. Fig. 17. Atashkadeh and the Hall of Worship, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES OF THE NORTHERN PONTUS* Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE (†)

Abstract The discovery of an Old Persian inscription from Phanagoria of Darius I reinforces the arguments I have long made concerning the breadth of Achaemenid presence and influence around the Black Sea as a result of Darius’ and Xerxes’ various military campaigns. The emphasis here is on the northern shore.

Nowadays, not much new evidence appears that will change our basic perceptions, but the discovery at Phanagoria of an Old Persian inscription that is unique for the whole Black Sea coast (Fig. 1) also changes our knowledge of the extent of the Achaemenid empire. Here I integrate this with my previous writings on the Achamenid presence in the Black Sea, all composed before the inscription was known or published,1 largely to confirm the correctness of my earlier conclusions. The inscription itself is discussed in more detail in Tsetskhladze 2019b; an alternative interpretation of it is provided by V.D. Kuznetsov (below in this volume). PERSIANS ENTERING INTO EUROPE/CONFLICT BETWEEN ASIA

AND

EUROPE

The aim of Darius’ Scythian expedition was to punish the Scythians for what they had done in the Near East long before (Herodotus 4. 1). It has received much attention. Our main source is Herodotus Book 4, the problems of which have been discussed often already.2 I shall not do so here.

* The author died before completing his intended chapter and the text below is a much reduced variant of Tsetskhladze 2019b offered in substitution. He had already started work to reuse and reshape that article in his chapter, but all I can offer is thin gruel rather than red meat [JFH]. 1 Especially Tsetskhladze 2008; 2013; 2018a. 2 See, for instance, Asheri et al. 2007; Hind 2011; Tuplin 2010; 2011; Tsetskhladze 2018a.

2

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 1. Map of the Black Sea showing major Greek cities and local peoples (author’s map).

The campaign took place in ca. 513/2 BC,3 though we have lacked evidence to confirm that this approximate date is indeed the exact one. S. Burstein’s study, ‘A New Tabula Iliaca: The Vasek Polak Chronicle’, shows the correctness of this date: Lines IIB 32–37: In FGrH 252 B8 the assassination of Hipparchus, the brother of the Athenian tyrant Hippias (514), and Darius I’s Scythian campaign are both dated to the year 513/12. The Getty Tabula Iliaca proves that the puzzling entry … is merely the result of Cutter d’s arbitrary combination of two separate entries from his source, the original Chronicon Romanum. This discovery eliminates from the Chronicon Romanum one of the principal chronological errors ascribed to it on the basis of FGrH 252 B. The solitary kappa in line 37, which was cut directly under the eta of ἔτη in line 36, is all that Cutter d inscribed on the Getty Tabula Iliaca of what clearly was the Chronicon Romanum’s date from Darius I’s Scythian expedition, ΦΚΗ = 513/12.4

3 4

Georges 1987; Balcer 1972; Cameron 1975; Chernenko 1984, 7–16; Briant 2002, passim. Burstein 1984, 160–61.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

3

Darius’ expedition clearly took place.5 The problems lie with its extent, which is not very well known, importance (for both sides), and the details. Herodotus gives the impression that it was of great importance for the Achaemenids, but Ctesias History of Persia F13. 216 and Strabo 7. 3. 14 provide just short summaries of the event, perhaps indicating that it was somewhat less important for Darius than Herodotus makes out. Surprisingly enough, this campaign brought the Greek cities of the entire Black Sea and even the Scythians into the Achaemenid empire. From this point of view alone, of course, the expedition deserves much more attention than it has hitherto received. The campaign was not just some quick expedition. In 519 BC, Darius had ordered Ariaramnes, the satrap of Cappadocia, to cross over to Scythia and to take male and female prisoners of war (Ctesias History of Persia F13. 20). Ariaramnes could reach Scythia by sea and the Cimmerian Bosporus. This event is now considered as an historical fact,7 which can be supported in general by archaeological evidence (that also demonstrates that Ariaramnes reached the Taman Peninsula and its Greek cities). Darius first conquered the southern and western Black Sea, for which the sources have been studied widely. But what about the northern and eastern Black Sea? What written evidence is there that (at least) the northern Black Sea had been included in the Achaemenid domains? Let us return to Ctesias: And while things were going so well for Ninus, he conceived a strong desire to subdue the whole of Asia between the Tanais and the Nile. … He therefore appointed one of his friends as satrap of Media, while he himself attacked the tribes in Asia in an effort to subdue them. And in the 17 years he spent there he became master of them all, except the Indians and the Bactrians. … Amongst the lands on and adjacent to the coast he subdued Egypt, Phoenicia and also brought under his control Coele Syria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Lycia; and in addition to these Caria, Phrygia, Mysia, and Lydia. He added the Troad, Phrygia on the Hellespont, Propontis, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and the barbarian tribes who live on the Black Sea coast as far as the River Tanais. He came to rule the land of the Cadusians and the Tapyrians, that of the Hyrcanians and Drangians, and in addition the Derbices, Carmanians, Choromnaeans, and furthermore the Borcanians and Parthyaeans, and he attacked Persis, Susiana, and the region called Caspiana, the passes into which are extremely narrow and are consequently called the Caspian Gates (History of Persia F1b. 2. 1–3).

5

Hartog 1988. About Ctesias and his sources, see Burstein 2018; Llewellyn-Jones and Robson 2010; Wiesehöfer et al. 2011. 7 Koshelenko 1999, 133–41; Nieling 2010, 127–28; etc. 6

4

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

The events ascribed to Ninus are astonishingly reminiscent of the overseas policies pursued by Darius and their outcomes (known from his inscriptions), and we may sensibly suggest that Ctesias should really be talking about him, not Ninus. Darius’ aim, clearly elucidated in the passage, was the subjugation of the lands between the Nile and the Don (Tanais). He succeeded after a series of campaigns lasting over 17 years, pushing the borders of his domains as far north as the Tanais, thus undoubtedly including the Cimmerian Bosporus within them. Herodotus gives clear evidence about the inclusion of Colchis in the Achaemenid empire; this is corroborated by archaeological evidence as well. BACKGROUND The relationship between the northern Black Sea/Bosporan kingdom and the Achaemenid empire had been touched on before the discovery of the inscription in Phanagoria in the summer. In 1997, N.F. Fedoseev concluded, based on studying gems, coins and some Persian and Persian-inspired objects, in combination with written sources, mainly Ctesias, that the northern Black Sea had been under Achaemenid control.8 He was criticised by some colleagues who considered that all such objects had come to the region from Asia Minor, from the mother-cities of those Greek colonies, by way of economic and cultural contacts. They wrote that Persian influence (including political) could not be excluded but that direct evidence for it was lacking.9 G.A. Koshelenko wrote about Ariaramnes’ journey to the Bosporan kingdom, which he dated to 519 BC, as a precursor for Darius’ Scythian expedition.10 In collaboration with O.M. Usacheva, Koshelenko published an article in 1992 in which ‘Gylon’s treachery’ (Aeschines 3. 171–172) is discussed: the Bosporan king gave Gylon (Demosthenes’ maternal grandfather) Kepoi as reward for his surrender/betrayal of Nymphaeum to the Bosporan kingdom. Koshelenko drew parallels with the reward given to Themistocles when he entered Persian service, concluding that this practice was one sign that the Cimmerian Bosporus was under Achaemenid rule.11

8

Fedoseev 1997. See also Fedoseev 2012; 2014; 2018. Molev 2001. See also Molev 2006; 2008; 2016. Cf. Yatsenko 2011. 10 Koshelenko 1999. 11 Summarised in Koshelenko 1999, 139. 9

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

5

In 2004, V.P. Yailenko published a controversial note on Darius’ military action in the Cimmerian Bosporus, in which he discussed lines 21–31 of the V Behistun inscription.12 In combination with information provided by Ctesias (History of Persia F13. 20), he suggested that the Cimmerian Bosporus had been included in the Achaemenid empire, citing as additional support the Tabula Capitolina (IG XIV, 1297), and even suggesting that Cyrus himself had been responsible for its incorporation. M. Treister has published extensively on metal objects from the northern Black Sea. He collected much evidence on Achaemenid and Achaemenidinspired objects found there,13 without examining whether the area fell within the Achaemenid empire. Nor did V.R. Erlikh consider this possibility in his study of Achaemenid metal objects from the Ulski necropolis and Ulyap in the Kuban region (he thought that these objects were manufactured somewhere in the Near East or in Transcaucasia).14 J. Nieling, in the same collection on the impact of the Achaemenids on the Black Sea area,15 touching upon some key questions about Achaemenid objects and the information written sources conveyed about the northern and eastern Black Sea, arrived at the same conclusion as Koshelenko: that Ariaramnes’ expedition really did happen and dating it to 519 BC.16 PHANAGORIA INSCRIPTION The fragment, some 10–15%, of a large Achaemenid royal stele, was found during excavation of the Upper City/Acropolis of Phanagoria in the Taman Peninsula (Fig. 2).17 I have already discussed the object, the transliteration, possible meanings and its stratigraphic context (Figs. 3–4).18 Thanks to its very fragmentary nature, it is clearly very difficult to be certain whether the inscription relates to Darius or to his son Xerxes, but the balance of opinion, which I share, lies with the former. In these circumstances other evidence should be considered as well. My aim is to use mainly archaeological evidence.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Yailenko 2004; 2010, 7–10. Treister 2010. See also Treister 2014. Erlikh 2010. Nieling 2010; Nieling and Rehm 2010. For minor publications, see Zavoikin 2015. Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2018. Tsetskhladze 2019b.

6

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 2. Map of the Taman Peninsula showing major Greek colonies. Not to scale (author’s map).

Several articles about the inscription have appeared already, mainly philological but one from an historical perspective (which considers that it belongs to Darius).19 Two philologists consider the inscription to relate to Darius,20 whereas V.D. Kuznetsov, a classical archaeologist, is alone among historians and archaeologists in his certainty that it concerns Xerxes (based on the circumstances of its discovery in a ruined house: see his contribution below). He has written at length on the relationship between Xerxes and the Bosporan kingdom, and an expanded version of this has appeared more recently in English.21 Furthermore, another historian, A. Balakhvantsev, denies that the Cimmerian Bosporus was part of the Achaemenid empire.22 One detail of the inscription deserves attention: the back of the stone was not worked up, which rather suggests that it formed part of some public building or temple. In Byzantium, for example, two pillars bearing inscriptions of Darius were encountered, one used to build the altar of Orthosian Artemis and the other, covered with Assyrian writing, was left beside the temple of Dionysos (Herodotus 4. 87).23 It is possible that such a public building or temple in Phanagoria was demolished or destroyed (see below), for one reason 19

Rung and Gabelko 2018. Avram 2019; Shavarebi 2019, who gave the inscription its short title, DFa. 21 Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2018; 2019; Kuznetsov 2018; 2019. Initially, Kuznetsov thought it concerned Darius, he also read ‘Miletus’: http://theartnewspaper.com/news/russian-archaeologists-uncover-ancient-persian-stele-inscribed-with-a-message-from-king-darius-io/%20 (consulted 31 July 2016). 22 Balakhvantsev 2018. 23 ‘Having viewed the Pontus, Darius sailed back to the bridge, of which Mandrocles of Samos was the chief builder; and when he had viewed the Bosporus also, he set up by it two pillars of white marble, engraving on the one in Assyrian and on the other in Greek characters 20

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

Fig. 3. Old Persian inscription from Phanagoria (courtesy V.D. Kuznetsov).

Fig. 4. Drawing of Old Persian inscription from Phanagoria (after Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2018, 155, fig. 1).

7

8

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

or another, and that several pieces of inscription were scattered around. Perhaps future excavation will yield more of these – for example, it was previously though that Phanagoria lacked a fortification system, but one has recently been discovered. It must be said that Phanagoria was a very important city from its foundation by Teans in about 542 BC.24 After the establishment of the Greek Bosporan kingdom it became capital of the Asiatic side of the Bosporus, just as Panticapaeum became capital of the European side (Strabo 11. 2. 10).25 Again, recent investigations have unearthed the palace of Mithradates VI, when we had no idea that Phanagoria was one of his residences, as was Panticapaeum. Phanagoria is also the burial place of his wife, as we know from the tombstone inscribed ‘Hypsicratea, wife of Mithradates VI Eupator’.26 ACHAEMENID GARRISON? In 1937, a fragmentary Old Persian inscription was discovered in a vegetable garden in the ‘Cock Castle’ district of Gherla in Transylvania, an area inhabited in antiquity: indeed the Roman castrum was almost opposite, about 1 km distant. Repeated excavation brought to light a large number of objects from the ruins.27 Four lines of inscription can still be read: Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4

]ya δa i ya : ]a sa pa ha ya ] ša ya : ha ] ka u na u ša

Original

Present

Normalised transcription

Line 1

[Dᾱrayavanuš : xšᾱyaδiya :] [vazraka : xšᾱyaδiya : xšᾱ] [yaδiyᾱnᾱm : xšᾱ] yaδiya :

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3

the names of all the nations that were in his army; in which were all the nations subject to him’ (Herodotus 4. 87). ‘Having then come to the river and there encamped, Darius was pleased with the sight of it, and set up yet another pillar there, graven with this inscription, “From the sources of the river Tearus flows the best and fairest of all river waters; hither came, leading his army against the Scythians, the best and fairest of all men, even Darius son of Hystaspes and king of Persia and all the mainland”’ (Herodotus 4. 91). 24 See, for instance, Tsetskhladze 2002. 25 See now the hefty exhibition catalogue (from the Pushkin Museum, Moscow): Kuznetsov and Tolstikov 2017. 26 Kuznetsov 2007, 238–43. Recently, shipwrecks of the Late Hellenistic period were discovered in the Taman Gulf. 27 On the inscription, related studies, its transcription and the question of authenticity, see Harmatta 1953.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

Line 4 Line 5 Line 6

Line 2 Line 3 Line 4

9

[dahyūnᾱm : Višt] ᾱspahy [ᾱ : puça : Haxᾱmani] šaya : h [ya : imam : tacaram : a]kunauš

‘Darius the great king, the king of kings, the king of countries, son of Hystaspes, the Achaemenian (is the one) who had this palace built.’

As J. Harmatta remarks,28 the most difficult question is how this inscription reached Gherla. It could hardly have been erected in Transylvania by Darius, so Gherla must be a secondary site. If the cultural layer containing it were modern, it must have got from Persian to Transylvania in modern times, with its original site to be sought within erstwhile Persian territory (such as Asia Minor). If the layer were Roman or earlier (Dacian), then this route is much less probable. The earlier we go, the more likely that the inscription was a monument of Persian rule in Thrace. As we know from Herodotus (4. 87, 91), Darius erected several inscriptions in Thrace, and that the architectural and epigraphic remains of Persian rule were carried off in all directions by locals after Persian rule had ended: he witnessed one such in Byzantium. Thus the Gherla fragment might have been the model text of such a Persian inscription erected in the North Balkans and spirited away to Transylvania after the Persian collapse. But the matter can be settled with some probability only after archaeological investigation of the site.29 Interpretation of the inscription, where it was found and how it reached there is necessarily speculative. Perhaps, as in Histria, an Achaemenid garrison was stationed at Gherla and the soldiers brought the inscription with them. Otherwise, it is very difficult to explain its presence. ARCHAEOLOGY There is archaeological evidence which requires explanation and interpretation.30 In the last third of the 6th century BC, the Greek Taganrog settlement, in the far north-east of the Sea of Azov, ceased to exist. About the same date, the middle–last quarter of the 6th century, there are traces of fire in the Greek colonies of Kepoi, Myrmekion and Porthmeus. The latter two also revealed fortification walls dating to the middle/second half of the 6th century. Traces of destruction have been identified at other sites at the end of the 6th century 28

Harmatta 1953, 10–11. As far as I know, the site has never been excavated. 30 What follows is a brief summary of Tsetskhladze 2013, 208–11 (with detailed bibliography). 29

10

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

and the first–second quarters of the 5th century.31 About 13 settlements also showed traces of fire. The fortification walls of Phanagoria were erected soon after its establishment (possibly by the end of the 6th century). Some traces of fire were also noticed in Patraeus. Clearly, times were difficult for the Greeks and the Greek cities of the Taman Peninsula in the second half/end of the 6th century. All of the destruction has been explained by military friction with the Scythians. It must be said that the difficulties experienced by the Cimmerian Bosporus are, in the literature, always ascribed to the Scythians.32 This is erroneous. In the Archaic period the Scythians were a nomadic people living on the steppes of the Kuban and the northern Caucasus. We have meagre, if any, evidence of a Scythian presence in the Kerch and Taman peninsulas in the Late Archaic–Early Classical period. Some scholars have counted ten graves allegedly (but disputably) belonging to Scythians in the Taman Peninsula, dating between the 6th and 4th centuries. All contain weapons – but a warrior grave is not necessarily a Scythian grave;33 it might even be Greek. Moving to the eastern Crimea, the territory was intensively settled by the Scythians only from the second half of the 5th century BC. Furthermore, Scythian elite kurgans were erected near Nymphaeum, Panticapaeum, Phanagoria, Kepoi or (possibly) Hermonassa after the middle of that century.34 This was the time when the Scythians were become sedentary (or semi-sedentary). Moreover, there was practically no local population on the Taman Peninsula in the Archaic period. The same situation is now noted around Berezan and Olbia.35 Thus, according to new investigations, it would seem that when the Greeks first arrived in the northern Black Sea they were the first settlers: there were no local inhabitants in the coastal area until the end of the 6th/beginning of the 5th century BC.36 It is more logical to link the evidence of military activity in the Taman Peninsula to the coming of the Persians – first Ariaramnes, then Darius I during his Scythian expedition – than to non-existent Scythians. Obviously, the Greeks resisted Persian incursion. Darius followed the Scythians all the way along the shore of Lake Maeotis and even across the Tanais (Don) river (Herodotus 4. 120–122) – demonstrating that the Achaemenids were not far from the Taman Peninsula. 31

About the 5th century, see below. For the latest, see Fedoseev 2012; 2014; 2018. 33 Fedoseev 2012; 2014; 2018. 34 Fedoseev 2012; 2014; 2018. 35 Gavrilyuk 2017; Gavrilyuk and Tymchenko 2015; Kopylov and Rusakov 2016a; 2016b. 36 According to new studies, the first Greek pottery from the territory of Chersonesus in the Crimea dates well into the 5th century BC, not from the last quarter/end of the 6th century, as hitherto supposed. This territory, before the arrival of the Greeks, was populated by the local Taurians; the Greek pushed them inland and into the mountains (Khrapunov 2018). 32

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

11

Important evidence has been unearthed from the Ulski burial ground and the Ulyap ritual complex: Table 1. Achaemenid metal objects from the Cimmerian Bosporus and wider area, 7th–6th centuries BC (after Treister 2010, 233; Erlikh 2010, 58–62).37 No. Object

Origin

Date

1. Silver rhyton

Krivorozhe Scythian barrow, Late 7th/early 6th c. Don area

2. Silver rhyton

Lyubotin barrow no. 2, forest steppe of Ukraine

Late 7th/early 6th c.

3. Bronze bridle-strap separators

Ulski

Middle/second half of 6th c.

4. Silver plaque depicting reclining mountain goat

Ulski

Middle/second half of 6th c.

5. 14 fine silver phalerae or forehead Ulski straps

Middle/second half of 6th c.

6. S-shaped cheek pieces

Ulski

Middle/second half of 6th c.

7. Golden end-piece shaped like a horse’s head with zoomorphic depictions and incrustations

Ulski

Middle/second half of 6th c.

8. Silver handle from vessel probably Ulski an amphora or burner shaped like a deer

Middle/second half of 6th c.

9. Fragment of silver cup phiale with Ulski leaf ornament

Middle/second half of 6th c.

10. Silver phiale

Ulyap ritual complex 4

Middle/second half of 6th c.

These objects illustrate how common it was within the ancient Persian empire for the ruling dynasty to give gifts to local chiefs and member of the local elites in order to bind them in friendship and peaceful relations.38 The silver 37 At the end of his article, Erlikh (2010) asks where these objects were manufactured: Transcaucasia or Asia Minor? It is unreasonable to propose satrapal manufacturing centres in the former at such an early stage. By the end of the 6th century BC, when Colchis and Iberia were incorporated in the Achaemenid empire, this would be a plausible suggestion, as can be demonstrated, for instance, in Colchis by the gold from Vani and in Iberia by the Akhalgori Treasure. We can also assume that such a centre existed in Armenia (for the latest, see Treister 2015). Thus, it must be obvious that the objects listed were produced in Asia Minor. 38 An incomplete list of objects received as diplomatic gifts or through exchanges, gift-giving, etc. includes bronze, silver or gold tripods, cauldrons, wine cups, jars and bowls; weapons and armour; cloaks, tunics, gowns and blankets; horses and horse-furnishings; slaves; livestock; various natural resources and sums of money (from the mid-6th century onward). In the Classical

12

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

rhytons from Krivorozhe and Lyubotin barrows (Table 1.1–2) are most probably among objects brought back by Scythians returning from their Near Eastern campaign.39 THE COMING OF XERXES It appears that Darius did not cross the Kerch Strait, or did so only to raid; but that Xerxes completed what his father had begun. The city of Porthmeus, which possessed an impressive fortification system, was destroyed in the first quarter of the 5th century BC: traces of fire have been recorded everywhere. The same can be seen at Tyritake about 480 BC. Here, bronze arrowheads of Scythian-type were found and the fortification walls had been built hurriedly. At Myrmekion, there is destruction of stone buildings throughout the excavated area; impressive stone walls existed here until the middle–third quarter of the 5th century BC.40 If we turn to Panticapaeum, where 20 Scythian-type arrowheads have been found in the destructions level, the fortification walls there were destroyed at the same time as Phanagoria: 480 BC.41 Simple stone dwellings were replaced by subterranean ones and, at the same time, an iron- and bronze-working shop was established not far from them: scales of armour found nearby might indicate that this workshop was for the production of armour and weaponry. Traces of destruction and fires have been discovered at Panticapaeum as well.42 This serial heavy destruction of the cities of the eastern Crimea demonstrates military activity in this part of the Cimmerian Bosporus – heavier damage than the Greek cities of the Taman Peninsula experienced during the arrival there of Darius I. As noted before, all of these developments were ascribed to the Scythians, but, as I mentioned above, no Scythians existed here at this time: as we now know, they arrived after the middle/end of the 5th century BC, which is when Scythian royal tombs appeared not far from the Greek cities of the eastern Crimea. We should not be mistaken in connecting all of this destruction with the coming of Xerxes and the resistance of the Greek cities to his conquest. and Hellenistic periods, kings might even offer estates and cities. For more, with references and bibliography, see Tsetskhladze 1993–94, 27–31; 2010, 42; van Wees 2002; etc. For Achaemenid and Greek gift-giving, see Mitchell 1997. 39 The Scythians not only brought back Near Eastern objects but Near Eastern craftsmen as well (Petrenko 1995). 40 Tolstikov 2001, 403. See also Tolstikov 2007. On the 5th century, see Zavoikin 2015. 41 I am most grateful to V.D. Kuznetsov for the information about Phanagoria. 42 Tolstikov 2001, 399. See also Tolstikov 2007; Kovalenko and Tolstikov 2013.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

13

To whom did the Scythian-type arrows belong? We know that the Achaemenid army used the weapon-types of peoples included within their empire, for instance the Scythian akinakes and Scythian armour. Thus the same could be said about arrowheads. They form abundant chance finds in Anatolia where too they most probably belonged to Achaemenid conquerors.43 Conquest brought not only destruction to the Cimmerian Bosporus but, later, Achaemenid influence, spreading from the end of the 5th century to the then newly established territorial Bosporan kingdom.44 Further evidence shows that the Cimmerian Bosporus and later the Greek Bosporan kingdom were under the control of the Great King. After the Early Classical period, the coin standard of Panticapaeum changed from the Aeginetan to the Persian.45 Some coin types also bore the image of an eight-pointed star or of a half moon, both interpreted as a reflection of an Achaemenid political orientation.46 Official inscriptions from the Bosporan kingdom show Achaemenid influence on the titulature of the ruling Spartocid dynasty;47 in particular, there are Achaemenid symbols in the Baksy tomb, in a grave identified as that of the Bosporan king Satyrus I (d. 389/8 BC).48 Further interesting information derives from the study of personal names. In the northern Black Sea, in particular, quite a number of names of Persian origin occur,49 even a Darius in Panticapaeum, while Cyrus can be found in Callatis and Xerxes in Apollonia Pontica.50 43

Hellmuth and Yalçikli 2006; Tsetskhladze 2018b, 531–33 (with references). Examining the broader aspects and the context of the Graeco-Persian wars, it has been suggested that the Persians wished to destroy the Milesian thalassocracy (cf. Herodotus 6. 7). Earlier, with the Ionian Revolt, Persian support for the Ionian cities of the Black Sea had ceased. It is indeed possible that a fleet operating from Sinope or Heraclea Pontica destroyed the Ionian ‘network’ including in the northern Black Sea (Nieling 2010, 127). Another possibility is that, in the course of the Graeco-Persian wars, the Achaemenids had temporarily withdrawn from this territory, which they had acquired through the campaign of Ariaramnes (see above) and the Scythian expedition of Darius. The ensuing power vacuum provided the circumstances for the coup in Panticapaeum that established the Archaeanactid tyranny (cf. Hind 1994, 488; Burstein 2006, 139). This dynasty may have had a Milesian origin. Any or all of these events might have brought about, or contributed to, the destruction of various cities in the Cimmerian Bosporus. On the (supposed) establishment of the Bosporan kingdom in 480 BC, see Tolstikov 1984 (and see below). 45 Fedoseev 1997, 311–12; 2018; Nieling 2010, 131. 46 Fedoseev 1997, 311–12; 2018. 47 Tokhtasev 2001. To give a few examples: after the annexation of Sindica and of other local peoples, the Bosporan rulers styled themselves king(s) of the Sindi, Toreti, Dandarii and Psessi (CIRB 6, 1037–1038), or king(s) of the Sindi and all the Maeotae (CIRB 8), or archon(s) of Bosporus and Theodosia, of all Sindica, Toreti, Dandarii and Psessi (SEG LII 741). After conquering the Greek cities of the Cimmerian Bosporus – altogether 30 – and the surrounding local population, the Bosporan kingdom encompassed some 5000 km2 and a population of 100– 120,000 citizens and subjects (Hind 1994, 476). 48 Fedoseev 2012, 319; 2014; 2018; Vinogradov 2014a; 2014b. 49 Zgusta 1955, 59–72, 273–78; Fedoseev 1997, 312–13; 2018. 50 Fraser and Matthews 2005, 87, 204, 260 s.vv. 44

14

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Before turning to more archaeological material, it must be underlined that the Achaemenid presence is always difficult to trace in it,51 not least, paradoxically, because of the creation of Achaemenid court art and culture, which drew on those of all the subject regions and peoples, and adopted and adapted to create something distinctive in its own right that was superimposed on the original culture of the Persians themselves (‘Persianising’ them?). Moreover, ‘Persianisation’ is hard to identify, whatever it might be, because it was deliberate Persian practice and ideology both to leave the cultural identity of subject peoples intact and to maintain their ethnic identity (the pax Persica).52 Objects surviving from the far reaches of the Achaemenid empire are mainly gold, silverware, jewellery and arms, not only hard to date but difficult to tie to particular centres of production. All may be labelled ‘Achaemenid international style’, but it is difficult to make more precise identifications such as ‘Achaemenid court-style art’, ‘Achaemenidising satrapal art’, or ‘Persobarbarian art’.53 Table 2. Achaemenid/Achaemenid-inspired objects, 5th–4th centuries BC (after Treister 2010, 223–33; 2014). No. Object 1. Sword with golden overlay

Origin

Style

Chertomlyk

Achaemenid

2. Silver rhyton

Seven Brothers tomb no. 4

Achaemenid-inspired

3. Silver bowl

Solokha

Achaemenid-inspired

4. Silver bowl

Zhirnii

Achaemenid-inspired

5. Silver bowl

Zelenskoi

Achaemenid-inspired

6. Silver rhyton

Kul-Oba

Imitation Achaemenid style

The Seven Brothers tombs have been identified as the burial place of the Sindian kings,54 whose territory had later been incorporated in the Bosporan kingdom. A rhyton from Seven Brothers deserves attention (Table 2.2). It was produced in a workshop in Asia Minor ca. 450–425 BC55 and is most probably a diplomatic gift.56 Another local people included in the Bosporan kingdom

51 52 53 54 55 56

Miller 2010; 2011, 337; Boardman 2011, 199. Brosius 2011, 136, 138; see also Tuplin 2011. Miller 2010; Rehm 2010. Goroncharovskij 2010. Treister 2010, 227. Goroncharovskij 2010, 88–89; Treister 2010, 248–50.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

15

were the Maeotians.57 A considerable quantity of Achaemenid or Achaemenidinspired golden objects, silverware, jewellery and arms, and their imitations, have been found in the northern Black Sea and even in its hinterland.58 As a rule, these were given by Great Kings to officials, vassals, etc. As mentioned above, these gift-giving practices and what items were used as gifts are known from written sources and archaeology. Let us consider other characteristic items of Achaemenid culture such as glass alabastrons, amphoriskoi, tukh-tebe, etc., known well from many necropoleis of the Cimmerian Bosporus.59 In 1984, the Hermitage received from the Academy of Sciences a complete Achaemenid glass bowl of the late 5th–first half of the 4th century BC, origin unknown but presumed to be from the Cimmerian Bosporus, with relief ornamental design in the shape of a 12-petalled rosette formed of pointed lotus leaves.60 Recently, a glass bowl was discovered in a grave of Starokorsunsky site no. 2 in Maeotian territory; it dates with the other grave-goods to the second quarter of the 4th century BC.61 This type of bowl, as well as other glass items, was a typical exemplar of Achaemenid gift-giving practice. Nineteen Achaemenid seals of the 5th–4th centuries BC have been found in the northern Black Sea area, especially in the Cimmerian Bosporus (Table 3). Fifteen have provenance: the other four are allegedly from Kerch.62 Of the 15, six come from Panticapaeum, capital of the Bosporan kingdom, others from the Bosporan cities of Anapa, Nymphaeum and Phanagoria, the rest from elsewhere including Chersonesus. Some are fine examples executed in Achaemenid court style; one carries the name of Artaxerxes; another has a Lydian inscription. Most were cut in Anatolia, and the iconography on them is typically Achaemenid.63 These seals are a clear indication of the presence of officials and ambassadors, and thus of an Achaemenid presence itself. Recently, an Achaemenid coin was found not far from another Bosporan city: Kytaeum.64 57 There were several local peoples living around the perimeter of the Bosporan kingdom, their material culture(s) practically unknown. The Sindians lived in Sindica (PPE 65; Ps.-Arrian 65. 24; Stephanus of Byzantium s.v.), either as a separate territory or later occupying the Taman Peninsula (Polyaenus Strat. 8. 55; Diodorus 20. 25; Strabo 11. 2. 10). To the south-east of them was the territory of the Kerketians and Toretians (Ps.-Scylax 72–75; Strabo 11. 2. 1; Pliny NH 6. 17). There were other tribes too (Terekhova et al. 2006). 58 Treister 2010. 59 Kunina 1997, 52–60. 60 Kunina 1997, 255, no. 47. 61 Limberis and Marchenko 2016. 62 Treister 2010, 252–56; see also Fedoseev 1997; 2018; Nikulina 1994, passim. 63 Boardman 2000, 163, 166, 351; Nieling 2010, 131–33; Fedoseev 1997; 2018; Treister 2010, 252–56. 64 Fedoseev 2012, 319; 2018.

16

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Table 3. Achaemenid seals (after Treister 2010, 252–56). No. Seal

Stone

Depiction

Date

Origin

Blue chalcedony

Early 4th c. BC Persian wearing tiara, hands raised, facing a radiate goddess, standing on lion’s back

Blagoveshchenskaya near Anapa

Early 4th c. BC

Blagoveshchenskaya near Anapa

5th c. BC

Panticapaeum 1834

1.

Cylinder

2.

4-sided prism Cornelian

3.

Cylinder

Discoloured Persian king in battle with Greek warriors; a symbol of Akhuramazda above

4.

Cylinder

Cornelian

Persian king, two sphinxes, a 5th c. BC Demon under a palm tree; a symbol of Akhuramazda above

Panticapaeum 1842

5.

Scaraboid

Cornelian

Two sphinxes sitting in crowns; 5th c. BC over them a Lydian inscription

Panticapaeum 1842, Pavlovskaya battery

6.

Scaraboid

Discoloured Sphinx

7.

Scaraboid

Chalcedony Persian warrior leaning on a spear 4th c. BC

8.

Scaraboid

Chalcedony Running sphinx

First half 4th c. BC Panticapaeum, Mt Mithradates, burial 25/1907

9.

Scaraboid

Chalcedony Bear; group of leaping lions

First half 4th c. BC Seven Brothers barrow 3

10.

Scaraboid

Obsidian

First half 5th c. BC Nymphaeum, barrow 24.1876, tomb 19 1876, warrior

11.

Scaraboid

Chalcedony Winged lion standing on hind paws

First half 4th c. BC Nymphaeum, barrow 5/1868

12.

Octagon

Chalcedony Persian king in struggle with a lion

5th–4th c. BC

Bolshaya Bliznitsa tumulus

13.

Cylinder

Cornelian

4th c. BC

Chersonesus

14.

Scaraboid

Chalcedony Female with a phiale in hand

Middle–second half of 4th c. BC

Phanagoria

15.

Cylinder

Chalcedony Horse galloping to the right; Late 5th–4th c. BC Smela, a symbol of Ahuramazda above Cherkassy Region,

16.

Cylinder

Chalcedony A Persian king and defeated enemies

Late 5th–4th c. BC Panticapaeum?

17.

Scaraboid

Discoloured Two Persian hunters in chariot

5th–4th c. BC

18.

Scaraboid

Discoloured A Persian archer

First half 4th c. BC Panticapaeum?

19.

Scaraboid

Discoloured A Persian female with vases

4th c. BC

a. Persian holding bow b. Bearded Greek in himation playing with a dog c. Naked woman stretching d. Two cocks fighting

a. Cow with calf b. A symbol of Ahuramazda

Mounted Persian with a spear

5th c. BC

Panticapaeum 1852 Panticapaeum 1839, tomb II in barrow on way to Churubash

Panticapaeum? Panticapaeum?

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

17

THE QUESTION OF SACA/SCYTHIANS Much has been written about the identity of the Saca and the different categories of them.65 It is accepted that Saca is a synonym for the Scythians because of what Herodotus wrote about the peoples participating in Xerxes’ expedition against Athens.66 Table 4. Persian royal and other inscriptions mentioning Saca and others (Kuhrt 2007, passim). No. Saca etc. 1. a. as a country; b. as a people

Inscription DB

2. Who are beyond Sogdiana

DPh

3. Who are beyond Sogdiana

DH

4. a. who drink hauma; b. with pointed hats; c. beyond the sea DSe 5. a. who drink hauma; b. with pointed hats; c. beyond the sea DNa 6. a. who drink hauma; b. with pointed hats

A?P

7. a. who drink hauma; b. with pointed hats

XPh

8. Cimmeria – Babylonian term for the Scythians

DSaa

9. a. of marsh; b. of plain

DSab

10. Yauna/Ionians beyond the sea

DPe

11. a. of marsh; b. of plain

Tell el-Maskhouta canal stele

Furthermore, he also mentions them fighting at Marathon (Herodotus 6. 113) and Plataea (Herodotus 9. 31, 71), and Xenophon that they took part in a royal pageant of Cyrus II (Cyr. 8. 3. 9–19). Herodotus noted (1. 201) that, in the opinion of some, the Massagetae were a Scythian people living beyond the River Araxes. Saca/Scythians is used in Achaemenid royal inscriptions as a generic term for the nomads living along the whole of the northern borders of the Achaemenid empire. Saca who drink hauma and those who wear pointed hats, on account of their position in the inscriptions, have been identified as the Saca/Scythians living in the broad territory of Central Asia. This is also reflected (recently) in the archaeological evidence.67 The Saca of marsh and of plain have been interpreted 65

See, for example, Lebedynsky 2006; Kuhrt 2007, passim; Tuplin 2010, 294–98; Potts 2012. ‘… The Sacae, who are Scythians, have high caps tapering to a point and stiffly upright, which they wear on their heads. They wore trousers and carried native bows and daggers and, in addition, axes, which they called “sagaris”. These were Amyrgian Scythians but were called Sacae, for the Persians call all Scythians Sacae…’ (Herodotus 7. 64). 67 Potts 2012. 66

18

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

as all of the Scythians of the empire’s northern periphery, not as two distinct groups.68 Indeed, the northern periphery of the empire (such as the Cimmerian Bosporus and, especially, the Ukrainian steppes) had plenty of marshes and plains. Thus, here there should be no disagreement with A. Kuhrt’s position.69 The Saca living between the Caspian and Aral Seas had been incorporated into the Achaemenid empire by Cyrus between 550 and 530 BC.70 They are also mentioned by Herodotus (3. 90–94) in his list of satrapies. Several of the peoples and countries he names are not, however, listed in Achaemenid royal inscriptions, and vice versa.71 It is important to note that, to the north of the aforementioned Saca, 80 Achaemenid or Achaemenid-style objects of the end of the 6th–3rd centuries BC (silver, silver-gilt and gold vessels; jewellery, arms, etc.) have been discovered in tombs of the local nomadic elite of the South Urals.72 One is an alabastron with a quadrangular inscription containing the name of Artaxerxes I. Several are objects that might be termed ‘prestige goods’, which could be interpreted as diplomatic gifts. It is difficult to give a precise historical explanation for their presence, but obviously they demonstrate a long-term relationship, in which Achaemenid interest in this region’s gold resources might have been prominent.73 Some Achaemenid objects were found in the Pazyryk tumuli in the Altai.74 A hand-knotted carpet from the fifth tumulus, most probably produced in a Bactrian-Sogdian workshop and influenced by Achaemenid artistic practice, has been interpreted as a gift made by the Achaemenid king to the local chief.75 As another example, an electrum vessel from the Kul-Oba tomb depicts a Scythian soldier binding the wounds of his companion. This has echoes in Herodotus (7. 181), which talks of Persians treating wounds with myrrh and binding them with strips of the finest linen.76 Although the delegations and people(s) on the Adama relief are susceptible to various interpretations, Delegation XIX has been identified as the Scythians, and Delegations XI and XVII as Saca of other sorts.77 This surely demonstrates that the Scythians of the northern Black Sea were part of the Achaemenid empire. The painted battle scene on the Munich Wood once again obliges us 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

Kuhrt 2007, 482. Kuhrt 2007, 482. Jacobs 1994, 257–60; 2007; Briant 2002, 127–28; Lebedynsky 2006, 45–49. See Asheri et al. 2007, 540–42. Treister 2010, 236–50; Treister and Yablonskii 2012. See also Yablonskii 2017. Treister and Yablonskii 2012 I, 288; cf. Olbrycht 2015. For the latest, see Treister and Yablonskii 2012 I, 48–49. Kuhrt 2007, 842. Kuhrt 2007, 587. Briant 2002, 175. See also Shahbazi 1982; Potts 2012.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

19

to consider the iconography of the Saca/Scythians. Most probably it depicts the enemies of the Great King, shown as undifferentiated nomads and intended to be understood as the nomads of the North (Saca/Scythians, etc.).78 Of course, the Great King must vanquish his enemies, especially mere nomads: such is a vital part of the propaganda of the royal image. The Persepolis tablets provide evidence that those in prominent positions included not just Indians and Egyptians but also Scythians.79 The Elamite Treasury tablet PT1 mentions one Shakka, who worked under Baradkama, Treasurer at Persepolis 490–480/79 BC, perhaps as his deputy. His name means ‘the Scythian’.80 Another Elamite tablet from Persepolis, PF 1790, names Shaddukka the Zappiyan, possibly ‘a hypocoristic of “the Scythian (girl)”’.81 Were these two by origin Scythians from the steppes of the northern Black Sea or just generic Saca (nomads)?82 CONCLUSIONS: BRINGING THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER It seems convincing to me that the Old Persian inscription from Phanagoria belonged to Darius I, thus the picture emerging of his Scythian expedition is that it was no chance affair but long planned, starting with the reconnaissance campaign of Ariaramnes in 519 BC to the Cimmerian Bosporus and beyond. It seems that there was no local population living on or near the shore when the Greeks arrived in the Cimmerian Bosporus and other parts of the northern Black Sea. They appeared at the very end of the 6th/beginning of the 5th century BC in the Crimea.83 The same situation met Ariaramnes, who dealt only with Greek cities. The destruction of this time should be connected to the coming of the Achaemenids and not to the non-existent Scythians here. In 513/2 BC, the Great King started his expedition against the nomadic Scythians via the Bosporus and the western Black Sea, entering the homeland of the nomadic Scythians in the deep Ukrainian steppes. The Persians pursued the Scythians without catching sight of them. In the deep hinterland they had

78

Summerer 2007, 18–20. Kuhrt 2007, 764. 80 Kuhrt 2007, 787–88. 81 Kuhrt 2007, 799–800. 82 In their table and appendix of ethnonyms and pseudo-ethnonyms in Persepolis, Henkelman and Stolper (2009, 274–75, 300, 306) mention neither Scythians nor Saca. 83 For the latest, see Gavrilyuk 2017. She reached this conclusion through detailed study of handmade pottery, especially that from Berezan and Olbia. Some others have come to the same conclusion based on different (kinds of) evidence. See, for example, Fedoseev 2018. 79

20

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

to confront the Hallstatt locals84 and their settlements, which were political and economic centres, both impressive and defended: Trakhtemirov, Nemirov, Belsk,85 etc. Traces of destruction have been unearthed in some of these settlements. Yet again, it is commonly ascribed to the Scythians, whereas it is much more logical to link it to the Achaemenids. Some have identified Belsk as Gelonus, the city of the Budini and Geloni burnt down by the Persians (Herodotus 4. 108, 123).86 It must have taken quite an effort to do this because Belsk occupied 4020 ha, had a defensive perimeter of 25 km (with ramparts 9 m high and ditches over 5 m deep) and a population of 4000–5000: overall, it contained three smaller fortified settlements (Western, 72 ha; Eastern, 65.3 ha; Kuzeminskoe, 15.4 ha) and about nine other populated places.87 Darius, having crossed the Tanais and some shores of the Sea of Azov, arrived in Phanagoria, where he most probably left a garrison, as in Histria – but unlike in Histria, he erected an inscription. It seems doubtful that he crossed the Kerch Strait except, perhaps, to undertake raids. The creation of the Bosporan kingdom and how its rulers conducted themselves – close to the practice of Achaemenid kings – is of significant interest. Previously, based on information from the untrustworthy Diodorus Siculus (12. 31. 1), the foundation of the Bosporan kingdom had been dated to 480 BC, which is when the Archaeanactid dynasty took over Panticapaeum. According to recent studies, this, if it actually happened, was a local development and did not mark the creation of the Bosporan kingdom as a territorial state. (The origin of the Archaeanactids is uncertain; they were possibly of Milesian origin.) In reality, the Bosporan kingdom as a territorial state was really established when the Spartocids, who were to rule for 330 years, came to power in 438/7 BC. Their origin is even more obscure – suggestions include Greek, Sindian and Sarmatian, but Thracian is favourite. Their conduct of policy is heavily reminiscent of the Achaemenids. Thus, one can suggest strongly that Spartocus I, the founder of the dynasty, who ruled until 433/2 BC, was set in place by the Achaemenids.88 Satyrus I (433/2–389/8 BC) expanded the state through conquest, but much greater expansion occurred during the reign of Leucon I (389/8–352/1 BC). He conquered several Greek cities (including Sindian 84 Bruyako 2005, 40–87 (according to whom the territory of the northern Black Sea hinterland was inhabited by Hallstatt people). 85 Belsk does not appear to be Hallstatt but populated rather by a local agricultural populations. 86 See Tuplin 2010, 287 (with bibliography). B.A. Shramko, who excavated Belsk for many years, believed that it was indeed the city of Gelonus (Shramko 1987). 87 See, for instance, Tsetskhladze 2019a, 8–11 (with bibliography). 88 As mentioned above, we have the same situation in Thrace with the establishment of the Odrysian dynasty and their Achaemenid-style of rule.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

21

Harbour, which he renamed Gorgippia in honour of his brother, Gorgippos, whom he sent there as governor) and peacefully incorporated the local population beyond the Taman Peninsula. By the late 4th century BC, the creation of the territorial Bosporan kingdom was complete.89 The returning Achaemenids conquered Colchis en route. Xerxes, continuing his father’s campaigns (he, if not his father, ultimately subduing the Scythians),90 crossed from the Taman Peninsula to Kerch. His campaign initially resulted in the destruction of Panticapaeum and other cities. Seals found here in the Cimmerian Bosporus and elsewhere demonstrate the existence of Achaemenid officials and even ambassadors. As in other parts of the Black Sea, the relationship with the local population was based on gift-giving. It is difficult to ascertain when the whole of the northern Black Sea was freed from the Achaemenids. While it has been suggested that this occurred during Pericles’ Pontic expedition, there are problems with this explanation: the only source for the expedition is Plutarch, it is disputed whether it took place and, if it did, was it intended to free the Black Sea from the Achaemenids, etc. There is no consensus.91 It is true that neither royal inscription nor Herodotus mention the Bosporus, the Cimmerian Bosporus or the Scythians as being subjected by the Achaemenids. The list of satrapies and peoples of the Achaemenid empire given by Herodotus and the inscriptions differ.92 But royal inscriptions have two mentions which demonstrate with high probability that the Scythians and the northern Pontus 89 On new developments, with old and new bibliography on the Bosporan kingdom, see Tsetskhladze 2013. 90 The best evidence, as mentioned above, is the inclusion of Scythians/Saca and Colchians in Xerxes’ army. At the same time, the Colchians were paying tribute. 91 Plutarch, in his biography of Pericles (20. 1–2), wrote: ‘[Pericles] also sailed into the Euxine Sea with a large and splendidly equipped armament. There he effected what Greek cities desired, and dealt with them humanely, while to the neighbouring nations of Barbarians with their kings and dynasts he displayed the magnitude of his forces and the fearless courage with which they sailed whithersoever they pleased and brought the whole sea under their control. He also left with the banished Sinopeans 13 ships of war and soldiers under the command of Lamachus to aid them against Timesileos. When the tyrant and his adherents had been driven from the city, Pericles got a Bill passed providing that 600 volunteers of the Athenians should sail to Sinope and settle down there with the Sinopeans, dividing among themselves the houses and lands which the tyrant and his followers had formerly occupied.’ Some accept that this expedition took place in 437/6 BC. The overall reason for it is disputed, with some believing that it was to secure the inclusion of the Black Sea cities in the Athenian-dominated Delian League. Certain names in the fragmentary Athenian Tribute List of 425/4 BC allegedly mention Pontic, especially North Pontic cities, but reconstruction of their names from the few remaining letters is open to doubt. For problems of interpreting/dating Pericles’ expedition, see Tsetskhladze 1997 (with bibliography). Although the passage mentions neither Colchis nor Colchians, some Georgian scholars believe that the expedition was concerned with Colchis as well: Inadze 1982, 134–80. 92 Asheri et al. 2007: appendix by M. Brosius.

22

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

were under Achaemenid rule. First of all, DPe, paragraph 2, mentions the ‘Yauna/Ionians beyond the sea’. Nearly all North Pontic Greek cities were established by Ionians. Thus it would not be a mistake to suggest that this shows that the Bosporan kingdom and neighbouring Greek cities fell under Achaemenid sway.93 And what about the Scythians? We can agree with M.A. Dandamaev when he writes:94 Although Darius’ Scythian campaign remained without success, Darius had marched deep onto Scythian territory in pursuit of his ever retreating adversaries. This justified Darius in including the Black Sea Scythians into the list of subject peoples by the name of the ‘Scythians across the Sea’.

With the inclusion of the northern Black Sea (especially the Bosporan kingdom) and the eastern Black Sea (Colchis), the Achaemenid empire extended its borders beyond what has hitherto been supposed, and the whole of the Black Sea became a ‘Persian Lake’.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations CIRB SEG

Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani. Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum.

Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. and Corcella, A. 2007: A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV, ed. O. Murray and A. Moreno (Oxford). Avram, A. 2019: ‘Remarques sur l’inscription achéménide de Phanagoria’. In Tatomir, R.G. (ed.), East–West Dialogue: Individual and Society through Ages (Bucharest), 15–24. Balakhvantsev, A.S. 2018: ‘Bospor i Akhemenidy’. In Bosporskii fenomen: obshchee i osobennoe v istoriko-kul’turnom prostranstve antichnogo mira, vol. 1 (St Petersburg), 61–65. Balcer, J.M. 1972: ‘The Date of Herodotus IV.I. Darius’ Scythian Expedition’. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 76, 100–32. Boardman, J. 2000: Persia and the West: An Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis of Achaemenid Art (London). —. 2011: ‘Persia in Europe’. In Tsetskhladze 2011, 195–201. Briant, P. 2002: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake). Brosius, M. 2011: ‘Keeping up with the Persians: between cultural identity and Persianization in the Achaemenid period’. In Gruen, E.S. (ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Los Angeles), 135–49. 93 94

Contra Tuplin 2010, 296–97. Dandamaev 1989, 150–51.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

23

Bruyako, I.V. 2005: Rannie kichevniki v Europe: X-V vv. do. r. kh. (Kishinev). Burstein, S.M. 1984: ‘A New Tabula Iliaca: The Vasek Polak Chronicle’. The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 12, 153–62. —. 2006: ‘The Greek Cities of the Black Sea’. In Kinzl, K.H. (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World (Oxford), 137–52. —. 2018: ‘Ctesias’ Sources: A Suggestion’. Digital Archive of Brief Notes and Iran Review 5, 17–20. Cameron, G.G. 1975: ‘Darius the Great and his Scythian (Saka) Campaign, Bisutun and Herodotus’. In Wikander, S. (ed.), Monumentum H.S. Nyberg, Tome IV (Acta Iranica 7) (Liège), 77–87. Chernenko, E.V. 1984: Skifo-persidskaya voina (Kiev). Dandamaev, M.A. 1989: A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire (Leiden). Erlikh, V.R. 2010: ‘Recent Investigations of the Ulski Kurgans’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 47–65. Fedoseev, N.F. 1997: ‘Zum achämenidschen Einfluß auf die historische Entwicklung der nordpontischen griechischen Staaten’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 29, 309–19. —. 2012: ‘Nekotorie disskusionnie voprosy ob organizatsii i razvitiya bosporskogo tsarstva’. In Melnikova, E.A. et al. (eds.), Vostochnaya evropa v antichnosti i sredivekovie: migratsii, okupatsia i voina kak faktori v politicheskoi razvitii (Moscow), 315–20. —. 2014: ‘Nekotorie disskusionie voprosy razvitiya bosporskogo gosudarstva’. In Drevnie gosodarstva vostochnoi evropi 2012 (Moscow), 141–75. —. 2018: ‘Skify na Bospore’. In Bosporskii fenomen: obshchee i osobennoe v istorikokul’turnom prostranstve antichnogo mira, vol. 2 (St Petersburg), 176–88. Fraser, P.M. and Matthews, E. (eds.) 2005: A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 4: Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea (Oxford). Gavrilyuk, N.A. 2017. ‘Khinterland kak ekonomicheskaya sostavlyashchaya arkhaicheskikh Borisfena i Ol’vii’. In Buiskikh, A.V. (ed.), Pivnichne Prichornomor’ za sntichnoi dobi (na poshanu S.D. Kruzhits’kogo) (Kiev), 177–94. Gavrilyuk, N.A. and Tymchenko, N. 2015. ‘The Hinterland of Archaic Olbia: Handmade Pottery’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds.), The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC– 10th Century AD) (Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Belgrade 17–21 September 2013) (Oxford), 535. Georges, P. 1987: ‘Darius in Scythia. The Formation of Herodotus’ Sources and the Nature of Darius’ Campaign’. American Journal of Ancient History 12, 97–147. Goroncharovskij, V. 2010: ‘A Silver Rhyton with a Representation of a Winged Ibex from the Fourth Semibratniy Tumulus’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 87–101. Harmatta, J. 1953: ‘A Recently Discovered Old Persian Inscription’. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica 2, 1–16. Hartog, E. 1988: The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History (Berkeley). Hellmuth, A. and Yalçikli, D. 2006: Untersuchungen zu den sogenannten skythischen Pfeilspitzen aus der befestigten Höhensiedlung von Smolenice-Molpír; Eisenzeitliche Pfeilspitzen aus Anatolien (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 128) (Bonn).

24

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Henkelman, W.F.M. and Stolper, M.W. 2009: ‘Ethnic identity and ethnic labelling at Persepolis: the case of the Skudrians’. In Briant, P. and Chauveau, M. (eds.), Organisation des pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans les pays de l’empire achéménide (Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France, 9–10 novembre 2007) (Persika 14) (Paris), 271–329. Hind, J.G.F. 1994: ‘The Bosporan Kingdom’. Cambridge Ancient History VI2, 476–511. —. 2011: ‘The Black Sea: between Asia and Europe (Herodotus’ approach to his Scythian account)’. In Tsetskhladze 2011, 77–93. Inadze, M. 1982: Agmosavlet shavizgvispiretis berdznuli kolonizatsia (Tbilisi). Jacobs, B. 1994: Die Satrapienverwaltung im Perserreich zur Zeit Darius’ III. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 87) (Wiesbaden). Khrapunov, I. 2018: ‘The Taurians’. In Manoledakis, M., Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Xydopoulos, I. (eds.), Essays on the Archaeology and Ancient History of the Black Sea (Collquia Antiqua 18) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), 333–68. Kopylov, V.P. and Rusakov, M.Y. 2016a: ‘K voprosu ob otsutsvii ranneskifskikh pamyatnikov v zone vliyaniya Borisfenidy i Olv’ii’. In Eminak. Forum Olbicum I. Pam’yati V.V. Krapivinoi (Kiev/Nikolaev), 41–44. —. 2016b: ‘Spetsifika raspostraneniya ranneskifskikh pogrebal’nykh pamyatnikov v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. Starodavne Prichornomor’ya 11, 275–79. Koshelenko, G.A. 1999: ‘Ob odnom svidetel’stve Diodora rannej istorii Bosporskogo carstva’. In Podossinov, A.V. (ed.), Severnoe Prichernomor’e v antichnosti. Voprosy istochnikovedeniya (Moscow), 130–41. Kovalenko, S.A. and Tolstikov, V.P. 2013: ‘On the Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus’. Ancient West and East 12, 181–204. Kuhrt, A. 2007: The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, 2 vols. (London). Kunina, N. 1997: Ancient Glass in the Hermitage Collection (St Petersburg). Kuznetsov, V.D. 2007: ‘Novye nadpisi iz Fanagorii’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1, 227–43. —. 2018: ‘Bospor Kimmeriiskii v 5 v. do n.e. (drevnepersidskaya nadpis’ iz Fanagorii)’. In Kuznetsov, V.D. (ed.), Fanagoriya: Rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 6 (Moscow), 160–85. —. 2019: ‘The Cimmerian Bosporus in the 5th Century BC (an Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoria)’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 25.1, 8–43. Kuznetsov, V.D. and Nikitin, A.B. 2017: ‘Drevnepersidskaya nadpis’ iz Fanagorii’. In Kuznetsov, V.D. (ed.), Fanagoriya: Rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 6 (Moscow), 154–59. —. 2019: ‘An Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoria’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 25.1, 1–7. Kuznetsov, V.D. and Tolstikov, V. 2017: Pantikapei i Fanagoriya: Dve stolitsy bosporskogo tsarstva (Moscow). Lebedynsky, I. 2006: Les Saces. Les “Scythes” d’Asie, VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.–IVe siècle apr. J.-C. (Paris). Limberis, N.Y. and Marchenko, I.I. 2016: ‘Pogrebenie so steklyannoi chashei iz mogil’nika Starokorsunskogo gorodishcha no. 2’. Arkheologicheskie Vesti 22, 76–84. Llewellyn-Jones, L. and Robson, J. 2010: Ctesias’ History of Persia: Tales of the Orient (London).

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

25

Miller, M.C. 2010: ‘Luxury Toreutic in the Western Satrapies: Court-Inspired GiftExchange Diffusion’. In Jacobs, B. and Rollinger, R. (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof/ The Achaemenid Court (Classica et Orientalia 2) (Wiesbaden), 853–97. —. 2011: ‘Town and country in the satrapies of western Anatolia: the archaeology of empire’. In Summerer, L., Ivantchik, A.I. and von Kienlin, A. (eds.), KelainaiApameia Kibotos: Développement urbain dans le contexte anatolien (Actes du colloque international, Munich, 2–4 avril 2009) (Kelainai 1) (Bordeaux), 319–44. Mitchell, L.G. 1997: Greeks Bearing Gifts: The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek World, 435–323 BC (Cambridge). Molev, E.A. 2001: ‘O vozmozhnosti persidskogo protektorata nad Bosporom (po povodu stat’i: Fedoseev. 1997’. In Bosporskii fenomen: kolonizatsiya regiona, formirovanie polisov, obrazovanie gosudarstva, vol. 1 (St Petersburg), 29–33. —. 2006: ‘Persiya i Bospor v VI–IV vv. do n.e’. In Nauchnyi sbornik kerchenskogo zapovednika 1, 275–85. —. 2008: ‘Bospor i Akhemenidy po dannym narrativnykh istochnikov’. Textum historiae 3 (Novgorod), 110–15. —. 2016: ‘K voprosu o veroiatnosti podchineniya Bospora persam’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 33, 17–27. Nieling, J. 2010: ‘Persian Imperial Policy behind the Rise and Fall of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Last Quarter of the Sixth to the Beginning of the Fifth century BC’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 123–36. Nieling, J. and Rehm, E. (eds.) 2010: Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea: Communication of Powers (Black Sea Studies 11) (Aarhus). Nikulina, N.M. 1994: Iskusstvo Ionii i Akhemenideskogo Irana po materialam gliptiki V–IV vv. do n.e. (Moscow). Olbrycht, M.J. 2015: ‘Persia Beyond the Imperial Frontiers: the Nomads of the South Ural Region versus the Near East’. Anabasis 6, 257–75. Petrenko, V.G. 1995: ‘Scythian Culture in the North Caucasus’. In Davis-Kimball, J., Bashilov, V.A. and Yablonsky, L.T. (eds.), Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age (Berkeley), 5–26. Potts, D.T. 2012: ‘A “Scythian” pick from Vaske (Gilan) and the identity of the XVIIth Delegation at Persepolis’. In Baker, H.D., Kaniuth, K. and Otto, A. (eds.), Stories of Long Ago: Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 397) (Münster), 459–70. Rehm, E. 2010: ‘The Classification of Objects from the Black Sea Region Made or Influenced by the Achaemenids’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 161–94. Rung, E.V. and Gabelko, O.L. 2018: ‘Skifskii pokhod Dariya I i drevnepersidskaya nadpis’ iz Fanagorii’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 4, 847–69. Shahbazi, A.S. 1982: ‘Darius in Scythia and Scythians in Persepolis’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 15, 189–235. Shavarebi, E. 2019: ‘An Inscription of Darius I from Phanagoria (DFa): Preliminary report of a work in progress’. Arta 2019.005 (http//www.achemenet.com/pdf/arts/ ARTA_2019.005_Shavarebi.pdf), 1–15. Shramko, B.A. 1987: Bel’skoe gorodishche skifskoi epokhi (gorod Gelon) (Kiev). Summerer, L. 2007: ‘Picturing Persian victory: the painted battle scene on the Munich Wood’. In Ivantchik, A. and Licheli, V. (eds.), Achaemenid Culture and Local Traditions in Anatolia, Southern Caucasus and Iran: New Discoveries (= Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13.1–2 [2007]) (Leiden/Boston), 3–30.

26

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Terekhova, N.N., Dimitriev, A.V., Malyshev, A.A., Ravich, I.G. and Rozanova, L.S. 2006: ‘The Foothills of the North-Western Caucasus in the 8th–4th Centuries BC’. Ancient West and East 5.1–2, 44–79. Tokhtasev, S.R. 2001: ‘Proiskhozdenie titulaturi Spartokidov’. In Zinko, V.N. (ed.), Bospor Kimmeriiskii i Pont v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya (Bosporskie Chteniya 2) (Kerch), 161–64. Tolstikov, V.P. 1984: ‘K probleme obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva (opyt rekonstruktsii voenno-politicheskoi situatsii na Bospore v kontse VI–pervoi polovine V v. do n.e.’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3, 24–48. —. 2001: ‘Ranni pantikapei v svete novykh arkheologicheskikh issledovanii’. Drevnosti Bospora 4, 385–426. —. 2007: ‘Akropol’ Pantikapeya – stolitsy Bospora Kimmeriiskogo. Itogi za 60 let’. In Maslennikov, A.A. and Gavrilyuk, N.A. (eds.), Antichnyi mir i varvary na yuge Rossii i Ukrainy. Ol’viya, Skifiya, Bospor (Moscow/Kiev/Zaporozhe), 244–57. Treister, M.Y. 2010: ‘“Achaemenid” and “Achaemenid-inspired” Goldware and Silverware, Jewellery and Arms and their Imitations to the North of the Achaemenid Empire’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 223–70. —. 2014: ‘Akhemenidskii “import” sredi evraziiskikh kochevnikov’. In Sarmaty i vneshnii mir (Ufa), 235–44. —. 2015: ‘A Hoard of Silver Rhyta of the Achaemenid Circle from Erebuni’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 21, 23–119. Treister, M.Y. and Yablonskii, L.T. (eds.) 2012: Vliyaniya akhemenidskoi kul’tury v Yuzhnom Priural’e (V–III vv. do n.e.), 2 vols. (Moscow). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1993–94: ‘Colchis and the Persian Empire: the problems of their relationship’. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3, 11–49. —. 2002: ‘Phanagoria: Metropolis of Asiatic Bosporus’. In Archaeology Without Frontiers (‘Open Sciences’ Lecture Series 18) (Athens), 129–50. —. 2008: ‘The Pontic poleis and the Achaemenid Empire: some thoughts on their experiences’. In Lombardo, M. and Frisone, F. (eds.), Forme Sovrapoleiche e Interpoleiche di Organizzazione nel Mondo Greco Antico (Atti del Convegno internazionale Lecce, 17–20 Settembre 2008) (Lecce/Galatina), 438–46. —. 2010: “Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts”: Gifts, Tribute, Bribery and Cultural Contacts in the Greek Colonial World’. In Rollinger, R., Gufler, B., Lang, M. and Madreiter, I. (eds.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt: Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts (Philippika 34) (Wiesbaden), 41–61. —. (ed.) 2011: The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC (Colloquia Antiqua 1) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA). —. 2013: ‘The Greek Bosporan Kingdom: Regionalism and Globalism in the Black Sea’. In De Angelis, F. (ed.), Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity: Exploring their Limits (Colloquia Antiqua 7) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 201–28. —. 2018a: ‘“The Most Marvellous of all Seas”: The Great King and the Cimmerian Bosporus’. In Pavúk, P., Kontza-Jaklová, V. and Harding, A. (eds.), ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ: Studies in Honour of Jan Bouzek (Opera Facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 18) (Prague), 467–90. —. 2018b: ‘The Colchian Black Sea Coast: Recent Discoveries and Studies’. In Manoledakis, M., Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Xydopoulos, I. (eds.), Essays on the Archaeology and Ancient History of the Black Sea (Colloquia Antiqua 18) (Leuven/ Paris/Bristol, CT), 425–545.

THE ACHAEMENID IMPACT ON THE GREEK CITIES AND LOCAL PEOPLES

27

—. 2019a: ‘Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies around the Black Sea’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Atasoy, S. (eds.), Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity (Select Papers from the Third International Conference ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’, 27–29 October 2017, Tekkeköy, Samsun) (Oxford), 1–41. —. 2019b: ‘An Achaemenid Inscription from Phanagoria: Extending the Boundaries of Empire’. Ancient West and East 18, 113–50. Tuplin, C.J. 2010: ‘Revisiting Dareios’ Scythian expedition’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 281–312. —. 2011: ‘The limits of Persianization: some reflections on cultural links in the Persian Empire’. In Gruen, E.S. (ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Los Angeles), 150–82. van Wees, H. 2002: ‘Greed, Generosity and Gift-Exchange in Early Greece and the Western Pacific’. In Jongman, W. and Kleijwegt, M. (eds.), After the Past: Essays in Ancient History in Honour of H.W. Pleket (Mnemosyne Suppl. 233) (Leiden/ Boston), 341–78. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2014a: ‘Kurgan u sela Baksy v Vostochnoi Krimu’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 30, 510–28. —. 2014b: ‘Eshche raz o kurgane u sela Baksy v Vostochnoi Krimu’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 30, 529–34. Wiesehöfer, J., Rollinger, R. and Lanfranchi, G.B. (eds.) 2011: Ktesias’ Welt/ Ctesias’ World (Classica et Orientalia 1) (Wiesbaden). Yablonskii, L.T. 2017: Na vostoke skifskoi oikumeny (Moscow). Yailenko, V.P. 2004: ‘Voennaya aktsiya Dariya I na Kimmeriiskom Bospore’. In Bosporskii fenomen: problemy khronologii i datirovki pamyatnikov (St Petersburg), 55–60. —. 2010: Tysyacheletnii Bosporskii Reikh. Istoriya i ėpigrafika Bospora VI v. do n.e.– V v. n.e. (Moscow). Yatsenko, S.A. 2011: ‘Severnoe Prichernomor’e i Akhemenidy: nekotor’e aspekty vzaimootnoshenii’. In Bosporskii fenomen: naselenie, yazyki, kontakty (St Petersburg), 109–13. Zavoikin, A.A. 2015: ‘Akhemenidy i Bospor (istoriograficheskii aspekt problemy)’. Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury 1 (47), 240–61. Zgusta, L. 1955: Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste: Die ethnischen Verhältnisse, namentlich das Verhältnis der Skythen und Sarmaten, im Lichte der Namenforschung (Prague).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA IN HISTRIA. LATE ARCHAIC OR EARLY CLASSICAL? Iulian BÎRZESCU

Abstract This paper presents two contexts from the Histrian sanctuary researched between 2007 and 2011. The first was found west of the temple of Aphrodite and it consists of a massive layer of debris from a violent fire. Some of the finds after the conflagration have been preserved in situ. The second was investigated inside and outside a small temple discovered in 2007, temple M. In this case too, the temple was destroyed by fire, probably at the same time as the other temples and monuments from the sanctuary. Based on several finds, a date between 480 and 460 BC is proposed for the first main destruction of the sanctuary.

The destruction of monuments and sites in the Archaic period has often been linked to events mentioned in literary sources, especially to wars. There are some cases in which the connection between archaeological finds and historical events is indisputable and requires no further discussion. In most cases, however, the archaeological evidence leaves space for multiple hypotheses, with no final conclusions. This is so for most of the destruction layers at Histria, a city for which few literary attestations of siege and sack have been preserved, but where many destruction and burnt layers have been documented. These layers have traditionally been related to local or more universal historical events, from the Archaic period until the end of antiquity. This need to connect historical events with archaeological discoveries started in the first two decades after the Second World War, when intense excavations were carried out in various locations in the city, its necropoleis and settlements from the chora. From observations made in the course of research in the so-called plateau of the city, it was concluded that there was a massive destruction by fire at the end of the 6th century BC. In the main sanctuary of the city, temple A, excavated at the beginning of the 1950s, was thought to have been destroyed in the same event. Slowly but surely, the opinion that the city had been destroyed towards the end of the Archaic period took shape, and the next step was to search for the cause of this destruction. Although ancient sources are silent about the damage suffered by the West Pontic cities in the Late

30

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Archaic period, major events that could have caused ruin at Histria are numerous. The first to be associated with these destruction layers was the campaign of Darius in 514/3 BC.1 This thesis was further reinforced by the results of excavations in the main sanctuary of the city, even if the finds brought certain nuances. In the 1960s and 1970s, excavations inside the temple of Aphrodite yielded a massive destruction layer dated to the end of the Archaic period. Though it was tempting to tie this layer to Darius’ campaign against the Scythians, Petre Alexandrescu’s dating of the objects in this deposition left open the discussion regarding the moment of destruction, as he noted several finds from the first quarter of the 5th century BC.2 Other references to this damage have been made by both the archaeologists and the architects who worked in the sanctuary.3 Recently, Alexandru Avram resumed the discussion, beginning with the temples4 but also incorporating other contexts from Histria and its chora, and advanced an historical scenario in which Mardonius, the commander of the army of Darius I, was responsible for the devastation of Histria during his campaign from 492 BC in Thrace and Macedonia.5 In addition to the layers of burning from the Temple Area, two other contexts have been interpreted as relating to Mardonius’ campaign: tumulus grave XII and a batch of horse harnesses of Achaemenid type from the same set, discovered in a pit in the settlement on the plateau.6 After a preliminary analysis made in the 1950s, the human remains from the tumulus grave, dated to the beginning of the 5th century, were attributed to individuals of Iranian ethnicity, but without further analysis of the bones or other details. As for the second find, the horse harnesses of Achaemenid type, they seem to have been used in parade, not war.7 What is most striking about the hypothesis of a Persian destruction is the absence at Histria of any Persian weapons, such as pyramidal arrowheads, discovered in great numbers in Persian destruction layers at Olympia,8 Paphos9 or in Egypt,10 or other items of Persian armament.11 Such finds may well be uncovered in the future, but until now, of the numerous arrowheads found in

1 Dimitriu 1964. About the campaign of Darius I against the Scythians, see Alexandrescu 1956, 325–27. 2 Alexandrescu et al. 2005, 95. 3 Mărgineanu Cârstoiu 2012, 54 (with literature). 4 A history of the research at Avram 2017, 1. 5 Avram 2017, 16–18. 6 Avram 2017, 5–6. 7 Alexandrescu 2010. 8 Baitinger 1999, 131. 9 Maier and Karageorghis 1984, 195, fig. 182. 10 Petrie 1917, 33–35, pl. 41.75. 11 About Persian weaponry, see Bittner 1985.

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

31

and around Histria, none has been attributed to the Persians.12 There have been finds of trilobal arrowheads, but their association with specifically Persian forces requires more evidence. In comparison, at Paphos, for example, the Persian siege of 497 BC and the subsequent destruction of the city are well documented.13 In other cases, as at the Athenian Acropolis,14 Miletus15 or Didyma,16 the archaeological dossier relating to these events is much richer, but still not always easy to follow. To clarify the chronology and cause of this destruction, this paper presents two archaeological contexts, researched in the Sacred Area of Histria between 2007 and 2011:17 the western side of the temple of Aphrodite, which collapsed after a strong fire, and traces from the burning of a small temple (M), situated at the south-eastern edge of the Sacred Area (Fig. 1), which was built on the native bedrock of green schist, near the sea. THE TEMPLE OF APHRODITE The first complex, on the western side of the temple platform (Fig. 2), covers a surface of several square metres, and was preserved undisturbed from the time of the fire until our excavations. This deposit is related to the destruction layer identified in the 1970s inside the temple (Fig. 3) and described in detail in Alexandrescu 2005.18 The main aim of the new excavation was to finish the research and documentation of the temple platform necessary for the future restoration and conservation of the monument. There the excavation reopened older trenches that had stopped at an Early Roman layer with various later interventions, the most notable being a well first identified in the 1950s that cut the stratigraphy down to the bedrock (Fig. 4). During the aforementioned campaigns, a metre from the temple platform and parallel with it, in an area a maximum of 3 m wide and 8 m long, the remains of the temple came to light (Fig. 5), consisting mainly of numerous architectural fragments from at least one capital and one torus, adobe, and numerous painted terracotta roof tiles, fragmentary or completely preserved, of various shapes:19 flat tiles (Fig. 6), 12

Talmațchi 2010. Maier 1977. 14 Lindenlauf 1995 (with literature). 15 Cobet 1997, 261–63 (with literature). 16 Tuchelt 1988, 427–33. 17 About the two contexts, see also Avram et al. 2010–11, 56–62. 18 Alexandrescu 2005, 74. 19 These tiles had also been identified in earlier excavations and were studied in detail by Zimmermann (1983). For discussion of the context in the interior of the temple where the roof tiles were preserved in situ after the collapse of the building, see Zimmermann 1983, 327. 13

32

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

cover tiles, antefixes (Figs. 7–8) and terracotta revetments (Figs. 7, 9–10). The capital (Fig. 11) was partially restored and published by Monica Mărgineanu Cârstoiu.20 The structural elements belonging to the final Archaic phase of the roof lay partially on the foundation and elevation of a huge wall (Fig. 12), oriented north–south, of ca. 1–1.10 m thickness,21 and partially on a yellow clay layer that had turned red after contact with the fire. The debris consisted of numerous roof elements, adobe and burnt wooden beams. This intact destruction layer yielded roof tiles with a low degree of fragmentation, many of them being restorable. Thus, it was possible to document, among other things, an alignment of 11 terracotta revetments (Figs. 13–16), fallen along the long axis of the temple with two long wooden beams (Figs. 17–18). The analyses showed that the beams were of oak and ash. The finds under the layer of burning are few. Among these, the neck of a Chian amphora dated between 480 and 450 BC gives a terminus post quem for the moment of the collapse of the roof C22 (Figs. 12, 19–21). The fragment adds to other older discoveries, such as Attic type C cups, dated to the beginning of the 5th century BC,23 and a hoard of Histrian coins of the wheel type found in 1988 and dated in the initial publication to about 500 BC,24 but which, according to more recent numismatic research,25 cannot be dated outside the chronological limits of the second quarter of the 5th century. In 2007, two other similar coins of the wheel type were discovered undisturbed in the debris of the temple of Aphrodite, near the western side of the platform, next to the burned wooden beams26 (Figs. 22–23). They offer another chronological element for the collapse of the roof. The capital discovered in the same area was dated between 500 and 480 BC.27 Last but not least, the analysis of the votive items that came to light in the levelling layers of the following phase of construction on the southern side of the temple points a date around the middle or in the third quarter of the 5th century for the rebuilding of the temple, suggesting that the previous phase of the Sanctuary of Aphrodite should have been in use at least through the first quarter of the 5th century.28 20

Mărgineanu Cârstoiu 2012. Later the wall was researched for a length of about 20 m. The wall functioned most probably as a peribolos in the 6th century, being almost abandoned at the beginning of Classical period. Several fragments of a Siana cup of the Painter from Heidelberg, dated shortly before the middle of the 6th century BC, give a date for the functioning of the wall (cf. Bîrzescu 2016b). 22 Bîrzescu 2012, 76–82 (Typus Chian II.3) (with literature). 23 Alexandrescu 2005, 95. 24 Conovici and Avram 1996, 257–58, fig. 1. 25 Poenaru Bordea 2001, 15. 26 Nearby, in the 2005 campaign, other coins with wheels appeared in secondary contexts, which could belong to a hoard. 27 Mărgineanu Cârstoiu 2012, 38–41. 28 Bîrzescu 2012–13. 21

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

33

It is most likely that the temple of Aphrodite burned together with other monuments from the sanctuary. The question of the exact date still remains open, but the few datable finds point to an interval between 480 and 460 BC. There is no doubt that it was a strong fire, but its cause is far from clear. The possibility of an armed attack still remains to be considered, but the connection of this episode of destruction with a known historical event, such as the campaigns of Darius I or Mardonius, is not sustained by the archaeological finds. These are preliminary observations and they will be followed by new investigations in order to gain a better understanding of the events that roiled Histria at the end of the Archaic and the beginning of the Classical period. Another problem regards the cause of the disaster. In the area investigated after 2007, the high intensity of the fire was clearly visible. What is certain is that after the temple burned down, part of the debris remained in place and was covered with earth; part of it was moved to the south and used for levelling the ground; and most of it was probably carried off to other, still unidentified places near the sanctuary. TEMPLE M The second context relevant for our topic is represented by the traces of the destruction of temple M, a small Late Archaic temple at the south-east corner of the sanctuary (Figs. 2, 24). Excavations in this area took place in 1915, 1992–93, 1996 and 2000; in the 2000 campaign, three bases for monuments of the Hellenistic period and a wall of unworked marble fragments oriented north–south were uncovered. Because of successive removals of material during the Roman and Late Antique periods, the Greek layers have been seriously damaged. The most visible remains are the foundation of an apsidal building and the city wall, both of which reach the bedrock in some places.29 Another difficulty is that in the course of time the layers have subsided slightly to the east, where the bedrock descends towards the lake. In 2007, inside the first room of the apsidal building, an area measuring 6.20 m east to west and 3.20 m north to south was excavated. On the eastern side it was extended up to the Late Roman city wall. Excavation started from a level below the first Hellenistic layer uncovered during the campaigns of 1992-1993 and 2000. Lower layers revealed sporadic traces of burning, a light greyish earth, and a concentration of stones that probably belonged to the Hellenistic via sacra, as indicated by the alignment of a series of bases for monuments (Fig. 25). The traces of burning are probably related to the Early 29

Avram et al. 2010–11, 59–60.

34

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Classical levels, to judge from several ceramic fragments, among them Thasian amphorae. Below this layer, a consistent layer of burning ca. 20 cm thick covers the entire investigated surface (Fig. 24), and here the archaeological record is much richer. In addition to the reddish burnt earth, pieces of charcoal appeared, as well as a rich assemblage consisting of fragments from a ceramic footed Ionian perirrhanterion30 (Fig. 26), numerous Late Archaic–Early Classical terracotta female protomes with preserved paint (Fig. 27), a painted rooster (Fig. 28), burnt roof tiles, highly fragmented roof tiles with traces of black/red gloss, and an impressive amount of burnt adobe, often with the exterior side preserved. Very few other ceramic fragments were recovered from this layer. In many cases, the burnt adobe had fallen directly onto the clay floor, which in turn retained strong traces of burning. The beaten-earth floor of fine yellow clay was also preserved over the entire investigated area. The adobe and the roof tiles belonged to the phase of the temple from the end of the Archaic period. In addition to the numerous terracotta protomes, inside the central room of the temple were found ivory fragments (Fig. 29) and pieces of gold leaf (Fig. 30) that probably belonged to a chryselephantine cult statue. Under the clay floor was a compact layer of loose grey-brownish earth with a lot of pebbles, shells, bones and pottery fragments, dated to the second half of the 6th century BC on the basis of the ceramic material. South of temple M, the early layers had only been partially removed by the previous excavations. At the same level as the layer of burning described above, over the entire surface open to the south, emerged a consistent layer of painted Archaic roof tiles lying on a yellow clay layer. This time the roof tiles showed no signs of secondary burning, and they were much more severely fragmented, although a few could be reconstructed (Figs. 31–32). They included flat tiles, cover tiles, painted antefixes, etc. (Figs. 33–35). They are of the same shape and type as those discovered inside the apsidal building. From the same debris comes an Archaic inscription on stone (the fourth Archaic inscription on stone from Histria discovered so far, the third from the Sacred Area), written in boustrophedon. It is probably a votive dedication. Several fragments of Thasian and Chian amphorae give, as a terminus post quem, the second quarter of the 5th century BC to the middle of the century. Under the clay floor on which lies the layer of roof tiles, there is a similar situation to the one under the layer of burning inside the apsidal building: two Archaic levels separated by a well-beaten floor of crushed green schist. The context indicates clearly that we are dealing with a relatively modest building erected in the Late Archaic period that burned down in the first half of the 5th century BC. The terracottas 30

Bîrzescu 2016a.

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

35

and other items point to a destruction that took place between 490 and 460 BC, probably towards the end of this range, although that still needs further confirmation. Another result of recent excavation, in this case the 2020 campaign, concerns the topography of the sanctuary during the Late Archaic period. About one metre east of temple M, the bedrock begins to slope sharply, and at the base of this slope is the ancient beach. Temple M was therefore located at the edge of a slightly elevated cliff by the sea. Unlike other temples from the Sacred Area, temple M was not rebuilt after the destruction. During the Hellenistic period, votive monuments, the bases of which have been preserved in situ, were erected in its place. There are no elements that could indicate the cause of the fire, although one can estimate on the basis of the number of unburnt roof tiles, which are more frequent than those with fire traces, that the roof burned only partially. *

*

*

These two contexts show that the devastating fire suffered by the Histrian sanctuary, during which these two temples and other monuments were destroyed, should be dated to the first half of the 5th century, in which the temples and probably other monuments burned down. Some of the building were rebuilt after this event, while others were abandoned. The old excavations from temple A (the temple of Zeus) suggest that the situation in this temple was similar to those of temples I–J (the temple of Aphrodite) and M. After this, in the second quarter of the 5th century BC, temple A was rebuilt on a much smaller scale. The situation in the Sacred Area has previously been correlated with other contexts from the settlement on the plateau, from the necropolis and from the chora. These all provide different data. If, in the case of the settlement, a layer of burning was documented at the end of the Archaic period, in the case of the chora there is a level of abandonment rather than destruction at this time. Regarding its chronology, the finds from Tariverde, for example, indicate that the settlement was abandoned around 500 BC. For the destruction layers on the Histrian plateau, two dates have been proposed: the end of the 6th (expedition of Darius) and the beginning of the 5th century BC (expedition of Mardonius). For a reassessment of this chronology, the former discoveries should be reviewed, and new field investigations are required. At the current stage of research, the destruction could better be placed between 480 and 460 BC, which rules out the two Persian campaigns. The Persian army of Darius I or Mardonius might well have reached Histria, but this has nothing to do with the

36

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

burning of the Histrian sanctuary. The causes of the fire could be various: either a conflict, given the political turmoil from the region where the Odrysian kingdom was taking shape, or a random fire.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexandrescu, P. 1956: ‘Izvoarele greceşti despre retragerea lui Darius din expediţia scitică’. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 7, 319–42. —. 2005: Histria 7: La Zone Sacrée d’époque grecque (Fouilles 1915–1989) (Bucharest/ Paris). —. 2010: ‘Achämenidische Zaumzeugornamente in Istros. Perser, Skythen und Saken’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 42, 267–83. Avram, A. 2017: ‘Istros, la Thrace et les Perses à l’époque de Darius’. In Gallo, L. and Genito, B. (eds.), ‘Grecità di frontiera’. Frontiere geografiche e culturali nell’evidenza storica e archeologica (Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Università degli Studi di Napoli «L’Orientale», Napoli, 5–6 giugno 2014) (Studi di Storia greca e romana 14) (Alessandria), 1–25. Avram, A., Bîrzescu, I., Mărgineanu Cârstoiu, M. and Zimmermann, K. 2010–11: ‘Archäologische Ausgrabungen in der Tempelzone von Histria, 1990-2009’. Il Mar Nero 8, 39–101. Baitinger, H. 1999: ‘Waffen und Bewaffnung aus der Perserbeute in Olympia’. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1, 125–39. Bittner, S. 1985: Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres zur Zeit der Achaimeniden (Interdisziplinäre Wissenschaften 1) (Munich). Bîrzescu, I. 2012: Histria 15: Die archaischen und frühklassischen Transportamphoren (Bucharest). —. 2012–13: ‘Ein frühklassischer Torso aus der Tempelzone von Histria’. Athenische Mitteilungen 127–128, 205–12. —. 2016a: ‘Das Perirrhanterion aus dem Tempel M von Histria’. Dacia n.s. 40, 129–36. —. 2016b: ‘A Siana Cup of Heidelberg Painter from Histria’. Ancient West and East 15, 141–47. Cobet, J. 1997: ‘Milet 1994–1995. Die Mauer sind die Stadt. Zur Stadtbefestigung des antiken Milet’. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2, 249–84. Conovici, N. and Avram, A. 1996: ‘Le plus ancien dépôt de monnaies histriennes à la roue découvert à Histria’. In Lordkipanidzé, O. and Lévêque, P. (eds.), Sur les traces des Argonautes (Actes du 6e symposium de Vani, Colchide, 22–29 septembre) (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 613; Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 154) (Paris/Besançon), 252–58. Dimitriu, S. 1964: ‘Événements du Pont-Euxin de la fin du VIe siècle av. n.è. reflétés dans l’histoire d’Histria’. Dacia n.s. 8, 133–44. Lindenlauf, A. 1995: ‘Der Perserschutt der Athener Akropolis’. In Hoepfner, W. (ed.), Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis (Internationales Symposion vom 7. bis 9. Juli 1995 in Berlin) (Berlin), 46–115. Maier, F.G. (ed.) 1977: Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern. I: Nordosttor und persische Belagerungsrampe in Alt-Paphos. Waffen und Kleinfunde (Konstanz).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

37

Maier, F.G. and Karageorghis, V. 1984: Paphos. History and Archaeology (Nicosia). Mărgineanu Cârstoiu, M. 2012: ‘Histria archaïque. Un nouveau chapiteau ionique et quelques avis sur les temples d’Aphrodite et de Zeus’. Caiete ARA 3, 37–66. Petrie, W.M.F. 1917: Tools and Weapons illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London (London). Poenaru Bordea, G. 2001: ‘Atelierul monetar al cetății Istros în perioada autonomiei’. In Simpozion de numismatică dedicate împlinirii a patru secole de la prima unire a românilor sub Mihai Voievod Viteazul (Chișinău, 28–30 mai 2000) (Bucharest), 9–33. Talmațchi, G.M. 2010: Semne monetare din aria de vest şi nord-vest a pontului Euxin: De la simbol la comerț (secolele VI–V a.Chr.) (Cluj-Napoca). Tuchelt, K. 1988: ‘Die Perserzerstörung von Branchidai-Didyma und ihre Folgen – archäologisch betrachtet’. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 427–38. Zimmermann, K. 1983: Dachterrakotten Griechischer Zeit aus Histria. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Datierung und Verbreitung keramischer Bauelemente im Schwarzmeergebiet (Dissertation, Humboldt University, Berlin).

38

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 1. Sacred Area at the end of the Archaic period.

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

Fig. 2. Plan of the southern part of the Sacred Area with the indication of the two contexts. Red: burned layers; blue: rubble layer south of temple M (plan by Monica Mărgineanu Cârstoiu, Virgil Apostol and Ștefan Bâlici).

39

40

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 3. Destruction layer inside the naos of the temple of Aphrodite (after Alexandrescu 2005).

Fig. 4. West of the temple of Aphrodite before the excavation of the destruction layers in 2007. View from the east (2007). Left: the burnt layer before being excavated; in the centre: a Late Roman well.

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

Fig. 5. North-western part of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: architectural fragments. View from the east (2011).

Fig. 6. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: flat and cover tiles. View from the north-east (2007).

41

42

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 7. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: cover tiles and antefixes. View from the west (2011).

Fig. 8. West of the temple of Aphrodite, painted antefix (drawing by Argeș Epure).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

43

Fig. 9. West of the temple of Aphrodite, terracotta revetment from the destruction layer.

Fig. 10. West of the temple of Aphrodite, drawing of the same terracotta revetment (drawing by Argeș Epure).

44

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 11. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: capital fragments. View from the west (2010).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

45

Fig. 12. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer and the Archaic wall. View from the south (2011).

Fig. 13. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: terracotta revetments. View from the west (2011).

46

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 14. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: terracotta revetments. View from the south (2011).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

47

Fig. 15. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: terracotta revetments. View from the south.

48

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 16. West of the temple of Aphrodite, planum of the terracotta revetments (2008).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

49

Fig. 17. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: burnt wooden beams. View from the north-east (2007).

Fig. 18. West of the temple of Aphrodite, destruction layer: burnt wooden beams. View from the west (2011).

50

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 19. West of the temple of Aphrodite, Archaic wall and the destruction layer (2011).

Fig. 20. West of the temple of Aphrodite, Archaic wall and the destruction layer. Underneath: the neck of a Chian transport amphora (2011).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

51

Fig. 21. Neck of a Chian amphora, found directly under the destruction layer (2011).

Fig. 22. Istrian coin found in the destruction layer near the burnt beams (2007, inv. no. His 07 T 42.1).

52

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 23. Istrian coin found in the destruction layer near the burnt beams (2007, inv. no. His 07 T 42.2).

Fig. 24. Temple M. View from the south (2007).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

Fig. 25. Temple M, burnt layer. View from the south (2007).

Fig. 26. Ionian ceramic perirrhanterion from the burnt layer inside temple M and from outside the temple (2007).

53

54

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 27. Terracotta protomes from the burnt layer inside temple M (2007).

Fig. 28. Painted terracotta rooster from the burnt layer inside temple M (2007) (drawing and reconstruction of the painting by Cristina Georgescu).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

Fig. 29. Fragment of an ivory from the burnt layer inside temple M.

Fig. 30. Gold from the burnt layer inside temple M.

55

56

IULIAN BÎRZESCU

Fig. 31. South of temple M, mid-5th-century BC layer with unburnt architectural terracottas. View from the east (2008).

Fig. 32. South of the temple M, mid-5th-century BC layer with unburnt architectural terracottas. View from the east (2008).

THE FIRST DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES FROM THE SACRED AREA

Fig. 33. Painted antefix from temple M.

Fig. 34. Painted kymation from temple M.

Fig. 35. Painted sima from temple M.

57

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA) V.D. KUZNETSOV

Abstract A fragment of a Persian cuneiform inscription discovered in Phanagoria attracted the attention of many scholars. All of them, with the exception of the author of the present work, have ascribed the inscription to Darius I. This conclusion is founded exclusively upon the analysis of the text. The text however is too fragmentary to provide any solid background to its origin and authorship. Any decision in favour of one of the two Persian kings – Darius or Xerxes – based only upon the text will be insufficient. The decisive arguments can only be those supported by archaeological data, numismatics and written sources. The most important of these is the archaeological context in which the find of the Persian text was made. All these sources testify that the inscription was made by the order of Xerxes in 480 BC. It means that the North Pontic cities were involved in the Graeco-Persian wars and were occupied by the Persians.

The fragment of a Persian cuneiform inscription discovered in Phanagoria has attracted the attention of many scholars (Fig. 1). At present there are several articles dedicated to it in English and German, as well as in Russian, later translated into English. One can expect that in due course other specialists interested in the problem of Persian influence on the shores of the Black Sea will take part in the discussion. I am grateful to the late Gocha Tsetskhladze for his suggestion that I contribute to the collection dedicated to the Phanagorian inscription and the Achaemenid presence in the Black Sea that he was assembling.1 Initially, I had no intention to turn back to a discussion of the authorship of the inscription, which the Persian king had ordered to be made, and all the problems connected with it. The answer appeared to me obvious. However, after the publication of several articles considering the problem it became clear that it was necessary to explain the circumstances of the context of the find as well as my opinion concerning the origin of the text. My position, that the inscription was connected with Xerxes, contradicts the opinion of other participants in the discussion. Therefore, I am obliged to return to the analysis of the problem in question. 1

I am also grateful to him for correcting the English translation of this article.

60

V.D. KUZNETSOV

Fig. 1. Map showing location of Phanagoria.

First of all let me cite the work by Tsetskhladze where he writes: Several articles about the inscription have appeared already, mainly philological but one from an historical perspective (which considers it belongs to Darius). Two philologists consider the inscription to relate to Darius, whereas V.D. Kuznetsov, a classical archaeologist, is alone among historians and archaeologists in his certainty that it concerns Xerxes (based on the circumstances of its discovery in a ruined house).2

Two matters should be taken into account in connection with this passage. The first one is that the author of the present paper is initially an historian, from his youth and for many decades participating in archaeological works, for the most part in Phanagoria. Thus I can claim to present both history and archaeology. It means that my attention is not concentrated exclusively on archaeological materials. The second point is that my arguments in favour of the authorship of Xerxes are not founded just upon the context of its find. I have already provided other arguments.3 Later I shall return to them once more. Let us now consider the arguments of those scholars who attribute the inscription to king Darius I. I am not a specialist in Persian philology, therefore my task is to consider carefully the arguments of my ‘opponents’ and their interpretation of the inscription. Let us start with the work by E. Rung and O. Gabelko, published first in Russian and then in English.4 The English version is the later one, with some changes and additions, therefore I shall refer to it. 2 3 4

Tsetskhladze 2019, 122. Kuznetsov 2019. Rung and Gabelko 2018; 2019.

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

61

First of all, Rung and Gabelko suggest that the first line of the inscription contains the name of Darius in the genitive. They agree with other scholars (such as E. Shavarebi5) that there is no necessity to reconstruct the first line definitely as ‘Xerxes, son of Darius’. The name of Darius in the genitive is present also in his own inscriptions. So the document could be attributed to this king. To support their reconstruction they turn to the second line where they restore the words ‘Darius the king’.6 G.P. Basello in his comments on the inscription wrote in connection with the first surviving letter of the second line: ‘The first sign on lines x+2, x+3 and x+5 could be also “d” instead of “u”.’7 In this connection Rung and Gabelko write: ‘Xerxes’ name (x-š-y-a-r-š), which would correspond to the first publishers’ interpretation of the text, is ruled out for the first word of line 2 as the sign that precedes š- resembles u-’ (p. 87 – my emphasis).8 It means that the version suggested by these authors cannot be accepted as reliable. That is why Basello puts three question marks restoring this line: (d-a-r-y-v-]u- š- : x-š-[a-y-θ-i-y : ???). It is evident that the sequence of suggestions supporting the authorship of Darius admits of doubt. If the first line does not exclude the restoration of the name of Xerxes and the second one is too damaged to be sure in the correctness of its emendation, there remains only one conclusion: the inscription contains no definite arguments in favour of the authorship of one of the two kings. Now concerning the article by Shavarebi, published soon after the editio princeps:9 in his opinion Rung and Gabelko suggested the most elaborate reading of the inscription and a more convincing historical interpretation of the discovery. At the same time, he claims that a greater number of plausible options could be suggested.10 Shavarebi agrees that the name of Darius appears in the first line in the genitive; and with the statement cited above that his name in genitive is present not only in inscriptions left by Xerxes but those by Darius as well. He adds: ‘Moreover, for certain historical reasons, this attribution [i.e. Xerxes] seems far from possible.’ After this phrase he refers to the article by Rung and Gabelko, evidently in support of his position. Then he writes that the question will be considered in more detail in his monograph.

5

Shavarebi 2019, 6. Rung and Gabelko 2019, 87. 7 Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2019, 6. 8 The authors refer to the suggestion by C. Tuplin from a private letter, concerning the restoration in the second line of the name of Darius: he admits the possibility but adds: ‘but, again, it is not clear that the letter before š is (as it should be) u’ (Rung and Gabelko 2019, 88, n. 13). 9 Shavarebi 2019. 10 Shavarebi 2019, 5. 6

62

V.D. KUZNETSOV

Thus, in relation to the first line, Shavarebi provides no solid evidence in favour of Darius besides the possibility of his name appearing in the genitive in his own inscriptions. In other words, since the name of Darius in the genitive can be present not only in inscriptions by Xerxes but in those by Darius himself, it can be used as an argument proving the authorship of Darius. It is very strange logic. The phrase can be turned around to provide a different conclusion: as the name of Darius in the genitive is present not only in his own inscriptions but also in the texts left by Xerxes, then we can choose in favour of Xerxes. Then follows the restoration of the second line. The last two surviving characters of the first word may appear as or . Shavarebi, based upon more frequently occurring variants, prefers . Words terminating in can be verbs, adjectives or nouns. The author chooses a noun and suggests to see it as the name of Darius.11 In theory all of this is possible but cannot be proved, because we cannot exclude other versions of the restoration. Here we are interested first of all in the name of the king in the inscription, so we can omit the analysis of the other lines of the document and go straight to the conclusions made by Shavarebi (p. 11). He writes: Given the lexical analysis presented above, the most plausible reconstruction of the extant fragment of the inscription would be as follows. This is, however, only a hypothetical reconstruction. Discovery of any new fragment of this inscription in future may change our understanding of the text [my emphasis].

But on p. 13 he states: ‘The remnants of the name of Darius in the first two lines of the fragment may safely [my emphasis] lead to an attribution of the inscription to Darius I.’ So it looks like Shavarebi a priori decided that the Phanagorian inscription had been ordered by Darius. Therefore all his philological analysis is confined to the approval of this suggestion making it subjective in the absence of any definite arguments. Even understanding that all the reconstructions of the text and therefore the conclusions basing upon them are hypothetical, he stresses his assurance attributing the inscription to Darius. Two articles dedicated to the Phanagorian inscription were written by A. Avram,12 his opinion most fully presented in one published in identical French and Russian versions. Let us turn to the restoration of the text (the first and the second lines first of all) and to its interpretation by Avram. Concerning the reconstruction of the name of Xerxes he notes that it meets insuperable

11 12

Shavarebi 2019, 6–7. Avram 2019; 2020.

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

63

difficulties (‘les difficultés apparement insurmontables’).13 These are connected with the fact that in the second line he definitely sees the name of Darius in the nominative. He writes about this second line: ‘En suivant le formulaire des inscriptions royales connues, l’on aurait affaire très probablement à … “Darius, le roi, proclame”…’14 Let us turn now to the interpretation of the Phanagorian text suggested by Tsetskhladze.15 Not being a specialist in Old Persian he appealed to two scholars famous in this field – N. Sims-Williams and R. Schmitt. Their conclusions I cite as presented in Tsetskhladze’s article. Sims-Williams wrote: Possibly your Russian colleagues [Kuznetsov and Nikitin] interpreted x-š-[ as the beginning of the name of Xerxes, which is in principle possible… Very likely it is an inscription of Darius, but an inscription of Xerxes or even a later ruler is not impossible, so far as I can see.16

R. Schmitt that: Of course, it suggests itself to think of Darius as the author of the text. And indeed there is a hint which might be interpreted this way in line 2, but it remains rather vague and for the time being quite uncertain, since other sequences and phrases point to another direction and are not really compatible within the whole of the inscription.17

Then follows the conclusion by Tsetskhladze himself: Thanks to its very fragmentary nature, it is clearly very difficult to be certain whether the inscription relates to Darius or to his son Xerxes, but the balance of opinion, which I share, lies with Darius [my emphasis].18

It means that his choice is conventional and subjective. In this way two famous scholars demonstrate the impossibility of any definite decision in favour of any possible king’s name. Their position seems to me reasonable and well founded. However, in his special article considering the Phanagorian inscription Schmitt takes a more definite position. First he notes that any attempts to restore the text are made difficult by the possibility

13 14 15 16 17 18

Avram 2019; 2020. Avram 2020, 172. Tsetskhladze 2019; 2020. Tsetskhladze 2019, 120. Tsetskhladze 2019, 121. Tsetskhladze 2019, 121.

64

V.D. KUZNETSOV

of too many variants. The dating of the text in his opinion is impossible, and the archaeological context of the find provides only a conventional ante quem.19 At the same time, in spite of his own doubts, Schmitt unexpectedly states that the inscription was produced by the orders of Darius and denies the participation of Xerxes. Let us now consider a short note by A. Balakhvantsev.20 There is just one reason to mention it. Although it does not contain any philological analysis of the text, nevertheless, all scholars refer to it. In my opinion, this is only because Balakhvantsev attributes the inscription to Darius I, thus supporting the position of all those who think the same. At the same time he provides no arguments explaining his attribution. Just one particular should be taken into account, characterising his attitude to the written source. It concerns the passage from Ctesias mentioning the expedition of Ariaramnes, satrap of Darius. Balakhvantsev writes: ‘… taking into account the negative reputation of Ctesias as an historian, his inclination to fantasies and falsifications, one should admit that the expedition of Ariaramnes to Scythia never took place’. In other words he rejects a priori the evidence of Ctesias, not bothering to analyse the information he provides. This is obviously not right. Though the Persica by Ctesias is far from perfection and historical precision, all the evidence he provides should be treated carefully.21 Moreover, Balakhvantsev does not clearly understand the meaning of the archaeological context22 in which the inscription was found, which affects the importance of his contribution. To summarise: practically all specialists in Old Persian philology and epigraphy refer to the impossibility of reconstructing and understanding the contents of the inscription from Phanagoria because of its poor state of preservation. The fragment of the marble stele is too small to identify most of the words and to understand the contents. Therefore all suggested emendations are conventional and doubtful. Some passages mentioning it are cited above, others can be found in works by the relevant authors.

19

Schmitt 2019, 37–41. Balakhvantsev 2018. 21 Of the last works see Wiesenhöfer et al. 2011. It seems to me that the most adequate estimation of the works by Ctesias is presented by J. Stronk: ‘… anyone studying what is left of the Persica of Ctesias should constantly bear in mind that (s)he is not dealing with a historical work strictu sensu, but with the didactical work of a “poet”, treating historical persons and events placed in a, perhaps, more or less invented historical context…’ (Stronk 2007, 55; cf. Almagor 2012). 22 ‘However the archaeological context of the find and the absence of other fragments nearby give to ground to suggest that the inscription was not initially set in Phanagoria’ (Balakhvantsev 2018, 63). 20

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

65

Most amazing is that all scholars ascribe the fragment to Darius I. It is enigmatic. What makes them take this view? I cannot answer this question. I can only suggest that their choice in favour of Darius can be explained not just by his being one of the most celebrated Persian kings but also because in this case the document from Phanagoria could be connected with the famous Scythian expedition undertaken by him. Moreover, that enterprise was described in detail by Herodotus in his Book 4, so the find opens up new possibilities for solving in detail many historical problems that have long bothered the minds of scholars. Thus it becomes clear why those who ascribe the document to Darius turned to verifying the events of the Scythian expedition. I repeat that all of their speculations are just conventional. Demonstrative in this connection is the passage by Rung and Gabelko: ‘It will be clear that the authors of this article are firmly convinced [my emphasis] that the marble fragment from Phanagoreia is part of the stele of Darius described by Herodotus.’23 However, profound assurance cannot be taken for solid argument in a scholarly discussion. It merely demonstrates the absence of arguments and reminds us of the famous phrase stressing the weakness of one’s position: ‘The argument is weak, raise your voice’ (W.S. Churchill). Actually, the only reliable conclusion which can be drawn concerning the inscription from Phanagoria is that any choice, be it in favour of Darius or Xerxes, will be half-erroneous. In other words, the document provides no arguments supporting the authorship of one of the two. Some additional and reliable arguments are required to verify its chronology, such as the context of the find and the date of archaeological strata. To this I shall return later, but first we must consider the non-philological arguments of those who support the authorship of Darius. Let us go back to the article by Rung and Gabelko. In their opinion the archaeological context of the find cannot be decisive for its dating.24 Nor is the date of the fire forming the context from which the fragment comes important. It is a serious mistake, demonstrating their misunderstanding of the importance of archaeological data, from which their erroneous conclusions follow. For some unknown reason they suggest that the fragment formed a part of the interior of the building (threshold, step, prop, etc.), even though in the first publication of the inscription nothing of this kind was mentioned. One more 23

Rung and Gabelko 2019, 110. Rung and Gabelko (2019, 111) suggest that it is necessary first to undertake ‘chemical and mineralogical analysis’ of marble. It is not significant, because any source of marble in the East Mediterranean area could be used by the Persians (cf. Martin 1965, 135–44). 24

66

V.D. KUZNETSOV

argument against my interpretation is that no other fragments of the stele have been found, confirming that initially only one fragment had been brought to Phanagoria. If we accept this speculation, then any fragment of any inscription found anywhere must be treated as one brought from outside for want of other fragments nearby. It is archaeologically naive: cultural layers (unlike burials in necropoleis) do not often contain intact artefacts. Cultural layers are most often damaged or destroyed along with the ancient objects. Rung and Gabelko assume that the fragment was a part of one of the stelae set up by Darius on the Pontic shores. Later these were transferred to Byzantium and then demolished by the Greeks, as described by Herodotus (4. 87). Some Phanagorian who visited Byzantium probably took it to his native city as a trophy, signifying victory over the Persians. In Phanagoria it might be used to decorate some building, possibly a temple, or even used as a threshold.25 Finally, referring to the position of the two authors, let me cite one more passage from their article: Examining the historical setting of the inscription’s composition, Kuznetsov links it to a (purely conjectural) military expedition of Xerxes to the Bosporus… As we have already noted, this is entirely based on the apparent presence of Darius’ name in the genitive case in line 1.26

This statement is not true, because my arguments in favour of Xerxes are based upon a series of facts – archaeological, literary, epigraphic and numismatic (see below). One more suggestion of how the Persian inscription came to Phanagoria belongs to Avram.27 First of all he rejects the idea by Rung and Gabelko concerning the Byzantine origin of the stele. In his opinion the inscription was made elsewhere and deliberately brought to Phanagoria. Avram denies the possibility of the northern Black Sea area being conquered by Darius I in the course of his Scythian expedition in 513 BC. Taking into account the ideas of V. Yailenko28 concerning the synchronous events narrated in the Behistun inscription and in the book by Ctesias, he dates the conquest of the northern Black Sea region by the Persians to 519 BC. He calls it the First Scythian War. The second one took place in 514/3 BC. Finally, the restoration of Persian domination took place in 492 BC, after the defeat of the Ionian Revolt. This is also the date of the Phanagorian inscription. 25 26 27 28

More detailed argumentation can be found at Rung and Gabelko 2019, 110–16. Rung and Gabelko 2019, 92. Avram 2019; 2020. Yailenko 2004.

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

67

To establish the last-mentioned date, Avram tries to use archaeological data testifying to the catastrophic destruction of Pontic cities. For this reason he strives to provide an earlier date for this catastrophe, closer to 492 BC.29 I am not going to consider Avram’s opinion in detail because his theories have nothing to do with the real date of the inscription. All his conclusions are based upon a series of suggestions30 forming an upended pyramid. It is enough to take away any of them to ruin the whole construction. There is a recent article by S.M. Burstein estimating the possibility of the Phanagorian fragment coming from one of the stelae set by Darius I on the shores of the Bosporus (Herodotus. 4. 87).31 He denies this possibility. His arguments are: 1) the stelae immured within an altar in Byzantium were, one block excepted, still intact by the time the inscription was set up in Phanagoria; 2) the stele with ‘Assyrian letters’ (Ἀσσυρία γράμματα) was still intact when it was seen by Herodotus; and 3) inscriptions left by Darius I contained lists of nations, his subjects, while the Phanagorian text deals with some building activities, but not any military campaign. It should be admitted that these arguments are quite acute and they undermine those of Rung and Gabelko, and of Shavarebi. Now let us consider the archaeological context of the find. I wrote about this in my comments to the first publication.32 However, scholars who are not familiar with this discipline do not take archaeological data for serious argument, which makes me to turn back to this problem. Of all the scholars considering the Phanagorian inscription, Tsetskhladze, in my opinion, is the only one who really understands and estimates the significance of archaeological data. He writes: In these circumstances [when it is difficult to make a choice between Darius and Xerxes] other evidence should be considered as well to see how the inscription and it relate and align. My aim is to use mainly archaeological evidence.33

However, instead of taking into account archaeological data to verify the date of the inscription he initially decides in favour of Darius. After that nothing is left to him but to use archaeology to confirm his choice. Therefore Tsetskhladze suggests that in the course of his Scythian expedition Darius reached Phanagoria 29

Avram 2020, 192, n. 118. Let me remark the idea of Avram that eight fortresses built by Darius (Herodotus 4. 124) were in the Taman Peninsula. The location described by Herodotus can in no way be ascribed to the Taman Peninsula. The area has been carefully studied, but no traces of Persian walls or artefacts were ever found. 31 Burstein 2021, 371, n. 11. I owe sight of this article to Gocha Tsetskhladze. 32 Kuznetsov 2019. 33 Tsetskhladze 2019, 121. 30

68

V.D. KUZNETSOV

where he set up his stele.34 To explain the catastrophe of 480 BC affecting many Pontic cities he suggests that there was one more Pontic Persian campaign directed by Xerxes. If not for his a priori choice in favour of Darius (based just upon a doubtful interpretation of the text), he could have correctly estimated the situation with the Persian invasion to the Pontic region – in particular in relation to the unfounded suggestion that Darius occupied Phanagoria. Archaeological investigations in the central part of Phanagoria, an area of about 3000 m2 later occupied by the acropolis, revealed Archaic layers dating from the time of the apoikia’s foundation until its destruction in 480 BC.35 Among the principal finds in this area was the discovery of oldest city walls (Figs. 2–3). These walls, constructed of mud-brick, date to the second half of the 6th century BC (soon after the foundation of the city). They had been destroyed by fire, dating, based upon archaeological data, to the cusp of the first and second quarters of the 5th century BC:36 that would be 480–470 BC.37 The cultural layer with the surviving part of the wall 33 m long has not been affected by any interference after the fire of that time.38 In other words, the layer with the remains of the walls became a closed archaeological context. It means that the burnt layer contains only objects dating between 480 and 470 BC or earlier. The catastrophe affected the whole city – along with the walls all other buildings were destroyed. Important evidence testifying to the extremity of the situation is a coin hoard, the oldest in the Cimmerian Bosporus – 162 silver coins hurriedly hidden within a mud-brick wall of the house belonging to some local jeweller.39 One more find was a cellar used to store Chian amphorae with wine or olive oil (Fig. 4). The amphorae, some of them broken, remained in situ. The authors publishing the description of the cellar date its destruction to the 470s BC.40 Several public buildings were also destroyed by fire, among them a temple in antis (Fig. 5). The theme of fires and catastrophes in the Greek cities of Pontus between the first and the second quarters of the 5th century BC has attracted the attention of 34 He suggests that the stele was immured in the wall of some public building (Tsetskhladze 2019, 122). But at that time there were no stone constructions in Phanagoria, only of mud-brick (Kuznetsov 2022, 521). 35 If we take the excavations of 1975 for our starting point, the general excavated area will be approximately 3400 m2. 36 On the fortifications of Phanagoria, see Kuznetsov 2023. In this burnt layer bronze arrowheads were found testifying to military activities. 37 A.A. Zavoikin (2019, 112, 115) defines this date as ‘between the 480s and 470s BC’. 38 For the exclusion of later household pits excavated before the study of fortifications. 39 The hoard is published recently (Kuznetsov and Abramzon 2021). 40 Zavoikin, Kuznetsova and Monakhov 2013.

69

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

sup 679/13

ting por l wal

12 6

679/12

681

768/1

679/9

e 786

1

–

8

)

0

679/8

4

b

679/11

l al

(

9

5

7

9

1

768/2

769/2

w

3

768 768/4

ty ci

769/4

5 9

769 a b

679/10

d

769/1

d c

783/1 768/3

769/3

3

e

783/2

679/7 679/6

783

793

783/4 679/5

2

679/2

745/1 679/1 745/2

783/3

745

-4.02

745/4

750/1

679/4

750

8836/5 36/5

687/1

679 1

745/3 679/3

d

area

8 836/2

835/1

836/ 836 83 66//6 6/6 /

838 ɜɵɦɨɫɬɤɚ

835

835/4

750/2

836

687/3

ɨɱɚɝ

836/7

unexcavated

750/3 687/2

687

687/4

83 836/1

835/2

8 841

836/4

835/3

«

836/3

M

n

i

a

e 295

e

e

t

680

e

Ⱥ ȼ

s

r

a . a lt a r b . p it -bothros

Ȼ

Ⱥ

»

t

331

300

ɦ

c. b a sin d . h e a rt h e . f u rn a ce

294/8

Ȼ

294 a

p e rsia n in scrip t io n

ȼ

271 266 294/1

269

294/6

-3.20

-2.98 -3.00

294/2

498

205

294/3

e

square e

d ɜɯɨɞ

destroyed

814

Phanagoria

archaic

294/4

d 294/7

206

-3.27

d

levels

«Upper city» trench

ɜɯɨɞ

802

819

(4th c. BC)

sand 294/5

464/1

P

464/1 464/1 464/4

464

464/2 464/3

L

A

N

212

( 1 9 9 5 – 2 0 1 8 )

Fig. 2. Plan of architectural features discovered in the Upper City of Phanagoria (540–480 BC).

scholars.41 For this reason, here I only note the position of Avram, who speaks of the necessity to verify the dates of these fires synchronous with the catastrophe in Phanagoria.42 In particular, he thinks it possible to provide an earlier date for the fires in Panticapaeum, i.e. to date them to 490 BC. In this connection it should be noted that most of the authors date the catastrophic fires in Pontic cities to between the first and second quarters of the 5th century BC or more precisely between 480 and 470 BC. Recently, V.P. Tolstikov dated the Panticapaean fire to the time between 490 and 480 BC.43 The fire and destruction of Tyritake is dated by V.N. Zinko to 480–470 BC.44 41 42 43 44

Tolstikov 1984; Zavoykin 2006; Nieling 2010, 129–30; Tsetskhladze 2013, 208–11. Avram 2020, 191. Tolstikov et al. 2017, 42. Zinko 2015, 137.

70

V.D. KUZNETSOV

sup in port l wal g 681

ty ci

room 4

w l al

room 3

679/2

room 2 679

room 1 679/4

0

5

15 M

Persian inscription Fig. 3. Schematic plan of the defensive walls of Phanagoria.

In archaeology the system of dating by quarters of a century is accepted. It is convenient when it is difficult to date artefacts or cultural layers more precisely. The border between the first and the second quarters of the 5th century BC is formally 475 BC. It is practically impossible to provide archaeologically a date limited to a precise year for any object or event. So when we want to define this border in absolute numbers we add five years on both sides, thus getting 480–470 BC. It means that any event dated on the evidence of archaeology could have taken place in any year within this span of ten. In our case there is a reason to speak of 480 BC.45 45 This chronological problem can be demonstrated using the materials of North Ionian pottery belonging to the Wild Goat Style group. Its latest stage (Late Wild Goat) is usually dated to

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

Fig. 4. The cellar with Chian amphorae.

Fig. 5. Sanctuary (dedicated to chthonic deities?).

71

72

V.D. KUZNETSOV

But let us return to Phanagoria. After a brief period of time, new buildings were erected over the ruined quarters. Directly over the city walls a mud-brick structure was built, possibly a dwelling house (no. 681 according to field records). It is not well preserved for, in its turn, it too was destroyed by fire. Only the south wall of this building and the direction of the west wall, which can be traced by fallen mud bricks, remain. Traces of a strong fire are visible in the partly preserved south-west corner of the building (Fig. 6). The fragment of the marble stele with the Persian inscription was found by the south wall in a burnt layer and above the foot of the wall, face down (Figs. 7–8). It was not any part of the building’s interior and, judging by the picture of total destruction, might even not have belonged to the structure from which it was recovered. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the lower left corner of the fragment and the lower part of the obverse side bear traces of a coating of black soot. Similar traces of soot, though less intensive, are visible on the rest of the surface (Figs. 9–11).

Fig. 6. South-west corner of building no. 681 with traces of fire. the second quarter of the 6th century BC, i.e. 575–550 BC (Cook 1997, 114; Cook and Dupont 1998, 51–56; Coulié 2014, 44). Some scholars suggest other dates – to demonstrate that the production of this pottery stopped around 580–560 BC (see Buiskikh 2007, 505; 2019, 43–84). Excavations in Phanagoria verify the date for the production of similar pottery. Phanagoria was founded about 540 BC. Wild Goat Style pottery is present in the oldest layers of the city (Kuznetsov 2010, 319). Thus an established historical fact helps to verify archaeological dating.

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

Fig. 7. The fragment of the Persian inscription in situ.

Fig. 8. The position of the fragment in relation to the wall of building no. 681.

73

74

V.D. KUZNETSOV

Fig. 9. The inscription just found after initial cleaning.

Fig. 10. Traces left on the stone by fire and charcoals.

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

75

Fig. 11. Traces left on the stone by fire and charcoals.

O.L. Gunchina, Director of the restoration laboratory of the State MuseumReserve of Phanagoria, investigated the stone and made the following conclusion (for which I would like to thank her) (Fig. 11): When surveying the marble fragment with Persian inscription traces of heating were noticed, which required additional laboratory studies. The fragment was studied with a microscope to reveal changes in colour and changes in the microstructure of the stone. Four zones have been distinguished: 1) unaffected by heat; 2) moderately heated; 3) heated to less than 900o; 4) heated up to 900o or higher. In the area not affected by heat the colour of the stone did not change, traces of polishing are visible with matte gloss. This area could have been heated up to 120o. The zone of temperate heating – over 120o. The colour is the same, but traces of polishing are missing, numerous micro cracks increase the porous structure of the stone. Dark spots are visible, cracks are filled with black pigment, probably soot. The third zone, heated up to 900o, shows no traces of chemical destruction, but numerous cracks are filled with black pigment and earth. The fourth zone, affected with high temperature, shows changes in colour from grey and brown to black. Darkened grains of calcite and cracks filled with dark substance are visible under microscope. Not only are significant cracks present but traces of chemical disintegration of marble – ruined calcite grains and caverns left by those destroyed by heat. Chemical disintegration of marble starts under 910o. Since only the upper layer has been affected, one can suggest that the heating continued for not a very long time. The damage affecting the stone

76

V.D. KUZNETSOV

Fig. 12. Four areas on the surface of the inscription fragment with varying degrees of exposure to fire. makes me suggest that it fell from above with its obverse lower side (mainly with its lower edge) (Fig. 12).

The following conclusion can be drawn based upon these facts. By the time of the catastrophe and the fire the marble stele was already broken. One of the fragments fell into the fire face down (mainly with its lower edge). Only the left lower corner was affected by strong heat. The remaining obverse area resided upon randomly distributed burning charcoals which to some extent damaged the polished surface of the fragment. Some charcoals also fell on the reverse side. At the same time several mud bricks from the wall fell onto the back of the fragment. Those parts (the back and one of the edges) which were covered with bricks show no traces of charcoal. These spots of quite regular form show light coloured marble46 (Figs. 13–15). All these facts testify to the total destruction of the city where practically all buildings were turned into ruins.47 The layer of this fire is randomly distributed 46 These spots were not visible after the initial cleaning of the stone. They were revealed by later more thorough restoration. 47 Zavoikin and Kuznetsov 2020, 133.

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

77

Fig. 13. The back and the edge of the fragment with two areas unaffected by fire.

Fig. 14. The back and the edge of the fragment with two areas unaffected by fire.

Fig. 15. The edge of the fragment with the areas unaffected by fire.

78

V.D. KUZNETSOV

over the excavated area forming specific spots, because at some points the layer of that time was destroyed by later building activity. There is no reason therefore to speak of other missing fragments of the stele as an argument for just one piece being delivered to Phanagoria. Under these circumstances, the fragment of the broken stele could appear at any spot within the burnt layer. Because this layer, along with the building described above, presents an isolated context, it is possible to suggest that the stele was broken contemporaneously with the destruction of the city.48 Thus one of its fragments came to the spot of its subsequent discovery. The dating of this second catastrophe affecting the whole city can be established on the evidence of finds from the burnt layer, including those coming from building no. 681. Their approximate date is 460–440 BC. Building no. 681 yields Chian amphorae allowing us to date its destruction to the end of this period, i.e. to 440 BC, as suggested by A.A. Zavoikin.49 This makes me suggest that the Persian stele was broken at the beginning of the third quarter of the 5th century BC. V.A. Anokhin presumed that around 490 BC the Panticapaean mint switched from the Aeginetan weight system in favour of the Persian one.50 In his calculations Anokhin erroneously accepted 530 BC as the initial date for Cimmerian Bosporan coins. But he dated quite precisely the introduction of the Persian weight system. The find of the silver coin hoard mentioned above allowed us to verify the date when the Bosporan mint started to function.51 Now we can 48 One more note by Rung and Gabelko in this connection: ‘… an isolated fragment of an Achaemenid inscription was discovered in a house destroyed by fire in the 5th century BC. (We will leave it to Phanagorian archaeologists to date more accurately when the building was destroyed. The precise answer is not important for our hypothesis) … Kuznetsov based his dating and historical interpretation of the fragment on the view that the destroyed Phanagorian fortifications and the house were closed contexts, but his argument is weak: the fragment had clearly found its way into the latter context before it “closed”’ (Rung and Gabelko 2019, 111). I want to stress that the stone fell to the layer of a fire that destroyed not just one building but the whole city straight at the time of the catastrophe. The whole passage cited here demonstrates that the authors misunderstood the archaeological situation: one closed context in which the inscription was found located above an earlier closed context connected with another catastrophe. Each of them has its own date of destruction. The fragment ceased to be a functional object when the city was attacked around 440 BC (dated archaeologically), so it bears traces of that later catastrophe turning the burnt layer into a closed context. A simple parallel can be drawn between epigraphic studies (as we deal here with an inscription) and archaeology. To analyse any text and to excavate an ancient site one requires corresponding qualification. 49 Zavoikin 2019, 113, 114, fig. 4.3, 4; Abramzon et al. 2019, 12. The statement by Zavoikin, concerning the fragment found on the floor of structure 681, must be corrected (Zavoykin 2019, 113). The study of the structure proved that of the floor nothing was left and the inscription came from the burnt layer above the foot of the wall. 50 Anokhin 1986, 24. 51 See Kuznetsov and Abramzon 2021.

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

79

say that this took place in about the 490s BC. But the oldest coins were minted not in Panticapaeum but most probably on the Taman Peninsula, possibly under the auspices of the temple of Aphrodite Ourania in Apaturum (near Phanagoria).52 The hoard came from the fire layer dated archaeologically to 480–470 BC. This is a final date for the minting of coins of this series. The coins from the hoard were struck to the Aeginetan weight system.53 After them the next series minted in the Cimmerian Bosporus was at Panticapaeum, and, which is important for us, according to the Persian weight system – but not ca. 490 BC, as suggested by Anokhin, rather about 480 BC. Now is the time to remember a very important passage from Diodorus Siculus (12. 13. 1) of some Archaeanactids coming to power in the Cimmerian Bosporus.54 This event is dated to 480 BC. It means but one thing – that something quite important occurred near the remote extremities of the oikumene worthy of mention by Diodorus. These events gave rise to some new rulers. As we see, it corresponds in time to the catastrophes in the cities of Pontus,55 the hoard hidden in Phanagoria and the adoption of the Persian weight system. Such a chronological coincidence of archaeological, literary and numismatic data with the find of a Persian inscription cannot be just coincidence. Some very important, if not to say great, events are hidden behind this information confirmed by different sources. In any case this data is more important and reliable than connecting the Phanagorian inscription with the activities of Darius I. In the above-mentioned passage from Diodorus it is said that further changes in the political life of the Cimmerian Bosporus took place 42 years later. Due to the Athenian Pontic expedition directed by Pericles, a new ruler Spartacus/ Spartocus came to power (Plutarch Pericles 20).56 Just two aspects of this should be considered: first of all the date of this expedition, which, without taking into account all discussions concerning it, was most probably at the beginning of 430s, i.e. coinciding with the second total destruction of Phanagoria (around 440 BC on archaeological evidence). If so, the date of Pericles’ visit to Pontus corresponds to that when Spartocus came to power – the date

52

On Apaturum, see Ustinova 1999, 29–53; Kuznetsov 2014; Braund 2018, 187–255. On ships carrying grain to Aegina, see Herodotus 1. 147. 2 (Kuznetsov and Abramzon 2021, 43–44). 54 ‘In Asia the dynasty of the Cimmerian Bosporus, whose kings were known as the Archaeanactidae, ruled for forty-two years, and the successor to the kingship was Spartacus, who reigned seven years’ (transl. by C.H. Oldfather). 55 Archaeological dates cannot be more precise than by ten years. More exact dates require additional information of a non-archaeological nature, such as the passage from Diodorus which narrows the date of 480–470 BC to 480 BC. 56 Kuznetsov 2019, 27–31. 53

80

V.D. KUZNETSOV

provided by Diodorus – 438/7 BC. This date is accepted by a number of scholars, including me. The second concerns the minting of coins. When Spartocus came to power special ties were established between Bosporus and Athens, including the grain trade. After that Panticapaeum rejected the Persian weight standard in favour of the Athenian.57 This important event demonstrates not only close ties between Panticapaeum and Athens but also political changes caused by the expedition of Pericles. These facts emphasise the arguments in favour of the authorship of Xerxes, providing a solid block of information, including the passage from Diodorus, archaeological date (the Phanagorian catastrophe of the 440s–430s), the destruction of the Persian stele, the Athenian expedition to the Pontus, a new ruler coming to power and gradually changes of weight standards in Panticapaeum from Persian to Attic. It is hardly possible to reject this block of interconnected and mutually supporting facts. To sum up: 480 BC – – catastrophic destruction of Phanagoria and other Black Sea cities; – new dynasty comes to power in Panticapaeum (Diodorus); – Persian inscription from Phanagoria confirms the Persian occupation of the city; – change of weight system from Aeginetic to Persian (the hoard from Phanagoria) demonstrates the confirmation of Persian power in the Pontic area; – the Graeco-Persian wars as the background for these events. 438 BC – – a new ruler in Panticapaeum (Spartocus) and the coincidence of dates provided by Diodorus with other events (480–438 BC); – Athenian expedition to Pontus directed by Pericles to undermine Persian power in the region; – a new catastrophe in Phanagoria; – the find of the fragment of the Persian stele set after the Persian occupation of the city in 480 BC – Persian power overthrown; – gradual changes in weight standards – from Persian to Attic, signifying changes in political and economic orientation (from Persia to Athens).58

57

Abramzon et al. 2020, 8; Kuznetsov and Abramzon 2021, 58. Psoma 2016, 99, 106–07. It was quite possible that in due time many Black Sea cities joined the Athenian naval alliance (see Paarman 2004, 84). 58

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

81

The coincidence of so many facts of different origin (literary, epigraphic, archaeological, numismatic) could not occur just by chance. All these are established facts, not fantastic suggestions. It is evident that the Old Persian inscription found in Phanagoria had been initially set up in this city.59 It testified to its occupation by Persians. In the same way other Hellenic cities of Pontus were attacked. This is confirmed by the synchronous ruins followed by fires discovered in many cities.60 The connection of these events with the final stage of the Graeco-Persian wars is evident, and they show that the Pontic area became involved in those wars. And this fact rejects the statement that the Phanagorian find adds no new information concerning the relations between Greeks and Persians in the northern Black Sea region.61 The year 480 BC was very important not only in the history of Greece but that of the whole ancient world: it concerns not only the struggle of Greek democratic states against Persian imperial ambitions, it brought radical changes to the life of Greek communities, a transition to a new quality.62 That is why this date is treated as the beginning of the Classical period of Greek history. Even the periphery of the Greek world was affected by these great events, including the cities of the Pontic area. The date when Athens became free of the Persian occupation gave a start to the Persian conquest of the Pontic cities, but only four decades later they overthrew Persian domination. The Persian empire strongly affected the life of the Cimmerian Bosporus, especially from the 5th century BC. The titles of the kings of Bosporus were borrowed from Persia. This influence is to some extent hidden from scholars by the lack of written sources. Some information is however provided by archaeology, though it is underestimated. The influence of the strong Persian empire continued for a long time. In the light of the facts provided by the study of the Persian inscription from Phanagoria its code, suggested by Shavarebi,63 must be changed from DFa to XFa. 59 Rung and Gabelko (2019, 111) tried to argue against this statement: ‘… Kuznetsov’s comment about exceptional rarity of stone in general, and the absence of marble in particular in early Phanagoreia clearly show that the city never had a whole Persian inscription’. It is true that at the beginning of its history Phanagoria did not have much stone, and stones were brought by ships as ballast. But that was within the frames of Ionian trade. The Persian inscription had nothing to do with trade. It was made elsewhere and delivered to the Pontic region. This is why the arguments provided by Rung and Gabelko are of no significance. 60 It should be taken into account that the corresponding layers have not been uncovered in all Pontic cities. New studies of the Late Archaic layers may provide important information. 61 Rung and Gabelko 2019, 116; Schmitt 2019, 43. 62 Constantakopoulou 2013, 25. 63 Shavarebi 2019, 2, n. 4.

82

V.D. KUZNETSOV

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramzon, M.G., Zavoykin, A.A., Kuznetsov, V.D. and Saprykina, I.A. 2019: ‘Monety pozdnearchaicheskogo i ranneklassicheskogo vremeni iz raskopok Fanagorii’. Hypanis 1, 5–29. —. 2020: ‘Bosporskie serebryanye monety klassicheskogo vremeni iz Fanagorii’. Hypanis 2, 5–26. Almagor, E. 2012: ‘Ctesias and the Importance of his Writings Revisited’. Electrum 19, 9–40. Anokhin, V.A. 1986: Monetnoe delo Bospora (Kiev). Avram A. 2019: ‘Remarques sur l’inscription achéménide de Phanagoria’. In Tatomir, R.G. (ed.), East–West Dialogue: Individual and Society through Ages (Bucharest), 15–24. —. 2020: ‘Les Perses en mer Noire à l’époque de Darius Ier: nouveaux documents et nouvelles interprétations’. Dacia 52–53, 169–98 (= ‘Persy v Prichernomor’e: novye dokumenty i novye interpretazii’. Aristeas 21 [2020], 40–88). Balakhvantsev, A.S. 2018: ‘Bospor i Akhemenidy’. In Bosporskii fenomen: obshchee i osobennoe v istoriko-kulturnom prostranstve antichnogo mira, vol. 1 (St Petersburg), 61–65 Braund, D.C. 2018: Greek Religion and Cults in the Black Sea Region. Goddesses in the Bosporan Kingdom from the Archaic Period to the Byzantine Era (Cambridge). Bujskich [Buiskikh], A.V. 2007: ‘The Earliest East Greek Pottery from Olbia Pontica’. In Cobet, J., von Graeve, V., Niemeier, W.-D. and Zimmermann, K. (eds.), Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme (Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı, 26. September–1. Oktober 1999) (Milesische Forschungen 5) (Mainz), 499–508. —. 2019: Archaicheskaya raspisnaya keramika iz Borisfena (Kiev). Burstein, S.M. 2021: ‘The Black Sea: An Achaemenid Frontier Zone’. In Daryaee, T. and Rollinger, R. (eds.), Iran and its Histories: From the Beginnings through the Achaemenid Empire (Classica et Orientalia 29) (Wiesbaden), 369–78. Constantakopoulou, C. 2013: ‘Tribute, the Athenian Empire and Small States/Communities in the Aegean’. In Slawisch, A. (ed.), Handels- und Finanzgebaren in der Ägäis im 5. Jh. v. Chr./ Trade and Finance in the 5th c. BC Aegean World (Byzas 18) (Istanbul), 25–42. Cook, R.M. 1997: Greek Painted Pottery (London/New York). Cook, R.M and Dupont, P. 1998: East Greek Pottery (London/New York). Coulié, A. 2014: La céramique de la Grèce de l’Est. Le style des chèvres sauvages (Paris). Kuznetsov, V.D. 2010: ‘O vremeni osnovaniya Fanagorii’. Drevnosti Bospora 14, 313–21. —. 2014: ‘Apaturos’. In Povalahev, N. (ed.), Phanagoreia und darüber hinaus… Festschrift für V. Kuznetsov (Altertümer Phanagoreias 3) (Göttingen), 111–29. —. 2019: ‘The Cimmerian Bosporus in the 5th Century BC (an Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoria)’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 25.1, 8–43. —. 2022: ‘Phanagoria in Archaic Times’. In Boardman, J., Hargrave, J.F., Avram, A. and Podossinov, A.V. (eds.), Connecting the Ancient West and East. Studies Presented to Prof. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (Monographs on Antiquity 8) (Leuven/ Paris/Bristol, CT), 521–51. —. 2023: ‘The Archaic City Walls of Phanagoria’. Ancient West and East 22, 35–58. Kuznetsov, V.D. and Abramzon, M.G. 2021: The Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus (a Hoard from Phanagoria) (Colloquia Antiqua 34; Phanagoria Studies 1) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT).

XERXES AND PONTUS (AN OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA)

83

Kuznetsov, V.D and Nikitin, A.B. 2019: ‘An Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoria’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 25, 1–7. Martin, R. 1965: Manuel d’architecture grecque. I: Matériaux et technique (Paris). Nieling, J. 2010: ‘Persian Imperial Policy Behind the Rise and Fall of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Last Quarter of the Sixth to the Beginning of the Fifth century BC’. In Nieling, J. and Rehm, E. (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers (Black Sea Studies 11) (Aarhus), 122–36. Paarmann B. 2004: ‘Geographically Grouped Ethnics in the Athenian Tribute Lists’. In Nielsen, T.H. (ed.), Once Again: Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 7) (Historia Einzelschriften 180) (Stuttgart), 77–109. Psoma, S.E. 2016: ‘Choosing and Changing Monetary Standards in the Greek World During the Archaic and Classical Periods’. In Harris, E.M., Lewis, D.M. and Woolmer, M. (eds.), The Ancient Greek Economy. Markets, Households and CityStates (Cambridge), 90–115. Rung, E.V. and Gabelko, O.L. 2018: ‘Skifskii pokhod Dariya I i drevnepersidskaya nadpis’ iz Fanagorii’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 4, 847–69 —. 2019: ‘From Bosporus… to Bosporus: A New Interpretation and Historical Context of the Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoreia’. Iranica Antiqua 54, 83–125. Schmitt, R. 2019: ‘Überlegungen zu Zwei neuen altpersischen Inschriften (Phanagoreia, Naqš–I Rustam)’. Nartamongae 14.1–2, 34–49. Shavarebi, E. 2019: ‘An Inscription of Darius I from Phanagoria (Dfa): Preliminary Report of a Work in Progress’. Arta 5, 1–15. Stronk, J.P. 2007: ‘Ctesias of Cnidus, a Reappraisal’. Mnemosyne 60, 25–58. Tolstikov, V.H. 1984: ‘K probleme obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3, 24–48. Tolstikov, V.P., Astashova, N.S., Lomtadze, G.A., Samar, O.Y. and Tugusheva, O.V. 2017: Drevneishii Pantikapei. Ot apoikii – k gorodu (Moscow). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2013: ‘The Greek Bosporan Kingdom: Regionalism and Globalism in the Black Sea’. In De Angelis, F. (ed.), Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity: Exploring their Limits (Colloquia Antiqua 7) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 201–28. —. 2019: ‘An Achaemenid Inscription from Phanagoria: Extending the Boundaries of Empire’. Ancient West and East 18, 113–51. —. 2020: ‘Akhemenidskaya nadpis iz Fanagorii: perepisyvaya istoriyu imperii’. Aristeas 21, 89–138. Ustinova, Y. 1999: The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom: Celestial Aphrodite and the Most High God (Leiden/Boston/Cologne). Wiesenhöfer, J., Rollinger, R. and Lanfranchi, G.B. (eds.) 2011: Ktesias’ Welt/ Ctesias’ World (Classica et Orientalia 1) (Wiesbaden). Yailenko, V.P. 2004: ‘Voennaya aktsiya Dariya I na Kimmeriiskom Bospore’. In Bosporskii fenomen: problemy khronologii i datirovki pamyatnikov, vol. 1 (St Petersburg), 55–60. Zavoikin, A.A. 2006: ‘Krizis “pervoi poloviny” V v. do n.e. i problema obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva’. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 4, 103–11. —. 2019: ‘O pifoidnykh amforakh “s polymi donyami” iz Fanagorii’. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii 254, 104–18. Zavoikin, A.A. and Kuznetsov, V.D. 2020: ‘Khronologiya arkhaicheskogo doma iz Fanagorii’. Hypanis 2, 129–40.

84

V.D. KUZNETSOV

Zavoikin, A.A., Kuznetsova, E.V. and Monakhov, S.Y. 2013: ‘Sklad amfor 290B iz Fanagorii’. In Kuznetsov, V.D. (ed.), Fanagoriya: Rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 1 (Moscow), 206–29. Zinko, V.N. 2015: ‘Gorodskie steny pozdnearchaicheskoi Tiritaki’. In S. Mitridata duet veter. Bospor i Prichernomor’e v antichnosti. K 70-letiyu V.P. Tolstikova (Moscow), 137–40.

A FRAGMENT OF A MARBLE SLAB WITH PART OF A CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTION(?) FROM THEODOSIA M. AKHMADEEVA

Abstract This note offers a preliminary report on a small piece of a marble slab bearing cuneiform-like signs that was found near the ancient city of Theodosia. Despite its obvious significance, Theodosia still remains the most mysterious site of the Bosporan kingdom. Only scanty archaeological evidence of the city is available so far.

The State Hermitage Museum started its Theodosian Archaeological Project in 2017 with a complex survey generally focusing on the nearest suburban areas. The territory supposedly constitutes the polis’s necropolis areas as well as nearby suburban farmsteads and settlements. The location of first interest is situated 1.5 km south of the citadel of the mediaeval Kaffa, the place where the acropolis of ancient Theodosia is supposed to lie (Fig. 1). A small part of a building dated to the 4th century BC was uncovered here about 40 years ago, and the Hermitage project continued archaeological investigation of the area. During the 2019 and 2021 campaigns a part of a large building, labelled Farmstead A, was uncovered (Fig. 2). The area of the building amounts up to 150 m2 and it is still only the northern part of the complex. The building was evidently rearranged several times. Initially, the edifice was a winery, as the discovery of two winepress platforms clearly indicates. Nearby, at least six traces of pits for pithoi were found. All of these structures, much like monumental walls 2 and 3, are part of the early building of the winery. After a while the complex was enlarged by almost twice by walls A and B. During the next building phase, a part of wall B and the pithoi room were damaged by new walls 4, 5 and 6. The majority of finds deriving from the complex are of the middle and second part of the 4th century BC, but the earliest pieces can be dated back to the end of the 5th century BC and the latest may be placed at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Thus, it can be presumed that this suburban farmstead/winery was built at the very beginning of the 4th century BC and functioned for about a hundred years, surviving at least two reconstructions. The building complex is located on the very edge of a deep lowland called Genoese. During demolition, the ceramic fragments and other pieces slipped

86

M. AKHMADEEVA

down the slope. In the course of surveys made in 2018 to investigate nearby slopes an unusual artefact was discovered: a small piece of a marble slab (Figs. 3–5). The slab was originally 2.2 cm thick; the dimensions of the fragment are 4.4 × 4.2 cm. The slab was made of fine-grained high-quality white marble, in warm colours on the one side and with dark grey inclusions on the other. Both sides of the slab are finely treated and polished. The edge of the fragment from one side is faceted diagonally; the width of the facet is 0.4 cm. The faceted side bears a group of three engraved equidistant triangles measuring 0.5 × 0.3 cm each. In addition, a part of a similar engraved triangle is located at a distance of 2 cm. Probably, a tiny part of another triangle can be seen nearby the main group. The reverse side of the marble slab is also covered with some unclear, but no doubt, intentionally engraved linear and curved signs. The character and relative position of the engravings strongly resemble cuneiform signs, though the modest size of the fragment is definitely insufficient to draw convincing conclusions.

PART OF A CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTION(?) FROM THEODOSIA

87

Fig. 1. The location of Farmstead A in the near suburban area of ancient Theodosia.

Fig. 2. Farmstead A. Aerial view.

88

M. AKHMADEEVA

Fig. 3. The fragment of a marble slab. Drawing.

Fig. 4. The fragment of a marble slab. Side A.

Fig. 5. The fragment of a marble slab. Side B.

XENOPHANTOS, THE SPARTOCIDS AND THE ACHAEMENID-PERSIAN REACH* Josef WIESEHÖFER To Margaret C. Miller

Abstract The famous Xenophantos lekythos from Panticapaeum from the beginning of the 4th century BC has often been the subject of research. Mostly, the focus has been on the artist who signed the vase, on the workshop in which the vessel was made, as well as on the persons depicted and identified in more detail in the images and inscriptions and the real and mythical backgrounds of the hunting scenes that make the lekythos so unique. As far as the artistic background of the images is concerned, the imagery of the vessel is mostly placed in the history of Athenian imaginations of Persia. This article attempts to place the lekythos also in an historical context. Here it becomes apparent that the rule of the Spartocids in the Cimmerian Bosporus, with whose ruler ideology, ruler representation and ruler practice the lekythos is to be associated, cannot be understood without its integration into larger contexts: that of the worldviews, claims and interests of the Achaemenid Persian empire, which provided the model for monarchical rule in the Aegean and Black Sea regions, that of the special relations between Athenians and Spartocids, and finally that of the economic and cultural entanglements between the areas ruled by the three powers.

I. Nonetheless, the growing idea of Persia provided an important point of reference in Athens. Its ruling class set a standard of elegant behaviour in dress and lifestyle that was selectively emulated at Athens. Sometimes ‘Persia’ was an escapist haven: in Xenophon’s Kyropaideia and the monumental relief lekythos of Xenophantos, Persia becomes a kind of mythical utopia.1

Among the vase paintings of Greek art depicting Persian subjects, apart from the so-called Darius Vase, hardly any has been treated as intensively as the famous Xenophantos squat lekythos, now in the Hermitage in St Petersburg.2 * I would like to thank Rüdiger Schmitt (Laboe) and Robert Rollinger (Innsbruck) for valuable information and suggestions. 1 Miller 2017, 67. 2 Literature on this piece can be found in Miller 2019, no. 107: ARV 1407.1, BAPD 217907.

90

JOSEF WIESEHÖFER

This vessel, signed around 400 BC,3 or more likely, for historical reasons, around 390–380 BC,4 by the Athenian potter and painter Xenophantos, shows, in a mixture of scenes taken from Persian practice and myth, a hunt in a paradeisos.5 In it participate Persians with royal Achaemenid or Persian names (Darius, Cyrus, Abrokomas,6 Seisames,7 Atramis[?]8) as well as persons with Greek mythical names (Euryalos, Klytios) but Persian costumes.9 As has often been rightly emphasised, both the hunting prey (wild boar, red deer) in the lower register and the animal and mechanical aids (horses before chariots and riding horses as well as hunting dogs or spears and lances) refer to Achaemenid hunting practice.10 And the mythical hunting prey in the register above (eagle griffin and horned lion griffin) refers to Persian hunting habits used topically in a Greek literary and iconographic environment.11 The latter is further emphasised by the fact that this lekythos belongs to a group of six vessels12 assigned to one workshop and whose images all revolve around the theme of hunting.13 Although details of interpretation continue to be discussed, the focus of consideration is always on a Persian-elitist lifeworld imagined by the Greeks, i.e. a form of Persianism.14

3

Lezzi-Hafter 2008. Around 400 BC, Athens, the home of Xenophantos, was undoubtedly significantly weakened by the outcome of the Peloponnesian War. This changed later, after union between Athens and Persia (against Sparta). 5 On this topic (hunting in a paradeisos) in the ancient tradition, see Tuplin 1996, 101. On the paradeisos, see now also Wiesehöfer 2021. On the importance of hunting in Achaemenid ruler ideology and representation, see most recently Almagor 2021. 6 For the etymology of these names, see, among others, Schmitt 2002. 7 For the etymology of this name attested in Aeschylus, see Schmitt 1978, 56–57. 8 For the possible etymology of this name (a two-stemmed hypocoristic name with the first part Atra [< Iranian *atr- ‘fire’]), see Schmitt 1978, 56 note 80. Cf. also Fraser and Mathews 2005, no. 16321. 9 For a detailed description of the vase and its imagery (including a colour reconstruction drawing), see Lezzi-Hafter 2008, 178–84. See also Miller 2003; Franks 2009; Lewellyn-Jones 2017, 78–80. 10 Almagor 2021. 11 See Llewellyn-Jones 2013, 129–33, 196–98. 12 Miller 2003, 32. 13 Lezzi-Hafter (2012, 40) identifies three vases as xenophantic. 14 Franks 2009, 480 assumes that the vase ‘illustrates Persian territorial aspirations, which extend to the very limits and most extreme places of the world, and which, as the product of hubristic ambition, must ultimately go unfulfilled’. Such a Persian-critical interpretation is not compatible with my interpretation (see below), which places the vessel in the world of Spartocid imitatio of Persian models. 4

XENOPHANTOS, THE SPARTOCIDS AND THE ACHAEMENID-PERSIAN REACH

91

II. If one wants to set one’s own historical accents on this question, then it is first necessary to emphasise that the Xenophantos lekythos was found in 1836 in Panticapaeum, today’s Kerch, in the ‘Jardin de Dubrux’; the more precise circumstances of the find do not seem to be clear.15 Panticapaeum, probably founded in the 6th century BC by Milesians as an apoikia,16 was later the main residential city of the so-called Bosporan kingdom. Scholars argue about whether the lekythos was made in a local workshop or found its way to the Crimea as a commissioned and imported piece.17 Regardless of the answer to this question, however, it should be remembered that for a vessel of this kind, whose imagery combines several worlds of Greek and Iranian provenance, real and mythical, in such an exciting way, and whose main subject is the hunt, a decisive element of aristocratic Persian elite representation, not only the question of the artist – Xenophantos – should be decisive, but also that of the commissioner or purchaser and that of the cultural ambience in which such a vase was to be displayed. This is all the more true because otherwise the artist would have to be assumed to have chosen the subject of representation quite individually, detached from the expectations of a client. So, the questions are: who had the means to commission the piece from one of the most famous artists of his time or to acquire it from him or a previous owner?; who found the depiction of aristocratic Persian lifestyle so attractive that he spared neither expense nor effort to have such an elaborately designed lekythos produced (and delivered) or to take possession of it?; and who, and for what reasons, was so familiar with the Greek and Iranian worlds of reality and myth that wandering between these worlds was not only not difficult for him but was, as it were, commonplace? III. And it is precisely here that the location of the lekythos comes into play again. The decision in favour of Athens as the place of production was justified not least by the fact that no Persian subjects were to be expected in Panticapaeum or from the princes of the Bosporan kingdom or their elite, but rather local or 15 16

Lezzi-Hafter 2012, 40. On Greek colonisation in this area, see Tsetskhladze 1994; Avram et al. 2004; Porucznik

2021. 17

Lezzi-Hafter 2012, 41 decidedly argues in favour of the latter.

92

JOSEF WIESEHÖFER

Athenian ones, probably because of the close connections of Panticapaeum with Miletus or Athens (as Miletus’ mother city).18 Such argumentation is not convincing, on the contrary: Miletus pursued an anti-Athenian policy in the second half of the 5th century (out of dissatisfaction with Athens’s role in the Delian League), later sought alliance with Sparta and the Persians (who became allies during the Peloponnesian War), and at the end of the war effectively fell back under Persian control (which was also laid down in the treaty of 387/6 BC).19 In other words, at the time of the presumed production of the lekythos, at least the mother city of Panticapaeum was pro-Persian and antiAthenian. What is even more important, however, is that since 480 BC, if we can trust Diodorus (12. 31. 1), members of the Archaeanactid family – probably in dependence on Persia (see below) – had been running Panticapaeum,20 and since 438/7 BC the city and its environs were under the rule of the Spartocids, a dynasty that later extended its (Bosporan) state to the nearby cities of Theodosia, Anapa and Phanagoria, and then to the Scythian regions around the Don.21 Most probably, the archaeologically verifiable destruction horizons on the Kerch Peninsula22 are to be associated with a renewed Persian expedition to the Black Sea region, perhaps in the aftermath of the Ionian Revolt or in the run-up to Xerxes’ campaign. Then, assuming Diodorus’ reliability, one result could have been similar to the results of Mardonius’ campaign of 492 BC in western Asia Minor, Thrace and Macedonia, or the preparatory actions before Xerxes’ campaign in western Asia and south-eastern Europe – the establishment or rise of the Archaeanactid family to Persian-supported lordship of Panticapaeum and the surrounding area.23 The unrepresentative secondary use of the inscription of Darius I found in Phanagoria24 – if the latter is not identical with one of the Bosporus inscriptions mentioned by Herodotus,25 but is to be interpreted as an announcement of the Achaemenid claim to world supremacy set up at a scenically and thus also ideologically significant location (the 18

Lezzi-Hafter 2012, 40. Gorman 2001, 216–42. 20 Tsetskhladze 2013, passim. 21 Tsetskhladze 2013, passim. 22 Tsetskhladze 2013, 208–11 (with literature). 23 Cf. Kuznetsov and Abramzon 2021, 10. It is also possible that this family could have used the power vacuum during the revolt, similar to the princes in Thrace and Macedonia, to take power in Panticapaeum (Hind 1994, 488; Burstein 2006, 139). This, however, would imply (if we take Diodorus seriously) that the Persians left them in office despite the coup. 24 Tsetskhladze 2019; Shavarebi 2019; Avram 2019; Schmitt 2019, 34–43 (each with older literature). 25 Rung and Gabelko 2019. King (2021, 91, n. 41) and Rollinger and Degen (2021, 202) also believe in a site close to the find-spot. 19

XENOPHANTOS, THE SPARTOCIDS AND THE ACHAEMENID-PERSIAN REACH

93

Kerch Strait)26 – could then speak for an Achaemenid campaign into the North Pontic region on behalf of Darius (led by Ariaramnes; cf. Ctesias F 13. 20) as early as the end of the 6th century. This early Persian influence on the northern Pontus would then have been lost and later restored in the run-up to Xerxes’ campaign against Hellas. In the context of this historical overview, it should be remembered that a) Achaemenid presence in this area is generally difficult to prove,27 probably not least because of the kind of Persian political and cultural influence that generally respected local conditions,28 and that b) the relationship between Greeks, Persians and other population groups in this area29 proceeded without major friction after Xerxes’ intervention.30 Possibly, then, the end of Archaeanactid rule and the rise of the Spartocids can be connected with temporary Athenian expansion into this area (cf. Plutarch Pericles 20); however, this was certainly not accompanied by the renunciation of Persian-inspired status symbols by the new masters (see below). How can the lekythos – as a locally produced or imported vessel – be integrated into these historical contexts? First of all, it should be noted that Achaemenid influence in art can also be noticed in metal objects from the 5th and 4th centuries as well as in glyptic art:31 the six examples of seals in the Achaemenid ‘court style’32 from Panticapaeum, of which the best-known piece with a ruler’s name, a date palm and the depiction of prisoners of war as well as a downed Egyptian prince can probably be attributed to the reign of Artaxerxes II,33 and a second of which shows the royal hero in battle with Greek hoplites,34 have probably rightly been associated with Achaemenid bailiffs or persons of the local elite with diverse cultural backgrounds.35 The first quarter of the 5th century also marks the beginning of a new phase of coinage in the Bosporan cities, which is characterised by clear Persian influence (in the coin standard and in the iconography).36 Incidentally, the coins of Panticapaeum show the eagle-headed griffin, also known from the lekythos, 26

Thus – with convincing arguments – Rollinger and Degen 2021, 202. Tuplin 2011. 28 Miller 2010; 2011. 29 We can only speak of Scythians here from the middle of the 5th century onwards (Tsetskhladze 2013, 208; 2021, 658). 30 Tsetskhladze 2021, 665. 31 On the 19 seals, cf. Tsetskhladze 2021, 661–62 (with literature). 32 Treister 2010, 251–56, nos. 3–6, 10, 16. 33 Boardman 2000, 159–60. 34 Treister 2010, no. 3. 35 L. Kren (lecture, Budapest, February 2022). 36 Fedoseev 1997, 311–12; Nieling 2010, 131. 27

94

JOSEF WIESEHÖFER

as an heraldic animal. As has been emphasised again recently, Achaemenid influence can also be discerned in the titulature of the Spartocids (cf. the title of basileus alongside that of an archon) as well as in the material and onomastic finds of the northern Black Sea region.37 The economic boom of the northern Pontus region, which can be traced from the 5th century onwards, is probably due not least to the export of grain. This is also reflected in the material evidence of Panticapaeum and other places (Olbia) and proves the economic connections of this region to Achaemenid-controlled Asia Minor as well as to the Aegean region and the steppe areas. Achaemenid interest in this area can be justified in a similar way: with the possibility above all of being able to gain access – directly or indirectly – to the human and economic resources of a larger space encompassing the Black Sea and the neighbouring areas. At the time when our lekythos was probably made, the Spartocids were lords of Panticapaeum. As we know, because of their importance for the supply of grain, they maintained intensive relations with Athens (and other parts of Hellas) in the 5th and 4th centuries. This importance was recognised by Athenian honours for the Spartocids, not least to the economic advantage of both sides (cf., for example, Demosthenes 20, 29–40; 34, 36; IG II3 1 298).38 These friendly relations could incidentally also explain the choice of one of the most famous artists of the time, the Athenian Xenophantos, for the creation of the luxury lekythos. Only a few years ago, it was once again made clear how skilfully and independently the Spartocids made use of the most diverse traditions of the Greek and Iranian cultural areas in their self-representation.39 But what about the Spartocids’ political-economic proximity to Athens and the Persian imagery of the lekythos? Are they not mutually exclusive? It has been rightly emphasised that even in Athens in the last quarter of the 5th century, the connection to Persia was politically and culturally both an object of dispute and a source of fascination, and that contempt for barbarians as an intellectual habitus only really became established in the 4th century.40 And around 390/80, Athenian-Persian relations were considerably more relaxed than during the final phase of the Peloponnesian War. For the Spartocids, the attraction of the Achaemenid model, as their self-styling and the archaeological evidence of the late 5th and 4th centuries prove, applied to an even greater extent: they were economically and culturally connected with both the IranianAchaemenid and the Greek (and Scythian) worlds, they also bordered politically on these spheres (or were even part of the Iranian-determined one [see 37 38 39 40

Tsetskhladze 2021, 661 (with older literature). For the relations between Athens and the Bosporan rulers, cf. Meyer 2013, chapter 4. Cf. Meyer 2013, chapter 4. Miller 2017 (with older literature).

XENOPHANTOS, THE SPARTOCIDS AND THE ACHAEMENID-PERSIAN REACH

95

below]), and, similar to the Macedonian Argeads,41 they found the only models for monarchical-representative behaviour and for refined court culture in the Achaemenids and their satrapal officials. As these Argeads, but also the city rulers of Cyprus, prove, it was possible to combine proximity to Athens with good relations with or dependence on the Great King. In fact, even at times of great political tension between Athens as the ruler of the East Aegean and the Great King in the 5th century, the boundaries between the two spheres of influence were always permeable, not least culturally. Whether or not the Spartocids in the 4th century, like the Cypriot city lords, were Persian subjects cannot be decided with certainty; however, the examples of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia should prevent us, as has rightly been emphasised,42 from lightly excluding this possibility. Moreover, the solution to this problem is also a question of perspective: in the Achaemenid empire, but also in the entire Aegean world and Black Sea region, the Persian kings’ claim to universal rule and their definition of borders and border lands was all too well known. Although often condemned as presumptuous and hubristic by Greek intellectuals, not least Herodotus, this Persian worldview, this Persian claim, was not to be doubted even in the eyes of those who lived on the borders of the royal Persian sphere of control. And in this worldview, as has just been convincingly demonstrated again,43 the border seas played a significant role, seas that in part also received their own characterisation by the Persian kings.44 The room for manoeuvre for one’s own actions, for one’s own self-expression, which the Persian kings granted to those in charge in these border regions, was great, as long as the interests of the Great King were not worked against. Accordingly, these rulers, including our Spartocids, had numerous opportunities to become active for their own benefit and that of their subjects: Perserie and good relations with Athens and other partners were therefore not mutually exclusive. IV. The lekythos, if it can be placed in this Spartocid context, could, like the seals and coins of the Bosporans, be evidence of the cultural and political openness and skilfulness of the Bosporan dynasts: for the purpose of displaying their own ruling behaviour, they engaged an outstanding artist from Athens. This 41 42 43 44

Müller 2016, passim (with older literature). Tsetskhladze 2021, 665. Rollinger and Degen 2021. Schmitt 1996; Rollinger and Degen 2021.

96

JOSEF WIESEHÖFER

man, Xenophantos, at the request of his patrons or anticipating Spartocid cultural preferences, created a vase that connects the elitist Iranian-Achaemenid worlds of imagination and probation with the Greek-mythical and Greekliterary world. The imagery of the lekythos knows how to underline the fascination of both worlds, the real and the imagined, in an original, aesthetically artistic Athenian-Xenophantic way for the glory of the Bosporan patrons. If the lekythos had found use for libation rituals after a successful hunt, then its imagery, in addition to wandering between different worlds, would also link the occasion and purpose of its use. At the same time, as the famous libation of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal over four slain lions proves,45 it would be part of a much older ancient Near Eastern tradition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Almagor, E. 2021: ‘Hunting and Leisure Activities’. In Jacobs, B. and Rollinger, R. (eds.), A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, vol. 2 (Hoboken, NJ), 1107–20. Avram, A. 2019: ‘Remarques sur l’inscription achéménide de Phanagoria’. In Tatomir, R.G. (ed.), East–West Dialogue: Individual and Society through Ages (Bucharest), 15–24. Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2004: ‘The Black Sea’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 924– 73. Boardman, J. 2000: Persia and the West (London). —. 2011: ‘Persia in Europe’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC (Colloquia Antiqua 1) (Leuven/ Paris/Walpole, MA), 195–201. Burstein, S.M. 2006: ‘The Greek Cities of the Black Sea’. In Kinzl, K.H. (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World (Oxford), 137–52. Fedoseev, N.F. 1997: ‘On the Achaemenid Influence on the Historical Development of the North Pontic Greek States’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 29, 309–19. Franks, H.M. 2009: ‘Hunting the Eschata: An Imagined Persian Empire on the Lekythos of Xenophantos’. Hesperia 78, 455–80. Fraser, P.M. and Matthews, E. (eds.) 2005: A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names IV: Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea (Oxford). Gorman, V.B. 2001: Miletos, the Ornament of Ionia. A History of the City to 400 B.C.E. (Ann Arbor). Hind, J.G.F. 1994: ‘The Bosporan Kingdom’. CAH VI.2, 476–511. King, R.R. 2021: The House of the Satrap and the Making of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 522–330 BCE (Dissertation, Chicago).

45

Strawn 2005, passim.

XENOPHANTOS, THE SPARTOCIDS AND THE ACHAEMENID-PERSIAN REACH

97

Kuznetsov, V.D. and Abramzon, M.G. 2021: The Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus (a Hoard from Phanagoria) (Colloquia Antiqua 34) (Leuven/ Paris/Bristol, CT). Lezzi-Hafter, A. 2008: ‘Clay, Gold, and Craft: Special Techniques in Three Vases by the Eretria Painter and their Apotheosis in Xenophantos’. In Lapatin, K. (ed.), Special Techniques in Athenian Vases (Los Angeles), 173–86. —. 2012: ‘The Xenophantos Chous from Kerch with Cypriot Themes’. In Schierup, S. and Bundgaard Rasmussen, B. (eds.), Red-Figure Pottery in its Ancient Setting (Enbom Workshop 2, 5–6 November 2009) (Copenhagen), 33–42. Llewellyn-Jones, L. 2013: King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BC (Edinburgh). Meyer, C. 2013: Greco-Scythian Art and the Birth of Eurasia (Oxford). Miller, M.C. 2003: ‘Art, Myth and Reality. Xenophantos’ Lekythos Re-Examined’. In Csapo, E. and Miller, M.C. (eds.), Poetry, Theory, Praxis: The Social Life of Art and Myth in Ancient Greece. Essays in Honour of William J. Slater (Oxford), 19–47. —. 2010: ‘Luxury Toreutic in the Western Satrapies: Court-Inspired Gift-Exchange Diffusion’. In Jacobs, B. and Rollinger, R. (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof – The Achaemenid Court (Classica et Orientalia 2) (Wiesbaden), 853–97. —. 2011: ‘Town and Country in the Satrapies of Western Anatolia: The Archaeology of Empire’. In Summerer, L., Ivantchik, I. and von Kienlin, A. (eds.), KelainaiApameia Kibotos: Développement urbain dans le contexte anatolien (Actes du colloque international, Munich, 2–4 avril 2009) (Kelainai 1) (Bordeaux), 319–44. —. 2017: ‘Quoting “Persia” in Athens’. In Strootman, R. and Versluys, M.J. (eds.), Persianism in Antiquity (Oriens et Occidens 25) (Stuttgart), 49–67. —. 2019: Persians in Attic Ceramics: A Catalogue (https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/ bitstream/handle/2123/21585/Persians%20in%20Attic%20Ceramic%20Catalogue.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y). Müller, S. 2016: Die Argeaden. Geschichte Makedoniens bis zum zeitalter Alexanders des Großen (Paderborn/Munich/Vienna). Nieling, J. 2010: ‘Persian Imperial Policy behind the Rise and Fall of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Last Quarter of the Sixth to the Beginning of the Fifth Century BC’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 123–36. Nieling, J. and Rehm, E. (eds.) 2010: Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea: Communication of Powers (Black Sea Studies 11) (Aarhus). Porucznik, J. 2021: Cultural Identity within the Northern Black Sea Region in Antiquity. (De)constructing Past Identities (Colloquia Antiqua 31) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT). Rollinger, R. and Degen, J. 2021: ‘Conceptualizing Universal Rulership: Consideration on the Achaemenid Persian Worldview and the Saka at the End of the World’. In Klinkott, H., Luther, A. and Wiesehöfer, J. (eds.), Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Iran und benachbarter Gebiete. Festschrift für Rüdiger Schmitt (Oriens et Occidens 36) (Stuttgart), 187–224. Rung, E. and Gabelko, O. 2019: ‘From Bosporus… to Bosporus. A New Interpretation and Historical Context of the Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoreia’. Iranica Antiqua 54, 83–125. Schmitt, R. 1978: The Iranian Names in Aeschylus (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora I) (Vienna). —. 1996: ‘Considerations on the Name of the Black Sea. What Can the Historian Learn from It?’. In Leschhorn, W., Miron, A.V.B. and Miron, A. (eds.), Hellas und der

98

JOSEF WIESEHÖFER

griechische Osten. Studien zur Geschichte und Numismatik der griechischen Welt. Festschrift für Peter Robert Franke zum 70. Geburtstag (Saarbrücken), 219–24. —. 2002: Die iranischen und Iranier-Namen in den Xenophons (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora II) (Vienna). —. 2019: ‘Reflections on Two New Old Persian Inscriptions (Phanagoreia, Naqš-i Rustam)’. Nartamongae 14, 34–49. Shavarebi, E. 2019: ‘An Inscription of Darius I at Phanagoria: Preliminary Report of a Work in Progress’. Arta 2019.005 (http://www.achemenet.com/pdf/arta/ ARTA_2019.005_Shavarebi.pdf). Strawn, B.A. 2005: What Is Stronger than a Lion?: Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 212) (Fribourg/Göttingen). Treister, M.Y. 2010: ‘“Achaemenid” and “Achaemenid-Inspired” Goldware and Silverware, Jewellery and Arms and their Imitations to the North of the Achaemenid Empire’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 223–79. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1994: ‘Greek Penetration of the Black Sea’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and De Angelis, F. (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman (Oxford), 111–35. —. 2010: ‘“Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts”: Gifts, Tribute, Bribery and Cultural Contacts in the Greek Colonial World’. In Rollinger, R., Gufler, B., Lang, M. and Madreiter, I. (eds.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt: Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts (Philippika 34) (Wiesbaden), 41–61. —. 2013: ‘The Greek Bosporan Kingdom: Regionalism and Globalism in the Black Sea’. In De Angelis, F. (ed.), Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity: Exploring their Limits (Colloquia Antiqua 7) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 201–28. —. 2019: ‘An Achaemenid Inscription from Phanagoreia: Extending the Boundaries of Empire’. Ancient West and East 18, 113–51. —. 2021: ‘The Northern Black Sea’. In Jacobs, B. and Rollinger, R. (eds.), A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, vol. 1 (Hoboken, NJ), 657–70. Tuplin, C.J. 1996: Achaemenid Studies (Historia Einzelschriften 99) (Stuttgart). —. 2010: ‘Revisiting Darius’ Scythian Expedition’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 281–312. —. 2011: ‘The Limits of Persianization: Some Reflections on Cultural Links in the Persian Empire’. In Gruen, E.S. (ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Los Angeles), 150–82. Wiesehöfer, J. 2021: ‘Persian Paradeisoi’. In Balatti, S., Klinkott, H. and Wiesehöfer, J. (eds.), Paleopersepolis: Environment, Landscape and Society in Ancient Fars (Oriens et Occidens 33) (Stuttgart), 79–93.

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE ELITE CULTURE OF THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS Yuriy A. VINOGRADOV

Abstract The elite culture of the Cimmerian Bosporus can be studied almost exclusively on the basis of materials obtained during excavations of kurgans. These burial structures reflect the centuries-old path of the historical development of the Bosporan aristocracy. They allow us to judge the cultural influences outgoing from various states and peoples. Illustrative elite burials appear in the Bosporus only around the middle of the 5th century BC. They also include single Persian imports. The number of such items increases markedly during the power of Spartocids. In terms of the number of Persian seals found, the Bosporus is far superior to other Greek states of the northern Black Sea region. Achaemenid influences can also be traced in other materials from elite burials. Particularly indicative in this respect is the burial mound near the village of Baksy, in which one of the founders of the Bosporan state, Satyrus I, may have been buried. It is possible that the connections of the Bosporus with the Achaemenid power under the early Spartocids were very intense and developed at a very high level.

The culture of the elite of the Cimmerian Bosporus is a highly complex and distinctive phenomenon. Throughout its centuries-old history, it has experienced strong influences emanating from various countries and from various peoples. The state of archaeological resources is such that it is possible to study the culture of the Bosporan elite almost exclusively on the basis of materials from burials – numerous mounds located on the banks of the Kerch Strait. The not very expressive remains of palaces, country villas, etc., which archaeologists discover during excavations, cannot be compared with them in terms of information content. Interest in the study of the connections of the Cimmerian Bosporus with Achaemenid power has intensified in recent years, stimulated by an important archaeological find made during the excavation of Phanagoria: a fragment of an ancient Persian inscription with mention of the name of Darius.1 Some specialists consider it as evidence of submission of the Bosporus to the Persian

1

Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2018.

100

YURIY A. VINOGRADOV

king.2 Such a possibility, of course, cannot be ruled out, but it may have another explanation.3 For a bettеr understanding of the situation, it is very important to pay attention to the culture of the Bosporan elite. It is necessary to know to what extent Persian influences are manifested in it. It must be admitted that funerary monuments, which can be confidently considered as elite, appear on the Bosporus rather late, not until the middle of the 5th century BC,4 i.e. during the reign of the Archaeanactids. These burials are characterised by a mixture of Greek and local barbarian cultural elements.5 The most numerous and representative group of such burials is concentrated in the vicinity of Nymphaeum.6 In one of the tombs of this necropolis, which can be dated to the middle of the 5th century BC, a finger-ring with a seal was found.7 On one part of it, a cow with a heifer is depicted, and on the reverse side there is a winged solar disc, which can be considered a symbol of Ahura Mazda. Special attention should be paid to this find, because later the number of such artefacts will grow. In 438/7 BC, as we know, Spartocus gained power in the Bosporus (Diodorus 12. 31. 1). It is long established that his name is Thracian.8 For this reason, some scholars still believe that he came from Thrace,9 but this hypothesis is difficult to support with other facts.10 At the same time, there is no doubt he received power in the Greek colonial polis, and initially it was a polis tyranny.11 However, if this tyrant is considered a native of Thrace, then we have to admit that he brought with him an idea of power which was not characteristic only of the Greek world. At that time, the Odrysian kingdom already existed on the territory of Thrace.12 On the one hand, it was under the strong influence of Hellas, and on the other hand, of the Persian state. It is hardly worth delving into the problem of the possible existence of a Thracian satrapy within the Achaemenid empire.13 Even if this hypothesis is incorrect,14 strong

2

Kuznetsov 2018; Tsetskhladze 2018, 475–83. Balakhvantsev 2018. 4 Vakhtina 2017. 5 Vinogradov 2019, 4–5. 6 Silanteva 1959; Grach 1999, 175–78. 7 Silanteva 1959, 56, fig. 24.2. 8 See Gajdukevič 1971, 65–67. 9 Y.G. Vinogradov 1983, 418; Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 83–85; Tokhtasev 1992, 181; Krykin 1993, 101–04; Molev 1997, 48. 10 Vasilev 1977; Popova 2007. 11 Zavoikin 2007, 220; 2013, 437–38. 12 Zlatkovskaya 1971; Archibald 1998. 13 Hammond 1980. 14 Zlatkovskaya 1971, 23. 3

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

101

Persian influence on the political and cultural development of the Thracian world can hardly be disputed.15 The successors of Spartocus, Satyrus I and Leucon I, united under their rule all poleis of the Cimmerian Bosporus, and annexed to their possessions Theodosia and some barbarian tribes in the Kuban region. So at the turn of the 5th/4th centuries BC the Graeco-barbarian Bosporan state was created.16 One gets the impression that the Spartocids, when creating it, borrowed something from the rulers of Persia. The political experience of this world power could have been useful for them, and the culture of the Persian elite seemed very attractive.17 Perhaps it is for this reason that such a large number of Achaemenid cylinder seals are concentrated in the Bosporus, beyond comparison with finds from other Greek states of the northern Black Sea region.18 Some of these seals were clearly made by the Greeks,19 but this fact may indicate the strength of a cultural tradition in which possession of an object of this kind was considered highly prestigious. It is not difficult to understand that Achaemenid influence in the Bosporus manifests itself not only in Persian imports themselves. In this regard, it is worth paying attention to a well-known vase found in one of the Bosporan mounds. LARGE LEKYTHOS OF XENOPHANTOS The vase with the signature of the Athenian master Xenophantos was found in 1836; it dates to about 380 BC (Fig. 1).20 The vessel depicts a scene of fantastic hunting. There are good reasons to believe that this is a hunting scene of heroes (dead and resurrected heroes!) in the paradise of the Afterlife. Who are these heroes? The names of some of them are marked on the vessel. The main character riding the chariot is the Persian satrap Abrokomas. He died, as one might suppose, just about 380 (the time when the vessel was made). There are also two Persian kings – Cyrus and Darius. It is clear that the meeting of two kings could only be in the Afterlife. The vase also depicts two noble Persians 15

See Brosius 2010, 31–32; Gergova 2010; Rehm 2010. See Zavoikin 2013. 17 Vinogradov 2017a, 118–21; 2019, 6–7. 18 Fedoseev 1997, 310; Treister 2010, 251–56; 2011, 119; 2013, 356. 19 Minns 1913, 410–12. 20 Beazley 1963, 1407; Schefold 1934, 70; Peredolskaya 1945, 47–56; Zervoudaki 1968, 26; Gorbunova and Saverkina 1975, 57: Tiverios 1997; Skrzhinskaya 2000; Boardman 2001, 105, 152; Vinogradov 2006; 2007. 16

102

YURIY A. VINOGRADOV

Fig. 1. Large lekythos of Xenophantus (the State Hermitage Museum, inv. P. 1837.2).

(Atrames and Seisames), who died at the Battle of Salamis in 480, as Aeschylus recounted in his tragedy The Persians (318, 322). Two horned griffins are represented on the composition. Such monsters are often called Bosporan, since they can be seen on Bosporan gold coins of the 4th century BC.21 There can hardly be any doubt that the vessel was made for a Bosporan customer.22 On the lekythos there are also images of Hellenes, but they are on the far periphery of the ornamental composition of the vessel, and are depicted not in relief (progressive) technique, but in red-figure. These are two Argonauts – Clytias and Euryalus.23 It should be noted that all the characters are named in pairs – two kings, two Persian heroes, two Argonauts – though only one satrap Abrokomas (but it cannot be otherwise, since he has just joined the community of heroes who had left their earthly life earlier). Bosporan sympathies for Persia, 21 22 23

Zograf 1951, 171–76; Shelov 1956, 91–96; 1978, 79–82; Frolova 2002. Boardman 2001, 152. Vinogradov 2006, 138–39, 152; 2007, 28, 44–45.

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

103

as we see, manifested themselves even in the images on the Athenian painter’s vase. The importance of a special study of Persian imports is quite obvious, but even more important, in my opinion, is the study of the archaeological complexes from which they originate. In this regard, three female burials discovered in the eastern Crimea in the 19th century are very informative (Cape Pavlovskii – 1842; Panticapaeum – 1854; Temir-Gora – 1869). BURIALS OF BOSPORAN PRIESTESSES The burial discovered by A.B. Ashik on Cape Pavlovskii near Kerch in 1842 is very interesting.24 In the history of Bosporan archaeology, this place is well known thanks to the mound excavated in 1858.25 The rich burial found there most likely belonged to a priestess.26 After this remarkable discovery, the mound of 1842 was almost forgotten, but it deserves very serious attention. It may also be priestly. Some objects from this mound were published in the famous edition of the Antiquities of the Cimmerian Bosporus in 1854.27 A wooden sarcophagus was found in the crypt, which contained the burial of a woman. She had gold earrings with pendants covered with gold plate. At her right hand lay a gold ring depicting a seated female figure (Fig. 2.1). At first glance, this find is no different from the ring found in a female tomb discovered in Kerch in 1854 (it will be discussed in more detail below).28 At the left hand lay another ring with a seal. An image of two sphinxes facing each other was carved on the carnelian, with a Lydian inscription between them (Fig. 2.2).29 One glance at this image is enough to conclude that it is a Persian import. The ring is dated to the 5th century BC. A carnelian cylinder on a gold chain with a heraldic composition carved on it was found near the neck of the buried woman (Fig. 2.3–4). A standing figure of the Persian king is depicted in the centre of the composition, he holds two

24

Vinogradov 2020. See Gajdukevič 1971, 274–75; Grinevich 1952, 133–38; Artamonov 1966, 67; Williams and Ogden 1995, 166–71; Kalashnik 2007b; Vinogradov, Zinko and Smekalova 2012, 19–32. 26 Gajdukevič 1971, 275; Schaub 2007, 342–43; Vinogradov, Zinko and Smekalova 2012, 31. 27 DBK, 60, 116–18, table XVI.5, 6, 10; 130, table XVIII.9; Reinach 1892, 59, table XVI.5, 6, 10. 28 Williams and Ogden 1995, 158, cat. 98; Kalashnik 2007a, 147, cat. 54; Vinogradov 2017b, 27–30. 29 DBK, table XVI.10; Minns 1913, 411, fig. 298; Nikulina 1994, 85, ill. 447; Piotrovskiy 2004, 31, cat. 12; Boardman 1970, 351, pl. 834; Treister 2010, 253, cat. 5. 25

104

YURIY A. VINOGRADOV

Fig. 2. Finds from burials of Bosporan priestesses (1–5 – after DBK; 6 – drawing of F.I. Gross, Scientific Archive of the Institute for History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, r. I, d. 693, l. 3)

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

105

sphinxes by the front legs with both hands. Above the king’s head is the symbol of Ahura Mazda. In the background is a palm tree, below it is a demon. There is no doubt that this item, like the carnelian ring, was produced in some workshop of the Achaemenid kingdom. It is dated to the 5th century BC.30 In addition to the rings, three golden lion heads were found near the woman’s hands. The compilers of the Antiquities of the Cimmerian Bosporus considered that these were the tips of a gold torque.31 This does not correspond to reality in any way, and not only because such an object is inappropriate in a female burial. There were not two heads, which would be normal for a torque, but three. In addition, they were located not in the neck, but near the hands of the woman. All these facts give grounds to assert that the woman’s hands were adorned with a pair of bracelets ending in the form of lion heads, one of which was lost.32 Such bracelets became popular in the Greek world after the campaigns of Alexander the Great, but they appeared earlier in the regions most exposed to Persian influence.33 One of these areas was the Bosporus. It is extremely significant that two more female burials are known in the Bosporus, in which there were a pairs of bracelets with endings in the form of lion heads. One of them is the above-mentioned Panticapaeum tomb of 1854.34 It can be dated to the end of the first quarter of the 4th century BC.35 It is also related to the burial of 1842 by the presence of a very similar golden ring with the image of a seated woman, and another ring on which a seated Persian is represented (Fig. 2.5), so there is a Persian motif also. Another burial of this kind was discovered in 1869 at Temir-Gora.36 It was a cremation, which dates to the end of the 5th–beginning of the 4th century BC. E.V. Yakovenko believed that a wealthy Scythian woman was buried there.37 In the cremation were two bronze bracelets covered with gold; their ends were decorated with lion head (Fig. 2.6).38 Parts of a gold necklace and beautiful carved stones were discovered here also. These finds in its own way brings three complexes together, although in the latter case they lack any Persian symbolism.

30 DBK, table XVI.5, 6; Minns 1913, 411, fig. 298; Nikulina 1994, 82, 84, ill. 426; Piotrovskiy 2004, 30, cat. 10; Teister 2010, 252–53, cat. 4. 31 DBK, 60. 32 Vinogradov 2020, 151–52. 33 Hoffmann and Davidson 1966, 2. 34 Williams and Ogden 1995, 156, cat. 96; Kalashnik 2007a. 35 Vinogradov 2017b, 29. 36 Yakovkenko 1977; Vinogradov 2017a, 167–68. 37 Yakovkenko 1977, 145. 38 Hoffmann and Davidson 1966, 169, fig. 61c.

106

YURIY A. VINOGRADOV

Based on these analogies, as well as on the dating of the gold ring and Persian seals given above, the time of the construction of the tomb of Cape Pavlovskii (1842) can be presumably determined within the limits of the end of the 5th–beginning of the 4th century BC. Thus, we have to admit that, in Panticapaeum and its environs, three relatively rich female burials were made almost simultaneously, which were to a large extent similar to each other. Their most striking feature is the presence of a pair of Persian-style bracelets with ends in the form of lion heads, as well as carved stones. The presence of three similar burials is a lot for Bosporan archaeology, and such a feature, of course, needs to be explained. It is unlikely that it should be looked for exclusively in the sphere of fashion’s whim; there is clearly a certain kinship here. This kinship was not ethnic. As said above, Yakovenko considered the tomb on Temir-Gora to be Scythian, which is hardly true. We should not think about family kinship, considering these tombs as burials of relatives (for instance, of three sisters). Such romantic but unprovable hypotheses are not productive. So what should be the explanation for the similarity of these archaeological complexes? Perhaps in the sphere of social responsibility that the three highranking ladies performed during their lifetime? Interest in the aristocratic culture of the Cimmerian Bosporus has increased significantly of late. For many years it was peripheral for Soviet and Russian scholars, thus the change should be recognised as highly significant. The complexity, one might say, the phenomenality of the culture of the Bosporan elite requires the closest attention, which will allow us to come closer to an adequate understanding of many fundamentally important moments in the cultural and historical development of the Bosporus. Until recently, among the burial mounds located along the shores of the Kerch Strait, the attention of specialists was attracted by military complexes or burials of representatives of the native nobility. This, of course, is very important, but far from sufficient. The elite burial culture is not limited to these categories of monument. I.Y. Schaub made a very productive attempt to single out the signs of funerary monuments of the Bosporan priesthood.39 In the pantheon of gods worshipped on the shores of the strait, the Great Goddess, who could act in the form of Aphrodite, Athena, Demeter, etc., was of fundamental import. Accordingly, the servants of this cult were of key importance among the priesthood of the Bosporan state. In this respect, it is tempting to associate the three burials mentioned above with the sphere of sacred service. Of course, they cannot be set in one row with the magnificent monuments in which the buried women were likened to the Great Goddess: Kul-Oba, Bolshaya Bliznitsa, the Three 39

Schaub 2017.

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

107

Brothers barrows, etc. They do not contain such demonstrative symbols of priestly service as sacral headdress, gold strigils, pectorals, cult vessels, etc. But they contain bracelets, the sacred meaning of which cannot be in doubt.40 We should in no way be embarrassed by the fact that the three Panticapaeum tombs look rather modest in comparison with other richest barrows of the Cimmerian Bosporus, The fact is that they are relatively early. It is well known that Bosporan elite burials of the first half of the 4th century BC are not very rich; almost incredible luxury is characteristic of the complexes of the second half of the century. In this regard, one can point to a relatively modest burial in Malaya Bliznitsa (approximately the middle of the 4th century BC),41 its difference from the later and richer mound Bolshaya Bliznitsa located nearby.42 If we admit that three described tombs belong to the priestesses, then the question arises about the regularity of their location in the territorial organisation of the Bosporan state under the early Spartocids. The importance of priestly burials appears quite obvious.43 It seems that priestess, even after death, had to protect the main territory of the newly created Bosporan state. It is significant that in all these burials, to a greater or lesser extent, precious objects associated with Persian cultural influence are present. The literature often talks about the importance of barrow burials for understanding the social structure of ancient societies. The burials of rulers, including those in the Bosporus, in this respect could serve as symbols of the strength and unity of the state, the continuity of power in it, etc. Less often, attention is focused on the issue that burial mounds are markers of some sacred space. They clearly demonstrate the connection between the world of the living and the world of the dead.44 The burials of heroised or even deified rulers of the state were surrounded by special reverence. The deceased kings were considered the protectors and intercessors of their subjects before the gods. The question of interest to us, however, is related to the presence of Persian artefacts in burial mounds of the highest social rank. In this regard, the barrow near the village of Baksy (environs of Kerch) is especially important. One of the earliest monumental stone crypts with a corbelled vault was discovered here (Fig. 3).

40 41 42 43 44

Schaub 2017, 297. Vinogradov 2004, 102. Gajdukevič 1971, 296–300; Schwarzmaier 1996; Kalashnik 2007c, 269–70. Rogov 2000, 96. Savostina 1990; Rusyaeva 2000.

108

YURIY A. VINOGRADOV

Fig. 3. Crypt of the Baksy Kurgan (drawing of F.I. Gross, Scientific Archive of the Institute for History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, r. I, d. 569, l. 7).

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

109

BAKSY KURGAN This kurgan was erected on a hill, located in the middle of a wide valley near the village of Baksy (modern Glazovka). The location was not chosen by chance. It is perfectly visible from the crossing of the Kerch Strait, from ancient Porthmeus. A beautiful view of the strait and the Asian part of the Bosporus opens up from the top of the barrow. Excavations were carried out here in 1882 and 1883 under the guidance of the famous archaeologist N.P. Kondakov. Their results are described in sufficient detail in special publications.45 One can only pay attention to the fact that this mound was 10.6 m high, and according to its external parameters, it can be classified as royal. The burial was made in a stone crypt with a corbelled vault (Fig. 3). The dimensions of the burial chamber were 4.16 × 3.55 m (14.55 m²); its height reached 5.35 m. A dromos led to the chamber from the west, but for some reason its masonry was destroyed. The body of the deceased was placed in a wooden sarcophagus decorated with carvings, as well as with bone and amber inserts. According to Kondakov, among these decorations there was a ‘symbolic image of an Egyptian solar winged disc made of painted plywood’.46 This image is unique for Bosporan sarcophagi. Of course, it is more logical to associate it not with Egyptian, but with Achaemenid influence, since the winged solar disc entered the symbolism of the supreme Persian deity Ahura Mazda. Kondakov, unfortunately, did not pay attention to this find: it was not taken for the museum collection and he did not even make a drawing of it. It is worth recalling that the image of the ‘winged solar disc’ is presented on a finger-ring from an earlier mound excavated near Nymphaeum.47 Inside the sarcophagus were two wooden staffs, a strigil, a sword with a handle covered with gold, several gold plaques, etc. It is extremely curious that there was no skeleton in it. Next to the sarcophagus were burials of three horses, as well as a Greek wine amphora and a beautiful red-figured pelike. Kondakov discovered fragments of a large red-figure krater in the mound, which can be dated to the end of the 5th century BC or maybe a little later.48 In addition, Thasian amphora stamps were found in the mound. Y. Garlan came to the conclusion that these finds should be dated to 380 BC with a deviation of five years in one direction or the other.49 According to V.I. Kats,

45 46 47 48 49

Vinogradov 2014a; 2014b; 2017a, 148–53. Vinogradov 2014a, 513. Silanteva 1959, 56, fig. 24.4. Shefton 1982, 149; 1992, 248; Braund 2009. Garlan 1992.

110

YURIY A. VINOGRADOV

they belong to groups B and C, i.e. dated from the mid-390s to the mid-370s.50 All these finds allow us to assume that funeral feasts on the barrow were held during the first quarter of the 4th century BC. Among the finds from the crypt, only a red-figure pelike is well dated, which is attributed to the end of the 5th century BC.51 It can be assumed that the burial in the crypt was made at the beginning of the 4th century BC, most likely not later than the first two decades of the century. The Thasian amphora stamps of group C (according to Kats), found in the mound, go somewhat beyond this date, but, as mentioned above, they should be associated with memorial feasts, and such ceremonies could be held several years after burial. Despite the absence of especially precious items in the crypt, there are good reasons to believe that the Baksy Kurgan belonged to one of the highest-ranking officials of the Bosporan kingdom.52 It can be interpreted as royal. B. Shefton suggested that the chronological attribution of this burial could best correspond to Satyrus I, who did a lot to expand his possessions and died in 389/8 BC.53 It is quite possible to agree with this interpretation. The burial in the mound near Baksy has a pronounced Graeco-barbarian character (recall the burial in the crypt of three horses). If Shefton’s proposal is correct, then the hypothesis of the non-Greek origin of the Spartocid dynasty may receive additional support. In this regard, attention should be paid to some of the most unordinary objects found in the crypt, first of all, to the decoration of a wooden sarcophagus in the form of a plaque with a carved image of a solar disc. Once again, it should be repeated that that there can hardly be any doubt that this image is associated with the imperial symbolism of the Persian kings. Almost 70 years after the excavations of Kondakov, near this mound, research was undertaken under the guidance of V.F. Gaidukevich. Then there were found gold plaques in the form of lion heads (Fig. 4) and rosettes, also made in the Persian style.54 V.I. Pruglo assumed that these plaques were made in one of the workshops of Panticapaeum, where Graeco-Persian craftsmen apparently worked.55 Gaidukevich fully agreed with this point of view.56 M.Y. Treister interprets the lion-head plaques in a different way: he believes 50

Kats 2007, 414. Beazley 1963, 1346, no 1; Gorbunova and Peredolskaya 1961, 107, fig. 52; Peredolskaya 1971, 54. 52 Rostovtsev 1925, 395; Shefton 1982, 155. 53 Shefton 1992, 249. 54 Pruglo 1963; Gajdukevič 1971, 141, Abb. 25; Shefton 1982, 154; Triester 2013. 55 Pruglo 1963, 77–78. 56 Gajdukevič 1971, 141. 51

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

111

Fig. 4. Gold plaques from the Baksy Kurgan (after Gajdukevič 1971).

that they were not of Panticapaean but of Achaemenid origin. On this occasion, he concludes: We are talking not just about Achaemenid products, but about works of the ‘palace style’, i.e. most likely the products of one of the central workshops of the Achaemenid state. These are also the only finds of their kind in the burial mounds of the northern Black Sea region.57

Materials from the Baksy Kurgan demonstrate other features that should be noted. I repeat once again that the bones of the deceased were absent from the sarcophagus found here. It is very likely that they were removed from the crypt as part of a special funeral ritual,58 but this subject deserves separate consideration. CONCLUSION Treister, who has made special study of Achaemenid ‘imports’ in the Bosporus, supposed that they may testify both to trade contacts and diplomatic relations, including visits to the Bosporus by official representatives of the Achaemenid state, and their concentration confirms the high intensity of such ties and even global (for its time) significance in the framework of the contacts of the Persian state with its northern neighbours and the nomadic world of Eurasia.59

In terms of the number of Persian objects and their imitations, the Bosporus far surpasses other Greek states of the northern Black Sea region. All these finds seem to suggest the existence of a serious Persian influence on the first 57 58 59

Treister 2013, 350. Vinogradov 2014b, 529–32. Treister 2011, 119; 2013, 356.

112

YURIY A. VINOGRADOV

Spartocids and on the state they created. This influence, of course, could manifest itself not only in the sphere of culture. There is almost no doubt that the contacts between Persia and the Bosporus took place at a very high level. Sympathy for the Achaemenid empire in the Bosporus, as can be seen, was very strong, which did not prevent Bosporan rulers from maintaining friendly relations with the Greek world, above all with democratic Athens. J. Boardman vainly believes that Persian influence on the culture of the Greeks was preserved only in Macedonia.60 In my opinion, it is no less obvious in the Bosporus. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviation DBK

Drevnosti Bospora Kimmeriyskogo (St Petersburg 1854).

Archibald, Z.H. 1998: The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace (Oxford). Artamonov, M.I. 1966: Sokrovishcha skifskikh kurganov v sobranii Ermitazha (Prague/ Leningrad). Balakhvantsev, A.S. 2018: ‘Bospor i Akhemenidy’. In Bosporskii fenomen: obshchee i osobennoe v istoriko-kulturnom prostranstve antichnogo mira, vol. 1 (St Petersburg), 61–65. Beazley, J.D. 1963: Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed. (Oxford). Boardman, J. 1970: Greek Gems and Finger Rings Early Bronze Age to Late Classical (London). —. 2001: The History of Greek Vases. Potters, Painters and Pictures (London). —. 2011: ‘Persia in Europe’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC (Colloquia Antiqua 1) (Leuven/ Paris/Walpole, MA), 195–201. Braund, D.C. 2009: ‘The Baksy Krater, Teutaros and Heraklion: Heracles and the Scythian Bow in Graeco-Scythian Art and Culture(s)’. In Bosporskii fenomen: iskusstvo na periferii antichnogo mira (St Petersburg), 113–25. Brosius, M. 2010: ‘Pax Persica and the Peoples of the Black Sea Region: Extent and Limits of Achaemenid Imperial Ideology’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 29–40. Fedoseev, N.F. 1997: ‘Zum achämenidischen Einfluß auf die historische Entwicklung der nordpontischen griechischen Staaten’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 29, 309–19. Frolova, N.A. 2002: ‘Katalog zolotykh staterov Pantikapeya 4 v. do n.e.’. Drevnosti Bospora 5, 286–302. Gajdukevič, V.F. 1971: Das Bosporanische Reich (Berlin). Garlan, Y. 1992: ‘Les timbres amphoriques thasiens trouvés à Baksi’. In Froning, H., Hölscher, T. and Mielsch, H. (eds.), Kotinos. Festchrift für Erika Simon (Mainz), 250–51. 60

Boardman 2011, 199.

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

113

Gergova, D. 2010: ‘Orphic Thrace and Achaemenid Persia’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 67–86. Gorbunova, K.S. and Peredolskaya, A.A. 1961: Mastera grecheskikh raspisnykh vaz. (Leningrad). Gorbunova, X. and Saverkina, I. 1975: Greek and Roman Antiquities in the Hermitage (Leningrad). Grach, N.L. 1999: Nekropol’ Nimfeya (St Petersburg). Grinevich, K.E. 1952: ‘Yuz-Oba (Bosporskiy mogil’nik 4 veka do n.e.)’. In Gaydukevich, V.F. (ed.), Arkheologiya i istoriya Bospora, vol. 1 (Simferopol), 129–47. Hammond, N.G.L. 1980: ‘The Extent of Persian Occupation in Thrace’. Chiron 10, 53–61. Hoffmann, H. and Davidson, P.F. 1966: Greek Gold: Jewellery from the Age of Alexander (Exhibition Catalogue) (New York). Kalashnik, Y. 2007a: ‘Necropolis of Pantikapaion. Slab tomb’. In Trofimova 2007, 147–51. —. 2007b: ‘Pavlovsky kurgan’. In Trofimova 2007, 261–67. —. 2007c: ‘Great Bliznitsa Kurgan’. In Trofimova 2007, 269–81. Kats, V.I. 2007: Grecheskiye keramicheskiye kleyma epokhi klassiki i ellinizma (opyt kompleksnogo izucheniya) (= Bosporskie Issledovaniya 18) (Simferopol/Kerch). Krykin, S.M. 1993: Frakiytsy v antichnom Severnom Prichernomor’e (Moscow). Kuznetsov, V.D. 2018: ‘Bospor Kimmeriyskiy v 5 v. do n.e. (drevnepersidskaya nadpis’ iz Fanagorii)’. In Kuznetsov, V.D. (ed.), Fanagoriya: Rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 6 (Moscow), 160–85. Kuznetsov, V.D. and Nikitin, A.B. 2018: ‘Drevnepersidskaya nadpis’ iz Fanagorii’. In Kuznetsov, V.D. (ed.), Fanagoriya: Rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 6 (Moscow), 154–59. Minns, E.H. 1913: Scythians and Greeks: A Survey of Ancient History and Archaeology on the North Coast of the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus (Cambridge). Molev, E.A. 1997: Politicheskaya istoriya Bospora v 6–4 vv. do n.e. (Nizhny Novgorod). Nieling, J. and Rehm. E. (eds.) 2010: Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea: Communication of Powers (Black Sea Studies 11) (Aarhus). Nikulina, N.M. 1994: Iskusstvo Ionii i akhemenidskogo Irana. Po materialam gliptiki 5–4 vv. do n.e. (Moscow). Peredolskaya, A.A. 1945: ‘Vazy Ksenofanta’. Trudy Otdela antichnogo mira Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 1, 47–67. —. 1971: ‘Kto zhe raspisal peliku iz Baksy?’. In Gorbunova, A.A. (ed.), Kul’tura i iskusstvo antichnogo vremeni (Leningrad), 45–56. Piotrovskiy, M.B. (ed.) 2004: Iran v Ermitazhe. Formirovaniye kollektsii. Katalog vystavki (St Petersburg). Popova, R. 2007: ‘Spartocus – the Ancestor of the Bosporan Dynasty’. Thracia 17, 173–82. Pruglo, V.I. 1963: ‘Zolotyye ukrasheniya zverinogo stilya iz Baksinskogo kurgana’. Kratkiye soobshcheniya o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh Odesskogo gosudarstvennogo arkheologicheskogo muzeya 1961 goda (Odessa), 72–78. Rehm, E. 2010: ‘The Impact of the Achaemenids on Thrace: A Historical Review’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 137–60.

114

YURIY A. VINOGRADOV

Reinach, S. 1892: Antiquités du Bospore Cimmérien (Paris). Rogov, E.Y. 2000: ‘Stoletiye otkrytiya podstennogo sklepa 1012 v Khersonese’. Stratum Plus 3, 88–97. Rostovtsev, M.I. 1925: Skifiya i Bospor (Leningrad). Rusyaeva, A.S. 2000: ‘Kurgany Ol’vii kak simvol ee slavy i sakral’noy okhrany’. Arkheologicheskie vesti 7, 106–11. Savostina, E.A. 1990: ‘Sakral’noye prostranstvo i pogrebal’nyy obryad bosporskikh grobnits’. In Ivanov, V.V. and Nevskaya, L.G. (eds.), Issledovaniya v oblasti balto-slavyanskoy dukhovnoy kul’tury. Pogrebal’nyy obryad (Moscow), 237–48. Schwarzmaier, A. 1996: ‘Die Gräber in der Blisniza und ihre Datierung’. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 111, 105–37. Shaub, I.Y. 2007: Mif, kul’t, ritual v Severnom Prichernomor’ye (7–4 vv. do n.e.) (St Petersburg). —. 2017: ‘Bosporskoye zhrechestvo’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 34, 288–324. Schefold, K. 1934: Untersuchungen zu den kertscher Vasen (Berlin/Leipzig). Shefton, B. 1982. ‘The krater from Baksy’. In Kurtz, D. and Sparkes, B. (eds.), The Eye of Greece. Studies in the Art of Athens (Cambridge), 149–82. —. 1992: ‘The Baksy Krater once more and some observations on the East Pedium of the Parthenon’. In Froning, H., Hölscher, T. and Mielsch, H. (eds.), Kotinos. Festschrift für Erika Simon (Mainz), 241–50. Shelov, D.B. 1956: Monetnoye delo Bospora v 6–2 vv. do n.e. (Moscow). —. 1978: Coinage of the Bosporus VI–II Centuries BC (BAR International Series 46) (Oxford). Shelov-Kovedyayev, F.V. 1985: ‘Istoriya Bospora v 6–5 vv. do n.e.’. In Novoseltsev A.P. (ed.), Drevneyshiye gosudarstva na territorii SSSR, 1984 (Moscow), 5–187. Silanteva, L.F. 1959: ‘Nekropol’ Nimfeya’. In Nekropoli bosporskikh gorodov (Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 69) (Moscow), 5–107. Skrzhinskaya, M.V. 2000: ‘Xenophantos, an Artisan of Athens’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 6.3–4, 281–25. Tiverios, M. 1997: ‘Die von Xenophantos Athenaios signierte grosse Lekythos aus Pantikapaion: Alte Funde neu betrachtet’. In Oakley, J.H., Coulstone, W.D.E. and Palagia, O. (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters (Oxford), 269–84. Tokhtasev, S.R. 1992: ‘Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. II. Frakiyskiye imena na Bospore’. In Gavrilov, A.V. (ed.), Etyudy po antichnoy istorii i kul’ture Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (St Petersburg), 178–99. Treister, M.Y. 2010: ‘“Achaemenid” and “Achaemenid-inspired” Goldware and Silverware, Jewellery and Arms and their Imitations to the North of the Achaemenid Empire’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 223–79. —. 2011: ‘Akhemenidskiye “importy” na Bospore Kimmeriyskom. Analiz i interpretatsiya’. In Bosporskii fenomen: Naselenie, yazyki, kontakty (St Petersburg), 113–21. —. 2013: ‘Zolotyye blyashki akhemenidskogo stilya iz kurgana Baksy v Vostochnom Krymu’. Drevnosti Bospora 17, 345–60. Trofimova, A.A. (ed.) 2007: Greeks on the Black Sea: Ancient Art from the Hermitage (Exhibition Catalogue) (Los Angeles). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2018: ‘“The Most Marvellous of all Seas”: The Great King and the Cimmerian Bosporus’. In Pavúk, P., Klontza-Jaklová, V. and Harding, A.

ACHAEMENID ELEMENTS IN THE CIMMERIAN BOSPORUS

115

(eds.), ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ: Studies in Honour of Jan Bouzek (Opera Facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 18) (Prague), 467–90. Vakhtina, M.Y. 2017: ‘Bosporskaya elita do epokhi Spartokidov’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 34, 25–111. Vasilev, A.N. 1977: ‘K voprosu o frakiyskom proiskhozhdenii Spartokidov (analiz gipotezy)’. In Ananin B.V. (ed.), Voprosy politicheskoy istorii SSSR (Moscow/ Leningrad), 194–215. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2004: ‘Kurgan Malaya Bliznitsa (istoriya izucheniya i datirovka)’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 7, 89–111. —. 2006: ‘O smysle izobrazheniy na bol’shom lekife Ksenofanta’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 13, 134–61. —. 2007. Bol’shoy lekif Ksenofanta (St Petersburg). —. 2014a. ‘Kurgan u sela Baksy v Vostochnom Krymu’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 30, 510–28. —. 2014b. ‘Eshche raz o kurgane u sela Baksy v Vostochnom Krymu’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 30, 529–34. —. 2017a: ‘Kul’tura bosporskoy elity pri Spartokidakh’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 34, 112–223. —. 2017b. ‘Kerchenskiye arkheologi vo vremya Krymskoy voyny’. In Goroncharovskii, V.A. (ed.), Rossiyskiye arkheologi XIX–nachala XX vv. i kurgannyye drevnosti Bospora Kimmeriyskogo (St Petersburg), 23–44. —. 2019: ‘Traditsii i innovatsii v aristokraticheskoy kul’ture Bospora Kimmeriyskogo’. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 38, 3–16. —. 2020: ‘Iz istorii arkheologicheskikh issledovaniy na Pavlovskom mysu pod Kerch’yu’. Novyy Germes 12.1, 139–63. Vinogradov, Y.A., Zinko, V.N. and Smekalova, T.N. 2012: Yuz-Oba. Kurgannyy nekropol’ aristokratii Bospora 1: Istoriya izucheniya i topografiya (Simferopol/ Kerch). Vinogradov, Y.G. 1983: ‘Polis v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. In Golubtsova, E.S. (ed.), Antichnaya Gretsiya, vol. 1 (Moscow), 366–420. Williams, D. and Ogden, D. 1995: Grecheskoye zoloto: Yuvelirnoye iskusstvo klassicheskoy epokhi 5–4 veka do n.e. (St Petersburg). Yakovenko, E.V. 1977: ‘Pogrebeniye bogatoy skifyanki na Temir-Gore’. In Terenozhkin, A.I. (ed.), Skify i sarmaty (Kiev), 140–45. Zavoikin, A.A. 2007: ‘Bosporskaya monarkhiya: ot polisnoy tiranii k territorial’noy derzhave’. In Kryzhitskiy, S.D. et al. (eds.), Antichnyy mir i varvary na yuge Rossii i Ukrainy: Ol’viya, Skifiya, Bospor (Zaporozhye), 219–43. —. 2013: Obrazovaniye Bosporskogo gosudarstva. Arkheologiya i khronologiya stanovleniya derzhavy Spartokidov (Bosporskie Issledovaniya Suppl. 10) (Simferopol/ Kerch). Zervoudaki, E.A. 1968: ‘Attische polychrome Reliefkeramik des späten 5. und des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.’. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 83, 1–88. Zlatkovskaya, T.D. 1971: Vozniknovenie gosudarstva u frakiytsev 7–5 vv. do n.e. (Moscow). Zograf, A.N. 1951: Antichnye monety (Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 16) (Moscow).

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN IN THE EASTERN CRIMEA Mikhail TREISTER

Abstract The article is devoted to the analysis of the gold appliqués found in 1953 in the Baksy Kurgan in the Kerch Peninsula. Their present location is unknown. It is evident, that the appliqués, the only pieces of this group ever found by archaeologists, typologically occupy an intermediate position between the two main types of Achaemenid appliqués in the shape of lion heads in profile. They are Achaemenid products executed in the so-called ‘court style’, most probably in one of the central workshops of the Achaemenid state. The gala garment, embroidered with gold appliqués, was allegedly brought to the Bosporan kingdom during the reign of Artaxerxes II or his predecessors. The finds from Baksy support my conclusion, based on the analysis of the distribution of seals of Achaemenid style, that they may testify to various kinds of relations between the Achaemenid and Bosporan states, including visits to the Cimmerian Bosporus by Achaemenid officials. The concentrations of finds in the Bosporus confirms their high intensity and even their global (for this time) importance in terms of the contacts of the Persian state with its northern neighbours and that there are no reasons to suggest that these contacts were broken after the middle of the 5th century BC.

This paper is an updated version of one published in 2013 in Russian about gold appliqués from the Baksy Kurgan,1 which remained unknown to many researchers dealing with the problems of contacts between the Achaemenid state and the Cimmerian Bosporus. Indeed, no one except Y.A. Vinogradov, who specially analysed this burial monument,2 paid attention to this publication. Moreover, it seems necessary to present an overview of archaeological sources relating to contacts between the Achaemenid and Bosporan states, a topic to which I devoted a paper in 2011,3 in light of the responses and observations that appeared after publication of that article4 and with the discovery in

1

Treister 2013b. Vinogradov 2017, 120–21; 2018, 56; 2019, 6–7. 3 Treister 2011. 4 Fedoseev 2014, 155; Zavoikin 2015, 248, 252–53; Kuznetsov 2018, 169–70; 2019, 20–21; Porucznik 2018, 407–08; Balakhvantsev 2018, 63; Avram 2018–19, 190; 2020, 73; Tsetskhladze 2019, 130–31, 143–44; 2020, 109–11. 2

118

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Phanagoria (in 2016) of an ancient Persian inscription5 (and numerous works associated with its reading and interpretation6). Gold Appliqués in the Achaemenid Style from Baksy Kurgan In 1953, during the re-investigation by the Bosporan archaeological expedition led by V.F. Gaidukevich of a cist tomb destroyed by a trench during the Second World War, in the south-western field of the Baksy Kurgan to the west of the village of Glazovka on the Kerch Peninsula, unique finds were made, which are the topic of this publication. These are three round gold appliqués 0.9 cm in diameter with embossed 12-petal rosettes with an umbo-shaped centre and a ridge along the edge, with three holes for sewing on7 (Fig. 1.1, 4), and two gold appliqués in the form of a lion’s head in profile to the right and left8 (Figs. 1.2–3, 2.1–2). Also found were small fragments of a red-figured pelike dated to the first half of the 4th century BC.9 The finds of gold, stored in the Kerch Museum, were transferred to Kiev in the summer of 1968 by ministerial fiat,10 however, in neither the collection of the Kiev Museum of Historical Treasures nor the Historical Museum are there gold appliqués from Baksy, just as there are none in the collection of the Kerch Museum.11 In the figure captions of the German edition of Gajdukevich’s book, in which, as a rule, information about the place of storage of finds is provided, no such information is given about the lion’s head appliqués.12 Only in the German edition of the book by E.V. Chernenko is the State Hermitage mentioned as the place of storage13 – but there are no such plaques there.14

5

Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2018; 2019; Kuznetsov 2018; 2019. Balakhvantsev 2018; Avram 2018–19; 2019; 2020; 2022. 7 Veselov 1959, 233, fig. 10.1; Pruglo 1963, 73, fig. 1.2; Chernenko 1968, 67–68, fig. 37; Černenko 2006, 65, 67, no. 367, pl. 20. 8 Veselov 1959, 233–34, fig. 10.2 (V. Veselov mentioned the find of one appliqué – in his article there is published a piece in profile to the right); Pruglo 1963, 73, fig. 1.1; Chernenko 1968, 67–68, fig. 37; Gajdukevič 1971, 141, fig. 25 (without mention of place of storage); Korolkova 1996, pl. 3, 6; Černenko 2006, 65, 67, no. 367, pl. 20, State Hermitage as place of storage; Bogdanov 2006, 225, pl. CXIV, 7 (as a ‘chance find from the region of Kerch’); Vinogradov 2011, 187–88; 2014а, 515, 520, fig. 6. 9 Pruglo 1963, 73; ‘insignificant quantity of fragments of black-glazed pottery’: Veselov 1959, 234. 10 Bykovskaya 2002, 27–28. 11 My sincere gratitude for the information provided by L.M. Strokova (Kiev) and N.V. Bykovskaya (Kerch). 12 Gajdukevič 1971, 532. 13 Černenko 2006, 67, no. 367. 14 Kind information of A.M. Butyagin. 6

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

119

Fig. 1. The appliqués from the Baksy Kurgan. Place of preservation unknown (after Chernenko 1968, 67–68, fig. 37).

Fig. 2. The appliqués in the form of lion heads from the Baksy Kurgan. Place of preservation unknown (after Gajdukevič 1971, fig. 25).

The appliqués measure 1.9 × 2.0 cm. Their detailed description is given by V.I. Pruglo,15 according to whom they are embossed with a bronze stamp and carefully cut along the edge and inside the mouth, under and above the tongue. On their reverse side along the edge, six loops, made of thin gold wire, are soldered.16 Pruglo comes to the conclusion that these appliqués, together with circular rosettes, could have been sewn onto clothing,17 whereas Chernenko suggests sewing onto a belt.18 15 ‘Despite the flatness of the relief, inherent to the appliqués, the image of the animal is conveyed very vividly and expressively, although in general the plaques are rather decorative. The open jaws, bared teeth and the corresponding treatment of the muzzle convey the fury of the beast, ready to attack. To enhance the expression of ferocity, a peculiar feature was used in the treatment of the muzzle. The folds of the skin on the cheek, which appear when the jaws are opened, are represented with two slightly curved elongated protuberances, widening towards the mane. The fold above the eye is shown in the same way; mustache pads are depicted in rows of parallel grooves. The mouth is framed by a double rim, the chin is shaped like a ball, the upper part of the head is separated from the forehead by a small ledge, the ear is rendered conventionally in the form of two balls of different sizes. From the ear to the chin, there are a number of strands in the form of small tongues. The mane, represented by radially diverging rays with a ball at the end of each of them, is treated completely conditionally, in a purely ornamental way’ (Pruglo 1963, 74). 16 Pruglo 1963, 73; cf, three loops – Veselov 1959, 234. 17 Pruglo 1963, 73, n. 7. 18 Chernenko 1968, 67; Černenko 2006, 65.

120

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Pruglo rightly compared the appliqués from Baksy with items of Achaemenid toreutics, dating them to the turn of the 5th/4th century or to the first half of the 4th century BC.19 B. Shefton also paid attention to them in his work dedicated to the krater from Baksy, which was found in the same kurgan but in the earth mound outside the ashlar-built vaulted grave chamber excavated by N.P. Kondakov in 1882. Citing the parallels to the appliqués, he did not exclude their dating to the 5th century BC, although stressing the difficulty of dating such objects.20 Indeed, today quite a lot of such appliqués are known, while the finds from Baksy remained unknown to specialists in the field of Achaemenid archeology and art. E. Rehm, who collected the then available information about appliqués with profile images of lion heads, divided them into two types.21 The first type comprised openwork items (Fig. 3.4), kept in the museums of Karlsruhe, New York, Tehran, Leiden, Toronto and Ontario. She notes that stylisation of the muzzle and double framing lines are features characteristic of the Achaemenid period. Naturalistic rendering of the details of the muzzle is combined with the ornamental design of the mane. All known appliqués of this type, according to Rehm, come from the same workshop – it is possible that they were embossed even in one matrix.22 Appliqués of this type are relatively large: 4.8–5.3 cm high and 4.9–6.0 cm wide.23 The second type includes coarser images (Fig. 3.1–2). Appliqués of this type originate allegedly from Hamadan; they are kept in the museums of Chicago,24 Tehran, Ontario and in a private collection in Berne. According to Rehm, this 19

Pruglo 1963, 78. ‘… two Achaemenid lions heads of sheet gold for attachment to fabrics and of the kind known from Hamadan and other imperial Persian sites. The Baksy lions seem to be of earlier type and a date in the fifth century is entirely plausible, though this kind of material is not easily datable to close limits… Though these gold ornaments belong to a subsidiary grave (perhaps, of a kinsman, rather than a retainer, who died not long after the construction of a kurgan), they also provide further evidence for the standing of the first occupant of the ashlar-built tomb chamber. It was to his burial at the end of the fifth or the beginning of the fourth century that the two imported Attic red-figured vases belong’ (Shefton 1982, 154, n. 16). 21 Rehm 1992, 187–89. 22 Rehm 1992, 187–88, 220–21, no. H.51, fig. 151. 23 Besides the bibliography given by E. Rehm (1992, 220–21, no. H.51), see also the following: Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. no. 56.154.1: Rubinson 1990, 61, fig. 20; Lerner 1991, 8, fig. 8; Stark 2012, 126, fig. 7-20; Simpson and Pankova 2017, 275, fig. 158 = Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum, inv. no. 60/48a-b: Cat. Speyer 2006, 207, no. B; Hansen et al. 2009, 104 (ill.), 278, no. 83. – Leiden, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. B 1960/11: Cat. Speyer 2006, 207, no. C. – Princeton, University Art Museum, inv. no. 2002–381: Acquisitions 2003, 153 (below right); 154, https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/collections/objects/52566. 24 Rehm 1992, 188–89, 221, no. H.52, fig. 152. Besides the bibliography given by E. Rehm, see also the appliqués allegedly from Hamadan, now in Chicago: Razmjou 2005, 291–92, 312, fig. 41b (left). 20

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

121

Fig. 3. The appliqués in the form of lion heads: 1–2 – Chicago, Oriental Institute, inv. A 28587 (after Kantor 1957, pl. VIB); 3 – Halicarnassus, Mausoleum, inv. no. 6369 (after Jepessen 2000, 133, no. 14); 4 – Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. B 1960/11 (after Cat. Speyer 2006, 207, no. c).

type too was made in one workshop. Typical Achaemenid elements are rendered very fluently. The open jaws are fully reproduced in relief. The mane is proportionally short and ends in bulges; the ears are roughly displayed.25 Appliqués of this type are much smaller – they reach a length of only 2.0 cm.26 25 26

Rehm 1992, 188, 221, no. H.52, fig. 152. Rehm 1992, 221, no. H.52.

122

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Obviously, the appliqués found at Baksy, the only plaques of this type ever found by archaeologists,27 occupy an intermediate position between the two types just discussed, but their size is closer to that of the second group. It is significant that instead of relief, comma-shaped elements in the upper part of the cheeks on the appliqués from Baksy (Fig. 2), those of the second type bear amorphous ovals (Fig. 3.1–2), while on plaques of the first type (Fig. 3.4) they are stylised with thin ridges. Despite the closeness of the mouth design (rendering of teeth and tongue) on the Baksy appliqués and plaques of the second type, on the Bosporan finds the mouth is executed in openwork. In general, it seems that we are dealing with items made in two traditions. One is more graceful and ornamental, the second harks back to the monumental art. The appliqués from Baksy obviously belong to this second tradition,28 occupying an intermediate position between prototypes and appliqués of the second type. This is easy to see when comparing the Baksy plaques with the images of lions in monumental Achaemenid art:29 on the reliefs made of glazed bricks from Susa,30 the capitals from Persepolis,31 the relief of the Hundred-Column Hall;32 and also in minor art, such as the bronze weights from Susa,33 and allegedly from Abydos,34 on terminals of the torque in the form of lion heads from the burial on the Acropolis of Susa,35 and bracelets, supposedly originating from the looted excavation of the tumuli in eastern Lydia.36 On these monuments, we find similar teardrop-shaped elements arranged horizontally one above another under the eye, ridges above the eye, and similarly shaped eyes, nose and mouth. All these features do not allow us to question that the appliqués from Baksy were made in the Achaemenid palace style, which goes back to the works of monumental art in the palaces of Persepolis, Susa and Pasargadae, which appeared to originate in the reign of Darius I.37 27 Cf. ‘The best-known examples of isolated heads are those found on gold bracteates… None has been excavated by archaeologists’ (Muscarella, in Harper et al. 1992, 230–31). 28 The presence of loops on the rear put the Baksy appliqués closer to those kept in Chicago; however, they are equipped with four not six loops (Kantor 1957, 89). 29 Rehm 1992, 261–62; 2010, 165. 30 Ghirshman 1964, 143, fig. 193; Daucé 2010, 329, fig. 354. 337, fig. 367. 31 Ghirshman 1964, 216, fig. 265. 32 Ghirshman 1964, 239, fig. 286. 33 Harper et al. 1992, 221–22, no. 154; Curtis and Tallis 2005, 194, no. 301; Frank 2010, 373. 34 Curtis and Tallis 2005, 194–95, no. 302. 35 de Morgan 1905, 44–45, figs. 70–71, pl. IV.1; Harper et al. 1992, 245–46, no. 171; Rehm 1992, 80–81, 86, no. C5; 385, fig. 60; Tallon 1995, 119, fig. 242A; Bernard and Inagaki 2000, 1394–95, fig. 15; Curtis and Tallis 2005, 174–75, no. 270; Frank 2010, 367, fig. 422. 36 Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 178–79, no. 130; Meriçboyu 2001, 96–97; Özgen 2010, 324, 325, fig. 36. 37 Rehm 2010, 164–71.

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

123

The above-mentioned features distinguish these appliqués not only from the plaques in the form of lion heads from the Scythian kurgans of the North Pontic region,38 but also similar items from Asia Minor, in particular the plaque from the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (Fig. 3.3).39 In the northern Black Sea area, we should note that plaques in the form of profile images of lion heads are quite rare. They are found in kurgans of the 5th century BC, they are cast from bronze, and were used as details of horse bridles;40 stylistically they have nothing to do with works in Achaemenid style. Pruglo came to the conclusion that the appliqués were most likely to have been made at the turn of the 5th/4th century or in the first half of the 4th century BC in Panticapaeum, where ‘along with the Greek and Scythian, the Graeco-Persian craftsmen obviously worked’,41 an assumption repeated by Vinogradov.42 The basis for this hypothesis is unclear: neither author cites any arguments to support manufacture of appliqués in the Cimmerian Bosporus; and the statement of Vinogradov, that Shefton ‘completely agreed with the interpretation of Pruglo’,43 does not correspond to reality – on the contrary, Shefton, without any doubt, defined the appliqués as Achaemenid.44 There is no reason to consider the appliqués from Baksy as a product of a ‘GraecoPersian’ craftsman who worked in Panticapaeum, not only because the plaques fully correspond to the stylistic criteria of Achaemenid products and have a fastening system (loops) characteristic of Achaemenid plaques. They are not just Achaemenid products, but works in ‘palace style’, i.e. most likely products of one of the central workshops of the Achaemenid state. This is also unique for finds from the kurgans of the North Pontic region. An Attic red-figure krater of the late 5th century BC found within the earth mound45 and five amphora stamps of Phasos, dating to the first quarter of the 4th century BC, 46 do not give grounds to attribute the cist tomb in the edge of the mound to earlier than the first quarter of the 4th century BC, which is consistent with the dating of the red-figured pelike fragments found during 38 Cf. the analysis made by Pruglo (1963, 74–76). See also Kantorovich 2015, 889, with the attribution ‘Achaemenid’ or ‘Graeco-Persian’; 2017, 154, n. 20: ‘executed absolutely in the style of the Achaemenid art’. 39 Bungaard Rasmussen 1998, 69, no. 21; Jepessen 2000, 125, 133, no. 14. 40 Boroffka 1928, 46–47, pl. 16; Schefold 1938, 59. They belong to the types ‘NymphaionZhurovka’ and ‘Berestnyagi-Stblev’, according to the classification by А.R. Kantorovich (2015, 189–95, 1387–88; 2017, 153–54). 41 Pruglo 1963, 78. 42 Vinogradov 2011, 188. 43 Vinogradov 2011, 188. 44 Shefton 1982, 154. 45 Shefton 1982, 149–81, figs. 41–44, 45a; Vinogradov 2014а, 516, fig. 3. 46 Vinogradov 2011, 189; 2014а, 516–17, fig. 4; 2017, 150; cf. Gajdukevic 1971, 277–78.

124

MIKHAIL TREISTER

investigation of the remains of the cist tomb. It will hardly be possible to check the dating of Pruglo; in any case, this find was not included in the published corpora of pelikes and their fragments from the Kerch Museum.47 The dating of the cist tomb is indirectly confirmed by gold plaques in the form of rosettes. The plaques in the form of rosettes (Figs. 1.1, 4.1), due to their prevalence in different cultures and in various periods,48 do not allow us to specify the dating of the appliqués in the form of lion heads. Among plaques of known origin (Persepolis, Oxus Treasure) there are no close parallels in either the number or shape of the petals. Plaques from Baksy in the form of rosettes, having a framing ridge along the edge, differ from the finds from the Treasury of Persepolis (also with 12-petal rosette),49 and from eight-petal plaques: from burial 836 in Sardis,50 those found in 1976 in a robbed sarcophagus in Bin Tepe near Kenderlik (Manissa),51 and those in cist grave 1 dated to ca. 350 BC in Eğrekbaşı in the region of Parion in the Troad,52 all of which are cut along the contour of the petals, ends. Similar depictions of rosettes, also with 12 petals, are found in the architectural decoration at Persepolis53 and on a bronze plate from the Council Hall at Persepolis.54 Rosettes with 12 petals also decorate the edge of a fragmentary disc made of lapis lazuli with a depiction of a winged bull in the collection of the Reza Abbasi Museum in Teheran55 and the bronze mirror from the collection of N. Schimmel.56 Also cut-off along the edge of the petals are numerous gold appliqués with 16-petal rosettes and loops on the rear, which decorated the garments of a noble woman in burial 2 of Kurgan 1 in Filippovka in the South Urals.57 The only find in the Treasury at Persepolis, framed with a ridge along the edge, has 16 petals and a loop on the back.58 The plaque from the Oxus Treasure has a row of embossed dotted decoration along the edge, and its petals are diamond-shaped.59

47

Shtal 2000; Vdovichenko 2003, 398–401, 444–47; Jäggi 2012. Also among items of the Achaemenid circle: Rehm 1992, 175–76, 214–15, nos. H1–15. 49 Schmidt 1957, 78, fig. 14.D–E, pl. 45.18. 50 Curtis 1925, 12, nos. 3–4, pl. I.3–4: nos. 4654–4655; Rehm 1992, 214, no. H1; Dusinberre 2003, 254. 51 Cahill 2010, 505–06, no. 133; Özgen 2010, 324. 52 Kaba 2021, 147, 151, fig. 8. 53 Schmidt 1957, 75, fig. 12. 54 Schmidt 1957, 75, pl. 42.22. 55 Seipel 2000, 207, no. 122; 210 (ill.). 56 P. Meyers in Muscarella 1977, 196–98; Settgast and Gehrig 1978, no. 176. 57 Yablonsky and Treister 2019, 98–99, no. 2.1.4, fig. 13; 132, no. 3.2. 58 Schmidt 1957, pl. 45.3; Rehm 1992, 215, no. H. 12. 59 Dalton 1964, no. 162, pl. XXI; Rehm 1992, 215, no. H. 11. 48

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

125

Fig. 4. The appliqués in form of the rosettes: 1 – Baksy Kurgan (after Veselov 1959, 233, fig. 10.1); 2 – Gaimanova Mogila (after Bidzilya and Polin 2012, fig. 746); 3, 4 – Chertomlyk (after Rolle et al. 1998, colour pl. 28.1, 2, 11).

It is worth noting that very similar, although not identical, plaques with rosettes, with petals rounded at the ends with an umbo-shaped centre and a ridge along the edge, were found in the Scythian kurgans of the Lower Dnieper region, dated to the second quarter–middle of the 4th century BC: tomb 4 of Gaimanova Mogila60 (Fig. 4.2), Chertomlyk61 (Fig. 4.3–4), Zheltokamenskaya 60

Bidzilya and Polin 2012, 490, no. 303, fig. 746: with 16 petals; diameter 1.6–1.7 cm. Alekseev 1986, 65, nos. 5–6: diameter 0.9–1.1 cm; 66, no. 10: with 12 petals; diameter 1.8 cm; Rolle et al. 1998, 34, nos. 212.5–6, 10, colour pl. 28.1, 2, 11. 61

126

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Tolstaya Mogila 62 and Alexandropol Kurgan.63 Some of these, like the plaques from Baksy, also have three holes for sewing. In terms of the number of petals and decorative features, as well as in size, the plaques from Chertomlyk are closest to the finds from Baksy. We should not be embarrassed by the fact that the plaques of one of the types are larger: on the outer side of the framing ridge they have a smooth non-decorated edge and they could have been made using a similar stamp. Considering the dating of the assemblages from which analogies to the rosette-shaped plaques from Baksy originate, the latter may well be dated within the second quarter of the 4th century BC. Thus, with the high degree of probability, we are dealing with elements of embroidery of ceremonial Achaemenid clothes, at least in the case of the appliqués with lion heads. It is quite possible that the rosette-shaped plaques were sewn onto other clothing, probably of a different origin. The fact that ceremonial Achaemenid clothes were embroidered with gold plaques64 is evidenced both by the images of Persian warriors on glazed reliefs from Susa (Fig. 5)65 and on reliefs from Persepolis: on the mantle of Darius I; on the relief depicting the king from the palace of Darius in Persepolis, there are plaques depicting walking lions; 66 on the reliefs from the palace and harem of Xerxes; and from the Tripylon.67 The clothes of the nobleman depicted on the fresco of the tomb at Karaburun in Lycia, dating from ca. 470 BC, is embroidered along the neckline and the edges of the sleeves with rows of rosette plaques.68 Similar rosettes, one above the other, are decorating the shirt of the rider of the rhyton, dating most probably to the second half of the 5th century BC, from the hoard in Erebuni69 – visible in the cut of the caftan on his chest (Fig. 6).70

62

Mozolevskii 1982, 210–211, no. 50, fig. 37.14–15: with 8 petals; diameter 1.0 cm. Polin and Alekseev 2018, 118, no. 13, 133, no. 44, 305, fig. 53.3–4, 6. 64 Moorey 1978, 146. See the survey of the types of sewn appliqués: Rehm 1992, 175–225. 65 Harper et al. 1992, 226–28, nos. 155–156; Curtis and Tallis 2005, 87–88, nos. 51–52; Cat. Speyer 2006, 119 (ill.); Daucé 2010, 335, fig. 362. 66 Schmidt 1953, 226, pls. 140, 142; Kantor 1957, 14, pl. XII; Rehm 1992, 182, fig. 65; Almagor 2021, 22, fig. 22. 67 Kantor 1957, 14, pl. XI; Roos 1970, 53–59, figs. 7–8. 68 Mellink 1972, pls. 58–59; Dentzer 1982, 571, no. R 34, fig. 224; Boardman 1990, 128, pl. 12b; 2000, 200, fig. 5.84; Özgen and Öztürk 1996, 47, figs. 88–89; Curtis and Tallis 2005, 46, fig. 14; Özgen 2010, 313, fig. 10; Miller 2011, 96, fig. 1, 100. 69 Arakelyan 1971, 143, no. 1, 145–48, figs. 1–4; Khachatryan and Margaryan 2003, 114–22; Manassero 2008, 59, no. 65 with literature, 68, 91, pl. XXI; Stronach 2011, 258–64, figs. 5–8; Treister 2015, 42, fig. 10.3, 45, fig. 13.3, 55. 70 Concerning the embroidery of the cloths of the rider, see Treister 2015, 55–57. 63

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

127

Fig. 5. A warrior on a relief from Susa. Detail. Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum (photograph: M. Treister).

A large number of precious fabrics were captured by the Greeks in the Battle of Plataia (Herodotus 9. 80. 2).71 A wide range of written and archaeological sources indicate that by about 420 BC multi-coloured Middle Eastern fabrics were very popular among the Greeks;72 they were highly valued, and also served as a source of borrowing iconographic images.73 Carpets or tents could be embroidered with gold plaques. Gold-embroidered tents, in particular, were captured by the Greeks at Plataia (Herodotus 9. 80. 2).74 Images of lion heads on the border of a felt carpet from Pazyryk Kurgan 1,75 dating to about the middle of the 4th century BC (the carpet itself was surely an earlier 71

Miller 2004, 55. About wearing Persian clothing by the non-Persians, see Tuplin, 2011, 155–57. 73 Miller 2004, 76–77. 74 Miller 2004, 36, 49–51, 55. 75 State Hermitage, inv. no. 1295-52: Roes 1952, 26, fig. 10.D1–2; Rudenko 1953, 47, fig. 20, 304, pl. LXXXIX.1; 1961, 46, fig. 37; Kantor 1957, 9–10, fig. 6; Moorey 1978, 145, fig. 5e; Rubinson 1990, 60, fig. 19; Lerner 1991, 8, fig. 7; Schiltz 1994, 280, fig. 212; Razmjou 2005, 293, 312, fig. 47; Polosmak and Barkova 2005, 143–44, fig. 4.3а, 146–47, fig. 4.5; Bogdanov 2006, 233, pl. CXXIII.1; Simpson. and Pankova 2017, 275, no. 189. 72

128

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Fig. 6. A rhyton with a protome of a horse with a rider. Erevan, Erebuni Museum, inv. no. 20. 1 – general view (after Stronach 2011, 259, fig. 6): 2–3 – details (photographs: M. Treister).

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

129

item),76 gives an idea that carpets could be decorated with similar gold plaques (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. A felt carpet from Pazyryk Kurgan no. 1. Detail of the border. State Hermitage, inv. no. 1295-52 (after Polosmak and Barkova 2005, 147, fig. 4.5). 76

Shulga et al. 2016, 276–80; Shulha and Oborin 2021, 16.

130

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Shefton made, in my opinion, a completely fair observation that the plaques from Baksy are not easily datable, and the date in the 5th century BC ‘is entirely plausible’.77 Indeed, it is difficult to date them according to stylistic features, and the fact that such a profile image, close to plaques of the first type in Rehm’s classification, as well as to the images of the heads of lion-headed griffins on glazed bricks from Susa78 and a carpet from Pazyryk Kurgan 1,79 adorns the warrior’s shield on the Attic red-figured kylix painted by Douris from Chiusi in the collection of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, dating from ca. 490–470 BC (Fig. 8),80 does not exclude even an early 5th-century BC date. H. Kantor attributed the plaques kept in Chicago, and presumably found in Hamadan, to the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC).81 However, lack of information about the context of the find makes this conclusion nothing more than a hypothesis, a fact which was probably meant by P.R.S. Moorey, who did not exclude the dating of the ‘Chicago jewellery’ to the earlier 5th century BC.82 One way or another, we can only say that the plaques found at Baksy ended up in a burial that most likely was dated to the first quarter or first half of the 4th century BC.

Fig. 8. Attic red-figured kylix by Douris from Chiusi. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, inv. No. B8 (after CVA United States of America, fasc. 6; Baltimore, The Robinson Collection, fasc. 2, III 1, pl. 11, 1a; USA 254). 77

Shefton 1982, 154. de Mecquenem 1947, 79, fig. 48; Kantor 1957, 11, fig. 7; Harper et al. 1992, 230–31, no. 158; Boardman 2000, 81, fig. 2.66; 246, n. 130; Simpson and Pankova 2017, 275, fig. 157. 79 See above n. 75. 80 CVA United States of America, fasc. 6; Baltimore, The Robinson Collection, fasc. 2, III 1, pl. 11.1a; USA 254; Beazley 1963, 1569; Miller 2004, pl. 22; Krentz 2010a, 183–204, fig. 1; 2010b, 152, fig. 28; Beazley Archive Database 205260. 81 Kantor 1957, 20. 82 Moorey 1978, 146. 78

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

131

Archaeologically documented finds of gold appliqués of Achaemenid style outside the Achaemenid state are extremely rare and are represented by only two,83 in both cases depicting a walking lion and decorated with inlays in cloisonné technique. One, found on Samothrace, originates from a context of the Roman period.84 Another similar plaque was found in the sanctuary at Dodona in Epirus – the context of its discovery was not published in detail, and the plaque itself was dated in the first publications to the 6th century BC.85 Finally, one more plaque showing a walking lion, which was found in an elite nomadic necropolis of the 4th century BC in Filippovka in the South Urals86 should rather be considered as an imitation of an item of Achaemenid style.87 However, documented finds of gold appliqués within the territory of the Achaemenid state are also very rare and include plaques found: in the Treasury at Persepolis;88 from a female(?) burial (836) of the 5th century BC of the Sardis necropolis:89 in the form of double sphinxes with the symbol of Ahura Mazda above them,90 in the form of sphinxes going to the right and to the left91 and in the form of rosettes;92 as well as plaques of various types found in 1976 in a robbed sarcophagus in Bin Tepe,93 and items from the Oxus Treasure.94 Thus, the plaques in the form of lion heads from Baksy are the only currently reliably known items of gold embroidery of Achaemenid palace style on gala dress, found in a burial context outside the Achaemenid state. If we adhere to the dating of the cist tomb of the Baksy mound within the first half, most likely, the late first–second quarter of the 4th century BC, it is obvious that the clothing embroidered with these gold plaques was brought to the Cimmerian Bosporus during the reign of Artaxerxes II or one of his predecessors (of 83

Muscarella 1977, 195; Moorey 1980, 140; Miller 2004, 42, 58–59; Brøns 2016, 112, n. 396. McCredie 1968, 233–34, pl. 72d; Muscarella 1977, 195; Moorey 1980, 140; Miller 2004, 42, fig. 8. Samothrace, Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 65.294. 85 Chronique 1956, 300, fig. 2; Muscarella 1977, 195; Moorey 1980, 140; Miller 2004, 42, fig. 7, n. 56 (with literature). Ioannina, Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 4931. 86 Yablonskii 2008, 96, no. 28; Treister et al. 2013, 129–30, no А13.2.4.27; pl. I.113; figs. I.81.1, II.88.5. 87 Treister 2013a, 185. 88 Schmidt 1957, 77–78, fig. 14, pl. 45. 89 Dusinberre 2003, 254. 90 Curtis 1925, 11, no. 1, pl. I.1: no. 4652; Mierse 1983, 105, fig. 163; Yardimci 1986, 147, no. 206; Rehm 1992, 206, 224, no. H.77, fig. 176; Dusinberre 2003, 148, fig. 54, 254. 91 Curtis 1925, 11–12, no. 2, pl. I.2: no. 4653; Mierse 1983, 105, fig. 163; Cat. Istanbul 1983, 65, no. B.152; Rehm 1992, 203, 224, no. H.73, fig. 172; Dusinberre 2003, 148, fig. 54, 254. 92 Curtis 1925, 12, nos. 3–4, pl. I. 3–4, nos. 4654–4655; Rehm 1992, 214, no. H1; Dusinberre 2003, 254. 93 Cahill 2010, 505–06, no. 133; Özgen 2010, 324. 94 Dalton 1964, 14–15, nos. 27–35, pls. XII, XXI; Curtis and Tallis 2005, 146–47, nos. 183– 188; Cat. Speyer 2006, 187, no. D. 84

132

MIKHAIL TREISTER

course, we cannot judge how long such ceremonial clothes could have been in use). Median and Persian clothes belonged to one of the most valuable categories of royal gifts (Anabasis 1. 2. 87; Herodotus 3. 84; cf. 7. 8d).95 From this point of view, the interpretation of the finds of the plaques as elements of the embroidery of Achaemenid gala clothing is indirectly confirmed in the general context of the find. If we agree with the conclusion reached by Vinogradov, that the Baksy Kurgan was a royal tumulus, with one of the descendants of Spartocus I, probably Satyrus I, 96 buried in its central tomb, excavated in 1882, then a person buried in one of the side tombs of this mound would have had high rank in the Bosporan hierarchy. Vinogradov drew attention to the discovery in the central vaulted chamber at Baksy of a sarcophagus detail with the image of a winged disc, a description of which can be found in the report made by Kondakov (the item itself is not in the Hermitage collection), 97 offering its interpretation as a symbol of Ahura Mazda.98 My attention was attracted by the treatment of one of the wooden staffs found in the central tomb, the upper part of which is ‘an elaborately carved head of a dog with snuggled ears, holding caught prey in its wide open mouth’.99 This image scheme, which is generally unusual for Greek or Scythian art, finds parallels in Achaemenid art, although A.R. Kantorovich assigns the piece to his ‘Chastye kurgans-2 – Alleroevsky’ type of Scythian Animal Style.100 The ends of two pairs of gold bracelets are decorated in the form of lion heads, in the mouth of which are the heads of bull сalves101 or mountain goats.102 The last pair, kept in the Badisches Landesmuseum in Karlsruhe, was discovered not far from Corinth. Another pair, gold bracelets with a similar terminals structure, originates from a 5th-century BC burial in Kurgan 6 of the Taksai-I cemetery in West Kazakhstan.103 There is also known an example of the decoration of a silver handle of a vessel of the Achaemenid type, in which there is a swan head in the mouth of a lion.104 95

Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1989, 135; Wiesehöfer 1996, 36–41, 63–65; Briant 2002, 305–07. Vinogradov 2011, 190–91; 2014b, 532; 2017, 121. 97 In the State Hermitage (inv. no. Бак. 14–15) there are preserved small fragments of the sarcophagus from the tomb: Sokolskii 1969, 40, no. 31, pls. 9.9 and 22.1; Vaulina and Wąsowicz 1974, 86–87, no. 11, pl. LXIId–g. 98 Vinogradov 2011, 186; 2014а, 513; 2014b, 529; 2017, 149; 2019, 6. 99 Sokolskii 1971, 232, pl. XXXIV.4; Vaulina and Wąsowicz 1974, 164, no. 93, pl. CXXXVd–e; Vinogradov 2014а, 513, fig. 5. State Hermitage, inv. no. Бак. 6. 100 Kantorovich 2015, 233, 1409; 2017, 154, fig. 1.16. 101 Rehm 1992, 14–16, 56, no. A.32 with literature, fig. 2. 102 Rehm 1992, 14–16, 56–57, no. A.33 with lit., fig. 3; Cat. Speyer 2006, 207, no. A. 103 Sdykov and Lukpanova 2013, 136–37, 183–88, nos. 3.2.1–2; Simpson and Pankova 2017, 303, no. 219; Balakhvantsev and Lukpanova 2019. 104 Metropolitan Museum of Art, from the former N. Schimmel collection: Settgast and Gehrig 1978, no. 181; Rehm 1992, 5, fig. 1; The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin XLIX.4 (1992), 55, no. 24. 96

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

133

CONCLUSION I have already noted that the finds from Baksy once again confirm the conclusion I drew when analysing the distribution of seals of Achaemenid style, namely that they may indicate both trade contacts and diplomatic-level ties, including official visits to the Bosporus of the representatives of the Achaemenid state, and their concentration confirms the high intensity of such relations and even their global (for their time) significance within the framework of the contacts of the Persian state with its northern neighbours and the nomadic world of Eurasia, nevertheless, there is no reason to say that such ties were broken off after the middle of the 5th century BC.105

It is difficult to gainsay something reached as a result of my analysis of seals of Achaemenid style found in the Cimmerian Bosporus, based not only on statistical analysis of seals found in the Bosporus and in the North Pontic area as a whole but also of seals originating both from the territory of the Achaemenid state and those found on its periphery. This analysis showed an abnormally high concentration of such seals precisely inside the borders of the Bosporan state, which requires an explanation, and with which most scholars, who consider them as arguments for Persian domination of the Bosporus, agree.106 Those who either ignore this, claiming without any proof that such seals were a simple trade item,107 or ignoring the very fact of the finds of seals in the Bosporus,108 demonstrate only their own incompetence and unwillingness to use archaeological materials (for all the complexity of their interpretation) in cases where they contradict their own hypotheses. No less important for understanding of the nature of contacts between the Achaemenid and Bosporan states are the gold plaques of the gala dress of Achaemenid palace style from the royal(?) tumulus of Baksy in the eastern Crimea of the first half of the 4th century BC, as shown above – the only finds of this kind in a burial context outside the Achaemenid state. It is unlikely that anyone would have a desire to declare the accidental appearance of plaques that were used for embroidering gala dress, or to suggest that such ceremonial Achaemenid clothes were brought to the Bosporus as a result of trade relations. Perhaps this is why those publications that proclaim the random or commercial nature of the finds, simply ignore both mine and Vinogradov’s publications concerning the materials from Baksy.109 105

Treister 2011, 119. See Fedoseev 2014, 155; Zavoikin 2015, 248, 252–53; Kuznetsov 2018, 169–70; 2019, 20–21; Porucznik 2018, 407–08; Tsetskhladze 2019, 130–31, 143–44; 2020, 109–11; Avram 2018–19, 190; 2020, 73; 2022, 98. 107 Balakhvantsev 2018, 63. 108 Rung and Gabelko 2018; 2019; Shavarebi 2019. 109 Balakhvantsev 2018, 61–65. 106

134

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Another question is whether the archaeological materials considered here can influence the interpretation of the find of a cuneiform inscription in Phanagoria, which is attributed to either Xerxes or Darius I, but, in any case, dates no later than to the first, at latest the second quarter of the 5th century BC, due to the fact that the inscription was re-used in a house that was burned in a fire around the middle of the 5th century BC, or somewhat later – in the third quarter of the century.110 To a certain extent – yes. At least, tomb no. 19 of the mound no. 24/1876 of the Nymphaeum necropolis, a warrior burial in which a golden ring with a glass scaraboid was found (on one side of which there is an image of a calf sucking the cow, on the other the symbol of Ahura Mazda),111 is synchronous with this context. While it is impossible to determine when exactly seals found in contexts of a later period were brought to the Bosporus – some seals, as I have already mentioned, given their iconographic and stylistic features, can be dated to the 5th century BC112 – in the case of the plaques from Baksy, it is obvious that they originate from a context dating from the first half of the 4th century BC. In this case, although it is unlikely that these plaques have been used and re-sewn from cloth to cloth in course of a century or longer, this possibility cannot be ruled out either.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acquisitions 2003: ʻAcquisitions of the Princeton University Art Museum 2002ʼ. Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 62, 107–61. Alekseev, A.Y. 1986: ʻNashivnye blyashki iz Chertomlytskogo kurganaʼ. In Grach, N.L. (ed.), Antichnaya torevtika (Leningrad), 64–74. Almagor, E. 2021: ‘The Horse and the Lion in Achaemenid Persia: Representations of a Duality’. Arts 10 (41) (https://doi.org/10.3390/parts10030041). Arakelyan, B.N. 1971: ʻKlad serebryannykh izdelii iz Erebuniʼ. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1, 143–58. Avram, A. 2018–19: ‘Les Perses en mer Noire à l’époque de Darius Ier: nouveaux documents et nouvelles interprétationsʼ. Dacia 42–43, 169–98. —. 2019: ‘Remarques sur l’inscription achéménide de Phanagoria’. In Tatomir, R.G. (ed.), East–West Dialogue: Individual and Society through Ages (Bucharest), 15–24. —. 2020: ʻPersy v Prichernomor’e: novye dokumenty i novye interpretatsiiʼ. Aristeas 21, 40–88.

110

Kuznetsov and Nikitin 2018, 154; 2019, 2; Kuznetsov 2018, 167; 2019, 17–18. Compte rendu de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 1877, pl. III.7–8; Silanteva 1959, 56, fig. 24, 2; Treister 2010, 254, no. 10, with complete bibliography; 2011, 114, 118; Babenko 2017, 30–31, 32, fig. 2.4. 112 Treister 2011, 118. 111

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

135

—. 2022: ʻ519 BC: Persians occupy the North Pontic Coastʼ. In Boardman, J., Hargrave, J.F., Avram, A. and Podossinov, A.V. (eds.), Connecting the Ancient West and East: Studies Presented to Prof. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (Monographs on Antiquity 8) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), 75–108. Babenko, L.I. 2017: ʻDva monetnykh syuzheta na izdeliyakh greko-skifskoi torevtikiʼ. Arkheologіya і davnya іstorіya Ukraїni 2 (23), 30–39. Balakhvantsev, A.S. 2018: ʻBospor i Akhemenidyʼ. In Bosporskii fenomen: obshchee i osobennoe v istoriko-kulturnom prostranstve antichnogo mira, vol. 1 (St Petersburg), 61–65. Balakhvantsev, A.S. and Lukpanova, Y.A. 2017: ʻAkhemenidskie braslety iz Taksaya (Zapadnyi Kazakhstan)ʼ. In Balakhvantsev, A.S. and Makkaveev, N.A. (eds.), Epokha imperii. Vostochnyi Iran ot Akhemenidov do Sasanidov: istoriya, arkheologiya, kul’tura. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posvyashchennoi pamyati Borisa Anatol’evicha Litvinskogo (Moscow), 5–11. Beazley, J.D. 1963: Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed. (Oxford). Bernard, P. and Inagaki, H. 2000: ʻUn torque achéménide avec une inscription grecque au Musée Miho (Japan)ʼ. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 2000, 1371–1437. Bidzilya, V.I. and Polin, S.V. 2012: Skifskii tsarskii kurgan Gaimanova Mogila (Kiev). Boardman, J. 1990: ʻSymposion Furnitureʼ. In Murray, O. (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion (Oxford), 122–31. —. 2000: Persia and the West (London). Bogdanov, E.S. 2006: Obraz khishchnika v plasticheskom iskusstve kochevykh narodov Tsentral’noi Azii (Novosibirsk). Boroffka, G. 1928: Scythian Art (London). Briant, P. 2002: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake). Brøns, C. 2016: Gods and Garments: Textiles in Greek Sanctuaries in the 7th to the 1st Centuries BC (Ancient Textiles 28) (Oxford). Bungaard Rasmussen, B. 1998: ʻGold Ornaments from the Mausoleum at Halikarnassosʼ. In Williams, D. (ed.), The Art of the Greek Goldsmith (London), 66–72. Bykovskaya, N.V. 2002: ʻIz istorii komplektovaniya kollektsii antichnykh predmetov iz dragotsennykh metallov Kerchenskogo zapovednika (1944–2000 gg.)ʼ. In Zinko, V.N. (ed.), Bospor Kimmeriiskii. Pont i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya (Bosporskie Chteniya 3) (Kerch), 25–30. Cahill, N.D. (ed.) 2010: Lidyalılar ve dünyaları/ The Lydians and their World (Exhibition Catatlogue) (Istanbul). Cat. Istanbul 1983: The Anatolian Civilizations, 2: Greek/Roman/Byzantine (Istanbul). Cat. Speyer 2006: Pracht und Prunk der Grosskönige. Das persische Weltreich (Stuttgart). Chernenko, E.V. 1968: Skifskii dospekh (Kiev). Černenko, E.V. 2006: Die Schutzwaffen der Skythen (Prähistorische Bronzefunde 3.2) (Stuttgart). Chronique 1956: ʻChronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1955ʼ. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 80, 219–432. Curtis, C.D. 1925: Jewelry and Gold Work, 1: 1910–1914 (Sardis 13) (Rome). Curtis, J. and Tallis, N. (eds.), Forgotten Empire. The World of Ancient Persia (Exhibition Catalogue) (London).

136

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Dalton, O.M. 1964: The Treasures of the Oxus, 3rd ed. (London). Daucé, M. 2010: ʻLes briques ornementalesʼ. In Perrot, J. (ed.), Le palais de Darius à Suse. Une résidence royale sur la route de Persépolis à Babylone (Paris), 327–42. de Mecquenem, R. 1947: ʻContribution à l’étude du palais achéménide de Suseʼ. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran, 30: Mission de Susiane (Paris), 1–119. de Morgan, J. 1905: ʻDécouverte d’une sépulture achéménide à Suseʼ. Délégation en Perse. Mémoires 8 (Paris), 29–58. Dentzer, J.-M. 1982: Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe siècle av. J.-C. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 246) (Paris). Dusinberre, E.R.M. 2003: Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis (Cambridge). Fedoseev, N.F. 2014: ʻNekotorye diskussionnye voprosy organizatsii i razvitiya Bosporskogo gosudarstvaʼ. In Podosinov, A.V. and Gabelko, O.V. (eds.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2012 g. (Moscow), 141–74. Frank, C. 2010. ʻLa tombe de l’acropoleʼ. In Perrot, J. (ed.), Le palais de Darius à Suse. Une résidence royale sur la route de Persépolis à Babylone (Paris), 364–71. Gajdukevič, V.F. 1971: Das Bosporanische Reich (Berlin). Ghirshman, R. 1964: Iran. Protoiraner, Meder, Achämeniden (Munich). Hansen, S., Wieczorek, A. and Tellenbach, M. (eds.) 2009: Alexander der Grosse und die Öffnung der Welt. Asiens Kulturen im Wandel (Exhibition Catalogue) (Mannheim). Harper, P.O., Aruz, J. and Tallon, F. (eds.). 1992: The Royal City of Susa. Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre (Exhibition Catalogue) (New York). Jaeggi, O. 2012: Atticheskie krasnofigurnye vazy IV v. do n.e./ Attisch-rotfigurige Vasen des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. (Iz sobraniya Kerchenskogo Istoriko-kul‘turnogo Zapovednika, Kollektsiya raspisnoi keramiki; Aus den Sammlungen des HistorischKulturellen Reservats in Kerč, Bemalte Keramik 4) (Kiev). Jepessen, K. 2000: ʻCatalogue raisonné of Finds from the Cavity in the Tomb Chamber and the Tomb-Robbers’ Mine, Part 1: Gold Ornaments and Beads of Semiprecious Stones and Glassʼ. In Jepessen, K. (ed.), The Maussoleion at Halikarnassos (Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum 4; Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 15.4) (Aarhus), 119–40. Kaba, H. 2021: ‘“Eğrekbaşı” Revisited – A Topographic and Contextual Correctum to a Burial Ground from the Southern Necropolis of Parion’. Arkeoloji dergisi. Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi 145–67 (DOI: 10.51493/egearkeoloji.786332). Kantor, H.J. 1957: ʻOriental Institute Museum Notes, 8: Achaemenid Jewelry in the Oriental Institute’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 16, 1–23. Kantorovich, A.R. 2015: Skifskii zverinyi stil’ Vostochnoi Evropy: klassifikatsiya, tipologiya, khronologiya, evolyutsiy (Dissertation, Moscow). —. 2017: ʻSkifskii zverinyi stil’ Kryma kak regional’nyi komponent vostochnoevropeiskogo skifskogo zverinogo stilya (repertuar, khronologiya i statisticheskie pokazateli)ʼ. In Kuzminykh, S.V. and Gorbenko, А.А. (eds.), «I muzoyu ego byla nauka». Sbornik pamyati V.A. Korenyako (1952–2016) (Azov), 143–80. Khachatryan, Z.D. and Margaryan, A.G. 2003: ʻRiton so skulpturnoi protomoi v vide vsadnikaʼ. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 4, 114–22. Korolkova, E.F. 1996: Teoreticheskie problemy iskusstvoznaniya i «zverinyi stil’» skifskoi epokhi (St Petersburg).

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

137

Krentz, P. 2010a: ʻA Cup by Douris and the Battle of Marathonʼ. In Trundle, M. and Fagan, G. (eds.), New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare (History of Warfare 59) (Leiden/Boston), 183–204. —. 2010b: The Battle of Marathon (New Haven). Kuznetsov, V.D. 2018: ʻBospor Kimmeriiskii v 5 v. do n. e. (drevnepersidskaya nadpis iz Fanagorii)ʼ. In Kuznetsov, V.D. (ed.), Fanagoriya: Rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 6 (Moscow), 160–85. —. 2019: ʻThe Cimmerian Bosporus in the 5th Century BC (an Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoria)ʼ. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 25.1, 8–43. Kuznetsov, V.D. and Nikitin, A.B. 2018: ʻDrevnepersidskaya nadpis iz Fanagoriiʼ. In Kuznetsov, V.D. (ed.), Fanagoriya: Rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 6 (Moscow), 154–59. —. 2019: ʻAn Old Persian Inscription from Phanagoriaʼ. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 25.1, 1–7. Lerner, J.A. 1991: ʻSome So-Called Achaemenid Objects from Pazyrykʼ. Source: Notes in the History of Art 10.4, 8–15. McCredie, J.R. 1968: ʻSamothrace. Preliminary Report on the Campaigns of 1965–1967ʼ. Hesperia 37, 200–34. Manassero, N. 2008: Rhyta e corni potori dall’Età del Ferro all’epoca sasanide. Libagioni pure e misticismo tra la Grecia e il mondo iranico (BAR International Series 1750) (Oxford). Mellink, M.J. 1972: ʻExcavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1971ʼ. American Journal of Archaeology 76, 257–69. Mierse, W.E. 1983: ʻPersian Periodʼ. In Hanfmann, G.M.A., Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Results of the Arhaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958–1975 (Cambridge, MA/London), 103–06. Miller, M.C. 2004: Athens and Persians in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge). —. 2011. ʻManners Makyth Man. Diacritical Drinking in Achaemenid Anatoliaʼ. In Gruen, E.S. (ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Los Angeles), 97–134. Molev, E.A. 2016: ʻK voprosu o veroyatnosti podchineniya Bospora persamʼ. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 33, 17–27. Moorey, P.R.S. 1978: ʻThe Iconography of an Achaemenid Stamp-Seal Acquired in Lebanonʼ. Iran 16, 143–54. —. 1980: Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük (BAR International Series 87) (Oxford). Mozolevskii, B.N. 1982: ʻSkifskii «tsarskii» kurgan Zheltokamenkaʼ. In Terenozhkin, A.I. (ed.), Drevnosti stepnoi Skifii (Kiev), 179–222. Muscarella, O.W. 1977: ʻUnexcavated Objects and Ancient Near Eastern Artʼ. In Levine, L.D. and Young, T.C. (eds.), Mountains and Lowlands, Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7) (Malibu), 153–207. Özgen, I. 2010: ʻLidya Hazinesi. Lydian Treasureʼ. In Cahill 2010, 305–38. Özgen, I. and Öztürk, J. 1996: Heritage Recovered: The Lydian Treasure (Istanbul). Polin, S.V. and Alekseev, A.Y. 2018: Skifskii tsarskii Aleksandropol’skii kurgan IV v. do n.e. v Nizhnem Podneprov’e (Kiev). Polos’mak, N.V. and Barkova, L.L. 2005: Kostyum i tekstil’ pazyryktsev Altaya (IV–III vv. do n.e.) (Novosibirsk).

138

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Porucznik, J. 2018: ʻHeuresibios son of Syriskos and the question of tyranny in Olbia Pontike (fifth–fourth century BC)ʼ. Annual of the British School at Athens 113, 399–414. Pruglo, V.I. 1963: ʻZolotye ukrasheniya zverinogo stilya iz Baksinskogo kurganaʼ. Kratkie soobshcheniya o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh Odesskogo gosudarstvennogo arkheologicheskogo muzeya 1961 goda (Odessa), 72–78. Razmjou, S. 2005: ʻIn Search of the Lost Median Artʼ. Iranica Antiqua 40, 271–314. Rehm, E. 1992: Der Schmuck der Achämeniden (Münster). —. 2010: ʻThe Classification of Objects from the Black Sea Region Made or Influenced by the Achaemenidsʼ. In Nieling, J. and Rehm, E. (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers (Black Sea Studies 11) (Aarhus), 161–94. Roes, A. 1952: ʻAchaemenid Influence upon Egyptian and Nomadic Artʼ. Artibus Asiae 15, 17–30. Rolle, R., Murzin, V.Ju. and Alekseev, A.Ju. 1998: Königskurgan Čertomlyk: Ein skythischer Grabhügel des 4. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archäologie 1), parts 2–3 (Mainz). Roos, P. 1970: ʻAn Achaemenian Sketch Slab and the Ornaments of the Royal Dress at Persepolisʼ. East and West 20, 51–59. Rubinson, K.S. 1990: ʻThe Textiles from Pazyryk. A Study in the Transfer and Transformation of Artistic Motifsʼ. Expedition 32.1, 49–61. Rudenko, S.I. 1953: Kul’tura naseleniya gornogo Altaya v skifskoe vremya (Moscow/ Leningrad). —. 1961: Iskusstvo Altaya i Perednei Azii (seredina I tysyacheletiya do n.e.) (Moscow). Rung, E.V. and Gabelko, O.L. 2018: ʻSkifskii pokhod Dariya I i drevnepersidskaya nadpis iz Fanagoriiʼ. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 4, 847–69. —. 2019: ʻFrom Bosporus… to Bosporus: a new interpretation and historical context of the old Persian Inscription from Phanagoreiaʼ. Iranica Antiqua 54, 83–125. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1989: ʻGifts in the Persian Empireʼ. In Briant, P. and Herrenschmidt, C. (eds.), Le tribute dans l’Empire perse (Paris), 129–46. Schiltz, V. 1994: Die Skythen und andere Steppenvölker (Munich). Schmidt, E.F. 1953: Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions (Oriental Institute Publications 48) (Chicago). Schmidt, E.F. 1957: Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasure and Other Discoveries (Oriental Institute Publications 49) (Chicago). Sdykov, M.N. and Lukpanova, Y.A. 2013: The Early Nomads of West Kazakhstan (by the Example of Taksai Mound Complex) (Uralsk). Seipel, W. (ed.) 2000: 7000 Jahre persische Kunst. Meisterwerke aus dem Iranischen Nationalmuseum in Teheran (Exhibition Catalogue) (Milan). Settgast, J. and Gehrig, U. (eds.) 1978: Von Troia bis Amarna: The Norbert Schimmel Collection (Exhibition Catalogue) (New York/Mainz). Shavarebi, E. 2019: ‘An Inscription of Darius I from Phanagoria (DFa): Preliminary report of a work in progress’. Arta 5, 1–15. Shefton, B. 1982: ʻThe Krater from Baksyʼ. In Kurtz, D. and Sparkes, B. (eds.), The Eye of Greece. Studies in the Art of Athens (Cambridge), 149–11. Shtal, I.V. 2000: Svod mifo-epicheskikh syuzhetov antichnoi vazovoi rospisi po muzeyam Rossiiskoi Federatsii i stran SNG (Moscow).

GOLD APPLIQUÉS IN THE ACHAEMENID STYLE FROM THE BAKSY KURGAN

139

Shulga, P.I., Myglan, V.S. and Slyusarenko, I.Y. 2016: ʻKhronologiya mogil’nikov pozdnego etapa pazyrykskoi kul’tury: dendrokhronologicheskaya shkala i arkheologicheskii aspektʼ. In Derevyanko, A.P. and Molodin, V.I. (eds.), Altai v krugu evraziiskikh drevnostei (Novosibirsk), 272–86. Shulga, P.I. and Oborin, Y.V. 2021: ʻZerkalo-pogremushka iz Srednego Uralaʼ. Narody i religii Evrazii 26.1, 7–24. Silanteva, L.F. 1959: ʻNekropol‘ Nimfeyaʼ. In Gajdukevich, V.F. (ed.), Nekropoli bosporskikh gorodov (Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 69) (Moscow/ Leningrad), 5–107. Simpson, St.J. and Pankova, S. (eds.), Scythians. Warriors of Ancient Siberia (Exhibition Catalogue) (London). Sokolskii, N.I. 1969: Antichnye derevyannye sarkofagi Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Svod Arkheologicheskikh Istochnikov G1–17) (Moscow). —. 1971: Derevoobrabatyvayushchee remeslo v antichnykh gosudarstvakh Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 178) (Moscow). Stark, S. 2012: ʻNomads and Networks: Elites and their Connections to the Outside Worldʼ. In Stark, S. and Rubinson, K. (eds.), Nomads and Networks: The Ancient Art and Culture of Kazakhstan (New York/Princeton), 106–18. Stronach, D. 2011: ʻA Pipe Player and a Lyre Player: Notes on Three Achaemenid or Near-Achaemenid Silver Rhyta Found in the Vicinity of Erebuni, Armeniaʼ. In Heimpel, W. (ed.), Strings and Threads: A Celebration of the Work of Anne Draffkorn Kilmer (Winona Lake), 251–74. Tallon, F. 1995: Les pierres précieuses de l’Orient ancien des Sumériens aux sassanides (Les dossiers du Musée du Louvre 49) (Paris). Treister, M.Y. 2011: ʻAkhemenidskie «importy» na Bospore Kimmeriiskom. Analiz i interpretatsiyaʼ. In Bosporskii fenomen: Naselenie, yazyki, kontakty (St Petersburg), 113–21. —. 2013a: ʻAchämenidischer Schmuck und Gewandschmuck aus Edelmetallen im südlichen Uralvorland. Erzeugnisse des achämenidischen Kreises und lokale Nachahmungen. Werke der post-achämenidischen Traditionʼ. In Treister, M.Y. and Yablonsky, L.T. (eds.), Einflüsse der achämenidischen Kultur im südlichen Uralvorland (5.–3. Jh. v. Chr.), vol. 1 (Vienna), 158–91. —. 2013b: ʻZolotye blyashki akhemenidskogo stilya iz kurgana Baksy v Vostochnom Krymuʼ. Drevnosti Bospora 17, 345–62. —. 2015: ʻA Hoard of Silver Rhyta of the Achaemenid Circle from Erebuniʼ. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 21.2, 23–119. Treister, M.Y., Šemachanskaja, M. and Yablonsky, L.T. 2013: ʻА13. Grabkomplexe mit Objekten des achämenidischen Kreises der Nekropole Filippovka-Iʼ. In Treister, M.Y. and Yablonsky, L.T. (eds.), Einflüsse der achämenidischen Kultur im südlichen Uralvorland (5.–3. Jh. v. Chr.), vol. 2 (Vienna), 84–159. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2019: ‘An Achaemenid Inscription from Phanagoria: Extending the Boundaries of the Empire’. Ancient West and East 18, 113–51. —. 2020: ʻAkhemenidskaya nadpis’ iz Fanagorii: perepisyvaya istoriyu imperiiʼ. Aristeas 21, 89–138. Tuplin, C. 2011: ʻThe Limits of Persianization. Some Reflections on Cultural Links in the Persian Empireʼ. In Gruen, E.S. (ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Los Angeles), 150–82.

140

MIKHAIL TREISTER

Vaulina, M. and Wąsowicz, A. 1974: Bois grecs et romains de l’Ermitage (Warsaw). Vdovichenko, I.I. 2003: ʻKerchenskie vazyʼ. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 3, 380–539. Veselov, V.V. 1959; ʻArkheologicheskie razvedki v vostochnoi chasti Kerchenskogo poluostrovaʼ. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 29–30, 227–44. Vinogradov, Y.A. 2011: ʻKurgan u sela Baksy v Vostochnom Krymuʼ. In Bosporskii fenomen: Naselenie, yazyki, kontakty (St Petersburg), 185–91. —. 2014a: ʻKurgan u sela Baksy v Vostochnom Krymuʼ. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 30, 510–28. —. 2014b: ʻEshche raz o kurgane u sela Baksy v Vostochnom Krymuʼ. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 30, 529–34. —. 2017: ʻKul’tura bosporskoi elity pri Spartokidakhʼ. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 34, 112–223. —. 2018: ʻPoliticheskaya situatsiya v Sredizemnomor’e i osobennosti kul’tury elity Bospora Kimmeriiskogo v dorimskuyu epokhuʼ. In Mel’nikova, E.A. (ed.), Vostochnaya Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e 30 (Moscow), 55–59. —. 2019: ʻTraditsii i innovatsii v aristokraticheskoi kul’ture Bospora dorimskoi epokhiʼ. Bosporskie Issledovaniya 38, 3–16. Wiesehöfer, J. 1996: Ancient Persia (New York). Yablonskii, L.T. (ed.) 2008: Sokrovishcha sarmatskikh vozhdei (Materialy raskopok Filippovskikh kurganov) (Exhibition Catalogue) (Orenburg). Yablonsky, L.T. and Treister, M.Y. 2019: ʻNew Archaeological Data on Achaemenid Influences in the Southern Uralsʼ. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 25.1, 79–161. Yardimci, N. (ed.) 1986: Schatten uit Turkije (Exhibition Catalogue) (Leiden). Zavoikin A.A. 2015: ʻAkhemenidy i Bospor (istoriograficheskii aspekt problemy)ʼ. Problemy Istorii, Filologii, Kul‘tury 1 (47), 240–61.

ACHAEMENIDS AND THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA Manolis MANOLEDAKIS

Abstract This paper examines the nature of the Achaemenid presence in the southern Black Sea littoral in the light of both archaeological and textual evidence. The particularity of this area lies in the fact that it hosted two worlds, which were encountered by the Achaemenids, the indigenous peoples and the Greeks of the colonies. Judging by the available evidence, while the initial impression is that of a ‘tolerant’ or even ‘silent’ Achaemenid attitude towards both of them, at a deeper level such an attitude seems to reflect an intentional policy of the Achaemenids; a policy that might find a parallel in the reaction of the locals and the Greeks towards the Achaemenids as well.

The Achaemenid presence in the southern Black Sea littoral presents special interest, since there are two worlds that the Persians encountered and had to deal with there, the indigenous peoples and the Greeks of the colonies. In fact, one must bear in mind that from the very outset of the Achaemenid occupation, namely soon after the mid-6th century BC, there were already Greek colonies planted on the coast: at least the first four primary ones, Sinope, Tieion, Amisos and Heraclea, the first two of these long since.1 Therefore, it would be worth examining whether the new conquerors of Anatolia impeded the development of these colonies, which were now situated – at least theoretically – in their territory. The archaeological and textual evidence that would help us investigate to what degree the Achaemenid rule affected these two worlds is more scant that one would wish – or even expect, given the power and longevity of the Achaemenid presence in Anatolia. However, we should not forget the natural isolation of the southern Black Sea littoral,2 which, perhaps combined with other factors as well, may have discouraged Iranian settlement there (except for officials and soldiers), as seems to have been the case with some parts of the Anatolian hinterland;3 at least, there is no relevant evidence. 1 For the Greek colonies of the southern Black Sea, see most recently Manoledakis 2022, 314–22, with all the bibliography. 2 On the natural environment of the littoral, see most recently Manoledakis 2022, 25–58, with the whole bibliography. 3 Klingenberg 2014, with bibliography for the different views on the topic; Michels 2017, 44–45.

142

MANOLIS MANOLEDAKIS

As far as the archaeological data are concerned, the truth is that so far we have a rather general image at our disposal, although the cultural impact of the Achaemenids on the whole of Anatolia, including the Black Sea littoral, is evident, and indeed from quite early on. The archaeological evidence implies that the area had become a melting pot of local, Greek and Persian cultural elements, by the 5th century BC at the latest. This is apparent, for example, in several rock-cut tombs in Paphlagonia, where Persian architectural and iconographic features can be detected, together with Greek ones.4 Furthermore, the area has yielded some ‘Achaemenid-type’ pottery samples and metal objects dating from the late 6th century BC on,5 as well as grave-reliefs of Persian influence,6 while even the existence of a satrapal manufacturing centre for luxury goods in Sinope has been suggested, especially in the light of the several silver vessels found in the wider region.7 Finally, there are some Greek objects that suggest Persian influence or presence in the littoral, such as the Persian names on amphora handles and coins, especially those of Sinope.8 Nevertheless, finds that are either Persian or demonstrate Persian influence are not as numerous as one would expect, as already mentioned,9 while they are mainly related to more official aspects of the Achaemenid culture, rather than the everyday Persian one.10 It is also noteworthy that we are not even quite sure about how Persian some of these objects are, so that we often read about ‘Persian’ and not Persian finds.11 In fact, many of them seem to have been produced locally, indicating contact with Persian craftsmen rather than manufacture by them.12 4

Marek 1993, 14–15; Summerer 2003, 19–20; Dönmez 2007, 108; Summerer and von Kienlin 2010, who date the monuments to the late 5th and 4th centuries BC, but mention also other dating proposals that have been put forward. 5 Summerer 2003, with more bibliography; Dönmez 2007, 108–11; 2015; 2019; Tuplin 2007, 25; Tsetskhladze 2014, 321; 2019, 134. 6 Summerer 2003, 20. 7 Tsetskhladze 2014, 321. For the silver vessels, see Summerer 2003. Persian influences are seen in the Colchian culture as well: Braund 1994, 126–30; Tsetskhladze 2014, 316, 321; 2017, 29; 2019, 138–42. Cf. Brosius 2010. 8 See below on the coins. See also Summerer 2003, 19; Erciyas 2006, 56; Keleş 2006. 9 Cf. Dönmez 2007, 108. However, Summerer (2003, 19) stated that the Persian culture influenced the northern part of Anatolia more than the western. Cf. Brosius 2010, 29. 10 Francis 1980, 68. For exceptions elsewhere in Anatolia, see Dusinberre 2013, 268. 11 Tuplin 2007, 25; Tsetskhladze 2014, 321; 2017, 29; 2019, 128–29, 134. For an effort to classify objects from the Black Sea that were made or influenced by the Persians, see Rehm 2010. 12 Brosius 2010, 34–35, even if referring mainly to the western and eastern sides of the Black Sea. Brosius sees in the ‘fine Achaemenizing luxury metalware produced by Greek craftsmen’ an indirect Persian influence on the Greek cities of the Black Sea, which, although politically autonomous, were economically dependent on the local hinterland.

ACHAEMENIDS AND THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA

143

The oft-quoted lack of archaeological research in the southern Black Sea littoral could be an adequate explanation, were it not for the fact that the specific difficulties concern a much bigger part of the conquered areas, including the rest of Asia Minor.13 Among the several other explanations for this phenomenon that have been put forward, one could consider Herodotus’ (1. 135) remark that ‘of all men the Persians most welcome foreign customs’.14 However, I do not think that this would be enough to explain the weakness of any discernible impact of Persian culture in our area of interest through archaeological evidence. On the one hand, the adoption of foreign customs does not at all mean the abolition of the familiar ones, while on the other the archaeological material refers to many more practical aspects of life than customs. Similarities between Persian and local artefacts would be a much more plausible explanation. In any case, special mention should be made of M.C. Root’s reference to five factors, which, according to her, ‘have combined to create and perpetuate the cliché of low Persian presence in/cultural impact on the western imperial territories’: problems in the archaeological retrieval of Persian material in the West; negatively presented quantification of the Persian material that has been retrieved; miscategorised works of portable art of Achaemenid type in numerous collections; misappropriated monumental art claimed as major examples of a purely Greek repertoire even though exhibiting important features reflecting the impact of Achaemenid society and/or art forms; and uncritical categorisation of large numbers of art works as ‘Graeco-Persian’.15 Root concluded that: the apparently unimposing impact of Persian culture on the western empire was a reflection of the success of a deliberate, assertive central policy – as opposed to a vaguely defined ‘tolerant attitude’. This policy might have sought to play down the conspicuous presence of Persian power in the provinces on a variety of social/ cultural levels.16

Further elaborating Root’s theory, E.R.M. Dusinberre argued that, having to incorporate a large number of peoples with very different traditions into their empire, the Achaemenid kings ‘had to implement an imperial system that would consolidate and keep the empire, one that would allow for diverse populations and cultural backgrounds but still unite the people into a stable whole’. Such a system should achieve a flexible combination of authority and autonomy. Indeed, Anatolia became a region where ‘the Achaemenid imperial authority 13

Root 1991, 1; Erciyas 2006, 56; Matthews 2009, 155; Tsetskhladze 2019, 128–29. For these explanations, see Root 1991. 15 Root 1991, 7. 16 Root 1991, 3; cf. Matthews 2009, 155–56. See Thonemann 2013 for a similar but not identical case regarding the Phrygian civilisation after the Persian conquest. 14

144

MANOLIS MANOLEDAKIS

was expressed powerfully’, but at the same time ‘individuals were able to exercise some type of autonomy, mostly in ways that allowed them to express their individual identity’:17 for example, aspects of culture such as religion and language were not extensively exploited by the central authority as avenues for imposing power.18 This policy of the Achaemenids was one of the most significant reasons for the longevity of their empire. The inability of the archaeological evidence to elucidate the degree of Achaemenid impact on northern Anatolia is obvious, and today the situation regarding Root’s five factors is actually not much better that it was in her time. How then could we attest to the powerful expression of the Achaemenid imperial authority (claimed by both Root and Dusinberre), specifically in our area of interest? Let us resort to the written sources, which, as regards the southern Black Sea, start being concrete only in the late 5th century BC, thanks to Xenophon. His relevant accounts may not be abundant, but they are enough to provide an idea of the Achaemenid presence and interest in the southern Black Sea, although we should always bear in mind that Xenophon was not primarily seeking to describe the Persian presence in the littoral in this work. In brief, and contrary to what has been described by Root and Dusinberre for the whole of Anatolia, the Achaemenid presence in the southern Black Sea could rather be considered discreet or permissive, both towards the local communities and towards the Greek colonies, as long as both were prompt in their tax and tribute obligations.19 Only thus can one comprehend the highly telling incident narrated by the Sinopean envoy Hecatonymus, that ‘very recently’, i.e. before 400 BC, some Paphlagonians refused to present themselves when summoned by the Persian king, because their archon – who must have been Corylas – was too proud to obey and because they regarded their cavalry as superior to the whole of the king’s cavalry (Xenophon Anabasis 5. 6. 8). I cannot imagine many empires where such an official attitude towards the king would not have caused immediate and severe repercussions. Similarly, some years later another Paphlagonian official, Otys,20 refused to go up to the Persian king when he was summoned by him (Xenophon 17

Dusinberre 2013, 270–71. Dusinberre 2013, 63–64, 266–71. 19 For the taxes and tributes exacted by the Achaemenid empire from its subjugated peoples, see Dusinberre 2013, 35–42. For gold and silver tax in the Achaemenid empire, see Zournatzi 2000. 20 For Corylas and Otys, the different official titles of Paphlagonia that are found in the ancient literature, and the territory of Paphlagonia over which these officials ruled, see Manoledakis 2019, with full bibliography. 18

ACHAEMENIDS AND THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA

145

Hellenica 4. 1. 3). Otys seems to have had the habit of ignoring the king’s commands, for there is more about him: he made an alliance with Spithridates, a Persian nobleman and official in the court of Pharnabazus II, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, against whom he revolted and joined forces with Agesilaus in his war against Persia in 396 BC. Spithridates went with Agesilaus to Paphlagonia, where Otys provided him with 3 000 men and married his daughter (Xenophon Hellenica 4. 1. 1–14; Agesilaus 3. 4; Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 21. 6–22. 2; Plutarch Agesilaus 11. 2). An explanation for Otys’ habit of disregarding the king’s commands might lie in the fact that he was a near relative of Datames (they were first cousins), who was the satrap of Cappadocia (Nepos Datames 2), to which Paphlagonia must have belonged; Otys might thus have felt that he could afford to be a bit more relaxed toward the commands of the Persian king. However, he eventually (ca. 380 BC) paid for this attitude in a rather humiliating way (Nepos Datames 2–3; Theopompus 115 F 179), while later Datames managed to take possession of Paphlagonia, and probably even of the powerful city of Sinope.21 It must have been extremely difficult to keep a ‘satrapy’ of such vast size and with so many different peoples under full control and its peoples suppressed,22 especially those who seem to have stood out as experts in diplomacy and political manoeuvring throughout history, like the very self-confident Paphlagonians,23 for whom, incidentally, more evidence is available as regards our topic here than for any other people of the littoral. Paphlagonia’s subjection to Persia was not what an autocratic monarch would wish,24 and the fact that the Paphlagonians had sent soldiers to Cyrus in Cunaxa (Anabasis 1. 8. 5) does not necessarily imply a general Paphlagonian ‘obligation to serve in satrapal forces’, as has been pointed out:25 after all, the Greek mercenaries did exactly the same. The king at that time was Artaxerxes, Cyrus’ enemy, and the peoples subjected to him would be expected to send soldiers to Artaxerxes. The Paphlagonians serving with Cyrus should not be considered as the official Paphlagonian forces in the war: they were just 1 000 horsemen, who may have been be the only ‘barbarians’ mentioned by their ethnic name by Xenophon but were still very few compared to the ‘more than 120,000 Paphlagonian infantry’ (Anabasis 5. 6. 9), or the 100,000 barbarians serving under Cyrus (Anabasis 1. 7. 10), and even fewer in comparison with the 1,200,000 (Anabasis 1. 7. 11) 21

See more details in Manoledakis 2019, 218; 2021; Tsetskhladze 2019, 135. For the interesting question of possible differences in the status of satrapies, as well as a ranking among the different peoples within a satrapy, see Brosius 2010, 30. 23 On this matter, see in detail Manoledakis 2019. 24 Contra Tuplin 2004, 177. Cf. Manoledakis 2019, 217–19. 25 Tuplin 2004, 177 and n. 74. 22

146

MANOLIS MANOLEDAKIS

or 400,000 (Plutarch Artaxerxes 13. 3, citing Ctesias) soldiers and 6000 horsemen (Anabasis. 1. 7. 11) serving with Artaxerxes, whose nationalities are not recorded but certainly included Paphlagonians. In any case, after Otys the Paphlagonians seem to have returned to a greater loyalty towards the Persians, since in ca. 361–360 BC Artabazus tried to draw supplies from the ‘friendly lands of Upper Phrygia, Lydia and Paphlagonia’ (Demosthenes Aristocr. 155) for his war against Charidemus in Hellespontine Phrygia.26 But this might be not enough to change the image of an elusive Persian presence in the littoral.27 After all, Paphlagonia and Paphlagonians do not refer only to the littoral, where the Greek element was by this time as strong as the Paphlagonian or any other local one. Therefore, we must also examine the Persian attitude towards the Greeks and their cities there, as well as their intervention in issues between Greeks and locals. As far as the latter issue is concerned, Xenophon’s account, and especially what he does not say in it, implies a quite loose attitude, at least in the period around 400 BC. Notwithstanding the several instances of friction between Greeks and locals (be it the Colchians, the Drilae, or the Mossynoikoi) or between neighbouring locals, let alone between two factions of the same people, as was the case with the Mossynoikoi,28 no Persian intervention is ever reported, as if the Persians were completely indifferent to what was happening in their administrative territory.29 In 400 BC, Hecatonymus, the Sinopean envoy to Xenophon’s army, threatens the latter in Cotyora that he will join forces with the Paphlagonians of Corylas to drive them out of his city’s colony (Anabasis 5. 5. 12). Corylas appears to have expansionist views over Sinope (5. 5. 22–23),30 but no Persian attitude is mentioned towards these views. The only remarkable mobilisation from the Persian side mentioned by Xenophon took place in Bithynia. There, Pharnabazus, the Persian satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, sent forces to aid the Bithynians attacking the Ten Thousand, in order to prevent them from entering their province (Anabasis 6. 4–5), though unsuccessfully.31 Nonetheless, this incident is not enough to indicate a steadily 26 For the dating and location of these events, see Heskel 1997, 119. More about Otys in Manoledakis 2019, 218–19. 27 Some decades later, when Alexander the Great invaded Asia Minor, Curtius (3. 1. 23) mentions that the Paphlagonians did not even pay tribute to the Persians. But this is not confirmed by any other author. For the doubts about Curtius’ historical accuracy, see, indicatively, Baynham 1998, 1–2, 57–67. 28 The local peoples of the littoral are all examined in detail in Manoledakis 2022, 61–241. 29 See also Lane Fox 2004, 30–31; Tuplin 2004, 176–78; 2007, 13, 25–28. Cf. Briant 2002, 498. 30 In fact, Corylas appears at the same time to be a friend of the Sinopean Hecatonymus, who is his official representative at Sinope (5. 6. 11). See more in Manoledakis 2022, 119–23. 31 See also Manoledakis 2022, 77–79.

ACHAEMENIDS AND THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA

147

peaceful relationship between the Bithynians and the Persians, and Pharnabazus specifically, since Xenophon elsewhere mentions several conflicts between the two sides (for example Hellenica 3. 2. 2).32 As for the progress of Greek colonisation, which had begun before the Persian conquest, not only did the latter not disrupt it but, on the contrary, most of the colonies (both primary and secondary) seem to have been established during this occupation – indeed two of the most important, Amisos and Heraclea, must have been founded only a few years before the conquest but still experienced stable development over time.33 It is noteworthy that in 400 BC the Greek colonies of Sinope are mentioned as paying tribute to their metropolis (Anabasis 5. 5. 7, 10), and one might wonder whether they were also paying tribute to the Persians. Even towards the plans of Xenophon’s newly arrived Greeks to establish a colony in the vicinity of Cotyora it is only the aggressive attitude of merchants from Heraclea and Sinope that is mentioned, nothing from the Persian side (Anabasis 5. 6. 15–21). In fact, no Persians at all are mentioned by Xenophon anywhere in the littoral. But there is another strong pointer, irrespective of the events narrated by Xenophon and in fact predating them: namely, the Athenian presence in the Black Sea. There is multiple evidence of this – albeit short-lived – presence in the southern littoral in the third quarter of the 5th century BC. Plutarch (Pericles 20. 1) reports an expedition of Pericles to the southern Black Sea, and specifically to Sinope, in the 430s BC or a bit earlier,34 where he left thirteen ships of war and soldiers under the command of Lamachus to aid the Sinopeans against the tyrant Timesileos. Plutarch’s account of Pericles’ expedition to the Black Sea been considered by some scholars as unreliable, or even an Athenian invention of the 4th century BC.35 However, we cannot prove that the reference to his visit in Sinope (specifically) is a product of fiction.36 Secondly, we have the Athenian re-colonisation and renaming (to Peiraeus) of Amisos in about 437/6 BC, which is mentioned by Strabo (12. 3. 14) and is linked to Pericles’ expedition.37 And finally, there is the presence, with more or less certainty, of some cities of the littoral – Heraclea, Caroussa (less possible) and Kerasous (IG I3 71. IV. 127, 129, 169) – in the tribute assessment 32

Michels 2017, 41–42. See Manoledakis 2022, 316–31. 34 The two main theories proposed talk about ca. 450 BC and 438–436 BC. See the bibliography in Tsetskhladze 1997 and de Boer 2005, 168. 35 Ferrarese 1974; Tsetskhladze 1997, with bibliography. De Boer (2005, 167) seems to consider this view exaggerated. 36 On the Athenian presence in the Black Sea, see most recently Manoledakis forthcoming, with the whole bibliography. 37 Atasoy 2003, 1342–47; Avram et al. 2004, 954–55; Summerer 2005a, 149. 33

148

MANOLIS MANOLEDAKIS

decree of 425/4 BC, which indicates that Athens had managed to enrol several cities of the coast among the tribute-paying members of the Delian League.38 Here too no Persian attitude is mentioned, and the Athenians of Pericles and Lamachus seem to have been able to act undisturbed by the Persians. Had the latter demonstrated a forceful policy towards the Greek cities of the coast at the beginning of their occupation, Athens might not have been able to be so active in the area. Nevertheless, this situation did not last forever. Shortly before 362 BC Datames, the satrap of Cappadocia, attempted not only to conquer Paphlagonia, but also to attack and besiege Sinope, misleading its citizens as to his alleged desire to help them in their conflict against Sestus. But when the Persian king Artaxerxes II ordered him to stop the invasion immediately, he obeyed, although displeased (Polyaenus 7. 21. 2–5; Aenaeas Tacticus 40. 4).39 A possible reason for this turnaround, if indeed such there was, could be the rapid prosperity that Sinope and other Greek cities of the coast began to know from the 4th century BC, as manifested through archaeological finds in or from the southern Black Sea,40 including amphorae fragments and coins. Such prosperity would hardly leave a Persian satrap of the area indifferent.41 Interestingly, on certain 4th-century coins of Sinope we observe that, although they adhere to the standard type for this century,42 the legend with the abbreviated name of the city/citizens (ΣΙΝΩ) is replaced by Greek or Aramaic inscriptions with abbreviated names of Persian officials. Two of these are identified with Datames, the satrap of Cappadocia (385/4–362 BC) mentioned above, and Ariarathes, satrap and later king of Cappadocia (350–322 BC),43 or alternatively with Ariobarzanes, as proposed by other scholars,44 while the identification of the rest remains difficult. In an interesting attempt to identify the officials and place the coins in historical context C.M. Harrison,45 countering the earlier views of J.P. Six,46 identified Orobantes, Hydarnes and Mithropastes, son of the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, Arsites, and suggested that the coins in question should be dated to the period between 360 and 330/320 BC. Acknowledging that, while not provable, her identifications 38

For the Athenian intervention in the Black Sea, see Braund 2005b. Datames is also reported to have had the intention of using Amisos as a mint (Polyaenus 7. 21. 1). 40 See in detail Manoledakis 2022, 327–31. 41 See more in Manoledakis 2021. 42 Price 1993, pls. LI–LV. 43 Harrison 1982, 181, with bibliography; Price 1993, pl. LIII. 44 Avram et al. 2004, 961. 45 Harrison 1982. 46 Six 1885, 15–65; 1895, 169–210. 39

ACHAEMENIDS AND THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA

149

are quite possible, she attributed the striking of the coins of the three officials to their activities in 340–330 BC or to the short-lived efforts of the Persians immediately after the battle of the Granicus to repossess areas that had been conquered by Alexander (cf. Curtius 4. 1. 34, 4. 5. 13), efforts that took place in Cappadocia and Paphlagonia, which had not totally fallen to the Macedonian king (cf. Diodorus 18. 16. 1) and for which the striking of coins would be required.47 According to E.S.G. Robinson, however, these issues indicate that Sinope eventually fell into the hands not only of Datames – apparently in a second attempt, probably when he conquered Paphlagonia (according to Nepos Datames 5. 6) – but also of other Persian officials as well, until Ariarathes’ defeat and death at the hands of Eumenes and Perdiccas in 322 BC and the Macedonians’ final conquest of the area.48 Nevertheless, it must be noted that even during the period of those coins (370–325 BC), coinage with the name of Sinope and Greek personal names was still being struck,49 which makes us wonder whether Sinope was indeed conquered by the Persians or whether we have here just an effort by Persian officials to arrogate its commercial success.50 Similarly, with regard to Heraclea, its economic prosperity might explain why, as recorded by Memnon (1. 4), Clearchus, the tyrant of the city between 364 and 352 BC, sent many embassies to Artaxerxes II and III, while from a reference in Justin (16. 3. 9) we conclude that earlier, too, in the mid-5th century BC, the city had friendly relations with the Persian king, so that it could refuse to pay tribute to Athens (see above). These two cities, Sinope and Heraclea, were both admirably located for the development of sea trade. Amisos, by contrast, not having a good natural harbour but situated at the entrance to the only natural passage from the coast into the Anatolian hinterland, turned mainly to contacts with local populations there. This can be inferred from the use of the Persian standard in its coinage, which circulated in both the Black Sea region and Asia, which was under Persian occupation.51 Finally, on an inscription of 353/2–346/5 BC52 we read that the citizens of Sinope concluded an alliance with the tyrants of Heraclea, according to which 47

Harrison 1982, 193. This is the period in which the inscription ΣΙΝΩ reappears on the legend of the coins, which, always according to Robinson, implies that the city had recovered some measure of autonomy. Robinson 1920, 10–16. 49 Price 1993, pls. LIII–LIV. 50 As Avram et al. (2004, 961) also suggest. See more on this issue in Manoledakis 2021. 51 Malloy 1970; Price 1993, pl. XLI; Avram et al. 2004, 955. 52 French 2004, no. 1. 48

150

MANOLIS MANOLEDAKIS

each side would assist the other in case of attack on the territory or city by anyone except for the Persian king. Should the aggressor claim that his attacks were sanctioned by the king, the two contracting parties should send envoys to the king and the aggressor and ask the latter to leave their land. And if the aggressor should refuse, then the one contracting party should support the other in every possible way. The citizens of Cromna and Sesamus (situated between the other two)53 could also join the alliance if they wished. This inscription, which is safely dated by the names of the tyrants of Heraclea recorded in it,54 shows that these two important cities had taken measures in case of aggression, for example from local peoples such as the Bithynians and the Paphlagonians, or from Persian officials, but still recognised the suzerainty of the Persian king.55 Obviously, the inspiration for such an alliance was supplied at least in part by Datames, who a little earlier had attempted to invade Sinope (see above), while the attitude of king Artaxerxes at the time might also have played its role in the composition of the text. Indeed, the differentiation between the Persian king and anyone else, even Persian, is noteworthy; and what is again indicated is the state of balance between him and the Greek cities of the coast, which, although under his sovereignty, were able to conclude such alliances with each other, each maintaining its regime, and thus functioning as autonomous.56 To conclude, what then could one support as regards the degree to which the Achaemenid rule affected the southern Black Sea local and Greek populations? Although there seems to be a ‘consistency’ of written and archaeological evidence as far as a ‘silent’ or ‘elusive’ Achaemenid presence is concerned, one should be cautious when interpreting such a presence. Rather than simply talking about a Persian indifference to the area or inability to totally dominate it, or a strong resistance of the locals to the Achaemenid rule, one should consider the possibility of the deliberate Achaemenid policy described by Root and Dusinberre,57 a policy that I would correspondingly ascribe to the other 53

On these cities, see most recently Manoledakis 2022. French 2004, 4. 55 Cf. Avram et al. 2004, 957; Tuplin 2007, 24. According to one theory, the big Greek cities of the coast were subject directly to the king and not to the local satrap: Langella 1989. Cf. Summerer 2005b, 244. However, the coins mentioned above do not confirm this. 56 Cf. Marek 2003; Lane Fox 2004, 30. 57 Root 1991; Dusinberre 2013. See in the beginning of the paper. After all, there is much more than the strictly imperialistic sense in the political presence of the Persian, and specifically the Achaemenid, civilisation. Apart from the division into administrative provinces, the logic of which was maintained in practice, even if with different borders, by the next conquerors of Anatolia, it is noteworthy that, notwithstanding the earnest efforts of their local predecessors to avoid being integrated into the Persian empire, the later dynasties in some – not all – regions of 54

ACHAEMENIDS AND THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA

151

side as well, the side of the local inhabitants, which from the Classical period on included both the indigenous peoples and the Greeks of the colonies.58 Some events from the period during which Alexander the Great was conquering Asia and declaring himself lord of it might be indicative. After 333 BC he met the Paphlagonians at Ankara, the closest place to the littoral he ever reached, where he accepted their request not to invade and not to require them to pay tribute and just ordered them to obey Kalas, the satrap he had appointed in Hellespontine Phrygia (Plutarch Alexander 18. 5; Arrian 2. 4; Curtius 3. 1. 22–24). In fact, as soon as Alexander moved away from the region the Paphlagonians could not only continue their normal life and activity in their land, but also allow it to be an arena for Persian efforts to recover areas of the empire that had been conquered by the Macedonians (Curtius 4. 1. 34, 5. 13). Generally, Alexander proved to be rather indifferent to the area and its Greek cities and local peoples (cf. Justin 38. 7. 2), some of which managed to keep the Macedonians away even after his death. He might have been convinced that the specific populations were so well integrated into the Persian state that they had little in common with the Greeks of the Aegean coast, towards whom he demonstrated a quite different attitude.59 This could have been the result of a deliberate, adaptive policy of the population of the littoral, who did not react against the Persians as long as they could continue their basic activities and maintain their prosperity (as seen above), just as the Persians were rather discreet towards them, at least until the 4th century BC, as long as they received their taxes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Atasoy, S. 2003: ‘Amisos’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos, E.K. (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea [1], vol. 2 (Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 4) (Thessaloniki), 1331–77. Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2004: ‘The Black Sea Area’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 924–74. Baynham, E. 1998: Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius (Ann Arbor).

northern Anatolia aspired to legitimise their rule by linking it with the Achaemenids. See Michels 2017, 42, 48, 50. 58 See Manoledakis 2022, 327–31. 59 See more in Manoledakis 2021.

152

MANOLIS MANOLEDAKIS

Braund, D.C. 1994: Georgia in Antiquity. A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC–AD 562 (Oxford). —. 2005: ‘Pericles, Cleon and the Pontus. The Black Sea in Athens c. 440–421’. In Braund, D. (ed.), Scythians and Greeks: Cultural Interactions in Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (Sixth Century BC–First Century AD) (Exeter), 80–99. Briant, P. 2002: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake). Brosius, M. 2010: ‘Pax Persica and the Peoples of the Black Sea Region: Extent and Limits of Achaemenid Imperial Ideology’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 29–40. de Boer, J.G. 2005: ‘The foundation of Agathopolis/Alaeouteichos and the Athenian Black Sea policy in the 5th century BC’. In Kacharava, D., Faudot, M. and Geny, É. (eds.), Pont-Euxin et Polis. Polis Hellenis et Polis Barbaron (Actes du Xe symposium de Vani, 23–26 septembre 2002: hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé et Pierre Lévêque) (Publications de l’Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l’Antiquité 979) (Besançon), 167–80. Dönmez, Ş. 2007: ‘The Achaemenid Impact on the Central Black Sea Region’. In Delemen, I., Casabonne, O., Karagöz, Ş. and Tekin, O. (eds.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Culture in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries B.C.) (Papers presented at the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–21 May 2005) (Istanbul), 107–16. —. 2015: ‘Achaemenid Presence at Oluz Höyük, north-central Anatolia’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds.), The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC–10th Century AD) (Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Belgrade 17–21 September 2013) (Oxford), 467–73. —. 2019: ‘The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Atasoy, S. (eds.), Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity (Select papers from the Third International Conference ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’, 27–29 October 2017, Tekkeköy, Samsun) (Oxford), 244–57. Dusinberre, E.R.M. 2013: Empire, Authority, and Autonomy in Achaemenid Anatolia (Cambridge). Erciyas, D.B. 2006: Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey (Colloquia Pontica 12) (Leiden/Boston). Ferrarese, P. 1974: ‘La spedizione di Pericle nel Ponto Eusino’. Contributi dell’Istituto di storia antica 2, 7–19. Francis, E.D. 1980: ‘Greeks and Persians: The Art of Hazard and Triumph’. In Schmandt-Besserat, D. (ed.), Ancient Persia: The Art of an Empire (Invited Lectures on the Middle East at the University of Texas at Austin 4) (Malibu), 53–86. French, D.H. 2004: The Inscriptions of Sinope (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 64) (Bonn). Harrison, C.M. 1982: ‘Persian Names on Coins of Northern Anatolia’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 41.3, 181–94. Heskel, J. 1997: The North Aegean Wars, 371–360 BC (Historia Einzelschriften 102) (Stuttgart).

ACHAEMENIDS AND THE SOUTHERN BLACK SEA

153

Keleş, V. 2006: ‘Sikkeler isiginda Sinope’de Pers etkisi (Persian Influence at Sinope based on the Evidence of Coins)’. In Erciyas, D.B. and Koparal, E. (eds.), Karadeniz Araştırmaları Sempozyum Bildiriler/ Black Sea Studies Symposium Proceedings 16–17 April 2004 (Ankara), 99–110. Klingenberg, A. 2014: ‘Die “Iranische Diaspora”. Kontext, Charakter und Auswirkung persischer Einwanderung nach Kleinasien’. In Olshausen, E. and Sauer, V. (eds.), Mobilität in den Kulturen der antiken Mittelmeerwelt (Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 2, 2011) (Geographica Historica 31) (Stuttgart), 309–24. Lane Fox, R. 2004: ‘Introduction’. In Lane Fox, R. (ed.), The Long March. Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New Haven, CT/London), 1–46. Langella, A. 1989: ‘Sinope, Datame e la Persia’. Dialoghi di archeologia 7, 93–104. Malloy, A.G. 1970: The Coinage of Amisus (New York). Manoledakis, M. 2019: ‘Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Atasoy, S. (eds.), Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity (Select papers from the Third International Conference ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’, 27–29 October 2017, Tekkeköy, Samsun) (Oxford), 214–25. —. 2021: ‘The districts of the southern Black Sea littoral in the era of Alexander the Great’. In Akamatis, I., Manoledakis, M., Nigdelis, P. and Xydopoulos, I. (eds.), Ancient Macedonia 8: Macedonia from the Death of Philip II to Augustus’ Rise to Power (Papers Read at the Eighth International Symposiun Held in Thessaloniki, November 21–24, 2017) (Thessaloniki), 629–49. —. 2022: An Approach to the Historical Geography of the Southern Black Sea Littoral (First Millennium BC) (Colloquia Antiqua 36) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT). —. forthcoming: ‘Athens and the Black Sea’. In Daubner, F., Reinard, P. and Rollinger, C. (eds.), The Attic Empire. The Athenians and their Allies in the 5th c. BCE (Berlin/ Boston). Marek, C. 1993: Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynien und Nord-Galatien (= Istanbuler Forschungen 39) (Tübingen). Matthews, R. 2009: ‘A Dark Age, Grey Ware and Elusive Empires: Paphlagonia through the Iron Age, 1200–330 BC’. In Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds.), At Empire’s Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey (British Institute at Ankara Monograph 44) (London), 149–71. Michels, C. 2017: ‘The Persian Impact on Bithynia, Commagene, Pontus, and Cappadocia’. In Müller, S., Howe, T., Bowden, H. and Rollinger, R. (eds.), The History of the Argeads: New Perspectives (Classica et Orientalia 19) (Wiesbaden), 41–55. Nieling, J. and Rehm, E. (eds.) 2010: Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea: Communication of Powers (Black Sea Studies 11) (Aarhus). Price, M. 1993: Syllogae Nummorum Graecorum IX: The British Museum. Part 1: The Black Sea (London). Rehm, E. 2010: ‘The Classification of Objects from the Black Sea Region Made or Influenced by the Achaemenids’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 161–94. Robinson, E.S.G. 1920: ‘A Find of Coins of Sinope’. The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society 20, 1–16. Root, M.C. 1991: ‘From the Heart: Powerful Persianisms in the Art of the Western Empire’. In Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.), Asia Minor and Egypt:

154

MANOLIS MANOLEDAKIS

Old Cultures in a New Empire (Proceedings of the Groningen 1998 Achaemenid History Workshop) (Achaemenid History 6) (Leiden), 1–29. Six, M.J.P. 1885: ‘Sinope’. The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Numismatic Society 5, 15–65. —. 1895: ‘Monnaies grecques, inédites et incertaines (suite)’. The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Numismatic Society 15, 169–210. Summerer, L. 2003: ‘Achämenidische Silberfunde aus der Umgebung von Sinope’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 9.1–2, 17–42. —. 2005a: ‘Amisos – eine Griechische Polis im Land der Leukosyrer’. In Kacharava, D., Faudot, M. and Geny, É. (eds.), Pont-Euxin et Polis. Polis Hellenis et Polis Barbaron (Actes du Xe symposium de Vani, 23–26 septembre 2002: hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé et Pierre Lévêque) (Publications de l’Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l’Antiquité 979) (Besançon), 129–65. —. 2005b: ‘Achämeniden am Schwarzen Meer: Bemerkungen zum spätarchaischen Marmorkopf aus Herakleia Pontike’. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 42, 231–52. Summerer, L. and von Kienlin, A. 2010: ‘Achaemenid Impact in Paphlagonia: Rupestral Tombs in the Amnias Valley’. In Nieling and Rehm 2010, 195–221. Thonemann, P. 2013: ‘Phrygia: an anarchist history, 950 BC–AD 100’. In Thonemann, P. (ed.), Roman Phrygia: Culture and Society (Cambridge), 1–40. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1997: ‘Plutarch, Pericles and Pontus: some thoughts’. In Schrader, C., Ramón, V. and Vela, J. (eds.), Plutarco y la Historia (Zaragoza), 461–66. —. 2014: ‘Black Sea Ethnicities’. In McInerney, J. (ed.), A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean (Malden, MA/Oxford), 312–26. —. 2017: ‘Bridging East and West: Locals, Greeks and Achaemenids around the Black Sea’. In Gallo, L. and Genito, B. (eds.), ‘Grecità di frontiera’. Frontiere geografiche e culturali nell’evidenza storica e archeologica (Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Università degli Studi di Napoli «L’Orientale», Napoli, 5–6 giugno 2014) (Studi di Storia greca e romana 14) (Alessandria), 27–44. —. 2019: ‘An Achaemenid Inscription from Phanagoria: Extending the Boundaries of Empire’. Ancient West and East 18, 113–51. Tuplin, C.J. 2004: ‘The Persian Empire’. In Lane Fox, R. (ed.), The Long March. Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New Haven, CT/London), 154–83. —. 2007: ‘A Foreigner’s Perspective: Xenophon in Anatolia’. In Delemen, I., Casabonne, O., Karagöz, Ş. and Tekin, O. (eds.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Culture in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centiries B.C.) (Papers presented at the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–21 May 2005) (Istanbul), 7–32. Zournatzi, A. 2000: ‘The Processing of Gold and Silver Tax in the Achaemenid Empire: Herodotus 3.96.2 and the Archaeological Realities’. Studia Iranica 29, 241–71.

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS: TWO EXAMPLES FROM LYCIA AND PHRYGIA Maya VASSILEVA

Abstract The present paper offers yet another insight into the cultural interactions which occurred in Achaemenid Anatolia on the basis of two case studies. Sepulchral architecture provides some of the most impressive examples of amalgamation of different artistic traits and elements under Persian rule. My Lycian example is an understudied rock-cut tomb in ancient Antiphelos (modern Kaş). This monument stands out among the numerous typical Lycian tombs in the area. Its interior and exterior link it to Greek architectural traditions, while its general outline and the rock-cut technique bring it closer to Persian and Lycian practices. The Phrygian example is the much better studied ‘Broken Lion Tomb’ (‘Yılan Taş’) in the Phrygian Highlands. Its fallen rock pieces show innovative features both in the exterior and in the interior. The tomb is an intriguing illustration of ‘Graeco-Persian’ art without losing its Anatolian/Phrygian traits. Both monuments have generally been assigned to the Achaemenid period although precise dates can hardly be proposed. Could these two tombs reveal something about local identities? Can we follow a similar behaviour of the local elites under the Achaemenids?

The impact of Achaemenid rule in Anatolia has long been discussed. Art historians did not fail to notice the hybrid examples that occurred on Anatolian soil. The diversity of local responses was due to the multicultural background which the Persians found there. However, Persian impression or ‘disguise’ can be detected in numerous and various elements in the culture of the Anatolians after the arrival of the Achaemenids. I am glad to offer this paper with great respect to the memory of Alexandru Avram who left us quite untimely. Our scholarly communication concerned mainly Phrygian and Thracian epigraphy. A subject about Achaemenid Anatolia, I believe, would be in accordance with his last scholarly interests. The present paper offers yet other insights into the cultural interactions which befell Achaemenid Anatolia. Sepulchral architecture provides some of the most impressive examples of amalgamation of different artistic traits and elements under Persian rule. These could present further opportunities to study local Anatolian elites under the empire. My considerations are based on two case studies: one from Lycia, and one from Phrygian Highlands.

156

MAYA VASSILEVA

THE ANTIPHELLOS TOMB The Lycian example is an understudied rock-cut tomb at ancient Antiphellos (modern Kaş), known generally as the ‘Doric Tomb’ (Fig. 1). It was only briefly mentioned by travellers and modern scholars1 until the more detailed study and description by F. Fatih Gülşen.2 The tomb is hewn out of the bedrock and is almost square in plan. It now looks more like a cube as the roofing and a greater part of the architrave are gone. The chamber measures 2.98 × 3.22 m and faces east; the construction slightly narrows upwards.3 The preserved height is about 4.5 m.4 The four corners of the tomb are decorated by pilaster

Fig. 1. The Antiphellos tomb (photograph: author). 1 For example: Texier 1849, 229, pl. 197; Zahle 1979, 332, no. 27; Fedak 1990, 78–79, fig. 93a, b. 2 Gülşen 1998. 3 Gülşen 1998, 64, 68. 4 Fedak 1990, 78.

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS

157

columns with profiled pedestals.5 On the south and west sides taenia and guttae can be seen, while blocks scattered around display triglyphs and metopes.6 The roofing is unknown but is generally accepted to have been in the shape of a stepped pyramid.7 Most of the cited parallels,8 however, have had their stepped roofs reconstructed. A stone model used as a grave monument from Syracuse and the rock-cut tomb Taş Kule at Phocaea (also not fully preserved) are the two examples of such roofing that have actually survived.9 The latter is considered to be earlier than the Antiphellos tomb, but still belonging to the Achaemenid period, although no written or other credible evidence for its date exists. The rock around the tomb is cleared to give the impression that the construction stands on a platform. Careful study of the monument shows that it was cut out from top to bottom with the use of scaffolding, and additional stone blocks have been inserted in the upper structure where necessary. Gülşen also suggests that painted stucco was possibly used to complete the frieze and the upper part of the tomb.10 The entrance is on the east side of the construction, slightly trapezoid in shape, with a sculptured doorframe of Doric order. It is decorated with a fascia and a bead-and-reel band, thus incorporating Ionic elements as well.11 A sliding door slab was used inside: a groove is well visible on the floor behind the threshold (sliding from left to right when facing the entrance from outside) (Fig. 2). Inside, three klinai are hewn out from the rock along the three walls. The interior of the tomb has suffered significant damage by vandalism. Most of the couch opposite the entrance is destroyed. The lateral borders of the couches bore relief decoration, now seriously damaged. The top of the leg of the bed along the northern wall (right-hand side of the visitor) is decorated with a palmette coming out of two volutes. It seems that palmettes continued on the border of the couch. On the border of the opposite kline a row of rosettes alternating with palmettes(?) was sculpted.12

5

Gülşen 1998, 64. Fedak 1990, fig. 93b; Gülşen 1998, fig. 17. The entablature is intact on Texier’s drawing (1849, pl. 197). 7 Gülşen 1998, 79, fig. 10. 8 Gülşen 1998, 66, n. 9. The examples can be found in Fedak 1990. 9 Fedak 1990, 50–51, figs. 43, 94; Gülşen 1998, 85, fig. 26. 10 Gülşen 1998, 64–65. 11 Gülşen 1998, 67, figs. 5, 20, 21. 12 Gülşen 1998, 68–69. I could not completely verify the description of the klinai by Gülşen in my brief visit to the tomb in 2019 because of its poor state of preservation. However, rosettes seem to have been bigger on the border of the southern kline. 6

158

MAYA VASSILEVA

Fig. 2. Groove for the sliding door of the Antiphellos tomb (photograph: author).

High on the wall opposite the entrance there is a frieze of dancing women holding their hands; the edges of their dresses are flaring. The row of dancers continues for some short distance on both side walls. Since Charles Texier’s time, visitors and scholars have counted different numbers of dancing figures: the most recent estimate is 26.13 A precise dating is impossible. General opinion favours the Early Hellenistic period: the last quarter of the 4th or early 3rd century BC.14 The construction stands out from the numerous Lycian tombs and sarcophagi in the vicinity: both within the modern city and on the surrounding hills. A typical Lycian tomb with an inscription on the façade is visible just tens of metres below the ‘Doric Tomb’ on the slope. This extraordinary monument could be classified as ‘Graeco-Persian’. The heavy, in a way clumsy, outline of the tomb resembles Cyrus’ tomb, which in its turn has often been seen as influenced by West Anatolian or Phrygian monuments.15 Similarly, the Antiphellos 13

Gülşen 1998, 69, n. 26. Zahle counted 24 (1979, 332). Zahle 1979, 321; Fedak 1990, 79; Gülşen 1998, 71. 15 Most recently in Baughan 2013, 180, with previous bibliography. The chronological problem about which was first still stands. 14

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS

159

construction applies Greek architectural elements in a quite different way from the rest of the Lycian tombs. Dozens of rock-cut tombs in Lycia copy the façade of a Greek temple by sculpting frontons and free-standing columns. Here, we find adaptation of the Doric order with no pediment. The triglyphs, metopes, taenia and guttae, as well as the doorframe are explicit references to Greek architecture, while the sliding door is a Lycian feature that can be seen on the other types of tombs. The origin of the kline-tomb has long been discussed. A recent study has challenged the traditional view that this type emerged after the Achaemenid conquest of Anatolia and claims an important role for western Anatolia and of Lydia in particular.16 However, it was under the Achaemenids that this kind of sepulchral constructions became ‘emblematic for elite burials’ in Anatolia.17 The Antiphellos tomb lines up with this development although being a little later: its features conform to Late Classical and Early Hellenistic artistic traits. The interior of the tomb is badly damaged. The decoration of the two side couches has survived only fragmentarily. The better preserved leg of the couch along the northern wall (right-hand side) is of Type B (Fig. 3).18 The poor state of preservation prompts different descriptions by scholars: either palmettes and lotus flowers,19 or acanthus motif.20 Despite the mutilation, the different decorative pattern on the borders of the two couches is clearly noticeable. Almost an entire rosette is preserved on the side of the south (lefthand side) kline, and the next feature is hard to read, possibly also a rosette (Fig. 4). Remnants of a smaller palmette can be recognised along the broken edge of the bed, but the frieze seems to have been dominated by rosettes.21 According to Gülşen, the rosette has 12 petals, and he also has noted the originality of the decorative pattern on the couches.22 Rosette symbolism had a long history in the ancient Near East. The rosette was a symbol of Inanna/Ishtar in Sumer and Babylon; it can be found on the headdress of Hittite sphinxes as well as in the winged Sun-disc in the royal cartouche.23 In the 1st millennium BC the rosette was associated with great

16

Baughan 2013, 177–232. Baughan 2013, 267. See Draycott 2016. 18 According to Kyrieleis’s classification (1969); Baughan 2013, 154–55. 19 Gülşen 1998, 68–69. 20 Baughan 2013, 155. 21 Texier’s drawing gives alternating rosettes and palmettes of equal size (1849, pl. 197), but what can be now seen does not support such a reconstruction. 22 Gülşen 1998, 68–69. 23 Neve 1993, 61–63, Abb. 179–182, 184, 187 (on sphinxes); 154–155, 158–160 (on seals, royal cartouche). 17

160

MAYA VASSILEVA

Fig. 3. Leg of the northern kline (photograph: author).

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS

161

Fig. 4. Detail of border of the southern kline (photograph: author).

goddesses: Kubaba at Karkemish and Matar in Phrygia.24 Rosettes were represented on various Phrygian objects: on wooden furniture in the tombs,25 on bronze and silver belts,26 on stone pictorial graffiti from Gordion,27 etc. It was often compass-drawn and thus with pointed petals. Rosettes were a royal symbol for the Syro-Hittite, Assyrian kings and Phrygian nobles.28 This divine royal iconography was possibly been adopted by the Achaemenids. One cannot fail to notice the abundance of rosettes and rows of rosettes on Persian monuments in Persepolis and elsewhere. The ‘Persepolis rosette’ is also of 12 petals.29 According to J. Boardman, the Near Eastern rosette was adopted in Greek Archaic art and the rosettes with long darts (sepals) between the petals on Persian examples came from the west.30 The ones in the Antiphellos tomb, however, have no darts. Thus, I would suggest that the rows of rosettes on the klinai were a Persian/Persianising motif. 24

Simpson 2010, 87–91. Simpson 2010. 26 Young 1981, 19–20, TumP 35 and 36; 177–82, TumMM 378, 379; Simpson 2010, 65–66, 70; Özgen and Özgen 1988, 33, fig. 48. 27 Roller 2009, nos. 10, 72, 75. 28 Simpson 2010, 91, 132. 29 Kleiss 2000. 30 Boardman 2000, 79–80. 25

162

MAYA VASSILEVA

The other unique feature of the ‘Doric Tomb’ is the relief of dancing women, holding their hands, on the western wall (Fig. 5). The immediate parallel that comes to mind is the frieze of dancing women from the Sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace. The representations of the dancers are very similar: dressed in chitons and mantles flaring sideways. One of the earlier drawings of the rock-cut frieze suggested that the women are wearing scarfs.31 The Samothracian figures wear low poloi. The size of both friezes is comparable: average height of the Antiphellos frieze: 0.225 cm;32 around 0.32 cm for the Samothracian dancers.33 They are close in date as well: the last quarter of the 4th century BC for Samothracian monument and around the same time or a little later for the tomb. The figures in the tomb are represented frontally; they are rather static, unlike the women in the island who are facing different directions and the dancing motion is much more realistically rendered. No musicians are depicted at Antiphellos. The Samothracian dancers are much closer to the Greek Classical art as they are ‘the first example of extensive use of archaistic style in Greek sculpture’,34 which influenced later monuments as well.35

Fig. 5. The frieze of the dancing women in the Antiphellos tomb (photograph: author). 31 32 33 34 35

Texier 1849, pl. 197. Gülşen 1998, 69. Marconi 2010, 132–33. Matsas and Bakirtzis 2001, 51. Hadzi 1982.

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS

163

There is a long-going discussion on the function of the building where the frieze of the dancing women was found in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace, nicknamed ‘Hall of Choral Dancers’.36 Recently, more fragments were discovered and catalogued which support the idea that the relief encircled the entire building (with one possible stop) and not only the porch.37 Archaeologists have discovered an earlier eschara and bothroi, the former being replaced by a marble one when the structure was built ca. 340 BC.38 Thus, a tradition of sacrificing to the chthonic divinities seems to continue in the hall. The ceremonial character of the building is beyond doubt and the frieze depicted several choruses participating in the summer festival.39 Whether devoted to mystery rites (if ‘Telesterion’ is assumed), or to common annual festivities, the hall probably bears chthonic connotations. Possibly, such a chthonic context of the circle dance would have been appropriate for the decoration of a tomb. The frieze in the ‘Doric Tomb’ does not cover all four walls, but short parts continue on the sides. Hypothetically, it might have been meant to ‘encircle’ only the central kline, now almost gone. Two cup-marks seem to be carved at both sides of the threshold of the tomb, possibly meant for libations, which could supplement the chthonic meaning. The frieze of dancing women suggests not simply adaptation of elements of Greek temple architecture but also an emulation of the ritual background – that of mystery rites, related to the Netherworld, and thus appropriate for a tomb. We cannot speculate on the ethnicity of the buried. The architecture and the possible ritual connotations would suggest a Greek.40 The popularity of the Samothracian sanctuary among the Macedonian dynasty and the investments they made for its embellishment41 might advocate a Macedonian as the commissioner of the Antiphellos construction. However, this can only be a conjecture. The Antiphellos tomb follows a century-long tradition of rock-cut sepulchral architecture in Anatolia. Implementation of Greek temple architecture in the construction of burial places had probably started with Cyrus’ tomb and flourished during the Hellenistic period, to be taken over by the Romans. This tomb 36 Lehmann 1998, 73–78; Matsas and Bakirtzis 2001, 47–51. Formerly called ‘Temenos’: Lehmann and Spittle 1982, 288. Clinton (2003, 61, 67) believes it was a ‘Telesterion’; opinions summarised in Marconi 2010, 123–25. 37 Marconi 2010, 120–21. 38 Lehmann and Spittle 1982, 82, 288; Lehmann 1998, 77–78; Matsas and Bakirtzis 2001, 51. 39 Marconi 2010, 131–33. 40 The brief note by Gülşen (1998, 71) that according to an epigram the owner of the tomb was a Milesian is not confirmed by previous bibliography: it stems from a false statement and citation by Kirsten (1985, 27); such an important detail is missing in Zahle’s catalogue (1979, no. 27) and what is more, Texier, much earlier, wrote that unfortunately there was no inscription to point to the date or owner of the tomb (1849, 229). 41 Lehman and Spittle 1982, 289.

164

MAYA VASSILEVA

however differs significantly in the way it imitates Greek architecture from the rest of the Lycian monuments.42 The possible stepped roofing and especially the rows of rosettes on the kline betray Persian influence. Arrangement of three klinai or burial places along the walls in the rock-cut tombs as well as in the tumuli was common in Lydia.43 The ‘Doric Tomb’ at Antiphellos offers a good example for the hybrid results in Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic Anatolia where local traditions acquire Persian colouring. THE ‘BROKEN TOMB’ The second case study is provided by an earlier and a much better known rockcut tomb, the ‘Broken Tomb’ or ‘Yılan Taş’ in the Phrygian Highlands (Fig. 6).44 The original outlook of the monument cannot be restored but most of the exterior decoration and elements of the interior have been studied and presented in drawings. The tomb is exceptional in many ways. Emilie Haspels put it in her Group II of the few spacious Phrygian rock-cut tombs with klinai.45 Nevertheless, the construction stands out in the group as well. It follows the Phrygian practice of a chamber with a pitched roof and imitations of rafters and king posts cut in relief. The first difference comes in the sheer measurements: according to the careful study by Haspels and her estimation of the dimensions of the fallen stones, the width of the tomb is greater than the length.46 The interior is also unique: two klinai and a table are cut out along the back, southern and the western walls. The eastern wall is occupied by a deeply cut bench in the living rock, a podium, which Haspels called ‘a dais’.47 Two short squat columns are set at both corners of the ‘dais’ on its front edge (one already destroyed), embellished by imitation of palmette capitals on the front.48 No particular ornament of the legs of the couches is noted.

42 Still in Antiphellos, there is an analogous (in its rendering of Greek architectural features) ‘Ionian’ rock-cut tomb, but it is not a free-standing chamber, only the façade is cut out in a very high relief: Zahle 1979, no. 26. 43 Baughan 2010, 283. 44 It was first described by W. Ramsay (1882, 20–24; 1888, 354–67, figs. 1–9); then by Körte (1898, 124–36) and others. Haspels (1971) changed some of Ramsay’s reconstructions. The most recent discussion in Draycott 2019. 45 Haspels 1971, 129–33, 136–38. She dated the tomb to the second quarter of the 6th century BC, but also assumed that it might be later. 46 Haspels 1971, 132, fig. 544.3; Hemelrijk 2014, 189. 47 Haspels 1971, 130. 48 Ramsay 1888, figs. 3, 6; Haspels 1971, 130; Draycott 2019, 209.

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS

165

Fig. 6. The ‘Broken Tomb’ in the Phrygian Highlands (photograph: author).

But what really has fuelled the previous discussion is the exterior decoration of ‘Yılan Taş’. Several proposals have been made about the arrangement of the reliefs, now mostly invisible. The 3D puzzle now finally solved by a series of reconstruction drawings49 reveals a huge image of a Gorgon head with equine ears carved above the entrance. The door frame is flanked by two antithetic warriors with round shields and spears aiming at the Gorgon. The ornamentation of the façade is generally regarded as influenced by Greek Archaic art, although some elements are reminiscent of Eastern/Persian visual conventions (the beards of the warriors, for example). The Gorgoneion has undoubtedly apotropaic functions but her equine ears puzzle. While some scholars suggest reference to the Greek mythological story about Pegasus who sprang out from the dead Medusa,50 or allusions to Eastern monsters,51 Prayon interpreted the strange ears as related to Silenus.52 The latter seems much more likely in view with the legendary stories (and images!) of the capture of Silenus by Phrygian peasants and Midas’ ass’s ears. In both cases, 49 Haspels 1971, pl. 544; Hemelrijk 2014, ill. 12d. The most recent informative drawing and plan in Draycott 2019, 205, fig. 10. 50 Haspels 1971, 137; Hemelrijk 2014, 189. 51 Draycott 2019, 208. 52 Prayon 1987, 93.

166

MAYA VASSILEVA

about Pegasus and Midas, we have, however, to assume a high level of literacy and knowledge of Greek mythology, which is not that obvious in the area in this period. The Phrygian version is still more plausible because these legends had probably a folkloric source as well. The figures on the façade are cut in very high relief, unlike the two antithetic sitting lions with heads turned backwards that decorate the western ‘long’ wall.53 The outer paws of the animals are raised and touching. This iconographic scheme follows Oriental traditions adopted by the Achaemenids. The antithetic position of fantastic mythical creatures was popular in Achaemenid Anatolia, especially on pediments of sepulchral monuments. Good parallels can be found at Daskyleion and in Lycia, some of them dated to the early 5th century BC.54 An earlier Phrygian parallel can be found on the rock-cut façade of Arslankaya, believed by some to be of a 6th-century BC date.55 Quite similar antithetic sphinxes on the pediment can also be seen on the façade of the rock-cut ‘Evkayisi’ tomb in Kastamonu, Paphlagonia, dated to the second half of the 4th century BC.56 While such compositions were usually reserved for the façades of the monuments, here, on Yılan Taş, the lions are sculpted on the side wall. This arrangement of beasts was popular in the Achaemenid world not only on architectural elements but also on metalwork and seals. It gained more popularity in the 4th century BC reaching further areas that were not part of the empire.57 As already been noted, the style of moulding the lion’s head on the ‘Broken Tomb’, the figure-of-eight loop on the shoulder and the herringbone ornament on the front legs connect to conventions of Persian art. Some details in rendering the animal body have even been compared to the lion griffin on the handle of the silver amphora from Duvanlii, Bulgaria, dated to the second quarter of the 5th century BC.58 Thus, the discussion has eventually lowered the date of the tomb, mainly on stylistic grounds, to the early–first half of the 5th century BC. 53 Ramsay reconstructed three lions: 1888, fig. 8. Körte challenged this (1898, 124–29), and finally Haspels drew two antithetic sitting lions with raised outer paws (1971, 132, fig. 5); Draycott 2019, 204. Hemelrijk (2014, 190) suggests two different workshops for the images on the façade and the side wall. 54 Karagöz 2007, 201, 203, Abb. 16, 21. An example on a Lycian sarcophagus in Zahle 1979, 269, no. 22, Abb. 15. 55 Haspels 1971, 88, fig. 186. The date is hotly disputed between the 8th and 6th century BC: Simpson (2010, 94, n. 193) rejects the comparisons with Greek Archaic art and claims an earlier date for the monument. 56 Von Gall 1966, 67–73, 80, Abb. 7, Taf. 6.2; Vassileva 2012, 245. 57 See, for example, the silver-gilt phiale from the Rogozen Treasure with antithetic griffins (Marazov 1996, 30–31, fig. 30, cat. no. 97) and the relief with a lion looking backwards, one of a pair, from Zhaba Mogila near Strelcha (Martinez et al. 2015, 233, cat. no. 193), both from Thrace. 58 Von Gall 1999, 153.

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS

167

Although the general Phrygian character of ‘Yılan Taş’ cannot be mistaken, the tomb is unique in the Highlands, both with its interior and with its exterior decoration. It possibly offers one of the earliest examples of the artistic hybridisation which occurred in Achaemenid Anatolia. As E. Baughan’s study has shown, 6th-century BC examples of tombs with funeral couches existed in Phrygia, Lydia and Ionia, but in the 5th century BC klinai tombs became more popular in western Anatolia.59 The Phrygian Highlands would have been exposed more easily to Greek/Ionian influences than the heartland. On the other hand, the Persian imprint on the tomb ornamentation is well detectable. Kelainai (modern Dinar), where a royal residence was built, is not very far. The scenario proposed by von Gall that the lions on the side wall commemorate a royal/elite gift of vessel of precious metal with a similar pattern given to the owner of the tomb is not very probable.60 Draycott’s note that the lions would have been well visible on the important road through the Köhnüş valley is quite viable.61 The mere size and the meticulous workmanship of the images on the exterior point out to an emulation of the grandeur of the royal/satrapal palace. CONCLUSIONS Both examples discussed are unique in their regions and among the types of sepulchral monuments spread in the respective area. The later ‘Doric Tomb’ with which I started demonstrates that the processes observed continued well into the 4th century BC and later. The two tombs bring one more argument in favour of a comparative study of the Phrygian and Lycian Highlands under the Persians, which has already started.62 Although different in terms of dynastic visibility, both Phrygia and Lycia were able to produce such extraordinary display of elite status. We do not know of any local dynasts or aristocrats in Phrygia from the 6th and 5th centuries BC, while we have a few names for Lycia and Caria, however impossible it is to attach them to any monument with no written evidence. Greek features seem to be conspicuous in the more Hellenised Lycia, while the combination of Greek and Persian affinities seems to be more easily recognised in the above Phrygian example. The term ‘Graeco-Persian’, introduced more than a century ago, has been widely criticised in the last decades. Most of the monuments and objects to 59

Baughan 2013. Von Gall 1999. 61 Draycott 2019, 212. 62 Draycott 2019. I will not discuss the settlement pattern in the Achaemenid period in both areas excellently presented by C. Draycott. 60

168

MAYA VASSILEVA

which it referred originated from western Anatolia. It has already been noted that seals, coins, metalware or tombs of the period find no direct parallels in the heart of the Empire.63 ‘Emulation’ is generally preferred to denote a process of adopting, adapting and creation.64 As noted by Draycott, the imperial impact offers a variety of choices and sources for emulation by the local elites, not to mention ‘the opening up of trade and products available’.65 Persianising, or Persianisms are the other current words trying to replace the old term.66 We cannot speculate about who the owners of the tombs were. These constructions bore rather messages of status and social identity, and not much of ethnicity.67 The regional colouring, however, remained because of the preexisting local practices. Phrygians had probably the oldest tradition in rock carving and rock-cut tombs in Central and West Central Asia Minor. The earlier Phrygian rock-cut tombs had no decorated façades with only three exceptions: Yapıldak, Arslantaş and the above ‘Broken Tomb’.68 Rock-cut tombs were popular among the Lydians prior to the Achaemenids as well; also with no ornamentation of the façades.69 Eventually, they spread to Paphlagonia and southern/south-western Anatolia. A number of these sepulchral constructions were produced just in the Achaemenid period. Possibly, gables, acroteria and imitations of terracotta revetments, carved on Phrygian rock-cut façades, met the architectural models of Greek temples, thus producing free-standing colonnades and porches of the rock-cut tombs in the adjacent areas. Such type of tomb reached Phrygia only in Hellenistic and Roman times. The interactions that occurred prior to the arrival of the Achaemenids were already complex and multidirectional. Anatolia was indeed a ‘melting pot’. Persians found hybridised artistic features by this time and the Achaemenid ‘disguise’ would fit them in a slightly different manner according to the regional background. It is just this regional colouring that would betray local identity. But what about monuments which stood out even among the regional group? We can suspect a local dynast, a very rich noble or a member of the Achaemenid administration. As far as we know, Phrygians did not put in writing any political statements. They would rather represent their status through a religious message, i.e. a votive inscription. To the best of my knowledge, there are no 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

Among others: Root 1991, 15; Kaptan 2002, 3. Miller 2007, 66–67. Draycott 2019, 213. For example, Kaptan 2002, 2–4. Noted by many, see Dusinberre 2013, 142. Vassileva 2012, 244. Baughan 2010, 282–84; Dusinberre 2013, 143.

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS

169

Old or Middle Phrygian inscription on a rock-cut tomb. Nevertheless, it is in the Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic periods that Phrygian inscriptions appeared on grave stones at the satrapal centre of Daskyleion and in western Phrygia.70 So, if Phrygian, the aristocrat had no need to write anything on his tomb according to the custom. The situation in Lycia was quite different. There are hundreds of Lycian inscriptions on the rock-cut tombs.71 Lycian dynasts that were officially part of the imperial administration are known from their inscriptions and coins.72 The lack of any text on the Antiphellos tomb, together with the peculiar architecture, might suggest a different ethnicity, but not necessarily. The ‘Broken Tomb’ and the ‘Doric Tomb’ display original ways to exhibit status and social identity. Each of them treats in a novel mode possible Greek and Persian influences without losing their peculiar Anatolian nature. As we cannot properly trace and measure the weight of the elements of different influences which were well amalgamated according to local tastes,73 any ethnic labels would be misleading. Perhaps ‘Anatolian-Persian’ or ‘Perso-Anatolian’ may be a compromise because the discussed processes developed in Anatolia under the Achaemenids. To use Root’s words, this was an ‘extraordinary social and artistic interplay between the west and the east’.74

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baughan, E.P. 2010: ‘Lydian Burial Customs’. In Cahill, N. (ed.), The Lydians and Their World (Istanbul), 273–304. —. 2013: Couched in Death. Klinai and Identity in Anatolia and Beyond (Madison, WI). Boardman, J. 2000: Persia and the West: An Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis of Achaemenid Art (London). Brixhe, C. 2004: Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes. Suppl. II (= Kadmos 43) (Berlin). Clinton, K. 2003: ‘Stages of Initiation in the Eleusinian and Samothracian Mysteries’. In Cosmopoulos, M.B. (ed.), Greek Mysteries. The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults (London), 50–78. Draycott, C.M. 2016: ‘Drinking to Death: The Totenmahl, Drinking Culture and Funerary Representation in Late Archaic and Achaemenid Western Anatolia’. In 70 The so-called ‘Manes Stele’ and that from Dokimeion: Brixhe 2004, W-11, B-07, 7–26, 73–85. The former is an example of the silhouette ‘Graeco-Persian’ stelae, while the latter is a Greek (or Macedonian) grave stone. 71 Melchert 1994, 125, most of them dated to the 5th and 4th century BC. 72 Nováková 2021, 116. 73 Root 1991, 22. 74 Root 1991, 14.

170

MAYA VASSILEVA

Draycott, C.M. and Stamatopoulou, M. (eds.), Dining and Death. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the ‘Funerary Banquet’ in Ancient Art, Burial and Belief (Colloquia Antiqua 16) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), 219–98. —. 2019: ‘Activating the Achaemenid Landscape: The Broken Lion Tomb (Yılantaş) and the Phrygian Highlands in the Achaemenid Period’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), Phrygia in Antiquity: From the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period (Proceedings of an International Conference ‘The Phrygian Lands over Time: From Prehistory to the Middle of the 1st Millennium AD, heald at Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey, 2nd–8th November, 2015) (Colloquia Antiqua 24) (Leuven/ Paris/Bristol, CT), 189–219. Dusinberre, E.R.M. 2013: Empire, Authority, and Autonomy in Achaemenid Anatolia (Cambridge). Fedak, J. 1990: Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the Pre-Classical to the Early Imperial Era (Toronto). von Gall, H. 1966: Die paphlagonischen Felsgräber: Eine Studie zur kleinasiatischen Kunstgeschichte (Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 1) (Tübingen). —. 1999: ‘Der achaimenidische Löwengreif in Kleinasien. Bemerkungen zu dem sog. ‘Zerbrochenen Löwengrab’ bei Hayranvelisultan in Phrygien’. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 31, 149–60. Gülşen, F.F. 1998: ‘The Doric Rock Tomb at Antiphellos’. Adalya 3, 63–86. Hadzi, M.L. 1982: ‘Apendix II’. In Lehman and Spittle 1982, 304–12. Haspels, C.H.E. 1971: The Highlands of Phrygia. Sites and Monuments, 2 vols. (Princeton). Hemelrijk, J.M. 2014: ‘Emilie Haspels and the Fortresses and Monuments of the Phrygian Highlands’. BABESCH 89, 177–232. Kaptan, D. 2002: The Daskyleion Bullae: Seal Images from the Western Achaemenid Empire (Achaemenid History 12) (Leiden). Karagöz, Ş. 2007: ‘Neue Ansichten zu einem freistehenden Grabbau aus Daskyleion’. In Delemen, I., Casabonne, O., Karagöz, Ş. and Tekin, O. (eds.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Culture in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries B.C.) (Papers presented at the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–21 May 2005) (Istanbul), 195–214. Kirsten, E. 1985: ‘Phellos und Antiphellos’. In Kandler, M., Karweise, S. and Pillinger, R. (eds.), Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft. Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters dargebracht von Freunden, Schulern und Kollegen (Vienna), 24–29. Kleiss, W. 2000: ‘Die “Persepolis-Rosette”’. In Işık, C. (ed.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens und des ägäischen Bereiches. Festschrift für Baki Öğün zum 75. Geburtstag (Asia Minor Studien 39) (Bonn), 165–70. Körte, A. 1898: ‘Die phrygischen Felsdenkmäler’. Athenische Mitteilungen 23, 80–153. Kyrieleis, H. 1969: Throne und Klinen: Studien zur Formgeschichte altorientalischer und griechischer Zeit (Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Suppl. 24) (Berlin). Lehmann, K. 1998: Samothrace. A Guide to the Excavations and the Museum, 6th ed. (Thessaloniki). Lehmann, P.W. and Spittle, D. 1982: Samothrace 5: The Temenos (Princeton). Marazov, I. 1996: The Rogozen Treasure (Sofia).

LOCAL IDENTITIES UNDER THE ACHAEMENIDS

171

Marconi, C. 2010: ‘Choroi, Theōriai and International Ambitions: The Hall of Choral Dancers and its Frieze’. In Palagia, O. and Wescoat, B.D. (eds.), Samothracian Connections. Essays in Honor of James R. McCredie (Oxford/Oakville, CT), 106–35. Martinez, J.-L., Baralis, A., Mathieux, N., Stoyanov, T. and Tonkova, M. 2015: L’épopée des rois thraces. Des Guerres médiques aux invasions celtes 479–278 av. J.-C. Découvertes archéologiques en Bulgarie (Paris). Matsas, D. and Bakirtzis, A. 2001: Samothrace. A Short Cultural Guide (Athens). Miller, M.C. 2007: ‘The Poetics of Emulation in the Achaemenid World: The Figured Bowls of the “Lydian Treasure”’. Ancient West and East 6, 43–72. Melchert, C. 1994: ‘Anatolian’. In Bader, F. (ed.), Langues indo-européennes (Paris), 121–36. Neve, P. 1993: Hattuša, Stadt der Götter und Tempel. Neue Ausgrabungen in der Hauptstadt der Hethiter (Mainz). Nováková, L. 2021: ‘People, Tombs, and Religious Practices in Achaemenid Anatolia’. In Narloch, K., Płóciennik, T. and Żelazowski, J. (eds.), Nunc decet caput impedire myrto. Studies Dedicated to Professor Piotr Dyczek on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Warsaw), 115–27. Özgen, E. and Özgen, I. 1988: Antalya Museum Catalogue (Ankara). Prayon, F. 1987: Phrygische Plastik. Die früheisenzeitliche Bildkunst Zentral-Anatoliens und ihre Beziehungen zu Griechenland und zum Alten Orient (Tübingen). Ramsay, W.M. 1882: ‘Studies in Asia Minor. The Rock-Necropoleis of Phrygia’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 3, 1–68. —. 1888: ‘A Study of Phrygian Art’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 9, 350–82. Roller, L.E. 2009: The Incised Drawings from Early Phrygian Gordion (Gordion Special Studies 4; University Museum Monograph 130) (Philadelphia). Root, M.C. 1991: ‘From the Heart: Powerful Persianism in the Art of the Western Empire’. In Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.), Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire (Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History Workshop) (Achaemenid History 6) (Leiden), 1–29. Simpson, E. 2010: The Gordion Wooden Objects I: The Furniture from Tumulus MM, vols. 1–2 (Leiden/Boston). Texier, C. 1849: Description de l’Asie Mineure III (Paris). Vassileva, M. 2012: ‘The Rock-Cut Monuments of Phrygia, Paphlagonia and Thrace: A Comparative Overview’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity. Aspects of Archaeology and Ancient History (BAR International Series 2432) (Oxford), 243–52. Young, R.S. 1981: Three Great Early Tumuli (The Gordion Excavations Final Reports 1) (Philadelphia). von Zahle, J. 1979: ‘Lykische Felsgräber mit Reliefs aus dem 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.’. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 94, 245–346.

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA: THE FIRST SHRINE IN THE IRON AGE, THE HALL OF WORSHIP AND ATASHKADEH OF OLUZ HÖYÜK* Mona SABA and Şevket DÖNMEZ

Abstract Important and unique archaeological finds dating to the Achaemenid (Persian) levels in Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC) point to Archaic monotheism in Oluz Höyük, where a group of Persian origin settled who, in their beliefs and practices, venerated the Sacred Fire as a singular point of worship and eschewed idolatry. Dating to this period and in the same architectural layer, architectural evidence of this Archaic monotheism is revealed in the form of an Atashkadeh where the Sacred Fire burned and the Hall of Worship where the believers performed their rituals and honoured their correlation in space and function.

INTRODUCTION As the excavations at Oluz Höyük (Figs. 1–2), located 25 km west of Amasya, in North-Central Anatolia, completed their fifteenth year,1 it began to emerge that this important centre, which was formed by the establishment of ten settlements on top of each other, had a religious structure in every period. During the stepped trench excavation carried out in 2021 at the northernmost end of Trench A, which is the largest excavation area in Oluz Höyük, interesting remains from the Hittite Collapse period (1200–1150 BC), which witnessed the collapse of the Hittite Great Kingdom, were unearthed. Among such material found in Architectural Layer 7B2, the charred seed remains belonging to a religious ritual performed by burning wheat and vetch seeds (Fig. 3) enable us to become acquainted for the first time with the practices of a new belief system in the course of the Hittite collapse. * We would like to thank the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums and the Turkish Historical Society for permission and support for the systematic archaeological excavations at Oluz Höyük. We would also like to thank Burçin Adısönmez for his help in the preparation of this paper. 1 Dönmez 2010; 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2014; 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; 2017a; 2017b; 2018; 2019; 2021; Dönmez and Yurtsever Beyazıt 2014; Dönmez and Abazoğlu 2018; 2019; Dönmez and Abdullaev 2019; Dönmez and Saba 2019a; 2019b; 2021.

174

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

The most important structure indicating that Oluz Höyük became an important religious centre during the Phrygian period, approximately 600 years after the Hittite collapse, is the Kubaba (Mother Goddess) Altar (Fig. 4). It is observed that the altar (sacrificial point), which is understood to have been built around 600 BC, was erected at the highest point of the settlement at that time. When the altar is considered without its extensions to the west and east, it is a massive building in the form of a rectangle, close to a square, in plan. Although the worship of Kubaba (Matar Kubileya), which emerged in the last periods of the Phrygian kingdom in Anatolia, seems polytheistic, it had a structure and appearance very close to monotheism. RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE OF THE ACHAEMENID PERIOD The Oluz Höyük excavations have begun to reveal hitherto unknown connections of the Late Iron Age culture of North-Central Anatolia, and therefore the Kızılırmak (Halys) Basin, with the East. Important and unique archaeological finds from the Achaemenid layers in Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC) point to Archaic monotheism. In this belief system, the main practice of which is the Fire Cult, the Atashkadeh, the Hall of Worship (see Figs. 5–7), areas where the sacred ashes were stored, bothroi2 where sacred objects were buried, finds belonging to the drinking3 and water cult4 and sacrificial pits5 show the presence of a monotheistic religion. We glimpse the evidence of a monotheistic belief that was institutionalised in Oluz Höyük since the 5th century BC.6 The most important contribution of the Oluz Höyük excavations to Anatolian and Near Eastern religious archaeology and to the history of religion is the revelation that, at the onset of monotheistic religions (5th century BC), the temple and Hall of Worship (Peresteshgah) could be different structures or that not every such hall could be considered a temple. In Architectural Layer 2B, a zone dominated by religious structures began to emerge to the south of the Persian Road (Figs. 6–7), which slopes from north to south and forms the backbone of the Achaemenid settlement. The Atashkadeh (Fig. 8) and the Hall of Worship (Fig. 9), located in this area, and which are understood to have been designed and built together, point to a new religious structure for Anatolian 2 3 4 5 6

Dönmez 2018, Dönmez 2018, Dönmez 2018, Dönmez 2018, Saba 2021.

218. 222–24; Saba 2018. 224. 218–22.

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

175

Late Iron Age archaeology. The positions of the Atashkadeh and the Hall of Worship (see Figs. 5, 10) to the west of it and the relationship of the one to the other are quite remarkable. The design and construction of both of these structures was carried out together. Archaeological finds indicate that the Atashkadeh, which attracts attention with its perfect geometric positioning with the Hall of Worship (Figs. 5, 10) to its west, was built around 450 BC (Architectural Layer 2B) and survived at least the first 50 years of Architectural Layer 2A (300–250 BC). The oldest known Ateshkadeh of Anatolia, which was in operation for about 200 years, consists of a Fire Pit 1.60 m in diameter placed on the ground and a naos extending to the south of it (see Figs. 5, 8). The Ateshkadeh, a structure of four corners together with the naos (see Figs. 5, 8), is surrounded by simple and rough-cut barrier walls from the north and west. To the south of it lay a channel (Fig. 11) where the blood of sacrifices was shed, and a Sanctuary with special paths and platforms leading to it in the east and north-east (Figs. 6–7). The remains of smoke residues on the special stones in the row forming the Sacred Fire Pit (Fig. 8), and the presence of ashes and carbon in and around the pit, prove that the fire here burned almost continuously as an ‘Eternal Fire’. Thus, archaeological evidence revealed in Oluz Höyük provides the basis for the theoretical discussions of archaeologists and linguists about the existence of the Fire Cult. Strabo mentions that Eternal Fires were burning in enclosed open-air naoses within the Pyraetheias (Atashkadehs) in Cappadocia; The Persians have also certain large shrines, called Pyrætheia. In the middle of these is an altar, on which is a great quantity of ashes, where the Magi maintain an unextinguished fire. They enter daily, and continue their incantation for nearly an hour, holding before the fire a bundle of rods, and wear round their heads high turbans of felt, reaching down on each side so as to cover the lips and the sides of the cheeks. The same customs are observed in the temples of Anaitis and of Omanus. Belonging to these temples are shrines, and a wooden statue of Omanus is carried in procession. These we have seen ourselves. Other usages, and such as follow, are related by historians (15. 3. 15).

This important information, together with the Oluz Höyük evidence, sheds light on the pre-Roman existence as well as the continuation of Atashkadehs into the Roman period. The Oluz Höyük Atashkadeh is the first archaeological evidence indicating that there were temples and sanctuaries in which Eternal Fires burned in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, especially in the pre-Strabonian period, when Achaemenid domination continued in Cappadocia. Strabo was the witness and narrator of this tradition, which continued until the Roman period, although it had undergone changes.

176

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

The unearthed remains indicate that the Oluz Höyük Atashkadeh (Figs. 8, 10), was a small and simple structure. The rectangular plan/scheme, together with the Sacred Fire Pit and the naos (see Figs. 5, 8), transforms into a temple formation with the structures located around it. The fire burning inside the Atashkadeh, which is surrounded by the barrier walls, was not covered, leaving it visible from the outside. It was also important that the roof was uncovered so that the voice of the Magus, who prayed for hours every day next to the Sacred Fire, could be heard. Since this small building was not suitable for mass worship, a building that could be used in rituals was designed just to the west where a colonnaded Hall of Worship was built. It is believed that a large roof supported by six columns covered the hall, the current size of which exceeds 100 m2 and whose walls have yet to be wholly unearthed, except for the southern part. So far six stone column bases, three each spaced in two rows in a north–south direction, have been excavated. Stone pedestals shaped from sandstone are close to each other in size and have an average diameter of 50 cm. Fist-sized rubble stones were placed at the bottom of the pedestals in order to prevent the stones carrying very long and thick wooden posts from tipping over and slipping. A painted krater fragment with a lion figure (Fig. 12) dated to the 5th century BC, found in the Sanctuary, is compatible with the construction date of this building. In the middle of the eastern wall of the Hall lies an opening that looks directly towards the Atashkadeh. Between the pillars in the north, the Atashkadeh and the Sacred Fire burning within it could easily be seen. Those who came to the Hall of Worship to pray, especially in the very early hours of the morning, would have watched both the burning fire and the sun rising over Atashkadeh in the same direction (Fig. 10). The archaeological evidence and observations in Oluz Höyük also indicate, for the first time in Anatolia and the Near East, that the ritual space and Hall of Worship were separated within the framework of a monotheistic belief system and in line with the religious structure. Work on the Atashkadeh and Hall of Worship continues southwards. Excavations in 2020 in the area south of the Atashkadeh, between it and the Hall of Worship, yielded very important evidence: a remarkable short channel made of stone and calypter (Fig. 11). Studies carried out in the channel and its close vicinity, which appeared as a pile of stones at first glance, revealed that a large calypter was placed in a north–south direction. The pile of stones completely covering the channel was, we believe, placed deliberately. During the excavations at the Atashkadeh and Sanctuary, which started in 2013, it was observed that the above-mentioned remains were completely covered with stones and earth. Hence, the architectural elements of the Atashkadeh and Sanctuary were

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

177

deliberately demolished, destroyed and then covered with stones so that they could not be used again. Something similar happened to the channel but, instead of being completely destroyed or dismantled, it was covered with stones and rendered unusable.7 The main element of the channel (b.3420) is a large calypter 0.65 m long and 0.20 m wide, placed upside down on the ground (Fig. 11). This was covered with flat stones to turn it into a closed channel. The stones to the west and south of the calypter seem to have been placed to strengthen it. The length of the channel north–south is 1.10 m and it is 0.40 m wide with the stone blockage in the west. A large rubble stone placed at the southern end of the calypter, inclined from north to south, blocked the drainage of the channel. Some animal bone fragments found in the soil deposit at the entrance of the channel, located adjacent to the newly uncovered wall of the Atashkadeh to the south, indicate that this place had a special function. Its closeness to the Atashkadeh indicates that the channel is most likely related to the sacrificial rituals performed next to the Sacred Fire. Examination of these bones by Oluz Höyük’s archaeozoologist, Prof. Vedat Onar, reveals that they belonged to a young bovine and were dismembered by a meat cleaver. The channel thus

7 We observed a similar situation during the discovery of the Sacred Fire Pit within the Atashkadeh. On the ashes in the pit, mud-brick blocks, potsherds, one bronze and two terracotta plates were found. These finds undoubtedly indicate that the Sacred Fire Pit in the Atashkadeh was closed by giving it the function of a bothros, so that it could not be used again. It is believed that the Atashkadeh and Sanctuary were demolished and destroyed by the inhabitants of Architectural Layer 2A towards the end of the 3rd century BC. The most important archaeological evidence for this dating is the plates found in the upper levels of the Sacred Fire Pit. It is observed that the Persian Road suffered the same fate as the Atashkadeh and the Sanctuary. The stones on the eastern wing of the southern part of the road were removed, an angled structure was built on the western wing, and the Persian Road ceased its function. It is understood that this religion-based transformation and rejection, which we think took place at the end of the 3rd century BC, was made by the inhabitants of Architectural Layer 2A in parallel with political developments. For Anatolia, the most important result of Alexander the Great’s Asian Expedition, which started in 334 BC, was the end of the 220-year-old Achaemenid rule. With the death of the Achaemenid king Darius III, in 330 BC, the political climate began to change, albeit slowly, in Anatolia as in all Persian-dominated regions. Parallel to this, religious transformations are a frequent occurrence in territories that change hands. In this context, it can be thought that the cultural and religious values of the Persian community, which lived in Oluz Höyük for a period of nearly 250 years, were forced to bend to the new political influences. Archaeologically, it has been determined in the Persian Road, the Atashkadeh and the Sanctuary that this transformation was not limited to abandoning or repudiating certain values, but also to destroying them forever. It is really by great chance that the holy places of Oluz Höyük, which was destroyed at the end of the 3rd century BC, have survived to the present day, even at foundation level. The fact that no large structure was built on the site of Atashkadeh and Sanctuary, which is completely covered with stone and earth, has ensured that these holy places have in some measure survived to this day.

178

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

indicates that the sacrifices were a religious practice performed together with the Fire Cult. The different, high quality structure of this channel and the fact that its drain was closed shows that its main function was to direct and accumulate the blood flowing from sacrifices. A painted pottery fragment with festoon and triangle decorations (Fig. 13), uncovered in trench b.3415 to the west of the sacrificial channel, is further evidence that helps dating Architectural Layer 2B. The fragment belongs to the 5th century BC. This date is in line with the construction date of the Atashkadeh. Excavation at Oluz Höyük in past years has unearthed the remains of some sacrificial animals. The skulls of cattle, donkeys and pigs found in the sacrificial pits indicate diversity rather than uniformity in the animals sacrificed. The information given by Herodotus that the Persians ate cattle (oxen) and donkeys leaves no room to doubt the relationship of the sacrifices with the Achaemenids. Herodotus also states that the priests of the Fire Cult (Magi) could kill any living thing except humans and dogs (1. 131–132) – indicating why canines are absent from the sacrificed animals. On a relief found in Daskyleion (Hisartepe) on the shore of Lake Manyas, two people with sacrificial tools are depicted with the heads of a bull and a sheep they had sacrificed on the altar in front of them (Fig. 14). This relief, dating to the 5th century BC, thus contemporary with the Oluz Höyük Atashkadeh, must belong to a sacrificial ritual. The Magi, their mouths veiled perhaps as a precaution to prevent victims from being contaminated with human breath, are dressed in accordance with the Zoroastrian religious traditions. The cylindrical tools narrowing towards the bottom in the left hands of the Magi had a sacrificial function. It is understood that the animals were beaten to death with wooden tools like mallets. The object depicted in the upper left corner of the Daskyleion relief is a fire altar, so it is possible that the sacrificial ceremonies were related to the Fire Cult. The sacrificial channel next to the Atashkadeh in Oluz Höyük thus provides archaeological confirmation of a ritual described in Persian art. A mud-brick building b.3204 was unearthed in grid square I 17 to the north of the Hall of Worship (Fig. 15). It measures 2.40 × 2.10 m. No mud-brick was found in the middle of the structure, which was built like a platform with mud bricks measuring 0.30 × 0.30 m and 0.30 × 0.10 m. Excavation work here revealed at least seven layers of ash with differing colours (Fig. 16). The fragile state of the mud bricks indicates that there was absolutely no fire or an oven in this small building. Thus, the ashes forming the aforementioned layers were specially transported from a place close by. Like the warehouse structure next to the Colonnaded Hall, it is thought that sacred ashes belonging to the Sacred Fire burning in the Atashkadeh were transported and stored in the empty space of 1.50 × 1.00 m in the middle of this structure.

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

179

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION The structures located in the Atashkadeh and its surroundings at Oluz Höyük are very important discoveries, not only for Achaemenid archaeology but also for religious archaeology and history of the Near East. The Hall of Worship (Peresteshgah), a multi-columned rectangular structure, and the Atashkadeh, which was built in perfect geometric harmony with it (Figs. 10, 17) to its east, can be considered the first temple built for the Persians in Anatolia during the Achaemenid period. However, Herodotus stated that the Persians did not know and did not build temples.8 The fact that Herodotus did not mention Amasya and its immediate surroundings in his book indicates that he never visited the region – or Oluz Höyük. The interesting thing here is that when Herodotus, known to have been born around 480 BC, was in his thirties, the Oluz Höyük Atashkadeh was active. The interpretations of the material from excavations often constitute assumptions or discourse, and the material gains meaning as a whole. The initial assumption(s) becomes very important, determining the meaning, horizon, environment, borders and content of all that follows. The beginning indeed determines the end. The Oluz Höyük Hall of Worship and Atashkadeh can be considered as the starting point of the temple tradition in Anatolian Persian archaeology. Fire, which has been the focal point of the Zoroastrian religion since the beginning, has the characteristics of a qibla in this respect. The qibla is a unity of direction, a point of orientation and a guarantee of monotheism. The presence of the qibla provides the realisation of worship with a high religious sentiment towards the structure or symbol that represents the divine power in monotheism. The Atashkadeh, where the Sacred and Eternal Fire burns, is a small structure, left uncovered so that the fire could be seen from the outside and the voice of the praying Magus heard. Since this small building was unsuited to mass worship, a building for such rituals was erected just to the west: a colonnaded Hall of Worship was built (see Fig. 17: current size exceeds 100 m2), its large roof supported by six columns (six stone column bases, three each spaced in two rows in a north–south direction – see above); its walls were unexposed until today, except for the southern. An opening in the middle of the eastern wall of the Hall of Worship points directly at the Atashkadeh (Figs. 5, 17), the Sacred Fire burning inside which was placed as a qibla in 8 ‘As to the customs of the Persians, I know them to be these. It is not their custom to make and set up statues and temples and altars, but those who do such things they think foolish, because, I suppose, they have never believed the gods to be like men, as the Greeks do’ (1. 131).

180

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

a central location, leaving it easily visible between the columns to the north (Figs. 10, 17). Worshippers, especially in the early morning would have seen both the burning fire and the sun rising over the Atashkadeh aligned in the same direction (Fig. 10). The fact that the Atashkadeh is a modest building indicates that the qibla was not too ‘flashy’ and monumental, and that the important thing was to worship God. The fact that the Atashkadeh and Hall of Worship to its west have the characteristics of being the first temple of the Persian period in Anatolia is very important in terms of religious archaeology and history. The emergence of the concept of a covered Hall of Worship from a simple Atashkadeh surrounded by barrier walls must have been the beginning and origin of temple practice for the Persians. The fact that the Persians were unaware of the concept of the temple seems to have changed with the institutionalisation of Zoroastrianism. Since the Persians, who took up the concept of the temple/house of God, brought their prayers and offerings here can also be considered as a new practice of Zoroastrianism. As a result, Oluz Höyük was a centre where a noble and elite Persian class settled. It is believed that this group had both a civil and a religious structure there and reflected this in the architecture. It appears that the Persians, who had built an Atashkadeh for themselves, designed and built a place in order to be protected from natural and climatic conditions, to form a community during their worship to see the centrally located, qibla-like Atashkadeh, hear the prayers inside and perhaps accompany them. BIBLIOGRAPHY Dönmez, Ş. (ed.) 2010: Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Kašku Ülkesi’nin Önemli Kenti. 2007 ve 2008 Dönemi Çalışmaları Genel Değerlendirmeler ve Ön Sonuçlar/ The Principal Site of Kašku Land. The Preliminary Reports of 2007 and 2008 Seasons General Evaluations and Results (Ankara). —. 2012: ‘A New Excavation in Pontic Cappadocia: Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Preliminary Results for the Hellenistic Period and Iron Age Layers’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity: Aspects of Archaeology and Ancient History (BAR International Series 2432) (Oxford), 67–78. —. 2013a: ‘Oluz Höyük: Kuzey-Orta Anadolu’nun Kralî Pers Merkezi’. In Dönmez, Ş. (ed.), Güneş Karadeniz’den Doğar. Sümer Atasoy Armağanı/ Lux ex Ponto Euxino. Studies Presented in Honour of Sumer Atasoy (Ankara), 103–40. —. 2013b: ‘Oluz Höyük. Preliminary Results for the Hellenistic Period and Iron Age Layers’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Atasoy, S., Avram, A., Dönmez, Ş. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds.), The Bosporus: Gateway between the Ancient West and East (1st Millennium BC–5th Century AD) (Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

181

on Black Sea Antiquities. Istanbul, 14th–18th September 2009) (BAR International Series 2517) (Oxford), 363–71. —. 2014: ‘Kuzey-Orta Anadolu’da Yeni Bir Arkeolojik Keşif: Oluz Höyük Kubaba (Matar Kubileya) Tapınağı (Kızılırmak Kavsi İçinde Ana Tanrıça İle İlgili Güncel Bulgular)’. In Özfırat, A. (ed.), Arkeoloji İle Geçen Bir Yaşam İçin Yazılar. Veli Sevin’e Armağan. Scripta/ Essays in Honour of Veli Sevin. A Life Immersed in Archaeology (Istanbul), 289–304. —. 2015a: ‘Oluz Höyük Kazıları Işığında Kuzey-Orta Anadolu (Pontika Kappadokia) Akhaimenid Varlığına Güncel Bir Bakış’. TÜBA-AR 18, 71–107. —. 2015b: ‘Preliminary Results on the Hellenistic and Iron Age Phases at Oluz Höyük’. In Laflı, E. amd Patacı, S. (eds.), Recent Studies on the Archaeology of Anatolia (BAR International Series 2750) (Oxford), 255–72. —. 2015c: ‘Achaemenid Presence at Oluz Höyük, North-Central Anatolia’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds.), The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC–10th Century AD) (Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities. Belgrade, 17–21 September 2013) (Oxford), 467–73. —. 2017a: Amasya-Oluz Höyük. Kuzey-Orta Anadolu’da Bir Akhaimenid (Pers) Yerleşmesi. 2009–2013 Çalışmaları Genel Değerlendirmeler ve Önsonuçlar (Amasya). —. 2017b: ‘The Contribution of New Research to Hittite Historical Geography of Amasya Province’. In Alparslan, M. (ed.), Place and Space in Hittite Anatolia I: Hatti and the East (Proceedings of an International Workshop in Istanbul, 25th– 26th October 2013) (Istanbul), 75–90. —. 2018: ‘Early Zoroastrianism at Oluz Höyük, North-Central Anatolia’. In Batmaz, A., Bedianashvili, G., Michalewicz, A. and Robinson, A. (eds.), Context and Connection: Studies on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of Antonio Sagona (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 268) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), 205–30. —. 2019: ‘The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük’. In Tsestskhladze, G.R. and Atasoy, S. (eds.), Settlement and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and Its Hinterland in Antiquity (Select Papers from the Third International Conference ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’, 27–29 October 2017, Tekkeköy, Samsun) (Oxford), 244–57. —. 2021: ‘A Punic Necklace from Oluz Höyük: A General Evaluation for Anatolia’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds.), The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea and the Importance of the Pontic Region fort he GraecoRoman World (7th Century BC–5th Century AD): 20 Years on (1997–2017) (Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Constanţa, 18–22 September 2017) (Oxford), 400–05. Dönmez, Ş. and Abazoğlu, F. 2018: ‘Kızılırmak Havzası Demir Çağı Çanak-Çömlek Geleneğinin Kökeni Üzerine Düşünceler’. TÜBA-AR 23, 81–99. —. 2019: ‘Hitit Sonrası Kuzey-Orta Anadolu: Oluz Höyük’te Karanlık Çağ ile İlgili Yeni Bulgular’. In Süel, A. (ed.), IX. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri/ Acts of the IXth International Congress of Hittitology, vol. 1 (Çorum), 237–60. Dönmez, Ş. and Abdullaev, K. 2019: ‘Oluz Höyük – Amasya: Discovery of a Site in the North of Central Anatolia/ Оluz Khoyuk – Аmasya: otkrytie pamyatnika na severe Tsentral’noi Anatolii’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 79.3, 703–29.

182

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

Dönmez, Ş. and Saba, M. 2019a: ‘New Discoveries at Oluz Höyük: An Early Zoroastrian Sanctuary in North-Central Anatolia’. In Steadman, S.R. and McMahon, G. (eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia III: Recent Discoveries (2017–2018) (Newcastle-upon-Tyne), 112–21. —. 2019b: ‘Anadolu Demir Çağı Pers Tarihi ve Oluz Höyük (Kritalla)/ Anatolian Iron Age Persian History and Oluz Höyük (Kritalla)’. In Özfırat, A., Dönmez, Ş., Işıklı, M. and Saba, M. (eds.), Orta ve Doğu Anadolu Geç Demir Çağı: PostUrartu, Med ve Akhaimenid İmparatorlukları/ Central and Eastern Anatolia Late Iron Age: Post-Urartu, Median and Achaemenid Empires (Istanbul), 1–65. —. 2021: ‘Oluz Höyük: Persian (Akhaimenid) Settlement in North-Central Anatolia’. In Lebeau, M. (ed.), International Congress, the East (ICE) 1: Identity, Diversity and Contact. From the Southern Balkans to Xinjiang, from the Upper Paleolithic to Alexander (Turnhout), 275–96. Dönmez, Ş. and Yurtsever Beyazıt, A. 2014: ‘Oluz. Höyük. A Multicultural Settlement in Pontic Cappadocia’. In Özden, F. (ed.), Amasya. Maid of Mountains (Istanbul), 51–71. Saba, M. 2018: ‘First Evaluation of Haoma Culture in Oluz Höyük/ Oluz Höyük’te Haoma Kültürünün İlk Değerlendirmesi’. TÜBA-AR 22, 161–72. —. 2021: Zerdüşt Dini’nin Anadolu Yayılımı: Oluz Höyük Geç Demir Çağı Bulguları Işığında/ The Expansion of Zoroastrianism in Anatolia: In the Light of Late Iron Age Evidence from Oluz Höyük (Dissertation, Istanbul).

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

Fig. 1. Oluz Höyük and its vicinity in the Late Iron Age.

183

184

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

Fig. 2. General view, Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 3. Burnt seed residues, 7B2 Hittite Collapse Period (1200–1150 BC), Oluz Höyük.

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

Fig. 4. Altar of Kubaba, Architectural Layer 4B (600–550 BC), Oluz Höyük.

185

186

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

Fig. 5. Atashkadeh and the Hall of Worship, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

Fig. 6. Hall of Worship, Atashkadeh, Persian Road, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 7. Hall of Worship, Atashkadeh, Persian Road, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

187

188

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

Fig. 8. Atashkadeh, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 9. Atashkadeh, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

189

Fig. 10. Hall of Worship and Atashkadeh, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

190

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

Fig. 11. Sacrificial channel, Architectural Layer 2B (450 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 12. Krater fragment with lion figure found in the Hall of Worship, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

191

Fig. 13. Pottery fragment with geometric figures uncovered in sacrificial channel, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

192

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

Fig. 14. Stele with the depiction of a sacrificial ritual, 5th century BC, Daskyleion.

EARLY ZOROASTRIAN RELIGION OF ANATOLIA

Fig. 15. Mud-brick structure where the sacred ashes were stored, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

Fig. 16. Cross section of mud-brick structure where the ashes were stored, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

193

194

MONA SABA AND ŞEVKET DÖNMEZ

Fig. 17. Atashkadeh and the Hall of Worship, Architectural Layer 2B (450–300 BC), Oluz Höyük.

ADDITIONAL ABSTRACTS RECEIVED

THE DATE OF SOME ACHAEMENID ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS AND THE QUESTION OF THE GREEKS ‘BEYOND THE SEA’ Alexandru AVRAM

In a recent paper of wider importance, Claude Rapin (Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 [2018], 1–67) made an attempt to connect some Achaemenid royal lists of peoples and distinguished three typological groups: A (DB, ca. 518 BC, and DSaa), AB (DPe, ca. 513 BC) and B (B1, B2, B3 containing DSe, DNa, DNe [and its copy A3Pb]), B4 and B5 = XPh). I will discuss only the inscriptions containing mentions of Sakā ‘beyond the sea’ and Greeks (Yaṷnā) ‘beyond the sea’. The dates I suggest are: Group AB: DPe – ca. 518–513: not yet Skudra (Thrace); not yet Libya; Yaṷnā ‘beyond the sea’. Group B3: DSe – 513/2: Skudra (i.e. after Darius’ campaign in Thrace) but not yet Libya (occupied, according to Herodotus, shortly after Darius left Thrace); Yaṷnā ‘beyond the sea’. DNa – ca. 513/2–496: Sakā ‘beyond the sea’; Skudra. A3Pb (copy of Dne): ca. 513/2–496; Sakā ‘beyond the sea’, Skudra. Group B5: XPh – 486–480: Yaṷnā ‘who dwell in the sea’ (= Greeks on the Marmara shores) and Yaṷnā ‘who dwell beyond the sea’; no more Sakā ‘beyond the sea’. It is interesting to remark that the Sakā ‘beyond the sea’, who are, no doubt, ‘European’ Scythians, are mentioned only after Darius’ ‘Herodotean’ campaign in Thrace and, so it seems, not after 496 (the date of the Scythian raid up to Thracian Chersonesus), while the Greeks ‘beyond the sea’ already belonged to the subjected peoples before 514/3 (group AB = DPe) and continued to be listed even under Xerxes (group B5 = XPh). Taking also into account the geographical order of the listed peoples, we can assume that the Greeks ‘beyond the sea’ are those of the cities situated on northern shore of the Pontus Euxinus. These cities had been subjected in 519 BC and continued to be more or less controlled by Persians at least until 480 BC.

BEFORE AND AFTER DARIUS’ CROSSING OF THE ISTROS RIVER Vasilica LUNGU

Ten years ago Christopher Tuplin revisited Darius’ expedition in Scythia in accordance with the Herodotean narrative (4. 1. 83–143). ‘I cannot assert that I have found anything but the old tangential novelty’ (p. 281), he said. But the relationship between this historical event and what is actually in Herodotus’ own writings and in archaeological remains continues to be an intriguing question. The narrative of the Persian passage and the Ionian contribution to the Scythian logos are essentially realities of Greek more than Persian history. Most other allusions to Persia or archaeological objects appear comparatively isolated. This paper proposes to discuss some new aspects delivered by the most recent studies which can be connected to the Persian passage against Scythians in 519/513 BC. A comparative analysis of the situations of the Greek colonies close to the Istros river before and after Darius’ raid will be the core of this paper. I examine the impact of the Istrian logos of the Persian king as part of the larger story of the region that includes new data which reveal to us the complexity of the subject.

A FRAGMENT OF THE OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGOREIA: SOME FURTHER EPIGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Eduard RUNG

This paper continues investigation of a newly discovered Old Persian inscription from Phanagoria. Since its discovery in 2016 a number of articles on this inscription have been published and there were some controversies between scholars related to its epigraphic and historical interpretations. This paper focuses on some points of controversy. The publishers of the inscription proposed that Darius’ name in the genitive was mentioned in the first line – Dārayavahauš. In their view this reading contributes to the conclusion that the whole inscription relates to Xerxes, son of Darius. In spite of the dubiety of this interpretation most scholars accepted the reading of Darius’ name in the genitive case in the first line. I will cast a doubt on this reading and propose some others which may contribute to the historical interpretation of the inscription. All scholars now accept that the second line mentions Darius the king, but there is disagreement as to whether Darius’ name and title are referred to in the nominative or genitive. In the third line there is no reliable interpretation and any attempt at it must be considered as purely speculative. Meanwhile, if one takes into account the context of the inscription, which depends on the reading of the following lines, it is possible to propose a reading that corresponds well with this context. In the fourth line there two different interpretations have been put forward: niyaçāṛayam (A. Avram) and viyatarayam (E. Shavarebi). In the five line the most popular reading is adam akunavam, but none of authors considers adam agarbāyam. This paper pays attention to the latter possible interpretation. Finally, line six has m-r-t-; all scholars read this as martiya. But I connect this word with the proposed phrase adam agarbāyam. Due to the possible reading of the inscription one can clarify its contents and relate it to the historical context – Darius’ crossing of the Kerch Strait at the start of his Scythian expedition. Moreover, we can find some textual parallels between the restored reading of this inscription and Darius’ Behistun inscription – in column 5, which was devoted to his’ expedition against the Saka tigraxauda.

WAS THE BLACK SEA EVER A MARE NOSTRUM OF THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE? THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE REVISITED Ehsan SHAVAREBI

The Cimmerian Bosporus was ruled by the Archaeanactid dynasty from 480/79 until 438/7 BC. Not much is known about this dynasty. Our sole literary source is a brief passage in Diodorus’ Bibliotheca Historica (12. 31. 1). More than two decades ago, the late G.A. Koshelenko proposed a new interpretation of this passage and developed a hypothesis that the Archaeanactids came to power under the aegis of the Achaemenid empire during Xerxes’ preparations for his campaign against Greece. Although this hypothesis never led to a consensus on the problem of the origin of Archaeanactids, it gained a great deal of attention, especially amongst Russian archaeologists. Despite its serious problematic aspects, a number of scholars have attempted to foster this hypothesis and furnish archaeological evidence for it during the past two decades. The most recent archaeological discovery to have been associated with this hypothesis is the Old Persian fragmentary inscription of Phanagoria. This inscription has been interpreted by its excavator, V.D. Kuznetsov, as proof of supposed Persian dominance over the region. A thorough study of this inscription from philological, historical and archaeological points of view, however, may lead to an opposite conclusion. A better and less speculative understanding of Achaemenid policy toward the northern Black Sea area and the type of possible contacts between the Archaeanactid dynasty and the Persian Empire may only be achieved by putting together and re-evaluating all available materials in their both regional and inter-regional contexts. A significant, yet rather neglected, aspect of this question is the monetarisation process and early coinage of the Bosporan poleis in the 5th century BC. The aim of the present study is a reassessment of the numismatic evidence along with archaeological finds in order to find an appropriate answer to the question of Achaemenid political influence in the Cimmerian Bosporus region.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

M. Akhmadeeva The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg [email protected] Iulian Bîrzescu Vasile Parvan Institute of Archaeology Bucharest [email protected] Şevket Dönmez Department of Archaeology Istanbul University [email protected] Vladimir Kuznetsov Institute of Archaeology Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow [email protected] Manolis Manoledakis International Hellenic University Thermi, Salonica [email protected] Mona Saba Department of Archaeology Istanbul University [email protected]

Mikhail Treister Bonn Germany [email protected] Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (†) Maya Vassileva New Bulgarian University, Sofia [email protected] Yurii A. Vinogradov Institute for the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences St Petersburg [email protected] Josef Wiesehöfer University of Kiel [email protected]

INDEX

Achaemenid and Persia are unindexed being all pervasive Abrokomas: 90, 101, 102 Abydos: 122 Aeneas Tacticus: 150 Aeschines: 4 Aeschylus: 102 Agesilaus: 145 Ahura Mazda: 100, 105, 109, 131, 132, 134 Alexander the Great: 105, 146, 149, 151, 177 Amisos: 141, 147–49 amphorae: 32, 34, 68, 78, 109, 110, 123, 142, 148, 166 Anapa: 15, 16, 92 Anatolia/Asia Minor: 4, 9, 11, 13–15, 92, 94, 123, 141–44, 146, 149, 150, 158, 159, 163–69, 173–80 Aphrodite: 29–33, 35, 79, 106 Apollonia Pontica: 13 Archaenactids: 13, 20, 79, 92, 100, 200 architectural features: 32, 33, 69, 155–69 passim Argeads: 95 Argonauts: 102 Ariaramnes: 3, 5, 10, 13, 19, 64, 93 Ariarathes: 148 Ariobarzanes: 148 Arrian: 151 arrowheads: 12, 13, 30, 31, 68 Arsites: 148 Artaxerxes I/II/III: 15, 18, 93, 117, 130, 131, 145–50 Assurbanipal: 96 Athenian (expansion/expedition): 17, 21, 79–81, 89–96 passim, 147, 149 Atramis: 90, 102 Bactria: 18 Behistun: 5, 197 Belsk: 20

Berezan: 10 Bithynia: 3, 146, 147, 150 Bosporus/Bosporan kingdom: 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 20–22, 79–81, 89, 91, 106, 107, 110, 112, 117, 133 burials/cemeteries/graves/tombs: 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 30, 99–112, 142, 155–69 Alexandropol: 126 Antiphelos: 155–64 Arslankaya: 166 Arslantaş: 168 Baksy (Kerch Peninsula): 13, 99, 117– 34 Bin Tepe: 124, 131 Bolshaya Bliznitsa: 16, 106, 107 Broken Lion tomb: 164–67 Cape Pavlovskii: 103–06 Chertomlyk: 14, 125, 126 Duvanli: 166 Eğrekbaşı: 124 Filippovka: 124, 131 Gaimanov Mogila: 125 Karaburun: 126 Kastamonu: 166 Krivorozhe: 11, 12 Kul-Oba: 14, 18, 106 Lyubotin: 11, 12 Nymphaeum: 134 Panticapaeum: 103, 105, 107 Pazyryk: 18, 127, 129, 130 Sardis: 131 Seven Brothers: 14, 16 Solokha: 14 Starakorsunsky: 15 Syracuse: 157 Taksai-I: 132 Taş Kule: 157 Temir-Gora: 103, 105, 106 Three Brothers: 106

204

INDEX

Ulski: 5, 11 Ulyap: 5, 11 Yapildak: 168 Yılan Taş: see Broken Lion Zelenskoi: 14 Zhrltokamenskaya Tolstaya: 125 Zhirni: 14 Callatis: 13 Cappadocia: 3, 145, 148, 149, 175 ceramics: 10, 32, 34, 123, 130, 142 Charidemus: 148 Chersonesus (Thrace): 197 Chersonesus (Crimea): 10, 15, 16 Chian: 32, 34, 68, 78 Cimmerian Bosporus: 3–6, 10–13, 15, 18– 21, 68, 78, 79, 81, 89, 99–112, 117, 123, 131, 199, 200 Clearchus (of Heraclea): 149 coins: 4, 13, 15, 32, 68, 78–80, 93, 142, 148–50 Colchis/Colchians: 4, 11, 21, 22, 146 Colonisation, Greek: 147 Corylas: 144, 146 Cotyora: 146, 147 Crimea: 91 Cromna: 150 Ctesias: 3–5, 64, 66, 93, 146 Cunaxa: 145 (Quintus) Curtius: 146, 149, 151 Cyprus: 95 Cyrus: 5, 18, 145 Darius: 1–10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22, 30, 33, 35, 59, 60, 61–65, 67, 68, 79, 92, 93, 99, 101, 122, 126, 134, 197–99 Daskyleion: 166, 169, 178 Datames: 145, 148–50 Delian League: 92, 148 Demosthenes: 4, 94, 148 Didyma: 31 Diodorus Siculus: 15, 79, 80, 92, 100, 149 Dodona: 131 Don: see Tanais Douris (painter): 130 Drilae: 146 Duvanli: 166

Erebuni: 126, 128 Eumenes: 149 Gelonus: 20 Gherla: 8, 9 Gorgippia: 21 Gorgon: 165 Great Goddess: 106, 174 Gylon: 4 Halicarnassus: 123 Hecatonymus: 144, 146 Heraclea Pontica: 13, 141, 147, 149 Hermonassa: 10 Herodotus: 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 66, 67, 92, 127, 132, 143, 178, 179, 198 Histria/Istros: 9, 20, 29–59 Sacred Area: 29–35 Hittites: 173, 174 horse harnesses: 11, 30 hunting: 89, 90 Hydanes: 148 Hypsicratea (wife of Mithradates VI): 8 Iberia (Caucasian): 11, 95 inscriptions: 1, 4–9, 13, 15–21, 59–81, 85–86, 92, 103, 118, 197–200 Ionian Revolt: 13, 66, 92 jewellery/ornaments: 18, 103–06, 109, 110, 117–34 passim Justin: 149, 151 Kalas: 151 Kepoi: 4, 9, 10 Kerasous: 147 Kerch: see Panticapaeum Kerch Peninsula: 10, 12, 94, 117, 118 Kerch Strait: 20, 93, 99, 106, 109, 199, 200 Kubaba: 161, 174, 185 Kytaeum: 15 Lamachus: 147 Leucon I: 20 Lycia: 155–64 passim Lydia(n): 1, 15, 16, 103, 122, 146, 159, 164, 167, 168

INDEX

Macedonia(ns): 30, 92, 95, 112, 149, 151 Maeotians: 15 Mardonius: 30, 33, 35, 92 Medusa: 165 Memnon: 149 metalwork (Achaemenid): 5, 11–15, 18, 95, 117–34 passim, 142, 166 Midas: 165, 166 Miletus: 6, 13, 31, 92 Mithradates VI: 8 Mithropastes: 148 Mossynoikoi: 146 Myrmekion: 9, 12 Nemirov: 20 Nepos: 145, 149 Ninus: 3, 4 Nymphaeum: 4, 10, 15, 100, 109, 134 Odrysian kingdom: 20, 36, 100 Olbia: 10, 92 Oluz Höyük: 175–94 Orobantes: 148 Otys (Paphlagonian official): 144–46 Oxus Treasure: 124, 131 Painter from Heidelberg: 32 Panticapaeum (Kerch): 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 69, 78–80, 89, 91, 92, 94, 103, 105–07, 110, 111, 123 Paphlagonia: 142, 144–46, 148–51 Paphos: 30, 31 paradeisos: 90 Parion: 124 Peloponnesian War: 90, 92, 94 Perdiccas: 149 Pericles: 21, 79, 93, 147, 148 Persepolis: 122, 124, 126, 131 Persianism: 90, 142 Phanagoria/Phanagoria inscription: 1, 4–8, 10, 12, 15, 59–84, 92, 99, 118, 199, 200 Pharnabazus II: 145–47 Phasos: 123 Phrygia: 3, 143, 145, 146, 148, 151, 161, 164–67, 174 Plataia (battle): 127 Pliny: 15

205

Plutarch: 21, 79, 93, 145–47, 151 Polyaenus: 15, 148 Porthmeus: 9, 12, 109 Ps.-Scylax: 15 Rogozen: 166 Saca/Sakā: 17–21, 197 Samothrace: 131, 162, 163 Satyrus I: 13, 20, 99, 101, 132 Scythia/Scythian expedition, etc.: 1–4, 8, 10–13, 17–22, 30, 64, 66, 92, 105, 106, 123, 125, 132, 197, 198 seals (Achaemenid): 15, 16, 21, 93, 95, 99– 101, 103, 106, 133, 134, 159, 166, 168 Seisames: 90, 102 Sesamus: 150 Sianan cup: 32 Sindi/Sindica: 13, 15 Sinope: 13, 141, 142, 144, 146–50 Skudra: 197 Sogdian: 18 Sparta: 92 Spartocus/Spartocids: 13, 20, 79, 80, 89, 90, 92–95, 100, 101 112 Spithridates: 145 Stephanus of Byzantium: 15 Strabo: 3, 8, 15, 147, 175 Susa: 122, 127, 130 Taganrog: 9 Taman Peninsula: 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 21, 67, 79 Tanais (Don): 3, 4, 10, 20, 92 Taurians: 10 temples/sanctuaries: 6, 29–36, 66, 68, 71, 79, 162, 163, 175–77 The Ten Thousand: 146 terracotta: 31, 32, 34 Thasian: 34, 109, 110 Theodosia: 85–88, 92, 101 Theopompus: 145 Thrace: 9, 20, 30, 100, 101 Tieion: 141 Timesileos: 21, 147 Tyritake: 12, 69 votives: 32, 170

206

INDEX

walls (city): 9, 10, 12, 33, 68, 70, 72 Wild Goat style: 70, 72 Xenophantos lekythos: 89–96, 101–03 Xenophon: 17, 89, 144–47 Xerxes: 1, 5, 6, 12–15, 21, 59–81 passim, 92, 93, 126, 132, 134, 197, 198

Yaunā: 22, 197 Zoroastrianism: 100, 105, 109, 173–96 passim

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA 1. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC. 2. H. GENZ and D.P. MIELKE (eds.), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. 3. S.A. KOVALENKO, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Coins of the Black Sea Region. Part I: Ancient Coins from the Northern Black Sea Littoral. 4. A. HERMARY and G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (eds.), From the Pillars of Hercules to the Footsteps of the Argonauts. 5. L. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA, Ex Toto Orbe Romano: Immigration into Roman Dacia. With Prosopographical Observations on the Population of Dacia. 6. P.-A. KREUZ, Die Grabreliefs aus dem Bosporanischen Reich. 7. F. DE ANGELIS (ed.), Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity: Exploring Their Limits. 8. A. AVRAM, Prosopographia Ponti Euxini Externa. 9. Y.N. YOUSSEF and S. MOAWAD (eds.), From Old Cairo to the New World. Coptic Studies Presented to Gawdat Gabra on the Occasion of his SixtyFifth Birthday. 10. R. ROLLINGER and K. SCHNEGG (eds.), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel. 11. S.A. KOVALENKO, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Coins of the Black Sea Region. Part II: Ancient Coins of the Black Sea Littoral. 12. A.V. PODOSSINOV (ed.), The Periphery of the Classical World in Ancient Geography and Cartography. 13. A.M. MADDEN, Corpus of Byzantine Church Mosaic Pavements from Israel and the Palestinian Territories. 14. A. PETROVA, Funerary Reliefs from the West Pontic Area (6th–1st Centuries BC). 15. A. FANTALKIN and O. TAL, Tell Qudadi: An Iron Age IIB Fortress on the Central Mediterranean Coast of Israel (with References to Earlier and Later Periods). 16. C.M. DRAYCOTT and M. STAMATOPOULOU (eds.), Dining and Death: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the ‘Funerary Banquet’ in Ancient Art, Burial and Belief. 17. M.-P. DE HOZ, J.P. SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ and C. MOLINA VALERO (eds.), Between Tarhuntas and Zeus Polieus: Cultural Crossroads in the Temples and Cults of Graeco-Roman Anatolia.

208

AUTEURSNAAM

18. M. MANOLEDAKIS, G.R. TSETSKHLADZE and I. XYDOPOULOS (eds.), Essays on the Archaeology and Ancient History of the Black Sea Littoral. 19. R.G. GÜRTEKIN DEMIR, H. CEVIZOĞLU, Y. POLAT and G. POLAT (eds.), Archaic and Classical Western Anatolia: New Perspectives in Ceramic Studies. 20. C. KÖRNER, Die zyprischen Königtümer im Schatten der Großreiche des Vorderen Orients. Studien zu den zyprischen Monarchien vom 8. bis zum 4. Jh. v. Chr. 21. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting. Volume 1. 22. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting. Volume 2: Work in 2009–2013. 23. I. MOGA, Religious Excitement in Ancient Anatolia. Cult and Devotional Forms for Solar and Lunar Gods. 24. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Phrygia in Antiquity: From the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period. 25. L. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA (ed.), Limes, Economy and Society in the Lower Danubian Roman Provinces. 26. M. COSTANZI and M. DANA (eds.), Une autre façon d’être grec: interactions et productions des Grecs en milieu colonial/Another Way of Being Greek: Interactions and Cultural Innovations of the Greeks in a Colonial Milieu. 27. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Ionians in the West and East. 28. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Archaeology and History of Urartu (Biainili). 29. M.-P. DE HOZ, J.L. GARCÍA ALONSO and L.A. GUICHARD ROMERO (eds.), Greek Paideia and Local Tradition in the Graeco-Roman East. 30. A.V. BELOUSOV, Defixiones Olbiae Ponticae (DefOlb). 31. J. PORUCZNIK, Cultural Identity within the Northern Black Sea Region in Antiquity. (De)constructing Past Identities. 32. M.G. ABRAMZON and V.D. KUZNETSOV, Coin Hoards Volume XI: Greek Hoards, The Cimmerian Bosporus. 33. A. COŞKUN (ed.), Galatian Victories and Other Studies into the Agency and Identity of the Galatians in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. 34. V.D. KUZNETSOV and M.G. ABRAMZON, The Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus (a Hoard from Phanagoria). 35. A.-I. PÁZSINT, Private Associations in the Pontic Greek Cities (6th century BC–3rd century AD). 36. M. MANOLEDAKIS, An Approach to the Historical Geography of the Southern Black Sea Littoral (First Millennium BC). 37. M.G. ABRAMZON, Y.Y. EFIMOVA, N.V. KOPTSEVA, I.A. SAPRYKINA and T.N. SMEKALOVA, The Metallurgy of Bosporan Silver Coinage: Third Century AD.

HOOFDTITEL

209

38. S.M. BURSTEIN, Greece’s Northern Frontier: Studies in the History of the Ancient Greek Experience in the Black Sea. 39. A. BARALIS and N. MATHIEUX (eds.), L’aristocratie odryse: insignes et lieux du pouvoir en Thrace (Ve–IIIe siècles avant J.-C.).

212

AUTEURSNAAM

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706