tokhtasev, s.r. bosporus_and the sindike in the era of leukon i

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Ancient Civilizations 12, 1-2Also available online – www.brill.nl

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON INEW EPIGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS

SERGEI R. TOKHTAS’EV

Abstract. I. The author returns to the analysis (see Hyperboreus. 1998, 4/2, 286-301;cf. SEG, XLVIII, 1027) of an epigram of the Bosporan tyrant Leukon I from theSemibratnee site (Labrys) on the occasion of Yu. G. Vinogradov’s posthumous publication(VDI, 2002, No 3). Although Vinogradov accepted the most important of the author’sreadings, some of the interpretations suggested by him were erroneous, as the authorstrives to prove (see also A. J. Graham’s observations). The inscription is analyzedfrom the point of view of its language and style. As a historical source, the epigramis discussed in the second part of the article together with a new inscription fromNymphaion.

II. As early as the end of the 5th c. BC (or even earlier) Bosporan tyrant Satyros I made Sindike Bosporus’ vassal (Polyaen. VIII. 55). The Labrys epigram tells usabout Leukon I, «archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia» helping Hekataios, king ofthe Sindoi, dethroned by his own son, obviously in order to take possession of Sindikede jure. A new votive inscription from Nymphaion published by O. Yu. Sokolova andN. A. Pavlichenko (Hyperboreus, 2002, 8/1, 99-121) sheds new light on the furtherhistory of the forming of the Bosporan state in the 1st half of the 4th century BC.Leukon is called here «archon of the Bosporus, Theodosia, all Sindike, Toretai, Dandarioi,Psessoi». The author believes that the epithet «all» is applied to Sindike for expres-siveness and implies in fact the land which belonged to Hekataios. The author sup-poses that the neighboring barbarians were annexed by a treaty, and the power of theirown kings was abolished, this fact explaining why Greek poleis and the barbarianswere politically equal. No doubt, Leukon soon had to be disappointed in the possibil-ity of governing barbarians in the same way as Greeks. According to the inscriptionCIRB 6a Sindoi were still under Leukon’s rule as archon, but for the rest of the bar-barians he was a king. However, in the later inscriptions CIRB 6, 8, 1037, 1038 thestandard formula appears: «Leukon, archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia, king ofSindoi, Toretai, etc.» The change in the political status of the barbarians was proba-bly connected with their efforts to get free from the power of the Bosporus. The Greekcities of the Bosporus and Theodosia preserved their formal autonomy and citizenship,but the barbarians were turned into dependent population.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM

http://www.brill.nl

2 SERGEI R. TOKHTAS’EV

I. Votive epigram of Leukon from Labrys

The Vestnik Drevnej Istorii began to publish research works by Yurii G.Vinogradov ex schedis. In the 3rd issue for the year 2002 his article appeared,which was entitled “Leukon, Hekataios, Oktamasades and Gorgippos (The processof the integration of Sindike into the Bosporan state based on the novella byPolyaenus [VIII, 5] and the votive epigram from Labrys)”. It was prepared forpublication by Fedor V. Shelov-Kovedyaev from a manuscript version, whichYurii Vinogradov had given him in 1999 so that – to use his own words – hemight acquaint himself with the content and discuss it further. According tothe publisher “the article was in a virtually complete form” (p. 3, Note*) butit is difficult to agree with this.1 Symptomatically, the analytical section of thearticle breaks off in the manuscript version with the introductory phrases fromthe section headed “Reconstruction of the military-political situation”,2 whichwould in fact have been the point at which Polyaenus’ account of the eventsin Sindike would have been analysed – events which preceded those which arereflected in Leukon’s epigram. It is also blatantly clear that the section enti-tled “Anthroponyms, Toponyms and Phraseology” had not been worked overproperly. While rejecting his preliminary reading of Leukon’s epigram pub-lished in Bulletin épigraphique (1996, 306) and SEG (XLIII, 515), Yu. G.Vinogradov referred in this connection to our discussion in letters (1996-1997)and was therefore unaware, at that point in time of my article which had comeout at the end of 1998.3 The publisher also assumes responsibility for the

1 On the contrary, Shelov-Kovedyaev’s statement (ibidem) to the effect that his preparationof the manuscript for the press “had not demanded any special effort” does not raise any doubts.

2 Shelov-Kovedyaev completed the section himself (pp. 19-22), presenting it as “an exposi-tion of our joint discussions of the questions raised in this publication”, but the exposition ispresented in the first person and in general is very subjective: suffice it to say that the authoropens it with an inappropriate argument with N.A. Frolova (cf. below, note 139) on the ques-tion as to who was the first to have assigned the coins inscribed with the legend SINDVN tothe Sindoi.

3 Tokhtas’ev 1998, 286-301 (SEG XLVIII, 1027). The article was written in anticipation ofthe comprehensive research into the epigram, which Yu. G. Vinogradov was preparing (which,however, as we have seen was not completed). This was why I had concentrated at the timeon Lines 3 and 5, which were of crucial importance for a correct understanding of the text asa whole, cf. Ibidem, 287 and Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 75, note 10: “In a number of cases Yu. G.Vinogradov has suggested reconstructions and interpretations of the inscription, which differsubstantially from mine: nevertheless, in the course of our correspondence I succeeded in con-

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 3

numerous misprints and more serious oversights, which would have been un-likely to have appeared in any text prepared for publication by Yu. G. Vinogradov.

The most important shortcoming of the publication was the lack of a pho-tograph of the inscription, which Vinogradov had in his possession (see p. 4).Thanks to the efforts of Andrei Yu. Vinogradov and Sofia É. Andreeva, it waseventually discovered among Yu. G. Vinogradov’s papers and together withhis other materials relating to the Leukon epigram, it was kindly made avail-able to me and is now finally being published (Fig. 1).

After the publication of my autopsy of the inscription,4 which confirmed thereadings, established by Yu. G. Vinogradov on the basis of the photograph, ofall the letters including those which had been erroneously read by T.V.Blavatskaya, the first scholar to publish the inscription,5 I had not been plan-ning to return to it again, but, as it turned out, that decision was a hasty one.Although Yu. G. Vinogradov had accepted my readings of key places in theinscription, certain differences of opinion regarding the interpretation still remained.Certain details, which had not been taken into account previously, made itpossible to find a reliable basis for reconstructing Line 2. In addition, it wasnow possible to discuss in conjunction with the epigram the newly foundinscription of Leukon’s time from Nymphaion (to which the second part ofthis article is devoted; this part is referred to henceforth as II).6

What we have before us, is unfortunately, only a preliminary variant of thearticle, far from complete, and therefore I went out of my way to be as atten-tive as possible when analysing the work of my deceased friend, while at thesame time remaining mindful of the fact that we had embarked upon the writ-ing of a critical review.

vincing him that my point of view was correct. He merely expressed a few doubts in his ownreconstruction of Line 1 (see below) and was probably over-enthusiastic in his approval of my –exempli gratia – reconstruction of Line 7. Vinogradov was preparing a major article on theLeukon inscription for the St. Petersburg journal Hyperboreus. Death struck when he was fullyengrossed in that work”.

4 Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 67-69 (the results of the collation were for some reason not taken intoaccount in SEG XLVIII 1027); as an addition to the article in Hyperboreus some further his-torical conclusions and assumptions were expounded here as well.

5 Blavatskaya 1993.6 The graffito from Hermonassa published in the same work by Yu. G. Vinogradov (p. 15

sq.; unfortunately, on this occasion as well, there was no photograph or drawing) and contain-ing further evidence for the name ‘Oktamasades’ (ÉOktamasiãdeow, gen.; see below, note 44),will be examined elsewhere.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM

Fig. 1. Epigram of Leukon I from Labrys (Semibratnee city-site).


At the same time as Yu. G. Vinogradov’s publication, an article by A.J. Grahamappeard on the origins of the Spartokid dynasty, in an appendix to which he re-vised Vinogradov’s reading of the epigram in Bull. ép. and SEG and he endedup with virtually the same text and interpretation of it as I had.7 As in thecase of F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev, he remained unaware of both my articles.8

First of all I shall present the text of the inscription in the form in which,in my opinion, it can be regarded as having been reliably established; the

7 Graham 2002, 87-100. Unlike this “Appendix” (pp. 95-99), the article itself is really dis-appointing. Its content can be reduced to guesses following on one from another, which leadGraham to make the following suggestion (p. 87, Abstract): “The suggestion is made that theremay have been people from Thasos in the origins of the Spartokid dynasty”.

8 Ph. Gauthier in his review of Graham’s article (Bull. ép. 2003, 393) is also unaware ofthem, despite the information provided in SEG XLVIII 1027.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


9 Or: “robbing his [own] father of power”, see below.10 Or: “att[acked] this city”, see below.11 Blavatskaya 1993, 37.12 Omitting any other objections to this completely improbable reconstruction, we should note

that in the Bosporus the Sindoi were not regarded in any way as part of the Mai(o)tai, as isthe practice of some Hellenistic authors (for more detail on this, see Section II). The assumptionthat there was a certain degree of poetic freedom here would seem particularly arbitrary in viewof the fact that what is under discussion is the filling of a lacuna.

translation includes readings which have been incorporated intothe criticalapparatus:

eÈjãmenow LeÊkvn uflÚw SatÊr[o(u) tÒdÉ êgalma]Fo¤bvi ÉApÒllvni st∞se t«i §n L. [abruÛ],

t∞sde pÒlevw med°onti Labrut«m, B. [ospÒro(u) êrxvn]Yeudos¤hw te mãxhi ka‹ krãtei §jel[ãsaw]

5 ÉOktamasãdea g∞w §Jind«n pa›dÉ ÑEk[ata¤o(u)]toË Sind«m basil°vw., .w. p. at°ra o[- - -]

§gbãllvn érx∞[w], efiw t.Ænd.e pÒlig k.[- - -].

Coll. Tokht. a.D. 2000 musei urbis Anapae1. suppl. Vin. || 2. L.[abru-?] i.e. L. [abruÛ] vel L.[abruthi (Blav.)] vel sim. Tokht.L.[ãbruÛ] Graham || 3. suppl. Tokht. || 4. suppl. Vin. || 5. ÉOktamasãdea g∞w Tokht.| ÑEk[ata¤o] Vin. || 6. o[fikÆÛhw?] Vin., an o[fikÆÛon]? || 7. k.[at°kleisen?] Vin. SEGk.[at°yrejen e.g.] Tokht., Vin. VDI.

“After making his vow, Leukon, son of Satyros erected [this sculpture here]to Phoebus Apollo, who is in L[abrys], – lord of this city of Labrytai –[archon] of the B[osporus] and Theodosia after [having] driven out throughbattle and (military) force from the land of the Sindoi Oktamasades, son ofHek[ataios], king of the Sindoi, who (sc. Oktamasades), robbing his father of[his own] power,9 br[oke his way] into this city”.10

1. Yu. G. Vinogradov expressed (p. 8) certain doubts regarding his previousreconstruction (in Bull. ép. and SEG), not ruling out either tÒde d«ron, borneout (to judge from the material in CEG) by a far smaller number of examples,or efikÒna tÆnde, which, however, presupposes an impossible elision – SatÊrÉ.

2. After a detailed analysis Yu. G. Vinogradov (p. 8 sqq.) rejected the resti-tution made by T.V. Blavatskaya in the editio princeps (§n L.[abrÊthi])11 andhis own (§nl.[og¤mvi]) and also other possible solutions, involving the assump-tion that as an ultima refugia, the damaged letter before the break could be M (§n M. [a˝taiw]?; the mu in our inscription have descending verticals),12 or

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


13 More appropriate would be ÉA. [s¤hi].14 Cf. the formulation by Vinogradov (not the most apt one): “Alpha here has in any case,

to be eliminated as something which does not make a position for a short epsilon of the prepo-sition” (p. 8, note 12). Shelov-Kovedyaev (p. 13, note**), not being acquainted with the term‘to make a position’, changed it, as follows, in connection with his ÉAs¤hi: “The problem liesin the fact that the short a at the beginning, if the rules of high style are complied with, doesnot give rise to the necessary length in the position preceding it”. Contradicting his own words(in as far as it is possible to find any sense in them at all), Shelov-Kovedyaev wrote literallythe following: “other versions examined above by Vinogradov with negative results leave noother alternative but to regard as lost the defining localization commencing with a vowel . . .”;“. . . and the great poets of Hellas sometimes permitted themselves certain liberties in the waythey used metre”. In actual fact this scholar attributed to the author of the epigram not poeticlicence but a clumsy error, dismissing fundamental laws of Greek prosody and metrics as nomore than “rules of high style”. In conclusion Shelov-Kovedyaev states: “While respecting thelaws of the genre, we single out our conjecture with a question-mark, although hyper-acribiaalways appeared moribund to me”. Here it would be appropriate to cite words by P.V. Nikitinfrom a letter to Baron V.R. Rosen, written in 1894 (Medvedev 1999, 141): “Acribia is a capri-cious mistress and a mischievous one, particularly for a Russian. I happened to read an articleonce, in which the author, eulogized this notorious ‘acribia’ placed the wrong accent mark onprecisely that Greek word”. Other arguments put forward by Shelov-Kovedyaev, expounded in

even P (which is totally out of the question, cf. below). The alternative variantfor the reconstruction suggested by Yu. G. Vinogradov in itself does not callforth any categorical objections: it starts out from the same §llÒgimow (p. 9,with the same reservation regarding the lack of assimilation and apparently forthat reason lacking any kind of confidence) – t«i §nl. [og¤mo] t∞sde pÒlevw med°onti,“to the guardian of this glorious city”. As I hope will be clear from what fol-lows, this conjecture ought to be taken into account only in the case, any alter-native would lack. When all is said and done, the question has been left unansweredby Yu. G. Vinogradov. For this reason F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev regarded it aspermissible to insert straight into Yu. G. Vinogradov’s text his own reconstruction:§n [ÉAs¤hi?]13 (without even noting his authorship in the critical apparatus),giving as a reason for this choice the fact that Yu. G. Vinogradov “had approachedthe reconstruction with cautious interest” (p. 13, note**). Accordingly, thetranslation appeared as follows: “. . . to Apollo, guardian of this city of theLabrytai in [Asia]”. I think that F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev’s memory has let himdown: it would be highly unlikely for Yu. G. Vinogradov to have shown inter-est in such a conjecture. Suffice it to say that after §n there should have beena word starting with a consonant and only thanks to that would it have beenpossible for a long syllable to have taken shape.14

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


the same monstrous style, result in phrases such as: “the understandable triumph in connectionwith the actualization of the powerful ideological contribution to the successful realization ofthe project, the grateful affirmation of the victory of the cult of the supreme protector of theNorth-Pontic, in particular Bosporan, apoikoi – namely that of Apollo in his hypostasis as theformidable and irrevocable revenge of Phoebus – the tyrant, whose very name . . .” and so on.Even the arbitrary admission to the effect that §n should be read with a lengthening (i.e. as efin;cf. below, note 25) fails to rescue Shelov-Kovedyaev’s conjecture.

15 For examples from inscriptions, see Tokhtas’ev 1998, 299, note 34.16 Cf. Ibidem, 288; Graham 2002, 96 (“unattractive”).17 Admittedly in the instance with §Jind«n the author (or engraver) of the inscription in such

a situation (external sandhi) transformed almost beyond recognition specifically the way the

Meanwhile examination of the stone in the Anapa Museum has borne outthe observations made by T. V. Blavatskaya: the lower part of the sloping lefthasta belonging to the damaged letter, which follows EN, has survived and, asnoted above, could only belong to an L (or – in an extreme case – to an M).All that remains is for us to reconcile ourselves to the fact, which worried Yu.G. Vinogradov most of all, namely to the absence of an assimilation §n(-) +l- > §ll-. In general, the spelling of the inscription in this respect is consis-tent (Labrut«m B.[ospÒro, Sind«m basil°vw, §gbãllvn, pÒlig k.[), but there isan exception (Yu. G. Vinogradov himself pointed it out: p. 9) – §Jind«npa›d(a), which stands out in particular because of the contrast with Sind«mbasil°vw in the next line: it is highly unlikely that in this case the fact that§Jind«n and pa›d(a) have been separated by a caesura had an important partto play. It is difficult to believe that the engraver would have been declaim-ing poetry to himseslf as he worked: in this case a rendering such as p.at°rao[- - -] ∪∪ × would have been impossible (see, below in connection with Line6) with an elision that is not reflected in the written form,15 found side by sidewith pa›dÉ ÑEk[ata¤o].

At any rate it is necessary to start out from the attested reading, while itsinterpretation is a very different question. Incidentally though, it would seemthat ENL.[ would constitute a problem of a kind (but not by any stretch of theimagination a stumbling block) in the case of reconstructing §nl. [og¤mvi](which anyway is unsatisfactory)16 or any other composite with the prefix §n-(but in any case no suitable words are to be found in the attested appellativevocabulary). If we are dealing with the preposition §n, in particular in con-junction with a proper name, the retention of etymological orthography is ingeneral more likely (so that the geminate reflected in the written text shouldnot obscure its form),17 and it was apparently not important that ENL.[ unlike

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


proper name was written. Vinogradov, when weighing up the possibility of reading ENM. [ inLine 2, also referred to §m Ma˝taiw in the prose epitaph CIRB 180 (c. 350 BC: the first timeEMAITAIS was carved and then a second very small mu was written in at the top between thefirst two letters).

18 Blavatskaya 1993, 37; Tokhtas’ev 1998, 288.19 Dumberg 1901, 99 (LSAG2 373. 72; on unsuccessful attempts to raise doubts about the

authenticity of the inscription, see: Vinogradov 1997, 97, Add. to note 48). Blavatskaya (1993,37) and Graham (2002, 96) refer to the late (123 AD) inscription from Phanagoria CIRB 975:ÉApÒllvni t«i §n Diokl°oiw ÉAtele›.

20 Bernand 1970, 683, No. 419.

§Jind«n pa›d(a) constitutes what – to use the terminology of Paul Maass – isa word block. The most probable reading of ENL.[ obliges us to pay moreattention to the hypothesis put forward by T.V. Blavatskaya.

As has already been pointed out,18 the construction ÉApÒllvni t«i §n . . .makes the reconstruction of a toponym here almost certain (from among theclosest parallels it is sufficient to refer to the well-known inscription on thesilver cup from Phasis dating from the 5th century BC: ÉApÒllvnow ÑHgemÒnowtoÇÉm Fçsi,19 and the 6th-century votive graffito from Naukratis: ÉAfrod¤]thi t∞i§Naukrãti).20 Insofar as the suggested toponym began with the letter L- andApollo is referred to here as “the lord of this city of the Labrytai”, it wouldseem that all that remained to be done was to derive the name of the city fromthe city-ethnic Labrut«n. Yet Yu. G. Vinogradov both in letters to me and inhis article (pp. 6 and 8) firmly insisted that (ÉApÒllvni) t«i §n Labruthi (oreven in a more justifiable version, i.e. LabruÛ) when next to t∞sde pÒlevwmed°onti Labrut«n looks like a totally inappropriate tautology. His objectionsdid not appear to me to be weighty and in the article of 1998 (p. 288 sqq.) Icited examples from the work of poets (starting with Homer), demonstratingthat this “tautology”, which it would be more appropriate to call a pleonasm,was perfectly permissible as such. I can currently point to still closer parallelsin Homer, P 233 sq.:

ZeË êna Dvdvna›e Pelasgik¢ thlÒyi na¤vnDvd≈nhw med°vn dusxeim°rvn ktl.,

the first lines of the Homeric hymn to Hermes (XVII):

ÑErm∞n ée¤dv KullÆnion ÉArgeifÒnthnKullÆnhw med°onta ka‹ ÉArkad¤hw polumÆlou,

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


21 Cf. as already found in the earliest (c. 700 BC) votive epigram from Boeotia CEG 326:WekabÒloi érgurotÒjsoi . . .: tÁ d¢ Fo›be d¤doi ktl.; cf. also ibidem 274, 373 et alii.

22 Cf. Tokhtas’ev 1998, 294.23 The regular Ionic form in this case should be *Labrut°vn, which could scan with a synize-

sis like pÒlevw ∪ – or basil°vw ∪∪ – in line 6 of our epigram. Yet together with evidencesuch as Toret°vn or égvnoyet°vn in a new inscription from Nymphaion (see below: II), inBosporan inscriptions dating from the first half of the 4th century BC examples of a contractionev > v (perhaps under Attic influence) are already being encountered. For a review of the datafrom the Bosporus and Olbia, see: Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 73 sq., note 4.

24 Tokhtas’ev 1998, 292. Plutarch mentions that word (hapax, to judge from dictionaries) inorder to interpret the epithet LabrandeÊw applied to Zeus, i.e. revered in the Carian city ofLabra(u)nda, where he had been depicted holding an axe.

25 Graham 2002, 96. Like Vinogradov, Ph. Gauthier (see above, note 8) was put out by thevirtual duplication of the epithet in Lines 2 and 3 and also by the absence of assimilation:“Pourrait-on songer plutôt à un adverbe comme §na[r°tvw], précisant med°onti, Phoibos-Apollon . . .‘qui protège vaillamment la cité des Labrytains’?”. Ought we to understand Gauthier’s conjec-ture as implying that §n- should scan as efin or §nn-?

and of Hesiod’s Theogony:

Mousãvn ÑElikvniãdvn érx≈meyÉ ée¤dein,a· yÉ ÑElik«now ¶xousin ˆrow m°ga te zãyeÒn te.

While starting out from these and similar models, the author of the epigramwas following a more general practice – that of filling his verse with a con-centration of epithets for the deity,21 which, as can be seen from the examplescited above, can also be traced back to roots in the epos.

Yu. G. Vinogradov (p. 6 and 8) also referred to the fact that unlike theword Labrut«n (∪ – –), in the assumed words Labruthi (or -vi and so on) orLabruÛ the second syllable should be short. If we restore the word as L.[abruÛ](and Yu. G. Vinogradov believed that the city was called Labruw), this objec-tion22 is quite simply an error: in the datives for names ending in -uw, -uow thestem -u- is short, but in derivatives from those names, including ethnics withthe suffix -taß -, the preceding vowel of the stem is lengthened. When we iden-tify this suffix in Labr>ut«n,23 we obtain a sought toponymical form – *Labr©uw.The Sindian name of the town had been apparently adapted in the Greekunder the influence of the Lydian (Plut. Aet. Gr. 45, 302a) word lãbruw ‘axe’,which would obviously have been known to the Ionian settlers of theBosporus;24 it was evidently for this reason that Graham restored L[ãbruÛ]without further ado.25 It can thus be seen that there are no serious obstacles

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


26 In principle, Vinogradov’s counter-argument is not irrefutable even for *Labruth or another form with the stem Labrut-, if we accept that -t- can be traced back to an etymon witha short *-uç - and only coincided in the ethnic Labrutai with a Greek formant (Tokhtas’ev 1998,292 sq. – together with the variant reconstruction *Labruw, which is not noted in SEG XLVI-II 1027). Placing next to each other various forms of one and the same word or words with thesame root with a more or less arbitrary succession of a number of syllables can be found inpoetry as a special artistic device: see, for example, in Sappho (fr. 1, 26 and 27 Lobel – Page):t°lessai (∪ – –) and t°leson (∪∪ –), and – closer to the time of our epigram – in the writ-ings of Antimachus of Colophon (fr. 23 Gentili – Prato), evidently in adjacent lines: PÊdhn(∪ –) and PÊdhtow (– – –), and also with a change in the type of declension! Cf. also Leonid.Tarent. LXXII, 10 Page (AP VII, 726): ≤ kalå ka‹ kal«w with the Homeric k >al«w.Nevertheless, if we take into account all the above, it is best to reject this hypothesis whichcomplicated the question unnecessarily, despite the probable morphological parallel Mai∞tiw/Mai«tiw‘Sea of Azov’ – mai≈thw ‘Maiotian’ (the name of a fish), Ma˝tai/Mai«tai, and an ethnicMai«tiw (on Ixomatian princess Tirgatao, Polyaenus VIII, 55). The same applies to another pos-sibility – that of perceiving pÒlevw . . . Labrut«n as a genetivus appositivus (cf., for example,ÉAbdÆrvn . . . pÒliw, Anacr. Epigr. I Page = AP VII, 226; a more extensive quotation is citedbelow). Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze (2004, 947), who accepted my restoration of the epi-gram in general, draw attention to the fact that “names in the genitive governed by med°vn arealways toponyms and never ethnics . . . It follows that LabrÊtvn is probably the genitive of thetoponym Lãbruta, tã” (why precisely that form?). This idea was incomprehensible to me: afterall med°onti relates to pÒlevw, and not directly to Labrut«n. It goes without saying that “lordof the city of the Labrytai” was only a paraphrase for “lord of Labrys”; cf. Yãlhw me t«imedeËnti Ne¤lev (i.e. Milhs¤vn) dÆmou / d¤dvsi, Callimach. fr. 197, 76 sq. Pfeiffer.

standing in the way of a reconstruction of the name for the city in Line 2 asL. [abruÛ].26

2/3. Rejecting Blavatskaya’s restitution in Line 2 gave Vinogradov groundsfor also rejecting her conclusion regarding the existence of a temple to Apolloin the city: before his battle with Oktamasades Leukon “made a vow to erecta victory monument, but not to the local Apollo of Labrys, but to the supremedeity and patron of all the Bosporans – Apollo the Healer” (p. 18). He goeson to write: “As a result of that victory, when the power of the local kings ofthe Sindoi was abolished once and for all and Sindike was firmly incorporatedinto the Bosporan state, it was most likely that the cult of Apollo spreadthrough the lands of the Sindoi, including Labrys . . .” (p. 19).

All this is extremely strange. Sindike was not represented as a Bosporanpossession at all in the inscription (at that stage Leukon was only the archon“of the Bosporus and Theodosia”), the king of the Sindoi was Hekataios, whohad either died or renounced power, while Leukon was fighting Oktamasades,

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


27 Cf. Graham 2002, 98: “. . . Phoebus Apollo was already the guardian deity of Labrys bythe time the Sindoi were incorporated into the Bosporan kingdom”.

28 The same applies to the conjectures voiced by Blavatskaya (Blavatskaya 1993, 41, note20), who, after correctly noting the poetic nature of this epithet, promptly starts writing of the“protective functions” of Apollo (“It might be assumed that in Labrys as well the archer-godwas regarded as the defender of the fortress”).

aiming to return to king Hekataios his legitimate power (even if that was onlyan excuse). It is hardly likely that sufficient time elapsed between the day ofthe battle with Oktamasades and the erection of a victory monument for thecult of Apollo to have spread in Sindike or even just in Labrys. I do not think,despite what Vinogradov stated, that the circumstances of the discovery of theinscription (the stone was found outside the confines of the city-site in a pileof stones which had been collected up by a tractor from ploughed land) ruleout the likelihood that in the city (even if outside its actual walls) there couldhave been a shrine to Apollo or, quite possibly, a shrine to a local deity iden-tified by the Greeks with their Apollo. In my opinion, even if the restorationof Apollo’s epithet t«i §n L.[abruÛ], raised doubts, the single phrase t∞sdepÒlevw med°onti Labrut«n is enough to rule out such statements.27

Vinogradov writes (p. 19) of the deliberately motivated use of the epithet“Phoebus” for Apollo, who was a “victorious god with a silver bow who pun-ished crimes” (Oktamasades is presented in the inscription as an undoubtedcriminal). Yet logic would dictate that precisely the “lord of the city of theLabrytai”, the local Apollo “the one in Labrys” and not the Bosporan ApolloÉIhtrÒw, should be the deity punishing the wicked son, who had struck hisfather and sought to usurp his power. Incidentally both in the dedication toPhoebus of the sculpture of the deceased Antistasis by his son (CIRB 113; seenote 30), referred to in this connection by Vinogradov, and also in tens ofother metric inscriptions of the 6th-4th centuries BC, collected by Hansen in thetwo volumes of his Carmina epigraphica Graeca (the earliest example is theBoeotian epigram CEG 326, cited earlier in note 21) and in texts preserved inthe manuscript tradition, this poetic Homeric epithet, often used as a substitutefor the actual name of the god (as already found for example in A 443, E443), is not made specific in any way.28

3. Approximately half the vertical and part of the bottom horizontal of thelast letter before the break have survived (the same was also observed byBlavatskaya). The assimilation of the final -n in Labrut«m indicates that thedamaged letter must have been a beta.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


29 Obviously a hand-written or typing error in place of ‘variant’, although this expression isnot particularly appropriate in this context.

30 On pages 11 and 18, however, Vinogradov writes of the archon of the Bosporus and Theo-dosia and of the title used for Leukon in our epigram, which is the usual one found in inscrip-tions. It is possible that he was assuming that the title had undergone a trasnformation into anexpression of a more general nature in keeping with the demands of the genre as in the caseof CIRB 113: efikÒna Fo¤bvi st∞se . . . FanÒmaxow . . . / Pairisãdeow êrxontow ˜shn xyÒna t°rmonewêkr[oi] / TaÊrvn KaukãsiÒw te §ntÚw ¶xousin ˜roi (yet, in Vinogradov’s translation of theinscription on p. 19, we find the word “archon”); gen. abs. Pairisãdeow êrxontow in the tem-poral sense and the actual word êrxvn contains an undoubted allusion to the standard formulaof Bosporan votive inscriptions – êrxontow toË deinÚw ktl., while the designation used for theborders of Pairisades’ domain – all the lands from the Caucasus to the Taurike – is a paraphrasefor êrxontow BospÒrou ka‹ Yeodos¤hw (cf. Strabo VII, 4, 3: Theodosia is “the edge of the landof the Bosporans and the Tauroi”) and the following basileÊontow Sind«n ka‹ Toret«n ktl. Atthe same time the context obliges us to interpret êrxvn as ‘ruler’. Cf. also Simonides Epigr. VIPage (Hdt. VII, 228): Spãrthw ≤gemÒnaw (i.e. both kings of Sparta); CIRB 958: . . . kEfinax¤vn(i.e. ÉAxai«n) sk∞ptrÉ §p°xontow ˜la, about Kotys I. As can be seen from Strabo (XI, 2, 13),what we have here is a poetic paraphrase of the term skhptoËxoi: Strabo informs us that theAchaioi, and also the Zygoi and the Heniochoi “are ruled over by so-called skeptouchoi”, whoin their turn are subject to the king. The expression used in the inscription strictly speakingimplies that Kotys had become, in addition, king of the Pontic Achaioi: power over the latterwas either something which the local skeptouchoi had wielded or something which had beentransferred directly to him (or his officials).

31 The discussion of the word êrxvn in the Bosporan inscriptions, which was initiated againby Vinogradov in 1980 starting out from a correct position and which led him to reliable results(Vinogradov 1980, 85-90 = Vinogradov 1997, 118-123; Vinogradov 1983, 410-413), was car-ried by Shelov-Kovedyaev to the point of absurdity (Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 89; incidentally,a still more ridiculous point of view was put forward by V.P. Yailenko – Yailenko 1990, 292).This scholar based his theories on erroneous premises. After all, if the Bosporan êrxvn cannot

3/4. Vinogradov accepted my restoration of the end of Line 3, however, hedeemed it necessary to specify more precisely its interpretation, referring (ashe had before, when in letters to me he had insisted on the reading B.[ospÒro§xyroÁw] Yeudos¤hw te . . . §jel[ãsaw]) to the “too considerable – even for verse –separation of Leukon’s title . . . from his name . . ., which required in additiona copulative participle like §≈n”. “This difficulty” – he went on, – “is simple toovercome, if we interpret êrxvn not as his substantivized element29 – ı êrxvn, butas a gerund phrase meaning “ruling the Bosporus and Theodosia” (p. 11, note 24).30

I do not understand in what way the gerund “while being an archon” is anyworse and why the participle §≈n or another copula is necessary with êrxvn,which itself is formally speaking a participle in any interpretation.31 Yet the

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


(as Vinogradov demonstrated) be directly traced back to the name of the polis magistrate (cf.Kudryavtsev 1949, 160 sq.) and in the titles of the Spartokids êrxontow has been combined withthe participle basileÊontow, it does not by any stretch of the imagination follow on from thisthat it should be interpreted and translated literally, i.e. as a simple appellative meaning ‘rul-ing’, or with the vague ‘ruler’, on which Shelov-Kovedyaev insists. We should start out fromthe fact that the phrase êrxontow . . . ka‹ basileÊontow in inscriptions is a dating formula in theform of the participle construction genitivus absolutus with a temporal meaning, in the frame-work of which the term basileÊw must of necessity figure as the participle of the denominativeverb. In essence, this expression is synonymous with §pÉ êrxontow . . . ka‹ basil°vw; cf. CIRB75: Íp¢r êrxontow ka‹ basil°vw Pair[i]s.ãdou (IV), as are such formulae as the phrase com-monly found in Athenian decrees §p‹ . . . êrxontow or – with the same absolute genetive asfound in Bosporan inscriptions – Simon¤da êrxontow . . . én°yean in the dedication of the Akraiphiansin Ptoion (LSAG 60, 93, 402, Pl. 8. 13), on the one hand, and, on the other – basileÊontowMiyradãtou in the decree from Phanagoria (Vinogradov, Wörrle 1992, 160, Line 1), §t°vn triÆkonta§nn°a ÉArtaj°rjev basileÊontow from Sardis (Robert 1989, 485 sq.; Herrmann 1996, 330, withbibliography) or basileÊonto[w] Ptolema¤ou (Langer 1980, 14, No. 9); cf. also in ThucydidesVIII, 6, 3: ÉEnd¤ƒ §foreÊonti . . . j°now vÖn (on the subject of Alcibiades). In exactly the sameway behind the éstunomoËntow, éstunom«n of ceramic stamps from Sinope and Chersonesosthere stands éstunÒmow, behind prutaneÊontow in the Milesian inscription LSAG 414, pl. 64. 34there stands prÊtaniw, and behind fler≈menow or flerhsãmenow in Bosporan (and not onlyBosporan) dedications – flereÊw and so on and so forth. In this connection it is instructive tonote that, in a number of Attic decrees even the finite form of êrxv, the participle of which isêrxvn, is used to designate the powers of the archon, for example: ÉArist¤on eârxe (IG I3 80

6) –

“Aristion was archon (of the Athenians)” and not “Aristion ruled (the Athenians)”; Akeratos,son of Phrasierides “was the archon of the Thasians and Parians – one for both” (Yas¤oisinka‹ P[ar¤oi]w ∑rxsen moÇnow §n énfot°roiw SEG 416, c. 575-500 BC); a parallel is also to befound in the dating formula of a Spartan inscription (c. 402 BC) from Delos – §bas¤leuon âAgiwPausan¤aw and §n DÆlo.i ∑rxen [ÉA]n. d.[rÒdik?]ow I.Délos 87 (LSAG 198, pl. 38. 62). The wordêrxvn applied to the representative of state power and moreover in a official context (in ourcase it is also used in conjunction with basileÊw, incorporated into the participle basileÊvn),resulting from the very nature of the language, it automatically becomes a terminological significance.Therefore: in the final analysis behind êrxontow and basileÊontow there stand basileÊw and –accordingly – the substantivized êrxvn. It is clear that we are dealing with a question of trans-lation rather than interpretation. The word ‘archon’, commonly employed in the academic

most important thing here is that according to Vinogradov’s interpretation asubordinate clause takes shape without a predicate: êrxvn . . . §jelãsawÉOktamasãdea. The translation, however, creates the illusion that all is well:“(While ruling) the Bosporus and Theodosia and after conquering in battle, he drove out Oktamasades from the land of the Sindoi . . .”. The source of the misunderstanding is to be found in note 16 on p. 10: in actual fact thetranslation starts out not from §jel[ãsaw] – ‘having driven out’, but from

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


literature, is only unsuitable in so far as it brings to mind undesirable associations with thename of the polis magistrate, êrxvn: the Bosporan and, let us say, Athenian archon have littlein common. On the other hand, the title êrxvn, which was introduced during the reign of Alexander’sof Pherae to replace the ancient tagÒw and which did not originate from the name of the polisofficial either, was used by the head of the Thessalian Federation (IG II2 116; Bengtson 1975,293), and still earlier by Dionysius the Elder: ı Sikel¤aw êrxvn in Attic decrees IG II2 18

6;

10319

; 1057; Bengtson ibidem, 280. This brings us back to the interpretation of the term: what

we have here is, properly speaking, a ‘leader (first and foremost a military one) of SicilianGreeks’. Vinogradov’s scepticism (Vinogradov 1980, 122; Vinogradov 1983, 412) regarding thesuggestion, that the term êrxvn might have been adopted by Leukon from Sicily (Hüttl 1929,109 sq. – non vidi), does not seem well-founded to me. “The archon of the Bosporus andTheodosia” is the ‘leader of the Hellenes of the Bosporan poleis and Theodosia’ (cf. below, onthe epigram of Pausanias, son of Cleombrotus, and note 33) and would initially appear to havebeen head of the symmachy, an extraordinary office, from which Bosporan tyranny developedaccording to Vinogradov. Thus, the most suitable ‘translation’ remains archon.

§j°l[ase(n)] – “drove out”. Vinogradov mentioned here this non-augmentativeepic form as a metrically possible substitute for §jel[ãsaw]. Admittedly, at thesame time he correctly drew attention to “certain syntactical” problems (moreto the point virtually insuperable stylistic ones), were that substitute to beincorporated into the text. After accepting, despite everything, §jel[ãsaw],Vinogradov used it with a question-mark, as if recalling that alternative, whichwas actually illusory and capable only of destroying the whole composition ofthe poem (cf. below in relation to Lines 6/7).

Careful analysis of these hesitations and contradictions, which can only toa certain extent be explained with reference to the nature of the publishedmanuscript, brings us back to their root cause – to the statement about theexcessive degree (even for poetry) to which the name Leukon is separatedfrom his title in Lines 3-4. In my article in the Hyperboreus (pp. 290-292) Isubstantiated in detail the thesis, that what we find here is a hyperbaton, afigure of speech very characteristic of the epigrammatic genre in general, andI collected together by way of confirmation for this thesis rich material fromauthors and from metric inscriptions. In order to make it clear to readers whatthis figure involves and to put an end to this debate once and for all, I shalladd to my examples lines from Anacreon, Epigr. I (34 sq.) Page (AP VII,226):

ÉAbdÆrvn proyanÒnta tÚn afinob¤hn ÉAgãyvnapçsÉ §p‹ purkaÛ∞w ¥dÉ §bÒhse pÒliw,

Simonides’ epigrams No. XV, Page:

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


32 The first pentameter, found in AP VI, 50, was, however, missing in Plutarch, De malign.Hdt. 42, 873b, and in V. Arist. XIX, 7, Wilamowitz (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1913, 197 sq.),and following on from him the publishers as well, excluded it from the text.

33 êrxvn ÑEllãdow – i.e. ‘the leader/standing at the head (érxÆ) of the united military forcesof Hellas’; cf. in the other epigram of Simonides (XVII Page) in the name of Pausanias in mem-ory of the victory at Plataiai: ÑEllÆnvn érxagÒw.

tÒnde poyÉ ÜEllhnew N¤khw krãtei, ¶rgƒ ÖAreow,eÈtÒlmƒ cux∞w lÆmati peiyÒmenoi,

P°rsaw §jelãsantew §leuy°ra ÑEllãdi koinÚnfldrÊsanto DiÚw bvmÚn ÉEleuyer¤ou,32

and No. XXXIX on an enormous bronze krater erected by Spartans at theentrance to the Pontus:

mnçmÉ éretçw én°yhke Poseidãvni ênaktiPausan¤aw, êrxvn ÑEllãdow eÈruxÒrou

PÒntou §pÉ EÈje¤nou, LakedaimÒniow g°now, uflÚwKleombrÒtou, érxa¤aw ÑHrakl°ow geneçw.

“This monument to valour has been dedicated to Poseidon the Lord / by Pausanias,leader of wide Hellas,33 / near Pontus Euxinus, a Spartan by birth, son / ofCleombrotus from the ancient line of Heracles”. Here we have straightawaytwo hyperbata intertwined with each other: mnçm(a) . . . én°yhke – PÒntou §pÉEÈje¤nou and Pausan¤aw – LakedaimÒniow g°now ktl. A similar but still moreintricate construction is provided by an Attic inscription CEG 272 of the 470s-460s BC:

[Pa]ry°noi ÉEkfãnto me pat¢rÉ én°yeke ka‹ huiÚw§nyãdÉ ÉAyena¤ei mneÇma pÒnon ÖAreow

ÑEg°loxow ktl.

Hegelochos – son of Ekphantos, whose name has been inherited by hisgrandson; this order of words appears of course unnatural, and a ‘word-for-word’ translation is impossible in this instance. Another Athenian epigram dat-ing from the end of the 6th century BC (CEG 197) is similar to it in structure:

[P]ÒtnÉ ÉAyena¤a, so‹ Timokrãtew én°yeke[n]huiÚw ÉArista¤xmo, pa› DiÚw afigiÒxo.

“O mistress Athena, to thee Timokrates has dedicated (this), son of Aris-taichmos, O child of Zeus, the aegis-wearer!” See also below, note 42.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


34 For the text see: Tokhtas’ev 2000, 138 sq., with a photograph (Fig. 2).35 Allusions to Z 464, J 114, where, however, the word order is “normal”: for the epos and

early hexametric poetry in general, hyperbata of complex structure were not typical. Among therare examples is h. Bacch. (VII) 6-8, in which we find êndrew . . . lhÛsta‹ . . . Turshno¤ skil-fully spread over three lines.

36 Rusjaeva, Vinogradov 2000, 229-238 (Dubois 1996, No. 58).37 Bernand 1970, 684, No. 430; for the material, see Wackernagel 1953, 98 sqq.38 Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 697. W. Havers (1922, 237 sq.) has shown that the hyperba-

ton is not a feature exclusive to poetic language (cf. Wackernagel 1953, 102), but examples ofits undoubted influence on prose in this respect has remained outside the field of his investiga-tion: his examples, confined to split genitives, are limited to primitive examples, such as Dhmh[t]r¤oukatad« cuxÆn (Wuensch Def. tab. 51, 1) or tå d¢ d°rmata lambãnein t«n flere¤vn toÁw tåkritå par°xontaw (SGDI 5315, 29).

39 Dubois 1996, No. 48 b.40 Cf. a 6th-century graffito from Naukratis: Fãnhw me én°yhke t»pÒllvn[i t«i Mi]lhs¤vi ı

GlaÊqo, Bernand 1970, 661, No. 179.

From Bosporan inscriptions I shall cite here the epitaph CIRB 1113 (= CEG739;34 to judge from the script, it dates from the time of Leukon):

Kpheyurh, fy¤menÒw (leg. -Òn) se xutØ katå ga›a k°keuyen,¶ggonon Kabayajev Ùktvkaidek°thn.

A parallel is provided by CEG 69 (cf. 76 as well).35

Dedications in prose are also of interest. In a votive inscription from Olbiadating from the 5th century BC the name and the patronymic of the dedicatorare at the beginning of the text, while the ethnic at the end: Jãnyow PÒ.[siow]ÉApÒllvni ÉIht.r.[«i] ÖIstro med°ont.[i] ÉOlbiopol¤thw;36 cf. the 6th-century graffitofrom Naukratis: [ı de›na- - -ar]x¤dev [én°yhken t∞i ÉA]frod¤thi ı TÆ[iow].37

A graffito on a black-glaze kylix from Pantikapaion dating from the c. 300BC constitutes a special type: Tibhw Di‹ Pat[r–]vi ka‹ Ithw (AA 1907, 139).

Modest novelties of this kind, which are quite often encountered in privateprose inscriptions of the 6th-4th centuries BC, in the heyday of Greek literature,are defined, with every justification, as a simple means of embellishing theiressentially dry style with poetic tropes,38 particularly desirable in texts of asacral character (cf. dedication CIRB 1043, in which the first line forms ahexameter). In this connection a graffito from the 5th century BC from theisland of Leuke is most revealing: GlaËkÒw me én°yhken ÉAxill∞i Leuk∞ (=-∞i) med°onti pa›ew PosidÆo – “Glaukos dedicated me to Achilles, lord ofLeuke, son of Posideios”;39 apart from the hyperbaton,40 here, as in Xanthos’

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


41 See Tokhtas’ev 1999, 185.42 Cf. the hyperbaton and the still more extensive parenthesis in a Megarian epitaph dating

from c. 480-470, Ebert 1996, 66; idem 1996a, 19 sqq. (SEG XLV 421): [afi]a› §gÒ, PÒlliwÉAsop¤xo f¤low hu.iÚw – Ù kakÚw §Ún ép°ynaskon hupÚ st¤.ktaisin (sc. P°rsai) – §gÚn eâ.

43 Cf. Wilamowitz’ assessment of the few surviving lines by the elegist Euenus, Leukon’solder contemporary: “Mancher der Verse dieses Euenos ist nichts als zufällig der Messung nachHexameter bildende Prosa” (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 404, note 2). Admittedly, unlikeEuenus, our poet was restricted by the need to versify a whole account of historical events,filled with proper names. It should be acknowledged that he coped with this task most suc-cessfully, if it had not been for the absence of the final pentameter and together with that theabsence of a clearly defined end to the whole story.

dedication, there is the word med°vn of poetic origin, moreover (unlessGlaukos had omitted a sigma in Leuk∞w under the influence of ÉAxill∞i) witha rare dative governing, which to judge from dictionaries is only known in thepoetry (starting with Pindar, Ol. VII, 87 sq.; Pae. VI, 124).41

Interwoven hyperbata in another prose inscription ought also to be explainedwith reference to such poetic examples as CEG 272 and the Pausanias epi-gram: ÉA.rist.[o]m°n.[ew én]°.[yek]e ÉAlej¤a tçi Dãmatri t.ç.[i] X.yon¤ai HermioneÊw –“Aristomenes dedicated, son of Alexias, to Demeter Chthonia, the Hermionian”(LSAG 406, pl. 33. 9).

Then again the epitaph for the wife of Aristokles, son of Telephanes,Hekataia, daughter of Deonys from Erythrai, already quoted by me in the1998 article (p. 291), should simply become an anthology piece: ÉAristokl°owgunaikÚw toÇ Thlefãneow ÑEkata¤hw t∞w DeonËdow (I. Erythrai 321).

As a continuation of my observations concerning the poetic technique of ourepigram, I shall draw attention to the fact that the phrase t∞sde pÒlevwmed°onti Labrut«n as an explication for the epithet t«i §n L.[abruÛ] forms aparanthesis,42 which facilitates the link between the initial phrase of the poem –eÈjãmenow LeÊkvn uflÚw SatÊr[o – and its end in Lines 3/4: B.[ospÒro êrxvn] /Yeudos¤hw te, after which the author moves on to expound the essence of thevow, which Leukon had fulfilled by erecting the statue to Apollo. All parts ofthe extensive period from eÈjãmenow to basil°vw are linked to the predicate inits centre – st∞se, thus forming a composition customary for the epigrammaticgenre. In other respects, when we do not count the ‘anastrophe’ intrinsic topoetry g∞w §Jind«n, the style of the epigram is more reminiscent of a prosetext transposed into verse (cf. also below to Lines 5/6, on the accumulation ofgenitives).43

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


44 Instead of the expected åa-stem (cf. Hdt. IV, 80: ÉOktamasãdhn, ÉOktamasãd˙). In Ionicepigraphy of the North Pontic region we also encounter other examples of the transition fromoriginal åa-stems to *s-stems, mainly for non-Greek names (see: Tokhtas’ev 1994, 158-161): thesame name with a phonetic variant of the second component – ÉOktamasiãdeow, gen. (probablyfrom Old Iranian *Uxta(ta)ma-·(y)®ta-, see Tokhtas’ev 2005a, 98 sq.) in a graffito fromHermonassa (see above, note 6), clearly kindred to Pairisãdeow, -ouw (CIRB 10, 11 et alii);.ada.iakeow (CIRB 154, vidi, see: Tokhtas’ev 2002a, 84, note 60; the first letter is obscure);Aspamiyareow (CIRB 211) vs. Aspamiyarev on ceramic stamps of Sinope (Tsekhmistrenko1960, 60); Atakeow (CIRB 914, Nymphaion), Atakouw (Olbia, Syll.3 1260 = Dubois 1996, No.25; it is remarkable that the name Atakhw underwent this unusual morphological adaptationstraightaway in two Ionian poleis, which were situated a considerable distance from each other);Fanisalouw (on the chora of Olbia, see: Vinogradov 1997, 159; the origin of the name is notclear, but at any rate it is not Greek, but of course not “Greek-barbarian” either, as Vinogradovsuggested); Dãmeow in the dikastes’ plaque of the 4th century BC from Sinope (Robert 1937, 296sq.), cf. the correct form Dam°v, Milet I/III, 123

13(stephanephoros of 304/3 BC). In a 4th cen-

tury BC epitaph from Porthmion we find the non-Greek name Aramayeu (Kastanayan 1987, 85sqq. = SEG XXXVII 678); this would appear to be the only example in the North Pontic regionof a contaminated form of the genitive – common to stems in -åa- and *-s- (-eu/-eo ← -eow +-ev, see: Thumb, Scherer 1959, 269 sq.; in Eastern Ionic it was previously known only inSmyrna) – reflects the same tendency towards heteroclitic declension of anthroponymic stemsin -a* - in Ionic. Starting out from these facts it is possible – even if only to a partial extent –to resolve at last the riddle of legends on coins attributed to Theodosia: YEODEV and YEODEOS(the latter form became known thanks to a recently published new stamp: Shonov 2002, 327,332, fig. 1, 6) which can under no circumstances be abbreviations of Yeodosi°vn or YeodÒsion,but can easily be explained as genitives Yeod°v, Yeod°ow (åa- and *s-stems respectively) of thename Yeod∞w (< *-°åaw), an abbreviated form (hypocoristic) of compounds YeodÒsiow, YeÒdotowor YeÒdvrow, and homonymous of Ionic Yeud∞w (gen. YeudeËw SEG XVII 400, Chios;Yeud°iouw I. Smyrna 609

18), Attic Youd∞w < *Yeo-dW°jhw, derived from Homeric yeoudÆw (see:

4. The reading of lambda before the break (EJEL[), established for the firsttime by Vinogradov using a photograph, raises no doubts (Blavatskaya:EJED[).

4/5. mãxhi ka‹ krãtei §jel[ãsaw] / ÉOktamasãdea: cf. N¤khw krãtei, ¶rgƒÖArhow / . . . P°rsaw §jelãsantew in the XV epigram of Simonides referred toearlier (in connection with lines 3/4).

– ÉOktamasãdea g∞w §Jind«n. After accepting my division of the text(instead of the unacceptable ÉOktamasãde, êg˙w §Jind«n as an beginning of the sentence), Vinogradov wrote at length about what he saw as a form of theaccusative unique in the whole of Greek epigraphy (p. 10 sq.). Indeed, in theIonic inscriptions known today accusatives ending in -ea from anthroponymic*s-stems,44 as far as I know, are not found, which, however, is easy to explain

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Bechtel HP 130). What remains an enigma, however, is who this Yeod∞w was (perhaps, theheroized founder and eponym of Theodosia (cf. FanagÒreia from FanagÒrhw), whose profile isdepicted on these coins and whose full name was YeodÒsiow or YeÒdotow?); cf. Stolba 1989,147; Stolba 1998, 605 and note 1.

45 Karÿshkovskii, Vinogradov 1976, 25 (= Vinogradov 1997, 255 sq.).46 Graham (2002, 97), without going into details, writes of the “regular uncontracted Ionic

ending of the third declension of accusatives with roots in -w [sic]”.47 See: Tokhtas’ev 1998, 297 sq.; Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 73, note 3.

not merely with reference to the insignificant number of known inscriptions in‘pure’ ÉIãw, in general, but also to the low frequency of accusatives, sincevotive inscriptions and epitaphs predominate among them, in which (foranthroponyms) nominatives and genitives are dominant. Yet, as soon as thenumber of inscriptions increases significantly (in the 4th century BC), we foundin them a contracted declintion in -h (for example, [§w Bo]russy°nh IOSPE I2

24, Albia, c. 340-330 BC),45 which is often being ousted by the Attic -hn. Inour case, however, all this does not affect the question under discussion, sincethe author of the epigram had to start out from the Homeric forms DiomÆdea,EÈpe¤yea, PoludeÊkea and so on.46

5-6. §Jind«n, Sind«m. I have already had occasion to write about the factthat the name of the Sindoi had an oxytone – Sindo¤ (as in ÉIndo¤).47 Certaininaccuracies in the 1998 article, however, oblige me to return to this question,to introduce the necessary corrections and additions into the exposition alreadypublished.

In his commentary on CIRB 40 (p. 49) A.I. Dovatur, despite Latÿshev(IOSPE II, p. X, note 2) and with a reference to the grammarian Herodian (P.kayol. pros. VI, vol. I, p. 142, 17 L.), insists on the accentuation S¤ndoi; thataccentuation has been used throughout CIRB. Yet the matter is more compli-cated than that. The scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes, IV, 321, from whom,in particular, Lentz drew material for his reconstruction of Herodian’s work,states: ÑHrodianÚw . . . barutone›n fhsi de›n: tin¢w d¢ ÙjÊnousin, oÈk eÔ. In Deaccentibus by Pseudo-Arcadius (Theodosius?), p. 48, 7 Barker, i.e. in the epi-tome of Herodian’s P. kayol. pros. the matter is presented differently: tå efiwdow disÊllaba ¶xonta prÚ toË d sÊmfvna katå diãstasin barÊnetai, efi mØ§ynikå e‡h, l¤ndow, s¤ndow, p¤ndow, nãrdow, mãrdow, aÈloË e‰dow. seshme¤vtai tÚfindÚw potamÚw ka‹ tÚ §ynikÒn. tÚ d¢ kondÚw §p¤yeton, ka‹ ı mundÚw ı êfvnow.When this is translated into the language of modern concepts and terms, thissignifies the following: words ending in -dow, containing the combination of a

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


48 See Tokhtas’ev 1998a, 31.49 Cf. Kühner, Gerth 1955, 337, note 4; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 135 sq. A special case –

N 4-6 with a series of ten gen. pl. (ethnonyms and their epithets, all – homoioteleuta), creatinga visual image of how Zeus consistently moves his gaze from the land of the “herding horses

consonant + d, become acccentuated on the first syllable, but only if it is not§ynikã. Yet the examples cited include the ethnic S¤ndow; E.H. Barker did notpay attention to that, but A. Lentz made what was undoubtedly an appropri-ate correction, emending §ynikã to §piyetikã (“adjectives”), starting out fromthe words kondÚw §p¤yeton. Later on, however, Herodian himself noted theexception: seshme¤vtai tÚ findÚw potamÚw ka‹ tÚ §ynikÒn, and this straightawayundermines his constructions, based merely on a theory which over-simplifiesthe actual situation (let me remind readers that Herodian belonged to theschool of analogists); for ÉIndÒw he makes an exception, only because it wouldhave been a hopeless enterprise to call in question accentuation that was gen-erally accepted. The Sindoi were unlikely to have been known to scribes andto most of the readers, so the usual (cf. tin¢w d¢ ÙjÊnousin) accentuation Sindo¤could have been called into doubt. When resolving this question, we should,of course, not to start out from Herodian, but from the manuscript tradi-tion, which almost unanimously proffers Sindo¤. It would seem that in the“Periplous of the Pontus Euxinus” by Pseudo-Arrian (10r16 sqq. Diller) aloneS¤ndoi is found three times: moreover, as Aubrey Diller suggests with somejustification (p. 109), in one case the source is probably Strabo (XI, 2, 11:Sindo¤ mss.!), and in the other Stephanus of Byzantium, s. v. Sindo¤ (mss.!; cf.also s. v. Traux°nioi: Sindo›w; Meineke in both cases made ‘corrections’ inkeeping with Herodian), who drew material for the §ynikã mainly fromHerodian again (but, as we can see, in this case ignoring his recommenda-tions). What we have here is probably the same kind of Byzantine “barytone-sis”, as in SklabÆnoi and the like.48 In most manuscripts of ApolloniusRhodius the name of the Sindoi is accentuated Sindo¤ (ASGE), once Sindoi (P)and finally S¤ndo¤ (L), but in the scholia it appears as in Herodian. In theseconditions, of course, it is better to return to the tradition, which Latÿshev sen-sibly supported (ibidem): “Nomen ÙjÊnetai a novis editoribus plerisque, quosnos quoque secuti sumus”.

5/6. The accumulation of genitives of various kinds in one syntagma is ingeneral not typical of poetic syntax,49 but sometimes the context or wishes ofthe dedicator make it imperative, as is the case here. We also find a series ofgenitives in the final lines of the Pausanias epigram, which I cited above (Simonides

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Thracians” to the “Mysians who engage in hand-to-hand fighting” and so on, cf. Janko 1992, 43.

50 Tokhtas’ev 1998, 299.51 Ibidem.52 Gentili and Prato cite in connection with this line of Aristotle the comment made by Wilamowitz

(Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1920, 708): “Possessiv der dritten Person”.

XXXIX Page: . . . uflÚw / KleombrÒtou, érxa¤aw ÑHrakl°ow geneçw), but it doesnot produce a sense of roughness or flabbiness (which would have beenimpossible in the case of Simonides or in a poem attributed to him): on thecontrary, an element of the vernacular together with asyndeton (cf. below, note68) provides the verse here with the necessary laconic severity (traxÊthw),which is most suitable precisely in the final pentameter. In an unartful epitaphfrom Marathon CEG 72 dating from the 5th century: seÇma tÒdÉ efim‹ Kr¤t.o.Tel°fo ÉA.f.i[dna¤o], the second half of the line seemed to come together of itsown accord.

6. o[fikÆÛhw] (or o[fik°Ûhw])50 – “of his own”. Now, when the reading omicronhas been confirmed de visu, the restoration of this word by Vinogradovappears far more plausible, even if not irreproachable. I have earlier expressedthe conjecture (albeit with insufficient substantiation),51 to the effect that theword coming after p.at°ra could be an attribute for it, but not for érx∞w. Theword order used in Vinogradov’s restoration is of course highly elegant, yetstill the version o[fikÆÛon] is not rejected here outright – “of his own/natural”(father) = Homeric f¤low (as, for example, in N 644: ˜ =a patr‹ f¤lƒ ßpetoptolem¤jvn), apparently also highly refined, thanks to the emphasis. Both vari-ants of the restoration can be backed up with examples: aÎjvn ofike¤vnprogÒnvn éretåw ktl. CEG 795

22; [én°yhken ÉAyhnçi] / [ga¤aw] ofik°aw ¶rnow

éparjãmenow] ibidem 756; Àw pote duspol°moiw Galãtaiw yoÚn ÖArea me¤jaw /≥lasaw ofike¤vn pollÚn Ïperyen ˜rvn IG XII/4 1105

5 sq.(cf. SEG XXXVIII

776); cf. also: ofike¤aiw dÉ §n xers‹ t°knvn élÒxou te é[r¤sthw?] / [e]Èjun°touMo¤ra[w] eÎstoxow ktl. CEG 586

6); ˘w . . . kat°deijen . . . / ofike¤ƒ te b¤ƒ ka‹

meyÒdoisi lÒgvn ktl. (Aristot. fr. 2, 4-5 Gentili – Prato = 3 Plezia).52

6-7. p.at°ra . . . / §kbãllvn érx∞w. Vinogradov: “depriving his father of his(ancestral) state”; similarly on p. 12 with a reference to Polybius XXII, 18, 3:(PerseÊw) §j°bale . . . §k t∞w fid¤aw érx∞w – “drove out from his own state” (theThracian king Abrupolis); Graham’s translation (ibidem): “after expelling hisfather from his ancestral rule”. This capacious expression is of too general anature for any unambiguous choice to be made, but the main gist is clear. It

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


53 Sokolova 2001, 368-376.54 Sokolova, Pavlichenko 2002, 99-121.55 Unfortunately, the authors had not been aware of the important article by Heinen (1996,

357-368).56 Vlasova 1994/1995, 135 sqq. (SEG XLV 996).

could also be translated as follows: “driving out (overthrowing) his father from . . .the throne”.

– k.[at°yrejen?]: cf. Homeric §piyr°jantow (N 409), yr°jaskon (S 599, 602).The restoration was proposed by me exempli gratia, but, at all events, whatshould stand here is the finite form of some verb of movement in the aoristwith the prefix kata-, and it has not been possible to find anything better. Tothe intransitive katatr°xv Vinogradov successfully added fr. 76 R.3 ofAristotle: efiw ˘ (sc. xvr¤on) katadramÒntaw l˙stãw; see also Xenophon Cyr.VI, 3, 9: katadramÒntew efiw tÚ ped¤on. Graham (also conditionally) acceptsVinogradov’s previous conjecture k.[at°kleisen?].

II. Theopropides’ Dedication from Nymphaion

The next most important new inscription from the era of Leukon has beenpublished by O. Yu. Sokolova, initially – only in translation in the Moscowperiodical Drevnosti Bospora (Antiquities of the Bosporus)53 and later in ajoint article in the journal Hyperboreus54 with N. A. Pavlichenko. This latterpublication (below I have referred directly to its pages everywhere) is accom-panied by a most detailed description of the conditions in which it was foundduring excavation work in Nymphaion, by a thorough architectural analysis ofthe monument and the whole complex of buildings, by a large amount of illus-trative material, comprehensive commentaries and even a digression on Gorgippos,son of Satyros I.55 Prior to this find a fragment of a monumental dedicatoryinscription had been discovered which also dated from the time of Leukon: [- - - Toret°vn ka‹ Dand]ar¤vn ka‹ Chss«[n].56 Sokolova and Pavlichenko (p.100 sq., note 8) provided information on a recently discovered fragment fromthe same stone on which stood the last letter of the word Chss«n. The twoscholars suggest that the slab had been “part of another architrave, which belongedto the same built structure . . . or to another similar complex” (according toE.V. Vlasova, it had been part of an altar).

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Fig. 2. Votive inscription of Theopropides from Nymphaion.

57 I am grateful to O.Yu. Sokolova for kindly supplying me with the photograph.

The inscription was carved on to the front section of an architrave over themain entrance – e‡sodow (the publishers suggest that here this is a synonymfor prÒpulon), leading to some kind of public building or other edifice – ashrine or theatre (O. Yu. Sokolova hopes to clarify this question in the courseof subsequent excavations).

Fortunately, although the stone had been broken into two pieces, the actualinscription had survived virtually undamaged (Fig. 2):57

Yeoprop¤dhw Megakl°ow tØn e‡sodon én°yhken DionÊsviégvnoyet°vn L°okvnow êrxontow BospÒro ka‹ Yeodos¤hwka‹ t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw ka‹ Toret°vn ka‹ Dandar¤vn ka‹ Chss«n.

“Theopropides, son of Megakles, dedicated this entrance to Dionysos, being anagonothetes under Leukon, archon of the Bosporus, Theodosia, the whole ofSindike, the Toretai, Dandarioi and Psessoi.”

In this discussion what will be of interest for us is only the historical infor-mation, which is incorporated into this new variant of Leukon’s titles.

So, Leukon is referred to here as the archon not merely of the Bosporusand Theodosia, but also of those barbarian peoples, which according to theother inscriptions known to us – with the exception of CIRB 6a – he had beenruling over as king (basileÊontow). Any specialist in the history of theBosporus will immediately recall the inscription which has just been men-tioned, in which Leukon is termed archon of the Bosporus, Theodosia and theSindoi (or Sindike, see below), on the one hand, and king of the Toretai, the

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


58 Shkorpil 1917, 109. His restoration was supported by Vinogradov as well (cautiously inVinogradov 1997, 120; 1983, 411, and with definite confidence – in manuscript notes on thesubject of the editio princeps of Leukon’s epigram).

59 Cf. Tokhtas’ev 2001, 157; Tokhtas’ev 2005, 12, with the collation of this inscription heldin the Kerch Museum (Inv. No. KL-1032). According to my recent collation (October 2005) ofthe lately restored stone in Line 1 reds not [Num]f.a¤ou (as in the CIRB), nor ]g.aiou, nor ]t.aiou(as in Tokhtas’ev 2001, 157; Tokhtas’ev 2005, 7), but undoubtedly ]aiou. Instead of flervm°nhit might be as well to restore eÈjam°nh, cf. CIRB 1015, 1043 et alii.

60 Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 130; 134: “Leukon . . . is not yet considered to be the supremeking of the Sindoi, as he is for the other tribes under his rule”; he “only ‘reigns over’ theregion, which has its own system of power headed by a legitimate sovereign”.

61 Meanwhile, Shelov-Kovedyaev himself (in the appendix to the article by Vinogradov dis-cussed above, I), after acquainting himself with the Nymphaion inscription from the preliminaryreport in Antiquities of the Bosporus, discovered in it confirmation for his interpretation ofêrxvn and withdrew his conclusion, returning to the traditional viewpoint: the stable positioningof the Sindoi (initially – “the whole of Sindike”) at the beginning of the list of tribes subjectto the rulers of Bosporus “should be regarded as a reflection of the chronological order in whichthese tribes were annexed to the Bosporan kingdom and not as a reflection of their special posi-tion among the subjects of the Spartokids” (p. 21).

Dandarioi and the Psessoi on the other. The name of the Sindoi in Line 5 wasrestored by V. V. Shkorpil in the editio princeps:58

[≤ (?) de›na- - -]aiou tÚm bvmÚn[én°yhken ÉAr]t.°mi ÉEfese¤hi vv[flervm°nh (?) êrxo]nt[o]w. LeÊkv.now[BospÒro(u) ka‹ Ye]o.do.s¤hw vv

5 [ka‹ Sind«n k]a‹ basileÊo.[n]tow[Toret°vn Dand]ar¤vn Chss«n.

Precisely this comparison is made by Sokolova and Pavlichenko.59 Thescholars state that they agree with the conclusion of Shelov-Kovedyaev aboutthe initially special position of the Sindoi within the Bosporan state,60 whichhe had drawn following in the footsteps of Shkorpil, on the basis of theinscription CIRB 6a,61 and they also suggest a reconstruction in its Line 5: notka‹ Sind«n, but – on an analogy with the phraseology of the new inscription –ka‹ Sindik∞w. In the inset between pp. 112 and 113 with a photograph of CIRB6a, a rather different text has been published, however: . . . ka‹ Yeo]dos¤hw[ka‹] | [t∞w Sindik∞w k]a‹ basileÊontow ktl. It would appear that instinct anda certain amount of philological experience at some stage prompted Pavli-chenko (responsible for the epigraphic part of the publication) to decide that,

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


62 All the illustrative material for the picture volume accompanying CIRB, prepared in 1989-1999 by Irina A. Levinskaya and myself on the basis of materials collected by Latÿshev andthe publisher of CIRB, was handed over for safe-keeping to the archives of the St. PetersburgInstitute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and will provide the basis for the illus-trations of the planned new edition of CIRB (IOSPE II3) in collaboration with I.A. Levinskaya,A.P. Kulakova (Bekhter), and A.V. Agafonov. Cf. Levinskaya, Tokhtas’ev 2005.

63 Cf. Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 24: “Breviloquenz” “in der . . . Prosa von Listen,Rechnungen u.a”.

64 Cf. Kühner, Gerth 1955, 604 sq.65 Kocewalow 1935, 59 (for BÒsporow), also with examples from Chersonesos and Olbia.66 For the material, see: Kallenberg 1890, 515-547.

in front of Sindik∞w, it was highly desirable that there should at least be an article (formally speaking SindikÆ is a possessive adjective, scil. x≈rh, g∞);it is just as likely, incidentally, that this t∞w was introduced into the recon-struction under the influence of t∞w at Sindik∞w in Theopropides’ inscription.At any rate, as can be seen most clearly from the photograph as well (Fig. 3),62 there was no ka¤ after Yeo]dos¤hw (vacat!), and [ka‹ t∞w Sindik∞wk]a¤ would obviously not fit into the gap (the space it would take up has beencalculated on the basis of the undubitable additions BospÒro(u) ka‹ Ye]o.do.s¤hwin Line 4 and [Toret°vn Dand]ar¤vn in Line 6). It is important to note thatLine 5, unlike Lines 1, 2 and 4, was filled with text right up to the edge, sothat on the basis of the number of letters [ka‹ Sindik∞w k]a¤ is definitely to bepreferred to [ka‹ Sind«n k]a¤. For this reason it would be possible to suggestan ellipse of the article for the sake of brevity in the list,63 and, bearing inmind the nature of the inscription, we might also mention the grammatic andstylistic links with concepts of a similar kind64 BospÒrou ka‹ Yeodos¤hw (in inscriptions of the pre-Roman era they always present without the article)65 inan order of laconic solemnity. In the names of countries, which, as a rule, were of an adjectival nature in Greek, the article is sometimes lacking,particularly in lists, and, especially often when political formations, and specifically – satrapies being mentioned (Xenophon Cyr. VIII, 6, 7; An. III, 5,15), and at times even not as part of lists (Hdt. V, 52, 3; Xen. Cyr. VI, 2,22).66 Of particular interest for us are the following instances: Hdt. IX, 107,3: JeinagÒrhw Kilik¤hw pãshw ∑rje dÒntow basil°ow; Xen. An. I. 9. 7: (KËrow)satrãphw Lud¤aw te ka‹ Frug¤aw t∞w megãlhw ka‹ Kappadok¤hw; a Milesianinscription Syll.3 134

29(390s BC): Stroushw . . . §jaitrãphw §∆n ÉIvn¤hw. To

judge by Kallenberg’s materials, however, a name of a country ending in -ikÒwwithout an article would appear in early Greek literature only in Hdt. III, 93,

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


67 In his edition of Herodotus, H. Rosén arbitrarily replaces PaktuÛk∞w with Paktu¤hw,although no such toponym is known, while manuscripts give either PaktuÛk∞w, or (DRSV)Paktuk¤hw, in which the letters have merely changed places. In almost exactly the same way(Paktu˝hw) Rosén also makes a ‘correction’ in IV, 44, 2 (PaktuÛk∞w ABCTP; -IKHS is alsoconfirmed by Platu¤khw M), with a reference to his grammar of Herodotus’ language (Rosén1962, 99 sq.; here, however, there is not a word on that subject), but he retains it in III, 102,1 (when there is a consensus codicum).

68 Cf. Kühner, Gerth 1955, 341 sq.: asyndeton in the lists consisting of similar concepts; cf.I above (regarding Lines 3/4), on the Simonides epigram XXXIX Page (LakedaimÒniow g°now,uflÚw / KleombrÒtou, érxa¤aw ÑHrakl°ow geneçw); a rare lack of a conjunction in hexameters isencountered in the acclamations from the Iliad (G 276, P 233 sq.), and the Homeric Hymn toHermes XVII, 1 sq.: ÑErm∞n ée¤dv KullÆnion ÉArgeifÒnthn / KullÆnhw med°onta ka‹ ÉArkad¤hwpolumÆlou / êggelon éyanãtvn §rioÊnion ktl. (cf. I above, to the Line 2); in the elegy seealso: Simonides Ep. XXXIV Page (AP VI, 214): fhm‹ G°lvnÉ ÑI°rvna PolÊzhlon YrasÊbulon,/ pa›daw Deinom°neuw.

69 The same stylistic device is found in the later inscriptions from the time of Leukon, inwhich the Sindoi have been transferred into the list of the other tribes: CIRB 6 and 8 (on thelatter, see below in the conclusion). Cf. further the asyndeton in the votive graffito from Olbia:[- - -ip]pow ÑUpãni Borusy°nei (Yailenko 1980a, 80, No. 71 = SEG XXX 913 = Dubois 1996,No. 82), in CIRB 75: Pairisãdou Kamasaruhw Argotou (genitives depend on Íp°r), at thebeginning of the Chersonesean oath (IOSPE I2 401): ÙmnÊv D¤a Gçn ÜAlion Pary°non, [y]eoÁwÉOlump¤ouw ka‹ ÉOlump¤aw, and also in a similar vow in the text of a decree from Tegea datingfrom the 4th century Syll.3 306

57 sq., in a Spartan inscription, guaranteeing asylia to the Delians

(c. 403-399 BC) with a list of officials from Sparta (kings and ephoroi) and Delos (ibidem, 198,pl. 38. 62; cf. above, note 31), in an Attic decree in honour of Spartokos II and his brothersSyll.3 206: SpartÒkvi Pairisãdhi ÉApollvn¤vi, LeÊkvnow pais¤, in contrast to Dinarch. inDem. 43, where expressiveness is achieved by the very opposite method: Dinarch is indignantwith Demosthenes’ suggestion that bronze statues of the Bosporan tyrants should be erected inthe agora – st∞sai Pairisãdhn ka‹ Sãturon ka‹ GÒrgippon, toÁw §k toË PÒntou turãnnouw(‘and of that one, and of another and of a third!’; cf. Plat. Euthyphr. 7d: ka‹ §g∆ ka‹ sÁ ka‹ofl êlloi ênyrvpoi pãntew). It is also used in the concluding part of the same Chersonesean

1 (the list of tribute brought to Darius from the satrapies): épÚ PaktuÛk∞w d¢ka‹ ÉArmen¤vn ktl.67

Now let us turn our attention to the fact that the phrase containing Leukon’stitles is clearly divided into two colons: in the first of these the names ofLeukon’s landed possessions are listed with the presence of ka¤, while the sec-ond, with the list of ethnonyms, is characterized by an asyndeton:68

êrxontow BospÒrou ka‹ Yeodos¤hw [. . .]ka‹basileÊontow Toret°vn Dandar¤vn Chss«n.69

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Fig. 3. Votive inscription CIRB 6a.

oath, l. 50 sq.: ZeË ka‹ Gç ka‹ ÜAlie [ka‹] Pary°ne ka‹ yeo‹ ÉOlÊmpioi. In the oath of Dreros(IC I/IX 1A

14sqq.), the names of the gods, by whom they swear, are listed with articles and

ka¤. In CIRB 1037, 1038, and also in both recently discovered inscriptions from Nymphaion inthe titles of Leukon, with ka¤ both toponyms (Bosporus and Theodosia) and ethnonyms arelisted (also in CIRB 1042, to judge from the script (cf. esp. CIRB 6a) dating from the time ofLeukon and not Pairisades I, as stated by Latÿshev, and the editors of CIRB). In the list of thenine demiurgoi from Argos the names are also given using ka¤ (LSAG 156 sq., pl. 26. 7); inthe sacral text from the shrine of Athena in Mycenae (ibidem 172, pl. 31. 2) the names of cer-tain flk°tai are cited in the same way.

A similar method for breaking up long lists is to be found in Xenophon,Cyr. I, 1, 4:

KËrow . . . katestr°cato d¢ SÊrouw ÉAssur¤ouw ÉArab¤ouw KappadÒkaw . . .,∑rje d¢ ka‹ Baktr¤vn ka‹ ÉInd«n ka‹ Kil¤kvn ktl.

In addition Xenophon makes use of the different cases governed by katas-tr°fv and êrxv, as a result of which two series homoioptota are obtained. Inour case it would have been possible not to have limited the juxtapositions to

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


one asyndeton – polysyndeton: it might have been expected that just thetoponyms in the first part of the title list would be set off against the eth-nonyms in the second part. It would seem that these observations could alsohave added weight to the restoration Sindik∞w.

Yet it is essential to acknowledge that, when restoring missing text, the con-siderations outlined here only demonstrate the possibility of such a conjecture.On the other hand, the lacuna could apparently also have been filled as fol-lows: [te ka‹ Sind«n k]a¤; cf. satrãphw Lud¤aw te ka‹ Frug¤aw in Xenophon(above); CIRB 40 (in the titles of Aspurgos): basileÊonta BospÒrou . . . ka‹Toret«n Chs«n te ka‹ TanaÛt«n, Ípotãjanta SkÊyaw ka‹ TaÊrouw.

It would seem that only one step remained now before the conclusion, thatthe Leukon epigram, then the Nymphaion inscription, then CIRB 6a and,finally, inscriptions like CIRB 6, 8, 1037, 1038, provide consecutive documentationof the various stages of the incorporation of the tribes of the lower Kubanregion into the Bosporan state. This does not, however, take place. When sum-ming up the research (p. 120), Sokolova and Pavlichenko’s attention is con-centrated, as before, on CIRB 6a: “The singling out of Sindike (or the Sindoi,according to the restoration by Shkorpil) from the other barbarian tribes canbe linked with the special features of the political organization of Sindike atthat period and with some kind of events in its internal history. We still donot know the subsequent status and fate of Hekataios and Tirgatao”. (Itremains incomprehensible to me what relevance Tirgatao has to the questionunder discusssion). Only when they move on to the latest references to thetime of Leukon, when the Sindoi were already subordinate to the king’spower, does the situation become slightly clearer: “This last variant of thetitles evidently appears after Sindike had finally submitted to the supremepower of Leukon I, when he took over from the local dynasts the title king ofthe Sindoi and other barbarian tribes” (ibidem). Yet, once again there is not aword about Theopropides’ inscription.

Naturally, when we are dealing with such fragmentary material, cautionwhen conclusions are being drawn is an essential condition of their relia-bility. However the caution shown by Sokolova and Pavlichenko smacks moreof shyness or even helplessness. The reader is called upon to formulate their conclusions on his own. They are presented as little more than hints,approximately as follows: the term “archon of (the whole of) Sindike” shouldmean, evidently, the suzerainty of Leukon over Sindike with the nominalretention of traditional institutions of power in it. The same ought to apply to

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


70 Belova 1967, 61-68.71 CIRB 1111, Tsukur-Liman (to the South-east of Hermonassa).

the Toretai, Dandarioi and the Psessoi under Leukon’s leadership in Theopropides’inscription.

Sokolova and Pavlichenko devoted a good deal of effort to the interpreta-tion of the expression (êrxvn) t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw. They draw attention (p. 112sqq.) to evidence provided by ancient authors, who locate the Sindoi on theAsian side of the straits and further to the South-East right over as far as thecity of Sindikos Limen (resp. Gorgippia), or write – like Pseudo-Scylax (72)and Strabo (XI, 2,10) – that it and certain other Greek cities are located inSindike, or even distinguish between “regions of the Bosporus in Asia” andSindike (Strabo XI, 2, 1: prÚw d¢ tª yalãtt˙ toË BospÒrou tå katå tØn ÉAs¤an§st‹ ka‹ ≤ SindikÆ; cf. VII, 4, 6, on the payment of tribute to MithridatesVI: . . . sÁn to›w ÉAsiano›w xvr¤oiw to›w per‹ tØn SindikÆn). Sokolova andPavlichenko conclude: “This is perhaps the first part of ‘the whole of Sindike’,a territory which was previously part of the Bosporan kingdom. One mightevidently understand by the other part of the ‘whole of Sindike’ the posses-sions of Hekataios, king of Sindike” (p. 113).

The hypothesis of Sokolova and Pavlichenko does not provide an answer tothe question: if “Sindike”, the “Sindoi” or “the land of the Sindoi” in the lit-erary sources cited in their article denote the old possessions of the Spartokidson the Asian side of the straits with a native Sindian population, then howshould we understand Sindo¤ in the phrase basileÊontow Sind«n in the inscrip-tions (and – all the more so – SindikÆ in CIRB 6a, if the restoration of thetoponym here is correct)? Moreover it contains an internal contradiction: afterall, the Greek poleis in the historical territory of Sindike, had, without doubt,been part of the same “Bosporus” and Leukon was named as their archon andalso as archon of “the whole of Sindike” in Theopropides’ inscription. Indeedhis position had been recorded in two inscriptions erected “under Leukon,archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia”, which were found in Hermonassa70

and in its chora (both are mentioned by Sokolova and Pavlichenko).71 In the epigram from Labrys relating to the same period, Leukon “archon of theBosporus and Theodosia” comes with his host to help Hekataios “king of theSindoi” and “drives out” from “the land of the Sindoi” his rebellious son,Oktamasades. There is not the slightest reason to believe that the existence, soto speak, of “inner Sindike”, which belonged to Leukon, should not have been

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


72 In a similar way the burial-mound (mn∞ma) of Akeratos, son of Phrasierides, archon of theParians and the Thasians (see above, note 31), had been erected “at the end of the harbour, tosave ships and seafarers” (CEG 162), i.e. as a landmark clearly visible from the sea (skopiã,skopÆ).

73 Latÿshev 1909, 76; Gajdukeviœ 1971, 220 sq. Cf. Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 75 sq., note 14.74 Gorlov 1986, 135 sqq.; Zavoikin 2004, esp. 114 sqq.75 The equality of the cola and the homoioptota within them (cf., in particular, apt definitions

by Anaximenes, Ars rhet., per‹ . . . éntiy°tvn ka‹ paris≈sevn ka‹ ımoiotÆtvn (26), and alsoQuint. IX, 3, 78), elegantly balanced by various positionings of the article.

76 The phase tØn ÑEkata¤ou SindikÆn is reminiscent of expressions like §n Bragx¤d˙si tªsiMilhs¤vn (Hdt. I, 92, 2; a variation of the chorographic genitive, also of a possessive nature)but constructed, of course, ad hoc in keeping per sample of SatÊrou tØn érxÆn.

reflected in all the above-mentioned inscriptions for some reason unbeknownto us. The information provided by Strabo (XI, 2, 7) regarding Satyros’ bur-ial-mound on a cape not far from Patraeus72 demonstrates that Satyros hadalready been in possession of the northern part of the modern Taman penin-sula (Fantalovskii alias Fontan), which according to Pseudo-Scylax was partof the land of the Sindoi; according to Aeschines (in Ctesiph. 171), he hadalso been in complete control of Kepoi, which he bestowed as a gift (dvreãn)on Gylon, grandfather of Demosthenes.73 There is unlikely to be any reason todoubt that by the time Theopropides was erecting his e‡sodon, Phanagoria hadalso lost its independence.74

In these circumstances nothing is proved either by references to authors,particularly when these are not accompanied by the necessary analysis. Soko-lova and Pavlichenko (following Blavatskaya) mention by the way (p. 113)the passage in Polyaenus (VIII, 55), according to which Tirgatao ruined both“Hekataios’ Sindike”, and also “Satyros’ domain” (evidently in “Asia”). Infact, there are no grounds for directly drawing the conclusion (even in theform of a hint) that there existed any other Sindike. In Polyaenus the antithe-sis is expressed using the usual rhetorical devices of his time:

(Tirgata≈) . . . tØn ÑEkata¤ou SindikØn kat°trexe ka‹SatÊrou tØn érxØn §luma¤neto.75

Hekataios’ possessions are contrasted with those of Satyros, but that is all.76

Reports to the effect that certain Greek cities are situated “in Sindike” or“in Scythia” and so on, should, as a general rule, be regarded as purely geo-graphical indications (although a certain degree of overlap between geograph-ical and political maps was in some contexts, of course, inevitable, and it was

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


77 Words in metric epitaphs such as [g∞] Skuy¤a peribçsa ÑEkata›on tÒnde k°ke[u]y.[e] (CIRB117 = CEG 737, 3rd century BC, of a foreigner), and still more so ⁄ pãtra Skuy¤aw pÒliwÉOlb¤a (IOSPE I2 226, Olbia, 2nd century BC), are not a great deal nearer reality, than thedefinition of the Bosporus as the “Cimmerian land” in the epitaph of a foreigner, who did notafter all reach Pantikapaion (Boltunova 1973, 122-130 = SEG XXVI 849, 2nd century BC; Line3/4): émf‹ d¢ ga›an Kimmer¤hn – is of course a paraphrase of BÒsporow Kimm°riow (possibly withan allusion to l 14).

78 Sokolova and Pavlichenko (p. 112) translated the phrase paroikoËsi Maivt«n tinew S¤ndoilegÒmenoi ¶ynow falsely – “Maiotis is inhabited by a certain tribe called the Sindoi”; and, despitetheir translation, what is most likely to have been implied by the word SindikÆ (unless of coursethe compiler of the periplous himself was giving any careful thought to what he was writingabout) was not the land, but the city of Sindike, i.e. Sindikos Limen, cf. Ps.-Arrian 10r11 sq.: . . . efiw SindikØn ≥toi SindikÚn lim°na: the first name is taken from the periplous of Arrianand the second from Menippus, as is pointed out at that place in his edition by AubreyDiller (1952).

79 This would appear to be a distortion of PatraeÊw (Strabo XI, 2, 8), see in detail:Tokhtas’ev 1986, 72 sqq.

seen as a matter of course that the possession of any polis also involved thepossession of lands outside the city walls as well). Herodotus, for example,wrote (I, 142) that Miletus, Myus and Priene lay in Caria and Ephesus,Colophon, Teos and others in Lydia; in Pseudo-Scylax (68) the Greek citiesof Nikonion and Ophiussa, Theodosia, Pantikapaion and others are in the landof the Scythians and Chersonesos in the land of the Tauroi.77 In the same wayit is impossible to take literally the words of Pseudo-Arrian (10r16 Diller) tothe effect that “from Hermonasssa to Sindikos Limen there dwells a Maiotianpeople called Sindoi, from whom Sindike derives its name”:78 under the Sparto-kids and later as well these poleis, together with their attendant territorieswere, of course, constituent parts of the “Bosporus”. Their names were simplyused as convenient pointers by geographers.

Our sources relate to various eras and, in so far as these are all compila-tions, data from different periods are often bracketed together. While inPseudo-Scylax the land of the Sindoi, the frontiers of which stretched as faras Maiotis, embraced Phanagoria, Kepoi, Sindikos Limen and Pãtouw,79

according to Strabo (XI, 2, 1) Sindike, unlike the regions of the Maiotai, liesprÚw . . . tª yalãtt˙ – “by the sea” (i.e. Pontus Euxinus) and according to § 10,faced south and south-east from the river Antikeites (Hypanis), which flowedinto the Korokondamitis; Hermonassa, Apaturon, Gorgippia and Aborake are all in Sindike (this coincides almost exactly with what Pseudo-Arrian

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


80 On “something resembling an island, which is washed by that lake [i.e. Korokondamitis],Maiotis and the river” (§ 9); cf. Tokhtas’ev 2002, 25 sq., note 4.

81 Tokhtas’ev 2002, 15 sq.; cf. below, note 83, relating to Strabo XI, 2, 11.82 Cf. Tokhtas’ev 2002, 17 (it would be probably more correct to speak of a royal residence

in Gorgippia, which possibly also served at the same time as the residence of the governor ofSindike and not just of the city and its chora).

83 In XI, 2, 11 Strabo, using a different source nearer to him in time (Hypsicrates of Amisus? –see: Rostovtsev 1925, 141 sq.), writes that the Aspurgianoi lived between Phanagoria and Gorgippia,i.e. occupied at least in part the same territory as Sindike in XI, 2, 10. In XII, 3, 29 when refer-ring to the same events (the death of king Polemon in the war against the Aspurgianoi), hestates in a not very definite way, that they live “near Sindike” (per‹ tØn SindikÆn). From allappearances, here too Sindike is taken to mean the same administrative unit as that reigned overby the Spartokids and not simply a historical concept. At any rate, in the inscriptions of theRoman period we find the title §p‹ t«n ÉAspourgian«n (CIRB 36 A

16/17, 1246

5/6, 1248), while in

the inscriptions from the time of Aspurgos (39, 40; see below) the latter is referred to, in par-ticular, as the king of the Bosporus, Theodosia, the Sindoi and a number of other tribes, whilethe Aspurgianoi as such are not mentioned. From the administrative point of view, they hadclearly been incorporated into “the Bosporus”; cf. titles of the same type ı §p‹ t∞w Gorgippe¤aw(for a review of the evidence, see: Smirnova 2001, 350-363), §p‹ t∞w NÆsou (CIRB 40, 497 et alii) and §p‹ t∞w Yeodos¤aw (1130, 36 A

15, 64

5) in inscriptions of the Roman period.

Gorgippia, ‘Island’ (cf. Tokhtas’ev 2002, 26, note 4), and Theodosia were parts of the Bosporus,although at the same time the poleis enjoyed autonomy, as can be seen at least from the lettersof Aspurgos prÚw tØn t«n Gorgipp°vn pÒlin (see: Heinen 1999, 133 sqq.; for the first letter, seealso: Heinen 1998, 341) and from later inscriptions – CIRB 1118 (“the people of theGorgippians”), 979 and 983 (“the people of the Agrippians”, i.e. the Phanagorians), 982 (“thecouncil and people [of the Agrippians]”) and 1051 (in which the words Alejaryƒ loxa(g“)

wrote – see, above), while Phanagoria and Kepoi were situated beyond its bor-ders.80 The information found in Strabo XI, 2, 1 and 10 (with the exceptionof what he writes concerning Gorgippia and Aborake),81 to all appearances gleanedfrom Geographumena of Artemidorus of Ephesus, could stem in part from astill earlier source (Ephorus?), in the final analysis from the Spartokid era.

It is perfectly clear that in Strabo Sindike is viewed as a constituent part ofthe state designated as Sindo¤ in the titles of the Spartokids and divided off byan administrative frontier from the “regions of the Bosporus in Asia” (a partof BÒsporow in the titles of the Spartokids).82 This is also assumed in the reportby Pseudo-Arrian, who located the Sindoi in a place where there were noGreek cities at all. From Strabo’s words in VII, 4, 6 (cf. above) it is clear thatthis situation continued under Mithridates Eupator as well, and judging fromother of his reports and from epigraphic data, evidently much later as well.83

From the territorial point of view the borders of Sindike must have more or

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


ÉAgripp°vn Kaisar°vn êrxontew should, as suggested by Yailenko, be understood as follows:“to Alexarthos, the commander of the Agrippians the archontes of the Kaisarians [erected]”). Itcan be assumed that the Sindoi were directly ruled over by the “governor of the Sindoi”, cf.êrxvn Tanaeit«n, the magistrature in Tanais (CIRB 1242

7et alii), on the one hand, and

basileÊvn . . . Sind«n ka‹ . . . Tana(e)it«n in the titles of Aspurgos, on the other.84 See: Fabre 1965, 353-366; Counillon 2004, 24-27, 41 sqq., with bibliography.85 For instance, it might be assumed that the kingdom of Hekataios, which had come under

the power of the Bosporus, had initially been shared between Leukon and his brother

less coincided with those of Hekataios’ kingdom: indeed, what else if notSindikÆ could the lands have been called which were taken over by the Spartokids?Yet, in the works of Pseudo-Scylax, writing about the middle of the 4th cen-tury BC but passing on earlier data as well (almost from the same period asHecataeus of Miletus),84 an ethno-political situation is described, in whichSindike extended from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea. Herodotus wouldappear to have had similar evidence at his disposal relating to the time whenthe kingdom of Sindike was in existence (IV, 28: in the winter the Scythiansset off across the frozen Bosporus in a campaign against the Sindoi) and alsoHellanicus (FGrHist 4 F 69: BÒsporon diapleÊsanti Sindo¤). Given the currentstate of the sources, the divergences between Pseudo-Scylax and Strabo canbe explained differently: probably Hekataios (or his predecessor) ceded toSatyros (or even earlier) part of his lands subject to some conditions or other,which had been virtually uninhabited when the Greeks settled there.

Thus the hypothesis put forward by Sokolova and Pavlichenko cannot beregarded as convincing. It would seem that what can bring us to a correct res-olution of the question is an elementary comparison of the titles of Leukon inthe Theopropides dedication and in the latest inscriptions, first and foremost inCIRB 6a (regardless of how Line 5 is restored). In its structure Sind«n (resp.Sindik∞w) corresponds to the t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw and from this it follows thatLeukon “archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia” after acquiring the posses-sions of Hekataios “king of the Sindoi” (as found in the inscription fromLabrys) also acquired the additional title of “archon of all Sindike”, later“archon of the Sindoi” (or Sindike – CIRB 6a) and finally “king of theSindoi”. Consequently, as regards content ≤ SindikØ pçsa and Sindo¤ mustmean one and the same. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the expression“the whole of Sindike” implied some circumstances or other regarding theincorporation of Sindike into the Bosporan state,85 which are unknown to ustoday. Yet one thing is clear beyond doubt: from both the geographical and

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Gorgippos, who had been given some part of Sindike adjacent to Sindikos Limen and the townitself which was renamed (most probably after his death) Gorgippia; while, when it was unitedas one under Leukon on his own, the country came to be referred to in his titles as “all Sindike”(cf. Hdt. III, 39, 2: (Polukrãthw) . . . tÚn m¢n (sc. tÚn Pantãgnvton) . . . épokte¤naw, tÚn d¢ne≈teron Sulos«nta §jelãsaw ¶sxe pçsan Sãmon; Herodotus recounts above that initiallypower over Samos was divided between three tyrant brothers). Something similar would appearto have been suggested by Gajdukeviœ (1971, 228 sq. and note 197). Sokolova and Pavlichenko,when commenting upon Polyaenus’ words to the effect that, after Satyros’ death, Gorgippos“having inherited (his) power”, pacified Tirgatao, write: “This passage is usually [sic?] under-stood as a direct indication to the effect that Gorgippos was given hereditary power overSindike and, still more extensively, over the Asian Bosporus by his father Satyros” (p. 115, andsimilarly on p. 116). Only on p. 119 does it emerge that what they mean is that Gorgipposprobably “inherited power over that part of Sindike which had belonged to Satyros”; cf.Blavatskaya 1993, 45 sq.

86 Cf. Kühner, Gerth 1955, 633: “ÑH pÒliw pçsa (oder pçsa ≤ pÒliw) Ωr°yh wird von denGriechen so aufgefasst: die Stadt ward eingenommen, und zwar ganz, oder ganz (gänzlich) warddie Stadt angenommen”.

87 Revealing is the passage Aristoph. Av. 445 sq. (cited in Kühner – Gerth): ˆmnumÉ §p‹ toÊ-toiw pçsi nikçn to›w krita›w / ka‹ to›w yeata›w pçsin.

political point of view the country in question is the one, which had formerlybeen ruled by Hekataios and which in the latest inscriptions was simplyreferred to as Sindo¤ – after all, the “Sindoi” could only have been the bar-barians inhabiting Sindike.

The adjective pçsa appended to the SindikÆ occupies a predicative position,i.e., according to the general rule, only, in addition, accentuates the wordalready defined by the article.86 In general pçw was used in Greek predicativelymost frequently of all and this naturally transformed it easily into a stylisticdevice (moreover, as will be seen from what follows, this function is some-times also acquired by the attributive pçw:87 this function of the word is rootedin its very semantics). It is therefore quite possible that our ≤ SindikØ pçsa isan expressive accentuation of the ordinary concept SindikÆ achieved with thehelp of the epithet pçsa. The extremely solemn nature of the phrase êrxon-tow . . . t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw ka‹ Toret°vn ka‹ Dandar¤vn ka‹ Chss«n conveysthe significance or even perhaps the innovatory nature of the event – theacquisition by the state of extensive new territories, the first of which was thewhole of Sindike. Moroever, the event under discussion here was indeed ofexclusive importance: the Bosporan Greeks in the person of their archonbegan to rule over the adjacent barbarian peoples. Placed on a par with othertoponyms – BÒsporow and Yeodos¤h, the expression ≤ SindikØ pçsa, what is

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


88 Cf. also ka‹ §l¤sseto pãntaw ÉAxaioÊw (A 15); sumpãntvn Dana«n (90) and érist∞ewPanaxai«n / edon pannÊxioi (K 1 sq.) side by side with sËn éristÆessin ÉAxai«n (A 227);Pan°llhnaw ka‹ ÉAxaioÊw (B 530) and ÜEllhnew ka‹ ÉAxaio¤ (684).

89 Gorgias fr. 11 DK: tØn pçsan ÑEllãda next to the simple word ÑEllãw; similarly –Hyperides Epitaph. Col. II, 22 (pçsan tØn ÑEllãda), V. 6 (tØn ÑEllãda pçsan), XIII, 33 (t∞wÑEllãdow èpãshw) and so on.

90 Kleist 1925, 48-55 (non vidi); Thesleff 1954, 135-139 (in general superficial; only the pçw-intensivum is examined in conjunction with appellatives). Xenophon’s phrase (efi) ÍpÚ t∞wÑEllãdow pãshw éjio›w §pÉ éretª yaumãzesyai, tØn ÑEllãda peirat°on eÔ poie›n (Mem. II, 1,28, among the examples cited by Kühner and Gerth) is sui generis instructive: pçsa can alsobe used in conjunction with ÑEllãw in the second part of the sentence, or only in it, but it canbe absent in general from the sentence as a whole without the meaning suffering in any way.The rhetorical function of pçw (underline by superlatives) is clearly demonstrated in Hdt. IV, 91(Darius’ inscription erected on the bank of the river Tearos in Thrace): “The sources of the riverTearos supply water, the best and finest of all rivers. And to them . . . came the best and finest

essentially the same toponym as before acquires additional emotional implica-tions thanks to the contrast with ethnonyms – Tor°tai, Dandãrioi, Chsso¤. Inactual fact, Leukon had succeeded in adding to his possessions not just sometribal territory, but a land already enjoying its own statehood. The Toretai,Dandaroi and Psessoi were evidently regarded (and indeed were) far moreprimitive than the Sindoi, so that it was sufficient merely to list them by name.In the words t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw poetic diction can clearly be heard. Apartfrom the question as to whether or not, any circumstances relating to theannexation of Sindike by the Bosporus underlie this expression, we havebefore us another example of the embellishment of a tedious prose text, whichwas discussed earlier (hyperbaton, see, I; asyndeton, resp. polysyndeton in listsperforming one and the same function).

Examples of any kind of pleonastic (expressive, emphatic and so on) pçw,ëpaw, sÊmpaw, and also ˜low and the similar ˜sow with the noun (includingproper names) are found as early as Homer (for example, pollªsin nÆsoisika‹ ÖArgei pant‹ énãssein, B 108)88 and in the later poets. The “Catalogue ofWomen” (fr. 23a, 35 M.-W.), for instance, states that the hero Echemos ruled“the whole of Tegea” – pãshw Teg[°hw.

Not so much under poetic influence, as due to the fact that the roots of thisword usage can be traced back to ordinary speech (the same is true in almostall of the world’s known languages), this pçw was required by rhetoric,89 his-toriography and other prose genres.90 The contexts most interesting for us areto be found in Book I of Herodotus (his chronicle of the transition of the

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


of all men, Darius . . ., King of the Persians and the whole continent” – pãshw t∞w ±pe¤rou;‘continent’ here implies Asia; cf. IV, 118, 1 (a similar reference is made to Cyrus: KËrow . . .tå pãnta t∞w ±pe¤rou Ípoxe¤ria §poiÆsato, ÉAssur¤oisi §pet¤yeto, I, 178, 1).

91 The example is not beyond dispute, since Herodotus was already familiar with Cilicia ≤ ÙreinÆ (II, 34), the same as ≤ ênv, traxe›a, Aspera of the later sources (the opposite ofCilicia ≤ pediãw, ≤ fid¤vw); at the same time, what must have been implied here was preciselythe satrapy, which – according to Herodotus – was a single administrative entity as early asunder Darius (cf. in the tribute list: épÚ d¢ Kil¤kvn . . ., III, 90, 3). However in the Bisituninscription of the Darius the Great Cilicia is not mentioned; it is possible that it had been partof Cappadocia at the time (c. 520 BC) or was still enjoying relative autonomy.

power over “all Asia beyond the river Halys” from one ruler to another): 103,2: Kuajãrhw . . . tØn ÜAluow potamoË ênv ÉAs¤hn pçsan sustÆsaw •aut“; 104,2: ofl d¢ SkÊyai tØn ÉAs¤hn pçsan §p°sxon; 106, 1: . . . ∑rxon t∞w ÉAs¤hw oflSkÊyai; in Chapter 130 this “Asia” is also to be found sometimes with the epi-thet “whole”, and sometimes without: M∞doi . . . êrjantew t∞w ênv ÜAluowpotamoË ÉAs¤hw ktl.; KËrow . . . ∑rxon t∞w . . . ÉAs¤hw; KËrow . . . oÏtv pãshw t∞wÉAs¤hw ∑rje. Of decisive importance for ÉAs¤h is the cumbersome (and there-fore sometimes elliptic) ênv ÜAluow potamoË; pçsa, which, being an embel-lishment, would only appear to have been added in order to underline theheterogeneity and multiplicity of the countries united (cf. sustÆsaw in 103, 2)for the first time by Cyaxares (this is expressed perfectly clearly in Aeschylus,Pers. 762 sq., with the help of the antithesis: Zeus bestowed the honour of rul-ing over all Asia to one man – timØn ZeÁw ênaj tÆndÉ vÖpasen / ßnÉ êndrapãshw ÉAs¤dow mhlotrÒfou / tage›n); when Herodotus gives a short expositionof the same events in IV, 1, 2, he starts with the already truncated formulat∞w ênv ÉAs¤hw, then suggest ÉAs¤h, but on all three occasions the word pçsais not included.

In its pure form the expressive pçw is evidently to be found in IX, 107, 3(cf. above, on CIRB 6a): ka‹ diå toËto tÚ ¶rgon JeinagÒrhw Kilik¤hw pãshw∑rje dÒntow basil°ow (this Xenagores was accorded the whole satrapy for hisoutstanding services to Xerxes)91 and I, 96, 2: DhiÒkhw . . . énå pçsan tØnMhdikØn §po¤ee §pistãmenow, ti ktl. (pçsan underlines the importance of Deiokes’order).

With the deterioration of the Greek literary language increased too the fre-quency with which the pleonastic pçw and so on were used (this trend, as wecan now see, is also reflected in the inscriptions). The thoroughly rhetorizedLate Classical and Early Byzantine literature is simply flooded with hyperbo-lae such as (§kklhs¤aiw) ta›w katå . . . tØn . . . EÈr≈phn pçsan, Skuy¤an

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


92 See, also, Procop. B. VII, 38, 19; Euagr. Hist. eccl. VI, 10 Bidez – Parmentier; Eunap. inExc. legg. gent. p. 597, 4 de Boor; Acta Apost. apocr. II, 2, p. 16, 24.

93 “All the Maiotai” – this phrase is also found in two inscriptions from the reign ofPairisades II – CIRB 25 and (restored) SEG XXXIV 755 (ed. pr.: Belova 1984, 78 sqq., withunnecessary doubts regarding her own restoration – p. 80, note 5).

94 The opinions of the last two authors are known from references made by Pseudo-Scymnus(878-880 Diller = F 16 Marcotte).

95 Tokhtas’ev 1998, 298; quotation cited above.96 Cf. Galanina, Alekseev 1990, 50.

•kat°ran ka‹ ta›w katå tÚ ÉIllurikÚn èpãsaiw (Gelas. Cyzic. Conc. Nic. II, 27,Migne LXXXV, 1309) or tå xvr¤a jÊmpanta tã te Yr&k«n ka‹ ÉIlluri«n . . .§lh˝zonto (Procop. B. VII, 38, 7).92

Let us now turn to data to be gleaned from prose inscriptions. In theSpartokid titles pçw with the function of interest to us is found again in regardto the ethnonym “Maiotai”. In the inscription CIRB 1015 dating from the reignof Pairisades I we find [Sin]d.«n ka‹ MaÛt«n pã[ntvn] ka‹ Yat°vn,93 but in another inscription of the same period this pãntvn is absent – Sind«nMaÛt«n [Y]at°vn DÒsxvn (972). Who were these Mai(o)tai? Strabo (XI, 2, 11;cf. 2, 4), when expounding the view of Hellenistic scholars, brackets togetheras Maiotai the Sindoi, the Dandarioi, the Toretai, the Doskoi (sic), theTarpeites, the Aspurgianoi and other peoples not familiar from inscriptions –the Arrechoi, the Obidiakenoi and the Sittakenoi with the remarkable com-ment: “and many others”; in Polyaenus (VIII, 55) and Demetrius of Callatis(FGrHist 85 F 1) the Ixomatai (resp. Iazamatai) are classified as Maiotai,whom Ephorus (70 F 160: Iazamatai) considered a Sauromatian people.94 Asregards the question as to whether the Sindoi might be classified as Maiotaivarious opinions were voiced, which were summarized by Stephanus of Byzantiums.v. Sindo¤: ¶nioi d¢ ka‹ tÚ SindikÚn g°now fas‹n e‰nai t«n Maivt«n épÒspas-ma; Hellanicus distinguished them from the Maiotai (FGrHist 4 F 69: “supe-rior” to the Sindoi are Mai«tai SkÊyai) and Pseudo-Scylax (ibidem) as well,but, like Strabo, Pseudo-Scymnus regards them as part of the Maiotai (899Diller = F 18 Marcotte; cf. Ps.-Arr. 10r16 Diller).95 Evidently writers startedout from the understanding of the term Maiotai as a general name for anytribes living nearby Maiotis, mainly along its south-eastern coast (cf. Ps.-Scyl.72; Strabo XI, 2, 4);96 but from the words of Strabo (XI, 2, 11) regarding the“Asiatic Maiotai” (for the quotation, see below), a conclusion might be drawnto the effect that the name Maiotai was also given to certain tribes, who lived

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


97 Tokhtas’ev 2002, 19. Cf. Xen. Mem. II, 1, 10: . . . §n d¢ tª EÈr≈p˙ SkÊyai m¢n êrxousi,Mai«tai d¢ êrxontai. From the context it follows quite definitely that both Scythians and theMaiotai themselves dwelt in Europe. Cf. Hdt. IV, 123, 3: through the land of the Maiotai flowthe rivers which flow into the Sea of Maiotis – the Lykos, Oaros, Tanais and Syrgis (SÊrgiw;or rather Hyrgis, cf. ÜUrgiw, tributary of the Tanais in Chapter 57; SÊrgiw, is most likely a dit-tography from TANAISURGIS). However the other rivers might be identified, the Tanais wouldappear not to be mentioned anywhere else as a river in the land of the Maiotai, while the mouthof the river Lykos is located by Ptolemy (Geogr. III, 5, 4) in Europe, between the mouths ofthe Tanais River and the city of Kremnoi (i.e., most probably, the modern river Kalmius); cf. also Galanina, Alekseev 1990, 50, note *.

98 Tokhtas’ev 2002, 292 sq. (on the contrary, some authors produced the name Maiotis fromthe ethnonym: Ps.-Scymn. 866 sq. Diller; Plin. n. h. IV, 88); see also below, Strabo XI, 2, 11and note 145.

99 Prior to the incorporation of Tanais into the Bosporan state it enjoyed a democratic con-stitution, as is borne out by a decree dating from the end of the 3rd or early-2nd century BC fromTanais, published in the name of the ‘people’ under the official [ . . .]doros – Vinogradov 1995,216; Fornasier 2001, 91-95.

along the European shore of Maiotis.97 It can thus be seen beyond any doubtthat the ethnonym was derived from the name Mai«tiw.98 A similar Kaukãsioiis to be found in Strabo, XI, 2, 16 ex.: into the Dioskurias there flood in fortrading a large number of “people living higher up” and neighbouring barbar-ians; “most of them are Sarmatians, but they are all the Caucasians”. Yet inBosporan inscriptions the Sindoi, Toretai, Thateis, Doskoi (DÒsxoi in CIRB972) and Tarpeites (also in CIRB 39 and 40 from the time of Aspurgos,together with the Psessoi and Tanaitai) listed by Strabo as Maiotai are con-trasted with “(all) Maiotai” (CIRB 10, 11, 971, 972, 1015, 1039, 1040, 25).The use of pãntvn in conjunction with MaÛt«n in the titles of the Bosporanrulers definitely indicates that this name is used, although not as widely as inthe literature, but also for some totality of small tribes, which evidently didnot merit being mentioned by their individual names (“all the Maiotian tribes,whichever they might be”, “all the barbarian tribes, which are calledMaiotian”). At the same time it is difficult to imagine that the MaÛt«n pãntvnin CIRB 1015 really signify something different from the straightforwardMaÛt«n in 972.

The quite clearly expressive function of pçw comes to the fore in a similarcontext in Strabo (ibidem): “From among the totality of all the Asian Maiotai(t«n te sumpãntvn Maivt«n t«n ÉAsian«n) some were subordinate to the rulers (§xÒntvn) of the emporion of Tanais,99 others to the Bosporans”, andmeanwhile the barbarians kept on instigating uprisings. A little further on

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


100 Cf. in the proxeny decree CIRB Add. 4: aÈ[t«i ka‹ §kgÒnoiw ka‹ p]çsi to›w toÊt[ou (incontrast to No. 1: aÈto›w ka[‹ yerãpous]in to›w toËtvn); in a Phanagorian decree from the timeof Mithridates Eupator (Vinogradov, Wörrle 1992, 160), Lines 4-5, we read: pepoihk°nai pçntÚ d¤kaion ka‹ §n to›w loipo›w pçsi filik«w ka‹ eÈnÒvw §sxhk°nai ktl.; 9-11: ka‹ éne¤sforoipãntvn ka‹ éle[i]toÊrghtoi pantÚw prãgmatow plØn pa[ndÆ]mou strate¤aw ktl.

101 Yailenko 2001, 483, 474; CIRB 1.102 See: Zavoikin 2001, 161, 168 (with bibliography).103 Cf. this opinion Vasil’ev 1985, 293, following N.S. Belova (see below).

Strabo states that “the rulers of the Bosporus were often in possession of landsstretching as far as the (river) Tanais”. Evidently the word sumpãntvn had noimportance for the meaning of the sentence as a whole; in its capacity as apleonasm it accentuates the genitivus partitivus and introduces variety into thelanguage on account of t«n Maivt«n dÉ efis‹n aÈto¤ te Sindo¤ ktl. a few linesearlier and also at the beginning of the sentence. Yet, apart from the generalsubject of the description, the MaÛt«n pãntvn of the inscriptions and the t«nsumpãntvn Maivt«n of Strabo are linked by shared stylistic devices.

Appended to the name of the country pçw, in general characteristic for theflat language of decrees,100 is used in Bosporan proxenies issued by Leukon Iand Pairisades I, which guaranteed that “all properties (wares) in the whole ofthe Bosporus” (pãntvn xrhmãtvn §n pant‹ BospÒrvi) would be free of duty.101

The interpretation of this expression is problematic. An opinion has been expressedat various times to the effect that the phrase §n pant‹ BospÒrvi shows that theapplication of the proxeny decrees extended to the whole territory of the stateand, thus, that “pan-Bosporan citizenship” existed.102 In that case, however,how can we explain the singling out of Theodosia (and, indeed, of the bar-barian tribes) in the titles of Leukon and Pairisades, as recorded in votiveinscriptions? At first glance, bearing in mind the official character of the wordusage in the decrees, the expression “the whole of the Bosporus” should implythat same BÒsporow, in relation to which Leukon and Pairisades have beennamed as archontes in the votive inscriptions;103 Theodosia could also haveobtained the right to create proxenies independently, while the barbarian terri-tories of the state, administered by Leukon, and later by Pairisades in theircapacity as kings, could possibly at that time not yet have had harbours,through which the proxenos could have “sailed in and out both during war-time and peace-time without being subjected to confiscations and without a(special) treaty”, as is written in these documents. Demosthenes, however, testifiesexpressis verbis to the fact that Leukon, after arranging wide-scale trading in

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


104 Cf. Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985a, 71 sq., with a reference to a non-pubished dissertation byN.S. Belova (Belova 1954).

105 Yailenko 1984, 219 sqq.106 See: Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 59 sq., note 18; Bull. ép. 1990, 597; SEG XL 638 and

below.107 Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002, 70.108 Yailenko 1984, 220; Yailenko 2001, 480. The objections raised by Shelov-Kovedyaev

(Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002, 70) cannot be accepted.109 Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985a, 64 sq.; photograph between pp. 48 and 49, fig. 2.

grain through Theodosia presented the Athenians with an ateleia “there aswell” (i.e. in addition to the remaining Bosporan cities) – kéntaËyÉ ¶dvke tØnét°leian ≤m›n (adv. Lept. 33); cf. also § 31 (cited below), and Strabo VII, 4,6: via Theodosia Leukon sent the Athenians an incalculable quantity of grain.From this it follows that Theodosia’s activities in the sphere of external tradewere completely subject to the control of Leukon, who had set up a newemporion (a trading port) there (kataskeuãsaw §mpÒrion Yeudos¤an, Dem.Ibidem 33), which, like the others, had evidently become his own property.104

Admittedly, Shelov-Kovedyaev regards these words as direct testimony to thefact that in the early proxeny decrees of Leukon Theodosia was mentionedseparately from the pçw BÒsporow, thus reinforcing his reconstruction of thePhanagorian decree found in 1976:105 [. . . ¶dosan . . . ét°leian pãntvn xrhmã-ton §n p]a. nt‹ BospÒrvi [ka‹ §n Yeodos¤]h.i (instead of Vinogradov’s §n Sindik]∞.iwithout an article in front of Sindik∞i!).106 According to this scholar, the nameTheodosia subsequently disappears from their texts “as the control of the cityby the central administration intensifies and it becomes more deeply inte-grated into the system of the state as a whole”.107 Firstly, however, the Phanagoriandecree could hardly be linked to the time of Leukon I, or at any rate to theearly part of his reign (the first half of the 4th century BC), as is pointed outcorrectly in the main by Yailenko108 (yet closer palaeographic parallels areprovided not so much by CIRB 1 from the time of Pairisades I, as by CIRB 2and 4, and also by decree No. 2, published by Shelov-Kovedyaev109 – all ofthem from the same period according to the publishers). Secondly the restora-tion of the name Theodosia only on the basis of the last two letters of a word,moreover, in a highly fragmentary text, for which there are no direct parallels,cannot be regarded as in any way reliable, particularly since Yailenko pro-posed a plausible reconstruction for Line 2: [§n pol°mvi ka‹ §n efirÆn]hi, which

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


110 Yailenko 2001, 479-484; Shelov-Kovedyaev, despite the counter-arguments put forwardby Yailenko, includes his restoration in the “final [sic], for today [!], reconstruction of the Phanagorianproxeny decree of 1976” (Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002, 70).

111 Shelov-Kovedyaev (Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002, 72) notes that prior

Shelov-Kovedyaev did not analyse.110 Thirdly, it turns out, that in documentsof one and the same kind pçw BÒsporow is first contrasted with Yeodos¤h, andthen incorporated it. Does this not lead to an absurd suggestion that Leukonat some moment or other issued an instruction (kÆrugma), according to whichthe expression “the whole of the Bosporus”, ought from then on to be takenas including Theodosia as well, contrary to the situation in the decrees of thepreceding period? Finally, the words of Demosthenes (§ 33) regardingTheodosia: . . . §mpÒrion Yeudos¤an, ˜ fasin ofl pl°ontew oÈdÉ ıtioËn xe›rone‰nai toË BospÒrou, ¶dvke tØn ét°leian, did not necessarily presuppose a ref-erence to the text of the Bosporan decree, as concluded Shelov-Kovedyaevfrom the phrase ¶dvke tØn ét°leian. It might just as easily imply reports frommerchants and trading agents, who had visited Theodosia (cf. ˜ fasin oflpl°ontew) and obtained enormous profits thanks to that very same ét°leia (andBÒsporow for ‘Pantikapaion’ is to be regarded as ordinary word usage by theAthenians of that time, see below). Demosthenes also provides informationabout the fact that Leukon “lord of Pontus” (see below) “presented an ateleia”to those transporting grain to Athens – ét°leian dedvk°nai (to›w êgousin [sc.tÚn s›ton] ÉAyÆnaze) in § 31, where there is obviously no cause to speak ofany direct influence of the phraseology found in Bosporan decrees.

At any rate in all other decrees, where the corresponding lines can be reador restored with confidence, the name Theodosia is not to be found next topçw BÒsporow. From this it follows that the term “the whole of the Bosporus”in these decrees and the “Bosporus” in the votive inscriptions do not coincide.If we take into account the inadequate level of development of Greek politi-cal terminology, this should not appear surprising: both categories of inscrip-tions also differed from each other in that in the dedicatory inscriptions of theBosporans the whole cumbersome list of rulers’ titles was written out, whileforeigners were not obliged to do the same (see below) and in the decreesLeukon and Pairisades (“and their sons”) figured as private persons. Politeiaand other rights received by foreigners from the tyrants were institutions of theBosporan state at a higher level than that of the polis (suprapolis institutions),which we must assume came into being exclusively as a result of the mono-polization of the foreign trade by the Spartokids.111 As we know, in the Bosporus

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


to the middle of the 4th century BC ateleia “was the main privilege in the Bosporus and theone most sought after, more so than in the rest of the Greek world” (with a reference toGschnitzer 1974, 712 sqq.).

112 Vinogradov, Wörrle 1992 (see note 30).113 Belova 1954, 39, 124 sq. (quoted from Vasil’ev 1985, 293 sq.): in essence pçw BÒsporow

means the same as the BÒsporow in the votive inscriptions; to judge from the account byVasil’ev, Belova did not take into account the testimony from Dem. adv. Lept. 33 and 31(which is strange); yet she assumed that this second name of Pantikapaion was sometimes usedin the Bosporus as well. Vasil’ev aptly notes the erroneous nature of this last hypothesis, buthis own assumption (ibidem, 294) is not clear to me: “. . . the word ‘whole’ was needed in orderto distinguish the community of Bosporan cities which had taken shape by the end [sic?] of the4th century BC from the former ‘Bosporus’ referred to in the dedicatory inscriptions”. Howeverboth expressions were being used in inscriptions of one and the same period!

114 On the text and its dating, see: Bresson 2000, 28 sq.

there also continued to exist at the same time the traditional citizenship of apolis, cf. for example, the city-ethnics Khp¤thw, CIRB 188 or YeudosieÊw, 231;nevetheless, right up until the time of Mithridates VI112 we do not know of asingle Bosporan decree, published in the name of a polis.

The terminology found in proxeny decrees is orientated specifically towardsforeigners, therefore it is highly unlikely that the epithet pçw was supplied withBÒsporow in them merely so as to distinguish it from the straightforwardBÒsporow in the usage found in the formula of the votive inscriptions, wherethe term is contrasted with Yeodos¤h and the names of the barbarian tribes. Ithink that Belova came up with a correct solution (albeit without avoidingsome erroneous arguments): pçw underlines the difference between BÒsporow asthe name of a state and BÒsporow as a name for Pantikapaion, which was usedbeyond the confines of the Bosporus, particularly in Athens.113

In a decree from Lindos dating from the late-5th or early-4th century BCSyll.3 110 we find a similar expression: [- - -]an . . . prÒjenon [≥m]en ÑRo[d]¤vnpãntvn;114 “all Rhodians” – this implies all the synoecized cities of the islandof Rhodos (Lindos, Kamiros, Ialysos) and equally that each and every one oftheir inhabitants is a citizen of the polis of Rhodos (cf. ı dçmow ı ÑRod¤vn inthe posterior decrees). Between these two formulae there is a difference: pçwBÒsporow was the official name for the whole state of the Spartokids only inthe context of political and economic relations with other states; as can beseen from Demosthenes adv. Lept. 23, foreign states also used the termBÒsporow to refer to the Bosporan Kingdom: LeÊkvna tÚn êrxonta BospÒrou

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


115 It seems that Demosthenes had indeed kept in mind the phraseology of the documents:not only êrxonta BospÒrou, but also ka‹ toÁw pa›daw – as in the Bosporan proxeny decreesCIRB 1, 2, 5, the inscription from Mytilene Syll.3 212 – a copy of Leukon’s decree, in a prox-eny decree from Pantikapaion to a Kromnian (Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002,58 sqq., No. 1), in two decrees from the time of Eumelos and of his son Leukon II: Ibidem, 60sq., 72). It is likely that Demosthenes was rearranging the formulation of psephisms “concern-ing Leukon”, which were read out to the court by a secretary (§ 35 ex.); cf. Schaefer 1878,427; Vinogradov 1997, 118 sq.; Vinogradov 1983, 410.

116 Cf. Strabo (XI, 2, 8), in his report on the town of Akra(i), the southernmost point on theshore of the Cimmerian Bosporus: k≈mion t∞w Pantikapai<°>vn (coni. Latÿshev; or -Û<t>«n?, cf. Vinogradov, Tokhtas’ev 1998, 28 sq.) g∞w ˆnoma ÖAkrai (or ÖAkra).

117 Also in IG II2 21251

and, possibly, in another decree dating from 323/2 BC: Osborne 1981,80 sq., D25, II, fr. c

31(SEG XXI 298).

118 Interesting in this connection is a passage from Ps.-Dem. c. Phorm. 36: kÆrugma går poih-sam°nou Pairisãdou °n BospÒrƒ, §ãn tiw boÊlhtai ÉAyÆnaze efiw tÚ ÉAttikÚn §mpÒrion sithge›n,étel∞ tÚn s›ton §jãgein, §pidhm«n §n t“ BospÒrƒ ı Lãmpiw ktl. It would seem that both timesBÒsporow is taken to mean ‘Pantikapaion’, yet is it possible to doubt that the following wordsstood in Pairisades’ decree: ét°leia §n pant‹ BospÒrvi? The author of the speech, however,pays little attention to accuracy of expression, in so far as what he was saying was clear to anyhearers, without additional specification. What we are being told about here is the ateleiathroughout the whole territory belonging to ‘Bosporus’, the capital city of Pairisades. Indeed ithad been precisely in Pantikapaion that Lampis had taken up residence.

119 This expression reflecting the idea of the Bosporus as the most important (katÉ §joxÆn)Greek state on the shores of the Pontus Euxinus, can possibly be traced back to the time ofSatyros (cf. Lys. pro Mantith. 5: …w Sãturon tÚn §n t“ PÒntƒ). Let us note that in both casesthe name of the state is formed by metonymy from the name of the expanse of water, washingits shores.

ka‹ toÁw pa›daw aÈtoË115 (cf. also below, note 121). Here we encounter a vividmanifestation of the polis world-outlook: for the Athenians the “Bosporus”was a polis, consisting of the city of Bosporus itself (i.e. Pantikapaion) andthe territories belonging to it, complete with everything in them (other cities,emporia and villages subordinate to it).116 For this reason, apart from rareexceptions (such as Dem. Ibidem 33, in which the port of Theodosia is com-pared with the port of “Bosporus”117) the term was used to denote both thecity and the state as a whole, in keeping with the way the word pÒliw itselfwas used (apart from specialized geographical contexts), which constituted asingle and indivisible concept.118

In the work of Attic writers, above all orators, PÒntow119 is known to havebeen used as a synonym for pçw BÒsporow as opposed to BÒsporow ‘Pantikapaion’;

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


120 kÊrion ˆnta tÚn LeÊkvna aÈtoË relates, of course, not to s›ton (Kruglikova 1975, 53;Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 88: “Demosthenes . . . calls Leukon the master . . . of Bosporangrain”), but to tÚn tÒpon toËton, sc. PÒntow, as has been e.g. correctly translated by N. P.Tsvetkov in Latÿshev’s Scythica et Caucasica and adequately understood by Vinogradov(Vinogradov 1997, 119, note 113; Vinogradov 1983, 410, note 204).

121 Cf. Lewis 1988, esp. 303, 307. In the decree IG II2 65333 sq.

Spartokos III, according tothe only plausible restoration, is referred to as the “Bosporan” (BospÒrion), but it means mostlikely the ‘Panticapaean’; cf. Pantikapa˝taw of Leukon I in the honorific decree of ArcadianFederation CIRB 37.

122 Vasil’ev 1985, 293.123 And I shall add, Tanais (alias Emporion, cf. Alex. Polyh. FGrHist 273 F 134 and Bosi

1984/1985, 96, after A. Kocewalow), which was ruled by the royal administration through aspecial legate – presbeutÆw (CIRB 1239 et alii; presbeÊsaw1243

4/5; more graphically – in 1237

13 sq.:

§kpe.[m]f.ye‹w ÍpÚ toË basil°v. [w] efiw tÚ ÉEmpÒrion; erroneously in this connection – Shelov 1972,262). Direct evidence for the inclusion of Tanais – despite geography, similar to Theodosia in

cf. Dem. Ibidem 31, on grain supplied from Pontus Euxinus: “. . . Leukon,being the master (kÊrion) of it (i.e. Pontus) granted ateleia to those taking himto Athens”;120 as stated earlier, these words clearly show, that Leukon con-trolled the trade in grain from all the commerical harbours (emporia) of hisstate. In later periods we find PÒntow recorded in the documents as well –admittedly not those of a diplomatic character: S.pãr[t]okow (III) §k toË PÒntouIG II2 1486

7.121

Thus, pçw BÒsporow in the decrees is identical to BÒsporow in the wide senseof the term (as e.g. in Dem. adv. Lept. 23), and also PÒntow from the Atticsources; the epithet pçw only underlines the fact that not only Pantikapaion isbeing referred to here, but the whole territory subject to it in the person ofLeukon or Pairisades. The appearance of pçw in conjunction with BÒsporowwas stimulated by the legal nature of the texts: it takes up the similar pãntvnused in conjunction with xrhmãtvn. The whole sentence should be read as fol-lows: the ateleia “of all properties (of whatever kind) in all (without excep-tion) cities (commerical harbours) of the Bosporan state”.

The magnificent archaistic titles of Aspurgos in CIRB 39 and 40 include,together with basil°a m°gan inherited from Mithridates Eupator, politically im-portant allusions to the titles of the Spartokids: basileÊonta pantÚw BoospÒrouka‹ Yeodos¤hw (Ionic form!) ka‹ Sind«n ka‹ MaÛt«n ktl. (text of inscriptionNo. 40). A.N. Vasil’ev122 finds that what should be understood by the phrase“whole of the Bosporus” in the titles of Aspurgos is not quite the same as inthe Spartokid decrees but the totality of its European and Asian parts.123

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


the Spartokid decrees – in the concept “(the whole) Bosporus” is to be found in a decree fromTanais, published in the name of prÒedroi boul∞w. [Tanaeit«n t«n] katå BÒs[p]oron(Vinogradov 1995, 222 sq., from the time of Sauromates I; perhaps [ÉEmpor(e)it«n] ought to berestored).

124 Cf., moreover, despÒ[thn t∞]w ofikoum°nhw in Lines 2/3; along the same spirit, and keep-ing pace with his subjects, queen Dynamis calls the emperor Augustus “ruler of the whole earthand the whole sea” – (p)ãshw g∞w ka‹ [pãshw] yalãsshw ê[rx]onta CIRB 1046; the council andpeople of Hierapolis in Phrygia declare Trajanus to be “ruler of the earth, sea and the wholeof mankind” – g∞w ka‹ yalãsshw ka‹ pantÚw ¶ynouw ényr≈pvn, Harper 1968, 98.

125 Peoples, recently conquered or reduced to dependent vassal status, are referred to sepa-rately and denoted in a special way: king of “neighbouring peoples” – t«n p°rij §yn«n (CIRB54, 56, if not both categories of barbarians), Tauroskuy«[n] (1008); Ípotãjaw SkÊyaw ka‹TaÊrouw (39, 40); pol[e]mÆsaw d¢ ka‹ SiraxoÁw ka‹ SkÊyaw ka‹ tØn TaurikØn ÍpÒspondonla(b)≈n 1237; cf. Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 110: “Totaler Akk[usativ]”, ‘devincere’.

126 Cf. lines by Anacreon (Epigr. I Page), cited above (I, in relation to Lines 3/4) as a good

I should prefer to formulate this idea, which on the whole is correct, as fol-lows: the divided state of the territory of the Bosporan kingdom in itselfencouraged the use of the expression pçw BÒsporow, the immediate (but pure-ly verbal) source for which had, however, been §n pant‹ BospÒrvi in theancient decrees. Yet can there, despite this, be doubts that the word BÒsporowon its own signified one and the same thing?

Rheskuporis III was referred to as king toË sÊnpanto[w BospÒrou ka‹]Tauroskuy«[n] in inscription CIRB 1008, in 56 – toË [sÊmpantow Bo(o)s]pÒrouka‹ t«n p°rij §yn«n, and in the same way, but without toË sÊmpantow in 54.In inscription No. 1047 on the pedestal of the statue of Vespasian, the emper-or, in addition to his other titles is called k[Êri]on toË sÊmpantow BospÒrou.More or less the same idea is expressed in 48 in the words tÚ[n] eÈerg°[thnBos]porian«n p[Òlevw] – “benefactor of the state of the Bosporans”, on thepedestal of the statue of Hadrian (?) with slightly less servility.124

In contrast to the list of titles relating to Aspurgos, in these inscriptions theterms “Bosporus” and “state (pÒliw) of the Bosporans”, “all Bosporans” areused indeed to denote by now the whole of the Bosporan kingdom, whichincorporated the Bosporus strictly speaking, Theodosia and Tanais (cf. aboveand note 123), and the territories of the barbarian tribes.125 In a completely dif-ferent context, but with the same meaning, reference is made to “all the Bosporans”by the author of the epitaph to Ariston, who had valiantly “defended the wallsof his fatherland”: §n‹ mnÆm˙ [pãntvn B]ospor°vn ¶ss[ea]i é˝diow (CIRB133);126 in the “Bosporan land” (g∞ Bospor¤w) lay Pharnakes, a man from

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


example of hyperbaton: ÉAbdÆrvn proyanÒnta tÚn afinob¤hn ÉAgãyvna / pçsÉ §p‹ purkaÛ∞w ¥dÉ§bÒhse pÒliw; similarly in Simonides’ Epigr. LXXVII Page (AP VII, 302): . . . f¤loi ka‹ pÒliw¥de gÉ ˜lh; this topos was widely used in epitaphs for the sake of hyperbolization; see also CEG643

4, 686

3; CIRB 120 (Lus¤maxon mÊyoi[si] proshn°a pçsi pol¤taiw / ka‹ j(e)¤noiw . . . [⁄] ¶pi

pçw §leeinÚn §pestenãxhse yanÒnt[i]), IOSPE I2 482 (tÚn émemf°a pçsi pol¤taiw, Chersonesos)and Dovatur 1992, 213, the rubric “Beloved of all, lamented by all” (singled out in particularis the epigram GVI 1911, where the deceased is already being mourned over by ÑEllåw ëpasa).

Sinope, who had settled in the Bosporus (CIRB 129; cf. ga›a Kimmer¤h in SEGXXVI 849, see above, note 77); both inscriptions were found in Kerch, butthe reference is without doubt made not to Pantikapaion, but to the whole ofthe Bosporan kingdom (its citizens, resp. its territory). In another epitaph fromPantikapaion CIRB 134 dating from the 1st century AD: a certain Heliodoros“had been reared by Amastris . . ., but the Bosporus buried him after he died”;later there follows a statement as if made by the deceased: “I now have twohomelands (¶xv d¢ patr¤daw nËn dÊv): the former one, in which I grew up,and another – my present one, in which I shall remain”; here reference isbeing made to a state (polis) and not the town as such.

As we see, in the inscriptions of the Roman period (without counting thoseof Aspurgos) the expressions “Bosporus” (together with paraphrases) and “thewhole Bosporus” (pçw and its emphatic extension sÊmpaw) are synonyms.

In the epigram mentioned above (note 30) of king Kotys I (CIRB 958), heis referred to as “in possession of all sceptres (as many as there are)” of thePontic Achaeans (kEfinax¤vn sk∞ptrÉ §p°xontow ˜la) and this makes a splendidparallel for MaÛt«n pãntvn in the list of Pairisades’ I titles.

The decree from Dionysopolis (dating from c. 48 BC) in honour ofAkornion IGBulg I2 13

21 sqq.mentioned among other of his deserts, that he

§pitele› Íp¢r . . . toË basil°vw Burebista pr≈tou ka‹ m.[eg¤stou geg]onÒtow t«n§p‹ Yrñkhw basil°vn ka‹ pçsa[n tØn p°r]an toË potamoË (i.e. ÖIstrou) ka‹ tØn§p‹ tãde kateisxh[kÒtow] ktl.

It is in accordance with the nature of things that any whole consists of thesum of its component parts. Herodotus, when speaking of “the whole of Asiabeyond the Halys” for the first time (I, 103, 2), makes it clear, that this covers the very different lands and peoples of that region, united as a singlewhole by the Medes: “Cyaxares . . . is the one who united under his control(sustÆsaw •aut“) the whole of Asia beyond the River Halys”. BÒsporow as aname for the whole state of Leukon and Pairisades in the proxeny decrees orRhodes after synoecism consisted of a collection of towns, each of which pos-

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


127 Cf. Rostowzew 1993, 74, 85 sq. (but in Isocr. Trap. 3 there actually is reference toSopaios’ rule over lands which belong to Satyros himself, cf. the commentary by Vinogradov,ibidem 137, note 5).

128 For the text, see: Tokhtas’ev 2001, 157 sq.129 After Pairisades I, the dating formula, apart from two dedications dating from the time of

Pairisades II (CIRB 25; Belova 1984, 78 sq. = SEG XXXIV 755) appears in ‘truncated’ form(CIRB 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 974, 1036, 1043, 1044), and sometimes it is missing altogether:No. 13 (see: Belova 1970, 67, note 10), 14, 15 and 973, which date from the very end of the4th or the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Let us note, however, that the text of inscription 15consists of just the name of the deity with his epithet (“to Dionysos Areios”); on CIRB 973 see:Finogenova, Tokhtas’ev 2003, 88 (with bibliography): or the dedication of a foreigner toHerakles, or (according to W. Ameling) the epitaph of a man from Heraklea.

130 Cf. Finogenova, Tokhtas’ev 2003, 86 sq. (ÑHrakle¤daw ÑHrakle≈taw ÉAfrod¤thi, the timeof Leukon I); CIRB 17 and 22 (4th century BC). The dedication No. 16: Maniw ÑHrakle›, wasthe work of a foreigner (newcomer from the South Pontic region) or – to judge from the bar-barian name and the lack of a patronymic – that of a slave or freedman.

sessed a rural hinterland complete with estates and villages. The polis ofTegea, which possessed the valley in the basin of the River Alpheius, as lateas the 6th century BC, when the Catalogue of Women had been written, madeup a political entity comprising several villages. At the level of language,mainly in contexts requiring emphatic expressions, this is expressed throughformulae such as “the whole of the Bosporus”, “all Rhodians” and “all Tegea”.The situation pertaining to Sindike in the time of Hekataios and Leukon wassimilar. Here there were also large settlements and even towns, such as Labrysor Aborake, and, in addition, a considerable part of the lands was dividedbetween the king and the local nobility (it is likely that a similar situation hadexisted in the Bosporus of the Spartokids even before the barbarian regionshad been annexed).127 All this, summed up by the word pçsa, fell now toLeukon in his capacity as the supreme ruler of Sindike.

Dedicatory inscriptions on monumental pedestals of statues from the time ofLeukon I or Pairisades I contain a dating formula, made up from the name ofthe ruler and his titles in the genitivus absolutus, which usually takes up morethan half of the whole text (for the era of Leukon, see: CIRB 1111; VDI 1967:1, 61 sqq.; after the annexation of the barbarian tribes: the inscription ofTheopropides, CIRB 6a; Hyperboreus 1/2 (1994/1995) 135 sqq. = SEG XLV996; CIRB 6, 7,128 1037, 1038, 8, 1042 [cf. above, note 69]).129 In dedicationserected by foreigners there is no such formula;130 in keeping with this it is also missing from Bosporan proxeny decrees. It is perfectly clear that the

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


131 There are known precedents in the Greek world; cf., for example: §ranista‹ Di‹ Fil¤vién°yesan §pÉ ÑHghs¤ou êrxontow IG II2 2935 (324/3 BC) or the above-mentioned (see note 31)inscription from Ptoion: Simon¤da êrxontow toÇi h°roi toÇi Pto˝oi ÉAkrifieÇw én°yean. There is,however, a fundamental difference here (not to mention the fact that the first dedication was inthe name of ¶ranow, and the second in that of the citizens of the polis Akraiphia): the Bosporanarchon, unlike those of Athens or Akraiphia, was not an eponymous magistrate (despiteRostowzew 1993, 83; cf. the commentary by Vinogradov, in: Rostowzew 1993, 140, note 15.3),so the similarity turns out to be merely superficial.

132 The fact that there are no such monumental dedications in the name of the rulingSpartokids themselves, apart from the epigram of Leukon from Labrys, while a relatively largenumber of dedications in the name of his close relatives has been recorded, is mysterious.

133 There were, of course, people who willingly followed this line of the internal policy ofthe Spartokids and without instructions from above. Revealing in this respect is the inscriptionCIRB 113 (cf. note 30): the individual commissioning the inscription wished that the epitaphcarved on the pedestal of a sculpture of his father should include a poetic paraphrase of thesame formula, which served to date the erection of this monument over a grave. A uniquedegree of servility has been recorded in a graffito on a black-glaze dish from Myrmekion dat-ing from the time of Spartokos III (Gaidukevich 1966, 70 sqq.): ÑHra›ow én°yhken êrxontowSpardÒkou (sic); the votive object, not designated in any way for public display, was never-theless provided with a “date” via mention of the ruler (as in CIRB 18).

134 In the inscription CIRB 25 the words ka‹ Yat°vn in the titles of Pairisades I, separatedoff from the preceding ones basileÊontow Sind«n ka‹ MaÛt«n pãntvn by an empty space largeenough for 2-3 letters (see textus maiuscularis in IOSPE II 15 and Add. p. 291), were mostlikely to have been added later. Can we, however, interpret these as an indication that theannouncement concerning the conquest of the Thateis arrived precisely at the time when theinscription was being carved? Unfortunately, the inscription has long since gone missing andthere is no means of checking whether or not the vacat was simply the result of a defect onthe front surface of the stone.

significance of the formula did not actually lie in a need to date offeringsmade to the gods.131 This fact can only be explained by the existence of anofficial and apparently obligatory formula for texts, displayed by citizens ofthe Bosporus132 in public places, especially – in shrines of deities, whichenjoyed a state cult (here we have a vivid illustration of how far control overall forms of public life had developed in the Bosporus, the control that wastypical of Greek tyranny in general).133 Furthermore, the titles of the Bosporanrulers used to undergo corresponding modification, as soon as they acquirednew lands134 or – and this was most remarkable of all – even when they werelost. We now know that during the reign of Leukon innovations of an admin-istrative character were also reflected in his titles, more specifically change inthe status of tribal communities which had been incorporated into the state. (In

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


135 Cf. Tokhtas’ev 2001b, 161 sq., where it is suggested that the genesis of the titles of theSpartokids might have been subjected to Achaemenid influence. Incidentally, mobility of titlesof this kind had already been a normal phenomenon in Assyria (and Old Persian titles can betraced back – via Median ones – specifically to those used in Assyria).

136 See (in connection with the titles of the Spartokids in the 3rd century) the main ideas ofBelova on this subject (Belova 1984, 81).

137 Shkorpil 1917, 109.

this respect the array of titles used by the Spartokids is in step both with theAsiatic pomposity and with Greek rationalism.)135 Thus doubts should not beraised by the fact that the variations of Leukon’s titles displayed in inscrip-tions including Theopropides’ dedication and CIRB 6a reproduce adequatelythe officially announced formulae of state proclamations (khrÊgmata).136

The conclusion regarding some kind of special status enjoyed by the Sindoiin the initial period of their subordination to the Bosporus was based on thefact that in the inscription CIRB 6a the Sindoi, unlike the Toretai, the Dan-darioi or the Psessoi, were, to use Shkorpil’s expression, “placed on a par withthe Bosporus and Theodosia”,137 while in the later inscriptions they head thelist of the tribes ruled over by Leukon as king. This obviously indicates achange, and specifically a drop in their political status (“the final subordina-tion of Sindike” as formulated by Sokolova and Pavlichenko). In general thisreflects the legal demarcation of the archon’s powers and those of the kingand, accordingly, differentation between the political positions of the variouscommunities within the state. The people administrated by an archonhad obviously enjoyed the full range of civic rights, in so far as these hadbeen preserved by the tyrants, but the communities under royal power hadonly restricted rights.

The historical importance of the new inscription from Nymphaion lies, firstand foremost, in the fact that we find recorded in it in very definite terms theastonishing fact that the Greek poleis and the barbarian tribes living within asingle state enjoyed equal political rights. Only thanks to this inscription hasconfirmation been provided for the authenticity of the evidence presented inCIRB 6a, which had previously raised major doubts (for me, among others)regarding the Sindoi ruled over by Leukon as archon. As a result data gleanedfrom later inscriptions from the era of Leukon will present themselves to usin a new light.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


138 Rostovtsev 1918, 125; Werner 1955, 440; Tohtasjev 1986, 117, note 21; Tokhtas’ev1994a, 82. Cf. Tokhtas’ev 1992, 179 sq., note 4; Tohtasjev 1993, 178, note 3.

* * *

It is now time to sum up the results. The inscriptions now give us what is, in general, a fairly coherent picture of the last days of the kingdom ofSindike, of how it was transformed into a Bosporan province and also of how theBosporan state came to incorporate tribal formations from territory adjacent toSindike, which had been less developed both politically and socially.

According to the epigram from Labrys, Leukon came out in defence of thelegal power of Hekataios, king of Sindike, who had long been a vassal of theBosporus, when his own son rebelled against him. From the grammatical pointof view, the expression §gbãllvn érx∞w could mean that Oktamasades hadindeed already seized power, but at the same time it might also mean thatthere had merely been an attempt at seizing power (“. . . attempting to takepower from his father”). The latter interpretation would seem preferable, sincethe whole process of overthrowing Hekataios is reduced in the epigram toOktamasades’ attack against Labrys (perhaps, to his capture of the city aswell), which ended in his being routed by Leukon’s army and to Oktamasadeslater being ousted (“driven out”) from the confines of Sindike.

Hekataios succeeded in regaining (or holding on to) power once more, butit became still more ephemeral than before (if that were indeed possible:Satyros had already had him marry his daughter, after “ordering (éji≈saw)him to kill his previous wife”, i.e. Tirgatao, Polyaenus VIII, 55). Only Leukoncould now save him from an external enemy or, if there were a second attemptto usurp power by Oktamasades, who had in the meantime fled beyond the confines of Sindike. Leukon himself was by this time probably thinkingabout the easiest way to gain hold over Sindike once and for all, i.e. de iure.It can be assumed that it had been with a long-term view towards completingthe whole undertaking in this way that Leukon had come to Sindike. Howexactly power over Sindike was (or was being) transferred to Leukon, we donot know, but the fact that Leukon’s sister was (according to Polyaenus) mar-ried to Hekataios must have had some part to play in all of this and also thefact that Leukon’s brother Gorgippos had evidently also forged close links to Hekataios’ dynasty (this would explain why his daughter bore the barbarianname – Komosarye).138

Sokolova and Pavlichenko (p. 120) put forward in a most cautious form thesuggestion that Sindike became a possession of the Bosporus in full measure

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


139 A new absolute chronology for the coins of Sindoi was recently proposed by Frolova;Frolova 2002 (see also Frolova 2002a; Frolova 2004 [non vidi]) 73: “From the first half to thelast quarter of the 5th century BC”; 79: they “. . . were issued up until the end of the 5th centu-ry BC. Their issue began in the first half of the 5th century and perhaps even earlier”; 83: “Thebeginning of the issue of Sindian coins should be dated to the beginning of the first half of the5th century BC.” Later on: “. . . we can reckon that the emission of these coins . . . lasted untilthe end of the 5th century BC”; “. . . the beginning of the issue . . . [might be dated] to the firstdecades of the 5th century BC and it could be suggested that the issue continued in the secondhalf of the 5th century BC as well”; p. 84 (English summary): “The only place of their mint canonly be Pantikapaion, since the VI c. BC”. In addition to Frolova’s work it is essential to pointout the following articles: Stolba 1998, 601-611 and a more detailed examination: Stolba 2002,13-42. Stolba cites valuable information about the composition of the Eltigen hoard discoveredin 1908 (not mentioned by Frolova), which included silver coins of Sindoi, of Pantikapaion andalso coins with the legend SA, SAM, SAMMA, which he convincingly defines as minted in Nymphaion.Yet such scholars as Stolba (see: Stolba, forthcoming) and Zavoikin ( per litteras), rejectFrolova’s dating (or, better to say, datings) of the coins; Stolba dates their minting to 438/7-425 BC; cf. Stolba, 1997, 122 sq.

140 Attempts made from time to time to prove that the coins with the legend SINDVN didbelong not to the Sindoi, but to the Greek city Sindikos Limen (alias Sindikos or Sindike) orto an alliance of the Greek cities in Sindike, result from elementary linguistic ignorance (formore detail, see: Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 63-66; 75, note 13). The necessity to uphold as incon-testable facts of this kind (cf. also above, notes 12 and 31) testifies to the oppressive malaiseaffecting academic research in our country, which, as time goes on, is falling more and moreinto the hands of professional dilettantes.

141 Gajdukeviœ 1971, 71; Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 67 sq. See above, note 30, on the system ofpower among the Pontic Achaeans, the Zygoi and the Heniochoi (kings, subordinate to whomwere the ‘sceptre-holders’ who exercised direct power in the regions).

only after it had come under the jurisdiction of Leukon as king (see, abovefor the quotation) and, in this general form, this suggestion is, without doubt,correct. After all the Greek poleis, as well, enjoyed a certain degree of auton-omy when they were administered by Leukon as archon. Yet, it would seemthat even with the current range of sources we have at our disposal certaindata which enable us to progress a little further.

The legend on the Sindian coins during the first period of Hekataios’ ruleand that of his predecessors – SINDVN,139 bears witness to the fact that thecoins were being minted in the name of the people of Sindoi.140 What thisreally means, of course, is a tribal élite, which would have placed substantiallimitations on royal power and, during the time of Satyros, as the context ofPolyaenus would indicate (ibidem: toËton tÚn ÑEkata›on §kpesÒnta t∞wérx∞w . . .), even ousted Hekataios from the throne.141 The rebellion of Oktamasades

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


142 This means that the conjecture to the effect that Leukon had inherited the title of ‘king’together with his powers almost directly from Hekataios (Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 68) and then inexactly the same way from the rulers of the Toretai, Dandarioi and Psessoi was too hasty. Asimilar suggestion was made by Sokolova and Pavlichenko (for the quotations, see above), whohad not noticed that it was in contradiction to the data in the inscription they had published.

143 A pointer to the short-lived nature of Leukon’s liberal policy towards the Sindoi and otherbarbarians is provided by the fact that to this day only two inscriptions have been found, whichrecord this situation in the course of its development.

144 Cf. Latÿshev in IOSPE II, p. XXVI (= Latÿshev 1909, 84): “cum vero barbaras sibi sube-

would also hardly have been possible without active support from some sec-tion of that aristocracy. There is no doubt that Leukon had to reckon with thelocal aristocracy more than with the puppet king. Evidently, it is preciselywith reference to these circumstances that we need to explain why the Sindoi,to judge from Theopropides’ inscription and CIRB 6a, were initially ruled overby Leukon in his capacity as archon. It can be suggested that Sindike acceptedthe supreme power of the Bosporan state by treaty, which provided for the dis-bandment of royal power, while its powers, we can assume, were shared outto mutual advantage between the tribal aristocracy and Leukon, who had beengiven the title and prerogatives of “archon of (the whole of) Sindike”, whichprobably meant that he had been defined as primus inter pares.142

The other barbarians listed in Theopropides’ inscription would also havebeen meant to be incorporated into the Bosporan state on similar conditions.It is possible that at least some of them were only absorbed into the state afterlong and bitter resistance, only yielding to superior force in exchange for anagreement to the effect that they would be accorded a certain amount ofautonomy, i.e. as ÍpÒspondoi (and not dor¤kthtoi), as had evidently occurredpreviously in the case of Theodosia.

Admittedly, soon afterwards143 life itself convinced Leukon, that ruling bar-barians in the same way as the Greek poleis was not going to be possible (if,of course, he had illusions on that count in the beginning). This turning-pointis denoted in the inscription CIRB 6a: Sindike was still being ruled by Leukonin his capacity as archon, while the Toretai, Dandarioi and the Psessoi werebeing ruled by him in a hypostasis not known previously – basileÊw. Royalpower had been brought back to life. Yet, as regards both the term basileÊwand also that institution, we can hardly speak here of any real continuity (whatcould a ruler of a barbarian people be called other than a king, given that theexperiment with the rule of an archon had failed?).144

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


gissent gentes, earum basil°aw se dicebant, quippe quae iam antea regulis suis paruissent (utSindi Hecataeo etc.) et nomen ipsum archontis fortasse omnino ignorassent”.

145 Rostovtsev 1918, 91 sq. (hypothetically and only with reference to the Sindoi); moreextensively – in the drafts for Volume 2 of his “Skythien und der Bosporus” (Rostowzew 1993,79): earlier the Sindoi and other tribes in the Kuban region had allegedly been subjects of theScythian kings, who, like the Spartokids after them, were only supreme rulers. As might wellhave been assumed, Rostovtsev had in mind Socrates’ words recounted in Xen. Mem. II, 1, 10,on the subject of the Maiotai subordinate to the Scythians (see, however, above, note 97); Gajdukeviœ1971, 71 (on the contrary – had in mind other tribes from the Kuban region apart from theSindoi); cf. 85 sq., note 67.

146 CIRB 9 (the correct text of this inscription was established by Belova: Belova 1968, 43-53), 972, 1015.

147 For more detail, see: Desyatchikov 1977, 45-48 (with bibliography). It has recently

Finally in the inscriptions CIRB 6, 8, 1037, 1038 we find the Sindoi them-selves under the administration of a king. The triumphal ≤ SindikØ pçsa andeven the slightly simpler sounding SindikÆ (if we after all restore correctly thetoponym in CIRB 6a) are replaced by Sindo¤ devoid of any pathos, the desig-nation which placed the Sindoi on a par with other barbarians even at thelevel of bureaucratic usage. This is how the history of quasi-democracy for thetribes under Leukon came to an end and at the same time the process involvedin the formation of a Bosporan ‘territorial’ state.

Some scholars (writing, however, before the Theopropides’ inscription wasdiscovered) assumed that the barbarian tribes, incorporated into the Bosporusby Leukon and his successors, continued their direct rule over the petty kings,who had now been turned into vassals of the Bosporus.145 For confirmation ofthis Gaidukevich could only refer to Diodorus (XX, 22-23), who, in his des-cription of the civil war in the Bosporus after the death of Pairisades I, men-tions the king – allegedly of the Thateis – who bore the fine-sounding OldIranian name ÉArifãrnhw (*Aryafarnah- “mastering the Aryan farnah-”) as anally of Eumelos. These same Thateis, subdued by Pairisades I146 (or perhapsearlier during the seven-year reign of Spartokos II) later figure in the titles ofPairisades II (CIRB 25 and SEG XXXIV 755, cf. above, notes 93 and 129).Firstly, Yat°vn only appears in the text of Diodorus as an emendation ofAugust Boeckh (CIG II, p. 102) for the manuscript Yr&k«n (a distortion underthe influence of Yròkew, mentioned a little earlier (XX, 22, 4), where there istalk of Thracian mercenaries in the service of Satyros, brother of Eumelos);moreover, historically at least, equally likely is the correction Sirak«n and thatis preferable beyond any doubt from a palaeographic point of view.147

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


emerged that this conjecture was first put forward by I.A. Stempkovskii in 1825 (Tunkina 2002,381). On the mistaken rendering of the letter Y instead of CI (and vice versa) in the uncial let-ter (the reason for the distortion had already been recognized by Stempkovskii) see material inthe book: Wutz 1925, 21. There is further, albeit indirect, confirmation for the correction ofSirak«n. “Above Armenia [here – to the West of it], near the land of Guranioi and the Medes”,writes Strabo (XI, 14, 14), there dwell “animal-like people”, called the Sarapãrai, i.e.kefalotÒmoi, a calque from the corresponding Old Iranian word (de Lagarde 1866, 281;Szemerényi 1951, 214); this is a Thracian tribe: fas‹ d¢ ka‹ Yr&k«n tinaw . . . Sarapãraw. Theland, of which Strabo speaks, corresponds to Ptolemy’s SirakhnÆ (Geogr. V, 12, 9: “near themountain Paryadres”; that was what the land of the Sirakoi was called in the NorthernCaucasus: Strabo XI, 5, 2) and the region ∞irak referred to in Armenian sources. Meanwhile,according to data provided by Pliny (n. h. VI, 16), the neighbours of the Seraci (according tothe conjecture of Detlefsen; Serri mss.) living to the North of the Caucasus Mountains were theCephalotomi (Achaei, Mardi, Cercetae, post eos Seraci, Cephalotomi; or should be read SeraciCephalotomi?). Comparison of all these data (apart from the text of Ptolemy) led NikolaiAdonts (Adonts 1908, 424 sq., note 3) to the brilliant assumption that some of the Sirakoi couldhave resettled beyond the Caucasus at some stage and reached the borders of Media. It thenemerges that, as in the passage of interest to us in Diodorus, Strabo’s Yr&k«n must be a dis-tortion of Sirak«n (for some reason, however, Adonts does not mention this expressis verbis).It is astonishing that no-one other than Adonts noticed anything so utterly incongruous in theaccount of the Thracians on the border of Armenia and Media. Some curious attempts to dis-cover traces of Thracians in this region as early as in cuneiform sources of the IInd millenniumBC (Dzha[h]ukyan 1984, 11 sq.; Otkupshchikov 1988, 18 = Otkupshchikov 2001, 305 sq.) arenot worth discussing; and the thesis of W. Tomaschek regarding the resettling of the Thraciantribe of the Treres in Transcaucasia is baseless (see Tokhtas’ev 1997, 109-113).

148 Tokhtas’ev 2002, 10-17.

Secondly, even if Boeckh’s conjecture were to be accepted, nothing wouldprevent us from suggesting that the Thateis might have acquired their inde-pendence at least for a time, thus renewing their royal power (the death ofPairisades I and the intestine war which followed soon after it would haveseemed the most auspicious moment) and – during the reign of Pairisades IIor a few earlier – losing it again. As everybody knows, in the 4th-3rd centuriesthe barbarian tribes subdued by the Bosporus were constantly breaking awayfrom it (see, below).

The fact that Strabo’s phrase (XI, 2, 10): “in Sindike is also to be foundGorgippia, royal capital of the Sindoi” (¶sti d¢ ka‹ Gorgipp¤a §n tª Sindikª, tÚd¢ bas¤leion t«n Sind«n) cannot serve as a basis for conjectures regardingthe retention by the Sindoi of their royal power in the era of the Spartokids,is demonstrated elsewhere.148

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


149 F. Lasserre (1975) without any foundation or for no apparent reason changes the manu-script tot°, accepted in all editions of Strabo, to tÒte – “then”, i.e., according to his commen-tary, allegedly “during the rule of the Archeanaktids . . . and the first Spartokids”.

150 Yailenko 1987, 25, No. 18.

It is highly unlikely that we should be in error, if we were to suggest thatthe lowering of the status of barbarian tribes became the direct consequenceof their rebellions against the central power, after the suppression of whichthey were deprived of their initial rights. According to Strabo (XI, 2, 11), firstsome then other ‘Maiotian’ tribes ruled over by the Bosporan state secededfrom it from time to time (tot¢ dÉ éf¤stanto êllotÉ êlloi).149 This is con-firmed by inscriptions: in the title of Pairisades I, Leukon’s son and succes-sor, the Psessoi are not mentioned, while it appears that the Dandarioi arementioned in only one inscription of that time (CIRB 1014; perhaps in 1042as well). The Toretai, who had been absorbed into the Bosporan state byLeukon, figure in the titles of Pairisades I in CIRB 1014 and 1042, but in No.972 they are no longer present. As can be seen from CIRB 25, during the timeof Pairisades II the Doschoi were no longer subjects of the Bosporus, whowould appear to have been subdued during the reign of Pairisades I (CIRB972). Inscription CIRB 8 gives us reason to believe, that attempts to cede fromthe Bosporan state were being undertaken even during the reign of Leukon; inLine 3 of the inscription Boltunova restored the following: ka‹ basileÊontowSind«[n ka‹ MaÛt«n pãntvn] (accepted in CIRB), but parallels for such a for-mula are only to be found in inscriptions from the reign of Pairisades I (more-over clearly not from the first years of that reign) and for this reason Yailenkosensibly suggested that it should be restored as follows: Sind«[n Toret°vnDandar¤vn].150 At any rate it is clear that here one of the three names of tribeswas missing, which are listed in the titles of Leukon after the word Sind«n inCIRB 6, 1037, 1038. Bearing in mind the maximum size of the gap, the usualorder for the list of ethnonyms and also the orientation towards the titles ofPairisades I in CIRB 1014 (Sind«n ka‹ Toret«n ka‹ Dandar¤vn), what is mostlikely would appear to be that in the last years of Leukon’s reign the Psessoihad succeeded in breaking away from his rule.

Thanks to the inscriptions from Labrys and Nymphaion it is becoming eas-ier to understand than previously, why the tradition perserved by Aelian (v. h.VI. 13) referred to the rulers of the pre-Mithridatic Bosporus as the Leukonids,pushing Spartokos, the true founder of the dynasty into the shadows, and whyLeukon became a figure of quasi-folkloric literature, from which Polyaenus

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


151 SVF II fr. 691, 692 coll. Dio Chrys. II. 77, cf. Rostowzew 1931, 112.

gleaned material for his Strategemata, while one of the pillars of the AncientStoa, Chrysippus,151 even numbered Leukon among those kings who deservedto have true wise men dwelling at their court.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adonts, N. 1908: Armeniya v épokhu Yustiniana (St. Petersburg).Avram, A., Hind, J., Tsetskhladze, G. 2004: The Black Sea Area. In M.H. Hansen, Th.H.

Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 924-973.Belova, N.S. 1954: Politicheskoe polozhenie bosporskikh gorodov v 4 v. do n. é. (unpubl. diss.,

Moscow, Leningrad).Belova, N.S. 1967: Novaya nadpis’ iz Germonassÿ. VDI 1, 61-68.Belova, N.S. 1968: K nadpisi IOSPE II 8. SA 3, 43-53.Belova, N.S. 1970: Posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Kep. VDI 2, 62-72.Belova, N.S. 1984: Novaya nadpis’ iz Germonassÿ i nekotorÿe zamechaniya o lapidarnoi épi-

grafike Bospora III v. do n. é. VDI 2, 78-86.Bengtson, H. (ed.) 1975: Staatsverträge des Altertums II2 (München).Bernand, A. 1970: Le Delta Égyptien d’après les textes grecques I (Le Caire).Blavatskaya, T.V. 1993: Posvyashchenie Levkona. RA 2, 34-48.Boltunova, A.I. 1973: Nadgrobnaya épigramma Dindiana. Studii clasice 15, 122-130.Bosi, F. 1984: Polis ed emporio nella colonizzazione greco-pontica. Sciti, Sarmati e Greci alle

foci del Don. Rendiconti della Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell’Acca-demia dei Lincei 39, 79-99.

Bresson, A. 2000: La cité marchande (Bordeaux).Counillon, P. 2004: Pseudo-Skylax: Le Périple du Pont-Euxin. Texte, traduction, commentaire

philologique et historique (Bordeaux).Desyatchikov, Yu.M. 1977: Arifarn, tsar’ sirakov. In M.M. Kobÿlina (ed.), Istoriya i kul’tura

antichnogo mira (Moscow), 45-48.Diller, A. 1952: The Tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers (Lancaster).Dovatur, A.I. 1992: Materialÿ dlya indeksa k GVI (Peek). In A.K. Gavrilov et alii (eds.),

Étyudÿ po antichnoi istorii i kul’ture Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (St. Petersburg), 203-218.

Dubois, L. 1996: Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (Genève).Dumberg, K.E. 1901: Raskopka kurganov na Zubovskom khutore. IAK 1, 94-103.Dzha[h]ukyan, G.B. 1984: Frakiitsÿ v Armenii. Antichnaya balkanistika. Predvaritel’nÿe mate-

rialÿ k mezhdunarodnomu simpoziumu (Moscow), 11-12.Ebert, J. 1996: Das Grabepigramm für den Hopliten Pollis. ZPE 112, 66.Ebert, J. 1996a: Neue griechische historische Epigramme. In J. H.M. Strubbe, R.A. Tybout, H.S.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Versnel (eds.), ENERGEIA. Studies on Ancient History and Epigraphy Presented to H.W.Pleket (Amsterdam), 19-33.

Fabre, P. 1965: La date de la rédaction du Périple de Scylax. Etudes classiques 33, 353-366.Finogenova, S.I., Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2003: Novÿe dannÿe o kul’te Afroditÿ v Germonasse. Hyperboreus

9/1, 83-88.Fornasier, J. 2001: Tanais in hellenistischer Zeit – ein Bestandteil des Bosporanischen Reiches?

In M.Yu. Vakhtina et alii (eds.), Bosporskii fenomen. Kolonizatsiya regiona, formirovaniepolisov, obrazovanie gosudarstva 1 (St. Petersburg), 91-95.

Frolova, N.A. 2002: Korpus monet Sindov. VDI 3, 71-84.Frolova, N.A. 2002a: Corpus of the Sindian Coins (First Half of the 5th – Late 5th Century

B.C.). ACSS 8, 211-235.Frolova, N.A. 2004: Die frühe Münzprägung vom Kimmerischen Bosporos (Mitte 6. bis Anfang

4. Jh. v Chr.). Die Münzen der Städte Pantikapaion, Theodosia, Nymphaion undPhanagoria sowie der Sinder (Berlin).

Gaidukevich, V.F. 1966: Votiv Gereya iz Mirmekiya. In A.I. Boltunova (ed.), Kul’turaantichnogo mira (Moscow), 70-76.

Gajdukeviœ [Gaidukevich], V.F. 1971: Das Bosporanische Reich (Berlin, Amsterdam).Galanina, L.K., Alekseev, A.Yu. 1990: Novÿe materialÿ k istorii Zakuban’ya v skifskoe vre-

mya. In Arkheologicheskii sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Érmitazha 30, 34-54.Gorlov, Yu.V. 1986: K istorii Fanagorii 4 v. do n. é. In G.A. Koshelenko (ed.), Problemÿ

antichnoi kul’turÿ (Moscow), 135-137.Graham, A.J. 2002: Thasos and the Bosporan Kingdom. Ancient East & West 1/1 (2002),

87-100.Grakov, B.N. 1929: Drevnegrecheskie keramicheskie kleima s imenami astinomov (Moscow).Gschnitzer, F. 1974: Proxenos. RE Suppl. XIII, 629-730.Harper, R.P. 1968: Tituli Comanorum Cappadociae. AnSt 18, 93-147.Havers, W. 1922: Zur ‘Spaltung’ des Genetivs im Griechischen. Indogermanische Forschungen

31.Heinen, H. 1996: Statues de Pairisadès I et de ses fils érigées sur proposition de Démosthène

(Dinarque, Contre Démosthène 43). In P. Carlier (ed.), Le IVe siècle av. J.-C. Approcheshistoriographiques (Nancy), 357-368.

Heinen, H. 1996: Zwei Briefe des bosporanischen Königs Aspurgos. ZPE 124, 133-142.Heinen, H. 1998: Fehldeutungen der énãbasiw und der Politik des bosporanischen Königs Aspurgos.

Hyperboreus 4/2, 340-361.Herrmann, P. 1996: Mystenvereine in Sardeis. Chiron 26, 315-341.Hüttl, W. 1929: Verfassungsgeschichte von Syrakus (Prag).Janko, R. 1992: The Iliad: A Commentary, ed. by G.S. Kirk. Vol. IV: Books 13-16

(Cambridge).Kallenberg, H. 1890: Der Artikel bei Namen von Ländern, Städten und Meeren in der griechis-

chen Prosa. Philologus 49 (N.F. 3), 515-547.Karÿshkovskii, P.O., Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1976: Ol’viiskii dekret Kanoba o den’gakh i stoimost’

monetnÿkh metallov na Ponte v 4 v. do n. é. VDI 4, 20-42.Kastanayan, E.G. 1987: Nadgrobnaya nadpis’ iz Porfmiya. VDI 2, 85-87.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Kleist, J.A. 1925: On the Intensive Force of pçw in Ancient Greek. Proceedings of ClassicalAssociation Middle West & South (Chicago), 48-55.

Kocewalow, A. 1935: Syntaxis inscriptionum antiquarum coloniarum Graecarum orae septen-trionalis Ponti Euxini (Eus Suppl. 12, Leopoli).

Kruglikova, I.T. 1975: Sel’skoe khozyaistvo Bospora (Moscow).Kudryavtsev, O.V. 1949: Rev. Gaidukevich V.F. Bosporskoe tsarstvo (Moscow, Leningrad,

1949). VDI 4, 158-162.Kühner, R., Gerth, B. 1955: Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache I3 (Nachdr.

Leverkusen).Lagarde, P.A. de 1866: Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Leipzig).Langer, M.-T. 1980: Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées (Bruxelles).Lasserre, F. (ed.) 1975: Strabon. Géographie. T. VIII (Livre XI). Texte établi et traduit par

F. Lasserre (Paris).Latÿshev, V.V. 1909: Pontikã (St. Petersburg).Levinskaya, I.A., Tokhtasiev, S.R. 2005: Iz noveishei istorii bosporskoi épigrafiki. VDI 4, 179-

198.Lewis, D.M. 1988: The Last Inventories of the Treasurers of Athena, In D. Knoepfler (ed.),

Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque. Actes du colloque . . . en l’honneur deJacques Tréheux (Neuchâtel – Genève), 297-308.

Marcotte, D. (ed.) 2000: Les géographes grecs. I. Introduction générale. Pseudo-Scymnos:Circuit de la terre. Texte établi et traduit par D. Marcotte (Paris).

Medvedev, I.P. (ed.) 1999: Rukopisnoe nasledie russkikh vizantinistov (St. Petersburg).Osborne, M.J. 1981: Naturalization in Athens [I] (Brussels).Otkupshchikov, Yu.V. 1988: Balto-Thracica. Linguistique Balkanique XXXI/1-2, 15-19.Otkupshchikov, Yu.V. 2001: Ocherki po étimologii (St. Petersburg).Robert, L. 1937: Études anatoliennes (Paris).Robert, L. 1989: Opera minora selecta V (Amsterdam).Rosén, H. 1962: Eine Laut- und Formenlehre des herodoteischen Sprachform (Heidelberg).Rostovtsev, M.I. 1918: Éllinstvo i iranstvo na Yuge Rossii (Petrograd).Rostovtsev, M.I. 1925: Skifiya i Bospor I (Petrograd).Rostowzew, M. 1931: Skythien und der Bosporus I (Berlin).Rostowzew, M. 1993: Skythien und der Bosporus II. Wiederentdeckte Kapitel und Verwandtes.

Übers. und hrsg. von H. Heinen. Historia Einzelschriften 83 (Stuttgart).Rusjaeva, A.S., Vinogradov, Ju.G. 2000: Apollon Ietros, Herrscher von Istros. In A. Avram,

M. Babe¤ (eds.), Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques périphériques. Hommage à PetreAlexandrescu à son 70e anniversaire (Bucarest), 229-238.

Schaefer, A. 1878: Volksbeschluß zu Ehren der Söhne Leukons von Bosporos. RheinischesMuseum 33.

Schwyzer, Ed., Debrunner, A. 1950: Griechische Grammatik II (München).Shelov, D.B. 1972: Tanais i Nizhnii Don v pervÿe veka n. é. (Moscow).Shelov-Kovedyaev, F.V. 1985: Istoriya Bospora v 5-4 vv. do n. é. In A.P. Novosel’tsev (ed.),

Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. 1984 (Moscow), 5-187.Shelov-Kovedyaev, F.V. 1985a: Novÿe bosporskie dekretÿ. VDI 1, 57-72.Shkorpil, V.V. 1917: Novonaidennÿe bosporskie nadpisi. IAK 63, 109-121.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Shonov, I.V. 2002: O monetnoi chekanke Feodosii poslednei chetverti 5 – nachala 4 vv. do n. é. Bosporskie issledovaniya II (Simferopol’), 327-332.

Smirnova, N.V. 2001: Namestniki Gorgippii. Drevnosti Bospora 4, 350-363.Sokolova, O.Yu. 2001: Novaya nadpis’ iz Nimfeya. Drevnosti Bospora 4, 368-376.Sokolova, O.Yu., Pavlichenko, N.A. 2002: Novaya posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Nimfeya.

Hyperboreus 8/1, 99-121.Stolba, V.F. 1989: Bosporskie monetÿ s nadpis’yu YEODEV – YEODEO. Problemÿ skifo-sar-

matskoi archeologii Prichernomor’ya (Abstracts) (Zaporozh’e), 147-148.Stolba, V.F. 1997: Die autonomen Prägungen vom Bosporos im 5.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. und

die Spartokiden. XIIth International Numismatic Congress. Abstract of Papers (Berlin),122-123.

Stolba, V.F. 1998: SAMMAS. Zur Prägung eines bosporanischen Tyrannen. In U. Peter (ed.),Stephanos nomismatikos. FS Edith Schönert-Geiss (Berlin), 601-611.

Stolba, V.F. 2002: Problemÿ numizmatiki Nimfeya. Hyperboreus 8/1, 13-42.Stolba, V.F. (forthcoming): Review of Frolova 2004.Szemerényi, O. 1951: Iranica. ZDMG 101, 197-219.Thesleff, H. 1954: Studies on the Intensification in Early and Classical Greek (Helsingfors).Thumb, A., Scherer, A. 1959: Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Heidelberg).Tohtasjev [Tokhtas’ev], S.R. 1986: Zur Herkunft der bosporanischen Spartokiden. Pulpudeva 5,

113-121.Tohtasjev [Tokhtas’ev], S.R. 1993: Thrakische Personennamen am kimmerischen Bosporos.

Pulpudeva 6, 178-188.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1986: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. I: PATOUS, PATRASUS,

PATRAEUS. In É.D. Frolov et alii (eds.), Problemÿ antichnogo istochnikovedeniya (Leningrad),69-87.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1992: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. II: Frakiiskie imena naBospore. In A.K. Gavrilov et alii (eds.), Étyudÿ po antichnoi istorii i kul’ture SevernogoPrichernomor’ya (St. Petersburg), 178-199.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1994: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. III-I. Hyperboreus 1/1, 155-166.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1994a: Votiv tsaritsÿ Komosarii. Peterburgskii arkheologicheskii vestnik 8, 80-83.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1997: Zum Volksnamen “Treren”. Actes [du] 2e Symposium international desétudes thraciennes ‘Thrace ancienne’ I (Komotini), 109-113.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1998: K chteniyu i interpretatsii posvyatitel’noi nadpisi Levkona I sSemibratnego gorodishcha. Hyperboreus 4/2, 286-301.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1998a: Drevneishie svidetel’stva slavyanskogo yazÿka na Balkanakh. In A.V.Desnitskaya, N.I. Tolstoi (eds.), Osnovÿ balkanskogo yazÿkoznaniya II: Slavyanskie yazÿki(St. Petersburg), 29-57.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1999: Review: Dubois 1996. Hyperboreus 5/1, 164-192.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2000: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. X-XVII. Hyperboreus 6/1,

124-156.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2001: Épigraficheskie zametki. Khersonesskii sbornik 11, ANAXARSIS.

Pamyati Yu.G. Vinogradova (Sevastopol’), 155-168.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2001a: Eshche raz o sindskikh monetakh i Sindskom tsarstve. In M.Yu.Vakhtina et alii (eds.), Bosporskii fenomen. Kolonizatsiya regiona, formirovanie polisov,obrazovanie gosudarstva 1 (St. Petersburg), 63-79.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2001b: Proiskhozhdenie titulaturÿ Spartokidov. In V.N. Zin’ko (ed.), BosporKimmeriiskii i Pont v period antichnosti i Srednevekov’ya: Materialÿ II Bosporskikh cht-enii (Kerch), 161-162.

Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2002: Sindikã. Tamanskaya starina 4, 10-32.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2002a: Ostrakon s poseleniya ol’viiskoi khorÿ Kozÿrka-XII. Hyperboreus 8/1,

72-98.Tokhtas’ev, S. R. 2005: Epigraphical notes. ACSS 11/1-2, 3-40.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2005a: Problema skifskogo yazÿka v sovremennoi nauke. In V. Cojocaru (ed.),

Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from the GreekColonization to the Ottoman Conquest (Ia¤i), 59-108.

Tsekhmistrenko, V.I. 1960: Sinopskie keramicheskie kleima s imenami goncharnÿkh masterov.SA 3, 59-77.

Tunkina, I.V. 2002: Russkaya nauka o klassicheskikh drevnostyakh Yuga Rossii (XVIII – sere-dina XIX v.) (St. Petersburg).

Vasil’ev, A.N. 1985: Bosporskie nadpisi kak istoricheskii istochnik. Vspomogatel’nÿe istorich-eskie distsiplinÿ 17, 289-297.

Vinogradov, Yu.A., Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1998: Novÿe posvyatitel’nÿe graffiti iz Mirmekiya. Hyperboreus 4/1, 22-47.

Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1980: Die historische Entwicklung der Poleis des nördlichen Schwarzmeer-küste im 5. Jh. v.Chr. Chiron 10, 63-100.

Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1983: Polis v Severnom Prichernomor’e. In E.S. Golubtsova et alii (eds.),Antichnaya Gretsiya I (Moscow), 366-420.

Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1995: Arsen’eva, T.M., Bötter, B., Vinogradov, Ju.G.: Die Ausgrabungen inTanais 1994. Eurasia antiqua 1, 213-263.

Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1997: Pontische Studien (Mainz).Vinogradov, Yu.G. 2002: Levkon, Gekatei, Oktamasad i Gorgipp. VDI 2, 3-22.Vinogradov, Ju.G., Wörrle, M. 1992: Die Söldner von Phanagoreia. Chiron 22, 159-170.Vinogradov, Yu.G., Tolstikov, V.P., Shelov-Kovedyaev, F.V. 2002: Novÿe dekretÿ Levkona I,

Perisada i Evmela iz Pantikapeya. VDI 4, 58-75.Vlasova, E.V. 1994/1995: Fragment posvyatitel’noi nadpisi iz Nimfeya. Hyperboreus 1/1,

135-139.Wackernagel, J. 1953: Kleine Schriften (Göttingen).Werner, R. 1955: Die Dynastie der Spartokiden. Historia 4, 412-444.Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1893: Aristoteles und Athen II (Berlin).Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1913: Sappho und Simonides (Berlin).Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1920: Platon I (Berlin).Wutz, F. 1925: Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus I (Stuttgart).Yailenko, V.P. 1980: Graffiti Levki, Berezani i Ol’vii. VDI 2, 72-99.Yailenko, V.P. 1980a: Graffiti Levki, Berezani i Ol’vii. VDI 3, 75-116.Yailenko, V.P. 1984: K proksenicheskoi deyatel’nosti Ol’vii i Bospora. In L.A. Gindin (ed.),

Étnogenez narodov Balkan i Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow), 210-223.

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


Yailenko, V.P. 1987: Materialÿ po bosporskoi épigrafike. In A.I. Pavlovskaya (ed.), Nadpisi i yazÿki drevnei Maloi Azii, Kipra i antichnogo Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow), 4-201.

Yailenko, V.P. 1990: Ol’viya i Bospor v éllinisticheskii period. In G.A. Koshelenko et alii(eds.), Éllinizm: Ékonomika, politika, kul’tura (Moscow), 249-309.

Yailenko, V.P. 2001: Vtoraya fanagoriiskaya prokseniya. Drevnosti Bospora 4, 474-486.Zavoikin, A.A. 2001: “Bosporskii fenomen” ili psevdo-éllinizm na Bospore. Drevnosti Bospora

4, 150-181.Zavoikin , A.A. 2004: Fanagoriya vo vtoroi polovine V – nachale IV v. do n. é. Drevnosti

Bospora. Suppl. I (Moscow).Zgusta, L. 1964: Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prag).

Abbreviations

AA Archäologischer Anzeiger. Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts (Berlin).

ACSS Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. An International Journalof Comparative Studies in History and Archaeology (Leiden, Boston, Köln).

AnSt Anatolian Studies (London).Bechtel, HP F. Bechtel, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur

Kaiserzeit (Halle 1917).Bull.ép. Bulletin épigraphique, Revue des études grecques (Paris).CEG Carmina epigraphica Graeca. Ed. P.A. Hansen (Berlin, New York,

1983-)CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Ed. A. Boeckh (Berlin, 1825-1877).CIRB Corpus inscriptionum Regni Bosporani (Moscow, Leningrad, 1965).FGrHist F. Jacoby. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Bd. I-III

(Leiden 1923-).GVI W. Peek. Griechische Vers-Inschriften I (Berlin 1955).I.Delos Inscriptions de Délos. Ed. F. Durrbach (Paris, 1926-1937).I.Ephesos H. Wankel, R. Merkelbach et alii. Die Inschriften von Ephesos, I-VII

(IGSK Band 11-17; Bonn, 1979-1981).I.Erythrai H. Engelmann, R. Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und

Klazomenai, I-II (IGSK Band 1-2; Bonn, 1972-1973).I.Smyrna G. Petzl. Die Inschriften von Smyrna, I-II 1/2 (IGSK Band 23-24 1/2;

Bonn, 1982-1990).IAK Izvestiya Imperatorskoi Arkheologicheskoi Komissii (St. Petersburg,

Petrograd).IC M. Guarducci. Inscriptiones Creticae (Rome, 1935-1950).IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1873-).IGBulg G. Mihailov. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (Sofia, 1956-1966).

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM


IGSK Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (Bonn 1972-).IOSPE V. Latÿshev. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Pontis Euxini

Graecae et Latinae (Petropoli, 1885-1916).LSAG2 L. H. Jeffery. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece; revised edition with a

supplement by A.W. Johnston (Oxford, 1990).Milet Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899; ed.

T. Wiegand (Berlin 1908-); Inschriften von Milet, Teil 1: A. Inschriften n. 187-406 (Nachdruck aus den Bänden I 5-II 3), ed. A. Rehm, H. Dessau;B. Nachträge und Übersetzungen zu den Inschriften n. 1-406, P. Herrmann(Berlin, New York, 1997); Teil 2: Inschriften n. 407-1019, ed. P. Herrmann(Berlin, New York 1998).

RA Rossiiskaya arkheologiya (Moscow).RE Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. A. Pauly, G.

Wissowa, W. Kroll. Neue Bearbeitung (Stuttgart, München, 1894-1978).SA Sovetskaya arkheologiya (Moscow, Leningrad).SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden, Amsterdam 1923 -).SGDI Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften (Göttingen 1884-1915).SVF Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Ed. H. von Arnim (Leipzig 1902-1925).Syll3 W. Dittenberger. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed. (Leipzig 1915-

1924).VDI Vestnik drevnei istorii (Moscow).ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig, Wiesbaden).ZOOID Zapiski Odesskogo Obshchestva istorii i drevnostei (Odessa).ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (Bonn).

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM

tokhtasev, s.r. bosporus_and the sindike in the era of leukon i

Documents