David Braund, S D Kryzhitskiy - Classical Olbia and The Scythian World - From The Sixth Century BC To The Second Century AD (2008) PDF

00 Prelims 1525 28/9/07 12:22 Page v
Foreword
This volume collects the work of scholars in the UK and Ukraine who are
concerned with the ancient history and archaeology of the north coast of
the Black Sea, embracing both the Scythian and the classical worlds. In
the Ukraine this has been a subject of high priority for some two cen-
turies of intensive research and excavation. A whole wealth of issues and
data has been uncovered and studied — on ‘Great Scythia’, on the Late
Scythian peoples of the lower Dnieper region and Crimea, and also on
the Sarmatians and others besides. Major strides have been taken in the
advance of our knowledge of the classical cities of the region, such as
Tyras, Chersonesus, Kerkinitis, Kalos Limen, and the Bosporan cities,
among others. In all this work pride of place has been held by Olbia, not
only the city itself but also its civic territory and the island of Berezan,
which was in antiquity a peninsula. The study of Olbia has always been
set apart through the outstanding results of its excavations and the splen-
dour of individual finds there. Unfortunately, for the most part, the
English-speaking reader has been denied systematic contact with this
work for a series of reasons, not least the language barrier, since discov-
eries were published in Russian and Ukrainian. The present volume offers
the opportunity to engage with some of the most pressing current issues
in this field.
P. P. TOLOCHKO
Director of the Institute of Archaeology,
National Academy of Sciences,
Kiev, Ukraine
00 Prelims 1525 28/9/07 12:22 Page vi
00a Introduction 1525 28/9/07 12:24 Page 1
Introduction
DAVID BRAUND
THE ORIGINS OF THIS BOOK lie in a snowy Ukraine, where the British
Academy supported a small conference in November 2001 in collaboration
with the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of the Ukraine.
Papers were read by Ukrainian and British colleagues in Kiev, with a mem-
orable expedition to Poltava and the remarkable site of Bel’sk. However,
while the authors of the chapters in this book were among those who
participated in the conference, the chapters themselves have come a long way
indeed since the meeting itself. In particular, whereas the conference
embraced a wide range of topics and themes from antiquity, this book has a
sharp focus on the interaction of the city of Olbia and the population around
it, conveniently and conventionally included within the general term
‘Scythians’. However, while the theme and geographical scope have nar-
rowed, the chronological framework remains expansive, from the emergence
of Olbia c.600 BC to its local situation under the early Roman empire.
As is usual, in history and archaeology, there is much about Olbia and
its relations with its neighbours which remains controversial. The editors
have made no attempt to iron out or expunge differences of interpreta-
tion, either between chapters within the book or between these chapters
and other accounts and views to be found elsewhere. On the contrary, the
more controversial matters are flagged within the book and/or brought
out more explicitly here.
The most significant divergences concern the literary and archaeolog-
ical sources. As for the interpretation of archaeological data, handmade
pottery and dwelling-type have for some time been a principal bone of
contention. While some have sought to make large inferences from this
material (especially about the ethnicity of those who produced the
pottery or inhabited the dwellings), others have stressed the importance
of the fact that settlers had to adapt to and cope with a challenging
new environment. Berezan — which is now an island, but was in antiq-
uity almost certainly a peninsula — has become a specific focus for this
Proceedings of the British Academy 142, 1–6. © The British Academy 2007.
2 David Braund
particular debate. Meanwhile, as for the literary material, Herodotus

stands out, not only as relatively early and substantial, but also as the
subject of a particularly diverse set of interpretations. At its most
extreme, while some scholars have taken his statements on the region to
be uncomplicated fact, others have insisted that he did not go there at all
and/or that his account of the region is more or less fictional. More often,
scholars concerned with Olbia look hard for some kind of middle ground,
where, for example, text and archaeology can be set beside each other.
Here too, however, the pursuit of ‘reality’ has tended to bring its own
problems of method: we are left to plump for our own notions of what
sort of reality (indeed, whose reality) is envisaged.
These central issues dominate the early chapters of this book. In the
first of his two chapters, S. D. Kryzhitskiy sets out in broad terms the
progress of archaeology at Olbia, as one generation of scholars pursued
their own work and then passed the baton to their successors, often their
students. This sketch is of particular value in charting the main direc-
tions of the work at a site which has produced a wealth of data which
can bewilder by its sheer quantity, diversity, and, at times, difficulty of
access. In that spirit, it may also be read as a prelude to the compen-
dious volume recently published in a very small print run by the current
team of archaeologists at the site.1 Rather by contrast, in his second
chapter, Kryzhitskiy moves from his account of steady progress to
address key points of dispute, tackling head on the knotty central issue
of criteria. If we wish to identify non-Greeks in early Olbia, what kind
of criteria could we use, he asks. More concretely, what kind of criteria
have been brought to bear? Are they valid? Here Kryzhitskiy’s perspec-
tive contrasts sharply with the arguments of K. K. Marchenko and oth-
ers, who have sought to implement criteria which he finds misleading or
unhelpful.
While Kryzhitskiy centres his considerations upon Olbia itself, S. B.
Buyskikh pursues a related line of argument with regard to a substantial
portion of Olbia’s environs, considering Greek and non-Greek interac-
tions on the lower Bug. Here he is especially concerned with the issue as
part of the larger discussion on colonial settlement and the nature of
dealings between Greek settlers and others. He pays particular attention
to handmade pottery and dwelling-type, which — as Kryzhitskiy discusses
at Olbia — have been taken to be clear signs of non-Greek presence. His
1
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, in Russian. Note also Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, now a little out
of date. See also Kryzhitskiy 2005.
Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

INTRODUCTION 3
specific concern is a recent account and interpretation of the archaeology

of Berezan, which he takes to present a wholly misguided conception of
a site which was clearly fundamental to the beginnings of Olbia and was
probably the Olbiopolitans’ emporion as mentioned by Herodotus.2 In the
light of the arguments of Kryzhitskiy and Buyskikh, much more critical
attention will have to be given to the archaeological basis for claims about
our knowledge of non-Greek activity in early Olbia and its environs.
Herodotus’ Histories have as a whole been a topic of particularly
lively research and disputation in the past few decades. The next two
chapters in this book present, inter alia, two quite different conceptions
of Herodotus’ account of Olbia and its environs, which may not be rec-
oncilable. For David Braund, Herodotus’ presentation of the region is
strikingly accurate within the norms of the geography and cultural inter-
actions of the later fifth century BC when the work was completed. He
stresses that Herodotus’ account of the region (e.g. about its cults) coin-
cides with the evidence of archaeology and epigraphy. At the same time,
he finds nothing in Herodotus’ account which raises substantial doubts
about the quality of his information (wherever and however acquired) or
about whether he personally visited the region. After all, at around the
time when Herodotus saw Olbia, the city was probably already an ally of
the Athenians. Pericles himself had probably visited the city in the early
430s, some ten years before Herodotus completed his work.3 The lack of
any detailed account of the city of Olbia itself is, on Braund’s view,
entirely consonant with Herodotus’ larger concern in Book Four to
sketch Scythia, Scythians, and so-called ‘Scythians’ against whom Darius
mounts an unwise campaign which will fail and show the way to the
Persian failure in Greece.
By contrast, Stephanie West finds much in Herodotus’ account to
raise suspicions, stressing the debt which Herodotus had to a literary
tradition which, in her view, he chooses to conceal. This is a deceitful
Herodotus, who may not have visited Olbia at all. If so, his claim to
have held discussions with Tymnes, a prominent Scythian administrator,
is a fiction, unless we suppose it to have taken place elsewhere. So too
his other direct and indirect suggestions that he had personal knowledge
of the region. Here we are close to a familiar debate about whether
2
The study in question is Solovyov 1999. On the identification of the emporion, see Braund and
West in this volume.
3
On Olbia and Athens, see Braund 2005.

4 David Braund
Herodotus is in some sense a liar.4 As she indicates, West is led to be sus-

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

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

6 David Braund
now the Sarmatians have arrived, as diverse in their sub-groupings as the

inhabitants of Herodotus’ Scythia. Olbia continues to negotiate for its very
existence. However, as Zubar describes, there is now the further factor of
the Roman empire itself and the activities of Roman forces at Olbia and
elsewhere in the north-west Black Sea region. Meanwhile, Bäbler discusses
Dio’s account of Olbia at the edge of the Roman empire by locating it in
its literary, philosophical, and archaeological contexts, particularly in the
light of Yuri Germanovich Vinogradov’s hypotheses on the history of the
city’s dealings with its Scythian neighbours. Here evidence is limited, so
that a new discovery can make a significant difference. The discovery from
summer 2005 of parts of a diploma indicates the presence of a veteran
from the classis Moesica at Olbia in the second century AD. If we suppose
that he served in the city (which is not certain), this single find takes our
knowledge substantially forward.6
Figure 1. View of Olbia from the air. Photo A. Kremko.
6
The discovery will shortly be published by A. Ivanchik. Note also the Mithridatic inscription
recently published from Olbia, Krapivina & Diatroptov 2005.

01 Kryzhitskiy 1525 28/9/07 12:25 Page 7
The Main Results of the Excavations at

Olbia in the Past Three Decades
S. D. KRYZHITSKIY
THE LOCATION OF OLBIA WAS ESTABLISHED in the 1790s.1 Systematic

excavations began there in 1901, after which the work was in the hands
of three successive generations of scholars. The first of these was
Pharmakovskiy and his school (1901–26).2 The work of the second
generation proceeded under the leadership of Slavin (1936–71, at the
Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences), Levi, and
Karasev (respectively, 1936–74 and 1936–72, at the Leningrad section of
the Soviet Academy of Sciences).3 The third generation took over from
1972, with almost the only sustained effort being provided by the Institute
of Archaeology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, under the lead-
ership of Kryzhitskiy (1972–95) and Krapivina (from 1995). This chapter
sets out the contribution made by this third generation of scholars.
1
There followed a series of topographical plans through the following century and more, for the
city and its necropolis: Karasev 1956; Tunkina 2002, pls.106–11. There were a few exploratory
excavations, e.g. by Uvarov in 1853, Arkas and Brun in 1870, Zabelin and Tizengauzen in 1873
(Kryzhitskiy 1985, 19ff.; Tunkina 2002, 450).
2
Five main sectors were excavated, establishing the limits of the city on land, the northern gates,
the multi-roomed towers of the south-west defensive line, the north-eastern part of the Roman
citadel, dwellings (especially Hellenistic), plus stratigraphy. Two burial mounds of the early cen-
turies AD were examined, as well as a significant number of other burials from the archaic period:
Karasev 1976; Kryzhitskiy 1985, 17–27.
3
Excavations entailed the central temenos, with remains of two temples and altars; part of the
agora (surrounded by a large stoa), with trading areas, gymnasium, and lawcourt; Hellenistic
and later dwellings; kilns and wine-presses; what has been thought to be a headquarters building
in the middle of the Roman citadel; parts of the northern wall and two towers of the lower city
(Karasev & Levi 1976; Kryzhitskiy 1985, 27ff.). The Hellenistic (and later) necropolis was exam-
ined, as well as an outlying dugout structure of the fifth or early fourth century BC. This gener-
ation also took energetic steps in the study of the chora, which had previously been given only
episodic consideration and had not been studied in connection with Olbia (Slavin 1976;
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 5ff.). Key scholars in this work were A. V. Buyskikh, Diatroptov, Kozub,
Leypunskaya, Nazarchuk, Papanova, Rusyayeva, and Samoylova, among others.

ravine
ern
rth
No
Northern gates
Western
temenos
ity
Upper
city
city
Te r r a c e d c
H
s
c i t y
r e
Lower
i
’ s
Western
l
e d
gates
Central
e r g
o
(Eastern) temenos
(
S
o
b m
p
Central
u
Quarter
t
u
o
S
e
r
Roma n
r
Citadel
)
c
r y
e
a
v
u a
i
N
e s t
n
e
B u g
0 100 m
Figure 2. Olbia: plan of city.

EXCAVATIONS AT OLBIA IN THE PAST THREE DECADES 9
The excavations at Olbia during this time had three principal aims: (1)
the study of the historico-archaeological topography and stratigraphy of
cultural levels in the different parts of the city, including the underwater
portion beneath the Bug estuary; (2) a focus on the least-studied stages of
the city’s existence, notably the cultural levels of the archaic period and
also those of the early centuries AD; and (3) rescue and conservation
along the coastal portion of the city.
Excavations in the Upper City produced especially important results.
In particular, the Western Temenos was excavated (Sector VII), the earli-
est of its kind in the northern Black Sea region, revealing remains of a
portico (Attic order), some twenty altars, the temenos wall, a unique
assemblage of painted architectural terracottas, and the temple of Apollo
Ietros, from the late sixth or early fifth century BC.4
To the west of the agora was discovered a set of structures which
formed the defended western gates of the city in the fourth to second
centuries BC (Sector X). Here for the first time were found remains of the
defensive walls of c.400–350 BC, made from mud brick, and a piece of
the defensive wall of the fifth century BC.5 Meanwhile, excavations in the
south-eastern portion of the citadel (Sector XXV) allowed the examina-
tion of remains of the south-eastern defensive wall, towers of the citadel,
terracing and supporting walls, domestic cellars of the second to third
centuries AD, and a stylobate colonnade (Doric order) which doubtless
belonged to a temple built in the Hellenistic period. Here, for the first
time at Olbia, were studied dwellings of the fourth century AD across a
significant area. It was shown that at the time of the third-century
Gothic Wars Olbia was sacked twice and that subsequently habitation
was finally ended there c. AD 350–75.6
Through work on the central elevations of the Upper City (Sector
XX) it was established that in the second to third centuries AD the area
was a crowded city-scape, which had been preceded, in the Hellenistic
period, by a fine building, evidently of some key social significance. Here
too was excavated a part of the city wall and a tower of the third to first
centuries BC, in whose ruins were found many architectural details (both
Ionic and Doric order), as well as the bases of statues of Zeus
Eleutherios, Olympian Zeus, Apollo Delphinios, and more besides.7
4
Rusyayeva 1991b; Kryzhitskiy 1997.
5
Kryzhitskiy & Leypunskaya 1988.
6
Krapivina 1993.
7
Rusyayeva & Krapivina 1992.

rezan
River Be
Staraya Bogdanovka
Kozyrka
River Bug
Chertovatoye
OLBIA
Shirokaya Balka
Viktorovka Kutsurub Adzhigol

Beykush Dmitriyevka
Dneprovka
Petukhovka
Ochakov
Berezan Island
Ki
nb
ur
nS
p it
B L A C K
S E A
Tendra Spit
Figure 3. Olbia and its environs.

R. D
R.
er Tanais
Bu
iep
n
Olbia
i es
.D
R
ter
Tyras
Panticapaeum Phanagoria . Kuban

R
Kerkinitti
Istros
Chersonesus Theodosia Gorgippia
an u be
NIKOLAYEV R.D Tornis
Dionysopolis Callatis
BLACK SEA
Mesembria Dioscurias
Shirokaya
Apollonia
Balka Phasis
Sinope
Didova Khata
Byzantium Heraclea Trapezus
Calchedon Amisus
y
s
Ha b
R. 0 200 km
Oktyabrskoye
Novaya Bogdanovka
Luparevo
Semenov Rog
0 10 km
Aleksandrovka
Shirokaya Balka
Stanislav
H Y L A E A

12 S. D. Kryzhitskiy
In the north-western corner of the Upper City (Sector IV) there has
been partial excavation of the remains of a large structure of the fifth to
fourth centuries BC: might these be the ruins of the ‘palace’ of Scyles
described by Herodotus at Olbia? Be that as it may, pottery kilns
occupied the site from the first century BC into the first century AD.8
The study of the Central Quarter in the region of the agora (Sector
XII), started by Slavin, was completed.9 Excavations of the early levels on
areas of the Western Temenos and Central Quarter near the agora
(Sectors VII and XII) allowed a conclusive answer to the question of the
earliest types of dwelling in Olbia: these were dugouts and semi-
dugouts.10 At present these structures are known at the southern limits of
the Upper City in Sector XXV.
Some important work has been done on the terraced area. Here, in the
north (Sector XXIX),11 have been excavated dwellings of the fifth to sec-
ond centuries BC, and a rich, well-preserved house of the Hellenistic period
Figure 4. Terrace of Olbia, overlooking the estuary of the river Bug.
8
Kryzhitskiy 1985, 121.
9
Slavin 1964; 1975; Leypunskaya 1986; 1994.
10
Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978a.
11
As excavation proceeded it became clear that this part of the Lower City was built on terraces
and is better regarded as part of the Terraced City, rather than the Lower City.

was examined in the centre of the Terraced City (Sector XXXI).12 Beneath
its remains was excavated a single-room above-ground dwelling of the late
sixth to fifth century BC. All this work provided a wealth of new informa-
tion about the plan of the city, its dwellings, and especially its terraced
construction.
Excavations in the Lower City were all conducted in the centre of its
northern half (Sector XXX). The civic landscape here encourages the sus-
picion that this may be the agora. Meanwhile, work has continued on
Olbia’s outer area in the fifth century BC and early centuries AD (Sector
XI), and on the necropolis of the end of the fifth–third centuries BC in its
south-western part.
In 1971–7 a series of hydroarchaeological studies was conducted in
the portion of the Lower City which has been submerged beneath the
Bug estuary. It has been established that the ‘quay’ (or sometimes
‘bridge’), as the nineteenth-century scholars used to call it, is in fact the
remains of a defensive complex, almost all of which consists of stone
imported from elsewhere (Sector XXVIII). Accordingly, it has been
Figure 5. Centre of Olbia, looking from the Bug. Photo. D. Braund.
12
Leypunskaya 1995; Kryzhitskiy & Leypunskaya 1997, 139.

Figure 6. The southern ‘ravine’, looking from the Bug. Photo. D. Braund.
established that an undisturbed cultural level in the submerged part of

the Lower City can only be found beneath the massive remains of
destroyed buildings of the classical period. Meanwhile, locations were
established for the harbour and associated installations (Sector XXVII)
and a building of the second half of the third century AD, as well as the
remains of defensive walls (Sector XXVI). In general, the archaeological
topography of the submerged area has become much clearer, which has
allowed a more reliable assessment of the dimensions of the city at
various stages in its life.13
In addition to all these activities in and around Olbia itself, the
Institute of Archaeology has taken an expansive approach to the study of
the city’s rural territory.14 Extensive survey on the lower Bug revealed a
further 250 or so new locations, from various periods of the city’s ancient
13
Kryzhitskiy 1984; 1985, 95ff.
14
Notably, S. B. Buyskikh, Burakov, Otreshko, and Rusyayeva. Also involved in this work have
been the Museum of Nikolayev (Rudan, Snytko) and, from 1974, the Leningrad branch of the
Institute of Archaeology of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, which conducted a series of fun-
damental excavations at settlements of the late archaic and classical period associated with the
modern place-names Staraya Bogdanovka, Kozyrka, Kutsurub, and elsewhere (Domanskiy,
Marchenko, Golovacheva, Rogov), bringing new insights, e.g. into construction methods
(Golovacheva et al. 1999).

history.15 This and ongoing excavation has enabled us to establish a

chronology around the material and spiritual culture of Olbia’s chora
across the different periods of the city’s history.16 The settlement on
Berezan has also been the subject of systematic excavation.17 Worthy of
particular attention is the discovery here in 1997 of a temenos and the
well-preserved remains of a temple of Aphrodite, built around 500 BC.18
Such are the results of work in and around Olbia in the past three
decades or so. They have been disseminated in a wide range of publica-
tions, ensuring their value as a source of knowledge for the archaeological
community.19
15
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1990.
16
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989.
17
Until 1994 the Hermitage also sent an expedition to Berezan (Kopeykina, Domanskiy, and
Solovyov), subsequently incorporated into the expedition of the Ukrainian Institute of
Archaeology.
18
Nazarov 2001; Kryzhitskiy 2001.
19
Namely, on coins, Anokhin 1989; early amphorae, Leypunskaya 1981a; terracottas, Rusyayeva
1982; Olbia in the first centuries AD (including its fortifications), Krapivina 1993; ideology and
belief in Olbia, Rusyayeva 1979 and 1992; street plan, building techniques, reconstructions, and
so on, Kryzhitskiy 1971, 1982, 1985, 1993; the classical and Hellenistic acropolis, Kozub 1974,
Parovich-Peshikan 1974; the settlement of the early centuries AD, Burakov 1976. Note must also
be made of the key publications produced by teams outside Kiev: on the political history of
Olbia, Yu. G. Vinogradov 1989; coins, Karyshkovskiy 1988; handmade pottery, Marchenko
1988.


Criteria for the Presence of Barbarians

in the Population of Early Olbia
S. D. KRYZHITSKIY
HISTORIANS OF THE ANCIENT STATES of the north coast of the Black Sea
have been much concerned with the problem of how to estimate the pres-
ence of barbarians in the populations of particular communities, especially
in the early stages of their existence. Of course, the simple fact of some bar-
barian presence here, as in the cities of the Mediterranean, has been well
understood. The problem which scholars have struggled to handle is the
quest for material remains which may shed light on the numbers and the
social-ethnic characteristics of this non-Greek component. However, such
attempts which have been made to generalize on these matters on the
basis of archaeological evidence (as opposed to remarks on individuals)
seem less than convincing. The key deficiency in such studies is the lack of
firm methodology. We are concerned here not with those communities such
as Kerkinitis1 or Kalos Limen2 in which an entire barbarian cultural layer
can be established, but with cities which have no such separate level; there
the scholar must struggle with a scatter of evidence. In consequence, the
question of the presence and quantity of barbarians in such a city or its
agricultural territory tends to be settled with arguments which owe much to
emotion, rather than to developed methodology. In such cases one finds
neglect of the full range of evidence: authors rely on a priori arguments in
which very limited and statistically insignificant selections of some of the
source material are taken to lead in one direction or another. In conse-
quence, scholarly literature over the past fifty years or more has tended to
exaggerate the quantity and significance of the barbarian presence in the
populations of the ancient states of the north coast of the Black Sea. And
that applies in full measure specifically at Olbia.
1
Kutaysov 1990, 25.
2
Kutaysov & Uzhentsev 1997, 46.

There are two aspects to the issue of a barbarian presence in the

population of Olbia. The first is qualitative. Which artefacts, or assem-
blage, and how much of such material can attest the presence of individ-
uals of certain ethnicities? The second aspect is quantitative. How many
barbarians do we suppose? We shall begin with the qualitative issue.
In general scholars have used, as criteria for the presence of barbar-
ians, dwelling-types (specifically dugouts and semi-dugouts), handmade
pottery (including shapes replicating the wares of barbarian peoples),
burial practice (the discovery in tombs of Scythian weaponry, mirrors,
stone dishes, crouched burials), ideological beliefs, jewellery, and proso-
pography. Clearly, we may provisionally accept that the coincidence of all
these indicators, or of most of them, with regard to a specific individual
or group may reasonably be regarded as an indication of their barbarian
ethnicity. After all, the coincidence of all these criteria constitutes a com-
plex which in archaeological terms we understand as a ‘cultural level’.
But, to repeat the point, the entire problem is that we practically never
find such coincidences in specific cases in Olbia. In Olbia a barbarian cul-
tural level as such has not been found. In our case we do not have an
interwoven complex of evidence. Our material is spread across different
periods and, even where we hope to find at Olbia a concentration of indi-
cators in a specific period, we are dealing with a span of at least twenty-
five years. Furthermore our material is also spread across a wide area:
that is, individual items come from different parts of the city (or from the
city and necropolis) and there are no sufficient grounds for taking them
together. At present we know of no single case in which an individual bar-
barian lived in a semi-dugout, used pottery of barbarian shapes, wore
barbarian jewellery, and was buried in barbarian fashion. As a rule we
have usually only one of these indicators (for example, a semi-dugout or
handmade pottery of Scythian shape) or two (a dugout with handmade
pottery). In short, even bringing together all our few indicators from
across at least twenty-five years and from different places, we have no real
grounds for making conclusions about ethnicity. Accordingly we must
proceed to ask a different kind of question: how reliable can each of these
indicators be in the search for ethnicities? For example, it was long
believed that the presence of dugout or semi-dugout dwellings showed
conclusively that there were barbarians, for such dwellings were taken to
be the exclusive prerogative of non-Greeks. However, work on Berezan,3
3
Lapin 1966, 94; 1968; Kopeykina 1981b.

THE PRESENCE OF BARBARIANS IN EARLY OLBIA 19
at Olbia,4 and in the Olbian chora,5 as well as in other states of the north
coast of the Black Sea,6 has shown that this notion lacks any validity.7 It
is now generally accepted that dugout and semi-dugout construction in
the early phases of settlement on the north coast of the Black Sea was the
work of Greeks and is to be understood as an initial phase of house
building there. In fact the simple presence of dugouts or semi-dugouts
does not allow us to be sure about the ethnicity of their inhabitants,
whether barbarian or Greek. That question can only be answered on the
basis of close comparison of constructions typical for barbarians or
Greeks and by consideration of the materials used to create the buildings.
Those who support the notion of a substantial barbarian presence in
early Olbia make much of handmade pottery. That is understandable in
so far as this pottery might be taken to be a single phenomenon and is
well represented in the city. However, estimates of the quantity of hand-
made pottery in early Olbia give no clear answer to the abiding question
of the ethnicity of those to whom this pottery belonged. One might cer-
tainly suppose that it was used by barbarians resident in the city, who may
also have made it; one might suppose that local barbarian women had
some role here. But one might also take a very different view. This was in
essence cooking ware and was used as such by the Greeks of Olbia too,
while its low value permits no statistical comparison with imported
pottery that would shed light on the question of ethnicity. Meanwhile, the
producers of this pottery may well have lived at some distance from the
city. In any event the typology of barbarian handmade pottery was
varied: scholars link it accordingly with Thracians, peoples of the wooded
steppe, and Scythians. That raises a further question of substantial
importance. For this pottery should perhaps be seen, not as evidence of
the arrival at Olbia of an array of barbarian groupings, but as the out-
come of a mix of stylistic influences, such as we see more obviously in
Scythian imitations of the shapes of Greek wheelmade pottery.8 It might
4
Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978a; Kryzhityskiy 1985, 57–63.
5
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 41.
6
Sekerskaya 1989; Tolstikov 1992, 59–61; Butyagin 1999; Yu. A. Vinogradov 1995, 157–8;
Kutaysov 1990, 63; Zolotaryov 1990; 1998.
7
Kryzhitskiy 1993, 55; the point is not affected by the unsuccessful attempt to interpret semi-
dugouts on Berezan as barbarian dwellings: contra Solovyov 1999, 43, on which see Buyskikh in
this volume. The discovery in these dwellings of terracottas, graffiti, and indeed Greek pottery
seems sufficient to show the Greek ethnicity of the inhabitants as Lapin demonstrated many
years ago: Lapin 1966.
8
On the latter, see Gavrilyuk 1984.

be helpful to have some serious comparisons of this handmade pottery

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

THE PRESENCE OF BARBARIANS IN EARLY OLBIA 21
ity of the twenty-six mirrors found in burials of archaic Olbia are clearly
Greek, while only about ten are the so-called Scythian type.16 These so-
called Scythian mirrors were made at a place unknown, but very possibly
in Olbia. However, even if we go so far as to see them as barbarian
products, their presence in burials at Olbia offers no sound grounds for
regarding the deceased as being of barbarian ethnicity.
As for the stone dishes, we do not really know their purpose. It has
been claimed that they were used for sharpening weapons(?!), mixing
paint, or in some sense for toiletries,17 or as altars.18 Quite apart from their
presence at Olbia, these stone objects are known extensively among the
barbarian peoples of the wooded steppe and also among the Sarmatians
and Sacae,19 but they are not known in the burials of the Crimean part of
the Bosporan kingdom. That raises a further question: why are they absent
from the burials of the Bosporus, a state known to have contained bar-
barians (including Scythians) as well as Greeks? In the Bosporus one
might have expected indications of cultural mix to have been more obvi-
ous. Meanwhile, in the burials of Olbia these dishes occur more frequently
than in Scythian burials of the same period.20 It is hard to draw firm
conclusions from these stone dishes when we know so little about them.21
Prosopography also fails to give clear indications about the ethnicity
of the population of Olbia in the sixth and fifth centuries BC. About
thirty names are known from this period,22 while the size of the popula-
tion of the civic core of Olbia may be estimated as something in the order
of 5,000 people,23 with a similar number living in the chora.24 Accordingly
our sample of names is very small and may be wholly misleading.
Meanwhile, it is of course important to remember that barbarian names
might be sported by Greeks, if indeed those names which have been taken
to be barbarian are really non-Greek.
Finally, we must think more critically about quantities and statistics.
The figures which scholars have often derived from studies of material
remains do not, as a general rule, permit any inferences about the relative
16
Skudnova 1988, 24–7.
17
Ibid., 31–2.
18
19
Ibid., 179.
20
Bessonova 1991, 93.
21
On the Greekness of early burials in the Olbian chora, see Kryzhitskiy 2002, 210; see also
Kryzhitskiy 2005.
22
Knipovich 1956, appendix 1; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1981, 134–5; 1989, 105 n.107.
23
Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978a, 24.
24

percentages of particular ethnicities at Olbia or elsewhere. For example,

how can one derive a figure for the percentage of a particular ethnicity
within the population of Olbia from the percentage of handmade pottery
discovered in the material record, whether on the basis of fragments or
even if we consider only whole vessels, counted through bases, rims, and
handles? In the first place, handmade pottery was probably not used at
the same rate as wheelmade. During the life of a single wheelmade vessel
several handmade vessels may have come and gone. Secondly, the quan-
tity of handmade ware may very well have varied greatly across different
families for a whole range of reasons. There is no reason at all to connect
the quantity of pots with the quantity of people who owned them.
Thirdly, we cannot exclude the possibility that this handmade pottery
(though much has been made of its supposedly domestic production by
foreign women) was in fact purchased. Handmade cooking ware is a com-
monplace find in the excavation of dwellings at Olbia. Accordingly, we
may well suppose that poorer families might even buy such pottery for
their cooking. While it is indeed possible that immigrants from the bar-
barian world made this pottery in Olbia, we must be aware that their
output could ‘show’ an enormous percentage of barbarians supposedly
resident in the city. In short, to build on such dubious calculations any
conception of the ethnicity of the population of Olbia is extremely
dangerous. We are in no position to offer any clear interpretation of
handmade pottery (whether qualitative or quantitative) which might illu-
minate the problem of ethnicity in early Olbia. The observation that the
early levels at Olbia contain some 3 per cent of ‘Scythian handmade
pottery’ tells us almost nothing about the ethnic composition of the
archaic city.25
In sum, all the foregoing considerations illustrate the fact that at the
present time we have no objective criteria by which to establish the num-
ber of barbarians (absolutely or relatively) in the population of Olbia in
the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Specific cultural features which might be
connected with the barbarians are represented so slightly and in such a
fragmented fashion that there is no reason to suppose that Olbia con-
tained any substantial barbarian social stratum. We can only approach
this whole matter at a very abstract level, which encourages the view that
the city and its chora had a barbarian element, but not a particularly
significant one.
25
Pace Marchenko 1988, 121.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 23
Contacts between Greeks and

Non-Greeks on the Lower Bug in the
Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC
S. B. BUYSKIKH
THE REGION OF THE LOWER BUG has a special place among the areas of
Greek settlement on the north coast of the Black Sea. For here, in the
second half of the seventh century BC, began the extended and complex
process by which the region was integrated into the sphere of Greek
culture. On the lower Bug Olbia was founded, developed, and persisted
for some thousand years, making a significant mark in the history of the
whole Pontic basin. The study of Olbian antiquities began some two
thousand years ago, but it has become notably more active in recent
decades. That intensification is reflected not only in the remarkable
increase in fieldwork there, but also in the substantial growth in the num-
ber of publications, including the appearance of a string of monographs,
both in the Russian-Ukrainian tradition and in writings elsewhere, on a
wide range of topics concerned with Olbia.
Within this substantial literature a central concern abides undimin-
ished: the exploration of the causes, nature, stages, and idiosyncrasies of
the Greek colonization of the region. And that in turn includes the issue
of Greek–native relationships in the settlement period, especially in the
establishment of the Olbian state and in its subsequent development.
The present discussion is not designed to review the extensive literature
on Greek–native contacts on the north coast of the Black Sea in antiquity
(or even in the archaic period). In any event that has recently been done.1
However, it is worth noting that the main (divergent) viewpoints on the
colonization of the lower Bug are as follows:
1
Marchenko 1999. In this chapter the use of approximate numerical dates does not imply any
more precision than is conventional in this field.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 24
24 S. B. Buyskikh
1. The complete rejection of any contacts with a local population.2

2. The perception of the influence of the native population (in
culture, economy, demography, etc.) on the lives of the Greek
colonists as passive and of no particular significance.3
3. Explicitly on the basis of handmade pottery and type of dwelling
(dugouts), the insistence that the local population had a significant
role in the life and culture of early Berezan, Olbia, and its chora.4
It is to be noted also that, in the substantial modern literature, the
overwhelming majority of scholars have shown that the settlements cre-
ated in the course of the colonization of the lower Bug were Greek.5
Moreover, the view that these settlements were Greek is shared also by
Scythian specialists, who stress that ‘no one now doubts their foundation
by Greeks and that they belong to the chora of Olbia’.6 Meanwhile, there
is what may be called a ‘compromise position’ in the literature, namely
that the dugouts and semi-dugouts of the north Pontic colonies of the
sixth century ‘in general should be somehow connected with the lifestyles
of the Greek colonists’, allowing for the presence among them of
non-Greek migrants from the hinterland.7
Nevertheless, recently, in a series of publications8 including a mono-
graph,9 S. L. Solovyov has completely revised all this, taking the argu-
ments of supporters of the ‘native conception’ (above no. 3) to an extreme
which can only be described as absurd. The essence of Solovyov’s ‘inno-
vative’ discoveries, subverting the agreed interpretation of Berezan
(Borysthenis) as the most ancient locus of Greek colonization on the
north coast of the Black Sea and of the situation on the lower Bug in the
archaic period, may be summed up as follows:
1. The dugouts are basically the dwellings of natives. They and the
handmade pottery found in them show that the overwhelming
majority of the population of Berezan c.600–525 BC were not
2
Lapin 1966, 52, 142, 184–95, 233, 237.
3
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989; Otreshko 1981; Rusyayeva 1994b; Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979.
4
Marchenko 1987; 1988; 1991; 1999; Marchenko & Domanskiy 1999; Kopeykina 1981a, 165;
and many others.
5
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1987; 1989; 1990; 1999.
6
Melyukova & Yatsenko 1989, 87. See also Melyukova 1991, 5.
7
Kryzhitskiy & Marchenko 2001, 36.
8
Solovyov 1993; 1994; 1995; 1998; 2000.
9
Solovyov 1999.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 25
CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS 25
Greeks but native migrants from the wooded steppe (the banks of
the middle Bug and middle Dniester) and from the steppe zone.10
2. From c.525 BC, only above-ground housing in mud brick and stone
can be ascribed to the colonial activities of Greeks; on Berezan this
is connected with the establishment of a permanent apoikia.11 As
for the lower Bug settlements, appearing en masse at this time, in
view of their dugouts and semi-dugouts, the majority of the
population consisted once again of natives.12
3. Correlation of the assemblages of handmade wares with the phys-
ical shape of the dugouts leads the author to assert that the
Scythian pottery predominates in dwellings which are rectangular,
while Geto-Thracian ware predominates in the round ones.13
Indeed, the former are regarded as earlier (end of seventh/begin-
ning of sixth century); from c.575–550 round dwellings are taken
to have appeared beside these.14
The unreliable methodology used for all this is immediately evident.
The fact is that leading figures in both Scythian studies15 and classical
studies16 take the well-founded view that dwellings set below ground level
(whether dugouts or semi-dugouts) cannot be taken to show ethnicity.
Scholarly literature on a great deal of material evidence has long since
established the fact that dugout dwellings in Berezan, at Olbia, and in the
rural settlements of the lower Bug were created not by natives but by
Greek colonists.17 Analogous dugout structures have now been dis-
covered en masse elsewhere on the north coast of the Black Sea: in
early Greek settlements on the lower Bug,18 in western Crimea at
Chersonesus19 and Kerkinitis20 in the Bosporus, at Panticapaeum,21
10
Solovyov 1994, 90–3; 1999, 34ff.
11
Solovyov 1994, 93; 1995, 161.
12
Solovyov 2000, 99.
13
Solovyov 1994, 87.
14
Solovyov 1995, 155; 2000a, 95–8.
15
Melyukova 1980, 21.
16
17
Lapin 1966, 153–8; Kryzhitskiy and Rusyayeva 1978b, 24–5; Rusyayeva and Skrzhinskaya
1979, 27, 32, 35; Kryjitskij 1982, 11ff.; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 41ff.; Kryzhitskiy 1999, 82–5;
Bujskich & Bujskich 2001, 667ff.
18
Okhotnikov 1990, 10–16.
19
Zolotaryov 1998, 32ff.
20
Kutaysov 1990, 63, 69, pl. 35.
21
Tolstikov 1987, 72–3; 1992, 59–62.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 26
26 S. B. Buyskikh
Myrmecium,22 Tyrambe, and Phanagoria,23 and in an early settlement on

the site of Gorgippia.24
At these locations, as on the lower Bug, dugout dwellings belonged to
Greek settlers, not natives. However, Solovyov ignores this broader pic-
ture in all his writings, for otherwise it would be obvious to his readers
(especially those unacquainted with most of this extensive literature) that,
in the context of so widespread a phenomenon of Greek dugout
dwellings all over the north coast of the Black Sea in the archaic period,
Berezan would have to be regarded (in his view) as some kind of extra-
ordinary local instance of non-Greek colonization, unlike all the other
regions where we are dealing with Greeks.
Moreover, both on Berezan and in all other north Pontic Greek
colonies, the construction of dugout complexes (the so-called ‘colonists’
houses’) is strikingly consistent in plan (minor details notwithstanding)
and constitutes a clear stage in the history of domestic architecture in the
north Black Sea.25 It is important to note in this regard that similar
dwellings, below ground level, are now known for the archaic period in
Magna Graecia too, in the chora of Metapontum,26 where they are also
explained as the building activity of colonists. That seems to indicate
common factors at work in the colonial process in the Black Sea and
Mediterranean basins, which prompted habitation below ground level.27
As for the lower Bug,28 the phenomenon is explained by the minimal
development of the technology, production, and economy of the settlers
in the early phase, together with natural climatic conditions.
By contrast with the view that dugouts on the lower Bug belonged to
natives who inhabited them, not only in the archaic period but also in the
classical,29 the majority of scholars believe that local peoples (probably
from the wooded steppe) gave the Greeks no more than the idea of build-
ing houses below ground30 and that the Greeks developed and improved
22
Yu. A. Vinogradov 1992, 101–5; Butyagin 1999, 112ff.
23
Yu. A. Vinogradov 1999, 107.
24
Alekseeyeva 1991, 10–11.
25
Kryjitski 1982, 62–4; Kryjitskij 1982, 11–15, 45–6, 151; Kryzhitskiy 1993, 40–2.
26
Carter 1993, 344–51; Orlandini 1991, 19–24; 1992, 21–8; 2000, 15–22.
27
The attempt of V. D. Kuznetsov (1995) to deny the very phenomenon of dugout construction
at classical sites of the north Black Sea has in my view been sufficiently rebutted by appropriate
criticism (Zubar 1998a, 129ff.; Yu. A. Vinogradov 1999, 107; Kryzhitskiy & Marchenko 2001,
33ff.).
28
Kryzhitskiy & Rusyayeva 1978b, 25; Kryjitskij 1982, 28–9; Kryzhitskiy 1993, 41.
29
Marchenko 1999, 163ff.
30
Kopeykina 1981a, 171; Kryzhitskiy 1993, 41.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 27
the concept.31 Meanwhile, there is also the rather controversial view that
two traditions (Greek and non-Greek) coexisted side by side, quite
distinct from each other.32
In my view, the use of fairly economical and relatively easy-to-build
dwellings below ground level does not indicate inevitable (still less, total)
occupation by natives on the lower Bug. Rather, it indicates the wisdom
of settlers from Ionia in quickly adapting to the conditions of their nat-
ural and cultural environment.33 Much the same conclusions have been
inferred for the dugouts built on the Bosporus.34 Meanwhile, the fact that
dugouts on the lower Bug were the homes of Greek settlers and not
natives is illustrated by the predominance of Greek religious and material
culture therein, whether on Berezan, Olbia, or the string of settlements
around them.35 Further, we must also give due weight to the following
matters.
First, Greeks used various below-ground structures not only for habi-
tations but also for other purposes, including the domestic economy and
cult. So much is immediately confirmed by a glance at the well-known
shrine at Beykush where more than two hundred sacral finds have been
discovered below ground (offering pits, artificial mini-grottoes, and espe-
cially structures for the collection of ritual paraphernalia, offerings,
tables): in essence these are typical dugout structures. All are connected
with the intensive celebrations here, c.525–470 BC, of the cult of Achilles,
attested especially by a range of votive offerings which include many graf-
fiti.36 We may compare, meanwhile, another fine example of the use of
dugout structures for cult purposes, namely the excavated finds of the
Western Temenos at Olbia.37
Secondly, close examination of the construction of the archaic settle-
ments of the lower Bug has shown that the standard measurement used
there was the Samian foot of 0.35m.38 This is clear evidence that the
settlers transferred building practices from Ionia to the new colonial
environment.
31
Rusyayeva 1979, 14.
32
Butyagin 1999, 114; 2001, 41.
33
Bujskich & Bujskich 2001, 667ff.
34
Butyagin 1999, 115–16.
35
Yu. G. Vinogradov 1989, 37–9; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 86ff.
36
S. B. Bujskich 2001, 317ff.; Buyskikh S. B. 2001a, 34ff.
37
Rusyayeva 1991b.
38
A. V. Buyskikh 1990, 24ff.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 28
28 S. B. Buyskikh
Thirdly, in the general disposition of the dugout structures of the

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

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 29
coexisted, at the same time, not only dugouts and semi-dugouts (in the
various forms described above), but also above-ground dwellings.47 In
fact, more generally in the wooded steppe to the west of the Bug, in the
early and middle Scythian periods (c.600–500 and c.500–400 respectively)
we find the coexistence of dugouts and semi-dugouts (circular, oval, and
rectangular) with above-ground dwellings.48
Accordingly, with all this in view, the attribution of ethnicity to
dugout structures in archaic Berezan and the lower Bug, as if they were
entirely the buildings of non-Greeks, can hardly be treated as sound
methodology. Nor too can we accept the associated attempt to attribute
a particular shape of building to a specific ethnic grouping, whether
Geto-Thracian, Scythian, or something else. The material foundation on
which Solovyov bases his ethno-cultural and chronological interpretation
of below-ground dwellings consists almost entirely of the handmade pot-
tery which is found inside them.49 On this it is worth pausing to observe
the apposite comment of A. S. Rusyayeva, taking issue with scholars who
approach the topic of the non-Greek presence in the settlements of the
north Black Sea by using only one criterion. As she stresses, the matter
can only be considered with the full range of the available (and limited)
evidence: ‘we must distinguish the fact of Greek borrowing and usage of
non-Greek artefacts from such evidence as may reside in those artefacts
for the actual presence here of non-Greeks. The artefact itself permits no
conclusion either way in this regard until it is considered in context with
the other evidence available.’50 By contrast, Solovyov’s methodology is to
rip out of their context finds of handmade pottery alone to serve as a fun-
damental and universal index of ethnicity. That leads him to the bald con-
clusion that in the material culture of Berezan (c.600–525) any Greek
cultural background is very slight.51 However, an objective analysis of the
results of excavations of dugouts on Berezan, at Olbia, and in the string
of settlements on the lower Bug shows not only the infill but also — on the
very floors of dwellings — the presence of familiar artefacts of Greek
everyday life: besides painted pottery, graffiti, terracottas, and the like,
there is money in the form of arrowheads and dolphins, jewellery, and
remnants of weaponry.52
47
Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1983, 285.
48
Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 15–19, 23–4.
49
Solovyov 1994, 87–90; 2000, 297–8.
50
Rusyayeva 1979, 11. See further Kryzhitskiy in the previous chapter of this volume.
51
Solovyov 1993, 40–1; 1994, 90; 2000, 298–9.
52

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 30
30 S. B. Buyskikh
And what are we to make of Solovyov’s statistical methodology, based

on a sample of 160 complexes,53 when the publications and reports of
earlier scholars on Berezan show the presence there of dugouts and semi-
dugouts in which (1) handmade pottery predominated over other pottery
(apart from amphorae); or (2) wheelmade pottery substantially predomi-
nated over handmade; or (3) handmade pottery was completely absent; or
(4) wheelmade was completely absent? The reality is still more elusive in
view of the fact that all the complexes excavated on Berezan do not per-
mit a dating that is well founded on the pottery, let alone a close dating.
An exclusive focus on one part of the evidence (handmade pottery) can-
not give a reliable picture of the construction or the history or the culture
of early Berezan as a whole phenomenon. There are no real distinctions
(in the sense of some ‘barbarization’) between the material and religious
culture of dugout complexes on the lower Bug in the sixth century, on the
one hand, and that of above-ground dwellings erected in the subsequent
period, on the other.54 One may wonder where Solovyov imagines that his
‘non-Greek population’ of the dugouts c.600–525 are supposed to have
gone after c.525 and the development of above-ground house building.
When Solovyov deals with dugouts and semi-dugouts, he insists upon
a correlation between them and handmade pottery, and firmly attributes
a non-Greek ethnicity to them.55 However, when he deals with above-
ground structures, he has nothing much to say about handmade pottery
and writes instead about quarters, street systems, building regularization,
and the like,56 as well as a transition in the composition of the pottery
assemblages, in which we find a clear preponderance (with no indication
of statistics) of wheelmade pottery.57 But if these assertions are made
with serious intent, it is necessary to have a comparison of the percent-
ages and composition of the whole pottery assemblage in question
(including handmade wares in the below-ground and above-ground
houses). This has not been done. Meanwhile, if a certain percentage of
handmade pottery in the fill of semi-dugouts is taken to show the
non-Greek ethnicity of their inhabitants, then why are finds of the very
same handmade pottery in above-ground houses taken to show nothing
at all? On the other hand, if we compare the ‘barbarian’ semi-dugouts of
53
Solovyov 1994, 87; 2000, 298.
54
55
Solovyov 1994, 87; 2000, 298.
56
Solovyov 1994, 90.
57
Solovyov 2000, 100.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 31
Berezan with the ‘Greek’ above-ground houses, then do we see any

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

cipal exponent of the notion (by no means generally accepted) that it is
a straightforward sign of non-Greek ethnicity.63 Marchenko came to the
conclusion (in view of the presence of handmade pottery in the assem-
blages of the lower Bug, in different shapes and with different decoration)
that non-Greeks from the Geto-Thracian world and from the steppe and
wooded steppe zones lived here permanently. However, in basing his argu-
ments on only one part of the evidence, Marchenko clearly exaggerated
58
Domanskiy 1961, 31ff.
59
Otreshko 1981, 35–6.
60
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 82–4.
61
Butyagin 1997, 98.
62
Lapin 1966, 95.
63
Marchenko 1980; 1987; 1988; 1991; 1999, 162ff.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 32
32 S. B. Buyskikh
the ‘barbarian’ element (in quantity and quality) in the population of the
Olbian state and, accordingly, in the broad picture of its culture. We can
accept the long-term presence on the lower Bug of a certain element of
migrants from the various peoples of the north coast of the Black Sea,
but if among the steppe Scythians, for example, ‘in every aspect of every-
day life by and large, borrowing and copying from Greeks found expres-
sion’,64 then how much Hellenization should ‘migrants’ have experienced
in the course of long-term settlement actually among the population of
Olbia and its chora?
In the contrast of the striking Hellenization of such non-Greeks,65
migrants could hardly stand forth as the bearers and champions of ‘local
elements’ in the culture of Olbia and its rural environs, especially as they
did not form any kind of single, consolidated ethnic grouping.
Meanwhile, against the central claim that handmade pottery can be
taken as some kind of straightforward indicator of ethnicity, we may well
take the view66 that in a Greek community (whether city or settlement) it
cannot serve at all as reliable evidence on ethnicity: ‘It could have come
there by way of trade both with non-Greek peoples and within the town.
We may certainly imagine craftsmen in the population of a Greek town,
migrants from neighbouring peoples who made cheap and simple vessels
for the poorest levels of society in the community. Moreover, even now we
still lack comparative studies of non-Greek and Greek (especially Ionian)
handmade wares.’67
As N. A. Onayko observed,
it is difficult to believe that the Greeks themselves did not produce handmade
pottery, especially as some of the forms of the vessels used in the towns have no
analogies in non-Greek contexts. Further, the similarity of the handmade pot-
tery found in the various towns is very well known, especially in the early
period. Is the explanation not that the Greek settlers who came to the north
Black Sea brought something of their own to the production of handmade pot-
tery there? Did the Greeks really stand by waiting while non-Greeks made this
pottery for them (non-Greek participation notwithstanding)?68
We should also ask why handmade pottery (pulled out of the general
context of finds in the Greek settlements of the north Black Sea) should
be evidence of the inescapable presence here of a so-called ‘barbarian ele-
64
Gavrilyuk 1989, 92.
65
66
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 84 n.16.
67
Ibid.
68
Onayko 1980, 89–90.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 33
ment’. In the pottery assemblages of the Scythian steppe, there are

(besides local forms) elements drawn from the cultures of the wooded
steppe, Thrace, the North Caucasus, and the Greeks. However, in this
case scholars do not take these elements in the pottery to establish the
‘fact’ of the presence of external ethnic elements in the local population.
Instead, quite properly in my view, this pottery is explained in terms of
the Scythians’ ability to appropriate everyday features and items from
their neighbours (including new shapes in handmade pottery) for good
reasons and practical purposes.69 In the same way, the Greeks too, pro-
ducing their own handmade pottery, could adapt to the use of different
shapes, decoration, and technological innovations taken from non-Greek
craftsmen, who in turn could also make use of Greek experience.70
Long since, V. V. Lapin, setting out the objective evidence for the pres-
ence of handmade pottery in the assemblages of the west Greek cities,
stressed that, like wheelmade pottery, it played a significant role in the
lives of the Greeks of the north coast of the Black Sea. He noted that
handmade pottery was a part of their material culture which indicated
the simplicity of their economy.71 Handmade pottery existed at every
stage of Greek presence on the north coast of the Black Sea in antiquity,
from its earliest times.72 Therefore, the idea that the Greeks of the lower
Bug could themselves ‘share in and use handmade pottery for domestic
purposes only from the end of the 4th century BC’73 carries no conviction,
as others have noted.74 Is it not because part of the handmade pottery
from the archaic complexes of Berezan and Olbia was made by the Ionian
settlers themselves, that Marchenko and Solovyov cannot find analogies
for it among the contemporary non-Greek complexes of the north coast
of the Black Sea, while choosing to reject its Greek attribution?75 It is to
be stressed that other scholars have hitherto distinguished Greek forms
among the handmade pottery of the lower Bug region.76 Now, after
studying a substantial assemblage of handmade pottery from excavations
on Berezan (from 1979 to 1984), these other scholars have come to the
conclusion that the so-called ‘Scythian steppe’ handmade ware found on
69
Gavrilyuk 1989, 92.
70
Gavrilyuk & Otreshko 1982, 88–9.
71
Lapin 1966, 163–8.
72
Ibid., 168; Kastanayan & Arsen’yeva 1984, 232–3.
73
Marchenko 1988, 125.
74
Otreshko 1981, 38.
75
Marchenko 1988, 118–19; Marchenko and Solovyov 1988, 59.
76
Gavrilyuk and Otreshko 1982, 89.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 34
34 S. B. Buyskikh
Berezan is the domestic production of the Greek settlers themselves, sup-

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

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 35
about 600–560, a boundary between what he claims to be the two poleis

along the Adzhigol valley — a boundary which in no way conforms to any
kind of reality.85 He further comes to the conclusion that only in the mid-
dle of the fifth century (!) did the Olbian polis become a single political,
economic and religious centre on the lower Bug.86 But all these imagina-
tive notions are directly contradicted by the evidence we have for the
lower Bug in the archaic period; they will be criticized more closely
elsewhere.
The purpose of the present chapter has been to show how doing clear
violence to the evidence, by making too much of only two kinds of
material (handmade pottery and below-ground dwellings), leads to a
substantially skewed, partial, and unsupported account, which amounts
to a seriously misleading depiction of an issue which is unquestionably of
fundamental importance — namely, the nature of Greek/non-Greek inter-
relationships on the ancient lower Bug, especially in the early period,
when a wide range of contacts were initiated between Greek colonists and
the so-called ‘barbarian hinterland’.
85
Solovyov 2000, 101.
86
Solovyov 2000, 106.

03 Buyskikh 1525 28/9/07 12:26 Page 36

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 37
Greater Olbia: Ethnic, Religious,

Economic, and Political Interactions in
the Region of Olbia, c.600–100 BC
DAVID BRAUND
THE CITY OF OLBIA has left a considerable epigraphic record which,

together with substantial archaeology, allows us to contextualize and
control the literary tradition, which is dominated by Herodotus. At the
same time, these rather different kinds of evidence, taken together, amply
attest the particular importance for Olbia of its dealings with its various
neighbours, both Greeks, non-Greeks, and half-Greeks. The purpose of
this chapter is to elucidate these various relationships, with as much
concern for change across time as the evidence permits. The Olbia which
emerges is a city at the head of a large region, though the nature of its
routine dealings with its environs remains to be elucidated. At times
Olbia’s mini-empire in the north-west Black Sea region included not only
the city itself and the many agrarian settlements along the estuary of the
river Bug, but probably also a range of settlements along the lower
Dnieper, north-west Crimea, the outer estuary of the Dnieper (Hylaea),
Berezan, and, to the west, the island of Leuke, as well as possibly other
settlements reaching towards the Dniester. For all our uncertainty about
the details, this large region may reasonably be termed ‘Greater Olbia’.1
This chapter will offer a broad picture of this region across several
centuries and will attempt to characterize its key features, issues, and
orientations.
1
Coin distribution tends to be over-interpreted in this regard: it shows only the area in which
Olbian coinage might travel and at best be accepted; it does not in itself show the political or
cultural reach of Olbia in whole or in part, pace for example Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979,
28–9, and the scholarship there listed.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 38
38 David Braund
Herodotus’ Olbian world: settlement, cult, and economy
It is easy to gain the impression from Herodotus’ concern with the archaic
world that he is a writer of that world, but of course he is not. His
account belongs to the later fifth century, probably completed in the early
years of the Peloponnesian War around 426 or so. The fact is well known,
but must be stressed here, for we must be fully aware from the first that
the archaic period in Olbia is hardly attested in the literary tradition: the
little that is known will be brought to bear in what follows. Consequently,
for the archaic period, when the city was created and established, we must
rely on the results of archaeology, which has often been preoccupied with
later periods and which in any case is not well suited to providing a close
historical narrative. Accordingly, much about early Olbia remains very
obscure, depending substantially upon inference from comparative col-
onial experiences and/or retrojection from the account of Herodotus,
which is itself much-discussed and contested.2 Of central concern is his
claim (explicit and implicit) to have visited the region and asked questions
of its inhabitants. Suffice it to say that everything that follows in the pres-
ent discussion serves to confirm not only the likelihood of his visit but
also the acuity of his perception and selection of information.
Herodotus draws a sharp distinction between the city, its emporion
(probably Berezan, then a peninsula), and its neighbours. Olbia’s imme-
diate neighbours engage in agriculture, albeit together with pastoralism.
They include not only Scythians, but also the Callippidae, ‘Greek
Scythians’ (Hdt. 4.17). The Callippidae in particular have generated a
substantial scholarly literature, bristling with hypotheses and sometimes
obscuring the fact that we know nothing about them apart from
Herodotus and one or two later notices of uncertain value.3 In particular,
archaeology has been unable to identify them as a distinct cultural group,
which in itself may well be the key observation about them. For their
material culture, it seems, is not distinguishable in substance from that of
Olbia and Berezan, save for the generally humbler lifestyle observable
throughout Greater Olbia, from the seventh to the first century BC and
2
See West in this volume, offering rather different views on Herodotus.
3
Marchenko 1983 (often mis-cited as a VDI article) offers a very full account of the many views
expressed and re-expressed over the past century and more. The key text is Hdt. 4.17; cf. also Str.
12.3.20, p. 550, alluding to Hellanicus’ (and Eudoxus’) mention of the Callippidae, and Mela
2.1.7 on their territory. On controversy surrounding Ps.-Scymnus in this regard, see Rusyayeva
& Skrzhinskaya 1979, 30.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 39
INTERACTIONS IN GREATER OLBIA 39
beyond, as we shall see. As for the Callippidae themselves, much has been
inferred from their name, which has encouraged the idea that they were
horsemen, had fine horses, or the like. Reasonably enough by analogy with
the Melanchlaenae in their black cloaks or the supposedly man-eating
Androphagi, though we must also bear in mind that the name might be
no more than a Hellenization of a local name by which the Callippidae
called themselves, in which case its literal Greek meaning might have no
great significance (any more than it presumably has among the neigh-
bouring Alazones).4 However, Herodotus’ choice of words is telling. For
he states that the Callippidae mlomsai e’mse Ékkgme Rjhai: ‘they
range about being Greek-Scythians’. The main verb indicates a pastoral
lifestyle, as also does his explicit description of their mode of life as being
the same as the Scythians except for their agriculture in grain and
legumes. The view that their economy was in some sense semi-nomadic
seems inescapable in the light of Herodotus’ evidence.5 Of course,
Herodotus says nothing specific about horses among the Callippidae,
though there is independent evidence that horses were hunted around the
Bug estuary.6 Meanwhile, he gives only a general location for the
Callippidae, on the coast north of Berezan; since Olbia is not included in
his description here we have no clear idea about the relative extent of the
territory occupied by the Callippidae and the Alazones. Nor are we told
about the balance in each of their economies between pastoralism and
crop-raising. However, it may be more than an interesting coincidence
that we can identify archaeologically a pastoralist culture centred upon
the Adzhigol valley, which is located exactly where Herodotus seems to
indicate the presence of the Callippidae, namely on the mainland west of
the lower Bug and on the coast north of Berezan. That is not to say, how-
ever, that the Callippidae restricted their movements to this valley: we
should probably imagine that they exploited pastures and livestock as far
afield as the river Tiligul, as Pomponius Mela seems to say,7 while their
agriculture accords also with settlement. Certainly, we should resist the
temptation to consider all (perhaps any) settlements in Greater Olbia as
4
Hdt. 4.107 is explicit on the black-cloaked Melanchlaenae; cf. 4.106 on Androphagi. On the
Alazones, if so they were named, see Corcella & Medaglia 1993, 243–4. On horses, see below.
5
Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, esp. 35, make the case well, pace Marchenko 1983. Of course,
the singular, Callippides, was also a well-known Greek name, as with the actor at Athens c.400 BC,
on whom Braund 2000.
6
See below on the last line of the so-called priest’s letter, all the more relevant if the final word
was indeed a mention of Tyras or its neighbours.
7
Mela 2.1.7 with Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 30.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 40
40 David Braund
Greek because they have, for example, Greek graffiti, terracottas, and the
like.8 After all, Herodotus’ description of them as Greek-Scythians would
work best if their culture did indeed have a great deal about it which
seemed to him and local informants to be Greek.
At the same time, the Callippidae in particular may very well have
been and have been considered to be the result of mixed Greek and
Scythian descent.9 The case of the Geloni invites comparison, despite
some obvious differences (Hdt. 4.108–9), for Herodotus treats them as the
descendants of Greeks who have moved inland to settle among the
Scythian Budini. In so doing, they have kept much that is Greek, but have
also taken on something of Scythia, so that their language (and that of
the Budini too) is a mixture of Greek and Scythian. Certainly, in the case
of the Callippidae it is not simply that they have a Scythian-style pas-
toralist economy together with Greek-style agriculture, for the neigh-
bouring Alazones have the same mixed economy but are not termed
‘Greek-Scythians’. Nor does Herodotus mention language at all in their
cases, nor yet settlements or religious practice, as with the Geloni. The
special quality which the Callippidae are accorded seems only to be
explained by a notion of descent, however grounded in fact that may or
may not have been.
The creation of Olbia itself had almost certainly entailed the inter-
marriage of Greeks and Scythians. Rather as elsewhere in colonial situa-
tions around the Mediterranean and Black Sea in the archaic period, we
should expect most, if not all, Greek colonists to have been males, espe-
cially in the earlier stages of the colonial process. Accordingly, the pottery
of archaic Olbia contains a substantial proportion of local handmade
ware: the presence of Scythians, and especially Scythian women, in the
population of the city has been inferred.10 But of course, as with other
colonial foundations, the emerging city of Olbia preferred to stress its
Greekness and, in particular, its link with Miletus, its mother-city.11
Presumably the Callippidae were different not only because they did not
establish a city, but because their dominant identity was something other
than simply Greek: they had retained their pastoralism, by contrast with
much of the rest of the region and Olbia in particular. In the case of the
8
Pace Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 27.
9
See further below on Mixellenes in the later third century BC.
10
See Marchenko 1988, for example, but note also the criticisms of Kryzhitskiy and Buyskikh
in this volume.
11
On intermarriage and the construction of Greek identity, see Braund 1994 and the literature
there cited.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 41
Callippidae (by contrast with Olbia proper) something other than mar-
riage between Greek males and local females may have been entailed.12
While details remain elusive, the easiest hypothesis seems to be that the
Callippidae intermarried with the population of Olbia itself, very possibly
including marriage between local males and Olbian females.13
Archaeology provides a startling picture of the region during the early
part of the colonial process, which sets the Callippidae and their neigh-
bours in a rather different light. While there was settled habitation of the
lower Bug and its environs in the Bronze Age, the region seems to have
had no fixed settlements thereafter as the embryonic community at Olbia
developed. However, that is not to say that the region was, as often
claimed, ‘uninhabited’ when Greeks arrived. The earliest painted pottery
so far found on Berezan can be dated to the earlier seventh century, which
chimes well enough with our limited literary tradition on Greek concern
with the Bug region.14 The absence of local settlements at this time is usu-
ally taken to suggest that the region was easy meat for Greek colonists.15
Perhaps so in one sense, but we must consider also the reasons for the
absence of local agriculturalists; given our lack of evidence on this im-
portant matter, we can only suspect problems of climate or physical security
or both. For these lands were not completely empty: there were pastoral-
ists (hard as they are to find in the local archaeological record) and those
pastoralists had to be accommodated or somehow controlled by the
colonists.
It is worth pausing briefly to compare the pattern of settlements on
the lower Dniester, to the west of Olbia. For there we find that the early
rural settlements (from the late archaic period) are without exception
situated on the eastern bank of the estuary. By contrast sites of the fourth
and third centuries BC are spread more evenly, which indicates that the
earlier absence of settlement to the west of the Dniester was not a lack of
agricultural potential there. Rather, problems of security seem very likely
12
I take the self-images of those under discussion to be the main (but not the only) factor in
assigning ethnicity to them.
13
Compare the rather different Geloni, who developed a culture that was a mixture of Greek
and Scythian by being Greeks who had settled among non-Greeks: Corcella & Medaglia 1993,
243 with bibliography.
14
Kopeykina 1973 with Rusyayeva 1994a, 99–100. Even Solovyov 1999, arguing for a later date,
allows the presence of Greeks on Berezan at around this time, though he prefers to minimize their
numbers: see Kryzhitskiy and Buyskikh in this volume, critically. Note too the fact that about a
thousand Greek graffiti remain unpublished, from Berezan, Olbia, etc.: see Rusyayeva 1987, 139,
dating many of these to the earlier sixth and one possibly to the end of the seventh century.
15
e.g. Rusyayeva 1994, 100.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 42
42 David Braund
to have been the deterrent. We happen to know that the Dniester marked
a boundary (albeit a porous one) between what we term ‘Thracian cul-
ture’ to the west and ‘Scythian culture’ to the east. It seems that on the
lower Dniester in the late archaic period the ‘Scythian culture’ on the east
bank of the estuary was more tractable and more open to agricultural
settlement than was its ‘Thracian’ counterpart to the west. That is not to
suggest, of course, that either culture was necessarily embodied in a
single homogeneous political structure, though we are told of a Scythian
king in and around Olbia. The point is rather that, for reasons as yet
unclear to us, colonial settlement was possible east of the Dniester as
far as Olbia and further, in a way in which it was not to the west.
Accordingly, it was on the east bank of the Dniester estuary that the
apparently Milesian colony of Nikonion was founded in the course of the
sixth century.16 Nor is Tyras itself the exception that it might seem to be,
for, while on the west of the estuary, it occupies an elevated promontory
(across the estuary from Nikonion) that offers a fine defensive position,
as has been appreciated by fort-builders in more recent times: this is the
site of Akkerman.17 Conceivably the very existence of a Scythian ‘king-
dom’ in this region meant that Greek colonists could more easily reach
agreements and develop relationships to mutual advantage. Indeed, the
kingdom itself may well have developed its power in the context of con-
structive relationships with Greek colonists. Be that as it may, the differ-
ence between the area to the east of the Dniester and to its west is clear
enough both on the estuary itself and also in the larger pattern of settle-
ment in the north-west Black Sea. For to the west of the Dniester there
was little settlement until the Danube: this was the ‘Desert of the
Getae’.18
Furthermore, it is surely more than coincidence that the agricultural
settlements on the lower Bug in the archaic period show a distinct imbal-
ance, albeit not as extreme as on the Dniester. Whereas the east bank of
the Dniester was favoured, it was the west bank of the lower Bug, with
only a few settlements across to the east towards the Dnieper. The con-
joined impact of these two settlement patterns seems strongly to show an
area between the lower Dniester and lower Bug which was relatively safe
16
Sekerskaya 2001 offers a useful starting-point.
17
Kleyman 2001, esp. 64, observes the modest early settlement there at the far end of the
promontory and the enthusiastic walling which accompanied its expansion towards the
mainland.
18
On settlement on the Dniester, see Okhotnikov 2001.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 43
and practicable as a place to settle and farm. The point seems confirmed
by the archaic sites on the estuary of the river Berezan lying between, for
here we find settlement spread evenly enough along both sides of the
estuary.19
With that in view it is difficult not to see the emergence of Olbia and
of settled agriculture in its extensive environs, such as described by
Herodotus, as a developing symbiosis, with Olbia supporting the agri-
culture (and indeed animal husbandry)20 of its settled neighbours on the
lower Bug and vice versa. All within a framework of reasonable stability
and security provided by the relationship between Olbia and the
Scythian king and his associates. If that is right, these neighbours were
integral to Olbia from the first, and among them the Callippidae seem to
have enjoyed the closest of cultural and presumably also economic
relationships.
There is also the large question of the extent of relationships between
the region of Greater Olbia and the peoples of the forest steppe well to
the north, perhaps most strikingly exemplified by the enormous site at
Bel’sk. For the settled inhabitants of that region had much more in
common in lifestyle with Greek settlers than either could share with the
pastoralists who occupied much of the steppe land in between. That is no
doubt why Greek imported pottery found its way to the forest steppe
early. At the same time, the similarity of handmade wares in the region of
early Olbia with those found in the forest steppe21 has further encouraged
scholars to believe that forest-dwellers moved south down the Dnieper
and Bug. Although the evidence remains fairly light,22 there is every pos-
sibility that this too was at least a contributory factor in the development
of Greater Olbia. All the more so, since the hypothesis has the advantage
of helping to account for the accretion of population to the region which
seems to be entailed in the expansion of rural settlements.23 However, it
must be stressed that, while we may allow some migration from the north
into the region, the dominant culture of Greater Olbia was Greek in so
19
Solovyov 2001, 119 provides a very clear map of the lower reaches of the Tiligul and Bug in
the archaic period.
20
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 137–8. In the Adzhigol valley, animal husbandry was the key pursuit
(cf. Solovyov 1999, 96 n.62 for description); on this and other ‘specialized’ areas within the chora,
see Buyskikh 1986, 19 and the literature he cites.
21
Marchenko 1987, 113 offers a neat summary; see further Marchenko 1988.
22
Cultural influence does not require significant migration, nor does the ethnicity of the crafts-
man (or craftswoman perhaps) follow from the kind of vessel copied: observe, for example, the
Greek models used also for handmade ware (Marchenko 1987, 115).
23
Solovyov 1999, 28–9, 46, is accessible and informative on earlier literature.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 44
44 David Braund
far as its written language was Greek and its religion was concerned with
Greek deities, with the accoutrements of Greek cult. Much the same may
be said for the possibility of migration into the region from Thrace, which
has been inferred from strong Thracian influences in some of the hand-
made pottery of the region, notably at Beykush.24 In this case it is easy
enough to accept the hypothesis of some migrants coming to settle in
Greater Olbia, or being brought there perhaps as slaves or wives, not only
from Thrace but also from the Crimea too.25 Indeed, the arrival of migrant
population groups would explain also some of the differences in the
assemblages of handmade pottery at different rural sites. For the promi-
nence of Thracian-like ware at Beykush (by contrast with, for example,
Shirokaya Balka, close to the south of Olbia) seems less surprising when
we consider its geographical location on the western periphery of Greater
Olbia, towards Thrace. However, while there is every reason to imagine
settlement into the region from the north and west in particular, the main
thrust seems to have come even so from the south with the arrival of
Greeks by sea. Through the archaic period local differences and influ-
ences from elsewhere seem to have been amalgamated into a new identity,
which was Greek or at least Greek enough.26 In particular, there is soon
no significant distinction between the material culture of the city of Olbia
or Berezan and that of the rural settlements, apart from the rather simpler
lifestyle to be expected in small rural communities.27
Meanwhile, Herodotus calls attention to a matter of terminology,
which tends to elide the Olbiopolitans with some of their neighbours,
though he himself (as doubtless the Olbiopolitans) is at pains to clarify
an ethnic and geographical distinction. He evidently follows regular
Greek practice when he describes the citizens of Olbia as Borysthenites
and notes their claim to being Milesian Greeks. Indeed, he is consistent in
that usage (Hdt. 4.17, 53, 78–9; esp. 78 on Milesians). Yet he also notes
24
Marchenko 1987, esp. 111, 113.
25
Marchenko 1987, 112–13 on parallels with so-called Kizil-Kobinskaya pottery, found in the
Crimea, especially to the north of the mountains there.
26
See especially Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 91 on the important arguments of K. K. Marchenko;
cf. Marchenko 1988 and Kryzhitskiy and Buyskikh in this volume.
27
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 90–1 stress the point well, e.g. for religion and domestic buildings; cf.
Wasowicz 1975, 81 on burial practices. However, some differences must be allowed, notably the
markedly higher ratio of handmade pottery in archaic Berezan than at Olbia and the still higher
ratios in rural settlements. Marchenko 1987, 105 gives the percentages of total pottery (omitting
amphorae) as 1–4 per cent (Olbia), 8–14 per cent (Berezan), and up to 36 per cent in the chora
(Kutsurub I and Shirokaya Balka). The figures are no more than indicative, but they seem to
show a clear tendency.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 45
that they term themselves Olbiopolitans and apply the name Borysthenites
not to themselves but to Scythian agriculturalists who dwell on the
Dnieper, the river Borysthenes (4.18). Intriguingly Herodotus says nothing
of a distinct Borysthenite identity on the island of Berezan, which tends
against some modern arguments about Berezan’s prominent identity in the
region.28 The issue deserves attention particularly because it reveals very
clearly the importance of distinguishing between local Olbian perspectives
and the visions offered by external authorities, including Herodotus him-
self. For while Greek authors persist in giving the name Borysthenes and
its derivatives to Olbia, the epigraphy of the city shows that Herodotus
was quite right about local usage across the centuries: Olbians did indeed
call themselves Olbiopolitans. After all, the inhabitants of the region knew
full well that Olbia did not stand on the Borysthenes (the Dnieper) so
much as on the Hypanis (the Bug). There abides a sense that, from the
viewpoint of at least some Mediterranean Greeks, the distinction is nuga-
tory: they are all Borysthenites, for Borysthenes was the best-known and
biggest river of the region and Olbia’s location could be imagined as on the
greater estuary of the Borysthenes.
Meanwhile, Herodotus shows also the trading activity in Greater
Olbia, when he introduces the ‘emporion of the Borysthenites’. That
trade helps to account for what seems largely to have been a constructive
relationship between the city and pastoralist Scythians, or at least some
of their elite. However, it is unclear where precisely he means. Some have
taken him to mean the ‘island’ (then almost certainly a peninsula) of
Berezan, while others have thought that he means Olbia itself. The attrac-
tion of the former view is primarily that he elsewhere terms Olbia an astu
and a polis, though these terms are notoriously slippery, to the extent that
the same community might well be termed an emporion and a polis, for
example. Modern attempts to invest such terms with transferrable mean-
ings serve rather to underline the fact that ancient authors can use them
with little short of gay abandon. However, since Herodotus seems to
locate the emporion specifically on the coast (if that point can be
pressed), the balance of evidence is slightly in favour of taking him to
mean Berezan. Whether there or at Olbia proper, he is explicit that Greeks
went from here and other emporia of the region to trade in the east
(Hdt. 4.17 and 24). By contrast, Herodotus presents the self-styled
28
Notably Solovyov 2001, who explores distinctions between Olbia and the island which it later
incorporated into Greater Olbia.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 46
46 David Braund
Figure 7. Face of Demeter on Olbian coin of the fourth century BC.
Olbiopolitans (his Borysthenites) as ‘the Greeks who dwell beside the

Hypanis’ (4.18; cf. 78), which is precisely what they were.
The location of Olbian cult places further illustrates the extent of
Greater Olbia at the time of Herodotus’ visit in the middle decades of the
fifth century.29 South of Olbia and across the Bug estuary stood the hieron
of Demeter, on the promontory of Hippolaus where the waters of the
Bug and Dnieper meet. She duly appears on Olbian coinage.30 There is no
doubt that Demeter’s sanctuary was the work of the Olbiopolitans, who
probably also named the promontory, as also presumably the Callippidae.
An intriguing insight into Olbia’s concern with cult at its frontiers is pro-
vided by a lengthy graffito which survives on a fragment of so-called
Fikellura pottery made in Miletus c.550–530 BC and found quite recently
at Olbia. The date of the graffito has become controversial, but it is
undoubtedly late archaic and no later.31
The graffito has become known as the Olbian ‘priest’s letter’, though
we have no clear idea as to its author.
29
See now also Bravo 2001.
30
See, for example, Rudan & Ursalov 1986, 39 and the literature they cite. The site has not been
located archaeologically: Wasowicz 1975, 84 on that and much else. For sanctuaries of Demeter
outside (and inside) Greek cities, see Cole 1994, noting the apparent importance of water.
31
While it has usually been dated to the later sixth century, as the pottery date might suggest,
linguistic arguments have been advanced for a strikingly later date, placing the text no earlier
than 400 BC: see Dubois 1996, 56–7 for trenchant remarks on the whole issue, upholding the late
date. However, a gap of well over a century between pot production and graffito, though not
inconceivable, was always a worry. I am advised by the excavation team that the sherd was found
in an archaic level, rendering Dubois’ arguments impossible and raising larger doubts about the
reliability of such arguments tout court: A. V. Buyskikh pers. comm.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 47
Figure 8. The so-called ‘priest’s letter’. Drawing courtesy of A. S. Rusyayeva.
. . . presiding official ?32 honey and a ram . . . (and a pig ?) as you instruct
(me/them/us ?) to send33 . . . (to ?) god-made places and around . . . by the
promontory (?) . . . we women who let go (?)34 (the) sacred light35 . . . (of the ?)
island (?) justly in Chalcene36 the women . . . (so that he might sail out ?) from
there to Hylaea . . . again the altars have been harmed . . . of the Mother of the
Gods and of Borysthenes and of Heracles . . . after the shipwreck the slaves,
having landed37 . . . (with ?) the priesthood of Metrophanes,38 he left the sacred
. . . and of the pine-trees . . . (a certain number ??) are bad, and of the trees . . .
200 . . . the hunters of horses have found, with risks, men of Tyragetans (? or
Tyrans ?)39 . . .
32
Dubois 1996, 57 is attracted by the possibility of a poet (a hymnothete), but the more mun-
dane and far more common agonothete seems more likely. He sees here a dative (though cf. line
10), while an accusative is possible: we do not know the syntax. Agones are likely enough from
the earliest years of the city.
33
Or, restoring the verb not as an infinitive, but as a participle, ‘as you instruct when you send’:
so Dubois 1996, 58.
34
These letters are clearly legible and seem to demand this translation. However, commentators
have evidently been troubled (cf. Dubois 1996, 59), in recognition of which a little caution has
been retained here.
35
Evidently a flame in the sanctuary, as Dubois 1996, 59 stresses.
36
Otherwise unknown: presumably a toponym. Rusyayeva interestingly suggests that it be
linked with a metal-working site in the north-west Crimea (Yagorlyk, though bronze-working
seems not to be clear there, as would seem to be required): Dubois 1996, 60 seems attracted by
the idea.
37
Dubois 1996, 62 notes the ambiguity of the participle, which might or might not entail
aggressive action: see below.
38
The name is strikingly relevant to a person who seems to be a hierophant, quite possibly of the
Mother of the Gods: it may be an official more than a personal name.
39
Dubois 1996, 62–3 is especially helpful on this remarkable ‘ending’. He observes the Scythian
use of horses in sacrifice (Hdt. 4.61) and the presence of wild horses (though Hdt. 4.53 locates
them at a lake up the Hypanis above Olbia, not on its banks). Horse hunters here seem to imply
wild horses in the area of Hylaea, or alternatively to the west where Tyras would be entailed, as
one might wish.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 48
48 David Braund
While details remain murky, the text clearly concerns the performance of
rites by women, probably in Hylaea, and damage done to the altars of the
Mother of the Gods,40 Borysthenes (the river god or just possibly his
daughter Borysthenis),41 and Heracles. The identity of those who caused
the damage is not stated in the extant text: Scythians might be imagined,
but the text mentions slaves who seem to have been shipwrecked there and
might also be considered.42 It remains unclear how or indeed whether the
cult of Cybele was linked with the sanctuary of Demeter. Both might be
considered to be in Hylaea, whose extent is not really known to us:43 it is
worth noting that Demeter and the Mother of the Gods could on occa-
sion be melded into the same deity.44 Conceivably they were linked also in
Greater Olbia in Hylaea, whose name indicates its many trees, for the
whole region was evidently richer in woods than is apparent from the
modern landscape, as faunal remains there confirm.45 However, we must
also locate the grove of Hecate which is mentioned in one or two literary
sources, for her identification with the Mother of the Gods was very com-
monplace elsewhere and is likely enough here too.46 Fortunately, the
ancient geographers come to our aid: the grove of Hecate, at least, is
firmly located on what is now Kinburn spit, the next promontory after
the northern end of Tendra, the ‘Racecourse of Achilles’. Ptolemy the
40
For her cult elsewhere in Milesian colonies of the archaic Black Sea (Apollonia, Istros, and
Myrmecium, as well as Olbia), see Alexandrescu Vianu 1980. In general, see the extensive
discussion of her cult in LIMC Suppl.
41
The river god himself is preferable perhaps, in view of his recurrence on Olbian coinage and
elsewhere: on him and Hypanis, see especially Dubois 1996, no. 82.
42
SEG 42 (1992) no. 710, republished as Dubois 1996, no. 24. Cf. also Rusyayeva 1987, 147,
observing that slaves might be the culprits here, as also Dubois 1996, 62. Cult sites are to be
anticipated all over the chora further north, but there identification is a major problem: see, for
example, Golovacheva & Rogov 2001 for an awkward late archaic instance.
43
The graffito is damaged, so that we cannot, on this basis alone, be quite sure that the Mother
of the Gods had her cult there on its evidence alone. However, Hdt. 4.76 seems to assuage all
doubt: see further below. Dubois 1996, 130 limits Hylaea to the left bank of the Dnieper estuary.
44
See especially Euripides, Helen 1301. Rhea was more commonly identified with Cybele.
45
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 96–7, with map. On faunal remains, Zhuravlyov 1983, 44. On trees,
groves, and cults, Birge 1994.
46
LIMC s.v. on the Mother of the Gods and Hecate. For the grove of Hecate, see Ptol., Geogr.
3.5.2; Anon., Periplus 58. A graffito from Beykush has the word ‘alsos’ (‘grove’) but it remains
most unclear whether that has any link with the grove of Hecate to the east in Hylaea:
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, pl. 31.1 gives a clear drawing. Note also that the sanctuary mentioned in
SEG 42 (1992) no. 710 seems to have large numbers of trees, among which pine trees are speci-
fied by name: given the nature of the text as a whole, this is hardly the timber trade to Olbia, pace
Rusyayeva 1987, 147. On groves and religion, see further the range of studies in Cazenove &
Scheid 1993.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 49
geographer is quite clear on this.47 Rather less clear is the extant text of the
anonymous Periplus of the Black Sea, which requires slight emendation to
state:
For the sailor who from Tamyrace has passed the aforementioned Racecourse,
to the second tip,48 which is called the sacred grove of Hecate, is the afore-
mentioned 1200 stades, 160 miles. From the sacred grove of Hecate into the
navigable river Borysthenes, now called the Danapris 200 stades, 262⁄3 miles . . .
And at the confluence of the two rivers Hypanis and Borysthenes has been
founded a city, formerly called Olbia and then again called by the Greeks
Borysthenes. (Anon. Periplus, 58–60)
In the light of Ptolemy, the Periplus, following the coast north-west past
Tendra and round into the Dnieper, can only mean that the sacred grove
of Hecate stood on the Kinburn spit, which is reached by those who have
sailed up past the top of Tendra from the cult site of Achilles at its bottom
end.49 If, as so often, Hecate is also the Mother of the Gods here, in
Hylaea, we have a location also for her cult there. If that is right, the
entrance to the Borysthenes river was marked by Demeter on the north
side (Cape Hippolaus) after the not dissimilar Cybele-Hecate on the
southern side (Kinburn spit). In any event, thanks to recent archaeology,
we now have dedications to the Mother of the Gods also in Olbia itself,
apparently in a shrine; as with Achilles, the cult in the rural territory (here
in Hylaea) had a counterpart in the city of Olbia itself. For, like the cult in
Hylaea, Olbian Cybele was also archaic, established around 525, if not
earlier.50 Final confirmation of the link between the cult of Cybele in the
47
Ptol., Geog. 3.5.7–8 proceeds ‘Estuary of the Hypanis river, Grove of Hecate: a promontory,
The isthmus of the Racecourse of Achilles, The southern promontory of Achilles’ Racecourse
which is called Sacred Promontory’.
48
Diller 1952, 134 (as also GGM, 417) prints here ‘The sailor who from Tamyrace has passed
Racecourse, on the second tip of the Racecourse of Achilles, which’ etc., but this makes no sense
(for the Racecourse having been passed is reached again) and seems pleonastic (why mention the
Racecourse twice ?). The second occurrence (here in italic) looks very much like a copyist’s gloss
and is better omitted, especially in the light of Ptol., Geog. 3.5.7. Minns 1913, 16 thinks that the
Periplus is simply confused, which is certainly possible. Rusyayeva 1989, 55 takes the Periplus to
locate Hecate on Kinburn, as it seems, without any emendation, but also stresses the link
between Hecate and Apollo, her brother. Dubois 1996, 104–5 stresses the cult of Achilles on
Kinburn too, supposing that he had his own grove. A more economical hypothesis, in accordance
with the evidence (Str. 7.3.19 with Dubois 1996, no. 53), would be a single grove at which both
received cult.
49
On Achilles’ site and possibly games there, see Hedreen 1991, 318–19.
50
On Olbian Cybele, see Rusyayeva 1990, 52 and the work she cites; cf. also her persuasive case
for early dating: Rusyayeva 1998. The more recent discovery of a dedication to the Mother of
the Gods on a fragment of pottery made c.550 (SEG 44 (1994) no. 668) encourages confidence

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 50
50 David Braund
city and its counterpart in Hylaea, if such is needed, comes with the quite
recent discovery of a graffito on a fragment of pottery dated to the first
half of the fifth century BC and found in situ in the centre of Olbia: ‘To the
Mother of the Gods, mistress of Hylaea’.51
Most important, however, is Herodotus’ origin story for the cult of
the Mother of the Gods: Scythian Anacharsis, en route home and imbued
with Hellenism, brought the cult with him from its centre at Cyzicus (Hdt.
4.76). And he was duly punished by his fellow Scythians with death. That
story seems to convey a sense of the uneasy interaction of Olbiopolitans
and their Scythian pastoralist neighbours, all the more important because
our author evidently garnered it in or around Olbia itself. Although
Herodotus does not say as much, what we have here is an Olbian tale.
On the one hand, the Olbiopolitans trace their cult of the Great Mother
back to the actions of a Scythian: that shows a measure of accommoda-
tion and a willingness to embrace something of Scythia among the
Olbiopolitans. But on the other hand, Anacharsis is very much an atypi-
cal Scythian. Although his wisdom had roots in Scythia, he had imbibed
Greek culture too. Culturally he seems to have much in common with the
Callippidae, a mixture of Scythian and Greek. The Olbiopolitans could
embrace such a cult founder without difficulty, especially one so famous
among the Greeks. Needless to say Anacharsis is a fiction, but he is no
less interesting because of that, for his story not only reveals Olbiopolitan
notions of the foundation of the cult of the Mother of the Gods in
Hylaea, but also and more broadly it gives an insight into a rather special
kind of interaction between Olbia and a Hellenizing Scythian in Greater
Olbia. Finally, the overwhelming probability that Herodotus gained much
of his information in the region gains further strength from his location
of Anacharsis’ Cybele correctly in Hylaea.
And he seems also to have conveyed accurately the origin myth of the
Scythians which he ascribes to the Greeks of the Black Sea (presumably
Olbiopolitans in primis): the ‘priest’s letter’ seems to locate Heracles’ cult
in Hylaea, while Herodotus’ (the Olbiopolitans’) Heracles mates with the
snake-woman there too. That provides not only another confirmation of
Herodotus’ worth, but also an indication of the myth which lay behind
in the early date. Of course, we do not know how long after production these dedications were
made, but context confirms that these deposits are firmly archaic.
51
Rusyayeva 1990, 53–4; 1992, 143–8; cf. SEG 42 (1992), no. 709.2 for an accessible Greek text:
the restorations seem utterly convincing. Also Dubois 1996, no. 81.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 51
the Olbiopolitans’ cult of Heracles in Hylaea. Furthermore, at least from

a Greek perspective, Heracles offered another way in which the Scythians
could be made less strange and even brought within Olbian culture. For,
on an Olbian view, not only were they the descendants of Heracles, but,
as it seems, that descent was memorialized and celebrated in Heracles’
cult in Hylaea.52 All that may account for the iconography of Olbian
coins with a certain Eminakos (usually taken to be a Scythian ruler) on
the obverse and Heracles on the reverse.53
Meanwhile, rather by contrast with wide-ranging Heracles, the cult
of Achilles in the north-west Black Sea was strongly linked to Olbia, as
dedications by Olbian magistrates show clearly enough.54 The marine
significance of Thetis’ son could not be clearer here. For in the region,
his cult stretched from the island of Leuke in the west through Berezan55
and on to the north-west coast above the Crimea, where the Racecourse
of Achilles was located on the narrow bar of Tendra. Recent archaeol-
ogy has underscored the significance also of the sanctuary of Achilles at
Beykush, indicated, inter alia, by the earlier discovery of inscribed dedi-
cations (IOSPE i2 132–3, 143, 145).56 Indeed the cult offered an ideolog-
ical underpinning to the security and even expansion of Greater Olbia.
It may well be significant that one of the most westerly finds of a dedi-
cation to the god on the mainland of the north-west Black Sea was
52
Rusyayeva 1990, 52 also notes possibly rival claims to Heracles among the Chersonitans,
settled from Heraclea Pontica.
53
On the relevance of the coin, see Dubois 1996, 61. On the paternity of Skythes, see also
Hesiod, fr.150.
54
Of course, as the son of Thetis, Achilles could easily be seen as linked with the sea, and his
cult duly appears in coastal and island locations. Hedreen 1991 (in part after Pinney 1983) col-
lects examples; cf. also A. Kossatz-Deissmann, LIMC ‘Achilleus’, esp. 193–5. Hedreen 1991, 319
rightly notes that Achilles’ cult is attested (significantly) at the mouth of the Straits of Kerch on
the Asiatic side (Anon., Periplus 25–8 on the telling location; Strabo, 11.2.6, the other key
passage, stresses the particular narrowness of the straits here, also no doubt making the place
special, with the evocative Myrmecium on the other side) Hupe 2006, an important collection,
appeared too late for this volume.
55
e.g. IOSPE i2 131, 135; IOlbiae 87. Graffiti from Berezan (e.g. SEG 30 (1980) nos. 878–959)
show concern there with a range of deities beyond Achilles, including Aphrodite, Artemis,
Demeter, Dionysus, Hermes, and so on, even perhaps the river gods Hypanis and Borysthenes
(no. 913, fourth century BC). No doubt many who reached Berezan had a dedication to make in
gratitude and relief.
56
Solovyov 2001, 116–17 interprets Beykush as located ‘on the western fringes of the Berezan
chora’. However envisaged, the cult significance of the place can hardly be stressed too much: see
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 86 on the sheer bulk of dedication graffiti there.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 52
52 David Braund
located close to the estuary of the river Tiligul’ and that it gave thanks
for a victory.57
At the same time, however, the cult of Achilles should not be imag-
ined simply as part of an Olbian ideology of domination, for example
over Scythians. The local roots of the cult in the north-west Black Sea
certainly tend against such a view. But still more telling is the Scythian
taste for Achilles, particularly in the military paraphernalia of its elite,
which rather suggests that Achilles could offer a constructive point of
contact between Greek and Scythian culture. For scenes from the life of
Achilles recur on four bow-cases found in different parts of the north
Black Sea coast (in fourth-century burials at Chertomlyk, Melitopol,
Ilintsy — towards Kiev — and near Rostov on the Don estuary). Although
none of these was found in the vicinity of Olbia, they are important
because they show that Scythians too might find images of Achilles
attractive. How they understood these images and how far they connected
them with cult remain debatable questions.58 However, it is surely sugges-
tive that these items, deposited with elite Scythians in their burials, offered
the vision of a warrior’s life and concluded with his mother Thetis’ con-
veyance of his remains for deposit in the region. We should not rush to
presume that Scythians did not concern themselves with the Iliad: the epi-
taph of a Hellenistic Scythian king at Scythian Neapolis certainly shows
that those Scythians more exposed to Greek culture might desire to have
themselves memorialized in the language of Homeric poetry.59 The four
bow-cases showing Achilles were evidently considered appropriate
enough for deposit in the burials of the Scythian elite. All the more so if
it was also understood that the remains of Achilles were brought to the
northern Black Sea and Leuke.
Around 600 BC, broadly synchronous with the early stages of Greek
settlement in Greater Olbia, we have the poetry of Alcaeus, which
includes the line ‘Achilles, lord of Scythia’.60 Since the fragment has
57
IOSPE i2 138 (found with 142, which includes Thetis), datable no earlier than the reign of
Hadrian; 144 was found in the same general area. Note also IOSPE i2 140, a stone possibly used
in the construction of Odessa and found in later building work: its ancient location remains
doubtful; cf. 141, sold by a man from Akkerman, claiming its discovery in Olbia itself, where 53
was certainly discovered.
58
See the thoughtful remarks (with illustrations) of Heinen 2001, esp. 10–15, noting, inter alia,
that even if we follow those who believe that the images show a purely Scythian tale (otherwise
unknown!), these still indicate a Scythian affinity for the likes of Achilles.
59
Zaytsev 2004.
60
Alcaeus, fr. 354, Campbell. Note the ambitious discussion of Pinney 1983, who seeks to
bring to bear evidence from painted pottery. Rusyayeva 1990, esp. 41–9, contextualizes the

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 53
survived without its original context, much remains uncertain about

Alcaeus’ words. However, for the present discussion the very existence of
the line is enough to confirm a powerful association in archaic Greek
thought, c.600 at Mitylene, between the hero and Scythia. Whatever the
Scythians made of the notion, it seems likely that the Greeks who came
to settle in Greater Olbia arrived with a predisposition to see Scythia as
the land of Achilles. After all, as we have seen, the Aithiopis even located
Achilles’ final resting place in the region, a fact made all the more telling
for Milesian settlement if we take seriously its ancient ascription to an
author from Miletus itself, a certain Arctinus.61 We can only wonder
whether Alcaeus too had this tradition in mind: it is at least a striking
coincidence — and probably more — that the poet is said to have taken (a
discreditable) part in battle for possession of Sigeum. For Sigeum on the
Troad not only lay towards the Black Sea, but was also most notable for
its claim to have the tomb of Achilles, as stated in Homer.62 Although
much remains unclear (not least the relative chronology of poetry and
warfare at Sigeum63), there seems good reason to believe that Alcaeus was
very aware of traditions about Achilles’ resting place, if not his Scythian
identity. Of course, all this matters particularly because, in imagining
Scythia as Achilles’ land, the Greeks who came to the region anticipated
a world there which was dangerous and alien, no doubt, but also con-
nected with and even under the supernatural control of a particularly
stalwart champion of Greek culture.64 All the more so if the cult of
Achilles in Greater Olbia was a Greek interpretation of a local cult of the
region, as many scholars have suspected: for the cult of Pontarches, as it
became, does seem specific to the area and certainly lacks the kind of
roots one might otherwise have expected in Miletus.65
fragment and Eustathius’ notion, while citing the fragment, that there were two heroes called
Achilles.
61
See now West 2003, esp. 162, on Milesian Arctinus and the rest of the early poetic tradition,
with useful philological bibliography.
62
Plut., Mor. (On the malice of Herodotus), 858a–b ⫽ Alcaeus, test.2, Campbell, with useful
commentary. Plutarch objects to Hdt. 5.94–5 on Alcaeus’ flight; note there too the town of
Achilleum. On Achilles’ tomb, Achilleum, and Sigeum, see Cook 1973, esp.159–65 on the tombs
of Achilles and Patroclus. The problem of Achilles’ two tombs (in Sigeum and Leuke) could be
resolved in favour of Leuke: see Hedreen 1991 on Philostratus’ Heroicus.
63
Though clearly at least some of his poetry post-dates the battle, notably fr. 428a, Campbell.
64
Rusyayeva 1990, 44 catches the spirit of this very well.
65
See Malkin 1987, 162–3 and the literature he cites, especially Bravo 1974 (on which letter, see
now Dubois 1996, no. 23). A valuable survey of the evidence for Pontarches in the region is
offered by Shelov-Kovedyayev 1988, publishing a verse inscription from Berezan in the first
century AD. See now also Hupe 2006.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 54
54 David Braund
Meanwhile, there were other reasons too why Scythia was not so very
strange to Greeks of the eastern Aegean by about 600 BC: while Alcaeus
himself seems to know something of Scythian footwear, Sappho knew the
colour of Scythian hair.66 We are probably safe enough to suppose that
slaves, leather, and perhaps also curios were among the earliest exports
from the region into the Mediterranean world.
The island of Leuke marks the western extent of Olbian ambitions
and responsibilities. The island was the home of a cult of Achilles which
evidently had a significance beyond Olbia. The associated myth, that
Achilles was buried there, seems to have been established already in the
archaic period.67 In physical terms it was well placed as a port of call for
shipping between the lower Danube and other parts of the north-west
Black Sea, including Olbia, though to spend the night there seems to have
been regarded as disrespect to the cult and its deity. Olbia’s link with the
island seems to be suggested by the Eumelan mention of a nymph-cum-
Muse named Borysthenis (and presumably therefore imagined as a
daughter of the river Borysthenes), who is best understood as a member
of the entourage of Achilles’ mother, Thetis, who brought her son to
Leuke and buried him there.
Certainly, later inscriptions show Olbian protection of the island.
Particularly evocative is an honorary inscription dated no later than the
early third century BC:
. . . Olbiopolitans . . . Since he killed those who had occupied the island for
piracy against the Greeks and expelled from the island their associates and
while in the city he served the People of the Olbiopolitans in many great mat-
ters, and for these things the People bestowed honours upon him in his lifetime
and awarded him a public burial. Therefore the People of the Olbiopolitans
resolved to erect a statue of him, so that his deeds might be remembered and
so that the city might make it clear to the Greeks, that it has great care for the
island in accordance with ancestral practices and that when men strive for the
island the city gives them honour in life and due rewards upon their death.
(IOSPE i2 325)
66
Alcaeus, fr. 328, Campbell (Scythian shoes, according to Harpocration, who preserves the
fragment); Sappho, fr. 210, Campbell (preserved by Photius) indicates that she referred to wood
which provided dye to lighten hair colour as ‘Scythian wood’. We should be cautious in accept-
ing these late glosses. However, Sappho’s knowledge of Scythian hair colour could well result
from Scythian slaves on Lesbos, while suspicion may linger that Alcaeus’ ‘shoes’ somehow allude
to slaves also.
67
See West 2002 with the criticisms of Braund 2005.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 55
The Olbiopolitans who decided to erect the statue of their fellow-citizen

on the island, as it seems, not only record the active protection of the
place, but also and more specifically its protection for Greeks in general,
including no doubt traders. Moreover, they assert that the policing of the
island was an ancestral custom by the time the decision was made, per-
haps around 300 BC. It is symptomatic of the special role of Olbia on
Leuke that, whereas we have this one public and one significant private
inscription on the island made by Olbiopolitans, we find no public
inscriptions left there by other states, and even private dedications there
by Greeks from other cities are elusive: the seventy or so inscribed dedi-
cations (almost all on pottery) seldom give anything that looks like an
indication of origin. However, it is worth stressing that archaeology pro-
vides only a pale shadow of the wealth of dedications on the island which
the literary tradition describes (esp. Arrian, Peripl. 21.2).68 Meanwhile,
the sparse crop of inscriptions from Tendra does enough both to show a
cult of Achilles there and to hint at the prominence of Olbia, for we find
a dedication there (possibly by a Bosporan) dated by what seems to be an
Olbian formula.69
Accordingly, we find Greater Olbia held together in broad ideological
terms by several deities. Most important in this regard was Achilles,
found in different parts of the rural territory, as we have seen, as well as
in the city and the quasi-civic Berezan. More generally, the link between
Hylaea and the city of Olbia is particularly well attested, thanks espe-
cially to the ‘priest’s letter’ and the odd further graffito, so that we may
suspect an unevenness in our evidence. However, Herodotus too, with his
Olbian-informed outlook, also brings Hylaea to the fore in his account of
the region and its religion in particular. That in turn, taken together with
the unpredictable survival of graffiti, seems to confirm that we should
see the link between the city and Hylaea as a principal, if not dominant,
axis in the ideological structure of Greater Olbia. After all, a glance at the
map shows that the settlements of Greater Olbia were arranged along
waterways. And it was by water that Greek visitors and traders came to
Olbia, traversing part of Hylaea as they did so. Dio Chrysostom offers a
particularly graphic image of the impression that Hylaea caused. At the
68
Cf. the private dedication IOSPE i2 326, dated no later than the fourth century BC. For the
inscribed dedications, mostly small pieces of pottery with graffiti, see Okhotnikov &
Ostroverkhov 1993, esp. 54–8, with a range of illustrations; they note a Chian, a Samian, and a
Delian, if these are not personal names or some part thereof. Pottery helps dating, which
indicates dedications from the sixth century BC onwards. Cf. SEG 30 (1980), nos. 867–77.
69
IOSPE i2 328–32; dating formula on 332.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 56
56 David Braund
same time, Hylaea could be considered a place of refuge (whether a goal

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

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 57
Figure 9. Kneeling archer of Scythian type, from Kerameikos, Athens, fourth

century BC. Photo. D. Braund, courtesy of National Museum, Athens.
there that he went to Delphi, Apollo’s role in Olbia (not least in its founda-
tion), as elsewhere in the north, might well be imagined not so much as a
new enterprise but as a return to the north, from where his Hyperboreans
continued also to send to Delos.74 Apollo is primarily of the city, beyond
which we find instead especially gods of woods, waters, and the landscape,
though of course as Delphinios Apollo might be seen there too.75
Rather more elusive is the god Dionysus. Herodotus’ account of
Scyles’ disastrous initiation is centred upon Scythian alienation from his
cult.76 And since Herodotus seems to have got so much right about
74
Alcaeus, fr. 307c, Campbell: on the nexus of myths, see LIMC ‘Apollo’.
75
On these civic deities at Olbia, see Ehrhardt 1983, esp. 76. These considerations offer further
support to Dubois 1996, no. 57, making Apollo Ietros ‘lord of Borysthenes’. I do not see why he
does the opposite with his no. 90, Borysthenes’ genitive there notwithstanding.
76
Hdt. 4.79; cf. e.g. Braund 2001.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 58
58 David Braund
Olbiopolitan religion, his account must be taken very seriously indeed as

in all likelihood a tale told at Olbia. Further, that tale might seem to sug-
gest that, after the manner of Apollo, Dionysus might be a god of the city
and have a low profile in Greater Olbia. However, of course Dionysus is
quite unlike Apollo in his distance from city foundation and his strong
associations with the world of rampant nature. Meanwhile, the evidence
is strikingly meagre: Dionysus is hard to find at all among inscribed ded-
ications, though we must recall the famous bone-plates from the city and
from Berezan.77 And yet there are some key artefacts, among which an
inscribed bronze mirror stands out, no doubt used in ritual. Moreover,
the religious calendar of the city makes it plain that Dionysus was indeed
prominently celebrated: Herodotus is vindicated once more, while at
Olbia as in other cities (not least Athens) Dionysus proves ambiguous
and powerful.78 But what seems not to be ambiguous is his opposition to
Scythian culture, at least, however we take that to play among the popu-
lation of Greater Olbia. There we simply lack information or even
grounds for confident inference, but Scyles’ fate hardly encourages belief
in his widespread cult among the Scythians.79
While religion and Olbiopolitan ambitions are very much at issue
here, there can be no doubt that trade was the principal cause of most of
the movement entailed. Accordingly, when the Olbiopolitans sought to
demonstrate their concern for Leuke to ‘the Greeks’, those Greeks most
immediately to be impressed were seafaring traders. Moreover, the
waterways extended also up the rivers of the region, so that Greek goods
could penetrate a long way up even the Dnieper. The excavations at
Trakhtemirov have provided important confirmation that this happened
even early in the archaic period.80 It should not surprise us that only small
amounts of fine Greek pottery have been found: it is hard to imagine that
such goods were more than a curiosity among the local population of the
wooded steppe. Metal goods presumably had a much more immediate
appeal, which would not assist their survival: the deposit of several fifth-
century bronze vessels in what could be a burial at Peshchanoye south of
Kiev at least attests the importation of Greek metalware far up the
Dnieper. These particular finds are parts of a much larger picture of
77
See further Dubois 1996, no. 94, with discussion and bibliography.
78
On the mirror, ritual (noting possible mirror making at Olbia), the text, and the cult of
Dionysus at Olbia, see Dubois 1996, no. 92. On Dionysus and the polis, Seaford 1994, 235–80.
79
See further Rusyayeva in this volume.
80
See further Boltrik & Fialko in this volume. Note especially Vakhtina, forthcoming.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 59
Figures 10 & 11. Stele of Leoxos. Fig. 10 (left) ‘Scythian’ side. Fig. 11 (right) ‘Greek’
side. Photos. D. Braund, courtesy of Kherson Museum.
Greek importation into the region. They also raise the question of the
goods exported to meet the cost of imports. As for Olbia, there can be no
doubt that salted fish was a key item of trade out of the region, but slaves
and leather were probably more significant.81
Olbia was central to these widespread exchanges, both through trade
in the city itself and through its wider role in the region, and indeed in the
Black Sea world at large. For it is more than simple chance that we soon
find Olbia bestowing privileges on Sinopians, even Timesileos its tyrant
c.440: Sinope was a fine source of olive oil inter alia.82 Further, Olbia was
well placed to facilitate the movement of goods not only up waterways
but also across the steppe. For that required some kind of accommoda-
tion with local rulers. Olbia could manage that, most obviously by offer-
ing payments in some form, for example in metal or in imported wine and
other prestige goods. When Herodotus was visiting the region he seems
particularly to have based himself in and around Olbia; it is there that we
81
See Curtis 1991, 119 for valuable comment. On the coins, see further Rudan & Ursalov 1986,
36–40. Minns’ objection (1913, 483–4) that the fish-shaped coins are dolphins not tunny, etc.,
and inference that we have here magistrates’ names is typically acute, but remains less than com-
pletely convincing: the dolphin shape had the double attraction of being both fishy and redolent
of Apollo (cf. contemporary IOlbiae 167 with Rusyayeva 1987, 135 and esp. 140–5). It is unlikely
that the ancients worried greatly that these did not closely resemble tunny. For general discussion
of the Olbian economy, see Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 136–43, more concerned with imports of oil
and wine than with the fish trade.
82
Dubois 1996, no. 5 with commentary; cf. IOlbiae 1. The honours for Timesileos make much
more sense if awarded before his removal from power at Sinope: Braund 2005.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 60
60 David Braund
should probably locate his exchange with Tymnes the epitropos of the
Scythian king. Certainly, Olbia was a likely place to find a powerful
Scythian, perhaps especially an epitropos, if the title indicates an eco-
nomic role. After all, the logic of the story of Scyles is that a Scythian
king might normally visit the city on a regular basis. Of course, Scyles
came to a bad end, but there is no indication in the story as we have it that
his visits to Olbia raised alarm among his Scythian subjects. Certainly,
Scyles’ half-Greek background (from his Istrian mother) is used to
explain his behaviour, but that too is a matter of some interest. We can
only speculate how many women of Olbia might find themselves married
to Scythians.83 For the whole position of Olbia, both the civic core and
Greater Olbia, depended upon a symbiosis with neighbouring peoples and
cities. At the same time, however, it would be naïve to imagine that rela-
tionships with all neighbours always ran smoothly, not least because Olbia
could expect to be drawn into conflicts between different groupings in the
region. In later periods, at least, there was also conflict with other Greeks
of the region, particularly with Chersonesus in the south-west Crimea.
When Niceratus of Olbia brokered a cessation of hostilities between the
two cities in the first century BC, that achievement was one of the reasons
for Olbia’s award of considerable public honours to him.84 Nor can we rule
out conflicts even among the various rural settlements in Greater Olbia
itself, where, for example, pastoralism may have clashed with settled agri-
culture from time to time. However, little can be inferred from finds of
‘Scythian’ arrows, which were used by all in the region and for hunting as
well as fighting.85 The Leoxos inscription is a fine indication that
Olbiopolitans might go to war, as did Leoxos, son of Molpagoras, who
died and was buried ‘far from the city’ in c.500–480 BC, as we know from
the very fine memorial erected for him at Olbia.86
83
The theme may have attracted a novelist, though that shows nothing about Olbian realities:
on Kalligone, an Olbian woman’s adventures among Scythians and the like, largely located on
the southern coast of the Black Sea and around Tanais, it seems, see Stephens & Winkler 1995,
267–76.
84
Syll.3 730. Niceratus had also been killed in ambush by unspecified enemies, whom he had
heroically resisted, according to the inscription recording his honours, complete with equestrian
statue. The identity of the enemy is elusive, though Getae may well be involved, as Dittenberger,
for example, certainly believed (ad loc.; cf. 708 with Préaux 1978, 520–4).
85
Nazarov 1988 offers a judicious and informative survey of the archaic evidence and its worth.
86
IOSPE i2 270 to be replaced by e.g. Pfuhl & Möbius 1977, 121; Rusyayeva 1987, 137–8. For
the most recent bibliography, interpretation of the images involved, and the Greek text, see SEG
41 (1991), no. 619 and the literature there cited.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 61
Herodotus happens to tell us something of Olbiopolitan travel around

the hinterland. Indeed it has been argued with some success that Olbian
traders even crossed as far as the Don region.87 Moreover, he presents an
array of detail about the economy of Greater Olbia and its neighbours.
But, although we can infer a great deal about economic (and, as we have
seen, socio-political) relationships in the region, Herodotus chooses to
give very little direct comment on the economy of Greater Olbia.
Inscriptions tell us a little about the movements of individuals and hint
at trading relationships (as with Sinope), but they too offer remarkably
little. The brute and remarkable fact is that we can gauge little in any
detail about the city of Olbia’s dealings with the rural settlements, for
example, from epigraphy. We know nothing of the organization of its
much-discussed chora, except for what may be inferred from Protogenes’
inscription and the very occasional additional toponym which cannot be
located.88 So much so that it is a considerable act of faith to believe that
the Olbian state took much interest in the rural settlements. Of course,
food had to be grown and economic benefit was to be gained, not to
mention considerations of defence and cult. There are also fundamental
questions of property and landownership: as we shall see, Protogenes, for
example, somehow possessed enormous supplies of grain, which prob-
ably came from his lands in the civic territories. Accordingly, we are a long
way from being able to estimate the relative significance of different parts
of Greater Olbia to the prosperity of the city. Nor can we do much more
than guess at the relative importance of Olbia’s own produce (for con-
sumption in the city or trade beyond it) on the one hand and its role as
an entrepôt on the other. Meanwhile, especially in view of the waterside
locations of the rural settlements, we can hardly assume that the city of
Olbia mediated all or even most exchange between these settlements and,
for example, Greek traders from the south or Scythians in search of
goods from the north.
These, perhaps rather alarming, considerations mean that it proves
extremely difficult to chart the history of Greater Olbia in any kind of
detail. We can do little more than infer what was more or less usual in the
region’s economic relationships. The evidence of extensive archaeology
has revealed one or two very large-scale changes over time, although
these resist close dating, as ongoing debates about their close chronology
87
Especially Medvedev 1997.
88
We know of a village called Nomia on a fragment of a second-century BC honorific decree,
IOlbiae 34.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 62
62 David Braund
illustrate well enough. It is only the extraordinary that finds a place in the
historical record, especially through the epigraphic record of particular
citizens’ contributions to the public finances of the city of Olbia itself,
which in turn have major bearings upon the city’s ability to manage its
resources and to ensure its security, whether through diplomatic gifts or
through building up the city’s defences. In consequence, it is really very
difficult indeed to estimate such moments of ‘crisis’ (a much-overused
concept), because it is to a large extent from such ‘crises’ that we must
also seek to understand what was more or less usual over the long period
of Olbian history.
From Herodotus to Protogenes: the Olbian elite in action
The history of the rural settlements in what I have called Greater Olbia
tends to be understood by modern scholars in terms of three different
types of cause. As often as not, scholars tend to argue for the importance
of one of the three, whereas these are better seen as a nexus of causes
interwoven one with another. First, there is the ‘barbarian menace’:
stress is placed on incompatibilities and hostilities between Greeks and
non-Greeks (especially ‘nomads’), whose destructive tendencies are seen
as laying waste the chora from time to time. Secondly, there is climatic
change: micro-analysis of temperature change (and especially reduced
precipitation) is attempted for the region from century to century, bol-
stered by the observable fact that the sea level has risen here since anti-
quity, albeit by a process which remains to be set out in convincing detail
and independently from substantial inference from the archaeology.
Thirdly, recourse is had to (unattested) large social, economic, and polit-
ical processes, which also do not stand up well under close examination.
While much here is hypothesis, these three strands are not easily sep-
arated, and may be better left interwoven. For example, the pressure of
reduced precipitation would tend to encourage political change and
might very well lead to conflicts over resources, whether with non-
Greeks or indeed with other Greeks too, both inside and outside the
community.
The evidence is limited in fact, but the picture is not wholly bleak: what
we have is adequate for some reliable inferences. After expansion through
the archaic period, from the early sixth century or so, the rural settlements
experienced hard times from around 475 BC, when many were aban-

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 63
doned.89 Well before the end of the century, however, from c.430–400, they
seem to have begun to flourish anew, occupying the same locations as in
the late archaic period. There they continued until around 300–250 BC. As
for the fifth-century abandonment, there is no sign of physical destruction
or fire in the archaeological record, which tells against any crude notion of
marauding nomads.90 However, it must also be acknowledged that the
inhabitants may not have sat waiting for destruction: in principle at least,
sites could have been abandoned as soon as the likely consequences of a
breakdown in security became apparent. Meanwhile, the period of aban-
donment is quite narrow, so that one may wonder whether a wholesale
abandonment should be imagined in the first place: we may perhaps be
dealing rather with an extensive reduction of occupation and activity in
these settlements, though that remains to be established archaeologically.91
At the same time, building in the ‘re-occupation’ of the chora involved
the emergence of villa-style clusters, rather grander than the dugouts
commonly found hitherto.92
A much longer period of abandonment is taken to have begun around
250 BC. The change is all the more remarkable in that it follows hard upon
the heels of the most expansive rural settlement ever. For areas had been
settled which had never been settled before, notably on the upper reaches
of the estuary of the river Berezan, on the right bank of the Dnieper estu-
ary, and on Kinburn spit. The rural territory stretched north as far as
it had in the archaic period, to the environs of modern Nikolayev.93 The
settlements themselves, as in the archaic period, were undefended for the
most part, nor is there any sign of a defensive system. Only with a few
villa-like establishments do we find substantial walls which would have
89
A link with Darius’ earlier invasion has been suspected, but any connection is at best obscure:
e.g. Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 27.
90
As stressed by Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 95 against the views of, in particular, Yu. G.
Vinogradov, expressed most fully in Vinogradov 1989, arguing for a ‘Scythian protectorate’ over
Olbia, otherwise unknown. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 95–6 prefer to look for an explanation in
(unspecified) social and political development in Olbia, but are open also to climatic arguments.
91
Cf. Marchenko 1983, esp. 74. The issue is all the more important because this short aban-
donment has been used to explain possibly unrelated matters, e.g. coin distribution; see the very
valuable article of Rudan & Ursalov 1986, esp. 37.
92
Explanations are elusive, but we should probably envisage an extended process of change
from dugouts to ‘villas’: see Rusyayeva & Skrzhinskaya 1979, 28.
93
See further Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 99–101. I am not concerned here with the possible and
fleeting impact of Zopyrion’s campaign, which shows Olbia responding to Macedonian attack
with desperate measures: see most importantly Macrob., Sat. 1.11.33 with the judicious remarks
of Bull.ép. 1984, no. 276.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 64
64 David Braund
served the purpose of at least temporary refuge, though these were wholly
inadequate to resist a significant attack.94
This world was shattered around the middle of the third century BC,
not only in Greater Olbia but also further west on the lower Dniester,
where the rural settlements on both sides of the estuary were destroyed.95
As for Olbia, settlements on the west of the Bug were the first to show a
sharp decline, despite the fact that this was the side on which Olbia itself
was located and that this had been the first part of the chora to be sub-
stantially settled. There can be no real doubt that the source of destruction
came from the west, encompassing the lower Dniester and stopping only
at the west bank of the Bug. Rural settlements persisted more strongly on
the east side of the estuary, at least until around 150 BC when they too
seem to have been abandoned and the city itself was clearly in desperate
straits, with central religious structures damaged and housing left empty.96
For a community under this degree of pressure the appearance of
Mithridates Eupator’s forces must have seemed little short of a miracle.
It seems that the city of Olbia had been hard pressed for a century or
more before Mithridatic forces offered respite around the end of the sec-
ond century. It is usual to see here the impact of Gauls, whose presence is
amply attested in the famous decree made by the Olbiopolitans in honour
of Protogenes. The inscription gives a sense of the fear and loathing
which these invaders caused, however much we might wish to mitigate or
qualify the point by reference to Gallic stereotypes (to which Greater
Olbia evidently subscribed) or epigraphical rhetoric.97
Resolved by the council and the people . . .: Hieroson, father of Protogenes, has
performed many great services for the city, which involved the expenditure of
money and personal exertion; and Protogenes, having taken over his father’s
goodwill towards the people has throughout his life constantly said and done
what was best. First, when King Saitaphernes came to Cancytus and asked for
the gifts due for his passage, and the public treasury was exhausted, he was
called upon by the people and gave 400 gold pieces. When the magistrates
pawned the sacred vessels to repay the city’s debt to Polycharmus for 100 gold
pieces and could not redeem them and the foreigner was taking them to be
94
Buyskikh 1986 offers a thorough discussion; cf. Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 100.
95
Melyukova 1971.
96
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 100–1. The chronology cannot be closely established: Wasowicz 1975,
esp. 104–5, seems to think that these changes all came together c.150 BC, while the changes on
the Dniester can also be located as late as c.200 BC: Samoylova 1988, e.g. 104–5.
97
On Gallic stereotypes in the Hellenistic world, see Mitchell 2003. As to rhetoric, it must be
allowed that the contribution of Protogenes had to be presented in the best light and a Gallic
threat served that end.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 65
melted down, he himself paid in addition the 100 gold pieces and redeemed the
vessels. When Democon and his fellow magistrates bought wine cheaply for 300
gold pieces but could not pay the price he gave the 300 gold pieces, called upon
by the people.
In the priesthood of Herodorus, when there was grain-shortage and grain was
being sold at 5 medimni for a gold piece, and because of the looming danger the
people thought it necessary to build up a sufficient stock of grain and invited
grain-holders to do this, he was the first to come forward and promised 2000
medimni at 10 medimni for a gold piece and whereas the others collected the price
on the spot he himself showed indulgence for a year and charged no interest.
And in the same priesthood when the Saii came in droves to collect the gifts
and the people was unable to give them and asked Protogenes to help in this
crisis, he came forward and promised 400 gold pieces.
When he was elected one of the Nine he advanced not less than 1500 gold
pieces (to be repaid from future revenues), from which many chieftains were
conciliated in good time and not a few gifts were provided for the king to
advantage. When the contract for the equipping of the king’s residence was put
to auction in accordance with the decree, which required that buyers should
receive 300 gold pieces from the city, Conon bought it; but since the magistrates
were unable to furnish the money as it was in the hands of the tax-collectors,
Conon and his associates cancelled the contract. For that reason the contract
was auctioned again, and Phormio bought it the third time. Then Protogenes,
seeing that the city was risking great danger, came forward himself to the
assembly and gave the 300 gold pieces.
Again in the priesthood of Pleistarchus, when there was a severe shortage of
corn and grain was being sold at 12⁄3 medimni for a gold piece, and it was clear
that the price would rise further, as the medimnus immediately reached the price
of 12⁄3 gold pieces, and because of this the people was in deep distress and
thought it necessary to appoint a sitonia and that the wealthy should render
services for this purpose, when the assembly met he was the first to promise
1000 gold pieces for the purchase of corn, which he brought and gave on the
spot. Of this sum, 300 pieces were free from interest for a year, and 400 given
as gold he took back in copper coin; and he was the first to promise 2500 med-
imni of corn, of which he gave 500 at a rate of 41⁄6 medimni for one gold piece
and 2000 at the rate of 27⁄12 for one gold piece. And whereas the others who had
promised grain in this crisis collected the price on the spot from the fund that
had been established, he himself showed indulgence for a year and then took
the price without interest, and because of Protogenes’ eagerness a great deal of
money and a substantial amount of grain was provided for the people.
When King Saitaphernes came to the other side of the river to receive
favours, and the magistrates called an assembly and reported that the king had
come and that the public funds were empty, Protogenes came forward and gave
900 gold pieces and when the envoys, Protogenes and Aristocrates, took the
money and met the king, and the king reviled the gifts and flew into a rage and
broke camp . . . the magistrates improperly, the people met together and were
terrified . . ., and . . . envoys . . .
The largest part of the city along the river was not fortified, nor was all the
area along the harbour and the former fish-market as far as the hero Sosias.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 66
66 David Braund
Deserters were reporting that the Gauls and Sciri had formed an alliance, that
a large force had been collected and would be coming during the winter, and
in addition that the Thisamatae, Scythians and Saudaratae were eager to seize
the fort, because they themselves were equally terrified of the savagery of the
Gauls. As a result many were in despair and prepared to abandon the city.
Furthermore, many losses had been suffered in the chora, in that all the
oiketeia98 and the half-Greeks who live in the plain along the river bank had
been destroyed, no less than 1500 in number, who had fought beside us in the
city in the previous war, and also many of the foreigners and not a few of the
citizens had left. In consequence the people met in an assembly in deep despair,
as they foresaw the danger that lay ahead and the terrors in store, and called
upon all who were able-bodied to help and not allow their native city, pre-
served for many years, to be subjected by the enemy. When no-one would vol-
unteer for all or part of the demands of the people he promised that he would
himself build the walls and would advance the whole cost of the construction,
although not less than 1500 gold pieces had been advanced by him etc . . .
(IOSPE i2 32)
There is a striking discontinuity — at least in nomenclature — between

the peoples named by Herodotus in the fifth century (Callippidae,
Alazones, Scythians) and the peoples active in the region in the later third
century. It is not only the Gauls who are new since Herodotus: we have
also Sciri, Saii, Thisamatae, Saudaratae, and a servile population linked
with half-Greeks (the last two able to field 1,500 fighting men). Only
Scythians are still to be found, though it is unclear exactly what the
inscription means by the term. Also unclear is the nature of this servile
dependency.99 So too any linkage between its half-Greeks (literally, ‘mixed
Greeks’, Mixellenes) and Herodotus’ ‘Greek-Scythian’ Callippidae: differ-
ence seems to outweigh similarity, for the Callippidae are an identified
people (unlike the Mixellenes, who are characterized only by their per-
ceived mixture of Greek and non-Greek) and seem to have occupied an
area on the coast to the south rather than the bank of the Bug north (as
it seems) of the city. Moreover, since these Mixellenes and the oiketeiai
are located beside the river, it is almost certain that they were the inhabi-
tants of some of the rural settlements which cluster close along the Bug
98
The term continues to tantalize: quasi-helots are most probably meant; see SEG 40 no. 632.
See also the next note.
99
Pippidi 1973, esp. 75, locates them within a larger tendency to dependent labour which he
observes in the Black Sea region, though that is still elusive enough, with the notable exception
of the Mariandyni at Heraclea Pontica. It remains to explain why the dependent labour in
Greater Olbia was (as it seems) so localized to a specific area and not widespread over the rural
territory.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 67
estuary, though, as we have seen, they seem indistinguishable culturally

from the other settlements and even from Olbia itself.
It is very clear that Olbia had different kinds of relationships with
these various groupings. That too could benefit the city, for we may recall
the busy diplomacy for which Histria honoured Agathocles, son of
Antiphilus, as he travelled to and fro striving to use more tractable bar-
barians to deal with others.100 As for Olbia, the Saii and their king (as it
seems, Saitaphernes) visit regularly though perhaps not very frequently,
following pastures with the seasons of the year, we may suppose. They are
demanding and put pressure on the city’s fragile public finances, but their
aim seems to have been to milk the city and not destroy it, thereby putting
an end to their own extortion. In so far as we can judge from the inscrip-
tion, the relationship between Olbia and the Saii was steady enough.
Accordingly, when the city was even required to fit out the king’s residence,
the job was put out to auction like any other public works. In particular it
is worth noting that the Saii seem to have come from east of the Bug,
where archaeology shows that settlement in the chora persisted at least
until c.150 BC, later than in the west. The Saii might be problematic, but
they were tractable.
By contrast, Olbia’s relationship with the Thisamatae, Scythians, and
Saudaratae seems to have involved chronic tension, if not hostility. There
is no sign that they can be satisfied with gifts, or that they come and go
like the Saii. They seem to be resident in the area, albeit very possibly
engaged in pastoralism as well as agriculture, for the term ‘Scythians’
tends to suggest pastoral practices. The inscription gives a picture of their
panic. They have no adequate defences of their own, evidently, and for
that reason they seek to occupy ‘the fort’, whose identification remains
problematic.101 It is not at all clear whether they were the reason why the
servile population and the half-Greeks had been lost to the city, whether
killed, seized, preoccupied with their own fate, or possibly driven off their
lands away from Olbia. However, these too could be accommodated.
The Sciri appear as a very serious threat, as also the Gauls who are
known for their cruelty, which in turn suggests that other enemies were
considered relatively tractable and tolerable. The problem, however, is not
the appearance of the Gauls, as seems often to be imagined, but the
100
ISM I. 15, dating it as early as the third century BC.
101
The idea that it is simply Olbia cannot be ruled out, but the city is identified differently
throughout the inscription. There might be forts in the region, as Dio Chrysostom (albeit c. AD
100) indicates.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 68
68 David Braund
rumour of their confederation with the Sciri and their anticipated arrival
in the near future. As separate peoples (perhaps at odds with each other)
even these could be accommodated, but when imagined as a united force
headed towards Olbia they evidently caused extreme panic in the city and
among the peoples around. However, the inscription says nothing of any
actual attack from this united force: the fact that it presents the whole
affair in terms of rumours and a consequent panic which Protogenes did
much to quell, tends strongly to suggest that the threat never actually
materialized. In this case Protogenes may have saved the city, but he did
so by saving it from an abandonment which might well have been an over-
reaction. Be that as it may, the very existence of the inscription attests to
the city’s survival and encourages the view that the imagined force of Sciri
and Gauls never came.
The inscription relates the various difficulties of the city, all of which
turn on a lack of public finance. The difficulties themselves largely fall
into two categories, namely the provision of food at affordable prices and
the management of variously difficult relationships with the peoples of
the chora and beyond. It is worth noting that the two kinds of difficulty
are hardly connected in the inscription. Of course, disturbance in the
chora can only have damaged grain production around Olbia. However,
there seems to be no real shortage of grain in the community as a whole.
For Protogenes has not only a large amount of gold but also a large stock
of grain. While his holdings may have been as exceptional as the honorific
inscription tends to suggest, even here it is clear that other individuals
also had substantial grain stocks. The shortage of grain at a price afford-
able to the general population of the city may be not simply the result of
troubles in the chora, but also of hoarding and possibly speculation
(whether for money or social status or both) among the wealthier figures
in the city. While we are told nothing of climatic factors in the inscription,
these too cannot be excluded. Of course, any threat to the grain supply,
actual or perceived, would be a major spur to hoarding, which would in
turn generate market shortage and price inflation.
In this regard it is salutary to bear in mind the decree in honour of
Callinicus, son of Euxenus, albeit fragmentary. For the decree is rather
earlier than Protogenes or even his father. It is datable to the later fourth
century BC. In the extant text (as also in the energetic reconstructions
attempted for the rest), there is every indication of financial and, it may
well be, social upheavals in the city of Olbia. However, while the food
supply is unlikely to have escaped these troubles, it is not mentioned
explicitly and there is no indication at all that Olbia had problems because

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 69
of pressure from neighbours. Yet Callinicus stepped forward and saved

the day, rather as Protogenes was later to do. We cannot be specific about
the nature of the troubles at Olbia, but the inscription is useful even so
in that it seems to exemplify the a priori probability that Olbia might have
major difficulties without special pressure from ‘barbarians’. Indeed, the
date of the honours for Callinicus coincides with what archaeology indi-
cates as a period of especially widespread settlement in Greater Olbia, as
well as prosperity in the city itself. It may be in view of that apparent con-
tradiction that an attempt has been made to connect the inscription with
the brief siege of the city by Macedonian forces under Zopyrion. The
probability seems to be less dramatic, however. Like many another Greek
city, Olbia had problems which were predominantly internal and, if not
chronic, at least recurrent.102 We can hardly postulate a special crisis to
account for each inscription that turns up. For example, there was
evidently another substantial problem at Nikonion c.300–275 BC, as a
result of which neighbouring Tyras awarded public honours to a certain
Autocles.103 The fragmentary inscription indicates that the honorand had
intervened to assist inhabitants of Nikonion who had abandoned their
homes. The abandonment is not explained in the extant text, but seems to
have been remedied by Autocles’ arrangement and delivery of food sup-
plies from Histria. It seems to follow that the pressure on the inhabitants
of Nikonion had been food shortage. Since no mention is made (unless in
a missing portion of the text) of any military threat to the city, there is a
case for supposing either crop failure or, conceivably, some kind of inter-
ruption to regular imports. Tyras’ role is also unclear in detail, not least
because the nature of its relationship with Nikonion is itself a matter of
dispute. No doubt the city had benefited from Autocles’ activities,
whether from Autocles’ imports, through the stabilization of Nikonion,
or simply because Autocles was a leading figure of Tyras (if such he was).
Here again the epigraphic evidence proves rather frustrating because of
damage to the text, but for all that we find once more that cities of the
north-west Black Sea region, including Olbia, had problems which were
much more extensive than the much-vaunted ‘barbarian menace’. And
situations could swiftly change: while Histria could furnish grain for
102
Vinogradov & Karyshkovskiy 1982–3 valuably saw that IOSPE i2 25 and 31 came from the
same inscription (for Callinicus), offering extensive discussion of its contents (improved as SEG
32, no. 794). However, their basic notion that resistance to Zopyrion is at issue remains
unpersuasive, as Bull.ép. 1984, no. 276 shows.
103
SEG 49, no. 1051 offers the most accessible and best text, with valuable commentary, touching
most issues raised here.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 70
70 David Braund
Nikonion in Autocles’ day, at another time the same city could also suffer
food shortage of its own, as its honours for Dionysius, son of Struthion
show well enough.104 Accordingly, it is extremely hard to know much at
all about why honours were bestowed in some cases, as with Olbian hon-
ours for Anthesterius, of which very little can be made, despite claims to
the contrary.105 That is not to say of course that dealings with ‘barbar-
ians’ and indeed other Greeks were not of great importance, for they
clearly were. The point at issue is the balance and interplay between these
different pressures on the city.
More broadly still, we have a fundamental problem of evidence. The
Hellenistic period shows a tendency not only to euergetism but also to
elaborate public honours for benefactors, which are duly recorded in
inscriptions which have survived for us.106 As we have seen in the honours
for Protogenes, there is every sign that the city of Olbia navigated through
a series of more or less recurrent difficulties involving relations with
different peoples and the grain supply on the basis of an underdeveloped
system of public finances, such as was usual in the Hellenistic world. Not
only Protogenes but his father Hieroson too had stepped in to fill the
breach, whether we see them as public benefactors or as beneficiaries of
the city’s difficulties. Since we have similar inscriptions from elsewhere in
the north-west Black Sea region, it is easy to suppose that the cities there
came under special new pressure in the Hellenistic period. But we must
balance that inference against the fact that, whereas cities’ difficulties may
or may not be new in whole or part, the practice of creating such an
inscribed record evidently was rather new, not only in the region but in the
Greek world at large. For that reason the archaeology of the chora is all
the more important: that confirms an ongoing process of abandonment
over at least a century or so from c.250 to 150 BC. Our abiding problem is
to locate — in particular — Protogenes’ inscription (which has itself dom-
inated much of the archaeological work that might control it) within this
104
ISM I. 19, perhaps third century BC; cf. broadly contemporary ISM I. 20, indicating grain
shipped in by a Carthaginian in time of need.
105
SEG 34, no. 758, with effective criticism of Yu. G. Vinogradov 1984.
106
See now Billows 2003, esp. 211–13 and the literature he cites on the Hellenistic phenomenon,
including support for the food supply, across the Greek world. Billows stresses the positive
advantages of benefactions to the city, which honours are designed to encourage (cf. Xen., Poroi
3.11 for the ideology inherent and sometimes explicit in the inscriptions). The darker side of the
relationship between the democratic state and private wealth is perhaps less obvious, but is at
least as important, as set out below.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 71
process, for its date can only be placed within some fifty years or so,
perhaps c.225. Clearly Protogenes lived in difficult days for Olbia, as had
his father Hieroson, albeit in ways unspecified. Broad-brush archaeology
confirms that the period from about 250 to 150 BC was characterized by
abandonment of rural settlements west of the Bug, but we are in no posi-
tion to chart the process (evidently an extended one) in any detail. In that
sense we may be sure that there was a period of difficulty for the city,
often termed a ‘crisis’. However, we must also be clear that the ‘crisis’ per-
sisted over a long period, so that Olbia was still there to receive the sup-
port of Eupator’s forces around the end of the second century. A crisis
which could be endured for some 150 years is perhaps better considered
a way of life. Certainly, as we have every reason to suppose for the archaic
and classical periods,107 and as we know for the period after Eupator,
Olbia could only exist by accommodating or at least tolerating the
pressures and demands of its neighbours, both settled and pastoralist. A
‘crisis’ at Olbia was a time when accommodation and toleration no longer
seemed possible even, but was managed nevertheless. Crucially, root
causes remain out of reach: we can do no more than point to some com-
bination of two principal problems within the larger framework of a frag-
ile system of public finance which suited the elite by minimizing public
taxation and maximizing the opportunity for acts of private ‘generosity’.
These were problems of food supply, at least partially driven by climatic
conditions,108 on one hand, and on the other a range of threats from
neighbours, themselves surely affected too by significant climatic fluctua-
tions and crop failures. It would be unsurprising to find major social and
political upheavals in Olbia as a result of this nexus of difficulties, but
they are harder to find in our historical record. On the contrary, inscribed
honours for benefactors give rather the impression of a community which
is firmly under the control and overtly in the debt of its elite. Indeed, the
emergence of such ‘benefactors’ as Protogenes and his father is sympto-
matic of a broader tendency in the history and historical record of the
Hellenistic world at large, not a special feature of Olbia or the Black Sea
107
Cf. Solomonik 1987, esp. 124–5 (and the literature cited, plus SEG 40, no. 625) for epigraphic
evidence of what seems to be payment (perhaps in kind, such as salt fish) by the city of Kerkinitis
in the western Crimea to neighbouring Scythians c.400 BC. She adduces Thuc. 2.97 on payments
by the cities of the western Black Sea in the fifth century.
108
See Garnsey 1988, 11–12 on drought around Odessa in more modern times. Cf. also ibid.,
14–15, putting Protogenes’ three interventions over food beside similar cases from Samos, Priene,
and Erythrae.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 72
72 David Braund
region.109 Moreover, it is to be stressed that, as Garnsey has argued very

effectively, food shortage was not particularly unusual in the Greek world
anyway, even in the Black Sea region.110
By and large, when the going got especially tough, it seems that Olbia
could expect scant support from the Greeks of the Mediterranean, or
indeed of the Black Sea in large part.111 The Protogenes inscription shows
these foreigners either contributing to the pressure on the community or
simply rushing to leave town in the face of rumours. We can only recall
Polybius’ trenchant remarks on the Greeks’ failure to come to the aid of
the Byzantines (as with Protogenes, around 220) when they too were hard
pressed to meet the demands of their non-Greek neighbours.112 Or indeed
Dio Chrysostom’s later report of Olbian disdain for the Greeks who came
to peddle their wares in the city around AD 100.113 That is what made
Eupator different. He did send an army to support Olbia, as much of the
rest of the region. The impact of his action (for all its self-interest)
contrasted sharply with the neglect of the Greek world hitherto and was
no doubt all the more remarkable and welcome for that. This was in the
tradition of Eumelus of the Bosporus and more generally of the (not
unalloyed) tendency of Black Sea communities to help each other against
non-Greeks from time to time.114
Finally, it is perhaps worth pausing to speculate on Olbian attitudes
towards what we choose to call its ‘chora’. The fact that we find little
about it in the epigraphic record of the city may be explained away in
terms of the accident of survival. Even so, the fact remains, despite the
cluster of detail that happens to emerge from Protogenes’ decree.
Moreover, on the exceptional occasion that we do find any detail about it,
we hear of grain shortage, troublesome neighbours, and what seems to be
a subordinated population along a stretch of the river, but nothing much
109
Garnsey 1988, 83 draws attention to the dark side of euergetism, noting also that even
Protogenes expected to be paid for his grain eventually.
110
Garnsey 1988. Even if we wish to be sceptical and scale down the chances of food shortage
radically from those inferred by Garnsey, then the key point still holds good. Food shortage was
a fact of life and not a rare one.
111
In fact, aid was more likely to come from other Black Sea powers: as with Histria for
Nikonion in the Autocles inscription, or the cessation of hostilities brokered for Olbia with
Chersonesus by Niceratus; cf. also, for example, Eumelus and Callatis amongst others: Diod.Sic.
20.25.1.
112
Pol. 4. 46.
113
Dio Chrys. 36.
114
Note the recent discovery of an Olbian inscription dated to Mithridates’ reign: Krapivina &
Diatroptov 2005. See p. 6, fig. 1, above.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 73
more. The Olbiopolitans were clearly very concerned indeed about the
survival of their city, but there is little sign of great military endeavour to
control the territory around it, with the apparent exception (though much
remains murky) of the river-bank population and a ‘fort’. Outside the city
itself, there is a clear concern with cult sites, but we simply do not hear of
much else. Furthermore, these cult sites are very much dominated by
water, whether in the timbered water-world of Hylaea, on peninsulas
(Kinburn, Hippolaus, Tendra), or on islands — Berezan (probably a
promontory in antiquity) and Leuke. For, although threats might also
come by sea, the Olbiopolitans controlled the waters of the region in a way
that they never could hope to control the land, whether against its estab-
lished local population, against regular seasonal visitors, or in the face of
dangerous newcomers. Meanwhile, the trade of the city could come and go
by sea and up and down the rivers Bug and Borysthenes in particular,
while the waters were, as we have seen, also rich in fine fish and offered a
salt supply. Of course, none of that is to say that Olbia took no interest in
the land around. Clearly it did: here lay the lands of the rich. The point,
rather, is that the principal focus of the city, with its natural defences aug-
mented by further defensive structures, was not so much on the land as on
the water. Accordingly, settlement of the rural territory clustered along the
banks of the Bug and its estuary with the Dnieper. Water linked these sites
and offered swift passage for goods and people. Olbia could hope to survive
when accommodation failed with those who could shatter Olbian control
of the land (Scythians, etc.). The city could be plunged into serious
difficulties outside its city walls, but it persisted even so, at least as long as
traders kept coming and dealers based there chose not to flee the city in
panic, as is said to have been imminent before Protogenes saved the day
once more. We may recall the case of Histria, which also enjoyed signifi-
cant waterways, but had a chora less orientated on water than that of
Olbia. At Histria, as we hear in the inscribed honours for Aristagoras, per-
haps c.100 BC, the chora was simply abandoned to ‘barbarian’ control for
three years or more.115 If Histria could cope with that, so too could Olbia,
however uncomfortable the situation might be.
Throughout it is entirely usual for modern classical archaeologists
and historians not only to describe the non-Greeks of the region as ‘bar-
barians’, with the opprobrium the term carries, but still more perniciously
to assume that the breakdowns which occurred in relations between
115
Syll.3 708 ⫽ ISM I. 54, line 26.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 74
74 David Braund
Greeks and non-Greeks there were inevitably the fault of the latter. Of
course, a moment’s reflection on the matter shows that we are in no posi-
tion to apportion responsibility, or to accept the perspective of, for exam-
ple, the Olbiopolitan description of the rage of Saitaphernes. We should
not be too quick to assume that, despite poor public finances, the city of
Olbia had always kept its end of the bargain with others in the region.
Meanwhile, private prosperity may have encouraged Olbiopolitans to
build walls against ‘barbarians’ rather than to maintain routine diplo-
matic bridges, about which it was more difficult to construct a grand
inscription perhaps. We may compare Strabo’s generalizing observation
on the difficulties of the Bosporan kingdom with regard to its Scythian
neighbours, when walling was preferred to the maintenance of established
payments:
The nomads, then, are warriors rather than brigands. And they go to war over
the payments (sc. due them). For they permit would-be farmers to have the
land, for which they like to take set payments, moderate ones not excessive, to
meet their everyday needs. And they go to war with those who do not pay . . .
but if payments were made they would not go to war. However, people confi-
dent that their strength is sufficient to ward off or block attacks, do not pay.
That, says Hypsicrates, is what Asander did when he walled off the Crimean
isthmus by the Maeotis over 360 stades, with towers every 10 stades.
(Strabo, 7.4.6, p. 311)
We can only wonder whether the likes of Protogenes, so quick to use his
wealth and resources to the benefit of his community and himself, were
tempted also down this road. If Saitaphernes was angered by Protogenes’
mission to him. Perhaps he had good reason to be. The details are simply
not available, but we must at least envisage the possibility that the
Olbiopolitans themselves had contributed to their difficulties with their
neighbours, not only in the Hellenistic period but perhaps earlier too.
That might explain why the difficulties of the city from c.250 BC followed
hard upon its period of greatest prosperity.
Conclusions: the framework of Greater Olbia
We have seen that the city of Olbia depended substantially upon the
maintenance of broadly symbiotic relationships with a range of non-
Greek neighbours. While that dependence was by no means complete, an
Olbia at odds with its neighbours (or with too many of them at once)
would be in dire straits indeed, if not sacked then at least under the kind

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 75
of pressure sketched for us by Dio Chrysostom, whether or not his

account is to be taken at face value. The shifting population of the region
complicated the city’s diplomacy with these peoples, not only as pas-
toralists came and went with seasons and pastures, but as newcomers
arrived and even (as most feared in Protogenes’ day) came to arrange-
ments amongst themselves against the city. Much easier to handle (at
least in principle) was a dominant local ruler, who could be expected to
control the peace of the whole region, such as the Histrians looked to
through Aristagoras, son of Antiphilus, in the west. Ideally, such a ruler
could be won over and even brought into the city itself, after the manner
of Herodotus’ Scyles. Failing that, he could at least be kept on good terms
through energetic and generous diplomacy, whether in person or through
key associates, like Tymnes the epitropos who was evidently around Olbia
for Herodotus to meet. Indeed, with these cases in mind it is easy enough
to understand why Yu. G. Vinogradov came to the view that Olbia spent
some of its history under a Scythian ‘protectorate’. The minting in Olbia
of coins for Scythian rulers offers no more than superficial support for
the notion: that was the kind of favour that might indeed be done for the
king, rather as was the equipping of his residence about which we hear in
Protogenes’ inscription. In fact, to envisage some such ‘protectorate’ is
to go too far116 and thus miss the point, which was symbiosis: Dio
Chrysostom was more attuned to the spirit of the relationship (again
literal historicity does not matter) when he envisaged Scythians encour-
aging the re-foundation of Olbia after Burebista because they wanted
access to the trappings of Greek culture.117 Paradoxically perhaps, it was
to be the weakening of Scythian control and the arrival or emergence of
apparently new peoples (as well as the Gauls, of course) which gave Olbia
the more complex and rebarbative task of conciliating smaller groupings
and trying, we may be sure, to play one off against the other.
Meanwhile, the city had to face a series of different challenges,
shared substantially with the rest of the Greek world. The democratic
structures at Olbia look very flawed in the face of families as dominant
as that of Protogenes and, it seems, a few others. The regular stresses of
food supply seem to have contributed substantially to the emergence of
‘benefactors’ who could use their resources to corner the market and to
dominate the society and politics of the city. Evidently at Olbia, as all
over the Hellenistic world, public finances were inadequate to the task,
116
See the strong critique of Kryzhitskiy 2005.
117
Braund 1995.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 76
76 David Braund
but at Olbia there was the particular expense of ‘gifts’ to neighbours and
the construction of physical defences to augment the natural strength of
the site.
The resilience of the city resided especially in its orientation along
waterways, whether the rivers (of course, the Bug in particular) or the sea.
The religious life of Greater Olbia, like all else, was similarly orientated
along riverine and marine routes. That in turn gave the micro-region
much of its identity and sense of place, while keeping open passage for
goods and people in and out of the area, to and fro from the city, up into
the hinterland as well as south into the Black Sea world and beyond.
Apollo Delphinios himself might be interpreted by some at Olbia as a
water deity, while the ‘dolphins’ which constituted early Olbian coinage
and continued to appear on the round coinage that followed, were also
redolent of the waters, fish, and very possibly the deity himself.118
Meanwhile, the rural settlements which clustered along the Bug estu-
ary in particular had their own history of rise, fall, and evolution, about
which we can only speak in very general terms even after many years of
careful archaeology. While the city of Olbia shows little sign of concern-
ing itself publicly with these settlements, it surely did so. Still more surely,
the likes of Protogenes sought to express their wealth and status (and to
develop them further) by investment in landed property and agricultural
activities, with or without associated trade, for example through the
export of grain produced on their land. For the rural territory was heav-
ily exploited for much of Olbia’s history. The abiding problem for the city
was that it could not protect these lands in any systematic fashion. The
best protection seems always to have been energetic diplomacy: while
skirmishes could presumably be handled and might even form part of the
diplomatic game, significant attacks could not be withstood; large-scale
warfare could save little more than the city itself, and then with extreme
pain.
Modern scholarship on Olbia is much concerned with ethnic distinc-
tions, although it is now also well understood that the allocation of eth-
nicity is actually extraordinarily fraught, even when we have far more
insight than we can hope to have about anything in antiquity, let alone
Olbia. We have seen that the material culture of the rural territory, as also
its religious expression, varies little from that of the city of Olbia itself.
Presumably that renders its population (or much of it) in some sense
118
See LIMC ‘Apollo’, notably 232 (though Olbia is not mentioned).

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 77
Greek, but on the rare occasion that we have direct evidence we find a cer-
tain distance envisaged from the perspective of Olbia at least, most clearly
in the Protogenes text, where the rural territory is populated by half-
Greeks and what seems to be a dependent labour force, both hitherto
ready to fight for Olbia. Earlier, there were also Herodotus’ Greek-
Scythian Callippidae. What of the other peoples mentioned? Should we
envisage even the Scythian Alazones also in rural settlements? If not them,
then what of the panicked Thisamatae and the rest from Protogenes’ time?
Of course, we are not well placed to answer these questions, by virtue
of the complexities of the issue, the lack of much evidence, and perhaps
above all the simple fact that these names have no real meaning for us.
But we need not be overly despondent, for the main point seems clear
enough through all the fog of our ignorance. That remains symbiosis.
Olbiopolitans may well have had all kinds of negative views of these peo-
ples, but some Greeks were similarly contemptuous of Olbiopolitans
themselves, it must be noted, for the very reason that their Greekness was
imagined as having been contaminated by their neighbours.119 A glance at
the personal names of Olbiopolitans shows a rich mix of traditional
names familiar in the Greek world and some remarkably ‘barbarian’ ones,
co-existing in the same families.120 However distinct and Greek the
Olbiopolitans may have liked to think themselves, the key observation
which emerges is the extensive cultural osmosis between Greek (itself a
large term) and non-Greek in and around the city. We have seen this osmo-
sis, and the more extensive symbiosis which it no doubt facilitated, across
religion (notably the cult of Achilles), pottery, names, and more besides.
Once again Dio Chrysostom’s novelistic exposition is true to the spirit of
the place, one suspects, when he finds a young Olbian cavalryman steeped
in old-fashioned Greek traditions of conduct and taste, who rides about in
‘barbarian’ clothing with his head full of Achilles.121
119
Braund 1997.
120
SEG 1990, no. 631 offers a good starting-point on this issue.
121
On Dio’s account, see Bäbler in this volume.

04 Braund 1525 1/10/07 10:57 Page 78

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 79
Herodotus and Olbia1
STEPHANIE WEST
ANY GENERAL ACCOUNT OF HERODOTUS can be expected to make much

of his extensive travels and there is an enduring fascination in the image
of first-hand enquiry ranging from Egyptian Thebes (modern
Karnak/Luxor) to the northern shore of the Black Sea. But this may be
misleading. Herodotus is very forthcoming about his Egyptian experi-
ences; we cannot call in question his claim to have visited Thebes (2.142)
without raising doubts about his good faith in general and casting him as
an ancient Sir John Mandeville. But he does not claim to have seen Olbia
for himself, though if he was there it is surprising that he does not say so
in plain terms. The only passage where he appears to report first-hand
observation of anything in the north Pontic area (81.2) is his description
of a gigantic cauldron at Exampaios, four days’ journey up river from
Olbia, allegedly embodying the results of a census organized by King
Ariantas, and this, as I have argued elsewhere, will allow another inter-
pretation.2 His description of the climate (28), suggesting the Arctic
1
Where no book number is given in references to Herodotus, Book Four is to be understood;
quotations are from Hude’s Oxford Classical Text (3rd edn, 1927). This chapter is pervasively
indebted to the commentaries of Macan (1895) and Corcella & Medaglia (1993); I have thought
repeated references to their notes ad loc. unnecessary. My translations are intended simply to
help readers who find the original difficult; I have tried not to import anything beyond what
Herodotus actually says, but it is hard to avoid this entirely.
2
Translation of the crucial words a’ puaimm loi ey
’ ówim
’ is problematic, but the imperfect tense
is significant and probably best rendered ‘they offered to show me’; it is left vague who ‘they’
might be, but the phraseology is consistent with a hospitable offer of a guided tour ‘if ever you
are in our part of the world’. On the problems of this chapter, see Bravo 2000, 85–8; his percep-
tive and stimulating study highlights many difficulties too long ignored or underestimated. The
description of the appearance of human skin when flayed (64.3) reads rather like first-hand
observation. But such grisly mementoes could have travelled, and in any case we should hardly
judge Herodotus disingenuous if he took over these details from another. His comment on the
difficulty of distinguishing between linen and fabric made from hemp (74) will bear little
weight. At 1.105.4, if the text is sound, he seems actually to distance himself from those who
have visited Scythia. See further S. R. West 2000.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 80
80 Stephanie West
Circle rather than the Ukraine, rather argues against first-hand experi-
ence; it is significant that he fails to realize that conditions of near per-
petual winter would have prevented keeping the herds of cattle and
horses on which the Scythian lifestyle depended, as well as the cultivation
of grain (contrast 17).3 It would be absurd to suppose that with such
expressions as ‘the Scythians say’ (e.g. 5.1; 8.1; 27; 76.5; 105.2) he must
report his own conversations with Scythians (or that it would have been
impossible to talk to Scythians except in their homeland).4
Rostovtzeff sensibly stressed that the question as to whether
Herodotus knew at least a small part of Scythia from autopsy or drew
upon the accounts of his predecessors, is not of crucial importance for us.
More significant is the fact that a considerable part of his account of
Scythia undoubtedly goes back to the Greeks of Olbia, who were quite
well informed about that part of Scythia which lay nearest to them and
which was of direct interest to them.5
Undeniably Olbia is central to Herodotus’ account of Scythia. But
what he actually has to say about the city is surprisingly scanty. It is easy
for us to suppose that he tells us more than he does because commenta-
tors and handbooks supply background information derived from other
ancient authors, excavation, and more or less plausible reconstruction of
events. He does not even use the name Olbia, though he tells us that the
Greeks who live on the Hypanis (Bug) call themselves Olbiopolitai (18.1).
To refer to their town he uses various expressions: sò Boqthemeisxm
a’´rst (78.3) (the Borysthenites’ city), Boqtrhmgy (78.5) (Borysthenes),
Boqtrheeisxm g pkiy (79.2) ( the Borysthenites’ city ), perhaps also
sò Boqtrhemeisxm e’lpqiom (17.1) (the Borysthenites’ trading centre).
This toponymic informality, avoiding the ‘official’ name used by the
citizens themselves, suggests that he did not overestimate Olbia’s import-
ance. ‘The variation in the terms . . . and the omission of the actual name
of the place here, seem to support the view that the passages are taken
from various sources, and to augment the doubt whether Herodotus ever
set foot in Scythia proper.’6
As we attempt to make sense of what he has to say about Olbia itself,
it is worth asking whether what we find perplexing sometimes reflects
confusion and uncertainty on his part. An assurance and a confident
3
On this chilly but widespread misconception, see further Backhaus 1976.
4
For a nuanced discussion of Herodotus’ ‘source-references’, see Luraghi 2001.
5
Rostowzew 1993, 31.
6
Macan 1895, on 17.1. See further Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 936–8.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 81
HERODOTUS AND OLBIA 81
use of detail suggesting an eye-witness are part of his stock-in-trade,

his approach to his subject matter being generally nearer to a modern
journalist’s than we judge appropriate to a serious historian.
It needs to be stressed that for Herodotus’ contemporaries the north
Pontic coast was the back of beyond. Polybius regarded even Byzantium
as lying
somewhat off the beaten track (4.38.11): paqà soi y pkei´rsoiy
’ ’
àcmoei rhai rtmbaime sg̀m idiósgsa jaì sg̀m etuti
ámsot̃ sópot dià sò
lijqòm e’ńx jeĩrhai sxm e’pirjopotlémxm leqxm sg y oi’jotlémgy (It
came about that the region’s peculiar character and natural resources
were unknown to most people because it lies a little outside those parts of
the inhabited world generally visited). He seems not to have been there
himself.7 For Propertius the banks of the Dnieper lie at the northern limit
of the poetry-reading world (2.7.18). The only extant classical author
who claims actually to have visited Olbia is Dio Chrysostom.8 It is not
perhaps surprising that, a generation later, Arrian did not think that the
city merited a detour when he made his tour of the Black Sea coast; had
he visited it he would have been able to locate it more accurately: jasà dè
sòm Boqtrhmgm a ’´mx pkomsi pkiy Ekkày ’o´mola ’Okbía pepkirsai
(Peripl. M.Eux. 20.2) (Upstream on the Borysthenes is a Greek city
named Olbia). His mistake was not uncommon. ‘Herodotus and Dio
alone grasped the fact that the city which its citizens called Olbia, and
strangers Borysthenes, lay upon the Hypanis, the Bug, not upon the
Borysthenes river, the Dnieper. The confusion was natural, but the site of
Olbia could never have been determined from the texts.’9 It is worth con-
sidering the possibility that the Greeks who first settled in this area under-
stood the name to denote the liman in which the southern Bug and
the Dnieper unite and that only later was it interpreted as the name of the
river. ‘The common estuary of the Bug and the Dnieper is one of the
finest in Europe, its very size prevented casual observers understanding
how the land lies.’10
Herodotus could not assume that his audience knew much about
this or any of the Greek colonies on the north Pontic coast; he can
hardly have expected many to be familiar with whatever Hecataeus had
to say about these towns, though he himself must have been.11 It is thus
7
See further Walbank 1951.
8
See further Bäbler 2003.
9
Minns 1913, 15, with river names modernized.
10
Minns 1913, 15, ditto; see further Schramm 1973, 100–3.
11
The surviving fragments of Hecataeus’ account of the region are slight and unrewarding
(FGrHist 1 F 184–90; see Jacoby ad loc).

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 82
82 Stephanie West
instructive to observe how he presents information about Olbia and the

surrounding region. His focus for most of Book Four is ethnographical
and geographical, a pretext for his account of Scythia being provided by
Darius’ foray across the Danube,12 and he generally takes it for granted
that there has been no significant change in the seventy or eighty years
between Darius’ day and his own, even though he himself, as we shall see,
provides evidence that the relationship between Olbia and its Scythian
neighbours was not static.
The centrality of the Dnieper/Borysthenes to his account appears pro-
grammatically in his report of the native tradition regarding Scythian
origins (5.1–2), where he tells us that they traced their ancestry back to
Zeus (⫽ Papaios 59.2) and a daughter
of the river Borysthenes, e’loì
ot’ pirsà kcomsey, kcotri d’ x’m (saying what I find incredible, but at all
events it is what they say). His eulogy of the river (53.1–2) reads like a
prototype of Virgil’s laudes Italiae (G.2.136ff.), even if it ends, prosaically,
with the Borysthenes’ potential for trade in saltfish. (Should we detect
echoes of a bid to encourage immigration to a promising colonial site?)13
Conveniently for our view of Scythian geography, the great river comes
midway between the Danube, the region’s western boundary, and the Sea
of Azov (101.2).
Greek commerce near its mouth forms the starting-point of
Herodotus’ first
ethnographic
section (17.1): a’ò sot Boqtrhemeisxm
elpoqíot (sot so càq sxm paqahakarríxm leraísasm e’rsi árgy sgy
’
Rjthígy) a’ò sosot pqxsoi Jakkippídai mlomsai e’msey Ékkgmey

Rjhai,14 tpèq dè sosxm ’ákko ’hmoy o ì ’Akifxmey jakomsai (Starting
from the Borysthenites’ trading centre (for this is just in the middle of the
Scythian coast) the first people are the Callippidai, who are Greek-
Scythians, and beyond them is another tribe, called Alizones). Is this
emporion 15 of the Borysthenites (cf. 24) to be identified with the town or
city of the Borysthenites (78.3; 79.2), i.e. Olbia? As Olbia is not on the
coast, some have thought that Berezan was meant, others that we should
12
On which see further Gardiner-Garden 1987; Georges 1987.
13
Not to be overlooked, though not easily accounted for, is Borysthenis, daughter of Apollo,
one of the strange troika of Muses ascribed to Eumelus of Corinth (F17 Bernabé ⫽ Fdub . 3
Davies ⫽ 35 West); one of her sisters is Kephiso, but the name of the last, given as Apollinis,
must be corrupt, since all three are Apollo’s daughters: Gottfried Hermann suggested Achelois,
M. L. West Asopis; see further M. L. West 2002, esp. 127f., 132.
14
The variant Ekkgmorjhai looks like a conjecture.
15
On the term (not attested before Herodotus), see further Hansen 1997; Hind 1997, esp.
107–11.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 83
understand more generally an area of contact between Greek traders

and the natives, a market for the region’s natural riches. Majority opin-
ion probably favours Olbia. But Herodotus’ failure to see the potential
difficulty is surely significant.
Commercial contact almost inevitably brings ethnic and cultural
interchange, and it should not surprise us that the adjacent group, the
Callippidai, are of mixed race and/or culture, though Herodotus must
have forgotten about them, together with the demographically more dis-
concerting community of Gelonus (108.2),16 when he insists on Scythian
resistance to foreign ways (76.1; 80.5). These mixed populations are part
of a larger problem: who really counts as Scythian (81.1)? The brief
description is tantalizing; whatever subtleties of mixed marriages (follow-
ing the precedent set by Heracles (8–10)) and Hellenization (or barbariza-
tion) are to be inferred from Ékkgmey Rjhai, perhaps the most
significant point is Herodotus’ failure to elaborate.17 But assimilation and
integration involve change over time, and the Callippidai thus alert us to
the artificiality of Herodotus’ timeless ethnography. We are more acutely
aware of the defect when he cites Aristeas’ Arimaspeia as a source, even
though he believed that Aristeas lived at least 240 years before his own
time (15.1).18 It seems not to have occurred to him that important changes
in the region’s demography might have occurred during the intervening
period.
To the west of the Hypanis we seem to get rather short measure; per-
haps we are meant to understand that the people dwelling between the
Hypanis and the Borysthenes also occupy the territory as far as Scythia’s
western frontier.
It is difficult for the modern reader to resist the temptation to trans-
pose to a map the information which Herodotus gives here. But this mis-
represents his conception; he plainly thinks in terms of the stages of a
journey. The map view, the bird’s-eye view, was not a natural way for
fifth-century Greeks to picture topographical relationships.
That there is in this area a Greek settlement which could be dignified
by the name of polis emerges rather obliquely (18.1): diabámsi sòm
Boqtrhmea a’ò hakárrgy pqx som lèm g Tkaíg, a’ò dè sasgy ’ámx
16
Where the development of a kind of patois (if Herodotus can be trusted on this point) implies
that this community had been in existence for some time.
17
We should be cautious about invoking the Mixellenes of the decree for Protogenes some two
centuries later; see further von Bredow 1996.
18
On Aristeas, more probably to be dated to the mid-sixth century, see further S. R. West 2004.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 84
84 Stephanie West

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

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 85
The Borysthenites’ town is the scene of the second of the two episodes
which Herodotus relates to illustrate Scythian cultural conservatism and
aversion to Greek practices. His first story concerns the legendary
Scythian sage Anacharsis (76f.); his previous reference (46.1) indicates
that he expects the name to be familiar, though for us this is its earliest
attestation.22 Anacharsis travelled to Cyzicus (and perhaps further), and
brought home the worship of the Mother. His performance of rites in her
honour so scandalized his brother, King Saulios, that he shot down
Anacharsis in the act of worship. But since Herodotus says that the
Scythians deny all knowledge of Anacharsis (as he sees it, damnatio
memoriae arising from Anacharsis’ philhellenism (76.5)), we are here evi-
dently dealing with a substantially Greek story. It serves as a foil for the
following narrative: Anacharsis had to travel to learn Greek ways, but
Prince Skyles absorbed them without leaving home (78–80).
We should note the chronological
insouciance with which Skyles’

story is introduced (78.1): pokkoi ri dè j qsa eseri rseqom Rjkgy

’Aqiapeíheoy epahe paqapkǵria sosxi. (Very many years later Skyles
the son of Ariapeithes had a similar experience). It becomes clear from
the links with the Thracian kings Teres and Sitalkes mentioned later (80)
that Skyles’ vicissitudes are to be dated c.460, thus within Herodotus’ own
lifetime; if he visited Olbia, the prince’s fate must have been vividly
remembered by his older acquaintances.
Skyles’ parentage in itself undermines Herodotus’ insistence on
Scythian resistance to Greek influence. His mother (unnamed) came from
Istria (like Olbia, a Milesian colony, as Herodotus tells us (2.33.4)), and
from her he learned Greek language and script (g lǵsgq at’ sg̀ ckx̂rr m
se Ekk da jaì cq llasa edídane).
’ (We may be reminded of a famous
story in Asser’s Life of King Alfred.) Evidence for literacy among Greek
women in the classical period is scanty; it implies respectable social status
and home instruction.23 It is difficult to suppose that Skyles would have
been allowed this educational advantage if his father had objected; the
latter had established a precedent for philhellenism. Ariapeithes had sons
by other women, but on his death it was Skyles who succeeded him.
Herodotus adds the odd detail that Skyles took over Ariapeithes’ wife
Sphairos. Macrobius (Sat.i 11.33) calls the citizens Borysthenitae (in the context of Zopyrion’s
assault). See further Bäbler 2003, 114.
22
On Anacharsis’ legend, see further Kindstrand 1981, esp. 1–30, 74–82.
23
See further Cole 1981; Harris 1989, 108. Instruction in even basic literacy might be expected
to include some reading of literature.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 86
86 Stephanie West
Opoie, mother of Skyles’ half-brother Orikos. This has no obvious rele-

vance; Herodotus presumably mentions it as illustrating Scythian custom.
The legitimacy of their own customs for different peoples is an important
principle for him (3.38.2–4), and it is not easy to detect disapproval. Now
that Skyles has come to the throne the close connection between literacy
and power provides food for thought.24 It hardly matters who taught the
prince to read and write; bilingualism and literacy gave him formidable
advantages, and the detail of his Greek education has taken on a new
significance with the discovery at Nikonion of examples of his coinage
bearing the legend RJTK or RJTKEX.25
As king, Herodotus tells us, he could indulge a preference for Greek
ways, and took regular Hellenic holidays; his choice of Olbia, rather than
his mother’s birthplace, Istria, for his royal residence indicates the city’s
importance in Scythian eyes (78.3–5):

etse ’ a’ c coi sg̀m rsqasígm sg̀m Rjthxm ey ’ sò Boqtrhemeisxm ’ rst (oi dè
Boqtrhemeisai otsoi kcotri ruay at’ sot̀y e’imai Likgríoty), ’ sosoty
ey

o ´jxy khoi o Rjkgy,sg̀m lèm rsqasígm jasakíperje e’ m sxi pqoarsíxi, at sòy
sò sei voy jaì sày pt́kay ecjkgíreie,
dè ójxy ékh
i ey
sg̀m rsokg̀m apohlemoy
sg̀m Rjthijg̀m ábe e àm Ekkgmída erhg sa, vxm d’ sasgm gcqafe
’ àm ’ o’t́se
doqtuqxm epolmxm o’t́se a’´kkot26 ot’ demy (sày dè pkay ’
eukarrom, lǵ siy

lim Rjthxm doi e´vomsa
’
sasgm sg̀m rsokǵm), jaì sa’ kka evq ’ aso diaísgi
Ekkgmijgi jaì heo iri i qà e’ poíee jasà mloty sot̀y Ekkǵmxm. óse dè diasqí-

weie lgma ’g̀ pkom sosot, a’ pakk rreso emdt̀y ’ sg̀m Rjthijg̀m rsokǵm. sa tsa
poierje pokk jiy, jaì o’ijía se e’ deílaso e’ m Boqtrhei jaì ctma ija ecgle ’´
e’ y at’ sà epivxqígm.
’ 27
(Whenever he led the Scythian host to the Borysthenites’ town (and these
Borysthenites claim to be Milesians), whenever Skyles came to them, he would
leave the host in the outskirts,28 and he himself, when he had gone inside the
wall and closed the gates, would take off his Scythian clothes and change into
Greek, and thus dressed would walk around the marketplace without any body-
24
See further Hopkins 1991; Bowman & Woolf 1994.
25
Hind 1992/3, 92.
26
Some editions prefer the variant kao t.
27
Bravo 2000,
85 argues that jaì oi’ jía . . . epivxqígm
’ and correspondingly (79.2) sgy . . .
lmǵlgm ’ are interpolated. ‘The spuriousness of the clauses jaì oi’ jía se edeílaso
’ . . . jaì
e ivom
’´
ctmaija ecgle . . . is proved by the fact that in the following chapter, 79.2, we read that “Skyles
owned in the town of the Borystheneitai an arcade encompassing a big and sumptuous house”:
this statement, which is indispensable to the narrative and which therefore must be considered as
authentic, presupposes that nothing has been said before about a house belonging to Skyles in
the town of the Borystheneitai, i.e. in Olbia. The clause sgy jaì o’kícxi pqseqom sosxm
´ e ’ivom was obviously added by the interpolator to eliminate the incongruity.’
28
‘Offenbar verwendete Herodot in diesem Fall den Terminus pqo rsiom (iv 79) als eine
räumliche und nicht als eine städtebauliche Definition’ (Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 33).

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 87
guard or attendant (but they kept watch on the gates, so that none of the
Scythians should see him dressed like this), and in other respects he followed a
Greek way of life and he worshipped the gods in accordance with Greek cus-
tom. When he had thus spent a month or more, he would put on Scythian
clothes and leave. He used to do this often, and built a house in Borysthenes,
and kept there a local woman whom he married.)
This is a strange enough story so far. Skyles’ behaviour, a palmary

example of the conflict of identity often experienced by those who belong
to more than one speech community, sounds more like that of a school-
boy playing truant or a nineteenth-century nobleman seeking adventure
incognito than what we expect of a steppe chieftain. But, notwithstand-
ing Herodotus’ emphasis on the furtiveness of Skyles’ activity, it is clear
that the prince exercised some authority in Olbia; there was more to his
presence in the city than relaxation from the austerities of a nomad
encampment. The nomad horde which Skyles left just outside the town
could benefit from pasturing their beasts on land which the resident pop-
ulation would have preferred to farm. It seems an unavoidable inference
that at this period Olbia and some other Greek cities were subject to a
Scythian protectorate.29 Whether Ariapeithes had already exercised such
powers over Olbia is not quite clear. Tymnes, Herodotus’ authority on the
family’s lineage (76.6), is described as Ariapeithes’ epitropos, best trans-
lated here as ‘agent’; the word would cover a wide range of functions,
including ‘governor’ (cf. 6.30.2), but Herodotus does not say where
Tymnes exercised his office (nor where they met).
How well did Herodotus understand the situation? Scythian control
of Greek cities cannot have been easy to digest, and, apart from the blow
to Hellenic pride, the will to dominate others casts a shadow over the
Scythian zeal for liberty which is the mainspring of Herodotus’ narrative
of Darius’ campaign.30 Not surprisingly, his narrative emphasises the
attractions— seductions, we might say — of Greek culture for a Scythian
nobleman.
Herodotus’ designation of Olbia is grander now: sò B
eeséx
a’´ (the Borysthenites’ town). Why does he at this point refer to the
Milesian connection? The information has some relevance if we remem-
ber that Istria, Skyles’ mother’s home town, was a Milesian colony
29
See further How & Wells 1912 ad loc.; Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 132f.; J. G.
Vinogradov 1996, 429. However, Kryzhitskiy 2005 shows that archaeological evidence should
not be adduced in support of this inference.
30
‘Like no other people in the Histories besides the Greeks, the Scythians are represented as a
people who define themselves in opposition to literal and political slaves’ (Munson 2001, 112).

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 88
88 Stephanie West
(2.33.4). Of course, in our texts that is rather a long way off. But contrast
and comparison between Egypt and Scythia are commonplace (compare
the latter part of Hippocrates’ Airs, Waters, Places (12–24)), and he
plainly has his account of Egypt in mind as he starts this section on
cultural
chauvinism (76.1): neimijo iri dè molaíoiri jaì otsoi ai’ mxy

vqarhai uecotri (they too are exceedingly averse to adopting foreign
customs), where jaì otsoi (they too) must refer to his similar com-
ment on the Egyptians (2.91.1):
Ekkgmijo iri dè molaíoiri
uecotri
vq arhai, sò dè rlpam e’ipe im, lgd’ ’ ’ákkxm lgdalxm amhq ’ x́pxm
molaíoiri (They are reluctant to adopt Greek customs, or, to speak
generally, those of any other people).31 In his own mind the distance
between the two passages might have seemed rather less. But if he merely
meant to tell us that the town was a Milesian colony, it is odd that he
avoids the usual terminology of ’ápoijoi or apoijíg,
’ and some have sup-
posed him to mean that the Borysthenites claimed Milesian citizenship.32
It is not easy to believe that this point would have been immediately clear
to a contemporary audience.
By contrast, though Herodotus’ observations on Skyles’ change of
clothing may prompt the thought that he nowhere actually describes what
Scythians wore, their trousers were well enough known. As often, cloth-
ing has symbolic force; Skyles was very clearly moving between two
worlds (compare Pausanias’ taste for Median dress (Thuc. 1. 130.1)), con-
cretely demarcated, in Herodotus’ account, by the city walls. These have
not yet been confirmed archaeologically, and we should bear in mind the
possibility that if Herodotus had not himself visited the city, he might,
without any intention to deceive, have added a non-existent feature from
his own mental representation of events.
It was finally his enthusiasm for Greek ecstatic cult which brought
Skyles’ downfall, as it had Anacharsis’.33 In introducing this develop-
ment, Herodotus uses a phrase which indicates that he found Skyles’
behaviour inexplicable ’ ’ ’
(79.1): epeíse dè édee oi jajxy cemrhai, ecmeso
’ pò pqou rioy soigrde (Since it was necessary for him to come to a bad
a
31
Contrast between these two geographical and cultural extremes is suggested at the start of his
account of Scythian origins (5.1), where their claim to be the newest of peoples gains point if we
recall the opening of the Aigyptios logos and Egyptian notions of their own antiquity (2.2).
Herodotus’ assertion that there are almost as many rivers in Scythia as there are canals in Egypt
(47.1)— difficult to reconcile with Darius’ alleged problems over water supply (120.1) — also
suggests that he expected his account of Egypt to be fresh in our minds.
32
See further Graham 1964, 103–8; Ehrhardt 1983, 235–7.
33
On this episode, see Harrison 2000, 217f.; Gould 2001; Braund 2001; Braund 2004, esp. 31f.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 89
end, it happened as a result of the following cause).34 Dionysiac enthusi-

asm undid him. He decided to seek initiation to the cult of Dionysus
Baccheios, Dionysus of the bacchoi. As he was on the point of being ini-
tiated his magnificent mansion was struck by lightning and burnt down.
But notwithstanding this extraordinary portent, Skyles proceeded with
the ritual.
Architectural detail adds vividness to the tale, but may not be entirely
reliable; Herodotus describes a type of architectonic decoration likely to
appeal to a half-Greek nobleman with the resources to fulfil a taste for
ostentation. But there is something perverse about such a palace for the
prince of a people characteristically ueqoijoi (46.3) (carrying their
houses with them). Skyles seems determined to transgress the estab-
lished boundaries between nomadic and sedentary peoples. This works
to the nomads’ advantage when he brings them to graze their herds
in the Olbian chora, but his people might see the threat of creeping
Hellenization in his own taste for city life. Heaven itself, it seems, disap-
proved of Skyles’ eclectic religiosity: o heòy emrjgwe
’ bkoy (the god
hurled his lightning).35 Divine intervention is rare in the Scythian logos;
the focus is strongly on human achievement and failure. Herodotus surely
meant us to be shocked by Skyles’ persistence. But the circumstance
might be differently interpreted. Lightning consecrates, and a place struck
by lightning was abatos, not to be trodden by men; Dionysus was born in
lightning, and death by the all-dreaded thunderstone was a form of
apotheosis.36 To the single-minded devotee what others would have
judged a clear warning to desist might appear rather as a sign of the god’s
approval, even of his presence.
The Scythians, says Herodotus, find fault with the Greeks for cele-
brating Bacchic rites (79.3): ot ’
’ c q uari o’ijòy e’imai heòm enetqírjeim

sotsom ó rsiy laímerhai em cei
’ a’ mhqx́poty (for they say it is unreason-
able to discover this god who drives people out of their minds). This looks
like a clear example of the practice of criticizing one’s own society by pre-
senting it from the standpoint of a hypothetical foreigner, reminiscent of
34
For the phrase cf. 1.8.2; 2.161.3; 6.64; 135.3; 9.109.2. ‘This is indeed the storyteller’s device, in
which the end is retrojected to “explain” some earlier action, and by which the narrator draws
attention to the fateful moment by anticipating the ultimate consequences’ (Flower & Marincola
2002, 43). See also Hohti 1975; Gould 1989, 73–85.
35
Cf. 7.10e.
36
See further Burkert 1960/1; Chantraine 1983, s.v. ’Gkriom; Mendelsohn 1992.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 90
90 Stephanie West
the Anacharsis legend (as with Montesquieu’s Lettres persanes).37 ‘Die

polemische Art eines Heraklit (Vorsokr. 22B14) liegt Herodot fern. Aber
er stellt gegeneinander, was nachdenklich machen soll.’38 The verb
e’ netqírjeim (discover) seems to imply doubt regarding Dionysus’ exis-
tence, and Herodotus’ catalogue of Scythian deities (59) offers no
counterpart (contrast his Egyptian equation, probably drawn from
Hecataeus, of Dionysus and Osiris (2.144.2)). In view of Dionysus’ essen-
tial role as god of wine we can scarcely be surprised at the lack of any
equivalent in the pantheon of a people for whom wine was a foreign
import.39 The god’s specifically non-Scythian character gives a particular
importance to the details of his place in the religious life of the
remarkable Graeco-Scythian town of Gelonus (108.2).
One of the townspeople made trouble40 for Skyles by arranging for
some Scythians to witness their king’s Bacchic cavorting from the vantage
point provided by the city wall. Herodotus clearly supposes that
Scythians did not normally enter the town. Direct speech lends vividness
to the narrative; but since Herodotus cannot have had a faithful report of
what was actually said on this occasion, it raises the awkward question of
the extent to which he may have introduced further details Marte suo,
in the course of speculative reconstruction of events. Horrified at the
sight, the witnesses reported to the whole horde, and Skyles, on his return
to his people, found that they had transferred their allegiance to his half-
brother, Oktamasades (80.1). Accordingly he fled to Thrace, but was sur-
rendered to Oktamasades by King Sitalkes,41 and decapitated forthwith,
apparently at the Danube, the boundary between Scythia and Thrace.
Fratricide ends Skyles’ story, as it did Anacharsis’. We should not be too
37
Cf. 1.153.1. Somewhat similarly, Aristeas (F11 Bernabé, F1 Davies) made the point that
Greek customs might appear as odd to foreigners as non-Greek practices did to Greeks.
38
Burkert 1990b, 22.
39
Fermented (or even distilled) mare’s milk was the traditional steppe intoxicant; a (wildly dis-
torted) account of its preparation forms a fitting prooemium to Book Four (2); see further
S. R.
West 1999. Wine is mentioned in his account of Scythian customs (62.3; 66; 70); if o’imoy’ is lit-
erally meant, Greek influence is implied, but the word could have been used as a translator’s
expedient to refer to alcohol in some other form.
40
The verb used for the troublemaker’s act is uncertain. The MSS. give (di)epqǵrsetre, other-
wise unattested (diepírsetre S is surely a conjecture). None of the various emendations sug-
gested is very convincing. Legrand’s suggestion (ad loc.) is attractive: ‘probablement un mot
d’usage local et familier’.
41
Herodotus does not actually tell us here that Sitalkes was king of Thrace; but cf. 7.137.3.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 91
surprised: at the start of his account (2) Herodotus prepared us to regard

shocking savagery as characteristically Scythian.42
We are left in no doubt of the importance of Dionysus in the religious
life of Olbia, a point amply confirmed by archaeological discovery. ‘Here
Bacchic initiations are neither a spontaneous outburst nor a public festi-
val; admission rests on personal application, there is a preparatory
period, a tradition of sacred rites, and finally the integration into the
group of initiates.’43 Skyles’ story reads like a bizarre inversion of
Euripides’ Bacchae.44 It also shows that Bacchic worship might take a
rather different form from what is presented in Euripides’ play. Herodotus
finds nothing surprising in the celebration of the god’s rites by bands of
worshippers of both sexes within the city. He takes it for granted that
Bacchic initiation depends on personal application; Skyles’ involvement
rather suggests that devotees were not predominantly of low social status.
Whether Herodotus’ explanation for Skyles’ overthrow is the whole
truth we cannot hope to tell. His people might reasonably have been con-
cerned that their king would lose the skills appropriate to nomadic life if
he spent too much time fraternizing with his mother’s people. The mili-
tary success of the steppe horsemen depended on a form of warfare
which was only a minor adaptation of their normal activities. A leader
who showed an inclination towards a sedentary lifestyle (whether
Hellenic or, at the eastern end of the steppe, Chinese) obviously risked
losing his authority. We have what appears to be a relic of Skyles’ flight in
a ring, found c.1935 some 10 km south of Istria, bearing his name on the
bezel and an enigmatic inscription on the band.45
Undeniably Olbia receives more attention from Herodotus than any
of the other Greek towns on the north Pontic coast; but it was peripheral
42
It has been suggested that this internecine conflict is represented on the famous Solokha gold
comb: see Alexseyev 2005, 50–3.
43
Burkert 1985, 291. On the cult of Dionysus at Olbia and its Orphic aspects, see M. L. West
1982; Zhmud 1992; Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 116f., 134.
44
Cf. E.Ba. 567–656 (the palace miracle), 1058ff. (spying from a high place). I leave to others
the speculation that Aeschylus’ Lykourgeia may have influenced Herodotus’ narrative; on that
trilogy, see M. L. West 1990, 26–50, esp. 27–32. As the scholiast on Iliad 6.131 notes, many had
treated Lycurgus’ story, among them Eumelus.
45
See further SEG 30, 800; Vinogradov 1997a; 2000: Dubois 1996, 11–13. I find quite uncon-
vincing attempts to make sense of this text as Greek and believe it to be Scythian. Many previ-
ously unwritten languages must have advanced to script as a result of the efforts of bilingual
offspring of mixed marriages, applying the literacy which they enjoyed in one of their languages
to the other.

05 West 1525 1/10/07 10:58 Page 92
92 Stephanie West
to his interests. His avoidance of the city’s official, and auspicious, desig-
nation, the name preferred by its citizens, is not insignificant. He surely
underplays its importance as the channel through which most of his
Scythian information came. Valuable as it is, the Scythian ethnography
was plainly not the product of long years of patient fieldwork by dedi-
cated observers aspiring to objectivity, but synthesizes information col-
lected unsystematically (as the disordered presentation involved in his
threefold exposition of geographical and ethnographical material (16–31,
47–58, 97–117) indicates) and no doubt distorted by the foreigner’s ten-
dency to generalize from single instances. (Thus, we might suspect that
Herodotus’ description of royal obsequies (71f.) reflects a memorable
occasion of outstanding extravagance rather than the norm.) Whatever
the range of the adventurers for whom Olbia served as a base, they were
not forerunners of Wilhelm Radloff among the Turkic peoples of Siberia
or Waldemar Bogoras among the Chukchi. Belief in Scythian conser-
vatism and resistance to foreign influence was convenient for Herodotus,
allaying qualms about combining items of information gathered over a
long period, but is not altogether borne out by his narrative. Unable to
claim direct access to native Scythian informants on their own ground, he
was naturally not keen to advertise the derivative quality of his material,
and close attention to the Olbiopolitai might have exposed what he
wanted to camouflage.
Rostovtzeff judged it unimportant whether Herodotus had himself
actually visited Olbia. This prudent agnosticism has a corollary: in assess-
ing the reliability of his information, we cannot argue that Herodotus was
there and should therefore know. We have to allow that details which con-
tribute powerfully to verisimilitude may derive from his own assumptions
and speculations (to be distinguished from deliberate invention), not from
actual observation or the testimony of apparently trustworthy local
informants. If he did not himself know the region at first hand, the pres-
entation of his material is very likely to have been affected by the desire
to avoid revealing that he lacked direct experience of the ways of the peo-
ples whose manner of life held for him a fascination not unlike that exer-
cised on Europeans by the native culture of North America some two
thousand years later.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 93
Religious Interactions between Olbia and

Scythia
A. S. RUSYAYEVA
THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER is not the complete reconstruction of

religious interactions between the Greeks of Olbia and the population
of Scythia. Its aim, rather, is an overview of its key aspects (in so far as
current knowledge permits) as embodied in interpretations of different
sources from the late archaic and classical periods. On that basis, we may
proceed to consider in more detail the various issues of this complex and
neglected topic.
Throughout we must be cautious about comparisons. Religious inter-
actions between Greeks and non-Greeks in the Cimmerian Bosporus
have been studied more intensively than in Olbia and its environs, from
different perspectives and with different methodologies.1 However, we
cannot extrapolate from one to the other, for the situation in Olbia makes
comparisons uncertain. Unlike the Bosporus, the territory of Olbia and
its environs was not permanently settled or visited by various non-Greek
peoples, such as might permit complex religious interactions. Also in con-
trast with the Bosporus (and even in the fourth century BC at the height
of Pontic Scythia), Olbia did not furnish the Scythian elite with large
quantities of fine classical metalware, decorated with scenes from Greek
and Scythian mythology; in the Bosporus that metalware was a principal
catalyst in the formation of the world-view specific to Scythian culture,
while it was also a basis for the whole ideas of Greek–Scythian syn-
cretism, both in art and in religious belief. M. I. Rostovtzeff long since
observed that ‘in the hands of Greek artists an iconic Iranian religion
(sc. of the Scythians) was populated with the images of gods composed
by Greek artists and undoubtedly accepted by Scythian believers’.2 His
1
Yemets 2002, 26–165 surveys the literature.
2
Rostovtzeff 1922, 108.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 94
94 A. S. Rusyayeva
views and the general tendency to make much of the ‘gold’ of Scythia,
with its rich tumuli, have had an enormous influence on the subsequent
development of conceptions of Greco-Scythian religious syncretism. It is
held that in the process of the mutual influences of the two religious or
mythological systems of the north Pontic Greeks, on the one hand, and
of the Scythian nomads, on the other, there arose specific cults and cult
practices.3
But where is Olbia here? In all this general discussion, founded on
hypothetical extrapolations and intensive debates about Greco-Scythian
religious interactions (especially in the Bosporus), Olbia has not been
accorded close attention and remains in essence substantially neglected.
Nevertheless, it is possible in various ways to review some of our knowl-
edge with a broad perspective. And the first point to be stressed is that
almost all our data come from a period earlier than that in which the
aforementioned metalware was produced, which further obstructs extra-
polation and comparison. Meanwhile, we must be clear that ‘Scythia’ was
reckoned by the Olbiopolitans (as by other Greeks, notably Herodotus)
not as a single state but as a vast geographical area, within which lived not
only a range of non-Greek peoples, but also the Greeks themselves. In the
seventh to fifth centuries BC agriculturalist and pastoralist peoples of the
wooded steppe were especially important, for with them the Greeks of
Berezan and Olbia, above all, established unhindered, close contacts.4
Subsequently, the nomads who had come from the east, having seized the
steppe expanses of what is now Ukraine (specifically the central part of
pastoralist Scythia) made their greatest impact here in the later fifth and
fourth centuries.
However, these and other non-Greeks were at quite a different stage
of development (politically, socially, economically, and culturally) from
the Greeks, not least in the development of their religion. Accordingly
when trade relations were established, from colonization onwards, there
was no sudden surge, from either side, for the assumption of the others’
cults or the rites associated with them. So much is readily explicable: each
people, of course, was committed to its traditional practices, especially in
matters of religion. In that regard, we must observe Herodotus’ statement
that the Scythians energetically avoid foreign usages, and especially those
3
See in detail Grakov 1950, 7–18; Artamonov 1961, 57–87; Blavatskiy 1964, 26–35; Rayevskiy
1977; 1980, 49–71; 1985; Bessonova 1983, 10–24, 37–55; Lelekov & Rayevskiy 1988, 215–26;
Shaub 1998, 67–74; 1999, 207–23.
4
See in detail Rusyayeva 1999, 84–97.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 95
RELIGIOUS INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OLBIA AND SCYTHIA 95
of the Greeks (Hdt. 4.76). That was very probably the Greeks’ general
perception. Meanwhile, the ‘invisible’ Scythian gods (who lacked an
anthropomorphic form) were distinctly unlike the humanized and ideal-
ized Greek images of gods. This and the Scythian lack of myths (as far as
we know) constituted a principal obstacle to syncretism or osmosis.
Nevertheless, our sources seem to suggest that, in the foundation and for-
mation of the settlements on Berezan and at Olbia, the Greeks deliber-
ately produced a kind of cult propaganda for their own deities and heroes
in order to establish rights over the land on which they had settled and
over the lands around, together with the non-Greeks who dwelt in them.
Heracles and Achilles were the key mythical figures in this regard,
connected especially with the region of Olbia.
Herodotus’ second origin story of the Scythians gives particular
insight into Olbian ideological strategies (Hdt. 4.8–10). This story has
been interpreted in very many ways. Specialists in Scythian studies focus
particularly upon its implications for Scythian ideology, wherein Heracles
is identified with Targitaos.5 However, many classical scholars consider
the story to be Greek in origin.6 Comparative analysis of the story with
other accounts of Heracles’ tenth labour (variously situated in the world
of archaic colonization, complete with archaeology and epigraphy) leads
to the conclusion that it was created in the earliest phase of Ionian colon-
ization in the lower Bug region in the seventh century BC. Heracles was
made a divine colonizer and civilizer of the three peoples of the area and
even the progenitor of their eponymous ancestors.
In broad terms, the story is to be located within a larger set of myths,
which were notably popular among Greek colonists, linked especially
with Heracles’ tenth labour. This story is profoundly symbolic, embracing
in generalized terms symbols of the Scythian land and its ethnic markers:
these range from the symbolic meaning of the bow to the common ances-
tor, Scythes. And here too we find striking expression of the outlook of
the colonists of the lower Bug, who encountered at first three principal
peoples—the Agathyrsi, the Geloni, and the Scythians.
The story of Heracles’ encounter with Echidna (a local snake-woman,
dwelling in Hylaea on the lower Dnieper, who bore the hero three sons
and eponyms) is a developed mythological narrative. Here we find a clear
reflection of the process by which the myth extended: it reflects initial
empirical knowledge of the natural conditions of the region and the
5
See Dovatur et al. 1982; Rayevskiy 1985, 17–19; Bessonova 1983, 10–24.
6
Rusyayeva 1990, 49–53, 1991a; 1992, 8–13; Koshelenko 1999, 149–50.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 96
96 A. S. Rusyayeva
various ethnic groupings which inhabited the lands known to the Greek
settlers. Most important, however, is the essential opposition of Greeks
and non-Greeks as represented by the two central figures, Heracles and
Echidna. For Echidna, while mistress of her land and a mother, is never-
theless inferior to the representative of Greek culture and not only in mat-
ters of appearance. For she herself decides nothing: she merely follows
Heracles’ advice and instructions.
At the same time, the two figures also constitute two different aspects
of ancient Greek religion, the chthonic and the Olympian. For, while
Echidna is a cave-dwelling creature, Heracles is a great hero and the off-
spring of Zeus. Thanks to the sun-chariot of Helios which Heracles used
to complete some of his labours, he rises to the deities of the world above.
A similar force resides also in the bow which Apollo gave him.
Meanwhile, wisdom forms a substantial part of the story. The hero is not
only a man of action but also the dispenser of wise advice as to what
should be done to bring about the future history of this land: the ruler
must be the cleverest, the most adept and strong, that is in essence
Heracles’ counterpart. Even the bow which Heracles left in the cave to
test his sons carries a special symbolism, not only of prosperity and wis-
dom but even of life itself.7 Moreover, the story also reflects a positive
relationship with the non-Greeks through the conclusion of the sacred
marriage between the Greek hero and the local snake-woman, which
could serve as an archetype for mixed marriages between Greeks and
Scythians (at least at elite level) and also a closer interaction more
generally between their separate deities and figures.
The colonists of the lower Bug knew very well the structure of
mythology and theogony with the whole gamut of the supernatural,
presided over by the Olympian deities under the authority of Zeus. His
rule can be inferred from the story of Targitaos, founder of the Scoloti
(Hdt. 4.5), as well as through Heracles and his three eponymous sons: evi-
dently, at the beginning of Greek settlement in the region, Zeus consti-
tuted a cosmic force as ruler and father of all peoples and gods all over
the world, including Scythia. Such a conception of Zeus can only have
facilitated the peaceful coexistence (if not the unification) of the Greeks
and local confederations of the whole area.
According to a single inscription around the middle of the sixth cen-
tury BC (known as the ‘priest’s letter’), the Greeks built three shrines on
7
See in detail Rusyayeva 1992, 8–13.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 97
the lower Dnieper, for the Mother of the Gods, for Heracles, and for
Borysthenes; the altars here were destroyed, while one of the priests was
apparently suffering from food shortage.8 However, the Olbiopolitans’
religious actions here were designed probably not to proselytize among
Scythians, but for the ritual defence of the community’s boundaries at a
time when pastoralist Scythians were based primarily in the north
Caucasian foreland and around Kuban.9
The negative and hostile attitude of Scythians towards Greek deities
in the sixth and fifth centuries is confirmed not only by the destruction of
these altars in Hylaea, but also in the story of Scythian Anacharsis and
the cult of the Mother of the Gods at much the same time in much the
same area (Hdt. 4.76). For Herodotus’ vignette about this wise man tells
how he was returning from Greece to Scythia when he saw the festival of
the Great Mother at Cyzicus. It made such an impression on him that,
once home, he made offerings to her and conducted her worship in the
Greek fashion. In consequence he was killed by his brother. A no less bru-
tal tale is also told of the Scythian King Scyles c.475–450. Scyles married
an Olbiopolitan woman, adopted a Greek lifestyle, and sacrificed to the
gods in the Greek manner. He adopted the cult of Dionysus-Bacchus and
was initiated into his dancing rites in Olbia (Hdt. 4.78–80).
These historical vignettes in Herodotus’ Histories confirm as clearly as
possible that in the early period of Greco-Scythian relations, the Greeks
did not prevent Scythians from adopting and worshipping the Greek
gods. On the contrary, it was the Scythians themselves who took punitive
measures against those Scythians who adopted foreign practices (Hdt.
4.80). Further, it was only in the later fourth century — and then from the
Bosporus, not from Olbia — that gold and silver artefacts flowed into
steppe Scythia with depictions very often of various Greek gods and
heroes (including Heracles), so that it was probably then that the Scythian
elite (at least) became familiar with and accepted anthropomorphic
images from Greek mythology. However, this is all very late in Scythian
history, so that we should hesitate to make great inferences from this lux-
ury metalware about the Scythian adoption of Greek cults or syncretism.
All the more so since these luxury items were current only among the elite
and not the population in general. Therefore, Rayevskiy is probably right
to argue that the images of Achilles and Heracles found in Scythia are
8
Rusyayeva & Yu. G. Vinogradov 1991.
9
Murzin 1984, 11–47, 99–100.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 98
98 A. S. Rusyayeva
not evidence of Greek cult adopted by the Scythians, or of religious

syncretism.10
Meanwhile, the story of Heracles and Echidna did not inspire a local
cult of the hero at Olbia similar to that of Achilles, who was the great pro-
tector of the community by the Roman imperial period, with the title
Pontarches. We have only the image of Heracles drawing his bow (com-
plete with his lion’s skin) on rare silver coins minted in Olbia c.450–425
with the legend EMINAKO. These coins have sparked lively discussion.
One interpretation takes the coins to show the dependence of Olbia upon
the Scythians; on this view, iconography shows a key scene from the
Heracles origin story, with the hero showing how his bow is to be drawn,
while Eminakos is taken to be a Scythian king.11 Another interpretation
takes the image of Heracles to be purely Greek, showing the hero with his
usual attributes, while Eminakos is an Olbian.12
From time to time some scholars argue that idiosyncrasies of the cult
of Achilles at Olbia emerge from the amalgamation of his Greek identity
with a local divinity, variously regarded as Cimmerian, Thracian, or
Scythian.13 However, such arguments neglect the fact that his earliest cult
sites in the north-west Black Sea (including Olbia), both in the colonial
and the pre-colonial periods, were in a region where there were no resi-
dent local peoples. Sometimes it is also suggested that Achilles was some-
how identified with a snake worshipped by Scythians: this snake (it is
claimed) and not Heracles was associated with the mythical snake-
woman of Hylaea and, consequently, was the father of the three
eponyms, or was her brother.14
We do have some indirect evidence that in the early period Olbia’s
Greeks propagandized the cult of Apollo among the local population.
Quite explicit in this regard are the myths which refer to Apollo’s links
with the northern edge of the world, including the Hyperborean gifts to
the god’s cult on Delos and the peaceful Apolline arrow linked with
another figure of the north, Abaris (Hdt. 4.32–6). Moreover, it is well
known that the first ‘coined’ money here (in the form of an arrowhead)
was also the particular votive in the cult of Apollo the Healer at Olbia
10
Rayevskiy 1980, 67–71.
11
Karyshkovskiy 1960, 179–82; 1984, 78–89; Rayevskiy 1977, 168–71; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1989,
93–4.
12
Rusyayeva 1979, 141–2; 1992, 124–6; Anokhin 1989, 15–16; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 152–3.
13
For literature, see Rusyayeva 1990, 49–61; Yemets 2002, 64–9.
14
Cf. in detail Rusyayeva 1990, 49; Okhotnikov & Ostroverkhov 1993, 80, 91–2; Zakharova and
Moleva 1999, 45–54.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 99
and in the west Pontic cities.15 Its use in areas inhabited by peoples who
had arrows as a matter of course can hardly be a matter of chance.
T. M. Kuznetsova, after studying all the bronze mirrors found across
Eurasia, came to the interesting conclusion that a specific type of pan-
shaped mirror of the sixth century BC was introduced in the Black Sea
region by the agency of two centres of Apolline cult (Delphi and Didyma)
at the time of Greek colonization.16 On her view, discoveries of these mir-
rors show not so much trade routes from Olbia to the north (to the Volga
region, the Urals, etc.), but ‘sacred routes’ to the lands of the Argippei
and Issedones of Herodotus’ Histories (Hdt. 4.24–5), routes by which the
cults of Apollo and Dionysus spread north into the country of the
mythical Hyperboreans. However, there is no evidence for this whole
conception, save for the animal figures which appear on the handles of
mirrors (lions and rams), which are linked with the rituals and meaning
of the cults of those gods in Greek shrines, perhaps located in these
distant parts of the inhabited world.
With regard to the possible penetration of the cult of Apollo from
Olbia to the peoples of the wooded steppe, there is an important (and iso-
lated) graffito on a red-figure kylix made early in the fifth century, which
was found in a Scythian tumulus near the village of Zhurovka (Figure
12). It reads: ‘shared (cup) of Delphinios and Healer’.17 Of particular
interest in this inscription is the fact that both forms of Apollo appear
linked closely together, which is particularly characteristic of Apolline
religion in Olbia.18 However, we can only speculate on the manner in
which this vessel came to be deposited in the tumulus at a great distance
from Olbia and whether the graffito was scratched upon it in a local con-
text around Zhurovka. We cannot exclude the possibility, for example,
that representatives of non-Greek peoples of the wooded steppe had
Figure 12. Graffito from Zhurovka, mentioning Delphinios and Healer (Ietros).
Drawing A. S. Rusyayeva.
15
Rusyayeva 1992, 31 with further bibliography.
16
Kuznetsova 1991, 66–91, 96–7.
17
See further Onayko 1966, 61, no. 164, pl. 8; Yu. G. Vinogradov & Rusyayeva 1980, 31.
18
Rusyayeva 1992, 29–55.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 100
100 A. S. Rusyayeva
spent time in Olbia, while the colonists made marriages with women of
local elites in Scythia. For example, the man buried at Zhurovka may have
lived in Olbia and adopted the cult of Apollo in its two forms.
Evidently the introduction of the cult of Apollo Boreas at Olbia was
also linked with the travels of its citizens to the northern edge of the
world. The earliest extant dedication to this deity is a Clazomenian
amphora of the mid-sixth century, inscribed on its lip, which was found
in the Western Temenos at Olbia where the temple of Apollo the Healer
was situated (Figure 13).19 On Yu. G. Vinogradov’s interpretation of the
fragmentary inscription, a certain Anaperres, son of Anacharsis, a
Scolotian, dedicated to Apollo Boreas ‘paternal honey’. And Vinogradov
further contends that the dedicator was the son of the famous
Anacharsis, the Scythian wise man, who had given his son a Greek name
and an education in Greek letters.20 Be that as it may, we cannot take this
discovery as firm textual evidence that a son of Anacharsis dedicated an
amphora of honey in an Olbian temple of Apollo. We have here a hypoth-
esis. However, in so far as Greeks obtained the honey of bees from the
wooded steppe, we may find some indirect confirmation of the suggestion
that Anacharsis belonged to the agriculturalist Scythians, while those
scholars who perceive Scoloti in the first of Herodotus’ origin stories
(Hdt. 4.5–7) may also find some encouragement in the graffito.
In this regard we must also be aware of more than forty flat stone
dishes from the archaic necropolis of Olbia, which were found in the most
wealthy female burials; they seem originally to have been oval or lentoid
in shape.21 Their function remains unclear. However, their association
with a range of cult objects (especially mirrors, sacral vessels, and terra-
cotta statuettes of different Greek deities), possibly indicating a link
between the deceased and a priestly stratum, shows that these stone
dishes may have been used in particular rituals. Be that as it may, it is
Figure 13. Dedication to Apollo on amphora from Clazomenae. Drawing A. S.

Rusyayeva.
19
Yu. G. Vinogradov & Rusyayeva 2001, 136–7, pl.1.16.3.
20
Yu. G. Vinogradov & Rusyayeva 2001, 141 n.14; Rusyayeva 2001, 86.
21
Skudnova 1988.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 101
interesting to observe that dishes of the same type were used at the same
time in the burial ritual of the elite or of rich female burials in the wooded
steppe of Scythia, as too were similar dishes on the broad territory inhab-
ited by nomads, including Saurometae and Sacae.22 Both in Olbia and in
the wooded steppe some of these dishes bear traces of ochre and sulphur,
which has been taken to show them to be tables for domestic purposes,
perhaps used for female adornment. But that kind of interpretation does
not fit well with the relative rarity of these objects, nor with their form
and material. It seems more likely that they had a ritual purpose, perhaps
linked with the cult of fertility, child-bearing, and ritual cleansing.
This burial practice common to the women of the Olbian elite and of
the wooded steppe may be indicative. A specific connection is to be found
here by a broad and intensive study of the objects and related evidence.
However, for the time being, we can say on a priori grounds that there
existed between Olbia (as earlier Berezan) and the inhabitants of the
wooded steppe a relationship which extended well beyond trade alone.23
The transfer of a burial element, embodied in the stone dishes, may have
come about through the colonists’ marriages to daughters of the elite of
the wooded steppe, who (by virtue of their nobility and wealth) retained
a special position among the women of Olbia. Further, to judge from the
other elements of these burials at Olbia, these women from the wooded
steppe were sufficiently influenced by their husbands and new context in
the city to take up Greek deities, in particular Demeter and the Mother
of the Gods, as well as something of a Greek religious outlook. No doubt
in the enclosed family circle the process of Hellenization proceeded
quickly. Accordingly, when these women from the wooded steppe died
out, so too did the practice of depositing stone dishes in burials.
In addition, Herodotus offers a famous account of the wooden city of
Gelonos, with its celebration of Greek-style religion, including a regular
festival for Dionysus. The Hellenic practices are explained as the result of
Greek settlement in the interior from emporia of the south, so that the
language of the Geloni is a mixture of Greek and the Scythian language
of the Budini among whom the Greeks came to settle (4.108). In my view,
this process of settlement can be dated to around 600–550 BC, when the
Greeks tried to establish a more extensive trade with the local population
or simply to make new lives amongst them. Under the impact of some
extraordinary circumstances (e.g. raids by nomads) Greeks had not only
22
See further Bessonova 1991, 92–3; Rusyayeva 1992, 178–9.
23
See further Rusyayeva 1999, 84–97.

06 Rusyayeva 1525 28/9/07 12:30 Page 102
102 A. S. Rusyayeva
to abandon their emporia but also to move to more secure locations. In

the ancient literary tradition, this is a unique indication of the preserva-
tion of various elements of Greek culture and religion in the midst of
non-Greeks. However, despite the fact that some archaeologists insist on
the identification of Gelonos with the site at Bel’sk,24 there is a lack of
substantial and convincing evidence for the view. Be that as it may, at
Bel’sk and at other sites of the wooded steppe of Scythia, there have been
found many and various remains linked with ritual and sacred activity.
Remnants of clay altars, sacral pits, archaic handmade figurines, and a
range of votive offerings find parallels in the sanctuaries of Greek deities
of the region of Olbia.25 Such parallels serve, without question, to
connect the two areas and to show the interactions of the two societies in
religion.
In conclusion, our evidence shows, especially, Greek religious influ-
ence from Olbia upon the religious world of the non-Greeks. The solar
associations of Apollo, together with his other roles (especially as an
archer), were clearly suited to the outlooks of the Scythians, who could
identify him with deities of their own. However, while we can make such
an observation a priori, we must be clear that the great part of the
Scythian population (as also the Thracian) stayed true to their own tra-
ditional cults and beliefs in their own lands. In so far as an interest arose
among them in the deities of the Greek world, that interest was centred
among the local elites. By contrast, in the absence of plausible evidence,
there was no acceptance by the citizens of Olbia of any features at all of
the religious practices and beliefs of the agriculturalist or nomadic
Scythians, apart perhaps from the burials of women who had been
brought from the north.
24
Shramko 1987.
25
See further Rusyayeva 1999, 93–6 with bibliography.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 103
Trakhtemirov:
A Fortified City site on the Dnieper
YU. V. BOLTRIK & E. E. FIALKO
AMONG THE ANCIENT SETTLEMENTS of the Early Iron Age in the Ukraine
the site at Trakhtemirov was one of the most important, occupying a cen-
tral position in the wooded steppe. Trade routes and caravan paths met at
Trakhtemirov which was located over three crossing points of the
Dnieper. Its location on steep heights ensured the security of the settle-
ment there: on three sides it was defended by the course of the Dnieper
while on the other side it was protected by the plateau of the pre-Dnieper
elevation, which was difficult ground with deep ravines as it passed
Trakhtemirov. The city site itself was located some 100 km below Kiev, on
hills of a promontory which jutted into the river from the west, in what is
now Cherkassk region, between the modern villages of Trakhtemirov and
Lukovitsa.
The context of Trakhtemirov
In the Early Iron Age there was an agglomeration of proto-towns along

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

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 104
104 Yu. V. Boltrik & E. E. Fialko
EPER
DNI Pereyaslav-
Khmelínitskiy
Small
Ditches
Large
Ditches
Lukovitsa
Place of excavation in 2000
Figure 14. Trakhtemirov: plan of site. Drawing Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko.
different periods from antiquity onwards. The traditional role of this

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

N
Khotovo KIEV
Belsk
07 Boltrik 1525
D E D S T E P P E
W O O Trakhtemirov
R
.D Smela Zhabotin
nie Nemirov
s Ryzhanovka
28/9/07
ter
Motronino
Il’intsy Zhurovka Pastyrskoye 0 200 km
Grigorovka
12:31
R.
Ca
Dni
e
r
pe
r
pa
t
S T E P P E Aleksandropol
hi

R.
B Chertomlyk
Page 105
an
ug
Kamenskoye Tanais n
M
Chmyrev R. Do
Solokha
ou
Olbia
n
Melitopol
er
niep
tai
R. D Oguz
Tyras
ns
Sea of Azov
Panticapaeum
Black Sea
Chersonesus
anube
R. D
Figure 15. Trakhtemirov and the hinterland.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 106
General information
Located on the right bank of the Dnieper, Trakhtemirov occupied the

northern end of a large, high promontory (some 12 ⫻ 7 km), washed by
the river on three sides. The site itself takes the form of an irregular
quadrilateral: from east to west it is 3.5 km in length, its width is 1.5 km
in the east and 2.5 km in its centre. The overall area of the site occupies
630 hectares. On the side away from the river its limit is marked by an
earthwork and a ditch in front of it: today the local inhabitants of the
area call it Large Ditches. The acropolis now known as Small Ditches is
located in the north-west portion of the site on its own hill which meas-
ures 340 ⫻ 450 m. On its western side it is protected by an earthwork and
on its south by a ravine which contains a stream, while on its east there is
a deep depression which is heavily wooded. On the north flows the
Dnieper.
The first known description of the site at Trakhtemirov dates from
1864 and is the work of Pokhilevich.1 Here we find a description of
the site’s defensive installations and the attribution of the remains to
the Scythian period. Accordingly Trakhtemirov is mentioned in the
Archaeological Map of Kiev Province by Antonovich.2 In the twentieth
century the defensive installations and the area of the site were examined
by Rudynskiy, Passek, Terenozhkin, and Petrenko who established the
depth of the cultural layer (0.5 m) in the inhabited area and dated it to the
sixth century BC. Kovpanenko, a Kievan archaeologist, takes credit for
the full-scale study of the site. The work which she directed continued
from 1964 to 1968; she was able to excavate the north-western part of the
site almost completely, revealing its acropolis. She established also that
this acropolis was the most densely populated area of the site.3 In 2000
the archaeological investigations of the defensive installations at the site
were conducted by Boltrik who excavated part of the ditch and the earth-
work in the southern part of the site not far from the village of
Lukovitsa.4
1
Pokhilevich 1864, 592.
2
Antonovich 1895, 80.
3
Kovpanenko 1972, 188.
4
Boltrik and Fialko 2001.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 107
TRAKHTEMIROV: A FORTIFIED CITY SITE 107
Constructions at the site
The eastern part of the acropolis is separated from the rest of the site by
a stone wall (0.5 m wide) which passes along the edge of the hill repro-
ducing its contour. On the acropolis were found the remains of forty
dwellings and more than fifty structures for storage and other economic
uses. These buildings were spread in groups along the edge of the hill,
leaving the central part of the hill free from construction. Each cluster of
buildings consisted of six to eight units which were situated 2–10 m apart,
with two or three pits and an outside oven with its own pit. Between each
group lay an open area, some 50–70 m in extent. It seems that each cluster
belonged to a large family.
There were several types of dwelling at Trakhtemirov: dugouts, semi-
dugouts, and buildings above ground. However dugouts are by far the
most common. Semi-dugouts and dugouts are here distinguished only
by depth, semi-dugouts being some 0.3–0.6 m below the surface and dug-
outs some 0.8–1 m. In form they are much the same: they are usually
oval, though some round and rectangular ones have been found. Their
dimensions vary from 21 to 50 m2. Their entrances are located on their
southern side. Meanwhile structures above ground vary in size from 45
to 230 m2, with walls of clay, stone, and other materials. Unlike the
dugouts these contain remains of stone hearths. A special feature of
Trakhtemirov is the use of buildings of large dimensions and the exten-
sive use of stone in the building of a variety of structures. Not all build-
ings were connected with habitation; some were for production. In three
semi-dugouts potters worked; in two were found potters’ clay and in one
of these, in a corner, there was a special pit with red and white potters’
clay. On the floor of the third was found a large quantity of crushed hand-
made pottery. Another building complex was used for leather-working.
This was a large four-roomed semi-dugout. Its walls were made of wood
covered with wattle-and-daub and on the floor of the largest of its rooms
was a substantial pit, probably used for processing hides. Here were
found special tools for leather-working: bone polishers, a horn with a
smoothed edge, and a mallet of deer horn.
A building complex discovered in the south-west part of the acrop-
olis had a cult function. This was a dugout, rectangular in shape, some
6.8 ⫻ 3 m in area, and with a depth of 0.8 m. Here were found remains
of a round clay altar (diameter about 1.5 m with a central depression).
The altar was decorated with spirals in relief. On the surface of the
altar, which was covered with soot, were discovered an upturned dish

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 108
and a painted Rhodian kylix of c.550–525 BC. On the floor by the wall
were found two large handmade pots, a zoomorphic vessel in the shape of
a bird, and some animal bones. Evidently this was the shrine perhaps of
a kinship grouping, designated for ritual celebrations during which fire
burnt on the altar and offerings were made. Sacrificial places like this5
have no local prototypes on the middle course of the Dnieper.6 Their
appearance at key settlements of the region (Zhabotin, Trakhtemirov, and
Western Bel’sk) at the beginning of the early Scythian period is connected
with the arrival of population groups, very probably from northern
Thrace.
The economy and material culture
The inhabitants of Trakhtemirov like all the population of the wooded

steppe region were agriculturalists, who engaged in farming and stock-
raising. It is difficult to say which aspect of this economy was most
important to those who lived at Trakhtemirov since the natural condi-
tions of the area were as advantageous for farming as they were for the
raising of domestic livestock. The bones discovered at the site indicate
that among the animals used for agricultural purposes the pig (Sus
domesticus) was important, rather more so than the horse and bovines.
Least important were sheep and goats. The pigs here were large in size; it
is worth observing that more than half the skulls discovered belonged to
young pigs. However, the pigs of Trakhtemirov were of the same kind as
those found at other settlements of the wooded steppe in the Scythian
period.7 Most horses at Trakhtemirov were of small or medium size,
though extremes of large and small are also represented. These horses
were used primarily for riding, though probably also could be put to sec-
ondary use as draft animals. Moreover their meat (especially that of
young individuals) was also a food resource. However, the horses here
show no significant differences to those found elsewhere in the wooded
steppe except that, taken as a whole, their size tends to be a little smaller.8
Bovines at Trakhtemirov were a hornless species. Younger individuals
were used for food. However, the bovines here differ from the norm else-
5
Type 1 in the classification of Andriyenko 1975, 20.
6
Bessonova 1996.
7
Tsalkin 1966, 39.
8
Belan 1982, 55.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 109
where in the wooded steppe in the Scythian period by the large percent-
age of young ones that have been identified. Sheep and goats evidently
constituted only a small percentage of the domestic livestock; however,
they seem to have been much the same as those found elsewhere in the
wooded steppe in the Early Iron Age and indeed in the period of Kievan
Rus. In estimating meat production at Trakhtemirov, based on the
weight of available animals, we may consider that the inhabitants of
Trakhtemirov made most use of bovines (37.8 per cent), rather less use of
horses (33.7 per cent), pigs (24.4 per cent), and sheep and goats together
(4.1 per cent).9
In addition, a large quantity of remains of domestic dogs were dis-
covered at Trakhtemirov (thirty-six individuals). These were dogs of
medium size. Possibly they were used not only for hunting and guarding
but also for food and as sacrificial offerings.10 At the same time the large
number of pigs among the animals at Trakhtemirov distinguishes it from
other sites of the wooded steppe west of the Dnieper where bovines usu-
ally predominate almost to the exclusion of pigs. We should probably
look for an explanation in the fact that Trakhtemirov was very suitable for
pig-rearing: it had numerous valleys and oak woods which were rich in
food for pigs.
At Trakhtemirov, as was usual elsewhere across Europe at this date
and especially in the wooded steppe by the Dnieper, farming meant of
course arable. Here arable farming was traditional.11 Evidently oxen and
horses served as draft animals while scythes were used for the grain har-
vest. On the city site have been found the remains of iron scythes and
sickles. The harvested grain was stored in special pits which took various
forms (cylindrical, pear-shaped, and sloped). In general these pits were
narrower at the opening and broader in their deeper sections. It is esti-
mated that wheat can be stored in pits like this for up to fifty years and
millet for up to ten.12 Grain was subsequently processed with the help of
millstones and small hand-mills.
We learn of the range of cultivated plants used at Trakhtemirov from
the impressions of grains found on the bases and sides of handmade pot-
tery. Palaeobotanical studies have shown that a variety of wheat was
grown (Triticum compactum) and a form of barley (Hordeum vulgare), as
9
Ibid., 63.
10
Bessonova & Skoryy 2001, 113.
11
Terenozhkin 1961, 175; Krasnov 1968, 6; Shramko 1961 & 1972.
12
Bessonova & Skoryy 2001, 116.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 110
well as peas (Pisum sativum), hemp (Cannabis sativa), and millet (Panicum
miliaceum). Moreover millet was evidently sown on virgin lands, and
in terms of quantity this was the most important cultivated crop. In
the Scythian period millet was especially widely grown, not only in the
wooded steppe but also in the steppe region of the north coast of the
Black Sea.13 The popularity of millet is to be explained first by its toler-
ance to different conditions and its high productivity, and secondly by the
fact that it was used not only as food for humans but also as fodder for
livestock. Indeed, as fodder not only the grain was used but also the rest
of the plant.14
Hunting must also be included in the economy of the inhabitants of
Trakhtemirov in which it played a significant role. The main quarry was
wild boar and deer. In addition the people of Trakhtemirov hunted a
range of other animals including elk, fox, beaver, and hare. Hunting pro-
vided not only food but also skins for clothing and bones for carving.
However, it is curious to note that, despite the position of Trakhtemirov
on the bank of the Dnieper, no equipment at all for fishing (for example,
hooks or harpoons) has been found, nor any fish bones. This is quite dif-
ferent from the situation at Matroninskoye city site which is situated on
the river Tyasmin, where such items have been found.
Craftwork and domestic production were important to the economic
activity of the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov. Accordingly we find a wide
range of tools and artefacts made of metal, bone, stone, and clay, as well
as fragments of bone and horn which have been worked together with
pottery, iron, and bronze wasters. Clearly metal was produced and fash-
ioned at the site, which suggests production which was more than domes-
tic. It is thought that bronze smelters of the wooded steppe communities
(as also those in the steppe) worked with raw materials which were
imported, since there are no sources of the necessary materials in these
regions.15 Besides arrowheads the main finds of bronze artefacts at
Trakhtemirov comprised jewellery: rings, bracelets, and an array of
nail-shaped brooches with a characteristic and uniform decoration.
Metal-working in iron was also practised at Trakhtemirov: for this ore
was readily available. High quality steel was produced, which together
with iron was very widely used. Of course metal scrap was also reused. In
13
Kovpanenko & Yanushevich 1975, 148; Lebedeva 2000, 96.
14
Pashkevich 2000, 107.
15
Kosikov 1994, 28.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 111
producing their work local smiths forged iron freehand while it was hot.16
A comparative analysis of the iron artefacts found at different settlements
discovered that the standard of production at Trakhtemirov was not so
good as elsewhere.17 The most important form of domestic production
was pottery. Various clays were used, including red and white as we have
seen. Local potters produced their wares by hand without using a wheel.
The bulk of their production consisted of cooking pots (dishes and pots
decorated in relief) and table ware (cups and other vessels with incised
decoration). In addition they also made votive miniatures in the form of
small vessels (often zoomorphic) which served cult purposes, as well as
shuttles, loom weights, and bobbins.
Moreover, the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov also worked in wood,
bone, stone, and leather as well as in the production of textiles. Weaving
in particular seems to have been important in every family unit there, for
there are a great number of loom weights.
Trade was encouraged by the advantageous geographical position of
Trakhtemirov and the substantial production observable there. Barter
was probably the main form of exchange, for no Greek coins have been
found at the site. Indeed, we should hardly expect coins since these were
only recently employed in the Greek cities of Asia Minor. Although it is
true that coins were used on the north-west coast of the Black Sea as early
as the sixth century BC it was much later that coins entered general usage
in the hinterland.18 Trade at Trakhtemirov presumably included the pur-
chase of horses from the steppe, since horses were important on the site
as we have seen. That implies exchange with the pastoralists, whether
Scythians or others. Meanwhile, trade with the Greek communities of the
north coast of the Black Sea is indicated by the discovery of imported
Greek pottery, painted jugs, and a kylix of Rhodian-Ionian production
together with Ionian and Lesbian amphorae. The amphorae no doubt
contained wine and oil. Meanwhile, some of the glass beads found at
Trakhtemirov are also to be considered as probably of Greek origin. It
has been suggested that in exchange the wooded steppe exported to the
Greek colonies livestock, leather, wax, and honey.19 That may be true for
the inhabitants of Trakhtemirov, though we have no hard information on
the matter.
16
Voznesenskaya & Nedopako 1978.
17
Nedopako 1999.
18
Karyshkovskiy 1988, 32–4.
19
Grakov 1971, 53; Shramko 1987, 121.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 112
The system of defence
The permanent threat of attack from the steppe in the Scythian period
encouraged the inhabitants of the wooded steppe to employ various sys-
tems of defence. The most effective at this time were extended lines of
earth embankments with ditches in front of them. At Trakhtemirov such
an earthwork was well suited to the relief of the site. It passed along the
tops of the slopes of ravines and depressions, filling gaps in the natural
defences. Its height in various places reached 3–8 m with a width at its
base of 12–15 m. Externally the embankment was reinforced by a ditch
which sank to a depth of 5 m from the modern surface. The length of the
defensive line visible today is some 6.5 km. The settlement also had addi-
tional internal fortifications which abutted the external earthwork. The
acropolis was separate from the rest of the site. On the west it touched the
outer edge of the settlement; on the east along the edge of the hill was
built an additional wall of which a section has been excavated some 160 m
in length; it consisted of stone and was up to 0.6 m wide at its base and
about 0.2 m high. Presumably the wall incorporated an upper section,
consisting of wood and making it still higher. Dwellings and other struc-
tures were built against it on the inside of the wall. A further earthwork
divided the internal territory of the site. This passed in a southerly direc-
tion. It bounded almost a third of the site from the west and in that way
provided additional defence for the acropolis. The length of this earth-
work when complete is thought to have been about 1.5 km, though
erosion has destroyed it by and large.
The external earthwork contained wood as well as soil and was
constructed in three periods. First the construction site was cleared
with fire and provisionally set out. The ditch was dug and provided
material for the earthwork mound. This method was widely used by
the Scythian population of the wooded steppe. Next a ditch was dug
(0.3–0.4 m wide and approximately 1 m deep) at a distance of about a
metre from the outer edge of the mound. The soil from this ditch was
added to the initial soil from the ditch on the other side of the mound.
Wooden timbers were driven into the ditch to support the construction,
spaced around 1 m apart. The gap between these vertical timbers was
filled by thin sticks and branches woven together. This was the method
used also for the defences of other such early Scythian sites including,
for example, Kamenskoye, Lyubotynskoye, and Western Bel’sk.20 In
20
Moruzhenko 1975, fig. 4; Shramko 1975, 106.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 113
consequence the first construction phase created an external defensive

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

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 114
way was familiar elsewhere on sites of the wooded steppe in the Scythian
period.21
Unfortunately we are in no position to be precise about the chronol-
ogy of the series of attacks which mark these construction phases. The
relatively brief period in which the site was in use (from the second half
of the seventh century to the end of the sixth) makes such dating still
more difficult. Over this century and more there were no significant
changes at the site which might be reflected in its material culture. As for
the first construction phase, there are almost no artefacts in the earth-
work mound. It may be that settlers at the site established the defensive
line as soon as they reached Trakhtemirov. However, the second con-
struction phase, during which a proper trench was dug and the mound
enhanced, also lacked significant finds. As for the final construction phase
we can say that it probably occurred about 585 to 575 BC. The date derives
from artefacts discovered in the bottom of the trench together with
arrowheads.
Evidently there were at least three entrances to the site. The western
gate led directly to the acropolis. The southern linked the settlement with
the plateau in front of the Dnieper and the Zarubskiy ford. The eastern
gate by the Large Ditches seems to have been located to the south-east of
Markovaya hill. In the western section of the outer part of the earthwork
mound by Small Ditches were discovered the remains of a complex con-
struction: this consisted of burnt wooden blocks and two rectangular
stones (2 ⫻ 1.5 m and 3 ⫻ 3 m respectively). Kovpanenko suggested that
these were the remains of the bases of two wooden storage facilities
Figure 16. Reconstruction of the first phase (above) and second phase (below) of
defences at Trakhtemirov. Drawing Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko.
21
Shramko 1975, 94.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 115
linked with an entrance to the site.22 Possibly we have here the remains of
a tower over the western gate. The gap between the two rectangular stones
is approximately 2 m: it might be argued that this was the width of the
passage through the gate. That kind of width seems plausible enough
when we consider that this route led directly to the acropolis and that
such a size would accommodate a wagon.
No evidence is available so far to permit any reconstruction of the
southern gate, but its probable location near the eastern sector excavated
in 2000 is suggested by several considerations. First, it is at this spot that
the corridor in the defensive installations of the first construction phase
has its end. Secondly, it is also precisely here that the ledge in the trench
of the second phase also comes to an end while the wooden fence also fin-
ishes here. Thirdly, 1.5 m to the east of the end of the ledge has been
found a trough-like gulley (some 2 m wide at the bottom and 2.9 m at the
top), the remnant of an ancient track. Fourthly, large stones have been
found here reinforcing the slopes of the earthwork at vulnerable places.
And finally, a great number of arrowheads, some showing signs of fire,
may indicate that a point of attack was precisely here at the probable gate.
It may be that over the gate stood a wooden tower which was burnt down
in the fire whose effects are visible on the arrowheads.
We do not have a great deal of information about the construction
and design of gateways in the settlement sites elsewhere in the wooded
steppe. However, in Eastern Bel’sk were found the remains of a gate tower
with an entrance of 7.3–8.0 m. The lower part of the tower was strength-
ened with bricks which protected the wooden wall from damage by pass-
ing wagons. The eastern gate at Lyubotin had an opening which was
6.5 m wide and beside it a wicket gate some 3 m in width.23 It is worth
noting that across the Dnieper opposite Trakhtemirov in the town of
Pereyaslav-Russkiy (now Pereyaslav-Khmel’nitskiy, known from the
tenth century), towers stood on earthworks at the town’s three gates.24
The same schema may well have applied also at Trakhtemirov. However,
be that as it may, we know enough about Trakhtemirov itself to draw
the following broad picture.
By the middle of the seventh century BC settlements to the south of
Trakhtemirov were brought to an end by fire which seems to have been the
result of attack by pastoralists. In the wooded steppe proper, as the early
22
Kovpanenko 1968, 18–19.
23
Shramko 1987, 28; 1998, 19.
24
Sikorskiy and Shvidkiy 1983, 35.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 116
Scythian period begins to the south, large settlements appear. The first act
of those who inhabited these settlements was the construction of a line of
defensive structures. These defences are sufficiently similar to those at
sites abandoned further south to allow the possibility that their popula-
tions had come from the south to establish new homes further north.
They brought with them experience and possibly also new knowledge
gained from their mistakes, which may explain the creation of larger
earthworks and a greater concern to ensure water supply in the event of
siege. A certain similarity between the bronze and iron tools used in the
north and south may be worth noting.25
The defensive structures of the first construction phase in most sites
of the early Scythian period are marked by their small dimensions and the
incorporation of wooden constructions. In essence, they were all
destroyed by attacks and fire. The second phase shows a marked increase
in the scale of defences. Where wooden constructions (largely fences)
were renewed, they were made much more substantial. There followed a
process of destruction and reconstruction in greater strength and scale.
That process in itself gives an impression of the constant threat under
which these communities existed, though we must also observe that the
long period over which this process unfolded also included at least
enough peace to enable the constructions to be completed.
Dating the site
The chronological frame for Trakhtemirov itself can be traced with rea-
sonable precision. The settlement began in the second half of the seventh
century, and it came to an end around 500 BC, when its inhabitants left, evi-
dently taking with them most of their valuable possessions.26 Particular
finds allow some closer dating within that frame. Typical arrowheads of the
early Scythian period were found, including a single instance of the earli-
est type (with double-lobed blade) which can be dated no later than the
beginning of the sixth century BC. The rest of the finds here fall in the
period 650–550, including an iron dagger dated c.600–575. Of particular
value also is the oenochoe seen in Figure 17, which was made around the
580s. The oenochoe in particular establishes a dating (especially a terminus
post quem) for the earthworks near the southern gate.
25
Terenozhkin 1961, esp. 118–32.
26
Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 14, 142.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 117
Figure 17. Oenochoe from Trakhtemirov, made around 580 BC. Photo. Yu. V. Boltrik
and E. E. Fialko.
Meanwhile, archaeological evidence of attack is clear enough not only

in Trakhtemirov itself, but also in the approaches to the settlement. We
have observed, for example, the finds from the base of the outer slope of
the mound by the southern gate: the iron dagger, three pieces of iron
armour, and sixty-seven arrowheads. The deformation of many of these
arrowheads confirms their use and indicates that they struck a hard sur-
face, evidently stones in the earthworks. These finds suggest a date around
575 for the attack.
There are further traces of attack on the acropolis itself, including
dozens of arrowheads and an iron axe, discovered during Kovpanenko’s
excavations. The axe is far finer than any other such object at the site,
except for the dagger, which encourages the belief that it was left by an
attacker from outside. Further, in 1898 four bronze arrowheads were
found by chance at Trakhtemirov, as well as an archaic iron spear, now
kept in the Brandenburg collection of the Hermitage.27 On the acropolis
itself was found also a collective burial by dwelling no. 30. Deposited in
this burial were nine skeletons of adults and children. The skeletons were
broken and the bones arranged to fit around the base of a round pit. We
are inclined to see these bodies as the victims of Scythian attack. Be that
27
Galanina 1977, 58–9.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 118
Figure 18. Iron dagger from Trakhtemirov. Photo. Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko.
as it may, the sheer scale of attack is indicated also by the discovery of

some fifty arrowheads at Trakhtemirov and a further twenty-two at
villages close around it. At the same time the coexistence in the same
level of two types of arrow (two-lobed and three-lobed) has been taken
to show the use of two kinds of bow: a simple longer bow and a short
complex bow seem to have been in use together.28
28
Shramko 2002, 163, 166.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 119
Figure 19. Above Arrowheads found in and around Trakhtemirov. Below The
collective burial at dwelling no. 30. Drawings Yu. V. Boltrik and E. E. Fialko.
Attacks on Trakhtemirov evidently came from the direction of the

Zarubskiy ford, located about one hour’s march from the southern gate
of the settlement. To reach the ford itself, Scythians had to overcome
strongpoints on the east bank of the Dnieper: it is no surprise then to find
archaic arrowheads lodged in their earthworks.29 If Scythian conquest of
the steppe region to the south had driven its settled populations to move
north and establish much larger fortified sites as their new homes, then it
seems that the Scythians came after them, with a particularly destructive
onslaught in the first half of the sixth century BC. It was as part of this
larger tendency that Trakhtemirov was created, lived, and eventually died.
29
Rybakov 1949, 22; Fialko 1994, 13, 43–4.

07 Boltrik 1525 28/9/07 12:31 Page 120

08 Leypunskaya 1525 28/9/07 12:32 Page 121
Olbian–Scythian Trade: Exchange Issues

in the Sixth to Fourth Centuries BC
N. A. LEYPUNSKAYA
TRADE BETWEEN THE GREEK AND SCYTHIAN worlds on the north coast of
the Black Sea has attracted substantial scholarly attention over many
years. The topic tends to be treated under disparate heads for example, the
date of the first contacts and their periodization thereafter on the routes
by which Greek goods were distributed, with or without particular focus
on specific production centres, as well as the character, scale, and termin-
ology of economic interactions between the Greek and Scythian worlds
at various stages of their history, and much else besides. However, among
all these studies, and particularly with regard to Olbian–Scythian
exchange, work on trade routes predominates and is particularly concerned
to establish the scale of trade, in so far as our evidence permits.1
By and large, these studies are directed towards the larger issue of the
significance for Scythian society of exchange with Greek cities. Much less
attention has been devoted to the significance of such exchange for the
Greek cities, notably for Olbia. Meanwhile only a very little work has
been devoted to the change of such significance for Olbia across time.
However, new evidence and especially the reinterpretation of the data,
together with the review of some cherished viewpoints, demand a fresh
look at Olbian–Scythian relationships, not least their beginnings and the
subsequent stages of their development. The present chapter is designed
to satisfy these demands with regard to economic exchanges.
The early period of the penetration of Greek goods into the Black Sea
steppe and wooded steppe is from the seventh to the beginning of the
sixth century BC. From this period we have a fairly limited quantity of
items, which come from Nemirov region (southern Bug), and the wooded
steppe regions of Kiev-Cherkassk, Vorskla, Posul’skiy, and northern
1
Grakov 1947; Bondar 1955; Onayko 1966; 1970; Ostroverkhov 1978b; 1981b; Boltrik 2000.

122 N. A. Leypunskaya
Donetsk, as well as from the Crimean steppe.2 Single items give the earli-
est date, 675–650 BC,3 while a few more give 650–600 BC.4 For the seventh
century it is evidently premature to talk in terms of Olbian–Scythian trade.
These few finds can hardly be taken to indicate established classical–
barbarian relationships: at most they are indications of ‘exploratory’
activities of individual traders and occasional happenstance. The Greek
cities of the north Black Sea at this time did not yet constitute self-
standing economic units; in large part they did not exist at all. On the
lower Bug and its environs we can talk rather of a settlement on the island
of Berezan, which played a definite part in the penetration of early Greek
pottery to different parts of the region, in the broadest sense of the term.
In that regard we should note Domanskiy’s conception of the existence,
indeed already in the sixth century, of a trade route from Berezan up the
lower Bug as far as the region of Nemirov:5 clearly, such a route could be
taken still earlier.
Even in the period c.600–550 we cannot really talk about Greek–
Scythian trade in terms of a substantial exchange of goods, although for
that period we have a more significant amount of East Greek fineware, as
well as amphorae, found in the regions already identified as places to
which small quantities had penetrated in the previous century.6 However,
there is a quite different viewpoint which is not to be passed by in silence.
For some believe that the Greek communities traded with the Scythians
not only as entrepôts for goods produced in the Aegean world but also as
production centres which dealt in their own locally made artefacts by
c.550. Of prime importance here is the production of metalware and
glassware at Yagorlyk, where the workshops do indeed date to c.600–550.7
Not that there is complete consistency in dating among scholars. For
instance, Ostroverkhov, writing about only a single workshop, dates it to
c.550–5258 and the whole settlement simply to the sixth century.9 On that
view, therefore, a Greek–Scythian market (i.e. an Olbian–Scythian market)
2
Vakhtina 1996, 86; Onayko 1970, 56–66; Radziyevskaya 1985; Bandurovskiy & Buynov 2000,
50–1.
3
Vakhtina 1996, 86; Shramko 1987, 125.
4
Onayko 1966, 38, 56ff.; Vakhtina 1996, 87ff.; Shramko 1987, 125; Radziyevskaya 1985, 257;
Korpusova 1980, 101–3.
5
Domanskiy 1970.
6
Onayko 1966; Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 60.
7
Rudan 1980, 106; Ostroverkhov 1978b; Gavrilyuk 1999, 264.
8
Ostroverkhov 1978b, 10.
9
Ostroverkhov 1981a, 26.

OLBIAN –SCYTHIAN TRADE 123
was already in place by 550, founded upon these products.10 However, two
considerations seem to have been neglected in all this.
First, the amount of output which could have been achieved by the
Yagorlyk workshops, which were seasonal,11 could hardly have been
enough to have had an impact not only on the settlements in their imme-
diate vicinity but also on exchange with the pastoralists. Although it is
proposed that the settlement at Yagorlyk occupied some 1500 ⫻ 400 m,12
that is in fact the area from which all finds were gathered, which is not at
all the same thing. As for the quantity of workshops, then we can only be
sure of one.13 Even if there were several more, then the seasonal nature of
their activities is hardly consistent with significant amounts of produc-
tion, such as would suffice for an extensive trade with areas of Scythia.
Clearly, we shall only make certain progress in these matters through
further study of the site and concomitant statistical data.
Secondly, local production on the lower Bug in this period was directed
to another purpose, the fundamental needs of the developing Olbian econ-
omy.14 Of course, that is not to exclude the possible exchange of part of
the production of Yagorlyk’s workshops with the Scythian world. But at
the same time we should not imagine that all that production was destined
for the Scythian market. Accordingly, it remains premature to suppose
that Olbian–Scythian exchange was already well developed by the middle
of the sixth century.
Towards 550–525 the community at Olbia, which had already been
functioning for some time, took a substantial further step in its develop-
ment, as a civic core surrounded by an economic and religious micro-
region for which it was the principal focus.15 But, for all that, Olbia’s
economic relations with the Scythian world were still conducted on the
basis of a limited quantity of exchanged goods: in this Olbia was an
entrepôt and this exchange had no overwhelming importance for the
Olbians, or indeed the Scythian economy. The goods traded to the
Scythians were largely imported from the Aegean world as valuable rari-
ties for the population of the Black Sea — fine tablewares, metalware, fine
weaponry, mirrors, jewellery, and wine in amphorae.16 Unfortunately
10
Gavrilyuk 1999, 264.
11
12
Ostroverkhov 1978b, 9.
13
Ostroverkhov 1978c, 27–8.
14
Leypunskaya 1979; 1991.
15
Kryzhitskiy & Otreshko 1986, 12; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 347.
16
Onayko 1966; Vakhtina 1984, 9; Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 75–101; Gavrilyuk 1999, 263–4.

Scythian specialists tend to vagueness on items of 550–500 BC, preferring

to date a whole group to ‘sixth–fifth centuries BC’, all in small quantities.
For 550–500 the goods imported into Scythia can be counted in some
hundreds in the wooded steppe on the west bank of the Dnieper,17 while
on the east bank items are numbered in their tens;18 in the steppe itself
there are fewer: Gavrilyuk suggests thirty-three Greek finds in the steppe
in this period.19 Despite the fact that amphorae and other items are found
both on the steppe and in the wooded steppe, nevertheless for the sixth
century we cannot suppose much more than the beginnings of trade
between Greeks and Scythians — principally in wine but also in other
goods, probably including salt. Some scholars used to imagine also a
grain trade at this time, especially with the inhabitants of the wooded
steppe,20 but the revisionist work of Shcheglov21 convincingly shows that
this is to misapply a situation of a later period (on which more below);
to extrapolate for the later sixth century circumstances which did not
pre-date Herodotus is unwarranted.
Towards the end of the sixth century there was significant change.
There was substantial movement among the Scythians, on the steppe and
in the wooded steppe: ‘North Pontic Scythia’ took shape as a state for-
mation, embracing different ethno-cultural groupings under the leader-
ship of pastoralists.22 However, this was still not the powerful entity
familiar in later archaeology. At the same time, also towards c.500, Greek
communities of the region (especially Olbia) were also better developed
in their organization, though much was yet to come. Accordingly, from
c.500, relations between the Scythian and Greek worlds also became
more organized, with both Greek and Scythian communities taking a
significant interest in the exchange.
The pastoralists were certainly eager for imported goods. Since
nomads were already by c.500 exploiting the economic potential of the
steppe regions, they could offer to Greek communities the products of
their herds in exchange for the goods they sought.23 This was not only a
peaceful relationship but a fast-developing, dynamic one. Even so these
17
Kovpanenko et al. 1989.
18
Onayko 1966; Il’inskaya 1968, 165; Bandurovskiy & Buynov 2000, 50–2.
19
20
Blavatskiy 1953, 9; Slavin 1959, 93; Brashinskiy 1963, 27; Rybakov 1979, 138; Ostroverkhov
1980, 34; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1983, 383.
21
Shcheglov 1990, 99–102.
22
Murzin 1984; Murzin & Toshchev 2002, 33.
23
Gavrilyuk 1999, 287–98.

general changes in Greek–Scythian relations are not well marked in the

archaeology of the lower Bug region in particular. They become clearer a
little later, by c.470, when the local situation changed markedly: it was at
this time that the Olbian chora was reduced in size.24 This is not the place
to consider the much-discussed causes of that reaction and the hypothesis
of a ‘Scythian protectorate’.25 It will suffice to observe that this change was
more than simply the consequence of pastoralist pressure.
Be that as it may, the loss of civic territory no doubt left the people of
Olbia in need of additional sources of food and raw materials. At the
same time, the Scythians retained their desire for imported Greek goods,
especially in view of their inability to use kilns or to hope to produce
wine. It is at this stage that we find a sharp rise in the scale of exchange
and the geographical extent of dealings with Scythians. Consequently,
Greek–Scythian trade becomes so busy that from the first half of the fifth
century we can regard it as a key factor in the subsequent economic
development of Olbia, albeit still not the main factor, which continued to
be its agricultural base.
Meanwhile, we must observe that the goods exchanged in the fifth and
fourth centuries were far more varied than scholars used to suppose,
when the sole emphasis was placed on grain, grown in the wooded steppe
and sold to Olbia by pastoralist intermediaries. Indeed, it was further
imagined that Olbian merchants sold on this grain into the Aegean
world.26 However, as we have noted, Shcheglov’s revisionist study of
Herodotus and recent archaeology, taking into account the specifics of
the pastoral economy, lead to the firm conclusion that the pastoralists
traded for imported goods not in grain but in the produce of their herds,
hunting, and probably slaves.27 For to trade in grain — even as intermedi-
aries—was alien to pastoral society and economy. Moreover, the settle-
ment sites of the wooded steppe show no trace of wholegrain wheat, such
as was specially suited to storage and export.28 Accordingly, the notion of
a busy trade in grain from the north into Olbia lacks a basis in the evi-
dence. Of course, that is not to say (especially in view of the reduced
chora) that Olbia received no grain at all from the wooded steppe region,
24
Leypunskaya 1981a, 154.
25
See now Kryzhitskiy 2005.
26
Blavatskiy 1953, 9; Slavin 1959, 98; Artamonov 1974, 108; Ostroverkhov 1980, 34; Shelov
1975, 42, 65, Vinogradov 1983, 383; Yaylenko 1983, 141, 146, and passim.
27
Pletneva 1982; Vakhtina 1984; Gavrilyuk 1999, 267–9.
28
Yanushevich 1986; Pashkevich & Geyko 1998, 40.

but such as was obtained from there was most probably consumed locally
in Olbia itself, when grain was in short supply.
It is possible that locally made Olbian bronzework played a particular
role in the city’s exchange with the Scythian world. Many scholars have
supposed that Scythians even placed orders in Olbia for particular
items.29 A variety of artefacts are at issue, but especially mirrors of the so-
called ‘Olbian type’ and cruciform bridle decorations. These have often
been considered not only for their origins but also to establish the extent
of their distribution. However, the issue of origin cannot be regarded as
settled: while some scholars consider them to be Olbian,30 others take
them to have been made by Scythians on the west bank of the Dnieper in
the wooded steppe, particularly in the Carpathian–Danubian area,
Transylvania, and Pannonia.31 In any event, their production can scarcely
be dated earlier than c.550 BC. So far the earliest mirrors discovered are
dated 550–525 by their context in semi-dugout dwellings on Berezan.32
Meanwhile, the most notable developments in Olbian bronzeworking are
located no earlier that c.500.33 It is believed that such mirrors ceased to
circulate among Scythians around 500,34 while from c.450–400 Olbian
artefacts with some sign of the Scythian animal style become isolated and
rare discoveries.35 We may conclude that the production of bronze mir-
rors and other bronzework with animal style was short lived and began
no earlier than the very end of the sixth century, most probably c.500
until perhaps c.470. It seems that part of this bronzework was destined
for trade with Scythians, who might welcome animal-style designs.
Grakov long since posited a trade route from Olbia to the east on the
basis of Herodotus and the distribution pattern of so-called ‘Olbian’ mir-
rors.36 It is true that Grakov notes the absence from Herodotus’ text of
indications that Olbia’s relations with Scythians were particularly com-
mercial.37 However, there is scholarly unanimity that there was such a
29
Prushevskaya 1955, 330; Skrzhinskaya 1984, 121.
30
Pharmakovskiy 1914; Grakov 1947; Prushevskaya 1955; Bondar 1959; Phurmanskaya 1963;
Skrzhinskaya 1984; Ostroverkhov 1996, 94.
31
Skudnova 1962; 1988; Bartseva 1981; Ol’govskiy 1981, 75; 1982, 13; 1992; 1995; Skoryy 1985;
Polidovich 2000.
32
Skrzhinskaya 1984, 123–7.
33
Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 61–9.
34
Skrzhinskaya 1984, 122.
35
Kaposhina 1956, 187: in the half century since this work was published the archaeological pic-
ture has not changed in this regard.
36
Grakov 1947, 32.
37
Ibid., 25

Figure 20. A bronze mirror of the so-called ‘Olbian type’.
route and that it was a trade route, or caravan route. This passed from
Olbia across the Don along the Volga by the southern foothills of the
Urals as far as Orsk. And from this principal route branched other routes,
to north and south.38 It was known to Greeks even before colonization,
from 700 BC or so, as is indicated by the mention of particular peoples,
especially the Issedones, dwelling east of the Urals.39 Moreover, archae-
ology shows that this route had functioned still earlier.40 Grakov took the
view that it remained important into the fourth century BC,41 while finds
38
Ibid., 36.
39
Ibid., 36.
40
Chlenova 1983.
41
Grakov 1947, 37.

of Olbian coins along the Volga42 may indicate that it thrived still later,
possibly serving not only commercial but also ideological purposes.43 Be
that as it may, the very existence of this route is substantial testimony to
the external trading activities of the population of Olbia in the fifth cen-
tury, though of course we should in no way assume that the Olbian mer-
chants penetrated into these far-distant regions. It is entirely possible that
bronze mirrors, for example (or paterae, as they have also been taken to
be),44 and cruciform bridle decorations were special and valuable enough
to be passed from one people to the next on the route eastwards.
As for the Olbian economy itself, many scholars believe that the fifth
century saw it develop into one centred entirely on the mediation of trade
instead of agriculture, as a consequence of Scythian expansion.
Marchenko has written of a deliberate elimination by the Schythian elite
of the Olbian periphery in order to assure Scythian monopoly in grain
trade.45 Vinogradov claimed that the Olbian economy of the fifth century
underwent a change of focus from agriculture and stock-raising to tran-
sit trade in goods received from Scythians and passed on to the Aegean
world and also to craft production.46 However, both these views under-
estimate the scale and potential for agriculture and stock-raising in the
civic territory which Olbia retained,47 while they also overestimate the
role of the market as a separate concern or force in Scythian exchange. It
was important to Scythians to obtain by whatever means the goods
bought by Greeks, for a range of reasons and purposes (luxuries, wine,
weaponry, etc.), but they were not concerned to sell goods of their own in
order to amass resources. Scythian trade is not a clear mark of importance
of profit in pastoralist society, but played a secondary role in the process
of their exchange. Moreover, as noted above, the importance accorded to
grain in this model is simply not convincing. Instead attention should be
centred upon the goods which clearly did come from the Scythians:
beyond pastoral products, mineral resources and slaves.48 However, this
exchange notwithstanding, the economy of Olbia continued through the
fifth century to be based upon agriculture.
42
Shelov 1969, 296–9.
43
Kuznetsova 1990, 90–2 wonders about the conveyance of religious objects.
44
See ibid.
45
46
Vinogradov 1983, 403; 1989, 107.
47
Kryzhinskiy & Shcheglov 1991.
48
Gavrilyuk 1999, 266–78.

During both the fifth and fourth centuries Olbia’s economic relations
continued to entail both pastoralist and settled peoples of the steppe and
wooded steppe. However, in the course of these years there was important
change in relationships between these peoples and the Greek cities, not
least Olbia. First, with regard to Greek trade with the wooded steppe in
the fifth century, objects from the Greek world are now found on both
sides of the Dnieper, in settlements and burials, and in substantially
greater quantities. However, most of these were discovered a century or
so ago,49 with some recent additions50 which have not affected the larger
picture in any radical sense. Archaeology here gives the impression that in
the fifth century agricultural settlements of the wooded steppe were
almost always (albeit in small quantities) kept supplied with wine and
finewares. This is especially marked for the first half of the fifth century
as, for example, at Bel’sk where the quantity of imported wares rises at
that time,51 including banded Ionian ware, amphorae from Samos, Chios,
Lesbos, and elsewhere, as well as fine Attic pottery. Contemporary buri-
als show the same broad situation, though the range of artefacts is more
extensive, as might be expected, including metalware, jewellery, decorated
weaponry, and so on, with some precious metal, bronze artefacts, and
mirrors.52 These are luxury goods, often unique items, as is entirely com-
mensurate with their significance. This is not the place to repeat detailed
descriptions of particular items, but it is worth stressing the general point
that goods of high quality and high value penetrated into the wooded
steppe, perhaps even specifically intended for deposition in burials.
However, scholars have drawn attention to variation in quantity and
quality among the finds from different locations in the wooded steppe.
Accordingly, it is usually considered that the Kiev-Cherkassk group on
the west of the Dnieper received a larger number of imported objects
than the Vorskla area on the other side of the river. In this context the
region of Kievshina requires particular attention, for there were so many
imported objects here that scholars can even write of ‘mass imports’,53
though that is surely an overstatement of the reality, for, even including
the most recent discoveries, the number of artefacts involved is quite lim-
ited.54 The Greek pottery even on settlement sites, where one might have
49
Onayko 1966; 1970.
50
Il’inskaya 1968; 1975; Shramko 1987; Kovpanenko et al. 1989; Bandurovskiy & Buynov 2000.
51
Shramko 1987, 126, 179.
52
Onayko 1966; Il’inskaya 1968; Kovpanenko et al. 1989.
53
Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1986, 105.
54
Kovpanenka et al. 1989.

expected a variety of fragments, constitutes only a small part of the

pottery assemblage as a whole, though detailed statistics have not been
published.
On the steppe the fifth-century picture looks rather different. Here we
have principally grave-goods: forms of settlement are much less common
or significant.55 In recent years the number of excavated burials has
increased five-fold, at least, so that now we know some hundreds. We
await an integrated conspectus of all the burials of Scythia, including
especially these recent studies, which have been published case by case in
a variety of places.
It is clear enough, however, that about a third of all these burials are
to be dated to the period 500–450 BC. Meanwhile, we may be sure enough
that more of these contained imports than studies can show, for the sim-
ple reason that a substantial proportion of them have been destroyed and
robbed. Of course, the robbers have taken the most valuable objects, pri-
marily Greek imports. In addition, scholars date some seventy burial
mounds to the fifth century, many probably being raised around 450.
With all that in view, the first half of the fifth century can be taken to have
seen an increase in exchange with the Scythians of the steppe.
In the light of recent work we can therefore take the Scythian steppe
to have received and retained far more Greek imports than could once
have been safely imagined. It is not simply a matter of the raw number of
Greek artefacts that have been excavated or can be posited. For we must
also take account of the fact that these are burial contexts: they represent
a selection of goods from the Greek world which were by their nature not
necessarily items of mass exchange — gold, silver, and bronze jewellery,
metal utensils, weapons and other militaria, wine in amphorae, black-
glazed vessels, etc. We can only wonder whether ongoing research will
provide a still greater number of imported items from the steppe and so
erode the difference in scale of imports between the steppe and wooded
steppe in this regard. However, in the period 450–400 BC the quantity of
imports in the steppe and wooded steppe declines at much the same rate,
for reasons which are not at all clear. Pehaps we should seek an explana-
tion in terms of the expansion of the Olbian economy: towards the end
of the fifth century an extensive civic territory is created, from which there
is intensive exchange with Olbia proper, where craft production increases.
It is held that the city shifted its primary interest towards the other
55
Gavrilyuk 1999.

communities of the Black Sea coast. On such a view, the exchanges with
Scythians lost much of their importance for the Olbian economy.
Be that as it may, the import of Greek goods increases once more from
the fourth century, in both steppe and wooded steppe. This too is a time of
great expansion in the Olbian economy, in every respect, including trading
activity.
For this period, key locations on the trade routes between Olbia,
the pastoralists, and the wooded steppe, mediating exchange, were
Kamenskoye and Kapulovskoye settlements. Kamenskoye in particular
saw the passage of wine up the Dnieper to the Scythians, as well as pottery
and other goods, not least luxury items.56
In the wooded steppe goods from the Greek world are found, as had
earlier been the case, in greater quantity on the west bank of the Dnieper
than to its east. However, by comparison with the preceding period there
is some reduction in the overall amount of imports in the wooded steppe.
Even so, we can observe a rise in their quantity on the agricultural settle-
ments, largely in the form of amphorae but including also red-figure and
black-glaze wares, weaponry, armour, and other metal artefacts.
However, the available statistics on amphorae and tableware (respectively
434 and 80 examples on the west bank of the Dnieper) show the relatively
small number of imports at issue.57
Greek imports are found also in the burial mounds of the wooded
steppe, on both sides of the Dnieper as far north as the latitude and
environs of Kiev (Borispol mounds, Steblevskiy cemetery (c.400–350),
Rhzhanovka, and the mounds of the Kharkov region).
Meanwhile on the steppe the quantity of imports increases substan-
tially. It is true that recent years have seen intensive and extensive study of
the steppe, much more than previously. Certainly, the number of known
imports has recently increased greatly, not only from the great mounds
but also less remarkable items, perhaps, from humbler burial contexts; we
may wonder whether that has skewed our picture. However, in any event,
the demography of ancient Scythia seems to have been a factor in this
apparent change: the steppe became more densely inhabited.58
We may gain from a closer attention to chronology, not least with
regard to the burial mounds of the fourth century. The overwhelming
majority of the wealthy burial mounds date to the second half of the
56
57
Kovpanenko et al. 1989, 109–11.
58

fourth century BC and to not much later than 325, so that 350–325 looks
like a peak period of such exceptional mounds, rich in Greek imports:
Solokha (two burials, 400–380s), Berdyansk (370s), Tolstaya (350–330),
Gaymanova (mid-330s), Oguz (350–325), and Melitopol (340–330), while
Chertomlyk has a very slightly later date, perhaps c.325.59 The range of
Greek imports, whether from such wealthy burials or their humbler counter-
parts, indicate much the same date: the amphorae of Thasos, Heraclea, and
Sinope, black-glazed ware (especially moulded-rim canthari), silver kylixes,
gold jewellery, and so on.
Therefore, it is clear enough that Greek–Scythian (especially Olbian–
Scythian) exchange had a complex history and significance. If in the fifth
century the purpose of Olbian trade with the Scythians was the provision
of supplementary goods (the products of pastoralism and perhaps also
the crops raised in the wooded steppe, together with minerals and raw
materials for crafts) to meet a shortage at Olbia, then the fourth-century
situation was markedly different, for the settlements in the Olbian chora
could not meet those needs; even in that case the shortage would not have
been sufficiently pressing to account for the surge in Greek imports
among the Scythians.
As we have seen, there was a distinct reduction in imports from the end
of the fourth century. Even in the mounds of the southern Bug, very near
to Olbia itself, there seems to be nothing imported after c.325 BC.60
Towards c.300 there is a little on the lower Dnieper. However, towards
about 250 active economic contacts between Olbia and the Scythian world
come to an end. That ending is usually and reasonably linked with politi-
cal, economic, and social changes on the steppe.61 As for Olbia’s sphere
of influence, we may also explain its decline in terms of the Olbian econ-
omy itself. If it can be agreed that the reduction of Scythian–Olbian
exchange fell in a period where Olbia was still flourishing and had yet to
experience its crisis, then we can only wonder whether Olbia had simply
lost its taste for the goods of the barbarians. At any rate, changes in
Scythia itself contributed to such a development.
Meanwhile, there remains the enormous question as to the involve-
ments and interactions of the Bosporus and Chersonesus, as well as
Olbia, in Scythian–Greek exchange of the fifth and fourth centuries. For
the fifth century it is generally agreed that Olbia played the main role in
59
Murzin & Toshchev 2002, 39; Alekseyev et al. 1991, 132–3.
60
Kovpanenko et al. 1978.
61
Brashinskiy 1984, 184.

such exchanges. The Bosporus’ trading activities were much less signifi-
cant at that time, with the possible exception of trade in weaponry.62 Of
course, it is wholly unrealistic to imagine that these Greek communities
had sharply distinguished spheres of influence, or to develop some notion
of their economic competition. Any sense of that would have been an
idiosyncratic and private matter. Accordingly, we cannot sensibly suppose
that, for example, the extension of Bosporan trade caused a reduction in
Olbian trade. Rather these cities and states were engaged in exchange
activities which proceeded largely in parallel. Accordingly, since we know
that in the fourth century the Bosporus was an important supplier of
grain to Attica, it would be likely enough that expensive imports would
find their way into Scythia via the Bosporan market. As for Chersonesus,
it suffices to note the Chersonetan amphorae that found their way into
steppe burials in the second half of the fourth century. Evidently,
Chersonesus had its own contribution to make to exchange between
Scythians and Greeks to the north of the Black Sea.
By way of conclusion, we have seen that exchange relationships
between Olbia and the Scythians, which had their beginnings in the sixth
century BC, had persisted through the fifth and fourth centuries. The
fourth saw the greatest scale of this exchange, as evidenced by archaeol-
ogy on the steppe and, to an extent, also on the wooded steppe. It was
only around the end of the fourth century that this exchange began to
reduce significantly. The causes of these changes and continuities were no
doubt complex. For Olbia the sphere of its exchange activities had been
a major factor underpinning the development of its economy and its
market. But, for all that, the city’s exchange was far from defining its
whole economy: that continued to be based on agriculture.
62
Onayko 1966, 52.


09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 135
Social and Economic Issues in the

Development of Steppe Scythia
N. A. GAVRILYUK
THE STUDIES OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES in early societies have

emerged from the encounter between archaeology and a series of other
disciplines concerned with sociological aspects of traditional societies.
The study of Scythia, or ‘Scythology’, offers a wealth of material evi-
dence which should give it a primary role in the creation of socio-
economic models. Each of the major Scythologists has written on the
mechanisms and peculiarities of the socio-economic development of
Scythia. While there is no unity of vision on the social history of Scythia
among scholars, there is at the same time no very substantial difference of
view.
Terenozhkin and Il’inskaya repeatedly underlined both the ethnic
diversity of Scythia and the subordination of the peoples of the wooded
steppe to the pastoralists of the steppe around 400 BC.1 Terenozhkin was
paying tribute to the dominant ideology of the time (Marxist formation-
theory) in writing of the emergence of class relations in Scythian society.
In so doing he stressed that the class process developed among the
Scythians in the context of pastoral society and was distinct from
the classic forms of class origins, and that among the Scythians the state
emerges only from the time of their establishment on the north coast of
the Black Sea.2 Progress in the study of the social history of Scythia came
with the work of Bunyatyan which was concerned with the reconstruction
of society through archaeology.3 The analysis of a series of Scythian bur-
ial grounds containing numerous ordinary burials and a great deal of
material evidence permitted plausible conclusions on the social structure
1
Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1983, 15–16.
2
Terenozhkin 1977, 25–6.
3
Bunyatyan 1985.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 136
136 N. A. Gavrilyuk
Figure 21. The steppe north of Olbia. Photo. D. Braund.
of the ordinary Scythian population. Unfortunately Scythologists did not

follow in the direction that Bunyatyan had shown. Contemporary discus-
sion of the social history of Scythia does not differ greatly from the
debates of the 1970s. The absence of new ideas in some quarters has
encouraged the re-statement of old and well-known approaches albeit
with some minor authorial twist. So, for example, despite the lack of any
new important evidence, the ethno-social situation in the steppe and
wooded steppe zones is now ever more often declared to be a single socio-
economic entity. Indeed, as time passes, ever more often we hear talk not
only of a single Scythia but even of a unified Scythia.4 The absence of any
fresh research is compensated for by the frequency with which such dec-
larations are repeated so that a kind of mythology of the history of
Scythia is advanced.5 Meanwhile those who study the pastoralists know
very well that there has never been a ‘unity’ in pastoral and semi-pastoral
structures. All the more so when we are concerned with the pastoralists
and semi-pastoralists of the Early Iron Age where, even in non-pastoralist
4
Kryzhitskiy 1999, 40; Murzin & Toshchev 2002, 36.
5
The mythologization of Scythian history is first to be found in the classical literary tradition
which includes the notion of a powerful people of the north. Today the idea of the greatness of
Scythia has arisen in an outpouring of semi-popular publications with much the same angle.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 137
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES IN STEPPE SCYTHIA 137
socio-economic contexts, there was little to drive processes of unification.

Early nomads not only did not have but could not yet have either eco-
nomic or ideological or cultural integration such as would produce a
complex and lasting political structure. That is why Terenozhkin and
Il’inskaya, in their excellent understanding of the history and culture of
the pastoralists, were so guarded in their observations on the statehood
and unity of the Scythians.
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the specific features of the
socio-economic development and structure of Scythia, to examine the
causes of changes there, and in that light to explore Scythian economic
history.
All scholars recognize regional and chronological differences in the
material culture of the Scythians. Indeed it is change in Scythian material
culture around 500 BC that provides the basis for Alekseyev’s theory of
‘two Scythias’. On this theory differences between the material culture of
archaic Scythia and the Scythia of the fifth and fourth centuries are to be
explained by the appearance on the Black Sea steppes in the fifth century
of a new wave of pastoralists.6
Our conceptions of the unity of Scythia, or its lack of unity, are fun-
damental to our understanding of the key problems of the social, politi-
cal, and economic history of Scythia. For example, should we speak of
the Scythians as an archaeological culture, as a cultural-historical entity,
as an ethno-political grouping, as a state, or as some kind of economic
formation? What were the dynamics and limits of changes among the
Scythians? What was the place of Scythia (as a pastoral or semi-pastoral
entity) in the much broader social and economic system of the Early Iron
Age? What was the nature of the relationships between pastoralists and
the pastoralist society and the civilizations of classical antiquity? Can we
observe in the economic and social history of Scythia features which are
shared with other social formations of the Early Iron Age? Or can we see
peculiarities in the early development of the history of Scythia?
Meanwhile, as for terminology which has been developed across a range
of disciplines, Scythologists have been rather slow and idiosyncratic in
their use of the outcomes of theoretical archaeology. In general terms the
following considerations represent the positions common to the majority
of Scythologists, whether held unanimously or assumed without much
discussion:
6
Alekseyev 1989, 85–7; 1992, 103–12.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 138
138 N. A. Gavrilyuk
1. The area of Scythian culture changes across time. Traces of

Scythian culture do not correspond to the limits of Scythia as set out
by Herodotus. At best they may indicate the presence (temporary or
permanent) of an Iranian pastoral population.
2. The meaning of ‘Scythia’ is distinctly changeable. Accordingly
whenever we consider its limits we must bear in mind the chrono-
logical context, so that, for example, we cannot simply transplant
the murky Scythia of Herodotus on to Scythia of the fourth cen-
tury BC that we know from archaeology. In socio-economic and
ethno-cultural terms archaic Scythia bears little relation to the
Scythia seen by Herodotus, while Herodotus’ Scythia in turn bears
little relation to the Scythia of the fourth century BC.
3. There is no normative set of specific indicators of ‘Scythian cul-
ture’. Accordingly it is difficult to establish the limits of Scythia
with great confidence.7
4. Written sources, both Assyrian and classical, show Scythia at var-
ious stages of its history. In using these sources it is vital to be very
clear about the date at which they were written.
Reflection on these basic assumptions soon leads to the conclusion
that the history of Scythia must be understood across a broad set of
assessments of social, ethnic, ideological, political, and economic history.
Each line of approach (social, economic, etc.) foregrounds its own par-
ticular concerns. Therein we may suspect lies the reason for our concep-
tion of a smooth socio-political-historical development in steppe Scythia
and for the contrasting gaps and disjunctures in its economic history.
Indeed until recently Scythian economic history was much less often stud-
ied. Now, the pressing need is to bring together economic history and the
social and political contexts within which it developed, which includes the
issues surrounding the statehood of the steppe Scythians.
It would be naïve to imagine that the structure of society and power
did not change in Scythia in the course of its four-hundred-year history.
It is worth comparing Carneiro’s discussion of social changes among
Native Americans, for he describes the transition of the same tribes, over
two hundred years, from a fairly primitive social structure and system of
power to a complex social organization. Carneiro explains these changes
not only as changes in ideas or conditions but also as the result of sub-
7
See Chlenova 1993, 50 for an attempt.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 139
stantial influence from Europeans.8 Evidently in Scythia too socio-

economic changes not only depended on internal historical development
but came also from contacts with neighbouring civilizations. As for
which of the civilizations of antiquity influenced the pastoralists, much
depended on the particular features and stage of the pastoralists’ devel-
opment (economic, social, and cultural). A key purpose of the present
discussion is to show, building on an economic framework, the particular
features of the development of nomadic society in the Early Iron Age as
represented in the archaeology of Scythian culture.
The archaic period
The pastoralists of the north coast of the Black Sea in pre-Scythian and
early Scythian times were particularly connected with the economic sys-
tem of Near Eastern cultures as we can see from material remains (items
of Near Eastern origin in Cimmerian and early Scythian burials) and
numerous other attestations of close cultural and economic links with the
Caucasus and the Near East.9 It is usual for scholars to include within the
territory of archaic Scythia of the seventh to early sixth century BC both
the north Caucasus and the region along the river Kuban. These were
lands which from one side were located directly before the objectives of
raids, while from the other side they were protected by the natural
defences of the mountains from strikes from the south. In that sense it
was quite natural that the pastoralists who came out of the depths of
Asia chose the north Caucasus in particular as the place to stop. While
pastoral society may retain its political independence and particular
ethno-cultural identity, it cannot avoid entering the economic system of
some neighbouring civilization, if only because it can obtain from that
source vital tools, produce, and luxury objects. In the early stages of
pastoral society one of the principal ways of obtaining vital goods and
products was to mount raids which, unlike military campaigns, did not
have the goal of seizing land. The produce of raids and extorted ‘gifts’ to
prevent them constitute a form of exchange, which was of particular
importance in Scythians’ relations with their neighbours in the archaic
period. Scythian irruptions into the Near East were characterized by
extreme cruelty, but apart from loss of life they had no other substantial
8
Carneiro 2002, 91.
9
Il’inskaya 1982; Murzin 1978; Makhortykh 1991.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 140
140 N. A. Gavrilyuk
results. The roots of these irruptions (which might last several years)
passed through and were directed against areas that were settled by farm-
ers. However, while these ‘nomads from the north’ struck crushing blows
as they went (sacking cities, laying waste whole provinces, and even
destroying states), they did not attempt to replace the states of the Near
East by establishing their own political structure or by seeking to make
their control a reality in the long term. Pastoralist society was at this stage
not sufficiently stable and not so organized as to have such an aim or to
be able to achieve it.10Among the pastoralists society was organized
according to kinship and genealogy, on a minimal basis.11 We can see ele-
ments of this socio-political organization among the Scythians who
raided into the Near East. For the pastoralists seem not to have known
what to do with the territories and populations which they had con-
quered. They could not at that time in their history assimilate the lands
they had seized either in a political sense or in an economic one. The
Scythian clans of the archaic period were certainly a major military threat
but they lacked direction. Their lack of an integrated identity helps to
explain why the Assyrian sources name them simply as pastoralists, giv-
ing rise to scholarly discussion about whether they are to be seen as
Cimmerians or Scythians.
In itself, the pastoralists did not need their steppelands. They needed
the world around, a source from which to meet their needs in agricultural
products and craft produce, such as to satisfy the steadily growing ambi-
tions of their elite. That was the role played by the lands of the Near East
for the Iranian pastoralists of the late pre-Scythian and early Scythian
periods. In so far as the Scythians had political structures, they were
brought together into tribal alliances especially for specific military
purposes. They had neither the means nor the desire for anything more
permanent. However, the achievements of these Scythian alliances in the
archaic period did serve to demonstrate the potential benefits of unity.
Meanwhile, their military leaders formed an established elite, so that
temporary tribal alliances encouraged co-operation over extended mili-
tary expeditions, with the adoption of new developments in military
equipment and tactics. In consequence the Scythians were able to adapt
militarily to meet the demands of a range of climatic conditions and to
conquer far from their homelands.
10
Khazanov 2000, 243.
11
Khazanov 1994, 119–22.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 141
Accordingly the economy of this pastoralist society had a simple

structure. It was limited to the rearing and exploitation of livestock.
There was little domestic production, only enough to meet the minimal
needs of pastoralists. It is hard to trace patterns of exchange: agricultural
products seem usually to have been obtained by force. The economic drive
of this society was directed to the organization of successful raids.
Accordingly horses were selected for their suitability for use in raids,
metalworking centres were subjugated, ironworking was developed,
weaponry was devised, and there was further innovation in all things
military. The whole economy was directed towards raiding while politics
meant the pressurizing and terrorizing of neighbours. It is only in this
period that raiding has such a role, despite the fact that some scholars
seek to suggest that raids were and are at the base of the economy of all
pastoral societies.
However, an economy and political structure based on raiding could
not persist indefinitely. In the final phase of the archaic period in Scythia
the pastoralists were defeated by the mighty Persian empire. Evidently as
early as about 560 the Persian army had acquired substantial experience
in dealing with pastoralist attacks and had developed forces to meet them
which included not only Persians but also pastoralists themselves. The
Scythians were forced to withdraw from Asia. Their economy of raiding
brought with it a social system in the form of tribal alliances which would
later, under different conditions, on the territory of the north coast of the
Black Sea, evolve as new socio-economic and political formations.12
Herodotus’ Scythia
The events of Scythian history through the later sixth and fifth centuries
BC were played out in a different geographical context. It was at this time
that the Scythians established their homelands on the north coast of the
Black Sea. Evidently this was the Scythia about which Herodotus learned
from his informants. Accordingly this period is often known as
‘Herodotus’ Scythia’. This is a period of high population density in the
wooded steppe and the beginning of large-scale movements by pastoralists
into both the steppe and the wooded steppe.13
12
Gavrilyuk 2000, 141–3; 2000a, 44–5.
13
Il’inskaya & Terenozhkin 1983; Skoryy 1996.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 142
142 N. A. Gavrilyuk
In the sixth century Greek settlements were established on the north

coast of the Black Sea whose economic importance there was over-
whelming, impacting on every aspect of the region. In that sense there
was a ‘parallel’ occupation of the steppe by two different cultures, Greek
and pastoralist. In fact, however, the Greeks had a good grasp of the eco-
nomic potentialities of this world that was new to them and deliberately
kept to the coastal zone, leaving the open steppe to the nomads who were
better suited to it. This is the essence of the long-term relationship and
symbiosis of Greek and pastoralist cultures. For the Scythians this was a
period of purely pastoral economy. They now acquired the craft and agri-
cultural produce which they needed not only through raids on the
wooded steppe but also by maintaining reciprocal exchange relationships
and by trade. A range of goods passed from the wooded steppe to the
Greek colonies through the lands of the Scythian pastoralists: raw mater-
ials for metalworking (iron ore, charcoal), skins, honey,14 and manpower
in the form of cheap slaves.15 There is no indication that the population
of the wooded steppe had complex social organization such as might
resist the expansionist activities of the pastoralists. Once the nomads had
established control over the wooded steppe it became possible for them to
begin the economic assimilation of the steppe zone with its minimal pop-
ulation. That is, the pastoralists no longer mounted raids into the steppe
and wooded steppe, but achieved military conquests which permitted
them to develop their strength and to assimilate extensive new territory.
These Scythians were integrated especially on the basis of a common
genealogy, as our written evidence illustrates. According to Herodotus,
the Scythians claimed a single ancestor, Targitaos, who had three sons.
Scythians at all levels could look to their heroic ancestor-forefather. It
may be more than simple chance that it is only from the north Black Sea
steppe that we have carved stone images of Scythian origin dating from
the sixth and fifth centuries BC which are taken to be representations of
this ancestor. In the wooded steppe these images do not occur at all, while
in the steppe they disappear (or more precisely are Hellenized) at the
beginning of the fourth century BC,16 as confirmed by the recent discov-
ery of such an image among the burial mounds at Solokha.17 In this way
Herodotus’ Scythia constituted a social structure with a system of power
14
Vakhtina 1984.
15
Gavrilyuk 1996.
16
Belozor 1996.
17
Gavrilyuk 2002, 77–80.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 143
configured around distinctive signs of a simple form of leadership.

According to Herodotus, Scythian society at this time had all the ele-
ments of leadership which we tend to find among pastoralists in general.
The emergence of this form of governance is characteristically driven by
influence from outside nomadic society. Accordingly it tends to be par-
ticularly unstable.18 The socio-political structure of the Scythians in the
steppe zone had developed under the constant catalysing influence of
Greek culture. While in Herodotus’ own day this influence was resisted by
traditionalist forces in Scythian society which constituted the majority of
the population (cf. Hdt. 4.76–80), in the fourth century it becomes
overwhelming both in the economy and in the culture of steppe Scythia.
Scythia in the fourth century BC
The century after about 400 was marked by a pastoralist economy cen-
tred to the north of the Black Sea. In this period a new kind of economy
emerged which was based not on raids and war but on the development
of herding together with agriculture.19 This has been called the ‘period of
the transformation of wintering into permanent settlements’.20 In one
sense the Scythian economy of the fourth century achieved its greatest
height, but in another, this was the period in which fundamental difficul-
ties were created in Scythian society. Herding remained the fundamental
part of the economy but a new economic activity was created — agricul-
ture. By contrast with other areas in the steppe zones agriculture emerged
predominantly from the needs of herding, especially to meet the demand
for animal fodder which for various reasons was no longer available in
sufficient quantities. Meanwhile domestic production became more
varied and ambitious in structural terms: some features of it (especially
metalworking) took on the appearance of full-scale craft production.
Under these conditions there was a population explosion in the fourth
century which is visible in the archaeological record.21 This period may be
seen as one of complex leadership.22
18
On simple leadership in Scythia, see further Khazanov 2000, 284; cf. Service 1971.
19
Gavrilyuk 1999.
20
Pletneva 1982.
21
For possible figures, see Gavrilyuk & Timchenko 1994.
22
See Kradin 2001, 243–4; Earle 1997, 121.

09 Gavrilyuk 1525 28/9/07 12:33 Page 144
144 N. A. Gavrilyuk
It is worth stressing, lest we forget, that when we consider the goods

which the Scythians exchanged for imports from the Greek world we can
no longer regard the grain trade as of any overwhelming importance.23
We should probably look rather to the slave trade about which we hear
in a variety of sources concerned with various regions of the ancient
world.24 In any event, connections with the Greek cities of the Black Sea
coast played a massive role in the socio-economic and cultural develop-
ment of fourth-century Scythia. While in the preceding period the contact
zone between Greeks and Scythians was limited to the coast, in the fourth
century the steppe around the Dnieper and the Bug was drawn into the
zone of Greek influence. Moreover, we can see elements of Greek culture
even at a mundane everyday level: local table ware is almost completely
replaced by Greek ware, wine production is introduced, and Greek wri-
ting is adopted by some Scythians, or so some may infer from the presence
of Greek graffiti on handmade pottery.25 For the fourth century we may
talk of the advanced stage of Hellenization of the steppe Scythians in
areas where they formed settled communities, especially around the
Dnieper. In this period the structure of Scythian society becomes more
complex. This is true not only of the upper strata of society,26 but also of
the ordinary Scythians.27 As I have argued this was not only the evolution
of Scythian society but also the origin of crisis in the Scythian economy
and in social relations. The leadership of Scythian society had emerged,
as we have seen, from shifting tribal alliances (the archaic period) through
simple leadership (Herodotus’ Scythia) into the complex leadership of
Scythia in the fourth century BC.
23
Kryzhitskiy & Shcheglov 1991.
24
Braund & Tsetskhladze 1989; Gavrilyuk 1999, 261–88; Taylor 2001.
25
See, however, Krizhitskiy in this volume, pp. xx–xx, on handmade pottery.
26
Terenozhkin & Mozolevskiy 1988.
27
Bunyatyan 1985.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 145
Dio Chrysostom’s Construction of Olbia
BALBINA BÄBLER
Dio’s Olbia: people
DIO CHRYSOSTOM CLAIMS TO HAVE GIVEN a first version of his thirty-sixth

speech (the so-called Borystheniticus Or. 36) during his exile, when he
happened to stay at Olbia, a half-ruined outpost of the Roman empire on
the northern Black Sea cost.
Titus Flavius Dio Cocceianus1 was born to wealthy parents c. AD
40–50 in the Bithynian city of Prusa. Why he was banished from Rome
and Bithynia in the 80s is still not quite clear. Dio himself, who already
enjoyed considerable literary success at that time, tells us that the reason
was his friendship with a great Roman noble who had incurred
Domitian’s wrath (Or. 13.1). Be that as it may, his exile ended with
Domitian’s death in AD 96, whereupon he returned to Prusa. Or. 36 must
have been written and delivered there shortly after his return, when his
fellow-citizens’ interest in the exotic place which Dio had explored was
still alive.2 Meanwhile, the themes of the Borystheniticus are ‘harmony,
good order, and regular and predictable change on earth as in heaven’.3
However, there is a large introduction, concerned with the location of the
speech in Olbia: it constitutes thirteen paragraphs in a work of sixty-one.
Therefore the description of the exterior setting, the city itself, its inhab-
itants, and its surroundings must be intended as more than a mere
introduction.
First, we must consider Dio’s encounter with the inhabitants of this
foreign place. They were Greeks like Dio, but they belonged to a commu-
nity which had had its own development, far from its motherland, for
1
His last name probably indicates that he acquired Roman citizenship under the emperor
Nerva.
2
Nesselrath 2003, 15.
3
Russell 1992, 19.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 146
146 Balbina Bäbler
almost seven hundred years. In § 7 Dio describes how the handsome

young Callistratus rides up in full Scythian gear:
Suspended from his girdle he had a great cavalry sabre, and he was wearing
trousers and all the rest of the Scythian costume, and from his shoulders there
hung a small black cape of thin material, as is usual with the people of
Borysthenes.4
However, in a way, the Greekness of the young man is preserved among

all the foreign elements, for he has drawn his arm beneath his mantle ‘in
very proper fashion’, as was good form for a Greek gentleman and can be
seen on many statues. The Scythian trousers must look all the more
strange in the context of such behaviour. What about the young man’s
black cape? Dio was certainly acquainted with the Melanchlaeni
described at Herodotus 4.20.2; indeed one might wonder whether Dio
was more inspired by Herodotus than by Callistratus. Dio casually says
that ‘the people of Borysthenes’ used to wear the black cloak. But the
‘real’ Melanchlaeni remain a ‘mystery of ancient ethnography’.5
Who the Melanchlaeni really were and where they lived continues to
be a matter of dispute, especially since, in 4.20.2, Herodotus tells us that
they were not a Scythian tribe. Unfortunately, he does not mention any
rivers (usually the best markers in his Scythian geography) in connection
with their territory but gives only the vague indication of their where-
abouts that they can be reached from the sea in twenty days
(4.100.2–101.2), that is about 740 km inland. Yet it might be possible that
Herodotus by this only meant ‘far away from the sea’, for his Scythian
topography is exact only in the areas he knew by his own visit, i.e. mostly
around Olbia. As for his information about peoples far to the north, he
had to rely on what his sources told him. In any event, attempts to link
the Melanchlaeni with a specific place or material culture have so far
failed.6 Although Herodotus (4.20.2) calls them non-Scythians, which
might refer to their language, he also points out (4.107) that they practise
Scythian customs, which very probably means in their funeral rites.
The ambiguity which could already be seen in Callistratus’ appear-
ance manifests itself also in the Olbiopolitans’ use of Greek. Living in the
midst of barbarians, they are no longer able to speak the Greek language
purely and correctly, yet they are exceedingly fond of Homer and know
4
Crosby 1940, 427.
5
Rassadin 1997, 508.
6
Ibid., 510–11. For earlier Russian and Ukrainian literature, see the excellent commentary of
Corcella & Medaglia 1993.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 147
DIO CHRYSOSTOM’S CONSTRUCTION OF OLBIA 147
the Iliad by heart (§ 9). Their connection with Homer is again stressed in
§ 17, where more details of the outward appearance of Olbia’s inhabitants
are given:
all were like the ancient Greeks described by Homer, long-haired and with
flowing beards . . .7
And this is not just a fashion, but indicates a certain state of mind as well,
for, to elaborate his point further, Dio adds:
only one of them was shaven, and he was subjected to the ridicule and resent-
ment of them all. And it was said that he practised shaving, not as an idle fancy,
but out of flattery of the Romans and to show his friendship toward them. And
so one could have seen illustrated in his case how disgraceful the practice is and
how unseemly for real men.
So the ‘real men’ in Olbia not only look old-fashioned, but seem to come
directly from the heroic age of Greece. Indeed, when Dio mentions
Callistratus’ machaera (in § 7), one may well feel reminded of another,
similar description. When Thucydides (1.6.1) relates the customs of early
Greece (a time before Greek settlements gained walls), he also mentions
the following detail:
The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unpro-
tected, and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms
was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians.8
A philosophically minded rhetor of Dio’s kind was not just indulging in

an innocent reminiscence: his description of what he saw (or claimed to
have seen) at Olbia was aimed at a larger public. Behind his picture of the
Olbiopolitans as early Greeks (i.e. as courageous, tough, and bearing
their weapons in the manner contemporaneous barbarians still did) prob-
ably lies a traditional and elaborate theory which is almost as old as
Greek literature itself, namely the conception that technical and cultural
evolution, development and progress of civilization came at the same time
as moral degeneration. We may pause to consider a few prominent
representatives of this conception who were certainly known to Dio.
Around 700 BC, the Greek poet Hesiod wrote his Works and Days, in
which (among other things) there is the myth of the five ages of mankind
(lines 106–201). In describing these, Hesiod presents us with a rather sad
story: the four metals gold, silver, bronze, and iron symbolize four stages
7
Transl. Crosby 1940, 437.
8
Snodgrass 1971, 7–8 is overly critical of Thucydides here.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 148
148 Balbina Bäbler
of moral decline. Although this pattern is interrupted by the tradition of

the heroic world described in early Greek epic, and although an aetiology
of certain semi-divine beings is developed,9 Hesiod’s myth ends with a
gloomy forecast of an increasingly corrupt and bitter future. For the
Ionian philosophers of the sixth century BC, Hesiod was already a classic,
as he remained throughout antiquity.
This model of the development of the world on one side and the
inevitable moral decline on the other was taken up again by the philoso-
pher Empedocles of Acragas (494–434 BC). For him, though, the model
was one of cycles, and when the world had ended in chaos, the force of
love would again become stronger, whereupon the whole process — har-
mony and unity in the beginning, then more and more strife — would
begin anew.10 A kind of foreshadowing of this cyclic pattern might actu-
ally be seen already in Hesiod, for he wishes (174–5) that he had either
died before the present Iron Race or been born later.11
Plato shows in several of his dialogues (among others Critias and
Timaios) how a human community develops towards hybris and moral
decay until the divinity intervenes with an ultimate measure, usually a
flooding that only a few people survive.12 At the time when Plato was
writing, the Peloponnesian War had shattered the faith in a common
Greek heritage. Old myths and traditional gods became increasingly
rationalized, and the world, which had been clearly defined along a divi-
ding line of ‘Greeks versus barbarians’ became insecure and question-
able, especially since barbarian (i.e. Persian) gold was sponsoring one or
the other side, depending on current alliances. At this moment of Greek
history, ‘the reproachful phantom of the “Noble Savage” was waiting in
the wings’.13 It started taking shape in the philosophy of the Stoics and
especially the Cynics, who preached the return to a simple life. For them,
barbarians were not inferior to cultivated, civilized Greeks, but the last
people living in an original state of nature, a kind of Paradise Lost.
More than two hundred years later came the philosopher, historian,
and geographer Posidonius (about 135–151 BC). He has been called the
‘first true field anthropologist’,14 for he very probably undertook personal
9
Dodds 1973, 3.
10
Müller 1997, 89–90.
11
Dodds 1973, 3–4.
12
Müller 1997, 1170–80.
13
Dodds 1973, 10.
14
Ibid., 19; cf. also Müller 1997, 312–16.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 149
studies among the Gauls15 and the peoples of Lusitania,16 and saw in
their way of life a clue to the original condition of humankind. His con-
clusions about old forms of building are drawn from the still visible
remains of ‘barbarian’ building activity. It is here we can grasp the fully
elaborated idea that the barbarians at the edge of the world represent an
earlier, and very possibly happier, stage of human development.
A few decades after Posidonius, Diodorus Siculus explicitly observes
in his descriptions of the Ligyans17 how harsh climate and poor soil exert
their influence on that people’s way of life. The hardship of their existence
makes them bold and courageous, not just in war, but in every other dan-
gerous situation as well. Distance from Roman influences was taken to
confirm that kind of toughness (cf. Caes, BG 1.1).
The Scythians appear in much the same light in the Augustan work of
Pompeius Trogus, as preserved by Justin. They constitute a moral exam-
ple of hardened warriors, living a frugal life and having no interest at all
in material goods, but craving only glory in war (Just. 2.1–3). Trogus
stresses the Scythians’ frugality (continentia) which is the immediate cause
of their justice (iustitia) in all their dealings, since they do not desire other
persons’ property.18 Trogus wants to show that the Scythians still live in a
natural way, and that this way of life is precisely the reason why they are
not only healthy and strong, but moreover (and this is even more im-
portant) without any greed and jealousy. Therefore they live in peace and
harmony, which makes them in fact superior to the most developed and
civilized nations. On that view, the highest moral qualities belonged to the
humans of remote and primitive times, and the Scythians (as well as other
barbarians) were now considered as their last representatives.
The Noble Savage that Dodds saw looming already much earlier in
Greek literature had received his fully formed elaboration in early
Hellenistic times. He was a Scythian. The corpus of the so-called ten
Letters of Anacharsis, written in the earlier third century BC,19 is the old-
est of the pseudonymous collections of letters of famous persons from
Greek antiquity. Anacharsis was by then a well-known person (and
nobody in ancient times doubted his reality). His sad fate is told by
Herodotus 4.76. The son of a Scythian king, Anacharsis went to Greece
15
Posid. fr. 33 Theiler; 34 ⫽ 274 / 276 Edelstein-Kidd; 169 Theiler.
16
Posid. fr. 22. 89 Theiler.
17
5.39 perhaps from Posidonius, cf. fr. 163b Theiler.
18
Müller 1997, 388–91.
19
Reuters 1963, 5.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 150
150 Balbina Bäbler
to learn and there became one of the Seven Wise Men. On his journey
home, at Cyzicus, he was so impressed by the mysteries of Cybele, the
Mother of the Gods, that he undertook a private celebration in her hon-
our in Hylaea. But he was shot dead by Saulius, his own brother. A very
similar fate was suffered by Scyles (Hdt. 4.79–80), king of the Scythians,
but with a Greek mother from Histria, who had already educated him in
Greek language and customs. Scyles had found a place to indulge his
fondness for all things Greek at Olbia.20
In that sense Herodotus had already provided a kind of ‘model bar-
barian’. Of all the barbarian lands described by Herodotus, Scythia had
a special place; it is a genuinely wild, natural place, where even the Persian
Great King was bound to fail. So the Scythians are also a kind of model
for the Greeks in the Persian wars. Herodotus also presents the Scythians’
pantheon, which is the largest of the non-Greek peoples he knows, and he
can even mention the Scythian gods’ original names, together with their
Greek equivalents. Among the barbarian peoples, only the Scythians have
their own mythological background in Herodotus.21 Since they had
become a model, the Scythians could also serve as a mirror in which one
could see advantages and disadvantages of the Hellenic world. In this
role, they served the anonymous author of The Letters of Anacharsis as
well as Dio. These letters, which contain a good deal of Cynic philosophy,
were a great success. Letter 5, which describes the Scythian way of life,
was even translated by Cicero (Tusc. 5.90). When ‘Anacharsis’ criticizes
the Greeks for making fun of his poor Greek and asks them to note that
they are quite satisfied with the service of their Scythian ‘guest-workers’,
one is immediately reminded of the Scythian archers at Athens, who were
almost a running gag in Aristophanes’ comedies. Scythians were not just
known from Herodotus as a half-mythical people at the edge of the
world; they were also a quite familiar sight as slaves in Athens.22
By Dio’s time, then, the barbarian who had evolved into the Noble
Savage had come to share much with the early ‘primitive’ Greek of the
Golden Age. They resemble each other to a large extent, not least in their
outward appearance. And remarkably enough, both can still be found at
the edges of the known world: Dio shows an isolated outpost of Greek
civilization and a kind of ideal, i.e. Homeric relic of the Golden Age,
where pure and undiluted Greekness was preserved. What we can gather,
20
See Vinogradov 1997b on a ring with the name of Scyles from Histria.
21
Braund 1999, 272; Bäbler 2002, 324–5.
22
Cf. Bäbler 1998, 163–81; cat. 85a–91 for consistent images, both vase depictions and statuary.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 151
however, from the archaeological and epigraphic evidence provides a

rather different perspective.
The development of the city state of Olbia ran parallel to the devel-
opment of Graeco-Scythian relationships. These relationships were at
times strained, even hostile. On the other hand, Scythian protection
allowed Olbia to prosper: around 480 BC Scythians and Thracians had
concluded a peace treaty that provided welcome stability for the whole
region. Together with some other Greek cities on the Black Sea coast,
Olbia sought (and won) the protection of the royal Scythians. Their pro-
tectorate was apparently mainly of an economical kind and required the
payment of tribute; it was ensured in Olbia by a Greek tyrant.23
Nevertheless, there may have been, at least in later times, also Scythian
governors, of whom names like Arikhos and Eminakos are preserved.
Together with these royal deputies, many more Scythians must have
arrived in the city; epigraphical research, mainly by the late Yuri
Vinogradov, has shown a remarkable increase of barbarian names, like
Igdampaies, Skyles, Spokes, Saitylos, Pharnabazos, Sagaris, Kolandakes,
in the prosopography of Olbia already in the fifth century BC.24 The
steady increase of Scythians in the population of Olbia cannot have been
without consequences, of a cultural as well as social kind. Scythian
items—like akinakes or the bronze model of a Scythian bow — were
found already in the graves of the archaic necropolis of Olbia.25
At the beginning of the fourth century BC, Olbia was apparently the
scene of some deep social changes. The tyranny was overthrown, and the
city possibly also managed to get rid of its Scythian overlords. In any
case, a new cult of Zeus Eleutherios was installed, and the polis expressed
its independence by extending and fortifying city walls with towers and
gates. The fourth century BC was also a period of intense economic inter-
action with the Scythians. But the city served also as a trade centre from
which painted Attic vases and amphorae from Chios, Thasos, and Cos
were transported along the Dnieper and its tributaries in the east and on
the Bug in the west. Greek imports have been found as far north as Kiev.
At no point of its history, therefore, was Olbia an isolated, remote
polis with enough autarkia to forgo contacts with the surrounding ‘bar-
barians’. To find a modus vivendi with the Scythians and to a certain
extent to adapt to them must have been a fundamental matter of survival.
23
But see Kryzhitskiy 2005.
24
Summarized with the earlier literature in Vinogradov 1997b, 146–64.
25
Vinogradov and Kryzhitskiy 1995, 122–3.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 152
152 Balbina Bäbler
Moreover, Olbia could be seen as an isolated outpost only when all

its Greek neighbour-cities were overlooked.26 Trade relations with the
numerous other Greek (mainly Milesian) colonies on the Black Sea
shore were at least as important as those with the Scythians of the
hinterland.
The next important stage in the relations between Greeks and
Scythians at Olbia (which, according to Dio, were non-existent) is the
siege of the city by Zopyrion, Alexander’s governor of Thrace, in 331 BC
in the context of his military campaign against the Scythians. It ended
with a total defeat of Zopyrion and his 30,000 soldiers. During the siege,
the citizens of Olbia freed their slaves, granted citizenship to foreigners in
the city, and cancelled debts; these emergency measures (related by the
late antique writer Macrobius) contributed to their military success.27
The destruction caused by Zopyrion’s siege left traces in the city itself
and even more in the vulnerable settlements of the chora, which were
burnt down, but quickly rebuilt. Reconstruction and new building activi-
ties then started on a large scale in Olbia. The level of the Central
Temenos was raised by about 70 cm and it was rendered. A new temple
of Apollo Delphinius (a peripteros of 16 ⫻ 35 m) was built at the place
of the old one. On the eastern side of it, a temple of Zeus was built (see
below); it was a Doric prostylos, whose foundations of earth and clay
have been excavated. Several more buildings and altars were built within
the temenos as well; the agora gained a big stoa (17 ⫻ 45 m) with Ionian
columns, a kind of big market hall (50 ⫻ 5 m) with nine rooms and cel-
lars, a dikasterion and a gymnasion complex. Remarkably luxurious
living quarters sprang up around this temenos and the agora, having sev-
eral storeys, a courtyard (peristylion) in the middle, and richly decorated
mosaic floors. The city also had an impressive water system with huge
reservoirs at its disposal. This period saw the last and greatest flourishing
of the city, and it led to a kind of ‘mass immigration’ of Scythians. The
granting of citizenship to xenoi gave the possibility of a career in public
offices also to non-Greeks. More and more barbarian names show up
among the officials of the city, e.g. among the archontes, strategoi, and
priests. From the first century AD an increasing proportion of those
non-Greek names are also Sarmatian.
The prospering city of Olbia went into decline from the middle of the
third century BC, when almost all the settlements in the chora were burnt
26
Braund 1997, 131.
27
Saturnalia 1.11.33.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 153
Figure 22. Dedication by the sitones at Olbia.
down by the nomadic barbarians, which led to disastrous consequences

for the economy, since the attacks not only destroyed the city’s own agri-
cultural base, but interrupted its relations with the peaceful sedentary
farming tribes. This led apparently to unrest within the polis; its finances
were ruined, and food became scarce. The polis did all it could to get the
better of the desperate situation, especially with the foundation of two
new institutions: the sitonia was now responsible for the state’s buying of
grain,28 while the sitometria distributed it for free among poor citizens.
This latter institution was voluntarily sponsored by rich citizens. One of
those rich Olbiopolitans, named Protogenes, also sponsored the fortifica-
tion of the city walls with his own money. The so-called decree of
Protogenes, where his actions are related, mentions the Mixellenes, to
whom the citizens of Olbia turned for help, which they eventually gained
at the price of their independence: Scilurus, the sovereign of the Scythian
empire of the Crimea, now became the new governor of Olbia; his name
appears on Olbian copper coins. Scilurus not only extracted tribute from
the city, but also used Olbia’s fleet for his own trade activities, as well as
28
Vinogradov 1981 with pl. 7: votive relief of the sitones (see Fig. 22).

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 154
154 Balbina Bäbler
for battling against pirates, which in turn improved supply to the city. He
also enlisted the services of rich Olbiopolitans, as advisers as well as gen-
erals for his campaigns. But who exactly were the Mixellenes named in
Protogenes’ decree? Already Herodotus (4.17.1) calls the Callippidae, the
closest neighbours of the Olbiopolitans, ‘Greek Scythians’. It has often
been assumed that this term means more or less the same as Mixellenes;
and it seems natural that the Scythians living around Olbia should be the
most Hellenized. For Herodotus, their settled, agricultural lifestyle forms
a considerable part of their Greekness: the farther away from Olbia, the
more nomadic the Scythian tribes become. One recent explanation of the
term Mixellenes is that they are purely Greeks settled in enclaves within
the Scythian region; but this seems an unconvincing interpretation of the
term. At any rate, only Hellenized Scythians (with reasonably friendly
feelings towards the Hellenes) were capable of protecting the city.29
This survey of Olbian history indicates that at least a very substantial
part of the city’s population at Dio’s time must have been mixed. Good
relations between Scythians and Greeks were advantageous for both
sides. After 331 BC, Scythians could rise to every official post in the city;
in turn, their leaders apparently also sought the economic ‘know-how’ of
Olbian citizens. Olbia needed the protection of the Scythians, to whom it
could offer Greek goods.
Is Dio’s speech, then, primarily a learned disquisition on cultural
development in the tradition of Hesiod, Posidonius, Diodorus, and the
like, that is a work which could have been written just as well without a
journey to Olbia? Not entirely: some of Dio’s observations are certainly
drawn from reality. The preservation of collective identity (even its exag-
geration) is common for communities in foreign surroundings and can be
observed also in non-Greeks in Athens: for example, Thracians imported
their goddess Bendis, whose festivities even became an official state cult
by 429/8 BC.30 The Phoenicians as well as the Egyptians had temples of
their particular divinities in the Piraeus, and many immigrants like the
Carians, Phrygians, or Phoenicians stressed their provenance on their
grave stelae, on which they also often put bilingual inscriptions.
The popularity of Homer at the edge of the Greek world is certainly
no simple invention: a fragment of a black-glazed kylix of the fifth cen-
29
For the notion of Greek enclaves, see von Bredow 1996. The summary of Olbian history here
is largely that of Vinogradov 1981. For criticisms see especially Kryzhitskiy 2005. See also
Braund in this volume on Protogenes.
30
Bäbler 1998, 183–98: see esp. Plato, Rep. 1.327a–8a.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 155
tury BC, found in Olbia, shows on the reverse some verses of the Little
Iliad, written in a clumsy hand; possibly it is the exercise of a young
pupil.31 Similar finds, i.e. papyri with scraps of Homeric poetry obviously
written as school exercises or homework, were made all over Egypt, even
in remote little villages. The Iliad and the Odyssey were not only the most
popular Greek literature during the whole of antiquity, but were also a
basic means of learning Greek in the entire ancient world. Greek inscrip-
tions of the Roman imperial period from Olbia show numerous
Homerisms and attempts to imitate epic diction.32
The archaeological and epigraphic evidence also bears witness to the
extraordinary worship of Achilles in the Black Sea area, which Dio in § 9
links with the Olbiopolitans’ fondness for Homer. Indeed, dedications of
priests and archons of Olbia to Achilles Pontarches are so numerous that
one may feel entitled to speak of a ‘state cult’. Dio mentions a temple of
Achilles in the city itself as well as on the island ‘that bears his name’.
Very probably he is speaking here of Berezan, situated about 40 km in the
sea before the coast of Olbia; this former peninsula had been connected
to the continental coast, perhaps until flooding made it an island some-
time in the fifth century BC.33 Many early graffiti with dedications to
Achilles have been found there.34 They were written on fragments of vases
of 3–6 cm diameter. Since all of them were found in private houses and
none in cultic contexts, there is no final agreement on their function.35
The more ancient cult on the island of Leuke also endured, so that the
existence of two islands of Achilles was a source of confusion already in
ancient literature.36 A cult of Achilles also already existed in the first half
of the sixth century BC on the promontory of Tendra: this was the
Racecourse of Achilles, where games were held later. The cult of Achilles
seems therefore to have existed from the beginnings of the Greek colony
of Olbia, enjoying a second remarkable prosperity during the second and
third centuries AD.37
31
Vinogradov 1997, 385–96.
32
Dettori 1996, 299–301; Dubois 1996, 83–5.
33
Wasowicz 1975, 192, pls. 26, 27; Vinogradov and Kryzhitskiy 1995, pl. 112, 1–3.
34
Dubois 1996, 97–103.
35
Hedreen 1991, 316 thinks they could have served as pieces for a game, since Achilles is often
depicted as a player of a board game, cf. e.g. the vase of the Andokides-painter, which shows
Achilles playing with Ajax.
36
Tolstoi 1918, 45–55; Hirst 1903, 45–8. Hommel 1980, 15 n.31 is convinced that Dio confuses
the two islands, but I do not see any reason for this assumption.
37
Shelov-Kovedyayev 1990.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 156
156 Balbina Bäbler
Why the cult of Achilles was so popular during such a long period in
the Black Sea area is itself a matter of ongoing debate. What has Achilles
to do with Scythia? Possibly we are dealing here with a phenomenon of
syncretism, influenced by a local indigenous god.38 That would explain
the antiquity of the cult. On such a view, when the Greek colonists
arrived, they will have found some pre-existing cult, which could easily be
adapted to Achilles.39 However we explain Achilles’ divine status in the
region, his cult provided Greek colonists with an excellent reason to set-
tle there; possibly they really believed that they had found the island of
Leuke in Berezan. In any case, when one of the most famous Greek
heroes was already there, the colonists could have claimed a legitimacy in
the region.
All in all, Dio’s Olbiopolitans are a rhetorically brilliant mixture of
fact and fiction. His main reason for creating such a mixture was prob-
ably to lecture his audience at home in Prusa.40 The courage, unity, and
stoutheartedness of the citizens of Olbia in the midst of danger and dif-
ficult living conditions is presented as exemplary, and even more so their
preservation of ancient Greek culture and traditions. These were qualities
which Dio thought to be at risk in his native city.
Dio’s Olbia: buildings
It is Dio’s description of the city itself that tends to suggest that the
‘Homeric heroes’ he claims to have encountered are rather more fiction
than fact. These heroes do not fit very well into their surroundings, which
are, after all, those of a developed (if downtrodden) Greek city.
Each Greek city had its own calendar, gods, and festivities, with tem-
ples in pride of place. Accordingly, Dio gives his great speech for the
38
Malkin 1987, 162.
39
Hommel 1980, esp. 24–7 saw Achilles as originally Lord of the Dead on an island in the far-
away sea, only later becoming a hero of the Trojan myth. But Hooker 1988 thinks Achilles’
immortality an invention of post-Homeric literature. Pinney 1983 stresses Alcaeus fr. 354, where
Achilles is called ‘ruler of Scythia’, claiming that in some versions of the Trojan War, especially
in the Aethiopis, Scythian archers were among the followers of Achilles, although there is no evi-
dence of that, even in Proclus’ summary of the Epic Cycle. A more plausible interpretation is
possibly that of Hedreen 1991, 324–8, who sees some kind of opposed pair in Achilles and his
arch-enemy Memnon: both have divine mothers as well as weapons made by Hephaestus, and
both are taken far away after their deaths, Memnon into the most southerly land of the world,
Ethiopia, and Achilles to Scythia in the far north.
40
Braund 1999; Bäbler 2003, 126–7.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 157
Olbiopolitans in front of the temple of Zeus (§ 17), which is especially fit-

ting in view of its subject, as we have seen. There is a problem, however:
there was no temple of Zeus at Olbia in the first century AD.41 However,
Olbia had a cult of Zeus from archaic times; the Greek colonists always
brought their pantheon with them, including Zeus. Judging from the
dedications on stone and pottery, from the sixth century BC Zeus was
entemenios theos together with Athena in the Central Temenos of Olbia,
where a temple was built in the later fourth century BC. As mentioned
above, a cult of Zeus Eletherios, too, was inaugurated at the beginning of
the fourth century BC. Inscriptions also bear witness to one of Zeus Soter,
protector of the city during Zopyrion’s siege. Other epithets of Zeus are
attested as well. Yet he was obviously not the most important god of
Olbia. The temple of Zeus was not even half the size of the temple of
Apollo Delphinius in the same temenos. It was a Doric prostylos of 13.9
⫻ 7.7 m,42 while the temple of Apollo, in comparison, was a peripteros of
16 ⫻ 35 m. Considering the small size of the temple of Zeus, it is difficult
to imagine that this was the place where, according to Dio (§ 17) ‘they
[sc. the citizens of Olbia] are wont to meet in council’ and where now
the whole audience gathers to listen to the rare guest from the Greek
motherland.
The main problem, however, is that the remains of this comparatively
small temple of Zeus have been found in the Temenos of the Upper City,
which was destroyed during the sack by the Getic ruler Burebista in about
55 BC. It remained in a state of destruction, according to Dio as well as
the archaeological evidence, because the city had shrunk to a third of its
former area. So far, no temple of Zeus has been found in the post-Getic
city. And it is hardly conceivable that Dio and his audience went into the
destroyed area outside the new defences to listen to his grandiose cos-
mology in front of the remains of a small, ruined building. And yet, this
passage of Dio has often been quoted as the ‘proof’ for the existence of a
temple of Zeus at this time in Olbia.43 In my opinion, however, this prob-
lem might be solved if we ask ourselves why the temple of Zeus was made
the setting for the speech in the first place. After all, Apollo Delphinius
and Achilles Pontarches were more prominent in this part of the world.
A building associated with one of those deities would have provided a
plausible background in Olbia. But we have to remember that Dio was
41
Russell 1992, 220; Braund 1999, 274.
42
See Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 49 f. 112 on problems of reconstruction.
43
Cf. Bäbler 2003, 118–21 with bibliography.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 158
158 Balbina Bäbler
writing for his audience at home in Prusa. For the Prusans, a picture of
cosmic world-order and heavenly harmony might well be linked with
Zeus, the father of gods and men. By contrast, prominent local deities of
a place far away would have made much less sense at Prusa. That every
detail of the topographical and historical setting corresponded with local
reality was not of the first importance for Dio, because his aim was
to create an adequate setting for his philosophical speech, not to write a
travel guide.
By and large, the city of the Homer-loving and Homeric-looking
Olbiopolitans is an exceedingly gloomy place on Dio’s account. Or was it?
The city had lost two-thirds of its urban area,44 but it continued to exist,
although on a much smaller scale, perhaps because the Scythians needed
it still as an emporion (Or. 36.5). Earlier or later destructions, however,
cannot be confirmed, so that Dio’s claim that they happened ‘often’ (§ 4)
may be exaggerated. The post-Getic city comprised roughly the southern
third of the former site; the newly erected walls and towers of the north-
ern side are half a kilometre away from the pre-Getic ones. Dio calls these
post-Getic defensive structures a ‘little wall . . . quite low and weak’ (§ 6).
The excavations have shown that they were shorter and thinner than the
massive pre-Getic structures, but we are still dealing with walls which are
1.7 m thick and contain towers of 7.1 ⫻ 8 m. This is certainly not as weak
as Dio implies.45 It is even harder to believe that almost 150 years after the
destruction of the city every statue was still damaged, and not only those
of the funeral monuments in the necropoleis outside the city, but also
within the temples (§ 6). Dio’s gloomy picture should not be taken at face
value, so we should not struggle to reconcile his description with the
archaeological remains which do not fit.46 As has been argued elsewhere,
Dio’s sad description of Olbia is a rhetorical strategy that helped him to
show a society almost on the brink of extinction, with its religious and
historical identity severely threatened, but holding out, because the citi-
zen community was strong and united under this external pressure.47 With
this exemplar, Dio wanted to teach his audience, the inhabitants of Prusa,
a lesson and to present a model of responsible behaviour.
In Dio’s conception of Olbia, then, the ideal of the noble, old-
fashioned, Homeric warrior is combined with the ideal of the classic
44
Wasowicz 1975, 241, pl. 123.
45
On the Roman garrison there, see Zubar in this volume.
46
On this tendency, see Bäbler 2002, 316–19.
47
See Braund 1999.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 159
polis, itself a thing of the past. When Dio visited the city, it was under the
protection of the Roman empire. Roman influence in Olbia had already
been strong at the time of Tiberius.48 A citizen of Olbia named Ababus,
son of Callisthenes dedicated a portico to this emperor and his predeces-
sor, Augustus (IOSPE I2, 181). Several Olbian decrees of the first century
AD bear witness to Olbian delegations seeking help from the Roman
authorities in the province of Moesia. It has been argued that the
emperor Nero transferred auxiliary troops to the environs of Olbia to
protect the city, and that, for this purpose, new city walls were built as well
as a citadel in the southern part of the Upper City, together with a trench
dug in front of the northern wall.49 In the chora of the city, new fortified
villages arose. Olbia was a place of strategic interest for the Romans, who
would certainly not have wanted to leave a city totally ruined that could
serve as an important military base near their frontier.
Dio was no enemy of the empire, for all his mention of a lone Olbian
mocked for his extreme demonstration of Roman affiliation. Dio was
proud of his reputation at Rome and of his friendship with Nerva and
Trajan.50 Rather Dio’s picture of this lone Olbiopolitan who adopted con-
temporary fashion serves particularly as a background to highlight the
‘primeval’ heroic style of the rest. With their coiffure these Greeks
asserted that the era of their greatness was not yet past but lived on, as
Zanker has shown for other cases.51 As for Olbia, Zanker’s conclusion on
the hairstyles in Dio’s version of the city shows once more how inter-
changeable early Greeks and contemporary barbarians had become: ‘In
actual fact the beards of these Borysthenians were probably those of
Scythian barbarians, but that is of no consequence. What is important is
the nostalgic search for ancient Greece that colors Dio’s view’.52 This nos-
talgic search for the Paradise Lost of ancient Greece was very probably
also what gave the speech its name (especially the place and its citizens in
Dio’s description). Although Dio claims that the city had taken the name
from the river Borysthenes, the local usage was ‘Olbia’ and the city’s
inhabitants were referred to as ‘Olbiopolitans’, as shown also by inscrip-
tions elsewhere (e.g. Cos, Tenedus, and Byzantium). Dio’s use of the
48
Jones 1978, 63.
49
Vinogradov & Kryzhitskiy 1995, 55, 58–9. However, see Zubar in this volume.
50
Russell 1992, 220; Braund 1999, 279–80. Dio’s remarks about the vilified Olbian who aped
Roman manners (36.17) do not mean hostility to Rome, but a concern for Greek civic tradition
and a distaste for crude flattery.
51
Zanker 1995, 217–33.
52
Ibid., 220.

10 Bäbler 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 160
160 Balbina Bäbler
name Borysthenes indicates the level of his literary stylization from the
very start.53 Dio’s construction of Olbia is a brilliant picture, compiled
from several sources (Herodotus, Hellenistic philosophy, and Dio’s own
moral and rhetorical outlook), but also from elements of the city of Olbia
as it really existed. However, while a significant portion of this picture is
drawn from reality, Dio also ‘saw’ many things because he wanted to see
them.
53
Cf. Braund 1999, 272.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 161
Olbia and the Barbarians from the First

to the Fourth Century AD
V. V. KRAPIVINA
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST CENTURY BC Olbia, already weakened by

chronic difficulties, was sacked by the Geto-Dacians of Burebista. Those
inhabitants who survived fled from the city so that life at Olbia came to
an end for several decades. The Olbiopolitans probably had to take refuge
in other Greek communities or among friendly barbarians as the inhabi-
tants of Istria did in similar circumstances.1 Places of refuge for the
Olbiopolitans probably included settlements on the lower Dnieper with
their Hellenized population.2 Indeed, the arrival of Olbians probably
accelerated Hellenization there around the beginning of the first century
AD.3 At Olbia life returned no earlier than the end of the first century BC.
The inhabitants returned to their old locations, a process which was facil-
itated by political change in the region and a new unity among the citi-
zens of Olbia. Dio Chrysostom, visiting Olbia around AD 100, underlines
the patriotism of its inhabitants and their unconditional regard for all
things Greek. The regime of Burebista had soon collapsed after his death
in 44 BC and from 29 BC the Romans had set about the pacification of the
Getae who ceased to present a danger to their eastern neighbours.
Meanwhile the settlements of the lower Dnieper came under pressure
from Sarmatians who were moving westwards, so that Olbia and its envi-
rons received a new impetus from people who sought to avoid this pres-
sure by moving south. Civil society began again in the city and its
environs. There is reason to believe that all who participated in the
renewal of Olbia (including Hellenized Scythians and others) received
1
Latyshev 1909, 243; Blavatskaya 1952, 154–5.
2
Vyaz’mitina 1972, 183; Wasowicz 1975, 109–17; Krapivina 1993, 141.
3
Gavrilyuk & Abikulova 1991.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 162
162 V. V. Krapivina
citizenship there, with the result that we find a large number of Iranian
names among the officials mentioned in the city’s epigraphical record.4
In all probability this process lies behind Dio Chrysostom’s allusion
to barbarian support for the restoration of the city. Conceivably bar-
barian involvement might explain, for example, the Olbians’ quasi-
Scythian military clothing and the impurity of their Greek, as judged by
Dio. However, in actual Olbian epigraphy there are almost no devia-
tions from the norms of standard Greek.5 Indeed the use of ‘barbarian’
military clothing seems better explained by its greater suitability for
local climatic conditions.6 After all Dio Chrysostom himself notes that
the Olbiopolitans are Greek in character, have an Ionian appearance,
have long hair and beards in the old style, worship Greek gods (Achilles
and Zeus), love Homer and know it by heart, and some also know Plato.
The inhabitants of Olbia, whether they bore Greek names, Iranian
names, or some mixture thereof, considered themselves to be Greeks.
They spoke in Greek. And whatever their names they held civic positions
as archontes, strategoi, agoranomoi, and as the priests of Greek deities.7
At least some of these names may reflect influence from the Sarmatians.
The use of non-Greek personal names indicates the impact of another
culture, but it can hardly be taken to show the coalescence of different
ethnic groupings within a single community.8
The examination of Sarmatian remains around the lower Bug shows
a Sarmatian presence in the environs of Olbia from the middle of the first
century AD.9 In the last decades of the first century Olbia was closely sur-
rounded by a large number of Sarmatians.10 Probably it was in this con-
text that Olbia developed the chain of settlements around the combined
estuary of the Dnieper and Bug with a view to controlling its frontiers.11
Epigraphy shows that Olbia continued to be an independent state with a
familiar civic structure wherein the various organs of a democracy con-
tinued to function.12 However, for all that, in the second half of the first
century AD Olbia became to some extent dependent on the Sarmatians
4
Krapivina 1994, 123–9.
5
Latyshev 1887, 177.
6
Podosinov 1984, 153.
7
Latyshev 1887, 173–4; Krapivina 1994, 123–9.
8
Bilets’kiy 1957.
9
Simonenko & Lobay 1991, 86–7.
10
Simonenko 1999, 116.
11
Buyskikh 1991, 110–15.
12
Karyshkovskiy 1982a, 6.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 163
OLBIA AND THE BARBARIANS 163
Figure 23. Coins of Pharzoios. Drawings M. V. Rusyayeva.
and their kings Pharzoios and later Inismeus, based to the north-west of
Olbia. For many years these kings were considered to be Scythians.13
However, Karyshkovskiy convincingly proved that they were the rulers of
some part of the Sarmatians as all scholars now accept.14
Shortly before the middle of the first century AD a rather large issue of
civic coinage was produced in Olbia bearing, on the obverse, the head of
Zeus facing right and, on the reverse, an eagle with spreading wings
facing three-quarters right or left and with the letters OKBIO. On some
of the coins we find the letters sigma, zeta, eta, and theta, evidently num-
bers. Contemporary with these coins are issues of gold coins of King
Pharzoios (Fig. 23). On their obverse they have the king’s head facing
right; on the reverse they have an eagle facing three-quarters to the right
and the letters OK, a monogram, and also letter-numbers like those on
the bronze civic coinage. Sometimes the name Pharzoios appears on the
obverse or the reverse.15 Around AD 80 the gold coins of Pharzoios were
replaced by issues of the silver coinage of Inismeus (or Inensimeus). It is
13
Latyshev 1887, 160–1; Zograph 1930, 13; Gaydukevich 1955, 61.
14
Karyshkovskiy 1982b, 73–5.
15
Karyshkovskiy 1988, 108–12; Anokhin 1989, 58–9.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 164
164 V. V. Krapivina
supposed that the latter succeeded Pharzoios, not only because both
rulers issued coinage in Olbia but also because of the similarity of their
monograms. The monogram of Inismeus developed from that of
Pharzoios in much the same way as monograms changed with succession
from father to son in the Bosporan kingdom.16
However, the material culture of Olbia in this period shows no sign of
substantial Sarmatian influence or ‘Sarmatization’. There is no significant
change in the material or ideological culture which might be connected
with the Sarmatians. The discovery of occasional Sarmatian artefacts
indicates no more than the existence of contacts between the two cultures.17
Specifically in the Olbian necropolis of this period only a handful of
objects have been found which might be connected with the Sarmatians:
four mirrors, a jug, a bracelet, four stone slabs with Sarmatian marks, and
a dagger.18 We may add the marble lions found in a burial mound of the
Roman period: these were carved in the archaic period but are covered
with Sarmatian marks and small indentations. In all probability they were
used for religious purposes and the marks were made over a period by dif-
ferent individuals.19 Indeed these marks were made over a long period
from Dynamis and Pharzoios until Rhescuporis IV and Radamsades.
They contain also marks traceable to the Sarmatian-Alan aristocracy of
c. 100 BC to AD 350 from various regions of modern Ukraine, the lower
Don, and, to a lesser extent, the northern coast of the Sea of Azov. It has
been suggested that the lions were deposited in the burial mound in the
early medieval period.20 Meanwhile, in recent years a burial from the end
of the first century BC has also been brought into this debate. Discovered
in 1918 10 km north of Olbia, it contained two members of the Sarmatian
elite. It shows elements of both classical and Sarmatian burial practice,
while it contains various objects with Sarmatian monograms including a
wooden harp.21 The evidence of Dio Chrysostom and the epigraphical
record show that the situation around Olbia in these years was distinctly
complex: the city suffered recurrent attacks, while Sarmatians and
16
Anokhin 1989, 70; cf., however, Yatsenko 2001, 49–50.
17
Krapivina 1993, 145–6.
18
Solomonik 1959, 17, 30, 31, 36, 42, 120–3, 126, 127, 130, 131, 143–6; Denisova 1988;
Simonenko & Lobay 1991, 86.
19
Solomonik 1959, 29, 87–97.
20
Yatsenko 2001, 66–7.
21
Bachmann 1994; Simonenko 1999. At first the location of this burial was mistakenly given as
Olbia but more thorough examination of the record showed that it was discovered 10 km to the
north.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 165
Scythians roamed in its environs. Mentioning Callistratus, an inhabitant of

Olbia, Dio underlines that he is brave in battle and has either killed or cap-
tured many Sarmatians. He proceeds to describe a Scythian raid during
which watchmen had been killed and others apparently taken prisoner.
The city gates were bolted and a war banner was flown on the city wall.
When the citizens of Olbia gathered to hear Dio’s address they were all
bearing arms. The Olbiopolitans repeatedly sent embassies to the
Scythians and to the Sarmatians, no doubt to forestall raids against the
city by offering gifts or paying tribute.22 However, their success was lim-
ited since the raids and destruction did not stop. Meanwhile, we should
note also that although Dio visited the city after the coin issues of
Pharzoios and Inismeus over decades, he makes absolutely no mention of
the city’s subservience to Scythians or Sarmatians. Evidently the city
remained independent. Archaeology, numismatics, and epigraphy com-
bined to show that Olbia was not ruled by Sarmatians. So much is now
agreed, though much debate continues to surround the question of the
particular Sarmatian peoples who were led by Pharzoios and Inismeus as
well as their relationships with the Roman empire.23 Some scholars con-
sider Pharzoios to have been pursuing an anti-Roman policy in Olbia. On
their view he and his successor opposed Roman penetration into the
region. Meanwhile the letter-numbers on the coins were explained by
Karyshkovskiy as dates according to an ‘era of Pharzoios’ in Olbia which
he saw as part of the general Sarmatization of the city.24 On this view
Olbia, closely aligned with the Sarmations, was in some sense opposed to
Rome. Another view holds that Pharzoios and Inismeus were rulers of the
Sirakes, so that Pharzoios was the son of King Zorsines whom we know
from Tacitus. On this view some of the Sirakes settled in Olbia together
with Bosporan supporters of Mithridates VIII.25 However, the fullest
exposition of the notion that Olbia was somehow opposed to Rome is pro-
vided by Shchukin. He stressed that the presence of the flying eagle on the
reverse of the coinage of Olbia and of Pharzoios indicates the role of the
22
Latyshev 1887, 190.
23
Anokhin 1971; 1989; Karyshkovskiy 1982b; 1988; Shchukin 1982; 1994; Yaylenko 1987b;
Rusyayeva 1989; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1990; 1994; Krapivina 1993; 1994; Simonenko & Lobay
1991; Simonenko 1994; 1999.
24
Karyshkovskiy 1982a, 17–19; 1982b, 73–5, stressing the monograms on the coins as signs of
independence. Of course, as we have seen, the material culture of the city shows no such
Sarmatization. Shchukin 1982, 36 takes Pharzoios’ minting in gold to indicate independence
because gold was forbidden for rulers dependent on Rome.
25

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 166
166 V. V. Krapivina
king in the city. He argues that the king was the principal archon of Olbia.
On this view it was also Pharzoios who instituted the issue of bronze
coinage with Zeus and the eagle. Accordingly the end of this minting at
Olbia in 58–9 is explained by Shchukin in connection with the activity of
Tiberius Plautius Silvanus, who supported Chersonesus against the
Scythians and established garrisons at Tyras and Olbia. A renewal of
minting is dated to 68–9 when Roman forces left Olbia for the civil wars
and Pharzoios re-established the independence of his regime.26
I would agree with Shchukin that a lack of data allows us to create
only hypotheses, but I cannot accept his point of view on the relation-
ships between Olbia, the Sarmatian rulers, and Rome. First, the presence
of the flying eagle on Olbian coins could well symbolize the royal power
of the Roman empire, not of Pharzoios.27 We find a similar eagle on the
coins of Tyras at this time which no one would connect with Sarmatian
kings.28 Later on the coins of Inismeus we find no eagle at all. Secondly,
there is nothing to show that Olbia’s first issue of bronze coinage was
instituted by Pharzoios. These coins bear all the signs of the coinage of
an autonomous city. Indeed it seems more plausible to believe that Olbia
minted coins for Pharzoios as a favour to him for services rendered, by
arrangement with Rome.29 Of course, the larger strategic situation in the
region was conditioned not by Olbia itself but by the two major protag-
onists there, namely the Roman empire and the Bosporan kingdom. For
example, Roman expansion might be seen as the cause of Bosporan
attempts to assert independence: that would be one view of the Roman–
Bosporan war of AD 45–9. In that war Sarmatian tribes, notably the
Aorsi, supported Rome while others, notably the Sirakes and Dandarii,
supported the Bosporan kingdom. The war ended in 49 with Roman vic-
tory and increased Roman political influence, although Roman forces
were not deployed in the Bosporus on a permanent basis.30 Chersonesus
took part in that war on the Roman side and may now have begun a civic
era.31 We have no hard evidence about Olbia’s role in these events,
though Anokhin has argued for the introduction in 46 of a new civic era
26
Shchukin 1994, 212–18.
27
Anokhin 1989, 62.
28
See Anokhin 1989, no. 475.
29
Anokhin 1971, 91; 1989, 59.
30
Frolova 1986, 55–8.
31
Anokhin 1971, 87–90.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 167
in the city.32 We may reasonably doubt that Olbia participated directly in

the Bosporan War, although we may be sure enough of the city’s rela-
tions with Rome. Already in the first half of the first century AD a lead-
ing citizen of Olbia, Ababus, son of Callisthenes used his own resources
to construct a portico dedicated to the emperors Augustus and Tiberius
and for the citizens of Olbia. At the same time we have archaeological
evidence of Olbia’s trade with Italy, which seems to have increased from
around AD 50.33 Since at Chersonesus and at Tyras local eras seem to
reflect major events in the history of the city, connected with Rome, we
may reasonably suppose that the introduction of a new era at Olbia was
probably linked with Rome rather than with Pharzoios, although we
should also be cautious in supposing that Rome and the king were any-
thing other than allies. The king and his successor may well have been
rulers of the Aorsi, as has been argued.34 In all probability Inismeus was
buried near the village of Porogi on the upper reaches of the Dniester.35
There is every reason to imagine that the Roman empire encouraged and
rewarded the Sarmatians in their constructive relationships with Olbia
and other cities of the region. Meanwhile Sarmatian minting in Olbia
tends to imply visits to the city by Sarmatian rulers or their representa-
tives. In all probability, as earlier with Scyles, they left their retinue at the
city gates, which might explain the discovery in the Olbian necropolis of
lions of Greek workmanship but marked by Sarmatians. The represen-
tatives of Sarmatian rulers may even have spent extended periods in the
city or in its chora overseeing the production of coinage and ensuring
the safety of the city. That might explain the rich double burial of
Sarmatians at the end of the first century AD in the chora of Olbia.
In the Olbian decree of the first century AD which was found beneath
Mangup, mention is made of embassies to the governors of Moesia for
military assistance as well as to the great kings of Aorsia, which confirms
Olbia’s relationships with Rome and the Aorsi.36
32
Anokhin 1971, 87–90; 1989, 61–3. Contrast Karyshkovskiy 1982b, 73–4 arguing that Olbia
supported Mithridates VIII and connecting the Olbian dating system with Silvanus. On IOSPE
i2 38, see Saprykin 1985, 72; Yaylenko 1987b, 84–5; Anokhin 1989, 59–60 for a range of ideas.
33
Krapivina 1993, 128, 138.
34
Simonenko & Lobay 1991, 84–8; Simonenko 1992, 148–62; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1994, 166–9.
35
Simonenko & Lobay 1991, 71–5, 84–6.
36
Sidorenko 1988, 86–7; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1994, 166–9. If Pharzoios and Inismeus ruled the
Alans, as many think, that is of no great importance for the present argument since most accept
the close bonds between the rulers of the Aorsi and the Alans: Skripkin 1990, 208–20; Yatsenko
1993, 83, 85. On the monograms, see further Yatsenko 2001, 49–50.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 168
168 V. V. Krapivina
It is believed that the Olbiopolitans supported the military activities

of Silvanus.37 Subsequently through the 70s and 80s the Roman empire
conducted sustained series of wars with Sarmatians and Dacians. Under
Trajan a unit of infantry equipped with long shields was sent to Olbia to
defend the city and its environs.38 However, we can hardly suppose that
Roman units were stationed permanently in Olbia at this time; they pre-
sumably appeared there from time to time. So much is suggested by the
outbreak in the middle of the 2nd century AD of the so-called Tauro-
scythian War which is hard to imagine if Roman forces were stationed in
the city.39 Traces of destruction can be observed in all the settlements
around Olbia, sometimes together with characteristic Sarmatian arrow-
heads of the second century which suggests that the so-called Tauro-
scythians were probably Sarmatians. The defensive system of Olbia,
centred upon these settlements, absorbed the blow and thereby fulfilled its
function: the city of Olbia itself remained free from damage.40 The
Olbiopolitans had no time and, since they were themselves unable to
repulse the attack, they turned for help to the Romans. Antoninus Pius
sent forces which dealt with the Tauroscythians and imposed a peace to
the advantage of the city of Olbia (SHA Pius 9.9). It is possible that this
victory is mentioned in an Olbian inscription which states that the
servants of the temple of Apollo decorated the temple in the aftermath of
a military victory.41
Subsequent construction in the city of Olbia through the second cen-
tury AD is accompanied by similar development in its agricultural terri-
tory. From about AD 200 the fortified settlements continued to occupy
positions which were most elevated and defensible, whether on capes or
on watersheds. The right bank of the Bug estuary was settled most
heavily while the upper part of the estuary was much less occupied. The
settlements were located at a distance which allowed intervisibility and
the control of all the heartlands of the chora.42 The renewal of the city
and its environs comes to an end from the 230s or so. The principal rea-
son for this decline was the general situation in the Roman empire at
large. In AD 214 in particular the invasion of the Carpi struck a series of
37
Yu. G. Vinogradov 1994, 166–9.
38
Yu. G. Vinogradov 1990, 31.
39
On the location of the Tauroscythians in Ptolemy, see Latyshev 1887, 190.
40
Buyskikh 1991, 134.
41
IOSPE i2 175 with Krapivina 1993, 148 arguing for a second-century date.
42
Buyskikh 1991, 104–5.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 169
cities in Moesia, with an impact that was felt also at Tyras.43 As far as we
can tell Olbia did not suffer at this time; however, in the 230s trans-
Danubian peoples crossed into the Roman empire, into Dacia and into
upper and lower Moesia, Thrace, and Panonia. From the 250s barbarians
mounted offensives by sea which had a major impact all around the Black
Sea. In 269–70 the Goths and their neighbours attempted to settle on the
lands of the Roman empire.44 In consequence of these recurrent barbar-
ian assaults the cities of Tyras and Olbia were seized and burnt as also
were cities of the Bosporan kingdom. However, our sources do not allow
us to give a precise date to the sack of Olbia. It was long supposed that
Olbia was destroyed in 232–5 in an early raid45 or in a much later raid in
269–70.46 Archaeological investigation of the south-eastern portion of
the Upper City of Olbia (section R-25)47 has established the presence of
two destruction levels in the third century, which allows us to accept both
dates for destruction by the ‘Goths’ and to be a little more specific about
the nature of those destructions.48 Here the term ‘Goths’ is to be used
with caution since Goths proper are only known in Olbian archaeology
from about AD 250, not earlier.49 There is every reason to suppose that the
peoples who attacked Olbia in the 230s were Sarmatians; indeed, as we
have seen, Sarmatian marks on the marble lions from Olbia can be dated
as late as about 350.
A thick layer of burnt material, found throughout Olbia in the Roman
period, is to be connected with the first ‘Gothic’ sack of the city in the
230s. However, the swift reconstruction of the city thereafter suggests that
the catastrophe was soon overcome. Epigraphic evidence from the reign
of Alexander Severus sheds some light on these events at Olbia. We have
building inscriptions, one of which specifies the reconstruction of the
defensive wall by the archons.50 We also have dedicatory inscriptions cut
by the strategoi.51 The generals make their dedications for the safety of
the city and themselves, while the council and people bestow gold crowns
on the generals, presumably for their services to the city.52 The suggestion
43
Karyshkovskiy & Kleyman 1985, 129–31; Son 1986, 142–53.
44
Budanova 1990, 82, 92–9.
45
Latyshev 1887, 211; Gaydukevich 1955, 65.
46
Karyshkovskiy 1969, 178–9.
47
Excavated by A. V. Buyskikh and the author.
48
Krapivina 1993, 47–9; 1993, 154.
49
Magomedov 1987, 93.
50
IOSPE i2 184–5; IOlbiae 52, on the wall.
51
IOSPE i2 94, 107; also 97 with IOlbiae 83.
52
Krapivina 1993, 154.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 170
170 V. V. Krapivina
of Zubar that this destruction layer at Olbia may be connected with the
attack by the Carpi in 214 is rendered impossible not only by this epi-
graphic material but also by the discovery of a denarius of Alexander
Severus in one of the buildings destroyed in the fire that engulfed the
city.53
The second destruction layer brought the abandonment of the city. It
covered the buildings constructed at Olbia after the first ‘Gothic’ sack and
should no doubt be related to the years 269–70 when the greatest north
Pontic invasions came. Olbia was utterly destroyed and its inhabitants
abandoned the city.
During these ‘Gothic’ wars a cultural grouping emerged which we
know as the Chernyakhov culture. At first there were two views of the
chronology of its emergence in the north-west Black Sea region. Some
scholars placed it in the period between the second century and the
middle of the third.54 That allowed the possibility of contact between this
culture and the cities of Olbia and Tyras. However, the majority of schol-
ars considered, rightly, that this cultural grouping emerged rather later,
between about 250 and 300, and is to be linked with the appearance in the
region of people bringing this culture from the north.55 At present this
second view seems to enjoy general support.56 It is possible that we should
relate the appearance of this cultural grouping with the Gothic invasion
of 269–70, which not only destroyed Olbia57 itself but also put an end to
the remaining settlements around the city58 as well as those on the lower
Dnieper.59 Having destroyed all these settlements the invaders moved
from the mouth of the Dniester by land and sea together with their wives
and children on to the lands of the Roman empire, where they were
vigorously repulsed in a series of battles. After 269 the Romans resettled
some of the Goths on the Roman bank of the Danube.60
Although under Aurelian Roman forces and part of the Romanized
population were withdrawn from Dacia,61 in 271 the Romans inflicted a
53
Zubar 1997a, 291–5.
54
Magomedov 1987, 94; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 154–5.
55
Gorokhovskiy 1985; Gorokhovskiy et al. 1985, 36; Gey 1986, 77; Gudkova 1987, 16; Gudkova
& Krapivina 1990.
56
Magomedov 2001, 134; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 339–40.
57
The deposit of a Chernyakhov burial in the northern part of the Lower City at Olbia
(excavated by N. A. Leypunskaya) may be dated precisely to this period.
58
Gorokhovskiy et al. 1985, 37.
59
Pogrebova 1958, 235–7.
60
SHA Claud. 9.4.
61
Kolosovskaya 1955, 83–4; Kruglikova 1955, 154–5.

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 171
crushing defeat on the Goths and in 272 they defeated the Carpi on the
lower Danube. Thereafter the emperor Probus conquered or made allies
of ‘all the Gothic peoples’ in 279, and in 280 he resettled the Bastarnae
and others on vacant lands along the lower Danube.62 A similar strategy
was pursued thereafter by Diocletian and Constantine. In all probability
the arrival of the Chernyakhov culture on lands which had previously
constituted the margins of Olbia is probably to be understood in the con-
text of these large events and to be dated to the 280s. More specifically we
should note Ammianus’ description of the gradual movement of the
Tretungi towards the Dniester in the middle of the fourth century, which
may well imply their presence in the vicinity of Olbia.63 Archaeology pro-
vides some confirmation: the Chernyakhov culture on the steppe between
the Dniester and the Don is dated to the middle and later fourth century,
while its density diminishes from west to east.64 However, it must be
stressed that the territory of Olbia proper was not occupied by the
Chernyakhov culture. In all probability a measure of life returned to the
city before the bearers of this culture returned from their raids to settle in
lands which had formed Olbia’s chora. This occurred no earlier than
about 280: we have Roman coins here only with the head of Diocletian.65
The extent of the city was not greatly reduced. Production continued in
the Lower City and in its terraced part. However, defensive structures
seem to have been absent, at least in the south-eastern part of the city
above the estuary of the Bug.66 By contrast the Olbian chora was sharply
reduced: it now occupied an area with a radius of some 5–10 km from the
city. Hitherto its economy had been based on agriculture; however, with
the reduction of the chora stock-raising, crafts, and other forms of pro-
duction took on a more important role. Trade was particularly important,
although it was carried out at a level greatly reduced from the exchanges
that had once taken place in the city. The Chernyakhov culture persisted
on the lower Bug from the end of the third century to around 420 or so.
The density of the population seems to have been twice that in the settle-
ments around Olbia in the third century AD.67 The bearers of this culture
tended to spread across hillsides and along the valleys of small streams,
as well as sometimes on the steep slopes above the estuary, often beside
62
Budanova 1990, 105.
63
Ammianus 31.3.1–5.
64
Gudkova 1989, 16, 43.
65
Karyshkovskiy 1968, 178.
66
67

11 Krapivina 1525 28/9/07 12:34 Page 172
172 V. V. Krapivina
Greek remains. The upper part of the estuaries of the region tended to be
settled especially densely. Usually Chernyakhov settlements are unforti-
fied, show no planning, and do not have recognizable streets.68 There is
considerable dispute about the nature of any relations between Olbia and
the bearers of the Chernyakhov culture on the lower Bug at this time. For
example, Magomedov considers that the city and its new neighbours
formed a single economic and political entity.69 Or at the very least, that
Olbia was under Gothic domination and that some part of its population
belonged to the Chernyakhov culture.70 In my view the absence of defen-
sive structures at the Chernyakhov settlements71 and at Olbia indicates
the peaceful relationships between the two. There was trade between
them, although we can scarcely suppose that Olbia was the only trading
partner for the Chernyakhov peoples around it. Presumably craftsmen in
Olbia met the needs of their new neighbours. However, Olbia retained its
separate identity. It did not become the political, economic, or cultural
centre of the Chernyakhov culture of the region. We have no evidence at
all of the presence of Chernyakhov culture among the inhabitants of
Olbia. On the whole the appearance of Olbia and the character of its
material culture continue to be classical.72 The discovery of occasional
artefacts in the city which may be connected with the Chernyakhov culture
shows no more than the existence of contacts. At least for the time being
we have no evidence to suggest more than that.
Life in the city of Olbia came to an end no later than about 375, that
is some half a century earlier than at the Chernyakhov settlements around
the city. In all probability this occurred before invasions by the Huns. Its
causes are probably to be connected with the economic position of Olbia.
Evidently attempts to reconstruct the city’s economy on the basis of craft
production did not succeed. Possibly it was more advantageous to crafts-
men (primarily smiths and potters) to locate themselves among the
customers for their wares, that is at the Chernyakhov settlements where we
find traces of the presence of a Greek population.73
68
Magomedov 1987, 13–14.
69
Magomedov 1985.
70
Magomedov 2001, 20, 138.
71
Two fortified settlements are known, but these are located well to the north of Olbia:
Aleksandrovka on the Ingulets and Gorodok on the southern Bug.
72
Krapivina 1993, 155–7; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1999, 325–9.
73
Magomedov 1985, 49; Kryzhitskiy et al. 1989, 219.

12 Zubar 1525 28/9/07 12:35 Page 173
Roman Military Units in Olbia
V. M. ZUBAR
AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST CENTURY BC Olbia, like other settle-
ments of the north-western Black Sea, suffered invasion by the Getae
(Dio Chrys. 36.4). It was either destroyed completely or abandoned
shortly before its destruction.1 Life began again at Olbia in the first half
of the first century AD. However, there is no reason to imagine Roman
interest in the place until the middle of the first century: it lay far from the
Roman empire proper.
The attempts of some scholars to link Olbia with the events of the
Roman–Bosporan war of AD 45–9 and the Crimean campaign of
Tiberius Plautius Silvanus in the early 60s remain less than cogent for the
simple reason that they rest on controversial interpretations of the
sources.2 However, there is no reason in principle to reject the possibility
that Silvanus may have played some part in the developing alliance of
those years between Olbia and the Sarmatian ruler Pharzoios, which
effectively protected the city against further barbarian pressures. Indeed,
it is entirely possible that this was the context for the presence at Olbia of
the evocatus Agathocles, for whom we have an honorific decree.3
However, we must be clear that all this is hypothesis.4
Yu. G. Vinogradov has pointed out that we have hard evidence for the
presence of the Roman military in Olbia in the years c. AD 70–95 in the
form of inscribed columnar bases, set up by a centurion of legion I
Italica, M. Aemilius Severinus.5 He further brings to bear the discovery of
a ‘coin-mirror’ at Olbia and the contents of an inscription discovered in
the south-western Crimea beneath the escarpment of Mangup.6 However,
1
Anokhin 1989, 57–8; Yu. G. Vinogradov 1989, 263–72; Krapivina 1993, 141.
2
Indeed, mistaken; Zubar 1998b, 35–6, 48–50.
3
IOlbiae 45.
4
Zubar 1994.
5
Vinogradov 1990, 29; cf. Yaylenko 1987a, 73–6.
6
Vinogradov 1990, 32 n.3.

12 Zubar 1525 28/9/07 12:35 Page 174
174 V. M. Zubar
it is hard to follow him in any of this. First, we must explain the silence of
Dio Chrysostom about Roman military in Olbia, where he visited around
the end of the century.7 Secondly, we must observe that the inscriptions
on the columnar bases, in contrast with other Roman military inscrip-
tions of the region, are cut in Greek. Accordingly, we may well suspect
that they were of a private nature. They cannot be taken as firm evidence
of the deployment of Roman military forces at Olbia, perhaps as a garri-
son. We are in no position to link the appearance of a centurion on these
bases with any specific turn of events in the city, though one might
wonder about the possible relevance of Roman interest in the Olbian–
Sarmatian alliance. As far as we can judge from the coins minted at
Olbia in these years, the alliance began with the Sarmatian ruler
Pharzoios and continued under his successor Inismeus, who remained in
power down to Domitian’s Dacian Wars, which would suit the possibil-
ity that Severinus played some role for Rome in the Olbian–Sarmatian
alliance of the later first century. Be that as it may, however, the evidence
adduced by Vinogradov gives no more than an indirect indication of
Olbian connections with the Roman empire.8
The first solid evidence of the presence of a Roman military unit at
Olbia, apparently there to protect the city from the barbarians, can be
dated to the years AD 106–11. This is the inscribed grave-monument of
Athenocles, son of Athenocles, which indicates the existence at Olbia of
an auxiliary unit equipped with long shields. These are not, however,
legionaries.9 In all probability the appearance of this unit at Olbia, and of
a Roman garrison at Tyras, is to be connected with Trajan’s measures to
strengthen the Danube frontier after his Dacian Wars.10 It is hard to esti-
mate how long this auxiliary unit remained at Olbia, but the absence of
other evidence for its presence there tends to suggest that it was withdrawn
after the completion of a specific tour of duty in the city.
Three epitaphs were found in Olbia, dated to the beginning of the
second century. They were the epitaphs of Bosporans.11 To this group
may be added the two-line epitaph of Straton, son of Promachus, which
has very close parallels in the funerary monuments of the Bosporus from
the first and early second centuries.12 Although there are various opinions
7
Braund 1991, 25; Rusyayeva 1998.
8
Zubar 1994, 220–1.
9
Vinogradov 1990, 29–31.
10
Zubar 1998b, 66–9.
11
IOSPE i2 202–4.
12
IOSPE i2 229: Rusyayeva 1992, 184; Zubar 1998b, 70–1.

12 Zubar 1525 28/9/07 12:35 Page 175
ROMAN MILITARY UNITS IN OLBIA 175
with regard to these epitaphs,13 we must agree with Rostovtzeff that in the
early years of Hadrian’s reign a cavalry unit was sent to Olbia by the
Bosporan king on Rome’s behalf for the defence of the city from the bar-
barians.14 These forces were not part of the Roman army and are best
seen as allies, such as the Roman administration used periodically for the
performance of operational tasks on the imperial frontiers.15
Accordingly after the collapse of the Olbian–Sarmatian alliance (prob-
ably to be connected with Domitian’s Dacian Wars), the Roman empire
began to provide occasional military assistance to Olbia in the reigns of
Trajan and Hadrian. However, these were not regular troops from the
army of Lower Moesia but troops best regarded as imperial allies. Despite
the developing relationship between Olbia and Rome in the early second
century, the nature of these troops indicates the very marginal importance
of Olbia in Roman politics around AD 100–30.
In view of the evidence of the Historia Augusta that the emperor
Antoninus Pius provided help for Olbia in its struggle with the Tauro-
scythians, it was long believed that a regular Roman garrison from the
Roman army of Moesia was established in the city precisely at this junc-
ture.16 However, there are substantial reasons to doubt the accuracy of
this statement in the Historia Augusta, so that we must hesitate to use it
as the basis for the history of Olbia in the middle of the second century.
The date of the establishment of a Roman garrison in the city remains to
be discovered.17
The earliest firm evidence for the presence of a Roman legionary gar-
rison stationed at Olbia is a Latin building inscription which mentions a
vexillation of legions I Italica, V Macedonica, and IX Claudia under the
command of a centurion. This can be dated to c. AD 170.18 In this regard
it is worth stressing that the appearance of the Roman garrison coincides
chronologically with the return of intensive construction to the city.19 The
building inscription suggests that the Roman military took an active part
in this construction. In all probability they established a defensive wall
which ran for some 106 Roman feet (that is, 61 m).20
13
Yaylenko 1987a, 84–7; Krykin 1992, 144; D’yachkov 1993, 246.
14
Rostovtzeff 1915, 12–13.
15
Zubar 1998b, 72–4.
16
SHA Ant. Pius 19.9. Rostovtzeff 1908, 66; Anokhin 1989, 72; Buyskikh 1991, 135; Krapivina
1993, 149.
17
Zubar 1993; 1997b; 1998b, 89–90.
18
IOSPE i2 322; Zubar & Son 1995, 52–4; Zubar 1998b, 90–1.
19
Kryzhitskiy 1985, 153–8; Krapivina 1993, 20.
20
Zubar & Son 1995, 53–4.

12 Zubar 1525 28/9/07 12:35 Page 176
176 V. M. Zubar
It is usually thought that a Roman citadel was established in the sec-

ond century in the southern part of the Upper City as the base for Olbia’s
Roman garrison.21 However, the Upper City of the early centuries AD
cannot be identified as a Roman citadel with any confidence since here
(by contrast, for example, with the Roman citadel at Chersonesus) exca-
vation has not shown structures which indicate the deployment of Roman
soldiers.22 At most we may suspect that the Roman garrison sent to pro-
tect the city was located in this part of Olbia, which had the best defen-
sive position. Accordingly, until future excavations provide a clear answer
on this issue, we must refrain from calling the Upper City a ‘Roman
citadel’ and simply use the geographical term.23
The aforementioned building inscription indicates that the Roman
vexillation at Olbia consisted of soldiers from all three of the legions of
Lower Moesia under the command of a centurion of XI Claudia, by con-
trast with the Roman forces stationed in the Crimea under a tribune. A
similar Roman garrison is known also at Tyras.24 Accordingly we may well
suppose that, while the Roman troops in the Crimea were commanded by
a military tribune based at Chersonesus, the vexillations of Olbia and
Tyras were under the direct command of the military administration of
Lower Moesia.25
It must be observed that, while at Tyras, at Chersonesus and its envi-
rons, and also at Charax we know of a relatively large number of Latin
inscriptions mentioning legionaries, at Olbia we have only two from the
later second and early third centuries.26 This can hardly be a matter of
simple chance. At Olbia has been found a large number of so-called
‘Thracian dedicatory reliefs’,27 while as for Latin inscriptions — besides
Roman ones — names of Thracian origin predominate.28 In view of the
fact that in the course of the second century auxiliary units of the
Danubian army began to be recruited from the local Thracian popula-
tion, we cannot exclude the possibility that the Roman garrison at Olbia
consisted largely of auxiliary troops, not legionaries.29 The discovery of
21
Kryzhitskiy 1985, 150; Buyskikh 1991, 30–1.
22
Zubar 1998b, 93–5.
23
Ibid., 95.
24
Son 1993, 33–4.
25
Zubar 1998b, 97.
26
IOSPE i2 236, 322.
27
Zubar 1998b, 99–101.
28
IOSPE i2 167, 237; Latyshev 1904, 6–7, 14.
29
Holder 1980, 109–39; Mann 1983, 38, 66.

12 Zubar 1525 28/9/07 12:35 Page 177
ROMAN MILITARY UNITS IN OLBIA 177
equipment appropriate to auxiliaries at Olbia tends to strengthen that

possibility.30 Meanwhile some legionaries are attested at Olbia. We have
the inscription which mentions three legions and a tombstone erected by
Galerius Montanus for his 90-year-old mother. However, Galerius
Montanus was no ordinary legionary. He belonged to the armatura of
Legion XI Claudia and was one of the principales.31 Rostovtzeff, follow-
ing Domaszewski, pointed out that such principales were the instructors
of newly recruited soldiers.32 Accordingly Montanus may have been in
Olbia to ensure the military preparedness of the garrison.33
The text of the epitaph shows that Montanus lived in Olbia with his
mother and with a certain Procula, who is not called his wife and was
probably cohabiting with him. Therefore we may have an upper chrono-
logical limit for this tombstone in the reign of Septimius Severus who
legalized military marriages.34 Be that as it may, quite apart from such
considerations, there is reason to believe that in Olbia around AD 200
there were not only Roman soldiers but also members of their families.35
From about AD 200 until about AD 250 we have no closely datable
objects at Olbia related to a Roman garrison there. One might conclude
that for some time in the first half of the third century Roman forces
were withdrawn from the city. That possibility finds some support in the
fact that, while Montanus belonged to Legion XI Claudia in about AD
250 (both at Olbia and at Chersonesus),36 we find soldiers from Legion
I Italica and its auxiliaries at Olbia.37 Evidently there were changes in
the configuration of the forces at Olbia and perhaps in Roman political
attitudes towards the city in the middle of the third century.
In Roman imperial strategy in these years the Danubian frontier and
its environs played a very significant role. Philip the Arab and after him
Decius Trajan waged a series of wars against the barbarians who threat-
ened Moesia and Thrace.38 The latter died together with his son in 251
fighting against the Goths.39 It is precisely in the reigns of these emper-
ors that we find Roman legionary forces stationed at Olbia and
30
Son & Nazarov 1993.
31
IOSPE i2 236; cf. CIL III 1663, 3336.
32
Rostovtzeff 1908, 66–7; cf. Domaszewski 1967, 45; Dobson 1967, 15.
33
Zubar 1998b, 99–106.
34
Wesch-Klein 1998, 108–9.
35
Zubar 1998b, 105–6.
36
Vinogradov & Zubar 1995/6; Vinogradov et al. 1999.
37
Zubar & Krapivina 1999; 2000; Zubar & Kozub 2002a; 2002b.
38
Zosimus 1.20.1; Dexippus, 18; Jord. Get. 90–3.
39
Zosimus 1.23.

12 Zubar 1525 28/9/07 12:35 Page 178
178 V. M. Zubar
Chersonesus.40 Their presence in these cities is to be understood in terms

of the larger imperial engagement with the barbarians on the Danubian
frontier. The deployment of such forces, albeit only as small garrisons
designed to defend the Greek population of these cities, made these
places natural allies supporting the imperial frontiers and resisting the
aggression of the barbarians. This was an important consideration in
Roman imperial policy especially with regard to the ancient states of the
north coast of the Black Sea at this time.41
After the death of Decius and his son, Trebonianus Gallus became
emperor. He concluded a peace with the Goths which was considered a
disgrace to the empire. The decision was soon taken to withdraw Roman
garrisons from the cities of the north coast of the Black Sea, including
specifically Olbia. At this time the empire was in desperate need of its
military.42 A similar strategy was later followed by the emperor Aurelian
who took the decision finally to withdraw from Roman Dacia.43 We may
conclude that in the aftermath of upheavals on the Danubian frontier, no
later than about AD 250–75 Roman forces were finally withdrawn from
the cities of the north coast of the Black Sea.44 Moreover, the discovery
at Olbia of an altar dated to AD 248 in particular accords well with this
analysis.45 The years around AD 250 are to be seen as the end of almost a
century of Roman legionary involvement in the city and the beginning of
a new period in the history of Olbia.46
40
IOSPE i2 167; Zubar & Krapivina 1999; 2000; Zubar & Kozub 2002b.
41
Zubar 1998b, 131.
42
Jones 1964, 21–36; Alföldy 1967, 342–74.
43
Scorpan 1980, 134.
44
Zubar 1998, 142–50.
45
Zubar 1998b, 130–1.
46
Zubar 2001.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 179
References
Abbreviations
The following are standard abbreviations, but may be unfamiliar to some

readers.
ACSS Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia
AGSP Antichniye gosudarstva Severnovo Prichernomor’ya
AIU Arkheologicheskiye Issledovaniya na Ukrainye
AKSP Antichnaya kul’tura Severnovo Prichernomor’ya
AP Arkheologichni pam’yatky (Kiev)
ASGE Arkheologicheskiy Sbornik Gosudarstvennovo Ermitazha
KSIA Kratkiye Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii
KSIIMK Kratkiye Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Material’noy
Kul’tury
MAIET Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii
MAR Materialy po arkheologii Rossii
MIA Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR
NE Numizmatika i Epigrafia
PAV Peterburgskiy Arkheologicheskiy Vestnik
PISPAE Problemy istorii Severnovo Prichernomor’ya v antichnuyu
epokhu
RA Rossiyskaya arkheologiya
SA Sovietskaya arkheologiya
SAI Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov
SGE Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennovo Ermitazha
TGE Trudy Gosudarstvennovo Ermitazha
VDI Vestnik drevnyey istoriya
References
Alekseyev, A. Yu. 1989: Great Scythia or two Scythias. In Scythia and the Bosporus:
A Conference in Honour of M. I. Rostovtzeff, pp. 85–7. Novocherkassk.
Alekseyeva, E. M. 1991: Greek Colonization of the North-West Caucasus. Moscow.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 180
180 References
Alekseyev, A. Yu. 1992: Scythian Chronicle. St Petersburg.

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 181
References 181
Bilets’kiy, A. O. 1957: On magistrates’ names in Olbian inscriptions. Arkheologiya 11,

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 182
182 References
Bravo, B. 2001: Luoghi di culto nella chora di Olbia Pontica. In Problemi della chora
coloniale dall’Occidente al Mar Nero, pp. 221–64. Taranto.
Bredow, I. von 1996: Der Begriff der Mixhellenes. In Funck 1996, 467–74.
Budanova, V. P. 1990: Goths in the Period of the Great Migration of Peoples. Moscow.
Bujskich, A. V. 2001: Review of Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation
of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Franz Steiner
Verlag, Stuttgart, 1998) (Historia: Einzelschriften 121), 336 S. 44 Abb., Eurasia
Antiqua 7, 623–9. (See also A. V. Buyskikh.)
Bujskich, A. V. & Bujskich, S. B. 2001: I sitti di Olbia e della sua chora nel periodo
della colonizzazione Greca. In Problemi della chora coloniale dall’ Occidente al
Mar Nero Atti del XL Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 2000, pp.
667–92. Taranto.
Bujskich, S. B. 2001: Das Achilleus-Heiligtum in der Chora von Olbia Pontica aus
archaischer Zeit. In Problemi della chora coloniale dall’ Occidente al Mar Nero.
Atti del XL Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 2000, pp. 317–32.
Taranto.
Bunyatyan, E. P. 1985: The Methodology of Social Reconstructions in Archaeology
from Materials of Scythian Cemeteries of the 4th to 3rd Centuries BC. Kiev.
Burakov, A. V. 1976: Kozyrka Settlement at the Turn of the Early Centuries AD. Kiev.
Burkert, W. 1960/1: Elysion. Glotta 39, 208–13.
Burkert, W. 1985: Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass.
Burkert, W. 1990a: Apollo of Didyma and Olbia (Russian with English summary).
VDI 193, 155–60.
Burkert, W. 1990b: Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen. In G. Nenci (ed.),
Hérodote et les peuples non grecs (Entretiens Hardt 35). Geneva.
Butyagin, A. M. 1997: On the transition to stone house-building at Myrmecium,
Stratum plus 1, 94–100.
Butyagin, A. M. 1999: Peculiarities of house building in the archaic Bosporus. In
M. Vakhtina (ed.), Bosporskiy Fenomen 1, pp. 112–16. St Petersburg.
Butyagin, A. M. 2001: Dugout construction in archaic Bosporus (origin and
development). In V. Yu. Zuyev et al., Bosporan Phenomenon: The Colonization of
the Region, Polis-formation and State-formation, 2 vols., vol. I, pp. 36–41. St
Petersburg.
Buyskikh, A. V. 1990: Some specific features of the shape of late archaic settlements
of the lower Bug, Arkheologiya 2, 24–32. (See also A. V. Bujskich.)
Buyskikh, A. V. & Krapivina, V. V. 2001: On East Greek pottery from the excavations
at Olbia (new discoveries). In V. P. Kopylov (ed.), International Relations in the
Black Sea Basin in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, pp. 46–9. Rostov-on-Don.
Buyskikh, S. B. 1985: Some results of the study of the Olbian khora. In S. D.
Kryzhitskiy (ed.), Problems in the Study of Olbia: Abstracts, pp. 8–10. Parutino.
(See also S. B. Bujskich.)
Buyskikh, S. B. 1986: Nekotorye voprosy prostranstvenno-strukturnovo razvitiya
Ol’viyskoy khory (VI–II v. do n.e.). In A. S. Rusyayeva (ed.), Ol’viya i yeyo
sal’skaya okruga, pp. 17–28. Kiev.
Buyskikh, S. B. 1987: On early classical settlement-structures on the lower Bug. In
V. S. Ol’khovskiy (ed.), Socio-economic Problems in the Development of Ancient
Societies and Archaeology, pp. 30–6. Moscow.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 183
References 183
Buyskikh, S. B. 2001: The shrine of Achilles on Beykush Cape (preliminary results).

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 184
184 References
Earle, T. 1997: How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Pre-history.
Stanford.
Ehrhardt, N. 1983: Milet und seine Kolonien. Frankfurt.
Fehling, D. 1989: Herodotus and his Sources, English translation. Leeds.
Fialko, E. E. 1994: Monuments of the Scythian Period on the Terraced, Wooded Steppe
by the Dnieper. Kiev.
Flower, M. A. & Marincola, J. 2002: Herodotus, Histories, Book ix. Cambridge.
Frolova, N. A. 1986: A gold coin of 338 ⫽ AD 41. VDI 4, 54–9.
Funck, B. (ed.). 1996: Hellenismus. Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation u.
politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters. Tübingen.
Galanina, L. K. 1977: Scythian Antiquities on the Dnieper. Moscow.
Gardiner-Garden, J. R. 1987: Dareios’ Scythian expedition and its aftermath. Klio 69,
326–50.
Garnsey, P. 1988: Food and Famine in the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1984: Scythian imitations of the shapes of Greek wheel-made
pottery. Arkheologia 48, 7–12.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1989: The Domestic Production and Lifestyle of the Steppe
Scythians Kiev.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1995: Herding in Steppe Scythia. Kiev.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1996: The economic aspect of relations between pastoral and settled
inhabitants of the north coast of the Black Sea in the 6th and early 5th centuries
BC. In Bel’sk Settlement in the Context of Other Sites of Early Iron Age Europe, pp.
286–92. Poltava.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1999: The History of the Economy of Steppe Scythia, 6th to 4th
Centuries BC. Kiev.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 2000a: Great Scythia, two Scythias or three models of the economy
of early pastoralists on the north coast of the Black Sea? Problems in the
Archaeology of the Dnieper Region, pp. 141–3. Dnepropetrovsk.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 2000b: The Scythian economic cycle in the northern Black Sea area.
In Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations: Abstracts, pp. 45–6.
Moscow.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 2001: Great Scythia as an indicator of the terminological position
of Scythology. RA 2,16–23.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. 2002: The Bosporan vector of relations of the population of the
ecologo-economical region of Kamenskoye. In V. Yu. Zuyev (ed.), The Bosporan
phenomenon, pp. 149–57. St Petersburg.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. & Abikulova, M. I. 1991: Late Scythian Remains on the Lower
Dniester. Kiev.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. & Otreshko, V. M. 1982: The handmade pottery of the archaic set-
tlement of Bol’shaya Chernomorka II. In A. I. Terenozhkin (ed.), The Antiquities
of Ancient Scythia, pp. 75–90. Kiev.
Gavrilyuk, N. A. & Timchenko, N. P. 1994: The dynamics of quantity and reproduc-
tion among the population of Steppe Scythia. In The Paleo-demography of the
Scythian Population of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 22–45. Kiev.
Gaydukevich, V. F. 1955: The history of ancient cities of the north coast of the Black
Sea. In G. A. Koshelenko (ed.), Ancient Cities of the North Coast of the Black Sea,
pp. 23–147. Moscow.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 185
References 185
Georges, P. 1987: Darius in Scythia: The formation of Herodotus’ sources and the
nature of Darius’ campaign. AJAH 12, 97–147.
Gey, O. A. 1986: On the date of the origin of the Chernyakhov culture on the north
coast of the Black Sea. SA 1, 77–84.
Golosovker, Ya. E. 1987: The Logic of Myth. Moscow.
Golovacheva, N. V. & Rogov, E. Yu. 2001: Note on the rural temple on the northern
edge of the archaic chora of Olbia. In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic
Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, pp. 145–8. Leiden.
Golovacheva, N. V., Marchenko, K. K. & Rogov, E. Ya. 1999: Les constructions
insolites trouvées dans la zone septentrionale de la chora d’Olbia: règle ou
hasarde’. In O. Lordkipanidze & P. Lévêque (eds.), Religions du Pont Euxin, pp.
65–73. Paris.
Gorokhovskiy, E. L. 1985: The chronology of cemeteries of the Chernyakhov culture.
In Abstracts of the Papers of the Soviet Delegation at the 5th International Congress
of Slav Archaeology, pp. 21–2. Moscow.
Gorokhovskiy, E. L., Zubar, V. M. & Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1985: On the date of some
ancient settlements in the territory of Olbia. Arkheologiya 49, 25–41.
Gould, J. 1989: Herodotus. London.
Gould, J. 2001: Dionysus and the hippy convoy: ritual, myth and metaphor in the cult
of Dionysus. In Myth, Ritual, Memory and Exchange, pp. 269–82. Oxford.
Grach, N. L. 1999: The Necropolis of Nymphaeum. St Petersburg.
Graham, A. J. 1964: Colony and Mother-city in Ancient Greece. Manchester.
Grakov, B. N. 1950: Scythian Heracles, KSIIMK 34, 7–18.
Grakov, B. N. 1971: Scythians. Moscow.
Grakov, V. M. 1947: What were Olbian trade relations with the Volga and Ural
regions in the archaic and classical period? Arkheologiya 2, 23–39.
Gudkova, A. V. 1987: The Settled Population of the North-West Black Sea Coast in the
First Half of the 1st Millennium AD (Avtoref diss.) Kiev.
Gudkova, A. V. & Krapivina V. V. 1990: The Grey-Clay Pottery of Tyras, Olbia and
Sites of the Chernyakhov Culture. Kiev.
Hansen, M. H. 1997: Emporion: a study of the use and meaning of the term in the
archaic and classical periods. In Nielsen 1997, 83–106.
Harris, W. V. 1989: Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass.
Harrison, T. 2000: Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus. Oxford.
Hedreen, G. 1991: The cult of Achilles in the Euxine, Hesperia 60, 313–30.
Heinen, H. 2001: Greeks, Iranians and Romans on the northern shore of the Black
Sea: In G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and
Studies, pp. 1–23. Leiden.
Hind, J. G. F. 1992/3: Archaeology of the Greeks and barbarian peoples around the
Black Sea: 1982–1992. AR 39, 82–112.
Hind, J. G. F. 1997: Colonies and ports of trade on the northern shores of the Black
Sea: Borysthenes, Kremnoi and the other Pontic emporia in Herodotus. In Nielsen
1997, 107–16.
Hirst, G. 1903: The cults of Olbia, Part II. JHS 23, 24–53.
Hohti, P. 1975: Über die Notwendigkeit bei Herodot. Arctos 9, 31–7.
Holder, P. A. 1980: Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to Trajan.
London.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 186
186 References
Hommel, H. 1980: Der Gott Achilleus. SB Heidelberg.

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 187
References 187
Khazanov, A. M. 2000: Pastoralists and the Outside World (3rd edition). Almaty.
Kindstrand, J. F. 1981: Anacharsis: The Legend and the Apophthegmata. Uppsala.
Kirk, G. S. 1987: The Iliad: A Commentary, Vol. I: books 1–4. Cambridge.
Kleyman, I. B. 2001: Defensive structures on the territory of Tyras. In G. R.
Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, pp.
53–65. Leiden.
Knipovich, T. N. 1956: The population of Olbia in the 6th to 1st centuries BC on the
basis of epigraphical sources. MIA 50, 119–53.
Kolosovskaya, Yu. N. 1955: On the history of the collapse of Roman control in
Dacia. VDI 3, 63–84.
Kopeykina, L. V. 1973: Samyy ranniy obrazets raspisnoy drevnegrecheskoy keramiki
iz raskopok na Berezan. SA 2, 240–4.
Kopeykina, L. V. 1981a: Elements of local character in the culture of the Berezan set-
tlement in the archaic period. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), The Demographic
Situation on the Black Sea Coast in the Period of Great Greek Colonization: Second
Symposium, Tskhaltubo 1979, pp. 163–74. Tbilisi.
Kopeykina, L. V. 1981b: Peculiarities of the development of the settlement on
Berezan in the archaic period (according to the results of excavations in the north-
western sector). SA 1, 192–208.
Korpusova, V. N. 1980: A painted Rhodian-Ionian oinochoe from the burial mound
at Philatovka in the Crimea. VDI 2, 100–4.
Koshelenko, G. A. 1999: The Bosporan version of the myth of the fall of the Giants,
Bosporskiye drevnosti 2, 147–60.
Kosikov, V. A. 1994: The Production of Bronze Art-works in Scythia in the
Seventh–Fifth Centuries BC. Donetsk.
Kovpanenko, G. T. 1968: Excavations at Trakhtemirov. In Archaeological Research in
the Ukraine for 1967, vol. II, pp. 108–11. Kiev.
Kovpanenko, G. T. 1972: Trakhtemirov. In Materials of the 13th Conference of the
Institute of Archaeology of the Ukrainian Academy, pp. 187–9. Kiev.
Kovpanenko, G. T. and Yanushevich, Z. V. 1975: Cereal marks on pottery from
Trakhtemirov. In Scythian world, pp. 147–52. Kiev.
Kovpanenko, G. T., Bunyatyan, E. P. & Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1978: Excavations of the
burial mounds at Kovalevka. In Burial Mounds in the Lower Bug, pp. 7–133. Kiev.
Kovpanenko, G. T., Bessonova, S. S. & Skoryy, S. A. 1989: Remains of the Scythian
Period in the Wooded Steppe West of the Dnieper. Kiev.
Kozub, Yu. I. 1974: The Necropolis of Olbia in the 5th–4th Centuries BC. Kiev.
Kradin, N. N. 2001: Empire of the Huns (2nd edition). Moscow.
Krapivina, V. V. 1993: Olbia: Its Material Culture in the Early Centuries AD. Kiev.
Krapivina, V. V. 1994: On the ethnicity of the population of Olbia in the early
centuries AD. Arkheologiya 2, 123–9.
Krapivina, V. & Diatroptov, P. 2005: An inscription of Mithradates VI Eupator’s
governor from Olbia, ACSS 11, 167–80.
Krasnov, Yu. A. 1968: On the origins of ploughing in the wooded regions of eastern
Europe. SA 2, 3–22.
Kruglikova, I. T. 1955: Dacia in the Period of Roman Occupation. Moscow.
Kryjitskij, S. D. 1982: Les maisons d’habitation du littoral Nord de la Mer Noire dans
l’antiquité, DHA 8, 61–90. (See also S. D. Kryzhitskiy.)

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 188
188 References
Kryjickij, S. D. & Bujskich, S. B. 1999: La dynamique d’amanagement du territoire

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 189
References 189
Kryzhitskiy, S. D., Kozub, Yu. I., Rusyayeva, A. S. & Buyskikh, S. B. (eds.). 1987: The
Culture of the Population of Olbia and its Environs in the Archaic Period. Kiev.
Kryzhitskiy, S. D., Rusyayeva, A. S., Krapivina, V. V., Leypunskaya, N. A.,
Skrzhinskaya, M. V. & Anokhin, V. A. 1999: Olbia: An Ancient State on the North
Coast of the Black Sea. Kiev.
Kutaysov, V. A. 1990: The Ancient City of Kerkinitis. Kiev.
Kutaysov, V. A. & Uzhentsev, V. B. 1997: Kalos Limen (excavations 1988–95). In V. L.
Mytz (ed.), The Archaeology of the Crimea, pp. 43–57. Simferopol.
Kuznetsov, V. D. 1995: Early types of Greek dwelling on the north coast of the Black
Sea, Bosporskiy Sbornik 6, 99–126.
Kuznetsova, T. M. 1990: Greek trade routes or contact routes? In Problems in Scytho-
Sarmatian archaeology, pp. 82–97. Moscow.
Kuznetsova, T. M. 1991: Studies in Scythian History. Moscow.
Lapin, V. V. 1966: The Greek Colonization of the North Coast of the Black Sea. Kiev.
Lapin, V. V. 1968: Research on the Ancient Greek Settlement on the Island of Berezan.
In Archaeological Research in the Ukraine for 1967, pp. 150–5. Kiev.
Latyshev, V. V. 1887: Studies on the History and Civic Structure of the City of Olbia.
St Petersburg.
Latyshev, V. V. 1904: Epigraphical news from south Russia. IAK 10, 1–91.
Latyshev, V. V. 1909: Pontika. St Petersburg.
Lebedeva, A. Yu. 2000: Palaeobotanic remains of the agriculture of the Scythian
period: problems of interpretation. In Scythians and Sarmatians in the
Seventh–Third Centuries BC, pp. 91–100. Moscow.
Legrand, P.-E. 1945: Hérodote, Histoires Livre iv. Paris.
Lelekov, L. A. & Rayevskiy, D. S. 1988: External myth in Greek imagery. In The Life
of Myth in Antiquity, 2 vols., vol. I, pp. 215–26. Moscow.
Leypunskaya, N. A. 1979: On the role of trade-exchange relations in the economy
of Olbia in the second half of the 6th century BC. In O. D. Lordkipanidze
(ed.), Problems of Greek Colonisation in the Black Sea Region. pp. 125–30.
Tbilisi.
Leypunskaya, N. A. 1981a: Coarse Pottery from Olbia. Kiev.
Leypunskaya, N. A. 1981b: The economic bases of Olbia’s relationships with the local
peoples of the north coast of the Black Sea. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), The
Demographic Situation in the Black Sea Region in the Period of Greek Colonisation,
pp. 148–57. Tbilisi.
Leypunskaya, N. A. 1984: Pottery from the submerged part of Olbia. In The Ancient
Culture of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 65–88. Kiev.
Leypunskaya, N. A. 1986: Dwelling area at Olbia south-west of the agora (1972–77).
In A. S. Rusyayeva (ed.), Olbia and its Environs, pp. 29–47. Kiev.
Leypunskaya, N. A. 1991: Ancient settlement on the Lower Bug. Arkheologiya 3,
76–87.
Leypunskaya, N. A. 1994: The central dwelling quarter of Olbia. Arkheologiya 2,
70–88.
Leypunskaya, N. A. 1995: Excavations in the Lower City of Olbia, 1985–92:
preliminary results. EMC 14, 23–43.
Luraghi, N. 2001: Local knowledge in Herodotus’ Histories. In Luraghi (ed.), The
Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, pp. 138–60. Oxford.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 190
190 References
Macan, R. W. 1895: Herodotos: The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Books. London.
Magomedov, B. V. 1985: Olbia and the Chernyakhov culture. In Problems in the Study
of Olbia: Abstracts, pp. 47–9. Parutino.
Magomedov, B. V. 1987: The Chernyakhov Culture of the North-West Coast of the
Black Sea. Kiev.
Magomedov, B. V. 2001: The Chernyakhov Culture: The Problem of Ethnicity. Lyublin.
Makhortykh, S. V. 1991: Scythians in the North Caucasus. Kiev.
Malkin, I. 1987: Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece. Leiden.
Mann, J. S. 1983: Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate.
London.
Marchenko, K. K. 1980: The model of Greek colonisation on the Lower Bug: VDI 1,
131–43.
Marchenko, K. K. 1983: Yeshcho raz k voprosu o kallipidakh. SA 1, 67–79.
Marchenko, K. K. 1987: Lepnaya keramika. In S. D. Kryzhitskiy (ed.), Kul’tura
naseleniya Ol’vii i yeyo okrugi v arkhaicheskoye vremya, pp. 104–16. Kiev.
Marchenko, K. K. 1988: Barbarians in the Population of Berezan and Olbia, Second
Half of the Seventh Century to the First Half of the First Century BC (According to
Handmade Pottery). Leningrad.
Marchenko, K. K. 1991: Greeks and Barbarians of the North-West Coast of the Black
Sea, 7th–1st Centuries BC. Avtored. diss., St Petersburg.
Marchenko, K. K. 1999: On the problem of Greek–barbarian contacts. Stratum Plus
3, 145–72.
Marchenko, K. K. & Domanskiy, Ya. V. 1999: Two settlements of the lower Bug in
the archaic period (an attempt at the comparative characterisation of the material
culture of the sites), Stratum plus 3, 26–74.
Marchenko, K. K. & Solovyov, S. L. 1988: A new group of handmade pottery from
the lower Bug in the late archaic period, Arkhologiya 63, 56–9.
Maslennikov, A. A. 1978: The ethnic composition of the population of the Bosporan
cities in the 6th to 5th centuries BC. SA 1. 24–37.
Maslennikov, A. A. 1981: The Population of the Bosporan State in the 6th to 2nd
Centuries BC. Moscow.
Medvedev, A. P. 1997: Ol’viyskiye torgovye puti i stepen’ dostovernosti etnogeogra-
ficheskikh dannykh Gerodota. Arkheologiya 4, 24–8.
Melyukova, A. I. 1971: Naseleniye nizhnevo Podnestrov’ya v IV–III vv. do n.e. In
Problemy skifskoy arkheologii, MIA 177, pp. 39–54. Moscow and Leningrad.
Melyukova, A. I. 1980: The settlement of Nadlimanskoye III on the shore of the
Dniester liman. In P. O. Karyshkovskiy (ed.), Studies in the Classical Archaeology
of the South-West of the Ukrainian SSR, pp. 5–23. Kiev.
Melyukova, A. I. 1991: Innovation in the study of key problems in scythology, KSIA
204, 3–10.
Melyukova, A. I. & Yatsenko, I. V. 1989: B. N. Grakov and some problems of current
Scythian studies. In Yu. G. Vinogradov (ed.), Problems of Scytho-Sarmatian
Archaeology on the North Coast of the Black Sea. Abstracts of a Conference to
Mark the 90th Birthday of B. N. Grakov, pp. 86–8. Zaporozh’ye.
Mendelsohn, D. 1992: Ra: dithyrambic language in Dionysiac cult. CJ 87,
105–24.
Minns, E. H. 1913: Scythians and Greeks. Cambridge.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 191
References 191
Mitchell, S. 2003: The Galatians: representation and reality. In A. Erskine (ed.), A

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 192
192 References
Orlandini, P. 1991: Lo scavo e il problema delle fosse di scarico dei due insediamenti.
In Ricerce archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. 1. Le fosse di scarico del
saggio P. Materiale e problematiche, pp. 19–24. Milan.
Orlandini, P. 1992: Lo scavo del saggio T. In Ricerce archeologiche all’Incoronata di
Metaponto. 2. Dal villagio indigeno all’emporio greco. Le strutture e i materiali del
saggio T, pp. 21–8. Milan.
Orlandini, P. 2000: Lo scavo del saggio G. In Ricerce archeologiche all’Incoronata di
Metaponto. 4. L’oikos del grande perirrhonterion nel contesto del saggio G, pp.
15–22. Milan.
Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1978a: An ancient smithy at Yagorlykh. Arkheologiya 25, 41–9.
Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1978b: The Economic Links of Olbia, Berezan and Yagorlykh
Settlement with Scythia (7th to mid-5th Centuries BC). Avtoref. diss., Kiev.
Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1978c: On ferrous metal-working at Yagorlykh. Arkheologiya 28,
26–36.
Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1980: The stages and character of economic relations along the
Dnieper and Bug. In Studies in the Classical Archaeology of the South-West of the
Ukrainian SSR, pp. 28–39. Kiev.
Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1981a: Non-ferrous metal-working at classical settlement sites.
Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1981b: Olbia and the trade routes of Scythia. In Antiquities of the
North-West Black Sea Coast, pp. 84–94. Kiev.
Ostroverkhov, A. S. 1996: Animal style and the classical cities of the north coast of
the Black Sea. VDI 2, 85–102.
Otreshko, V. M. 1981: Kallipidy, alazony i poseleniya nizhnevo Pobuzh’ya. SA 1,
27–42.
Otreshko, V. M. & Gavrilyuk, N. A. 1998: Handmade pottery of the settlement on
Berezan. In S. D. Kryzhitskiy (ed.), BORYSTHENIKA. Abstracts of Readings
Dedicated to the 70th Birthday of V. V. Lapin, pp. 17–18. Kiev.
Otreshko, V. M. & Mazarati, S. N. 1987: Semi-dugouts and dugouts. In S. D.
Kryzhitskiy (ed.), The Culture of the Population of Olbia and its Environs in the
Archaic Period, pp. 8–17. Kiev.
Parovich-Peshikan, M. 1974: The Necropolis of Olbia of the Hellenistic Period. Kiev.
Pashkevich, G. A. 2000: Palaeobotanical studies at Scythian sites of the steppe zone
of the north coast of the Black Sea. In Scythians and Sarmatians in the Seventh to
Third Centuries BC, pp. 100–9. Moscow.
Pashkevich, G. A. & Geyko, A. P. 1998: Paleo-botanical remains and pottery produc-
tion in the Scythian period in the wooded steppe east of the Dnieper. In
Archaeological Chronicle of the East Bank Ukraine, pp. 1–2, 38–40. Poltava.
Pfuhl, E. & Möbius, H. 1977: Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. Mainz.
Pharmakovskiy, B. V. 1914: The archaic period in the south of Russia. MAR 34,
15–78.
Phurmanskaya, A. I. 1963: Bronze smelting in Olbia. Arkheologiya 15, 61–71.
Pinney, G. F. 1983: Achilles lord of Scythia. In W. G. Moon (ed.), Ancient Greek Art
and Iconography, pp. 127–46. Madison.
Pippidi, D. M. 1973: Le problème de la main-d’oeuvre agricole dans les colonies grec-
ques de la mer noire. In M. I. Finley (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne,
pp. 63–82. Paris.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 193
References 193
Pletneva, S. A. 1982: Pastoralists of the Middle Ages. Moscow.

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 194
194 References
Rusyayeva, A. S. 1990: Ideological conceptions of the ancient Greeks of the lower

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 195
References 195
Shcheglov, A. N. 1990: The north Pontic grain trade in the 7th to 5th centuries BC:
written sources and archaeology. In O. D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), The Black Sea
Region in the 7th to 5th Centuries BC, pp. 99–121. Tbilisi.
Shchukin, M. B. 1982: The kingdom of Pharzoios: an episode in the history of the
north coast of the Black Sea. SGE 47, 35–7.
Shchukin, M. B. 1994: At the Turn of Eras. St Petersburg.
Shelov, D. B. 1969: Olbian coins along the Volga. In Antiquities of Eastern Europe:
MIA 169, pp. 296–9, Moscow and Leningrad.
Shelov, D. B. 1975: The North Black Sea Coast 2000 Years Ago. Moscow.
Shelov-Kovedyayev, F. V. 1988: Berezanskiy gimn ostrovu i Akhillu. VDI 3, 49–67.
Shelov-Kovedyayev, F.V. 1990: A Berezan poem for the island and Achilles. VDI 3,
49–63.
Shramko, B. A. 1961: On the agricultural techniques of the peoples of the Scythian
period in eastern Europe. SA 1, 73–90.
Shramko, B. A. 1972: On the date of the appearance of ploughed agriculture in
south-east Europe. Arkhaeologiya 7, 23–35.
Shramko, B. A. 1975: A fort of the Scythian period at Bel’sk. In Scythian World, pp.
10–35. Kiev.
Shramko, B. A. 1987: Bel’sk City Site in the Scythian Period (the Town of Gelonos).
Kiev.
Shramko, B. A. 1998: Lyubotinskoye settlement. In Collected Scholarly Papers, pp.
9–131. Khar’kov.
Shramko, B. A. 2002: A new metal-working mould from Bel’sk: the history of
weaponry among the Scythian peoples. RA 1, 163–6.
Sidorenko, V. A. 1988: A fragment of a decree of the early Roman period from the
excavations beneath Mangup. In Problems of Ancient Culture: Abstracts, pp. 86–7.
Simferopol.
Sikorskiy, M. I. and Shvidkiy, D. T. 1983: On the Ground at Pereyaslavskiy. Kiev.
Simonenko, A. V. 1992: Pharzoios and Inismeus. VDI 1, 27–42.
Simonenko, A. V. 1994: A complex with Sarmatian marks from Olbia. In Olbia 2000:
Abstracts, pp. 118–21. Nikolayev.
Simonenko, A. V. 1999: Sarmatian objects with tamgas on the territory of the Olbian
state: Arkheologiya 1, 106–18.
Simonenko A. V. & Lobay, B. I. 1991: The Sarmatians of the North-West Coast of the
Black Sea in the 1st Century AD. Kiev.
Skoryy, S. A. 1985: Cruciform appliqués of the Olbian type in the Carpatho-
Danubian region: In Problems in the Study of Olbia: Abstracts, pp. 75–6. Parutino.
Skoryy, S. A. 1996: Pastoralists of the pre-Scythian and Scythian Period in the Wooded
Steppe West of the Dnieper. Avtoref.diss., Kiev.
Skripkin, A. S. 1990: Asiatic Sarmatia: Problems of Chronology and History. Saratov.
Skrzhinskaya, M. V. 1984: Mirrors of the archaic period from Olbia and Berezan. In
The Ancient Culture of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 105–29. Kiev.
Skudnova, V. M. 1962: Scythian mirrors from the archaic necropolis of Olbia. TGE
3, 5–27.
Skudnova, V. M. 1988: The Archaic Necropolis of Olbia. Leningrad.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 196
196 References
Slavin, L. M. 1959: The periodization of the historical development of Olbia. In

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 197
References 197
Tolstikov, V. P. 1992: Panticapaeum, capital of the Bosporus. In G. A. Koshelenko

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 198
198 References
Vinogradov, Yu. G. & Karyshkovskiy, P. O. 1982/3: Kallinik, syn Evksena. VDI 4,

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

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 199
References 199
Yaylenko, V. P. 1987b: Some Greek graffiti and a so-called Sarmatian inscription from
Berezan. In Ancient Balkan Studies, pp. 147–54. Moscow.
Yemets, I. A. 2002: Greco-Barbarian Religious Interactions on the Cimmerian
Bosporus. Moscow.
Zakharova, E. A. & Moleva, N. A. 1999: Achilles in Greece and the Northern Black
Sea Coast. In On the History of Ancient Society: Inter-University Collection of
Scientific Works, pp. 45–54. Nizhniy Novgorod.
Zanker, P. 1995: The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity.
Berkeley.
Zaytsev, Yu. P. 2004: The Scythian Neapolis, BAR International Series. Oxford.
Zhmud, L, 1992: Orphism and graffiti from Olbia. Hermes 120, 159–68.
Zhuravlyov, O. P. 1983: Zhivotnovodstvo, okhota i landshaftnye osobennosti antich-
novo Ol’viyskovo gosudarstva. In Morfologicheskiye osobennosti pozvonochnykh
zhivotnykh Ukrainy, pp. 38–45. Kiev.
Zograph, A. N. 1930: Roman coins from Olbia. IGAIMK 6, 4.5–15.
Zolotaryov, M. I. 1988: The early stages of street-construction in early Tauric
Chersonesus, Khersonesskiy Sbornik 9, 26–35.
Zolotaryov, M. I. 1990: On the early stage of settlement in ancient Chersonesus.
Zolotaryov, M. I. 1998: The early stages of street building in Tauris Chersonesus.
Khersonesskiy Sbornik 9, 26–35.
Zubar, V. M. 1993: The reliability of a literary source on the history of Olbia in the
mid-2nd century (SHA Pius, 9.9). SA 2, 185–8.
Zubar, V. M. 1994: Olbia, the Sarmatians and Rome in the second half of the 1st cen-
tury. VDI 3, 218–22.
Zubar, V. M. 1997a: On the history of Olbia in the 1st half of the 3rd century AD. In
Niconium and the Ancient World of the North Coast of the Black Sea, pp. 291–5.
Odessa.
Zubar, V. M. 1997b: On the so-called Tauroscythian war. RA 2, 85–90.
Zubar, V. M. 1998a: On the interpretation of dwelling-complexes in the early phases
of the ancient settlements of the north coast of the Black Sea, Arkheologiya 1,
129–36.
Zubar, V. M. 1998b: Northern Pontus and the Roman Empire. Kiev.
Zubar, V. M. 2001: The final stage of the history of Olbia, VDI 1, 132–8.
Zubar, V. M. & Kozub, Yu. I. 2002a: A new epitaph of a Roman legionary from
Olbia, Arkheologiya 2, 102–9.
Zubar, V. M. & Kozub, Yu. I. 2002b: A new tombstone with Latin epitaph from
Olbia, ACSS 8, 199–210.
Zubar V. M. & Krapivina, V. V. 1999: On the Roman garrison of Olbia in the middle
of the 3rd century, Vita antiqua 2, 76–83.
Zubar, V. M. and Krapivina, V. V. 2000: A new Latin inscription and some issues in
the history of Olbia in the middle of the 3rd century, Stratum plus 6, 239–47.
Zubar, V. M. and Son, N. A. 1995: On the interpretation of a Latin inscription from
Olbia, VDI 3, 181–7.

13 References 1525 28/9/07 12:36 Page 200

David Braund, S D Kryzhitskiy - Classical Olbia and The Scythian World - From The Sixth Century BC To The Second Century AD (2008) PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

David Braund, S D Kryzhitskiy - Classical Olbia and The Scythian World - From The Sixth Century BC To The Second Century AD (2008) PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

00 Prelims 1525 28/9/07 12:22 Page v

particular debate. Meanwhile, as for the literary material, Herodotus

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

specific concern is a recent account and interpretation of the archaeology

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Herodotus is in some sense a liar.4 As she indicates, West is led to be sus-

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

now the Sarmatians have arrived, as diverse in their sub-groupings as the

Figure 1. View of Olbia from the air. Photo A. Kremko.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

The Main Results of the Excavations at

THE LOCATION OF OLBIA WAS ESTABLISHED in the 1790s.1 Systematic

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Figure 2. Olbia: plan of city.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

EXCAVATIONS AT OLBIA IN THE PAST THREE DECADES 9

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Viktorovka Kutsurub Adzhigol

Figure 3. Olbia and its environs.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Panticapaeum Phanagoria . Kuban

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Figure 4. Terrace of Olbia, overlooking the estuary of the river Bug.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

EXCAVATIONS AT OLBIA IN THE PAST THREE DECADES 13

Figure 5. Centre of Olbia, looking from the Bug. Photo. D. Braund.

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

established that an undisturbed cultural level in the submerged part of

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

EXCAVATIONS AT OLBIA IN THE PAST THREE DECADES 15

history.15 This and ongoing excavation has enabled us to establish a

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Criteria for the Presence of Barbarians

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

There are two aspects to the issue of a barbarian presence in the

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

THE PRESENCE OF BARBARIANS IN EARLY OLBIA 19

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

be helpful to have some serious comparisons of this handmade pottery

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

THE PRESENCE OF BARBARIANS IN EARLY OLBIA 21

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

percentages of particular ethnicities at Olbia or elsewhere. For example,

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Contacts between Greeks and

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

1. The complete rejection of any contacts with a local population.2

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS 25

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Myrmecium,22 Tyrambe, and Phanagoria,23 and in an early settlement on

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS 27

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

Thirdly, in the general disposition of the dugout structures of the

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS 29

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

And what are we to make of Solovyov’s statistical methodology, based

Copyright © British Academy 2007 – all rights reserved

CONTACTS BETWEEN GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS 31