Greek colonies

on the northern coast of the Black Sea.

Based on the works of G.V. Vernadsky and other historians of the 19th-21st centuries.

As we have already noted, Greek cities on the northern Black Sea coast played an important role in the development

international commerce, serving as a link between the Mediterranean basin and Eurasia. In this sense, they were the predecessors of the Genoese and Venetian cities on the Black Sea, which played the same role in the Mongol period from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries AD. From a sociological point of view, however, there was

Perhaps this is what they looked like ancient cities on the Black Sea coast

big difference between ancient Greek And medieval Italian cities . The last ones were simple commercial trading posts, while the role of the former was not limited to commercial functions. Some of the Greek cities of the Scythian period were fully developed communities in which not only trade, but also arts and crafts flourished; agriculture reached a high level in neighboring areas. So greek cities this period became important

cultural centers . In addition, they were closely connected with the cities of Greece proper, as well as with the little Asian ones, remaining part of the integrity of the Hellenic world. They, hence, served as a bridge between Greek world And Scythians. Greek artists and artisans fulfilled the orders of the Scythian kings and nobles, adapting to the Scythian artistic requirements. So, new art style, which can be called Greco-Scythian style, was created, influencing in turn for the development of Greek art in the later, so-called Hellenistic period. Most Greek cities on the northern coast of the Black Sea

This resulted in a fortunate situation for Greek cities in terms of international trade. The Persian kingdom was what can be called a "world empire", stretching from Aegean Sea in the west to the Indus and Jazarta rivers in the east. It included such provinces as Asia Minor, Transcaucasus and Mesopotamia and continued the cultural traditions of the Hittites, Urartians and Assyro-Babylonians. The Greek cities of the coast of Asia Minor served as a link between Asia Minor, the Mediterranean basin and the Black Sea steppes, while the Greek cities on the northern part of the Black Sea were likened to many outposts of the old cities of Asia Minor.

Greek traders of Olbia,

Chersonese and

The Cimmerian Bosporus served as intermediaries in trade relations between the Persian kingdom and the Scythians. IN V century BC. majority Greek cities on Aegean coast emancipated from Persian rule.

AND actually Greece And

V features of Athens became the leading force. During the century from 477 to 377, commercial routes were under the economic and political control of Athens, despite the fact that at the end of the fifth century the power of Athens was

Map of Greece and Asia Minor to the beginning Peloponnesian War (431 BC).

significantly shaken Peloponnesian War. In general, the conditions for the development of settlements on the Black Sea coast were less favorable during the period of Athenian hegemony than during Persian rule. From a historical point of view

The Bosporan kingdom on the Kerch Strait, which existed from the 6th century BC to the 6th century AD, was

Around 480 BC e. city-policies located on both banks of the Cimmerian Bosporus formed a single state. It went down in history under the name Bosporan Kingdom. Its capital was Panticapaeum (modern Kerch), the only large city on the western coast of the strait. The remaining more or less large settlements of Greek colonists were located on the eastern (“Asian”) coast of the Cimmerian Bosporus.
Initially, the Greek city-policies, which entered into an alliance with each other, retained independence in internal affairs. Then the Archeanactid dynasty became the head of the union. It is believed that these were representatives of a noble Greek family from Miletus. Over time, their power became hereditary.
From 438 BC e. power in the Bosporan kingdom passed to the Spartokid dynasty. Its ancestor, Spartok I, came from a “barbarian” tribal nobility associated with Greek merchants and slave owners.

Foreign policy of the Bosporan kingdom

The Spartokids pursued an active foreign policy. They sought to expand the territory of their state. One of the representatives of this dynasty, Leukon I (389-349 BC), led wars of conquest in east coast Cimmerian Bosporus. He annexed Sindika, the area where Sindian tribes settled, to his state.

Z Then Levkon conquered the indigenous Meotian tribes of the Kuban and Eastern Azov regions. During his reign, the Bosporan Kingdom included territories located along the lower reaches of the Kuban and its lower tributaries, along the eastern shore of the Sea of ​​Azov up to the mouth of the Don and in the Eastern Crimea. In the east, the border of the Bosporan kingdom ran along the line of modern settlements Staronizhesteblievskaya, Krymsk, Raevskaya.
Dedicatory inscriptions of the Bosporan rulers have been discovered. In one of them, Leucon I is called “archon of the Bosporus and Theodosius, king of the Sinds, Torets, Dandarii and Psessians.” His successor Perisad I (349-309 BC), already called the “king” of all Maeotians, included the Bosporus and the lands of the Fatei into the Bosporus.

However, the annexation of the Kuban and Azov tribes to the Bosporan kingdom was not durable. They had a certain independence and self-government, and from time to time they “fell away” from the central government. During the period of weakening of the Bosporan kingdom, these tribes even demanded that its rulers pay tribute.
A detailed description of the struggle for power between representatives of the Bosporan nobility was left by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus.

Weakening of the Bosporan Kingdom

The Spartokid dynasty ruled until 106 BC. e. Later, the Bosporus became part of the Pontic kingdom, created by Mithridates VI Eupator. After the death of Mithridates VI, the Bosporan state fell under the rule of Rome. In 14 AD e. Aspurgus became the king of Bosporus, founding a dynasty that ruled for about four hundred years.
At the beginning of the 3rd century. n. e. A strong alliance of tribes led by the Goths appeared in the Northern Black Sea region. He successfully fought with Rome on the banks of the Danube, and then rushed east. In the middle of the 3rd century. n. e. The Goths attacked the weakened Bosporan state, completely destroying the city of Tanais. The Bosporan rulers, lacking the strength and means to repel aggression from the warlike tribes, apparently entered into negotiations with them, allowing free passage through the strait. Moreover, they put their fleet at the disposal of the Goths, which they used for pirate purposes in the Black Sea and Mediterranean regions.
The dominance of the Goths at sea interrupted trade ties between the Bosporan kingdom and the outside world. This made an already difficult situation worse economic situation. Under the attacks of the northern newcomers, many small Bosporan settlements perished, and large cities fell into decay.
The Huns dealt a powerful blow to the Bosporus. Their massive advance to the west (from the 70s of the 4th century) gave impetus to the Great Migration of Peoples.

In the last quarter of the 4th century. The Huns invaded the territory of the Bosporan kingdom and subjected it to devastation. A significant part of the population of the Bosporan cities and other settlements was driven into slavery, their homes were destroyed and burned.

For a long time it was believed that the Hun invasion put an end to the existence of the Bosporan state. However, new historical sources refute this opinion. The Bosporus continued to exist even after the Hun invasion, from the 6th century. n. e. - under the influence of Byzantium, the heir of the Roman Empire. The Bosporan cities remained important political, economic and cultural centers in subsequent centuries, influencing the development of local tribes.

Greek colonists established trade with the surrounding Sindo-Maeotian tribes. Lively trade was also carried out with the cities of Greece. Especially a lot of grain was exported from the Bosporus, according to the testimony of the ancient Greek orator Demosthenes (about 384-322 BC) - about 16 thousand tons per year. This accounted for half of the grain imported by Greece.
The historian-geographer Strabo cited even more impressive figures: he noted that King Levkon I once sent a huge shipment of grain from Feodosia to the metropolis - about 84 thousand tons. This batch included grain grown by Greek colonists, taken as tribute from subject tribes, and received as a result of exchange.
In addition to bread, salted and dried fish, livestock, and furs were exported, and the slave trade flourished. In exchange, the settlers received precious metals, primarily silver, iron and iron products, marble for buildings, ceramics, art objects (statues, vases), weapons, wine, olive oil, and expensive fabrics.
The colonists maintained trade relations with the coastal cities of Asia Minor, Chios, Rhodes, Miletus, Samos, as well as with the Greek colony in Egypt Naucratis and the important trading center of mainland Greece Corinth.

From the end of the 6th century. BC e. leadership in trade with the Bosporan cities passed to Athens. The capital of Greece became the main consumer of products produced in the Northern and Eastern Black Sea region and a supplier of handicrafts to the Bosporus.

the predecessor of Russian rule in Tmutarakan from the 9th to the 11th centuries AD. There were several Greek cities in the kingdom on both banks of the Kerch Strait. They were founded in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. Most of them may have been built on the sites of older settlements of the local inhabitants of the Cimmerian period. First Greek cities to the east from the Kerch Strait were founded by colonists from Caria. Later new settlers arrived from Miletus. They settled on the Crimean side of the strait.

Mount Mithridates is the most remarkable place cities, this ancient history Kerch. Excavations have been ongoing on the mountain for many years. The remains of buildings of Panticapaeum, the capital of the Bosporus, were discovered here. Once upon a time, the six-columned temple of Apollo towered over the acropolis surrounded by a defensive wall. The white columns of the temple were visible far from the sea.
The Great Mithridates Staircase, numbering more than four hundred steps, leads to the top of the hill. It was built in 1833-1840. designed by Digby, an Italian architect who worked in Russia.
The mountain bears the name of the Pontic king Mithridates VI Eupator (132-63 BC), who also ruled the Bosporus kingdom. A descendant of Alexander the Great and one of the main associates of the Persian king Darius, he was an outstanding personality, a versatile person who spoke several languages. Mithridates had enormous physical strength, indomitable energy and courage, a deep mind and a cruel disposition. The warlike king waged a stubborn long-term struggle with Rome, trying to crush the powerful empire, but in the end he himself was defeated.

The city of Panticapaeum, which became the capital of the Bosporan Kingdom, was initially Milesian colony. Economically, the Bosporan kingdom was based on trade between Asia Minor and the Trans-Caucasus, On the one side, and the Azov and Don regions - on the other.

Among the goods coming from the Trans-Caucasus region, metal and metal products played an important role. Fish and grain arrived in response from the Don and Azov regions. City Panticapaeum originally had an aristocratic constitution. IN fifth century BC He became the capital of the monarchy. Bosporan Kingdom was the result of a necessary compromise between the Greek newcomers and the local tribes, the Greeks were not numerous enough to colonize the entire country.

They remained mainly in cities. On the other side, local Japhetid and Iranian tribes, mostly known as Sinds and Maeots, were mostly outside cities and reluctantly submitted to the Greeks. There were some clashes and eventually local tycoon, who belonged to a local but completely Hellenized family, seized power and declared himself king Sinds and Maeots under the name of Spartok I (438/7 – 433/2 BC). While

He was recognized as king by the local tribes; the city of Panticapaeum recognized him only as archon ("head"). In fact, he had complete power over the Greeks and controlled the army administration through the chiliarchog (“commander of a thousand,” compare thousand in medieval Rus'). After establishing monarchical rule in Bosporus the country became strong enough to protect itself from the invasion of the Scythians and other steppe tribes. In some cases the Bosporan kings paid tribute to the Scythians, so as not to start a war. They could afford to pay off, since the kingdom was quite prosperous. Grain trade was the basis of economic stability. The Bosporan kings tried to monopolize this line of trade in the eastern regions of the Black Sea. According to the treaty of friendship with Athens (434/3 BC), the Bosporan king was supposed to supply Athens with grain.

After long struggle with the city of Heraclea, tsar Levkoi (389/8 – 349/8 BC) conquered an important port

Feodosia, thus securing a monopoly on the grain trade. As a result, the Bosporan kingdom was a major grain producer in the fifth and fourth centuries for Greece. IN Leucon's reign 670,000 medimni (about 22,000 tons) of grain were exported annually to Attica, which reached half of all grain imports into Attica. Following these cities Chersonesus was the most important Greek center in Crimea. It was one of the most viable early Greek colonies here, thriving as far back as the Byzantine period.

Accurate the date of foundation of Chersonesus is unknown; Herodotus does not mention her. Documentary evidence regarding Chersonesus originate in the fourth century BC. In this century the oldest city wall was erected. The geographical position of Chersonesos was less favorable than that of the Bosporan cities, since it was located far from the Azov and Don regions. On the other side, it was better protected from nomad raids and had excellent port facilities. It is also closer to the south coast

Black Sea than any other city north coast. Chersonesus entered into close relations with Athens during the time of Athenian dominance.

Athenian influence was strong in the life and art of the city until the middle of the fourth century BC, after which Chersonesos vases, gold jewelry, terracotta, etc. approached the standards of Asia Minor. In terms of its political organization during the Scythian period, Chersonesos represented democracy. All power belonged to the people's assembly, and all public figures were elected. Actually the most significant issues were first discussed by the city council and then reported to the assembly.

An interesting inscription from the third century BC was discovered containing the text of the oath required from a Chersonese official. She obliged him

not to violate the democratic order and

not to transmit information to the Greeks or “barbarians” that could harm the interests of the city.

Many citizens had fields and vineyards outside the city walls; sometimes they were rented, in other cases the owner himself cultivated the land. The city controlled everything West Coast Crimean peninsula and part of the fertile steppe interior lands in its northern part. In the north-west of Crimea, the leading position belonged to Olbia, the “city of the Borysphenites”, which was located at the mouth of the Bug and ensured the integrity of the Bugodnestrovsky mouth. Thus, the city occupied a favorable position from the point of view of commercial routes running north into the interior of the territory. It would not be amiss to mention here that the wide mouth of the Dnieper also played an important role in the commercial exchange between Kievan Rus and Byzantium. Russian-Varangian princes tried to tightly control the mouth of the Dnieper, which offered a suitable point for Russian traders on their way to Constantinople.

Olbia had the closest ties with the Scythian world of all Greek colonies. She paid tribute to the Scythian kings and in return enjoyed their support. Its traders floated their goods deep into the territory up the Bug and Dnieper. In addition, Olbia was the starting point of the great overland caravan route to the Volga and Kama regions in the northeast. and the beginning of the fourth century BC. the city had friendly ties with Athens. During the period of Macedonian dominance, Olbia's relations with the Greek homeland were not so successful. Around 330 BC the city was besieged by Zopyrion, the governor of Tsar Alexander the Great in Thrace. To unite their entire population against the invaders, the Olivias took radical measures: the local population received citizenship and the slaves were freed. Many inscriptions dating from the early third century B.C. shed some light on economic conditions in Olbia. As can be seen from some of them, a wealthy citizen named Protogenes lent the city 1000 gold pieces, partly interest-free, to purchase grain. In addition, he provided himself with 2,500 medimnas of wheat at a reduced price. Like Chersonese, Olbia was a democracy. Before 330 BC only Greeks among the city's population had political rights, including voting in the council.

The first civilized people to settle in the Crimean lands were the ancient Greeks, or Hellenes. It was these people who made such a contribution to the development of all human civilization that cannot be overestimated. The influence of the ancient Greeks on the development of our peninsula is enormous.

The main reason for the resettlement of this people in the Northern Black Sea region was the search by low-income citizens for conditions for a normal life. The metropolis was overpopulated, there was no longer enough food and land for all free citizens, which gave rise to such a phenomenon as mass colonization. This movement dates back to the 7-6 centuries BC - the archaic era in history Ancient Greece. The first two waves of colonization affected lands close to Greece. The colonizers of the third wave crossed the Pont Euxine (the ancient Greek name of the Black Sea, translated as “Hospitable Sea”) and discovered fertile lands, an abundance of animals, birds, and fish. Being seafarers, the Greek settlers appreciated the local harbors and bays.

The first settlers who managed to create their own colonies on the territory of Crimea were the Ionian Greeks and the Dorian Greeks. It was they who, after some time, united other colonies around themselves and created two states - the Cimmerian Bosporus and the Tauride Chersonese.

The first city that the Hellenes founded in Crimea was Panticapaeum - present-day Kerch. The appearance of this city dates back to the turn of the 7th-6th centuries BC. A little later, in the 6th century BC, Feodosia was built, and the agricultural towns of Tiritaka, Parfeniy, Porfmiy, Myrmeky appeared on the Crimean coast of the Kerch Strait. The main inhabitants of these Hellenistic settlements were inhabitants of the western coast of Asia Minor (mainly from the Ionian city of Miletus) and the cities of the Aegean Sea.

Very quickly the colonists established their economic life: agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing and hunting developed; various crafts are emerging - construction, jewelry, metalworking, weaving, ceramics; the emergence of surplus products and goods makes it possible to establish trade with the metropolis and natural exchange with neighboring tribes. Already in the middle of the 6th century BC, their own coins were minted in Panticapaeum, and a little later - in other cities.

Gradually, the colonies, increasing territorially and in number of inhabitants, became cities and turned into small state policies. Their centers in the east of Crimea were Panticapaeum, Feodosia and Nymphaeum.

The threat of attack from barbarian tribes and economic interests became the reason for the unification of most of the cities of the Kerch Strait. The new state that emerged as a result of this unification was called the Cimmerian Bosporus. The first mention of this state belongs to the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, who named the time of its birth - around 480 BC. This state is not only expanding, but also becoming ethnically diverse: in addition to the Greeks, it is inhabited by Scythians, Taurians, and on the other side of the Kerch Strait - Sindians and Maeotians.

--

Everything that the Greeks achieved in their historical homeland, is widely used in Crimea. Urban planning, architecture, painting, philosophy, education, lawmaking, medicine, literature, theater, sports, high level development of agriculture and crafts - all this finds fertile soil on the Crimean land for application and distribution. Most likely, the Cimmerian Bosporus also included a settlement located on the site of the present Old Crimea. Numerous archaeological finds of Hellenistic origin and Panticapaean coins confirm this assumption.

At the end of the 4th century AD, after the invasion of the Huns, the Bosporus had to recognize their supremacy, and in the 6th century, the heiress of the fallen Roman Empire - Byzantium - subjugated these lands to itself.

In the southwestern part of Crimea there was another Hellenistic state - Tauride Chersonesos. Its center was Chersonesos (now Sevastopol), which was founded in the second half of the 5th century BC. colonists from Heraclea Pontica - a Dorian city on the southern coast of the Black Sea. The constant threat of attack from neighboring Tauri forced the settlers to quickly turn Chersonesos into a fortified city. The socio-economic development of the Chersonesos is taking place according to a scenario very similar to the development of their fellow countrymen, who mastered the Crimean lands a little earlier - the Bosporans. For a short time, Chersonesos was even under the Bosporan protectorate. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, Chersonesos became the center of Roman military occupation in Crimea. The city did not suffer from the Huns, since it was outside their routes of conquest. At the end of the 5th century, Chersonesos became part of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Greek colonization on the shores of the Black Sea proceeded, as mentioned above, in two ways. After repeated but random expeditions of individual brave sailors, who first became acquainted with the conditions of navigation on the Black Sea and its harbors (memories of these expeditions, clothed in the form of myth by Greek creative imagination, were preserved in the epic of the Argonauts and in the part of the Odyssey dependent on this epic) , the systematic exploitation of the Pontus Euxine, as the Greeks called the Black Sea, by Greek, mainly Asia Minor, navigators begins. In the 8th century the first trading posts and fishing stations appear on the southern coast; starting from the 7th century, when Persia begins to grow stronger, when it turns into a world power and gives the Greek cities the opportunity to develop extensive activities, these trading posts and stations grow into real cities with ever stronger and growing trade (Sinop, Amis, Trebizond, later Dorian Heraclea). In parallel with this, from the 7th century, i.e., from the time of the growth and strengthening of the Scythian power, the same process begins on the northern shore, and here, too, fishing stations and trading posts initially appeared, turning into real cities only from the 6th century. BC
Greek navigators on the northern shore of the Black Sea chose mainly the mouths of large southern Russian rivers, which in their estuaries provided faithful shelter for Greek ships and at the same time were extremely rich in large and expensive river fish. The same fish wealth was found in abundance on the shores of the Kerch Strait and on the coast of the Sea of ​​Azov, where there were a number of harbors convenient for Greek sailors. The main colonizing activities of the Greeks of Asia Minor were concentrated in these two areas.
In the western part, Tiras arose at the mouth of the Dniester and Olviy at the Bug and Dnieper estuaries, in the eastern part, where, along with Miletus, the colonizer of the western part of the northern coast of the Black Sea, Theos, Mytilene and Klazomenae worked energetically, increasingly rich settlements appeared - Phanagoria , Hermonassa, Sindh port, etc. on the eastern shore of the Kerch Strait, Feodosia, Nymphaeum and Panticapaeum, not to mention less major cities, on the west. All these cities, in turn, populated with their trading posts the nearest points convenient for fishing and trade. For example, the city of Tanais, which arose at the mouth of the Don, is considered a colony of Panticapaeum.
All this enormous colonial work in the west and east was done in a relatively short period of time, during the era of magnificent prosperity of the Asia Minor coast - in the 7th and, especially, in the 6th century. BC
All these colonies did not form one whole. All the past of the northern Black Sea coast and geographical conditions Its separate parts sharply divided these colonies into two groups: western and eastern.
In the West, the leading role naturally belonged to the Milesian colony of Olbia, which was conveniently located in the Bug Estuary and thereby concentrated in its harbor all the products that were rafted to the sea along the Dnieper and the Bug. From it, as from a natural center, cultural Greek influences and works of Greek workshops moved along both named rivers, mainly along the Dnieper, where Greek influence met with the old prehistoric culture, which was discussed above.
The situation on the shores of the Kerch Strait was more complicated. The old culture here was concentrated mainly along the course of the Kuban, the delta of which - the Taman Peninsula (originally an island or, rather, a multi-island - Polynesia) would naturally play the role of Olbia in the west. But the Kuban delta is very complex, changeable and unsuitable for regular navigation; The sea shore Taman Peninsula does not have good harbors and therefore cannot serve as a center for all trade of the Sea of ​​​​Azov and the rivers flowing into it.
The European shore of the Kerch Strait was more convenient for navigation. Ancient Panticapaeum (now Kerch), both in ancient times and now, was a natural center for stopping and transshipping goods moving from the Sea of ​​Azov further along the Black Sea. The port of Feodosia, on the other hand, was the best access to the sea for the works of the northern and northeastern part of the steppe Crimea.
Naturally, therefore, the dispute for primacy had to go between Taman Phanagoria, the best and most convenient port of the Kuban delta, Panticapaeum and Feodosia. It was predetermined in favor of Panticapaeum by the fact that. The main importance for trade with Greece was not so much the products of the Crimea and Kuban with Taman, but the Don and Azov fish, cattle products of the Don steppes and those products of the Urals, Siberia and Turkestan, as well as central Russia, which went along the large eastern caravan route and in the estuaries The Don River came into contact with the Mediterranean waterway for the first time. Tanais, which arose naturally at the mouth of the Don, the final point of this route, could not play a decisive and independent role. This role naturally belonged to the one who would own the Kerch Strait and have the opportunity to release or not release goods moving from the Sea of ​​Azov into the wide waters of the Black Sea.
Of the cities near the Kerch Strait, the only one that combined all the advantages for owning the Kerch Strait was Panticapaeum. Its position at the narrowest point of the strait, its calm wide roadstead, the city acropolis fortified by nature extended into the sea (now the so-called Mount Mithridates), and the comparative wealth of fresh water did not allow anyone to enter into successful competition with it.
A third smaller and less important group of Greek cities in southern Russia were the Greek settlements on the southern and southwestern coast of the Crimea. The mountainous southern coast of Crimea does not have convenient natural ports, and neither does the steppe western coast of Crimea. But the places near the Sevastopol Bay are extremely convenient for navigation, both the Sevastopol roadstead itself and the neighboring smaller and less protected bays, which are, however, very suitable for sailing and rowing ships. The Greeks could not not use these harbors. During the long and dangerous voyage along the coast of Crimea, Greek ships needed a place for a long and quiet anchorage. This is how Chersonesus arose, initially, probably, as an Ionian maritime station.
We must, however, take into account that this station could and should have acquired independent significance. First of all, all the products of the mountainous Crimea and the valleys associated with it were naturally sent here. Settlements along the western steppe coast of Crimea were naturally drawn to Chersonesus, primarily Kerkinitida, located near present-day Evpatoria. Finally, and most importantly, Sevastopol and Crimea have always been connected with the opposite southern shore of the Black Sea, with its network of flourishing Greek colonies. Having a harbor in Crimea was extremely important for these colonies, since this way they could get the products they needed from the steppe Crimea, mainly bread, which they themselves were never particularly rich in.
It is therefore clear that one of the Greek colonies on the southern coast of the Black Sea - the Dorian Heraclea, at the moment of its especially magnificent prosperity, took possession of the Ionian site in the Crimea and sent its colony there, thereby turning the previously insignificant Chersonesus into a large and relatively prosperous city, the fate of which is closely connected with the fate of the rest of the Greek world on the northern Black Sea coast.
Of the three complexes of Greek settlements outlined above, the group of Greek cities near the Kerch Strait, which the Greeks called the Cimmerian Bosporus, a group that we will call Bosporus and which is under This name was also known to the Greeks. Tiras and Olbia have always been and remained isolated advanced posts of the Greek world, surrounded on all sides by a sea of ​​tribes alien to them, numerous and constantly fed from outside by a new influx of forces. The Greek world was unable to create a strong, isolated Hellenized Greek power here. True, Olbia had a powerful cultural influence on the population closest to it. The lower reaches of the Dnieper and Bug were covered with a number of small agricultural and trading fortified settlements inhabited by half-Greek inhabitants. The areas closest to Olbia began intensive farming. Olbia's trade went far to the north. Not to mention the fact that Greek products saturated the flourishing middle Dnieper region and Poltava region, the influence of these products affects all the way to the distant Kama region and, perhaps, even Western Siberia and Altai.
But its significance and activities always depended entirely on its neighbors. As long as there was a strong Scythian kingdom, Olbia, dependent on it, could freely develop, enriching both itself and the Scythians. Its especially brilliant period was the 6th century. BC, when Olbia directly transferred, under the protection of the Scythians, the products of the north to their Asia Minor homeland, and in the 4th century. BC, when she freed herself from the tutelage and trade oppression of the Athenian maritime power and again entered into contact with her mother, the revived Miletus. The Scythian kingdom at this time was still strong enough to provide Olbia with relative calm and peace.
The situation became more difficult in the 3rd century, when the collapsing Scythian state demanded more and more sacrifices from Olbia, unable to protect it from Western and Eastern aliens who were destroying the Scythian state: Thracians, Celts, Sarmatians. This is clearly evidenced by the large Olbian inscription in honor of Protogen, a prominent Olbian citizen, a wealthy merchant, armorer and exporter, like all prominent citizens of Olbia of that time, who more than once rescued Olbia from difficult situations related to the demands of its overlord and strays approaching the walls of Olbia predators. He also helped Olbia in its defense, constructing towers and parts of a defensive wall at his own expense, and also helped her out of food difficulties associated with the constant devastation of the areas that fed Olbia with grain.
The situation was different for the Greek colonies on the shores of the Kerch Strait. Let me remind you, first of all, that they found here not a barbarian, but a relatively cultured population, which since the 2nd millennium had been under the strongest cultural influence of the East. The Cimmerians layered on top of this population. From the merger of these two elements, the tribes of the Sinds, Maeotians, Sauromatians, Satarchaeans, and, in all likelihood, the Taurians, inhabiting the mountainous part of the Crimea, were created, and also, in all likelihood, the opposite coast of the Crimea, where they were driven out by the Scythians, who owned steppe Crimea, etc.
These tribes, although, as we have seen, were subject to the Scythians, nevertheless enjoyed comparative independence in the Scythian state, which increasingly increased as the focus of the Scythians moved more and more to the west and their main efforts were concentrated on the fight against the Thracians Balkan Peninsula.
They have long had a strong sedentary lifestyle, were in constant trade relations with their southern and eastern neighbors and lived a relatively developed economic life as farmers, cattle breeders and fishermen.
The Greek colonies immediately found in them ready customers for their goods and intermediaries in relations with the south and east. In them they could easily find support in defending their independence against the Scythians. The floodplains and swamps of Taman and the Sea of ​​Azov were reliable protection for the rich Kuban delta.
Naturally, the time of Taman’s political rise was also a time of great prosperity for the Greek colonies on the shores of the Kerch Strait and their intense influence on neighboring tribes. The necropolis of Panticapaeum, its first abundant mints of silver coins show that the end of the 6th and beginning of the 5th century BC. were an era of high growth of this city, its greater economic and cultural prosperity. On the site of an old non-Greek settlement, perhaps associated with the coast of the Caucasus and especially with Colchis (the name Panticapaeum is not Greek; Greek, probably a very ancient legend connects its origin with the ancient dynasty of Colchis kings), a real Greek city arises and a number of others around it smaller settlements. We see the same in Taman, where finds of ancient Ionian Greek dishes are not uncommon and the oldest burials in the necropolises of individual cities are burials of the 6th and early 5th centuries.
The decisive moment in the history of the Bosporan Greek colonies and especially Panticapaeum was the victory of Athens over the Persians and the great interest of Athens in the north that appeared at that time. the Mediterranean coast. sea, to Thrace and, especially, to the Black Sea coast. The main incentive was to provide its ever-growing and developing industry with raw materials and its ever-increasing population with bread, the production of which, as we have seen, was native both in the valley of the Dnieper and Bug, and along the Kuban, and naturally took over in the south of Russia, as demand grew , all large spaces.
Athens' attraction to new places along the Black Sea coast is natural and understandable. At the largest grain market in Hellas - in Italy and Sicily - Athens faced serious competition from the Dorians in general and Sparta in particular and was by no means the masters of this market. Egypt, rich in grain, was in the hands of the Persians and could not be wrested from them by Athens even after the failure of the Persian campaigns against Greece. There remained the north, communication with which was a monopoly of the Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor, whose trade routes and business connections were now claimed, after the Persian wars, by Athens, which had liberated but also ruined them.
The creation of great sea power by Athens, the seizure of the straits and important trading points on the Thracian coast put the entire Black Sea region - both southern and northern - in complete and direct dependence on Athens and allowed Athens, without resistance from anyone, to do a series of steps to strengthen and strengthen this dependence.
Among these decisive steps, the most serious was the occupation of Athens and the settlement of a number of important points on the southern coast of the Black Sea with its armed colonists. They did the same in the north.
Probably not having the opportunity to occupy the strong Panticapaeum, which was under the protection of the Scythians, they captured the neighboring Nymphaeum, which had an excellent harbor and was connected with a number of neighboring Scythian and non-Scythian tribes of the Crimea. They turned this minor city into a large trading harbor and an important center of exchange, thereby creating strong competition for Panticapaeum. His complete trading independence is evidenced by his excellent, artistic silver, which he minted at this time.
The great cultural flourishing of Nymphaeum at this time, its wide trade connections and close relations with neighboring tribes is evidenced by the rich and extensive necropolis of the city, the richest burials of which date back to the 5th century. BC It is characteristic that, along with the purely Greek burials of the Nymphaean necropolis, we have a number of mounds with non-Greek or semi-Greek burials, that is, with the burials of the leaders of neighboring tribes who were attracted to the Nymphaeum by its cultural influence and constant trade ties. The composition of the items from the richest Nymphaean burials is very typical. Along with things imported from Athens, we also find a number of products from other workshops, for example, excellent Samian bronzes, wonderful works of famous Samian foundries. VI and V centuries. BC
It is interesting to note that, in addition to Nymphaeum, Athens probably created other settlements on the Crimean coast of the Kerch Strait. One of them, as the name shows, could be the city or village of Atheneon - a competitor of the Ionian Theodosius, just as Nymphaeum was a competitor of Panticapaeum.
Athens also established a strong foothold in Taman in the land of the most cultured of the Taman tribes - the Sinds. And here they created their urban center - Stratocleia, probably not a new foundation, but the renaming and settlement of one of the old settlements of Taman by their colonists. To them, perhaps, the Sinds owe their state unification and the Greek physiognomy that this unification assumed, if this did not happen even earlier as a result of the settlement of the Taman coast by Greek colonies. This is evidenced by the unusually fine artistic coinage of silver of the new state with a horse's head on one side, the name of the tribe and the figure of an Athenian owl on the reverse.
The strong cultural influence of the Greeks on the local tribes, which had already begun earlier (I note, for example, one local burial containing a beautiful Rhodian vase of the early 6th century BC) was felt with particular vividness at this time. In the group of the so-called Seven Brothers Kurgans in the Kuban delta near the station. Krymskaya we find several burials of the 5th century. BC, the inventory of which is strikingly similar to the inventory of the just mentioned Nymphaean mounds. And here, next to things of undoubted Athenian origin, we find excellent works of Asia Minor workshops.
We do not know what the relations between Athens and Panticapaeum were at this time. The flourishing that we find in Nymphea and in the land of the Sinds in the 5th century. BC, we do not observe it in Panticapaeum. There are no traces of Panticapaeum's dependence on Athens. It is characteristic, however, that just at this time a major political revolution took place in Panticapaeum. The power, which until this time was in the hands of several leading families, perhaps the descendants of the ancient founders of the colonies - the leaders (Anacts) of the migrating Milesians, whom our legend calls, probably by the invented name of Archeanactids (descendants of the ancient Anacts), now falls into the hands of one tyrant, bearing the Thracian name Spartok (in 438 - 7 BC) · The Thracian name Spartok does not necessarily imply that we are dealing with a Thracian - a native of the Balkan Peninsula, with the commander of a mercenary Thracian squad, as is usually assumed. I have already indicated how strong the Thracian elements were in the ancient population of the Bosporus, Taman and Azov region. One can therefore think that Spartok belonged to a local rich Greek family that became part of the sovereign families of Panticapaeum. With this assumption, it is clear why Spartok and his descendants managed to firmly establish their power in Panticapaeum, uniting both the Greeks and the local native population around it.
The emergence of a strong unified power in Panticapaeum in the hands of an energetic and talented holder was a decisive moment in the history of the eastern Greek Black Sea colonies. It created here a serious and decisive force, which, under favorable circumstances, could become a natural center for uniting around it all the Greeks of the Bosporus and Azov region, without which the Greeks here, as in Olbia, would inevitably have been only a tool in the hands of the dominant Scythian tribe.
It is unlikely that the Bosporan tyranny arose with the consent and assistance of Athens; rather, it was created in opposition to their influence. One must think that its appearance was one of those reasons that caused, three years after its creation, the sending by Athens in 435 - 4 BC. a large naval expedition under the command of Pericles to the Black Sea. This armed demonstration had the ultimate goal of impressing both the Black Sea Hellenes and the Scythians, showing them the strength of Athens and forcing them to accept unquestioningly the terms of the relationship dictated by Athens.
One of the objects of the Athenian naval demonstration was, undoubtedly, Panticapaeum, whose role in the maritime trade of the Black Sea could not but be clear to Athens and whose strengthening, contrary to the wishes of Athens, a strengthening that Athens could hardly prevent without further exertion of forces, was formidable for them danger. As an ally and client, Panticapaeum could, however, be an excellent support for Athenian trade policy, a support that its necessarily weak colonies at Nymphaeum and Stratocleia could not give Athens. Let us remember that Athens faced serious complications in Greece and that the Bosporus was located hundreds of miles from the base of Athenian power.
Compensation for the Bosporus for this support of the trade interests of Athens was naturally the patronage of Athens for the newly born Panticapaean tyranny, which still felt far from being strong (a number of exiles from Panticaiaeum sat nearby in Feodosia and were ready to return at the first opportunity), as well as assistance in case a possible, although unlikely, dramatic clash with the Scythians. These could have been, and probably were, the conditions set by Athens to Spartok during Pericles' expedition to the Black Sea.
Spartok could not help but agree to these conditions, and as a result, those permanent and strong relations began between Athens and the Bosporan tyranny, which determined the subsequent fate of the Greek colony on the shores of the Bosporus. Panticapaeum temporarily became a client and trading agent of Athens in the Black Sea, he had to guarantee Athens the unlimited right to export grain from Panticapaeum and was forced to agree to limit his right to free trade in grain: without the permission of Athens, Panticapaeum could not release a single grain of Black Sea bread to other ports of Greece .
But, thanks to the support of Athens, the Spartok dynasty stayed in the Bosporus and began a series of consistent actions to consolidate its power and develop its economic and political power. The main tasks of the Bosporus state, consistently carried out by Spartok’s successor Satyr I (433/2 - 389/8 BC), and the latter’s son Leukon I (389/8 - 349/8 BC), and children and Leukon's successors, Spartok II (349/8 - 344/3 BC), and Perisad I (349/8 - 310/9 BC), were: strengthening their power on the European and Asian shores of the Kerch Strait, further strengthening of its independence in relation to the Scythians and gradual emancipation from pressure from Athens, while maintaining, however, close and friendly relations with this powerful power, which, despite military failures in the fight against Sparta and the failure of its great power policy, continued to be the decisive naval force in the Aegean Sea.
The first task that faced Spartok's successor, Satyr, was to strengthen all trade and, mainly, the grain trade in the hands of the Bosporus. The question was not so much about the grain of Taman and Panticapaeum’s own territory, but rather about the grain of the northern steppe Crimea, the natural export harbor for which was Feodosia. This grain was claimed not only by Athens and its counterpart Panticapaeum; it was also needed, as we have seen, by the cities of the southern coast of the Black Sea, mainly by the ever-growing Heraclea, which had already established a strong foothold in Chersonesos and was trying to gain primacy in Theodosius. The result of this rivalry was the war between Bosporus and Heraclea over Theodosius, which began under Satyr and ended by Leukon with the annexation of Theodosius to the Bosporan state.
At the same time, Satyrus, and then Leukon, managed, taking advantage of the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, to introduce their relations with Athens in a new direction. By bribery, Satyr forced the Athenian fortified colony in Nymphaeum to be surrendered to him, and then he and Leukon managed to insist on the right of free trade in grain from the Bosporus not only with Athens, but also with other Greek cities, guaranteeing, however, Athens special and very valuable privileges.
It is more difficult to understand the relationship of the Bosporan dynasts to the cities and peoples of Taman. It is very likely that the main shopping mall Taman - Phanagoria was not part of the Bosporan state. But it was surrounded by a number of Taman tribes subject to the Bosporus and, of course, was not completely independent. It is not for nothing that we had abundant independent minting of coins in Phanagoria in the 4th - 3rd centuries. BC We do not find and the main monetary unit in Taman is Panticapaean gold, silver and copper.
The question of the relationship of the Bosporus to the local tribes that inhabited Taman is very difficult. The Sinds, as we have seen, were already strongly Hellenized during the reign of Athens and had a certain independence. A number of individual indications suggest that from ancient times they were drawn to the same urban center with the Greek and local population (first the Sind port, then Gorgippia - now Anapa) and were under the control of their local dynasts, the same half-Thracians, half-Greeks as the Bosporan tyrants , maybe even related to these latter. Under Leukon, the Sinds formed part of his power, that is, they recognized him as their king, along with other neighboring tribes, the circle of which was expanding under Leukon's successors. Whether this meant that these tribes were ruled from Panticapaeum, or whether one must think that the Bosporan dynast was their overlord, while each individual tribe was headed by its own local rulers, is quite clear. The second, however, is more likely. A number of indications tell us that the Sinds, in parallel with the Bosporan rulers, had their own semi-Greek dynasty.
We have even less data to understand the attitude of the Scythians towards the emerging power, which was very unpleasant for them. The Scythians, however, undoubtedly did not abandon their claims to suzerainty over Panticapaeum. This can be confirmed by evidence of the fierce struggle of Perisada I against them.
More than a century passed from the founding of tyranny in the Bosporus to the end of the reign of Perisad I. The rule of the Spartokid dynasty over the Bosporus bore fruit. The Bosporus turned into a strong and fairly durable power that developed huge trade with Greece, mainly with Athens. The main export item was bread, or at least that is what we hear about most. But the products of the Sea of ​​Azov were also of no small importance - its fish, livestock and slaves from the Don region, furs and goods coming from the far East to the mouth of the Don, where, as mentioned above, a large trading settlement arose - Tanais, also dependent on the Bosporus .
The economic growth and material prosperity of the Bosporus were somewhat weakened only by the confused political relations that reigned in Hellas after the fall of the hegemony of Athens: constant wars that undermined maritime trade and gradually turned into an anarchic and disorderly clash between the leading forces of Hellas, and internal confusion that reigned in individual Hellenic states and corrupting influence on greek life Persia with its powerful material resources.
At the end of this period, however, the situation changes. The growth of Macedonia and Alexander's conquests create great world Hellenism. The war of all against all temporarily ceases, and relative order comes. But for the grain trade of Panticapaeum, this plus is covered by the associated minus: Egypt, which has opened up to world trade, and the grain-rich areas in Asia are its competitors and very strong competitors. It must be taken into account, however, that if supply increased, then demand also increased, thanks to the growth and development of urban life throughout the Hellenistic world.
In any case, the 4th century. BC is a blessed time for Hellenism on the Black Sea. Safety at sea, supported by a strong Bosporan fleet, security of sales, and freedom of trade create a high rise in material security for all Greek cities in southern Russia, not only in the Bosporus, but also outside it. For Olbia and Chersonesos of the 4th century. BC the same brilliant time as for Bosporus.
Greek cities are being built up, temples and porticos are growing in them, and theaters are appearing in some places; squares and temples are decorated with statues, sometimes of first-class Greek masters. A lot of imported Greek things of better quality appear in everyday life. In the cities themselves, Greek workshops operate successfully, serving mainly the external market. In the largest centers, their own writers and scientists, historians, rhetoricians, philosophers, poets appear, local myths are collected, local historical traditions are recorded. In the Bosporus, as we will see below, its own flourishing school of toregovs is being created. All this is clearly reflected, first of all, in the necropolis.
Never before have so many expensive, sometimes artistic things been placed in the grave with the deceased as now. The grave goods of rich people and the local aristocracy are especially luxurious. Their majestic stone crypts under high mounds are filled with a rare selection of expensive and artistic things: the best Greek red-figure and multi-colored ceramics from Attic workshops (see Table XII, 1), Eastern Greek variegated glass, an excellent set of Greek, especially Asia Minor jewelry, gems and carved stones with the names of famous masters, the finest necklaces of amazing technology, luxurious earrings, bracelets, tiaras (see plate XII, 2, 3 and 4). The wonders of turning technology are the sarcophagi in which the mortal remains of Panticapaean and Taman nobles and their wives rested. Superb turning work, enlivened by painting and inlays of glass, bone and stones, makes these sarcophagi one of a kind monuments of the artistic industry.
The crypts themselves are not inferior to the burial inventory in terms of the harmony of the parts, the breadth of the construction scope and the height of the construction equipment (see Table XI, 1, 2 and 3). These are vast, sometimes double, high rooms, made of monumental slabs, with long leading into them corridors, spectacularly covered with pointed, stepped, domed-stepped or box semi-cylindrical vaults. In Taman, some crypts inside were plastered and painted in the same manner in which the walls of temples and public buildings were painted; in Panticapaeum, the painting was probably replaced by canopies and carpets covering the walls of the crypt.
It is unlikely that in the manner of covering the crypts with stepped vaults one should see consciously supported archaism, the preservation of the old tradition of the Aegean, Mycenaean and Asia Minor tombs. The architects who built them were guided, it seems to me, by other considerations - aesthetic and technical. The aesthetic impression of these stepped vaults is amazing, much stronger than the impression left by box vaults, which certainly require painting or plaster modeling combined with painting. Technically, the stepped vault satisfies all the requirements of an under-mound structure with a colossal mass of earth pressing on the roof. It is no coincidence that the most monumental crypts of the Bosporus have reached us completely intact. Only those that were damaged by robbers and taken away by modern vandals after their discovery by archaeologists were destroyed.
No less indicative, however, are the ordinary, ordinary tombs: earthen pits covered with boards, slabs or tiles, the walls of which are sometimes lined with tiles, slabs or mud bricks - tombs of ordinary citizens of Panticapaeum and its neighbors, as well as the Greek cities of Taman. The ritual of corpse deposition, which was retained in the Bosporus, only in rare cases being replaced by cremation, makes it possible to judge the life and wealth of the mass of Bosporan citizens. The impression is very instructive.
The burial rite and grave goods are purely Greek. The usual selection of things for a Hellene dominates as funeral props, testifying to the role that the palaestra and the way of life associated with it played in his life. The first place is occupied by vessels for oil, which were used to rub the body, and shears, which were used to clean palestra sand and oil from the body. These objects, first of all, were needed by the Bosporan Greek beyond the grave, where he was supposed to continue his earthly life, the life of a Hellenic Palestrite (see Table XI, 4 - frieze of a painted Panticapaean crypt of the 4th century BC with an image of a funerary palestric equipment: shearlings, lekythos, aryballae, towels, tiaras, headbands, wreaths).
Weapons are much less common in tombs of this time. It is characteristic that the least number of weapons is in the tombs of the Panticapaean necropolis, much more on the periphery of the Bosporus and in the necropolises of the Taman Greek cities. There is a lot of jewelry in women's tombs. The vessels are all imported from good Attic factories; sometimes you come across vessels from the best craftsmen, sometimes signed. Often so-called Phoenician colored glass. Everything speaks of the contentment of the population and its purely Greek appearance. The same is confirmed, however, by the rare, excellent tombstone steles of the Bosporans and their tombstone inscriptions. Approximately the same picture is repeated in Olbia and Chersonesus; only monumental mound burials are absent in these more democratic cities, although there are some analogies to them, at least in Olbia.
With the death of Perisad I, troubled and alarming times begin in Panticapaeum. Immediately after the death of Perisad, an internecine war began between the three sons of Perisad, from which Eumelus emerged victorious. Legitimate power belonged to Satyr II, the elder brother of Eumelus. Eumelus raised the Tamanian tribe of Fatei against him. Satyr was supported by a mercenary army of Greeks and Thracians, that is, the usual Bosporan army, and the Scythians. Victory went to Eumelus, who also broke the resistance of the third brother Prytanis. As a usurper, Eumelus was forced to make great concessions to the citizenship of Panticapaeum. One must think that under him the Panticapaean civilian army appeared for the first time; Until this time, the Bosporan tyrants relied exclusively on mercenaries.
The short reign of Eumelus was followed by the reign of Spartok III (304/3 - 284/3 BC) and Perisades II (284/3 to approximately 252 BC). The reigns of these dynasts, who generally continued the old policy of the Spartokids, were not yet the time of the decline of the Bosporus. Economic conditions remained the same, trade developed and Panticapaeum grew richer. The closest counterparty of Bosporus continues to be Athens, which at this time concluded a real alliance agreement with Bosporus, its former vassal and agent for the purchase of grain, which indicates both the decline of Athens in this era of the emerging large Hellenistic monarchies, and the growth of the importance of Bosporus. But, along with Athens, the kings of the Bosporus of this and the next period deal with the mighty Rhodes, and Delos, and Delphi, acting completely in the role of the rest, albeit secondary, Hellenistic monarchs.
The well-being of citizens does not fall either. The tombs of this period are no poorer, although less numerous than the tombs of earlier ones.
At this time, as mentioned above, the Bosporan workshops, which produced things from precious metals for the Scythian market, lived an intensive life at this time. We have seen how their works fill the rich Scythian burials of this period. True, the height of their artistic achievements is gradually decreasing: a gold coin of the Bosporus of the 4th century. BC, which replaced the Ionian silver of the 6th and 5th centuries, with its amazing heads of satyrs and sileni, one of the best creations of ancient glyptics (see plate XII, 5, 6 and 7), is now replaced by quite a dozen Hellenistic silver, stereotyped, albeit second-rate (Table XII, 9).
The entire second half of the 3rd century. BC filled in the Bosporus with a long series of dynastic and political unrest, from which only vague echoes have reached us. It is not the Spartokids who temporarily appear at the head of the state: Archon Hygienon, perhaps a protege of Panticapaean citizenship, and some king Aces, apparently the head of one of the Scythian or Maeotian tribes that claimed to lead the life of the Bosporus.
Even more vague is the legend about the last years of the independent existence of the Bosporus, Fr. first three quarters of the 2nd century. BC A number of dynasts appear, whom we know only from coins and inscriptions; they all bear the Thracian name Perisada. It is very likely that these are the last scions of the house of Spartok. Their coins, like those of Hygienont, are a slave copy, and a rather poor one at that, of the gold staters of Lysimachus, the general of Alexander, the founder of the short-lived Thracian kingdom (see plate XII, 8). The general appearance of these kings is that of minor Hellenistic monarchs; secondary kings, like the kings of Bithynia, Pontus or Armenia, but of a lower rank. At their court and in their politics, as in the entire world of Hellenism at that time, a major role was played by the local subjects of these kings - the Scythians and Maeotians, who, as Hellenization progressed, more and more imbued the once purely Greek citizenship of the cities of the Bosporan kingdom.
The Spartokid dynasty was living out its last days. But she continued to fulfill her traditional mission, supplying the Hellenic world with bread and raw materials. Therefore, the material well-being of the Bosporus, although falling, still remains at the general level of the semi-Greek Hellenistic powers of that time, far from it. inferior, of course, to such powers as the cultural kingdom of Pergamon and unable to withstand political rivalry not only with its Black Sea vis-à-vis - Bithynia and the ever-growing Pontus, but even with its closest neighbors - the Crimean Scythians.
History of Crimea II century. BC stands under the sign of the revival of the power of the old Scythian power. Of course, there can be no talk of returning this power to its former role. All of the Kuban region, the Azov region, the Don region, the Dnieper region and the Buge region left the hands of the Scythians forever, but the Scythians retained two pieces of their old territory. A small Scythian kingdom continues to exist in Dobrudja and a larger Scythian power in Crimea. Favorable conditions: the absence of any leading force in the north, the weakness of Macedonia, the defeat of Thrace under the corrupting influence of the Celtic conquerors, the inability of the Sarmatians to weld a strong power from individual tribes, the absence of any outside support from the Greek colonies of southern Russia allowed several energetic Scythian kings again welded together part of their decayed power and, supporting it with armed force, declared a claim to supremacy over the Crimea and the Greek cities of the northern coast up to Olbia. The Scythian Crimean power reached its apogee under Skilur in the first and second half of the 2nd century BC.
We do not know whether the Scythians are still the former military power of nomads. In any case, they had a large urban center in Crimea near present-day Simferopol. It is possible that we are dealing with a half-Greek city that grew up among a Scythian half-nomadic, half-agricultural population, where Scythian kings also visited from time to time.
The basis for the well-being of this Scythian state and the Greek Scythian capital was, of course, trade with the Greek world in grain and livestock. It is no wonder, therefore, that the kings of the Scythian state strive to gain power over the most important Greek ports. They probably managed to capture Kerkinitis on the western coast of Crimea and even Olbia, whose rich armatures gave them the fleet and naval forces they needed to ensure their removal from the robberies of the Crimean pirates.
But this, of course, was not enough for them. They were attracted by the excellent harbor and the beautiful territory of Chersonesos, cultivated for vineyards, which made it possible to enter into direct relations with south coast Black Sea. It is very likely that they tried to strengthen their influence in the Bosporus through diplomatic relations and marriage alliances. It is not for nothing that at the last Perisade one of the members of the Scythian royal family ends up in Panticapaeum, which, however, usually happened already at the end of the 4th and 3rd centuries. BC, as shown by the large Scythian tombs in the immediate vicinity of Panticapaeum and Nymphaeum among the tombs of the Greek population of these cities.
In connection with this revival of the Scythian power, which probably began already in the 3rd century. BC, there is a constant Scythian danger that threatened Chersonese, constant attacks on it by the Scythians and all sorts of efforts that Chersonese makes to ward off this danger. Several random inscriptions from Chersonese vividly depict to us this constant danger and the measures taken by Chersonese to avert it. Chersonese had few forces of its own, and he had to turn to stronger neighbors for help. While the Bosporus was strong, Chersonese sought its help; but the Bosporus weakened, falling more and more under Scythian influence, and the pressure of the Scythians became more energetic and persistent.
The natural protector of Chersonesus was its metropolis - Heraclea. But she was no longer independent. She had to submit to the Pontic kings. Tries to mobilize Chersonesos and the northern neighbors of the Scythians - the Sarmatians. Since all this is intertwined with the history of the Hellenistic kingdoms of Asia Minor, where the role of master and manager at this time was already played by Rome, it is natural that from time to time the imperious hand of Rome reaches out to Chersonesus.
In the second half of the 2nd century, when the power of the Scythian Crimean power especially increased, the position of Chersonese became critical. But at the same time, under the influence of the beginning devastation in Rome, the increasingly intensifying collapse of the Roman provincial administration and the first rumbles of the internal revolution in Italy, in the east, just on the southern shore of the Black Sea, the previously excluded possibility of the emergence of a strong power is created. The young, energetic and talented Pontic king Mithridates VI Eupator takes up the task of creating it.
To implement his plan - to create, in contrast to Rome, a strong eastern power - he needed, first of all, a base. Asia Minor, whose life was closely watched by Rome, could not provide this base. The Pontic state - the basis of the power of Mithridates - itself had an extremely mixed population, where, next to the Alarodians and Thracians, there were Semites and Iranians, and the general character of the culture was strongly Iranianized and resembles the culture of neighboring Armenia. Let us not forget that the basis of the economic and cultural life of the country with this composition of the population was the Greek cities, gradually deprived of freedom by the Pontic kings - Heraclea, Sinop, Amis, Amasia, Trebizond, etc. This character of culture brought Pontus closer, mainly, to Armenia, but also more so with the Bosporan kingdom and in general the northern coast of the Black Sea, where we encounter the same connection and interpenetration of the population of Greek cities, with a purely Hellenic culture, and the tribes inhabiting the country, with an Iranian or Iranizing culture.
Mithridates should have strived for an alliance and, if possible, subjugation of these two powers in order to create for himself the necessary supply base of both human material, money and natural products. But Armenia was at that time a strong power, which was just as difficult to deal with as Pontus’s neighbor to the west, Bithynia, and which, moreover, was under constant surveillance by Rome.
Crimea was in a different situation. Crimea was not in the sphere of influence of the Roman power and did not attract the attention of Roman politicians. Meanwhile, he could give Mithridates exactly what he needed: bread, cattle, leather, money and people, huge reserves of which, in the person of the Scythian, Maeotian and Sarmatian tribes, the half-Iranian Mithridates, who considered himself to belong to the old Persian dynasty of the Achaemenids , could count on being used as allies and mercenaries.
On the other hand, the growth of the Scythian power, the danger threatening Chersonesos from the Scythians, and his requests for help directed to Mithridates created unusually favorable conditions for Mithridates’ intervention in the affairs of the Crimea. Mithridates took full advantage of the opportunity that presented itself. In two expeditions, his commanders Diophantus and Neoptolemus, showing their strength to the Scythian power, led after the death of Skilur by his son Palak, and to the allies of the Scythian power, the Sarmatians-Roxolans, took possession of both Chersonesos with all the Greek settlements subject to him, and the Bosporus with all its power and, finally, even Olbia with its territory.
This success unusually strengthened Mithridates and gave him hope of the opportunity to begin a long and consistent work of unifying Asia Minor, and then the entire east under the leadership of Pontus, in defiance of the resistance of Rome, torn apart by a civil war that flared up in 91 with a bright flame and lasted until 70 and even later, that is, for more than 20 years.
This is not the place to tell the story unsuccessful attempt Mithridates to create a world Greek-Eastern state. It is important for us to point out that the starting point of Mithridates in his struggle with Rome and his last reserve in this struggle were his Crimean and Caucasian possessions annexed to them, his Black Sea power. Having joined here, as well as in Asia Minor, initially to the Greek cities, Mithridates, however, quickly disappointed them in their hopes. The more he became involved in the war with Rome, the more he needed money and natural products, and the further he was driven out of Asia Minor by the Romans, the more the Greek cities of the northern coast of the Black Sea became suppliers of these resources. The Greek cities bore this heavy burden placed on them with more and more displeasure, submitting only to force.
Along with this, Mithridates, who needed people for his army, became closer and closer to the Maeotians who were once subordinate to the Bosporus, with his enemies - the Scythians and Sarmatians, entering into marriage alliances with their dynasts - both personally and through his numerous sons and daughters - and political treaties. Hellenism, just when it hoped, through Mithridates, to strengthen its primacy over the Iranians pressing on it, was in danger of being completely absorbed by Iran, which by that time had already managed to significantly change the previously pure Greek appearance of the population of the Greek cities of the Black Sea region. On the other hand, Iran obviously met Mithridates as a unifier and leader, despite the blows he initially inflicted on the Scythians, and surrounded him with a long-lasting aura of a national leader.
It is natural, therefore, that the Greek cities of Crimea, mainly of the Bosporan kingdom, tried to use the moments of Mithridates’ weakness to regain their independence and, when Mithridates, who was finally ousted from Asia Minor by Pompey, but managed to flee to Panticapaeum and not allow Pompey here, prepared here with all the tension forces a new campaign against the Roman power, this time through the steppes of southern Russia and along the Danube, they offered him sharp resistance and, uniting with his son Pharnaces, got rid of the hated rapist, who had brought them to almost complete ruin and betrayed them to the centuries-old enemies of Hellenism, the Iranians .
The death of Mithridates, however, meant submission to Rome. Pharnaces’ attempt to ensure his Pontic-Crimean kingdom not a vassal, but an independent existence, taking advantage of Caesar’s temporary failures in Alexandria, ended in a cruel defeat: Pharnaces, like his father devoted to him, did not find support for himself in the Greek cities of Crimea and died.
From this time on, a new era began in the life of Crimea - the era of subordination to Rome and a new rise of the Hellenic element, which found active and constant support in Rome.
The era of Mithridates was a time of difficult trials for the Black Sea Greeks. The era of their complete independence is over. The original form of supreme power developed by the Bosporus, i.e., the combination in one person of the supreme magistrate of the Greek cities - the archon and the king of the Iranian and semi-Iranian tribes, connected with the Greek cities by personal union, was finally replaced by a purely monarchical power of the Greek-Eastern type. The material well-being of the Greek cities was undermined, and Olbia especially suffered, finding itself after the death of Mithridates between a rock and a hard place, between the Scythians and Sarmatians pressing from the east, and the revived power of the Thracians, united into the strong power of Birebista. Both of them sought to take possession, and the latter, in the end, took possession of this important port and the key to the entire Dnieper and Buge regions.
The cultural resistance of the Greeks also weakened. Even earlier it was difficult for them to maintain their pure Greek appearance. The necropolises of those Greek cities that from time immemorial had a particularly close connection with the local population, like Nymphaeum on the European side, Gorgippia on the Asian side, have long provided examples of burials of mixed Iranian-Greek culture. Now the Iranian element, already in the era of the last Spartokids more and more saturated the Greek cities, had the opportunity to unhindered penetration into the Greek population of the cities, especially since the influx of new forces from Hellas, exhausted and bleeding in agony civil war Rome, completely stopped.
And here, therefore, in force special conditions development, we encounter a phenomenon common to the entire east of the late Hellenistic era. Behind the Greek shell, even in Greek centers, local elements begin to emerge more and more, changing all the foundations of political, economic, social, cultural and religious life.
The Bosporan state of the Spartokids, which existed for more than three centuries and during this time successfully fulfilled its mission as the advanced post put forward by Hellenism in the sea of ​​Iranian and Thracian tribes and peoples, is an unusually original and interesting political and social entity.
In terms of its external political structure, the leading city of the power, Panticapaeum, did not differ in any significant way from the ordinary city-state of Hellas. Its only distinctive feature is that for centuries the transitional form of government for most Greek city-states - military tyranny, based on mercenary troops - has been maintained here.
This long existence of tyranny requires an explanation. Of course, the essentially monarchical form of government, clothed in the shell of Hellenic democracy, could not survive for three centuries, maintaining itself only by force and relying only on the swords of mercenaries. There is no doubt that its existence and its strength were due to other deeper reasons that created its strong support among the population.
The main reason was the original social structure of the Bosporan, primarily a trading power, the welfare of which depended, first of all, on ensuring proper exchange with the Greek world on the one hand and with the world of Iranian and semi-Iranian tribes, partly part of the Bosporan power, partly neighboring it , with another. In this respect, the Bosporus most closely resembles Semitic Carthage, which fulfilled the same mission, under slightly different conditions, on the shores of Africa.
The difference in the position of Carthage and Bosporus was that the well-being of Bosporus was largely connected with the existence of the Scythian kingdom, which provided Bosporus with the opportunity for successful trade with its neighbors. Complete subordination to the Scythians, however, was by no means in the interests of the Bosporus.
In order to be able to maintain good relations with the Scythians without completely submitting to them, the Bosporus had to have support both in the population of its state and in support from outside. The second was given to him by his relationship with Athens, the first was the commonality of his interests with his strongly Hellenized closest neighbors, for whom the suzerainty of the Bosporus was more profitable and convenient than submission to the Scythians, especially since this suzerainty had the character of a personal union and did not deprive individual tribes of the opportunity to live their own ordinary life under the control of their local kings, dynasts and princes.
This explains the dual nature of the Bosporan tyranny. For the Greek population, they are the magistrates-archons vested with exclusive supreme power. For the tribes of Crimea and Taman, they are their supreme kings, providing them with their independence, non-subordination to the Scythians, support of the Hellenic world and the possibility of wide world exchange.
But even for the Greek citizens of the cities of the Bosporan power, personal leadership was a necessity that ensured their existence. Their national traditions did not allow them to see a king in their supreme magistrate, but, as their archon, they were ready to give the head of the state unlimited powers, since their material well-being depended on it.
The Greeks of the cities of the Bosporan kingdom, as far as we can judge from the meager data available to us, were mainly exporters and armatures, owners of sea vessels on the one hand, owners of large trading offices that maintained constant contact with neighboring tribes, and intermediary traders with another. The citizens of the Bosporus, as far as one can judge, preferred to do the latter; the first, a risky and difficult task, they provided to the citizens of other Greek cities of Asia Minor and Hellas, for whom the products delivered to them by the Bosporus were a matter of vital necessity.
Along with this, there were a considerable number of artisans and artists who worked for the foreign market and created those specific items that Greek and Asia Minor craftsmen could not supply them with.
Finally, of considerable importance were the farmers, landowners, who exploited the territories closest to the Greek cities, which they cultivated with the hands of the local population, as hired workers, sometimes with the hands of slaves, most often with the hands of the enslaved population, who became to them in the same relationship as the helots to the Spartans, the Penestes to the Thessalian nobility, the conquered Mariandines to the Heracleans.
In general, the Greek population of the Bosporus, even excluding the particularly wealthy aristocracy closely associated with the supreme power, was a population of wealthy merchants, artisans and landowners. There is no reason to assume the existence of a significant number of working proletariat. The merchant fleet with its army of oarsmen, as has been repeatedly attested, was not local; the loaders, in all likelihood, were recruited from those slaves that Panticapaeum successfully traded and which were supplied to them by neighboring nomads who were always at war.
This wealthy Greek population was primarily and mainly interested in the government providing them with a calm and secure existence, involving them less in military duties and guaranteeing them the opportunity for unhindered communication with neighboring tribes and the Greek world.
The Bosporan tyranny completely ensured this order of things for the Greek population. She did not need an army of citizens; it was rather dangerous for her. The local population, especially the warlike Thracians, provided her with a sufficient number of mercenaries; in case of need, she resorted to alliances with neighbors and contingents of vassals. The Bosporan tyrants received a permanent squad, expensive, but well armed and technically trained, from Greece. It was from there that they mainly obtained people for their navy.
For all this, only funds were needed. These funds were provided by the same trade with Greece, mainly grain. There is no doubt that the largest exporters of grain were the archons and kings of the Bosporus themselves. Attic speakers - Aeschines, Isocrates, Demosthenes - also tell us about this. This is also attested to by a number of inscriptions.
Both import and export duties gave them large incomes, especially when the Bosporus managed to get rid of the heavy hand of Athens. Finally, there is no doubt that the Spartokids and their relatives were also the largest landowners, whose lands provided a very significant amount of grain. And this has been witnessed to us repeatedly.
On these foundations the power of the Spartokids rested and remained firmly in place. From time to time they had to resort to military assistance from citizenship, to create a Greek army from the Bosporan Greeks, but this, obviously, was a transitory phenomenon, and the foundations of the Bosporan system remained, in general, the same until last days existence of the dynasty.
The culture of Panticapaeum and the Bosporan Empire in general has already been discussed several times above. I pointed out the purely Greek appearance of the urban population, which only became permeated with Iranian elements towards the end of Spartocid rule. I also said that in the 4th and 3rd centuries. BC Panticapaeum is by no means only a storage place for Greek and Asia Minor goods, but has its own rather independent cultural life, is developing into one of the centers of Hellenic cultural creativity.
I have already spoken about the original funerary architecture of the Panticapaeans and the Bosporans in general, about their undoubted creativity in the development of certain archaic forms, associated with the difficult task of creating the type of monumental structures under burial mounds.
But the creativity of Bosporan artists is even more clearly reflected in local works made of precious metals (the specialty of Bosporan craftsmen), the development of which was caused by the greed for crafts made from gold and silver of their Scythian and Meotian neighbors. The starting point for characterizing their work in this regard are the coins of the Bosporus, the local origin of which cannot be doubted. Silver coinage of the 6th and 5th centuries. keeps within the framework of the general Ionian template and is not of particular interest. But the beginning of the coinage of gold, coinciding with the era of trade independence of the Bosporus, with the reign of Leukon I and his successors, and the silver accompanying this gold, is original in nature and testifies to the high artistic achievements of the Panticapaean Greek masters. The very choice of types is interesting, especially the heads of the bearded and beardless Silea and Satyr in profile and almost in full frontal view, one way or another connected with the legends about the past of Panticapaeum and the past of the ruling dynasty (Fig. 63, 64 and 65). The usual explanation - the incorrect etymology of the city's name from the name of the Greek god Pan - does not satisfy me much. I do not see any undoubted grounds for calling the deity depicted on the coins of Panticapaeum Pan. It seems that we are dealing here with some kind of tradition, the traces of which have not been preserved by the meager literary tradition. Clearer turns. The Iranian, Persian phiphon with a dart in its mouth and an ear under its feet (Fig. 64 and 65) brilliantly symbolizes the semi-Iranian military power of Panticapaeum, based on its economic power, the basis of which was the grain trade. Another common type - the Greek Apollonian griffin and below it the Don sturgeon (Fig. 63) - clearly indicates the ideas associated with Panticapaeum among the Greeks; here you can hear echoes of the legend about the Apollonian Hyperboreans, about the Arimaspians fighting with griffins for the gold of the East - in a word, about all those myths that stated the northern and eastern connections of Panticapaeum, which were considered and were the direct or indirect source of its extraordinary wealth. One of the real sources of this wealth appears right there; These are weighty Don sturgeons, valued throughout the river world. The head of a bull on silver may have the same meaning.
But these coins are even more interesting from an artistic point of view. The coins of Panticapaeum are rightly considered one of the highest achievements of ancient glyptics. The subtlety and grace of the modeling, the energy of expression, and the boldness of the interpretation of the head are almost truly inimitable and original, although they reflect the general features of Greek art of that time. But what is especially captivating is the idealized realism of the ugly, but beautiful and attractive in their ugliness heads of satyrs and sileni. There can be no doubt that the Panticapaean masters were influenced not only by the Greek originals, who set themselves the same goals, but also by the observation of the main features of the barbarian types, so familiar to Panticapaeum from daily observation.
The desire for realism is the main property of Panticapaean toreutics. It manifests itself with great force once again in the silver of the third and second centuries. BC, in a magnificent realistic, emphatically realistic depiction of a local steppe horse grazing in the steppe (Fig. 67). Next to the formulaic, powerless, flat, graceful head of Apollo on the main side of this coin, the image of the horse stands out for its rough but powerful realism. Decline of Panticapaeum in the middle and end of the 2nd century. nowhere is it clearer than on coins. The creativity of the old gold of Panticapaeum is replaced by a stereotyped and slavish copy of the most popular coin of that time - the gold staters of Lysimachus (Fig. 66).
The same features of Panticapaeum artistic creativity are also manifested in a huge, ever-increasing series of artistic works produced in the workshops of Panticapaeum for the neighboring Scythians. Here it is extremely instructive to compare the gold items from Solokha with somewhat, but slightly later, items from Kul-Oba and the Voronezh mound (Table IX, 8) and then with items from Chertomlyk and Karagodeuashkh. The now famous golden comb of Solokha (Table XIII, 1) generally gives the usual plot of equestrian combat, especially close to M. Asia, in the usual classical composition. The only way it differs from contemporary Asia Minor sculptures, which live in the traditions of already academic Athenian art, is even greater everyday realism than in Asia Minor in the interpretation of weapons, clothing, horse harness, exactly copied from reality. There is less realism in the depiction of faces and in the types of fighters, although the desire for realism is visible here too.
We see the same thing, to an even greater extent, on a gilded silver vessel from Solokha (Table XII, 3), which gives an ordinary, well-executed hunting scene, so typical of Asia Minor Greek art. Even more interesting, overlaid with silver, it burns with a battle scene between two types of local steppe inhabitants - on foot and on horseback (Table XII, 1). And here the realism of the costume and weapons is complete. The types of faces, however, remind us of the Panticapaeum coins of the same time. Horse archers give a rougher interpretation of the face of the bearded silenus of the coins, their young companion is the familiar young satyr of Panticapaean gold and silver. The two foot opponents of the described fighters from the same camp also approach the same type. But here we already see the first glimpses of the trend that in Pergamon art gives us eternal images of the Celts. From the type of satyr, art moves to an amazingly subtle rendering not so much of trifles as of the main character traits of the depicted barbarians. We do not know which barbarians were depicted by the Panticapaean artist who worked for the king buried in Solokha. But you involuntarily remember the northern Celts or Thracians or some tribes related to them.
A step forward was made in the artifacts of Kul-Oba (Table IX, 1 and 2) and the Voronezh mound (Table IX, 3). Everyday realism remains the same, but we see two new features. An idealized type of Scythian is emerging in art, just as the same type simultaneously emerged in literature. Along with this, there is a tendency towards greater expression, towards conveying an expression of suffering and pathos - and here we come to the future features of Pergamon pathetic art. This is especially clear in the scene of dental surgery and bandaging of a wounded leg on the famous Kul-Ob electric vessel.
The last stage is the amazing horses of Chertomlyk (Table IX, 4 and 5). They are older, thinner and more artistic than the horse of the coin mentioned above. The horses are realistic in their structure and strikingly artistic in their movement. Moreover, despite the difficulties that seemed to the master to give a narrow frieze of a vase, he managed to make one feel the spaciousness and breadth of the steppes, the enthusiasm and revelry of a wild steppe herd.
The somewhat later ritual scenes of Karagodeuashkh are also interesting (Table X, 1 and 2). Here we are no longer looking at purely Greek art. On the rhyton (Plate X, 1) we have an Iranian type and design, on the plate of the headdress (Plate X, 2) an interesting Greek composition, but purely Eastern solemnity and ritualism of the central monumental figure, her servants and two male figures in the foreground - a young noble Scythian and enarean eunuch, a servant of the goddess, in women's clothing and with her round sacred cup in his hand. The true East seeps into the world of Hellenic creativity, influencing Hellas and preparing the future flowering, however, not in the steppes of Scythia, but in Sasanian Persia, of the revival of Iranian art.
We see that Panticapaeum had its own era of creativity, contributing something to the treasury of Greek art, and what new it contributed was due to its proximity to the Iranian world and its connection with the great Oriental art. He will continue to carry out the same mission in the next stage of his historical development.