Tokhtasev, S.R. Bosporus - and The Sindike in The Era of Leukon I

ACSS 12,1-2_f2_1-62IIIII 7/11/06 7:11 PM Page 1
THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I

NEW EPIGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS
SERGEI R. TOKHTAS’EV
Abstract. I. The author returns to the analysis (see Hyperboreus. 1998, 4/2, 286-301;
cf. SEG, XLVIII, 1027) of an epigram of the Bosporan tyrant Leukon I from the
Semibratnee site (Labrys) on the occasion of Yu. G. Vinogradov’s posthumous publication
(VDI, 2002, No 3). Although Vinogradov accepted the most important of the author’s
readings, some of the interpretations suggested by him were erroneous, as the author
strives to prove (see also A. J. Graham’s observations). The inscription is analyzed
from the point of view of its language and style. As a historical source, the epigram
is discussed in the second part of the article together with a new inscription from
Nymphaion.
II. As early as the end of the 5th c. BC (or even earlier) Bosporan tyrant Satyros
I made Sindike Bosporus’ vassal (Polyaen. VIII. 55). The Labrys epigram tells us
about Leukon I, «archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia» helping Hekataios, king of
the Sindoi, dethroned by his own son, obviously in order to take possession of Sindike
de jure. A new votive inscription from Nymphaion published by O. Yu. Sokolova and
N. A. Pavlichenko (Hyperboreus, 2002, 8/1, 99-121) sheds new light on the further
history of the forming of the Bosporan state in the 1st half of the 4th century BC.
Leukon is called here «archon of the Bosporus, Theodosia, all Sindike, Toretai, Dandarioi,
Psessoi». The author believes that the epithet «all» is applied to Sindike for expres-
siveness and implies in fact the land which belonged to Hekataios. The author sup-
poses that the neighboring barbarians were annexed by a treaty, and the power of their
own kings was abolished, this fact explaining why Greek poleis and the barbarians
were politically equal. No doubt, Leukon soon had to be disappointed in the possibil-
ity of governing barbarians in the same way as Greeks. According to the inscription
CIRB 6a Sindoi were still under Leukon’s rule as archon, but for the rest of the bar-
barians he was a king. However, in the later inscriptions CIRB 6, 8, 1037, 1038 the
standard formula appears: «Leukon, archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia, king of
Sindoi, Toretai, etc.» The change in the political status of the barbarians was proba-
bly connected with their efforts to get free from the power of the Bosporus. The Greek
cities of the Bosporus and Theodosia preserved their formal autonomy and citizenship,
but the barbarians were turned into dependent population.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Ancient Civilizations 12, 1-2

Also available online – www.brill.nl
2 SERGEI R. TOKHTAS’EV
I. Votive epigram of Leukon from Labrys
The Vestnik Drevnej Istorii began to publish research works by Yurii G.

Vinogradov ex schedis. In the 3rd issue for the year 2002 his article appeared,
which was entitled “Leukon, Hekataios, Oktamasades and Gorgippos (The process
of the integration of Sindike into the Bosporan state based on the novella by
Polyaenus [VIII, 5] and the votive epigram from Labrys)”. It was prepared for
publication by Fedor V. Shelov-Kovedyaev from a manuscript version, which
Yurii Vinogradov had given him in 1999 so that – to use his own words – he
might acquaint himself with the content and discuss it further. According to
the publisher “the article was in a virtually complete form” (p. 3, Note*) but
it is difficult to agree with this.1 Symptomatically, the analytical section of the
article breaks off in the manuscript version with the introductory phrases from
the section headed “Reconstruction of the military-political situation”,2 which
would in fact have been the point at which Polyaenus’ account of the events
in Sindike would have been analysed – events which preceded those which are
reflected in Leukon’s epigram. It is also blatantly clear that the section enti-
tled “Anthroponyms, Toponyms and Phraseology” had not been worked over
properly. While rejecting his preliminary reading of Leukon’s epigram pub-
lished in Bulletin épigraphique (1996, 306) and SEG (XLIII, 515), Yu. G.
Vinogradov referred in this connection to our discussion in letters (1996-1997)
and was therefore unaware, at that point in time of my article which had come
out at the end of 1998.3 The publisher also assumes responsibility for the
1
On the contrary, Shelov-Kovedyaev’s statement (ibidem) to the effect that his preparation
of the manuscript for the press “had not demanded any special effort” does not raise any doubts.
2
Shelov-Kovedyaev completed the section himself (pp. 19-22), presenting it as “an exposi-
tion of our joint discussions of the questions raised in this publication”, but the exposition is
presented in the first person and in general is very subjective: suffice it to say that the author
opens it with an inappropriate argument with N.A. Frolova (cf. below, note 139) on the ques-
tion as to who was the first to have assigned the coins inscribed with the legend SINDVN to
the Sindoi.
3
Tokhtas’ev 1998, 286-301 (SEG XLVIII, 1027). The article was written in anticipation of
the comprehensive research into the epigram, which Yu. G. Vinogradov was preparing (which,
however, as we have seen was not completed). This was why I had concentrated at the time
on Lines 3 and 5, which were of crucial importance for a correct understanding of the text as
a whole, cf. Ibidem, 287 and Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 75, note 10: “In a number of cases Yu. G.
Vinogradov has suggested reconstructions and interpretations of the inscription, which differ
substantially from mine: nevertheless, in the course of our correspondence I succeeded in con-
THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 3
numerous misprints and more serious oversights, which would have been un-
likely to have appeared in any text prepared for publication by Yu. G. Vinogradov.
The most important shortcoming of the publication was the lack of a pho-
tograph of the inscription, which Vinogradov had in his possession (see p. 4).
Thanks to the efforts of Andrei Yu. Vinogradov and Sofia É. Andreeva, it was
eventually discovered among Yu. G. Vinogradov’s papers and together with
his other materials relating to the Leukon epigram, it was kindly made avail-
able to me and is now finally being published (Fig. 1).
After the publication of my autopsy of the inscription,4 which confirmed the
readings, established by Yu. G. Vinogradov on the basis of the photograph, of
all the letters including those which had been erroneously read by T.V.
Blavatskaya, the first scholar to publish the inscription,5 I had not been plan-
ning to return to it again, but, as it turned out, that decision was a hasty one.
Although Yu. G. Vinogradov had accepted my readings of key places in the
inscription, certain differences of opinion regarding the interpretation still remained.
Certain details, which had not been taken into account previously, made it
possible to find a reliable basis for reconstructing Line 2. In addition, it was
now possible to discuss in conjunction with the epigram the newly found
inscription of Leukon’s time from Nymphaion (to which the second part of
this article is devoted; this part is referred to henceforth as II).6
What we have before us, is unfortunately, only a preliminary variant of the
article, far from complete, and therefore I went out of my way to be as atten-
tive as possible when analysing the work of my deceased friend, while at the
same time remaining mindful of the fact that we had embarked upon the writ-
ing of a critical review.
vincing him that my point of view was correct. He merely expressed a few doubts in his own
reconstruction of Line 1 (see below) and was probably over-enthusiastic in his approval of my –
exempli gratia – reconstruction of Line 7. Vinogradov was preparing a major article on the
Leukon inscription for the St. Petersburg journal Hyperboreus. Death struck when he was fully
engrossed in that work”.
4
Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 67-69 (the results of the collation were for some reason not taken into
account in SEG XLVIII 1027); as an addition to the article in Hyperboreus some further his-
torical conclusions and assumptions were expounded here as well.
5
Blavatskaya 1993.
6
The graffito from Hermonassa published in the same work by Yu. G. Vinogradov (p. 15
sq.; unfortunately, on this occasion as well, there was no photograph or drawing) and contain-
ing further evidence for the name ‘Oktamasades’ (ÉOktamasiãdeow, gen.; see below, note 44),
will be examined elsewhere.
Fig. 1. Epigram of Leukon I from Labrys (Semibratnee city-site).
At the same time as Yu. G. Vinogradov’s publication, an article by A.J. Graham

appeard on the origins of the Spartokid dynasty, in an appendix to which he re-
vised Vinogradov’s reading of the epigram in Bull. ép. and SEG and he ended
up with virtually the same text and interpretation of it as I had.7 As in the
case of F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev, he remained unaware of both my articles.8
First of all I shall present the text of the inscription in the form in which,
in my opinion, it can be regarded as having been reliably established; the
7
Graham 2002, 87-100. Unlike this “Appendix” (pp. 95-99), the article itself is really dis-
appointing. Its content can be reduced to guesses following on one from another, which lead
Graham to make the following suggestion (p. 87, Abstract): “The suggestion is made that there
may have been people from Thasos in the origins of the Spartokid dynasty”.
8
Ph. Gauthier in his review of Graham’s article (Bull. ép. 2003, 393) is also unaware of
them, despite the information provided in SEG XLVIII 1027.
translation includes readings which have been incorporated intothe critical

apparatus:
eÈjãmenow LeÊkvn uflÚw SatÊr[o(u) tÒdÉ êgalma]
Fo¤bvi ÉApÒllvni st∞se t«i §n L.[abruÛ],
t∞sde pÒlevw med°onti Labrut«m, B.[ospÒro(u) êrxvn]
Yeudos¤hw te mãxhi ka‹ krãtei §jel[ãsaw]
5 ÉOktamasãdea g∞w §Jind«n pa›dÉ ÑEk[ata¤o(u)]
toË Sind«m basil°vw., .̆ w. p.at°ra o[- - -]
§gbãllvn érx∞[w], efiw t.Ænd.e pÒlig k.[- - -].
Coll. Tokht. a.D. 2000 musei urbis Anapae
1. suppl. Vin. || 2. L.[abru-?] i.e. L.[abruÛ] vel L.[abruthi (Blav.)] vel sim. Tokht.
L.[ãbruÛ] Graham || 3. suppl. Tokht. || 4. suppl. Vin. || 5. ÉOktamasãdea g∞w Tokht.
| ÑEk[ata¤o] Vin. || 6. o[fikÆÛhw?] Vin., an o[fikÆÛon]? || 7. k.[at°kleisen?] Vin. SEG
k.[at°yrejen e.g.] Tokht., Vin. VDI.
“After making his vow, Leukon, son of Satyros erected [this sculpture here]
to Phoebus Apollo, who is in L[abrys], – lord of this city of Labrytai –
[archon] of the B[osporus] and Theodosia after [having] driven out through
battle and (military) force from the land of the Sindoi Oktamasades, son of
Hek[ataios], king of the Sindoi, who (sc. Oktamasades), robbing his father of
[his own] power,9 br[oke his way] into this city”.10
1. Yu. G. Vinogradov expressed (p. 8) certain doubts regarding his previous

reconstruction (in Bull. ép. and SEG), not ruling out either tÒde d«ron, borne
out (to judge from the material in CEG) by a far smaller number of examples,
or efikÒna tÆnde, which, however, presupposes an impossible elision – SatÊrÉ.
2. After a detailed analysis Yu. G. Vinogradov (p. 8 sqq.) rejected the resti-
tution made by T.V. Blavatskaya in the editio princeps (§n L.[abrÊthi])11 and
his own (§nl.[og¤mvi]) and also other possible solutions, involving the assump-
tion that as an ultima refugia, the damaged letter before the break could be
12
M (§n M . [a˝taiw]?; the mu in our inscription have descending verticals), or
9
Or: “robbing his [own] father of power”, see below.
10
Or: “att[acked] this city”, see below.
11
Blavatskaya 1993, 37.
12
Omitting any other objections to this completely improbable reconstruction, we should note
that in the Bosporus the Sindoi were not regarded in any way as part of the Mai(o)tai, as is
the practice of some Hellenistic authors (for more detail on this, see Section II). The assumption
that there was a certain degree of poetic freedom here would seem particularly arbitrary in view
of the fact that what is under discussion is the filling of a lacuna.
even P (which is totally out of the question, cf. below). The alternative variant
for the reconstruction suggested by Yu. G. Vinogradov in itself does not call
forth any categorical objections: it starts out from the same §llÒgimow (p. 9,
with the same reservation regarding the lack of assimilation and apparently for
that reason lacking any kind of confidence) – t«i §nl.[og¤mo] t∞sde pÒlevw med°onti,
“to the guardian of this glorious city”. As I hope will be clear from what fol-
lows, this conjecture ought to be taken into account only in the case, any alter-
native would lack. When all is said and done, the question has been left unanswered
by Yu. G. Vinogradov. For this reason F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev regarded it as
permissible to insert straight into Yu. G. Vinogradov’s text his own reconstruction:
§n [ÉAs¤hi?]13 (without even noting his authorship in the critical apparatus),
giving as a reason for this choice the fact that Yu. G. Vinogradov “had approached
the reconstruction with cautious interest” (p. 13, note**). Accordingly, the
translation appeared as follows: “. . . to Apollo, guardian of this city of the
Labrytai in [Asia]”. I think that F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev’s memory has let him
down: it would be highly unlikely for Yu. G. Vinogradov to have shown inter-
est in such a conjecture. Suffice it to say that after §n there should have been
a word starting with a consonant and only thanks to that would it have been
possible for a long syllable to have taken shape.14
13
More appropriate would be ÉA.[s¤hi].
14
Cf. the formulation by Vinogradov (not the most apt one): “Alpha here has in any case,
to be eliminated as something which does not make a position for a short epsilon of the prepo-
sition” (p. 8, note 12). Shelov-Kovedyaev (p. 13, note**), not being acquainted with the term
‘to make a position’, changed it, as follows, in connection with his ÉAs¤hi: “The problem lies
in the fact that the short a at the beginning, if the rules of high style are complied with, does
not give rise to the necessary length in the position preceding it”. Contradicting his own words
(in as far as it is possible to find any sense in them at all), Shelov-Kovedyaev wrote literally
the following: “other versions examined above by Vinogradov with negative results leave no
other alternative but to regard as lost the defining localization commencing with a vowel . . .”;
“. . . and the great poets of Hellas sometimes permitted themselves certain liberties in the way
they used metre”. In actual fact this scholar attributed to the author of the epigram not poetic
licence but a clumsy error, dismissing fundamental laws of Greek prosody and metrics as no
more than “rules of high style”. In conclusion Shelov-Kovedyaev states: “While respecting the
laws of the genre, we single out our conjecture with a question-mark, although hyper-acribia
always appeared moribund to me”. Here it would be appropriate to cite words by P.V. Nikitin
from a letter to Baron V.R. Rosen, written in 1894 (Medvedev 1999, 141): “Acribia is a capri-
cious mistress and a mischievous one, particularly for a Russian. I happened to read an article
once, in which the author, eulogized this notorious ‘acribia’ placed the wrong accent mark on
precisely that Greek word”. Other arguments put forward by Shelov-Kovedyaev, expounded in
Meanwhile examination of the stone in the Anapa Museum has borne out
the observations made by T. V. Blavatskaya: the lower part of the sloping left
hasta belonging to the damaged letter, which follows EN, has survived and, as
noted above, could only belong to an L (or – in an extreme case – to an M).
All that remains is for us to reconcile ourselves to the fact, which worried Yu.
G. Vinogradov most of all, namely to the absence of an assimilation §n(-) +
l- > §ll-. In general, the spelling of the inscription in this respect is consis-
tent (Labrut«m B.[ospÒro, Sind«m basil°vw, §gbãllvn, pÒlig k.[), but there is
an exception (Yu. G. Vinogradov himself pointed it out: p. 9) – §Jind«n
pa›d(a), which stands out in particular because of the contrast with Sind«m
basil°vw in the next line: it is highly unlikely that in this case the fact that
§Jind«n and pa›d(a) have been separated by a caesura had an important part
to play. It is difficult to believe that the engraver would have been declaim-
ing poetry to himseslf as he worked: in this case a rendering such as p.at°ra
o[- - -] ∪∪ × would have been impossible (see, below in connection with Line
6) with an elision that is not reflected in the written form,15 found side by side
with pa›dÉ ÑEk[ata¤o].
At any rate it is necessary to start out from the attested reading, while its
interpretation is a very different question. Incidentally though, it would seem
that ENL.[ would constitute a problem of a kind (but not by any stretch of the
imagination a stumbling block) in the case of reconstructing §nl. [og¤mvi]
(which anyway is unsatisfactory)16 or any other composite with the prefix §n-
(but in any case no suitable words are to be found in the attested appellative
vocabulary). If we are dealing with the preposition §n, in particular in con-
junction with a proper name, the retention of etymological orthography is in
general more likely (so that the geminate reflected in the written text should
not obscure its form),17 and it was apparently not important that ENL.[ unlike
the same monstrous style, result in phrases such as: “the understandable triumph in connection
with the actualization of the powerful ideological contribution to the successful realization of
the project, the grateful affirmation of the victory of the cult of the supreme protector of the
North-Pontic, in particular Bosporan, apoikoi – namely that of Apollo in his hypostasis as the
formidable and irrevocable revenge of Phoebus – the tyrant, whose very name . . .” and so on.
Even the arbitrary admission to the effect that §n should be read with a lengthening (i.e. as efin;
cf. below, note 25) fails to rescue Shelov-Kovedyaev’s conjecture.
15
For examples from inscriptions, see Tokhtas’ev 1998, 299, note 34.
16
Cf. Ibidem, 288; Graham 2002, 96 (“unattractive”).
17
Admittedly in the instance with §Jind«n the author (or engraver) of the inscription in such
a situation (external sandhi) transformed almost beyond recognition specifically the way the
§Jind«n pa›d(a) constitutes what – to use the terminology of Paul Maass – is

a word block. The most probable reading of ENL.[ obliges us to pay more
attention to the hypothesis put forward by T.V. Blavatskaya.
As has already been pointed out,18 the construction ÉApÒllvni t«i §n . . .
makes the reconstruction of a toponym here almost certain (from among the
closest parallels it is sufficient to refer to the well-known inscription on the
silver cup from Phasis dating from the 5th century BC: ÉApÒllvnow ÑHgemÒnow
Ç Ém Fçsi,19 and the 6th-century votive graffito from Naukratis: ÉAfrod¤]thi t∞i
to
§Naukrãti).20 Insofar as the suggested toponym began with the letter L- and
Apollo is referred to here as “the lord of this city of the Labrytai”, it would
seem that all that remained to be done was to derive the name of the city from
the city-ethnic Labrut«n. Yet Yu. G. Vinogradov both in letters to me and in
his article (pp. 6 and 8) firmly insisted that (ÉApÒllvni) t«i §n Labruthi (or
even in a more justifiable version, i.e. LabruÛ) when next to t∞sde pÒlevw
med°onti Labrut«n looks like a totally inappropriate tautology. His objections
did not appear to me to be weighty and in the article of 1998 (p. 288 sqq.) I
cited examples from the work of poets (starting with Homer), demonstrating
that this “tautology”, which it would be more appropriate to call a pleonasm,
was perfectly permissible as such. I can currently point to still closer parallels
in Homer, P 233 sq.:
ZeË êna Dvdvna›e Pelasgik¢ thlÒyi na¤vn
Dvd≈nhw med°vn dusxeim°rvn ktl.,
the first lines of the Homeric hymn to Hermes (XVII):

ÑErm∞n ée¤dv KullÆnion ÉArgeifÒnthn
KullÆnhw med°onta ka‹ ÉArkad¤hw polumÆlou,
proper name was written. Vinogradov, when weighing up the possibility of reading ENM . [ in
Line 2, also referred to §m Ma˝taiw in the prose epitaph CIRB 180 (c. 350 BC: the first time
EMAITAIS was carved and then a second very small mu was written in at the top between the
first two letters).
18
Blavatskaya 1993, 37; Tokhtas’ev 1998, 288.
19
Dumberg 1901, 99 (LSAG2 373. 72; on unsuccessful attempts to raise doubts about the
authenticity of the inscription, see: Vinogradov 1997, 97, Add. to note 48). Blavatskaya (1993,
37) and Graham (2002, 96) refer to the late (123 AD) inscription from Phanagoria CIRB 975:
ÉApÒllvni t«i §n Diokl°oiw ÉAtele›.
20
Bernand 1970, 683, No. 419.
and of Hesiod’s Theogony:

Mousãvn ÑElikvniãdvn érx≈meyÉ ée¤dein,
a· yÉ ÑElik«now ¶xousin ˆrow m°ga te zãyeÒn te.
While starting out from these and similar models, the author of the epigram
was following a more general practice – that of filling his verse with a con-
centration of epithets for the deity,21 which, as can be seen from the examples
cited above, can also be traced back to roots in the epos.
Yu. G. Vinogradov (p. 6 and 8) also referred to the fact that unlike the
word Labrut«n (∪ – –), in the assumed words Labruthi (or -vi and so on) or
LabruÛ the second syllable should be short. If we restore the word as L.[abruÛ]
(and Yu. G. Vinogradov believed that the city was called Labruw), this objec-
tion22 is quite simply an error: in the datives for names ending in -uw, -uow the
stem -u- is short, but in derivatives from those names, including ethnics with
the suffix -taß -, the preceding vowel of the stem is lengthened. When we iden-
tify this suffix in Labr>ut«n,23 we obtain a sought toponymical form – *Labr©uw.
The Sindian name of the town had been apparently adapted in the Greek
under the influence of the Lydian (Plut. Aet. Gr. 45, 302a) word lãbruw ‘axe’,
which would obviously have been known to the Ionian settlers of the
Bosporus;24 it was evidently for this reason that Graham restored L[ãbruÛ]
without further ado.25 It can thus be seen that there are no serious obstacles
21
Cf. as already found in the earliest (c. 700 BC) votive epigram from Boeotia CEG 326:
WekabÒloi érgurotÒjsoi . . .: tÁ d¢ Fo›be d¤doi ktl.; cf. also ibidem 274, 373 et alii.
22
Cf. Tokhtas’ev 1998, 294.
23
The regular Ionic form in this case should be *Labrut°vn, which could scan with a synize-
sis like pÒlevw ∪ – or basil°vw ∪∪ – in line 6 of our epigram. Yet together with evidence
such as Toret°vn or égvnoyet°vn in a new inscription from Nymphaion (see below: II), in
Bosporan inscriptions dating from the first half of the 4th century BC examples of a contraction
ev > v (perhaps under Attic influence) are already being encountered. For a review of the data
from the Bosporus and Olbia, see: Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 73 sq., note 4.
24
Tokhtas’ev 1998, 292. Plutarch mentions that word (hapax, to judge from dictionaries) in
order to interpret the epithet LabrandeÊw applied to Zeus, i.e. revered in the Carian city of
Labra(u)nda, where he had been depicted holding an axe.
25
Graham 2002, 96. Like Vinogradov, Ph. Gauthier (see above, note 8) was put out by the
virtual duplication of the epithet in Lines 2 and 3 and also by the absence of assimilation:
“Pourrait-on songer plutôt à un adverbe comme §na[r°tvw], précisant med°onti, Phoibos-Apollon . . .
‘qui protège vaillamment la cité des Labrytains’?”. Ought we to understand Gauthier’s conjec-
ture as implying that §n- should scan as efin or §nn-?
standing in the way of a reconstruction of the name for the city in Line 2 as
L.[abruÛ].26
2/3. Rejecting Blavatskaya’s restitution in Line 2 gave Vinogradov grounds
for also rejecting her conclusion regarding the existence of a temple to Apollo
in the city: before his battle with Oktamasades Leukon “made a vow to erect
a victory monument, but not to the local Apollo of Labrys, but to the supreme
deity and patron of all the Bosporans – Apollo the Healer” (p. 18). He goes
on to write: “As a result of that victory, when the power of the local kings of
the Sindoi was abolished once and for all and Sindike was firmly incorporated
into the Bosporan state, it was most likely that the cult of Apollo spread
through the lands of the Sindoi, including Labrys . . .” (p. 19).
All this is extremely strange. Sindike was not represented as a Bosporan
possession at all in the inscription (at that stage Leukon was only the archon
“of the Bosporus and Theodosia”), the king of the Sindoi was Hekataios, who
had either died or renounced power, while Leukon was fighting Oktamasades,
26
In principle, Vinogradov’s counter-argument is not irrefutable even for *Labruth or
another form with the stem Labrut-, if we accept that -t- can be traced back to an etymon with
a short *-uç - and only coincided in the ethnic Labrutai with a Greek formant (Tokhtas’ev 1998,
292 sq. – together with the variant reconstruction *Labruw, which is not noted in SEG XLVI-
II 1027). Placing next to each other various forms of one and the same word or words with the
same root with a more or less arbitrary succession of a number of syllables can be found in
poetry as a special artistic device: see, for example, in Sappho (fr. 1, 26 and 27 Lobel – Page):
t°lessai (∪ – –) and t°leson (∪∪ –), and – closer to the time of our epigram – in the writ-
ings of Antimachus of Colophon (fr. 23 Gentili – Prato), evidently in adjacent lines: PÊdhn
(∪ –) and PÊdhtow (– – –), and also with a change in the type of declension! Cf. also Leonid.
Tarent. LXXII, 10 Page (AP VII, 726): ≤ kalå ka‹ kal«w with the Homeric k >a l«w .
Nevertheless, if we take into account all the above, it is best to reject this hypothesis which
complicated the question unnecessarily, despite the probable morphological parallel Mai∞tiw/Mai«tiw
‘Sea of Azov’ – mai≈thw ‘Maiotian’ (the name of a fish), Ma˝tai/Mai«tai, and an ethnic
Mai«tiw (on Ixomatian princess Tirgatao, Polyaenus VIII, 55). The same applies to another pos-
sibility – that of perceiving pÒlevw . . . Labrut«n as a genetivus appositivus (cf., for example,
ÉAbdÆrvn . . . pÒliw, Anacr. Epigr. I Page = AP VII, 226; a more extensive quotation is cited
below). Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze (2004, 947), who accepted my restoration of the epi-
gram in general, draw attention to the fact that “names in the genitive governed by med°vn are
always toponyms and never ethnics . . . It follows that LabrÊtvn is probably the genitive of the
toponym Lãbruta, tã” (why precisely that form?). This idea was incomprehensible to me: after
all med°onti relates to pÒlevw, and not directly to Labrut«n. It goes without saying that “lord
of the city of the Labrytai” was only a paraphrase for “lord of Labrys”; cf. Yãlhw me t«i
medeËnti Ne¤lev (i.e. Milhs¤vn) dÆmou / d¤dvsi, Callimach. fr. 197, 76 sq. Pfeiffer.
aiming to return to king Hekataios his legitimate power (even if that was only
an excuse). It is hardly likely that sufficient time elapsed between the day of
the battle with Oktamasades and the erection of a victory monument for the
cult of Apollo to have spread in Sindike or even just in Labrys. I do not think,
despite what Vinogradov stated, that the circumstances of the discovery of the
inscription (the stone was found outside the confines of the city-site in a pile
of stones which had been collected up by a tractor from ploughed land) rule
out the likelihood that in the city (even if outside its actual walls) there could
have been a shrine to Apollo or, quite possibly, a shrine to a local deity iden-
tified by the Greeks with their Apollo. In my opinion, even if the restoration
of Apollo’s epithet t«i §n L.[abruÛ], raised doubts, the single phrase t∞sde
pÒlevw med°onti Labrut«n is enough to rule out such statements.27
Vinogradov writes (p. 19) of the deliberately motivated use of the epithet
“Phoebus” for Apollo, who was a “victorious god with a silver bow who pun-
ished crimes” (Oktamasades is presented in the inscription as an undoubted
criminal). Yet logic would dictate that precisely the “lord of the city of the
Labrytai”, the local Apollo “the one in Labrys” and not the Bosporan Apollo
ÉIhtrÒw, should be the deity punishing the wicked son, who had struck his
father and sought to usurp his power. Incidentally both in the dedication to
Phoebus of the sculpture of the deceased Antistasis by his son (CIRB 113; see
note 30), referred to in this connection by Vinogradov, and also in tens of
other metric inscriptions of the 6th-4th centuries BC, collected by Hansen in the
two volumes of his Carmina epigraphica Graeca (the earliest example is the
Boeotian epigram CEG 326, cited earlier in note 21) and in texts preserved in
the manuscript tradition, this poetic Homeric epithet, often used as a substitute
for the actual name of the god (as already found for example in A 443, E
443), is not made specific in any way.28
3. Approximately half the vertical and part of the bottom horizontal of the
last letter before the break have survived (the same was also observed by
Blavatskaya). The assimilation of the final -n in Labrut«m indicates that the
damaged letter must have been a beta.
27
Cf. Graham 2002, 98: “. . . Phoebus Apollo was already the guardian deity of Labrys by
the time the Sindoi were incorporated into the Bosporan kingdom”.
28
The same applies to the conjectures voiced by Blavatskaya (Blavatskaya 1993, 41, note
20), who, after correctly noting the poetic nature of this epithet, promptly starts writing of the
“protective functions” of Apollo (“It might be assumed that in Labrys as well the archer-god
was regarded as the defender of the fortress”).
3/4. Vinogradov accepted my restoration of the end of Line 3, however, he

deemed it necessary to specify more precisely its interpretation, referring (as
he had before, when in letters to me he had insisted on the reading B.[ospÒro
§xyroÁw] Yeudos¤hw te . . . §jel[ãsaw]) to the “too considerable – even for verse –
separation of Leukon’s title . . . from his name . . ., which required in addition
a copulative participle like §≈n”. “This difficulty” – he went on, – “is simple to
overcome, if we interpret êrxvn not as his substantivized element29 – ı êrxvn, but
as a gerund phrase meaning “ruling the Bosporus and Theodosia” (p. 11, note 24).30
I do not understand in what way the gerund “while being an archon” is any
worse and why the participle §≈n or another copula is necessary with êrxvn,
which itself is formally speaking a participle in any interpretation.31 Yet the
29
Obviously a hand-written or typing error in place of ‘variant’, although this expression is
not particularly appropriate in this context.
30
On pages 11 and 18, however, Vinogradov writes of the archon of the Bosporus and Theo-
dosia and of the title used for Leukon in our epigram, which is the usual one found in inscrip-
tions. It is possible that he was assuming that the title had undergone a trasnformation into an
expression of a more general nature in keeping with the demands of the genre as in the case
of CIRB 113: efikÒna Fo¤bvi st∞se . . . FanÒmaxow . . . / Pairisãdeow êrxontow ˜shn xyÒna t°rmonew
êkr[oi] / TaÊrvn KaukãsiÒw te §ntÚw ¶xousin ˜roi (yet, in Vinogradov’s translation of the
inscription on p. 19, we find the word “archon”); gen. abs. Pairisãdeow êrxontow in the tem-
poral sense and the actual word êrxvn contains an undoubted allusion to the standard formula
of Bosporan votive inscriptions – êrxontow toË deinÚw ktl., while the designation used for the
borders of Pairisades’ domain – all the lands from the Caucasus to the Taurike – is a paraphrase
for êrxontow BospÒrou ka‹ Yeodos¤hw (cf. Strabo VII, 4, 3: Theodosia is “the edge of the land
of the Bosporans and the Tauroi”) and the following basileÊontow Sind«n ka‹ Toret«n ktl. At
the same time the context obliges us to interpret êrxvn as ‘ruler’. Cf. also Simonides Epigr. VI
Page (Hdt. VII, 228): Spãrthw ≤gemÒnaw (i.e. both kings of Sparta); CIRB 958: . . . kEfinax¤vn
(i.e. ÉAxai«n) sk∞ptrÉ §p°xontow ˜la, about Kotys I. As can be seen from Strabo (XI, 2, 13),
what we have here is a poetic paraphrase of the term skhptoËxoi: Strabo informs us that the
Achaioi, and also the Zygoi and the Heniochoi “are ruled over by so-called skeptouchoi”, who
in their turn are subject to the king. The expression used in the inscription strictly speaking
implies that Kotys had become, in addition, king of the Pontic Achaioi: power over the latter
was either something which the local skeptouchoi had wielded or something which had been
transferred directly to him (or his officials).
31
The discussion of the word êrxvn in the Bosporan inscriptions, which was initiated again
by Vinogradov in 1980 starting out from a correct position and which led him to reliable results
(Vinogradov 1980, 85-90 = Vinogradov 1997, 118-123; Vinogradov 1983, 410-413), was car-
ried by Shelov-Kovedyaev to the point of absurdity (Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 89; incidentally,
a still more ridiculous point of view was put forward by V.P. Yailenko – Yailenko 1990, 292).
This scholar based his theories on erroneous premises. After all, if the Bosporan êrxvn cannot
most important thing here is that according to Vinogradov’s interpretation a

subordinate clause takes shape without a predicate: êrxvn . . . §jelãsaw
ÉOktamasãdea. The translation, however, creates the illusion that all is well:
“(While ruling) the Bosporus and Theodosia and after conquering in battle,
he drove out Oktamasades from the land of the Sindoi . . .”. The source of
the misunderstanding is to be found in note 16 on p. 10: in actual fact the
translation starts out not from §jel[ãsaw] – ‘having driven out’, but from
(as Vinogradov demonstrated) be directly traced back to the name of the polis magistrate (cf.
Kudryavtsev 1949, 160 sq.) and in the titles of the Spartokids êrxontow has been combined with
the participle basileÊontow, it does not by any stretch of the imagination follow on from this
that it should be interpreted and translated literally, i.e. as a simple appellative meaning ‘rul-
ing’, or with the vague ‘ruler’, on which Shelov-Kovedyaev insists. We should start out from
the fact that the phrase êrxontow . . . ka‹ basileÊontow in inscriptions is a dating formula in the
form of the participle construction genitivus absolutus with a temporal meaning, in the frame-
work of which the term basileÊw must of necessity figure as the participle of the denominative
verb. In essence, this expression is synonymous with §pÉ êrxontow . . . ka‹ basil°vw; cf. CIRB
75: Íp¢r êrxontow ka‹ basil°vw Pair[i]s.ãdou (IV), as are such formulae as the phrase com-
monly found in Athenian decrees §p‹ . . . êrxontow or – with the same absolute genetive as
found in Bosporan inscriptions – Simon¤da êrxontow . . . én°yean in the dedication of the Akraiphians
in Ptoion (LSAG 60, 93, 402, Pl. 8. 13), on the one hand, and, on the other – basileÊontow
Miyradãtou in the decree from Phanagoria (Vinogradov, Wörrle 1992, 160, Line 1), §t°vn triÆkonta
§nn°a ÉArtaj°rjev basileÊontow from Sardis (Robert 1989, 485 sq.; Herrmann 1996, 330, with
bibliography) or basileÊonto[w] Ptolema¤ou (Langer 1980, 14, No. 9); cf. also in Thucydides
VIII, 6, 3: ÉEnd¤ƒ §foreÊonti . . . j°now v Ö n (on the subject of Alcibiades). In exactly the same
way behind the éstunomoËntow, éstunom«n of ceramic stamps from Sinope and Chersonesos
there stands éstunÒmow, behind prutaneÊontow in the Milesian inscription LSAG 414, pl. 64. 34
there stands prÊtaniw, and behind fler≈menow or flerhsãmenow in Bosporan (and not only
Bosporan) dedications – flereÊw and so on and so forth. In this connection it is instructive to
note that, in a number of Attic decrees even the finite form of êrxv, the participle of which is
êrxvn, is used to designate the powers of the archon, for example: ÉArist¤on eârxe (IG I3 806) –
“Aristion was archon (of the Athenians)” and not “Aristion ruled (the Athenians)”; Akeratos,
son of Phrasierides “was the archon of the Thasians and Parians – one for both” (Yas¤oisin
ka‹ P[ar¤oi]w ∑rxsen moÇnow §n énfot°roiw SEG 416, c. 575-500 BC); a parallel is also to be
found in the dating formula of a Spartan inscription (c. 402 BC) from Delos – §bas¤leuon âAgiw
Pausan¤aw and §n DÆlo.i ∑rxen [ÉA]n.d.[rÒdik?]ow I.Délos 87 (LSAG 198, pl. 38. 62). The word
êrxvn applied to the representative of state power and moreover in a official context (in our
case it is also used in conjunction with basileÊw, incorporated into the participle basileÊvn),
resulting from the very nature of the language, it automatically becomes a terminological significance.
Therefore: in the final analysis behind êrxontow and basileÊontow there stand basileÊw and –
accordingly – the substantivized êrxvn. It is clear that we are dealing with a question of trans-
lation rather than interpretation. The word ‘archon’, commonly employed in the academic
§j°l[ase(n)] – “drove out”. Vinogradov mentioned here this non-augmentative

epic form as a metrically possible substitute for §jel[ãsaw]. Admittedly, at the
same time he correctly drew attention to “certain syntactical” problems (more
to the point virtually insuperable stylistic ones), were that substitute to be
incorporated into the text. After accepting, despite everything, §jel[ãsaw],
Vinogradov used it with a question-mark, as if recalling that alternative, which
was actually illusory and capable only of destroying the whole composition of
the poem (cf. below in relation to Lines 6/7).
Careful analysis of these hesitations and contradictions, which can only to
a certain extent be explained with reference to the nature of the published
manuscript, brings us back to their root cause – to the statement about the
excessive degree (even for poetry) to which the name Leukon is separated
from his title in Lines 3-4. In my article in the Hyperboreus (pp. 290-292) I
substantiated in detail the thesis, that what we find here is a hyperbaton, a
figure of speech very characteristic of the epigrammatic genre in general, and
I collected together by way of confirmation for this thesis rich material from
authors and from metric inscriptions. In order to make it clear to readers what
this figure involves and to put an end to this debate once and for all, I shall
add to my examples lines from Anacreon, Epigr. I (34 sq.) Page (AP VII,
226):
ÉAbdÆrvn proyanÒnta tÚn afinob¤hn ÉAgãyvna
pçsÉ §p‹ purkaÛ∞w ¥dÉ §bÒhse pÒliw,
Simonides’ epigrams No. XV, Page:
literature, is only unsuitable in so far as it brings to mind undesirable associations with the
name of the polis magistrate, êrxvn: the Bosporan and, let us say, Athenian archon have little
in common. On the other hand, the title êrxvn, which was introduced during the reign of Alexander’s
of Pherae to replace the ancient tagÒw and which did not originate from the name of the polis
official either, was used by the head of the Thessalian Federation (IG II2 116; Bengtson 1975,
293), and still earlier by Dionysius the Elder: ı Sikel¤aw êrxvn in Attic decrees IG II2 186;
10319; 1057; Bengtson ibidem, 280. This brings us back to the interpretation of the term: what
we have here is, properly speaking, a ‘leader (first and foremost a military one) of Sicilian
Greeks’. Vinogradov’s scepticism (Vinogradov 1980, 122; Vinogradov 1983, 412) regarding the
suggestion, that the term êrxvn might have been adopted by Leukon from Sicily (Hüttl 1929,
109 sq. – non vidi), does not seem well-founded to me. “The archon of the Bosporus and
Theodosia” is the ‘leader of the Hellenes of the Bosporan poleis and Theodosia’ (cf. below, on
the epigram of Pausanias, son of Cleombrotus, and note 33) and would initially appear to have
been head of the symmachy, an extraordinary office, from which Bosporan tyranny developed
according to Vinogradov. Thus, the most suitable ‘translation’ remains archon.
tÒnde poyÉ ÜEllhnew N¤khw krãtei, ¶rgƒ ÖAreow,

{eÈtÒlmƒ cux∞w lÆmati peiyÒmenoi,}
P°rsaw §jelãsantew §leuy°ra ÑEllãdi koinÚn
fldrÊsanto DiÚw bvmÚn ÉEleuyer¤ou,32
and No. XXXIX on an enormous bronze krater erected by Spartans at the

entrance to the Pontus:
mnçmÉ éretçw én°yhke Poseidãvni ênakti
Pausan¤aw, êrxvn ÑEllãdow eÈruxÒrou
PÒntou §pÉ EÈje¤nou, LakedaimÒniow g°now, uflÚw
KleombrÒtou, érxa¤aw ÑHrakl°ow geneçw.
“This monument to valour has been dedicated to Poseidon the Lord / by Pausanias,
leader of wide Hellas,33 / near Pontus Euxinus, a Spartan by birth, son / of
Cleombrotus from the ancient line of Heracles”. Here we have straightaway
two hyperbata intertwined with each other: mnçm(a) . . . én°yhke – PÒntou §pÉ
EÈje¤nou and Pausan¤aw – LakedaimÒniow g°now ktl. A similar but still more
intricate construction is provided by an Attic inscription CEG 272 of the 470s-
460s BC:
[Pa]ry°noi ÉEkfãnto me pat¢rÉ én°yeke ka‹ huiÚw
§nyãdÉ ÉAyena¤ei mneÇma pÒnon ÖAreow
ÑEg°loxow ktl.
Hegelochos – son of Ekphantos, whose name has been inherited by his

grandson; this order of words appears of course unnatural, and a ‘word-for-
word’ translation is impossible in this instance. Another Athenian epigram dat-
ing from the end of the 6th century BC (CEG 197) is similar to it in structure:
[P]ÒtnÉ ÉAyena¤a, so‹ Timokrãtew én°yeke[n]
huiÚw ÉArista¤xmo, pa› DiÚw afigiÒxo.
“O mistress Athena, to thee Timokrates has dedicated (this), son of Aris-

taichmos, O child of Zeus, the aegis-wearer!” See also below, note 42.
32
The first pentameter, found in AP VI, 50, was, however, missing in Plutarch, De malign.
Hdt. 42, 873b, and in V. Arist. XIX, 7, Wilamowitz (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1913, 197 sq.),
and following on from him the publishers as well, excluded it from the text.
33
êrxvn ÑEllãdow – i.e. ‘the leader/standing at the head (érxÆ) of the united military forces
of Hellas’; cf. in the other epigram of Simonides (XVII Page) in the name of Pausanias in mem-
ory of the victory at Plataiai: ÑEllÆnvn érxagÒw.
From Bosporan inscriptions I shall cite here the epitaph CIRB 1113 (= CEG
739;34 to judge from the script, it dates from the time of Leukon):
Kpheyurh, fy¤menÒw (leg. -Òn) se xutØ katå ga›a k°keuyen,
¶ggonon Kabayajev Ùktvkaidek°thn.
A parallel is provided by CEG 69 (cf. 76 as well).35

Dedications in prose are also of interest. In a votive inscription from Olbia
dating from the 5th century BC the name and the patronymic of the dedicator
are at the beginning of the text, while the ethnic at the end: Jãnyow PÒ.[siow]
ÉApÒllvni ÉIht.r.[«i] ÖIstro med°ont.[i] ÉOlbiopol¤thw;36 cf. the 6th-century graffito
from Naukratis: [ı de›na- - -ar]x¤dev [én°yhken t∞i ÉA]frod¤thi ı TÆ[iow].37
A graffito on a black-glaze kylix from Pantikapaion dating from the c. 300
BC constitutes a special type: Tibhw Di‹ Pat[r–]vi ka‹ Ithw (AA 1907, 139).
Modest novelties of this kind, which are quite often encountered in private
prose inscriptions of the 6th-4th centuries BC, in the heyday of Greek literature,
are defined, with every justification, as a simple means of embellishing their
essentially dry style with poetic tropes,38 particularly desirable in texts of a
sacral character (cf. dedication CIRB 1043, in which the first line forms a
hexameter). In this connection a graffito from the 5th century BC from the
island of Leuke is most revealing: GlaËkÒw me én°yhken ÉAxill∞i Leuk∞ (=
-∞i) med°onti pa›{e}w PosidÆo – “Glaukos dedicated me to Achilles, lord of
Leuke, son of Posideios”;39 apart from the hyperbaton,40 here, as in Xanthos’
34
For the text see: Tokhtas’ev 2000, 138 sq., with a photograph (Fig. 2).
35
Allusions to Z 464, J 114, where, however, the word order is “normal”: for the epos and
early hexametric poetry in general, hyperbata of complex structure were not typical. Among the
rare examples is h. Bacch. (VII) 6-8, in which we find êndrew . . . lhÛsta‹ . . . Turshno¤ skil-
fully spread over three lines.
36
Rusjaeva, Vinogradov 2000, 229-238 (Dubois 1996, No. 58).
37
Bernand 1970, 684, No. 430; for the material, see Wackernagel 1953, 98 sqq.
38
Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 697. W. Havers (1922, 237 sq.) has shown that the hyperba-
ton is not a feature exclusive to poetic language (cf. Wackernagel 1953, 102), but examples of
its undoubted influence on prose in this respect has remained outside the field of his investiga-
tion: his examples, confined to split genitives, are limited to primitive examples, such as Dhmh[t]r¤ou
katad« cuxÆn (Wuensch Def. tab. 51, 1) or tå d¢ d°rmata lambãnein t«n flere¤vn toÁw tå
kritå par°xontaw (SGDI 5315, 29).
39
Dubois 1996, No. 48 b.
40
Cf. a 6th-century graffito from Naukratis: Fãnhw me én°yhke t»pÒllvn[i t«i Mi]lhs¤vi ı
GlaÊqo, Bernand 1970, 661, No. 179.
dedication, there is the word med°vn of poetic origin, moreover (unless

Glaukos had omitted a sigma in Leuk∞w under the influence of ÉAxill∞i) with
a rare dative governing, which to judge from dictionaries is only known in the
poetry (starting with Pindar, Ol. VII, 87 sq.; Pae. VI, 124).41
Interwoven hyperbata in another prose inscription ought also to be explained
with reference to such poetic examples as CEG 272 and the Pausanias epi-
gram: ÉA.rist.[o]m°n.[ew én]°.[yek]e ÉAlej¤a tçi Dãmatri t.ç.[i] X.yon¤ai HermioneÊw –
“Aristomenes dedicated, son of Alexias, to Demeter Chthonia, the Hermionian”
(LSAG 406, pl. 33. 9).
Then again the epitaph for the wife of Aristokles, son of Telephanes,
Hekataia, daughter of Deonys from Erythrai, already quoted by me in the
1998 article (p. 291), should simply become an anthology piece: ÉAristokl°ow
gunaikÚw toÇ Thlefãneow ÑEkata¤hw t∞w DeonËdow (I. Erythrai 321).
As a continuation of my observations concerning the poetic technique of our
epigram, I shall draw attention to the fact that the phrase t∞sde pÒlevw
med°onti Labrut«n as an explication for the epithet t«i §n L.[abruÛ] forms a
paranthesis,42 which facilitates the link between the initial phrase of the poem –
eÈjãmenow LeÊkvn uflÚw SatÊr[o – and its end in Lines 3/4: B.[ospÒro êrxvn] /
Yeudos¤hw te, after which the author moves on to expound the essence of the
vow, which Leukon had fulfilled by erecting the statue to Apollo. All parts of
the extensive period from eÈjãmenow to basil°vw are linked to the predicate in
its centre – st∞se, thus forming a composition customary for the epigrammatic
genre. In other respects, when we do not count the ‘anastrophe’ intrinsic to
poetry g∞w §Jind«n, the style of the epigram is more reminiscent of a prose
text transposed into verse (cf. also below to Lines 5/6, on the accumulation of
genitives).43
41
See Tokhtas’ev 1999, 185.
42
Cf. the hyperbaton and the still more extensive parenthesis in a Megarian epitaph dating
from c. 480-470, Ebert 1996, 66; idem 1996a, 19 sqq. (SEG XLV 421): [afi]a› §gÒ, PÒlliw
ÉAsop¤xo f¤low hu.iÚw – Ù kakÚw §Ún ép°ynaskon hupÚ st¤.ktaisin (sc. P°rsai) – §gÚn eâ.
43
Cf. Wilamowitz’ assessment of the few surviving lines by the elegist Euenus, Leukon’s
older contemporary: “Mancher der Verse dieses Euenos ist nichts als zufällig der Messung nach
Hexameter bildende Prosa” (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 404, note 2). Admittedly, unlike
Euenus, our poet was restricted by the need to versify a whole account of historical events,
filled with proper names. It should be acknowledged that he coped with this task most suc-
cessfully, if it had not been for the absence of the final pentameter and together with that the
absence of a clearly defined end to the whole story.
4. The reading of lambda before the break (EJEL[), established for the first
time by Vinogradov using a photograph, raises no doubts (Blavatskaya:
EJED[).
4/5. mãxhi ka‹ krãtei §jel[ãsaw] / ÉOktamasãdea: cf. N¤khw krãtei, ¶rgƒ
ÖArhow / . . . P°rsaw §jelãsantew in the XV epigram of Simonides referred to
earlier (in connection with lines 3/4).
– ÉOktamasãdea g∞w §Jind«n . After accepting my division of the text
(instead of the unacceptable ÉOktamasãde, êg˙w §Jind«n as an beginning of
the sentence), Vinogradov wrote at length about what he saw as a form of the
accusative unique in the whole of Greek epigraphy (p. 10 sq.). Indeed, in the
Ionic inscriptions known today accusatives ending in -ea from anthroponymic
*s-stems,44 as far as I know, are not found, which, however, is easy to explain
44
Instead of the expected åa-stem (cf. Hdt. IV, 80: ÉOktamasãdhn, ÉOktamasãd˙). In Ionic
epigraphy of the North Pontic region we also encounter other examples of the transition from
original åa-stems to *s-stems, mainly for non-Greek names (see: Tokhtas’ev 1994, 158-161): the
same name with a phonetic variant of the second component – ÉOktamasiãdeow, gen. (probably
from Old Iranian *Uxta(ta)ma-·(y)®ta-, see Tokhtas’ev 2005a, 98 sq.) in a graffito from
Hermonassa (see above, note 6), clearly kindred to Pairisãdeow, -ouw (CIRB 10, 11 et alii);
.ada.iakeow (CIRB 154, vidi, see: Tokhtas’ev 2002a, 84, note 60; the first letter is obscure);
Aspamiyareow (CIRB 211) vs. Aspamiyarev on ceramic stamps of Sinope (Tsekhmistrenko
1960, 60); Atakeow (CIRB 914, Nymphaion), Atakouw (Olbia, Syll.3 1260 = Dubois 1996, No.
25; it is remarkable that the name Atakhw underwent this unusual morphological adaptation
straightaway in two Ionian poleis, which were situated a considerable distance from each other);
Fanisalouw (on the chora of Olbia, see: Vinogradov 1997, 159; the origin of the name is not
clear, but at any rate it is not Greek, but of course not “Greek-barbarian” either, as Vinogradov
suggested); Dãmeow in the dikastes’ plaque of the 4th century BC from Sinope (Robert 1937, 296
sq.), cf. the correct form Dam°v, Milet I/III, 12313 (stephanephoros of 304/3 BC). In a 4th cen-
tury BC epitaph from Porthmion we find the non-Greek name Aramayeu (Kastanayan 1987, 85
sqq. = SEG XXXVII 678); this would appear to be the only example in the North Pontic region
of a contaminated form of the genitive – common to stems in -åa- and *-s- (-eu/-eo ← -eow +
-ev, see: Thumb, Scherer 1959, 269 sq.; in Eastern Ionic it was previously known only in
Smyrna) – reflects the same tendency towards heteroclitic declension of anthroponymic stems
in -a*- in Ionic. Starting out from these facts it is possible – even if only to a partial extent –
to resolve at last the riddle of legends on coins attributed to Theodosia: YEODEV and YEODEOS
(the latter form became known thanks to a recently published new stamp: Shonov 2002, 327,
332, fig. 1, 6) which can under no circumstances be abbreviations of Yeodosi°vn or YeodÒsion,
but can easily be explained as genitives Yeod°v, Yeod°ow (åa- and *s-stems respectively) of the
name Yeod∞w (< *-°a å w), an abbreviated form (hypocoristic) of compounds YeodÒsiow, YeÒdotow
or YeÒdvrow , and homonymous of Ionic Yeud∞w (gen. YeudeËw SEG XVII 400, Chios;
Yeud°iouw I. Smyrna 60918), Attic Youd∞w < *Yeo-dW°jhw, derived from Homeric yeoudÆw (see:
not merely with reference to the insignificant number of known inscriptions in

‘pure’ ÉIãw, in general, but also to the low frequency of accusatives, since
votive inscriptions and epitaphs predominate among them, in which (for
anthroponyms) nominatives and genitives are dominant. Yet, as soon as the
number of inscriptions increases significantly (in the 4th century BC), we found
in them a contracted declintion in -h (for example, [§w Bo]russy°nh IOSPE I2
24, Albia, c. 340-330 BC),45 which is often being ousted by the Attic -hn. In
our case, however, all this does not affect the question under discussion, since
the author of the epigram had to start out from the Homeric forms DiomÆdea,
EÈpe¤yea, PoludeÊkea and so on.46
5-6. §Jind«n, Sind«m. I have already had occasion to write about the fact
that the name of the Sindoi had an oxytone – Sindo¤ (as in ÉIndo¤).47 Certain
inaccuracies in the 1998 article, however, oblige me to return to this question,
to introduce the necessary corrections and additions into the exposition already
published.
In his commentary on CIRB 40 (p. 49) A.I. Dovatur, despite Latÿshev
(IOSPE II, p. X, note 2) and with a reference to the grammarian Herodian (P.
kayol. pros. VI, vol. I, p. 142, 17 L.), insists on the accentuation S¤ndoi; that
accentuation has been used throughout CIRB. Yet the matter is more compli-
cated than that. The scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes, IV, 321, from whom,
in particular, Lentz drew material for his reconstruction of Herodian’s work,
states: ÑHrodianÚw . . . barutone›n fhsi de›n: tin¢w d¢ ÙjÊnousin, oÈk eÔ. In De
accentibus by Pseudo-Arcadius (Theodosius?), p. 48, 7 Barker, i.e. in the epi-
tome of Herodian’s P. kayol. pros. the matter is presented differently: tå efiw
dow disÊllaba ¶xonta prÚ toË d sÊmfvna katå diãstasin barÊnetai, efi mØ
§ynikå e‡h, l¤ndow, s¤ndow, p¤ndow, nãrdow, mãrdow, aÈloË e‰dow. seshme¤vtai tÚ
findÚw potamÚw ka‹ tÚ §ynikÒn. tÚ d¢ kondÚw §p¤yeton, ka‹ ı mundÚw ı êfvnow.
When this is translated into the language of modern concepts and terms, this
signifies the following: words ending in -dow, containing the combination of a
Bechtel HP 130). What remains an enigma, however, is who this Yeod∞w was (perhaps, the
heroized founder and eponym of Theodosia (cf. FanagÒreia from FanagÒrhw), whose profile is
depicted on these coins and whose full name was YeodÒsiow or YeÒdotow?); cf. Stolba 1989,
147; Stolba 1998, 605 and note 1.
45
Karÿshkovskii, Vinogradov 1976, 25 (= Vinogradov 1997, 255 sq.).
46
Graham (2002, 97), without going into details, writes of the “regular uncontracted Ionic
ending of the third declension of accusatives with roots in -w [sic]”.
47
See: Tokhtas’ev 1998, 297 sq.; Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 73, note 3.
consonant + d, become acccentuated on the first syllable, but only if it is not

§ynikã. Yet the examples cited include the ethnic S¤ndow; E.H. Barker did not
pay attention to that, but A. Lentz made what was undoubtedly an appropri-
ate correction, emending §ynikã to §piyetikã (“adjectives”), starting out from
the words kondÚw §p¤yeton. Later on, however, Herodian himself noted the
exception: seshme¤vtai tÚ findÚw potamÚw ka‹ tÚ §ynikÒn, and this straightaway
undermines his constructions, based merely on a theory which over-simplifies
the actual situation (let me remind readers that Herodian belonged to the
school of analogists); for ÉIndÒw he makes an exception, only because it would
have been a hopeless enterprise to call in question accentuation that was gen-
erally accepted. The Sindoi were unlikely to have been known to scribes and
to most of the readers, so the usual (cf. tin¢w d¢ ÙjÊnousin) accentuation Sindo¤
could have been called into doubt. When resolving this question, we should,
of course, not to start out from Herodian, but from the manuscript tradi-
tion, which almost unanimously proffers Sindo¤. It would seem that in the
“Periplous of the Pontus Euxinus” by Pseudo-Arrian (10r16 sqq. Diller) alone
S¤ndoi is found three times: moreover, as Aubrey Diller suggests with some
justification (p. 109), in one case the source is probably Strabo (XI, 2, 11:
Sindo¤ mss.!), and in the other Stephanus of Byzantium, s. v. Sindo¤ (mss.!; cf.
also s. v. Traux°nioi: Sindo›w; Meineke in both cases made ‘corrections’ in
keeping with Herodian), who drew material for the §ynikã mainly from
Herodian again (but, as we can see, in this case ignoring his recommenda-
tions). What we have here is probably the same kind of Byzantine “barytone-
sis”, as in SklabÆnoi and the like. 48 In most manuscripts of Apollonius
Rhodius the name of the Sindoi is accentuated Sindo¤ (ASGE), once Sindoi (P)
and finally S¤ndo¤ (L), but in the scholia it appears as in Herodian. In these
conditions, of course, it is better to return to the tradition, which Latÿshev sen-
sibly supported (ibidem): “Nomen ÙjÊnetai a novis editoribus plerisque, quos
nos quoque secuti sumus”.
5/6. The accumulation of genitives of various kinds in one syntagma is in
general not typical of poetic syntax,49 but sometimes the context or wishes of
the dedicator make it imperative, as is the case here. We also find a series of
genitives in the final lines of the Pausanias epigram, which I cited above (Simonides
48
See Tokhtas’ev 1998a, 31.
49
Cf. Kühner, Gerth 1955, 337, note 4; Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 135 sq. A special case –
N 4-6 with a series of ten gen. pl. (ethnonyms and their epithets, all – homoioteleuta), creating
a visual image of how Zeus consistently moves his gaze from the land of the “herding horses
XXXIX Page: . . . uflÚw / KleombrÒtou, érxa¤aw ÑHrakl°ow geneçw), but it does

not produce a sense of roughness or flabbiness (which would have been
impossible in the case of Simonides or in a poem attributed to him): on the
contrary, an element of the vernacular together with asyndeton (cf. below, note
68) provides the verse here with the necessary laconic severity (traxÊthw),
which is most suitable precisely in the final pentameter. In an unartful epitaph
from Marathon CEG 72 dating from the 5th century: seÇ ma tÒdÉ efim‹ Kr¤t.o.
Tel°fo ÉA.f.i[dna¤o], the second half of the line seemed to come together of its
own accord.
6. o[fikÆÛhw] (or o[fik°Ûhw])50 – “of his own”. Now, when the reading omicron
has been confirmed de visu, the restoration of this word by Vinogradov
appears far more plausible, even if not irreproachable. I have earlier expressed
the conjecture (albeit with insufficient substantiation),51 to the effect that the
word coming after p.at°ra could be an attribute for it, but not for érx∞w. The
word order used in Vinogradov’s restoration is of course highly elegant, yet
still the version o[fikÆÛon] is not rejected here outright – “of his own/natural”
(father) = Homeric f¤low (as, for example, in N 644: ˜ =a patr‹ f¤lƒ ßpeto
ptolem¤jvn), apparently also highly refined, thanks to the emphasis. Both vari-
ants of the restoration can be backed up with examples: aÎjvn ofike¤vn
progÒnvn éretåw ktl. CEG 79522; [én°yhken ÉAyhnçi] / [ga¤aw] ofik°aw ¶rnow
éparjãmenow] ibidem 756; Àw pote duspol°moiw Galãtaiw yoÚn ÖArea me¤jaw /
≥lasaw ofike¤vn pollÚn Ïperyen ˜rvn IG XII/4 11055 sq. (cf. SEG XXXVIII
776); cf. also: ofike¤aiw dÉ §n xers‹ t°knvn élÒxou te é[r¤sthw?] / [e]Èjun°tou
Mo¤ra[w] eÎstoxow ktl. CEG 5866); ˘w . . . kat°deijen . . . / ofike¤ƒ te b¤ƒ ka‹
meyÒdoisi lÒgvn ktl. (Aristot. fr. 2, 4-5 Gentili – Prato = 3 Plezia).52
6-7. p.at°ra . . . / §kbãllvn érx∞w. Vinogradov: “depriving his father of his
(ancestral) state”; similarly on p. 12 with a reference to Polybius XXII, 18, 3:
(PerseÊw) §j°bale . . . §k t∞w fid¤aw érx∞w – “drove out from his own state” (the
Thracian king Abrupolis); Graham’s translation (ibidem): “after expelling his
father from his ancestral rule”. This capacious expression is of too general a
nature for any unambiguous choice to be made, but the main gist is clear. It
Thracians” to the “Mysians who engage in hand-to-hand fighting” and so on, cf. Janko
1992, 43.
50
Tokhtas’ev 1998, 299.
51
Ibidem.
52
Gentili and Prato cite in connection with this line of Aristotle the comment made by Wilamowitz
(Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1920, 708): “Possessiv der dritten Person”.
could also be translated as follows: “driving out (overthrowing) his father from . . .
the throne”.
– k.[at°yrejen?]: cf. Homeric §piyr°jantow (N 409), yr°jaskon (S 599, 602).
The restoration was proposed by me exempli gratia, but, at all events, what
should stand here is the finite form of some verb of movement in the aorist
with the prefix kata-, and it has not been possible to find anything better. To
the intransitive katatr°xv Vinogradov successfully added fr. 76 R. 3 of
Aristotle: efiw ˘ (sc. xvr¤on) katadramÒntaw l˙stãw; see also Xenophon Cyr.
VI, 3, 9: katadramÒntew efiw tÚ ped¤on. Graham (also conditionally) accepts
Vinogradov’s previous conjecture k.[at°kleisen?].
II. Theopropides’ Dedication from Nymphaion
The next most important new inscription from the era of Leukon has been
published by O. Yu. Sokolova, initially – only in translation in the Moscow
periodical Drevnosti Bospora (Antiquities of the Bosporus)53 and later in a
joint article in the journal Hyperboreus54 with N. A. Pavlichenko. This latter
publication (below I have referred directly to its pages everywhere) is accom-
panied by a most detailed description of the conditions in which it was found
during excavation work in Nymphaion, by a thorough architectural analysis of
the monument and the whole complex of buildings, by a large amount of illus-
trative material, comprehensive commentaries and even a digression on Gorgippos,
son of Satyros I.55 Prior to this find a fragment of a monumental dedicatory
inscription had been discovered which also dated from the time of Leukon:
[- - - Toret°vn ka‹ Dand]ar¤vn ka‹ Chss«[n].56 Sokolova and Pavlichenko (p.
100 sq., note 8) provided information on a recently discovered fragment from
the same stone on which stood the last letter of the word Chss«n. The two
scholars suggest that the slab had been “part of another architrave, which belonged
to the same built structure . . . or to another similar complex” (according to
E.V. Vlasova, it had been part of an altar).
53
Sokolova 2001, 368-376.
54
Sokolova, Pavlichenko 2002, 99-121.
55
Unfortunately, the authors had not been aware of the important article by Heinen (1996,
357-368).
56
Vlasova 1994/1995, 135 sqq. (SEG XLV 996).
Fig. 2. Votive inscription of Theopropides from Nymphaion.
The inscription was carved on to the front section of an architrave over the
main entrance – e‡sodow (the publishers suggest that here this is a synonym
for prÒpulon), leading to some kind of public building or other edifice – a
shrine or theatre (O. Yu. Sokolova hopes to clarify this question in the course
of subsequent excavations).
Fortunately, although the stone had been broken into two pieces, the actual
inscription had survived virtually undamaged (Fig. 2):57
Yeoprop¤dhw Megakl°ow tØn e‡sodon én°yhken DionÊsvi
égvnoyet°vn L°okvnow êrxontow BospÒro ka‹ Yeodos¤hw
ka‹ t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw ka‹ Toret°vn ka‹ Dandar¤vn ka‹ Chss«n.
“Theopropides, son of Megakles, dedicated this entrance to Dionysos, being an
agonothetes under Leukon, archon of the Bosporus, Theodosia, the whole of
Sindike, the Toretai, Dandarioi and Psessoi.”
In this discussion what will be of interest for us is only the historical infor-
mation, which is incorporated into this new variant of Leukon’s titles.
So, Leukon is referred to here as the archon not merely of the Bosporus
and Theodosia, but also of those barbarian peoples, which according to the
other inscriptions known to us – with the exception of CIRB 6a – he had been
ruling over as king ( basileÊontow ). Any specialist in the history of the
Bosporus will immediately recall the inscription which has just been men-
tioned, in which Leukon is termed archon of the Bosporus, Theodosia and the
Sindoi (or Sindike, see below), on the one hand, and king of the Toretai, the
57
I am grateful to O.Yu. Sokolova for kindly supplying me with the photograph.
Dandarioi and the Psessoi on the other. The name of the Sindoi in Line 5 was
restored by V. V. Shkorpil in the editio princeps:58
[≤ (?) de›na- - -]aiou tÚm bvmÚn
[én°yhken ÉAr]t.°mi ÉEfese¤hi vv
[flervm°nh (?) êrxo]nt[o]w. LeÊkv.now
[BospÒro(u) ka‹ Ye]o.do.s¤hw vv
5 [ka‹ Sind«n k]a‹ basileÊo.[n]tow
[Toret°vn Dand]ar¤vn Chss«n.
Precisely this comparison is made by Sokolova and Pavlichenko.59 The

scholars state that they agree with the conclusion of Shelov-Kovedyaev about
the initially special position of the Sindoi within the Bosporan state,60 which
he had drawn following in the footsteps of Shkorpil, on the basis of the
inscription CIRB 6a,61 and they also suggest a reconstruction in its Line 5: not
ka‹ Sind«n, but – on an analogy with the phraseology of the new inscription –
ka‹ Sindik∞w. In the inset between pp. 112 and 113 with a photograph of CIRB
6a, a rather different text has been published, however: . . . ka‹ Yeo]dos¤hw
[ka‹] | [t∞w Sindik∞w k]a‹ basileÊontow ktl. It would appear that instinct and
a certain amount of philological experience at some stage prompted Pavli-
chenko (responsible for the epigraphic part of the publication) to decide that,
58
Shkorpil 1917, 109. His restoration was supported by Vinogradov as well (cautiously in
Vinogradov 1997, 120; 1983, 411, and with definite confidence – in manuscript notes on the
subject of the editio princeps of Leukon’s epigram).
59
Cf. Tokhtas’ev 2001, 157; Tokhtas’ev 2005, 12, with the collation of this inscription held
in the Kerch Museum (Inv. No. KL-1032). According to my recent collation (October 2005) of
the lately restored stone in Line 1 reds not [Num]f.a¤ou (as in the CIRB), nor ]g.aiou, nor ]t.aiou
(as in Tokhtas’ev 2001, 157; Tokhtas’ev 2005, 7), but undoubtedly ]aiou. Instead of flervm°nh
it might be as well to restore eÈjam°nh, cf. CIRB 1015, 1043 et alii.
60
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 130; 134: “Leukon . . . is not yet considered to be the supreme
king of the Sindoi, as he is for the other tribes under his rule”; he “only ‘reigns over’ the
region, which has its own system of power headed by a legitimate sovereign”.
61
Meanwhile, Shelov-Kovedyaev himself (in the appendix to the article by Vinogradov dis-
cussed above, I), after acquainting himself with the Nymphaion inscription from the preliminary
report in Antiquities of the Bosporus, discovered in it confirmation for his interpretation of
êrxvn and withdrew his conclusion, returning to the traditional viewpoint: the stable positioning
of the Sindoi (initially – “the whole of Sindike”) at the beginning of the list of tribes subject
to the rulers of Bosporus “should be regarded as a reflection of the chronological order in which
these tribes were annexed to the Bosporan kingdom and not as a reflection of their special posi-
tion among the subjects of the Spartokids” (p. 21).
in front of Sindik∞w, it was highly desirable that there should at least be

an article (formally speaking SindikÆ is a possessive adjective, scil. x≈rh, g∞);
it is just as likely, incidentally, that this t∞w was introduced into the recon-
struction under the influence of t∞w at Sindik∞w in Theopropides’ inscription.
At any rate, as can be seen most clearly from the photograph as well
(Fig. 3),62 there was no ka¤ after Yeo]dos¤hw (vacat!), and [ka‹ t∞w Sindik∞w
k]a¤ would obviously not fit into the gap (the space it would take up has been
calculated on the basis of the undubitable additions BospÒro(u) ka‹ Ye]o.do.s¤hw
in Line 4 and [Toret°vn Dand]ar¤vn in Line 6). It is important to note that
Line 5, unlike Lines 1, 2 and 4, was filled with text right up to the edge, so
that on the basis of the number of letters [ka‹ Sindik∞w k]a¤ is definitely to be
preferred to [ka‹ Sind«n k]a¤. For this reason it would be possible to suggest
an ellipse of the article for the sake of brevity in the list,63 and, bearing in
mind the nature of the inscription, we might also mention the grammatic and
stylistic links with concepts of a similar kind64 BospÒrou ka‹ Yeodos¤hw (in
inscriptions of the pre-Roman era they always present without the article)65 in
an order of laconic solemnity. In the names of countries, which, as a
rule, were of an adjectival nature in Greek, the article is sometimes lacking,
particularly in lists, and, especially often when political formations, and
specifically – satrapies being mentioned (Xenophon Cyr. VIII, 6, 7; An. III, 5,
15), and at times even not as part of lists (Hdt. V, 52, 3; Xen. Cyr. VI, 2,
22).66 Of particular interest for us are the following instances: Hdt. IX, 107,
3: JeinagÒrhw Kilik¤hw pãshw ∑rje dÒntow basil°ow; Xen. An. I. 9. 7: (KËrow)
satrãphw Lud¤aw te ka‹ Frug¤aw t∞w megãlhw ka‹ Kappadok¤hw; a Milesian
inscription Syll.3 13429 (390s BC): Stroushw . . . §jaitrãphw §∆n ÉIvn¤hw. To
judge by Kallenberg’s materials, however, a name of a country ending in -ikÒw
without an article would appear in early Greek literature only in Hdt. III, 93,
62
All the illustrative material for the picture volume accompanying CIRB, prepared in 1989-
1999 by Irina A. Levinskaya and myself on the basis of materials collected by Latÿshev and
the publisher of CIRB, was handed over for safe-keeping to the archives of the St. Petersburg
Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and will provide the basis for the illus-
trations of the planned new edition of CIRB (IOSPE II 3) in collaboration with I.A. Levinskaya,
A.P. Kulakova (Bekhter), and A.V. Agafonov. Cf. Levinskaya, Tokhtas’ev 2005.
63
Cf. Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 24: “Breviloquenz” “in der . . . Prosa von Listen,
Rechnungen u.a”.
64
Cf. Kühner, Gerth 1955, 604 sq.
65
Kocewalow 1935, 59 (for BÒsporow), also with examples from Chersonesos and Olbia.
66
For the material, see: Kallenberg 1890, 515-547.
1 (the list of tribute brought to Darius from the satrapies): épÚ PaktuÛk∞w d¢
ka‹ ÉArmen¤vn ktl.67
Now let us turn our attention to the fact that the phrase containing Leukon’s
titles is clearly divided into two colons: in the first of these the names of
Leukon’s landed possessions are listed with the presence of ka¤, while the sec-
ond, with the list of ethnonyms, is characterized by an asyndeton:68
êrxontow BospÒrou ka‹ Yeodos¤hw [. . .]
ka‹
basileÊontow Toret°vn Dandar¤vn Chss«n.69
67
In his edition of Herodotus, H. Rosén arbitrarily replaces PaktuÛk∞w with Paktu¤hw,
although no such toponym is known, while manuscripts give either PaktuÛk∞w, or (DRSV)
Paktuk¤hw, in which the letters have merely changed places. In almost exactly the same way
(Paktu˝hw) Rosén also makes a ‘correction’ in IV, 44, 2 (PaktuÛk∞w ABCTP; -IKHS is also
confirmed by Platu¤khw M), with a reference to his grammar of Herodotus’ language (Rosén
1962, 99 sq.; here, however, there is not a word on that subject), but he retains it in III, 102,
1 (when there is a consensus codicum).
68
Cf. Kühner, Gerth 1955, 341 sq.: asyndeton in the lists consisting of similar concepts; cf.
I above (regarding Lines 3/4), on the Simonides epigram XXXIX Page (LakedaimÒniow g°now,
uflÚw / KleombrÒtou, érxa¤aw ÑHrakl°ow geneçw); a rare lack of a conjunction in hexameters is
encountered in the acclamations from the Iliad (G 276, P 233 sq.), and the Homeric Hymn to
Hermes XVII, 1 sq.: ÑErm∞n ée¤dv KullÆnion ÉArgeifÒnthn / KullÆnhw med°onta ka‹ ÉArkad¤hw
polumÆlou / êggelon éyanãtvn §rioÊnion ktl. (cf. I above, to the Line 2); in the elegy see
also: Simonides Ep. XXXIV Page (AP VI, 214): fhm‹ G°lvnÉ ÑI°rvna PolÊzhlon YrasÊbulon,
/ pa›daw Deinom°neuw.
69
The same stylistic device is found in the later inscriptions from the time of Leukon, in
which the Sindoi have been transferred into the list of the other tribes: CIRB 6 and 8 (on the
latter, see below in the conclusion). Cf. further the asyndeton in the votive graffito from Olbia:
[- - -ip]pow ÑUpãni Borusy°nei (Yailenko 1980a, 80, No. 71 = SEG XXX 913 = Dubois 1996,
No. 82), in CIRB 75: Pairisãdou Kamasaruhw Argotou (genitives depend on Íp°r), at the
beginning of the Chersonesean oath (IOSPE I2 401): ÙmnÊv D¤a Gçn ÜAlion Pary°non, [y]eoÁw
ÉOlump¤ouw ka‹ ÉOlump¤aw, and also in a similar vow in the text of a decree from Tegea dating
from the 4th century Syll.3 30657 sq., in a Spartan inscription, guaranteeing asylia to the Delians
(c. 403-399 BC) with a list of officials from Sparta (kings and ephoroi) and Delos (ibidem, 198,
pl. 38. 62; cf. above, note 31), in an Attic decree in honour of Spartokos II and his brothers
Syll.3 206: SpartÒkvi Pairisãdhi ÉApollvn¤vi, LeÊkvnow pais¤, in contrast to Dinarch. in
Dem. 43, where expressiveness is achieved by the very opposite method: Dinarch is indignant
with Demosthenes’ suggestion that bronze statues of the Bosporan tyrants should be erected in
the agora – st∞sai Pairisãdhn ka‹ Sãturon ka‹ GÒrgippon, toÁw §k toË PÒntou turãnnouw
(‘and of that one, and of another and of a third!’; cf. Plat. Euthyphr. 7d: ka‹ §g∆ ka‹ sÁ ka‹
ofl êlloi ênyrvpoi pãntew). It is also used in the concluding part of the same Chersonesean
Fig. 3. Votive inscription CIRB 6a.
A similar method for breaking up long lists is to be found in Xenophon,

Cyr. I, 1, 4:
KËrow . . . katestr°cato d¢ SÊrouw ÉAssur¤ouw ÉArab¤ouw KappadÒkaw . . .,
∑rje d¢ ka‹ Baktr¤vn ka‹ ÉInd«n ka‹ Kil¤kvn ktl.
In addition Xenophon makes use of the different cases governed by katas-
tr°fv and êrxv, as a result of which two series homoioptota are obtained. In
our case it would have been possible not to have limited the juxtapositions to
oath, l. 50 sq.: ZeË ka‹ Gç ka‹ ÜAlie [ka‹] Pary°ne ka‹ yeo‹ ÉOlÊmpioi. In the oath of Dreros
(IC I/IX 1A14 sqq.), the names of the gods, by whom they swear, are listed with articles and
ka¤. In CIRB 1037, 1038, and also in both recently discovered inscriptions from Nymphaion in
the titles of Leukon, with ka¤ both toponyms (Bosporus and Theodosia) and ethnonyms are
listed (also in CIRB 1042, to judge from the script (cf. esp. CIRB 6a) dating from the time of
Leukon and not Pairisades I, as stated by Latÿshev, and the editors of CIRB). In the list of the
nine demiurgoi from Argos the names are also given using ka¤ (LSAG 156 sq., pl. 26. 7); in
the sacral text from the shrine of Athena in Mycenae (ibidem 172, pl. 31. 2) the names of cer-
tain flk°tai are cited in the same way.
one asyndeton – polysyndeton: it might have been expected that just the
toponyms in the first part of the title list would be set off against the eth-
nonyms in the second part. It would seem that these observations could also
have added weight to the restoration Sindik∞w.
Yet it is essential to acknowledge that, when restoring missing text, the con-
siderations outlined here only demonstrate the possibility of such a conjecture.
On the other hand, the lacuna could apparently also have been filled as fol-
lows: [te ka‹ Sind«n k]a¤; cf. satrãphw Lud¤aw te ka‹ Frug¤aw in Xenophon
(above); CIRB 40 (in the titles of Aspurgos): basileÊonta BospÒrou . . . ka‹
Toret«n Chs«n te ka‹ TanaÛt«n, Ípotãjanta SkÊyaw ka‹ TaÊrouw.
It would seem that only one step remained now before the conclusion, that
the Leukon epigram, then the Nymphaion inscription, then CIRB 6a and,
finally, inscriptions like CIRB 6, 8, 1037, 1038, provide consecutive documentation
of the various stages of the incorporation of the tribes of the lower Kuban
region into the Bosporan state. This does not, however, take place. When sum-
ming up the research (p. 120), Sokolova and Pavlichenko’s attention is con-
centrated, as before, on CIRB 6a: “The singling out of Sindike (or the Sindoi,
according to the restoration by Shkorpil) from the other barbarian tribes can
be linked with the special features of the political organization of Sindike at
that period and with some kind of events in its internal history. We still do
not know the subsequent status and fate of Hekataios and Tirgatao”. (It
remains incomprehensible to me what relevance Tirgatao has to the question
under discusssion). Only when they move on to the latest references to the
time of Leukon, when the Sindoi were already subordinate to the king’s
power, does the situation become slightly clearer: “This last variant of the
titles evidently appears after Sindike had finally submitted to the supreme
power of Leukon I, when he took over from the local dynasts the title king of
the Sindoi and other barbarian tribes” (ibidem). Yet, once again there is not a
word about Theopropides’ inscription.
Naturally, when we are dealing with such fragmentary material, caution
when conclusions are being drawn is an essential condition of their relia-
bility. However the caution shown by Sokolova and Pavlichenko smacks more
of shyness or even helplessness. The reader is called upon to formulate
their conclusions on his own. They are presented as little more than hints,
approximately as follows: the term “archon of (the whole of) Sindike” should
mean, evidently, the suzerainty of Leukon over Sindike with the nominal
retention of traditional institutions of power in it. The same ought to apply to
the Toretai, Dandarioi and the Psessoi under Leukon’s leadership in Theopropides’
inscription.
Sokolova and Pavlichenko devoted a good deal of effort to the interpreta-
tion of the expression (êrxvn) t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw. They draw attention (p. 112
sqq.) to evidence provided by ancient authors, who locate the Sindoi on the
Asian side of the straits and further to the South-East right over as far as the
city of Sindikos Limen (resp. Gorgippia), or write – like Pseudo-Scylax (72)
and Strabo (XI, 2,10) – that it and certain other Greek cities are located in
Sindike, or even distinguish between “regions of the Bosporus in Asia” and
Sindike (Strabo XI, 2, 1: prÚw d¢ tª yalãtt˙ toË BospÒrou tå katå tØn ÉAs¤an
§st‹ ka‹ ≤ SindikÆ; cf. VII, 4, 6, on the payment of tribute to Mithridates
VI: . . . sÁn to›w ÉAsiano›w xvr¤oiw to›w per‹ tØn SindikÆn). Sokolova and
Pavlichenko conclude: “This is perhaps the first part of ‘the whole of Sindike’,
a territory which was previously part of the Bosporan kingdom. One might
evidently understand by the other part of the ‘whole of Sindike’ the posses-
sions of Hekataios, king of Sindike” (p. 113).
The hypothesis of Sokolova and Pavlichenko does not provide an answer to
the question: if “Sindike”, the “Sindoi” or “the land of the Sindoi” in the lit-
erary sources cited in their article denote the old possessions of the Spartokids
on the Asian side of the straits with a native Sindian population, then how
should we understand Sindo¤ in the phrase basileÊontow Sind«n in the inscrip-
tions (and – all the more so – SindikÆ in CIRB 6a, if the restoration of the
toponym here is correct)? Moreover it contains an internal contradiction: after
all, the Greek poleis in the historical territory of Sindike, had, without doubt,
been part of the same “Bosporus” and Leukon was named as their archon and
also as archon of “the whole of Sindike” in Theopropides’ inscription. Indeed
his position had been recorded in two inscriptions erected “under Leukon,
archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia”, which were found in Hermonassa70
and in its chora (both are mentioned by Sokolova and Pavlichenko).71 In
the epigram from Labrys relating to the same period, Leukon “archon of the
Bosporus and Theodosia” comes with his host to help Hekataios “king of the
Sindoi” and “drives out” from “the land of the Sindoi” his rebellious son,
Oktamasades. There is not the slightest reason to believe that the existence, so
to speak, of “inner Sindike”, which belonged to Leukon, should not have been
70
Belova 1967, 61-68.
71
CIRB 1111, Tsukur-Liman (to the South-east of Hermonassa).
reflected in all the above-mentioned inscriptions for some reason unbeknown

to us. The information provided by Strabo (XI, 2, 7) regarding Satyros’ bur-
ial-mound on a cape not far from Patraeus72 demonstrates that Satyros had
already been in possession of the northern part of the modern Taman penin-
sula (Fantalovskii alias Fontan), which according to Pseudo-Scylax was part
of the land of the Sindoi; according to Aeschines (in Ctesiph. 171), he had
also been in complete control of Kepoi, which he bestowed as a gift (dvreãn)
on Gylon, grandfather of Demosthenes.73 There is unlikely to be any reason to
doubt that by the time Theopropides was erecting his e‡sodon, Phanagoria had
also lost its independence.74
In these circumstances nothing is proved either by references to authors,
particularly when these are not accompanied by the necessary analysis. Soko-
lova and Pavlichenko (following Blavatskaya) mention by the way (p. 113)
the passage in Polyaenus (VIII, 55), according to which Tirgatao ruined both
“Hekataios’ Sindike”, and also “Satyros’ domain” (evidently in “Asia”). In
fact, there are no grounds for directly drawing the conclusion (even in the
form of a hint) that there existed any other Sindike. In Polyaenus the antithe-
sis is expressed using the usual rhetorical devices of his time:
(Tirgata≈) . . . tØn ÑEkata¤ou SindikØn kat°trexe ka‹
SatÊrou tØn érxØn §luma¤neto.75
Hekataios’ possessions are contrasted with those of Satyros, but that is all.76
Reports to the effect that certain Greek cities are situated “in Sindike” or
“in Scythia” and so on, should, as a general rule, be regarded as purely geo-
graphical indications (although a certain degree of overlap between geograph-
ical and political maps was in some contexts, of course, inevitable, and it was
72
In a similar way the burial-mound (mn∞ma) of Akeratos, son of Phrasierides, archon of the
Parians and the Thasians (see above, note 31), had been erected “at the end of the harbour, to
save ships and seafarers” (CEG 162), i.e. as a landmark clearly visible from the sea (skopiã,
skopÆ).
73
Latÿshev 1909, 76; Gajdukeviœ 1971, 220 sq. Cf. Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 75 sq., note 14.
74
Gorlov 1986, 135 sqq.; Zavoikin 2004, esp. 114 sqq.
75
The equality of the cola and the homoioptota within them (cf., in particular, apt definitions
by Anaximenes, Ars rhet., per‹ . . . éntiy°tvn ka‹ paris≈sevn ka‹ ımoiotÆtvn (26), and also
Quint. IX, 3, 78), elegantly balanced by various positionings of the article.
76
The phase tØn ÑEkata¤ou SindikÆn is reminiscent of expressions like §n Bragx¤d˙si tªsi
Milhs¤vn (Hdt. I, 92, 2; a variation of the chorographic genitive, also of a possessive nature)
but constructed, of course, ad hoc in keeping per sample of SatÊrou tØn érxÆn.
seen as a matter of course that the possession of any polis also involved the
possession of lands outside the city walls as well). Herodotus, for example,
wrote (I, 142) that Miletus, Myus and Priene lay in Caria and Ephesus,
Colophon, Teos and others in Lydia; in Pseudo-Scylax (68) the Greek cities
of Nikonion and Ophiussa, Theodosia, Pantikapaion and others are in the land
of the Scythians and Chersonesos in the land of the Tauroi.77 In the same way
it is impossible to take literally the words of Pseudo-Arrian (10r16 Diller) to
the effect that “from Hermonasssa to Sindikos Limen there dwells a Maiotian
people called Sindoi, from whom Sindike derives its name”:78 under the Sparto-
kids and later as well these poleis, together with their attendant territories
were, of course, constituent parts of the “Bosporus”. Their names were simply
used as convenient pointers by geographers.
Our sources relate to various eras and, in so far as these are all compila-
tions, data from different periods are often bracketed together. While in
Pseudo-Scylax the land of the Sindoi, the frontiers of which stretched as far
as Maiotis, embraced Phanagoria, Kepoi, Sindikos Limen and Pãtouw, 79
according to Strabo (XI, 2, 1) Sindike, unlike the regions of the Maiotai, lies
prÚw . . . tª yalãtt˙ – “by the sea” (i.e. Pontus Euxinus) and according to § 10,
faced south and south-east from the river Antikeites (Hypanis), which flowed
into the Korokondamitis; Hermonassa, Apaturon, Gorgippia and Aborake
are all in Sindike (this coincides almost exactly with what Pseudo-Arrian
77
Words in metric epitaphs such as [g∞] Skuy¤a peribçsa ÑEkata›on tÒnde k°ke[u]y.[e] (CIRB
117 = CEG 737, 3rd century BC, of a foreigner), and still more so ⁄ pãtra Skuy¤aw pÒliw
ÉOlb¤a (IOSPE I2 226, Olbia, 2nd century BC), are not a great deal nearer reality, than the
definition of the Bosporus as the “Cimmerian land” in the epitaph of a foreigner, who did not
after all reach Pantikapaion (Boltunova 1973, 122-130 = SEG XXVI 849, 2nd century BC; Line
3/4): émf‹ d¢ ga›an Kimmer¤hn – is of course a paraphrase of BÒsporow Kimm°riow (possibly with
an allusion to l 14).
78
Sokolova and Pavlichenko (p. 112) translated the phrase paroikoËsi Maivt«n tinew S¤ndoi
legÒmenoi ¶ynow falsely – “Maiotis is inhabited by a certain tribe called the Sindoi”; and, despite
their translation, what is most likely to have been implied by the word SindikÆ (unless of course
the compiler of the periplous himself was giving any careful thought to what he was writing
about) was not the land, but the city of Sindike, i.e. Sindikos Limen, cf. Ps.-Arrian 10r11
sq.: . . . efiw SindikØn ≥toi SindikÚn lim°na: the first name is taken from the periplous of Arrian
and the second from Menippus, as is pointed out at that place in his edition by Aubrey
Diller (1952).
79
This would appear to be a distortion of PatraeÊw (Strabo XI, 2, 8), see in detail:
Tokhtas’ev 1986, 72 sqq.
wrote – see, above), while Phanagoria and Kepoi were situated beyond its bor-
ders.80 The information found in Strabo XI, 2, 1 and 10 (with the exception
of what he writes concerning Gorgippia and Aborake),81 to all appearances gleaned
from Geographumena of Artemidorus of Ephesus, could stem in part from a
still earlier source (Ephorus?), in the final analysis from the Spartokid era.
It is perfectly clear that in Strabo Sindike is viewed as a constituent part of
the state designated as Sindo¤ in the titles of the Spartokids and divided off by
an administrative frontier from the “regions of the Bosporus in Asia” (a part
of BÒsporow in the titles of the Spartokids).82 This is also assumed in the report
by Pseudo-Arrian, who located the Sindoi in a place where there were no
Greek cities at all. From Strabo’s words in VII, 4, 6 (cf. above) it is clear that
this situation continued under Mithridates Eupator as well, and judging from
other of his reports and from epigraphic data, evidently much later as well.83
From the territorial point of view the borders of Sindike must have more or
80
On “something resembling an island, which is washed by that lake [i.e. Korokondamitis],
Maiotis and the river” (§ 9); cf. Tokhtas’ev 2002, 25 sq., note 4.
81
Tokhtas’ev 2002, 15 sq.; cf. below, note 83, relating to Strabo XI, 2, 11.
82
Cf. Tokhtas’ev 2002, 17 (it would be probably more correct to speak of a royal residence
in Gorgippia, which possibly also served at the same time as the residence of the governor of
Sindike and not just of the city and its chora).
83
In XI, 2, 11 Strabo, using a different source nearer to him in time (Hypsicrates of Amisus? –
see: Rostovtsev 1925, 141 sq.), writes that the Aspurgianoi lived between Phanagoria and Gorgippia,
i.e. occupied at least in part the same territory as Sindike in XI, 2, 10. In XII, 3, 29 when refer-
ring to the same events (the death of king Polemon in the war against the Aspurgianoi), he
states in a not very definite way, that they live “near Sindike” (per‹ tØn SindikÆn). From all
appearances, here too Sindike is taken to mean the same administrative unit as that reigned over
by the Spartokids and not simply a historical concept. At any rate, in the inscriptions of the
Roman period we find the title §p‹ t«n ÉAspourgian«n (CIRB 36 A16/17, 12465/6, 1248), while in
the inscriptions from the time of Aspurgos (39, 40; see below) the latter is referred to, in par-
ticular, as the king of the Bosporus, Theodosia, the Sindoi and a number of other tribes, while
the Aspurgianoi as such are not mentioned. From the administrative point of view, they had
clearly been incorporated into “the Bosporus”; cf. titles of the same type ı §p‹ t∞w Gorgippe¤aw
(for a review of the evidence, see: Smirnova 2001, 350-363), §p‹ t∞w NÆsou (CIRB 40, 497
et alii) and §p‹ t∞w Yeodos¤aw (1130, 36 A 15, 64 5) in inscriptions of the Roman period.
Gorgippia, ‘Island’ (cf. Tokhtas’ev 2002, 26, note 4), and Theodosia were parts of the Bosporus,
although at the same time the poleis enjoyed autonomy, as can be seen at least from the letters
of Aspurgos prÚw tØn t«n Gorgipp°vn pÒlin (see: Heinen 1999, 133 sqq.; for the first letter, see
also: Heinen 1998, 341) and from later inscriptions – CIRB 1118 (“the people of the
Gorgippians”), 979 and 983 (“the people of the Agrippians”, i.e. the Phanagorians), 982 (“the
council and people [of the Agrippians]”) and 1051 (in which the words Alejaryƒ loxa(g“)
less coincided with those of Hekataios’ kingdom: indeed, what else if not
SindikÆ could the lands have been called which were taken over by the Spartokids?
Yet, in the works of Pseudo-Scylax, writing about the middle of the 4th cen-
tury BC but passing on earlier data as well (almost from the same period as
Hecataeus of Miletus),84 an ethno-political situation is described, in which
Sindike extended from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea. Herodotus would
appear to have had similar evidence at his disposal relating to the time when
the kingdom of Sindike was in existence (IV, 28: in the winter the Scythians
set off across the frozen Bosporus in a campaign against the Sindoi) and also
Hellanicus (FGrHist 4 F 69: BÒsporon diapleÊsanti Sindo¤). Given the current
state of the sources, the divergences between Pseudo-Scylax and Strabo can
be explained differently: probably Hekataios (or his predecessor) ceded to
Satyros (or even earlier) part of his lands subject to some conditions or other,
which had been virtually uninhabited when the Greeks settled there.
Thus the hypothesis put forward by Sokolova and Pavlichenko cannot be
regarded as convincing. It would seem that what can bring us to a correct res-
olution of the question is an elementary comparison of the titles of Leukon in
the Theopropides dedication and in the latest inscriptions, first and foremost in
CIRB 6a (regardless of how Line 5 is restored). In its structure Sind«n (resp.
Sindik∞w) corresponds to the t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw and from this it follows that
Leukon “archon of the Bosporus and Theodosia” after acquiring the posses-
sions of Hekataios “king of the Sindoi” (as found in the inscription from
Labrys) also acquired the additional title of “archon of all Sindike”, later
“archon of the Sindoi” (or Sindike – CIRB 6a) and finally “king of the
Sindoi”. Consequently, as regards content ≤ SindikØ pçsa and Sindo¤ must
mean one and the same. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the expression
“the whole of Sindike” implied some circumstances or other regarding the
incorporation of Sindike into the Bosporan state,85 which are unknown to us
today. Yet one thing is clear beyond doubt: from both the geographical and
ÉAgripp°vn Kaisar°vn êrxontew should, as suggested by Yailenko, be understood as follows:

“to Alexarthos, the commander of the Agrippians the archontes of the Kaisarians [erected]”). It
can be assumed that the Sindoi were directly ruled over by the “governor of the Sindoi”, cf.
êrxvn Tanaeit«n, the magistrature in Tanais (CIRB 12427 et alii), on the one hand, and
basileÊvn . . . Sind«n ka‹ . . . Tana(e)it«n in the titles of Aspurgos, on the other.
84
See: Fabre 1965, 353-366; Counillon 2004, 24-27, 41 sqq., with bibliography.
85
For instance, it might be assumed that the kingdom of Hekataios, which had come under
the power of the Bosporus, had initially been shared between Leukon and his brother
political point of view the country in question is the one, which had formerly
been ruled by Hekataios and which in the latest inscriptions was simply
referred to as Sindo¤ – after all, the “Sindoi” could only have been the bar-
barians inhabiting Sindike.
The adjective pçsa appended to the SindikÆ occupies a predicative position,
i.e., according to the general rule, only, in addition, accentuates the word
already defined by the article.86 In general pçw was used in Greek predicatively
most frequently of all and this naturally transformed it easily into a stylistic
device (moreover, as will be seen from what follows, this function is some-
times also acquired by the attributive pçw:87 this function of the word is rooted
in its very semantics). It is therefore quite possible that our ≤ SindikØ pçsa is
an expressive accentuation of the ordinary concept SindikÆ achieved with the
help of the epithet pçsa. The extremely solemn nature of the phrase êrxon-
tow . . . t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw ka‹ Toret°vn ka‹ Dandar¤vn ka‹ Chss«n conveys
the significance or even perhaps the innovatory nature of the event – the
acquisition by the state of extensive new territories, the first of which was the
whole of Sindike. Moroever, the event under discussion here was indeed of
exclusive importance: the Bosporan Greeks in the person of their archon
began to rule over the adjacent barbarian peoples. Placed on a par with other
toponyms – BÒsporow and Yeodos¤h, the expression ≤ SindikØ pçsa, what is
Gorgippos, who had been given some part of Sindike adjacent to Sindikos Limen and the town
itself which was renamed (most probably after his death) Gorgippia; while, when it was united
as one under Leukon on his own, the country came to be referred to in his titles as “all Sindike”
(cf. Hdt. III, 39, 2: (Polukrãthw) . . . tÚn m¢n (sc. tÚn Pantãgnvton) . . . épokte¤naw, tÚn d¢
ne≈teron Sulos«nta §jelãsaw ¶sxe pçsan Sãmon; Herodotus recounts above that initially
power over Samos was divided between three tyrant brothers). Something similar would appear
to have been suggested by Gajdukeviœ (1971, 228 sq. and note 197). Sokolova and Pavlichenko,
when commenting upon Polyaenus’ words to the effect that, after Satyros’ death, Gorgippos
“having inherited (his) power”, pacified Tirgatao, write: “This passage is usually [sic?] under-
stood as a direct indication to the effect that Gorgippos was given hereditary power over
Sindike and, still more extensively, over the Asian Bosporus by his father Satyros” (p. 115, and
similarly on p. 116). Only on p. 119 does it emerge that what they mean is that Gorgippos
probably “inherited power over that part of Sindike which had belonged to Satyros”; cf.
Blavatskaya 1993, 45 sq.
86
Cf. Kühner, Gerth 1955, 633: “ÑH pÒliw pçsa (oder pçsa ≤ pÒliw) Ωr°yh wird von den
Griechen so aufgefasst: die Stadt ward eingenommen, und zwar ganz, oder ganz (gänzlich) ward
die Stadt angenommen”.
87
Revealing is the passage Aristoph. Av. 445 sq. (cited in Kühner – Gerth): ˆmnumÉ §p‹ toÊ-
toiw pçsi nikçn to›w krita›w / ka‹ to›w yeata›w pçsin.
essentially the same toponym as before acquires additional emotional implica-

tions thanks to the contrast with ethnonyms – Tor°tai, Dandãrioi, Chsso¤. In
actual fact, Leukon had succeeded in adding to his possessions not just some
tribal territory, but a land already enjoying its own statehood. The Toretai,
Dandaroi and Psessoi were evidently regarded (and indeed were) far more
primitive than the Sindoi, so that it was sufficient merely to list them by name.
In the words t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw poetic diction can clearly be heard. Apart
from the question as to whether or not, any circumstances relating to the
annexation of Sindike by the Bosporus underlie this expression, we have
before us another example of the embellishment of a tedious prose text, which
was discussed earlier (hyperbaton, see, I; asyndeton, resp. polysyndeton in lists
performing one and the same function).
Examples of any kind of pleonastic (expressive, emphatic and so on) pçw,
ëpaw, sÊmpaw, and also ˜low and the similar ˜sow with the noun (including
proper names) are found as early as Homer (for example, pollªsin nÆsoisi
ka‹ ÖArgei pant‹ énãssein, B 108)88 and in the later poets. The “Catalogue of
Women” (fr. 23a, 35 M.-W.), for instance, states that the hero Echemos ruled
“the whole of Tegea” – pãshw Teg[°hw.
Not so much under poetic influence, as due to the fact that the roots of this
word usage can be traced back to ordinary speech (the same is true in almost
all of the world’s known languages), this pçw was required by rhetoric,89 his-
toriography and other prose genres.90 The contexts most interesting for us are
to be found in Book I of Herodotus (his chronicle of the transition of the
88
Cf. also ka‹ §l¤sseto pãntaw ÉAxaioÊw (A 15); sumpãntvn Dana«n (90) and érist∞ew
Panaxai«n / edon pannÊxioi (K 1 sq.) side by side with sËn éristÆessin ÉAxai«n (A 227);
Pan°llhnaw ka‹ ÉAxaioÊw (B 530) and ÜEllhnew ka‹ ÉAxaio¤ (684).
89
Gorgias fr. 11 DK: tØn pçsan ÑEllãda next to the simple word ÑEllãw; similarly –
Hyperides Epitaph. Col. II, 22 (pçsan tØn ÑEllãda), V. 6 (tØn ÑEllãda pçsan), XIII, 33 (t∞w
ÑEllãdow èpãshw) and so on.
90
Kleist 1925, 48-55 (non vidi); Thesleff 1954, 135-139 (in general superficial; only the pçw-
intensivum is examined in conjunction with appellatives). Xenophon’s phrase (efi) ÍpÚ t∞w
ÑEllãdow pãshw éjio›w §pÉ éretª yaumãzesyai, tØn ÑEllãda peirat°on eÔ poie›n (Mem. II, 1,
28, among the examples cited by Kühner and Gerth) is sui generis instructive: pçsa can also
be used in conjunction with ÑEllãw in the second part of the sentence, or only in it, but it can
be absent in general from the sentence as a whole without the meaning suffering in any way.
The rhetorical function of pçw (underline by superlatives) is clearly demonstrated in Hdt. IV, 91
(Darius’ inscription erected on the bank of the river Tearos in Thrace): “The sources of the river
Tearos supply water, the best and finest of all rivers. And to them . . . came the best and finest
power over “all Asia beyond the river Halys” from one ruler to another): 103,
2: Kuajãrhw . . . tØn ÜAluow potamoË ênv ÉAs¤hn pçsan sustÆsaw •aut“; 104,
2: ofl d¢ SkÊyai tØn ÉAs¤hn pçsan §p°sxon; 106, 1: . . . ∑rxon t∞w ÉAs¤hw ofl
SkÊyai; in Chapter 130 this “Asia” is also to be found sometimes with the epi-
thet “whole”, and sometimes without: M∞doi . . . êrjantew t∞w ênv ÜAluow
potamoË ÉAs¤hw ktl.; KËrow . . . ∑rxon t∞w . . . ÉAs¤hw; KËrow . . . oÏtv pãshw t∞w
ÉAs¤hw ∑rje. Of decisive importance for ÉAs¤h is the cumbersome (and there-
fore sometimes elliptic) ênv ÜAluow potamoË; pçsa, which, being an embel-
lishment, would only appear to have been added in order to underline the
heterogeneity and multiplicity of the countries united (cf. sustÆsaw in 103, 2)
for the first time by Cyaxares (this is expressed perfectly clearly in Aeschylus,
Pers. 762 sq., with the help of the antithesis: Zeus bestowed the honour of rul-
ing over all Asia to one man – timØn ZeÁw ênaj tÆndÉ vÖpasen / ßnÉ êndra
pãshw ÉAs¤dow mhlotrÒfou / tage›n); when Herodotus gives a short exposition
of the same events in IV, 1, 2, he starts with the already truncated formula
t∞w ênv ÉAs¤hw, then suggest ÉAs¤h, but on all three occasions the word pçsa
is not included.
In its pure form the expressive pçw is evidently to be found in IX, 107, 3
(cf. above, on CIRB 6a): ka‹ diå toËto tÚ ¶rgon JeinagÒrhw Kilik¤hw pãshw
∑rje dÒntow basil°ow (this Xenagores was accorded the whole satrapy for his
outstanding services to Xerxes)91 and I, 96, 2: DhiÒkhw . . . énå pçsan tØn
MhdikØn §po¤ee §pistãmenow, ˜ti ktl. (pçsan underlines the importance of Deiokes’
order).
With the deterioration of the Greek literary language increased too the fre-
quency with which the pleonastic pçw and so on were used (this trend, as we
can now see, is also reflected in the inscriptions). The thoroughly rhetorized
Late Classical and Early Byzantine literature is simply flooded with hyperbo-
lae such as ( §kklhs¤aiw ) ta›w katå . . . tØn . . . EÈr≈phn pçsan , Skuy¤an
of all men, Darius . . ., King of the Persians and the whole continent” – pãshw t∞w ±pe¤rou;
‘continent’ here implies Asia; cf. IV, 118, 1 (a similar reference is made to Cyrus: KËrow . . .
tå pãnta t∞w ±pe¤rou Ípoxe¤ria §poiÆsato, ÉAssur¤oisi §pet¤yeto, I, 178, 1).
91
The example is not beyond dispute, since Herodotus was already familiar with Cilicia
≤ ÙreinÆ (II, 34), the same as ≤ ênv, traxe›a, Aspera of the later sources (the opposite of
Cilicia ≤ pediãw, ≤ fid¤vw); at the same time, what must have been implied here was precisely
the satrapy, which – according to Herodotus – was a single administrative entity as early as
under Darius (cf. in the tribute list: épÚ d¢ Kil¤kvn . . ., III, 90, 3). However in the Bisitun
inscription of the Darius the Great Cilicia is not mentioned; it is possible that it had been part
of Cappadocia at the time (c. 520 BC) or was still enjoying relative autonomy.
•kat°ran ka‹ ta›w katå tÚ ÉIllurikÚn èpãsaiw (Gelas. Cyzic. Conc. Nic. II, 27,
Migne LXXXV, 1309) or tå xvr¤a jÊmpanta tã te Yr&k«n ka‹ ÉIlluri«n . . .
§lh˝zonto (Procop. B. VII, 38, 7).92
Let us now turn to data to be gleaned from prose inscriptions. In the
Spartokid titles pçw with the function of interest to us is found again in regard
to the ethnonym “Maiotai”. In the inscription CIRB 1015 dating from the reign
of Pairisades I we find [ Sin] d. «n ka‹ MaÛt«n pã[ ntvn] ka‹ Yat°vn,93 but
in another inscription of the same period this pãntvn is absent – Sind«n
MaÛt«n [Y]at°vn DÒsxvn (972). Who were these Mai(o)tai? Strabo (XI, 2, 11;
cf. 2, 4), when expounding the view of Hellenistic scholars, brackets together
as Maiotai the Sindoi, the Dandarioi, the Toretai, the Doskoi (sic), the
Tarpeites, the Aspurgianoi and other peoples not familiar from inscriptions –
the Arrechoi, the Obidiakenoi and the Sittakenoi with the remarkable com-
ment: “and many others”; in Polyaenus (VIII, 55) and Demetrius of Callatis
(FGrHist 85 F 1) the Ixomatai (resp. Iazamatai) are classified as Maiotai,
whom Ephorus (70 F 160: Iazamatai) considered a Sauromatian people.94 As
regards the question as to whether the Sindoi might be classified as Maiotai
various opinions were voiced, which were summarized by Stephanus of Byzantium
s.v. Sindo¤: ¶nioi d¢ ka‹ tÚ SindikÚn g°now fas‹n e‰nai t«n Maivt«n épÒspas-
ma; Hellanicus distinguished them from the Maiotai (FGrHist 4 F 69: “supe-
rior” to the Sindoi are Mai«tai SkÊyai) and Pseudo-Scylax (ibidem) as well,
but, like Strabo, Pseudo-Scymnus regards them as part of the Maiotai (899
Diller = F 18 Marcotte; cf. Ps.-Arr. 10r16 Diller).95 Evidently writers started
out from the understanding of the term Maiotai as a general name for any
tribes living nearby Maiotis, mainly along its south-eastern coast (cf. Ps.-Scyl.
72; Strabo XI, 2, 4);96 but from the words of Strabo (XI, 2, 11) regarding the
“Asiatic Maiotai” (for the quotation, see below), a conclusion might be drawn
to the effect that the name Maiotai was also given to certain tribes, who lived
92
See, also, Procop. B. VII, 38, 19; Euagr. Hist. eccl. VI, 10 Bidez – Parmentier; Eunap. in
Exc. legg. gent. p. 597, 4 de Boor; Acta Apost. apocr. II, 2, p. 16, 24.
93
“All the Maiotai” – this phrase is also found in two inscriptions from the reign of
Pairisades II – CIRB 25 and (restored) SEG XXXIV 755 (ed. pr.: Belova 1984, 78 sqq., with
unnecessary doubts regarding her own restoration – p. 80, note 5).
94
The opinions of the last two authors are known from references made by Pseudo-Scymnus
(878-880 Diller = F 16 Marcotte).
95
Tokhtas’ev 1998, 298; quotation cited above.
96
Cf. Galanina, Alekseev 1990, 50.
along the European shore of Maiotis.97 It can thus be seen beyond any doubt
that the ethnonym was derived from the name Mai«tiw.98 A similar Kaukãsioi
is to be found in Strabo, XI, 2, 16 ex.: into the Dioskurias there flood in for
trading a large number of “people living higher up” and neighbouring barbar-
ians; “most of them are Sarmatians, but they are all the Caucasians”. Yet in
Bosporan inscriptions the Sindoi, Toretai, Thateis, Doskoi (DÒsxoi in CIRB
972) and Tarpeites (also in CIRB 39 and 40 from the time of Aspurgos,
together with the Psessoi and Tanaitai) listed by Strabo as Maiotai are con-
trasted with “(all) Maiotai” (CIRB 10, 11, 971, 972, 1015, 1039, 1040, 25).
The use of pãntvn in conjunction with MaÛt«n in the titles of the Bosporan
rulers definitely indicates that this name is used, although not as widely as in
the literature, but also for some totality of small tribes, which evidently did
not merit being mentioned by their individual names (“all the Maiotian tribes,
whichever they might be”, “all the barbarian tribes, which are called
Maiotian”). At the same time it is difficult to imagine that the MaÛt«n pãntvn
in CIRB 1015 really signify something different from the straightforward
MaÛt«n in 972.
The quite clearly expressive function of pçw comes to the fore in a similar
context in Strabo (ibidem): “From among the totality of all the Asian Maiotai
(t«n te sumpãntvn Maivt«n t«n ÉAsian«n) some were subordinate to the
rulers (§xÒntvn) of the emporion of Tanais,99 others to the Bosporans”, and
meanwhile the barbarians kept on instigating uprisings. A little further on
97
Tokhtas’ev 2002, 19. Cf. Xen. Mem. II, 1, 10: . . . §n d¢ tª EÈr≈p˙ SkÊyai m¢n êrxousi,
Mai«tai d¢ êrxontai. From the context it follows quite definitely that both Scythians and the
Maiotai themselves dwelt in Europe. Cf. Hdt. IV, 123, 3: through the land of the Maiotai flow
the rivers which flow into the Sea of Maiotis – the Lykos, Oaros, Tanais and Syrgis (SÊrgiw;
or rather Hyrgis, cf. ÜUrgiw, tributary of the Tanais in Chapter 57; SÊrgiw, is most likely a dit-
tography from TANAISURGIS). However the other rivers might be identified, the Tanais would
appear not to be mentioned anywhere else as a river in the land of the Maiotai, while the mouth
of the river Lykos is located by Ptolemy (Geogr. III, 5, 4) in Europe, between the mouths of
the Tanais River and the city of Kremnoi (i.e., most probably, the modern river Kalmius);
cf. also Galanina, Alekseev 1990, 50, note *.
98
Tokhtas’ev 2002, 292 sq. (on the contrary, some authors produced the name Maiotis from
the ethnonym: Ps.-Scymn. 866 sq. Diller; Plin. n. h. IV, 88); see also below, Strabo XI, 2, 11
and note 145.
99
Prior to the incorporation of Tanais into the Bosporan state it enjoyed a democratic con-
stitution, as is borne out by a decree dating from the end of the 3rd or early-2nd century BC from
Tanais, published in the name of the ‘people’ under the official [ . . .]doros – Vinogradov 1995,
216; Fornasier 2001, 91-95.
Strabo states that “the rulers of the Bosporus were often in possession of lands
stretching as far as the (river) Tanais”. Evidently the word sumpãntvn had no
importance for the meaning of the sentence as a whole; in its capacity as a
pleonasm it accentuates the genitivus partitivus and introduces variety into the
language on account of t«n Maivt«n dÉ efis‹n aÈto¤ te Sindo¤ ktl. a few lines
earlier and also at the beginning of the sentence. Yet, apart from the general
subject of the description, the MaÛt«n pãntvn of the inscriptions and the t«n
sumpãntvn Maivt«n of Strabo are linked by shared stylistic devices.
Appended to the name of the country pçw, in general characteristic for the
flat language of decrees,100 is used in Bosporan proxenies issued by Leukon I
and Pairisades I, which guaranteed that “all properties (wares) in the whole of
the Bosporus” (pãntvn xrhmãtvn §n pant‹ BospÒrvi) would be free of duty.101
The interpretation of this expression is problematic. An opinion has been expressed
at various times to the effect that the phrase §n pant‹ BospÒrvi shows that the
application of the proxeny decrees extended to the whole territory of the state
and, thus, that “pan-Bosporan citizenship” existed.102 In that case, however,
how can we explain the singling out of Theodosia (and, indeed, of the bar-
barian tribes) in the titles of Leukon and Pairisades, as recorded in votive
inscriptions? At first glance, bearing in mind the official character of the word
usage in the decrees, the expression “the whole of the Bosporus” should imply
that same BÒsporow, in relation to which Leukon and Pairisades have been
named as archontes in the votive inscriptions;103 Theodosia could also have
obtained the right to create proxenies independently, while the barbarian terri-
tories of the state, administered by Leukon, and later by Pairisades in their
capacity as kings, could possibly at that time not yet have had harbours,
through which the proxenos could have “sailed in and out both during war-
time and peace-time without being subjected to confiscations and without a
(special) treaty”, as is written in these documents. Demosthenes, however, testifies
expressis verbis to the fact that Leukon, after arranging wide-scale trading in
100
Cf. in the proxeny decree CIRB Add. 4: aÈ[t«i ka‹ §kgÒnoiw ka‹ p]çsi to›w toÊt[ou (in
contrast to No. 1: aÈto›w ka[‹ yerãpous]in to›w toËtvn); in a Phanagorian decree from the time
of Mithridates Eupator (Vinogradov, Wörrle 1992, 160), Lines 4-5, we read: pepoihk°nai pçn
tÚ d¤kaion ka‹ §n to›w loipo›w pçsi filik«w ka‹ eÈnÒvw §sxhk°nai ktl.; 9-11: ka‹ éne¤sforoi
pãntvn ka‹ éle[i]toÊrghtoi pantÚw prãgmatow plØn pa[ndÆ]mou strate¤aw ktl.
101
Yailenko 2001, 483, 474; CIRB 1.
102
See: Zavoikin 2001, 161, 168 (with bibliography).
103
Cf. this opinion Vasil’ev 1985, 293, following N.S. Belova (see below).
grain through Theodosia presented the Athenians with an ateleia “there as

well” (i.e. in addition to the remaining Bosporan cities) – kéntaËyÉ ¶dvke tØn
ét°leian ≤m›n (adv. Lept. 33); cf. also § 31 (cited below), and Strabo VII, 4,
6: via Theodosia Leukon sent the Athenians an incalculable quantity of grain.
From this it follows that Theodosia’s activities in the sphere of external trade
were completely subject to the control of Leukon, who had set up a new
emporion (a trading port) there (kataskeuãsaw §mpÒrion Yeudos¤an, Dem.
Ibidem 33), which, like the others, had evidently become his own property.104
Admittedly, Shelov-Kovedyaev regards these words as direct testimony to the
fact that in the early proxeny decrees of Leukon Theodosia was mentioned
separately from the pçw BÒsporow, thus reinforcing his reconstruction of the
Phanagorian decree found in 1976:105 [. . . ¶dosan . . . ét°leian pãntvn xrhmã-
ton §n p]a.nt‹ BospÒrvi [ka‹ §n Yeodos¤]h.i (instead of Vinogradov’s §n Sindik]∞.i
without an article in front of Sindik∞i!).106 According to this scholar, the name
Theodosia subsequently disappears from their texts “as the control of the city
by the central administration intensifies and it becomes more deeply inte-
grated into the system of the state as a whole”.107 Firstly, however, the Phanagorian
decree could hardly be linked to the time of Leukon I, or at any rate to the
early part of his reign (the first half of the 4th century BC), as is pointed out
correctly in the main by Yailenko108 (yet closer palaeographic parallels are
provided not so much by CIRB 1 from the time of Pairisades I, as by CIRB 2
and 4, and also by decree No. 2, published by Shelov-Kovedyaev109 – all of
them from the same period according to the publishers). Secondly the restora-
tion of the name Theodosia only on the basis of the last two letters of a word,
moreover, in a highly fragmentary text, for which there are no direct parallels,
cannot be regarded as in any way reliable, particularly since Yailenko pro-
posed a plausible reconstruction for Line 2: [§n pol°mvi ka‹ §n efirÆn]hi, which
104
Cf. Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985a, 71 sq., with a reference to a non-pubished dissertation by
N.S. Belova (Belova 1954).
105
Yailenko 1984, 219 sqq.
106
See: Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 59 sq., note 18; Bull. ép. 1990, 597; SEG XL 638 and
below.
107
Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002, 70.
108
Yailenko 1984, 220; Yailenko 2001, 480. The objections raised by Shelov-Kovedyaev
(Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002, 70) cannot be accepted.
109
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985a, 64 sq.; photograph between pp. 48 and 49, fig. 2.
Shelov-Kovedyaev did not analyse.110 Thirdly, it turns out, that in documents

of one and the same kind pçw BÒsporow is first contrasted with Yeodos¤h, and
then incorporated it. Does this not lead to an absurd suggestion that Leukon
at some moment or other issued an instruction (kÆrugma), according to which
the expression “the whole of the Bosporus”, ought from then on to be taken
as including Theodosia as well, contrary to the situation in the decrees of the
preceding period? Finally, the words of Demosthenes (§ 33) regarding
Theodosia: . . . §mpÒrion Yeudos¤an, ˜ fasin ofl pl°ontew oÈdÉ ıtioËn xe›ron
e‰nai toË BospÒrou, ¶dvke tØn ét°leian, did not necessarily presuppose a ref-
erence to the text of the Bosporan decree, as concluded Shelov-Kovedyaev
from the phrase ¶dvke tØn ét°leian. It might just as easily imply reports from
merchants and trading agents, who had visited Theodosia (cf. ˜ fasin ofl
pl°ontew) and obtained enormous profits thanks to that very same ét°leia (and
BÒsporow for ‘Pantikapaion’ is to be regarded as ordinary word usage by the
Athenians of that time, see below). Demosthenes also provides information
about the fact that Leukon “lord of Pontus” (see below) “presented an ateleia”
to those transporting grain to Athens – ét°leian dedvk°nai (to›w êgousin [sc.
tÚn s›ton] ÉAyÆnaze) in § 31, where there is obviously no cause to speak of
any direct influence of the phraseology found in Bosporan decrees.
At any rate in all other decrees, where the corresponding lines can be read
or restored with confidence, the name Theodosia is not to be found next to
pçw BÒsporow. From this it follows that the term “the whole of the Bosporus”
in these decrees and the “Bosporus” in the votive inscriptions do not coincide.
If we take into account the inadequate level of development of Greek politi-
cal terminology, this should not appear surprising: both categories of inscrip-
tions also differed from each other in that in the dedicatory inscriptions of the
Bosporans the whole cumbersome list of rulers’ titles was written out, while
foreigners were not obliged to do the same (see below) and in the decrees
Leukon and Pairisades (“and their sons”) figured as private persons. Politeia
and other rights received by foreigners from the tyrants were institutions of the
Bosporan state at a higher level than that of the polis (suprapolis institutions),
which we must assume came into being exclusively as a result of the mono-
polization of the foreign trade by the Spartokids.111 As we know, in the Bosporus
110
Yailenko 2001, 479-484; Shelov-Kovedyaev, despite the counter-arguments put forward
by Yailenko, includes his restoration in the “final [sic], for today [!], reconstruction of the Phanagorian
proxeny decree of 1976” (Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002, 70).
111
Shelov-Kovedyaev (Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002, 72) notes that prior
there also continued to exist at the same time the traditional citizenship of a
polis, cf. for example, the city-ethnics Khp¤thw, CIRB 188 or YeudosieÊw, 231;
nevetheless, right up until the time of Mithridates VI112 we do not know of a
single Bosporan decree, published in the name of a polis.
The terminology found in proxeny decrees is orientated specifically towards
foreigners, therefore it is highly unlikely that the epithet pçw was supplied with
BÒsporow in them merely so as to distinguish it from the straightforward
BÒsporow in the usage found in the formula of the votive inscriptions, where
the term is contrasted with Yeodos¤h and the names of the barbarian tribes. I
think that Belova came up with a correct solution (albeit without avoiding
some erroneous arguments): pçw underlines the difference between BÒsporow as
the name of a state and BÒsporow as a name for Pantikapaion, which was used
beyond the confines of the Bosporus, particularly in Athens.113
In a decree from Lindos dating from the late-5th or early-4th century BC
Syll.3 110 we find a similar expression: [- - -]an . . . prÒjenon [≥m]en ÑRo[d]¤vn
pãntvn;114 “all Rhodians” – this implies all the synoecized cities of the island
of Rhodos (Lindos, Kamiros, Ialysos) and equally that each and every one of
their inhabitants is a citizen of the polis of Rhodos (cf. ı dçmow ı ÑRod¤vn in
the posterior decrees). Between these two formulae there is a difference: pçw
BÒsporow was the official name for the whole state of the Spartokids only in
the context of political and economic relations with other states; as can be
seen from Demosthenes adv. Lept. 23, foreign states also used the term
BÒsporow to refer to the Bosporan Kingdom: LeÊkvna tÚn êrxonta BospÒrou
to the middle of the 4th century BC ateleia “was the main privilege in the Bosporus and the
one most sought after, more so than in the rest of the Greek world” (with a reference to
Gschnitzer 1974, 712 sqq.).
112
Vinogradov, Wörrle 1992 (see note 30).
113
Belova 1954, 39, 124 sq. (quoted from Vasil’ev 1985, 293 sq.): in essence pçw BÒsporow
means the same as the BÒsporow in the votive inscriptions; to judge from the account by
Vasil’ev, Belova did not take into account the testimony from Dem. adv. Lept. 33 and 31
(which is strange); yet she assumed that this second name of Pantikapaion was sometimes used
in the Bosporus as well. Vasil’ev aptly notes the erroneous nature of this last hypothesis, but
his own assumption (ibidem, 294) is not clear to me: “. . . the word ‘whole’ was needed in order
to distinguish the community of Bosporan cities which had taken shape by the end [sic?] of the
4th century BC from the former ‘Bosporus’ referred to in the dedicatory inscriptions”. However
both expressions were being used in inscriptions of one and the same period!
114
On the text and its dating, see: Bresson 2000, 28 sq.
ka‹ toÁw pa›daw aÈtoË115 (cf. also below, note 121). Here we encounter a vivid
manifestation of the polis world-outlook: for the Athenians the “Bosporus”
was a polis, consisting of the city of Bosporus itself (i.e. Pantikapaion) and
the territories belonging to it, complete with everything in them (other cities,
emporia and villages subordinate to it).116 For this reason, apart from rare
exceptions (such as Dem. Ibidem 33, in which the port of Theodosia is com-
pared with the port of “Bosporus”117) the term was used to denote both the
city and the state as a whole, in keeping with the way the word pÒliw itself
was used (apart from specialized geographical contexts), which constituted a
single and indivisible concept.118
In the work of Attic writers, above all orators, PÒntow119 is known to have
been used as a synonym for pçw BÒsporow as opposed to BÒsporow ‘Pantikapaion’;
115
It seems that Demosthenes had indeed kept in mind the phraseology of the documents:
not only êrxonta BospÒrou, but also ka‹ toÁw pa›daw – as in the Bosporan proxeny decrees
CIRB 1, 2, 5, the inscription from Mytilene Syll.3 212 – a copy of Leukon’s decree, in a prox-
eny decree from Pantikapaion to a Kromnian (Vinogradov, Tolstikov, Shelov-Kovedyaev 2002,
58 sqq., No. 1), in two decrees from the time of Eumelos and of his son Leukon II: Ibidem, 60
sq., 72). It is likely that Demosthenes was rearranging the formulation of psephisms “concern-
ing Leukon”, which were read out to the court by a secretary (§ 35 ex.); cf. Schaefer 1878,
427; Vinogradov 1997, 118 sq.; Vinogradov 1983, 410.
116
Cf. Strabo (XI, 2, 8), in his report on the town of Akra(i), the southernmost point on the
shore of the Cimmerian Bosporus: k≈mion t∞w Pantikapai < ° > vn (coni. Latÿshev; or
-Û<t>«n?, cf. Vinogradov, Tokhtas’ev 1998, 28 sq.) g∞w ˆnoma ÖAkrai (or ÖAkra).
117
Also in IG II2 21251 and, possibly, in another decree dating from 323/2 BC: Osborne 1981,
80 sq., D25, II, fr. c31 (SEG XXI 298).
118
Interesting in this connection is a passage from Ps.-Dem. c. Phorm. 36: kÆrugma går poih-
sam°nou Pairisãdou °n BospÒrƒ, §ãn tiw boÊlhtai ÉAyÆnaze efiw tÚ ÉAttikÚn §mpÒrion sithge›n,
étel∞ tÚn s›ton §jãgein, §pidhm«n §n t“ BospÒrƒ ı Lãmpiw ktl. It would seem that both times
BÒsporow is taken to mean ‘Pantikapaion’, yet is it possible to doubt that the following words
stood in Pairisades’ decree: ét°leia §n pant‹ BospÒrvi? The author of the speech, however,
pays little attention to accuracy of expression, in so far as what he was saying was clear to any
hearers, without additional specification. What we are being told about here is the ateleia
throughout the whole territory belonging to ‘Bosporus’, the capital city of Pairisades. Indeed it
had been precisely in Pantikapaion that Lampis had taken up residence.
119
This expression reflecting the idea of the Bosporus as the most important (katÉ §joxÆn)
Greek state on the shores of the Pontus Euxinus, can possibly be traced back to the time of
Satyros (cf. Lys. pro Mantith. 5: …w Sãturon tÚn §n t“ PÒntƒ). Let us note that in both cases
the name of the state is formed by metonymy from the name of the expanse of water, washing
its shores.
cf. Dem. Ibidem 31, on grain supplied from Pontus Euxinus: “. . . Leukon,
being the master (kÊrion) of it (i.e. Pontus) granted ateleia to those taking him
to Athens”;120 as stated earlier, these words clearly show, that Leukon con-
trolled the trade in grain from all the commerical harbours (emporia) of his
state. In later periods we find PÒntow recorded in the documents as well –
admittedly not those of a diplomatic character: S.pãr[t]okow (III) §k toË PÒntou
IG II2 14867.121
Thus, pçw BÒsporow in the decrees is identical to BÒsporow in the wide sense
of the term (as e.g. in Dem. adv. Lept. 23), and also PÒntow from the Attic
sources; the epithet pçw only underlines the fact that not only Pantikapaion is
being referred to here, but the whole territory subject to it in the person of
Leukon or Pairisades. The appearance of pçw in conjunction with BÒsporow
was stimulated by the legal nature of the texts: it takes up the similar pãntvn
used in conjunction with xrhmãtvn. The whole sentence should be read as fol-
lows: the ateleia “of all properties (of whatever kind) in all (without excep-
tion) cities (commerical harbours) of the Bosporan state”.
The magnificent archaistic titles of Aspurgos in CIRB 39 and 40 include,
together with basil°a m°gan inherited from Mithridates Eupator, politically im-
portant allusions to the titles of the Spartokids: basileÊonta pantÚw BoospÒrou
ka‹ Yeodos¤hw (Ionic form!) ka‹ Sind«n ka‹ MaÛt«n ktl. (text of inscription
No. 40). A.N. Vasil’ev122 finds that what should be understood by the phrase
“whole of the Bosporus” in the titles of Aspurgos is not quite the same as in
the Spartokid decrees but the totality of its European and Asian parts.123
120
kÊrion ˆnta tÚn LeÊkvna aÈtoË relates, of course, not to s›ton (Kruglikova 1975, 53;
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 88: “Demosthenes . . . calls Leukon the master . . . of Bosporan
grain”), but to tÚn tÒpon toËton, sc. PÒntow, as has been e.g. correctly translated by N. P.
Tsvetkov in Latÿshev’s Scythica et Caucasica and adequately understood by Vinogradov
(Vinogradov 1997, 119, note 113; Vinogradov 1983, 410, note 204).
121
Cf. Lewis 1988, esp. 303, 307. In the decree IG II2 65333 sq. Spartokos III, according to
the only plausible restoration, is referred to as the “Bosporan” (BospÒrion), but it means most
likely the ‘Panticapaean’; cf. Pantikapa˝taw of Leukon I in the honorific decree of Arcadian
Federation CIRB 37.
122
Vasil’ev 1985, 293.
123
And I shall add, Tanais (alias Emporion, cf. Alex. Polyh. FGrHist 273 F 134 and Bosi
1984/1985, 96, after A. Kocewalow), which was ruled by the royal administration through a
special legate – presbeutÆw (CIRB 1239 et alii; presbeÊsaw12434/5; more graphically – in 123713 sq.:
§kpe.[m]f.ye‹w ÍpÚ toË basil°v.[w] efiw tÚ ÉEmpÒrion; erroneously in this connection – Shelov 1972,
262). Direct evidence for the inclusion of Tanais – despite geography, similar to Theodosia in
I should prefer to formulate this idea, which on the whole is correct, as fol-
lows: the divided state of the territory of the Bosporan kingdom in itself
encouraged the use of the expression pçw BÒsporow, the immediate (but pure-
ly verbal) source for which had, however, been §n pant‹ BospÒrvi in the
ancient decrees. Yet can there, despite this, be doubts that the word BÒsporow
on its own signified one and the same thing?
Rheskuporis III was referred to as king toË sÊnpanto[w BospÒrou ka‹]
Tauroskuy«[n] in inscription CIRB 1008, in 56 – toË [sÊmpantow Bo(o)s]pÒrou
ka‹ t«n p°rij §yn«n, and in the same way, but without toË sÊmpantow in 54.
In inscription No. 1047 on the pedestal of the statue of Vespasian, the emper-
or, in addition to his other titles is called k[Êri]on toË sÊmpantow BospÒrou.
More or less the same idea is expressed in 48 in the words tÚ[n] eÈerg°[thn
Bos]porian«n p[Òlevw] – “benefactor of the state of the Bosporans”, on the
pedestal of the statue of Hadrian (?) with slightly less servility.124
In contrast to the list of titles relating to Aspurgos, in these inscriptions the
terms “Bosporus” and “state (pÒliw) of the Bosporans”, “all Bosporans” are
used indeed to denote by now the whole of the Bosporan kingdom, which
incorporated the Bosporus strictly speaking, Theodosia and Tanais (cf. above
and note 123), and the territories of the barbarian tribes.125 In a completely dif-
ferent context, but with the same meaning, reference is made to “all the Bosporans”
by the author of the epitaph to Ariston, who had valiantly “defended the walls
of his fatherland”: §n‹ mnÆm˙ [ pãntvn B] ospor°vn ¶ss[ ea] i é˝diow (CIRB
133);126 in the “Bosporan land” (g∞ Bospor¤w) lay Pharnakes, a man from
the Spartokid decrees – in the concept “(the whole) Bosporus” is to be found in a decree from
Tanais, published in the name of prÒedroi boul∞w. [ Tanaeit«n t«n ] katå BÒs [ p ] oron
(Vinogradov 1995, 222 sq., from the time of Sauromates I; perhaps [ÉEmpor(e)it«n] ought to be
restored).
124
Cf., moreover, despÒ[thn t∞]w ofikoum°nhw in Lines 2/3; along the same spirit, and keep-
ing pace with his subjects, queen Dynamis calls the emperor Augustus “ruler of the whole earth
and the whole sea” – (p)ãshw g∞w ka‹ [pãshw] yalãsshw ê[rx]onta CIRB 1046; the council and
people of Hierapolis in Phrygia declare Trajanus to be “ruler of the earth, sea and the whole
of mankind” – g∞w ka‹ yalãsshw ka‹ pantÚw ¶ynouw ényr≈pvn, Harper 1968, 98.
125
Peoples, recently conquered or reduced to dependent vassal status, are referred to sepa-
rately and denoted in a special way: king of “neighbouring peoples” – t«n p°rij §yn«n (CIRB
54, 56, if not both categories of barbarians), Tauroskuy«[n] (1008); Ípotãjaw SkÊyaw ka‹
TaÊrouw (39, 40); pol[e]mÆsaw d¢ ka‹ SiraxoÁw ka‹ SkÊyaw ka‹ tØn TaurikØn ÍpÒspondon
la(b)≈n 1237; cf. Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 110: “Totaler Akk[usativ]”, ‘devincere’.
126
Cf. lines by Anacreon (Epigr. I Page), cited above (I, in relation to Lines 3/4) as a good
Sinope, who had settled in the Bosporus (CIRB 129; cf. ga›a Kimmer¤h in SEG
XXVI 849, see above, note 77); both inscriptions were found in Kerch, but
the reference is without doubt made not to Pantikapaion, but to the whole of
the Bosporan kingdom (its citizens, resp. its territory). In another epitaph from
Pantikapaion CIRB 134 dating from the 1st century AD: a certain Heliodoros
“had been reared by Amastris . . ., but the Bosporus buried him after he died”;
later there follows a statement as if made by the deceased: “I now have two
homelands (¶xv d¢ patr¤daw nËn dÊv): the former one, in which I grew up,
and another – my present one, in which I shall remain”; here reference is
being made to a state (polis) and not the town as such.
As we see, in the inscriptions of the Roman period (without counting those
of Aspurgos) the expressions “Bosporus” (together with paraphrases) and “the
whole Bosporus” (pçw and its emphatic extension sÊmpaw) are synonyms.
In the epigram mentioned above (note 30) of king Kotys I (CIRB 958), he
is referred to as “in possession of all sceptres (as many as there are)” of the
Pontic Achaeans (kEfinax¤vn sk∞ptrÉ §p°xontow ˜la) and this makes a splendid
parallel for MaÛt«n pãntvn in the list of Pairisades’ I titles.
The decree from Dionysopolis (dating from c. 48 BC) in honour of
Akornion IGBulg I2 1321 sqq. mentioned among other of his deserts, that he
§pitele› Íp¢r . . . toË basil°vw Burebista pr≈tou ka‹ m.[eg¤stou geg]onÒtow t«n
§p‹ Yrñkhw basil°vn ka‹ pçsa[n tØn p°r]an toË potamoË (i.e. ÖIstrou) ka‹ tØn
§p‹ tãde kateisxh[kÒtow] ktl.
It is in accordance with the nature of things that any whole consists of the
sum of its component parts. Herodotus, when speaking of “the whole of Asia
beyond the Halys” for the first time (I, 103, 2), makes it clear, that this
covers the very different lands and peoples of that region, united as a single
whole by the Medes: “Cyaxares . . . is the one who united under his control
(sustÆsaw •aut“) the whole of Asia beyond the River Halys”. BÒsporow as a
name for the whole state of Leukon and Pairisades in the proxeny decrees or
Rhodes after synoecism consisted of a collection of towns, each of which pos-
example of hyperbaton: ÉAbdÆrvn proyanÒnta tÚn afinob¤hn ÉAgãyvna / pçsÉ §p‹ purkaÛ∞w ¥dÉ
§bÒhse pÒliw; similarly in Simonides’ Epigr. LXXVII Page (AP VII, 302): . . . f¤loi ka‹ pÒliw
¥de gÉ ˜lh; this topos was widely used in epitaphs for the sake of hyperbolization; see also CEG
6434, 6863; CIRB 120 (Lus¤maxon mÊyoi[si] proshn°a pçsi pol¤taiw / ka‹ j(e)¤noiw . . . [⁄] ¶pi
pçw §leeinÚn §pestenãxhse yanÒnt[i]), IOSPE I2 482 (tÚn émemf°a pçsi pol¤taiw, Chersonesos)
and Dovatur 1992, 213, the rubric “Beloved of all, lamented by all” (singled out in particular
is the epigram GVI 1911, where the deceased is already being mourned over by ÑEllåw ëpasa).
sessed a rural hinterland complete with estates and villages. The polis of
Tegea, which possessed the valley in the basin of the River Alpheius, as late
as the 6th century BC, when the Catalogue of Women had been written, made
up a political entity comprising several villages. At the level of language,
mainly in contexts requiring emphatic expressions, this is expressed through
formulae such as “the whole of the Bosporus”, “all Rhodians” and “all Tegea”.
The situation pertaining to Sindike in the time of Hekataios and Leukon was
similar. Here there were also large settlements and even towns, such as Labrys
or Aborake, and, in addition, a considerable part of the lands was divided
between the king and the local nobility (it is likely that a similar situation had
existed in the Bosporus of the Spartokids even before the barbarian regions
had been annexed).127 All this, summed up by the word pçsa, fell now to
Leukon in his capacity as the supreme ruler of Sindike.
Dedicatory inscriptions on monumental pedestals of statues from the time of
Leukon I or Pairisades I contain a dating formula, made up from the name of
the ruler and his titles in the genitivus absolutus, which usually takes up more
than half of the whole text (for the era of Leukon, see: CIRB 1111; VDI 1967:
1, 61 sqq.; after the annexation of the barbarian tribes: the inscription of
Theopropides, CIRB 6a; Hyperboreus 1/2 (1994/1995) 135 sqq. = SEG XLV
996; CIRB 6, 7,128 1037, 1038, 8, 1042 [cf. above, note 69]).129 In dedications
erected by foreigners there is no such formula;130 in keeping with this it is
also missing from Bosporan proxeny decrees. It is perfectly clear that the
127
Cf. Rostowzew 1993, 74, 85 sq. (but in Isocr. Trap. 3 there actually is reference to
Sopaios’ rule over lands which belong to Satyros himself, cf. the commentary by Vinogradov,
ibidem 137, note 5).
128
For the text, see: Tokhtas’ev 2001, 157 sq.
129
After Pairisades I, the dating formula, apart from two dedications dating from the time of
Pairisades II (CIRB 25; Belova 1984, 78 sq. = SEG XXXIV 755) appears in ‘truncated’ form
(CIRB 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 974, 1036, 1043, 1044), and sometimes it is missing altogether:
No. 13 (see: Belova 1970, 67, note 10), 14, 15 and 973, which date from the very end of the
4th or the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Let us note, however, that the text of inscription 15
consists of just the name of the deity with his epithet (“to Dionysos Areios”); on CIRB 973 see:
Finogenova, Tokhtas’ev 2003, 88 (with bibliography): or the dedication of a foreigner to
Herakles, or (according to W. Ameling) the epitaph of a man from Heraklea.
130
Cf. Finogenova, Tokhtas’ev 2003, 86 sq. (ÑHrakle¤daw ÑHrakle≈taw ÉAfrod¤thi, the time
of Leukon I); CIRB 17 and 22 (4th century BC). The dedication No. 16: Maniw ÑHrakle›, was
the work of a foreigner (newcomer from the South Pontic region) or – to judge from the bar-
barian name and the lack of a patronymic – that of a slave or freedman.
significance of the formula did not actually lie in a need to date offerings
made to the gods.131 This fact can only be explained by the existence of an
official and apparently obligatory formula for texts, displayed by citizens of
the Bosporus132 in public places, especially – in shrines of deities, which
enjoyed a state cult (here we have a vivid illustration of how far control over
all forms of public life had developed in the Bosporus, the control that was
typical of Greek tyranny in general).133 Furthermore, the titles of the Bosporan
rulers used to undergo corresponding modification, as soon as they acquired
new lands134 or – and this was most remarkable of all – even when they were
lost. We now know that during the reign of Leukon innovations of an admin-
istrative character were also reflected in his titles, more specifically change in
the status of tribal communities which had been incorporated into the state. (In
131
There are known precedents in the Greek world; cf., for example: §ranista‹ Di‹ Fil¤vi
én°yesan §pÉ ÑHghs¤ou êrxontow IG II2 2935 (324/3 BC) or the above-mentioned (see note 31)
inscription from Ptoion: Simon¤da êrxontow toÇi h°roi toÇi Pto˝oi ÉAkrifieÇw én°yean. There is,
however, a fundamental difference here (not to mention the fact that the first dedication was in
the name of ¶ranow, and the second in that of the citizens of the polis Akraiphia): the Bosporan
archon, unlike those of Athens or Akraiphia, was not an eponymous magistrate (despite
Rostowzew 1993, 83; cf. the commentary by Vinogradov, in: Rostowzew 1993, 140, note 15.3),
so the similarity turns out to be merely superficial.
132
The fact that there are no such monumental dedications in the name of the ruling
Spartokids themselves, apart from the epigram of Leukon from Labrys, while a relatively large
number of dedications in the name of his close relatives has been recorded, is mysterious.
133
There were, of course, people who willingly followed this line of the internal policy of
the Spartokids and without instructions from above. Revealing in this respect is the inscription
CIRB 113 (cf. note 30): the individual commissioning the inscription wished that the epitaph
carved on the pedestal of a sculpture of his father should include a poetic paraphrase of the
same formula, which served to date the erection of this monument over a grave. A unique
degree of servility has been recorded in a graffito on a black-glaze dish from Myrmekion dat-
ing from the time of Spartokos III (Gaidukevich 1966, 70 sqq.): ÑHra›ow én°yhken êrxontow
SpardÒkou (sic); the votive object, not designated in any way for public display, was never-
theless provided with a “date” via mention of the ruler (as in CIRB 18).
134
In the inscription CIRB 25 the words ka‹ Yat°vn in the titles of Pairisades I, separated
off from the preceding ones basileÊontow Sind«n ka‹ MaÛt«n pãntvn by an empty space large
enough for 2-3 letters (see textus maiuscularis in IOSPE II 15 and Add. p. 291), were most
likely to have been added later. Can we, however, interpret these as an indication that the
announcement concerning the conquest of the Thateis arrived precisely at the time when the
inscription was being carved? Unfortunately, the inscription has long since gone missing and
there is no means of checking whether or not the vacat was simply the result of a defect on
the front surface of the stone.
this respect the array of titles used by the Spartokids is in step both with the
Asiatic pomposity and with Greek rationalism.)135 Thus doubts should not be
raised by the fact that the variations of Leukon’s titles displayed in inscrip-
tions including Theopropides’ dedication and CIRB 6a reproduce adequately
the officially announced formulae of state proclamations (khrÊgmata).136
The conclusion regarding some kind of special status enjoyed by the Sindoi
in the initial period of their subordination to the Bosporus was based on the
fact that in the inscription CIRB 6a the Sindoi, unlike the Toretai, the Dan-
darioi or the Psessoi, were, to use Shkorpil’s expression, “placed on a par with
the Bosporus and Theodosia”,137 while in the later inscriptions they head the
list of the tribes ruled over by Leukon as king. This obviously indicates a
change, and specifically a drop in their political status (“the final subordina-
tion of Sindike” as formulated by Sokolova and Pavlichenko). In general this
reflects the legal demarcation of the archon’s powers and those of the king
and, accordingly, differentation between the political positions of the various
communities within the state. The people administrated by an archon
had obviously enjoyed the full range of civic rights, in so far as these had
been preserved by the tyrants, but the communities under royal power had
only restricted rights.
The historical importance of the new inscription from Nymphaion lies, first
and foremost, in the fact that we find recorded in it in very definite terms the
astonishing fact that the Greek poleis and the barbarian tribes living within a
single state enjoyed equal political rights. Only thanks to this inscription has
confirmation been provided for the authenticity of the evidence presented in
CIRB 6a, which had previously raised major doubts (for me, among others)
regarding the Sindoi ruled over by Leukon as archon. As a result data gleaned
from later inscriptions from the era of Leukon will present themselves to us
in a new light.
135
Cf. Tokhtas’ev 2001b, 161 sq., where it is suggested that the genesis of the titles of the
Spartokids might have been subjected to Achaemenid influence. Incidentally, mobility of titles
of this kind had already been a normal phenomenon in Assyria (and Old Persian titles can be
traced back – via Median ones – specifically to those used in Assyria).
136
See (in connection with the titles of the Spartokids in the 3rd century) the main ideas of
Belova on this subject (Belova 1984, 81).
137
Shkorpil 1917, 109.
***
It is now time to sum up the results. The inscriptions now give us what
is, in general, a fairly coherent picture of the last days of the kingdom of
Sindike, of how it was transformed into a Bosporan province and also of how the
Bosporan state came to incorporate tribal formations from territory adjacent to
Sindike, which had been less developed both politically and socially.
According to the epigram from Labrys, Leukon came out in defence of the
legal power of Hekataios, king of Sindike, who had long been a vassal of the
Bosporus, when his own son rebelled against him. From the grammatical point
of view, the expression §gbãllvn érx∞w could mean that Oktamasades had
indeed already seized power, but at the same time it might also mean that
there had merely been an attempt at seizing power (“. . . attempting to take
power from his father”). The latter interpretation would seem preferable, since
the whole process of overthrowing Hekataios is reduced in the epigram to
Oktamasades’ attack against Labrys (perhaps, to his capture of the city as
well), which ended in his being routed by Leukon’s army and to Oktamasades
later being ousted (“driven out”) from the confines of Sindike.
Hekataios succeeded in regaining (or holding on to) power once more, but
it became still more ephemeral than before (if that were indeed possible:
Satyros had already had him marry his daughter, after “ordering (éji≈saw)
him to kill his previous wife”, i.e. Tirgatao, Polyaenus VIII, 55). Only Leukon
could now save him from an external enemy or, if there were a second attempt
to usurp power by Oktamasades, who had in the meantime fled beyond
the confines of Sindike. Leukon himself was by this time probably thinking
about the easiest way to gain hold over Sindike once and for all, i.e. de iure.
It can be assumed that it had been with a long-term view towards completing
the whole undertaking in this way that Leukon had come to Sindike. How
exactly power over Sindike was (or was being) transferred to Leukon, we do
not know, but the fact that Leukon’s sister was (according to Polyaenus) mar-
ried to Hekataios must have had some part to play in all of this and also the
fact that Leukon’s brother Gorgippos had evidently also forged close links to
Hekataios’ dynasty (this would explain why his daughter bore the barbarian
name – Komosarye).138
Sokolova and Pavlichenko (p. 120) put forward in a most cautious form the
suggestion that Sindike became a possession of the Bosporus in full measure
138
Rostovtsev 1918, 125; Werner 1955, 440; Tohtasjev 1986, 117, note 21; Tokhtas’ev
1994a, 82. Cf. Tokhtas’ev 1992, 179 sq., note 4; Tohtasjev 1993, 178, note 3.
only after it had come under the jurisdiction of Leukon as king (see, above
for the quotation) and, in this general form, this suggestion is, without doubt,
correct. After all the Greek poleis, as well, enjoyed a certain degree of auton-
omy when they were administered by Leukon as archon. Yet, it would seem
that even with the current range of sources we have at our disposal certain
data which enable us to progress a little further.
The legend on the Sindian coins during the first period of Hekataios’ rule
and that of his predecessors – SINDVN,139 bears witness to the fact that the
coins were being minted in the name of the people of Sindoi.140 What this
really means, of course, is a tribal élite, which would have placed substantial
limitations on royal power and, during the time of Satyros, as the context of
Polyaenus would indicate (ibidem: toËton tÚn ÑEkata›on §kpesÒnta t∞w
érx∞w . . .), even ousted Hekataios from the throne.141 The rebellion of Oktamasades
139
A new absolute chronology for the coins of Sindoi was recently proposed by Frolova;
Frolova 2002 (see also Frolova 2002a; Frolova 2004 [non vidi]) 73: “From the first half to the
last quarter of the 5th century BC”; 79: they “. . . were issued up until the end of the 5th centu-
ry BC. Their issue began in the first half of the 5th century and perhaps even earlier”; 83: “The
beginning of the issue of Sindian coins should be dated to the beginning of the first half of the
5th century BC.” Later on: “. . . we can reckon that the emission of these coins . . . lasted until
the end of the 5th century BC”; “. . . the beginning of the issue . . . [might be dated] to the first
decades of the 5th century BC and it could be suggested that the issue continued in the second
half of the 5th century BC as well”; p. 84 (English summary): “The only place of their mint can
only be Pantikapaion, since the VI c. BC”. In addition to Frolova’s work it is essential to point
out the following articles: Stolba 1998, 601-611 and a more detailed examination: Stolba 2002,
13-42. Stolba cites valuable information about the composition of the Eltigen hoard discovered
in 1908 (not mentioned by Frolova), which included silver coins of Sindoi, of Pantikapaion and
also coins with the legend SA, SAM, SAMMA, which he convincingly defines as minted in Nymphaion.
Yet such scholars as Stolba (see: Stolba, forthcoming) and Zavoikin ( per litteras), reject
Frolova’s dating (or, better to say, datings) of the coins; Stolba dates their minting to 438/7-
425 BC; cf. Stolba, 1997, 122 sq.
140
Attempts made from time to time to prove that the coins with the legend SINDVN did
belong not to the Sindoi, but to the Greek city Sindikos Limen (alias Sindikos or Sindike) or
to an alliance of the Greek cities in Sindike, result from elementary linguistic ignorance (for
more detail, see: Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 63-66; 75, note 13). The necessity to uphold as incon-
testable facts of this kind (cf. also above, notes 12 and 31) testifies to the oppressive malaise
affecting academic research in our country, which, as time goes on, is falling more and more
into the hands of professional dilettantes.
141
Gajdukeviœ 1971, 71; Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 67 sq. See above, note 30, on the system of
power among the Pontic Achaeans, the Zygoi and the Heniochoi (kings, subordinate to whom
were the ‘sceptre-holders’ who exercised direct power in the regions).
would also hardly have been possible without active support from some sec-
tion of that aristocracy. There is no doubt that Leukon had to reckon with the
local aristocracy more than with the puppet king. Evidently, it is precisely
with reference to these circumstances that we need to explain why the Sindoi,
to judge from Theopropides’ inscription and CIRB 6a, were initially ruled over
by Leukon in his capacity as archon. It can be suggested that Sindike accepted
the supreme power of the Bosporan state by treaty, which provided for the dis-
bandment of royal power, while its powers, we can assume, were shared out
to mutual advantage between the tribal aristocracy and Leukon, who had been
given the title and prerogatives of “archon of (the whole of) Sindike”, which
probably meant that he had been defined as primus inter pares.142
The other barbarians listed in Theopropides’ inscription would also have
been meant to be incorporated into the Bosporan state on similar conditions.
It is possible that at least some of them were only absorbed into the state after
long and bitter resistance, only yielding to superior force in exchange for an
agreement to the effect that they would be accorded a certain amount of
autonomy, i.e. as ÍpÒspondoi (and not dor¤kthtoi), as had evidently occurred
previously in the case of Theodosia.
Admittedly, soon afterwards143 life itself convinced Leukon, that ruling bar-
barians in the same way as the Greek poleis was not going to be possible (if,
of course, he had illusions on that count in the beginning). This turning-point
is denoted in the inscription CIRB 6a: Sindike was still being ruled by Leukon
in his capacity as archon, while the Toretai, Dandarioi and the Psessoi were
being ruled by him in a hypostasis not known previously – basileÊw. Royal
power had been brought back to life. Yet, as regards both the term basileÊw
and also that institution, we can hardly speak here of any real continuity (what
could a ruler of a barbarian people be called other than a king, given that the
experiment with the rule of an archon had failed?).144
142
This means that the conjecture to the effect that Leukon had inherited the title of ‘king’
together with his powers almost directly from Hekataios (Tokhtas’ev 2001a, 68) and then in
exactly the same way from the rulers of the Toretai, Dandarioi and Psessoi was too hasty. A
similar suggestion was made by Sokolova and Pavlichenko (for the quotations, see above), who
had not noticed that it was in contradiction to the data in the inscription they had published.
143
A pointer to the short-lived nature of Leukon’s liberal policy towards the Sindoi and other
barbarians is provided by the fact that to this day only two inscriptions have been found, which
record this situation in the course of its development.
144
Cf. Latÿshev in IOSPE II, p. XXVI (= Latÿshev 1909, 84): “cum vero barbaras sibi sube-
Finally in the inscriptions CIRB 6, 8, 1037, 1038 we find the Sindoi them-
selves under the administration of a king. The triumphal ≤ SindikØ pçsa and
even the slightly simpler sounding SindikÆ (if we after all restore correctly the
toponym in CIRB 6a) are replaced by Sindo¤ devoid of any pathos, the desig-
nation which placed the Sindoi on a par with other barbarians even at the
level of bureaucratic usage. This is how the history of quasi-democracy for the
tribes under Leukon came to an end and at the same time the process involved
in the formation of a Bosporan ‘territorial’ state.
Some scholars (writing, however, before the Theopropides’ inscription was
discovered) assumed that the barbarian tribes, incorporated into the Bosporus
by Leukon and his successors, continued their direct rule over the petty kings,
who had now been turned into vassals of the Bosporus.145 For confirmation of
this Gaidukevich could only refer to Diodorus (XX, 22-23), who, in his des-
cription of the civil war in the Bosporus after the death of Pairisades I, men-
tions the king – allegedly of the Thateis – who bore the fine-sounding Old
Iranian name ÉArifãrnhw (*Aryafarnah- “mastering the Aryan farnah-”) as an
ally of Eumelos. These same Thateis, subdued by Pairisades I146 (or perhaps
earlier during the seven-year reign of Spartokos II) later figure in the titles of
Pairisades II (CIRB 25 and SEG XXXIV 755, cf. above, notes 93 and 129).
Firstly, Yat°vn only appears in the text of Diodorus as an emendation of
August Boeckh (CIG II, p. 102) for the manuscript Yr&k«n (a distortion under
the influence of Yròkew, mentioned a little earlier (XX, 22, 4), where there is
talk of Thracian mercenaries in the service of Satyros, brother of Eumelos);
moreover, historically at least, equally likely is the correction Sirak«n and that
is preferable beyond any doubt from a palaeographic point of view. 147
gissent gentes, earum basil°aw se dicebant, quippe quae iam antea regulis suis paruissent (ut
Sindi Hecataeo etc.) et nomen ipsum archontis fortasse omnino ignorassent”.
145
Rostovtsev 1918, 91 sq. (hypothetically and only with reference to the Sindoi); more
extensively – in the drafts for Volume 2 of his “Skythien und der Bosporus” (Rostowzew 1993,
79): earlier the Sindoi and other tribes in the Kuban region had allegedly been subjects of the
Scythian kings, who, like the Spartokids after them, were only supreme rulers. As might well
have been assumed, Rostovtsev had in mind Socrates’ words recounted in Xen. Mem. II, 1, 10,
on the subject of the Maiotai subordinate to the Scythians (see, however, above, note 97); Gajdukeviœ
1971, 71 (on the contrary – had in mind other tribes from the Kuban region apart from the
Sindoi); cf. 85 sq., note 67.
146
CIRB 9 (the correct text of this inscription was established by Belova: Belova 1968,
43-53), 972, 1015.
147
For more detail, see: Desyatchikov 1977, 45-48 (with bibliography). It has recently
Secondly, even if Boeckh’s conjecture were to be accepted, nothing would

prevent us from suggesting that the Thateis might have acquired their inde-
pendence at least for a time, thus renewing their royal power (the death of
Pairisades I and the intestine war which followed soon after it would have
seemed the most auspicious moment) and – during the reign of Pairisades II
or a few earlier – losing it again. As everybody knows, in the 4th-3rd centuries
the barbarian tribes subdued by the Bosporus were constantly breaking away
from it (see, below).
The fact that Strabo’s phrase (XI, 2, 10): “in Sindike is also to be found
Gorgippia, royal capital of the Sindoi” (¶sti d¢ ka‹ Gorgipp¤a §n tª Sindikª, tÚ
{d¢} bas¤leion t«n Sind«n) cannot serve as a basis for conjectures regarding
the retention by the Sindoi of their royal power in the era of the Spartokids,
is demonstrated elsewhere.148
emerged that this conjecture was first put forward by I.A. Stempkovskii in 1825 (Tunkina 2002,
381). On the mistaken rendering of the letter Y instead of CI (and vice versa) in the uncial let-
ter (the reason for the distortion had already been recognized by Stempkovskii) see material in
the book: Wutz 1925, 21. There is further, albeit indirect, confirmation for the correction of
Sirak«n. “Above Armenia [here – to the West of it], near the land of Guranioi and the Medes”,
writes Strabo (XI, 14, 14), there dwell “animal-like people”, called the Sarapãrai, i.e.
kefalotÒmoi, a calque from the corresponding Old Iranian word (de Lagarde 1866, 281;
Szemerényi 1951, 214); this is a Thracian tribe: fas‹ d¢ ka‹ Yr&k«n tinaw . . . Sarapãraw. The
land, of which Strabo speaks, corresponds to Ptolemy’s SirakhnÆ (Geogr. V, 12, 9: “near the
mountain Paryadres”; that was what the land of the Sirakoi was called in the Northern
Caucasus: Strabo XI, 5, 2) and the region ∞irak referred to in Armenian sources. Meanwhile,
according to data provided by Pliny (n. h. VI, 16), the neighbours of the Seraci (according to
the conjecture of Detlefsen; Serri mss.) living to the North of the Caucasus Mountains were the
Cephalotomi (Achaei, Mardi, Cercetae, post eos Seraci, Cephalotomi; or should be read Seraci
Cephalotomi?). Comparison of all these data (apart from the text of Ptolemy) led Nikolai
Adonts (Adonts 1908, 424 sq., note 3) to the brilliant assumption that some of the Sirakoi could
have resettled beyond the Caucasus at some stage and reached the borders of Media. It then
emerges that, as in the passage of interest to us in Diodorus, Strabo’s Yr&k«n must be a dis-
tortion of Sirak«n (for some reason, however, Adonts does not mention this expressis verbis).
It is astonishing that no-one other than Adonts noticed anything so utterly incongruous in the
account of the Thracians on the border of Armenia and Media. Some curious attempts to dis-
cover traces of Thracians in this region as early as in cuneiform sources of the IInd millennium
BC (Dzha[h]ukyan 1984, 11 sq.; Otkupshchikov 1988, 18 = Otkupshchikov 2001, 305 sq.) are
not worth discussing; and the thesis of W. Tomaschek regarding the resettling of the Thracian
tribe of the Treres in Transcaucasia is baseless (see Tokhtas’ev 1997, 109-113).
148
Tokhtas’ev 2002, 10-17.
It is highly unlikely that we should be in error, if we were to suggest that

the lowering of the status of barbarian tribes became the direct consequence
of their rebellions against the central power, after the suppression of which
they were deprived of their initial rights. According to Strabo (XI, 2, 11), first
some then other ‘Maiotian’ tribes ruled over by the Bosporan state seceded
from it from time to time (tot¢ dÉ éf¤stanto êllotÉ êlloi).149 This is con-
firmed by inscriptions: in the title of Pairisades I, Leukon’s son and succes-
sor, the Psessoi are not mentioned, while it appears that the Dandarioi are
mentioned in only one inscription of that time (CIRB 1014; perhaps in 1042
as well). The Toretai, who had been absorbed into the Bosporan state by
Leukon, figure in the titles of Pairisades I in CIRB 1014 and 1042, but in No.
972 they are no longer present. As can be seen from CIRB 25, during the time
of Pairisades II the Doschoi were no longer subjects of the Bosporus, who
would appear to have been subdued during the reign of Pairisades I (CIRB
972). Inscription CIRB 8 gives us reason to believe, that attempts to cede from
the Bosporan state were being undertaken even during the reign of Leukon; in
Line 3 of the inscription Boltunova restored the following: ka‹ basileÊontow
Sind«[n ka‹ MaÛt«n pãntvn] (accepted in CIRB), but parallels for such a for-
mula are only to be found in inscriptions from the reign of Pairisades I (more-
over clearly not from the first years of that reign) and for this reason Yailenko
sensibly suggested that it should be restored as follows: Sind«[n Toret°vn
Dandar¤vn].150 At any rate it is clear that here one of the three names of tribes
was missing, which are listed in the titles of Leukon after the word Sind«n in
CIRB 6, 1037, 1038. Bearing in mind the maximum size of the gap, the usual
order for the list of ethnonyms and also the orientation towards the titles of
Pairisades I in CIRB 1014 (Sind«n ka‹ Toret«n ka‹ Dandar¤vn), what is most
likely would appear to be that in the last years of Leukon’s reign the Psessoi
had succeeded in breaking away from his rule.
Thanks to the inscriptions from Labrys and Nymphaion it is becoming eas-
ier to understand than previously, why the tradition perserved by Aelian (v. h.
VI. 13) referred to the rulers of the pre-Mithridatic Bosporus as the Leukonids,
pushing Spartokos, the true founder of the dynasty into the shadows, and why
Leukon became a figure of quasi-folkloric literature, from which Polyaenus
149
F. Lasserre (1975) without any foundation or for no apparent reason changes the manu-
script tot°, accepted in all editions of Strabo, to tÒte – “then”, i.e., according to his commen-
tary, allegedly “during the rule of the Archeanaktids . . . and the first Spartokids”.
150
Yailenko 1987, 25, No. 18.
gleaned material for his Strategemata, while one of the pillars of the Ancient
Stoa, Chrysippus,151 even numbered Leukon among those kings who deserved
to have true wise men dwelling at their court.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adonts, N. 1908: Armeniya v épokhu Yustiniana (St. Petersburg).

Avram, A., Hind, J., Tsetskhladze, G. 2004: The Black Sea Area. In M.H. Hansen, Th.H.
Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 924-973.
Belova, N.S. 1954: Politicheskoe polozhenie bosporskikh gorodov v 4 v. do n. é. (unpubl. diss.,
Moscow, Leningrad).
Belova, N.S. 1967: Novaya nadpis’ iz Germonassÿ. VDI 1, 61-68.
Belova, N.S. 1968: K nadpisi IOSPE II 8. SA 3, 43-53.
Belova, N.S. 1970: Posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Kep. VDI 2, 62-72.
Belova, N.S. 1984: Novaya nadpis’ iz Germonassÿ i nekotorÿe zamechaniya o lapidarnoi épi-
grafike Bospora III v. do n. é. VDI 2, 78-86.
Bengtson, H. (ed.) 1975: Staatsverträge des Altertums II2 (München).
Bernand, A. 1970: Le Delta Égyptien d’après les textes grecques I (Le Caire).
Blavatskaya, T.V. 1993: Posvyashchenie Levkona. RA 2, 34-48.
Boltunova, A.I. 1973: Nadgrobnaya épigramma Dindiana. Studii clasice 15, 122-130.
Bosi, F. 1984: Polis ed emporio nella colonizzazione greco-pontica. Sciti, Sarmati e Greci alle
foci del Don. Rendiconti della Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell’Acca-
demia dei Lincei 39, 79-99.
Bresson, A. 2000: La cité marchande (Bordeaux).
Counillon, P. 2004: Pseudo-Skylax: Le Périple du Pont-Euxin. Texte, traduction, commentaire
philologique et historique (Bordeaux).
Desyatchikov, Yu.M. 1977: Arifarn, tsar’ sirakov. In M.M. Kobÿlina (ed.), Istoriya i kul’tura
antichnogo mira (Moscow), 45-48.
Diller, A. 1952: The Tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers (Lancaster).
Dovatur, A.I. 1992: Materialÿ dlya indeksa k GVI (Peek). In A.K. Gavrilov et alii (eds.),
Étyudÿ po antichnoi istorii i kul’ture Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (St. Petersburg),
203-218.
Dubois, L. 1996: Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (Genève).
Dumberg, K.E. 1901: Raskopka kurganov na Zubovskom khutore. IAK 1, 94-103.
Dzha[h]ukyan, G.B. 1984: Frakiitsÿ v Armenii. Antichnaya balkanistika. Predvaritel’nÿe mate-
rialÿ k mezhdunarodnomu simpoziumu (Moscow), 11-12.
Ebert, J. 1996: Das Grabepigramm für den Hopliten Pollis. ZPE 112, 66.
Ebert, J. 1996a: Neue griechische historische Epigramme. In J. H.M. Strubbe, R.A. Tybout, H.S.
151
SVF II fr. 691, 692 coll. Dio Chrys. II. 77, cf. Rostowzew 1931, 112.
Versnel (eds.), ENERGEIA. Studies on Ancient History and Epigraphy Presented to H.W.
Pleket (Amsterdam), 19-33.
Fabre, P. 1965: La date de la rédaction du Périple de Scylax. Etudes classiques 33, 353-366.
Finogenova, S.I., Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2003: Novÿe dannÿe o kul’te Afroditÿ v Germonasse. Hyperboreus
9/1, 83-88.
Fornasier, J. 2001: Tanais in hellenistischer Zeit – ein Bestandteil des Bosporanischen Reiches?
In M.Yu. Vakhtina et alii (eds.), Bosporskii fenomen. Kolonizatsiya regiona, formirovanie
polisov, obrazovanie gosudarstva 1 (St. Petersburg), 91-95.
Frolova, N.A. 2002: Korpus monet Sindov. VDI 3, 71-84.
Frolova, N.A. 2002a: Corpus of the Sindian Coins (First Half of the 5th – Late 5th Century
B.C.). ACSS 8, 211-235.
Frolova, N.A. 2004: Die frühe Münzprägung vom Kimmerischen Bosporos (Mitte 6. bis Anfang
4. Jh. v Chr.). Die Münzen der Städte Pantikapaion, Theodosia, Nymphaion und
Phanagoria sowie der Sinder (Berlin).
Gaidukevich, V.F. 1966: Votiv Gereya iz Mirmekiya. In A.I. Boltunova (ed.), Kul’tura
antichnogo mira (Moscow), 70-76.
Gajdukeviœ [Gaidukevich], V.F. 1971: Das Bosporanische Reich (Berlin, Amsterdam).
Galanina, L.K., Alekseev, A.Yu. 1990: Novÿe materialÿ k istorii Zakuban’ya v skifskoe vre-
mya. In Arkheologicheskii sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Érmitazha 30, 34-54.
Gorlov, Yu.V. 1986: K istorii Fanagorii 4 v. do n. é. In G.A. Koshelenko (ed.), Problemÿ
antichnoi kul’turÿ (Moscow), 135-137.
Graham, A.J. 2002: Thasos and the Bosporan Kingdom. Ancient East & West 1/1 (2002),
87-100.
Grakov, B.N. 1929: Drevnegrecheskie keramicheskie kleima s imenami astinomov (Moscow).
Gschnitzer, F. 1974: Proxenos. RE Suppl. XIII, 629-730.
Harper, R.P. 1968: Tituli Comanorum Cappadociae. AnSt 18, 93-147.
Havers, W. 1922: Zur ‘Spaltung’ des Genetivs im Griechischen. Indogermanische Forschungen
31.
Heinen, H. 1996: Statues de Pairisadès I et de ses fils érigées sur proposition de Démosthène
(Dinarque, Contre Démosthène 43). In P. Carlier (ed.), Le IVe siècle av. J.-C. Approches
historiographiques (Nancy), 357-368.
Heinen, H. 1996: Zwei Briefe des bosporanischen Königs Aspurgos. ZPE 124, 133-142.
Heinen, H. 1998: Fehldeutungen der énãbasiw und der Politik des bosporanischen Königs Aspurgos.
Hyperboreus 4/2, 340-361.
Herrmann, P. 1996: Mystenvereine in Sardeis. Chiron 26, 315-341.
Hüttl, W. 1929: Verfassungsgeschichte von Syrakus (Prag).
Janko, R. 1992: The Iliad: A Commentary, ed. by G.S. Kirk. Vol. IV: Books 13-16
(Cambridge).
Kallenberg, H. 1890: Der Artikel bei Namen von Ländern, Städten und Meeren in der griechis-
chen Prosa. Philologus 49 (N.F. 3), 515-547.
Karÿshkovskii, P.O., Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1976: Ol’viiskii dekret Kanoba o den’gakh i stoimost’
monetnÿkh metallov na Ponte v 4 v. do n. é. VDI 4, 20-42.
Kastanayan, E.G. 1987: Nadgrobnaya nadpis’ iz Porfmiya. VDI 2, 85-87.
Kleist, J.A. 1925: On the Intensive Force of pçw in Ancient Greek. Proceedings of Classical
Association Middle West & South (Chicago), 48-55.
Kocewalow, A. 1935: Syntaxis inscriptionum antiquarum coloniarum Graecarum orae septen-
trionalis Ponti Euxini (Eus Suppl. 12, Leopoli).
Kruglikova, I.T. 1975: Sel’skoe khozyaistvo Bospora (Moscow).
Kudryavtsev, O.V. 1949: Rev. Gaidukevich V.F. Bosporskoe tsarstvo (Moscow, Leningrad,
1949). VDI 4, 158-162.
Kühner, R., Gerth, B. 1955: Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache I 3 (Nachdr.
Leverkusen).
Lagarde, P.A. de 1866: Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Leipzig).
Langer, M.-T. 1980: Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées (Bruxelles).
Lasserre, F. (ed.) 1975: Strabon. Géographie. T. VIII (Livre XI). Texte établi et traduit par
F. Lasserre (Paris).
Latÿshev, V.V. 1909: Pontikã (St. Petersburg).
Levinskaya, I.A., Tokhtasiev, S.R. 2005: Iz noveishei istorii bosporskoi épigrafiki. VDI 4, 179-
198.
Lewis, D.M. 1988: The Last Inventories of the Treasurers of Athena, In D. Knoepfler (ed.),
Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque. Actes du colloque . . . en l’honneur de
Jacques Tréheux (Neuchâtel – Genève), 297-308.
Marcotte, D. (ed.) 2000: Les géographes grecs. I. Introduction générale. Pseudo-Scymnos:
Circuit de la terre. Texte établi et traduit par D. Marcotte (Paris).
Medvedev, I.P. (ed.) 1999: Rukopisnoe nasledie russkikh vizantinistov (St. Petersburg).
Osborne, M.J. 1981: Naturalization in Athens [I] (Brussels).
Otkupshchikov, Yu.V. 1988: Balto-Thracica. Linguistique Balkanique XXXI/1-2, 15-19.
Otkupshchikov, Yu.V. 2001: Ocherki po étimologii (St. Petersburg).
Robert, L. 1937: Études anatoliennes (Paris).
Robert, L. 1989: Opera minora selecta V (Amsterdam).
Rosén, H. 1962: Eine Laut- und Formenlehre des herodoteischen Sprachform (Heidelberg).
Rostovtsev, M.I. 1918: Éllinstvo i iranstvo na Yuge Rossii (Petrograd).
Rostovtsev, M.I. 1925: Skifiya i Bospor I (Petrograd).
Rostowzew, M. 1931: Skythien und der Bosporus I (Berlin).
Rostowzew, M. 1993: Skythien und der Bosporus II. Wiederentdeckte Kapitel und Verwandtes.
Übers. und hrsg. von H. Heinen. Historia Einzelschriften 83 (Stuttgart).
Rusjaeva, A.S., Vinogradov, Ju.G. 2000: Apollon Ietros, Herrscher von Istros. In A. Avram,
M. Babe¤ (eds.), Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques périphériques. Hommage à Petre
Alexandrescu à son 70e anniversaire (Bucarest), 229-238.
Schaefer, A. 1878: Volksbeschluß zu Ehren der Söhne Leukons von Bosporos. Rheinisches
Museum 33.
Schwyzer, Ed., Debrunner, A. 1950: Griechische Grammatik II (München).
Shelov, D.B. 1972: Tanais i Nizhnii Don v pervÿe veka n. é. (Moscow).
Shelov-Kovedyaev, F.V. 1985: Istoriya Bospora v 5-4 vv. do n. é. In A.P. Novosel’tsev (ed.),
Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. 1984 (Moscow), 5-187.
Shelov-Kovedyaev, F.V. 1985a: Novÿe bosporskie dekretÿ. VDI 1, 57-72.
Shkorpil, V.V. 1917: Novonaidennÿe bosporskie nadpisi. IAK 63, 109-121.
Shonov, I.V. 2002: O monetnoi chekanke Feodosii poslednei chetverti 5 – nachala 4 vv. do
n. é. Bosporskie issledovaniya II (Simferopol’), 327-332.
Smirnova, N.V. 2001: Namestniki Gorgippii. Drevnosti Bospora 4, 350-363.
Sokolova, O.Yu. 2001: Novaya nadpis’ iz Nimfeya. Drevnosti Bospora 4, 368-376.
Sokolova, O.Yu., Pavlichenko, N.A. 2002: Novaya posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Nimfeya.
Stolba, V.F. 1989: Bosporskie monetÿ s nadpis’yu YEODEV – YEODEO. Problemÿ skifo-sar-
matskoi archeologii Prichernomor’ya (Abstracts) (Zaporozh’e), 147-148.
Stolba, V.F. 1997: Die autonomen Prägungen vom Bosporos im 5.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. und
die Spartokiden. XII th International Numismatic Congress. Abstract of Papers (Berlin),
122-123.
Stolba, V.F. 1998: SAMMAS. Zur Prägung eines bosporanischen Tyrannen. In U. Peter (ed.),
Stephanos nomismatikos. FS Edith Schönert-Geiss (Berlin), 601-611.
Stolba, V.F. 2002: Problemÿ numizmatiki Nimfeya. Hyperboreus 8/1, 13-42.
Stolba, V.F. (forthcoming): Review of Frolova 2004.
Szemerényi, O. 1951: Iranica. ZDMG 101, 197-219.
Thesleff, H. 1954: Studies on the Intensification in Early and Classical Greek (Helsingfors).
Thumb, A., Scherer, A. 1959: Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (Heidelberg).
Tohtasjev [Tokhtas’ev], S.R. 1986: Zur Herkunft der bosporanischen Spartokiden. Pulpudeva 5,
113-121.
Tohtasjev [Tokhtas’ev], S.R. 1993: Thrakische Personennamen am kimmerischen Bosporos.
Pulpudeva 6, 178-188.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1986: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. I: PATOUS, PATRASUS,
PATRAEUS. In É.D. Frolov et alii (eds.), Problemÿ antichnogo istochnikovedeniya (Leningrad),
69-87.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1992: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. II: Frakiiskie imena na
Bospore. In A.K. Gavrilov et alii (eds.), Étyudÿ po antichnoi istorii i kul’ture Severnogo
Prichernomor’ya (St. Petersburg), 178-199.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1994: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. III-I. Hyperboreus 1/1,
155-166.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1994a: Votiv tsaritsÿ Komosarii. Peterburgskii arkheologicheskii vestnik 8,
80-83.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1997: Zum Volksnamen “Treren”. Actes [du] 2e Symposium international des
études thraciennes ‘Thrace ancienne’ I (Komotini), 109-113.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1998: K chteniyu i interpretatsii posvyatitel’noi nadpisi Levkona I s
Semibratnego gorodishcha. Hyperboreus 4/2, 286-301.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1998a: Drevneishie svidetel’stva slavyanskogo yazÿka na Balkanakh. In A.V.
Desnitskaya, N.I. Tolstoi (eds.), Osnovÿ balkanskogo yazÿkoznaniya II: Slavyanskie yazÿki
(St. Petersburg), 29-57.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1999: Review: Dubois 1996. Hyperboreus 5/1, 164-192.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2000: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. X-XVII. Hyperboreus 6/1,
124-156.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2001: Épigraficheskie zametki. Khersonesskii sbornik 11, ANAXARSIS .
Pamyati Yu.G. Vinogradova (Sevastopol’), 155-168.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2001a: Eshche raz o sindskikh monetakh i Sindskom tsarstve. In M.Yu.
Vakhtina et alii (eds.), Bosporskii fenomen. Kolonizatsiya regiona, formirovanie polisov,
obrazovanie gosudarstva 1 (St. Petersburg), 63-79.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2001b: Proiskhozhdenie titulaturÿ Spartokidov. In V.N. Zin’ko (ed.), Bospor
Kimmeriiskii i Pont v period antichnosti i Srednevekov’ya: Materialÿ II Bosporskikh cht-
enii (Kerch), 161-162.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2002: Sindikã. Tamanskaya starina 4, 10-32.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2002a: Ostrakon s poseleniya ol’viiskoi khorÿ Kozÿrka-XII. Hyperboreus 8/1,
72-98.
Tokhtas’ev, S. R. 2005: Epigraphical notes. ACSS 11/1-2, 3-40.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2005a: Problema skifskogo yazÿka v sovremennoi nauke. In V. Cojocaru (ed.),
Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from the Greek
Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest (Ia¤i), 59-108.
Tsekhmistrenko, V.I. 1960: Sinopskie keramicheskie kleima s imenami goncharnÿkh masterov.
SA 3, 59-77.
Tunkina, I.V. 2002: Russkaya nauka o klassicheskikh drevnostyakh Yuga Rossii (XVIII – sere-
dina XIX v.) (St. Petersburg).
Vasil’ev, A.N. 1985: Bosporskie nadpisi kak istoricheskii istochnik. Vspomogatel’nÿe istorich-
eskie distsiplinÿ 17, 289-297.
Vinogradov, Yu.A., Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1998: Novÿe posvyatitel’nÿe graffiti iz Mirmekiya.
Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1980: Die historische Entwicklung der Poleis des nördlichen Schwarzmeer-
küste im 5. Jh. v.Chr. Chiron 10, 63-100.
Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1983: Polis v Severnom Prichernomor’e. In E.S. Golubtsova et alii (eds.),
Antichnaya Gretsiya I (Moscow), 366-420.
Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1995: Arsen’eva, T.M., Bötter, B., Vinogradov, Ju.G.: Die Ausgrabungen in
Tanais 1994. Eurasia antiqua 1, 213-263.
Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1997: Pontische Studien (Mainz).
Vinogradov, Yu.G. 2002: Levkon, Gekatei, Oktamasad i Gorgipp. VDI 2, 3-22.
Vinogradov, Ju.G., Wörrle, M. 1992: Die Söldner von Phanagoreia. Chiron 22, 159-170.
Vinogradov, Yu.G., Tolstikov, V.P., Shelov-Kovedyaev, F.V. 2002: Novÿe dekretÿ Levkona I,
Perisada i Evmela iz Pantikapeya. VDI 4, 58-75.
Vlasova, E.V. 1994/1995: Fragment posvyatitel’noi nadpisi iz Nimfeya. Hyperboreus 1/1,
135-139.
Wackernagel, J. 1953: Kleine Schriften (Göttingen).
Werner, R. 1955: Die Dynastie der Spartokiden. Historia 4, 412-444.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1893: Aristoteles und Athen II (Berlin).
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1913: Sappho und Simonides (Berlin).
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1920: Platon I (Berlin).
Wutz, F. 1925: Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus I (Stuttgart).
Yailenko, V.P. 1980: Graffiti Levki, Berezani i Ol’vii. VDI 2, 72-99.
Yailenko, V.P. 1980a: Graffiti Levki, Berezani i Ol’vii. VDI 3, 75-116.
Yailenko, V.P. 1984: K proksenicheskoi deyatel’nosti Ol’vii i Bospora. In L.A. Gindin (ed.),
Étnogenez narodov Balkan i Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow), 210-223.
Yailenko, V.P. 1987: Materialÿ po bosporskoi épigrafike. In A.I. Pavlovskaya (ed.), Nadpisi
i yazÿki drevnei Maloi Azii, Kipra i antichnogo Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow),
4-201.
Yailenko, V.P. 1990: Ol’viya i Bospor v éllinisticheskii period. In G.A. Koshelenko et alii
(eds.), Éllinizm: Ékonomika, politika, kul’tura (Moscow), 249-309.
Yailenko, V.P. 2001: Vtoraya fanagoriiskaya prokseniya. Drevnosti Bospora 4, 474-486.
Zavoikin, A.A. 2001: “Bosporskii fenomen” ili psevdo-éllinizm na Bospore. Drevnosti Bospora
4, 150-181.
Zavoikin , A.A. 2004: Fanagoriya vo vtoroi polovine V – nachale IV v. do n. é. Drevnosti
Bospora. Suppl. I (Moscow).
Zgusta, L. 1964: Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prag).
Abbreviations
AA Archäologischer Anzeiger. Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen

Archäologischen Instituts (Berlin).
ACSS Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. An International Journal
of Comparative Studies in History and Archaeology (Leiden, Boston, Köln).
AnSt Anatolian Studies (London).
Bechtel, HP F. Bechtel, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur
Kaiserzeit (Halle 1917).
Bull.ép. Bulletin épigraphique, Revue des études grecques (Paris).
CEG Carmina epigraphica Graeca. Ed. P.A. Hansen (Berlin, New York,
1983-)
CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Ed. A. Boeckh (Berlin, 1825-1877).
CIRB Corpus inscriptionum Regni Bosporani (Moscow, Leningrad, 1965).
FGrHist F. Jacoby. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Bd. I-III
(Leiden 1923-).
GVI W. Peek. Griechische Vers-Inschriften I (Berlin 1955).
I.Delos Inscriptions de Délos. Ed. F. Durrbach (Paris, 1926-1937).
I.Ephesos H. Wankel, R. Merkelbach et alii. Die Inschriften von Ephesos, I-VII
(IGSK Band 11-17; Bonn, 1979-1981).
I.Erythrai H. Engelmann, R. Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und
Klazomenai, I-II (IGSK Band 1-2; Bonn, 1972-1973).
I.Smyrna G. Petzl. Die Inschriften von Smyrna, I-II 1/2 (IGSK Band 23-24 1/2;
Bonn, 1982-1990).
IAK Izvestiya Imperatorskoi Arkheologicheskoi Komissii (St. Petersburg,
Petrograd).
IC M. Guarducci. Inscriptiones Creticae (Rome, 1935-1950).
IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1873-).
IGBulg G. Mihailov. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (Sofia, 1956-1966).
IGSK Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (Bonn 1972-).

IOSPE V. Latÿshev. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Pontis Euxini
Graecae et Latinae (Petropoli, 1885-1916).
LSAG2 L. H. Jeffery. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece; revised edition with a
supplement by A.W. Johnston (Oxford, 1990).
Milet Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899; ed.
T. Wiegand (Berlin 1908-); Inschriften von Milet, Teil 1: A. Inschriften
n. 187-406 (Nachdruck aus den Bänden I 5-II 3), ed. A. Rehm, H. Dessau;
B. Nachträge und Übersetzungen zu den Inschriften n. 1-406, P. Herrmann
(Berlin, New York, 1997); Teil 2: Inschriften n. 407-1019, ed. P. Herrmann
(Berlin, New York 1998).
RA Rossiiskaya arkheologiya (Moscow).
RE Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. A. Pauly, G.
Wissowa, W. Kroll. Neue Bearbeitung (Stuttgart, München, 1894-1978).
SA Sovetskaya arkheologiya (Moscow, Leningrad).
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden, Amsterdam 1923 -).
SGDI Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften (Göttingen 1884-1915).
SVF Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Ed. H. von Arnim (Leipzig 1902-1925).
3
Syll W. Dittenberger. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed. (Leipzig 1915-
1924).
VDI Vestnik drevnei istorii (Moscow).
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig, Wiesbaden).
ZOOID Zapiski Odesskogo Obshchestva istorii i drevnostei (Odessa).
ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (Bonn).

Tokhtasev, S.R. Bosporus - and The Sindike in The Era of Leukon I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tokhtasev, S.R. Bosporus - and The Sindike in The Era of Leukon I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Ancient Civilizations 12, 1-2

I. Votive epigram of Leukon from Labrys

The Vestnik Drevnej Istorii began to publish research works by Yurii G.

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 3

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

At the same time as Yu. G. Vinogradov’s publication, an article by A.J. Graham

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 5

translation includes readings which have been incorporated intothe critical

1. Yu. G. Vinogradov expressed (p. 8) certain doubts regarding his previous

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 7

§Jind«n pa›d(a) constitutes what – to use the terminology of Paul Maass – is

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

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 9

and of Hesiod’s Theogony:

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 11

3/4. Vinogradov accepted my restoration of the end of Line 3, however, he

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 13

most important thing here is that according to Vinogradov’s interpretation a

§j°l[ase(n)] – “drove out”. Vinogradov mentioned here this non-augmentative

Simonides’ epigrams No. XV, Page:

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 15

tÒnde poyÉ ÜEllhnew N¤khw krãtei, ¶rgƒ ÖAreow,

and No. XXXIX on an enormous bronze krater erected by Spartans at the

Hegelochos – son of Ekphantos, whose name has been inherited by his

“O mistress Athena, to thee Timokrates has dedicated (this), son of Aris-

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

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 17

dedication, there is the word med°vn of poetic origin, moreover (unless

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 19

not merely with reference to the insignificant number of known inscriptions in

consonant + d, become acccentuated on the first syllable, but only if it is not

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 21

XXXIX Page: . . . uﬂÚw / KleombrÒtou, érxa¤aw ÑHrakl°ow geneçw), but it does

II. Theopropides’ Dedication from Nymphaion

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 23

Fig. 2. Votive inscription of Theopropides from Nymphaion.

Precisely this comparison is made by Sokolova and Pavlichenko.59 The

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 25

in front of Sindik∞w, it was highly desirable that there should at least be

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 27

Fig. 3. Votive inscription CIRB 6a.

A similar method for breaking up long lists is to be found in Xenophon,

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 29

reflected in all the above-mentioned inscriptions for some reason unbeknown

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 31

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 33

ÉAgripp°vn Kaisar°vn êrxontew should, as suggested by Yailenko, be understood as follows:

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 35

essentially the same toponym as before acquires additional emotional implica-

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 37

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 39

grain through Theodosia presented the Athenians with an ateleia “there as

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 41

Shelov-Kovedyaev did not analyse.110 Thirdly, it turns out, that in documents

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 43

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 45

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 47

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 49

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 51

THE BOSPORUS AND SINDIKE IN THE ERA OF LEUKON I 53