COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA

————— 1 —————

THE BLACK SEA, GREECE,

ANATOLIA AND EUROPE
IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC

Edited by

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA
2011

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_Voorwerk.indd III 7/03/11 15:35

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Introduction to the Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

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

CHAPTER 1 Ancient Thrace during the First Millennium BC

Nikola Theodossiev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2 The Getae: Selected Questions

Alexandru Avram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

CHAPTER 3 The Black Sea: Between Asia and Europe

(Herodotus’ Approach to his Scythian Account)
J.G.F. Hind. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

CHAPTER 4 The Scythians: Three Essays

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

CHAPTER 5 The American-Ukrainian Scythian Kurgan Project, 2004–

2005: Preliminary Report
N.T. de Grummond, S.V. Polin, L.A. Chernich, M. Gleba
and M. Daragan
Skeletal Analyses: A.D. Kozak
Faunal Remains: O.P. Zhuravlev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

CHAPTER 6 Persia in Europe

John Boardman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

CHAPTER 7 The Etruscan Impact on Ancient Europe

Larissa Bonfante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_Voorwerk.indd V 7/03/11 15:35

 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 8 Hallstatt Europe: Some Aspects of Religion and Social

Structure
Biba Terzan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

CHAPTER 9 The Elusive Arts: The Study of Continental Early Celtic

Art since 1944
Ruth Megaw and Vincent Megaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

CHAPTER 10 An Archaic Alphabet on a Thasian Kylix

M.A. Tiverios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

CHAPTER 11 The Iron Age in Central Anatolia

Hermann Genz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

CHAPTER 12 The Role of Jewellery in Ancient Societies

Iva Ondrejová. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

CHAPTER 13 The Mushroom, the Magi and the Keen-Sighted Seers

Claudia Sagona and Antonio Sagona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_Voorwerk.indd VI 7/03/11 15:35

 THE GETAE: SELECTED QUESTIONS

Alexandru AVRAM

Abstract
The first note questions the topics of tribute and gifts as political instruments. While
discussing Polybius (4. 45–46), Thucydides (2. 97), Xenophon (Anabasis 7. 3. 16–18
and 26–28) and some archaeological and epigraphical data, the author suspects that the
Getae, as ‘protectors’ of the Greek cities, regularly used such instruments (see IHist
15). The tribute (phoros) was the regular tax imposed by a treaty (a kind of assess-
ment), while the ‘gifts’ (d¬ra) were an all-purpose solution to any kind of emergency.
The second note analyses a tradition about the wars between Lysimachus and the
Getic king, Dromichaites, which largely differs from the moralising story produced by
Diodorus (21. 11–12). Polyaenus (Strategemata 7. 25) mentions inter alia a trick used
by one of Dromichaites’ men in order to capture Lysimachus. This seems to be sup-
ported by the text of a fragmentary papyrus which collects examples of how a minor
event can change the fate of great conquerors. If this interpretation is correct, we can
suppose that it was the ‘interpreter’ mentioned in the papyrus (where herm[eneus]
might be restored) who had used the apate described by Polyaenus.

THE GETAE AND THE GREEK CITIES: TRIBUTES AND GIFTS

The question of the relationship between the Thracians and the Greek cities
has been answered in different ways. A.H.M. Jones (1940, 27) wrote:
The Thracians were an intractable people, who did not take kindly to Hellenism,
and relations between the Greek cities and the neighbouring tribes had usually
been hostile. … The Greek colonies were mere islets of civilization in a sea of
barbarism.
In his commentary on a new edition of the well-known decree honouring
Menas from Sestos (Orienti Graeci inscriptiones selectae I, no. 339), J. Krauss
(1980, 15, no. 1) argued that the Thracian enemy was
auch durch die bedenkenlose ‘inhumane’ Art seiner Kriegsführung und durch
seine Grausamkeit gefährlich. Man behandelte ja Mensch und Vieh ganz in glei-
cher Weise, schlachete ab oder versklavte.
Such views were not accepted by C.M. Danov, who constantly warned that the
relationship between the Thracians and the Greek colonies could differ over
time and from one region to another. He wrote:

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 61 7/03/11 15:55

 62 ALEXANDRU AVRAM

Wir sind nicht der Meinung, daß die ersten Begegnungen zwischen den altange-
sessenen Thrakern und den griechischen Seefahrern, Abenteurern und Kaufleuten,
die vor den Kolonisten kamen, immer feindlich gewesen seien. Eher ist anzuneh-
men, daß das Eindringen der Thraker in die griechischen Poleis an der westlichen
Pontosküste annähernd so verlief wie an der ägäischen Küste Thrakiens, mit dem
einzigen Unterschied, daß die Beziehungen zwischen Thrakern und Griechen an
der ägäischen Küste etwas gespannter waren (1976, 356).
Or:
Feindseligkeiten zwischen den Griechen und der eingesessenen Bevölkerung an
den Küsten des Pontos bestimmten trotz der offen oder versteckt geäußerten anti-
barbarischen Stimmungen der Autoren, die über sie berichten, nicht den Grundton
dieser Beziehungen (1976, 363).
Z.H. Archibald (2002, 66) recently argued that ‘the evidence from Thrace,
and the North Pontic region as well as Scythia, [was] not consistent with a
polarized view of Greeks and non-Greeks’. N. Ehrhardt seemed to prefer an
intermediate position. He rightly demonstrated ‘daß sich im politischen Ver-
hältnis von thrakischen Stämmen zu griechischen Städten einige Charakteris-
tika und Konstanten erkennen lassen’ (1988, 290–91).
My aim is not to engage in argument with one or other of these contradic-
tory views. I prefer to treat only the relationship between the Getae (as a
branch of the Thracians) and the cities of the west coast of the Black Sea.
Nevertheless, literary and epigraphic evidence for neighbouring regions, such
as the north coast of the Black Sea or the Thracian hinterland, will be used to
discuss parallels.
Let me take the example of Byzantium under pressure from the Thracians,
as described by Polybius (4. 45):
As Thrace encompasses their territory so effectually as to extend from one sea to
the other, they are engaged in perpetual and most difficult warfare with its inhab-
itants. They cannot on the one hand rid themselves of the war once for all by a
carefully prepared attack resulting in victory, owing to the great number of the
chieftains and their followers. For if they get the better of one, three other more
powerful chieftains are sure to invade their territory. Nor are they at all better off
if they give way and agree to terms and the payment of tribute (sugkatabántev
eîv fórouv kaì sunqßkav); for the very fact of their making concessions to one
chief raise against them enemies many times more numerous. So that they are, as
I said, involved in a warfare both perpetual and most difficult. … for, owners as
they are of the most fertile country, when they have carefully cultivated it and a
superb harvest is the result, and when the barbarians now appear and destroy part
of the crops, collecting and carrying off the rest, then indeed, apart from their lost
toil and expense, the very beauty of the harvest when they witness its destruction
adds to their indignation and distress.1

1
Translation W.R. Paton (London/New York 1922).

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 62 7/03/11 15:55

 THE GETAE: SELECTED QUESTIONS 63

The situation became more difficult when Byzantium was attacked by the
Celts (‘Galatai’) under Commontorius:
[The Celts] placed the Byzantines in extreme danger. At first, during the inroads
made under Commontorius the first king, the Byzantines continued to pay on each
occasion (d¬ra) three thousand, five thousand, and sometimes even ten thousand
gold pieces to save their territory from being laid waste, and finally they are com-
pelled to consent to pay an annual tribute (fóron tele⁄n katˆ êniautón) of
eighty talents down to the reign of Cavarus, during which the kingdom came to
an end (Polybius 4. 46).
This passage gives us a good idea of the main instruments used by Byzantium:
the payment of tributes (fóroi) and the conclusion of conventions (sunq±kai).
But the question is whether (and how far) this was typical for the entire west-
ern coast of the Black Sea?
Polybius draws a difference between fórov and d¬ra. In order to regulate
relations with the Thracians, only the payment of tributes seems to have been
effective, possibly because a hostile coexistence between them was a constant.
But with the Celts, the citizens of Byzantium tried a new stratagem: they gave
the invaders gifts in the hope that they would spare the chora. Only when the
gifts (3000 or 5000, sometimes even 10,000 staters) proved to be insufficient
was Byzantium compelled to consent to a larger tribute of ca. 24,000 staters.
I suspect that Byzantium sought to come to a solution of the Celtic problem
by following what had worked for many centuries with its Thracian neigh-
bours. The explanation was first given by Thucydides when describing the
Odrysian kingdom in the time of Seuthes I:
As for the tribute which came in from the barbarian territory and from all the Hel-
lenic cities (fórov êk pásjv t±v barbárou kaì t¬n ¨Elljnídwn pólewn)
over which the Odrysians acquired sway in the time of Seuthes – who, succeeding
Sitalces on the throne, brought the revenues to a maximum – its value was about
four hundred talents in coin, and was paid in gold and silver; and gifts in equal
value to the tribute, not only of gold and silver (d¬ra oûk êlássw toútwn xru-
soÕ te kaì ârgúrou), but besides these all manner of stuffs, both embroidered
and plain, and other articles for household use, were brought as offerings to the
King, and not for him only, but also for the subordinate princes and nobles of the
Odrysians (to⁄v paradunasteúousí te kaî gennaíoiv ˆOdrus¬n). For these
kings had established a custom which was just the opposite of that prevailing in
the kingdom of the Persians, namely, to take rather than to give (lambánein
m¢llon Æ didónai); indeed it was more disgraceful for a man not to give when
asked than to ask and be refused. This custom was observed among the other
Thracians also; but the Odrysian kings, as they were powerful, followed it more
extensively; indeed it was not possible to accomplish anything without giving
gifts (oû gàr ¥n pr¢zai oûdèn m® didónta d¬ra) (Thucydides 2. 97).2

2
English translation by C. Foster Smith (London/New York 1919).

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 63 7/03/11 15:55

 64 ALEXANDRU AVRAM

Many years ago, M. Mauss (1969, 35–43;3 cf. Mauss 2001) drew attention
to this passage and compared it with another well-known episode reported by
Xenophon (Anabasis 7. 3. 26–28). At a banquet given by Seuthes II for his
guests, a certain Gnesippus of Athens, who had been instructed by a Hera-
cleides of Maroneia who was familiar with Thracian customs, asserted in the
presence of the king that ârxa⁄ov e÷j nómov kállistov toùv mèn ∂xontav
didónai t¬ç basile⁄ tim±v ∏neka, to⁄v dè m® ∂xousi didónai tòn basiléa
(7. 3. 28). In both cases we find an interpretatio Graeca of the modern anthro-
pologists’ concept of gift exchange.
This custom is supported convincingly by the archaeological evidence,
especially by the silver treasure from Rogozen with its phialai inscribed with
names in the genitive accompanied by the mention of location (Fol et al. 1986;
Fol 1988; Cook 1989; Archibald 1998, 265–69; Alexandrescu 1999, 280–
88).4 It is important to emphasise that the treasure was discovered in the area
of the Triballi, i.e. a people mentioned by Thucydides as independent of the
Odrysians (2. 96. 4) and, furthermore, responsible for the murder in 424 BC of
the Odrysian king, Sitalces (Thucydides 4. 11). On the other hand, one of
the names attested at Rogozen (KOTUOS EG BEOU) is also known from a
vase of the treasure from Agighiol in Dobrudja (Berciu 1969; 1974, 40–84;
Alexandrescu 1999, 183–279). As we know from Thucydides (2. 97. 1), in the
5th century BC Odrysian dominion reached the Danube (méxri ‰Istrou pota-
moÕ), considered as a kind of natural frontier between the Thracians and the
Scythians. It was, of course, not actual direct dominance but rather a form of
protectorate exercised by the Odrysian house based on the king’s suzerainty
over various peripheral paradynasts. The link between suzerain and vassal was
undoubtedly based, in part, on the custom of gift-giving described by Thucy-
dides and Xenophon. Thus, we are invited to suppose that in the mid-4th cen-
tury BC one Cotys of Beos repeatedly gave presents to his king and suzerain,
and that the king transmitted some part of these gifts to his vassals, so that the
gifts initially sent by Cotys may well have come to be owned by paradynasts
after an elaborate journey through various hands, as was the case with the
Rogozen and Agighiol treasures.5

3
First published in REG 34 (1921), 388–97.
4
For the inscriptions, see Mihailov 1988.
5
Cf. Hornblower 1991, 372–73: ‘So the Odrysian royal names, often in the genitive, on the
phialai are names not of the recipients but of the donors. So Thucydides was not quite right to
imply that the Odrysians received without giving. (But the place-names, like “from Ergiske”,
may be evidence that the vessels originally came from somewhere else, perhaps as presents to the
Odrysians who then gave them to the Triballians). … Thus in the Persian empire, the “generos-
ity” of the king was expected to be matched by reciprocal gifts of goods, tribute or service.
Thucydides’ sharp distinction between Thracians and Persians is therefore to some extent
unreal.’

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 64 7/03/11 15:55

 THE GETAE: SELECTED QUESTIONS 65

The mechanics of such gift exchanges could constitute a paradigm for the
relationship between the same Odrysian king and the Greek cities of the coast.
Thucydides estimated the income of the Odrysian kings from tribute to be 400
talents; later, Diodorus (12. 50 2), clearly basing himself on Thucydides’ fig-
ures, mentions 1000 talents. Taking into account what Thucydides had written
about the amount of gifts being equal in value to the tribute, it is possible that
Diodorus simplified the question, giving a rounded figure of 1000 talents.
Now it is obvious that tribute was paid and gifts exchanged by the Greek
cities for protection. But the game seems to have been more complex. First of
all, for some coastal cities, especially those closer to the Danube, Scythian
protection might sometimes have been more attractive than Odrysian suze-
rainty. Herodotus (4. 78) mentions that the mother of the Scythian king Scyles
was a lady from Istros who gave her son a Greek education (êz ˆIstrijn±v dè
gunaikòv oœtov gínetai kaì oûdam¬v êpixwríjv, tòn ™ mßtjr aÀtj
gl¬ssán te ¨Elláda kaì grámmata êdídaze), and we are invited to see here
an alliance between Ariapeithes, Scyles’ father, and the Istrian aristocracy,
cemented by marriage (Archibald 1998, 109; Alexandrescu 1999, 105–07; cf.
Vinogradov 1997, 613–33; Dubois 1996, 11–14, no. 4; Oppermann 2004,
62–64). Secondly, Thucydides mentions that gifts were also sent to subordi-
nate princes and nobles (to⁄v paradunasteúousi). Consequently, we can
suppose that, if the tribute was perhaps collected periodically for the king, gifts
were commonly addressed not only to the king but also (if not especially) to
the paradynast who was closest to the city and thus in the best position to
guarantee its protection. Furthermore, if we accept this possibility, we must
suppose a real competition between local paradynasts to secure suzerainty over
the Greek cities. These local paradynasts seem to have been far more impor-
tant in this respect than the nominal authority of the king. Polybius probably
understood the striving and competitiveness of the Thracian chieftains. There-
fore, the case of Byzantium under pressure from Thracians and Celts is more
than merely paradigmatic.
Given the scarcity of evidence, it is hard to speculate about the relations
between the Greek cities and their Thracian/Getic neighbours at the time of the
Odrysian kingdom. After its collapse, we find the cities at first protected by
the Macedonians, then, after 281 BC, facing local barbarian chieftains alone.
Macedonian rule in the Lower Danube6 is a good example, as Ehrhardt notes
(1988, 299), ‘daß sich Eingriffe griechischer Mächte nicht unbedingt positiv
für die griechischen Poleis ausgewirkt haben’. The presence of Macedonian
garrisons and the repeated exactions imposed, especially by Lysimachus, were

6
In general, see Pippidi 1984, 151–63; Oppermann 2004, 140–52.

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 65 7/03/11 15:55

 66 ALEXANDRU AVRAM

the cause of the revolt of the Greek cities against the diadoch, and it is interest-
ing to note that the Thracians and the Scythians of the same area supported this
action (Diodorus 19. 73. 2). Therefore, the context is far from being identical
with what would be found at the end of the 2nd century BC, when the Greek
cities were happy to welcome the officers of Mithridates VI Eupator as a guar-
antee of their security.
Given this climate of hostility in relations between Lysimachus and the cit-
ies of the western Black Sea, and the attested alliance between the same cities
and the barbarian population, it is possible to see a continuation of the same
old conflict in the wars between Lysimachus and Dromichaites, the Getic
king.7 The Getic king undertook the protection of the Greek cities, as the
Odrysian kings had done for more than a century.
Diodorus mentions in an obscure context (21. 11) a territory occupied by
Lysimachus which the ‘Thracians’ (i.e. Getae) hoped to recapture while liber-
ating Agathocles, Lysimachus’ son (êlpíhontev âpolßcesqai t®n âfjÇr-
jménjn aût¬n xÉran üpò Lusimáxou), and later (21. 12. 3) the fortifica-
tions held previously by the ‘Thracians’ (tà froúria tà próteron üpárzanta
Qraçk¬n), which Dromichaites thought to recover after having captured Lysi-
machus himself. The same territories are mentioned by Pausanias (1. 9. 7) as
being on ‘the other side’ of the Danube (tà péran ‰Istrou). What is meant
by ‘the other side’? Since we do not know on which side of the Danube Dro-
michaites’ seat lay (the enigmatic ÍJliv of Diodorus), it is impossible to
answer this question convincingly. If Dromichaites reigned over a region situ-
ated to the north of the Danube, we can accept that he held some froúria on
the south bank and that Lysimachus had occupied them. The alternative expla-
nation is that Dromichaites’ kingdom lay south of the Danube (possibly in the
vicinity of Sboryanovo), and that the fortifications taken by Lysimachus were
north of the river. But, if this is correct, it would be rather difficult to explain
why Lysimachus preferred an expedition beyond the Danube to a direct attack
at the heart of the Getic kingdom.8 Therefore, it seems more likely to view
Dromichaites as a Getic king ruling north of the Danube who, through holding
some positions on the south bank, was ready to act as protector of the Greek
cities against the Macedonian conqueror.9

7
The chronology of Lysimachus’ campaigns (two at least but perhaps more) remains puz-
zling and will not be discussed here. See particularly Saitta 1955 (a first campaign in the early
290s, a second in 292/1 BC); contra Lund 1992, 46. For different interpretations, see also Jor-
danov 1990; Gattinoni 1992, 182–86.
8
I differ on this point with Lund (1992, 46–47). Oppermann (2004, 142) also agrees that
‘möglicherweise wird der Herrschersitz Helis, der jedoch nur einer von vielen gewesen sein
kann, nördlich der Donau gelegen haben’.
9
Pippidi 1971, 92–93; 1984, 161: ‘À tenir compte de l’essor de la puissance gète à la fin du
IVe siècle et de l’intérêt depuis toujours manifesté par leurs chefs pour les cités grecques de

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 66 7/03/11 15:55

 THE GETAE: SELECTED QUESTIONS 67

The protection afforded by the Getic king to the Greek cities and the nature
of the relationship are illustrated by three decrees from Istros: for the ambas-
sadors to Zalmodegikos (IHist 8, 3rd century BC); for Agathocles, son of
Antiphilos (IHist 15, ca. 200 BC); and for Meniskos, son of Theodoros,
recently published and more or less contemporary with the decree for Agath-
ocles (Milchev 2002).10
The decree in honour of Agathocles mentions more stages in the relation-
ship between Istros and the Thracians (Getae) who were led by a chieftain
(ãrxwn) named Zoltes:

1. Agothocles first defended the chora as a tozárxjv commanding over mer-

cenary troops (misqofóroi) (ll.11–14);
2. then he ‘persuaded’ (∂peise) the barbarians to return their booty to the people
and tried to conclude with them an agreement for 5 (?) talents (ll.14–25);
3. then, sent by the people, he ‘persuaded’ Zoltes once again not to invade the
chora, while redeeming it (êzagoráhein t®n xÉran) for 600 gold pieces
(staters) (ll.25–33);
4. then he renewed the agreements with Zoltes (â[ne]neÉsat[o mèn] tà[v
gege]njménav ömologíav kaì sunqß[kav]) (ll.33–36);
5. then he revealed both to Zoltes and to the people of Istros a plot (êpiboulß)
planned by ‘more robbers’ ([peir]at¬n pleió[n]wn) (ll.36–39);
6. but, when the Thracians broke the agreements, he was elected stra[tj]gòv
êpì t±v [xÉ]rav [aû]tokrátwr commanding over volunteers recruited
among Greek citizens and barbarian people who had taken refuge in the city
(lab¬n t[¬n te p]olit¬n ê[qel]óntav stratiÉtav kaì t¬n sumfeugón[twn
b]arbárwn e[îv t®n] pólin), and defended the chora until the arrival of
king ([ba]sileúv) Rhemaxos (ll.40–46);
7. then, since Rhemaxos did not settle a garrison in the city but just sent depu-
ties to claim the tribute (fórov), Agathocles travelled [ka]tà ploÕn to
Rhemaxos and persuaded him to send 100 horsemen for the defence of the
city (ll.46–51);

l’actuel littoral roumain, on pensera plutôt que l’initiative des hostilités a dû appartenir à Dro-
mikhaitès et qu’en répondant à ses incursions Lysimaque ne faisait que veiller à l’intégrité de ses
frontières. C’est ainsi que j’entends le récit passablement confus de Pausanias sur l’issue des
luttes entre les deux adversaries, et plus précisément la phrase où il affirme qu’en fin de compte
Lysimaque s’est vu contraint d’abandonner à Dromikhaitès … tà péran ‰Istrou. À la diffe-
rence de ceux qui prennent cette expression au sens que le premier aurait abandonné au second
les territories auparavant conquis au-delà du Danube, je préfère y voir l’aveu du fait qu’au terme
d’une guerre qui semble avoir affecté les deux combatants dans une égale mesure, ils ont dû se
mettre d’accord pour considérer le Danube comme une frontière provisoire de leurs possessions.’
Cf. Oppermann 2004, 142 with n. 149.
10
The readings and restorations can be improved: the author used a manuscript of Werner
Peek’s, and Peek has seen only photographs of the inscription.

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 67 7/03/11 15:55

 68 ALEXANDRU AVRAM

8. then he persuaded Rhemaxos’ son to send the 600 horsemen who finally
achieved victory over Zoltes (ll.51–57).

The inscription has been convincingly restored and commented upon in

detail by several scholars.11 It is only the second episode which remains
obscure. Did Agathocles really conclude an agreement with Zoltes, and, if so,
by what financial means (5 talents = 30,000 drachmas, which is approximately
1500 staters); or did he simply seek to do so, but unsuccessfully? In the for-
mer case, the third stage (paying 600 staters to redeem the chora) could be
explained by Zoltes breaking the agreement early – but would this not have
been mentioned, as was the case below when Zoltes surely broke off the agree-
ment? In the latter, the next stage would follow quite naturally, but we must
ask why Zoltes refused 1500 staters (if the restoration is correct) and then
consented to receive only 600 staters at some later time.
Apart from this obscure point, the text of the decree is quite clear. Istros
was, like several other cities in the same region, under the ‘protection’ of king
Rhemaxos (ll.16–17, restored: póleiv tàv [tassoména]v üp[ò basi]léa
¨Rjmazon: cf. l.45 ff.). However, this did not hinder another chieftain (ãrxwn)
such as Zoltes from plundering periodically the Istrian chora in order to claim
money as a kind of ransom. As Polybius wrote about Byzantium, ‘for the very
fact of their making concessions to one chief raise against them enemies many
times more numerous’ (4. 45).
Rhemaxos surely ruled over the north bank of the Danube. The text (ll.46–
47) says that he descended eîv tò [péra]n and (l.50) that, in order to meet
him, Agathocles travelled [ka]tà ploÕn. We may infer that Zoltes’ seat was
next to the Istrian chora and that he was not at all disturbed by the guarantees
offered by Rhemaxos to the Greek cities. Consequently, he could claim the
same treatment (money for ‘protection’). We find a good parallel for this
‘effect of distance’ in Xenophon (Anabasis 7. 3. 16–18; cf. Ehrhardt 1988,
296), when he describes the banquet of Seuthes. Among the people who have
brought gifts (d¬ra) were some Parian ambassadors who wished to conclude
a treaty with the Odrysian king, Medokos (filían diaprazámenoi). However,
Heracleides of Maroneia, familiar with Thracian customs, persuaded them to
redirect their gifts to Seuthes with the remarkable argument that the latter was

11
See, for earlier editions and commentaries, Pippidi 1962, 75–88; 1975, 31–55; Bengtson
1962 = 1974, 377–88; Moretti 1976, no. 131. French translation: Bertrand 1992, 195–97, no.
109; German translation: Schuller 1996, 102–04. I add that 1. 18–19 is now to be restored:
o[ûdéna kín]dunon úp[ologi|s]ámenov (cf. IHist 12, 1. 10–11). For further commentaries, see
≤tefan 1974; Avram 2001, 603–05. About the activities of the Istrian euergetae, see Gauthier
1985, 33–36; Nawotka 1997; Anghel 1999–2000.

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 68 7/03/11 15:55

 THE GETAE: SELECTED QUESTIONS 69

the neighbour of Parion and, thanks to this position, he could be favourable to

the Parians or cause them damage (kaì eŒ kaì kak¬v poie⁄n), while Medokos
was too far from Parion.
To sum up, I am inclined to understand from the decree for Agathocles that
a distinction was observed between the regular fórov (clearly mentioned as
addressed to Rhemaxos: l.48) and the sums paid to other chieftains like Zoltes
as a ransom for the crop. Such payments are mentioned in the well-known
Olbian decree for Protogenes as ‘passage-gifts’ (tà d¬ra t±v paródou)
(IOSPE I2 32 = Syll.3 495);12 they were claimed by Saitapharnes as a condition
for leaving the chora. The term is not used in the Agathocles inscription; how-
ever, we have the expression ‘he persuaded’ (∂peise) referring to payments,
which suggests roughly the same thing. The phoros was, in my opinion, the
regular tax imposed by a treaty (a kind of assessment), while the ‘gifts’ were
an all-purpose solution for any kind of emergency.
Nevertheless, gifts were necessary even when concluding (or renewing) a
treaty. The amount of tribute was established through different forms of agree-
ment, such as those called ömologíai kaì sunq±kai (l.36) or ºrkoi kaì
ömologíai (l.40) in the Agathocles inscription. The plural may be significant:
it seems to relate to the repeated conclusion of such agreements. We have two
good examples in the same inscription. Zoltes has broken the agreement just
concluded with Istros and, since the ‘protector’ Rhemaxos was involved,
Agathocles had to go again to Rhemaxos’ son (and successor) so as to per-
suade him to continue his father’s policies.
There are two useful parallels in the Thracian world for the renewal of trea-
ties between Greeks and neighbouring barbarians. The important (but unfortu-
nately fragmentary text of the treaty between Sadalas, the Thracian king, and
Mesambria (ömología Sadala kaì Messambrian¬n) (IGBulg I2 307 = V
5086 = Moretti 1976, no. 123) is introduced by an honorary decree which
mentions that the document was to be exposed together with stelai for Sadalas’
ancestors (parà tàv stálav t¬m progónwn). This means that Mesambria
had renewed the treaty with each king of the dynasty. The same practice is
observed in the regulations from Pistiros; they refer to the same oath as that in
the time of Cotys I (IGBulg V 5557 ter; SEG XLIII 486, XLVII 1101, XLIX
911). For the Getic world, we can add the embassy to Zalmodegikos (IHist 8).
This decree states that the ambassadors persuaded the dynast to release more
than 60 hostages and to return the revenues of the city: êkomísanto toùv
ömßrouv ∫nta[v] pleíouv Æ ëzßkonta kaì tàv prosódou[v] sunépeisan

12
English translation from Austin 1981. For the d¬ra, see Vinogradov 1997, 89.

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 69 7/03/11 15:55

 70 ALEXANDRU AVRAM

âpodoÕna[i a]ûtòn t¬i dßmwi. It is reasonable to suppose that, as with

Agathocles during the negotiations with Zoltes, or as with those Parians who
looked for an agreement with Medokos (Xenophon Anabasis 7. 3. 16–18 – see
above), some gifts might have been offered to Zalmodegikos. Such a practice
is carefully covered up by the rhetoric of the decree in honour of Sadalas, in
which Mesambria decides to present the king each year with a crown worth 50
talents. This is, as L. Moretti has rightly noted, an ‘eufemismo per dire che
Mesembria pagava a Sadala un tributo annuo di cinquanta stateri’ (1976, 138,
no. 123).

A NOTE ABOUT LYSIMACHUS AND DROMICHAITES

Lysimachus’ failure is emphasised by all the sources; most, however, derive

their information from the detailed story found in Diodorus (21. 11–12). We
are invited to believe that the Getae captured Lysimachus’ son, Agathocles,
during the first campaign; they then released him in an attempt to curry favour
with the Macedonians. A second campaign turned into disaster and Lysima-
chus himself was captured with his whole army. Two ‘parallel’ banquets were
organised: a luxurious one for the Macedonians; a modest one for the Getae.
By these means, Dromichaites suggested that the Macedonians were rich
enough and should expect to gain nothing from the impoverished Getae.
The symbolism of this story surely had nothing to do with the facts. Modern
scholars have rightly identified a literary trope adapted, it seems, from Hero-
dotus (9. 82: two feasts contrasting Persian luxury with Spartan frugality)
(Daicoviciu 1973). In fact, we are not aware of Diodorus’ source (Hieronymus
of Cardia?), and the whole story concerning Dromichaites’ treatment of his
Macedonian prisoners is in many respects suspect. However, even if it is cer-
tain that Dromichaites captured Lysimachus and his army – this same episode
is mentioned in an independent source/tradition (Memnon FGH 434 B, F 5)
– it is also obvious that there were many other contradictory interpretations of
the same events, despite the widespread success of Diodorus’ tale. Pausanias
himself had to choose from several versions (1. 9. 6):
Tóte dè ö Lusímaxov prÉtoiv t¬n perioíkwn êpolémjsen ˆOdrúsaiv,
deútera dè êpì Dromixaítjn kaì Gétav êstráteusen. Ofia dè ândrási sum-
balÑn oûk âpeíroiv polémwn, âriqm¬ç dè kaì polù üperbebljkósin, aûtòv
mèn êv tò ∂sxaton êlqÑn kindúnou diéfugen, ö dè oï pa⁄v ˆAgaqokl±v sus-
trateuómenov tóte pr¬ton üpò t¬n Get¬n ëálw. Lusímaxov dè kaì Àsteron
prosptaísav máxaiv kaì t®n †lwsin toÕ paidòv oûk ên parérgwç poioú-
menov, sunéqeto pròv Dromixaítjn eîrßnjn,t±v te ârx±v t±v aütoÕ tà
péran ‰Istrou pareìv t¬ç GétjÇ kaì qugatéra sunoikísav ânágkjÇ tò pléon.

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 70 7/03/11 15:55

 THE GETAE: SELECTED QUESTIONS 71

Oï dè oûk ˆAgaqokléa, Lusímaxon dè aûtòn äl¬nai légousin, ânaswq±nai

dè ˆAgaqokléouv tà pròv tòn Gétjn üpèr aûtoÕ prázantov.

One of these traditions is suggested by Memnon (FGH 434 B, F 5 above),

who used the Perì ¨Jrakleíav of Nymphis (FGH III, 267–69 [commen-
tary]; Desideri 1967; 1970–71). According to an excerpt from Photius (who
resumed Memnon), Lysimachus’ stepson, Clearchus of Heracleia, was not
released at the same time as the king, but only later, thanks to Lysimachus’
intervention (kaì aûtòv Àsteron t±Ç Lusimáxou pronoíaç âfíeto). This sug-
gests a less ‘moral’ treatment, whatever Diodorus says. In fact, we can infer
that Dromichaites cautiously preferred to release only Lysimachus (possibly
with a few companions), as he had Agathocles on a previous occasion, retain-
ing the other commanders as hostages. Only when he was certain that Lysima-
chus was adhering to the terms of the agreement – here we must presume that
the negotiations were more complex than Diodorus mentions – was he ready
to free the last of the hostages (Vulpe 2001, 462 with n. 1). Such a picture is
more consistent with Thracian (and Getic) custom than the moralising tale
proffered by Diodorus.
A curious treatment of the same events is offered by Polyaenus (Stratege-
mata 7. 25):
Dromixaítev Qraçk¬n basileùv, Lusímaxov Makedónwn. ˆEstráteusen ö
MakedÑn êpì t®n Qráçkjn. ¨O Qr¢çz tòn Makedóna êzjpátjse. Stratjgòv
aûtoÕ Seúqjv aûtómolov d® pròv Lusímaxon Økein êskßcato kaì pistòv
e˝nai dózav êv dusxwríav êmbállei toùv Makedónav, ∂nqa lim¬ kaì dícei
kakopaqoÕntav Dromixaítjv prospesÑn aûtón te Lusímaxon kaì toùv metˆ
aûtoÕ pántav âne⁄len, ¥san oï pesóntev Lusimáxeioi ândr¬n muriádev
déka.

Now although this story is largely to be rejected (first of all, the date and the
circumstances of Lysimachus’ violent death in 281 BC are well known; fur-
thermore, the number of 100,000 dead is absurd), it may reflect an established
tradition regarding Dromichaites’ ‘stratagem’. Polyaenus’ aim was simply to
collect stratjgßmata, and not to describe the full context of the events he
relates. Therefore, it is possible that, as in other cases he recounts, his concern
is exclusively to verify the reliability of the stratagem; he seems to have
embroidered the other aspects at will (Martin García 1991; Bianco 1997;
Schettino 1998; etc.).
The tradition concerning the trick used by Dromichaites seems to be revealed
by a very fragmentary papyrus of the 1st century AD, first published by
W. Schubart (1950, 75–77, no. 39), which gives examples of the fate of some
Hellenistic kings and cites the opinion of a certain ˆArist[ - -] (l. 9), who con-
trasted the vanity of various kings with the quiet life of leading philosophers:

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 71 7/03/11 15:55

 72 ALEXANDRU AVRAM

…]ratji dusqum[ía …
… eî]v tòn ãlkimon Púrron x[ártav …
… gr]acásjv, kaqˆ oÃv mèn ker[…
… t®n] dˆ ên Suríaç{n} múljn êze[…
5 … L]usímaxon Dromixaítou erm[…
…..]n kaì Ptolema⁄on tòn Kera[unòn
. aï S]eleúkou miaifoníai kljr[…
…..]ineíav üpò Galat¬n di[…
…..]n kal¬v oŒn e˝pen ˆArist[…
10 …..]a oÀtwv ânójton eür[eq±nai …
…..] ån eΔzaito m¢llon om[…
…..]j Mídav kaì Sólwn m[…
…..]v kaì ˆAristeídjv kaì S[wkrátjv
… kaì Plát]wn Æ Perdí[kkav …
L.11: quite sure ÊOm[jrov].
The probable moralising character of the text given by this papyrus has been
recognised by several scholars (Alfonsi 1953, 303–09; Nenci 1953, 28–29;
Lévêque 1957, 17–18; Mazzarino 1966, 356–58; Burelli Bergese 1990, 118–
20), and the thrust of it has been summarised by C. Franco in the following
terms:
Dopo il riferimento a vicende relative a Pirro, Lismaco e Tolemeo, viene appro-
vata e riportata l’opinione di Aris[…]: non si potrebbe trovare alcuno così
irragionevole da non augurarsi di essere un saggio piuttosto che un re, Omero
piuttosto di Mida, Solone piuttosto di […], Aristide e Socrate e […] e Platone
piuttosto che Perdicca (Franco 1993, 260).

Franco prudently observed that, since the circumstances of death of all the
other kings mentioned in the text are given, it could have been the same for
Lysimachus (l.5), thus providing unexpected support for the isolated tradition
reported by Polyaenus:
La menzione congiunta nel papiro di Lisimaco e Dromichaites potrebbe nascon-
dere un riferimento alla morte del diadoco: secondo Polieno [7.25] Lisimaco
sarebbe infatti stato ucciso dal re barbaro. La testimonianze è isolata, e contra-
detta senz’altro dal complesso della tradizione: tuttavia quel dato che in Polieno
potrebbe sembrare scaturito da un errore, trova nel collegamento con il papiro
Schubart un significativo riscontro, che suggerisce l’esistenza di una tradizione
antica per la quale Lisimaco non era stato solo prigioniero, bensì vittima di Dro-
michaites (Franco 1993, 261–62).

I find Franco’s interpretation very ingenious and I follow him insofar as he

connects the Schubart papyrus with the tradition exploited by Polyaenus.
However, I do not think that it is necessary to imagine that the text of the
papyrus describes Lysimachus as killed by Dromichaites. The idea would have
been more general: an unexpected minor event is able to neutralise all the

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 72 7/03/11 15:55

 THE GETAE: SELECTED QUESTIONS 73

previous, carefully accumulated exploits of powerful conquerors. Such a cou-

rageous man as Pyrrhus was killed by accident, while Ptolemy Ceraunus, hav-
ing murdered Seleucus, and thinking himself to be his sole heir (l.7:
kljr[onómov]), was himself killed by the Celts (l.8: üpò Galat¬n). A simi-
lar, if not so violent fate, has been imposed upon Lysimachus by Dromixaítou
erm[ -]: i.e. a thing belonging to, or a person acting for, Dromichaites).13
I use the same Polyaenus as a parallel, not for his erroneous account of
Lysimachus’ death but for the âpátj (cf. êzjpátjse) which is, in fact, the
main reason for including this episode among the stratagems he recounts: the
false friend and traitor. Consequently, I am inclined to search in the papyrus
(end of l.5) for ërm[jneúv] ‘interpreter’. (The ‘interpreter’ could, by the way,
be the fictive Seuthes, the strategos mentioned in Polyaenus.) An event which
nobody expected and which changed the course of history was that Lysima-
chus trusted his interpreter and accepted him as a guide when, in fact, he was
Dromichaites’ poisoned chalice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexandrescu, P. 1999: L’Aigle et le Dauphin. Études d’archéologie pontique

(Bucharest/Paris).
Alfonsi, L. 1953: ‘Sui papiri Schubart’. Aevum 33, 297–314.
Anghel, S. 1999–2000: ‘Euergetai in the Greek Cities in the Black Sea during the
Hellenistic Age’. Il Mar Nero 4, 89–115.
Archibald, Z.H. 1998: The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford/
New York).
—. 2002: ‘The Shape of the New Commonwealth. Aspects of the Pontic and Eastern
Mediterranean Regions in the Hellenistic Age’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and
Snodgrass, A.M. (eds.), Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the
Black Sea (BAR International Series 1062) (Oxford), 49–72.
Austin, M.M. 1981: The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest.
A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge).
Avram, A. 2001: ‘Coloniile grece≥ti din Dobrogea’. In Petrescu-DîmboviÁa, M. and
Vulpe, A. (eds.), Istoria românilor 1: Mo≥tenirea timpurilor îndepartate
(Bucharest), 533–57, 571–634.
Bengtson, H. 1962: ‘Neues zur Geschichte des Hellenismus in Thrakien und in der
Dobrudscha’. Historia 11, 21–28 (= Bengtson 1974, 377–88).
—. 1974: Kleine Schriften zur alten Geschichte (Munich).

13
It is perhaps significant that we have no preposition before the genitive of Dromichaites’
name (quite different from 1. 8, where we have üpò Galat¬n); therefore, since it is impossible
to connect the name of Lysimachus with the genitive of Dromichaites’ name, the latter surely
indicates the possessor of the enigmatic substantive beginning with EPM.

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 73 7/03/11 15:55

 74 ALEXANDRU AVRAM

Berciu, D. 1969: ‘Das thrako-getische Fürstengrab von Agighiol’. JBRGK 50, 211–
65.
—. 1974: Contribution à l’étude de l’art thraco-gète (Bibliotheca historica Romaniae
13) (Bucharest).
Bertrand, J.-M. 1992: Inscriptions historiques grecques (La roue à livres 17) (Paris).
Bianco, E. 1997: Gli stratagemmi di Polieno. Introduzione, traduzione e note critiche
(Turin).
Burelli Bergese, L. 1990: ‘L’ultimo Pirro’. In Miscellanea greca e romana (Studi pub-
blicati dall’Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica) 15 (Rome), 43–121.
Cook, B.F. (ed.) 1989: The Rogozen Treasure: Papers of the Anglo-Bulgarian Confer-
ence, 12 March 1987 (London).
Daicoviciu, C. 1973: ‘Il paese di Dromichaete’. In Daicoviciu, C., Dacica. Studii ≥i
articole privind istoria veche a pamîntului românesc (Cluj), 97–100.
Danov, C.M. 1976: Altthrakien (Berlin/New York).
Desideri, P. 1967: ‘Studi di storiografia eracleota’. Studi classici ed orientali 16, 366–
416.
—. 1970–71: ‘Studi di storiografia eracleota’. Studi classici ed orientali 19–20, 487–
537.
Dubois, L. 1996: Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (Hautes études du
monde gréco-romain 22) (Geneva).
Ehrhardt, N. 1988: ‘Konstanten in den politischen Beziehungen zwischen Thrakern
und Griechen auf dem Balkan’. Eos 76, 289–304.
Fol, A. (ed.) 1988: Der thrakische Silberschatz aus Rogosen, Bulgarien (Exhibition
Catalogue) (Sofia).
Fol, A., Nikolov, B. and Hoddinott, R. 1986: The New Thracian Treasure from
Rogozen, Bulgaria (Exhibition Catalogue) (London).
Franco, C. 1993: Il regno di Lisimaco: Strutture amministrative e rapporti con le città
(Biblioteca di studi antichi 71/Studi ellenistici 6) (Pisa).
Gauthier, P. 1985: Les cites grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, IVe–Ier siècles avant J.-C.
(BCH suppl. 12) (Athens/Paris).
Hornblower, S. 1991: A Commentary on Thucydides I (Oxford).
Jones, A.H.M. 1940: The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford).
Jordanov [Yordanov], K. 1990: ‘The Getae against Lysimachus’. Bulgarian Historical
Review 18.1, 39–51.
Krauss, J. 1980: Die Inschriften von Sestos und des thrakischen Chersones (Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 19) (Bonn).
Landucci Gattinoni, F. 1992: Lisimaco di Tracia: un sovrano nella prospettiva del
primo ellenismo (Edizioni universitarie Jaca 90) (Milan).
Lévêque, P. 1957: Pyrrhos (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome
185) (Paris).
Lund, H.S. 1992: Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship (London/
New York).
Martín García, F. 1991: Eneas el Táctico, Poliorcética. Polieno, Estratagemas (Biblio-
teca clásica Gredos 157) (Madrid).
Mauss, M. 1969: Oeuvres 3: Cohésion sociale et divisions de la sociologie (Paris).
—. 2001: ‘Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques’.
In Mauss, M., Sociologie et anthropologie, 9th ed. (Paris), 145–279.

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 74 7/03/11 15:55

 THE GETAE: SELECTED QUESTIONS 75

Mazzarino, S. 1996: Il pensiero storico classico, 3 vols. (Bari/Rome).

Mihailov, G. 1988: ‘Il tesoro di Rogozen. Le iscrizioni’. Epigraphica 50, 9–40.
Milchev, A. 2002: ‘Nadpis na gracki ezik ot Pliska’. In Boshnakov, K. and Boteva, D.
(eds.), Jubilaeus 5: Sbornik v chest na prof. Margarita Tacheva (Sofia), 280–84.
Moretti, L. 1976: Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, vol. 2 (Biblioteca di studi superiori
53) (Florence).
Nawotka, K. 1997: ‘Benefactors of City Istros’. Antiquitas 22, 123–37.
Nenci, G. 1953: Pirro. Aspirazioni egemoniche ed equilibrio mediterraneo (Pubbli-
cazioni della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia, Università di Torino 5.2) (Turin).
Oppermann, M. 2004: Die westpontischen Poleis und ihr indigenes Umfeld in vorrö-
mischer Zeit (Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des
Schwarzmeerraumes 2) (Langenweißbach).
Pippidi, D.M. 1962: Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer
und römischer Zeit (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Sektion
für Altertumswissenschaften 34) (Berlin).
—. 1971: I Greci nel Basso Danubio dall’età arcaica alla conquista romana (Milan).
—. 1975: Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies grecques du littoral roumain
de la mer Noire (Bucharest/Amsterdam).
—. 1984: Parerga. Écrits de philologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne (Bucha-
rest/Paris).
Saitta, G. 1955: ‘Lisimaco di Tracia’. Kokolas 1, 66–152.
Schettino, M.T. 1998: Introduzione a Polieno (Studi e testi di storia antica 10) (Pisa).
Schubart, W. 1950: Griechische literarische Papyri (Berichte über die Verhandlungen
der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Histor-
ische Klasse 97.5) (Berlin).
Schuller, W. 1996: ‘Hellenismen’. Ktema 21, 95–105.
≤tefan, A. 1974: ‘Die Getreide-Krisen in den Städten an den westlichen und nördli-
chen Küsten des Pontos Euxeinos in der hellenistischen Zeit’. In Welskopf, E.C.
(ed.), Hellenische Poleis. Krise-Wandlung-Wirkung, vol. 2 (Berlin), 648–63.
Vinogradov, J.G. 1997: Pontische Studien. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte und Epi-
graphik des Schwarzmeerraumes (Mainz).
Vulpe, A. 2001: ‘Istoria ≥i civilizaÁia spaÁiului carpato-dunarean între mijlocul secolu-
lui al VII-lea ≥i începutul secolului al III-lea a. Chr.’. In Petrescu-DîmboviÁa, M.
and Vulpe, A. (eds.), Istoria românilor 1: Mo≥tenirea timpurilor îndepartate
(Bucharest), 451–500.

93254_Tsetskhladze_CA1_02.indd 75 7/03/11 15:55