Surveying The Greek Chora The Black Sea

Surveying the greek Chora
BLaCk Sea StuDieS
the DaniSh nationaL reSearCh FounDation’S

Centre For BLaCk Sea StuDieS
BLaCk Sea region in a ComParative PerSPeCtive
Edited by
Pia Guldager Bilde and Vladimir F. Stolba
aarhuS univerSity PreSS a

Copyright: aarhus university Press 2006

Cover design: Lotte Bruun rasmussen, photo: Pia guldager Bilde
Printed in Denmark by narayana Press, gylling
iSBn-13: 978-87-7934-2385
iSBn-10: 87 7934 238 8
aarhuS univerSity PreSS

Langelandsgade 177
Dk-8200 aarhus n
White Cross mills

Lancaster La1 4XS
england
Box 511
oakville, Ct 06779
www.unipress.au.dk
the publication of this volume has been

made possible by a generous grant from
the Danish national research Foundation
Danish national research Foundation’s

Centre for Black Sea Studies
Building 1451
university of aarhus
Dk-8000 aarhus C
www.pontos.dk
Contents
Pia Guldager Bilde & Vladimir F. Stolba

introduction 7
John Bintliff
issues in the economic and ecological understanding of the Chora
of the Classical Polis in its Social Context: a view from the intensive
Survey tradition of the greek homeland 13
Susan E. Alcock & Jane E. Rempel

the more unusual Dots on the map: “Special-Purpose” Sites and the
texture of Landscape 27
Owen Doonan
exploring Community in the hinterland of a Black Sea Port 47
Alexandru Avram
the territories of istros and kallatis 59
Sergej B. Ochotnikov
the Chorai of the ancient Cities in the Lower Dniester area
(6th century BC-3rd century aD) 81
Sergej D. Kryžickij
the rural environs of olbia: Some Problems of Current importance 99
Sergej B. Bujskich
Die Chora des pontischen olbia: Die hauptetappen der
räumlich-strukturellen entwicklung 115
Vadim A. Kutajsov
the Chora of kerkinitis 141
Galina M. Nikolaenko
the Chora of tauric Chersonesos and the Cadastre of the 4th-2nd
century BC 151
Joseph C. Carter
towards a Comparative Study of Chorai West and east: metapontion
and Chersonesos 175
Tat’jana N. Smekalova & Sergej L. Smekalov

ancient roads and Land Division in the Chorai of the european
Bosporos and Chersonesos on the evidence of air Photographs,
mapping and Surface Surveys1 207
Alexander V. Gavrilov
theodosia and its Chora in antiquity 249
Sergej Ju. Saprykin

the Chora in the Bosporan kingdom 273
Viktor N. Zin’ko
the Chora of nymphaion (6th century BC-6th century aD) 289
Sven Conrad
archaeological Survey on the Lower Danube: results
and Perspectives 309
Indices 333
Contributors 345
introduction
Pia Guldager Bilde & Vladimir F. Stolba
general discussion of landscape archaeology, of the relationship between

greek poleis and their territory, and between greek settlers and the indigene
environment is unthinkable without the rich evidence preserved from the
Black Sea region. this has previously been acknowledged at conferences such
as Territoires des cites grecques 1991 (Brunet 1999) and Problemi della chora colo‑
niale dall’Occidente al Mar Nero 2000 (Stazio & Ceccoli 2001). During the days 31
august-3 September 2003 the Danish national research Foundation’s Centre
for Black Sea Studies hosted an international conference on Chora, Catchment
and Communications. The present state and future prospects of landscape archaeol‑
ogy in the Black Sea region, 7th century BC‑4th century AD at Sandbjerg estate
in Sønderborg, Denmark. as reflected in the title of the conference, which
took the Black Sea region as its point of departure, the aim of this scholarly
meeting was two-fold: to establish an overview of the relationship between
the larger greek cities and their territories through discussing how the chorai
were defined and organised in time and space, but also to take the pulse on
the current status of landscape archaeology in the Black Sea region. research-
ers representing the main ancient cities of the west, north and south coasts of
the region were invited, as well as specialists working in the mediterranean,
who provided a comparative perspective. unfortunately, not all researchers
invited could attend. in the present volume, 13 of the papers presented at the
conference are published. two of these were read by members of the Centre
staff, because their authors (v.a. kutajsov and g.m. nikolaenko) were unable
to participate in the conference, and further two papers have been added after
the conference (o. Doonan; t.n. Smekalova & S.L. Smekalov) in order to fill
some of the major gaps in the present volume’s coverage.
investigation of the rural landscapes of the greek poleis of the Black Sea
region, in particular along the north coast, has a long ancestry. Since the early
1950s, when intensive archaeological exploration of the rural territories of the
greek Black Sea cities began, the interaction between polis and its chora, as
well as the internal organization of the chora itself, became one of the main
issues of archaeological research in this region. good examples of such overall
studies, to mention but a few, are the investigations of a. avram on the greek
poleis of kallatis and istros, of S.B. ochotnikov, S.D. kryžickij & S.B. Bujskich
on the Dniester and Lower Bug regions, of S.F. Strželeckij, a.n. Ščeglov and
g.m. nikolaenko on the territory of Chersonesos, as well as of i.t. kruglikova,
Introduction
a.a. maslennikov, v.n. Zin’ko, and a.v. gavrilov on the european part of
the Bosporan kingdom, and Ja.m. Paromov’s studies of the asiatic part of
the kingdom. Some of these studies are recently summarised in english in
Colloquia Pontica 6 (2001) and in grammenos & Petropoulos 2003.
the above-mentioned studies aimed at an understanding of the relations
between polis and chora and between greeks and Barbarians as well as an as-
sessment of the economic (productive) capacity of the greek poleis through a
reconstruction of the territory’s borders and the size of the territory under state
control. they have provided us with significant insight into general trends and
patterns. however, they are mainly concerned with the greek cities and their
territories and thus have a strong research bias towards the greek period. it is
therefore not so easy to obtain a long-term perspective on settlement patterns
and land use in the region beyond this period. in addition, as an effect of the
Cold War it has been notoriously difficult to obtain good topographical maps
of the region. this has created significant problems, not least in publications
of regional studies, due to the difficulty of obtaining any valid idea about the
interrelation between sites and the physical landscape.
During the conference, a heated debate took place on survey method-
ologies. even though the term “survey” is employed in mediterranean as
well as in Black Sea archaeology, it soon became evident that the scope and
approaches, which it is taken to describe, differ significantly. as an effect
of the iron Curtain, the methodologies have moved in different directions,
and there has been little scholarly exchange concerning the development of
the discipline, which has become, particularly in the West over the past 40
years, a highly specialised field in its own right (e.g. g. Barker & D. mattingly
(eds.), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 1-5, 1999-2000). however,
such a debate is to be welcomed, because a lack of exchange of ideas, also on
methodology, has implied that sampling techniques and the strategies behind
them differ to an extent that comparison of data between the two regions is
rendered virtually impossible.
nevertheless, times are changing. the early 1990s saw an intensification
of cooperation between scholars over systematic, intensive and non-judge-
mental field survey in the region, and the method has now been practiced by
research teams in the Black Sea region mainly in collaborative projects. to be
mentioned is the ukrainian-Polish investigation of nymphaion’s chora made
in 1993-1997 (Scholl & Zinko 1999; Zin’ko in this volume), o. Doonan’s survey
around Sinope carried out between 1996 and 1999 (Doonan 2004; contribution
to this volume), as well as the brief survey made by a French-russian team
on the taman’ Peninsula in 1998 and 1999 (müller et al. 1998; 1999; 2000). the
german-Bulgarian investigation of the territory in the hinterland between the
roman forts in iatrus and novae which took place from 1997 to 2003 is, more-
over, to be cited (Conrad in this volume). all four projects have contributed
greatly to our understanding of the inhabited landscapes of the region, and
they show the potential of following non-judgemental sampling strategies.
Introduction
During the conference, many issues were discussed, primarily the or-
ganisation of the territories, settlement patterns, and demography. as do the
settlement patterns, the territory sizes vary greatly from the more modest,
such as nymphaion with c. 50 km2 (Zin’ko) to the extremely large territories
of olbia with c. 400 km2 (Bujskich with reference to kryžickij & Ščeglov 1991)
and Chersonesos, the chora of which only divided into plots (including the
region of kerkinitis with 50-70 km2 [kutajsov]) amounted to c. 440-480 km2
(Chtcheglov 1992, 254-256; nikolaenko 1999, 44).
Soviet archaeology has a long tradition of employing aerial (and later satel-
lite) photography in the study of the rural landscape (e.g. Ščeglov 1980; 1983).
analysis hereof has formed the basis of much of our knowledge about the
western Crimean cadastres. recently, the combination of such photography
with historical and contemporary topographical maps has been employed
with significant results by t.n. Smekalova and S.L. Smekalov as witnessed
by their article in this volume. their study confirms the observation made
earlier by a.n. Ščeglov concerning the orthogonal organisation of the Cher-
sonesean territory on the outer tip of the tarchankut Peninsula. What seems
even more important, they demonstrate convincingly that the european part
of the Bosporan kingdom on the kerch Peninsula was similarly divided into
orthogonal land-plots. Possibly, as suggested by S. Bujskich (with reference
to Šiškin 1982), part of olbia’s territory was also thus organised. these con-
clusions challenge a. Wasowicz’s suggestion that the territorial organisation
employed in the (northern) Black Sea region followed the settlers’ ethnic back-
ground distinguished by an ionian (radial) system and a Doric (orthogonal)
system (Wasowicz in: Brunet 1999). a recently published study by Ju. gorlov
& Ju. Lopanov (1995), combined with data previously provided by Paromov,
shows that a radial system was employed on the asiatic side of the Bosporos
in the micro region of the Fontalovskij Peninsula, where road systems radiate
from the main settlements with the lay-out of fields adapting to the road sys-
tems. the same seems to have been the case in olbia’s immediate surround-
ings, but the above observations make it difficult to distinguish between io-
nian and Doric habits of organising the territory. in general, most of the early
Black Sea cadastres so far identified seem to belong to the 4th century BC, and
Smekalova & Smekalov’s study suggests that the entire european part of the
Bosporan kingdom was divided into plots contemporaneously.
We can observe that the plot sizes vary in the individual chorai. the small-
est plots are found in the chora of olbia, where they are either 37.5 × 280 m
or varying from 0.3-0.5 ha up to 3-5 ha which is reminiscent of the mainland
greek “norm” of 3.8-5.4 ha as mentioned by Bintliff. even within the same
polis territory plot sizes may differ. thus, the size of all land lots in the nearer
chora of Chersonesos and possibly around kerkinitis is 4.4 ha or 36 plethra,
which nikolaenko considers a basic module, whereas the land lots situated on
the tarchankut Peninsula are considerably larger amounting to c. 10-10.5 ha
with some individual lots measuring up to 53 ha (Chtcheglov 1992, 254-256;
10 Introduction
nikolaenko 1999, 35-44; nikolaenko and Smekalova & Smekalov in this vol-
ume). With a standard size of approximately 4.4 ha (210 × 210 m), which is
very close to the size found in the northern half of the metapontine chora be-
tween Bradano and Basento (Carter), some 2,360 to 2,380 plots would have
filled the divided area of the Chersonesos’ home chora (nikolaenko 1999, 42;
cf. Carter in this volume).
in the Bosporan kingdom, the module employed for the cadastres dif-
fers from the Chersonesean (and metapontine) modules. Smekalova &
Smekalov suggest that it is based on the egyptian foot resulting in plots
of 1,000 × 1,000+100 feet. the territory around theodosia was organised in
plots measuring 350 × 390 m, whilst those around nymphaion measured
350-380 × 380-400 m (Smekalova & Smekalov). they also suggest that in the
asiatic Bosporos around Patrasys a similar orthogonal system with distances
of c. 340 m was employed.
Several of the authors discussed the productive capacity of the territories
(kryžickij, Bujskich, kutajsov, Smekalova & Smekalov) but their results are
not so easy to compare because their starting points, e.g. production capacity
per hectare, differ. neither was there common ground concerning site typol-
ogy, but it was repeatedly underlined that it was characteristic of the chora
settlements that they did not show any regular internal organisation (gavrilov,
kryžickij). apart from alcock & rempel few authors discussed site types other
than settlements. Sanctuaries were briefly mentioned by Carter, Bujskich,
kryžickij, and nikolaenko, but in the Black Sea region, chora sanctuaries and
their location has been much less in focus than in the West. this is even more
so true of the interpretation of off-site scatters, which is intensively discussed
in mediterranean landscape archaeology (alcock & rempel, Bintliff, hayes
[oral presentation]).
in many localities there are signs of a crisis in the early 5th century BC. this
is true in the chora of olbia (kryžickij) and in the european Bosporos (Saprykin,
Zin’ko), but there is no agreement as to its reason, whether it was due to in-
vading nomads (Zin’ko) or it was the result of greek expansion (Saprykin).
in theodosia settling of the chora started during this period and seems to
contradict the evidence from the chorai mentioned above (gavrilov).
the conference also contributed to exposing a major crisis in most of the
region in the first half of the 3rd century BC. as an effect of this crisis, most
of the chorai were abandoned and city fortifications were strengthened. the
reason for this crisis mentioned by the scholars present at the conference was
primarily the movement of nomads (ochotnikov, Saprykin) and the entry of
new nomadic groups such as Sarmatians (gavrilov) or galatians (Bujskich).
the reasons behind this collapse were probably manifold, and the change in
the climate to hotter and drier conditions mentioned by kutajsov (with ref-
erence to Šnitkov 1969) and Smekalova & Smekalov may well have been an
additional factor (for a recent discussion, see Stolba 2005a; 2005b).
the most difficult question addressed at the conference concerned the re-
Introduction 11
lationship between greek, ethnically mixed, and non-greek components of

the cultural landscape. Some participants were of the opinion that the greek
colonists arrived in an “empty” land (e.g. gavrilov, kryžickij, Zin’ko), but
this was contested by Carter. it was generally acknowledged that not least
in the chorai ethnic groups were quite mixed and most of the time co-existed
relatively peacefully (e.g. avram, gavrilov, nikolaenko, and Zin’ko). how to
interpret the material remains in ethnic terms was nevertheless hotly debated.
the main battlefield was (and still is) how to interpret handmade pottery and
living units dug partly into the ground ([semi]-dugouts) (see also tsetskhladze
2004). in varying quantities, both can be found in the cities as well as in the
chora settlements and not merely in the initial phases of colonisation. Bujskich
and kryžickij are of the opinion that their presence shows greek accommo-
dation to local climate and resources, whereas other researchers view this as
sign of an ethnically mixed population (avram, gavrilov, ochotnikov and
partly kryžickij). Carter argued strongly against modern preconceptions of
“nation states” and “racial purity” underlying much of the discussion on
greek-Barbarian polarity, but it was acknowledged that the Barbarians pre-
sented a much greater challenge in the Black Sea region than they did in other
colonial areas of the greek world (Bintliff, Carter). Perhaps the way to cut
the gordic knot is, as suggested by Carter, to investigate skeletal material on
a large scale as has been done with great success for example in the chora of
metapontion.
We may conclude that there is still room for further discussion over aims,
methodologies, and results in landscape and survey archaeology. We are sure
that the coming decade will show further methodological advances. the recent
deplorable development in many Black Sea chorai, where subtle, non-monu-
mental evidence is being rapidly destroyed by illicit digging activities and by
urban and agricultural expansion as mentioned by kryžickij concerning the
chora of olbia, should induce us to exploit the potential of intensive survey
as a kind of rescue archaeology even further (alcock & rempel) before more
knowledge is irretrievably lost.
Finally, the editors would like to thank all contributors as well as to ac-
knowledge the effort of friends and colleagues, who assisted us in producing
this volume. the translation of papers submitted in russian (ochotnikov,
kryžickij, Smekalova & Smekalov) was made by alexej v. gilevič. the lin-
guistic revision was undertaken by robin Lorsch Wildfang and Patric kreuz
(article of S. Bujskich). the editing of illustrations was made by Line Bjerg and
Jakob munk højte, to whom the editors want to express their gratitude.
Bibliography
Brunet, m. (ed.) 1999. Territoires des cites grecques. Actes de la table ronde inter‑
nationale organisée par l’École Française d’Athènes, 31 octobre‑3 novembre 11
(BCh Suppl., 34). Paris.
12 Introduction
gorlov, Ju.v. & Ju.a. Lopanov 1995. Drevnejšaja sistema melioracii na ta-
manskom poluostrove, VDI 3, 121-137.
grammenos, D.v. & e.k. Petropoulos (eds.) 2003. Ancient Greek Colonies in the
Black Sea (Publications of the archaeological institute of northern greece,
4). 2 vols. thessaloniki.
kryžickij, S.D. & o.m. Ščeglov 1991. Pro zernovyj potencial antyčnych deržav
Pivničnogo Pryčornomor’ja, ArcheologijaKiiv 1, 46-56.
müller, C., e. Fouache, v. gaïbov, et al. 1998. Péninsule de taman (russie
méridionale), BCH 122, 643-654.
müller, C., e. Fouache, y. gorlov, et al. 1999. Péninsule de taman (russie
müller, C., e. Fouache, y. gorlov, et al. 2000. Péninsule de taman (russie
nikolaenko, g.m. 1999. Chora Chersonesa Tavričeskogo. Zemel’nyj kadastr IV‑III
vv. do n.e. Part 1. Sevastopol’.
Scholl, t. & v. Zin’ko 1999. Archaeological Map of Nymphaion (Crimea). Warsza-
wa.
Stazio, a. & S. Ceccoli (eds.) 2001. Problemi della chora coloniale dall’Occidente
al Mar Nero. Atti del quarantesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia,
Taranto 2 settembre‑3 ottobre 2000. taranto.
Stolba, v.F. 2005a. the oath of Chersonesos and the Chersonesean economy
in the early hellenistic Period, in: Z.h. archibald, J.k. Davies & v. ga-
brielsen (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing. The New World of Ancient
Economies, 323‑31 BC. oxford, 298-321.
Stolba, v.F. 2005b. monetary Crises in the early hellenistic Poleis of olbia,
Chersonesos and Pantikapaion. a re-assessment, in: C. alfaro, C. marcos
& P. otero (eds.), XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismática (Madrid, 2003).
Actas – Proceedings – Actes. madrid, 395-403.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1980. utilisation de la photographie aérienne dans l’étude
du cadastre de Chersonésos taurique (ive-iie s. av. n.è.), DialHistAnc 6,
59-72.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1983. razvedki i raskopki antičnych sel’skich poselenij i
agrarnych sistem, in: D.B. Šelov (ed.), Metodika polevych archeologičeskich
issledovanij. moskva, 12-30.
Šiškin, k.v. 1982. aerometod kak istočnik dlja istoričeskoj topografii ol’vii i
ee okrestnostej, SovA 3, 235-242.
tsetskhladze, g.r. 2004. on the earliest greek Colonial architecture in the
Pontus, in: C.J. tuplin (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World. Studies in
Black Sea History, Historiography, and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica, 9).
Leiden-Boston, 225-278.
issues in the economic and ecological
understanding of the Chora of the Classical
Polis in its Social Context:
a view from the intensive Survey
tradition of the greek homeland
John Bintliff
this paper will present aspects of method and theory relating to our under-
standing of the chora of the Classical greek polis in the aegean homelands, and
it will offer questions about related topics in the Black Sea colonial territories
which i hope our many experts in that region can respond to.
intensive surface survey in the aegean today typically involves teams of
fieldwalkers at 15-20 metre intervals crossing large areas of the landscape,
systematically counting and collecting continuously surface artifacts, essen-
tially potsherds, and also recording architectural and other surface debris.
Concentrations of artifacts or clusters of distinctive finds are subsequently
treated as “sites” and should be gridded for intensive plotting of finds. even
the largest surface sites such as major cities (Fig. 1) can be studied in the same
way. Further study of sites can include geoprospection which can now be
carried out for entire cities (Fig. 2) and detailed chronological and functional
analysis of the surface finds by period experts.
(1) the chora was inseparable from the polis, and this depended in the home-
land on the peculiar relationship between citizen rights and ownership of
land. indeed, since only around a half of the poleis had any kind of moderate
democracy, the others being more narrowly oligarchic or under individual
tyrants, our literary overemphasis on the unparalleled democracy of athens
is as always highly unhelpful in comprehending typical aspects of Classical
town and country life. in any case, even those moderate democracies were
largely providing full rights to the more substantial farmers of the hoplite class.
it has been suggested that the kind of land holding or kleros in the homeland
qualifying a farmer to this class or above was some 3.8-5.4 ha. on the other
hand, variations regionally in the kind of land use and in climate might mean
that both within the aegean and especially so in the greek colonies, plot sizes
might vary both upwards and below this figure (e.g. obviously wine growing
and pasture specialization could often imply respectively much smaller areas
14 John Bintliff
Fig. 1. Survey grid over the 100 hectare city of Thespiai, Boeotia, with the distribution of col‑
lected surface sherds of Classical and Classical to Early Hellenistic date.
or much larger being typical, whilst research in the maghreb has shown that
the relative size of ancient olive plantations was typically far larger than in
the aegean for climatic reasons). nonetheless, it has recently been pointed out
that there are strong limitations on the scale of estates in relation to available
labour: a peasant family with a single ox-plough would be hard put in the ae-
gean to cultivate even as much as the 4-5 ha plot noted above, whilst growing
wine or olives as major commercial crops – rather than for autoconsumption
plus a small marketed surplus – requires at harvest extra labour, traditionally
provided by hired workers in recent times in the mediterranean.
Questions for the Black Sea: What is the position regarding holding sizes and
land management here, or the roles of slave, hired labour and basic peasant
family input?
Issues in the Economic and Ecological Understanding 15
Fig. 2. Geophysical plots from the 30 hectare city of Tanagra, Boeotia (by Dr. B. Music and
Prof. B. Slapsak, Ljubljana University).
16 John Bintliff
(2) the close tie between the main city (asty) of the polis and its chora meant that
in the homeland most citizens were full or part-time farmers. although this
should have meant that, as in medieval Western europe, a small percentage
– 10-20% of the population – might have lived in towns (as craftspeople, mer-
chants, or professional lawyers, the rentier class, etc.), with the rest in villages,
hamlets and farms, intensive survey in the aegean suggests rather that 70-80%
of the Classical greek population probably dwelt in urban settlements (which
i would define here as 10 ha or more in size, or some to many thousands of
inhabitants). in contrast then, only some 20-30% of the Classical population
would typically have lived in the countryside at lower levels of the settlement
hierarchy. this seems counterintuitive when we view the dense numbers of
rural farms discovered by intensive surface survey in the aegean, but many if
not most of these seem short-lived, and even if we took all as contemporary,
their estimated population summed is vastly overshadowed by the likely
inhabitants of the large number of urban sites which they focus around. the
reasons for this seem to be both socio-political and economic. on the one hand,
the involvement of citizens, at least of the hoplite and aristocratic classes, in
the political, as well as intense socio-cultural and ritual life of the polis, made
asty residence highly desirable if not essential, and the same may have been
true of the larger satellite settlements or komopoleis within the polis borders.
on the other hand, as careful analysis by ancient historians has shown, the
average territory in the aegean of the typical or Normalpolis, is a mere 5-6 km
in radius – so that in theory all the asty dwellers could reach the limits of the
polis farmland in an hour or so of travel – a time considered by human geog-
raphers to be an approximate limit for regular and very effective exploitation
in a mixed farming economy. in actuality, recent research suggests that often
in practice the radius of direct exploitation from the asty proper was more
like a mere half hour radius (2-3 kilometres), beyond which begin to appear
substantial hamlets or villages with similar catchments (Fig. 3). Such forms
of intensive land occupation in the aegean can be associated with even more
favourable conditions for farmers to prefer to reside in the asty or its komopo‑
leis, and perhaps not surprisingly cross-cultural studies confirm that such 2-3
kilometre catchments are frequently observed in dry-farming cultures. one
reason for the prevalence of satellite komai, apart from the efficient access to
land for a society preferring to live in nucleations, is that many in the home-
land were probably formerly autonomous communities (i have called these
“proto-poleis”) in the early iron age to archaic period, being later absorbed
by a dominant settlement in its rise to local polis status.
Questions for the Black Sea: What is the pattern and role of subsidiary settle-
ments to the polis here, and how do the human work logistics look regarding
travel into the chora?
Fig. 3. Cellular pattern of villages (black circles) and towns (black triangles) reconstructed
and hypothesized for Classical Boeotia, territory radius circles set at 2.5 km.
(3) these characteristics of the aegean Normalpolis have been summarized

in the concept of the Dorfstaat (effectively the typical polis was the size of a
large traditional aegean village of a few thousand people), where towns of
10-30 ha are common, larger rarer, and giant interregional centres such as
athens, thebes (cf. Syracuse) of several hundreds of hectares can be termed
Megalopoleis, operating on a very different geographical and functional level.
nonetheless, beneath the Megalopoleis we can discover the same structure of
towns and dependent village-hamlets with similar catchments, imposed both
by ergonomics and earlier autonomous settlement seeding (e.g. Boeotia and
attica) (Fig. 4). in attica, despite the vast size of the mainland chora, what we
actually see is a mosaic of many komopoleis and village-hamlets operating over
small catchments, with a putative intensive “market garden” zone or greater
athens in the close-packed hamlets immediately around the walled town. it
does seem to be often the case that colonial chorai could be much larger than
those in the homeland (e.g. anatolia, magna graecia). Joseph Carter at this
conference told us about his remarkable project at metapontion (see contribution
in this volume), but a typical question that strikes one from his survey maps is
how the relationship functioned between that city and the quite distant but
dense scatter of Classical farms in its deep hinterland – were there also satellite
settlements acting as foci in the larger chorai? We can show in Boeotia that,
1 John Bintliff
Fig. 4. Thiessen polygon territorial analysis of the likely catchment areas for the Classical
demes or village units of Attica around the city of Athens, circle radius 2.5 km.
perhaps naturally, there can often be a gap of some 1-2 kilometres around
the asty where farms are rare, since daily commuting to the land was barely
constrained by distance.
Questions for the Black Sea: how large were the chorai of these poleis, and how
did the settlement structure adapt to local environmental conditions and
ergonomic restrictions?
(4) the point of residence at all in the aegean countryside can therefore be
problematized for Classical times, not of course for distances of more than
3 km and especially for more than 5 km from nucleated settlements in the
larger chorai, but for dwelling within the typically far smaller radius found in
the Normalpolis around the asty and its komai. Some of the rural farms found
by intensive survey seem indeed to be temporary fieldhouses, for storage or
seasonal use, but most found do still appear to possess a full domestic range
of surface finds pointing to at least regular full family use – although plac-
ing slaves and/or hired labour on your estates is a known practice from the
sources. the common finding of dining cups brings such common “family
farm” assemblages into line with those found in urban houses, but we know
that even slaves could possess fine tableware. the need for careful gridding
of rural surface sites, the plotting of different categories of finds such as tile
and domestic pottery, and the gathering of relatively large collections of pot-
tery, plus comparisons with the level and type of surrounding offsite artefact
scatters, can be brought out by the following examples: firstly, the use of tile
counts to identify major structures; secondly, quite a typical example in fact
for the aegean (Figs. 5-6) where in three consecutive periods of activity of the
same rural site we can now argue for very variable site functions. over entire
landscapes the cumulative picture given by such analyses is now allowing us
a much more nuanced view of landscape history (Fig. 7). immediate details of
land use can also be derived this way, e.g. the discovery of site haloes which
seem to mark infield zones or gardens around estate centres, matched by
reconstructions based on ancient agricultural writers.
Fig. 5. A large estate centre in the south rural landscape of the city of Thespiai, Boeotia.
Surface collection grid shown with spread of collected sherds of Archaic to Classical and Early
Hellenistic age. Interpretation – a large farm using all the site surface.
20 John Bintliff
Fig. 6a‑b.
The same farmstead site with
the spread of Early and then
Late Roman surface sherds.
Interpretation – in Early
Roman a shrunken, small
farm, in Late Roman slight
activity at the site only (a
farm store or temporary use,
no permanent occupation).
Fig. 6a.
Fig. 6b.
Questions for the Black Sea: Who lived on farms and/or worked the estates,
how did this fit into asty, village and resident farm life?
(5) as for living in the country, the life of the wealthy gentleman farmer and
poor peasant can both be suggested by the survey data from the aegean. in the
atene deme of attica, most farms seem to be those of wealthy farmers, whilst
Fig. 7. Reconstruction of the size and function of the rural sites in Classical times south of the
city of Thespiai. Key: C = cemetery, LF = Large Farm, MF = Medium Farm, F = Small Farm,
H = Hamlet, S = Sanctuary.
in Boeotia and elsewhere, the norm is a smaller, more basic and presumed
family farm of five or so occupants. in either case it would have had economic
advantages to be close to your estate, or at least if partible inheritance was
common – the largest coherent block of your estate – so poorer peasants might
literally reap a better income and the richer citizens could settle dependents
in the landscape to enhance their income likewise.
Questions for the Black Sea: What do we know of the status of rural farm and
estate owners and occupiers?
(6) one link to my colleague Susan alcock’s interest (see contribution in this
volume) in culturally-perceived and modified landscapes of antiquity – is the
22 John Bintliff
role that geographical analysis, especially using giS, can help us investigate
such aspects of rural life and town-country relations. my practical experience
in the chora of the city of hyettos in Boeotia supported the idea of visual and
audio contact between rural farm occupants and the asty, but this may have
been merely the inevitable and not intentional effect of the amphitheatre
nature of the northern chora – since in our current city and country survey
at tanagra in east Boeotia, and in the south chora of ancient thespiai, also
in Boeotia, the Classical farms almost intentionally seem to turn their visual
and audio backs on the town. giS study in thespiai found that no discov-
ered farms were visible from the city and of course vice versa, but on the
other hand – i think more for reasons of safety and support – all farms were
intervisible with one or more other rural farms. Similar questions are raised
by rural cemeteries. in tanagra we seem to have an unparalleled chance to
see the likely real density of such small sites due to the special conditions of
intensive and continued tomb-robbing since the late 19th century. around the
asty as known elsewhere there is a zone of larger cemeteries, some aligned
with city gates and roads, and textual sources from many cities and excava-
tions, suggest that the position and layout of such cemeteries did reflect a
desire to be publicly visible, at least for the richer monument-placing families.
associated inscriptions address passers-by. in contrast, the tanagra rural
cemeteries are generally small, occasionally even a single grave, and are so
ubiquitous that road alignment is not relevant – indeed some are clearly off
likely through-routes. in the thespiai South chora, giS analysis shows that
rural cemeteries are almost invisible until you come very close to them. our
current thinking is that such rural burials are tied to the position of family
estates more than any other factor and are essentially private statements of
family ownership and traditions of land use. the farms too may have more
to do with the much-discussed privacy of the family home, usually dealt with
under urban social life. however a warning is required – it has been pointed
out that family burial plots in urban cemeteries and epigraphic study suggest
that such grave groups correspond to short family lines of a few generations
at the most – and rural survey suggests that most surface find cemeteries are
also of limited life. the role of memory is likely to be confined, as far as indi-
vidual family life and points in the landscape (something occasional texts also
underline in terms of the problem of someone else’s burials on your land).
Questions for the Black Sea: What can be said in response about the location
and pattern of farms, graves here, and also in relation to roads? are colonial
systems affected by the cadastral placing of plots with set intervals and with
associated access?
(7) one aspect where we might expect at first a notable contrast between the
aegean and the colonial world might be in the role of indigenous peoples.
this could also vary if they lived at a distance and had their own landscape/
Fig. .
Model for the origins of the
typical Greek homeland polis
as a Village‑State.
economy, or were adjacent but used a similar and parallel land use, or were
or became integrated – and also we often are dealing with progressive effects
of hellenisation. actually this kind of two population element is not, surpris-
ingly, absent from the homeland of the aegean, where most poleis arose by the
swallowing up of other communities who almost certainly were or included
different ethnic or community groups e.g. Leleges, Pelasgians, or local cultural
groups e.g. minyans and Boeotians. equally common are elite and serf groups
at least claiming distinct ethnic origins e.g. helots and Penestes in Laconia
and thessaly, and Serfs on Crete. But in the aegean usually all these groups
had relatively similar forms of land use and culture: on the other hand recent
discussions in both the Black Sea and in magna graecia suggest that sup-
posed greek colonial populations were full of absorbed indigenous people.
gschnitzer some years ago made the important point that the incorporation
of other poleis-peoples into an expanding greek city state was associated in
greek laws with the merging of all land into polis ownership, giving the city
the right to alienate, dispossess and buy land anywhere. thus the “predatory”
polis could therefore ensure its own core subsistence by controlling exports
of critical products and its wealthier families could exploit distant land via
slave and/or hired-tenant labour.
Questions for the Black Sea: Which were the “native”-colonial interactions and
their relations in the chora?
24 John Bintliff
Fig. . The city of Thespiai, rural sites (white dots) and offsite pottery (greyscale in sherds per
hectare). The vast bulk of the offsite is made up of Classical manuring debris carried out of the
city.
(8) Did the colonial scenario enhance the role of strategic-military factors as
opposed to the aegean homeland, in the chora, e.g. more nucleation, role of
rural fortifications in the landscape? in the aegean towers with farms are
often seen as against robbers and to lock up possessions, as well as marking
status, but also we have lookout towers due to the constant intercity warfare,
and walling of all larger nucleations. in my own fieldwork experience in
the adriatic greek colonial world similar watchtower systems were erected
against indigenous enemies.
Questions for the Black Sea: Were there defences in the chora?
(9) Did the Black Sea colonies’ role as provider of food surpluses, slaves, etc.,
to the aegean and further afield change the nature of chora exploitation? most
poleis in the aegean are seen as primarily focused on the self-sustenance of a
special form of community introversion (cf. Fig. 8, the Corporate Community
model for polis origin) with a minor export role for things not available lo-
cally. a related question is that of cycles of expansion and contraction of land
use and rural settlement in the aegean greek countrysides. in some areas it
appears that overpopulation was accompanied by unparalleled levels of ag-
ricultural intensification marked today in survey by widespread and massive
manuring scatters detected by offsite surface counting and dating (Fig. 9).
Questions for the Black Sea: What was the impact of exported products on the
chora? is there evidence for changing density and size of rural sites, also in
relation to the changing size and status of poleis? is there any evidence for
off-site manuring?
(10) Concerning roads, routes, communications, the detailed study in the

southern chora of thespiai suggests that roads were more like modern peas-
ant farmer tractor trails, which get farmers around in the subdistricts of the
chora rather than speed them to more distant destinations, and also exploit
natural access routes.
Questions for the Black Sea: Did the peculiar steppe landscape of the north Black
Sea and the effect of land cadasters, plus the role of export trade, produce a
different system of communication?
Bibliography
alcock, S.e. 1991. tomb cult and the Post-Classical polis, AJA 95, 447-467.
alcock, S.e. 1993. Graecia Capta. The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge.
Bintliff, J.L., B. Davies et al. 1990. trace metal accumulation in soils on and
around ancient settlements in greece, in: S. Bottema, g. entjes-nieborg,
a.a. Balkema & W.v. Zeist (eds.), Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern
Mediterranean Landscape (Proceedings of the Symposium on the impact
of ancient man on the Landscape of the eastern mediterranean region
and the near east, groningen, 6-9.03.1989). rotterdam, 159-172.
Bintliff, J.L. 1994. territorial behaviour and the natural history of the greek
polis, in: e. olshausen & h. Sonnabend (eds.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur
Historischen Geographie des Altertums, 4. amsterdam, 207-249.
Bintliff, J.L. 1997a. Further considerations on the population of ancient Boeotia,
in: J.L. Bintliff (ed.), Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of
Central Greece (Bar international Series, 666). oxford, 231-252.
26 John Bintliff
Bintliff, J.L. 1997b. regional Survey, Demography, and the rise of Complex
Societies in the ancient aegean: Core-Periphery, neo-malthusian, and
other interpretive models, JFieldA 24, 1-38.
Bintliff, J.L. 1999a. Pattern and process in the city landscapes of Boeotia, from
geometric to Late roman times, in: m. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des cités
grecques (actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par l’ecole
Française d’athènes, 31 octobre-3 novembre 1991 [BCh Suppl., 34]).
athens-Paris, 15-33.
Bintliff, J.L. 1999b. Settlement and territory, in: g. Barker (ed.), The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London, 505-545.
Bintliff, J.L. & P. howard 1999. Studying needles in haystacks – Surface sur-
vey and the rural landscape of Central greece in roman times, Pharos
7, 51-91.
Bintliff, J.L. 2000. Beyond dots on the map: the future of artefact survey in
greece, in: J. Bintliff, m. kuna & n. venclova (eds.), The Future of Archaeo‑
logical Field Survey in Europe. Sheffield, 3-20.
Bintliff, J. et. al. 2000. Deconstructing “the Sense of Place”? Settlement systems,
field survey, and the historic record: a case-study from Central greece,
ProcPrehistSoc 66, 123-149.
Cherry, J.F., J.C. Davis et al. (eds.) 1991. Landscape Archaeology as Long‑Term
History. Los angeles.
Foxhall, L. 1995. monumental ambitions. the significance of posterity in
greece. time, tradition and Society in greek archaeology, in: n. Spencer
(ed.), Bridging the “Great Divide”. London, 132-149.
gillings, m. & k. Sbonias 1999. regional survey and giS: the Boeotia Project,
in: m. gillings, D. mattingly & J. van Dalen (eds.), Geographical Information
Systems and Landscape Archaeology. oxford, 35-54.
Jameson, m.h., C.n. runnels et al. (eds.) 1994. A Greek Countryside. The South‑
ern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day. Stanford.
Lohmann, h. 1985. Landleben im klassischen attika, Jahrbuch Ruhr‑Universität
Bochum, 71-96.
Lohmann, h. 1993. Atene: Forschungen zur Siedlungs‑ und Wirtschaftsstruktur
des klassischen Attika. köln.
mee, C. & h. Forbes (eds.) 1997. A Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and
Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece. Liverpool.
ruschenbusch, e. 1985. Die Zahl der griechischen Staaten und arealgrösse
und Bürgerzahl der “normalpolis”, ZPE 59, 253-263.
Snodgrass, a.m. 1998. rural burial in the world of cities, in: S. marchegay,
m.-t. Le Dinahet & J.-F. Salles (eds.), Nécropoles et Pouvoir (travaux de la
maison de l’orient méditerranéen, 27). Paris, 37-42.
Whitelaw, t. 1998. Colonisation and competition in the polis of koressos,
in: L.g. mendoni & a. mazarakis ainian (eds.), Kea‑Kythnos: History and
Archaeology (Proceedings of an international Symposium kea-kythnos,
22-25 June 1994 [meletemata, 27]). athens, 227-257.
the more unusual Dots on the map:
“Special-Purpose” Sites and
the texture of Landscape
Susan E. Alcock & Jane E. Rempel
mediterranean survey archaeologists would prefer not to talk about “dots on

the map” anymore, believing we have moved past the days when reconstruc-
tions of ancient settlement patterns consisted primarily of uniform black dots
scattered over a distribution map. it is certainly true that, over the past three
decades, regional projects in the mediterranean have greatly improved on
methods of both interpretation and representation. refinements have ranged
from tracing site boundaries by more sensitive means, to being more specific
about types and quantities of artifacts present on sites, to embedding sites in
their “off-site” context, thus defining them against their “background scat-
ter”. as a result ancient landscapes today look far less like a bad case of the
measles, and more like a world where people lived, and lived differently,
through time.
So why does this chapter’s title resurrect the notion of “dots”? our ex-
planation is this. most sites identified by mediterranean survey projects fall
broadly into the category of “settlements”. they are usually identified by a
mix of domestic pottery (fine wares and coarse wares), agricultural equipment
or other household implements (such as loom weights or spindle whorls), to-
gether with tiles that in most cases indicate the presence of roofed structures.
these settlements are denoted in various ways; they are named as farmsteads,
habitations, hamlets, villages, or towns, depending on the size of the overall
scatter or the extent of building foundations. their number and distribution
are usually analyzed in terms of their implications for economic (principally
agricultural) activity and, to a lesser extent, political organization, as well as
in terms of regional demographic patterns. Without question, settlements
are the most common as well as the most fundamental category of site for
archaeologists to recognize and to place on the map, as best we can. Such
settlements, however, are not the target of this discussion.
rather, our discussion here concerns entities that do not fall within such
a classification. Since the beginning of regional exploration in the mediter-
ranean, places or things have been discovered that do not belong in that cat-
egory of settlement − whether farmstead, hamlet, or village. these include:
sanctuaries and shrines (of all types and sizes), graves, quarries, caves, kilns,
2 Susan E. Alcock & Jane E. Rempel
cisterns, agricultural processing sites, mines, dumps, lithic knapping debris,

roads and paths, threshing floors, check dams, drainage ditches, bridges,
sheepfolds, and more. one catch-all label that has been applied to this mélange
is “special-purpose site” − a term that covers a multitude of sins, but also
masks a host of possibilities.
the ambition here is to focus attention on these more unusual dots on the
map, exploring what they can potentially offer to the study of chora, catchment
and communication, and thus to the broader domain of landscape archaeol-
ogy. the discussion begins by examining how mediterranean projects have
recognized and treated such places, from survey’s inception in the region to
more recent times. next, we will try to account for the developments thus ob-
served, before presenting two case studies where special-purpose sites provide
a texture, or nuance, to our understanding of particular historical landscapes.
the ultimate goal, from a mediterranean perspective, is to stimulate think-
ing about what such special sites might contribute to the future of landscape
archaeology in the Black Sea area.
“Old” and “New” approaches to special‑purpose sites

Since trying to review the results of all mediterranean survey projects would
be an overwhelming task, for the sake of clarity we have decided simply to
compare two survey publications, one from the “early days” (by which is
meant work in the 1950s and 1960s), and one recently published project re-
port (reflecting research conducted in the 1980s). From this comparison, we
can observe how the study and interpretation of special-purpose sites have
developed, especially how such places have, or have not, been integrated
into overall structures of regional analysis. the comparison also provides a
springboard for identifying the larger theoretical and methodological forces
at work in mediterranean (and indeed global) archaeology, forces which have
profoundly affected our treatment of these unusual dots on the map.
Before proceeding, it should be noted that the discussion in this chap-
ter essentially concentrates on regional projects in greece, and on studies
of historic periods (roughly, the archaic to the roman eras). in part this is
personal preference on the part of the authors. yet it is also true that greece
provides arguably the best laboratory of survey work in the mediterranean,
with numerous projects conducted in recent decades: a flurry of activity that
stimulated intense methodological debate, especially in the 1980s and 1990s1
(Figs. 1-2). Sadly, for a variety of reasons, regional projects in greece have
become less common today.
on one side of this comparison of projects stands the acknowledged grandfa-

ther of greek surveys, the minnesota messenia expedition. this work, carried
out in the course of the 1950s and 1960s, was published in 1972 as The Minne‑
sota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment.2 on
The More Unusual Dots on the Map 2
Fig. 1. The distribution of recent surface surveys in Greece. Stars indicate the location of the
University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition, the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, and
the Laconia Survey (after Cherry 2003, fig. .4)
Fig. 2. Annual start‑ups of new survey projects in Greece, 171‑1 (after Alcock and Cherry
2004a, fig. 1.3)
the other side stands the Laconia Survey, the fieldwork for which was done in
the course of the 1980s, with two impressive volumes now produced.3 these
two surveys, obviously, are geographically related, being located in adjacent
prongs of the southern greek Peloponnesos; moreover, their histories have
been closely intertwined, with the Spartans of Laconia controlling the territory
and population of messenia for centuries (see below, pp. 36-39).
as one might expect, given the project’s execution in the early days of
mediterranean survey, the minnesota messenia expedition represents a less
methodologically rigorous, more extensive stage of fieldwork, characterized
by non-systematic, non-intensive reconnaissance. on the other hand, the
team worked in the region for years, amassing a sizable data set, albeit one
with a distinctly prehistoric bias. in their distribution maps the investigators
indicated two types of site: habitation (haB) and cemetery (Cem) (Fig. 3); in
the more detailed site gazetteer their listing of “archaeological descriptions”
adds the category of Shrine.4 each of these functional categories was dis-
tinguished through fairly predictable means: domestic pottery and roof tiles
indicated a habitation; figurines or other obvious votive material meant a
shrine; the identification of graves normally depended on tomb architecture
(cist, chamber or tholos). Significantly, many of the special-purpose sites thus
identified − especially in the case of shrines − are large and often significant
places, in many cases, such as the pan hellenic sanctuary at olympia, long
known through previous exploration or ancient testimonia.
all this leads to an entirely sensible, but nonetheless crude, tripartite clas-
sification of human life in messenia. moreover, the role played by such sites
in the project’s reconstruction of diachronic regional activity emerges as rela-
tively limited. Little was made of the discovery of shrines, beyond the desire
to associate them with places named in ancient textual sources, such as Stra-
bon or Pausanias. Cemeteries were used either to locate “missing villages”
in order to calculate the degree and extent of agricultural activity, or to help
assess the size of particular communities, and thus of regional population
levels. in other words, special-purpose sites were either places already known
and merely to be rediscovered; or they were employed as proxy indicators
for economic and demographic questions.
By contrast we can “flash forward” some thirty years to the Laconia Sur-
vey. the nature and degree of data presentation have changed a great deal,
with much more, and more tightly compressed, information.5 more impor-
tantly, however, the spectrum of just what might be imagined to lie out in the
countryside has also changed enormously. Distribution maps for the historic
periods (Fig. 4) routinely depict: large site (village, fort); hamlet, cluster of
farms; “villa”, large farm; farmstead; large sanctuary; shrine/small sanctu-
ary; spring. assigning these functions rested on a detailed and explicit as-
sessment of what was actually found at each site, and where precisely the site
was located. one example can serve to demonstrate this practice. Part of a
miniature vase was discovered at Laconia Survey site B103, a find that would
Fig. 3. Distribution of Classical and Hellenistic sites, University of Minnesota Messenia Ex‑
pedition (McDonald and Rapp 172, Pocket Map ‑17; Courtesy The University of Minnesota
Press)
once have been all that was necessary to declare the site a shrine. instead, the
Laconia Survey employed more rigorous criteria for their categorizations − in
this case noting, for example, the presence of numerous table-wares, coupled
with the lack of anything to indicate food storage or preparation, together
Fig. 4. Distribution of Classical sites, Laconia Survey (Catling 2002, Ill. 5.3; Courtesy Richard
Catling and The British School at Athens)
with the site’s location on an established route, on the edges of Spartiate ter-
ritory.6 even taking into account such considerations, B103 was adjudged
only a “possible” cult place.
as for how such data were integrated into the overall conclusions of the
Laconia Survey, discussion of the “religious landscape” earned independent
sections in the final publications.7 here specifically cultic sites were placed
in relation to each other, to communication routes, and to settlement sites −
in other words, in relation to the other dots on the map. the distribution and
chronological patterning of sanctuaries in the countryside was also used to
comment on political and social trajectories: in this case, the control of Sparta
over its hinterland, and especially Spartiate relations with other dependent
groups such as the perioikoi and helots. everywhere implicit in these interpre-
tations is the now widely accepted role of sanctuaries and rituals as creators
of social cohesion and social distance in the human landscape. these are argu-
ments, of course, reflecting the influence of the pioneering work of François
de Polignac, first published as La naissance de la cité grecque in 1984.8
The “New Wave” of survey and special‑purpose sites

What, then, changed between the messenia and Laconia surveys, two projects
separated only by some three decades? Before tackling that question, two
points should be made. First, the intention here is not to criticize, unfairly and
anachronistically, the work of the minnesota messenia expedition; recent ad-
ditional work in that region by the Pylos regional archaeological Project (see
below, pp. 36-39) has only underscored the magnitude of their early achieve-
ment.9 Second, there are manifestly many visible stages of development in
greek survey between the two stark poles outlined here. nevertheless, it re-
mains apparent that a revolution − or a “new wave” of survey, as John Cherry
has called it10 − stands between those two poles, and that new wave directly
involves and affects our use and understanding of special-purpose sites.
So what are these changes? We should probably first consider the
fundamental issue of field methodology. the minnesota messenia expedition,
on the one hand, relied primarily on vehicular transport and talking to local
informants in their extensive explorations; the Laconia Survey was entirely
oriented around systematic pedestrian fieldwalking, with individual walkers
spaced some 20 meters apart. Between the two projects lay the recognition
that just how one surveys directly affects just what one finds: an observation
stimulated by comparisons with regional work in other parts of the world.11
the corollary development was an increasing mediterranean trend towards
an ever-higher intensity in fieldwalking tactics − usually represented by
ever-closer spacing of pedestrian fieldwalkers and by ever-greater attention
paid to the observation and analysis of individual finds.
this growing intensity of reconnaissance is directly relevant to the issue
of special-purpose sites, for these are, on the whole, usually quite small, often
only c. 0.2 ha. or less in size.12 the nature of sites such as caves, kilns, discrete
graves, and so on, may also require more careful, systematic exploration to
locate; they are frequently not visible from a distance, or a trained eye might
be needed to spot them. increased intensity in investigation is thus key to the
discovery of our “unusual dots”, yet increased intensity has other − and in
the eyes of some − potentially negative consequences, a point to which we
must return (pp. 41-42).
methodological change is vital to consider here, but it should not be taken
as the only factor behind the new wave under examination. another element
has been a growing realization and acceptance of the sheer variety of pos-
sible rural activities. Cultural anthropologists have been involved in greek
survey projects from their very beginnings (indeed, from the days of the min-
nesota messenia expedition); interdisciplinarity has been one of the prouder
hallmarks of regional work in greece. much excellent ethnographic work
took place, for example, in conjunction with the argolid exploration Project,
carried out in the akte Peninsula of the Southern argolid during the 1970s
and 1980s.13 Perhaps as a result, that project displayed an early awareness of
the existence and significance of special-purpose sites. ethno-archaeological
work, not least a “modern site survey” which essentially treated the modern
countryside as an archaeological landscape, was also conducted in this same
Southern argolid Peninsula.14 through its recovery of a surprising variety of
rural activities and their traces of material discard, such research stimulated
increasingly adventurous reconstructions of the past, more closely reflecting
the “busyness” of the countryside.
Just as provocative was the need to explain the appearance and meaning
of off-site finds − the low-level scatter, or “carpet”, of artifactual material
discovered by the majority of intensive survey projects in greece (for a rep-
resentative mapping of such data, see Fig. 5). the manuring of agricultural
fields has been one popular explanation for this phenomenon, but many other
everyday practices and routine causes must surely have been involved.15
ethnographic observations and off-site material together thus pushed the
edges of the envelope for survey archaeologists, encouraging them to look
for − indeed, to expect − evidence of practices other than merely habitation
in the countryside. Special-purpose dots on the map have benefited from this
new sensitivity.
aligned with this wider range of imaginable rural activities is a critically

expanded range of the questions thought appropriate to ask of survey data.
in the early years of regional work, as represented by the minnesota mes-
senia expedition, the principal issues addressed revolved around economy,
demography and survival: how many people were there at different periods,
where did they live, and how did they farm? Sorting out “settlement and land
use” was the overriding concern of mediterranean survey archaeology, and
by and large that remains the case today. But additional elements have now
Fig. 5. Map of sherd densities, Valley of the Muses, Boeotia Survey (Bintliff and Sbonias 2000,
fig. 23.1; courtesy John Bintliff)
been added to that rubric − as the Laconia Survey put it, the goal now is to
investigate “settlement, land use, and other forms of human activity in the
survey area”.16 “other forms of human activity” is a somewhat open-ended
construction, of course, but it at least allows for the deployment of regional
data in new ways, and on new controversies.
to take but one example, we could consider the question of a region’s
external trade links. a phenomenon noted by the argolid exploration Pro-
ject was the appearance of late roman pottery kilns in coastal locations − a
phenomenon, it is worth underlining, recognized in this era only through the
work of intensive survey.17 the investigators linked these kilns to the period’s
development of extended external contacts, notably through an enhanced
outside market for the peninsula’s olive oil production. amphora studies on
Crete, and the study of the Cretan wine trade in roman times, have similarly
profited from regional exploration and kiln mapping;18 other, similar examples
could be adduced. this willingness to expand the use of regional survey data
reflects, no doubt, a growing confidence in its quality − or, paradoxically, a
growing acceptance of the problems inherent in all archaeological data sets,

be they from excavation or survey. David Clarke’s famous 1973 meditation
on his discipline’s “loss of innocence” reached the world of mediterranean
archaeology during these same decades.19
one final, and extremely influential, theoretical development can be iden-
tified at work behind the new wave of mediterranean survey. that is the rise
in popularity, especially in european and north american archaeology, of
post-processualism.20 Without attempting to define or delimit the post-pro-
cessual school (an impossible task), for our purposes it is enough to point to
its emphasis on individual experience and perception, on the power of ritual
and symbols, and on the complexity and ambiguity of the material record.
these concerns, mediated through regional studies elsewhere (notably in pre-
historic europe), have percolated into mediterranean survey.21 “other forms of
human activity”, for many mediterranean survey archaeologists, now include
ritual practice, emotional attachment, and commemorative behavior, aspects
of life which inflect and are affected by our traditional (and still entirely valid)
research objectives of settlement and land use studies.
it is, we suspect, largely thanks to this influence that an increasing number
of mediterranean scholars talk today not about “survey archaeology” or even
“regional settlement studies”, but about landscape archaeology. Landscape, it
is felt, better encompasses those additional extra-economic, non-functionalist
parts of life that many of us believe can be captured, however dimly, through
good survey practice. not surprisingly, a vital component of this landscape
approach in the ancient mediterranean revolves around the identification
and interpretation of sacred places (sanctuaries, shrines, venerated tombs and
monuments) in the countryside. a willingness to “place the gods” within the
landscape adds a particularly provocative dimension to regional analysis and
to the integration of special-purpose sites into broader historical reconstruc-
tions.22 that statement can be reinforced by two brief, impressionistic case
studies, drawn from the research of one of the authors (alcock), before the
mediterranean situation is briefly compared to research trajectories in the
Black Sea by the other (rempel).
Case studies
the first is a local study, drawn from the 1990s work (co-directed by alcock) of
the Pylos regional archaeological Project, one goal of which was intensively
to re-survey a portion of the territory covered by the minnesota messenia
expedition. unlike that earlier endeavor, however, this project was equally
interested in post-prehistoric messenia − a region with a very unusual clas-
sical history.23
in archaic and Classical times (roughly the 7th to the early 4th centuries
BC), messenia was controlled by the neighboring power of Sparta in Laconia.
much of the region was inhabited by helots, a dependent community whose
purpose in life was to feed and serve the Spartiate warrior class. helots have
suffered the usual fate of subordinate peoples in antiquity, receiving little
attention in our ancient sources and even less from modern archaeologists.
asking where and how helots lived in the messenian landscape was thus
one of the project’s principal research questions. the answer we received was
quite intriguing. most of the (few) historians who speculated on this ques-
tion had predicted a highly dispersed scatter of isolated helot farmsteads. By
contrast, at least in the territory we explored, helots appear to have chosen
a community-oriented settlement pattern, with people nucleated in only a
few villages (Fig. 6). this nucleation in settlement arguably helps to explain
the “solidarity” of the messenian helots: their apparent sense of communal
identity under Spartan rule, and their ability to organize revolt. Following
messenia’s liberation by the theban general epaminondas in 369 BC, settle-
ment in the region took on an entirely new cast, with more sites discovered,
more broadly distributed across the study region and now of variable sizes
(from villages to farmsteads; Fig. 7). the political fortunes of the region are
thus dramatically reflected in its landscape.
What, however, about any more “unusual dots on the map”, and what they
can reveal about life in messenia before and after liberation? it was already
clear, through investigation of Bronze age remains, that helots practiced tomb
cult (at mycenaean graves) during the years of Spartan control, a practice
Fig. 6. Distribution of Archaic sites, Pylos Regional Archaeology Project (Courtesy Pylos
Regional Archaeological Project; Graphics: Rosemary J. Robertson)
Fig. 7. Distribution of Hellenistic sites, Pylos Regional Archaeology Project (Courtesy Pylos
Regional Archaeological Project; Graphics: Rosemary J. Robertson)
thought to reflect ancestor worship and to provide a source of resistance to

Spartan domination. Survey work now fleshes out the ritual landscape of the
helots, with the discovery of a handful of small rural shrines as well. Shrines
and tombs provided communal meeting points in the landscape, supplying
shared places for communication and mutual support, much like the choice
of nucleated settlement. all of this ritual activity, perhaps not surprisingly,
was at a very small scale and quite unobtrusive in character.
Such unobtrusiveness seems to disappear with the liberation of epami-
nondas; we see as abrupt a change in special-purpose sites as in residential
patterns. First, the number of tomb cults sharply increases in post-liberation,
hellenistic messenia. Second, survey teams have located the remains of ad-
ditional rural shrines. What is perhaps most striking is that these appear now
in higher, more visible locations: that is, in places where they could see and
be seen. at least two such sanctuaries were intervisible: one in a substantial
community, the other on an isolated summit − perhaps signaling some new
kind of boundary relation.24
What this evidence suggests is that, following liberation, ritual visibility
was no longer to be avoided. indeed, the prominence of such cult places may
have been increasingly important, as messenian communities now sought to
mark territory as their own, in a manner familiar in other parts of greece for
centuries, but long forbidden to the inhabitants of messenia. Settlement pattern

change alone would be sufficient to signal significant transformation in the
messenian landscape, but the patterning of cult and tomb cult adds additional
nuance, additional “texture” to its understanding. all in all, the integration of
settlement and special-purpose sites goes some way to recovering the previ-
ously “invisible” world of the messenian helots, before and after liberation.
our second case study is broader in its scope, and relies on comparative or
“side-by-side” survey − that is, the combination of several survey data sets to
illuminate macro-regional developments in human landscapes. Side-by-side
survey represents a very promising, if still far from unproblematic, develop-
ment in the mediterranean world with its many available data sets.25
in this context, we can focus on one particular phenomenon: the chrono-
logical patterning of rural cult places in the greek countryside. numerous
regional projects, from all over greece, have found instances of this particular
kind of “unusual dot”. the numbers are nowhere very great, and it is clear
that many survey archaeologists have been extremely (and perhaps overly)
cautious about such identifications. yet careful surface reconnaissance has
unquestionably sprinkled a dusting of rural cults − shrines not mentioned
in any textual source and otherwise completely invisible to us − across the
countryside.
the geographical range and number of these shrines is briefly outlined in
table 1.26 Without entering into detail on any individual examples, identifica-
tions here rested on some combination of the nature of finds and their quanti-
ties, coupled with the site’s placement, whether in isolation or in relation to
factors such as borders or unusual natural features. these shrines are usually
(if not always) very small indeed; they appear at different points in time; and
they endure for variable lengths of time. But in almost every instance they
obey one firm chronological rule: they are visible and active at some point
during the archaic to hellenistic epochs (c. 6th to 1st centuries BC), and al-
table 1.
Numbers and density/hectare of shrines identified by Greek survey projects
Project no. of shrines Density/hectare
identified
argolid exploration Project 17 0.4
methana Survey 3 0.3
Laconia Survey 14 0.2
Southern euboea Survey 6 0.15
Berbati-Limes archaeological Survey 2 0.08
Pylos regional archaeological Project 3 0.08
nemea valley archaeological Project 2 0.04
Boeotia Survey 1 0.02
university of minnesota messenia 5 0.001
expedition
most none of them continues into the early roman period (c. 1st century BC
to 3rd century aD). a similar trend is visible in related ritual practices, for
example in tomb cult and in the ritual use of caves, leaving us to explain an
apparent pattern of abandonment in early imperial times.
one place to begin is by noting that this pattern is accompanied by a par-
allel abandonment of the great majority of rural settlements. archaeological
survey results, from almost all projects so far available, point to a very real
decline in the number of people dwelling in the early roman countryside.27
it might seem simple enough, then, to bundle all these changes together, al-
lowing the diminution of more practical, economic rural activities to account
for the decline in other, ritual or symbolic sets of behavior. that the two are
connected is not in question, but not, perhaps, at such a simplistic and me-
chanical level. Simply because people no longer lived in the countryside, it
cannot automatically be assumed that they would naturally discard all other
senses of belonging to it, or forms of interaction with it. Certainly, ancient tex-
tual sources continually underscore the fact that locales such as rural shrines,
ancient tombs, and caves served to anchor people to the land, and reminded
them of its history, and their history.
the abandonment of the countryside must thus point to a deep-running
change in attitudes, emotions and memories. Part of what was given up with
such places, it seems, was a sense of being rooted in the countryside and in
a highly local past. this same epoch, the early imperial period in greece, is
usually assumed to be an age in which “the past” is glorified above all else;
classicism and nostalgia are dominant characteristics of the so-called “Second
Sophistic”. What survey evidence forces us to realize, however, is that not all
pasts were created equal. the memories and traditions of the rural country-
side, what we might call the “backyard pasts” of various communities, did
not flourish, compared to those of the cities and their elites.28 that conclusion
has some noteworthy repercussions for our understanding of attitudes toward
the countryside, of the control of memory by imperial or local elites, of the
commemorative landscape of greece under roman rule − all central issues
in probing the nature of a new provincial society. Such observations spring
from our ability to recognize, to have confidence in, and to “think with” our
unusual dots on the map.
Black Sea reflections

the list of issues originally raised for discussion by the organizers of this
conference included the definition of a city’s rural territory; its borders and
how they altered over time; avenues of communication; changes in settlement
patterns and hierarchies; and variations in demographic numbers and demo-
graphic balance. these issues reflect concerns that have long dominated survey
archaeology in the Black Sea region, particularly on the north coast, where
field survey, or razvedka, has been an important component of archaeological
investigation since the 1950s. Particularly in relation to the greek poleis on the
Black Sea, survey has provided an important tool for investigating the agri-
cultural territory of the colonies and fueled the comprehensive understanding
of the polis and chora as a unified system.29
until recently, the bulk of survey conducted in the region was extensive
and variably systematic, and primarily concerned with establishing systems
of settlement and land use.30 the distribution of settlements (identified by
sherd scatters and architectural remains) and cemeteries (as well as individual
kurgan burials) have been the primary foci of surveys, but projects have also
identified extensive road networks, systems of land division and fortifica-
tions.31 Site typologies and settlement hierarchies, based on pottery finds, site
size and relationships to road networks, have also been established.32
although there has been a movement towards more intensive, systematic
and small-scale survey projects, such as the Polish-ukrainian nymphaion
Project,33 survey in this region has yet to be dominated by an interest in rec-
ognizing “off-site” phenomena or “special-purpose sites” per se. in addition,
post-processualism has not yet reached the shores of the Black Sea, and in-
terest in “landscape archaeology” and the affective power of a landscape is
there only just beginning.34 as a result, the methodological awareness that
how one surveys directly affects what one finds is only just now developing,
and with it the growing recognition that, in addition to settlement patterns
and land use, it is also possible to investigate “other forms of human activity”.
although there are very real difficulties in comparing surveyed landscapes in
the Black Sea region, and a marked distrust of survey evidence that has not
been ground-truthed, the question of defining territory and borders, as well
as changes in settlement patterns, would benefit from careful inclusion and
integration of special-purpose places.
Conclusion
one could conclude here on an unequivocally positive note, celebrating how
similar careful inclusion and integration of special-purpose places could ben-
efit a rich mix of questions − in the Black Sea, just as in the mediterranean. it
must be admitted, however, that a potential cost is involved here. a landmark,
five-volume publication — The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes − has
recently appeared, the product of an initiative sponsored by the european
union human Capital and mobility Programme, as part of the Populus Pro-
ject.35 these are very comprehensive, up-to-date volumes which advertise the
achievements of mediterranean survey. yet they were roundly criticized in the
journal Antiquity (as was, indeed, the entire program of mediterranean survey)
by the new World archaeologist richard Blanton in a review entitled “medi-
terranean myopia”.36 Blanton’s basic point is that, in the quest for ever-higher
levels of intensity (ever-closer walker spacing, ever-more precise counts of
artifacts, ever-more intensive collection strategies), survey archaeology in the
mediterranean has slowed to a snail’s pace. he has a valid point − consider-

ing only a few of the projects mentioned already, the minnesota messenia
expedition covered approximately 3,800 km2, of which the subsequent Pylos
Project re-investigated only about 1%; the Laconia Survey intensively studied
some 70 km2; the Southern argolid some 44 km2, and so on. to Blanton’s eyes,
and to his consternation, mediterranean surveyors choose to sample only
infinitesimal parts of a landscape rapidly disappearing through the forces of
urban development, hotel building, road construction, and deep ploughing.
his assertion − that this myopia is blindness − has acquired advocates among
some practitioners of mediterranean survey, who urge swifter coverage and
who ask pointedly “what are we counting for?”.37
it is difficult not to feel some sympathy for this position, especially when
one considers the power of survey as a form of rescue or salvage archaeology.
yet it is equally difficult to avoid the conclusion that less intensive forms of
exploration will directly jeopardize our ability to identify, and to make sense
of, our often very small, insignificant, special-purpose sites. “Speeding up”
would sacrifice much of the texture of the landscapes we hope to study and
understand. this poses, of course, a long-standing question: how does one
collect the best data possible, as efficiently as possible? in all archaeological
fieldwork, the answer is always a compromise. turning to the Black Sea again,
large portions of the coast have been surveyed extensively (over 4,000 km2
on the kerch and taman’ peninsulas alone) and these projects have provided
an important impression of settlement patterns and land use in this region. it
is clear, however, from the wealth of detail provided by the more intensive
and systematic surveys (such as the 70 km2 of the nymphaion Project) that
increased intensity of investigation, and the detailed data it provides, allows
for the recognition and interrogation of a much more busy, “textured” land-
scape. in the end, we land on the side of intensive work (within reason), em-
phasizing the special value of special-purpose sites: wells, threshing floors,
burial mounds, kilns, bridges, mills, knapping debris, drainage ditches, path-
ways, caves, quarries, terraces, shrines, and dumps. Without the nuance they
provide, the questions we can ask of our regional data become unnecessar-
ily limited, reverting largely to the purely economic, the demographic, the
functional: the more untextured blocks of life. Such a choice short-changes the
people whose lives we seek to investigate and reconstruct − unless we define
those lives very narrowly indeed by limiting the variety of human behavior,
by ignoring the possibility of human mobility, by denying the existence of
past traditions and rituals. if we are not willing to turn to regional evidence,
and to teasing as much as possible from the texture of landscape, then we are
cast back, willy-nilly, on the urban, the elite and the excavated. the study of
chora, catchment, and communications, within the mediterranean or the Black
Sea, deserves better than that.38
Notes
1 Cherry 1994; 2003.
2 mcDonald & rapp 1972.
3 Cavanagh et al. 1996; 2002.
4 mcDonald & rapp 1972, 264-321.
5 Shipley 1996.
6 Shipley 1996, 328-329; Catling 2002, 192-194.
7 See, for example, Catling 2002, 218-224.
8 de Polignac 1984; see also alcock & osborne 1994; ashmore & knapp 1999.
9 Spencer 1998.
10 Cherry 1994, 91-95.
11 Plog, Plog & Wait 1978; Cherry 1983; Wilkinson 2004.
12 See, for example, Jameson et al. 1994, 248-257.
13 See, for example, papers in Dimen & Friedl 1976; Sutton 2000.
14 murray & kardulias 1986.
15 alcock et al. 1994.
16 Catling 2002, 131.
17 Jameson et al. 1994, 256, 400-404.
18 marangou-Lerat 1995; markoulaki et al. 1989.
19 Clarke 1973.
20 For a helpful overview of the concept, see Johnson 1999, 98-115.
21 e.g. Bradley 1998; for a west mediterranean example, see van Dommelen 1998.
22 alcock & osborne 1994; de Polignac 1995.
23 Davis et al. 1997; Zangger et al. 1997.
24 For more detailed discussion of all these data, see alcock 2002, 132-175; alcock
et al. in press.
25 alcock & Cherry 2004b.
26 the data for this table are derived from Jameson et al. 1994; mee & Forbes 1997;
Cavanagh et al. 1996; 2002; keller 1985; Wells 1996; Davis et al. 1997; alcock et
al. 2005; Wright 1990; Bintliff & Snodgrass 1985; mcDonald & rapp 1972.
27 alcock 1993, 33-92; Shipley 2002, 309-310.
28 alcock 2002, 36-98; Swain 1996.
29 Butjagin & Solovyov 2001, 262.
30 See Ščeglov 1983 for a detailed description of survey methodologies used in the
territory of greek colonies.
31 e.g., Ja.m. Paromov’s survey of the taman’ Peninsula and the long established
plan of the chora of Chersonesos.
32 e.g., abramov & Paromov 1993.
33 Scholl & Zin’ko 1999.
34 rempel in alcock et al. 2003.
35 Barker & mattingly 1999-2000.
36 Blanton 2001.
37 Fentress 2000; terrenato 2004.
38 We would like to extend our thanks to the organizers for their invitation to
the conference “Chora, Catchment and Communication”, held at the beautiful
Sandbjerg estate, as well as to all the meeting’s participants for their thoughts
and their singing. John F. Cherry offered very helpful comments on the paper,
but all mistakes remain our own.
Bibliography
abramov, a.P. & Ja.m. Paromov 1993. ranneantičnye poselenija taman-
skogo poluostrova, in: Ja.m. Paromov (ed.), Bosporskij Sbornik, 2. moskva,
25-98.
alcock, S.e. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge.
alcock, S.e., J.F. Cherry & J.L. Davis 1994. intensive survey, agricultural
practice and the Classical landscape of greece, in: i. morris (ed.), Classical
Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge, 137-190.
alcock, S.e. & r. osborne (eds.) 1994. Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred
Space in Ancient Greece. oxford.
alcock, S.e. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscapes, Monuments and
Memories. Cambridge.
alcock, S.e., J.e. gates & J.e. rempel 2003. reading the landscape: survey ar-
chaeology in the hellenistic oikoumene, in: a. erskine (ed.), A Companion
to the Hellenistic World. oxford, 354-372.
alcock, S.e., a. Berlin, a. harrison, S. heath, n. Spencer, & D.L. Stone 2005.
the Pylos regional archaeological Project. Part vi: historical messenia,
geometric to Late roman periods, Hesperia 74, 147-209.
alcock, S.e. & J.F. Cherry 2004a. introduction, in: alcock & Cherry (eds.)
2004b, 1-9.
alcock, S.e. & J.F. Cherry (eds.) 2004b. Side‑by‑Side Survey: Comparative Regional
Studies in the Mediterranean World. oxford.
ashmore, W. & a.B. knapp (eds.) 1999. Archaeologies of Landscape: Contempo‑
rary Perspectives. oxford.
Barker, g.W. & D. mattingly (eds.) 1999-2000. The Archaeology of Mediterranean
Landscapes (5 volumes). oxford.
Bintliff, J.L. & k. Sbonias. 2000. Demographic trends: the contribution of
original survey data, in: Francovich, Patterson and Barker (eds.) 2000,
244-258.
Bintliff, J. & a.m. Snodgrass 1985. the Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian expedi-
tion: the first four years, JFieldA 12, 123-161.
Blanton, r.e. 2001. mediterranean myopia, Antiquity 75, 627-629.
Bradley, r. 1998. The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Ex‑
perience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London.
Butjagin, a.m. & S.L. Solovyov 2001. archaeological research at the chora
of nymphaeum, in: g.r. tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology.
Boston-köln, 261-284.
Catling, r.m.v. 2002. the survey area from the early iron age to the Classi-
cal period (c. 1050-c. 300 BC), in: Cavanagh, Crouwel, Catling, & Shipley
2002, 151-256.
Cavanagh, W.g., J. Crouwel, r.W.v. Catling & g. Shipley 1996. Continuity
and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape. The Laconia Survey II: Archaeological
Data. London.
Cavanagh, W.g., J. Crouwel, r.W.v. Catling & g. Shipley 2002. Continuity

and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape. The Laconia Survey I: Results and
Interpretation. London.
Cherry, J.F. 1983. Frogs round the pond: perspectives on current archaeological
survey projects in the mediterranean area, in: D.r. keller & D.W. rupp
(eds.), Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area. oxford, 375-416.
Cherry, J.F. 1994. regional survey in the aegean: the “new wave” (and after),
in: P.n. kardulias (ed.), Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area.
Lanham-new york-London, 91-112.
Cherry, J.F. 2003. archaeology beyond the site: regional survey and its fu-
ture, in: J.k. Papadopoulos & r.m. Leventhal (eds.), Theory and Practice
in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives. Los
angeles, 137-159.
Clarke, D.L. 1973. archaeology: the loss of innocence, Antiquity 47, 6-18.
Davis, J.L., S.e. alcock, J. Bennet, y.g. Lolos & C.W. Shelmerdine 1997. the
Pylos regional archaeological Project. Part i: overview and the archaeo-
logical survey, Hesperia 66, 391-494.
Dimen, m. & e. Friedl (eds.) 1976. Regional Variation in Modern Greece and
Cyprus: Toward a Perspective on the Ethnography of Greece. new york.
Fentress, e. 2000. What are we counting for?, in: Francovich, Patterson &
Barker (eds.) 2000, 44-52.
Francovich, r., h. Patterson & g. Barker (eds.) 2000. Extracting Meaning from
Plough‑soil Assemblages (the archaeology of mediterranean Landscapes,
5). oxford.
Jameson, m.h., C.n. runnels & t.h. van andel 1994. A Greek Countryside: The
Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day. Stanford.
Johnson, m. 1999. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. oxford.
keller, D. 1985. Archaeological Survey in Southern Euboea, Greece. unpublished
PhD thesis, indiana university.
mcDonald, W.a. & g.r. rapp, Jr. (eds.) 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedi‑
tion: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment. minneapolis.
marangou-Lerat, a. 1995. Le vin et les amphores de Crète de l’époque classique à
l’époque impériale. Paris.
markoulaki, St., J.-y. empereur & a. marangou 1989. recherches sur les cen-
tres de fabrication d’amphores de Crète occidentale, BCH 113, 551-580.
mee, C. & h. Forbes 1997. A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settle‑
ment History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece. Liverpool.
murray, P. & n. kardulias 1986. a modern-site survey in the Southern ar-
golid, greece, JFieldA 13, 21-41.
Plog, S., F. Plog & W. Wait 1978. Decision making in modern surveys, in: m.
Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1. new york,
383-421.
Polignac, F. de 1984. La naissance de la cité grecque. Paris.
Polignac, F. de 1995. Cults, Territory and the Origins of the Greek City‑State.
translated by Janet Lloyd. Chicago-London.
Scholl, t. & v. Zin’ko 1999. Archaeological Map of Nymphaion (Crimea). War-
saw.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1983. razvedki i raskopki antičnych sel’skich poselenij i agrar-
nych sistem, in: D.B. Šelov (ed.), Metodika polevych archeologičeskich issle‑
dovanij. moskva, 12-30.
Shipley, g. 1996. Site catalogue of the survey, in: Cavanagh, Crouwel, Catling,
& Shipley 1996, 315-448.
Shipley, g. 2002. the survey area in the hellenistic and roman periods, in:
Cavanagh, Crouwel, Catling, & Shipley 2002, 257-337.
Spencer, n. 1998. the history of archaeological investigations in messenia,
in: J.L. Davis (ed.), Sandy Pylos: An Archaeological History from Nestor to
Navarino. austin, 25-41.
Sutton, S.B. (ed.). 2000. Contingent Countryside: Settlement, Economy and Land
Use in the Southern Argolid since 1700. Stanford.
Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in the
Greek World, AD 50‑250. oxford.
terrenato, n. 2004. Sample size matters! the paradox of global trends and
local surveys, in: alcock & Cherry (eds.) 2004b, 36-48.
van Dommelen, P. 1998. On Colonial Grounds: A Comparative Study of Colo‑
nialism and Rural Settlement in First Millennium BC West Central Sardinia.
Leiden.
Wells, B. (ed.) 1996. The Berbati‑Limnes Archaeological Survey, 1‑10. Stock-
holm.
Wilkinson, t.J., J. ur & J. Casana 2004. From nucleation to dispersal: trends in
settlement pattern in the northern Fertile Crescent, in: alcock & Cherry
(eds.) 2004b, 189-205.
Wright, J., J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis, e. mantzourani, S.B. Sutton & r.F. Sutton,
Jr. 1990. the nemea valley archaeological Project: a preliminary report,
Hesperia 59, 579-659.
Zangger, e., m.e. timpson, S.B. yazvenko, F. kuhnke & J. knauss 1997. the
Pylos regional archaeological Project. Part ii: landscape evolution and
site preservation, Hesperia 66, 549-641.
exploring Community in the
hinterland of a Black Sea Port
Owen Doonan
Community in the Black Sea

the Pontic coast is not like the rest of anatolia. For most of the past 5,000
years this narrow strip of lush, fertile land has been connected more to the
other coasts of the Black Sea region than to the greater part of the anatolian
landmass. the greek port of Sinope1 and its hinterland are a particularly good
example of this generalization (Fig. 1). Since at least the early Bronze age
(mid-3rd millennium BC) ceramic finds from the Sinop region have shown
significant affinities to those of the northern and western coastal regions
of the Black Sea.2 in contrast, there is seldom sufficient evidence to build a
Fig. 1. Map of the Black Sea, featuring the chronological phasing of major Milesian colonial
foundations.
4 Owen Doonan
strong case for close economic and cultural relationships with the majority of
anatolia before modern times, although we know that the promontory was
incorporated into imperial structures that bound it to the rest of anatolia from
hellenistic times onward.
the concept of community has recently been applied to a variety of cul-
tural and economic groupings as a flexible and dynamic alternative to the
more static concepts of archaeological cultures or politically derived units
like city-states and kingdoms.3 Communities are not territorially discrete like
politically defined units, and are bounded more by social relationships that
cross over the hard edges that political entities attempt to enforce at borders.
Communities have a significant diachronic component as well as spatial and
demographic ones: the growth and development of a sense of community
over generations forms the basis for the economic and social relationships
that sustain the community at any given time. many communities believe
that they belong together, based on ethnic, religious or other historical con-
nections. imagined communities are formed around such concepts and can
exist at a distance from one another, such as the trade diasporas4 – milesians,
rhum, genovese, venetians and armenians – that flourished at various times
around the Black Sea.
knapp (2003) has successfully applied the concept of community to the
multi-scalar economic and social entanglements of the mining installation of
Phorades in Bronze age Cyprus. knapp situates the special purpose site in
a changing network of political and economic structures that at times link
this tiny place in the mountains to island-wide political structures, coastal
ports and overseas consumers. knapp’s application of the community model
emphasizes the importance of exchange in the creation and maintenance of
a sense of community. this concept can be usefully adapted to assist us in
understanding the dynamic relationships of the Sinop hinterland.
Community in Sinop
the Sinop promontory (Fig. 2) extends approximately 30 km into the Black
Sea from the center of the mountainous anatolian coast. the Pontic mountains
isolate the promontory from the majority of anatolia. the south and central
highlands, rich in forest products, are formed by a folded eocene flysch ex-
tension of the Pontic mountains. Plio-Quaternary marine limestone deposits
form the rolling hills of the central promontory which support diversified
agriculture. the coast alternates between small sandy coastal valleys and the
cretaceous volcanic masses of inceburun and Boztepe.5 the coastal valleys
provide good beach landings for small boats which are used for local fishing
and offer the potential for transporting local products to the primary port of
Sinope for distribution overseas. Sinope is situated on the isthmus connecting
Boztepe to the mainland and consequently has harbor facilities to the north
and south of the town. the main port is on the south side of the promontory
Exploring Community in the Hinterland of a Black Sea Port 4
Fig. 2.
The Sinop promontory.
Shaded areas are quad‑
rants sampled during the
16‑1 systematic re‑
gional survey.
although when winds blow from the east the northern harbor provides shelter.
the ecological diversity of the promontory is proportional to its geological
and topographic diversity. the prevailing winds from the west provide abun-
dant rainfall on the western side (up to about 1,200 mm annually), while the
sheltered eastern side is drier and sunnier (650-700 mm annually). the town
of Boyabat just on the other side of the coastal mountains receives rainfall of
about 400 mm annually. the western coast has long been famous for good
shipbuilding timber, while the eastern side of the promontory was one of the
very few places in the Black Sea that supported olive production.6
the Sinop promontory is sufficiently diverse to encourage the emergence
of interdependent relationships between local communities. however the set-
ting of the promontory in the Black Sea was equally important in structuring
a role for the port and promontory in the Black Sea community. the port of-
fers the safest deep water harbor along the 1,000+ km anatolian Pontic coast
making it an essential stop for east-west traffic. Furthermore, the promontory
is the northernmost point in anatolia and its situation directly opposite the
Crimean Peninsula makes it an attractive crossing point over the open sea. the
surface currents of the Black Sea flow north-south from the Crimea to Sinop,
assisting sailors on this crossing while the currents off cape karambis to the
west flow south-north. it is significant that Sinope founded its own colony
of kytoros just west of karambis. the Byzantine wrecks discovered by r.
Ballard’s team in 2000 were laden with “carrot” amphorae from Sinope that
are found by the hundreds in sites along the northern Black Sea region.7 given
that the wrecks were found well to the west of the Sinop promontory they
50 Owen Doonan
were probably heading to take advantage of the south-north currents off cape
karambis when they sank. the rich fishing resources of the Black Sea deserve
mention here as well. the anchovies, small tuna (palamut) and other fish of
the Black Sea follow consistent annual migration patterns around and across
the sea. Fishing for migratory species may have been even more important
than trade in motivating contact between Black Sea communities before the
establishment of the milesian colonial network in the 7th century BC.
Since the Bronze age the Sinop hinterland has responded to the ebb and
flow of the Black Sea regional and local communities. the strategic impor-
tance of Sinope has been the primary characteristic driving the relationships
of the port in some historical contexts (for example the greek archaic period
or late Byzantine/Seljuk times). During such phases the port seems to have
been isolated even from its immediate hinterland. Sinope’s potential as the
gateway of a rich and ecologically distinctive part of the Black Sea coast has
emerged as the driving force behind Sinope’s extensive relationships from
the highlands of the Sinop promontory to the coastal towns and their own
hinterlands in other historical contexts (for example hellenistic and roman
times). thus the settlements on the promontory have a shifting history of re-
lationships with each other, with the port of Sinop/Sinope, with the greater
Pontic world and beyond.
Investigating the processes forming community in the Sinop promontory

a strategy for applying the community framework to a study of the Sinop
community needs to address archaeologically observable processes that form
the basis of communities.
• how did manufactured goods circulate around communities at local and
regional levels?
• are evidence of prestige goods and wealth concentrated in the port or
distributed extensively reflecting local participation in extensive economic
and social networks?
• What is the balance of subsistence-oriented economy to specialized pro-
duction and exchange?
• to what extent do center(s) provide an effective conduit for goods pro-
duced in the hinterland to the greater world?
• how did the community(ies) on the Sinop promontory connect to the
imagined community of milesian colonies?
the SraP sampling program is designed to characterize the patterns of use

and habitation of the various parts of Sinop promontory and to establish local
patterns of exchange within the promontory in order to reconstruct a history
of community. the heavily overgrown conditions in Sinop province and the
size of the promontory (c. 500 km2) make it necessary to sample the survey
zone rather than conduct a full-coverage survey.8 a program was designed
to sample major topographic and ecological zones of the promontory to get

a sense of how different kinds of places were inhabited through time. major
zones for sampling include the territory immediately surrounding Sinope, the
east and west coasts, the karasu valley, and the highlands. Sample quadrats
are 1-5 km2 units chosen partly based on visibility and partly on the ecological
and topographic context. each quadrant is examined intensively in a num-
ber of tracts in which contextual (topographic, environmental), spatial and
material data are collected. all tracts are mapped and recorded regardless of
whether archaeological loci (places where evidence of human use is identified)
are found. interpretations of particular classes of archaeological loci are based
on geophysics and systematic mapping of material evidence on the surface
of well-preserved examples. geomorphological and paleoecological studies
reconstruct human-environmental relationships, archaeological visibility and
the landscape taphonomy.9 Ceramics (including tiles and other construction
materials) and lithics from sample transects in each tract are counted, weighed
and photographed.10 observations on ware types are keyed to the photos and
a finely discriminated ware typology is being established and dated under a
research program designed by a. Bauer, P. vandiver and a. Casson.11 using
this method we are able to gather quantified evidence for the distribution of
finely distinguished ceramics and construction materials in all periods that
will allow us to trace the distribution not only of well-established imports,
but also that of locally-produced wares.
the results available to date suggest an expansion and contraction of a
sense of community on the Sinop promontory from the Bronze age to the
present day. the spatial extent of the Sinop communities has fluctuated over
time. in times of maximum cohesion (for example, hellenistic/roman, late
ottoman/republican) the economic and social structure of the promontory
has centered on the port and several secondary centers. these centers have
served a variety of functions as the concentrations of political power and
administrative functions, the conduits of locally produced goods to exter-
nal markets, and industrial centers (for example ship building). a variety of
specialized and subsistence activities were scattered through the hinterland:
agriculture, fishing, industry, forest products and facilities supporting reli-
gious practices, lodging and exchange. at other times (e.g. in greek archaic,
late Byzantine/Seljuk) Sinope port has stood out as an important strategic
place in the Black Sea community at large, but has had little engagement with
the hinterland.12
a brief summary of the evolution of community in the Sinop promontory
can be offered here and explored more fully elsewhere.13 the Bronze age (mid
3rd-late 2nd millennium BC) was characterized by extensive subsistence settle-
ment and ceramics suggesting a widely dispersed network of connections.
From the early Bronze age onward it is apparent that the inhabitants of Sinop
promontory were in contact with others from the western half of the Black Sea
in spite of the fact that there is to date no evidence suggesting overseas trade
52 Owen Doonan
or intensive seafaring. it does not appear that permanent coastal settlements

were established at this time. Wide ranging fishing may have promoted the
contacts that are evident in the material record. the seasonal migrations of
economically significant species could have encouraged fishermen to venture
far from home along the coasts and in the central Black Sea, creating oppor-
tunities for contact, cooperation and competition that could in turn lead to
gift exchange and other alliance-building strategies.
the coastal settlement pattern appears to have changed significantly dur-
ing the early first millennium BC. a settlement was established just beneath
the later city walls that showed significant parallels in ceramics and architec-
ture to the pre-greek settlements of the north Pontic region.14 this may have
been a colony or a fishing camp, but seems to have been accompanied by an
increasing density of coastal settlements around the promontory suggesting
a new coastal-oriented settlement pattern.15 Coastal sites significantly reduce
the agricultural catchment of settlements and thus suggest that the sea was
providing economic benefits through fishing, trade or some other means.
the earliest evidence for the milesian colony at Sinope dates to the later 7th
century BC.16 according to the well-established historical tradition Sinope set
up a chain of colonies extending to the metal-rich eastern Pontos shortly after
its own foundation. these colonies maintained close economic and political
ties with the mother city that is clear as late as Xenophon’s expedition (An.
5.7-10). on the other hand there is very little evidence to support the idea of
greek engagement with the hinterland on the Sinop promontory before the
4th century BC. Following the intensification of Persian activity in the eastern
Pontos in the early 4th century Sinope’s relationship with its colonies may have
been severed. at the same time a series of amphora production installations
was established on Boztepe just outside the town.17 a small percentage of 4th
century columnar grave monuments with non-greek names were recorded
in the kumkapi cemetery on the mainland just outside the town wall.18 these
monuments suggest a degree of mixing between greeks and non-greeks in
the city. one monument is particularly interesting in this regard, that of Manes
elaiopoles, an oil seller of Paphlagonian origin.19 this name, together with
evidence of significant expansion of hellenized settlements in the hinterland
during the 3rd century, may reflect the development of the olive industry for
which Sinope was known in later hellenistic and roman times. Further evi-
dence of this industry may be traced through the extensive production and
distribution of Sinop amphorae starting in the 4th-3rd centuries BC.20 at this
time the survey has documented a significant increase in settlement density
along the coasts of the promontory, the establishment of contacts between in-
land, coastal and overseas communities and the establishment of greek-related
sanctuaries in the highlands.21 this is the first time in which we can speak of
an integrated community on the Sinop promontory.
in roman and early Byzantine periods the integrated economy of the
Sinop promontory expanded. Settlement density in the hinterland reached its
highest pre-modern levels during these periods, a variety of special purpose

sites are in evidence including industrial, maritime, agricultural and other
specialties.22 a major secondary port and amphora production facility was
established at Demirci Plaj, about 15 km south of the main port.23 this port
served the expanding agricultural sector in the Demirci valley which in the
density of settlement and distribution of industrial evidence resembles the
intensive olive production regions of the mediterranean like the hinterland
of Leptiminus.24 the characteristic pyroxene tempered amphorae of Sinope
are found by the hundreds in the north and west Black Sea and have been
documented in a late roman wreck off the coast of ayancik west of Sinop.25
Settlement appears to have expanded even in the highlands where a number
of large settlements with ceramics imported from the coast or overseas have
been recorded in our initial general surveys. although it is necessary to con-
duct further investigations it is clear that an integrated economic community
existed on Sinop promontory during roman and early Byzantine times. this
community broke down after arab and turkish raids loosened the Byzantine
hold on Sinop. By the 13th century Sinop port was an outstanding strategic
point in the maritime geography of the Black Sea, but the hinterland appears
desolate.26
The Milesian colonial community

the milesian colonial community formed one of the most effective trade
networks in the ancient world. Despite decades of field research in many
of miletos’ most famous colonies (olbia, Berezan’, istros) there is still little
perspective on the processes that motivated milesian colonization (Fig. 3).
an alternative to the colonization models that emphasize foundation dates
and unreliable legends of oikists might emphasize the evolution of a colonial
community over time.27 a brief survey of the early colonies suggests a pattern
of diverse strategic and economic interests. the spatial-temporal pattern of
milesian colonization suggests a series of opportunistic foundations starting
in the later 7th century BC that later developed into an imagined community
centered upon the idea of a shared milesian heritage.
the early foundations (eusebian dates in the first quarter of the 7th century
BC) of colonies around the Sea of marmara offered control of access to the
Black Sea and control of valuable marble sources on the island of Prokonnesos.
Control of Black Sea access may not have been the primary goal. no effort was
made to colonize Chalkedon, Byzantion, or any other site which would have
afforded control of the thracian Bosporos (note the marked contrast with the
6th century pattern in the kimmerian Bosporos). Some of the earliest marble
sculpture from miletos may have been carved from the distinctive streaked
Prokonnesian marble.28 high quality marble was particularly important to
the elites of cities like miletos, where ambitious architectural and sculpted
monuments were a primary means of competing for prestige.
54 Owen Doonan
Fig. 3. Demirci valley, Roman settlement pattern. Circle size indicates site size: very large:
(5 ha+), large (1‑5 ha), medium (0.3‑1.0 ha), small (<0.3 ha). K symbols indicate the location
of kiln‑related debris.
a generation later (eusebian dates in the third quarter of the 7th century)
milesian colonial foundations reflected different interests. First, colonial towns
like Berezan’, olbia and istros were founded in rich coastal plains, followed
by the rapid expansion of agricultural hinterlands. these foundations together
with their extensive agricultural territories controlled access to major river
systems that connected them to extensive inland trade networks. about 15
years later, the foundation of Sinope was quickly followed by Sinope’s own
foundation of a string of colonies along the south Black Sea coast. this region
was famed in antiquity for a wide array of natural resources, particularly
timber for ship building and metals. By the end of the 7th century a diverse
network of colonies connected miletos to a broad array of raw materials, ag-
ricultural products and hinterland trading systems. a later major milesian
colonial initiative was the establishment of several major colonies in the kim-
merian Bosporos in the mid- to late-6th century BC.
Several fundamental problems persist as we attempt to understand the
process of these archaic foundations. First, the population of the milesia does
not appear to have been great enough to have supported the emigration of
tens of thousands of colonists. Ceramic finds in the colonial settlements sug-
gest close contacts with north ionia at least as much as with miletos. Second,
despite the extensive distribution of the milesian colonial network and the
eventual control of strategic positions for controlling overseas trade, there is
no evidence that suggests a coordinated colonial strategy. an entrepreneur-
ial model for colony foundation in which individual or groups of aristocrats
gathered colonists (many but not necessarily all milesian) and in return gained
prestige and/or economic profit can be compared to contemporary meso-
potamian and Levantine models for long-distance trade and colonization.
rather than an overarching colonial program, there may well have been a
natural tendency towards diversification as aristocratic clans developed par-
ticular areas of interest and dominance. Close collaboration between scholars
working in colonial settlements and those focused on miletos can help us to
exchange valuable information on the inscriptional, historical and stylistic
evidence that can be used to study economic, social and artistic trends in the
greater milesian community.
the community survived and adapted to the destruction of miletos in
494 BC, the rise and fall of the athenian empire in the later 5th century, and
the re-emergence of miletos as an influential city in hellenistic times. Some
cities (olbia, possibly kyzikos) entered into isopoliteia agreements with mile-
tos, perhaps in the 4th century BC.29 these agreements may have assisted in
re-building miletos’ position following the varied fortunes of the 5th century
BC, and re-affirmed ties with the now flourishing colonies. in the 4th cen-
tury the colonial community appears to have flourished and matured. great
increases in the volume of trade around the shores of the Pontos show that
colonies were taking advantage of the remarkable ecological diversity of the
region. Could the traditions of milesian colonial foundations in the Black Sea
have been promoted in these times as a means of enhancing the prestige and
economic integration of self-styled milesian colonies?
Towards testing the Milesian colonial community model

thus far we have introduced the possibility that an imagined community of
milesian colonies held remarkable power over the flourishing Black Sea trade
networks. this process may have begun as early as the archaic period but
it may have still remained significant as late as roman times. it is extremely
difficult to establish the motives and processes that drove milesian coloni-
zation and the maturation of a well-developed colonial network. neverthe-
less, the economic interests and organization of the colonists and indigenous
groups may be traced through landscape-oriented research if projects are
designed to establish the basic economic, social and religious infrastructure
of a number of case studies. a series of coordinated field projects focusing on
the hinterlands of several different colonies and the mother city itself would
permit strict comparison of the density and distribution of subsistence and
special purpose sites, monumental tombs, religious facilities, farms, indus-
trial sites, and a range of other facilities through the landscape. one of the
major obstacles we face at present is the establishment of comparable data
sets from surveys that have been conducted using different methodologies
and with different research goals. this is a broader problem in landscape
archaeology in the mediterranean and Black Sea regions, although steps are
56 Owen Doonan
being taken to address the problem of comparability.30 the Collaboratory

for giS and mediterranean archaeology (Cgma, available at http://cgma.
depauw.edu/) is an ambitious initiative to make survey data available from
the multitude of diverse surveys that have been conducted in the mediter-
ranean.31 Despite these important advances in making survey data available
for broad comparison, the problem remains that many projects have gathered
data that are fundamentally different. at present this paper must stand as
a plea for coordinated problem-oriented, multi-site research programs that
will enable us to understand better the complex economic and social picture
of ancient colonial systems.
Notes
1 i shall use the name “Sinope” when referring to the greek port and the name of
the modern port and region “Sinop” to refer to the port in non-greek times and
to the promontory.
2 hiebert 2001; Bauer 2001; 2002; Doonan 2004a.
3 knapp 2003.
4 Stein 1999.
5 ketin 1961.
6 Doonan 2003.
7 Ballard et al. 2001.
8 Doonan 2004b.
9 Degradation of the archaeological record: Wilkinson 2004.
10 Doonan 2004b.
11 Bauer in preparation.
12 Doonan 2004a.
13 Doonan 2004a; Doonan in press b.
14 Doonan 2004a; Doonan in press a and b.
15 Doonan in press b.
16 Boysal 1959. For the most recent discussion, see Ivantchik 2005, 135‑161. Eds.
17 garlan & tatlican 1997; garlan & tatlican 1998.
18 French 1990; 1991b.
19 French 1990, no. 3.
20 avram 1999; Fedoseev 1999; De Boer 2001.
21 Doonan 2004a, ch. 4; Doonan & Bauer 2005.
22 Doonan & Smart 2000-2001; kassab-tezgör & tatlican 1998; Doonan 2004a.
23 kassab-tezgör & tatlican 1998.
24 Stone et al. 1998; Doonan 2004a, 101-108.
25 Ballard et al. 2001.
26 Doonan 2004a, ch. 6.
27 tsetskhladze 1998.
28 von graeve, personal communication.
29 gorman 2001; gorman 2002.
30 alcock & Cherry 2004.
31 Foss & Schindler 2004.
Bibliography
alcock, S. & J.F. Cherry 2004. Side‑by‑Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies
in the Mediterranean World. oxford.
avram, a. 1999. materiel amphorique et non amphorique dans deux sites de la
chora d’istros (histria Pod et Cogealac), in: garlan (ed.) 1999, 215-230.
Ballard, r., F. hiebert, D. Coleman, C. Ward, J. Smith, k. Willis, B. Foley, k.
Croff, C. major & F. torre 2001. Deepwater archaeology of the Black Sea:
the 2000 Season at Sinop, turkey, AJA 105, 607-623.
Bauer, a. 2001. the Prehistoric Pottery of Sinop Province, turkey: observa-
tions on Pre-greek interaction in the Black Sea. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the archaeological institute of america, 3-6 January,
San Diego.
Bauer, a. 2002. Between the Steppe and the Sown: Signs of Community in
the Prehistoric Black Sea. Paper presented at the university of Chicago
eurasian archaeology Conference, Beyond the Steppe and the Sown:
integrating Local and global visions, Chicago, 3-4 may.
Bauer, a. in preparation. Fluid Communities: Maritime Interaction and Cultural
Identity in the Bronze Age Black Sea (PhD Dissertation, university of Penn-
sylvania).
Boysal, y. 1959. Über die älteren Funde von Sinope und die kolonizations-
frage, AA, 8-20.
de Boer, J. 2001. Sinopean amphora Stamps on the northern and Western
Black Sea Coasts, in: S. Solovyev & g. tsetskhladze (eds.), Greeks and Na‑
tives in the Cimmerian Bosphorus (tamanskaja Starina, 3). St Petersburg,
132-133.
Doonan, o. 2003. Production in a Pontic Landscape: the hinterland of greek
and roman Sinope, in: m. Faudot et al. (eds.), Pont‑Euxin et Commerce: La
genèse de la “Route de soie” (actes du iXe Symposium de vani). Besançon,
185-198.
Doonan, o. 2004a. Sinop Landscapes: Exploring Connection in the Hinterland of
a Black Sea Port. Philadelphia.
Doonan, o. 2004b. Sampling Sinop: archaeological Survey in a low visibility
environment, in: L. Wandsnider & e. athanassopoulou (eds.), Recent
Developments in Mediterranean Survey Archaeology. Philadelphia, 37-54.
Doonan, o. in press a. Colony and conjuncture: the early greek colony at
Sinope, in: J. Cobet et al, (eds.), Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme (Dai,
milesische Forschungen).
Doonan, o. in press b. new evidence for the emergence of a maritime Black
Sea economy, in: a. gilbert (ed.), Black Sea Flood: Archaeological & Geologi‑
cal Evidence (Plenum).
Doonan, o. & a. Bauer 2005. Sinop Province archaeological Project: report
on the 2003 Field Season, Arastirma Sonuclari Toplantisi XXii.
5 Owen Doonan
Doonan, o. & D. Smart 2000-2001. gerna, Sinop and roman-Byzantine settle-

ment along the coast west of Sinop, Talanta 32-33, 17-24.
Fedoseev, n. 1999. Classification des timbres astynomiques de Sinope, in:
garlan 1999, 27-48.
Foss, P. & r. Schindler 2004. Cgma: Collaboratory for giS and mediter-
ranean archaeology, abstract of poster presented at the 2004 aia an-
nual meeting (Boston, ma), http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.
php?page=10241.
Foss, P. & r. Schindler n.d. Collaboratory for giS and mediterranean archae-
ology, web site available at http://cgma.depauw.edu/.
French, D. 1990. Sinopean notes 1, Epigraphica Anatolica 16, 45-64.
French, D. 1991a. the iron age in the Black Sea, Thracia Pontica 4, 237-240.
French, D. 1991b. Sinopean notes 2, Epigraphica Anatolica 18, 141-156.
garlan, y. (ed.) 1999. Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en Mer
Noire. aix en Provence.
garlan, y. & i. tatlican 1997. Fouilles d’ateliers amphoriques a Zeytinlik
(Sinop) en 1994 et 1995, Anatolia Antiqua 5, 307-316.
garlan, y. & i. tatlican 1998. Fouilles d’ateliers amphoriques a nisiköy et a
Zeytinlik (Sinop) en 1996 et 1997, Anatolia Antiqua 6, 407-422.
gorman, v. 2004. milesian Decrees of isopoliteia and the refoundation of the
City, ca. 479 BCe, in: v. gorman & e. robinson (eds.), Oikistes. Studies in
Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the Ancient World Offered in
Honor of A.J. Graham (mnemosyne Suppl., 234). Leiden, 181-194.
gorman, v. 2004. Miletos, the ornament of Ionia: a history of the city to 400 B.C.E.
ann arbor.
ivantchik, a. 2005. Am Vorabend der Kolonisation. Das nördliche Schwarzmeerge‑
biet und die Steppennomaden des .‑7. Jhs. v. Chr. in der klassischen Litera‑
turtradition: Mündliche Überlieferung, Literatur und Geschichte (Pontus Sep-
tentrionalis, 3). Berlin-moskau.
kassab-tezgör, D. & i. tatlican 1998. Fouilles des ateliers d’amphores a Demir-
ci, Anatolia Antiqua 6, 423-442.
ketin, i. 1961. Türkiye jeoloji haritasi, 1:500,000 (geological map of turkey,
1:500,000). Sinop.ankara.
knapp, a.B. 2003. the archaeology of community on Bronze age Cyprus:
Politiko Phorades in context, AJA 107, 559-580.
Stein, g. 1999. Rethinking World‑systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in
Uruk Mesopotamia. tucson, aZ.
Stone, D., L. Stirling & n. Ben Lazreg 1998. Suburban Land-use and Ceramic
Production around Leptiminus (tunisia): interim report, Journal of Roman
Archaeology 11, 305-317.
tsetskhladze, g. 1998. greek Colonisation of the Black Sea area: Stages,
models, and native Population, in: g. tsetskhladze (ed.), The Colonisation
of the Black Sea Area. Stuttgart, 9-68.
Wilkinson, t. 2004. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. tucson.
the territories of istros and kallatis
Alexandru Avram
iStroS
the case of istros may well provide a good example concerning the problem
of the territories of the greek cities.1 Founded by miletos in the mid 7th cen-
tury BC or soon thereafter,2 istros was settled on the gulf that later became
the lagoon of razelm–Sinoe, after geomorphologic transformations changed
the ancient landscape.3 at the time of its foundation, istros probably had
very little territory, since the emergence of a proper chora, according to the
present archaeological testimony, seems to first have occurred two or three
generations later.4
The coming of the Greeks: the archaeological evidence

Before the coming of the milesian colonists, the region between the Danube
and the Black Sea (Dobruja) belonged to the diffusion area of the third phase
of a middle hallstatt culture, named after the eponymous site, the Babadag
culture.5 archaeological research has revealed the fortified sites of Babadag
and Beidaud as well as a number of unfortified settlements on both sides
of the Danube, which belonged to this culture (Fig. 1). none of these settle-
ments, however, were truly located on the coast. it is known that the end of
the Babadag culture was violent, even if we are still ignorant of the circum-
stances and the exact date (perhaps the end of the 8th or more probably the
beginning of the 7th century BC). accordingly, these sites, whether fortified
or not, were destroyed. this destruction, however, seems not to have been
related to the coming of the milesians, since, on the one hand, these settle-
ments were not in the region which came to be included in the chora of istros
and, on the other hand, nothing was found among these settlements which
should be ascribed to the greeks.
taking this preliminary result into account, the map of the rural sites which
are to be assigned to the milesian colonisation after c. 600 BC is more than
remarkable (Fig. 2). two archaic settlements are situated some 4-5 km from
the city of istros. at histria-Pod, except for the horizon of the 4th century BC
(on which more later), a layer quite rich in material belonging to the second
half of the 6th century BC as well as a level from the end of the archaic period
were revealed.6 it is difficult to ascertain the character of this site. the same
60 Alexandru Avram
Fig. 1. Sites of the Babadag culture.
is true concerning a second settlement, still poorly investigated, which is

situated in the neighbourhood of the present day village of istria and which
corresponds to a necropolis (on which see below).7
other settlements are situated at a more considerable distance from the
city and seem to be concentrated along the small river Junan (or Duindji)
Dere. in the vicinity of the village of nuntaşi c. 10 km west of the city two
settlements have been excavated. the site nuntaşi ii has four levels belong-
ing to the archaic period. First, there are some buildings from the second half
of the 6th century which are oriented ne–SW, with walls of mudbricks built
on socles in schist-stone. the earliest ceramics are fragments of bird-bowls
and a vase in the manner of the gorgo painter, from the beginning of the 6th
century BC. hence, nuntaşi ii seems to be the oldest site known until now
in the territory of istros.8
The Territories of Istros and Kallatis 61
Fig. 2. Territory of Istros: Archaic period.
a settlement situated about 18 km west of the city was excavated north of

the modern village tariverde. the oldest pottery found here is from the first
quarter of the 6th century BC. Some habitations look like dug-outs, with an
oval-shaped or rectangular plan but with rounded extremities;9 because of
this, some scholars have interpreted them as a characteristic settlement of the
indigenous population. yet, quantitatively, greek pottery dominates,10 while
getic ware represents only 10-15% of the total. among the latter, there are
some vessels characteristic for hallstatt D. a second settlement, of the same
type, was identified in the Se extremity of the same village.
62 Alexandru Avram
other settlements, not yet systematically explored, were discovered

through field surveys. this is the case for some concentrations of ancient
material situated north of the city, on the shore of Lake Sinoe: karaburun,
Sinoe–”Zmeica”, where explorations have revealed 6th century BC pottery,
and Sinoe-”insula Lupilor”, a settlement placed on a peninsula, protected
to the west by a vallum of earth or stone, c. 2 km long and oriented approxi-
mately n–S.11 other archaic settlements are known in the southern part of
the territory at vadu, Sibioara and Cape midia.12
in addition, we know of further sites with finds datable in the 6th cen-
tury BC on the southern bank of the Danube (Sf. gheorghe, the ancient ‘Iερòν
στόμα or Πεύκη), e.g. murighiol (independenţa)13 and on the shore of Lake ra-
zelm (ancient Halmyris), e.g. vişina,14 enisala,15 and Sarinasuf.16 vişina, among
others, furnished a remarkable number of various types of archaic amphorae.17
yet, it is difficult to say if all these latter settlements belonged to the territory
of istros or not, because of their considerable distance from the city.
our knowledge of the configuration of the territory of istros in the ar-
chaic period may be supplemented with evidence from the necropoleis iden-
tified until now. Seven inhumations were found at Corbu de Jos,18 among
which were three with grave goods: a crown-vessel,19 a lekythos of the 581
athens-group from the beginning of the 5th century,20 an orientalizing greek
olpe and an attic C-cup.21 accordingly, the necropolis was established around
the end of the 6th or early 5th century BC.22
about 2.5 km from the present day village of istria, at the place called
“Bent”, a necropolis with 104 inhumations from the 6th to the 1st century BC
was exhaustively excavated.23 56 burials – adults in oval or rectangular graves
and children in amphorae24 – and three other burial complexes belong to the
first phase (6th century-first half of the 3rd century BC). in 36 graves, grave
goods were preserved, especially vessels for oil or drinking, but also oinochoai,
fish-plates, lamps, etc. oldest is grave no. 3, with a handmade dish and a bowl
with rosettes from the early 6th century BC. then come tombs from the first
half of the 6th century, dated by the presence of ovoid east greek lekythoi.25
Five graves include crown-vessels. the local pottery is represented by istrian
jugs with handles rising above the rim,26 while native pottery is represented
by handmade vessels.
the archaeological data given above concerning the chora of istros in the
archaic period allow the following conclusions:
1. the settlements and the necropoleis belonging to the first phase of the
territory of istros are located both on the coast and inland, at a distance
of up to 18 km from the city.
2. the earliest finds are from about 600 BC.
3. there is no site with a pre-hellenic level.
4. except for the site Sinoe–”insula Lupilor”, which seems to have had a val‑
lum, and which is still unexplored, there are only open settlements, most
likely agricultural in nature.
5. the greek character of the settlements is proved by the pottery and by

the building structures (especially nuntaşi ii).
6. the burials of the two necropoleis (Corbu de Jos and histria–”Bent”) are
greek, as opposed to the different cremation types illustrated by the native
necropoleis situated in neighbouring or distant regions.
7. the presence of the native population in the settlements and the necropo-
leis is also adequately documented. nevertheless, i believe that it is still
necessary to remain cautious as to the “ethnic” attribution of the handmade
pottery in a hallstatt tradition and on the dug-outs, even if, in most of the
cases, it is attractive to see these as evidence for non-greek elements.
Historical evaluation
in order to define the character of the earliest contacts between the milesian
colonists and the natives, i think that, first of all, we must review the recon-
structed maps of the region, before and after the colonization of the greeks
(Figs. 1 and 2). the change of habitation area to the coastal zone is more than
instructive: not only did the greeks not destroy the native settlements, they in
fact attracted the natives to their homes. it is suitable, then, to imagine a kind
of peaceful cohabitation throughout the archaic period.27 there is no sign to
suggest a military conflict: “pre-colonial” strata are missing everywhere, the
territory’s sites are not fortified, while even the city first acquired a wall in
the middle or even the end of the 6th century BC, that is more than a century
after the foundation of istros.
on the other hand, without the contributions of the native population, it is
less conceivable that the territory would have been organised in the manner
suggested by the archaeological data: this is additional evidence in support
of the idea of collaboration between greeks and non-greeks.
as far as the taking over of the territory goes, i believe that the interpreta-
tion of the archaeological evidence may provide proof for the succession of
supplementary waves of colonists. the territory is, for this type of investiga-
tion, much more useful than the city where the archaic strata are still nearly
inaccessible to archaeologists.
i would suggest, for example, a secondary colonisation around 600 BC. it
is, in fact, the time of the true control over the territory. is it only a coincidence
that it takes place contemporaneously with the plunder of the milesian chora
by the Lydian king alyattes (hdt. 1.17-19)?28 i am inclined to think not, not
least because it occurs, more or less, at the same time as the continental nucleus
was settled at olbia near the first settlement of Berezan’. only in apollonia
is the presence of epoikoi in the milesian colonies of the Black Sea explicitly
revealed, and this in a rather obscure context (arist. Pol. 1303a.36-38), but the
model remains nevertheless possible.29 a second wave of colonists, about the
mid 6th century BC, is also to be taken into consideration; it is suggested both
by the progress noticed in the city and by the appearance of new settlements
64 Alexandru Avram
in the territory. the possibility that allotments in the tumular necropolis were
reserved for supplementary colonists30 could also provide further evidence
for this wave.
The Classical period

the details of developments in the 5th century are still less known, not only
for the territory, but also for the city. For the territory, it is notable both that
the site of tariverde, so rich in the 6th century BC, had only two phases in the
hellenistic period, and that the site of histria-Pod shows a clear discontinuity
between the archaic horizon and the 4th century BC.31
the 4th century BC is, in turn, much better documented (Fig. 3), mainly
thanks to the results of the excavations from histria-Pod and nuntaşi. at
histria-Pod the excavations revealed a single complex of buildings, with many
annexes disposed around a central plateia. three phases are to be noticed,
dated, on the ground of amphora stamps (mainly thasian), from the early 4th
century BC to the beginning of the 3rd century BC. the houses were erected
in raw bricks on socles of schist-stone. We are probably dealing with a farm
complex.32 the site of nuntaşi ii in the Classical period presents three levels
with buildings oriented n–S or e–W.33 about this time a new agglomeration
(nuntaşi i) was installed near this central site.34
to these settlements in the proximity of nuntaşi one may add some fu-
nerary finds made c. 1 km west of the same village and dated to the mid 4th
century BC.35
the necropolis of histria-”Bent” mentioned above was still in use. the
horizon datable to the 5th century comprises rather poor graves; they may
be devoid of finds, or may contain one object only, as, for example, an istrian
lekythos, an alabastron, east greek oinochoai or those of local production.36 in
the third horizon, from the 4th century to the first half of the 3rd century BC,
there are some changes in the structure of the material. We may principally
note the jewels, such as the thracian fibula, the prominent place of unguentaria
compared to the lekythoi characteristic of the earlier phases, and the practice
of depositing coins.37
The Hellenistic period

the earlier settlements seem to have continued their existence through the
beginning of the hellenistic period (Fig. 3) but for most of them, it is difficult
to ascertain more details because they have not been systematically excavated.
the best known is the site of nuntaşi ii which, in its final phase (the second
half of the 4th century-2nd century BC) occupied the largest area. only part
of it has been excavated, mainly a single rectangular building paved with
big plates of schist and with walls of mudbricks on socles of schist-stone.
in the ruins of this building destroyed by fire around the middle of the 2nd
Fig. 3. Territory of Istros: Classical and Hellenistic periods.
century BC, were discovered various imported, local or handmade ceramics,

a beautiful statue of an enthroned kybele, a votive plaque representing nike,
a statuette of an ephebe, a kernos and the bottom of an amphora reused for
cultic purposes (as a receptacle for a liknon). on the grounds of these and other
analogies, this building was interpreted as a small rural sanctuary consecrated
to Demeter with kybele and nike as paredroi.38
a site dating to the beginning of the hellenistic period was discovered
east of the village of Cogealac. it had three phases, in the second half of the
66 Alexandru Avram
4th century BC, in the early 3rd century BC, and in the second quarter of the
same century respectively. the limited area of the excavations allows only
the provisional conclusion that it was perhaps a small hamlet.39 other sites,
probably from the hellenistic period, were identified after various surveys;
yet it is difficult to say something concrete concerning their character.
the hellenistic period also coincided with the second phase of the necropo-
lis of histria-”Bent” (the middle of the 3rd century to the 1st century BC), to
which phase 29 graves belong. the practice of depositing jewellery and coins,
already noticed in the first phase, continued; yet, a certain degree of poverty
for the community can be posited because of the small number of tombs with
grave goods. the most recent complex seems to be grave no. 33, where, among
others, a La tène iii fibula from the 1st century BC was found.
taking into consideration the archaeological evidence presented above, the
chora of istros seems to have suffered the torments of the uncertain political
climate typical of the late hellenistic period, caused without any doubt by
the more and more frequent raids of either the indigenous or other barbar-
ian populations.
the epigraphic archive of istros furnishes three exceptional records con-
cerning this issue: a third-century decree honouring the ambassadors sent to
the getic ruler Zalmodegikos (I. Histriae 8), and two further decrees dating
to the end of the same century, in honour of agathokles son of antiphilos (I.
Histriae 15) and of meniskos son of theodoros,40 two citizens rewarded by the
community for their intervention against the barbarians attacking the chora.
there are many detailed studies of these inscriptions,41 so i shall not consider
them further here. in turn, it is fitting to mention that the image provided
both by the archaeological and epigraphic evidence agrees perfectly with the
numismatic data. a recent paper concerning the diffusion of the istrian coins
proved that, compared to 35 coins of the 5th and early 4th century BC, and
even more, compared to 129 specimens of the 4th century BC, the total num-
ber of finds of istrian coins issued after c. 280 BC is disappointing, amounting
to only 16 examples.42
Topographical review of the territory of Istros in the pre‑Roman period

it is certainly daring to reconstruct the frontiers of the chora of istros.43 an
interesting record in many ways, although unfortunately of a late date, the
ὁροθεσία of the roman governor manius Laberius maximus of 25 october 100
aD (I. Histriae 67 and 68) provides some data. this document confirms for the
inhabitants of istros “the borders of their ancestors” (τ�
� τ�ν ρ�α)
�νν �ρο�όν�ν �ρ�α
which extended as far as the southern bank of the Dan ube (Πεύκη = ‛Iερòν
στόμα = Sf. gheorghe). We may, then, see proof here that the ancient chora of
istros was bordered to the north by the Danube Delta. there is, however, a
major objection to this theory: the excavations in progress at Cape Dolojman,
ancient orgame (hecat. FGrHist 1 F 72: “’Ορ�άμη �όλ�ς �� τ�
� �στρ�
στρ��),44 pro-
duced finds of a very early date, even earlier than those of istros.45 in more
recent periods, orgame was probably integrated into the territory of istros.
in the archaic period, however, (and possibly in the Classical period too), we
may suppose that it was an independent polis.46
the western boundary of the chora remains unknown. it may be surmised
that the region of the altân tepe plateau, which furnished copper for first
the “arrow-head” coins47 and later for the local monetary bronze issues, as
well as the zone of the village of Fântânele, which, in the imperial period,
was attested as the source of the aqueduct of istros,48 already belonged to the
chora of the city.
the southern border of the territory is equally a problem. tomis is attested
as a polis beginning only in the hellenistic period, and the border between
the two cities fluctuated. So, one should not forget the difference between the
chora stricto sensu and the chora as dominio di influenza of a city.49 it is, by the
way, the probable sense of the word �ρόσχ�ρος, which occurs in a fragmen-
tary context in a hellenistic decree from istros (I. Histriae 18).50
kaLLatiS
the foundation of kallatis is briefly exposed by Ps.-Skymnos (vv. 760-763)

who, in his Pontic section, used the evidence furnished by the local historian
Demetrios of kallatis: “(the city of kallatis) colony of the herakleians, as the
result of an oracle. they founded it while amyntas received the command
of the macedonians”.
the foundation of kallatis by colonists from herakleia Pontike – also re-
corded in other sources – has never been doubted by modern scholars.51 the
date of the foundation, however, still admits of two possibilities: the epoch
of amyntas i in the second half of the 6th century BC, or that of amyntas iii
(393-370/69 BC).52 i have elsewhere adduced the evidence in favour of the first
of these two variants, namely the foundation of kallatis at the end of the 6th
century BC.53 however, resolving this question is not so important, because,
as for the territory, there is no doubt about the time of the city’s control over
it, i.e. the beginning of the 4th century BC. So, either more than a century went
by before the kallatians took over their chora, or the foundation of kallatis was
more or less contemporary with the settling of its rural territory.54
The archaeological evidence

only one site, an important one in many ways, has been systematically exca-
vated in the territory of kallatis. it is the settlement situated on a plateau 2 km
SW of the village of albeşti c. 15 km west of kallatis, which occupied an area
of c. 12 ha. its centre is constituted by a rectangular fortification of c. 40 × 40 m,
extended later to 45 × 45 m, with a corner-tower of 9 × 9 m. the excavations,
6 Alexandru Avram
which are still in progress, have revealed three phases both for the fortification
and for the civil settlement around it. the first phases correspond to the first
and the second half (or the last quarter) of the 4th century BC respectively,
while the third phase, in which the fortification was expanded towards the
south, is dated to the 3rd century BC. the walls of the fortification are of local
limestone with an emplekton of uncut limestone, bound with clay.55
among the rich finds, besides the stamped and unstamped amphoric
material,56 the hellenistic and native pottery (including handmade vessels),
a certain category of north Pontic pottery and the coins can be mentioned.
the terracottas found in two habitations of the third phase, from the first de-
cades of the 3rd century to about 240 BC merit a special mention: aphrodite
accompanied by two erotes, kybele on a throne, and especially a ceramic
altar with reliefs representing Poseidon, nike, Dionysos and apollo in the
first complex, and a fragmentary statuette of kybele, fragments from another
ceramic altar, as well as representations of Demeter and aphrodite with a pi-
geon in the second complex.57 these objects testify to the practice of private
cults; it is possible that the research in progress may result in the discovery
of sanctuaries proper.58
other sites, no doubt like that of albeşti, were identified in the same
region, but they have not yet been methodically excavated.59 Beside these
fortified sites, we can mention more settlements of agricultural character
(Fig. 4): tuzla,60 Costineşti-”mănăstirea”,61 Schitu,62 23 august,63 2 mai,64 vama
veche,65 Šabla,66 hagieni,67 albeşti-”La vie”,68 Cotu văii-”via lui avram”,69
arsa,70 Dulceşti,71 moşneni,72 and Pecineaga.73 there is, finally, a rural sanc-
tuary recently excavated at Durankulak, in the southern part of the chora of
kallatis.74
Some isolated findings, at Comana75 and neptun,76 may attest the existence
of necropoleis. among the burials, the most striking peculiarity is a series of
tombs with vaulted funerary chambers and dromos. their diffusion concerns
only a limited area around kallatis.77 all these tombs are from the early 3rd
century BC and we here recognise a construction type of macedonian origin.
one recent discovery needs to be mentioned: a tomb with a vaulted chamber
of rectangular form (3.56 × 3.62 m) and dromos.78
Historical considerations
the territory of kallatis was composed of two parts: an allotted territory
around the city including the kleroi of the citizens79 and a larger zone inhabited
by greeks and especially by non-greek people. Some fortifications attested
by literary testimonies80 or by inscriptions81 could be identified with settle-
ments like albeşti or other fortifications not yet excavated in the area west
of kallatis. these fortifications may suggest the western limit of the territory
and they find solid parallels in the chora of the other herakleian foundation
in the euxine area, the tauric Chersonesos.
Fig. 4. Sites in the territory of Kallatis.
another feature of the territory of kallatis concerns the presence of a

Scythian population, well attested by the literary and numismatic evidence.82
Particularly instructive is the elder Plinius (NH. 4.44) who mentions some
oppida held by the Scythae aroteres around kallatis. nevertheless, the archaeo-
70 Alexandru Avram
logical evidence concerning a Scythian presence in this area is extremely poor.

therefore, i have suggested that there was an enclave of colonised Scythians,
perhaps as a kind of klerouchoi in the forts on the western frontier of the ter-
ritory of kallatis.83 it is very likely that an élite of Scythian “kings”,84 with a
status more or less similar to the attested perioikoi of the territory of herakleia
Pontike, controlled a semidependent population (similar to the οἱ τὴν χώραν
�ε�ρ�ούντες from herakleia).85
the presence of such a Scythian élite could also justify the graves with
vaulted funerary chamber and dromos of “macedonian” type in an area re-
stricted to the neighbourhood of kallatis. Such monumental graves are clearly
incompatible with the democratic régime in kallatis, as suggested by the hel-
lenistic inscriptions, but were rather common in the north Pontic Scythian
area. they have obviously been erected by greek masters86 but their owners
were without doubt non-greeks and it seems attractive to suggest the same
colonised (?) Scythae aroteres who also held the oppida mentioned by Plinius.
Notes
1 avram 1990; 2001, 593-612.
2 Discussions about the foundation of istros: alexandrescu 1978 a, 19-21; ivantchik
1998, 322-326; alexandrescu 1999, 72-76.
3 alexandrescu 1978b = alexandrescu 1999, 49-65.
4 the term occurs in inscriptions from the end of the 3rd century BC (I. Histriae
15) and from the 1st century BC (I. Histriae 54). one should add a fragmen-
tary decree concerning an embassy (I. Histriae 42, 2nd century BC.; l. 3, to read
[�ρε]σβευτ�[ν]), where i could identify [τή]ν χώρα[ν] (l. 10) (χ�ρία, Pippidi).
5 morintz 1964, 1987, 1990; Buzoianu 2001, 66-103.
6 Zimmermann & avram 1987, 11.
7 avram, Bounegru & Chiriac 1985, 114.
8 Domăneanţu 1993, 59.
9 Preliminary reports: SCIV 3 (1952), 269-274; 4 (1953), 130-134; 5 (1954), 100-108;
6 (1955), 543-551; Materiale 4 (1957), 77-78; 5 (1959), 318-322; 7 (1960), 273-281; cf.
Preda 1972, 77-88.
10 a systematic publication of the material of tariverde is missing. See, for some
archaic ceramic objects, alexandrescu 1976, 122-123, cat. nos. 59-62; alexandrescu
1978 a, cat. nos. 257, 272, 292, 349, 410, 437, 626, 650, 713, 731, 734, 739; mănucu
adameşteanu 1995-1996 (Black Figure crater, possibly local).
11 Canarache 1953, 138-143; Canarache 1956, 292, 305-306; Stoian 1957, 198; Dimitriu
1970, 232; Dimitriu 1972, 119; avram, Bounegru & Chiriac 119-121.
12 Pârvan 1923, 34; SCIV 4 (1953), 145-146; Stoian 1957, 197-198; Dimitriu 1970, 232;
Dimitriu 1972, 119; irimia 1980, 67-68.
13 Suceveanu & angelescu 1988, 146.
14 mănucu adameşteanu 1980, 1981, 1984, 1985.
15 Babeş 1971, 21, 23 and note 11; irimia 1975, 102-103; irimia 1980, 69; alexandrescu
1976, 119-120, cat. no. 28 (olpe from the end of the 6th century BC).
16 unpublished excavations. See alexandrescu 1976, 122, cat. nos. 55 (korinthian
skyphos), 56 (attic cup-skyphos), 57 (attic C-cup).
17 mănucu adameşteanu 1998.

18 Bucovală & irimia 1971.
19 alexandrescu 1978a, cat. no. 698 bis.
20 alexandrescu 1978a, cat. no. 331.
22 teleagă 1999, with a detailed examination of the finds and a revised dating.
23 this necropolis was excavated in the 1960s (only one brief report: Zirra 1970) and
the results are now published on the basis of the documentation inherited from
the late vlad Zirra by emilian teleagă: teleagă & Zirra 2003.
24 also a grave in a larnax (end of the 6th century BC).
25 Concerning this type, see alexandrescu 1978a, cat. nos. 681-689.
27 avram 1991a = avram 1996.
28 Lohmann 1995, 307f.
29 i developed this idea in the report i gave at the Second international Congress
on the archaeology of the Black Sea (ankara, September 2001).
30 alexandrescu 1999, 64.
31 once again the parallel with olbia is instructive. its chora had more than 100 settle-
ments in the archaic period but “à la fin du premier tiers du ve s., la plupart des
établissements ruraux furent abandonnés et la vie se concentra dans les villages
plus proches de la cite”. “au dernier tiers du ve s., la vie reprit dans quelques
établissements seulement, mais la recolonisation du territoire rural recommença
dans des proportions plus importantes dès la fin du ve s. et au début du ive. C’est
peut-être à ce moment qu’apparurent près d’olbia des fermes isolées” (kryjickij
& Bujskih 1999, 274).
32 Zimmermann & avram 1987. For a revised chronology: Zimmermann 1991, 110
and figs. 42-48; avram 1999, 215-217 and 219-221.
33 Domăneanţu 1993, 59.
34 Domăneanţu 1980.
35 rădulescu 1961, with the chronology established by teleagă 1999, 38-42.
36 teleagă & Zirra 2003, catalogue.
37 graves 1, 19 and 45. this is a very rare practice in getic or Scythian necropoleis
and can consequently be used as a supplementary argument for the greek char-
acter of the necropolis of istria-”Bent”.
38 Domăneanţu 1993, 59-78.
39 unpublished excavations. For the amphora stamps and the chronology, see
avram 1999, 217-219 and 223-224.
40 milaev 2002.
41 Pippidi 1962, 75-88; Bengtson 1962 = Bengtson 1974, 377-388; Pippidi 1975, 31-55;
Schuller 1996; cf. archibald 2002, 63-66.
42 Poenaru Bordea 2001.
43 For such an attempt, see avram 1990 and 1991c.
44 mănucu adameşteanu 1985, 1992, 1996, 2001, 2003; Lungu 1992, 1995, 1999; Lungu
& Poenaru Bordea 2000.
45 mănucu adameşteanu 1998, 2000 (middle Wild goat Style oinochoai, c. 640-630 or
c. 630); Lungu 2000 = Lungu 2000-2001 (tumular grave with a Samian band-cup
of the class a2 villard-vallet, c. 650-630).
46 For some (very different) opinions concerning the status of early orgame see
avram 1995, 197; avram 2003, 286-287 and 307, note 163; alexandrescu 1999,
24; Buzoianu 2001, 206; ruscu 2002, 259-261.
72 Alexandru Avram
47 Poenaru Bordea & oberländer târnoveanu 1980; Preda 1991; 1998, 30-39.
48 Suceveanu 1998.
49 adameşteanu 1956, 146.
50 avram 1981-1982; cf. Suceveanu 1998, 157-158.
51 Pomponius mela 2.2.22 (in litoribus Histro est proxima Histropolis, deinde Milesiis
deducta Kallatis) is, it is true, disturbing. this might be confused with istros, just
mentioned above (hind 1998, 139, note 31; hind 1999 a, 81) or an indication for
a milesian presence before the foundation of kallatis by herakleia Pontike (ash-
eri 1972, 16-18; Saprykin 1997, 69-70; vinogradov 1997, 410; oppermann 2000,
140).
52 For the foundation of kallatis at the end of the 6th century BC: Pippidi 1971,
38-39 and 63-64. For a foundation at the very beginning or in the first half of the
4th century BC: ulanici 1974; hind 1984, 75; 1992-1993, 89; 1998, 139; 1999b, 30;
graham 1994, 6; ivantchik 1998, 322, note 77.
53 I. Kallatis, 9-11, with a detailed discussion.
54 See, for the territory of kallatis, avram 1991b; I. Kallatis, introduction, 11-22;
avram 2001, 614-632 (in all these studies i discussed in detail the epigraphic and
numismatic evidence, so i do not insist further here); oppermann 2000.
55 rădulescu, Cheluţă-georgescu & Bărbulescu 1979; Cheluţă-georgescu &
Bărbulescu 1985; rădulescu, Bărbulescu, Buzoianu & Cheluţă-georgescu 1993;
rădulescu, Bărbulescu & Buzoianu 2000; rădulescu, Buzoianu, Bărbulescu &
georgescu 2000-2001.
56 rădulescu, Bărbulescu & Buzoianu 1986; 1987; 1990; Bărbulescu, Buzoianu
& Cheluţă-georgescu 1986; 1987; 1990; rădulescu, Bărbulescu, Buzoianu &
Cheluţă-georgescu 1988-1989.
57 rădulescu, Buzoianu, Bărbulescu & Cheluţă-georgescu 1995-1996; rădulescu,
Buzoianu, Bărbulescu & georgescu 2000-2001, 202-203 and fig. 6.
58 Cf. rădulescu, Bărbulescu & Buzoianu 2000, 177.
59 irimia 1989.
60 Slobozianu 1959, 735-738 and 744-745; irimia 1980, 104-105, no. 17.
61 Slobozianu & Ţicu 1966, 671 and fig. 1.
62 vulpe 1943, 14; Slobozianu & Ţicu 1966, 679; irimia 1980, 96-97, no. 9. See also the
hoard of roman republican coins discovered near this settlement: mitrea 1970.
63 Boroneanţ 1977, 324, no. 24; irimia 1980, 70, note 29; irimia 1983, 94-96, no. 3.
64 Boroneanţ 1977, 324, no. 25.
65 Boroneanţ 1977, 324, nos. 27-28.
66 Lazarov 1998, 93; oppermann 2000, 140. to be added is an unpublished hoard
of kallatian bronze coins discovered near Šabla.
67 irimia 1973, 50-52; ionescu & georgescu 1997, 169.
68 irimia 1973, 48-50.
69 irimia 1980, 89, no. 7.
70 irimia 1973, 52-53; ionescu & georgescu 167-168. to add some amphora stamps
discovered by chance: gramatopol & Poenaru Bordea 1969, cat. no. 1179; avram
1988, cat. nos. 32, 33, 69, 73, 114, 119.
71 irimia 1973, 53-56. amphora stamps: gramatopol & Poenaru Bordea 1969, cat.
nos. 1171-1172.
72 irimia 1973, 56-60. amphora stamps: gramatopol & Poenaru Bordea 1969, cat.
nos. 1175-1176.
73 irimia 1980, 102, no. 13.
74 Burow 1993 and 1999.
75 aricescu 1961, 81; ocheşeanu 1969, 224.

76 iconomu 1968, 260-261 and 265-267.
77 tafrali 1925, 242, fig. 2; Pârvan2 1974, fig. 81; Preda 1962; irimia 1983, 118-123;
irimia 1984, 67-72.
78 ionescu & georgescu 1997, 164.
79 this is suggested by the inscriptions I. Kallatis 51-55; cf. avram 1991a and, for
parallels at Chersonesos, Ščeglov 1978, 86-101; Solomonik & nikolaenko 1990;
Saprykin 1997, 41-43; Ščeglov 1998.
80 Plin. NH. 4.44: oppida. one of these sites, Parthenopolis (area of Schitu and
Costineşti), is also mentioned by eutropius 6.10 as taken (cepit) by m. terentius
Lucullus varro in 72/1 BC during the second mithridatic War. this might sug-
gest that it was a fortified settlement.
81 a pyrgos occurs in I. Kallatis 55.
82 See the testimonies (Ps.-Scymn., 756-757 etc.) collected and commented in I. Kal‑
latis, introduction, 19-21; cf. avram 2001, 628-631.
83 avram 2001, 630-631.
84 the basileis on Scythian bronze coins: youroukova 1977; tacheva 1995; Preda
1998, 120-129.
85 arist., Pol. 1327b.12-16; cf. avram 1984, 19-28; Papazoglou 1997, 95-96; Bittner
1998, 10-11.
86 tsetskhladze 1998b. For the possible similarity between this type of vaulted
construction and the cult building (antron) of the Bacchic thiasos of kallatis, see
I. Kallatis 35 (commentary, pp. 297-301); Jaccottet 2003, i, 151-155.
Bibliography
adameşteanu, D. 1956. osservazioni sulla battaglia di gela del 405, Kokalos
2, 142-157.
alexandrescu, P. 1976. Pour une chronologie des vie-ive siècles, in: Thraco‑Dacica
(1). Bucarest, 117-126.
alexandrescu, P. 1978a. Histria iv. La céramique d’époque archaïque et classique.
Bucarest-Paris.
alexandrescu, P. 1978b. notes de topographie histrienne, Dacia N.S. 22,
331-342.
alexandrescu, P. 1999. L’Aigle et le Dauphin. Études d’archéologie pontique.
Bucarest-Paris.
archibald, Z.h. 2002. the Shape of the new Commonwealth. aspects of the
Pontic and eastern mediterranean regions in the hellenistic age, in:
tsetskhladze & Snodgrass (eds.) 2002, 49-72.
aricescu, a. 1961. Die bodenständige Bevölkerung der Dobrudscha und
ihre Beziehungen zu den griechen in der hellenistischen epoche, StCl
3, 67-82.
asheri, D. 1972. Über die Frühgeschichte von herakleia Pontike, in: F.k.
Dörner (ed.), Forschungen an der Nordküste Kleinasiens i. Herakleia Pontike.
Forschungen zur Geschichte und Topographie (Denkschriften Wien, 106).
Wien, 11-34.
74 Alexandru Avram
avram, a. 1981-1982. Zur entstehung der regio Histriae, Dacoromania, Jahrbuch

für östliche Latinität 6, 113-120.
avram, a. 1984. Bemerkungen zu den mariandynern von herakleia am
Pontos, StCl 22, 19-28.
avram, a. 1988. amfore şi ţigle ştampilate din colecţia “Dr. horia Slobozianu”,
SCIVA 39, 287-313.
avram, a. 1990. Das histrianische territorium in griechisch-römischer Zeit,
in: P. alexandrescu & W. Schuller (eds.), Histria. Eine Griechenstadt an der
rumänischen Schwarzmeerküste (Xenia. konstanzer althistorische vorträge
und Forschungen, 25). konstanz, 9-43.
avram, a. 1991a. Beziehungen zwischen griechen und geten im archaischen
histria, StCl 27, 19-30.
avram, a. 1991b. untersuchungen zur geschichte des territoriums von kal-
latis in griechischer Zeit, Dacia N.S. 35, 103-137.
avram, a. 1991c. Întinderea teritoriului histriei în epoca romană în lumina
hotărniciei consularului manius Laberius maximus. Încercare de recon-
stituire, Cultură şi civilizaţie la Dunărea de jos 4, 189-197.
avram, a. 1995. Poleis und nicht-Poleis im ersten und Zweiten attischen See-
bund, in: m.h. hansen & k. raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek
Polis (historia. einzelschriften, 95). Stuttgart, 191-200.
avram, a. 1996. modes de contacts entre grecs et gètes à histria à l’époque
archaïque, in: o. Lordkipanidzé & P. Lévêque (eds.), Sur les traces des Argo‑
nautes (actes du vie symposium de vani, Colchide, 22-29 septembre 1990.
annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon, 613). Paris, 241-251.
avram, a. 1999. matériel amphorique et non amphorique dans deux sites de la
chôra d’istros (histria Pod et Cogealac), in: garlan (ed.) 1999, 215-230.
avram, a. 2001. Les territoires d’istros et de Callatis, in: a. Stazio (ed.), Pro‑
blemi della chora coloniale dall’Occidente al Mar Nero (atti del quarantesimo
convegno di Studi sulla magna greci, taranto, 29 settembre-3 ottobre
2000). taranto, 593-632.
avram, a. 2003. histria, in: grammenos & Petropoulos (eds.) 2003, 279-340.
avram, a. & m. Babeş (eds.) 2000. Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques péri‑
phériques. Hommage à Petre Alexandrescu à son 70e anniversaire. Bucarest.
avram, a., o. Bounegru & C. Chiriac 1985. Cercetări perieghetice în teritoriul
histriei (i), Pontica 18, 113-124.
Babeş, m. 1971. necropola daco-romană de la enisala, SCIV 22, 19-45.
Bărbulescu, m., L. Buzoianu & n. Cheluţă-georgescu 1986. importuri amforice
la albeşti (jud. Constanţa): thasos, Pontica 19, 61-74.
Bărbulescu, m., L. Buzoianu & n. Cheluţă-georgescu 1987. tipuri de amfore
elenistice descoperite în aşezarea greco-autohtonă de la albeşti (jud.
Constanţa), Pontica 20, 79-106.
Bărbulescu, m., L. Buzoianu & n. Cheluţă-georgescu 1990. Pentru un catalog
complet al importurilor amforice la albeşti (jud. Constanţa), Pontica 23,
49-79.
Bengtson, h. 1962. neues zur geschichte des hellenismus in thrakien und

in der Dobrudscha, Historia 11, 21-28.
Bengtson, h. 1974. Kleine Schriften. münchen.
Bittner, a. 1998. Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontike. Eine Polis
zwischen Tyrannis und Selbstverwaltung (asia minor Studien, 30). Bonn.
Boroneanţ, v. 1977. Cercetări perieghetice pe malul mării negre între Constanţa
şi vama veche, Pontica 10, 319-324.
Bucovală, m. & m. irimia 1971. Cimitirul din sec. vi-v î. e. n. de la Corbu,
jud. Constanţa. Pontica 4, 41-56.
Burow, J. 1993. Durankulak. vorbericht über die ausgrabungen 1991 und
1992, AA, 333-345.
Burow, J. 1999. excavations at Durankulak (ne Bulgaria): the ritual Pits and
their Contents, in: o. Lordkipanidzé & P. Lévêque (eds.), Religions du
Pont‑Euxin (actes du viiie symposium de vani, Colchide, 1996. annales
littéraires de l’université de Besançon, 718). Paris, 33-35.
Buzoianu, L. 2001. Civilizaţia greacă în zona vest‑pontică şi impactul ei asupra
lumii autohtone. Constanţa.
Canarache, v. 1953. in: Şantierul histria, SCIV 4, 90-152.
Canarache, v. 1956. observaţii noi cu privire la topografia histriei, SCIV 7,
289-318.
Cheluţă-georgescu, n. & m. Bărbulescu 1985. Fazele constructive ale
fortificaţiei de la albeşti (jud. Constanţa), Symposia Thracologica 3, 78-80.
Dimitriu, S. 1970. Fizionomia cartierului de locuinţe extra‑muros de la histria
în perioada arhaică, SCIV 21, 225-233.
Dimitriu, S. 1972. Discuţii despre oraşele pontice şi teritoriile lor în perioada
arhaică, pe marginea unor studii recente, SCIV 23, 111-120.
Domăneanţu, C. 1980. rezultatele săpăturilor arheologice de la nuntaşi,
Materiale 14, 265-266.
Domăneanţu, C. 1993. un sanctuaire hellénistique du site de nuntaşi ii (comm.
d’istria, dép. de Constanţa), Dacia N.S. 37, 59-78.
garlan, y. (ed.) 1999. Production et commerce des amphores anciennes en mer
Noire (Colloque international organisé à istanbul, 25-28 mai 1994).
aix-en-Provence.
graham, a.J. 1994. greek and roman Settlements on the Black Sea Coast:
historical Background, in: g.r. tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek and Roman Settle‑
ments on the Black Sea Coast (Colloquenda Pontica, 1). Bradford, 1-8.
gramatopol, m. & g. Poenaru Bordea. amphora Stamps from Callatis and
South Dobruja, Dacia N.S. 13, 127-282.
grammenos, D.v. & e.k. Petropoulos (eds.) 2003. Ancient Greek Colonies in the
Black Sea, i-ii. thessaloniki.
hind, J.g.F. 1984. greek and Barbarian Peoples on the Shores of the Black
Sea, Archaeological Reports 30, 71-97.
hind, J.g.F. 1992-1993. archaeology of the greeks and Barbarian Peoples
around the Black Sea (1982-1992), Archaeological Reports 39, 82-112.
76 Alexandru Avram
hind, J. 1998. megarian Colonisation in the Western half of the Black-Sea

(Sister- and Daughter-Cities of herakleia), in: tsetskhladze (ed.) 1998a,
131-152.
hind, J. 1999a. Pomponius mela on Colonies in West and east, in: g.r.
tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient West and East. Leiden-Boston-köln, 77-84.
hind, J. 1999b. the Dates and mother-Cities of the Black Sea Colonies (Pseu-
do-Scymnus and the Pontic Contact Zones), in: o. Lordkipanidzé & P.
Lévêque (eds.), La mer Noire, zone de contacts (actes du viie symposium de
vani, Colchide, 26-30 septembre 1994. annales littéraires de l’université
de Besançon, 715). Paris, 25-34.
iconomu, C. 1968. Cercetări arheologice de la mangalia şi neptun, Pontica 1,
235-268.
ionescu, m. & n.C. georgescu 1997. Cercetări perieghetice în teritoriul cal-
latian, SCIVA 48, 155-175.
irimia, m. 1973. Descoperiri noi privind populaţia autohtonă a Dobrogei şi
legăturile ei cu coloniile greceşti (sec. vi-i î. e. n.), Pontica 6, 7-71.
irimia, m. 1975. observaţii privind arheologia secolelor vii-v î. e. n. în Do-
brogea, Pontica 8, 89-114.
irimia, m. 1980. Date noi privind aşezările getice din Dobrogea în a doua
epocă a fierului, Pontica 13, 66-118.
irimia, m. 1983. Date noi privind necropolele din Dobrogea în a doua epocă
a fierului, Pontica 16, 69-148.
irimia, m. 1984. morminte plane şi tumulare din zona litorală a Dobrogei (sec.
iv-ii î. e. n.) şi problema apartenenţei lor etnice, Thraco‑Dacica 5, 64-83.
irimia, m. 1989. unele consideraţii privind civilizaţia geţilor din Dobrogea
în a doua epocă a fierului în lumina descoperirilor arheologice, Symposia
Thracologica 7, 94-114.
ivantchik, a.i. 1998. Die gründung von Sinope und die Probleme der an-
fangsphase der griechischen kolonisation des Schwarzmeergebietes, in:
tsetskhladze (ed.) 1998a, 297-330.
Jaccottet, a.-F. 2003. Choisir Dionysos. Les associations dionysiaques ou la face
cachée du dionysisme, i–ii. Zürich.
kryjickij, S.D. & S.B. Bujskih 1999. La dynamique d’aménagement du ter-
ritoire rural d’olbia pontique, in: m. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des cités
grecques (actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par l’École
Française d’athènes, 31 oct.-3 nov. 1991. BCh. Suppl., 34). athènes-Paris,
273-288.
Lazarov, m. 1998. notizen zur griechischen kolonisation am westlichen
Schwarzen meer. Schriftquellen und archäologische Denkmäler, in:
tsetskhladze (ed.) 1998a, 85-95.
Lohmann, h. 1995. Survey in der Chora von milet. vorbericht über die kam-
pagnen der Jahre 1990, 1992 und 1993, AA, 293-328.
Lungu, v. 1992. Circulaţia amforelor ştampilate în zona Capul Dolojman,
Pontica 25, 69-97.
Lungu, v. 1995. une tombe du ive siècle av. J.-C. dans la nécropole tumulaire
de la cité d’orgamé–argamum, Peuce 11, 231-263.
Lungu, v. 1999. remarques sur la chronologie des timbres thasiens. À propos
d’une tombe du ive s. av. J.-C., in: garlan (ed.) 1999, 71-80.
Lungu, v. 2000. une tombe d’un �� et l’organisation de la nécropole d’une
cité milésienne du Pont-euxin: le tumulus ta95 d’orgamé, in: v. Lungu
(ed.), Actes du IIIe Colloque international d’archéologie funéraire organisé à
Tulcea, 15‑20 septembre 17. tulcea, 67-85.
Lungu, v. 2000-2001. La tombe d’un �� et l’organisation de la nécropole
d’une cité milésienne du Pont-euxin: le tumulus t-a95 d’orgamé, in:
tsetskhladze & de Boer (eds.) 2000-2001, 171-188.
Lungu, v. & g. Poenaru Bordea 2000. un trésor de monnaies d’istros à or-
gamé, in: avram & Babeş (eds.) 2000, 282-300.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 1980. Sondajul efectuat în aşezarea antică de la
vişina, comuna Jurilovca, jud. tulcea, Materiale 14, 157-160.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 1981. Cercetările din aşezarea antică de la vişina,
com. Jurilovca, jud. tulcea, Materiale 15, 174-177.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 1984. tezaurul de semne premonetare în formă
de vîrf de săgeată de la vişina (com. Jurilovca, jud. tulcea), StCercNum
8, 17-24.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 1985. Le rôle de la colonie orgame dans la diffusion
des éléments de civilisation hellénique, in: Πρακτικά του διεθνους συνεδρίου
κλασικης aρχαιλογίας, Αθήνα, 4‑10 Σεπτεμβρίου 13, i, athens, 169-175.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 1992. orgame polis, Pontica 25, 55-67.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 1995-1996. un’officina istriana per la produzione
della ceramica a figure nere?, Il Mar Nero 2, 103-111.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 1996. orgame polis epi to istro, in: m. Porumb
(ed.), Omaggio a Dinu Adameşteanu. Cluj-napoca 1996, 101-109.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 1998. Ceramica arhaică de la Orgame. unpublished
PhD dissertation. Bucureşti.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 2000. Céramique archaïque d’orgamé, in: avram
& Babeş (eds.) 2000, 195-204.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 2001. Orgamé / Argamum. tulcea.
mănucu adameşteanu, m. 2003. orgame, in: grammenos & Petropoulos
(eds.) 2003, 341-388.
milaev, a. 2002. nadpis na grecki ezik ot Pliska, in: k. Bošnakov & D. Boteva
(eds.), Jubilaeus v. Sbornik v čest na prof. Margarita Tačeva. Sofia, 280-284.
mitrea, B. 1970. Contribuţii la studiul circulaţiei monetare în Dobrogea în
secolul i î. e. n. tezaurul de denari romani republicani de la Costineşti,
jud. Constanţa, Pontica 3, 131-137.
morintz, S. 1964. Quelques problèmes concernant la période ancienne du
hallstatt au Bas-Danube à la lumière des fouilles de Babadag, Dacia N.S.
8, 101-118.
7 Alexandru Avram
morintz, S. 1987. noi date şi probleme privind perioada hallstattiană timpurie

şi mijlocie în zona istro-pontică (cercetările de la Babadag), Thraco‑Dacica
8, 39-71.
morintz, S. 1990. Din nou despre hallstattul din sud-estul româniei,
Thraco‑Dacica 11, 90-116.
ocheşeanu, r. 1969. Bolurile “megariene” din colecţiile muzeului de arhe-
ologie Constanţa, Pontica 2, 209-243.
oppermann, m. 2000. Süddobrudschanische Studien, in: avram & Babeş
(eds.) 2000, 138-149.
Papazoglou, F. 1997. LAOI et PAROIKOI. Recherches sur la structure de la société
hellénistique. Beograd.
Pârvan, v. 1923. La pénétration hellénique et hellénistique dans la valée du
Danube, Bulletin de la Section historique de l’Académie Roumaine 10, 23-47.
Pârvan, v. 1974. Începuturile vieţii romane la gurile Dunării2. Bucureşti.
Pippidi, D.m. 1962. Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer
und römischer Zeit. Berlin.
Pippidi, D.m. 1971. I Greci nel Basso Danubio dall’età arcaica alla conquista ro‑
mana. milano.
Pippidi, D.m. 1975. Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies grecques du lit‑
toral roumain de la mer Noire. Bucarest-amsterdam.
Poenaru Bordea, g. 2001. La diffusion des monnaies d’istros, Callatis et tomis
du vie au ie siècle av. J.-C. dans leurs territoires, zones d’influence et
ailleurs, in: a. Stazio (ed.), Presenza e fonzioni della moneta nelle chorai
delle colonie greche dall’Iberia al Mar Nero, Napoli, 16‑17 giunio 2000. napoli
2001.
Poenaru Bordea, g. & e. oberländer târnoveanu 1980. Contributions à l’étude
des monnaies-pointes de flèche à la lumière des trésors de Jurilovca, dép.
de tulcea, in: Actes du IIe Congrès international de thracologie, Bucarest, 4‑10
sept. 176, ii. Bucarest, 141-150.
Preda, C. 1962. una nuova tomba a volta scoperta presso mangalia–Callatis,
Dacia N.S. 6, 157-172.
Preda, C. 1972. tariverde – aşezare băştinaşă sau factorie histriană?, Pontica
5, 77-88.
Preda, C. 1991. Prämonetäre Zahlungsmittel in Form von Pfeilspitzen an der
West- und nordküste des Schwarzen meeres, Klio 73, 20-27.
Preda, C. 1998. Istoria monedei în Dacia preromană. Bucureşti.
rădulescu, a. 1961. noi mărturii arheologice de epocă elenistică la nuntaşi,
SCIV 12, 387-393.
rădulescu, a., m. Bărbulescu & L. Buzoianu 1986. importuri amforice la
albeşti (jud. Constanţa): heraclea Pontică, Pontica 19, 33-60.
albeşti (jud. Constanţa): rhodos, Pontica 20, 53-77.

albeşti (jud. Constanţa): Chersonesul tauric, Cnidos, Cos, Paros, Pontica
23, 29-48.
rădulescu, a., m. Bărbulescu & L. Buzoianu 2000. Données récentes sur le site
d’albeşti (dép. de Constanţa), in: avram & Babeş (eds.) 2000, 172-179.
rădulescu, a., m. Bărbulescu, L. Buzoianu & n. Cheluţă-georgescu 1988-1989.
importuri amforice la albeşti (jud. Constanţa): Sinope, Pontica 21-22,
23-90.
rădulescu, a., m. Bărbulescu, L. Buzoianu & n. Cheluţă-georgescu 1993.
observaţii privind aşezarea greco-autohtonă de la albeşti (jud. Constanţa),
Pontica 26, 121-158.
rădulescu, a., L. Buzoianu, m. Bărbulescu & n. Cheluţă-georgescu 1995-1996.
reprezentări figurate în aşezarea de epocă elenistică de la albeşti, Pontica
28-29, 23-72.
rădulescu, a., L. Buzoianu, m. Bărbulescu & n. georgescu 2000-2001. albeşti
(département de Constantza) – site fortifié gréco-indigène, in: tsetskhladze
& de Boer (eds.) 2000-2001, 189-206.
rădulescu, a., n. Cheluţă-georgescu & m. Bărbulescu 1979. Santierul arheo-
logic albeşti, Materiale 13, 167-173.
ruscu, L. 2002. Relaţiile externe ale oraşelor greceşti de pe litoralul românesc al
Mării Negre. Cluj-napoc.
Saprykin, S. 1997. Heracleia Pontica and Tauric Chersonesus before Roman Domi‑
nation, VI‑I Centuries B.C. amsterdam.
Schuller, W. 1996. hellenismen, Ktema 21, 95-105.
Slobozianu, h. 1959. Consideraţii asupra aşezărilor antice din jurul lacurilor
techirghiol şi agigea, Materiale 5, 735-752.
Slobozianu, h. & i. Ţicu 1966. aşezarea antică de la Schitu (reg. Dobrogea),
SCIV 17, 679-702.
Solomonik, e.i. & g.m. nikolaenko 1990. o zemel’nych učastkach Chersonesa
v načale iii v. do n.e. (k IOSPE i2 403), VDI 2, 79-99.
Stoian, i. 1957. În legătură cu vechimea teritoriului rural al histriei, SCIV 8,
183-204.
Suceveanu, a. 1998. Fântânele. Contribuţii la studiul vieţii rurale în Dobrogea
romană (avec la collaboration de g. Poenaru Bordea et m. v. angelescu).
Bucureşti.
Suceveanu, a. & m.v. angelescu 1988. nouvelles découvertes dans l’établisse-
ment gétique d’independenţa (dép. de tulcea), Dacia N.S. 32, 145-150.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1978. Severo‑Zapadnyj Krym v antičnuju epochu. Leningrad.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1998. Chersonesskij kul’turnyj landšaft na geraklejskom po-
luostrove: princip prostranstvennoj organizacii sel’skoj territorii periferii
grečeskogo polisa, in: Poselenija: sreda, kul’tura, socium. St Peterburg 1998,
125-132.
0 Alexandru Avram
tacheva, m. 1995. about the so-called Scythian kings and their Coinage in
the greek Cities of thracia Pontica (the end of the iiird-iind Century
B.C.), Dobrudža 12, 7-17.
tafrali, o. 1925. La cité pontique de Callatis, RA, 5e sér., 21, 238-292.
teleagă, e. 1999. Despre cronologia descoperirilor funerare de la Corbu şi
nuntaşi, SCIVA 50, 33-44.
teleagă, e. & v. Zirra 2003. Die Nekropole des 6.‑1. Jhs. von Istria Bent bei Histria.
Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Bevölkerung in der westlichen Schwarz‑
meerregion, mit Beiträgen von D. Botezatu, g. miu, n. miriţoiu, a. Soficaru,
a. Johnston und v.v. Zirra. rahden.
tsetskhladze, g.r. (ed.) 1998a. The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area.
Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (historia. einzelschriften, 121). Stutt-
gart.
tsetskhladze, g.r. 1998b. Who Built the Scythian and thracian royal and
elite tombs?, OxfJA 17, 55-92.
tsetskhladze, g.r. & J.g. de Boer (eds.) 2000-2001. The Black Sea Region in the
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Periods (talanta, 32-33).
tsetskhladze, g.r. & a.m. Snodgrass (eds.) 2002. Greek Settlements in the
Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea (British archaeological reports,
international Series, 1062). oxford.
ulanici, a. 1974. Cu privire la data întemeierii oraşului Callatis, MuzNaţ 1,
191-195.
vinogradov, Ju.g. 1997. Pontische Studien. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte und
Epigraphik des Schwarzmeerraumes. mainz.
vulpe, r. 1943. gerania, Cranea, ekrenè, Balcania 6, 14-29.
youroukova, J. 1977. nouvelles données sur la chronologie des rois scythes
en Dobrudža, Thracia 4, 105-121.
Zimmermann, k. 1991. Struktur- und Funktionsanalyse archäologischer
grabungsbefunde, WissZBerl, Reihe Geistes‑ und Sozialwissenschaften 40,
6, 109-112 & 146-147.
Zimmermann, k. & a. avram 1987. archäologische ausgrabungen in histria
Pod, Sr rumänien. Zwischenbericht über die vorläufigen ergebnisse der
kampagnen 1980-1985, Klio 69, 6-27.
Zirra, v. 1970. Punctul histria Sat, Materiale 9, 213-220.
Abbreviations
I. Histriae D.m. Pippidi, Inscripţiile din Scythia Minor greceşti şi latine i. Histria
şi împrejurimile. Bucureşti 1983.
I. Kallatis a. avram, Inscriptions grecques et latines de Scythie Mineure iii.
Callatis et son territoire. Bucarest-Paris 1999.
Materiale Materiale şi cercetări arheologice. Bucureşti.
SCIV(A) Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche (şi arheologie). Bucureşti.
the Chorai of the ancient Cities
in the Lower Dniester area
(6th century BC-3rd century aD)
the north coast of the Black Sea was a remote fringe of the greek oikoumene.
nevertheless, the fertile lands, the riches of the sea and the opportunities for
trade with local tribes all encouraged the rise of apoikiai or colonies here. these
colonies came to be among the most significant factors for the history of the
vast steppe expanses of the northern Black Sea area. throughout a millennium
they played an important role in the socio-political and cultural development
and in the interaction between the greek and barbarian civilisations of this
territory. the regions of the greek colonisation included, among others, the
lower reaches of the Dniester river and the ancient river tyras.
the Lower Dniester area, one of the central cultural and historical re-
gions of the greek colonisation, was made up of a conglomerate of settle-
ments situated throughout the steppe zone along the Dniester river and its
estuary. ancient authors mention a number of locations here: the “cities” of
tyras, nikonion, ophioussa, Physke, the “village of hermonaktos”, and the
“tower of neoptolemos”.1 until now though, only the locations of ancient
tyras, modern Belgorod-Dnestrovskij,2 and nikonion, the modern village of
roksolany,3 have been reliably identified. excavations have also revealed the
location of the “tower of neoptolemos” and the “village of hermonaktos”
close to what is now the village of Zatoka4 while several other settlements
have been excavated in the chora.5
as to the other localities mentioned, there is no agreement concerning their
location, and even their social and political structure is debated. therefore,
when considering any polis in the Lower-Dniester region primarily as an in-
dependent political entity, we must first specify the criteria that would justify
such a definition. For the above-mentioned sites such criteria include, in my
opinion, literary and epigraphic sources concerning the political structure
and ethnic designation of the population, together with numismatic as well
as archaeological material, all of which will be discussed below.
in the Lower-Dniester area, only tyras can without discussion be desig-
nated a polis on the basis of the sources mentioned above. it is more difficult
to define the political status of nikonion. Let us first consider the written
tradition. almost all of the authors, who mention nikonion, call it a “city”,
2 Sergej B. Ochotnikov
polis. the only exception is Pseudo-arrianos who titled it a chorion. the latter
term was probably related to changes in the economical position of nikonion,
although we can never be completely certain about information concerning
the political organisation of a settlement found in the ancient sources. as re-
gards nikonion, practically all of the texts referring to the site as a “city”, or
rather the original sources on which they are based, date to the period before
the 3rd century BC.6 in other words, we have grounds to believe that in the
period under discussion there were already independent political institutions
in nikonion that were precursors of an urban structure proper. moreover, in
the first half of the 5th century BC, the city’s defensive walls were built7 and
it is highly probable that the neighbouring land was divided into land-plots
or kleroi.8 this suggests that a new city was founded by colonists. another
important indication of the formation of a polis structure in nikonion is the
issuing of the city’s own coins. minting probably started in the 470s BC with
three denominations all bearing representations of an owl on the obverse and
a solar wheel on the reverse. these issues, attributed on the basis of legends
to the Scythian king Skyles (this will be discussed below), were resumed in
the middle of the 4th century BC by the issuing of cast coins imitating istrian
specimens with a wheel on the reverse.9
thus, the evidence enables us to state with a fair degree of probability
that there were two poleis in existence in the Lower-Dniester area: tyras and
nikonion. in this connection, a question naturally arises as to the date of their
appearance and also to the character of their relationship during their long
period of coexistence.
an analysis of the archaeological material shows that both in tyras and
nikonion, the earliest pottery belonged to the same groups of ionian and
black-glazed attic ware and was confined fairly rigidly to the years between
the 510s and 470s BC.10 this was the period in which the two largest poleis of
the north-western Black Sea littoral − olbia and istros − sought to extend their
influence, primarily over the lower reaches of the tyras river. this is vividly
indicated by the propagation of their coins, represented in nikonion by several
dozen types of the olbian “dolphins” dating to the period between the late 6th
century BC and the early 4th century BC. in addition, finds of over a dozen ol-
bian asses with representations of athena and gorgon are reported from there.11
in nikonion, however, the cast “wheel” coins of istros constitute over 80% of
all coins found.12 Judging by their archaeological contexts, they were issued
from the turn of the 6th into the 5th century BC and throughout the first half
of the 4th century BC. a comparison of the monetary emissions of olbia and
istros clearly demonstrates the position held by istros in the Lower-Dniester
area which, as we have seen above, almost completely controlled the monetary
market of nikonion. this, in turn, has allowed me to suggest that istros was
the metropolis of nikonion, while tyras was an apoikia of miletos.13 this was
probably the reason why the foundation patterns of the Lower-Dniester cities
differed so much, although they arose almost synchronously.
The Chorai of the Ancient Cities in the Lower Dniester Area 3
in the early period of their existence, there were fairly distinct differences in
the organisation of the territories of tyras and nikonion. Let us now consider
the facts available. in the second half of the 7th century BC the greeks started
Fig. 1. Ancient settlements of the 6th‑5th centuries BC in the Lower Dniester area.
to occupy the north-western Pontos. Large conglomerates – istros-orgame

and Berezan-olbia – arose in this area with settlements in their chorai. as
mentioned above, due to some, not yet quite clear, circumstances, the colo-
nisation of the Lower Dniester began much later, namely at the end of the
6th century BC. also here two cities appeared – tyras and nikonion. a rural
territory, however, grew up only around the latter. on the left bank of the
Dniester, about 15 settlements of the late archaic period are known (Fig. 1).
it is thus quite probable that it was nikonion that originally came to be the
political and economical centre of the region. in this connection it is, in my
opinion, noteworthy that nikonion’s rural territory is close in size to that of
istros where no more than 15 sites of the 6th or beginning of the 5th century
have been discovered.14
no late archaic settlement (except for tyras) is known on the right bank of
the river. Perhaps the inhabitants of tyras possessed only the land-plots close
by their city. a possible explanation for this phenomenon, however, could
be the hydrographical regime of the river. as geological data has shown, the
Dniester was divided into two branches in antiquity. of these, the left flowed
more fully and extended only from the seashore to tyras. accordingly, the
remaining part of the territory, which, moreover, was lowland, lacked access
to the trade routes provided by the river.15 Later the situation changed, and
the river came to flow via two tributaries (Fig. 2).
a b
Fig. 2. Hydrographic situation in the Lower Dniester basin. a) 6th‑5th centuries BC; b) 4th‑3rd
centuries BC.
thus, it has become clear that the first city on the Lower Dniester with a
developed monetary market and a vast rural territory was nikonion. Why
was this so? in order to find an answer, we must briefly discuss the historical
situation at the time of the founding of the new city. the most probable date
for its establishment was the last decades of the 6th century BC. this was the
period when Scythian tribes dominated the Black Sea steppes, most probably
because they felt it necessary to oppose the armies of Dareios i. after the fa-
mous victory achieved between 519 and 507 BC, Scythia is believed not only
to have strengthened its positions on the steppes, but also to have established
a protectorate over the greek city-states.16
one of the Scythian kings of this period was ariapeithes who married a
greek woman from istros. the couple had a son, Skyles (hdt. 4.78-80), who
continued the protectorate over the greek cities of the region. it must be
remembered, however, that this reconstruction of the relationship between
the greeks and the barbarians is based mainly on the writings of herodo-
tos, together with a number of scholarly deductions, which, although quite
persuasive in general, have not been confirmed by the material culture. in
nikonion, however, a series of cast coins was issued during this period in the
name of Skyles (Fig. 3). that the Scythian king chose neither istros nor olbia,
as the location for his mint, but instead a small settlement on the Dniester
Fig. 3. Cast coins of the Scythian king Skyles.

supports the theory that istros came to be the metropolis of nikonion. taking
into account istros’ close relations with the Scythians and the euphoria over
their success in the struggle against Dareios, it is also clear why the newly
founded city of nikonion was baptised the “victorious”. at least, no other
hypothesis on the origin of the city’s name exists, whereas the above consid-
erations make our supposition fairly trustworthy.17
Skyles, the successor of ariapeithes, might have taken advantage of the
frontier position of the city on the Lower Dniester and made it a kind of
connective link between olbia and istros by choosing it as the centre for his
own coin emissions. moreover, we do not know exactly how much time had
passed between Skyles’ escape from olbia and his death. he probably spent
part of that time within the protection of nikonion’s walls which were built
precisely in the middle of the 5th century BC.
this example seems to demonstrate in full how complicated the relations
were between Scythian leaders and the greek world. regular contact was
clearly maintained with both parties being equally interested in its continu-
ance. the infiltration of barbarians into the rural settlements can be clearly
traced through the finds of handmade pottery of Scythian type and a small
percentage (the ratio being 80% to 20%) of thracian ware which may have
been imported from istros as well as from the middle reaches of the Dniester
(Fig. 4).18 the rural settlements of the time were naturally still of a primitive
type with their dug-out dwellings and household pits (Figs. 5 and 6), but
their material culture – pottery, terracottas and graffiti – indicates that greek
culture predominated (Figs. 7-10). the same group of artefacts suggests that
the rural settlements were abandoned at the end of the first third of the 5th
century BC. For a while, the chora in the Lower Dniester disappeared.
While accepting that nikonion played a leading economical and, pos-
sibly, political role in the first half of the 5th century BC, we must note that
from sometime in the second half of the same century or the beginning of
the 4th century BC the situation began to change. thus, according to a fairly
reliable reconstruction of the text of the athenian tribute List from 425/4
BC, tyras and nikonion are mentioned among the “cities on the euxine” (IG
i3, 71.iv.167). the tribute of tyras, however, exceeded that of nikonion four
times.19 the sudden economical advances of tyras were reflected in a find
of a silver coin of the odrysian dynast Sparadokos and in the distribution of
istrian cast bronze coins from 450-350 BC in the city.20
By that period, about 70 villages, komai, had already been established on
either bank of the river (Fig. 11). the most notable are the “village of her-
monaktos” and the “tower of neoptolemos” discovered in the early 1990s
at the mouth of the tyras river. the development of these rural sites in the
second half of the 4th century BC was apparently related to the rise of tyras’
power in the region. occupying new territories, tyras expanded its influence,
as is attested by coins, as far upstream as the border to the forest-steppe.21
along with these coins, however, coins of istros are also equally well repre-
Fig. 4. Pottery of local production. 1, 3‑4, 7 – grey ware, 2 and 5 – kitchenware; 6 – handmade
pot of Scythian type; – handmade vessel of Thracian type (site of Nadlimanskoe III).
Fig. 5.
b Semi‑dug‑outs at the site of
Nadlimanskoe III. a) recon‑
structions; b‑c) photos.
sented here.22 the influence of greek culture can be traced even in sites fairly
remote (90-100 km) from the sea. thus, greek terracottas have been found in
gradenitsy iii, kalfa, and Čobruči. Synchronously, however, the penetration
of barbarian elements became more intensive. thracian pottery is predominant
along the right bank (Pivdennoe i, etc.), while Scythian pottery prevails on the
left bank, for example in the settlement-sites of nadlimanskoe, nikolaevka ii,
and ovidiopol i. a similar situation, although not so distinctly expressed, is
found in tyras and nikonion.23
the complicated interrelations between istros, tyras, nikonion and other
settlements in the lower reaches of the Dniester are confirmed by a recently
discovered decree in honour of a certain autokles. the document is dated to
the early 3rd century BC,24 but undoubtedly some of the realities of the earlier
period may also have been reflected in it. the inscription has to do with the
The Chorai of the Ancient Cities in the Lower Dniester Area
Fig. 6. Reconstruction of a general layout of the settlement of Nadlimanskoe III.
inhabitants of nikonion (this is actually the first time that their ethnic-name
is mentioned at all in an epigraphic source!) who through the mediation of
the citizens of tyras applied to the city of istros for help. the comprehensive
interpretation of this document and particularly of the historical events that
resulted in the issuing of this decree and the erection of the statue of autokles,
is beyond the scope of the present paper. therefore, i shall limit myself to
the fact that the three cities are all mentioned in one single document, which
provides a solid basis for the following suppositions. First, it provides infor-
mation about the close relations between the three centres in the early 3rd
century BC, which must have been established much earlier. Second, we may
suppose that not only were these contacts fairly ancient, but also that istros’
influence on the economical and political situation on the Lower Dniester was
pronounced and continued for centuries. third, this important source enables
us to establish, albeit tentatively, the pattern of the historical development of
tyras and nikonion.
having started practically synchronously with the creation of their own
socio-political structures which then developed autonomously, both cities
seem to have maintained a certain independence until the second half of the
5th century BC. With the rise of the economic potential of tyras, however,
its leadership came to prevail in the region and the city became the largest
centre along the river’s banks. these two cities were parts of a single polis,
Fig. 7. Ceramic finds from the settlement of Nadlimanskoe III.

Fig. . Black‑glazed and black‑figured pottery of the first third of the 5th century BC (Nadli‑
manskoe III).
Fig. . Finds from the settlement of Nadlimanskoe III. 1, 3‑4, 10 – graffiti on black‑glazed
pottery; 2 – glass bead; 5‑ – terracottas; – lead balance weight.
Fig. 10.
Settlement of Nadlimanskoe III. a) glass gem;
b) drawings of graffiti.
b
Fig. 11. The Lower Dniester area in the 4th‑2nd centuries BC.
Fig. 12. The Lower Dniester area in the 1st‑3rd centuries AD.
one of them the dominant centre, while the other, although enjoying a certain
political independence, lacked full rights, primarily in its external political
relations. this situation in the lower reaches of the tyras river continued
until the middle of the 3rd century BC, when a deep crisis afflicted most of
the north Pontic states. Life disappeared from nikonion and practically all
the rural settlements. as for tyras, the information is still very scant, but ap-
parently its existence continued and its historical fate was similar to that of
other poleis in the north-western Black Sea area. a certain role in these cata-
clysms was probably played by the barbarian tribes, which in fact encircled
the greek poleis. Scythians, galatians and others have left numerous artefacts,
among which is a glass bowl from the vicinity of tyras – the third such object
found within the territory of eastern europe.25
the chora of tyras, and possibly that of nikonion too, revived, though on
a much lesser scale, only in the 1st to 3rd centuries aD. one settlement alone
has been revealed – mologa ii in the neighbourhood of tyras (Fig. 12). the
revival is traced through coins distributed in an area stretching from the sea
to the modern region of tiraspol’. the geographical extension of the polis can
be gleaned from two inscriptions – one honouring kokkeon, a citizen of tyras
(181 aD), found near the village of korotnoe (IOSPE i2, 2), and the other the
famous epistulae of Septimius Severus (202 aD) to ovinius tertullus, the leg-
ate of the province of moesia inferior, and to heraclitus found in the village
of Čobruči (also the region of tiraspol’; IOSPE i2, 4). these inscriptions are
concerned with tax privileges for tyras. it can hardly be a coincidence that
they were erected at the entryway to the territory of the polis. thus, the three
groups of sources: settlement-sites, coins and stone inscriptions, taken together
give us an idea of the possessions of tyras during the roman period.
Notes
1 Ps. Scyl. 68; Ps. Scymn. 798-803; Strab. 7.3.16; Ptol. 3.10.7-8.
2 karyškovskij & klejman 1985; Samojlova 1988; Son 1993; ochotnikov 1997; klej-
man 2001, 53-65.
3 Sekerskaja 1989; 1997, 7; vinogradov 1999; ochotnikov 2000.
4 maljukevič 1996.
5 ochotnikov 1983, 101-122; ochotnikov 1990; ochotnikov 2001, 91-115.
6 karyškovskij 1966.
7 Zaginajlo 1984, 74-79.
8 Brujako, nazarova & Petrenko 1991, 38-40.
9 Zaginajlo 1991.
10 ochotnikov 1990, 42-44; ochotnikov 1996, 78-79.
11 Zaginajlo 1984, 55-57.
12 Zaginajlo 1984, 57-58.
13 ochotnikov 1990, 65-66.
14 avram 2001, 596.
15 ochotnikov 2002, 246-253.
16 vinogradov 1989, 81, 90-109.
17 ochotnikov 1997, 29.

18 ochotnikov 1990, 55-60.
19 karyškovskij & klejman 1985, 45.
20 karyškovskij & klejman 1985, 43.
21 ochotnikov 1995, 122.
22 the hoard found near the village of Dorockoe: Zaginajlo & nudel’man 1971,
122-137.
23 ochotnikov 2001, 111-112.
24 vinogradov 1999.
25 ostroverchov & ochotnikov 1991.
Bibliography
avram, a. 2001. Les territoires d’Istros et de Callatis, in: Problemi della chora
coloniale dall’ occidente al Mar Nero (atti del Quarantesimo convegno di
studi sulla magna grecia, taranto 29 settembre-3 ottobre 2000). taranto,
593-633.
Brujako, i.v., n. nazarova & v. Petrenko 1991. Drevnie kul’turnye landšafty
na juge tiligulo-Dnestrovskogo meždureč’ja po dannym aerofotos’emki,
in: vančugov (ed.) 1991, 38-40.
karyškovskij, P.o. 1966. k voprosu o drevnem nazvanii roksolanskogo
gorodišča, MASP 5, odessa, 149-162.
karyškovskij, P.o. & i.B. klejman 1985. Drevnij gorod Tira. kiev.
klejman, i.B. 2001. Defensive structures on the territory of tyras, in:
tsetskhladze (ed.) 2001, 53-66.
maljukevič, a. 1996. k voprosu o lokalizacii germonaktovoj derevni, in: S.B.
Bujskich (ed.), Mir Ol’vii. kiev, 142-147.
ochotnikov, S.B. 1983. archeologičeskaja karta nižnego Podnestrov’ja v
antičnyj period (vi-iii vv. do n.e.), in: Materialy po archeologii Severnogo
Pričernomor’ja. kiev, 101-122.
ochotnikov, S.B. 1990. Nižnee Podnestrov’je v VI‑V vv. do n.e. kiev.
ochotnikov, S.B. 1995. Prostranstvennoe razvitie i kontakty polisov nižnego
Podnestrov’ja (vi-iii vv. do n.e.), in: m.i. Zolotarev (ed.), Antičnye polisy
i mestnoe naselenie Pričernomor’ja. Sevastopol’, 120-124.
ochotnikov, S.B. 1996. o vremeni zaselenija nizov’ev Dnestra v antičnuju
epochu, in: Drevnee Pričernomor’e. odessa, 78-79.
ochotnikov, S.B. 1997. Tyras i Nikonion. Šviat kolonii Greckich u ujšcia Dniesrtu.
torun.
ochotnikov, S.B. 2000. Grečeskie kolonii Nižnego Podnestrov’ja. odessa.
ochotnikov, S.B. 2001. Settlements in the Lower reaches of the Dniester
(6th-3rd Centuries BC), in: tsetskhladze (ed.) 2001, 91-115.
ochotnikov, S.B. 2002. gidrografičeskie uslovija nižnego Podnestrov’ja v
antičnuju epochu, in: n. ketraru (ed.), Severnoe Pričernomor’e ot eneolita k
antičnosti. tiraspol’, 246-252.
ostroverchov, a.S. & S.B. ochotnikov 1991. o proischoždenii stekljannych

fial iz kurganov Severnogo i vostočnogo Pričernomor’ja, in: vančugov
(ed.) 1991, 44-52.
Samojlova, t.L. 1988. Tira v VI‑I vv. do n.e. kiev.
Sekerskaja, n.m. 1989. Antičnyj Nikonij i ego okruga. kiev.
Sekerskaja, n.m. 1997. itogi issledovanija nikonija za 40 let (1957-1997), in:
S.B. ochotnikov, i.v. Brujako, n.m. Sekerskaja & Ja.i. morozova (eds.),
Nikonij i antičnyj mir Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. odessa, 7-13.
Son, n.a. 1993. Tira rimskogo vremeni. kiev.
tsetskhladze, g.r. (ed.) 2001. North Pontic Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica, 6).
Leiden-Boston-köln.
vančugov, v.P. (ed.) 1991. Severo‑Zapadnoe Pričernomor’e – kontaktnaja zona
drevnich kul’tur. odessa.
vinogradov, J.g. 1989. Političeskaja istorija Ol’vijskogo polisa VII‑I vv. do n.e.
moskva.
vinogradov, J.g. 1999. istrija, tira, nikonij, pokinutyj i vozroždennyj, Nu‑
mEpigr 16, 50-71.
Zaginajlo, a.g. & a. nudel’man 1971. Dorockij klad drevnegrečeskich sere-
brjanych monet iv v. do n.e., MASP 7, 122-137.
Zaginajlo, a.g. 1984. otkrytie oboronitel’noj steny v nikonii, in: g. Dzis-rajko
(ed.), Novye archelogičeskie issledovanija na Odessčine. kiev, 74-79.
Zaginajlo, a.g. 1991. Litye monety iz nikonija, in: vančugov (ed.) 1991,
52-61.
Abbreviations
MASP materialy po archeologii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. odessa.
the rural environs of olbia:
Some Problems of Current importance1
Sergej D. Kryžickij
in this paper i shall attempt to review some of the important problems in

current studies of the rural territory around olbia. the discussion will be
concerned with issues such as the initial character of the chora’s organization
and of the supposed communications within the olbian polis, the difficulties
in identifying the types and hierarchies of the settlements, changes in the
demographic situation and the manifestation of barbarian elements in the
population’s culture.
We will begin with the form that the colonization of the rural territory
of olbia took. according to the evidence available, neither the layout of the
city of olbia itself nor the features of settlements within its rural territory
at the stage of colonization of the Lower Bug area reveal any elements of
regulation whatsoever. this fact is confirmed indirectly by the routes of
ancient roads at the necropolis of olbia, as is discussed below. the layouts
of individual settlements were formed spontaneously and are represented
by separate dwelling or household units arranged, it seems, without any
particular system. any clearly defined residential areas within a settlement
are lacking. each of the living units mentioned included 4-6 pit houses or
semi-dugouts, all but one with an area of 6-9 m2 while a single unit exceeds
the others in size (12-15 m2), and 10-12 pits for grain or other household
purposes. the total area of each unit was a maximum of 500 m2.2 Separate
and structurally self-contained pit houses and semi-dugouts constituted in
fact the rooms of a single dwelling house or oikos.3 it is of importance that
almost every settlement excavated, irrespective of its size, had a similar lay-
out – from small farmsteads of about 0.2 hectares to large settlements with
an area of 50-80 hectares.
the spontaneous character of the settlement of this region is also sug-
gested by the varied density of the sites’ distribution (Fig. 1). thus, a fairly
dense occupation has been traced south of olbia in the adžigol’skaja ravine
and to the city’s north – between what are now the villages of katelino and
kozyrka. these two territories do not differ from any other area of the rural
neighbourhood of olbia either in the quality of arable land or in the avail-
ability of water. this fact, as well as a fairly large number of settlements and
the absence of any regularity in their layouts, argues against their having been
founded by residents of olbia or Berezan’ since these two sites both had a
100 Sergej D. Kryžickij
fairly limited population at the time. in addition, the above facts suggest that
the colonists lacked any strict organization.
in connection with this, the question arises as to the social composition
of the first groups of settlers responsible for the foundation of rural sites on
the Lower Bug river. the material and spiritual culture of those colonists
points towards a uniformity in their composition with respect both to their
prosperity and evidently to their legal status. these were country folk whose
level of prosperity was fairly low. in other words, as already noted by v.v.
Lapin,4 this part of the colonization process was undoubtedly of an agrarian
character. the composition of the groups of colonists who founded the settle-
ment of Berezan’, and later that of olbia, was more varied. in the latter city,
in particular, certain other elements of the population – traders, craftsmen,
etc. – took part in the formation of a political entity in the beginning of the
last third of the 6th century.5
Summing up, it seems that two major types of colonization can be es-
tablished in the 6th century BC: the organized and purposeful colonization
which resulted in the foundation of Berezan’ and possibly the primary olbian
settlement, and a spontaneous colonization of exclusively agrarian character.
the latter took place mainly in those territories, which the first settlers, who
arrived in the first half of the 6th century BC, had not been able to master sim-
ply because of their small numbers. it seems that exactly this second, spontan-
eous colonization actually created the conditions necessary for the emergence
of a political entity, i.e. olbia as state instead of just as city, in the last third
of the 6th century. the newly founded rural settlements synchronously with
their emergence, or just slightly later, became part of the olbian polis. the
occupation of agricultural lands on the Lower Bug, however, was in no way
an organized action planned beforehand, but rather a spontaneous process
which in the last quarter of the 6th and the first quarter of the 5th centuries
BC resulted in the formation of the true olbian chora.6
the spontaneity of the chora’s organization is also reflected in the direc-
tions of ancient roads. therefore, it will be helpful to give a brief overview of
the polis’ communication systems.
olbia was connected with cities both in the mediterranean and in the Black
Sea region via sea routes. these routes were relatively safe and convenient.
as one can judge from herodotos’ description of Dareios’ campaign, there
must also have been an overland route which seemingly went far from the
coast. as we know, Dareios did not assault the greek cities in the northern
Black Sea area, something that probably would have occurred, if he had fol-
lowed a coastal route. the itinerary from Dura-europos, however, implies
that in the greek period there was also another overland route that went
along the coast. Possibly, olbia used it for communications with other Black
Sea towns. the importance of the first route was probably limited to military
purposes (for example, the raids of Dareios, Zopyrion or the Sarmatians),
while the second one may have been used during the height of piracy on the
The Rural Environs of Olbia 101
NIKOLAEV
B. Korenicha
Nečajannoe M. Korenicha
Š. Balka
Radsad
Bere
St. B N. Bogdanovka Oktjabr’skoe

z an
ogd
a no
’
vk
a
Bolgarka Turčino
Kamenka
Kozyrka
So
Galicinovka
sik
Andreevo-Zorino
y
Šmidtovka
ar
estu
Matijasovo Katelino
Limany
Pribugskoe
Ižeckoe
Osetrovka Parutino
Bug
Olbia Luparevo
ar y
estu
Limany
zan’
Pokrovka Ivanovka
Bere
Viktorovka B. Černomorka Jaselka

Dneprovskoe
Dmitrievka Solončaki Aleksandrovka
Kucurub
M. Černomorka
Očakov
Berezan’
pe r estuary
Dnie Stanislav
Pokrovskoe Vasil’evka
Gerojskoe
Ivanovka
Fig. 1. Schematic map of the locations of Olbia and rural settlements surrounding it.
I – present‑day settlements; II – ancient settlements.
Black Sea. Possibly, the latter itinerary was also used in the early centuries
of the Christian era for movements of the roman army, two camps of which
have been discovered near olbia. in addition to the inconvenience of trans-
porting goods overland, both routes were complicated considerably by large
waterways crossing them – the rivers of tanais (or the Straits of kerch if one
was travelling via the Crimea), Borysthenes, hypanis, tyras, and especially
istros. to cross these water arteries, travellers had to move upstream above
the river deltas.
as far as connections between olbia and the barbarian tribes of the steppe
and forest-steppe, both the rivers of Borysthenes and hypanis as well as an
overland route via the watershed between the hypanis and tyras were evi-
dently used for this purpose.
internal communication between settlements of the chora and the urban
centres, olbia and Borysthenes, were also of different kinds. Judging from
the location of the settlement of Berezan’ – at the extremity of what was then
a peninsula facing east – one might suppose that communications by water
were the most important here. For communication with practically every
settlement in the chora, travelling by water was the most efficient. overland
roads, it seems, connected Borysthenes only with settlements of the closest
chora on the left bank of the Berezan’ Liman. the concentration of sites on
the left bank is consistent with the hypothesis that the Berezan’ Peninsula
branched from the left rather than the right bank of the Berezan’ Liman.
a somewhat different situation was characteristic for olbia. already in
the archaic period, methods of communicating over land came to be if not
of greater then at least of equal importance to water routes. the waterways
were used for communications with Berezan’, settlements on the left bank of
the Bug Liman and those on the kinburn Peninsula. the land roads served
as connections with settlements on the right banks of the Bug and Dnieper
Limans. an extensive network of roads was traced some years ago by a.n.
karasev on the basis of the sections of ancient roads preserved at the olbian
necropolis.7 he discovered six roads leading to the south, west and north
(Fig. 2).
as to communication between settlements within the rural territory, it
seems that there are solid grounds to suppose parallel ties (both overland
and maritime) from one settlement to another along the coastal line, while in
only a few cases was there direct communication with olbia.
the situation changed during the next stage of the polis’s life, a period
spanning from the end of the first to approximately the end of the third
quarter of the 5th century BC. this was the time when the larger rural chora
collapsed being contracted to the limits of the urban chora. though a few in-
dividual sites saw continued habitation, the general picture of depopulation
of the vast territories does not change. in this situation, only water routes
could maintain their efficiency.
During the polis’ economic zenith, in the last quarter of the 4th to the first
Fig. 2. Schematic map showing ancient roads within the necropolis of Olbia.
half of the 3rd century BC, a revival of intra-polis overland routes took place.
the question therefore arises: to what extent did the appearance of all these
routes, in particular the overland ones, result from regular planning activities
as supposed for the Chersonesean home chora, metapontion, and other cen-
tres of Doric colonization? in my opinion, it seems that in the case of olbia,
the formation of a network of overland roads was a result of the spontane-
ous settlement of colonists. the directions of the roads discovered at the ol-
bian necropolis in neither case reflected any elements of a regular (or at least
orthogonal) layout of the nearer chora. it is noteworthy in this connection,
that on aerial photographs, traces of the rectangular division of land-plots,
occasionally including those situated near the roads, have been traced. the
time of this division has not been established however. yet judging from its
axes, which generally do not coincide with the directions of the roads, it is
likely that this land-division belongs to a later period, whereas the earliest
roads appeared simultaneously with the archaic necropolis of olbia. hence
the character of the routes suggests in this case only a spontaneous process.
nothing was thought out or planned beforehand here, and therefore no ties
with any colonization model, which would imply a certain system, can be
traced. it is also noteworthy that outside of the limits of the necropolis these
roads were not straight highways but made fairly sharp turns. therefore, i
cannot discern here any tradition, e.g. a milesian (or radial) as supposed by
a. Wąsowicz.8
the distribution of rural sanctuaries throughout the chora does not contra-
dict the spontaneity of the occupation of the region either, contrary to what
S.B. Bujskich, who saw here a system planned in advance for colonization
purposes, argues.9 Firstly, assuming the deliberate efforts of the greeks to fix
the boundaries of the chora by the foundation of sanctuaries, it is logical to
suppose the existence of some general traits in the archaeological evidence,
layout, and construction. no such uniformity, however, has as yet been traced.
Secondly, the locations of only three of the sanctuaries assigned by Bujskich
to the 6th century BC have been confirmed archaeologically (Berezan’, Bejkuš,
and olbia, the latter having been by no means an extra-urban sanctuary). the
exact locations of the others (achilleus’ Dromos, the sanctuary of hekate and
the Cape of hippolaos) are unknown. Finally, the date of the foundation of
the three latter sanctuaries has been established only hypothetically. hence
we have no grounds to view the distribution of rural sanctuaries of the 6th
century BC as a manifestation of organized colonization activities.
of considerable importance is the problem of identification of the catego-
ries, types and hierarchy of the settlements. in terms of their economical spe-
cialisation, two major areas were distinguished in the chora of olbia as early as
the archaic period: the kinburn Peninsula and the rest of the territory.10 the
kinburn Peninsula (ancient hylaia) was predominantly a manufacturing and
handicraft zone. here logging was carried out, charcoal and iron produced,
salt and soda extracted, hematite sand quarried, and various metal and glass
articles manufactured. the remaining territory was used primarily for agri-
culture and animal husbandry. in both zones, the population was engaged
in intensive fishing.
the banks of the Bug and Bug-Dnieper Limans, as well as the left bank
of the Berezan’-Sosik Liman, were most densely settled. here, the absolute
majority of the permanent settlements were situated. two of the sites were
of ritual character. these were the late archaic settlements of Bejkuš and, as
supposed by k.k. marčenko, a sanctuary near the site of Staraja Bogdanovka
2.11 in addition, there existed temporary, probably seasonal, camps of fishers
and herders. of seasonal character, too, was a manufacturing “settlement”
situated on the southern bank of the kinburn Peninsula.
the layouts of the earliest settlements have as yet been studied insuf-
ficiently. it is clear only that independent of their size they had neither a
regular layout nor defences. in terms of size, three groups of settlements are
distinguished: the so-called khutors (farmsteads) with an area of up to 0.2
hectares, settlements of medium size measuring from 2-3 to 5-8 hectares, and
large settlements of up to 50-80 hectares.12 all of these settlements included
separate oikoi each consisting of several semi-dugouts. in neither site, have
any other structures apart from household units as yet been discovered. two
settlements with a cultic function already mentioned are the only exceptions.
the layout is generally of a spontaneous character – no blocks of buildings
have been traced. however, there are grounds to suppose the appearance
of the first rural “estates” for exclusively economic purposes already in the
second half of the 5th century BC.13
the settlements which appeared in the 4th to 3rd centuries BC measure
from 1.5 to 8-10 hectares.14 Similar to the earlier ones, these had neither de-
fences nor a regular layout, but they do already have a block structure and
surface houses. Collective and individual farms also occur, resembling in their
layout the farmhouses of the Chersonesean home chora.
in the first centuries aD, fortified settlements with moats, earthen banks,
walls and towers, as well as common above-ground buildings, emerged.15
their size varied from a few hectares to up to half a dozen hectares. the lay-
out of the sites excavated was irregular. two of the sites were, in the opinion
of Bujskich, of a type similar to roman military camps.16
on the basis of the above evidence, we can suppose a priori the follow-
ing system of hierarchy within the settlements. the first and highest level
(the state) was represented by the cities – Berezan’ and olbia. the hierarchic
interrelation between these two at its earliest stage is as yet unknown. Sup-
posedly, Berezan’ was initially dominant in the region; later, after the end of
the third quarter of the 6th century, olbia took over. these two centres were
distinguished by their urban layout with blocks of buildings and the presence
of temenoi, as well as by rich finds of accompanying materials. olbia, in turn,
differed from Berezan’ in the presence of an agora, a theatre, a gymnasion, and
a dikasterion. thus, as a polis olbia belonged to the highest hierarchic level,
while Berezan’ was at a lower one, being subordinate to olbia.
the third level is represented by stationary rural settlements. Probably,
farmsteads also belonged at this level. there is little doubt as to their depend-
ence on the urban centres. any buildings of administrative or other public
purposes except for ritual ones were absent here. evidently, the archaic rural
settlements around the Berezan’ Liman were related to Borysthenes. all the
other rural sites in the Lower-Bug area were subordinate to olbia, at least
after the last third of the 6th century BC, i.e. the period of the establishment
of the olbian state. it cannot be ruled out that for some time-span in the 5th
and 4th centuries BC, the settlements on the Berezan’ Liman continued to
depend on Borysthenes.
the fourth level was represented by temporary camps of herders and fish-
ers. at these sites, no remains of long-term buildings have been found. the
most striking example in this respect is the adžigol’skaja ravine where about
a dozen such camps were scattered over about 15 km across the steppe. it is
of note, however, that permanent inland settlements are known too. We may
suppose that temporary herders’ camps were subordinated rather to rural
settlements than to a city.
the situation changed in the first centuries aD. on the basis of his concept
of the general system of the polis’ defence, Bujskich distinguishes different
types of town- and settlement-sites of this period. evidently, the system of
hierarchy may be (or even must be) reflected here in the strength of fortifica-
tions and the character of buildings. the highest hierarchic level is represented
again by the city of olbia. the next level comprises fortified settlements with
several lines of defence and a dense area of buildings within them. the third
level is represented by similar settlements which have only a single line of
defence. Places of refuge that is an area without buildings but having its
own defensive line in addition to the general, outer, line of defence are at the
fourth level.
of considerable interest is the problem of the change in the size of the
population best traceable in the countryside. thus at the end of the 6th or
beginning of the 5th century BC, probably about 5,000-10,000 people lived in
the rural neighbourhood of olbia. the estimates vary17 but according to recent
studies we may assume an average of 7,000 to 8,000. however in the second
and third quarters of the 5th century the number must have diminished con-
siderably, for it is believed that life continued in only about one or two dozens
of the settlements.18 the high point in numbers during the hellenistic period
suggests that the rural population increased at least up to the time of the late
archaic period (the size of an average settlement is about one third less than
that of the late archaic settlements but the density of its building is higher).
in the first half of the 2nd century BC the rural population decreased sharply,
with only a few settlements on the left bank of the Bug Liman continuing to
be occupied. after the middle of the 2nd century BC life in the chora ceased
completely for a long time. During the first centuries aD, or more precisely
in the period beginning with the last quarter of the 1st century BC, the popu-
lation growth in the chora actually starts from a population of zero. in the
second half of the 2nd to the first half of the 3rd century aD, it reached its
peak approximately equal to one third of the population of the Classical and
hellenistic periods. the ratio has been defined on the basis of the size of the
residential areas of towns and settlements. the ethnic characteristics of the
latter are still disputed. therefore, the population of the chora proper must
evidently have been lesser.
Leaving out of consideration the reasons for these variations in the size
of the rural population,19 we should note that no connection between this
phenomenon and the growth or decline of the city has as yet been reliably
established. the two exceptions to this are an increase in the number of the
urban buildings and, which is more important, the emergence of the olbian
suburb as a consequence of the collapse of the chora in the second quarter of
the 5th century BC. indeed, on the contrary, although the chora was devastated
in the second half of the 3rd century BC, there is no indication that the city ex-
panded or that there was any increase in the density of its buildings. a similar
situation is to be found in the middle of the 3rd century aD when the rural
territory of olbia ceased to exist. the lack of a clear interdependence between

the size of the city and the migrations of the rural population presupposes a
large rural population tied fairly loosely to the city and, consequently, either
a rather weak polis organization or the prevalence of a non-greek population
in the chora. the latter supposition is not corroborated by the archaeological
evidence. the question remains as to where the population that abandoned
the olbian chora during the adversities of the hellenistic period was relocated.
the theory of those who suppose that the town-sites on the Lower Dnieper
may have been such a place, seems the most likely. at least, it is evident that
the collapse of the chora coincided chronologically with the emergence of
these sites,20 while the basically hellenic culture of their population further
supports such a conclusion.
one of the questions that remain extremely controversial is the problem
of the ethnic processes within the rural territory of olbia. We may now state
two important points, which leave no room for doubt. First, there was no
settled barbarian population in the Lower-Bug region by the time of the greek
colonisation. Some time ago this question was the subject of a major and ani-
mated discussion to which a monograph of v.v. Lapin contributed greatly.21
a thorough and exhaustive archaeological investigation of the Lower-Bug
region conducted in the 1970s-1980s by a peripheral detachment of the olbian
expedition of the institute of archaeology, national academy of Sciences of
ukraine,22 confirmed Lapin’s supposition concerning the absence of a local
settled population by the time greek colonists appeared in the region.23 Per-
manent barbarian settlements of the late Bronze age on the lower reaches of
the Bug and Dnieper rivers did not survive until this period, having already
been deserted by the 9th century BC.24 one may suppose only few contacts
with the kimmerians whose burials, found in the nikolaev region, date pos-
sibly to the 8th and 7th centuries BC.25 these contacts, however, may have
involved only the residents of Berezan’ which was founded in the second half
of the 7th century BC.
the olbiopolitans never lived in close contact with any settled barbarian
tribes, except for the fairly remote Scythian settlements on the Lower Dnieper
during the hellenistic period and the Černjachov settlements on the Lower
Bug which came into existence when the olbian chora was already in decline.
the location and ethnic attribution of tribes mentioned by herodotos (hdt.
4.17-24), as well as their association with particular archaeological sites, remain
as yet debatable. the same is true for the tribes of the mixhellenes, thisama-
tai, Scythians and Saudaratai mentioned in the Protogenes decree (IOSPE i2,
32). in all of these cases, however, we are dealing with tribes which are not
described by our sources as settled, although this possibility should not be
excluded for some of them.
nor do we have any grounds for supposing that there were nomadic
barbarians in this area either. First, the burial grounds, which some scholars
connect with Scythian ethnicity, belong to the late 6th and early 5th century
BC at best – a period postdating the foundation of olbia and most of the rural
settlements. Second, their ethnic attribution as Scythian (first and foremost i
am discussing here the maricyn and matrosovo cemeteries) is at best arguable
and most likely simply erroneous.26 Finally, it is possible that we are dealing
not with nomads but rather with some settled population.
the second important point is that the material and spiritual culture of
the overwhelming majority of the settlements is generally of a clearly ex-
pressed hellenic character, although some of its elements may be interpreted
as barbarian. in this connection the question arises: What ethnos (or ethnoi)
occupied those parts of chora which economically, culturally and politically
were linked with the city? the range of opinion regarding this issue is broad
– from genuine barbarians to no less genuine greeks. the use of dugouts
and semi-dugouts as dwellings and handmade pottery of types encoun-
tered among some native tribes are usually viewed as proof of a barbarian
presence. Due to their rarity and historical specificity, personal names are
of little help here. recently, another type of evidence has been taken into
consideration – the funerary rite.
the excavations of the last 25-30 years have showed quite convincingly
that the presence or absence of dugout or semi-dugout dwellings is no indi-
cation of ethnicity in itself.27 it has become clear that these structures are of a
transient character and their use preceded the tradition of surface buildings
of the common greek types. Pit dwellings and semi-dugouts were used by
greek migrants in the earlier stages of their life as colonists under the severe
conditions of the newly occupied region. the most numerous remains of pit
structures have been discovered in olbia, the settlement of Berezan’ and in
the rural environs of olbia. in recent years, they have also been found in other
parts of the northern Black Sea area: kerkinitis, Chersonesos and the cities of
the Bosporos. the entire aggregate of the material and spiritual culture of the
people who lived in them (finds of terracottas, graffiti, styli, etc. in the fill of
dwellings and on their floors) attests to their greek ethnicity.28 thus, one of
the two most important arguments of the proponents of a barbarian ethnic
identity proves to be groundless.
adherents of the “barbarian hypothesis” attach the highest significance to
the finds of handmade pottery as an indication of ethnicity. this is natural as
this category of evidence is perhaps the only one which is statistically reliable.
in our case, however, statistics cannot answer the question of ethnicity. it is
believed that in the earlier period (the second half of the 7th and the beginning
of the 5th century BC) barbarians in the area were representatives of thracian
tribes of the Carpatho-Danubian basin, of the tribes of the forest-steppe of
the middle Dnieper and of the tribes of the steppe zone of the northern Black
Sea region. in the 5th and first half of the 4th century BC, steppe Scythians
were dominant; from the second half of the 4th through the first half of the
3rd century BC, a slight rise in the numbers of the geto-thracian element
took place, and from the second half of the 3rd through the first half of the
1st century BC the occasional Celtic, germanic, Sarmatian and geto-Dacian

traditions became apparent.29
one cannot rule out that handmade pottery of these types could have
been manufactured and used by barbarians who lived within the greek polis
(possibly the native wives of the greek settlers, although this is no more than
a supposition). yet the opposite could also be true. these wares could have
appeared in the city as a result of exchange. they could, for instance, have
been used by less prosperous citizens as such pottery would probably have
been much cheaper than imported ware. the manufacturers themselves may
have lived just beyond the city walls. Furthermore, the barbarian handmade
pottery varied in its features. hence the question arises: Does this diversity
result from the usual stylistic imitations, as attested by the Scythian imitations
of the greek wheel-made shapes,30 or does its existence indicate the entry of
barbarians from various tribes into the life of the polis? moreover, we do not
know to what extent such handmade pottery differs from similar ware in the
region of miletos.
in this respect, the assemblage of handmade pottery from the settlement
of Bol’šaja Černomorka 2 is worthy of special note. there the Scythian-kim-
merian group amounts to 30% of the total finds, while pottery which is ty-
pologically close to that from the right-bank forest-steppe makes up 29% of
the total, thracian pottery from the Carpatho-Danubian basin then accounts
for another 30%, kizil-koba type for 3%, and pottery which, according to
the authors, could equally be either Scythian or greek for 6%.31 at the same
time, the authors note the similarity of the composition of the assemblage
from Černomorka to those from olbia and Berezan’. this in turn is consistent
with k.k. marčenko’s supposition that the barbarians in olbia and its rural
settlements could not have made use of any “kin-tribe” system. this leads
us to the question of how pottery from the pre-Scythian period could have
reached the greek settlements of the 6th century BC. no traces of construction
dating to earlier periods have been found in these settlements. this implies
that either this pre-Scythian pottery reached this area from some temporary
stations or that the dating of the pottery is incorrect. in either case, this is of
no help in elucidating the problem of the presence of barbarian elements in
the settlements. another point of importance is that we have, unfortunately,
extremely insufficient knowledge about the character of the handmade ware
of the ionian greeks.
there is a final argument as well. the postulate that “handmade pottery
cannot be conceived without its bearers” implies that representatives of six
(!) different tribes, including such remote ones as the thracians and members
of the kizil-koba archaeological culture, were present during the lifetimes of
one or two generations in the small rural settlement of Černomorka 2 where
not more than a dozen families were living altogether.
Funerary rites also yield information which is equally uncertain in terms
of ethnicity.32 this is particularly true of the so-called Scythian features in the
burial rites of olbia in the archaic period. the first attempts at their identifi-
cation date back to the beginning of the 1940s.33 these resulted in the distin-
guishing of some Scythian elements in both male (the presence of Scythian
weapons)34 and female burials (bronze mirrors, stone dishes and slabs).35
the presence of weapons in male burials may be indicative of the liv-
ing conditions in a city or a rural site which seemingly had no fortifications
in the 6th century BC rather than the ethnicity of the buried. moreover, the
identification of these weapons as Scythian is not entirely reliable either, since
the type of arrowheads found were used by both greeks and barbarians.36 a
number of scholars adhere to a similar opinion regarding the ethnic attribu-
tion of those buried with weapons in the necropoleis of Bosporos.37 thus, this
problem cannot be resolved with certainty.
the situation regarding the Scythian elements in female burials is not any
better.38 the mirrors, being undoubtedly rooted in the hellenic tradition, rep-
resent an important object in a woman’s everyday life and may, thus, hardly
be seen as an indication of barbarian ethnicity of the buried. moreover, the
appearance of mirrors in Scythian burials could also point to a hellenic influ-
ence on the barbarian culture. hence, the finds of mirrors in olbian burials
where they are linked to the cult of the chthonic Demeter39 do not necessarily
have any connection to barbarian traditions. as suggested by a.S. rusjaeva,
the finds of mirrors in male graves relate to the cult of Dionysos40 and can-
not be viewed as a reflection of barbarian traditions either. it is noteworthy
that out of 26 mirrors found in the archaic necropolis of olbia more than half
belong to greek types, while only a dozen are presumably Scythian.41 the
probable manufacturing centre for the latter type is still uncertain and olbia
cannot be excluded from the list of candidates. even if one could prove their
barbarian provenance, this would not automatically imply that their owners
were barbarian of ethnicity.
as to the stone dishes, their function has not so far been defined for cer-
tain. it has been suggested that they might have been used for sharpening
weapons (?!), grinding dyes, as dressing tables42 or as altars.43 Besides olbia,
they are known from a large territory within the barbarian forest-steppe, as
well as by the Sauromatai and Sakai.44 they have not, however, been recorded
in the necropoleis of the european Bosporos. the question then arises: Why
were these dishes unknown in the necropoleis of a state, in which the process
of amalgamation of the greek and barbarian (including Scythian) populations
showed itself much more strongly than in olbia? moreover, in the olbian
necropolis these dishes are more numerous than in contemporary Scythian
cemeteries.45 this fact is also confusing.
thus, there are solid grounds to suppose that the greeks were the major
and absolutely dominant component of the population both in the chora and
in the city of olbia. this does not, however, exclude the possibility of infiltra-
tion by a small number of natives from the surrounding tribes.
this overview has touched upon only some of the most important prob-
lems in discussions of olbia and its chora, for which final solutions are hardly
possible, at least in the near future. unfortunately, the majority of the settle-
ments of the olbian chora have been destroyed during the last fifteen years.
For this reason, the hope of obtaining any new fundamental data from exca-
vations is rather illusive, thus making it necessary for us to look for certain
results mainly from theoretical studies.
Notes
1 Part of this paper has previously been published in Kryzhitskii 2000 (Eds.)
2 Bujskich 1985, 8.
3 kryžyc’kyj 1989, 45.
4 Lapin 1966, 235.
5 kryžickij & otreško 1986, 5.
6 For details, see kryžickij & otreško 1986; kryžyc’kyj 1989; kryžickij et al. 1989,
37-41.
7 karasev 1956, 22 ff.
8 Wąsowicz 1999, 250 ff.
9 Bujs’kych 2004, 10-11.
10 otreško 1979; kryžickij et al. 1989, 84.
11 golovačeva, marčenko & rogov 1999.
12 kryžickij et al. 1989, 23-25.
13 kryžickij et al. 1989, 121 ff.
14 kryžickij, Bujskich & otreško 1990, 74.
15 kryžickij et al. 1989, 56 ff.
16 Bujskich 1988, 111-112.
17 kryžickij 2002, 211, note 3.
18 kryžickij, Bujskich & otreško 1990, 43.
19 i have already written more than once about the causes of the collapse of the
chora in the 5th century BC; as far as the events of the hellenistic period and the
mid-3rd century aD are concerned, they are usually explained by external war
threats.
20 Cf., however, the most recent study by Bylkova 2005, 217‑247, and especially p. 231
– Eds.
21 Lapin 1966.
22 kryžickij et al. 1989; kryžickij, Bujskich & otreško 1990.
23 Lapin 1966, 234-235.
24 Černjakov 1985.
25 kryžickij et al. 1989, 20.
26 Lipavskij & Snytko 1990, 4-7; kryžickij 2002, 210.
27 kryžickij 1982, 148.
28 kryžyc’kyj & rusjaeva 1978.
29 marčenko 1988, 132-133.
30 gavriljuk 1984.
31 gavriljuk & otreško 1982, 87-88.
32 i will not here go into the problem of the contracted burials over which so many
lances have been broken to no effect.
33 kapošina 1941.
34 kapošina 1950.
35 rusjaeva 1990; 1992, 178 ff.; Bessonova 1991.
36 kryžyc’kyj 2001, 24.
37 Cvetaeva 1951, 68; kastanajan 1959, 270; maslennikov 1978, 30; 1981; grač 1999,
28.
38 in the archaic necropolis of olbia, according to S.S. Bessonova (1991, 95) 83
graves or about 30% of the total number of excavated burials are attributed to
the barbarians. From this number, however, must be subtracted 20 graves with
weapons and 18 with knives. these might belong equally to greeks and bar-
barians. of the remaining 45 graves with dishes or slabs only 17 displayed 3-4
barbarian features each (according to Bessonova’s classification which is by no
means indisputable). thus only 17 olbian burials can tentatively be attributed
as barbarian.
39 kozub 1974, 83-85.
40 rusjaeva 1992, 178.
41 Skudnova 1988, 24-27.
42 Skudnova 1988, 31-32.
43 rusjaeva 1992, 178.
44 rusjaeva 1992, 179.
45 Bessonova 1991, 93.
Bibliography
Bessonova, S.S. 1991. ob elementach skifskogo obrjada v archaičeskom nek-
ropole ol’vii, in: a.v. gavrilov et al. (eds.), Problemy archeologii Severnogo
Pričernomor’ja (k 100‑letiju osnovanija Chersonskogo muzeja drevnostej). Cher-
son, 92-99.
Bujskich, S.B. 1985. nekotorye itogi izučenija ol’vijskoj chory, in: Problemy
issledovanija Ol’vii. Tezisy dokladov i soobščenij seminara. Parutino, 8-10.
Bujskich, S.B. 1988. tipy ol’vijskich ukreplenij rimskoj epochi, in: v.a. anochin
(ed.), Antičnye drevnosti Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. kiev, 104-115.
Bujs’kych, S.B. 2004. Svjatilišča extra-urban epochi grec’koj kolonіzacіi
nižn’ogo Pobužžja, ArcheologіjaKiiv 3, 3-14.
Bylkova, v.P. 2005. the Chronology of Settlements in the Lower Dnieper
region (400-100 BC), in: v.F. Stolba & L. hannestad (eds.), Chronologies
of the Black Sea Area in the Period c. 400‑100 BC (Black Sea Studies, 3).
aarhus, 217-247.
Cvetaeva, g.a. 1951. gruntovyj nekropol’ Pantikapeja, MatIsslA 19, 63-86.
Černjakov, i.t. 1985. Severo‑Zapadnoe Pričernomor’e vo vtoroj polovine II
tysjačeletija do n. e. kiev.
gavriljuk, n.a. 1984. Skifs’ki imitacii form antyčnogo gončarnogo posudu,
ArcheologijaKiiv 48, 7-12.
golovačeva, n.v., k.k. marčenko & e.Ja. rogov 1999. Les constructions in-
solites trouvées dans la zone septentrionale de la chôra d’olbia: règle ou
hazard?, in: a. Fraysse & e. geny (eds.), Religions du Pont‑Euxin (actes
du viiie Symposium de vani (Colchide) 1997). Paris, 65-73.
gavriljuk, n.a. & v.m. otreško 1982. Lepnaja keramika archaičeskogo posele-
nija Bol’šaja Černomorka ii, in: a.i. terenožkin, B.m. mozolevskij & e.v.
Černenko (eds.), Drevnosti stepnoj Skifii. kiev, 75-90.
grač, n.L. 1999. Nekropol’ Nimfeja. St Peterburg.
kapošina, S.i. 1941. Skorčennye pogrebenija ol’vii i Chersonesa, SovA 7,
161-173.
kapošina, S.i. 1950. Pogrebenija skifskogo tipa v ol’vii, SovA 13, 205-216.
karasev, a.n. 1956. Plany ol’vii XiX v. kak istočnik dlja izučenija istoričeskoj
topografii goroda, MatIsslA 50, 9-34.
kastanajan, e.g. 1959. gruntovye nekropoli bosporskich gorodov vi-iv vv.
do n. e. i mestnye ich osobennosti, MatIsslA 69, 257-295.
kozub, Ju.i. 1974. Nekropol’ Ol’vii V‑IV st. do n.e. kyiv.
kryzhitskii, S.D. 2000. the Chora of olbia Pontica: the main Problems, Échos
du monde classique – Classical Views 44, n.s. 19.2, 167-178.
kryžickij, S.D. 1982. Žilye doma antičnych gorodov Severnogo Pričernomor’ja (VI v.
do n. e. – IV v. n. e.). kiev.
kryžyc’kyj, S.D. 1989. Z istorii kolonizacii nižn’ogo Pobužžja, ArcheologijaKiiv
3, 40-50.
kryžyc’kyj, S.D. 2001. ol’vija i skify u v st. do n.e. Do pytannja pro skifs’kyj
protektorat, ArcheologijaKiiv 2, 21-36.
kryžickij, S.D. 2002. ol’vija i skify v 5 v. do n.e. k voprosu o skifskom “pro-
tektorate”, Archeologičeskie vesti 9, St Peterburg, 208-221.
kryžickij, S.D., S.B. Bujskich, a.v. Burakov & v.m. otreško 1989. Sel’skaja
okruga Ol’vii. kiev.
kryžickij, S.D., S.B. Bujskich & v.m. otreško 1990. Antičnye poselenija Nižnego
Pobuž’ja (Archeologičeskaja karta). kiev.
kryžickij, S.D. & v.m. otreško 1986. k probleme formirovanija ol’vijskogo
polisa, in: a.S. rusjaeva, S.D. kryžyckij & S.n. mazarati (eds.), Ol’vija i
ee okruga. kiev, 3-17.
kryžyc’kyj, S.D. & a.S. rusjaeva 1978. najdavnišni žytla ol’vii, Archeologi‑
jaKiiv 28, 3-26.
Lapin, v.v. 1966. Grečeskaja kolonizacija Severnogo Pričernomor’ja (Kritičeskij
očerk otečestvennych teorij kolonizacii). kiev.
Lipavskij, S.a. & i.a. Snytko 1990. kurgany rannego vremeni v uročišče
Čertovatoe i nekotorye problemy naselenija ol’vijskoj chory, in: S.a.
Lipavskij & i.a. Snytko, Materialy po archeologii Ol’vii i ee okrugi. kiev,
1-48.
marčenko, k.k. 1988. Varvary v sostave naselenija Berezani i Ol’vii. Leningrad.
maslennikov, a.a. 1978. etničeskij sostav naselenija bosporskich gorodov v
vi-v vv. do n. e., SovA 1, 24-37.
maslennikov, a.a. 1981. Naselenie Bosporskogo gosudarstva v VI‑II vv. do n. e.
moskva.
otreško, v.m. 1979. k probleme ekonomičeskogo rajonirovanija nižnego

Pobuž’ja v archaičeskuju epochu, in: Problemy grečeskoj kolonizacii Severnogo
i Vostočnogo Pričernomor’ja. tbilisi, 151-158.
rusjaeva, a.S. 1990. ideologičeskie predstavlenija drevnich grekov nižnego
Pobuž’ja v period kolonizacii, in: v.m. Zubar’ et al. (eds.), Obrjady i
verovanija drevnego naselenija Ukrainy. kiev, 40-61.
rusjaeva, a.S. 1992. Religija i kul’ty antičnoj Ol’vii. kiev.
Skudnova, v.m. 1988. Archaičeskij nekropol’ Ol’vii. Leningrad.
Wąsowicz, А. 1999. modèles d’aménagement des colonies grecques: ville
et territoire, in: m. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des cités grecques. Actes de la
table ronde internationale, 31 octobre‑3 novembre 11 (BCh Suppl., 34).
athènes-Paris, 245-258.
Die Chora des pontischen
olbia: Die hauptetappen der
räumlich-strukturellen entwicklung
Sergej B. Bujskich
Das untere Buggebiet am nördlichen rand der griechischen oikumene war

im Laufe von fast tausend Jahren eine region des nördlichen Schwarzmeer-
gebiets, in der sich die errungenschaften der antiken kultur besonders aktiv
verbreitet haben. hier, am unterlauf des südlichen Bug, lag die griechische
Polis olbia, die vom 6. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum 4. Jh. n. Chr. einen bedeutenden
einfluss auf das historische Schicksal der einheimischen Bevölkerung des
nördlichen Schwarzmeergebiets ausgeübt hat.
im Laufe dieses gesamten Zeitraums gehörte zu dem von ionischen kolo-
nisten gegründeten olbischen Staat nicht nur die Stadt selbst, sondern neben
dem eigentlichen Stadtgebiet auch das umliegende territorium, also die Fel-
der, Weiden, grosse und kleinere Siedlungen, gehöfte usw. Dies war das
landwirtschaftliche territorium, das die griechen die Chora nannten.
Das Problem der Feststellung des olbischen landwirtschaftlichen territori-
ums entstand fast gleichzeitig mit der archäologischen entdeckung der Lage
olbias. Schon zu Beginn des 19. Jhs. schrieb P.i. köppen, dass der olbische
Staat seinen „raum“ mit nahen und fernen Chora hatte.1 am ende des 19.
– anfang des 20. Jhs. wurde die enge verbindung der Siedlungen des unteren
Buggebiets mit olbia von einer reihe anderer Forscher angenommen. eine
archäologische erforschung dieser Siedlungen war damals aber nicht durch-
geführt worden, auch das Problem ihres historischen verständnisses fand in
der wissenschaftlichen Literatur jener Zeit kaum Berücksichtigung.
Die ersten wichtigen archäologischen arbeiten in antiken Siedlungen un-
terschiedlicher Zeit im gebiet des unteren Bug (von der archaik bis zu den
ersten Jahrhunderten n. Chr.) wurden erst am ende der 40er – anfang der
60er Jahre des 20. Jhs. durchgeführt.2 Sie sind mit namen solcher Forscher
wie L.m. Slavin, F.m. Štitelman, B.m. rabičkin, a.P. manzewič, S.i. kapošina,
m.S. Sinizyn u.a. auf das engste verbunden. Zu dieser Zeit waren in dieser
region insgesamt etwa 50 antike Siedlungen bekannt, von denen aber nur
zehn – und diese auch nur unzureichend – untersucht worden waren.
als ergebnis dieser arbeiten hat sich damals in der Wissenschaft ein erstes,
generelles Bild der entwicklung der olbischen Chora abgezeichnet.3 Diesem
Schema gemäss entstanden die frühesten griechischen Siedlungen im unteren
116 Sergej B. Bujskich
Buggebiet bereits am ende des 7. und anfang des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. Die meisten
Siedlungen gehören dagegen dem 4. und 3. Jh. v. Chr. an. einige von ihnen,
die bereits in früherer Zeit gegründet wurden, existierten auch in den ersten
Jahrhunderten nach Christus weiter. ebenfalls gemäss diesem Schema wur-
den die antiken Siedlungen des unteren Buggebiets von einer gemischten
griechisch-barbarischen (vorwiegend barbarischen) Bevölkerung bewohnt,
die intensive und kontinuierliche handelsbeziehungen zu olbia unterhielt.
Dieser kenntnisstand hatte die einschätzung zur Folge, dass hauptsächlich
der handel die wirtschaftliche Basis olbias bestimmte.
Die arbeiten des letzten Drittels des 20. Jahrhunderts im unteren Bug-
gebiet, die hauptsächlich vom institut für archäologie naW der ukraine
in kiew (und teilweise vom institut für geschichte der materiellen kultur
St Petersburg, russland) durchgeführt wurden, gestatteten es, die früher
bestehenden vorstellungen vom Charakter der entwicklung der olbischen
Chora bedeutend zu erweitern. Sie präzisierten die dominierende ökonomi-
sche Basis olbias in der Landwirtschaft, verfolgten die tieferen Wechselbe-
ziehungen zwischen den etappen der entwicklung der Stadt und der um-
liegenden Siedlungen, lieferten sichere nachweise für eine ethno-kulturell
mehrheitlich den griechen zugehörige Bevölkerung und erweiterten den
Denkmälerbestand um mehr als 300 bislang unbekannte antike Siedlungen.
Diese arbeiten sind mit namen S.D. kryžickij, a.S. rusjaeva, a.v. Burakov,
v.m. otreško, S.B. Bujskich, v.v. ruban, Ja.v. Domanskij, k.k. marčenko
u.a. verbunden. Die ergebnisse dieser arbeiten haben in zwei grundlegen-
den monographien, Sel‘skaja okruga Ol‘vii4 und Antičnye poseleija Nižnego
Pobuž‘ja,5 ihren niederschlag gefunden.
auf diesen neuen erkenntnissen aufbauend kann das Schema der räum-
lich-strukturellen entwicklung der olbischen Chora heute wie folgt dargestellt
werden.
als ausgangspunkt der griechischen kolonisation des unteren Buggebiets
wurde in der zweiten hälfte des 7. – anfang des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. zunächst eine
ionische Siedlung auf der insel Berezan‘ angelegt.6 anfang des 6. Jhs. v. Chr.
enstand östlich von ihr ein gewerbezentrum, das am ufer der Bucht von
Jagorlyk lag.7 nach den ergebnissen der neuesten grabungen erfolgte dann
am ende des 1. und anfang des 2. viertels des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. die gründung
olbias.8
Das erste auftreten ländlicher Siedlungen am Berezanskij Liman fällt eben-
falls in das 2. viertel des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. Bis zum 3. viertel des Jahrhunderts
dehnten sie sich auf den Bug- und Dnepr-Liman aus. Zu dieser Zeit liefert die
inschrift auf der bekannten knochenplatte von Berezan‘ eine erste urkund-
liche Bestätigung für die existenz der Polis olbia.9 am ende des 3. viertels
des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. erfolgte die Schaffung der Chora in ihren heute recht genau
festgestellten grenzen am unteren Bug (abb. 1). in der Chora olbias lassen
sich für diese Zeit drei hauptgruppen von Siedlungen definieren:
Die Chora des pontischen Olbia 117
NIKOLAEV
B. Korenicha
Nečajannoe M. Korenicha
Š. Balka
Radsad
Bere
St. B N. Bogdanovka Oktjabr’skoe

z an
ogd
ano
’
vk
a
Bolgarka Turčino
Kamenka
So
Kozyrka Galicinovka
sik
Andreevo-Zorino
Šmidtovka
ary
Matijasovo Katelino
stu
Limany
Pribugskoe
Ižeckoe
Bug e
Osetrovka Parutino
Luparevo
ar y
Olbia
estu
Limany
zan’
Ivanovka
Bere
Pokrovka
Viktorovka B. Černomorka Jaselka
Dneprovskoe
Dmitrievka Solončaki Aleksandrovka
Kucurub
M. Černomorka
Očakov
Berezan’
er estuary
Dniep Stanislav
Gerojskoe
Ivanovka
Abb. 1. Archaische Siedlungen im unteren Buggebiet: I – Gegenwärtige Ortschaften. II – An‑

tike Siedlungen (nach: Kryžickij, Bujskich & Otreško 10).
1. kleine einzelgehöfte (0.2 ha)

2. Siedlungen mittlerer grösse (von 2-3 bis 5-8 ha)
3. grosse Siedlungen mit einer Fläche von 50 bis 80 ha.
Bekannt sind auch saisonale Standplätze von hirten und Fischern.10

alle drei haupttypen haben dieselben Wohn- und Wirtschaftsmodule
(hof, Oikos), die sich voneinander nur in ihrer anzahl unterscheiden. Jeder
Oikos besteht aus dem eigentlichen Wohnkern mit einem grossen zentralen,
in die erde eingetieften Wohnbau (Fläche 12-15 m2), 3-5 erdhütten und hal-
berdhütten von kleinerer Fläche (6-9 m2), die sich um den kernbau gruppie-
ren, 10-12 getreide-, Wirtschafts- und müllgruben, 1-2 Wasserzisternen und
einer reihe anderer hilfsanlagen.
Dieses Siedlungsschema konnte durch meine ausgrabungen in der 9 km
nördlich von olbia gelegenen Siedlung Čertovatoe 7 (Fläche etwa 50 ha) gut
illustriert werden.11 hier (abb. 1, nr. 46) wurde im ungestörten teil der Sied-
lung ein solcher Oikos untersucht (abb. 2, ii). in einem vom Pflug zerstörten
teil gelang es, mehr als 70 isolierte aschenflecken zu lokalisieren (abb. 2.1).
Wie die ausgrabungen an diesen Stellen zeigten, traten nach abtragung der
oberen erdschichten, für die räumtechnik eingesetzt wurde, unter den aschen-
flecken Fundstellen mit gleichartigen Wohn- und Wirtschaftskomplexen mit
in die erde eingetieften hütten zutage (abb. 2, iX). analoge Bilder ergaben
sich auch für andere archaische Siedlungen des unteren Buggebiets.12
Sehr interessant ist, dass an einem Fundort – Bejkuš (abb. 1, nr. 17) – sol-
che ins erdreich eingetieften Bauten nicht zu Wohn- und Wirtschaftszwek-
ken, sondern zu kultzwecken verwendet wurden und mit dem namen des
achilleus verbunden sind. im Laufe meiner arbeiten (1985-1986, 1995-1996)
wurde hier eine Fläche von ca. 2000 m2 untersucht. Dabei wurden mehr als
150 Baukomplexe freigelegt, die kultischen Charakter tragen.13 Davon zeu-
gen ihre konstruktiven Besonderheiten, die grundrissgestaltung sowie die
Boden- und Fundzusammensetzung der grubenfüllungen. es handelt sich
um Favissen, nischen, Bothroi, opfergruben, Escharai, räume für kollektive
rituelle handlungen oder kultmahlzeiten usw. mit verschiedenen votivgaben
mit Weihgraffiti für achilleus.
Die hier entdeckten kultkomplexe sind ein eindrückliches Beispiel der
traditionellen griechischen kultpraxis unter anpassung an Bedingungen des
neuen naturraums. Der Charakter der kultbauten auf dem kap Bejkuš spie-
gelt eben jenen Prozess der kolonisierung eines unbekannten Landes wider,
Abb. 2. Die Planungsstruktur der Siedlung Čertovatoe 7 (Abb.1, N 46) (der Zentralteil): 1
– Aschenflecken; 2 – Grenze des gepflugten Gebiets; 3 – die Wohnbauten (Erdhütten und Hal‑
berdhütten); 4 – Wirtschaftsbauten;
IX – Der Ausgrabungsabschnitt im durch Pflügen zerstörten Teil der Siedlung;
II – Der Ausgrabungsabschnitt im ungestörten (begrasten) Teil der Siedlung (nach: Bujskich
17).
der zunächst das kennenlernen der neuen region, die modifikation tradierter
verhaltensnormen vor ort und das einleben in die veränderte kulturland-
schaft umfasst. Der glaube, die riten und der gegenstand des kultes waren
demgegenüber von anfang an typisch hellenisch.
in die erde eingetiefte Wohnbauten (grubenhäuser und halbgrubenhäu-
ser) stellen die überwiegende mehrheit dar, wobei einkammerige Strukturen
Abb. 3. Einige Varianten von griechischen Erdhütten und Halberdhütten im unteren Bug‑
gebiet, 6.–5. Jh. v. Chr. (Plan und Schnitt). Am Beispiel der Siedlung Čertovatoe 7 (nach:
Kryžickij, Bujskich & Otreško 1).
unterschiedlicher tiefe (0.40-1.80 m) und geringer abmessung mit Flächen

von 3-6 bis 15 m2 (selten 20 m2 und mehr) sowie mit überwiegend rechtek-
kigem, seltener auch kreisförmigem oder ovalem grundriss nachgewiesen
werden konnten (abb. 3). nahe bei den Wohnräumen liegen verschiedene
Wirtschaftsbauten, in erster Linie zahlreiche gruben mit unterschiedlicher
Funktion – z.B. zur aufbewahrung von korn, als müllgrube oder als keller.
Sie haben unterschiedliche tiefen (von 0.2-0.5 bis 1.5-2, selten 3 m), besitzen
einen runden grundriss und haben im Schnitt vorzugsweise zylinder- oder
birnenförmige konturen.
Zum ersten mal wurden solche ganz oder teilweise in die erde eingetieften
Wohnbauten am anfang des 20. Jhs. auf der insel Berezan‘ von e.r. von Stern
gefunden, der sie griechischen kolonisten zuwies.14 als in den fünfziger Jah-
ren des 20. Jhs. in anderen antiken Siedlungen des unteren Buggebietes viele
solcher Behausungen festgestellt wurden, war diese ansicht von Sterns leider
schon in vergessenheit geraten. vielmehr herrschte die meinung vor, dass
diese Wohnstrukturen der barbarischen Bevölkerung zuzuweisen seien.15
heute sind die meisten Forscher davon überzeugt, dass diese erdbauten
in olbia und in den antiken Siedlungen des 6.-5. Jhs. v. Chr. in der umge-
bung olbias von griechischen kolonisten errichtet und bewohnt worden
sind.16 gleichartige Bauten sind nun auch aus dem unteren Dnestr-gebiet,17
von der Westkrim (in Chersonesos und kerkinitis) und vom Bosporos (aus
Pantikapaion, myrmekion, tyrambe, Phanagoria und gorgippia) bekannt.18
es wird daher zu recht angenommen, dass sie eine art anfangsetappe in
der entwicklung der Wohnbebauung griechischer kolonien am nordufer
des Pontos darstellen. Sehr wichtig ist, dass solche in die erde eingetieften
griechischen Wohnbauten archaischer Zeit jetzt auch in grossgriechenland
in der Chora von metapontion aufgedeckt wurden.19
Dem gesunden menschenverstand zuwider wurde jedoch immer wieder
der versuch unternommen, die veraltete these der sowjetischen historio-
graphie erneut aufzugreifen, die die erdhüttenbautätigkeit zur Zeit der grie-
chischen kolonisierung der unteren Bug-region den Barbaren zuschreibt.
ungeachtet aller vorliegenden tatsachen vertritt diese Position insbesondere
S.L. Solov‘ev, der in einer reihe von arbeiten immer wieder die these for-
muliert, dass sich bis zum letzten viertel des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. die mehrheit der
einwohner von Berezan‘, ebenso wie in allen anderen antiken Siedlungen des
unterbuggebiets, nicht aus griechen, sondern aus der einheimischen Bevölke-
rung – den barbarischen Stämmen der Waldsteppe und Steppe entstammend
– zusammensetzte.20
nach meiner tiefen Überzeugung spricht die nutzung der vorteilhaften
und relativ unkomplizierten, ins erdreich eingetieften Behausungen nicht für
eine anwesenheit von Barbaren, sondern für die Fähigkeit ionischer Siedler,
sich die örtlichen erfahrungen in einer für sie bezüglich der klima- und roh-
stoffverhältnisse neuen region am unteren Bug anzueignen.21
Das sozial-ökonomische Lebensniveau der Bevölkerung der Chora unter-
schied sich in archaischer Zeit nur wenig von dem der Stadt. Charakteristisch
sind für Stadt wie auch Chora einerseits in die erde eingetiefte Wohnbauten,
die erst am ende des 6. – anfang des 5. Jhs. v. Chr. durch ebenerdige haus-
bauten ersetzt wurden, und andererseits ein recht standardisierter Bestand an
materiellem inventar. hierzu gehören: amphoren aus verschiedenen Produk-
tionszentren, tischgeschirr (darunter ostgriechische bemalte sowie attische
schwarzgefirnisste und schwarzfigurige keramik), grautonige und geglättete
grautonige gefässe und küchengeschirr (rottonige töpfe und handgeformte
gefässe), Fragmente von Louterien und Pithoi, frühe olbische münzen in Form
von Pfeilen und Delphinchen, erzeugnisse aus Stein, knochen, Bronze, eisen,
darunter Waffen22 und arbeitswerkzeuge, und auch terrakotten, Schmuck,
graffiti u.s.w.
Während der letzten etappen der griechischen kolonisation – im ersten
Drittel des 5. Jhs. v. Chr. – fanden in olbia selbst und in der Chora wesentliche
Änderungen statt. in die erde eingetiefte Wohnbauten wurden überall von
über der erde errichteten Wohnhäusern aus Stein- und Lehmarchitektur ab-
gelöst. in der Stadt kam es zu ersten monumentalen Baumassnahmen. gegen
ende des ersten Drittels des 5. Jhs. v. Chr. hört die überwältigende mehrheit
der Siedlungen der olbischen Chora zu existieren auf.23 Dieser Befund steht in
unmittelbarem Zusammenhang mit den Prozessen endgültiger Bildung der
olbischen Polis sowie der konzentration von menschlichen und natürlichen
ressourcen auf die intensive Bautätigkeit im Stadtzentrum und der notwen-
digkeit, das landwirtschaftliche territorium der Polis zu reorganisieren.24
Das Leben setzte sich nur in den olbia nahe gelegenen Siedlungen fort, d.h.
das bewirtschaftete ländliche territorium reduzierte sich auf die minimalen
grenzen, die für eine versorgung allein ihrer einwohner mit Landwirtschafts-
erzeugnissen (in erster Linie getreide) notwendig waren. Die Bevölkerung
der Chora konzentrierte sich offenbar in der Stadt, deren wirtschaftliche ent-
wicklung sich trotz des kollapses der Chora fortsetzte.
nach der reduktion der olbischen Chora gegen ende des ersten Drittels
des 5. Jhs. v. Chr., wurde die klassische etappe ihrer geschichte – vom letzten
Drittel des 5. bis zum zweiten viertel des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. – zur Phase erneuter,
nun freilich zielgerichteter aneignung.25 im letzten Drittel des 5. Jhs. v. Chr.
kommen die ersten neuen ansiedlungen mit Bauten in Stein- und Lehmbau-
weise auf, zugleich entstehen, noch vereinzelt, die in der region frühesten
Bauerngüter an der küste des golfs des Bug, neben olbia. Dieser Prozess
erfährt an der Wende vom 5. zum 4. Jh. und im ersten viertel des 4. Jhs. v.
Chr. eine deutliche intensivierung.
Binnen der ersten zwei Drittel des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. entsteht eine ganze reihe
von ortschaften mit entwickeltem Steinhausbau an Stelle der ehemaligen alter-
tümlichen ansiedlungen im gebiet des unteren Bugs oder an neuen Plätzen.26
in Zusammenhang mit dieser neuen, umfassenden aneignung der region
wird halberdhütten, die in einer reihe von ansiedlungen verwendet waren,
wiederum von oberirdischen Lehmziegel- und Steinhäusern überall ersetzt.
um dreissige Jahren des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. wurde der Prozess der stabilen
wirtschaftlichen entwicklung der olbischen Chora in Zusammenhang mit
der invasion der truppen des Zopyrion (331 v. Chr.) unterbrochen.27 Doch
bereits kurz nach Beseitigung der Folgen dieser aggression lebte die Chora
erneut auf. in dieser Zeit begann die nächste – hellenistische – etappe in der
geschichte der ländlichen umgebung olbias.
Die Chora olbias erreichte nicht nur die ausdehnung des in archaischer
Zeit bewohnten territoriums, sondern es kam zur erschliessung neuer Flä-
NIKOLAEV
Nečajannoe B. Korenicha
M. Korenicha
Š. Balka
Radsad
Bere
z an
ry
N. Bogdanovka
S os
Oktjabr’skoe
’
estua
ik
Bolgarka Turčino St. Bogdanovka
Kamenka
Bug
Olbia
Kozyrka Galicinovka
Andreevo-Zorino
Šmidtovka
Katelino
Matijasovo
ary
Limany
Pribugskoe
Ižeckoe
ar y
estu
Osetrovka Parutino
estu
Olbia Luparevo
zan’
Limany
Bug
Bere
Pokrovka Ivanovka
Viktorovka B. Černomorka
Jaselka Solončaki
Dmitrievka Dneprovskoe
Kucurub
M. Černomorka Sofievka
Aleksandrovka
Rybakovka Očakov Š. Balka
Berezan’
Dnieper estuary
Stanislav
Gerojskoe
Buzovo
Rybal’če
Ivanovka
Abb. 4. Die Chora Olbias in klassisch‑hellenistischer Zeit: I – Gegenwärtige Ortschaften. II

– Antike Siedlungen (nach: Kryžickij, Bujskich & Otreško 10).
chen (abb. 4). in diesem Streusiedlungsprozess sind eine reglementierung

und Zweckgerichtetheit sowie eine rationale kalkulation deutlich erkennbar
– der überwiegende teil der Dorfansiedlungen findet an den küsten des
golfs des Bugs, des Dneprs und des Berezan‘s kompakt Platz und dehnt sich
weder nördlich (über der Breite der heutigen Stadt nikolaev) noch südlich
über dieses territorium aus.28
Bekanntermassen konnte die Polis, als einer der typen von gemeinde or-
ganisation, nur bei relativ geringer grösse ihres territoriums und der dieses
besiedelnden Bürgergemeinschaft existieren. Platon weist in seinen Gesetzen
darauf hin (Legg. 737e, 745c), dass das ganze territorium des Staates höchstens
5,040 grundstücke umfassen soll, und sein „weiser herrscher“ nicht nach
d e
Abb. 5 Grundtypen antiker Ortschaften im unteren Buggebiet des 4.–3. Jhs. v. Chr.: a) Sied‑
lung klassischer Zeit (I) und hellenistische Gehöfte (II) Kozyrka‑XII (Abb. 4, N 1); b) Planung‑
schema des Gehöfts N1 bei Čertovatoe‑Steppenschlucht (Abb. 4, N 76); c) Agglomeration der
Gehöftreihe bei Čertovatoe‑Steppenschlucht (Abb. 4, N 74); d) Agglomeration von Kozyrka‑II
bis Kozyrka‑VIII (Abb. 4, N 2‑4); e) Siedlung Novaja Bogdanovka‑II (Abb. 4, N ) und
saisonale Standplätze von Fischern.
1 – Siedlungen; 2 – Gehöfte; 3 – Saisonale Standplätze; 4 – Nekropolen mit hügellosen Gräber;
5 – Hügelgräber (nach Ruban 15).
grenzenloser erweiterung des territorialbesitzes streben soll. aristoteles hob

hervor, dass sowohl die Bevölkerung als auch das territorium des Staates
„leicht übersichtlich“ sein sollten (Pol. 1327a).
Den grössten aufschwung erlebte die olbische Chora ungefähr von der 2.
hälfte des 4. bis zur mitte des 3. Jhs. v. Chr. unter den ländlichen Siedlungen
treten hervor:
1. Siedlungen mit einer Fläche von 1-4 ha mit einzelne Wohnviertel bildenden
häusern29
2. isoliert stehende gehöfte – sowohl kollektive (abb. 6) mit einem oder zwei
höfen mit einer Fläche von etwa 1200-2000 m2 als auch individuelle (abb.
5.b) mit einer Fläche von etwa 600 m2.30
Wie auch in der vorangegangenen Zeit existieren saisonale hirten- und Fi-
scherstandplätze (abb. 5.e) und nahe den rohstoffquellen für metallverar-
beitung (in der Hylaia) gelegene Siedlungspunkte.
Wie in archaischer Zeit sind alle Siedlungen des 4.-3. Jhs. v. Chr. unbefes-
tigt, mit ausnahme der grossen grenzsiedlung glubokaja Pristan‘ („tiefer
hafen“) (abb. 4, nr. 145). Sie befindet sich im äussersten osten von olbia
unweit der Dneprmündung in unmittelbarer nähe der skythischen gebiete.31
Wahrscheinlich hatte sie ebendeshalb ein mächtiges verteidigungssystem,
das aus zwei Defensivlinien bestand. Die erste Linie besass auf der Feldseite
einen sehr breiten (35 m) und tiefen (3.5 m) Festungsgraben, einen Wall aus
Stampflehm und eine Lehmziegelmauer mit Steinsockel. Die zweite, an der
Seite des Dnepr Limans gelegene Linie bestand aus zwei Zitadellen mit 1.8
m tiefem Festungsgraben, mauer und türmen.
Wie bei vielen antiken griechischen Poleis war warscheinlich auch die
Abb. 6. Ein Gehöft im Steppengebiet Didova Chata (Abb. 4, Nr. 6): Plan (1) und Skizze der
Rekonstruktion (nach: Ruban 15).
Abb. 7. Luftbild Olbias und seiner nächsten Umgebung (a) und Auswertung (b).
1‑3 – Teile der Stadt (1, 3 – Oberstadt; 2 – Unterstadt); 4 – Nördiches und westliches Stadttor;
5, 13 – Stadtnekropole archaischer Zeit; 6 – Hügelgräber im nördlichen Teil der Nekropole; 7
– Antike Flurbereinigungen (Agrarkataster); – Vermutlichess antikes Gehöft; – Gegenwär‑
egenwär‑
tige Steppenschluchten; 10 – Das heutige Dorf Parutino (Bezirk Očakov, Region Nikolaev); 11
– Südlicher Bug‑Liman; 12 – Alte Naturstrassen; 14 – Spuren eines Dorfes des 1. Jhs.; 15
– Moderne Strassen; 16 – Waldstreifen (nach: Šiškin 12).
b
Dnieper-Bug
extuary
Dneprovskoe
Abb. . Spuren antiker Flurbereinigung auf einem Luftbild des Territoriums südwestlich von
Olbia:
1 – Alte Naturstrasse; 2 – Grenzen der antiken Landlose; 3 – Talwegen der Erosionnetzen; 4
– Flurbereinigungen neuerer Zeit (nach: Liseckij 14).
Chora von olbia in gesonderte Bodenparzellen für ihre Bürger unterteilt.32

es ist jedoch wichtig hervorzuheben, dass die Frage bezüglich eines agrar-
katasters der olbischen Polis noch offen bleibt. eindeutige Spuren antiker
Flurbereinigung (d.h. einer einteilung des landwirtschaftlichen territoriums
in Landlose) wurden durch Luftaufnahmen nur an zwei Stellen der Chora
beobachtet. nach k.v. Šiškin (1982) befindet sich die erste Stelle in unmittel-
barer nähe von olbia (abb. 7), auf vorstädtischem gebiet und ist nur von
geringer ausdehnung. F.n. Liseckij (1994) zufolge weist die zweite Stelle in
ihrer gesamtlänge eine ausdehnung von etwa 8-10 km auf: Sie reicht vom
südlichen Stadtrand olbias bis zur mündung der adžigolsteppenschlucht
(abb. 8). Die Fläche der einzelnen Kleroi beträgt nach den Daten der Luftauf-
nahmen zwischen 0.3-0.5-1 und 3-5 ha, zumeist 1.05 ha (280 × 37.5 m).33 es ist
anzunehmen, dass die grenzen zwischen den Bodenparzellen durch niedrige
mauern (errichtet aus Lehmziegeln) markiert wurden.34 archäologisch sind
diese Befunde bislang freilich ungenügend identifiziert und erforscht, auch
liegen für das übrige gebiet der olbischen Chora derzeit keine vergleichbaren
angaben vor. im ganzen aber wurde von k.v. Šiškin auf der Basis der Luft-
aufnahmen eine grösse des gesamtkatasters olbias von ungefähr 29.000 ha
(abb. 9, i) oder 290 km2 ermittelt.35
gleichzeitig konnte nach Berechnungen von S.D. kryžickij und a.n. Ščeglov
das in der olbischen Chora für getreideanbau genutzte territorium jährlich
etwa 400 km2 umfassen (abb. 9, ii) und ermöglichte damit eine Produktion
von durchschnittlich 30,000-55,000 tonnen getreide bei einer gleichzeitigen
Landbevölkerung von 30,000-40,000 Personen.36 nach den Funden verkohlter
körner auf dem territorium der olbischen Chora wurden als hauptkulturen
Weizen, gerste, hirse, erbsen sowie andere hülsenfrüchte angebaut.37 Die
zahlreichen paläozoologischen reste sprechen für eine entwickelte viehzucht,
wobei kleines und grosses hornvieh (Ziege, Schaf, rind) dominierte.38 Zu
allen Zeiten war die wirtschaftliche haupttätigkeit der olbischen Chorabe-
völkerung die Landwirtschaft und hier der getreideanbau und die mobile
viehzucht. entwickelt waren auch der handel und verschiedene gewerbe
und handwerke.
Die materielle und geistige kultur der olbischen Chora in dieser Zeit war
insgesamt dieselbe wie in der Stadt. Davon zeugen der entwickelte hausbau,
die zahlreichen Funde von amphoren, tischgeschirr (besonders die rotfigu-
rigen gefässe), terrakotten, graffiti, Schmuck, Bukranien, olbische münzen
u.s.w., aber auch der Bestattungsritus in den ländliche nekropolen.
in der mitte des 3. Jhs. v. Chr. gehen in Zusammenhang mit einem gala-
tereinfall die meisten Siedlungen der Chora zugrunde. Bis etwa zur mitte des
2. Jhs. v. Chr. existieren nur die Siedlungen am linken Bugufer weiter. in der
2. hälfte des 2. Jhs. v. Chr. war ackerbau offenbar nur in unmittelbarer nähe
der Stadt möglich. es ist nicht ausgeschlossen, dass sich ein teil der Cho-
rabewohner in die am unteren Dnepr gelegenen Siedlungen zurückgezogen
hat, wo eine hochgradig hellenisierte skythische Lokalbevölkerung wohnte.
b
Abb. . Agrarkataster der olbischen Polis im unteren Buggebiet, 4.–3. Jh. v. Chr.:
a – nach Šiškin 12; b – nach Kryžickij & Ščeglov 11 (1 – antike Dorfsiedlungen; 2 – Olbia;
3 – annähernde Grenze der antiken Flurbereinigung).
Zum vollständigen Zusammenbruch der Chora führte dann der verheerende

Feldzug des gethenkönigs Burebista etwa 55 v. Chr.
Die Wiedergeburt der Chora fällt ungefähr in die Zeit des späten letzten
viertels des 1. Jhs. v. Chr. und das 1. viertel des 1. Jhs. n. Chr.39 Die region
wurde praktisch wieder in den alten grenzen landwirtschaftlich genutzt, doch
ist die Siedlungsdichte bedeutend niedriger als früher (abb. 10). alle diese
Siedlungen sind nun befestigt. ein Beispiel ist die Festung Skel‘ka (abb. 10,
nr. 55) an der Bugmündung gegenüber von olbia, wo ein mächtiges Fortifika-
tionssystem freigelegt wurde.40 es besteht aus zwei erdwällen, zwei Festungs-
gräben und Steinmauern mit rechteckigen türmen (6.4 × 6.8 m). insgesamt
lassen sich vier Befestigungstypen (abb. 11) unterscheiden:
1. Befestigte Siedlungen mit dichter Bebauung und einer einzigen verteidi-
gungslinie
2. Besonders befestigte Siedlungen mit relativ lockerer Bebauung und 2-3
verteidigungslinien
3. Fluchtburgen, die abgesehen von der äusseren verteidigungslinie einen
unbebauten teil mit eigener Befestigung aufweisen
4. vorposten mit Wachttürmen41
auch die saisonalen hirtenstandlager gibt es weiterhin. nicht ausgeschlossen

ist, dass die befestigten Siedlungen ein durchdachtes System der strategischen
verteidigung darstellten, da ihre Lage und die entfernungen zwischen ihnen
unter Berücksichtigung der reichweite des visuellen Signals (5-8 km) gewählt
wurden und die Chora von norden und Südwesten durch zwei grenzwälle
geschützt war (abb. 12). in dieser Zeit waren römische truppen auf dem
gebiet des olbischen Staates disloziert. Das bezeugen deutlich die reste rö-
mischer kastelle im Steppengebiet von Didova Chata (abb. 10, nr. 47) und
beim Dorf Dar‘evka.42
in der entwicklung der Chora in römischer Zeit lassen sich zwei etappen
verfolgen, deren trennung etwa in der mitte des 2. Jhs. liegt. Die zweite
etappe, die gegen ende des 3. Jhs. endet, war die Zeit eines grösseren auf-
schwungs. in den befestigten Siedlungen errichtete man Steingebäude, die
mit gebrannten Ziegeln, polychromer Freskomalerei und Stuckgesimsen reich
ausgestaltet waren.43 von neuem wurde die Landwirtschaft weiter entwik-
kelt: in der Chora verbreiteten sich Weinbau und Weinherstellung. auch der
handel wurde aktiviert, wovon die Funde von olbischen und reichsrömi-
schen münzen und die verschiedenen und zahlreichen importkeramiken
– amphoren, rotfirnisgeschirr – darunter Figurengefässe44 – glasgefässe,
Fibeln usw. zeugen.
im letzten Drittel des 3. und zu Beginn des 4. Jhs. entstehen im ländlichen
umland von olbia unbefestigte agrarsiedlungen von Barbaren, deren Bewoh-
ner träger der tschernjachow-kultur sind. ihre Zugehörigkeit zu olbia ist dis-
kutierbar. Diese Siedlungen kommen am ende des 4. Jhs. zum erliegen.45
Das Leben der Chora war im Laufe ihrer gesamten geschichte eng mit dem
Luk’janovka
NIKOLAEV
Podymovo
Nečajannoe B. Korenicha
M. Korenicha
Kimovka
Š. Balka
Radsad
Jablonja Mefodievka
N. Bogdanovka Oktjabr’skoe
Andreevka
Bolgarka St. Bogdanovka
Svobodnyj Turčino
Ma
lyš
Berezanka Kamenka Kozyrka

i
Andreevo-Zorino Galicinovka
Šmidtovka
Katelino
Matijasovo
Dmitrievka Ižeckoe
ry
Pribugskoe Limany
y
estua
r
Osetrovka
tua
Parutino
’ es
OLBIA Luparevo
Limany
z an
Bug
Bere
B. Černomorka Pokrovka
Viktorovka
Ivanovka
Solončaki
M. Černomorka Jaselka
Kuzurub Dmitrievka Dneprovskoe
Aleksandrovka
Berezan’ Očakov
Dn i e p e r e s t u Š. Balka
a r
y
Stanislav
Gerojskoe
Buzovo
Ivanovka
Abb. 10. Das untere Buggebiet in den ersten Jahrhunderten n. Chr.

I – Befestigungen; II – Offene unbefestigte Siedlungen; III – Gegenwärtige Ortschaften (nach:
Kryžickij, Bujskich & Otreško 10).
Leben der Stadt – mit den etappen ihrer aufschwünge, krisen und nieder-
gangsperioden – verbunden. in erster Linie wird dies von der Dynamik des
antiken ländlichen Siedlungswesens am unteren Bug selbst bestätigt: von
den bis heute hier bekannten Denkmälern gehören 107 der archaik, 152 der
klassisch-hellenistischen Zeit und 64 den ersten Jahrhunderten n. Chr. an.46
Somit fällt – wie auch in der Stadt – die grösste Blüte der Chora in die Periode
Abb. 11. Typen olbischer Befestigungen in der Chora römischer Zeit:

1 – Castra (Mys – Abb. 10, Nr. ); 2 – Burgus (Kozyrka – Abb. 10, Nr. 43); 3 – Oppidum
(Zolotoj Mys – Abb. 10, Nr. 60); 4 – Castellum (Didova Chata‑III – Abb. 10, Nr. 47) (nach:
Bujskich 1, 11, 14a, 14b).
des hochhellenismus, für die eine maximal mögliche nutzung des agrarisch
verwertbaren Landes vorausgesetzt werden kann.
Die bedeutend kleinere Zahl der Siedlungsplätze in den ersten Jahrhunder-
ten n. Chr. zeugt vom nachlassen des wirtschaftlichen und von einer vermin-
derung des demographischen Potentials des Staates in seiner gesamtheit. alle
diese Schwankungen spiegeln die Besonderheiten der historischen entwick-
lung olbias und seiner Chora im Laufe eines ganzen Jahrtausends wider.
Abb. 12. Kartenschema des Verteidigungssystems des olbischen Staates in den ersten Jahrhun‑
derten n. Chr. (nach: Bujskich 11, 14a, 14b).
abschliessend ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass trotz des deutlichen quantitati-

ven unterschieds der Siedlungen aller drei Perioden der verbreitungsbereich
der Siedlungsplätze zeigt, dass sie sich hauptsächlich auf der von drei Limanen
– vom Bug-, Dnepr- und Berezan‘-Liman – gebildeten halbinsel konzentrieren
(abb. 1, 4, 10), was es uns wiederum gestattet, diese als hauptterritorium der
landwirtschaftlichen Produktion der Polis olbia anzusehen.47
in diesem Zusammenhang ist es wichtig hervorzuheben, dass das terri-
torium der Chora sowohl in klassischer als auch in hellenistischer Zeit, als sie
seine maximale grösse erreichte, 48 nicht durch die kolonisierung der benah-
barten Länder, sondern durch die Streusiedelung olbischer Landbevölkerung
an den küsten derselben Limanen wuchs; intensiver erschlossen werden die
oberläufe des Liman des Berezan‘, die rechte und linke küste des Liman des
Dnepr sowie die innerhalb des ländlichen umlands der Polis gelegenen be-
wässerten Steppenschluchten.49 noch mehr, in der nachgetischen Periode um-
schliessen die befestigten Dorfansiedlungen wieder mit ihrer kette die durch
die Limane von Bug, Dnepr und Beresan‘ gebildete halbinsel (abb. 10 und
12) und die ihr gegenüberliegenden küsten ungeachtet der deutlich geringe-
ren Siedlungsdichte der olbischen Chora im vergleich zu den vorangehenden
Perioden.50 Somit stellen die olbiopoliten das angestammte territorium der
Polis zielgerichtet wieder her, das sie in der Blütezeit vom ende des 4. / mitte
des 3. Jhs. v. Chr. bis zu den bekannten krisenerscheinungen einnahm.
es gibt gewichtige gründe, das gebiet des unteren Bugs in den genannten
grenzen für das ständige und unveränderliche territorium der ländlichen

umgebung von olbia und offensichtlich des Staates insgesamt zu halten.
Wenn nicht alle anzeichen trügen, dann wurden diese grenzen unter kalku-
lation des voraussischtlichen Wachstums der Polis bereits in der frühen Zeit
bestimmt, und von den olbiopoliten während der gesamten langen geschichte
ihres Staates befolgt, geschützt und geachtet.
es wurde von ihnen auch das den griechischen Staaten eigene heilig-
keitsprinzip für grenzen der Polis befolgt, die gewöhnlich unter göttlicher
obhut standen. Bereits ab der archaischen epoche wurden die grenzgebiete
der olbischen Polis von heiligtümer umgeben, deren grossteil in allen Zeiten
des Bestehens des Staates dem achilleus geweiht war.51 Sogar in der letzten
etappe der geschichte von olbia, im 2. Jh. n. Chr., stellten die oberbeamten
an diesen Stellen Stelen mit Widmungsinschriften für achilleus Pontarches
auf, die sich auf die verteidigung und integrität des Staates bezogen.52
Somit bildete die in die region des unteren Bugs „eingezeichnete“ Chora
ebenso wie in den meisten griechischen Staaten den durch die Polis von olbia
erschlossenen hauptterritorialraum.
in der historiographie existieren freilich einige hyphothesen, deren zu-
folge sich die territorialbesitzungen des pontischen olbia einschliesslich
der Chora im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. weit hinter der grenzen dieser region er-
streckten, und zwar im Westen bis hin zur odessaer Bucht,53 im osten bis
zur mündung des Dnepr54 und im Süden bis hin zur nordwestlichen krim
(taurien).55 Besonders vehement wurde letztere Position vertreten. Doch steht
diese Frage bisher zur Diskussion und erfordert besondere aufmerksamkeit
und weitere untersuchungen. abschliessend lässt sich konstatieren, dass die
innere entwicklung der olbischen Polis am ende des 5.-4. Jhs. v. Chr. und die
Bedürfnisse deren aussenpolitik und Sicherheit sowie die sozialwirtschaftli-
che erwägungen keine (in irgendeiner Form) territorialerweiterung, um so
mehr expansionistische kampagnen bedürften.56
Anmerkungen
1 tunkina 2002, 438-439.
2 Bujs’kich 1997a, 15.
3 Štitel’man 1956; Slavin 1955; 1976.
4 kryžickij et al. 1989.
5 kryžickij et al. 1990.
6 Lapin 1966, 95.
7 ostroverchov 1978.
8 Bujskich & krapivina 2001.
9 rusjaeva 1986, 50-51.
10 otreško 1990, 6-7.
11 Bujskich 1985; kryžyc’kyj & Bujs’kych 1988.
12 Bujskich 1987.
13 Buiskikh 2001, 317.
14 Štern 1912, 87.

15 Štitel’man 1956, 258; Domanskij 1961, 33-35, 39.
16 otreško 1981, 36; ruban 1985, 33; kryžickij et al. 1989, 86f.; kryžickij 1993, 41.
17 ochotnikov 1990, 10-16.
18 vinogradov 1999, 107; tsetskhladze 2004
19 Carter 1993, 344-351; orlandini 2000, 15-22.
20 Siehe z.B. Solovyov 1999, 34.
21 Buiskikh & Buiskikh 2001, 667.
22 Bujskikh 1999.
24 Bujskich 1997c, 9.
25 kryjickij & Bujskih 1999, 274-275.
26 Bujskich 1986, 21.
27 ruban 1985, 36.
28 ruban 1988, 18-19; kryžickij et al. 1990, 75-76.
29 Domanskij & marčenko 1980.
30 ruban 1985, 36-39; kryžickij et al. 1989, 102-103.
31 Bujskich 1989.
32 otreško 1981a; kryžickij et al. 1989, 140; Wąsowicz 1996, 12.
33 Liseckij 1994, 241.
34 ievlev 2001.
35 Šiškin 1982, 242.
36 kryžic’kij & Ščeglov 1991.
37 Pashkevich 2001, 519.
38 Žuravlev 1993, 18-19.
40 Bujskich 1991, 69-74.
41 Bujskich 1988; 1991, 83; Bujskikh 1994b.
42 Bujskich 1994a.
43 Burakov 1976, 52.
44 Bujskich 1982.
47 Bujskich 1986, 25.
48 ruban 1985, 45.
49 Bujskich 1986, 21.
50 Bujskich 1991, 48.
51 rusjaeva 1979, 138-139.
52 otreško 1979.
53 ruban 1985, 30.
54 Bylkova 1994, 29.
55 Ščeglov 1987; vinogradov 1997.
56 Bujskich 1997b, 18.
Bibliographie
Bujskich, S.B. 1982. Dva figurnych sosuda iz raskopok gorodišča Zolotoj
mys, in: v.D. Baran (hrsg.), Novye pamjatniki drevnej i srednevekovoj
chudožestvennoj kul’tury. kiev, 77-86.
Bujskich, S.B. 1985. nekotorye itogi izučenija ol’vijskoj chory, in: S.D. kryžickij
(hrsg.), Problemy issledovanija Ol’vii. Parutino, 8-10.
Bujskich, S.B. 1986. nekotorye voprosy prostranstvenno-strukturnogo razvitija
ol’vijskoj chory (vi-ii vv. do n.e.), in: a.S. rusjaeva, S.D. kryžickij & S.n.
mazarati (hrsgg.), Ol’vija i ee okruga. kiev, 17-28.
Bujskich, S.B. 1987. o ranneantičnych poselenčeskich strukturach v nižnem
Pobuž’e, in: v.S. ol’chovskij (hrsg.), Socyal’no‑ekonomičeskie problemy raz‑
vitija drevnich obščestv i archeologija. moskva, 30-36.
Bujskich, S.B. 1988. tipy ol’vijskich ukreplenij rimskoj epochi, in: v.a. anochin
(hrsg.), Antičnye drevnosti Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. kiev, 104-115.
Bujskich, S.B. 1989. issledovanie v ur. glubokaja Pristan’, in: Ju.g. vinogradov
(hrsg.), Problemy skifo‑sarmatskoj archeologii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. Tezisy
dokladov konferencii. Zaporož’e, 23-24.
Bujskich, S.B. 1991. Fortifikacija Ol’vijskogo gosudarstva. kiev.
Bujskich, S.B. 1994a. Zum Limes im nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum, BJb 194,
165-174.
Bujskikh, S. 1994b. Limes olbiopolitanus, in: g. Susini (hrsg.), Limes. Bologna,
193-199.
Bujs’kich, S.B. 1997a. L.m. Slavin i doslidžennja chory ol’vijskoj deržavy,
APamKiiv 4, 15-23.
Bujskich, S.B. 1997b. k probleme territorial’nych vladenij ol’vijskogo polisa
v iv v. do n.e., in: Chersones v antičnom mire. Istoriko‑archeologičeskij aspekt.
Tezicy dokladov konferencii. Sevastopol’, 16-19.
Bujskich, S.B. 1997c. Antičnye zemledel’cy Nižnego Pobuž’ja. nikolaev.
Bujskikh, S.B. 1999. the armament of greek colonists in the Lower Bug region
in the 6-5-th c. BC, in: EAA 5th Annual Meeting. Abstracts. Bournemouth
14‑1 September, 149-150.
Buiskikh, S. 2001. Das achilleus-heiligtum in der Chora von olbia Pontica
aus archaischer Zeit, AttiTaranto 40, 317-332.
Buiskikh, a. & S. Buiskikh 2001. i siti di olbia e della sua chora nel periodo
della colonizzazione greca, AttiTaranto 40, 667-682.
Bujskich, a.v. & v.v. krapivina 2001. o vostočnogrečeskoj keramike iz ras-
kopok ol’vii (novye materialy) in: v.P. kopylov (hrsg.), Meždunarodnye
otnošenija v bassejne Černogo Morja v drevnosti i v srednie veka (materialy iX
meždunarodnoj konferencii). rostov-na-Donu, 46-49.
Burakov, a.v. 1976. Kozyrskoe gorodišče rubeža i pervych stoletij našej ery.
kiev.
Bylkova, v.P. 1994. Do pytannja pro schidnu mežu sil’s’koj okrugy ol’vii v
pizn’oklasyčnyj – rann’oellinistyčnyj čas, APamKiiv 4, 19-31.
Carter, J.C. 1993. taking Possession of the Land: early greek Colonization in
Southern italy, in: t.r. Scott & h.r. Scott (hrsgg.), Eius Virtutis Studiosi:
Classical and Postclassical Studies in Memory of F.E. Brown. hannover-Lon-
don, 343-367.
Domanskij, Ja.v. 1961. iz istorii naselenija nižnego Pobuž’ja v vii-iv vv. do

n.e., ASbor 2, 26-44.
Domanskij, Ja.v. & k.k. marčenko 1980. Poselenie ol’vijskoj chory kozyrka-2,
ASbor 21, 20-38.
ievlev, m.m. 2001. Sistema zemleustrojstva ol’vijskoj sel’skoj okrugi, in: S.D.
kryžickij (hrsg.), Ol’vija ta antyčnyj svit. kiev, 62-63.
kryžickij, S.D. 1993. Architektura antičnych gosudarstv Severnogo Pričernomor’ja.
kiev.
kryžickij, S.D. & S.B. Bujs’kych 1988. Struktura archaičnogo poselennja
nyžn’ogo Pobužžja, APamKiiv 63, 1-8.
kryjickij, S.D. & S.B. Bujskih 1999. La dynamique d’amenagement du territoire
rural d’olbia pontique, in: m. Brunet (hrsg.), Territoires des cités grecques
(BCh Suppl., 34). Paris, 273-288.
kryžickij, S.D., S.B. Bujskich & v.m. otreško 1990. Antičnye poselenija Nižnego
Pobuž’ja (archeologičeskaja karta). kiev.
kryžickij, S.D. & o.m. Ščeglov 1991. Pro zernovyj potencial antyčnych deržav
Lapin, v.v. 1966. Grečeskaja kolonizacija Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. kiev.
Liseckij, F.n. 1994. Sistema antičnogo zemleustrojstva v nižnem Pobuž’je, in:
S.B. ochotnikov (hrsg.), Drevnee Pričernomor’e. odessa, 237-242.
ochotnikov, S.B. 1990. Nižnee Podnestrov’e v VI‑V vv. do n.e. kiev.
orlandini, P. 2000. Lo scavo del saggio g, Ricerce archeologiche all’Incornata di
Metaponto 4, 15-22.
ostroverchov, a.S. 1978. Ekonomičeskie svjazi Ol’vii, Berezani i Jagorlyckogo
poselenija so Skifiej. Avtoreferat dissertacii. kiev.
otreško, v.m. 1979. Posvjaščenija achillu Pontarchu kak odin iz kriteriev
opredelenija granic ol’vijskogo gosudarstva, in: v.D. Baran (hrsg.), Pa‑
mjatniki drevnich kul’tur Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. kiev, 80-87.
otreško, v.m. 1981. kallipidy, alazony i poselenija nižnego Pobuž’ja, SovA
1, 27-40.
otreško, v.m. 1981a. o klerach ol’vii, in: v.F. gening (hrsg.), Aktual’nye
problemy archeologičeskich issledovanij v USSR. kiev, 75-76.
otreško, v.m. 1990. Ol’vijskaja chora VI‑V vv. do n.e. Avtoreferat dissertacii.
kiev.
Pashkevich, g.a. 2001. archaeobotanical studies on the northern coast of the
Black Sea, Eurasia Antiqua 7, 511-567.
ruban, v.v. 1985. Problemy istoričeskogo razvitija ol’vijskoj chory v iv-iii
vv. do n.e., VDI 1, 26-45.
ruban, v.v. 1988. Osnovnye etapy prostranstvennogo razvitija Ol’vijskogo polisa.
Avtoreferat dissertacii. kiev.
rusjaeva, a.S. 1979. Zemledel’českie kul’ty v Ol’vii dogetskogo vremeni. kiev.
rusjaeva, a.S. 1986. milet-Didimy-Borisfen-ol’vija. Problemy grečeskoj kolo-

nizacii nižnego Pobuž’ja, VDI 2, 25-64.
Slavin, L.m. 1955. archeologični doslidžennja gorodyšč, poselen’ ta mogil’nykiv
ol’vijs’kogo otočennja, APamKiiv 5, 127-150.
Slavin, L.m. 1976. nekotorye itogi izučenija ol’vijskoj chory, in: n.i. Sokol’skij
et al. (hrsgg.), Chudožestvennaja kultura i archeologija antičnogo mira. mosk-
va, 180-186.
Solovyov, S.L. 1999. Ancient Berezan. The Architecture, History and Culture
of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea (Colloquia Pontica, 4).
Leiden.
Šiškin, k.v. 1982. aerometod kak istočnik dlja istoričeskoj topografii ol’vii i
ee okrestnostej, SovA 3, 235-242.
Štern, e.r. von 1912. raskopki na ostrove Berezani, OAK za 10 g., St Peter-
burg, 84-93.
Štitel’man, F.m. 1956 Poselenija antičnogo perioda na poberež’e Bugskogo
limana, MatIsslA 50, 255-272.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1987. un établissement rural en Crimee: Panskoje i (fouilles de
1969-1985), DialHistAnc 13, 239-273.
Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica, 9).
tunkina, i.v. 2002. Russkaja nauka o klassičeskich drevnostjach Juga Rossii (XVIII‑
seredina XIX v.). St Peterburg.
vinogradov, Ju.a. 1999. grečeskaja kolonizacija i grečeskaja urbanizacija
Severnogo Pričernomor’ja, Stratum Plus 3, 101-115.
vinogradov, Ju.g. 1997. Die olbiopoliten in der nordwest-tauris, in: Ju.g.
vinogradov, Pontische Studien. mainz, 484-492.
Wąsowicz, a. 1996. Deux modéles d’amenagement de l’espace dans les colo-
nies grecques, ArcheologiaWarsz XLvi-1995, 7-18.
Žuravlev, o.P. 1993. Istorija fauny i tvarynnyctva Nyžn’ogo Pobužžja v antyčnyj
čas. Avtoreferat dissertacii. kiev.
Abkürzungen
ASbor archeologičeskij sbornik gosudarstvennogo ermitaža. Leningrad/
St Peterburg.
AttiTaranto 40 Problemi della Chora coloniale dall’ occidente al mar nero. atti
del XL Convegno di Studi Sulla magna grecia. taranto, 29.iX-3.
X.2000. taranto 2001.
EAA european association of archaeologists.
NAW national akademie der Wissenschaften der ukraine.
OAK otčet archeologičeskoj komissii. St Peterburg.
the Chora of kerkinitis1
Vadim A. Kutajsov
Palaeogeographic conditions
the greek colonisation of the northern Black Sea littoral coincided with the
transition from the Subboreal to the Subatlantic period. Because of this, the
climate of the region was cooler and more humid at that time than it is now.
according to a. Dzens-Litovskij’s estimations, which were based on studies
of sediments from Saki Lake and other salt lakes of the Crimea, warm weather
was constant there until the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st cen-
turies BC. this necessitated a change in the choice of preferred crops.2
Palaeobotanic conditions
During excavations in kerkinitis carbonised remains of eleven different crops
were found. Wheat, among which three varieties of Tr. aestivo‑compactum
– light, dwarf and a transitional sort – predominate, is the most common find.
as the basic bread crop in the Crimea during antiquity, it was probably best
adopted to the local soil and climatic conditions as well as to the agriculture
techniques used in the area. in Z.v. Januševič’s opinion, the above-mentioned
cereals were synonymous with the light Pontic wheat mentioned by teo-
phrastos and the small-grained wheat named by Plinius.3 the coastal plain
adjoining evpatorija matches well the requirements of ancient agronomists for
lands where wheat ought to be sown. Tr. dicoccum is the second most common
sort of wheat, although it makes up only 1.82% of the finds from the greek
layers of kerkinitis.4 it was cultivated on a larger scale for a short period of
time in the second half of the 2nd century BC when the town was captured
by the Scythians. this fact testifies to a complete change in preferred crops.
as well, the presence of seeds from various weed types in the finds points to
the lower level of Scythian agricultural techniques.
along with wheat, barley (Hordeum vulgare polystichum) had a significant
share in the composition of crops grown, as a basic fodder crop. Some rye
seeds found in the Scythian layers of the site allow a supposition that this type
of grain was also grown. Vicia ervilia and lentils are represented by separate
seeds. grape seeds found in our samples come from the layers from the 5th
century BC, well before the territory was mastered by Chersonesos.5
142 Vadim A. Kutajsov
Organisation of arable lands

apparently, the whole territory of the kerkinitian chora was divided into sepa-
rate plots by means of small shallow ditches or low earthen walls. remains
of this land division stretching 6 to 8 and sometimes 11 km inland near the
Cape of evpatorija are traceable on aerial photographs.6 there the allotments
of quadrangular form (rarely square or right-angled but more often trapezoid)
appear to be separated by narrow deep strips, which, as proved by excavations
at the majak settlement, were dividing ditches.7 most of the plot boundaries
are curvilinear and are oriented at an angle to each other, which is why the
adjacent allotments differ in their layout. this irregular planning contrasts
very much with the very consistent system of the Chersonesean land division
and probably represents real traces of an early cadastre of kerkinitis. this
system, having once been established, was subjected to hardly any change
in the following period of the Chersonesean supremacy.
Farmhouses
a very large settlement consisting of individual rural houses was situated on
the bank of the mojnak Lake. unfortunately, the majority of these building
complexes have only been partly explored. only a single block of farmhouses
grouped together has been completely excavated, by L.a. moiseev in 1917. the
rooms of these houses were disposed along the perimeter of a large courtyard,
while in the corner of one of the houses the foundation of a circular tower was
found. unfortunately, none of the investigators tried to link these farmhouses
to specific land plots, and at present, such a linkage is impossible since all the
remains are now covered over by the modern-day city of evpatorija.8
Tillage, harvesting and storage

the evidence for tillage, harvesting and storage on the chora of kerkinitis
is scant, so we mainly have to resort to descriptions of pan-hellenic prac-
tices. the location of kerkinitis near the salt lakes made possible not only
the fertilizing of the soil by the addition of ash, but also the widespread use
of well-silted ground. it also facilitated the mining of gypsum, which was ne-
cessary, for example, for winemaking and the preparing of spelt groats. the
quantity of storage facilities excavated in the city itself, as well as the number
of farmhouses known to us at present, is certainly too small to hold the entire
hypothetical harvest. Probably, that portion of wheat, which was intended
for export, was shipped a few months after harvesting, most probably during
July through September. in this case, the corn set aside for sowing ought to
have been kept in the garrets or on the upper floors of the houses, as advised
by Columella.
The Chora of Kerkinitis 143
Farming system
usually, it is believed that a two-field system was mainly employed in the
graeco-roman world.9 as mentioned above, light-dwarf wheat was the basic
cereal in kerkinitis. as can be judged from the smaller dimensions of the seeds
when compared to subsequent specimens, under the colder climate of the first
two centuries of the polis’ existence, wheat was likely sown as a spring crop.
this would correspond best to the optimal conditions for its cultivation. ac-
cording to palaeobotanic data from the rural sites of the north-western Crimea
(Panskoe, masliny), some changes in agriculture occurred at the turn of the
4th and 3rd centuries BC. these finds revealed rye and its constant concomi-
tant weed, Lithospermum arvense L. this suggests that at the moment of the
sudden destruction of the sites in the 270s BC rye had surpassed wheat as a
major crop.10 Such important changes in the composition of crops, namely
a transition from spring- to winter-sown crops, enable us to conclude that
a slight warming of the climate took place at this time (a transition from a
chilly-and-humid to a warm-and-dry phase, according to a.v. Šnitnikov 1969,
113).11 in other words, a gradual accumulation of changes in natural conditions
(for example, the change in the rate of precipitation) resulted in qualitative
changes in the environment. in our case, this could imply the movement of
geographical zones approximately by one degree, i.e. about 100-150 km.
the selection of crops which were encountered in archaeological layers of
kerkinitis allows the supposition that from the second half of the 5th century
BC a more progressive three-field system must have been employed there. this
most likely contained the following stages of rotation: 1) fallow; 2) spring or
winter wheat, during the 3rd century BC probably supplemented by winter
rye; 3) spring barley.
according to late-19th-century Crimean practice, the worst fields were
set aside for barley: the stubble but relatively clean field of winter wheat
after fallow. at the early stages of the polis’ existence, when free lands were
available, a shifting system of cultivation was probably employed. it could
not have been practiced, however, for a long time, since the polis would have
begun early on to strictly regulate quickly waning resources of land.
Crop productivity
the question of crop productivity is a complicated one, rarely discussed in
the literary sources apart from a well-known remark of Strabon concerning
the exceptional fertility of the soils on the plains of the Crimea (Strab. 7.4.6.).
moreover, because of very different geographical conditions, we are deprived
of the possibility of using what little data we do have from the ancient agrono-
mists of greece and rome in our consideration of the crops of this area. the
crop rotation and the selection of grains in the second half of the 4th to the 3rd
centuries BC virtually coincide with those of the final third of the 19th and the
beginning of the 20th century Crimea. given the lack of mechanization and the
predominance of extensive agriculture in the tavričeskaja Province (Crimea in
the russian empire), it seems possible to compare these two examples, even
though they are distant in time from each other. For that purpose, the mod-
ern productivity indices of the peninsula’s basic cereals over a half-a-century
period (late 19th and early 20th centuries) have been collected. according to
these data, during this 47 year period an average yield of winter wheat was
7 hl/ha, and that of barley amounted to 5.7 hl/ha. the analysis of the statistics
available to us surely testifies to an extremely fluctuating productivity in the
growth of cereals. given a low standard of agriculture techniques, the rapid
oscillations in yields completely depend on climatic conditions.12
Cattle‑breeding
Despite the relatively small quantity of palaeozoological remains studied,
these remains represent practically all species of domestic animals reared in
the cities and rural sites of the northern Black Sea littoral. unfortunately, the
small amount of material does not permit the evaluation in full of the signifi-
cance of individual species to the polis’ economy. in the domestic herd, cattle
seemingly predominated, followed closely by small cattle. a comparison with
modern data is more complicated, since in calculations of cattle stock, for
example in the tavričeskaja Province, one head of cattle was equated to ten
head of small cattle. in our finds, the remains of goats (8.3%), pigs (13.9%),
horses (8.3%) and donkeys (5.6%) are represented in small quantities. the
small percentage of horses probably indicates that this animal’s role as a
source of food was hardly of any importance and it must have mainly been
used for transportation. even a small quantity of domestic animals, however,
could hardly have been accommodated in houses within the precincts of the
town and would surely have required some cattle-rearing facilities outside
the city walls.
Palaeoeconomic model of the chora development

the actual size of the kerkinitian chora is unknown; partly because it quite
early on became a part of the remote chora of Chersonesos and, consequently,
was slightly transformed and partly because its core part is now hidden under
the modern day city of evpatorija.
Let us then approach this problem from another point of view – taking as
a point of departure the minimal necessities required for the normal mainte-
nance of a small polis such as kerkinitis. the central point of this reconstruc-
tion is based on my estimate of the city’s population in the middle of the 4th
century BC, which amounted to c. 2,000-2,200 people.13 this, in turn, is based
on the analysis of the density of the buildings and the city’s accommodation
capabilities. the second point in our analysis is the estimation of an annual
average consumption. in the tavričeskaja Province in the first half of the 19th
century, the average consumption rate was set at 310 kg of wheat per person
per year. Based on this rate, the annual consumption of the whole population
of kerkinitis would make up 620-682 tonnes of wheat. With an average yield
at seven hectolitres per hectare such a quantity of wheat can be produced
on an area of about 877.6-965.3 ha, and, in the case of a fallow system, on
an area of about 1,755.2-1,930.6 ha. taking into account the amount of grain
to be produced for export, these figures should be enlarged by c. 30%, thus
making up 2,281.8-2,509.8 ha. Sowing a half of this area at a rate of 112.8 kg
per hectare would require an additional area of 420-470 hectares to produce
seeds. this leaves us with a total of 2,700-2,980 ha.14
in the 19th and early 20th century about one third of the sown area in the
evpatorija District (32%) was set aside for barley. Since fodder crops occupied
a half of the cultivated territory (51%) and the kerkinitians did not cultivate
oats and maize, all of this territory (1,350-1,490 ha) could have been planted
with barley. Such a high percentage of barley was assuredly connected with
a fairly high stock of cattle. the last fact finds an explanation in the quality of
Crimean soils – dense and laborious for tillage due to the compact thickness
of the chernozems and their underlying loams. their ploughing normally
required three to five pairs of oxen.15
in spite of the kerkinitian agriculture’s specialization in grain-producing,
a certain area (about 10% of the whole area of c. 4,050-4,470 ha) was prob-
ably reserved for the production of secondary crops, namely emmer (Tr.
dicoccum), legumes and vines, as well as for gardens and kitchen-gardens
(450-497 ha). our calculations will be incomplete if we ignore the state land
and sacred land (Plat. Leg. 5.738; arist. Pol. 1267b; 1330a), which usually,
keeping in mind the remark of thukydides (3.50.2), are estimated at 1/10
to 1/5 of all lands.16 Finally, the territories for pasture and haying should
also be taken into consideration. taking into account the quantity of cattle
required for ploughing and dairy products as well as the number of sheep
one should add at least a third again to the whole area of land. unsatisfac-
tory lands in the late-19th-century evpatorija Districts comprised on average
5.6% of the whole territory. thus, all these calculations give a total of 7,941
to 8,764 hectares for the whole chora of kerkinitis, i.e. 5-6 times more than
i presumed before.17 in the case of a less productive two-field system the
territory of the polis must have been even larger. the above estimations are
summarized in table 1.
the above calculations are based on the minimal needs of a polis with
an estimated minimum population living within the city-walls. in fact, at
the height of its flourishing, kerkinitis like other small poleis of the northern
Black Sea coast may have possessed a number of rural, but eventually forti-
fied sites, which so far have not been discovered. in this case, the figures we
have arrived at will increase.
table 1. Estimated distribution of lands in Kerkinits.

area (ha) % of tillage % of total area
arable lands 5,050-5,519 100.0 63.0
including: 2,700-2,980 54.0 34.0
land planted in wheat 1,350-1,490 27.0 17.0
land planted in barley 450-497 9.0 5.7
secondary cultures 550-552 10.0 6.3
Pastures 2,496-2,755 – 31.4
unsatisfactory lands 445-490 – 5.6
total area 7,991-8,764 100
according to the same method of calculation, in the beginning of the 5th

century BC and at the turn of the 5th and 4th centuries BC the polis of kerki-
nitis, the population of which at that time can be estimated at 1,200-1,400 and
1,600-1,800, would have possessed a territory of 4,765-5,577 and 6,353-7,171
hectares respectively. the estimated size of the rural territory of kerkinitis in
the middle of the 4th century BC is comparable with the Chersonesean chora
on the herakleian and tarchankut Peninsulas, each part of which occupies
an area of c. 100 km2.18
kerkinitis is mentioned in the athenian tribute List of 425/424 BC where
its tribute quota is set at 3,000 drachmas.19 to make such a payment possible,
one had to sell on the athenian market only 600 medimnoi (or 23.5 tonnes) of
wheat at 5 drachmas per medimnos (cf. Dem. 34.39). this price includes the
payment of a c. 22.5-30.0% interest on a loan (Dem. 35.10-11) and a similar
percentage for the merchant’s profit. therefore, the actual price of wheat on
the northern coast of the Black Sea could hardly have exceeded 3.0-3.3 drach-
mas per medimnos. hence, the payment of the above-mentioned phoros would
cost the city c. 35-39 tonnes of wheat or one tenth of the average amount in-
tended for export yearly in the 4th century BC. this implies that in the most
favourable years the polis could effortlessly pay tribute to the Delian League.
after all amendments to the above calculations, regarding the fifth-century
period, one should admit that such a phoros was a feasible duty even for a
small polis. our calculations confirm the restoration of the tribute quota which
has survived on the stone: [X]XX. if, however, the missing letter indicates one
talent ([t]XX), the total amount of tribute would be raises to 8,000 drachmas.
to afford this, the city would need to sell 95 tonnes of grain, which would
make up about a quarter of the whole wheat export. this would certainly be
an onerous duty for the city like kerkinitis.
Discussing the natural geographical borders of the kerkinitian chora, one
should note that approximately one third of the calculated area would oc-
cupy the 7 km-wide stripe of land between Bogaj Bay on the Sasyk-Sivaš Lake
and the mojnak Lake. the Donuzlav Lake serves as a natural north-western
border for the polis’s territory. Joining the sea at a distance of 40 km from the
Quarantine Cape (the site of kerkinitis), it stretches very far inland. towards
the south-east the chora could occupy the 25 km-long coast line including the
Lakes of Sasyk-Sivaš, Saki and kizil-Jar, from which a continuous coastal
cliff intersected by the valleys of the main Crimean rivers begins.20 taking
into consideration the fact that the territory between the aforementioned
lakes could be covered by oak-groves or dense forests, the chora of kerkinitis
might also have stretched in the opposite direction. in this case, the rural ter-
ritory of the polis must be associated with archaeological sites datable to the
period prior to the final quarter of the 4th century BC when this region was
colonized by Chersonesos.
Notes
1 the main ideas of this paper were discussed in the following publications by
the author: kutajsov 1999, 83-93; 2001, 134-144; 2002, 291-307; 2003, 92-106; 2004,
13-45.
2 Dzens-Litovskij 1935, 78; 1936, 50, 54; Šnitnikov 1957, 284; 1969, 113; Chotinskij
1977, 151, 165; rauner 1981, tаb. 1; Podgorodeckij 1975, 9.
3 Januševič, 1976, 78-79, 89-90, 93-95; 1986, 45-50; Janushevich 1978, 14-15; Januševič
& kuz’minova 1989, 45, 49.
4 kutajsov 2004, 18.
5 Januševič 1986, 68; yanuchevitch, nikolayenko & kuzminova 1985, 115-122.
6 kutajsov 2003, 94, fig. 2.
7 kolesnikov 1998, 125-142.
8 kutajsov 2002, 92-106; 2004, 24-26.
9 For a very helpful discussion of this issue, see isager & Skydsgaard 1992, 108-114
(Eds.).
10 Janushevich 1975, 27; 1984, 270; 1986, 54.
11 Cf. now Stolba 2005, 307-311.
12 kutajsov 2002, 291-300; 2004, 31-33.
13 kutajsov 1990, 139.
14 kutajsov 2001, 135.
15 kutajsov 2001, 134-144; 2004, 36.
16 andreev 1983, 268; Zubar’ 1993, 17.
17 kutajsov 1990, 150.
18 Chtcheglov 1992, 253-254, 258; vinogradov & Ščeglov 1990, 319-320, 330; niko-
laenko 2001, 3.
19 meritt, Wade-gery & mcgregor 1939, a-9.iv.165. For an alternative reconstruction
of this fragment, see Avram 15, 15‑1 (Eds.)
20 Cf. Lancov 1991, 9; 1994, 92-93.
Bibliography
andreev, v.n. 1983. agrarnye otnošenija v attike v v-iv vv. do n.e., in: e.S.
golubcova et al. (eds.), Antičnaja Grecija. i. Stanovlenie i razvitie polisa.
moskva, 247-326.
avram, a. 1995. Poleis und nicht-Poleis im ersten und Zweiten attischen See-
bund, in: m.h. hansen & k. raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek
Polis (CPCPapers, 2 = historia. einzelschriften, 95). Stuttgart, 191-200.
Chotinskij, n.a. 1977. Golocen Severnoj Evrazii. Opyt transkontinental’noj kor‑
reljacii etapov razvitija rastitel’nosti i klimata. moskva.
Chtcheglov, a. 1992. Polis et chora: Cité et territoire dans le Pont‑Euxin (annales
littéraires de l’université de Besançon, 476). Paris.
Dzens-Litovskij, a.i. 1935. geologija rajona Sakskogo ozera, in: Saki‑kurort.
Materialy izučenija razvitija kurortno‑lečebnych i estestvenno‑biologičeskich
faktorov Sakskogo ozera i rajona. Simferopol’, 31-94.
Dzens-Litovskij, a.i. 1936. geologičeskij vozrast donnych solevych otloženij
mineral’nych ozer, Priroda 12, 42-57.
isager, S. & J.e. Skydsgaard 1992. Ancient Greek Agriculture. London.
Janushevich Z.v. 1975. Fossil remains of Cultivated Plants in the South-West
of the Soviet union, Folia quaternaria 46, 23-30.
Janushevich Z.v. 1978. Prehistoric Food Plants in the South-West of the Soviet
union, Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 91, 59-66.
Janushevich Z.v. 1984. the Specific Composition of Wheat Finds from ancient
agricultural Centres in the uSSr, in: W. van Zeist & W. a. Casparie (eds.),
Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Palaeoethnobotany. Proceedings of the 6th
Symposium of the IWGP. rotterdam, 267-273.
Januševič, Z.v. 1976. Kul’turnye rastenija jugo‑zapada SSSR po paleobotaničeskim
issledovanijam. kišinev.
Januševič, Z.v. 1978. Kul’turnye rastenija pervobytnogo perioda i srednevekov’ja
na jugo‑zapade SSSR. kišinev. abstract of habil. dissertation.
Januševič, Z.v. 1986. Kul’turnye rastenija Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. Paleobotani‑
českie issledovanija. kišinev.
Januševič, Z.v. & n.n. kuz’minova 1989. vozniknovenie i razvitie zemledelija
v Severnom Pričernomor’e po paleobotaničeskim dannym, Botaničeskie
issledovanija 5, kišinev, 38-50.
kolesnikov, a.B. 1998. k interpretacii istočnikov po antičnomu vinogradar-
stvu, Drevnosti Bospora 1, moskva, 125-142.
kutajsov v.a. 1990. Antičnyj gorod Kerkinitida (VI‑II vv. do. n.e.). kiev.
kutajsov v.a. 1999. agrarnaja istorija kerkinitidy, ChSbor 10, 83-93.
kutajsov v.a. 2001. Paleoekonomičeskaja model’ razvitija chory klassičeskogo
polisa Severnogo Pričernomor’ja (na primere kerkinitidy), Problemy istorii,
filologii, kul’tury 10, Мoskva-magnitogorsk, 134-144.
kutajsov, v.a. 2002. Problemy agrarnoj istorii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja,
Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury 12, Мoskva-magnitogorsk, 291-307.
kutajsov, v.a. 2003. agrarnaja istorija kerkinitidy. ii, ChSbor 12, 92-106.
kutajsov v.a. 2004. Kerkinitida v antičnuju epochu. kiev.
Lancov, S.B. 1991. Zapadnyj Krym v sostave Chersonesskogo gosudarstva. kiev.
abstract of PhD dissertation.
Lancov, S.B. 1994. antičnoe poselenie novo-Fedorovka i nekotorye voprosy
istorii chersonesskoj chory, in: kutajsov, v.a. (ed.), Severo‑Zapadnyj Krym
v antičnuju epochu. kiev, 71-104.
meritt B.D., h.t. Wade-gery & m.F. mcgregor 1939. The Athenian Tribute
Lists. vol. 1. Cambridge, mass.-Princeton.
nikolaenko, g.m.. 2001. Chora Chersonesa Tavričeskogo. ii. Zemel’nyj kadastr
IV‑III vv. do n.e. Sevastopol’.
Podgrorodeckij, P.D. 1975. tarchankut (istoriko-fiziko-geografičeskaja charak-
teristika), in: Territorial’nye sistemy prirody i chozjajstva Kryma. Leningrad,
4-16.
rauner, Ju.L. 1981. Dinamika ekstemumov uvlažnenija za istoričeskij period,
Izvestija AN SSSR, Ser. geograf. 6, 5-22.
Stolba, v.F. 2005. the oath of Chersonesos and the Chersonesean economy
brielsen (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing. The New World of Ancient
Šnitnikov, a.v. 1957. Izmenčivost’ obščej uvlažnennosti materikov Severnogo
polušarija (Zapiski geografičeskogo obščestva SSSr, nov. ser., 16).
Šnitnikov, a.v. 1969. Vnutrivekovaja izmenčivost’ komponentov obščej uvlažnennosti.
Očerki. Leningrad.
vinogradov, Ju.g. & a.n. Ščeglov 1990. obrazovanie territorial’nogo Cher-
sonesskogo gosudarstva, in: e.S. golubcova (ed.), Ellinizm: ekonomika,
politika, kul’tura. moskva, 310-371.
yanuchevitch Z., g. nikolayenko & n. kuzminova 1985. La viticulture a
Chersonèse de taurique aux ive-iie siècles av. n.è. d’après les recherches
archéologiques et paléoethnobotaniques, RA 1, 115-122.
Zubar’, v.m. 1993. Chersones Tavričeskij v antičnuju epochu (ekonomika i social’nye
otnošenija). kiev.
Abbreviations
ChSbor Chersonesskij Sbornik. Sevastopol’.
CPCPapers Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre.
the Chora of tauric Chersonesos and the
Cadastre of the 4th-2nd Century BC
Galina M. Nikolaenko
tauric Chersonesos can boast of many centuries’ history of agriculture.1 the

formative years of the development of an agricultural territory and land divi-
sion are normally of special interest to investigators. a considerable number
of field studies and scientific publications have been devoted to researching
these problems. Despite the results already obtained, however, there are still
many questions to be answered, in particular, concerning the socio-economic
history of the Chersonesean State and its cadastre.
one of the main sources used for determining the scale of the cadastre are
topographical maps showing the location of plots, different types of struc-
tures and other remnants of land tenure. the creation of such topographical
maps reflecting the archaeological situation has been the primary goal of
the herakleian expedition of the Chersonesos Preserve. a comprehensive
investigation of the monuments, including excavations and prospection of
farm sites, geophysical survey, and palaeobotanic study of plant remains has
Fig. 1. View of Sevastopol Bay and the Herakleian Peninsula, 150s (after Ju. Skorikov).
152 Galina M. Nikolaenko
Bratskoe kladbišče
2nd Cordon
Karantinnaja Ra
Mikrjukov Ravine
Streleck
vine
Čer
Lagernaja Ravine
aja
na
ja R
Ravine
ive
r
Ve
rch
ne
-Ju
c ha
rina
R av
Di
in e
an
a’s
G
ro
Berman Ravine
ve
v. Oboronnoe
Karan’
Fig. 2. Settlements of the 2nd millennium BC (after L. Solov’ev, S. Strželeckij and О.

Savelja).
been conducted since 1973. the results of this comprehensive archaeologi-

cal research in the chora nearest to Chersonesos have enabled us to create a
sequence of maps reflecting the spatial development of the chora in the Clas-
sical and hellenistic periods.
the territory of the chora immediately adjacent to Chersonesos is divided
by the Sevastopol’ Bay, which is a continuation of the Černaja river, into two
parts: the northern and the southern sides (Fig. 1).
the northern side on the west has steep banks eroded by the surf, while
the rocky heights on its eastern side rise up to 120 m above sea level. the
southern side, which is a part of the herakleian Peninsula, forms a plateau
sloping towards north-west. its highest points are rocky, wild cliffs between
the Chersonesos Lighthouse, Cape Fiolent, St. george monastery, and kaja-Baš
hill (305.9 m above sea level). the shores of numerous bays, the slopes of
ravines sheltered from cold winds, and the fertile valleys of the area were
inhabited long before the foundation of tauric Chersonesos and the organi-
zation of its chora on the herakleian Peninsula.
The Chora of Tauric Chersonesos and the Cadastre 153
the earliest discoveries made date to the 2nd millennium BC. a total of
about 10 settlements of that time are known in this area (Fig. 2).
a large number of settlements that appeared in the 1st millennium BC are
known.2 most not only predated, but also existed at the time of Chersonesos’
foundation (Fig. 3). Some of these settlements were located on the shores of
the karantinnaja Bay. one, covering a considerable area, as S. Strželeckij be-
lieves, originally occupied the eastern side of the karantinnaja Bay (file 1343,
139).3 excavations yielded fragments of stone and flint tools, nuclei, flakes as
well as handmade vessels with applied decoration.
the archaic material proves that in the last quarter of the 6th century BC a
greek settlement was founded here. the apoikia foundation seems to have been
a joint venture on the part of the Dorian herakleiots and the ionian Sinope-
v. Zarja Svobody
Bratskoe kladbišče
2nd Cordon
Karantinnaja Ra
Mikr
juko
v Ra
vine
Sarandin
Streleckaj
Če
vine
Sacharnaja
rna
akin Ravin
Lagernaja Ravine Golovka

ja
aR
R
ive
avine
r
e
Ve
rc
h ne Telegrafnaja Mountain
-Ju French cemetery
c ha
r Fedju
in c hin H
aR 5-7 km eight
av s
Di
in Bezymjannaja Height
an
e
a’s
G
ro
Berman Ravine
ve
Karan’ v. Oboronnoe
Burial sites and tumuli of the 2nd
millennium BC
Settlements of the 2nd millennium BC
Settlements of the 1st millennium BC
Burial sites of the 1st millennium BC
Fig. 3. Settlements of the first half of the 1st millennium BC (after L. Solov’ev, S. Strželeckij
and О. Savelja).
ans, with the herakleiots predominating. among the abundant archaeological

finds from this period are ionian table wares from the last quarter of the 6th
century to the second quarter of the 5th century BC and fragmentary Chian
amphorae from the second half of the 6th century to the first half of the 5th
century BC.4 the problem of the co-existence of the kizil-koba culture and
archaic greek settlements is still open to debate, as the cultural layers of the
period preceding the foundation of Chersonesos have not yet been revealed.
nevertheless, fragments of slightly polished handmade wares with combed
decoration occur in the late Classical and hellenistic layers in the site of
Chersonesos. these finds seem contemporaneous with the greek layers, in
which they have been found. recently, a.n. Ščeglov has published material
from a settlement excavated on the isthmus of the majačnyj Peninsula. as-
signing these finds to the late 6th or early 5th century BC, he assumed that
there was here an archaic greek settlement contemporaneous with the early
Chersonesean settlement (Fig. 16).5
apparently, this settlement, like the Chersonesean one, appeared nearby or
on the ruins of the native site, remains of which were traced by S.F. Strželeckij.
he has found numerous fragments of handmade pottery and a laurel-leaved
flint spearhead (acquisition book nos. 722-723). these finds surely came from
the lowest layer of the site belonging to the kizil-koba settlement and dat-
able to the first half of the 1st millennium BC. the site’s north-western area,
was surrounded by a defensive wall (file 1343, 114-115) after the establish-
ment of the greek settlement. another kizil-koba site was discovered by our
field-survey team in october 1997, on the southern slope of the mramornaja
ravine. a recently dug trench has revealed household pits containing over
100 fragments of handmade black-polished ware. other finds include pieces
of round-bottomed vessels with thick walls. Some fragments are brown in
colour. among these are the lower part of a flat-bottomed vessel and some
fragments of pot rims. at the same place a flint arrowhead was found. the
material can, as a whole, be dated from the 8th to the 5th century BC.
Several kizil-koba settlements are known in the eastern part of the herak-
leian Peninsula as well. one of them, the uč-Baš, is located on a long cape
with 25-30 m high cliffs, situated between the kamenolomni ravine and the
Čertova ravine, on the left shore of the Černaja river. From this site there is
a fine view over the upper reaches of the Sevastopol’ Bay, the mouth of the
Černaja river, and the whole inkerman valley right up to the Fedjuchiny
heights. the cape’s northern extremity is separated from the rest of the area
by a rampart, up to 2 m in width and about 150 m in length, which functioned
as a defensive wall. in the central part of the wall, on the crest of the cape,
was a military site overlooking the area.
in the neighbourhood of the herakleian Peninsula – the Balaklava, inker-
man and Bel’bek valleys – several settlements dated to the 1st millennium BC
are known; all of them have yielded finds of greek pottery from the archaic,
Classical and early hellenistic periods. a fortified settlement and a burial
ground dating from the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennium to the 6th-5th
century BC were located on the mekenzievy hills, the region of the 2nd Cor-
don. the settlement measuring c. 1,500 m in circumference, was surrounded
by a stone rampart. the remains of the walls of houses and household pits
were found here. in surface surveys carried out by the State academy of the
history of material Culture in 1933, the investigators found a significant num-
ber of objects testifying to the main activities of the occupants – farming and
cattle-rearing, as well as spinning and weaving. not far from the settlement,
a large necropolis with burial stone cists was found (Fig. 4).
the gradual development of the nearby territories by the greek colonists
also continued after the foundation of the city of Chersonesos. it is evidenced
by the pottery of the late 5th-first half of the 4th century BC found in the
native settlements. the most intensive life in this period is observed in the
north-western coastal area of the Streleckaja, kamyševaja and kazač’ja Bays
as well as in the Berman ravine situated in the southern part of the herak-
leian Peninsula.
investigations conducted on the herakleian Peninsula for the last two de-
cades have brought to light a number of new settlements with greek pottery
attributed to the Classical period. the results of surface surveys and excava-
tions and the studies of aerial photographs from the 1940s, 60s and 90s, as
well as the materials of archives and collections, have revealed traces of an
earlier grid division overlaid by the comprehensive grid plan of the second
Fig. 4. Stone cists in the necropolis on the 2nd Cordon.

half of the 4th century BC in the different areas of the herakleian Peninsula.
these traces and also the finds of greek pottery in the cultural layers belong-
ing to the late 5th and first half of the 4th century BC are the main indicators
of the early chora division. the early chora covered the following areas: the
northern, adjoining Chersonesos; the western, on the majačnyj Peninsula; the
southern, between the Berman ravine, Cape Fiolent, and the mramornaja
ravine (Fig. 5).
the early chora, in its entirety, represents separate land cadastres, including
fortified and unfortified settlements located on the slopes of ravines and along
the shores of bays, and small plots arranged on the slopes and watersheds of
ravines in the immediate vicinity of the city and settlements.
the last quarter of the 6th to the first half of the 4th century BC was a period
of co-existence for greek and native populations on the herakleian Peninsula
and active occupation of the neighbouring valleys by greeks. this period sees
the development of the chora, the search for a major cash crop suitable to the
local conditions, a search later narrowed to grapes as a single crop cultivated
on the rocky lands of the herakleian Peninsula. the Swiss traveller Fr. Dubois
de montpéreux, in his detailed scholarly work from 1843, notes that
Fig. 5. Areas of early land division on the Herakleian Peninsula.

…the Chersoneseans were forced, from the very beginning of colonization, to

be locked within a narrow space of its peninsula and to be highly resource-
ful in developing their territory… the territory of the herakleian Peninsula
was marked by parallel lines to the entire length and width, intersected at
right angles. these division lines, remaining unchanged in the context of the
natural topography, spaced every ½-1 verst (1.06 km), became large country
roads. these rectangular plots flanked by stone walls were 15 feet wide…
along the roads were built dwellings or houses and these roads became, so
to speak, streets of a large city.6
By the mid-4th century BC Chersonesos started accomplishing the plan of

organization of the chora following the model representing the combination of
divided and undivided areas. First, the area and major axes of the whole grid
system were determined. roads, pre-existing as well as newly constructed,
served as the major axes. all the roads followed the natural contours of the
landscape, with the longitudinal roads stretched along the line of decreasing
Fig. 6. The first stage of land division.

Fig. 7. The second stage of land division.
height, i.e. from south-east to north-west. Some local deviations depended on

the topographic features. the land division was based on a grid system, using
a common module, the egyptian Stade, equivalent to 210 m, and its deriva-
tives. the grid system incorporated five longitudinal axial roads, roads C,
h, m, r, X and five transverse roads, designated by roman numerals i, vii,
Xii, Xvii, XXi, intersected at an angle of 93 and 87 degrees. the outer roads,
both longitudinal and transverse, embraced an area of slightly over 10,000 ha
to be divided into plots (Figs. 6-7).
the land division went though three stages: During the first stage the two
principal axes, the longitudinal and the transverse, were determined. road m
appears to have been chosen as the principal longitudinal axis, while road Xii
was the principal transverse axis. the intersection of these two roads forms
the centre of the divided territory. From this point, at each 2 km or 10 stadia
along the longitudinal axis, and at each 3 km or 15 stadia along the transverse
axis, the points of intersection with the rest of the axial roads were marked.
this was done in order to have five standard plots on both the longitudinal
and transverse sides of each square.
Fig. .
The road at the intersection be‑
tween Plots 7 and 12, 2003.
at the second stage, efforts were focused on laying out the remaining axial
roads. Flanking walls for the individual plots at each 210 m or 1 stade were
drawn dividing almost the whole territory into squares measuring 4.4 ha or
36 plethra. in the third stage, after each third square (in some cases, each sec-
ond square) on the nW-Se axis and after every second square in the ne-SW
axis, division roads were built (Fig. 8).
as a result of the work done, the territory was turned into a number of
plots, each measuring 26.4 ha (216 plethra) and 17.6 ha (144 plethra). Stone
walls subdivided each plot into fields of 4.4 ha (36 plethra). the lots of the
early chora were integrated into the new grid. Some roads, which have played
an important role in life of the population throughout the centuries, have
been preserved. two examples are road v, the “Large Chersonesean road’,
that connected Chersonesos with the north-western coastal part of the chora
and road J, the longest longitudinal road according to Dubois de mont-
péreux, which runs from the north-western coast, between the omega and
kamyševaja Bays, to the upper reaches of the mramornaja ravine in the south
(Figs. 9-11).
the length of road J is the same as that of the principal longitudinal road
m, i.e. 12.5 km or 60 stadia. its preservation and layout enraptured Dubois
de montpéreux:
the street that ran out of the rampart of Chersonesos at the right angle
[road v] led to the longest line of Chersonesos [road J], crossing the ravines
over well-preserved stone bridges. By following it one can pass through a
number of extensive farm sites, then rise to the crest of the hill on which a
deep rut left in the rock is still visible. another row of beautiful farm sites
of Chersonesos borders the street from the right side and at last one can
reach the top of the remarkable ravine [i.e. the mramornaja ravine], which
i have already described above.7
Fig. . The third stage of land division.
the Large Chersonesean road, road v, is a wide arterial road (34-40 feet)
stretching along the smooth terrain from the main gates of Chersonesos to
the fortifications on the isthmus of the majačnyj Peninsula. So far, c. 430 plots
separated by bordering and arterial roads have been revealed within the ter-
ritory of the nearer chora. their size varies between 15-17 and 26-30 ha.
the divided chora was further parcelled out. each square of 36 plethra
was divided into fields with sides of 52.5 and 105 m (1/4 and 1/2 stade re-
spectively) forming standard fractions of 36 plethra.8 the employment of a
basic module and its fractions allowed the allotment of shares of any preset
size during the land division and subsequent re-allotment of land. Planting
walls subdivided each field into vineyards which would cover the space of
the divided chora later on.
Within a few decades, the divided territory was covered with farmhouses
fortified by towers. as mentioned, the first construction period starts in the
mid-4th century BC. this is evidenced by the dating of stamped Sinopean
roof tiles found in farmhouses on Plots 6, 46, and 57. a stamped Sinopean
pithos and amphora, found in the farmhouse of Plot 6, can be attributed to
the same period. also, to the mid-4th century BC belongs a stamped handle
Fig. 10. Areas between the Streleckaja and Omega Bays. Aerial photograph, 160s.
of a Sinopean amphora found on the road between Plots 7 and 12 near the
farmhouse of Plot 12. the second period starts in the 340s BC. During this
period, construction activities take place on the eastern side of the Streleckaja
Bay (Plot 87), on the shore of the kamyšovaja Bay (Plot 8a), on Plots 26, 100
(old 91), 172 (old 106), and 60 (Farm 3). here a significant amount of stamped
Fig. 11. The Herakleian Peninsula. The land division system with plots numbered. Second half
of the 4th century BC.
Sinopean roof tiles from the 340s BC were found. the third period, which can
be dated to the 330s, is characterized by extensive farmhouse construction.
along with stamped tiles from Sinope, Chersonesean tiles began to appear,
and a few years later, in 325 BC, Chersonesos started a large-scale local pro-
duction of stamped amphorae. Chersonesean coins dating from 350-330 BC
to 330-320 BC, according to the chronology of v. anochin (1977), were found
at almost every site in the territory.
a total of 2,360-2,380 fields of 4.4 ha (36 plethra), which cover an area of

84,960-85,680 plethra, were documented in the territory of the herakleian
Peninsula, including the majačnyj Peninsula, during the hellenistic period.
they accommodated around 200 houses and other buildings. at some farm
sites dating to the second half to the third quarter of the 4th century BC, entire
settlements were constructed instead of isolated farmhouses.
the system of land allotment employed in the herakleian Peninsula was
extended to cover the distant chora of the state of Chersonesos as well. Prob-
ably, the land covering the watershed between the northern side of the Sev-
astopol’ Bay and the Bel’bek river was subject to land division too. this sug-
gestion is supported by aerial photographs and the results of our surveys.
thus, a total of 360,000-390,000 plethra or 44,100-48,000 ha of divided land was
documented in the chora of Chersonesos. it includes three tracts of 81,000 ple‑
thra each: (1) the herakleian Peninsula, (2) the territory between the kizil-Jar
and Donuzlav Lakes, and (3) the tarchankut Peninsula, between the karadža
settlement and kalos Limen, as well as three smaller areas of 41,000-49,000
plethra each: (1) between the kača and al’ma rivers, (2) from the settlement
of Donuzlav South to Cape ojrat, and (3) the territory between the settlements
of Panskoe i and masliny.
the divided chora on the northern side of Sevastopol measures between
40,000 and 50,000 plethra. if the land between the Bel’bek and kača rivers was
also divided, this area would make up another 40,000-50,000 plethra. thus,
in the third quarter of the 4th century BC, half of the agricultural territory
of Chersonesos was organized into a system of regular plots, the division of
which was based on the concept of employing a single module.
Literary and epigraphic sources prove that the chora was divided into sev-
eral categories: the main land allotted to the citizens as individual plots and
the “remainder”, whose benefits were allocated to meeting the community’s
needs, as well as used for allotting land to new settlers.9 in accordance with
custom, one tenth of the land was allocated as sacred land (thuc. 3.50.2).
in the northern and north-western part of the herakleian Peninsula, a great
number of farms were located on the shores of bays and along the roads lead-
ing to the bays, every plot having only one farmhouse. usually these farms
were fortified with a tower and possessed large wineries with spacious cellars
containing from 10 to 20, sometimes more, pithoi. the location of farms with
their wine-making complexes and large storages along the roads leading to
the port (for example, farms of Plots 6 and 26) or in the immediate vicinity
of the port (farms of Plots 9, 41, 101a) was based on a well conceived plan
aimed at saving time in delivering finished products to the port. Such farms,
usually those of large size, seem to have been not private but collective hold-
ings (Figs. 12-13).
Characteristic of some areas in the herakleian Peninsula is the absence of
any building structures. among them are the plots in area X which lies in the
south-western coastal region. the terrain is flat, but with steep drops. on the
Fig. 12.
The farm of Plot 13.
stretch of coast, between transverse roads iX-Xiv and Longitudinal road F,

no hellenistic structures have been found. in our opinion, this area covering
more than 5,500 plethra, i.e. 6.5% of the total amount of the divided territory,
may have originally been the reserved lands. it would have been convenient
to have a block of already prepared plots in stock.
there were several ports in the divided territory. the north-western coastal
area had ports in the Streleckaja, kamyševaja, and kazač’ja Bays. Descrip-
tions of the Streleckaja and kamyševaja Bays were provided above. Surveys
Fig. 13. The wine‑making complex of the farm of Plot 41.

of the northern part of a fortified settlement located on the western shore of

the kazač’ja Bay allow us to make the following conclusions about its use as
a port: in the hellenistic period the bay was somewhat shorter and shallower.
the part of the bay, which is nowadays a small island, was furnished with the
flanking tower of the eastern defensive wall and represented in fact the ravine
bottom.10 the port facilities including dry docks and warehouses may have
been here. Dwellings and household structures for the settlement occupied
the rocky terraces of the slope. excavations and surveys have shown that in
hellenistic times there were at least four tiers of terraces. the inhabitants of
the settlement seem to have served not only the port but also the lighthouse
at the extremity of the cape, to which a road led starting from the shore and
passing 150 m north-east of the northern wall.11
Probably around 350 BC, the southern section of the early divided chora
on the majačnyj Peninsula was covered by the western defensive wall built
along the ridge of the isthmus. to judge from their plans and masonry, build-
ing remains unearthed in this particular area represent the remnants of an
original land division system. Later, they were adapted to other household
purposes. to our mind, they may be identified as warehouses arranged along
the western wall in two rows of small rooms flanking the street that connected
this area to the port (Fig. 15).
Lying at the edge of the north-eastern divided chora of the herakleian
Peninsula, the Južnaja Bay sheltered by its steep slopes from strong winds
is the most convenient place for mooring. We would suggest that precisely
this bay is mentioned in the tale of gykia of Chersonesos, where it is named
“Limon” (Const. Porph. De adm. imp. 53). going by the distance, on the route
chosen by the Bosporans on their way back to the Symbolon Limen, there
could only have been one bay, namely the Južnaja Bay, they could have
turned to (Fig. 14).
Fig. 14. The Južnaja (South) Bay. The upper reaches of the bay are in the foreground. Photo‑
graph from the early 20th century.
Lime kiln
Salt
lake
Krasinskij’s
farm
Stone
quarry
Vjazemska-
Michajli’s
farm
Lime
kiln
Uchtomskij’s
farm
Guber Ame-
tistov’s farm
Fig. 15. Land divisions on the Majačnyj Peninsula, 110‑111 (after N. Pečenkin).
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in the course of various construction
projects, remains of a large port settlement were investigated. the cultural
layer extended about 100 m on the left slope of the Južnaja Bay and into its
upper reaches. the settlement appeared in the early hellenistic period, and
Fig. 16. The northern part of the settlement on the western shore of the Kazač’ja Bay excavated
in 2002.
an enormous quantity of tableware and amphora fragments, mainly of Cher-

sonesean production dating, according to v. kac (1994), to 325-265 BC were
collected on the site.
the upper reaches of the Sevastopol’ Bay, at the estuary of the Černaja
river, is the likely site of the port of ktenous. ktenous could have been used
by the taurians as an inland port even before the greek colonization, and
thus has been linked with their principal harbour Symbolon Limen. Speaking
about ktenous, Strabon mentions that it was equidistant from Chersonesos
and from Symbolon Limen, i.e. 40 stadia or about 8.5 km. the distance in a
straight line from the walls of Chersonesos to the upper reaches of the Sev-
astopol Bay and the estuary of the Černaja river does not exceed 9 km or 43
stadia, and that from Balaklava, 9-9.5 km or 45 stadia. the imaginary point of
intersection is the area of the Čertova ravine and the uč-Baš.
in the home chora of Chersonesos, among the public land holdings were
also the sacred lands. the availability of the sacred land in the Chersonesean
state is evidenced by the decrees which refer to treasurers of sacred sums
(IOSPE i2, 408, 412). usually the sacred land was state property which was
leased out for the benefit of the city treasury.12 We can state with confidence
that part of the polis’ sacred land was located on the majačnyj Peninsula.
the ceramic material recovered from the sites includes a few fragments of
containers and a considerable number of black-glazed vessels, mostly kylikes,
kantharoi, alabastra, but also salt-cellars and fish-plates. among other finds are
black-glazed lamps and miniature terracotta altars.13 While the herakleian
sites yield mainly transport and storage pottery, black-glazed fragments con-
stituting only 3-4% of the whole pottery assemblage, here the finds of imported
high-quality black-glazed ware predominate.
in 1993, on Plot 53a a two-chambered structure built of rubble was ex-
cavated. the peculiarities of its plan – rock-cut pits in the corners of a large
room and outside the building, as well as the finds of coins, kantharoi, lamps,
among which are black-glazed fragments – allow us to suggest a ritual pur-
pose for this structure. it was a roadside shrine from the second half of the
4th century BC, located at a vine nursery garden.14 it is commonly believed
that a sanctuary of Parthenos, Dionysos, and herakles was located in the ter-
ritory of the majačnyj Peninsula. the named peculiarities of the area allow us
to interpret this as sacred land belonging to the sanctuary.
Fig. 17.
The fortified settlement at the
Bezymjannaja Hill. The horos
is in the foreground, 17.
Fig. 1. The nearer chora of Chersonesos in the 4th‑2nd centuries BC.
to the remaining part of the divided chora may be assigned the territory
occupied by agricultural settlements. it is evident that the boundaries of the
settlements included in this system were designated by special boundary
markers, horoi. two such markers were found in the course of the herak-
leian expedition’s excavations of fortified complexes at the Berman ravine
and Bezymjannaja hill (Fig. 17). the settlements seem to have been located
between the plots belonging to a group of citizens or phyle. axial roads, roads
between settlements as well as springs and bays could have served as bound-
aries. Some hellenistic settlements occupied the south-eastern edge of the
herakleian Peninsula (Fig. 18).
the distance from Chersonesos to the nearest settlements in the upper
reaches of the karantinnaja Bay and those at the cape between the Pesočnaja
and Streleckaja Bays is 2,500-3,000 m or 12-15 stadia. the distance to the next
ones in the Lagernaja and kilen ravines is 5,000-8,000 m or 25-30 stadia. to

the upper reaches of the kazač’ja Bay, the Berman ravine, the Bezymjannaja
hill, the Chomutova ravine, the uč-Baš, the taš-kule, the uročišče of “Cau-
casus”, the vodokanal, the inkerman, the mekenzievy heights, the 4th Sector
and a settlement in the territory of the S. Perovskaja Collective Farm there are
10,000-12,000 m or 50-60 stadia; to the mramornaja ravine, the vinogradnaja
hill, the Fedjuchiny heights, the Sacharnaja golovka, 15,000-17,000 m or
70-80 stadia. Finally, to the boundaries of the area where the early hellenistic
material including that from Chersonesos was found, there are 20,000-22,000
m or 100-110 stadia.
the remains of a pottery workshop excavated by n.m. Pečenkin in 1903 at
the estuary of the Bel’bek river prove that this suburban area was associated
with pottery production. Probably this is a part of the territory mentioned
in the oath of Chersonesos as the land which the city “master or mastered”
(IOSPE i2, 401). Farther north, a watershed, approximately 5 km wide, lies
between the Bel’bek and kača rivers. no evidence of hellenistic-period habi-
tation has been found here so far, possibly because we know too little about
this area.
in the next watershed, between the kača and al’ma rivers, traces of two
early hellenistic settlements were found. one of them is the settlement of
vilino located on the right bank of the al’ma river. Judging by the surface
survey, it was established in the last decades of the 4th century BC and ex-
isted until the 2nd century BC.15 evidence for another settlement of the same
period was found 3.5 km to the north-west from vilino.16 Both settlements
were situated in the area of land divisions discovered by Čuklin and L.a. moi-
seev. here, on the seashore, S.B. Lancov suggests the existence of an ancient
settlement or even a fortress, which could have served as a base for further
colonisation of the region by Chersonesos.17
Farther north-west, on the tarchankut Peninsula, “other fortifications” of
the Chersonesean state, located between the tracts of divided land, are known.
Discussions continue as to the interpretation of a fragmentary inscription de-
scribing the sale or rent of land (IOSPE i2, 403). this text implies that the plots
in the territory of north-western Crimea could have belonged to the citizens of
Chersonesos.18 if so, the amount of land actually possessed by a Chersonesean
citizen when the polis dominated the territory of the north-western Crimea
consisted of two parcels or more.
all settlements, fortifications and divided areas of the north-western
Crimea are located at a relatively short distance from each other, within the
line-of-sight range. Such organization of the chora complies with aristoteles’
principle that the territory of a polis and its population should be “easily vis-
ible” (arist. Pol. 1327a).
Conclusion
the archaeological maps revealing the step-by-step development of the nearby
chora of Chersonesos had a decisive influence on solving the problems associ-
ated with the organization of the territory on the herakleian Peninsula and
allowed us to make the following conclusions: it is beyond dispute that in
the late 6th century BC – the period of the foundation of an archaic greek
settlement on the shore of the karantinnaja Bay – the territory of the herak-
leian Peninsula was settled by indigenous tribes. in the last quarter of the 5th
century BC in the place of the archaic greek settlement the town appeared.
Spatial and economic development of Chersonesos resulted in an active and
purposeful development of the surrounding chora. greek settlements with
adjoining plots of land began to dot the herakleian Peninsula, taking over the
location of the native villages or settling nearby. the finds of greek pottery of
the late 5th to the first half of the 4th century BC in the strata of native sites, as
well as the discovery of burials belonging to the natives of that period, proves
that relations between greek and native populations were peaceful.
at the beginning of the second half of the 4th century BC, tauric Cher-
sonesos became an extensive territorial state. During this period, the division
of the greater part of the chora into lots took place applying a single module.
traces of land division revealed on the northern side of Sevastopol’ prove
that the entire coastal stretch of land was divided. it can be noted that the grid
pattern there is formed by alternating sections of land of larger and smaller
sizes. the combined area of the divided chora of the state of Chersonesos is
at least 55,000-60,000 ha or 450,000-550,000 plethra. it consists of three sec-
tions of 10,000 ha or 81,000 plethra each, and five sections of 5,000-6,000 ha or
41,000-50,000 plethra each. the territory of each section is subdivided into a
number of plots in its turn. the basic module is a plot or a field measuring 4.4
ha or 36 plethra. When completed, the system of plots on the herakleian Pen-
insula incorporated the earlier grid division and agricultural settlements.
the fringe areas of the divided chora fall into the category of sacred land.
if the area reserved for sacred land made up one tenth of all lands, in the
state of Chersonesos, sacred land would have occupied 45,000-55,000 plethra
or 5,000-6,000 ha of the total divided space. the sacred allotments prove to
have been interspersed among private holdings just as settlements and for-
tifications were. the remaining land consisting of about 10,000 plots, each of
36 plethra – may have been owned by the citizens of Chersonesos.
the western, undivided part of the herakleian Peninsula in the hellenistic
period was in possession of the Chersonesean community. here were situated
two harbours, Limon and aulita, while at the foot of the Sapun mountain
bordering the herakleian Peninsula on the eastern side, lay the port of kten-
ous. the discovery of greek and native settlements in this territory testify to
an intensive exploitation of this area in the rural economy of Chersonesos in
the 4th to 2nd centuries BC.
Notes
1 The author of the present paper was not able to attend the conference. Instead, her con‑
tribution was read by V. Stolba. The editors have decided to include the original paper
slightly revised by the editors, since to publish a book on the landscape archaeology of
Black Sea chorai without the important evidence of Chersonesos is inconceivable.
2 Savelja 1996, 13-17; 1997, 88-89.
3 Strželeckij’s file 1343, p. 139.
4 Zolotarev 1993, 4.
5 Ščeglov 1997, 53-54.
6 Dubois de montpéreux 1843/1846, 174-175, translated by the author.
7 Dubois de montpéreux 1843/1846, 297, translated by the author.
8 nikolaenko 1983, 15-16; 1985, 13.
9 arist. Pol. 1267b; 1330a; andreev 1967, 48-53; Jajlenko 1982, 170.
10 Ščeglov 1993, 22.
11 nikolaenko 1997b, 80-82.
12 Jajlenko 1982, 191, 243.
13 Pečenkin 1911, 112; nikolaenko 1997b, 210.
14 nikolaenko 1997b, 210-214; 1997a, 76-77.
15 Lancov 1989, 78-84; koltuchov, Zubar & myc 1992, 85-94.
16 koltuchov, Zubar & myc 1992, 85-94.
17 Lancov 1991, 103, 105-106; 1989, 78-84. Cf. koltuchov, Zubar & myc 1992, 92.
18 Solomonik & nikolaenko 1990, 88-93; vinogradov & Ščeglov 1990, 363-368.
Bibliography
andreev, v.n. 1967. attičeskoe obščestvennoe zemlevladenie v-iii vv. do
n.e., VDI 2, 48-76.
Dubois de montpéreux, F. 1843/1846. Voyage autour du Caucase, chez les Tcher‑
kesses et les Abkases, en Colchide, en Géorgie, en Arménie et en Crimée. Paris
1839-1843/Darmstadt 1846.
Jajlenko, v.P. 1982. Grečeskaja kolonizacija VII‑III vv. do n.e. moskva.
kac, v.i. 1994. Keramičeskie klejma Chersonesa Tavričeskogo. Katalog‑opredelitel’.
Saratov.
koltuchov, S.g., v.m. Zubar & v.L. myc 1992. novyj rajon chory Chersonesa
v ellinističeskij period, ArcheologijaKiiv 2, 85-95.
Lancov, S.B. 1989 antične poselennja bilja ozera kizil-Jar, ArcheologijaKiiv 3,
78-84.
Lancov, S.B. 1991. Zapadnyj Krym v sostave Chersonesskogo gosudarstva. kiev.
PhD thesis.
nikolaenko, g.m. 1983. Metrologija Chersonesa Tavričeskogo v ellinističeskij period
(po materialam IV‑II vv. do n.e.). kiev. abstract of a PhD thesis.
nikolaenko, g.m. 1985. meževanie polej chersonesskoj chory, KraSoob 182,
11-15.
nikolaenko, g.m. 1997a. issledovanija na majačnom poluostrove, 1993-1995
gg., ChSbor 8, 75-87.
nikolaenko, g.m. 1997b. raskopki usad’by na territorii nadela n151 na

geraklejskom poluostrove, in: v.a. kutajsov et al. (eds.), Archeologičeskie
issledovanija v Krymu v 14 g. Simferopol’, 222-224.
Pečenkin, n.m. 1911. archeologičeskie razvedki mestnosti Strabonovskogo
starogo Chersonesa, IAK 42, 108-126.
Savelja, o.Ja. 1994. raboty sevastopol’skoj ekspedicii, in: v.a. kutajsov et
al. (eds.), Archeologičeskie issledovanija v Krymu, 13 god. Simferopol’,
235-238.
Savelja, o.Ja. 1996. archeologičeskie materialy k istorii geraklejskogo po-
luostrova dokolonizacionnogo perioda, ChSbor 7, 13-19.
Savelja, o.Ja. 1997. nekotorye rezul’taty rabot Sevastopol’skoj archeologičeskoj
ekspedicii v okruge Chersonesa v 1990-1995 gg., ChSbor 7, 88-95.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1993. osnovnye strukturnye elementy antičnoj meževoj ževoj sistemy
na majačnom poluostrove (Jugo-Zapadnyj krym), in: Ju.m. mogaričev
(ed.), Istorija i archeologija Jugo‑Zapadnogo Kryma. Simferopol‘, 10-38.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1997. “Staryj” Chersones Strabona. ukreplenie na perešejke
majačnogo poluostrova: iii. Sledy archaičeskogo poselenija na
veršine kazač’ej buchty, in: i.n. Chrapunov et al. (eds.), Bachčisarajskij
istoriko‑arheologičeskij sbornik 1, Simferopol’, 42-54.
v načale iii v. do n.e. (k ioSPe i2, 403), VDI 2, 79-99.
Zolotarev, m.i. 1993. Chersonesskaja archaika. Sevastopol’.
Archival materials
Janyšev, n.m. 1932. Kratkoe opisanie drevnich sooruženij, nachodjaščichsja na
Geraklejskom poluostove. archives of nPtCh. File 21487.
moiseev, L.a. 1927. Otčet ob obsledovanii drevnich sooruženij na Geraklejskom
poluostove v Sevastopol’skom rajone. archives of nPtCh. File 1576.
nikolaenko, g.m. 1979. Otčet ekspedicii Chersonesskogo zapovednika ob ochran‑
nych kompleksnych issledovanijach na chore Chersonesa v 17 godu. archives
of nPtCh. File 2148.
Pečenkin, n.m. Razyskanija v mestnosti predpolagaemogo drevnego Chersonesa.
archives of nPtCh. File 182.
Savelja, o.Ja. 1993. epizodičeskie ochrannye dosledovanija v g. Sevastopole
v 1992 g., in: Otčet Sevastopol’skoj Archeologičeskoj ekspedicii o polevych issle‑
dovanijach v 12 g. archives of nPtCh. File 3123.
Solov’ev, L.n. Dnevniki razvedok 122‑127 gg. archives of nPtCh. Files
1384-1386.
Strželeckij, S.F. 1939. Otčet o raskopkach u Karantina. archives of nPtCh. File
1299.
Strželeckij, S.F. 1951. Očerki istorii Geraklejskogo poluostrova i ego okrugi v epochu
bronzy i rannego železa (ser. II tys. – V v. do n.e.) [With additions made in
1953-1954]. archives of nPtCh. File 1343.
Špak, D.o. 1902. Rukopis’ ob istorii Geraklejskogo poluostrova. archives of nPtCh.
File 217.
tachtaj, a.k. 1937a. Dnevnik raskopok u Streleckoj buchty v 137 g. archives of
nPtCh. File 351.
tachtaj, a.k. 1937b. Kratkij otčet o raskopkach u Streleckoj buchty v 137 g. ar-
chives of nPtCh. File 594.
vejmarn, e.v. 1935. Opisanie k al’bomu‑kartoteke čertežej ostatkov antičnych
sel’sko‑chozjajstvennych sooruženij na Geraklejskom poluostrove. archives of
nPtCh. File 1404/1.
Abbreviations
AO archeologičeskie otkrytija. moskva.
GAIMK gosudarstvennaja akademija istorii material’noj kul’tury.
ZOOID Zapiski odesskogo obščestva istorii i drevnostej. odessa.
IAK izvestija imperatorskoj archeologičeskoj komissii. St Peterburg.
KSIIMK kratkie soobščenija instituta istorii material’noj kul’tury.
moskva-Leningrad.
NPTCh national Preserve of tauric Chersonesos.
SMK Sevastopol’skij muzej kraevedenija.
ChSbor Chersonesskij sbornik. Sevastopol’.
IOSPE B. Latyschev, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini
Graecae et Latinae. Petropolis 1885-1916.
towards a Comparative
Study of Chorai West and east:
metapontion and Chersonesos
in memory of
Dinu adamesteanu
(1912-2004)
Joseph C. Carter
a comparative study of greek colonies was the goal that motivated me, after
nearly a quarter century of multidisciplinary investigation of the western colo-
nial chorai of metapontion and kroton in Southern italy, to visit Chersonesos
in 1992 and to participate actively, for the last decade, in its exploration,1
while, at the same time, continuing field survey, remote sensing studies of
land division, and publications of results from the chora of metapontion.
my first experience of a chora, that of metapontion, in 1969, though i was
unaware at the time, was to be a decisive point in my career. it was then
that i came to know Professor Dinu adamesteanu, the first archaeological
superintendent of gela and Basilicata, animator of the study of the colonial
countryside for whom Sicily, South italy, and the Black Sea were always one
world.
the archaeology of the chora, east or west, is landscape archaeology and,
therefore, necessarily multidisciplinary in nature. it is not at all coincidental
that behind the early research of these two best known colonial chorai − those
of metapontion and Chersonesos − were two pioneers in the use of aerial
photography in archaeology, D. adamesteanu and a. Ščeglov. their work an-
ticipated in other ways, too, current “landscape archaeology”.2 more recently
the collaborations of palaeobotanists Z. Januševič (kišinev) with archaeolo-
gist g. nikolaenko (Sevastopol’) and of L. Costantini (rome) and g. Paškevič
(kiev), and of archaeozoologists S. Bokonyi (Budapest), a. kasparov (St Pe-
tersburg) and o. Žuravlev (kiev) with the institute of Classical archaeology
(iCa) at Chersonesos and metapontion have been the stimulus for further
multidisciplinary research aimed at revealing the agricultural economy of a
colony and its chora.3
at metapontion, kroton, and Chersonesos, the disciplines most useful in
attempting to unravel the complexity of life lived in the ancient countryside
have been: palaeobotany, palynology (the study of ancient pollen), archaeo-
176 Joseph C. Carter
zoology, physical anthropology, geology and geomorphology, intensive field

survey, and the study of historic aerial photographs and imagery from space.
only at metapontion, to my knowledge, have all these disciplines and ap-
proaches been systematically and rigorously employed, and the results syn-
thesized − at least in a preliminary way in a volume published this year by
the university of michigan Press.4
Let us see how these scientific disciplines or archaeological subfields have
been useful at metapontion and Chersonesos by considering the first of the
issues that this conference aims to address: “how do we define a city’s rural
territory, how are its borders marked and defined, and how do they change
over time?”.
no securely identified horoi have survived at metapontion or Chersonesos.
What did survive in both areas was a very large number of rural settlements
and “special purpose” sites. Just beyond the city walls of Chersonesos, approxi-
mately 140 imposing “rural estates” have been remarkably well-preserved as
Fig. 1. Chora of Chersonesos, satellite image with superimposed divisions and site locations
(Jessica Trelogan. ICA.)
Towards a Comparative Study of Chorai West and East 177
have the ancient stone roads, clearly identifiable as such, that divided the chora
into over 400 large rectangular plots, which in many cases were subdivided
into parcels measuring 210 m on a side (Fig. 1). the divided chora occupies
most of a clearly defined geographic unit, the herakleian Peninsula, which
is generally referred to as the “nearer chora” to distinguish it from the city’s
extensive territories and settlements to the north and west.5
it was these facts more than any others that brought me to Chersonesos
in the first place; it was simply the best parallel anywhere in the world for
the situation at metapontion. But the two chorai were not similar in every re-
spect. the problems of land − its possession and its uses and relations with
pre-existing and surrounding native populations, in particular − were, it
proved, quite distinctive.
the limits of the chora of metapontion have been defined by the extent
of settlements as determined by intensive field survey and geomorphologic
research.6 With an average of close to twenty sites per square kilometer, meta-
pontion is, i believe, the most densely inhabited ancient countryside known,
up to now, in all the greek world, though kroton is certainly comparable
(Fig. 2).7 in the course of eight extended survey campaigns between 1981 and
the present (2006), the total number of sites so far recorded for the survey
transect at metapontion is 999, with only about a third of the presumed area
of the chora having been covered. the goal is to have eventually 100% cov-
erage of accessible areas of the ancient countryside, but that is work for my
successors at iCa and colleagues in the Soprintendenza.
the “sites” consist of sharply defined, isolated scatters of building ma-
terials and pottery of various periods, stretching from the neolithic to the
late medieval period. 95% of them have a significant greek component. the
major site types known from excavation are habitations, necropoleis, and rural
sanctuaries. Both the quantity and the quality of ceramic materials from the
survey make it abundantly clear that the large majority of sites were farm-
houses of the colonial period, dating from the late 7th century to the early
3rd century BC. all the artifacts − some 100,000 − collected from the surface
have now been studied and documented and are being integrated with data
provided by topographical, geomorphological and hydrological studies in a
rapidly growing geographical information system (giS).8
the black gloss pottery is our best chronological guide for most sites,
though figured pottery and terracottas are not infrequently found. the range
of pottery, including high percentages of undecorated table, cooking and
storage ware, leaves little doubt that clearly defined concentrations of pot-
tery, roof tile, and stone were working farmhouses − places of production,
as well as residence. the percentage of Black gloss with respect to the other
pottery types excavated on metapontine farm sites is far higher than that in
the Chersonesean estates − on the average, about 30% or more of all ceram-
ics as opposed to about 5% at Strželeckij no. 25, a carefully excavated large
“estate” in the chora of Chersonesos. the citizens of the chora in metapontion
17 Joseph C. Carter
Fig. 2. Partial plan, chora of Metapontion, with survey sites and excavated sites (Chris Williams,
after S. Thompson. ICA.)
occupied their houses year round, and the distribution of these isolated farm-
houses was uniformly dense in all areas.
it is clear from the distribution plans, however, that few farmhouses have
been found on the surface in the three river valleys that pass through the chora
of metapontion and provide the north and south geographical boundaries
for it. the reason for this became clear with the geomorphologic study of the
chora. the majority of sites are found on the well-drained marine terraces of
the high plains between the valleys of the Bradano on the north and Cavone
on the south. relatively few were found on the slopes, and almost none in the
valleys. an answer to the question − does the field survey record the original
distribution of the ancient sites? − will require knowledge of changes in land-
forms of the chora, both in remote geologic and more recent times.
the number of settlements decreases significantly at a distance of about 14
km inland from the modern prograded coastline (the eastern limit of the chora)
where the fertile marine terraces begin to narrow rapidly. the interior, char-
acterized by “bad lands” terrain, was the domain of the displaced indigenous
peoples after the foundation of the achaean colony in the 7th late century
BC. the western extent of the chora was, thus, defined by its geomorphology.
the greeks simply took the most fertile terrain along the coastal plain and
on the marine terraces. in the hinterland to the west, the large indigenous
settlements at Cozzo Presepe, montescaglioso, Pomaricho vecchio, and Pis-
ticci may well have functioned, at various times, as forts (phrouria) occupied
by friendly natives.9 the land between these and the marine terrace was the
eschatia, a source of timber and game, for greeks and natives alike, and a buf-
fer zone. their barbarian neighbours in Southern italy were clearly far less
a threat to the colonists than those of Western Crimea. apart from the city
walls, constructed in the mid-6th century BC, and the putative phrouria there
are no other defensive structures, and none of the farmhouses of metapontion,
constructed entirely of mud brick, had towers or special protective walls, as
was the case at Chersonesos.
though the settlement on the site of the city and the construction of major
rural sanctuaries of metapontion began in the late 7th century BC (the archaeo-
logically determined founding date) few of the farmhouses on the terraces
existed before the late 6th century BC. Where did the early settlers live? i am
convinced that they were already in the chora, but are now largely invisible.
the landscape, as the geomorphological study has decisively proven,
has changed a very great deal within the last thousand years as the result of
massive alluviations that have left deposits as thick as 4 meters on the valley
floors.10 the oldest settlements should logically be located in the potentially
richest soil, deeply buried along the rivers, which provided easy communi-
cation. this has been confirmed by the very recent excavations for an oil and
gas pipeline that has uncovered a significant number of late 7th century BC
sites, as well as later ones, in an excellent state of preservation, deeply buried
in the alluvial plains. no evidence of a division similar to that on the marine
10 Joseph C. Carter
terraces has been found in the buried valleys. excavations, however, were
very limited and, thus this is not to say that there may not have been some
sort of visible demarcation of property lines.
if the whole of the chora had been inhabited by individual farmhouses, as
it is now safe to conclude, there is no question where the majority of the work
force resided, in the chora on their individual farms. there is no evidence of
the existence of the institution of slavery at metapontion, as there is at Posei-
donia and at kroton, both achaean foundations.11 During times of need, dur-
ing harvest periods for example, additional labour could have been recruited
in the several indigenous villages on the borders of the chora or inland where
the original native population had been driven by the colonists. this is where,
in living memory, the great landholders of southern italy found the manual
labour to work their extensive latifundia.
the second site type in numerical importance are the small rural necropo-
leis, usually situated along the roads and canals − about which more later
− discovered in close proximity to the single, isolated farm dwellings. they
are the strongest proof that the inhabitants of the chora were permanent resi-
dents and, together with artifacts from their habitations, show the farmers’
cultural level was virtually indistinguishable from that of the inhabitants of
urban metapontion.12
nothing comparable to these small family burial plots has been found in
the chora of Chersonesos, suggesting that its inhabitants dwelt in the polis,
at least part of the year, and buried their dead in the prominent necropoleis
close around the city.13
how land was held at Chersonesos − whether by an oligarchy of wealthy
residents of the city or individual families (oikoi) comprising the democracy?
− is still a much debated question.14 Some 2,400 or more plots, of roughly
standard measure (210 × 210 m) covering approximately 4.4 ha, would have
filled the divided area of the chora. Plots of this size would have sufficed,
though barely, for a single family. the number would have been enough, in
theory, for the entire citizen population of the late 4th century BC. only about
140 farmhouses or “country estates”, covering a surface area of from 400 m2
(rarely smaller) up to 2,000 m2, have been identified, and there is generally
only one on each of the larger divisions of 160 × 420 m that includes six of
the smaller plots15 (Fig. 1).
it has been argued that land could have been bought and sold, or perhaps
rented by the damos to individual citizens.16 Large land-holdings, whether
owned or rented, could have been formed, in any case. in no period is the
evidence decisive. Complicating the picture further is the fact that there are
extensive areas where no “estate” building was constructed – in contrast to
metapontion where the distribution of dwellings over the countryside and the
size of plots, though it varies locally, is practically uniform when the whole
of the chora is considered.
a comparison with Chersonesos forces the question, where did the work
force that transformed the rocky herakleian Peninsula into a great network of
roads, terraces, and productive fields, live? Certainly not all in the few large
rural “estates”. the demands of labour and the amount of wealth required to
create the Chersonesean agricultural landscape in such a brief period (c. 350
to 275 BC) would have been daunting. the sheer quantity of rock moved in
this relatively short time implies a workforce of almost pharaonic proportions.
only an entity with the size and resources of the polis and a dependent labour
force of great size could have planned and executed such a program.
the smaller Chersonesean farms could have been cultivated by the sin-
gle-family owners themselves who would have had to commute from the city
or by native labour commuting from their villages on the fringes of the herak-
leian Peninsula.17 the large “estates” may have been controlled by wealthier
farmers or absentee landlords. alternatively, they may have been communally
shared by the holders of smaller plots who could have stored their equipment
and carried out their worship and sacrifices to the gods in a shared facility.
Farmhouse 151, a small “estate”, excavated jointly by the national Preserve and
iCa, for example, seems to have continued to serve as a place of worship for the
rural community even after its agricultural functions had largely ceased.18
i have argued at great length elsewhere that the inhabitants of the chora of
metapontion were metapontine citizens and that conclusion is supported by
the study of contemporaneous evidence from the city. in contrast to colonial
Fig. 3. Newly discovered section of the early Hellenistic city wall of Chersonesos (Courtesy of
the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos, and S. Ryžov.)
12 Joseph C. Carter
Fig. 4. Plan of ancient Chersonesos (J. Lane, from Crimean Chersonesos.)
Chersonesos, the history and development of the city plan of metapontion,

including the size, function, and plan of the public structures, are fully known,
though the residential quarter, unfortunately, remains largely unexplored. as
a result, the populations of city and chora, and the periods of prosperity and
stagnation, can be accurately correlated.
at Chersonesos, by contrast, the roman and Byzantine builders cannibal-
ized the preceding structures for the most part. Some soundings, however,
such as that in the area of a new and enlarged laboratory and storage structure
replacing Fondy 4, under construction, make it clear that the late medieval
plan of the city (which is most in evidence) followed closely the early hel-
lenistic orthogonal plan of the colony of Chersonesos.
the excavations in this area in the summer of 2003, by S. ryžov, revealed
for the first time what may be the earliest hellenistic city wall in the western
part of the city (Figs. 3 and 4). it crossed the peninsula at about 500 m to the
north of the later wall, and can be dated accurately to the late 4th or early 3rd
century BC on the basis of the pottery finds in its foundation trench. the rusti-
cated masonry and dimensions of the blocks are identical to the oldest part of
the city wall preserved by the South-eastern gate.19 if this is what it appears
to be, we know the approximate area of the city at the approximate time of its
massive expansion into the herakleian Peninsula and the precise point from
which the chora extended at that time. the wall cut through an earlier monu-
mental necropolis with the foundations of grave monuments preserved in situ,
in the path of what became stenopos no. 12 of the later expanded city. this
early circuit enclosed approximately half as much land as the later southern
wall. the area was nearly the equivalent of three units of 210 × 210 m or half
of one of the larger land plots, consisting of six such units, or approximately
630 × 420 m. there certainly seems, as at metapontion, to be strong relation-
ships in size and orientation between urban and rural divisions.
Fig. 5. Model of the public sector, sanctuary and agora, of Metapontion as it would have ap‑
peared about 300 BC (Courtesy of Dieter Mertens and the DAI Rome.)
14 Joseph C. Carter
very few identifiable colonial structures of early hellenistic Chersonesos −

the theatre, “mint”, several houses, and city walls are important exceptions −
have been preserved. all but the theatre (of which only the foundations of the
stage building and some of the original seating have been preserved) have the
same distinctive masonry of the newly found city wall. What the successors
of the hellenistic builders in the ancient period may have missed in their re-
modelling projects, the late 19th century builders of the monastery ruthlessly
rooted out. it is, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to compare contempo-
rary developments in the chora and city of Chersonesos in any period.
the picture of the chora of metapontion that emerges as a result of the
intensive field survey is one of constant change. not all of the farms of these
citizen-farmers were inhabited simultaneously. Some were short-lived. others
persist over generations − a result confirmed by the dates furnished by the
family grave goods on the plots. there were two periods of maximum popula-
tion and prosperity in the chora and city, one in the late archaic, the other in the
early hellenistic period (Fig. 5). the first period, confirmed by the numbers of
inhabited sites, the number of burials and quality of grave goods, the building
history of monumental structures in the city, such as the ekklesiasterion, and
of sanctuaries in the chora, was the second half of the 6th and first half of the
5th century BC. after a sharp decline in both gauges in the first half of the 4th
century, when the population of the chora decreased by as much as 25%, there
was a renaissance in the second half of the 4th century BC, when population
surpassed the high level of the early 5th century. new monuments and struc-
tures, the theatre and stoai, rose in the centre of metapontion. the occupation
of the chora reached its all time high.20 this was a period of elaborate burials
and funerary structures in the countryside. it was the same period, by the
way, that witnessed the division of the “nearer” chora (covering the c. 10,000
ha of the herakleian Peninsula) and the expansion of Chersonesos into the
“farther” chora (the coastline of the vast tarchankut Peninsula).
the major historical changes, rises, declines, and shifts in the population
of the chora of metapontion can be traced with very great precision because
of the abundance of well-dated pottery from the survey.21 these fluctuations
can be correlated not only to periods of rising or declining prosperity in the
city, reflected in building projects, but also to well-dated changes in the envi-
ronment, including the sudden rise in the water table throughout the area of
metapontion about the mid-5th century BC, and the evident environmental
degradation that followed.
Besides the distribution of farmsites, another type of structure of the an-
cient chora, the rural sanctuary, has to be considered in defining its extent.
as influential as the theory of “frontier sanctuaries” has been, it has not been
confirmed by the archaeological evidence from the chora of metapontion.
very briefly, the sanctuaries of the early chora are distributed not just at the
periphery or frontier, but more or less uniformly throughout it, at regular
intervals. they are contemporaneous, dating to the late 7th and first half of
the 6th centuries BC for the most part, and, thus, are among the earliest struc-
tures in the achaean chora. all are located by perennial water sources. the
aspect of fertility is prominent in the cult, in all cases. at first a female deity
predominated, but the votives from the 5th century onward almost without
exception have a strong Dionysiac element. the two more fully excavated
examples, the San Biagio and Pantanello sanctuaries, closely resemble each
other. rather than marking the frontiers of an expanding chora, they seem to
define religious-administrative districts. they have been correctly interpreted,
i believe, by a. De Siena as the centres of powerful ghene or clans residing in
the countryside. the migration of ancient rural cults like Zeus aglaios from
San Biagio in the chora into the heart of the city in the 5th century BC has
plausibly been viewed as an attempt to mediate growing tensions within
metapontine society between the democratic elements in the city and the
more conservative land-holding families of parts of the chora.22
nothing like these rural sanctuaries beside springs has been found in the
chora of Chersonesos. a sanctuary, reputedly of Dionysos, was excavated on
Lighthouse Point in the early 1990s, and another, perhaps dedicated to the
same god, has been recently uncovered near the twin defensive walls that
separated Lighthouse Point from the rest of the herakleian Peninsula. a 4th
century BC site on the coastal heights at Fiolent has been, optimistically, iden-
tified as that of Parthenos, the maiden and protective patroness of the polis
− a sanctuary well known from references in herodotos (4.103), euripides’
play, iphigeneia in tauris, and in Strabon’s account (7.4.2). almost nothing
remains, and freestanding sanctuaries are clearly the exception in the chora.
instead, the clearest evidence for cult life is to be found in the “rural” estates
like Site 151. there in two prominent shrines in the north side of the central
tower, two of herakles’ clubs and a ritual vessel were found in situ, trapped
by the collapse of the mud-brick second story of the tower when it was de-
stroyed in the early 2nd century BC. inside the tower was much evidence for
a cult of Dionysos. it included a large scale terracotta figurine of a Silenos and
a small altar (that may represent Dionysos).23 Cults of herakles have been
discovered at other farmhouses in the chora.
herakles was, beside being worshipped by greeks and barbarians alike,
the titular protector of the peninsula that bore his name and formed the
“nearer” chora. he and Dionysos were the principal divinities, worshipped
with equal fervour by the inhabitants of the chora and their indigenous neigh-
bours. around the altar stone in front of the shrine of herakles, at Site 151,
was a concentration of goat bones – the typical sacrifice to Dionysos. there
is good evidence at Site 151 that the cults of the two divinities survived a
period of destruction and abandonment that affected the entire chora (“nearer”
and “farther”) in the 3rd century BC. Site 151 went out of use only in the 1st
century BC. in its final phase, this rural structure, as mentioned earlier, may
have existed mainly as a place of worship, and i would like to suggest the
possibility that the worshippers may have included non-greeks.
16 Joseph C. Carter
excavations of farmhouses in the chora of metapontion in which terracotta

votives are commonly found throughout the chora, reinforced by the results
of intensive field survey, make it clear that virtually every metapontine farm
family had a modest domestic cult. only rarely are these terracottas figurines
comparable in size to the figures found in the chora of Chersonesos, on Light-
house Point and at less than a half a dozen “estates”. the Chersonesean figures
give the impression of being small cult figures, rather than votives. Fragments
of acrolithic cult statues and large-scale terracotta statutes, instead, have been
found in several of the metapontine rural sanctuaries together, in some cases,
with hundreds of terracotta votives. Small terracotta votives are rare, by com-
parison, in the chora of Chersonesos, but are ubiquitous in the city.
metapontion’s rural sanctuaries, like the farmhouses, were open and un-
protected in contrast to the Chersonesean “estates” which were stout stone
structures built with defence in mind. at a later stage, their entrances were
often narrowed and the walls reinforced, as S. Saprykin argues, with special
“anti-battering ram” buttressing. Clearly, the relation between the colonial
inhabitants of Chersonesos and its chora − the warlike Scythians and the in-
digenous taurian populations of Crimea − was of a very different nature.
the barbarians living outside the metapontine chora quickly assimilated and
imitated greek models. only in the 4th century did they, too, begin to build
walled cities in the greek fashion.24
Fig. 6. Aerial view of the fortified site of Bezymjannaja (J.C. Carter. ICA.)
Fig. 7. Visualization of the re‑

sults of the resistivity survey
at Bezymjannaja (Courtesy of
the National Preserve of Tauric
Chersonesos, M. Nikolaenko and
S. Šakuro)
in contrast to the distant defensive ring of phrouria, far from the divided
chora of metapontion, Chersonesos had not only distant outposts, but also forti-
fied farmhouses within the chora and positions right on the landward border of
the divided “nearer” chora, along the Sapun and karan’ heights. an example
is the partially excavated site of Bezymjannaja, the object of a joint project of
the nPtC and iCa.25 it protected the best land approach to Chersonesos from
the 3rd century BC, at least, until the 11th century aD (and it played a role in
the Crimean War and World War ii in defending Sevastopol’).
a large part of the “nearer chora” of Chersonesos was defined by the di-
viding roads, first observed in modern times as long ago as 1786.26 many are
now under the city of Sevastopol’ and outlying dacha communities. others not
visible earlier have appeared in aerial photographs and have been traced on
the ground by archaeologists, most recently by g. nikolaenko and her team.
Still others have been discovered using several systems of remote sensing.
the most effective land-based method has proved to be an electrical resistivity
1 Joseph C. Carter
Fig. . Corona image of the chora of Chersonesos with inset of the Omega Bay area, draped over
a digital elevation model of the topography (Jessica Trelogan, ICA and the Center for Space
Research, University of Texas at Austin.)
survey. this 3-D visualization of the results of m. nikolaenko and S. Šakuro

suggests the complex nature of the buried structures on the northern slope
of Bezymjannaja (Figs. 6 and 7). “ground truthing” excavations by the joint
iCa-nPtC team have confirmed the presence of the structures and clarified
their date and function.27 it has been complemented by the study of images
from space, both recent and historical, by J. trelogan.28 these include the high
resolution “Corona images”, made in the 1960s and declassified in 1996. these
scientifically valuable relics of the Cold War have been a priceless aid in the
study of the ancient agricultural territory. this work was made possible in
part by a generous and timely grant from the national Space and aeronau-
tics administration 1998-2002.29 they are particularly important because they
antedate the rapid urbanization of the herakleian Peninsula in the past two
decades. among the more recent images from space utilized by the joint team
are the lower resolution eoSat multispectral images and the shuttle-based
eSa radar imagery. all have had their uses in helping to create a Dem to
clarify and to explore the relationship between the dividing roads and the
topographical relief (Fig. 8). the division of the chora is not as regular as the
reconstructions of it would suggest. topography significantly affected the
Fig. ► Aerial photo mosaic of the chora of Metapontion, with division “lines” superimposed
(Jessica Trelogan, Courtesy of the Aerofototeca of Ministero dei beni culturali, Rome and the
Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Basilicata.)
10 Joseph C. Carter
Fig. 10. Plan of the Chora of Metapontion with division “lines” (Chris Williams, after S.
Thompson. ICA.)
planning of this chora, as it did at metapontion. this archive of imagery has

great potential as it grows in monitoring the preservation of ancient sites and
tracing changing land use patterns, specifically the encroachment of the city
on the archaeology.
the use of a highly accurate gPS in the chora of metapontion has been of
inestimable value in exploring the linear features known as linee di divisione,
since their discovery by aerial photography in the 1950s (Figs. 9-10). the lines
help to define the spatial limits and organization of the chora of metapontion.
the first studies of these linear anomalies in the aerial photos, supported by
limited surveys on the ground resulted in an idealized reconstruction of plots,
referred to as kleroi of 210 m on a side,30 similar to the one very recently pub-
lished for Chersonesos.31 Both plans are unconvincing and misleading because
they are too schematic. the Chersonesos city plan does not take into account
in a systematic way the results of over a century and a half of archaeological
excavation. the city of Sevastopol’ has long been an important naval base, and
because of its strategic military importance, no plan with accurate coordinates
has ever been published of the chora of Chersonesos.
the division of the chora of metapontion is clearly recognizable in aerial
photography, especially those photos made before the mid-1950s when the
agrarian reforms brought irrigation and deep-ploughing to much of the area
of the ancient chora, especially the still fertile marine terraces, and destroyed
many of its superficial ancient features, not only the farmhouses and shal-
lowly buried necropoleis, but also traces of the “lines”. the latter simply
disappeared from some of the photos leaving little or no evidence of their
destruction, though, as the 1999 survey showed, this was not always the case.32
these were not the solidly built roads of Chersonesos, but features created by
ancient excavation and filled with packed soil that resulted in the differential
crop-growth patterns that appeared in the aerial photos.
traces of an earlier division of the chora of metapontion have been identi-
fied. Currently, we know that there are at least two different but related divi-
sions between the Bradano-Basento and the Basento-Cavone rivers. none of
these “lines” in the Bradano-Basento watershed is precisely 210 m from an-
other. they range from 180 m to 240 m apart with an average of 209 m in the
northern half of the chora between Bradano and Basento − suggestively close
to the measure of subplots, 210 × 210 m, in the “nearer chora” of Chersonesos.33
not only is the space between the lines in the two chorai very similar, so is
their orientation, approximately 45 degrees west of north, on the north-west–
south-east axis, though the reasons for this may be quite different.
a careful study of aerial photographs by a.n. Ščeglov has been the key to
understanding the system of land division in the greater chora of Chersonesos
on the tarchankut Peninsula.34 the geological situation in the chora of kalos
Limen is closer to that of metapontion than of Chersonesos. Was the system
there likewise created by excavation and, if so, were the features discovered
by aerial photography purely earthen, as those of metapontion proved to be?
12 Joseph C. Carter
For the present, this question will remain unanswered, but a full comparison
with metapontion ultimately makes a response necessary.
What, in reality, were the “lines” at metapontion and when were they
created? the answers to these questions had long been the source of heated
debates among scholars. iCa, in the early 1980s, excavated a rural necropo-
lis through which ran one of the “lines” a 150 meter long section of a road
flanked by 80 tombs, the earliest of which dated to the early 5th century BC.
the remains of burials and sacrifices of the late 6th century indicated that the
necropolis and the road may have been in existence earlier.35 the road’s orien-
tation and position corresponded perfectly with the system of “lines” defined
by the historic aerial photographs. that seemed to answer the question until
in 1999, when, at the request of the Soprintendenza, iCa carried out a survey
of all sites in the path of a major oil and gas pipeline project. the corridor,
which ran from one side of the chora to the other (Cavone river-Bradano
river), was between 200 and 500 m wide and 13 km long. J. trelogan scanned
and geo-referenced 80 some aerial photographs indicating “lines”. armed
with the gPS, the iCa survey team was able to go directly to the spot on the
ground where the lines should have been, and indeed still are. excavation in
1999 revealed a more complex system than we had expected from the photos
alone, and it made possible the accurate placing of the first transverse line
to have been actually excavated.36 this, as adamesteanu and vatin had ar-
gued a quarter century earlier, was not an orthogonal system but consisted
of rhombus-shaped parallelograms which they compared, in terms of dimen-
sions and area, but not shape, with the Chersonesean lots.37
Soundings to verify the “lines” were made in the chora, in the area known
as Pizzica. it was chosen on the basis of surface indications − a discoloured
strip of soil corresponding to a line and many fragments of large red-figured
vessels; two sections of a longitudinal road, lined by tombs, were revealed.
intersecting this was the newly discovered transverse road, and a diagonally
intersecting road. Subsequent excavations in 2000 and 2001 by the Soprinten‑
denza have uncovered more longitudinal lines, some of which were clearly
drainage canals.38 erosion and a sudden rise in the water table, mentioned
earlier, were particularly acute problems in the 5th century BC as we know
from a variety of sources.39 the canals, too, were lined by burials.
We might reasonably conclude that the roads and canals, given their regu-
lar spacing and the presence of numerous smaller or larger grouping of tombs,
served not only practical purposes, such as transportation and drainage, but
also as boundary markers, defining in some way the extent of plots, farms, or
parts of rural property. the probable date of the earliest lines, shortly before
500 BC, excludes the possibility that the lots formed by these lines belonged to
a hypothetical first dasmos, or division, among the original colonists, who ar-
rived at the end of the 7th century BC, but perhaps they mark in a tangible way
a re-division of the chora at the end of the 6th century BC and early 5th century
BC in a period of democratic ferment throughout the greek world.40
the orthogonal grid of the city of Chersonesos, in contrast, is certainly

no later than the late 4th or early 3rd century BC. 41 it has recently been sug-
gested that a grid plan existed in the ne quarter of the city by the mid-4th
century BC at the latest. if this is so, the grids of the chora and city would
have developed at approximately the same time. at metapontion the main
axes of the city were established in the early second half of the 6th century,
at least a half century earlier than the earliest use of the roads and canals in
the chora. as at Chersonesos, the grid of the city of metapontion has virtually
the same orientation as the grid of the metapontine countryside. it would be
satisfying to find that the orthogonal grids of Chersonesos and metapontion,
city and chora, were each part of one overall planning effort, but that has yet
to be proven for both sites. the earliest rural “estates” at Chersonesos, which
are oriented as the grid of the chora, belong to the second half of the 4th cen-
tury BC. as noted earlier, we cannot be sure that the urban grid of the city
was that early. at metapontion, based on secure evidence, such a grand plan
could only have existed in a hypothetical way when the city grid was created
in the third quarter of the 6th century BC.
up to this point, we have spoken of greeks − greek roads, farmhouses,
and sanctuaries − but the issues of changing settlement patterns and demog-
raphy, and the relation between centre and periphery, forces the question
of the relations, as this conference should, between greek, ethnically mixed,
and non-greek populations. this has been a central issue for the archaeolo-
gists of the Western greeks colonies for the last 20 years or more, since, as D.
ridgeway has put it, the indigenous world “has come into its own”. i have
dealt at length with this question in another forum, concentrating on one of
the earliest settlements − incoronata, dating from the 9th to the 6th century
BC − on the south coast of italy where greeks and non-greeks met for the
first time in the territory of what became the chora of achaean metapontion.
the naturally defended site is located on a plateau on the right bank of the
Basento, approximately 8 km inland from the coast. the circular dugout huts
and the partially interred rectangular structures contain varying proportions
of imported greek pottery, locally made indigenous wares, some hand made,
some wheel made, and a hybrid wheel-made “colonial” pottery using greek
shapes and eclectically chosen greek motifs.42
there are striking parallels in the dugout and semi-dugout dwellings
in approximately contemporaneous settlements at Berezan’ and the chora
of olbia.43 it would have been more appropriate, naturally, to discuss the
pre-greek population of the chora of Chersonesos, the people the greeks knew
as “taurians”, whose archaeological remains belong to the kizil-koba culture.
this important subject, however, has not been a research priority, and very
little, apart from several stimulating, brief papers by Ščeglov and Savelja,44
has been recently published on this subject − in contrast to the relatively vast
amount of literature devoted to the greek occupation of the chora.
in the interpretation of this early archaeological evidence of greek and
14 Joseph C. Carter
indigenous contact, there are the same entrenched and fiercely defended
positions among scholars from the West and east. We hear that incoronata,
after the natives were “driven out”, was a purely greek emporion or polis. the
inhabitants of the dugouts that contained both greek and handmade pottery
in the chora of olbia were “greek” with no possibility of their being, instead,
mixed. this interpretation reflects the view common, a half century or more
ago, in the waning years of modern colonialism.45 these hardened positions
owe much to overly sharp distinctions between greeks and barbarians, be-
tween different greek ethnoi, and were less important in the historical period
of early colonization we are considering than has previously been thought.46
Some arguments are based on later greek texts which attempt to establish
territorial claims, made centuries after these first colonial contacts,47 as well
as to modern preconceptions of “nation states” and racial purity.
incoronata was, according to one of its main excavators, P. orlandini, first a
native village, razed to the ground and transformed into a purely greek empo‑
rion in the 7th century BC, which was, in turn, destroyed by the achaean colo-
nists.48 De Siena, who has investigated the pre-greek settlements surrounding
incornata, maintains that it was a native village whose culture was transformed
internally over time49 under greek influence. adamesteanu’s intuitive identifi-
cation of the site as a mixed settlement of indigenous peoples and early greeks,
suggested as early as 1971 when the site was first identified, corresponds most
closely to the archaeological situation.50 the early dwellings at Berezan’ have
many of the same characteristics as those at incoronata. researchers at Berezan’
and olbia are also divided on how to interpret the evidence of house forms and
ceramics as reflecting the origins of the settlements.51 the arguments will not be
reviewed here. rather, attention will be turned to some other types of evidence
vital to the reconstruction of the chora and the identification of its population.
this material record, more often than not, has been ignored by archaeologists
of colonial settlements, east and West. in many cases it has simply not been col-
lected. these are the evidence of ancient plants and animals, both domesticated
and wild, and of the remains of human occupants themselves. they provide a
fresh light and perspective, and an escape from the interminable debates about
floor plans and pottery forms.
the area of the future chora of metapontion was occupied by a number of
sites of the pre-colonial period. they include the neolithic site at Pantanello,
the Bronze age settlements at termitito, San marco, and S. vito, and a very
extensive network of iron age villages dating from the 9th to the 7th century
BC occupied by the “oenotrians” of greek tradition. they settled in villages
with impressive necropoleis all along the southern coast of the ionian Sea.
often only the necropoleis are known, but as De Siena’s excavations have
shown, the plateaus along the south bank of the Basento river were densely
populated by hut settlements in the 9th and 8th centuries BC, immediately
before greek contact.
the greeks did not arrive on a deserted shore, in an eremos chora, or among
savage and backward peoples. the natives had a developed culture, as evi-
denced by the rich grave goods of their necropoleis. agriculture was the basis
of the economy and it must have been thriving. the greeks saw an oppor-
tunity to participate and seized it. how much did they contribute that was
original, and when is their presence first detectable?
the answer lies in determining the chronology of this kind of evidence
and the degree of continuity and change in the passage from the period before
the greek contact and after. after all, how can such settlements be adequately
described without knowledge of their agricultural economy, of the types of
plants and animals that were raised by the pre-greek iron age peoples, the
early greeks at incoronata, and those who, a little before 600 BC, established
the achaean colony. Continuity would indicate a soft landing. as noted above,
according to orlandini, the whole of the indigenous village was destroyed.
this would certainly have affected the farming population of the surround-
ing countryside.
to view the larger picture of a developing metapontine landscape, plant
macrofossil remains, pollen, and animal bones have been collected and ana-
lyzed during the excavations of sites dating from the late neolithic Pantanello
(c. 3000-2500 BC), Bronze age termitito (dated to 14th-12 century BC on the
basis of aegean imports), the proto-historic period, mainly the 7th century
BC, at incoronata, as well as from the period of the achaean colony, and the
period of roman domination (from the 2nd century BC to the late imperial
period). the plant and faunal remains were precisely datable because they
were studied together with the ceramics from individual contexts. the faunal
samples at most sites were large enough to be statistically significant, ranging
from about 700 bones of identifiable species at small sites to several thousand
at the larger ones.52
a comparison, based on straight counts of identifiable species, shows a
clear development over the three millennia under consideration. Sheep, of
the small prehistoric type introduced into italy in the early neolithic period,
were in absolute majority among the domesticated animals at late neolithic
Pantanello, Bronze age termitito, the iron age and indigenous site of Coz-
zo Presepe, and, until the 7th century BC, at incoronata, where for the first
time the greek influence, and, i would argue, a greek presence is manifest.
Sheep and goat were probably raised primarily for their wool and milk and
only secondarily as a source of meat.
From the 6th century BC until the 1st century BC, at Pantanello and Sant’
angelo nuovo in the colonial chora, oxen, the tractors of ancient agriculture,
clearly replaced sheep and goats as by far the most numerous of the domes-
ticated species. Sheep seem to have regained their predominant role only in
the late roman empire. We can, thus, observe in broad outline the transfor-
mation of the area of the metapontine chora from a pastoral to an agricultural
economy, from the rich meadows of the Bakchylides poem (ode 11.119) about
“horse-rearing metapontion” to the ploughed fields with its fabled grain har-
16 Joseph C. Carter
vests, followed by a return to pastoralism at the end of the ancient period.

this reinforces the general picture that can be deduced from the few passages
of ancient literature and the representations of animals and crops in art. the
coinage of colonial metapontion with the ear of barley leaves no doubt about
the source of its wealth, at the height of its prosperity.
the picture becomes truly interesting and more informative when the
details are considered. For example, at incoronata, the earliest settlement of
greeks and, pace orlandini, of indigenous peoples living in harmony, there
are three clear phases in the archaeological evidence: an iron age indigenous
village down to the end of the 8th century; a mixed greek and indigenous
village which existed until the late 7th century, about 630 BC, and an isolated
greek rural sanctuary of the middle of the 6th century on the site of the aban-
doned mixed settlement. this rural sanctuary was clearly part of the system of
contemporaneous sanctuaries that, as mentioned earlier, divided the achaean
colonial chora into districts.
the late Professor S. Bökönyi, one of the outstanding archaeozoologists
of our time, studied all of the faunal remains from the sites excavated by
iCa in the chora. he recognized two types of sheep at incoronata: the “small
prehistoric type” that was found at neolithic Pantanello and Bronze age ter-
mitito in the third and second millennia BC and in the 7th century contexts
at incoronata, and a much larger and more robust type found at incoronata
in the contexts of the mid-6th century sanctuary. as he puts it, “there was an
invasion at incoronata and in the chora in the 6th century of a superior and
larger breed of sheep originating in the south-east, probably greece”.53 this
improved variety made Southern italy famous for its wool. they replaced the
prehistoric sheep which could not compete. it is a good example of what has
been termed, in another context, “biological imperialism”.
one conclusion that can be drawn from the faunal evidence at incoronata
is that the agricultural economy of the pre-achaean chora changed, also with
a significant addition of swine, but the principal species remained the same.
this supports the general conclusion that the first greeks participated in, but
did not dominate, a well established village life. that picture changed dra-
matically in the course of the 6th century BC after the arrival of the achaean
colonists. First and foremost, it was they, presumably, who introduced a radi-
cally different settlement pattern of isolated farmhouses, with their associated
necropoleis and rural sanctuaries, in place of the naturally defined hilltop
village sites of the indigenous and mixed greek and indigenous populations.
in the mixed village of the 7th century BC, the pig, locally domesticated and
raised entirely for its meat, became an important element in the economy
and diet of the occupants, as it is to this day in Lucania. For the record, the
earliest chicken yet found in italy lived in this village. horses, for which the
chora later became famous, were here in limited numbers, though they may
have arrived earlier. the ass is present at Bronze age termitito, but it would
not have been surprising had the remains of the horse also been found on the
site. in short, all the inhabitants of a modern farmyard could be found in the
chora by the 7th century BC though only in the late roman period does the
chicken occur with any frequency.
a further example where the careful study of animal bones by an expert
can produce historically significant results emerges from a consideration of
cattle-raising at metapontion. no less an historian than arnold toynbee, bas-
ing his conclusions on documentary sources, argued in his massive Hannibal’s
Legacy, that after the departure of the Carthaginian leader at the end of the
3rd century BC, the south of italy was transformed into a desert occupied
only by slaves and sheep. roman control, as we now know, did not at first
bring immediate decline in the fortunes of metapontion’s farmers. Bökönyi’s
study of the stratified deposit of animal bones and pottery associated with a
2nd BC to 1st century aD kiln tile and amphora factory at Pantanello54 shows
that in the earliest levels, dated securely by republican coins of c. 150 BC,
were the remains of the largest cattle in the roman World, which he argued
were consciously bred for size and power. as the pollen record, also from
Pantanello, shows, the fields of 2nd century BC metapontion were still being
cultivated as they had in colonial times.
metapontion was still producing its traditional crops − the grape, the
olive, and the cereals. in the upper layers of this deposit, dated securely by
much arretine pottery, sheep predominated. it is not coincidental, i think,
that most of toynbee’s sources date from the augustan period and later. he
moved forward by several centuries, without the necessary evidence, the
agricultural development of the region, and in particular the system of great
latifundia, specializing in sheep farming, but not exclusively, that character-
ized this area of the ionian Coast from the 2nd century aD to the end of
antiquity. excavations of the port of metapontion of grain-filled amphorae
dating to the late 4th century aD prove that cereal cultivation still had a place
in the local economy.
our primary documentary sources on early colonization are greek or based
on greek sources. they have characteristically attributed to the greeks the
introduction to barbarian lands of at least two elements of the so-called medi-
terranean triad − the grape and the olive. Systematic palaeobotanical study
of pre-greek sites in Southern italy, for example, has shown domesticated
olives and grapes (Vitis vinifera) probably existed at the end of the Bronze age
or beginning of the iron age. greek colonization brought instead improved
methods of cultivation and treatment of these crops.
the climate of Chersonesos was too severe for the olive but permitted,
and still permits, active production of good quality grapes and wines. grape
and cereal production in the chora of Chersonesos have been investigated by
Januševič and nikolaenko who conclude that the grape was produced by the
greeks, using wild stock, and that the same type of cereals recovered from
the farms of the “nearer” chora were also raised in Chersonesos’ possessions
to the west.55
1 Joseph C. Carter
Dated pollen samples from several sites in the chora show, however, that
the pollen of two species, the grape and the walnut, appeared on the herak-
leian Peninsula for the first time at a date very close to that of the arrival of
the greeks in the 5th century BC.56 more such work is needed before secure
conclusions can be drawn about the origins of the Chersonesean grape. the
closely spaced grape planting walls at Chersonesos show that viticulture pre-
dominated. vineyards largely covered the traces of the agriculture practiced
by the pre-greek indigenous farmers.
Wheat and barley were raised in south-eastern italy from the early neo-
lithic (7th millennium BC) and in the late neolithic village at Pantanello. most
types of cereals, plus the legumes found in later periods, were already pres-
ent there. they included Triticum dicoccum, the hulled wheat that remained
a staple in italy continuously well into the period of roman domination of
the peninsula, which began in the 3rd century BC, Triticum aestivum, the soft,
naked wheat ideal for bread-making, and Hordeum vulgare or barley. the le-
gumes, especially lentils were, on the basis of the evidence from Pantanello,
also major components of the economy. in the Bronze age, which is less well
known, the naked hexaploid wheats (Tr. aestivum) seem to be favoured, but
the hulled wheat maintained its traditional place and barley is less in evi-
dence. at incoronata in the proto-historic period, when greeks and the native
italic peoples made first contact, the principal cereals from admittedly small
samples are Tr. cicoccum, known to the romans as Farrum and barley, whose
importance in this period is confirmed at other sites as well.57 there is no de-
monstrable break in the practices, as far as can be determined, or substance
of cereal cultivation with the first greek contacts.
our fullest information about the domesticated and wild plants that char-
acterized the late archaic and Classical periods of the greek countryside came
from well-dated contexts at a single site, the rural sanctuary of Pantanello.58
it is uniquely rich in organic materials, largely due to the anaerobic condition
of the soil which resulted in exceptional preservation of both carbonized and
non-carbonized materials such as the whole grapes and olives. among the
numerous discoveries was that of Alfalfa, an import from the Persian empire
probably via greece. our examples are securely dated to the 4th century BC,
the earliest so far discovered in italy, antedating its first mention in the litera-
ture by Columella three centuries later. undoubtedly it played a significant
role in the animal husbandry that, as we have already noted, continued to be
practiced in the chora well into the roman period.
in conclusion, i return to a fundamental question raised earlier, “Who
were the inhabitants of the chora?”. the most direct answer comes from their
mortal remains and from the detailed and patient study of a large number of
skeletons, a twenty-year long project. this was carried out at three major sites
in the chora and just outside the city of metapontion by physical anthropolo-
gists m. and r. henneberg.59 the sites are a pre-greek iron age necropolis,
the Pantanello necropolis, and the urban necropolis of Crucinia. altogether
about 700 individuals have been studied, of which 300 are from the rural ne-
cropolis of Pantanello and an equal number from the urban necropolis. these
well excavated burials have made it possible to compare contemporaneous
and statistically significant populations of chora and city with each other and
with other similarly well documented necropoleis in italy. unfortunately, no
comparably large studies have been published in greece itself.
in brief, both the populations of the chora and urban necropoleis of meta-
pontion had much in common with the populations of italic centres, but there
was a clear difference between the metapontine urban and rural populations.60
the dwellers of the chora shared characteristics that place them closer to the
italic populations. this is a case of neither black nor white, but varying shades
of grey. this was particularly evident in the teeth. Both the size and morphol-
ogy of teeth are genetically determined. the measurements of the teeth of the
chora dwellers were closer to those of other italic populations than those of the
city. the distinctive trait known as “etruscan incisor” is far more prevalent
in the chora than in the city. this trait has never been reported in the sparse
anthropological literature from greece. Fortunately, teeth are often preserved,
even when the skeleton is not. the potential for this sort of study in tracing
the differences and similarities between populations and within populations
is great. to my knowledge, this sort of systematic analysis of skeletal material
from dated burials has not yet been published for any necropolis in the Black
Sea region. it might shed much light on the vexed question of supine versus
flexed burials at Chersonesos and in its “farther” chora and of the biological
relationships between Scythians, taurians, and immigrant greeks.
as to the future of landscape archaeology in the Black Sea, i am optimistic.
the material evidence exists in abundance. highly competent specialists are
present in various institutes of the academy of Sciences of ukraine and rus-
sia, and in the museums and universities. they are not called on by archae-
ologists as often as they might. there have been happy exceptions, as noted
above. to these could be added the work of a. kasparov and o. Žuravlev on
the faunal remains of Chersonesos and its chora, as well as kasparov’s work
at nymphaion and Panskoe and Žuravlev’s in the olbian chora.61 experts
from the institute for the Study of the Southern Seas in Sevastopol’ have col-
laborated with archaeologist t. Jašaeva in the study of the abundant marine
fauna from her important greek to late medieval Site 32 in the “nearer” chora
of Chersonesos.62 Palaeobotanist g. Paškevič has picked up where her teacher
Z. Januševič left off in the study of palaeobotanical remains of the city and
chora of Chersonesos.63 there are surely other instances of collaborations of
which i am unaware. in general, however, field archaeologists working in the
Black Sea, as well as the mediterranean, could be more sensitive to the im-
portance of evidence that habitually ends up in the back dirt. there is much
to be done, and much room here for international collaboration. D. adame-
steanu, in his 91st year, remarked, Ucraini, Russi, Americani, Danesi, Polacchi,
Inglesi, Tedeschi, Cechi e Australiani – lavorate insieme! E molto importante! Molto!
it is the only way to make real progress. though governments may not see
eye-to-eye with each other, not to mention their own populations, researchers
of past life can work together and find common ground through the study of
our common history and culture. the future of landscape archaeology and
archaeology in general depends on international collaboration − of the sort
we see represented so well here and now, on this auspicious occasion.
Notes
1 i wish to thank the organizers of this conference for inviting me to address again
this theme, which i first attempted, knowing little at the time about the Cher-
sonesean chora, in a conference in the Chersonesos museum in 1992 (Carter 1995,
167-175). i wish to express my deep appreciation to Director Leonid marčenko
and Deputy Director galina nikolaenko, and to the staff of the national Preserve
of tauric Chersonesos (nPtC) for their ever warm and generous hospitality and
their spirit of open collaboration and collegiality. it goes without saying that
without the constant encouragement and support both of the Soprintendenze Ar‑
cheologiche della Basilicata e della Calabria, this comparative study would never have
been possible. this article draws on the results of research by students, staff, and
collaborators of the institute of Classical archaeology (iCa) over the last thirty
years. it has been supported by the generosity, from the beginning, of private
donors and foundations, the national endowment for the humanities (neh)
1977-1993, the international Board of research and exchange (ireX) 1994-1995,
the national Space and aeronautics administration (naSa) 1998-2002, and
since 1999 by major grants from the Packard humanities institute (Phi) which
has also generously supported the full publication of the results of field work at
metapontion since 1974 and Chersonesos since 1994.
2 adamesteanu 1974.
3 yanushevich & nikolaenko 1979, 115-134.
4 Carter 2006.
5 Pecirka & Dufkova 1970, 123-174.
6 Carter & Prieto (forthcoming).
7 Carter & D’annibale 1993; Carter & D’annibale 1985, 145-157.
8 Prieto 2002, 47-50.
9 adamesteanu 1974, 89-91.
10 abbott 1997, Ch. 3.
11 the “slave” necropolis in the chora of Poseidonia: avigliano 1985, 261-268. man-
icles and manumission inscriptions have been discovered in the chora of kroton:
Carter (forthcoming 2005), Ch. 3.
12 Carter (ed.) 1998.
13 Carter 2002, 161-170, pl. 33.
14 Saprykin 1994, 83-94.
15 nikolaenko 2001, 117-204; Carter in: Carter et al. 2000, 709-714.
16 Solomonik & nikolaenko 1990.
17 Ščeglov 1981; Savelja 1996, 13-18.
18 Carter 2000, 723-733; Carter et al. (forthcoming 2000).
19 Carter & mack (eds.) 2003, 58 (maps of monuments, trace of latest phase of city
wall); fig. 8.9 (city wall by South-east gate).
20 Carter 1998, 15; Carter 2006; Ch. 5; ryzhov 2004.

21 Carter 1998, 7-17; Carter & Prieto (forthcoming), n. 6; recent Studies (2003-2005)
of the black gloss pottery dating indicate a much higher number of sites in the
chora in the early 6th century and 5th centuries BC than previously believed.
22 De Siena 1999, 229-232.
23 Carter 2000, 727-729.
24 adamesteanu 1974, 190-197.
25 Barra Bagnasco 1997; Freeman et al. (forthcoming).
26 See the contribution by G.M. Nikolaenko in this volume. Eds.
27 rabinowitz, yashaeva & nikolaenko 2003, 9-17.
28 trelogan. 2000, 25-31.
29 naSa grant no. nag5-7693, “remote Sensing, giS and ancient territory: the
Chora of Chersonesos, Sevastopol, ukraine”, Sept. 1, 1998 to may 31, 2003.
30 uggeri 1969, 51-71; adamesteanu 1973.
31 Buyskikh & Zolotarev 2002, 273-303.
32 Carter 2000, 21-33.
33 guy 1995; Carter 1998, 42-46.
34 Ščeglov 1992, 250-273.
35 Carter 1998, 45; 2000, 24.
36 Carter 2000, 24, fig. 39.
37 adamesteanu & vatin 1976, 110-123.
38 nava 2003, 664-676.
39 Carter 2006, Ch. 5.
40 Carter 2006, Chs. 3, 5.
41 See the contribution by G.M. Nikolaenko in this volume. Eds.
42 Carter 2004.
43 Solovyov 1999, 34-63; tsetskhladze 2004.
44 Ščeglov 1981; Savelja 1996.
45 this is the point of view of t.J. Dunbabin (1948). Cf. Buiskikh & Buiskikh 2001,
667-682.
46 hall & morgan 1996, 164-232.
47 mele 1998.
48 orlandini 1999, 197-210; Stea 1999, 49-71.
49 De Siena 1996, 161-195.
50 Carter (forthcoming).
51 See the contribution by S.D. Kryžickij in this volume. Eds.
52 Carter 2003a, 491-509; Carter 2003b, 13-22.
53 S. Bökönyi, personal communication 1993.
54 Bökönyi 1984; Carter & Costantini 1994, 101-118.
55 yanushevich, nikolaenko & kusmina.1985, 115-135.
56 Cordova & Lehman. 2003, 1483-1501.
57 Carter 1980; Costantini 1998, 7-15.
58 Costantini 1983, 487-492.
59 henneberg & henneberg 2001, 461-474.
60 henneberg 1998.
61 kasparov 2002, 332-333; Žuravlev, markova & Syčeva 1990, 98-113.
62 tatiana Jašaeva, personal communication, 2003.
63 Pashkevich 1997, 263-273.
Bibliography
abbott, J.t. 1997. Late Quaternary Alluviation and Soil Erosion in Southern Italy.
PhD dissertation. university of texas (geography), Ch. 3. to appear in:
Carter & Prieto (forthcoming).
adamesteanu, D. 1973. Le suddivisioni di terra nel metapontino, in: m.i. Finley
(ed.), Problèmes, de la terre en Grèce ancienne. La haye-Paris, 51-61.
adamesteanu, D. 1974. La Basilicata antica. Cava dei tirreni.
adamesteanu, D. (ed.) 1999. Storia della Basilicata, 1. L’Antichità. Bari.
adamesteanu, D. & C. vatin 1976. L’arrière-pays de métaponte, CRAI,
110-123.
avigliano, g. 1985. the “slave” necropolis in the chora of Poseidonia-Paestum:
necropoli di Ponte di Ferro, Rassegna storica salernitana 2.1, 261-268.
Barra Bagnasco, m. (ed.) 1997. Pomarico Vecchio i. galatina.
Buiskikh, a. & S. Buiskikh 2001. i siti di olbia e della sua chora nel periodo
della colonizzazione greca, AttiTaranto 40, 667-682.
Buyskikh, a.v. & m.i. Zolotarev 2002. the System of City Planning in Cher-
sonesos tauricos, AA 2002, 273-303.
Bökönyi, S. 1984. animal remains of roman metaponto: a preliminary report.
unpublished.
Carter, J.C. 1980. Excavations in the territory of Metaponto, 10. austin.
Carter, J.C. 1995. Chora metaponta v Lukanii i Chersonesa v tavrike, in: m.i.
Zolotarev (ed.), Antičnye polisy i mestnoe naselenie Pričernomor’ja. Sevas-
topol’, 167-175.
Carter, J.C. (ed.) 1998. The Chora of Metaponto. The Necropoleis. austin.
Carter, J.C. (ed.) 2000. Ancient Territories: Metaponto and Chersonesos. 1 An‑
nual Report, Institute of Classical Archaeology. austin.
Carter, J.C. 2002. Color at Chersonesos (on the Black Sea): Funerary monu-
ments from the early hellenistic necropolis, in: m.a. tiverios & D.S.
tsiaphake (eds.), Colour in Ancient Greece. thessaloniki, 161-170.
Carter, J.C. 2003a. ambiente e paesaggio del metapontino, AttiTaranto 42,
491-509.
Carter, J.C. 2003b. the Chora of metaponto: the animal inhabitants and their
environment, in: Living Off the Chora: Diet and Nutrition at Metaponto.
austin, 13-22.
Carter, J.C. 2004. the greek identity at metaponto, in: k. Lomas (ed.), The
Greek Identity in the Mediterranean. International Conference in Honour of
Professor B.B. Shefton, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 1. oxford.
Carter, J.C. 2006. The Discovery of the Ancient Countryside at Metaponto (the
thomas Spencer Jerome Lectures, ann arbor and rome 2000-2001). ann
arbor.
Carter, J.C. et al. 2000. the Chora of Chersonesos, AJA 104, 709-714.
Carter, J.C. et al. (forthcoming). Farmhouse no. 151, yukharina Balka, Chora
of Chersonesos, in: J.C. Carter (ed.), Chersonesan Studies. The Chora.
Carter, J.C. & L. Costantini 1994. Settlement density, agriculture, and the extent
of productive land cleared from forest in the time of the roman empire
in magna grecia, in: B. Frenzel, L. reisch & m.m. Weiß (eds.), Evalua‑
tion of land surfaces cleared from forests in the Mediterranean region during
the time of the Roman empire. 6th EPC/ESF Workshop, Mainz, 14.‑16.03.11
(Paläoklimaforschung/Palaeoclimate research, 10). Stuttgart, 101-118.
Carter, J.C. & C. D’annibale 1985. metaponto and Croton, in: mcready &
thompson (eds.) 1985, 145-157.
Carter, J.C. & C. D’annibale 1993. il territorio di Crotone, ricognizioni topo-
grafiche 1983-1986, in: a. mele (ed.), Crotone e la sua storia tra IV e III secolo
a.C. napoli, 93-99.
Carter, J.C. & g. mack (eds.) 2003. Crimean Chersonesos. austin.
Carter, J.C. & a. Prieto (eds.) (forthcoming). The Chora of Metaponto: Archaeo‑
logical Field Survey i. Bradano to Basento. austin.
Chtcheglov, a.n. 1992. Polis et chora. Cité et territoire dans le Pont‑Euxin.
Paris.
Cordova, C. & P.h. Lehman 2003. archaeopalynology of Synanthropic veg-
etation in the Chora of Chersonesos, ukraine, Journal of Archaeological
Science 30, 1483-1501.
Costantini, L. 1998. the origin of the mediterranean Diet in italy, Rivista di
antropologia 76, 7-15.
D’annibale, C. 1985. metaponto and Croton, in: mcready & thompson (eds.)
1985, 145-157.
De Siena, a. 1996. metaponto: strutture abitative ed organizzazione territo-
riale prima della fondazione della colonia achaea, in: F. D’andria and
k. manino (eds.), Ricerche sulla casa in Magna Grecia (atti del Colloquio,
Lecce 23-24 guigno, 1992). galatina, 161-195.
De Siena, a. 1999. La colonizzazione achea del metapontino, in adamesteanu
(ed.) 1999, 229-232.
Dunbabin, t.J. 1948. The Western Greeks. oxford.
Freeman, P. et al. (forthcoming). Bezymayannaya, in: J.C. Carter (ed.), Cher‑
sonesan Studies, The Chora.
guy, m. 1995. Cadastres en bandes de métaponto à agde. Questions et mé-
thods, in: Sur les pas des Grecs en Occident (Études massaliètes, 4). Paris,
427-444.
hall, J. & C. morgan 1996. achaian Poleis and achaian Colonization, in: m.h.
hansen (ed.), Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis (Symposium august,
23-26 1995. acts of Copenhagen Polis Center, 3). Copenhagen, 164-232.
henneberg, m. & r.J. henneberg 2001. analysis of human Skeletal and
Dental remains from metaponto (7th-2nd Century BC), AttiTaranto 40,
461-474.
henneberg, r.J. 1998. Dental health and affiliations of inhabitants of the
ancient greek Colony in metaponto, italy (6th-3rd Century BC). PhD
dissertation. Faculty of Science, university of the Witwatersrand.
kasparov, a.k. 2002. osseous remains, in: L. hannestad, v.F. Stolba & a.n.
Ščeglov (eds.), Panskoye I. vol. 1. The Monumental Building U6. aarhus,
332-333.
mcready S. & F.h. thompson (eds.) 1985. Archaeological Field Survey in Britain
and Abroad (Society of antiquaries of London, occasional Paper, n.s., 6).
London.
mele, a. 1998. Culti e miti nella storia di metaponto, in: Siritide e Metapontino.
Storie di due territorie coloniali (atti dell’ incontro di studio, Policoro 1991.
Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard, 20). napoli, 67-90.
nava, m.L. 2003. L’attività archeologica in Basilicata nel 2002, AttiTaranto 42,
664-676.
nikolaenko, g.m. 2001. the adjacent Chora of tauric Chersonesos in the 4th
Century BC, in: g.r. tsetskladze (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Dis‑
coveries and Studies (Colloquia Pontica, 6). Leiden-Boston-köln, 117-204.
orlandini, P. 1999. La colonizzazione ionica della Siritide, in: adamesteanu
(ed.) 1999, 197-210.
Pashkevich, g.a. 1997. early Farming in the ukraine, in: J. Chapman & P.
Dolukhanov (eds.), Landscapes in Flux. Central and Eastern Europe in An‑
tiquity (Colloquia Pontica, 3). oxford, 263-273.
Pecirka, J. & m. Dufkova 1970. excavations of Farms and Farmhouses in the
Chora of Chersonesos in the Crimea, Eirene 8, 123-174.
Prieto, a. 2002. intensive Field Survey Between Bradano and Basento: Pub-
lication, Progress, and Perspective, in: J.C. Carter & a. Prieto (eds). The
Study of Ancient Territories: Chersonesos and Metaponto. 2002 Annual Report.
The Institute of Classical Archaeology. austin, 47-50.
rabinowitz, a., t. yashaeva & g. nikolaenko 2003. Chora of Chersonesos.
excavations at Bezymayannaya 2002. in: J.C. Carter & a. Pricto (eds.) The
Study of Ancient Territories. Chersonesos an Metaponto. 2002 Annual Report,
Austin, 9-17. See www.utexas.edu/research/iCa/publications.
ryzhov, S. 2004. excavations of insula XXXvi at chersonesos, in: The Study of
Ancient Territories, Chersonesos and Metaponto. 2003 Annual Report, Institute
of Classical Archaeology. austin, 43-49. See www.utexas.edu/research/
iCa/publications.
Saprykin, S.J. 1994. Ancient Farms and Landplots on the Khora of Khersonesos
Taurike. amsterdam.
Savelja, o.Ja. 1996. archeologičeskie materialy k istorii geraklejskogo po-
luostrova dokolonizacionnogo perioda, ChSbor 7, 13-18.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1981. tavry i grečeskie kolonii v tavrike, in: o.D. Lordkipanidze
(ed.), Demografičeskaja situacija v Pričernomor’e v period Velikoj grečeskoj kolo‑
nizacii: Materialy II Vsesojuznogo simpoziuma po drevnej istorii Pričernomor’ja
(Cchaltubo 1979). tbilisi, 204-218.
v načale iii veka do. n.e (IOSPE i2, 403), VDI 2, 79-99.
Solovyov, S.L. 1999. Ancient Berezan (Colloquia Pontica, 4). amsterdam,

34-63.
Stea, g. 1999. Forme della presenza greca sull’arco ionico della Basilicata: tra
emporio e apoikia, in: m. Castaldi (ed.), Koinà. Miscellanea di studi archeo‑
logici in onore di Piero Orlandini. milano, 49-71.
trelogan, J. 2000. remote Sensing and giS in the Chora of Chersonesos, in:
J.C. Carter (ed.), The Study of Ancient Territories: Chersonesos & Metaponto.
2000 Annual Report. Institute of Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas.
austin, 25-31. http://www.utexas.edu/research/ica/2000.pdf
Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica, 9).
uggeri, g. 1969. Kleroi arcaici e bonifica classica nella chora di metaponto,
Parola del Passato 24, 51-71.
yanushevich, Z. & g. nikolaenko 1979. Fossil remains of Cultivated Plants
in the ancient tauric Chersonesos, in: u.k. ghrone (ed.), Festschrift Maria
Hopf. Bonn, 115-134.
yanushevich, Z., g. nikolaenko & n. kusmina 1985. La viticulture a Cher-
sonèse de taurique aux ive-iie siècles av. n. è. d’après les recherches
archéologiques et paléoethnobotaniques, RA 1, 115-135.
Žuravlev, o.P., e.P. markova & L.v. Syčova 1990. k istorii životnovodstva
ol’vijskoj sel’skoj okrugi, in: S.D. kryžickij, S.B. Bujskich & v.m. otreško
(eds.), Antičnye poselenija Nižnego Pobuž’ja. kiev, 98-113.
Abbreviations
AttiTaranto atti del convegno di studi sulla magna grecia. taranto.
ancient roads and Land Division
in the Chorai of the european
Bosporos and Chersonesos on
the evidence of air Photographs,
mapping and Surface Surveys1
the greek colonization of the kimmerian Bosporos was of a distinctly agri-

cultural character as the vast fertile lands of the kerch Peninsula constituted
the main treasure of this region.2 the rural territories were intended not only
to provide the population of the Bosporos with food but also to supply trade
goods that were able to compete in the overseas markets. thus the Bosporos
was provided with all the components necessary for the existence of the state
and its citizens. these trade goods included grain, especially wheat, which
was always in demand in the ancient world.
as shown by the literary as well as the archaeological and epigraphic evi-
dence,3 the earliest greek poleis which arose in the 6th century BC in Bosporos
were Pantikapaion, theodosia, and nymphaion. the small towns of tyritake,
myrmekion and Porthmion were founded probably in the course of internal
colonization and were part of the Pantikapaian polis. the early poleis were civil
communities of landowners allotted land-plots or kleroi within a distance of
a few kilometres from their settlements. Later, with the development of the
commodity production of grain, the chora of these poleis started to grow and
required a new demarcation of land-plots. nevertheless, the poleis’ basis as
communities of landowners remained intact. Probably, almost all of the ter-
ritory in the Bosporan state, which was suitable for agriculture, was tilled at
the height of the international grain trade in the 4th century BC.4 although
our written sources’ information on land division in the european Bosporos
is extremely scarce,5 the physical traces of such a division are fortunately still
preserved. this paper attempts to reconstruct the systems of land-plots in the
major poleis using a combination of remote (aerial and space photography and
mapping of distributions) and archaeological methods.
Methodology
We base our assumptions on the postulate that the systems of ancient land-di-
20 Tat’jana N. Smekalova & Sergej L. Smekalov
vision must have been more or less distinctly reflected in the now existing
realities: on aerial photographs, in the grid of old and modern roads recorded
on maps of various years, in the boundaries of present-day fields, the positions
of forest belts and land demarcations of various types. the territory of the
kerch Peninsula cannot have changed its appearance much since the ancient
period as otherwise certain indications of ancient field demarcations, which
still remain, would have been erased completely from its surface. only the
most urbanized, completely built-up areas and perhaps the levelled areas of
aerodromes may prove to be unpromising for our researches. most of the
land, however, still preserves, or preserved until recently, information which
it is possible to bring to light using a combination of techniques mentioned
above.
air photography provides the basic link in this complex. on the basis of
our recent studies, we can state that within the european Bosporos, it is only
possible to observe traces of ancient land-division from a considerable height
and under certain conditions. unfortunately, we have only recently been able
to study the many aerial photographs, after many cartographic materials and
aerial photographs were declassified and thus became available to research-
ers. this fact has partly impeded the studies of the chora of ancient states.
now these studies should be carried out with redoubled effort in order not
to miss the traces of kleroi which are disappearing fast in areas under tillage
or construction.
the land-plots revealed by means of air photography are the starting point
for the entire chain of reconstruction. the indispensable prerequisite for this
reconstruction is to detect the regular grid of land-plots on aerial photographs.
two of the most important indications of kleroi are (1) rows of straight parallel
lines (mostly dark) intersected with a group of similar straight lines perpen-
dicularly to the former, and (2) the metrological parameters of the rectangles
resulting from these intersections.
the orientation of the axes of demarcation must have corresponded to
the directions most “favourable” for the transportation of the crops from the
fields and for communications of other kinds. in addition, it complied with the
peculiarities of the terrain providing the best soil drainage. it is also known
that the requirement for optimal insolation must be taken into account.6
historical evidence and the results of studies of the chora of Chersonesos
are our starting point concerning the metrological characteristics. Strabon
mentions indirectly that the unit for measuring out areas used in the north-
ern Black Sea region was the plethron (7.3.19). although its value was not
indicated by the author, it is known that one plethron equals 100 square feet.
as shown by a.n. Ščeglov and g.m. nikolaenko who studied the system of
land-division in the chora of Chersonesos, a standard measure based on an
egyptian foot and equal to 0.35 metre was used there (100 feet correspond-
ingly equalled 35 metres).7 the egyptian plethron must thus have equalled
1,225 m2 or 0.1225 ha. having presupposed that feet and plethra were also
Ancient Roads and Land Division 20
used for land-division in the Bosporos we arrived at the confirmation of this

hypothesis as demonstrated below.
there is another greek measurement of length for the plots, schoinos, which
is equal to 120 feet of 0.2777 m each, as recorded on the herakleian tablets.8
it is apparent that 100 egyptian feet is almost the same as one schoinos. there
is an approximate roman equivalent, the actus of 120 roman feet, which, as-
suming a standard foot, gives us a length of 35.48 m. Actus, or “drive”, was
originally an agricultural term, indicating the distance that oxen pulling a
plough were driven before a turn-back. the two roman measures of area
most commonly used were iugerum which equals 2 square acta or 2,523.30 m2
or 0.25233 hectares and centuria (“century”) equal to 20 × 20 acta, i.e. an area
of 200 iugera. Iugerum was originally an agricultural measure – the field that
could be ploughed in a day.9 Plinius (NH, 18.49) writes:
it is a fair day’s work to plough one iugerum, for the first time, nine inches
in depth; and the second time, one iugerum and a half – that is to say,
if it is an easy soil. if this, however, is not the case, it will take a day to
turn up half a iugerum for the first time, and a whole iugerum the second
(transl. J. Bostock & h.t. riley).
it is apparent that one plethron equals almost exactly half a iugerum, the two
units thus having been possibly considered quite similar in terms of their
use for plot measuring. it is in iugera that the areas of rectangular plots were
measured in valencia where they were 710 × 360 m with an area of 2,556 m2 or
100 iugera.10 numerous traces of roman “centuries” are found in italy, eastern
Spain and northern africa.11 after augustus’ times the value of “centuries”
became so standardised that any exceptions are practically unknown.12
after determination of the traces of discernible land-plots on aerial pho-
tographs we studied maps, both old and new large-scale ones, as well as
high-resolution space photographs. on these we selected linear elements,
the directions of which corresponded to those of the axes of land-division
while the distance between them was equal to or divisible by the size of one
land-plot. all the elements found were recorded in a single computer topo-
graphy base. to this, the results of the deciphering of aerial photographs,
which had been obtained earlier, were added. the resulting composite map
serves as the basis for the reconstruction of the system of land-plots of the
poleis or other administrative entities.
Finally, the data obtained by the remote methods were supplemented by
archaeological evidence available checked by surveying. the precise geo-
graphical coordinates of the distinctly detectable demarcation banks and walls,
roads, buildings etc. were determined by means of gPS-receivers and drawn
on the composite map of the area under study. often plots were divided by
small ditches. these were later filled by soil from the upper layers that were
more magnetic than the subsoil medium housing them.13 as shown by previ-
210
1
2
2
1
Fig. 1. Kerch Peninsula. Military topographic map of 165 at a scale of 3 versts to 1 inch (three‑verst map) or 1:126,000. Shown by solid lines are the
four areas of the orthogonal land‑division (I‑IV) and the territory of the hypothetical “royal chora” (V).
Marked by the dashed line are the Uzunlar Rampart (1) and the Parpač Ridge (2). Barbarian settlements of the 4th‑3rd centuries BC are des‑
ignated by circles following Maslennikov 1, 77.
ous research, these objects create fairly considerable magnetic disturbances,

which can be easily detected owing to their considerable length, as well as in-
tersections of lines at a right angle such as is uncommon in natural structures.
therefore, magnetometer surveys may be of help in revealing the layouts of
rural estates, as well as in the determination of anomalies caused by silted-up
ditches, buried roads and walls or banks between ancient fields.
the division of the land into equal plots according to an orthogonal sys-
tem was adjusted, in particular, to natural features. the land-division was
conducted within the territories adjoining the polis they belonged to and
bounded by various natural geographical and topographic barriers: upland
ridges, seashores or the banks of lakes, rivers, deep gullies, etc. the orienta-
tion of the land-demarcation axes was selected according to the predominant
directions of slopes and at the same time answered to the requirement of
providing the shortest and most convenient way to the polis (or some other
economic and administrative centre nearby) for the transportation of crops
or other economical needs. along with the peculiarities of the landscape, the
type of soils, their humidity and stoniness, prevailing wind directions and
insolation determined the positions of ancient fields. naturally, not only the
modern features of the relief but also changes in climate and hydrology, as
well as the constancy or variability of the wind, must be taken into account
in any historical reconstruction.
the necessary additional information was yielded by archaeological sur-
veys and excavations of the past years. of special importance is the evidence
for farmhouses that may have been located on each plot. if the spatial relation
between the kleroi and the farmhouses is proved, the finds from the latter may
serve as dating materials for the system of land-division.
now, we proceed to the results of our research. Four areas of continuous
orthogonal land-division have been revealed on the territory of the european
Bosporos (Fig. 1):14
1) the south-western part of the kerch Peninsula (i);
2) the middle part of the peninsula near the Strait of kerch (ii);
3) the region to the north-east of the city of kerch extending towards the
temir-gora mountain (iii);
4) the region west of Pantikapaion (iv).
Distant chora of Theodosia

the first and the largest region is that of the southern part of the kerch Pen-
insula from Cape Čauda reaching as far as the uzunlar Lake (uzunlarskoe).
it has already recently been noted that on aerial photographs taken in 1972,
the traces of at least 130 ancient land-plots are distinctly visible (Figs. 2a and
3a-b).15 the kleroi measure about 350 m in the meridian and 388-390 m in the
latitudinal directions (Fig. 2b). thus the shorter side of the plots corresponds to
1,000 egyptian feet and the longer one to 1,000+100 feet. We suppose that the
area of each square plot equalled 100 plethra or 12.25 hectares. the additional
100 feet in one direction may be the result of building required for infrastruc-
tures (roads, division banks or walls) or other structures not considered as
a part of the area of a lot. We have traced a similar practice for plots in the
vicinity of v. michajlovka (see below). in the latter case, the “additional” 100
feet were reserved along a line leading southwards to the sea, the explanation
for this being the necessity of transporting harvests to the polis by sea.
all of the plots are aligned approximately on the cardinal points with a
Fig. 2. a) Aerial photographs of the territory west of Cape Čauda; b) the orthogonal system of
land‑plots is set off on the air photographs.
a slight deviation from the north: c. 12-14° to the west. the grid of these squares
is only disturbed by the steep beach and banks of the kačik (or kačikskoe)
Lake, which probably was a sea bay in antiquity. on the plots situated to the
east of the lake, additional meridian lines can be seen – possibly the result of
restructuring. no traces of rural buildings have as yet been revealed either
on the photographs or during limited surveys in the terrain.16
the above mentioned deviation of the axes of the land-plots 12-14° coun-
ter-clockwise from the modern northern direction perhaps deserves a more
detailed consideration. Jumping ahead, we can note that we have recorded
the identical direction for the land-dividing demarcations of the kleroi situated
near mt temir-gora. it is well known that the position of the magnetic pole
has varied with time, so that the counter-clockwise deviation of 10-15° rela-
tive to the modern northward direction corresponds to the exact orientation
of the magnetic pole during the period from c. 4th to the 1st century BC.17 the
coincidence of the parallel orientations of the two systems of land-division is
probably not fortuitous. We suppose that ancient land-surveyors used some
devices like our compass for laying the axes of the plots. it is known, that
where no considerations of the relief were of importance, roman camps,
towns, monuments and country estates tend to be oriented to the four car-
Fig. 3. a) Enlarged detail of the aerial photograph of the territory west of Lake Kačik; b) Enlarged
detail of the aerial photograph of the territory east of Lake Kačik.
dinal directions. We do not insist that the kleroi must have invariably been
oriented to the north everywhere throughout the Bosporos. undoubtedly, the
main requisition when selecting the orientation of the axes was that of pro-
viding the shortest way to deliver crops to the polis or to a place from which
the grain could be transported by sea. as we will see below, the direction of
the axes of the land-plots of nymphaion is different, in that it corresponds
to the shortest way to the polis. But it is nevertheless undoubted that a com-
pass is a very convenient tool, and therefore the northward orientation was
preferred, when the direction towards the polis coincided approximately with
a cardinal direction and where natural conditions allowed it. the northern
direction, however, was the direction towards the “ancient” magnetic north
which in the 4th-3rd centuries BC deviated 14° counter-clockwise from the
respective modern one. in principle, this specific declination may be used for
approximate “archaeomagnetic” dating of the system of land-division albeit
the dates obtained covered a very wide range. our results, notwithstanding
their extreme vagueness, do not contradict but rather corroborate the more
accurate date yielded by archaeological evidence as proposed below.
very important data for the reconstruction of the system of land-plots in
the southern part of the kerch Peninsula are obtained from large-scale maps:
1:25,000, the so-called verstovki or one‑verst maps (scale 1:42,000); 1:100,000, the
three‑verst map of 1866 (scale 1:126,000), Betev’s map of 1842, muchin’s map of
1817 and high-resolution space photographs. these maps and photographs
have enabled us to reveal the linear elements (mostly roads or boundaries of
fields) corresponding to two features of the plots: their orientation at 12-14°
to the west and the interval between them, which is divisible by 350 m in the
latitudinal and by 385 m in the meridian direction (Fig. 4).
the preserved elements of the system of land-lots yielded by maps and
space photographs allow us to reconstruct the orthogonal structure of the
land-division throughout a considerable territory that exceeds several times
the initial area where the plots have been revealed by air photographs. espe-
cially noteworthy are at least three “trunk roads” leading from north to south
seawards. one of the roads is discernible both on the one‑verst map and on the
1:25,000 map almost in the centre between the group of plots situated east of
the kačik Lake. this road leads from north to south – approximately from what
is now the village of vulkanovka (formerly Džav-tepe) to the seacoast, corre-
sponding exactly to the boundary between the hypothetical ancient plots. at
the end of this central road, on the coast, a seaport settlement may have been
situated which today may be destroyed by the fast erosion of the seashore.
Similar roads are also found in the western part of the peninsula leading from
the former village of Sarylar and, in the eastern part, from what is now the lo-
cality of krasnopol’e to the sea (see Fig. 4). they lie at distances of 8 and 6.5 km
respectively from the central road. We may suppose that these roads were the
main ones in antiquity leading from the inland steppe to the seashore.
in the western section of the territory under consideration we are able to
reconstruct another meridian road, as well as two latitudinal ones, with a
distance of 720 m between them, north of a small lake of Dort-kol and south
of the village of arpač. however most of the elements of the orthogonal sys-
tem of land-division have been reconstructed in the central and eastern parts
of the district under consideration – from the very seacoast inland towards
vulkanovka.18 Probably we are dealing here with an almost uninterrupted
cultivation of the fields from antiquity to today with the same borders and
roads as before.
in the northernmost area of the Black Sea gulf – west of Lake uzunlar
– two roads run latitudinally as parallel lines c. 720 m from each other. these
Fig. 4. Southern section of Kerch Peninsula from Cape Čauda up to Lake Uzunlar. Recon‑
struction of the orthogonal system of land‑division. The structures discernible on air photo‑
graphs are drawn with solid lines, shown in the map at a scale of 1:25,000 – dotted lines, in the
one‑verst map – dashed lines.
are crossed by at least four transverse roads, three of which are about 770 m
from each other, the fourth lying at a distance of about 2,000 m east from the
previous one and fairly close to Lake uzunlar (see Fig. 4).
the directions of all the above-mentioned elements correspond exactly to
the axes of the system of land-plots, the distances between them being divis-
ible by the linear dimensions of the latter. using the composite map (Fig. 4),
it was possible to establish that the plots occupied a considerably larger ter-
ritory than that traced on air photographs. this territory is bounded on the
south and west by the sea, by Lake uzunlar on the east, and on the north by a
line lying slightly farther north from the northern extension of the same lake.
the total area of the reconstructed system of land-plots amounts to about 350
km2 or 35,000 ha, the number of the plots being at least 2,800.
the validity of the hypotheses proposed was checked in the course of
surface surveys in 2004-2005 and magnetic surveys in 2005, as well as by
measuring the coordinates of the traces of ancient land-division discernible
on the surface. one angle of a land-plot in the westernmost system of land-di-
vision, i.e. outside the military zone, was chosen as a testing area (50 × 20 m)
for magnetic surveys. the location of this angle was found on the surface by
means of the calculated gPS coordinates defined by the aerial photograph
superimposed on the computer map of the district. in the magnetic field

recorded, two extended anomalous structures are well distinguishable not-
withstanding a considerable level of noise caused by iron objects remaining
from World War ii. the two structures cross each other at a right angle, their
directions corresponding exactly to the axes of the land-division. the results
of magnetic surveys thus corroborate the existence of traces of land-plots here.
their boundaries were probably marked by tilled ditches that later were filled
with upper (more magnetic) layers thus producing extended weak positive
anomalies.
in terms of natural conditions all this territory is characterized by a fairly
monotonous landscape: practically level or slightly rugged plain with only rare
gently sloping hills here and there. the few natural obstacles for the cultiva-
tion of these vast lands include the deep and ramified ravine of Džapar-Berdy
running into the salt lake of kačik, as well as the lake itself, mt Djurmen and
the uročišče of kotlovina, which may have been a salt lake in antiquity.
the natural limits of the land-division system under consideration were
the coast to the south and south-west and Lake uzunlar to the east. in the
north, the demarcated area may have been bounded by the Parpač ridge. the
latter must have been at the same time a kind of a border dividing the tilled
fields from the territory to the north, where due to topographical and climatic
conditions (as well perhaps as some others) another economical structure
and type of everyday life dominated among the local population. We must
remember that precisely this last district of the peninsula is the most abundant
in barrows of different periods, which in some cases form practically uninter-
rupted chains marking the direction of ancient roads in particular running
east to west along the crest of the aforementioned ridge. notwithstanding the
fact that in terms of its natural conditions the Crimean area of the azov Sea
has always been favourable for agriculture, it was predominantly a region of
animal husbandry and semi-nomadic populations. it is true, however, that the
situation varied in different historical periods even within a single epoch.
the topsoil consists here of silted solonetzic černozems, meadow and
černozem-meadow soils, and solonetzs. at present, these soils are considered
potentially fit for agriculture but in need of certain improvements.19 in antiq-
uity, however, these lands were probably considerably more fertile. otherwise
it is impossible to understand the well known statement of Strabon that the
plain between theodosia and Pantikapaion was rich in grain and had many
settlements (7.4.4).
in terms of archaeology, the territory described is the least well known,
possibly due to the fact that almost the entire coastal zone, up to 5 km in
width, has been off limits since the pre-World-War-ii period. on the map
presented in i.t. kruglikova’s monograph,20 only one hellenistic settlement
(karasevka), together with the port settlement of kazeka known from written
sources and perhaps situated near Cape Čauda, is specified in the northern
section of the district under consideration. as far as kazeka itself, little of it
remains preserved. v.v. veselov’s surveys21 have not dealt with this region at
all. neither have the recent explorations by a.v. gavrilov, who is of opinion
that it could not belong to the chora of theodosia being too far away from
the city nor have our few brief trips to the region of Cape Čauda succeeded
in supplementing the information available.22
in our opinion, the land-plots found here did nevertheless belong to the
distant chora of theodosia. although their distance from the city is fairly far
by land (c. 50 km), we must not forget that the greeks preferred seaways. the
route via the gulf was shorter (c. 32 km), more convenient and safer, lying
within direct sight of both kazeka and theodosia.
unfortunately, at the present stage of our studies we can say almost noth-
ing concerning the dating of the land-division system under consideration.
the reason is that no farmhouses have as yet been found here, partly because
the southern areas have been inaccessible for reconnaissance on foot and
partly because until recently the ideas on what this intended research should
include have been fairly vague. now it becomes clear that the search for rural
houses must be carried out throughout the entire reconstructed territory, in
particular in the vast area south of vulkanovka. on the basis of a strong re-
semblance between this land-division and that of nymphaion, as discussed
below, we can probably assume that both are dated to the same period – the
4th century BC.
Distant chora of Nymphaion

another hypothetical area of continuous land-division occupies the centre
of the eastern section of the peninsula – a few dozen kilometres approxi-
mately from the village of tasunovo (on the north) towards the Strait of
kerch (fig. 1.ii). the studies of this area started with B.g. Peters’ decipher-
ing of air photographs covering for the region north of v. michajlovka.23 he
identified over 100 land-plots formed by straight, parallel lines crossed by
other similar ones at right angles (Fig. 5). the dimensions of the plots, as
established by Peters, were 300 × 340 m. however, after careful examina-
tion of the scale of the plan published by this author and studies of aerial
photographs of 1972, it became clear that these figures are wrong. in reality
the plots measured 350-380 by 380-400 m, i.e. they were equal to those in the
distant chora of theodosia mentioned above. the orientation of one side of
this system of land-plots is c. 20-23° clockwise from the geographical north
direction (or 16-19° clockwise from magnetic north). on the photographs
taken in 1972 shot from a greater height than those on which the land-plots
of theodosia have been identified by Peters, only single elements of the en-
tire orthogonal grid discovered by him are discernible. only certain parallel
dark lines running approximately 390 m from each other can be detected in
the northern section of the area under consideration. the shot examined by
Peters encompassed a smaller territory than did our images. moreover, his
Fig. 5. The orthogonal system of land‑division revealed by B.G. Peters near v. Michajlovka.
After Peters 17; a) plot boundaries; b) tumuli; c) stone enclosures of ancient times; d) stone
enclosures of Medieval period; e) terrace walls; f) outcrops of limestone rock.
photograph was probably taken during a more favourable season when the
dark lines of the plot boundaries were quite clearly discernible, thus ensuring
that the researcher could be certain that he really had seen land-plots. Dur-
ing his surface reconnaissance, Peters was able to observe the boundaries of
the kleroi visually by marks of darker vegetation and certain elevations.24 in
addition, excavations of kurgans situated within the divided territory have
even enabled the scholar to establish the chronological interval between the
land-division and the raising of the kurgan mounds.25
thus at the first stage of our studies it was possible to identify the immedi-
ate features of the system of land-division discovered north of v. michajlovka.
the land-plots are oriented with their axes 20-23° clockwise from the geograph-
ical north, measuring 360 × 390 m or approximately 1,000 × 1,000+100 feet. the
area of each plot is thus equal to 100 plethra. meridianally they are longer than
in the latitudinal direction, probably corresponding to the positions of former
demarcation marks. We are dealing here with exactly the same practice of al-
lotting land as is the case in the distant chora of theodosia. the predominant
direction of the hill slopes and of potential communication routes here was
towards Lake Čurubaš, therefore the “additional” 100 feet were reserved on
the respective sides of the plots so that the roads then in existence led to the
lake and the strait.
at the second stage of these studies, i.e. in the course of examining de-
tailed maps of the territory, we were able to identify numerous linear ele-
ments directly marking the land-plots (Fig. 6). these elements included first
the earth roads running at a transverse to each other from the northern angle
of v. tasunovo, and second, the forest belts and earth roads, which cross the
kerch-Feodosija highway in the direction from michajlovka towards kerch, as
well as the earth roads and a forest belt south and south-east of michajlovka
(see Figs. 1 and 6).
But the most noteworthy linear element is a rectangular block of pres-
ent-day fields measuring over 3 × 3.5 km and its surroundings visible on
almost every topographical map within a vast flatland south-west of Lake
Čurubaš. the direction of its axes and the dimensions of the separate fields
into which this area is divided correspond almost perfectly to the immediate
signs of the already identified kleroi (Fig. 6). We suppose that this square struc-
ture is the remains and direct continuation of the same system of land-plots
that was found near the village of michajlovka.26 it is thus possible to recon-
struct the ancient system of land-division throughout a fairly large territory
from the costal zone between lakes Čurubaš and tobečik westwards and
north-westwards as far as michajlovka and further west and north-west to
the areas slightly west of tasunovo (Fig. 6).
the placement of this system of land-plots leaves no doubts that we are
dealing here with the distant chora of nymphaion. this system does seem to
have belonged to nymphaion, although until now the border of the chora of
that polis, even at its peak, had been considered to be slightly further east,
the chora itself confined to the area between Lakes Čurubaš and tobečik.27
the main argument in support of a considerable enlargement of the sup-
posed rural surroundings of nymphaion is this uninterrupted continuation
of the single system of orthogonal land-division throughout the entire area
described above.
here, as well as within the undoubted territory of the nymphaian chora
(the area between Lakes Čurubaš and tobečik), the predominant direction of
the demarcating of the land was determined by the natural slopes of the vast
elevated plateau. this direction coincided with the longer axes of the lakes
and the general seaward inclination of the terrain.
the orthogonal system of plots surrounding michajlovka was limited to
the west by the uzunlar rampart – a combination of a natural (hills) and an
220
Fig. 6. Chora of Nymphaion. Reconstruction of the orthogonal system of land‑division. The structures discernible on air photographs
are drawn with solid lines; elements shown in the map at a scale of 1:25,000 are represented with dotted lines; circles indicate the
settlements of the 4th‑th‑3rd centuries BC.
artificial barrier. the proper chora of nymphaion were bordered to the west
and south-west by the glubokaja ravine which joins a system of ravines
united under a single name of the “uročišče of Plavni” (ičkil-Džilga) the latter
running in their turn into Lake tobečik. the soils vary throughout this region
offering in places the most fertile černozems on the peninsula.28
to the north and north-east, the chora of nymphaion were probably
bounded by the banks of Lake Čurubaš. to the north-west, judging by the
area occupied by the orthogonal system of land-plots, the boundary was the
elevated southern edge of the vale-depression in which further to the north
the village of andreevka Južnaja is situated. Probably, along this boundary
lay a section of an ancient road which is marked now by a chain of at least
11 kurgans. this road, traceable also further west by a continuous row of
kurgans, must have crossed the entire kerch Peninsula from Cape ak-Burun
to what is now the city of Staryj krym thus following the line of the Parpač
ridge (Fig. 1).
useful information on the system of ancient land-plots has been yielded by
reconnaissance expeditions and excavations including, in particular, Peters’
works north of michajlovka. these allowed the statement that the demarcation
of the land-plots was carried out synchronously according to a single plan
and was almost contemporary with the construction of the barrows dated to
the end of the 4th to the 3rd century BC.29 a number of monographs30 present
us with information on the settlements discovered in the chora of nymphaion
and provide their exact positions. those of the settlements which arose or
continued to exist in the 4th-3rd century BC have been marked on the map
of the reconstructed system of land-division (Fig. 6). the map shows clearly
that many of the settlements (nos. 25-31, 34-36, 97-100; the numeration given
after Zin’ko 2003, 160) adjoined the limits of the supposed land-plots and
were probably farmhouses or “agglomerations” of houses built on the plots.
of special interest are the data published by Scholl and Zin’ko concerning
the settlement of ogon’ki-4 (no. 27 in Fig. 6) where the directions of the walls
of the house and the fence around the plot coincide with the axes of the
land-division system. the settlements of the 4th-3rd century BC also extended
continuously to the north-west from michajlovka (Fig. 6). We cannot rule out
that their number is greater than that given by kruglikova.31 in our opinion,
these territories certainly require further investigation.
if the spatial relation between the farmhouses and land-plots remains to
be proved by future studies, the finds from the houses would be helpful in
dating the given system of land-tenure. already now we may suppose that it
should be dated to the 4th century BC since a rapid increase in the number of
settlements in the territory under consideration is characteristic of this same
period, whereas in the 5th century BC the settlements of the nymphaian chora
were concentrated mainly along the seashores and lake banks (nos. 1-12 in
Fig. 6), while in the 3rd-1st centuries BC only single sites (nos. 1, 6, 9, and 21)
continued to exist.
Fig. 7. Aerial photograph of the territory north of v. Glazovka.
Further study of the land-division system of nymphaion should aim at a

more detailed identification of its plan, defining the boundaries of each plot
as well as the existence of farmhouses, fences, ancient roads, etc., and, natu-
rally, establishing the entire area of its distribution.
Distant chora of Pantikapaion

the third orthogonal system of land demarcation was revealed during the
examination of aerial photographs from the region of mt temir-gora (Fig.
1.iii). here, the demarcation occurs as a system of absolutely straight parallel
and transverse lines as if soaring above the fairly uneven surface of the local-
ity. these lines are best discernible on the shrub-overgrown northern slope of
the famous mount of temir-gora (Fig. 7). that here distinct traces of both the
outer boundaries and the internal demarcation of the plots are still preserved
is owed to the fact that these lands have been excluded from present-day
cultivation. only recently, some garden-and-dacha cooperatives absent on
the photos of 1972 have arisen in the western part of this uročišče.
the boundaries of the plots and the lines of their inner demarcation are
distinctly visible on aerial photographs of the area from north-west of the
Fig. . North‑eastern part of Kerch Peninsula. Reconstruction of the orthogonal system of

land‑division. The structures discernible on air photographs are drawn with solid lines, shown
in the map at a scale of 1:25,000 – dotted lines, in the one‑verst map – dashed lines. Settle‑
ments of the Hellenistic time are rendered by dots, those of the 1st‑3rd cent. AD – by triangles.
1 – Pantikapaion, 2 – Myrmekion.
temir-gora as far towards the sea as Cape tarchan in the north, and as far as
the territories north-west of the village of vojkovo in the west. the system of
field demarcation thus ignores the tyritake rampart, and, accordingly, must
be earlier than the rampart.
air photography revealed indications of land-plots in this district: the
direction of the axes was 14-15° west of the magnetic northern direction
(see above on the peculiarities of this direction coinciding with that of the
land-plots near theodosia). the orientation of the land-division system was
determined by the need for the easiest possible transportation of crops to
Pantikapaion, i.e. mainly southwards.
the distance between the boundaries of the land-plots is 370 m in the me-
ridian direction and 355 m in the latitudinal one. thus the area of a land-plot
equals c. 100 plethra as in the cases described above.
From large-scale maps and space photographs, all linear elements corre-
sponding to the immediate indications of ancient land-plots were identified.
these elements were registered on a composite computer map (Fig. 8). the
mapping showed that the system of land demarcation stretches throughout
almost the entire north-western tip of the kerch Peninsula. natural limits of
the demarcated territory are in fact the coastline to the north and south, the
line running northwards from the eastern edge of the village of vojkovo in
the west, and the slopes of the coast from Cape Fonar’ as far as the village of
osoviny in the east. the total demarcated area thus amounts to at least 10,000
hectares while the number of land-plots is about 800. the top-soils here are
fairly fertile černozem and dark chestnut-coloured soils.32
Surveys of veselov and kruglikova revealed numerous settlements here
all dated to the 4th-3rd century BC. their mapping gives grounds to suppose
that the settlements may have been adjacent to the boundaries of the ancient
land-plots (Fig. 8).33 Some of them, however, might be farmhouses on the plots
so that the land-division possibly also dates to the 4th century BC. a few of
those settlements continued to exist in the early centuries aD. here too, as
in the chora of nymphaion, changes in the scale of land-tenure and the char-
acter of agricultural production undoubtedly took place in the 3rd century
BC: in particular the transition from marketable production to one oriented
towards the demands of the local market. these abrupt changes can probably
be explained by disturbances in the natural equilibrium of the region.34 in-
deed, in the 4th-3rd centuries BC, virgin lands were ploughed, and trees and
bushes were cut down after the land-division was carried out. in addition,
the fairly moist climate which had dominated here in the 6th-4th centuries
BC was superseded by a dry and hot one in the 3rd century BC. apparently,
the combination of climatic changes and the removal of upper fertile topsoil
throughout large areas resulted in ecological troubles or even a catastrophe
with rising probability of drought, dust-storms and deterioration in the fertile
top-soils on the arable fields.35
the central area of the last territory under consideration is mostly level
plain. nevertheless it is here that mt temir-gora and mt Chroni and, in ad-
dition, the deep and ramified Bulganakskaja ravine are situated. only the
upper rocky mountain-ridges were exempt from cultivation. it is well known
that hill-slopes are the best place for vineyards. therefore these territories
probably constituted the most valuable part of the available lands and, cor-
respondingly, were subjected to a very careful land demarcation.36
it is noteworthy that many present-day roads and field-demarcations north
of the village of glazovka coincide in terms of their direction with the axes of
ancient land-plots while the distances between the borders of some modern
fields are divisible by the size of the kleroi. Both parameters correspond exactly
to those surveyed on the northern slope of the temir-gora.
taking into account the position of these plots we must ascribe them ei-
ther to Pantikapaion itself or to myrmekion. however, the fairly vast terri-
tory subjected to land-division as well as certain features which characterize
this land division as an extremely important public measure suggest that the
demarcated area belonged to Pantikapaion rather than to the smaller town of
myrmekion which itself was probably part of the Pantikapaian polis.
it is remarkable that the territory occupied by land-plots is contiguous
to the eastern limits of the so-called “royal chora”. Last-mentioned probably

occupied an extensive part of the littoral of the azov Sea from a settlement
in the area in the middle of the Bay of reefs and the northern tip of the
so-called “third tyritake rampart”37 to the east of the village of Zolotoe
to the west. to the south, this territory is approximately bounded by the
latter village. the problem of the “royal chora” we have discussed else-
where;38 here, one should only note the absence of any traces of orthogonal
land-division which this particular territory features. instead, the gentle,
fertile slopes and dry even areas here are divided into bands of so-called
“long fields”. geomorphologically, this region constitutes a closed area. it
belongs to the anticline system of Čegene-enikale. its relief is composed
of a system of sloping terraces formed by rocky ridges. almost all of the
ridges are steeper on one side, viz. that formed by a cut of the rocky bed,
than on the other gently sloping one.39 the ancient arable fields must have
occupied these gentler slopes. as is typical, the long-term cultivation of the
hill slopes resulted here in the formation of earthen banks. these are found
not only in the azov Sea region but also in every locality where agriculture
developed in a hilly terrain.40 Paradoxically enough, the earthen banks that
undoubtedly resulted from cultivating the land on the hill slopes cannot be
considered fruits of human labour. the immediate cause of their formation
was the washing-out of the eroded topsoil which was gradually deposited
on the boundaries of adjoining plots or between the fields and uncultivated
areas. the banks bordered the long parallel bands which once were tilled
with heavy bull-driven ploughs.41 these banks provide information about
the extent of the development of agriculture and even about the technique
of tillage. the “long fields” extending in some cases over considerable dis-
tances probably reflect not landownership but rather the specifics of the
agricultural use of the plots. We may suppose that these lands belonged
to a single owner, probably the supreme ruler of the Bosporos, cultivation
of the “long fields” being carried out by farmers from the local tribes. the
settlements of the latter are found nearby and their inhabitants probably
were united into communities. the cemeteries of the local population were
also situated nearby. the tombs are of the stone-cist type sunk below the
ancient topsoil surface and covered with low mounds.
Home chora of Pantikapaion

Finally, the fourth orthogonal system comprised, in our opinion, the lands im-
mediately west of Pantikapaion (Fig. 1.iv). the entire valley between two hilly
ranges, with mt mithridates on one side and the famous kurgan of kara-oba
on the other, bears traces of land-division in the form of the boundaries of
present-day fields. the boundaries deviate 5° to the east from the modern
meridian here. the orientation of the plots seems to have been determined
by the direction of the major road to Pantikapaion which is the continuation
of the Parpač high-road. on the modern 1:25,000 map two parallel roads are
still traceable running via neighbouring hill slopes as far as the latter extend.
it is exactly this direction that seems to have been chosen as the basic one for
the land-division.
this territory divided into plots is bounded on the south by a chain of
kurgans marking the road which led to nymphaion and which, as mentioned
above, was the northern limit of the distant chora of nymphaion. the frontier
settlement here was that of andreevka Južnaja where in the 4th century BC
a monumental farmhouse with a stone wall around its land-plot was built in
place of an earlier settlement.42 the orientation of the walls of the house and
of the wall itself conforms exactly to the directions of the hill slopes and of the
supposed road to Pantikapaion and, correspondingly, to the orientation of the
land-division axes. the immediate traces of the ancient field demarcations are
preserved in the northern section of this area. here, north of the mt turkmen,
straight parallel lines are visible on air photographs running at the angle stated
above and crossed by transverse streaks. to the north, the lands seem to have
been demarcated as far as the Čokrak-Babčinskaja depression and the karalar
anticline thus adjoining the territory of the hypothetical “royal chora”. the
borders of modern fields and the country roads traceable on the maps at scales
of 1:25,000 (surveys of 1954) and 1:42,000 (late 19th century) still conform to
the dominating direction determined by the ancient land-division. to the west,
the limits of the territory under consideration have not as yet been established.
they probably extended up to the uzunlar rampart; at least their traces have
been found south of the village of Čistopol’e. if this supposition holds, the area
occupied by ancient land-plots must have amounted to at least 20 × 8 km or
16,000 hectares, corresponding thus to c. 1,300 plots of 100 plethra each.
if all stated above is correct, then the grandiose works carried out by ancient
surveyors were so careful and well adjusted, while the directions of the axes
of the plots corresponded so exactly to the major communicational needs of
the population and to the relief, that it has been impossible to surpass these
works ever since. nor, perhaps, was any re-demarcation necessary since noth-
ing hindered the cultivation of the fields within their previous limits first by
medieval farmers43 (who were not numerous though, while the pastures of
cattle-breeders did not disturb the borders of the fields) and then by more
recent ones. new fields were here laid within the previous boundaries as dic-
tated by the grid of old roads wherever the former and latter were preserved.
Such long existence of ancient systems of land-division is not an extraordinary
phenomenon but rather a normal one. Something similar is found both in
greece – not far from athens in attica – and in etruria where changes in the
landscape began only after the 1920s. modern large-scale grain production
began slightly later on the kerch Peninsula.
the main ancient roads running along the borders of land-plots were
so well thought-out that they still continue to be actively exploited.44 as to
Ancient Roads and Land Division
Fig. . Kerch Peninsula. Map of the distribution of kurgans revealed on the one‑verst map (designated by marks in form of inverted T) and
on the map at a scale of 1:25,000 (black circles).
227
the technique of making the field boundaries that simultaneously served as

a grid of roads, the remarkable preciseness and parallelism of the straight
“latitudinal” lines is remarkable as is their strict orthogonality relative to the
“meridian” borders of the plots. this fact suggests that the entire land-division
campaign was a serious public endeavour and of a distinctly greek character.
thought-out in details, it was conducted by experienced experts who pos-
sessed a highly developed surveying culture. these experts were helped by
ploughmen with bulls for tilling-up the demarcation lines and many other
assistants.45 Without such a cardinal change in farming, it would have been
impossible even to think of growing the immense quantities of grain exported
by the Bosporan kingdom in the 4th century BC.
Mapping Greeks and barbarians

a major question is concerned with the character of ownership and the sources
of labour. to solve these problems we must return to a more detailed study
of the relation between the settlements (and their related cemeteries) and the
land-tenure structures within the given territory. it is noteworthy that many
barbarian villages with (their?) neighbouring kurgan burial grounds of the
4th-3rd century BC are concentrated outside the main regions of “demarcation”
(see Fig. 1 and the map of the distribution of the best studied settlements of the
4th-3rd centuries BC in the kerch Peninsula published by maslennikov46).
the farmland needed reliable protection not only from military threats but
Fig. 10. Detail from Hablitz’s “Map of the Tauric Peninsula and Nearby Places Composed on
the Basis of the Evidence of Greek Writers of the Ancient and Middle Periods”, 103.
also from nomadic neighbours damaging the fields by pasturing, etc. therefore
the plots had to be defended by banks and ditches from the other territory of
taurica inhabited by local tribes. as mentioned above, the land-plots of nym-
phaion and Pantikapaion were defended by the uzunlar rampart (Fig. 1). are
we not justified in supposing that those of theodosia were shielded by the
so-called Parpač rampart? the distinct traces of the latter were still observed
by academician P.S. Pallas47 and recorded by a.v. gavrilov near the deserted
settlement of Šiban and what is now the village of Jačmennoe.48
essential new information on this problem has been obtained by exami-
nation of the one‑verst map of the surveys of 1896 and the map at a scale of
1:25,000 of 1955-1965. each kurgan marked on these maps has been registered
on the composite computer map (Fig. 9).49 it has been noted that the one‑verst
map contained considerably more kurgans because each, sometimes even
fairly small, elevation was documented on it. But the height marks for these
elevations are mostly absent. on the 1:25,000 map, only quite noticeable bar-
rows with a height exceeding 1 m and only in rare cases no higher than 0.5
m are shown. But the heights of the mounds are marked on this map.
the number of kurgans thus revealed is over 3,000. they are distributed
rather monotonously throughout the western steppe zone of the Crimea ad-
joining Sivaš Sound. however, the repetitiveness is completely changed as
soon as we enter the limits of the kerch Peninsula this difference being the
first that catches our attention when we examine the composite map.
remarkable on the latter is a lengthy chain of kurgans or some local eleva-
tions following each other closely. this chain extends from the north-eastern
outskirts of the town of Staryj krym along the Čuruk-Su river, then turns
abruptly to the east near v. novopokrovka and runs along the Parpač ridge
to the uzunlar rampart. here the chain splits, one branch of it running to
nymphaion, the other to Cape ak-Burun.
now we will present a more detailed consideration of this line beginning
with its western section. the kurgan chain runs here via the eastern bank of
the Čuruk-Su river complying almost exactly in its southern half with the
“bank made by Scythian slaves” marked on k. hablitz’s “map of the tauric
Peninsula and nearby Places Composed on the Basis of the evidence of greek
Writers of the ancient and middle Periods”, 1803 (Fig. 10).50
then the line of the kurgans turns, as mentioned above, to the east near the
village of novopokrovka. here a number of settlement-sites from the 5th-3rd
centuries BC are found. their situation at the intersection of the roads from
Pantikapaion and theodosia to the Perekop isthmus must once have been
very favourable.51
the chain of kurgans then continues via the summit of the Parpač ridge
which runs latitudinally through the middle of the peninsula dividing the
latter into two almost equal parts. the Parpač ridge begins near v. vladislav-
ovka. there is a small ledge on the surface here which becomes more and
more distinct the further east it reaches transforming at last into a ridge. its
Siban village
Lake Ači
Fig. 11. Aerial photograph of the territory between the ruins of v. Šiban and Lake Ači. The ar‑
rows designate elevations on the rampart.
Fig. 12. Detail of the 1:25,000 map of the territory between the ruins of v. Šiban and Lake Ači.
The kurgans and elevations marked on the map are seen distinctly.
formation was called forth by the presence of a bed of Čokrak limestone lying
between some looser rocks.52 From mt uglovaja, which is situated on the line
of the uzunlar rampart, the Parpač ridge turns first to the east–south-east,
Fig. 13. Detail of the “Map of the Northern Coast of the Black Sea from Cape Chersones up to
the Taman’ Peninsula” drawn by captain‑lieutenant Manganari, 136.
then to the south reaching Lake uzunlar. the southern section of the uzun-
lar rampart, which is the best known Bosporan bank, runs via the summit
of the ridge. the geological structure of this extensive feature (the output of
the bed of Čokrak limestone) precludes the formation of any natural hill-like
elevations that are so characteristic of bryozoa limestones and can be mistaken
for kurgans. hence all hill-like mounds marked on maps as chaining via the
Parpač ridge are probably artificial.
in 1793-1794 Pallas visited this locality and left a detailed and valuable
description of “a line of ruins forming a number of low elevations”. near the
village of Šiban (now Frontovoe), the heaps of stones seen by Pallas lay ac-
cording to his evidence 180 steps from each other. on the aerial photos of 1972
and the map at a scale of 1:25,000, the crest of the Parpač ridge is distinctly
seen in the north-east. South-west from the ridge there is a narrow elevation
– a bank straight as an arrow, on which a row of mounds is discernible. their
number exceeds 11 over a section about 2-2.5 km long (Figs. 11-12). Possibly
these are the remains of a wall and the ruins of towers observed by Pallas, at
least the distance between the supposed “towers” is close to that stated by
the traveller.
Beyond the village of Frontovoe the chain of kurgans continues further
east. the elevations are spaced most densely throughout the area from what
is now the village of Batal’noe to v. kirovo (see Fig. 9). a few really grandi-
ose kurgans are situated here. nearer to the uzunlar rampart the chain of
kurgans bifurcates, its northern branches leading to nymphaion and Cape
ak-Burun. there are also large accumulations of kurgans north of myrme-
kion and near Porthmion. all three groups possibly indicate routes to the
asiatic side of the strait. these crossings may have been used under various
climatic conditions.
the most distinct is the kurgan chain extended towards Cape ak-Burun.
Probably it is here that the crossing of the strait was the most active. the
range of kurgans continues also on the asiatic coast opposite ak-Burun. in
the sailing directions composed by captain-lieutenant e. manganari in 1836
it is seen very distinctly that the shortest way to cross the deeper parts of the
strait between its shallower areas is that from Cape ak-Burun to the South-
ern Spit (or what is now the tuzla Spit) (Fig. 13). this section of the strait
has continuously changed its outline, the spit now becoming an island, now
joining the asiatic coast again.53 in any case, it is here that the deeper fairway
is so narrow that it must have been fairly easy to cross during winter. an-
other narrow place is situated opposite Porthmion. as we may see on maps
of depths, an underwater ledge sprouts here towards another shoal which
surrounds the northern taman’ Spit (now the Čuška Spit). Possibly, the low
depth and weak salinity caused by the flowing of the kuban’ river into this
area of the strait facilitated its freezing. this is why a second passage to the
other coast was located here. and finally, there were passages in the vicinity
of nymphaion as indicated by the kurgan chain leading to it. although the
distance to the shallow water and land is greater here than in the two pre-
vious cases, the north-south current is weaker and may have favoured the
formation of strong ice layers.
now, what was the nature of the described linear range of kurgans extend-
ing from Staryj krym as far as the uzunlar rampart to the Strait of kerch and
the taman’ Peninsula? Can it have marked an ancient defensive line with a
road leading along it from the central Crimea to the passages across the strait?
there undoubtedly was a road here, since it is an established fact that chains
of kurgans were constructed along ancient roads. it is intriguing that the bar-
rows on the Juz-oba, as well as other kurgan groups not far from Pantikapa-
ion, were erected in some cases in a chess-board pattern, each visible between
the others.54 the kurgans possibly served as a good guiding line for travellers.
they also may have marked the frontiers. the line of kurgans revealed possi-
bly corresponded to the limits of the migration routes of nomadic tribes from
the central Crimea to passages across the kimmerian Bosporos. indeed, in the
northern half of the akmonaj isthmus, the kurgans are much more numerous
than in the southern and south-eastern parts of the peninsula. the northern sec-
tion of the isthmus is a plain, convenient for the movement of great masses of
people with their wagons and herds. it is possibly that the main ancient routes
leading from the Strait of kerch to the Perekop isthmus were situated here. in
different historic periods, the movements of nomadic peoples must have fol-
lowed these routes and it was probably impossible to prevent them by simply
barring the isthmus. at least, it is from this side that the attack of a supposed
enemy was expected by the builders of the bank on the Parpač ridge.55
the system of ramparts on the western frontiers of the Bosporos must have
been meant to defend its possessions and also protect the chora of theodosia
from attacks.56 as described above, the expansive agricultural territory of that
city, including the area with traces of an orthogonal land-division, occupied
the southern section of the kerch Peninsula. it is thus quite probable that a
“latitudinal” bank was necessary to protect this territory. its length from the
uzunlar rampart to the village of novopokrovka is 68 km. the latter value
is fairly close to the length of the asander’s rampart (360 stades or 64 km)
specified by Strabon (7.4.6). that rampart was constructed “on the isthmus
of Chersonesos near maiotis”. indeed, the ancient geographer left no state-
ment that the rampart barred the way across the isthmus. Future explorations,
including those using remote and geophysical methods, along the preserved
sections of this line, which is important for an understanding of Bosporan
history, will possibly elucidate many of the problems raised.
Studies of the arrangement of kurgans on the kerch Peninsula are a very
promising subject and we will discuss them elsewhere. here we will limit
ourselves to a few slight notes concerning the arrangement of kurgans in other
parts of the peninsula. Firstly, a chain of kurgans in the north-eastern area
probably indicates the presence of a road leading from the northern coast of
the Strait of kerch near myrmekion towards Cape tarchan on the north. the
direction of this line complies with that of the system of land-division within
the territory under consideration (cf. Fig. 8).
Within the territory of the so-called “royal chora” extended throughout
the littoral of the azov Sea from what is now the village of Zolotoe to Cape
tarchan, only very small barrows have been revealed. these probably contain
burials of the local population who inhabited and cultivated these lands. no
larger nomadic kurgans are known here.
Possibly, there is a rectilinear chain of kurgans situated along the northern
border of the distant chora of nymphaion (see Figs. 6 and 9). a road leading
to Cape ak-Burun may have been located here.
Comparing all four orthogonal systems considered above, the absolute
equality of the areas of the plots situated in different parts of the peninsula
is striking. this suggests that a single system of measures and a single tech-
nique of measuring land-plots existed in the Bosporos. moreover, it is to be
noted that on the asiatic coast of the Bosporos, near Patrasys, a vast “exter-
nal” system of land demarcation has been revealed. the distance between
the basic lines of this is also c. 340 m, which corresponds to 1,000 feet.57 Such
uniformity, however, is still demanding explanation. in the different poleis in
the region investigated, the landownership rights of the citizens may have
been equal by the time of the land-division.
We have as yet no solid grounds for an exact dating of the emergence
of the orthogonal system of land-division. We may, however, propose very
cautiously that the date was the 4th century BC as suggested by practically
all archaeological evidence from supposed farmhouses on the plots as well
as by results of excavations near v. michajlovka. it is well known that dur-
ing the reign of Leukon i, son of Satyros i, (389/8-349/8 BC), the Bosporos
became a powerful state comprising different cities situated on both sides of
the kimmerian Bosporos.58 the rulers of the Bosporos, the Spartokids, were
considered possessors of the entire Bosporan land and were themselves the
most prominent landowners. as attested by Demosthenes, all the grain ex-
ported to attica from the Bosporos was provided in the name of its rulers.
under Leukon i the annual export amounted to 400,000 medimnoi or 16,800
tons of grain (Dem. 20.31-32). according to v.D. Blavatskij’s calculations, pro-
duction of such quantities of grain must have required an area of about 5,000
km2, equal to the territory of the Bosporan State after the land acquisitions
under Leukon i.59 moreover, we have at our disposal an important statement
of Strabon recording a single exportation of 2,100,000 medimnoi or 88,200 tons
of grain from theodosia by Leukon i (7.4.6). it is probable that part of this
immense quantity of grain was purchased by the Bosporan king from the
local agricultural tribes who inhabited the region north-west of theodosia
and did not belong to the Bosporan State. Sites of settled agriculturalists of
the hellenistic period have been revealed here by S.g. koltuchov and a.v.
gavrilov.60 Such purchases may have become possible for the Bosporos only
after the annexation of theodosia.
in his role as supreme owner, the ruler of the Bosporan State could dispose
of the land at his will and the simultaneous large-scale demarcation of lands
was thus an example of royal actions. if we really are dealing with the distant
chora of theodosia then we could assume that the land-division took place
after this city was subdued by the Bosporan kingdom, because the uniformity
of the land-division suggests a single design, a single will and a unified state
organization. this may have been undertaken already in the days of Leukon i
(or his closest successors) known both for his territorial acquirements and his
large-scale overseas grain trade. in such a case, the location of some fields
far from the major urban centres, their general layout and area are at least
partially explainable.
We therefore propose that the revealed land-plots of Pantikapaion, nym-
phaion and theodosia date to the 4th century BC – the period of the utmost
prosperity of the Bosporan kingdom. the land-division was probably carried
out by Leukon i synchronously throughout all the four territories specified

above, as well as in some other parts of Bosporos. along with the lands which
belonged to the cities, there was also a chora, the owners of which were the Bos-
poran kings. this “royal chora” probably included a considerable area adjoining
the coasts of the azov Sea from v. Zolotoe to Cape tarchan. here, no land-lots
are found but there are traces of the so-called “long” fields instead.
the reconstruction of the cadastre of cities of Bosporos proposed cannot
be considered completed. Future studies will deal with new data from space
and aerial photographs in the archives of russian and foreign research insti-
tutions. in addition, surface surveys will continue including the application
of the geophysical method for identification of remains of land-plots and
farmhouses pertaining to them. By means of the interdisciplinary method
described above we hope to reveal and reconstruct the cadastres, as far as
possible, throughout the entire Bosporan territory.
Chersonesean chora in the Tarchankut Peninsula

a better understanding of the orthogonal land-division system of the euro-
pean Bosporos can be provided by comparing it with the land cadastre of
Chersonesos. in fact, the Chersonesean system of land-lots was discovered
earlier than that of any other greek polis. as early as 1786, it was marked on
the map of the herakleian and majačnyj Peninsulas by a. Strokov. in 1848,
F. Dubois de montpéreux published a plan of the Chersonesean cadastre.
n.m. Pečenkin’s 1910 reconnaissance surveys and excavations in the majačnyj
Peninsula resulted in a plan of several land-plots. in fact, he was the first
who succeeded in distinguishing a standard greek land-lot,61 something that
m.i. rostovcev immediately declared an important scientific discovery.62
the land-division system in the majačnyj and herakleian Peninsulas is the
best-studied one in the Black Sea region,63 and is also renowned because of its
unique state of preservation. the rocky terrain forced the ancient agricultural-
ists to pick stones out of the meagre soil and to employ them in constructing
division walls, which are still discernable in the vicinity of Chersonesos. as
noted by a.n. Ščeglov, the preservation of the land-division system owes
much to the fact that it was “senseless to destroy the monumental walls be-
tween the plots since it was impossible to dispose of the stone liberated. in
the course of redistribution of the land and restructuring of the plots it was
easier to continue using the old and strongest walls strengthening them with
the stone obtained from the soil or disused agricultural structures”.64
the systems of land-division have also been revealed in other territories
of the Chersonesean state.65 here we shall mainly focus on the cadastre re-
mains within the tarchankut Peninsula, which are datable to the period of
the most intensive agricultural use of the land, viz. the 4th through the first
half of the 3rd century BC.
in the western part of the tarchankut Peninsula, the divided area, which
Fig. 14. The Tarchankut Peninsula. The map of 1 at a scale of 1:42,000 (“one‑verst” map)
taken as a topographical basis shows land plots discerned on aerial photos by Ščeglov. The roads
revealed by the “one‑verst” map and related to the land‑division are marked with solid lines;
dashed lines show those discovered in the map of 157 (1:25,000). The hypothetical ancient
routs of nomadic migrations are rendered by hatched lines. Dots reflect the barrows found on
the “one‑verst” map.
Ščeglov revealed by means of aerial photographs in 1979,66 is nearly equal to

that in the vicinity of Chersonesos. the outlines of the plots are clearly dis-
cernible in the photos, which simplifies the evaluation of their size. they all
measure 420 × 250-255 m. in Ščeglov’s opinion, the area divided into lots on
the western extremity of the peninsula measured 100 km2, which with a lot
size of 10.5 hectares must have corresponded to c. 950 lots.
it should be noted that the examination of aerial photographs, which pro-
vides proof of the very existence of land-lots, is extremely important as an
initial stage of our studies. yet, in most cases the aerial photos yield a clear
pattern of the plot boundaries only within limited areas where the latter are
best preserved, while all the divided land might have occupied a much larger
territory. the large-scale maps, both old and modern, provide a useful tool in
estimating the total area subjected to land-division, as well as in determining
its main axes, major roads and correspondence with terrain features. as far as
the western Crimea is concerned, the maps of the late 19th century at a scale
of 1:42,000 (the one‑verst map) and those of the 1950s at a scale of 1:25,000 are
the most informative.
While examining the one‑verst map of 1899 one can hardly overlook a
constellation of parallel roads in the western area of the tarchankut Penin-
sula, which intersect at right angles with another group of mutually parallel
roads.67 the deviation of this grid of roads from true north (15° westwards)
corresponds precisely to the axes of land-division revealed on aerial photos.
the intervals between the “latitudinal” roads are about 750, 500, 2,500, 3,000,
1,750, 1,000, 500, 1,500 metres while those between the “meridianal” ones are
4,200, 2,520, 3,360, 1,270, 420, 1,260 metres (Fig. 14). Despite the fairly large
inaccuracy in determining these intervals it is evident that they are correspond-
ingly equal to or divisible by the sizes of the land plots in the “meridianal”
and “latitudinal” directions. this implies that the aforementioned road-grid
should be interpreted as a reflection of the major axes and transportation
routes laid out on the basis of the system of land-division.
the main road and possibly the original axis of that system may have
been the central “latitudinal” road leading from the village of karadža (now
olenevka) to that of kunan (modern krasnosel’skoe) and slightly further
east (Fig. 14). it runs through the flattest terrain on the watershed and was
possibly the easiest land route for conveying the harvest from the entire
flatland of the peninsula. the longest of all roads revealed on the maps, it
divides the peninsula into two equal parts (the northern and southern) and
can be likened to an “axis of symmetry” for the latter’s western extremity.
this road is also marked on the map of 1957 (scale 1:25,000), as well as on
all other maps of the Crimea, for it connects two fairly important modern
settlements.
in antiquity also, this road undoubtedly connected some important areas.
most likely these were the greek settlement of karadžinskoe68 on the shore of
a very convenient bay (now Lake Liman which in the hellenistic period was
part of the karadžinskaja Bay) and some sites located at the upper reaches of
the deep and long kel’-Šejch ravine, which runs through most of the tarchan-
kut Peninsula cutting it in an almost meridianal direction. only to the south,
does a small area of flat steppe remain, which was probably crossed by the
migration routes of the ancient nomadic population. this is suggested by an
almost uninterrupted chain of kurgans ranged along the entire peninsula
on the edge of a raised plateau that further south descends down to the sea
(Fig. 14).
the kel’-Šejch ravine formed a natural border for the divided land on the
peninsula and separated the western part of the tarchankut from the territory
which led towards kalos Limen. South of the “main” road mentioned above
three other roads have their origins running parallel to it at a distance of 1,000,
1,500 and 3,000 metres. these roads are shown on maps of 1899 (1:42,000) and
1957 (1:25,000). Like the “main” road, they head towards the settlement of
karadžinskoe. Supposedly some settlements or sentry points were located at
the eastern terminals of these roads. the “main” road and the one closest to
it on the south ran alongside neighbouring watersheds – the banks of a long
ravine which ends in Lake Liman.
Fairly long parallel paths are also discernable north of the “main” road.
on the one‑verst map of 1899, at least eight such paths may be seen. they
all begin at the kel’-Šejch ravine and stretch westwards as far as the upper
reaches of the ravines which end at the kastel’ Bay (Fig. 14). on the map of
1957, they are fewer in number amounting to only six or seven short sections
found mostly in the west.
now, let us consider the transverse roads. at least 10 of them are marked
on the one‑verst map but their lengths differ. Some of these roads cross almost
the entire flatland of the peninsula north to south (Fig. 14). this aggregation
of the “latitudinal” and “meridianal” roads constituted the “skeleton” of the
land-division system. the extent of these routes may provide an idea about
the area once divided into lots, which may actually have been much larger
than the one discernable on the aerial photographs. in fact, it seems very
likely that the entire western half of the tarchankut Peninsula was covered
by a grid of orthogonal plots (Fig. 14).
the fact that the main trunk lines were orientated towards the karadžinskoe
settlement suggests an important role of the latter in organizing production
and shipment of grain collected from the entire western part of the tarchankut
Peninsula and exported via the harbour situated in what is now Lake Liman.
the importance of that centre is emphasised by the closeness of a sanctuary,
probably well-known in antiquity. the latter was situated in the uročišče of
Džangul’,69 being linked to the settlement by one of the most noticeable me-
ridianal roads. moreover, this road, marked on the map of 1957 and many
other present-day maps, is consistent with the land-division pattern of the
entire peninsula.
as assumed by S. Saprykin, the Chersonesean state was divided into
“administrative and economic districts each with a centre constituted by a
large fort controlling a territory with smaller farms … or settlements of de-
pendent indigenous population”.70 the settlement of karadžinskoe is likely to
be one of such centres.71 it possessed a convenient harbour, which by means
of a network of good land routes was connected to the entire flatland of the
peninsula.
a special note should also be made of the spatial interrelationships be-
tween the greek cadastre and kurgans, which dot nearly the whole of the
tarchankut Peninsula. on the map at a scale of 1:25,000 only relatively high

mounds are marked with their heights, mostly 1 or 2 m, being indicated. the
largest number of barrows, both fairly large and smaller ones, is discernable,
however, on the one‑verst map where they are marked by special symbols
with no information as to their height. here, one can easily notice an almost
uninterrupted chain of mounds, which range along the southern edge of the
elevated part of the peninsula and appear to be markers of ancient roads and
routes of nomad migrations.
Quite a number of groups of smaller barrows occupy the land divided
into plots. often they are ranged in lines which occasionally coincide pre-
cisely with the plot borders. it makes one think that these mounds might be
the necropoleis of the rural population which inhabited the farmsteads. the
traces of the latter also seem likely to be found along the roads revealed on
the one‑verst map.
the cadastre remnants are also discernable along the north-western shore
of the peninsula. on the aerial photographs of 1977, traces of a large rectan-
gular plot are distinctly visible near the site of masliny. Part of the plot is
destroyed by the erosion of the seashore. one of the sides now existing is
approximately 350-380 metres long, thus coinciding almost exactly with the
size of the preserved side (387 metres) of a land-lot at Cape ojrat.72 at some
distance from the shore, the aerial shots reveal certain direct lines parallel to
the long side of the above plot. on the one‑verst map of the late 19th century
a number of parallel roads, which parallel the seashore, correspond to the
mentioned lines. this suggests that the area near masliny was also divided
into rectangular plots, although this supposition requires further proof.
in the coastal area north-east of kalos Limen up to Jarylgač Bay, the
one‑verst map of 1899 shows an orthogonal grid of roads resembling the one
we have distinguished in the western part of the tarchankut Peninsula (see
Fig. 14). Presumably, it also reflects the main axes of the cadastre which ex-
isted here in the 4th to 3rd centuries BC. it has to be noted, however, that
their orientation slightly differs from that of the plots revealed by Ščeglov in
the immediate surroundings of kalos Limen.73
the aerial photographs also expose an orthogonal grid of dark lines east
of the northernmost extremity of Lake Donuzlav. a number of these lines
coincide with some roads marked on the one‑verst map of 1899. Possibly,
the coastal area of the south-western Crimea near the villages of kača and
Solnečnoe was also divided into plots, as suggested by the parallel roads
shown on the one‑verst map and some “bank-like bulges – land-lot boundar-
ies” revealed by L.a. moiseev’s surveys.74 Presumably, this area was also a
part of the Chersonesean chora,75 even though this assumption requires fur-
ther checking based on aerial photographs, which will be accomplished as
soon as possible.
the comparison of orthogonal systems of land-division both in the euro-
pean part of the Bosporos and Chersonesos allows the disclosure of the fol-
lowing similar features. in both cases the land-division embraced considerable

territory, being carried out according to a common plan.
the roads, of which many, both in the eastern and western Crimea, are
reflected in the one‑verst maps of the late 19th century, constituted main
structural elements of the cadastre system. the territories were divided into
absolutely equal rectangular plots independently of the relief or any other
peculiarities of the terrain. the area of the plots corresponded to a common
“module” throughout the entire state. Both in Chersonesos and Bosporos such
a length module is likely to be the egyptian foot equal to 0.35 m, the areas
being measured in plethra.
there were also certain differences between the cadastre systems of Bos-
poros and Chersonesos. throughout the entire european Bosporos we have
found common dimensions (c. 350 × 350 m that equals 100 plethra) and an in-
variably square form to the plots. even though the area of the Chersonesean
plots is based on a common basic unit equal to 2.25 plethra,76 it varies depend-
ing on the district. the areas subjected to continuous orthogonal land-division
also differed: in the Bosporos they were much larger which resulted in a
different grain potential for the two neighbouring states. While the Bosporos
was able to provide considerable amounts of grain, the grain exports from
Chersonesos, if there were any, must have been much more unassuming.77
Despite the slight metrological differences between land-lots in Bosporos
and Chersonesos, we must state that in the 4th through the first half of the
3rd century BC there was a uniform plan of land plots throughout the entire
territory of the state, a common system of measures, as well as expansive areas
subjected to land-division, and an equality in plot sizes (although only within
certain districts, as long as the Chersonesean state is concerned). all these facts
point towards a state, and possibly synchronous, character of land-division.
the supreme proprietors of the land both in Bosporos and Chersonesos were
the civil communities of the poleis. in the european Bosporos such a polis was
evidently Pantikapaion, which also controlled nymphaion and theodosia.78
in the western Crimea it was Chersonesos.79 in both cases we are dealing with
expansive land possessions managed from a single centre.
List of referenced maps

1) k. hablitz’s map “karta poluostrova tavričeskogo i okolo ležaščich mest,
sočinennaja po izvestijam grečeskich pisatelej drevnich i srednich vremen”
(map of the tauric Peninsula and nearby Places Composed on the Basis of
the evidence of greek Writers of the ancient and middle Periods), 1803.
2) karta Severnogo berega Černogo mor’ja ot mysa Chersonesa do tamani,
sostavlennaja kapitan-lejtenantom manganari (map of the northern Coast
of the Black Sea from Cape Chersonesos up to the taman’ Peninsula), 1836.
3) military topographical map of 1865 at a scale of 3 versts in 1 inch (three‑verst
map).
4) map at a scale of 1:42,000 (one‑verst map) of the surveys of 1892, 1896 and
1899.
5) map at a scale of 1:25,000 drawn after the reconnaissance of 1955; some
sheets are corrected on the basis of aerial photographs and surface surveys
of 1982.
6) map at a scale of 1:100,000 of the surveys of 1955-65; corrected after a map
of 1:50,000 renovated in 1988. the conditions of the locality presented in the
year of 1986.
Notes
1 the research presented here was carried out with the financial support of the
russian research Foundation in humanities, project no. 06-01-12120 and the rus-
sian Basic research Foundation, project no. 05-06-80009. We are sincerely grateful
to i.i. Popov (ivi raS) and L.L. Suchačeva (State unitary Company “Scientific
research institute of Space and aerial geological methods”) for their help in the
studies of aerial photographs. This paper was not presented at the conference, but we
are grateful to be able to include it in the present volume. Eds.
2 košelenko & kuznecov 1992, 24.
3 vinogradov 1995, 68; Zin’ko 2004, 19.
4 Blavatskij 1953, 176, 178.
5 except for Diodoros’s well-known passage on king eumelos (309-304 BC) having
allotted land to one thousand kallatians for which purpose the area of Psoa had
been divided into land plots (Diod. 20.25).
6 trousset 1977, 186-188.
7 Ščeglov 1978, 89; nikolaenko 1985, 12-13. however, there is an opinion which
holds that feet of the Doric standard equal to 0.3265 m were used in demarcation
of the urban territory of Chersonesos (Bujskich & Zolotarev 2001, 115).
8 Dilke 1971, 82. Cf., however, the Neue Pauly RE (H.‑J. Schulzki, s.v. Masse, col. )
where the schoinos is defined traditionally as the “Wegstunde’ equal to c. 6,300 m
– Eds.
9 Dilke 1971, 84.
10 Blanc 1953, 39.
11 vallat 1983; Clavel-Lévêque 1983; Chouquer 1983; Fisher & Soyer 1983; see also
the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, maps 15, 17-19, 32-34, 39-42,
44-45.
12 Dilke 1971, 84.
13 the natural mechanism of the rise of the intensity of magnetization of the upper
soil layers is well known. See Frantov & Pinkevič 1966, 118-121.
14 Probably, the territories of land-plots in the european Bosporos were not limited
by these four regions. thus, a few similar areas have already been found near
kytaia (Smekalova, maslennikov, Smekalov & kulikov 2004), near the village of
Čokrakskij mys (Smekalova, maslennikov & Smekalov 2006), but these are, in
our opinion, of rather “local” character differing from fairly “extensive” divisions
in the four regions enumerated. there are certain data on the possibility that
similar division patterns existed directly in the vicinity of the city of tyritake.
however the studies in the region still are not completed and have additionally
to be checked, therefore we will discuss them only tentatively in this paper.
15 maslennikov 2001; Smekalova, maslennikov, Smekalov & kulikov 2004.

16 the territory under consideration is situated within the limits of an ordnance
yard forbidden for reconnaissance on foot. Probably it is to the withdrawal of
modern agriculture from this area that we owe the excellent preservation of the
traces of land-plots here.
17 Zagnij & rusakov 1982, 76.
18 it is noteworthy that within our grid, there is a curious formation here called a
“pitted circle” on the 1:25,000 map but absent on the one‑verst map.
19 Dragan 2004, 55, 165.
20 kruglikova 1975, 273.
21 veselov 2005.
22 See the contribution by A.V. Gavrilov in this volume. Eds.
23 Peters 1978, 122.
24 Peters 1978, 119. Stripes of cereals ripening faster in the present-day fields and
darker vegetation are observable in the places where the boundaries of ancient
land-plots once had been. We are grateful to B.g. Peters for his kind communica-
tion of may, 2004, about the details of such identification of boundaries.
25 Peters 1978, 122.
26 moreover, it is possible that land-plots continue also to the south from this large
square structure though these must have somewhat distorted outlines due to the
peculiarities of the local relief.
27 Zin’ko 2003, 14. Cf. also his contribution to this volume.
28 Dragan 2004, 55, 165.
29 Peters 1978, 122.
30 kruglikova 1975; Scholl & Zin‘ko 1999; Zin‘ko 2003.
32 Dragan 2004, 55, 165.
33 this hypothesis, however, has still to be proved by surveys and excavations.
34 Cf. Stolba 2003, 81; 2005a; 2005b.
35 Cf. Stolba 2005a; 2005b.
36 vinokurov 1999, 85.
37 maslennikov 2003, 172-173.
38 See Smekalova, maslennikov & Smekalov 2006.
39 andrusov 1893, 277.
40 Crew & musson 1996, 23; Bradford 1956, pl. iX.
41 Deuel 1979, 33.
42 kruglikova 1975, 48, 86-88.
43 indeed, in the majority of the above mentioned farmhouses in the chora of nym-
phaion, fragments of Saltovo-majackaja pottery of the 8th-9th century aD have
been found. in addition, some other medieval settlements are known in the im-
mediate vicinity of the greek period land-plots.
44 the beginning of one of these roads running via the northern bank of Lake
Čurubaš and farther on along the borders of the land-plots, as reconstructed by
us, are shown in Zin’ko 2003, 43, fig. 19.
45 We may not rule out that during demarcation of the land-plots the surveyors
employed some appliance like the modern compass. this hypothesis is suggested
by the coincidence of the land-division orientation in the southern part of the
peninsula and near mt temir-gora with the direction to the magnetic northern
pole of the hellenistic period (deviated c. 14-15° to the west from the present-day
magnetic north [Zagnij & rusakov 1982, 76]).
46 maslennikov 1998, 77.

47 See, e.g., a detailed discussion of his evidence in maslennikov 2003, 10-14.
48 gavrilov 2004a, 42-43.
49 the term “kurgan” is used here for small elevations of round plan and suppos-
edly of artificial origin. on maps these mounds are notated with special marks.
50 hablitz 1803.
51 gavrilov 2004a, 164.
52 andrusov 1885, 70.
53 Fedoseev 1999, 77.
54 Cvetaeva 1957, 229.
55 gavrilov 2004a, 44-45.
56 gavrilov 2004a, 45.
57 garbuzov, Liseckij & galeusov 2004, 114.
58 We can supplement the information presented by Blavatskij on the budget of
the very determined actions conducted by Leukon i (Blavatskij 1953, 201-204).
the aggressive wars and the settling of new territories (including their demar-
cation) required huge expenses, which were paid for by the international grain
trade. however, under the conditions of Bosporos where precious metals could
be obtained only by import, other sources of money also had to be found. thus
it is the formation of a powerful territorial state that enabled the introduction of
the first coins of conventional value into circulation: after a century and a half
of minting exclusively silver, parallel issues of silver and copper, and later of
gold, appeared. this character of minting continued in Bosporos until the end
of the 2nd century BC. remarkably, there is literary evidence on the issue of the
earliest coins of conventional value. thus, according to Polyainos (Strat. 6.9.1),
the Bosporan king Leukon was compelled to withdraw the old coin declaring it
invalid and to overstrike it with new dies doubling the nominal value of the new
coins. half of the currency was restored to its owners, while the other half was
kept by the enterprising king. Scholars are of the opinion that coins of Leukon i
which appear in this tale were the last series of Bosporan silver preceding the
issues of gold (Boldyrev & Zavojkin 2000, 7-9), i.e. the coins with the types of the
satyr head / lion and satyr’s head / forepart of a lion (Zograf 1951, pl. 40.1-2).
it was possible for king Leukon to conduct this operation only with the coins
which circulated within the state’s limits. in the external market only full-valued
electrum coins of kyzikos could be used as currency or, later, gold staters had
to be minted.
59 Blavatskij 1953, 179-180.
60 koltuchov 2004; gavrilov 2004b.
61 Pečenkin 1911.
62 Ščeglov 1993, 12.
63 See, e.g., Pečenkin 1911; Strželeckij 1961; kruglikova 1981; Žerebcov 1985; niko-
laenko 1985; Ščeglov 1993, and many others.
64 Ščeglov 1993, 25.
65 Ščeglov 1978, 86-101; Ščeglov 1980, fig. 14; Chtcheglov 1992; kolesnikov & Jacenko
1999, 291.
66 Ščeglov 1980.
67 it is curious that in the first detailed one‑verst map drawn in 1855-1857 no ves-
tiges of the tarchankut orthogonal system of land-division are indicated. in our
opinion, this was caused by the economic structure and the character of land-use
which existed during that period. namely, distant-pasture animal husbandry was
then prevailing. therefore no boundaries were needed for the lands intended
only for pasturing and moving cattle and these remained forgotten and neglected.
the roads between different points followed the shortest routes. only after the
arrival of agriculturalists in the western Crimea and the tilling of these vast lands
was the commodity production of grain renewed in the last quarter of the 19th
century, for the first time after the hellenistic epoch. Boundaries again became
necessary for fields as well as roads for the transportation of harvests. For that
reason, the ancient conduits lying between land plots were restored and this fact
has been reflected in the large-scale topographic map of the late 19th century.
68 Ščeglov 1984, 122.
69 Ščeglov 1988.
70 Saprykin 1986, 153. this proposition is shared by many researchers. See, e.g.,
vinogradov & Ščeglov 1990, 338-339; Zubar’ 1993, 24-25; 2004, 44.
71 in that case, the “Schematic Plan of mastering the north-Western Crimea by
Chersonesos” composed by v.m. Zubar’ (1993, 25, fig. 10) must be supplemented
by an additional seaborne transportation route between karadžinskoe and Cher-
sonesos.
72 Ščeglov 1977, 211.
73 Cf. Ščeglov 1978, 89.
74 koltuchov, Zubar & myc 1992, 86, 92; moiseev 1926, 116.
75 Lancov 2004, 133.
76 nikolaenko 1985, 14.
77 kryžyc’kyj & Ščeglov 1991; Ščeglov 1989, 129-131; Stolba 2005b, 300-303.
78 Saprykin 2004, 203.
79 Zubar’ 2004, 45.
Bibliography
andrusov, n. 1885. geologičeskie issledovanija v zapadnoj polovine
kerčenskogo poluostrova, proizvedennye letom 1884 g., Zapiski Novoros‑
sijskogo Obščestva Estestvoispytatelej 11.2, 69-116.
andrusov, n. 1893. geotektonika kerčenskogo poluostrova, Materialy po
geografii Rossii 16, 63-335.
Blanc, S. 1953. Les traces de centuriation romaine et les origines de la cité de
valence, RStLig 19, 35-42.
Blavatskij, v.D. 1953. Zemledelie v antičnych gosudarstvach Severnogo
Pričernomor’ja. moskva.
Boldyrev, S.i. & a.a. Zavojkin 2000. reforma Levkona i, in: Vos’maja Vseros‑
sijskaja numizmatičeskaja konferencija, aprel’ 2000 g. Tezisy dokladov. moskva,
7-9.
Bradford, J. 1956. Fieldwork on aerial discoveries in attica and rhodes. Part
ii. ancient field systems on mt. hymettos, near athens, AntJ 36.3-4,
172-180.
Bujskich, a.v. & m.i. Zolotarev 2001. gradostroitel’nyj plan Chersonesa
tavričeskogo, VDI 1, 111-132.
Chouquer, g. 1983. Localisation et extension géographique des cadastres af-

fichés à orange, in: Clavel-Lévêque (ed.) 1983, 275-295.
Chtcheglov, a.n. 1992. Polis et chora: Cité et territoire dans le Pont‑Euxin (an-
nales littéraires de l’université de Besançon, 476). Paris.
Clavel-Lévêque, m. 1983. Cadastres, centuriations et problèmes d’occupation
du sol dans le bitterrois, in: Clavel-Lévêque (ed.) 1983, 207-258.
Clavel-Lévêque, m. (ed.) 1983. Cadastres et espace rural: approches et réalités
antiques. Paris.
Crew, P. & Ch. musson 1996. Snowdonia from the air. Patterns in the landscape.
Snowdonia national Park authority.
Cvetaeva, g.a. 1957. kurgannyj nekropol’ Pantikapeja, MatIsslA 56,
225-250.
Deuel, L. 1979. Polet v prošloe. moskva.
Dilke, o.a.W. 1971. The Roman land surveyors. An introduction to the Agrimen‑
sores. newton abbot.
Dragan, n.a. 2004. Počvennye resursy Kryma. Simferopol’.
Fedoseev, n.F. 1999. ešče raz o pereprave čerez Bospor kimmerijskij, in: n.F.
Fedoseev (ed.), Archeologija i istorija Bospora, 3. kerč’, 61-102.
Fisher, J.-P. & J. Soyer 1983. recherches sur le centuriations de la région de
nimes, in: Clavel-Lévêque (ed.) 1983, 324-325.
Frantov, g.S. & a.a. Pinkevič 1966. Geofizika v archeologii. Leningrad 1966.
garbuzov, g.P., F.n. Liseckij & P.v. galeusov 2004. Drevnjaja sistema zem-
leustrojstva u pos. garkuša (tamanskij poluostrov), Drevnosti Bospora 7,
moskva, 100-116.
gavrilov, a.v. 2004a. Okruga antičnoj Feodosii. Simferopol’.
gavrilov, a.v. 2004b. antičnoe selišče uzun-Syrt (Podnož’e) v jugo-vostočnom
krymu, in: S.g. koltuchov, S.B. Lancov & a.e. Puzdrovskij (eds.), U Ponta
Evksinskogo (pamjati P.N. Šul’ca), Simferopol’, 199-211.
kolesnikov a.B. & i.v. Jacenko 1999. Le territoire agricole de Chersonèsos
taurique dans la région de kerkinitis, in: m. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des
cités greques. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale, organisée par l’École
Française d’Athènes 31 octobre‑3 novembre 11 (BCh Suppl., 34). athènes,
289-321.
koltuchov, S.g. 2004. varvarskie poselenija klassičeskogo i ranneellinističeskogo
vremeni v vostočnom i Jugo-vostočnom krymu, Drevnosti Bospora 7,
moskva, 217-237.
koltuchov S.g., v.m. Zubar & v.L. myc 1992. novij rajon chori Chersonesa
ellinističnogo periodu, ArcheologijaKiiv 2, 85-95.
košelenko, g.a. & v.D. kuznecov 1992. grečeskaja kolonizacija Bospora,
in: v.D. kuznecov, a.a. maslennikov & g.a. košelenko (eds.), Očerki
archeologii i istorii Bospora, moskva, 6-28.
kruglikova, i.t. 1975. Sel’skoe chozjajstvo Bospora. moskva.
kruglikova, i.t. 1981. Zemel’nye nadely chersonesitov na geraklejskom po-
luostrove, KSIA 168, 9-16.
kryžyc’kyj S.D. & o.n. Ščeglov 1991. Pro zernovyj potencial antičnych deržav
Lancov S.B. 2004. o granicach territorii Chersonesskogo gosudarstva na rubeže
iv-iii vv. do n.e., ChSbor 13, 121-153.
maslennikov, a.a. 1998. Ellinskaja chora na kraju ojkumeny. Sel’skaja territorija
Evropejskogo Bospora v antičnuju epochu. moskva.
maslennikov, a.a. 2001. Sel’skie poselenija evropejskogo Bospora (nekotorye
problemy i itogi issledovanij), Bosporskie issledovanija 1, Simferopol’-kerč’,
75-100.
maslennikov, a.a 2003. Drevnie pogranično‑oboronitel’nye sooruženija Vostočnogo
Kryma. moskva.
moiseev L.a. 1926. Sledy irrigacii, melioracii i vodosnabženija drevnego
Chersonesa na geraklejskom poluostrove, Zapiski Krymskogo Obščestva
Estestvoispytatelej i Ljubitelej Prirody 9, 116-117.
nikolaenko, g.m. 1985. razmeževanie polej Chersonesskoj chory, KSIA 182,
11-15.
Pečenkin n.m. 1911. archeologičeskie razvedki v mestnosti Strabonovskogo
starogo Chersonesa, IAK 42, 108-126.
Peters, B.g. 1978. michajlovskoe gorodišče antičnogo vremeni, in: v.v. kro-
potkin, g.n. matjušin & B.g. Peters (eds.), Problemy sovetskoj archeologii.
moskva, 117-127.
Saprykin S.Ju. 1986. Gerakleja Pontijskaja i Chersones Tavričeskij. Vzaimootnošenija
metropolii i kolonii v VI‑I vv. do n.e. moskva.
Saprykin S.Ju. 2004. Chora and Polis in the kingdom of Bosporus in the Clas-
sical and hellenistic Periods, in: F. kolb (ed.), Chora und Polis (Schriften
des historischen kollegs, 54). münchen, 185-210.
Scholl, t. & v. Zin’ko 1999. Archaeological map of Nymphaion (Crimea). War-
saw.
Smekalova, t.n., a.a. maslennikov, S.L. Smekalov & a.v. kulikov 2004.
Predvaritel’nye nabljudenija o sistemach zemlevladenija i zemlepol’zovanija
antičnogo Bospora, in: v.n. Zin’ko (ed.), Bospor Kimmerijskij i varvarskij mir
v period antičnosti i srednevekov’ja. Etničeskie processy (Bosporskie čtenija,
5), kerč’, 321-328.
Smekalova, t.n., a.a. maslennikov & S.L. Smekalov 2006. Primenenie
giS-technologij dlja izučenija “bližnej” zemel’noj okrugi antičnych posele-
nij na južnom beregu Čokrakskogo ozera, in: n.m. kukoval’skaja (ed.),
Sugdejskij sbornik. kiev-Sudak.
Stolba, v.F. 2003. monetary Crises in the early hellenistic Poleis of olbia,
Chersonesos and Pantikapaion. a re-assessment, in: XIII Congreso Inter‑
nacional de Numismática. Resúmenes de las Comunicaciones. madrid, 81.
Stolba, v.F. 2005a. monetary Crises in the early hellenistic Poleis of olbia,
Chersonesos and Pantikapaion. a re-assessment, in: C. alfaro, C. marcos
& P. otero (eds.), XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismática (Madrid, 2003).
Actas – Proceedings – Actes. madrid, 395-403.
Stolba, v.F. 2005b. the oath of Chersonesos and the Chersonesean economy
brielsen (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing: The New World of Ancient
Strželeckij, S.F. 1961. Klery Chersonesa Tavričeskogo. K istorii drevnego zemledelija
v Krymu (ChSbor, 6). Simferopol’.
Ščeglov a.n. 1977. Zemel’nyj nadel u mysa ojrat, in: m.m. kobylina (ed.),
Istorija i kul′tura antičnogo mira. moskva, 210-215.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1978. Severo‑Zapadnyj Krym v antičnuju epochu. Leningrad.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1980. utilisation de la photographie aérienne dans l’étude du ca-
dastre de Chersonésos taurique (ive-iie av. n.è.), DialHistAnc 6, 59-72.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1984. Chora Chersonesa, in: g.a. košelenko, i.t. kruglikova
& v.S. Dolgorukov. (eds.), Antičnye gosudarstva Severnogo Pričernomor′ja.
moskva, 53-56, 122-123.
Ščeglov, a.n. 1988. Bol’šoj kastel’ i svjatilišče ii v. do n.e. v uročišče Džangul’,
Tezisy dokladov Krymskoj naučnoj konferencii “Problemy antičnoj kul’tury”,
1‑24 sentjabrja 1 g. Part 3. Simferopol’, 273-275.
Ščeglov a.n. 1993. osnovnye strukturnye elementy antičnoj meževoj sistemy
na majačnom poluostrove (Jugo-Zapadnyj krym), in: Ju.m. mogaričev
(ed.), Istorija i archeologija Jugo‑Zapadnogo Kryma. Simferopol’, 10-38.
talbert, r.J.a. (ed.) 2004. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Prin-
ceton.
trousset, P. 1977. nouvelles observations sur la centuriation romaine a l’est
d’el Jem, AntAfr 11, 175-207.
vallat, J.-P. 1983. AGER PUBLICUS, Colonies et territoire agraire en campanie
du nord à l’èpoque républicaine, in: Clavel-Lévêque (ed.) 1983, 187-198.
veselov, v.v. 2005. Svodnaja vedomost’ rezul’tatov archeologičeskich razvedok na
Kerčenskom i Tamanskom poluostrovach v 14‑164 gg. (Drevnosti Bospora.
Suppl., 2), moskva.
vinogradov, Ju.a. 1995. nekotorye diskussionnye problemy grečeskoj kolo-
nizacii Bospora kimmerijskogo, RosA 3, 152-160.
vinokurov, n.i. 1999. Vinodelie antičnogo Bospora. moskva.
Zagnij, g.F. & o.m. rusakov 1982. Archeovekovye variacii geomagnitnogo polja
v jugo‑zapadnoj časti SSSR. kiev.
Zin’ko, v.n. 2003. Chora bosporskogo goroda Nimfeja (Bosporskie issledovanija,
4). Simferopol’-kerč’.
Zin’ko, v.n. 2004. Poselenija vi v. do n.e. evropejskogo poberež’ja Bospora
kimmerijskogo, Bosporskie issledovanija 5, Simferopol’-kerč’, 19-26.
Zograf, a.n. 1951. Antičnye monety (matissla, 16). moskva-Leningrad.
Zubar’, v.m. 1993. Chersones Tavričeskij v antičnuju epochu. kiev.
Zubar’, v.m. 2004. Chersones Tavričeskij i naselenie Tavriki v antičnuju epochu.

kiev.
Žerebcov, e.n. 1985. materialy k periodizacii pamjatnikov majačnogo po-
luostrova, KSIA 182, 38-45.
Abbreviations
IAK izvestija imperatorskoj archeologičeskoj komissii. St Peterburg.
theodosia and its Chora in antiquity
Alexander V. Gavrilov
the mastering of south-eastern Crimea by the greeks, which manifested itself

in the foundation of the city of theodosia in the second half of the 6th century
BC, coincided with the final stage of the great wave of greek colonisation.1
Probably, the majority of the migrants who aspired to the establishing of a
new city far from the other greek apoikiai of the kimmerian Bosporos, were
citizens of miletos, which was destroyed by the Persians. the fact that by the
end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century BC the most fertile lands of
the eastern Crimea were already occupied by other greek colonies could be
one of the reasons for the founding of theodosia at a distance from the other
greek cities of the region.
the site of ancient theodosia was identified long ago and its location is
not doubted even today.2 it is situated on the shore of a large bay at the foot
of the mountain ridge of tepe-oba, occupying the so-called “Quarantine
hill” on the southern outskirts of the modern town of Feodosija, not far from
the il’ja Cape. the eastern and north-eastern sides of the height slope down
towards the sea as the sides of an amphitheatre would and to the south it is
limited by a ravine where a brook flowed. its northern slopes are relatively
gentle and it is probably here that the suburbs of the ancient city were situ-
ated. along the eastern and southern slopes of the hill run the walls reinforced
by towers of a medieval citadel. modern buildings now occupy part of the
citadel’s inner space.
the literary evidence for this polis is scarce and fragmented shedding
fairly little light on the date of its foundation. thus, arrianos and the
sixth-century-aD anonymous author of the periplous of the Pontos euxeinos
note that the theodosia was established by milesians (arr. P.P.Eux. 30; anon.
Peripl.P.Eux. 77.51), but their narratives do not say anything about the city’s
independent period of existence during the whole of the 5th century BC, apart
from a problematic remark found in the periplous that Bosporan exiles had
taken shelter in the city of theodosia (anon. Peripl.P.Eux. 77.51). it is probably
these exiles that isokrates mentions in his Trapezitikos (isoc. 17.3-5).
the early-fourth-century war between the Bosporan rulers and theodosia
also appears in ulpianus’ commentary on Demosthenes’ Against Leptines as
well as by harpokration (ulp. ad Demosth. c. Lept. 20.33, s.v. Θευδοσία; harp.,
s.v. Θευδοσία). according to this evidence, the Bosporan ruler Satyros i died
during the siege of theodosia. moreover, ulpianus records that the city (empo‑
250 Alexander V. Gavrilov
rion) was named after the sister or wife of Leukon i, although this information
is open to dispute. From the speeches of Demosthenes (35.32 and 20.33), as
well as from ulpianus’ commentary, one can draw some conclusions about
the wealthy landowners living in the polis as well as about the (re)organisation
of the seaport of theodosia, which was undertaken by Leukon i perhaps im-
mediately after the annexation of the city by Bosporos.
Some events in the war between theodosia and the Bosporan rulers,
namely herakleia’s assistance with the supplying of food as well as the mili-
tary operations against Leukon i at theodosia and in the Bosporos, are de-
scribed in Polyainos’ Strategemata (5.23.6, 9.3-4) and aristoteles’ Oikonomika
(1347b). the position of theodosia on the frontier between Bosporos and the
taurians, with control over a fertile chora and a well-appointed sea port from
which a great volume of grain was exported, is testified by Strabon (7.4.4.).
Such authors as Ps.-Skylax, Pomponius mela, ammianus marcellinus and
orosius (Ps.-Skyl. Peripl. 69; mela, Chorogr. 2.3; amm.marc. 22.8.35; oros.
1.2.4-5) simply mention theodosia, without providing any valuable informa-
tion on the history of the city. Plinius and Ptolemaios record the location of
the city, the latter author giving its coordinates (63°20’-47°20’) and the length
of the longest summer-day (15 h 50 min). While ulpianus, harpokration and
Ps.-Skylax knew theodosia as a polis situated in the land of the Scythians,
marcellinus notes that it was one of the cities of taurica where human sacri-
fices were practiced (22.8.36).
the events of the city’s history in the 1st century BC are conveyed by ap-
pianos, who describes the defection of theodosia from mithridates vi and the
capture of the town by Pharnakes supported by Scythians and Sauromatians.
he also notes the strategic position of the polis (app. Mith. 108, 120). the city’s
close relations with herakleia are testified to by memnon (FGrHist 434F34.3),
in his description of the siege of the latter town by the roman commander
aurelius Cotta in 72-70 BC.
the city of theodosia and some events in its history also appear in the
epigraphic material found in the sites of the kerch and taman’ Peninsulas,3
as well as in the well-known Chersonesean decree in honour of Diophantos,
a general of mithridates vi (IOSPE i2, 352). the inscriptions from theodosia
itself are mostly limited to lists of personal names and epitaphs on grave-
stones (CIRB 947-951). an epitaph mentioning a theodosian citizen by the
name of Philoxenes was found in the necropolis of Pantikapaion (CIRB 231).
Finally, the city-name was recorded in an inscription from miletos dating to
about 200 BC.4
the insufficient archaeological investigation of theodosia, compared to
other greek sites on the northern Black Sea coast, is explained by the thick-
ness of the later medieval layers and largely by the fact that the modern city
is built on top of the ancient remains. in the 1850s, i.k. ajvazovskij, a.a.
Sibirskij, e. de villeneuve, and a.e. Ljucenko undertook excavations of the
tumular necropolis of the 5th through 3rd century BC situated on the ridge of
Theodosia and its Chora in Antiquity 251
tepe-oba.5 in 1894, further work was conducted by a.L. Bertier de la garde,

and during 1978-1995 by e.a. katjušin and other investigators.6 most of the
burials excavated in the city’s necropolis were cremations, and a few tombs
contained weapons. these details set the necropolis significantly apart from
other Bosporan cemeteries reflecting its primarily greek character.7 the fact,
however, that a comprehensive study of the necropolis of theodosia still
awaits its publication prevents us from solving many problems of the city’s
and the region’s history.
in the second half of the 19th century, the first publications of archaeo-
logical material, in particular of coins8 and jewellery from the theodosia
necropolis9 appeared. in 1891-1895, in connection with a reconstruction of
modern theodosia’s seaport, extensive earthworks were made under the su-
pervision of a.L. Bertier de la garde in the territory of the city. at that time,
the north-western part of the Quarantine hill was levelled to the ground
and various archaeological materials from the graeco-roman period were
collected. unfortunately, it was published only selectively, most of the finds
remaining undescribed.10 During dredging work in the area of the seaport the
remains of an ancient, probably greek, pier made of c. 4000 pine piles ham-
mered into the seabottom and guarding a rectangular harbour, were found
at a depth of c. 10 m.11
in 1949 and 1951-1952, archaeological work on the Quarantine hill, inside
of the medieval citadel, was conducted by i.B. Zeest and later on, from 1974 to
1977, by B.g. Peters.12 these excavations unearthed the greek layers of debris,
in places up to 5 m thick. the thickness of the cultural layers is larger in the
north-western than in the eastern part of the site and they lie at a depth of
2 m below the modern surface. the preservation of the deposits of the roman
period is much poorer due to medieval building work. the excavations have
revealed a strong layer of fire datable to the beginning of the 4th century BC,
which Zeest links to the war with the Bosporos. the greek layers contained
building remains of the 5th through 3rd centuries BC as well as the material of
the 1st through 4th centuries aD. Worthy of note are remains of a fifth-centu-
ry-BC building made of carefully trimmed blocks, with plastered inner walls
painted in red and yellow. another unearthed building with adobe walls on
stone socles belonged to the 4th century BC. the houses were roofed with
tiles, their floors were adobe, strewn with sandstone gravel or paved with
limestone or pebbles. hearths constructed of stone slabs heated the rooms.
the dwellings were equipped with utilities such as gutters and pavement.
the water supply was assured by wells, cisterns and water-piping running
from natural springs, etc. the excavations also revealed remains of a metal-
lurgical workshop – a blowing hearth from the 1st century aD accompanied
by various archaeological remains.
the limits of the ancient town are not yet determined. Based on the closest
analogies, viz. kerkinitis,13 tyras, and euesperides in Libya,14 we may assume
that the area of theodosia at different stages of its history could have varied
Fig. 1. Map of the settlements of the Graeco‑Roman period in the south‑eastern Crimea.
1) Tepe‑Oba 2) Bližnee 5 247) Frontovoe I

2) Kuru‑Baš 2) Uzun‑Syrt (foot) 24‑24) Frontovoe II
3) Bijuk‑Janyšar 30) Uzun‑Syrt (top) 251) Cholmogorka II
4) Vladislavovka 3 31) Raz’ezd 107 km 1 254) Jačmennoe III
5) Sary‑Kaja 32) Korpeč’ 255) Vladislavovka I
6) Žuravki 1 33) Tulumčak 2 256) Vladislavovka II
7) Žuravki 2 34) Vodochranilišče 257) Tambovka I
) Novopokrovka 1 35) Novopokrovka 3 25) Tambovka II
) Makovka 36) Sadovoe 2 25) Tambovka III
10) Novopokrovka 2 37) Vasil’kovoe 260) Tambovka IV
11) Il’ičevo 2 3) Pljaž “Dinamo’ 262) Tambovka VI
12) Orechovka 1 3) Nadežda 264) Beregovoe I
13) Sofievka 40) Alan‑Tepe 1 265) Beregovoe II
14) Šubino 1 41) Alan‑Tepe 3 266) Beregovoe III
15) Šubino 3 42) Bližnee 6 267) Dal’nie Kamyši
16) Mučnoe 43) Karasan‑Oba 26) Bližnee I
17) Krasnovka 1 44) Mačuk 26) Bližnee II
1) Ostrovnoe 45) Jaman‑Taš 270) Bližnee III
1) Babenkovо 46) Bor‑Kaja 271) Donskaja
20) Krinički 1 47) Partizany 3 272) Romanovka
21) Partizany 1 4) Dači 273) Gogolevka
22) Partizany 2 4) Lesopitomnik 274) Ajvazovskoe
23) Privetnoe 275) Abrikosovka
24) Sinicyno The sites found by V.V.
25) Krasnovka 2 Veselov; the numeration is ac‑
26) Nasypnoe cording to Kruglikova 175,
27) Bližnee 4 275‑277:
between 5 and 20 ha.15 it has been suggested though that the city might even
have occupied an area of about 30 to 40 ha.16 the centre of the ancient town
occupied the Quarantine hill, which probably accommodated the akropolis,
temenos, agora, theatre, public buildings and houses of the citizens. at the foot
of the north-eastern slope of the hill, practically on the site of the modern sea-
port, the ancient harbour with harbour installations such as docks, stalls, and
storage, was situated. the entire Quarantine hill was surrounded by walls
reinforced with towers.17 at present, due to natural (the rising of the sea level)
and anthropogenic factors (the filling up of the coastal part of the sea bottom
during the construction of the port at the end of the 19th century, as well as
dense modern building) the archaeological study of the ancient suburb and
harbour area of the city is practically impossible.
Because of the lack of systematic archaeological excavations, the material
culture of the town is incompletely studied, and for a long time has been char-
acterized simply by finds made during the construction of the modern seaport
and from the necropolis.18 in the middle of the 20th century, the materials
found earlier as well as more recent finds including coins,19 red-figured pot-
tery,20 inscriptions,21 terracottas,22 jewellery,23 and glyptics were published.24
the new finds of theodosian coins originating from the rural settlements of the
chora and from other sites were published, too.25 the published material from
the town excavations also includes tile and amphora stamps,26 graffiti and
dipinti,27 grave reliefs28 and red-figured pottery.29 these finds form the basis
for a reconstruction of various aspects of the life of the polis and its citizens.30
on the whole, the archaeological evidence available characterises theodosia
as a typical greek city that, despite its relative remoteness and barbarian sur-
roundings, for a long time maintained its original character.
of the rural territory of theodosia, the distant part inhabited mostly by a
heterogeneous population is better studied.31 its examination was begun in
the middle of the 1950s by i.t. kruglikova and it continues presently.32 this
territory is limited by the ak-monaj isthmus in the east and the steppe river
indol in the west; the southern border is formed by the spurs of the Crimean
mountains: Теpe-oba, uzun-Syrt and the mountain-mass agarmyš. this
territory also includes the south-eastern part of the Crimean mountains to
the seacoast; in the north the territory is limited by the salty Lake Sivaš. 60
unfortified settlements, two shepherd stations, one town site, one fortified
settlement, four small fortresses, necropoleis with and without tumuli as well
as remains of ramparts were found in this territory. a rampart, fortifications,
settlements and one highland farmhouse from between the 2nd century BC
and the middle of the 3rd century aD were found in the valley of Staryj krym
and its surroundings (Fig. 1).33 it is worthy of note that the barbarian settle-
ments and burial grounds from the 5th to the beginning of the 3rd centuries
BC were also found in the Central Crimean steppe, west of the indol river
to the river Salgir,34 suggesting that this territory was within the sphere of
political and economical interests of the Bosporos. in terms of classical sites,
this territory is as yet poorly studied archaeologically thus necessitating closer
attention in the future which should allow a better-based judgement of its
role in the history of the Crimean Scythia and the Bosporos.
the chronology of the unfortified rural settlements in the steppe zone
of the region is based on finds of transport amphorae and amphora stamps,
attic black- and red-figured pottery, and coins. this material allows the as-
signment of these settlements’ founding to the beginning of the 5th century
BC whereas their downfall can be dated to the end of the first third of the 3rd
century BC.35 By that time one portion of the settlements was destroyed by
the forays of the Sarmatians,36 while the remainder were simply deserted by
their inhabitants and the theodosian chora as a whole declined considerably.
at that time the Crimean steppes also became desolated as suggested by the
absence of any Scythian burials which could postdate the middle of the 3rd
century BC.37 Still, there were a few theodosian rural sites that apparently
remained inhabited. the rest of the population moved to the foothills where
small fortresses were built with villages around them.
Based on amphora and coin finds, the existence of two fortified sites in the
foothills near theodosia is dated within the following chronological limits:
Bijuk-Janyšar – from the second third of the 3rd to the end of the 2nd century
BC, with a few finds from the 2nd to 3rd centuries aD; kuru-Baš – from the
4th century BC through the third quarter of the 3rd century aD. the fortifica-
tions on the mountain Sary-kaja are datable to the middle of the 3rd century
BC through the 1st century aD, and those of Beregovoe 1 situated on the shore
of the Feodosija Bay – to the 4th century BC through the 1st century aD.38
in some of these areas, however, life was periodically interrupted due to an
unstable political situation on the western borders of the Bosporos.
thus, probably during one of the nomadic raids of about 180 BC the for-
tified site of Bijuk-Janyšar was burnt down and destroyed. in the late 2nd
century BC, it was ruined for a second time, probably in connection with the
campaign of Diophantos against Saumakos in the spring of 107 BC.39 it has
to be noted that the destruction of certain city blocks in theodosia also dates
to the same time.40 this military campaign seems also to have touched the
settlement of Sary-kaja and a fortified site near the village of vinogradnoe
(kuru-Baš) where also Pontic garrisons were probably installed.41 Similar
garrisons were likely established in the fortified settlement of Frontovoe as
suggested by the gravestones of greeks from asia minor found reused in the
necropolis from the 2nd to 3rd centuries aD.42
in the initial stage of its existence, theodosia possessed only a home chora,
which was situated just outside the city walls.43 Based on parallels from the
northern Black Sea coast, its area can be estimated at approximately 300-400
hectares.44 at present, modern buildings occupy all of this territory. Simul-
taneously with the formation of the polis, the mastering of nearby territories
and the strengthening of relations with the native barbarian population took
place.
in the steppe part of the region we know of 16 settlements (tepe-oba,
uzun-Syrt [foot], nadežda, Partizany 1 and 2, novopokrovka 1 and 3, Žuravki
1 and 2, ajvazovskoe, krinički, Šubino 1, il’ičevo 1, Sinicyno 1, vladislav-
ovka 1 and 2), the foundation of which goes back to the beginning of the 5th
century BC and which, together with the city’s home chora, formed the agri-
cultural basis of the independent theodosia. in the 4th century BC, owing to
various reasons but most importantly to settling of Scythians, the number of
settlements increased to 60. this was the period when the theodosian chora
reached its maximum size.
the settlements formed comparatively compact groups gravitating to-
wards rivers, springs and fertile lands. on the surface they remain as ashy
spots of 30 to 70 m in diameter, the remains of ancient refuse dumps thus
indicating now the location of dwelling-and-household assemblages. these
spots yield most of the archaeological material such as fragments of transport
amphorae including those with stamps, black-glazed and handmade pottery,
coins, millstones, bones of animals, etc.
the spatial distribution of artefacts and the quantity of ashy spots point
to the lack of any system in the disposition of the houses. the latter were
placed at some distance from one another forming clusters in which each
group of dwellings was surrounded by household units. in this respect the
settlements of the theodosian chora resemble the early rural sites of the Bos-
poros and olbia.45 the borders of the settlements are indistinct, being usu-
ally determined by the area of the casual finds’ spread. this varies from 0.42
to 10 hectares. Based on this criterion, three typological groups of sites have
been distinguished: 1) small farmsteads with an area of up to 0.5 ha; 2) sites
of medium size with an area from 1 to 10 ha, which represent the majority
of uncovered sites; 3) seasonal shepherd stations situated in the steppe zone
near the Sivaš Lake characterised by a small area of use and poor cultural
deposits. the thickness of the layers on the sites of the steppe zone varies
from 0.4 to 1.2 m.
the dwelling and household structures are represented by semi-pithouses,
wattle-and-daub and stone-adobe buildings46 with earthen floors and thatched
or reed roofs. For heating, open hearths and braziers were used. among ob-
jects investigated on the sites of orechovka 1 and novopokrovka 147 were a
clay-plastered platform, a well, a dump of amphorae, grain and household
pits. the above-mentioned platform was situated on the southern side of the
house and probably served as a threshing-floor. the well was shaped as a
cylindrical pit and probably had a wooden framework. the grain- and house-
hold pits, which constitute one of the essential attributes of the farmhouse,
can be divided into five main types differing by shape and capacity. Some
pits were used for dumping refuse and probably as cellars.
the material from the novopokrovka-1 settlement shows that the imported
wheel-made ware made up only 0.5% of the pottery found. it includes the fol-
lowing three groups: 1) household coarse ware (cauldrons, mortars, pans); 2)
fine kitchen- and tableware – pots, bowls, various kinds of attic red-figured
and black-glazed pottery (kylikes, skyphoi, kantharoi, kraters, bowls, fish-plates,
salt-cellars, lekythoi) – 3) ware for special uses (oinochoai, lamps, unguentaria,
miniature votive pottery, and loom weights). all the wheel-made pottery is
datable to within the 5th through the first third of the 3rd century BC. the
majority of the above-mentioned pottery types were also found in the other
settlements.
the handmade pottery from the novopokrovka-1 settlement makes up
11.5% of the ceramic assemblage and can be divided into three main groups:
1) kitchenware (cauldrons, pots, pans, frying pans); 2) tableware (jugs, bowls,
cups, scoops, salt-cellars, strainers, gutti); 3) storage jars. Some of the kitchen-
ware has an ornamentation characteristic of Scythian pottery: finger or nail
indentations on the rim, shoulders or edge of the base. the surface of some of
the tableware is polished and ornamented with an incised linear-and-geomet-
rical decoration distinctive of the kizil-koba culture. the vessels of the latter
group were found in practically all the sites of the region’s steppe zone.48
to the group of terracotta objects made for special usages belong

spindle-whorls, loom weights, handmade figurines and votive miniature loaves,
as well as articles made from recycled amphora fragments. in practically all
settlements coins minted at Pantikapaion, theodosia, Chersonesos, Phanagoria
and kolchis as well as graffiti were found. also among the finds are glass beads,
bronze bracelets, finger rings, pendants, mirrors, arrow-heads, hand-bells, lead
spindle-whorls as well as bronze details of a horse harness made in the animal
Style. iron wares are represented by ploughs and knives; bone ones – by rasps,
needles, pricks, polishers, arrow-heads, beads, etc.; the stone ones are mainly
represented by pull-and-push mills, whetstones, sling stones, weights, etc.
in approximately the second half of the 4th century BC, the material culture
of the whole territory of the european Bosporos including the region of theo-
dosia became uniform owing to the political stability which occurred after the
city was subdued by the Bosporan kingdom. Broad inter-ethnic contacts and
a farming uniformity, mostly connected with a primary orientation towards
grain production and cattle-breeding also contributed to the standardization
of the material culture.
the palaeobotanical finds from these settlements prove that they culti-
vated soft wheat (Tr. aestivum), one- and two-rowed barleys, beans, lentils,
peas, bitter vetch, chickpea, rye and millet. the presence in the finds of weed
seeds also testifies to the long-term usage of fields for the cultivation of cere-
als. in accordance with this, the fallow system as well as winter and spring
cropping seem to have been employed. tillage was carried out with wooden
ploughshares with iron points. Such an implement was found in the settle-
ment of novopokrovka-1. harvested grain was usually stored in pits that
are found in abundance. the eventual milling of grain for sale was carried
out by means of massive levered millstones, while small millstones were
probably used for domestic needs.49 as evidenced by a find of a limestone
wine-pressing platform in the fortified settlement of kuru-Baš, the population
of the sites closest to the city cultivated vines, probably for domestic use, in
the 2nd to 1st centuries BC.
Cattle-rearing was probably connected to individual farms, however, the
shepherd stations in the steppe near the Sivaš Lake also point to the usage
of distant pastures. the palaeozoological material from the novopokrovka-1
settlement proves the rearing of neat cattle, horses, sheep and goats, pigs, hens
and ducks. this type of animal husbandry was oriented towards breeding
draught cattle and producing meat and milk as well as skins and wool. the
bones of wild fauna such as deer, roe, fox, badger, marten, hamster, heron,
wild duck, etc. clearly evidence hunting, which, however, seems not to have
been of major importance, being irregular, and aimed mainly at acquiring
fur, skins and meat.
handicrafts in the settlements aimed at satisfying the personal needs of
the inhabitants for tools and other household wares. there was a manu-
facture of handmade pottery, small tools, articles of stone, bone, wood and
leather as well as wool-spinning, weaving and skinning. in the fortified settle-

ments handmade pottery, loom weights, bone articles, limestone mortars and
wine-pressing platforms were the main items of manufacture.
in the pottery assemblages from fortified sites of the second half of the
3rd to 1st century BC appears handmade pottery ornamented with applied
relief decoration in the shape of waves, volute curls, knobs, stylised human
faces, etc., which is characteristic of the Late Scythian culture of the Crimea.50
the vessel shapes are represented by large storage jars, pots, deep bowls,
thin-walled cups and mugs. of special note are the handle fragments of hand-
made mugs, which are made of three plaits twisted like a rope and some-
times decorated by a knobbed stick in their upper parts. this type imitates
the wheel-made ware and dates to the 2nd through the 1st century BC. Such
pottery is recorded in the fortress of kutlak (athenaion of written sources),
which dates to the 1st century BC through the 1st century aD, and in the
other fortified sites (karasan-oba, Sary-kaja, Bijuk-Janyšar) and farmhouses
(mačuk) of the theodosian chora, where it is connected with the native bar-
barian population (the Scythians or tauro-Scythians).51
handmade pottery from the upper layers of the fortified (kuru-Baš) and
unfortified settlements (alan-tepe 1) is represented by fragments of pots, oino‑
choai, mugs and bowls. Characteristic of this assemblage are also the pot frag-
ments with applied attachments shaped like arched handles, omega-shaped
extensions in the lower parts of handles and knob- or spur-like decorations
on the upper parts of the handle. this kind of ornamentation is usually con-
nected with the Sarmatians and dated to the 2nd to 3rd century aD. there
are very few specimens of polished pottery in these layers.52
the wheel-made table ware from the upper layers (2nd to 3rd centuries
aD) of kuru-Baš is represented by red- and brown-glazed jugs and bowls,
red-clay mugs, red-glazed bowls with semi-spherical bodies and vertical rims,
red-glazed heavy-walled storage jars, louteria, cups, plates, lamps with hori-
zontal handles, plates with out-turned horizontal rims and stamped decora-
tions on their floor. Fragments of lagynoi with twisted handles, mould-made
bowls and black-glazed pottery of the 4th to 3rd centuries BC occur more often
in the lowest layers of the 3rd-1st centuries BC.53 the fortified sites kuru-Baš
and Bijuk-Janyšar also revealed special ceramic shapes: fragments of terra-
cotta, roof tiles and loom weights. the metal finds are represented there by
bronze nails, rings, buckles, fibulae, led pot-repair clamps, iron knives. on
the sites Sary-kaja and kuru-Baš beads were also found.54
the mastering of the rural territory ensured a surplus of agricultural pro-
duction that enabled the polis to establish intensive trade relationship with
other greek centres overseas. the main cash crop was certainly wheat, the
production of which in the 4th century BC had already become market ori-
ented. into this same period falls the peak of trading activity in the rural ter-
ritory of theodosia, when, according to Strabon, the export of wheat from
the seaport of theodosia was especially intensive. the increase in the volume
of trade operations stimulated the rise of new settlements and the further
development of agriculture.
the early amphora and black-glazed pottery finds from theodosia testify
to close trade relations primarily with the ionian centres and athens during
the initial stage of the city’s existence. as material from the rural settlements
shows, import of attic black-glazed pottery was uninterrupted during the
whole 5th century BC, notably increasing in the final third of the century.
Wine, oil and handicrafts were brought from the town to the settlements. in
particular, millstones made of trass, fragments and intact specimens of which
were found in the rural settlements not only of theodosia, but of the other
Bosporan poleis as well.55 this rock originates from a deposit situated 18 km
south-west of Feodosija on the slopes of the Svjataja mountain, part of the
mountain chain of kara Dag, where the ancient quarry was situated.56 in the
same region, near modern koktebel’, the salt Lake Barakol’ is located where
salt-works might have existed in antiquity.57
the chronology of the transport amphorae and amphora stamps reflect
the dynamics of theodosia’s trade relations with various greek centres.58 the
examination of amphora fragments from the settlements of the steppe zone
has made it possible to identify those centres which had been exporting goods
to the region since the beginning of the 5th century down to the first half of
the 3rd century BC. at the initial stage of the chora’s existence, pottery from
miletos, Samos, Lesbos and Chios predominates among the imports, while
in the second half of the 5th century BC it is surpassed by production from
Chios, thasos and mende. in the 4th century BC, the southern Pontic cities
of herakleia and Sinope, as well as kolchis, also started to export to the re-
gion. most remarkable was the wine import from herakleia which surpassed
by far imports from the other cities. at the same time, although in smaller
quantities, the wine imports from Chios, thasos, mende, Samothrace, rho-
dos and Peparethos also continued. in the final third of the 4th century BC,
herakleian wine lost its leading position in the markets of the south-eastern
Crimea, being replaced mostly by Sinopean imports, which in turn reached
their peak in the last quarter of the same century and dominated the export
of the other cities. in the late 4th and beginning of the 3rd centuries BC, wine
from Chersonesos and knidos was also imported.
Some steppe settlements have yielded a few koan and Sinopean amphora
stamps and fragments from the second half of the 3rd century BC, as well as
Bosporan coins from the early 2nd century BC, thus documenting some form
of small-scale human habitation. the wheel-made kitchen- and tableware
were brought to these late settlements in a smaller quantity. in the lowest
layers of the fortified settlements were also found fragments of rhodian am-
phorae and stamps from the second half of the 3rd to the second half of the
2nd centuries BC, kolchian amphorae from the 3rd-2nd century BC, Sinopean
amphorae from the 3rd to 1st centuries BC, and herakleian amphorae of the
3rd century BC.
on the whole, 1262 complete and fragmented amphora stamps from 29

sites of theodosia’s chora were recorded. they are distributed as follows ac-
cording to production centres: 59
herakleia – 700 rhodos – 12

Sinope – 446 mende – 5
thasos – 51 knidos – 2
Centres of the “thasian circle” – 3 kos – 1
Chersonesos – 19 unidentified centres – 13
Chios – 10
the occurrence of similar stamps from herakleia and Sinope in assemblages

of one and the same settlement testifies to a contemporary purchase of fairly
large consignments of wine or other products shipped in amphorae.
Wine jars from the 1st century BC to the 1st century aD are represented
by the following fragments: light-clayed amphorae with wide neck and
double-barrel handles (type C i according to S.Ju. vnukov); light-clayed,
wide-necked amphorae with elaborated handle profiles (vnukov’s type C
iii); red-clayed wine jars with double-barrel handles as well as those with
pseudo-double-barrel handles. in the upper layers of these settlements, the
amphora fragments of the 2nd to the first half of the 3rd centuries aD occur
more frequently: pink-clayed with a wide neck; red-clayed with a riffled
rim; myrmekian and Phanagorian types with a flat base and ribbed handles;
red-clayed with a funnel neck; the so-called type “with high rising handles”;
light-clayed narrow-necked of D.B. Šelov’s types C and D. in other words,
at this time imports from the Bosporan and South Pontic centres dominate
in the region.
already by the late 5th century BC and even more so in the 4th-3rd cen-
turies, this exchange of goods required monetary interactions, as is suggested
by finds of coins in practically all the settlements of the region.60 Some of
the sites revealed finds of the earliest coins from the local theodosian mint,
which was established in the city in the last quarter of the 5th century BC
and continued working, with some interruptions, striking silver and bronze
coins until the middle of the 3rd century BC.61 the theodosian coins were
found in both neighbouring and distant (as much as 50 km inland) sites such
as tepe-oba, vinogradnoe, novopokrovka 1 and 3, nasypnoe, Bližnee 1 and
3, Lesopitomnik, uzun-Syrt (foot), ajvazovskoe, krinički 1 and nadežda.
taken together with the amphora material these finds indicate the size of the
chora of that period.62 after the annexation of the city by the rulers of Bospo-
ros, the coins of Pantikapaion became an integral part of the coin market of
both the city and its chora.63 moreover, the finds of Pantikapaian coins in the
farther western and interior regions of the Crimean Peninsula enable us to
conclude that they were included in the sphere of the Bosporan kingdom’s
economical and political interests. the majority of these finds belong to the
bronze specimens struck in Pantikapaion in the second half of the 4th to the
first third of the 3rd centuries BC and intended for the home market. the
existence of retail trade in the countryside is testified by the find of a mea-
suring oinochoe and a stone weight in the settlement of novopokrovka 1. in
the early 1st century BC, the mithridatic bronze coins struck in the cities of
the southern Pontos began to circulate in the neighbourhood of the polis, but
were replaced later by the royal Bosporan and roman Provincial coins. the
finds of coins of mithridates viii in Staryj krym and the village of Sennoe
near the city of Belogorsk suggest that also in the 1st century aD the distant
chora of theodosia was in possession of the Bosporan rulers.64
the finds of handmade pottery decorated with applied flanges, tools made
of stone, flint and bronze in some of the settlements and seasonal stations
demonstrate that already in the Late Bronze age these places were inhabited
by representatives of the Belozerskaja archaeological culture. according to an
increasing number of recorded sites of this culture, the density of population
was then fairly high.65 neither in the classical settlement nor in the seasonal
sites, however, has this population left any solid cultural layers. in fact, this
culture served as a substrate on the basis of which the kizil-koba culture and
that of the taurians of the Crimean mountains was later on formed.66 the
contacts between the latter cultures and the Scythians, which go back to the
second half of the 7th century BC,67 resulted in the development of the mixed
Scythian and kizil-koba ethnos that occupied mainly the foothills and partly
the steppe zone of the Crimean Peninsula.68 Due to a semi-nomadic way of
life, caused by the specialisation of its economy (cattle-breeding and primitive
agriculture), this population was constantly migrating, and one may assume
its political dependence on the Scythians. this dependency, however, cannot
necessarily be posited for the highland tribes, who probably remained inde-
pendent and soon were given the collective ethnic name “taurians”.
Finds of handmade pottery of both Scythian and kizil-koba types are re-
ported from a number of rural settlements and necropoleis, as well as from
greek cities of the Crimean Peninsula,69 where they serve as a further indica-
tor of inter-ethnic contacts within particular sites.70 to such a mixed Scythian
and kizil-koba population can seemingly be ascribed the necropolis near the
site of Frontovoe i,71 while the necropolis of the settlement of krinički 1 may
belong to its descendants.72
the settling of the mixed Scythian and kizil-koba population in the
south-eastern Crimea had started in the late 6th to early 5th centuries BC
after the arrival in the region of greek colonists, a process in which the newly
established city of theodosia might have played the role of catalyst. at any
rate, the archaeological evidence available suggests that the mixed Scythian
and kizil-koba population made up the majority of inhabitants of the earli-
est theodosian chora.
in the late 5th to early 4th centuries BC this mixed population was con-
siderably “thinned” and in the long run assimilated in the course of settling
of the proper Scythian tribes. this had an effect on the material culture of the
settlements, whose appearance from this point on became mostly Scythian,
with only burial rites and handmade pottery testifying to the former heteroge-
neity of the ethnos. after life in the settlements of the plain died out at the end
of the first third of the 3rd century BC, some of these settlements’ inhabitants
seemingly moved to fortified sites in the foothills. the inheritance of ancient
traditions, in particular, those of handmade pottery and burial rites, can be
observed here for a fairly long period spanning to the early 1st century aD.73
Later on, from the second half of the 1st to the middle of the 3rd centuries
aD, the region was inhabited by the Sarmatian population, as evidenced by
handmade pottery and grave material.
yet, the intensive interrelations between greeks and barbarians promoted
the formation of a mixed greek-barbarian population. the greek component
among the population of the chora becomes evident as early as the 5th century
BC and is testified to by finds of early types of terracotta figurines, graffiti,
above-surface stone-and-adobe buildings, by cultivating cash crops typical
of greek agriculture, and in the later period also by the necropolis material
(krinički 1 and Frontovoe ii).74
unfortunately, we know very little about the history of theodosia during
late antiquity. the coin finds75 and lapidary inscriptions from Staryj krym76
and Sudak77 confirm that at the end of the 2nd-beginning of the 3rd century
aD the jurisdiction of Bosporos stretched over the whole mountainous part
of taurica.78 to this period dates the fortified settlement situated in the centre
of the isthmus of akmonaj, among the inhabitants of which were the Sarma-
tians.79 in the 2nd to 3rd centuries aD the Sarmatians are also attested at the
site of kuru-Baš.80
in the 250s aD, the Bosporos was invaded by the germanic tribes of goths
and Borans. even though the european part of its territory did not suffer from
that invasion, Bosporan control over its western border was weakened.81 at
this point, kuru-Baš – the last outpost guarding the western approaches to
theodosia – finally ceased to exist.
it seems that the final destruction of theodosia took place during the wars
between Chersonesos and Bosporos about which konstantinos Porphyrogen-
netos tells us.82 the second war (328-330 aD), the actions of which are linked
to the locality named “kafa”, ended with the defeat of the Bosporan army. to
this same period date the coin hoards found in the surroundings of theodosia
and in the south-eastern Crimea.83 the details of this campaign, described
by konstantinos, suggest that kafa which became the borderland between
Chersonesos and the Bosporos was a mountainous area, the characteristics
of which correspond best to the region to the south-west and north-west
of the modern town of Feodosija. the third war had an especially negative
effect on the fate of theodosia, as the border of the Bosporan territory was
moved further east and re-established at the so-called uzunlar rampart.84
as a result of these events, the area of kafa (the region of theodosia) came
under Chersonesean control.85 in an anonymous geographical source from
360-386 aD theodosia is lumped together with Chersonesos.86 once again,
theodosia found itself in the role of a frontier town, in which a placid life
could only be attained under the conditions of a strong state, secured borders
and stable political situation. at that time, neither Chersonesos nor Bosporos
could ensure the city such conditions, which resulted in its final destruction.
the invasion of the huns in the late 4th-early 5th centuries aD drew a final
line under the fate of ancient theodosia.
Notes
1 kallistov 1949, 60; gajdukevič 1949, 22, 58, 192; Šelov 1950a, 168; Žebelev 1953, 64;
roebuck 1959, 121; Blavatskij 1981, 21; Peters & golencov 1981, 68; vinogradov
Ju.g. 1983, 368, 370; ehrhardt 1988, 82; košelenko & kuznecov 1990, 35; Petrova
2000, 47.
2 kačarava & kvirkvelia 1990, 294.
3 CIRB 6-6а, 8, 36, 64, 1111; Blavatskaja 1993, 34.
4 Wiegand, kaverau & rehm 1914, 215, no. 75.
5 Peters 1984, 63; katjušin 1998, 31-32; Petrova 2000, 19.
6 katjušin & ajbabina 1978, 328; katjušin 1979, 335; 1980, 274; Beysens, gioda,
morel, katjušin & evseev 1997, 54; ajbabin 1978, 80.
7 Petrova 2000, 98.
8 kene 1857, 271; Buračkov 1884, 15, 19, 30; giel 1891, 347.
9 tolstoj & kondakov. 1889a, 59, 61, 64-65; 1889b, 155, 157.
10 Jurgevič 1895, 87-174; Derevickij, Pavlovskij & Štern 1897, 21-28, pls. vi-X; 1898, 44,
pl. Xviii; Štern 1897, 163-199; 1906, 91; 1911, 18.; Waldhauer 1906a, 203-213; 1906b,
191-202; varneke 1906, 232-235; kibal’čič 1910, 30, pls. i-viii, X-Хiv, Xvi-Xvii.;
Bertier de la garde 1912, 39-52.
11 kolli 1909, 125-137.
12 Zeest 1951, 185-190; 1953, 143-148; Peters, ajbabina & katjušin 1976, 327; Peters et
al. 1977, 353; 1978, 373; Peters 1979, 326; 1984, 63; Peters & golencov 1981, 68.
13 kutajsov 1992, 100.
14 Bezručenko 1999, 86.
15 Petrova 2000, 102.
16 Chalpachč’jan 1976, 37.
17 Petrova 2000, 65.
18 Latyšev 1909; minns 1913; rostovcev 1925; maksimova 1949, 312-313; kallistov
1949; gajdukevič 1949.
19 Šelov 1950b; 1956.
20 kobylina 1951, 136-170.
21 CIRB 947-952.
22 kobylina 1970, 78-82.
23 maksimova 1958, 62-66.
24 neverov 1973; 1977; 1978, 178-179; 1979, 95-103; 1983.
25 Belova 1977, 144-151; Zolotarev 1984, 89-92; vinogradov, Ju.a. 1985, 266; ano-
chin 1986; 1999; mel’nikov 2000, 208-218; Frolova 2000, 302-313; gavrilov 2001a,
185-206; 2003, 22-24; Šonov 2002, 327-332; 2003, 351-365.
26 Badal’janc 1970, 53-58; avdeev & Peters 1987, 214-219.

27 emec & Peters 1993, 77-83.
28 ajbabin 1974, 248-249.
29 Petrenko 1994, 147-153; vdovičenko 1996, 147-154.
30 Jajlenko 1988, 128-215; Petrova 2000, 150.
31 gavrilov 1999b.
32 Bader 1940, 150-174; Schulz 1953, 5-124; kruglikova 1959, 64-73; 1975; machneva
1988, 208-209.
33 gavrilov 1998, 105; 2001b, 10.
34 Ščepinskij 1972, 326; gavrilov & toščev 1999, 166; kolotuchin 2000, 65; gavrilov,
kolotuchin & koltuchov 2002, 108.
35 gavrilov 1999а, 95.
36 Puzdrovskij 1994, 397; maksimenko 1997, 47; moškova 1997, 75-76; vinogradov,
marčenko & rogov 1997, 101.
37 maslennikov 1993, 61-62.
38 gavrilov 2002b, 159-192.
39 Petrova 2000, 101; katjušin 1998, 44.
40 Zeest 1953, 147.
41 koltuchov 1999b, 23; gavrilov 2002а, 66.
42 korpusova 1972, 48; 1980, 148.
43 kruglikova 1984, 160; Petrova 1996, 147.
44 Jajlenko 1982, 128; Zubar’ 1993, 8; Bezručenko 1999, 83, 114.
45 kruglikova 1975, 54, 58, 108; kryžickij et al. 1989, 25-31. See also the contribution
by S.D. Kryžickij in this volume. Eds.
46 Beysens et al. 1997, 56; katjušin 1998, 24; gavrilov 1997a, 69; 1999b, 77.
47 gavrilov 1999b, 79.
48 kruglikova 1959, 72; 1975, 75; gavrilov 1994, 67; katjušin 1998, 24.
49 gavrilov & Paškevič 2003, 61.
50 katjušin 1998, 41; gavrilov 2002a, 64-65.
51 Lancov & Juročkin 2001, 263.
52 gavrilov 2002a, 64.
53 gavrilov 2002b, 168; 2002a, 64-65.
54 malenko 1990, 147; gavrilov 2002b, 167-168.
55 kruglikova 1972, 28; 1975, 228.
56 Petrun’ 1963, 128.
57 Petrova 2000, 40.
58 gavrilov 1999а, 93.
59 gavrilov & Fedoseev 2002, 44-59.
60 gavrilov 2001a, 185.
61 anochin 1999, 44; mel’nikov 2000, 214; Frolova 2000, 302; Šonov 2002, 327.
62 See also the contribution by T.N. Smekalova & S.L. Smekalov in this volume. Eds.
63 gavrilov 2001b.
64 gavrilov 2001a, 193.
65 kruglikova 1975, 32, 38, 49, 60, 69; kolotuchin 1997, 153.
66 kolotuchin 1996, 87-88.
67 Skoryj 1977, 281; Čerepanova 1985, 65.
68 ol’chovskij 1991, 167; Chrapunov 1993, 7; maslennikov 1995, 61; koltuchov 1999a,
91.
69 korpusova 1967, 39; 1972, 43; kruglikova 1975, 66, 77, 82; kutajsov 1987, 35.
70 gavrilov & kramarovskij 2001, 23.
71 korpusova 1966, 63-64; 1972, 41; Sorokina & Sudarev 2001, 379.
72 gavrilov & kramarovskij 2001, 35.
73 katjušin 1996, 28; Lancov & Juročkin 2001, 264.
74 korpusova 1980, 148; gavrilov 1997b, 142; 1997a, 69; 1998, 114; 1999a, 86.
75 golenko 1963, 110; gavrilov 2001a, 193.
76 kulakovskij 1898, 11.
77 Saprykin & Baranov 1995, 138.
78 Zubar 1998, 373.
79 korpusova 1973, 18; 1980, 148.
81 ajbabin 1996, 297.
82 konstantin Bagrjanorodnyj 1989, Chapter 53.
83 Steven 1909, 99; Šelov 1950b, 134; kruglikova 1966, 188; golenko 1978, 11.
84 konstantin Bagrjanorodnyj 1989, Chapter 53; golenko 1999, 47; trufanov &
Juročkin 1999, 247; Lancov et al. 1999, 111.
85 Juročkin 1999, 281.
86 Šangin 1938, 255.
Bibliography
ajbabin, a.i. 1974. varvarskij rel’ef iz Feodosii, SovA 3, 248-249.
ajbabin, a.i. 1978. antičnoe pogrebenie v Feodosii, KSIA 156, 80-84.
ajbabin, a.i. 1996. naselenie kryma v seredine iii-v vv., MAIET 3, 290-303.
anochin, v.a. 1986. Monetnoe delo Bospora. kiev.
anochin, v.a. 1999. Istorija Bospora Kimmerijskogo. kiev.
avdeev, a.g. & B.g. Peters 1987. Zametki ob amfornych klejmach iz raskopok
Feodosii, SovA 3, 214-219.
Badal’janc, Ju.S. 1970. iz istorii torgovych vzaimootnošenij Feodosii s rodo-
som v iii-ii vv. do n.e., Izvestija Akademii Nauk Turkmenskoj SSR (serija
obščestvennych nauk) 3, 53-58.
Bader, o.n. 1940. materialy k archeologičeskoj karte vostočnoj časti gornogo
kryma, Trudy naučno‑issledovatel’skogo instituta kraevedčeskoj i muzejnoj
raboty 1, moskva, 150-174.
Beysens, D., a. gioda, J.-P. morel, e.a.katjušin & a.a. evseev 1997. raskopki
na okraine Feodosii, in: AIK 14 g., 54-56.
Belova, L.n. 1977. neskol’ko neizdannych chersonesskich monet iz sobranija
ermitaža, in: Prošloe našej Rodiny v pamjatnikach numizmatiki. Leningrad,
144-151.
Bertier de la garde, a.L. 1912. monetnye novosti drevnich gorodov tavridy,
ZOOID 30, 39-52.
Bezručenko, i.m. 1999. Drevnegrečeskaja kirenaika v vii-iv vv. do n.e., PIFK
9, 61-147.
Blavatskij, v.D. 1981. Feodosija vi-iv vv. do n. e. i ee nazvanie, SovA 4,
21-29.
Blavatskaja, t.v. 1993. Posvjaščenie Levkona i, RosA 2, 34-47.
Buračkov, P.o. 1884. Obščij katalog monet, prinadležaščich ellinskim kolonijam,

suščestvovavšim v drevnosti na severnom beregy Černogo morja v predelach
nynešnej Rossii. i. odessa.
Chalpachč’jan, o.Ch. 1976. etapy planirovki i zastrojki Feodosii (s drevnejšich
vremen do konca Xviii v.), Architekturnoe nasledstvo 25, 34-49.
Chrapunov, i.n. 1993. ob etničeskoj prinadležnosti kizil-kobinskoj kul’tury,
in: Ju.m. mogaričev (ed.), Istorija i archeologija Jugo‑Zapadnogo Kryma.
Simferopol’, 3-10.
Čerepanova, o.m. 1985. Skifs’ke pochovannja z s. nadežda kryms’koj oblasty,
ArcheologijaKiiv 50, 62-65.
Derevickij, a., a. Pavlovskij & e. Stern 1897. Muzej imperatorskogo OOID. i.
odessa.
Derevickij, a., a. Pavlovskij & e. Stern 1898. Muzej imperatorskogo OOID. ii.
odessa.
ehrhardt, n. 1988. Milet und seine Kolonien: Vergleichende Untersuchung der
kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen. Frankfurt am main-new york.
emec, i.a. & B.g. Peters 1993. graffiti i dipinti antičnoj Feodosii, KSIA 207,
77-83.
Frolova, n.a. 2000. Čekanka Feodosii konca v-iv vv. do n.e., PIFK 8,
302-313.
gajdukevič, v.F. 1949. Bosporskoe carstvo. moskva-Leningrad.
gavriljuk, n.a. 1995. Skotovodstvo stepnoj Skifii. kiev.
gavrilov, a.v. 1994. razvedki v kirovskom rajone, AIK 13 g., Simferopol’,
67-70.
gavrilov, a.v. 1997a. issledovanija antičnogo poselenija u s. novopokrovka
i razvedki v kirovskom rajone, AIK 14 g., Simferopol’, 69-76.
gavrilov, o.v. 1997b. Znachidka terakoty na antyčnomu poselenni Žuravky
1 u krymu, ArcheologijaKiiv 1, 142-144.
gavrilov, o.v. 1998. novi dani pro sil’sku okrugu antyčnoj Feodosii, Arche‑
ologijaKiiv 1, 105-117.
gavrilov, a.v. 1999a. amfornyj import na antičnom poselenii novopokrovka
v Jugo-vostočnom krymu, Stratum plus 3, 81-95.
gavrilov, o.v. 1999b. antyčne poselennja novopokrovka 1 u Pivdenno-Schid-
nomu krymu, ArcheologijaKiiv 1, 76-93.
gavrilov, a.v. 2001a. novye nachodki antičnych monet v Jugo-vostočnom
krymu, BI 1, 185-206.
gavrilov, a.v. 2001b. o valach na akmonajskom perešejke, MAIET 8,
10-17.
gavrilov, a.v. 2002a. issledovanie antičnogo ukreplenija kuru Baš bliz Feo-
dosii, in: Sugdeja, Surož, Soldaja v istorii i kulture Rusi‑Ukrainy. kiev-Sudak,
62-66.
gavrilov, a.v. 2002b. ukreplennye pamjatniki antičnoj epochi v bližnich
okrestnostjach Feodosii, BI 2, 159-192.
gavrilov, a.v. 2003. Stater lisimachovskogo tipa iz ukreplenija Bijuk Janyšar

bliz Feodosii, in: Odinnadcataja Vserossijskaja numizmatičeskaja konferencija.
moskva, 22-24.
gavrilov, a.v. & n.F. Fedoseev 2002. amfornye klejma iz antičnych pamjat-
nikov okrugi Feodosii, in: v.n. Zin’ko (ed.), Bospor Kimmerijskij, Pont i
varvarskij mir v period antičnosti i srednevekov’ja. kerč’, 44-59.
gavrilov, a.v., kolotuchin, v.a. & S.g. koltuchov 2002. kurgan epochi bronzy
i skifskij mogil’nik v-iii vv. do n. e. u sela Prirečnoe v krymu, DSPK 10,
94-110.
gavrilov, a.v. & m.g. kramarovskij 2001. kurgan u sela krinčki v Jugo-
vostočnom krymu, BI 1, 23-43.
gavrilov, a.v. & g.a. Paškevič 2003. nekotorye voprosy organizacii zem-
ledelija i torgovli v sel’skoj okruge Feodosii v iv – načale iii vv. do n.e.,
Drevnosti Bospora 6, moskva, 56-76.
gavrilov, a.v. & g.n. toščev 1999. kurgan u sela Željabovka v krymu,
Stratum plus 2, 160-166.
giel, Ch. Ch. 1891. novye priobretenija moego sobranija, ZRAO 5, 343-360.
golenko, k.v. 1963. nachodka monet u podnož’ja gory aju-Dag, NumEpigr
4, 110-117.
golenko, k.v. 1978. tretij Patrejskij klad (1970) i nekotorye zamečanija o
bosporskoj monetnoj čekanke iii v. n.e., NumEpigr 12, 10-40.
golenko, v.k. 1999. k voprosu o vremeni sooruženija “citadeli” na gore opuk,
ChSbor 10, 39-49.
Jajlenko, v.P. 1982. grečeskaja kolonizacija vii-iii vv. do n.e. moskva.
Jajlenko, v.P. 1988. načal’noe obrazovanie v antičnych grečeskich gorodach
Severnogo. Pričernomor’ja, in: Pamjatniki kul’tury. Novye otkrytija 17 g.
moskva, 128-215
Jurgevič, v.n. 1895. nadpisi na ručkach i oblomkach amfor i čerepic, najden-
nych v Feodosii v 1894 g., ZOOID 18, 87-174.
Juročkin, v.Ju. 1999. etno-političeskaja situacija v pozdneantičnoj tavrike
v sočinenii konstantina Bagrjanorodnogo i archeologičeskie realii, in:
Problemy skifo‑sarmatskoj archeologii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja (k 100‑letiju
B.N. Grakova). Zaporož’e, 279-282.
kačarava D.D. & g.g. kvirkvelia 1990. Goroda i poselenija Pričernomor’ja antičnoj
epochi (Malyj enciklopedičeskij spravočnik). tbilisi.
kallistov, D.P. 1949. Očerki po istorii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja antičnoj epochi.
Leningrad.
katjušin, e.a. 1979. raskopki v okrestnostjach Feodosii, AO 17 g. moskva,
335.
katjušin, e.a. 1980. raskopki v okrestnostjach Feodosii, AO 17 g. moskva,
273-274.
katjušin, e.a. 1996. kurgannyj mogil’nik i v. do n.e. – ii v. n.e., MAIET 5,
21-31.
katjušin, e.a. 1998. Feodosija, Kaffa, Kefe. Feodosija.
katjušin, e.a. & e.a. ajbabina 1978. raskopki v okrestnostjach Feodosii, in:
AO 177 g. moskva, 328.
kene, B. 1857. Opisanie muzeuma kn. V.V. Kočubeja. vol. i. St. Peterburg.
kibal’čič, t.v. 1910. Južnorusskie gemmy. Berlin.
kobylina, m.m. 1951. Pozdnie bosporskie peliki, MatIsslA 19, 136-170.
kobylina, m.m. 1970. terrakoty iz Feodosii, in: m.m. kobylina (ed.), Terrakoty
Severnogo Pričernomor’ja (Sai, g1-11). moskva, 78-82.
kolli, L.P. 1909. Sledy drevnich kul’tur na dne morskom. Sovremennoe
položenie voprosa o nachoždenii v more antičnich pamjatnikov, ITUAK
43, 125-137.
kolotuchin, v.a. 1996. Gornyj Krym v epochu pozdnej bronzy – načale železnogo
veka (etnokul’turnye processy). kiev.
kolotuchin, v.a. 1997. raboty na poselenii epochi bronzy Baj kijat u s. vladi-
mirovka Černomorskogo rajona, AIK 14 g., Simferopol’, 151-153.
kolotuchin, v.a. 2000. Kimmerijcy i skify Stepnogo Kryma (podkurgannye pogre‑
benija Stepnogo Kryma načala železnogo veka). Simferopol’.
koltuchov, S.g. 1999a. kurgannye pogrebenija ranneskifskogo vremeni v
doline Salgira, DSPK 7, 76-92.
koltuchov, S.g. 1999b. Ukreplenija Krymskoj Skifii. Simferopol’.
konstantin Bagrjanorodnyj 1989. Ob upravlenii imperiej (Drevnejšie istočniki
po istorii narodov SSSr). moskva.
korpusova, v.n. 1966. Skifskij gruntovyj mogil’nik na Bospore, in: Tezisy
dokladov naučnoj konferencii po voprosam skifo‑sarmatskoj archeologii. moskva,
63-64.
korpusova, v.n. 1967. Pamjatniki skifo-sarmatskogo vremeni u s. Frontovoe,
AIU 165‑166 gg. 1, 38-41.
korpusova, v.m. 1972. Pro naselennja chory antyčnoj Feodosii, Archeologi‑
jaKiiv 6, 41-55.
korpusova, v.n. 1973. ob etničeskoj prinadležnosti sel’skogo naselenija
evropejskogo Bospora (po dannym nekropolej rimskogo vremeni), in:
Antičnye goroda Severnogo Pričernomor’ja i varvarskij mir. Tezisy dokladov
konferencii. Leningrad, 18-19.
korpusova, v.n. 1980. nadgrobnye stely nekropolej sel’skich poselenij Bos-
pora, in: v.a., anochin, S.n. Bibikov & a.S. rusjaeva (eds.), Issledovanija
po antičnoj archeologii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. kiev, 141-150.
košelenko, g.a. & v.D. kuznecov 1990. grečeska’ja kolonizacija Bospora,
in: o.D. Lordkipanidze (ed.), Pričernomor’e VII‑V vv. do n.e. Pis’mennye
istočniki i archeologija. Materialy V meždunarodnogo simpoziuma po drevnej
istorii Pričernomor’ja. tbilisi, 30-47.
košelenko, g.a. et al. (eds.) 1984. Antičnye gosudarstva Severnogo Pričernomor’ja
(archeologia SSSr, 4). moskva.
kruglikova, i.t. 1959. razvedki v Starokrymskom rajone v 1956 g., KSIIMK
74, 64-73.
kruglikova, i.t. 1966. Bospor v pozdneantičnoe vremja: Očerki ekonomičeskoj

istorii. moskva.
kruglikova, i.t. 1972. torgovlja v sel’skich poselenijach Bospora, KSIA 130,
24-29.
kruglikova, i.t. 1984. Sel’skoe chozjajstvo i promysly, in: košelenko et al.
(eds.) 1984, 154-161.
kulakovskij, Ju.a. 1898. novye dannye dlja istorii Starogo kryma, ZRAO 3,
3-14.
kutajsov, v.a. 1987. kizil-kobinskaja keramika iz raskopok kerkinitidy, in:
t.n. vysotskaja, a.i. ajbabin & v.m. Zubar’ (eds.), Materialy k etničeskoj
istorii Kryma v VII vv. do n.e. – V v. n.e. kiev, 27-40.
kutajsov, v.a. 1992. Kerkinitida. Simferopol’.
Lancov, S.B., v.k. golenko, a.a. trufanov & v.Ju. Juročkin 1999. novye
materialy k cronologii oboronitel’noj systemy Bospora, in: Archeologični
vidkryttja v Ukraini 1‑1 gg. kiev, 108-111.
Lancov, S.B. & v.Ju. Juročkin 2001. “varvarskaja” posuda kutlakskoj kreposti,
Drevnosti Bospora 4, moskva, 254-290.
Latyšev, v.v. 1909. PONTIKA. Izbornik naučnych i kritičeskich statej po istorii,
archeologii, geografii i epigrafike Skifii, Kavkaza i grečeskich kolonij na poberež’e
Černogo morja. St Peterburg.
Leskov, a.m. (ed.) 1970. Drevnosti Vostočnogo Kryma (Predskifskij period i skify).
kiev.
machneva, o.a. 1988. ellinističeskie usad’by v vostočnoj časti kryma, in:
Problemy antičnoj kul’tury. Tezisy dokladov konferencii. Part 3. Simferopol’,
208-209.
maksimenko, v.e. 1997. načalo proniknovenija sarmat v Severnoe
Pričernomor’e i zavoevanie Skifii, Donskie drevnosty 5, 41-49.
maksimova, m.i. 1949. Feodosijskie ser’gi, in: Sokrovišča Ermitaža. moskva,
312-313.
maksimova, m.i. 1958. miniatjurnaja gruppa na feodosijskich ser’gach, Tru‑
dyGE 2, 62-66.
malenko, L.m. 1990. gorodišče Sary kaj, DSPK 1, 145-150.
maslennikov, a.a. 1993. Skify na Bospore v iii-i vv. do n.e., in: raev (ed.)
1993, 58-68.
maslennikov, a.a. 1995. Kamennye jaščiki Vostočnogo Kryma (k istorii sel’skogo
naselenija Evropejskogo Bospora v VI‑I vv. do n.e.) (Bosporskij sbornik, 8).
moskva.
mel’nikov, o.n. 2000. monety Feodosii, MAIET 7, 208-218.
minns, e.h. 1913. Scythians and Greeks. Cambridge.
moškova, m.g. 1997. Problema migracij v sarmatskoj archeologii v rabotach
k.F. Smirnova, Donskie drevnosty 5, 67-78.
neverov, o.Ja. 1973. Deksamen Chiosskij i ego masterskaja, in: Pamjatniki

antičnogo prikladnogo iskusstva. Leningrad, 51-61.
neverov, o.Ja. 1977. otraženie vostočnych kul’tov v gliptike Severnogo
Pričernomor’ja, SoobGE 42, 41-43.
neverov, o.Ja. 1978. izobraženija na gemmach-pečatjach, metalličeskich per-
stnjach i amuletach, in: m.m. kobilina, Izobraženija vostočnych božestv v
Severnom Pričernomor’je v pervye vv. n.e. moskva, 163-210.
neverov, o.Ja. 1979. gnostičeskie gemmy, perstni i amulety juga SSSr, VDI
1, 95-103.
neverov, o.Ja. 1983. Gemmy antičnogo mira. moskva.
ol’chovskij, v.S. 1991. Pogrebal’no‑pominal’naja obrjadnost’ naselenija stepnoj
Skifii (VII‑III vv. do n.e.). moskva.
Peters, B.g. 1979. archeologičeskie raskopki v Feodosii, in: Problemy antičnoj
istorii i kul’tury. Tezisy dokladov konferencii. erevan, 326-327.
Peters, B.g. 1984. Feodosija, in: košelenko et al. (eds.) 1984, 63.
Peters, B.g. & a.S. golencov. 1981. archeologiceskie raskopki Feodosii v
1975-1977 gg., KSIA 168, 68-72.
Peters, B.g., e.a. ajbabina & e.a. katjušin 1976. raskopki Feodosijskoj eks-
pedicii, AO 175 g. moskva, 327-328.
Peters, B.g., a.i. ajbabin, e.a. ajbabina, e.a. katjušin, e.v. koršunov, a.n.
Panin, e.Ju. rastorgueva & e.a. Šipakov 1977. Feodosijskaja ekspedicija,
AO 176 g., moskva, 353-354.
Petrenko, k.v. 1994. opyt utočnennoj klassifikacii pelik kerčenskogo stilja
po masteram i masterskim, in: Antičnye kollekcii iz raskopok Severnogo
Pričernomorja. moskva, 147-153.
Petrova, e.B. 1996. greki i “varvary” antičnoj Feodosii i ee okrugi v vi-ii vv.
do n.e., MAIET 5, 146-154.
Petrova, e.B. 2000. Antičnaja Feodosija. Istorija i kul’tura. Simferopol’.
Petrun’, v.F. 1963. o dvuch interesnych gornych porodach v zernoterkach
antičnogo vremeni iz Severnogo Pričernomor’ja (opyt archeologo-petro-
grafičeskogo analiza), KSOGAM 163 g. odessa, 124-130.
Puzdrovskij, a.e. 1994. o sarmatach v krymu, MAIET 4, 397-405.
raev, B.a. (ed.) 1993. Skifija i Bospor (Materialy konferencii pamjati akademika
M.I. Rostovceva). novočerkassk.
roebuck, C. 1959. Ionian Trade and Colonization. new york.
rostovcev, m.i. 1925. Skifija i Bospor. moskva.
Saprykin, S.Ju. & i.a. Baranov. 1995. grec’kyj napys iz Sudaka, Archeologi‑
jaKiiv 2, 137-140.
Schulz, P.n. 1953. o kompleksnych istoriko-archeologičeskich i paleo-
geografičeskich issledovanijach v Severnom krymu, IKOGO 2, 115-124.
Skoryj, S.a. 1977. ranneskifskij meč iz s. izjumovka bliz Starogo kryma,
SovA 1, 281.
Sorokina, n.P & n.i. Sudarev 2001. k voprosu o nekotorych varvarskich po-
grebenijach Bospora, Drevnosti Bospora 4, moskva, 377-384.
Steven, a. Ch. 1909. taraktašskij klad, ITUAK 19, 99-101.

Šangin, m. 1938. novyj geografičeskij tekst, VDI 4, 252-255.
Ščepinskij, a.a. 1972. issledovanija v stepnom krymu, AO 171 g. moskva,
325-326.
Šelov, D.B. 1950a. Feodosija, gerakleja i Spartokidy, VDI 3, 168-178.
Šelov, D.B. 1950b. Feodosijskij klad bosporskich “staterov”, VDI 2, 134-139.
Šelov, D.B. 1956. Monetnoe delo Bospora. moskva.
Šonov, i.v. 2002. o monetnoj čekanke Feodosii poslednej četverti v – načala
iv vv. do r.Ch., BI 2, 327-332.
Šonov, i.v. 2003. Bosporskie monetnye vypuski s 280 po 253 gg. do r.Ch. (po
materialam nachodok monet na chore Feodosii), BI 3, 351-365.
Štern, e. 1897. graffiti na antičnych južno-russkich sosudach, ZOOID 20,
163-199.
Štern, e. 1906. Feodosija i ee keramika (muzej imperatorskogo odesskogo
obščestva istorii i Drevnostej, 3). odessa.
Štern, e.r. 1911. iz žizni detej v grečeskich kolonijach na severnom poberež’e
Černogo morja, in: Sbornik archeologičeskich statej, podnesennych grafu A.A.
Bobrinskomu. St Peterburg. Separatum.
tolstoj, i. & n. kondakov 1889a. Russkie drevnosti v pamjatnikach iskusstva.
vol. 1. St Peterburg.
tolstoj, i. & n. kondakov 1889b. Russkie drevnosti v pamjatnikach iskusstva.
vol. 2. St Peterburg.
trufanov, a.a. & v.Ju. Juročkin 1999. Bosporo-Chersonesskie otnošenija i
etno-političeskaja situacija v krymskoj Skifii iii-iv vv. n.e., in: v.Ju. Zuev
et al. (eds.), Bosporskij Fenomen: grečeskaja kul’tura na periferii antičnogo mira.
St Peterburg, 241-251.
varneke, B.v. 1906. antičnye terrakoty iz sobranija n.F. vysockogo, Izves‑
tija obsščestva archeologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom universitete 22.4,
232-235.
vdovičenko, i.i. 1996. kollekcija krasnofigurnoj keramiki Feodosijskogo
kraevedčeskogo muzeja, in: Krymskij muzej 15‑16 gg. Simferopol’,
147-154.
vinogradov, Ju.a. 1985. issledovanija mirmekija, AO 13 g. moskva,
265-266.
vinogradov, Ju.a., k.k. marčenko & e.Ja. rogov 1997. Sarmaty i gibel’ “ve-
likoj Skifii”, VDI 3, 93-103.
vinogradov, Ju.g. 1983. Polis v Severnom Pričernomor’e, in: e.S. golubcova
et al. (eds.), Antičnaja Grecija. vol. 1. Stanovlenie i razvitie polisa. moskva,
366-420.
Waldhauer, o.F. 1906a. tors iz Feodosii, ZOOID 26, 203-213.
Waldhauer, o.F. 1906b. Ženskaja golova iz Feodosii, ZOOID 26, 191-202.
Wiegand, th., g. kaverau & a. rehm 1914. Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen
und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1. Delphinion in Milet. iii. Berlin.
Zeest, i.B. 1951. razvedočnye raskopki v Feodosii, KSIIMK 37, 185-190.
Zeest, i.B. 1953. raskopki v Feodosii, KSIIMK 51, 143-148.

Zolotarev, m.i. 1984. Dva tipa redkich monet Feodosii iv v. do n.e.,VDI 1,
89-92.
Zubar’, v.m. 1993. Chersones Tavričeskij v antičnuju epochu (ekonomika i social’nye
otnošenija). kiev.
Zubar, v.m. 1998. Bospor u drugij polovyni i st. do n.e. – seredyni iii st. n.e.,
in: Davnja istorija Ukrainy: skifo‑antyčna doba 2, kyiv, 367-381.
Žebelev, S.a. 1953. Severnoe Pričernomor’e. Issledovanija i stat’i po istorii Severnogo
Pričernomor’ja antičnoj epochi. moskva-Leningrad.
Abbreviations
АIК archeologičeskie issledovanija v krymu. Simferopol’.
АIU archeologičeskie issledovanija na ukraine. kiev.
АО archeologičeskie otkrytija. moskva.
BI Bosporskie issledovanija. Simferopol’-kerč’.
CIRB v.v. Struve et al. (eds.), Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani.
moskva-Leningrad 1965.
DSPK Drevnosti stepnogo Pričernomor’ja i kryma. Zaporož’e.
IKOGO izvestija krymskogo otdela geografičeskogo obščestva Sojuza SSr.
ITUAK izvestija tavričeskoj učenoj archivnoj komissii. Simferopol’.
KSIIMK kratkie soobščenija instituta istorii material’noj kul’tury an SSSr.
moskva-Leningrad.
KSOGAM kratkie soobščenija odesskogo gosudarstvennogo
archeologičeskogo muzeja. odessa.
MAIET materialy po archeologii, istorii i etnografii tavrii. Simferopol’.
OOID odesskoe obščestvo istorii i drevnostej.
PIFK Problemy istorii, filologii i kul’tury. moskva-magnitogorsk.
SAI Svod archeologičeskich istočnikov. moskva.
SoobGE Soobščenija gosudarstvennogo ermitaža. Leningrad/St Peterburg.
ТrudyGE trudy gosudarstvennogo ermitaža. Leningrad/St Peterburg.
ZRAO Zapiski imperatorskogo rossijskogo archeologičeskogo obščestva.
moskva.
ZOOID Zapiski odesskogo obščestva istorii i drevnostej. odessa
the Chora in the Bosporan kingdom
Sergej Ju. Saprykin
the Bosporan kingdom had vast agrarian possessions on the european and
asian sides of the kerch Straits; these possessions played an important role
throughout the kingdom’s history. regular archaeological excavations and
surveys, carried out in the last half of the 20th century, have brought to light
many interesting sites of different types and helped scholars to follow the
evolution of the rural settlements during the whole of this period. they have
also allowed a study of the changes in the structure of these settlements over
time, which has enabled us to develop a typology of the archaeological land-
scape and to map the agrarian environs of the greatest cities of Bosporos.1
yet there is much left to discuss, as, for example, the historical periodization
of the chora, the links between polis and chora, the relationship between polis
land and royal land possessions, and the dependence of the chora development
on historical events in the kingdom of Bosporos. Scholars still have various
opinions on these topics: some believe that we can speak about a royal chora
already in the time of the Spartokids, others connect its development with the
so-called “Proto-hellenism” of the 4th century BC or with the “Sarmatization”
of Bosporos, and, accordingly, ascribe it to the period of roman domina-
tion. We shall not, however, delve into these difficult questions which have
become grounds for lengthy disputes. the main aim of the present paper is
to outline the historical development of the rural territory in the Bosporan
kingdom, concentrating on what we can know of the royal chora and of the
chora of the polis, as well as the questions of when royal land possessions may
have appeared at Bosporos and how the two types of land-possession could
coexist. our main conclusions are based on the archaeological typology of
sites, as suggested earlier by a.a. maslennikov, as well as on his tentative
archaeological periodization of monuments, concerning the Crimean Bospo-
ros, and on J.m. Paromov’s surveys on the taman’ Peninsula and investiga-
tions around gorgippia. the notes below are at the same time an expanded
vision of the historical development of the chora, an attempt to explain some
archaeological complexes and phenomena which has also been made in our
own earlier works about Bosporos and its rural territory in archaic, Classical
and hellenistic periods.
274 Sergej Ju. Saprykin
The First Period, the 6th to the beginning of the 5th century BC
the greatest cities of the kingdom were Pantikapaion and theodosia on the
Crimean side, founded by milesians in the early 6th century BC, as well as
nymphaion, colonized by the Samians. on the asian side we find Phanagoria,
settled by colonists from teos, hermonassa, probably a joint foundation of
the ionians and the aeolians, and kepoi, also a milesian foundation. Besides
these large apoikiai, there were many smaller towns or townlike settlements
such as myrmekion, tyritake, Parthenion, Porthmion, Zenon’s Chersonesos,
hermision, herakleion, Patrasys, achilleion, tyrambe, Stratokleia, Sindian
harbour, kytaia, akra, Zephyrion, kimmerikos and others. in the early 4th
century BC the city of gorgippia appeared, probably on the site of the earlier
Sindian harbour or close to it. myrmekion, founded in the second quarter
of the 6th century BC, and presumably tyritake, could have been colonized
from Pantikapaion. other sites, like kytaia, could have been founded by ei-
ther nymphaion or Pantikapaion, as was Zenon’s Chersonesos. Some think
that miletos could have organized such cities as Pantikapaion, myrmekion,
theodosia, kepoi, Patrasys, korokondame, and hermonassa. as for tyrambe,
it could have been either directly founded by ionians or, more likely, a result
of a secondary colonization from one of the centers of the asiatic Bosporos. in
any case, all the centers of Bosporos appeared in this period and at an early
stage in their history functioned as poleis which in turn enabled the initiation
of a process of secondary colonization, establishing smaller outposts around
the whole area of the kingdom. this took place during the 6th to the 4th
centuries BC.2
ancient written sources allow us to assume that while settling Pantikapa-
ion the greeks fought the Scythians and made a treaty with their king in order
to get the land they then settled. the treaty gave them a narrow strip of land,
situated in the coastal zone (Steph. Byz. s.v. Pantikapaion; cf. Strab. 7.4.4-5).
this is confirmed by archaeology as we are aware of only a few archaic sites,
mainly located in the coastal area close to the Strait of kerch. those rural sites
in the european Bosporos which have layers dating from the middle to the
late 6th to early 5th centuries BC were evidently subordinated to nymphaion,
Pantikapaion or theodosia. to nymphaion belonged such sites as geroevka,
South Čurubaš, vasil’evka, probably kimmerikos hill a (opuk) and others,
to Pantikapaion belonged myrmekion, where material from as early as the
beginning of the 6th century BC has been found, Zenon’s Chersonesos (Cape
Zyk), Cape Čokrak, andreevka South, early Porthmion, probably Parthenion,
herakleion, etc. theodosia may have possessed the sites gogolevka, Staryj
krim, Batal’noe, etc.3 although maslennikov denies that these early settle-
ments belonged to the chora of any of the cities, they in every way testify to
the greeks’ interest in the distant territories and their desire to annex them
to their cities. there was doubtlessly a particular kind of secondary coloni-
zation, demonstrating methods and patterns for the future expansion of the
The Chora in the Bosporan Kingdom 275
poleis. it is important that Pantikapaion was enlarging its possessions to the

north and to the west, nymphaion – to the south-west and south. accord-
ing to modern research, nymphaion by the late 6th century BC was already
a true city-state with its own agrarian territory.4 yet it is true that in the late
archaic and early Classical periods, the land on the kerch Peninsula was
divided among the three great poleis of Pantikapaion, theodosia and nym-
phaion, all of which started to enlarge their chorai only 50 to 60 years after
their own founding. Probably, in the case of the Bosporos we should speak
about a traditional ionian way of colonizing with the foundation of separate
apoikiai which later on started to subdue the neighbouring towns and thus
developed into genuine polis communities. this resembles somehow the situ-
ation in the Lower Bug region with the extension of the rural territories of
Berezan’ and then of olbia.
unlike the european side of the Bosporos, the spread of archaic rural sites
in the asian side, mainly on the taman’ Peninsula, seems to have been much
more active. three main poleis, Phanagoria, hermonassa, kepoi, and presum-
ably some others, such as Patrasys, achilleion, and tyrambe, managed to cre-
ate a dense network of settlements throughout the whole peninsula and near
the mouth of the kuban’ river. the earliest material, from the middle and the
second half of the 6th century BC, comes from Patrasys and tyrambe. Judging
by Paramov’s surveys we are now able to attribute more than 30 sites to the
period from the middle to the third quarter of the 6th century BC, and 63 sites
to the late 6th to early 5th centuries BC. most of them are situated on the banks
of the kuban’ river, along the sea coast and inland. this was possible due to
good and peaceful trade relations with the local Sindian and maiotian tribes,
relations which are confirmed by the appearence of a town, named Sindian
harbour, on the site of later gorgippia. the rural settlements in the taman’
could have been the result of two main processes, both of which were going
on in the region: either the direct creation of a smaller town by large poleis in
the course of secondary colonization, or the settling of colonists from ionia
not only in the cities but in the countryside as well. yet after the foundation of
Phanagoria around 542 BC the city could include the greatest part of these sites
within its chora. the same could also be the case in kepoi and hermonassa,
thus creating a situation similar to that on the Crimean coast. although most
of these rural sites have not been studied archaeologically, we can be certain
that on the taman’ Peninsula the development of the rural landscape begins
a bit earlier than in the Crimean part of the Bosporos.
The Second Period, the 5th century BC

according to archaeological investigations, in the beginning of the 5th century
BC the sites of the european Bosporos suffered a disaster, in which some of
them were devastated, others were ruined, and still others completely burnt
down. traces of destruction are discovered in such towns as myrmekion,
Porthmion, tyritake, Zenon’s Chersonesos, and others; the same disaster also
effected the rural settlements, for example, the site of geroevka.5 there are
different theories on the events which lead to the ruin of these places: some
think it was due to the Scythian attacks which stimulated the creation of the
Bosporan kingdom under the rule of the dynasty of archaianaktids (480 BC),
others that it might have been the result of an attempt on the part of the same
tyrants of Pantikapaion to enlarge the chora of their city at the expense of
neighbouring territories.6 as we learn from a number of other cases, tyrants,
mostly on the periphery of the greek world, like those in Sicily and herakleia
Pontike, always tried to conquer the territories around them, an act which
usually carried losses, casualties and destruction with it. the tyrants’ policy of
power expansion would correspond with the growth of Pantikapaion where
new public and state buildings appeared and the akropolis was enlarged, and
to the erection of a defensive wall in myrmekion which was by that time a
part of the Pantikapaion polis.7
the chora of asiatic Bosporos was greatly enlarged in the course of the 5th
century BC, and we know of more than 100 sites that existed contemporane-
ously. Some of them are large in size, as achtanizovskaja 4 and golubickaja
2, both linked to Phanagoria by roads.8 this could confirm that Phanagoria,
like Pantikapaion, was trying to develop its chora quickly, but the process was
hardly military, unlike that which took place in the eastern Crimea. it also
testifies to the probability that the chorai of european and asiatic Bosporos
functioned independently at this time, so we can hardly speak of any kind
of union between the greek poleis of the Bosporos under the archaianaktids.
the latter must have been ruling only in Pantikapaion and myrmekion and
presumably some other small sites nearby, and were in charge of the politi-
cal and economic growth of Pantikapaion’s community at the expense of its
neighbours in the kerch Peninsula, but not of the whole territory of the later
kingdom (cf. Strab. 7.4.4-5).9 around the late 6th or early 5th century BC, the
city of Phanagoria enlarged its urban territory, and at approximately the same
time a shrine of aphrodite apatoura appeared in the vicinity of this city. kepoi
and hermonassa were also prosperous at this time capable of developing the
rural territories on the taman’ Peninsula.
From the second quarter of the 5th century BC, agricultural sites in the
eastern Crimea were mostly situated to the north, north-west and west of
Pantikapaion as a part of its chora which stretched to the uzunlar rampart,
the extreme western border of the city’s possessions.10 the chora of theodosia
included about 30 sites,11 while nymphaion also enlarged the number of its
rural settlements and farms.12 at that particular time, a process of establish-
ing mixed hellenic-Scythian conglomerate communities may have begun: to
that type of community we can attribute kimmerikos hill a on the opuk and
the site of Čokrak Spring on the Crimean azov Sea coast. this was a result of
stable relations between Pantikapaion and the Scythians in the period 480-438
BC. the same is true for the chora of nymphaion and in the case of the city
itself, its being on good terms with the Scythians is proved by the construc-
tions of Scythian barrows from the 5th century BC in its necropolis.13 all this
shows that the rural territory on the kerch Peninsula was still developing at
that time into a complete polis and was divided, as earlier, between Panti-
kapaion, nymphaion and theodosia. But Pantikapaion’s chora was becoming
larger and larger as a result of the archaianaktids’ expansion policy.
in the second quarter of the 5th century BC, rural settlements in the asian
Bosporos began to appear in the interior of the taman’ Peninsula and in
Sindike, all still within the framework of the city’s chorai of Phanagoria, her-
monassa and kepoi. a city of Sindos or Sindian harbour also began to expand
into its environs where in the late 6th-early 5th century BC a site of alekseevs-
koe appeared.14 all this, however, was going on without any participation of
the archaianaktids, particularly since in 438 BC a new dynasty, the Spartokids,
came to power in Pantikapaion.
The Third Period, late 5th to the middle of the 3rd century BC
the regime of Spartokos i, founder of the dynasty which ruled the Bosporos
until the end of the 2nd century BC, was also a kind of polis tyranny, though
he and his successors on the throne called themselves “archonts”, and from
the second half of the 3rd century BC “kings”. their rule opened a new page
in the history of the Bosporan chora. it was not until Satyros i, son of Spartokos
i, who ruled in the last quarter of the 5th to the beginning of the 4th century
BC, that the tyrants of Pantikapaion began to expand their power to the other
greek cities in the kerch Peninsula. only after this, and not before the rule of
the archaianaktids, as was believed previously, are we able to speak about
the Bosporos as a confederacy of greek poleis and their chorai. in 405 BC the
Spartokids captured nymphaion, and around the last decade of the 5th or the
early 4th century BC, kepoi on the asian side became the first town in that
region to experience Satyros’ rule. Satyros besieged theodosia and because
of this became involved in a war with herakleia Pontike, which had its own
commercial interests in that city and in the agrarian territory around the
Strait of kerch as well. the tyrant also began diplomatic activity in Sindike,
aiming at the final subduing of this vast agricultural and grain-producing
area. his successor, Leukon i, expanded the kingdom’s possession of land to
its maximum area by the third quarter of the 4th century BC: he conquered
theodosia and achieved a difficult victory in the conflict with herakleia,
took Sindike into his domain and ended a war with the maiotians, led by
tyrgatao, a local princess, with the subjugation of Phanagoria and its vicin-
ity.15 the local barbarians, who had enjoyed regular and peaceful relations
with the greeks since their arrival in Sindike, had no desire to be subjugated
by the Pantikapaion tyrants. as the Spartokid regime was tyrannic or polis
based in character, however, the cities, foremost among them Pantikapaion,
theodosia, nymphaion and Phanagoria, which became a part of the Bospo-
ran state, were allowed to keep the land which they had obtained earlier, in
or after the 6th century BC. We know of more than 35 sites of the early 4th
or beginning of the 3rd century BC in the nymphaion’s chora. this was also
divided into plots and, moreover, a part of the kerch Peninsula, west of the
city, was incorporated into its agrarian possessions too.16 Pantikapaion also
enlarged its territory along the peninsula, thus reaching to the hinterland and
to the coastal zones of the Strait of kerch and the Sea of azov.17
there was eventually a time when the Spartokids began to found new
“small” towns in the chora – akra, Zephyrion, herakleion, hermision on the
european side, and Stratokleia, kimmerikos, and others on the asian side of
the Bosporos. it is remarkable that along with Pantikapaion, the citizens of
nymphaion and Phanagoria also took part in this campaign. Leukon’s brother
gorgippos helped to “Bosporonize”, i.e. hellenize on a much larger scale than
before, a large part of Sindike. he founded a new city, called gorgippia after
himself on the site of former Sindos, which had its own chora.18 all this was
done to cultivate as much grain as possible in order to bring in as much in-
come as possible from commerce with the aegean.
grain and other agricultural products were mainly obtained from the resi-
dent population in the interior of the kerch Peninsula and Sindike. this area
was inhabited by the so-called komai or villages which became known after
regular excavations in the european Bosporos. Such sites as košara, Zolotoe
Plateau, ak-taš etc., which belonged mostly to the Scythian agricultural com-
munities, were situated around theodosia and nymphaion, but with high
probability most of them belonged to the chora of Pantikapaion which can be
characterized as “subjected” to the city (like paroikoi of greek poleis in asia
minor and greece, Mariandynoi in herakleia Pontike, etc.). although there is
actually much debate in modern literature about the status of land and its
inhabitants in the kingdom of Bosporos (some advocate some form of royal
land-tenure in the hinterland of the kerch Peninsula and on the azov Sea
coast), there are enough convincing arguments in favour of these peoples’
dependence on the polis of Pantikapaion as a part of its distant chora.19 We
agree that the tyrants and their relatives, including the Bosporan elite, could
possess land in different parts of the country, but believe that these possessions
cannot be considered “royal”. the Spartokids were archonts of Bosporos, i.e.
Pantikapaion, nymphaion, Phanagoria, hermonassa, kepoi, gorgippia along
with smaller places, and theodosia, while being kings only over the resident
tribes of Sindike and maiotis. So we can hardly view their possessions of
land in the kerch Peninsula and in the taman’ as royal land, i.e. ge basilike,
as it was ruled by archonts and was divided between the largest cities of the
state. the situation is reminicent of that in the chorai of tauric Chersonesos,
thasos, rhodos, and to a certain extent of olbia and the cities of the western
Black Sea coast etc., which we know as polis centers. this is also confirmed
by the types of rural sites in the region.
We can distinguish country estates of hellenic origin, which actually be-
longed to Pantikapaion’s chora (andreevka Južnaja, oktjabr’skoe, Baklan’ja

Skala). they appeared in the beginning of the 4th century BC after a devasta-
tion of the chora, caused by either a Scythian raid or by a military conflict with
herakleia Pontike. in the late 4th and early 3rd century BC the settlements
were enlarged, presumably after Pairisades i’s war against the Scythians in 328
BC. We also can distinguish some sites of the greek type as well beyond the
urban chora and situated in the coastal zone (Pustynnyj Bereg, general’skoe),
sites which functioned as farms or country-estates of inhabitants from larger
sites in distant chora. Besides these, there were large fortified sites which were
centers of administrative districts (Cape Čokrak) and served as residences for
the epistatai, the Spartokid officials in the chora. along with these fortifications
the Spartokids built large fortified sites with a number of towers, rooms and
dwellings behind huge defensive walls which looked like forts or fortresses,
and were probably a kind of trading settlement (like Čajka in the distant chora
of tauric Chersonesos) for trade with the hinterland, inhabited by Scythian
land-tillers. they were used as granaries for tribute from the natives in the
inland villages in order to supply Pantikapaion and other greek cities with
grain. a classic example of this kind of settlement is general’skoe West on
the azov Sea coast which blossomed sometime within the 4th to the first half
of the 3rd century BC.20
the chora of theodosia resembled that of Pantikapaion with greek farms
in the home chora and villages of Scythian or mixed Scythian-hellenic popu-
lation in the distant chora.21
as for the asian Bosporos, we now know of more than 185 sites around
Phanagoria, hermonassa, and kepoi; practically the whole taman’ Peninsula
was divided into landplots, found chiefly in the Fontalovskij Peninsula, the
north-western cape of taman’.22 gorgippia actively created its chora at that
time, as attested by such sites as Džemete, natuchaevskaja, Su-Psech (kras-
naja Skala) and others. archaeological surveys revealed many rural houses
standing seperately at a distance of 50-100 m from each other.23 this witnesses
to the Spartokids’ economical power based on polis lands. From this time in
the Bosporos their influence spread to the mouth of the Don river where a
former greek emporion, elizavetovskoe, fell under control of the Pantikapa-
ion tyrants. the abovementioned system of land-tenure was in use until the
second quarter to the middle of the 3rd century BC.
The Fourth Period, mid 3rd‑ late 2nd century BC

in the beginning of the 3rd century BC, the nomads of the steppes between the
Don and the Dnieper became active; the Sarmatians forced the Scythians out
into the Crimea, where a new Scythian kingdom emerged and strengthened.
Sarmatian raids touched taman’, gorgippia, elizavetovskoe, and probably the
Crimean settlements. the Scythians may also have challenged the european
possessions of the Bosporan kingdom, but the evidence for this is lacking.
Probably, the main threat to the Bosporos came from the Sarmatians as well
as from the Crimean Scythia.24 as a result, the whole agrarian territory suf-
fered a serious reduction, and the villages throughout the kerch Peninsula and
partially those in the hinterland of Sindike disappeared or were reorganized
by their rulers. all this caused a great break in trade for the kingdom from the
second quarter of the 3rd century BC. For a long time it has been supposed
that Bosporos was at this time in a deep economic crisis, but archaeological
evidence has caused scholars to change this point of view. it has shown that
the chora of Bosporos continued to develop but radically changed their shape
because of new economic conditions. instead of farms and country-estates of
the greek type along with villages in the hinterland of the kerch Peninsula,
large fortified sites and forts appeared, most of which were placed on hill
tops along the border with the Scythians and the Sarmatians. they were all
strongly defended by massive fortifications – walls and towers, and they had
regular plan, like the hellenistic settlements in asia minor and greece, with
one-roomed houses united into blocks which were divided by longitudinal
streets. in the kerch Peninsula the most significant sites of this kind were
Zolotoe east, krutoj Bereg, novotradnoe, Porthmion, Semenovka, Poljanka,
etc. maslennikov’s research has shown that a great part of the resident popu-
lation, formerly peasants who had lived in unfortified villages, moved to the
coastal zone and settled around the newly created forts as semi-dependent
land-tillers like the hellenistic katoikoi.25
along with these new types of settlements, some of the traditional greek
country estates still functioned. one of these is situated near myrmekion
in the chora of Pantikapaion, another was the governor’s residence by Lake
Čokrak. the above-mentioned sites could be attributed to the distant chora of
Pantikapaion, unlike the villa near myrmekion, which surely belonged to the
adjacent chora of this city.26 this is even more likely in that the Spartokids,
now called “kings”, still retained all the features of polis tyrants they were
earlier. We can hardly describe large fortified settlements of Bosporos as sim-
ply “royal”. they were strengthened not because of their supposed “royal”
status, but purely as a consequence of the barbaric threats from the steppe.
this is consistent with the synchronous reinforcement of sites in the Crimean
foothills, which belonged to the Scythians.27 the system of land relations in
the Bosporos, described above, continued functioning until the late 2nd cen-
tury BC. at that point in time, the forts and fortified sites in the hinterland
and on the coast were destroyed or devastated, while the suburban farms
managed to survive until the early 1st century BC, thanks to the mithridatic
protectorate over Bosporos.
theodosia’s chora was also seriously reduced at this time because of the
Scythian and Sarmatian invasions, but continued to exist.28 there appeared
new large settlements which were meant to defend the city’s possessions
against the barbaric tribes.29 the chora of nymphaion also suffered a reduc-
tion in the number of sites, although some of them, much larger in size, now
became capable of defending their area from the hinterland.30 on the asiatic
side, however, the chora seemed to be much more prosperous: there were
about 203 rural sites on the taman’ Peninsula and many country-estates in
the city’s chora of gorgippa. there were also large forts, as everywhere in
Bosporos at that time, which were built to defend the rural polis’ possessions
– raevskoe and Semibratnee (the former Sindo-maiotian town of Labrys).31
thus the preservation of polis traditions in landowning is visible even in the
late hellenistic period.
The Fifth Period, the 1st century BC

the upkeep of the polis – chora system until the early 1st century BC required
mithridates eupator at first to use the facilities of polis lands on the Bosporos
for the economic needs of his kingdom, in particular for supplying his army
with food and natural resources. the Bosporos paid mithridates 180 thou-
sand medimnoi of grain and 200 talents of silver (Strab. 7.4.6; memn. Fgrhist
434F37.6). these deliveries were most intensive in the late 2nd and first quar-
ter of the 1st century BC, at a time when the king was trying to support the
greek poleis of Bosporos and their chorai. Before the third mithridatic War
in 74 BC the king collected more than 2 million medimnoi of grain around the
Black Sea region (app. Mithr. 69). During the war, grain came mostly from
the Bosporos, presumably from the east Crimea and Sindike (memn. Fgrhist
434F37.2, 6). We know that the european Bosporos suffered greatly during the
troubles with the barbarians in the 2nd century BC and particularly during the
wars which Diophantos and other of mithridates’ generals waged against the
Scythians there (IOSPE i², 352). according to archaeological studies, political,
military, and economic problems in the Bosporos in the late 2nd and beginning
of the 1st century BC resulted in the destruction of many agricultural sites
there, a destruction which soon exhausted the potential of the chora (Strab.
7.1.5). Poleis, chiefly on the Crimean side of the strait, were incapable of con-
tributing more to mithridates for the waging of wars in asia minor. yet, as the
chora on the asian side of the kimmerian Bosporos did not suffer such large
scale destruction, we would probably be correct in supposing that the king
received the major quantity of grain from taman’ and Sindike in particular.
these regions might have been the king’s main economic base in the late 2nd
and beginning of the 1st century BC. the latter is confirmed by appianos’
testimony: when mithridates eupator escaped from Pompeius and came to
eastern maiotis, all the local rulers, unlike those of other cities and other
dynasts, received him with friendship and recognized his royal power over
them. this finally enabled him to capture Pantikapaion and exile machares,
his son, who had betrayed him (app. Mithr. 102). this he could accomplish
only because he had a firm base in taman’, Sindike and maiotis.
all this happened in the beginning of the 60s BC. earlier, around 85-80 BC,
the king stopped supporting the economies of the subjected Bosporan cities
and started to create a real royal chora as in the kingdom of Pontos with all
the trimmings, traditionally part of the hellenistic methods of land-tenure and
organization of settlements. this process began when mithridates proclaimed
Bosporos to be his ancestral domain like Pontic kappadokia, Paphlagonia and
Lesser armenia, and appointed his sons as governors over all the lands there
and over kolchis as well. a new system of relationships in the agricultural
periphery was now based on strong forts established in different places of
the country as the main points of royal power.
mithridates vi did not manage to complete this huge and difficult pro-
gramme, nor did his son Pharnakes i, who was busy with constant wars
against the romans. the treason of Pharnakes i’s own sons, mithridates the
younger and machares, as well as that of Pharnakes ii, the cities’ revolt in
85-80 BC and the preparations for a military expedition (app. Mithr. 64, 67),
also had a negative impact on this policy. the system was finally established
by asander in the middle or second half of the 1st century BC as a consequence
of his pro-mithridatic policy. as a result, the new chora and its inhabitants,
mainly katoikoi who lived at sites of the katoikiai-type as in hellenistic king-
doms, including the kingdom of Pontos, could effectively oppose Polemon
i and the romans in the last quarter of the same century, and actively sup-
ported Dynamis in her claims to the throne of Bosporos as well as eventu-
ally assisting aspourgos to gain power over the kingdom. after accepting
the throne, aspourgos completed what his predesessors had begun, mak-
ing royal landowning the mainstay of economic policy for his state. at the
same time, following mithridates eupator and asander, he secured a certain
amount of polis land for Pantikapaion, theodosia, gorgippia and some other
cities, but always under strict royal supervision. in general, everything in the
Bosporos now followed a proper hellenistic political, military and economic
structure.32
The Sixth Period, late 1st century BC‑mid 3rd century AD

this era is characterized chiefly by royal and partly by polis land-tenure sys-
tems. the rural sites were mostly katoikiai of different types and size – from
smaller to larger ones which seem to have been small towns or townlike
settlements, although they were situated on the royal land. hellenization
mainly affected the Sarmatian natives who were living at these sites as mili-
tary-economic settlers. they defended the polis’ land possessions from agres-
sive neighbours, mainly the alans. until the 3rd century aD and even later,
the rural sites were rather large in size, many of them having citadels and
strong fortifications; some of them were also centers of administrative districts
on royal land (Belinskoe, artezian, ilouraton, Semenovka, temir gora and
some others throughout the whole Bosporan territory). they dominated over
smaller forts and over villages of peasants who had to pay tribute to the kings
for tilling the land, which was under royal control. though the polis territo-
ries were still functioning, they were seriously reduced and did not play any
important role in economic life, being mainly political and religious centers.
they were all defended by royal forts.33 their resources were used against the
Crimean Scythians in waging wars that helped the Bosporan kings to expand
their power to include the whole of taurica within the 1st-3rd centuries aD.
these forts were also the kings’ military strongholds in wars with the Sarma-
tians – Sirakoi, aorsoi and alanoi on the northern Caucasus, which ended
with the enlarging of the Bosporan territories around the kuban’ river and
the eastern maiotis to the country of the heniochoi and the achaians. this
was the reason why during the wars with the alanoi in the late 1st century
aD some of the forts on the taman’ and around gorgippia were destroyed,
being temporarily out of use. no polis lands, as during the Spartokid times,
but only royal domains, created after traditional hellenistic models, could
withstand the barbarian raids and supply the Bosporan economy with the
necessary resources. the other factor for this organization seems to have been
a policy on the part of the kings who were trying to retain good relations with
the barbarian nobles and tribal warriors in order to use them as soldiers and
mercenaries, seeing them also as potential katoikoi on their land. this system
helped to keep these nobles and warriors from agressive actions against the
greeks, romans and other subjects of the kings. Bosporos managed to con-
tinue this system until the late antiquity and it suffered only a few changes
during three hundred or even more years. it helped the romans and their
vassals – the Bosporan rulers – to maintain their interests in the north-eastern
Black Sea littoral. Some of these settlements survived or were restored to their
former status even after the gothic and hunnic invasions in the 3rd and 4th
centuries aD along with a brief roman-Chersonesean control over the eastern
Crimea in the 4th century aD.
Notes
1 on the agrarian economy of Bosporos, see kruglikova 1975, 10. the typology of
the agrarian sites in the european (Crimean) part of the Bosporos is studied by
maslennikov (1989, 70-77; 1992, 69-84; 1998, 112-181). on the organization of the
chora on the asian side of the Bosporos, see kuznecov 1999, 342-344; Paromov
1990, 56-69; Paromov & voronov 1990, 3-11. a periodization of the chora of euro-
pean Bosporos based on archaeological data was made by maslennikov (2001,
84-98).
2 košelenko & kuznecov 1992, 18-20; kuznecov 1991, 32-34; Sudarev 1999, 227.
3 on the foundation of the so-called “minor” cities of Bosporos, see Šelov-kovedjaev
1985, 50 ff.; vinogradov 1995, 154; maslennikov 1996, 64 ff. on the early sites in
the kerch Peninsula, see kruglikova 1975, 27-29; maslennikov 1998, 37; Scholl &
Zinko 1999, 30, 43. on early materials from the theodosian chora, down to the
late 6th-early 5th century BC, see Petrova 2000, 59-60.
4 Zin’ko 2001b, 102-104.
5 kruglikova 1975, 31; tolstikov 1984, 32-39; maslennikov 1992, 120-173; 1998,
37-39.
6 Saprykin 2003, 18. on the creation of the Pantikapaion chora (not a territorial
state!), see now Zavojkin 2000, 34-36; 2001, 22-28.
7 vinogradov & tochtas’ev 1994, 61; tolstikov 2001b, 402-404.
8 Paromov 1990, 122-124; 1998, 216-222; abramov & Paromov 1993, 25; kuznecov
1999, 342 ff.
9 vasil’ev 1992, 122-125; Saprykin 2003, 16-17.
10 maslennikov 1998, 42; Saprykin 2001, 645.
11 on the chora of theodosia, see gavrilov 1998, 105-110; 1999, 4-6; katjušin 2003,
662- 665: it is worth mentioning that the earliest archaeological material from such
sites of the theodosian chora as Žuravki, novopokrovka, Subaši dates to as early
as the middle of the 5th century BC. See also Petrova 2000, 59-62. in the light of
this evidence it seems strange to hear from a.a. maslennikov about the absence
of sites near theodosia in the late 6th-early 5th century BC (maslennikov 2001,
85). See also Smekalova & Smekalov in this volume.
12 kruglikova 1975, 93; Zin’ko 1996, 12-14; 1998, 87-89.
13 maslennikov 1978, 33; Zin’ko 1998, 88; 2001a, 210: relations between nymphaion
and the Scythians became very solid within the second and third quarters of
the 5th century BC, they were even more stable than those with Pantikapaion
(tolstikov 2001a, 45-57).
14 abramov & Paromov 1993, 71; alekseeva 1991, 18-19.
15 on the history of Bosporos in that period, see gajdukevič 1971, 30-65.
16 kruglikova 1975, 93 ff.; Zin’ko 1996, 15, 16; 1998, 89-94; Zin’ko & Solov’ev 1994,
159-162.
17 maslennikov 1995, 82 ff.; 1996, 61-71; 1998, 76 ff.; 2001, 86-90.
18 alekseeva 1997, 38 ff.
19 maslennikov has repeatedly stated the opinion, put forward earlier by v.D.
Blavatskij and i.t. kruglikova, that lands which were far from Pantikapaion’s
nearer chora should be viewed as private possessions of the ruling dynasty of
the Spartokids (1998, 66 ff.). But recently, he has considered large fortified sites
on these lands, which have some similarities to greek farmhouses, as a type of
collective settlements, usual for the greek city-states with the vast agricultural
periphery as indicative of royal lands, which to my mind is closer to the truth
(maslennikov 2001, 90). in his view, this development seems to prove it possibile
to consider these lands as “subjected” to the city-state, at some point denying the
characteristic of them as royal. on polis lands in Bosporos, see Saprykin 2001, 654
ff.; 2003, 26-30.
20 maslennikov 1998, 50-59; 2001, 89.
21 Petrova 1996, 148-150; 2000, 82-85; gavrilov 1998, 110-117; 1999, 6-9; maslennikov
2001, 91; katjušin 2003, 662-665.
22 Paromov 1990, 56-69; 1994, 3-5; kuznecov 1999, 344 ff.
23 alekseeva 1980, 13-51; 1997, 41-43; novičichin 1994, 172-173.
24 Puzdrovskij 2001, 86-90.
25 kruglikova 1975, 99, 100; 1998, 144-146; maslennikov 1989, 72-74; 1998,
89-102.
26 gajdukevič 1981, 55-75; Zin’ko 1999, 133-141; maslennikov 1998, 88-89; 2001,
92.
27 koltuchov 1991, 91-104; Puzdrovskij 2001, 87.
28 See A.V. Gacrilov’s contribution in this volume. Eds.
29 gavrilov 1999, 8-9; Petrova 1996, 151; 2000, 85; maslennikov 2001, 92; katjušin
2003, 673.
30 kruglikova 1975, 130; Zin’ko 1996, 17; maslennikov 2001, 92.

31 Paromov 1994, 6-9; kuznecov 1999, 344-347; alekseeva 1980, 27-41.
32 on the organization of the chora in the kingdom of Bosporos in mithridatic
and post-mithridatic period, see now in detail: Saprykin & maslennikov 1995,
279-281; Saprykin 1994, 43-57; 1996, 283 ff.; 2002, 207-224. See also maslennikov
1998, 112-181.
33 kruglikova 1970, 76-81; 1975, 105-121; maslennikov 1998, 136-178; 2001, 97-98.
on the taman’ Peninsula and its importance for the history of Bosporos during
the roman period, see Sokol’skij 1963, 23 ff.; tolstikov 1989, 52-65; 1992, 41-57.
Bibliography
abramov, a.P. & J.m. Paromov 1993. ranne-antičnye poselenija taman-
skogo poluostrova, in: Ja.m. Paromov (ed.), Bosporskij sbornik, 2. moskva,
25-99.
alekseeva, e.m. 1980. k izučeniju sel’skich poselenij vokrug gorgippii, in:
i.t. kruglikova (ed.), Gorgippija. vol. 1. krasnodar, 13-51.
alekseeva, e.m. 1991. Grečeskaja kolonizacija Severo‑Zapadnogo Kavkaza. mosk-
va.
alekseeva, e.m. 1997. Antičnyj gorod Gorgippija. moskva.
gajdukevič, v.F. 1971. Das Bosporanische Reich. Berlin-amsterdam.
gajdukevič, v.F. 1981. Zagorodnaja sel’skaja usad’ba ellinističeskoj epochi v
rajone mirmekija, in: a.n. Ščeglov & a. Jakobson (eds.), Bosporskij gorod.
Leningrad, 55-75.
gavrilov, a.v., 1998. novye dannye o sel’skoj okruge antičnoj Feodosii, Ar‑
cheologijaKiiv 1, 105-118.
gavrilov, a.v. 1999. Sel’skaja okruga Feodosii v V‑II vv. do n.e. PhD thesis.
kiev.
katjušin, e.a. 2003. theodosia, in: D.v.grammenos & e.k. Petropoulos (eds.),
Ancient Greek Colonies on the Black Sea. vol. 1. thessaloniki, 645-695.
koltuchov, S.g. 1991. Sistemy oborony krymskoj Skifii v iv-ii vv. do n.e.,
VDI 4, 91-104.
košelenko, g.a. & v.D. kuznecov 1992. grečeskaja kolonizacija Bospora (v
svjazi s nekotorymi obščimi problemami kolonizacii), in: g.a. košelenko
(ed.), Očerki archeologii i istorii Bospora. moskva, 6-27.
kruglikova, i.t. 1970. raskopki poselenija u d. Semenovka, in: i.t. kruglikova
(ed.), Poselenija i mogil’niki Kerčenskogo poluostrova pervych vekov n.e. (ma-
tissla, 155). moskva, 4-81.
kruglikova, i.t. 1998. Poselenie u d. novo-otradnoe, Drevnosti Bospora 1,
moskva, 143-185.
kuznecov, v.D. 1991. rannie apojkii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja, KSIA 204,
32-34.
kuznecov, v.D. 1999. L’organisation du territoire du Bosphore asiatique, in:
m. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des cités grecques. Actes de la table ronde interna‑
tionale organizée par l’École française d’Athènes, 31 octobre‑3 novembre 11

(BCh Suppl., 34). Paris, 341-354.
maslennikov, a.a. 1978. etničeskij sostav naselenija bosporskich gorodov v
vi-v vv. do n.e., SovA 1, 24-38.
maslennikov, a.a. 1989. o tipologii sel’skich poselenij Bospora, SovA 2,
70-77.
maslennikov, a.a. 1992. evoljucija organizacii sel’skoj territorii evropejskogo
Bospora, ArcheologijaKiiv 2, 69-84.
maslennikov, a.a. 1995. Drevnie greki v krymskom Priazov’e, VDI 2,
78-93.
maslennikov, a.a. 1996. nekotorye problemy rannej istorii Bosporskogo
gosudarstva v svete novejšich archeologičeskich issledovanij v vostočnom
krymu, PIFK 3, 61-71.
maslennikov, a.a. 1998. Ellinskaja chora na kraju Ojkumeny. Sel’skaja territorija
maslennikov, a.a. 2001. Sel’skie poselenija evropejskogo Bospora (nekoto-
rye problemy i itogi issledovanij), Bosporskie issledovanija 1, Simferopol’,
75-100.
novičichin, a.m. 1994. raskopki antičnogo poselenija v andreevskoj Ščeli bliz
anapy, in: Ja.m. Paromov (ed.), Bosporskij sbornik 4, moskva, 171-174.
Paromov, Ja.m. 1990. Principy izučenija evoljucii sistemy rasselenija na ta-
manskom poluostrove v antičnoe i srednevekovoe vremja, in: Drevnie
pamjatniki Kubani. krasnodar, 56-69.
Paromov, Ja.m. 1994. Osnovnye etapy osvoenija Tamanskogo poluostrova v
antičnuju epochu. PhD thesis. St Peterburg.
Paromov, Ja.m. 1998. glavnye dorogi tamanskogo poluostrova v antičnoe
vremja, Drevnosti Bospora 1, moskva, 216-222.
Paromov, J.m. & a. voronov 1990. Planirovočnye principy rasselenija na ta-
manskom poluostrove v antičnuju epochu, in: Architekturnoe nasledstvo.
moskva, 3-11.
Petrova, e.B. 1996. greki i “varvary” antičnoj Feodosii i ee okrugi v vi-ii vv.
do n.e., MAIET 5, 146-154.
Petrova, e.B. 2000. Antičnaja Feodosija. Simferopol’.
Puzdrovskij, a.e. 2001. Političeskaja istorija krymskoj Skifii vo ii v. do n.e.-iii
v. n.e., VDI 3, 86-118.
Saprykin, S.Ju. 1994. greek Cities and rural Settlements of Bosporos under the
Successors of mithridates vi, in: g.r. tsetskhladze (ed.), Colloquenda Pon‑
tica: Greek and Roman Settlements on the Black Sea Coast. Bradford, 43-57.
Saprykin, S.Ju. & a.a. maslennikov 1995. Bosporan Chora in the reign of
mithridates vi eupator and his immediate Successors (Part i), Ancient
Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 2.3, 279-281.
Saprykin, S.Ju. 1996. Pontijskoe carstvo. moskva.
Saprykin, S.Ju. 2001. Polis Chora in the kingdom of Bosporus, in: Problemi
della chora coloniale dall’ occidente al Mar Nero (atti del quarantesimo con-
vegno di studi sulla magna grecia, taranto 29 settembre-3 ottobre 2000).

taranto, 635-665.
Saprykin, S.Ju. 2002. aspurg, car’ Bospora, Drevnosti Bospora 5, moskva,
207-223.
Saprykin, S.Ju. 2003. Bosporskoe carstvo: ot tiranii k ellinističeskoj monarchii,
VDI 1, 11-35.
Šelov-kovedjaev, F.v. 1985. istorija Bospora v vi-iv vv. do n.e., in: a.
novosel’cev (ed.), Drevnejšie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. Materialy i
issledovanija, 14 god. moskva, 5-187.
Scholl, t. & v.n. Zinko 1999. Archaeological Map of Nymphaion (Crimea). War-
saw.
Sokol’skij, n.i. 1963. k istorii severo-zapadnoj časti tamanskogo poluostrova
v antičnuju epochu, in: VI Conference internationale d’etudes classiques des
pays socialistes. Sofia, 20-26.
Sudarev, n.i. 1999. kult apollona vrača na Bospore i nekotorye voprosy
grečeskoj kolonizacii, Drevnosti Bospora 2, moskva, 213-231.
tolstikov, v.P. 1984. k probleme obrazovanija Bosporskogo gosudarstva,
VDI 3, 32-47.
tolstikov, v.P. 1989. Fantalovskij ukreplennyj rajon v istorii Bosporskogo
carstva, ArcheologijaKiiv 1, 52-65.
tolstikov, v.P. 1992. neizdannye stranicy istorii Bosporskogo carstva, in:
Archeologija i iskusstvo Bospora. moskva, 41-57.
tolstikov, v.P. 2001a. archeologičeskie otkrytija na akropole Pantikapeja i
problema bosporo-skifskich otnošenij v vi-v vv. do n.e., in: vachtina &
Zuev (eds.) 2001, 48-55.
tolstikov, v.P. 2001. rannij Pantikapej v svete novych archeologičeskich
issledovanij, Drevnosti Bospora 4, moskva, 402 ff.
vachtina, m.Ju. & v.Ju. Zuev (eds.) 2001. Bosporskij fenomen: Kolonizacija regiona,
formirovanie polisov, obrazovanie gosudarstva. St Peterburg.
vasil’ev, a.n. 1992. k voprosu o vremeni obrazovanija Bosporskogo gosu-
darstva, in: a.n. gavrilov (ed.), Etjudy po antičnoj istorii i kul’ture Severnogo
Pričernomor’ja. St Peterburg, 111-128.
vinogradov, Ju.a. & S.r. tochtas’ev 1994. rannjaja oboronitel’naja stena
mirmekija, VDI 1, 54-63.
vinogradov, Ju.a. 1995. nekotorye diskussionnye problemy grečeskoj kolo-
nizacii Bospora kimmerijskogo, VDI 3, 152-160.
Zavojkin, a.a. 2000. Bospor: Pantikapej i territorial’noe gosudarstvo, in: Ta‑
manskaja starina 3, St Peterburg, 34-36.
Zavojkin, a.a. 2001. Bospor: territorial’noe gosudarstvo i polis, in: vachtina
& Zuev (eds.) 2001, 22-28.
Zin’ko, v.n. & S.L. Solov’ev 1994. raskopki na poselenii geroevka-2, in: Ja.m.
Paromov (ed.), Bosporskij sbornik, 4. moskva, 159-162.
Zin’ko, v.n. 1996. nekotorye itogi izučenija sel’skoj okrugi antičnogo nimfeja,
MAIET 5, 12-21.
Zin’ko, v.n. 1998. Chora nimfeja v vi-v vv. do n.e., Drevnosti Bospora 1,
moskva, 86-105.
Zin’ko, v.n. 1999. antičnoe sel’skoe poselenie bliz mirmekija, in: n.F. Fedo-
seev (ed.), Archeologija i istorija Bospora, 3. kerč’, 133-141.
Zin’ko, v.n. 2001a. Bosporskij gorod nimfej i varvary, Bosporskie issledovanija
1, Simferopol’, 207-213.
Zin’ko, v.n. 2001b. Stanovlenie nimfejskogo polisa, in: vachtina & Zuev
(eds.) 2001, 102-104.
Abbreviations
PIFK Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury. moskva-magnitogorsk.
the Chora of nymphaion
(6th century BC-6th century aD)
Viktor N. Zin’ko
the exploration of the rural areas of the european Bosporos has gained in
scope over the last decades. earlier scholars focused on studying particular
archaeological sites and an overall reconstruction of the rural territories of
the Bosporan poleis as well as on a general understanding of the polis-chora
relationship.1 these works did not aim at an in-depth study of the chora of
any one particular city-state limited as they were to small-scale excavations of
individual settlements. in 1989, the author launched a comprehensive research
project on the chora of nymphaion. a careful examination of archive materials
and the results of the surveys revealed an extensive number of previously
unknown archaeological sites.
the limits of nymphaion’s rural territory corresponded to natural bor-
der-lines (gullies, steep slopes of ridges etc.) impassable to the Barbarian cav-
alry. the region has better soils than the rest of the peninsula, namely dark
chestnut černozems,2 and the average level of precipitation is 100 mm higher
than in other areas.3 the core of the territory was represented by fertile lands,
Fig. 1. Map of the Kimmerian Bosporos (hatched – chora of Nymphaion in the 5th century
BC; cross‑hatched – chora of Nymphaion in the 4th‑early 3rd centuries BC).
20 Viktor N. Zin’ko
stretching from the littoral inland, and bounded to the north and south by two
ravines situated 7 km apart. the two ravines originally began at the western
extremities of the ancient estuaries (now the tobečik and Čurubaš Lakes).
the distant chora occupied over 40 km2 further west and ended in a ridge of
rocky hills with steep western slopes. this ridge may have constituted the
natural western boundary of the nymphaion polis
the city itself stood on a high rocky cape, which formed a triangle with the
apex facing east, towards the sea. in ancient times there was a spit stretching
eastward from the cape to the shores of the taman’ Peninsula. its remains
were found at a depth of 7-9 m in the modern kerch Strait.4 it can probably
be linked with the southern “kimmerian sea-crossing” mentioned by ancient
authors (hdt. 4.12; Strab. 7.4.5, 11.2.8). the cape dominates a great part of the
shoreline, limited by the present-day Čurubaš Lake and a ravine stretching
more than 15 km to the west, with its southern boundary the tobečik Lake.
according to some scholars, the eastern part of the tobečik Lake used to be a
gulf, while its western part was in ancient times the mouth of the ički-Džilga
ravine. at that time the Čurubaš Lake was a ravine the now submerged
mouth of which was a sea gulf.5 the ancient city of tyritake was situated on
the northern bank of this gulf, while nymphaion lay on the southern. Further
south, across the tobečik Lake and along the seacoast, other greek poleis with
their rural areas were situated.
the eastern boundary of the city’s chora was the seashore, the configura-
tion of which has changed greatly due to the rise in sea level, the displace-
ment of the sand spits and progressive coastal erosion. underwater investi-
gations carried out by the author in the region in 1990-1995 revealed three
submerged settlements as well as ancient moorings.6 moreover, it has been
established that a large part of littoral settlements such as geroevka-1, 2, 3,
4, eltigen-museum and others were destroyed by erosion and flooded by
the sea. the ancient shoreline was situated at an average 300 m further east
than that of today.
the beginnings of the Samian apoikia on the site of nymphaion go back
to 580-560 BC.7 it can hardly be doubted that the cultivation of neighbouring
fertile lands began immediately after the foundation of the city. archaeologi-
cal evidence for a Scythian presence in the territory of nymphaion is absent.8
about ten Scythian burials dating to the 6th century BC have been found in
the Crimea so far.9 in the eastern part of the peninsula only a single burial
on temir gora can be assigned to this period.10 the burial is situated at the
extreme north-eastern point of the kerch Peninsula, in a position dominating
the northern “kimmerian sea-crossing” mentioned by herodotos. Probably,
relations between greeks and Scythians in the region of the strait were mostly
limited to infrequent commercial interactions and some political agreements
during the second and the third quarters of the 6th century BC. For some
reason, the Scythians might not have used the extreme southern sea-crossing
during this period. at any rate their presence in the region is not attested in
The Chora of Nymphaion 21
this connection. at the same time, in the area of the northern sea-crossing mili-
tary opposition intensified, which caused the construction of defensive lines
in Porthmion and myrmekion in the second half of the 6th century BC.11
Simultaneously, during the last quarter of the 6th century BC the first rural
settlements appeared within the city’s chora.12 they were situated so that they
were visible from the polis on the rocky cape and were, in fact, relatively small,
long-term, unfortified villages characterized by an irregular layout.13 By the
end of the 6th century BC the lands along the strait’s coast must have been
brought under cultivation by the city. the same may also have happened to
the north-west as far as the glubokaja ravine where the Južno-Čurubašskoe
settlement was located (Fig. 2). the settlements were linked to the seashore,
where fresh water springs are to be found. mostly these settlements were in-
habited by the greeks. the cultural strata and numerous finds of this period
were recorded in geroevka-1;14 some amphora fragments were also found
in the settlement of Južno-Čurubašskoe. according to the latest publications
by kruglikova (2002), however, and the results of my own excavations from
recent years, strata and buildings dating prior to the 5th century BC are ab-
sent in this settlement. Possibly, Južno-Čurubašskoe was a Scythian site at
the frontier of the polis of nymphaion. in 1995, a complex dated to as early
as the late 6th-early 5th century BC was discovered at the settlement of gero-
Fig. 2. Chora of Nymphaion in the 5th century BC.

evka-2.15 there, in a small ash-hole, a decorated rhodian-ionian amphora

with a globular body, a similar grey clay amphora and a painted ionic kyathos
were found. (Fig. 3)
in the settlement of geroevka-1 a small (4 × 3 m) oval pit-house dating
back to the last quarter of the 6th century BC was excavated,16 as were several
household pits, the remains of a stove, a stone well and paving dating to the
late 6th or early 5th century BC.17 on the whole, the number of structures in
the early settlements was not large and they were situated at a distance of be-
tween 10 to 150 m from each other. all of them except Južno-Čurubašskoe, are
located in the littoral zone. two pathways were possibly formed, connecting
these settlements. one of them, running along the coast, led from the town
to the south. the second one led inland to the west.
at the turn of the 6th to the 5th century BC a wave of nomads closely
related to the Scythians appeared in the steppe Crimea.18 in the first quarter
of the 5th century BC the majority of the Bosporan cities suffered from this
barbarian onset. no signs of destruction, however, have been detected yet as
for the first quarter of the 5th century BC, although traces of fire datable to
that period were detected in the settlements of geroevka-1 and geroevka-2.19
in the geroevka-1 settlement remains of a stone structure and eight household
pits belonging to the early 5th century BC were found. these pits yielded
such Scythian finds as a lion-head shaped buckle and an akinakes. From this
time on, a few Scythian burial mounds start to appear, both in the necropolis
of the city of nymphaion and in the countryside. During the 5th century BC,
nymphaion maintained its independence from Pantikapaion. We may assume
that at the initial stage of this struggle, its citizens heavily relied on help from
the Scythians.20 the majority of fifth-century Scythian burials recorded in the
european part of Bosporos are concentrated around this city.21 eight of them
are presently known, with the most recent dating to the third or early fourth
quarter of the 5th century BC.22 in the tumuli situated to the west of the city’s
chora, three Scythian statues were found, all of which date to the late 6th or
5th century BC and thus prove to be the earliest of all such statues known
from the Crimea.23 an ancient pathway was also found there, leading along
the only convenient way from the steppes, passing the Južno-Čurubašskoe
settlement and heading towards the nymphaion cape, where there was a
major departure point for the Scythians’ sea-crossing to the land of Sindoi.
notwithstanding the growing number of Scythian burials from the 5th century
BC in eastern Crimea, there is no reason to speak of their prevalence in the
nymphaion region. on the western outskirts of the nymphaion Plateau some
tumuli with rather specific burial constructions have been revealed – tombs
in the form of rough stone cists encircled by stone rings. tumuli of this kind
were explored here by n.P. kondakov as early as 1876. these complexes
are reminiscent of the burial memorials of the kizil-koba population of the
Crimean foothills. Such burial structures are also known from the Crimean
azov Sea coast, where they date back to the 6th to 3rd centuries BC.24
Fig. 3. Pottery finds from the settlement of Geroevka‑2 (1 – grey ware amphora; 2 – East‑Greek
amphora; 3 – Attic cup).
a supposed alliance with the Scythians in the 5th century BC allowed

nymphaion to broaden its territory towards the west. as well, the most distant
south-western part of the nymphaion plateau along the tobečik Lake was
apparently included into the city’s agrarian area. nine rural sites were found
there (Fig. 2). thus, the settlements of tobečik-3, tobečik-8 and tobečik-9
yielded fragments of amphorae and black-glazed attic bowls dating to the 5th
century BC. in the middle of the 5th century BC the ogon’ki settlement was
founded.25 it is situated on a small cape of the tobečik Lake at a distance of
9 km to the south-west of nymphaion. it is thought to be the most important
site on the polis’ south-western frontier. a wide neighbouring ravine leading
northward probably became the new western border of the chora. Several
smaller settlements were detected along the eastern slope of the ravine. in
immediate proximity to them can be found remains of fences in the form of
low banks. Plots of arable land were also found near the geroevka-1, 2 and
Južno-Čurubašskoe settlements (Fig. 4) as well as in the Čurubašskie Skalki
settlement. the size of fenced plots varies from 1.1 to 35.1 ha.26 the major part
of this cadastre system, however, is poorly preserved.27 at this time, the date
of the land division can be determined only approximately. in Čurubašskie
Skalki two different systems for the orientation of the walls delineating the
plots can be distinguished. the population of these rural settlements consisted
of both greeks and barbarians.
Fig. 4. remains of land-lot delimitation near the Južno-Čurbašskoe settlement.

the situation on the Bosporos, however, might have changed radically

with the new dynasty of the Spartokids which came to power in 438 BC
– an event which entailed changes in the Pantikapaion policy concerning
the neighbouring Scythian tribes. Soon nymphaion began to lose its allies in
its struggle against the Bosporan tyrants. this is probably why nymphaion
joined the Delian League in the 430s BC, and thus became a centre for athe-
nian influence in the kimmerian Bosporos. the nature of the athenian pres-
ence in nymphaion can be estimated in various ways.28 a suggestion that
it lead to an establishment of the athenian klerouchia seems very likely. the
new settlers might have received the land in the south-western outskirts of
the nymphaion Plateau. there, in the last half of the 5th century BC, a mighty
four-towered fort (the tobečik-9 settlement) with a large courtyard, 50 × 50
m, was constructed.
next to this settlement, a harbour might have existed. according to geo-
morphologic data, the eastern part of the present-day tobečik Lake was a sea
gulf during the ancient epoch. the joint ukrainian-Polish geophysical surveys
conducted at the site in 1995 disclosed fragments of stone walls occupying a
small territory. it was ascertained that originally, in the second half of the 5th
century BC, a large building oriented latitudinally with massive, mud brick
walls, up to 1.2 m thick, was built. in a later period that lasted to the early 3rd
century BC smaller buildings were erected, the 0.5-0.6 m thick walls of which
were oriented along a line running from the north-east to the south-west.
nymphaion’s presumed participation in the Delian League must have im-
pacted the polis’ economy, as suggested by an active exploitation of all the chora
territory, which covered an area of about 50 km2. the settlements lay along
the perimeter of the chora while the arable lands lay inside. on the whole, a
dense system of settlements along the chora’s borders located at a distance of
not more than 1 or 2 km from each other was formed. they were connected to
each other as well as to the city itself by several radial roads.29 these roads are
well marked both by tumuli and by fragments of pottery (mostly amphorae),
and in some places, they can be traced for several kilometres.
the period of the polis’ independence terminated in 405/404 BC when
nymphaion was subdued by the rulers of Bosporos as a result of the so-called
gylon’s betrayal (aisch. 3.171-172). the loss of independence, however, ap-
parently did not affect the development of the town and its chora. after it was
included in the orbit of the Bosporan State, nymphaion expanded into new
western steppe regions. it should be born in mind that the barbarian popula-
tion, in various forms, constituted a considerable number of the dwellers in
the majority of the rural settlements. Besides Scythians and kizil-koba set-
tlers, some new barbarian groups seem to appear from the asian side of the
Bosporos in the early 4th century BC.30
the flourishing of the nymphaion countryside characterized the next
period of the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC (Fig. 5). Strata and buildings
from that period have been revealed in all of the settlements, which have been
Fig. 5. Chora of nymphaion in the 4th-early 3rd centuries BC.
Fig. 6. Settlement of Geroevka‑1. Remains of fourth‑century farmhouse.
excavated (geroevka-1, 2, 3, 6, ogon’ki-1, Južno-Čurubašskoe, Čurubašskoe),

and in the rest of them surface finds from this period have been collected. the
older settlements continued to exist and more than ten new ones appeared in
the heart of the chora. alongside the continued use of two-room mud brick
houses, known from excavations in the settlements of geroevka-1 (Fig. 6) and
Južno-Čurubašskoe,31 construction of larger farmsteads with an interior house-

hold yard began. to the first quarter of the 4th century BC belongs a big for-
tified farmhouse, the western outer wall of which was 1.4 m thick and 30 m
long. the structure also included a square tower measuring 3 × 2.8 m with
outer walls up to 1.7 m thick. in the centre there was a courtyard flanked by
medium-sized rooms on two of the sides. the farmhouse continued in use
until the middle of the 4th century BC.32 at the same time, a large limestone
building was established in the settlement of ogon’ki-1, while a fortified block
with massive stone walls occupied c. 1.5 ha in the central part of settlement
of tobečik-8, the overall area of which was about 10 ha. in the second half
of the same century a large farmhouse was built at the Južno-Čurubašskoe
settlement. in 2001-2003 another building was partially explored there on the
territory of more than 500 m2; it consisted of both large and small rooms and
a household yard.
in the northern part of the complex was a mud brick building consisting
of five rooms attached to the outer northern wall. this 0.70-0.85 m thick wall
traced for more than 30 m defines the main axis of the complex.
room 2 of the building may have been a smithy. the finds are few in num-
ber being represented by several fragments of amphorae and black-glazed
bowls as well as a bronze coin from Pantikapaion with a young satyr’s head
and the forepart of Pegasus and dating to c. 340-330 BC. the character of the
Fig. 7. Settlement of Južno‑Čurbašskoe. Plan of farmhouse, 2nd to 3rd quarter of the 4th cen‑
tury BC.
finds clearly suggests that the site was abandoned never to be used again. most
likely this happened in the third or the last quarter of the 4th century BC.
the remains of a big stone building were explored by the underwater team
of our expedition in the littoral part of the geroevka-2 settlement. Piled rocks,
big processed blocks among them, as well as separate fragments of roof tile,
were found at a depth of 2 to 3.5 m.
extremely rapid population growth took place in the second and third
quarters of the 4th century BC. alongside stone buildings, the rural settle-
ments contain dwelling and household complexes consisting of dugouts.
Strata and structures of that time have been explored within a territory of
about 1,200 m2 in the settlement of geroevka-2.33 in the excavated central
part of the settlement, two pit-houses have been studied – both having the
character of ordinary household dwellings – with eight household pits north
of them. north of the geroevka-2 settlement several barrows of the 4th cen-
tury BC have been explored. nearest to the settlement, tumulus 1 measured
15-18 m in diameter and contained four burials, of which three date to the
4th century BC (Fig. 8).34 Four tumuli, one of which was excavated in 2002,
were also recorded south-west of the geroevka-4 settlement. there, in a cist
built of nicely processed large limestone blocks a red-figured hydria filled with
ashes was found. in 1995, another rural necropolis, Čeljadinovo-vostočnoe,
situated north-west of geroevka-1 was studied in detail (Fig. 9). the complex
contained 21 barrows, three of which were partly destroyed by the shore’s
erosion. one of these tumuli (tumulus 16), which has been excavated com-
pletely, contained a family grave belonging to residents of the chora, and had
been in use for some decades (Fig. 10).35
in 1965, D. kirilin excavated the “three Brothers” tumuli group next to the
settlement of ogon’ki-1. there were six burial structures inside the three bar-
rows. in all three tumuli horse skeletons with bridle sets in the Scythian ani-
mal style were found. the best known is the burial in vault 1 with a stepped
crypt dating from the second half of the 4th century BC (Fig. 11). a woman
in a rich dress was buried here. inside the barrow, a monumental limestone
relief was found depicting Demeter in a chariot and a rider. the burial rites
used in all burials from this group display Scythian features with a high degree
of the greek influence. this can also be observed in other rural necropoleis
of the 4th century BC., for example in Južno-Čurubašskoe. moreover, some
types of burials such as the interment of children in amphorae, mud brick
sepulchres and cremations were earlier unknown in the chora. however, all
these types are recorded in the city’s necropolis of nymphaion.
moundless burials of the rural population have been revealed only at
Južno-Čurubašskoe, where in the early 1960s i.t. kruglikova found a burial
ground on the southern outskirts of the settlement. here, six stone cists and a
fossa grave were excavated.36 all these burials belong to the 4th century BC.
another burial ground, of which an area of more than 500 m2 was studied,
was found 250 m north of the settlement of Južno-Čurubašskoe.37 three stone
Fig. . Burials in Tumulus 1 near the settlement of Geroevka‑2.

Fig. . Plan of the tumular necropolis of Čelajdinovo‑Vostočnoe.
rings made of limestone boulders were found there, so too were sepulchral
structures in the form of stone cists with covers, cists without covers, burials
in the ancient topsoil under stone piles as well as the remains of three altars.
tombstones and burial structures studied in the process of excavations of the
northern necropolis of Južno-Čurubašskoe date to the late 5th and the first
half of the 4th century BC. this is consistent with finds of pottery (amphora
fragments and black-glazed ware), most of which could be assigned to the
first decade of the 4th century BC.
a number of new settlements (Čurubašskij majak-1, 2, Džankojskij Bugor,
Fig. 10. Tumulus 16 of the Čelajdinovo‑Vostočnoe necropolis.

michajlovka, ivanovka, etc.) appeared on the perimeter of the polis’ territory,

by then already expanded by two or more kilometres to the west of the for-
mer chora limits, in the 4th or early 3rd century BC (Fig. 5). the appearance of
these settlements can probably be explained by both the establishment of the
distant chora of nymphaion and a deliberate policy of the Spartokids aimed
at expanding their own landownership. Some of this territory might be part
of the so-called royal chora. the total territory of the distant chora could have
reached 40-50 km2. Some of the settlements (michajlovka, ivanovka) were prob-
ably fortified and controlled approaches to the southern part of the Bosporos.
the rest of the sites (Čurubašskij majak-1, Džankojskij Bugor) are represented
by detached dwelling and household complexes, except the settlement of
Čurubašskij majak-2 where remains of six farmhouses were recorded.
on the whole, several types of settlements existed at that time. these
are: large settlements on the borders controlling certain districts of the chora
(tobečik-8, ogon’ki-1, Čurubaš-2, michajlovka); settlements consisting of sev-
eral dwelling and household complexes of various layouts (Južno-Čurubašskoe,
Čurubašskoe, geroevka-1, tobečik-2, etc.); sites consisting of one farmhouse
(geroevka-2, geroevka-5, nižne-Čurubašskoe-2, tobečik-1, ogon’ki-6, etc.);
and seasonal stations without any stone buildings (Čurubaš-3).
one object which seems unique for the greek chorai of the northern Black
Sea region is worthy of special note. it is the 4th century BC water supply found
2 km west of the city of nymphaion near the site of nižne-Čurubašskoe-2
and partially investigated. it consisted of inspection wells made of limestone,
which were connected to one another by ceramic pipes laid in stone-built
ducts at a depth of 3 m. the length of each pipe section is 0.91 m, and the
inner diameter 0.08 m.
this period ended at the conclusion of the first third of the 3rd century
BC with the collapse of the whole system of relationships between the greeks
and the barbarians, which terminated all sites in the rural territory of nym-
phaion.
the next period, spanning from the second half of the 3rd to the early
1st century BC brought a sharp decrease in the total number of rural sites.
Strata and finds from the second half of the 3rd to the 2nd century BC were
revealed in only four of the chora’s settlements. two of them are situated
on the shore. For example, a farmhouse of the late 3rd-first half of the 2nd
century BC was explored within the territory of 1,400 m2 of the settlement
of geroevka-1. the evidence suggests that this house was abandoned soon
after this period.38 amphora fragments and one rhodian amphora stamp
dating to 180 BC were found at the eltigen-museum settlement, which also
lies on the shore, 700 m south of nymphaion. the ogon’ki-1 settlement in
the south-western corner of the chora continued to exist during most of this
period. according to the excavation results obtained by kirilin, life on this
site also stopped in the 2nd century BC, and no building remains have been
found in its most recent stratum.
Fig. 11. “Priestess” burial from the “Three‑brothers” barrow group.

the strata of the late 3rd-2nd century BC have been explored by kruglikova
within the Čurubašskoe settlement, in the north-western part of the chora, in
the rocky area of Čurubašskie Skalki. During the exploration of its vicinity,
in the small valleys between the ridges of rocky hills, remains of walls delin-
eating land plots were revealed. they take the form of banks 1.5 m wide and
0.20-0.30 m high, stretching from north to south at a distance of 40 to 100 m
from each other.
During the following period (the late 1st century BC to the third quarter
of the 3rd century aD) on the kerch Peninsula a whole system of settlements
of various kinds appears. mapping and analysis of them prove that they are
part of one and the same military and administrative strategy, which ap-
parently aimed at the complex defence of the whole rural territory of the
Bosporan kingdom.39 an original fortification system was also built on the
outskirts of the polis of nymphaion to protect its chora. at this point the new
settlement of Čurubašskij majak-3 was established, built on a high hill and
playing the role of a fortified outpost. During this period, the settlements of
geroevka-1, eltigen-museum, tobečik-1 and Čurubašskoe were settled anew
and the rocky north-western territories near the Čurubašskie Skalki were also
actively built over.
While exploring this area, a particular fortified district protecting the ap-
proaches to nymphaion and its chora from the north-west along the Čurubaš
river was revealed. it consisted of a system of separate strongholds (towers,
walls, stone blockages) controlling the approaches into the chora through the
ravines as well as of the strong fortified site of Čurubaš-Citadel. the latter was
situated on a rocky height and had, besides outer walls, a square citadel with
a tower on its top. on the whole, the number of settlements in the home chora
of nymphaion did not exceed ten during that period. they were positioned
to function as strongholds and were able to control the chora borders.
the final phase of the nymphaion chora is worthy of special note. it spanned
from the late 3rd to the last quarter of the 6th century aD. in the geroevka-2
settlement, a farmstead of this period, partially destroyed by coastal erosion,
was excavated by the author (Fig. 12).40 it consisted of a rural house with a
yard in the middle measuring over 30 m2, with premises for the processing
and storage of cereals in its southern part and a three-room dwelling unit
in its northern part. Judging from the finds of pottery (amphora fragments,
red-glazed and handmade wares), the farm existed from the 4th until the
third quarter of the 6th century aD, when it perished in a great fire. Besides
other finds, the destruction layer yielded a Byzantine bronze coin of the 6th
century aD. the remains of mudbrick buildings of the late 5th-6th century
aD were also excavated by gorončarovskij in the aforementioned settlement
of geroevka-1.
on the whole, in spite of some chronological gaps which are probably
caused by the still insufficient degree of our knowledge about this region,
it can be stated that life within the chora of nymphaion continued virtually
Fig. 12. Late antique farmhouse at Geroevka‑2.

during all of antiquity. in major points, it correlates with the general devel-
opment of the rural territories of the whole european part of the Bosporos,
although a certain originality can distinctly be seen, which was conditioned
by the specific role of the polis during the initial period of its existence.
Notes
1 kruglikova 1975; maslennikov 1993; 1998.
2 kotova 1961, 67.
3 važov 1983, 25.
4 nevesskij 1958, 25.
5 gubanov & kljukin 1979, 121; naumenko & krivošeeva 1979, 98.
6 Zin’ko 1996, 4; Šamraj 2003.
7 kuznecov 1991; molev 1997.
8 Zin’ko 2003, 106.
9 kolotuchin 2000, 58-59.
10 Jakovenko 1972, 259-267.
11 vachtina & vinogradov 2001, 44.
12 Zin’ko 1998a, 87.
13 Zin’ko 1996, 13.
15 Zin’ko 1997.
16 gorončarovskij 1991, 23.
18 alexeev 1992, 28; kolotuchin 2000, 68-69.
19 geroevka-1: kruglikova 1975, 32; geroevka-2: Zin’ko 1998a, 91.
20 Šelov-kovedjaev 1985, 81.
21 Skudnova 1954.
22 Zin’ko 2003, 109.
23 Zin’ko 2003, 30-33.
24 maslennikov 1995.
25 kirilin 1966.
27 See also the contribution by T.N. Smekalova and S.L. Smekalov in this volume. Eds.
28 Šelov-kovedjaev 1985; molev 1997.
29 Scholl & Zin’ko 1999, 104-108.
30 Zin’ko 2001.
31 kruglikova 1975, 46, fig. 14.
33 Zin’ko 1997.
34 Zin’ko 1998b, 183.
35 Zin’ko 1998b, 173-182.
36 kruglikova 2002, 147-148, fig. 17.
37 Zin’ko 2001, 35-41; 2002a, 219-248; 2002b, 109-111.
39 maslennikov 1993, 22.
40 Zin’ko 1994, 19-20; 1996, 18-19; 2003, 191-195.
Bibliography
alekseev, a.Ju. 1992. Skifskaja chronika. St Peterburg.
gorončarovskij, v.a. 1991. novye dannye dlja izučenija bosporskoj chory v
vi-ii vv. do n.e., in: S.B. ochotnikov (ed.), Drevnee Pričernomor’e. odessa,
23-24.
gubanov, i.g. & a.a. kljukin 1979. Rol’ grjazevogo vulkanizma v formirovanii
ozernych kotlovin Kerčenskogo poluostrova. kiev.
Jakovenko, e.v. 1972. kurgan na temir-gore, SovA 3, 259-267.
kirilin, D.S. 1966. archeologičeskie issledovanija ortel’skoj ekspedicii
kerčenskogo muzeja v 1965 g., in: Plenum Instituta archeologii AN SSSR
166 g. Tezisy dokladov. moskva, 14-18.
kolotuchin, v.a. 2000. Kimmerijcy i skify Stepnogo Kryma. Simferopol’.
kotova, i.n. 1961. Flora i rastitel’nost’ Kerčenskogo poluostrova. Simferopol’.
kruglikova, i.t. 2002. Južno-Čurubašskoe poselenie, Drevnosti Bospora 5,
moskva, 139-170.
kuznecov, v.D. 1991. rannie grečeskie apojkii Severnogo Pričernomor’ja,
KSIA 204, 31-36.
maslennikov, a.a. 1993. Sel’skaja territorija Evropejskogo Bospora v antičnuju
epochu. abstract of habil. thesis. moskva.
maslennikov, a.a. 1995. Kamennye jaščiki Vostočnogo Kryma (Bosporskij sbor-
nik, 8). moskva.
maslennikov, a.a. 1998. Ellinskaja chora na kraju ojkumeny. Sel’skaja territorija
molev, e.a. 1997. Političeskaja istorija Bospora v VI‑V vv. do n.e. n. novgorod.
naumenko P.i. & n.P. krivošeev 1979. Geologija Čurubašskogo ozera. kiev.
nevesskij, B.n. 1958. k voprosy o novejšej Černomorskoj transgressii, in:
Trudy Instituta okeanologii 10. moskva-Leningrad, 78-91.
Scholl, t. & v.n. Zin’ko 1999. Archaeological Map of Nymphaion (Crimea). War-
saw.
Šamraj a.n. 2002. Podvodno-archeologičeskie ob’ekty v territorial’noj struk-
ture nimfeja, in: v.n. Zin’ko (ed.), Bospor Kimmerijskij i varvarskij mir v
period antičnosti i srednevekov’ja. (materialy iv Bosporskich čtenij, kerč’,
20-24 maja 2003 g). kerč’, 266-275.
Šelov-kovedjaev, F.v. 1985. istorija Bospora v vi-iv vv. do n.e., in: a.P.
novosel’cev (ed.), Drevnejšie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR, 14 g. moskva,
5-187.
Skudnova, v.m. 1954. Skifskie pamjatniki iz nimfeja, SovA 21, 306-318.
vachtina, m.Ju. & Ju.a. vinogradov 2001. ešče raz o rannej fortifikacii Bospora
kimmerijskogo, in: v.Ju. Zuev et al. (eds.), Bosporskij fenomen: Kolonizacija
regiona, formirovanie polisov, obrazovanie gosudarstva. Part 1. St Peterburg,
41-45.
važov, a.n. 1983. Klimat Kryma. Simferopol’.
Zin’ko, v.n. 1994. Žiliščno-chozjastvennye kompleksy iv-viii vv. na poseleni-

jach geroevka-2 i geroevka-6, in: Vizantija i narody Pričernomor’ja v rannee
srednevekov’e (IV‑IX vv.). Tesisy dokladov. Simferopol’, 19-20.
Zin’ko, v.n. 1996. nekotorye itogi izučenija sel’skoj okrugi antičnogo nimfeja,
MAIET 5, 12-20.
Zin’ko, v.n. 1997. geroevka-2. a rural settlement in the chora of nymphaion
(ancient period), ArcheologiaWarsz 47, 85-94.
Zin’ko, v.n. 1998a. Chora nimfeja v vi-iv vv. do n.e., Drevnosti Bospora 1,
moskva, 86-104.
Zin’ko, v.n. 1998b. Pogrebal’nye kompleksy s chory nimfeja, MAIET 6,
173-185.
Zin’ko, v.n. 2001. issledovanie severnogo mogil’nika Južno-Čurubašskogo
poselenija, in: v.n. Zin’ko (ed.), Bospor Kimmerijskij i Pont v period antičnosti
i srednevekov’ja. (materialy ii Bosporskich čtenij, kerč’, 20-23 maja 2001
g. kerč’, 35-41.
Zin’ko, v.n. 2002a. novyj gruntovyj mogil’nik na chore nimfeja, Bosporskie
issledovanija 2, Simferopol’, 219-248.
Zin’ko, v.n. 2002b. Severo-zapadnyj rajon nimfejskoj chory, Drevnosti Bospora
5, moskva, 107-119.
Zin’ko, v.n. 2003. Chora bosporskogo goroda Nimfeja (Bosporskie issledovanija,
4). Simferopol’.
Abbreviations
archaeological Survey on the Lower
Danube: results and Perspectives
Sven Conrad
more than 40 years of extensive archaeological excavations carried out in

the legionary camp of novae (near Svištov, Bulgaria) and the late roman
fortress of iatrus at the mouth of the Jantra river (ancient iatros), about 15
km downstream from novae, have produced important contributions to the
history of the roman frontier on the lower Danube.1 in the mid-1990s the
roman-germanic Commission Frankfurt/m. of the german archaeological
institute developed an interdisciplinary programme to investigate the links
of both fortresses to their surrounding territories. the programme was car-
ried out in collaboration with the archaeological institute of the Bulgarian
academy of Sciences in Sofia, the historical museum in ruse, the archaeo-
logical institute in Bucharest, and other institutions, with the support of the
german research Foundation. the aim of this paper is to give a summary
for the periods from the later iron age up to the early middle ages after the
end of the fieldwork, including a short preview on perspectives of further
similar research enterprises in the eastern Balkans and the Black Sea region
as well.2
the research area lies on both sides of the Danube in north central Bulgaria
and south romania, about 180 km from the western Black Sea coast (Fig. 1).
the pick-up surveys covered an area of about 1,200 km2 between Svištov
and ruse along the lower Danube with a length of about 50 km and a width
up to about 30 km on the Bulgarian side. on the romanian side we carried
out a short survey along the first terrace and also in the lowlands along the
Danube. the borderlines of the area originated more or less by chance; they
are restricted in some cases by marked geographical units.
the investigations started with a short explorative survey in the autumn
1997 followed by six seasons of intensive field surveys, limited geophysical
prospections, a site specific grid survey, air photography, palynological and
soil analyses. During the fieldwork we used the geographical method, i.e.
the dividing of daily work according to geographical units (valleys, hilltops,
etc.). We decided to undertake the survey in an extensive way for two rea-
sons: 1. We had only a vague notion of what we could expect; 2. We wanted
to cover an area which allowed reliable conclusions regarding the settlements
systems in different historical periods.
the best season for fieldwalking is from the beginning of march until
310 Sven Conrad
Fig. 1. The position of the research area within the Roman defense line at the lower Danube
(K. Ruppel, RGK Frankfurt/M.).
the beginning of april. this is due to the fact that the snow has melted and
the earth is broken up by the frost, and there is still no vegetation. after the
sprouting of the winter grain and the beginning of drilling, effective work is
impossible. the autumn period from mid october until late november can be
used for control surveys mainly, but the visibility is limited after the harvest
and the new cultivation of soil.
the research area is influenced by continental climate. it is mainly char-
acterised by the wide river valley of the Danube and the Jantra river run-
ning from the Balkan range through the hilly north Bulgarian lowlands.
in earlier days, the lowlands beside the rivers were marshy, now they are
drained by amelioration and dikes. in the late glacial epoch an up to 60 m
thick layer of loess soil was deposited over the limestone rocks, which ap-
pears very often along the river valleys. this not only provided flints but
also the main building material for the later historical periods. these loess
hills with precipitous slopes to the north and slightly inclined slopes to the
south rise up to an altitude of about 150 m near the Danube and up to 300
m south-east of Bjala.
the soil is very fertile; in the west and north-east of the research area we
mostly find calcareous černozems, in the eastern part leached and eroded
černozems. the insignificant differences in the soil fertility seemed to have no
influence on the behaviour of occupation during the historical periods. the
western part includes wide open valleys with slightly inclined hill slopes, and
Archaeological Survey on the Lower Danube 311
in the east, one finds deeply incised narrow rocky valleys and up till today
partly preserved woodland areas. Probably for this reason the Jantra river
functioned as the western border of the eneolithic culture of kodžadermen/
karanovo vi/gulmeniţa what was proved by our expedition.3 indeed, most
of the territory is woodless nowadays. We hope to settle the vegetation his-
tory by the palynological analyses, which are still in process.
the survey on the lower Danube including several methods of prospection
is the up to now most extended project in the eastern Balkan and western Black
Sea region. in the last decade several research enterprises were undertaken,
but on a smaller scale and mainly focused on special scientific problems or
selected historical periods.4
StatiStiCaL Summary oF reSuLtS
the primary research conception mainly focused on the historical periods

relating to the fortresses (roman and medieval periods). the project was
among other things inspired by the desire to
– compare the well-known building periods of iatrus and novae with the
envelopment of the settlement networks in their hinterland and to char-
acterise the interaction between frontier zone and rural country-side;
– compare the results of a site-based survey programme in the region of
nicopolis ad istrum carried out by a British-Bulgarian team;5
– reconstruct the ancient landscape and environment;
– draw conclusions about the society and economical situation in each his-
torical period.
additionally, during the practical fieldwork it became obvious that there

were excellent conditions to investigate the prehistoric periods from the late
Palaeolithic onwards as well.6
Table 1
total number of tumuli Settlements, for- technical sites
recorded sites tifications, (roads,
necropoleis bridges, pipe-
number % number % number % lines, etc.)
Before 1997 300 45 208 80 92 24 ---
1997-2001 364 55 52 20 289 76 23
total 664 100 260 100 381 100 23

312 Sven Conrad
Before we started our survey, only a few but non-systematic surveys and
information about finds in the research area were published.7 a total of 300
sites were recorded in the archaeological maps of Bulgaria and romania
(table 1). the majority of the sites registered were tumuli (208); to this can
now be added further 52. the most important and impressive result is the
addition of 289 new sites (76%), which can be related to settlements, fortifi-
cations and necropoleis. 23 new sites belong to infrastructural and industrial
installations like roads, pipelines, bridges and quarries.
the major part of these up to now registered 381 find spots (settlements,
fortifications, necropoleis) were occupied in more than one period (Figs. 2
and 3). if we classify and distinguish these sites according to periods, we get
a total number of 1183 (before 1997: 193). the increasing number up to the
early medieval times can probably be explained by the higher concentration
of settlements, the growth of population, and better circumstances for sur-
face finds for the more recent periods. on the other hand, with the increasing
chronological distance there are a higher number of sites covered by alluvial
and eroded material.
it is very difficult to identify individual settlements on the north bank of
the Danube and we failed to differentiate between settlement types. hence
the following data mainly focuses on the southern (Bulgarian) part of the
research area.
the arChaeoLogiCaL LanDSCaPe From the Later

i ron age uP to the earLy m iDDLe ageS
Later Iron Age

(Hallstatt C/D – La Tène; about 600 BC‑early 1st century AD)
the drop of the number of settlements in the early iron age as compared
to the Bronze age (Fig. 2) can be attributed to the very short duration of the
hallstatt period in our chronological system (i.e. hallstatt a-B) and probably
to the migration of peoples during the transition phase from the Bronze to
the iron age at the end of the 2nd millennium BC. We distinguished earlier
and later iron age finds mainly by the grey wheel-made pottery that appears
already at the end of the 7th century BC. a reliable dating of the handmade
pottery is still not available.
the settlement system of the later iron age – especially during the
so-called Classical thracian period – is dominated by central fortifications
on hilltops and on high riverbanks (Fig. 4). We identified the most impres-
sive site to the north of the town Bjala on the right bank of the Jantra river
(Fig. 5). this site was recorded in the archaeological map as a late iron age
settlement and a late roman fortress8 but our survey proved it only as a
late iron age site. it consists of an almost regular stone wall square with a
250
226
203
200
178
Total sum of sites
150
136
100 94
74
69
59
49 49
50
18 15
13
0
f.)
)
)
)
t)
h)
n
)
h)
th
BC
BC
th
th
th
BC
BC
er
1s
de
1t
4t
C6
C5
14
19
od
.C
00
C1
00
00
00
.C
un
-C
-C
M
nd
id
eg
48
32
12
-6
eg
s(
g.
th
th
-m
00
-b
-e
0-
0-
0-
t-b
be
ite
12
14
00
th
80
00
h-
.s
1s
32
.1
(C
(C
4t
.6
C5
4
.6
8t
ist
.C
x
.C
x.
x.
al
ic
ox
ro
ox
(C
eh
d
eg
ro
an
iev
eg
en
p
pr
pr
pr
al
Pr
pp
(b
ap
(b
sm
ed
ap
e(
ap
ap
iev
)(
(a
an
an
O
e(
(
e(
in
ed
-B
ic
ic
nt
te
Ag
Ag
M
ith
ith
(A
Ro
Ro
La
za
n
rly
ol
ol
ze
By
tt
ro
te
Ne
alc
on
ta
Ea
rI
La
rly
lls
Ch
Br
te
Ea
Ha
La
Periods
Fig. 2. Sites north and south of the Danube according to periods (settlements, fortifications,
necropoleis; without tumuli and “technical” sites; total number = 113).
side length of about 200 m with corner towers. the fortification has been
destroyed by stone robbery. there are large amounts of pottery fragments
on the surface, mostly of good quality; among them fragments of greek
amphorae. in our research area similar fortifications probably existed on
the hilltop kaleto in Svištov9 which is covered by a medieval fortress, and
near Zimnicea (north of the Danube).10 Small and up to now unpublished
excavations of kaleto from the early 1990s produced pottery finds similar
to those found in Bjala.
the extended tumular necropoleis concentrated in the wider vicinity of the
fortifications contain numerous conspicuous tumuli higher than 3 m which
can be referred to the upper class of the tribes (Fig. 6). about 5 km east of Bjala
near Borovo, in the area of a tumular necropolis, the famous gold treasure of
Borovo was found. it is assumed to be a diplomatic gift of the odrysian king
kotys i to a local ruler.11
to each fortification presumably belonged a limited domain since no set-
tlements existed within a radius of at least 3 km (Fig. 4). most of the larger
settlements with an area of about 10,000 m2 are arranged in an approximately
regular network with average intervals of 4-5 km (Fig. 4). there is a striking
concentration of settlements of this size north and west of the Bjala fortifica-
tion. Small settlements (less than 5,000 m2) are situated mostly in the hilly
landscape north of Bjala and in the valleys south of Svištov, partly without
314 Sven Conrad
Fig. 3. Total number of sites recorded before and after 17.
direct access to water. they produce only small quantities of finds. this is
an indication of a short-time occupation and can probably be attributed to a
half-nomadic way of living.
We can interpret these fortifications as tribal centres of the thracians.
according to ancient sources (hekat. FGrH 1 F 170), the territory between
the Jantra river and the chora of odessos at the Black sea coast was settled
by the tribe of the krobyzoi.12 But the function of, for example, the Bjala
fortification as a main or a subordinate centre of this or another tribe can be
proved by archaeological excavations only. an important fortress which is
also assumed as a tribal centre of the getes has being excavated for several
years near isperih in the Sborjanovo region (north-east Bulgaria).13 a lim-
ited survey proved a concentration of simultaneously existing settlements
in its vicinity.14
Fig. 4. Sites of the later Iron Age (end 7th BC‑beg. 1st century AD).
Chr. Popov who recently examined the few up to now recorded “proto-ur-
ban” centres of the early and late iron age in Bulgaria suggests a circulation
of the small, temporary settlements around these fortifications which prob-
ably functioned as cult centres as well.15
The settlement systems in the Roman (early 1st‑early 4th century AD)
and late Roman Periods (early 4th‑mid 5th century)
the history of the roman limes in this section of the Danube begins with the
foundation of the province of moesia in aD 44 and the dislocation of the legio
VIII Augusta in novae (Fig. 7) simultaneously or within a short time after that.
the territory of the moesian province and its border along the Danube became
316 Sven Conrad
a
Fig. 5.
Later Iron Age fortifi‑
cation north of Bjala.
Rough drawing (right) of
S. Stefanov (156, 14 fig.
6) and aerial view of the
mid‑140s (left) (Cour‑
tesy of the Military Car‑
tographic Service of the
Bulgarian Army).
extended to the Jantra river. the organisation of the military protection along
the Danubian bank east of the Jantra is unknown for the early roman period.
generally, a dislocation of troops is accepted in this area in the Flavian period
as supported by archaeological evidence. military garrisons were permanently
dislocated along the Danube in the eastern part of moesia after the Dacian
wars of emperor trajan (102-106).16
the closed military system of the frontier fortifications had a great influ-
ence on the settlement system, especially as an economical factor (Fig. 8). there
was a fundamental and persistent need for the supply of the maintaining mili-
tary installations both from the agricultural hinterland as well as from further
afield. the map we devised according to the finds obtained from the survey
shows a relatively dense and regular settlement system in the hinterland of the
limes and reflects very likely the situation in the 3rd century.17 Sites of larger
extent (vici or large villae) were found mainly along the great river valleys and
the wide-open valleys south of novae. Small places like villae are situated in
the areas of water sources in small side-valleys. especially in the area east of
the Jantra characterised by deep narrow valleys the sites are spread at greater
intervals (average interval about 5-6 km). in any case the water supply or the
possibility for access to water is a precondition for settlement.
Fig. 6. Tumuli of the later Iron Age (c. 600 BC‑beg. 1st century AD).
the consolidation of the roman frontier after the wars of the 3rd century
under the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine i was a supposition for the
continuation or the renewal of most settlements at the beginning of the late
roman period. as on the middle of the Danube small garrisons and observa-
tion posts were converted into fortresses. the iatrus fort at the mouth of the
Jantra river was erected (Figs. 9 and 10) and the limes road improved.18 the
eastern Balkans were of crucial importance in the late roman period since
the new imperial capital Constantinople was situated not more than 500 km
south-east of the Danube. With this background the lower Danube conse-
quently enjoyed imperial support more than other parts of the later empire.
But probably due to the width of the river the defence system on the lower
Danube obviously did not reach the level and density of forts and burgi in
Pannonia.19
31 Sven Conrad
Fig. 7. Aerial view of the legionary camp of Novae. In the foreground the valetudinarium
(2nd‑3rd century) overlaid by a late Roman villa urbana; in the background the late Roman
Christian basilica.
in any case, the settlement network was affected by the war; however, the
previous opinion that there was a continuous decline of the settlements in the
rural territories during the 3rd century and first half of the 4th century can not
be sustained (Fig. 10). in fact, the need to deliver supplies to the reinforced
military troops at the border caused a revival of the settlement network. in
some of the settlements, we established a reduction in the areas inhabited;
but altogether continuity from the roman to the beginning of the late roman
period can be surmised.
roman pottery fragments were also found on several sites on the left bank
of the Danube in the Dacia libera. Bricks and carefully treated stone material
characterising roman settlements south of the Danube is missing. these finds
can be related to the trade across the frontier mentioned by ancient authors
(them. Or. 10.136b; amm.marc. 20.11.8; 21.9-11). roman soldiers seem to
have profited in this trade with the goths.20
Caused by the gothic wars in the second half of the 4th century and the
hunic assaults in the first half of the 5th century, the extent and intensity of
the settlements declined, and later on all settlements in the remote frontier
areas were apparently abandoned. the remaining people settled in or nearby
the fortifications; and new fortresses were erected, for example in Svištov
(theodoroupolis?), Polsko kosovo and koprivec. this situation corresponds
Fig. . Roman sites (beg. 1st‑beg. 4th century AD).
with the iatrus fort in the first half of the 5th century when all free areas be-
tween existing buildings and in the ruins of horrea i and vii were filled with
dwelling houses.21 a higher density of mountain fortresses can be found in
the northern foreland of the Balkan range, a suitable retreat area in a period
of anxiety.22
iatrus and the other remaining fortresses and settlements were totally
abandoned by the huns in the mid 4th century. By contract the romans had
to give up the limes fortifications and a territory with width of three day’s
journeys south of the Danube.23
320 Sven Conrad
Fig. .
Aerial view of the Iatrus fortress from south
(G. v. Bülow, RGK Frankfurt/M.).
Fig. 10. Late Roman sites (beg. 4th century – mid‑5th century).
Land plots in the rural and suburban territories of Novae

in the rural territories south of novae we found signs of a systematic land
partition along the brook valleys (Fig. 11), which is very similar to the hin-
terland of Speyer (Germania superior).24 the average intervals are only 2-3 km.
according to our reconstruction of the cadastre plan, 10 of the 38 estates
investigated belong to medium-sized properties of about 200-380 ha, 24 to
small-sized plots with between 50 and 200 ha, and four with less than 50 ha
are very small.25 it can be supposed, that veterans established a part of these
rural properties after their honesta missio.
the bigger part of sites in the suburban vicinity of novae had most likely
another status (Fig. 12). the canabae of the legionary camp at novae extended
approximately 1.5 km along the road to Svištov; the route is roughly identical
to the former limes road. only several mounds interrupted the occupied area.
Parts of the necropolis were found in the south. there are also some indica-
tions that the area covered by the late roman extension novae ii belonged
to the former civilian settlement of the castrum. Deduced from the examined
pottery, on the whole we can calculate an area of about 70-80 ha for the civil-
ian settlement of the 1st century-early 4th century and an area of about 20-30
ha for the late roman site.26
Fig. 11. Rural sites south of Novae (Roman to late Roman period). The distance between two
lines of the grid system is 1 km.
322 Sven Conrad
Fig. 12. The suburban area of Novae (Roman to late Roman period). The distance between two
lines of the grid system is 1 km.
a total of 32 sites within an average interval of only 300-500 m were reg-

istered south and south-east of novae (total of roman and late roman sites;
Fig. 12). the size of the land estates is mainly ascertained between 5 and 30
ha; only six plots span between 30 and 50 ha. this indicates small-scale agri-
culture, and probably there also existed a system of handicraft workshops.
Presumably veterans who settled down after their active military service
owned these properties and were, thus, available in cases of emergency. the
interest in occupying a plot near the military camp caused an enormous set-
tling constraint reflected by the average geographical data (table 2; Fig. 13).
the long distance to fresh water, the average altitude and the predominant
position of the sites at the middle slope indicate a suburban settlement struc-
ture with an artificial water supply system.
the main part of these villa sites lies within a radius of approximately
2.22 km around the groma of the camp adequate to the ancient unit of mea-
surement leuga (approximately 1.5 roman miles). according to i. Piso the area
within the radius of 1 leuga belonged to the ager publicus and was controlled by
the camp administration. the inhabitants of the canabae, which had a similar
legal status like the veterani et cives Romani consistentes, had no right for owner-
ship of the ground within this radius. Consequently, the extended vicus was
Table 2
geographical factors roman Late roman villae sub- villae rusti-
Period Period urb. s-e of cae south of
novae novae
number of sites 113 148 35 38
altitude (in m; average) 90 89 99 80
Distance to waters (in m;
average) 234 260 541 173
altitude above waters
(in m; av.) 19 21 37 6
Slope (in %; average) 4 4 3 5
Size of real estates (in
ha; average) --- --- 25 159
Roman Period Roman Period
4% 2% 2%
4%
31%
31%
58%
58%
5%
5%
Roman and late Roman rural sites Suburban villae south-east of Novae
south of Novae 1
16% 3% 3%
2
31%
84%
5 63%
Fig. 13. Position of Roman sites south of the Danube, with a distinction of the rural territory
and suburban area south/south‑east of Novae: 1 – down slope/valley/lowlands; 2 – terrace;
3 – mid slope; 4 – upper slope/ridge/summit; 5 – high bank; 6 – end of ridge/spur.
324 Sven Conrad
situated about 2.5 km east of the legionary camp on the Danubian bank and
thus outside the leuga radius (Fig. 12). after the bestowal of municipal status
to the canabae of a legionary camp, this injunction had to be repealed and the
legal status of canabae and vicus equalised.27 the existence of roman suburban
villae in the leuga radius supports the theory that the canabae of novae received
the municipal status under the reign of Septimius Severus.28 however, this
can only be verified following finds of new inscription.
Early Byzantine Period (end of 5th century‑end of 6th century)

the reconstruction of the limes at the Danube took place at the end of the 5th
century (Fig. 14). the settling was limited to the fortresses and fortified settle-
ments and their immediate vicinity. it is impossible to state a possible trial for
Fig. 14. early Byzantine sites (end of 5th-end of 6th century).

the revival of former settlements by surface finds. in these late times of the
Byzantine presence north of the Balkan range, the fortifications aimed at the
defence, and offered possibilities for retreat and agriculture.29 the settlement
within the iatrus fortress shows a very simple rural character with dwelling
houses built in the half-timber technique; stone fundaments are very rare.
the most solid building under the reign of iustinianus i was the Christian
basilica.30
after an eventful 6th century, the history of the limes on the lower Danube
the Byzantine presence north of the Balkan range ceased with the catastrophic
invasions of the Slavs and avars at the end of the 6th century and in the be-
ginning of the 7th century.
Early Middle Ages (th century‑early 11th century)

With the immigration of the Slavs and Protobulgarians in the 7th century and
8th century the resettling of the areas deserted 200 years earlier began. the
map compiled based on the surface finds dated between 8th century up to
the beginning of the 11th century shows with 229 sites the highest density of
settlements from all examined historical periods (Fig. 15). the system consists
of extended sites, sometimes fortified, as well as small sites resulting in very
small quantities of finds. Similar to the later iron age this could indicate a
half-nomadic way of living. numerous excavations in Bulgaria of early medi-
eval sites verify the meagre character of the settlements: the new settlers
very often settled in the remains of roman buildings, and probably used the
building material for the construction of pit houses.31
ConCLuSionS
the statistical evaluation of selected geographical parameters of the settle-

ments south of the Danube allows some preliminary conclusions regarding
the social and historical conditions during the examined periods.
only the slightly increased percentages of settlement positions at upper
slope/ridge/summit, high bank and end of ridge/spur for later iron age
and medieval settlements reflect the priority of natural factors and the special
way of living that influenced the choice of a place to settle down (Fig. 16).
additionally, the later iron age settlements show a preference of a southern
exposition (Fig. 17). the preference of a northern and southern exposition
is amongst other things caused by the west-east orientation of most of the
ridges and valleys.
our analyses verified that during the roman period, apart from natural
circumstances, economic factors had a strong impact on settlement activity.
the roman settlement network was obviously affected by the military system
of the limes and the official control of the land assignment too. Because of the
326 Sven Conrad
Fig. 15. early medieval sites (8th – beg. 11th century).
great local influence of limited settlement agglomerations like the concentra-

tion of settlements around the late iron age fortifications and – for the roman
periods – the urban agglomeration in the vicinity of the legionary fortress
of novae, we suggest that the area examined up till now is still too small to
draw statistically valid conclusions for all geographical parameters. Future
prospection will extend the research area and thus provide further compa-
rable data for statistical analysis. Furthermore, to prove the results based on
surface finds, each survey will have to be followed up by selected excavations.
the stratigraphy obtained will, in turn, help to reconstruct the progress of
historical periods and the turn from one period into another.
under the present state of research, the examined area can serve as a
reference territory for both the Balkans and the Black Sea region. our inter-
Later Iron Age (129 sites) Roman Period (113 sites)
5% 4% 4% 2%
9%
1 31%
19%
54% 3
58%
4
9% 5%
5
6
Late Roman Period (148 sites) Late Roman Period (148 sites)
3% 1% 1%
5% 5% 3%
30% 30%
56% 56%
5% 5%
Fig. 16. Position of sites south of the Danube (Roman and late Roman period without limes
fortifications and their civilian settlements). 1 – down slope/valley/lowlands; 2 – terrace; 3 – mid
slope; 4 – upper slope/ridge/summit; 5 – high bank; 6 – end of ridge/spur.
Later Iron Age Roman Period
N N
30 30
25 25
NW 20 NE NW 20 NE
15 15
10 10
5 5
W 0 E W 0 E
SW SE SW SE
S S
Late Roman Period Early Middle Age
N
N 40
35
35
30
NW 25 NE NW 30
NE
25
20
20
15 15
10 10
5 5
W 0 E W 0 E
SW SE
SW SE
S
S
Fig. 17. Exposition of sites south of the Danube (Roman and late Roman period without limes
fortifications and their civilian settlements). For the number of sites see Fig. 16 (sites with
all‑side exposition: later Iron Age – 3; Roman period – 1; late Roman period – 3; early Middle
Age – 3)
32 Sven Conrad
disciplinary investigations, albeit in a limited area, display very promising

opportunities and open perspectives for the historical and archaeological re-
search in that region, considering the fact that 70-80 % of the historical sites
are still unknown.
Acknowledgement
the research programme was carried out under the auspices of the rö-
misch-germanische kommission in collaboration with the Bulgarian academy
of Sciences Sofia, the historical museum ruse, the archaeological institute
and the university of Bucharest, the historical museum giurgiu and the
Slovakian academy of Sciences nitra. it has been supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft Bonn since the autumn 1998. the author is very
grateful to g. v. Bülow and S. v. Schnurbein (Frankfurt/m.), r. gančev (ruse),
P. Donevski (Svištov), r. krauß (Berlin), D. Stančev (ruse) and L. vagalinski
(Sofia) for their help and support.
Notes
1 iatrus: iatrus-krivina i-v (iatrus-krivina vi under work); Bülow 1994. Prelimi-
nary reports on the results of the excavations between 1992 and 2000 in Bülow
& milčeva (eds.) 1999, 140-199. – novae: Summary by Press & Sarnowski 1990;
ivanov, r. 1997, 556-574; 599-601; 1999, 184-189; 267-269; annual reports of the
excavations in Archeologia.
2 For preliminary results, see Conrad & Stančev 1998; 2002. a monograph on the
results of the archaeological and environmental analyses is still under work. the
responsible authors for the publication of the prehistoric periods are r. krauß
(Berlin; cf. krauß 2006), of the later iron age D. Stančev (ruse). i wish to thank
both authors for the allowance to present some of their unpublished results.
3 Cf. krauß 2003.
4 Cf. Lichardus, Fol & getov et al. 1996 (the prehistoric microregion in the vicinity
of Drama, south Bulgaria); Stefanov 1997 (settlement system in the vicinity of
the late iron age fortification of Sborjanovo near isperih, ne Bulgaria); Bailey,
tringham, Bass et al. 1998; Domaradski (ed.) 1999; Domaradski (ed.) 2001 (inves-
tigations on the settlement system of the late iron age in SW Bulgaria); Poulter
1999a; 1999b (the territory of the roman to early Byzantine city nicopolis ad
istrum, north Bulgaria).
5 Cf. Poulter 1999a; 1999b.
6 Cf. krauß 2006.
7 Stefanov, S. 1956; Dremsizova-nelčinova & ivanov 1983.
8 Stefanov, S. 1956, 13 figs. 6 and 7; Dremsizova-nelčinova & ivanov 1983, 31
no. 39.
9 vălov 1962; Donevski 1997.
10 Cf. nestor 1950; alexandrescu 1974; oppermann 1984, 182. the excavations veri-
fied an important, probably fortified settlement.
11 ivanov, D. 1975; marazov (ed.) 1998, 222-225.
12 Danov 1976, 130-131.
13 Popov 2002, 156-165 fig. 41 (with bibliography).

14 Stefanov 1997.
15 Popov 2002, 170-172.
16 For the history of the roman military presence and the fortification system on
the lower Danube, see ivanov 1997; 1999; Zahariade & gudea 1997. new results
obtained from the survey in Conrad & Stančev 2002.
17 For that reason a definite theory regarding the transition period from late iron
age to roman times is still impossible.
18 For the limes road cf. Conrad & Stančev 2002, 676 figs. 2-4.
19 Cf. Soproni 1978; ubl 1980.
20 Cf. Poulter 1999c, 42-43.
21 Cf. Bülow 1995a.
22 in this hilly landscape many fortified hilltop settlements were erected, cf. rašev
1982, 7-16 map 1.
23 Cf. Bülow 1995a, 43-49; martin 1995, 40-41.
24 Bernhard 2001, 60-65 fig. 12.
25 Similar sizes were recorded in Germania superior in the territories between the
lower neckar, rhine and Danube, cf. hüssen 1994, 261 (plots between 60 and
120 ha, mostly between 65 and 80 ha).
26 Cf. Conrad & Stančev 2002, 674 fig. 5.
27 Piso 1991.
28 For this discussion, cf. ivanov, r. 1997, 599-601; 1999, 267-269.
29 Cf. henning 1987, 35-40; 1994, 471-473.
30 Cf. v. Bülow 1995b, 64-65.
31 Cf. the results of the excavation of the medieval settlement overlaying the former
iatrus fortress in Wendel 1986.
Bibliography
alexandrescu, a. 1974. autour des fouilles de Zimnicea: i. La nécropole datée
du bronze tardif de Zimnicea. ii. agglomeration et nécropole gétiques à
Zimnicea, Thracia 3, 47-65.
Bailey, D.W., r.e. tringham & J. Bass 1998. expanding the dimensions of
early agricultural tells: the Podgoritsa archaeological Project, Bulgaria.
JFieldA 25.4, 373-396.
Bender, h. & h. Wolff (eds.) 1994. Ländliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft in
den Rhein‑Donau‑Provinzen des Römischen Reiches (Passauer universitätss-
chriften zur archäologie, 2). espelkamp.
Bernhard, h. 2001. Die römische geschichte der Pfalz, in: k.-h. rothenberger,
k. Scherer & J. keddigkeit (eds.), Pfälzische Geschichte I. kaiserslautern,
45-78.
Bülow, g. von 1994. Das spätantike kastell iatrus am unterdonau-Limes in
Bulgarien. Stand und Probleme der erforschung. vortrag zur Jahressit-
zung der römisch-germanischen kommission, BerRGK 75, 5-22.
Bülow, g. von 1995a. Die entwicklung des Siedlungsbildes von iatrus in der
Periode B/C, in: Iatrus‑Krivina v. Berlin, 29-53.
330 Sven Conrad
Bülow, g. von 1995b. Die Siedlungsperiode D2 in iatrus, in: Iatrus‑Krivina v.

Berlin, 61-66.
Bülow, g. von & a. milčeva (eds.) 1999. Der Limes an der unteren Donau von
Diokletian bis Heraklios. Sofia.
Conrad, S. & D. Stančev 2002. archaeological Survey on the roman Frontier
on the lower Danube between novae and Sexaginta Prista. Preliminary
report (1997-2000), in: P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.t. Fiema & B. hoffmann
(eds.), Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier
Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000) (Bar intern. Ser., 1084).
oxford, 673-684.
Conrad, S. & D. Stančev 1998, ein Limeskastell und sein umfeld, Arch. Deutsch‑
land, 2, 64.
Danov, C. 1976. Altthrakien. Berlin.
Domaradski, m. (ed.) 1999. Pametnici na trakijskata kultura na gornoto tečenie na
reka Mesta (razkopki i proučvanija, 26). Sofia.
Domaradski, m. (ed.) 2001. Materiali za arheologijata na sredna Struma (razkopki
i proučvanija, 27). Sofia.
Donevski, P. 1997. new Late roman Fortress in Svištov to the West of novae,
in: a. Biernacki & P. Pawlak (eds.), Late Roman and Early Byzantine Cities
on the Lower Danube. Poznań, 35-38.
Dremsizova-nelčinova, C. & D. ivanov 1983. Archeologičeski pametnici v Ru‑
senski okrăg. Sofia.
henning, J. 1987. Südosteuropa zwischen Antike und Mittelalter (archäologische
Beiträge zur Landwirtschaft des 1. Jahrtausends u.Z. Schriften zur ur- und
Frühgeschichte, 42). Berlin.
henning, J. 1994. Die ländliche Besiedlung im umland von Sadovec, nord-
bulgarien (vit-tal) und die römischen agrarstrukturen im europäischen
vorland von Byzanz (thrakien/niedermösien), in: Bender & Wolff (eds.)
1994, 463-503.
hüssen, C.-m. 1994. Die ländliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft oberger-
maniens zwischen Limes, unterem neckar, rhein und Donau während
der kaiserzeit, in: Bender & Wolff (eds.) 1994, 255-265.
Iatrus‑Krivina i-v (Schriften zur geschichte und kultur der antike, 17). Berlin
1979-1995.
ivanov, D. 1975. Srebărnoto săkrovište ot selo Borovo, rusensko, Izkustvo,
3-4, 14-22.
ivanov, r. 1997. Das römische verteidigungssystem an der unteren Donau
zwischen Dorticum und Durostorum (Bulgarien) von augustus bis mau-
rikios, BerRGK 78, 468-640.
ivanov, r. 1999. Dolnodunavskata otbranitelna sistema meždu Dortikum i Duros‑
torum ot Avgust do Mavrikij. Sofia.
krauß, r. 2006. Die prähistorische Besiedlung am Unterlauf der Jantra Prähistorische
Archäologie in Südosteuropa 20. Rahden.
Lichardus, J., a. Fol & L. getov et al. 1996. Bericht über die bulgarisch-deutschen
ausgrabungen in Drama (1989-1995). neolithikum – kupferzeit –
Bronzezeit – eisenzeit – römerzeit, BerRGK 77, 5-154.
marazov, i. (ed.). 1998. Ancient Gold: The wealth of the Thracians. Treasures from
the Republic of Bulgaria. Catalogue accompanying a travelling exhibition opening
in Feb. 1. With essays by A. Fol, M. Tacheva, I. Venedikov. new york.
martin, J. 1995. Spätantike und Völkerwanderung (oldenbourg grundriss der
geschichte, 4). münchen3.
nestor, i. 1950. raport sumar asupra campaniei de săpături arheologice de la
Zimnicea, StudCercIstorV 1.1, 93-102.
oppermann, m. 1984. Thraker zwischen Karpatenbogen und Ägäis.
Leipzig-Jena-Berlin.
Piso, i. 1991, Die inschriften vom Pfaffenberg und der Bereich der Canabae
legionis, Tyche 6, 131-169.
Popov, Chr. 2002. Urbanizacija văv vătrešnite rajoni na Trakija i Ilirija prez VI‑I
vek predi Christa. Sofia.
Poulter, a. 1999a. the transition to Late antiquity on the Lower Danube: an
interim report (1996-8), AntJ 79, 145-185.
Poulter, a. 1999b. “gradishte” near Dichin: a new Late roman Fortress on
the Lower Danube, in: Bülow & milčeva (eds.) 1999, 207-227.
Poulter, a. 1999c. Nicopolis ad Istrum: A Roman to Early Byzantine City. The
Pottery and Glass. With R.K. Falkner on the pottery and J.D. Shepherd on the
glass (reports of the research Committee of the Society of antiquaries
London, 57). London-new york.
Press L. & t. Sarnowski 1990. novae. römisches Legionslager und frühbyz-
antinische Stadt an der unteren Donau, AW 21, 4, 225-243.
rašev, r. 1982. Starobălgarski ukreplenija po Dolnija Dunav (VII‑X v.) Varna.
Soproni, S. 1978. Der spätrömische Limes zwischen Esztergom und Szentendre.
Budapest.
Stefanov, J. 1997. Archeologiceski pametnici i istorija na proučvanija v Isperihskija
rajon. Sofia.
Stefanov, S. 1956. Starinite po dolnija basejn na Jantra (materiali za
archeologičeskata karta na Bălgarija, 8). Sofia.
ubl, h. 1980, Der Österreichische abschnitt des Donau-Limes. ein For-
schungsbericht (1970-1979), in: W.S. hanson & L.J.F. keppie (eds.), Roman
Frontier Studies 12 (Bar intern. Ser., 71). oxford, 587-611.
vălov, v. 1962. razkopki na kaleto v gr. Svištov, ArcheologijaSof 4.4, 7-15.
Wendel, m. 1986. Die mittelalterlichen Siedlungen, in: Iatrus‑Krivina iii,
27-210.
Zahariade, m. & n. gudea 1997. The Fortifications of Lower Moesia. amster-
dam.
indices
1. Geographical names athens 13, 17, 18, 226, 259
2 mai (site) 68 attica 17, 18, 20, 226, 234
23 august (site) 68 Aulita (harbour) 171
32 (site) 199 austin 188
151 (site) 181, 185 ayancik 53
abrikosovka (site) 253 azov Sea 216, 225, 233, 235, 276, 278,
Achilleion 274, 275 279, 292
Achilleus’ Dromos 104 Babadag 59
ači (lake) 230 Babenkovо (site) 253
adžigol’skaja (ravine) 99, 105, 129 Baklan’ja Skala (site) 279
aegean 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, Balaklava 167
24, 25, 195, 278 Balaklava (valley) 154
africa 209 Balkan (mountains) 310, 319, 325
agarmyš (mountain) 254 Balkans 309, 311, 317, 326
ajvazovskoe (site) 253, 255, 260 Barakol’ (lake) 259
ak-Burun (cape) 221, 229, 232, 233 Basento (river) 10, 191, 193, 194
ak-monaj (isthmus) 254 Basilicata 175, 188, 200 n. 1
Akra 274, 278 Batal’noe (village) 232
ak-taš (site) 278 Bay of reefs 225
akte (peninsula) 34 Beidaud 59
al’ma (river) 163, 170 Bejkuš (cape) 118
alan-tepe 1 (site) 253 Bejkuš (site) 104, 118
alan-tepe 3 (site) 253 Bel’bek (river) 163, 170
albeşti (village) 67, 68 Bel’bek (valley) 154
albeşti-”La vie” 68 Belgorod-Dnestrovskij 81
alekseevskoe (site) 277 Belinskoe (site) 282
altân tepe (plateau) 67 Belogorsk 261
anatolia 17, 47, 48, 49 Berbati-Limes 39
andreevka Južnaja (= andreevka South, Beregovoe i (site) 253, 255
site) 221, 226, 274, 279 Beregovoe ii (site) 253
ankara 71 n. 29 Beregovoe iii (site) 253
Apollonia 63 Berezan’ 53, 54, 63, 84, 99, 100, 102, 104,
argolis 34, 42 105, 107, 108, 109, 116, 121, 124, 193,
armenia 282 194, 275
argamyš (mountains) 254 Berezan’ (liman) 102, 105, 116, 134
arpač (village) 214 Berezanskij Liman, see Berezan’ (liman)
arsa (site) 68 Berezan’-Sosik (liman) 104
artezian (site) 282 Berlin 328
asia minor 255, 278, 280, 281 Berman (ravine) 155, 156, 169, 170
Athenaion 258 Bezymjannaja hill 168, 169, 170, 186,
atene (deme) 20 187, 188
334 Indices
Bijuk-Janyšar (site) 253, 255, 258 Caucasus 283

Bjala 310, 312, 313, 314, 316 Caucasus (uročišče) 170
Black Sea 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, Čauda (cape) 211, 212, 215, 216, 217
21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 36, 39, 41, 42, 47, 48, Cavone (river) 179, 191, 192
49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 63, 71 n. 29, Čelajdinovo vostočnoe (site) 300, 301
81, 82, 85, 96, 100, 102, 108, 141, 144, Černaja (river) 154
145, 146, 172 n. 1, 175, 199, 208, 214, Čertovatoe 7 (site) 118, 118, 120
231, 235, 240, 250, 255, 278, 281, 283, Čertovatoe (ravine; site) 124
302, 309, 311, 314, 325 Chalkedon 53
Bližnee i (site) 260 Chersonesos 7, 9, 10, 43 n. 31, 68, 73 n. 79,
Bližnee ii (site) 253 108, 121, 141, 144, 147, 151, 152, 153,
Bližnee iii (site) 260 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163,
Bližnee 4 (site) 253 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176,
Bližnee 5 (site) 253 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185,
Bližnee 6 (site) 253 186, 187, 188, 191, 193, 197, 198, 199,
Boeotia 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 35, 39 200 n. 1, 207, 208, 233, 235, 236, 239,
Bogaj (bay) 146 240, 241 n. 7, 244 n. 71, 257, 259, 260,
Bol’šaja Černomorka 2 (site) 109 262, 263, 278, 279
Bonn 328 Chersonesos (cape) 231, 240
Borovo 313 Chersonesos’ Lighthouse (=
Borysthenes (river) 102, 105 Chersonesos majak) 152
Bosporos (kimmerian) 10, 53, 54, 108, Chersonesos majak, see Chersonesos’
110, 121, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, 225, Lighthouse
233, 234, 235, 239, 240, 241 n. 14, 243 Chios 259, 260
n. 58, 249, 250, 251, 254, 255, 256, 257, Cholmogorka ii (site) 253
260, 262, 263, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, Chomutova (ravine) 170
278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 n. 1, n.3, Chroni (mountain) 224
284 n. 15, n. 19, 285 n. 32, n. 33, 287, Čistopol’e (village) 226
289, 292, 295, 302, 306 Čobruči (village) 88, 96
Bosporos (thracian) 53 Cogealac (village) 65
Boyabat 49 Čokrak (cape) 241 n. 14, 274, 279
Boztepe 48, 52 Čokrak (lake) 280
Bradano (river) 10, 179, 191, 192 Čokrak (spring) 276
Bucharest 309 Čokrak-Babčinskaja (depression) 226
Budapest 175 Čokrakskij mys, see Čokrak (cape)
Bug (liman) 102, 104, 106, 126, 128, 134 Comana (site) 68
Bug (river) 7, 99, 100, 102, 105, 107, 115, Corbu de Jos (site) 62, 63
116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 124, 129, Costineşti 73 n. 80
130, 131, 132, 135, 275 Costineşti-”mănăstirea” (site) 68, 73
Bulganakskaja (ravine) 224 Cotu văii-”via lui avram” (site) 68
Bulgaria 309, 312, 314, 315, 325, 328 n. 4 Cozzo Presepe (site) 179, 195
Byzantion 53 Crete 23, 35
Čajka (site) 279 Crimea 49, 102, 121, 135, 141, 143, 144,
Calabria 200 n. 1 170, 179, 186, 229, 232, 233, 237, 239,
Indices 335
240, 244 n. 67, n. 71, 249, 253, 258, Dorockoe (village) 97 n. 22

259, 261, 262, 276, 279, 281, 283, 290, Dort-kol (lake) 214
292 Duinji Dere, see Junan Dere
Crucinia (necropolis) 199 Dulceşti (site) 68
Čurubaš (lake) 219, 221, 242 n. 44, 290 Dura Europos 100
Čurubaš (river) 304 Durankulak (site) 68
Čurubaš 2 (site) 302 Džangul’ (uročišče) 238
Čurubaš 3 (site) 302 Džankojskij Bugor (site) 302
Čurubaš Citadel (site) 304 Džapar-Berdy (ravine) 216
Čurubaš South (= Južno-Čurubašskoe; Džemete (site) 279
site) 274, 291, 292, 294, 296, 297, 298, elizavetovskoe (site) 279
300, 302 eltigen-museum (site) 290, 302, 304
Čurubašskie Skalki 294, 304 enisala (site) 62
Čurubašskij majak 1 (site) 300, 302 etruria 226
Čurubašskij majak 2 (site) 300, 302 Euesperides 251
Čurubašskij majak 3 (site) 304 europe 16, 36, 96
Čurubašskoe 296, 302, 304 evpatorija 141, 142, 144
Čuruk-Su (river) 229 evpatorija (cape) 142
Čuška Spit 232 evpatorija (district) 145
Cyprus 48 Fântânele (village) 67
Dači (site) 253 Fedjuchiny (heights) 154
Dacia libera 318 Feodosija 219, 249, 259, 262
Dal’nie kamyši (site) 253 Feodosija (bay) 255
Danube (river) 59, 62, 66, 309, 310, 311, Fiolent (cape) 152, 156
312, 313, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 323, Fonar’ (cape) 224
324, 325, 327, 329 n. 16 Fontalovskij (peninsula) 9
Dar’evka (village) 131 Frankfurt am main 328
Demirci (valley) 53, 54 Frontovoe (village) 232
Demirci Plaj 53 Frontovoe i (site) 253
Denmark 7 Frontovoe ii (site) 253
Didova Chata (site) 125, 131 Gela 175
Didova Chata iii (fort) 133 general’skoe (site) 279
Djurmen (mountain) 216 general’skoe West (site) 279
Dnieper (liman) 102, 104, 116, 125, 128, Germania superior 321, 329 n. 25
134, 135 geroevka (site) 274, 276
Dnieper (river) 107, 108, 124, 129, 279 geroevka 1 (site) 290, 291, 292, 294, 296,
Dniester (river) 7, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 298, 302, 304, 306 n. 19
87, 89, 94, 95 geroevka 2 (site) 290, 292, 293, 294, 296,
Dobrudja 59 298, 299, 302, 304, 305, 306 n. 19
Dolojman (cape) 66 geroevka 3 (site) 290, 296
Don (river) 279 geroevka 4 (site) 290, 298
Donskaja (site) 253 geroevka 5 (site) 302
Donuzlav (lake) 146, 163, 239 geroevka 6 (site) 296
Donuzlav South (site) 163 giurgiu 328
336 Indices
glazovka (village) 222, 224 Istros (river) 102

glubokaja Pristan’ (site) 125 italy 175, 179, 180, 193, 195, 196, 197,
gogolevka (site) 253, 276 198, 199, 209
Gorgippia 121, 273, 274, 278, 282, 283 ivanovka (site) 302
gradenitsy iii (site) 88 Jačmennoe (village) 229
greece 28, 29, 34, 38, 39, 40, 143, 196, Jačmennoe iii (site) 253
198, 199, 226, 278, 280 Jaman-taš (site) 253
hagieni (site) 68 Jantra (river) 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 316,
Herakleia Pontike 67, 70, 72 n. 51, 250, 317
259, 260, 276, 277, 278, 279 Jarylgač (bay) 239
herakleian (peninsula) 146, 151, 152, Junan Dere (= Duinji Dere; river) 60
154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 163, 165, 169, Južnaja (South) (bay) 165, 166
171, 177, 181, 183, 184, 185, 188, 198, Južno-Čurubašskoe, see Čurubaš South
235 Juz-oba 232
Herakleion 274, 278 kača (river) 163, 170
Hermision 274, 278 kača (village) 239
Hermonaktos (village) 81, 86 kačik (lake) 212, 213, 214, 216
Hermonassa 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279 kafa 262, 263
Hieron Stoma, see Sf. gheorghe kaja-Baš (hill) 152
Hippolaos (cape) 104 kaleto (hill) 313
histria-Pod (site) 59, 64 kalfa (site) 88
Histropolis 72 n. 51 Kallatis 7, 59, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72 n. 51, 73
Hyettos 22 n. 52
Hylaia 104, 125 Kalos Limen 163, 191, 238, 239
Hypanis 102 kamyševaja (bay) 155, 159, 161, 164
Iatros (river) 309 Kappadokia 282
Iatrus 8, 309, 311, 317, 319, 320, 325, 328 kara Dag (mountain) 259
n. 1, 329 n. 31 karaburun (site) 62
il’ičevo 1 (site) 255 karadža (village, now olenevka) 237
il’ičevo 2 (site) 253 karadžinskaja (bay) 237
il’ja (cape) 249 karadžinskoe (site) 237, 238, 244 n. 71
Ilouraton 282 karalar anticline 226
inceburun 48 Karambis (cape) 49, 50
incoronata (site) 193, 194, 195, 196, 198 karan’ (heights) 187
indol (river) 254 karantinnaja (bay) 153, 169, 171
inkerman 170 kara-oba 225
inkerman (valley) 154 karasan-oba (site) 253, 258
ionian Sea 194 karasevka (site) 216
isperih 314, 328 n. 4 karasu (valley) 51
istria (village) 60, 62 kastel’ (bay) 238
istria-”Bent” (site) 62, 63, 64, 66, 71 n. 37 katelino (village) 99
Istros 7, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, kazač’ja (bay) 155, 164, 165, 167, 170
67, 70 n. 2, 72 n. 51, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, Kazeka 216, 217
89, 102 kel’-Šejch (ravine) 237, 238
Indices 337
Kepoi 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279 krinički 1 (site) 253, 260, 261, 262
kerch (city) 219 Kroton 175, 177, 180, 200 n. 11
kerch (peninsula) 9, 42, 207, 208, 210, krutoj Bereg (site) 280
211, 214, 215, 221, 223, 226, 227, 228, Ktenous (harbour) 167, 171
229, 233, 250, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, kuban’ (river) 232, 275, 283
283 n. 3, 290, 304 kumkapi (necropolis) 52
kerch Straits 102, 217, 232, 233, 273, 274, kunan (village, modern krasnosel’skoe)
277, 278, 290 237
Kerkinitis 9, 108, 121, 141, 142, 143, 144, kuru-Baš (site) 253, 255, 257, 258,
145, 146, 147, 251 262
kiev 116, 175 Kytaia 241 n. 14, 274
kilen (ravine) 170 Kytoros 49
Kimmerikos 274, 278 Kyzikos 55, 243 n. 58
Kimmerikos hill a (opuk) 274, 276 Labrys 281
kinburn (peninsula) 102, 104 Laconia 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36,
kirovo (village) 232 39, 42
kišinev 175 Ladislavovka (village) 229
kizil-Jar (lake) 147, 163 Lagernaja (ravine) 170
kizil-koba 109, 154, 193, 256, 261, 292, Leptiminus 53
295 Lesbos 259
Knidos 259, 260 Lesopitomnik (site) 253, 260
koktebel’ 259 Libya 251
Kolchis 257, 259, 282 Liman (lake) 237, 238
koprivec 318 Limon (harbour) 171
Korokondame 274 Ljubljana 15
korotnoe (village) 96 Lucania 196
korpeč’ (site) 253 mačuk (site) 253
kos 260 maghreb 14
košara (site) 278 Magna Graecia 17, 23
kotlovina (uročišče) 216 Maiotis 233, 278, 281, 283
kozyrka (fort) 133 majačnyj (peninsula) 154, 156, 160, 163,
kozyrka (village) 99 165, 166, 167, 168, 235
kozyrka ii (site) 124 makovka (site) 253
kozyrka iii (site) 124 maricyn (necropolis) 108
kozyrka iv (site) 124 marmara (sea) 53
kozyrka v (site) 124 masliny (site) 143, 163, 239
kozyrka vi (site) 124 matrosovo (necropolis) 108
kozyrka vii (site) 124 mediterranean 7, 8, 10, 14, 27, 28, 30, 33,
kozyrka viii (site) 124 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 53, 55, 56, 100,
kozyrka Xii (site) 124 197, 199
krasnopol’e (village) 214 mekenzievy (heights) 155, 170
krasnovka 1 (site) 253 Mende 259, 260,
krasnovka 2 (site) 253 Messenia 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38,
krinički (site) 255 39, 42
33 Indices
Metapontion 11, 17, 103, 121, 175, 176, novopokrovka (village) 229, 233, 284
177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, n. 11
186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, novopokrovka 1 (site) 253, 255, 256,
195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 n. 1 257, 260, 261
Methana 39 novopokrovka 2 (site) 253
michajlovka (village, site) 217, 218, 219, novopokrovka 3 (site) 253, 255, 260
234, 302 novotradnoe (site) 280
michigan 176 nuntaşi (village) 60, 64
midia (cape) 62 nuntaşi i (site) 64
Miletos 53, 54, 55, 59, 82, 109, 249, 250, nuntaşi ii (site) 60, 63, 64
274 Nymphaion 8, 9, 10, 41, 42, 199, 207,
minnesota 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 213, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226,
42 229, 232, 233, 234, 240, 242 n. 43, 274,
Mithridates (mount) 225 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 284, 288, 289,
Moesia 315, 316 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 298, 302,
Moesia Inferior 96 304
mojnak (lake) 142, 146 nymphaion (cape) 290
montescaglioso (site) 179 očakov 126
moşneni (site) 68 odessa (bay) 135
mramornaja (ravine) 154, 156, 159, 170 Odessos 314
mučnoe (site) 253 ogon’ki (site) 294
murighiol (independenţa) (site) 62 ogon’ki 1 (site) 296, 297, 298, 302
Myrmekion 121, 207, 223, 224, 232, 233, ogon’ki 4 (site) 221
274, 275, 276, 280, 291 ogon’ki 6 (site) 302
mys (fort) 133 ojrat (cape) 163, 239
nadežda (site) 253, 255, 260 oktjabr’skoe (site) 279
nadlimanskoe iii (site) 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, Olbia 9, 10, 11, 53, 54, 55, 63, 71 n. 31, 82,
92, 93 84, 85, 86, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
nasypnoe (site) 253, 260 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112
natuchaevskaja (site) 279 n. 38, 115, 116, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125,
neckar (river) 329 n. 25 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135,
Nemea 39 193, 194, 199, 256, 275, 278
Neoptolemos (tower) 81, 86 omega (bay) 161, 188
neptun (site) 68 Ophioussa 81
Nicopolis ad Istrum 311, 328 n. 4 orechovka 1 (site) 253
nikolaev 124 Orgame 66, 67, 71 n. 46, 84
nikolaev (region) 107 osoviny (village) 224
nikolaevka ii (site) 88 ostrovnoe (site) 253
Nikonion 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 96 ovidiopol’ i (site) 88
nitra 328 Pannonia 317
nižne-Čurubašskoe 2 (site) 302 Panskoe i (site) 143, 163, 199
Novae 8, 309, 311, 315, 316, 318, 321, 322, Pantanello (necropolis) 198, 199
323, 324, 326, 328 n. 1 Pantanello (sanctuary) 185, 198
novaja Bogdanovka ii (site) 124 Pantanello (site) 194, 195, 196, 197, 198
Indices 33
Pantikapaion 121, 207, 211, 216, 222, 223, razelm (lake) 62

224, 225, 226, 229, 232, 234, 240, 250, razelm-Sinoe (lagoon) 59
257, 260, 261, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, rhine 329 n. 25
279, 280, 281, 282, 284 n. 6, n. 13, n. Rhodos 259, 260, 278
19, 292, 295, 297 roksolany (village) 81
Paphlagonia 282 romania 309, 312
Parpač (rampart) 229 romanovka (site) 253
Parpač (ridge) 210, 216, 221, 229, 230, rome 143, 175, 183, 188
231, 233 ruse 309, 328 and n. 2
Parthenion 274 russia 116, 199
Parthenopolis 73 n. 80 Šabla 68, 72 n. 66
Partizany 1 (site) 253, 255 Sacharnaja golovka (site) 170
Partizany 2 (site) 253, 255 Sadovoe 2 (site) 253
Partizany 3 (site) 253 Saki (lake) 141, 147
Parutino (village) 126 Salgir (river) 254
Patrasys 10, 234, 274, 275 Samos 259
Pecineaga (site) 68 Samothrace 259
Peparethos 259 San Biagio (sanctuary) 185
Perekop (isthmus) 229, 233 San marco (site) 194
Pesočnaja (bay) 169 San vito (site) 194
Peuke, see Sf. gheorghe Sandbjerg 7, 43 n. 38
Phanagoria 121, 257, 274, 275, 276, 277, Sant’ angelo nuovo (site) 195
278, 279 Sapun (mountain) 171, 187
Phorades 48 Sarinasuf 62
Physke 81 Sary-kaja (mountain) 253, 255, 258
Pisticci (site) 179 Sarylar (village) 214
Pivdennoe i (site) 88 Sasyk-Sivaš (lake) 146, 147
Pizzica 192 Sborjanovo (region) 314, 328 n. 4
Plavni (= ičkil-Džilga; uročišče) 221 Schitu (site) 68, 73 n. 80
Pljaž “Dinamo” (site) 253 Semenovka (site) 280, 282
Poljanka (site) 280 Semibratnee (site) 281
Polsko kosovo 318 Sennoe (village) 261
Pomaricho vecchio (site) 179 Sevastopol’ 175
Pontos (also Pontos Euxeinos) 52, 55, 84, Sevastopol’ (bay) 151, 152, 154, 163, 167
121, 249, 261, 282 Sf. gheorghe 62, 66
Porthmion 207, 232, 274, 276, 280, 291 Šiban (village, now Frontovoe) 230, 231
Poseidonia 180, 200 n. 11 Sibioara (site) 62
Privetnoe (site) 253 Sindian Harbour 274, 275, 277
Psoa 241 n. 5 Sindike 277, 278, 280, 281
Pustynnyj Bereg (site) 279 Sindos 277
Pylos 29, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42 Sinicyno 1 (site) 255
Quarantine (cape) 147 Sinoe (lake) 62
raevskoe (site) 281 Sinoe-”insula Lupilor” (site) 62
raz’ezd 107 km 1 (site) 253 Sinoe-”Zmeica” (site) 62
340 Indices
Sinop 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56 n. 1 tarchankut (peninsula) 9, 146, 163, 170,
Sinop (promontory) 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 184, 191, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 243
53 n. 67
Sinope 8, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, tariverde (village) 61
56 n. 1, 162, 259, 260 taš-kule 170
Sivaš (lake) 254, 256, 257 tasunovo (village) 217, 219
Sofia 328 tauric Chersonesos, see Chersonesos
Sofievka (site) 253 Taurica 229, 250, 262, 283
Solnečnoe (village) 239 tavričeskaja (province) 144, 145
Spain 209 temir-gora (mountain) 212, 222, 224,
Sparta 33, 36 242 n. 45
Speyer (river) 321 Teos 274
St george monastery 152 tepe-oba (site) 253, 255, 260
St Petersburg 175 tepe-oba (ridge) 249, 250, 251
Staraja Bogdanovka 2 (site) 104 termitito (site) 194, 195, 196
Staryj krym 221, 229, 232, 254, 261, 262, texas 188
274 Thasos 259, 260, 278
Stratokleia 274, 278 Thebes 17
Streleckaja (bay) 155, 161, 164, 169 Theodosia 10, 207, 211, 216, 217, 219, 223,
Subaši (site) 284 n. 11 229, 233, 234, 240, 249, 250, 251, 254,
Šubino 1 (site) 253, 255 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262,
Šubino 3 (site) 253 263, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280,
Sudak 262 282, 283, 284 n. 11
Su-Psech (krasnaja Skala) (site) 279 Thespiai 14, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25
Svištov (theodoroupolis?) 309, 313, 318, Thessaly 23
321, 328 tiraspol’ 96
Svjataja (mountain) 259 tobečik (lake) 219, 221, 290, 294, 295
Symbolon Limen 167 tobečik 1 (site) 302, 304
Syracuse 17 tobečik 2 (site) 302
Sønderborg 7 tobečik 3 (site) 294
taman’ (cape) 279 tobečik 8 (site) 294, 297, 302
taman’ (peninsula) 8, 42, 43 n. 31, 231, tobečik 9 (site) 294, 295
232, 240, 250, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, Tomis 67
279, 281, 283, 285 n. 33, 290 tulumčak 2 (site) 253
taman’ Spit 232 turkmen (mountain) 226
tambovka i (site) 253 tuzla 68
tambovka ii (site) 253 tuzla Spit 232
tambovka iii (site) 253 Tyrambe 121, 274, 275
tambovka iv (site) 253 Tyras (city) 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 96,
tambovka vi (site) 253 251
Tanagra 15, 22 Tyras (river) 81, 82, 102
Tanais (river) 102 Tyritake 207, 241 n. 14, 274, 276, 290
tarchan (cape) 223, 233, 235, Tyritake (rampart) 223, 225
Indices 341
uč-Baš (site) 170 erotes 68

uglovaja (mountain) 230 herakles 168, 185
uzunlar (lake) 211, 214, 215, 216, 231 kybele 65, 68
uzunlar (rampart) 210, 219, 226, 229, nike 65, 68
230, 231, 232, 233, 262, 276 Parthenos 168, 185
uzun-Syrt (site) 253, 255, 260 Pegasus 297
uzun-Syrt (mountain) 254 Poseidon 68
vadu (site) 62 Satyr 243 n. 58, 297
valencia 209 Silenos 185
vama veche (site) 68 Zeus aglaios 185
vasil’evka (site) 274
vasil’kovoe (site) 253 3. Ancient proper names
vilino (site) 170 agathokles, son of antiphilos 66
vinogradnaja hill (site) 170 alyattes 63
vinogradnoe, see kuru-Baš ammianus marcellinus 250
vişina (site) 62 amyntas 67
vladislavovka i (site) 255 amyntas i 67
vladislavovka ii (site) 255 amyntas iii 67
vladislavovka iii (site) 253 appianos 250, 281
vodochranilišče (site) 253 ariapeithes 85, 86
vodokanal 170 aristoteles 125, 250
vojkovo (village) 223, 224 arrianos 249
vulkanovka (village, formerly Džav- asander 282
tepe) 214 aspourgos 282
Zatoka (village) 81 augustus 209
Zenon’s Chersonesos 274, 276 aurelius Cotta 250
Zephyrion 274, 278 autokles 88, 89
Zimnicea 313 Bakchylides 195
Zolotoe (village) 225, 233, 235 Burebista 131
Zolotoe east (site) 280 Columella 142, 198
Zolotoe Plateau (site) 278 Constantine i 317
Zolotoj mys (fort) 133 Dareios i 85, 86, 100
Zyk (cape) 274 Demetrios of kallatis 67
Žuravki (site) 284 n. 11 Demosthenes 234, 249, 250
Žuravki 1 (site) 253, 255 Diocletian 317
Žuravki 2 (site) 253, 255 Diodoros 241 n. 5
Diophantos 250, 255
2. Gods and mythological figures Dynamis 282
aphrodite 68 epaminondas 37-38
aphrodite apatoura 276 eumelos 241 n. 5
apollon 68 euripides 185
Demeter 65, 68, 110, 298 eutropius 73 n. 80
Dionysos 68, 110, 168, 185 gorgippos 278
342 Indices
gykia 165 Spartokos i 277

gylon 295 Strabon 30, 143, 167, 185, 208, 216, 233,
harpokration 249, 250 234, 250, 258
heraclitus 96 teophrastos 141
herodotos 85, 100, 107, 185, 290 trajan 316
isokrates 249 tyrgatao 277
iustinianus i 325 ulpianus 249, 250
kokkeon 96 Xenophon 52
konstantinos Porphyrogennetos 262 Zalmodegikos 66
kotys i 313 Zopyrion 100, 123
Leukon i 234, 235, 243 n. 58, 250, 277,
278 4. Ancient authors
m. terentius Lucullus varro 73 n. 80 Aischines
machares 281, 282 Orationes
manes 52 3.171-172: 295
manius Laberius maximus 66
memnon 250 Ammianus Marcellinus
meniskos, son of theodoros 66 Res Gestae
mithridates vi eupator 250, 281, 282 20.11.8: 318
mithridates viii 261 21.9-11: 318
mithridates the younger 282 22.8.35: 250
orosius 250 22.8.36: 250
ovinius tertullus 96
Pairisades i 279 Appianos
Pausanias 30 Mithridateios
Pharnakes i 250, 282 64: 282
Pharnakes ii 282 67: 282
Philoxenes 250 102: 281
Platon 124 108: 250
Plinius the elder 69, 70, 141, 209, 250 120: 250
Polemon i 282
Polyainos 243 n. 58, 250 Aristoteles
Pompeius 281 Politica
Pomponius mela 250 1267b: 145, 172 n. 9
Protogenes 107 1303a: 63
Ps.-arrianos 82 1327a: 125, 170
Ps.-Skylax 250 1327b: 73 n. 85
Ps.-Skymnos 67 1330a: 145, 172 n. 9
Ptolemaios 250 [Oeconomica]
Satyros i 234, 249, 277 1347b: 250
Saumakos: 255
Septimius Severus 96, 324 Anonymos
Skyles 82, 85, 86 Periplus Ponti Euxini
Sparadokos 86 77.51: 249
Indices 343
Arrianos Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos

Periplus Ponti Euxini De administrando imperio
30: 249 53: 165
Bakchylides Memnon
Odes Peri Herakleias
11: 195 Fgrhist 434F34.3: 250
Fgrhist 434F37.2: 281
Demosthenes Fgrhist 434F37.6: 281
Orationes
20: 234 Orosius
32: 250 Historiae adversum paganos
34: 146 1.2.4-5: 250
35: 146, 250
Platon
Diodoros Sikeliotes Leges
Bibliotheke 737e: 124
20.25: 241 n. 5 738: 145
745c: 124
Eutropius
Breviarium historiae Romanae Plinius Secundus
6.10: 73 n. 80 Naturalis historia
4.44: 69
Harpokration 18.49: 209
Lexikon
s.v. Θευδοσία: 249 Pomponius Mela
De chorographia
Hekataios Milesios 2.2.22: 72 n. 51
Periegesis 2.3: 250
Fgrhist 1F72: 66
Fgrhist 1F170: 314 Polyainos
Strategemata
Herodotos 5.23.6: 250
Historiai 6.9.1: 243 n. 58
1.17-19: 63 9.3-4: 250
4.12: 290
4.17-24: 107 Pseudo-Skylax
4.78-80: 85 69: 250
4.103: 185
Pseudo-Skymnos
Isokrates Periegesis
Orationes 756-757: 73 n. 80
17: 249 760-763: 67
344 Indices
Stephanos Byzantios 36: 263

Ethnika 64: 263
s.v. Παντικάπαιον: 274 231: 250
947-951: 250, 263
Strabon 952: 263
Geographika 1111: 263
7.1.5: 281
7.3.19: 208 IG
7.4.2: 185 i3, 71: 86
7.4.4: 216, 250
7.4.4-5: 274, 276, 290 I. Histriae
7.4.6: 143, 233, 234, 281 8: 66
11.2.8: 290 15: 66, 70 n. 4
18: 67
Themistios 42: 70 n. 4
Orationes 54: 70 n. 4
10.136b: 318 67: 66
68: 66
Thukydides
3.50: 145, 163 I. Kallatis
35: 73 n. 86
Ulpianus 51-55: 73 n. 79
Scholia ad Demosthenes 55: 73 n. 81
20.33: 249
IOSPE
Xenophon i2, 2: 96
Anabasis i2, 4: 96
5.7-10: 52 i2, 32: 107
i2, 352: 250, 281
5. Inscriptions i2, 401: 170
ATL i2, 403: 170
a-9.iv.165: 147 n. 19 i2, 408: 167
i2, 412: 167
CIRB
6-6a: 263
8: 263
Contributors
Susan E. Alcock Sergej B. Bujskich
university of michigan institute of archaeology
Department of Classical Studies ukrainian national academy
2160 angell hall of Sciences
435 S. State St. geroev Stalingrada av. 12
ann arbor, mi 48109-1003 ua-04211 kiev
uSa ukraine
e-mail: salcock@umich.edu
Joseph C. Carter
Alexandru Avram Department of Classics
université du maine the university of texas, austin
Faculté des Lettres mCC Building r1500
avenue olivier messiaen 3925 West Braker Lane
F-72085 Le mans Cedex 9 austin, texas 78759
France uSa
e-mail: alexandru.avram@ e-mail: j.carter@mail.utexas.edu
univ-lemans.fr
Sven Conrad
Pia Guldager Bilde Cöthner Str. 56
Danish national research D-04155 Leipzig
Foundation’s germany
Centre for Black Sea Studies e-mail: svewico@hotmail.com
university of aarhus
Jens Chr. Skous vej 3 Owen Doonan
Building 1451 art Department
Dk-8000 aarhus C California State university
Denmark northridge
e-mail: klapg@hum.au.dk 18111 nordhoff St.
northridge, Ca 91330-8300
John Bintliff e-mail owen.doonan@csun.edu
Leiden university
archaeology graduate School Alexander V. Gavrilov
Witte Singel Doelencomplex (WSD) Crimean Branch of the institute of
gebouw 1176 archaeology, ukrainian national
reuvensplaats 3 academy of Sciences
Leiden ul. yaltinskaya 2
the netherlands ua-95007 Simferopol
e-mail: Bintliff@arch.leidenuniv.nl Crimea, ukraine
e-mail: archaeo@pop.cris.net
346 Contributors
Sergej D. Kryžickij Sergej Ju. Saprykin

institute of archaeology “vestnik Drevnej istorii”
ukrainian national academy of institute of the World history
Sciences russian academy of Sciences
geroev Stalingrada av. 12 Leninskiy prospect 32a
ua-04211 kiev ru-117997 moscow
ukraine russia
e-mail: sdk@svitonline.com e-mail: mithridates@mail.ru
Vadim A. Kutajsov Sergej L. Smekalov

institute of archaeology Baltic State technical university
ukrainian national academy of “voenmekh”
Sciences ul. 1-ya krasnoarmeyskaya 1
geroev Stalingrada av. 12 ru-190005 St Petersburg
ua-04211 kiev russia
ukraine e-mail: slsmek@mail.ru
e-mail: kutaisov_vadim@ukr.net
Tat’jana N. Smekalova
Galina M. Nikolaenko v.a. Fock institute of Physics
the national Preserve of tauric St Petersburg State university
Chersonesos ul. ul’yanovskaya 1
Drevnyaya Street 1 ru-198504 Petrodvorets,
ua-99045 Sevastopol St Petersburg
Crimea, ukraine russia
e-mail: nikolaenko_galina@yahoo. e-mail: tnsmek@mail.ru
com
Vladimir F. Stolba
Sergej B. Ochotnikov Danish national research
the odessa State museum of Foundation’s
archaeology Centre for Black Sea Studies
ul. Lanzheronovskaya 4 university of aarhus
ua-65026 odessa Jens Chr. Skous vej 3
ukraine Building 1451
e-mail: arhaeology@farlep.net Dk-8000 aarhus C
Denmark
Jane E. Rempel e-mail: klavs@hum.au.dk
Department of archaeology
university of Sheffield Viktor N. Zin’ko
northgate house Crimean Branch of the institute of
West Street orientalistics, ukrainian national
Sheffield S1 4et academy of Sciences
united kingdom ul. vernadskogo 4,
e-mail: J.rempel@sheffield.ac.uk ua-95007 Simferopol
Crimea, ukraine
e-mail: zinko@kerch.sf.ukrtel.net

Surveying The Greek Chora The Black Sea

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Surveying The Greek Chora The Black Sea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surveying the greek Chora

BLaCk Sea StuDieS

the DaniSh nationaL reSearCh FounDation’S

aarhuS univerSity PreSS a

Copyright: aarhus university Press 2006

aarhuS univerSity PreSS

White Cross mills

the publication of this volume has been

Danish national research Foundation’s

Pia Guldager Bilde & Vladimir F. Stolba

Susan E. Alcock & Jane E. Rempel

Tat’jana N. Smekalova & Sergej L. Smekalov

Sergej Ju. Saprykin

general discussion of landscape archaeology, of the relationship between

lationship between greek, ethnically mixed, and non-greek components of

(3) these characteristics of the aegean Normalpolis have been summarized

(10) Concerning roads, routes, communications, the detailed study in the

mediterranean survey archaeologists would prefer not to talk about “dots on

cisterns, agricultural processing sites, mines, dumps, lithic knapping debris,

“Old” and “New” approaches to special‑purpose sites

on one side of this comparison of projects stands the acknowledged grandfa-

The “New Wave” of survey and special‑purpose sites

aligned with this wider range of imaginable rural activities is a critically

growing acceptance of the problems inherent in all archaeological data sets,

thought to reflect ancestor worship and to provide a source of resistance to

centuries, but long forbidden to the inhabitants of messenia. Settlement pattern

Black Sea reflections

mediterranean has slowed to a snail’s pace. he has a valid point − consider-

Cavanagh, W.g., J. Crouwel, r.W.v. Catling & g. Shipley 2002. Continuity

Community in the Black Sea

Investigating the processes forming community in the Sinop promontory

the SraP sampling program is designed to characterize the patterns of use

to sample major topographic and ecological zones of the promontory to get

or intensive seafaring. it does not appear that permanent coastal settlements

highest pre-modern levels during these periods, a variety of special purpose

The Milesian colonial community

Towards testing the Milesian colonial community model

being taken to address the problem of comparability.30 the Collaboratory

Doonan, o. & D. Smart 2000-2001. gerna, Sinop and roman-Byzantine settle-

The coming of the Greeks: the archaeological evidence

Fig. 1. Sites of the Babadag culture.

is true concerning a second settlement, still poorly investigated, which is

Fig. 2. Territory of Istros: Archaic period.

a settlement situated about 18 km west of the city was excavated north of

other settlements, not yet systematically explored, were discovered

5. the greek character of the settlements is proved by the pottery and by

The Classical period

The Hellenistic period

Fig. 3. Territory of Istros: Classical and Hellenistic periods.

century BC, were discovered various imported, local or handmade ceramics,

Topographical review of the territory of Istros in the pre‑Roman period

the foundation of kallatis is briefly exposed by Ps.-Skymnos (vv. 760-763)

The archaeological evidence

Fig. 4. Sites in the territory of Kallatis.

another feature of the territory of kallatis concerns the presence of a

logical evidence concerning a Scythian presence in this area is extremely poor.

17 mănucu adameşteanu 1998.

75 aricescu 1961, 81; ocheşeanu 1969, 224.

avram, a. 1981-1982. Zur entstehung der regio Histriae, Dacoromania, Jahrbuch

Bengtson, h. 1962. neues zur geschichte des hellenismus in thrakien und

hind, J. 1998. megarian Colonisation in the Western half of the Black-Sea

morintz, S. 1987. noi date şi probleme privind perioada hallstattiană timpurie

rădulescu, a., m. Bărbulescu & L. Buzoianu 1990. importuri amforice la

Fig. . The third stage of land division.