Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after
Of course, before work M. Zolotaryov it had become usual to locate the foundation of the city of Chersonesus around 422 BC. And that notion will take some time yet to vanish from our scholarly literature1. The main reason2 for that date was a passage in Pseudo-Scymnus, who wrote a geographical poem...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2005 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Кримський філіал Інституту археології НАН України
2005
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Херсонесский сборник |
| Online Zugang: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/172919 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after / D. Braund // Херсонесский сборник. — 2005. — Вип. 14. — С. 53-58. — Бібліогр.: 17 назв. — рос. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-172919 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-1729192020-11-17T01:26:37Z Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after Braund, D. Of course, before work M. Zolotaryov it had become usual to locate the foundation of the city of Chersonesus around 422 BC. And that notion will take some time yet to vanish from our scholarly literature1. The main reason2 for that date was a passage in Pseudo-Scymnus, who wrote a geographical poem for a Bithynian King Nicomedes, perhaps around 100 B.C. A king of Bithynia could not fail to be concerned with Chersonesus and the Taurians, close to the north across the sea from his realm and with a potential for help and harm. Pseudo-Scymnus’ passage is so well-known that another discussion of it may seem superfluous. However, one important detail demands comment. The text does not give any reason to connect the foundation of Chersonesus with the Athenian expulsion of Delians from Delos in the late 420s. Автор статьи обращается к известному свидетельству Псевдо-Скимна, которое непосредственно относится к основанию Херсонеса Таврического. Он особо подчеркивает, что основание гераклеотами и делосцами колонии на Таврическом полуострове в этом сообщении никоим образом не связывается с изгнанием делосцев со своего острова афинянками. Таким образом, следует, что утвердившаяся в историографии дата основания колонии – около 422 г. до н. э., связанная с изгнанием делосцев, не имела под собою основания еще до открытия М.И. Золотаревым позднеархаического слоя в Херсонесе. На самом деле поводом для выведения колонии был оракул, полученный в Гераклее Понтийской. Автор статьи подчеркивает, что для изучения ранней истории Херсонеса необходим вдумчивый анализ не только археологических, но и письменных источников. Он рассматривает афинские морские экспедиции в Понт Эвксинский под началом Перикла и Ламаха, высказывая предположение, что Перикл или один из его основных сподвижников (вероятно, Ламах) посетил Херсонес. Он мог оказаться там на пути между Ольвией и Гераклеей. Кроме того, Д. Браунд рассматривает случаи упоминания херсонеситов в различных афинских надписях, постоянно подчеркивая сложность однозначной связи упомянутых людей с крымской колонией. Заключают статью соображения, что в целом, пока еще возможно лишь очень немного говорить об истории Херсонеса до 422 г. до н.э. – периоде, возродить который во многом помогли археологические открытия М.И. Золотарева. Но восстановление истории требует бережности и внимания, поскольку у нас ничтожно мало материала, а тот, что есть, очень трудно использовать. 2005 Article Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after / D. Braund // Херсонесский сборник. — 2005. — Вип. 14. — С. 53-58. — Бібліогр.: 17 назв. — рос. XXXX-0129 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/172919 en Херсонесский сборник Кримський філіал Інституту археології НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| description |
Of course, before work M. Zolotaryov it had become usual to locate the foundation of the city of Chersonesus around 422 BC. And that notion will take some time yet to vanish from our scholarly literature1. The main reason2 for that date was a passage in Pseudo-Scymnus, who wrote a geographical poem for a Bithynian King Nicomedes, perhaps around 100 B.C. A king of Bithynia could not fail to be concerned with Chersonesus and the Taurians, close to the north across the sea from his realm and with a potential for help and harm. Pseudo-Scymnus’ passage is so well-known that another discussion of it may seem superfluous. However, one important detail demands comment. The text does not give any reason to connect the foundation of Chersonesus with the Athenian expulsion of Delians from Delos in the late 420s. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Braund, D. |
| spellingShingle |
Braund, D. Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after Херсонесский сборник |
| author_facet |
Braund, D. |
| author_sort |
Braund, D. |
| title |
Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after |
| title_short |
Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after |
| title_full |
Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after |
| title_fullStr |
Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after |
| title_sort |
notes on the history of chersonesus before 422 b.c. and after |
| publisher |
Кримський філіал Інституту археології НАН України |
| publishDate |
2005 |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/172919 |
| citation_txt |
Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after / D. Braund // Херсонесский сборник. — 2005. — Вип. 14. — С. 53-58. — Бібліогр.: 17 назв. — рос. |
| series |
Херсонесский сборник |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT braundd notesonthehistoryofchersonesusbefore422bcandafter |
| first_indexed |
2025-07-15T09:22:45Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-07-15T09:22:45Z |
| _version_ |
1837704273112072192 |
| fulltext |
53
Херсонесский сборник. Выпуск 14
D. BRAUND
NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF CHERSONESUS
BEFORE 422 B.C. AND AFTER*
Of course, before work M. Zolotaryov it had
become usual to locate the foundation of the city of
Chersonesus around 422 BC. And that notion will
take some time yet to vanish from our scholarly
literature1. The main reason2 for that date was a
passage in Pseudo-Scymnus, who wrote a
geographical poem for a Bithynian King Nicomedes,
perhaps around 100 B.C. A king of Bithynia could
not fail to be concerned with Chersonesus and the
Taurians, close to the north across the sea from his
realm and with a potential for help and harm.
Pseudo-Scymnus’ passage is so well-known that
another discussion of it may seem superfluous.
However, one important detail demands comment.
The text does not give any reason to connect the
foundation of Chersonesus with the Athenian
expulsion of Delians from Delos in the late 420s.
There is no mention of Athens or of any
expulsion. On the contrary, the text suggests a very
different scenario. It reads as follows:
The so-called Tauric peninsula (Kherronesos)
connects with these (the Taurians), having a
Greek city, which the Heracleotes and Delians
founded when the Heracleotes had received an
oracle – those dwelling in Asia inside the Blue
Rocks – to settle Peninsula (Kherronesos)with
the Delians.
(Ps.-Scymnus, fr.12, Marcotte)
This key text strongly suggests that the
inspiration for the foundation was not the expulsion
of Delians, which is not mentioned, but an oracle
received in Heraclea Pontica. Of course, it remains
possible that all this was thought to have happened
at the time of the expulsion, but there is no evidence
of that at all. In consequence, even without the vital
discovery of a late archaic level at Chersonesus,
there was never any evidence that the city was
founded around 422 and some indication (the oracle
as the cause) that it was not. Meanwhile, we may
note also how careful our author has been with his
use of names. He is very careful to be clear that
this Heraclea is Heraclea Pontica, which he
poetically describes as «in Asia inside the Blue
Rocks», i.e. in the Black Sea. And he needed to be
careful for, as we shall see, there were other cities
called Heraclea. Moreover, there is a play-on-words
in the oracle, because the oracle exploits the double
meaning of kherronesos here: it means both
peninsula and the city. Oracles often contain a riddle.
This one is quite simple: they are to settle a peninsula
by settling the city (which is also located on a
peninsula of course).
Meanwhile, the role of Delos requires some
consideration, though this is not the place for a full
discussion of so large an issue. It is enough to make
the obvious point that Delos is the island of Apollo
and Artemis, with their mother Leto, while Apollo
(whether at Delphi, Didyma or elsewhere) is a major
source of oracles. The similarity between Artemis
and Parthenos is obvious enough. Nor should we
overlook the oracle controlled by Heraclea itself. It
is no surprise in principle to find a connection
between Heraclea, Delos, an oracle and the
foundation of Chersonesus, particularly as oracles
are regularly included in the stories of civic
foundation (as elsewhere in Pseudo-Scymnus).
There is much to be said about all this, but it will
suffice here to draw attention to a single issue which
*When I last heard Misha Zolotaryov address an audience in a formal context, he was my guest at the University of Exeter in
England, some months before his sad loss. His subject in that lecture was the theme of a great deal of his work, the city of
Chersonesus. He captivated the Exeter audience with his enthusiasm and commitment to a topic about which his profound knowledge
and understanding were completely obvious even in that rather unfamiliar context, far from the Crimea. We met first in Georgia in
1987, where he had shown great kindness to this young scholar, listening patiently to my questions and offering constructive
answers. In the two decades or so which followed we continued to discuss his beloved Chersonesus, whether driving up the western
Crimea or sitting over a long lunch in Exeter or Bordeaux. To be sure, there was much about which I was stubborn, for example about
the Taurians’ role in the foundation of Chersonesus (См.: Зубарь В.М. Херсонес и тавры: противостояние или взаимодействие
// Aрхеологiя. – 2005, № 1, с. 16-28). However, such disagreements only served to invigorate our exchanges. Here I wish to consider
further one of his major contributions to the study of Chersonesus. Specifically, I shall suggest some consequences of the discovery
he made (and published with the much-lamented Yuri G.Vinogradov) of the late archaic level in the heart of the settlement, delving
beneath the Byzantine surface which covers much of the site today.
54
does not seem to have attracted much notice in this
context. By the Hellenistic period and possibly
earlier, the island of Delos had a festival known as
the Khersonesia, apparently connected with a
territory called Khersonesos which brought in a
revenue known as the khersonesion: we may be
sure enough that the territory was in some sense a
peninsula3. It is interesting to find that the Delians
had their own Khersonesos: we may wonder whether
that played some part in the evolution of the story
of their involvement, by oracular command to the
Heracleotes, in the foundation of Crimean
Chersonesus.
If, as we must now suppose, the city of
Chersonesus was founded before 500 BC, we are
left to wonder about its history in the century or so
that followed. Clearly, the evidence is slight, but there
is perhaps more than might be obvious at first glance.
The expedition of Pericles into the Black Sea in about
437 cannot seriously be doubted, though we remain
unclear about much of its detail. Plutarch offers our
only narrative (Per. 20). He stresses in particular
that the expedition sailed extensively around the
Black Sea. The tyranny at Sinope resisted him, no
doubt hoping for active Persian support, since
Pericles’ invasion had broken the terms of the Peace
of Callias of 450, under which Athenian warships
were not to enter the Black Sea. However, there is
no information about any resistance elsewhere to
Pericles’ expedition. Plutarch stresses that the
expedition strengthened the general position of
Greek cities in the region against local barbarians.
There may be some truth in that. As is well-known,
archaeology indicates that the north coast in
particular experienced severe difficulties through the
earlier part of the fifth century, when the region had
been under Persian control. More important for the
present discussion is the relevance of the expedition
to Chersonesus4.
Of course, we cannot trace in detail the route
(or routes) which Pericles and his fleet took around
the region. But we can be sure about a few places
visited, quite apart from Sinope. Heraclea is recorded
in the so-called Athenian «tribute-lists» as required
to pay tribute to the Athenians in 425. And, thanks
to Thucydides, in particular, we happen to know that
Lamachus (who had finally dealt with Sinope in the
430s) tried to enforce payment in 424, when a sudden
surge in the River Cales destroyed his small fleet.
We know also that the aftermath of this minor
disaster was quite positive for Athens and for
Heraclea: the cities seem to have worked out their
differences. We happen to have the honours
inscribed by the Athenians for their proxenos at
Heraclea, a man called Sotimus. No doubt he had
played a part in negotiating the return of Lamachus’
roces and the establishment of better relations
between the two cities. Meanwhile, a fragment of
the comic poet Eupolis mentions an Athenian (as it
seems) called Simon, who seems to have taken much
of the blame for the temporary break in these
relations.
If Heraclea had already, perhaps about a
century earlier, established its colony at
Chersonesus, it seems hard to believe that
Chersonesus would not have been involved in all
this. For, while it is true that relations between
colonies and mother-cities could be rather distant,
in this case the two communities seem to have
maintained an unusually strong bond5. Certainly, that
bond is very obvious in their fulsome civic relations
in the Roman period. In fact, there may be even
more at stake. For Pericles’ expedition came close
upon the Athenians’ suppression of the revolt of
Byzantium around 440: Byzantium, Heraclea and
Chersonesus, as well as cities of the west coast
(Callatis and Apollonia?) were all Megarian colonies.
In the aftermath of the suppression of Byzantium,
Pericles is likely to have paid particular attention to
the Megarian settlements of the region.
Moreover, since Pericles’ expedition (at least
on Plutarch’s account) was designed as a show of
force against the troublesome barbarians of the
region, it would have been strange if he had not
shown something of his strength to the Taurians.
All the more so, if, as seems most likely, he was
aware of the religious and historical Athenian
tradition which connected the Taurians with the cult
of Artemis Tauropolos at Halae Araphenides in
Loutsa on the Aegean coast of Attica. Although
there has been an influential argument that Pericles’
expedition never visited the north coast, there is
nothing to support that view and much against it, as
Р.О. Karyshkovskiy and Yu.G. Vinogradov have
demonstrated6. The most striking piece of evidence
is the fragment of the so-called Coinage Decree
(now usually called the «Standards Decree») from
Olbia. Since this imperial Athenian decree was
erected at Olbia it seems strange to insist that the
city was not brought within the Athenian empire:
the obvious moment was the expedition of Pericles.
It is a pity that the «tribute-list» for the Black Sea in
425 has not survived well: it remains true that we
cannot identify for sure any north Black Sea city
among the more than 40 cities listed there. But it is
surely clear enough that cities whose names begin
Braund D. Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after
55
Херсонесский сборник. Выпуск 14
Kimm- and Pat(rasys?) are from the north. By the
end of the fifth century, and perhaps already in 425,
Nymphaeum was paying 1 talent per year, as
Craterus informs us. It is only by the most strained
of argumentation that the northern coast of the Black
Sea (including Chersonesus) can be supposed to
have been outside Pericles’ travels. Especially so,
since, as we have seen, Plutarch stresses that the
expedition ranged widely. In fact it would be an
enormous puzzle if Pericles had indeed not visited
the north coast. For what possible reason would we
imagine that he had failed to do so?
For all those reasons, therefore, we may suppose
that Pericles or one of his key associates (Lamachus
perhaps) visited Chersonesus. He may have been
on his way between Olbia and Heraclea, for
example, presumably stopping at Kerkinitis too.
Subsequently, it remains entirely possible that some
of the Delians who were expelled by the Athenians
in the late 420s, went to join the city of Chersonesus,
though there is no evidence at all to suggest that
they did.
Less clear are the decades before Pericles’
expedition. The fact that the Peace of Callias
specifically excluded Athenian warships from the
Black Sea could mean that they had already been
active there. That logic certainly works for the
eastern Mediterranean: Athens’ exclusion from
there followed her adventurous expeditions to Egypt
and Cyprus in particular. Since Byzantium had been
a key point in the Greek pursuit of the Persians from
as early as 479/8 and since the Hellespont had been
a focus of Athenian operations by the 470s, there
seems every reason to suppose that Athens had at
least done something to explore the Black Sea, if
only in its south-western corner. The case of
Miltiades is very suggestive. For his occupation of
Lemnos late in the sixth century was staged from
his base in the Thracian Chersonese, showing how
conquest and military activity could spread around
an area. Moreover, not only had Miltiades taken part
in Darius’ Scythian campaign, but he had been driven
from his tyranny by the Scythians themselves. His
experience in and around the Black Sea region,
together with that of his associates, may well have
contributed to Athenian and other Greek thinking
about the further exploration and conquest of the
Pontus7. It is a pity that we do not know more about
the circumstances of the death of Aristides, who
took a leading role for Athens in these early years:
according to at least one tradition, he died in the
Black Sea (Arist.). If there is any substance to the
tradition, it is reasonable to ask what he was doing
there. Conceivably, he too went to Chersonesus!
But what of those who came from
Chersonesus? Here we return to the problem that
Pseudo-Scymnus was eager to avoid, that is the
imprecision of the city’s name, as indeed of the
neighbouring Taurians, in Greek «the bulls». These
problems are unfortunately beyond solution, but it is
important to be clear about them, because they raise
several possibilities. First, Taurians. There is only
one Taurian whose ethnic identity can be thought to
be recorded explicitly in a Greek inscription. He is
Tykhon, who was buried at Panticapaeum in the
fifth century B.C. However, as I have argued in
detail elsewhere, his case is in fact rather less than
certain, since there has been no entirely convincing
reading of the stone8. Otherwise, we know no
Taurian, whether free or slave. But it remains
possible that at least some slaves whose names begin
Taur- came from among the Taurians, while it is
likely enough that Taurian slaves (like those from
all other regions) had names which were not
connected at all with their ethnic or geographical
origins. Secondly, the city’s usual name,
Khersonesos (literally, in Greek, «Peninsula»), is
also problematic because there are simply too many
possible peninsulas to consider. The Crimean city’s
name does not stand out, unless particular care is
taken, as with Pseudo-Scymnus and the occasional
inscription: exceptionally, we happen to find the
Crimean city referring to itself as «The Chersonitans
in the Pontos» in a dedication which its citizens made
– appropriately enough – on Hellenistic Delos9.
Otherwise, the name could be attached to the
Crimea as a whole, for that too was a peninsula (cf.
Hdt. 4. 99-102). Especially confusing for modern
scholars is the so-called Thracian Chersonese, which
was not a city but the region to the north of the
opening of the Aegean towards the Black Sea. The
region, a substantial peninsula, was of some
importance to Athens from the sixth century when
Miltiades left Athens to establish a regime there10.
What, then, are we to make of Khersonesitans
in Athenian inscriptions? An interesting example
illustrates the problem well enough: IG i3 1301. This
is a simple tombstone recorded at Athens (now lost),
which has only three words. The first two are
personal names: Herakleitos and Naukles, his
father. The third word identifies Herakleitos as
Kherronesites (clearly a variant spelling for
Khersonites), a Chersonite. Usually, the inscription
is dated around the middle of the fifth century, linked
with developing Athenian relations in the Thracian
Chersonese. In particular, we know that Pericles
56
was given the credit for the establishment of a
substantial Athenian settlement there.
That interpretation makes good sense11.
However, it becomes less compelling on closer
examination: the fact is that there is no particular
link between the Athenian interest in the Thracian
Chersonese and the erection of this epitaph in
Athens12. Nor is this the only interpretation available.
The Herakleitos and Naukles of the inscription could
have been citizens of Crimean Chersonesus. Indeed,
while the Thracian Chersonesus could be used as a
geographical identification for those who inhabited
the various cities of the region (Elaeous, Madytos,
Sestos and so on), it is better suited to the outlook of
an outsider to the Thracian Chersonese than to the
perspective of an inhabitant of a particular city there.
Since we know nothing of the circumstances of our
epitaph, beyond its discovery at Athens, we have
no way of solving the matter. However, the point
here is not to re-assign the stone to the Crimean
city, but to highlight the recurrent difficulty in finding
clear cases of citizens from Crimean Chersonesus.
Meanwhile, there is even a certain irony in the fact
that the same problem besets the citizens of Heraclea
Pontica: for that city too the term «Heracleote» could
apply as far afield as Sicily. For that reason, some
have insisted that the artist Zeuxis, who probably
came from Pontic Heraclea, was in fact from its
Sicilian counterpart13.
The purpose of these remarks is not to confuse
a picture that is clear, but to draw attention to the
fact that the picture is not as clear as it may seem
to be. The standard prosopography of non-Athenians
in Athens, which appeared in 1996, has left the
question properly open for Chersonitans. Its authors
simply list those recorded as Chersonitans, without
attempting to draw distinctions between which type
of Chersonitan is meant14. The wisdom of that
approach (even if it may seem to avoid the issue, or
is simply an accident) soon becomes apparent when
we consider the other Chersonitans listed.
From the end of the fourth century B.C. we
have another three-word epitaph, housed in Piraeus
Museum: Apollonides, (son of) Dionysodorus,
(a) Chersonitan15. This too could be a man from
the Thracian Chersonese16, but (especially in the
absence of the Periclean initative which dominates
consideration of the previous and very similar
epitaph) there is at least as good a case for the
Crimean Chersonesus.
From 183/2 B.C. we have two Chersonitans,
possibly related and certainly listed in sequence, in
a long list of donors, which was inscribed on Pentelic
marble at Athens. Their names are Samos and
Attinas: each is identified simply as Khersonites
(IG ii2, 2332, lines 162-163). In principle, it might
perhaps be argued that each may come from the
Thracian Chersonese, but we should really expect
a city, as with other foreigners extant in the list. If
there is any significant doubt, the presence of an
Attinas seems to settle the matter: here at least we
have the Crimean Chersonesus, where the name
Attinas is well attested. While it is to be allowed
that the inscriptions from the Thracian Chersonese
are not numerous and also that the name Attinas is
not strikingly rare, its prominence in the inscribed
record of Crimean Chersonesus precludes further
discussion.
If he is from the Crimea, then so too, we may
presume, is Samos, listed immediately before him,
also as a Chersonitan. The name Samos is a
curiosity. In view of its obvious geographical meaning,
it may hint at some family connection with the
Samians. If not, then we can only wonder why his
parents gave him this name.
There is also a helmsman recorded in the lists
of those who formed the crew of eight ships which
fought for Athens at sea, probably17 at the very end
of the Peloponnesian War? We do not know for
sure that he is a helmsman, but we have the last
three letters of what seems to be kubernetes. The
man’s name too is lost, except for the last two letters
– es. These are accidents of the history of the stone,
found in pieces on the Athenian acropolis. However,
even when the inscription was first made, perhaps
in 405 B.C., the man’s homeland was given simply
as XEPP. Evidently, the identification was considered
sufficient, though it remains insufficient for us.
Clearly, he was from a Chersonesus. The
abbreviation may well call to mind the coinage of
the city of Crimean Chersonesus. As usual, however,
we cannot be certain of his origins: we must bear in
mind that much of the naval conflict at the end of
the war was located near the Thracian Chersonese
(cf. Xen. Hell. 1. 3. 10; 3. 2. 8). And yet it remains
possible that we have here a Chersonitan fighting
for Athens as a helmsman towards the end of the
fifth century B.C.
In sum, we can say a little about the history of
Chersonesus before 422, the period which M.
Zolotaryov has done so much to revive for us by his
archaeological discoveries. However, the recovery
of this history requires care and caution, because
we do not have much evidence and because the
evidence which we do have is so difficult to handle,
especially in view of the problem of names.
Braund D. Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after
57
Херсонесский сборник. Выпуск 14
COMMENTS
1. So, for example, Marcotte D. Les Géographes grecques I: Pseudo-Scymnos. – Paris, 2002,
р. 247, following Burstein (Burstein S. Outpost of hellenism: the emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea. - Berkeley, 1976),
still places the foundation of the city in c. 422.
2. Herodotus’ apparent silence may seem peculiar at 4. 100-2, but he is not much concerned with the Greek cities of the region:
it is the local peoples and their customs that form his subject, perhaps especially in this section where he sketches the
peoples who met to consider a response to Darius’ invasion.
3. For the evidence, see Inscr. Dйlos, 346A, line 13 with commentary.
4. I have discussed the evidence on Pericles’ expedition (more than sometimes claimed) at length in: Braund D. Pericles, Cleon
and the Pontus: the Black Sea in Athens c. 440-421. in: Scythians and Greeks /ed. D. Braund. - Exeter, 2005, р. 80-99.
5. Сапрыкин С.Ю. Гераклея Понтийская - Херсонес Таврический. - M., 1986.
6. Карышковский П.О. Ольвия и Афинский союз. Материалы по археологии Северного Причерноморья 3. – 1960, c.
57-100; Виноградов Ю.Г. Политическая история ольвийского полиса VII-I вв. до н.э. - M., 1989, c. 129.
7. Pemberton E.G. An early red figure Calyx krater from ancient Corinth // Hesperia 57. - 1988, р. 231-235 offers a rich
discussion.
8. Braund. D. Tykhon the Taurian: a cautionary note on CIRB 114 // Древности Боспора 7. – 2004, c. 11-14.
9. This was a dedication of three silver phialae, deposited in the temple of Apollo: Bruneau P. Recherches sur les cultes de Délos
ŕ l’époque hellénistique. - Paris, 1970, p. 113.
10. Krauss (Krauss J. Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones // IK 19. - Bonn, 1980) offers a recent general
study, including a collection of the inscribed texts.
11. See further Kahrstedt U. von Beiträge zur Geschichte der thrakischen Chersonesus. - Baden Baden, 1954, s. 14-16.
12. For we cannot go so far as to assume that Herakleitos had come to Athens (and died and been buried there) specifically in
connection with Athens’ political concerns there (though that remains of course possible).
13. Ameling W. Prosopographia Heracleotica. in: L. Jonnes, The inscriptions of Herraclea Pontica. - Bonn, 1994, s. 115-68,
offers a good discussion.
14. Osborne M.J., Byrne S.G. The foreign residents of Athens. - Leuven, 1996, p. 316.
15. IG ii2 10505. On its date, which has been the subject of some discussion, see IG i3 p.973.
16. Cf. Kahrstedt, Beiträge zur Geschichte..., s. 39.
17. The lines in question are IG i3 1032,col. viii, lines 292-293, which the editors provide with a valuable commentary. Although
many opinions have been expressed, much about the list remains uncertain.
58
Д. Браунд
ЗАМЕТКИ ПО ИСТОРИИ ХЕРСОНЕСА ДО И ПОСЛЕ 422 Г. ДО Н.Э.
Резюме
Автор статьи обращается к известному
свидетельству Псевдо-Скимна , которое
непосредственно относится к основанию
Херсонеса Таврического. Он особо
подчеркивает, что основание гераклеотами и
делосцами колонии на Таврическом полуострове
в этом сообщении никоим образом не
связывается с изгнанием делосцев со своего
острова афинянками. Таким образом, следует,
что утвердившаяся в историографии дата
основания колонии – около 422 г. до н. э.,
связанная с изгнанием делосцев, не имела под
собою основания еще до открытия М.И.
Золотаревым позднеархаического слоя в
Херсонесе. На самом деле поводом для
выведения колонии был оракул, полученный в
Гераклее Понтийской. Автор статьи
подчеркивает, что для изучения ранней истории
Херсонеса необходим вдумчивый анализ не
только археологических, но и письменных
источников. Он рассматривает афинские
морские экспедиции в Понт Эвксинский под
началом Перикла и Ламаха , высказывая
предположение, что Перикл или один из его
основных сподвижников (вероятно, Ламах)
посетил Херсонес. Он мог оказаться там на пути
между Ольвией и Гераклеей. Кроме того, Д.
Браунд рассматривает случаи упоминания
херсонеситов в различных афинских надписях,
постоянно подчеркивая сложность однозначной
связи упомянутых людей с крымской колонией.
Заключают статью соображения, что в целом,
пока еще возможно лишь очень немного
говорить об истории Херсонеса до 422 г. до н.э.
– периоде, возродить который во многом помогли
археологические открытия М.И. Золотарева. Но
восстановление истории требует бережности и
внимания, поскольку у нас ничтожно мало
материала , а тот, что есть, очень трудно
использовать.
Braund D. Notes on the history of Chersonesus before 422 B.C. and after
|