tokhtasev, s.r. epigraphical notes

* This article was prepared as part of the programme of fundamental research supported bythe Praesidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences entitled “Ethno-cultural Interaction inEurasia”. The first variant of this article was published in “ANAXARSIS. In memory of YuriiGermanovich Vinogradov” (Khersonesskii sbornik XI, Sevastopol, 2001), 155-168; unfortu-nately the text and in particular the Greek words in it were so distorted in this publication thatit was rendered almost meaningless for the reader.

EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES*

SERGEI R. TOKHTAS’EV

In memoriam Yurii G. Vinogradov

Yurii Germanovich Vinogradov had a marked predilection for large-scalehistorical reconstructions and, as it seems to me, at times was slightly enviousof those scholars working on the Hellenic past of the Mediterranean region,who had at their disposal an incomparably greater and more representativerange of sources than we have for the Classical period in the North Ponticregion (without ever being really jealous of their opportunities, because hetruly loved the Black Sea region, where in many respects he was the only realspecialist in his field). This does not of course mean that what German col-leagues refer to as philologische Kleinarbeit was alien to him, since the mainfocus of his activities – epigraphy – is something which makes that unavoid-able. The path from the initial examination of a stone or its photograph orcopy to the internal interpretation and later to an external one, i.e. to the plac-ing of an inscription in its historical context, is one, which the epigrapher hasto follow, and a large part of that journey involves the resolution of small-scale particular problems, precisely what we understand by Kleinarbeit. So Iam not in any way reluctant about dedicating to my friend and colleague ofmany years this study of a particular small-scale question – all the more sobecause this study represents parerga, which (together with various similarstudies) is of direct relevance to the works which may well come to beregarded as the most significant in the whole opus of Yurii Vinogradov.

Being an unusually lively and energetic character in general, and in hiswork as well – Yurii Vinogradov ignored the old adage: “Many a slip twixt

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Ancient Civilizations 11, 1-2Also available online – www.brill.nl

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 3

http://www.brill.nl

cup and lip”1 and neither did he believe that he would die before his time.This has resulted in the task of preparing and publishing the Olbian part ofthe volume of Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini I3 beingleft to Vinogradov’s colleagues and pupils. He had only just begun hisinvolvement in similar work on the re-publication of Corpus inscriptionumRegni Bosporani (CIRB), alias IOSPE II3, which is being undertaken in St.Petersburg. His untimely demise has meant that, apart from a number of hisown publications of newly discovered inscriptions and commentaries on oldones, he has left us, admittedly numerous and valuable, but nevertheless dis-connected notes relating to the existing CIRB.

In recent decades there has not been an epigrapher or indeed a historian ofthe North Pontic region in the Classical period in general of his stature andbreadth of erudition and it is not easy to see any successor, so the prospectsfor continuing work in this field without him are, to say the least, intimidat-ing. This makes our loss all the sadder.

1. MOUKOUNAS

The honorand’s name in the 2nd-century Olbian inscription (IOSPE I2 134,11) which is a dedication from the board of archontes to Achilles Pontarchus,was read by Latÿshev, following in the footsteps of August Boeckh (CIG II2077), as “Moukounãkurow”; he did not provide any commentary on thatname, which is, undeniably, curious, confining himself to an extensive quota-tion from Boeckh, but in the index this name appears with a question mark.All this is strange in the extreme. As I see it, the text in lines 10-11: flera-teÊontow MOUKOUNAKUROU tÚ dÄ, is very clear and the articulation of the textrejected by Boeckh, causes no doubts: Moukouna KÊrou: “while Mukunas sonof Cyrus was a priest for the fourth time” (tÚ dÄ = t°tarton).2 The name ought,evidently, to be accented as follows – Moukounçw, as in Boutounçw (IOSPE I2

136, 12) and Badçw (685, 8),3 which, admittedly, are characterized as dentalinflexions of casus obliqui: gen. Boutounçtow, Badçtow, cf. also the Paphlago-

1 pollå metajÁ p°lei kÊlikow ka‹ xe¤leow êkrou (Aristot. Fr. 571 Rose3 = Zenob. Prov. No.96 Bühler).

2 CIG II, 2077; Köhler proposed the reading MoËkow NakÊrou.3 For a re-publication based on the original with modifications, see: Treshcheva 1975, 71,

where a correct interpretation of the name is given.

4 SERGEI R. TOKHTAS’EV

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 4

nian ÉAtotçtow in our inscription No. 134, l. 8/9, and (declined like our Moukounçw)Yamflçw -ç (CIRB 898 et alii ), which is probably an abbreviation ofYaxamfliaw (1232, 7: *Taxma-friya-?) and also Mithridas (CIL VI 5040, VIII5443 et alii,4 in the last inscription this was the son of Mithridates) andMiyrodçw5 from Egypt.6

One of the Olbian agoranomoi in the inscription IOSPE I2 129, 6 sq., whichalso relates to the second century AD, bears the Sarmatian name Moukounagow.The parallels cited above show that this is indeed the (closest) original formof the name, from which the hypocoristic Moukounçw was formed.

It is also striking that the patronymics of Mukunagos and Mukunas – Alexander,and Cyrus are historical names which were popular in the Roman period andwhich were borne by renowned figures in the ancient past;7 both Alexanderthe Great and Cyrus8 had by the 2nd century AD long since also become

4 Schmitt 1978, 252, No. 253, 256d; 253, No. 263: as though to *Miyra-da-.5 BGU VII, No. 1660, 2; Huyse 1990, 50 f., No. 77: allegedly also relating to *Miyra-da-

(following the lead of Schmitt 1978, 400); what points clearly to a reduction in the Greek-speaking environment is the -o?, stemming from a complete – Hellenized – form Miyro-dãthw(for other examples see: Huyse 1990, 51, Nos. 78 and 79).

6 On the arbitrary formation of names (not only barbarian ones) with the suffixes -aw (-çw),see: Abaev 1976, 337; Neumann 1969, 182 ff.; Tokhtas’ev 1994, 167; idem 1997, 377, 382. Cf.10, below.

7 KËrow is not often encountered in Greek inscriptions, since it was for the most part a nameof slaves from the East, like other names borne by members of the Achaemenid dynasty: see,for example – Baslez 1985, 153, where testimony is cited from Rhodes IG XII/1 529. Yet,names of free persons do sometimes appear (see: LGPN I 279; III A 263; RE XII, 188-191:some of these, particularly medici were however freed men and/or their descendants); one, atOlympia (36-24 BC) is even from the priestly line of the Iamidae, and far earlier (4th centuryBC) the name of the founder of the Achaemenid Empire was borne by an astynomos fromSinope (Conovici 1988, No. 5, 653) and a magistrate from Heraclea Pontica (Monakhov 1999,588, s.v.); cf. also KËrow KÊrou toË DidÊmou P.Oxy III 491, 126 AD et alii (Huyse 1990, 46).In Olbian inscription IOSPE I2 129 it appears as a fully fledged historical name, like ÉAxaim°nhw(CIRB 76, 16 et alii; cf. note 15, below) or ÑRvjãnh (507) in the Bosporus during the Romanperiod; Zgusta (Zgusta 1955, § 546) points out examples of ÉAxaim°nhw from Delphi in the 3rd

century BC.8 Obviously before Ctesias and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, the history of Cyrus’ downfall

according to Herodotus itself contains all the characteristics of a novella, but it emergesstraightaway that his version is by no means the only one: “From among the numerous storiesof the death of Cyrus the one I present is the most truthful” (I, 215, 5). In the Persae ofAeschylus (768-772) Cyrus the Great is referred to as eÈda¤mvn énÆr, and later it is stated –yeÚw går oÈk ≥xyhren, Õw eÎfrvn ¶fu. Cf. Weißbach 1924, 1162 f.

EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES 5

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 5

figures in the novelistic literature. Combinations of names of this kind cannotbe accidental (cf., for example: ÉAl°jandrow Farnãkou CIRB 951, and inneighbouring Thrace SeÊyhw KÒtuow IGBulg III/1 1187; TÆrhw ÉAntiÒxou 1111).We do not doubt that what we have here are members of one and the samefamily,9 at a time when names – were handed down from grandfather tograndson – as has been the practice of many peoples.10 The formal differenceMoukounagow: Moukounçw is not an obstacle. In 2nd-century inscriptions fromOlbia we know of cases when even in relation to one and the same personsometimes a full name is used and sometimes the hypocoristic form: DvtouwGola (IOSPE I2 83, 9; 99, 4) and [Dvto]uw Golaiou,11 as was aptly suggestedby Karÿshkovskii12 in line 5 of the inscription no. 3 which he published; Ousi-gasow Siraxou (IOSPE I2 92, 6; cf. for the division Rvdi-gasow CIRB 1279, 27),and Ousi-gow Siraxou (686, 4/5).13

In Olbia during the Roman period other names of Persian origin have beenfound as well (all references are to IOSPE I2): ÉAriarãyhw (95, 8); ÉArsãkhw(93, 7; 204, 2); ÉOrÒnthw (92, 5/6: ÉOrÒntou; 182); in two cases, this Persianname is used in conjunction with a local, Sarmatian one as is also the case ininscription No. 134: 79, 2 – Ababou, 147, 4/5 – Spadakou.

Maifarnow 148 (accus. -on): if this is a Persian, and not a Sarmatian name,as is commonly assumed, it would be more correct to have -hn, nom. -hw.14

9 For the nepotism in the Olbian governmental bodies at that time, see: Karÿshkovskii 1993, 83.

10 Papponymy is known among Iranians as well, including the population of Sarmatian ori-gin in the cities of the North Pontic region, see: Tokhtas’ev 1994/95, 142.

11 The primary form is Golaw (cf. Tokhtas’ev 1994/95, 165), which had been known inSinope as early as the 4th century (Tsekhmistrenko 1960, 58 ff.; Conovici 1998, Nos. 17-18, 612,659: gen. GÒlantow, Golatow i.e. Golçtow) and in the Roman period in Thrace (IGBulg II 501,554). This is without doubt an Anatolian name (cf. also Goulaw and the like: Zgusta 1964, § 233, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Isauria), which is also confirmed by the second name of Gaius’ fatherin IGBulg II 501 – Makou gen. (see Mihailov’s commentary). The partial coincidence with thename Golow in an inscription from the second half of the 6th century from Eretria Del.3 800(LSAG 87, pl. 5. 9: §p‹ Golo êrx[ontow) might be random as well, especially if we take intoaccount that the archaic orthography of the inscription allows us to read either Goulou or Gvlou(also with -ll-) and accordingly assume wide-ranging etymology and resemblances, at least,incidentally, to divinations.

12 Karÿshkovskii 1993, 80.13 Treshcheva 1975, 69. 14 At any rate this name (*M®h ç¬-farnah- “whose farnah is from the Moon”, Justi 1985, 188)

has been confirmed outside the North Pontic region as well and indeed the earliest mentions of


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 6

In the Bosporus far more Persian names (and respectively, their bearers)have been recorded;15 but if we take into account, firstly, the overall numberof the Olbian inscriptions known to us in comparison with that of Bosporanones and, secondly, the major influx of Persian names into the Bosporusalready before the reign of Mithridates VI Eupator, then the list of Olbianones does not appear so small after all.

2. CIRB 6a

This inscription is a dedication to Artemis of Ephesus – [ÉAr]t°mi ÉEfese¤hi,from the time of Leucon I. Since the publication by V.V. Shkorpil (see Note37) the stone has suffered further damage (I examined it in the Kerch Museumin 1993, Inv. No. KL-1032, see Fig. 1):

[≤ (?) de›na - - -].aiou tÚm bvmÚn[én°yhken ÉAr]t°mi ÉEfese¤hi v.v.[flervm°nh (?) êrxo]nt[o]w LeÊkvnow[BospÒrou ka‹ Ye]odos¤hw v.v.[ka‹ Sind«n k]a‹ basileÊo[n]tow[Toret°vn Dand]ar¤vn Chss«n

1. [- - -].aiou (the first letter after the break was not phi, as Shkorpil had read it andalso the editors of the CIRB (Numf?]a¤ou), but gamma or tau: [?ÑEka]ta¤ou.

2. [ka‹ Sind«n k]a‹ Shkorpil.3. Or eÈjam°nh, cf. CIRB 1015, 1043 etc.

References by the editors of the CIRB to this form of the dative of ÉArt°miin the Arcado-Cyprian are bound to puzzle, since it is the regular one forEastern Ionian i- stems16 and – furthermore – it has been recorded on two

it come from the West-Iranian (Old Persian, Median) world: Maif[a]rnou, Aramaic Mhyprn(see: Lipinski 1975, 173 ff., a bilingual inscription from Ariaramneia in Cilicia), Maifarnhw(IGLS III/2 1197), Maferneuw, gen. (see, with bibliography: Robert 1963, 349, Eusebeia inCaria), Maiforrhw (Hinz 1975, 157, Avroman Papyrus), Middle-Persian M’xfrnbag (Justi,ibidem); in Eastern Iranian there is only the Sogdian M’xfrn (Weber 1972, 197 (Zoroastrian?).

15 Tokhtas’ev 2000a, 235, note 16. Add: IOSPE I2 202, 2 sq.: ÉAxaim°nei ÉAxaim°nouw Bosporean«i.16 See: Bechtel 1923, 146 ff.; for examples from the Bosporus and Olbia see: Dovatur, 816,

§ 8.1 (add the female name ÖAkiow, gen., 1037); Dubois 1996, 189, § 12; dedication in theshrine of “Apollo Hegemon, which is at Phasis” – to \m Fçsi, see: Dumberg 1901, 99, cf.Vinogradov 1997, 97 (Addendum to Note 48).


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 7

more occasions in that very same Panticapaeum: S«n ÉArt°mi ÉEfes[Æihi (or [e¤hi, cf. below), engraved on the handle of a bronze wine-strainer (±ymÒw) dat-ing from the second half of the 6th century BC, dedicated in the shrine of thegoddess on the acropolis,17 and ÉArt°mi, a graffito of the early 4th century.18 Adedication to Artemis Epheseia dating from the time of Pairisades I was alsofound in Panticapaeum (CIRB 11) and one other in Gorgippeia (1114, secondhalf of the 4th century BC); in both of which the koine form ÉArt°midi19 isused, but combined with the archaic Ionian form of the epithet ÉEfese¤hiwhich is more appropriate in the sacral context (with a similar reduction ofthe first long diphthong, as in CIRB 6a).20

The ancient form of the dative has been recorded in other Ionian inscrip-tions in the North Pontic region: ÉArt°mi ÉEfesÆihi, a graffito from Kerkinitis

17 For the reading by N.P. Rozanova with an amendment by Yu.G. Vinogradov, see (withbibliography): Treister 1990, 197, 37 ff.

18 Tolstoi 1953, No. 176.19 Also in a dedication to Artemis Agrotera (CIRB 1014) from the reign of Pairisades I.20 On the reduction of long diphthongs in the middle of word, see: Bechtel 1923, 49, 63 ff.


Fig. 1. CIRB 6a.

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 8

dating from the 5th century21 and yet another graffito from the same periodfound on the island of Berezan: [ÉAr]t°mi ÉEfe[s- - -].22

Of approximately the same date as the inscription on the wine-strainer fromPanticapaeum there is a dedication on a bronze lamp, which was found inMoldavia as part of a hoard dating from the second half of the fourth centuryBC: ÉArt°mi ÉEfesÆih23 ÑHgÆnassa ≤ LÊkvnow; unfortunately the place wherethis sacrifice and the inscription itself were made is not known (Olbia?).24

In discussion of this question with Yu.G. Vinogradov during a meeting at aconference dedicated to a one hundred years of German excavations in Mile-tus (Güzelchamlı, Turkey, August 1999), it emerged that he was also cominground to the conclusion that the votive inscription had originated in the NorthPontic region,25 borne out, among other things, by the characteristic form ofthe epithet (and on this we also both agreed).

Apart from the North Pontic evidence listed above, ÉEfesÆih does not ap-pear to be known anywhere else: in inscriptions and literature, only the formÉEfes¤a, -h is encountered. Stephanus of Byzantium lists ’Ef°seia among theethnics (s.v. ÖEfesow) citing the Sophocles play Alexander (TGF IV 97). As faras I can see Stephanus never mixes ethnics and epithets of divinities derivedfrom toponyms (there are no signs in this part of his work of the destructiveefforts of the epitomator of ÉEynikã);26 for this reason his qualification of thisform as an ethnic can hardly be regarded as something purely formal, yet evenin this capacity ÉEf°seia appears unnatural. What we are clearly up againsthere is a formation metri causa, possibly based on the Ionian ÉEfesÆih.27

No, apparently, can epithets for Apollo derived from toponyms – Prihn∞i(Del.3 715, 2, Samos), Pto›eWi (IG VII 2729, 2731 sq., CEG I 333, Boeotia),

21 Kutaisov 1992, 46 (photograph).22 Yailenko 1983, 290, No. 100.23 On -hi > -h in the dative, see: Bechtel 1923, 96; Thumb, Scherer 1959, 254, § 311 b. For

examples from Olbia see: Dubois 1996, 186, § 7. 24 Sergeev 1966, 134, the reading was by S.Ya. Luria and T. Kaukhchishvili; the reading

ÑHluk«now by A.I. Boltunova (see, in the same article) was a pure misinterpretation; the editorsuggested that the lamp came from the Artemision of Ephesus, which is, to say the least,dubious.

25 Cf. Vinogradov 1997, 79, Note 36.26 tÚ §ynikÚn ÉEf°siow. eÏrhtai ka‹ ÉEf°seia diå difyÒggou. oÏtv går §n ÉAlejãndrƒ Sofokl∞w.27 ÉEf°seioi in the Hellenistic decree from Ephesus I.Ephesos 60, 10 and ÉEf°seiow in inscrip-

tions of the Roman period I.Smyrna 565 against the background of ordinary and regular usesof ÉEf°siow, -oi can be only be considered as itazistic spellings.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 9

KaukaseÊw (Syll.3 1014 A, 19; I.Erythrai 201 B, 40, cf. below) in the form ofsimple ethnics, serve as parallels. In Ionian (as indeed in Mycenaean) the feminineof names ending in -eÊw is formed with the suffix -eia < *-ehja, cf. Homericfl°reia, bas¤leia, Ionian fl°reia (SGDI 5411, 2; 5729, Keos, Halicarnassus)with the contraction – t∞i fl°rhi Del.3 725, 7 (Miletus), fl°rh CIRB 14 (Gorgip-peia, and not Panticapaeum, as in all publications),28 Plut. Mor. 795 D, Ephe-sus (!).29 At the same time, -eÊw was actually the masculine suffix and in thesphere of onomastics perfectly clear and direct correspondences with the fem-inine gender (of the type -iow: -i-) did not become established; together withthe epithet PolieÊw for Zeus we find the epithet Poliãw for Athena; ApolloKaukaseÊw was venerated in Erythrae together with Artemis Kaukas¤w (see inthe same inscription Syll.3 1014 A, 19);30 tÚ §ynikÚn t∞w Bo¤bhw BoibeÊw ka‹Boibh¤w yhlukÒn, St. B. s.v. Bo¤bh (suffix *-hW-id). In this sense ÉEfesÆih canbe regarded as the feminine of ÉEfeseÊw.

In the play LuropoiÒw by one of the authors of Middle Comedy, Anaxilas(PCG I 18, 285, apud. Athen. XII, 548 c), the adjective ÉEfesÆia (grãmmata)is used, and moreover, most likely in its authentic Ephesian (Ionian) form.Like the feminine ÉEfesÆih this form can be interpreted as an extension withthe suffix *-j- of the stem *ÉEfeshW-, represented in the ethnic ÉEfeseÊw.31

Strictly speaking this is a possessive adjective similar to ÉOdusÆiow (dÒmow) s353, ÉAxillÆiow (see, below 9), is not typical of epithets used for divinities.We know of only one parallel – Karuk°Wiow, an epithet of Apollo at Tanagra(Del.3 440. 1.2; LSAG 92, 94, 402, pl. 7. 5; 8. 7), which can be traced backto the name of the mountain KhrÊkion, where, “according to legend, Hermeswas born” (Paus. IX, 20, 23), possibly via the intermediate stage of *KarukeÊw(cf. KaukaseÊw, above, in relation to the toponym KaÊkasa, Hdt. V, 33, 1: thetoponym in Chios and/or in Erythrae).32 Cf., however, Boibh˛w l¤mnh (B 711)derived from Bo¤bh (see, above), ÉEfesh˛w ÉEfes¤ou I.Kyz. 216;33 ÉEfesÆia(grãmmata) could have been formed or transformed from the ordinary ÉEf°siaon a parallel with FoinikÆia grãmmata (Syll.3 38, 37, Teos; Hdt. V, 58, 2),derived from Fo¤nikew, as KadmÆia grãmmata (Hdt. V, 59, cf. Kadme¤h n¤kh,

28 See: Tunkina 2002, 209 ff., fig. 76.29 Humbach 1968, 47 ff. (in the Attic dialect unlike Ionian, the suffix *-∂wja was used).30 For similar correspondences for ethnics, see: Gärtchen and Hoffmann 1914, 951 ff.31 Cf. Chantraine 1933, 51 ff.; Schwyzer 1953, 468. 32 Zgusta 1984, § 466.33 Cf. Bechtel 1917, 545.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 10

ibidem I, 166, 2) from Kãdmow. In any case, however, these examples point tothe existence of an element *hWj-, which directly formed adjectives from anystem and, probably, had at the outset a special nuance of meaning and wasprobably more closely linked with the object, which from the grammaticalpoint of view performed the function of the productive stem, than elementaryderivatives ending in -iow, -i- (cf. g°now basilÆion p 401, Ion. ofikÆiow). UnlikeÉEfes¤h, which has the most general meaning – “Ephesian, of Ephesus”, ÉEfe-sÆih could mean “originating from Ephesus”; the difference here is approxi-mately the same as that between the universal adjective ending in -iow –ÉEf°siow and the ethnic ÉEfeseÊw (native of Ephesus, citizen of Ephesus).

As has already been pointed out,34 the relatively widespread cult of the Ephesiangoddess in the North Pontic region would undermine the hypothesis put for-ward by N. Erhardt and supported by M. Treister,35 to the effect that it hadbeen brought to Panticapaeum directly by settlers from Ephesus (whether dur-ing the early stage of colonization or by much later immigrants). The resolu-tion of this question is directly bound up with explanation of the unusual formof the epithet, which was certainly not a cultic one in Ephesus. It can beassumed that it had been included in the response of an oracle to a questionfrom inhabitants of one of the North Pontic colonies or a group of inhabitantsof the metropolis, who had only just set out to engage in colonizing activities.Let us remember in this connection the well-known story (Strabo IV, 1, 4) ofthe Phocaeans, founders of Massalia, who had been commanded by the oracleto “take a guide from Artemis of Ephesus”; together with the Ionian ApolloDelphinius, she became the most venerated deity in Massalia. It is significantthat in archaic Panticapaeum, the shrine of Artemis Epheseie, as indeed theshrine of the city state’s main divinity – Apollo the Healer (Ietros),36 was sit-uated on the acropolis.

It should be noted that ÉEfesÆih, unlike ÉEfes¤h, can successfully be in-cluded in the hexameter, the usual verse form used by oracles and thus theaddition of a suffix to the epithet can be explained not only with reference tothe semantics of the epithet (“from Ephesus” or something of the kind) butalso by the metric form of its source. Indirectly this is borne out both by theother similar formations from ÖEfesow, replacing the normal ÉEf°siow, -i- –

34 Tokhtas’ev 1999, 168, Note 8. 35 Ehrhardt 1983, 155; Treister 1990, 41 ff. 36 Tolstikov 1984, 44-46.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 11

ÉEf°seih and the neuter plural form ÉEfesÆia, which have been recorded spe-cifically in the writings of poets.

After taking root in cultic practice thanks to the authority of the oracle, thisepithet, together with the cult of Artemis Epheseie itself, later spread to otherIonian colonies in the North Pontic region. We now know relatively reliablythat the cultic links between the poleis in this area could have existed alreadyin the Archaic period (see, below 9).

In l. 5, V.V. Shkorpil37 restored [ka‹ Sind«n k]a¤, as depending, togetherwith [BospÒrou ka‹ Ye]odos¤hw from [êrxo]nt[o]w (LeÊkvnow), while the words[Toret°vn Dand]ar¤vn Chss«n turn out to depend on basileÊo[n]tow: “thismeans that Sindoi would be placed on a par here with the Bosporus and Theodosia”,concluded Shkorpil. Thanks to the recent find of an important inscription inNymphaeum dating from the time of Leucon I, Shkorpil’s restoration has inthe main been confirmed (it turned out that Sindoi, or, to be more precise, the“whole of Sindike”, and even the Toretai with the Dandarioi and Psessoi hadoriginally been ruled by Leucon as archon,38 not as basileus, as in the laterinscriptions from the time of Leucon I, see 3, below). Yet, if we take into con-sideration the size of the lacuna in l. 5, it would probably be more appropri-ate to fill it as follows: [te ka‹ Sind«n k]a¤.39

3. CIRB 7

The description of the stone in CIRB requires amplification:40 the reverseside of the stone has been left virtually untouched, which shows that the stoneslab must have been set in (or against) a wall.

The inscription as restored by Latÿshev is clearly an unsatisfactory version:

[ı de›na Le]Êkvnow ÉAf[rod¤thi][- - - - - én]°yhke êrx[ontow BospÒrou ka‹ Yeo-][dos¤hw ka‹] basi[leÊontow ktl.]

37 Shkorpil 1917, 109, ad No. 1 (editio princeps).38 Sokolova, Pavlichenko 2002, 99 ff.: Yeoprop¤dhw Megakl°ow tØn e‡sodon én°yhken

DionÊsvi égvnoyet°vn L°okvnow êrxontow BospÒro ka‹ Yeodos¤hw ka‹ t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw ka‹Toret°vn ka‹ Dandar¤vn ka‹ Chss«n.

39 For more detail, see: Tokhtas’ev 2004, 158 ff.40 This one and the other inscriptions from the Hermitage collection discussed and cited in

this article have been examined by me on the stone.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 12

It turns out that the ruler’s name41 is missing in the standard date formula,remains of which can be made out quite certainly in ll. 2 and 3. It is also clearthat, in addition, the first line could hardly have ended with the name of Aphrodite,since some other word must, without doubt, have stood in front of én]°yhkein l. 2. More likely than not it was an epithet describing the goddess and theremainder of the first line could also have incorporated it. An epithet of theright length has only been recorded in the Bosporus for the Guardian goddessof Apaturon (cf., for example, ÉAfrod¤th[i] OÈran¤hi ÉApatoÊro medeoÊshi CIRB1111).

The stone has had pieces broken off it on all sides except the top (see Fig. 2), and for this reason it is difficult to restore the text reliably. That thiswas a dedication made by the ruler himself – Pairisades I or Spartocus II (thesons of Leucon I) does not seem all that likely to us: we have to assume thattitles would have followed immediately after the ruler’s name. It is more rea-sonable to assume that the dedication was in the name of one of Leucon’schildren: cf. a similar inscription – CIRB 25, in which the list of titles ofPairisades II, father of the dedicator – Leucon (later – Leucon II) – starts atapproximately the same spot as in our inscription.42 If one of the names ofLeucon’s I sons – Pairisãdhw, Spãrtokow or ÉApoll≈niow were placed in thegap at the beginning of l. 1, names which contain virtually the same numberof letters (in the first the two narrow iotas could be counted as one letter;however, the second name would appear to fit best), then in l. 2 the area ofmissing text would provide for 11-12 letters (including the first two letters ofthe word én]°yhke) also taking into account that the M in inscriptions of thetime of Leucon I usually had descending verticals and therefore was widerthan other letters, with the exception of omega.43

SPARTOKOSLE]UKVNOSMEDEOUSHIAN]EYHKE

41 Cf. Belova 1984, 80, Note 6. 42 Cf. also CIRB 26 (Belova 1984, 84: leg. [Pairisãdhw S]partÒkou ktl; for a different but

unconvincing version, cf. Tolstikov, Vinogradov 1999, 292, 297, Note 11) and another inscrip-tion from the time of Spartocus III (Belova 1970, 65 ff.): [-4-6-o]usa Spar[tÒkou Íp¢rPairi]sãdouw [toË édelfoË] ÉAfrod¤[thi]; the list of titles, however, has been overlooked inboth inscriptions.

43 Cf. in particular Nos. 6a, 8, 1111. For a palaeographic survey of inscriptions from the timeof Leucon, see: Sokolova, Pavlichenko 2002, 102 ff.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 13

This ties in with the number of letters of the indispensable Yeodos¤hw ka¤,which fits splendidly into the beginning of l. 3. Let us suppose that after ÉAfrod¤thithe surface of the stone had been left vacant (cf. vacat in l. 2 and 4 of theinscription CIRB 6a, see: Fig. 1); then eÈjãmenow would be possible, but thepresence of empty space, which would need ca. 8 letters to fill (which is clearfrom a calculation of the length of l. 3) raises doubts, unless after ÉAfrod¤thithere had been the word OÈran¤hi, as in CIRB 972 (during the reign ofPairisades I); yet this is the only inscription of the early period known to ustoday,44 in which the epithet ‘of Apaturon’ applied to Aphrodite is presentedin truncated form; besides, this inscription is not from Panticapaeum. For thisreason the following reconstruction of the text would appear to me to be themost likely:

[? Spãrtokow Le]Êkvnow ÉAf[rod¤thi OÈran¤hi ÉApatoÊrou][medeoÊshi én]°yhke êrx[ontow LeÊkvnow BospÒrou ka‹][Yeodos¤hw ka‹]basi[leÊontow Sind«n ka‹ Toret°vn ka‹][Dandar¤vn ka‹ Chss«n].

44 On CIRB 1234, 6th-5th centuries BC (read ye[«i ÉAfrod¤thi OÈran¤hi?] ÉApatÒro [medeoÊshi]MAX ktl) cf. Tokhtas’ev 1986, 138, Note 1.


Fig. 2. CIRB 7.

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 14

On the reconstruction of Leucon’s title cf. CIRB 6; 1037; 1038; 8; SEGXLV 996. Of course, it should be borne in mind that in addition to from Pairisades,Spartocus and Apollonius, Leucon could also have had other children, whosenames have not survived in our sources, and also the fact that the dedicationto the female divinity was, is likely to have been made by a woman.

The thiasos of the Apaturian Aphrodite was known in Panticapaeum in themid-2nd century BC (CIRB 75), which would seem to point to the existence ofa branch of the shrine Apaturon: there is archaeological evidence for it onlyin the early years AD.45

The earliest evidence for a cult of Aphrodite at Panticapaeum is probably thegraffito on the rim of an Attic kylix dating from c. 520-510 BC: Afrod[- - -].46

Yet it could have been just a graffito made at table during a symposium andat any rate it is impossible to prove that the dedication was made to Uraniaand, in particular, to the guardian of Apaturon. Another possibility would berestoration of the theophoric anthroponym, cf. the graffito [ÉA]frodis¤h ¶dvkeon the base of a black-glaze kotyle dating from the 5th century BC and alsofrom Panticapaeum.47

4. CIRB 65

The inscription has been cut over another earlier one (No. 41), i.e. what wehave before us is something like a kind of a palimpsest (Fig. 3). In all edi-tions the text of l. 4 contains some inaccuracy and errors and nothing isreported at all about the remains of the last line, although it can be made outeven from a photograph. My reading is as follows:

[ÉAgay]ª v. TÊx˙[- - - - - - - - -].on ÑRadamsadiou toÔ[basil°vw katesk]euãsyh diÉ §pimel¤aw

45 CIRB 31. Editio princeps – Chuistova 1962, 181-186 (this publication remained unknownto the editors of CIRB). According to Chuistova the stone had been set into the wall of a build-ing, which, after buildings had been discovered during earthworks at the crossroads of KarlMarx St. and V. Dubinin Street, she subjected to further examination (see: Chuistova 1962, 182 ff.) and identified it convincingly as the shrine of Aphrodite Urania.

46 Sidorova 1992, 187, fig. 11B on p. 194.47 Blavatskii 1985, 24 ff. (with an erroneous date, cf. Vinogradov 1972, 235, Note 16; Vinogradov

1997, 380, Note 16; idem, Bull. ép. 1990, No. 584).


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 15

[- - - - - - - - - -]Iw ka‹ Yeof[¤l]ou PATIEI[.][- - - - - - -]NA[- - - - - - - - - -]

2: in front of the break on the left remains of a vertical hasta can be seen (notedin the IOSPE maiusculis).

4: ]IS, less probable, ]HS; Yeodo[s¤]ou Pat<r>°[vw] Latÿshev, CIRB. The readingYEOF[ is beyond question; all the ‘round’ letters are rhomboid in shape; fromthe next two letters only the tops have survived. The last (or penultimate?) let-ter in the line was probably iota, although either gamma or pi is possible.

PATIEI: there is no foundation for the reading by F. Dubois de Mont-péreux – PATIEIS with a square sigma, since in this inscription sigma alwaysappears as S. After PATIEI another letter (or two?) could fit in the gap, butthis would in any case belong to the next word, since what we have here is,without doubt, the name Pateiw in the genitive (see, below) which was wellknown in the Bosporus during the Roman period. This means that the readingshould be Pat{i}ei, making allowances for the influence of Patiaw (CIRB 612


Fig. 3. CIRB 65 (+ 41).

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 16

and Addendum 2; probably, of the same origin, see below). In late inscrip-tions, however, several other examples have been recorded with the letters ierather than ei, usually at the end of a word: Gastiei voc. 376 (?) instead ofGastei,48 Íei = ufl° (CIRB 708, 2nd century), ÉApoll≈niei voc. CIRB 580, 1st-2nd

centuries.49 In Asia Minor and in some other places nominatives of this kindare encountered, such as: ÉApoll≈niew, Baryoloma›w, DhmÆtriaiw (-ai- = -e-),Kãsiew, Limnew (-e- = -ai-), ÑRvma›w, which are explained by Georgakas asderived from vocatives: ÉApoll≈nie, Baryoloma›, DhmÆtrie, Kãs(s)ie, Limna›,ÑRvma›;50 as are the feminine names XrÊsien,51 ÖAmmien).52 Yet the similarityhere is only superficial; this interpretation is not appropriate to our examples.Whatever the case, taken together they probably make it unlikely that weought to read Pati Ei/g/p[ in CIRB 65: what is important here is somethingelse – while the appropriate name (there can be no doubt that after the nameof Theophilus, son of Pateis the list of the names of the epimeletai continues)is known in the Bosporus – Eisgoudiow (CIRB 67, of a later date),53 genitivesending in -i of names ending in -eiw and -iw have not been recorded at all.

The name Pateiw is encountered many times in Bosporan inscriptions of theRoman period.54 It would appear to be identical with the Old Iranian namerecorded in an Elamite text from Persepolis – Bat-ti-i·, i.e. *Pati-, which is anabbreviation of names like *Pati-aspa- or *Friya-pati-.55 To this list it wouldevidently also be possible to add the above-mentioned Patiaw (*Patiya-) andPatika (*Patik®-).56 Our Pateiw should be distinguished57 from the Thracian (?)

48 According to the reading of V.P. Yailenko 1987, 66, No. 376. 49 Yailenko (Yailenko 1987, 66, No. 76) assumes that this is not iota but a hasta: highly

dubious.50 Georgakas 1948, 256.51 Corsten 1990, 91 ff. B, 2 = I.Prusa 90: “Schreibweise [!] -e- für -o- ist nicht selten” (with

unsuccessful references to grammars of the language of the papyri of the Roman period –F. Gignac – and of the Attic inscriptions – L. Threatte); cf. also Tatarhen I.Prusa 166 forTatarion and Cl. Brixhe, in Bull. ép. 1994, No. 570 (“. . . erreurs graphiques . . . et il n’est pasexclu que le trait graphique illustre un phénomène phonétique”).

52 Cl. Brixhe, Bull. ép. 1991, No. 507 (“banale erreur du graveur sur une lettre ronde”).53 On the dating, see: Vinogradov 1998a, 236 ff.54 In CIRB there are 10 individuals; see, also: Yailenko 1987, 20 ff., No. 11.55 Mayrhofer 1973, 141 (8. 291); Hinz 1975, 185. 56 Belova 1977, 105 ff. (= SEG XXVII 448), 5th-4th centuries BC. For an interpretation of the

name, see: Finogenova, Tokhtas’ev 2003, 87, Note 4. 57 Mihailov 1969, 42 ff.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 17

Pataw58 and the Graeco-Egyptian Pathw, -eiw and such like.59 Pateiw fromHistria (ISM I 200, 9, 2nd century AD) most likely came from the North Ponticregion.

5. CIRB 147

Shebalin has already devoted a special study to this highly unusual inscrip-tion in verse,60 in which attention was concentrated on the contents. We shallfocus now on just a few details.

V. 7: KalliÒterow (–∪∪–) with an ioticized (asyllabic) -i- after a consonant(CIRB: ostensibly, a metrical mistake);61 this is evidently one of the late formsof the superlative of the word kalÒw (see, LSJ. s.v. kalÒw B)62 raised to thestatus of an anthroponym; cf. ÉIoul¤a Kalliot°ra (ISM I 292, 3) and also KallistÒn(below, 6), Kãllistow (ISM II 187, 1 and ibidem. I 195, 12: [Kãl]listow), Filvt°ra(for example, CIRB 639, 713) and Filtãth (IGBulg I2 412 A), and the morewidespread F¤listow.

Boltunova63 and the editors of CIRB with every justification regarded Filet°ro(u)as the patronymic of Symphoros (since Kallioteros was named shortly beforewith a patronymic). The mistake – FILETEROS instead of FILETEROU is explainedwith reference to the nominative ending of the preceding SÊmforow;64 the ideaput forward by Lifshits, who “sans doute” identified here the appellativefil°terow as an epithet for SÊmforow65 does not appear to me to be convinc-

58 Detschew 1976, 360.59 Preisigke 1922, 287; Foraboschi 1971, 238, 239. Pathw, however, is also found in

Macedonia as early as the 2nd century BC (Ziouta, Karamitrou-Menesidi 1988, 28: Patevw; cf.Bull. ép. 1993, No. 361): from Egypt?

60 Shebalin 1987, 185 ff; see, also: Yailenko 1987, 63, No. 57 (in l. 20 it should read ZI)and the article by Lifshits (Lifshits 1968).

61 Usually this was already the case in Homer, see: Chantraine 1958, 170; cf. CIRB 146(Sabb¤vn − −), 148 (Filain¤a ∪− −), and further CEG 47 II, 3 (Gnay¤o), 130 (Kupr¤o); Meyer1896, 219 ff., § 146 f.; Dieterich 1898, 58 ff.

62 Cf. also gluk(e)iÒterow, Dieterich 1898, 181.63 In the editio princeps (1959, 169) she assumed that it was possible to read the (as yet

unrecorded) name Fil(a¤)terow as well; but if the 8th verse is metrically deficient (see, below),that is not a reason for considering the 7th one deficient as well.

64 See examples (the list can be extended indefinitely) with the literature: Tokhtas’ev 1999,174 ff., 179 (relating to No. 25).

65 Lifshitz 1968, 34.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 18

ing. The name Fil°tairow was known in Panticapaeum in the 1st and 2nd cen-turies (CIRB 128); moreover, Boltunova (pp. 171 ff.) and the editors of CIRBassume, not without good grounds, that the stele had probably been broughtto the Bosporus from Asia Minor.

V. 8: Boltunova corrected the misguided MURVMENH to Mur(o)m°nh – aname “formed like the participle of the passive of the verb murÒv” (= mur¤zv,see: LSJ ), but it is clear from her subsequent reflections on the word murom°nawith the meaning ‘mournful’, which is found in metrical epitaphs, that theword under consideration should be mÊromai and that she had simply confusedtwo verbs that sound similar. At any rate there are no grounds for assumingthat this was a highly dubious nick-name such as ‘Sobber’ or ‘Cry-baby’.

The editors of the CIRB without comment reproduce Boltunova’s correction,tactfully avoiding any mention of the slip.

Another attempt to confuse the issue was made by Lifshits (ibidem). LikeBoltunova he took MURVMENH to be derived from murÒv, naturally with itsreal meaning, but he did not accept Boltunova’s and CIRB’s “correction” of vto o. The name Murom°nh, he argued was less well known and appeared ratherstrange (“. . . sans doute un peu bizarre”) and therefore the appellative murv-m°nh should be preferred. Lifshits did not take into consideration that thewoman’s name would surely be given. The result of his argument is com-pletely absurd: “Kallioteros, son of Basileides, and Symphoros who loves hisfriends and the annointed (with perfumes) one, who lived loving her husband(the wife) of Kallioteros”. On the other hand, he is definitely right to regardthis passage as dealing not with Kallioteros’ daughter, but with his wife: oth-erwise the words “lived loving her husband” without the name of the latter areleft hovering in mid-air.

Unfortunately, the metre does not help us to determine the correct form ofthe name. Without going into details, the editors of the CIRB write that thisverse (ka‹ Murvm°nh Kal<l>iot°rou zÆsasa filãndrvw) is a hexameter, al-though even Boltunova assumed66 that in actual fact it was only meant to beone (even if we read Murom°nh as derived from mÊromai with a long }); theonly metres which can be regarded as normal ones are the 3rd, 4th and 6th. Thismeans that the problem can only be resolved with reference to linguistic con-siderations and parallels.

66 Boltunova 1959, 169, Note 5.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 19

The correct form should, of course, be Muroum°nh: as a starting point thisis a middle and passive participle of murÒv; cf. MuroËsa (CIRB 443), whichrelates to Muroum°nh as Feiloum°nh (1222) does to FiloËsa (533; IG IV 613;V/1 764, 776 etc.) and so on;67 cf. also MurÒpnoun (476) and the correspond-ing male name MurÒpnouw, which can be traced back to the poetic appellative(“smelling sweet with mÊron”),68 MurÒtaw (IOSPE I2 128, 6: -ou; readMur≈tou, cf. Mur≈ta IG II3 9217), MÊron (CIRB 254, 936).69 v instead of ouis encountered quite frequently in inscriptions of the Roman period in the mostdiverse regions, and in the Bosporus, in particular, but it is mainly found withthe masculine and neuter genitive ending of o-stems.70 In the Bosporan inscrip-tions, for the middle of the word, Dovatur (see Note 70) notes katoik«nta(731), which probably had taken its form from verbs in -ãv; for this reason itis quite possible that the spelling Murvm°nh reflects contamination of a pho-netic and graphic kind of the so-called contracted verbs and/or the appearanceof doublet forms, which is characteristic of the late Greek (ganãv: -Òv, yigãv:-Òv, kvfãv: -°v: -Òv).71 In an epitaph from the 2nd century AD from Thes-salonica (IG X/2/1 312) the essential parallel Mur«sa was found (and afterthat ≤at« z«te[w] = •aut“ z«ntew!). But there are also parãgv<s>in CIRB1035, where the v instead of ou is not morphological.

6. KALLISTON

In CIRB the text of epitaph No. 884 (Fig. 4) is presented in the followingform:

Ka[l]ist≈n72 gunØÉEpeikrãtou,xa›re.

67 This type was known already to Homer, cf. F°rousã te, Dunam°nh te Dejam°nh te, S 43sq. (Nereides); Masson 1987, 107-112.

68 Fick, Bechtel 1894, 212.69 For the semantics of names derived from mÊron, see: Bechtel 1898, 76; idem 1902, 119.70 See, for example: Mihailov 1943, 29 ff.; Brixhe 1987, 55 ff.; Dovatur 1965, 801, § 4.6

(filorvma¤v, ÉAlk¤mv et alii).71 Jannaris 1897, 216 ff. Yet more common was the combination of verbs in -°v and -ãv in

the paradigm of -ãv; Dieterich 1898, 228-230.72 The remains of the lambda are perfectly discernible: the iota has been damaged; read Kalist≈n.

The stone is kept in the Kerch Museum, Inv. No. KL 273, vidi.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 20


Fig. 4. CIRB 884.

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 21

Boltunova in the editio princeps73 considered it possible to propose the fol-lowing identification: Kalist≈n = Kallist≈, which despite its obviously fan-tastic character was accepted by the CIRB editors, while they did not even mentionher alternative and, in fact, only correct conjecture that it was a mistakenspelling for Kal(l)istÒn. What we have here, of course, is a banal variantspelling (the inscription dates from the 1st-2nd century AD); cf. ÉAgayÒn CIRB326, MÊron 254,74 936 (cf. 5, above) and so on.75 The replacement of o by vis on the contrary often encountered in Bosporan inscriptions of the Romanperiod.76

7. CIRB 1016

In l. 6/7 of this epitaph (fig. 5) dating from approximately the 3rd centuryAD and found in the village of Akhtanizovskaya in the Taman peninsula,Latÿshev,77 and after him the editors of CIRB, read the name AoÈa¤nvn, whichLatÿshev commented on as follows: “Instead of AÈa¤nvn? cf. AÎainow”.78 Allthis is a purely mechanical juxtaposition with a lexeme from the dictionary ofPape-Benseler. The lexeme in question is AÎainow in The Frogs of Aristo-phanes 194: to the question from Xanthus poË d∞tÉ énamen«; Charon answersin a business-like manner: parå tÚn AÈa¤nou l¤yon, §p‹ ta›w énapaÊlaiw. Whatis implied here is some place in the underworld. To judge from all this, whatwe have is an invention of Aristophanes himself, but with an allusion toLeukåw p°trh (v 11) or ÉAg°lastow l¤yow (Ps. Apollodorus I, 5, 2): this is howthis part of the text (with the reading AÍa¤nou as in Attic) has been inter-preted, for example, by Kock79 and after him van Leeuwen,80 whose lead isfollowed by virtually all modern commentators.81 The hypothesis put forward

73 Boltunova 1950, 74, No. 7.74 This case is the exact opposite of the one we are discussing: Latÿshev and the CIRB edi-

tors corrected MÊron to the masculine MÊrvn – for more details, see: Tokhtas’ev 2000, 138.75 Bechtel 1917, 296-297; cf. also Tokhtas’ev 2000, 138, 145, Notes 99, 101.76 Dovatur 1965, 801 ff., § 4.7.77 Latÿshev 1905, 116 ff., No. 38.78 This is also repeated by Zgusta 1955, § 905a.79 Kock 1868, 73.80 van Leeuwen 1896, 43, ad loc.: “nomen alibi non obvium a comico videtur fictum; for-

tasse allusit a Leukãda p°trhn illam ex Homero . . . otam, vel ÉAg°laston l¤yon, ad quem Ceresmoesta sederat [cf. Ran. 42] Eleusine . . .”.

81 See, for example: Coulon 1928; Dover 1993, 216 ff. Differently – Stanford 1958, 90: “It


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 22

by Radermacher (AÎainow seen as the “Dämon der Dürre?”)82 did not win sup-port either; according to him the name could be traced back to Attic popularentertainments (Radermacher was carried away with searching for folkloric motifsin the Ancient comedy). This hypothesis was not in any way justified apartfrom conjectures of scholiasts (p. 280 Dübner), totally bereft of any sense ofhumour.83 The same can be said of ˆnou (ÖOknou?) pÒkoi and Kerb°rioi alsothere in the underworld, Ran. 185 ff.; Charon’s words in v. 194 are a kind of paraphrase of these lines (cf. also efiw énapaÊlaw 185 and §p‹ ta›w éna-paÊlaiw 194).

Finally we are not, strictly speaking, dealing with an anthroponym here.Moreover, in my view, it is more than likely that in our inscription we need

to read the name Saouainvn (cf. Sauanvn, below). The context is as follows:≤ y¤asow per‹ ≤r°a . . . ENESYESAOUAINONI mnÆmhw xãrin. Latÿshev (and togetherwith him the editors of CIRB) singled out ENESYES, seeing it as a distortedversion of én°sthsÉ, allegedly with an elision of -e, resulting from the absenceof n-§felkustikÒn, which, if we accept this interpretation, actually ought to bethere. Latÿshev, without doubt, would have correctly recognized what he had

is unknown whether Aristophanes invented this alarming landmark in Hades or took it frommystic doctrine”.

82 Radermacher 1967, 166.83 Cf. Dover 1993, 216: “Statements in the scholia that there was a stone of this name in

Attica, or in the underworld, sound like pure guesswork”.


Fig. 5. CIRB 1016 (taken from IAK, 14, 1905, 116).

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 23

here as some form of én¤sthmi: the assimilation a - e > e - e is a perfectlyordinary phenomenon in inscriptions of the Roman period;84 it is possible thatthe augment was transferred to the prefix – with §- instead of ±-, retaining iteven with the verb root;85 the use of e instead of h and vice versa86 and thetransition st > sy87 are also not a rare phenomena in late inscriptions. In otherrespects, however, Latÿshev’s interpretation raises most serious doubts.

Let us suppose that we should read §n°sye (i.e. én°sth)88 Saouainoni insteadof én°sthse(n), which does not appear utterly improbable for the period whenboth the stem aorist was disappearing and also the perfect and these were re-emerging in the system transitiva – intransitiva;89 cf. [én°]sthken tØn stÆlhnCIRB 706, 4 (a gravestone of c. the 2nd century AD) in a similar context.90

Yet, the assumption that a simple abbreviation of én°sth(se) or, still better,én°sth(san), would have resolved almost all the problems without risky con-jecture and unnecessary accusations of illiteracy in relation to the stone-carver(or author of the inscription) – there is still a good number of errors to befound in it. In these Bosporan epitaphs known to us, which were set up in thename of thiasoi or synodoi (CIRB 79, 88, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 106, 988), incontexts like these, the verb én¤sthmi is always used in the plural (in No. 88 –én°yhkan); cf. a typical example – No. 79: ≤ sÊnodow per‹ fler°a Kallisy°nhnbÄ ka‹ pat°ra sunÒdou ka‹ t«n loip«n yiaseit«n (sic) én°sthsan t[Øn] stÆlhnKall¤stvi ktl. Admittedly, this verb is never written anywhere in Bosporaninscriptions in an abbreviated form (although in other regions examples of thatare encountered)91: for this reason it is tempting to assume that there has beena partial haplography of the sequence of syllables -san Sa with assimilation ofthe final -n to the initial S-. In any case Latÿshev’s assumption is misplaced.

In view of all the above I now offer the following reading of the inscription:

84 Dieterich 1898, 3 ff., particularly 10. 85 Cf. Dieterich 1898, 213; Schwyzer 1953, 656, § 5c.86 Cf. Dovatur 1965, 800, § 2, 11-12 and directly in our inscription Noumen¤ou, l. 5.87 Tokhtas’ev 2000, 142, Note 81.88 Hardly the dubious ±n°sth, known apparently only as a far from authoritative variant read-

ing in John 2:22 (±n°sth §k nekr«n), cf. Blass, Debrunner, Rehkopf 1984, § 69, Note 2.89 See: Dieterich 1898, 235 ff. and 218 ff.90 Latÿshev (1905, 118, relating to no. 39) assumed that it was a mistake for én°sthsen.91 AN(°sthsa), ANES:(thsan), ANE:(sth)SEN and especially ANESTHS(en), Avi-Yonah

1940, 48.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 24

≤ y¤asow per‹ ≤-r°a92 Men°strato-n Ardarakou ka‹ ≤-romãstvra Dad-a Noumen¤ou ka‹filagãyou Krat¤p-pou §n°sye(san) Saouai-noni mnÆmhw xãrin

The name Sauanvn mentioned above (CIRB 1279, 8) is clearly a derivativefrom the Old Iranian *˜y®va-/*sy®va- ‘black’, Avestan sy®va-, Ossetian saw:*S®v®n < *Sy®va-®na-;93 cf. Siauow (IOSPE I2 103, 3), Siaouow (I.Olbia 52, 3)94

and the variants extended with a suffix *-aka-: Siauakow (CIRB 1242, 18), Sauagow(67, 8: Sauagou, sic, vidi!), Sauagaw (1099, 6)95 < *S(y)®va-k(a-). Siauaskow(Amaeiakou) (1279, 26)96, Sivmaxow (1287, 21 and 22) and the Scythian Saumakow97

92 The renderings of ≤r°a, ≤romãstvra (for other examples see CIRB 80; 88; 91; 1259, 7)reflect the usual ioticization of the initial i- before a vowel, which has survived in Greek to thisday; it could be omitted from choice, which evidently the creators of the inscription haveattempted to convey graphically in this unusual way; the spellings §fÉ •r°[vw?], toË •r°vw inAttic inscriptions of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (Threatte 1980, 392: “careless omission”?);according to Threatte (ibidem, 392 f.), flreÊw, eflreÊw in the Roman period inscriptions probablyindicate contraction of ie to ] (cf. flr°a CIRB 1054; eflr[o]fãnthw, Cole 1991, 41 ff., l. 7) shouldbe explained in a different way; fler«ion (CIRB 731) can be explained by the natural influenceof words in fler- from the same area of vocabulary.

93 This is approved of as correct in Zgusta 1955, § 207. 94 Cf. Old Iranian *Sy®va-, *Yyava- (Old Persian form), *Sy®vaka- in Akkadian and Elamite

sources, Khorezmian ∞’w·, and also Vedic ˆyáva-, ˆyávaka-, see: Hinz 1975, 229, 241.95 For references to other epigraphic evidence, see: Vinogradov 1998a, 234 ff., 239 ff. The

editors of CIRB 1099 (l. 6) and Yailenko (1987a, 164) preferred a hapax (and what is morebefore a lacuna!) Sauagaskou[- - -] to what was natural in the context of the parallels (and also from the point of view of language) Sauagaw Kou[- - -] (as Tikhanova had already donefollowing on from Kulakovskii); after KOU there is more than enough room on the stone (vidi!; in 1993 the stone was in the cellar of the Kerch Museum – Inv. No. KL-1011). WhatVinogradov suggested (Vinogradov 1998a, 239): Sauagaw kÒm[hw, is also hardly possible. Foranother name with the stem Saua[- - -], see: Emets and Chevelev 1995, 17, No. 15, Tyri(s)take,3rd century AD. The material cited (cf. also Siauaskow, below) shows that in the first centuriesAD the transition *˜ya- (> *·ya-?) > *sya- > *sa- (cf. Edelman 1986, 83 ff.) might still occurin Sarmatian dialects.

96 Possibly a two-stem hypocoristic instead of *Siaua-sa-kow, with a syncope in paenultima(cf. Thordarsson 1986, 499-511).

97 See: Huyse 1998 183 ff.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 25

are not entirely clear. In Bosporan inscriptions of the Roman period othernames similar in sound are also encountered: Saunaso[w- - -o]u (CIRB 1280,26),98 Siaunansow EÈar¤sto[u] (1282, 25), Saun[a- - -] (1286, 14) – possiblythis is one and the same person on all three occasions;99 most probably thefollowing names are not relevant here – Saurofow (698), Seurag(ow) 1099, 12.

Our Saouainvn can be explained with reference to the same *˜y®va-: *S®va-in(a) < *Sy®va-ina-100 with the addition of the Greek formant -vn (as also inSauanvn);101 however, is the coincidence of Saouai-nvn and Sauai-vsou(below) simply a question of chance? The problem lies in the fact that behindGreek renderings of this and certain other names listed above there may liehidden other Iranian anthroponymic stems (Namenwörter), cf. Avest. sav®-,sava- ‘use’, savah- ‘strength, power’, cf. Bagdo-sauow102 Sauai-vsou (1282, 18;cf. above, Note 10; on division – Bagd-oxow 1279, 26, *Baxta-vahu-)103 andGodo-sauow (1287, 29) with an unclear first element (cf. Scythian (?) GotowCIRB 226, 4 century BC). On the digraph -ou- for conveying the Iranian(Sarmatian) intervocalic *-v-, cf. Arshouaxow (IOSPE I2 82, 8 et alii: *-vahu-),Araouhbow (CIRB 1279, 24), Karzouazow (IOSPE I2 83, 5 et alii).

98 A fragment of the inscription with the end of l. 26 was lost already, it seems, before thetime when work began on CIRB; it was missing not only in the lapidarium of the HermitageMuseum, but also in the photograph for the book of illustrations accompanying CIRB, whichwas prepared for publication soon after CIRB itself had been published (at the present time allthis illustrative material is in the archive of the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the RussianAcademy of Sciences).

99 ns > s is normal as indeed is the retention of ns in late epigraphic texts; apart from theabove-mentioned Saunansow cf. Xansabogazow CIRB 1280, 15; 1284, 12; [- - -]orans[- - -]1277, 26; Sirdouxansow IOSPE I2 132, 11; cf. Schwyzer 1953, 287.

100 On the retention of the dipthong ai in Sarmatian dialects, see: Abaev 1976, 325.101 Cf. Huyse 1998, 184, Note 104; Tokhtas’ev 2002, 88 ff.102 Zgusta 1955, § 74 and later with bibliographies – Huyse 1998, 171 ff. and Note 26. The

same name with inverted components is provided by the Khorezmian swbgtk /Saw-bagdak/ <*Sava-baxta-ka-: Livshits 1984, 268 ff.; 283, Note 80 (“endowed with usefulness/advantage”).

103 Bartholomae 1904, 1561 ff. For material on this, see: Zgusta 1955, § 75; Grantovskii1971, 217, No. 32; Hinz 1975, 224, 230; Mayrhofer 1979, 74, No. 276 (Avest. Sauuah- andcompound names); Schmitt 1987, 247 ff. (Sabãkhw).


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 26

8. GAEIS

The editors of CIRB 1034 accept Latÿshev’s reading (in the note on thepublication by Shkorpil104 and in the manuscript of IOSPE II2): [T]aeiw, onlyby way of a misunderstanding. Latÿshev made reference to IOSPE IV 435, 13 ~ CIRB 1142): T[a?]eiw, however, this reading turned out to be mistakenand was rejected by the compilers of CIRB themselves (leg. Goshtleiw!). Ofcourse, this should be read as Gaeis as by Shkorpil (see: note 104), who,unlike Latÿshev, had worked with the actual stone and insisted that the firstletter was not damaged (see Fig. 6). Gaeiw = Gãiow, cf. the same form in IGII3 10318 (SinvpeÊw), and more widespread Gãiw, for example, at Rome,105 inAttica (IG II3 4815, 10986), Macedonia,106 Thrace (IGBulg II 554), Asia Minor(I.Knidos 348; MAMA IX 73, 9; TAM V/1-2. 110), Egypt107 and Cyrenaica(LGPN I, 106), and also the intermediate form Gãeiow (e.g., I.Ephesos 871;I.Prusa 114; MAMA I 175: Gãeiow EfioÊliow). On the subject of OÈal°riw (CIRB104) Russu aptly noted108 that the reduction -iow > -iw could also have takenplace in the Latin etymon (but under Greek influence?), cf. Aprilis, Dalmatis,and also Gais and so on in Latin inscriptions.109

104 Shkorpil 1911, 102 (No. 14), note 1.105 Leon 1960, 278, Nos. 100, 101.106 IG IX/2/1 733; SEG XXXVIII. 684. 17, as well as Ga˝ou, l. 40, 41.107 Preisigke 1922, 78; Foraboschi 1971, 85.108 Russu 1966, 337.109 Mihaescu 1978, 189-190.


Fig. 6. CIRB 1036 (taken from IAK 40, 1911, 102, No. 14).

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 27

9. CIRB 1059

A type of epitaph which is rare in the Bosporus in the early period (5th-4th

centuries BC, according to CIRB), in which the name of the deceased is foundin the dative (cf. 183, 911), and the name of the person who has had the mon-ument erected is also indicated. In CIRB the text of l. 4/5 is given as restoredby Latÿshev (manuscript of IOSPE II2)

Pol°m[arx]ow¶sthsenÉIsokrãteit«i ÉAxillh-˝[vi].

1. To judge from the reproduction of the inscription in the editio princeps it shouldbe read as Pol°m[ar]xow.

Marti, who first published this inscription (in a stylized epigraphic font andwithout a photograph),110 read ÉAxill[Æ]i (sic) – allegedly instead of ÉAxille›as a nickname (nom. ÉAxilleÊw), which is quite unacceptable, bearing in mindat least the date of the inscription;111 apart from that, to judge from the repro-duction of the inscription in Marti’s own work, there are traces of some otherletters after the iota. Yet the suggestion made by Latÿshev, who saw this lastword as an ethnic – ‘Achillian’ (cf. ÉAx¤lleion k≈mh in the Asian Bosporus,Strabo VII, 4, 5; XI, 2, 6: one and the same source, probably the Geographu-

110 Marti 1910, 11, No. 1. The inscription has unfortunately been lost.111 And despite Sinvp∞i, I.Olbia 1, 5th century BC (on the dating see: Vinogradov 1997, 14),

this is the dative for SinvpeÊw (cf. Dovatur 1969, 108a) etc. (Bechtel 1923, 149 § 131).


Fig. 7. CIRB 1059 (taken from ZOOID. XXVIII. Minutes, 11, No. I).

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 28

mena of Artemidorus of Ephesus)112 is also not particularly convincing, sincehe assumes the absence of a patronymic in a fairly extensive context. It is pre-cisely the patronymic ÉAxillÆ[o], which in my opinion should be restored atthe end of the inscription (and after that ufl«i or paid¤?). As regards the vocal-ism (resp. suffixation: *-hWio-) cf. what is by its form the same adjective ÉAxillÆiowdrÒmow, Hdt. IV, 55; 76, 4; ÉAxillÆion pÒliw, V, 94, 2, and above, note 2.113

As an anthroponym ÉAxillÆiow (or ÉAx¤lleiow with a reduction of hi in front ofa vowel, cf. above, note 20) would appear to have been previously unknown,but if we bear in mind the special veneration in which Achilles was held inPontus (in the Bosporan Achilleion there was a shrine to this hero, Strabo XI,2, 6) it does not appear unexpected; cf. also one specifically North Ponticname – ÉAxillÒdvrow in the famous letter from the island of Berezan114 andalso in a defixio from Olbia dating from the first half of the 4th century BC.115

Moreover, it is also possible to restore ÉAxillÆi[dev], cf. ÉAxille¤dhw fromPriene (I.Priene 266, 1) dating from the 2nd century BC (< ÉAxillÆidhw) and asimilar principle could be followed for the formation of Basilh˝dhw, Hdt. VIII,132, 2.116

When Alcaeus (fr. 354 [Z 31] Lobel – Page) calls Achilles “the guardianof Scythia (or: of the Scythian land)”, he, of course, has in mind first and fore-most his cult on the island of Leuke, yet he extends his rule almost thoughthe whole of the North Pontic region. Did he know about the Bosporan cultof Achilles? Unfortunately the Achilleion has not yet been found and investi-gated archaeologically: the date of its foundation and the inauguration of thecult remain unknown. For this reason it is impossible to resolve the otherquestion as well: did the Bosporans venerate Achilles basing their cult on cer-tain ideas brought to them from the metropolis, or had they taken on his cultfrom their fellow tribesmen in the North-west of Pontus? The lead letter fromPhanagoreia dating from the last quarter of the 6th century BC, which Vinogradov

112 Cf. Baladié 1989, 22.113 On the use of the article in patronymics, cf. ÑHgÆnassa ≤ LÊkvnow (see above, 2),

ÉIhtrokle› t«i ÑEkata¤o Sinvp∞i in the inscription already (note 111) mentioned above I.Olbia1 (Vinogradov 1997, 14 and note 41, without any particular substantiation suggested that thisshould be read ÉIhtrokle¤tvi) and further: Kocewalow 1935, 35 ff.

114 Cf. Vinogradov 1971, 97 (with a reference to Dil’ 1916, 50). The last edition of the let-ter – Dubois 1996, No. 23.

115 Dil’ 1916, 40 ff. = Tolstoi 1953, No. 63 (= Dubois 1996, No. 105).116 From the epithet of Zeus – BasileÊw, see Bechtel 1917, 533.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 29

recently published117 shows that as early as the initial stage in the existence ofthe Bosporan colonies they maintained close contacts with the Berezan settle-ment. This evidence is supplemented by a graffito from Berezan of the firstquarter of the 5th century ÉApatÒrhw ( f. gen.)118 which, regardless of its inter-pretation (an epithet for Aphrodite or a theophoric anthroponym), testifies tothe influence of the cities of the Asiatic Bosporus on the cultural life of theBerezan settlement.119

10. New evidence of the vulgar declension in -çw -çnow.

Punched inscriptions on a small gold “amulet box” (phylactery) cylindricalin shape from a 3rd-century burial, Tyri(s)take:120

(a) Oxaza-now FAP vel P

(b) Foriua-now cu-xÆ

The editors consider that both these names appear in the nominative, al-though similar inscriptions on items of jewellery originating from the Bos-porus in the Roman period would point rather to the genitive – at least forinscription (b).

On a “gold cylinder” (evidently a similar phylactery) from a burial-moundnear the Takil Cape (to the south of Kerch) the following words can be dis-cerned: MÊrvnow | ka‹ | Dhmosy°nou | cuxa¤, and also on a gold ring from thesame place: ’Isidog(°)nou c(u)xÆ.121 In a burial at the Kÿz-Aul necropolis near

117 Vinogradov 1998, 160 ff., No. 3 (= SEG XLVIII 1024).118 Tolstoi 1953, No. 78 (= Dubois 1996, No. 75).119 Tokhtas’ev 1999, 187 ff.120 Emets, Chevelev 1995, 20, No. 38 (with no illustration).121 Marti 1913, 36 ff.; it is said to contain mistakes, but although Marti does not indicate

what they are, in the important details his reading does not raise any doubts. Cf. another inscrip-tion on a ring from Panticapaeum dating from the 2nd century AD – Neverov in: Koshelenko et alii 1984, 352, pl. CLXI, 25; the inscription is only comprehensible in part – in the drawingthe following can be made out: PAL|LEI|I (?) EI || cuxÆ (-ei – the genitive of -eiw); Neverov’s‘translation’ is bewildering: “To the Soul of Pallakos”. Ibidem, 351, pl. CLX, 30, see another


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 30

Kerch a gold phylactery dating from the 2nd-3rd century was found in the formof a casket bearing an inscription worked in gold wire: Prok|l¤vnow cu|xÆ.122

It can be seen that the names are given in the genitive in these cases.In two other cases, like the inscription (a) on the phylactery from Tyri(s)-

take, the grammatical form of the names is not so clear, since the names arenot Greek, but it can be still be easily recognized thanks to the parallels citedimmediately above and parallels of other kinds as well. On a gold ring datingfrom the 3rd century AD and found in the necropolis of so-called Iluraton (acity-site near the village of Ivanovka in the Kerch peninsula) there is a punchedinscription, which reads: Madaw cuxÆ.123 On the hoop of a gold ring with aturquoise inlay from the Panticapaeum necropolis which evidently dates fromthe 2nd-3rd century AD a punched inscription also reads: Atanow cuxÊ (sic!)(Fig. 8).124 Atanow is the genitive form of Ataw, which (like the feminine Ata)is known in Lydia (lyd. Ata˜): gen. Atadow, dat. Ata.125 This inscription isanother example of the rare n-declension of personal names in the Bosporus(otherwise the phenomenon is only encountered in Macedonia, Thessaly,

gold ring from the 1st century BC or 1st century AD from Panticapaeum with the inscriptionPantagã|you | pne(Ë)ma. Here pneËma should designate the substance accompanying cuxÆ (cf.LSJ s.v. pneËma II. 4; III; Bauer, Aland and Aland 1988, s.v., 3).

122 Emets, Chevelev 1995, 121, fig. 43, 23, No. 43.123 Kublanov 1979, 92, fig. 1, 3 with the reading Madaw, CuxÆ; indeed the feminine name

CuxÆ is well known in the Bosporus (CIRB 296, 323, 389 et alii), but the parallels and theexistence of the feminine name Mada (CIRB 456; cf. Tokhtas’ev 2000, 52 ff.), speak in favourof the appellative.

124 Shkorpil 1904, 116, fig. 31.125 Zgusta 1964, § 119-1, 2.


Fig. 8. An inscription on the hoop of a ring from the necropolis at Panticapaeum (taken fromIAK 9, 1904, 116, Fig. 31b).

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 31

Thrace to the North of Rhodope), a subject on which I have prepared a spe-cial study.126

The earliest parallel for inscriptions with cuxÆ known to me – admittedlyon a vessel – is a graffito on a kylix from Olbia dating from the 5th centuryBC: Aktigaio cuxØ ktl.127 The meaning of such inscriptions is not clear andmerits special examination, but formally these are at any rate periphrasticexpressions of the type “soul of Orestes” with the meaning ‘Orestes himself(according to the properties of his soul)’ as found in Sophocles, El. 1127:mnhme›on . . . / cux∞w ÉOr°stou loipÒn (about the urn with his ashes).128

It thus follows that in inscription (b) we find, without doubt, the genitive ofForiuaw. The editors have aptly compared this name with Foriauow (CIRB1279, 16, Tanais, from the year 225 AD), which appear to be Iranian: the sug-gestion made long ago seems highly convincing – namely to the effect that thefirst part has similarities with Iranian names with *paru- ‘many (numerous),polu-’ > *pur > *fur (> Osset. Digor. fur, Iron. fyr),129 probably a composite-bahuvr¬hi *Paru-yava- (*yava- ‘millet’).130 Foriuaw would appear to be an-other rendering of the same name; -aw would not seems to reflect the oldthematic vowel, but to have appeared in connection with the transition to theparadigm of perispomena (leg. Foriuçw), i.e. at the time when this name wasalready being used in the Greek language (cf. above 1, on Moukounçw et alii).

The interpretation of inscription (a) presents more of a problem. The editorsrefer to a Sarmatian name “of similar sound” – Oxoarzanow (CIRB 1242, 19:*Vahu-varz®na-131 (this parallel is evidently a false one), and presumablyregard the following three letters as abbreviations of an Iranian name startingwith Farn- (e.g. Farnãkhw), noting, admittedly, that the last letter might alsobe read as P. Yet, if we bear in mind inscription (b) and others cited above,and also the identical ending -anow in both names, then here too we ought to

126 Cf. previously: Svpçnow CIRB 634; [.]agçnow (sic, vidi!) 907; Abçni dat. m. 941; ÉAgayoËwÉAgayoËnow 1105; KaloËnow 495; MastoËno[w] 930; PoyoËnow 598 and SEG XXVIII 641; Xondeinow661; [K]oitia . . . Koitianow, Tokhtas’ev 2002a, 91 ff.

127 Dubois 1996, No. 30; cf. Tokhtas’ev 1999, 182. – Cf. also the inscription cuxª kalª onthe lead frame of a mirror from Panticapaeum (Kalashnik 1979, 117) and an inscription on cor-nelian mnemÒneue t∞w kal∞w cux∞w – Stephani 1866, 26.

128 Cf. Kaibel 1896, 245: cuxÆ – “der Sitz aller Gemüts- und Charakteristikeigenschaften”.129 Abaev 1958, 499 and 500, s.v. fys; Isaev 1987, 556 f.130 See: Vasmer 1923, 55; Abaev 1976, 298; Zgusta 1955 § 246.131 Zgusta 1955, § 177.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 32

expect a genitive. At the same time, if ÉOxazçnow is the genitive,132 what canit be dependent on?

It is unfortunate that the last letter has not been identified authoritativelyonce and for all; if we read FAR it is possible to suggest that this is not anabbreviated patronymic with *farnah-, but an abbreviation of that Iranianword itself, which designates some kind of blessing, and constitutes to someextent a pendant of the Greek cuxÆ ‘the totality of a human being’s intellec-tual characteristics’ and correlates with the latter in inscription (b). At any ratefrom the linguistic point of view the reading FAR is, without doubt, preferable(what word could begin with FAP-)?

In accordance with the concepts of the Ossetians, in whose culture manyrelics of their Sarmatian past have survived, each worthy man possesses afarn; cf. the phrase from an Ossetian folkloric text: dæ farn, de zædy stæn –“I entreat you in the name of your farn, in the name of your angel”133 andalso proverbs, in which the meaning of the word farn is apparently similar tothat of the Greek éretÆ:134 fydy farn mærdtæm næcæwy – “the farn of thefather does not depart to the dead” (i.e. to the realm of the dead),135 and fydyfarnæj furtæn ustur xaj jes – “a great part of the father’s farn belongs to theson”.136 What we have here is a remarkable Sarmatian-Ossetian parallel, sincein North Pontic inscriptions of the 2nd-3rd centuries the names Pitfarnakow,Fitofar[nakow], Pitofarnakow (correspondingly in IOSPE I2 2, 26; CIRB 1181and 1278, 9) < *Pita-farnaka- ‘in possession of the father’s farn’, in connec-tion with which Abaev137 mentions another Ossetian (Digor.) expression fidi-farnæ ‘the farn of the father’.

132 Nom. ÉOxazçw, a similar – as in the case of Foriuçw – hypocoristic from a compositename with *vahu- ‘eÔ’ or a complete name; in the latter case, probably, on *Vahu-vaza-‘EÈãgvn’ with haplology (or haplography)? Cf. Karz-ouazow (IOSPE I2 83, 5 et alii; above 7),Old Iranian *Arya-vaza-, “Iraner-Führer” (Hinz 1975, 41), and also Nabazow (CIRB 1279, 15;IOSPE I2 137, 7; 138, 4) < *Nab®-aza-(?), cf. Avest. nav®za-, KhS h¬n®ysä ‘strathgÒw’ <*haina-aza-.

133 Abaev 1958, 421 (cf. farny zæd – ‘angel of the peace’; zæd, Digor. izæd traced back tothe Old Iranian *yazata- ‘deity, da¤mvn’); a similar expression is quoted in the “Ossetisch-Russisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch” by Miller and Freiman (Miller, Freiman 1934, 134).

134 Cf., for example, in the archaic Boeotian epigram from Ptoion CEG 334: tÁ Wãnaxw (sc.ÖApolon), fefÊlaxso, d¤doi ér(e)tãn [te ka‹ ˆlbon].

135 Miller, Freiman 1934, 134.136 Dzagurov 1980, 180.137 Abaev 1976, 299.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 33

Thus the éreta¤ of Yuri Vinogradov will not only always be remembered,but will always bring him renown – kl°ow êfyiton; his name is destined for along life in the academic world thanks to his work, which, it is to be hoped,his pupils will carry forward.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abaev, V.I. 1958: Istoriko-étimologicheskii slovar’ osetinskogo yazÿka I (Moscow, Leningrad).Abaev, V.I. 1979: Skifo-sarmatskie narechiya. In V.I. Abaev, M.N. Bogolyubov,V.S.

Rastorgueva (eds.), Osnovÿ iranskogo yazÿkoznaniya (Moscow), 272-364.Avi-Yonah, M. 1940: Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (The Near East, 200 B.C. – A.D.

1100) (Jerusalem, London).Baladié, R. 1989: Strabon. Géographie. T. IV (Livre VII). Texte établi et traduit par R. Baladié

(Paris).Bartholomae, Chr. 1904: Altiranisches Wörterbuch (Strassburg).Baslez, M.-F. 1985: Présence et traditions iraniennes dans les cités de l’Égée. REA 87, 137-155.Bauer, W., Aland, K., Aland, B. 19886: Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Berlin, New York).Bechtel, F. 1898: Die einstämmigen männlichen Personennamen des Griechischen, die aus

Spitznamen hervorgegangen sind (Abh. kgl. Gesellsch. Wiss. Göttingen, N.F. 2/5) (Berlin).Bechtel, F. 1902: Die attischen Frauennamen (Göttingen).Bechtel, F. 1917: Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (Halle a.

d. S.).Bechtel, F. 1923: Die griechischen Dialekte, III (Berlin).Belova, N.S. 1970: Posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Kep. VDI 2, 62-72.Belova, N.S. 1977: Épigraficheskie materialÿ Fanagoriiskoi ékspeditsii. VDI 3, 103-117.Belova, N.S. 1984: Novaya nadpis’ iz Germonassÿ i nekotorÿe zamechaniya o lapidarnoi épi-

grafike Bospora III v. do n. é. VDI 2, 78-86.Blass, F., Debrunner A., Rehkopf, F. 1984: Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch

(Göttingen).Blavatskii, V.D. 1985: Graffito Afrodisii. In V.D. Blavatskii, Antichnaya arkheologiya i istoriya

(Moscow) 24-25.Boltunova, A.I. 1950: Neizdannÿe nadgrobiya iz Kerchi i okrestnostei. VDI 4, 69-78.Boltunova, A.I. 1959: Grecheskaya metricheskaya nadpis’ iz Kerchi. SA 1, 169-172.Brixhe, Cl. 19872: Essai sur le grec anatolien au début de notre ère (Nancy).Brixhe, Cl. 1991: Bull. ép., No. 507. REG, 104, 522-523. Brixhe, Cl. 1997: Bull. ép., No. 570. REG, 111, 580.Chantraine, P. 1933: La formation des noms en grec ancien (Paris).Chantraine, P. 1958: Grammaire homérique, I (Paris).Chuistova, L.I. 1962: Svyatilishche Afroditi v Pantikapei. In: Arkheologichni pam’yatki URSR

11 (Kiev), 181-186.Cole, S.G. 1991: Dionysiac Mysteries in Phrygia in the Imperial Period. EpAn 17, 41-49.Conovici, N. 1998: Histria. VIII. Les timbres amphoriques. 2. Sinope (Bucarest, Paris).


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 34

Corsten, Th. 1990: Neue Grabstelen mit Totenmahlreliefs aus der Gegend von Prusa adOlympum (Bithynien). EpAn 16, 91-108.

Coulon, V. 19912: Aristophane. T. IV. Les Thesmophories. Les Grenouilles. Texte établi par V. Coulon (Paris).

Detschew, D. 19762: Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Wien).Dieterich, K. 1898: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von der hellenis-

tischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jh. n. Chr. (Leipzig).Dil’, É. 1916: Ol’viiskaya chashka s nagovorom. IAK 58, 1-17.Dovatur, A.I. 1965: Kratkii ocherk grammatiki bosporskikh nadpisei. In: CIRB, 797-831.Dovatur, A.I. 1969: Retsenziya: Nadpisi Ol’vii (1917-1965). Pod red. T.N. Knipovich i E.I.

Levi. Leningrad, 1968. VDI 2, 107-111.Dover, K. (ed.) 1993: Aristophanes Frogs (Oxford).Dubois, L. 1996: Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (Genève).Dumberg, K.E. 1901: Raskopka kurganov na Zubovskom khutore. IAK 1, 94-103.Dzagurov, G.A. 1980: Osetinskie (digorskie) narodnÿe izrecheniya. Iz sobraniya G.A. Dza-

gurova (Moscow).Édel’man, D.I. 1986: Sravnitel’naya grammatika vostochnoiranskikh yazÿkov. Fonologiya (Moscow).Ehrhardt, N. 1983: Milet und seine Kolonien (Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York).Emets, I.A., Chevelev, O.D. 1995: Épigraficheskie materialÿ s Kerchenskogo poluostrova. In:

Épigraficheskii vestnik 1 (Moscow), 9-34.Fick, A., Bechtel, F. 1894: Die griechischen Personennamen (Göttingen).Finogenova, S.I., Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2003: Novÿe dannÿe o kul’te Afroditÿ v Germonasse. Hyperboreus

9/1, 83-88.Foraboschi, D. 1971: Onomasticon alterum papyrologicum (Milano, Varese).Gärtchen, P., Hoffmann, O. 1914: Nachträge und Wortregister. In: SGDI IV/IV. 2 (Göttingen).Georgakas, D.J. 1948: On the Nominal Endings -iw, -in in Later Greek. CPh 43, 243-260.Grantovskii, É.A. 1971: Rannyaya istoriya iranskikh plemen Perednei Azii (Moscow).Hinz, W. 1975: Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen (Wiesbaden).Humbach, H. 1968: Griechische und indogermanische Femininbildungen. In: Münchener Studien

zur Sprachwissenschaft 24, 43-53.Huyse, Ph. 1990: Iranische Namen in den griechischen Dokumenten Ägyptens. Iranisches

Personennamenbuch. V/6a (Wien).Huyse, Ph. 1998: Gab es eine Lautentwicklung /k/ > /x/ im “Skytho-Sarmatischen”?

Hyperboreus 4/1 (Petropoli), 167-190.Isaev, M. I. 1987: Osetinskii. In: Osnovÿ iranskogo yazÿkoznaniya. Novoiranskie yazÿki: Vostochnaya

gruppa (Moscow), 537-643.Jannaris, A.N. 1897: An Historical Greek Grammar (London, New York).Justi, F. 1895: Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg).Kaibel, G. 1896: Sophokles Elektra (Leipzig).Kalashnik, Yu.P. 1979: Svintsovÿe ramki steklyannÿkh zerkal v sobranii Érmitazha. In K.S.

Gorbunova (ed.), Iz istorii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya v antichnuyu épokhu (Leningad),116-123.

Karÿshkovskii, P.O. 1993: Novÿe ol’viiskie posvyascsheniya pervÿkh vekov nashei érÿ. VDI 1,73-96.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 35

Kock, Th. 18682: Ausgewählte Komödien des Aristophanes, erkl. von Th. Kock. 3: Die Frösche(Berlin).

Kocewalow, A. 1935: Syntaxis inscriptionum antiquarum coloniarum Graecarum orae septen-trionalis Ponti Euxini. Eus Suppl. 12 (Leopoli).

Koshelenko, G.A. et alii (eds.) 1984: Antichnÿe gosudarstva Severnogo Prichernomor’ya.Arkheologiya SSSR (Moscow).

Kublanov, M.M. 1979: Novÿe pogrebal’nÿe sooruzheniya Ilurata. KSIA 159, 90-97.Kutaisov, V.A. 1992: Kerkinitida (Simferopol).Latyshev, V.V. 1905: Épigraficheskie novosti iz Yuzhnoi Rossii. IAK 14, 94-137.van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) 1896: Aristophanis Ranae. (Lugduni Batt.).Leon, H.J. 1960: The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia).Lifshitz, B. 1968: Épigrammes grecques du Bosphore. RhM N.F. 111, 23-36.Lipinski, E. 1975: Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I (Leuven).Livshits, V.A. 1984: Dokumentÿ. In: Toprak-Kala. Dvorets (Moscow), 251-286.Marti, Yu.Yu. 1910: Novÿe bosporskie nadgrobiya, priobretennÿe Muzeem Melek-

Chesmenskogo kurgana v 1907-1908 gg. ZOOID 28, 11-15.Marti, Yu.Yu. 1913: Novÿi épigraficheskii material iz Kerchi i ee okrestnostei. ZOOID 31 (Protokolÿ),

27-38.Masson, O. 1987: Noms grecs de femmes formés sur des participes. Tyche 2, 107-112.Mayrhofer, M. 1973: Onomastica Persepolitana (Wien).Mayrhofer, M. 1979: Iranisches Personennamenbuch I. Fasz. 1: Die altiranischen Namen

(Wien).Meyer, G. 18963: Griechische Grammatik (Leipzig).Mihaescu, H. 1978: La langue latine dans le Sud-Est de l’Europe (Bucure¤ti, Paris).Mihailov, G. 1943: La langue des inscriptions grecques en Boulgarie (Sofia).Mihailov, G. 1969: Les thraces en Égypte. Linguistique Balkanique XIII/1, 31-44.Miller, V.F., Freiman, A.A. 1934: Ossetisch-Russisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch III (Leningrad).Monakhov, S.Yu. 1999: Grecheskie amforÿ v Prichernomor’e. Kompleksÿ keramicheskoi tarÿ

VI-II vv. do n. é. (Saratov).Neumann, G. 1969: Kyprisch to-i-po-wa-ta-u. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83.Preisigke, F. 1922: Namenbuch (Heidelberg).Radermacher, L. 19673: Aristophanes’ ‘Frösche’ (Graz, Wien, Köln).Robert, L. 1963: Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine I (Paris).Russu, I.I. 1966: Review CIRB. Studii clasice VIII, 324-329.Schmitt, R. 1978: Die theophoren Eigennamen mit Altiranisch *Miyra-. In: Études mithraïques

(Acta Iranica 17) (Leiden etc.), 395-455.Schmitt, R. 1989 [1987]: Der Name des bei Issos gefallenen Satrapen Ägyptens. Archäologische

Mitteilungen aus Iran 20, 247-249.Schwyzer, Ed. 1953: Griechische Grammatik I (München).Sergeev, G.P. 1966: Oloneshtskii antichnÿi klad. VDI, 2, 132-142.Shebalin, N.V. 1987: O nadpisi KBN 147. In: Yazÿk i stil’ pamyatnikov antichnoi literaturÿ

(Philologia classica 3) (Leningrad), 185-187.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 36

Shkorpil, V.V. 1904: Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh raskopkakh v Kerchi i ego okrestnostyakhv 1902 g. IAK 9, 73-177.

Shkorpil, V.V. 1911: Bosporskie nadpisi, naidennÿe v 1910 g. IAK 40, 92-113.Shkorpil, V.V. 1917: Novonaidennÿe bosporskie nadpisi. IAK 63, 109-121.Sidorova, N.A. 1992: Chernofigurnaya keramika iz raskopok Pantikapeya 1945-1958. In:

Arkheologiya i iskusstvo Bospora (Soobshcheniya GMII 10) (Moscow), 204-236.Sokolova, O.Yu., Pavlichenko, N.A. 2002: Novaya posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Nimfeya.

Hyperboreus 8/1, 99-121.Stanford, W.B. (ed.) 1958: Aristophanes. The Frogs. (London, New York).Stephani, L. 1866: Parerga archaeologica. XXVI, Mélanges gréco-romains II (St. Petersburg).Thordarsson, F. 1986: Ossetisch uæxsk/usqæ. In: Studia grammatica Iranica. FS für Helmut Humbah

(München), 499-511.Threatte, L. 1980: The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. I (Berlin, New York).Thumb, A., Scherer, A. 1959: Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte II (Heidelberg).Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1986: Apatur. Istoriya bosporskogo svyatilishcha Afroditÿ Uranii. VDI 2,

138-145.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1994: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya: III-IV. Hyperboreus 1/1,

155-166.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1994/1995: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya: V-IX. Hyperboreus 1/2,

138-145.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1997: K izdaniyu kataloga keramicheskikh kleim Khersonesa. Hyperboreus

3/2, 362-404.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1999: Review: Dubois, L. Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont.

Genève, 1986. Hyperboreus 5/1, 164-192.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2000: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya: X-XVII. Hyperboreus 6/1,

124-156.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2000a: Gaza, lyubimaya zhena Diya. In: SUSSITIA. Pamyati Yuriya Viktoro-

vicha Andreeva (St. Petersburg), 232-236.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2002: Ostrakon s poseleniya ol’viiskoi khorÿ Kozÿrka-XII. Hyperboreus 8/1,

72-98.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2002a: Nadpisi Tamanskogo Muzeya. Tamanskaya starina 4 (St. Petesburg),

81-106.Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2004: Bospor i Sindika v épokhu Levkona I. VDI 2, 144-180.Tolstikov, V.P. 1984: K probleme obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva (Opÿt rekonstruktsii

voenno-politicheskoi situatsii na Bospore v kontse VI – pervoi polovine V v. do n.é.). VDI3, 24-48.

Tolstikov, V.P., Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1999: Dekret Spartokidov iz dvortsovogo kompleksa naakropole Pantikapeya. In A.I. Melyukova, M.G. Moshkova, V.A. Bashilov (eds.),Evraziiskie drevnosti. 100 let B.N. Grakovu. Arkhivnÿe materialÿ, publikatsii, stat’i (Mos-cow), 282-304.

Tolstoi, I.I. 1953: Grecheskie graffiti drevnikh gorodov Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow,Leningrad).


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 37

Treister, M.Yu. 1990: Drevneishii predmet étrusskogo proizvodstva v Severnom Prichernomor’ei nekotorÿe problemÿ rannei istorii Pantikapeya. KSIA 197, 37-44.

Treshcheva, Yu.N. 1975: O dvukh ol’viiskikh posvyashcheniyakh Akhillu. VDI 1, 68-75.Tunkina, I.V. 2002: Russkaya nauka o klassicheskikh drevnostyakh Yuga Rossii (XVIII – sere-

dina XIX v.) (St. Petersburg).Tsekhmistrenko, V.I. 1960: Sinopskie keramicheskie kleima s imenami goncharnÿkh masterov.

SA 3, 59-77.Vasmer, M. 1923: Untersuchungen über die ältesten Wohnsitze der Slaven I: Die Iranier in

Südrußland (Leipzig).Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1971: Drevneishee grecheskoe pis’mo s ostrova Berezan. VDI 4, 74-100.Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1972: Iz istorii arkhaicheskoi Ol’vii. SA 2, 232-238.Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1990: Bull. ép., No. 584. REG 103, 553.Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1997: Pontische Studien (Mainz).Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1998: The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Region in the Light of

Private Lead Letters. In G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black SeaArea (Stuttgart), 153-178.

Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1998: Pozdneantichnÿi Bospor i rannyaya Vizantiya (v svete datirovannÿkhbosporskikh nadpisei V veka). VDI 1, 233-247.

Weber, D. 1972: Zur sogdischen Personennamengebung. IF 77, 191-208.Weißbach, F.H. 1924: Kyros (6). RE Suppl. IV, 1128-1177.Yailenko, V.P. 1983: Grecheskaya kolonizatsiya VII-III vv. do n. é. (Moscow).Yailenko, V.P. 1987: Materialÿ po bosporskoi épigrafike. In A.I. Pavlovskaya (ed.), Nadpisi i

yazÿki drevnei Maloi Azii, Kipra i antichnogo Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow),4-201.

Yailenko, V.P. 1987a: O korpuse vizantiiskikh nadpisei v SSSR. Vizantiiskii vremennik 48, 160-171.

Zgusta, L. 1955: Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste (Praha).Zgusta, L. 1964: Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prag).Zgusta, L. 1984: Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen (Heidelberg).Ziouta, Xr., Karamitrou-Menesidi, G. 1988: To arxaiologiko ergo sth Makedonia kai

Yrakh 2 (Yessalonikh).

Abbreviations

BGU Ägyptische Urkunden aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Griechische Urkunden(Berlin, 1895-).

Bull. ép. Bulletin épigraphique, REG (Paris).CEG Carmina epigraphica Graeca. Ed. P.A. Hansen (Berlin, New York, 1983-)CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Ed. A. Boeckh (Berlin, 1825-1877).CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1863-).CIRB Corpus inscriptionum Regni Bosporani (Moscow, Leningrad, 1965).CPh Classical Philology.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 38

Del.3 Dialectarum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora. Ed. E. Schwyzer(Lipsiae, 1923).

EpAn Epigraphica Anatolica: Zeitschrift für Epigraphik und historische GeographieAnatoliens (Bonn, Habelt).

GMII Gosudarstvennÿi muzei izobrazitel’nÿkh iskusstv im. A. Pushkina (Moscow).I.Ephesos H. Wankel, R. Merkelbach et alii. Die Inschriften von Ephesos, I-VII (IGSK

Band 11-17; Bonn, 1979-1981).I.Erythrai H. Engelmann, R. Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai,

I-II (IGSK Band 1-2; Bonn, 1972-1973).I.Knidos W. Blümel. Die Inschriften von Knidos, I (IGSK Band 41; Bonn, 1992).I.Kyz. E. Schwertheim. Die Inschriften von Kyzikos und Umgebung, I. Grabtexte

(IGSK Band 18; Bonn, 1980); II. Miletupolis: Inschriften und Denkmäler(IGSK Band 26; Bonn, 1983).

I.Olbia Inscriptiones Olbiae (Nadpisi Ol’vii) (1917-1965). Ed. T.N. Knipovich,E.I. Levi (Leningrad, 1968).

I.Priene F. Hiller von Gaertringen. Inschriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906).I.Prusa T. Corsten. Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum, I-II (IGSK Band 39-40;(ad Olympum) Bonn, 1991-1993).I.Smyrna G. Petzl. Die Inschriften von Smyrna, I-II 1/2 (IGSK Band 23-24 1/2; Bonn,

1982-1990).IAK Izvestiya Arkheologicheskoi Komissii (St. Petersburg, Petrograd).IF Istanbuler Forschungen (Tübingen).IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin, 1873-).IGBulg G. Mihailov. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (Sofia, 1956-1966).IGLS L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde, J.-P. Rey-Coquais, M. Sartre, P.-L. Gatier.

Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, I-VII, XIII 1 and XXI 2 (Paris,1911-1986).

ISM Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae (Bucarest, 1983-).KSIA Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR (Moscow).LGPN Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Ed. P.M. Frazer, E.I. Matthews (Oxford,

1987-).LSAG L.H. Jeffery. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961).LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon. H.G. Liddell, Robert Scott, H. Stuart Jones, Roderick

McKenzie; ed. by P.G.W. Glare with assist. of A.A. Thompson. (Oxford,1996).

MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, I-X (London, 1928-1993).P.Oxy Papyri Oxyrhynchi.PCG Poetae comici Graeci. Eds. K. Kassel, C. Austin.RE Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. A. Pauly, G.

Wissowa, W. Kroll. Neue Bearbeitung (Stuttgart, Muchen, 1894-1978).REA Revue des études Anciennes (Bordeaux).REG Revue des études grecques (Paris).RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie.


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 39

SA Sovetskaya Arkheologiya (Moscow, Leningrad).SGDI Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften (Göttingen, 1884-1915).Syll 3 W. Dittenberger. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1915-1924).TAM Tituli Asiae Minoris, I; II 1-3; III 1; IV 1; V 1-2 (Wien, 1901-1989).TGF Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Ed. B. Snell et alii (Göttingen, 1971-).VDI Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Moscow).ZOOID Zapiski Odesskogo Obshchestva istorii i drevnostei (Odessa).


ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 40

tokhtasev, s.r. epigraphical notes

Documents

opus of yurii vinogradov

memoriam yurii

north pontic region

boutounw iospe i2

mediterranean region

similar work

epigraphical notes

boeckh cig