Bosporan kingdom. The rise of the state and the fall of the Spartokids

After the death of Satyr I, power passed into the hands of his son Leukon I (390/389-351/350 BC). The position of the state at the beginning of his reign was critical. He had to share the powers of head of state with his brother Gorgippus. He provided him with a solution to all the problems in Asia, and he himself attacks Nymphaeum, captures it and after this resumes the siege of Theodosius. The Scythians came to his aid. To give courage to his mercenaries, Leucon placed Scythian archers behind the lines of hoplites and ordered the Scythians to shoot with bows those who would poorly oppose the landing of the Heraclean paratroopers. This measure turned out to be quite effective, and the Heracleots were unable to achieve success. This was also prevented by the fact that Leukon created a navy, which not only prevented the Heracleans from landing landing troops on the territory of the Bosporus, but also completely blocked Feodosia from the sea.

The siege of Feodosia after this was short-lived. The temporary release of the blockade of the city of Tinnihom showed the Feodosians that they could not count on serious outside support. And the fate of the cities of the Asian Bosporus left no doubt about the superiority of Leukon's forces. This forced the citizens of Feodosia to negotiate with the Bosporans and agree to join their association. Since this was also in the interests of Leukon (peace with the Maeotian tribes was not very reliable), he agreed to grant Feodosia a number of privileges in exchange for its inclusion in his state.

The annexation of Feodosia made significant changes to all aspects of the state system. First of all, from this time on, in the dedicatory inscriptions, the ruler of the Bosporus appears with the official title “archon” (ruling). It is possible that this is to some extent connected with the demand of the Theodosians to accept this particular title, which formally designates an elected representative of government in Greek democratic states. True, this title was to be passed on to Leukon's successors by inheritance. Until that time, the Bosporan rulers, like the tyrants of Greece in general, did not pay much attention to titularity and, as a rule, did not use any official title.

The adoption of the new title, presumably, made Leukon more acceptable as a friend and ally in relations with the democratic policies of Hellas, primarily with Athens. It was these states that Satyrus, the father of Leukon, and he himself, oriented in their foreign policy. However, this orientation does not at all “indicate the relatively democratic nature of their power,” as it sometimes seems. Apparently, before the subjugation of Feodosia, the problem of title simply did not exist. But, of course, the adoption of the official title did not change the former tyrannical nature of the power of the Spartokids, much less in the direction of its democratization.

It is known that in the official title Leukon and his successors are everywhere called archons of “Bosporus and Theodosia”. This means that Feodosia officially enjoyed, within the framework of the state association, significantly greater autonomy than other cities of the state, with the exception of Panticapaeum. The same is evidenced by its preservation of the right to mint its own coins, which was deprived of the Sindian Harbor and Phanagoria, which had previously been subordinated and fully incorporated into the Panticapaean (Bosporan) polis. A study of the coin issues of Feodosia shows that it continued in the city until the middle of the 4th century BC. e.

Thus, with the annexation of Feodosia, a new structural unit appears in the state system of Bosporus, more independent than the previous ones in its internal affairs. Let us recall that this complication of the system occurred within the framework of the traditions of the Hellenic states. It is not for nothing that the title adopted by Leukon on this occasion was purely Hellenic. He entrusted the management of the city to one of his relatives or friends, ordering him first of all to take care of expanding the city port in order to increase the export of grain to Athens and other policies of Hellas. From that time on, the grain trade became one of the main sources of income for the Bosporan rulers for a long time.

However, the war at sea did not end with the annexation of Feodosia. Her ally, Heraclea Pontus, who also had her own interests, continued military operations for several more years. This is most likely caused by the economic and political confrontation of the city with Athens, which established friendly relations with the Bosporus. It is also possible that Heraclea herself laid claim to Theodosius. But Leukon had sufficient forces capable of providing worthy resistance to the Heracleots at sea. It is no coincidence that, while organizing landings “wherever they pleased,” they never risked attacking Panticapaeum or Feodosia.

As we see, the military activity of Heraclea could not stop the further advance of the Bosporus. But now this offensive was directed against the barbarians. Its beginning also became an important consequence of the war with Feodosia. In the course of it, previous friendly relations with the Scythians turn into a military-political alliance. This was also due to the fact that the Maeotian tribes by that time were seeking independence from the Scythians, who could hope to restore their position in Asia with the help of the Bosporus. The success of the allies at Feodosia thus became the prologue for the further offensive of the Bosporus in Asia.

Military operations began here soon after the subjugation of Feodosia and were waged against a whole group of Maeotian tribes. The base for this Bosporus offensive was prepared by Leukon's brother Gorgippus, who turned the city of Sindskaya Harbor into a powerful fortress in a place most convenient for invading the lands of the Maeotians. This war was short-lived, the allies emerged victorious, but the results of this victory were used exclusively by the Bosporus. The Kuban Meotian tribes - the Sinds, Torets, Dandarii and Psessians - were not only subjugated, they became part of the Bosporus and became subjects of the Bosporan ruler. This led to new changes in the internal political structure of the state. Moreover, these changes turned out to be even more important for strengthening the power of the Spartokids than the previous ones.

Initially, Leucon called himself "archon" in relation to the subject tribes. Later, this title was retained for some time in relation to that part of the Sinds who, even under Satyr, became allies of the Bosporus. And finally, Leucon accepts the title “reigning” in relation to all barbarian tribes. Apparently, the title he adopted was supplemented with a new term only after the complete cessation of resistance on the part of the Meotian tribes and the establishment of lasting peace in Asia.

With the subjugation of the barbarian tribes of the Kuban region, a new ethnic component appeared within the Bosporan kingdom, which the Hellenes always looked upon as an object of exploitation. The management of each specific tribe was now to be carried out by the viceroy of the reigning ruler. They were the relatives or “friends” of the king. The tribes appear to have remained the same in social and economic organization. This is evidenced by the absence of any significant traces of changes in the organization of agriculture according to archaeological data. At the same time, part of the Maeotian lands (most likely undeveloped and borderlands) became the property of Leukon. The barbarians also had to pay him tribute with the products of their agriculture. Considering the scope of trade relations between the Bosporus and Greece under Leukon, it can be assumed that he legislated for himself the right of first purchase of commercial grain produced locally, at least in lean years. A number of representatives of the Maeotian nobility became part of the Bosporus elite. All this gave Leukon every right to consider his power in relation to them as royal. This title was common among the rulers of the conquered tribes and, therefore, could not cause any negative attitude.

Having completed the subjugation of the tribes of Asia, Leucon left his brother Gorgippus there as governor, who by that time had proven himself to be a fairly capable ruler. The city of Sindskaya Harbor was renamed Gorgippia for the merits of Gorgippa in his state activities.

Successes foreign policy can be considered the expansion of economic ties with Athens, which under Leukon received half of the grain needed by their policy from the Bosporus - 1 million poods (16,700 tons) per year. Leukon, like his father, granted the Athenian merchants atelia - the right to duty-free trade and to load their ships first. Moreover, he extended this right to Feodosia, through which he once exported more than 5 million poods (83,500 tons) of grain. In return, the Athenians awarded him citizenship rights and corresponding privileges in Athens. A statue of Leucon and a stele with a decree on the privileges granted to him were installed on the Acropolis of Athens next to the stele of his father Satyrus.

Some other cities of island and mainland Greece also received privileges in the Bosporus. Found honorary and funerary inscriptions indicate that the Bosporus under Leukon had contacts with Athens, Mytilene, Arcadia, Chios, Sinope, Paphlagonia, Chersonese, Heraclea, Kromnii and even with very distant Syracuse. Moreover, certain political contacts were established with the principalities of Asia Minor, subject to Persia, as evidenced by the tombstone of a Paphlagonian mercenary found in the Bosporus.

The successes of the developing economy were reinforced under Leukon with the release of the first Bosporan gold coin, which became a means of payment not only in the domestic but also in the international market. And this further increased the prestige of the state. It becomes widely known in Greece.

All this very significantly strengthened the position of the ruling dynasty itself. Levkon's victories silenced any opposition for a long time. The material acquisitions obtained as a result of the conquests made the economic superiority of the Spartokids over any of the richest Bosporan families unattainable, which deprived them of the opportunity to lay claim to power. The opening up of opportunities for the economic exploitation of the barbarian chorus within the state reconciled both the democratic opposition (the possibility of its existence cannot be completely ruled out) and supporters autonomous existence policies. The natural result of these transformations was the adoption by Leucon of official titles: initially “archon”, and then “archon” in relation to the Hellenes and “reigning - king” in relation to the local barbarian tribes. This indicates that the former early Bosporus union of the Archeanactids and the first Spartokids, created exclusively on the basis of Hellenic traditions, turned into a qualitatively different public education. States of this kind arose in the ancient world only after the campaigns of Alexander the Great. And this means that the main path of development of the state chosen by the Bosporus and its rulers was correct.

In such a situation, it is completely natural that it was Leukon I, in the eyes of his contemporaries and subsequent ancient authors, who appears as the founder of the dynasty and the state as a whole. And therefore, the ancient literary tradition, naming the Bosporan dynasty among the most long-lasting dynasties in the ancient world, calls it the Leukonid dynasty, descendants of Leukon, and not their predecessors - the first Spartokids, to the dynasty of whose descendants they belonged. Paying tribute to the merits of Leukon and his immediate successors, we will still retain the name more appropriate to their pedigree - Spartokids. Having gained power after the death of their father, Leukon's children ruled the state as co-rulers for some time. On the stela of the Athenian decree of 346 BC. e. In their honor, images of the three sons of Leukon have been preserved, although they have been badly damaged by time. The text of the decree states that the two older brothers Spartok and Perisades, depicted seated on the stele, provide privileges to the Athenians, and the Athenians, in turn, give them corresponding privileges collectively, and not individually. Moreover, the government also involves younger son Apollonius, depicted standing on the stele. True, the degree of this participation, judging by the honors that the Athenians showed him, was low.

This was the first time such a division of power was observed in the Bosporus. It could be caused by various reasons, but the essence of them all lies, as it seems to us, in one thing - the inability of Spartok III to actually fulfill the duties of the head of state. In the future, such examples of co-government of the Bosporan tyrants cannot be traced.

The Athenian decree was issued in Last year the reign of Spartok, when the rulers of the state encountered some difficulties. That is why they are asking for the money previously given to the Athenians to be returned to them and for sailors to serve in the Bosporan fleet. These difficulties probably arose in connection with the attempt of one of the Meotian tribes, the Psess tribe, to secede from the state. In the earliest dedicatory inscription, dated to the time of Perisad I, this tribe is absent. This means that they were able to restore their independence during the period of joint rule of the sons of Leukon. The fight against them required significant efforts from the Bosporus and apparently lasted for more than one year. Its result was the restoration of the dominance of the Bosporus over all nearby tribes. This was reflected in the title of Perisad I. He began to be called the king of the Sinds and all the Maits (Meots). The concept of “all Maeots” included Torets, Dandarii and Psessians, whom the Bosporans knew better than others and were confident in their ethnic unity. It is curious that the Sinds, who, according to the information of ancient ethnographers, were also places, were not included in this concept. It can be assumed that they did not support the action of the Psessians against the Spartocids, while the Dandarii and Toretes sided with the rebels.

The new war led not only to the restoration of the power of the Bosporus over the Psessians, but also to the subjugation of new tribes - the Fatei and Doskhs. This further expanded the borders of the Bosporus in Asia and led to contact with another even more powerful ethnic group - the tribe of Siracs, Sauromatians by ethnic origin. At this point, the Bosporan offensive to the east stopped. The border has stabilized, although the political situation here has always remained tense. This is evidenced by traces of destruction and fires on the border Bosporan fortresses, as well as treasures of coins in the border areas.

The successes of the army of Perisad I in Asia to a certain extent provoked a war between the Bosporus and the Scythians. One of the speeches of the Athenian orator Demosthenes talks about “the war that happened at Perisada with the Scythians,” as a result of which trade in the state almost stopped. Since Scythia was divided into three kingdoms, and Demosthenes does not say which of them the war was with and how it ended, most likely we must proceed from the general direction of the Bosporan advance at that time. Unable to fight with the strong Syracian alliance of tribes, Perisad could transfer the blow to the mouth of the Tanais (Don), where the smallest of the Scythian kingdoms was located. There are no traces of significant destruction and fires at the Elizavetinskoye settlement, political center Scythians of the Don region, and the previous trade orientation of its inhabitants after the end of the war suggest that the military pressure of the Bosporus in this direction was short-lived and not very strong.

The fish-rich mouths of the Tanais have long attracted Bosporan merchants. The growth in the number of citizens of Panticapaeum required the development of new lands. Considering that it was here a little later, at the very beginning of the 3rd century BC. e. Panticapaeans founded new town- Tanais, the same name of the river, it can be assumed that the war of Perisad I with the Scythians of the Don region became a kind of reconnaissance of enemy forces in the region on the eve of the withdrawal of a new colony here. With his neighbors on the Kerch Peninsula - the royal Scythians - he continued to maintain allied relations, which is confirmed by the further course of events in Asia under his sons.

During these military upheavals, Perisad I steadily maintained friendly relations with a number of policies of Greece and the Black Sea region. Athens remained his most important economic and political partner. He confirmed the right of Athenian merchants to duty-free duty, “on all goods and throughout the Bosporus.” In addition, residents of Amis, Chios, Chalcedon and some other cities received similar privileges. Thanks to these privileges, the products of Hellenic workshops of all specialties and professions literally poured into the Bosporus, and through it to the local and surrounding barbarian tribes.

The assimilation of elements of Greek culture by representatives of the local population developed even faster, causing not only the perception as everyday Greek colloquial speech, but also Greek methods of cultivating the land, manufacturing various handicraft products, works of art and culture. Even under the Spartokids, the basis of the state’s economy remains agriculture and the closely related grain trade. It is no coincidence that one of the first issues of gold coins depicts a griffin walking along an ear of grain on the reverse side. Later, the image of a plow is also found as an emblem on coins. Agriculture, as the main occupation, is associated with the widespread cult of deities who patronized agriculture - Demeter, Dionysus and Aphrodite Apathura.

The great role of agriculture is also evidenced by viticulture and winemaking. True, the climate of the Northern Black Sea region was less favorable for viticulture than in Greece, and in the winter the vines had to be covered with earth to prevent them from freezing. Nevertheless, already in the second half of the 4th century BC. e. viticulture becomes commercial production in the Bosporus.

Bosporan gardening also developed successfully. Greek authors, when describing Bosporan settlements, certainly mention the beautiful gardens surrounding them. It is no coincidence that one of the cities of the state was even called “Kepy”, which means “gardens”. The Bosporans grew apple trees, pears, pomegranates, plums, cherry plums and other garden crops.

The most important of the Bosporus crafts has always been fishing, which reached in the second half of the 4th century BC. e. high development. When excavating any Bosporan city or settlement, fish bones or fishing equipment are always found.

Among the many types of commercial fish in the 4th century, sturgeon were of particular importance. The production and export of sturgeon to Greece, where they were highly valued, was one of the most important export sectors of the Bosporans. It is not for nothing that on several series of Bosporan coins, next to the image of an ear of grain, an image of a sturgeon is minted. In addition, judging by the bone remains, Kerch herring, carp, pike perch and anchovy were in great demand. In the Bosporan cities, tanks were opened for salting fish.

Under Levkon and his immediate descendants, handicraft production developed and improved. Almost all crafts known in the ancient world emerged and actively functioned, including the production of expensive red-figure vases, marble statues and reliefs. The most important for the state and its rulers at that time were jewelry production in metallurgy, and in ceramic production - the manufacture of tiles.

Bosporan jewelers and minters did not limit themselves to crafts and rose to the heights of high art. Nowhere in the ancient world is there such a quantity of such superbly made products made of gold, silver and their alloy electra as in the Northern Black Sea region. Most of them were found at Boe-pore, in rich Scythian and Meotian mounds. Bosporan craftsmen knew the tastes of their customers very well and, having the incomparably greater opportunities that the territorial state gave them in comparison with the polis, quickly ousted competitors from Olbia, Chersonesos and other Greek cities of the Black Sea region from the market. High level The art of jewelry in the Bosporus has not been surpassed anywhere, either at that time or later, until our time. Gold earrings, for example, found in Feodosia, have not been replicated by any modern jeweler, despite repeated attempts.

The production of tiles under the Leukonids became a special branch of ceramic production. The expansion of cities and their improvement provided so much income to the owners of tile workshops that there was a need to control the quality of their products. For this purpose, the branding of produced tiles begins. According to these marks, on which the names of representatives of the royal family are found, and from the 3rd century BC. e. they are simply branded “royal”, we learn that the ruling dynasty of Bosporus participated in economic production and received income not only from taxes and tribute, but also from the profits of their own tile production enterprises.

The flourishing of agriculture and crafts under Leukon and his sons stimulated the rapid development of trade. Bread, salted fish, livestock, leather, fur, and slaves are exported to the cities of Greece and Asia Minor. The main export item, naturally, was bread.

More than 2 million poods (33,400 tons) of grain were supplied by the Bosporus annually to the cities of the ancient world. The income from this trade, according to the calculations of Professor V.D. Blavatsky, amounted to an average of 260-270 talents in monetary terms, with total budget revenues of about 300-350 talents. It is difficult to judge whether this is a lot or a little. In any case, the income of the Athenian state under Pericles was 6-7 times higher. But the level and directions of economic development, and government spending there were completely different. For Bosporus, the funds he received were very significant. It is clear why Levkon and his successors paid such attention to the grain trade.

In exchange for agricultural products, the Bosporans supplied local tribes with weapons, protective armor, jewelry, wine, fabrics, and dishes. In all settlements and in most burials of the necropolis, one can find products from Greek as well as Bosporan craftsmen. Since the time of Perisad I, Bosporan merchants have been pushing Olbia out even from the Scythian markets of the Dnieper region.

Large incomes from various industries and trade led to a change appearance cities. The capital of the Bosporus, Panticapaeum, is especially flourishing. The city is decorated with new temples, palaces of rulers and other public buildings. In addition to the Temple of Apollo in the 4th century BC. e. Temples of Demeter, Hercules, Artemis, Aphrodite, Asclepius and other deities appear here. Traces of active construction activity of this time were recorded in many other cities of the state. There is reason to talk about the construction of temples of Apollo in Phanagoria and Geromonassa, temples of Artemis in Phanagoria, Hermonassa and Gorgippia, temples of Aphrodite in Nymphaeum, Myrmekia, Tiritaka, Kepa, Phanagoria, Hermonassa, Gorgippia.

The expansion of trade relations required the construction of its own military and merchant fleet. In the eastern part of the port of Panticapaeum, docks are being built, designed for the repair and construction of 20 ships at a time. This figure, named by the Greek geographer Strabo, is not accidental. It was precisely this number of ships that allowed the budget of the Bosporan state to be maintained. Archon, the king of Bosporus, also maintained a mercenary army of four thousand. Not a single Greek city in the Black Sea region had such a large army.

The power of the descendants of Spartok increased so much, and the state machine of the Bosporus became so stronger and improved in relation to the conditions of the periphery of the ancient world, that the power of the Spartokids continued for almost another 200 years without significant changes. Perisad I, who expanded the boundaries of the Bosporan possessions “from the Tauri to the borders of the Caucasian land,” was even “recognized as a god” for his services. None of the rulers of the Bosporus received such an honor. The cult of Perisada I as a deity was carried out in a temple specially built in Panticapaeum and was preserved even in the first centuries of our era. After his death he was buried in one of the most remarkable architectural plan mounds - Tsarsky Kurgan. Standing apart from other similar monuments in the open steppe and clearly visible from Panticapaeum, as befits the tomb of a deity, this mound still amazes numerous visitors today with its monumentality and high quality work. It is no coincidence that no storms of eras and even bombings and shelling of the Great Patriotic War could not destroy this monument of the ancient Bosporus, unique in its expressiveness.

But recognition of the reign of Perisad I as the highest stage of development of the state also means recognition of the beginning of its decline. The first sign of this decline was the struggle for power of his sons, which broke out shortly after the death of this, undoubtedly, himself. distinguished representative dynasties.

Before Perisad's death, representatives of the Spartokids had never tried to challenge the right of the ruler's eldest son to full power in the country. They were united by the difficulties of the struggle to retain it. Now the situation has changed. And just as after the death of Alexander the Great (in 323 BC) a struggle for power began between his successors, so after the death of Perisad I in 310/309 BC. e. the war of his sons also begins in the Bosporus.

His brother Eumelus opposed the eldest son of Perisad I, Satyr II. Having entered into friendly relations with some of the neighboring barbarian peoples and assembled a significant military force, he demanded access to the real government of the state, probably having as an example the rule of his father and brother. The satyr categorically refused and came out with an army to meet him. A decisive battle took place near the Fat River on the territory of the Asian Bosporus. The satyr, having formed a fortified camp of carts on which he brought a large number of provisions, lined up the army for battle and himself stood in the center of the battle formation according to Scythian custom. The army consisted of 2,000 Greek and the same number of Thracian mercenaries, 20,000 foot and 10,000 mounted Scythian allies. Eumelus was supported by the Siracian king Aripharnes with 22,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry. The satyr, surrounded by selected warriors, unleashed the full force of the blow on the retinue of Arifarnes, also standing in the center of the battle formation. Having suffered heavy losses, the Sirak king fled. The satyr rushed to pursue him, killing everyone who stood in his way. But he soon received a message that his brother Eumelus on the right flank had put the mercenaries to flight. The satyr turns the Scythian cavalry and hurries to the aid of his infantry. And this time his blow turned out to be disastrous for the enemy. Eumelus and his soldiers flee from the battlefield.

The beginning of hostilities in the above version, described by the historian Diodorus, somehow does not really fit in with Eumelus’ initiative in the struggle for power. Here he commands only part of the battle formation - one of the flanks of the army of the Sirak king, who himself leads the battle. In the description of the further course of military operations, he is not even mentioned. Isn’t this evidence that the real initiator of the action against Bosporus was the Siracians, and they simply used Eumelus, at least at the first stage of the struggle, as a real contender for the throne of Bosporus?..

As often happens, the brilliant victory in the battle did not end in victory in the war. Those warriors of Arifarnes and Eumelus who survived the battle, together with their leaders, took refuge in the fortress of the Siracians. It was located on the banks of the deep Fat River, which flowed around it and made it impregnable. In addition, the fortress was surrounded by high cliffs and a huge forest, so there were only two artificial accesses to it. One of them, leading to the fortress itself, was protected by high towers and external fortifications. The other was on the opposite side in the swamps and was guarded by palisades. The fortress building had strong columns, and the living quarters were above the water.

Convinced of the power of the fortifications of the enemy fortress, Satyr decided to first ruin the enemy country. His army set fire to the villages of the Siracs and captured a large amount of booty and prisoners. After this, an attempt was made to break into the fortress through the existing approaches to it. The attack on the outer fortifications and towers failed. Satyr's detachment was driven back with heavy losses. But the other part of his army, operating from the meadow side through the swamps, captured the wooden fortifications on this side of the fortress and, crossing the river and forest, began to make their way to the citadel. For three days Satyr's warriors cut down the forest, building a road with difficulty and danger. Aripharnes, fearing an assault, placed his riflemen along both sides of the passage leading to the fortress, and ordered them to continuously fire at the enemy army. Busy cutting down trees, the Bosporans could not protect themselves from arrows and suffered heavy losses. But still, on the fourth day they went to the fortress wall.

It is curious that even before ascending the throne, the oracle predicted that Satyr should be wary of the word “mus” (mus), which in Greek means mouse and muscle. After this, the satyr began to fear both house and field mice, constantly ordering his slaves to kill them and cover up their holes. And even when visiting friends, he always asked when entering the house if they had mice. He did not allow any of his subjects, neither slave nor free man, to bear such a name. And he died from a wound in the arm muscle. Of course, all predictions always have a double meaning, but apparently there is still something in them...

After the death of the king, command of the army was taken over by the mercenary commander Meniscus, who lifted the siege of the Sirac fortress and ordered the army to retreat to the city of Gargaza. It is not known exactly where this city was located. But the fact that from there Meniscus transported the body of the deceased king along the river to Panticapaeum gives reason to believe that it was located on the territory of the Asian part of the Bosporus.

Having solemnly buried the king, his other brother Pritan quickly appeared in Gargaza and here took command of the army and royal power. Having learned about this, Eumelus sent his ambassadors to him with a proposal to transfer part of the state to him. But Prytan did not pay attention to this and, leaving a garrison in Gargaz, returned to Panticapaeum to strengthen his power. Apparently, this procedure turned out to be quite lengthy. In any case, while he was doing this, his brother Eumelus, with the help of the barbarians, managed to capture Gargaza and a number of other fortifications and cities of the Asian Bosporus. The historian Diodorus does not say who the barbarians were who helped Eumelus, but it is possible that they were the same Siracians.

Prytan eventually marched against his rebellious brother with an army, but was defeated in battle and forced to retreat. Eumelus pushed him to the isthmus near Lake Maeotia and, putting him in hopeless conditions, forced him to surrender. Under the terms of capitulation, Prytan was forced to transfer the army to Eumelus and renounce royal power. But it was more difficult for him to get rid of the desire to rule. Taking advantage of the fact that Eumelus was celebrating his victory, he fled to Panticapaeum, his permanent residence Bosporan kings, and tried to regain his kingdom. It is unknown what forces he could and did count on. However, this time he did not receive support and was forced to flee. Prytan arrived in the city of Kepa, but there he could not receive support either. Abandoned by everyone, he was killed.

After the death of the brothers, Eumelus became the rightful ruler of the state. But he himself remembered very well how he got power. And therefore, reasonably fearing the very possible action of other relatives against themselves, Eumelus ordered the wives and children of Satyr and Prytan, as well as their friends, to be killed. Only Perisad, the young son of Satyr, managed to escape. At the last moment, he managed to escape from the hands of the killers and rode on horseback to the headquarters of the Scythian king Agar. Agar did not hand him over to the killers, but he did not help him return to power.

Meanwhile, Eumelus’s murder of his relatives, the deprivation of the citizens of Panticapaeum of their traditional privileges and his obvious reliance on Asian barbarians instead of the Scythians familiar to the Bosporans aroused the indignation of the residents of the capital (and, probably, other cities). Fearing their open speech (especially since the legitimate competitor to his power, who was hiding with the Scythian king, was alive and well), Eumelus convened a national assembly, made a speech in his defense and restored the previous form of government. The Panticapaeans returned the lost right of duty-free trade, and Eumelus also promised to exempt the citizens of the remaining cities from all taxes. Having thus strengthened his position, he then ruled in accordance with the laws and caused considerable surprise with his merits.

During the reign of Eumelus, significant changes took place in the ancient world. Large Hellenistic states appeared, the rulers of which already from 306 BC. e. took the titles of kings. Almost all of them, trying to surpass their rivals in power, one of the leading ones put forward the slogan of liberation of the Greeks. Eumelus followed the same path. He expands political ties with Byzantium, Sinope and other Hellenic cities of the Black Sea region, providing them with all kinds of benefits. So, when the inhabitants of the city of Callatia (in the territory of modern Romania), besieged by the king of Thrace Lysimachus, turned to him for help, he took in a thousand of their inhabitants, providing them not only with political asylum, but also an entire city for settlement, and the region of Psoi, divided for allotments. It is possible that he also helped in organizing the defense of Callatia from Lysimachus.

To protect shipping on the Black Sea, Eumelus began a war with the tribes of the Caucasian coast - the Heniochians and Achaeans, who usually engaged in piracy, as well as with the tribes of the mountainous Crimea - the Tauri. Having defeated them and thus cleared the sea of pirates, he received the most brilliant fruit of his good deed - praise not only in his kingdom, but literally throughout the world, since trading people spread the word about his generosity everywhere.

Victories at sea were followed by victories on land. He continued his conquests of neighboring barbarian lands and, having subjugated many of them, made it his goal to conquer all the tribes surrounding Pontus. And he would have carried out his plan if it had not been for the accident. Returning from Sindika to his land and hurrying to some kind of sacrifice, he rode to the palace on four horses. The carriage was four-wheeled and open-topped. The horses got scared of something and bolted. The driver could not hold the reins, and Eumelus, fearing to be thrown into a cliff, tried to jump from the chariot, but his sword hit the wheel, and the king himself also found himself under the wheels of the chariot.

At one time, he also received a prediction to be wary of a rushing house. Therefore he never entered the house until his slaves had examined the strength of the roof and foundation. And when he was killed by a covered carriage drawn by four horses, everyone began to think that the prediction had come true. Eumelus ruled for only 5 years and 5 months, and he was the last king of the Spartokid dynasty, who can be described as a powerful ruler of the Bosporus.

Bosporus with the death of Eumelus

The siege of Feodosia after this was short-lived. The temporary release of the blockade of the city of Tinnihom showed the Feodosians that they could not count on serious outside support. And the fate of the cities of the Asian Bosporus left no doubt about the superiority of Leukon’s forces. This forced the citizens of Feodosia to negotiate with the Bosporans and agree to join their association. Since this was also in the interests of Leukon (peace with the Maeotian tribes was not very reliable), he agreed to grant Feodosia a number of privileges in exchange for its inclusion in his state.

The adoption of the new title, presumably, made Leukon more acceptable as a friend and ally in relations with the democratic policies of Hellas, primarily with Athens. It was these states that Satyrus, Leukon’s father, and he himself, oriented in their foreign policy. However, this orientation does not at all “indicate the relatively democratic nature of their power,” as it sometimes seems. Apparently, before the subjugation of Feodosia, the problem of title simply did not exist. But, of course, the adoption of the official title did not change the former tyrannical nature of the power of the Spartokids, much less in the direction of its democratization.

With the subjugation of the barbarian tribes of the Kuban region, a new ethnic component appeared within the Bosporan kingdom, which the Hellenes always looked upon as an object of exploitation. The management of each specific tribe was now to be carried out by the viceroy of the reigning ruler. In their capacity were relatives or “friends” of the king. The tribes appear to have remained the same in social and economic organization. This is evidenced by the absence of any significant traces of changes in the organization of agriculture according to archaeological data. At the same time, part of the Maeotian lands (most likely undeveloped and borderlands) became the property of Leukon. The barbarians also had to pay him tribute with the products of their agriculture. Considering the scope of trade relations between the Bosporus and Greece under Leukon, it can be assumed that he legislated for himself the right of first purchase of commercial grain produced locally, at least in lean years. A number of representatives of the Maeotian nobility became part of the Bosporus elite. All this gave Leukon every right to consider his power in relation to them as royal. This title was common among the rulers of the conquered tribes and, therefore, could not cause any negative attitude.

The expansion of economic ties with Athens, which under Leukon received half of the grain needed by their policy from the Bosporus - 1 million poods (16,700 tons) per year, can be considered a success of foreign policy. Leukon, like his father, granted the Athenian merchants atelia - the right to duty-free trade and to load their ships first. Moreover, he extended this right to Feodosia, through which he once exported more than 5 million poods (83,500 tons) of grain. In return, the Athenians awarded him citizenship rights and corresponding privileges in Athens. A statue of Leucon and a stele with a decree on the privileges granted to him were installed on the Acropolis of Athens next to the stele of his father Satyr.

All this very significantly strengthened the position of the ruling dynasty itself. Levkon's victories silenced any opposition for a long time. The material acquisitions obtained as a result of the conquests made the economic superiority of the Spartokids over any of the richest Bosporan families unattainable, which deprived them of the opportunity to lay claim to power. The opening up of opportunities for economic exploitation of the barbarian chorus within the state reconciled both the democratic opposition (the possibility of its existence cannot be completely ruled out) and supporters of the autonomous existence of policies with the tyrants. The natural result of these transformations was the adoption by Leucon of official titles: initially “archon”, and then “archon” in relation to the Hellenes and “reigning - king” in relation to the local barbarian tribes. This indicates that the former early Bosporus union of the Archeanactids and the first Spartokids, created exclusively on the basis of Hellenic traditions, turned into a qualitatively different state entity. States of this kind would arise in the ancient world only after the campaigns of Alexander the Great. And this means that the main path of development of the state chosen by the Bosporus and its rulers was correct.

In such a situation, it is completely natural that it was Leukon I, in the eyes of his contemporaries and subsequent ancient authors, who appears as the founder of the dynasty and the state as a whole. And therefore, the ancient literary tradition, naming the Bosporan dynasty among the longest-lasting dynasties in the ancient world, calls it the Leukonid dynasty, the descendants of Leukon, and not their predecessors - the first Spartokids, to the dynasty of whose descendants they belonged. Paying tribute to the merits of Leukon and his immediate successors, we will still retain the name more appropriate to their pedigree - Spartokids. Having gained power after the death of their father, Leukon's children ruled the state as co-rulers for some time. On the stela of the Athenian decree of 346 BC. e. In their honor, images of the three sons of Leukon have been preserved, although they have been badly damaged by time. The text of the decree states that the two older brothers Spartok and Perisades, depicted seated on the stele, provide privileges to the Athenians, and the Athenians, in turn, give them corresponding privileges collectively, and not individually. Moreover, the youngest son Apollonius, depicted standing on the stele, also participates in governing the state. True, the degree of this participation, judging by the honors that the Athenians showed him, was low.

The Athenians' decree was issued in the last year of Spartok's reign, when the rulers of the state encountered some difficulties. That is why they are asking for the money previously given to the Athenians to be returned to them and for sailors to serve in the Bosporan fleet. These difficulties probably arose in connection with the attempt of one of the Meotian tribes, the Psess tribe, to secede from the state. In the earliest dedicatory inscription, dated to the time of Perisad I, this tribe is absent. This means that they were able to restore their independence during the period of joint rule of the sons of Leukon. The fight against them required significant efforts from the Bosporus and apparently lasted for more than one year. Its result was the restoration of the dominance of the Bosporus over all nearby tribes. This was reflected in the title of Perisad I. He began to be called the king of the Sinds and all the Maits (Meots). The concept of “all Maeots” included Torets, Dandarii and Psessians, whom the Bosporans knew better than others and were confident in their ethnic unity. It is curious that the Sinds, who, according to the information of ancient ethnographers, were also places, were not included in this concept. It can be assumed that they did not support the action of the Psessians against the Spartocids, while the Dandarii and Toretes sided with the rebels.

The successes of the army of Perisad I in Asia to a certain extent provoked a war between the Bosporus and the Scythians. One of the speeches of the Athenian orator Demosthenes talks about “the war that happened at Perisada with the Scythians,” as a result of which trade in the state almost stopped. Since Scythia was divided into three kingdoms, and Demosthenes does not say which of them the war was with and how it ended, most likely we must proceed from the general direction of the Bosporan advance at that time. Unable to fight with the strong Syracian alliance of tribes, Perisad could transfer the blow to the mouth of the Tanais (Don), where the smallest of the Scythian kingdoms was located. The absence of traces of significant destruction and fires at the Elizavetinskoye settlement, the political center of the Scythians of the Don region, and the previous trade orientation of its inhabitants after the end of the war suggest that the military pressure of the Bosporus in this direction was short-lived and not very strong.

The fish-rich mouths of the Tanais have long attracted Bosporan merchants. The growth in the number of citizens of Panticapaeum required the development of new lands. Considering that it was here a little later, at the very beginning of the 3rd century BC. e. The Panticapaeans founded a new city - Tanais, which bears the same name as the river. It can be assumed that the war of Perisada I with the Scythians of the Don region became a kind of reconnaissance of enemy forces in the region on the eve of the withdrawal of a new colony here. With his neighbors on the Kerch Peninsula - the royal Scythians - he continued to maintain allied relations, which is confirmed by the further course of events in Asia under his sons.

The assimilation of elements of Greek culture by representatives of the local population developed even faster, causing not only the perception of Greek colloquial speech as everyday language, but also Greek methods of cultivating the land, manufacturing various handicrafts, works of art and culture. Even under the Spartokids, the basis of the state’s economy remains agriculture and the closely related grain trade. It is no coincidence that one of the first issues of gold coins depicts a griffin walking along an ear of grain on the reverse side. Later, the image of a plow was also found as an emblem on coins. Agriculture, as the main occupation, is associated with the widespread cult of deities who patronized agriculture - Demeter, Dionysus and Aphrodite Apathura.

Bosporan jewelers and minters did not limit themselves to crafts and rose to the heights of high art. Nowhere in the ancient world is there such a quantity of such superbly made products made of gold, silver and their alloy electra as in the Northern Black Sea region. Most of them were found at Boepor, in rich Scythian and Meotian burial mounds. Bosporan craftsmen knew the tastes of their customers very well and, having the incomparably greater opportunities that the territorial state gave them in comparison with the polis, quickly ousted competitors from Olbia, Chersonesos and other Greek cities of the Black Sea region from the market. The high level of jewelry art in the Bosporus has not been surpassed anywhere, either at that time or later, until our time. Gold earrings, for example, found in Feodosia, have not been replicated by any modern jeweler, despite repeated attempts.

Large incomes from various industries and trade led to changes in the appearance of cities. The capital of the Bosporus, Panticapaeum, is especially flourishing. The city is decorated with new temples, palaces of rulers and other public buildings. In addition to the Temple of Apollo in the 4th century BC. e. Temples of Demeter, Hercules, Artemis, Aphrodite, Asclepius and other deities appear here. Traces of active construction activity of this time were recorded in many other cities of the state. There is reason to talk about the construction of temples of Apollo in Phanagoria and Geromonassa, temples of Artemis in Phanagoria, Hermonassa and Gorgippia, temples of Aphrodite in Nymphaeum, Myrmekia, Tiritaka, Kepa, Phanagoria, Hermonassa, Gorgippia.

The power of the descendants of Spartok increased so much, and the state machine of the Bosporus became so stronger and improved in relation to the conditions of the periphery of the ancient world, that the power of the Spartokids continued for almost another 200 years without significant changes. Perisad I, who expanded the boundaries of the Bosporan possessions “from the Tauri to the borders of the Caucasian land,” was even “recognized as a god” for his services. None of the rulers of the Bosporus received such an honor. The cult of Perisada I as a deity was carried out in a temple specially built in Panticapaeum and was preserved even in the first centuries of our era. After his death, he was buried in one of the most architecturally remarkable mounds - the Tsarsky Mound. Standing apart from other similar monuments in the open steppe and clearly visible from Panticapaeum, as befits the tomb of a deity, this mound still amazes numerous visitors today with its monumentality and high quality workmanship. It is no coincidence that no storms of eras and even bombings and shelling during the Great Patriotic War could destroy this monument of the ancient Bosporus, unique in its expressiveness.

But recognition of the reign of Perisad I as the highest stage of development of the state also means recognition of the beginning of its decline. The first sign of this decline was the struggle for power of his sons, which broke out soon after the death of this, undoubtedly the most prominent representative of the dynasty.

His brother Eumelus opposed the eldest son of Perisad I, Satyr II. Having entered into friendly relations with some of the neighboring barbarian peoples and assembled a significant military force, he demanded access to the real government of the state, probably having as an example the rule of his father and brother. The satyr categorically refused and came out with an army to meet him. A decisive battle took place near the Fat River on the territory of the Asian Bosporus. The satyr, having formed a fortified camp of carts on which he brought a large amount of provisions, lined up an army for battle and himself stood in the center of the battle formation according to Scythian custom. The army consisted of 2,000 Greek and the same number of Thracian mercenaries, 20,000 foot and 10,000 mounted Scythian allies. Eumelus was supported by the Siracian king Aripharnes with 22,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry. The satyr, surrounded by selected warriors, unleashed the full force of the blow on the retinue of Arifarnes, also standing in the center of the battle formation. Having suffered heavy losses, the Sirak king fled. The satyr rushed to pursue him, killing everyone who stood in his way. But he soon received a message that his brother Eumelus on the right flank had put the mercenaries to flight. The satyr turns the Scythian cavalry and hurries to the aid of his infantry. And this time his blow turned out to be disastrous for the enemy. Eumelus and his soldiers flee from the battlefield.

Prytan eventually marched against his rebellious brother with an army, but was defeated in battle and forced to retreat. Eumelus pushed him to the isthmus near Lake Maeotia and, putting him in hopeless conditions, forced him to surrender. Under the terms of capitulation, Prytan was forced to transfer the army to Eumelus and renounce royal power. But it was more difficult for him to get rid of the desire to rule. Taking advantage of the fact that Eumelus was celebrating his victory, he fled to Panticapaeum, the permanent residence of the Bosporan kings, and tried to regain his kingdom. It is unknown what forces he could and did count on. However, this time he did not receive support and was forced to flee. Prytan arrived in the city of Kepa, but there he could not receive support either. Abandoned by everyone, he was killed.

With the death of Eumelus, the Bosporus enters a new phase of its development. This is not a decline yet. The Bosporans even somewhat expanded their possessions. In particular, at the very beginning of the 3rd century BC. e. “The Hellenes who owned the Bosporus” founded the city of Tanais at the mouth of the Don, which bears the same name as the river. But the general political situation in the world has changed. Athens fell into decay and could no longer pay for the entire mass of Bosporan commercial products. At the same time, Egypt began to supply a huge amount of grain to the markets of Hellas. Delivering it from Egypt was cheaper, and this sharply reduced the demand for bread from the Northern Black Sea region. Therefore, grain exports from the Bosporus are declining, giving way to the export of fish, livestock, and slaves. In its cities, a large number of large fish-salting baths are being built, clearly designed for the export of their products. Especially many of these baths are open in the southern suburb of Panticapaeum - Tiritaka. It seems that it has become the center of the fish-salting industry in the state.

In addition, the Bosporans are trying to overcome economic difficulties through trade with the surrounding barbarians. Vineyards are expanding significantly and wine production is increasing. Wineries designed to produce wine for export are open in many cities of the Bosporus, but there are especially many of them in the northern suburb of Panticapaeum - Myrmekia. Professor V.F. Gaidukevich, who explored the city, even called it a city of winemakers.

All known from the 4th century BC. e. Bosporan crafts continue to function and there is no reason to talk about their reduction until the middle of the 3rd century. This is probably what allowed the Bosporans to acquire new markets for their products to replace the lost ones. The main counterparties of the Bosporus are the cities of the Southern Black Sea region, especially Sinop. Along with them, the Bosporans continue to maintain connections with Rhodes, Kos, Pergamon and even more distant Egypt, with which the Bosporus also establishes diplomatic relations. Moreover, this happened on the initiative of the Egyptian king Ptolemy II, who needed allies to continue the fight with his closest neighbors.

In the second quarter of the 3rd century BC. e. A special embassy ship of Ptolemy II, Isis, arrived in the Bosporus. A colorful image of this vessel is preserved on a fresco from the sanctuary of Aphrodite in Nymphaeum. The interpretation of the images and inscriptions on the wall of the sanctuary suggests that the Egyptian king was primarily interested in the possibility of recruiting mercenaries for his army in the Bosporus, and he received the corresponding consent of the Bosporan rulers.

Relations with the barbarians were worse. The Scythians, under the influence of environmental changes and the onslaught of the Sarmatian tribes, begin to retreat to the Crimea. Their rulers are getting poorer and can no longer pay for the products of Bosporus craftsmen as generously as before. But they begin to demand an increasing number of them as gifts for the lands they provided to the Greeks for settlement. True, their pressure on the Bosporus was, for the time being, compensated for by military assistance to the Bosporan rulers. Lacking sufficient funds to maintain a strong army of their own, the kings of the Bosporus were increasingly forced to turn to their Scythian allies for help to solve their military problems in Asia. In an effort to make this support stable and permanent, they enter into marriage alliances with representatives and representatives of the Scythian royal dynasty.

This policy really paid off. While the Scythians established a protectorate over Olbia and waged offensive wars for Chersonesos, they themselves were interested in an alliance with the Bosporus and therefore willingly met requests from their ally.

The Bosporan army, which had not previously managed without the help of the Scythians (remember the Battle of Fata), during the 2nd century BC. e. became increasingly Scythian in ethnic composition due to the difficulty of recruiting mercenaries from Greece and Thrace. The role of the Scythians increased among command staff this army.

Relations with the Sarmatians, attacking the Scythians in the Black Sea steppes and advancing on the possessions of the Sirac and Maeot tribes near the borders of the Bosporus in Asia, developed differently. First, they push the Siracs into the Kuban region, who, in turn, gradually wedge themselves into the lands of the Meotians. The Bosporans find themselves unable to protect the Meotians under their control from this attack. As a result, the Maeotian tribes left the subordination of the Bosporus. By the end of the 2nd century BC. e. Almost all Maeotian tribes, however, except for the Sinds, left the state. This sharply reduces the income of the Spartokids and their ability to maintain a strong mercenary army. But the main thing is that these rulers themselves are not up to par with the demands of the era.

Eumelus' successor, his son Spartok, reigned for 20 years (304-284 BC). In 288 he restored the treaty of mutual assistance with Athens, but this treaty did not bring any real benefits to the Bosporus. Spartok himself was the first of the rulers of the Bosporus to call himself a king both in relation to the barbarians and in relation to the Hellenes. This reflected both the political trends of the time and the actual mixing of the population of the Bosporan cities, among which it was hardly possible to find exclusively pure Hellenes or barbarians. It is no coincidence that the Greek geographer Strabo, when describing the Bosporus, calls the inhabitants of its cities simply “Bosporans”. At the same time, as military operations in Asia expanded against the renegade Maeotian tribes, more and more people from Scythia appeared among the population and in the army of the Bosporus.

The dates of reign and the nature of the actions of the remaining Spartokids are almost unknown. One can only note that in the middle of the 3rd century BC. e. In the Bosporus there is a certain crisis in the coinage - the minting of gold and silver coins stops. The copper coin degrades in weight and quality. In the last quarter of a century, in an effort to end the crisis, King Leukon II, for the first time in the history of Bosporus, issued coins in his own name. At the same time, the minting of Panticapaean coins is preserved. The measures taken by the rulers turned out to be effective and led to the restoration at the beginning of the 2nd century BC. e. minting gold and silver. The first economic crisis was overcome.

However, the crisis was not eliminated. And this was facilitated by the renewed intra-dynastic struggle for power. The Roman poet Ovid reports that the Bosporan king Leukon killed his brother and was himself killed by his wife. Subsequent commentators of Ovid repeat his message, although with some discrepancies in details, which convinces of the reliability of the information conveyed by the famous poet. During such civil strife in royal family Persons not belonging to the dynasty could also come to power. Such, for example, could be a certain Hygienon, who for some reason was content with only the title of archon, but, undoubtedly, possessed full power. This is evidenced by the issue of gold, silver and copper coins in his own name. His name is also on some Bosporan tiles. It is known that the Bosporan kings partly controlled the tile production and themselves owned ergasteriums for their production. It is possible that Hygienon, having usurped power, on this basis appropriated the income from this production.

The last Spartokid, who bore the same name as his namesake, recognized as a god, being strongly dependent on the Scythians and seeing their successes in the fight against Chersonese, had no doubt that after the capture of his city it would be the turn of the Bosporus. He begins secret negotiations for help with the ruler of the most powerful of the Hellenistic states that emerged in Asia Minor - the king of Pontus. By that time, the Bosporus had the closest economic and cultural ties with the cities of this kingdom. Therefore, the political contacts of the two rulers could not arouse suspicion among the Scythians regarding Perisad V and his future intentions. However, he had no intention of sharing them. As a result, the new direction in his policy remained almost undocumented. But its outcome is known - Perisad V lost not only his kingdom, but also his life. And this also happened because the Chersonesos, the main opponents of the Scythians, turned to him for help. The entry of the army of Pontus into the war on the side of Chersonese and the subsequent transition of the Bosporus under the protectorate of the king of Pontus allowed the Scythians to consider the Bosporan king as a traitor who had violated previous allied agreements with them.

Bibliography

1. Molev E.A. Hellenes and barbarians. On the northern edge of the ancient world; M.: ZAO Tsentrpoligraf, 2003

Introduction

Reference Information :

State: Bosporan Kingdom

Country Ukraine

Continent: Europe

Capital: Panticapaeum (Kerch)

Geographical location: in Crimea

Head of State: Tsar/Queen

Form of government: Kingdom

Territorial system: Sovereign state

Note: XII century. BC. – the territory of the country was inhabited by Cimmerian tribes. VII century BC. - emergence of the Scythian tribes. Vv. BC. – the emergence of Greek colonies on the coast (Olbia, Thira, Chersonesus, Panticapaeum).

The Bosporus Kingdom is the largest ancient state of the Northern Black Sea region, which existed for more than 1000 years (5th century BC - 6th century AD). In ancient times, the Cimmerian Bosporus (Kerch Strait) was considered the border between Europe and Asia. The Bosporan kingdom, which arose during the Great Greek colonization as a result of the unification of Greek city-colonies located on both sides of the strait, was accordingly divided into a European part (Eastern Crimea) and an Asian part (Taman Peninsula).

Archaeological research into the Bosporan kingdom began in the first quarter of the 19th century, shortly after the annexation of these lands to Russia as a result of the Russian-Turkish wars of the 18th century. Research was carried out throughout the 19th and 20th centuries and provided the most interesting material.

The particular interest in the Bosporan kingdom is due not only to the fact that it was a fairly large and durable political entity. Here, as nowhere else in the Northern Black Sea region, two civilizations interacted: the Greek, whose bearers were Greek colonists, and the barbarian one, which belonged to the successive and displacing peoples who roamed the Northern Black Sea region (Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Huns). The result of this centuries-long coexistence was the “Bosporan phenomenon” - one of the most complex and fascinating mysteries of ancient history.

After the collapse of the USSR, the European part of the Bosporan Kingdom (Eastern Crimea) ended up on the territory of Ukraine, and the Asian part (Taman Peninsula) - on the territory of Russia. Fellow archaeologists from Russia and Ukraine were faced with the task of preserving common scientific schools, the tradition of studying ancient city-colonies (Olbia, Chersonese) and the Bosporan kingdom. And, thanks to joint efforts, it was possible. Many Russian expeditions (the State Hermitage Museum, the Institute of the History of Material Culture, the State Museum of the History of Religion, the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences) have been working in Ukraine all these years. And the results of the work of Russian and Ukrainian colleagues are discussed at scientific conferences held annually in Kerch and once every year and a half in St. Petersburg.

Chapter 1. The emergence of the state

Local tribes

In the 8th century BC, for the first time in history, the names of the tribes of the North-Western Caucasus were captured and have come down to us. These are steppe Iranian-speaking nomads - Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians: sedentary agricultural tribes, united by the common name "Meotians". In the VII-VI centuries. BC. The Cimmerians and Scythians carried out their military campaigns through the passes of the Caucasus into Asia Minor and Western Asia. The nomadic Scythians and the so-called royal Scythians, whom Herodotus considered the most powerful and warlike of all the Scythians, inhabited the steppe space east of the Dnieper and to the Sea of Azov, including the steppe Crimea. These tribes were engaged in cattle breeding and made their homes in carts. Numerous military trophies were discovered in the mounds of the Scythian tribal nobility: works of art from the countries of Western Asia and ancient Greece.

According to Herodotus, the territory inhabited by the Scythians extended in the east only to the Don. Beyond the Don, in the Lower Volga and Ural steppes, lived no longer the Scythians, but related nomadic pastoral tribes of the Sarmatians, close in culture and language. The neighbors of the Sarmatians from the south were the Meotian tribes. They inhabited the territory along the eastern shore of the Sea of Azov, as well as the Tasman Peninsula and part of the Kuban region. Geographer of the 1st century BC e. Strabo reports that in his time the Sarmatians did not allow Greek merchants to enter them, but themselves traded with the Ancient World through Tanais. Thus, trade had a lesser impact on the social structure of the Sarmatians. The Scythians had a great influence on the culture of the Maeotians, local tribes that inhabited most of the Northwestern Caucasus in the 1st millennium BC. Meotians are classified as Caucasian language group

and they are considered the distant ancestors of the Circassians. Fortified settlements of the Meotians - fortifications - were located along high river terraces and were additionally fortified on the floor side with ditches and ramparts. The Meotians cultivated wheat, barley, millet, rye, and flax; they bred horses, cows, sheep, goats; fish were caught with nets. All the main tools were made of iron, jewelry and armor were made of bronze. Among the crafts, pottery was the most developed. The Meotians used a potter's wheel; dishes, fishing and weaving weights were fired in special kilns. Their northern neighbors, the nomadic Sarmatians, had a great influence on the economy and culture of the Meotian tribes. They occupied the territory between the Don and Volga. In the 4th century. BC. Sarmatian tribes penetrated the steppes of the North Caucasus and captured the right bank of the Kuban, inhabited by the Meotians. Some Sarmatian nomads switched to a sedentary lifestyle. Their contacts with the Meotian farmers led to the mutual enrichment of cultures and the merging of the Meotian and Sarmatian nobility.

The Taman Peninsula was occupied by one of the Meotian tribes - the Sinds. First mentioned by logographers, then by Greek and Roman historians Herodotus, Pseudo-Scylacus, Pseudo-Skymnos, Strabo. The main occupations of the Sinds were agriculture, fishing, crafts and trade (in the early period - with Urartu, from the 6th century BC - with the Greeks), both through their ports - the Sind harbor, Korokondama, and through the Greek cities founded in the territory of Sindica. The wars with the Scythians led to the strengthening of the power of military leaders among the Sinds. In the 5th century BC e. The Sindh state arose.

In the middle of the 8th century BC, the Greeks appeared in the Black Sea region and in the northeast of the Aegean Sea. The lack of arable land and metal deposits, the political struggle in the city-states - Greek city-states, and the unfavorable demographic situation forced many Greeks to look for new lands for themselves on the coasts of the Mediterranean, Marmara and Black Seas. The ancient Greek tribes of the Ionians, who lived in Attica and in the region of Ionia on the coast of Asia Minor, were the first to discover a country with fertile land, rich nature, abundant vegetation, animals and fish, with ample opportunities for trade with local “barbarian” tribes. Only very experienced sailors, who were the Ionians, could sail the Black Sea.

The first contacts between the local population of the Northern Black Sea region and Greek sailors were recorded in the 7th century BC. e., when the Greeks did not yet have colonies on the Crimean Peninsula. In a Scythian burial ground on Mount Temir near Kerch, a painted Rhodian-Milesian vase of excellent workmanship, made at that time, was discovered. Residents of the largest Greek city-state of Miletus on the banks of the Euxine Pontus founded more than 70 settlements. Emporia - Greek trading posts - began to appear on the shores of the Black Sea in the 7th century BC. e., the first of which was Borysphenida at the entrance to the Dnieper estuary on the island of Berezan. Then in the first half of the 6th century BC. e. Olbia appeared at the mouth of the Southern Bug (Gipanis), Tiras appeared at the mouth of the Dniester, and Feodosia (on the shore of the Feodosian Gulf) and Panticapaeum (on the site of modern Kerch) appeared on the Kerch Peninsula. In the middle of the 6th century BC. e. in eastern Crimea, Nymphaeum (17 kilometers from Kerch near the village of Geroevka, on the shore of the Kerch Strait), Cimmerik (on the southern coast of the Kerch Peninsula, on western slope Onuk Mountains), Tiritaka (south of Kerch near the village of Arshintsevo, on the shores of the Kerch Bay), Mirmekiy (on the Kerch Peninsula, 4 kilometers from Kerch), Kitey (on the Kerch Peninsula, 40 kilometers south of Kerch), Parfeny and Parthia (north of Kerch), in the western Crimea - Kerkinitis (on the site of modern Evpatoria), on the Taman Peninsula - Hermonassa (on the site of Taman) and Phanagoria. A Greek settlement arose on the southern coast of Crimea, called Alupka. Greek cities-colonies were independent city-states, independent of their metropolises, but maintaining close trade and cultural ties with them. When sending colonists, the city or the leaving Greeks themselves chose from among themselves the leader of the colony - an oikist, whose main duty during the formation of the colony was to divide the territory of the new lands among the Greek colonists. On these lands, called hora, were the plots of the city's citizens. All rural settlements of the choir were subordinate to the city. Colonial cities had their own constitution, their own laws, courts, and minted their own coins. Their policy was independent of the policy of the metropolis. The Greek colonization of the Northern Black Sea region mainly occurred peacefully and accelerated the process of historical development of local tribes, significantly expanding the areas of distribution of ancient culture.

By the end of the 5th century BC. e. Greek colonization of Crimea and the shores of the Black Sea was completed. Greek settlements appeared where there was the possibility of regular trade with the local population, which ensured the sale of Attic goods. Greek emporias and trading posts on the Black Sea coast quickly turned into large city-states. The main occupations of the population of the new colonies, which soon became Greco-Scythian, were trade and fishing, cattle breeding, agriculture, and crafts related to the production of metal products. They exerted great economic and cultural influence on the local tribes, while simultaneously adopting all their achievements. Local tribes became acquainted with the more advanced ancient civilization and borrowed some of its achievements, as a result of which their society improved. These interactions gave rise to a unique, unique and rich world that existed in Crimea for almost a millennium.

The most striking example of the active mutual influence of alien, ancient elements and local, barbaric ones is the largest and strong state in the Northern Black Sea region - the Bosporan kingdom.

State territory

Almost all the cities founded by Greek settlers during the time of the great Greek colonization retained their polis structure until the end of the ancient era; the historical development of the cities that arose on the shores of the Kerch Strait - the ancient Cimmerian Bosporus - took a different path and led them to a different historical result. (Appendix 1) Around 480 BC. e. these city-states united into a single Bosporan kingdom. Subsequently, power over this state association was concentrated in the hands of the non-Greek Spartokid dynasty, and the Bosporan state included territories inhabited by local tribes. By the middle of the 4th century. BC e. Bosporan possessions on the Crimean side of the strait extended to the entire Kerch Peninsula to the eastern border of the mountainous Crimea - ancient Taurica. On the other, Taman side of the strait, the Bosporan state belonged to the territory approximately up to present-day Novorossiysk. To the northeast, the sphere of his state influence extended to the mouth of the Don, where Tanais, subject to the Bosporus, was located.

In the 4th century. BC e Bosporus, thus, became a large state formation at that time with a mixed Greek-native population. This circumstance naturally left its mark on the entire socio-economic, political and cultural appearance of the Bosporus.

The largest cities of the Bosporan Kingdom were on the Kerch Peninsula - the capital Panticapaeum (Kerch), Myrlikiy, Tiritaka, Nymphaeum, Kitey, Cimmeric, Feodosia, and on the Taman Peninsula - Phanagoria, Kepy, Hermonassa, Gorgipia.

The specific reasons that forced the Bosporan Greeks to give up the commitment to political autarky, traditional for all Greek poles, in favor of a government common to all of them are not known to us. It is quite obvious that the political unification opened up prospects for closer economic cooperation for the Bosporan cities, facilitated the further development of the natural resources of this region, and created more favorable conditions for the further development of their trading activities. On the other hand, the local Maeotian, Sarmatian and Scythian tribes neighboring the Greek colonists were distinguished by their warlike behavior. Powerful defensive structures Even around the small Bosporan settlements there is eloquent talk of a constant military danger. Periods of peaceful trade relations with local tribes, apparently, often alternated here with military clashes. From this point of view, the need to unite cities was also dictated by the interests of their security.

Chapter 2. Major historical and urban stages of the Bosporan kingdom

Archaic period, including the reign of the Archaeanactids

(first quarter of the 4th century BC - 438 BC)

The only literary evidence of the emergence of the Bosporus state unification is a brief note by Diodorus Siculus. In this note, Diodorus reports that in the year of Theodorus’s archonship in Athens, i.e. in 438-437 BC e., in the Bosporus the Archenactid dynasty, “reigning,” as he puts it, for 42 years, ceased to exist, and power passed to Spartok, who enjoyed it for seven years. If we count the 42-year reign of the Archenactids from the year of Theodore’s archonship indicated by Diodorus, it turns out that, according to his data, the Bosporan association arose in 480-479. BC e.

The founder of the dynasty was Archeanact, an oikist of the Milesian colonists who founded Panticapaeum, the largest of the Bosporan cities.

Panticapaeum became the center of the Bosporan state unification, obviously, both due to its economic dominance over other Bosporan cities and due to its geographical location, which was also advantageous from a strategic point of view. In terms of size, the original territory of the Archeanactid state was small. A well-known idea of its size on the European shore of the strait is given by the so-called first Tiritak defensive rampart and ditch. This well-preserved shaft now crosses the Kerch Peninsula along a line running from the village of Arshintseva (ancient Tiritaka) to the Sea of Azov. It is generally accepted that the small territory east of the rampart was the territory of the Archeanactian Bosporus on the Crimean coast. The Bosporan possessions on the Taman coast at this time were also very modest. In all likelihood, they were limited to a strip along the Kerch Strait, which was occupied by small territories of several policies included in this association.

The insignificance of the territory of the Archeanakth Bosporus, therefore, allows us to think that this association initially included only Greek city-colonies. In sources of later times there are also no references to the inclusion of territories inhabited by local tribes into the Bosporan unification of that time. They became part of the Bosporus only under the Spartokids, when local elements already played a very significant role in the historical life of this state.

One might think that the structure of the Archeanactid Bosporus did not differ from the usual type of unions of Greek city-states for that time and was a union of Bosporan cities - the Bosporan symmachy. We do not know how much the members of this union depended on the central government. Probably, the polis autonomy of the Bosporan cities was not very limited by the power of the central government and only general control over the political life of the polis that were part of this association was concentrated in the hands of the Archeanactids. The Archeanactids, obviously, led the united military forces of the Bosporan cities.

In the area of economic benefits, the unification, obviously, should have had an effect after the historical victories of the Greeks over the Persians in 480-479 BC. e., with the restoration of normal economic life throughout Greece. At this time, presumably, the trade ties of the Bosporan cities with the cities of the Asia Minor coast, interrupted by the war, were being restored, although these cities were never able to fully recover from the defeat they experienced. The first place in trade with the Bosporus was no longer occupied by them, but by Athens.

On the trading activities of the Athenians in the Bosporus in the 5th century. BC e. evidenced by numerous finds on the Bosporan territory of Athenian ceramics and other products of Athenian craft. Judging by these finds, black-glazed dishes, artistic painted vases by Athenian craftsmen, silver and gold jewelry, bronze and silver vessels were imported from Athens to the Bosporan cities; Perhaps wine and olive oil were also imported.

Some of all these goods were consumed locally in the Bosporan cities, others were resold to the local population. During excavations of the Kuban burial mounds, many things of Athenian origin were found. Thus, the trade of the Bosporan cities was of a broad intermediary nature.

The Bosporus responded to Athenian imports with a wide export of mainly bread and salted fish. A significant part of the exported bread and fish was apparently bought by Bosporan merchants from local tribes. The leading role in trade with the Bosporus belonged to the upper layer of local society - the rich tribal nobility. The local tribal nobility, like the Bosporan cities, became the main consumer of goods imported from Greece. On this basis, a certain community of interests arises between the top of local society and the rich population of the Greek slave-holding cities of the coast and the processes of assimilation begin to develop. Ethnic boundaries are gradually erased, giving way to social ones. In the light of phenomena of this kind, the political change that took place in the Bosporus becomes understandable. The ground for it turned out to be prepared by the entire previous course of economic and social development Bosporus.

Spartocid era (438 BC – 109 BC)

In 438 BC. after the forty-two-year reign of the Archeanactids, Spartok came to power, becoming the founder of a new dynasty of Bosporan rulers, which then headed the Bosporan state until the end of the 2nd century. BC BC The emergence of strong and unified power in the Bosporus in the hands of an energetic and talented holder was a decisive moment in the history of the eastern Greek Black Sea colonies. It created a decisive force here, which later became the center of unification of all the Greeks of the Bosporus and Azov region, without which they would inevitably have been only a tool in the hands of the dominant Scythian population.

This, obviously, was their main advantage compared to their predecessors - carriers of purely Greek name, Archaeanactids. There is, however, no doubt that the representatives of the new non-Greek dynasty experienced the strong influence of Greek culture.

The historical meaning of the change of dynasties that took place in the Bosporus is revealed in the policy of the Spartokids. Apparently, it pursued two main goals: expanding the territorial limits of the Bosporan state and strengthening the power of the central government. The first of these tasks was determined by the desire to provide the Bosporan grain exports with its own agricultural base; the second followed from the first, since domination over a significant territory, which, along with cities, also included the lands of local tribes, naturally required other methods of management, based on the broader powers of the central government. From what time did the development of Bosporan territorial expansion begin and when the Spartokids achieved their first successes in this direction - we do not know for sure. It becomes noticeable only during the reign of the Bosporan ruler Satyr. The expansion of the Spartokids' possessions began with the annexation of Nymphaeum and Feodosia, which were not included in the association.

Nymphaeum entered into an alliance with Athens, the largest and most powerful center of mainland Greece. A military conflict with Athens was not part of Satyr's plans, so he decided to resort to cunning. The interests of Athens in Nymphaeum were then represented by a certain Gilon. For a large bribe, he handed over the city to Satyr and, for obvious reasons, not risking returning to Athens, he remained to live in the Bosporus. Probably, not without the help of his royal patron, Gilon managed to marry a Scythian woman of a noble family who had influence in the Bosporus. Gilon's grandson was the famous Greek orator Demosthenes, who, by the way, lived in Athens. Demosthenes loved to make patriotic speeches in the national assembly, so he had to endure many unpleasant moments in his time when the ugly story involving his grandfather came to light... Despite the incident with Nymphaeus, Satyr managed to establish ties with Athens. The largest city in Greece was in need of bread, which was grown in abundance in the Bosporus, and the Bosporans willingly bought the products of Athenian artisans. In order to stimulate trade, Satyrus granted significant benefits to Athenian merchants. By the way, perhaps thanks to this very circumstance, Gilon’s betrayal was consigned to oblivion.

The struggle for Feodosia was lengthy and complicated by a number of circumstances: during the siege of the city in 389/8, Satyr I died and the fight was continued by Leukon I, but most importantly, Heraclea, a city on the southern coast of the Black Sea, took an active part in it on the side of Theodosia. This war, on the one hand, was obviously caused by the fact that Feodosia had an excellent harbor and fertile territory. The subordination of Theodosius, therefore, was supposed to give the Bosporus a very important transit point for its grain trade and at the same time bring the western border of the Bosporan possessions to a strategically advantageous point for the Bosporus. On the other hand, according to one of the most reliable periplus, Bosporan political emigrants lived in Feodosia. Given the persistence of polis traditions in the Greek world, there is no doubt that the policy of state centralization pursued by the Bosporan government, apparently since the time of the Archaeanactids, aroused opposition from adherents of the former polis independence. In the outbreak of the war with Feodosia, as already indicated, Heraclea Pontus, the metropolis of Chersonesos, intervened. Apparently, she was connected with Feodosia by trade ties and, on the other hand, feared for the future fate of the then recently founded colony of Chersonese. The expansion of the borders of the much stronger Bosporus obviously created a threat to its further independence. As a result of the intervention of a third party, hostilities were delayed. But in the end, Feodosia was forced to capitulate. In the inscription with the name of Levkon, found on the shore of the Tsukur estuary and probably originating from Phanagoria, Levkon is called the archon of Bosporus and Feodosia.

Then the Spartokids turned their attention to the eastern coast of the Kerch Strait. Military operations began here soon after the subjugation of Feodosia and were waged against a whole group of Maeotian tribes. The base for this Bosporus offensive was prepared by Leukon's brother Gorgippus, who turned the city of Sindskaya Harbor into a powerful fortress in a place most convenient for invading the lands of the Maeotians. This war was short-lived, the allies emerged victorious, but the results of this victory were used exclusively by the Bosporus. The Kuban Meotian tribes - the Sinds, Torets, Dandarii and Psessians - were not only subjugated, they became part of the Bosporus and became subjects of the Bosporan ruler. This led to new changes in the internal political structure of the state. Moreover, these changes turned out to be even more important for strengthening the power of the Spartokids than the previous ones.

The Spartokid Bosporus, of course, did not represent the centralized state familiar to us from later historical periods. His government, even if it wanted it, still had nothing to oppose to the long-standing traditions of polis self-government of slave-holding cities and the no less stable desire for the independent existence of local tribes, dating back to the primitive communal era - the system of military democracy. The coexistence of slave-holding cities and local tribes within the same state association for a long time left a peculiar imprint on the Spartokid Bosporus. Both of these terms did not immediately dissolve in it. Hence the duality of the political structure of the Bosporus, which was so clearly reflected in the dual title of the ruling dynasty that headed this state. The mentioned duality of the state nature of the Bosporus had deep foundations.

With the subjugation of the barbarian tribes of the Kuban region, a new ethnic component appeared within the Bosporan kingdom, which the Hellenes always looked upon as an object of exploitation. The management of each specific tribe was now to be carried out by the viceroy of the reigning ruler. In their capacity were relatives or “friends” of the king. The tribes appear to have remained the same in social and economic organization. This is evidenced by the absence of any significant traces of changes in the organization of agriculture according to archaeological data. At the same time, part of the Maeotian lands (most likely undeveloped and borderlands) became the property of Leukon. The barbarians also had to pay him tribute with the products of their agriculture. Considering the scope of trade relations between the Bosporus and Greece under Leukon, it can be assumed that he legislated for himself the right of first purchase of commercial grain produced locally, at least in lean years. A number of representatives of the Maeotian nobility became part of the Bosporus elite. All this gave Leukon every right to consider his power in relation to them as royal. This title was common among the rulers of the conquered tribes and, therefore, could not cause any negative attitude.

The expansion of economic ties with Athens, which under Leukon received half of the grain needed by their policy from the Bosporus - 1 million poods (16,700 tons) per year, can be considered a success of foreign policy. Leucon, like his father, granted the Athenian merchants atelia - the right to duty-free trade and to load their ships first. Moreover, he extended this right to Feodosia, through which he once exported more than 5 million poods (83,500 tons) of grain. In return, the Athenians awarded him citizenship rights and corresponding privileges in Athens. A statue of Leucon and a stele with a decree on the privileges granted to him were installed on the Acropolis of Athens next to the stele of his father Satyr.

With the formation of the Bosporan state as a slave state, the use of unfree labor assumed wider dimensions. Nevertheless, in the Bosporus, along with slaves and slave owners, a fairly significant layer of small, partly free, partly dependent, farmers undoubtedly continued to exist. They worked on their lands, selling grain to Bosporan merchants. This is evidenced quite convincingly by the very fact of the existence on the Bosporan territory of individual tribes that retained their names, attested by both inscriptions and literary sources.

Thus, in the state headed by the Spartokids, social relationships of various types coexisted. Along with slavery, which dominated in the cities at one time founded by Greek colonists, and on the lands of large landowners who used the labor of slaves and dependents, local tribes remained here, still preserving the remnants of the primitive communal system.

The power of the Spartokids found significant support in the mercenary army and those extensive connections of the Spartokids with local tribes, which allowed them to use the military forces of these tribes as allies. However, military militias apparently continued to exist in cities.

The policy of Leukon I was continued by his sons Spartok II (353-348 BC) and Perisades I (348 - 310 BC). They confirmed the benefits granted to the Athenian merchants by their father. In gratitude for this, the Athenians adopted a special decree in honor of the Bosporan rulers, awarded them with golden wreaths and erected a bronze statue of Perisada in their city. Having gained power after the death of their father, Leukon's children ruled the state as co-rulers for some time.

The successes of the army of Perisad I in Asia to a certain extent provoked a war between the Bosporus and the Scythians. One of the speeches of the Athenian orator Demosthenes talks about “the war that happened at Perisada with the Scythians,” as a result of which trade in the state almost stopped. Since Scythia was divided into three kingdoms, and Demosthenes does not say which of them the war was with and how it ended, most likely we must proceed from the general direction of the Bosporan advance at that time. Unable to fight with the strong Syracian alliance of tribes, Perisad could transfer the blow to the mouth of the Tanais (Don), where the smallest of the Scythian kingdoms was located. The absence of traces of significant destruction and fires at the Elizavetinskoye settlement, the political center of the Scythians of the Don region, and the previous trade orientation of its inhabitants after the end of the war suggest that the military pressure of the Bosporus in this direction was short-lived and not very strong.

The fish-rich mouths of the Tanais have long attracted Bosporan merchants. The growth in the number of citizens of Panticapaeum required the development of new lands. Considering that it was here a little later, at the very beginning of the 3rd century BC. e. The Panticapaeans founded a new city - Tanais, which bears the same name as the river. It can be assumed that the war of Perisada I with the Scythians of the Don region became a kind of reconnaissance of enemy forces in the region on the eve of the withdrawal of a new colony here. With his neighbors on the Kerch Peninsula - the royal Scythians - he continued to maintain allied relations, which is confirmed by the further course of events in Asia under his sons.

During these military upheavals, Perisad I steadily maintained friendly relations with a number of poleis in Greece and the Black Sea region. Athens remained his most important economic and political partner. He confirmed the right of Athenian merchants to duty-free duty, “on all goods and throughout the Bosporus.” In addition, residents of Amis, Chios, Chalcedon and some other cities received similar privileges. Thanks to these privileges, the products of Hellenic workshops of all specialties and professions literally poured into the Bosporus, and through it to the local and surrounding barbarian tribes.

Even under the Spartokids, the basis of the state’s economy remains agriculture and the closely related grain trade. It is no coincidence that one of the first issues of gold coins depicts a griffin walking along an ear of grain on the reverse side. Later, the image of a plow was also found as an emblem on coins. Agriculture, as the main occupation, is associated with the widespread cult of deities who patronized agriculture - Demeter, Dionysus and Aphrodite Apathura.

The most important of the Bosporus industries has always been fishing, which reached in the second half of the 4th century BC. e. high development. When excavating any Bosporan city or settlement, fish bones or fishing equipment are always found.

In exchange for agricultural products, the Bosporans supplied local tribes with weapons, protective armor, jewelry, wine, fabrics, and dishes. In all settlements and in most burials of the necropolis, one can find products from Greek as well as Bosporan craftsmen. Since the time of Perisad I, Bosporan merchants have been ousting Olbia even from the Scythian markets of the Dnieper region.

The power of the descendants of Spartok increased so much, and the state machine of the Bosporus became so stronger and improved in relation to the conditions of the periphery of the ancient world, that the power of the Spartokids continued for almost another 200 years without significant changes. Perisad I, who expanded the boundaries of the Bosporan possessions “from the Tauri to the borders of the Caucasian land,” was even “recognized as a god” for his services. None of the rulers of the Bosporus received such an honor. The cult of Perisada I as a deity was carried out in a temple specially built in Panticapaeum and was preserved even in the first centuries of our era. After his death, he was buried in one of the most architecturally remarkable mounds - the Tsarsky Mound. Standing apart from other similar monuments in the open steppe and clearly visible from Panticapaeum, as befits the tomb of a deity, this mound still amazes numerous visitors today with its monumentality and high quality workmanship. It is no coincidence that no storms of eras and even bombings and shelling during the Great Patriotic War could destroy this monument of the ancient Bosporus, unique in its expressiveness.

But recognition of the reign of Perisad I as the highest stage of development of the state also means recognition of the beginning of its decline. The first sign of this decline was the struggle for power of his sons, which broke out soon after the death of this, undoubtedly the most prominent representative of the dynasty.

The inconsistency of the situation created in the Bosporus is reflected in the only passage that has survived to our time, preserved in the work of Diodorus, which related the course of historical events in the Bosporus. This is a story about the internecine struggle of the sons of Perisad I, borrowed by Diodorus from some ancient author unknown to us, but very knowledgeable in Bosporan history. Civil war began between the sons of Perisad I in 309 BC. e., immediately after his death. The vacated throne passed to the eldest of his sons, Satyr. Then the youngest son of Perisad, Eumelus, entered into an alliance with Ariafarnes, the king of the local Tatei tribe, attracted some other tribes to his side and took up arms against his elder brother. In the ensuing struggle, the middle son of the deceased Perisad, Pritan, took the side of the Satyr. Military operations took place mainly on the Asian side of the strait. Satyr's forces consisted of 2 thousand Greek mercenaries, 2 thousand Thracian warriors in his service and Scythians allied to him, numbering 20 thousand infantry and 10 thousand horsemen. On the side of Eumelus were the troops of Ariafarnes with a total number of 22 thousand infantry and 20 thousand cavalry.

In the first major battle near the Fat River - probably one of the tributaries of the Kuban - after both troops suffered significant losses, Satyr put his enemy to flight. Pursuing him, he burned the villages he encountered along the way, captured prisoners and booty.

The leader of the mercenaries, Meniscus, distinguished by both intelligence and courage, rushed through the passage to the wall and, together with his comrades, began to bravely attack the fortifications. However, he was unable to overcome the desperate resistance of the Siracs, who also had numerical superiority. Then Satyr personally led the army into the attack. In a fierce hand-to-hand battle, he was wounded in the arm by a spear and ordered to retreat. His army, leaving guard posts, retired to the camp. The next day the assault was supposed to be repeated, but the unexpected happened. By evening the king's wound became inflamed. He felt unwell and died at nightfall. He stayed in power for only nine months. After this, his troops immediately retreated to the city of Gargaz, apparently located on the banks of the Kuban. From here the body of Satyr was transported to Panticapaeum, where his middle brother Prytan remained. Having arranged a magnificent funeral, Pritan assumed royal power and led the army stationed in Gargaz. Having learned about this, Eumelus sent his ambassadors to him with a proposal to transfer part of the state to him. But Prytan did not pay attention to this and, leaving a garrison in Gargaz, returned to Panticapaeum to strengthen his power. Apparently, this procedure turned out to be quite lengthy. In any case, while he was doing this, his brother Eumelus, with the help of the barbarians, managed to capture Gargaza and a number of other fortifications and cities of the Asian Bosporus. The historian Diodorus does not say who the barbarians were who helped Eumelus, but it is possible that they were the same Siracians.

Prytan eventually marched against his rebellious brother with an army, but he apparently was not skilled in military affairs. In any case, the battle between the brothers ended in the victory of Eumelus. Soon after this, Prytanus capitulated on the terms of renouncing the throne in favor of Eumelus. After returning to Panticapaeum, Prytan once again tried to regain power, but failed. He had to flee to Kepi, where he was later killed by order of Eumelus.

Having seized power, Eumelus quickly suppressed the resistance of the dissatisfied. Friends and relatives of Satyr and Prytan were killed, and residents of the capital received various benefits. During the reign of Eumelus, significant changes took place in the ancient world. Large Hellenistic states appeared, the rulers of which already from 306 BC. e. took the titles of kings. Almost all of them, trying to surpass their rivals in power, one of the leading ones put forward the slogan of liberation of the Greeks. Eumelus followed the same path. He expands political ties with Byzantium, Sinope and other Hellenic cities of the Black Sea region, providing them with all kinds of benefits. So, when the inhabitants of the city of Callatia (in the territory of modern Romania), besieged by the king of Thrace Lysimachus, turned to him for help, he took in a thousand of their inhabitants, providing them not only with political asylum, but also an entire city for settlement, and the region of Psoi, divided for allotments. It is possible that he also helped in organizing the defense of Callatia from Lysimachus. He then defeated the pirates, who were causing a lot of trouble to the Greek merchants. Eumelus patronized the cities of the Southern and Western Black Sea region and even hatched a project to unite all the lands surrounding Pontus under his rule. And he would have carried out his plan if it had not been for the accident. One day, when Eumelus was riding in a chariot drawn by four, the horses bolted. The king tried to jump out, but his sword got caught in the wheel. Eumelus died in 304/303 BC. e. Eumelus ruled for only 5 years and 5 months, and he was the last king of the Spartokid dynasty, who can be described as a powerful ruler of the Bosporus.

Spartok III - the successor of Eumelus (304/03-284/83) - began to be called king not only in relation to the conquered tribes. This happened under the influence of corresponding acts on the part of the diadochi, who in 306-305. declared themselves kings. The external position of the Bosporus under Spartok III continues to strengthen. The most important proof of this is the treaty with Athens. The decree that was the result of these negotiations differs significantly from previous Athenian decrees concerning the rulers of the Bosporus. If earlier representatives of the Spartokid dynasty were considered as private individuals, now Spartok is called a king; if earlier it was exclusively about trade, now a formal alliance is concluded: Athens undertakes to help Spartok both on land and at sea if anyone attacks his power. The agreement, however, was more necessary for Athens than for the Bosporus: if until now the Athenians had been guaranteed trade privileges, now Spartok got off with a vague promise to “do the best for them.”

Bosporus ties with Egypt, Rhodes and Delos are strengthened under Perisada II (284/83 - after 252). One Egyptian papyrus preserves the news of the arrival of Perisad's ambassadors to Egypt (254/53). The strengthening of political ties was facilitated by highly developed trade between the Hellenistic states and the Pontic coast.

However, the crisis was not eliminated. And this was facilitated by the renewed intra-dynastic struggle for power. The Roman poet Ovid reports that the Bosporan king Leukon killed his brother and was himself killed by his wife. Subsequent commentators of Ovid repeat his message, although with some discrepancies in details, which convinces of the reliability of the information conveyed by the famous poet. During such civil strife in the royal family, persons who did not belong to the dynasty could also come to power. Such, for example, could be a certain Hygienon, who for some reason was content with only the title of archon, but, undoubtedly, possessed full power. This is evidenced by the issue of gold, silver and copper coins in his own name. His name is also on some Bosporan tiles. It is known that the Bosporan kings partly controlled the tile production and themselves owned ergasteriums for their production. It is possible that Hygienon, having usurped power, on this basis appropriated the income from this production.

Pontic period (about 109 – 15/14 BC)

This political act was enough for new, even more turbulent events to break out in the Bosporus: an “uprising” led by Savmak broke out on its European side. The rebels captured Panticapaeum and Theodosia. Perisades was killed, and the commander Diophantus, sent by Mithridates, fled. Savmak was proclaimed king.

The uprising of Savmak threatened Mithridates with the loss of his possessions and influence in the Northern Black Sea region. Within a few months, Mithridates prepared a fleet and ground army and... in the spring of 107 or 106 BC. e. sent him under the command of Diophantus to the Crimea.

The rebels did not have sufficient military strength to repel the attack of Diophantus. Their fierce struggle is evidenced by traces of great destruction at the end of the 2nd century. BC BC: the struggle took place on the streets of the city even after the city fortifications were captured by Diophantus. Diophantus executed many participants in the uprising. Savmak was captured alive and sent to Mithridates in Sinope, where he was also executed.

After the suppression of the Savmak uprising, a significant part of the Black Sea coast came under the rule of Mithridates.

The goal of Mithridates' policy was to create a powerful state that could challenge Rome. To do this, he, in particular, tried to enlist the support of residents of Greek, including Bosporan cities. Many of them were granted self-government and the right to mint their own coins. To encourage trade, Mithridates reduced existing taxes and cleared the sea of pirates.

The Pontic king repeatedly tried to fight Rome, but each time was unsuccessful. The first war took place in 89 - 85. BC e. Although the main battles between the opposing sides in both this and subsequent wars took place on the territory of Asia Minor, the Romans were well aware of the importance of the Bosporus, which was a source of manpower and food for Mithridates. They developed tactics to fight Mithridates, deciding to cause discontent in the Bosporan cities and thus strike the Pontic king from the rear. To this end, the Romans brought their fleet into the Black Sea and began a blockade of the Bosporus, as a result of which the Bosporan merchants suffered huge losses. The unsuccessful actions of Mithridates in Asia against the Roman troops forced him to increase state taxes and continuously replenish his army at the expense of the inhabitants of Greek cities. The decline of trade and exorbitant taxes caused understandable discontent among the inhabitants of the Bosporus. In 86 BC. e. they broke away from the power of Mithridates. Soon the Pontic king made peace with Rome and began to restore order in his own state. The second war with Rome (83 - 81 BC) prevented the Bosporus from being brought to obedience. Only in 80 or 79 BC. e. Mithridates re-established himself on the shores of the Kerch Strait. Understanding the important strategic importance of these territories, he gives them to his son Mahar for management.

In 74 BC. e. The last, third war begins between the ruler of Pontus and the Roman state. Soon the Romans managed to win a number of important victories. They captured major trading cities on the southern shore of the Black Sea, thereby depriving Mithridates' fleet of its main bases and again threatening Bosporan trade. The Pontic king was at this time in Asia Minor. To strike him from the rear, the Romans entered into negotiations with Machar and persuaded him to betray. Mahar was supported by Bosporus and Chersonese, who understood perfectly well that the continuation of hostilities would lead to the final cessation of trade operations in the Black Sea basin. In 70 BC. e. Mahar openly went over to the side of his father's opponents, but Mithridates was not broken and continued the war.

In 65 BC. e. Mithridates was defeated in the fight against the Roman commander Pompey and lost all his possessions in Asia Minor. The Pontic king with the remnants of the armies loyal to him fled to the Bosporus, killed Mahar and again subjugated the local inhabitants to his power. Realizing the precariousness of his positions and counting on continuing the fight against Rome, Mithridates tried to enlist the support of the barbarians living in the neighborhood. For this purpose, he took several Scythian “princesses” as wives. In response, Pompey established a naval blockade of the Bosporus, declaring that owners and captains of ships who attempted to reach Mithridates' possessions would be summarily executed. The prospect of continued senseless military action, the decline of trade, excessive exactions, and the abuses of the Mithridates administration forced the Bosporans to do as Pompey had hoped. The first to rebel was Phanagoria, the largest city on the Asian shore of the Bosporus. Chersonesos, Theodosius and Nymphaeum followed his example. Mithridates' son Pharnaces decided to negotiate with Rome and entered into negotiations with Pompey, while at the same time inciting Mithridates' army to rebel against the king. Pharnaces' intrigues led to the soldiers mutinying and proclaiming him king. Betrayed by his children, friends and army, Mithridates committed suicide on the acropolis of Panticapaeum in 63 BC. e.

The residence of Pharnaces, like his father, was Panticapaeum. He expanded the borders of his kingdom to the north and east along the coast of the Sea of Azov, and the extreme northern point was the city of Tanais at the mouth of the river that gave it its name. In 48 BC, when Pompey and Caesar met on the Pharsalian fields, challenging each other for dominion over the world, Pharnaces set out to regain the kingdom of his ancestors in Asia Minor and crossed there with a large army. He managed to subjugate Colchis. Part of Cappadocia and Pontus; but his further successes were delayed by the news of the uprising against him in the Bosporus, which was raised by his relative Asander.

Meanwhile, Caesar appeared in Asia Minor after his victory over Pompey at Pharsalea in August 47 and inflicted a decisive defeat on Pharnaces at Zela, in an area near the mouth of the Galisa River (now Kizil-Irmak). Caesar's report on the victory over Pharnaces was composed in three famous words: veni, vidi, vici - came, saw, conquered. With the remnants of his forces, Pharnaces fled to the Bosporus. He managed to capture Panticapaeum and Theodosius, but in a decisive battle with Asander he was defeated and fell on the battlefield (47 BC).

After the death of Pharnaces, Caesar left the search for the Bosporan throne to Mithridates of Pergamon, whom he had previously made ruler (tetrarch) of Galatia - a region in the center of Asia Minor. But Mithridates' attempt to win back the kingdom was unsuccessful: he was defeated by Asander and fell in battle. Since then, Asander remained unchallenged in the possession of the kingdom. In the first years of his reign, he called himself “archon” on coins, and from the fourth year (44 BC) - king, which he remained until his death in 16 BC. Its final recognition by Rome followed. Apparently in 30, when he took the title of "friend of the Romans." The borders of the kingdom under Asander extended in the northeast as before to the city of Tanaid; As for the western border, great doubt is possible here. The fact is that later in Chersonese there was a local era, starting from 25/4 BC, and since Chersonese, according to Pliny, received its freedom from Rome, it is concluded that its separation from the territory The kingdom happened precisely in 25/4 BC. But this issue cannot be resolved with complete certainty, and it is quite possible that only under the emperor Vespasian did he cease to enter the boundaries of the kingdom.

Asander was succeeded by his wife, the daughter of Pharnaces and the granddaughter of Mithridates, Dynamia. Her coins with the title of queen are from 16 BC. Three pedestals were found in Kerch and on the Taman Peninsula, on which statues of Emperor Augustus and Livia, his wife, once stood. The signatures read: “Queen Dynamia, friend of the Romans.”

Bosporus under Roman rule

(14/13 BC – first halfIIIV.)

Soon after Dynamia's accession to the throne, a time of troubles began in the Bosporus. A fierce struggle for power begins, in which adventurers of all stripes took part. Rome played a significant role in the strife, whose rulers did not abandon attempts to establish one of their proteges on the throne of the Bosporan kingdom. The Roman adventurer Scribonius came to the Bosporus, posing as the grandson of Mithridates. Dynamia gave him her hand. But the commander and associate of Augustus Agrippa intervened in this matter on behalf of the emperor and gave the throne to Polemon, who then owned the legacy of Mithridates in the territory of Asia Minor, the Kingdom of Pontus. Polemon took possession of the Bosporus, Scribonius was killed, and Queen Dynamia married Polemon. This happened in 14 BC. e. Thus, the political unity of both shores of the sea, created by Mithridates, was again restored, but this time the union was short-lived.

Move further developments very poorly covered in the sources. It is known that a few years later Polemon married a relative of Emperor Augustus - therefore, by that time Dynamia had already died. Resistance to Polemon continued. Trying to suppress him, the king destroyed several fortresses, including Tanais. Then Polemon got involved in a fight with the Aspurgian tribe living on the Asian side of the Bosporus, and in 8 BC. e. died. There are scientific reports about who became his heir. different opinions In 14 AD e. The ruler of Bosporus turns out to be Aspurgus, who may have been somehow connected with the Aspurgians. It is believed that he came from a noble Sarmatian family. It is possible that he was the son of Asander and Dynamia. In 15, Aspurgus visited Rome and convinced the new emperor, Tiberius, to grant him the royal title. In honor of this event, one of the sons of Aspurgus was named Tiberius Julius Cotis. Subsequently, the name Tiberius Julius became dynastic for the Bosporan kings - descendants of Aspurgus. Aspurgus managed to defeat the Scythians and Taurians and, thereby, secure the borders of his state from the barbarian threat. Aspurgus's services to the state were so great that he was deified during his lifetime. A corresponding temple was built in Panticapaeum.

After the death of Aspurgus in 37/38, power passed to his wife Hypepiria. This probably happened because the heir to the throne, Mithridates, was still a very young man. Soon another turmoil begins - the Roman emperor Caligula supported the claims to the Bosporan throne of Polemon, probably the son of that Polemon, who was the Bosporan king for some time and then died in a battle with the Aspurgians. Polemon, however, did not even manage to visit the Bosporus. Hypepiria, and then Mithridates II, firmly retained power in their hands, and Caligula for some reason forgot to provide real help to his protege and soon died. The new emperor, Claudius, retained the Bosporus for Mithridates, giving Polemon control of a small region in Asia Minor.

Mithridates' rebellious plans and his intention to free himself from dependence on Rome were wiped out by the emperor by Mithridates's brother Cotis, who was sent to Rome on some business assignments. Imp. Claudius sent a military expedition to the Bosporus under the command of Didius Gallus. Mithridates fled and Cotis became his successor with the permission of Rome. This event dates back to 44 or 45. When Didius Gall withdrew with the main forces, Mithridates began internecine war with his brother, having found allies among the natives who lived on the eastern borders of the kingdom.

After some time, deciding that the situation was favorable to him, Mithridates again opposed Cotys. At this stage of the war, the Sarmatians fought on the side of both brothers. In the end, Cotys was victorious, captured Mithridates and sent him to Rome.

Mithridates lived for a long time in the “eternal city” as a private citizen, then got involved in political intrigues and was executed for participating in a conspiracy against the emperor. The war for the Bosporan throne ended in 49. After its end, the Roman soldiers sailed home. Somewhere, probably off the southern coast of Crimea, the ships were caught in a storm; many of them were thrown ashore and became prey for the Tauri.

From the year 71, Tiberius Julius Rescuporis reigned over the Bosporus. The relationship of this king with Cotis has not been established, but since our sources do not contain any evidence at all about any unrest or revolutions at that time in the Bosporus and there is no mention of a change of dynasty, it is very likely that Rheskuporides was son of Kotis. Since the time of Rhescuporis, all subsequent Bosporan kings bear the dynastic name “Tiberius Julius” and note in their title their dependence on Rome: they are called “friend of the Romans, friend of Caesar, lifelong priest of the Augustans.” From the end of the 1st century. Rome increasingly sees the Bosporus as an important outpost in the northeast, capable of holding back the onslaught of barbarians. Under Rheskuporidas II and Sauromates I, defensive structures were built, borders were strengthened, and the army and navy were strengthened. Sauromatus I and Cotys II win victories over the Scythians. Under Sauromat II (174-210), the Bosporan fleet cleared the southern shores of the Black Sea of pirates. Joint military actions with neighbors were supposed to strengthen the independence of the Bosporus from Rome.

Strengthens royal power, one of the reasons for this situation is the complex, turbulent foreign policy situation, the increasing role of military operations conducted by the Bosporans under the leadership of the tsar-military leader. During his lifetime, Aspurgus was deified. City copper coinage was replaced by royal coinage. The court maintained an extensive staff of officials. 3rd century inscription from Kerch lists dozens of names of court magistrates. The dependence of cities on the center increased: taxes and land taxes were levied on them, and city self-government bodies had extremely limited rights.

Slavery continued to play an important role in the economy. However, the first signs of a crisis in the slave production system are revealed, when slave labor becomes unprofitable. This is clear from the inscriptions-manumissions - acts on the release of slaves. In agriculture, their labor is increasingly being replaced by the labor of dependent pelat farmers. They were attached to land plots that belonged to large owners - kings, court nobility, temples.

Grain production again dominates the rest, especially a lot of bread comes from the Asian Bosporus and the Lower Don region. It is stored in grain pits, entire complexes of which are often found in rural settlements and cities. The Bosporans also provided grain to the cities and Roman troops in Asia Minor. The alarming situation affected the location and appearance of rural settlements. The number of villages has decreased; they are mainly located on hills, fortified, and have a regular plan. A settlement of this type was, for example, Ilurat. The male part of the fortified settlements was engaged in agriculture and carried out military service. Residents of the villages could be of different ethnic origins, free and pelated, they could cultivate the plots of large owners, city or communal lands. Another type of settlement were fortified estates, sometimes located adjacent to villages. Much attention was still paid to cattle breeding, gardening, but especially viticulture and winemaking. Fishing was no less important. There were probably associations of fishermen, and there were also individual large entrepreneurs.

Crafts, trade, and city life revived. The production of weapons (close to Sarmatian models) increased. Jewelers adapted to the tastes of the new population; their products became polychrome, inlaid with stones or glass paste, and decorated with geometric patterns. Destructions associated with the events of the 1st century. BC e., caused the need to expand the construction business. Restoration work was accompanied by redevelopment in cities and towns and an increase in their territory. But the quality of land cultivation has generally deteriorated. The role of shipbuilding was great. The production of simple dishes was significant, but they also made ceremonial dishes, which were covered with red varnish. However, the number of molded vessels has increased - the result of the influence of barbarian traditions. The production of terracotta gradually decreased and deteriorated, now bearing little resemblance to Greek designs and more in line with Sarmatian tastes. Glass products appeared.

The new rise also affected trade and commodity-money relations. Associations of merchants and shipowners arose. They traded with many regions of the Mediterranean and the Southern Pontus, cities of the Northern and Eastern, Black Sea region, areas inhabited by barbarians. The closest connections were with the southern Pontic cities. Many coins have been found in the cities and settlements of the Bosporus. Copper and gold money of royal coinage reflect the influence of Rome, they have portraits of emperors and their names, Roman regalia.

The ethnic composition of cities, their political position in the state, appearance, and culture have changed. They were restored, reconstructed, and decorated with new buildings. Under the influence of Rome, baths, basilicas, amphitheaters were built, statues of emperors and Bosporan kings, gladiator fights and bestiary fights appeared. The process of barbarization affected the growth of naturalization of the economy and the Russification of cities. The tastes of the non-Greek, mainly Sarmatian population found vivid expression in funeral rituals and structures, toreutics and coroplastics, painting, sculpture, and relief. The features of Bosporan fine art are conventionality, staticity, flatness, in other words, a certain primitiveness that is not characteristic of the Greek style. However, art, like the entire culture of the Bosporus of this time, is not without its charm and a certain skill. It is original and reflects the synthesis of ancient and barbarian traditions. The most striking examples are the paintings of the crypts of Demeter, Anthesterium, etc. No less beautiful is the painting of a stone sarcophagus depicting the artist’s workshop. We find the same synthesis in the religious ideas of the Bosporans. Cults of synthetic deities with ancient oriental and local features are spreading. This was the nameless god Thundering or the Almighty god. Religious unions appeared - fias. Among the Bosporans there were also admirers of Judaism and Christianity.

Late Antique period of the history of Bosporus

(seridinaIIIV. – second thirdVIV.)

The general crisis of the Mediterranean ancient civilization in the second quarter of the 3rd century. Almost at the same time, the Bosporus also covered, although there was no sharp boundary between the late antique era and the one that preceded it. Of decisive importance was the change in the foreign policy situation in connection with the development of the ginpolite societies of Eastern Europe - barbaric primitive societies that existed on the periphery of the then civilization. Barbarian tribes appear in the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region; whom ancient authors called Goths, Borani and Heruli. Sarmatian-Alanian tribes moved from the east almost at the same time. The movements of these peoples disrupted the natural course of history of all ancient centers of the Northern Black Sea region. In fact, two streams met in the Bosporus: the Gothic - from the north and the Alanian - from the east.

One of the first blows, apparently inflicted by the Alans, fell around 239 on Gorgippia and the Raevskoye settlement. Later, around 251-254, Tanais was defeated, apparently by the Alans.

In the mid-40s of the 3rd century. The Ostrogoths and their allies penetrated the northern shores of Maeotis. Their appearance in the Bosporus was generally peaceful; the barbarians entered into an agreement with Farsanz, who appeared on the Bosporan throne in 253-254. It is not entirely clear which route the Goths followed to the Bosporus, but most likely they walked along the northern coast of Maeotis and further through the steppe Taurica.

The main role in the first stage of events was played by Alans, Borans and Heruls, whose ethnicity is not precisely established (before coming to the Bosporus, the Heruls lived between the Don and modern Azov in the north-eastern Azov region). The first sea campaign of the barbarians from the territory of the Bosporus took place in 255 or 256, the second - in 257. The first time Pitiunt was plundered, the second time Fasis, Pitiunt, and Trebizont were besieged, but the garrisons repulsed them. The Borans played the main role in these campaigns, but the Ostrogoths also participated. The third campaign - 258 - went in two streams: by sea and by land, along the coast of Pontus to the west and further to the south. Having suffered a series of defeats, the barbarians boarded (Bosporan?) ships, which had been cruising all this time off the southern shores of Pontus, and began to retreat to Maeotis. They were defeated by the Roman fleet that pursued them.

Internal situation in the Bosporus in 253-275. poorly supplied with sources. No dated inscription dating back to 250-275 is known. But pirate raids by barbarians from the Bosporan territory were blamed on “insignificant and unworthy rulers” who came to power after the end of the old royal family. Apparently, they meant Farsanza, who seized power as a result of a coup in 253. However, there is an opinion that Farsanz could declare himself king in parallel with the legitimate ruler of the last known Bosporan king Reskuporides, raising a rebellion in part of the territory of the kingdom.

Regardless of the size of the territory over which Farsanza’s power extended, his rise to power was most likely associated with a split among the ruling layer of the kingdom.

In 266-267 The first coins with the name of King Teiran appear. Since after 268 no coins were issued in the Bosporus for 7 years, it is believed that all these years (266-275) Teiran continued to be a co-ruler of Rhescuporis V. This is also supported by Teiran’s belonging to the Tiberian-Julian dynasty.

In the 50-60s of the 3rd century. the European part of the Bosporus suffered significantly. At this time, a number of settlements in the Crimean Azov region perished, the fortress and town of Ilurat were destroyed (between 267 and 275). Around the same time, the history of Nymphaeum as a city ends.

275-276 became a turning point in the fate of the Bosporus. Teiran became the sole ruler in the fall of 276. The Bosporan state retained its independence. Despite the known destruction, the main cities were preserved (except for Nymphaeum and Myrmekium, the Ilurat fortress). Part of the population of the destroyed cities moved to the main centers . The Bosporan settlements to the west of the Uzunlarsky shaft in the Crimean Azov region ceased to exist. Apparently, a new border has passed here.

The main significance of the Gothic campaigns for the history of the Bosporus lies in the fact that they disrupted the natural course of development of the state, caused serious damage to the economy, and were the first link in the long-term movement of tribes, into the orbit of which the Bosporus has been falling ever since. These events are the prologue of the future Great Migration of Peoples of the IV-VI centuries. - can be considered milestones in determining the date of the beginning of the late antique stage of the history of the Bosporus.

Teiran's sole rule lasted only two years (there are coins from only 277-278). No coins have been found from the next five years until the start of issue of staters of Thothors in 285. Epigraphic and written evidence about Teiran is also absent in the future. Therefore, how and how his reign ended is not known.

The next few years of Bosporan history are almost unknown. The gap between Teiran and Thothors covers the years 279-284.

In 285, a ruler with an Iranian name, Phothors, came to power. In the absence of sources, it can be assumed that a representative of one of the prominent old families of Sarmatian origin came to power, whose legitimacy was not in doubt, as evidenced by the long and relatively calm reign of Thothors. He apparently found a compromise with the Alans who were moving to the east, opening for them a “corridor” to the west.

By the last decade of the 3rd century. There is a mention of the Bosporan-Chersonese wars. J. Harmatta offers the following possible chronology reconstruction of events at the end of the 3rd century, which seems the most convincing. Its chronology: 291 - exit from the Bosporus and the conquest of the Laz country; 292 - invasion of the Sarmatians (that is, Alans) into the province of Polemon Pontus, war with Constantius, attack of the Chersonesos on the Bosporus, peace; Sauromatus with the Romans; 293 - return of Sauromat to the Bosporus. It is known that in these years the king of Bosporus was Thothorsos. Harmatta, not without reason, suggests that the name Sauromat (whatever the reason for this may be) could be common to the Bosporan kings in the Chersonesos chronicle.

The inscription of Valerius Aurelius Sogas dated 603 of the Bosporan era (autumn 305 - autumn 306) allows us to clarify ideas about the last years of the reign of Thothors. It allows specialists to express a number of considerations about the political status of the Bosporus at the beginning of the 4th century. V.V. Latyshev concludes that Roman influence increased in the Bosporus, but at the same time emphasizes: “the Bosporan state continued to exist.” B. Nadel believes that Rome pursued an active policy in the Northern Black Sea region under Diocletian and, in connection with this, allows for some limitation of the power of the Bosporan kings at that time, by analogy with Nero’s eastern policy in 62-68.

Rome, at a time when the Bosporus abruptly changed its policy and invaded the provinces of Asia Minor, acted in Taurica not directly, but through the hands of Chersonese. Once the status quo was restored, there was no longer a need for new interventions. The order was also reflected in the fact that portraits of the Roman ruler were invariably preserved on the coins of Thothors.

The reign of Thothors was a notable phenomenon in the history of Bosporus. Apparently, under him, for the first time, representatives of the Sarmatian-Alan nobility came to power in full, which reflected the increase in their real role in the life of the Bosporus. Apparently, the old claims of the Bosporus to hegemony in all of Taurica, which dated back to the time of Mithridates and were revived after the fall of the kingdom of the later Scythians, appeared for the last time. Rome managed to stop these trends.

After Thothors, the ruler with the same Iranian name, Radamsad, becomes the Bosporan king. For the first six of the 13 years of his reign, Radamsad reigned alone. An analysis of late Bosporan coin hoards shows that Radamsad’s coins are not the last in any of the 18 hoards known by this time. This is a clear sign that there was no mass hiding of treasures under Radamsad, which in turn indicates a relatively stable internal situation

In 314, the fact of the joint reign of two kings Radamsad and Rheskuporidas VI was attested. ON THE. Frolova proposed to consider the years 314-319 and 322 as years of co-ruling.

The circumstances surrounding Radamsad's departure from the throne are unclear. However, it is known that in 322 on the Danube, Chersonese troops helped Rome repel some North Black Sea barbarians. They could have been the Alans, who at that time were forming a second political center in the Lower Danube region. It is believed that this episode was part of a series of Chersonese-Bosporan wars, and in this clash the barbarians were led by the former Bosporan king Rasimod. If this is so, then it would be logical to see in the latter precisely Radamsad, who was finally removed from power by the pro-Roman circles of the Bosporus, led by Rheskuporides VI.

The name traditional for the old dynasty cannot serve as solid proof that Reskuporid VI belonged to it, but, in any case, the adoption of such a throne name reflected the victory of conservative, that is, pro-Roman forces in the political life of the Bosporus. He was the last reliably established Bosporan king, and his era is the last one that can be reconstructed relatively well from sources. One of the first important events During the reign of Rheskuporidas VI, there was a trip of the Bosporan bishop Cadmus (according to other lists - Domnus) to Nicaea for the First Ecumenical Council of 325.

The final cessation of Bosporan coinage is a notable event in the history of Bosporus under Rheskuporides. The king who led the country for almost 30 years most likely died soon after or simultaneously with the cessation of the minting of Bosporan coins. The decisive role here was obviously played by some external reasons. At present, the issue is still far from being finally resolved.

In 333 Constantine “divided the Roman Empire as a private man might divide his hereditary property. Constantine gave his nephew Hannibalian "the name of king (rex) hated by the Romans and the title Nobilissimus." The latter's possessions, centered in Caesarea Cappadocia, included Pontus, Cappadocia and Armenia Minor. On all coins of “King Hannibalian” the Euphrates River marks the center of this kingdom. Hannibalian may have been given the nominal throne of Armenia and Pontus with the title of king of kings, but these countries had yet to be conquered. It was not possible to fill this title with real content: in 337, after the death of Constantine, among the other heirs of the emperor, during the struggle for power, the “king of Armenia and Pontus” was killed. For us in this story, the important question is: was the Bosporus, at least nominally, included in this “kingdom”? At one time, T. Mommsen associated the cessation of coinage in the Bosporus precisely with its annexation. Weren't the events of 335-336? (alleged war with Chersonese) are related to an attempt at annexation in the course of implementing Hannibalian's claims? Shortly before this, Theodosia could have been returned to the Bosporus in the spirit of the empire's established friendship with it. Then the attack on Feodosia by the Chersonesos can only be justified by the aspirations of Hannibalian. By the middle of the 4th century. Rome most likely stopped subsidies to the Bosporus. This is indirectly indicated by the fact that Bosporan envoys were sent to Julian in 362 with an urgent request for help.

The remaining three decades of the pre-Hunnic period lack solid support in the sources. However, it is possible to cover this period. According to R. Garnett, who literally accepted the chronology of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in 342-360. Sauromat V ruled in the Bosporus, and in 360-371. - Sauromat VI. Garnett's desire to fill the gap of 342-371. understandable, but incorrect, since Constantine’s information about the last two Sauromatians is purely literary in nature. Without a doubt, even in these dark years, both Bosporan statehood and royal power were preserved.

An interesting message from Ammianus Marcellinus in 362: “From the north and desert spaces... came embassies of the Bosporans and other previously unknown peoples, with a prayer that in exchange for an annual tribute they would be allowed to live peacefully within their native land, paying annually the usual tribute." Analyzing this passage, they usually emphasize the fear of the Bosporans in the face of the beginning of the movement of the Huns and their desire to enlist the help of the empire. But at the same time they forget that ambassadors from “unknown peoples” also went to the emperor. These could have been either representatives of some tribes of the Hunnic union or tribes fleeing the advance of the Goths of Germanarich. The embassy of 362 to Julian can be associated rather with the Gothic threat to the Bosporus. Also A.A. Vasiliev assumed that in the 50s-60s of the 4th century. The Bosporus fell into the sphere of influence of the then emerging Gothic power of Hermanaric. At that time, the Goths extended their hegemony to almost all the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region. Apparently the Bosporus at that time feared the Goths from the west more than the Huns. But there are no sources about the subordination of the Bosporus to the Goths at this time. In Crimea, the Goths settled mainly on the slopes of the Crimean Mountains and adjacent areas, up to Feodosia and Kazantip. It is unlikely that the Goths made up any significant part of the population of the Bosporus at that time. Only the “army of Maeotis” of the 3rd century. - Heruls - settled near Tanais (Rogozhkino XIII) and at the northern tip of the Arabat Spit. All this lies outside the Bosporan territory. Gothic antiquities from the middle of the 4th century. not clearly identified on the Bosporus.

The deterioration of the economic situation of the Bosporus in the late ancient times, Russification and naturalization of the economy. But one can only agree with these provisions relatively. The increased importance of individual local areas (microzones) directly depended on the reduction in the functions and role of the central government. The natural division in the Bosporus has always been an important factor in its history, the significance of which was now to become even stronger in connection with the transition to economic autarky and self-defense.

All authors who in one way or another tried to reconstruct the history of the late Bosporus wrote about the origin of the Huns and the circumstances of their arrival in Europe based on written sources. There is little to add to this. The invasion of the Huns into the lands of the Tanaites was the final stage of the struggle against the Alans between the seas. The appearance of the Huns in Europe could seem sudden only to those Goths who lived far from Maeotis. Apparently, only one horde, led by Balamir, moved west. It headed through the lower reaches of the Tanais and fell not on the Goths, but on related tribes that had moved to the west earlier (Alpizurs, Itimars, Tunkars), and certainly not on the Bosporus, which the Huns could “hook” only in its Asian part during the period fight against the Alans. Behind Balamir there remained a strong Akatsir tribe, which resisted the Hunnic alliance until the 40s of the 5th century. Thus, the "invasion" of the Huns was a widespread migration of relatively loosely related elements.

In the midst of the surging barbarian sea, the Bosporus had to maintain its statehood, especially since the barbarians were “absolutely incapable of creating stable, long-term social and political institutions.”

Zosimus in the second half of the fifth century. speaks of “a barbarian tribe, previously unknown and appearing suddenly,” and also that “the Cimmerian Bosporus, shallowed by the silt demolished by Tanais, allowed them to cross on foot from Asia to Europe.” At the same time, in the 2nd half of the 5th century, a legend about a deer or fallow deer that showed the nomads a ford across the strait appeared in the literary tradition. The question of the time of year when the transition took place remains open. It is hardly possible to assume the presence of a continuous ford. As a rule, the Huns crossed rivers in shuttles. Most versions speak of crossing either the Cimmerian Bosporus or the “mouth of Maeotis.”

Thus, it cannot be argued that the Huns went west precisely through the Bosporus. It is difficult to imagine that there was no communication between the two shores of the Kerch Strait, as well as between the shores of Tanais. Following the very specific instructions of contemporaries, we must admit that the Hun invasion of the Bosporus simply did not happen in the 370s. In the middle of the 5th century, when the Huns were the main threat to the empire, a legend arose about their passage across the sea, which was later finally entrenched in traditions. Perhaps the Huns were called by the Romans as enemies of their enemies. That is why Constantinople then preferred to remain silent about their assistance, which had so many unpleasant consequences not only for the Goths, but also for the empire. The Huns could have been transported by the Romans through the northern Crimea, or through Tanais or Maeotis (which is more likely) on Bosporan ships, to fight against the Goths on the territory of the North Pontic steppes.

History of Bosporus in the 5th century. can only be reconstructed schematically. The XIV letter of John Chrysostom to the Olympiad dates back to 404, in which the disgraced patriarch expresses concern about the fate of the Crimean-Gothic diocese after the death of Bishop Unila (400-404). In this regard, the “king is ready” sent letters to Constantinople asking for the sending of a new bishop. Based on this place A.A. Vasiliev assumed that the residence of the bishop of the Goths could most likely be in Panticapaeum-Bosporus, and not in the mountainous Crimea.

The Goths, as simple refugees, were resettled by the Bosporan authorities in less significant places, in the borderlands - in Kazantip and Cimmerica. Perhaps part of the nobility settled in the capital - rich “Gothic” things appeared in the necropolis of the Bosporus. The Ostrogoths in Europe at that time were allies of the Huns, and their Pontic relatives could participate in the Hunnic campaigns along with the friendly Bosporan nobility.

On the issue of the independence of the Bosporan state in this period, three options can be assumed: 1) the independent Bosporan state incorporated the autonomous Gothic community and settled the Gothic federates on the borders; 2) there was a condominium of Bosporus and Gothia on the same territory; 3) there was a “Gothic protectorate” over the Bosporus, subordinate to the Goths, which retained elements of self-government. The first option is clearly preferable.

In contrast to political ones, church ties between the Bosporus and the metropolis in the 5th century. continued. In 448, the Bosporan bishop Eudox took part in the Council of Ephesus, and a year later - in the Council of Constantinople. Christian community by the middle of the 5th century. was already quite large and had a certain hierarchy. This is confirmed by the tombstone of Deacon Eusebius from the city of Bosporus, dating back to 436-457.

The most important source is the inscription: “Under Tiberius Julius Duptun, the pious king, friend of the Caesars and friend of the Romans, this tower rose, and under the eparch Isgudius, and under the Comite Spadina, in charge of Pinacida, and under the first...those, the son of Savag, and under epimelete of construction..., month Gorpieya, year...9.” This is the only inscription with the name of the Bosporan king of the post-Hunnic period. It uses the old Bosporan formula. But, along with this, there is an image of a cross; the epithet "pious" appears before the formula, indicating the Christian era, and the titles eparch and comita are often found in Christian Constantinople.

In the middle of the 5th century, during the era of Attila’s power, the North Black Sea and North Caucasus steppes were part of the sphere of influence of the Hunnic “empire”. Under Hunnic hegemony in the steppe Crimea, there apparently was no permanent population in the 1st half of the 5th century. The nomadic Altsiagir tribe dominated here.

In 454, at the Battle of Nedao, the Huns were defeated by the Gepids led by Ardaric, in 463 by the Saragurs, and in 469 by the Ostrogoths and imperial troops. In the conditions of the collapse of the Hunnic state, the Utigur Huns, who are considered one of the first groups of the early Bulgarians, moved to the Crimea from Pannonia. From Procopius it is known that, having encountered the Goths in (eastern?) Crimea, the Utigurs pushed them partly into the Crimean Mountains, partly into the Kuban region. The battle between them apparently took place on the Kerch Peninsula, after which peace was concluded. A number of researchers consider it possible to assert that in 474 the Utigurs captured Panticapaeum (and then attacked Chersonesos). We do not know how peaceful the return of the Utigurs actually was for the Bosporus. We can confidently note only one case of the defeat of the Bosporan fortress in the middle of the 5th century. - at the Ilyichevsky settlement.

It is not clear from Procopius’s story whether the Tetraxite Goths owned the Bosporus at that moment. In any case, the Utigurs became allies of the empire and pushed the Goths to the east. Hence the revival of Bosporan statehood under Duptun (483).

Obviously, the role played by the Bosporus as a center of civilization and a large market for trade exchanges between the barbarians and the cultural south helped it survive the difficult 5th century. Jordanes reports that from here furs, delivered by neighboring barbarians, went to the capital of the empire. This export item existed for many centuries, regardless of the change of nomadic tribes in the vicinity of the coast

A precisely dated inscription from the surface of a Christian marble monument dates back to 497, of which only the lower right corner has survived 57 . The exact indication of the date according to the Bosporan era is another evidence of the preservation of the basic forms of the Bosporan way of life at the turn of the 6th century.

It would be imprudent to assert that the Goths populated the Bosporus en masse at this time, although elements of women’s Gothic costume are evident.

The latest excavations on Mount Mithridates, carried out by an expedition of the State Historical Museum and Kerch archaeologists, expand our understanding of the capital of the Bosporus of this time with each season. Reduction of the territory of the Panticapaeum-Bosporus necropolis during the 4th-6th centuries. no longer noted. The population of the city at this time did not experience any sharp shocks or catastrophic reductions.

Tanais was restored no earlier than the last quarter of the 4th century. (c. 80s). The entire area of the former city of the 3rd century. was repopulated, destroyed houses were repaired and new houses were built. However, in some places there are ruins of the 3rd century. were not dismantled, but were only fenced off by walls from the restored residential areas. The existence of Tanais in the center of a vast barbarian region allows us to pose the question of a stationary city of the Northern Black Sea region in theoretical terms.

A stable trend in the development of the late Bosporus was a slow but steady reduction in the number of rural settlements. The reasons for this phenomenon are the same as in the main centers of ancient civilization. On the islands of the Taman archipelago in the 3rd century. There were about 140 settlements at the turn of the IV-V centuries. so far 35 have been precisely established. However, the available material indicates that the economic potential of the Asian Bosporus in the IV-VI centuries. was tall.

SOUTH. Vinogradov made a number of conclusions about the state of the Bosporus state during this period (based on an analysis of dated Bosporan inscriptions of the 5th century). In his opinion, the Bosporan state, as the core of continuity, not only existed during this period, but flourished and had a fairly strong and extensive administrative apparatus. This opinion generally follows the concept of Byzantine statism.

Meanwhile, the state in the Bosporus could not be so strong for objective economic and foreign policy reasons. The continuity of the history of the Bosporus and its statehood is by no means identical to the Byzantine one. It took place rather in spite of the prevailing circumstances. During this period, the state rested on the strength of the Bosporan nobility (“feudal lords”), a centuries-old way of life, and local microzones (nodes of strength). The “protectorate” on the part of the Utigurs also played a more preservative than a destructive role for the Bosporus. The arrival of the Utigurs apparently had an influence on the strengthening of the state in the Bosporus: most likely, the empire supported the Utigurs in their fight against the Kutrigurs, and for this the former guarded the Bosporus. In addition to the king, the court at this time consisted of an eparch, a committee, secretaries, and protocomites - as heads of local administrative units. The appointment of district heads from the center, this is confirmed by Yu.G. Vinogradov, does not contradict the actual completely independent position of local microzones.

The end of the kingdom

The destinies of the late antique Bosporus came to an end in the 6th century. At the beginning of this century, the region again came to the attention of the authors of written sources, which was associated with the intensification of Byzantine policy in the area. “The Byzantine government, caring for its interests on the far outskirts of Taurida, ... could no longer calmly regard the rule of the Huns in the steppes of the peninsula.” Under Justin (518-527), “the Bosporites surrendered themselves to the rule of the emperor.” Justin sent the patrician Probus, the nephew of the former emperor Anastasius, to the Bosporus to persuade the Utigurs to come to the aid of the Iberians in the war against the Persians. The barbarians, torn apart by internal strife, did not comply with the request, but a small Byzantine military detachment landed on the Bosporus (the arithm of the Spanish stratiots led by the nobleman John) and put the country under the direct control of the empire (about 523, according to other sources - 527), which turned out to be essentially nominal.

Active missionary activity was launched. Apparently, under the influence of one of the missions, the leader (riks) of the Utigurs Grod (Gordas) decided to convert to Christianity. In Constantinople, the sacrament of baptism was performed on him, and the emperor himself was the successor of the Hun. After this, Grod received the magnificent imperial title and was sent to the Bosporus to “guard the interests of the empire.” During Christianization, the leader of the tribe, Philarch, ordered the melting down of the idols and fell victim to the Hun rebellion, probably provoked by the priests. As a result, the Byzantine detachment was destroyed, the city of Panticapaeum-Bosporus was captured by barbarians, many Bosporan cities were subjected to pogroms (Tiritaka, Zeionov Chersonese, etc., mainly on the European side, as well as Phanagoria and Kepa). This rebellion led to the temporary restoration of Hunnic dominance in the Bosporus region (between 528 and 534). Archaeologists trace the fires and destruction of this time in Panticapaeum, Tiritaka, Zeno Chersonese, Kitea, and Phanagoria. After the Utigur coup and the murder of Grod, the empire's policy in the region became pro-Gothic. The Utigurs suffered the fate of the Tetraxites. The Bosporus was reconquered by imperial troops consisting of Goths.

A poorly preserved inscription mentioning the name of Justinian dates back to 533. It reads the name of the tribune Angulat, possibly sent by the committee to Taman. In 534, Justinian landed troops on the Bosporus, consisting of Goths under the command of the tribune Delmatius, and finally included the Bosporus in the empire. Procopius, in the speech of the Armenian ambassadors to the Persian Shah, listed the latest successes of Justinian: “Didn’t he send his military leaders to the inhabitants of the Bosporus and subjugate a city that did not belong to him at all?” “And he began to live in the world of Bosporus under the rule of the Romans,” concludes John Malala. According to his own message, in the 1st half of the 6th century. The Huns who lived near the Bosporus adopted Christianity. It is logical to assume that the Christianization of the Huns was successfully completed after the Byzantine occupation.

Thus, a single block of Byzantine possessions was created in Crimea - from Chersonesus to the Bosporus. The imperial border was strengthened by a number of fortifications, called by some experts the Tauride Limes. Justinian launched extensive construction in the region in the 30s and 40s of the 6th century. But this period was not peaceful either. Shortly before 545, Phanagoria and Kepi were captured by the Huns and destroyed. Apparently, after these events, Byzantium retained only the island of Cimmerida on the Asian side. It is difficult to say what caused the Utigurs to relapse into aggressiveness; perhaps a belated understanding that Byzantium had come here “seriously and for a long time.”

A number of Bosporan inscriptions from the era of Justinian and Mauritius clearly reflected the fact of the Byzantine annexation. They have a completely different diplomacy than before. Only the names of the Byzantine emperors are mentioned along with their representatives (tribune and stratilate). Dating is carried out only by indices.

The end of the Late Antique period in the Bosporus can be conventionally considered the Byzantine annexation, after which it would be more correct to use the term “Early Byzantine era”. But in fact, a sharp break in the previous way of life occurred later. The Turkuts who came to the Azov region created a powerful association led by Khan Istemi. Back in 575, a short story by Tiberius was published about the liberation of Bosporus and Chersonesos from naval conscription. And a year later the city of Bosporus and its surroundings were taken by a Turkut detachment led by Turksanf. The Turks burned and destroyed city blocks on Mount Mithridates and in the coastal part of Panticapaeum-Bosporus. Layers of fire were recorded near the Church of John the Baptist and other places.

The consequences of the Turkic defeat were serious. The population has decreased significantly. Some small towns apparently perished. On Tiritak, Ilurat, and Zenon Chersonese, many estates remained in ruins. But much has been restored. This invasion brought significant destruction, but also cannot be called catastrophic. It can only be conditionally accepted as the end of the Late Antique period in the history of the Northern Black Sea region from a general historical perspective (602 is a conditional date). A.V. has also recently abandoned a clear chronological boundary. Sazanov."

Byzantium subsequently recaptured the Bosporus more than once, starting in 589. The Turks left the Bosporus in 581. After several years of anarchy, as follows from the inscription of 590, the Bosporus came under the rule of the Byzantine douki of Chersonesus, who probably contributed to the restoration of public (Caesar) buildings and defensive structures destroyed by the Turks. However, in the city of Bosporus during the 7th century. Not all blocks were restored (in the city center there is only one of three estates). The ruins on Mount Mithridates were leveled. A Christian Gosht necropolis was built there (only in the 7th century). In the 70s of the 7th century. The Khazar conquest of the remnants of the Bosporus takes place. This event had great consequences, interrupting Byzantine influence in the region for a long time. A single material culture continued to exist and evolved in the Bosporus mainly until the end of the 7th century.

CONCLUSION

So, the end of antiquity in the Bosporus cannot be tied to one event. The entire 6th century is essentially transitional. Changes in the material culture and way of life of the inhabitants of the Bosporus became irreversible only gradually and latently. From the previous kingdom from the 7th century. There was only one city left, Bosporus, the layers of which are very poorly expressed. A strongly barbarized Greek population, oriented towards Byzantium, existed here, apparently, until the 13th century. and later. The Greek population is mentioned in sources (“Alan Epistle” by Bishop Theodore), but it also existed in the future, although there are no written sources.

ANNEX 1

Spartokid Dynasty

Spartok I (438 – 400 BC).

Satyr I (400–390 BC).

Leucon I (390 – 354/353 BC).

Spartok II (348 – 343 BC).

Perisad I (345 – 310 BC).

Spartok III (304 – 283 BC).

Perisad II (c. 283 – 245 BC).

Leukon II (c. 240 – 220 BC).

Hygienont (c. 220 – 200 BC).

Spartok V (c. 200 – 185 BC).

Perisad III (c. 185 – 180 BC).

Kamasaria (c. 179 – 150 BC).

Perisad IV (c. 155 – 125 BC).

Perisad V (c. 125 – 109 BC).

Mithridates VI Eupator (c. 120 – 63 BC).

Mahar (80 - 70 BC).

Asander (c. 47 – 17/22 BC).

Dynamia (21/20 – 17 BC; 8 BC; 7/8).

Polemon (c. 14 – 8 BC).

Aspurgus (c. 8/10 – 37).

Gepepiria (c. 37 – 38).

Mithridates VIII (c. 38 – 39; 39/40 – 44/45 (49)).

Cotis I (c. 44/45 (49) – 67/68).

Nero (63 – 68).

Reskuporid I (c. 67/68 – 91/92).

Sauromatus I (c. 93/94 – 123/4).

Cotis II (c. 123/124 – 133).

Remetalk (c. 133 – 153/154).

Eupator (approx. 153/174 – 170/171).

Sauromat II (c. 173/174 – 210/211).

Reskuporid II (c. 211 – 228/229).

Cotis III (c. 227 – 233/234).

Sauromat III (229/230 – 231/232).

Reskuporid III (233 – 234).

Ininfiney (234/235 – 238/239).

Reskuporid IV (239/240 – 276).

Farsanz (253/254 – 254/255).

Teiran (275/276 – 278/279).

Thothors (285/286 – 309/310).

Radamsad (309/310 – 318/319).

Reskuporid V (318/319 – 341/342).

APPENDIX 2

Maps of the Bosporan State

Bibliography:

Anokhin V. A. Coinage of the Bosporus. – Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka, 1986.

Badap A. N., Voinovich E. I., Volchek N. M. World history: In 24 volumes. Volume 4 – Hellenistic period. – Mn.: Modern writer, 1999.

Bolgov N.N. Cimmerian Bosporus between antiquity and the Middle Ages // Questions of history.

2004. No. 2. P. 29 – 43.

Kuzishchin V.I. History of Ancient Greece. – M.: “Higher School”, 1996.

Rybakov B. A., Munchaev L. M., Gaidukevich P. G. Ancient states of the Northern Black Sea region. – M.: Nauka, 1984.

Panevin K.V. History of Ancient Greece. – S–P.: Polygon – AST, 1999. Struve V.V. Ancient Greece

. – M., 1956. Ancient world. Dictionary of Antiquity. Mythological Dictionary, www.antmir.ru/html/b/bosporskoe-carstvo-bospor.html

, viewed 11/12/08. Bosporan kingdom. The rise of the state and the fall of the Spartokids, www.antmir.ru/html/b/bosporskoe-carstvo-bospor.html

www.world-history.ru/countries_about/283/2230.html Bosporan kingdom. Development of the region and formation of the state, www.antmir.ru/html/b/bosporskoe-carstvo-bospor.html

www.world-history.ru/countries_about/283/2229.html Regional studies - everything about the countries of the world,www www.antmir.ru/html/b/bosporskoe-carstvo-bospor.html

.maxpj.ru/

Articles on the website "WORLD OF ANIMAL": Bosporan kingdom. Colonization of the Cimmerian Bosporus, www.zooeco.com/0-kr52.html

, viewed 10/9/11. History of the Bosporan Kingdom., www.zooeco.com/0-kr52-01.html

Laboratory work >> Physical education and sports Coins minted by various city-states and Bosporan kingdom Coins minted by various city-states and Bosporan, existed in ancient times in the North... coins minted by various city-states and

, which existed in ancient times in the Northern...
Development of tourism in Feodosia
Coursework >> Physical education and sports Apoikia (ancient Greek settlement) included Bosporan state - approximately from the end... he became after entering Bosporan. The Englishman E. Minns, having accepted the hypothesis... Feodosia was conquered by the neighboring Coins minted by various city-states and Bosporan, whose capital was...
Cheat sheet on Russian history (2)
Cheat sheet >> History
Through non-economic coercion. 7.Ancient cities and state - approximately from the end... he became after entering Bosporan in the Northern Black Sea region. Borysthenes (on the island... VΙ century BC) with adjacent policies and settlements. BOSPORUS KINGDOM. The capital is Panticapaeum. About 480...
Signs of Rurikovich
Abstract >> History
With complex royal coats of arms Apoikia (ancient Greek settlement) included kingdoms, the main elements of which..., but, like symbols Apoikia (ancient Greek settlement) included kingdoms, which had a single base in the form... similarities between the heraldic emblems of the rulers Apoikia (ancient Greek settlement) included kingdoms and personal “coats of arms” of ancient Russians...

Mid-3rd century n. e. is that milestone in the history of the Bosporan kingdom, which marks the beginning of its decline.

The onset of a sharp turning point in the life of the Bosporus, its transition into a state of acute crisis, which was already followed by a period of uncontrollably developing decline, was undoubtedly due to the general changes in the northern Black Sea region that occurred as a result of the invasion of new tribes here, which disrupted the previously established order of life.

The invasion of new tribes into the Black Sea regions entailed very serious consequences not only for the Bosporan kingdom, but also for the entire Roman Empire. However, such a serious significance of tribal movements of the 3rd century. n. e. in the sense of their destructive impact is explained not so much by the exceptional strength of the onslaught from the barbarian tribes, but was even more determined by the weakness of the resistance that the Roman Empire could provide at that time, which was experiencing, especially starting from the 30s of the 3rd century, a period of the strongest social -political crisis. This crisis foreshadowed the approaching inevitable death of the Roman slave state.

At the end of the 2nd century. n. e. near the Roman borders in Dacia and Lower Maesia, new tribes began to appear moving from the north, putting pressure on the old settled population living here

440

population. In 180, a fairly significant number of independent Dacians living in the territory of modern Galicia moved to the territory of Roman Dacia, seeking refuge from the barbarians who ravaged their villages.

It is believed that these were the first groups of Goths to advance close to the borders of the Roman Empire from the Vistula River. 1 At the beginning of the 3rd century. The Goths were already making attempts to cross the border and invade the territories belonging to Rome, located north of the Danube. In the summer of 214, Roman forces first came into direct contact with those disturbing Dacia separate detachments the Goths, over whom Emperor Caracalla then defeated. 2 But in Rich, obviously, they had already begun to understand that a very serious threat was brewing both to the borders of the empire, stretching north of the Danube, and to the northern coast of the Black Sea with its Greek cities. This is what prompted Rome to take a number of measures to strengthen its military-strategic positions in the northern Black Sea region. This includes the annexation of Olbia to the Roman province of Lower Maesia at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Septimius Severus. 3 The presence of the Roman garrison in Olbia, stationed there since the time of Antoninus Pius, turned out to be insufficient, and in order to more effectively use the city as a stronghold, the above special measures were taken.

Developed in the first decades of the 3rd century. intensified construction in Tanais, especially the restoration of its defensive structures: fortress walls, towers, gates, also stood, one must think, in connection with the looming threat of invasion by new tribes. The presence in Tanais of a Roman architect who was the leader construction work, probably represented some assistance to the Bosporus from Rome, which was undoubtedly interested in the proper defense capability of this extreme northeastern outpost.

Quite intensive penetration of Gothic detachments into the northern Black Sea region, apparently, falls on the 20-30s of the 3rd century. n. e., when a significant number of them accumulated

441

borders west of Olbia and when they still did not dare to cross the border line.

The cessation of coinage in Olbia under Alexander Severus, i.e. no later than 235 (the year of the emperor’s death), is a very significant fact. 4 There is no reason to believe that the city certainly passed into other hands at that time, especially since we are definitely aware of the presence of a Roman garrison in Olbia back in 248 (IPE, I 2, 167). But the cessation of the production of Olbian coins indicates a sharp decline in trade and the general economic well-being of the city. The reason for this, undoubtedly, was the restless situation in the steppe regions, and possibly the devastation of the lands adjacent to Olbia along the Bug and Dnieper by Gothic detachments that had penetrated here.

In the winter of 237/238, Emperor Maximin made great military preparations in Sirmium, 5 and if the planned campaign had taken place, the Goths might have been decisively pushed back from the Black Sea region. However, just at this time an internecine struggle for power broke out in Rome. Instead of campaigning against the Goths, Maximin and his army went to Italy to deal with his rival Gordian there.

This circumstance was a signal for the Goths to take action. The Goths, and with them the carps, in 238 poured through the valleys of the Seret and Prut rivers, crossed the Danube, besieged the city of Ister and forced it to pay an indemnity, and then began to destroy other Danube settlements. 6 In order to somehow stop the advance of the invading barbarians and force their retreat, the governor of Lower Maesia was forced to agree to pay an annual tribute. When the payment of tribute stopped, and at the same time news of the newly flared up civil war in Rome spread, the Goths, together with the Carpi, Taifals, Bastarnae, and Vandals in 248, broke into Lower Maesia in a huge mass and reached this time the city of Marcianople, where The garrison's resistance forced the barbarians to turn back. But soon the campaign against Roman possessions resumed: the carps began to devastate Dacia, and the Goths launched an attack on Maesia.

442

Almost all of Thrace became the scene of fierce struggle. Despite some setbacks, the Goths crossed to the southern side of the Balkan Mountains and, taking advantage of the lack of proper vigilance and combat effectiveness of the Roman army stationed there, inflicted a heavy defeat on him, and then captured the large city of Philippolis, which was facilitated by the betrayal of the city commandant. 7 A huge number of the inhabitants of Philippolis were killed, 8 and the rest were turned into slaves. When trying to block the path of the Goths as they returned to the north with looted booty, the Roman troops, together with the emperor Decius who led them, fell into a swampy area and got stuck there. The Goths, who took advantage of this, surrounded the Romans and destroyed them almost completely, and the emperor who commanded the army also died.

Proclaimed by the remnants of the Danube army as the next Roman emperor, Gall was forced to make a humiliating peace. For the cleansing of territory that belonged to Rome, the latter was obliged to pay an annual tribute to the Goths. In addition, they received the right to freely take away with them all captured booty, not excluding captured residents. All these events showed firsthand the weakness and inability of the Roman Empire to withstand the onslaught of the barbarians. The continuous struggle of contenders for the imperial throne, the internal economic and political disintegration of the empire were very favorable conditions for the further strengthening of the aggressive activity of the Goths and other barbarian tribes. The reign of the emperors Valerian and Gallienus (253-268) was a period of the most violent and devastating Gothic raids, which paralyzed for several decades the possibility of normal life in all areas adjacent to the Black Sea.

When it comes to Gothic raids on Roman possessions in the 3rd century. n. e., we must keep in mind that the Goths acted here not alone, but together with many others barbarian tribes. Among them were tribes related, ethnically close to the Goths, but there were also many tribes that, without having

443

having nothing in common with the Goths in their ethnic origin, were involved in a general movement aimed at devastating the possessions of the Roman Empire. The Goths were one of the most active elements in these campaigns, which often gave reason to attribute them entirely to the Goths.

In the 40-50s of the 3rd century. The flow of tribal movements that engulfed the Black Sea region came directly to the region of the lower Don and the shores of the Sea of Azov.

The last dated Tanaida inscriptions that have come down to us are from 237. Interestingly, these inscriptions speak of the restoration of the towers and the water source; therefore, the city was fortifying itself at that time, preparing to repel an enemy attack.

But all these measures could not save the cities. The cessation of Tanaid official inscriptions, which in the first half of the 3rd century. n. e. were very numerous and testified to the vibrant life of a large trading city, which speaks with complete certainty about the misfortune that befell Tanais.

Ancient writers report the arrival of the Boran tribe to the shores of the Sea of Azov, in whom, apparently, one should see the Goths. 9 Most likely, it was the Borans who captured Tanais, the main trade and military base of the Bosporus on the extreme northern border of its possessions. At the same time, danger loomed over the main vital centers of the Bosporus in the area of the Kerch Strait, especially since, simultaneously with their access to the Don and the Sea of Azov, the Borana-Goths apparently penetrated into the Crimea from the north, which created a threat to the Bosporus both from the sea and from sushi, from where the Borans and, possibly, other barbarians traveling with them could attack. Some ancient writers called all of them by the common conventional name Scythians, as it was customary to traditionally name the inhabitants of the steppe regions of the northern Black Sea region, even when the main population there was no longer the Scythians, but the Sarmatian-Alan tribes.

Could the Bosporus count on the help of Rome at this critical moment? The answer to this question will appear by itself,

444

if we remember that in the 40s of the 3rd century. The Roman troops that were in Crimea were withdrawn to strengthen the Danube army. The Greek cities of the northern Black Sea region were left to their own devices. How hopeless it was to expect any help from Rome was convincingly shown by the events that took place at that time in the western Black Sea region. Internal turmoil and the ongoing struggle for power in Rome led to the fact that during this extremely tense time, a significant part of the Roman troops were transferred from the Danube provinces to other places.

Taking advantage of the exposed borders, the Goths crossed the Danube in 254 and began to rule over all of Thrace without hindrance. 10 The Gothic troops reached Thessalonica and only then met adequate resistance from the garrison, which stopped their further advance. With abundant trophies, the Goths returned back to the north. Such trips for prey began to occur almost every year, and ultimately the Goths, together with the carps, took possession of all of Dacia. Since 257, this province ceased to belong to the Roman Empire. 11 With great difficulty, the Romans managed to maintain the border of their possessions directly along the Danube River.

Not counting on the success of resistance on their own under such conditions, the ruling elite of the Bosporus decided to reach an agreement with the barbarians who had invaded the state and thereby protect their main cities from capture and destruction. By virtue of this agreement, the Borans were given the opportunity to freely pass through the strait from the Azov Sea to the Black Sea, and the Bosporus took upon itself the obligation to provide its fleet for transporting the barbarians to other areas of the Black Sea, where good prey could be obtained.

The first voyage from the Sea of Azov took place in 256. 12 On Bosporan ships, which were undoubtedly served by Bosporan crews, the pirates entered the Black Sea and headed for the Caucasian coast. The landing took place in the area of the city of Pitiunt, which was not only a large

445

a trading post, but also a strong fortress: the city was surrounded by powerful walls; The fortress was guarded by a garrison led by the energetic commander Successian. The garrison entered into a stubborn struggle with the pirates who surrounded the city, and the latter, under fear of their complete destruction, fled, taking advantage of some ships that were in the harbor at that time. The surviving pirates returned to their original places. Apparently, according to the original plan, the Borans who went on the campaign did not intend to return to the north, which, of course, could be perceived by the Bosporans as highest degree a favorable circumstance that promised the opportunity to free oneself from extremely dangerous alien neighbors. But these hopes were not justified due to the failure that befell the pirates.

Soon, namely in the fall of 257, a similar expedition was again undertaken, in which the Ostrogoths also participated along with the Borans. 13 Taking into account the experience of the first campaign, the pirates now decided not to release the Bosporan ships after landing, as was imprudently done the first time, but to keep them in constant readiness to return those who landed ashore in the event of a possible failure.

The flotilla approached the Caucasian coast near the city of Fasis (near the mouth of the Riona River). After an unsuccessful attempt to plunder the rich sanctuary of the Phasian goddess Cybele located there, the expedition headed to Pitiunt, where the Borans had failed a year earlier. The city, now taken by surprise, fell into the hands of pirates. The garrison, which was no longer headed by Succession, who was recalled by Emperor Valerian to carry out an important task in Syria, was subjected to complete extermination. The very fact of the recall of the energetic leader of the city’s garrison shows how far Rome had not yet realized the full real danger posed by these Gothic naval campaigns, which were then just beginning.

Having enlarged the fleet with ships captured at Pitiunta and using numerous prisoners as oarsmen,

446

the pirates headed further south. The next target for attack was the city of Trebizond, which since the time of Emperor Hadrian had become one of the most comfortable and rich cities in the southern Black Sea region. The pirates captured Trebizond without much difficulty, although it was surrounded by powerful double walls and contained a large garrison. But these troops were a morally corrupt, undisciplined mass, which immediately fled as soon as the assault on the city began. The pirates received enormous wealth and many prisoners, since, in addition to the permanent population, there were also many surrounding residents in the city, who took refuge here as in the most reliable place. In addition to Trebizond, the entire area adjacent to it was devastated. It should be especially noted that ancient writers indicate that a number of local residents acted together with the invading barbarians and destroyed the houses of the rich. 14 Obviously, the invasion of the Goths and the inability local authorities to resist them were used by the lower classes, i.e., disenfranchised and oppressed groups of the population, to take revenge on their enslavers.

The pirates returned to the Bosporus with rich trophies. Not the slightest attempt was made to prevent this return at sea. The Roman navy as a real force at that time no longer existed in Pontus, although in the inscriptions of the western Black Sea region in the middle of the 3rd century. classis flavia moesica gordiana is also mentioned. 15

The success of the campaign turned out to be very tempting, and soon a similar expedition, but on an even larger scale, was organized by the Goths from the northwestern side of the Black Sea region.

In the spring of 258, a new expedition set off from Tire to the south; it consisted of a fleet and ground forces moving parallel to the fleet along the western Black Sea coast through the cities of Istres, Tomy, and Anchial. Having reached the Thracian Bosporus, the land troops on fishing boats crossed to the coast of Asia Minor, and here a consistent defeat began

447

one city after another. The flourishing trading cities of Asia Minor - Calchedon, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Kyi, Aiameya, Prusa - were plundered, and some cities (Nicaea and Nicomedia) were also burned. The Roman Emperor Valerian, who was busy at that time with the war with the Persians, headed with his troops from Syria to Asia Minor, but it was too late, since the Goths, having quickly finished their work, managed to go back with the booty.

The news of the capture of Emperor Valerian by the Persians in 260 served as a signal for a further intensification of the barbarian pressure on the empire. The Alamanni penetrated into Italy, the Iazyges and Quadi acted in the area of the middle reaches of the Danube. 16

In 263, the Goths undertook a campaign from the western side of the Black Sea through the Hellespont to Asia Minor. Calchedon was again captured, Ilion and a number of Ionian cities were destroyed, including Ephesus along with its famous temple of Artemis of Ephesus.

A year later, the raid on Asia Minor was repeated from the Cimmerian Bosporus. Having apparently landed in Trapezuita, the pirates penetrated Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia and then returned with booty to the Bosporus. 17 In 266, only Bithynia and the city of Heraclea Pontic were plundered. 18

The most terrible in its scope and destructiveness was the campaign of 267, undertaken from the Sea of Azov by detachments of the Heruli tribe, apparently related to the Goths. 19 According to the ancients, the Heruls left the Sea of Azov on 500 ships. 20 Obviously everything that could be used from Vehicle Bosporus was at the disposal of the Heruls.

A huge pirate armada crossed the Black Sea, entered the mouth of the Danube and began to destroy the areas adjacent to the Danube; but in view of the resistance shown here by the Roman troops, the pirates turned out to sea and went towards the Thracian Bosporus. Having broken into the Sea of Marmara, the Heruls attacked the city of Cyzicus, and then, entering the Aegean Sea, they devastated the islands of the Lemnos and Skyros archipelago. Finally,

448

Having landed in Greece, the pirates launched devastating activities across its vast territory. Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Argos, and all of Achaia were plundered in the most thorough manner. Thanks to the efforts of the Greek militia under the command of the Athenian Dexipia, as well as the Roman troops and fleet, the Heruls suffered severe damage. They lost their ships and were forced to make their way north by land, through Boeotia, Epirus, Macedonia, and along the way they also experienced a number of sensitive blows from Roman troops before they managed to cross the Danube. Despite this, already in 268 a similar campaign was again undertaken on an even more expanded scale from the mouth of the Dniester, which was a rallying point for an entire army of pirates, which included the Goths, Heruli, Peucines, Gepids, etc. 21

Having penetrated the Aegean basin, they began to attack the coast of Greece, Asia Minor and the islands of Crete, Rhodes, and Cyprus. True, the ground forces of this barbarian army operating in the Balkans, when retreating to the north, were brutally defeated near the city of Naissa (Nish) by Roman troops led by Emperor Claudius, and the pirate fleet concentrated off the coast of Greece was destroyed; but that part of the Goths, which destroyed the shores of Asia Minor, was still able to return to the Black Sea.

Although in the early 70s, Emperor Aurelian managed to achieve serious successes in the fight against Gothic raids on the Danube regions, yet in the fall of 275, as soon as the news of Aurelian’s murder spread in Asia Minor, during his campaign against the Persians, from the Sea of Azov Another one was undertaken, but it seems this time it was the last major campaign against Asia Minor. There is no data on the ethnic composition of the participants in this campaign, since in the sources that have reached us they are simply called barbarians or Bosporan Scythians; nevertheless, there is reason to think that even now they were basically the same Heruls and Ostrogoths. 22

The landing was made near the mouth of the Phasis (Rion) River with the intention, apparently, of plundering the nearby city of Phasis. From there the pirates walked along the Black Sea coast

449

to Pontus, and then went south into Galatia and Cilicia, plundering the settlements encountered along the way. Emperor Tacitus marched against the Goths with an army, who, having inflicted a partial defeat on them, entrusted the continuation of military operations to his brother Florian, and he himself headed to Europe, but was killed by the conspirators on the way. Florian continued the fight, not unsuccessfully, and there was even a moment when the Goths were threatened with complete extermination. But at this time, Probus rebelled against Florian, which forced the first to turn his forces against his competitor. The Goths took advantage of this, and their surviving troops were able to return to the north in the fall of 276.

It is not difficult to imagine how the situation that developed in the third quarter of the 3rd century should have been reflected. in the Black Sea basin, on the economic state of the Bosporus. It goes without saying that there could be no talk of any regular trade exchange, which had previously been very lively between the Bosporus and, above all, the Asia Minor cities of the southern Black Sea region. For several decades, the Black Sea turned into an arena for the activities of grandiose pirate armies, which became complete masters of the situation. Under such conditions, an ordinary Black Sea and, in particular, Bosporan merchant had nothing to do, especially since shopping centers Asia Minor - the main counterparties of the Bosporus in the Roman period - were one of the main targets of attack by pirates and because of this, of course, could not maintain the exchange on which their prosperity, and at the same time the prosperity of the Bosporus, was based. Events of 50 -70 years. III century n. e. Bosporan trade suffered such a blow after which it was no longer possible to restore its previous position.

The invasion of the Goths and other tribes, as well as the transformation of the Bosporus into an organizational base for raids on the Black Sea cities and regions, had a detrimental effect not only on the internal economic life of the Bosporus, since with the loss of overseas markets normal trade exchange was paralyzed. Internal social

450

the contradictions inherent in the Bosporus as a slave-holding, albeit highly barbarized, state during the period of its decline.

The early medieval historian Zosimus preserved a very valuable description of the situation created in the Bosporus during the period of the Gothic invasions. In 256, the Borans undertook their first campaign from the Sea of Azov to the Caucasian coast, carrying it out, according to Zosimus, “with the help of the inhabitants of the Bosporus, who, rather out of fear than out of favor, gave them [i.e. e. the barbarians] ships and showed the way to the crossing.” Zosimus retells what he gleaned from the work “Σκυθικά”, which has not reached us, compiled by the Athenian Dexippus. 23 It described the wars of the 3rd century. And. e. between the Romans and the tribes located north of the Danube, as well as in the northern Black Sea region, that is, wars, mainly with the Goths, called Scythians by Dexippus. Dexippus was not only a contemporary of these events, but also a direct participant in the fight against the Goths during the latter’s invasion of Greece in 267.

This is what the Athenian Dexippus says through the mouth of Zosimus about the internal situation in the Bosporan kingdom around the middle of the 3rd century. “While they [i.e. that is, the Bosporans] had kings who received power by inheritance, that is, a son from a father, then as a result of the friendship of the Romans, favorably developing trade relations and annually sent to them [i.e. e. to the Bosporan kings] by the emperors of gifts, they constantly held back the Scythians who wanted to cross to Asia. When, after the disappearance of the royal family, unworthy and despicable people became the head of the government, then, fearing for themselves, they gave the Scythians passage through the Bosporus to Asia, transporting them on their own ships. . . " 24

Thus, according to contemporaries, the well-being of the Bosporus until the middle of the 3rd century. rested on well-established trade, the stability of the government system, that is, the stable position of the Bosporan slave-holding monarchy and monetary subsidies from Rome, intended to maintain a well-armed army. Under these conditions, the Bosporus remained an ally of Rome and helped to contain it.

451

pressure of barbarians (“Scythians”) on Roman possessions. By the latter, Zosimus means Asia, i.e., the Asia Minor provinces of Rome. And, indeed, the Bosporus, as is known, with the help of its fleet successfully fought the development of piracy in the Black Sea and thereby contributed to the security of the southern Black Sea region. Let us recall, for example, Sauromat II, under whom at the end of the 2nd century. And. e. thanks to the actions of the Bosporan fleet, the Black Sea off the southern coast, along Bithynia and Pontus, was made “free for seafarers” (see p. 335). At the same time, the Bosporus undoubtedly fettered the activity of the nomadic Alan-Sarmatian tribes in the Azov region and the North Caucasus. Rome had every reason to fear the latter, primarily in Asia Minor, since there were cases of a very formidable breakthrough there by Alan-Sarmatian tribes through the Caucasus.

Situation in the middle of the 3rd century. has changed. The Bosporus ceased to actually fulfill the duties of a Roman ally. Zosimus, or rather Dexippus, who stood behind him, saw one of the main reasons for such a change in the behavior of the rulers of the Bosporus in the violation internal order on the Bosporus. From the words of Zosimus one could even conclude that in the Bosporus in the middle of the 3rd century. the former dynasty ended and power “illegally” passed into other hands. In reality, apparently, there was not a complete elimination of the former Bosporan dynasty of Tiberius Julius, but only a temporary seizure of power by some pretenders, who, however, after some time were ousted, and the position of the old ruling dynasty was restored.

Based on Bosporan coins, it is known that from 239/40 the king of Bosporus was Riscuporis V. His staters (Table VI, 94) were continuously issued until the 50s inclusive. But during the period when turbulent events began to develop related to the pirate campaigns undertaken from the Sea of Azov, in parallel with the release of the staters of Riskuporides V, “staters” of a certain king Farsanza appeared. 25 The latter were minted in 253/54 and 254/55, and outwardly they looked like the usual coin types accepted in the Bosporus: on one hundred

452

On one side there is a bust of the king and a circular inscription βασιλέως Φαρσάνζου, on the other there is a bust of the Roman emperor and the date of issue according to the Bosporan era.

The issue of coins in the name of a ruler bearing an unusual - and, moreover, clearly barbaric - name, simultaneously with the coins of Riskuporides V, makes us consider it quite likely that in the person of Farsanza we must see one of those “unworthy and despicable people” on the Bosporan throne, as Zosimus calls them, the appearance of which allegedly contributed to the development of barbarian invasions of Roman possessions from the Cimmerian Bosporus. But Farsanza's stay in power was short-lived, since the coins of the Ogo cover only two years, while the coins of Riskuporides V continue (with a short break in 257-261) until 267/68. Then there is a long break in the minting of Bosporan coins for 7 years (up to 275/76).

It is very likely that during this period there was an internal struggle in the Bosporus, about which information has not reached us. These were the years of the most fierce and destructive Gothic raids on Roman possessions. Perhaps the mysterious king Hedosbiy dates back to this time, whose name was preserved on one of the fragments of a stone slab found in 1913 in Kerch and dating, judging by the shape of the letters of the inscription, to the second half of the 3rd century. n. e. 26 This is the only document in which the name of King Hedosbia is preserved; There are no coins with his name.

Unfortunately, we do not know the details of this internal struggle that took place in the Bosporus, nor its driving forces. The sharply negative attitude towards the Bosporan rulers, who did not belong to the old clan and were obviously “usurpers”, conveyed by Zosimas and which is undoubtedly a reflection of the Romanophile view of the state of affairs of its original source, i.e. Dexippus, suggests a certain conclusion. One might think that the desire to overthrow the established order in the Bosporus began in the 50-60s of the 3rd century. from the social lower classes, and above all from the oppressed part of the population who tried to raise

453

head, taking advantage of the difficulties that the slave-owning Bosporan state experienced as a result of the invasion of new barbarian tribes.

With the onset of a turning point in political situation Rome under Emperor Aurelian (270-275), when relative stabilization was achieved there for some time, the situation in the Bosporus also changed. After the Gothic campaign 275 -276. no more significant pirate expeditions are heard from the Cimmerian Bosporus. In 275/76, Bosporan coins appeared again, now with the name of Sauromatus IV. Apparently, the old royal dynasty of Tiberius Julius again strengthened in the Bosporus.

Of great interest is the marble base found in Kerch with a dedicatory inscription from the time of King Teiran, who ruled the Bosporus after Sauromat IV, from 275/76 to 279/80, and referred to in the inscription by the usual title of “friend of the Caesars and friend of the Romans” (IPE, II , 29). The monument was erected in honor of “the heavenly gods: Zeus the Savior (Ζευς Σωτήρ) and Hera the Savior (Ηρα Σώτεφα), for the victory of King Teiran and the eternal presence of [him] and for Queen Elia.” From here it should be concluded that under Teiran some kind of victory was won This is a very major victory, regarded by the ruling class of Bosporus as an event tantamount to the salvation of the state. The significance of this victory is confirmed by the construction of a special monument erected on behalf of all the courtiers and representatives of the Bosporan nobility. Their names are listed on three sides of the marble base: the priest, who was previously a lieutenant, that is, the head of a military detachment; he was also the governor of Theodosius; that the Bosporan possessions in Crimea continued to extend to Feodosia. Likewise, the mention of the head of the Aspurgian region confirms that the Bosporus belongs to its main territory on the Asian side. From those

454

the difficult trials that befell the Bosporus in the period between 255-275, he emerged relatively safely, in any case preserving and retaining the main lands and the main cities on both sides of the Kerch Strait.

The damage caused by the Gothic sea campaigns to the Black Sea trade, the devastation of the Black Sea, and especially Asia Minor, cities - all this should have had a most painful impact on the economy of the Bosporan state, which, moreover, had lost almost its entire fleet, which was so zealously used for pirate expeditions, accompanied each time by significant losses of vehicles.

The consequences of the events of the 50-70s of the 3rd century can be judged by the state of the Bosporan cities and settlements, many of which in the second half of the 3rd century. began to fade quickly. Bosporan cities such as Nymphaeum, Myrmekium, Ilurat and many other smaller settlements already at the beginning of IVb. became depopulated and began to quickly fade away. Large cities continued to live: Panticapaeum, Phanagoria, as well as large agricultural settlements, like Kitea, as well as fishing settlements, such as Tiritaka, although in them the scale of economic life was increasingly reduced.

Foreign trade, which came into complete decline in the third quarter of the 3rd century, not only could not rise to its previous level, but was not even able to approach it to a remote extent. The revival of trade with overseas countries was now very modest. The import of goods was extremely limited, just as the export of agricultural products from the Bosporus was now far from being carried out on the same scale as before. The economic life of the Bosporus acquired a more closed character, being weakly connected with external markets located outside the northern Black Sea region. Exchange became more local, as it now took place mainly between the cities of the Bosporus and its agricultural periphery. Craftsmen concentrated in the large Bosporan cities

455

Yes, at that time they made household and simple everyday utensils, metal products, decorations, etc. for sale to the population of the Bosporan lands, which had almost ceased to receive imported goods. Products from livestock farming, agriculture, and fishing were used primarily to satisfy local needs.

Glassware was brought from outside to the Bosporus in some quantities, and perhaps some ceramic dishes were also imported.

The decline of maritime trade, especially exports, greatly undermined the state's financial resources. Already during the first half of the 3rd century. n. e. The Bosporus coinage more and more clearly reflected the tense state of the state's finances. The depletion of gold reserves forced the Bosporus kings to issue coins that retained the external type and denomination of gold staters - the main coin of the Bosporus since the time of Augustus (from 9 BC), but with a very reduced actual gold content. Under Riskuporidas III, the Bosporan staters (Table VI, 91) contained 30% gold, the rest were silver (40%) and copper (30%) 27 At the same time, the production of copper coins, denarii, continued. Staters produced after Riscuporidas III, under Notis III and Sauromatus III, have only a slight yellowish tint, which indicates the predominance of silver and a slight presence of gold in them. Under Riskuporidas IV (233/34-234 35) and Ininfimaea (234/35-239/40), the coins acquire a grayish-white color, since they are made of billon, i.e. low-grade silver. These coins contain 10-25% silver, the rest is copper. 28

Apparently, in order to preserve some (at least illusory) appearance of the connection of these coins with gold in the alloy of the indicated low-grade billon until the 60s of the 3rd century. an insignificant amount of gold was mixed in, approximately 1/2%. Starting from 275, Bosporus “staters” were minted simply from copper. The state was not able to even provide additional silver, not to mention gold. Copper coin issue

456

which was previously produced along with billon staters, now that the staters themselves have become copper, naturally stopped. The degenerate "staters", minted from pure copper, continued to outwardly retain the same type. One side of the coin was occupied by the bust of the Bosporan king, the other by the bust of the Roman emperor and the date of issue of the coin. These images were now distinguished, however, by a very crude schematic design. This kind of “stater” was produced until the early 30s of the 4th century. n. e., when the minting of coins in the Bosporus completely ceased, which will be discussed below.

Very interesting, as a stroke that clearly characterizes the living conditions in the period under review, was the discovery made in 1937 during excavations of the city of Tiritaki of a large coin treasure containing 2093 Bosporan staters, of which the earliest date back to 234, and the latest to 276 29 The treasure thus covers the time from Ininfimei to Teiran. Some wealthy resident of Tiritak, perhaps one of the local fish merchants, having accumulated money over a long period of time, then decided to bury it in the ground. The coins were placed in a clay jug, and its neck was sealed with a stone stopper. The burial of the treasure took place either in 276, or in one of the years immediately after that. But hiding coins in order to create a cash reserve mainly falls on the 50-60s, i.e., an extremely alarming and difficult time for the Bosporus. Obviously, the conditions of this period, which gave rise to complete uncertainty about the future, aroused the desire of the unknown inhabitant of Tiritaki to insure himself against the possibility of finding himself in a hopelessly disastrous financial situation.

275 - 276 - this is the time of the last great Gothic sea campaign, organized from the Sea of Azov. At the same time, it is known that Teiran, who reigned at the same time, won some kind of serious victory, solemnly and meaningfully noted in the above inscription on the pedestal of the monument. Apparently, taking advantage of the weakening of the forces of the Goths, which was caused by their next campaign against Malaya

457

Asia, Teiran successfully took military action, which led to the defeat of the Goths who had settled in the Bosporus region. Naturally, during these turbulent events, a desire arose to hide the accumulated savings more reliably. In addition, the sharply deteriorating quality of new issues of Bosporan staters, which from now on became copper, could have been a fairly serious additional incentive for saving staters of previous issues minted from billon.

Given the exceptional scarcity of literary and epigraphic information about the Bosporus kingdom dating back to the last period of its existence, the dedicatory inscription of 306 found in Kerch, which sheds some light on the position of the Bosporus at the beginning of the 4th century, is of particular interest. 30 The reason for the construction of this inscription, dedicated to “the highest and most merciful god,” was the construction in Panticapaeum of a Jewish house of worship, i.e., a synagogue (προσευχή), by Aurelius Valerius Sogus, the son of Olympus, who served as governor of Theodosius (ό επί τής Θεοδοσίας). The latter allows us to conclude that even at the beginning of the 4th century. The Bosporus continued to hold the city of Feodosia; therefore, the western border of the Bosporan possessions in Crimea remained the same. At the same time, the characteristics of Sog’s social physiognomy are interesting, as far as it can be judged from the information contained in the inscription. The inscription indicates that Sog is σεβαστόγνωστος, that is, known to the Augustans. The latter refers to two Roman emperor-co-rulers: Diocletian and Maximian, who awarded Sogus honors for some merits. Obviously, Sogus successfully labored for some time in the Roman service outside the Bosporus, in some Roman province. This conclusion is confirmed by the indication that Sog is also called Olnmpian in the province (έν τω έπαρχείω) and that he “traveled a lot, was absent for 16 years.” Sog showed his devotion to Rome even by the fact that, according to Roman custom, he had three names. Of these, one was personal; it confirms the Bosporan origin of his nose

458

body, since the name Sog was one of the most common in the Bosporus in Roman times. Sog undoubtedly bore the other two names in honor of the Roman Augustus Aurelius Valerius Maximian. The first publisher of the inscription, V.V. Latyshev, assumed that the Bosporan kingdom at the beginning of the 4th century. may have been reduced to the position of a province, since the Bosporus in the inscription is designated by the term ’επάρχειον, and not βασιλεία. This conclusion, however, cannot be considered justified. As noted above, the province mentioned in the inscription (επάρχειον) rather does not mean the Bosporus, but the region of the Roman Empire where Sog stayed, being outside the Bosporus, and where he received another, fourth name. The absence of a mention of the Bosporan king in the Soga inscription also cannot serve as an argument in favor of the assumption that the Bosporan kingdom was transformed into a Roman province. In dedicatory inscriptions of a cult nature - and this is exactly what the Soga inscription is - very often the Bosporan kings were not mentioned.

If there is no reason to talk about the transformation of the Bosporus at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries. into the Roman province, then nevertheless, in connection with some temporary political stabilization of Rome that occurred under Diocletian, the dependence of the Bosporus on Rome for a certain period, approximately corresponding to the reign of Diocletian, obviously increased significantly. This conclusion is supported by the inscription (ΙΡΕ, II, 363), carved in 307 on the tombstone, which was erected in memory of Marcus Aurelius Andronicus, son of Pappa, who was the governor of the kingdom (πριν ό επί της βασιλείας), and his son Alexarf, military commander (he was λοχαγό;, i.e. 1 chief of a detachment of troops). This monument was erected by the authorities of Agrippa and Caesarea: Άγριππέων (και) Καισαρέων άρχοντες. 31 It is interesting that in this case those new names of the Bosporan capitals that arose during the reign of Emperor Augustus were resurrected, representing then a certain form of expression of loyalty to Rome on the part of the ruling elite of the Bosporus.

However, these renamings of Panticapaeum to Caesarea and Phanagoria to Agrippa did not gain popularity, as we know.

459

on the Bosporus; The new name Pan-tikaggei was not particularly successful. 32 It is hardly by chance that there is not a single Bosporan inscription in which the name of Caesarea would be used. It appears only on the copper coins of Dynamian times. Apparently, the rulers of the Bosporus were not very impressed with the renaming of their capital, carried out at the beginning of the 1st century. n. e. and too sharply emphasizing the limitation of the sovereignty of the Bosporus Kingdom by the Roman Empire.

Appearance at the beginning of the 4th century. in the above inscription, the text of which was compiled by some persons from the Bosporan government administration (άρχοντες), the names of not only Agrippa, but also Caesarea, can only be explained by the fact that, given the political relations between Rome and Bosporus that had developed at that time, the second, “Romanophile” names of the Bosporus capitals had to be used in order to demonstrate the complete loyalty of the ruling elite of the Bosporus to Rome.

The Bosporus, however, continued at the beginning of the 4th century. remain an independent state. Based on the coins, it is known that from 278/79 to 308/09. The ruler was continuously king Thothors (Table VI, 95), who was replaced by Radamsad or Radamsadiy (308 09-318/19) (Table VI, 96), and then by Riskuporid VI (Table VI, 97). The preservation of the previous type of Bosporan staters with the image of a bust of the Bosporan king on one side and a bust of the Roman emperor on the other shows that during the first decades of the 4th century. The Bosporus formally continued to remain a state dependent on Rome. Another question is how strong and real this dependence was now. It is unlikely that at that time the Roman Empire was able to effectively exercise its protectorate over the Bosporus. Of all the points in the northern Black Sea region, only Chersonesus certainly continued to remain a naval base and strategic outpost, which the empire, with a certain consistency and persistence, continued to retain throughout the 4th century, while relations with the Bosporus were much more complex and far from clear.

460

In the work of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus “Περι εθνών” there is a detailed description of the war that the Bosporus allegedly waged against Rome during the time of Emperor Diocletian. 33 At the same time, King Savromat, the son of Crisconor, is named as the then ruler of Bosporus, although it is reliably known that in that period, under Diocletian, Thothors was king. From the story of this war, which has the character of a kind of historical novel, we learn that King Savromat gathered the barbarians (Sauromats) who lived in the area of the Sea of Azov, and went on a campaign first to the country of the Laz, and then to the Roman possessions in Asia Minor, where managed to advance along the southern Black Sea coast up to the Galis River. In view of the difficult situation that had arisen (the Romans did not have enough strength to stop this offensive), Emperor Diocletian turned to Chersonese for help. The Chersonese gathered an army and invaded the territory of the Bosporus. Putting it into action stratagem, they captured the Bosporan capital Panticapaeum (Constantine calls it Bosporus) and captured the king’s wife and family. An embassy of representatives of Chersonesos and captured Bosporan nobility, then sent to Asia Minor, had the task of persuading Sauromatus to end the war and make peace with the Roman emperor. As a reprisal, if this proposal was rejected, the Chersonese threatened the wholesale extermination of the inhabitants of Panticapaeum. Savromat had no choice but to accept the offer. Hostilities were stopped. The army of Sauromat began to return to the north, and the Chersonesos liberated the Bosporan capital and the prisoners captured in it.

According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, somewhat later, already under Emperor Constantine, the Bosporans, with the help of barbarians living near the Sea of Azov, repeatedly attacked Chersonesus, but each time they were defeated. A description of these wars between the Bosporus and Chersonese is given in the work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus with an abundance of details, often having a pronounced legendary character.

All these stories of the Byzantine writer-imger-

461

torah are usually regarded as legends, devoid of any historical value. They were especially harshly condemned by the famous historian Mommsen, who believed that the “Chersonese legends” transmitted by Constantine Porphyrogenitus “cannot be taken into account” and, therefore, have no value as a historical source. Nevertheless, it is difficult to admit that these “Chersonese legends” have absolutely no basis in reality. It seems more likely that, although in a highly distorted form, they still reflected some events that took place in reality. The story about the campaign of the barbarians led by the Bosporan king Sauromatus to Asia Minor, apparently, was generated by repeated Gothic raids on Asia Minor, which, as is known, were carried out from within the Bosporan kingdom. It is not difficult to guess why, in the story of Constantine the Porphyrogenitus, the barbarian campaign is led by the Bosporan king. The basis for this could be the well-known circumstance that the Bosporan kings provided active assistance to pirate expeditions departing from the Sea of Azov to the south. It is also very well known what role the Bosporan fleet played in these expeditions. It is unlikely that the participation of the Bosporans was limited only to the fleet. Although literary sources after 275 -276. they do not talk about pirate campaigns from Meotida to Asia Minor, but relapses of this kind of enterprise could undoubtedly have taken place later, at the beginning of the 4th century. In this regard, it should be remembered that back in 323, the Azov barbarians took part in the attack on the Danube possessions of Rome. 34

In any case, it should be recognized as completely established that as a result of the invasion of a number of barbarian tribes in the northern Black Sea and Azov regions, as a result of the generally increased activity of the barbarians, the Bosporus, which had lost its previous effective support from Rome, was forced, for the purpose of self-preservation, to increasingly resort to a compromise policy in their relationships with barbarians, especially newcomers.

462

Chersonesus, apparently, managed to avoid such a situation; He continued to maintain independence during this difficult time, remaining an ally of Rome. It is possible that Chersonesos sometimes undertook some military sabotage in the Crimea against the intensified barbarians. Since the latter received help from the Bosporus, these actions of the Chersonese could naturally be interpreted as actions directed against the barbarians supported by the Bosporan kings. This was, as one might assume, the real basis for the emergence of later semi-legendary stories, colored by fantasy, in which Chersonesus acts as an ally loyal to Rome, zealously leading the fight against the barbarians and the Bosporus, which had allied itself with them.

The opinion expressed by some scientists that in the first half of the 4th century. Bosporan possessions in Crimea, “excluding its eastern outskirts with the capital of Bosporus Panticapaeum,” were in the hands of the Goths, is completely unproven. 35

Perhaps a number of Goths (Heruli, Borani, etc.) from among those who made their way to the Crimea also penetrated into the Bosporan territory. However, as we could already see from the inscription of Aurelius Valerius Sogas, the state border of the Bosporus in the west, i.e. in Crimea, remained at the beginning of the 4th century. unchanged. The possessions of the Bosporus extended to Feodosia, and, therefore, there is no reason to talk about only the “eastern outskirts”, supposedly preserved behind the Bosporus. We don’t know in detail what happened on the Asian side, but even here the main settlements and the adjacent lands within the borders of at least the present Taman Peninsula continued to remain Bosporan.

Despite the fact that the Bosporus managed to preserve its main territory, the economic decline progressed rapidly, since in the general situation that developed throughout the Black Sea region during the collapse of the Roman Empire, the main vital nerve of the Bosporan kingdom was paralyzed. Such a nerve in all periods of its existence was a wide trade exchange with overseas

463

countries and, above all, the massive export of agricultural raw materials there. Now the possibility of such an exchange has become very limited.

The depletion of the state treasury in the conditions of intensively developing naturalization, and at the same time the reduction of the economy, soon led to the fact that the Bosporus was no longer able to issue even copper money. In 332, the Panticapaean mint issued the last roughly executed degraded “staters” made of pure copper with a bust and the name of the Bosporan king Riskuporides VI on the obverse and a bust of the Emperor Constantine on the reverse (Pl. VI, 97). 36 For almost nine centuries, Panticapaeum minted coins - first on behalf of the civil community of Panticapaeans, then on behalf of the Bosporan kings. These coins clearly reflected both the periods of rise and prosperity of the Bosporus, and the times of its decline. In 332, the numismatic source for studying the historical destinies of the Bosporus ends forever. It is hardly possible to conclude from the very fact of the cessation of the minting of Bosporan coins that some catastrophic disaster befell the Bosporus at that time, which immediately caused the complete and final destruction of the state. The process of collapse of the Bosporus state took place over a fairly long period, and the cessation of coinage was only one of the episodes of the process of withering of the Bosporus, which continued further for several decades.

After the cessation of the issuance of Bosporan coins, coins from old issues apparently remained in circulation for a long time, and in addition, Roman coins arrived in some, albeit very limited, quantities.

That the cessation of the minting of Bosporan coins in 332 was not associated with any sudden upheaval in Bosporus and did not mean the liquidation of the power of the dynasty that had previously ruled the Bosporan kingdom is most convincingly confirmed by the inscription found on the Taman Peninsula. 37 Unfortunately, due to the lack of more precise information regarding

464

location where the inscription was found, it is impossible to resolve the question of which Bosporan settlement this extremely important epigraphic document comes from. The most significant fact seems to be that the event described in the inscription dates back to 632 of the Bosporan era, i.e., to 335 AD. e., by the time of Riscuporis VI. The inscription speaks of the construction of a defensive wall or fortification (τείχος) in the indicated year under the supervision of the architect (άρχιτέκτων) Eutychus. The end of the inscription is very expressive, which consists of two words: Νείκη πόλει, denoting a wish for victory to the city. The following number 638 appears to be the date of installation of the inscription, which was embedded in the erected wall; translated into our chronology it turns out to be 341 AD. e.

We see in this way that even after the issue of Bosporan coins was interrupted in 332, life in the cities of Bosporus continued, and the same Riskuporides was at the head of the state. But, at the same time, the inscription also shows the extremely tense situation in which they were at the time in question. time, cities located on the main territory of the Bosporan state and representing its most important strongholds. Defensive structures were erected in the most critical places, because the danger of a military attack from the outside was obviously increasing.

The economic decline of the Bosporus inevitably entailed the inability to maintain the state's defense capability at any satisfactory level, which opened up wide opportunities for raids on the Bosporus lands and its cities by neighboring barbarian tribes, especially nomads.

In 362, as the Roman writer Ammianus Marcellinus reports, embassies traveled to the Roman Emperor Julian in Constantinople, which had become the capital of the empire since 330, along with other embassies that came with gifts “from the north and the desert regions through which Phasis flows into the sea Bosporans (Bosporanis... legationes) and other previously unknown peoples with a prayer that for the payment of an annual tribute they would be allowed to live peacefully within the boundaries of their native land.” 38

465

The above message from Ammianus testifies that back in 362, the Bosporus acted in the official political arena as an independent state region, which addressed through special envoys with certain requests to the Roman emperor as its protector. But from the words of Ammianus, at the same time, it is clear how difficult times the Bosporus was then going through, for whose inhabitants a peaceful, calm life already seemed like an unattainable blessing. It is absolutely clear that the economically weakened state was unable to defend its borders and ensure a completely peaceful existence for the population. Whether any real assistance was provided to the Bosporans as a result of their appeal to Emperor Julian is unknown. It is unlikely that such assistance, if it was provided, could be sufficiently effective at a time when the empire itself was approaching its end, unable to overcome either internal or external difficulties.

New phenomena in the culture of Bosporus during the period under review, i.e., the first half of the 4th century, include the spread of the Christian religion among the Bosporan population. The earliest material monument confirming the presence of Christians in the Bosporus dates back to 304 - a tombstone found in Kerch, very modest in appearance, in the form of a quadrangular stone slab, on which is carved an image of a cross and the inscription: “Here lies Eutropius 601.” The numbers indicate the year of burial according to the Bosporan era. 39 Several more Bosporan Christian tombstones of the 4th century are known.

One should think that Christianity appeared in the Bosporus no later than the end of the 3rd century. The penetration of Christianity into the Bosporus, in all likelihood, came from Asia Minor, where Christian communities had already existed much earlier. Let us recall that the study of the Bosporan fiasots, i.e., religious unions of the 2nd-3rd centuries, in which the “highest god” was revered, made it possible to notice in the religious terminology used by the Bosporan fiasots some signs of the influence of Christianity 40 (see p. 434). Given the close cultural and economic ties that existed between the Bosporus and Malaya

466

Asia in the II-ΙΙΙ centuries, the penetration of Christian religious ideas from there into the Bosporus should be considered absolutely possible. One of the significant factors that contributed to the spread of Christianity in the northern Black Sea region in the second half of the 3rd century, apparently, was the pirate raids of the Goths in Asia Minor, from where, as is known, along with other booty, Christian captives from Asia Minor were delivered to the north, including even representatives of the clergy. Such captives ended up not only in the Danube regions of the western Black Sea region, but probably also in the Bosporus, where they could also contribute to the rapid spread of Christianity.

Christianity easily and quickly took root in the Bosporus due to the presence of particularly favorable soil, prepared by all the previous development of religious movements. Among them, as is known, was very popular in the 2nd-3rd centuries. was used by the monotheistic cult of the “highest god”, which attracted a lot of adherents. Since the active role of Jewish religious elements in the formation of this syncretic cult is undoubted, one can think that the messianic aspirations characteristic of Judaism, hopes for the coming of a savior, from whom it was expected that the world would be delivered from evil and disasters, were not alien to certain layers of the Bosporan population, especially during the difficult period second half of the 3rd century. n. e.

During the first decades of the 4th century. Christianity in the Bosporus received such wide recognition that already in the 20s a Christian community led by a bishop could well have taken shape there. In 325, at the Nicene Ecumenical Council, the Bosporan Christians were represented in the person of their bishop Cadmus. 41 The participation of the Bosporan bishop in the ecumenical council shows that the Bosporan kingdom, despite the increasingly growing internal economic and at the same time political crisis, nevertheless sought to support in the first half of the 4th century. external relations not only of an economic, but also of a cultural and political nature, although these connections could now be carried out, of course, extremely irregularly and far from with the same success as in the old days...

467

Of particular interest in this regard is the discovery in the Panticapaean crypts (catacombs) of two artistically executed silver dishes (Fig. 82), in the center of which is placed

Rice. 82. Silver dish with the image of Emperor Constantius II. (Hermitage Museum).

medallion depicting a bust of Emperor Constantius II] 337-361). 42 As the inscriptions show “D N lake flowing into the Pont Euxine” 56

It is assumed that a significant part of the Huns who penetrated into Crimea from the Taman Peninsula passed through the Crimean steppes and then joined the bulk of their relatives who were moving west directly through the Don region. Passing through the steppe region of Crimea, the Huns, apparently, simultaneously drove into the mountainous regions of Crimea the remnants of the Goths who did not have time to escape. Chersonesus was undoubtedly also affected by the movement of the Huns and suffered greatly. The territory of the Bosporan kingdom, all its main lands, found themselves on the path of the second southern wave of the Huns, the onslaught of which Bosporus was unable to repel.

The consequences of this event for the Bosporus were very bleak. The complete cessation of life in most of the settlements of the Bosporan kingdom, as evidenced by archaeological observations of the ancient Bosporan settlements, allows us to conclude that the Huns are really here, having gone through fire and sword. The words of Ammianus Marcellinus that on the land of the Alan-Tanaites the Huns “produced. . . terrible destruction and devastation,” can obviously be attributed to the Bosporan possessions on both sides of the Kerch Strait. What happened here, apparently, was approximately the same thing that was very thoroughly and vividly described by Zosimus, Eunapius and other early medieval writers regarding the Danube regions, where the destructive activity of the Huns, which took place at the Roman borders, was especially

480

appearance and, naturally, attracted great attention from contemporaries. Having burst into densely populated areas lying north of the Danube, the Huns carried out a terrible rout there. Being excellent archers, they shot masses of civilians - men, women, children, specifically hunting for them. The population abandoned their homes and property and fled to the other side of the Danube. Describing this mass extermination of civilians, the writer Eunapius emphasizes that the cruelty of the Huns “had no limits.” 57

Traces of a similar pogrom perpetrated by the Huns are also found during archaeological excavations of Bosporan cities, many of which were turned into lifeless ruins by the Hun invasion.

A vivid picture of this tragic event in the history of the Bosporan kingdom is painted by the archaeological excavations of the city of Tiritaki. During the first half of the 4th century. Quite intense life continued in the town. The population here, as in a number of other Bosporan settlements, was engaged in agriculture, winemaking, fishing, crafts. All this is very clearly illustrated, in particular, by the material remains of that extensive late Roman manor house, a detailed description of which was given above (see p. 378 ff.). True, at this time in the everyday life of the population, the overwhelming majority of things were local products, manufactured either in Panticapaeum, or directly in Tiritaka itself. There are very few imported items, and this confirms the insignificant size of maritime trade in the period under review. Among the ceramic products, we see almost entirely local products, and the Sarmatian type of molded ceramics is by far the predominant one. Among molded dishes made without the use of a potter's wheel, vessels with handles with a protrusion facing upward are typical. This is an extremely schematized, simplified form of an image of an animal - a ram, a wild boar, etc., with its head facing the mouth of the vessel. Such vessels were very common in the first centuries AD among the Alan-Sarmatian

481

population of the Kuban region. As the Sarmatization of the culture of the Bosporus intensified, along with many other elements of the Sarmatian culture in the European part of the Bosporus, Sarmatian vessels with handles fashioned in the shape of animals began to come into use (). 58 The emergence of this motif of a sculpted handle of a vessel in the shape of an animal was generated by superstition. The handle was given the magical meaning of a talisman, which was supposed to protect the vessel and its contents from the influence of evil forces.

Over time, the magical meaning of animal-shaped hands was lost, and therefore they began to simplify them, no longer trying to convey the real features of this or that animal.

Such molded vessels. the handles of which vaguely resemble the image of an animal only by the protrusions they have, were found in a whole series of specimens in the Tiritak house already known to us. III-IV centuries n. e.

Delivery of goods from outside in the 4th century. n. e. decreased so much and became irregular that the population stopped receiving imported vegetable oil (olive), which has always been not only an important food product, but also the best fuel for lamps. Therefore, we had to look for suitable substitutes. In 1939 During excavations at Tiritaki, a perfectly preserved clay amphora of the 4th century was found. And. e., filled with oil (in Fig. 59 the location of the find is marked with a cross). 59 Thanks to hermetic sealing, the oil was preserved in liquid form in the amphora. Chemical analysis showed that this oil is local, belongs to

Rice. 84. Clay vessel with a handle in the shape of an animal. II century n. e. (Rostov n/D., Museum).

482

it lies in the Chongelek deposit. Therefore, the inhabitants of Tiritaki, and possibly also other Bosporan settlements, trying to provide themselves with fuel for lighting devices, mined in the 4th century. n. e. oil, extracting it from open pits and wells, apparently in the same way as was practiced at the end of the 18th century. local population of the Kerch Peninsula. 60

The Tiritak late Roman house characterizes not only the life of the population in the 4th century. n. e., but also testifies to the catastrophe that befell the city. The house was burned during the Hun invasion around 370. Similar traces of fire that consumed the city buildings are found everywhere in Tiritaka during excavations of the remains of buildings from the late Roman period.

Under a layer of coals and ash in the Tiritak house-estate, along with a wide variety of household items, a treasure of Bosporan coins was discovered in one of the hearths of room V (in Fig. 62a, the location of the treasure is indicated by the letter d). Hidden in a clay pot were 224 Bosporan staters from 276 to 332, i.e., including the coins of the most recent issue. 61 Obviously, these coins were especially valued after the Bosporus stopped minting its own coins in 332. Along with the coins, the treasure found silver gilded earrings, as well as a bronze cylindrical case for storing an amulet and several bronze rings. All this was previously wrapped in some kind of cloth or put in a bag and then placed in a vessel in which ink nuts lay (see page 381). The enemy invasion was apparently so rapid that the residents fled, abandoning their property and not having time to take with them even completely portable and light valuables.

Not only secondary settlements were destroyed, but also Panticapaeum. In the 70s of the IV century. Vast areas of Panticapaeum were reduced to ruins. On the site of the Panticapaean acropolis, destroyed and covered with earth, a cemetery already existed 100 years later, in the 5th-6th centuries.

Turbulent events of the 70s of the 4th century. led the Bosporan kingdom to complete and final collapse. None

483

no signs of its existence are found after this.

It goes without saying that the invasion of the Huns was by no means the cause of the death of the Bosporan kingdom. This was just the blow that caused the dilapidated building to collapse. The process of disintegration, as we tried to show above, took a long time to develop. At the same time, he was closely connected with the destinies of the Roman Empire, with the help of which the Bosporus as a slave state during the 1st-3rd centuries. He could still politically resist the world of Black Sea barbarians that surrounded him, although in its internal structure and culture the Bosporus at that time was a Greco-barbarian, or more precisely Greco-Sarmatian, formation. It was a state in whose internal life barbarian elements came to the fore with ever-increasing force.

In the III-IV centuries. The barbarization of the Bosporus reached the point where its complete absorption by barbarians became inevitable. This was the fate of not only the slave-owning Bosporus, but also the entire Roman Empire, with which the Bosporus was politically and economically connected in the first centuries of our era.

The internal socio-economic crisis, which at its peak turned into a slave revolution, merging with the powerful pressure of the barbarians, was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. “... All the “barbarians” united against

Rice. 85. Clay amphora with oil found in Tiritaka. IV century n. e. (Kerch, Archaeological Museum).

484

a common enemy and thunderously overthrew Rome.”* At the same time, those peripheral slaveholding states that for a number of centuries, enjoying the support of the empire, retained their independence, although limited by the Roman protectorate, also collapsed.

The invasion of the Huns, despite its destructiveness, did not at all cause the end of life in the territory of the former Bosporan kingdom. Excavations of Bosporan cities, for example in the same Tiritaka, show how residents soon settled again on the ruins of a dilapidated city, partially rebuilding the burnt houses.

The Alano-Sarmatian and the remnants of the Greek, highly barbarized Bosporan population are settling again on the site of many old rural and urban areas of the Bosporus, turning both of them mainly into places of agriculture.

Panticapaeum, now usually called the city of Bosporus, is also quickly coming to life; at the turn of the IV-V centuries. it again becomes an important trade and craft center. 62 But now it is no longer the capital of a vast slaveholding state, but only a large trade and craft center of the barbarian region in eastern Crimea, which was located throughout the 5th century. under the rule of the Alan-Hun tribal union.

Such barbaric formations, which arose in Europe in the early Middle Ages on the ruins of ancient slave states, carried within themselves the forces of further socio-economic progress, the beginnings of future feudal societies. The barbarians who took possession of the ancient slave world, as Engels put it, “breathed new vitality into dying Europe.”