Greek Penetration of the Black Sea 3

Gocha R. Tsetskhladze

1    2   3   4

At first glance such an early date for the lid of a painted Boeotian (?) lekane is difficult
to associate with the main mass of archaic material found on the site. The dozens of pieces
of Ionian and Attic pottery found date from the late 6th century and the beginning of the 5th
century BC. The earliest archaeological level at Chersonesus is datable 25-30 years after the
founding of the Dorian settlement in the first quarter of the 5th century BC.
This time-gap of a quarter of a century spans the period between the foundation and the
appearance of the first burials (Zedgenidze and Savelya 1981; 198 la). In the northern part of
the city over 100 burials of the late 5th and 4th centuries BC have been studied. The burials
in other parts of the necropolis are also of this date. In the necropolis in the northern part of
the city, however, scholars have identified five burials in amphorae used as funerary urns.
Three were in amphorae from Samos dating from the very beginning of the 5th century, one in an amphora from Thasos and one in a proto-Thasian amphora of the very late 6th century
BC. Thus the earliest burials appear to predate the founding of the settlement, just as the
earliest settlement level does, by 25-30 years, i.e. by a single generation.
The excavations of the last decade also brought to light a series of 26 graffiti "ostraka"
from amphorae and black-glaze pottery. They are inscriptions of male names, both with and
without patronymics, and they date from some time during the 5th century. A comprehensive
study of them (Y. G. Vinogradov) has shown that of the 26 "ostraka" containing 24
prosopographical units, the earliest two were executed in the Megarian alphabet dating back
to 500-480 BC (Vinogradov and Zolotarev 1990, 103-9). Analysis of the remaining "ostraka"
has shown that from the second quarter of the 5th century the names are written in a more
legible Milesian alphabet, while the predominance of Dorian personal names is retained. The
Dorians are represented by ten names, but four names on three "ostraka" bear strongly
pronounced Ionic features.
The discovery of the "ostraka", dating from the 5th century BC, provided grounds for some
scholars to suggest that a new colony was founded in the last quarter of the 6th century BC
in the south-west of the Crimea jointly by lonians from Sinope and Dorians from Heraklea
(Vinogradov and Zolotarev 1990, 103-9). This hypothesis would appear premature since there
is not yet adequate material for such a far-reaching conclusion. We can only say with
confidence that at the site of Chersonesus, founded in 422-421 BC, there existed a large
setlement which had been founded in the last quarter of the 6th century BC by lonians. The
question as to the status of the settlement still remains open, as does that regarding its
relationship to the later city of Chersonesus. The city had probably been refounded by the
Dorians from Heraklea Pontica.25
It had always been thought that the first houses at Chersonesus had been built of stone.
New excavations in the third sector of the north-western part have, however, brought to light
dwellings sunk into the rock. These were round or oval in shape with earthen floors, hearths
and walls: those parts of the dugout protruding above earth were made of mud-brick.
Amphorae have been found Herakleian, Mendean, etc., many of which bear stamps dating
from the end of the 5th century BC. To this period also date the large quantity of fragments
of black-glaze Attic and handmade pottery (Zolotarev 1990). This means that the dugout
buildings are the earliest of the city, similar to those of Berezan, Olbia, Panticapaeum,
Nymphaeum, etc. (Kryzhitskii 1982, 10-1). They were in use between the end of the 5th
century and the first quarter of the 4th century BC. Around the middle of the 4th century BC
stone buildings above ground were erected over the rock dugouts.26

Conclusions: The Reasons for Colonization

This highly complex problem has been argued over by scholars for more than 150 years.27 The
Greeks themselves tell us many times and in many ways that they were forced to leave home
to search for a new place to live: they were unwilling colonists, driven from home by various
disasters. Rarely is there explicit mention of commercial or agricultural benefits that must have
lured the colonists to explore new sites. Instead, colonial narratives emphasize the negative
factors - natural, political, personal and physical - that encouraged the colonists to leave their
homeland (Dougherty 1993, 16-8).
I shall not dwell in detail on all the points in this controversy (Kocybala 1978, 126-36).
They can be summarized in the words of J. Fine: "Greek colonization of the Black Sea region
was of great importance for subsequent Greek history. A huge area, rich in metals, timber,
grain, fish and many other products, was thus opened to a Greek world, whose resources in
raw materials and food products were inadequate for the constantly growing population. The
necessity to pay for those imports stimulated the activity of Greek craftsmen - especially the
potters and metal-workers" (1983, 81).
Most scholars, following C. Roebuck (1959, 116-30), consider that the main reason behind
colonization of the Black Sea was interest in the metal of the southern and eastern parts and
the grain of the North. Recent studies have shown that these regions, in particular the southern
coast, were not all that rich in metal and alternative reasons for colonization have to be sought
(Jesus 1978; cf. Treister 1988; 1992). A. Shcheglov (Chtcheglov) in his highly detailed
analysis of the available written, archaeological and palaeobotanical sources connected with
the grain trade in the Black Sea region, ended with the conclusion that the real picture did not
match the generally accepted view of a large-scale and well regulated Graeco-Scythian grain
trade in the 7th-5th centuries and later: "Such trade was a myth that evolved in the minds of
modern scholars". He draws a convincing conclusion that, if we accept as probable that grain
was exported from Greek centres along the north coast of the Black Sea in the 7th-5th
centuries, then it could have been grain that was grown in the chora of those cities rather than
acquired from the population of the steppe and wooded steppe zones. In any case, the export
of grain from any centre on the north coast of the Black Sea could not have been a permanent
or regular phenomenon that continued without interruption and always on a significant scale
(Chtcheglov 1990; cf. Noonan 1973a).
The reasons for colonization were never exclusively agrarian, or commercial, or connected
with the need for metals on the one hand, or with over-population on the other. There was a
whole range of reasons. Each mother-city had its own reasons for sending out colonies
(Blavatskii, Koshelenko and Kruglikova 1979). First, it is important to analyse the metropolis
and the reasons that might have obliged the Greeks to emigrate, and then look for reasons in
the region where the colonies had been founded - natural resources and local conditions
(Koshelenko and Kuznetsov 1992). This is the appropriate order in which to approach this
question rather than to start with the natural resources.
Virtually all the colonies in the Black Sea region were founded by Miletus.28 What
compelled Milesians to seek their fortune beyond the confines of lonia, which became
involved in the colonization process later than the other cities of homeland Greece? We must
remember that the Ionian poleis were situated in favourable geographical conditions and
possessed large expanses of fertile land (Hdt. I. 142). Herodotus refers to Miletus as "the pearl
of lonia" (V. 28).
At the end of the 8th century the Ionian poleis began advancing deep into the mainland,
enlarging their territory. Miletus pushed back its boundaries up the river valley twenty or thirty
miles (Cook J. 1968, 35). Expansion of this kind was typical of the other Ionian poleis. After
the Mermnad dynasty had been established (c. 675), clashes began between Lydia and the
Greeks (Dandamaev 1989,1Q-A-). The next Lydian dynasty, that of the Gyges, continued to
pursue a hostile policy and its campaigns against Miletus and other cities (Hdt. I. 14-15).
Particularly unfortunate was the outcome of the war waged by Alyattes against Miletus (Hdt.
I. 16-18). His successor Croesus was known for his hostile stance towards most Greek cities
(Hdt. 1. 26-28).
The purpose of Lydia's aggression was to seize agricultural land (Hdt. I. 73). The main
result of the Graeco-Lydian wars was the curtailing of the possessions of the Ionian poleis,
including Miletus. The expansion of Lydia's territory led to a restructuring of the economy
and foreign policy of the Ionian poleis. When extension of land became out of the question
(and existing possessions had been reduced) the lonians began to search for overseas colonies,
and trade was to become one of their major activities (Cook J. 1962, 50; Akurgal 1962, 373).
Miletus' loss of part of its chora led to a grim struggle within the polls itself (Hdt. V. 28-29)
(Jeffery 1976, 214). The very existence of part of the civilian population was under threat
when discussion was underway as to how existing land ought be redistributed. One of the
most radical solutions was emigration. At that time there was only one region that had not yet
been colonized by other Greek cities - the Black Sea - and it was precisely towards Pontus
that Miletus looked.
The Milesian colonies appeared after the middle of the 7th century, when Lydia had
already begun its expansion. This is the first stage of Greek penetration of the Black Sea.
Miletus founded only seven settlements - on its northern, southern and western coasts. They
were all small and situated on islands or peninsulae. Most probably they were designed to
serve as bases for future reconnaissance. Their purpose was to collect information about those
lands and to examine possibilities for further colonizing. Cautiously, they sought to forge
relations with the local population of Scythians, Thracians etc. In the 7th century few imports
are to be found on the native sites: relations clearly expanded rapidly in the 6th century.
The long struggle for land between Miletus and Lydia always led to losses for Miletus. It
came to an end at the beginning of the 6th century when Miletus was obliged to accept a
treaty that reduced its possessions (Hdt. 1. 25). This led to an internal crisis and one of the
methods used to resolve it was emigration. New waves of emigrants set off for the shores of
Pontus. This is the second stage of the Greek colonization of the Black Sea.
The crisis in Miletus ended for a time and relations between Lydia and Greece were
friendly, with Lydia coming under the influence of Greek culture (Dandamaev 1989, 21-2;
Hanfmann 1978). The flowering of Miletus was not to last for long. In the middle of the 6th
century disaster struck again: this time dealt by the Persian king, who began to conquer the
Greek cities of Asia Minor (Dandamaev 1989, 23-8). Once again the lonians were obliged to
send off new colonies to Pontus. This is the third stage of the colonization of the Black Sea.
The written sources make it quite clear, for example, that the Phocaeans and Teans were
fleeing so as to avoid Persian conquest and enslavement: the Teans founded Abdera in Thrace
(Hdt. 1. 168-169) and Phanagoria in the Kimmerian Bosporus about 542 (Arrian, Byth., fr.
56 Roos). This did not mark the end of forced emigration. After the lonians had been defeated
in their revolt against the Persians, in the first quarter of the 5th century, they were obliged
once again to flee from their native cities (a fourth stage of colonization).29
The constant armed incursions by the Lydian kings against the Greek cities of Asia Minor,
on which they embarked not long before the end of the 7th century, had the most disastrous
consequences for the Greeks. Their cities had been founded in geographically advantageous locations and, unlike the poleis of mainland Greece, did not suffer from a shortage of fertile
land. Now they were not only robbed of a chance to extend their territory but had also lost
part of their chora. To make matters worse, some of the cities had been seized and destroyed
by the Lydians. Such was the fate of Smyrna, for example (Hdt. I. 16). Trial and tribulation
were also to be the lot of Miletus, whose lands were laid waste over the course of many years.
Similar examples could be cited in relation to other poleis. All this gave rise to a crisis in
lonia, a crisis which was reflected in a shortage of the very means of subsistence, above all
a shortage of land. Each polls sought its own solution. One involved extension of trading so
as to obtain food, but trade could not compensate for the losses resulting from incessant
hostilities. Trade alone was not enough to feed a substantial section of the hungry (if not
starving) population, which, in addition, was threatened by death or slavery. There is no doubt
that at critical moments in their history many Ionian poleis had to resolve to take the one
remaining step open to them which could provide a fundamental solution to their problem -
to leave their homeland and settle elsewhere.
As G. Koshelenko and V. Kuznetsov observed: "An important consideration here was that
the Ionian polls, as a result of all this, had to lower itself one or more steps beneath the level
of culture which it would have achieved by the time the struggle against Lydia began, or later.
Consequently, the Ionian Greeks were obliged not only to endure economic losses and, as a
result, live in conditions of growing social tension in the cities, but also renounce the level of
prosperity and culture (in the broad sense of the term) to which they were accustomed. This
meant that the very principles underlying the existence of the polls were under threat. By
setting up their apoikiai the Greeks not only delivered themselves from physical destruction
and slavery, from economic and social problems, but also endeavoured to return to their earlier
way of life and civilization befitting a polls" (1992, 24-5).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am extremely grateful to Professor Sir John Boardman for his comments and advice. I am
very proud to have been his first East European pupil. I consider this a real honour and it is
with great pleasure that I dedicate this essay to my Teacher, who has done so much for me
since I first arrived in Oxford. I should like to thank Professor G. Koshelenko (my former Ph.
D. supervisor in Moscow) for his support while I was writing this paper and for the new
information he supplied me with about excavations on the north coast of the Black Sea. Dr
J. Hind's publications in AR of reports about new discoveries on the Black Sea are always a
helpful guide to what has been done. I am grateful to Mrs K. Judelson and Dr J. F. Hargrave
for their assistance in the preparation of the text. Finally, I should like to express my thanks
to my mentors and friends in Oxford (Professor F. Millar and Dr 0. Murray) and to the many
people who attended this lecture in the Ruskin Lecture Theatre of the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford (1 March, 1994).
NOTES
1. The cautious position of the archaeologists is voiced: Boardman 1980, 238-55.
2. J. Boardman's main conclusion at the end of this article reflects the actual situation as we understand it
which exists today on this question and the differences of opinion between archaeologists and historians:
"Archaeologists will welcome secure evidence for the discovery of Geometric Greek material on Black
Sea shores and will join historians in speculation about how it arrived there, in the hands of Greeks or
of others. But we are still waiting, and patience is no lesser archaeological virtue than discretion"
(Boardman 1991, 389).
3. This paper was given at a workshop entitled "Greek and Roman Settlements on the Black Sea" held at the
95th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Washington D.C., December 1993. The
papers given at this workshop are to be published: G. R. Tsetskhladze (Ed.), Greek and Roman Settlements
on the Black Sea Coast (Issue no. 1 of the series: G. R. Tsetskhladze (Ed.), Colloquenda Pontica,
Bradford, Loid Publishing), Bradford, 1994.
4. In recent years the archaeology of the Black Sea has become very popular in the West and in America.
General articles on the excavations in the Black Sea region have long been traditional in AR (for:
1962-63; 1971-72; 1983-84; 1990-91; 1992-93). A similar practice was begun by AJA (see: 97 (1993),
521-63); REA is to publish my article on recent excavations in the eastern part of the Black Sea region
(with review of the literature) in 1994. Professor W. Schuller (Konstanz) and Professor P. Leveque
(Besancon) are publishing not only separate articles in the Xenia series and in DHA, but also books
devoted to specific regions and cities on the Black Sea. Professor J. Fossey (Montreal) and Mr. A.
Caratzas (Publisher, New York) have inaugurated a series of monographs on the Black Sea. Recently, two
special journals were set up - Das Schwarzes Meer and Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia
(Leiden, E. J. Brill) [The first issue of this journal appeared when the present volume was already in press.
For this reason I was unable to make use of the articles and new material published in it] - and a new
series was launched entitled Colloquenda Pontica (Bradford, Ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze). J. Hind is preparing
a Chapter on the colonization of the Black Sea for a collection of articles on colonization (Leiden, E. J.
Brill, Ed. I. Malkin). Reviews of new research have also been published: J. Irmscher and D. Schelow
(Eds.), Griechische Stadte und einheimische Volker des Schwarzmeergebietes (Berlin 1961); H. Heinen
(Ed.), Die Geschichte des Altertums in Spiegel der sowjetischen Forschung (Darmstadt 1980), 341^t02;
Les Villes grecques de la Mer Noire. Olbia, Panticapee, Chersonese (Les Dossiers d'Archeologie, 188,
Decembre 1993. No. 88, 1984 was devoted to the archaeology of the eastern Black Sea region). At the
present time we are threatened by the pleasant danger of an explosion of information on Black Sea
archaeology. In order to help scholars and students a bibliographical reference manual is being compiled
(J. Fossey and G. R. Tsetskhladze, Bibliography of the Archaeology of the Black Sea, McGill University,
Montreal (Classical Archaeology and History Companions)). The following general books on the subject
have ben published: M. Koromila (Ed.), The Greeks in the Black Sea from the Bronze Age to the Early
Twentieth Century (Athens 1991) and J. Bouzek, Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area (Prague
1990) (See: Reviews on Bouzek by J. Hind in JHS 113 (1993), 230-1 and by J. Boardman in Gnomon,
65. 6 (1993), 564-5). New general books are being prepared: G. R. Tsetskhladze, Greeks in the Black Sea
and Romans in the Black Sea (London and New York, Routledge). See also: B. Isaac, The Greek
Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest (Leiden, E. J. Brill 1986). An important review of
the literature has been published by T. Sulimirski, "Greek Colonization and the Early Iron Age East of
the Volga", BIA 11 (1973), 1-40. For a review of new literature on the northern coast of the Black Sea
(1980-1989), see: A. A. Maslennikov and A. E. Medovichev (Eds.), Problems of the History and Culture
of the Northern Black Sea Region in Classical Antiquity (Moscow 1991) (in Russian); A. Wasowicz, "Les
Grecs dans Ie Font: de Nouvelles Monographies", DHA 17.2 (1991), 127-32; B. Nadel, "The Euxine
Pontos as seen by the Greeks", DHA 17.2 (1991), 115-26.
5. This "academic war" has become all the more intense as a result of nationalist emotions. (See: P. L. Kohl
and G. R. Tsetskhladze, "Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology in the Caucasus", P. L.
Kohl and C. Fawcett (Eds. ), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge, U. P.
1995 forthcoming).
6. Some scholars assume that Balkan-Anatolian connections existed in the Late Chalcolithic period (see: L.
Thissen, "New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian connections in the Late Chalcolithic: Old Evidence from the
Turkish Black Sea littoral", Anatolian Studies 43 (1993), 207-37).
7. There is an extensive literature devoted to these stone anchors: H. Frost, Stone Anchors as Clues to Bronze
Age Trade Routes, Thracia Pontica I (1982), 280-9; K. Porojanov, Les relations entre les colonies
grecques et les etats thraces du littoral occidental de la Mer Noire Vir-V s. av. n. e. Thracia Pontica III
(1986), 158-65; J. Hind, Archaeology of the Greek and Barbarian Peoples around the Black Sea
(1982-1992), AR for 1992-93, 84; M. Lazarov, La Navigacion Ie long du Littoral Thrace du Pont Euxin
avant la colonization grecque, Dritter Internationaler Thrakologischer Kongress, Vol. II (Sofia 1984),
63-8; K. Porogeanov, Navigation et Commerce de la population du Littoral Europeen de la Mer Noire
de la Thrace ancienne avec les peuples de la Mediterranee Orientale (XVI-XII s. av. n. e.). Idem, 69-75,
etc.
8. After the expedition of T. Severin to test the credibility of the voyage of the Argonauts to Colchis, these
authors refer to that voyage as the "new Argonauts" and adhere more firmly than ever to their opinion that
the myth reflects reality (see: T. Severin, The Jason Voyage. The Quest/or the Golden Fleece (London
1985)). Moreover, some distinguished Georgian archaeologists consider the opinion of Severin (a traveller
not a scholar) the absolute last word on this problem, quoting him as a mantra, e.g. D. Khakhutaishvili:
"The leader of the expedition of the new Argonauts, Tim Severin, after acquainting himself with the
city-site and the collection of finds in Kobuleti, commented: 'At last everything fell into place. Without
doubt this was the final confirmation of the legend of Jason, the detail which no-one could invent after
the event - neither Apollonius Rhodius, nor other authors who wrote about the Golden Fleece. . . Every
detail of the legend found its archaeological confirmation (my italics). What had seemed to us to be no
more than an old fairy-tale at the beginning of the "Jason Voyage" suddenly emerged as reality in
Georgia, 1,500 miles from the starting point at lolkos (Volos)'" (D. Khakhutaishvili, Les sites
archeologiques sur les terres submersibles des fleuves Tcholoki et Otchkamouri, in Le Pont-Euxin, 210).
9. The literature on the myth of the Argonauts is enormous. For recent studies with exhaustive bibliographies,
see: Apollonius of Rhodes. Argonautica. Book HI. Edited by R. L. Hunter (Cambridge 1989), 1^3; T.
Gautz, Early Greek Myth. A Guide to literary and Artistic Sources (Baltimore and London 1993), 340-73;
R. Hunter, The Argonautica of Apollonius. Literary Studies (Cambridge 1993).
10. In Colchis burials of the local nobility contain an abundance of golden jewellery of the 5th century
(Lordkipanidze 1979, 85-100).
11. On the depiction of mythological subjects in art, see: J. Boardman, Herakles, Theseus and Amazons, in
D. Kurtz and B. Sparkes (Eds.), The Eye of Greece (Cambridge 1982), 2-28; ibid., Herakles, in E. Bohr
and W. Martin (Eds.), Studien wr Mythologie und Vasenmalerei (Mainz 1986), 127-32; T. H. Carpenter,
Art and Myth in Ancient Greece (London 1990); H. A. Shapiro, Myth into Art. Poet and Painter in
Classical Greece (London and New York 1994).
12. I wish to express my thanks to Professor J. Neils for her help and hospitality, and for discussing the
question of the depiction of the myth of the Argonauts in Greek art during my visit to Cleveland (5-6
January, 1994).
13. I should like to thank Dr T. Mannack and Ms M. Mendonca of the Beazley Archive, Oxford University
for their help.
14. The myths connected with the other part of the Black Sea region were more famous in Greek visual art
and literature (LIMC 1, 586-653; L1MC 5, 713-26; J. Neils, The Group of the Negro Alabastra: A Study
in Motif Transferal, Antike Kunst, 1980, 23.1, 13-23; M. F. Vos, Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic
Vase-Painting (Groningen 1963), 66-9, 93-127; J. Henderson, Timeo Danaos: Amazons in Early Greek
Art and Pottery, in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (Eds.), Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture (Cambridge
1994), 85-137; M. V. Skrzhinskaya, Ancient Greek Folk-lore and Literature about the Northern Black
Sea Region (Kiev 1991), 11-72 (in Russian); F. V. Shelov-Kovedyaeav, A Berezan Hymn to the Island
and Achilles, VDI 3 (1990), 49-62; G. Hedreen, The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine, Hesperia 60 (1991),
313-30).
15. For the stage of the activity of the Greek settlers in the Black Sea, and in particular the northern part of
the region, see: V. P. Yailenko, Archaic Greece, in E. S. Golubtsova, L. P. Marinovich et al, (Eds.),
Ancient Greece, Vol. 1 (Moscow 1983), 140-1 (in Russian); G. A. Koshelenko and V. D. Kuznetsov, The
Greek Colonization of the Bosporus (in Connection with Certain General Problems of Colonization), in
G. A. Koshelenko (Ed.), Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Bosporus (Moscow 1992), 6-28
(in Russian).
16. About some late 7th century East Greek pottery from Amisos, see: Hind 1984, 96; 1993, 110.
17. We know nothing about other Milesian colonies in the southern part of the Black Sea region: Kerasos,
Kotyora, Tios and Sesamos.
18. Their modern geographical location (Berezan, for instance, is an island) does not correspond to their
ancient one (See: N. Panin, Black Sea Coastline Changes in the last 1.000 Years. A new attempt at
identifying the Danube mouth as described by the Ancients, Dacia 27 (1983), 175-84; B. Dimitrov and
A. Orachev, The Harbour System along the West Pontic coast (II-I millennia BC), Arkheotogiya 1 (1982,
Sofia), 1-11; M. V. Agbunov, Classical Archaeology and Palaegeography, KSIA 191 (1987), 3-6; I. V.
Bruyako and V. A. Karpov, Ancient Geography and Fluctuations of the Sea Levels, VDI1 (1992), 87-97).
On underwater archaeological investigations, see: G. Gamkrelidze, Hydroarchaeology in the Georgian
Republic (the Colchian Littoral), The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21.2 (1992), 101-9;
A. V. Okorokov, Development of Underwater Archaeological Investigations in Russia and the Former
Soviet Union, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 22.3 (1993), 267-73; J. C. Neville,
Opportunities and Challenges in the Black Sea, The INA Quarterly 20.3 (1993), 12-6.
19. This question is a focus of intense controversy (See: Kocybala 1978, 182-4; Vinogradov Y. G. 1989,
26-31). The book by S. Solovev (present Director of the State Hermitage's Berezan Archaeological
Expedition) about archaic Berezan is currently being prepared for publication as a supplementary volume
to the Journal Colloquenda Pontica.
20. Closed vessels of the Late Wild Goat Type, Ionian kylikes and cups, painted cups from Chios (See:
Kuznetsov 1991, 33).
21. It should be noted that V. D. Kuznetsov is the pioneer among Russian archaeologists in using the 'new'
terminology, classification and dating for early Greek pottery, which have been generally accepted in
'western' archaeological literature for the last 25 years. Together with P. Dupont he is preparing a book
about early Greek pottery on the northern coast of the Black Sea.
22. Virtually all large cities in the Black Sea region began to mint their own coins. See: P. 0. Karyshkovskii,
Coins of Olbia (Kiev 1988), 27-55 (in Russian); V. A. Anokhin, Coin Circulation in the Bosporan
Kingdom (Kiev 1986), 5-30 (in Russian) (For a critique of many of the conclusions this author draws, see:
N. A. Frolova, The Problems of Minting Coins in the Bosporus, VDl 1 (1988), 12 2-43); M. J. Price,
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Vol. IX, The British Museum, Part 1: The Black Sea (London 1993), etc..
23. The cities on the west coast of the Black Sea also turned into large cities. See: Schuller 1985, 9-28;
Alexandrescu and Schuller 1990, 9-102. (This book also provides a bibliography on Histria and the region
on pp. 285-308).
24. On recent archaeological investigations in Georgia, see: D. D. Kacharava, Archaeological Investigations
on the Eastern Black Sea Littoral, 1970-80, AR for 1983-84, 98-101; ibid.. Archaeology in Georgia,
1980-1990, AR for 1990-91, 78-86; Tsetskhladze 1994a. For a bibliography of Georgian archaeological
literature, 1976-86, see: D. Kacharava and V. Tolordava, La Colchide antique. Bibliographic, DHA 13
(1987), 275-312.
25. A. A. Zedgenidze fiercely opposes any suggestions to the effect that Chersonesus was founded earlier
(Zedgenidze 1993). V. Kuznetsov holds that it is necessary to set the foundation of the early settlement
still further back in time and he suggests the second quarter of the 6th century BC as a probable date
(Kuznetsov 1991, 36, note 42). Recently, the special article devoted to the lekana from Chersonesus was
published. M. Zolotarev confirms his previous identification of this vase as of Boeotian origin (M. I.
Zolotarev, A Boeotian Lekanis from Chersonesus, Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 1(1), 1994, 112—17). J. Boardman, however, has doubts about its Boeotian origin and thinks that "The Chersonesus
vase may be Attic, but the double frieze of animals upon it recalls also the black figure lekanai ofThasos"
(J. Boardman, Olbia and Berezan: the Early Pottery, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (Ed.) Greek Colonization of
the Black Sea, Historia supplementary volume, forthcoming).

1    2   3   4

NEXT >>