Upload
maria-papandrant
View
234
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
1/27
ffi
Atti
del
Convegno
M rNrsrERo
orLL'l
srRUz
roN E
oeLL'UNrvrRsrrA
E
DELLA
Rtcrncn
Urutvrnsrn
orl
SalrNro
Drpnnnuemro or BrHr
Culrunnu
Colonie
di colonie:
le fondazi
oni sub-coloniali
greche
tra
colonizzazi
one
e
colonialismo
Lecce
22-24
Giugno
2006
A
cura
di
Mario Lombardo
e
Flavia Frisone
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
2/27
UI{IVERSITA
DEL
SALtrNTO
DIPARTIMtrI{TO
DI
BENI CULTURALI
Collana
del
Dipartimento,
16
Ltr
FOI{DAZIONI
SUB.COLONIALI
GRECHE
TRA
COLONIT-,ZAZIO}TE
E COLOI{IALISMO
Atti
del
Convegno
Internazionale
(Lecce,
22-24
giugno
2006)
a cura
di
MARIO LOMBARDO
e
FLAVIA
FRISONE
ESTRATTO
COLONIE
DI
COLONIE
Tpgntvfo*
Le(LL'
CONGEDO
trDITORE
2oog
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
3/27
Gocne
R. TsnrsxsLADZE
SECONDARY
COLONISERS
IN
THE BLACK SEA:
SINOPE
AND
PANTICAPAEUM
Iltroduction
Ancient Greek
colonisation
has long
been the
subject
of scholarly
attention and
endeavour,
but
much remains to be
donel. Greek colonial
activity
in
the Archaic and
Classical
periods
produced
about
230 colonies
and settlements
outside
East
Greece
and the Greek
mainland2,
between
75 and
90
of them around
the
Black Sea3. Black Sea
colonisation
is
ofrather
late
date
and
is
connected
mainly
with
Ionia and
its
main city,
Miletusa.
Be-
fore examining
the two
parbicular
cases
of
Sinope
in the southern
and
Panticapaeum
in
the
norbhern
Black
Sea,
I shall address some
general
considera-
tions
and
methodological
problems.
In
recent
years,
the terminology
to
be
used,
especially
for
describing
the
colonisation
process
itself,
has
become one
of
the
most keenly debat-
ed
topicss.
This
has
implications
for our
under-
standing
of secondary
colonisation
and
what
we
mean by
it.
Without
going
into detail,
terms
such
as
migrationo, Greek
overseas settlement7,
apoikisations,
kleroukhisatione,
etc.
have
been
proposed
in
place
of, or
in
partial
substitution
I
would
like to express
my
gratitude
to
Prof. M. Lombardo
for inviting
me
to
participate
in
this
most
stimulating
con-
ference and
for the hospitality
he
and
his colleagues
extend-
ed to me.
My thanks also
go
to
Prof. Sir John
Boardman and
Dr. J.G.F.
Hind for
their
comments on
this
paper.
1
For the
latest summary of the state
of our
knowledge
on Greek colonisation,
see
TsntsxutADzn
2006a;2007b;
see
also
Dp Axcnlrs 2007 and
2009.
I
am
most
grateful
to F.
De
Angelis for allowing
me sight and use
of the
manuscript of
his forthcoming
article.
z
llwsoN, Nrni-spN
2004,
p.
152.
The inventory contains aI-
together
279
colonies,
50 of
which
were situated
in Hellas. Dif-
ferent
publications
give
different
numbers of
Greek colonies or
overseas settlements.
John Graham
listed
139 founded be-
tween 800
and 500
BC
(Gnerreu
1982,
pp.
160-62); R. Osborne
(OssoRNr
1996,
pp.
1.2L-25) lists
146
from the beginning ofthe
Dark Age to the
end of the
Archaic
period;
G.R.
Tsetskhladze
(Tsnrsrcr-qlzo
2006a,
pp.
lxvii-bL{iii)
has
149,
all from the
Ar-
chaic
period.
T.
Figueira's chapter on Classical
colonisation
lists
25
Athenian Classical colonies,
7 Athenian
kleroukhies and
47
instances
ofAthenian
re-colonisation
(FIGLTIRA
2008, tabls.
1-
3).
3
The number 75
is
given
by
Seneca
(.He|u.,7,2);90
by
for,'colonisation'.
There is no
general
agreement
about
which term(s) to
use
and what
meaning to
impute to
it. How
far
any
term
may adequately
reflect
reality
has
also
been doubted.
Maybe
we
are
spending
too
much time examining
words
and
not enough considering
the
actual
evidence.
It
is
more
important to
understand
the
process
that
all
have
called
colonisation,
even if we
are
somewhat
unsatisfied
with
the term.
It
seems
to
be
the best
we havelo.
Further
effort
has
been
devoted
to
classifiring
the
initial colonies
-
were
Lhey
poleis,
or
emporia,
or
just
simply
apoilziaill?
Anachronistically,
we
continue
to
use sources
ofthe Classical
period
and
later to do
this.
There are exactly the
same
prob-
lems in classifying secondary
colonies.
Some
be-
lieve
that
secondary colonies
were always
poleis,
but
in reality
many
were
(jtrst)
emporial2.
The earliest colonial
foundation
in
the
Mediterranean
was
Pithekoussai
(in
about the
middle of
the
Sth century BC
or
soon
after-
wards), and
within
another
50-75
years
all
ma-
jor
colonies were
establishedl3. But this
was
not
Pliny
(NI/,
V, 112).
These numbers are
most
probably
exag-
gerations
and
include Hellenistic and
later foundations
(see,
for
example,
Hwo 1999).
In
the Copenhagen
Inventory, 53
Archaic and Classical
foundations are
listed.
Another
24 are
given
as
pre-Hellenistic
settlements
not attested as
poleis
(Arnau.
HrNo,
TsrrsrHreozn 2004).
a
On Greek
colonisation of the
Black Sea and Greek
set-
tlements
around
it,
see
TsnrsxHLADZE
1994;1998;2002;
2003; forthcoming a;
Awau, Htwn,
TsersxHLADzE 2004.
5
See,
for example,
Tsprsxnletzo 2006a,
pp.
xxv-xxviii,
with bibliography.
6
See,
for
example,
Tsptsxnr,elzo
2003,
p.
130.
7
As in the title of
Tsrrsxnulzo
2006b.
8
DE ANGELIS
2009.
s
Dn ANcor,rs
2009.
10
Wurrr-sv
2001,
p.
I25.
11
TsrtsxHlanzn 2006a,
pp.
xxxviii-xlii, with
bibliogra-
phy.
On
thepoljs
for
the
latest, see
H-qNSsN
2006a; 2006b.
12
For
the
latest
on
the
meaning of emporion,
see
HANSEN
2006c.
13
For a brief conspectus
of Greek
colonies and settle-
ments
in
the
Mediterranean and
the Black Sea,
see Tsot-
sKHLADZE
2006a,
pp.
lxiilxvi.
On Greeks
in Itaiy and Sicily,
see GRrco
2006; n'AcosrINo
2006; DoMiNcuEZ
2006a.
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
4/27
230 Gocha R. Tsetskhladze
the end of colonisation.
Many
further
colonies ap-
peared
in
the
first
half
to
middle
of
the 7th century
and
later.
These
were
often
what
we
call
'sec-
ondary
colonies'- which
means
that the earlier
colonies
had
expanded
and were now establishing
their
own colonial
off-shoots.
The
reasons
for this
were many and various: through
natural
growth
or
the
arrival
of a
new
wave of settlers,
the
origi-
nal
colony
might
no longer
be able
to
support
its
population;
alternatively
a
colony,
from
a
combina-
tion
of
economic
and
political
reasons,
might
seek
to
expand
its influence
through
a
gradual penetra-
tion
of
the
lands of the local
population,
whether
peaceable
or
forcible.
In
other
instances,
particular
local
circumstances
may have
produced particular
local responses.
Much of our attempt
to
understand
secondary
colonisation
has focused
on developments
in
south-
er"n
Italy
and Sicilyla.
This is not
surprising:
these
are the
most intensely
studied
regions
of
the
colo-
nial
world, and a broad spectrum of
evidence ex-
ists.
Other
areas
witnessed
secondary colonisation
as well,
but
here much
work
remains to
be done.
The
work
and
results
of
our
Italian colleagues can
provide
an instructive model15.
The
Black
Sea
As
I
noted
above,
up
to
75-90 colonies
were
es-
tablished here, mainly by Ionians
(fig.
1).
Of
these
only about
15 were
major
primary
settlements;
the
others were
small
towns, villages,
fortresses
or
harbours
whose
names
are
known to
us
principal-
ly
from
various
written sources,
about which
we
seldom
have
archaeological data,
or
whose
loca-
tions
remain
unknown
(as
is
the
case,
for
example,
of
the
southern
Black
Sea
where 85
places
are
named,
many
of them
mentioned in connection
with the
voyage of the
Argonauts
to Colchis)16.
It
is
obvious that
not
all
of
these
small
settlements
were the
results
of
initial
colonisation.
It is
incon-
ceivable that
Ionia,
especially
Miletus,
could
estab-
1a
See, for
instance, DouiNcupz 2006a,
pp.
283-311.
ls
See
the
papers published
in the
present
volume.
r6
For
a discussion of written sources, see
Avnelt, HINI,
Tsprsxnleozn
2OO4,
pp.
924-31.
r7
See,
for
example, LoMeeRoo
1999;
Monrl
2006;
Dol,riNcusz 2006b.
18
For
the
establishment of these
cities,
see Tsnr-
SKHLADZE 19941 Avnanr, Hrso, Tsr:rsrnLADz,E 2004.
re
See A. Avram's
paper
in the
present
volume and HtNo
1998; SaenrxrN 1998; Avnau, HrNo, Tsnrsxnmnze 2004,
pp.
933-34; 941-44; 955-58.
20
Mentioned
in
Hdt.,
I,76,1; Xen., An.,
Y, 5,7-8;
Aen.
lish
so
many. We should remember that Ionian
colonies existed
in
the West
as well1?.
We
need
to
explain
how
these
other
settlements
came to
exist. The major initial
colonies around
the
Black
Sea
were,
starting
in
the west
and mov-
ing clock-wise, Apollonia
Pontica,
Odessos,
Histria,
Olbia,
Theodosia, Nymphaeum, Panticapaeum,
Phanagoria,
Hermonassa, Dioscurias,
Gyenos,
Phasis,
Amisus, Sinope and Heracleia
Ponticals.
Chersonesus
in
the
Crimea and
Callatis in
the
west
became
major
colonies
from
the
Classical
pe-
riod,
but they
were secondary colonies of
Heracleia
Ponticale.
I
shall
concentrate on
two important
colonies, Sinope
in
the
south and
Panticapaeum
in
the north,
and on
their
own secondary colonies.
Sinope
Sinope20 was not
just
one of
the major
colonies
of
the southern
Black
Sea but of
the whole
Pontic
region
(fiqg.
l-2).
There is
little evidence
about
it,
at
least for
the
Archaic
period.
What we have
in
written sources comes mainly
from
the Classical
period
and
later21. All
sources name Miletus as its
mother
city
(Xen.,
An.,
YI,7,75;
D.
S., XIV, 31,2;
Str.,
XII,
3,11,
etc.)
but
do
not
agree about
its
date
of foundation. According
to one
it
was before
756
BC, others
give
631/30
BC. There
is
the
same con-
tradiction
in
modern
writings
too22. Some scholars
consider
that Sinope
was
founded
by Corinthians
in
the
frrst half
of
the
8th
century, others
that
it
was founded in
the
second
half
of
the 7th
century,
and a
third
group
that
it
was
not
until
the
end
of
7th centr"rry.
In
modern
literature
one
can
find
Sinope
I
and
Sinope
II
mentioned -
which
reflects
the
supposed
founding
of Sinope
in two
stages,
be-
fore
and after the Cimmerian
campaign
in Anato-
lia23.
And
that
campaign
is
also
a matter
of debate,
especially now
in
view of the new
chronology
ap-
plied
to
Gordion and
its
'Cimmerian
destruction
level'-
which
has
implications for
the
whole
of
Anatolia2a.
Tact.,40.4;
Arist., fr.
599;
Ps.
Scymn., r'v. 981-97; Plrt., Luc.,
23;
Str., XII,3,11; D. S., XI,3,8; and many others.
21
For
a
discussion ofthe
written
sources, see HIwI 1988;
IvaxrcHrx 1998; Awanr, HrNn, TsnrsxHuqozn 2004,
pp.
960-
61.
22
See, for example, HrNo 1988
and
Ivewrcslx
1998, and
the
literature
they cite.
23
For
the
latest
discussion, see AvRel,r, Hrno, Tsor-
SKHLADZE 2004,
pp.
960-61
(with
literature).
2a
DrVnrns,
Seus,
Vorct
2005;
K-oeluoron
2005,
pp.
10-
55: MUSCARELLa 2003: KEENAN 2004.
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
5/27
Secondary
colonisers
in the
Blach
Sea:
Sinope and
Panticapaeum
ZJ\
TICAPA;UM
. PORTHME
ILUR,AT
THEODOSIA
li4-$,fSilloo'"'
irl'13^-cocctPPra
'\l
h.roerc
ll
-\
HERMONASSA
\
MYRMEKION
KEPOI
KRA
CHERSONESUS
NYMPHAEUM
5EA
gVNCK
HERAKLEA
KERASOS
tJ
/{
7
BYZANTION
a
CHALKEDON
Fig. 1
-
Map of the
Black Sea showing
major
Greek
colonies and
local tribes
(after
Tsrr-
sKHLADZE
1998a,
p.23,
fig. 1).
Fig.2
-
Map
of
Sinop
promontory
(aJter
Doo-
NAN
2004,
p.
5,
fig. 1.4).
rr'b'?rb$9rltt
5
prcHVNARl
-,?
t
TsrKHrSDZrRr.
.t
sr
NoPt
*%"F*i*",;$J,ib1,6
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
6/27
232
Fig.
3
-
Plan
of
Sinop
town
showing approximate
positions
of
some ofthe 1951-53 excavations and later research in Sinop
town: 1.
Early citadel
atea;2. Sinop
kale north-west,
site of
precolonial
port;
3. Kumkapi cemetery; 4. Classical houses
(sth-4th
centuries BC) founded on
bedrock. Roman
homes
with lavish mosaics; 5. Heilenistic
(earliest)
domestic occu-
pation;
6.
Hellenistic
(earliest)
and Roman domestic
habita-
tion; 7.
Hellenistic
temple, earlier deposits
(sacred?)
as early
as 7th century BC; 8. Archaic and later refuse disposal
(after
DooNaN 2004,
p.77,
fig. 4.3).
Unfortunately,
archaeology is not
much help
either2s. Excavation
of
Sinope is
practically
im-
possible
because
it
lies underneath
the
modern
city
(frg. 3).
Rescue
excavations
in
the
city
cen-
tre
in
1951-53
discovered
a
cemetery
-
the
pot-
tery from the
graves
is largely from East
Greece, with a
little
Corinthian,
and
the earliest
dates
from the late 7th
century. Only very
brief
information
has been
published
about
this,
whilst
the material
itself
remains largely
un-
published.
From
the earliest
archaeological ma-
terial so far
found,
Sinope
would
seem
to
have
been
established
in
the
late
7th century.
This
would be
quite
consistent:
the
earliest
Greek
settlements around
the
Black Sea
were
indeed
established in
the
last
third ofthe
7th century26.
For
the
Classical
period
our main
source for
Sinope
is
Xenophon's
Anabasls. From
his
evi-
dence,
taken
in
conjunction
with other sources
25
See, with bibliography, HrNo 1988; DooNaN 2003;
2004;
Avnan, HtNo, TsprsxnLADzE 2004,
pp.
960-63; Tsrt-
SKHLADzE 2O07,
pp.
165-68. In
this
article
I
cite varrous
chapters from GnalrunNos, Pnrnoeoulos 2003;
one should
be aware. however. that most of the contributors were not
fluent
in
Western European languages, and
their
(barely
edited) writings are often opaque.
26
See TsotsrsLADzE 1994,
pp.
115-18.
and inscriptions27,
Sinope
looks
to
be a
typical
Greek
polis,
in
terms of
its
constitution,
after
the
tyrant
Timesileos
was expelled
in
436
BC
by
Athenian
intervention2s,
and
its
political
insti-
tutions,
and
had
very
strong
connections
with
other
Greek Black Sea colonies and
with
cities
in
the
Mediterranean
and elsewhere. The clear-
est
evidence
ofthese connections
is
proxeny
and
honorary
decrees
and
funerary inscriptions.
Sinopeans were
present
in
Panticapaeum,
Cher-
sonesus,
Olbia, Histria,
Tomis,
etc. in
the
pre-
Roman
period.
Beyond the Black
Sea
they were
known
in
Athens
(about
60 Sinopeans
recorded
between the
4th
century BC and
the 3rd century
AD, most
of them between the
4th
and 2nd
cen-
turies
BC),
Chios, Halicarnassus, Rhodes, Tha-
sos,
Eretria,
Histiaea,
Claros and even Egypt.
The number
of
foreigners in
Sinope
(from
Athens,
Cos
and
Callatis)
appears
to
have
been
significantly
less
than the
number
of
Sinopeans
living
abroad,
but this
may
be explained, at
least
in
part,
by the
comparatively
small
num-
ber of inscriptions
so
far
recorded
in
Sinope
-
overall
2232s.
According
to
Strabo
(XII,3,11),
Sinope
built a
naval port
and
this
enabled her to
rule
the local
waters and even
participate
in many
of the
struggles
of the
Greeks beyond
the Black Sea.
Sinope also
helped
the
Persians
and
provided
Xerxes
with
some
ships
(D.
S.,
XI,3,8).
In
the written tradition
(Xen.,
An., IY,
8,22;
Y,3,2;
V4-8),
Sinope
founded
at
least
three of
her own colonies: Cotyora,
Cerasus
and
Trapezus,
eastward of
the
mother
city on the
500
km
of coast
stretching
towards
Colchis.
Cotyora was established,
probably
sometime
in
the 6th century
BC,
in
the land
of
the
local
Tibarenoi,
about 20 km west of
Cape
Carambis,
the shortest crossing of
the Black
Sea
to
the
Crimea
(fig.
1).
According
to Strabo
(XII,3,10):
Cytorum was
once the
emporium
of the Sino-
peans;
and
it
was named after C1'torus, the son
ofPhryxus, as
Ephorus
says. The most and the
27
Xen., An., IY, 8,22; Y,3,2; V,4-B; Polyaen., YII,21.,2;
PhL., Per.,
20;
I
nsc
rip
tio ns of
S
inope, 1-7
;
etc.
28
The only
source
is Phtt., Per.,20. There is
no corrobo-
rating source. The interpretation
ofthis
passage
is
a
matter
of disagreement, as
is
the
reality
of Pericles'
Black
Sea expe-
dition
(see
Tsrrsxnleozn 1997a, with
bibliography).
2e
On
Sinopeans abroad and foreigners in Sinope,
see
Ruscu 2008.
Gocha R.
Tsetskhladze
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
7/27
Secondary colonisers in the
Blach
Sea: Sinope
and Panticapaeum
Fig. 4
-
Map of Colchis with
major
sites
(after
Tsnrsxnu.ozo, Vxut
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
8/27
,aA
is the
case
with
nearly
all
Greek
settlements
along the southern
Black Sea, we
do
not
have
archaeological
materials2.
Thus, the three sub-colonies
mentioned
above
were
probably of 6th-century
date; from
the 5th century they
were
p
oleis
but
paying
trib-
ute to
Sinope,
which could
place
them in the
cat-
egory
of
'dependent
poleis'3s.
Sinopean
expan-
sion continued beyond
the
Archaic period.
Step
by step,
the
Sinopeans extended
their
influence,
certainly
their economic
influence, towards the
eastern
Black
Sea
(Colchis) (fig.
4). During exca-
vation
of
Colchian settlements,
large
quantities
of Sinopean
coins and
pottery
have been
foundsa. One site,
Pichvnari
(on
the outskirts
of
modern-day Kobuleti,
not
far
from
Batumi)35,
yielded the largest number of
Sinopean coins
as
well
as hoards
containing
them36.
Although a
few coins date from the 5th century
BC37, most
are from
360-320
BC38.
Thanks
to the
excava-
tion
of
a
large number of Greek
graves
of
the be-
ginning
of
the 5th
century
BC
and
after,
we
know
that
a
Greek
quarter
existed
within
this
local
settlement.
Whilst
frnds
of
coins or
pottery
alone
are
not sufficient
grounds
for
supposing
that Sinopeans
lived
here
(or
in other
Colchian
or
Greek settlements
in
Colchis)
from the
mid-
dle
ofthe
4th
century,
one
particular
category of
pottery
-
find
indeed
suggests
that
they
did
-
Colchian
amphorae
(previously
described
in
the
literature as
brown-clay
amphorae)3e.
The
shape
of the earliest
Colchian
amphorae,
which
date
from the
mid-4th
to
the
late
3rd century
BC,
echoes
that
of
Sinopean amphorae,
and not only
32
TSETSKHLADzF,
2007
,
pp.
173-76.
33
In
the
terminology introduced by
the Copenhagen
Po-
Iis
Centre
(for
the
latest,
see
HaNsnN, Ntnlsru
2004,
pp.
87-
94).
3a
On the Greek colonisation of
Colchis and trade
rela-
tions between Greeks and
locals,
see
Tsptsxslalzn 1998c,
pp.
5-109.
See
also Avnau, HINn,
Tsnrsxulaozn
2004,
pp.
952-53.
35
On
Pichvnari,
see
Tsorsrglenzr
1999; VIcKERS,
Kexntozn 2004. On a Syracusan
silver coin of co. 340
BC
from Pichvnari,
see
VelsualoMIDZE
2005.
:16
On Sinopean coins
from Pichvnari and other Colchian
sites,
see
DUNDUA,
Durvoue 1999,
pp.
108-10; 2006,
pp.
43-
44;
DuNoue 2004,
pp.
160-61.
37
KaxHrozr, Iesnvru, Vlcxnns
2001,
pp.
283-84.
38
Tsnrsxnlelzu
1999,
pp.
39-40;
109.
3s
On
Colchian amphorae
and amphora stamps,
see
Tsnrsr
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
9/27
Secondary
colonisers
in
the Blach Sea:
Sinope
and
Panticapaeum
235
o12
o5
I
n
Fig. 5
-
Colchian
amphorae:
I.
4th century
BC; II.
Late 4th-3rd
century
BC
(after
Tsntsrcl-mzo,
VNut
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
10/27
v
lr
T
I
lt".r
1
01
6--0q
LYO4J
'
F
p
ol
(\
$
(
0
X
n
/
^
ll5
n
$
'S:w8S
rJi,ry
236
Gocha R.
Tsetskhladze
Fig. 6
-
Colchian amphorae:
I.
Spikes of late 4th-Srd century BC;
II.
Stamps and marks on
Colchian amphorae
(after
Tsrr-
SKHLADZE,
VNuxov
1992,
p.364,
fig.6;
p.3?1,
fig. 13).
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
11/27
Secondary colonisers in
the
Black
Sea:
Sinope and Panticapaeum
Fig.
7
-
Map of the northern
Black
Sea littoral
showing locations
of
finds
of Coichian
amphorae: 1. Panticapaeum;
2.
Nymphaeum;
3.
Patraeus;
4. Chersonesus;
5. Scythian
Neapolis; 6. Kara-Tobe;
7. Chaika;
8.
Zaozernoe;9.
Yuzhno-Donu-
zlavskoe;
10.
Belyaus;
11.
Novo-Fyodorovka; 12. Elizavetovskoe;
13. Myrmekion
(after
TssrsxHLADZE,
VNUKov
1992,
p.
361,
fig.2).
qcn
the
southern
Black
Sea
coast.
It is nearly
1000
km
from
Byzantium
to
Colchis. Despite
this
huge
distance,
there
are few Greek
settlements
and only three major
ones:
Heracleia
Pontica,
Sinope and
Amisus
(frg.
1).
Much
of
the
area
is
unsuited
to
coastal settlements,
with
high
cliffs
falling
straight
into
the sea,
and, as ancient
written
sources
underline
(Xen.,
An.,
YI, 4,2-6),
some
habitable
areas were already
populated
by
locals
hostile towards
the
Greeks. Thus,
the
ar-
eas
for
establishing
chorai
and
agriculture were
limited.
OnIy
one
city, Amisus,
had
access
to the
hinterland
of Central
Anatolia
-
along the
River
Halys.
Sinope and Heracleia Pontica
lacked
anything comparable45.
Strabo
(XII,3,11)
gives
a detailed
description
of
the
geographical
situation of Sinope:
Sinope is
beautifully
equipped
both by nature
and by human foresight,
for
it
is situated
on
the neck of a
peninsula,
and has on either
side
of the isthmus
harbours
and roadsteads
and wonderful
pelamydes-fisheries...
Further-
more,
the
peninsula
is
protected
all round by
a5
On the
geography,
Greek cities and local
population
of
the southern Black
Sea, see Tsotst
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
12/27
238
Gocha
R.
Tsetskhladze
Fig. 8
-
Plan of Panticapaeum.
I. Top Plateau
of
Mount Mithridates;
II. Western Plateau of Mount Mithridates;
III.
'Rock
top'
of
Mount Mithridates;
IV.
'Sec-
ond Armchair' of Mount Mithridates; V Round
tower of western iine of city fortifications, investigated
archaeologically;
VI.
Section ofnorthern
city wall; VII. Church ofJohn the Baptist.
1. Tower
N1 of the acropolis; 2. Basileia
-
the
palace
ensemble of
the Spartocids; 3. Citadel atop the 'FirstArmchair'of
Mount
Mithridates;4. Section ofsouthern
wall ofthe acropolis, investigated archaeologically;5.
Section
offortifications
separating
the Western Plateau from
the
Top Plateau
of Mount Mithridates.
Key: 1. Section of fortifrcations, investigated archaeologically; 2.
Hypothetical section of fortifications;
3. Supposed ancient
coastline
(afber
Tolsrrrov
2002,
p.
40,
frg. 2).
and other
pottery
were
produced4T.
At
the same
time, the
chora
of
Sinope was
not
at all exten-
sive.
Many
years
of investigation by
an Ameri-
can survey
project
have
found
practically
no
rur-
al
settlement of the
Archaic, Classical
or
even
Hellenistic
periodsa8.
In these circumstances,
es-
pecially
before Sinope developed
as a
Pontic
eco-
a7
Genr-qN, TkrucAN 1999; GAH-AN 2004; K\iiqqe TEZ,oR 1999.
48
DooNAN 2004:2006
nomic
power
from
the
4th
century BC,
the
best
means
of
her
securing
economic
and other
devel-
opment
was
to establish her own
sub-colonies
beyond
Amisus
(such
as Cotyora, Cerasus
and
Tlapezus)
-
in
the other direction lay Heracleia's
area of
influenceae.
Later
Amastris
joined
the
competition,
and
we
know
of a
treaty
of
sym-
ae
Sinope was situated not
far
from
Cape Carambis, the
southern
end ofthe shortest crossins ofthe Black
Sea
to the
F-4,9
{fi;2,
g'E-'[:-,
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
13/27
mdchia
concluded between
Sinope
and
Hera-
cleia
Pontica sometime between
35312-346/5
BC,
which
Amastris and
Cromna
are
mentioned
as
being
able to
join
if
they so wish5o.
Panticapaeum
Another colony
to found
its own sub-
colonies
was
Panticapaeumsl, situated
on
the
Cimmerian
Bosporus
in
the northern
Black
Sea
(fig.
1)52, established
by Miletus
in the
570s
BC53.
It was
the
largest settlement
in the
area
(fig.
8). Many ancient
authors
describe
Panticapaeum
but
Strabo
(VII,A,4)
provides
the
fullest
account of
both
the
citv and
events
connected with
it:
Panticapaeum
is
the
metropolis of the
Bospori-
ans and is
situated
at
the
mouth
of
Lake
Maeotis.
... the district
is
everywhere
produc-
tive
of
grain,
and
it
contains
villages,
as well
as
a city
called Nymphaeum,
which
possesses
a
good
harbour.
Panticapaeum
is a hill
inhabit-
ed on
all
sides
in
a
circuit
of
twenty
stadia.
To
the
east
it
has a
harbour, and docks
for
about
thirty ships; and
it
also
has an acropolis.
It is a
colony of
the
Milesians.
For a long time
it was
ruled
as a monarchy by
the
dynasty of
Leuco,
Satyrus,
and
Parisades, as
were
also
all the
neighbouring settlements
near the mouth of
Lake Maeotis
on both
sides,
until
Parisades
gave
over sovereignty
to
Mithridates.
They
were called
tyrants, although
most
of
them be-
Crimea
(Str.,
\rII,4,3),
which was an
important trade
route.
Sinope sought
to control this
traffic through establishing
vil-
Iages not far from the Cape:
'After
Carambis
one comes to
Cinolis, and
to Anticinolis, and
to Abonuteichus,
a small
town, and
to Armene...
It is a village of the Sinopeans
and
has a harbour'(Str.,
XII,3,10).
50
Inscriptions of Sinope,1.
Amastris
is mentioned by
its
former
name, Sesamos. Cromna
was one of
four katoihiai
(the
others
were Sesamos,
C1'torum and
Tieions) which united
as tt'e
polis
Amastris
in
ca. 300-290
BC
(see
Str.,
XII,3,10;
Ai,nq,u,
Hir{r,
Tsorsxut
lltze 2004,
pp.
959-60).
51
Mentioned by
Dem., )OO(V, 31-34;
Ps. Skyl., 68; Str.,
YII,
4,4; Plin.,
NII,
IV
26; IVB6; Amm. Marc.,
XXII, 8,36;
D. S.,
)Oq 24,2;St.Byz., s.u.;
and many others.
52
There is a large literature
on the Greek cities
of the
Cimmerian
Bosporus,
the vast majority of
it
in
Russian and
Ukrainian.
In this article
I
shall cite
mainly the
latest writ-
ings,
particularly
those
in Western European
languages. For
summaries of the
archaeological
investigations containing
comprehensive
bibliographies,
see Ge.rouKEVIa
1971; Kosuo-
r,rNxo, KnuclrKovA,
DoLGoRUKov 1984,
pp.
58-152; Kossr-
LENKo
1992;
TsprsrHr,lnzr
1997b; Avn.lrr.t,
HtNo,
Tsrr-
sKHr-ADZE
2004,
pp.
944-52.
53
On
Panticapaeum,
see
Tolsrrxov 2002;
2003; TnusroR
2002; Ar,nav,
HrNo, TsorsxHL^Dzu2004,
pp.
948-50.
239
ginning
with
Parisades and
Leuco
proved
to be
equitable
rulers.
In
the Cimmerian
Bosporus
there
were five
other major
colonies
(fig.
1):
Nymphaeum5a,
Theodosia55, Phanagorias6,
Hermonassas7 and
Kepoi58.
They are very often
mentioned in
writ-
ten sources,
which
describe
them as
poleis
and
name
their
mother
citiesse.
Various
written
sources
name
a
further
20
urban
settlements
as
situated
hereabouts,
without
providing
any
in-
formation
on their
status and
seldom naming
those who established
them; several
of them
have
not
been
located archaeologically6o.
Not
far from
Panticapaeum are
three
settle-
ments, mentioned several
times
in written
sources
but
also
known
from
archaeological evi-
dence
-
Myrmekion,
Tlritake
and
Porthmeus.
No ancient
author
identifies their
mother cities
or
provides
any
information which
would
allow
us to consider
these settlements
as
independent
poleis.
Myrmekion6l is situated
4
km east of
Panticapaeum
and
covered
an
area
of
about
6
tra
(figg.
1; 9).
It was established
soon
after
Pan-
ticapaeum.
Regular
planning
and temples
date
from the 5th century, and
the city walls
from
the
beginning
of
the
4th, but there was an'acropolis'
with
fortifrcation walls
dating from the second
half of
the 6th
century62.
Tlritake6s
is
11
km
west of
Panticapaeum,
founded
at the
same time as
Myrmekion
(figg.
1;
5a
On Nymphaeum, see Sorolove
2000/0I;2003;
Avnqu,
HrNr, Tsrrsxur,ADZE
2OO4,
p.948.
55
On
Theodosia, see Kervusnrx
2003; Avnarra, HtNo,
TsErsKirLADzE
2004,
pp.
951-52.
56
On
Phanagoria, see KuzNntsov
2001;20O2;2003;
Tsnrsxnlenzp 2002;
Avneu, HrNo, TsnrsxuLADzE
2004,
pp.
650-51.
57
On Hermonassa, see
FrNocpNove 2003;
Avnela, HINI,
Tsrrsxnr-erzn
2004,
p.
945.
58
On Kepoi, see
KuzNntsov 2001; 2002; 2003;
TsBr-
sKHLADzE,
KuzNnrsov 2000; Avnelt,
HIt'to, Tsnrsr
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
14/27
tw
,w
3N
trffi
t3
Fig.9
-
Plan
of
Myrmekion:
1. 6th-5th centuries
BC;2.4tln century
BC; 3.
1st-3rd
centuriesAD;4.
Stone
- paved;5.3rd-1st
centuries
BC
(after
KosHolonxo et
Atn 1984,
p.
128).
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
15/27
24r
econdary
colonisers
in
the Black Sea: Sinope
and
Panticapaeum
\1'
)L'--
l----J
,4
t
t'- :
'r
f)'r
\Y/
n
i\
I
.,,/)
>-.-)s
.v
;r71,
'
/l'
\l
//
7
4
SK
F;\
I
w
,/-)
,
z
tl
\1\
i\1
6,\
Fig. 10
-
Plan of Tlritake:
1. Excavated
area.2. Number
of trenches; 3.
City wall of the 5th
century BC; 4. City
wall of the
Hellcnistic
period;
5.
Walls of buildings
(after
Kossot tlxxo et
Atrr 7981,
p.
129).
'r'l
I
,
.:::si.w
ti"',i*,2
u''4
e'
c.:
r,-- i
i.
. ..-.
I
@
N
wkl
g
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
16/27
9A'
Gocha
R. Tsetskhladze
t'
r
_,_
luj
t
Fig.
11
-
Plan
of
Porthmeus
(aftcr
KosttpLttNt
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
17/27
Secondary colonisers
in
the
Black
Secr: Srnope and
Pan.ticapaeum
^
r
oV
St'.N
OF
'\"
243
Fig. 12
-
Map
of the Kerch
Peninsula
showlng cities
(1),
'small
towns'(2),
rural
settlements
(3),
and earth-
works
and
ramparts
(4)
of
the
European Bosporus
rn
the 6th-5th centuries BC.
Principal
rural settlements:
1. Mys
Zynk;2.
Chokrak-
skii Mys
and
Chokrakskii
Rodnik; 3. Kazantip
(wcst);
4. Andreevka-Yuzhnaya;
5.
Yuzhno-Churubashskoe;
6.
Ceroevka l; 7. Kimmeris-
Kholm;
8.
Chebakskava
Balka: 9. Mys Takil: 10. Zu-
vetnoe;
11.
Kostyrino;
12.
SJyusarevka: 13. Ogonki:
14. Mikhailovkal
15.
Chelyadinovo;
16.
Kras-
naya Gorka;
17. Vasilevka;
18. Aivazovskoe;
1
9.
Tarkhan
(after
MesLrN-
NIKov 2001,
p.248,
fig.
1).
ts
THfoD(xil*
tr=--
|-
o_J
c*fu
a-z
'7-
Ll
caF
r*
g
,'
a.
,
N?.O\
SLA
i
a4
Fig. 13
-
Map
of the
Kerch
Peninsula
showing
local burial
mounds
and
graves
of'thc 6th-5th
cen-
turies
BC:
1. Barrow-
type
burials
of the
early
Scythians: 2.
Burial
grounds
con-
sisting of stone
cists
surrounded by round
stones; 3. Burial
ground
containing
flat
gravcs
at Fron-
tovoe
I
(
afler
M.rsr,nNNrxor,
2001
,
p.250,
fig.2l.
I
g,
a
Kl-
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
18/27
Gocha
R.
Tsetskhladze
13).
In
the
4th
century the
number
increased
dramatically
to
200.
In
these circumstances,
the
three
abovementioned
settlements
might
also
have been
agricultural
and
trading
off-shoots of
Panticapaeum.
For instance,
excavation of
Myrmekion has
revealed several
wine-making
complexes
and, most recently,
a
hoard
of
99
Cyz-
icene electrum coins
found
in a bronze olpe,
all
dating
from
the
Sth century
BC
but
most
proba-
bly buried
in
the earliest
part
of the
4th
century6E.
In the Classical
period
the development
of
the
Cimmerian
Bosporus
took
on
a
completely
differ-
ent
aspect, marked
by
Panticapaeum's
rise to
prominence
as
the central city
of
the region,
exer-
cising expanded
political
and
economic
influence.
The
academic
literature
suggests
that
the
politi-
cal situation
in
the Cimmerian
Bosporus changed
dramatically
from
the
end of
the 6th-beginning of
the 5th
century,
leading
to the
formation
of the
Greek
Bosporan kingdom
under the
leadership
of
Panticapaeum
in
about
480 BC6e.
For
the
first 42
years
it
was
ruled
by
tyrants
of the
Archaeanac-
tid
dynasty,
probably
of
Milesian
origin.
This
was
the
period
when Panticapaeum
tried to incorpo-
rate other Greek cities situated
on
the Kerch
and
Taman Peninsulas.
Despite
almost universal
acceptance
of this
version of
events
and
the
supposed
creation
of
the
Bosporan kingdom
in
co. 480 BC,
things
are
not
as
clear
as
they
seem.
The
only
source
for
all
of
this
is
Diodorus
(XII,
31,1), and his
informa-
tion
invites
a different
interpretationTo. Com-
bined
study of
all
available
evidence
gives
us
grounds
to
question
accepted
opinion;l; it looks
that the
Bosporan kingdom came
into existence
only when
a
new dynasty, the Spartocids,
proba-
bly
of
Thracian
origin,
came
to
power
in Panti-
capaeum
in 436 BC
and
ruled for
over
300
years,
calling themselves
archons
(a
few
ancient
authors describe them
as tyrants
-
Str., VII,4,4,
for
example).
They
consolidated
the
primacy of
Panticapaeum and
the
creation
of
the
kingdom,
but the
process
was
not
completed
until
the
middle-second
half
of
the 4th
century BC
when
Theodosia,
Nymphaeum and Phanagoria, the
cities
most
strongly
opposed
to the
power
of
Panticapaeum,
were
gradually
incorporated,
though only by
force.
Panticapaeum
continued to
establish
sub-
colonies, expanding
its
colonising
activity to
ar-
eas not
far from
the
Taman Peninsula,
known
as the
Asiatic
Bosporus.
First
was Gorgippiat2,
established
on
the
site of
a previous
colony
(Sindice/Sindic
Harbour)
in
the
first
half
of the
4th
century BC
in
the land of the local Sindi
(.fig.
l4);
Gorgippos, brother of
the Bosporan
king,
became its
governor.
This city
was vital
for
Bosporan
rulers:
it
had access to
fertile lands
populated
by
locals. It
started to
mint its
own
coinst3.
In
the
European Bosporus
(eastern
Crimea), Cytaiia,
Akra
and Cimmericum75 were
founded
(figg.
1; 12).
All
were
small,
never
ex-
ceeding 5
ha in
extent;
all
situated
at
35-50
km
from Panticapaeum. These
settlements are very
often mentioned
in
ancient
written
sources
but
their
political
status is never described.
Excava-
tion
has shown
that
they
had
stone
buildings
and
fortification
systems,
the
latter
from the
4th-3rd
centuriesT6.
Another kind
of settlement,
established by
the
Bosporan kings
in
the
lands
of
the
local
pop-
ulation in
the
Kuban
area, deserves
our
atten-
tion. The Kuban is not far from the
Taman Penin-
68
Myrmehion. Hoord 2004.
6e
On
the
Bosporan kingdom, see
G.tlltrxnvrc
1971,
pp.
32-169; HrNl 1994; Tsnrsxsr,eozs 1997b,
pp.
77-80.
i0
See,
for
example, Vestlrv
19921 ZAvolKrN 2001.
;1
I shall not
provide
a icngthy discussion of thc dctails
here. I am
preparing
a
paper,
'The
Greek
Bosporan Kingdom:
Regionalism and Globalism in the Black Sea', which address-
es
this
matter. It will
appear
in F. Dr Arcn,ts
(ed.),
Regional
i,sm an,cJ Globalism in An.tiquitl,
(the
Proceedin.gs of an in.ter-
national cortference hekl
in
Van.couuer
in
Morch
20071
. See al-
so
HIsl
1994,
pp.
488-502 and Sepnrr
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
19/27
Seconclary
colonisers
in the
Black Sect: Sinope
and
Panticapaeum
o-()o
'qr
,^tr,
f
o
oo8o
,
I
1
I
l'
I
I
I
I
I
I
- -
--:=:>
I
f
u
a
Fig. 14
-
Plan ofGorgippia.
I.
PIan of
trench'City':
1.
Remains
of
4th-3rd centuries
BC; 2. Remains
of
2nd
century
BC;
3.
Remains of
1st centuryAD;
4.
Remains
of
2nd-Srd centuries
AD; 5.
Tiled
paths.
II. Situation
ofthe
excavated
trenches
in the territory
oi'the
modern-day city
ofAnapa
(after
Kossrr-ENKo
e,
Attt
1984,p.
139).
&
FiR
@
te
[f,
II
to"?
6a
o
t'::
i"i
_
4,,
J08x
o
{,
l"i
tt'a
-'o
''
I
i 'a
.7s
a'.
1ri/tolt
i
;)
,,,
:
o
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
20/27
246
Gocha R.
Tsetskhladze
sula;
a
very
fertile area, especially
for
growing
grain,
inhabited
by a
settled
local
population77.
From
the
end of
the 5th century,
it
was
a
policy
of
the
Bosporan kingdom
to
incorporate
these
local
peoples
and
their territory.
By the beginning of the
4th
century
this
had
been achieved,
peacefully
in
the main. This
marked,
for the
Classical
period,
the
end of expansion
by the
Bosporan Greeks
into
local
territory
(figg.
15-16),
which had, in reality,
started
from
the
first half
of the Sth century,
frrst
by
the
insertion
of
so-called
Bosporan
emporia
into
local
settlements, and then,
from
the
4th
century,
by the
establishment of
administrative centres
by
the
Bosporan
kings. An example
of the
first is
Elizavetovskoe
city-site,
on
the
borders
of
the
Bosporan
kingdom
and
the
lands
ofthe Scythians,
Maeotians and
the
Sauromatians7s.
In
reality this
settlement was divided
in
two:
one
part
populated
by
Greeks,
the other by
locals.
The
Greek
quarter
has
given
us
Greek-t1pe stone
buildings;
in
the
lo-
cal
quarter
we
find subterranean dwellings.
Later,
a
wall
was erected
to divide the two
parts.
For
the
later
period
we
have
exactly the
same
kind
of set-
tlement
and
division at
Tanais7e.
established
in
the
later
3rd century
BC,
according to Strabo
(X1,2,3)
by'the Greeks
who held
the
Bosporus':
On
the river
and
the
lake
is
an
inhabited
city
bearing the
same
name, Tanais; it was founded
by
the
Greeks
who held
the
Bosporus.
Recent-
ly, however, it was sacked by
King
Polemon
be-
cause
it
wouid
not
obey
him.
It was
a common
emporium,
partly
of the
Asiatic
and
the
Euro-
pean
nomads, and
partly
of those who navigat-
ed
the
lake
from
the
Bosporus,
the
former
bringing
slaves,
hides,
and such
things
as
no-
mads
possess,
and
the latter
giving
in ex-
change
clothing, wine, and the other things
that
belong to civilised
life.
Semibratnee
(about
35 km
north
of Gorgippia)
is an
example of a Bosporan
administrative
centre
established
in
local
territory.
Until
1985
we
had
only the
archaeological evidence of
this
site,
which
demonstrated the
existence of a Greek-t5,pe
fortifi-
cation
system
and
stone
architecture
from
the 5th
i?
On the
local
population
ofthe
north-eastern Black Sea
littoral.
sce
Tnnnxnol.e et Attt 2OO6.
i8
On Elizavetovskoe,
see
MlRt
ttxx,
r,
ZI't'NIKo\-, Kopvl,rtr'
2000.
ie
On
Tanais,
scc Arsoxvnl-.q.
2003; BorrclER,
FonxesrnR,
ARsRr'Rlr
2002; KosHrr-r:Nxo, MeRtNot'rrcrl 2000.
so
GoRoNcH,qnovsKrr
2004.
sr
SEG XL\TII,
p.
1027; XLIII,
p.
515; Gnuu.u
2002,
pp.
95-99.
centurys0.
Then an
inscription
\Mas
found
which
proved
what had long
been suspected
-
the
settle-
ment
was
re-founded
by
the
Bosporan
king
Leucon
I
in
the early
4th
century after the incorporation of
the
area
populated
by
the
Sindi
into
the
Bosporan
kingdom. The
settlement's ancient
name was
Labrys/Labry.ta:
In
accordance with
his
vow,
Leucon,
son
of
Satyrus, archon
of
Bosporus
and
Theodosia,
set
up
this
statue for
Phoebus Apollo-in-
Labrys,
the
guardian
of
the city
of
the
Labry-
tans,
having
driven out by battle and
force
from the land of the
Sindians Octamasades,
the son of Hecateus, king of
the Sindians, who,
after expelling his father from his
ancestral
rule.
confined
r?r
him
in this city"r.
Sinope,
Panticapaeum
and Heracleia
PonticaE2
are
not
the only
secondary colonisers
but they
are
the
most
significant
ones.
Apollonia
Pontica estab-
lished
afew
emporia, as did
Histria,
etc.83
Conclusions
As
this
survey demonstrates, the vast majori-
ty
of the
75-90 colonies
around the Black
Sea
were
the result
of secondary colonisation
by the
first wave of major colonies.
In
many
cases
it
is
difficult
to
identify
the nature
of
these
secondary
colonies
-
independent
poleis,
dependent
poleis,
emporia, etc.
-
and
also
the
reasons
for
their
es-
tablishment.
We
can
conclude that Sinope estab-
lished
colonies
and settlements
for
economic
rea-
sons,
as too,
it
seems
most
likely,
did
Pantica-
paeum
in
the Archaic
period.
From
the later 5th
century, when
the
tyrants
of
Panticapaeum
es-
tablished the Bosporan kingdom,
expansion
was
a
political
as
much
as
an
economic concern, a
re-
sponse
to its own
political
development
and
to
lo-
cal
political
and ethnic circumstance
(secondary
colonisation,
like
primary,
depended
much
on
lo-
cal conditions).
The inclusion
in
the
kingdom
of
the
local populations
living
near
the
Taman
Peninsula
was achieved
through the
establish-
ment
of
Bosporan
emporicr
or
political
and ad-
ministralive
centres in
Lheir
territorvEa.
52
See A. Avram's
paper
in
the
present
volume.
83
On emporia around Black Sea, see HINo 1995/96;
1997;
rrr.;
Bonn 2002; Tsnrsxnr.anzn
1998a,
pp.
40-41; Tsnr-
SKHLADZE 2000.
Ea
The expansion of Panticapaeum in the Classical
peri-
od has some resemblance
to Syracuse and
its
expansionist
politics
(see,
lbr
example, DourNcuoz 2006a,
pp.
269-75;284-
92. 324-42:
Du ANc+ELrs,
G.tnslal
2006).
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
21/27
Secondary
colonisers
itt the
Black
Sea:
Sinope ctnd
Panticapaeum
ROYAL SCYTHIANS
247
Fig.
15
-
Ethnic
map of the
north-
eastcr-n
Black Sea
region
in the 6th-
5th
centuries
BC:
1. Greek
cities;
2.
Population of thc
coastal arca
of'the
Kerch Peninsula
identified
with
burials
in
stone;
3.
Dandarii;
4. Tauri;
5. Sindi;
6. Scythi-
ans
(adapted
from
MeslnNNrKC)\'
1981,
p.
41).
Fig.
16
-
Ethnic
map
of
the
north-
eastern
Black Sea
region
in
the
4th
century
BC:1.
Bosporan cities;
2.
Population
of
some
coastal ar-
eas
of the
Kerch
Peninsula;
3.
Agrarian Scythi-
ans;
4. Sindi;
5.
Nomadic
Scythi-
ans;
6. Direction
of Sarrnatian
pen-
etration; 7.
Bor-
ders of the
Bospo-
ran kingdom
(adapted
from
Mesr,r.;NNIKo\r
1981,
p.
64).
m
m
m
-]
g
N
mm
2
SEA
OF
AZOV
SLACK
SEA
MAEOTAT
TARP
?HATEI
KERKETI
K ERKETI
TORFTI
SARMATIA
TAiFd
\[f
psa
rir
q
,
rt
w
N
m
N
mm
w
I
1
o
7
q
?
\
I
I
i,
a{$\
Dosx
t?
f
-t
,
t
,
/
I
I
"-:.
>
z
v)
ELACK
SNA
TO
R
ETI
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
22/27
248
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aenauov,
ZavoyxrN
2003
Ar,nxsnnvr
2002
Ar,nxssnva
2003
A_nsnuypve 2003
Ar,nan,
Hrul,
TsnrsxHlelzq
2004
BOtrcon, FoRNa.srnn,
AnssN'ove
2002
CoNolrcr 1998
Corvovrcr 2005
o'AcosrrNo
2006
Do ANcnr,rs
2007
Dn
ANcor,rs
2009
Dn Arcnr,rs,
Gansrat
2006
DE
BOER 2OO2
A.P.
AenaMov,
A.A.
Zavovrurv,
Patraeus
-
Cimmerta
-
Ac hilleion, in
Gnelrr'rotvos,
Pnrnopour,os
2003,
pp.
1103-
R/
E.M.
Arexser.ve.
Gorgippi a.
in FonN,A.srpn,
BOrrcsn
2002,
pp.
92-112.
E.M. Are
rstwn.
Gorgippia.
in GneMNrnNos,
PETRopouLos
2003,
pp.
957-1006.
T.M. Ansntveve.
?anars,
in
GnauunNos,
Pntnoeour,os
2003,
pp.
1047-1102.
A. Avnau,
J.
HrNn,
G. Tsnr-
SKHLADZE,
The
Bla,ch
Sea
Area, in
HANSEIT,
Nrnr,spN
2004,
pp.924-73.
B.
BorrcEn.
J.
Fonruaslen,
T.
AnsnN'nva,
Tanais ctm Don,
in
FonNasrnn,
BorrGER
2002,
pp.
69-85.
N. Colvovrcr, Histria
VIII.
Les
Timbres
Amphoriques
2:
Sinope,
Bucharest
1998.
N. CoNovrct,
The
Dynomics
of
Tlctde
in
TYansport Amphoras
from
Sinope,
Thasos
and
Rho-
dos on the
Western
Blaclz
Sea
Coast:
a, Compctratiue Ap-
proach,
in
V.F. SroLea, L.
HervNnstal
(edd.1,
Chronolo-
gies
of
the
Black
Sea
Arect
in
the
Period
c.
400 100 BC,
Aarhus
2005,
pp.
97-118.
B. r'Acosrmo,
The
First
Greeks in
Italy
,
in Tsnr-
SKHLADZE
2006b,
pp.
201-38.
F. Dn
Aucnlrs,
Greek and
Phoenician
Colonization,
in D.
Burssnnnr
(ed.'),
The
Oxford
Companion
to
World
Explo-
ration,
vol.1,
Oxford
2007,
pp.
357-60.
F. Dp
ANcor,s,
Colonies and
Colonization,
in G.
Boys-
SroNns,
B.
Gnazrosr, P. Vesu-
Nr.q.
(edd.),
The
Oxford Hand-
book of
Hellenic
Studies, Ox-
ford 2009,
pp.
48-64.
F.
Dn
Axcnr,rs, B.
Gansrao,
Euhemerus
in
Context,
ClAnt,
25,2,2006, pp.27I-42.
J.
rn Bonn,
Apollonia Pontica
DnVRins,
Seus,
Vorcr
2005
DouiNcunz
2006a
DouiNcunz
2006b
DooNAN
2002
DooNaN
2003
DooueN
2004
Doorver 2006
DuNoul
2004
DuNlua,
DuNlu.q,
1999
and
its
emporia,
ports
ctf
trade?,
in
M. Feulor,
A.
Fn.qyssn,
E.
Gnrw
@dd.),
Pont-
Euxin
et
Commerce, Besanqon
2002,
pp.125-38.
K. DaVnrns,
G.K.
S,qr'rs, M.M.
Votcr, Gordion re-dating,
in
A.
QrlrNcrnodr,u,
G.
DaReysHrnn
Gdd.),
AnatolicLn
Iron
Ages
5:
Proceedings
of the
Fifth
Anato-
lian
lron
Ages
Colloquium
held
cfi Van, 6-10 August
2001,
London 2005.
pp.
45-46.
A.J.
Dcrnirvcunz,
Greeks
in
Sicily, in
TsnrsKHr,llzs
2006b,
pp.
253-357.
A.J. Dor'tilvcusz,
Greeks
in
the
Iberian Peninsulo,
in Tspr-
SKHLADZE
2006b,
pp.
428-50e.
O.P. Doorurtr,
Production
in
a
Pontic
landscctpe:
the
hinter-
land
of
Greek
and
Roman
Sinope,
in M.
Faulor,
A.
Fnrvssn,
E. GoNv
Gdd,.l,
Pont-
Euxin
et Commerce, Besanqon
2002,
pp.185-98
O.P. DooNen,
Slnope, in
GRaulrrnNos,
Pnrnoeour,os
2003,
pp.
1379-1402.
O.P. DooNaN,
Slnop
Lctnd-
scapes.
Exploring
Connection
in
the Blaclz
Sea,
Philadel-
phia
2004.
O.P. DooNer, Exploring
Com-
munity
in
the
Hinterland
of
a
Blaclz
Sect
Port,
in
P.G.
Bn nn,
V.F.
Srolen
tedd.r.
Surucying
the
Greeh
Chora.
The
Black
Sea Region in
a
Comparatiue
Perspectiue,
Aarhus
2006,
pp.
47-58.
G. Durvoue, Hoards
of Foreign
Coins
of
the
Classical Period
lrom
Colchis
4th
century B.C.-
lth
century A.D.),
Journal of
Georgian Archaeology,
7,
2004,
pp.
160-69.
G.
Duuoua.,
T. DuNoua,
Zes
relations
dconomiques
de
la
Colchide
aux
dpoques
ar-
chcttque
et classique
d'aprds le
matdriel
numismatique, in
O.
LoRoxrpANlDZE,
P.
Laveque
(edd.),
Za
Mer
Noire. Zone
de
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
23/27
Secondary
colonisers
in the
Black
Sea.
Contacts,
Besangon
1999,
pp.
107-16.
S
ino
p
e and P anticap aeum
DuNDUA, Duxlur,2006
G.
Dullue, T.
DuNnua., Geor-
GnatuunNos,
gian
Numismatics
I, Tbilisi
Pprnopoul,os 2003
2006
tin
Georgian:
summary in
English).
Fplospnv
1999
N.F.
Fnlospnv,
Classification
des timbres
astronomiques
de
Gnnco
2006
Sinope,
in
Y.
Ga.nlaN
(ed.),
Production
et
Commerce
des
Amphores
Anciennes en
Mer
Noire,
Aix-en-Provence
1999,
HeNsnN 2006a
pp.27-48.
Frcunrna 2008
T.
FrcunlR.t, Greeh
Colonisa-
tion
in
the Classical
Period,
in
G. R.
TsB'TsKHLADZE
(ed.),
Greek
Colonisation.
An
Ac-
count of
Greeh Colonies
and
Other
Settlements
Ouerscas,
vol.
2, Leiden/Boston
2008,
pp.427-523.
S.I. FINocnNovl,
Hermonassa,
in GneulmNos,
PETRoPouLos
2003,
pp.
1007-46.
J. FonNasmn,
B.
Boncnn
(edd.),
Das
Bosporanische
Reich,
Mainz2002.
V.F. Ga.louxEVIC,
Das Bospo-
ranische Reich,
Berlin
1971.
Y. GanLaN
(ed.'),
Production
et
commerce
des amphores
a.n-
ciennes
en Mer Nolre, Aix-en-
Provence
1999.
Y.
Ganr,aN,
2004:
Les timbres
cdramiques Sinopeens
sur
am-
phores
et
sur tuiles
trouuds d.
Sinope:
Prdsentation
et cata-
logue,Paris
2004.
Y. GanlaN,
I. TnrlrcaN,
Pre-
midres
fouilles
de
I'atelier am-
phorique
de
Zeytinlilz
1 d Si-
nope,
in GelleN
1999,
pp.
21-
25.
HeNspN,
NrplsnN 2004
GenuN,
TxntceN
1999
GonoNcHanovsKrl
2004 V.A. GonoNcHARovsKII,
Prob-
Htm
1995/96
lems
of the
Chronology
of
Semibratnee City-Site,
in
V.Y
Zunv
et
Azli
(edd.),
Bosporan
Phenomenon:
Problems of
the
Chronology
ct,nd
Dating
of
HINo
1997
Monuments,
part
2, St
Pe-
tersburg
2004,
pp.56-60
(in
Russian).
A.J.
GneH.qv,
The colonial
ex-
pansion
of
Greece,
in
Cam-
bridge
Ancient
History III.3,
2nd
ed., Cambridge
1982,
pp.
83-162.
A.J. Gnarrav,
Thasos
and
the
249
FINOGENOVA
2OO3
FoRN.+srEn,
BOTTGER
2002
Ga.rluxpvri
1971
Genr,aN
1999
G.qnr,eN
2004
Gneruu
1982
Har,{snN 2006b
HaNspN 2006c
HrNl
1988
Hrr,ID
1994
Bosporan Kingdom,
AWE I,1,
2002,
pp.87-101.
D.V. Gn,cMMENos,
E.K.
Pnrnopout
os
(edd.),
Ancient
Greeh
Colonies
in
the
Black
Sea,
2
vols.,
Thessaloniki
2003.
E.
Gnnco, Greelz
Colonisation
in Southern
ltaly:
A
Method-
ological
Essay.
in Tser-
SKHLADZE
2006b,
pp.
169-200.
M.H. HaNspN,
Polis. An Intro-
duction
to the
Greek City-
Srate,
Oxford
2006.
M.H.
HaNsnN, The Shotgun
Method. The
Demography of the
Ancient
Greek
City-State Cul-
t ur e,
C olttlrrbia,
Mis souri.rlon-
don 2006.
M.H.
HaNsprv,
Emporion.
A
Study
of the Use
and Meaning
of
the
Term
in
the
Archaic
and
Classical
Periods,
in
Tsptsxnl.q.lzn
2006b,
pp.
1-
39.
M.H.
HausaN,
T.H. Ntelsex
(edd.),
An
Inuentory of
Archa'
ic
and Classical
Poleis: An In-
uestigcttion Conducted
by
The
Copenhagen
Polis
Centre
for
the
Danish
l{ational
Research
Foundation,
Oxford
2004.
J.G.F.
HrNl,
The
Colonisation
of
Sinope
and
the
South-East
Blach Sea
Area,
in
O.D. Lonn-
KTPANIDZE Gd.),
Local Ethnopo-
litical
Entities of the
Blach
Sea
Littoral in
the
7th-4th
Centurtes
BC,
Tbilisi
1988,
pp.
207-23.
J.G.F.
HrNn, The Bosporan
Kingdom. )n
Cambridge
An-
cient
History
VI,
2nd
ed.,
Cambridge
1994,
pp.
476-517.
J.G.F.
HINI,
Traders
and
P
o
r
ts
-
of- Tl ade
(Ernp
or
oi
and
Emporia)
in
the
Black
Sea
in
Antiquity,
MN, II,
1995/96,
pp.
113-126.
J.G.F. HINI,
Colonies and
Ports-of-Tfade
on
the
North-
ern
Shores
of
the
Black Sea:
Borysthenes,
Kremnoi
and
"Other
Pontic
Emporia" lz
Herodotus,
in T.H. Ntrlspt'l
(.ed.),
Yet More
Studies
in
the
Ancient
Greek Polis,
Stuttgart
1997,
pp.
107-16.
J.G.F.
Htwo.
Megorian
nasal'r 2002
Hrr,rl 1998
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
24/27
250
HrNo 1999
HrNl
2005
Inscriptions of Sinope
2004
IvaNrcsrN
1998
KAC 2003
I(a,xailzo,
Iasuvrlr,
Vrcxrns 2001
Kaxurlzr,
Taverrl,q.rsuvrr,r
2005
K,q,ssae
Tnzcon
1999
Colonisct.tion
in the
Western
Half of
the
Black
Sea
(Sister-
and
Dctughter-Cities of Herak-
leia),
in
TsersxHleoze
1998,
pp.
131-52.
J.G.F.
HrNl,
?he Dates
and
Mother Cities of the Blach Sea
Colonie
s
(
P
s e udo
-
S
cy mnus
and the
Pontic Contact Zone),
in
O.D.
LonoKrpeNrnzi,, P.
L6vreus
(edd.),.Lo
Mer Noire.
Zone
de
Contacts,
Besanqon
1999,
pp.25-34.
J.G.F.
Hrr'rl, The Tltpes on the
Phasian Siluer Coins of
the
Fifth-Fourth
Centuries
BC
(The
"Kolkhidki"
of Western
Georgia,),
NC,
165, 2005,
pp.
r-74.
D.H.
FnoNcH
(ed.),
Inscrt,p-
tions of Sinope
I, Bonn 2004.
A.I.
IvaNrcHrx, Die Grtindung
uon Sinope
und
die
Probleme
der
Anfangsphase der
griechischen
Kolonisation
des
Schwarzmeergebieles,
in
TsnrsxnlalzE
1998b,
pp.
297
-
330.
V.I.
Kec,
A
New
Chronology
for
the Ceramic Stamps
of
Herakleia
Pontihe, in
P.G.
Brlro,
J.M.
Ho;ro,
V.F.
Sror,-
ea
(edd.),
The
Cauldron of
Ariantes.
Studies
prese.nte,d to
A.N.
Sceglou
on
the
occasion
of
his
70th birthday,
Aarhus
2003,
pp.
261-78.
A.
Kaxgrlzn, I.
Ilsnvrlr, M.
VICxoRS, Siluer Coins
of
Blach
Sect
Coastal
Cities
from
the
Fifth
Century
BC
Necropolis
at
Pichunari, NC,
767,
2007,
pp.252-57.
A. K.qrcrrozn, G. Tavavarsrnrylr,
Coins
of
the
Bosporan King-
dom
from
the
Pichunari
Greeh
Necropolis,
in
V.Y.
Zunv et
Ar,tt
(edd.),
Bosporan
Phenom-
enon:
Problems of Correlation
of
Written
ctnd
Archaeological
Sources,
St
Petersburg 2005,
pp.
371-75
(in
Russian).
D.
Kasser
Tnzcon, TJ,pes am-
phoriques
fabriquds
d Demirci
prds
de Sinope,
in
GlnlRN
1999,
pp.
777-24.
Y.A. KervusutN
Theodosia, in
GRelrunNos, Pornolout
os
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze
Kner,sornn 2005
KrnNaN 2004
KOSHELENKO 1992
KosHolnxxo,
Knuclrxova,
Dolconuxov
1984
Kosuor-oNxo,
KuzNnrsov
1996
Kosuor-oNxo,
KuzNprsov
1998
Kosuor-oNxo,
M-mwovrrcu 2000
KuzNorsov 2001
Kuzrqnrsov 2002
KUZNETSOV 2OO3
LolrnARlo 1999
2003,
pp.
645-706.
L. Kpar,Hopnn
(ed.),
The
Ar-
chaeology
of
Midas and
the
Phrygians.
Recent Work at
Gordion,
Philadelphia
2005.
D.J. KnnNaN,
Radiocarbon
Dates
from
lron
Age
Gordion
Are
Confounded,
AWE, 3, 1.,
2004,
pp.100-03.
G.A.
KoSHnLENKo
(ed.),
Es-
says on the Archaeology ctnd
History
of the
Bosporus,
Moscow 1992
(in
Russian).
GA
I{rsrm,urxo,
LT Knucr,u
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
25/27
M.qslnxNrxov 1981 A.A. Mesr,pNNrKov, Popula-
tion of
the
Bosporctn
State
in
the 6th-2nd
Centuries BC,
Moscow 1981
(in
Russian).
1\[A.sr,nNNrxov
2001
A.A.
Mesr,nNNixov,
Some
Questions
Concerning
the
Early
History
of the
Bosporan
State
in the
Light
of Recent
Arc
h aeo lo
g
ic al I nu
e
s
tig atio n s
in lhe Eastern
Crimea,
in
Tsnrsxnlalzn
2001,
pp.
247
-
60.
Masl,nNNrxov 2003 A.A. MaslpNNIKov,
Rural
ter-
ritory
of
Ancient
Cimmerian
Bosporus,
in
GneultnNos,
Pnrnopour,os 2003,
pp.
1155-
1274.
Mornv2003 Y.A. MotBv, Kyta, in
Gneu-
MENos, Pprnopour-os 2003,
pp.
841-94.
MoNercrov 2003
S.Y.
MorveNuov,
Greek
Am-
phorae
in the
Black
Sea
Lit-
toral, Saratov 2003
(in
Russ-
ian).
Monnr 2006 J.-P. Monnr,, Phocaean
Colo-
nisation,
in
TsnrsxnLADZE
2006b,
pp.
358-428.
MUScARELLA 2003 O.W. MuscaRELLA, The Date
of the
Destruction
of the
Early
Phrygian Period
ctt Gordion,
AWE 2, 2, 2003,
pp.
225-52.
MsnnnnoN
Hotnn
2004
The
Myrmekion
Hoard
(E'xhi-
bition catalogue),
St
Peters-
burg 2004.
OSBoRNE 1996 R.
OseonNo,
Greece in the
Mahing,
1200-479
8.C.,
Lon-
don
1996.
Parr,rcnNro 1999
N.
Pavr,rcpNr
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
26/27
252
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze
Tsnrsxnlalzn
1991a
Tsorsxsllnzn
1997b
Tsnrsxsulzo
1998a
Tsrrsxslanzn
1998b
Tsnrsrcrlanzn
1998c
TsorsxHlanzn 1999
Tssrsxnlarze 2000
Tsprsxnlalzn
2001
Tsorsxulalzn 2002
ogy of Greek Colonisation.
Es-
says
Dedicated to
Sir
John
Boardmcr,n,
Oxford
1994,
pp.
111-36.
G.R.
TsnTsNHLADZE,
Plutarch,
Pericles
and
Pontus:
Some
Thoughts,
in
C. ScHnqlnR,
V.
Ruu6N, J. Vpr,e Gdd.),
Plutar-
co
y
la
Historia,
Zaragoza
1997,
pp.
46r-67.
G.R.
TsorsrcrLADZE,
A
Suruey
of
the
Major
(Irban
Settle-
ments
in t
he
Ki
m merian
Bosporos
rwilh
o
Discussion
of their Status as
Poleis),
in
T.H.
Nror,snN
(ed.),
Yet More
Studies
in the
Ancient Greek
Polis,
Stuttgart
\997,
pp.
39-
81.
G.R.
TSnTSKHLADZE,
Greek
Colonisation
of the Black Sea
Area:
Stages,
Models, Natiue
Populations,
in Tsprsxslalzn
1998b,
pp.
9-68.
G.R. Tsnrsxsuozn
(ed.),
The
Greeh
Colonisation
of the
Black
Sea
Area:
Historical In-
terpretation of
Archaeology,
Stuttgart
1998.
G.R.
TSETSKHT-.rlzn,
Die
Griechen in
der
Kolchis
(his-
t o
r
i
s c
h
-
a
r
c
h
ci
o I
o
g
i
s
c
h
e
r
Abri/3),Amsterdam
1998.
G.
R.
TsnrsrcrLADZE, Pic hu
nct
ri
ctnd its Enuirons, 6th Century
BC-4th
Century AD,
Paris
1999.
G.R. TsnrsxHLADZE,
Pistiros
in the System
of Pontic Empo-
ria
(Greek
Tlading and
Craft
Settlements
in
the
Hinterland
of
the
Northern and
Eastern
Blach Sea. and
Elsewhere), in
L.
DorularzKA
et
ALil
(edd.),
Structures
dconomiques dans
la
pdninsule balhanique
VIIe-
IIe sidcle
auant
J.-C., Opole
2000,235-46.
G.R.
TsnTsKHLADZE
(ed.),
North
Pontic Archaeology: Re-
cent Studies
and
Discoueries,
Leiden
/Boston
rKitln
200
1.
G.R.
TsnrsrcrLADZE,
Phanago-
ria:
Metropolis of
Asiatic
Bosporus,
in
Archaeology
Witho
ut
F rontie
r
s,
Athens
2002,
pp.
129-50.
G.R.
TsnrsrHLADZE, Greehs
TsprsxHlalzn
2006a
Tsprsxnuqlzn
2006b
Tsnrsxslalzn
2007a
Tsntsxttlalzp
2007b
Tsnrsrctlalzp
forthcoming
a
Tsptsxnuozn
forthcoming b
Tsorsxnlalzn,
Korvnnassov 2001
Tsnrsrnlalzp,
KuzNprsov
2000
TSETSKHumzn,
VNuxov 1992
beyond the Bosporus,
in
V.
K-q.Racponcurs,
(ed.),
7he
Greeks beyond the
Aegean:
from
Mcr,rseilles
to Bactria,
NewYork
2003,
pp.
129-66.
G.R. TsnTsNHLADZE, Reuisit-
ing
Ancient
Greeh Colonisa-
tion,
in
TssrsxHt,.qrzn 2006b,
pp.
xxiii-lxxxiii.
G.R. TSnTSKHLADZE
(ed.),
Greek Coloniscttion.
An
Ac-
count
of
Greek Colonies and
Other
Settlements Ouerseas,
vol.
i,
Leiden4Boston 2006.
G.R.
TssrsxHLADZE, Greeks
cLnd
Locals
in
the
Southern
Blctch
Sea
Littoral: A
Re-Ex-
amination,
in G.
Hnnu.q.N, I.
SHarzMeN
(edd.),
Greeks
be-
tween EcLst
and
West.
Essays
in Greek
Literature
and
His-
tory in
Memory of Dauid
Ash-
erl,
Jerusalem 2007,
pp.
160-
95.
G.R.
TsnrsxHLADZE, Mediter-
ranean: Greek Colonies,
in D.
Pnansau
Gd.),
Encyclopedict,
of
Archaeology, San Diego/Lon-
don
2007,
pp.
568-590.
G.R. TsnrsrHLADZE, Greeks
in
the Blach
Sea,
in
Tsnr-
SKHLADZE
forthcoming
b.
G.R. TSnTSKHLADZE
(ed.),
Greek
Colonisation.
An
Ac-
count of
Greek Colonies and
Other
Settlements
Ouerseas,
vol. 3,
Leiden/Boston forth-
coming.
G.R.
TSnTSNHLADZE,
A.V. KoN-
DRASHEV, Notes
on the
Rescue
Excauation
of the
Tuzla
Necropolis
(1995
1997),
in
Tsnrsxnl.qnzn
2001,
pp.
345-
64.
G.R.
TSoTSKHLADZE,
V.D.
Kuzmersov.
On the
Cult of
Aphrodite
in
Kepoi, in
G.R.
Tsnrsxnlalzn,
A.J.N.W. Pnec,
A.M. Suolcness
(
edd.
),
Periplous. Papers on Cla,ssical
Art and
Archaeology Present-
ed
to Sir John
Boardman,
London 2000,
pp.
353-60.
G.R. TSnTSKHLADZE, S.Y.
VNUKov, Colchian
Amphorae:
Typology, Chronology o.nd
As-
pects
of
Production,
ABSA,
87,1992,
pp.357-86.
ssrsxnlelzE
2003
7/25/2019 G.Tsetskhladze-SECONDARY COLONISATION-Italy.pdf
27/27
Vacurrxe
2003
Vlxurrua,
VINOGRADOV
2OO1
Va.nsnq.lourlzq
2005
Vesrr,nv
1992
M.J.
VacHrtNe,
Archctic
Buildings
oI Porthmion.
in
P.G.
Brr,rn, J.M.
Ho;rn,
V.F.
SroLeA.
(edd.),
The Cauldron
of
Ariantes.
Studies presented
to
A.N. Sceglou
on the
occcL-
sion of
his
70th
birthday,
Aarhus
2003,
pp.
37-54.
M.Y. VaxHrrNe,
Y.A.
VrNo-
clRADov,
Once
Again
on the
Ear-
ly Fortificati