Elias K.

Petropoulos
Assist. Prof. at the Democritus University of Thrace
Visiting Prof. at the International Hellenic University
Web: www.bscc.duth.gr
E-mails: [email protected] & [email protected]

The Kingdoms of Bosporus and Pontus

(Dedicated to the memory of Viktor I. Sarianidi)

The Kingdom of the Bosporus

It is generally agreed that the largest of the ancient Greek states on the
northeast shores of the Black Sea was the land that modern scholarship calls the
Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus, which straddled – and took its name from – the
straits that the ancients knew as the Cimmerian Bosporus1. Herodotus, writing around
the middle of the 5th century BC, appears to have been the first to make general use of
this term as a purely geographical designation, as suggested at least by the examples in
paragraphs 12 and 28 of the fourth book of his Histories. Later writers, for example
Strabo2 and Polybius3, retained the term “Cimmerian Bosporus”, with precisely the
same content. There is no evidence that the phrase was ever used in Antiquity to
designate the ancient polity that has become known in modern historiography as the
Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus4.
At its most extensive the territory of that kingdom included much of Eastern
Crimea, all of the Kerch Peninsula (the “European Bosporus” of ancient sources), the
Taman Peninsula with all the neighbouring territories as far as the Northern Caucasus

1
This corresponds to the present-day Kerch Strait, in contradistinction to the Thracian Bosporus, which
lies at the Aegean entrance to the Black Sea (Polybius 4.39).
2
11.2.1.
3
4.39.
4
Zavoykin 1994, 67-69; see also Katyushin 2003, 668-669.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 1

and Sindica (the Asian Bosporus; despite exhaustive study the eastern boundary of the
kingdom is still fiercely contested)5, and the area around the mouth of the Tanaïs (now
the Don) river with the Greek colony of the same name6, and part of the eastern shore
of Lake Maiotis (the present-day Sea of Azov). While it is difficult now to determine
the exact boundaries of the ancient kingdom, it has nonetheless been historically
proven that in the first half of the 4th century BC the Spartocid dynasty, which held the
reins of state at that time, succeeded in annexing the city of Theodosia7, thus pushing
the western boundary of the kingdom considerably farther into the interior of the
Crimea8, while later this frontier shifted even further west from time to time,
depending on historical and political conjuncture.
This entire territory, from the Eastern Crimea to the foothills of the Northern
Caucasus, is a vast steppe9 of rolling hills associated with the Crimean Mountains10,
and is part of the northern Black Sea lowlands area of the great Russian Plain. From
the evidence of ancient texts we know that this region was “a natural corridor for
migration: there the seasonal movement of flocks and herds and trading and cultural
exchanges linked the steppe, and to a lesser extent, the wooded-steppe of the North
Pontic region with the Kuban Valley and the Northern Caucasus to the east”11.
Herodotus describes the climate of this land in the following terms: “all this
aforementioned country is exceeding cold; for eight months of every year there is frost
unbearable, and in these you shall not make mud by pouring out water but by lighting
a fire; the sea freezes, and all the Cimmerian Bosporus; and the Scythians dwelling
this side of the fosse lead armies over the ice, and drive their wains across to the land
of the Sindes”12.
Strabo, writing a few centuries later, also graphically described these seasonal
migrations of peoples across the frozen waters of the Cimmerian Bosporus: “The
waterway from Pantikapaion across to Phanagoria is traversed by wagons, so that it

5
Malyshev 2007b, 954.
6
AGSP 1984, 93-95; Arsenyeva 2003, 1047-1090.
7
Under “άρχοντος Λεύκωνος Βοσπόρου και Θεοδοσίης” (KBN inscr. 111): the reference is to Leucon I
(389-349 BC). Burstein 1974, 401; Katyushin 2003, 658-659, 668-670; Tokhtas’ev 2006, 1-62; Müller
2010, 26-31; Molev 2013, 208-212.
8
Zolotaryov 2005, 148-151.
9
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 25-27.
10
Maslennikov 2005, 154.
11
Maslennikov 2005, 154.
12
Hdt. 4.28.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 2

is both ice and roadway”13. The Scythians, the Cimmerians and the Amazons knew
that it was possible to cross the Cimmerian Bosporus during the difficult winter
months, long before the arrival of colonists from Ionia in these regions14. There is also
a telling passage in Diodorus, relating to the Amazons: “since the Scythians
participated in the campaign of the Amazons, a powerful force was assembled; the
leaders of the Amazons, after crossing over to the opposite shore of the Cimmerian
Bosporus, advanced through Thrace”15. Modern archaeological research indicates that
the crossing over the Cimmerian Bosporus could be probably localized at least in three
places functioning all year round16. We also know that the passage across the
Bosporus was still practicable during the medieval period17.
Modern palaeogeographic research indicates that in Antiquity the Taman
Peninsula18 comprised a complex of five islets19, separated by natural harbours, bays,
and the waterways of the delta of the river known then as the Antikeites20 and today as
the Kuban21. At the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd century BC the Kingdom of
the Bosporus was inhabited by various tribes of Sindians, Scythians and Maotians, as
well as Greeks, and many of the Greek cities of the Black Sea region and the
Mediterranean basin were also represented22.
The first of the ancient writers to turn his attention to this region was
Hecataeus of Miletus, but unfortunately only fragments of his work survive, preserved
in the form of references in the texts of later writers. The various ancient accounts of
travels through the region provide valuable information about the historic topography
of the Bosporus. In general, the most important source for the history of the Bosporus
is held to be the work of the ancient geographer Strabo, who in books seven and
eleven of his Geography not only describes the physical geography and the climate of
the region, but also mentions various notable features of its cities and records many of
the historical events that marked their history. Equally important, on another plane, is
13
Strabo 7.3.18.
14
Yakovenko 1985, 12-13; Shelov 1994, 104; Maslennikov 2001, 291-323; Petropoulos 2005, 26-27.
15
Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheke 4.28.
16
Fedoseyev 1999, 61-82. See also Braund 2009, 99-108; Yermolin, Fedoseyev 2011, 110-118.
17
Vakhtina – Vinogradov – Rogov 1980, 156-157, 159.
18
See for example the recent research at Phanagoria, Kuznetsov 2008, 67-84; 2009, 294-295.
19
Strabo 12.2.10; AGSP 1984, 58.
20
Strabo 12.2.9.
21
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 34.
22
For the development of the contacts between Greeks and local populations in the Crimean and Taman
peninsulas, see Maslennikov 2005, 154-166.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 3

the work of the geographer Ptolemy, who tabulated many, mostly small, places23 by
latitude and longitude, thus providing modern science with invaluable information
permitting the identification of many sites24 that would otherwise now be impossible
to identify25.
Much interesting information about the history of the Bosporus can also be
gleaned from the speeches of Isocrates, Demosthenes and Aeschines. In his
Bibliotheca historica Diodorus Siculus recounts the founding of the Kingdom of the
Bosporus and the succession of dynasties that ruled it, the political history of the
Spartocid dynasty, and their contacts with the native peoples. Finally, the texts of
certain Roman historians, notably Dio Cassius, Appianus and Tacitus, shed light on
the history of the Kingdom of the Bosporus and its relations with Rome at the time of
the Mithridatic Wars. In general, one may say that on the whole the ancient literary
sources provide information primarily about the political and social history of the
Bosporan state, while occasionally touching upon its economic development.
The founding of the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus is deduced from
certain sparse details in a unique written source of late, however, antiquity: “... in Asia,
the kings of the Cimmerian Bosporus, the dynasty known as the Archaeanactidai, had
ruled for forty-two years; and successor to the kingdom was Spartocus who had a
seven-year reign...”26. According to current opinion27 it should be placed in the year
480 BC or perhaps roughly a century later if one accepts a different, recently
formulated view28. It appears to have been a league or coalition29 of independent
maritime cities30 on both sides of the Cimmerian Straits, formed for defensive
purposes and to defend their territorial integrity31. The history of this league, however,
shows that it rapidly developed a strong expansionist policy at the expense of other
Greek cities in the Eastern Crimea and on the opposite coast, as well as of the native

23
As attested in the bibliography, Ptolemy in his Geographia gives the coordinates of almost 8000 sites
of the ancient world as it was known to him (Manoledakis 2005, 483-484; Manoledakis, Livieratos
2007, 31).
24
Zubarev 1998, 105-119.
25
See for example Maslennikov 2007, 855-862.
26
Diodorus Siculus, 12.31.1.
27
Zhebelyov 1953, 57 ff.; Gaydoukevitch 1949, 43 ff.; Blavatskiy 1964, 45-6; Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985,
68 f.; AGSP 1984, 13; Müller 2010, 23-24.
28
Vasilyev 1992, 111 ff.; Zavoykin 1994, 34-39.
29
A kind of local symmachia, see: Vinogradov 1995, 6-50 (see more on this topic infra).
30
Vinogradov Yu. G. 1983, 396; Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 77-78.
31
Petropoulos 2001-2002, 289-298.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 4

peoples also living there32. Thus, during the 4th century BC the alliance of Greek
Bosporan cities evolved into a state with a powerful central authority residing in a
tyrannical type of dynasty33.
The existing evidence points to the Greek city of Pantikapaion as the seat of
this dynasty34, which held absolute sway over all the Greek and other populations
living within the bounds of its dominion. In the Hellenistic period this state inevitably
evolved into a Hellenistic-type monarchy, while under Roman rule it became a vassal
state on the fringes of the Roman Empire, governed by the local dynasty. The history
of the Cimmerian Bosporan state came to an abrupt end in the 4th century AD, when
firstly hordes of Goths (representatives of the German linguistic group, who had come
from the Baltic Littoral) and later the Huns swept down on the northern Black Sea
lowlands from the high plains of Central Asia and laid waste everything that stood in
the path of their westward advance.
This was the first time that such a great danger had threatened the whole North
Black Sea region. It seems that since the middle of the 3rd century AD the Cimmerian
Bosporus State had been under attack from all sides. The Bosporan city and fortress of
Tanais and, a few years later, the city of Gorgippia were the first places to fall victim
to the barbarian assault. After this, the invaders pushed their way down the Don River
to the Azov Sea and then on to the Cimmerian Bosporus region. The hostile hordes
crushed the defensive structures of the Bosporan State, besieged the capital city of
Pantikapaion, and finally forced King Rheskouporis V to retreat and accept a
humiliating alliance with the barbarian leaders. Contemporary archaeological
excavations have provided incontrovertible confirmation of their destructive passage,
bringing to light extensive evidence of fire and general devastation in almost all the
ancient Greek settlements35.

32
For example, see KBN inscr. 6.
33
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 87-89; Kulikov 2007, 1030.
34
Strabo 7.4.4: “Μητρόπολις των Βοσποριανών Ελλήνων” (‘metropolis of the Bosporan Greeks’).
35
Traces of fire and destruction are now revealed in all Bosporan settlements in the period between the
end of the 3rd and the 4th century AD, see for example Sokolova 2003, 775; Vinogradov, Butyagin,
Vakhtina 2003, 818; Butyagin 2011, 44; Molev 2003, 844, 877; Kuznetsov 2003, 895, 908-909;
Alekseeva 2003, 993-994; Finogenova 2003, 1013, 1033; Arsenyeva 2003, 1082; Katyushin 2003, 682;
Kryzhytskyy, Krapivina, Lejpunskaja, Nazarov 2003, 412; Gavrilyuk, Krapivina 2007, 572; Krapivina
2007, 608; Samoylova 2007, 440, 460; Sekerskaya 2007, 479; Zubar 2007, 745; Zinko 2007, 841-842;
Gorontcharovskiy 2007, 904; Kulikov 2007, 1041.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 5

 Scholars customarily divide the thousand-year history of the much-tribulated
Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus into periods, according to the weight each
assigns to particular events. Thus, V. F. Gaydoukevitch divided the history of the
Bosporan state into six main periods36, where academician V. D. Blavatskiy saw
five37. More recently, F. V. Shelov-Kovedyaev recognised four periods, namely: 1)
territorial and political formation (6th-4th centuries BC), 2) the Bosporan state as a
Hellenistic monarchy (3rd-2nd centuries BC), 3) the Bosporan state under the
hegemony of the kings of Pontus (late 2nd – first half of the 1st century BC), and 4) the
Kingdom of the Bosporus as a satellite of Rome and the rise of the Sarmatian dynasty
(1st century BC – 4th century AD)38. Although it is clearly possible to further subdivide
these periods, or indeed to combine them into two larger ones, Shelov-Kovedyaev’s
proposed framework may be considered fairly useful for research purposes.
The consensus of current scholarship is that the Kingdom of the Bosporus was
the result of the part voluntary39, part necessary union of some 15 Greek cities and
towns, scattered on either side of the present-day Kerch Strait, including their
agricultural area (chora), under the supremacy of the most powerful of them, the city
of Pantikapaion. As already noted, the prevailing opinion is that this union must have
taken shape circa 480 BC40, based on the aforementioned evidence of Diodorus
Siculus41. A second view, which is steadily gaining ground, places this event some one
hundred years later, but its scientific foundation requires more supporting evidence42.
Without going into the arguments on both sides43, which is not within the scope of this
paper, we will simply consider the general characteristics of the principal phases of the
colonisation and the particularities of the historical evolution and general development
of the Bosporan state in the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries BC.

36
Gaydoukevitch 1949, 7 ff.
37
Blavatskiy 1950, 32; 1964, 9 ff.
38
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 6.
39
Zavoykin 2007, 223.
40
Zhebelyov 1953, 57 ff; Gaydoukevitch 1949, 43 ff; Blavatskiy 1964, 45-46; Shelov-Kovedyaev 1984,
68 ff; AGSP 1984, 13
41
Diodorus Siculus, 12.31.1.
42
Vasilyev 1992, 111 ff; Zavoykin 1994, 34-39.
43
The subject was examined anew by Alexander Maslennikov in his paper of 1996, 61-71. In a recent
article the same author argues that with the words of the seventh Book of his Histories Herodotus (7,
147) provides indirect evidence of the presence, however minimal, of some political authority or
organisational asssociation of some of the cities of the Cimmerian Bosporus under the rule of the
Archaeanactids (2001a, 180).

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 6

 At this point it ought to be mentioned that research to date has shown that the
acquisition of new territory led in most cases to the founding of colonies, that is,
independent settlements, by emigrant citizens of one or more cities of metropolitan
Greece. This established from the outset the possibility of the appearance of the city in
its most highly evolved form, the city-state. Only in rare cases did Greek settlers
succeed (of choice or necessity) in establishing themselves in existing communities of
native populations (e.g., Gelonos44 in the heart of the Scythian wooded steppe,
Naucratis45 on the Nile Delta in Egypt, the settlement discovered by Yelizavetskoye
by the lower reaches of the Don River, on the northeast side of Lake Maiotis, or the
so-called ‘Emporion of Pistiros’46 in the heart of the Odryssian kingdom of Thrace
during the 4th century BC).
Towards the middle of the first half of the 6th century BC there began a
massive wave of colonisation47 from Ionia and the islands of the Eastern Aegean,
spear-headed by the city of Miletus, which was ultimately aimed at the shores of the
Black Sea and especially the north coast. This evidently forced migration of Greek
populations was directly connected with the political history of the Greek city-states of
Ionia48 and the rapid rise of Achaemenid Persia with its expansionist policy directed
against the Greek cities of Asia Minor49. As regards Greek colonisation on the shores
of the Cimmerian Bosporus, contemporary research identifies mainly three waves50 of
migration which have been shown to apply to all the lands bordering on the Northern
Black Sea and other parts of the Black Sea basin as well. The first period lasted
roughly forty years, between 590 and 560 BC. Recent archaeological finds document
the successful founding of a considerable number of future cities 51: Pantikapaion52,
Nymphaion53, Theodosia54, Myrmekion55, Tyritake56, Kepoi57, Hermonassa58,
presumably Patraeus59 and Porthmion60, and the place identified as ancient Torikos61.

44
For more details on the case of Gelon, see Petropoulos 2005, 106-109. See also Medvedev 2002, 131-
139; Pisarevskiy 2010, 39-45.
45
Petropoulos 2005, 93-106; Fantalkin 2014, 29-45.
46
Petropoulos 2005, 110-113, with references to previous bibliography.
47
AGSP, 10; Kuznetsov 1991, 31-36; Koshelenko G. A., Kuznetsov V. D. 1992, 6-28; Kuznetsov
2000a, 39; Maslennikov 2000, 18 ff.; Zavoykin 2004, 59.
48
Fossey 1996, 121-124; Lamboley 2007, 59-62; Chaniotis 2014, 34-37; Petropoulos 2014b, 242-244.
49
Hall 2013, 359-360.
50
Yaylenko 1983, 140; Koshelenko G. A., Kuznetsov V. D. 1992, 19-25.
51
A brief account of these settlements may be found in Kuznetsov 1991, 33-34.
52
Tolstikov 2003, 713-715.
53
Sokolova 2003, 764-767.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 7

 To all these settlements must be added the ancient necropolis near the so-called
Touzlin Peninsula with its remarkable early Greek tombs; it is thought that this may
have been Corocondame62, yet another city destroyed by the sea63. Although the
ancient written tradition apparently does not consider it necessary to provide a precise
and detailed chronology, presumably because this was of no interest to the readers of
the literary texts of that age, it does nonetheless give the basic information that
Pantikapaion, Theodosia and Kepoi were Milesian colonies, and records the very
important fact that colonists from Mytilene and Ionia took part in the founding of
Hermonassa on the Taman Peninsula64. While it would be risky to speak with any
certainty about the rest of the Greek settlements in the Cimmerian Bosporus at that
time, it seems highly probable that Miletus played a leading role there as well 65,

54
Katyushin 2003, 645-650. On the problem of the name of the city and its possible origin, see
Sidorenko, Shonov 2009, 501-503. See also Gavrilov 2003, 77-92.
55
Vinogradov, Butyagin, Vakthina 2003, 805-811; Vinogradov 2008b, 49; Butyagin 2011, 44.
56
Zinko 2007, 827-829.
57
Kuznetsov 2003, 895-897. Recently a new localization of this settlement has been proposed:
Fedoseyev 2013, 133-135. This problem has also been stressed previously by Zubarev 1999, 131.
58
Finogenova 2003, 1007-1033.
59
Abramov, Zavoykin 2003, 1032-1133.
60
Vakthina, Vinogradov, Goroncharovskiy 2010, 367.
61
Concerning the origin of the name of the settlement and its refounding by the Athenians under
Pericles see: Surikov 1999, 109-110. Surikov thinks that the founding, or rather the refounding, of
Torikos, the ruins of which lie at the eastern entrance to the Cimmerian Bosporus on the Black Sea, was
part of Pericles’ strategic policy, for it assured free and safe access to the Bosporan kingdom, given that
in Nymphaion he already had an important base on the west (European) side of the Cimmerian
Bosporus, and thus if nothing else a secure grain supply for Athens (110). See also the article of
Malyshev 2007a, 927-941, with a detailed description of the ancient settlement and exhaustive
bibliography. A more recent description of the archaeolocal remains of Torikos may be found in
Malyshev 2009, 74-104.
62
Sorokina 1957, 8 ff; one opinion holds that finds of a very early type of anchor also come from the
same area: see Kondrashov 1991, 59-61.
63
Zubarev 1999, 131-132.
64
Strabo 7.4.4; Plin. NH. 4.87 and 4.18; Ammian. Marc. 22.8.26; Arr. Perip. PE, 30; Ps.-Scymn. 899;
Eustath. Comm. ad Dion. 599; Dion. Perieg. 562; Steph. Byz. Hermonassa.
65
Strabo 14.1.5; Plin. NH. V.122, where it is said that Miletus founded 90 settlements in the Black Sea.
The predominence of the Greek Ionian presence in the entire Black Sea region from the middle of the
7th century BC onwards is also attested by ample archaeological evidence from the whole coastal area
(Petropoulos 2005, 16-74; see also Herda 2011, 74-81). One would expect that the seafaring
Phoenicians might also have had some early activity and influence in the Black Sea (even before the
first Greek ventures), but such a notion is supported neither by the ancient written sources nor by
archaeology so far. This statement could logically lead to the conclusion that the early (i.e., during the
8th and 7th centuries BC) maritime activity of the Phoenicians in the northern part of Greece and
especially in the North Aegean Sea should not be exaggerated (see in this regard Stambolidis 2012, 59;
Tiverios 2012, 71-72). It seems that the Euxeinos Pontos was first penetrated and explored by Greek
sailors and that by the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th century BC it had become a Greek lake.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 8

though the significant contribution of other Greek centres of east Greek islands should
also be considered66.
One striking thing about the finds that have been brought to light in the above
cities is how similar they are in date and type67. This might serve as an argument that
for the most part they appeared within a very brief space of time, if not
simultaneously, making it implausible that some of them were the result of the
expansionist policies of earlier settlements. The latter statement leads to the conclusion
that some of those settlements68 appeared in the process of the internal (i.e., in the
hinterland) colonization policy of the greater Bosporan apoikiai69 as an attempt to
broaden their borders and agricultural chora. This is something that needs to be taken
into serious account in the study of the relations between the Greeks of the Bosporus
and the way in which they assimilated the general region 70. Some scholars71 think that
the urban colony of Pantikapaion had its own rural satellite villages (Myrmekion,
Tyritake, Porthmion) as early as the 6th century BC, but for the present these remain
insufficiently scientifically documented.
In this regard another problem which is still under discussion in the
bibliography should also be mentioned here, namely the appearance, the role and the
development of the so-called ‘small’ and ‘big’ settlements of the Bosporan kingdom72.
Though it remains difficult to pinpoint the original source of this terminology in the
scientific bibliography, it was certainly V. F. Gaydukevitch who focused his attention
on the ‘small’ towns of the Cimmerian Bosporus, while S. A. Zhebelyov paid more
66
Fedoseyev 2012, 315-317, where the author (in accordance with V. A. Anokhin, 1999, 23-36, 41-42)
stresses the significant role of settlers coming from the island of Samos in the establishment of the
settlement of Nymphaion. He also assumes that the coin with the legend ΣΑΜΜΑ, found in Nymphaion
and probably issued in the island of Samos, should be directly connected with the Samian origin of
these first settlers, who brought the coins from their homeland. Another opinion holds that these coins
were minted within the period between 413 and 410 BC and reflected the new name of Nymphaion
which was given to it by the Athenians after the entry of the city into the First Athenian league (Strokin
2009, 383-388). For other explanations of the coin with the legend ΣΑΜΜΑ, see Stolba 2002, 13-35;
Surikov 2004, 316-322; Melnikov 2001, 410 ff. It is worth noting, however, that according to the idea
of some scholars the presence of this sort of coins in Nymphaion could serve as an argument for the
hypothesis of the Scythian ‘protectorate’ over Nymphaion during this time (Melnikov 2008, 324-325),
just like the theory of the creation of the the Scythian ‘protectorate’ over Olbia Pontica in the North-
Western Pontic region (for details on this topic, see Kryzhitskiy 2005, 123-130; Gavriliuk 2011, 130-
135).
67
Kuznetsov 1991, 31-35.
68
Such as Tyritake, Myrmekion and Porthmion.
69
i.e, Pantikapaion for the European side of Bosporos and Phanagoria for the Asiatic.
70
See for example the view of Kulikov on this topic: Kulikov 2007, 1028-1029.
71
Yaylenko 1983, 135; Vinogradov Yu. A. 1992, 101; 1995, 154-159.
72
Gorlov, Bezrutchenko 1991, 37; Vinogradov Yu. A. 1993, 79-96.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 9

attention to the division of Bosporan settlements into poleis and other settlements that
never achieved that status. Consequently, there is a close connection between the
‘small’ and the ‘big’ settlements, on the one hand, and Greek colonial policy in the
coastal northeast Black Sea region, on the other. In the light of the scientific work
done so far, one may conclude that there exist two principal theories: the ‘small’
Bosporan settlements were either established by the Greek immigrants who continued
to arrive from the metropolis in this region during the years that followed the founding
of the great Milesian apoikiai of Pantikapaion, Nymphaion and Theodosia and were,
thus, independently founded apokiai73, or these ‘small’ polismata were the product of
the expansionist internal colonial policy advanced in the eastern part of the Crimean
peninsula by the main settlements in this area, Pantikapaion or perhaps Nymphaion.
According to the latter theory, it was the settlement of Pantikapaion (most probably) or
Nymphaion that founded the polismata in order to provide their citizens with autarky
and autonomy. Be that as it may, by the first quarter of the 5th century all these
settlements were beginning either to lose their independence or to accept a serious
transformation of their autonomy due to the strengthening of the Bosporan symmachia
into some kind of amphiktyonia74.
It has become clear today from the archaeological evidence that these first
colonies did not all follow the same pattern of development after their foundation.
While in their first decades of existence none seems to have gained supremacy over
the rest, it is easy to surmise that this state of affairs cannot have continued for very
long. A glance at the map reveals a telling fact: some of these colonies lay at a
considerable distance from one another, as is the case with Theodosia, Hermonassa,
Kepoi and to a lesser degree Patraeus and Nymphaion, while the rest – Tyritake,
Pantikapaion, Myrmekion and Porthmion – enjoyed the advantage of proximity, lying
within only a few kilometres of one another. For the present it is not clear whether this
is due to geo-climatic or other factors or whether it is simply a matter of chance. One

73
Kuznetsov 2001b, 247.
74
For some more details on this topic see Vinogradov 1983, 398-402; Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 71-72;
Kulikov 2007, 1028-1029; Malyshev 2007a, 932-936; Zavoykin 2009, 176-199. Ye. A. Molev
supported the idea that from the very beginning of the Milesian colonization in the Cimmerian Bosporos
the settlement of Pantikapaion had the significant role of the leader in organizing the whole process,
speaking thus for an internal colonization of Pantikapaion in the region. In this respect, the beginning of
the symmachia between the Bosporan cities could be moved some 50-60 years earlier, i.e. to the middle
of the 6th century BC (Molev 1997, 15).

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 10

striking fact that has emerged is that all the cities around Pantikapaion are clustered on
the northeast part of the Kerch Peninsula, where recent archaeological observations
and studies have revealed a very significant find: this whole northeast corner of the
Crimea is bounded by a trench and embankment running generally westwards75. Until
a thorough and global study of these fortifications has been completed, we cannot
know who built them, when, and for what purpose76.
What is nonetheless significant for research scholars is the significance of the
discovery of these fortifications, which be it noted are not mentioned in the ancient
literary sources, save for a passing allusion in Strabo77. If these defensive works were
indeed built by Greek settlers in the Cimmerian Bosporus, they give rise to certain
thoughts and conclusions concerning the general organisation and arrangement of the
colonial territory and provide a basis for hypotheses regarding the collegiality and
spirit of collaboration among the inhabitants of the Greek settlements, evidently aimed
primarily at ensuring the most effective protection against the possible hostility of
warlike peoples. It is clear from the passages cited at the beginning of this paper that
when the waters of the Cimmerian Bosporus froze the various non-Greek populations
living in the interior of the Crimea and the region of Sindica were accustomed to cross
over from one shore to the other on the ice rather than taking the long land route, thus
shortening the journey enormously and saving infinite time and effort in difficult
winter conditions. As these various native peoples approached the coast on their
travels, which from the 6th and primarily in the 5th century BC was largely under the
dominion and control of the Greeks living in the Greek cities of the Cimmerian
Bosporus, it is highly likely that they attacked and raided both the Greek coastal
settlements and smaller settlements in the interior. Consequently, the trench and the
embankment could have served to deter such treacherous ambitions.
It is now archaeologically attested that at the end of the 6th or the very
beginning of the next century BC a new wave of Scythian nomads appeared in the

75
All the results of the recent investigations on the European Bosporan ditches and embankments may
be found in Maslennikov 2003a, 15 ff. See also Koltukhov, Trufanov, Uzhentsev 2003, 176-180;
Gavrilov 2001, 10-17.
76
Of the fairly large number of studies on the Bosporan embankments, including the one at Tyritake,
we cite only the most notable: Tolstikov 1984, 34 ff; Wasowicz 1986, 79-94; Maslennikov 1983, 14-22.
77
11.2.6-8. See in this regard Abramov, Zavoykin 2003, 1134-1135; see also Abramov, Vasilyev,
Kopeykin, Morozov 2004, 20-22.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 11

steppe areas of the Northern Black Sea region78. This is attested by the results of
archaeological research in several barbarian burials with scattered single graves in
which the deceased (probably Scythian nomads) are almost exclusively members of
the military class79. Their appearance in these places was inevitably led to armed
conflicts with the Bosporan poleis80. Modern archaeological investigations reveal
traces of destruction and even fires within the cities81. Even in the city of Pantikapaion
archaeological evidence shows that between the years 490-480 BC the development of
the urban part of the central area of the city was temporarily interrupted due to military
action82. This is the time when almost all Bosporan poleis started to build fortification
walls in order to protect their citizens83. These raids must have been very sudden,
unexpected and highly dangerous for the Greek cities, judging by the hurried manner
in which some of these defensive constructions were raised84. Archaeological
investigations in many places of the Cimmerian Bosporus have revealed very
interesting material from burial grounds, proving the growth in the number of burials
with weapons85.
Pursuing the same line of thinking, one might reason that such active hostility
on the part of nomadic native populations crossing the frozen waters of the Cimmerian
Bosporus towards the Greek cities might have been due to a point that often escapes
the attention of scholars. We mean, of course, that while in the beginning, that is, up to
about the middle of the 6th century BC, for example, the Greek settlements that had
just appeared on either side of the Cimmerian straits had neither the strength or the
power nor most probably the desire to exercise serious control and rights of
sovereignty over anything beyond their immediate environs, it is nonetheless highly
probable that by the end of that same century, and even more so by the beginning of
the next, when the Greek presence had become consolidated and the Greek cities of
the Cimmerian Bosporus were beginning to experience natural population growth, the
78
Sokolova 2003, 768 with references; Zinko 2006, 292.
79
Kolotyukhin 2000, 68-69.
80
Zinko 2006, 292.
81
Kulikov 2007, 1031.
82
Tolstikov 2010, 351-352.
83
Kulikov 2007, 1031 with references to previous bibliography.
84
See for example the early defensive wall in the settlement of Tyritake, where this construction served
at most as a barrier against the steppe nomads’ invasions: Zinko 2007, 828-829. Recent archaeological
investigations at the site of Torikos have also revealed serious problems of its citizens with the local
population around the turn of the 6th and 5th century BC: Malyshev 2009, 81-82.
85
Zavoykin, Sudarev 2006, 101-151.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 12

Greeks wanted to impose prohibitions or a generally stricter control over the
movements of the native populations from Scythia towards the rich Sindican
hinterland and the various settlements on the Kuban River and vice versa.
In the wake of such a turn in the course of events and shift in bilateral
relations, the final breach between the native peoples, who were now subject to
restrictions and controls, and the Greeks of the Bosporus, who were increasingly
pushing in this direction, must be considered predictable and inevitable. Finally, the
seriousness of this clash may perhaps have been due to the incontestable necessity
which later arose for a stronger and more collegial Greek alliance among those directly
affected, that is, the Greek coastal cities of the Cimmerian Bosporus, which seems to
have taken shape with the creation of the kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus in 480
BC.
In referring to the first Bosporan colonies, scholars consciously avoid calling
them άστεα, respecting the lack of consensus among the archaeologists on matters
touching on their housing and particularly the nature of their buildings86. Some
archaeologists, based on the relevant archaeological material, have demonstrated that
at this time Pantikapaion87 and Myrmekion88 (and probably all the other colonies
known so far)89 were settlements with scattered subterranean and semi-subterranean
habitations and workshops built to no urban plan90; they also point out that there are
no early fortifications or stone or brick buildings that can be dated to the same or close
to the same period as the founding of the settlements91.
On the other hand, other archaeologists categorically refuse to accept that view,
arguing that the ancient Greeks were proficient builders and that the settlers would
certainly have carried this knowledge to their new land92. They believe, in other
words, that the subterranean structures simply served various household purposes and
were only lived in for a very brief initial period, and attribute the absence of stone

86
Maslennikov 2000, 50 ff.
87
Tolstikov 2003, 716-717.
88
Vinogradov, Butyagin, Vakhtina 2003, 805-809, Vinogradov 2008b, 43.
89
See for example, Sokolova 2003, 765; Alekseeva 2003, 957, 959; Finogenova 2003, 1015;
Kryzhytskyy, Krapivina, Lejpunskaja, Nazarov 2003, 399, 428-429; Krutilov 2007, 26-34; Kutaisov
2003, 575; Samoylova 2007, 440; Sekerskaya 2007, 478; Redina 2007, 511; Kulikov 2007, 1029-1030;
Zolotaryov 2003, 608-609.
90
Tolstikov 1992, 59-62, 92-93; Vinogradov Yu. A. 1996, 25.
91
Kuznetsov 2003, 897, 908; Kutaisov 2003, 567; Zinko 2007, 828.
92
For a discussion about this issue see Kuznetsov 2003, 918-921.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 13

ruins to poor maintenance and other causes93. In more favourable conditions stone
structures do come to light, as in the case of the recently discovered large building that
was probably part of a complex in the area conventionally identified with ancient
Torikos94 (on modern Gelendzhik Bay). Once destroyed, this place was never rebuilt.
It is therefore perfectly logical, in the view of this latter group, to see this as further
evidence that the first incomer-colonists built themselves temporary shelters, but at the
same time it is impossible that they can have lived for long in subterranean or semi-
subterranean structures95. The topic of these subterranean or semi-subterranean
structures in the early colonial years has sparked considerable – and on-going –
discussion in scientific circles, and the presence of such constructions has been
observed throughout the entire Black Sea basin as well as certain Mediterranean
colonies96.
According to modern research in another ‘small’ city of the Cimmerian
Bosporus, it seems that the second opinion is tending to gain more ground. More
specifically, in the settlement of Tyritake the remains of two underground building
were discovered in the western part, dating from the second half of the 6th century BC.
One of them was supposed to be the oldest dwelling house of the Greek colonists who
had settled on the European side of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the middle of that
century. This building shows similar construction patterns to the archaic houses in
Miletus. It is, thus, reasonable to support the idea that here was the place where the
colonists who came from Miletus to found Tyritake lived97.
The combined evidence of the archaeological data and the references in ancient
Greek sources places the beginning of the second wave of migration to the Bosporus at
circa 540 BC or a little later; this is confirmed at Pantikapaion by the transition to a
pre-designed system of urban construction and town planning98, although the existing
subterranean structures continued to be used and new ones built99, as is evident from

93
Kuznetsov 1995, 99-126.
94
Onayko 1980, 8 & 119-122; Malyshev 2007a, 928.
95
See the recently published article of Anca Timofan comparing the problem of archaic dug-out
constructions found in Western Greek settlements of the Black Sea (mainly in Histria and its environs)
with those found in its northern part, Timofan 2010, 358-363.
96
Petropoulos 2005, 36-41; 2014a internet: http://www.greek-
language.gr/Resources/ancient_greek/macedonia/cities/page_010.html
97
Zinko 2007, 827-828.
98
Tolstikov 1992, 62-66, 93.
99
Tolstikov 1992, 62-63.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 14

the results of the excavations in the centre of the future Bosporan capital, where the
acropolis is. Another noteworthy fact is that according to some scholars coinage was
being struck in Pantikapaion in this period, for the first time in the history of the
Bosporus100 (though recently a new date has been proposed: beginning of the 5th
century BC)101 this colonial city would appear to have far outstripped the others in its
development as an urban centre.
At Myrmekion, during the same period, two types of subterranean construction
prevailed, although there may have been above-ground structures as well102. Here and
at Porthmion we find traces of the first stone defensive enclosures 103, dating from the
second half of the 6th century BC, probably closer to the middle of this century104; they
are of very primitive construction, and were intended to protect very small areas. It
must be stressed that the defensive constructions erected so early in Myrmekion were
the result of a big fire in the middle of the 6th century BC105, the traces of which are
today mainly traceable in many parts of the excavations in section “S”. At the
settlement of Pantikapaion (as in other early Greek settlements) 106, unfortunately, no
such early defensive material seems as yet to have come to light107.
The city that was to become the mightiest in the Asiatic Bosporus108 was
founded towards the end of the decade beginning in 540 BC109: this was Phanagoria,
reported in the sources to have been built by one Phanagoras of Teos, who came here
as a refugee fleeing the Persian atrocities in his native land110. Its geographic position
was a very advantageous one: it was situated practically in the centre of the Taman
peninsula surrounded by fertile lands where many native tribes lived along the

100
Frolova 1996, 54; Melnikov 2009, 129-130.
101
Kovalenko, Tolstikov 2010, 26-47; Kovalenko, Tolstikov 2013, 199. A little earlier dates the first
coinage of Pantikapaion Tereshenko 2012, 175.
102
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1992, 101-105; 1996, 25.
103
Vakhtina 1996, 31-33; Vinogradov Yu. A., 1996a, 33-35. A description of the fortifications of the
archaic period in Porthmion and Myrmekion may be found in Vinogradov, Butyagin, Vakhtina 2003,
822-823 and 806-807 respectively.
104
Vinogradov 2008b, 53; Butyagin 2011, 44.
105
Vinogradov, Butyagin, Vakthina 2003, 806-807; Vinogradov 2008b, 49.
106
Golenko 2007, 1063. See also a brief discussion on this topic in Kuznetsov 2003, 897.
107
Tolstikov 2003, 722-723.
108
Strabo 11.2.10.
109
Kuznetsov 2003, 898; 2009, 294.
110
Ps. Scymn. 886; Eustath. Comm. Ad Dion., 549. It is noteworthy that Hecataeus mentions that
Phanagoria took its name from an oikistes bearing the name Phanagoras. He also characterizes the
settlement as a polis, but says nothing about its metropolis (Hecataeus FGrHist. 1 F 212).

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 15

Hypanis (modern Kuban) river111. Its citizens also enjoyed easy access to the sea,
facilitating trade with all the Greek cities in the Pontic region and throughout the
Mediterranean. As is now attested by archaeological investigation and the ancient
written tradition112 the metropolis of Teos was forced to establish another settlement at
almost the same time as Phanagoria, this time on the Thracian coast of the Aegean
Sea, which is known to us as Abdera113. Modern scholars tend to believe that the
colony of Phanagoria was built not directly by the metropolis itself114, but by some
colonists from Abdera who may have been obliged to leave the new settlement and
seek for another place to settle, this time apparently in the Black Sea region 115. The
settlement of Phanagoria must in this case have been an ‘indirect’ colony of Teos and
a direct colony of the Abderitai, the settlers of Abdera116 who were of Teian origin.
The ruins of the ancient city founded by Phanagoras are now situated between
the present-day villages of Primorskiy and Sennoi, roughly one kilometre from the
latter. The ancient city has remained practically free of any modern construction, with
the exception of some buildings belonging to the village of Sennoi which occupy the
farthest part of the eastern necropolis, and some installations of the agricultural
company ‘Primorskiy”. Today the whole territory of the city of Phanagoria is available
and free for archaeological research. Very little is known about the original form of
this colony, since nowadays approximately a third of the city’s territory is submerged
under the sea117. The most important remains are the traces of a small wooden
structure, probably the earliest temple, and the ruins of a few houses dated to the
second half of the 6th century BC118; all these were destroyed by fire in the last quarter
of that century or slightly earlier119, probably in the same context of barbarian
invasions mentioned above.

111
Malyshev 2007b, 953.
112
Hdt. 1.168; Strabo 14.1.30.
113
Veligianni 2004, 37-41.
114
Kuznetsov 2001a, 228-233.
115
See the discussion on this topic in Kuznetsov 2003, 897-901, 918.
116
Kuznetsov 2003, 899.
117
Kuznetsov 2003, 901.
118
Kuznetsov 2009, 296-298.
119
Kobylina 1983, 51-53, 59.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 16

 The poor state of preservation of the oldest strata at Kepoi120, another Milesian
colony on the Taman peninsula, hinders the study of the structural remains of the 6th
century BC. In the third quarter of that century and at the turn of the 5th large-scale
levelling work was done in the colony following extensive destruction accompanied
by fire121, making it difficult to substantiate the opinion that Kepoi had houses of
unfired brick by the middle of the 6th century BC122. One striking feature is the
absence of underground structures. The archaic strata of the settlement at Patraeus
present a similar picture, with finds of pits and traces of rooms that had been destroyed
by fire in the last third of the 6th century BC123, though the modern research has faced
some problems with this dating124. Similar disturbances affected Myrmekion125 and
Porthmion126 in that same period, and it is very likely that excavation work at other
Bosporan settlements will reveal something similar elsewhere as well.
The same situation obtains at another Asian Bosporan settlement and more
specifically the settlement that occupied the site where Gorgippia later arose127, a
settlement that is known to have made its appearance during this period128. It is
thought that in the first decades of its existence its buildings were mainly semi-
subterranean, but by the end of the 6th century BC there is an observable transition to
structures of brick or stone129. Another very early ancient settlement, in the same
vicinity, was located near the present-day village of Anapskaya and was in existence
throughout the entire 6th century BC130, although we do not know whether or not it was
a colonial city. Some finds from the end of the 6th century BC that came to light at the

120
Nikolay Fedoseyev has recently published an article in which he suggests that the ruins of the
settlement of Kepoi should be located not at the place where it was believed until today, but at another
place named ‘Taman 3’ or at ‘Sedmoy Kilometr’. On the other hand, he believes that the place thought
until now to have been the site of Kepoi is instead the ruins of Apaturon (Fedoseyev 2013, 132-139).
121
Kuznetsov 1991a, 36-37; 1992, 29-32.
122
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1992, 32.
123
Peters 1989, 95-97.
124
Abramov, Zavoykin 2003, 117.
125
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1995, 157; Vinogradov, Butyagin, Vakthina 2003, 806-807, where it stressed
that the causes of the fire still remain unclear.
126
Vakhtina 1996, 31-33; Vinogradov, Butyagin, Vakthina 2003, 823.
127
Due to recent research it is attested that Leukon I refounded the city in c. 365 BC on the ruins of
previously existed Sindic Limen (Tokhtas’ev 2010, 53-55).
128
Alekseyeva 1991, 9-11.
129
Alekseyeva 1991, 9-11.
130
Alekseyeva 1991, 18-19; Kharaldina, Novitchikhin 1994, 200. Recent research of the archaeological
materials from the settlement has suggested a more precise date of its foundation in the middle of the 6 th
century (Tokhtas’ev 2010, 55).

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 17

settlement on Cape Zyuk131, on the North Crimean coast, which is bathed by the
waters of the Sea of Azov, and at Kytaion132 (on the shore of the European Bosporus),
may today be considered as sufficient evidence to permit a safe dating for the
foundation of these sites.
The salient image that emerges from the above account is one of widespread
disturbances affecting all or at least most of the settlements in the Cimmerian
Bosporus. One further element in this picture of catastrophe is the destruction of the
Archaic settlement near Taganrog (west of the mouth of the Tanais River) in the third
quarter of the 6th century BC133. The not unreasonable discrepancies in dating
notwithstanding, it is possible to accept a conventional dating in the first half of the
last third of the 6th century BC, though this does not mean that every conclusion is
absolute. We thus have before our eyes the traces of a generalised (by local standards)
conflict, presumably between Greeks and barbarians, which for a brief space of time
impeded the urbanisation of the towns in the period we are considering. This whole
situation brings to mind the words of Strabo: “they (i.e., the Cimmerians) were
dislodged from these places by Scythians, and the Scythians by Greeks”134. Although
this passage is very general and thus cited with all due reservation, it might mean that
at some point there was a mighty clash between the two different nations, Greeks and
Scythians, who lived in the northern Black Sea territories, and very probably had to do
with the destruction described above.
Some contemporary Scythologists believe that it was in precisely this
period135, that is, the third quarter of the 6th century BC or slightly later, that the
material culture of the Scythians of the North Pontus began to change 136 and to
resemble more closely the Scythian culture described by Herodotus137 in the fourth
book of his Histories. This may have been due, they think, to the arrival of a new wave

131
Maslennikov 1992, 138-141; 2007, 859, 861-881, where the author assumed that a more precise
dating of the foundation of this settlement could be the period after 494 BC (866).
132
Molev, Moleva 1996, 77; Molev 2003, 848.
133
Kopylov 1996, 58; 2011, 224-235; Kopylov, Andrianova 2011, 198.
134
Strabo 11.2.5.
135
According to the scholars, this was the beginning of the second period of the history of European
Scythia, the first period being the 7th - 6th century BC. The first period of Scythian history focuses on the
forest-steppe and foothill zones of the Northern Black Sea region. The characteristic feature of the
second phase in the history of European Scythia is its shift to the so-called Pontic Steppes north of the
Black Sea. See in this regard Alekseev 2006, 160-162.
136
Alekseyev 2005, 42.
137
Alekseyev 1992, 109-112; 1996, 28-32.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 18

of Old Persian-speaking nomads from the east, and especially from Central Asia138.
This opinion is not, however, accepted by all the specialists in the field. Much of the
dating in Scythian archaeology, moreover, is based on the presence of ancient Greek
finds, which are not always used correctly. One might also observe that if the number
of population groups arriving from the east had been huge139, this could certainly have
had tragic consequences for all the Greek cities around the north end of the Black Sea,
but there is no evidence of any such thing happening in the region of Olbia, where on
the contrary it now seems certain that precisely the opposite occurred140.
What is curious about the whole matter is that only the coastal Greek Bosporan
settlements, and possibly those on Lake Maiotis (at least on its eastern shore), were
targeted. This cannot, of course, serve as a basis for a broader theory, since there were
no Greek settlements, then or later, in the interior. Here we must note that, according
to recent archaeological studies, in the 5th century BC there were a few dozen
settlements in the interior of the Asian Cimmerian Bosporus (around the Taman
Peninsula), while their number increased rapidly from the 4th century BC on141. We
may, however, surmise that the prima facie cause of the Scytho-Bosporan conflict was
the possibility afforded the Scythian nomads of free passage from the Crimea to the
Taman Peninsula (in the land of the Sindians) over the frozen Cimmerian Bosporus,
which Herodotus, as we have seen, describes as taking place perfectly peaceably. But
was this crossing to the opposite shore always made peacefully, without the Scythians
needing to come to some arrangement with the Greeks? Considering the (small) size
of the early Greek cities together with their farmlands, it would seem that there ought
not have been a serious problem with the movement of barbarian populations, at least
in the Archaic period. Later, however, as has already been noted, the question of free

138
There are at least three basic theories about the origin of the Scythian world. One of them, following
the report of Herodotus that the Scythians crossed the Araxes River from Asia to settle in the Black Sea
area, favours an eastern origin for the Scythians (Alekseev 2006, 160; Rolle 2006, 168). A second
theory supports the idea that the Scythians were culturally and genetically linked to the Late Bronze
Age populations of the Black Sea steppes. More recently, a third theory has been formulated supporting
the notion of a polycentric origin of the early nomadic steppe culture. See more details on this topic in
Yablonski 2006, 26-27; Pogrebova 2006, 186-189.
139
Modern scholars believe that during the 6th century BC the main body of the Scythians left their first
centre in the Northern Caucasus and shifted toward the Dnieper River. The latter became the extended
watery axis of the centre of the Scythian region, stretching from the Danube in the west toward the Don
in the east (Rolle 2006, 168). We may, thus, logically conclude that the groups migrating from the
Caucasus to the north Black Sea steppes should have been indeed of considerable numbers.
140
Κryzhitskiy, Bouyskikh, Otreshko 1990, 14-40; Kryžickij 2006, 99-106; Bujskikh 2006, 116-118.
141
Abramov, Paromov 1993, 25-98.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 19

passage across the Cimmerian Bosporus must certainly have become a major and very
serious issue.
Another version of the same question can be derived from the account left by
Ctesias of Cnidus, a historian of the late 5th century BC, who says that “… Darius
ordered Ariaramnes, the satrap of Cappadocia, to cross over into Scythia and take the
men and women prisoner. He made the crossing with thirty penteconters and took his
prisoners including Marsagetes, the brother of the king of the Scythians, whom he
found in a bad state chained up by his own brother. Skytharbes, the Scythian king, in
his anger, wrote an abusive letter to Darius and received a response in kind” 142. As it
becomes obvious from this passage, the author refers to a naval mission launched by
the satrap of Cappadocia, Ariaramnes143, to Europe, against the Scythians, with 30
ships.
Some scholars think that this was an exploratory venture via Pontus towards
the shores of the Cimmerian Bosporus and very probably the mouth of the Don144.
This venture took place before Darius’ campaign of 514 BC145, as the archaeological
data confirm, although it appears that there could have been a very obvious connection
between them. How and where Ariaramnes, as Ctesias relates, abducted the brother of
the Scythian king who was already imprisoned and in chains is a puzzle that remains
unresolved. For a naval mission, of course, this would have been feasible along the
coast, but not in the interior steppe. The incident may perhaps have taken place in
some Greek settlement where the inhabitants recognised the Scythian king, given that
the Scythians had not then established any coastal settlements of their own in this
period. This may well, indeed, have been the case, considering one of the two versions
of the founding of Pantikapaion, as a place ceded to the Greeks by the king of the
Scythians, possibly on certain terms146. Herodotus’ reference to the regular visits paid
by king Scyles of the Scythians to the city of Olbia147 may perhaps be seen as to some
extent confirming this.

142
Ctesias of Cnidus Persika Fr. 13 paragraph 20.
143
Yaylenko 2004a, 55-59, where the author stresses the opinion that Bosporos was included in the
sphere of the Persian interests even earlier, during the time of Cyrus.
144
Rybakov 1979, 170.
145
Tuplin 2010, 281-303.
146
Stephan of Byzant., Panticapaion.
147
4.79-80.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 20

 Moving on to the third and final period of Greek settlement in the Cimmerian
Bosporus, in the light of on-going research it is becoming clear that this was almost
certainly directly connected with the forced emigration of the Greeks from Ionia
following the failure of their attempt to shake off the Persian yoke in 495-494 BC148.
The problem of absolute chronology, the lack of written source material and the fact
that much archaeological material has not yet been adequately studied are
impediments to the dating of a series of settlements that have been identified with
Bosporan sites known to us from references in the works of authors writing in the
early centuries of the Common Era.
In most cases it is fairly difficult to determine whether the specific settlements
appeared immediately after or shortly before the events in Ionia: a case in point is that
of Kimmerikon149, the ruins of which lie on the south coast of the Kerch peninsula, at
the summit of Mount Opuk150. It can be taken as established that it joined the first
Delian League, together with Nymphaion and Patraeus, and paid the corresponding
contribution151. According to another opinion it is Kimmeris (lying on the Asiatic
Kimmerian Bosporus)152 that should be read on the Athenian Psephisma and not
Kimmerikon153. The ruins of the ancient city of Kimmerikon are visible today on the
lower east slope of the hill belong to the second quarter of the 5th century BC154 and
reveal a small, poor place. The remains of an architecturally simple stone house that
archaeological excavation has brought to light are difficult to reconcile with the view
of Kimmerikon as a member of the League, even with a very modest contribution, and
especially as a place whose name appears in the list of members of the league as the
city of Kimmerikon. The information yielded by the earliest finds from the site of this
ancient settlement is very general and obviously needs serious revision. Taking these
things into account, as well as Strabo’s mention (based on Hecataeus of Miletus) of a

148
Hall 2013, 360-361.
149
Anon. Periplus 76.
150
Gaydoukevitch 1949, 183-185.
151
Usatchova, Koshelenko 1994, 65-69.
152
For a brief historical overview see Zavoykin 1999a, 114-120. On the location of the site, see also
Zubarev 1999, 124-126; Veselov 2009, 115-117.
153
Zavoykin 1999b, 220-232. Vladimir K. Golenko has recently criticized this view by reffering to
ancient authors (Plin. N.H. 6.18 & Ps.-Scymn. 896-899) and supporting thus the first idea of the
participation of Kimmerikon as a member in the Athenian League (Golenko 2007, 1058).
154
Kruglikova 1975, 31-37.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 21

city known as “Kimmeris” 155
, one could think that there is no solid evidence
supporting a founding date in the 6th century BC156. Vladimir K. Golenko, however,
the main excavator at the ruins of the ancient site of Kimmerikon, believes that “the
settelement was surely founded before the revolt of the Ionian cities”157, and most
probably around the turn of the 6th – 5th century BC158.
Recent research in some degree permits us to speak not only of the
development of older and the appearance of new settlements in the Bosporus during
this period159, but also of significant progress in the area of construction and urban
planning, something that is largely due to internal demographic increase (particularly
in the second and third generation)160 augmented by the arrival of new settlers, both
Greek and barbarian161. Thus, at Myrmekion, at the beginning of the 5th century BC,
all the subterranean structures were earthed over and brick and stone houses erected in
their place. Paved roads appeared, and evidence of some urban planning is patent: in
other words, an urban type of settlement was created162. Modern research has proved
that something similar also took place at the above-mentioned settlement on
Anapskaya Bay163. The town planning programme at Pantikapaion was completed164.
The stone building in Torikos remained standing165. The city of Phanagoria spread
rapidly and a temple to a female divinity was built in the town centre166. There is
archaeological evidence of urbanisation, or more generally of a rise in living
standards, in Hermonassa167, Kepoi168 and Nymphaion169. This is very likely to have

155
Strabo 7.3.6.
156
Blavatskiy 1954, 19; Ousatchova, Koshelenko 1994, 68-69.
157
Golenko 2007, 1060.
158
Golenko 2007, 1065.
159
See the very illuminating article of A. A. Maslennikov on the development of the rural territory of
the Cimmerian Bosporos from the 6th to the 4th centuries BC (2003b, 1155-1199) in general, and the
issue of the internal colonization of the region in particular (1194-1195).
160
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1996, 26.
161
One typical instance is the case of Tykhon, a Taurian resident of Pantikapaion in the 5 th century BC,
see in this regard D. Braund, 2004, 11-14. For the presence of local peoples, probably of Scythian
origin, who had lived in some Bosporan cities since the 6 th century BC, see Sorokina, Sudarev 2001,
377-381.
162
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1996, 25-26; Vinogradov, Butyagin, Vakthina 2003, 809.
163
Alekseeva 2003, 958-959.
164
Τolstikov V. P. 1992, 64-65, 93; 2003, 717-721.
165
Onayko 1980, 94, 118
166
Dolgorukov 1990, 30-35.
167
Zeyest 1974, 85-92
168
Kuznetsov 1992, 29-30
169
Khudyak 1962, 18-23, 42-47.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 22

been the time when Kytaion, Parthenion170 and Zenon Chersonese were founded,
although we do not, of course, know whether these were cities. At Myrmekion,
Tyritake and Porthmion the remains of a fortified enceinte of the second quarter of the
5th century BC were discovered relatively recently171.
This progressive urbanisation, however, seems to have been abruptly halted
once again, for the third time since the first Greek settlements were founded in the
Cimmerian Bosporus172. At least, this is the explanation given today for the fact that
all the monuments that have come to light bear traces of fire and destruction at a
stratigraphic level that corresponds to the period from the turn of the 5th century BC to
its second quarter173. It is, unfortunately, impossible to date these events more
precisely174. Clearly, some catastrophe hit almost all the places named, on both sides
of the Cimmerian Bosporus175. It is not easy to tell whether and how far these events
occurred at the same time, and consequently whether they shared a single cause. There
are three different opinions on the matter: one is that the destruction was wreaked by
invading Scythian forces176, a second argues social conflict between the cities or
different groups of the Greek population in the wake of the new wave of immigration
and the consequent need for a new sharing of the land177, while a third holds that the
disturbances could have been the result of the conflicting interests between the Greek
cities of the Cimmerian Bosporus and the Achaemenid Empire178. The first view has
the most adherents, while the last version has not yet been sufficiently studied179.
The first explanation supporting the Scythian invasion was, as we know,
devised by the experts to account for the Archaeanactid creation 180 of the Bosporan

170
Κastanayan 1958, 261 ff.
171
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1992, 107; Vakhtina 1988, 197-198; Gaydoukevitch 1949, 45.
172
Zinko 2013, 188-190.
173
The first attempt to collate and explain this data was made in the works of V. P. Tolstikov (1984, 27)
and (1992, 77).
174
In the city of Pantikapaion, for example, these destructions are dated to the 490’s – beginning of the
480’s BC, see relatively Tolstikov, Zhuravlyov, Lomtadze 2004, 352-353.
175
For the destructions on the Taman peninsula, see Zavoykin 2010, 210-211.
176
Tolstikov 1984, 47; 2001, 402-405; Vinogradov 1983, 400; Zinko 2013, 188-189.
177
Maslennikov 1996, 61-65.
178
Kulikov 2007, 1030 with references to relative bibliography. See also Koshelenko 1999, 139-141;
Yaylenko 2004a, 59.
179
Nieling 2010, 123-134.
180
In the scholarly bibliography it is supported the idea that the specific political regime in the
Bosporan State from the beginning of its creation was a polis tyranny (throughout the 5 th century BC)
which it transformed into a kind of Sympoliteia (Zavoykin 2007, 219-239; 2013, 196-198) or a
Hellenistic monarchy (4th – 2nd century BC) (Saprykin 2003, 11-35). For a comparison between the

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 23

Kingdom in 480 BC181, but it is confuted by the chronology and the archaeological
evidence. In all probability, the Scythians this time had nothing to do with the
destruction of Anapskaya and Torikos. There are also other inaccuracies and queries
which are beyond the scope of this text. As for social conflicts in the Bosporus, while
there is no doubt that these existed in Antiquity182, we must not forget that no trace of
such conflict is found anywhere in the sources in relation to the Bosporus, although
this does not of course mean that we can be absolutely certain in this regard.
Turning, finally, to the “Persian factor” of the Achaemenid royal house183 in
Anatolia, it appears that something similar may have occurred earlier. While it is true
that for the first quarter of the 5th century BC there is absolutely no written evidence of
hostility between Greeks and Persians in the Cimmerian Bosporus, we note once again
the chronological parallel: the beginning of the Persian Wars coincides with the
beginning of Archaeanactid rule in the Bosporus184. How that rule was imposed and
how far it extended are still being debated185. One view is that the Archaeanactid
dynasty held sway only over the Asian side of the Bosporus186, another that the

political systems of Bosporus and Cyprus (during Evagoras, the king of Salamis), see the work of
Petrova 1999, 12-29.
181
According to the opinion of modern scholars the military threat of the Scythian nomads in the 5 th
century BC was indeed a very real concern for all the Greek cities along the coastal Bosporan areas, but
it could not have been a determining element for the creation of the Bosporan Kingdom (Alekseeva
2003, 962; Kulikov 2007, 1031). Other scholars, on the contrary, believe and insist that the most
important factor in the establishment of this Bosporan Symmachia was the westward advance of a new
Scythian tribe arriving on the Black Sea shores from the eastern Eurasian steppes (Vinogradov J. A.,
2008a, 15; 2008b, 43-54). A historiography on the problem of the character of the Greek-Scythian
interrelations in the region of the Cimmerian Bosporos during the period between the 6 th – 2nd century
BC, may be found in Molev 2009, 155-157. In this article Yevgeniy A. Molev suggested the idea of
good and stable mutual relations between Bosporians and Scythians within this period in such extend
that even led to a military and political alliance supported by dynastic marriages (Molev 2009b, 159-
165).
182
Aristotle Politics 5.2.10 and 5.4.1-6.
183
The discussion about the Achaemenid influence on the Northern Black Sea coast was revived with
the article of Nikolay Fedoseev (1997, 309-316), who presented some Persian and Persian-inspired
pieces of art deriving from this region. Based on these items and on a passage from Strabo, he supported
the idea of a far-reaching Persian control of the Bosporan territories.
184
Some authors are ready to accept Persian influence even in the historical development of late archaic
Olbia, although they agree that this may only be a hypothesis without serious argumentation of course:
see relatively Fedoseyev 1994, 132-133.
185
Fedoseyev 2012, 318-319.
186
Maybe here it we could trace an answer to the question why the Sicilian-Greek historian Diodorus in
his passage uses the geographical area of Asia in order to place precisely the location of the Bosporus.
More specifically, he reports that “in Asia, the kings of the Cimmerian Bosporus, the dynasty known as
the Archaeanactidai, had ruled for forty-two years”. Why the ancient author locates Bosporus in Asia,
while it is known that the ancient historical tradition refers to it as being a part of Europe (Koshelenko
1999, 131 ff.). In this regard there is another problem: why Herodotus is so silent about Bosporus of his
times and at the same time he gives so much information about the Northern Black Sea Region? A. V.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 24

northeast part of the Kerch peninsula (i.e., Pantikapaion, Tyritake, Myrmekion and
Porthmion) was also under its dominion. However that may be, it is fairly likely that at
least some Greek cities joined forces to meet the Persian threat. It is worth underlining
that the first reliable reference in ancient literature to the transport of grain from the
Bosporus, and specifically to Aegina and the Peloponnese187, dates from the period in
question. Analysis of the archaeological evidence and of various texts, particularly
Isocrates’ “Trapeziticus” oration, indicates that in 5th- and early 4th-century Greece,
or at least in Athens at that time, the word “Pontus” meant the region of the
Cimmerian Bosporus188. If all this is true, then it could certainly be argued that during
the long war with the Greeks the Persian king could have wreaked serious damage on
some of his adversary’s supply depots, since this was already a familiar type of action.
The “modernism” inherent in this thinking notwithstanding, we feel we would
be remiss if we failed to mention some characteristic finds from the Bosporus that are
connected with the Persian presence there, namely Greco-Persian bullae and seals,
which according to the archaeological evidence came from the western satrapies of the
Persian Empire189. It is, of course, perfectly possible that they were simply brought
here by Ionian emigrants or merchants sailing from the Aegean Sea to the Pontic
region in general and to its northern part in particular190.
Returning to the problem of the cities of the Bosporus, we may say that very
few of these cities failed to survive the destruction mentioned above191; most of them,
in fact, were rebuilt very quickly. By the middle of the 5th century BC, the Bosporan
cities had reached certain characteristic levels of development, first of all as urban
centres. The largest of them were raising public buildings and defensive walls,
planning and laying out residential areas, and building houses of brick or stone with
tiled roofs192. It is noteworthy that, as was mentioned before, the cities of Theodosia,

Kulikov believes that the establishment of Persian ‘administration’ in Pantikapaion might serve as an
explanation for the dramatic political and economic development of the city during the 5 th century BC,
on the one hand, and though Bosporus was not under the direct control of the Persian satraps, the early
Greek tyranny in Bosporus seems to have been imposed by the political tradition of Persian state
governancors, on the other (Kulikov 2007, 1030).
187
Hdt. 7.147.
188
Maslennikov 2001a, 180-182.
189
More information is given in the book by N. M. Nikulina 1994.
190
For more details on this topic, see Treister 2010, 223-236.
191
Onayko 1980, 94.
192
Sokolskiy 1973, 88; Pitchikian 1975, 123 ff; Sokolova 1997, 143-147.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 25

Nymphaion and Phanagoria had joined Pantikapaion in minting their own coinage 193.
On another plane, a two-way struggle between autonomism and unification was
playing out in inter-city relations in the region. From the existing data it appears that
there must also have been military conflicts, intrigues and coups d’etat. While for
many of these we have no direct evidence, some are known to be factual, although we
will not be dwelling more extensively on them. Some cities formed temporary
alliances: examples include that uniting the cities around Pantikapaion under the aegis
of the Temple of Apollo, and the Sindican league of cities of the Asian Bosporus.
Regarding the alliance of the cities around the temple of Apollo in
Pantikapaion, for the first time (as far as we know) Yuriy G. Vinogradov 194 suggested
the idea that the minting of silver coin in Bosporus with the legend ΑΠΟΛ195 on the
reverse must be connected with the formation of the political unity of the regional
Greek cities in the second quarter of the 5th century BC196. The theory of Vinogradov
has been accepted and supported since then, as mentioned before, by many scholars.
Nonetheless, according to the opinion of some researchers this theory seems to be
inadequate to give sufficient answers to some questions, e.g. whether this voluntary
political integration was oriented against the Scythian expansion or was coerced by the
Persian rulers to subdue the Bosporan cities197. Other scholars have developed the idea
that the coins bearing this legend should be regarded as a proclamation of the
monetary confederacy of the cities involved in the aforementioned symmachia with the
Temple of Apollo at its head. The latter opinion could be supported to a certain degree
by the fact that there is no information available to us about coin issues from the first
half of the 5th century BC from other Bosporan cities, such as Theodosia198,
Nymphaion, Myrmekion or Phanagoria.
All this is largely confirmed by archaeological evidence199. Strabo makes the
clear and very interesting observation that “Pantikapaion is the metropolis of the
European Bosporians, while Phanagoreia is the metropolis of the Asiatic

193
Frolova 1992, 200-210.
194
Vinogradov 1995, 6-50.
195
As well as the coins with the legent ΑΠ and ΠΑ, see relatively Melnikov 2001, 413.
196
Tereshenko 2013a, 44-50.
197
Kulikov 2007, 1030.
198
Sidorenko, Shonov 2009, 501-505.
199
Frolova 1992, 202-207; Zavoykin, Boldyrev 1994, 43-47.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 26

Bosporians”200. Although this passage contains no direct information or names of new
colonies, it may be assumed that in the 5th century BC, a period of conflict between the
most powerful city-states and their allies, the leaders of certain cities would have been
taking serious autonomous action to gain the leadership of the entire Cimmerian
Bosporus.
This chapter seems to have come to an end with the establishment in
Pantikapaion of the new Spartocid dynasty in the third quarter of the 5th century BC,
and specifically in 438 BC. Meanwhile, as these events were unfolding the number of
towns had increased, although we do not know whether this was the result simply of
the colonisation/annexation of the hinterland or of borders being pushed back by order
of the authorities in the most powerful cities for certain reasons. There are, for
example, clear indications in the source texts of the founding the settlement of
Kimmeris, somewhere in the north part of the Taman peninsula, by the tyrants of the
Bosporus201. Strabo records that it was “situated on a peninsula, and it closed the
isthmus by means of a trench and a mound”, and that it “was in earlier times a city”
202
. This settlement, then, might have been founded towards the end of the 5th century
BC, since only the Spartocids, who came to power in 438 BC, were called tyrants in
the ancient sources. Its identification, however, is still unsettled203. What is certain,
according to Strabo, is that it must have occupied an important strategic and a
favourable commercial position, as in some sort the prop and stay of the Pantikapaean
dynasty in the Asiatic Bosporus.
It was probably for much the same reason that Akra was founded, at the
southeast corner of the Kerch peninsula as has already been mentioned above, at the
entrance to the isthmus, a place mentioned by Strabo as a village “in the land of the
Pantikapaeans”204. The last detail furnished by the geographer, or rather his informant,

200
Strabo 11.2.10. This passage of Strabo’s geography has revealed some scepticism to O. N. Melnikov
who wanders why Strabo mentions Phanagoria as the metropolis of the Asiatic side of the Bosporus
instead of Hermonassa, which was founded earlier than Phanagoria and thus should have been regarded
as the first and most developed among the Greek colonies of the this side. He assumes that in the
beginning the capital city of the Asiatic Bosporus was actually Hermonassa, and only after the end of
the 5th century BC Phanagoria became the capital city in this region, due to the specific historical
development of both settlements (mainly their synoecism) and the issue of a new coin with the legend
ΣΙΝΔΩΝ in this period (Melnikov 2008, 234-239).
201
Pseudo-Scymnus 896.
202
Strabo 11.2.5.
203
Gaydoukevitch 1949, 206; Blavatskiy 1954, 23; see also reference n. 137.
204
Strabo 11.2.8.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 27

may indicate either public or royal property or the separation of the specific part of the
Bosporus from the rest of the Tauric Chersonese. Although the walls of the city seem
to have been built in the 4th century BC205, the site has yielded finds from the 5th
century BC as well. The same is true of the other tentatively identified settlements206
of the European Bosporus: Zephyrion, Hermesion and Parthenion207, which were also
probably either border towns or lay near important routes.
The situation with regard to certain settlements in the Asiatic Bosporus –
Tyrambe208, Apaturon209, Akhilleion210, Stratokleia211, Bata212, Labrytos, Aborake and
Gorgaza – is even more problematical in this respect213. Their exact location remains a
puzzle, and it is unclear whether they even all existed in the period in question214.
Apaturon and Akhilleion215 were renowned religious centres216. Nor is it possible, in
the case of some of these place-names (Tyrambe217, Aborake218, Gorgaza219, perhaps
Labrytos220), to say with certainty that they are Greek. From what we know to date, it
seems that Labrytos was a typical example of an attempt to create a settlement with an
urban infrastructure on barbarian soil. The way in which its fortifications are
constructed is particularly striking, for it is based on purely Greek methods of the 5 th

205
Shilik 1988, 226-228.
206
Pliny Ν.Η. 4.38.87; Ptolemy 4.4.
207
Maslennikov 1990, 18-19; Shestakov 1991, 37-38; Maslennikov 2007, 858. According to a new
opion the same place was in different times called Parthenion and Porthmion, see relatively Braund
2009, 98-105.
208
Sudarev 1998, 237-249; Veselov 2009, 114-115.
209
According to recent suggestions the settlement of Aparuron should be located in the place previously
thought to be the site of the settlement of Kepoi, see in this regard Fedoseyev 2013, 136-139. For earlier
discussions on the problems concerning the localization of the site see Zubarev 1999, 135-136; Sudarev
1999, 226.
210
Veselov 2009, 117-121.
211
Fedoseyev 2013, 137-139.
212
Strabo 11, 2, 14; Ptol. 5, 8. For a short description of the archaeological investigations at the site of
the ancient settlements and the historiography of its identification, see Malyshev 2007a, 931.
213
Zubarev 1999, 123-143; Maslennikov 2007, 855-886.
214
All these settlements, with the exception of Gorgaza, are mentioned for the first time in sources of
the 1st century AD, while the archaeological exploration of the sites has not yet properly begun.
215
Strabo 6.4.5 and 11.2.2; Fedoseyev 1997a, 110 ff.
216
Strabo 11.2. 6 and 11.2.10.
217
Strabo 11.2.4. Some important details about the settlement which is possibly identified with
Tyrambe may be found in Maslennikov 2007, 883-884.
218
Strabo 11.2.10.
219
Diodorus Sicul. 20.23-24.
220
The name Labrytos (or maybe Labrys?) comes from a recently discovered inscription at
Semibratskoye settlement: Blavatskaya 1993, 34-57; Vinogradov 2002, 3-33; Toktha’ev 1998, 287-301;
Yaylenko 2004b, 425-442; a brief description of the archaeological remains at the site of the
Semibratskoe settlement may be found in Maslennikov 2007, 884-886.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 28

century BC221. For another of the more important cities of the Bosporus, Gorgippia,
the literary evidence is that it was founded by the Greeks who lived in the vicinity222;
the archaeological evidence is that this must have taken place at the very end of the 5th
or beginning of the 4th century BC223.
The next period in the history of the Bosporan cities as centres of ancient
Greek urban tradition is related to the creation of the state, unique in its regional
context, ruled by the Spartocids, that is, the founder of the dynasty, Spartocus, and his
descendants. In a series of cases, this phase begins with brief episodes of destruction,
which are observed archaeologically in several Greek settlements of the Cimmerian
Bosporus. The underlying cause of these episodes appears to have been the violent
change of regime when the new tyrants of Pantikapaion 224 seized power in 438 BC.
The new Spartocid dynasty, which overthrew the Archaeanactids, would retain their
sovereignty until 108 BC. The existing evidence is that the name Spartocus is not
etymologically Greek225. That being the case, it would be reasonable to conclude that
the Spartocus who founded the dynasty was a Thracian, most probably living in the
Bosporus, who somehow managed to establish his own ruling house; besides, the state
is known to have maintained very close relations with the neighbouring native
populations for as long as the Spartocids were at the helm. Some scholars think that
the overthrow of the Archaeanactids by Spartacus and the Thracian population which
used to live in the region was actively supported by the Persian Achaemenids226.
Moreover, this is the time when their settlement was renamed, from Apollonia to
Pantikapaion227, a weighty fact that could be supported by the issue of new coins with
the legend ΠΑΝΤΙ228 which in all evidence replaced the previous coinage with the
legend ΑΠΟΛ229.

221
Anfimov 1953, 101; Tolstikov 1986, 170-171, fig. 194-195.
222
Pseudo- Scymnus 889.
223
Alekseyeva 1991, 20-23.
224
Alekseyeva 1991, 22; Zavoykin 1995, 84-95.
225
In the bibliography different opinions existe on the origins of Spartocus, see relatively Molev, 1999,
30, with references. See also Alekseyev 2005, 43-44.
226
Fedoseyev 2012, 320.
227
Fedoseyev 2012, 317-319.
228
Tereshenko 2013b, 102-125.
229
Maslennikov, Smekalova 2005, 279-280.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 29

 It is worth noting that, as it has long been suspected in the bibliography230, the
emergence of the Spartocid dynasty as rulers of the Cimmerian Bosporus in place of
the Archaeanactids was linked with Pericles’ campaing in the Black Sea c. 437 BC231.
Probably this expedition and especially the klerouchia at Sinope232 (and perhaps at
Amisos)233 should be regarded in the context of the on-going political situation at
Athens. Ploutarch, describing the situation in the city, informs that “… in addition to
this, he (i.e., Pericles) despatched a thousand settlers to the Chersonesus, and five
hundred to Naxos, and to Andros half that number, and a thousand to Thrace to settle
with the Bisaltae, and others to Italy, when the site of Sybaris was settled, which they
named Thurii. All this he did by way of lightening the city of its mob of lazy and idle
busybodies, rectifying the embarrassments of the poorer people, and giving the allies
for neighbours an imposing garrison which should prevent rebellion …”234.
Evidently, the establishment of overseas settlements remained a central plank
of Athenian imperial strategy235. In connection to this Plutarch continues his
description by saying that “when he (i.e., Pericles) sailed into the Pontus with an
expedition that was large and impressively fitted out, he carried out the wishes of the
Greek cities and conducted himself generously towards them. To the neighbouring
barbarian peoples and theirs kings and dynasts, he showed the scale, fearlessness and
boldness of the power of his forces which sailed where they wished and brought the

230
See for example Melnikov 2001, 413-414 with references to previous bibliography.
231
See for example Braund 2005, 80-99. Some other scholars, on the contrary, believe that Pericles’
naval expedition in the Black Sea took place after the changes in the Bosporan royal house and that
these two historical facts should not be connected (Surikov 1999, 107, with references to western
bibliography). According to other suggestions the campaign of Pericles should be dated in earlier times
and more specifically in 447 BC, when the Athenian strategos, after the successful operations in the
Thracian Chersonesus, sailed into the Pontic Sea with the aim to reinforce the Greek states in that area
and to secure the sovereignty of the Straits (Karamoutsou 1979, 9-35 and especially 29-33, with
references to previous bibliography). In all this discussion, it is worth noting that for some other
scholars this Athenian naval expedition was just a false and, consequently, fictional propaganda of the
middle of the 4th century BC (Ferrarese 1974, 7-19). Finally, R. Werner supported the idea that the
changes in the political life of the Bosporan State in 438 BC were just a local phenomenon of the city of
Pantikapaion and nothing more (1955, 431-432).
232
Fedoseev 2002, 189-200.
233
According to H. B. Mattingly the only colony which Athens succeded in sending out into the Black
Sea region was indeed Amisos and that this attempt was one of her manifestations as a maritime power
(1996, 154-157, see also the absolute silence about the klerouchia in Sinope in the work of I. Vartsos
1972). Nevertheless, despite the difficulties and the lack of an undisputable evidence in the written
sources, it seems that recent archaeological investigations could in a certain degree support the idea of
the establishment of an Athenian klerouchia in Sinope by Pericles and Lamachus or at least a serious
Athenian influence in the city during the second half of the 5th century BC (Fedoseyev 2003, 132-140).
234
Ploutarch Pericles 11.5-6.
235
Davis 2014, 130.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 30

whole sea under this control. As for Sinope, he left there Lamachus with thirteen ships
and soldiers to deal with the tyrant Timesileos. And when Timesileos and his
associates had fallen from power, he had a decree passed that 600 Athenian
volunteers should sail to Sinope and live together with the Sinopians, sharing the
houses and land which the tyrants had previously had. But in other matters he did not
comply with the ambitions of the citizens”236. In addition to all the above mentioned,
the expedition of Pericles also seems the most possible occasion for the Athenians to
establish links with the Bosporan city of Nymphaion in this period.
In the Psephismaton Synagoge of Craterus237 there is an important information
that the city was assessed as paying one talent each year. We may even suppose that in
this period (and not later) an Athenian garrison may also have been settled at
Nymphaion238 as a result of the possible fact that Gylon, the uncle of the famous
Athenian orator and politician Demosthenes, betrayed the city to an unspecified
enemy239, most probably Athens’ enemy within the city240. Nymphaion probably
played a key role in the Athenian foreing policy in the Black Sea region for its good
harbour and its strategic location close to Pantikapaion. Finally, in the described above
situation connected with the naval campaign of Pericles in the Black Sea, one may
easily detect the absolute absence of the Persian empire. If the Athenian worships
under the guidance of Pericles dared to enter the Pontus, one may think that this
attitude would have surely challenged Persian authority (if ever existed) in the region.
But the Persians, as far as we know, did nothing. It is, thus, logical to accept the thesis
of David Braund that ‘the Pontic expedition was indeed a demonstration that the Great
King could not stand against the Athenias’ ability to sail their warships wherever they

236
Plutarch Pericles 20.
237
FGrH 342 F8.
238
This garrison was very soon replaced by a group of Athenian colonists (epoikoi), see relatively
Melnikov 2001, 413-414. The nature of the presence of these Athenian colonists has been variously
explained. According to one opion, it could probably lead to an establishment of the Athenian
klerouchia in the city. The new settlers might have received the land in the south-western outskirts of
the Nymphaion Plateau, where a mighty four-towered fort with a large courtyard was erected (Zinko
2006, 295).
239
According to a hypothesis Gylon did not betray Athens, but he gave the city to the rulers of
Pantikapaion, Spartocids, in order to save it from the Scythians (Melnikov 2001, 417, with references).
See also Braund 2003, 198-202.
240
Aeschines 3.171-172.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 31

wished’241. Consequently, the Athenians could claim to have obtained the control of
the whole Black Sea without any reaction on behalf of the Achaemenids.
Spartocus was soon overthrown by Seleucus, but before long, in 433 BC, a
new king had seized power. Satyrus I was more fortunate than his two predecessors,
and managed to hold on to his throne until 389 BC, reigning for 45 years as Lord of
the Bosporus, according to the title recorded in the hundreds of inscriptions that have
come to light to date in various Bosporan cities and especially in Pantikapaion. From
the beginning of his reign Satyrus I zealously sought to expand his borders, an
endeavour in which he was largely successful, and which was continued by his two
successors, Leucon I and Pairisades I in the 4th century BC (to 311 BC). The names of
these two monarchs are associated with the most brilliant period in the history of the
Cimmerian Bosporus242.
Within this period the expansionist policy of the Bosporan state assumed
enormous dimensions. In the literature there is a serious discussion concerning the
question of the so-called “secondary” colonization process on both sides of the
Bosporan Straights in this period, i.e. the expansion of the official Bosporan State into
the Crimean peninsula and the region of the Azov Sea and the Kuban River, including
the North-Western Caucasus area243. It seems that this process of the internal or
‘secondary’ colonization by the Bosporan rulers, with a clear emphasis on the eastern
parts of the Kingdom, developed around the turn of the 5th to the 4th century BC244 or
more precisely from the very beginning of the 4th century BC245, and that it probably
was the result of the increasing need for grain246 (especially in grain-starved Athens),
which was the basis of the Bosporan economy and political power247. It becomes clear
the the Bosporan Kings exploited grain products as a source of revenue. Diplomatic
friendship and honours were of course desirable for both Bosporan State and Athens,
but there was a more pressing agenda, material benefits. For this reason, grain was
also exploited as a political weapon248.

241
Braund 2005, 87.
242
Vinogradov 2008, 16-17.
243
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985, 82-143; Zavoykin 2002, 96-97.
244
Vasilyev 1992, 125 ff.
245
Malyshev 2007, 932.
246
Kuznetsov 2000b, 111-112; Tereshenko 2009, 57-59.
247
Vinogradov 2010, 314-318.
248
Davis 2014, 38.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 32

 At the same time the import of Bosporan grain for the Athenian market was of
the greatest importance in the 5th and especially throughout the 4th century BC249. In
this regard Athens had no choice but to create a system of naval ports scattered all
around the east Mediterranean, partly to offer protection to traders who travelled along
the trade routes that eventually led into Athens250. Numerous dangers existed for the
ships and their owners on the way to Athens from Euxeinos Pontus, such as the seizure
of her merchants abroad, the piracy251, and probably the commandeering of shipments
by other states, for the Athenian cargo was instrumental to the survival of the polis as
a political unit.
It is during this time when both sides, i.e. the European and the Asiatic, of the
Bosporan kingdom were united into a single state under the power of the Spartocid
royal house252. The settlement of Labrytos (or Labrys) seems to have played a key-role
in the expansion of the Bosporan state towards the eastern periphery of the
northwestern Caucasus, serving as a stable outpost of Bosporan influence in the Trans-
Kuban region (the left bank of the Kuban river) for a long time. As a consequence the
rulers of the kingdom seized the territories of a number of local tribes in the Asiatic
Bosporus, including the Sindians, Toretoi and Kerketai.

249
Davis 2014, 356.
250
Davis 2014, 74-75.
251
One good example regarding piracy in the North Pontic region could be found it Strabo who refers to
local tribes that used to live by piracy at sea: “After the Sindic territory and Gorgipia, by sea, one comes
to the coast of the Achaeans and Zygoi and the Heniochoi, which for the most part is harbourless and
mountainous, being a part of the Caucasus. These peoples live by robberies at sea. Their boats are
slender, narrow, and light, holding only about twenty-five people, though in rare cases they can hold
thirty in all; the Greeks call them “camarae”. They say that the Phthiotic Achaei in Jason’s crew
settled in this Achaea, but the Laconians in Heniochia, the leaders of the latter being Rhecas and
Amphistratus, the “Heniochoi” of the Dioscuroi, and that in all probability the Heniochoi were named
after these. At any rate, by equipping gleets of “camarae” and sailing sometimes against merchant-
vessels and sometimes against a country or even a city, they hold the mastery of the sea. And they are
sometimes assisted even by those who hold the Bosporos, the latter supplying them with mooring-
places, with market places, and with means to dispose of their booty. And since, when they return to
their own land, they have no anchorage, they put the “camarae” on their shoulder sand carry them to
the forests where they live and where they till a poor soil. And they bring the “camarae” down to the
shore again when the time for navigation comes. And they do the same thing in the countries of others,
for they are well acquainted with wooded places; and in these they first hide their “camarae” and they
themselves wander on foot night and day for the sake of kidnapping people. But they readily offer to
release their captives for ransom, informing their relatives after they have put out to sea. Now in those
places, which are ruled by local chieftains, the rulers go to the aid of those who are wronged, often
attacking and bringing back the “camarae” men and all” (11.2.12). For details on piracy in the Aegean,
see de Souza 1999, 1-90.
252
Vasilyev 1992, 125-127.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 33

 The Bosporan state followed the same hostile expansionist policy towards the
western Crimean hinterland. As we have already mentioned, King Satyros I occupied
Nymphaion and tried to take Theodosia, but it was the next king, Leukon I, who
finally conquered the old Milesian colony. In addition, during the 4th century BC a
series of ‘small’ settlements were established and functioned under the rule of the
Spartocid royal house in the Crimean Azov coastal region253.

253
Maslennikov 2007a, 190-206.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 34

The kingdom of Pontus

Meanwhil, a new kingdom was gradually emerging on the international scene

of the Black Sea region, this time on the far shore of the great inland sea and more
specifically in the eastern part of Asia Minor. This was the Kingdom of Pontus, a
Hellenistic state that for roughly 300 years would play a very important role in its
relations alike with its neighbouring peoples and with the various Greek cities of the
north, and especially with the kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus. Taking this
thought a little further, it is now possible to say that, due to its long-drawn-out conflict
with the Roman Republic, the kingdom of Pontus contributed substantially to the
polarisation254 of the political forces within the republic and thus helped foster the
political crisis that resulted in the transition to dictatorship that in turn led to the
establishment of the early empire (principatus).
The supremacy of the Pontic kingdom extended to the region known as North
or Pontic Cappadocia, which borders on the Black Sea. The importance of its
geographical location lay in the fact that it was at the crossroads of great trade routes
linking Mesopotamia with the Balkans and the Near East with the Caucasus. As a
result the Kingdom of Pontus was a unique mixture of local Anatolian, Persian and
Greek traditions255. The state was delimited to the north by the southeastern shore of
the Black Sea and stretched as far as the foothills of the Taurus Mountains to the
south. The Halys river (modern Kizil Irmak) formed its natural western border, while
to the east the Pontic state stretched as far as the Ophis river (modern Istala Dere),
which was, of course, the border between Pontus and Colchis. To the south there was
another natural boundary between Pontus and Lesser Armenia, namely the Lycus river
(modern Kelkit Cayi). This was roughly the extent of the state ruled by the Mithridatic
dynasty, although it must be borne in mind that these frontiers were never fixed, but
shifted according to the expansionist policy of each monarch.
This whole region of Pontic Cappadocia is mountainous, its succession of
massifs fragmented by watercourses256. It was known from antiquity for its rich
deposits of iron and silver, particularly in its eastern stretches. It was peopled by

254
Marek 2009, 36.
255
Saprykin 2009, 410-415.
256
For a more detailed description of the geography of the Amisos region, see Atasoy 2003, 1339-1341.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 35

farmers and herdsmen, while the state’s economic and commercial relations were
facilitated by the rivers and trade routes that crossed it 257. The population was
descended from the Greek settlers who had come here from Ionia during the age of
colonisation and built their cities along the Black Sea coast, while numerous other
peoples258, including Leucosyrians, Tibarenians, Macrones, Mossynoecians,
Paphlagonians, Chalybes and Colchians also lived in this area259. Descendants of the
Hittites and Luwians must also have been present in substantial numbers, as well as
Thracians, Phrygians and Caucasians and a sizeable Persian-speaking population260.
Apart from the coastal area and the centre, where the Greek cities were, the rest of the
state was less strongly influenced by ancient Greek tradition261.
Ancient literary tradition has preserved much information about the history of
the Kingdom of Pontus. The texts dealing with the kingdom and its people have been
thoroughly analysed by a good few scholars262. Modern research practice263 divides
the existing texts into two basic categories, one comprising the sources – mostly Greek
– that analyse things from the Mithridatic point of view, and the other comprising the
Latin sources that describe the historical conjuncture from the point of view of the
official Roman version of events: merely by way of example, these sources include
Strabo, Pliny, Diodorus, Plutarch, Cicero and Polybius. Strabo’s geographical and
socio-economic information is particularly valuable, because as a native of the region
and an eye-witness familiar with the area and its history he was better placed to record
certain details264. The information supplied by literary tradition is today supplemented

257
Recent archaeological excavations at the region of Amisos have revealed early human traces from
the Mesolithic Age, the late Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages (Atasoy 2003, 1335-1339), and the Iron Age
(Dönmez 2007, 1207-1213).
258
Hecataeus of Miletus was the first geographer in antiquity who collected information about all these
populations in the second half of the 6th century BC, thus clearly pointing to the conclusion that during
this period all of them dwelt in the northern areas of the Asia Minor peninsula. See in this regard
Maksimova 1956, 24-31.
259
An exhaustive account of all the peoples who lived in the southeastern Black Sea area and their
political, ethnic and cultural backround during the 7 th-4th century BC may be found in Maksimova 1956,
109-145.
260
Erciyas 2003, 1404-1406; Marek 2009, 36.
261
For a new approach on this issue, see Marek 2009, 37-38.
262
Reinach 1975, 413-456.
263
Saprykin 1996, 15.
264
Højte 2009, 99-100.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 36

by the various archaeological, inscriptional and numismatic finds brought to light by
excavation work in the region of the kingdom of Pontus265.
One of the key and most extensively discussed questions in the history of the
kingdom of Pontus is that of the origin of the Mithridatic dynasty266. Modern analysis
and study of all the existing sources has led to the conclusion that the Mithradatids
were descended from one of “the seven Persians” and the Persian Achaemenid
dynasty267, the house of Cyrus and Darius I. What still remains unresolved is the
precise identity of the person who founded the state and the dynasty of Pontus. Much
research has been devoted to this question, which continues to absorb scholars268. All
that can be said for certain is that the family tree of the Mithridatid kings of
Cappadocia stems, according to the ancient texts, from one of the seven Persian
forefathers who was also an ancestor of the Persian king Darius III. The ancient
historian Xenophon269 tells us that the head of the dynastic house of Pontus was
Mithridates, who seems to have died shortly before 362 BC. He had been satrap of
Lycaonia and Cappadocia and was a firm ally of Cyrus the Younger.
Pontus was founded as a state in 302 BC, when the satrap of Kios, Mithridates
the son of Ariobarzanes, was murdered on suspicion of a conspiracy against
Antigonus. He was succeeded by his son Mithridates I Ctistes, the founder of the
Pontic kingdom, who ruled his dominion for 36 years, until 266 BC. He had initially
ensconced himself in the Paphlagonian fortress of Kimiata, on Mount Olgassys270,
after his self-exile from the Antigonid camp, where he seems to have spent his exile
working out how to return to centre stage and regain the throne of his forefathers.
Strabo tells us that Mithridates used Kimiata as his base of operations when he
established himself as “Lord of Pontus” 271
. In 301 BC Mithridates took part in the
Battle of Ipsus against Antigonus as an ally of Lysimachus, who rewarded him by
recognising him as lord of the country east of the Halys river. From his stronghold at

265
For a summary of the investigations carried out in Pontus, see Erciyas 2006, 15 ff.
266
An recent attempt to identify the ethnic character of this dynasty may be found in the work of
Gabelko 2009, 47-53.
267
As Otto Morkholm wrote, “the Pontic kings were proud of their Iranian descent, and although they
soon married into the Seleucid dynasty their attachment to their oriental roots remained strong” (1991,
131). See also McGing 2009, 205.
268
McGing 1986, 14-15; Saprykin 1996, 17-38; Bosworth, Wheatley 1998, 156-161.
269
Xenoph. Anabasis 7.8.25.
270
Strabo 12.3.41.
271
12.3.41.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 37

Kimiata the young king ruled his lands and through the might of his powerful army
expanded his borders, thus paving the way for the creation of the Hellenistic kingdom
of Pontus272. Then, taking advantage of the political situation in the territories west of
Bithynia, Mithridates established his dominion over northern Asia Minor, extending
his rule eastwards to Paphlagonia and Pontus.
In 281 BC the scene changed again when the battle of Corupedium established
Seleucus I as ruler of Asia Minor. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the existing
sources to tell us whether Mithridates took part in this battle or not, but what should be
noted is that from this time on he began to press his claim to be granted the title of
basileus. It seems that he had by then succeeded in securing his strength and power in
northern Asia Minor, as is now apparent, according to certain scholars, from the coins
that archaeologists have dated to circa 280 BC273. These are gold staters274 bearing on
the obverse the head of Athena and on the reverse a Nike. The inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
ΜΙΘΡΙΔΑΤΟΥ engraved on the reverse proves them to have been struck by
Mithridates I Ctistes. Clearly, Mithridates had become very popular with the
Cappadocians and the Paphlagonians, perhaps because they saw in him the continuator
of ancestral Persian traditions, the man who could be seen as the heir of the last
Persian king, Darius III.
King Mithridates had one son, Ariobarzanes, who fought at his father’s side in
the different battles, including for instance at the capture of Amastris in – most
probably – 280-279 BC275. Although the city was also claimed by the Heracleans,
Eumenes of Pergamum awarded it to Ariobarzanes, and Mithridates thus added his
first coastal city to his domains, thereby acquiring access to the Black Sea. With the
conquest of the city of Amastris276, the borders of the Pontic kingdom now (in roughly
the middle of the 3rd century BC) stretched westward along the Paphlagonian coast as
far as Cape Carambe and the city of Amastris, east as far as the Thermodon river and
probably Cape Iasonium, and south to the Iris and Halys rivers, including the cities of

272
Maksimova 1956, 173.
273
Saprykin 1996, 39-48.
274
On the coinage of the first rulers of the Kingdom of Pontus as a particular sign of independency, see
Strabo 12.1.4; McGing 1986, 19-20; Morkholm 1991, 131.
275
Saprykin 1996, 50-51 and 55, who argues the view that the city was surrendered in the decade 270-
260 BC.
276
On the foundation of Amastris and the results of modern archaeological investigations on the site,
see Erciyas 2003, 1412, 1419-1425. See also Gabelko, Kuznetsova 2010, 320-336.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 38

Comana, Zela, Amaseia and Gazioura. Only the city of Sinope and the lands round
about it seem to have escaped the king’s grasp, temporarily at least277.
According to the sources Ariobarzanes fought with his father in another of
Mithridates’ battles, this time against Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Ptolemy had sent
troops to the region, and in order to repel Mithridates was forced to seek the aid of the
Galatians, then newly arrived in northern Asia Minor. In the ferocious battle that
ensued, Mithridates and the Galatians managed to push the Egyptian troops back into
the sea, and as a reward the king, according to the ancient sources, permitted them to
found three cities in the interior, one of which they called Ankyra after the anchors
from the ships of Ptolemy’s navy which they had taken as prizes278.
Lucian tells us that Mithridates I lived to be a very old man (he is included in
his list of Macrobii), dying at the age of 84. He was succeeded by his son
Ariobarzanes, who ruled until 250 BC. Although the existing sources shed no light on
his reign, he is thought by scholars to have adopted his father’s expansionist policy
and to have expanded his borders considerably. In 250 BC Ariobarzanes was killed,
and the Galatians, who up until then had been allies of Pontus, took advantage of the
fact that his successor, Mithridates II279, was still very young and resolved to attack
him. This move on the part of a former ally should come as no surprise, since sudden
shifts of allegiance when a moment appeared favourable were common in Asia Minor
in the Hellenistic age.
Under the pressure of the Galatian attack, the young king sought an alliance
with the great Greek coastal city of Heraclea Pontica, which sent troops to another
Greek coastal city, Amisos; this would seem to indicate that Amisos had been added to
the territory of the kingdom of Pontus. With these reinforcements from Heraclea, the
young king was able to repel the Galatians and preserve the integrity of his kingdom.
In order to stave off other such threats from within a highly unstable region,
Mithridates II inaugurated a new way of securing alliances. Having decided to use the
ties of marriage to bind the royal houses governing the lands around him to his own,
he started by wedding Laodice, daughter of Antiochus II and sister of Seleucus II
Callinicus. This marriage brought Mithridates the lands of Greater Phrygia as a

277
Saprykin 1996, 52.
278
Apollonius 17.
279
Memn. FGH 16.1,24 F 434.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 39

wedding gift, besides securing the allegiance of the royal house of the Seleucids, one
of the strongest dynasties of that age. Mithridates was thus able to take his place in the
dance of the great political powers of his day. According to the evidence, throughout
the 3rd century BC he and his successors followed a policy based on the firm
determination to maintain their alliance with the Seleucids of Syria, with the ultimate
aim of securing the position of the kingdom of Pontus on the international political
stage and expanding its territories to the ends of Asia Minor.
According to Eusebius, the marriage between Mithridates II and Laodice must
have taken place while the Third Syrian War was still raging, although some scholars
think that the historian’s dating needs some revision280. This wedding probably took
place in around 245 BC, that is, during the early years of Mithridates’ reign. Seleucus
may have seen this alliance as a way of securing his rear in northern Asia Minor and
thus putting him in a position to turn his full attention to pursuing the war with his
great rival Ptolemy III Euergetes of Egypt. He had, however, failed to foresee the
conflict that would shortly break out between himself and his brother, Antiochus
Hierax, who was attempting to seize not only Pontic territory but the throne itself281.
Apart from his own marriage to Laodice, Mithridates arranged other unions
between his house and that of the Seleucids, seeking to cement their alliance. One
characteristic example is the marriage of his daughter, Laodice II, to Antiochus III.
This was the first time a princess of the house of Mithridates had married into the
ruling house of Syria, one of the most powerful dynasties of the Hellenistic age, and it
clearly indicates that the Kingdom of Pontus had come to be considered as in every
way equal to that of Macedonia. With these alliances Mithridates II sought to bring the
two royal houses closer together and increase his own prestige, especially in the
broader Asia Minor region282, and ultimately, it has been argued, thus peacefully to
acquire the whole of Phrygia and Galatia.
Upon the death of Mithridates II the throne passed to his son by Laodice,
Mithridates III, who reigned over Pontus from 220-190 BC. He married another
Seleucid Laodice, thus continuing the tradition instituted by his father of binding the

280
Saprykin 1996, 60-61.
281
A full description of the events that followed is given by Saprykin 1996, 60-62.
282
As is apparent from, for example, the aid that Mithradates supplied to the city of Rhodes when it was
destroyed by an earthquake in 227/6 BC (Saprykin 1996, 62).

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 40

two powerful houses together in this way. During the first year of his reign there
occurred an event that still has scholars divided. There is so little source information
that it has proven impossible to determine whether the assault on the coastal city of
Sinope in 220 BC took place before or after his accession to the throne. Although most
scholars believe the initiative was his father’s, there are many today who argue that it
was in fact Mithridates III, who succeeded his father in that year, who launched the
attack283. The chief argument in support of the latter opinion is the striking of two
series of silver coins: a tetradrachm284 and one Attic weight drachma285. Mithridates III
is portrayed on both coins, the first recorded appearance of his effigy286.
The minting of these coins is highly significant, as evidence - according to the
scholars - of his rise and of the power his house had already acquired as lords of
Pontus. The assault on Sinope (and presumably on all its colonies and particularly
Amisos) was a show of force on the part of Mithridates III as one of the first actions of
his reign, and his attempt to seize the city without more ado may indicate that his
prime concern was to impose his rule on the Greek cities on the South Black Sea coast
and make them his vassals. The aggressive policy displayed by Mithridates III towards
the Greek cities of the South Black Sea shows just how powerful his dynasty had
become by the end of the 3rd century BC and is evidence of a remarkable political
stability within his own borders.
After this failed assault on Sinope there is no mention of the kingdom of
Pontus in the sources until the reign of Pharnaces I in the 2nd century BC, who
inaugurated a more aggressive and expansionist foreign policy. The new king
embroiled himself in the quarrel between Prusias I of Bithynia and Eumenes II of
Pergamum, throwing in his lot with the former. When the two chief adversaries
declared a truce, Pharnaces continued to pursue his aggressive policy against
Pergamum. Asia Minor was thrown into turmoil, and it was decided that Pharnaces
and Eumenes should send envoys to Rome to invite the western power to arbitrate a
solution to their differences. This was Rome’s first official contact with the
Mithridatic dynasty. Meanwhile, Rhodes too sent envoys to Rome, to complain of

283
Saprykin 1996, 63-5.
284
Callataÿ 2009, 66.
285
Callataÿ 2009, 69.
286
Callataÿ 2009, 68.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 41

Pharnaces’ conduct in the Black Sea region and particularly of his aggression against
Sinope.
Despite the gallant efforts of the Rhodians, who did all they could to relieve
their besieged ally, the flourishing Greek city of Sinope finally fell into the hands of
the king of Pontus in 183 BC. This was his kingdom’s most important conquest, and
the city would become his capital. Before long the Sinopean colonies of Cotyora and
Cerasus had shared the fate of their mother city, and when Pharnaces founded a new
city, which he called Pharnacia, they were required to supply its first settlers. Although
the constant interventions of Rome, which sent missions to Asia Minor to try to
resolve the disputes between Pharnaces and Eumenes, eventually achieved a truce, this
proved short-lived, since Rome’s desire for the cessation of hostilities and the
establishment of a settled peace did not accord with Pharnaces’ views, whose ardent
desire was to expand his territory westward at the expense of Prusias and eastward at
that of Ariarathes of Cappadocia.
After the end of this war (183-179 BC), Pharnaces changed his policy towards
the Greek cities, seeking to establish friendly relations. To this end the king decided to
move his capital to Sinope, whose economy, as a wealth of archaeological material is
making clear, was solidly linked with the Greek cities of both the Black Sea and the
Eastern Mediterranean. Apart from this consideration, Pharnaces’ decision to transfer
his capital is also thought to have had a purely diplomatic aspect, since it would allow
the king to regain the prestige he had lost with the negative outcome of the war,
healing the wounds suffered by the kingdom’s trade and economy. Finally, the policy
of rapprochement Pharnaces adopted towards the Greek cities of the South Black Sea
was also ultimately aimed at convincing Rome, which maintained friendly relations
with the Greek cities, that the policy of the Pontic kingdom had indeed undergone a
metamorphosis and become pro-Greek. Thus, the second quarter of the 2nd century BC
witnessed a radical policy change in the kingdom of Pontus, in favour of Rome. This
pro-Roman stance was maintained even more enthusiastically by Pharnaces’
succesors, Mithridates IV Philopator Philadelphus and Mithridates V Euergetes287.
The evidence of an inscription from Delos suggests that towards the end of his
life Pharnaces ruled with the assistance of his siblings Mithridates IV and Laodice. He

287
Saprykin 1996, 67-89.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 42

died sometime between 160/159 and 156/155 BC, in which year, Polybius tells us288,
his brother Mithridates IV Philopator Philadelphus fought in the war between Bithynia
and Pergamum as king of Pontus. The new king had married his sister, Laodice, as
commemorated by their effigies on a tetradrachm with the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
ΜΙΘΡΑΔΑΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΗΣ ΦΙΔΑΔΕΛΦΩΝ 289. The reign of
Mithridates IV was gentler than that of his predecessor, and he sought to maintain
peaceful relations both with his neighbours and with Rome. In an attempt to reinforce
his political recognition of Rome as a great power, Mithridates IV took care to make a
personal dedication to the Roman people on the Capitoline Hill. Apart from this, the
type of coins he struck attests to the conciliatory disposition of the new king290.
Carrying his pursuit of better relations with Rome even further, he made a practical
demonstration of his friendship by allying himself, as Polybius tells us291, with the
pro-Roman Attalus II of Pergamum in his fight against Prusias II of Bithynia. Finally,
Mithridates IV rejected his predecessors’ custom of seeking brides from the royal
house of the Seleucids of Syria, and chose instead to marry his own sister Laodice.
The ancient sources unfortunately shed no light on the time or manner of his death, but
it is clear from a posthumous coin that the still young Mithridates V Euergetes was
obliged to share his throne for a time with his predecessor’s widow, and his own aunt,
Laodice.
Precisely when and in what circumstances the new king assumed full authority
is unclear, but we do know that he appears as absolute monarch for the first time in
149 BC when he had to send a small number of ships to assist Rome in its war against
Carthage. All his subsequent political action was aimed at strengthening and
consolidating his relations with Rome. The basic element in this endeavour was his
favourable attitude towards the Greek cities of the Eastern Mediterranean and
especially Athens and Delos, where Mithridates V made frequent votive offerings to
Delian Apollo. Within his own realm the most powerful cities grew and prospered and
in some cases certain ancient institutions were revived. His foreign policy, too,
underwent a change, as he sought to regain lost territories, particularly in Greater

288
33.12.1.
289
Callataÿ 2009, 77.
290
Saprykin 1996, 91.
291
33.12.1.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 43

Phrygia, through the exercise of diplomacy, by concluding alliances with Rome, rather
than through force of arms292.
From 130 BC on, however, primarily on account of certain political
developments in the interior of Asia Minor, Mithridates V began to pursue a more
aggressive policy. Whereas his course of action up to that point had been based on
diplomacy under the protection of his alliance with Rome, he now changed tack,
thereby earning himself Rome’s disapproval. Another reason for Rome’s increasing
displeasure with him was his annexation of Paphlagonia, Galatia and Greater Phrygia.
With these territories added to his kingdom, Mithridates V then sought, as we know
from the sources, to seize Cappadocia as well. To this end he began to hire
mercenaries from Greece. When Rome became aware of these warlike preparations, its
exasperation with the Lord of Pontus reached new heights.
His policy of Hellenisation within the kingdom of Pontus also kindled
discontent among certain elements of Pontic society. The pro-Hellenism that was
manifested on the religious, political and cultural levels offended some of the Persian
nobles at his court, who conspired against him and in the end assassinated him in
Sinope in 120 BC293.
After the death of the king, the reins of state passed, under the law of
succession, as Strabo tells us294, to his widow and children. Mithridates V Euergetes
had two sons and five daughters. The heir to the throne was his oldest son, Mithridates
VI Eupator, but since he was a minor at the time of his father’s death, being just
thirteen years old, his mother Laodice ruled in his stead until he came of age. His
childhood years before he assumed his royal duties have been very little studied,
possibly because the little information that can be gleaned from the sources is
intermingled with myth, such as for example the association of Mithridates with
Alexander the Great in an episode with a wild horse that he had to tame.
Historiographers today are so divided in their opinions that they sometimes express
diametrically opposed views on basic questions regarding historical developments in
the kingdom of Pontus in the period in question295.

292
E.g., Strabo 14.1.38.
293
Strabo 10.4.10.
294
10.4.10.
295
Saprykin 1996, 106-127.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 44

 On the evidence to date Mithridates probably assumed power sometime after
120 BC, and very likely four years later, in 116 BC. This emerges from two extant
inscriptions from Delos that refer to King Mithridates Eupator and his brother
Mithridates Christos. As soon as Mithridates VI became king of Pontus, he stripped
his mother and brother of any claim to the throne and ruled over the kingdom of
Pontus as sole monarch until his death, in 63 BC.
In the late 2nd century BC, when Mithridates VI ascended the throne of Pontus,
the political situation in the Black Sea region had become very fluid. Research has
now clearly established that in the 3rd and 2nd century BC the region between the North
Black Sea and the Danube was the scene of significant ethno-cultural fermentations,
the immediate effect of which was to worsen the position of the coastal Greek cities.
By the end of the 4th century BC a new people, the Sarmatians, had begun to flood in
from the east296, crossing the Don River and spreading across the northern regions as
far as the Dnieper297. This influx naturally put pressure on the lands occupied by the
Scythians, who dwelt principally in the Crimean region298. By the second half of the
3rd century BC the Sarmatians had driven the Scythians out of the North Black Sea
steppes, which they now ruled, and forced them farther south. Meanwhile, by the
middle of the 3rd century BC another tribe was pressing into the lands north of the
Danube299: these were the Getae, who together with other Thracian tribes300 harried the
Scythian population of the Western Black Sea301. All this movement to the north
naturally placed the Greek coastal cities established along the length of the seaboard
from the Thracian shores of the Black Sea to the North Caucasus in a perilous
position, a situation which is recorded in inscriptions and in the coinage of many of
them302, including Apollonia303, Mesembria304, Callatis305 and Histria306.

296
Maksimenko, Khartchenko 2007, 155.
297
Zheleztchikov 1987, 38; Vinogradov 2003, 218-222; Murzin 2005, 38; Barfield 2006, 15;
Tereshenko 2009, 57.
298
Lantsov 2005, 140-141.
299
One good reason for this attitude could be the expansion of a new enemy who reached the Balkan
Peninsula and invaded Thrace, the Celts, in 280 BC (Minchev 2003, 225).
300
On this problem see Sȋrbu 2004, 26-27; Munteanu 2005, 353-367.
301
Damyanov 2007, 25; Cojocaru 2007, 385
302
Karayotov 2007, 142.
303
Nedev, Panayotova 2003, 120-121.
304
Preshlenov 2003, 180.
305
Avram 2007, 266-268.
306
Avram 2003, 310-314.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 45

 The political conjuncture was just as explosive in the north of the Black Sea,
where Scythians and Sarmatians were fighting over lands that had up till then
belonged to Greek cities such as Chersonesus Taurike, and even setting their sights on
cities, like Olbia, in the northwest quadrant of the Black Sea. During the 2nd century
BC the Sarmatian tribes also demanded tribute from the last Spartocid ruler of the
Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus, Pairisades V, who in the end, being unable to
preserve his independence, decided to submit to Mithridates VI and pay taxes307.
Meanwhile, however, the Scythians were continuing their hostilities against the
peninsular state and its acquisitions in northwest Crimea, especially in Chersonesus
Taurike308, while on the other hand by the middle of the 2nd century BC the king of the
Scythians, Scylurus, had succeeded in establishing Olbia as a protectorate 309, when not
long before it had been at the mercy of local Thracian tribes310.
As we have seen, during most of the 2nd century BC the kings of Pontus tried
to maintain a pro-Greek and pro-Roman stance towards the Greek cities of northern
Asia Minor. Acting in line with this policy, in the first years of his reign Mithridates
VI Eupator sought to exploit to the utmost his good relations with the coastal Greek
city of Amisos so as to win a place for himself in the international politics of the
Greek Black Sea cities. The city of Amisos had from the beginning supported the rise
and establishment of Mithridates VI on the throne of Pontus, in direct contrast with
Sinope, the capital, which sought the exact opposite. By the second half of the 2 nd
century BC Amisos had secured an important position in the international trade and
economic relations of the Greek cities on the Black Sea. Its population saw in the
person of the young king the continuator of the work of his predecessor Mithridates V
Euergetes, and a man who could rally all the Greek centres in the Circumpontic region
as a whole.
The last wish of Mithridates VI, to gradually unite almost all the Greek Black
Sea cities under his rule, had apparently been achieved, since by the end of the 2 nd
century BC the most important of them had been brought under his rule. As it has been
stated, his aim was to create a strong Pan-Pontic state on the Euxine in order to

307
Gulenkov 2002, 308-309.
308
Heinen 2005, 31-50.
309
Kryzhytskyy, Krapivina, Lejpunskaja, Nazarov 2003, 409.
310
Kryzhytskyy, Krapivina, 518-520.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 46

counteract the Romans’ growing power as well as the power of the neighbouring
Hellenistic kingdoms311. The relation of the Greek Pontic cities with the kingdom was
not, however, the same in all cases, since some of them are described as allies of
Mithridates and others as vassals paying for his protection. Whatever their status,
however, it is clear that all the Greek cities of the Black Sea accepted and recognised
the sovereignty of Mithridates Eupator. Mithridates even succeeded in developing and
maintaining good relations with most of the peoples inhabiting the lands around the
Black Sea. With this policy the king of Pontus began to reap tremendous gains for his
kingdom, since he held and controlled the most important ports and hence all maritime
trade in Black Sea waters, while at the same time exploiting the wealth of raw
materials from each separate region.
The Kingdom of Pontus was not the only powerful state in Asia Minor. A rival
power, the Kingdom of Bithynia, sought from time to time to assume the hegemony of
the region and indeed on several occasions clashed with its Pontic neighbour, or allied
with it to achieve some common goal, as for example when at the end of the 2 nd
century BC the two kingdoms joined forces against Paphlagonia and, having
conquered it, divided its lands between them. There followed a long period of conflict
and diplomatic negotiation, not always innocent of intrigue, with Cappadocia as the
apple of discord between the kingdoms of Pontus and Bithynia.
That was the point at which Rome, the great power of the day, having
evidently realised how strong Mithridates was becoming in Anatolia, made its
presence felt, with the aim of neutralising him. With the pretext afforded by the
sudden invasion of the Kingdom of Pontus by Nicomedes IV and a patent nod of
assent from Rome, a war broke out in 89 BC that immediately assumed international
dimensions, with Rome in the opposing camp. The king Mithridates VI counted on the
decisive support from Parthia in this war312. It would take nearly twenty-five years for
Rome to triumph over the king of Pontus (63 BC) and finally conquer his kingdom 313.
Among several reasons of the collapse of the kingdom of Pontus it seems that the

311
Saprykin 2007, 196-206.
312
It seems that close relations between Mithridatid Pontus and Arsakid Parthia were initiated prior to
102/101 BC. It seems that any active policy by Mithridatis VI toward Rome would have been
impossible if he had not had his eastern frontier firmly secured, mainly Armenia and Parthia as
dominated powers during this time (Olbrycht 2011, 276-279)
313
Olbrycht 2009, 177-179.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 47

essential factor was that the king Mithridates VI lacked of Parthian assistance in the
70s and 60s BC and thus was dependent on his own and to some extent on Tigranes’
resources314.

314
Olbrycht 2011, 278-279.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 48

ABBREVIATIONS

AGCBS 2003 – Grammenos D. V. & E. K. Petropoulos, (eds.), Ancient Greek

Colonies in the Black Sea. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern
Greece, Nr. 4., 2 vols., Thessaloniki, 2003.
AGCBS 2007 – Grammenos D. V. & E. K. Petropoulos, (eds.), Ancient Greek
Colonies in the Black Sea -2. British Archaeological Reports International Series
1675, 2 vols. Oxford, 2007.
AGSP – Античные государства Северного Причерноморья. Археология СССР в
20 т. (Antitchniye Gosoudarstva Severnogo Pritchernomorya. Arkheologiya SSSR v
20 t. – Ancient States in the North Black Sea Littoral. Archaeology of USSR in 20
vols.). Moscow 1984.
AMA - Античный мир и археология (Antitchniy mir i arkheologiya – Antient World
and Archaeology). Saratov.
AWE – Ancient West and East
BS – Боспорский Сборник (Bosporskiy Sbornik – Bosporan Collection). Moscow (in
Russian, with summaries in English).
DB – Древности Боспора (Drevnosti Bospora – Antiquities of Bosporus). Moscow (in
Russia, with summaries in English).
JHS – Journal of Hellenic Studies
KBN – Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani. Moscow-Leningrad, 1965.
KSIA – Краткие сообщения Института Археологии АН СССР (Kratkiye
Soobsheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR – Short Bulletins of the Institute of
Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of the USSR). Moscow.
KSIIMK – Краткие сообщения Института Истории Материальной Культуры
(Kratkiye Soobsheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoy Kultury – Short Bulletins of the
Institute of the History of Material Culture). Moscow.
MAIET - Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии (Materialy po
arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii – Materials in Archaeology, History and
Ethnography of Tauria). Simferopol.
Makednon – Περιοδικό της Παιδαγωγικής Σχολής του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου
στην Φλώρινα (Bulletin of the Pedagogical Faculty of Aristotle University in Florina)

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 49

(in Greek, with summaries in English).
MIA – Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР (Materialy i Issledovaniya
po arkheologii SSSR – Materials and Researches about the Archaeology of the
USSR). Moscow-Leningrad.
PIFK – Проблемы Истории, Филологии, Культуры (Problemy Istorii, Filologii,
Kultury – Problems in History, Literature, Culture). Moscow-Magnitogorsk-
Novosibirsk (in Russian, with summaries in English).
RA – Российская археология (Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya – Journal of Russian
Archaeology). Moscow (in Russian, with summaries in English).
SA – Советская археология (Sovetskaya Arkheologiya – Journal of Soviet
Archaeology). Moscow (in Russian, with summaries in English).
VDI – Вестник Древней Истории (Vestnik Drevney Istorii – Journal of Ancient
History). Moscow (in Russian, with summaries in English).

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 50

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramov, Paromov 1993 – Абрамов А. П., Поромов Я. М., Раннеантичные

поселения Таманского полуострова (Ranneantitchniye poseleniya Tamanskogo
poluostrova), in: BS, n. 2. 25-98.
Abramov, Vasilyev, Kopeykin, Morozov 2004 – Абрамов А. П., Васильев А. Г.,
Копейкин В. В., Морозов П. А., «Киммерийский вал». Новые данные
(Kimmeriyskiy val. Noviye danniye), in: DB, vol. 7. 20-28.
Abramov A. P., Zavoykin A. A., Patraeus-Cimmeris-Achilleion, in: AGCBS 2003, vol.
2. 1103-1153.
Alekseyev 1992 – Алексеев А. Ю., Скифская хроника (Skifskaya Khronika). St-
Petersburg.
Alekseyev 1996 – Хронография европейской Скифии (Khronografiya evropeyskoy
Skifii). St Petersburg.
Alekseyev A. Yu., Scythian Kings and ‘Royal’ Burial-Mounds of the Fifth and Fourth
Centuries BC, in: D. Braund, (ed.), Scythians and Greeks: Cultural Interactions in
Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (sixth century BC – first century AD).
Exeter. 2005. 39-55.
Alekseev A., Scythian Kings and “Royal Barrows” of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries
BC: Modern Chronology and Interpretation, in: J. Aruz, A. Farkas, E. Valtz Fino,
(eds.), The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Perspectives on the Steppe Nomads of the Ancient
World. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia. New York. 2006. 160-167.
Alekseyeva 1991 – Алексеева Е. М., Греческая колонизация северо-западного
Кавказа (Gretcheskaya kolonizatsiya severo-zapadnogo Kavkaza). Moscow.
Alekseeva Ye. M., Gorgippia, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2, 957-1005.
Anfimov 1953 – Анфимов Н. В., Исследования Семибратнего городища
(Issledovaniya Semibratnego gorodisha), in: KSIIMK, n. 51. 99-111.
Anokhin 1999 – Анохин В. А., История Боспора Киммерийского (Istoriya
Bospora Kimmeriyskogo). Kiev.
Arsenyeva T.M., Tanais, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 1047-1102.
Avram A., Histria, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 1. 279-340.
Avram A., Kallatis, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 1. 239-286.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 51

Barfield Th. J., Steppe Nomadic Culture and Political Organization, in: J. Aruz, A.
Farkas, E. Valtz Fino, (eds.), The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Perspectives on the Steppe
Nomads of the Ancient World. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia. New
York. 2006. 12-17.
Atasoy S., Amisos, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 1331-1377.
Blavatskaya 1993 – Блаватская Т. В., Посвящение Левкона I (Posviasheniye
Lefkona I), in: RA, n.2. 34-57.
Blavatskiy 1950 – Блаватский В. Д., Античная культура в Северном
Причерноморье (Antitchnaya koultoura v Severnom Pritchernomorye), in: KSIIMK,
vol. XXXV. 30-36.
Blavatskiy 1954 – Архаический Боспор (Arkhaitcheski Bospor), in: MIA, n. 33. 7-44.
Blavatskiy 1964, Пантикапей: Очерки истории столицы (Pantikapey: Otcherki
istorii stolitsi). Moscow, 1964.
Bosworth, A.B., Wheatley, P.V., The Origins of the Pontic House, in: JHS, n. 118.
1998. 109-141.
Braund D., The Bosporan Kings and Classical Athens: Imagined Breaches in a Cordial
Relationship (Aisch. 3.171-172; [Dem.] 34.36), in: Pia Guldager Bilde, Jakob Munk
Højte & Vladimir F. Stolba, (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas. Studies Presented to
A.N. Sceglov on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Aarhus University Press. 2003.
197-208.
Braund D., Tykhon the Taurian: a cautionary note on CIRB 114, in: DB, vol. 7. 2004.
11-14.
Braund D., Pericles, Cleon and the Pontus: The Black Sea in Athens c.440-421, in: D.
Braund, (ed.), Scythians and Greeks: Cultural Interactions in Scythia, Athens and the
Early Roman Empire (sixth century BC – first century AD). Exeter. 2005. 80-99.
Braund D., Bosporan crossings: Porthmion, Parthenion, Akhilleion and Herakleion, in:
DB, vol. 13. 2009. 97 -112.
Bujskikh S. B., Die Chora des pontischen Olbia: Die Hauptetappen der räumlich-
strukturellen Entwicklung, in: P. G. Bilde, V. F. Stolba, (eds.), Surveying the Greek
Chora: Black Sea Region in a Comparative Perspective. Aarhus University Press.
2006. 115-139.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 52

Burstein S., The War between Heraclea Pontica and Leucon I of Bosporus, in:
Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschicte 4th Quarter. 1974. 401-416.
Butyagin A. M., New Research in the Environs of the Acropolis of Myrmekion, in: E.
Papuci-Władyka, M. Vickers, J. Bodzek, D. Braund, (eds.), PONTIKA 2008: Recent
Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in Ancient Times. Proceedings of the
International Conference, 21st-26th April 2998, Kraków. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 2240. Oxford. 2011. 37-46.
Callataÿ F. de, The First Royal Coinages of Pontos (from Mithridates III to
Mithridates V), in: J. M. Højte, (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus
University Press. 2009. 63-94.
Chaniotis A., Ο ελληνικός αποικισμός, in: D. Tsangari, (ed.), Η Ευρώπη της Ελλάδος:
Αποικίες και νομίσματα από την συλλογή της Alpha Bank. Catalogue of the Exibition at
the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Athens 2014. 331-37.
Cojocaru V., “L’histoire par les noms” dans les villes Grecques de Scythie et Scythie
Mineure, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 1. 383-434.
Damyanov M., Dionysopolis, its Territory and Neighbours in the pre-Roman Times,
in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 1. 1-36.
Davis J. K., Η δημοκρατία και η κλασική Ελλάδα. (Greek translation of “Democracy
and Classical Greece”, by G. Tsolakis, ed. by J. K. Xydopoulos).
Dolgorukov 1990 – Долгоруков В. С., Некоторые вопросы истории и топографии
ранней Фанагории (Nekotorye voprosy istorii i topografii ranney Fanagorii), in:
KSIA, n. 197. 30-35.
Dönmez Ş., The Central Black Sea Region, Turkey, during the Iron Age: the Local
Cultures and the Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 2. 1207-1220.
Erciyas Deniz B., Heracleia Pontica-Amastris, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 1402-1431.
Erciyas Deniz B., Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic
Kingdom of the Mithridatids. Colloquia Pontica, 12. Leiden 2006.
Fantalkin A., Naukratis as a Contact Zone: Revealing the Lydian Connection, in: R.
Rollinger, K. Schnegg, (eds.), Kulturkontakte In Antiken Welten: Vom Denkmodell
Zum Fallbeipsiel. Proceedings des internationalen Kolloquiums aus Anlass des 60.
Geburtstages von Christoph Ulf, Innsbruck, 26. bis 30. Januar 2009. Leuvan-Paris-
Walpole 2014. 27-51.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 53

Fedoseyev 1994 - Федосеев Н. Ф., К вопросу о влиянии восточных деспотий на
ход исторического развития Ольвийского государства (K voprosu o vliyanii
vostotchnykh despotiy na khod istoritcheskogo razvitiya Olviyskogo gosudarstva), in:
Ольвия-200. Тез. док. конф. (Olviya-200. Abstracts of the Conference). Nikolaev.
132-133.
Fedoseev N., Zum achämenidischen Einfluß auf die historische Entwicklung der
nordpontischen griechischen Staaten, in: Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und
Turan. Band 29. Berlin 1997. 309-319.
Fedoseyev 1997a – Переправы через Боспор Киммерийский (Perepravy tcherez
Bospor Kimmeriyskiy), in: VDI, n. 4. 100-110.
Fedoseyev 1999 – Ещё раз о переправе через Боспор Киммерийский (Yesho raz o
pereprave tcherez Bospor Kimmeriyskiy), in: Археология и История Боспора
(Arkheologiya i Istoriya Bospora), vol. III. Simferopol. 61-101.
Fedoseev N. F., Les témoignages archéologiques sur une clérouquie athénienne à
Sinope, in : MOUSEION, XLVI, series III, vol. 2, n. 2. 2002. 189-202.
Fedoseyev 2003 – Археологические свидетельства об афинской клерухии в
Синопе (Arkheologitcheskiye svidetelstva ob Afinskoy kleroukhii v Sinope), in : VDI,
n. 3. 132-140.
Fedoseyev 2012 – Некоторые дискуссионные вопросы организации и развития
Боспорского государства (Nekotoriye diskussionniye voprosy organizatsii i razvitiya
Bosporskogo gosudarstva), in: Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье.
Миграции, расселение, война как факторы политогенеза. XXIV Чтения памяти
члена-корреспондента АН СССР Владимира Терентьевича Пашуто. Москва, 19 -
20 апреля 2012 г. (Vostotchnaya Yevropa v drevnosti i srednievekoviye. Migratsii,
rasseleniye, voyna kak factory politogeneza). Materials of the conference dedicated to
the memory of Academician V. T. Pashuto. Moscow. 315-320.
Fedoseyev 2013 – К вопросу о локализации Апатура, Кеп и Стратоклеи (K
voprosu o lokalizatsii Apatura, Kep i Stratoklei), in: PIFK, fasc. 4 (42). 132-140.
Ferrarese P., La spedizione di Pericle nel Ponto Euxino, in: Propaganda e persuasione
occulta nel antichita. Contributi dell’ Istituto di storia antica 2. Milano, 1974. 7-19.
Finogenova S. I., 2003, Hermonassa, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 1007-1045.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 54

Fossey J. M., Some Parameters of Archaic Greek Colonization, in: A. Fraysse, E.
Geny, T. Khartchilava, (eds.), Sur les traces des Argonautes. Actes du 6e symposium
de Vani (Colchide) 22-29 septembre 1990. Paris 1996. 119-125.
Frolova 1992 – Фролова Н. А., Монетное дело Боспора VI в. до н.э.-IV в. н.э. в
свете новых исследований (Monetnoye delo Bospora VI v do n.e. – IV v n.e. v svete
novykh issledovaniy), in: Очерки археологии и истории Боспора (Otcherki
arkheologii i istorii Bospora). Moscow. 187-247.
Frolova 1996 – Монетное дело Боспора VI-V вв. до н.э. (Monetnoye delo Bospora
VI-V vv do n.e.), in: RA, n. 2. 1996. 34-69.
Gabelko O. L., The Dynastic History of the Hellenistic Monarchies of Asia Minor
according to the Chronography of George Synkellos, in: J. M. Højte, (ed.), Mithridates
VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. 2009. 47-61.
Gabelko, Kuznetsova 2010 – Габелко О. Л, Кузнецова Е. В., Синойкизм Амастрии
и амфорное производство в полисах южного Понта (2-ая половина IV – 1-ая
треть III в. до н.э.) [Sinoikizm Amastrii i amfornoye proizvodstvo v polisakh
yuzhnogo Ponta (2-a polovinaVI-1-a tret III v. do n.e.)], in: AMA, vol. 14. Saratov.
320-338.
Gavrilov 2001 – Гаврилов А. В., О валах на Акмонайском перешейке (O valakh na
Akmonayskom peresheyke), in: MAIET, vol. 8. Simferopol.10-17.
Gavrilov 2003 – Феодосия и её округа античную эпоху (Feodosiya i yeyo okruga v
antitchnuyu epokhu), in: PIFK, n. 13. 77-99.
Gavriluyk N. A., Krapivina V. V., Lower Dnieper hillforts and the Influence of Greek
Culture (2nd c. BC-2nd c. AD), in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 1. 563-590.
Gavriliuk N. A., Handmade Pottery of the Greek Group from Tyras, Olbia and
Nymphaion in the Hellenistic Period, in: E. Papuci-Władyka, M. Vickers, J. Bodzek,
D. Braund, (eds.), PONTIKA 2008: Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern
Black Sea in Ancient Times. Proceedings of the International Conference, 21st-26th
April 2998, Kraków. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2240.
Oxford. 2011. 129-137.
Gaydoukevitch V. F. 1949 – Гайдукевич В. Ф., Боспорское царство (Bosporskoe
tsarstvo). Moscow-Leningrad.
Golenko V. K., Kimmerikon, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 2. 1057-1082.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 55

Gorlov, Bezrutchenko 1991 – Горлов Ю. В., Безрученко И. М., Малые города
Боспора (Malyie goroda Bospora), in: Проблемы истории Крыма (Problemy istorii
Kryma). Simferopol. 36-38.
Gorontcharovskiy V. A., Iluraton, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 2. 897-926.
Gulenkov 2002 – Гуленков К. Л., Налоги на Боспор при Митридате VI Евпаторе
(Nalogi na Bospor pri Mitridate VI Yevpatore), in: PIFK, n. 12. 308-310.
Hall J. M., Αρχαία ελληνική ιστορία: Η αρχαϊκή περίοδος, 1200-479 π.Χ. (Greek
translation of J. Xydopoulos). Thessaloniki 2013.
Heinen H., Die Anfänge der Beziehungen Roms zum nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum.
Die Romfreundschaft der Chersonesiten (IOSPE I2 402), in: A. Coşkun, (ed.), Roms
auswärtige Freunde in der späten Republik und im frühen Prinzipat. Göttingen 2005.
31-54.
Herda A., How to run a state cult: The organization of cult of Apollo Delphinios in
Miletos, in: M. Hayson, J. Wallensten, (eds.), Current approaches to Religion in
ancient Greece. Papers presented at a symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens,
17-19 April 2008. Stockholm. 2011. 57-93.
Højte J. M., The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom, in: J. M. Højte,
(ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. 2009. 95-108.
Karamoutsou S. N., Η εκστρατεία του Περικλή στον Πόντο, in: Δωδώνη, n. 8, 1979.
9-36.
Karayotov I., Le monnayage de Mesambria et les monnayages d’Apollonia, Odessos
et Dionysopolis, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 1. 127-174.
Katyushin E. A., Theodosia, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 1, 645-695.
Kharaldina, Novitchikhin 1994 – Харалдина З. Е., Новичихин А. М., Античные
коллекции Анапского музея (Antitchniye kollektsii Anapskogo mouseya), in: VDI,
n. 2. 200-212.
Khudyak 1992 – Худяк М. М., Из истории Нимфея (Iz istorii Nimfeya). Leningrad.
Kobylina 1983 – Кобылина М. М., Страницы ранней истории Фанагории
(Stranitsy ranney istorii Fanagorii), in: SA, № 2. 51-60.
Kolotyukhin 2000 – Колотюхин В. А., Киммерийцы и скифы Степного Крыма
(Kimmeriytsy i skify Stepnogo Kryma). Simferopol.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 56

Koltukhov, Trufanov, Uzhentsev 2003 – Колтухов С. Г., Труфанов А. А., Уженцев
В. Б., Новые материалы к строительной истории Узунларского рва и вала
(Noviye materialy k stroitelnoy istorii Uzunlarskogo rva i vala), in: DB, vol. 6. 176-
183.
Kondrashov A. V. 1991 – Кондрашов А. В., Находки древних якорей у Кавказких
берегов (Nakhodki drevnikh yakorey ou Kavkaskikh beregov), in: Древности
Кубани (Drevnosti Koubani). Krasnodar. 59-61.
Kopylov 1996 – Копылов В. П., Самые ранние образцы древнегреческой
керамики из Таганрогского поселения. (Samiye ranniye obraztsy
drevnegretcheskoy keramiki iz Taganrogskogo poseleniya), in: Древнее
Причерноморье (Drevneye Pritchernomorye). Odessa. 57-58.
Kopylov 2011 – Таганрогское поселение-гавань Кремны? (письменные
источники и археологические реалии) [Taganrogskoe poseleniye-gavan Kremny?
(pismenniye istotchniki i arkheologitcheskiye realii)], in: AMA, vol. 15. 223-239.
Kopylov V. P., Andrianova N. V., Greek-Barbarian Relations in the Lower Don
Region in the 7th-3rd Centuries BC, in: E. Papuci-Władyka, M. Vickers, J. Bodzek, D.
Braund, (eds.), PONTIKA 2008: Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black
Sea in Ancient Times. Proceedings of the International Conference, 21st-26th April
2998, Kraków. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2240. Oxford.
2011. 195-202.
Koshelenko 1999 – Кошеленко А. Г., Об одном свидетельстве Диодора о ранней
истории Боспорского царства (Ob ondom svidetelstve Diodora o ranney istorii
Bosporskogo tsarstva), in: Древнейшие государства Восточной Европы (1996-
1997) (Drevneyshiye godudarstva Vostotchnoy Yevropy). Moscow. 130-141.
Koshelenko G. A., Kuznetsov V. D. 1992 – Кошеленко Г. А., Кузнецов В. Д.,
(Gretcheskaya kolonizatsiya Bospora), in: Очерки археологии и истории Боспора
(Otcherki arkheologii i istorii Bospora). Moscow, 1992, 6-28.
Kovalenko, Tolstikov 2010 – Коваленко С. А., Толстиков В. П., ΙΙ. О начале
монетной чеканки на Боспоре (O natchale monetnoy tchekanki na Bospore), in:
VDI, n. 4. 23-50.
Kovalenko S. A., Tolstikov V. P., On the Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian
Bosporus, in: AWE, 12, 2013. 181-204.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 57

Krapivina V. V., Olbia Pontica in the 3rd-4th Centuries AD, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 1.
591-626.
Kruglikova 1975 – Кругликова И. Т., Сельское хозяйство Боспора (Selskoye
khozyaystvo Bospora). Moscow.
Krutilov 2007 – Крутилов В. В., Полуземлянки архаического времени на
территории участка «Т» на о. Березани (Poluzemlyanki arkhaitcheskogo vremeni na
territorii utchastka T na o. Berezani), in: Античный мир и варвары на юге России и
Украины. Ольвия. Скифия. Боспор (Antitchniy mir i varvary na yuge Rossii i
Ukrainy.Olviya.Skifiya.Bospor). Moscow-Kiev-Zaparozhye. 26-35.
Kryzhitskiy S. D., Olbia and the Scythians in the Fifth Century BC: The Scythian
‘Protectorete’, in: D. Braund, (ed.), Scythians and Greeks: Cultural Interactions in
Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (sixth century BC – first century AD).
Exeter. 2005. 123-130.
Kryžickij S. D., The Rural Environs of Olbia: Some Problems of current Importance,
in: P. G. Bilde, V. F. Stolba, (eds.), Surveying the Greek Chora: Black Sea Region in a
Comparative Perspective. Aarhus University Press. 2006. 99-114.
Κryzhitskiy, Bouyskikh, Otreshko 1990 – Античные поселения Нижнего Побужья
(Antitchniye poseleniya Nizhnego Pobuzhya), in: Археологическая карта
(Arkheologitcheskaya karta). Kiev. 12-43.
Kryzhytskyy S. D., Krapivina V. V., Olbian Chora, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 1. 507-561.
Kryzhytskyy S. D., Krapivina V. V., Lejpunskaja N. A., Nazarov V. V., Olbia-
Berezan, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 1. 389-505.
Kulikov A. V., Akra and its chora, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 2. 1023-1056.
Kutaisov V. A., Kerkinitis, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 1. 563-602.
Kuznetsov 1991 – Кузнецов В. Д., Ранние апойкии Северного Причерноморья
(Ranniye apoikii Severnogo Pritchernomorya), in: KSIA, n. 204. 31-36.
Kuznetsov 1991a – Кепы. Ионийская керамика (Kepy. Ionniyskaya keramika), in:
SA, n. 4. 36-52.
Kuznetsov 1992 – Раскопки в Кепах 1984-1989 (Raskopki v Kepakh 1984-1989), in:
Очерки археологии и истории Боспора (Otcherki arkheologii i istorii Bospora).
Moscow. 28-45.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 58

Kuznetsov 1995 – Ранние типы греческого жилища в Северном Причерноморье
(Ranniye tipy gretcheskogo zhilisha v Severnom Pritchernomorye), in: BS, n. 6. 99-
126.
Kuznetsov 2000a – Некоторые проблемы торговли в Северном Причерноморье в
архаический период (Nekotorye problemy torgovli v Severnom Pritchernomorye v
arkhaitcheskiy period), in: VDI, n.1. 16-40.
Kuznetsov 2000b – Афины и Боспор: хлебная торговля (Afiny i Bospor: khlebnaya
torgovlya), in: RA, n. 1. 107-120.
Kuznetsov 2001a – Метрополия Фанагории (Metropoliya Fanagorii), in: DB, vol. 4.
227-233.
Kuznetsov 2001b – Полис на Боспоре (эпоха архаики) (Polis na Bospore, epokha
arkhaiki), in: DB, vol. 4. 237-253.
Kuznetov V. D., Kepoi-Phanagoria-Taganrog, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 895-955.
Kuznetsov 2008 – Фанагория: По материалам Таманской экспедиции ИА РАН
(Fanagoria: Po materialam Tamanskoy ekspeditsii IA RAN). Moscow.
Kuznetsov 2009 – Причерноморские греки в варварской земле (Pritchernomorskiye
greki v varvarskoy zemle), in: DB, vol. 13. 280-304.
Lamboley J.-L., Migration and Greek Civilization, in: F. Petrucci, E. Lollini, F.
Verdiani, (eds.), Immigration/Emigration in Historical Perspective. Piza Univestiry
Press. 2007. 55-64.
Lantsov 2005 – Ланцов С. Б., О скифо-херсонесских отношениях в последней
трети IV – в первой трети III вв. до н.э. (O skifo-khersonesskikh otnosheniy v
posledney treti IV – pervoy treti III vv. do n.e.), in: V. Cojocaru, (ed.), Ethnic
Contacts and Cultrural Exchanges Northe and West of the Black Sea from the Greek
Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest. Iaşi 2005. 127-146.
Maksimenko, Khartchenko 2007 – Максименко В. Е., Харченко А. А., Античный
город Танаис и варвары (Antitchniy gorod Tanais i varvary), in: VDI, n. 2. 145-156.
Maksimova 1956 – Максимова М. И., Античные города Юго-Восточного
Причерноморья: Синопа, Амис, Трапезунт (Antitchniye goroda Yugo-Vostotchnogo
Pritchernomorya: Sinopa, Amis, Trapezunt). Moscow-Leningrad.
Malyshev A. A., Torikos, in: AGCBS 2007a, vol. 2. 927-950.
Malyshev A. A., Greeks in the North Caucasus, in: AGCBS 2007b, vol. 2. 951-978.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 59

Malyshev 2009 – Малышев А. А., Юго-восточная периферия Боспорского
царства (Yugo-vostotchnaya periferiya Bosporskogo tsarstva), in: Malyshev A. A.,
(ed.), ABRAU ANTIQUA: Результаты комплексных исследований древностей
полуострова Абрау (Rezultaty kompleksnykh issledovaniy drevnostey poluostrova
Abrau). Moscow. 74-107.
Manoledakis M., Η θέση των Αιγών στην «Γεωγραφία» του Κλαυδίου Πτολεμαίου,
in: Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στην Μακεδονία και την Θράκη. Θεσσαλονίκη. 2005, vol. 19.
483-494.
Manoledakis M., Livieratos E., On the digital placement of Aegae, the first capital of
ancient Macedonia, according to Ptolemy’s Geographia, in: e-Perimetron, Winter
2007, vol. 2, n. 1. 31-41.
Marek Chr., Hellenisation and Romanisation in Pontus-Bithynia: an overview, in: J.
M. Højte, (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press.
2009. 35-46.
Maslennikov 1983 – Масленников А. А., Ещё раз о боспорских валах (Yesho ras o
bosporskich valach), in: SA, n. 3. 14-22.
Maslennikov 1990 – Население Боспорского государства в первых века н.э.
(Naseleniye Bosporskogo gosudarstva v pervykh vekakh n.e.). Moscow.
Maslennikov 1992 – Зенонов Херсонес-Боспорский городок на Меотиде (Zenonov
Chersones-Bosporskiy gorodok na Meotide), in: Очерки археологии и истории
Боспора (Otcherki arkheologii i istorii Bospora). Moscow. 120-173.
Maslennikov 1996 – Некоторые проблемы ранней истории Боспорского
государства в свете новейших археологических исследований в восточном
Крыму (Nekotoriye problemy ranney istorii Bosporskogo gosoudarstva v cvete
noveyshikh arkheologitcheskikh issledovaniy v vostotchnom Krymou), in: PIFK, n. 3.
61-71.
Maslennikov A. A., Οι Αρχαίοι Έλληνες στο Βόρειο Πόντο. Thessaloniki (Greek
translation by Elias K. Petropoulos). Thessaloniki. 2000.
Maslennikov 2001 – Варвары, греки и Боспор Киммерийский до Геродота и при
нём (Varvary, greki i Bospor Kimmeriyskiy do Gerodota i pri nyom), in: DB, vol. 4.
291-323.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 60

Maslennikov 2001a – Царская хора Боспора на рубеже V-IV вв. до н.э.
(“Tsarskaya” khora Bospora na roubezhe V-IV vv. do n.e.), in: VDI, n. 1. 178-190.
Maslennikov 2003a – Древные земляные погранично-оборонительные
сооружения Восточного Крыма (Dreviye zemlyanie pogronitchno-oboronitelniye
sooruzheniya Vostotchnogo Kryma). Moscow.
Maslennikov A. A., Rural Territory of ancient Cimmerian Bosporos, in: AGCBS
2003b, vol. 2. 1155-1213.
Maslennikov A., The Development of Graeco-Barbarian Contacts in the Chora of the
European Bosporus (sixth – first centuries), in: D. Braund, (ed.), Scythians and
Greeks: Cultural Interactions in Scythia, Athens, and the Early Roman Empire (sixth
century BC – first century AD). Exeter, 2005. 153-166.
Maslennikov 2007, Small and Poorly Studied Towns of the Ancient Cimmerian
Bosporos, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 2. 855-896.
Maslennikov 2007a – Крымское Приазовье в античную эпоху (Krymskoye
Priazovye v antitchnuyu epokhu), in: Античный мир и варвары на юге России и
Украины. Ольвия. Скифия. Боспор (Antitchniy mir i varvary na yuge Rossii i
Ukrainy.Olviya.Skifiya.Bospor). Moscow-Kiev-Zaparozhye. 181-218.
Maslennikov, Smekalova 2005 – Масленников А. А., Смекалова Т. Н., Следы
древнего землевладения и землепользования на хоре Европейского Боспора
(Sledy drevnego zemlevladeniya i zemlepolzovaniya na khore Yevropeyskogo
Bospora), in: DB, vol. 8. 276-307.
Mattingly H. M., Athens and the Black Sea in the Fifth Century BC, in: A. Fraysse, E.
Geny, T. Khartchilava, (eds.), Sur les traces des Argonautes. Actes du 6e symposium
de Vani (Colchide) 22-29 septembre 1990. Paris 1996. 151-157.
McGing B.C., The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden
1986.
McGing B.C., Mithridates VI Eupator: Victim of Agressor?, in: J. Nieling, E. Rehm,
(eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers. Aarhus
University Press. 2010. 203-216.
Medvedev 2002 – Медведев А. П., Гелон Геродота: К проблеме соотношения
античного нарратива и историко-археологических реалий (Gelon Gerodota: K

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 61

problem sootnosheniya antitchnogo narrative i istoriko-arkheologitcheskikh realiy), in:
AMA, vol. 11. 131-140.
Melnikov 2001 – Мельников О. Н., Нимфей, скифский вождь Саммак и «Измена
Гилона» (Nimfey, skifskiy vozhd Sammak i ‘izmena Gilona’), in: MAIET, vol. 8. 410-
435.
Melnikov 2008 – Фанагория и Гермонасса-синойкизм по данным нумизматики и
истории Боспора Киммерийского (Fanagoriya i Germonass-sonoykizm po dannym
numizmatiki i istorii Bospora Kimmeriyskogo), in: Древнее Причерноморье. Памяти
П. О. Карышковского (Drevneye Pritchernomorye). Vol. 8. Odessa. 234-241.
Melnikov 2009 – Художественные стиль и тип в архаической и классической
нумизматике Боспора Киммерийского (Khudozhestvenniye stil i tip v
arkhaitcheskoy i klassitcheskoy numizmatike Bospora Kimmeriyskogo), in:
Боспорский Феномен: искусство на периферии античного мира (Bosporskiy
Fenomen: iskusstvo na periferii antitchnogo mira). Materials of the Scientific
Conference. St.-Petersburg. 129-135.
Minchev A., Odessos, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 1. 209-278.
Molev 1997 – Молев Е. А., Политическая история Боспора VI-IV вв. до н.э.
(Polititcheskaya istoriya Bospora VI-IV vv. do n.e.). Nizhniy Novgorod.
Molev 1999 – Спарток и первые Спартокиды на Боспоре (Spartok i perviye
Spartokidy na Bospore), in: AMA, vol. 10. Saratov. 30-35.
Molev Ye. A., Kyta, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 841-893.
Molev 2009 – Скифы в политической истории Боспора VI-II вв. до н.э. (Skify v
polititcheskoy istorii Bospora VI-II vv. do n.e.), in: VDI, n. 3. 155-165.
Molev 2013 - Молев Е. А., О титулатуре Левкона I (O titulature levkona I), in:
PIFK, fasc. 2 (40). 208-213.
Molev, Moleva 1996 – Молев Е. А., Молева Н. В., 25 лет Китейской экспедиции
(25 let Kiteyskoy ekspeditsii), in: Нижегородские исследования по краеведению и
археологии (Nizhegorodskiye issledovaniya po kraevedeniyu i arkheologii). Nizhniy
Novgorod. 76-94.
Morkholm O., Early Hellenistic coinage from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace
of Apamaea (336-188). Cambridge University Press. 1991.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 62

Müller Chr., D’Olbia à Tanaïs: Territoires et réseaux d’échanges dans la mer Noire
septentrionale aux époques classique et hellénistique. Bordeaux, 2010.
Munteanu O., Les transformations ethniques et culturelles dans l’espace Pontique de
Nord-Ouest, à la fin du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. (concernant surtout l’espace Pruto-
Dniestrien), in : V. Cojocaru, (ed.), Ethnic Contacts and Cultrural Exchanges Northe
and West of the Black Sea from the Greek Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest. Iaşi
2005. 351-367.
Murzin V. Yu., Key Points in Scythian History, in: D. Braund, (ed.), Scythians and
Greeks: Cultural Interactions in Scythia, Athens and the Early Roman Empire (sixth
century BC – first century AD). Exeter. 2005. 33-38.
Nedev D., Panayotova K., Apollonia Pontica (end of the 7th – 1st centuries BC), in:
AGCBS 2003, vol. 1. 95-155.
Nieling J., Persian Imperial Policy Behind the Rise and Fall of the Cimmerian
Bosporus in the Last Quarter of the Sixth to the Beginning of the Fifth Century BC, in:
J. Nieling, E. Rehm, (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of
Powers. Aarhus University Press. 2010. 124-136.
Nikulina 1994 – Никулина Н. М., Искусство Ионии и Ахеменидского Ирана
(Iskusstvo Ionii i Akhemenidskogo Irana). Moscow.
Olbrycht J. M., Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran, in: J. Nieling, E. Rehm, (eds.),
Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers. Aarhus University
Press. 2010. 163-190.
Olbrycth J. M., Subjects and Allies: the Black Sea Empire of Mithradates VI Eupator
(120-63 BC) Reconsidered, in: E. Papuci-Władyka, M. Vickers, J. Bodzek, D. Braund,
(eds.), PONTIKA 2008: Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in
Ancient Times. Proceedings of the International Conference, 21st-26th April 2998,
Kraków. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2240. Oxford. 2011. 275-
281.
Onayko 1980 – Онайко Н. А., Архаический Торик: Античный город на северо-
востоке Понта (Arkhaitcheskiy Torik: Antitchniy gorod na severo-vostoke Ponta).
Moscow.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 63

Peters 1989 – Петерс Б. Г., Исследования нижнего слоя Патрея (Issledovaniya
nijnego sloya Patreya), in: Проблемы исследования боспорских городов (Problemy
issledovaniya bosporskikh gorodov). Moscow. 95-97.
Petropoulos E. K., Η ελληνική πόλη στον Βορειοανατολικό Πόντο κατά τον 6ο και 5ο
αι. π.Χ., in: Makednon, vol. 9. Florina 2001-2002. 289-302.
Petropoulos E. K., Hellenic Colonization in Euxeinos Pontos: Penetration, Early
Establishment, and the Problem of the ‘Emporion’ Revisited. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 1394. Oxford. 2005.
Petropoulos E. K. (2014a), Ζητήματα αποικισμού Ι. Ο αρχαίος ελληνικός αποικισμός
με έμφαση στον παρευξείνιο χώρο: σύγχρονοι προβληματισμοί και θεωρητικές τάσεις,
in: Μελέτες για την αρχαία Μακεδονία: Προς την γένεση των πόλεων. Internet:
http://www.greek-language.gr/Resources/ancient_greek/macedonia/cities/index.html
Petropoulos E. K., Ο Ελληνικός αποικισμός στον Εύξεινο Πόντο, D. Tsangari, (ed.), Η
Ευρώπη της Ελλάδος: Αποικίες και νομίσματα από την συλλογή της Alpha Bank.
Catalogue of the Exibition at the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Athens
2014b. 242-245.
Petrova 1999 – Петрова Э. Б., Боспор и Кипр: опыт сопоставления двух
тиранических режимов (Bospor i Kipr: opyt sopostavleniya dvukh tiranitcheskikh
rezhimov), in: AMA, vol. 10. 12-29.
Pisarevskiy 2010 – Писаревский Н. П., Гелон-город исконных эллинов (Gelon-
gorod iskonnykh ellinov), in: Город в античности и средневековье:
общеевропейский контекст. Доклады международной научной конференции,
посвещенной 100-летию города Ярославля. (Gorod v antitchnosti i srednevekovye:
obsheyevropeyskiy kontekst. Materials of the schientific Conference). Vol. 1.
Yaroslavl. 39-45.
Pitchikian 1975 – Пичикиян И. Р., Ордерная архитектура Северного
Причерноморья в V-IV вв. до н.э. (Ordernaya arkhitektura Severnogo
Pritchernomorya v V-IV vv. do n.e.), in: VDI, n. 1. 117-137.
Pogrebova 2006 – Погребова М. Н., Центральноазиатская гипотеза
происхождения скифской материальной культуры и скифского этноса
(Tsentralnoaziatskaya gipoteza skifskoy materialnoy kultury i skifskogo etnosa), in:
Древности скифской эпохи (Drevnosti skifskoy epokhi). Moscow. 172-193.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 64

Preshlenov Hr., Mesambria, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 1. 157-208.
Redina Ye. F., Greek Settlements on the Shores of the Bay of Odessa, in: AGCBS
2007, vol. 1. 507-536.
Reinach T., Mithridates Eupator, König von Pontos. Hildensheim-N.Y., 1975.
Rolle R., Royal Tombs and Hill Fortresses: New Perspectives on the Scythian Life, in:
J. Aruz, A. Farkas, E. Valtz Fino, (eds.), The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Perspectives on
the Steppe Nomads of the Ancient World. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia.
New York. 2006. 168-181.
Rybakov 1979 – Рыбаков Б. А., Геродотова Скифия (Gerodotova Skifiya).
Moscow.
Samoylova T. L., Tyras: The Greek City on the River Tyras, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 1.
435-470.
Saprykin 1996 – Сапрыкин С. Ю., Понтийское царство: государство греков и
варваров в Причерноморье (Pontiyskoe tsarstvo: gosudarstvo grekov i varvarov v
Pritchernomorye). Moscow.
Saprykin 2003 – Боспорское царство: от тирании к эллинистической монархии
(Bosporskoe tsarstvo: ot tiranii k ellinistitcheskoy monarkhii), in: VDI, n. 1. 11-35.
Saprykin S. Yu., The Unification of Pontos: The Bronze Coins of Mithridates VI
Eupator as Evidence for Commerce in the Euxine, in: Vincent Gabrielsen & John
Lund, (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic
Exchanges. Aarhus University Press. 2007. 195-208.
Saprykin 2009 – Религия и культы Понта эллинистического и римского времени
(Religiya i kulty Ponta ellinistitcheskogo i rimskogo vremeni). Moscow-Tula.
Sekerskaya N. M., The Ancient City of Nikonion, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 1. 471-506.
Shelov 1994 – Шелов Д. Б., Проблема греко-варварских контактов в эпоху
греческой колонизации Северного Причерноморья (Problema greko-varvarskikh
kontaktov v epokhou gretcheskoy kolonizatsii Severnogo Pritchernomorya), in: VDI,
n. 2. 100-106.
Shelov-Kovedyaev 1985 – Шелов-Коведяев Ф. В., Istοriya Bospora VI-IV vv. do n.e.
In the series of Drevnyeyshiye gosoudarstva na territorii SSSR No 8. Moscow.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 65

Shestakov 1991 – Шестаков С. А., О локолизации боспорского города Гермесия
(O lokolizatsii bosporkogo goroda Germesiya), in: Проблемы истории и археологии
Боспора (Problemy istorii i arkheologii Bospora). Kerch. 37-38.
Shilik 1988 – Шилик К. К., Подводно-археологические разветки у берегов
Керченского полуострова (Podvodno-arkheologitcheskie razvetki u beregov
Kerthcenskogo poluostrova), in: Проблемы античной культуры (Problemy
antitchnoy kultury) (Abstracts of the papers presented at congress). Simferopol. 226-
228.
Sidorenko, Shonov 2009 – Сидоренко В. М., Шонов И. В., К типологии монетной
чеканки античной Феодосии (K tipologii monetnoy tchekanki antitchnoy Feodosii),
in: МAIET, vol. 15. 501-524.
Sȋrbu V., Les Thraces entre les Carpates, les Balkans et la Mer Noire (Ve s. av. J.-C –
Ier s. apr. J.-C). Brăila. 2004.
Sokolova 1997 – Соколова О. Ю., Новые находки из Нимфея (Novie nakhodki iz
Nimfeya), in: Боспор и античный мир (Bospor i antitchniy mir). Nizhniy Novgorod.
143-147.
Sokolova O. Yu., Nymphaeum, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 759-802.
Sokolskiy 1973 – Сокольский Н. И., Культ Афродиты в Кепах конца VI-V вв. до
н.э. (Kult Afrodity v Kepakh kontsa VI-V vv. do n.e.), in: VDI, n. 4. 88-92.
Sorokina N. P. 1957 – Сорокина Н. П., Тузлинский некрополь (Touzlinskiy
nekropol). Moscow.
Sorokina, Sudarev 2001 – Сорокина Н. П., Сударев Н. И., К вопросу о некоторых
варварских погребениях Боспора VI-V вв. до н.э. (K voprosu o nekotorykh
varbarskikh pogrebeniyakh Bospora VI-V vv. do n.e.), in: DB, vol. 4. 377-384.
Stambolidis N., The Phoenicians and the Aegean in the Early Iron Age, in: P. Adam-
Veleni, E. Stefani, (eds.), Greek and Phoenicians at the Mediterranean Crossroads.
Thessaloniki, 2012. 55-60.
Stolba 2002 – Столба В. Ф., Проблемы нумизматики Нимфея: несколько
замечаний (Problemy numizmatiki Nimfeya: neskolo zametchaniy), in: Hyperboreus,
vol. 8, fasc. 1. 13-42.
Strokin 2009 – Строкин В. Л., Нимфей-Самма(?)-Нимфей (Nimfey-Samma-
Nimfey), in: DB, vol. 13. 359-392.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 66

Sudarev 1998 – Сударев Н. И., К вопросу о Тирамбе Страбона и Птолемея (K
voprosu o Tirambe Strabona i Ptolemeya), in: DB, vol. 1. 237-252.
Sudarev 1999 – Культ Аполлона Врача на Боспоре и некоторые вопросы
греческой колонизации (Kult Apollona Vratcha na Bospore i nekotoriye voprosy
gretcheskoy kolonizatsii), in: DB, vol. 2. 213-231,
Surikov 1999 – Суриков И. Е., Историко-географические проблемы понтийской
экспедиции Перикла (Istoriko-geografitcheskiye problemy pontiyskoy ekspeditsii
Perikla), in: VDI, n. 2. 98-114.
Surikov 2004 – Древнегреческие монеты с легендой ΣΑΜΜΑ: К оценке хода
дискуссии (Drevnegretcheskiye monety s legendoy ΣΑΜΜΑ: K otsenke khoda
diskussii), in: PIFK, vol. 14. 316-326.
Suza Ph. de, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press. 1999.
Tereshenko 2010 – Терещенко А. Е., Истоки экономического кризиса III в. до н.э.
(Istoki ekonomitcheskogo krizisa III v. do n.e.), in: RA, n. 4. 56-65.
Tereshenko 2012 – Ещё раз к вопросу о возникновении пантикапейской чеканки
(Yesho raz k voprosu o vozniknovenii pantikapeyskoy tchekanki), in: Боспорские
Исследования (Bosporskiye Issledovaniya), vol. XXVI. Simferopol-Kertch. 168-181.
Tereshenko 2013a – «Аполлонийская» чеканка на Боспоре Киммерийском. В
поисках эмитента (‘Apolloniyskaya’ tchekanka na Bospore Kimmeriyskom. V
poiskakh emitenta), in: Боспорский Феномен: Греки и варвары на евразийском
перекрёстке (Bosporan Fenomenon: Greki i varvary na yevraziyskom perekryostke).
Materials of the International Scientific Conference. St.-Petersburg. 44-51.
Tereshenko 2013b – Монетное дело Пантикапея в IV в. до н.э. (Monetnoe delo
Pantikapeya v VI v. do n.e.), in: VDI, n. 2. 102-127.
Timofan A., Archaic Domestic Architecture and Construction Techniques on the
Western Plateau of Histria. A Synthesis of Building Activity in the Black Sea Area (7th
– 6th Centuries BC), in: M. V. Angelescu, I. Achim, A. Bâltâc, V. Rusu-Bolindeţ, V.
Bottez, (eds.), ANTIQUITAS ISTRO-PONTICA: Mélanges d’ archéologie et d’ histoire
ancienne offerts à Alexandru Suceveanu. Cluj-Napoca. 2010. 355-372.
Tiverios M., The Phoenician presence in the northern Aegean, in: P. Adam-Veleni, E.
Stefani, (eds.), Greek and Phoenicians at the Mediterranean Crossroads.
Thessaloniki, 2012. 69-72.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 67

Tokhtas’ev 1998 – Тохтасьев С. Р., К чтению и интерпритации посвятительной
надписи Левкона Ι (K tchteniyu i interpritatsii posviatitelnoy nadpisi Lefkona I), in:
Huperboreus, n. 4. 287-301.
Tokhtas'ev S. R., The Bosporus and Sindike in the Era of Leukon I. New Epigraphic
Publications, in: Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. Vol. 12 series 1-2.
2006. 1–62.
Tokhtas’ev 2010 – Контакты Борисфена и Ольвии с Боспором в архаический
период в свете эпиграфических источников (Kontakty Bosisfena i Olvii s
Bosporom v arkhaitcheskiy period v svete epigrafitcheskikh istotchnikov), in:
Археологический Сборник (Arkheologitcheskiy Sbornik). Studies in Archaeology of
Eurasia to commemorate Ya. V. Domanskiy. Vol. 38. St.-Petersburg. 50-58.
Tolstikov 1984 – Толстиков В. П., К вопросу об образовании Боспорского
государства (K voprosou ob obrazovanii Bosporskogo Gosoudarstva), in: VDI, n. 3.
24-47.
Tolstikov 1992 – Пантикапей-столица Боспора (Pantikapey – stolitsa Bospora), in:
Очерки археологии и истории Боспора (Otcherki arkheologii i istorii Bospora).
Moscow. 45-99.
Tolstikov 2001 – Ранний Пантикапей в свете новых археологических
исследований (Ranniy Pantikapey v svete novykh arkheologitcheskikh issledovaniy),
in: DB, vol. 4. 285-426.
Tolstikov V. P., Panticapaeum, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 707-758.
Tolstikov V. P., The Early Temple of Apollo at Panticapaeum: Questions of Dating,
Typology and the Periods of its Construction, in: Petropoulos E. K. & A. A.
Maslennikov, Ancient Sacral Monuments in the Black Sea. Thessaloniki 2010. 335-
365.
Tolstikov, Zhuravlyov, Lomtadze 2004 – Толстиков В. П., Журавлёв Д. В.,
Ломтадзе Г. А., Новые материалы к хронологии и истории раннего Пантикапея
(Noviye materialy k khronologii i istorii rannego Pantikapeya), in: DB, vol. 7. 344-
365.
Treister M., ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Achaemenid-inspired’ Goldware and Silverware,
Jewellery and Arms and their Imitations to the North of the Achaemenid Empire, in: J.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 68

Nieling, E. Rehm, (eds.), Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of
Powers. Aarhus University Press. 2010. 223-278.
Tuplin Chr., Revisiting Dareios’ Scythian Expedition, in: J. Nieling, E. Rehm, (eds.),
Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of Powers. Aarhus University
Press. 2010. 281-312.
Usatchova, Koshelenko 1994 – Усачёва О. Н., Кошеленко Г. А., Об одной загадке
боспорской историографии (Ob odnoy zagadke bosporskoy istoriografii), in: RA,
n.3. 65-69.
Vakthina 1988 - Вахтина М. Ю., Исследования раннего Порфмия (Studies on
ancient Porthmion), in: Проблемы античной культуры (Problemy antitchnoy
kultury) (Abstracts of the papers presented at congress). Simferopol. 197-198.
Vakhtina 1996 – О древнейших оборонительных сооружениях античного
Порфмия (O drevneyshikh oboronitelnykh sooroujeniyakh antitchnogo Porfmiya), in:
Фортификация в древности и средневековье (Fortifikatsiya v drevnosti i v
srednevekovye). St Petersburg. 31-33.
Vakhtina, Vinogradov, Rogov 1980 – Вахтина М. Ю, Виноградов Ю. А., Рогов Е.
Я., Об одном из маршрутов военных походов и сезонных миграций кочевых
скифов (Ob odnom iz marshrutov voennykh pokhodov i sezonnykh migratsiy
kotchevykh skifov), in: VDI, n. 4. 155-161.
Vakhtina M. Yu., Vinogradov Yu. A., Goroncharovskiy V. A., Cult Complexes and
Objects Discovered by the Bosporan Expedition of the Institute for History of Material
Culture, in: Petropoulos E. K. & A. A. Maslennikov, Ancient Sacral Monuments in the
Black Sea. Thessaloniki 2010. 367-398.
Vartsos I. A., Αθηναϊκαί κληρουχίαι. Athens, 1972.
Vasilyev 1992 – Васильев А. Н., К вопросу о времени образования Боспорского
государства (K voprosu o vremeni obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva), in:
Этюды по античной истории и культуре Северного Причерноморья (Etyudy po
antitchnoy istorii i culture Severnogo Pritchernomorya). St-Petersburg. 111-128.
Veligianni-Terzi Chr., Οι ελληνίδες πόλεις και το βασίλειο των Οδρησσών από
Αβδήρων πόλεως μέχρι Ίστρου ποταμού. Thessaloniki. 2004.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 69

Veselov 2009 – Веселов В. В., Опыт уточнения локализации поселений Тирамбы,
Киммерия и Ахиллия (Opyt utotchneniya lokalizatsii poseleniy Tiramby, Kimmeriya
i Akhilliya), in: DB, vol. 13. 113-122.
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1992 – Виноградов Ю. А., Мирмекий (Mirmekiy), in: Очерки
археологии и истории Боспора (Otcherki arkheologii i istorii Bospora). Moscow.
99-120.
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1993 – К проблеме полисов в районе Боспора Киммерийского
(K problem polisov v rayone Bospora Kimmeriyskogo), in: AMA, vol. 9. Saratov. 79-
96.
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1995 – Некоторые проблемы греческой колонизации Боспора
Киммерийского (Nekotoriye problemy gretcheskoy kolonizatsii Bospora
Kimmeriyskogo), in: VDI, n. 3. 152-160.
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1996 – О формировании урбанистической структуры в
Мирмекии (O formirovanii ourbanistitcheskoy strouktoury v Mirmekii), in: Древнее
Причерноморье (Drevneye Pritchernomorye). Odessa. 25-26.
Vinogradov Yu. A. 1996a – Укрепления акрополя Мирмекия (Ukrepleniya
akropolya Mirmekiya), in: Фортификация в древности и средневековье
(Fortifikatsiya v drevnosti i v srednevekovye). St Petersburg. 33-35.
Vinogradov J. A., Two Waves of Sarmatian Migrations in the Black Sea Steppes
during the Pre-Roman Period, in: Pia Guldager Bilde, Jakob Munk Højte & Vladimir
F. Stolba, (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas. Studies Presented to A.N. Sceglov on the
Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Aarhus University Press. 2003. 217-226.
Vinogradov J. A., Rythms of Eurasia and the Main Historical Stages of the Kimmerian
Bosporos in the Pre-Roman Times, in: P. Guldager Bilde, J. H. Petersen, (eds.),
Meetings of Cultures – Between Conflicts and Coexistence. Aarhus University Press
2008a. 13-28.
Vinogradov Yu. A. 2008b – Некоторые итоги археологических исследований в
районе акрополя Мирмекия (Nekotoriye itogi arkheologitcheskikh issledovaniy v
rayone akropolya Mirmekiya), in: VDI, n. 1. 42-54.
Vinogradov Yu. A. 2010 – Некоторые современные тенденции в изучении
экономики Боспорского государства IV в. до н.э. (Nekotoriye sovremenniye

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 70

tendentsii v izutchenii ekonomiki Bosporskogo gosudarstva IV v. do n.e.), in: AMA,
vol. 14. Saratov. 308-319.
Vinogradov Yu. A., Butyagin A. M., Vakhtina M. Yu., Myrmekion-Porthmion, in:
AGCBS 2003, vol. 2. 803-840.
Vinogradov 1983 – Виноградов Ю. Г., Полис в Северном Причерноморье (Polis v
Severnom Pritchernomorye), in: Antitchnaya Gretsiya (Antitchnaya Gretsiya). Vol. 1,
Moscow. 366-420.
Vinogradov 1995 - Понт Эвксинский как политическое, экономическое и
культурное единство и эпиграфика (Pont Evskinskiy kak polititcheskoe,
ekonomitcheskoe i kulturnoe yedinstvo i epigrafika), in: Античные полисы и
местное население Причерноморья (Antitchniye polisy i mestnoe naseleniye).
Материалы международной научной конференции “Межполисные
взаимоотношения в Причерноморье в доримскую эпоху. Экономика, Политика,
Культура. Херсонес-Таврический, 26-30 октября 1992 г.” (Materials of the
International Scientific Conference). Sevastopol. 5-56.
Vinogradov 2002 – Левкон, Гекатей, Октамасад и Горгипп (Levkov, Gekatei,
Oktamasad i Gorgipp), in: VDI, n. 3. 3-22.
Wasowicz A., Le système de défense des cités grecques sur les côtes septentrionales
de la mer Noir, in : P. Leriche, H. Tréziny, (eds.), La fortification dans l’Histoire du
Monde Grec. Actes du Colloque International, La Fortification et sa place dans
l'histoire politique, culturelle et sociale du monde grec. Valbonne, décembre 1982.
Paris, 1986. 79-94.
Werner R., Die Dynastie der Spartokiden, in: Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte,
n. 4, 1955. 412-444.
Yablonski L., Scythians and Saka: Ethnic Terminology and Archaeological Reality,
in: J. Aruz, A. Farkas, E. Valtz Fino, (eds.), The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Perspectives
on the Steppe Nomads of the Ancient World. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Symposia. New York. 2006. 24-31.
Yakovenko 1985 – Яковенко Э. В., Скифы на Боспоре (Греко-скифские
отношения в VII-III вв.до н.э.) [Skify na Bospore (Greko-skifskiye otnosheniya v
VII-III vv. do n.e.)], автореф. дисс. доктора ист. наук. Moscow. 1985.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 71

Yaylenko 1983 – Яйленко В. П., Архаическая Греция (Arkhaitcheskaya Gretsiya),
in: Античная Греция (Antitchnaya Gretsiya). Moscow, vol. 1. 128-193.
Yaylenko 2004a – Военная акция Дария I на Киммерийском Боспоре (Voyennaya
aktsiya Dariya I na Kimmeriyskom Bospore), in: The Phenomenon of Bosporan
Kingdom: Problems of Chronology and Dating. Proceedings of the International
Conference. Part 1. St.-Petersburg 2004. 55-60.
Yaylenko 2004b – Вотив Левкона I из Лабриса (Votiv Lefkona I iz Labrisa), in: DB,
vol. 7. 425-444.
Yermolin, Fedoseyev 2011 – Ермолин A. Л., Федосеев Н. Ф., Переправа - Порт-
Мион - «традиционный Порфмий» (Pereprava – Port-Mion – ‘traditsionniy
Porfmiy’), in: Боспорский феномен. Население, языки, контакты. Материалы
международной конференции (Bosporskiy Fenomen. Naseleniye, yazyki, kontakty).
Materials of the Conference. St.-Petersburg. 210-219.
Zavoykin 1994 – Завойкин А. А., “Bosporus Cimmerian-Bosporus-Diodorus XII, 31,
1” – опыт источниковеческого анализа (opyt istotchnikovedtcheskogo analiza), in:
PIFK, vol. 1. 64-70.
Zavoykin 1995 – О времени автономной чеканки Фанагории (O vremeni
avtonomnoy tchekanki Fanagorii), in: BS, n. 6. 84-95.
Zavoykin 1999a – Периодизация истории Киммериды (Periodizatsiya istorii
Kimmeridy), in: DB, vol. 2. 114-122.
Zavoykin 1999b – Проблема локализации Киммериды (Problema lokalizatsii
Kimmeridy), in: Древнейшие государства Восточной Европы (Drevneyshiye
gosudarstva Vostotchnoy Yevropy). Moscow. 220-236.
Zavoykin 2002 – К вопросу о статусе Феодосии и Горгипии в державе
Спартокидов (K voprosu o statuse Feodosii i Gorgippii v derzhave Spartokidov), in:
DB, vol. 5. 95-106.
Zavoykin 2004 – Краткий очерк истории Боспора VI – первой четверти III вв. до
н.э. (Kratkiy otcherk istorii Bospora VI-pervoy tchetverti III vv. do n.e.), in: PIFK, n.
14. 58-94.
Zavoykin 2007 – Боспорская монархия: от полисной тирании к территориальной
державе (Bosporskaya monarkhiya: ot polisnoy tiranii k territorialnoy derzhave), in:
Античный мир и варвары на юге России и Украины. Ольвия. Скифия. Боспор

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 72

(Antitchniy mir i varvary na yuge Rossii i Ukrainy.Olviya.Skifiya.Bospor). Moscow-
Kiev-Zaparozhye. 219-243.
Zavoykin 2009 – О «больших» и «малых» боспорских городах (O bolshikh i
malykh bosporskikh gorodakh), in: DB, vol. 13. 176-205.
Zavoykin 2010 – Переодизация освоения греками Таманского полуострова в VI-
V вв. до н.э. (Соотношение письменных и археологических источников)
[Pereodizatsiya osvoyeniya grekami Tamanskogo poluostrova v VI-V vv. do n.e.
(Sootnosheniye pismennykh i arkheologitcheskikh istotchnikov)], in: AMA, vol. 14.
Saratov. 203-217.
Zavoykin 2013 – Союз коня и всадника (Заметки о «боспорской федерации»
периода ранних Спартокидов) [Soyuz konia i vsadnika (Zametki o ‘bosporskoy
federatsii’ perioda rannikh Spartokidov], in: PIFK, fasc. 2 (40). 194-207.
Zavoykin, Boldyrev 1994 – Завойкин А. А., Болдырев С. И., Третья точка зрения
на монеты с легендой “ΣΙΝΔΩΝ” (Tretya totchka zreniya na monety s legendoy
“ΣΙΝΔΩΝ”), in: BS, n 4. 43-47.
Zavoykin, Sudarev 2006 – Завойкин А. А., Сударев Н. И., Погребения с оружием
VI-V вв. до н.э. как источник по политической и военной истории Боспора
(Pogrebeniya s oruzhiem VI-V vv. do n.e. kak istotchnik po polititcheskoy i voennoy
istorii Bospora), in: DB, vol. 9. 101-151.
Zeest 1974 – Зеест И. Б., Возникновение и первый расцвет Гермонассы
(Vozniknoveniye i perviy rastsvet Germonassy), in: SA, n. 4. 85-92.
Zheleztchikov 1987 – Железчиков Б. Ф., Степи Евразии и Савромато-Сарматы
нижнего Поволжья-Дона в 7-3 вв. до н.э. (Stepi Yevrazii i Savromato-Sarmaty
nizhnego Povolzhya-Dona v 7-3 vv. do n.e.), in: Античная цивилизация и
варварский мир в Подонье-Приазовье. Тез. Докл. (Antitchnaya tsivilizatsiya i
varvarskiy mir v Podonye-Priazovye). Novotcherkassk. 37-38.
Zhebelyov 1953 – Жебелёв С. А., Возникновение Боспорского государства
(Vozniknovenie Bosporskogo gosudarstva), in: Северное Причергноморье
(Severnoye Pritchernomorye). Moscow-Leningrad. 1953.
Zinko V. N., The Chora of Nymphaion, in: P. G. Bilde, V. F. Stolba, (eds.), Surveying
the Greek Chora: Black Sea Region in a Comparative Perspective. Aarhus University
Press. 2006. 289-308.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 73

Zinko V. N., Tyritake, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 2. 827-854.
Zinko 2013 – Зинько В. Н., Позднеархаическая история Европейского Боспора в
свете новейших археологических исследований (Pozdnearkhaitcheskaya istoriya
Yevropeyskogo Bospora v svete noveyshikh arkheologitcheskikh issledovaniy), in:
PIFK, fasc. 2 (40). 183-193.
Zolotaryov M. I., Chersonesus Tauricus, in: AGCBS 2003, vol. 1. 603-644.
Zolotaryov M. I., The Civic Frontiers of Tauric Chersonesus in the Fourth Century
BC, in: D. Braund, (ed.), Scythians and Greeks: Cultural Interactions in Scythia,
Athens, and the Early Roman Empire (sixth century BC – first century AD). Exeter,
2005. 148-152.
Zubar V. M., Tauric Chersonesus and the Roman Empire, in: AGCBS 2007, vol. 2.
729-788.
Zubarev 1998 – Зубарев В. Г., Античная география Европейского Боспора по
Клавдию Птолемею (Antitchnaya geografiya Yevropeyskogo Bospora po Klavdiyu
Ptolemeyu), in: DB, vol. 1. 105-119.
Zubarev 1999 – Азиатский Боспор (Таманский полуостров) по данным античной
письменной традиции (Aziatskiy Bospor -Tamanskiy poluostrov- po dannym
pismennoy traditsii), in: DB, vol. 2. 123-146.

The Kingdoms of the Bosporus and Pontus Σελίδα 74