A characteristic feature of land relations in the Bosporan state since the time of the Spartokids, as is known, was the presence of several types of land ownership. First, the "polisny" one, which was formed, of course, earlier than others. The concept of" polis " and its rural territory are so interlinked that identifying the features of the latter can be crucial in determining the appropriate status of a Bosporan city .1 So, apparently, there is reason to talk about the presence of a chorus (co

* The publication was carried out within the framework of the RFBR project (project code N 99-06-80397a).

1 From recently published works that raise the issue of the polis status of Bosporan cities, we should mention: Vinogradov Yu. A. Some discussion problems of the Greek colonization of the Cimmerian Bosporus / / VDI. 1995. N 3. p. 154l; Zavoikin A. A. Kimmerida-polis on the Cimmerian Bosporus / / Problems of History, Philology and Culture. IV. 4.1. Moscow-Magnitogorsk, 1997. p. 130 pp.

page 178

its specific organization, typology of settlements and other monuments, and borders) in such centers as Panticapaeum, Nymphaeum, Feodosia, Gorgippia, and Phanagoria 2 . The situation regarding other policies is completely unclear. Secondly, the existence of "royal" land ownership, initially associated with the Bosporan tyrants, and later with the kings themselves, seems certain. And third, we can assume the presence of communal-barbarian territories, taking into account the specifics of the territorial-administrative structure and ethnic composition of the Bosporus population starting at least from the second quarter of the IV century BC.

Within each of these types, there were specific categories of land use, which we can only judge with varying degrees of confidence in the most general terms due to the paucity of our sources. We know that there were land plots stipulated by certain conditions-allotments of military settlers and mercenaries. Temple land ownership is also attested. Presumably, there were also lands belonging to the Bosporan aristocracy, members of the ruling dynasty, some groups of immigrants, etc. To varying degrees, this division of rural land is recognized by all researchers involved in this problem3 . This circumstance, along with other special features of the state structure and territorial organization of the Bosporus, has long given rise to distinguishing it into a special group of ancient states (proto-Hellenistic monarchy, Hellenistic monarchy, hereditary corporate tyranny) .4

However, due to our limited source base, none of the listed types of land ownership and, consequently, the corresponding structure of the chora and the specifics of economic activity did not become the subject of special research. However, several works have been published in recent years on a number of general or relatively specific issues (typology of rural settlements, legal status, ethnic composition and culture of various categories of the rural population) .5 This became possible primarily due to the success of field research on the chorus of the European part of the Bosporus.

This article is devoted to one of the problems associated with the so-called tsarist land ownership, and in the period that is least covered by sources.

Formation of special ones that belonged to the ruling dynasty (what is appropriate to say-

2 See Kruglikova I. T. Agriculture of the Bosporus, Moscow, 1975, pp. 54-58; Zinko V. N. Some results of studying the area of the ancient Nymphaeum // Materials on archeology, history and ethnography of Tavria, vol. IV. Simferopol. 1996. p. 12-20; Petrova E. V. Greki i varvary antichnoi Feodosii i ee okrugi v VI-II vv. B.C. [The Greeks and Barbarians of ancient Feodosia and its districts in the VI-II centuries BC]. Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii [Materials on Archeology, History and Ethnography of Tavria]. Vol. V. pp. 146-154; Paromov Ya. M. Osnovnye etapy osvitiya Tamanskogo peninsulrova v antichnoi epokhu: Avtoref. dis... Candidate of Historical Sciences, St. Petersburg, 1994, pp. 9-13; Alekseeva E. M. The ancient city of Gorgippia, Moscow, 1997, pp. 149-152.

Gaidukevich V. F. 3 Bosporan Kingdom. Moscow-L., 1949. pp. 61-64, 149 sl.; Zhebelev S. A. Northern Black Sea region. Moscow-L., 1953. pp. 175 sl.; Blavatsky V. D. Agriculture in the ancient states of the Northern Black Sea region. Moscow, 1953. pp. 45-50; Kruglikova. Uk. soch. p. 8 el., 156-159; Shelov-Kovedyaev F. V. Istoriya Bospora v VI-IV vv. B.C. [History of the Bosporus in the VI-IV centuries BC] / / Drevneyshie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR [Ancient states on the territory of the USSR], Moscow, 1984, pp. 154-169; Vinogradov Yu. G. Fanagoriiskie merkazniki] / / VDI. 1991. N 4. p. 14 sl.; Saprykin S. Yu. Pontiiskoe tsarstvo Moscow, 1996, pp. 280-290.

4. Blavatsky V. D. 4 Period of Proto-Hellenism on the Bosporus // Archeology of the Ancient world, Moscow, 1985, p. 110; Shelov-Kovedyaev F. V. On the period of Proto-Hellenism on the Greek periphery (On the example of the Bosporus) / / PEE. Tbilisi, 1985. p. 320-332; Molev E. A. Political history of the Bosporus in the VI-IV centuries BC Nizhny Novgorod, 1997. p. 18 ill.

Kruglikova Street. 5 Uk. soch; Korpusova V. N. Golden Necropolis. Kiev, 1983; Maslennikov A. A. Population of the Bosporan State in the first centuries of our era M., 1990. pp. 70-100; on. Stone boxes of the Eastern Crimea (To the history of the rural population of the European Bosporus in the VI-I centuries BC). Moscow, 1995; on. Family crypts of the rural population of the late Antique Bosporus, Moscow, 1997. Hellenic Chora on the edge of the Oikumene, Moscow, 1998; Saprykin, Uk. soch. pp. 266-290; Parimov, Uk. soch. pp. 2-16; Gorlov, Yu. V., Lopanov, Yu. A. Drevneyshiya sistema melioratsii na Tamanskom peninsulov / / VDI. 1995. N 3. p. 121 sl.

page 179

Considering the hereditary nature of power under the Spartokids, and possibly also under the Archaeanactids, the creation of land massifs was a certain stage in the development of the corresponding forms of ownership in the Bosporus. Moreover, the process of their allocation went as if parallel to the addition of this state itself. It was assumed that these lands were formed mainly due to the addition of new territories to the Bosporus, either inhabited by local tribes or without a permanent population .6 To some extent, this may also have occurred as a result of the alienation of part of the lands of the Chora urban communities that were forcibly attached to the Panticapaean Union (if, of course, such a union existed during the fifth century BC). The specific circumstances and conditions of all this are unknown, although some observations and assumptions, in our opinion, are still relevant.

The first and direct written evidence of the existence of" royal", or rather belonging to one of the rulers of the Bosporus - Satyr I , large land holdings, is contained in the well-known "Trapedzite speech" of Isocrates. But it is possible to assume the presence of such people on the basis of the "History" of Herodotus. However, his repeatedly quoted account of ships carrying grain from Pontus to Aegina and the Peloponnese (Herod. VII. 147. 2) is not specific in the sense of the starting point of this route. Bosporus was not the only Greek state in this region, but it was the only one that later appeared here as the largest exporter of grain. At the same time, we do not know what the Greeks actually called their settlements in the area of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the time of Herodotus and earlier (this, of course, is a collective, common name). In this connection, it is noteworthy that the name Pontus is constantly used in the presentation of Isocrates, although, apparently, it was clear to everyone in Athens at the beginning of the IV century BC that we are talking about a state on the shores of the modern Kerch Strait. But Herodotus 'information is valuable in that it allows us to assume the existence of a kind of mechanism that ensured the appearance of" surplus " grain that was subject to sale. Although it is not directly named (tribute, trade with local tribes, the fields of the Bosporan Greeks themselves), it is appropriate to assume a special form of state power - a variant of authoritarian rule that can forcibly collect some part of the harvest. 7 In this case, the chronological coincidence of 480 BC is also noteworthy, which involuntarily suggests the Bosporan Archaeanactids. We know almost nothing about them, but we can assume that they owned some kind of land, which served them as one of the sources of influence and power, as well as the grain trade.

Let us now turn directly to the speech of Isocrates. Dating from 392/391 BC, it has been repeatedly analyzed by many ancient scholars .8 It is important for us to mention in it that Sopey ruled a vast area that belonged to the Satyr (Isocr. Trapez. 3). These are definitely the territories that the latter disposed of at its own discretion and which formed the basis of its economic and political power. No wonder the Satyr, according to Isocrates, was the largest of the local grain merchants. Of course, other sources of grain supply to the Spartokids are also acceptable, but they are not known for certain, as, indeed, is their volume.

The next most important landowner and grain merchant, presumably, was Sopey. Because of this, as well as his personal proximity to the Satyr, he could turn out to be not only a "royal" manager, but also a kind of tax collector. What caused the transfer of control of the region to Sopey (the vicissitudes of the war with Feodosia, the minority of heirs, the employment of Satire), we do not know. Probably, it was only a part of the possessions of the Bosporan ruler, although it is not clear which one, and most importantly - where the distribution of land was located.-

Blavatsky. 6 Husbandry... p. 45; Kruglikova, Uk. soch. p. 8.

Kuznetsov V. D. 7 Athens and the Bosporus. Bread trade / / RA. 2000. N 1. pp. 107-120.

8 For the most detailed analysis of Isocrates ' speech, see Blavatskaya T. V. Essays on the political history of the Bosporus in the V-IV centuries BC, Moscow, 1959, pp. 116-128. See also Skrzhinskaya M. V. Ancient Greek folklore and literature about the Northern Black Sea region. Kiev, 1991. pp. 139-145.

page 180

a lie. Clarification of this circumstance will be devoted to the following presentation.

At first glance, the content of Isocrates ' speech is quite consistent with our ideas about the economic state, trade and political structure of the Bosporus at the very end of the V - beginning of the IV century BC.e. and can not cause doubts and questions. It remains only to map out the intended search area (or areas) for this "royal domain", taking into account archaeological materials. But here we immediately face great difficulties. First, it is well known that under Satyr, the state seemed to consist only of Greek cities with their chorae, and even then not all of them. By the end of the 90-ies of the IV century BC, Feodosia remained completely independent, during the siege of which Satyr died a few years later. It is not clear whether Cimmeric was already founded or annexed by him, and most importantly, whether the main cities of the Asian Bosporus were subordinated: Phanagoria, Hermonassa, Patreia9 . This question is positively resolved only in relation to Cep and Nymphaeum, as well as Asian Cimmeria, founded according to one version by the Bosporan tyrants themselves (Ps.-Scymn. 896), but it is not clear where, by whom and when 10 . We have not received any indications of other territorial acquisitions of the first Spartokids, which, however, does not exclude such possibilities. So, in theory, they could be "confiscated" lands belonging to the Archaeanactids and their supporters, as well as other opponents of the new dynasty, for example, part of the Nymphaeum chora.

According to the results of recent excavations, by the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, almost all Bosporan cities and towns known to us from written sources already existed on both banks of the strait: Acre, Kitaeus, Hermesius, Achillius, Parthenius, etc. We do not know how far their chora extended, but given the very modest size of these settlements, it is unlikely that it occupied a significant area. Therefore, it was hardly possible to alienate something here in favor of the supreme power. In addition, it is possible that at least some of them were founded by the Spartokids themselves.

It seems more reasonable to assume that the vast area ruled by Sopaeus was compact and located relatively close to Panticapaeum. Other options are less consistent with existing ideas about the size of the Bosporan State at the time under consideration.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the land holdings of the Spartokids should have been located outside the polis chora and some city lands. In addition, they probably differed in their organization in some way. From an archaeological point of view, these were obviously different types of rural settlements - perhaps the presence of "external" borders and the absence of traces of allotment divisions. Such territories could be a kind of "buffer" zone, a border between the Greeks and barbarians, and the appearance of some form of borders here is not excluded in principle." It is appropriate to assume that the centers of these possessions (one or more) should be located in convenient places along the coast, have good harbors, and control land and sea routes.

9 At present, the idea of a relatively late unification of all the Greek cities of the Bosporus is most actively defended by A. N. Vasiliev (Problems of the political history of the Bosporus in the V-IV centuries BC in Russian historiography: Author's abstract... Candidate of Historical Sciences, L., 1985. pp. 13-17) and A. A. Zavoikin (Opyt istochnikovedcheskogo analiza) / / Problemy istorii, filologii, kul'tury [Problems of History, Philology, and Culture].

Zavoykin. 10 Kimmeridh... 1997. pp. 130-137.

11 Although the time of construction of several ancient ramparts existing on the Kerch Peninsula is still not precisely established, some of them may well have been built or restored in the era of the early Spartokids, which has already been assumed many times before. In this connection, the little-known and almost disappeared rampart that apparently passed between the Chokrak and Tobechik lakes is particularly noteworthy (Maslennikov A. A., Smekalova T. N. Magnetic exploration in the study of the development of the historical landscape and archaeological sites of the European Bosporus / / Problems of History and Archeology of the Bosporus Tez. dokl. Kerch, 1996, pp. 47-50).

page 181

(river) communication and trade routes should be well fortified. The ethnic composition and legal status of their inhabitants is still anyone's guess, but most likely they were not homogeneous. In any case, this population existed: it was not in an empty place and not over the bare steppe that Sopey was supposed to supervise!

It remains to find archaeological traces of all this, and first of all on the Kerch Peninsula, which is rightly considered the ancestral territory and the center of the entire Bosporan association. It wouldn't be too difficult to do that now if... Isocrates composed his speech half a century later. Indeed, at the time when this speech was written here, first-class archaeological sites are known and well-studied in the spaces of dalnaya chora. These include, for example, complexes of buildings: apparently, the rich estates of Generalskoe-Zapadnoye, Baklanya Skala, Chokraksky Cape. They are distinguished by a high level of construction skills, features of the general layout and fortification, an abundance of various finds, production facilities (wineries), places of worship and sacred objects (altars, altars, terracotta sets corresponding to graffiti). All this emphasizes the prosperity and special position of their owners. Add to this the large area of buildings, their convenient location and relative distance from urban centers, as well as the absence of obvious traces of synchronous demarcation and necropolises of their inhabitants nearby .12 No less remarkable are the remains of many barbarian villages (fortified villages) in the interior of the peninsula. They differ from the above-mentioned estates by the low level of construction equipment, the layout of houses, their interior, the nature of the ceramic complex and other finds, and the funerary rite of numerous burials in neighboring burial mounds and other burial grounds .13

At the same time, our ideas about the state of the "near", urban chora in the V-IV centuries BC are becoming more and more concrete.14 At the same time, local archaeological sites clearly have their own specifics. But let's turn to the issues of chronology. Only in one case, the large estate of Andreevka-Yuzhnaya, on the far Bosporan Chora, which appeared at the end of the IV century BC, was preceded by a small settlement consisting of several houses of the simplest construction that existed from the turn of the V-IV centuries BC15 . The ethnosocial characteristics of their inhabitants are not clear, but the date indicated is worthy of attention 16 .

But even earlier, some buildings destroyed by fire were located here17 . It can be assumed that here we have an example of the construction of one of the estates of the "royal" choir by reducing the land holdings of some policy. In this case, it could be Panticapaeum, which was only 18 km to the east. The characteristics of the buildings of the second construction period coincide with what was excavated at the synchronous South Churubash settlement, which was most likely part of the Nymphaeum chora 18 . At the same time, it is possible that at the turn of the V-IV centuries BC, the inhabitants of the settlement of Andreevka-Yuzhnaya were already dependent tillers, and the entire district was part of the emerging "royal choir". It is hardly possible to prove or disprove this yet. It is much more revealing and significant to determine the approximate size of the Spartokid possessions on the peninsula, and most importantly-their dating. In the collection

Kruglikova Street. 12 Uk. soch. p. 80-88; Maslennikov. Hellenic Choir ... pp. 38-84.

Kruglikova Street. 13 Uk. soch. pp. 58-72; Yakovenko E. V. Ordinary Scythian burials in the mounds of the Eastern Crimea // Antiquities of the Eastern Crimea. Kiev, 1970. pp. 111-136; Maslennikov. Stone boxes... p. 4 sl.

Kruglikova Street. 14 Uk. soch. p. 24-49, 53-58; Zinko V. N., Solov'ev S. L. Excavations at the settlement of Geroevka 2 in 1992. 1994. N 4. pp. 159-163; Zinko. Some results... P. 12 sl.; Goroncharovsky B.C. Results of studying the rural settlement of Geroevka I on the Nymphaeum choir //Ancient Black Sea region. Tez. dokl. Odessa, 1996. p. 31 sl.

Kruglikova Street. 15 Uk. soch. p. 80-82.

16 Ibid., pp. 50, 82.

17 Ibid., pp. 50-53.

18 Ibid., pp. 92-94; Zinko. Some results... pp. 14-16.

page 182

The approximate percentage of the main centers is as follows: Phasos-21.2%; Acanthos-1.3%; Kos-1.1%; Rhodes-1%; Heraclea-20.5%; Chersonesos-1.3%; Sinope-47.4%; unknown origin-5.8%. They date from the 70s of the IV century BC to the third quarter of the III century BC, but in the overwhelming majority belong to the period 370/350-277/260 BC .At the same time, early Phasian brands make up up to 14.4%, and there are only 19 units dating from before 370 BC.

A fairly representative collection of amphora stamps from the Baklanya Skala estate consists mainly of Sinop stamps from the last quarter of the IV - first third of the III century BC. No less revealing is the analysis of chernolak ware, the fragments of which are estimated at the Generalskoe-Zapadnoye estate complex by many hundreds. It is mainly represented by types and forms characteristic of the first and second quarters of the IV - first third of the III century BC. Only a very few fragments belong to an earlier or later time 20 . Approximately the same can be said about the dating of the estates Chokraksky Cape, Andreevka-Yuzhnaya and Kazantip-Zapadny (Mysovka).

The analysis of coins found in that part of the rural territory of the European Bosporus, which was presumably located outside the city's chora proper, is also interesting. The earliest are copper and silver Panticapean coins of 400-375 BC, discovered at Cape Zyuk 21 . However, the ancient settlement, which was founded no later than the first quarter of the fifth century BC, seems to have no direct relation to our story. But, on the other hand, who knows: was it not the will of the Bosporan rulers that it appeared?

120 Panticapean copper coins were found on the Generalskoe-Zapadnoye estate. The earliest dates are 340/330 and 330/315 BC (according to D. B. Shelov) or 375-340 BC (according to A. N. Zograf) 22. In passing, we note that the above dates of the ceramic material are more consistent with the chronology proposed by A. N. Zograf.

Thus, we can confidently state that a special kind of rural settlements - large manor complexes, apparently local centers of Spartokid land holdings-appear on the far chora of the European Bosporus only from the second quarter of the IV century BC. Their heyday refers to the middle of the IV and the turn of the IV-III centuries BC.

Now let's look at the archaeological situation in the deep areas of the Crimean peninsula. Here, as already noted, many settlements of the same type have been identified, such as villages, which can probably be identified with barbarian villages. First described by I. T. Kruglikova, they were subsequently subjected to periodic excavations, which allowed us to partially clarify their dating and characterization .23 It turned out that they are very widespread in the Crimea and their appearance is unlikely to be directly related to the Bosporus, although some interdependence is obvious here. In order to clarify the chronology of these monuments, we will again turn to amphora stamps and coin finds, however, not so numerous. Phasos, Chersonesos, and some other rare centers are few in number. The bulk - sinopskiye

19 Information about amphora brands is kindly provided here and below by their researchers I. Garlan and N. F. Fedoseev.

Maslennikov A. A. 20 Chernolakov tableware from the Generalskoe-Zapadnoye settlement / / Problemy istorii, filologii, kul'tury [Problems of History, Philology, and culture], vol. IV. ch. 1, 1997, pp. 112-130.

21 Excavations of the East Crimean archaeological expedition. Shelov D. B. Monetnoe delo Bospora v VI-II vv. B.C. Monetnoe delo Bospora v VI-II vv. B.C. Moscow, 1955. Tables III, 36, 38.

22 Ibid. Table V, 50, 55-57; Zograf A. N. Antique coins / / MIA. 1951. N 16. Table XL, 18-22.

Kruglikova Street. 23 Uk. soch. p. 58-70; Maslennikov. Hellenic Hora ... pp. 72-88; Bessonova S. S., Bunatyan E. P., Gavrilyuk R. A. Ak-Tash burial ground of Scythian time in the Eastern Crimea. Kiev, 1988. p. 4 sl.

page 183

and the Heracleian ones. At the same time, only a few percent of early brands are found, and the vast majority belong to the middle of the IV - first third of the III century BC.

Coins in general have been found so far only in villages located near the sea coast and, as a rule, not far from Greek manors. There are few of them, and they are represented by the same types as on the estates. Other relatively earlier finds (fragments of amphorae from the end of the sixth and first half of the fifth centuries BC) are not generally accompanied by the presence of a corresponding cultural layer.

In general, it should be noted once again that the appearance of the first manors of the distant Chora of the European Bosporus coincides with the mass appearance of the so-called barbarian villages. But in any case, it is important that in the time of Satyrus I and Isocrates, neither of them existed here yet. Consequently, we have no archaeological data on the existence of a specially organized rural territory, which can be identified with the possessions of the first Spartokids, inhabited by some dependent farmers. Thus, given the current state of our knowledge, it is hardly appropriate to search in the Eastern Crimea for the" vast area " entrusted to Sopey. However, we do not yet know the original status of such cities as Acre, Cythaeus, and Zeno's Chersonesus, which appeared at the latest in the last quarter of the fifth century BC. 24 Perhaps dropped by Strabo (VII.4.5) the phrase about the location of Acre "in Panticapaean land" is not accidental and means that the town actually originated on land belonging to the Panticapaean community or later to the Spartokids. Estimated time of foundation of this point: the turn of the V-IV centuries BC. 25 , but there are no archaeological traces of intensive economic development of the south-eastern part of the peninsula at this time, with the exception of finds in the ash pit near Cape Taquil .26

In the light of the above, it remains to turn to the opposite, Asian side of the Bosporus, although this would seem to contradict all established ideas about the influence of early Spartokids here. Meanwhile, as has now been established, the nature of the development of the rural territory of the Taman Peninsula in the ancient era was spatially and temporally quite different from that in the Eastern Crimea. Since the second half of the VI century BC and especially in the V century BC, in addition to the urban (proto-urban?) There were dozens of settlements both on the coast and in the "outback". By the beginning of the next century, their number had grown even more than 27 .

There is no complete consensus among modern researchers of the Bosporus on the question of the time and circumstances of the subordination of the Kerch and Taman Peninsulas to the Spartokids, as well as on the boundaries of the settlement of local tribes, including the Sinds. Moreover, the information is Polyene (Strat. VIII. 55) and the recently published dedication of Leucon I from the Seven-Gate Hillfort 28 indicate a much more complex Sindo-Greek-Scythian relationship than previously thought in the first quarter of the fourth century BC. e. How did the division of the possessions of Satyr I, the Sind king, the mysterious "state" with its capital in Labrit and the Chora Greek poleis of the Asian Bosporus take place?, cannot be determined. But such boundaries certainly existed. A special area, however, after the death of the Satyr, was the Gorgippian region, the power over which passes to one of his sons. Whether this territory was subject to Satyr I is not known for certain, although it is quite probable 29 . Only in relation to

Molev E. A., Moleva N. V. 24 25 years of the Kitei expedition // Nizhny Novgorod studies in local lore and archeology. Yearbook. Nizhny Novgorod, 1996. p. 76 pp.

25 Information from A.V. Kulikov, head of the archaeological expedition leading the excavation of the settlement identified with Acre.

Kublanov M. M. 26 Arkheologicheskie razvedki v raion Kop-Takilya [Archaeological exploration in the area of Kop-Takil]. KSIA. 1961. N 83. p. 91 sl.

Abramov A. P., Paromov Ya. M. 27 Early antique settlements of the Taman Peninsula / / Bosporan collection. 1993. N 2. P. 25-98; Ferries. The main stages ... p. 7 sl.

Blavatskaya T. V. 28 The Dedication of Levkon I / / RA. 1993. N 2. pp. 34-47.

Alekseeva E. M. 29 Grecheskaya kolonizatsiya Severo - Zapadnogo Kavkaza [Greek colonization of the North-Western Caucasus]. Moscow, 1991. p. 3 sl.; they are the same. The ancient city of Gorgippia, Moscow, 1997, pp. 37-52.

page 184

in the town of Kepa and its environs, this can be stated with complete certainty, based on the testimony of Aeschines 30 . True, this city, along with Phanagoria, Sindh Harbor and Patus, is mentioned by Pseudo-Skilak as a city in the land of Sindh (Ps. - Scyl. 72). To what extent this message reflected extraterritorial and political realities is anyone's guess. However, according to some assumptions, there was a union of cities that minted their own coin here in the second half of the fifth century BC31 .

In short, this part of the Taman Peninsula, with the exception of the Kepsk region, was hardly under the complete control of the Satyr, who also allowed him to transfer control over it to his close associates. In this case, the only sufficiently extensive "area" identified with the one mentioned in Isocrates could be the northwestern part of the Asian Bosporus closest to Panticapaeum - the modern Fontalovsky Peninsula. In specialized literature, it is sometimes called the Cimmerian Island, implying the existence in ancient times of at least three more islands, including the neighboring Phanagoria. This opinion is not indisputable and is not shared by all researchers of the paleogeography of this region. It is believed, in particular, that in historical times there was one island 32. This may have been the case, and Strabo's remark (XI. 2. 5) about the location of the town of Cimmeria on the isthmus of the peninsula, separated by a moat and rampart, corresponded to certain geographical features of the part of the Asian Bosporus that we are interested in. The construction time and purpose of this object are still not fully understood 33 . Obviously, the shaft (and duct?) it could have been both a border and a territorial border. Both of these circumstances (geographical location and the presence of ancient fortifications) have long been taken into account when localizing one of the main territorial and administrative districts of the Bosporus, the so-called "island". It is no coincidence that it was the Fantala Peninsula that was most thoroughly fortified under Asander and his successors, which was determined both by its important strategic position and by the special legal status of this area. 34 However, let's not forget that the comparison in terms of the degree of fortification of other areas of the Asian Bosporus is still incorrect due to their much worse study. The position of "chief of the island" is known to be recorded in the Bosporan epigraphy four times: from the time of Aspurgus to the last quarter of the second century AD. 35 Two inscriptions originate from Kerch and the surrounding area, and two-from the Phanagoria settlement. Due to the small number of these monuments, it is difficult to judge how much magistrates of this rank were connected during their lifetime and posthumously with the largest cities of the state. But, apparently, those researchers are right who draw attention to the fact that in the Bosporan texts "island" is always mentioned in the singular, without any name, as, no doubt, a well-known place. Consequently, other islands did not seem to exist, and by the mentioned one we should understand almost most of the modern Taman Peninsula, including Phanagoria. However, this contradicts

31 For a modern analysis of the situation with Gilon, Nymphaeus and Kepi described in the famous speech of this speaker, see Koshelenko G. A., Usacheva O. N. Plon i Kepi. 1992. N 2. pp. 51-56.

Zavoikin A. A., Boldyrev S. I. 31 The third point of view on coins with the legend of ZINAON. 1993. N 4. pp. 43-47.

Kulikova A.V. [Approach to reconstruction of natural conditions of the Kerch-Taman region in the ancient era]. Problemy istorii, filologii i kul'tury [Problems of History, Philology and Culture]. 1992. Vol. 2. p. 101. Among other researchers who actively support this point of view, we should mention Yu. V. Gorlov.

Haidukevich. 33 Bosporan Kingdom, p. 207; Kublanov M. M. K istorii asiatiskogo Bospora [On the history of the Asian Bosporus], SA. 1950. N 29-30. pp. 221-226; Paromov Ya.M. Materialy k otlicheniyu kul'turno - istoricheskikh landshaftov Tamani [Materials to the selection of cultural and historical landscapes of Taman]. Proceedings of the seminar, Moscow, 1997, p. 202.

Sokolsky N. I. 34 Tamansky Tolos and the residence of Chrysalisk, Moscow, 1976. p. 107 sl.; Saprykin S. Yu. Aspurgiane / / SA. 1985. N 2. p. 70 sl.; Tolstikov V. P. Fontalovsky fortified area in the history of the Bosporan Kingdom // Archeologiya. 1989. N 1. pp. 52-56.

35 KBN N 40, 697, 982, 1000; P. 47, 403, 560, 571.

page 185

data on the special status of this city and its districts 36 . It is also not clear what the situation of other cities was in this regard. There were also some temple lands with special rights here .37 There is no need to dwell on all this in detail, since this is already a different period of Bosporan history. Let us note in passing that, for example, S. Y. Saprykin identifies the following "administrative districts" on the Bosporus, headed by governors: Feodosia, Gorgippia, a certain tsarist region, an island, the land of Aspurgians and the Crimean Azov region38 . To these we can add economically and strategically important areas in the depths of the Kerch Peninsula near Ilurat, Sauromatia and some other fortresses, as well as the extreme south-eastern "district" - Baty. What of all this could have previously been the domain of Satyr I?

The search area narrows down to that part of the Taman Peninsula whose status is unknown at the time under review, namely, its northwestern tip. At the same time, it is necessary to exclude the supposed chora of Patreia, but take into account the district of Kep. Naturally, this space should bear traces of economic development at the time of our interest, and first of all, the remains of rural settlements. Relevant research has shown that they really existed here since the VI century BC, and by the turn of the V-IV centuries BC, their number increased significantly, and this was even more noticeable than in neighboring territories. Settlements were located all over the Fontalovsky Peninsula, in the most convenient places for life and on important ancient roads. Having reached the maximum, their number for some time relatively stabilized. And this also seems to have taken place somewhat earlier than in other areas of the Asian Bosporus. 39

Of course, for a number of reasons, this picture is both incomplete and not entirely specific. After all, all these archaeological sites have practically not been studied. Unlike the "near" and " far " chora of the European Bosporus, not a single object of the period of interest has been excavated on the Taman Peninsula. Therefore, it is impossible to judge the features of development and planning, economic specifics, affluence and culture of residents. True, in this region, as well as on the Taman Peninsula as a whole, traces of ancient land management, roads, and canals have been identified, but all this requires careful verification .40 Be that as it may, only the archaeological statistics of the rural territory of both parts of the Bosporan State in the VI - beginning of the IV century BC differ in the most significant way, which, of course, requires an explanation. 41

So, the lands on the Fontalovsky Peninsula, located near the Panticapaean district, were used very intensively by the Bosporans at the time under consideration. This, in addition to purely natural factors, was facilitated by the probable absence (or extreme smallness) of the local barbarian population and a relatively isolated geographical location, combined with the presence of crossings and important communication routes. Apparently, the regular Scythian migrations reported by Herodotus (IV. 28) ceased by the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, which also made this territory safe. This fact in itself, if confirmed, is quite remarkable, although it also raises a number of questions. This suggests, for example, a comparison with the Eastern Crimea. Except for Patreus,

36 This status has been officially established since the time of Mithridates VI (App. Mitr. 113); Haidukevich. Bosporan Kingdom, pp. 199, 300-312, 340; Vinogradov. Phanagorean mercenaries ... p. 14.

37 KBI N 976; Haidukevich. Bosporan Kingdom, p. 200.

Saprykin. 38 The Kingdom of Pontus, p. 280.

Abrams, Ferries. 39 Early Antique settlements ... pp. 71-75; Parimov. Main stages ... p. 6-9.

Ferries. 40 Main stages ... p. 5-12; Gorlov. Lopanov. The oldest system of land reclamation ... pp. 121-136.

Abrams, Ferries. 41 Ranneantichnye poseleniya... P. 78. sl.; Maslennikov A. A. Nekotorye problemy ranney istorii Bosporskogo gosudarstva v svete novykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniy v Vostochnom Krymu [Some problems of the early history of the Bosporan State in the light of new archaeological research in the Eastern Crimea]. Problemy istorii, filologii, kul'tury, vol. III. Ch. 1.Moscow-Magnitogorsk, 1996, pp. 61-63.

page 186

the hora of which hardly covered most of the peninsula, there were no other polis here. The question of Cimmeria and Achilles should probably be considered separately. The first, as already mentioned, was most likely founded by Bosporan tyrants, although perhaps not from scratch. It was a kind of Bosporus outpost in the north-east in a strategically important area 42 . Pseudo-Skilak probably didn't have any precise information about Cimmeria, or it wasn't particularly relevant to him. Most likely, when he reported it, he was referring to the early Spartokids, 43 whom later tradition also referred to as "tyrants" (Strabo. VII. 4. 4). But if we pay attention to some archaeological realities from the area of the supposed localization of this town and take into account the existing historiographic ideas, then we can assume that it could have been founded by Archaeoanactids.

The problem of the location of Achilles (Achillion) even more confusing. It is only clear that it existed on the Fontalovsky Peninsula, somewhere in the Strait zone, more precisely-one of the crossings (Strabo. VII. 4.5; XI. 2.2) 44 . Its status is not clear, but the connection with the all-Sports cult center is obvious. If we take the localization of Cimmeria near the settlement of Peresyp, then the Keps, which had already submitted to the Spartokids in the last quarter of the fifth century BC, in the south of the isthmus that separated the Fontalovsky Peninsula from the rest of the Asian Bosporus, together with this point, flanked this natural boundary. In addition, it was probably fortified or marked by the aforementioned rampart, Of course, it is necessary to once again specify the complexity and ambiguity of paleogeographic reconstructions and the many opinions that exist on this subject. Thus, we can talk about the desire of the Bosporan rulers to allocate and strengthen the protection of this territory long before the construction of the famous fortresses - "batteries".

Here are some other considerations. It is well known that in ancient Greece, and not only there, the borders of lands, possessions and places of settlement of individual communities and entire ethnic groups were often marked by various sanctuaries and places of worship and monuments. In Hellas, these were mostly sanctuaries dedicated to Artemis Agrotera . The text of Pausanias is full of such examples. As a rule, and this is natural, they were located on peaks, capes, near the mouths of rivers, bays, near springs, notable natural objects: caves, abysses, mud volcanoes, picturesque rocks, gorges, etc. In this regard, let us turn to the Bosporus region of interest, bearing in mind that our knowledge of ancient features of the Bosporus region is very important. and its natural attractions are quite incomplete. We have already mentioned the sanctuary of Achilles in the north-west of the peninsula. The next example is the area of Mount Boris and Gleb 46, famous for its epigraphic and sculptural finds . However, these finds date back to the time of Perisad I, and the place itself - the western shore of the Akhtanizovsky estuary, near Cape Rakhmanov-although located in the neighborhood, but still

42 The question of the localization of Cimmeria is complex and has not been solved to this day. Without going into details, we note that there are several assumptions: the area of the village of Golubitskaya. bay near the village of Kuchugura, Ilichovskoe settlement, settlement near the village of Kuchugura. An embankment. We share the point of view of those who focus on the latter version, as it is most consistent with Strabo's text and the relatively early finds made here (see Zavoikin. Kimmerida... pp. 130-136; Korovina A. K. Tiramba (ancient settlement, necropolis) / / SGMII. 1968. N 4. pp. 54-67).

Koshelenko G. A., Usachova O. N. 43 Ob odnoi zagadke bosporskoi istoriiografii [Information about one riddle of Bosporan historiography]. RA. 1994. N 3.pp. 54-67.

Haidukevich. 44 Bosporan Kingdom. pp. 204-206; Blavatsky V. D. Archaic Bosporus / / MIA. 1951. N 33. P. 27; Fedoseev N. F. Crossings through the Cimmerian Bosporus / / VDI. 1997. N 4. p. 110 sl.

45 Для примера: Polignac F. Convergence et competition: aux origines des sanctuaires de souverainite territoriale dans Ie monde Gres // Les sanctuaires celtiques et leurs rapport avec Ie monde mediterrane // Dossiers de protohistoire. Paris, N 3. 1991. P. 97.

46 KBN N 1014, 1015. p. 582 sl.; Gaidukevich. Bosporan Kingdom, p. 207; Sokolsky N. I. Nakhodki na vershte gori Borisa i Gleb na Tamanskom peninsulov [Finds on the top of the mountain of Boris and Gleb on the Taman Peninsula]. SA. 1957. N 1. pp. 244-246; Takhtas'ev S. R. Votiv tsarina Komosarii // PAV. 1994. N 8.pp. 80-83.

page 187

The same is true outside (at least now) the Fontalovsky Peninsula proper. The same can be said for Kepah with its Aphrodite shrine. Both of these objects, therefore, represent two more extreme, "border" points. In the area of the mentioned mountain, already in the IV century BC, there was a temple of Artemis Agrotera. (Recall that this epiclesis meant that the goddess was the patroness of rural areas, hunting and arable land, borders.) Nearby, apparently, was another sanctuary with statues and dedications placed directly by members of the ruling dynasty, in particular Comosaria, wife of Perisades I, daughter of Gorgippus, granddaughter of Satyr I.

Another sacred object-a monument in honor of Satyr, "who reigned gloriously in the Bosporus", was located somewhere in the south-western part of the same Fontalovsky Peninsula (Strabo. XI. 2. 7) 47 . Most likely it was a memorial-heroon in the form of a mound, and not a tombstone at all. (However, in the light of our hypothesis, this is not so improbable.) This structure, as it was usually practiced, was designed to demonstrate the power of the Spartokids over a certain territory. On lands with a different status, such a monument simply would not have been erected.

Where the mysterious Apatur was located, we still do not know, but a bright cult ensemble - Tholos, which existed from the first quarter of the third century BC, was erected near the north-eastern edge of the "island" 48 . Moreover, it was preceded by the construction of some kind of sanctuary of the V-IV centuries BC. With great care, we can add to this list relatively recent excellent finds of highly artistic reliefs of the IV century BC, used as secondary building material on the estate of the I century BC near the village of Yubileynoye 49 . How, when and from where they got into the mentioned masonry is unknown, but it is quite obvious that somewhere nearby there was some grandiose funeral and cult complex by Bosporan standards. Thus, a number of sacred objects of great significance seemed to allocate and limit a certain space in the north-western part of the Taman Peninsula.

We can also cite some indirect written evidence, probably confirming the localization of the original center of the first Spartokids ' land holdings here. The earliest of them is the already mentioned message about the town of Cimmeria. No matter how the question of the place and time of its foundation is decided, it is clear that the Bosporan tyrants could do this only by unconditionally owning a certain territory. The fact that this was already the case at the beginning of the fourth century B.C., apparently even before the subordination of the Syndica, can be assumed on the basis of certain phrases from the well-known novel about Tirgatao (Polyaen. Strat. VIII. 55). It follows that the enraged Maeotian not only devastated the Syndica, but also caused harm to the kingdom ("possessions") Satire. It is unlikely that she crossed the Straits with the allied Ixomates, launching a second war against Satyr himself and " exposing the country to all the horrors of plunder and slaughter." Of course, historical and geographical accuracy cannot be expected from works of this kind. But still, if these events really took place, then they unfolded on the Asian side of the Bosporus. And taking into account all that we know about the chronology and sequence of the establishment of the Spartocid power here, we could not be talking about all the cities and the entire rural territory developed by the Greeks by the beginning of the IV century BC.

Haidukevich. 47 Bosporan Kingdom. p. 208. Although Strabo writes about a mound-like mound, this is not necessarily the top of the Kuku Oba mountain, where no traces of ancient buildings have been found. However, given the well-known features of the Taman mud hills, they could have disappeared without a trace or been temporarily hidden (see the example of Boris and Gleb Mountain).

Sokolsky. 48 Tamansky Tolos... pp. 7-8, 115.

Savostina E. A. 49 Antichnoe poselenie Yubileynoe I na Taman ' [The ancient settlement of Jubilee I in Taman] / / RA. 1987. N 1. P. 56 sl.; Savostina E. Trouvaille de reliefs antiques dans un etablissement agricole du Bospore Cimmerien (Taman) / / RA. 1987. N 1. P. 3-24.

page 188

It is appropriate, as it seems to us, to include the story of Diodorus of Sicily about the death of the Bosporan king Eumeles. Let us recall that while rushing to some sacrifice (surely not to the heroon of his deified ancestor Satyr or to one of the above-mentioned shrines?), he died "returning from Syndica to his father's (own) land" (Diod. XX. 25).

Of course, here we can also refer to the region of Panticapaeum, but it is noteworthy that although the Sind lands at the end of the IV century BC, as is commonly believed, were already part of the Spartocid empire, or rather were ruled by them, Diodorus (or rather his informant) found it necessary to emphasize the differences between the two territories. Geographically, as noted above, many cities of the Asian Bosporus were located in Sindica. So the tragic incident with Eumelus happened, perhaps, somewhere near the modern Fontalovsky Peninsula, the probable" domain " of the Spartokids.

And one more testimony of Diodorus cannot be ignored. It is still unclear exactly where the land allocation for thousands of Callatian settlers was carried out (Diod. XX. 25). Regarding the localization of the so-called Psoi and the region, there are several mutually exclusive assumptions: the area of Fanagoria, the districts of the Elizavetovsky settlement, the vicinity of the settlement near the village of Mikhaylovka, and the Trans-Kuban region. But as far as we know, no one has tried to place them (city and hora?)on the map. in the place under consideration, i.e. in the north-west of the Taman Peninsula.

Traces of ancient allotments have now been identified in a number of areas of Eastern Crimea and Taman, but their dating is extremely uncertain. In this case, we will refer to the observations of Ya. M. Paromov, who discovered at least 350 conditional allotments on the Fontalovsky Peninsula and determined that most of them existed in the IV-III centuries BC around rural settlements - "estates on the choir" 50 . One way or another, it was easier for the Bosporan rulers to allocate land plots to invited migrants at the expense of their own possessions (another thing - was it profitable?). Excavations of burial mounds and underground necropolises could provide much for the ethno-cultural characteristics of the area of interest to us, but, unfortunately, they were carried out only on a very small scale.

So, if all of the above about the location of the "royal" chora during the first Spartokids on the Fontalovsky Peninsula is true or plausible, then the first or one of the first "chiefs of the island" could well be Sopey, mentioned in the speech of Isocrates.

In conclusion, we consider it appropriate to provide the following clarifications. First, it is not by chance that the article title itself contains quotation marks. As you know, the first Spartokids did not call themselves kings. Those who wrote about them also did not use this term. One can argue about the nature of their power, but they were not kings in the usual sense for the Hellenes of that time. Secondly, the definition of "reigning" over certain barbarian tribes or peoples (ethnos) appears in the titulature of the Spartokids only in the IV century BC. But does this mean that they are developing their own land holdings at this very time and precisely at the expense of barbarian lands? I don't think so. There may well have been some areas for various reasons (bad climate, Scythian threat, etc.) that were uninhabited or poorly developed by the local population and Greek settlers, a kind of "no man's land". We have tried to prove the probability of such a variant of land relations development on the Bosporus at the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. In connection with some questions of paleogeography and history of this area.

Ferries. 50 Main stages ... pp. 8-11.

Permanent link to this publication: