Tokhtasev S R Epigraphical Notes

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 3
EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES*
SERGEI R. TOKHTAS’EV
In memoriam Yurii G. Vinogradov
Yurii Germanovich Vinogradov had a marked predilection for large-scale

historical reconstructions and, as it seems to me, at times was slightly envious
of those scholars working on the Hellenic past of the Mediterranean region,
who had at their disposal an incomparably greater and more representative
range of sources than we have for the Classical period in the North Pontic
region (without ever being really jealous of their opportunities, because he
truly loved the Black Sea region, where in many respects he was the only real
specialist in his field). This does not of course mean that what German col-
leagues refer to as philologische Kleinarbeit was alien to him, since the main
focus of his activities – epigraphy – is something which makes that unavoid-
able. The path from the initial examination of a stone or its photograph or
copy to the internal interpretation and later to an external one, i.e. to the plac-
ing of an inscription in its historical context, is one, which the epigrapher has
to follow, and a large part of that journey involves the resolution of small-
scale particular problems, precisely what we understand by Kleinarbeit. So I
am not in any way reluctant about dedicating to my friend and colleague of
many years this study of a particular small-scale question – all the more so
because this study represents parerga, which (together with various similar
studies) is of direct relevance to the works which may well come to be
regarded as the most significant in the whole opus of Yurii Vinogradov.
Being an unusually lively and energetic character in general, and in his
work as well – Yurii Vinogradov ignored the old adage: “Many a slip twixt
* This article was prepared as part of the programme of fundamental research supported by
the Praesidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences entitled “Ethno-cultural Interaction in
Eurasia”. The first variant of this article was published in “ANAXARSIS. In memory of Yurii
Germanovich Vinogradov” (Khersonesskii sbornik XI, Sevastopol, 2001), 155-168; unfortu-
nately the text and in particular the Greek words in it were so distorted in this publication that
it was rendered almost meaningless for the reader.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Ancient Civilizations 11, 1-2

Also available online – www.brill.nl
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 4
4 SERGEI R. TOKHTAS’EV
cup and lip”1 and neither did he believe that he would die before his time.
This has resulted in the task of preparing and publishing the Olbian part of
the volume of Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini I3 being
left to Vinogradov’s colleagues and pupils. He had only just begun his
involvement in similar work on the re-publication of Corpus inscriptionum
Regni Bosporani (CIRB), alias IOSPE II3, which is being undertaken in St.
Petersburg. His untimely demise has meant that, apart from a number of his
own publications of newly discovered inscriptions and commentaries on old
ones, he has left us, admittedly numerous and valuable, but nevertheless dis-
connected notes relating to the existing CIRB.
In recent decades there has not been an epigrapher or indeed a historian of
the North Pontic region in the Classical period in general of his stature and
breadth of erudition and it is not easy to see any successor, so the prospects
for continuing work in this field without him are, to say the least, intimidat-
ing. This makes our loss all the sadder.
1. MOUKOUNAS
The honorand’s name in the 2nd-century Olbian inscription (IOSPE I2 134,

11) which is a dedication from the board of archontes to Achilles Pontarchus,
was read by Latÿshev, following in the footsteps of August Boeckh (CIG II
2077), as “Moukounãkurow”; he did not provide any commentary on that
name, which is, undeniably, curious, confining himself to an extensive quota-
tion from Boeckh, but in the index this name appears with a question mark.
All this is strange in the extreme. As I see it, the text in lines 10-11: flera-
teÊontow MOUKOUNAKUROU tÚ dÄ, is very clear and the articulation of the text
rejected by Boeckh, causes no doubts: Moukouna KÊrou: “while Mukunas son
of Cyrus was a priest for the fourth time” (tÚ dÄ = t°tarton).2 The name ought,
evidently, to be accented as follows – Moukounçw, as in Boutounçw (IOSPE I2
136, 12) and Badçw (685, 8),3 which, admittedly, are characterized as dental
inflexions of casus obliqui: gen. Boutounçtow, Badçtow, cf. also the Paphlago-
1
pollå metajÁ p°lei kÊlikow ka‹ xe¤leow êkrou (Aristot. Fr. 571 Rose3 = Zenob. Prov. No.
96 Bühler).
2
CIG II, 2077; Köhler proposed the reading MoËkow NakÊrou.
3
For a re-publication based on the original with modifications, see: Treshcheva 1975, 71,
where a correct interpretation of the name is given.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 5
EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES 5
nian ÉAtotçtow in our inscription No. 134, l. 8/9, and (declined like our Moukounçw)
Yamflçw - ç (CIRB 898 et alii ), which is probably an abbreviation of
Yaxamfliaw (1232, 7: *Taxma-friya-?) and also Mithridas (CIL VI 5040, VIII
5443 et alii,4 in the last inscription this was the son of Mithridates) and
Miyrodçw5 from Egypt.6
One of the Olbian agoranomoi in the inscription IOSPE I2 129, 6 sq., which
also relates to the second century AD, bears the Sarmatian name Moukounagow.
The parallels cited above show that this is indeed the (closest) original form
of the name, from which the hypocoristic Moukounçw was formed.
It is also striking that the patronymics of Mukunagos and Mukunas – Alexander,
and Cyrus are historical names which were popular in the Roman period and
which were borne by renowned figures in the ancient past;7 both Alexander
the Great and Cyrus8 had by the 2nd century AD long since also become
4
Schmitt 1978, 252, No. 253, 256d; 253, No. 263: as though to *Miyra-da-.
5
BGU VII, No. 1660, 2; Huyse 1990, 50 f., No. 77: allegedly also relating to *Miyra-da-
(following the lead of Schmitt 1978, 400); what points clearly to a reduction in the Greek-
speaking environment is the -o?, stemming from a complete – Hellenized – form Miyro-dãthw
(for other examples see: Huyse 1990, 51, Nos. 78 and 79).
6
On the arbitrary formation of names (not only barbarian ones) with the suffixes -aw (-çw),
see: Abaev 1976, 337; Neumann 1969, 182 ff.; Tokhtas’ev 1994, 167; idem 1997, 377, 382. Cf.
10, below.
7
KËrow is not often encountered in Greek inscriptions, since it was for the most part a name
of slaves from the East, like other names borne by members of the Achaemenid dynasty: see,
for example – Baslez 1985, 153, where testimony is cited from Rhodes IG XII/1 529. Yet,
names of free persons do sometimes appear (see: LGPN I 279; III A 263; RE XII, 188-191:
some of these, particularly medici were however freed men and/or their descendants); one, at
Olympia (36-24 BC) is even from the priestly line of the Iamidae, and far earlier (4th century
BC) the name of the founder of the Achaemenid Empire was borne by an astynomos from
Sinope (Conovici 1988, No. 5, 653) and a magistrate from Heraclea Pontica (Monakhov 1999,
588, s.v.); cf. also KËrow KÊrou toË DidÊmou P.Oxy III 491, 126 AD et alii (Huyse 1990, 46).
In Olbian inscription IOSPE I2 129 it appears as a fully fledged historical name, like ÉAxaim°nhw
(CIRB 76, 16 et alii; cf. note 15, below) or ÑRvjãnh (507) in the Bosporus during the Roman
period; Zgusta (Zgusta 1955, § 546) points out examples of ÉAxaim°nhw from Delphi in the 3rd
century BC.
8
Obviously before Ctesias and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, the history of Cyrus’ downfall
according to Herodotus itself contains all the characteristics of a novella, but it emerges
straightaway that his version is by no means the only one: “From among the numerous stories
of the death of Cyrus the one I present is the most truthful” (I, 215, 5). In the Persae of
Aeschylus (768-772) Cyrus the Great is referred to as eÈda¤mvn énÆr, and later it is stated –
yeÚw går oÈk ≥xyhren, Õw eÎfrvn ¶fu. Cf. Weißbach 1924, 1162 f.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 6
figures in the novelistic literature. Combinations of names of this kind cannot

be accidental (cf., for example: ÉAl°jandrow Farnãkou CIRB 951, and in
neighbouring Thrace SeÊyhw KÒtuow IGBulg III/1 1187; TÆrhw ÉAntiÒxou 1111).
We do not doubt that what we have here are members of one and the same
family,9 at a time when names – were handed down from grandfather to
grandson – as has been the practice of many peoples.10 The formal difference
Moukounagow: Moukounçw is not an obstacle. In 2nd-century inscriptions from
Olbia we know of cases when even in relation to one and the same person
sometimes a full name is used and sometimes the hypocoristic form: Dvtouw
Gola (IOSPE I2 83, 9; 99, 4) and [Dvto]uw Golaiou,11 as was aptly suggested
by Karÿshkovskii12 in line 5 of the inscription no. 3 which he published; Ousi-
gasow Siraxou (IOSPE I2 92, 6; cf. for the division Rvdi-gasow CIRB 1279, 27),
and Ousi-gow Siraxou (686, 4/5).13
In Olbia during the Roman period other names of Persian origin have been
found as well (all references are to IOSPE I2): ÉAriarãyhw (95, 8); ÉArsãkhw
(93, 7; 204, 2); ÉOrÒnthw (92, 5/6: ÉOrÒntou; 182); in two cases, this Persian
name is used in conjunction with a local, Sarmatian one as is also the case in
inscription No. 134: 79, 2 – Ababou, 147, 4/5 – Spadakou.
Maifarnow 148 (accus. -on): if this is a Persian, and not a Sarmatian name,
as is commonly assumed, it would be more correct to have -hn, nom. -hw.14
9
For the nepotism in the Olbian governmental bodies at that time, see: Karÿshkovskii
1993, 83.
10
Papponymy is known among Iranians as well, including the population of Sarmatian ori-
gin in the cities of the North Pontic region, see: Tokhtas’ev 1994/95, 142.
11
The primary form is Golaw (cf. Tokhtas’ev 1994/95, 165), which had been known in
Sinope as early as the 4th century (Tsekhmistrenko 1960, 58 ff.; Conovici 1998, Nos. 17-18, 612,
659: gen. GÒlantow, Golatow i.e. Golçtow) and in the Roman period in Thrace (IGBulg II 501,
554). This is without doubt an Anatolian name (cf. also Goulaw and the like: Zgusta 1964,
§ 233, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Isauria), which is also confirmed by the second name of Gaius’ father
in IGBulg II 501 – Makou gen. (see Mihailov’s commentary). The partial coincidence with the
name Golow in an inscription from the second half of the 6th century from Eretria Del.3 800
(LSAG 87, pl. 5. 9: §p‹ Golo êrx[ontow) might be random as well, especially if we take into
account that the archaic orthography of the inscription allows us to read either Goulou or Gvlou
(also with -ll-) and accordingly assume wide-ranging etymology and resemblances, at least,
incidentally, to divinations.
12
Karÿshkovskii 1993, 80.
13
Treshcheva 1975, 69.
14
At any rate this name (*M®hç¬-farnah- “whose farnah is from the Moon”, Justi 1985, 188)
has been confirmed outside the North Pontic region as well and indeed the earliest mentions of
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 7
In the Bosporus far more Persian names (and respectively, their bearers)
have been recorded;15 but if we take into account, firstly, the overall number
of the Olbian inscriptions known to us in comparison with that of Bosporan
ones and, secondly, the major influx of Persian names into the Bosporus
already before the reign of Mithridates VI Eupator, then the list of Olbian
ones does not appear so small after all.
2. CIRB 6a
This inscription is a dedication to Artemis of Ephesus – [ÉAr]t°mi ÉEfese¤hi,

from the time of Leucon I. Since the publication by V.V. Shkorpil (see Note
37) the stone has suffered further damage (I examined it in the Kerch Museum
in 1993, Inv. No. KL-1032, see Fig. 1):
[≤ (?) de›na - - -].aiou tÚm bvmÚn
[én°yhken ÉAr]t°mi ÉEfese¤hi v.v.
[flervm°nh (?) êrxo]nt[o]w LeÊkvnow
[BospÒrou ka‹ Ye]odos¤hw v.v.
[ka‹ Sind«n k]a‹ basileÊo[n]tow
[Toret°vn Dand]ar¤vn Chss«n
1. [- - -].aiou (the first letter after the break was not phi, as Shkorpil had read it and
also the editors of the CIRB (Numf?]a¤ou), but gamma or tau: [?ÑEka]ta¤ou.
2. [ka‹ Sind«n k]a‹ Shkorpil.
3. Or eÈjam°nh, cf. CIRB 1015, 1043 etc.
References by the editors of the CIRB to this form of the dative of ÉArt°mi
in the Arcado-Cyprian are bound to puzzle, since it is the regular one for
Eastern Ionian i- stems16 and – furthermore – it has been recorded on two
it come from the West-Iranian (Old Persian, Median) world: Maif[a]rnou, Aramaic Mhyprn
(see: Lipinski 1975, 173 ff., a bilingual inscription from Ariaramneia in Cilicia), Maifarnhw
(IGLS III/2 1197), Maferneuw, gen. (see, with bibliography: Robert 1963, 349, Eusebeia in
Caria), Maiforrhw (Hinz 1975, 157, Avroman Papyrus), Middle-Persian M’xfrnbag (Justi,
ibidem); in Eastern Iranian there is only the Sogdian M’xfrn (Weber 1972, 197 (Zoroastrian?).
15
Tokhtas’ev 2000a, 235, note 16. Add: IOSPE I2 202, 2 sq.: ÉAxaim°nei ÉAxaim°nouw Bosporean«i.
16
See: Bechtel 1923, 146 ff.; for examples from the Bosporus and Olbia see: Dovatur, 816,
§ 8.1 (add the female name ÖAkiow, gen., 1037); Dubois 1996, 189, § 12; dedication in the
shrine of “Apollo Hegemon, which is at Phasis” – to\m Fçsi, see: Dumberg 1901, 99, cf.
Vinogradov 1997, 97 (Addendum to Note 48).
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 8
Fig. 1. CIRB 6a.
more occasions in that very same Panticapaeum: S«n ÉArt°mi ÉEfes[Æihi (or
[e¤hi, cf. below), engraved on the handle of a bronze wine-strainer (±ymÒw) dat-
ing from the second half of the 6th century BC, dedicated in the shrine of the
goddess on the acropolis,17 and ÉArt°mi, a graffito of the early 4th century.18 A
dedication to Artemis Epheseia dating from the time of Pairisades I was also
found in Panticapaeum (CIRB 11) and one other in Gorgippeia (1114, second
half of the 4th century BC); in both of which the koine form ÉArt°midi19 is
used, but combined with the archaic Ionian form of the epithet ÉEfese¤hi
which is more appropriate in the sacral context (with a similar reduction of
the first long diphthong, as in CIRB 6a).20
The ancient form of the dative has been recorded in other Ionian inscrip-
tions in the North Pontic region: ÉArt°mi ÉEfesÆihi, a graffito from Kerkinitis
17
For the reading by N.P. Rozanova with an amendment by Yu.G. Vinogradov, see (with
bibliography): Treister 1990, 197, 37 ff.
18
Tolstoi 1953, No. 176.
19
Also in a dedication to Artemis Agrotera (CIRB 1014) from the reign of Pairisades I.
20
On the reduction of long diphthongs in the middle of word, see: Bechtel 1923, 49, 63 ff.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 9
dating from the 5th century21 and yet another graffito from the same period
found on the island of Berezan: [ÉAr]t°mi ÉEfe[s- - -].22
Of approximately the same date as the inscription on the wine-strainer from
Panticapaeum there is a dedication on a bronze lamp, which was found in
Moldavia as part of a hoard dating from the second half of the fourth century
BC: ÉArt°mi ÉEfesÆih23 ÑHgÆnassa ≤ LÊkvnow; unfortunately the place where
this sacrifice and the inscription itself were made is not known (Olbia?).24
In discussion of this question with Yu.G. Vinogradov during a meeting at a
conference dedicated to a one hundred years of German excavations in Mile-
tus (Güzelchamlı, Turkey, August 1999), it emerged that he was also coming
round to the conclusion that the votive inscription had originated in the North
Pontic region,25 borne out, among other things, by the characteristic form of
the epithet (and on this we also both agreed).
Apart from the North Pontic evidence listed above, ÉEfesÆih does not ap-
pear to be known anywhere else: in inscriptions and literature, only the form
ÉEfes¤a, -h is encountered. Stephanus of Byzantium lists ’Ef°seia among the
ethnics (s.v. ÖEfesow) citing the Sophocles play Alexander (TGF IV 97). As far
as I can see Stephanus never mixes ethnics and epithets of divinities derived
from toponyms (there are no signs in this part of his work of the destructive
efforts of the epitomator of ÉEynikã);26 for this reason his qualification of this
form as an ethnic can hardly be regarded as something purely formal, yet even
in this capacity ÉEf°seia appears unnatural. What we are clearly up against
here is a formation metri causa, possibly based on the Ionian ÉEfesÆih.27
No, apparently, can epithets for Apollo derived from toponyms – Prihn∞i
(Del.3 715, 2, Samos), Pto›eWi (IG VII 2729, 2731 sq., CEG I 333, Boeotia),
21
Kutaisov 1992, 46 (photograph).
22
Yailenko 1983, 290, No. 100.
23
On -hi > -h in the dative, see: Bechtel 1923, 96; Thumb, Scherer 1959, 254, § 311 b. For
examples from Olbia see: Dubois 1996, 186, § 7.
24
Sergeev 1966, 134, the reading was by S.Ya. Luria and T. Kaukhchishvili; the reading
ÑHluk«now by A.I. Boltunova (see, in the same article) was a pure misinterpretation; the editor
suggested that the lamp came from the Artemision of Ephesus, which is, to say the least,
dubious.
25
Cf. Vinogradov 1997, 79, Note 36.
26
tÚ §ynikÚn ÉEf°siow. eÏrhtai ka‹ ÉEf°seia diå difyÒggou. oÏtv går §n ÉAlejãndrƒ Sofokl∞w.
27
ÉEf°seioi in the Hellenistic decree from Ephesus I.Ephesos 60, 10 and ÉEf°seiow in inscrip-
tions of the Roman period I.Smyrna 565 against the background of ordinary and regular uses
of ÉEf°siow, -oi can be only be considered as itazistic spellings.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 10
KaukaseÊw (Syll.3 1014 A, 19; I.Erythrai 201 B, 40, cf. below) in the form of
simple ethnics, serve as parallels. In Ionian (as indeed in Mycenaean) the feminine
of names ending in -eÊw is formed with the suffix -eia < *-ehja, cf. Homeric
fl°reia, bas¤leia, Ionian fl°reia (SGDI 5411, 2; 5729, Keos, Halicarnassus)
with the contraction – t∞i fl°rhi Del.3 725, 7 (Miletus), fl°rh CIRB 14 (Gorgip-
peia, and not Panticapaeum, as in all publications),28 Plut. Mor. 795 D, Ephe-
sus (!).29 At the same time, -eÊw was actually the masculine suffix and in the
sphere of onomastics perfectly clear and direct correspondences with the fem-
inine gender (of the type -iow: -i-) did not become established; together with
the epithet PolieÊw for Zeus we find the epithet Poliãw for Athena; Apollo
KaukaseÊw was venerated in Erythrae together with Artemis Kaukas¤w (see in
the same inscription Syll.3 1014 A, 19);30 tÚ §ynikÚn t∞w Bo¤bhw BoibeÊw ka‹
Boibh¤w yhlukÒn, St. B. s.v. Bo¤bh (suffix *-hW-id). In this sense ÉEfesÆih can
be regarded as the feminine of ÉEfeseÊw.
In the play LuropoiÒw by one of the authors of Middle Comedy, Anaxilas
(PCG I 18, 285, apud. Athen. XII, 548 c), the adjective ÉEfesÆia (grãmmata)
is used, and moreover, most likely in its authentic Ephesian (Ionian) form.
Like the feminine ÉEfesÆih this form can be interpreted as an extension with
the suffix *-j- of the stem *ÉEfeshW-, represented in the ethnic ÉEfeseÊw.31
Strictly speaking this is a possessive adjective similar to ÉOdusÆiow (dÒmow) s
353, ÉAxillÆiow (see, below 9), is not typical of epithets used for divinities.
We know of only one parallel – Karuk°Wiow, an epithet of Apollo at Tanagra
(Del.3 440. 1.2; LSAG 92, 94, 402, pl. 7. 5; 8. 7), which can be traced back
to the name of the mountain KhrÊkion, where, “according to legend, Hermes
was born” (Paus. IX, 20, 23), possibly via the intermediate stage of *KarukeÊw
(cf. KaukaseÊw, above, in relation to the toponym KaÊkasa, Hdt. V, 33, 1: the
toponym in Chios and/or in Erythrae).32 Cf., however, Boibh˛w l¤mnh (B 711)
derived from Bo¤bh (see, above), ÉEfesh˛w ÉEfes¤ou I.Kyz. 216;33 ÉEfesÆia
(grãmmata) could have been formed or transformed from the ordinary ÉEf°sia
on a parallel with FoinikÆia grãmmata (Syll.3 38, 37, Teos; Hdt. V, 58, 2),
derived from Fo¤nikew, as KadmÆia grãmmata (Hdt. V, 59, cf. Kadme¤h n¤kh,
28
See: Tunkina 2002, 209 ff., fig. 76.
29
Humbach 1968, 47 ff. (in the Attic dialect unlike Ionian, the suffix *-∂wja was used).
30
For similar correspondences for ethnics, see: Gärtchen and Hoffmann 1914, 951 ff.
31
Cf. Chantraine 1933, 51 ff.; Schwyzer 1953, 468.
32
Zgusta 1984, § 466.
33
Cf. Bechtel 1917, 545.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 11
ibidem I, 166, 2) from Kãdmow. In any case, however, these examples point to
the existence of an element *hWj-, which directly formed adjectives from any
stem and, probably, had at the outset a special nuance of meaning and was
probably more closely linked with the object, which from the grammatical
point of view performed the function of the productive stem, than elementary
derivatives ending in -iow, -i- (cf. g°now basilÆion p 401, Ion. ofikÆiow). Unlike
ÉEfes¤h, which has the most general meaning – “Ephesian, of Ephesus”, ÉEfe-
sÆih could mean “originating from Ephesus”; the difference here is approxi-
mately the same as that between the universal adjective ending in -iow –
ÉEf°siow and the ethnic ÉEfeseÊw (native of Ephesus, citizen of Ephesus).
As has already been pointed out,34 the relatively widespread cult of the Ephesian
goddess in the North Pontic region would undermine the hypothesis put for-
ward by N. Erhardt and supported by M. Treister,35 to the effect that it had
been brought to Panticapaeum directly by settlers from Ephesus (whether dur-
ing the early stage of colonization or by much later immigrants). The resolu-
tion of this question is directly bound up with explanation of the unusual form
of the epithet, which was certainly not a cultic one in Ephesus. It can be
assumed that it had been included in the response of an oracle to a question
from inhabitants of one of the North Pontic colonies or a group of inhabitants
of the metropolis, who had only just set out to engage in colonizing activities.
Let us remember in this connection the well-known story (Strabo IV, 1, 4) of
the Phocaeans, founders of Massalia, who had been commanded by the oracle
to “take a guide from Artemis of Ephesus”; together with the Ionian Apollo
Delphinius, she became the most venerated deity in Massalia. It is significant
that in archaic Panticapaeum, the shrine of Artemis Epheseie, as indeed the
shrine of the city state’s main divinity – Apollo the Healer (Ietros),36 was sit-
uated on the acropolis.
It should be noted that ÉEfesÆih, unlike ÉEfes¤h, can successfully be in-
cluded in the hexameter, the usual verse form used by oracles and thus the
addition of a suffix to the epithet can be explained not only with reference to
the semantics of the epithet (“from Ephesus” or something of the kind) but
also by the metric form of its source. Indirectly this is borne out both by the
other similar formations from ÖEfesow, replacing the normal ÉEf°siow, -i- –
34
Tokhtas’ev 1999, 168, Note 8.
35
Ehrhardt 1983, 155; Treister 1990, 41 ff.
36
Tolstikov 1984, 44-46.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 12
ÉEf°seih and the neuter plural form ÉEfesÆia, which have been recorded spe-
cifically in the writings of poets.
After taking root in cultic practice thanks to the authority of the oracle, this
epithet, together with the cult of Artemis Epheseie itself, later spread to other
Ionian colonies in the North Pontic region. We now know relatively reliably
that the cultic links between the poleis in this area could have existed already
in the Archaic period (see, below 9).
In l. 5, V.V. Shkorpil37 restored [ka‹ Sind«n k]a¤, as depending, together
with [BospÒrou ka‹ Ye]odos¤hw from [êrxo]nt[o]w (LeÊkvnow), while the words
[Toret°vn Dand]ar¤vn Chss«n turn out to depend on basileÊo[n]tow: “this
means that Sindoi would be placed on a par here with the Bosporus and Theodosia”,
concluded Shkorpil. Thanks to the recent find of an important inscription in
Nymphaeum dating from the time of Leucon I, Shkorpil’s restoration has in
the main been confirmed (it turned out that Sindoi, or, to be more precise, the
“whole of Sindike”, and even the Toretai with the Dandarioi and Psessoi had
originally been ruled by Leucon as archon,38 not as basileus, as in the later
inscriptions from the time of Leucon I, see 3, below). Yet, if we take into con-
sideration the size of the lacuna in l. 5, it would probably be more appropri-
ate to fill it as follows: [te ka‹ Sind«n k]a¤.39
3. CIRB 7
The description of the stone in CIRB requires amplification:40 the reverse

side of the stone has been left virtually untouched, which shows that the stone
slab must have been set in (or against) a wall.
The inscription as restored by Latÿshev is clearly an unsatisfactory version:
[ı de›na Le]Êkvnow ÉAf[rod¤thi]
[- - - - - én]°yhke êrx[ontow BospÒrou ka‹ Yeo-]
[dos¤hw ka‹] basi[leÊontow ktl.]
37
Shkorpil 1917, 109, ad No. 1 (editio princeps).
38
Sokolova, Pavlichenko 2002, 99 ff.: Yeoprop¤dhw Megakl°ow tØn e‡sodon én°yhken
DionÊsvi égvnoyet°vn L°okvnow êrxontow BospÒro ka‹ Yeodos¤hw ka‹ t∞w Sindik∞w pãshw ka‹
Toret°vn ka‹ Dandar¤vn ka‹ Chss«n.
39
For more detail, see: Tokhtas’ev 2004, 158 ff.
40
This one and the other inscriptions from the Hermitage collection discussed and cited in
this article have been examined by me on the stone.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 13
It turns out that the ruler’s name41 is missing in the standard date formula,
remains of which can be made out quite certainly in ll. 2 and 3. It is also clear
that, in addition, the first line could hardly have ended with the name of Aphrodite,
since some other word must, without doubt, have stood in front of én]°yhke
in l. 2. More likely than not it was an epithet describing the goddess and the
remainder of the first line could also have incorporated it. An epithet of the
right length has only been recorded in the Bosporus for the Guardian goddess
of Apaturon (cf., for example, ÉAfrod¤th[i] OÈran¤hi ÉApatoÊro medeoÊshi CIRB
1111).
The stone has had pieces broken off it on all sides except the top (see
Fig. 2), and for this reason it is difficult to restore the text reliably. That this
was a dedication made by the ruler himself – Pairisades I or Spartocus II (the
sons of Leucon I) does not seem all that likely to us: we have to assume that
titles would have followed immediately after the ruler’s name. It is more rea-
sonable to assume that the dedication was in the name of one of Leucon’s
children: cf. a similar inscription – CIRB 25, in which the list of titles of
Pairisades II, father of the dedicator – Leucon (later – Leucon II) – starts at
approximately the same spot as in our inscription.42 If one of the names of
Leucon’s I sons – Pairisãdhw, Spãrtokow or ÉApoll≈niow were placed in the
gap at the beginning of l. 1, names which contain virtually the same number
of letters (in the first the two narrow iotas could be counted as one letter;
however, the second name would appear to fit best), then in l. 2 the area of
missing text would provide for 11-12 letters (including the first two letters of
the word én]°yhke) also taking into account that the M in inscriptions of the
time of Leucon I usually had descending verticals and therefore was wider
than other letters, with the exception of omega.43
SPARTOKOSLE]UKVNOS
MEDEOUSHIAN]EYHKE
41
Cf. Belova 1984, 80, Note 6.
42
Cf. also CIRB 26 (Belova 1984, 84: leg. [Pairisãdhw S]partÒkou ktl; for a different but
unconvincing version, cf. Tolstikov, Vinogradov 1999, 292, 297, Note 11) and another inscrip-
tion from the time of Spartocus III (Belova 1970, 65 ff.): [- 4-6- o ] usa Spar [ tÒkou Íp¢r
Pairi]sãdouw [toË édelfoË] ÉAfrod¤[thi]; the list of titles, however, has been overlooked in
both inscriptions.
43
Cf. in particular Nos. 6a, 8, 1111. For a palaeographic survey of inscriptions from the time
of Leucon, see: Sokolova, Pavlichenko 2002, 102 ff.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 14
Fig. 2. CIRB 7.
This ties in with the number of letters of the indispensable Yeodos¤hw ka¤,
which fits splendidly into the beginning of l. 3. Let us suppose that after ÉAfrod¤thi
the surface of the stone had been left vacant (cf. vacat in l. 2 and 4 of the
inscription CIRB 6a, see: Fig. 1); then eÈjãmenow would be possible, but the
presence of empty space, which would need ca. 8 letters to fill (which is clear
from a calculation of the length of l. 3) raises doubts, unless after ÉAfrod¤thi
there had been the word OÈran¤hi, as in CIRB 972 (during the reign of
Pairisades I); yet this is the only inscription of the early period known to us
today,44 in which the epithet ‘of Apaturon’ applied to Aphrodite is presented
in truncated form; besides, this inscription is not from Panticapaeum. For this
reason the following reconstruction of the text would appear to me to be the
most likely:
[? Spãrtokow Le]Êkvnow ÉAf[rod¤thi OÈran¤hi ÉApatoÊrou]
[medeoÊshi én]°yhke êrx[ontow LeÊkvnow BospÒrou ka‹]
[Yeodos¤hw ka‹]basi[leÊontow Sind«n ka‹ Toret°vn ka‹]
[Dandar¤vn ka‹ Chss«n].
44
On CIRB 1234, 6th-5th centuries BC (read ye[«i ÉAfrod¤thi OÈran¤hi?] ÉApatÒro [medeoÊshi]
MAX ktl) cf. Tokhtas’ev 1986, 138, Note 1.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 15
On the reconstruction of Leucon’s title cf. CIRB 6; 1037; 1038; 8; SEG

XLV 996. Of course, it should be borne in mind that in addition to from Pairisades,
Spartocus and Apollonius, Leucon could also have had other children, whose
names have not survived in our sources, and also the fact that the dedication
to the female divinity was, is likely to have been made by a woman.
The thiasos of the Apaturian Aphrodite was known in Panticapaeum in the
mid-2nd century BC (CIRB 75), which would seem to point to the existence of
a branch of the shrine Apaturon: there is archaeological evidence for it only
in the early years AD.45
The earliest evidence for a cult of Aphrodite at Panticapaeum is probably the
graffito on the rim of an Attic kylix dating from c. 520-510 BC: Afrod[- - -].46
Yet it could have been just a graffito made at table during a symposium and
at any rate it is impossible to prove that the dedication was made to Urania
and, in particular, to the guardian of Apaturon. Another possibility would be
restoration of the theophoric anthroponym, cf. the graffito [ÉA]frodis¤h ¶dvke
on the base of a black-glaze kotyle dating from the 5th century BC and also
from Panticapaeum.47
4. CIRB 65
The inscription has been cut over another earlier one (No. 41), i.e. what we
have before us is something like a kind of a palimpsest (Fig. 3). In all edi-
tions the text of l. 4 contains some inaccuracy and errors and nothing is
reported at all about the remains of the last line, although it can be made out
even from a photograph. My reading is as follows:
[ÉAgay]ª v. TÊx˙
[- - - - - - - - -].on ÑRadamsadiou toÔ
[basil°vw katesk]euãsyh diÉ §pimel¤aw
45
CIRB 31. Editio princeps – Chuistova 1962, 181-186 (this publication remained unknown
to the editors of CIRB). According to Chuistova the stone had been set into the wall of a build-
ing, which, after buildings had been discovered during earthworks at the crossroads of Karl
Marx St. and V. Dubinin Street, she subjected to further examination (see: Chuistova 1962,
182 ff.) and identified it convincingly as the shrine of Aphrodite Urania.
46
Sidorova 1992, 187, fig. 11B on p. 194.
47
Blavatskii 1985, 24 ff. (with an erroneous date, cf. Vinogradov 1972, 235, Note 16; Vinogradov
1997, 380, Note 16; idem, Bull. ép. 1990, No. 584).
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 16
Fig. 3. CIRB 65 (+ 41).
[- - - - - - - - - -]Iw ka‹ Yeof[¤l]ou PATIEI[.]

[- - - - - - -]NA[- - - - - - - - - -]
2: in front of the break on the left remains of a vertical hasta can be seen (noted
in the IOSPE maiusculis).
4: ]IS, less probable, ]HS; Yeodo[s¤]ou Pat<r>°[vw] Latÿshev, CIRB. The reading
YEOF[ is beyond question; all the ‘round’ letters are rhomboid in shape; from
the next two letters only the tops have survived. The last (or penultimate?) let-
ter in the line was probably iota, although either gamma or pi is possible.
PATIEI: there is no foundation for the reading by F. Dubois de Mont-
péreux – PATIEIS with a square sigma, since in this inscription sigma always
appears as S. After PATIEI another letter (or two?) could fit in the gap, but
this would in any case belong to the next word, since what we have here is,
without doubt, the name Pateiw in the genitive (see, below) which was well
known in the Bosporus during the Roman period. This means that the reading
should be Pat{i}ei, making allowances for the influence of Patiaw (CIRB 612
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 17
and Addendum 2; probably, of the same origin, see below). In late inscrip-
tions, however, several other examples have been recorded with the letters ie
rather than ei, usually at the end of a word: Gastiei voc. 376 (?) instead of
Gastei,48 Íei = ufl° (CIRB 708, 2nd century), ÉApoll≈niei voc. CIRB 580, 1st-2nd
centuries.49 In Asia Minor and in some other places nominatives of this kind
are encountered, such as: ÉApoll≈niew, Baryoloma›w, DhmÆtriaiw (-ai- = -e-),
Kãsiew, Limnew (-e- = -ai-), ÑRvma›w, which are explained by Georgakas as
derived from vocatives: ÉApoll≈nie, Baryoloma›, DhmÆtrie, Kãs(s)ie, Limna›,
ÑRvma›;50 as are the feminine names XrÊsien,51 ÖAmmien).52 Yet the similarity
here is only superficial; this interpretation is not appropriate to our examples.
Whatever the case, taken together they probably make it unlikely that we
ought to read Pati Ei/g/p[ in CIRB 65: what is important here is something
else – while the appropriate name (there can be no doubt that after the name
of Theophilus, son of Pateis the list of the names of the epimeletai continues)
is known in the Bosporus – Eisgoudiow (CIRB 67, of a later date),53 genitives
ending in -i of names ending in -eiw and -iw have not been recorded at all.
The name Pateiw is encountered many times in Bosporan inscriptions of the
Roman period.54 It would appear to be identical with the Old Iranian name
recorded in an Elamite text from Persepolis – Bat-ti-i·, i.e. *Pati-, which is an
abbreviation of names like *Pati-aspa- or *Friya-pati-.55 To this list it would
evidently also be possible to add the above-mentioned Patiaw (*Patiya-) and
Patika (*Patik®-).56 Our Pateiw should be distinguished57 from the Thracian (?)
48
According to the reading of V.P. Yailenko 1987, 66, No. 376.
49
Yailenko (Yailenko 1987, 66, No. 76) assumes that this is not iota but a hasta: highly
dubious.
50
Georgakas 1948, 256.
51
Corsten 1990, 91 ff. B, 2 = I.Prusa 90: “Schreibweise [!] -e- für -o- ist nicht selten” (with
unsuccessful references to grammars of the language of the papyri of the Roman period –
F. Gignac – and of the Attic inscriptions – L. Threatte); cf. also Tatarhen I.Prusa 166 for
Tatarion and Cl. Brixhe, in Bull. ép. 1994, No. 570 (“. . . erreurs graphiques . . . et il n’est pas
exclu que le trait graphique illustre un phénomène phonétique”).
52
Cl. Brixhe, Bull. ép. 1991, No. 507 (“banale erreur du graveur sur une lettre ronde”).
53
On the dating, see: Vinogradov 1998a, 236 ff.
54
In CIRB there are 10 individuals; see, also: Yailenko 1987, 20 ff., No. 11.
55
Mayrhofer 1973, 141 (8. 291); Hinz 1975, 185.
56
Belova 1977, 105 ff. (= SEG XXVII 448), 5th-4th centuries BC. For an interpretation of the
name, see: Finogenova, Tokhtas’ev 2003, 87, Note 4.
57
Mihailov 1969, 42 ff.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 18
Pataw58 and the Graeco-Egyptian Pathw, -eiw and such like.59 Pateiw from
Histria (ISM I 200, 9, 2nd century AD) most likely came from the North Pontic
region.
5. CIRB 147
Shebalin has already devoted a special study to this highly unusual inscrip-
tion in verse,60 in which attention was concentrated on the contents. We shall
focus now on just a few details.
V. 7: KalliÒterow (–∪∪–) with an ioticized (asyllabic) -i- after a consonant
(CIRB: ostensibly, a metrical mistake);61 this is evidently one of the late forms
of the superlative of the word kalÒw (see, LSJ. s.v. kalÒw B)62 raised to the
status of an anthroponym; cf. ÉIoul¤a Kalliot°ra (ISM I 292, 3) and also KallistÒn
(below, 6), Kãllistow (ISM II 187, 1 and ibidem. I 195, 12: [Kãl]listow), Filvt°ra
(for example, CIRB 639, 713) and Filtãth (IGBulg I2 412 A), and the more
widespread F¤listow.
Boltunova63 and the editors of CIRB with every justification regarded Filet°ro(u)
as the patronymic of Symphoros (since Kallioteros was named shortly before
with a patronymic). The mistake – FILETEROS instead of FILETEROU is explained
with reference to the nominative ending of the preceding SÊmforow;64 the idea
put forward by Lifshits, who “sans doute” identified here the appellative
fil°terow as an epithet for SÊmforow65 does not appear to me to be convinc-
58
Detschew 1976, 360.
59
Preisigke 1922, 287; Foraboschi 1971, 238, 239. Pathw, however, is also found in
Macedonia as early as the 2nd century BC (Ziouta, Karamitrou-Menesidi 1988, 28: Patevw; cf.
Bull. ép. 1993, No. 361): from Egypt?
60
Shebalin 1987, 185 ff; see, also: Yailenko 1987, 63, No. 57 (in l. 20 it should read ZI)
and the article by Lifshits (Lifshits 1968).
61
Usually this was already the case in Homer, see: Chantraine 1958, 170; cf. CIRB 146
(Sabb¤vn − −), 148 (Filain¤a ∪− −), and further CEG 47 II, 3 (Gnay¤o), 130 (Kupr¤o); Meyer
1896, 219 ff., § 146 f.; Dieterich 1898, 58 ff.
62
Cf. also gluk(e)iÒterow, Dieterich 1898, 181.
63
In the editio princeps (1959, 169) she assumed that it was possible to read the (as yet
unrecorded) name Fil(a¤)terow as well; but if the 8th verse is metrically deficient (see, below),
that is not a reason for considering the 7th one deficient as well.
64
See examples (the list can be extended indefinitely) with the literature: Tokhtas’ev 1999,
174 ff., 179 (relating to No. 25).
65
Lifshitz 1968, 34.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 19
ing. The name Fil°tairow was known in Panticapaeum in the 1st and 2nd cen-
turies (CIRB 128); moreover, Boltunova (pp. 171 ff.) and the editors of CIRB
assume, not without good grounds, that the stele had probably been brought
to the Bosporus from Asia Minor.
V. 8: Boltunova corrected the misguided MURVMENH to Mur(o)m°nh – a
name “formed like the participle of the passive of the verb murÒv” (= mur¤zv,
see: LSJ), but it is clear from her subsequent reflections on the word murom°na
with the meaning ‘mournful’, which is found in metrical epitaphs, that the
word under consideration should be mÊromai and that she had simply confused
two verbs that sound similar. At any rate there are no grounds for assuming
that this was a highly dubious nick-name such as ‘Sobber’ or ‘Cry-baby’.
The editors of the CIRB without comment reproduce Boltunova’s correction,
tactfully avoiding any mention of the slip.
Another attempt to confuse the issue was made by Lifshits (ibidem). Like
Boltunova he took MURVMENH to be derived from murÒv, naturally with its
real meaning, but he did not accept Boltunova’s and CIRB’s “correction” of v
to o. The name Murom°nh, he argued was less well known and appeared rather
strange (“. . . sans doute un peu bizarre”) and therefore the appellative murv-
m°nh should be preferred. Lifshits did not take into consideration that the
woman’s name would surely be given. The result of his argument is com-
pletely absurd: “Kallioteros, son of Basileides, and Symphoros who loves his
friends and the annointed (with perfumes) one, who lived loving her husband
(the wife) of Kallioteros”. On the other hand, he is definitely right to regard
this passage as dealing not with Kallioteros’ daughter, but with his wife: oth-
erwise the words “lived loving her husband” without the name of the latter are
left hovering in mid-air.
Unfortunately, the metre does not help us to determine the correct form of
the name. Without going into details, the editors of the CIRB write that this
verse (ka‹ Murvm°nh Kal<l>iot°rou zÆsasa filãndrvw) is a hexameter, al-
though even Boltunova assumed66 that in actual fact it was only meant to be
one (even if we read Murom°nh as derived from mÊromai with a long }); the
only metres which can be regarded as normal ones are the 3rd, 4th and 6th. This
means that the problem can only be resolved with reference to linguistic con-
siderations and parallels.
66
Boltunova 1959, 169, Note 5.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 20
The correct form should, of course, be Muroum°nh: as a starting point this

is a middle and passive participle of murÒv; cf. MuroËsa (CIRB 443), which
relates to Muroum°nh as Feiloum°nh (1222) does to FiloËsa (533; IG IV 613;
V/1 764, 776 etc.) and so on;67 cf. also MurÒpnoun (476) and the correspond-
ing male name MurÒpnouw, which can be traced back to the poetic appellative
(“smelling sweet with mÊron ”), 68 MurÒtaw (IOSPE I 2 128, 6: - ou ; read
Mur≈tou, cf. Mur≈ta IG II3 9217), MÊron (CIRB 254, 936).69 v instead of ou
is encountered quite frequently in inscriptions of the Roman period in the most
diverse regions, and in the Bosporus, in particular, but it is mainly found with
the masculine and neuter genitive ending of o-stems.70 In the Bosporan inscrip-
tions, for the middle of the word, Dovatur (see Note 70) notes katoik«nta
(731), which probably had taken its form from verbs in -ãv; for this reason it
is quite possible that the spelling Murvm°nh reflects contamination of a pho-
netic and graphic kind of the so-called contracted verbs and/or the appearance
of doublet forms, which is characteristic of the late Greek (ganãv: -Òv, yigãv:
-Òv, kvfãv: -°v: -Òv).71 In an epitaph from the 2nd century AD from Thes-
salonica (IG X/2/1 312) the essential parallel Mur«sa was found (and after
that ≤at« z«te[w] = •aut“ z«ntew!). But there are also parãgv<s>in CIRB
1035, where the v instead of ou is not morphological.
6. KALLISTON
In CIRB the text of epitaph No. 884 (Fig. 4) is presented in the following
form:
Ka[l]ist≈n72 gunØ
ÉEpeikrãtou,
xa›re.
67
This type was known already to Homer, cf. F°rousã te, Dunam°nh te Dejam°nh te, S 43
sq. (Nereides); Masson 1987, 107-112.
68
Fick, Bechtel 1894, 212.
69
For the semantics of names derived from mÊron, see: Bechtel 1898, 76; idem 1902, 119.
70
See, for example: Mihailov 1943, 29 ff.; Brixhe 1987, 55 ff.; Dovatur 1965, 801, § 4.6
(filorvma¤v, ÉAlk¤mv et alii).
71
Jannaris 1897, 216 ff. Yet more common was the combination of verbs in -°v and -ãv in
the paradigm of -ãv; Dieterich 1898, 228-230.
72
The remains of the lambda are perfectly discernible: the iota has been damaged; read Kalist≈n.
The stone is kept in the Kerch Museum, Inv. No. KL 273, vidi.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 21
Fig. 4. CIRB 884.

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 22
Boltunova in the editio princeps73 considered it possible to propose the fol-

lowing identification: Kalist≈n = Kallist≈, which despite its obviously fan-
tastic character was accepted by the CIRB editors, while they did not even mention
her alternative and, in fact, only correct conjecture that it was a mistaken
spelling for Kal(l)istÒn. What we have here, of course, is a banal variant
spelling (the inscription dates from the 1st-2nd century AD); cf. ÉAgayÒn CIRB
326, MÊron 254,74 936 (cf. 5, above) and so on.75 The replacement of o by v
is on the contrary often encountered in Bosporan inscriptions of the Roman
period.76
7. CIRB 1016
In l. 6/7 of this epitaph (fig. 5) dating from approximately the 3rd century
AD and found in the village of Akhtanizovskaya in the Taman peninsula,
Latÿshev,77 and after him the editors of CIRB, read the name AoÈa¤nvn, which
Latÿshev commented on as follows: “Instead of AÈa¤nvn? cf. AÎainow”.78 All
this is a purely mechanical juxtaposition with a lexeme from the dictionary of
Pape-Benseler. The lexeme in question is AÎainow in The Frogs of Aristo-
phanes 194: to the question from Xanthus poË d∞tÉ énamen«; Charon answers
in a business-like manner: parå tÚn AÈa¤nou l¤yon, §p‹ ta›w énapaÊlaiw. What
is implied here is some place in the underworld. To judge from all this, what
we have is an invention of Aristophanes himself, but with an allusion to
Leukåw p°trh (v 11) or ÉAg°lastow l¤yow (Ps. Apollodorus I, 5, 2): this is how
this part of the text (with the reading AÍa¤nou as in Attic) has been inter-
preted, for example, by Kock79 and after him van Leeuwen,80 whose lead is
followed by virtually all modern commentators.81 The hypothesis put forward
73
Boltunova 1950, 74, No. 7.
74
This case is the exact opposite of the one we are discussing: Latÿshev and the CIRB edi-
tors corrected MÊron to the masculine MÊrvn – for more details, see: Tokhtas’ev 2000, 138.
75
Bechtel 1917, 296-297; cf. also Tokhtas’ev 2000, 138, 145, Notes 99, 101.
76
Dovatur 1965, 801 ff., § 4.7.
77
Latÿshev 1905, 116 ff., No. 38.
78
This is also repeated by Zgusta 1955, § 905a.
79
Kock 1868, 73.
80
van Leeuwen 1896, 43, ad loc.: “nomen alibi non obvium a comico videtur fictum; for-
tasse allusit a Leukãda p°trhn illam ex Homero . . . otam, vel ÉAg°laston l¤yon, ad quem Ceres
moesta sederat [cf. Ran. 42] Eleusine . . .”.
81
See, for example: Coulon 1928; Dover 1993, 216 ff. Differently – Stanford 1958, 90: “It
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 23
Fig. 5. CIRB 1016 (taken from IAK, 14, 1905, 116).
by Radermacher (AÎainow seen as the “Dämon der Dürre?”)82 did not win sup-
port either; according to him the name could be traced back to Attic popular
entertainments (Radermacher was carried away with searching for folkloric motifs
in the Ancient comedy). This hypothesis was not in any way justified apart
from conjectures of scholiasts (p. 280 Dübner), totally bereft of any sense of
humour.83 The same can be said of ˆnou (ÖOknou?) pÒkoi and Kerb°rioi also
there in the underworld, Ran. 185 ff.; Charon’s words in v. 194 are a kind
of paraphrase of these lines (cf. also efiw énapaÊlaw 185 and §p‹ ta›w éna-
paÊlaiw 194).
Finally we are not, strictly speaking, dealing with an anthroponym here.
Moreover, in my view, it is more than likely that in our inscription we need
to read the name Saouainvn (cf. Sauanvn, below). The context is as follows:
≤ y¤asow per‹ ≤r°a . . . ENESYESAOUAINONI mnÆmhw xãrin. Latÿshev (and together
with him the editors of CIRB) singled out ENESYES, seeing it as a distorted
version of én°sthsÉ, allegedly with an elision of -e, resulting from the absence
of n-§felkustikÒn, which, if we accept this interpretation, actually ought to be
there. Latÿshev, without doubt, would have correctly recognized what he had
is unknown whether Aristophanes invented this alarming landmark in Hades or took it from
mystic doctrine”.
82
Radermacher 1967, 166.
83
Cf. Dover 1993, 216: “Statements in the scholia that there was a stone of this name in
Attica, or in the underworld, sound like pure guesswork”.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 24
here as some form of én¤sthmi: the assimilation a - e > e - e is a perfectly

ordinary phenomenon in inscriptions of the Roman period;84 it is possible that
the augment was transferred to the prefix – with §- instead of ±-, retaining it
even with the verb root;85 the use of e instead of h and vice versa86 and the
transition st > sy87 are also not a rare phenomena in late inscriptions. In other
respects, however, Latÿshev’s interpretation raises most serious doubts.
Let us suppose that we should read §n°sye (i.e. én°sth)88 Saouainoni instead
of én°sthse(n), which does not appear utterly improbable for the period when
both the stem aorist was disappearing and also the perfect and these were re-
emerging in the system transitiva – intransitiva;89 cf. [én°]sthken tØn stÆlhn
CIRB 706, 4 (a gravestone of c. the 2nd century AD) in a similar context.90
Yet, the assumption that a simple abbreviation of én°sth(se) or, still better,
én°sth(san), would have resolved almost all the problems without risky con-
jecture and unnecessary accusations of illiteracy in relation to the stone-carver
(or author of the inscription) – there is still a good number of errors to be
found in it. In these Bosporan epitaphs known to us, which were set up in the
name of thiasoi or synodoi (CIRB 79, 88, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 106, 988), in
contexts like these, the verb én¤sthmi is always used in the plural (in No. 88 –
én°yhkan); cf. a typical example – No. 79: ≤ sÊnodow per‹ fler°a Kallisy°nhn
bÄ ka‹ pat°ra sunÒdou ka‹ t«n loip«n yiaseit«n (sic) én°sthsan t[Øn] stÆlhn
Kall¤stvi ktl. Admittedly, this verb is never written anywhere in Bosporan
inscriptions in an abbreviated form (although in other regions examples of that
are encountered)91: for this reason it is tempting to assume that there has been
a partial haplography of the sequence of syllables -san Sa with assimilation of
the final -n to the initial S-. In any case Latÿshev’s assumption is misplaced.
In view of all the above I now offer the following reading of the inscription:
84
Dieterich 1898, 3 ff., particularly 10.
85
Cf. Dieterich 1898, 213; Schwyzer 1953, 656, § 5c.
86
Cf. Dovatur 1965, 800, § 2, 11-12 and directly in our inscription Noumen¤ou, l. 5.
87
Tokhtas’ev 2000, 142, Note 81.
88
Hardly the dubious ±n°sth, known apparently only as a far from authoritative variant read-
ing in John 2:22 (±n°sth §k nekr«n), cf. Blass, Debrunner, Rehkopf 1984, § 69, Note 2.
89
See: Dieterich 1898, 235 ff. and 218 ff.
90
Latÿshev (1905, 118, relating to no. 39) assumed that it was a mistake for én°sthsen.
91
AN(°sthsa), ANES:(thsan), ANE:(sth)SEN and especially ANESTHS(en), Avi-Yonah
1940, 48.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 25
≤ y¤asow per‹ ≤-
r°a92 Men°strato-
n Ardarakou ka‹ ≤-
romãstvra Dad-
a Noumen¤ou ka‹
filagãyou Krat¤p-
pou §n°sye(san) Saouai-
noni mnÆmhw xãrin
The name Sauanvn mentioned above (CIRB 1279, 8) is clearly a derivative
from the Old Iranian *˜y®va-/*sy®va- ‘black’, Avestan sy®va-, Ossetian saw:
*S®v®n < *Sy®va-®na-;93 cf. Siauow (IOSPE I2 103, 3), Siaouow (I.Olbia 52, 3)94
and the variants extended with a suffix *-aka-: Siauakow (CIRB 1242, 18), Sauagow
(67, 8: Sauagou, sic, vidi!), Sauagaw (1099, 6)95 < *S(y)®va-k(a-). Siauaskow
(Amaeiakou) (1279, 26)96, Sivmaxow (1287, 21 and 22) and the Scythian Saumakow97
92
The renderings of ≤r°a, ≤romãstvra (for other examples see CIRB 80; 88; 91; 1259, 7)
reflect the usual ioticization of the initial i- before a vowel, which has survived in Greek to this
day; it could be omitted from choice, which evidently the creators of the inscription have
attempted to convey graphically in this unusual way; the spellings §fÉ •r°[vw?], toË •r°vw in
Attic inscriptions of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (Threatte 1980, 392: “careless omission”?);
according to Threatte (ibidem, 392 f.), flreÊw, eflreÊw in the Roman period inscriptions probably
indicate contraction of ie to ] (cf. flr°a CIRB 1054; eflr[o]fãnthw, Cole 1991, 41 ff., l. 7) should
be explained in a different way; fler«ion (CIRB 731) can be explained by the natural influence
of words in fler- from the same area of vocabulary.
93
This is approved of as correct in Zgusta 1955, § 207.
94
Cf. Old Iranian *Sy®va-, *Yyava- (Old Persian form), *Sy®vaka- in Akkadian and Elamite
sources, Khorezmian ∞’w·, and also Vedic ˆyáva-, ˆyávaka-, see: Hinz 1975, 229, 241.
95
For references to other epigraphic evidence, see: Vinogradov 1998a, 234 ff., 239 ff. The
editors of CIRB 1099 (l. 6) and Yailenko (1987a, 164) preferred a hapax (and what is more
before a lacuna!) Sauagaskou[- - -] to what was natural in the context of the parallels (and
also from the point of view of language) Sauagaw Kou[- - -] (as Tikhanova had already done
following on from Kulakovskii); after KOU there is more than enough room on the stone
(vidi!; in 1993 the stone was in the cellar of the Kerch Museum – Inv. No. KL-1011). What
Vinogradov suggested (Vinogradov 1998a, 239): Sauagaw kÒm[hw, is also hardly possible. For
another name with the stem Saua[- - -], see: Emets and Chevelev 1995, 17, No. 15, Tyri(s)take,
3rd century AD. The material cited (cf. also Siauaskow, below) shows that in the first centuries
AD the transition *˜ya- (> *·ya-?) > *sya- > *sa- (cf. Edelman 1986, 83 ff.) might still occur
in Sarmatian dialects.
96
Possibly a two-stem hypocoristic instead of *Siaua-sa-kow, with a syncope in paenultima
(cf. Thordarsson 1986, 499-511).
97
See: Huyse 1998 183 ff.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 26
are not entirely clear. In Bosporan inscriptions of the Roman period other
names similar in sound are also encountered: Saunaso[w- - -o]u (CIRB 1280,
26),98 Siaunansow EÈar¤sto[u] (1282, 25), Saun[a- - -] (1286, 14) – possibly
this is one and the same person on all three occasions;99 most probably the
following names are not relevant here – Saurofow (698), Seurag(ow ) 1099, 12.
Our Saouainvn can be explained with reference to the same *˜y®va-: *S®va-
in(a) < *Sy®va-ina-100 with the addition of the Greek formant -vn (as also in
Sauanvn); 101 however, is the coincidence of Saouai- nvn and Sauai- vsou
(below) simply a question of chance? The problem lies in the fact that behind
Greek renderings of this and certain other names listed above there may lie
hidden other Iranian anthroponymic stems (Namenwörter), cf. Avest. sav®-,
sava- ‘use’, savah- ‘strength, power’, cf. Bagdo-sauow102 Sauai-vsou (1282, 18;
cf. above, Note 10; on division – Bagd-oxow 1279, 26, *Baxta-vahu-)103 and
Godo-sauow (1287, 29) with an unclear first element (cf. Scythian (?) Gotow
CIRB 226, 4 century BC). On the digraph -ou- for conveying the Iranian
(Sarmatian) intervocalic *-v-, cf. Arshouaxow (IOSPE I2 82, 8 et alii: *-vahu-),
Araouhbow (CIRB 1279, 24), Karzouazow (IOSPE I2 83, 5 et alii).
98
A fragment of the inscription with the end of l. 26 was lost already, it seems, before the
time when work began on CIRB; it was missing not only in the lapidarium of the Hermitage
Museum, but also in the photograph for the book of illustrations accompanying CIRB, which
was prepared for publication soon after CIRB itself had been published (at the present time all
this illustrative material is in the archive of the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian
Academy of Sciences).
99
ns > s is normal as indeed is the retention of ns in late epigraphic texts; apart from the
above-mentioned Saunansow cf. Xansabogazow CIRB 1280, 15; 1284, 12; [- - -]orans[- - -]
1277, 26; Sirdouxansow IOSPE I2 132, 11; cf. Schwyzer 1953, 287.
100
On the retention of the dipthong ai in Sarmatian dialects, see: Abaev 1976, 325.
101
Cf. Huyse 1998, 184, Note 104; Tokhtas’ev 2002, 88 ff.
102
Zgusta 1955, § 74 and later with bibliographies – Huyse 1998, 171 ff. and Note 26. The
same name with inverted components is provided by the Khorezmian swbgtk /Saw-bagdak/ <
*Sava-baxta-ka-: Livshits 1984, 268 ff.; 283, Note 80 (“endowed with usefulness/advantage”).
103
Bartholomae 1904, 1561 ff. For material on this, see: Zgusta 1955, § 75; Grantovskii
1971, 217, No. 32; Hinz 1975, 224, 230; Mayrhofer 1979, 74, No. 276 (Avest. Sauuah- and
compound names); Schmitt 1987, 247 ff. (Sabãkhw).
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 27
Fig. 6. CIRB 1036 (taken from IAK 40, 1911, 102, No. 14).
8. GAEIS
The editors of CIRB 1034 accept Latÿshev’s reading (in the note on the
publication by Shkorpil104 and in the manuscript of IOSPE II2): [T]aeiw, only
by way of a misunderstanding. Latÿshev made reference to IOSPE IV 435,
13 ~ CIRB 1142): T[a?]eiw, however, this reading turned out to be mistaken
and was rejected by the compilers of CIRB themselves (leg. Goshtleiw!). Of
course, this should be read as Gaeis as by Shkorpil (see: note 104), who,
unlike Latÿshev, had worked with the actual stone and insisted that the first
letter was not damaged (see Fig. 6). Gaeiw = Gãiow, cf. the same form in IG
II3 10318 (SinvpeÊw), and more widespread Gãiw, for example, at Rome,105 in
Attica (IG II3 4815, 10986), Macedonia,106 Thrace (IGBulg II 554), Asia Minor
(I.Knidos 348; MAMA IX 73, 9; TAM V/1-2. 110), Egypt107 and Cyrenaica
(LGPN I, 106), and also the intermediate form Gãeiow (e.g., I.Ephesos 871;
I.Prusa 114; MAMA I 175: Gãeiow EfioÊliow). On the subject of OÈal°riw (CIRB
104) Russu aptly noted108 that the reduction -iow > -iw could also have taken
place in the Latin etymon (but under Greek influence?), cf. Aprilis, Dalmatis,
and also Gais and so on in Latin inscriptions.109
104
Shkorpil 1911, 102 (No. 14), note 1.
105
Leon 1960, 278, Nos. 100, 101.
106
IG IX/2/1 733; SEG XXXVIII. 684. 17, as well as Ga˝ou, l. 40, 41.
107
Preisigke 1922, 78; Foraboschi 1971, 85.
108
Russu 1966, 337.
109
Mihaescu 1978, 189-190.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 28
Fig. 7. CIRB 1059 (taken from ZOOID. XXVIII. Minutes, 11, No. I).
9. CIRB 1059
A type of epitaph which is rare in the Bosporus in the early period (5th-4th
centuries BC, according to CIRB), in which the name of the deceased is found
in the dative (cf. 183, 911), and the name of the person who has had the mon-
ument erected is also indicated. In CIRB the text of l. 4/5 is given as restored
by Latÿshev (manuscript of IOSPE II2)
Pol°m[arx]ow
¶sthsen
ÉIsokrãtei
t«i ÉAxillh-
˝[vi].
1. To judge from the reproduction of the inscription in the editio princeps it should
be read as Pol°m[ar]xow.
Marti, who first published this inscription (in a stylized epigraphic font and
without a photograph),110 read ÉAxill[Æ]i (sic) – allegedly instead of ÉAxille›
as a nickname (nom. ÉAxilleÊw), which is quite unacceptable, bearing in mind
at least the date of the inscription;111 apart from that, to judge from the repro-
duction of the inscription in Marti’s own work, there are traces of some other
letters after the iota. Yet the suggestion made by Latÿshev, who saw this last
word as an ethnic – ‘Achillian’ (cf. ÉAx¤lleion k≈mh in the Asian Bosporus,
Strabo VII, 4, 5; XI, 2, 6: one and the same source, probably the Geographu-
110
Marti 1910, 11, No. 1. The inscription has unfortunately been lost.
111
And despite Sinvp∞i, I.Olbia 1, 5th century BC (on the dating see: Vinogradov 1997, 14),
this is the dative for SinvpeÊw (cf. Dovatur 1969, 108a) etc. (Bechtel 1923, 149 § 131).
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 29
mena of Artemidorus of Ephesus)112 is also not particularly convincing, since

he assumes the absence of a patronymic in a fairly extensive context. It is pre-
cisely the patronymic ÉAxillÆ[o], which in my opinion should be restored at
the end of the inscription (and after that ufl«i or paid¤?). As regards the vocal-
ism (resp. suffixation: *-hWio-) cf. what is by its form the same adjective ÉAxillÆiow
drÒmow, Hdt. IV, 55; 76, 4; ÉAxillÆion pÒliw, V, 94, 2, and above, note 2.113
As an anthroponym ÉAxillÆiow (or ÉAx¤lleiow with a reduction of hi in front of
a vowel, cf. above, note 20) would appear to have been previously unknown,
but if we bear in mind the special veneration in which Achilles was held in
Pontus (in the Bosporan Achilleion there was a shrine to this hero, Strabo XI,
2, 6) it does not appear unexpected; cf. also one specifically North Pontic
name – ÉAxillÒdvrow in the famous letter from the island of Berezan114 and
also in a defixio from Olbia dating from the first half of the 4th century BC.115
Moreover, it is also possible to restore ÉAxillÆi[dev], cf. ÉAxille¤dhw from
Priene (I.Priene 266, 1) dating from the 2nd century BC (< ÉAxillÆidhw) and a
similar principle could be followed for the formation of Basilh˝dhw, Hdt. VIII,
132, 2.116
When Alcaeus (fr. 354 [Z 31] Lobel – Page) calls Achilles “the guardian
of Scythia (or: of the Scythian land)”, he, of course, has in mind first and fore-
most his cult on the island of Leuke, yet he extends his rule almost though
the whole of the North Pontic region. Did he know about the Bosporan cult
of Achilles? Unfortunately the Achilleion has not yet been found and investi-
gated archaeologically: the date of its foundation and the inauguration of the
cult remain unknown. For this reason it is impossible to resolve the other
question as well: did the Bosporans venerate Achilles basing their cult on cer-
tain ideas brought to them from the metropolis, or had they taken on his cult
from their fellow tribesmen in the North-west of Pontus? The lead letter from
Phanagoreia dating from the last quarter of the 6th century BC, which Vinogradov
112
Cf. Baladié 1989, 22.
113
On the use of the article in patronymics, cf. ÑHgÆnassa ≤ LÊkvnow (see above, 2),
ÉIhtrokle› t«i ÑEkata¤o Sinvp∞i in the inscription already (note 111) mentioned above I.Olbia
1 (Vinogradov 1997, 14 and note 41, without any particular substantiation suggested that this
should be read ÉIhtrokle¤tvi) and further: Kocewalow 1935, 35 ff.
114
Cf. Vinogradov 1971, 97 (with a reference to Dil’ 1916, 50). The last edition of the let-
ter – Dubois 1996, No. 23.
115
Dil’ 1916, 40 ff. = Tolstoi 1953, No. 63 (= Dubois 1996, No. 105).
116
From the epithet of Zeus – BasileÊw, see Bechtel 1917, 533.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 30
recently published117 shows that as early as the initial stage in the existence of
the Bosporan colonies they maintained close contacts with the Berezan settle-
ment. This evidence is supplemented by a graffito from Berezan of the first
quarter of the 5th century ÉApatÒrhw ( f. gen.)118 which, regardless of its inter-
pretation (an epithet for Aphrodite or a theophoric anthroponym), testifies to
the influence of the cities of the Asiatic Bosporus on the cultural life of the
Berezan settlement.119
10. New evidence of the vulgar declension in -çw -çnow.
Punched inscriptions on a small gold “amulet box” (phylactery) cylindrical

in shape from a 3rd-century burial, Tyri(s)take:120
(a) Oxaza-
now FA
P vel P
(b) Foriua-
now cu-
xÆ
The editors consider that both these names appear in the nominative, al-
though similar inscriptions on items of jewellery originating from the Bos-
porus in the Roman period would point rather to the genitive – at least for
inscription (b).
On a “gold cylinder” (evidently a similar phylactery) from a burial-mound
near the Takil Cape (to the south of Kerch) the following words can be dis-
cerned: MÊrvnow | ka‹ | Dhmosy°nou | cuxa¤, and also on a gold ring from the
same place: ’Isidog(°)nou c(u)xÆ.121 In a burial at the Kÿz-Aul necropolis near
117
Vinogradov 1998, 160 ff., No. 3 (= SEG XLVIII 1024).
118
Tolstoi 1953, No. 78 (= Dubois 1996, No. 75).
119
Tokhtas’ev 1999, 187 ff.
120
Emets, Chevelev 1995, 20, No. 38 (with no illustration).
121
Marti 1913, 36 ff.; it is said to contain mistakes, but although Marti does not indicate
what they are, in the important details his reading does not raise any doubts. Cf. another inscrip-
tion on a ring from Panticapaeum dating from the 2nd century AD – Neverov in: Koshelenko
et alii 1984, 352, pl. CLXI, 25; the inscription is only comprehensible in part – in the drawing
the following can be made out: PAL|LEI|I (?) EI || cuxÆ (-ei – the genitive of -eiw); Neverov’s
‘translation’ is bewildering: “To the Soul of Pallakos”. Ibidem, 351, pl. CLX, 30, see another
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 31
Fig. 8. An inscription on the hoop of a ring from the necropolis at Panticapaeum (taken from
IAK 9, 1904, 116, Fig. 31b).
Kerch a gold phylactery dating from the 2nd-3rd century was found in the form
of a casket bearing an inscription worked in gold wire: Prok|l¤vnow cu|xÆ.122
It can be seen that the names are given in the genitive in these cases.
In two other cases, like the inscription (a) on the phylactery from Tyri(s)-
take, the grammatical form of the names is not so clear, since the names are
not Greek, but it can be still be easily recognized thanks to the parallels cited
immediately above and parallels of other kinds as well. On a gold ring dating
from the 3rd century AD and found in the necropolis of so-called Iluraton (a
city-site near the village of Ivanovka in the Kerch peninsula) there is a punched
inscription, which reads: Madaw cuxÆ.123 On the hoop of a gold ring with a
turquoise inlay from the Panticapaeum necropolis which evidently dates from
the 2nd-3rd century AD a punched inscription also reads: Atanow cuxÊ (sic!)
(Fig. 8).124 Atanow is the genitive form of Ataw, which (like the feminine Ata)
is known in Lydia (lyd. Ata˜): gen. Atadow, dat. Ata.125 This inscription is
another example of the rare n-declension of personal names in the Bosporus
(otherwise the phenomenon is only encountered in Macedonia, Thessaly,
gold ring from the 1st century BC or 1st century AD from Panticapaeum with the inscription
Pantagã|you | pne(Ë)ma. Here pneËma should designate the substance accompanying cuxÆ (cf.
LSJ s.v. pneËma II. 4; III; Bauer, Aland and Aland 1988, s.v., 3).
122
Emets, Chevelev 1995, 121, fig. 43, 23, No. 43.
123
Kublanov 1979, 92, fig. 1, 3 with the reading Madaw, CuxÆ; indeed the feminine name
CuxÆ is well known in the Bosporus (CIRB 296, 323, 389 et alii), but the parallels and the
existence of the feminine name Mada (CIRB 456; cf. Tokhtas’ev 2000, 52 ff.), speak in favour
of the appellative.
124
Shkorpil 1904, 116, fig. 31.
125
Zgusta 1964, § 119-1, 2.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 32
Thrace to the North of Rhodope), a subject on which I have prepared a spe-

cial study.126
The earliest parallel for inscriptions with cuxÆ known to me – admittedly
on a vessel – is a graffito on a kylix from Olbia dating from the 5th century
BC: Aktigaio cuxØ ktl.127 The meaning of such inscriptions is not clear and
merits special examination, but formally these are at any rate periphrastic
expressions of the type “soul of Orestes” with the meaning ‘Orestes himself
(according to the properties of his soul)’ as found in Sophocles, El. 1127:
mnhme›on . . . / cux∞w ÉOr°stou loipÒn (about the urn with his ashes).128
It thus follows that in inscription (b) we find, without doubt, the genitive of
Foriuaw. The editors have aptly compared this name with Foriauow (CIRB
1279, 16, Tanais, from the year 225 AD), which appear to be Iranian: the sug-
gestion made long ago seems highly convincing – namely to the effect that the
first part has similarities with Iranian names with *paru- ‘many (numerous),
polu-’ > *pur > *fur (> Osset. Digor. fur, Iron. fyr),129 probably a composite-
bahuvr¬hi *Paru-yava- (*yava- ‘millet’).130 Foriuaw would appear to be an-
other rendering of the same name; -aw would not seems to reflect the old
thematic vowel, but to have appeared in connection with the transition to the
paradigm of perispomena (leg. Foriuçw), i.e. at the time when this name was
already being used in the Greek language (cf. above 1, on Moukounçw et alii).
The interpretation of inscription (a) presents more of a problem. The editors
refer to a Sarmatian name “of similar sound” – Oxoarzanow (CIRB 1242, 19:
*Vahu-varz®na-131 (this parallel is evidently a false one), and presumably
regard the following three letters as abbreviations of an Iranian name starting
with Farn- (e.g. Farnãkhw), noting, admittedly, that the last letter might also
be read as P. Yet, if we bear in mind inscription (b) and others cited above,
and also the identical ending -anow in both names, then here too we ought to
126
Cf. previously: Svpçnow CIRB 634; [.]agçnow (sic, vidi!) 907; Abçni dat. m. 941; ÉAgayoËw
ÉAgayoËnow 1105; KaloËnow 495; MastoËno[w] 930; PoyoËnow 598 and SEG XXVIII 641; Xondeinow
661; [K]oitia . . . Koitianow, Tokhtas’ev 2002a, 91 ff.
127
Dubois 1996, No. 30; cf. Tokhtas’ev 1999, 182. – Cf. also the inscription cuxª kalª on
the lead frame of a mirror from Panticapaeum (Kalashnik 1979, 117) and an inscription on cor-
nelian mnemÒneue t∞w kal∞w cux∞w – Stephani 1866, 26.
128
Cf. Kaibel 1896, 245: cuxÆ – “der Sitz aller Gemüts- und Charakteristikeigenschaften”.
129
Abaev 1958, 499 and 500, s.v. fys; Isaev 1987, 556 f.
130
See: Vasmer 1923, 55; Abaev 1976, 298; Zgusta 1955 § 246.
131
Zgusta 1955, § 177.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 33
expect a genitive. At the same time, if ÉOxazçnow is the genitive,132 what can
it be dependent on?
It is unfortunate that the last letter has not been identified authoritatively
once and for all; if we read FAR it is possible to suggest that this is not an
abbreviated patronymic with *farnah-, but an abbreviation of that Iranian
word itself, which designates some kind of blessing, and constitutes to some
extent a pendant of the Greek cuxÆ ‘the totality of a human being’s intellec-
tual characteristics’ and correlates with the latter in inscription (b). At any rate
from the linguistic point of view the reading FAR is, without doubt, preferable
(what word could begin with FAP-)?
In accordance with the concepts of the Ossetians, in whose culture many
relics of their Sarmatian past have survived, each worthy man possesses a
farn; cf. the phrase from an Ossetian folkloric text: dæ farn, de zædy stæn –
“I entreat you in the name of your farn, in the name of your angel”133 and
also proverbs, in which the meaning of the word farn is apparently similar to
that of the Greek éretÆ:134 fydy farn mærdtæm næcæwy – “the farn of the
father does not depart to the dead” (i.e. to the realm of the dead),135 and fydy
farnæj furtæn ustur xaj jes – “a great part of the father’s farn belongs to the
son”.136 What we have here is a remarkable Sarmatian-Ossetian parallel, since
in North Pontic inscriptions of the 2nd-3rd centuries the names Pitfarnakow,
Fitofar[nakow], Pitofarnakow (correspondingly in IOSPE I2 2, 26; CIRB 1181
and 1278, 9) < *Pita-farnaka- ‘in possession of the father’s farn’, in connec-
tion with which Abaev137 mentions another Ossetian (Digor.) expression fidi-
farnæ ‘the farn of the father’.
132
Nom. ÉOxazçw, a similar – as in the case of Foriuçw – hypocoristic from a composite
name with *vahu- ‘eÔ’ or a complete name; in the latter case, probably, on *Vahu-vaza-
‘EÈãgvn’ with haplology (or haplography)? Cf. Karz-ouazow (IOSPE I2 83, 5 et alii; above 7),
Old Iranian *Arya-vaza-, “Iraner-Führer” (Hinz 1975, 41), and also Nabazow (CIRB 1279, 15;
IOSPE I2 137, 7; 138, 4) < *Nab®-aza-(?), cf. Avest. nav®za-, KhS h¬n®ysä ‘strathgÒw’ <
*haina-aza-.
133
Abaev 1958, 421 (cf. farny zæd – ‘angel of the peace’; zæd, Digor. izæd traced back to
the Old Iranian *yazata- ‘deity, da¤mvn’); a similar expression is quoted in the “Ossetisch-
Russisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch” by Miller and Freiman (Miller, Freiman 1934, 134).
134
Cf., for example, in the archaic Boeotian epigram from Ptoion CEG 334: tÁ Wãnaxw (sc.
ÖApolon), fefÊlaxso, d¤doi ér(e)tãn [te ka‹ ˆlbon].
135
Miller, Freiman 1934, 134.
136
Dzagurov 1980, 180.
137
Abaev 1976, 299.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 34
Thus the éreta¤ of Yuri Vinogradov will not only always be remembered,
but will always bring him renown – kl°ow êfyiton; his name is destined for a
long life in the academic world thanks to his work, which, it is to be hoped,
his pupils will carry forward.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abaev, V.I. 1958: Istoriko-étimologicheskii slovar’ osetinskogo yazÿka I (Moscow, Leningrad).

Abaev, V.I. 1979: Skifo-sarmatskie narechiya. In V.I. Abaev, M.N. Bogolyubov,V.S.
Rastorgueva (eds.), Osnovÿ iranskogo yazÿkoznaniya (Moscow), 272-364.
Avi-Yonah, M. 1940: Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (The Near East, 200 B.C. – A.D.
1100) (Jerusalem, London).
Baladié, R. 1989: Strabon. Géographie. T. IV (Livre VII). Texte établi et traduit par R. Baladié
(Paris).
Bartholomae, Chr. 1904: Altiranisches Wörterbuch (Strassburg).
Baslez, M.-F. 1985: Présence et traditions iraniennes dans les cités de l’Égée. REA 87, 137-155.
Bauer, W., Aland, K., Aland, B. 19886: Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Berlin, New York).
Bechtel, F. 1898: Die einstämmigen männlichen Personennamen des Griechischen, die aus
Spitznamen hervorgegangen sind (Abh. kgl. Gesellsch. Wiss. Göttingen, N.F. 2/5) (Berlin).
Bechtel, F. 1902: Die attischen Frauennamen (Göttingen).
Bechtel, F. 1917: Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (Halle a.
d. S.).
Bechtel, F. 1923: Die griechischen Dialekte, III (Berlin).
Belova, N.S. 1970: Posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Kep. VDI 2, 62-72.
Belova, N.S. 1977: Épigraficheskie materialÿ Fanagoriiskoi ékspeditsii. VDI 3, 103-117.
Belova, N.S. 1984: Novaya nadpis’ iz Germonassÿ i nekotorÿe zamechaniya o lapidarnoi épi-
grafike Bospora III v. do n. é. VDI 2, 78-86.
Blass, F., Debrunner A., Rehkopf, F. 1984: Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch
(Göttingen).
Blavatskii, V.D. 1985: Graffito Afrodisii. In V.D. Blavatskii, Antichnaya arkheologiya i istoriya
(Moscow) 24-25.
Boltunova, A.I. 1950: Neizdannÿe nadgrobiya iz Kerchi i okrestnostei. VDI 4, 69-78.
Boltunova, A.I. 1959: Grecheskaya metricheskaya nadpis’ iz Kerchi. SA 1, 169-172.
Brixhe, Cl. 19872: Essai sur le grec anatolien au début de notre ère (Nancy).
Brixhe, Cl. 1991: Bull. ép., No. 507. REG, 104, 522-523.
Brixhe, Cl. 1997: Bull. ép., No. 570. REG, 111, 580.
Chantraine, P. 1933: La formation des noms en grec ancien (Paris).
Chantraine, P. 1958: Grammaire homérique, I (Paris).
Chuistova, L.I. 1962: Svyatilishche Afroditi v Pantikapei. In: Arkheologichni pam’yatki URSR
11 (Kiev), 181-186.
Cole, S.G. 1991: Dionysiac Mysteries in Phrygia in the Imperial Period. EpAn 17, 41-49.
Conovici, N. 1998: Histria. VIII. Les timbres amphoriques. 2. Sinope (Bucarest, Paris).
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 35
Corsten, Th. 1990: Neue Grabstelen mit Totenmahlreliefs aus der Gegend von Prusa ad
Olympum (Bithynien). EpAn 16, 91-108.
Coulon, V. 19912: Aristophane. T. IV. Les Thesmophories. Les Grenouilles. Texte établi par
V. Coulon (Paris).
Detschew, D. 19762: Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Wien).
Dieterich, K. 1898: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von der hellenis-
tischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jh. n. Chr. (Leipzig).
Dil’, É. 1916: Ol’viiskaya chashka s nagovorom. IAK 58, 1-17.
Dovatur, A.I. 1965: Kratkii ocherk grammatiki bosporskikh nadpisei. In: CIRB, 797-831.
Dovatur, A.I. 1969: Retsenziya: Nadpisi Ol’vii (1917-1965). Pod red. T.N. Knipovich i E.I.
Levi. Leningrad, 1968. VDI 2, 107-111.
Dover, K. (ed.) 1993: Aristophanes Frogs (Oxford).
Dubois, L. 1996: Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (Genève).
Dumberg, K.E. 1901: Raskopka kurganov na Zubovskom khutore. IAK 1, 94-103.
Dzagurov, G.A. 1980: Osetinskie (digorskie) narodnÿe izrecheniya. Iz sobraniya G.A. Dza-
gurova (Moscow).
Édel’man, D.I. 1986: Sravnitel’naya grammatika vostochnoiranskikh yazÿkov. Fonologiya (Moscow).
Ehrhardt, N. 1983: Milet und seine Kolonien (Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York).
Emets, I.A., Chevelev, O.D. 1995: Épigraficheskie materialÿ s Kerchenskogo poluostrova. In:
Épigraficheskii vestnik 1 (Moscow), 9-34.
Fick, A., Bechtel, F. 1894: Die griechischen Personennamen (Göttingen).
Finogenova, S.I., Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2003: Novÿe dannÿe o kul’te Afroditÿ v Germonasse. Hyperboreus
9/1, 83-88.
Foraboschi, D. 1971: Onomasticon alterum papyrologicum (Milano, Varese).
Gärtchen, P., Hoffmann, O. 1914: Nachträge und Wortregister. In: SGDI IV/IV. 2 (Göttingen).
Georgakas, D.J. 1948: On the Nominal Endings -iw, -in in Later Greek. CPh 43, 243-260.
Grantovskii, É.A. 1971: Rannyaya istoriya iranskikh plemen Perednei Azii (Moscow).
Hinz, W. 1975: Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen (Wiesbaden).
Humbach, H. 1968: Griechische und indogermanische Femininbildungen. In: Münchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft 24, 43-53.
Huyse, Ph. 1990: Iranische Namen in den griechischen Dokumenten Ägyptens. Iranisches
Personennamenbuch. V/6a (Wien).
Huyse, Ph. 1998: Gab es eine Lautentwicklung /k/ > /x/ im “Skytho-Sarmatischen”?
Hyperboreus 4/1 (Petropoli), 167-190.
Isaev, M. I. 1987: Osetinskii. In: Osnovÿ iranskogo yazÿkoznaniya. Novoiranskie yazÿki: Vostochnaya
gruppa (Moscow), 537-643.
Jannaris, A.N. 1897: An Historical Greek Grammar (London, New York).
Justi, F. 1895: Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg).
Kaibel, G. 1896: Sophokles Elektra (Leipzig).
Kalashnik, Yu.P. 1979: Svintsovÿe ramki steklyannÿkh zerkal v sobranii Érmitazha. In K.S.
Gorbunova (ed.), Iz istorii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya v antichnuyu épokhu (Leningad),
116-123.
Karÿshkovskii, P.O. 1993: Novÿe ol’viiskie posvyascsheniya pervÿkh vekov nashei érÿ. VDI 1,
73-96.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 36
Kock, Th. 18682: Ausgewählte Komödien des Aristophanes, erkl. von Th. Kock. 3: Die Frösche
(Berlin).
Kocewalow, A. 1935: Syntaxis inscriptionum antiquarum coloniarum Graecarum orae septen-
trionalis Ponti Euxini. Eus Suppl. 12 (Leopoli).
Koshelenko, G.A. et alii (eds.) 1984: Antichnÿe gosudarstva Severnogo Prichernomor’ya.
Arkheologiya SSSR (Moscow).
Kublanov, M.M. 1979: Novÿe pogrebal’nÿe sooruzheniya Ilurata. KSIA 159, 90-97.
Kutaisov, V.A. 1992: Kerkinitida (Simferopol).
Latyshev, V.V. 1905: Épigraficheskie novosti iz Yuzhnoi Rossii. IAK 14, 94-137.
van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) 1896: Aristophanis Ranae. (Lugduni Batt.).
Leon, H.J. 1960: The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia).
Lifshitz, B. 1968: Épigrammes grecques du Bosphore. RhM N.F. 111, 23-36.
Lipinski, E. 1975: Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I (Leuven).
Livshits, V.A. 1984: Dokumentÿ. In: Toprak-Kala. Dvorets (Moscow), 251-286.
Marti, Yu.Yu. 1910: Novÿe bosporskie nadgrobiya, priobretennÿe Muzeem Melek-
Chesmenskogo kurgana v 1907-1908 gg. ZOOID 28, 11-15.
Marti, Yu.Yu. 1913: Novÿi épigraficheskii material iz Kerchi i ee okrestnostei. ZOOID 31 (Protokolÿ),
27-38.
Masson, O. 1987: Noms grecs de femmes formés sur des participes. Tyche 2, 107-112.
Mayrhofer, M. 1973: Onomastica Persepolitana (Wien).
Mayrhofer, M. 1979: Iranisches Personennamenbuch I. Fasz. 1: Die altiranischen Namen
(Wien).
Meyer, G. 18963: Griechische Grammatik (Leipzig).
Mihaescu, H. 1978: La langue latine dans le Sud-Est de l’Europe (Bucure¤ti, Paris).
Mihailov, G. 1943: La langue des inscriptions grecques en Boulgarie (Sofia).
Mihailov, G. 1969: Les thraces en Égypte. Linguistique Balkanique XIII/1, 31-44.
Miller, V.F., Freiman, A.A. 1934: Ossetisch-Russisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch III (Leningrad).
Monakhov, S.Yu. 1999: Grecheskie amforÿ v Prichernomor’e. Kompleksÿ keramicheskoi tarÿ
VI-II vv. do n. é. (Saratov).
Neumann, G. 1969: Kyprisch to-i-po-wa-ta-u. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83.
Preisigke, F. 1922: Namenbuch (Heidelberg).
Radermacher, L. 19673: Aristophanes’ ‘Frösche’ (Graz, Wien, Köln).
Robert, L. 1963: Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine I (Paris).
Russu, I.I. 1966: Review CIRB. Studii clasice VIII, 324-329.
Schmitt, R. 1978: Die theophoren Eigennamen mit Altiranisch *Miyra-. In: Études mithraïques
(Acta Iranica 17) (Leiden etc.), 395-455.
Schmitt, R. 1989 [1987]: Der Name des bei Issos gefallenen Satrapen Ägyptens. Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran 20, 247-249.
Schwyzer, Ed. 1953: Griechische Grammatik I (München).
Sergeev, G.P. 1966: Oloneshtskii antichnÿi klad. VDI, 2, 132-142.
Shebalin, N.V. 1987: O nadpisi KBN 147. In: Yazÿk i stil’ pamyatnikov antichnoi literaturÿ
(Philologia classica 3) (Leningrad), 185-187.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 37
Shkorpil, V.V. 1904: Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh raskopkakh v Kerchi i ego okrestnostyakh

v 1902 g. IAK 9, 73-177.
Shkorpil, V.V. 1911: Bosporskie nadpisi, naidennÿe v 1910 g. IAK 40, 92-113.
Shkorpil, V.V. 1917: Novonaidennÿe bosporskie nadpisi. IAK 63, 109-121.
Sidorova, N.A. 1992: Chernofigurnaya keramika iz raskopok Pantikapeya 1945-1958. In:
Arkheologiya i iskusstvo Bospora (Soobshcheniya GMII 10) (Moscow), 204-236.
Sokolova, O.Yu., Pavlichenko, N.A. 2002: Novaya posvyatitel’naya nadpis’ iz Nimfeya.
Hyperboreus 8/1, 99-121.
Stanford, W.B. (ed.) 1958: Aristophanes. The Frogs. (London, New York).
Stephani, L. 1866: Parerga archaeologica. XXVI, Mélanges gréco-romains II (St. Petersburg).
Thordarsson, F. 1986: Ossetisch uæxsk/usqæ. In: Studia grammatica Iranica. FS für Helmut Humbah
(München), 499-511.
Threatte, L. 1980: The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. I (Berlin, New York).
Thumb, A., Scherer, A. 1959: Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte II (Heidelberg).
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1986: Apatur. Istoriya bosporskogo svyatilishcha Afroditÿ Uranii. VDI 2,
138-145.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1994: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya: III-IV. Hyperboreus 1/1,
155-166.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1994/1995: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya: V-IX. Hyperboreus 1/2,
138-145.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1997: K izdaniyu kataloga keramicheskikh kleim Khersonesa. Hyperboreus
3/2, 362-404.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 1999: Review: Dubois, L. Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont.
Genève, 1986. Hyperboreus 5/1, 164-192.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2000: Iz onomastiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya: X-XVII. Hyperboreus 6/1,
124-156.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2000a: Gaza, lyubimaya zhena Diya. In: SUSSITIA. Pamyati Yuriya Viktoro-
vicha Andreeva (St. Petersburg), 232-236.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2002: Ostrakon s poseleniya ol’viiskoi khorÿ Kozÿrka-XII. Hyperboreus 8/1,
72-98.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2002a: Nadpisi Tamanskogo Muzeya. Tamanskaya starina 4 (St. Petesburg),
81-106.
Tokhtas’ev, S.R. 2004: Bospor i Sindika v épokhu Levkona I. VDI 2, 144-180.
Tolstikov, V.P. 1984: K probleme obrazovaniya Bosporskogo gosudarstva (Opÿt rekonstruktsii
voenno-politicheskoi situatsii na Bospore v kontse VI – pervoi polovine V v. do n.é.). VDI
3, 24-48.
Tolstikov, V.P., Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1999: Dekret Spartokidov iz dvortsovogo kompleksa na
akropole Pantikapeya. In A.I. Melyukova, M.G. Moshkova, V.A. Bashilov (eds.),
Evraziiskie drevnosti. 100 let B.N. Grakovu. Arkhivnÿe materialÿ, publikatsii, stat’i (Mos-
cow), 282-304.
Tolstoi, I.I. 1953: Grecheskie graffiti drevnikh gorodov Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow,
Leningrad).
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 38
Treister, M.Yu. 1990: Drevneishii predmet étrusskogo proizvodstva v Severnom Prichernomor’e

i nekotorÿe problemÿ rannei istorii Pantikapeya. KSIA 197, 37-44.
Treshcheva, Yu.N. 1975: O dvukh ol’viiskikh posvyashcheniyakh Akhillu. VDI 1, 68-75.
Tunkina, I.V. 2002: Russkaya nauka o klassicheskikh drevnostyakh Yuga Rossii (XVIII – sere-
dina XIX v.) (St. Petersburg).
Tsekhmistrenko, V.I. 1960: Sinopskie keramicheskie kleima s imenami goncharnÿkh masterov.
SA 3, 59-77.
Vasmer, M. 1923: Untersuchungen über die ältesten Wohnsitze der Slaven I: Die Iranier in
Südrußland (Leipzig).
Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1971: Drevneishee grecheskoe pis’mo s ostrova Berezan. VDI 4, 74-100.
Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1972: Iz istorii arkhaicheskoi Ol’vii. SA 2, 232-238.
Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1990: Bull. ép., No. 584. REG 103, 553.
Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1997: Pontische Studien (Mainz).
Vinogradov, Ju.G. 1998: The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Region in the Light of
Private Lead Letters. In G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea
Area (Stuttgart), 153-178.
Vinogradov, Yu.G. 1998: Pozdneantichnÿi Bospor i rannyaya Vizantiya (v svete datirovannÿkh
bosporskikh nadpisei V veka). VDI 1, 233-247.
Weber, D. 1972: Zur sogdischen Personennamengebung. IF 77, 191-208.
Weißbach, F.H. 1924: Kyros (6). RE Suppl. IV, 1128-1177.
Yailenko, V.P. 1983: Grecheskaya kolonizatsiya VII-III vv. do n. é. (Moscow).
Yailenko, V.P. 1987: Materialÿ po bosporskoi épigrafike. In A.I. Pavlovskaya (ed.), Nadpisi i
yazÿki drevnei Maloi Azii, Kipra i antichnogo Severnogo Prichernomor’ya (Moscow),
4-201.
Yailenko, V.P. 1987a: O korpuse vizantiiskikh nadpisei v SSSR. Vizantiiskii vremennik 48,
160-171.
Zgusta, L. 1955: Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste (Praha).
Zgusta, L. 1964: Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prag).
Zgusta, L. 1984: Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen (Heidelberg).
Ziouta, Xr., Karamitrou-Menesidi, G. 1988: To arxaiologiko ergo sth Makedonia kai
Yrakh 2 (Yessalonikh).
Abbreviations
BGU Ägyptische Urkunden aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Griechische Urkunden
(Berlin, 1895-).
Bull. ép. Bulletin épigraphique, REG (Paris).
CEG Carmina epigraphica Graeca. Ed. P.A. Hansen (Berlin, New York, 1983-)
CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Ed. A. Boeckh (Berlin, 1825-1877).
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1863-).
CIRB Corpus inscriptionum Regni Bosporani (Moscow, Leningrad, 1965).
CPh Classical Philology.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 39
Del.3 Dialectarum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora. Ed. E. Schwyzer

(Lipsiae, 1923).
EpAn Epigraphica Anatolica: Zeitschrift für Epigraphik und historische Geographie
Anatoliens (Bonn, Habelt).
GMII Gosudarstvennÿi muzei izobrazitel’nÿkh iskusstv im. A. Pushkina (Moscow).
I.Ephesos H. Wankel, R. Merkelbach et alii. Die Inschriften von Ephesos, I-VII (IGSK
Band 11-17; Bonn, 1979-1981).
I.Erythrai H. Engelmann, R. Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai,
I-II (IGSK Band 1-2; Bonn, 1972-1973).
I.Knidos W. Blümel. Die Inschriften von Knidos, I (IGSK Band 41; Bonn, 1992).
I.Kyz. E. Schwertheim. Die Inschriften von Kyzikos und Umgebung, I. Grabtexte
(IGSK Band 18; Bonn, 1980); II. Miletupolis: Inschriften und Denkmäler
(IGSK Band 26; Bonn, 1983).
I.Olbia Inscriptiones Olbiae (Nadpisi Ol’vii) (1917-1965). Ed. T.N. Knipovich,
E.I. Levi (Leningrad, 1968).
I.Priene F. Hiller von Gaertringen. Inschriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906).
I.Prusa T. Corsten. Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum, I-II (IGSK Band 39-40;
(ad Olympum) Bonn, 1991-1993).
I.Smyrna G. Petzl. Die Inschriften von Smyrna, I-II 1/2 (IGSK Band 23-24 1/2; Bonn,
1982-1990).
IAK Izvestiya Arkheologicheskoi Komissii (St. Petersburg, Petrograd).
IF Istanbuler Forschungen (Tübingen).
IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin, 1873-).
IGBulg G. Mihailov. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (Sofia, 1956-1966).
IGLS L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde, J.-P. Rey-Coquais, M. Sartre, P.-L. Gatier.
Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, I-VII, XIII 1 and XXI 2 (Paris,
1911-1986).
ISM Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae (Bucarest, 1983-).
KSIA Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR (Moscow).
LGPN Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Ed. P.M. Frazer, E.I. Matthews (Oxford,
1987-).
LSAG L.H. Jeffery. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961).
LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon. H.G. Liddell, Robert Scott, H. Stuart Jones, Roderick
McKenzie; ed. by P.G.W. Glare with assist. of A.A. Thompson. (Oxford,
1996).
MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, I-X (London, 1928-1993).
P.Oxy Papyri Oxyrhynchi.
PCG Poetae comici Graeci. Eds. K. Kassel, C. Austin.
RE Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. A. Pauly, G.
Wissowa, W. Kroll. Neue Bearbeitung (Stuttgart, Muchen, 1894-1978).
REA Revue des études Anciennes (Bordeaux).
REG Revue des études grecques (Paris).
RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie.
ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 40
SA Sovetskaya Arkheologiya (Moscow, Leningrad).

SGDI Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften (Göttingen, 1884-1915).
Syll 3 W. Dittenberger. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1915-1924).
TAM Tituli Asiae Minoris, I; II 1-3; III 1; IV 1; V 1-2 (Wien, 1901-1989).
TGF Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Ed. B. Snell et alii (Göttingen, 1971-).
VDI Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Moscow).
ZOOID Zapiski Odesskogo Obshchestva istorii i drevnostei (Odessa).

Tokhtasev S R Epigraphical Notes

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Tokhtasev S R Epigraphical Notes

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ACSS_f3_1-40 6/16/05 17:47 Page 3

In memoriam Yurii G. Vinogradov

Yurii Germanovich Vinogradov had a marked predilection for large-scale

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Ancient Civilizations 11, 1-2

The honorand’s name in the 2nd-century Olbian inscription (IOSPE I2 134,

figures in the novelistic literature. Combinations of names of this kind cannot

This inscription is a dedication to Artemis of Ephesus – [ÉAr]t°mi ÉEfese¤hi,

Fig. 1. CIRB 6a.

The description of the stone in CIRB requires amplification:40 the reverse

On the reconstruction of Leucon’s title cf. CIRB 6; 1037; 1038; 8; SEG

Fig. 3. CIRB 65 (+ 41).

[- - - - - - - - - -]Iw ka‹ Yeof[¤l]ou PATIEI[.]

The correct form should, of course, be Muroum°nh: as a starting point this

Fig. 4. CIRB 884.

Boltunova in the editio princeps73 considered it possible to propose the fol-

Fig. 5. CIRB 1016 (taken from IAK, 14, 1905, 116).

here as some form of én¤sthmi: the assimilation a - e > e - e is a perfectly

mena of Artemidorus of Ephesus)112 is also not particularly convincing, since

10. New evidence of the vulgar declension in -çw -çnow.

Punched inscriptions on a small gold “amulet box” (phylactery) cylindrical

Thrace to the North of Rhodope), a subject on which I have prepared a spe-

Abaev, V.I. 1958: Istoriko-étimologicheskii slovar’ osetinskogo yazÿka I (Moscow, Leningrad).

Shkorpil, V.V. 1904: Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh raskopkakh v Kerchi i ego okrestnostyakh

Treister, M.Yu. 1990: Drevneishii predmet étrusskogo proizvodstva v Severnom Prichernomor’e

Del.3 Dialectarum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora. Ed. E. Schwyzer

SA Sovetskaya Arkheologiya (Moscow, Leningrad).

Potrebbero piacerti anche