Search Results

This book was conceived when the British Academy supported a conference in November 2001 in collaboration with the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of the Ukraine. However, the chapters presented in this book were conceived long before the meeting. In particular, whereas the meeting covered various topics, this book is solely concerned with the interactions of the city of Olbia with its immediate environs. Although the theme and geographical scope have been delimited, the chronological framework of the book remains expansive. It discusses the emergence of the city of Olbia up to its local situation under the early Roman empire. Although the relationship of Olbia with neighbouring communities was marked by controversies and issues, the book makes no attempt to expunge the differences in the interpretations, either between the chapters within the book or between these chapters and other accounts. In contrast, the more controversial matters are flagged within the book and are brought out more explicitly. Discussed in this text are: the progress of archaeology in Olbia, the Greek and non-Greek interactions of the lower Bug, the interpretation of Herodotus's account of Olbia and its environs, the religious dimension of contacts between Greeks and non-Greeks, the settlement of Trakhtemirov, the trade and exchanges between Olbia and its environs, and the struggles of Olbia for its existence amid intrusion of the Roman empire.

In the 1790s, the location of Olbia was established, and since 1901 systematic excavations have been made by three successive generations of scholars. The first of these scholars was Pharmakovskiy and his school in 1901–1926. The second scholars to make excavations in Olbia were under the leadership of Slavin, Levi and Karasev. The third generation who took over the excavations from 1972 was headed by Kryzhitskiy from 1972–1995 and Krapivina from 1995. This chapter focuses on the contributions made by the third generation of scholars that made excavations in the Olbia region. The excavations made in this period were governed by three aims: the study of the historico-archaelogical stratigraphy and topography of cultural levels in the various parts of the city including the underwater area beneath the Bug estuary; an emphasis on the least-studied phases of the city's existence, particularly the cultural levels of the archaic period and the early centuries AD; and the rescue and conservation of the coastal portion of the city. The excavations generated important results such as the discovery of the temenos wall, altars, the temple of Apollo Ietros, Hellenistic period citadels and dwellings, and defensive walls belonging to the fifth century. In addition to these excavations and discoveries, the teams headed by Kryzhitskiy and Krapivina made extensive studies on the lower Bug estuary and Olbia's chora.

Historians of the ancient states of the north coast of the Black Sea were often faced by the challenge on how to estimate the presence of barbarians in the populations of early communities. Although it is generally understood that there was indeed a presence of barbarians in the early Mediterranean communities, the problem is there is no systematic means to gain material remains that may shed light on the numbers and social-ethnic characteristics of such non-Greek components. Although attempts have been made to generalize the existence of barbarians through archaeological evidence, such methods have failed due to lack of firm methodology. This chapter examines cities wherein the barbarian cultural level cannot be clearly established. It focuses on the two aspects of the issue of barbarian presence in Olbia. It examines the artefacts and assemblages, and how much materials can attest the presence of such ethnicities in Olbia. This qualitative approach examines the presence of dug-out dwelling places, handmade potteries, burial practices, jewellery and prosopography. The second aspect uses a quantitative approach which examines the statistics and percentages of particular ethnicities in Olbia. In these considerations and examinations, no objective criteria that would establish the number of barbarians in Olbia have been established. Although specific cultural features may be connected with the barbarians, they are otherwise represented slightly and in a fragmented fashion which nullifies the argument that Olbia contained substantial barbarian social stratum.

This chapter discusses the ethnic, religious, economic and political interactions of Olbia with other communities during the 600–100 century BC. It focuses on the various relationship of the Greater Olbia with both Greeks and non-Greeks. Greater Olbia pertains to Olbia's mini-empire in the northwest Black Sea and spans across the estuary of the lower Bug, the lower Dnieper, the north-west Crimea, the outer estuary of Dnepier or Hylaea, the Berezan, the island of Lueke, and the settlements along Dniester. Greater Olbia was largely dependent on the maintenance of broadly symbiotic relationships with non-Greeks. These relationships and interactions with other non-Greek communities are reflected in the existence of a rich mix of traditional Greek and barbarian names in the personal names of Greeks. However distinct and Greek the Olbiopolitans may have perceived themselves, they were subjected to extensive cultural osmosis between Greeks and non-Greeks in and around the city. This osmosis and symbiosis can be seen in the religion, the pottery, the names and other aspects of the Olbiopolitan living such as the observation of Dio Chrysostom where he made note of a young Olbiopolitan cavalryman in a garb of a barbarian yet with his head full of Achilles.

This chapter discusses Herodotus's account of Olbia. Whilst he was forthcoming about his visit and experiences in the Egyptian Thebes, Herodotus did not claim to see Olbia firsthand. And although he had seen Olbia for himself, he did not say so in plain terms. Although Olbia was very central to Herodotus's account of Scythia, his description and narrative of Olbia was rather limited. Olbia nonetheless received more attention from Herodotus compared to other Greek communities, however Olbia was peripheral to his interests. His avoidance of the city's official and designated name which was preferred by the citizens is not insignificant. His avoidance of the official name implied his manner of underplaying the importance of the place as a channel through which most of his Scythian information came. His accounts of the Scythian ethnography more than as results of long years of patient fieldwork were the results of information collected unsystematically as seen in his disordered presentation of the geographical and ethnographical information of Olbia. His accounts of the Scythian conservatism and resistance to foreign influence was out of convenience, allaying qualms about combining items of information gathered over time, but was not altogether borne out by his narrative. Unable to claim direct access to native Scythian informants on their own ground, he was not keen to advertise the derivative quality of his material, and close attention of the Olbiopolitai might have exposed what he wanted to camouflage.

This chapter aims not to provide a complete reconstruction of the religious interactions between the Greeks of Olbia and the people of Scythia, its aim rather is to provide an overview of the key aspects of the religious interactions between Olbia and Scythia as embodied in the interpretations of the different sources from the late archaic period and classical periods. It discusses the close contacts of the Greeks and the nomads of Scythia and their influences upon the religious beliefs of one another. The Greeks imposed great influences upon the religious beliefs of the non-Greeks. The notable of which is the solar associations of Apollo and his role as an archer which gained approval and acceptance to the outlooks of the Scythians who could identify with him deities of their own. Although they adapted some of the concepts of the Greek religious beliefs, Scythians remained true to their own traditions and beliefs. The Olbia populace on the other hand, did not accept any of the religious practices and beliefs of the nomadic Scythians except for the burials of women who had been brought from the north.

This chapter discusses Dio Chrysostom, a wealthy Greek who was banished from Prusa and who was exiled to Olbia. It focuses on his construction and illustration of Olbia through his thirty-sixth speech entitled Borystheniticus Or. 36. This speech is assumed to be written during his exile in Olbia and was delivered on his return to Prusa. His Borystheniticus themes are ‘harmony, good order, and regular and predictable change on earth as in heaven’. His speech consists of a large introduction that narrates the location of Olbia. Out of the 61 pages of his Borystheniticus, 13 are devoted to the exterior setting of the city, the city itself, its inhabitants and its surrounding, giving the impression that the introduction was not intended as a mere introductory part. His account of Olbia in his speech was not just an indulging innocent reminiscence, rather it was a description aimed for a larger audience. Behind his illustration of the Obliopolitans as early Greeks lies a traditional and elaborate theory that suggest that the technical and cultural evolution, development and progress of civilization came at the same time as moral degeneration. He painted a gloomy picture of Olbia as a rhetorical strategy that allowed him to illustrate a society on the brink of extinction as a result of the severe threat to its historical and religious identity and yet still holding out because of the sense of unity of the community. This concept was aimed to remind the inhabitants of Prusa of proper and responsible behaviour.

Around the middle of the first century, Olbia was under siege from the Getae. It was either destroyed or abandoned shortly before its destruction. It was only inhabited at the turn of the first century AD. It is assumed that Roman interest over Olbia only started after the middle of the first century. This chapter discusses the existence of Roman military units in Olbia during the years AD 106–111. These military units were believed to be present in Olbia to protect the city from barbarian intrusion. This assumption is established by the existence of inscribed grave-monuments and epitaphs belonging to Athenocles, and the Bosporans: indications of the attempts of the Rome to maintain its political strength and to defend the city from barbarians. Accordingly, after the collapse of the Olbian-Samartian alliance, the Roman Empire provided occasional military aid to Olbian during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. Other evidences that provide proof of the dependence of Olbia to the military aid given by the Roman military units are the presence of a Roman legionary garrison in Olbia including Thracian dedicatory reliefs.