Treister Advances 2019

ADVANCES IN ANCIENT BLACK SEA STUDIES:
HISTORIOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND RELIGION

PONTICA ET MEDITERRANEA
Vol. VIII
Editorial Board:
Victor Cojocaru (editor-in-chief)
David Braund, Thibaut Castelli, Lavinia Grumeza,
Annamária-Izabella Pázsint and Ligia Ruscu
Advances in Ancient
Black Sea Studies:
Historiography,
Archaeology and Religion
Editors:
Victor Cojocaru, Ligia Ruscu, Thibaut Castelli
and Annamária-Izabella Pázsint
Mega Publishing House

Cluj‑Napoca
2019
The Proceedings of the International Symposium organized by the Iaşi Branch of the Romanian
Academy, in collaboration with the Museum of National History and Archaeology, Constanţa (August
20–24, 2018), supported by the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS –
UEFISCDI, project numbers PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0279 and PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0737
DTP and cover:

Francisc Baja
© Editors, 2019
Cover image: Wild Goat pottery from Nemirov, silver drachm from Istros, eagle in combat with
a snake on the Peschanoe hydria (© M.Yu. Vakhtina, M.T. Kashuba, V.F. Stolba, M. Treister)
(Concept Lavinia Grumeza)
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

Advances in Ancient Black Sea Studies: Historiography, Archaeology and Religion / ed.: Victor
Cojocaru, Ligia Ruscu, Thibaut Castelli and Annamária-Izabella Pázsint. – Cluj-Napoca: Mega,
2019
Conţine bibliografie. – Index
ISBN 978-606-020-104-5
I. Cojocaru, Victor (ed.)
II. Ruscu, Ligia (ed.)
III. Castelli, Thibaut (ed.)
IV. Pázsint, Annamária-Izabella (ed.)
902
Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro

e‑mail: mega@edituramega.ro
Content
Preface 9
Note on Abbreviations 15
Contributors 17
I . ST U DY I N G T H E B L A C K S E A :
B E T W E E N C O LO N I Z AT I O N A N D I D E N T I T Y
Thibaut Castelli
Entrer et sortir du Pont-Euxin durant l’Antiquité (VIIe s. av. J.-C. – premier
quart du IVe s. ap. J.-C.) 27
Madalina Dana
Regards grecs sur le Pont-Euxin: réflexes changeants d’un espace «colonial» 55
David Braund
Clashing Traditions Beyond the Clashing Rocks: (Un)Ethical Tales
of Milesians, Scythians and Others in Archaic and Later Colonialism 79
Valery P. Yaylenko
Diodorus’ Evidence on the Bosporan Archaeanactidae and New Data
about the Aeolians on Taman 109
Michael A. Speidel
Natione Ponticus: Roman Navy Soldiers and the Black Sea 133
Dan Ruscu
The Black Sea in the Historical Writings of Late Antiquity 143
I I. GREEKS AN D NON-GREEKS:
S C H O L A R LY T R A D I T I O N S A N D A C C U LT U R AT I O N
Victor Cojocaru
BCOSPE I-III. Einige Überlegungen zum Beitrag der russischen,
sowjetischen und postsowjetischen Schulen 165
Valentina Mordvintseva
Scholarly Traditions in the Studies of the ‘Late Scythian Culture
of the Crimea’ and ‘Crimean Scythia’ 179
Lavinia Grumeza
‘Sarmatian’ Identities in Crimea: A Survey of Recent Literature 199
Marina Yu. Vakhtina, Maya T. Kashuba

East Greek Archaic Pottery at the Nemirov Fortified Settlement:
On the Question of Classical Imports in ‘Local’ Context 231
François de Callataÿ
Did “Dolphins” and Non-functional Arrowheads Massively Found in and
Around Olbia, Istros and Apollonia Have Ever Had a Monetary Function? 257
Amiran Kakhidze, Emzar Kakhidze

Hellenised Burial Customs and Deposit Patterns at Pichvnari: Intercultural
Studies on the Acculturation of Colchis in the Classical Period 281
Mikhail Treister
Second-Hand for the Barbarians? Greek and Roman Metalware with Signs
of Repair from the Nomadic Burials of Scythia and Sarmatia 313
Jean Coert, Tassilo Schmitt

Wer war Fl. Dades? Überlegungen zum Verständnis einer Inschrift
aus dem kaukasischen Iberien 347
I I I . N E W D I S C O V E R I E S A N D P RO S P E C T I V E
R E S E A RC H D I R E C T I O N S
Ulrike Peter
Von Mommsen zum Semantic Web: Perspektiven der vernetzten
numismatischen Forschung – die Münzen der westlichen
Schwarzmeerküste online 393
Natalia V. Zavoykina
A Letter of Polemarkhos from Phanagoria 419
Dorel Paraschiv, Mihaela Iacob, Costel Chiriac
Les origines de la vie romaine à (L)Ibida 431
Ștefan Honcu, Lucian Munteanu

A Shield Umbo Discovered in the Rural Settlement of Ibida – ‘Fântâna
Seacă’ (Slava Rusă, Tulcea County) 457
Dan Aparaschivei
Some Late Fibulae from Ibida (the Province of Scythia) 473
I V. ST U DY I N G R E L I G I O N :
E V O LU T I O N , I C O N O G R A P H Y, S O C I E T Y
Jorge Tello Benedicto

Nouvelles perspectives sur le culte d’Apollon et d’Artémis dans le monde
ionien archaïque 503
Vladimir F. Stolba
Images with Meaning: Early Hellenistic Coin Typology of Olbia Pontike 523
Livia Buzoianu, Maria Bărbulescu (†)

Éléments communs de l’iconographie des terres cuites hellénistiques
dans la région pontique 543
Annamária-Izabella Pázsint
Cult Associations in the Black Sea Area: A Comparative Study (3rd Century
BC – 3rd Century AD) 563
Gabriel Talmațchi
Monnaies et divinités. Remarques sur le culte d’Hélios à Istros
à la basse époque hellénistique 587
Marta Oller Guzmán

Les strategoi et le culte d’Apollon à Olbia du Pont. Nouvelles recherches
prosopographiques 601
Ligia Ruscu
Zu manchen Wandlungen im religiösen Leben der Schwarzmeerpoleis
in der römischen Kaiserzeit 621
Abbreviations 637
Indices 641
1. Literary Sources 641
2. Inscriptions 646
3. Proper Names (Regions, cities, persons, etc.) 652
Preface
T he volume ‘Advances in Ancient Black Sea Studies’ is in line

with our efforts in recent years to bridge the large gap between
two scholarly traditions, conjoining the research traditions of scholars
educated in the West with those of scholars educated in the East in order
to absorb, interpret and integrate the constant flow of new information
about the Black Sea region into mainstream western classical scholarship.
The ‘Advances’ conference brought together 61 scholars from 12 Euro-
pean countries, ready to discuss key advance of recent years in ancient
Black Sea studies, in Greek, Roman and Byzantine times, with a focus on
scholarly traditions, archaeology, religion and the preservation of cultural
heritage. Of the 44 papers presented in Constanţa, 24 have been included
in this volume; two more (by V.P. Yaylenko and N.V. Zavoykina) were
added, being very suitable contributions to the subjects of colonization
and identity, and entailing new discoveries. The subsequent collection of
papers has been organized into four main categories based on research
fields and chronological criteria. Their content can be easily explored
through the abstracts available in all of the three languages of the confer-
ence. Taking into account the large number of contributions and the topics
approached, we decided that the papers on the preservation of cultural
heritage should be published in a separate volume (ed. by S. Musteaţă).
In what follows, we intend to provide a more systematic overview of the
selected studies, based on the way in which the main themes of this vol-
ume were addressed.
a) Several contributions deal with the study of the Black Sea between
colonization and identity. Thibaut Castelli focuses on the navigational
conditions of sailing ships in different seasons, by using the nautical
sources of the last two centuries (sailing directions, travel stories, etc.), as
well as ancient literary sources. Madalina Dana specifically examines a
certain exoticism visible in the manner of speaking, dressing and behav-
ing among Greeks in the Black Sea, where they are surrounded by ’Barbar-
ians’. The author ponders the ways in which the Euxine was perceived by
9
Preface
other Greeks, as a place of cultural innovations, but also with respect to the
traditions and cultural heritage which the inhabitants of the Pontus them-
selves tried to conserve and bring to the fore. The overall intention of David
Braund is to bring together literary traditions on colonial settlement and
ancient ethical considerations on related matters, – touching on aspects
such as the primary relationships between colony and mother-city, and
the importance of religion in the process of overseas settlement. Valery
P. Yaylenko rejects the correction proposed by F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev
regarding Diodorus’ Ἀρχαιανακτίδαι (ἀρχαὶ ἀνακτισταί), arguing that
the ending -αι of Ἀρχαι- is a Lesbian phonetic feature, which supports the
correctness of Diodorus’ form. Moreover, the author reveals new evidence
concerning the Aeolians on the Taman peninsula. Disagreeing with previ-
ous scholarship, Michael A. Speidel argues that the pattern that emerges
from the surviving evidence suggests that the expression natione Ponticus
was rooted in the Roman naval force’s administrative practices. Its use,
nevertheless, remained ambiguous and prone to ‘misunderstandings’.
Dan Ruscu describes the image of the Black Sea in the historical writings
of Late Antiquity, thus offering valuable information not only on the con-
temporary knowledge of the region, but also on the way this information
was articulated and transmitted.
b) A second cluster of articles concentrates on the Greeks and non-
Greeks between scholarly traditions and acculturation. Victor Cojocaru
explains the reason why the bibliography project Bibliographia classica
orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini was set in place, presenting its general
structure as well as its innovative elements compared to other biblio-
graphical works. This is followed by further reflection on the contribu-
tion of the Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet schools in the study of North
Pontic antiquities. Valentina Mordvintseva discusses the expressions
‘Late Scythian culture’ and ‘Crimean Scythia’ as two modern concepts.
According to the predominant point of view, the Late Scythian culture
of the Crimea was constantly transforming in the course of the ‘Sarmati-
cization’ process. This position seems to the author unsustainable. Some
migrations to the Crimea from the North Pontic steppe or the Caucasus
could well have occurred, but newcomers certainly had much less effect
on the functioning of the social networks and the economic and cultural
appearance of ‘Crimean Scythia’ than the proximity of the ancient centres
and geopolitical aspirations of the great hegemonic powers from outside
the region. Lavinia Grumeza focuses on the issue of recent research on
funerary archaeology in ancient Crimea. The author summarizes some of
the most important publications of the last 10 years or so, on topics such
as: cemeteries (graves – inventory – rituals); external influences on beliefs
and on the selection of inventories; evidence of cultural contacts based on
10
Preface
the ‘funerary’ costume, ethnicity and multicultural societies. Marina Yu.

Vakhtina and Maya T. Kashuba present Nemirov and its special place
among the gigantic early Scythian city-sites of the forest-steppe zone of
the Northern Black Sea Coastal Region. A detailed survey of the local pot-
tery complex of the site made possible a distinction between several com-
ponents, among them the early nomadic or Early Scythian culture, the so-
called Carpathian-Danubian Hallstatt cultures and perhaps the influences
of the cultures of the Eastern-Hallstatt circle of Central Europe. François
de Callataÿ aims to reconsider the question of the ‘arrowheads’ found
en masse along the western shore of the Black Sea. Past literature on the
topic has largely endorsed the idea that they were monetary objects (both
standards of value and means of exchange). Put into perspective however,
this idea does not fit well with the general framework: an area with a hin-
terland which remained poorly monetized up to the end of the Hellenistic
period. Amiran and Emzar Kakhidze make some observations concern-
ing the acculturation in the Classical period of coastal Colchis on the basis
of the Greek and Colchian cemeteries at Pichvnari. The ritual of burying
the dead in a contracted position was widespread in the Bronze and Iron
Age cultures of Georgia and of the Caucasus. The discoveries at Pichvnari
suggest that Greeks no longer practised this custom by the 5th century BC,
although it seems to have been in use for some time among the locals.
Mikhail Treister discusses evidence which may lead to the interpreta-
tion of Greek, Macedonian and Roman bronze vessels found in Scythia
and Sarmatia as ’second-hand’ objects. The signs of repair on the vessels
may in rare cases, when this type of repair is unusual for local metalwork
and typical for that of Greek/Roman origin, give hints which suggest that
the vessels found their way to the nomads in an already repaired format.
Jean Coert and Tassilo Schmitt propose a re-dating (the middle of the 4th
century AD) of the inscription on a silver bowl from the city of Mtskheta.
Of importance in supporting this theory is the origin of the dish (Gaul).
The artefact might be a political gift from Constantine I to a king Dades,
who gave it to the pitiax Bersumas to ensure loyalty and good relations.
The result has consequences for the understanding of the Christianization
of Iberia.
c) A third section assembles those contributions which are dedicated
to new discoveries and to prospective research directions. Ulrike Peter
presents the corresponding online catalogue for the Western Pontic shore,
which is in the making and which is part of a larger international proj-
ect for the cooperative registration of ancient Greek coin types. With the
Corpus Nummorum Thracorum (www.corpus-nummorum.eu), an inno-
vative Web portal for Thracian coins was established. This is a research
database for collecting and categorizing, based on inventories, imports,
11
Preface
larger collections, into which external coins can be integrated. Natalia V.

Zavoykina proposes a new dating and reading of a graffito from Phana-
goria. This private letter, dated between the second half of the 5th and the
beginning of the 4th century BC, adds to our knowledge of anthroponomy,
private life, and the linguistic characteristics of the language used by the
Phanagorians in the Classical period. Dorel Paraschiv, Mihaela Iacob
and Costel Chiriac synthesize some results of the systematic archaeo-
logical research of the city of (L)Ibida, which began in 2001. Among other
matters taken into account are the following: the evolution of the site dur-
ing the Principate, the Roman building in the ‘Curtain’ sector, the stratig-
raphy of the Roman period, the ceramic finds as well as other categories
of archaeological materials. Ștefan Honcu and Lucian Munteanu present
an iron shield umbo from a rural settlement of Ibida – ’Fântâna Seacă’.
The artefact was (exceptionally) found in a civilian area, in a settlement
with a dominant agricultural character, situated in the rural territory of
a fortified town. The owner of the villa where the umbo was uncovered
seems to have been a veteran with a role in the local administration or
even an active soldier. Dan Aparaschivei makes a detailed presentation
of 12 fibulae and fibula fragments used by the inhabitants of the fortress of
Ibida, from the 5th century to the early 7th century AD. Along with the other
previously published finds, the publication of this batch of fibulae allows
the construction of a relevant picture for this site, which is representative
for the province of Scythia, from the 2nd century until the beginning of the
7th century AD.
d) Finally, the fourth cluster of articles focuses on various religious
aspects. Jorge Tello Benedicto aims to present a selection of the Archaic
literary and epigraphic evidence regarding Artemis and Apollo in Ionia
and its colonial territories in the Black Sea. Such a study may contribute
to the understanding of religious, social and political life in the Archaic
Ionian world, its dynamics and its development from one Mediterranean
shore to the other. Taking as a case study the so-called ‘Borysthenes coins’,
the largest and most famous bronze series in the history of the Olbian
coinage, Vladimir F. Stolba explores the connotative meaning of coin
imagery and its potential as a communication and marketing tool. An
integrated approach that takes into account not only the metrological and
chronological characteristics of the coins, but also the contextual typologi-
cal analysis, along with the distribution of the finds within and beyond the
polis territory, this approach gives the key to understanding a number of
other coin types and iconographic motifs in the coinages of Olbia and other
Greek centres of the region. Livia Buzoianu and Maria Bărbulescu select
two categories of artefacts from the archaeological discoveries of Albeşti
which found analogies or similarities over a large area in the Pontic and
12
Preface
Mediterranean Greek world: 1) ceramic altars with decorative registers on

the four sides; 2) appliqués with representation of a female deity wearing
a veil. Both categories are considered to be votive objects. The main area of
their distribution is the Black Sea region, hence the hypothesis of their pro-
duction in several local workshops. Annamária-Izabella Pázsint brings
into focus the private cult associations from the Greek cities of the Black
Sea. The paper provides a comparative outlook on the private cult asso-
ciations from each of the Black Sea’s shores, in order to understand the
differences which distinguish them, as well as the aspects which bring
them closer. Even though the area is not characterised by uniformity, the
common Greek core of these cities – in which the associative phenom-
enon is a constitutive element – gives them a certain degree of coherence,
despite their different political evolution and their economic specificities.
The paper of Gabriel Talmațchi is dedicated to the Helios monetary type
issued at Istros, considered until a few decades ago as insignificant both
with respect to the number of pieces and to the role of the deity in the local
religious life. In the non-numismatic bibliography on the cult of Helios at
Istros, the most recent opinion denies its possible presence in this city. But,
the reality of the monetary discoveries could point to another approach
to the subject, in correlation with the finds from Olbia and other places.
Marta Oller Guzmán addresses the inscriptions attesting the strategoi of
Apollo Prostatès at Olbia, considering that such a study may offer valu-
able information for the better understanding of the political, social and
religious life of the Pontic city in the Roman period. Ligia Ruscu considers
the coming of Rome as a turning point for the Black Sea poleis in many
respects, including their religion and cults. Against the background of
the impact of religious novelties on the traditional structure of the cults
of the poleis, the paper examines the consequences of the evolution of
some of the most ancient and venerable cults, as evinced by the place of
priestly offices, especially eponymous priesthoods, within the careers of
office-holders.
Our hope is that this volume reflects once again a tradition of fruit-
ful collaboration between the Institute of Archaeology of Iaşi and many
academic institutions from Romania and abroad. Among the participants,
most have contributed to our previous initiatives, especially to the recent
network conferences and volumes ’Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean
and Pontic World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods’ (Constanța,
2013 – published in 2014), ’Mobility in Research on the Black Sea Region’
(Iaşi, 2015 – published in 2016), and ’Advances in Ancient Black Sea Stud-
ies: Methodological Innovation, Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Inter-
national Cooperation’ (Iaşi, 2017 – some topics have been developed in this
volume). Some of the authors joined our research network even earlier.
13
Preface
Such meetings helped to establish a permanent dialogue within a research

group focused on the Black Sea region in the ancient world. And while the
current gathering was based, to a certain extent, on our previous network
conferences and volumes, we have moved forward and we took another
successful step in the research of the Black Sea region in antiquity.
As editors of the present volume, we would like to express our deep-
est gratitude to all of the authors for their efficient cooperation during the
editorial process as well as to our colleagues within the editorial board of
the book series ‘Pontica et Mediterranea’, who were involved as review-
ers and language editors. Last, but not least, we would like warmly to
acknowledge yet again the collegial and very efficient collaboration with
the Mega Publishing House.
June 2019 The editors
14
Second-Hand for the Barbarians?
Greek and Roman Metalware with
Signs of Repair from the Nomadic
Burials of Scythia and Sarmatia
Mikhail Treister
T he possibility that Greek or Roman bronze vessels or terra sigil-

lata could reach barbarians as second-hand goods has so far not
come to the attention of scholars, sometimes, however, it was postulated
without any evidence, that “bronze vessels were exported as new and not
as second-hand goods”.1 Turning to the area in question, I will refer to
the opinion expressed by W. Fuchs who supposed that the carrier and
owner of the hoard of bronze vessels from Peschanoe could be “a trader
of old metalware”.2 V. Zubar also considered as second-hand the finds of
terra sigillata with graffiti from the Late Scythian necropoleis of the Belbek
valley in the South-Western Crimea of the second half of the 1st century
AD; however, arguments against his hypothesis were also expressed.3 Is it
still possible to assume that in ancient times a system of recycling the old,
worn metal vessels developed, and that in this framework such items were
brought together and sent to the barbaric periphery? Could such a mecha-
nism function? Maybe at least in the simplest form, in any way, certainly
incomparable with the modern global system of second-hand distribution.
In this context, an important question arises: what features may indi-
cate that an object found in archaeological excavations could have reached
its last owner not as new, but having been already used, meaning that it
changed its original owner? First of all, these are inscriptions and graffiti.
Among the inscriptions, our attention focuses on the following.
А) Owners’ inscriptions. In the given case, if the inscription was written
1
Brogan 1936: 208.
2
Fuchs 1978: 115.
3
Pro: Zubar 2002: 506f. Сontra: Zhuravlev 2010: 107f.
313
Mikhail Treister
in the language of another culture, there are good reasons to assume that
it originally belonged to another person. B) Votive inscriptions. The object
could be consecrated in a sanctuary, in which case it is usually indicated
in which one. Inscriptions and graffiti found in foreign cultures can only
testify to the change of the owners. The reason for this change, however,
could be different and they could hardly be associated with regular trade
relations, as a rule.
So, in the case of artefacts dedicated to a sanctuary, it is usually assumed
that the object was stolen as the result of a later robbery. With regard to the
finds in nomadic milieu, this applies, first of all, to the silver phiale of the
5th century BC dedicated to the sanctuary of Apollo in Phasis, found in a
nomadic burial of the 1st century BC in the Kuban region.4
Another example is a bronze situla, a chance find from Sosnovka in the
Lower Volga area,5 with the inscription “Θεῷ Ἄρει Βληκουρῳ ἐκ τῶν
τοῦ θεοῦ vac. Ἐπιμένου Ἀπολιναρίου Πρείσκου” ivy leaf (fig. 7.4, 6). The
analysis of the last inscription indicates that from the funds stored in the
treasury of the sanctuary or the temple of Ares, a vessel was made and
dedicated in the sanctuary; however, the epiclesis of the deity point to
Thrace as the location of the sanctuary.6
As for the metal vessels with traces of repair,7 it is very difficult to
determine whether they came to the nomads as new items and were after-
wards repaired by their new owners, or whether they were acquired by
the nomads being already used and repaired. In each specific case, it is
necessary to consider how the repair was carried out, whether the tech-
nique of repair finds parallels only in a nomadic environment, or vice
versa, whether it was unknown to the nomads and is characteristic only
for the works of Greek or Roman craftsmen. In addition, it is necessary
to distinguish between repair, which was associated with manufacturing
defects and was performed directly in the process of the vessel’s manu-
facturing, and a later repair, still ancient. All this is complicated by the
fact that in many cases the authors of publications did not pay attention,
in their descriptions and documentations, to the traces of ancient repairs.
Among the Greek and Macedonian bronze vessels from the Scythian
and Maeotian barrows of the 5th–4th century BC there are vessels with lost
4
Dumberg 1901: 98–100, fig. 18.a–b; Strong 1966: 75f. pl. 14B; Gushchina – Zasetskaya
1989: 115, no. 120, pl. XII; Shchukin 1994: 177; Tsetskhladze 1994; Vickers – Gill 1994: 57f.
fig. 3.1; Lordkipanidze 1997: 15–17, figs. 1–2; Treister 2005: 241, fig. 16.5–8; Mordvintseva
– Treister 2007, vol. 2: 119, no. B13.1, pl. 61, fig. 16; Braund 2009, 533–537; Treister 2010c:
544f. fig. 12; Zasetskaya 2010: 281f. fig. 3.
5
Tsutskin 1974; Skripkin 2013: 131 (ill. below left), no. 346.
6
SEG 53, 802 (cf. 34, 775); Vinogradov 1984: 40–43; 1997: 644–647; Saprykin 2003.
7
On the imported vessels with signs of repairs and modifications from Scythian and
Sarmatian burials, see: Treister 2006a: 441; 2009a; 2009b: 119f.; 2010a: 19f.; 2010b: 234.
314
Second-Hand for the Barbarians? Greek and Roman Metalware with Signs of Repair
handles, or handle attachments as well as foot-rings – such as, for exam-

ple, a podanipteros from the burial-mound no. 1 near aul Ulyap,8 luteria
from Korneevka and Velikya Znamenka,9 a krater from the central cata-
comb of the Great Rhyzhanovka Burial-mound (Fig. 1),10 or stamnoid situ-
lae from the central11 and the side12 catacombs of the Great Rhyzhanovka
Burial-mound.
Signs of repair are visible on the brazier,13 kylix (Fig. 2)14 and oinochoe15
from the side niche of Gaymanova Mogila. Thus, the brazier from Gay-
manova Mogila lacks vertical support rods, but they certainly existed, as
evidenced by the rivet holes at the base of the conical stand and at the
top; the fact that the component is missing can be sustained also by pro-
viding an analogy with the brazier of Olynthus. The composite handles
of the brazier from Gaymanova Mogila are most likely the result of its
repair. The handles of the cup were riveted through their attachments. In
the same way, the handles were fixed with rivets to the basin of Ulyap,
which has a missing stand.16 The situla from the side catacomb of the Great
Ryzhanovka Barrow has an iron instead of a bronze handle.17
Rarely is there evidence of a rather long usage of imported metalware.
However, this is the case of the finds from the ritual complexes of the first
half of the 4th century BC in the burial-mounds near aul Ulyap, securely
dated after the finds of transport amphorae in one of them and Panathenaic
amphorae in another, as well as on the correlation of the gold appliqué inside
them.18 Thus, according to I.V. Ksenofontova, both the bronze jug from the
ritual complex of the Ulyap burial-mound no. 1/1981,19 and the basins from
8
Leskov – Lapushnyan 1987: 107, no. 107; 114, fig. 42; Leskov 1990: 178, no. 57; fig. 61;
Ksenofontova 1992: 163f. fig. 1; Leskov [et al.] 2013: 18, no. 4 & 107, fig. 7.
9
Bidzilya – Polin 2012: 328; Polin 2014: 136.
10
Treister 2010a: 14; 2010b: 223 & 225; Skoryi – Chochorowski 2018, 73–75, no. 24, figs.
152–153; Treister 2018b: 309, no. 2, figs. 3–4.
11
Teleaga 2008: 267, no. 71; Skoryi – Chochorowski 2018: 72f. no. 23, figs. 150–151;
Treister 2018b: 308f. no. 1, figs. 1–2.
12
Bobrinskiy 1894: 141& 145f. pl. XIX. 5–7; Onayko 1970: 115, no. 765, pl. 33; Zahlhaas
1971: 90, no. C7; Teleaga 2008: 267, no. 71; Skoryi – Chochorowski 2018: 73, figs. 194.1,
195.1; Treister 2018b: 308f.
13
Treister 2006b: 115–118, figs. 1–2; 2010a: 17, fig. 19; 2010b: 225 & 228, figs. 3–4, 16; 2012:
635f. no. 7, Bidzilya – Polin 2012: 330f. no. 133, fig. 119.7; 464f.
14
Treister 2009a: 73, fig. 2; 2010a: 19, fig. 23; 2010b: 232 & 234, fig. 20; 2012: 633, no. 4;
Bidzilya – Polin 2012: 332–334, no. 134, fig. 120. 2; 466f.
15
Treister 2010a: 18f. fig. 21; 2010b: 228 & 230, figs. 3.1, 18; 2012: 629–632, no. 2; Bidzilya
– Polin 2012: 335–341, no. 136, figs. 120.3–5; 470–472.
16
See above note 8.
17
See above note 12.
18
Leskov [et al.] 2013: 23, 31 & 72.
19
Leskov – Lapushnyan 1987: 106, no. 105, pl. XII; Leskow – Lapushnjan 1989: 122f. no. 105,
pl. 12 (dated to the 4th century BC); Leskov 1990: 178, no. 58, pls. 65–66; Leskov – Noskova
315
Mikhail Treister
the burial-mounds nos. 120 and 421 near aul Ulyap were manufactured in
one and the same workshop in the late 5th – early 4th century BC.22 To my
mind, the jug from Ulyap should be dated earlier, even before the middle
of the 5th century BC.23 The dating of the above mentioned basins should
be also established as earlier. Several handles, comparable in shape and
decoration to those of the basins with attachments in the shape of a semi-
palmette (of allegedly local production), were found on the Acropolis of
Athens.24 Important for the dating is the construction of the stand-ring of
the basin from the ritual complex no. 1 in the Burial-mound no. 4/1981: it is
executed in the form of a ring with three feet in the form of a reel soldered
to it. A comparable construction of the stand-ring reveal the basins from
Galaxidi,25 Votonosi,26 as well as those from the aristocratic burial of the
necropolis of Aigai in Macedonia, dated to ca. 470–460 BC.27 In the same
way were made the stand-rings of the bronze lebetes from the burials of
the first quarter of the 5th century BC in the necropolis of Pydna in Mace-
donia28 and Cumae in South Italy.29 Finally, there is also a bronze pilgrim
flask30 found in the same ritual complex, which is dated hardly later than
the basin if not earlier – this being a unique find for the North Black Sea
area, which finds parallels among the objects from Hallstatt D3 and Early
La Tène A burials in Italy and Central Europe.31
We will now turn to the results of the studies of a considerable amount
of imported bronze vessels from the burials of the nomads of Asian Sar-
matia (Fig. 3.1), which I have presented in detail at the 20th International
congress on ancient bronzes in Tübingen.32
1991: 50, no. 107; Ksenofontova 1992: 167f. fig. 3; Treister – Zhuravlev 2009: 226, fig. 7;
227, fig. 8. 2; 229; 232; Leskov [et al.] 2013: 19, no. 6; 108, fig. 8.1, photo 3.
20
See above note 8.
21
Leskov 1990: 192, no. 232; fig. 59; Ksenofontova 1992: 165f. fig. 2; Leskov [et al.] 2013:
30f. no. 1, 120f. figs. 20–21.
22
Ksenofontova 1992: 168.
23
Treister – Zhuravlev 2009: 229 & 232.
24
Tarditi 2016: 127f. inv.-nos. 21137–21138, 19857–19859, 7154; 247 (type Bh.2.II.C).
25
Zimi – Sideris 2003: 50, pl. 19δ.
26
Voсotopoulou 1975: 733–736, no. 2, fig. 4; 1997: 146, fig. 146; 257; Tarditi 2016: 223.
27
Burial ΛIV: Kottaridi 2011: 139, fig. 156; Galanakis 2011: 245, no. 222.
28
Bessios – Pappa 1995: 66, fig. B; Vokotopoulou 1997: 126, fig. 117; 248f.; Ignatiadou
2015: 81f. fig. 10.
29
Gabrici 1913: 559–561, fig. 208.
30
Leskov 1990: 192, no. 233; fig. 67; Leskov [et al.] 2013: 31, no. 2, 122, fig. 22.1.
31
See in general on comparable pilgrim flasks from Italy: Marzoli 1989. As a close parallel
I will mention a bronze pilgrim flask from the princely burial in Rodenbach, which is
considered to originate from the western part of North Italy. The burial is dated to ca. 460–
400 BC, the flask – to the second half of the 6th – first half of the 5th century BC: Nortmann
2001; Baitinger – Pinsker 2002: 303, no. 98.1.
32
Treister 2018a: 17.
316
A considerable part of the Roman vessels had already missing frag-

ments at the moment of their placement in the burials (Fig. 4). Based on
the analysis of the basins, found primarily in the Lower Don area, these
could be stand-rings, as in the case of the Eggers 96 basin from Kudinov
burial-mound no. 13/1961 (Fig. 4.3),33 or handles, which were typical for
the later basins of the Eggers 99–100 types, as was for instance the case
of the basin from the Kobyakovo burial-mound no. 3/1983: its handles
are both missing (Fig. 4.5).34 Other vessels demonstrate ancient repairs or
modification. The most widespread attested type of repair is the closing of
holes with patches of various shapes, usually rectangular, and sometimes
with rounded edges, which were riveted to the body of the vessels either
from the inside or the outside.
The patches riveted on the outside were especially common. They
were used to repair various categories of vessels (figs. 5; 7), including
paterae, as for example the piece from the burial-mound no. 9/1983 of the
Vysochino-V necropolis, where a rectangular patch covered the crack at
the transition from the wall to the bottom (Fig. 5.1–4).35 Another cate-
gory is represented by casseroles such as the find from the Burial-mound
no. 21/2010, near Magnitnyi, in Trans-Urals,36 which has a patch with
rounded edges, which covered a hole in the wall (Fig. 5.5–8).
In order to evaluate the percentage of the imported Roman bronze-
ware with missing fragments and (or) repairs it seems necessary to
make separate statistics. I took into account the more or less complete
specimens with intact bodies (not the separate finds of handles or feet
in robbed burials). The quantitative representativeness of various cat-
egories of objects allows certain conclusion only for some categories of
vessels.
Out of the 19 casseroles of various types according to Eggers’ classi-
fication, the majority was found intact, although small feet which could
have been originally soldered to the bottom were present only in 4 cases;
however, among the finds from the Roman provinces such vessels with
feet are also extremely rare, their absence not preventing the original use
of these vessels. Only in two cases a handle was completely missing, in
two cases there were evident signs of repairs in the form of patches, and in
one case the vessel was additionally decorated with a lower attachment of
the handle of the jug being riveted to its body. That means that in general
only ca. 10% of them bear signs of repair (Fig. 3.2). At the same time, if one
discusses the types of casseroles separately, then those of the Eggers 140
33
Raev 1986: 18–21, pls. 13–14; Gossel-Raeck – Stutzinger 2003: 107, no. 70.
34
Guguev 1986: 72, no. 1, pl. 48. 1; 2018: 64f. no. 1; figs. 7.4; 8.3.
35
Bespaly 1986: 76, pl. 60. 3; Bespalyi – Luk‘yashko 2008: 68, pl. LV. 8.
36
Botalov – Ivanov 2012: 272, 276, fig. 4.1; 278, fig. 5.4; Treister 2016: 280 & 282, fig. 2.4.
317
Mikhail Treister
type (Petrovszky V.1), dated to ca. 5–35 AD,37 were repaired and modified
much more often than those of the other types – the number of such ves-
sels being exactly the half of all of them.
The percentage of basins38 (of the most common types) with missing
fragments is much higher than that of the casseroles. Slightly more than
half of the 15 pieces were found without one or both handles, or without
the stands, and two pieces (ca. 13.3%) appear to have patches (Fig. 3.3).
Comparable to the percentage of basins is the percentage of vessels
with missing fragments among the Eggers 160 strainers (Petrovszky X.6),
dated to 35/40–140/160 AD39 – 4 of the 9 pieces, all having broken handles
and in two cases we notice signs of repairs of the handles (ca. 22,2% of all
vessels of this type) (Fig. 3.4).
Thus, it results that, depending on the category of vessels, from ca. 10
to more than 20% were found with signs of repair.
The only statistical data concerning signs of repairs on the Roman
bronze vessels, which I was able to find, was published by S. Künzl regard-
ing the vessels from Neupotz on the Rhine.40 In her statistics the scholar
differentiated vessels which have signs of 1–2 or 3 and more repairs. Since
the vessels I am presenting (perhaps excluding some cauldrons) seem to
have usually only one repair, and in order to make the comparison clearer,
I have neglected in this diagram the number of repairs; from the data it is
absolutely clear that the vessels found on the Rhine were repaired much
more often than those from Sarmatia. At the same time, the vessels from
Sarmatia have more often considerable missing fragments, missing han-
dles, stand-rings or feet.
Therefore, of crucial importance is the question, where were these repairs
executed? The vessels were either acquired by the nomads already repaired
(‘second-hand’), or the process happened afterwards, and lastly, we may
have a combination of both situations. I have already shown that all the
types of repairs which we were able to study on the imported bronze ves-
sels from Sarmatia, even the very rare types, find parallels with the Roman
37
Eggers 1951: 172, App. 60, pl. XII. 140; Petrovszky 1993: 52–54; Karasová 1998: 34f. map
XIII; pl. IV. 140; Erdrich 2001: 43; Bienert 2007: 78f.; Lund Hansen 2016: 230f.; Mustață
2017: 92f.
38
See, e.g. basins of Eggers 99–100 / Petrovszky XV, 1–2 types: Eggers 1951: 169, pl. 10;
Petrovszky 1993: 114–118; Tassinari 1993: 221–238, pls. LVII-LXIX (type S4000); Karasová
1998: 26f. map X; pl. III, 100; Erdrich 2001: 44; Hrnčiarik 2013: 54, pl. XXXVIII. 389; Luik
2016: 216–218, fig. 1.9–10.
39
Eggers 1951: 48, 85, 174, pl. 13. 160, map 45; Kunow 1983: 27, 64, 75f.; Petrovszky
1993: 98–102; Sedlmayer 1999: 93; Erdrich 2001: 43f.; Kapeller 2003: 88, 135, no. 46, pl. 7;
Bienert 2007: 93f., 103f. nos. 93–94; Luik 2016: 217, fig. 1.12; 218; Lund Hansen 2016: 231 &
235; Mustață 2017: 98–101.
40
Künzl 2000: 608, figs. 1–3.
318
bronze vessels from the western provinces of the Roman Empire and Ger-
mania magna. Some of the Roman vessels found in Germania magna are
considered as being repaired by the local German craftsmen.41 Now we
have to analyse in which way the vessels were repaired by the nomads.
In order to discuss the techniques of repair used by the nomads in the
first centuries AD, and for clarity, I have chosen as examples the cauldrons
of local type, originating from the most remote area of the ancient centres
of the Northern Black Sea region – from the burial-mounds of the Trans-
Urals area. These are massive cast egg-shaped cauldrons originating from
burials, dating to the late 2nd – mid 3rd centuries AD.42 A considerable part
of the defects, cracks and holes was repaired by pouring melted metal into
them, however, although rare, patches of rectangular shape were used,
being riveted through the holes along the edge, as on the cauldron from
the burial-mound no. 3/1997 of the Magnitnyi cemetery (Fig. 6).43
This survey proves that at least in the late 2nd – 3rd centuries AD the
nomads were able to repair the vessels using riveted patches. This, how-
ever, does not mean that all such repairs were undertaken by the nomadic
smiths, as suggested by rare example of repair technique which implied
the use of jagged joints (‘zinnenartige Naht’), as in the case of the situla
from Bolshaya Dmitrievka (Fig. 7.1–3).44 This particular repair technique
has no parallel in the nomadic milieu, but was used by the metalsmiths
in the 3rd century AD to repair bronze vessels in the West, as it is proved
by the finds from Moigrad in Dacia Porolisensis, Alba Iulia,45 Mauer an
der Url,46 and Nagyberki-Szalacska (Somogy, Hungary),47 which strongly
suggest that the nomads acquired the vessel in an already repaired format.
However, the majority of the vessels was acquired in a rather intact form
and in the process of its usage was sometimes repaired.
A special case is represented by the complex of 15 bronze vessels found
by chance near the village of Peschanoe, in the valley of the River Supoi
in the Dnieper basin (Figs. 8–10). This complex was usually considered
as the cargo of a sunken boat (an opinion often expressed without any
analysis48), its owner being designated as a trader of old metalware by
41
Stupperich 1995a: 148, note 22; 1995b: 75, fig. 15; Ekengren 2009: 149–152.
42
Demidenko 2008: 20f. type VIII; see, e.g. from Magnitnyi Burial-mound no. 21/2010:
Botalov – Ivanov 2012: 271, fig. 1.8; 273.
43
Botalov – Gutsalov 2000: 51, fig. 14.7; 53.
44
Maksimov 1957: 158, fig. 2.1–2; 159, no. 2; Shelov 1965: 267, 270, fig. 9.3; Kropotkin
1970: 93, no. 802; Shilov 1973: 253, no. 2, fig. 2; 1975: 154, no. 1.
45
Mustață 2017: 174–176, no. 100a–b, fig. 24; 365, pl. XCVII.
46
Noll 1980: 86–88, nos. 41, 43, pls. 32. 41; 33. 43; Bender 1992: 122.
47
Radnóti 1938: 123; Bender 1992: 122.
48
Ganina 1964, 195–198; 1970; Fuchs 1978: 113–115; Parzinger 2007: 34f., fig. 5; Treister
2010a: 12, figs. 8; 22; 2010b: 236–238; Bidzilya – Polin 2012: 362–364.
319
Mikhail Treister
Werner Fuchs in 1978,49 the boat being found not very far from this place.
However, firstly it is unlikely that the boat came from the same period, the
14
C analysis has dated it between 746–946 AD; secondly, the boat was not
large enough to carry all these vessels; therefore, it is highly unlikely for
these two finds to be connected.50 In any case, the fact that the bronze ves-
sels were found together has never been doubted.
A significant chronological dispersion of the vessels from the complex
(ca. 150–180 years)51 makes us cautious about the idea that this was an
ordinary trade cargo.52 The analysis of the vessels’ traces of repair and lost
fragments shows that some might have had defects which were corrected
during the manufacturing process, while others lost fragments and were
repaired during their use53 – the latter case having parallels in the vessels
from Epirus and Thrace.
In some cases, such as that of the stamnos Б 41–436 (Fig. 8.1–3),54 which
has a patch on the body, or of the amphora no. 1 (Б 41–429),55 which has
patches on the neck and shoulders, the patches were added in the exist-
ing cracks, or following manufacturing defects; in these specific cases
there is reason to believe that the vessels might have been repaired by the
craftsman immediately after manufacturing, especially since the colour of
the patches corresponds to that of the vessel’s metal. The conditions and
circumstances of the find do not provide a firm guarantee that the miss-
ing handles or stand-rings of some vessels were indeed lost in antiquity,
although this option is also possible. Thus, in the case of the hydrias no. 2
(Б41–432)56 and no. 4 (Б41–435)57 they have lost one horizontal (Б41–432)
49
Fuchs 1978: 115.
50
See Bidzilya – Polin 2012: 363f.
51
Fuchs 1978: 115; Sideris 2000: 29; Treister 2010a: 22; 2010b: 236–238; Bidzilya – Polin
2012: 362f.; Tarditi 2017: 204.
52
Rolle 1989: 92; Barr-Sharrar 2000: 279; Parzinger 2007: 35.
53
Treister 2010a: 19; 2010b: 249f., note 163. The technological examination of the vessels
(which took place during their restoration, between 1999–2003) was conducted by the
restorer of the National Museum of History of Ukraine, Aleksander Minzhulin. I had a
chance to see his unpublished manuscript during the work with the finds from Peschanoe
in 2008 due to the courtesy of the Museum curators, Sergey Didenko and Olga Puklina.
54
Ganina 1970: 88f. fig. 51; Rolle [et al.] 1991: 313, no. 103k.
55
Ganina 1970: 82f. figs. 4–7, 33; Fuchs 1978: 115, pl. 22; Galanina – Grach 1986: figs.
102–103; Rolle [et al.] 1991: 313, no. 103h; Reeder 1999: 195, no. 83; 200f. no. 86; Bonora
– Marzatico 2007: 223, fig. 4; 342, no. 97; Tarditi 2016: 270, fig. 54; 308, fig. 91; 309; 390.
56
Ganina 1970: 85f. figs. 11, 29, 49; Fuchs 1978: 114, pl. 19.1–3; Rolle [et al.] 1991: 311,
no. 103b; Bonora – Marzatico 2007: 280, fig. 5; 142, no. 99; Sowder 2009: 585, no. 19.38;
Seipel 2009: 141, no. 25 (here with a wrong inv.-no. Б41–435).
57
Ganina 1970: 87, fig. 13; Rolle [et al.] 1991: 312, no. 103d; Sowder 2009: 203 & 566,
no. 17.14 (first quarter of the 5th century BC); Seipel 2009: 140, no. 24 (here with a wrong
inv.-no. Б41–432).
320
or vertical (Б41–435) handle and both stand-rings. The luterion Б 41–44058

has no stand-rings and handles. In the case of the luterion, which is kept in
Pereyaslavl Khmelnitsky,59 one foot and one handle are lost.
In other cases, we are dealing with missing fragments and repairs
that occurred during the use of the vessels. Thus, on the amphora no. 2
(Б 41–428)60 a large patch was fixed on the spot of the broken pointed bot-
tom with tin solder, making its bottom round (Fig. 8.4). Similarly, the lower
part of the bronze oinochoe from the V. Bozhkov collection (last quarter of
the 5th century), which originates from Thrace,61 аs well as the oinochoe
from Votonosi (third quarter of the 5th century BC62) are repaired.
On the neck of the hydria no. 2 (Б41–432) (Fig. 9.5)63 there is a patch of
colour, which is different from that of the body’s colour; on the shoulder a
plate in the form of an ivy leaf was riveted (part of an applied decoration?)
(Fig. 9.3–4), next to it there is a trace from a similar plate. On the neck,
below the rim, there are further signs of repair – the colour of the patches
also differs from that of the vessel.
Another plate was soldered to the shoulder of the hydria behind the
vertical handle: it depicts an eagle in combat with a snake (Fig. 9.1–2). In
Greek art, the image of an eagle in combat with a snake is known since
the Archaic period, when it was also used as a motif for shield emblems;64
however, in the Archaic Greek art, the eagle was usually shown flying
with the snake in his talons.65 This plate seems to be originally decorating
the vessel, although I am not aware of another Greek bronze hydria with
a similar decoration on the shoulders behind the handle. W. Fuchs has
dated the plate, on stylistic grounds, to the mid–5th century BC,66 stressing
that the further development of the motif is to be found on the grave stele
of the diviner Kleobulos, the motif, being traced back by S. Karusos to
Philochares.67 W. Fuchs did not pay attention to the closest iconographical
parallels of the appliqué on the Peschanoe hydria, more precisely those
relief images of an eagle with outstretched wings and with a snake in the
58
Ganina 1970: 93, fig. 25; Rolle [et al.] 1991: 313, no. 103m; Bonora – Marzatico 2007:
280, fig. 2, no. 100.
59
Ganina 1970: 91, figs. 23–24; Fuchs 1978: 114, pl. 20.2–3; Reeder 1999: 195, no. 83;
Tarditi 2016: 219, note 67; 391.
60
Ganina 1970: 83, figs. 8–9, 35, 37, 39; Reeder 1999: 203f. no. 88; Bonora – Marzatico
2007: 280, fig. 3; 341, no. 96 [erroneously called stamnos]); Seipel 2009: 138f. no. 23; Treister
– Zhuravlev 2009: 228, fig. 9; 229; Tarditi 2016: 239, 307f. fig. 89; 390.
61
Sideris 2016: 128f. no. 56.
62
Voсotopoulou 1975: 755–759, no. 11, fig. 18.
63
See above note 56.
64
Schmidt 1983: 61–71; Rodríguez Pérez 2010: 6f. pl. 1.4.
65
Rodríguez Pérez 2010: pls. 1.1–4; 2.5–6.
66
Fuchs 1978: 114.
67
Karusos 1960: 113–122, Abb. 1–2.
321
Mikhail Treister
beak which are to be found: 1) on a cheek-piece, supposedly an element

of a bronze sculpture from Delphi,68 and 2) on a plate (having a secondary
usage, given its curvature which does not fit to that of the vessel’s body),
of a bronze jug from Bosnyane in Serbia with silver encrustation on the
upper part of the body, and on its neck, soldered under the lower attach-
ment of the vertical handle. The jug is dated however without justification
to the second half of the 1st century BC.69
A comparable iconographic motif of the eagle and snake is represented
on the silver staters of Elis, minted supposedly in ca. 471 BC,70 as well as on
the silver coins of Chalcis on Euboea, in the first decades of the 5th century
BC: tetradrachmes of ca. 480 BC71 and 465 BC,72 as well as on the shields’
emblems of the Late Archaic – Early Classical vase-painting,73 as well as in
contemporary glyptic.74
An ovoid situla Б41–43875 was found without one of the handles, being
reconstructed during restoration (since these handles are not soldered, but
inserted into the attachments holes, there is every reason to assume that
the fragmentary state was due to the fact that the handle broke in antiq-
uity), the handle attachment in the form of a palmette shows losses.
The latest vessels from this find (Fig. 10), dated no earlier than the mid-
dle/third quarter of the 4th century BC, of Macedonian or Thracian origin
(firmly proved by the distribution both of the kraters76 and of the stamnoid
situlae),77 show no traces of missing fragments and no repairs. In this case,
68
Rolley 2001: 94, fig. 1; 2002: 41–44, no. 1, figs. 1–2.
69
Picard 1962–1963: 1–7; Popović 1994: 276, no. 179; Rolley 2002: 44, note 18; Ratković
2005: 82–85, no. 27 with bibliography.
70
Kraay 1976: 91, 104, pl. 18.323.
71
Kraay 1976: 91, pl. 15.265.
72
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/euboia/chalkis/BCD_116.txt (accessed 18/08/2019).
73
Neer 1997: 10f. no. 10 with a survey, pl. 336.1.
74
See the chalcedony scaraboid in Boston: Boardman 2001: 289, pl. 493. A loom-weight
with a comparable off-print which was made (as supposed) with a metal finger-ring
and dated to the first half of the middle of the 5th century BC, was found in Phanagoria:
Nikulina 1965: 186, fig. 1.3; 188.
75
Ganina 1970: 89, fig. 18; Rolle [et al.] 1991: 312, no. 103g; Reeder 1999: 201f. no. 87;
Bonora – Marzatico 2007: 280, fig. 4; no. 98.
76
Ganina 1970: 80f. & 93, fig. 28; Treister 2010a: 14–16, fig. 15; 2010b: 223 & 225, fig. 12.
77
Ganina 1970: 68–71 & 90, figs. 19–22, 30; Zahlhaas 1971: 92, no. C18; Boucher 1973: 94f.
figs. 18–20; Ganina 1974, fig. 20; Cat. New York 1975: 127, no. 179; Candela 1985: 31, no. 43;
34, figs. 25–26; 42f.; Rolle [et al.] 1991: 312, no. 103f.; Seipel 1993: 224–227, no. 65; Reeder
1999: 197–199, no. 85; Treister 2010a: 13f. fig. 11.1; 2010b: 221, fig. 8; Blečić Kavur 2012:
166, no. 49. See most recently on stamnoid bronze situlae, and with the distribution map:
Blečić Kavur 2012, esp. 160, fig. 6, as well as the survey of their finds in Albania: Veseli
2012: 206–208, pl. I.1–3; on exactly this variant of stamnoid situla, with the head of Athena
under the attachment and the lion head spout, see Sideris 2016: 223–225, no. 89 being dated
between 340–320 BC.
322
there is every reason to suppose that the route of the merchant who car-
ried old vessels to the northern periphery of Scythia passed through Mace-
donia or Thrace; the earliest vessels of the Peschanoe complex were most
likely brought from there, while the most ancient vessels, among them
two amphorae (but probably also other vases, such as three kalpides and a
basin on a tripod base), seem to be rather of Athenian origin.78 Connected
to this, the finds of Macedonian coins in Scythia are worth mentioning,79
this being, as recently shown by V. Stolba, the second largest group of
coins found there (after the Olbian ones).80
There are good reasons to suggest that this could have happened no ear-
lier than the middle and no later than the third quarter of the 4th century
BC. However, even if we would not know the circumstances in which the
vessels were buried together (far to the north of the Black Sea coast), and
even if there could theoretically be other explanations for their appearance
in the northern periphery of Scythia, the possibility for it to have been a
commercial cargo still stands, although there could be other reasons for
this, such as looting, for instance, from Thrace.
Among the vessels which the Germans looted in Gaul in ca. 270 AD
(hundreds of which were sunken in the Rhine), we find contemporary
vessels of various origin, and among these there are rare examples of old
vessels and their silver and bronze fragments, which are dated to the 1st
century AD (it is suggested that these vessels were plundered from the
sanctuaries in Gallia, where they could have been preserved for a long
time).81
Whether this was an extraordinary phenomenon, or not, meaning that
the Scythians received, along with the first class works of ancient art, also
old, worn items, which in some cases were repaired, remains an open
question. We have no other proof attesting distribution of already repaired
old imported bronze vessels in Scythia.
In addition to the find from Peschanoe, it is only in rare cases that one
can speak (based on the characteristic methods of repair) of the nomads
as acquiring the vessels in an already repaired form. This was most likely
the case of the situla from the Sarmatian burial in Bol’shaya Dmitrievka,
the Lower Volga region. In other cases, it is likely that the vessels were
repaired after they were acquired by the nomads; the repairing was made
either by the local craftsmen or it took place in the workshops of the Black
78
Tarditi 2016: 219, note 67; 239; 270, fig. 54; 275; 307f. fig. 89, 91; 309, 318f.; 2017: 204.
79
See, e.g. Gavrish 1995: 135–137; Beydin – Grigor’yants 2010: 156–158, fig. 1.2; 162, nos.
2–3.
80
See the paper of V.F. Stolba in this volume.
81
Künzl – Künzl 1993: 483; Historisches Museum der Pfalz Speyer (Hg.) 2006: 108–111,
figs. 115–117 (R. Stupperich).
323
Mikhail Treister
Sea centres. In general, the analysis of Greek, Macedonian, Roman bronze

vessels found in Scythia and Sarmatia shows that the nomads acquired
mostly contemporary new vessels, which quite often lost some of their ele-
ments (handles or their attachments, stand-rings) in the course of durable
usage.
One should also take into account that the nomads appreciated the
imported vessels, most probably they considered them as objects of pres-
tige, and the fragments of the vessels were often used as amulets (as in the
different intact burials both from the Lower Don area82 and from West-
ern Kazakhstan83). However they could also receive a secondary usage,
changing their function, this is the case of: the casserole’s handle found in
the local burial in the Burial-ground Okhlebinino (Bashkortostan, the Ural
area), which was used as a belt plaque;84 the medallion of a patera with the
image of Eros standing near the altar;85 the lower part of a strainer,86 both
from the Burial-mound no. 9/1987 of Valovyi-I necropolis, and both being
used as phalerae (?) or appliqués.
Imported bronze vessels were therefore often used for a considerable
period of time, which a priori gives some ground to support the hypoth-
esis according to which the repairs were conducted during the time of
usage. As an example of the durable usage of the bronze vessels, I bring
forward the case of the intact burial from the Magnitnyi Burial-mound, in
the South Trans-Ural area, in which bronze vessels dating to the 1st and the
first half of the 2nd century AD were found together with a 2nd century glass
beaker and a late 2nd century AD enamelled brooch, the burial being dated
to first half of the 3rd century AD. All the three imported bronze vessels
have missing fragments and two of them have signs of repair.87
Mikhail Treister
DAI Zentrale, Berlin,
Germany
mikhailtreister@yahoo.de
82
Valovyi-I, Burial-mound no. 9/1987: ring-shaped handle: Bespalyi [et al.] 2007: 27, no. 4,
pl. 30.3; Bezuglov [et al.] 2009: 28, no. 9; 30, fig. 13.1.
83
Jug handle with the lower attachment in the form of a Silenus mask from Lebedevka:
Bagrikov – Senigova 1968: 75 & 76, fig. 5.1; Moshkova 2009: 105, fig. 4; 110; Treister 2015:
242f. fig. 3.3–4.
84
Unpublished.
85
Bespalyi [et al.] 2007: 28f. no. 15, pl. 32.1; Bezuglov [et al.] 2009: 32 f. fig. 15.4; 83f.
86
Bespalyi [et al.] 2007: 27, no. 5, pl. 30.4; Bezuglov [et al.] 2009: 28, no. 9; 41, fig. 21.6.
87
Treister 2016.
324
Bibliography
1. Abbreviations
ANK Antichnoye naslediye Kubani (The Ancient Legacy of Kuban),
Vols. 1–3, ed. by G.M. Bongard-Levin & V.D. Kuznetsov,
Moscow 2010.
AZRB Archäologie zwischen Römern und Barbaren. Zur Datierung
und Verbreitung römischer Metallarbeiten des 2. und 3. Jahr
hunderts n. Chr. im Reich und im Barbaricum – ausgewählte
Beispiele (Gefäße, Fibeln, Bestandteile militärischer Ausrüstung,
Kleingerät, Münzen). Internationales Kolloquium. Frankfurt am
Main, 19.–22. März 2009. Vol. 1, ed. by H.-U. Voss & N. Müller-
Schneessel, Bonn 2016.
NRAB New Research on Ancient Bronzes. Acta of the XVIIIth Internati-
onal Congress on Ancient Bronzes, ed. by E. Deschler-Erb & P.
Della Casa, Zurich 2015 (Zurich Studies in Archaeology 10).
PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde.
SAI Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov (Corpus of Archaeological
Sources). Moscow.
2. Authors
Bagrikov, Grigoriy I. – Senigova, Тaisiya N. 1968: Otkrytiye grobnits v Zapadnom
Kazakhstane (II-IV i XIV vv.) (The Discovery of Burials in the Western Ka-
zakhstan [2nd–4th and 14th centuries]), Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Kazakhskoi
SSR. Seriya obshchestvennye nauki (Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of
Kazakh SSR. Ser. Social Sciences) 2, 71–89.
Baitinger, Holger – Pinsker, Bernhard (ed.) 2002: Das Rätsel der Kelten vom
Glauberg, Stuttgart.
Barone, Leonarda 2007: Un tesoro riemerso dal Dnepr, in: Ori dei cavalieri delle
steppe: Collezioni dai musei dell’Ucraina, Trento, Castello del Buonconsi-
glio, Monumenti e collezione provincials, ed. by G.L. Bonora & F. Marza-
tico, Milan, 278–281.
Barr-Sharrar, Beryl 2000: Some Observations on the Cast Bronze Ovoid Situla,
in: Antike Bronzen. Werkstattkreise: Figuren und Geräte. Akten des 14. In-
ternationalen Kongresses für antike Bronzen in Köln, 21. bis 24. September
1999, ed. by R. Thomas, Cologne (Kölner Jahrbuch 33) 277–290.
Bender, Stephan 1992: Zum Buntmetallkessel des sogenannten Seuso-Schatzes,
AKB 22.1, 119–124.
Bespaly, Evgenii I. 1986: Barrows with Roman Imports Excavated by the Expedi-
tion of the Azov Regional Museum in 1979–1984, in: Raev 1986, 75–78.
Bespalyi, Evgeniy I. [et al.] 2007: Drevneye naseleniye Nizhnego Dona. Kurgannyi
mogil’nik ‘Valovyi 1’ (The Ancient Population of the Lower Don Area. The
‘Valovyi 1’ Kurgan Necropolis), Rostov-on-Don (Materialy i issledovaniya
po arkheologii yuga Rossii 2).
Bespalyi, Evgeniy I. – Luk‘yashko, Sergey I. 2008: Drevneye naseleniye
mezhdurech’ya Dona i Kagal‘nika. Kurgannyi mogil’nik u s. Vysochino (The
325
Mikhail Treister
Ancient Population Between Don and Kagal‘nik. The Kurgan Necropolis

from the Vysochino Village), Rostov-on-Don (Materialy i issledovaniya po
arkheologii yuga Rossii 2).
Bessios, Manthos – Pappa, Maria 1995: Pydna, Thessaloniki.
Beydin, Georgiy V. – Grigor’yants, М.Н. 2010: Svyazi plemen skifo-sarmatskogo
vremeni levoberezhnoy Ukrainy s Severnym Prichernomor’yem po numiz-
maticheskim dannym (The Relations Between the Tribes of the Scythian-
Sarmatian Period from East of the Dnieper Ukraine with the Northern
Black Sea Area, Based on the Numismatic Data), Drevnosti 9, 156–165.
Bezuglov, Sergey I. [et al.] 2009: Pozdnesarmatskiye pogrebeniya v ust’ye Dona
(kurgannyi mogil’nik Valovyi I) (Late-Sarmatian Burials from the Mouth of
the Don River [The Valovyi I Kurgan Necropolis]), Rostov-on-Don.
Bidzilya, Vasiliy I. – Polin, Sergey V. 2012: Gaymanova mogila, Kiev.
Bienert, Bernd 2007: Die römischen Bronzegefässe im Rheinischen Landes
museum Trier, Trier.
Blečić Kavur, Martina 2012: Novovinodolski »lav«: specifičan subjekt stamnoidne
situle makedonske toreutičke umjetnosti (The ’Lion’ of Novi Vinodolski: A
Specific Subject of Stamnoid Situla from the Toreutic Art of Macedonia),
Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu ser. 3. XLV, 149–172.
Boardman, John 2001: Greek Gems and Finger Rings. Early Bronze Age to Late
Classical, 2nd ed., London.
Bobrinskiy, Alexey A. 1894: Kurgany i sluchaynye arkheologicheskiye nakhodki
bliz mestechka Smely (The Kurgans and the Archaeological Chance Finds
Near the Town of Smela), vol. 2, St. Petersburg.
Bonora, Gien Luca – Marzatico, Franco (ed.) 2007: Ori dei cavalieri delle steppe.
Collezioni dai Musei dell’Ucraina, Milan.
Botalov, Sergey G. – Gutsalov, Sergey Yu. 2000: Gunno-sarmaty Uralo-Kazakh-
stanskikh stepey (The Huns-Sarmatians of the Ural-Kazakhstan Steppes),
Chelyabinsk.
Botalov, Sergey G. – Ivanov, Аlexander А. 2012: Novyi kompleks kochevoy
aristokratii gunno-sarmatskogo vremeni v Yuzhnom Zaural‘ye (A New
Complex of the Nomadic Aristocracy in the Southern Trans-Urals from the
Hun-Sarmatian Period), PIFK 4, 269–287.
Boucher, Stéphanie 1973: Trajets terrestres du commerce étrusque de Ve et IVe
siècles avant J.-C., RA 1, 79–96.
Braund, David 2009: The Silver Phiale dedicated to Apollo Hegemon from
Zubovskiy Khutor, in: Bospor kimmeriyskiy i varvarskiy mir v period
antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Aktual’nye problemy (The Cimmerian Bos-
porus and the Barbarian World in the Ancient and Middle Ages. Actual
Problems), ed. by V.N. Zin’ko, Kerch, 533–537.
Brogan, Olwen 1936: Trade between the Roman Empire and the Free Germans,
JRS 26.2, 195–222.
Candela, Milena 1985: Situle metalliche e ceramiche a beccuccio nel IV e III secolo
a.C. Origine e diffusione, BABesch 60, 24–71.
CAT. NEW YORK 1975: From the Lands of the Scythians. Ancient Treasures from
326
the Museums of the U.S.S.R., 3000 B.C. – 100 B.C., New York (Bulletin of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art 32.5, 1973/74).
Demidenko, Sergey V. 2008: Bronzovye kotly drevnikh plemen Nizhnego
Povolzh‘ya i Yuzhnogo Priural‘ya (V v. do n.e. – III v. n.e.) (Bronze Caul-
drons of the Ancient Tribes from the Lower Volga and Southern Urals [5th
Century BC – 3rd Century AD]), Мoscow.
Dumberg, Karl 1901: Raskopka kurganov na Zubovskom khutore v Kubanskoy
oblasti (Excavations of the Barrows from the Zubov Farm in the Kuban
Region), IIAK 1, 94–103.
Eggers, Hans Jürgen 1951: Der römische Import im freien Germanien, Hamburg
(Atlas der Urgeschichte 1).
Ekengren, Fredrik 2009: Ritualization – Hybridization – Fragmentation. The
Mutability of Roman Vessels in Germania Magna AD 1–400, Lund (Acta
archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 4° 28).
Erdrich, Michael 2001: Rom und die Barbaren, Mainz (Römisch-Germanische
Forschungen 58).
Fuchs, Werner 1978: Bronzegefäße in Kiev, Boreas 1, 113–115.
Gabrici, Ettore 1913: Cuma, MAAL 22, 5–872.
Galanakis, Yannis (ed.) 2011: Heracles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from
the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democ-
racy, Oxford.
Galanina, Lyudmila – Grach, Nonna 1986: Scythian Art, Leningrad.
Ganina, Oksana D. 1964: Аntychni posudini z torfovishcha na r. Supoy: pope-
redne povydomlennya (Antique Vessels from a Swamp on the River Supa
[Preliminary Information]), ArkhKiev 16, 195–198.
–. 1970: Antychni bronzi iz Pishchanoho (Antique Bronzes from Pishchanoe),
Kiev.
–. 1974: Kiev Museum of Historical Treasures, Kiev.
Gavrish, Petro Ya. 1995: Antychna moneta zi skifs‘koho horodishcha lisostepo-
voy Skifii (Ancient Coins from a Scythian Settlement of the Forest-Steppe
Scythia), ArkhKiev (2) 135–137.
Gossel-Raeck, Berthild – Stutzinger, Dagmar (ed.) 2003: Steppengold. Grab
schätze der Skythen und Sarmaten am unteren Don, Frankfurt am Main.
Guguev, Vladimir K. 1986: The Burials in the Kobyakovo Barrow-Cemetery, in:
Raev 1986, 71–72.
–. 2018: Dva progrebeniya s zapadnymi i vostochnymi importami s territorii
Kobyakovskogo kurgannogo mogil‘nika (Two Burials with Western and
Eastern Imports from the Kobyakovo Barrow-Cemetery), in: Krym v
sarmatskuyu epokhu III (Crimea in the Sarmatian Period III), ed. by I.N.
Khrapunov, Simferopol, 58–84.
Gushchina, Irina I. – Zasetskaya, Irina P. 1989: Pogrebeniya zubovsko-vozd-
vizhenskoy gruppy iz raskopok N.I. Veselovskogo v Prikuban‘ye (I v. do
n.e. – II v. n.e.) (Burials of the Zubovsk-Vozdvizhensk Group from the
Excavations of N.I. Veselovskiy in the Kuban Region [1st Century BC – 2nd
Century AD]), in: Arkheologicheskiye issledovaniya na yuge Vostochnoy
Evropy, ed. by M.P. Abramova, Moscow (TGIM 70) 71–141.
327
Mikhail Treister
Historisches Museum der Pfalz Speyer (ed.) 2006: Geraubt und im Rhein ver-
sunken. Der Barbarenschatz, Stuttgart.
Hrnčiarik, Erik 2013: Römisches Kulturgut in der Slowakei. Herstellung, Funk-
tion und Export römischer Manufakturerzeugnisse aus den Provinzen in
der Slowakei, Bonn (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäol-
ogie 222).
Ignatiadou, Despina 2015: Contextualizing a Set of Classical Bronze Vessels from
Macedonia, in: NRAB, 77–83.
Kapeller, Anne 2003: La vaisselle en bronze d’Avenches/Aventicum, ProAventico
45, 83–147.
Karasová, Zuzana 1998: Die römischen Bronzegefässe in Böhmen, Prague (Fon-
tes Archaeologici Pragenses 22).
Karusos, Christos 1960: Phrontismata, in: Theoria. Festschrift für W.-H. Schuch-
hardt, ed. by F. Eckstein, Baden-Baden, 113–122.
Kottaridi, Angeliki 2011: Burial Customs and Beliefs in the Royal Necropolis of
Aegae, in: Galanakis 2011, 131–152.
Kraay, Colin M. 1976: Archaic and Classical Greek Coinage, London.
Kropotkin, Vladislav V. 1970: Rimskiye importnye izdeliya v Vostochnoy Evrope
(II v. do n.e. – V v. n.e.) (Roman Imports in Eastern Europe [2nd Century
BC – 5th Century AD]), Moscow (SAI Д1–27).
Ksenofontova, Irina V. 1992: Antichnye khudozhestvennye bronzy iz Ulyapskikh
(Ul’skikh) kurganov (Ancient Bronze Artefacts from the Ulyap [Ul’sk] Kur-
gans), RosA (4) 163–169.
Kunow, Jürgen 1983: Der römische Import in der Germania libera bis zu den
Markomannenkriegen. Studien zu Bronze- und Glasgefäßen, Neumünster
(Göttinger Schriften zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 21).
Künzl, Susanne 2000: Der zerbrochene Krug: Reparaturen an römischen Metall-
gefäßen, KJ 33, 607–614.
Künzl, Susanne – Künzl, Ernst 1993: Der Fund von Neupotz. Die historische
Momentaufnahme der Plünderung einer römischen Domäne in Gallien, in:
Die Alamannenbeute aus dem römischen Gallien. Teil 1: Untersuchungen,
ed. by E. Künzl, Mainz (RGZM Monographien 34.1) 473–504.
Leskov, Alexander M. 1990: Grabschätze der Adygeen, München.
Leskov, Alexandr M. – Lapushnyan, Valery M. (ed.) 1987: Shedevry drevnego
iskusstva Kubani / Kuban Ancient Art, Moscow.
Leskow, Alexandr M. – Lapushnjan, Walerij M. (ed.) 1989: Gold und Kunsthand-
werk vom antiken Kuban. Sonderausstellung Mannheim, Stuttgart.
Leskov, Alexandr M. – Noskova, Lyudmila M. 1991: Grabschätze vom Kauka-
sus. Neue Ausgrabungen sowjetischer Archäologen in der Adygee und im
nördlichen Ossetien, Rome.
Leskov, Alexandr M. [et al.] 2013: Meoty Zakuban‘ya IV-III vv. do n.e. Nekropoli
u aula Ulyap. Svyatilishcha i ritual’nye kompleksy (Maeotians of the Trans-
Kuban Region in the 4th–3rd Centuries BC. The Necropoleis Near the Ulyap
Village. Sanctuaries and Ritual Complexes), Мoscow.
Lordkipanidze, Otar D. 1997: Bogi Fazisa (The Gods of Phasis), VDI (1) 15–34.
328
Luik, Martin 2016: Buntmetallgefäße der mittleren Kaiserzeit zwischen Rhein und
Pyrenäen. Ein Forschungsüberblick, in: AZRB, 215–228.
Lund Hansen, Ulla 2016: Kasserollen und Kelle- / Sieb-Garnituren als Indikatoren
für Einsicht in den Übergang von der Älteren zur Jüngeren Römischen Kai-
serzeit im Barbaricum, in: AZRB, 229–244.
Maksimov, Еvgeniy К. 1957: Sarmatskoye pogrebeniye iz kurgana u s. Bol’shaya
Dmitrievka Saratovskoy oblasti (A Sarmatian Burial in a Kurgan Near the
Village of Bol’shaya Dmitrievka, Saratov Region), SA (4) 157–161.
Marzoli, Dirce 1989: Bronzefeldflaschen in Italien, Munich (PBF II, 4).
Mordvintseva, Valentina I. – Treister, Mikhail Yu. 2007: Proizvedeniya torevtiki
i yuvelirnogo iskusstva v Severnom Prichernomor’ye (2 v. do n.e. – 2 v.
n.e.) / Toreutik und Schmuck im nördlichen Schwarzmeergebiet (2. Jh. v.
Chr. – 2. Jh. n. Chr.), vol. I-III, Simferopol – Bonn.
Moshkova, Мarina G. 2009: Zhenskoye pogrebeniye v kurgane 2 iz Lebedevskogo
mogil’nogo kompleka (raskopki G.I. Bagrikova) (A Female Burial in Kur-
gan 2 of the Lebedevskiy Burial Complex [Excavations of G.I. Bagrikov]),
in: Gunny, goty i sarmaty mezhdu Volgoy i Dunaem, ed. by A.G. Furas’jov,
St. Petersburg, 99–113.
Mustață, Silvia 2017: The Roman Metal Vessels from Dacia Porolissensis, Cluj-
Napoca (Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 12).
Neer, Richard T. 1997: CVA. The J. Paul Getty Museum. Fasc. 7. Molly and Walter
Bareiss Collection, Malibu.
Nikulina, Natalya M. 1965: Pamyatniki antichnoy gliptiki iz Fanagorii (Ancient
Glyptic Monuments from Phanagoria), SA (2) 185–196.
Noll, Rudolf 1980: Das Inventar des Dolichenusheiligtums von Mauer an der Url
(Noricum), Vienna (Der römische Limes in Österreich 30).
Nortmann, Hans 2001: Die Bronzefeldflasche von Rodenbach, AKB 31, 429–442.
Onayko, Nadezhda A., 1970: Antichnyi import v Pridneprov’ye i Pobuzh’ye v 4–2
vv. do n.e. (Ancient Imports in the Dnjepr and Bug Regions During the
4th–2nd Centuries BC), Moscow (SAI, Д1–27).
Parzinger, Hermann 2007: Die Reiternomaden der eurasischen Steppe während
der Skythenzeit, in: Im Zeichen des goldenen Greifens. Königsgräber der
Skythen, ed. by H.H. Parzinger, München – Berlin, 30–48.
Petrovszky, Richard 1993: Studien zu römischen Bronzegefäßen mit Meisterstem-
peln, Buch am Erlbach (Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der Römischen
Provinzen, 1).
Pfisterer-Haas, Susanne 2002: Antike Reparaturen, in: Vasenforschung und Cor-
pus Vasorum Antiquorum. Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven, ed. by
M. Bentz, München (Beihefte zum CVA 1) 51–59.
Picard, Charles 1962–1963: Aigle et serpent: sur les divers sens d’un symbole reli-
gieux à travers la Grèce du Nord: d’après un oenochoé de bronze du Musée
de Belgrade, Starinar (NS) 13–14 (1965) 1–7.
Polin, Sergey V. 2014: Skifskiy Zolotobalkovskiy kurgannyi mogil‘nik V-IV vv. do
n.e. na Khersonshchine (The Zolotaya Balka Scythian Barrow Necropolis of
the 5th–4th Centuries BC in the Cherson Region), Kiev (Kurgany Ukrainy 3).
Popović, Ivana 1994: Antičko srebro u Srbiji / Antique Silver from Serbia, Belgrade.
329
Mikhail Treister
Radnóti, Aladár 1938: Die römischen Bronzegefässe von Pannonien, Budapest

(Dissertationes Pannonicae II/6).
Raev, Boris A. 1986: Roman Imports in the Lower Don Basin, Oxford (BAR int.
ser. 278).
Ratković, Deana 2005: Bronzane posude: iz rimske zbirke Narodnog Muzeja u
Beogradu / Roman Bronze Vessels in the Roman Collection of the National
Museum in Belgrade, Belgrade (Antika / Antiquity IX).
Reeder, Ellen D. (ed.) 1999: Scythian Gold. Treasures from Ancient Ukraine, New
York.
Rodríguez Pérez, Diana 2010: Contextualizing Symbols: ’the Eagle and the Snake’
in the Ancient Greek World, Boreas 33, 1–18.
Rolle, Renate 1989: The World of the Scythians, Berkeley – Los Angeles.
Rolle, Renate [et al.] (ed.) 1991: Gold der Steppe. Archäologie der Ukraine,
Schleswig.
Rolley, Claude 2001: Le travail du bronze à Delphes, in: I Bronzi antichi: Produzi-
oni e tecnologia. Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi,
ed. by A. Giumlia-Mair, Montagnac (Instrumentum Monographies 21)
94–99.
–. 2002: Le travail du bronze à Delphes, BCH 126.1, 41–54.
Saprykin, Sergei Yu. 2003: Greek Inscription on Bronze Cauldron from Sosnovka,
Volgograd Region, Russia, in: Thracia XV. In honorem annorum LXX Alex-
andri Fol, Sofia, 225–232.
Schmidt, Margot 1983: Adler und Schlange. Ein griechisches Bildzeichen für die
Dimension der Zukunft, Boreas 6, 61–71.
Sedlmayer, Helga 1999: Die römischen Bronzegefässe in Noricum, Montagnac
(Monographies Instrumentum 10).
Seipel, Wilfried (ed.) 1993: Gold aus Kiew. 170 Meisterwerke aus der Schatzkam-
mer der Ukraine. Eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien,
Vienna.
–. 2009: Das Gold der Steppe. Fürstenschätze jenseits des Alexanderreichs, Vienna.
Shchukin, Mark B. 1994: Na rubezhe er (At the Turn of Eras), St. Petersburg.
Shelov, Dmitriy B. 1965: Italiyskiye i zapadnorimskiye izdeliya v torgovle Tanaisa
pervykh verkov n.e. (Italian and Western Roman Products in the Trade of
Tanais in the First Centuries AD), AArchHung 17, 251–274.
Shilov, Valentin P. 1973: Metallicheskiye sosudy iz kurgana u s. Bol’shaya Dmit-
rievka (Metal Vessels from the Burial Mound of the Village Bol’shaya Dmi-
trievka), SA (4) 252–255.
–. 1975: Ocherki po istorii drevnikh plemen Nizhnego Povolzh’ya (Essays on the
History of the Ancient Tribes of the Lower Volga Region), Leningrad.
Sideris, Athanasios 2000: Les tombes de Derveni: Quelques remarques, RA 1,
3–36.
–. 2016: Metal Vases & Utensils in the Vassil Bojkov Collection. Achaemenid,
Greek, Etruscan and Thracian, Vol. 1, Sofia.
Skoryi, Seigey A. – Khokhorovski, Yan 2018: Bol’shoy Ryzhanovskiy kurgan (The
Great Ryzhanovskiy Kurgan), Kiev.
Skripkin, Anatoliy S. (ed.) 2013: Arkheologicheskoye naslediye Volgogradskoy
330
oblasti. К 100-letiyu Volgogradskogo oblastnogo kraevedcheskogo muzeya

(The Archaeological Heritage of the Volgograd Region. The Centenary of
the Volgograd Regional Museum of Local Lore), Volgograd.
Sowder, Amy A. 2009: Greek Bronze Hidriai. Dissertation Faculty of the Graduate
School of Emory University, Atlanta.
Strong, Donald E. 1966: Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate, London.
Stupperich, Reinhard 1995a: Die Göldenitz-Gruppe. Figürlich verzierte Metall-
arbeiten des 3. Jhs. n. Chr. mit Weißmetallauflage, in: Modus in rebus.
Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Schindler, ed. by D. Rössler & V. Stürmer,
Berlin, 144–152.
–. 1995b: Bemerkungen zum römischen Import im sogenannten Freien Germani-
en, in: Aspekte römisch-germanischer Beziehungen in der frühen Kaiser-
zeit, ed. by G. Franzius, Espelkamp (Quellen und Schrifttum zur Kulturge-
schichte des Wiehengebirgsraumes, B/1) 45–98.
Tarditi, Chiara 2016: Bronze Vessels from the Acropolis. Style and Decoration
in Athenian Production between the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC, Rome
(Thiasos Monografie 7).
–. 2017: Bronze Vessels from the Acropolis and the Definition of the Athenian
Production in Archaic and Early Classical Periods, in: Artistry in Bronze:
The Greeks and Their Legacy (XIXth International Congress on Ancient
Bronzes), ed. by J.M. Daehner [et al.], Malibu, 200–206.
Tassinari, Susanne 1993: Il vasellame bronzeo di Pompei, Rome.
Teleaga, Emilian 2008: Griechische Importe in den Nekropolen an der unteren
Donau. 6. Jh. – Anfang des 3. Jhs. v. Chr., Rahden/ Westf. (Marburger Stu-
dien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 23).
Treister, Mikhail Yu. 2005: On a Vessel with Figured Friezes from a Private Col-
lection, on Burials in Kosika and Once More on the “Ampsalakos School”,
ACSS 11.3–4, 199–255.
–. 2006a: Falary iz stanitsy Uspenskoy (k voprosu o vremeni poyavleniya bol’shikh
naplechnykh falarov ellinisticheskogo vremeni) (The Phalerae of Stanica
Uspenskaya [To the Question of the Chronology of Appearance of Large
Shoulder Phalerae of the Hellenistic Period]), DB 10, 429–462.
–. 2006b: Zharovnya iz Gaymanovoy Mogily (k voprosu o skifo-makedonskikh
kontaktakh v tret’ey chetverti IV v. do n.e.) (The Brazier from Gaymanova
Mogila [On the Scythian-Macedonian Contacts in the Third Quarter of the
4th century BC]), RosA (4) 115–118.
–. 2009a: Remont, «usovershenstvovaniye» inokul’turnykh veshchey v skifskoy
i sarmatskoy srede i ispol’zovaniye inokul’turnogo ornamenta v dekore
sobstvennykh proizvedeniy skifov i sarmatov (na primere pamyatnikov
khudozhestvennogo metalla) (Repairs and Modifications of Imports and
the Use of Foreign Ornamental Patterns in the Decoration of Homemade
Items in the Scythian and Sarmatian Milieu [Using the Example of Artistic
Metalwork]), ArkhV 16 (2010) 72–94.
–. 2009b: Silver Phialai from the Prokhorovka Burial-Mound no. 1, ACSS 15.1–2,
95–135.
–. 2010a: Bronze and Silver Greek, Macedonian and Etruscan Vessels in Scythia.
331
Mikhail Treister
Roma 2008. International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Meetings Be-

tween Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean. Bolletino di archeologia on
line 1/2010. Volume speciale C/C10/2. http://bollettinodiarcheologiaonline.
beniculturali.it/tracia-e-dacia/.
–. 2010b: Importnaya metallicheskaya posuda v Skifii. Atributsiya i interpretatsiya
istoricheskogo konteksta (Imported Metal Vessels in Scythia. Historical
Context Attribution and Interpretation), PIFK 1 (27) 217–251.
–. 2010c: Yuvelirnoye delo i torevtika (Jewellery and Toreutics), in: ANK, vol. 2,
534–598.
–. 2012: Bronzovye sossudy iz nishi severnogo pogrebeniya Gaymanovoy Mogily
(Bronze Vessels from the Niche of the Northern Burial of Gaymanova Mo-
gila), in: Bidzilya – Polin 2012, 629–637.
–. 2015: Römische Bronzegefässe aus einem spätsarmatischen Grab (3. Jh. n. Chr.)
der Kurgan-Nekropole Lebedevka in Westkasachstan, in: NRAB, 241–246.
–. 2016: Kochevniki na perekrestke trans-evraziyskikh karavannykh putey (za-
padnye importy v sarmatskom pogrebenii kurgana nr. 21 mogil‘nika
Magnitnyi) (The Nomads at the Crossroads of the Trans-Eurasian Caravan
Routes [Western Imports in the Sarmatian Burial of the Magnitnyi Barrow-
Mound no. 21]), in: Konstantin Fedorovich Smirnov i sovremennye prob-
lemy sarmatskoy arkheologii. Materialy IX mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy
konferentsii „Problemy sarmatskoy arkheologii i istorii“, posvyashchen-
noy 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya Konstantina Fedorovicha Smirnova, ed.
by L.T. Yablonskiy & L.A. Kraeva, Orenburg, 279–286.
–. 2018a: Roman Bronze Vessels with Signs of Repair from Sarmatia. XXth Inter-
national Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Tübingen, April 17–21, 2018. Ab-
stracts, Tübingen, 17.
–. 2018b: Bronzovye i serebryannye sosudy iz tsentral’noy mogily Bol’shogo Ry-
zhanovskogo kurgana (Bronze and Silver Vessels from the Central Cata-
comb of the Great Ryzhanovka Tumulus), in: Skoryi – Khokhorovski 2018,
308–341.
Treister, Mikhail Yu. – Zhuravlev, Denis V. 2009: Bronze Jug from the Shverin
Barrow, ACSS 15.3–4, 215–242
Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. 1994: The Silver Phiale Mesomphalos from the Kuban
(Northern Caucasus), OJA 13.2, 199–216.
Tsutskin, Еvgeniy V. 1974: Bronzovyi kotel s drevnegrecheskoy nadpis’yu (A
Bronze Cauldron with an Ancient Greek Inscription), IKZ 2, 138–142.
Veseli, Sabina 2012: Një vështrim mbi situlat e bronzit të zbuluara në Shqipëri
(An Overview of the Bronze Situla Found in Albania), Iliria 36, 205–224.
Vickers, Michael – Gill, David 1994: Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and
Pottery, Oxford.
Vinogradov, Yuriy G. 1984: Dva bronzovykh kotla s grecheskimi nadpisyami
iz sarmatskikh stepey Donbasa i Povolzh’ya (Two Bronze Cauldrons with
Greek Inscriptions from the Sarmatic Steppes of Donbass and the Volga),
in: Drevnosti Evrazii v skifo-sarmatskoe vremya, ed. by A.I. Melyukova [et
al.], Moscow, 37–43.
332
–. 1997: Pontische Studien: kleine Schriften zur Geschichte und Epigraphik des
Schwarzmeerraumes, hrsg. in Verbindung mit H. Heinen, Mainz.
Voсotopoulou, Julie 1975: Le trésor de vases de bronze de Votonosi, BCH 99, 729–
788.
Vokotopoulou, Ioulia 1997: Ελληνική Τέχνη. Αργυρά και χάλκινα έργα τέχνης
στην αρχαιότητα, Athens.
Zahlhaas, Gisela 1971: Grossgriechische und römische Metalleimer, Munich.
Zasetskaya, Irina P. 2010: Drevnosti Prikuban’ya rimskoy epokhi (The Antiqui-
ties of the Kuban Region in Roman Times), in: ANK, vol. 3, 276–292.
Zhuravlev, Denis V. 2010: Krasnolakovaya keramika Yugo-Zapadnogo Kryma
I-III vv. n.e. (po materialam pozdneskifskikh nekropoley Bel’bekskoy
doliny) (Red-Lacquer Ceramics of the South-Western Crimea in the 1st–3rd
Centuries AD [Based on the Materials of the Late Scythian Necropolises
from the Bel’bek Valley]), Simferopol (MAIET Supplementum 9).
Zimi, Eleni – Sideris, Athanasios 2003: Xάλκινα σκεύη από το Γαλαξείδι:
πρώτη προσέγγιση, in: Το Γαλαξείδι από την Αρχαιότητα έως σήμερα
(Πρακτικά 1ου Επιστημονικού Συνεδρίου Γαλαξείδι 29–30 Σεπτεμβρίου
2000. Υπό την Αιγίδα του Δήμου Γαλαξειδίου), ed. by P. Themelis & P.
Stataki-Koumarou, Αθήνα, 35–60.
Zubar, Vitaliy М. 2002: Escho raz po povodu pozdneskifskoy gosudarstvennosti
(Once Again on the Late-Scythian State), MAIET 9, 501–518.
Abstract: Discussed are the possible evidences which may lead to the
interpretation of Greek, Macedonian and Roman bronze vessels found
in Scythia and Sarmatia as second-hand objects. The signs of repair on
the vessels may in rare cases, when this type of repair is unusual for the
local metalwork and typical for those of Greek/Roman origin, give hints
which suggest that the vessels found their way to the nomads in an already
repaired format. The most valuable information is provided by a complex
of 15 bronze vessels found near the village of Peschanoe, in the valley of the
River Supoy in the Dnieper basin; its owner was designated by W. Fuchs
(1978) as a trader of old metalware. The significant chronological disper-
sion of the vessels of this complex (ca. 150–170 years) makes us cautious
about the idea that this was an ordinary trade cargo. The analysis of the
vessels’ traces of repairs and of their missing fragments show that some of
the defects were adjusted during the manufacturing process, while others
lost fragments, or were repaired during their use. The latest vessels from
this find, dated no earlier than the middle/third quarter of the 4th century
BC, of Macedonian or Thracian origin, have no traces of missing fragments
or repairs. In general, mostly contemporary new vessels were received by
the nomads and quite often, in the course of durable usage, lost some of
their elements. One should also take into account that the nomads appreci-
ated the imported vessels, considering them as objects of prestige – their
fragments were used often as amulets, or were even given a secondary use,
changing their function.
333
Mikhail Treister
Zusammenfassung: Diskutiert werden mögliche Beweise, die zur Inter-

pretation griechischer, makedonischer und römischer Bronzegefäße in
Scythien und Sarmatien als gebrauchte Gegenstände führen können. Die
Anzeichen von Reparaturen an den Gefäßen können in seltenen Fällen
Hinweise geben (wenn diese Art von Reparatur für die örtlichen Metallar-
beiten ungewöhnlich und typisch für griechisch / römische Herkunft ist),
die darauf schließen lassen, dass die Gefäße in einem bereits reparierten
Zustand den Weg zu den Nomaden gefunden haben. Die wertvollsten
Informationen liefert ein Komplex von 15 Bronzegefäßen, die in der Nähe
des Dorfes Pesčanoe im Tal des Flusses Supoj im Dnjepr-Becken gefun-
den wurden. Sein Besitzer wurde von W. Fuchs (1978) als Händler für alte
Metallwaren bestimmt. Die signifikante zeitliche Verteilung der Gefäße
aus dem Komplex (ca. 150–170 Jahre) lässt uns Vorsicht üben, ob es sich
um eine gewöhnliche Handelsladung handelt. Die Analyse der Reparatur-
spuren der Gefäße und ihrer fehlenden Fragmente zeigt, dass einige der
Defekte während des Herstellungsprozesses korrigiert wurden, während
andere Fragmente verloren oder während ihrer Verwendung repariert
wurden. Die jüngsten aus diesem Fund stammenden Gefäße makedoni-
schen oder thrakischen Ursprungs, die nicht vor der Mitte / dem dritten
Viertel des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. datiert wurden, weisen keine Spuren
fehlender Fragmente oder Reparaturen auf. In der Regel empfingen die
Nomaden zumeist zeitgenössische neue Gefäße, die im Zuge der dauer-
haften Nutzung häufig einige ihrer Elemente verloren. Man sollte auch
berücksichtigen, dass die Nomaden die importierten Gefäße wertschätzten
und sie als Prestigeobjekte betrachteten – ihre Fragmente wurden oft als
Amulette verwendet oder wurden sogar sekundär verwendet und verän-
derten ihre Funktion
Resumé: Sont examinées les possibles preuves qui pourraient conduire à

l’interprétation des vases de bronze grecs, macédoniens et romains trouvés
en Scythie et Sarmatie comme objets d’occasion. Les signes de réparation
sur les vases peuvent dans de rares cas (quand ce type de réparation est
inhabituel pour le travail du métal local et typique pour ceux d’origine
grecque / romaine) donner des indices suggérant que les vases ont trouvé
leur chemin vers les nomades dans un état déjà réparé. Les informations
les plus précieuses sont fournies par un complexe de 15 vases en bronze
découverts près du village de Peschanoe, dans la vallée de la rivière Supoj,
dans le bassin du Dniepr. Son propriétaire a été considéré par W. Fuchs
(1978) comme un négociant en vieux articles de métal. La dispersion chro-
nologique importante des vases du complexe (environ 150 à 170 ans) nous
rend prudents quant à l’idée qu’il s’agissait d’une cargaison commerciale
ordinaire. L’analyse des traces de réparation des vases et de leurs frag-
ments manquants montre que certains des défauts ont été corrigés au cours
du processus de fabrication, tandis que d’autres ont perdu des fragments
ou ont été réparés au cours de leur utilisation. Les derniers vases de cette
334
découverte, d’origine macédonienne ou thrace, datant au plus tôt du milieu

/ troisième quart du IVe s. av. J.-C., ne portent aucune trace de fragments
manquants ou de réparations. En général, les nomades ont généralement
reçu de nouveaux vases contemporains, qui ont souvent perdu certains de
leurs éléments au cours d’un usage durable. Il faut également prendre en
compte le fait que les nomades appréciaient les vases importés, les considé-
rant comme des objets de prestige – leurs fragments étaient souvent utilisés
comme amulettes, ou avaient même une utilisation secondaire, changeant
leur fonction.
335
Mikhail Treister
Fig. 1. Bronze krater from the Central catacomb of the Great Ryzhanovka Burial-mound.
Kiev, Archaeological museum of the Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of
Sciences of Ukraine, inv.-no. 2903/8319. 1, 3–4 – photographs, M. Treister, 2007; 2 – drawing,
S. Skoryi.
336
Fig. 2. Bronze cup from Gaymanova Mogila. Kiev, State Museum of Historical
Treasures, inv.-no. AZS–2785. Photographs, M. Treister, 2004.
337
Mikhail Treister
Fig. 3. 1 – Map. Distribution of Roman bronze vessels with traces of repairs attested in
Asian Sarmatia. 2 – chart and diagram, distribution of the Eggers 136–147 types casseroles,
with traces of repairs and with missing fragments; 3 – chart and diagram, distribution of
the Eggers 94–103 types basins, with traces of repairs and missing fragments; 4 – chart
and diagram, distribution of the Eggers 154–155 types pateras, and of the Eggers 160 type
ladles/strainers with traces of repairs and missing fragments.
338
Fig. 4. Roman bronze vessels with missing fragments from Sarmatia. 1,5 – Berdiya. Burial-
mound no. 3/1991. Burial no. 1. Volgograd, Regional Local Lore Museum, inv.-no. 28007/22
(basin), 20 (jug); 2,4 – Valovyi-I. Burial-mound no. 9/1987. Burial no. 1. Azov, Historical-
archaeological and paleontological museum-reserve, inv.-no. 25309/239 (amphora), 240
(oinochoe); 3 – Kudinov. Burial-mound no. 13/1961. Burial no. 1. Rostov-on-Don, Regional
Local Lore Museum, inv.-no. 2170/3; 6 – Kobyakovo. Burial-mound no. 3/1983. Burial no. 1.
Tanais, Archaeological Museum-reserve, inv.-no. 394. АО 25/8. Photographs, M. Treister, 2015.
339
Mikhail Treister
Fig. 5. Roman bronze vessels with patches. 1–4 – Vysochino-V. Burial-mound no. 9/1983.
Ritual ground. Azov, Historical-archaeological and paleontological museum-reserve,
inv.-no. 20200/136; 5–8 – Magnitnyi. Burial-mound no. 21/2010. Burial no. 1. Chelyabinsk,
South-Urals State University, inv.-no. НТУ-ГИК 93. Photographs, M. Treister, 2015.
340
Fig. 6. Bronze cauldron. Magnitnyi. Burial-mound 3/1997. Burial no. 1. Chelyabinsk, The
State Museum of the South Ural History, inv.-no. Оф 6371/35. Photographs, M. Treister,
2015.
341
Mikhail Treister
Fig. 7. Roman bronze vessels with patches. 1–3 –Bol’shaya Dmitrievka. Burial-mound
96/1887. Saratov, Regional Local Lore Museum. inv. no. 47795; 4–7 – Sosnovka. Chance find,
1972. Volgograd, Regional Local Lore Museum, inv.-no. 8081/4. 1, 4–5, 7 – photographs, M.
Treister, 2015; 2–3, 6 – drawing, N. Bespalaya, 2015.
342
Fig. 8. Bronze vessels from the Peschanoe Treasure. Kiev, National Museum of History of
Ukraine. 1–3 – stamnos, inv.-no. Б41–436; 4 – amphora, inv.-no. Б41–428. Photographs, M.
Treister, 2008.
343
Mikhail Treister
Fig. 9. Bronze hydria from the Peschanoe Treasure. Kiev, National Museum of History
of Ukraine, inv.-no. Б41–432. 1–3 – photographs, M. Treister, 2008; 4–5 – courtesy of the
National Museum of History of Ukraine, Kiev.
344
Fig. 10. Latest bronze vessels from the Treasure of Peschanoe. Kiev, National Museum of
History of Ukraine. 1–3 – stamnoid situla, inv.-no. Б41–437; 4 – krater from Peschanoe,
inv. no. Б41–441. Photos: 1–3 – M. Treister, 2008; 4 – courtesy of the National Museum of
History of Ukraine, Kiev.
345

Treister Advances 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treister Advances 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treister Advances 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADVANCES IN ANCIENT BLACK SEA STUDIES:

HISTORIOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND RELIGION

Mega Publishing House

DTP and cover:

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro

Marina Yu. Vakhtina, Maya T. Kashuba

Amiran Kakhidze, Emzar Kakhidze

Jean Coert, Tassilo Schmitt

Ștefan Honcu, Lucian Munteanu

Jorge Tello Benedicto

Livia Buzoianu, Maria Bărbulescu (†)

Marta Oller Guzmán

T he volume ‘Advances in Ancient Black Sea Studies’ is in line

the ‘funerary’ costume, ethnicity and multicultural societies. Marina Yu.

larger collections, into which external coins can be integrated. Natalia V.

Mediterranean Greek world: 1) ceramic altars with decorative registers on

Such meetings helped to establish a permanent dialogue within a research

June 2019 The editors

T he possibility that Greek or Roman bronze vessels or terra sigil-

handles, or handle attachments as well as foot-rings – such as, for exam-

A considerable part of the Roman vessels had already missing frag-

or vertical (Б41–435) handle and both stand-rings. The luterion Б 41–44058

beak which are to be found: 1) on a cheek-piece, supposedly an element

Sea centres. In general, the analysis of Greek, Macedonian, Roman bronze

Ancient Population Between Don and Kagal‘nik. The Kurgan Necropolis

Radnóti, Aladár 1938: Die römischen Bronzegefässe von Pannonien, Budapest

oblasti. К 100-letiyu Volgogradskogo oblastnogo kraeved­cheskogo muzeya

Roma 2008. International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Meetings Be-

Zusammenfassung: Diskutiert werden mögliche Beweise, die zur Inter-

Resumé: Sont examinées les possibles preuves qui pourraient conduire à

découverte, d’origine macédonienne ou thrace, datant au plus tôt du milieu

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

oblasti. К 100-letiyu Volgogradskogo oblastnogo kraevedcheskogo muzeya