Greek colonial cities in Crimea. Where to find ancient Greece in Crimea Ancient cities and Greek colonies in Crimea

The first colonies of the Hellenes (as the ancient Greeks called themselves) were founded in Crimea as a result of the Great Greek Colonization - the settlement of the inhabitants of mainland Greece in the basins of the Mediterranean and Black Seas.

Since the middle of the 8th century BC, on the coasts of the Black, Marmara and Mediterranean seas, the Greeks have been looking for new lands for themselves, who were forced to look for a better life by the political struggle in the city-states (city-states), the lack of arable land and deposits. Visiting the northern shores of the Black Sea, the Hellenes called it the “Inhospitable Sea”; it is quite possible that they were frightened by the hostility of the Scythians, perhaps by the “cold” climate. The first contacts of the Hellenic Greeks with the local population occurred in the 7th century BC. It was at this time that a painted Rhodian vase of remarkable work was made, which was discovered in a Scythian burial ground near Kerch. The Ionian tribes, experienced sailors, were the first to discover a country with fertile soil, abundant vegetation, fish, game, and enormous opportunities for trade with local “barbarians.” They had good ships: 26 meters long, 12 meters wide. Each ship could accommodate 10,000 amphorae in which food was transported (one amphora = 20 liters).

It cannot be said that the Greek colonists “went into the unknown.” Long before the start of colonization, their ships visited the northern shores of the Black Sea, which they called Pont Aksinsky, that is, the “Inhospitable Sea.” Probably, the Hellenes were frightened by the relatively cold climate and the hostility of the local inhabitants - the Tauri and Scythians. However, after a few colonies were founded here, and lively trade began with the local residents, the sea was renamed Pont Euxine, that is, the “Hospitable Sea.”

The first Greek settlers in Crimea were residents of the largest Greek city - the state of Miletus. Their attention was attracted by the areas along the shores of the Kerch Strait. Here, on the site of modern Kerch, the Milesians founded a city called Panticapaeum. According to legend, the Scythian king ceded the land for the founding of the city to the Greeks. Probably, the Scythians were interested in developing trade with the Greeks, and therefore did not interfere with the latter organizing colonies.

During the 6th century BC, the Greek cities of Tiritaka (south of Kerch near the village of Arshintsevo, on the shores of the Kerch Bay), Kitey (on the Kerch Peninsula, 40 kilometers south of Kerch), Kimmerik (on the southern shore of the Kerch Gulf) appeared on the Kerch Peninsula peninsula, on the western slope of Mount Onuk), Mirmekiy (on the Kerch Peninsula, 4 kilometers from Kerch) and others, which later formed the Bosporan state.

A number of cities were founded on the opposite shore of the Kerch Strait (Bosporus). From the point of view of the ancients, this strait separated Europe and Asia, therefore the lands on its eastern shore were called the “Asian Bosporus”. The largest city in the Asian Bosporus was Phanagoria, named after the oikist (leader of the settlers) Phanagoras.

In addition, the Milesians founded more than 70 settlements on the banks of the Euxine Pontus. Emporia - Greek trading posts - began to appear on the shores of the Black Sea in the 7th century BC, the first of which was Borysphenida at the entrance to the Dnieper estuary on the island of Berezan.

Then, in the first half of the 6th century BC, Olbia appeared at the mouth of the Southern Bug (Gipanis), at the mouth of the Dniester - Tiras, and on the Kerch Peninsula - Panticapaeum (on the site of modern Kerch) and further towards Meganom the city of Feodosia (on the shore of the Gulf of Feodosia) . By the way, this is the only city in Crimea that has retained its name from antiquity to the present day.

Residents of the Bosporan cities soon launched the so-called " secondary colonization" - now they themselves founded numerous rural settlements along the shores of the Bosporus Strait.

At the end of the 6th century BC, Kerkinitida appeared in western Crimea, on the site of modern Evpatoria.

In the southwest, on the Heraclean Peninsula, the inhabitants of Heraclea Pontus (a city on the southern shore of the Black Sea) and Delos (a city on the island of the same name in the Aegean Sea) founded Tauric Chersonesus in the area of ​​modern Sevastopol. The city was built on the site of an already existing settlement and among all the inhabitants of the city - Tauri, Scythians and Dorian Greeks, at first there was even equality, but later the titular Greek nation emerged.

By the end of the 5th century BC, the Greek colonization of Crimea and the shores of the Black Sea was completed. Greek settlements appeared where there was the possibility of regular trade with the local population, which ensured the sale of Attic goods.

From about the 5th century BC, Scythian-Greek connections began to be established and rapidly developed. There were also raids and military campaigns of the Scythians on the Greek Black Sea cities. The Scythians attacked the city of Myrmekiy at the beginning of the 5th century BC. During archaeological excavations it was discovered that some of the settlements that were located near the Greek colonies during this period were destroyed in fires. Perhaps that is why the Greeks began to strengthen their policies by erecting defensive structures. Scythian attacks may have been one of the reasons why the independent Greek Black Sea cities united in a military alliance around 480 BC...

In the first half of the 5th century BC, Panticapaeum united around itself the Greek city-colonies located on both banks of the Cimmerian Bosporus - Kerch Strait. The Greek city-states, who understood the need for unification for self-preservation and the implementation of their economic interests, formed the Bosporan kingdom.

The Bosporan kingdom occupied the entire Kerch Peninsula and Taman to the Sea of ​​Azov and Kuban. (The largest cities were on the Kerch Peninsula of Crimea - the capital Panticapaeum (Kerch), Mirlikiy, Tiritaka, Nymphaeum, Kitey, Cimmerik, Feodosia, and on the Taman Peninsula - Phanagoria, Kepy, Hermonassa, Gorgypia.)

During its heyday as the capital of the Bosporus Kingdom, Panticapaeum occupied an area of ​​about 100 hectares. The city had a convenient harbor, was surrounded by a defensive wall already in the 6th century BC, and was located on the slopes of Mount Mithridates (modern name). At the top of the mountain there was an acropolis with temples and public buildings.

In Panticapaeum there were large shipyards that also repaired ships. The Bosporan kingdom had a navy consisting of narrow and long fast-moving trireme ships, which had three rows of oars on each side and a powerful and durable ram at the bow.

Triremes were usually 36 meters long, 6 meters wide, and the draft depth was about a meter. The crew of such a ship consisted of 200 people - oarsmen, sailors and a small detachment of marines. There were almost no boarding battles then; triremes rammed enemy ships at full speed and sank them. The trireme ram consisted of two or three sharp sword-shaped tips. The ships reached speeds of up to five knots, and with a sail - up to eight knots - approximately 15 kilometers per hour.

The main income came from trade with Greece and other Attic states. The Athenian state received half of the bread it needed - one million pounds, timber, furs, leather - from the Bosporan kingdom. In the 1st - 2nd centuries AD Panticapaeum remained a major craft and trade center, but gradually the city fell into decay.

In the 3rd century AD, the kingdom became the target of attacks by barbarian tribes (Goths, Gelurs, Borans and others). The final blow to the kingdom was dealt by the invasion of the Huns, who destroyed the Bosporan cities and destroyed the Bosporan state at the end of the 4th century.

The most famous political figure of ancient Crimea was the Pontic king Mithridates VI Eupator (120 - 63 BC). The power of his state was such that it posed a threat even to the all-powerful Roman Empire. Having inherited a small kingdom from his father (located on the southern shore of the Black Sea), he expanded it through conquests and temporarily weakened Roman rule in the eastern provinces of the empire.

In 107 BC, the Bosporan king Perisad renounced power in favor of Mithridates. Having gained power over the Bosporan state, the Pontic king further strengthened his power. Chersonesus and the Bosporan kingdom gave him bread and money, and the northeastern barbarians, including the Scythians, replenished his army.

Having ultimately been defeated in the wars with Rome, Mithridates fled to Panticapaeum. Here he prepared for a new campaign against the Romans. But the blockade of the cities of Taurica by the Romans had an unfavorable effect on their position. Uprisings began. The king’s son, Pharnaces, decided to take advantage of this to take the much-coveted throne.

In 63 BC, Mithridates, abandoned by everyone in his Panticapaeum palace, after unsuccessful attempts to poison himself, ordered a Celt slave to stab himself with a sword. In memory of this event, Mount Mithridates, dominating Kerch, received its name.

15 years after the death of his father, Pharnaces, who became king in the Bosporus, undertook a successful trip to the Caucasus to Colchis and further to Cappadocia. He decided to restore the former kingdom of his father and in 49 BC he went to Asia Minor to regain the Pontic throne.

Pharnaces II achieved significant success, but on August 2, 47 BC, in the battle of the city of Zela, the army of the Pontic king was defeated by the Roman legions of Julius Caesar, who wrote his famous words in a report to the Senate of Rome: “Veni, vidi, vici” - “I came, I saw” , won". Pharnaces again submitted to Rome and was sent back to his Crimean lands, where in an internecine struggle he was killed by the local leader Asander.

Greek colonization on the shores of the Black Sea proceeded, as mentioned above, in two ways. After repeated, but random expeditions of individual brave sailors, who first became acquainted with the conditions of navigation on the Black Sea and its harbors (memories of these expeditions, clothed in the form of myth by Greek creative imagination, were preserved in the epic of the Argonauts and in the part of the Odyssey dependent on this epic) , the systematic exploitation of the Pontus Euxine, as the Greeks called the Black Sea, begins by Greek, mainly Asia Minor, navigators. In the 8th century the first trading posts and fishing stations appear on the southern coast; starting from the 7th century, when Persia begins to grow stronger, when it turns into a world power and gives the Greek cities the opportunity to develop extensive activities, these trading posts and stations grow into real cities with ever stronger and growing trade (Sinop, Amis, Trebizond, later Dorian Heraclea). In parallel with this, from the 7th century, i.e., from the time of the growth and strengthening of the Scythian power, the same process begins on the northern shore, and here, too, fishing stations and trading posts initially appeared, turning into real cities only from the 6th century. BC
Greek navigators on the northern shore of the Black Sea chose mainly the mouths of large southern Russian rivers, which in their estuaries provided faithful shelter for Greek ships and at the same time were extremely rich in large and expensive river fish. The same fish wealth was found in abundance on the shores of the Kerch Strait and on the coast of the Sea of ​​Azov, where there were a number of harbors convenient for Greek sailors. The main colonizing activities of the Greeks of Asia Minor were concentrated in these two areas.
In the western part, Tiras arose at the mouth of the Dniester and Olviy at the Bug and Dnieper estuaries, in the eastern part, where, along with Miletus, the colonizer of the western part of the northern coast of the Black Sea, Theos, Mytilene and Klazomenae worked energetically, increasingly rich settlements appeared - Phanagoria , Hermonassa, Sindh port, etc. on the eastern shore of the Kerch Strait, Feodosia, Nymphaeum and Panticapaeum, not to mention smaller cities, on the western. All these cities, in turn, populated with their trading posts the nearest points convenient for fishing and trade. For example, the city of Tanais, which arose at the mouth of the Don, is considered a colony of Panticapaeum.
All this enormous colonial work in the west and east was done in a relatively short period of time, during the era of magnificent prosperity of the Asia Minor coast - in the 7th and, especially, in the 6th century. BC
All these colonies did not form one whole. The entire past of the northern coast of the Black Sea and the geographical conditions of its individual parts sharply divided these colonies into two groups: western and eastern.
In the West, the leading role naturally belonged to the Milesian colony of Olbia, which was conveniently located in the Bug Estuary and thereby concentrated in its harbor all the products that were rafted to the sea along the Dnieper and the Bug. From it, as from a natural center, cultural Greek influences and works of Greek workshops moved along both named rivers, mainly along the Dnieper, where Greek influence met with the old prehistoric culture, which was discussed above.
The situation on the shores of the Kerch Strait was more complicated. The old culture here was concentrated mainly along the course of the Kuban, the delta of which - the Taman Peninsula (originally an island or, rather, a multi-island - Polynesia) would naturally play the role of Olbia in the west. But the Kuban delta is very complex, changeable and unsuitable for regular navigation; The sea coast of the Taman Peninsula does not have good harbors and therefore cannot serve as a center for all trade of the Sea of ​​​​Azov and the rivers flowing into it.
The European shore of the Kerch Strait was more convenient for navigation. Ancient Panticapaeum (now Kerch), both in ancient times and now, was a natural center for stopping and transshipping goods moving from the Sea of ​​Azov further along the Black Sea. The port of Feodosia, on the other hand, was the best access to the sea for the works of the northern and northeastern part of the steppe Crimea.
It is natural, therefore, that the dispute for primacy should have been between Taman Phanagoria, the best and most convenient port of the Kuban delta, Panticapaeum and Feodosia. It was predetermined in favor of Panticapaeum by the fact that. The main importance for trade with Greece was not so much the products of the Crimea and Kuban with Taman, but the Don and Azov fish, cattle products of the Don steppes and those products of the Urals, Siberia and Turkestan, as well as central Russia, which went along the large eastern caravan route and in the estuaries The Don River came into contact with the Mediterranean waterway for the first time. Tanais, which arose naturally at the mouth of the Don, the final point of this route, could not play a decisive and independent role. This role naturally belonged to the one who would own the Kerch Strait and have the opportunity to release or not release goods moving from the Sea of ​​Azov into the wide waters of the Black Sea.
Of the cities near the Kerch Strait, the only one that combined all the advantages for owning the Kerch Strait was Panticapaeum. Its position at the narrowest point of the strait, its calm wide roadstead, the city acropolis fortified by nature extended into the sea (now the so-called Mount Mithridates), and the comparative wealth of fresh water did not allow anyone to enter into successful competition with it.
A third smaller and less important group of Greek cities in southern Russia were the Greek settlements on the southern and southwestern coast of the Crimea. The mountainous southern coast of Crimea does not have convenient natural ports, and neither does the steppe western coast of Crimea. But the places near the Sevastopol Bay are extremely convenient for navigation, both the Sevastopol roadstead itself and the neighboring smaller and less protected bays, which are, however, very suitable for sailing and rowing ships. The Greeks could not not use these harbors. During the long and dangerous voyage along the coast of Crimea, Greek ships needed a place for a long and quiet anchorage. This is how Chersonesus arose, initially, probably, as an Ionian maritime station.
We must, however, take into account that this station could and should have acquired independent significance. First of all, all the products of the mountainous Crimea and the valleys associated with it were naturally sent here. Settlements along the western steppe coast of Crimea were naturally drawn to Chersonesus, primarily Kerkinitida, located near present-day Evpatoria. Finally, and most importantly, Sevastopol and Crimea have always been connected with the opposite southern shore of the Black Sea, with its network of flourishing Greek colonies. Having a harbor in Crimea was extremely important for these colonies, since this way they could get the products they needed from the steppe Crimea, mainly bread, which they themselves were never particularly rich in.
It is therefore clear that one of the Greek colonies on the southern coast of the Black Sea - the Dorian Heraclea, at the moment of its especially magnificent prosperity, took possession of the Ionian site in the Crimea and sent its colony there, thereby turning the previously insignificant Chersonesus into a large and relatively prosperous city, the fate of which is closely connected with the fate of the rest of the Greek world on the northern Black Sea coast.
Of the three complexes of Greek settlements outlined above, the group of Greek cities near the Kerch Strait, which the Greeks called the Cimmerian Bosporus, a group that we will call Bosporus and which is under This name was also known to the Greeks. Tiras and Olbia have always been and remained isolated advanced posts of the Greek world, surrounded on all sides by a sea of ​​tribes alien to them, numerous and constantly fed from outside by a new influx of forces. The Greek world was unable to create a strong, isolated Hellenized Greek power here. True, Olbia had a powerful cultural influence on the population closest to it. The lower reaches of the Dnieper and Bug were covered with a number of small agricultural and trading fortified settlements inhabited by half-Greek inhabitants. The areas closest to Olbia began intensive farming. Olbia's trade went far to the north. Not to mention the fact that Greek products saturated the flourishing middle Dnieper and Poltava regions, the influence of these products affects all the way to the distant Kama region and, perhaps, even Western Siberia and Altai.
But its significance and activities always depended entirely on its neighbors. As long as there was a strong Scythian kingdom, Olbia, dependent on it, could freely develop, enriching both itself and the Scythians. Its especially brilliant period was the 6th century. BC, when Olbia directly transferred, under the protection of the Scythians, the products of the north to their Asia Minor homeland, and in the 4th century. BC, when she freed herself from the tutelage and trade oppression of the Athenian maritime power and again entered into contact with her mother, the revived Miletus. The Scythian kingdom at this time was still strong enough to provide Olbia with relative calm and peace.
The situation became more difficult in the 3rd century, when the collapsing Scythian state demanded more and more sacrifices from Olbia, unable to protect it from Western and Eastern aliens who were destroying the Scythian state: Thracians, Celts, Sarmatians. This is clearly evidenced by the large Olbian inscription in honor of Protogen, a prominent Olbian citizen, a wealthy merchant, armature and exporter, like all prominent citizens of Olbia of that time, who more than once rescued Olbia from difficult situations associated with the demands of its overlord and strays approaching the walls of Olbia predators. He also helped Olbia in its defense, constructing towers and parts of a defensive wall at his own expense, and also helped her out of food difficulties associated with the constant devastation of the areas that fed Olbia with grain.
The situation was different for the Greek colonies on the shores of the Kerch Strait. Let me remind you, first of all, that they found here not a barbarian, but a relatively cultured population, which since the 2nd millennium had been under the strongest cultural influence of the East. The Cimmerians layered on top of this population. From the merger of these two elements, the tribes of the Sinds, Maeotians, Sauromatians, Satarchaeans, and, in all likelihood, the Taurians, inhabiting the mountainous part of the Crimea, were created, and also, in all likelihood, the opposite coast of the Crimea, where they were driven out by the Scythians, who owned steppe Crimea, etc.
These tribes, although, as we have seen, were subject to the Scythians, nevertheless enjoyed comparative independence in the Scythian state, which increasingly increased as the focus of the Scythians moved more and more to the west and their main efforts were concentrated on the fight against the Thracians Balkan Peninsula.
They have long had a strong sedentary lifestyle, were in constant trade relations with their southern and eastern neighbors and lived a relatively developed economic life as farmers, cattle breeders and fishermen.
The Greek colonies immediately found in them ready customers for their goods and intermediaries in relations with the south and east. In them they could easily find support in defending their independence against the Scythians. The floodplains and swamps of Taman and the Sea of ​​Azov were reliable protection for the rich Kuban delta.
Naturally, the time of Taman’s political rise was also a time of great prosperity for the Greek colonies on the shores of the Kerch Strait and their intense influence on neighboring tribes. The necropolis of Panticapaeum, its first abundant mints of silver coins show that the end of the 6th and beginning of the 5th century BC. were an era of high growth of this city, its greater economic and cultural prosperity. On the site of an old non-Greek settlement, perhaps associated with the coast of the Caucasus and especially with Colchis (the name Panticapaeum is not Greek; Greek, probably a very ancient legend connects its origin with the ancient dynasty of Colchis kings), a real Greek city arises and a number of others around it smaller settlements. We see the same in Taman, where finds of ancient Ionian Greek dishes are not uncommon and the oldest burials in the necropolises of individual cities are burials of the 6th and early 5th centuries.
The decisive moment in the history of the Bosporan Greek colonies and especially Panticapaeum was the victory of Athens over the Persians and the great interest of Athens in the north that appeared at that time. the Mediterranean coast. sea, to Thrace and, especially, to the Black Sea coast. The main incentive was to provide its ever-growing and developing industry with raw materials and its ever-increasing population with bread, the production of which, as we have seen, was native both in the valley of the Dnieper and Bug, and along the Kuban, and naturally took over in the south of Russia, as demand grew , all large spaces.
Athens' attraction to new places along the Black Sea coast is natural and understandable. At the largest grain market in Hellas - in Italy and Sicily - Athens faced serious competition from the Dorians in general and Sparta in particular and was by no means the masters of this market. Egypt, rich in grain, was in the hands of the Persians and could not be wrested from them by Athens even after the failure of the Persian campaigns against Greece. There remained the north, communication with which was a monopoly of the Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor, whose trade routes and business connections were now claimed, after the Persian wars, by Athens, which had liberated but also ruined them.
The creation of great sea power by Athens, the seizure of the straits and important trading points on the Thracian coast put the entire Black Sea region - both southern and northern - in complete and direct dependence on Athens and allowed Athens, without resistance from anyone, to do a series of steps to strengthen and strengthen this dependence.
Among these decisive steps, the most serious was the occupation of Athens and the settlement of a number of important points on the southern coast of the Black Sea with its armed colonists. They did the same in the north.
Probably not having the opportunity to occupy the strong Panticapaeum, which was under the protection of the Scythians, they captured the neighboring Nymphaeum, which had an excellent harbor and was connected with a number of neighboring Scythian and non-Scythian tribes of the Crimea. They turned this minor city into a large trading harbor and an important center of exchange, thereby creating strong competition for Panticapaeum. His complete trading independence is evidenced by his excellent, artistic silver, which he minted at this time.
The great cultural flourishing of Nymphaeum at this time, its wide trade connections and close relations with neighboring tribes is evidenced by the rich and extensive necropolis of the city, the richest burials of which date back to the 5th century. BC It is characteristic that, along with the purely Greek burials of the Nymphaean necropolis, we have a number of mounds with non-Greek or semi-Greek burials, that is, with the burials of the leaders of neighboring tribes who were attracted to the Nymphaeum by its cultural influence and constant trade ties. The composition of the items from the richest Nymphaean burials is very typical. Along with things imported from Athens, we also find a number of products from other workshops, for example, excellent Samian bronzes, wonderful works of famous Samian foundries. VI and V centuries. BC
It is interesting to note that, in addition to Nymphaeum, Athens probably created other settlements on the Crimean coast of the Kerch Strait. One of them, as the name shows, could be the city or village of Atheneon - a competitor of the Ionian Theodosius, just as Nymphaeum was a competitor of Panticapaeum.
Athens also established a strong foothold in Taman in the land of the most cultured of the Taman tribes - the Sinds. And here they created their urban center - Stratocleia, probably not a new foundation, but the renaming and settlement of one of the old settlements of Taman by their colonists. To them, perhaps, the Sinds owe their state unification and the Greek physiognomy that this unification assumed, if this did not happen even earlier as a result of the settlement of the Taman coast by Greek colonies. This is evidenced by the unusually fine artistic coinage of silver of the new state with a horse's head on one side, the name of the tribe and the figure of an Athenian owl on the reverse.
The strong cultural influence of the Greeks on the local tribes, which had already begun earlier (I note, for example, one local burial containing a beautiful Rhodian vase of the early 6th century BC) was felt with particular vividness at this time. In the group of the so-called Seven Brothers Kurgans in the Kuban delta near the station. Krymskaya we find several burials of the 5th century. BC, the inventory of which is strikingly similar to the inventory of the just mentioned Nymphaean mounds. And here, next to things of undoubted Athenian origin, we find excellent works of Asia Minor workshops.
We do not know what the relations between Athens and Panticapaeum were at this time. The flourishing that we find in Nymphea and in the land of the Sinds in the 5th century. BC, we do not observe it in Panticapaeum. There are no traces of Panticapaeum's dependence on Athens. It is characteristic, however, that just at this time a major political revolution took place in Panticapaeum. The power, which until this time was in the hands of several leading families, perhaps the descendants of the ancient founders of the colonies - the leaders (Anacts) of the migrating Milesians, whom our legend calls, probably by the invented name of Archeanactids (descendants of the ancient Anacts), now falls into the hands of one tyrant, bearing the Thracian name Spartok (in 438 - 7 BC) · The Thracian name Spartok does not necessarily imply that we are dealing with a Thracian - a native of the Balkan Peninsula, with the commander of a mercenary Thracian squad, as is usually assumed. I have already indicated how strong the Thracian elements were in the ancient population of the Bosporus, Taman and Azov region. One can therefore think that Spartok belonged to a local rich Greek family that became part of the sovereign families of Panticapaeum. With this assumption, it is clear why Spartok and his descendants managed to firmly establish their power in Panticapaeum, uniting both the Greeks and the local native population around it.
The emergence of a strong unified power in Panticapaeum in the hands of an energetic and talented holder was a decisive moment in the history of the eastern Greek Black Sea colonies. It created here a serious and decisive force, which, under favorable circumstances, could become a natural center for uniting around it all the Greeks of the Bosporus and Azov region, without which the Greeks here, as in Olbia, would inevitably have been only a tool in the hands of the dominant Scythian tribe.
It is unlikely that the Bosporan tyranny arose with the consent and assistance of Athens; rather, it was created in opposition to their influence. One must think that its appearance was one of those reasons that caused, three years after its creation, the sending by Athens in 435 - 4 BC. a large naval expedition under the command of Pericles to the Black Sea. This armed demonstration had the ultimate goal of impressing both the Black Sea Hellenes and the Scythians, showing them the strength of Athens and forcing them to accept unquestioningly the terms of the relationship dictated by Athens.
One of the objects of the Athenian naval demonstration was, undoubtedly, Panticapaeum, whose role in the maritime trade of the Black Sea could not but be clear to Athens and whose strengthening, contrary to the wishes of Athens, a strengthening that Athens could hardly prevent without further exertion of forces, was formidable for them danger. As an ally and client, Panticapaeum could, however, be an excellent support for Athenian trade policy, a support that its necessarily weak colonies at Nymphaeum and Stratocleia could not give Athens. Let us remember that Athens faced serious complications in Greece and that the Bosporus was located hundreds of miles from the base of Athenian power.
Compensation for the Bosporus for this support of the trade interests of Athens was naturally the patronage of Athens for the newly born Panticapaean tyranny, which still felt far from durable (a number of exiles from Panticakaeum were sitting nearby in Feodosia and were ready to return at the first opportunity), as well as assistance, in case a possible, although unlikely, dramatic clash with the Scythians. These could have been, and probably were, the conditions set by Athens to Spartok during Pericles' expedition to the Black Sea.
Spartok could not help but agree to these conditions, and as a result, those permanent and strong relations began between Athens and the Bosporan tyranny, which determined the subsequent fate of the Greek colony on the shores of the Bosporus. Panticapaeum temporarily became a client and trading agent of Athens in the Black Sea, he had to guarantee Athens the unlimited right to export grain from Panticapaeum and was forced to agree to limit his right to free trade in grain: without the permission of Athens, Panticapaeum could not release a single grain of Black Sea bread to other ports of Greece .
But, thanks to the support of Athens, the Spartok dynasty stayed in the Bosporus and began a series of consistent actions to consolidate its power and develop its economic and political power. The main tasks of the Bosporus state, consistently carried out by Spartok’s successor Satyr I (433/2 - 389/8 BC), and the latter’s son Leukon I (389/8 - 349/8 BC), and children and Leukon's successors, Spartok II (349/8 - 344/3 BC), and Perisad I (349/8 - 310/9 BC), were: strengthening their power on the European and Asian shores of the Kerch Strait, further strengthening of its independence in relation to the Scythians and gradual emancipation from pressure from Athens, while maintaining, however, close and friendly relations with this powerful power, which, despite military failures in the fight against Sparta and the failure of its great power policy, continued to be the decisive naval force in the Aegean Sea.
The first task that faced Spartok's successor Satyr was to strengthen all trade and, mainly, the grain trade in the hands of the Bosporus. The question was not so much about the grain of Taman and Panticapaeum’s own territory, but rather about the grain of the northern steppe Crimea, the natural export harbor for which was Feodosia. This grain was claimed not only by Athens and its counterparty Panticapaeum; it was also needed, as we have seen, by the cities of the southern coast of the Black Sea, mainly by the ever-growing Heraclea, which had already become a strong foothold in Chersonesos and was trying to gain primacy in Theodosius. The result of this rivalry was the war between Bosporus and Heraclea over Theodosius, which began under Satyr and ended by Leukon with the annexation of Theodosius to the Bosporan state.
At the same time, Satyrus, and then Leukon, managed, taking advantage of the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, to take their relations with Athens in a new direction. By bribery, Satyr forced the Athenian fortified colony in Nymphaeum to be surrendered to him, and then he and Leucon managed to insist on the right of free trade in grain from the Bosporus not only with Athens, but also with other Greek cities, guaranteeing, however, Athens special and very valuable privileges.
It is more difficult to understand the relationship of the Bosporan dynasts to the cities and peoples of Taman. It is very likely that the main trading center of Taman, Phanagoria, was not part of the Bosporan state. But it was surrounded by a number of Taman tribes subject to the Bosporus and, of course, was not completely independent. It is not for nothing that we had abundant independent minting of coins in Phanagoria in the 4th - 3rd centuries. BC We do not find and the main monetary unit in Taman is Panticapaean gold, silver and copper.
The question of the relationship of the Bosporus to the local tribes that inhabited Taman is very difficult. The Sinds, as we have seen, were already strongly Hellenized during the reign of Athens and had a certain independence. A number of individual indications suggest that from ancient times they were drawn to the same urban center with the Greek and local population (first the Sind port, then Gorgippia - now Anapa) and were under the control of their local dynasts, the same half-Thracians, half-Greeks as the Bosporan tyrants , maybe even related to these latter. Under Leukon, the Sinds formed part of his power, that is, they recognized him as their king, along with other neighboring tribes, the circle of which was expanding under Leukon's successors. Whether this meant that these tribes were ruled from Panticapaeum, or whether one must think that the Bosporan dynast was their overlord, while each individual tribe was headed by its own local rulers, is quite clear. The second, however, is more likely. A number of indications tell us that the Sinds, in parallel with the Bosporan rulers, had their own semi-Greek dynasty.
We have even less data to understand the attitude of the Scythians towards the emerging power, which was very unpleasant for them. The Scythians, however, undoubtedly did not abandon their claims to suzerainty over Panticapaeum. This can be confirmed by evidence of the fierce struggle of Perisada I against them.
More than a century passed from the founding of tyranny in the Bosporus to the end of the reign of Perisad I. The rule of the Spartokid dynasty over the Bosporus bore fruit. The Bosporus turned into a strong and fairly stable power that developed huge trade with Greece, mainly with Athens. The main export item was bread, or at least that is what we hear about most. But the products of the Sea of ​​Azov were also of no small importance - its fish, livestock and slaves from the Don region, furs and goods coming from the far East to the mouth of the Don, where, as mentioned above, a large trading settlement arose - Tanais, also dependent on the Bosporus .
The economic growth and material prosperity of the Bosporus were somewhat weakened only by the confused political relations that reigned in Hellas after the fall of the hegemony of Athens: constant wars that undermined maritime trade and gradually turned into an anarchic and disorderly clash between the leading forces of Hellas, and internal confusion that reigned in individual Hellenic states and the corrupting influence on Greek life in Persia with its powerful material resources.
At the end of this period, however, the situation changes. The growth of Macedonia and Alexander's conquests create the great world of Hellenism. The war of all against all temporarily ceases, and relative order comes. But for the grain trade of Panticapaeum, this plus is covered by the associated minus: Egypt, which has opened up to world trade, and the grain-rich areas in Asia are its competitors and very strong competitors. It must, however, be taken into account that if supply increased, then demand also increased, thanks to the growth and development of urban life throughout the Hellenistic world.
In any case, the 4th century. BC is a blessed time for Hellenism on the Black Sea. Safety at sea, supported by a strong Bosporan fleet, security of sales, and freedom of trade create a high rise in material security for all Greek cities in southern Russia, not only in the Bosporan space, but also outside it. For Olbia and Chersonesos of the 4th century. BC the same brilliant time as for Bosporus.
Greek cities are being built up, temples and porticos are growing in them, and theaters are appearing in some places; squares and temples are decorated with statues, sometimes of first-class Greek masters. A lot of imported Greek things of better quality appear in everyday life. In the cities themselves, Greek workshops operate successfully, serving mainly the external market. In the largest centers, their own writers and scientists, historians, rhetoricians, philosophers, poets appear, local myths are collected, local historical traditions are recorded. In the Bosporus, as we will see below, its own flourishing school of toregovs is being created. All this is clearly reflected, first of all, in the necropolis.
Never before have so many expensive, sometimes artistic, things been placed in the grave with the deceased as now. The grave goods of rich people and the local aristocracy are especially luxurious. Their majestic stone crypts under high mounds are filled with a rare selection of expensive and artistic things: the best Greek red-figure and multi-colored ceramics from Attic workshops (see Table XII, 1), Eastern Greek variegated glass, an excellent set of Greek, especially Asia Minor jewelry, gems and carved stones with the names of famous masters, the finest necklaces of amazing technology, luxurious earrings, bracelets, tiaras (see plate XII, 2, 3 and 4). The wonders of turning technology are the sarcophagi, in which the mortal remains of Panticapaean and Taman nobles and their wives rested. Superb turning work, enlivened by painting and inlays of glass, bone and stones, makes these sarcophagi one of a kind monuments of the artistic industry.
The crypts themselves are not inferior to the burial inventory in terms of the harmony of the parts, the breadth of the construction scope and the height of the construction equipment (see Table XI, 1, 2 and 3). These are vast, sometimes double, high rooms, made of monumental slabs, with long leading into them corridors, spectacularly covered with pointed, stepped, domed-stepped or box semi-cylindrical vaults. In Taman, some crypts inside were plastered and painted in the same manner in which the walls of temples and public buildings were painted; in Panticapaeum, the painting was probably replaced by canopies and carpets covering the walls of the crypt.
It is unlikely that in the manner of covering the crypts with stepped vaults one should see consciously supported archaism, the preservation of the old tradition of the Aegean, Mycenaean and Asia Minor tombs. The architects who built them were guided, it seems to me, by other considerations - aesthetic and technical. The aesthetic impression of these stepped vaults is amazing, much stronger than the impression left by box vaults, which certainly require painting or plaster modeling combined with painting. Technically, the stepped vault satisfies all the requirements of an under-mound structure with a colossal mass of earth pressing on the roof. It is no coincidence that the most monumental crypts of the Bosporus have reached us completely intact. Only those that were damaged by robbers and taken away by modern vandals after their discovery by archaeologists were destroyed.
No less indicative, however, are the ordinary, ordinary tombs: earthen pits covered with boards, slabs or tiles, the walls of which are sometimes lined with tiles, slabs or mud bricks - tombs of ordinary citizens of Panticapaeum and its neighbors, as well as the Greek cities of Taman. The ritual of corpse deposition, which was retained in the Bosporus, only in rare cases being replaced by cremation, makes it possible to judge the life and wealth of the mass of Bosporan citizens. The impression is very instructive.
The burial rite and grave goods are purely Greek. The usual selection of things for a Hellene dominates as funeral props, testifying to the role that the palaestra and the way of life associated with it played in his life. The first place is occupied by vessels for oil, which were used to rub the body, and shears, which were used to clean palestra sand and oil from the body. These objects, first of all, were needed by the Bosporan Greek beyond the grave, where he was supposed to continue his earthly life, the life of a Hellenic Palestrite (see Table XI, 4 - frieze of a painted Panticapaean crypt of the 4th century BC with an image of a funerary palestric equipment: shearlings, lekythos, aryballae, towels, tiaras, headbands, wreaths).
Weapons are much less common in tombs of this time. It is characteristic that the least number of weapons is in the tombs of the Panticapaean necropolis, much more on the periphery of the Bosporus and in the necropolises of the Taman Greek cities. There is a lot of jewelry in women's tombs. The vessels are all imported from good Attic factories; sometimes you come across vessels from the best craftsmen, sometimes signed. Often so-called Phoenician colored glass. Everything speaks of the contentment of the population and its purely Greek appearance. The same is confirmed, however, by the rare, excellent tombstone steles of the Bosporans and their tombstone inscriptions. Approximately the same picture is repeated in Olbia and Chersonesus; The only thing missing in these more democratic cities are monumental burial mounds, although there are some analogies to them, at least in Olbia.
With the death of Perisad I, troubled and alarming times begin in Panticapaeum. Immediately after the death of Perisad, an internecine war began between the three sons of Perisad, from which Eumelus emerged victorious. Legitimate power belonged to Satyr II, the elder brother of Eumelus. Eumelus raised the Tamanian tribe of Fatei against him. Satyr was supported by a mercenary army of Greeks and Thracians, that is, the usual Bosporan army, and the Scythians. Victory went to Eumelus, who also broke the resistance of the third brother Prytanis. As a usurper, Eumelus was forced to make great concessions to the citizenship of Panticapaeum. One must think that under him the Panticapaean civilian army appeared for the first time; Until this time, the Bosporan tyrants relied exclusively on mercenaries.
The short reign of Eumelus was followed by the reign of Spartok III (304/3 - 284/3 BC) and Perisades II (284/3 to approximately 252 BC). The reigns of these dynasts, who generally continued the old policy of the Spartokids, were not yet the time of the decline of the Bosporus. Economic conditions remained the same, trade developed and Panticapaeum grew richer. The closest counterparty of Bosporus continues to be Athens, which at this time concluded a real alliance agreement with Bosporus, its former vassal and agent for the purchase of grain, which indicates both the decline of Athens in this era of the emerging large Hellenistic monarchies, and the growth of the importance of Bosporus. But, along with Athens, the kings of the Bosporus of this and the next period deal with the mighty Rhodes, and Delos, and Delphi, acting completely in the role of the rest, albeit secondary, Hellenistic monarchs.
The well-being of citizens does not fall either. The tombs of this period are no poorer, although less numerous than the tombs of earlier ones.
At this time, as mentioned above, the Bosporan workshops, which produced things from precious metals for the Scythian market, lived an intensive life at this time. We have seen how their works fill the rich Scythian burials of this period. True, the height of their artistic achievements is gradually decreasing: a gold coin of the Bosporus of the 4th century. BC, which replaced the Ionian silver of the 6th and 5th centuries, with its amazing heads of satyrs and sileni, one of the best creations of ancient glyptics (see plate XII, 5, 6 and 7), is now replaced by quite a dozen Hellenistic silver, stereotyped, albeit second-rate (Table XII, 9).
The entire second half of the 3rd century. BC filled in the Bosporus with a long series of dynastic and political unrest, from which only vague echoes have reached us. It is not the Spartokids who temporarily appear at the head of the state: Archon Hygienon, perhaps a protege of Panticapaean citizenship, and some king Aces, apparently the head of one of the Scythian or Maeotian tribes that claimed to lead the life of the Bosporus.
Even more vague is the legend about the last years of the independent existence of the Bosporus, Fr. first three quarters of the 2nd century. BC A number of dynasts appear, whom we know only from coins and inscriptions; they all bear the Thracian name Perisada. It is very likely that these are the last scions of the house of Spartok. Their coins, like those of Hygienont, are a slave copy, and a rather poor one at that, of the gold staters of Lysimachus, the general of Alexander, the founder of the short-lived Thracian kingdom (see plate XII, 8). The general appearance of these kings is that of minor Hellenistic monarchs; secondary kings, like the kings of Bithynia, Pontus or Armenia, but of a lower rank. At their court and in their politics, as in the entire world of Hellenism at that time, a major role was played by the local subjects of these kings - the Scythians and Maeotians, who, as Hellenization progressed, increasingly imbued the once purely Greek citizenship of the cities of the Bosporan kingdom.
The Spartokid dynasty was living out its last days. But she continued to fulfill her traditional mission, supplying the Hellenic world with bread and raw materials. Therefore, the material well-being of the Bosporus, although falling, still remains at the general level of the semi-Greek Hellenistic powers of that time, far from it. inferior, of course, to such powers as the cultural kingdom of Pergamon and unable to withstand political rivalry not only with its Black Sea vis-à-vis - Bithynia and the ever-growing Pontus, but even with its closest neighbors - the Crimean Scythians.
History of Crimea II century. BC stands under the sign of the revival of the power of the old Scythian power. Of course, there can be no talk of returning this power to its former role. All of the Kuban region, the Azov region, the Don region, the Dnieper region and the Buge region left the hands of the Scythians forever, but the Scythians retained two pieces of their old territory. A small Scythian kingdom in Dobrudja and a larger Scythian power in Crimea continue to exist. Favorable conditions: the absence of any leading force in the north, the weakness of Macedonia, the defeat of Thrace under the corrupting influence of the Celtic conquerors, the inability of the Sarmatians to weld a strong power from individual tribes, the absence of any outside support from the Greek colonies of southern Russia allowed several energetic Scythian kings again welded together part of their decayed power and, supporting it with armed force, declared a claim to supremacy over the Crimea and the Greek cities of the northern coast up to Olbia. The Scythian Crimean power reached its apogee under Skilur in the first and second half of the 2nd century BC.
We do not know whether the Scythians are still the former military power of nomads. In any case, they had a large urban center in Crimea near present-day Simferopol. It is possible that we are dealing with a half-Greek city that grew up among a Scythian half-nomadic, half-agricultural population, where Scythian kings also visited from time to time.
The basis for the well-being of this Scythian state and the Greek Scythian capital was, of course, trade with the Greek world in grain and livestock. It is no wonder, therefore, that the kings of the Scythian state strive to gain power over the most important Greek ports. They probably managed to capture Kerkinitis on the western coast of Crimea and even Olbia, whose rich armatures gave them the fleet and naval forces they needed to ensure their removal from the robberies of the Crimean pirates.
But this, of course, was not enough for them. They were attracted by the excellent harbor and the beautiful territory cultivated for vineyards of Chersonesus, which made it possible to enter into direct relations with the southern coast of the Black Sea. It is very likely that they tried to strengthen their influence in the Bosporus through diplomatic relations and marriage alliances. It is not for nothing that at the last Perisade one of the members of the Scythian royal family ends up in Panticapaeum, which, however, usually happened already at the end of the 4th and 3rd centuries. BC, as shown by the large Scythian tombs in the immediate vicinity of Panticapaeum and Nymphaeum among the tombs of the Greek population of these cities.
In connection with this revival of the Scythian power, which probably began already in the 3rd century. BC, there is a constant Scythian danger that threatened Chersonese, constant attacks on it by the Scythians and all sorts of efforts that Chersonese makes to ward off this danger. Several random inscriptions from Chersonese vividly depict to us this constant danger and the measures taken by Chersonese to avert it. Chersonese had few forces of its own, and he had to turn to stronger neighbors for help. While the Bosporus was strong, Chersonesos sought its help; but the Bosporus weakened, falling more and more under Scythian influence, and the pressure of the Scythians became more energetic and persistent.
The natural protector of Chersonesus was its metropolis - Heraclea. But she was no longer independent. She had to submit to the Pontic kings. Tries to mobilize Chersonesos and the northern neighbors of the Scythians - the Sarmatians. Since all this is intertwined with the history of the Hellenistic kingdoms of Asia Minor, where the role of master and manager at this time was already played by Rome, it is natural that from time to time the imperious hand of Rome reaches out to Chersonesus.
In the second half of the 2nd century, when the power of the Scythian Crimean power especially increased, the position of Chersonese became critical. But at the same time, under the influence of the beginning devastation in Rome, the increasingly intensifying collapse of the Roman provincial administration and the first rumbles of the internal revolution in Italy, in the east, just on the southern shore of the Black Sea, the previously excluded possibility of the emergence of a strong power is created. The young, energetic and talented Pontic king Mithridates VI Eupator takes up the task of creating it.
To implement his plan - to create, in contrast to Rome, a strong eastern power - he needed, first of all, a base. Asia Minor, whose life was closely watched by Rome, could not provide this base. The Pontic state - the basis of the power of Mithridates - itself had an extremely mixed population, where, next to the Alarodians and Thracians, there were Semites and Iranians, and the general character of the culture was strongly Iranianized and resembles the culture of neighboring Armenia. Let us not forget that the basis of the economic and cultural life of the country with this composition of the population was the Greek cities, gradually deprived of freedom by the Pontic kings - Heraclea, Sinop, Amis, Amasia, Trebizond, etc. This character of culture brought Pontus closer, mainly, to Armenia, but also more so with the Bosporan kingdom and in general the northern coast of the Black Sea, where we encounter the same connection and interpenetration of the population of Greek cities, with a purely Hellenic culture, and the tribes that inhabited the country, with an Iranian or Iranizing culture.
Mithridates should have strived for the union and, if possible, subjugation of these two powers in order to create for himself the necessary supply base of both human material, money and natural products. But Armenia was at that time a strong power, which was just as difficult to deal with as Pontus’s neighbor to the west, Bithynia, and which, moreover, was under constant surveillance by Rome.
Crimea was in a different situation. Crimea was not in the sphere of influence of the Roman power and did not attract the attention of Roman politicians. Meanwhile, he could give Mithridates exactly what he needed: bread, cattle, leather, money and people, huge reserves of which, in the person of the Scythian, Maeotian and Sarmatian tribes, the half-Iranian Mithridates, who considered himself to belong to the old Persian dynasty of the Achaemenids , could count on being used as allies and mercenaries.
On the other hand, the growth of the Scythian power, the danger threatening Chersonesus from the Scythians, and his requests for help directed to Mithridates created unusually favorable conditions for Mithridates’ intervention in the affairs of Crimea. Mithridates took full advantage of the opportunity that presented itself. In two expeditions, his commanders Diophantus and Neoptolemus, showing their strength to the Scythian power, led after the death of Skilur by his son Palak, and to the allies of the Scythian power, the Sarmatians-Roxolans, took possession of both Chersonesos with all the Greek settlements subject to him, and the Bosporus with all its power and, finally, even Olbia with its territory.
This success unusually strengthened Mithridates and gave him hope of the opportunity to begin a long and consistent work of unifying Asia Minor, and then the entire east under the leadership of Pontus, in defiance of the resistance of Rome, torn apart by a civil war that flared up in 91 with a bright flame and lasted until 70 and even later, that is, for more than 20 years.
This is not the place to relate the story of Mithridates' failed attempt to create a world Greco-Eastern state. It is important for us to point out that the starting point of Mithridates in his struggle with Rome and his last reserve in this struggle were his Crimean and Caucasian possessions annexed to them, his Black Sea power. Having joined here, as well as in Asia Minor, initially to the Greek cities, Mithridates, however, quickly disappointed them in their hopes. The more he became involved in the war with Rome, the more he needed money and natural products, and the further he was driven out of Asia Minor by the Romans, the more the Greek cities of the northern coast of the Black Sea became suppliers of these resources. The Greek cities bore this heavy burden placed on them with more and more displeasure, submitting only to force.
Along with this, Mithridates, who needed people for his army, became closer and closer to the Maeotians who were once subordinate to the Bosporus, with his enemies - the Scythians and Sarmatians, entering into marriage alliances with their dynasts - both personally and through his numerous sons and daughters - and political treaties. Hellenism, just when it hoped, through Mithridates, to strengthen its primacy over the Iranians pressing on it, was in danger of being completely absorbed by Iran, which by that time had already managed to significantly change the previously pure Greek appearance of the population of the Greek cities of the Black Sea region. On the other hand, Iran obviously met Mithridates as a unifier and leader, despite the blows he initially inflicted on the Scythians, and surrounded him with a long-lasting aura of a national leader.
It is natural, therefore, that the Greek cities of Crimea, mainly of the Bosporan kingdom, tried to use the moments of Mithridates’ weakness to regain their independence and, when Mithridates, who was finally ousted from Asia Minor by Pompey, but managed to flee to Panticapaeum and not allow Pompey here, prepared here with all the tension forces a new campaign against the Roman power, this time through the steppes of southern Russia and along the Danube, they offered him sharp resistance and, uniting with his son Pharnaces, got rid of the hated rapist, who had brought them to almost complete ruin and betrayed them to the centuries-old enemies of Hellenism, the Iranians .
The death of Mithridates, however, meant submission to Rome. Pharnaces’ attempt to ensure his Pontic-Crimean kingdom not a vassal, but an independent existence, taking advantage of Caesar’s temporary failures in Alexandria, ended in a cruel defeat: Pharnaces, like his father devoted to him, did not find support for himself in the Greek cities of Crimea and died.
From this time on, a new era began in the life of Crimea - the era of subordination to Rome and a new rise of the Hellenic element, which found active and constant support in Rome.
The era of Mithridates was a time of difficult trials for the Black Sea Greeks. The era of their complete independence is over. The original form of supreme power developed by the Bosporus, i.e., the combination in one person of the supreme magistrate of the Greek cities - the archon and the king of the Iranian and semi-Iranian tribes, united with the Greek cities by personal union, was finally replaced by a purely monarchical power of the Greek-Eastern type. The material well-being of the Greek cities was undermined, and Olbia suffered especially, since after the death of Mithridates it found itself between a rock and a hard place, between the Scythians and Sarmatians pressing from the east, and the revived power of the Thracians, united into the strong power of Birebista. Both of them sought to take possession, and the latter, in the end, took possession of this important port and the key to the entire Dnieper and Buge regions.
The cultural resistance of the Greeks also weakened. Even earlier it was difficult for them to maintain their pure Greek appearance. The necropolises of those Greek cities that from time immemorial were in especially close connection with the local population, like Nymphaeum on the European side, Gorgippia on the Asian side, have long provided examples of burials of mixed Iranian-Greek culture. Now the Iranian element, which already in the era of the last Spartokids increasingly saturated the Greek cities, was able to unhindered penetration into the Greek population of the cities, especially since the influx of new forces from Hellas, exhausted and bleeding in the throes of the Roman civil war, completely ceased.
And here, therefore, due to the special conditions of development, we encounter a phenomenon common to the entire east of the late Hellenistic era. Behind the Greek shell, even in Greek centers, local elements begin to emerge more and more, changing all the foundations of political, economic, social, cultural and religious life.
The Bosporan state of the Spartokids, which existed for more than three centuries and during this time successfully fulfilled its mission as the advanced post put forward by Hellenism in the sea of ​​Iranian and Thracian tribes and peoples, is an unusually original and interesting political and social entity.
In terms of its external political structure, the leading city of the power, Panticapaeum, did not differ in any significant way from the ordinary city-state of Hellas. Its only distinctive feature is that for centuries the transitional form of government for most Greek city-states - military tyranny, based on mercenary troops - has been maintained here.
This long existence of tyranny requires an explanation. Of course, the essentially monarchical form of government, clothed in the shell of Hellenic democracy, could not survive for three centuries, maintaining itself only by force and relying only on the swords of mercenaries. There is no doubt that its existence and its strength were due to other deeper reasons that created its strong support among the population.
The main reason was the original social structure of the Bosporan, primarily a trading power, the welfare of which depended, first of all, on ensuring proper exchange with the Greek world on the one hand and with the world of Iranian and semi-Iranian tribes, partly part of the Bosporan power, partly neighboring it , with another. In this respect, the Bosporus most closely resembles Semitic Carthage, which fulfilled the same mission, under slightly different conditions, on the shores of Africa.
The difference in the position of Carthage and Bosporus was that the well-being of Bosporus was largely connected with the existence of the Scythian kingdom, which provided Bosporus with the opportunity for successful trade with its neighbors. Complete subordination to the Scythians, however, was by no means in the interests of the Bosporus.
In order to be able to maintain good relations with the Scythians without completely submitting to them, the Bosporus had to have support both in the population of its state and in support from outside. The second was given to him by his relationship with Athens, the first was the commonality of his interests with his strongly Hellenized closest neighbors, for whom the suzerainty of the Bosporus was more profitable and convenient than submission to the Scythians, especially since this suzerainty had the character of a personal union and did not deprive individual tribes of the opportunity to live their own life. ordinary life under the control of their local kings, dynasts and princes.
This explains the dual nature of the Bosporan tyranny. For the Greek population, they are the magistrates-archons vested with exclusive supreme power. For the tribes of Crimea and Taman, they are their supreme kings, providing them with their independence, non-subordination to the Scythians, support of the Hellenic world and the possibility of wide world exchange.
But even for the Greek citizens of the cities of the Bosporan power, personal leadership was a necessity that ensured their existence. Their national traditions did not allow them to see a king in their supreme magistrate, but, as their archon, they were ready to give the head of the state unlimited powers, since their material well-being depended on it.
The Greeks of the cities of the Bosporan kingdom, as far as we can judge from the meager data available to us, were mainly exporters and armatures, owners of sea vessels on the one hand, owners of large trading offices that maintained constant contact with neighboring tribes, and intermediary traders with another. The citizens of the Bosporus, as far as one can judge, preferred to do the latter; the first, a risky and difficult task, they provided to the citizens of other Greek cities of Asia Minor and Hellas, for whom the products delivered to them by the Bosporus were a matter of vital necessity.
Along with this, there were a considerable number of artisans and artists who worked for the foreign market and created those specific items that Greek and Asia Minor craftsmen could not supply them with.
Finally, of considerable importance were the farmers and landowners who exploited the territories closest to the Greek cities, which they cultivated with the hands of the local population, as hired workers, sometimes with the hands of slaves, most often with the hands of the enslaved population, who became to them in the same relationship as the helots to the Spartans, the Penestes to the Thessalian nobility, the conquered Mariandines to the Heracleans.
In general, the Greek population of the Bosporus, even excluding the particularly wealthy aristocracy closely associated with the supreme power, was a population of wealthy merchants, artisans and landowners. There is no reason to assume the existence of a significant number of working proletariat. The merchant fleet with its army of oarsmen, as has been repeatedly attested, was not local; the loaders, in all likelihood, were recruited from those slaves that Panticapaeum successfully traded and which were supplied to them by neighboring nomads who were always at war.
This wealthy Greek population was primarily and mainly interested in the government providing them with a calm and secure existence, involving them less in military duties and guaranteeing them the opportunity for unhindered communication with neighboring tribes and the Greek world.
The Bosporan tyranny completely ensured this order of things for the Greek population. She did not need an army of citizens; it was rather dangerous for her. The local population, especially the warlike Thracians, provided her with a sufficient number of mercenaries; in case of need, she resorted to alliances with neighbors and contingents of vassals. The Bosporan tyrants received a permanent squad, expensive, but well armed and technically trained, from Greece. It was from there that they mainly obtained people for their navy.
For all this, only funds were needed. These funds were provided by the same trade with Greece, mainly grain. There is no doubt that the largest exporters of grain were the archons and kings of the Bosporus themselves. Attic speakers - Aeschines, Isocrates, Demosthenes - also tell us about this. This is also attested to by a number of inscriptions.
Both import and export duties gave them large incomes, especially when the Bosporus managed to get rid of the heavy hand of Athens. Finally, there is no doubt that the Spartokids and their relatives were also the largest landowners, whose lands provided a very significant amount of grain. And this has been witnessed to us repeatedly.
On these foundations the power of the Spartokids rested and remained firmly in place. From time to time they had to resort to military assistance from citizenship, to create a Greek army from the Bosporan Greeks, but this, obviously, was a transitory phenomenon, and the foundations of the Bosporan system remained, in general, the same until the last days of the dynasty.
The culture of Panticapaeum and the Bosporan Empire in general has already been discussed several times above. I pointed out the purely Greek appearance of the urban population, which only became permeated with Iranian elements towards the end of Spartocid rule. I also said that in the 4th and 3rd centuries. BC Panticapaeum is by no means just a storage place for Greek and Asia Minor goods, but has its own rather independent cultural life and is developing into one of the centers of Hellenic cultural creativity.
I have already spoken about the original funerary architecture of the Panticapaeans and the Bosporans in general, about their undoubted creativity in the development of certain archaic forms, associated with the difficult task of creating the type of monumental structures under burial mounds.
But the creativity of Bosporan artists is even more clearly reflected in local works made of precious metals (the specialty of Bosporan craftsmen), the development of which was caused by the greed for crafts made from gold and silver of their Scythian and Meotian neighbors. The starting point for characterizing their work in this regard are the coins of the Bosporus, the local origin of which cannot be doubted. Silver coinage of the 6th and 5th centuries. keeps within the framework of the general Ionian template and is not of particular interest. But the beginning of the coinage of gold, coinciding with the era of trade independence of the Bosporus, with the reign of Leukon I and his successors, and the silver accompanying this gold, is original in nature and testifies to the high artistic achievements of the Panticapaean Greek masters. The very choice of types is interesting, especially the heads of the bearded and beardless Silea and Satyr in profile and almost in full frontal view, one way or another connected with the legends about the past of Panticapaeum and the past of the ruling dynasty (Fig. 63, 64 and 65). The usual explanation - the incorrect etymology of the city's name from the name of the Greek god Pan - does not satisfy me much. I do not see any undoubted grounds for calling the deity depicted on the coins of Panticapaeum Pan. It seems that we are dealing here with some kind of tradition, the traces of which have not been preserved by the meager literary tradition. Clearer turns. The Iranian, Persian phiphon with a dart in its mouth and an ear under its feet (Fig. 64 and 65) brilliantly symbolizes the semi-Iranian military power of Panticapaeum, based on its economic power, the basis of which was the grain trade. Another common type - the Greek Apollonian griffin and below it the Don sturgeon (Fig. 63) - clearly indicates the ideas associated with Panticapaeum among the Greeks; here you can hear echoes of the legend about the Apollonian Hyperboreans, about the Arimaspians fighting with griffins for the gold of the East - in a word, about all those myths that stated the northern and eastern connections of Panticapaeum, which were considered and were the direct or indirect source of its extraordinary wealth. One of the real sources of this wealth appears right there; These are weighty Don sturgeons, valued throughout the river world. The head of a bull on silver may have the same meaning.
But these coins are even more interesting from an artistic point of view. The coins of Panticapaeum are rightly considered one of the highest achievements of ancient glyptics. The subtlety and grace of the modeling, the energy of expression, and the boldness of the interpretation of the head are almost truly inimitable and original, although they reflect the general features of Greek art of that time. But what is especially captivating is the idealized realism of the ugly, but beautiful and attractive in their ugliness heads of satyrs and sileni. There can be no doubt that the Panticapaean masters were influenced not only by the Greek originals, who set themselves the same goals, but also by the observation of the main features of the barbarian types, so familiar to Panticapaeum from daily observation.
The desire for realism is the main property of Panticapaean toreutics. It manifests itself with great force once again in the silver of the third and second centuries. BC, in a magnificent realistic, emphatically realistic depiction of a local steppe horse grazing in the steppe (Fig. 67). Next to the formulaic, powerless, flat, graceful head of Apollo on the main side of this coin, the image of the horse stands out for its rough but powerful realism. Decline of Panticapaeum in the middle and end of the 2nd century. nowhere is it clearer than on coins. The creativity of the old gold Panticapaeum is replaced by a stereotyped and slavish copy of the most popular coin of that time - the gold staters of Lysimachus (Fig. 66).
The same features of Panticapaeum artistic creativity are also manifested in a huge, ever-increasing series of artistic works produced in the workshops of Panticapaeum for the neighboring Scythians. Here it is extremely instructive to compare the gold items from Solokha with somewhat, but slightly later, items from Kul-Oba and the Voronezh mound (Table IX, 8) and then with items from Chertomlyk and Karagodeuashkh. The now famous golden comb of Solokha (Table XIII, 1) generally gives the usual plot of equestrian combat, especially close to M. Asia, in the usual classical composition. The only way it differs from contemporary Asia Minor sculptures, which live in the traditions of already academic Athenian art, is an even greater everyday realism than in Asia Minor in the interpretation of weapons, clothing, horse harness, exactly copied from reality. There is less realism in the depiction of faces and in the types of fighters, although the desire for realism is visible here too.
We see the same thing, to an even greater extent, on a gilded silver vessel from Solokha (Table XII, 3), which gives an ordinary, well-executed hunting scene, so typical of Asia Minor Greek art. Even more interesting, overlaid with silver, it burns with a battle scene between two types of local steppe inhabitants - on foot and on horseback (Table XII, 1). And here the realism of the costume and weapons is complete. The types of faces, however, remind us of the Panticapaeum coins of the same time. Horse archers give a rougher interpretation of the face of the bearded silenus of the coins, their young companion is the familiar young satyr of Panticapaean gold and silver. The two foot opponents of the described fighters of the same camp are also approaching the same type. But here we already see the first glimpses of the trend that in Pergamon art gives us eternal images of the Celts. From the type of satyr, art moves to an amazingly subtle rendering not so much of trifles as of the main character traits of the depicted barbarians. We do not know which barbarians were depicted by the Panticapaean artist who worked for the king buried in Solokha. But you involuntarily remember the northern Celts or Thracians or some tribes related to them.
A step forward was made in the artifacts of Kul-Oba (Table IX, 1 and 2) and the Voronezh mound (Table IX, 3). Everyday realism remains the same, but we see two new features. An idealized type of Scythian is emerging in art, just as the same type was simultaneously emerging in literature. Along with this, there is a tendency towards greater expression, towards conveying an expression of suffering and pathos - and here we come to the future features of Pergamon pathetic art. This is especially clear in the scene of dental surgery and bandaging of a wounded leg on the famous Kul-Ob electric vessel.
The last stage is the amazing horses of Chertomlyk (Table IX, 4 and 5). They are older, thinner and more artistic than the horse of the coin mentioned above. The horses are realistic in their structure and strikingly artistic in their movement. Moreover, despite the difficulties that seemed to the master to give a narrow frieze of a vase, he managed to make one feel the spaciousness and breadth of the steppes, the enthusiasm and revelry of a wild steppe herd.
The somewhat later ritual scenes of Karagodeuashkh are also interesting (Table X, 1 and 2). Here we are no longer looking at purely Greek art. On the rhyton (Plate X, 1) we have an Iranian type and design, on the plate of the headdress (Plate X, 2) an interesting Greek composition, but purely Eastern solemnity and ritualism of the central monumental figure, her servants and two male figures in the foreground - a young noble Scythian and enarean eunuch, a servant of the goddess, in women's clothing and with her round sacred cup in his hand. The true East seeps into the world of Hellenic creativity, influencing Hellas and preparing the future flowering, however, not in the steppes of Scythia, but in Sasanian Persia, of the revival of Iranian art.
We see that Panticapaeum had its own era of creativity, contributing something to the treasury of Greek art, and what new it contributed was due to its proximity to the Iranian world and its connection with the great Oriental art. He will continue to carry out the same mission in the next stage of his historical development.

In no case should you order a diploma through friends, buy ready-made “papers” in underground passages or from unverified organizations - only by purchasing a diploma, officially issued according to all modern standards, can you count on its repayment.
Buying a diploma in Kyiv is not difficult, this business is well established in our country, but not every offer is worth believing. Only companies with extensive experience can provide truly high-quality documents that will even be included in the register!

Our website presents samples that meet all modern standards: diplomas are printed on official forms, with all the necessary watermarks and holographic images applied. To order a diploma in Kyiv or any other city in Ukraine, you just need to leave a request - specialists will contact you to clarify all the details.

Thus, anyone can now buy a real diploma of higher education, regardless of the desired educational institution and the purpose of obtaining the document. We understand that situations are different, sometimes you just need a diploma to “show your parents” or to get a job in a small company where serious checks will definitely not be carried out - in this case, you will need a document printed on a printed copy, which will cost less and at the same time outwardly no different from the original.

How much does it cost to buy a diploma in Ukraine

Every day our clients order absolutely any educational documents - from a school certificate to a USSR-style diploma and a scientific degree. You just need to choose an educational institution, specialty and year of graduation, and we take care of the rest!
The cost of ordering an institute diploma depends on whether you want it printed on government letterhead, or whether a printed copy is enough for you. You must also decide whether your diploma needs to be included in the database (in this case, it will pass checks even by government agencies). In any case, our prices will pleasantly surprise you - a bachelor's degree from even one of the most prestigious universities costs from 10,000 UAH!

If you need a candidate or doctorate degree and want to buy a diploma in Kyiv, the cost of such a document is 12-27 thousand UAH. This is quite inexpensive when compared to traditionally obtaining a scientific degree: just to be allowed to defend your dissertation (which still needs to be written), you will have to pass special exams and publish a huge number of scientific articles, including in international collections (the cost of each reaches 20,000 UAH).

There are situations when you need to buy a legal USSR-style diploma - our team easily copes with this task, and for you such a purchase will cost only 6,000 UAH!

We sell diplomas for foreigners, documents from Russian educational institutions, we produce high-quality documents for graduates of any technical schools and colleges - just look at our prices and make sure that this is a truly advantageous offer!

Our guarantees

We can offer diplomas entered in the state register - this is the main guarantee of document quality. Posting to a common database means that you are buying an original diploma, which is not afraid of any authenticity checks. Even if you want to join government agencies, where the documents of each candidate are subject to serious checks, no one will doubt the authenticity of your diploma.

Do you want to receive a high-quality document without overpaying for inclusion in the database? Don't worry! A team of professional calligraphers works on each diploma, creating documents that are no different from those received by university graduates, right down to signatures and authentic seals. We advise you to buy a Ukrainian diploma, printed on state letterhead, with all the necessary holographic symbols and watermarks, and you can learn more about our guarantees here.

Terms of production and delivery of diplomas

We know how sometimes a document is needed right now, so we are ready to complete the work as soon as possible. Even if the interview date has already been set, you can buy a diploma in Kyiv cheaply and receive the finished document within a couple of days - we approach each client and his situation individually.
You can also choose any payment method - from a bank card to cash with a courier. By cooperating with us, each client has the opportunity to buy a diploma without prepayment and be sure that the document will be delivered to you on time and meet all requirements.

It doesn’t matter what city or even country you live in - just contact us and we will choose the most convenient delivery and payment method for you.
Is it possible to buy a higher education diploma? Need to! With such a document you can change your life, get a prestigious position and even work in different countries! Everything is in your hands on the site

The first civilized people to settle in the Crimean lands were the ancient Greeks, or Hellenes. It was these people who made such a contribution to the development of all human civilization that cannot be overestimated. The influence of the ancient Greeks on the development of our peninsula was enormous.

The main reason for the resettlement of this people in the Northern Black Sea region was the search by low-income citizens for conditions for a normal life. The metropolis was overpopulated, there was no longer enough food and land for all free citizens, which gave rise to such a phenomenon as mass colonization. This movement dates back to the 7-6 centuries BC - the archaic era in the history of Ancient Greece. The first two waves of colonization affected lands close to Greece. The colonizers of the third wave crossed the Pontus Euxine (the ancient Greek name of the Black Sea, translated as “Hospitable Sea”) and discovered fertile lands, an abundance of animals, birds, and fish. Being seafarers, the Greek settlers appreciated the local harbors and bays.

The first settlers who managed to create their own colonies on the territory of Crimea were the Ionian Greeks and the Dorian Greeks. It was they who, after some time, united other colonies around themselves, created two states - the Cimmerian Bosporus and the Tauride Chersonese.

The first city that the Hellenes founded in Crimea was Panticapaeum - present-day Kerch. The appearance of this city dates back to the turn of the 7th-6th centuries BC. A little later, in the 6th century BC, Feodosia was built, and the agricultural towns of Tiritaka, Parfeniy, Porfmiy, Myrmeky appeared on the Crimean coast of the Kerch Strait. The main inhabitants of these Hellenistic settlements were inhabitants of the western coast of Asia Minor (mainly from the Ionian city of Miletus) and the cities of the Aegean Sea.

Very quickly the colonists established their economic life: agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing and hunting developed; various crafts are emerging - construction, jewelry, metalworking, weaving, ceramics; the emergence of surplus products and goods makes it possible to establish trade with the metropolis and natural exchange with neighboring tribes. Already in the middle of the 6th century BC, their own coins were minted in Panticapaeum, and a little later - in other cities.

Gradually, the colonies, increasing territorially and in number of inhabitants, became cities and turned into small state policies. Their centers in the east of Crimea were Panticapaeum, Feodosia and Nymphaeum.

The threat of attack from barbarian tribes and economic interests became the reason for the unification of most of the cities of the Kerch Strait. The new state that emerged as a result of this unification was called the Cimmerian Bosporus. The first mention of this state belongs to the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, who named the time of its birth - around 480 BC. This state is not only expanding, but also becoming ethnically diverse: in addition to the Greeks, it is inhabited by Scythians, Taurians, and on the other side of the Kerch Strait - Sindians and Maeotians.

Everything that the Greeks achieved in their historical homeland is widely used in Crimea. Urban planning, architecture, painting, philosophy, education, lawmaking, medicine, literature, theater, sports, a high level of development of agriculture and crafts - all this finds fertile soil on the Crimean soil for application and dissemination. Most likely, the Cimmerian Bosporus also included a settlement located on the site of the present Old Crimea. Numerous archaeological finds of Hellenistic origin and Panticapaean coins confirm this assumption.

At the end of the 4th century AD, after the invasion of the Huns, the Bosporus had to recognize their supremacy, and in the 6th century, the heiress of the fallen Roman Empire - Byzantium - subjugated these lands to itself.

In the southwestern part of Crimea there was another Hellenistic state - Tauride Chersonesos. Its center was Chersonesos (now Sevastopol), which was founded in the second half of the 5th century BC. colonists from Heraclea Pontica - a Dorian city on the southern coast of the Black Sea. The constant threat of attack from neighboring Tauri forced the settlers to quickly turn Chersonesos into a fortified city. The socio-economic development of the Chersonesos is taking place according to a scenario very similar to the development of their fellow countrymen, who mastered the Crimean lands a little earlier - the Bosporans. For a short time, Chersonesos was even under the Bosporan protectorate. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, Chersonesus became the center of Roman military occupation in Crimea. The city did not suffer from the Huns, since it was outside their routes of conquest. At the end of the 5th century, Chersonesos became part of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Greek colonies in Crimea

Modern Feodosia is the only city in the Northern Black Sea region that bears its real ancient Greek name. The history of the city began in the middle - second half of the 6th century BC. e. It was founded by settlers from the Asia Minor city of Miletus, at the final stage of the “Great” Greek colonization. The advantageous location on sea trade routes, an excellent harbor and the proximity of agricultural areas predetermined the rapid growth and economic prosperity of the policy.

In the historical fate of Feodosia, like the whole of Crimea, an outstanding role was played by the “Great” Greek colonization, which took place in the archaic era of the history of ancient Hellas, occurring in the 8-6 centuries BC. The Greeks (Hellenes) brought civilization and the most advanced culture within the ancient ecumene to the peninsula. What made people leave their native lands and embark on a very dangerous journey in search of a new homeland?

The soils of Hellas are infertile (only in a few of its regions bread was grown in sufficient quantities), hence the great need of the Greeks for imported bread. The country is also not rich in metals and wood. Meanwhile, in the archaic era, Hellas was experiencing an economic boom, the intensively developing craft experienced a shortage of raw materials, the growing maritime trade required markets for the sale of goods (olive oil, wine, handicrafts) and the purchase of everything that the Greeks needed (bread, raw materials).

The rapid development of the economy led to a sharp increase in the population; society was unable to feed the “extra” people. The Archaic era was also the time of the formation of states (polises) on the territory of Balkan and island Greece. This process was accompanied by the loss of land plots by many ordinary peasants and even aristocrats, hence the growth of property inequality and, which is inevitable in such circumstances, socio-political struggle. The policies were slave-owning states, their economy needed cheap labor, and the extraction of slaves became another incentive for the colonization movement.

Peasants who lost their plots of land or did not receive them in their homeland took part in the search for a new homeland; among the settlers there were also artisans, traders and representatives of the clan nobility (some of them hoped to improve their financial situation, others left their native lands for political reasons, having been defeated in the intensified struggle within the civil collectives of the emerging city-states). The number of immigrants was small - from one hundred to a thousand people. The colonies (Greek - apoikia) were not politically dependent on the metropolis, although they usually maintained friendly relations and various connections with them.

The bulk of the Greek colonies in the Northern Black Sea region appeared in the 6th century BC. On the western, Crimean coast of the Kerch Strait (Greek - Cimmerian Bosporus) the cities of Panticapaeum (Kerch), Nymphaeum, Myrmekiy, Tiritaka, Porthmium, Parthenius, Acre, Kitey were founded, on the eastern coast - Phanagoria, Hermonassa, Kepi, Sindskaya Gavan. East of Feodosia, on the slope of Mount Opuk - Kimmerik. In the southwestern Crimea - Kerkinitida (Evpatoria), Chersonesos (Sevastopol). The Greeks, who knew a lot about navigation and sea trade, chose a convenient bay on the western shore of the Gulf of Feodosia; a port was located in a natural harbor; to protect ships from waves and winds, a pier was built. The port city became a reliable refuge for ships and the most important trading center on the northern coast of the Black Sea.

The Greeks, not spoiled by the gifts of nature in their homeland, were attracted to the area of ​​the Feodosian Gulf by many other things. In ancient times, this territory was richer than in our time, and the newcomers were able to take advantage of such gifts of nature as the so-called non-industrial reserves of iron and coal, wood, various types of stone, sand, and clay. Salt was mined from nearby lakes. They were engaged in fishing and hunting.

And most importantly - agricultural work: they grew bread, grapes, garden and vegetable crops, and raised livestock. To extract fresh water, they used all the available, not very rich, reserves: rivers, fresh lakes, springs, and built drainage structures and water pipelines. The center of the colony became Quarantine Hill. The mountains and the sea protected her from possible dangers. It was easy to surround a small hill with a ring of defensive walls, behind which, if necessary, the entire population of the city could hide.

The colonists developed relationships with local residents in different ways; it all depended on what places the newcomers claimed and what was the level of development of the aborigines, whether they were interested in contacts with new neighbors and in the exchange of goods. Ancient authors associated Feodosia with the tribes of the Scythians and Taurians.

In those places where the Scythians were in contact with the Tauri (this includes the Feodosia region), there was an intensive process of assimilation of these two ethnic groups. Excavations at the Feodosian Karantina brought fragments of polished molded pottery from the late 6th - 4th centuries BC, and one find dates back to the 7th - early 6th century BC. The Greeks did not make such dishes. But we cannot say whether there was some kind of barbarian settlement on the site of the future Feodosia - the evidence is clearly insufficient.

Beautiful places in Crimea

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

 

It might be useful to read:

• How to get on an excursion to Antarctica?;
• Czech Republic Troy Castle. Troja Castle in Prague. Ancient winery and museum;
• Böcklin and his “island of the dead” A cultural phenomenon of its time;
• Air tickets to Crimea Air tickets to Crimea will become cheaper;
• What you can and cannot take with you;
• Open left menu Heviz How to get from Budapest to Lake Heviz;
• Cable car in Nha Trang (Vinpearl) The longest cable car in the world Vietnam;
• Kamenets-Podolsk fortress - a historical monument of Ukraine Life outside the walls of the Kamenets-Podolsk fortress;