The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6)

384 Pages·2007·8.02 MB·English

by  Vincent Gabrielsen

THE BLACK SEA IN ANTIQUITY
REGIONAL AND INTERREGIONAL
ECONOMIC EXCHANGES
BLACK SEA STUDIES
6
THE DANISH NATIONAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION’S
CENTRE FOR BLACK SEA STUDIES
THE BLACK SEA IN
ANTIQUITY

REGIONAL AND INTERREGIONAL ECONOMIC EXCHANGES
Edited by
Vincent Gabrielsen and John Lund
a
AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS
THE BLACK SEA IN ANTIQUITY
© Aarhus University Press 2007
Cover design by Lotte Bruun Rasmussen
Detail from the Sarcophagus for Kornelios Arrianos found at Yalı, now in the
Sinop Museum, inv. no. 16.1.98. 1st-2nd century AD. Photo: Jakob Munk Højte.
Printed in Denmark by Narayana Press, Gylling
ISBN: 978 87 7934 266 8
AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS
Langelandsgade 177
DK-8200 Aarhus N
White Cross Mills
Lancaster LA1 4XS
England
Box 511
Oakville, CT 06779
USA
www.unipress.dk
The publication of this volume has been made possible by a
generous grant from The Danish National Research Foundation
and The Aarhus University Research Foundation
Danish National Research Foundation’s
Centre for Black Sea Studies
Building 1451
University of Aarhus
DK-8000 Aarhus C
www.pontos.dk
Contents
Vincent Gabrielsen and John Lund
Introduction 7
Alan Greaves
Milesians in the Black Sea: Trade, Settlement and Religion 9
Marina Ju. Vachtina
Greek Archaic Orientalising Pottery from the Barbarian Sites of the
Forest-steppe Zone of the Northern Black Sea Coastal Region 23
David Braund
Black Sea Grain for Athens? From Herodotus to Demosthenes 39
Alfonso Moreno
Athenian Wheat-Tsars: Black Sea Grain and Elite Culture 69
Lise Hannestad
Timber as a Trade Resource of the Black Sea 85
Andrei Opaiţ
A Weighty Matter: Pontic Fish Amphorae 101
Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen
The One That Got Away: A Reassessment of the Agoranomos
Inscription from Chersonesos (VDI 1947.2, 245; NEPKh II, 129) 123
Alexander V. Karjaka
Amphora Finds of the 4th Century BC from the Settlements of the
Lower Dnieper Region 133
Yvon Garlan
Échanges d’amphores timbrées entre Sinope et la Méditerranée aux
époques classique et hellénistique 143
Vladimir F. Stolba
Local Patterns of Trade in Wine and the Chronological Implications
of Amphora Stamps 149
Krzysztof Domżalski
Changes in Late Classical and Hellenistic Fine Pottery Production in
the Eastern Mediterranean as Reflected by Imports in the Pontic Area 161
John Lund
The Circulation of Ceramic Fine Wares and Transport Amphorae
from the Black Sea Region in the Mediterranean, c. 400 BC–AD 200 183
Sergej Ju. Saprykin
The Unification of Pontos: The Bronze Coins of Mithridates VI
Eupator as Evidence for Commerce in the Euxine 195
Denis V. Žuravlev
Lighting Equipment of the Northern Pontic Area in the Roman and
Late Roman Periods: Imports and Local Production 209
Alexandru Avram
Some Thoughts about the Black Sea and the Slave Trade before the
Roman Domination (6th-1st Centuries BC) 239
Zofia Halina Archibald
Contacts between the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Black Sea in the
Early Hellenistic Age 253
Gary Reger
Traders and Travelers in the Black and Aegean Seas 273
Vincent Gabrielsen
Trade and Tribute: Byzantion and the Black Sea Straits 287
Abbreviations 325
Bibliography 327
Indices 375
Contributors 395
Introduction
Vincent Gabrielsen & John Lund
The present volume contains the acts of the conference The Black Sea in An-
tiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges, which was held at the
Sandbjerg Estate near Sønderborg, the main conference centre of the Univer-
sity of Aarhus, from the 26th to the 30th of May 2004. The two editors of this
volume organized the conference on behalf of the Danish National Research
Foundation’s Centre for Black Sea Studies.
The purpose of the meeting was to bring together specialists in various
fields and disciplines, who would undertake to explore the nature, intensity
and, whenever possible, the volume of the economic exchanges in which the
Black Sea region was involved from the seventh century BC to the fourth
century AD. In particular, we wished to elucidate the economic interplay be-
tween the various areas within the Black Sea region itself and also between
the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Consequently, trade, especially maritime
trade, stood out as one of the dominant themes of the conference. Yet, even
though trade was allotted a privileged position, we deemed it necessary and
important that “production”, too, should receive its due share of attention.
We use “production” in a broad sense to allow the inclusion of all kinds of
commodities (including coins) as well as production facilities and manpower.
All along, we were well aware of the enormity of the task and particularly
of the severe challenges it poses, not least that of achieving even a reason-
able degree of coverage, thematic as well as chronological. Nevertheless, we
thought it worthwhile to take the risk.
In order to make the conference a forum for a successful inter-scholarly
discussion, we invited a broad range of internationally acknowledged histo-
rians and archaeologists to contribute on a topic within their particular field
of expertise. In addition, each participant was asked to address explicitly a
number of issues, of which the most important were the following: (1) Types of
sources and methodological approaches: What types of evidence are available for
elucidating the particular topic treated by the paper, and which research meth-
odologies are likely to yield the most rewarding results? (2) Regional and inter-
regional patterns of exchanges: What are the goods and/or services that are being
exchanged with nearby or distant commercial partners? Can these exchanges
be expressed quantitatively (i.e. volume and value of imports and exports)?
How did the wealth generated thereby affect the public and private sectors?
(3) Transport and infrastructure: Is it possible to detect improvements in trans-
port technology and in trade infrastructure? What is the degree and nature of
8 Introduction
investment – public or private – in these areas? (4) Public and private institutions:
What are the institutional settings within which economic interaction unfolds?
Can we observe any institutional innovations? Is there a convergence between
public and private concerns? (5) Commercial actors and politics: Is it possible to
map out relatively stable or shifting partnerships? What might be the factors
conditioning these partnerships in the short and long run? To what degree do
politics and hegemonic or imperial structures affect economic processes? How
does production and trade between “barbarian” centres and Greek cities affect
political relationships between these two types of community?
Naturally, most, if not all, of these issues are interrelated, and the majority
of the papers do, in fact, address more than one of them. In the end, therefore,
the thematic priorities and methodological preferences of the individual author
have been allowed to take precedence over the editors’ initial (and perhaps
rigid) wish list. And, consequently, the thematic focus is maintained less rig-
orously in this publication than was envisaged in our original plan. What is
gained, in return, is a greater variety of approaches to our overall theme and a
much richer ensemble of issues that receive thorough treatment. As regards the
sequence in which the contributions appear, we have opted for an arrangement
which assembles into clusters papers dealing with the same (or similar) kind of
commodity or commodities (e.g. timber, slaves, wheat, wine, fish, pottery and
other ceramics); in between these clusters we have placed papers that focus on
such general issues as tribute and taxes, traders and travellers, coin circulation
and relations between the Black Sea region and Ptolemaic world.
It was never the intention of the editors to seek a consensus amongst the
authors, let alone to impose our own views on their papers. We deemed it vital
that the articles should reflect as accurately as possible the on-going scholarly
debates about the issues raised. Hence, none should be surprised to find diver-
gent opinions (or even strong disagreement) from one chapter to the next – for
instance, on the economic significance of the Black Sea region as a supplier of
grain to the Mediterranean. The issues involved are far too complex for simpli-
fied solutions, and the time has not yet come for drawing definite conclusions.
But at least – and that may indeed be salutary – the discussion has begun.
The present publication would not have materialized without the generous
assistance we have received from the staff of the Danish National Research
Foundation’s Centre for Black Sea Studies, in particular from Jane Hjarl Pe-
tersen, Jakob Munk Højte, Kristina Winter Jacobsen, and Vladimir Stolba. In
addition, Robin Wildfang has improved the English language of several of the
papers, while Sanne Lind Hansen and her colleagues at the Aarhus University
Press have embraced the project with their characteristic enthusiasm and pro-
fessionalism. To all of them we extend our warmest thanks.
Unless otherwise indicated, all line drawings of complete amphorae
in this volume are reproduced to the scale of 1:10, fragments and other finds
of vessels to 1:2, and lamps to 1:4.
Milesians in the Black Sea:
Trade, Settlement and Religion
Alan Greaves
Introduction
Miletos was, without doubt, the single most important polis involved in the
Greek colonisation of the Black Sea. Estimates vary as to how many Black Sea
colonies Miletos established. Pliny the Elder tells us it was 90 (HN 5.122) and
some modern scholars have seen this as a slight exaggeration or underesti-
mate.1 Herodotos gives us further insight when he mentions that there were
numerous trading posts (emporia) around the Black Sea. Our initial impression
therefore is that of a single polis that had established a staggering number of
colonies, exclusively in the Black Sea region, for the sole reason of trade.
There has been much discussion of the motivations and methods of the
Archaic Greek colonial movement. Popular explanations for the colonial move-
ment include trade, population, the search for metals, political dissatisfaction
and other factors that prompted the otherwise home-loving Greeks to re-
locate to the farthest corners of the Mediterranean and Black Sea. There can
be no single unifying factor that can successfully explain such a widespread
phenomenon. The population, resources and political character of each polis
community were unique, as were the experiences and motivations of each
individual within that community.
In this paper, I would like to examine the role that trade played in the
foundation of Miletos’ colonies. I hope to show that trade needs to be un-
derstood within the broader context of the diachronic socio-economic and
environmental history of the polis and its chora.
One often-cited motivating factor for Greek colonisation is political up-
heaval within the metropolis. From Herodotos and other sources we know
of incidents, such as the stasis (in the case of Miletos, between the aeinautai
and the cheiromachei), the rule and deposition of various kings and tyrants
(including Koos and Kretines, who left Miletos to found Sinope) and other
political events that may have played some role in the sending out of Milesian
colonies. However, politics will not be included in this discussion because, in
my opinion, the historical sources that support such interpretations are too
limited to be relied upon solely to explain such a mass colonisation movement.
Isolated political events, such as the deposing of a dynast, cannot be seen as
10 Alan Greaves
a long-term process within the history of a city that might result in sustained
mass colonisation on the scale seen at Miletos. Although turbulent, the history
of Miletos is no more bloody and unsettled than that of any of its peers in
Archaic Greece and it is much less well documented. Also, this paper aims to
explore the interface between the archaeological and historical evidence, and
as political events in the metropolis can only ever at best be cautiously linked
to archaeological phenomena, politics is not included here.
Trade
In his article “Traders and ports-of-trade in the Black Sea in antiquity”, John
Hind collected together the diverse literary references to emporoi and empo-
ria in Greek literature.2 This survey shows that Herodotos names Olbia and
Kremnoi in particular as emporia and also makes more general statements
about numerous other emporia in the Black Sea. Reading Herodotos therefore
led scholars to make the general assumption that trade was the raison d’être
for the numerous Milesian colonies in the Black Sea region.
The assumption that trade played a central role in the Greek colonial
process suited the preconceptions of colonial and post-colonial anglophone
scholars in the early 20th century. This attitude is encapsulated in what was,
until recently, the only English language history of Miletos: Adelaide Glynn
Dunham’s The History of Miletus: Down to the Anabasis of Alexander (1915). The
overall impression that the reader of this book is left with is that Miletos cre-
ated, through trade, a homogenous empire of colonies that turned the Black
Sea into a “Milesian Pond”. The idea that trade and colonialism were linked is
neatly summed up by Blakeway’s now much commented upon words “…the
flag followed trade”. The conflation of the concepts and language of British
colonialism with that of Greek Archaic colonisation has been slow to change
and has only recently been discussed head-on as a separate issue by Anthony
Snodgrass in his article “The history of a false analogy”.3
It is now generally agreed that Miletos was not creating, through trade
and its many emporia, a single unified imperial entity. Miletos clearly had an
enormous influence in the Black Sea from the Archaic period onwards, but
it is the role that trade played in the creation of the multifarious Milesian co-
lonial identities in settlements around the Black Sea region that I would like
to explore in this paper.
Clearly, we must strive to avoid the use of the English word “colony”,
which is loaded with unhelpful meaning and connotations, when what we
are actually referring to are Greek emporia or apoikiai. But which of these two
words would best describe Milesian settlements in the Black Sea? Is it right for
Herodotos (or ourselves) to describe Milesian colonies in the Black Sea solely
as emporia? This term in itself may conjure images of a purely commercial en-
tity that may not be a true representation of such early Greek communities,
but the alternative is perhaps worse. How can we call Milesian settlements in