doi: 10.2143/AWE.18.0.3287211 AWE 18 (2019) 113-151 AN ACHAEMENID INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA: EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF EMPIRE* GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE Abstract The paper considers whether an Old Persian inscription from Phanagoria relates to Darius I or his son Xerxes, coming down in favour of Darius. The archaeological background for Darius’ campaign on the Taman Peninsula, and its continuation by Xerxes, is examined. Darius most probably left a garrison in Phanagoria. The Achaemenid Cimmerian Bosporus is placed in its Black Sea context. The inscription together with the situation in Colchis show a now greater extent to the Achaemenid empire, thus the Black Sea ‘circle’ was closed. Nowadays, not much new evidence appears in classical archaeology that will change our basic perceptions. Recently, we have been privileged by a discovery at Phana- goria of an Old Persian inscription that is unique not only for the whole Black Sea coast (Fig. 1) but which changes our knowledge of the extent of the Achaemenid empire. My aim here is to advance my opinions, backed up with supporting evi- dence; it is not intended as criticism of any colleagues publishing on these matters. I base myself heavily on my previous writings on the same subject, all composed before the inscription was known or published.1 It largely confirms the correctness of my conclusions. I shall give only essential bibliography because of space – lengthy bibliographies appear in my earlier writings as well as the writings of others. * I should like to extend my thanks to colleagues for their help and advice and for sending me publications: to Amélie Kuhrt for pointing me in the right direction; to Nicholas Sims-Williams and Rüdiger Schmitt for their expert advice on the inscription; to Alexandru Avram, Archil Balakhvantsev, Stanley Burstein and Oleg Gabelko for publications and discussion; to Viktor Kopylov, Alexandr Podossinov and Ehsan Shavarebi for publications; and not least to Vladimir Kuznetsov for publica- tions, for his warm hospitality in Phanagoria in June 2019, for showing me the latest excavations and material, and for the photograph of the inscription reproduced in this article. The inscription is kept in the Centre for the Study of Phanagoria, next to the site. Unfortunately, I was unable to see it because it was on temporary exhibition elsewhere. 1 Especially Tsetskhladze 2008b; 2013a; 2018a. 114 G.R. TSETSKHLADZE Fig. 1: Map of the Black Sea showing major Greek cities and local peoples (author’s map). Persians Entering into Europe/Conflict between Asia and Europe: A Brief Note The purpose of Darius’ Scythian expedition was to punish the Scythians for what they had done in the Near East long before (Herodotus 4. 1). It has received much attention. Our main source is the bulk of Herodotus Book 4. The problems of and with this text have been discussed many times already,2 and I shall not do so here. It has been accepted that the campaign took place in ca. 513/2 BC,3 though we have lacked evidence to confirm that this approximate date is indeed the exact one. S. Burstein’s study, ‘A New Tabula Iliaca: The Vasek Polak Chronicle’ shows the correctness of this date: Lines IIB 32–37: In FGrH 252 B8 the assassination of Hipparchus, the brother of the Athenian tyrant Hippias (514), and Darius I’s Scythian campaign are both dated to the year 513/12. The Getty Tabula Iliaca proves that the puzzling entry (cf. Balcer 1972a, 103, for a review of the scholarly literature on this passage) is merely the result of Cutter d’s arbitrary combination of two separate entries from his source, the original Chronicon Romanum. This discovery eliminates from the Chronicon Romanum one of 2 See, for instance, Asheri et al. 2007; Hind 2011; Tuplin 2010; 2011; Tsetskhladze 2018a. 3 Georges 1987; Balcer 1972a; Cameron 1975; Chernenko 1984, 7–16; Briant 2002, passim. AN ACHAEMENID INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA 115 the principal chronological errors ascribed to it on the basis of FGrH 252 B. The solitary kappa in line 37, which was cut directly under the eta of ἔτη in line 36, is all that Cutter d inscribed on the Getty Tabula Iliaca of what clearly was the Chronicon Romanum’s date from Darius I’s Scythian expedition, ΦΚΗ = 513/12.4 It is clear that Darius’ expedition took place.5 The problems lie with its extent, which is not very well known, importance (for both sides) and the details. Reading Herodotus gives one the impression that it was of great importance for the Achaemenids, but Ctesias History of Persia F13. 216 and Strabo 7. 3. 14 provide just short summaries of the event, probably showing that it was somewhat less significant for Darius than Herodotus makes out. Surprisingly enough, this cam- paign brought the Greek cities of the entire Black Sea and even the Scythians into the Achaemenid empire (see below). From this point of view alone, of course the expedition deserves much more attention than it has hitherto received. Darius’ campaign was not just some quick expedition. In 519 BC, he had ordered Ariaramnes, the satrap of Cappadocia, to cross over to Scythia and to take male and female prisoners of war (Ctesias History of Persia F13. 20). Ariaramnes could reach Scythia by sea and the Cimmerian Bosporus. This event is now con- sidered as an historical fact,7 which can be supported in general by archaeological evidence (that also demonstrates that Ariaramnes reached the Taman Peninsula and its Greek cities: see below). Darius first conquered the southern and western Black Sea, for which the wealthier sources have been studied widely (see below). The questions currently focus on the northern and eastern Black Sea (see below). What written evidence do we have to show that (at least) the northern Black Sea had been included in the Achaemenid domains? Let us return to Ctesias: And while things were going so well for Ninus, he conceived a strong desire to subdue the whole of Asia between the Tanais and the Nile. … He therefore appointed one of his friends as satrap of Media, while he himself attacked the tribes in Asia in an effort to subdue them. And in the 17 years he spent there he became master of them all, except the Indians and the Bactrians. … Amongst the lands on and adjacent to the coast he subdued Egypt, Phoenicia and also brought under his control Coele Syria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Lycia; and in addition to these Caria, Phrygia, Mysia, and Lydia. He added the Troad, Phrygia on the Hellespont, 4 Burstein 1984, 160–61. 5 Hartog 1988. 6 About Ctesias and his sources, see Burstein 2018; Llewellyn-Jones and Robson 2010; Wiesehöfer et al. 2011. 7 Koshelenko 1999, 133–41; Nieling 2010, 127–28; etc. 116 G.R. TSETSKHLADZE Propontis, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and the barbarian tribes who live on the Black Sea coast as far as the River Tanais. He came to rule the land of the Cadusians and the Tapyrians, that of the Hyrcanians and Drangians, and in addition the Derbices, Carmanians, Choromnaeans, and furthermore the Borcanians and Parthyaeans, and he attacked Persis, Susiana, and the region called Caspiana, the passes into which are extremely narrow and are consequently called the Caspian Gates (History of Persia F1b. 2. 1–3). The events Ctesias ascribes to Ninus are astonishingly reminiscent of the overseas policies pursued by Darius and their outcomes (known from his inscriptions). Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that Ctesias should really be talking about him, not Ninus. Darius’ aim, clearly elucidated in the passage above, was the subjugation of the lands between the Nile and the Don (Tanais). He succeeded after a series of campaigns lasting over 17 years, pushing the borders of his domains as far north as the Tanais, thus undoubtedly including the Cimmerian Bosporus within them. Herodotus gives clear evidence about the inclusion of Colchis in the Achamenid empire; this too is corroborated by archaeological evidence as well (see below). Background The relationship between the northern Black Sea/Bosporan kingdom and the Achaemenid empire had been touched on before the discovery of the fragmentary Old Persian inscription in Phanagoria in the summer of 2016. In 1997, the late N.F. Fedoseev published an article which concluded, based on the study of gems, coins and some Persian and Persian-inspired objects, in combination with written sources, mainly Ctesias, that the northern Black Sea had been under Achaemenid control.8 This was criticised by some colleagues who considered that all such objects had come to the region from Asia Minor, from the mother-cities of those Greek colonies, in the way of economic and cultural contacts. Interestingly, they wrote that Persian influence (including political influence) on the northern Black Sea could not be excluded, but that there was no direct evidence for it.9 The late G.A. Koshelenko wrote about Ariaramnes’ journey to the Bosporan kingdom, which he dated to 519 BC, as a precursor for Darius’ Scythian expedition. According to Koshelenko, the Cimmerian Bosporus was freed from the Achaemenids during Pericles’ Pontic expedition.10 This paper was also met with criticism. In collaboration with O.M. Usacheva, Koshelenko published an article in Ukrainian in 1992 (in Arkheologiya [Kiev]), in which ‘Gylon’s treachery’ (Aeschines 3. 171–172) is discussed: the Bosporan king gave Gylon (Demosthenes’ maternal grandfather) 8 Fedoseev 1997. See also Fedoseev 2012; 2014; 2018. 9 Molev 2001. See also Molev 2006; 2008; 2016. Cf. Yatsenko 2011. 10 Koshelenko 1999. AN ACHAEMENID INSCRIPTION FROM PHANAGORIA 117 Kepoi as reward for his surrender/betrayal of Nymphaeum to the Bosporan king- dom. Koshelenko drew parallels with the reward given to Themistocles when he entered Persian service, concluding that this practice was one sign that the Cimme- rian Bosporus was under Achaemenid rule.11 In 2004, V.P.