Iranians & Greeks in South Russia

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND GIVEN IN 1891 m HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE Cornell University Library DK 509.R83 Iranians & Greeks In south Russia 3 1924 028 575 060 Cornell University Library '^1 The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028575060 IRANIANS AND GREEKS IN SOUTH RUSSIA Oxford University Press London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai Humphrey Milford Publisher to the University IRANIANS & GREEKS IN SOUTH RUSSIA BY M. ROSTOVTZEFF, Hon. D.Litt. PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MEMBER OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1922 IRANIANS &? GREEKS IN SOUTH RUSSIA BY M. ROSTOVTZEFF, Hon. D.Litt. PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MEMBER OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1922 TO COUNT A. BOBRINSKOY, PROFESSOR N. KONDAKOV, DR. ELLIS H. MINNS AND TO THE MEMORY OF V. V- LATYSHEV t 1921, J. I. SMIRNOV f 1918, V. V. SKORPIL t 1919, N. I. VESELOVSKY f 1918. PREFACE THIS book is not intended to compete with the valuable and learned book of ElHs H. Minns on the same subject. Our aims are different. Minns endeavoured to give a complete survey of the material illustrating the early history of South Russia and of the views expressed by both Russian and non-Russian scholars on the many and various questions suggested by the study of that material. I do not mean that Minns' book is a mere compendium. In dealing with the various problems of the history and archaeology of South Russia Minns went his own way ; his criticism is acute, his views independent. Nevertheless his main object was to give a survey as full and as complete as possible. And his attempt was successful, Minns' book will remain for decades the chief source of information about South Russia both for Russian and for non-Russian scholars. M)'^ own aim is different. In my short exposition I have tried to give a history of the South Russian lands in the prehistoric, the proto- historic, and the classic periods down to the epoch of the migrations. By history I mean not a repetition of the scanty evidence preserved by the classical writers and illustrated by the archaeological material but an attempt to define the part played by South Russia in the history of the world in general, and to emphasize the contributions of South Russia to the civilization of mankind. In doing so I was obliged to use every kind of material, especially the rich archaeological evidence furnished by the South Russian excavations. Notwithstanding this dominant use of archaeological material, my book is not a handbook of South Russian archaeology, nor is it an investigation of one section in the history of Oriental and classical art. I have tried to write history, using the archaeological viii PREFACE used, in this book evidence in the same way as I should use, and have not new. written documents or hterary sources. Such an attempt is attemptmg to Many eminent scholars have employed this method in different write the history of the ancient Orient in general and of its in historical parts. The same method should be used more widely used for surveys of the Roman provinces, as of course it has been by the history of Gaul by Camille Jullian, for the history of Africa Stephane Gsell, for the history of Britain by the late Francis Haver- history field, for the history of Belgium by Franz Cumont, and for the of Germany by many writers, and especially by H. Dragendorff. But I should like to call for a more rational use of archaeological material than has been usual hitherto. For me archaeology is not a source of illustrations for written texts, but an independent source of historical information, no less valuable and important, sometimes more important, than the written sources. We must learn and we are gradually learning how to write history with the help of archaeology. South Russia, with its enormous wealth of archaeological material, presents a favourable opportunity for such an experiment. The results of my historical investigations are of course far from final or complete. We know but little of the history and archaeology of Central Asia and of the Iranian world. The scientific exploration of the Caucasian lands and of the upper course of the Euphrates is still in its infancy. The mystery of the early history of Asia Minor, and especially of its north-eastern part, has just begun to dispel. And it is precisely these lands which provide the key to the leading phenomena of the early history of South Russia. If I have succeeded in showing the importance of these connexions for the development of South Russia, and the importance of South Russia for under- standing the main features of the civilization of these lands both in the early and in the later period, during the rule of the Scythians and that of the Sarmatians in the South Russian steppes, I shall consider the main part of my task accomplished. I do not deny the importance of the Greek influences in South Russia, but at the same time I do not regard South Russia as one of the provinces of the PREFACE ix Greek world. South Russia has always been, and remained even in the Greek period, an Oriental land. Greek influence in South Russia was strong, it is true, but the current of Hellenism met another current there, an Oriental one, and it was this which finally carried the day, and in the period of the migrations spread all over Western Europe. The attempt to hellenize the South Russian steppes was not a complete success ; much more successful was the attempt to orientalize the semi-Greek world of the northern shores of the Black Sea. In the civilization which the Sarmatians, the Goths, the Huns brought with them to Western Europe it is the Orient which plays the leading part ; the Greek, the Western, and the Northern elements are of but secondary importance. Such is.the leading idea of my book. My book was written not in Russia but in England and in France. The proofs were corrected in America. In writing it I was unable to recur constantly to the original sources preserved in the Russian museums, as I should if I had been in Russia. Nor was I able to consult friends and colleagues, still in Russia, on many questions which they would have helped me to elucidate. Unfortunately Russia is closed to me for a long time to come. This explains why I have been obliged to quote from memory many books and articles which formed part of my private library in Petrograd. It also explains the choice of illustrations. Most of them are reproduced from photographs which I brought with me from Russia. But some of them I was obliged to take from photographs and drawings already published in printed books. I am very much obliged to the Cambridge University Press and to Dr. Ellis H. Minns for permission to use some of the drawings, and one of the maps, from the work of Minns. But, generally speaking, in the choice of my illustrations I have tried to avoid reproducing well-known objects, especially if they have been published by Minns, and to figure, for the most part, such monuments as are either unpublished or published in an unsatisfactory way. For permission to reproduce unpublished objects my warmest thanks are due to Dr. D. G. Hogarth, Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, to Sir Hercules Read and Mr. G. F. Hill, Keepers of the British X PREFACE Museum, to Mr. Edmond Pettier, Keeper of the Louvre, to Mr. Ernest Babelon, Director of the Cabinet des Medailles at Paris, to Mr. Edward Robinson, Director of the Metropolitan Museum, and to Mrs. E. Meyer, of New York. The text of my book was written partly in French, partly in English. For the translation of the French part and for a thorough revision of the Enghsh I am indebted to the self-sacrificing kindness of Mr. J. D. Beazley. I cannot find adequate words to express my warm thanks to that accomplished scholar for his help. He assisted me also in reading the proofs and in arranging and composing the illustrations. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Ellis H. Minns, who read the proofs of my book. But for the scientific spirit of the staff of the Clarendon Press my book could never have been published in such beautiful form and with so many illustrations. The index was compiled by my wife, Mrs. S. Rostovtzeff. I dedicate my book to some living and many dead friends. To these men I am indebted for what I know about the history of South Russia. Madison (Wis.), U,S.A. November 1921. CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTORY i II. THE PREHISTORIC CIVILIZATIONS . 15 III. THE CIMMERIANS AND THE SCYTHIANS IN SOUTH RUSSIA (EIGHTH TO FIFTH CEN- TURIES B.C.) 35 IV. THE GREEKS ON THE SHORES OF THE BLACK SEA, DOWN TO THE ROMAN PERIOD . 61 V. THE SCYTHIANS AT THE END OF THE FOURTH AND IN THE THIRD CENTURY B.C. 83 VI. THE SARMATIANS 113 VII. THE GREEK CITIES OF SOUTH RUSSIA IN THE ROMAN PERIOD 147 VIII. THE POLYCHROME STYLE AND THE ANIMAL STYLE 181 IX. THE ORIGIN OF THE RUSSIAN STATE ON THE DNIEPER 210 BIBLIOGRAPHY .223 INDEX 239 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PLATES I.

Load more