Support: Стела.
Matériau: Известняк.
Description et état du monument : На лицевой стороне рельефное изображением апицированного латинского креста. Обломана сверху и слева, сохранилась правая половина оригинальной плиты.
On the front - relief Latin cross with serifs on the ends of the arms. Broken at the top and left, the right side of the original stele is preserved.
Dimensions: 64,5/39,0/17,5
Lieu d'origine: Hermonassa
Lieu de découverte: Taman, vicinity; Suvorovskaya fortress.
Contexte local: Unknown.
Conditions de découverte: Unknown; before September 1893.
Lieu de conservation: Kerch, Crimea
Institution de conservation: Historical and Archeological Museum of Kerch State Historical and Cultural Preserve
N° inventaire: КЛ-256
Autopsie: May 1999, September 2004, September 2008
Observations: Kerch, Crimea
Fragment 1:
Fragment 2:
Champs épigraphique 1: On the cross
Style écriture: See below
Champs épigraphique 2: In corners between the arms of the cross
Style écriture: Lapidary. Alpha with broken crossbar, rectangular epsilon, mu with slightly sagging middle, omicron is occasionally smaller than other letters, pi with extended horizontal, V-shaped upsilon, wide omega in the shape of two side-by-side bowls joined at the top middle. Ligature sigma-pi, sigma-tau
Texte 1:
Type de texte :
Demonstrative.
Datation du texte :533, 548 or 563 C.E.
Justificatif datation: указание_надписи
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: указание_надписи
Texte 2:
Type de texte :
Building inscription.
Datation du texte :533, 548 or 563 C.E.
Justificatif datation: указание_надписи
Datation du texte :
Justificatif datation: указание_надписи
Éditions: L1. Latyshev 1894 , 657–662; 1.1. Latyshev 1895 , 56–61, № 64; 1.2. Kulakovsky 1895 , 189–198; 1.3. Latyshev 1896 , 98–105, № 98; 2. Vinogradov 2007 , 264, № 14; 3. Vinogradov 2010a , 153-155; L1. Latyshev 1894 , 657–662; 1.1. Latyshev 1895 , 56–61, № 64; 1.2. Kulakovsky 1895a , 29; 1.2.1. Kulakovsky 1895 , 189–198; 1.3. Latyshev 1896 , 98–105, № 98; 1.3.1. Millet 1900 ; 1.3.2. Dain 1933 , 219–220; 1.3.2.1. SEG 37, 679; 1.3.2.2. Feissel 2000 , 93–94, № 26; 1.3.2.2.1. SEG 50, 710bis; 1.3.3. Diatroptov, Yemets 1995 , 3; 2. Vinogradov 2007 , 264, № 14; 3. Vinogradov 2010a , 153-155;
Texte 1
01 [Φ]Ω̣͂[Σ] 02 [Ζ]Ω̣Η |
01 [Φ]ῶ̣[ς], 02 [ζ]ω̣ή . |
Traduction :
Свет, жизнь.
Light, life.
Commentaires :
Восстановление надписи 1 практически не вызывает сомнений, тем более, что на перекрестье видны остатки омеги.
Относительно формулы см. IV.3.C.b.
The restoration of Text 1 is virtually certain, especially since the traces of omega are visible at the crossing of the arms.
On the formula, see IV.3.C.b.
Texte 2
01 [ΤΟΥΤΟΤΟ---ΕΝ] 02 [ΕΡΜΩΝΑΣ]ΣΗΦΩΡ̣Ο̣[Ν] 03 [ΑΝΕΝΕΩΘ]ΗΤΟΜΕΡΙΚΟΝ 4 [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΟΝ]ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΙΑ 05 [ΝΟΥΤΟΥΑΙ]ΩΝΙΟΥΑΥΓ 06 [ΟΥΣ]ΤΟΥ 07 [ΚΑΙΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ]ΤΟΡΟΣΣΠΟΥΔΗ 8 [---Τ]ΟΥΛΑΜΠΡΟΤΑ 09 [ΤΟΥΠΑΤΡΟ]ΣΤΑΥΤΗΣΤΗΣΠΟ 10 [ΛΕΩΣΠΡΑΤΤ]ΟΝΤΟΣΑΝΓΟΥΛΑ 11 [ΤΟΥΛΑΜΠΡΟΤ]ΑΤΟΥΤΡΙΒΟΥ 12 [ΝΟΥΚΑΙΕΡΓΟ]ΛΑΒΟΥΜΗΝΙ 13 [ΜΑΙΩΙΝΔΙ]Κ̣ΤΙΟ͂ΝΙΕΝΔΕΚΑΤΗ |
01 [Τοῦτο τὸ (e.g.) --- ἐν ] 02 [Ἑρμωνάσ]σῃ φῶρ̣ο̣[ν] 03 [ἀνενεώθ]η τὸ μερικόν, 4 [βασιλεύον](τος) Ἰουστινια - 05 [νοῦ τοῦ] [αἰ]ωνίου Αὐγ- 06 [ούσ]του 07 [καὶ αὐτοκρά]τορος, σπουδῇ 8 [--- τ]οῦ λαμπροτά- 09 [του] [πατρὸ]ς ταύτης τῆς πό- 10 [λεως,] [πράττ]οντος Ἀνγουλᾶ 11 [τοῦ λαμπροτ]άτου τριβού- 12 [νου καὶ] [ἐργο]λάβου, μηνὶ 13 [Μαΐῳ ,] [ἰνδι]κ̣τιο͂νι ἑνδεκάτῃ . |
Traduction :
Этот… в Гермонассе форум (?) возобновлен отчасти в
царствование Юстиниана, вечного августа и самодержца, стараниями …, светлейшего
отца (?) этого города, при содействии Ангулы,
светлейшего трибуна и подрядчика, в месяце мае, в 11-й индикт.
This in Hermonassa forum (?) was partially [renovated (?)] in the reign of Justinian, the eternal Augustus and emperor,
by the efforts of...,
the illustrious [father (?)] of this city, with the assistance of Angoulas, the illustrious tribune and contractor,
in the month of May, in the 11th indiction.
Commentaires :
2. Эту строку все исследователи прежде считали первой в надписи, однако облом верхнего
края плиты (особенно учитывая положение последней строки на краю камня) делает более
вероятным наличие выше одной или нескольких строк. В данной строке вслед за
первоиздателем все исследователи читали σηφω[ν..., не предлагая никакого восстановления.
Недавно мы предложили свою расшифровку этого места, ориентируясь на прочтение
Латышева. Однако последняя наша аутопсия камня, снятого с экспозиции и легко доступного
для изучения, показала, что на самом деле после омеги идет ро и, вероятно, омикрон. Такое
сочетание может быть истолковано в строительной надписи только как начало слова φόρον
«форум», а предшествующее ему ση — вероятней всего, как окончание слова [Ἑρμωνάσ]σῃ,
т.е. названия города Гермонассы, находящейся рядом (в 2,5 км) с местом находки камня.
Омега вместо омикрона не должна вызывать удивления — ср. обратную замену в 12-й строке.
Столь позднее упоминание имени Гермонасса нельзя считать уникальным: в анонимном «Перипле Понта Эвксинского» сер. VI — сер. IX в. (Diller 1952, 130) имя Гермонасса дается без добавления современного автору названия города. Пришедшая на смену Гермонассе византийская Таматарха (Матарха) упоминается впервые в Notitia episcopatuum 3 (кон. VIII — 1 пол. IX в.; Darrouzès 1981, 242).
4. При восстановлении исчезнувшего слова часть ученых (Болотов, Кулаковский, Фейссель) не обращала достаточно внимания на размеры лакуны (ок. 9 букв), а Латышев вынужден был отказаться от своего первоначального чтения из-за обилия других возможных вариантов. Между тем, никто не обратил внимания на то, что заканчивается это слово типичным знаком сокращения (в виде S, ср. V 273). На наш взгляд, наиболее приемлемой здесь выглядит стандартная формула [βασιλεύον](τος).
9. Восстанавливаемая первоиздателем должность «комит города» выглядит странно не только для Византии, но и для позднего Боспорского царства: судя по V 265, здесь действительно было несколько комитов, однако единственная известная их функция — царский секретарь, в то время как там же упоминается эпарх, т.е., по всей видимости, глава столицы. Таким образом, нет оснований считать, что на Боспоре, тем более византийском, могла существовать уникальная должность «комита города». Поэтому более приемлем хорошо известный титул «отец города», реконструированный Фейсселем.
11–12. Имя Ангул как исаврийское засвидетельствовано в Vita Symeonis Iunioris 123, 128, 168, 240 (Van den Ven 1962). Наш трибун Ангул, вполне вероятно, то же самое лицо, что и Ἀγγίλας — таксиарх в Лазике в 556 г. (PLRE III, 82). Бартикян 2009 предполагает, что имя Ἀγγύλας в эпосе «Дигенис Акрит» может происходить от названия византийской провинции Ангилена (на территории Армении).
13–14. Последнее обстоятельство заставляет нас склонятся к двум последним из трех возможных датировок надписи. В начале 14-й строки остается место только для слова Μαίῳ, а 11-й индикт соответствует в правление Юстиниана I (датировка временем Юстиниана II исключается по историческим причинам) 532/3, 547/8 или 562/3 гг. Отметим, что 11-ым индиктом правления Юстиниана датирована и строительная надпись с Мангупа (V 171), а Прокопий Кесарийский (De aed. 3, 7, 12) описывает строительные работы в Горном Крыму и на Боспоре как части одной программы (см. Feissel 2000). Поскольку же Прокопий закончил свой труд раньше 563 г., то наиболее вероятной датой для нашей надписи кажется 548 г.
В этой связи снова обретает актуальность высказанная Кулаковским (и отвергнутая Латышевым) идея о связи данной постройки с просьбой готов-тетракситов в 547–548 гг. о назначении им епископа. Отметим, что слово φόρον известно и в контексте церковного строительства (LBW V 991 С; Эзаны во Фригии Пакатиане, 981 г.). Кроме того, присутствие римского военного трибуна подтверждает сообщение Прокопия о переходе тетракситов под власть ромеев и объясняет необычное выполнение военным чиновником функций строительного подрядчика (это объясняет также смущавшее Латышева отсутствие в надписи епископа, о котором Прокопий, заметим, прямо не говорит, что он отправился вместе с посольством). Если Ангул надписи был трибуном в Лазике, то это можно связать с упомянутой Прокопием ссылкой тетракситов на прецедент Авасгии.
Столь позднее упоминание имени Гермонасса нельзя считать уникальным: в анонимном «Перипле Понта Эвксинского» сер. VI — сер. IX в. (Diller 1952, 130) имя Гермонасса дается без добавления современного автору названия города. Пришедшая на смену Гермонассе византийская Таматарха (Матарха) упоминается впервые в Notitia episcopatuum 3 (кон. VIII — 1 пол. IX в.; Darrouzès 1981, 242).
4. При восстановлении исчезнувшего слова часть ученых (Болотов, Кулаковский, Фейссель) не обращала достаточно внимания на размеры лакуны (ок. 9 букв), а Латышев вынужден был отказаться от своего первоначального чтения из-за обилия других возможных вариантов. Между тем, никто не обратил внимания на то, что заканчивается это слово типичным знаком сокращения (в виде S, ср. V 273). На наш взгляд, наиболее приемлемой здесь выглядит стандартная формула [βασιλεύον](τος).
9. Восстанавливаемая первоиздателем должность «комит города» выглядит странно не только для Византии, но и для позднего Боспорского царства: судя по V 265, здесь действительно было несколько комитов, однако единственная известная их функция — царский секретарь, в то время как там же упоминается эпарх, т.е., по всей видимости, глава столицы. Таким образом, нет оснований считать, что на Боспоре, тем более византийском, могла существовать уникальная должность «комита города». Поэтому более приемлем хорошо известный титул «отец города», реконструированный Фейсселем.
11–12. Имя Ангул как исаврийское засвидетельствовано в Vita Symeonis Iunioris 123, 128, 168, 240 (Van den Ven 1962). Наш трибун Ангул, вполне вероятно, то же самое лицо, что и Ἀγγίλας — таксиарх в Лазике в 556 г. (PLRE III, 82). Бартикян 2009 предполагает, что имя Ἀγγύλας в эпосе «Дигенис Акрит» может происходить от названия византийской провинции Ангилена (на территории Армении).
13–14. Последнее обстоятельство заставляет нас склонятся к двум последним из трех возможных датировок надписи. В начале 14-й строки остается место только для слова Μαίῳ, а 11-й индикт соответствует в правление Юстиниана I (датировка временем Юстиниана II исключается по историческим причинам) 532/3, 547/8 или 562/3 гг. Отметим, что 11-ым индиктом правления Юстиниана датирована и строительная надпись с Мангупа (V 171), а Прокопий Кесарийский (De aed. 3, 7, 12) описывает строительные работы в Горном Крыму и на Боспоре как части одной программы (см. Feissel 2000). Поскольку же Прокопий закончил свой труд раньше 563 г., то наиболее вероятной датой для нашей надписи кажется 548 г.
В этой связи снова обретает актуальность высказанная Кулаковским (и отвергнутая Латышевым) идея о связи данной постройки с просьбой готов-тетракситов в 547–548 гг. о назначении им епископа. Отметим, что слово φόρον известно и в контексте церковного строительства (LBW V 991 С; Эзаны во Фригии Пакатиане, 981 г.). Кроме того, присутствие римского военного трибуна подтверждает сообщение Прокопия о переходе тетракситов под власть ромеев и объясняет необычное выполнение военным чиновником функций строительного подрядчика (это объясняет также смущавшее Латышева отсутствие в надписи епископа, о котором Прокопий, заметим, прямо не говорит, что он отправился вместе с посольством). Если Ангул надписи был трибуном в Лазике, то это можно связать с упомянутой Прокопием ссылкой тетракситов на прецедент Авасгии.
2. All scholars who had studied the inscription considered this line to be the first, but the break at the top (especially considering the
position of the last line at the edge of the stone) makes it quite likely that one or more lines had been lost above this one.
Following editio princeps, everyone has read σηφω[ν..., in this line, without however offering any restoration. Not long ago I proposed
a restoration on the basis of Latyshev's reading, however, my latest visual inspection of the stone, which was taken off the exhibit and hence
available for close investigation, showed that omega is followed by rho and probably omicron. Such a combination in an inscription can be
interpreted only as the beginning of the word φόρον, that is forum, and the preceding ση — is most likely the end of the word [Ἑρμωνάσ]σῃ,
that is, the name of the city of Hermonassa located not far (2.5 km) from the findspot of this monument. An omega instead of an omicron should not
suprise us - see the reverse substitution in line 12.
We should not consider such a late mention of the city ethnic Hermonassa unique: in the anonymous "Periplous of Pontos Euxeinos" dated to the VIth - middle of the IXth century C.E. (Diller 1952, 130) the name 'Hermonassa' is mentioned without a contemporary equivalent. The Byzantine Tamatarcha (Matracha) that had replaced Hermonassa is first mentioned in Notitia episcopatuum 3 (end of the VIIIth — 1st half of the IXth century, Darrouzès 1981, 242).
4. In trying to restore the lost word, some scholars (Bolotov, Kulakovsky, Feissel) did not pay attention to the size of the lacuna (ca. 9 letters), while Latyshev was forced to withdraw his original reconstruction due to a large number of other equally possible restorations. Meanwhile, nobody has noticed that the word ends with a typical abbreviation mark (in the shape of S, cf. V 273). In my opinion, the most likely standard formula here would be [βασιλεύον](τος).
9. The title of "comes of the city" proposed as a restoration by the author of editio princeps does not sit well either in a Byzantine context, or in the late Kingdom of Bosporus: if we were to judge on the basis of V 265, there were several comites there, but their only known function is 'royal secretary', while an eparchos is also mentioned, who is probably the capital's mayor. Thus, we have no grounds for expecting in Byzantine Bosporus a unique post of "comes of the city." Rather, a widely known title of "the father of the city", restored by Feissel, is more attractive here.
11–12. The name Angoulas is attested as Isaurian in Vita Symeonis Iunioris 123, 128, 168, 240 (Van den Ven 1962). Our tribune Angoulas may well have been the same person as Ἀγγίλας — taxiarchos in Lazica 556 C.E. (PLRE III, 82). Bartikyan 2009 speculates that the name Ἀγγύλας in the epic "Digenis Akritas" might take its origin in the name of the Byzantine province of Angylena in the territory of Armenia.
13–14. A hypothesis about such origin gives us a reason to prefer the two later ones out of three possible dates for the inscription. At the beginning of line 14, there is room only for the word Μαίῳ, and the 11th indiction corresponds during the rule of Justinian I (a date in the rule of Justinian II is excluded for historical reasons) to the years 532/3, 547/8 or 562/3 C.E. We should note that a building inscription from Mangup (V 171) is also dated in the 11th indiction of Justinian's rule, while Procopius of Caesarea (De aed. 3, 7, 12) refers to construction projects in the Mountainous Crimea and in Bosporus as parts of the same building programme (see Feissel 2000). Since Procopius completed his work prior to 563 C.E., the most likely date for our inscription would be 548 C.E.
In this regard, we are reminded of a hypothesis outlined by Kulakovsky (and rejected by Latyshev) about a possible connection between this construction project and the request of Crimean Goths-Tetraxitai in 547-548 C.E. to appoint a bishop for them. The word φόρον is attested in the context of church building (LBW V 991 С; Ezana in Phrygia Pacatiana, 981 C.E.). In addition, the presence of a Roman military tribune confirms Procopius' testimony about the submission of Tetraxitai to the Byzantine control and helps explain how a military came to play the role of a building contractor (this also helps explain the absence of a bishop in the inscription, something that bothered Latyshev, in particular: although Procopius does mention one, he is not necessarily saying that the bishop went together with the embasssy). If Angoulas of our inscription had served as a tribune in Lazica, this might have something to do with the precedent of Abasgia cited by Tetraxitai and mentioned by Procopius.
We should not consider such a late mention of the city ethnic Hermonassa unique: in the anonymous "Periplous of Pontos Euxeinos" dated to the VIth - middle of the IXth century C.E. (Diller 1952, 130) the name 'Hermonassa' is mentioned without a contemporary equivalent. The Byzantine Tamatarcha (Matracha) that had replaced Hermonassa is first mentioned in Notitia episcopatuum 3 (end of the VIIIth — 1st half of the IXth century, Darrouzès 1981, 242).
4. In trying to restore the lost word, some scholars (Bolotov, Kulakovsky, Feissel) did not pay attention to the size of the lacuna (ca. 9 letters), while Latyshev was forced to withdraw his original reconstruction due to a large number of other equally possible restorations. Meanwhile, nobody has noticed that the word ends with a typical abbreviation mark (in the shape of S, cf. V 273). In my opinion, the most likely standard formula here would be [βασιλεύον](τος).
9. The title of "comes of the city" proposed as a restoration by the author of editio princeps does not sit well either in a Byzantine context, or in the late Kingdom of Bosporus: if we were to judge on the basis of V 265, there were several comites there, but their only known function is 'royal secretary', while an eparchos is also mentioned, who is probably the capital's mayor. Thus, we have no grounds for expecting in Byzantine Bosporus a unique post of "comes of the city." Rather, a widely known title of "the father of the city", restored by Feissel, is more attractive here.
11–12. The name Angoulas is attested as Isaurian in Vita Symeonis Iunioris 123, 128, 168, 240 (Van den Ven 1962). Our tribune Angoulas may well have been the same person as Ἀγγίλας — taxiarchos in Lazica 556 C.E. (PLRE III, 82). Bartikyan 2009 speculates that the name Ἀγγύλας in the epic "Digenis Akritas" might take its origin in the name of the Byzantine province of Angylena in the territory of Armenia.
13–14. A hypothesis about such origin gives us a reason to prefer the two later ones out of three possible dates for the inscription. At the beginning of line 14, there is room only for the word Μαίῳ, and the 11th indiction corresponds during the rule of Justinian I (a date in the rule of Justinian II is excluded for historical reasons) to the years 532/3, 547/8 or 562/3 C.E. We should note that a building inscription from Mangup (V 171) is also dated in the 11th indiction of Justinian's rule, while Procopius of Caesarea (De aed. 3, 7, 12) refers to construction projects in the Mountainous Crimea and in Bosporus as parts of the same building programme (see Feissel 2000). Since Procopius completed his work prior to 563 C.E., the most likely date for our inscription would be 548 C.E.
In this regard, we are reminded of a hypothesis outlined by Kulakovsky (and rejected by Latyshev) about a possible connection between this construction project and the request of Crimean Goths-Tetraxitai in 547-548 C.E. to appoint a bishop for them. The word φόρον is attested in the context of church building (LBW V 991 С; Ezana in Phrygia Pacatiana, 981 C.E.). In addition, the presence of a Roman military tribune confirms Procopius' testimony about the submission of Tetraxitai to the Byzantine control and helps explain how a military came to play the role of a building contractor (this also helps explain the absence of a bishop in the inscription, something that bothered Latyshev, in particular: although Procopius does mention one, he is not necessarily saying that the bishop went together with the embasssy). If Angoulas of our inscription had served as a tribune in Lazica, this might have something to do with the precedent of Abasgia cited by Tetraxitai and mentioned by Procopius.
Traduction : 1
Light, life.
Traduction : 2
This in Hermonassa forum (?) was partially [renovated (?)] in the reign of Justinian, the eternal Augustus and emperor,
by the efforts of...,
the illustrious [father (?)] of this city, with the assistance of Angoulas, the illustrious tribune and contractor,
in the month of May, in the 11th indiction.
Apparat critique : 1
1-3 : Φῶς, ζωή Bolotov apud
Kulakovsky , Kulakovsky , Latyshev et al.
1-3 : Ἰη(σοῦς) Latyshev , Latyshev et al.
Apparat critique : 2
1 :
om.
Latyshev , Latyshev , Latyshev et alii
2 : σηφω[ν...] Latyshev , Latyshev , Latyshev et alii
2 : [Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰω]σὴφ (?) ὡ ν[αὸς (?) Vinogradov et alii
3 : [ᾠκοδομήθ]η Millet
4 : [ἐφ᾿ ὑπατία]ς Latyshev , Latyshev
4 : [βασιλεύοντο]ς resp. ἐκ προνοία]ς Kulakovsky , Kulakovsky
4 : ... Latyshev
4 : [ἐκ προσφορᾶ]ς Millet
4 : [βασιλεύοντο]ς Feissel
9 : [πατρὸ]ς Feissel
9 : [κόμητο]ς Latyshev , Latyshev , Latyshev
9 : [πρωτεύοντο]ς Bolotov apud
Kulakovsky , Kulakovsky
9 : [ἄρχοντο]ς Millet
10-11 : Ἀνγουλᾶ [τοῦ λαμπρο]τάτου Bolotov apud
Kulakovsky , Kulakovsky , Latyshev
10-11 : Ἀνγουλά[του λαμπρο]τάτου Latyshev , Latyshev
13 : Μαίῳ Vinogradov , Vinogradov et alii
13 : ... Latyshev et alii
Commentaires: 1
The restoration of Text 1 is virtually certain, especially since the traces of omega are visible at the crossing of the arms.
On the formula, see IV.3.C.b.
Commentaires: 2
2. All scholars who had studied the inscription considered this line to be the first, but the break at the top (especially considering the
position of the last line at the edge of the stone) makes it quite likely that one or more lines had been lost above this one.
Following editio princeps, everyone has read σηφω[ν..., in this line, without however offering any restoration. Not long ago I proposed
a restoration on the basis of Latyshev's reading, however, my latest visual inspection of the stone, which was taken off the exhibit and hence
available for close investigation, showed that omega is followed by rho and probably omicron. Such a combination in an inscription can be
interpreted only as the beginning of the word φόρον, that is forum, and the preceding ση — is most likely the end of the word [Ἑρμωνάσ]σῃ,
that is, the name of the city of Hermonassa located not far (2.5 km) from the findspot of this monument. An omega instead of an omicron should not
suprise us - see the reverse substitution in line 12.
We should not consider such a late mention of the city ethnic Hermonassa unique: in the anonymous "Periplous of Pontos Euxeinos" dated to the VIth - middle of the IXth century C.E. (Diller 1952, 130) the name 'Hermonassa' is mentioned without a contemporary equivalent. The Byzantine Tamatarcha (Matracha) that had replaced Hermonassa is first mentioned in Notitia episcopatuum 3 (end of the VIIIth — 1st half of the IXth century, Darrouzès 1981, 242).
4. In trying to restore the lost word, some scholars (Bolotov, Kulakovsky, Feissel) did not pay attention to the size of the lacuna (ca. 9 letters), while Latyshev was forced to withdraw his original reconstruction due to a large number of other equally possible restorations. Meanwhile, nobody has noticed that the word ends with a typical abbreviation mark (in the shape of S, cf. V 273). In my opinion, the most likely standard formula here would be [βασιλεύον](τος).
9. The title of "comes of the city" proposed as a restoration by the author of editio princeps does not sit well either in a Byzantine context, or in the late Kingdom of Bosporus: if we were to judge on the basis of V 265, there were several comites there, but their only known function is 'royal secretary', while an eparchos is also mentioned, who is probably the capital's mayor. Thus, we have no grounds for expecting in Byzantine Bosporus a unique post of "comes of the city." Rather, a widely known title of "the father of the city", restored by Feissel, is more attractive here.
11–12. The name Angoulas is attested as Isaurian in Vita Symeonis Iunioris 123, 128, 168, 240 (Van den Ven 1962). Our tribune Angoulas may well have been the same person as Ἀγγίλας — taxiarchos in Lazica 556 C.E. (PLRE III, 82). Bartikyan 2009 speculates that the name Ἀγγύλας in the epic "Digenis Akritas" might take its origin in the name of the Byzantine province of Angylena in the territory of Armenia.
13–14. A hypothesis about such origin gives us a reason to prefer the two later ones out of three possible dates for the inscription. At the beginning of line 14, there is room only for the word Μαίῳ, and the 11th indiction corresponds during the rule of Justinian I (a date in the rule of Justinian II is excluded for historical reasons) to the years 532/3, 547/8 or 562/3 C.E. We should note that a building inscription from Mangup (V 171) is also dated in the 11th indiction of Justinian's rule, while Procopius of Caesarea (De aed. 3, 7, 12) refers to construction projects in the Mountainous Crimea and in Bosporus as parts of the same building programme (see Feissel 2000). Since Procopius completed his work prior to 563 C.E., the most likely date for our inscription would be 548 C.E.
In this regard, we are reminded of a hypothesis outlined by Kulakovsky (and rejected by Latyshev) about a possible connection between this construction project and the request of Crimean Goths-Tetraxitai in 547-548 C.E. to appoint a bishop for them. The word φόρον is attested in the context of church building (LBW V 991 С; Ezana in Phrygia Pacatiana, 981 C.E.). In addition, the presence of a Roman military tribune confirms Procopius' testimony about the submission of Tetraxitai to the Byzantine control and helps explain how a military came to play the role of a building contractor (this also helps explain the absence of a bishop in the inscription, something that bothered Latyshev, in particular: although Procopius does mention one, he is not necessarily saying that the bishop went together with the embasssy). If Angoulas of our inscription had served as a tribune in Lazica, this might have something to do with the precedent of Abasgia cited by Tetraxitai and mentioned by Procopius.
We should not consider such a late mention of the city ethnic Hermonassa unique: in the anonymous "Periplous of Pontos Euxeinos" dated to the VIth - middle of the IXth century C.E. (Diller 1952, 130) the name 'Hermonassa' is mentioned without a contemporary equivalent. The Byzantine Tamatarcha (Matracha) that had replaced Hermonassa is first mentioned in Notitia episcopatuum 3 (end of the VIIIth — 1st half of the IXth century, Darrouzès 1981, 242).
4. In trying to restore the lost word, some scholars (Bolotov, Kulakovsky, Feissel) did not pay attention to the size of the lacuna (ca. 9 letters), while Latyshev was forced to withdraw his original reconstruction due to a large number of other equally possible restorations. Meanwhile, nobody has noticed that the word ends with a typical abbreviation mark (in the shape of S, cf. V 273). In my opinion, the most likely standard formula here would be [βασιλεύον](τος).
9. The title of "comes of the city" proposed as a restoration by the author of editio princeps does not sit well either in a Byzantine context, or in the late Kingdom of Bosporus: if we were to judge on the basis of V 265, there were several comites there, but their only known function is 'royal secretary', while an eparchos is also mentioned, who is probably the capital's mayor. Thus, we have no grounds for expecting in Byzantine Bosporus a unique post of "comes of the city." Rather, a widely known title of "the father of the city", restored by Feissel, is more attractive here.
11–12. The name Angoulas is attested as Isaurian in Vita Symeonis Iunioris 123, 128, 168, 240 (Van den Ven 1962). Our tribune Angoulas may well have been the same person as Ἀγγίλας — taxiarchos in Lazica 556 C.E. (PLRE III, 82). Bartikyan 2009 speculates that the name Ἀγγύλας in the epic "Digenis Akritas" might take its origin in the name of the Byzantine province of Angylena in the territory of Armenia.
13–14. A hypothesis about such origin gives us a reason to prefer the two later ones out of three possible dates for the inscription. At the beginning of line 14, there is room only for the word Μαίῳ, and the 11th indiction corresponds during the rule of Justinian I (a date in the rule of Justinian II is excluded for historical reasons) to the years 532/3, 547/8 or 562/3 C.E. We should note that a building inscription from Mangup (V 171) is also dated in the 11th indiction of Justinian's rule, while Procopius of Caesarea (De aed. 3, 7, 12) refers to construction projects in the Mountainous Crimea and in Bosporus as parts of the same building programme (see Feissel 2000). Since Procopius completed his work prior to 563 C.E., the most likely date for our inscription would be 548 C.E.
In this regard, we are reminded of a hypothesis outlined by Kulakovsky (and rejected by Latyshev) about a possible connection between this construction project and the request of Crimean Goths-Tetraxitai in 547-548 C.E. to appoint a bishop for them. The word φόρον is attested in the context of church building (LBW V 991 С; Ezana in Phrygia Pacatiana, 981 C.E.). In addition, the presence of a Roman military tribune confirms Procopius' testimony about the submission of Tetraxitai to the Byzantine control and helps explain how a military came to play the role of a building contractor (this also helps explain the absence of a bishop in the inscription, something that bothered Latyshev, in particular: although Procopius does mention one, he is not necessarily saying that the bishop went together with the embasssy). If Angoulas of our inscription had served as a tribune in Lazica, this might have something to do with the precedent of Abasgia cited by Tetraxitai and mentioned by Procopius.
XML EpiDoc
URI:https://petrae.huma-num.fr/5.329
© A.Yu. Vinogradov, Irene Polinskaya