6 ответов в этой теме

[Volgost]

SETTLEMENTS
Tosho Spiridonov

The author considers the types of settlements used by the Thracians. A chronological survey is made of the settlements which existed from the end of the 2nd millennium BC to the end of the pre-Roman period. The brief historical-geographic characterization allows to consider the different types of settlements also in connection with the respective geographic environment, with the economic characteristics and in accordance with the stages of the ethnic and social development of the Thracians. The evidence from the excavations of different archaeological sites - settlements - reveals the principal features of the different types of settlements in various parts of ancient Thrace.

DWELLINGS
Tosho Spiridonov

The dwelling is one of the main elements of the ethnographic characteristics of the Thracian ethnic community. Due to the almost complete lack of detailed evidence about the dwellings of the Thracians, their principal characteristic features have been derived on the basis of archaeological materials and the scanty data in the works of the ancient authors. The dwelling is studied in evolution, starting from the Neolithic Age, in order to trace the principal typological features. The dependence of the main features - agricultural, stockbreeding, ore-mining, military, etc. - of the economic character of the settlements is demonstrated along general lines. The changes in the construction, plan and purpose of its different part, both in functional terms and with respect to theorganization of the social space in the settlement, are demonstrated.

ROADS
Tosho Spiridonov

The text considers the main traces of the routes crossing ancient Thrace during the different historical periods. Above all, the answer is sought to the question whether the Thracians had permanent routes, or whether they used only the principal directions, tracing their roads depending on the season and on the character of the respective geographic region. The principal roads, which were later covered with stone pavement during the Roman period, were formed during the early period in the existence and development of the Thracians. These are: the main route along the Danube and Hebros rivers, along the Black Sea coast, along the Aegean coast and the principal meridional road that started from the Baltic Sea, crossed the Carpathian Mountains and then the Danube river at Oescus, the Balkan Range at Sostra and the Rhodope Mountains along the Chernatitsa ridge, descending via Tsigansko Gradishte to the Aegean coast. At the same time, there existed numerous secondary local roads. The principal roads were paved with stones during the Roman period, thus becoming actually the skeleton of the constant communication network through which the integration of ancient Thrace in the Roman Empire was assisted.


FOOD AND NUTRITION (LATE 2nd - 1st MILLENNIUM BC)
Roumyana Georgieva

During the period under consideration, vegetarian food predominated in Thracian cuisine. Leavened and unleavened bread was used, as well as porridge made of barley and wheat groats.Other foods were: milk, cheese, broad beans - mashed and in the form of soup, fresh and dried peas, and lentil. During the warmer months the food was diversified with fresh vegetables (dock, sorrel, cabbage, etc.), mushrooms and fruits (apples, peaches, grapes, etc.). Fresh fish, game and domestic animals were the source of animal proteins. Meat food was consumed rarely, moreover predominantly in the cold months, when it was possible to conserve it. The Thracians usually had two meals per day. There were foods that attributed a special image to Thracian cuisine: dairy products (yoghurt, butter, cheese, curd), the drinks and dishes made of millet, consumptions of onion and garlic, use of wine undiluted with water.

FABRICS AND LOCAL CLOTHING (LATE 2nd-1st MILLENNIUM BC)
Roumyana Georgieva

Fabrics and clothing were made at home during the period under consideration. Outer garments were sewn, using fabrics made of hemp, flax and wool, naturally or artificially dyed, with woven or embroidered decoration. The way in which the clothes were worn depended on the season and on the type of work practiced, with certain regional differences. Women most often wore long shirts gathered around the necks, or a long-sleeved garment sewn on both sides and with a slit for the head, both garments being tied at the waist. The men's costume had at least two varieties: narrow trousers resembling the modern pantyhose and a short shirt tucked into it, combined with an outer shirt-like garment, tied at the waist. Over this clothing, cloaks, fur coats and the characteristic Thracian zeira were used. The costumes were completed with fibulae, leather or textile bells, various articles of adornment, etc.


Male and female clothing from the monument at Adamklisi


Spread of felts, Kazanluk tomb


Male and female clothing from phaleras, Letnica treasure


Depiction of a female clothing from jug No 155, Rogozen treasure


Male clothing from jug No 159, Rogozen treasure


Male pants from a German grave (a, after E. Thiel), and from the frescoes on the late antiquity tomb near Silistra (b)

THE THRACIANS AND THEIR CLOTHING ON ATTIC PAINTED POTTERY
Maria Rejo

The Thracians depicted on painted Attic vases are recognized both by the signs of the mythological tradition, and by their appearance. For instance, Thracian female slaves often had long loose hair or their hair was cut very short. The exposed parts of their bodies are tattooed. They are usually dressed according to Hellenic fashion, but some attributes (short chiton, leather hat and boots, multicoloured cloak) suggest their ethnic belonging Thracian men were most often depicted wearing a short tunic, a multicoloured cloak (zeira), hat and boots. This type of clothing should be considered only in connection with definite Thracian tribes (i.e., those inhabiting the lands between the Strymon river and the Black Sea coast), and not for entire Thrace.


A menad, depicted as a Thracian. Attic crater, V c. BC, Muenchen


Orpheus and the Thracians. Attic crater, V c. BC, Berlin


A Thracian warrior. Attic jug, V c. BC, Sozopol


The decorative elements of the Thracian clothing from the images on the Attic ceramic, VI-V cc. BC

RITUAL PITS (LATE 2nd- 1st MILLENNIUM BC)
Roumyana Georgieva

Ritual pits are discovered in the embankments of the tumuli, below them and outside the necropolises. The making of the pits belonging to the first group coincides with the commemoration of the anniversary after the death of the person buried; these pits were a place from which and through which the living communicated with the world of the dead. The two other groups of pits have the significance of altars in sanctuaries, connected with the fertility cult. Pit sanctuaries and the pits in the tumular embankments can be associated with the rock niches hewn near to or outside the rock tombs - both chronologically and in terms of their purpose.

ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN THE BURIAL PRACTICE OF THE THRAC1ANS (LATE 2nd- 1st MILLENNIUM BC)
Roumyana Georgieva

Animal sacrifice was an important element in Thracian burial rites. The significance of tliese sacrifices should be sought along two lines: the animals were either intended for food, or they had to accompany the deceased in his journey to the world beyond. An earlier and relatively more stable idea was connected with sacrifices in connection with funerary feasts and the supply of food from the funerary feast to the deceased. It suggests the existence of beliefs which focused around the notion about the deceased as a table-companion and host of the funerary feast. Horse and dog sacrifices point to ideas about their mediating role between the worlds of the living and of the dead, and their perception as symbols of power and immortality.

THE FUNERAL (LATE 2nd- 1st MILLENNIUM BC)
Roumyana Georgieva

Burial rites occupy an extremely important if not foremost position in the Thracian system of customs, due to the fact that the dead ranked higher than the living in ancient Thrace. All rituals performed between the occurrence of death and the closing of the grave (the closing of the eyes and jaws of the deceased, bathing, preparation of the body which was left for three days to lie at stake, mourning, animal sacrifices and burial feast) were aimed mainly at facilitating the deceased individual to make his transition to the world beyond. The faith in his supernatural power, together, with the apprehension or hope that he is capable of influencing the fate of the living, were among the reasons for the exceptional care devoted to the dead in Thrace.

COMMEMORATION RITES (LATE 2nd-1st MILLENNIUM BC)
Roumyana Georgieva

Different contest, games, horse races and combats were organized immediately after burials took place in Thrace. This form of worshipping the dead was practiced by many peoples in the antiquity, and everywhere it was a means of satisfying the needs of the living to worship the deceased or to bring him peace. The link with the deceased was not broken with the burial, which is proved by the numerous visits to the grave, evidenced by the traces of libations, food sacrifices, fireplaces and pits in the tumular embankments. In all probability, the Thracians noted the anniversary of the death of the buried individual and worshipped all dead once a year or at longer intervals of time.

[Volgost]

SOME ETHNOCULTURAL PROBLEMS IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE AUTHORS DURING THE LATE ANTIQUITY ABOUT THE THRACIAN LANDS

Greek and Roman authors were interested in the Thracians insofar as they associated them with the policy of the Greek world, of Rome and even of Macedonia under Philip II and Alexander the Great. This character of their interest led to reiteration of already established characteristics concerning the Thracians and the "Barbaric" world in general. Even when they were not hostile or biased, these characteristics archaized the actual development of the Thracians.

After the political crisis in Thrace in the 4th-3rd century B.C., the interest of the Roman authors toward its inhabitants was prompted by the aggressive intentions and actions of Rome. This interest did not result in understanding of the actual development of the Thracians: Serdoi, Maidoi, Dentheletoi and Bessi were tribes that were more or less brave, being either allies or adversaries of Rome. The ethnonyms "Bessi" and "Dakoi" (Dacians) gained popularity in historical literature during that period, due to their opposition to the Roman legions. Their aspirations for freedom were sufficient reason for Strabo to qualify the Bessi as bandits, while the Dacians are ferrocious in Horatius' Odes. [1]

The names of the Roman provinces formed in the Thracian lands are based on onomastic data. These names facilitate the superficial interest of the Roman authors in the ethnic characteristics of the population of the Thracian lands. The Thracians were already subjects of the Empire at that time; after Caracalla's Edict of 212 B.C. they were simply Romans legally before the official rule. The Roman authors confused the traditional idea about the tribal division of the Thracians with the new administrative division, and without being interested in the influx of military and civil persons with different ethnic appurtenance, they characterized the population in the different provinces as Moesians, Dacians, Thracians and Macedonians. However, when they were interested in the actual ethnic belonging of the tribes, they could have been more specific, if they had had the necessary information.

Under the influence of the views of Pliny the Elder on the name "Scythians", the eminent 3rd century historian Dexippus referred to the "Barbarians" attacking to the south of the Danube, led by the Goths, with the collective ethnicon "Scythians." [2] This name was widely used by the Byzantine authors even after the 12th century. [3] The tendency towards archaization in this name is combined with the impossibility to specify the ethnic composition of the invaders, which was extremely varied.

When Dexippus and later the 4th century authors — Eusebius, Eunapius, and Philostorgius — who used him as a source, identified "Scythians" with "Goths", this did not exclude at all the real participation of other ethnic groups in the incursions, but reflected the military and political supremacy of the Goths. [4]

The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine I led to the emergence of the Thracian province by the name of Scythia. The Church historian of the first half of the 5th century B.C. Sozomenes uses the qualification of "the manly Scythians" mainly to denote the inhabitants of Tomis. When he referred to the Bishop of Tomis Theotimus (ca. 392-402) as "Scythian", he did not have in mind his Gothic origin, but the fact that Tomis belonged to Scythia Minor. [5] The pagan historian Zosimus called the Visigoths "Transdanubian Scythians", the Ostrogoths led by Odothaeus — "Scythians". [6] Priscus the Thracian mentions that the military leader of Gothic origin Plinthas is of "Scythian origin". This author prefers the archaic ethnicon "Scythians", because it was difficult for him to specify the ethnic composition of Attila's tribal union. Priscus even noted that the "Scythians", i. e. Attila's subordinates, were a conglomerate of different peoples. He used the term "Basileus of the Huns" for Attila, but guided by the tendency toward archaization, he called Attila and Bleda "the royal Scythians." [7]

The Church historian Philostorgius, and after him Cassiodorus and Jordanes, also used the name "Getae" to denote the Goths — apparently due to phonological similarity and archaization on an ethnogeographic basis. For the Gothic historian Jordanes it was essential to glorify the ancient origin of the Goths through the deeds of the Getae — valiant and numerous horsemen-archers, according to Thucydides, and victors over Lysimachos, according to Diodorus. In the 1st century B. C., led by Burebista, they imposed their hegemony over the Greek colonies and transferred their activities even to the south of the Haemus.

It seems that the chronicler of the first half of the 6th century Marcellinus Comes used the name "Getae" rather arbitrarily, when he did not know the ethnic belonging of someone. The identity between "Getae" and "Slavs" is almost certain, and in the invasion of 530 he differentiated well the "Getae" from the Bulgarians. Identity between "Getae" and Slavs is also found in Theophylactus Simocatta. [8]

The principal written source about the "Barbaric" incursions into the Thracian lands during the second half of the 3rd century, Historic, Augusta, is of a rather disputed value. [9] The best 4th century historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, who was a follower of the style of Tacitus, was familiar with the Thracian lands. However, his interest in the ethnic composition of the population of these lands was also superficial. In his tendency toward archaization, he defined "the belligerent tribes of Thrace" as the main force in the rebellion of Procopius in 365-366. "The Bessi were the most severe of these tribes" and "the Hebros descended from the mountains of the Odrysae." [10]

Claudianus, the poet at the royal court of the West Roman Emperor Honorius, apparently possessed less information about the Thracians. In spite of his panegyric tone, Claudianus rendered correctly the political events in the Balkan Peninsula in his poems, although the ethnic picture that he created was strongly archaized. The Thracians are belligerent tribes; since the Vandal Stilicho, guardian of the minor Emperor Honorius, clashed with the Visigoths of Alaric near Epirus at the end of the 4th century, Claudianus mentioned the Bistones. According to the mythographic tradition, the Bistones were the most belligerent Thracian tribe and Herakles fought against them. This allusion is not accidental — the confrontation was the result of the behind-the-scene struggles between the actual ruler in the eastern half of the Empire, Rufinus, and Stilicho, for conquering the dioceses Dacia and Macedonia. The king of the Bistones, Diomedes, son of Ares, possessed the horses that were lethal for the foreigners. [11]

In Hieronymus, who was connected with the Church, the apocalyptic picture of the Barbaric devastations in the Balkan lands to the south of the Danube was complemented by the triumph of Christianity. In addition to the other peoples "clad in furs", he also mentions the "wild Bessi" who were subdued for the first time by the force of the Cross. [12]

The change brought about among the Bessi by Christianity is described in even greater detail by Bishop Paulinus Nolanus in a poem praising the missionary work of Niceta, Bishop of Remesiana (Dacia Interior) at the end of the 4th. century. The "Getae" mentioned by him could have been Alaric's Visigoths who were temporarily stationed in Dacia Ripensis as federates. After Trajan's Dacia was abandoned in the second half of the 3rd century, the interest of the Roman authors in the indigenous population to the north of the Danube vanished completely. Only the "Barbarians", wandering or settled, were mentioned there. After the 3rd century there no longer appeared evidence about incursions of the Carpae to the south of the Danube. The last reference to the "Carpodacians" appears in Zosimus in connection with their unsuccessful attempt to penetrate in the Empire after the year 381. After the compensatory formation of the two provinces Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Interior (south of the Danube) at the end of the 3rd century, for the Roman authors "Dacians" were the inhabitants of these provinces. Paulinus Nolanus also uses the ethnonym in this way. [13]

Also traditional and influenced by the provincial division is the evidence of the Late Roman military writer Vegetius about the belligerent Dacians, Moesians and Thracians, among whom even Mars was born, and about the Bessi who were industrious miners. [14]

In the 5th century the Eastern Roman Empire has its excellent historiographers — Priscus and Malchus — who were moderately critical to the rule of the Empire and were tolerant to the "Barbaric" world of Huns and Ostrogoths. [15] Priscus used the name "Romaioi" for the subjects of the Empire, but this does not prevent him from specifying the ethnic characteristics, whenever that was necessary and possible. The Romaian military leader Dionysius was also of "Thracian origin." [16] He specified about the merchant captured by the Huns in the "Moesian city of Viminatium" that he was "of Greek origin". [17] For Malchus the Rhodope area devastated by the Ostrogoths was the "land of the Thracians" due to the tradition in the historic literature and because the Rhodope province was included in the Thracian diocese. [18]

Of prime importance is the information provided by the Gothic historian Jordanes, who worked around the mid-6th century, about the migration of the ethnic groups after the disintergation of Attila's union in the mid-5th century and about the settling of some of them in the Thracian lands. He also speaks about the secluded existence of the so-called "Gothi minores" in the mountainous area of Nicopolis ad Istrum even in the 6th century. [19]

The authors after the 5th century (Jordanes, Euagrius, John Malala, Procopius, Theophylactus Simocatta, John of Antioch, and Theophanes) noted the Thracian origin of a number of Emperors of the Romaioi from the second half of the 5th to the beginning of the 7th century (Marcianus, Leo I Bessus, Justin I, Justinian I, Justin II, Tiberius, and Phocas), of eminent Byzantine military leaders (mainly in Procopius, Theophylactus Simocatta and Euagrius). With few exceptions, these authors were very well informed, although it is very natural for their times that they were interested not in the ethnic composition of the population but in the life of prominent individuals. In order to glorify the courage and the ancient origin of Attila's victor, Aetius, born in Durostorum, Jordanes associated him with the Moesians who were known in Homer to be excellent fighters at a close range, in addition to being fearless against the Romans, according to Dio Cassius in his Roman History. [20] Procopius also mentions the bravery of the Moesians in battle through Homer's verse. Being the best 6th century historian, Procopius gives the greatest number of examples related to the Thracians (either as ordinary soldiers or as military leaders in the Byzantine army). Without going into analysis or enumeration here, it is necessary to mention Procopius' sufficient competence in determining the ethnic appurtenance not only of the Thracians. [21] He uses the name "Romaioi" as a collective term for the subjects of the Empire. Since in that concrete case Procopius was interested in the military qualities of the representatives of the different ethnic groups in the Byzantine army, he also specified their ethnic characteristics.

Procopius' works are the most important source about the character of the Slav and proto-Bulgarian presence in the Thracian lands during the reign of Emperor Justinian I. Procopius' inofficial criticism in Hisforia arcana is very malicious, being intensified by the exaggerated picture of the devastations and depopulations in the Balkan lands as a result of the Slav and proto-Bulgarian ("Hun") attacks. Emperor Justinian I was held responsible for everything, including earthquakes and floods. Unlike Marcellinus Comes, Procopius already refers not to "Getae" but to Slavs and Antae. He probably learned about their life to the north of the Lower Danube from the Antae in the army of Velesarius. For Procopius the proto-Bulgarians were Huns, which is perfectly natural after the awe-inspiring fame of the Huns and the inclusion of various ethnic groups in Attila's union, among which there were proto-Bulgarians, as well.

The decisive ethnic and social changes in the Thracian lands in the 7th century totally diminished the interest in the fate of the indigenous population in the scarce evidence of the Byzantine annalists for the 7th to 9th centuries.


1. S t r a b. VII, 3; S a r a f o v, T, Les Besses et Rome (Le role des Besses dans la lutte des tribus thraces centre la penetration romaine dans les Balkans). — In: Actes du Ier Congres international des etudes balkaniques. II, 1969, 141-150; С а р а ф о в, Т. Тракийските сатри (Принос към етногенезиса на тракийските племена). — ГСУ ФЗФ, LXVII, 1, 1973, c. 160 сл.; С к р ж и н с к а я, М В. Северноя Причерноморье в описании Плиния Старшего. Киев, 1977, c. 40.

2. P l i n. NH. IV, 80-81.

3. T a p k o v a - Z a i m o v a, V. Quelques remarques sur les noms ethniques chez les auteurs byzantins. — In: Studien zur Geschichte und Philosophic des Altertums. Budapest, 1968, 400—405.

4. M i l l a r, F. P. Herennius Dexippus: the Greek World and the Third Century Invasions. — JRS, 59, 1969, 12-29; У д а л ь ц о в а, З. В. Идейно-политическая борьба в ранней Византии. М., 1974, c. 84.

5. P. Gr. LXVII, col. 1344C-1345B, 1599B-C.

6. Zos. (Bonn.), p. 184, 214; R i d e l y, R. Zosimus the Historian. — BZ, 65, 1972, 2, 277—302; У д а л ь ц о в а, З. В. Op. cit., 93-99.

7. Excerpta de leg. I, 1, p. 121, 12; K a r d o s s - S z a d e c z k y, S. Literarische Reminiszenz und historische Realitat bei Priskos Rhetor (fr. 30). — In: Actes de a XIIe Conference internationale d'etudes classiques ,,Eirene". Bucuresti, 1975, 289-294.

8. Д у й ч е в, И в. Балканският Югоизток през първата половина на VI в. B - Д у й ч е в, Ив. Българското средновековие. С., 1972, 17—19.

9. Ш т а е р м а н, E. M. ,,Scriptores Historiae Augustae" как исторический источник. — ВДИ, 1957, 1, 233—245; Д о в а т у р, А. И. История изучения ,,Scriptores Historiae Augustae". — ВДИ, 1957, 1, 245-256; B u r i a n, J. Der Gegensatz zwischen Rom und Barbaren in der Historia Augusta. — Eirene, XV, 1977, 55-96; S y m e, R. Propaganda in the Historia Augusta. — Latomus, 36, 1978, 3, 697-715.

10. A m m. M a r c e l l. XXVII, 4(2-12), XXVI, 7(5), XXVIII, 6(5); B l o c l e y, R. C. Ammianus Marcellinus — a Study of His Historiography and Political Thought. Bruxelles, 1975; У д а л ь ц о в а, З. В. Op. cit., p. 16 sq.

11. C h r i s t i a n s e n, P. Claudian and the East. — Historia, 19, 1970, 1, 113-120.

12. Euseb. Hielonym. Epist. (Migne PL, XXII-XXX) LX, 4.

13. P a u l i n. N o l a n. (Hartel) Carm. XVII, v. 249 sq.; Z o s. (Bonn.), p. 213 sq.

14. V e g e t. Epit. re mil. (Lang) I, 28.

15. B a l d w i n, B. Malchus of Philadelphia. — Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XXXI, 1977, 91-107; У д а л ь ц о в а, З. В. Op. cit., p. 100 sq.

16. E x c e r p t a de leg. I, 1, p. 122, 12.

17. Б е ш е в л и е в, В., Към въпроса за произхода на името грък. — БЕ, 1971, 1, 73—78.

18. Excerpta de leg. I, 1, p. 169.

19. Iord. Get. 259 sq.

20. Iord. Get. 176.

21. У д а л ь ц о в а, З. В. Op. cit., p. 187 sq.

[Volgost]

The Thracian thalassocracy and the literary tradition during the Late Antiquity

Cvete Lazova (THRACIA, 8, pp. 17-22, Аcademia Litterarum Bulgarica, Serdicae, 1988)

Historiography occupies a prominent position in the ancient written literary tradition. The historical science of today actualizes its investigation in connection with the problems of the authenticity and reliability of the information contained in it. The object of research is the complex structure of the ancient historiographic tradition, which has been connected ever since its emergence with the philosophy, the development of the sciences, the moral theories and political events of its time.

The ancient historiographic tradition has also stored part of the history of the Thracians and of Thrace as a part of major historical works (e. g. of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon and Polybius), in fragments of lost works (of Ephorus, Theopompus and Diodorus). Titles such as Thracica [1] have also been mentioned; their presence in the ancient historiographic tradition can be established by studying various types of historical narrative containing data about the Thracian history. The fragmentary character of most of these historical works creates great difficulties in attempts to reconstruct the entire text to which a concrete fragment or a concrete title belongs. Studies aimed at reconstructing missing elements in the ancient historiographic tradition would enrich our views on the place of the Thracians and Thrace in the ancient historiography. An important element in such studies is the tracing of the history of the fragmented text in the Antiquity, the investigation of its sources and of the conditions for its transformation into a historical source.

A fragment of Diodorus' Bibliotheca Historica [2] contains a list of the thalassocracies, i. e. states that ruled over the sea, from the time of the Trojan War until the reign of Alexander the Great, among which is the Thracian thalassocracy as well. This fragment is preserved in Chronica by Eusebius of Caesarea. [3] Two approaches to the investigation of the fragment are possible: the history of the text during the Antiquity or Diodorus' narrative in connection with the sources used by him. The problems are connected with the authenticity of the fragment and with its use as a valuable historical source.

The list of thalassocracies preserved in Eusebius' work is the object of several studies, one of which dwells on the problems related to the origin, dating and character of the text used by Eusebius. The problems connected with the chronological pattern in this list are also discussed. [4] Another study presents problems of a general palaeographic and text-critical nature. [5] Recently the problems associated with the investigation of the thalassocracies have been placed within the wider frameworks of a study of the ancient chronography and an attempt has been made to reconstruct Diodorus' text borrowed by Eusebius. [6]

Diodorus' list of thalassocracies has come to us through the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of Chronica — a work consisting of two books written in Greek. One of these books, Chronographia, is a chronological treatise consisting mostly of fragments of earlier works; the book has reached us in an Armenian translation. The second book, Chronici Canones, is a chronological table starting with the year when Abraham was born and reaching until the twentieth year in the rule of Constantine the Great. It has reached through the above-mentioned Armenian version in a Latin translation by Hieronymus and through several references in a Syrian epitome. The Greek original of both books has been lost, but it is reconstructed to a considerable extent from quotations and parallel texts of Hieronymus, Georgius Synceilus and other authors.

The comparison of the evidence of Georgius Synceilus and Hieronymus shows that Synceilus adhered to his original, i. e. Hieronymus. The number of references to the Thracian thalassocracy is different in these two authors, but this fact suggests that even in Eusebius the Thracian thalassocracy may have been mentioned more than once. The researchers of Eusebius' text propose three possibilities for his work with the text of Diodorus: (1) he may have used the scheme of thalassocracies in Diodorus; (2) he may have used and combined two schemes, one of which goes back to Diodorus; (3) he may have used the scheme going back to Diodorus, as well as a mass of data and related events, which do not follow any definite principle. [8] The third assumption seems to be the most feasible due to the character of Eusebius' work with the sources, which apparently consisted in consulting them and borrowing various types of source material: his dates have probably been borrowed from several authors — Castor of Rhodes, Diodorus, Porphyry and others.

There is evidence in the Suda that Castor wrote on the thalassocracies


He is also the author of Chronica which contains synchronous tables about the history of the East, of Greece and Rome. His work probably appeared around the sixties of the first century B. C. It is also known that Diodorus' work was written between the years 60 and 30 B. C., so that it could have beer perfectly possible for Diodorus to have known Castor's work. There is an opinion that Diodorus borrowed his list of thalassocracies from Castor. However, it seems more probable that both authors used independently of one another the tradition of thalassocracies, which was of a very early origin, dating back to the time before the Trojan War.

The term has been used in connection with the early history of Paros [9] and of Carpathos. [10] The same meaning is perceived in the story about Minos in Thucydides. [11] A similar term was used by Strabo about Chios, [12] while the local thalassocracy of the pontic city of Sinope [13] demonstrates the wider use of this term. Obvious is the use of the term to denote a state which ruled over the sea for a certain period of time and was a maritime force.

It may be assumed that lists of thalassocracies were in circulation over a long period of time. This way of listing them resembles somewhat Homer's Catalogue of Ships, containing the ships that had taken part in the Trojar War. The Catalogue reveals a certain similarity with a peculiar historical chronicle clad in a poetic form, which differs from a comprehensive epic narrative. [14] The "catalogue" pattern can be perceived as being an archaic prototype of the "thalassocracy" pattern, to which the years of the reign of the thalassocracies were added later. Probably this characteristic contained the idea about the chronological sequence of the listed units, which is a new stage in the development of this type of historical narrative. The tradition of the catalogue and thalassocracies can be added to the large number of lists of names of archons, priests, etc., which were in circulation and were used by the early historiographers, mythographers and genealogists during the period when the Greek historiographic tradition was formed. Such type of documentary material was also used in the first attempts at chronological presentation of Greek history (Hellanicus of Lesbos).

In addition to the similar characteristics of the list of thalassocracies and Homer's Catalogue of Ships, this list also shows some common features with Thucydides' Introduction to his Historiai, where he presented the history of the largest Greek thalassocracies. This observation has given grounds to some researchers to assume that such a list of thalassocracies existed at the time of Thucydides and that it was known to the historiographic tradition. [15] The assumption is justified, because the local character of the historical works presupposed the existence and the use of similar lists, which were also of a local nature.

Researchers have noted the absence of such a tradition of the thalassocracies in Herodotus. However, the data concerning communities included in Eusebius' list would have the value of indirect evidence for the existence of such lists. The preserved evidence about the Thracian thalassocracies in Hieronymus and Syncellus in connection with the transition of the Thracians from Europe (from the Strymon region) into Asia Minor fully coincides with the data in Herodotus [16] who noted the tradition that the Thracians initially inhabited the valley of the Strymon river and only after they migrated to Asia Minor they called themselves Bithynoi.

These data confirm the assumption that the list of thalassocracies was in circulation in the 5th century B.C. [17] and that it was known to the historiographic tradition. This finding, however, does not suggest that the fifth century was the time when the list of thalassocracies was compiled. It would be more feasible to assume that this was the time when the list took shape, having been compiled earlier.

The list of thalassocracies is ascribed to Diodorus of Sicily, whose work Bibliotheca historica was an important stage in the development of the ancient historiographic tradition. The evaluation of Diodorus and of his work by modern historiography makes it possible to adopt a new approach to the data contained in his work. [18] He was a representative of the age of Caesar and Augustus, i. e. the age when the Roman state was created. A great interest in compiling different types of reference works, summaries and historical reviews was evoked in connection with the formation of the cosmopolitical notions in the sphere of ideology. Diodorus' Bibliotheca historica was intended to present both a general picture of events in the history of the world and to include this picture in a synchronous chronological table. His chronological system has some imperfections for such an ambitious task, in spite of the good sources used by Diodorus. It is believed that he based his writings on a chronographer, most of whose data were reliable. Moreover, Diodorus combined information from different sources, most of which have been lost since.

One of the important aspects in the present-day evaluation of Diodorus' work as a historical source concerns his method of work over the sources when writing and the universal historical conception. Contemporary studies have shown that a considerable part of Diodorus' information about the history of the peoples of the East (books I-V) is supported by ancient Eastern texts and by archaeological evidence. [19] This suggests that a large part of his information is reliable to a considerable extent. This is hardly a general characteristic for all parts of his work, but the fact suggests in itself conscious work with the sources. Diodorus' ambition to arrange a large number of dates and events in a definite chronological system, without basing himself on an earlier stable chronographic tradition, doomed to failure the synchronization of the enormous amount of data, facts and events. Hence the impression of his uncritical compilativeness which gave ground for the negative evaluation of Diodorus as a historian, prevalent at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century.

The dependence of Diodorus on the historiographic tradition of the 4th century B.C. and especially on the Isocratic School is known, as it has left a deep imprint on historical works. [20] The historical conception began to be universalized during that period, comprising the history of all Greek-speaking communities. In its essence, however, it remained within the typological framework of a historical writing of the hellenica type, i. e. Greek and not world history. The non-Greek communities were included in the historical narrative only insofar as they were connected with Greek history. For this period considerable stages in the development of historiography were marked by the works of Ephorus, Theopompus, Timaeus, which apparently influenced Diodorus. In the 4th century B.C., for the first time after Hellanicus of Lesbos, further steps in the development of the chronology were made (Timaeus). This fact was significant for the further development of the ancient historiographic tradition. [21] Diodorus followed this tradition by improving the methods for creating a universal historical conception. The use of a large number of works was totally subordinate to the idea of creating a consistent chronological system which would comprise the world history.

Bearing in mind Diodorus' system of work with the sources and his chronological pattern, it should be assumed that the list of the thalassocracies and of the events synchronous with them occupy an important place in his work. In the historiographic tradition of Diodorus, Eusebius, Hieronymus and Georgius Syncellus, the Thracian thalassocracy was presented with two figures: the years 19 and 79. The palaeographic and text-critical investigations on the work of Hieronymus reject the assumption of a mechanical error in copying the text. [22] The existence of these two figures suggests that there must have been some source material, perhaps of a documentary nature, containing these figures and that Diodorus may have used this material. It is possible that he was the first to derive these figures on the basis of source material studied. The figures were also accepted by Eusebius who, as was mentioned earlier, mentioned more than once the Thracians in the tradition of thalassocracies. In this case the assumption that there was some abbreviated variant of the original between the texts of Eusebius and that of Hieronymus, which strongly reduced the value of Hieronymus' Latin translation, is justified. [23]

Modern studies in the field of ancient chronography devote special attention to the thalassocracies. [24] On the basis of studies on the sources and the chronology it is possible to reconstruct the fragmentary texts that have come to us and to determine the absolute chronology of the items in the list of thalassocracies. Thus, on the basis of the two references to the Thracians with the two figures denoting the durations of their thalassocracies, it was possible to reconstruct Diodorus' text. Probably the evidence about two Thracian thalassocracies goes back to this text. One of the Thracian thalassocracies lasted 19 years and it concerned the Thracians in Europe, while the other one lasted 79 years and concerned the Thracians in Asia Minor. [25] This reconstruction of Diodorus' text is supported by evidence of a historical nature, suggesting the historical and geographical unity of the Propontis area with its European and Anatolian hinterland. [26]

In order .to accept the reconstruction of Diodorus' text, it would be necessary to examine the Thracian thalassocracy in the context of the other thalassocracies, because together with them it belonged to a common cultural-historical layer reflecting the links and interrelations of Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor and the islands belonging to them.

The problems related to the reconstruction of missing elements from the ancient written tradition, which concern the Thracian history, are important for the investigation of the Thracian sources. They involve the evaluation of the works of ancient authors that have been lost, but the content of which may be reconstructed by indirect evidence. They are also connected with a re-evaluation of works or of preserved titles that have been declared to be forgeries by contemporary historical science. The solving of such problems would considerably broaden the foundations of Thracian source analysis and will map out the ways in which the evidence on Thracian history had entered and had remained, permanently in the ancient literary tradition.


1. P l u t a r c h i Moralia. Parallela Minora. 18, 31 (Fr. Duebner, Parisiis, 1877).

2. D i o d o r i Bibliotheca historica. VII, fr. 11 (Vogel-Fischer, Lipsiae, 1888-1906).

3. D i e G r i e c h i s c h e n Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, XX, Eusebius Werke V. Die Chronik (J. Karst, Leipzig, 1911).

4. M y r es, J. L. On the "List of Thalassocracies" in Eusebius. — JHS, 26, 1926, 83-130.

5. F o t h e r i n g h a m, J. K. On the "List of Thalassocracies" in Eusebius — JHS 27, 1907, 75-89.

6. M i l l e r, M. The Thalassocracies. Studies in Chronography. New York 1971

7. F o t h e r i n g h a m, J. K. Op. cit., p. 80.

8. M yr e s, J. L. Op. cit., p. 93.

9. A p o l l o d o r i Bibliotheca. II, 5, 9 (R. Wagner, Lipsiae, 1926).

10. D i o d o r i Bibliotheca historica. V, 54, Vogel-Fischer, Lipsiae, 1888-1906.

11. T h u c y d i d i s Historiae. I, 4 (C. Hude, Lipsiae, 1910).

12. Strabonis Geographica. C995 (A. Meineke, Lipsiae, 1877).

13. Ibidem, C821.

14. А н д р е е в, Ю. В. Политическая география Гомеровской Греции. — B: Древний Восток и античный мир. M., 1980, C. 128.

15. M y r e s, J. L. Op. cit., p. 87.

16. H e r o d o t i Historiae. VII, 75 (C. Hude, Oxonii, 1908).

17. M y r e s, J. L. Op. cit., 85-89.

18. С т р о г е ц к и й, В. М. Диодор Сицилийский и его Историческая боблиотека в оценке историографии. — ВДИ, 1983, 4, 176—186.

19. B u r t o n, A. C. Diodorus Siculus, Book I. A Commentary. Leiden, 1972, p. 31.

20. З е л ь и н, К. К. Из области греческой историографии IV в. до н. э. — ВДИ, 1960, 1.

21. Bury, J. B. The Ancient Greek Historians. London, 1909, p. 168.

22. F o r t h e r i n g h a m, J. K. Op. cit.

23. К у з и щ и н, В. И. Источниковедение древней Греции (Эпоха Эллинизма). M., 1982, c. 124.

24. M i l l e r, M. Op. cit.

25. I b i d e m.

26. Ф о л, Ал. История на българските земи в древността. C., 1981, 144—159.

[Indiana Jones]

Volgost

Большое спасибо!!

[Volgost]

Volgost

Большое спасибо!!

Всегда пожалуйста

[Kyolmen]

интересно. только что с картинками случилось?

[Yurate]

Очень ценный материал - как раз на днях читал у Фасмера, что от фракийцев не могло быть морских заимствований, ибо под сомнением их морские навыки. Теперь хорошо бы вспомнить, в какой словарной статье...