Re: Torsten's novel

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- On Sat, 7/17/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > GK: We don't know from Appian whether Mithradates realized that
> > his plan for dynastic alliances with the Scythians and Sarmatians
> > of the steppes etc.. (along the Italian route of #102) had been
> > sabotaged before he died. In any case, I would agree that until
> > everything fell apart for him and he decided to call it a life, he
> > was determined to push on with the plan. Appian #110 suggests that
> > one after another, all of Mithradates' army contingents wound up
> > supporting Pharnaces' rebellion. We know of no unit which opposed
> > this.
>
> And absence of evidence etc.
>
> *****GK: There is no reason to suppose that a plan concocted by a
> defunct King would have been continued by some dissident group of
> "Dandarians" et al. against the will of a new King. To suppose
> otherwise, and to imagine a campaign across the steppes of southern
> Ukraine and into eastern Poland by a small group of guerrillas
> intent on assaulting Rome for which there is not the slightest
> historical or archaeological proof is scientifically unacceptable,
> and has not in fact been accepted (or perhaps even mused in
> verifiable contexts)by anyone who matters in these disciplines. In
> political studies esp. (which happens to be my area of expertise).
> One can understand Mithradates and his plan. One cannot understand a
> hypothesis which involves continuation of that plan by unknowns, on
> the basis of equally unknown "plottings".*****
>
>
> > > No one has written of any problems, so there aren't any? Word of
> > > advice: don't apply for a job in the spy business; that kind of
> > > carelessness in risk assessment can cause disasters.
> > >
> > > GK: You mean in the novel writing business. I'm not planning
> > > to. The fact remains that in real history the "plan to invade
> > > Italy" hinged on Mithradates.
>
> Or on whoever supported him clandestinely from Rome.
>
> *****GK: Or from China, or Parthia, or Jerusalem, or... as Burnham
> hinted, the center of the conspiracy may vary infinitely as long as
> the ideological committment to its existence persists.*****
>
> > > With his demise there was no one to carry on.
>
> Whoever might have supported him in Rome would still be there
>
> *****GK: Or elsewhere. Ideology is infinitely flexible.****
>
> > (Of course a novelist can "remedy" that easily (:=)).
>
> Be my guest.
>
> ****GK: You're the novelist not me.****
>
> > If you revert to dogmatically stating that the Pontic state was
> > undivided and whole because you say so, I can argue against that,
> > of course.
> >
> > GK: There is nothing dogmatic about accepting the common
> > consensus of all those who have studied the nature and history of
> > the Bosporan State. (We're talking about the Bosporan kingdom BTW
> > not about the "Pontic state"). It was a unified system, made up of
> > Greek city states and non-Greek territorial units ruled by kings
> > and chiefs (with the King of Bosporus as "king of kings" for these
> > "barbarian" units since ca.438 if not earlier).
>
> > GK: The Kingdom of Pontus was distinct from the Kingdom of the
> > Bosporus. Mithridates was King of both units (from 110 BCE). He
> > occasionally delegated Bosporus to sons.
>
> > > Mithradates handed it over to Machares, and then took it away
> > > from him, and then lost it to Pharnaces. The only "activity" of
> > > the constituent parts was that of moving from one king to
> > > another. There is no record of any irredentism in any of the
> > > Maeotian tribes. So your ad hominems are irrelevant I'm afraid.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/35c59s4
> > 'They had their own kings, or dúnastai'
> > 'The Dandaridae of Tacitus are subjects, apparently not very
> > loyal, of another Mithridates of Bosporus'
> >
> > GK: This "other Mithradates" was a rival candidate for the
> > Bosporan Kingdom as a whole.
>
> You are dodging the evidence of the irredentism of the Dandarians.
>
> *****GK: There is no such evidence to dodge, as any volume on the
> history of the Bosporan Kingdom would inform you. Try Gajdukevich
> for instance.[ GAJDUKEVICH, V. E. 1971: Das Bosporanische Reich
> (Berlin)]
> He's the standard authority. The consensus of scholarship is
> complete and peaceful on this issue. If I'm not correct on this
> let's have the proof, i.e. the opinion of any reputable scholar who
> thinks otherwise.*****
>
>
> > > > The Bosporan Kingdom was under Pontic kings 108 - 16 BCE
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Cimmerian_Bosporus
> > > > Olthacus was a prince of the Dandarii, and the Bosporan
> > > > kingdom was in civil war, so of course they would have their
> > > > own policy at that time.
> > > >
> > > > GK: The only "policy" they would have was that of choosing
> > > > which of the pretenders to the Bosporan throne they were ready
> > > > to support. They weren't independent states as to foreign
> > > > policy.
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > GK: The plan to invade Italy died with Mithradates.
> > > >
> > > > You don't know that.
> > > >
> > > > GK: It was his plan. There is no record of anyone else having
> > > > such a plan. And the Dandarii, subjects of Bosporus, did not
> > > > have an independent foreign policy. There is no evidence that
> > > > the Romans or anyone else wished to dismember the Bosporan
> > > > Kingdom at any time.
> >
> > Or was it the Pontic kingdom?
> >
> > GK: No.
> >
> > There was no evidence anybody wanted to dismember the Soviet
> > union, when it suddenly happened. And absence of evidence... etc.
> > Why the fanatical repetition of this mantra?
>
> *****GK: The possibility of the Soviet Union's being "dismembered"
> was written into its Constitution, and there were plenty of people
> both within and without who entertained such thoughts. There is no
> analogical point to be made about the Bosporan Kingdom. You've
> misunderstood Tacitus. No scholar agrees with your contention that
> in 49 CE the Dandarians were independent actors in the civil war
> between two pretenders to the Bosporan throne.*****
> >
> > GK: I see you know even less about the constitution and history of
> > the U.S.S.R. than you do about the Bosporan Kingdom.
>
> Another non sequitur. I don't know what your sentimental attachment
> to the supposed unity of the Bosporan Kingdom is, but apparently
> it's impermeable.
>
> *****GK: Don't confuse my attitude with yours. I have no
> "sentimental" attachments to the Bosporan Kingdom (like you have
> towards Snorri's fantasies). My view is based on scholarly
> consensus, which is impermeable to novelistic claptrap of your kind,
> though obviously infinitely permeable to scientific reassessments.
> You don't have any. Come back when you do. No one will hold their
> breath.*****
>
>
> >
> > Alright. A less flippant answer: what is it in the idea that
> > Crassus' money had bought the equipment found in Germanic graves
> > that is unacceptable to 'proper historians or archaeologists'?
> >
> > GK: Give me a proper description of these graves' inventory (as
> > well as accurate dates) and then we'll see. Perhaps "Crassus'
> > Money" could be disentangled from the unacceptable identification
> > of Olthacus and Ariovistus, and from the unacceptable notion of
> > some "Scytho/Dardanian" army invading Przeworsk (which is simply
> > your reheated Odinist claptrap).
>
> You persist in calling it 'Odinist' which proves that your non-
> acceptance of that idea is ideologically, not factually motivated.
>
> *****GK: "Odinist" or "Snorrist", whatever. That's a laugh. An
> ideologized Snorrist novelist thinks that genuine mainstream
> historical and archaeological science is ideology and his own
> Snorrist ideology "factual".***
>
> > > > > GK: The steppe nomads weren't drawn into the plan.
> > > >
> > > > As a group, yes. But what happened with various contingents
> > > > after Mithridates' suicide, we don't know.
> > > >
> > > > > Appian is clear on this.
> > > >
> > > > No, he isn't.
> > > >
> > > > GK: You're consciously distorting my statement.
>
> I am consciously distorting your 'No, he isn't' statement? I didn't
> know you could do that.
>
> ****GK: You've become so confused you've even forgotten that "No, he
> isn't" is your statement, not mine (:))).*****
>
> > > > What I said is that Appian is clear on the fact that the
> > > > steppe nomads weren't drawn into the plan.
>
> No, he is clear on that they didn't buy the plan. As a negation of
> my 'But what happened with various contingents after Mithridates'
> suicide, we don't know' it doesn't work. It constitutes a change of
> subject.
>
> ****GK: Hardly. We know from Appian that everyone fell in line with
> the new Bosporan King's pro-Roman policy in 63 BCE.*****
>
> > > > As to your words : "what happened with
> > > > various contingents after Mithridates' suicide, we don't
> > > > know", we can only draw (unless we are novelists when anything
> > > > goes) the obvious conclusion all other scholars have: that
> > > > Mithridates' Italian invasion plan died with him.
>
> But that is not obvious at all, and you know that.
>
> *****GK: Really? I see no evidence of any pro-Mithradates post-
> Mithradatian irredentism in 63 BCE, which would include continuation
> of his plan. Nobody else does. Only you. And your "evidence" is
> worthless.*****
>
> Try something empirical next time, and I might accept it. What kind
> of mind thinks he can persuade his opponent to drop a proposal by
> flatly stating that it is 'obviously' not true?
>
> ****GK: A mind oriented towards known facts accepted by the
> scientific community. It is 'obvious' in that there is no credible
> evidence against it. The Heimskringla and novelistic fantasies do
> not constitute credible evidence. I do not consider you an opponent
> when you retreat into fantasy mode. I'm just reminding other readers
> that history and Snorrism are different intellectual
> endeavours.*****
>
> > > > "The various contingents"
>
> Don't forget that with nomadic societies those contingents are the
> people themselves; they don't cease to exist as a fighting force
> just because one plan is dropped.
>
> ****GK: The Bosporan State was not a nomadic society.*****
>
> > > > were a part and parcel of that plan. When he died, the princes
> > > > of the Bosporan kingdom recognized Pharnaces. End of story.
> >
> > Of course not. Kings have standing armies, and the Dandarians had
> > kings.
> >
> > GK: But these kings were not endowed with the right to conduct
> > their own foreign policy. They were subject to the Bosporan King,
> > even though they possessed much autonomy in their lands. This is
> > axiomatic for any student of the Bosporan Kingdom.
>
> So it's axiomatic, not empirical. Well, that's probably as good a
> description of the problem as any.
>
> ****GK: Now you're retreating into pablum mode. "Axiomatic" in the
> sense that it has been thoroughly proved by all available empirical
> evidence, and there is none other to consider in the present state
> of research.****

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
'In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.'

> > They did in Mithridates Eupator's time and in the time of 'the
> > other Mithridates, Tacittus Annals 12, 15-16:
> > 'Meanwhile, Mithridates of Bosporus, a wanderer since the loss of
> > his throne, learned that the Roman commander Didius had departed
> > with the main body of his army, leaving the young and simple Cotys
> > in his novel kingdom, with a few cohorts under the Roman knight,
> > Julius Aquila. Scornful of both, he proceeded to raise the tribes
> > and attract deserters: finally, mustering an army, he ejected the
> > king of the Dandaridae, and seized his dominions. When this had
> > become known and his invasion of Bosporus was expected from day to
> > day, Aquila and Cotys diffident of their own strength, as the
> > Siracene prince Zorsines had resumed hostilities followed his
> > example, and sought outside support by sending envoys to the
> > powerful Aorsian prince, Eunones. An alliance presented little
> > difficulty, when they could exhibit the power of Rome ranged
> > against the rebel Mithridates. It was arranged, therefore, that
> > Eunones should be responsible for the cavalry fighting, the Romans
> > undertaking the siege of all towns.
> >
> > They then advanced with combined forces, the front and rear held
> > by the Aorsi, the centre by the cohorts and by Bosporan troops
> > armed on our model. In this order they inflicted a reverse on the
> > enemy and reached Soza, a town of Dandarica evacuated by
> > Mithridates, which in view of the doubtful sympathies of the
> > population, it was thought advisable to secure by leaving a
> > garrison. They next advanced on the Siraci, and, crossing the
> > stream of the Panda, invested Uspe, a city built on a height and
> > fortified with walls and moats the drawback being that, as the
> > walls were not of stone but of wickerwork hurdles with soil
> > between, they were too weak to sustain an attack, while our siege
> > towers, with their greater elevation, threw the garrison into
> > disorder by discharges of firebrands and spears. In fact, if the
> > struggle had not been interrupted by night, the beginning and end
> > of the attack would have fallen within the limits of one day.'
> >
> > No reason to believe some other 'subject peoples' didn't.
> >
> > GK: Didn't what? Support one pretender against another?
>
> > Have kings and
> > 'Bosporan troops armed on our model'?
>
> ****GK: The Dandarians (and other subjects of Bosporus) had rulers
> and armies, but they were subject to the overriding will of the King
> of Bosporus. If you want analogies, the "king" of the Dandarians was
> to the King of Bosporus like the Hetman of Left-Bank Ukraine was to
> the Czar of Russia (between ca. 1667 and 1764). With the difference
> that Ukrainian irredentism is a documented fact whereas Dandarian
> irredentism is unknown to us.*****

Did you read the quote from Tacitus? 'Soza, a town of Dandarica evacuated by Mithridates, which in view of the doubtful sympathies of the population, it was thought advisable to secure by leaving a garrison.' Are you saying that we know there is no irredentism in that?

>
> > http://www.5000seafoodrecipes.com/hd/index.php?t=Dandaridae
> > DANDARI - DANDARI.
> > Plin. qui DANDARIDAE Tac. Ann. l. 12. c. 15.
> > Circa Caucasum habitare videntur. regionem eorum Dandaricam vocat,
> > Tacit. ibid.
>
> > BTW, who is is Brotier
> > http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/15017/125.html
> > 'Brotier says that some vestiges of the nation, and its name,
> > still exist at a place called Dandars.'
>
> http://tinyurl.com/35kmodb
> note 31
> 'The Dandaridae, Siraci, and Aorsi, were Sarmatian tribes
>
> ****GK: The Dandaridae/Dandarians were not Sarmatian but Maeotian. A
> theory (not shared by all) has also been propounded that their
> language was not Iranic but Indic (like the Sindi). Nor were they
> nomads.****
>
> between the Caspian and Sea of Azov, with the Don and Caucasus as
> northern and southern limits.'
> but note this
> search for 'Dandaridae' here
> http://tinyurl.com/34aw296
> p. 411
> 'Dandaridae (Dandarii) N. of lower Kuban'
> If so, the 'golden cemetery' on the Kuban was of the Dandarii and
> whoever ruled them.
>
> *****GK: Certainly not as a complex even though some (Sarmatized)
> Dandarians might have been buried there. One would need to read the
> book's specifics. In any event Dandarian territory in the first c.
> CE continued to be part of the Bosporan Kingdom.*****
>
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_kingdom
> > > 'After the death of Mithridates (63 BC), this Pharnaces (63 BC -
> > > 47 BC) made his submission to Pompey, then tried to regain his
> > > dominion during the civil war, but was defeated by Caesar at
> > > Zela and later killed by a former governor of his.'
> > >
> > > GK: Note that his "dominion" refers to the Kingdom of Pontus
> > > and its Asia Minor dependencies, not the Bosporan Kingdom. Cf.
> > > e.g.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zela
>
> > Yes I noticed. And everybody in his overseas province of the
> > former kingdom of Bosporus was fine with that?
> >
> > GK: I don't understand your question. What "former kingdom of
> > Bosporus"
>
> The kingdom of Bosporus had ceased to exist in 108 BCE when
> Mithridates conquered it, and never regained its independence. Cf.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Cimmerian_Bosporus
> Here's the sentence before the one I quoted: 'Subsequently the
> Bosporans again rose in revolt under Pharnaces, another of the old
> king's [Mithridates'] sons.' Apparently Pharnaces' dominion included
> the terrritory of that former kingdom of Bosporus.
>
> *****GK: Mithradates became King of the Bosporus after Peirisades V.
> The union was personal, not territorial or administrative, i.e. the
> Dandarians etc. were not subjects of Mithradates as King of Pontus
> but of Mithradates as King of Bosporus. The Bosporan Kingdom
> continued to exist until the 4th c. (it is last mentioned in 362
> CE). Axiomatic history (read the literature). The only remaining
> issue is whether the Bosporan Kingdom actually continued even
> longer, under the Huns. There is some discussion that the Bosporan
> cities were not fully destroyed until the time of the Byzantine
> intervention in the early 6th c. I tend to support the view that
> Bosporus became subject to the Huns in the 370's though it had
> "local rulers" under the Huns (on the analogy of the Bactrian
> situation between ca. 130 BCE and ca. 30 CE). The Huns lost Bosporus
> to the Byzantines (Eastern Romans: Justinian) in 533.*****

This is from the book you recommended on the Bosporan kingdom,
on the Saumakos rebellion against king Paerisades II's surrender of the Bosporan kingdom to Mithridates' general Diophantos, cf
http://tinyurl.com/36ppeef

V. F. Gajdukevič
Das Bosporanische Reich
p 314, note 17

'С. А. Жебелев, Последний Перисад и скифское восстание на Ð`оспоре (S. А. Žebelev, Der letzte Pairisades und der Skythenaufstand im Bosporanischen Reich). In: С. А. Жебелев, Северное Причерноморье (S. Î`. Žebelev, Die nördlichen Schwarzmeergebiete), Moskau-Leningrad 1953, S. 82-115; die gleiche Arbeit über den Skythenaufstand ist auch in Revue des études grecques 49, 1936, S. 17ff. erschienen. - Die einzige Quelle, die über den Saumakoaufstand berichtet, ist das chersonesische Ehrendekret für Diophantos (IPE l2, 352; SIG3, 495): τω~ν περ`ι Σαύμακον Σκυθα~ν νεωτεριξάντων κα`ι τ`ον μ`εν `εκθρέψαντα α`υτόν βασιλέα Î'οσπόρου Παιρισάδαν `ανελόντων. Žebelev vermutet, τ`ον . . . `εκθρέψαντα α`υτόν bedeute hier, daß Saumakos ein von König Pairisades aufgezogener Sklave ( - θρεπτός) gewesen sei. Davon ausgehend, betrachtet Žebelev den von Saumakos angeführten Aufstand als einen stürmischen Ausbruch des sozialen Kampfes, dessen Haupttriebkraft die skythischen Sklaven im Bosporanischen Reich waren. Žebelevs Hypothese ist wahrscheinlicher als alle anderen über die Person des Saumakos angestellten Vermutungen (sie werden in dem zitierten Aufsatz Žebelevs, S. 104ff., aufgezählt. Freilich ist auch Žebelevs Hypothese eben nur eine Hypothese. Um über (Ion wirklichen Charakter des Skythenaufstandes am Bosporos Klarheit zu gewinnen, sind konkretere Anhaltspunkte vonnöten. Vor allem ist zu beachten, daß der Saumakosaufstand den gesamten europäischen Teil des Bosporanischen Reiches erfaßte. Diophantos mußte das Gebiet zwischen Theodosia und Pantikapaion mit einem starken Heer zurückerobern. Dieser Umstand zeugt von dem Ausmaß des Aufstands und davon, daß er von großen Menschenmassen getragen wurde. Auf die Frage nach den Teilnehmern am Aufstand gibt es nur eine Antwort: Die Aufständischen rekrutierten sich aus der skythischen arbeitenden Bevölkerung, aus den zahlreichen Einwohnern der Städte und Dörfer auf der östlichen Krim, aus Handwerkern und Arbeitern, aus abhängigen Bauern und möglicherweise auch aus Sklaven, aus all denen also, die Grund hatten, den Kampf für bessere Lebensbedingungen aufzunehmen. Die Vermutung, daß die bosporanischen Bauern im Saumakosaufstand eine führende Rolle gespielt haben, hat seinerzeit Brandis (Bosporos. RE 3, 1, Sp. 774) ausgesprochen. Er widerspricht gleichzeitig B. Niese, Die Erwerbung der Küsten des Pontos durch Mithridates, Rheinisches Museum 42, 1887, S. 567 ff., der den Saumakosaufstand den Skythen im zentralen Teil der Krim, im Reich des Skiluros und Palakos zuschreibt, das zuvor zweimal von Diophantos geschlagen worden war. Die Auffassung, daß der Skythenaufstand am Bosporos eine Erscheinungsform des Kampfes der unteren Schichten gegen ihre Ausbeuter gewesen ist, wird in der (sowjetischen und ausländischen) historischen Literatur weithin anerkannt, s.: E. Diehl, Saumakos. RE Suppl. 6, Sp. 653. Gegen Žebelevs Konzeption haben sich ausgesprochen: A. S. Kocevalov in: Наукові записки Інституту icтopiї матерiальної культури АН УССР (Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Instituts für Geschichte der materiellen Kultur der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Ukrainischen SSR) 1, 1937, S. 109ff.; ders., Die antike Geschichte und Kultur des nördlichen Schwarzmeergebiets im Lichte der Sowjetwissenschaft. München 1955, S. 22-26; S. Lurie, Jeszcze о dekrecie ku czci Diofantosa (Nochmals zum Ehrendekret für Diophantos). Meander 2, 1959, S. 67-78; Э. Л. Казакевич, К полемике о восстании Савмака (Ė. L. Kazakevič, Zur Polemik um den Saumakosaufstand). Ð'Ð"И 1, 1963, S. 57ff. Die Genannten legten ihrer Kritik eine philologische Frage zugrunde: ob die Stelle τον . . . `εκθρέψαντα α`υτόν bedeuten könne, daß Saumakos ein Sklave des bosporanischen Königs gewesen sei. S. Lur`e zieht außerdem aus seiner Analyse der Zeilen 34-36 des Diophantosdekrets den paradoxen Schluß, daß nicht Saumakos, sondern Diophantos (ein Bürger von Sinope, was im chersonesischen Ehrendekret zweimal betont wird!) Zögling Pairisades' V. gewesen sei. Die Argumentation derjenigen Forscher, die den Saumakosaufstand nicht unter dem Aspekt des inneren sozialen Kampfes sehen, untersucht kritisch: Ð'. Ф. Ð"айдукевич, Еще о восстании Савмака (V. F. Gajdukevič, Nochmals zum Saumakosaufstand). Ð'Ð"И 1, 1962, S. 3-23). Μ. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 2, Oxford 1941, S. 807ff., beurteilt zwar die Hypothese, daß Saumakos ein Sklave des Königs Pairisades gewesen sei, skeptisch, stimmt aber Žebelevs Hauptthese zu, daß der Aufstand der bosporanischen Skythen unter Saumakos in eine Reihe gestellt werden müsse mit den Sklavenaufständen in Sizilien und Italien, auf Delos und in Athen, mit dem Aufstand des Aristonikos in Pergamon und ähnlichen Bewegungen, die im 2. Jahrhundert v. u. Z. die Alte Welt erschütterten und die Vernichtung der in den antiken Sklavenhalterstaaten bestehenden Ordnung zum Ziel hatten. - Ð'. Ð'. Струве, Ð'осстание Савмака (V. V. Struve, Der Saumakosaufstand), Ð'Ð"И 3, 1950, S. 22-40, schlägt vor, in der 34. Zeile des chersonesischen Ehrendekrets nicht, wie allgemein angenommen, τ`ον ... `εκθρέψαντα α`υτό[ν, sondern τ`ον ... `εκθρέψαντα α`υτό[νς zu lesen: Saumakos, der Anführer der aufständischen Skythen, tötete den bosporanisehen König, der "sie ernährt, aufgezogen" hatte. Daraus würde folgen, daß die aufständischen Skythen Sklaven des Königs, d. h. Staatssklaven gewesen sind. Leider ist das nach `εκθρέψαντα folgende Wort sehr unleserlich. Daher kann die von Struve vorgeschlagene Ergänzung die alte Losung τ`ον `εκθρέψαντα α`υτό[ν nicht ablösen, die von allen Forschern anerkannt ist und auch uns die wahrscheinlichste zu sein scheint.'

"'С. А. Жебелев, Последний Перисад и скифское восстание на Ð`оспоре (S. А. Žebelev, The last Pairisades and the Scythian rebellion in the Bosporan Kingdom). In: С. А. Жебелев, Северное Причерноморье (S. Î`. Žebelev, The northern Black Sea areas), Moscow-Leningrad 1953, pp. 82-115; the same work on the Scythian rebellion appeared also in Revue des études grecques 49, 1936, p. 17ff. - The only source which reports the Saumako rebellion is the Chersonesian honorary decree for Diophantos (IPE l2, 352; SIG3, 495): τω~ν περ`ι Σαύμακον Σκυθα~ν νεωτεριξάντων κα`ι τ`ον μ`εν `εκθρέψαντα α`υτόν βασιλέα Î'οσπόρου Παιρισάδαν `ανελόντων. Žebelev assumes, τ`ον ... `εκθρέψαντα α`υτόν here means that Saumakos was a slave ( - θρεπτός) raised by King Pairisades. As a consequence of that Žebelev considers the rebellion led by Saumakos as a furious eruption of the social struggle, the main driving force of which was the Scythian slaves in the Bosporan Kingdom. Žebelev's hypothesis is more probable than all the other assumptions made about the person of Saumakos (they are listed in the cited work by Žebelev, p. 104ff. Admittedly, also Žebelev's hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. If we want throw a light on the real character of the Scythian rebellion on the Bosporos we need more solid evidence. Above all we must take account of the fact that the Saumakos rebellion included all of the European part of the Bosporan Kingdom. Diophantos had to reconquer the territory between Theodosia and Pantikapaion with a strong army. This fact speaks of the extent of the rebellion and that it was carried out by large numbers of people. On the question of the participants in the rebellion there is only one answer: The rebels were recruited from the Scythian working population, from the numerous inhabitants of the cities and villages on eastern Crimea, from artisans and workers, from dependent farmers and possibly also from slaves, thus from all those who had a reason to take up the fight for a better life. The assumption that the Bosporan farmers played a leading role in the Saumakos rebellion, was earlier expressed by Brandis (Bosporos. RE 3, 1, col. 774). At the same time he opposes B. Niese, Die Erwerbung der Küsten des Pontos durch Mithridates, Rheinisches Museum 42, 1887, p. 567 ff., who attributes the Saumakos rebellion to the Scythians in the central part of the Crimea, in the kingdom of Skiluros and Palakos, which earlier had been defeated twice by Diophantos. The idea that the Scythian rebellion on the Bosporos was a manifestation of the struggle of the lower layers against their exploiters, is widely recognized in the (Soviet and foreign) historical literature, s.: E. Diehl, Saumakos. RE Suppl. 6, col. 653. Against Žebelevs concept the following have objected: A. S. Kocevalov in: Наукові записки Інституту icтopiї матерiальної культури АН УССР (Scientific Papers of the Institute for the History of the material culture of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR) 1, 1937, p. 109ff.; id., Die antike Geschichte und Kultur des nördlichen Schwarzmeergebiets im Lichte der Sowjetwissenschaft. München 1955, p. 22-26; S. Lurie, Jeszcze о dekrecie ku czci Diofantosa (Once more on the honorary decree for Diophantos). Meander 2, 1959, S. 67-78; Э. Л. Казакевич, К полемике о восстании Савмака (Ė. L. Kazakevič, On the polemic around the Saumakos rebellion). Ð'Ð"И 1, 1963, S. 57ff. Those mentioned base their criticism on a philological question: whether the locus τ`ον . . . `εκθρέψαντα α`υτόν might mean that Saumakos was a slave of the Bosporan king. S. Lur`e draws besides that from the lines 34 - 36 of the Diophantos decree the paradoxical conclusion that not Saumakos but Diophantos (a citizrn of Sinope, which is stressed twice in the Chersonesian honorary decree!) was raised by Pairisades' V. The arguments of those researchers, who do not see the Saumakos rebellion in the light of the internal social struggle, are criticaklly examined by: Ð'. Ф. Ð"айдукевич, Еще о восстании Савмака (V. F. Gajdukevič, Once omre on the Saumakos rebelion). Ð'Ð"И 1, 1962, pp. 3 - 23). Μ. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 2, Oxford 1941, S. 807ff., is sceptical towards the hypothesis, that Saumakos should have been a slave of king Pairisades, but concurs with Žebelev's main thesis, that the rebellion of the Bosporan Scyths must be listed with the slave rebellion in Sicily and Italy, on Delos and in Athens, with the rebellion of Aristonikos in Pergamon and similar movements, which shook the Old World in the 2nd century BCE and the goal of which it was annihilation of existing order in the slaveholder states. - Ð'. Ð'. Струве, Ð'осстание Савмака (V. V. Struve, The Saumakos rebellion), Ð'Ð"И 3, 1950, pp. 22-40, proposes to read in line 34 of the Chersonesian honorary not, as generally assumed, τ`ον ... `εκθρέψαντα α`υτό[ν, but τ`ον ... `εκθρέψαντα α`υτό[νς: Saumakos, the leader of the rebelling Scyths, killed the Bosporan king who had "nourished, raised" them. From that would follow that the rebelling Scyths were slaves of the king, ie state slaves. Unfortunately the word following `εκθρέψαντα is very illegible. Thus the emendation proposed by Struve can't replace the old solution τ`ον `εκθρέψαντα α`υτό[ν, which is recognized by all researchers and also to us seems to be the most probable."


You implied you read the book? How do you reconcile that quote with your stated belief that there was no irredentism in the Bosporan Kingdom? I don't understand how your mind works.



Torsten