Some notes on the names ΦΑΝΑΓΟΡΕΙΑ and ΦΑΝΑΓΟΡΗΣ
Античный мир и археология. Вып. 16. Саратов, 2013. С. 180–189
Для просмотра текста на древнегреческом языке необходимо установить шрифт GR Times New Roman
с.180 This paper is the result of a very simple question which a colleague once addressed to me: “What was the name of the Pontic city: Phanagóreia (Φαναγόρεια) or Phanagoría (Φαναγορία)?” “Phanagóreia”, the reply came. Since that moment I repeated to myself the question again and again. I wrote down all various forms of the name. And I realized how complicated the whole matter is: ancient scholars provided spare and sometimes distorted information; modern scholars accept the one or the other version with no criticism at all (Φαναγορία instead of Φαναγόρεια, Φαναγόρας instead of Φαναγόρης etc). In the following pages an attempt is made to discuss the questions about the various forms of the names related to the well known Pontic city of Phanagoreia.
I. Phanagoreia (Φαναγόρεια) was founded by colonists from Teos (c. 545–540 B. C.) on the present day Taman’ peninsula, in the north-eastern Black Sea area. According to some scholars, these colonists did not come directly from Teos, but through Abdera, which was another colony founded by Teos almost simultaneously with Phanagoreia. It seems that Phanagoreia enjoyed a free status from the very beginnings until 480 B. C., when the Archaeanactids — rulers of the Cimmerian Bosporus Kingdom — extended their power over the city. Phanagoreia was a prosperous city at that time, minting silver coins and trading with the Greek mother-cities and colonies. When the Spartocids took over the Bosporus Kingdom, Phanagoreia faced the decline. Later, it was the first city that rebelled against Mithridates Eupator and in the middle of the 1st c. B. C. it was partially destroyed by Pharnaces. There is evidence that the city still existed in the 4th c. A. D. and that it was suddenly abandoned as a result of the Hunnish raids. A small trading center appeared much later in that place1.
II: The founder Φαναγόρης and the personal names Φαναγόρας and Φαναγόρα.
The city was named after its first colonist and founder2. He was Φαναγόρης (Ionic dialect; Φαναγόρας in the Attic) from Teos. The only с.181 evidence which survived about the events of that colonization and foundation is the information that the inhabitants of Teos abandoned their city because of the Persian threat3.
The founder’s name is attested in several documents dating from the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The word Φαναγόρης derived from the ancient root ΦΑϜ (cf. v. φάω n. * φάϝος > φάος / Pamphylian Greek φάβος / contracted Attic Greek φῶς, which means “light” but also “glory”), which was later formed as ΦΑΝ (cf. φαίνω < φάν--ω)4. The second composite of the name came from the word ἀγορά5. Several personal names were formed with the composite ἀγορά, e. g. Ἀγορακλής (the one who has glory in the public assembly), Ἀγοράκριτος (the one who is being judged by the public assembly, cf. Δημόκριτος), Ἀθηναγόρας (a wise orator — inspired by Athena), Ἀρισταγόρας (the best orator or the best among those who work for the common good), Διαγόρας (a good orator — inspired and encouraged by Zeus), Εὐαγόρας (a good orator), Μολπαγόρας, Πρωταγόρας (the best orator or the best among those who work for the common good), Πυθαγόρας (the one who provides information to the public assembly), Τιμαγόρας, Νικαγόρας, Κλειναγόρας etc. Moreover, several personal names were formed with the composite φαν- (or φαιν-), e. g. Φανοκλής, Φαινεκλῆς, Φανόκριτος, Φανόμαχος, Φανόδικος, Φανοστράτη, Φαιναρέτη, Φαίνιππος etc.
Φαναγόρης could mean “someone who brings the light, the enlightenment or the reveal to the public assembly”, but it could also mean “someone who has glory when speaking in the public assembly” (cf. Ἀγορακλής). If we choose the first meaning, then Surikov might be right and this name could be an epiklesis to the god Apollo, who was also called Πύθιος (and Λοξίας) because he revealed to the people (cf. the personal name Πυθαγόρας) the future (sometimes through intermediation of his son, Asclepius). This epiklesis could also be linked, as Surikov suggested, with the unidentified coins bearing the legend ΑΠΟΛ6. However, as Surikov himself remarked, such epiklesis (for both Phanagoreia and Hermonassa, which is also mentioned in his study) is not confirmed by any source.
Moreover, Surikov suggested that since no archaic (and even classical) Greek colony city bears the name of the (human) founder then we must assume that the case of Phanagoreia (and Hermonassa) is the same. с.182 The scholar then proceeds on the text of Plato (Laws) in order to support his arguments. Last, he suggested that researchers should always trust the most ancient written sources7.
For the first suggestion we may say that it is an argumentum ex silentio. It is true that we don’t have at our disposal firm evidence which would prove beyond any doubt that Phanagores, a human, was indeed the founder and first colonist. On the other hand, we have no firm data which prove the contrary: all available information — reliable or not — point to Phanagores as a human being, not a god. And it would be an exaggeration to claim that no archaic colony city took the name from the founder: Byzantium, for example, was named after Byzas, a half-historical — half-mythical person, depending on the source. It is true that perhaps Greeks of old had to invent a legend in order to explain the origins of some difficult — to — interpret place-names. But no matter who Byzas really was, according to tradition the city was named after him and this is a fact. Phanagores could be a human or a semi-god or whatever. Until new data come to light, there is one and only tradition and the fact is that the city was named after him, not someone else, not anything else.
About the question of the reliable and non reliable sources: there are no strict or clearly defined limits, frames and categories marking the reliability of the ancient and medieval writers. Each case is different. And we should never forget that late writers sourced earlier writers. Sometimes information from early writers did not survive. Sometimes information from early writers survived only through later writers. Late writers sometimes distorted information taken by their precedents, sometimes they did not.
Moreover, we should note here that Surikov based his arguments on the text of Plato (Laws)8, but in the quoted passage the Greek philosopher was neither providing instructions nor enlisting the general rules about the naming of a city: he was giving examples (τάχ᾿ ἂν ἴσως... προσθείη). More, Plato was likely writing about an ideal situation, mentioning some cases which the founders followed (something which does not mean that they actually followed them). Indeed, Laws is a dialogue of political and philosophical nature about the laws by which Plato suggested that aristocracy (in which rich people participate) is the best form of government (something which contradicts his other political — philosophical work about justice, the Republic, where Plato rejected all forms of government as non functional enough to survive in the course of time). Last, Plato might refer to his own era — not the archaic one — when he mentioned these examples.
Let us go back to the names. The personal name in question is attested mostly in the Attic form Φαναγόρας (nom.), Φαναγόρου (gen.)9, but с.183 sometimes in the Ionic form as well: Φαναγόρης (nom.), Φαναγόρεω (gen.)10. It would be a mistake to believe that the name Φαναγόρης can form the genitive with two endings, -εω and -ου11, because these forms came from different dialects and the names have different endings in the nominative case as well. Ionic dialect was predominant in Teos, so in our opinion the right form of the founder’s name was Φαναγόρης (gen. -εω). The form Φαναγόρας was much more widespread in ancient literature because most of the texts were written in the Attic dialect. We should note here that Hecataeus’ text is corrupted: Stephanus Byzantius was usually following his sources word by word. In this case, however, Stephanus recorded the Attic form Φαναγόρου which was ascribed as Hecataeus’ writing (something which was accepted by the editors of Hecataeus’ text). Hecataeus used the Ionic dialect, not the Attic. We cannot be sure whether Stephanus himself transformed the name or he found it like this in the manuscript he used. Another option is that the name was transformed by the editors of Stephanus’ work, perhaps Hermolaus.
Φαναγόρης was a quite popular personal name in Archaic and Classical Greece. The most ancient evidence about this name is an inscription from Thrace (6th c. B. C.)12. Since then we can find it in Thasos13 and Chios14 (5th–4th c.), again in Thasos15 and in the Cimmerian Bosporus16 (4th c.), in Samos17 (3rd–2nd c.) and again in Chios18 (2nd–1st c.). This Ionic form с.184 attested actually in the Eastern parts of the Greek world, is represented by the earliest inscriptions19.
Φαναγόρας was a popular name as well. Long after the decline of the Ionian cities, the name in Attic dialect began to spread in the Aegean and Attica: in Keos20 (4th–3rd c.), in Delos21, Keos22, Lesbos23 and Thasos24 (3rd c.) and in Attica25 (1st c. B. C.) (Strangely enough, the passage from Hdt. VII. 214: Ὀνήτης τε ὁ Φαναγόρεω ἀνὴρ Καρύστιος was considered by LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρας, Euboia 3, as evidence for the name Φαναγόρας, not Φαναγόρης!). And, of course, there was a female personal name Φαναγόρα which is attested — to our knowledge — only in Attica: in the 5th–4th c.26, in the 4th c.27 and in the 3rd c.28 How can we explain the spread of the personal names Phanagora and (to a lesser degree) Phanagoras in Athens? It seems that it was the result of the approaching between Athens and the Bosporus Kingdom, whose relations became stronger after Pericles’ expedition and especially in the times of Satyrus I and Leucon I. Since the 430’s–420’s the Pontic area (in particular the northern shores) became more familiar to the Athenians29.
III: The place names Φαναγόρεια and Φαναγορία (ἡ), Φαναγόρειον (τὸ), Φαναγόρη and Φαναγόρεια (νῆσος), τὰ Φαναγόρεια (ἐμπόριον).
с.185 The city’s name is not recorded either in inscriptions or in coins30. According to the literary sources the name was Φαναγόρεια (ἡ): this form was used by almost all the writers who wrote about the city (Hecataeus, Pseudo-Scymnus, Strabo, Appianus, Arrianus, Herodianus, Stephanus Byzantius, the anonymous author of the Periplus of the Pontus Euxinus). We should not forget, however, that Stephanus Byzantius sourced Hecataeus and Herodianus; Eustathius of Thessalonica sourced Arrian and the anonymous author of the Periplus sourced Pseudo-Scymnus. It is difficult therefore to say who the first to use the form was and whether the word was part of the original texts or was added by later authors or copyists. Be that as it may, all the writers have used correctly the forms of the name (Φαναγόρεια, Φαναγορείας, Φαναγορεία, Φαναγόρειαν).
The name Φαναγορία is recorded only by Ptolemy31. This must be, most likely, the mistake of a copyist who was writing the genitive or dative case of the name. He accentuated the last syllable of the nominative case and he also omitted the letter ε of the ending. No matter what happened it is true that the ending -ία — without ε — finds a parallel in the later form of the city-ethnic name Φαναγορίτης, attested in inscriptions and coins (see below). In the literary sources, however, the form Φαναγορείτης predominates. It is difficult to say whether the forms Φαναγορία and Φαναγορίτης were somehow linked to each other. We believe that Φαναγορίτης is a simplified version of the ethnic name and that it could be written either with ει or with ι.
According to the critical editions of the ancient texts, four ancient authors recorded the island of Phanagoreia (Φαναγόρεια νῆσος): Hecataeus, Dionysius Periegetes, Herodianus and Stephanus Byzantius32. In our opinion only Dionysius and Herodianus present the original information. Hecataeus should be excluded from this group. Despite the fact that in Hecataeus’ latest edition the fragment in question (Φαναγόρεια, πόλις ἀπὸ Φαναγόρου, ὡς Ἑκαταῖος Ἀσίᾳ. ἡ νῆσος Φαναγόρη καὶ Φαναγόρεια. ἔστι καὶ ἐμπόριον τὰ Φαναγόρεια οὐδετέρως, which is taken from Stephanus Byzantius) is wholly attributed to the ancient writer, we believe that only the first part of it belongs to Hecataeus. The rest of the fragment should be considered as Stephanus’ addition, based on information from Herodianus. The Byzantine lexicographer wrote — in the entry Φαναγόρεια — about the island which was called Φαναγόρη and Φαναγόρεια, copying Herodianus (according to A. Lentz).
Lentz’s effort to restitute Herodianus’ text (not only in this passage but as a work in general) is ambiguous though and we should wonder с.186 whether this information about Phanagoreia really belongs to Herodianus or Stephanus. We would like to express the following hypothesis here: that Dionysius’ information about an island with two cities on it, Phainagore (Φαιναγόρη) and Hermonassa (Ἑρμώνασσα) was copied and distorted by Stephanus (who wrote, mistakenly, about two different islands, not cities. Actually Dionysius is wrong too, because Hermonassa was not located on the same island as Phanagoreia, but on a peninsula). Thus Stephanus copied the first form of the name (Φαναγόρη) from Dionysius (Φαιναγόρη) and the second (Φαναγόρεια) from Strabo. This point of view can be confirmed by the fact that Stephanus used the form Φαναγόρεια when he mentioned Strabo (see also below) and Φαναγόρη or Φαναγόρα in all other cases, that is when he wrote about the island33. In this case, the fragment considered as Herodianus’ production belongs to Stephanus.
The terms Φαναγόρειον (τὸ) and Φαναγόρεια (τὰ, ἐμπόριον), in neuter, singular and plural number, respectively are recorded by Strabo and Stephanus Byzantius. Stephanus copied Strabo, but the question is not so simple. According to the previous editions of Strabo’s work, the passage was “τὸ Φαναγόρειον (καλεῖται...)”, but in the latest edition Radt has corrected the name as “ἡ Φαναγόρου καλεῖται...”34. A. Meineke had accepted the old restitution of Strabo’s text and, of course, he used it in Stephanus’ text as well35. In the new edition of Stephanus’ work the passage in question is omitted36. It is impossible to explain Strabo’s choice to present the name in neuter, since he knew that it was originally female. Perhaps this invention is somehow connected with Phanagoreia’s identity as an ‘emporion’, a word of neuter gender. In some less important manuscripts of Strabo’s work one can read ἡ Φαναγορία (see Radt, app. crit.). Be that as it may, in our opinion Radt is right to correct the word, because Phanagoreia — as Meineke had also remarked — was in fact ἡ τοῦ (or ἡ ἀπὸ) Φαναγόρου πόλις. Strabo, however, was not the only author who described Phanagoreia as an ‘emporion’. Appianus wrote: ἐς Φαναγόρειαν, ἕτερον ἐμπόριον37.
IV: The ethnic names Φαναγορεύς and Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης
According to Herodianus, the ethnic name originally used for the inhabitants of Phanagoreia was Φαναγορεύς, but later the form Φαναγορείτης dominated: Φαναγόρεια πόλις, τὸ ἐθνικὸν ἐχρῆν Φαναγορεὺς ὡς Ἀλεξανδρεὺς τῷ πλείονι λόγῳ ἐκράτησε δ᾿ ὅμως Φαναγορείτης38. This information is absolutely reliable. The form Φαναγορεὺς is attested in the literary texts from the very ancient times until the end of Antiquity; the form Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης, on the other hand, is used for the first time in the end of the 2nd c. and in the 1st c. B. C. on the coins of the city39. From that time on, this term was written с.187 in inscriptions as well: the first, dated in 88–87 B. C. speaks about the boule and demos of the citizens of Phanagoreia (ΦΑΝΑΓΟΡΙΤΩΝ: Φαναγοριτῶν ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος)40. The second, dated in the first centuries A. D., speaks about an ambassador sent to Rome by the citizens of Phanagoreia (ΦΑΝΑΓΟΡΕΙΤΩΝ: Ἥδυκος Εὐόδου πρεσβευτὴς Φαναγορειτῶν τῶν κατὰ Βοὸς πόρον)41. There should be no doubt that the name officially used since at least the end of the 2nd c. B. C. was Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης. In some texts of the first centuries A. D. (e. g. Appianus42) the old form Φαναγορεύς was used but that depended on the work that each writer sourced.
This procedure of reading and copying earlier texts resulted to the delay of the use of the new form in the works of the authors writing in the Christian times. The form Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης first appeared in literary texts in the 2nd c. A. D. and is attested only in two authors: Athenaeus and Herodianus (and also Stephanus Byzantius, who copied Herodianus)43.
The variation of the endings -είτης and -ίτης can be explained as a simplification of the first form. We exclude the case that the official form was Φαναγορίτης — the name written on coins — because in the inscriptions which are also reliable sources we can find both versions Φαναγορίτης and Φαναγορείτης. On the other hand, the literary sources mention only the form Φαναγορείτης. The reason for which the new form of the name (Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης) was not widespread and generally known is that the city was in decline at that time and it was soon destroyed and there was no particular interest for the name. Authors who mentioned the city in the following centuries did nothing but to collect information from their precedents. This procedure resulted to the spreading of the old form of the name rather than the new.
The form ΦΑΝΑΤΟΡΙΤΩΝ44 is obviously a mistake during the carving of the cast for the coin minting. A similarity between Γ and Τ in that region is not possible, because there is no such evidence in other inscriptions (moreover, the letter Τ is not recognizable or even present in all the coins of type II of the classification made by Frolova and Ireland: in the table XXXIX:4, for example, we can clearly read Γ).
с.188 We can assume that the replacement of the first form of the ethnic name by another as in the case of the names Φαναγορεύς and Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης was a gradual process and that for some time the two names co-existed. A similar case can be found in nearby Panticapaeon, where the ethnic name was formed as Παντικαπαιεύς, Παντικαπεύς, Παντικαπαιάτης or Παντικαπαΐτης45, and at the same time the form Βόσπορος was in use for the city and the ethnic names Βοσπορανός and Βοσπορίτης for its citizens46.
V: Φαιναγόρας — Φαιναγόρειοι in Rhodes and Argolis
In a well known inscription of the 4th–3rd c. B. C. from Rhodes one reads the name Φαιναγόρειοι47. This name cannot be linked directly to above mentioned ethnic names Φαιναγόρευς — Φαναγορ(ε)ίτης, because it forms the nominative case of the singular number as Φαιναγόρειος. The Rhodian inscription enlists the names of the subdivisions of the local tribe (phyle), so Phainagoreioi was the name of a patra or diagonia of Kameiros in Rhodes. Where did they get their name from?
There are several options regarding the origin of the name Phainagoreioi in Rhodes. It could have been derived from a local place name like Φάναι, which Ch. Christodoulou believes it was the ancient form for the place name Φάνες48, whose location points to an observatory where fires were lightened in order to give signals. Or it could have been derived from a local personal name Φαιναγόρας, which is attested in Rhodes in the 3rd–2nd c. B. C.49 The etymology and meaning of the name Phainagoras is the same as that of Phanagores -as (see above). The first option seems unlikely, but the second seems more logical.
Another two options, much more complicated this time, bring into the discussion the areas of Argolis and of the northern Euxin. According to a very ancient tradition, the inhabitants of the greatest Rhodian cities were migrants from Argolis. It is interesting to note here that the name Phainagoras is attested in Argolis in the 2nd–1st c. B. C.50 Perhaps the name Phainagoras — and Phainagoreioi — in Rhodes is but a memory of those who had migrated there from Argolis. A person named Phainagoras could have been one of them.
Regarding the north shores of the Euxin, one could link the name Phainagoreioi to the Pontic city of Phanagoreia. The relations between Rhodes and the northern Euxin are attested in archaeology, epigraphy and literature. Rhodian amphora was exported to the Bosporan Kingdom с.189 and according to Agatharchides (ed. Müller C. GGM 1. P. 66) numerous merchants from Bosporus were heading to Rhodes: Ἐκ γὰρ τῆς Μαιώτιδος λίμνης πολλοὶ τῶν φορτιζομένων ἐν φορτηγοῖς ἀκάτοις δεκαταῖοι κατῆραν εἰς τὸν ῾Ροδίων λιμένα (ἀφίκοντο). Another clue to support the relations between Rhodes and the Bosporan Kingdom in general or Phanagoreia in particular is the ethnic name Βοσπορανοί, attested in Rhodes51. Although there is no grammatical connection between the forms Phainagoreios and Phanagoreus or Phanagor(e)ites, it is not hard to explain the form of the name attested in Rhodes. The ending -ειος (showing the origin or possession, cf.: Πυθαγόρας — Πυθαγόρειος — Πυθαγόρειοι) is common for several ethnic (tribal) names, e. g. Ἀρισταγόρειοι, Μειδαγόρειοι, in the same inscription where we find the form Φαιναγόρειοι. Moreover, the composites Φαν- and Φαιν- had the same meaning and were both in use. The opinion according to which both Arrian and Eustathius (or — perhaps — only Eustathius, who commented on Arrian’s text) used the form Φαιναγόρας (see above) inspired by the form Φαιναγόρη which they found in Dionysius Periegetes, and that Dionysius preferred to use the form Φαιναγόρη instead of Φαναγόρεια for metrical purposes52 is rather convincing. Of course we cannot exclude the hypothesis that Dionysius was aware of the form Φαιναγόρας and since he was willing to write about the Pontic city of Phanagoreia he confused the names by thinking that all forms are linked to one and the same name and city.
In brief, the original name of the first colonist and founder of Φαναγόρεια (Phanagoreia) was Φαναγόρης (Ionic). Φαναγόρας was the Attic version of this name which — together with the female personal name Φαναγόρα — became very popular in Athens. Φαιναγόρας was another version of the name, attested in Rhodes, Argolis and in some manuscripts. The city’s official name was Φαναγόρεια — sometimes mistakenly attested as Φαναγορία. Other versions of this name (in neutral, plural) are attested by ancient and medieval authors. The ethnic name of Phanagoreia’s citizens in early times was Φαναγορεύς but later the word Φαναγορείτης dominated. The link between the Pontic city of Phanagoreia and the tribal or ethnic names Φαιναγόρειοι and Βοσπορανοὶ attested in Rhodes is not clear.
1 Фанагория. По материалам таманской экспедиции ИА РАН. М., 2008. С. 11 сл.; An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxf., 2004. P. 950–951; Kuznetsov V. Kepoi — Phanagoria — Taganrog // Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea. Thessaloniki, 2003. Vol. 2. P. 897–921.
2 I. E. Surikov rejected this view in a recent study (Суриков И. Е. Об этимологии названий Фанагории и Гермонассы (к постановке проблемы) // ДБ. 2012. Вып. 16. С. 441–469) claiming that the city’s name originated not from the founder but from the epiklesis to the god Apollo. I would like to express my gratitude to prof. S. Ju. Monakhov who kindly provided me with a copy of Surikov’s study.
3 Arr. Bith. F. 60. FHG. P. 597 = Eustath. Comm. a. Dionys. Perieg. I. 549. GGM2. P. 324. Cf.: Ps.-Scym. F. 17b. P., 2000. P. 142. See also: Marinoni E. Talete in Erodoto: La cronologia e l’attività politica sullo sfondo della conquista persana dell’Asia Minore // ACME. 1976. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 215. N. 118; Malkin I. What’s in a name? The eponymous founders of Greek colonies // Athenaeum. 1985. No. 63. P. 114. 121 ff.
4 But φαν- did not come directly from the form φῶς, as Surikov suggests (Суриков И. Е. Указ. соч. С. 464: Here pertinently to draw attention to that the first component of this composite — φαν- (φαιν-) — directly occurs from φῶς «light»). Cf.: LSJ. 1996. Hofmann J. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des griechischen. München, 1950. P. 1912–1913, 1916 and P. 464–465, 467, 487.
5 Bechtel F., Fick A. Die Griechischen Personennamen. Göttingen, 1894. P. 43–44, 273–274.
6 Суриков И. Е. Указ. соч. С. 466. For these coins see bibliography in n. 37 here.
7 Суриков И. Е. Указ. соч. С. 462.
8 Там же. С. 450–451, 462 сл.
9 Hecat. F. 225; cf.: Herod. De Prosodia Catholica // Grammatici Graeci. Leipzig, 1867. Vol. III. 1. P. 280 and Steph. Byz. s. v. Φαναγόρεια); Ps.-Scyl. 72; Strabo. XI. 2. 10; Arr. Bith. F. 60. FHG. P. 597; Anonym. PPE. F. 11r19–20 (Diller).
10 Hdt. VII. 214; Hippocr. De morb. I. 2. 8, with app. crit.: φαναγορέω in another manuscript (cf.: Galen. In Hippocratis librum primum epidemiarum commentarii // Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia. Leipzig, 1828. Vol. 17. 1. P. 168); КБН. № 971 (4th c. B. C.).
11 As it is stated in КБН. № 971, comm. Cf.: SEG. 26. 1976–77, 1891. Marinoni E. Talete... P. 214. No. 118 writes that Φαναγόρας is the Ionic name (“In ogni caso Phanagoras è antroponimo di sicura tradizione ionica”), something which is half-right: the form of the name is Attic, not Ionic. As for the origin, the name in question is Ionic but as we will see further below it existed — independently — in other regions as well.
12 Sayar M. Perinthos — Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Wien, 1998. P. 251. No 69 (= Collitz H., Bechtel F. Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften (hereafter: SGDI). Göttingen, 1905. Vol. 3. 2. P. 740. No. 5722 (233); Fraser P., Matthews E. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (hereafter: LGPN). Oxford, 1987. Vol. 1. P. 339, Φαναγόρης, Thrace 2).
13 Hippocr. De morb. I. 2. 8; IG. XII (8). P. 88. No. 270 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρης, Thasos 5).
14 SGDI. P. 707. No. 5658 (179); LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρης, Chios 1.
15 Pouilloux J. Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos, I, De la fondation de la cité à 196 avant J. C (Études Thasiennes, 3). P., 1954. P. 262. No. 27; Bon A. M., Bon A., Grace V. Les timbres amphoriques de Thasos (Études Thasiennes, 4). P., 1957. P. 398–399. No. 1638 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρης, Thasos 7); Dunant C., Pouilloux J. Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos. II. De 196 avant J. C. jusqu’à la fin de l’Antiquité (Études Thasiennes, 5). P., 1958. P. 234. No. 409 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρης, Thasos 6).
16 КБН. № 971 (= SEG. 1976–77. Vol. 26. P. 429. No. 1891; LGPN. 1. P. 339, Φαναγόρης, Cimm. Bosp. 1). Cf.: Marinoni E. Talete...
17 Θεοφανείδης Β. Επιγραφαί Σάμου // AD. 1924–25. Vol. 9. P. 101. Frg. Στʹ (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρης, Samos 3). The inscription is damaged but the people on the island were Ionic speaking.
18 Mavrogordato J. A chronological arrangement of the coins of Chios, part III // NC. 1916. P. 324 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρης, Chios 2).
19 To the above mentioned we may add Hdt. VII. 214 (5th–4th c.). It seems that Herodotus did not change the name, since the Ionic dialect was predominant in Euboia anyway.
20 IG. XII (5). P. 143. No. 544. Frg. B:2, 4 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρας, Keos 4).
21 IG. XI (2). P. 39. No. 156 A; P. 42. No. 158 A; P. 47. No. 161 A (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρας, Delos 1, 2).
22 IG. XI (4). No. 592 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρας, Keos 5); IG. XII (5). P. 168–169. No. 610 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρας, Keos 6).
23 Murray A., Smith A., Walters H. Excavations in Cyprus. L., 1900. P. 96. No. 4 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρας, Lesbos 7).
24 IG. XII (8). P. 110. No. 294 (= LGPN. 1. P. 453, Φαναγόρας, Thasos 8).
25 IG. II2. P. 736. No. 2469 (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φαναγόρας, Athens 1).
26 IG. II2. No. 12211 = 12219 (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φαναγόρα, Athens? 10). We are not convinced, however, about the reading of this name as a female one.
27 SEG. 1968. Vol. 23. P. 59. No. 157 (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φαναγόρα, Athens, Myrrhinous 8); SEG. 1968. Vol. 23. P. 60–61. No. 161 (= LGPN. 2. P. 453, Φαναγόρα, Athens 2); Clairmont C. Classical Attic Tombstones. Kilchberg, 1993. Vol. 3. P. 106. No. 258 (v.) (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φαναγόρα, Athens? 13). There are about fifteen more inscriptions mentioning this female name.
28 Aleshire S. The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, their Dedications and the Inventories. Amsterdam, 1989. Inv. V. P. 262 (= LGPN. 2. P. 440, Φαναγόρα, Athens? 18).
29 The mutual relation between Athens and the Bosporus Kingdom in the 5th–4th c. is a topic presented in several studies of M. V. Skrzhinskaja and D. Braund, for example. For Pericles’ Pontic expedition, see bibliography in: Χαραλαμπάκης Π. Η εκστρατεία του Περικλή στον Εύξεινο Πόντο // Ιστορικές Σελίδες. 2009. Vol. 42. P. 16–27.
30 Cf.: Counillon P. Pseudo-Skylax... P. 84 with No. 249. As far as I know, there are no inscriptions or coins mentioning the city’s name. Only the ethnic name is attested here and there.
31 Ptolem. IX. 6 (ed. Stuckelberger A., Grasshoff G. Basel, 2006. Vol. 2. P. 532) = (5. 9. 8, ed. Nobbe C. Leipzig, 1843–1845. Vol. 2. P. 38); Counillon P. Pseudo-Skylax... P. 85 says that Strabo mentions the form Φαναγορία, but according to the latest edition it seems that this is not the case: Strabo XI. 2. 10.
32 Hecat. F. 225; Dionys. Perieg. 550–552; Herod. De Prosodia Catholica. P. 341; Steph. Byz. s. v. Ταυρική; s. v. Φαναγόρεια.
33 Cf.: Steph. Byz. s. v. Ἀπάτουρον.
34 Strabo (Op. cit. P. 298, app. crit.).
35 Steph. Byz. s. v. Βόσπορος.
36 Steph. Byz. s. v. Βόσπορος (Billerbeck P. 364).
37 App. Mith. 108. 510.
38 Herod. On par. (Lentz P. 896).
39 Shelov D. Coinage of the Bosporus, VI–II Centuries B. C. Oxf., 1978. Nrs. 26–28, 112–114; Анохин В. Монетное дело Боспора. М., 1986. С. 139, 142–145, 147–8; Frolova N., Ireland S. The Coinage of the Bosporan Kingdom. From the First Century B. C. to the Middle of the First Century A. D. Oxf., 2002. P. 12–13, 15, 17, 19–20, 22–23, 47–48; Frolova N. Die frühe Münzprägung vom Kimmerischen Bosporos (Mitte 6. bis Anfang 4. Jh. v. Chr.). B., 2004. P. 71–74, 76. Perhaps the dating of the coins is not accurate because the scholars use different methods. Be that as it may, any difference in the dating is not so important for our study.
40 SEG. 1991. Vol. 41. P. 212–213. No. 625. Cf.: Виноградов Ю. Г. Фанагорийские наемники // ВДИ. 1991. № 4. С. 14–35.
41 Moretti L. Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae. Roma, 1972. Vol. 2. 1. P. 164, 166. No. 567.
42 App. Mith. 108. 511. We cannot accept that the ethnic name of the citizens of Phanagoreia is attested only by Appian, as it is claimed by Колобова К. М. Политическое положение городов в боспорском государстве // ВДИ. 1953. № 4. С. 53.
43 Athen. XIII. 57; Herod. On paron.
44 Frolova N., Ireland S. The Coinage... P. 47. Tab. XXIX: 2–9.
45 See e. g. КБН. № 37, 1048 and Steph. Byz. s. v.
46 Cf.: the comments in Χαραλαμπάκης Π. Ιστορικογεωγραφικά Ευξείνου Πόντου. Η περιοχή της Κριμαίας. (1ος αι. Π. Χρ. — 6ος αι. Μ. Χρ). Ioannina, 2008. P. 189–196.
47 Peek W. Inschriften von den dorischen Inseln. B., 1969. S. 12–13. No 10 (= LGPN. 1. P. 452, Φαιναγόρας, Rhodes 1). Cf.: Παπαχριστοδουλου Ι. Οι αρχαιοοι ροδιακοι δημοι. Athens, 1989. P. 55, 230 (n. 101), 235 (n. 194) and IG. XII. 1. No 695.
48 Παπαχριστοδουλου Χ. Ιστορια της Ροδου. Αθηναι, 1972. P. 39.
49 SEG. 1957. Vol. 14. P. 159–160. No 687 (= LGPN. 1. P. 452, Φαιναγόρας, Rhodes 2).
50 Παπαχριστοδουλου Ι. Οι αρχαιοοι... P. 33; IG. IV. P. 133. No 731 (= LGPN. 3. 1. Oxf., 1997. P. 442, Φαιναγόρας, Argolis 1).
51 Παπαχριστοδουλου Ι. Οι αρχαιοοι... P. 71, 242 (n. 306).
52 Marinoni E. Talete... P. 215. N. 118. Cf.: IOSPE. Vol. 4. P. 230: Quod superset, momendum est titulum nostrum probare Phanagorenses ipsos nomen conditoris Φαναγόρης, -εω scripsisse..., non Φαιναγόρας, ut scribunt Eustathius... et Arrianus.
© Кафедра истории древнего мира СГУ, 2013