CHAPTER XVI CERCINITIS.
Few little towns have had devoted to them so disproportionate an amount of discussion as Cercinitis[1123]. Various views about it have been already mentioned as the question had to be taken in connexion with the general topography (p.
17). The evidence for putting it near Eupatoria is the fair agreement with the distance given by the source common to the late Ps.- Arrian and Anon., the fact that this does not contradict the words of the Diophantus inscription, the occurrence of many coins of Cercinitis on this site (they also occur at Chersonese and at other points in the west Crimea) and finally the discovery of remains of a Greek settlement more important than any other in that part of the peninsula.Between Chersonese and Tarkhankut, the western promontory of the Crimea, the coast forms a kind of quadrant; the only shelter for ships is furnished by a projection southwards breaking the regular curve, and protecting the open roadstead of Eupatoria, so that the modern town faces se. Two miles to the west is the salt lake of Majnak now, as usual, cut off from the sea. This seems to have been the old harbour, and the old town was on its eastern side. There remain of it a few foundations, among them a grand staircase, some barrows and the site of a cemetery. This last extends as far as the Quarantine on the outskirts of the modern town.
The whole space is defended by a bank across from the lake to the Bay of PLupatoria. The objects yielded by the cemetery date from the vith century b.c. on and include a silver twist (like that-figured on p. 208, f. 106, 32), a black-figured lecythus, two red-figured craters, a bronze statuette of Egyptian work and some terra-cottas of all dates, and coins of Cercinitis and Chersonese (of the earlier periods), also of Panticapaeum, Amisus and more rarely Olbia. The middle part of the site has been less dug over.
The western part which was the town has the characteristically uneven surface, but the foundations do not present any clear features, though Burachkov claims to have distinguished streets and towers. Lumps of slag, runnings from moulds and imperfect bronze objects make it probable that there was a bronze foundry onThe coins give KAPK and KEPKI. The Inscrr. App. 16, 18 (JosPF.. iv. 79; 1. 185) have KepKivirtv. Ps.-Arrian (30 (19)) and Anon. (83 (57)) in their peripli make KepKiiuTtv 600 stades from Chersonese, Anon, adds the form Kopovinv and speaks of the gulf as KapKivirijs·. There is another Cercina and an island Cercinitis in the lesser Syrtis, cf. HD1D fortress, and some might use this name as an argument for the presence of the Phoenicians in the Euxine. The Italian maps give Crichiniri and such in the W. Crimea (Bruun, Chernomorje^ II. p. 8).
the site. Besides the inscribed stele, others have been found, one with part of a very rude Totcnmahl, also a bit of pediment with dentels. All these are illustrated in Romanchenko’s two papers. The amjpora handles recall those found at Chersonese. The barrows occur, some within the defensive bank (which may be more recent), and some in the open plain.
Mention by Hecataeus proves that the town existed about 500 n.c. (cf. Jakunchikov’s coins). The one inscription of the ivth century1 shews the town to be Dorian, and therefore racially related to Chersonese. It may have been an earlier attempt on the part of the founders of the better known town, more probably it was a sister factory w’hose development was hindered by the badness of the Hypacyris route and the indefensibility of its territory.
What degree of autonomy it enjoyed we cannot tell. Of the three chief types of coins one would pass as Chersonesan but for the legend; the other two offer great similarities, but the right of issuing any coins at all argues formal independence. Many Chersonesan coins occur on the site, especially those like Pl.
iv. 6, 10.Probably Cercinitis was at first an independent settlement which was compelled to lean for help upon Chersonese, whose situation laid it less open to the attacks of the natives. On the other hand the open plain about Cercinitis offered space for a development of agriculture impossible upon the Lesser Peninsula. So mutual interest linked the towns very closely and Chersonese naturally became predominant. During the ivth and nircl centuries Chersonese could protect her dependency, but with the organization of Scythian power under Scilurus, or even before his time, she had to relinquish it. By the help of Diophantus it was recovered, but the remains so far as we know do not shew anything much after the mid century a.d.
Coins. Plate IX. 1—3.
Jakunchikov2 has two coins found on the site but without inscription : /R. 17·! grn. = rn grm. Horse galloping r. | Rude incuse square.
The later coins are both in make and types very similar to those of Chersonese (sec Pl. iv.). The head on No. 1 had some resemblance to that on Pl. iv. 17, especially in the peculiar embattled crown, but it is still more like the Tyche of Amisus and Heraclea Pontica3. This coin also occurs with the magistrate’s name ΠΟΛΥ (Oreshnikov 2). The axe on No. 2 is rather like that represented on Olbian coins, Pl. in. 4. Oreshnikov thinks the head is a dolphin. This type has several other names ΕΡΜΑ, ΓΕΛΩ, ΙΡΠΟΚΡΑ, ΚΑΛΛΙΑ, ΚΑΛΛΙΡ (Or. 3—9). ΙΣΤΙ (cf. iv. 14) : the first two of these occur also on No. 3 (Or. 10, 11), presumably it is of the same date: its types are quite Chersonesan. Romanchenko4 publishes an entirely new type :
/E. Head of Heracles r. as at Chersonese, Pl. iv. I Eagle 1. upon thunderbolt above H PflN, below 9 or 20. I KAPK1NI.
’ BCA. x. p. 18, No.
13. ΑΛΛΒΑΤΙΑΣΤΑΣ 3 BMC. Pontusw. 10—12; xxix. 19-20. ΗΡ0Δ0Τ0. 4 BCA. xxv. p. 187, f. 31.2 TRAS. Num. Sect. 1. ii. p. 25, 1’1. ill. 43, 44.
62—2
P. Vacquier (op. cit.) gives several coins of which some are demonstrably strange to Cercinitis, others quite unique, e.g. No. 8:
7E. Alexander-H era des r. I Bow and club, between them X E P X above
I ΒΑΣΙΛΕΟΣ ΣΧΙΛΟΥΡΟΥ
Burachkov {Trans. Od. Soc. ix. p. 98) also describes a coin
7E. Scilurus with sagaris behind him, Ê E P. | Bow and club, Â ΑΣ I ΛΕΟΣ ΣΚΙΛΟΙΡΙΟΥ. There is nothing improbable in Scilurus having coined at Cercinitis, but no certain examples exist, and it would be a very likely idea for a forger.
Head, HN? p. 279 would distinguish Carcine from Cercinitis following Imhoof-Blumer, “Kleinasiatische Münzen,” 11. p. 527, Pl. xix. 25, 26 {Sonderschr. d. Osterr. Arch. Inst. Wien 1902), who puts down to Tamyrace two coins
/Å. Young Head in helmet 1. | Lion not very unlike inf. Pl. v. io, è, TAAA.
but these have never been found north of the Euxine, and probably belong to some obscure town in Asia Minor.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Site and Excavations.
Romanchenko, N. Ph., “Materials for the Archaeology of the District of Eupatoria,” TRAS. vili, i—ii. (1895), pp. 219—236.
----- “Excavations in the Environs of Eupatoria,” BCA. XXV. pp. 172—187, cf. CR. 1895, p. 22, 1896, p. 70.
Burachkov, P. O., Trans. Od. Soc. xn. (1881), pp. 242—247 and Pl. in. Trans. Od. Soc. ix. (1875), PP· i —133·
Latyshev, V. V., Mat. IX. p. 6, treating the Chersonesites’ oath.
Bruun, Chernomorje, II. p. 6 sqq. and all the literature dealing with the Scythia of Herodotus discuss the question of Cercinitis and the river Hypacyris, v. pp.
17, 33.Coins.
Friedlaender, G., “ Kerkine città del Chersoneso Taurico,” Annali (Bulletino') dell' Institute, xvi. pp. 232-4. Roma, 1844.
Spasskij, G. I. The same article (first in Trans. Od. Soc. 11. 1848) then “De la situation de 1’antique ville de Carcinis et de ses monnaies,” Mem. de la Soc. Imp. d'Arch, de St. P. iv. (1850), p. 317, and in Archaeologico-Numismatic Miscellany. Moscow, 1850.
Koehne, Musee Kotschoubey, I. pp. 105—112.
Burachkov as above and in his general Catalogue, p. 95 and Pl. XIII.
Vacquier, P., Numismatique des Scythes et des Sarmates, Kerkinitis et Tannais, Paris, 1881 ; cf. v. Sallet in Zt. f. Numism. X. p. 309.
von Sallet, A., Beschr. der Münzen, I. p. 1, Pl. I. 1—3. Berlin, 1888.
Orèshnikov, A. V., Cat. Moscow University Coll. p. 25. Moscow, 1891.
----- Materials touching the ancient Numismatics of the Black Sea Coast, Moscow, 1892, pp. 1 —14 and Pl. I. : “ Coins of Carcinitis or Cercinitis,” reviews all preceding work and gives photographs of Burachkov’s coins.
Romanchenko, N. Ph., “On the question of an ancient settlement near Eupatoria,” Archaeological Bulletin (Archeologicheskia Izvestia'), 1894, pp. 9—15, I have not seen but its content is repeated in BCA. xxv. p. 187.
Jakunchikov, B. Μ., “Unpublished and rare Greek Coins,” TRAS. Num. Section, 1. ii. p. 25, Pl. III. 43, 44. St Petersburg, 1909.
Head, B. V., HN? p. 279. Oxford, 1911.
Bertier-de-La-Garde, A. L., “Monetary Novelties,” No. 1, Trans. Od. Soc. xxx. 1912.