Tetiana Shevchenko. Clay Figurines of Olbia Pontica by Schwabe Verlag

Tetiana Shevchenko

Clay Figurines of Olbia Pontica

Part I. Collection of the National Museum of the History of Ukraine

With a contribution from Olha Puklina

Schwabe Verlag

Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Federal Office of Culture and the University of Lausanne.

Open Access: Unless otherwise stated, this publication is licensed under the Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Any commercial exploitation by others requires the prior consent of the publisher.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

Cover illustration: A fragment of a female figurine wearing a wreath, the 3rd century BC, Olbia, catalogue no. 18.

Copyediting: SparkleCloud Copy-Editing, Dee Cooke-Rees, Newcastle

Proofreading: Timothy Simich, Croydon Park

Cover: icona basel gmbh, Basel

Graphic design and typesetting: Mittelstadt 21, Vogtsburg-Burkheim

Print: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

Printed in Germany

Manufacturer information: Schwabe Verlag, Schwabe Verlagsgruppe AG, Grellingerstrasse 21, CH-4052 Basel, info@schwabeverlag.ch

Responsible person under Art. 16 GPSR: Schwabe Verlag GmbH, Marienstraße 28, D-10117 Berlin, info@schwabeverlag.de

ISBN Print 978-3-7965-5271-7

ISBN eBook (PDF) 978-3-7965-5272-4

DOI 10.24894/978-3-7965-5272-4

The ebook has identical page numbers to the print edition (first printing) and supports full-text search.

Furthermore, the table of contents is linked to the headings.

rights@schwabe.ch www.schwabe.ch

Acknowledgements

The work on the data selection was carried out with a great deal of support from Olha Puklina, the Deputy Head Keeper of the Repository of the National Museum of the History of Ukraine (NMHU ). It was fulfilled under the frames of study and analogies of the project “Collections of the Research repository of the Institute of Archaeology as the historical source”.

This book would not have been possible without the considerable help of Othmar Jaeggi, President of the Institute of Archaeology and Sciences of Antiquity of the University of Lausanne, or without the financial support from the Swiss Federal Office of Culture and the University of Lausanne.

I am indebted to Arthur Muller and Florina PanaitBirzescu, the reviewers of the manuscript, as well as Arlette Neumann, the executive editor, whose advice helped me to improve the text.

As analysis of many issues and analogies are grounded on my work with the material at the site of Olbia, I would also like to express my gratitude to the Head of the Olbian International Archaeological Expedition and the deputy director of the Institute of Archaeology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, DS c. Alla Buiskykh, for her support, and to the Head of Repository of the NHAR “Olbia” at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, my namesake Tetiana Shevchenko, for her help with processing the materials.

I owe a great deal to Serhii Didenko from the NMHU and Ariane Jambé from the UniL for their help with the precise descriptions of the details depicted on certain images.

I am deeply grateful to these people, as well as many other Ukrainian and Swiss colleagues who supported the development of this monograph and on whom I could lean while working on it, despite the difficult circumstances that Ukraine, its people and its heritage are currently going through.

Olbia Pontica and its artefacts: world heritage in Ukraine

Olbia against a background of other Ancient Greek sites in the territory of Ukraine

The Ancient Greek period in the history of Europe left a whole net of classical sites across the south of Ukraine, from the first colonies of the late 7th century BC to the defensive points of the Roman period. The following key Greek poleis are situated in the territory of Ukraine: Olbia in the mouth of the Buh River; related to it, Borysthenes in the mouth of the Dnipro River; Nikonion and related to it, Tyras in the estuary of the Dniester River; Tauric Chersonesos with its chora in the western part of Crimea; and Panticapaeum with its cities united into the Bosporan state (known in the literature as a kingdom) in the eastern part of Crimea. In addition, there are some on the Asian side, beyond the territory of Ukraine.

The reasons for the foundation of these new centres on the far northern coast of the Pontus Euxinus were overpopulation and a consequent struggle for land and water. The written sources explain that the Greeks had to leave their homes to settle new colonies because of various natural, political and personal reasons;1 the commercial and agricultural benefits are rarely mentioned. Previously proposed reasons for colonisation of the Black Sea (metal export from the western and southern Pontus and grain export from the northern Pontus) are currently being refuted. It is believed that there was a whole set of reasons and that they were different for each mother city.2

Most of the Ancient Greek centres in the territory of Ukraine were founded by natives of Miletus, an Ionian city in Asia Minor, while Tauric Chersonesos was founded by those from Herakleia Pontica, a Dorian city on the southern coast of Pontus. In fact, the Greeks not only escaped from danger, but tried to retain their previous way of life with the advantages of civilisation and polis. Poleis became the centres of vast territories. For instance, the Olbian chora included more than 100 rural settlements.3 Compared to other areas in the region, the lack of land in the European part of the Bosporus meant that the new cities were founded quite close to each other. Very soon, wary of the invasion of Scythian

1 For an overview of sources and discussions see: Malkin 1987; Па льцева 1999.

2 Лапин 1966; Grammenos, Petropoulos 2003, p. 17–92; Tsetskhladze 2006, p. xxviii–xxx with lit.

3 Крыжицкий et al. 1989.

nomads, these cities joined together into a single state. The Bosporan state thus became one of the biggest in the ancient world.

In these new places, the settlers faced events and vicissitudes that influenced their historic development and made their cities original, to the extent possible within the frames of Greek culture. The population remained Greek at its core for centuries. An image of barbarians as enemies can be seen in state documents and private epitaphs.4 There is a tradition in the literature to state that the Greek settlers founded their cities in the northern Pontus on lands belonging to local populations: the Scythians, Taurians, Sindians and Maeotians.5 However, archaeological research of recent years has refuted these theories: sometimes there is a significant chronological gap between the age of colonisation and local sites.6

“Olbia”, meaning “happy, blessed”, was the name of the northmost polis. Olbia, Chersonesos, Tyras and Panticapaeum were the centres of Ancient Greek states situated in modern Ukraine. The name of one of them, “Bosporus” meaning “cow ford”, is completely consonant with the strait of Bosporus Thracian between the Black and Marmara Seas. Cimmerian Bosporus owed its name to the stories about the Scythians who drove the Cimmerians away from this land. Crossings, isthmus, walls, a mountain and a city bore the name Cimmerian for centuries, although this population left long before the Greeks arrived. According to Herodotus, the Scythians migrated to Bosporus, while the mountains to the west were settled by the Taurians.7 Their name comes from the name of the mountains.8 The Taurian mountains (renamed in the early modern period to the Crimean mountains) also have a namesake in the south of modern Turkey (the Taurus mountains).

The first Greek centre founded in the territory of Ukraine was Borysthenes. It was settled soon after the mid-7th century BC at the mouth of the Dnipro River and was also called Borysthenes in those times. The site is situated on a now-uninhabited island, although it is believed to have been united via a narrow isthmus

4 IOSPE II , 32, 343, 352, etc.

5 For these discussions see: Крыжицкий и др. 1989, p. 81; Зубарь, Сон 2006, etc.

6 Карышковский, Клейман 1985, p. 37–38; Tsetskhladze 20 06, p. lxvi.

7 Herod, IV, 1–4, 12, 99–101.

8 Соломоник 1976.

with the land in ancient times. It was very significant in trade routes between the Mediterranean Pontic regions and entered the Olbian chora within a century. Its religious role became no less important for the city of Olbia Pontica.9

Another key centre in the region was Panticapaeum, founded as the most comfortable place for life, agriculture and sea trade by the Greeks from Klazomenae, who searched the region of Cimmerian Bosporus after settling in the first apoikia at the Don River delta. Panticapaeum is situated in the territory of the modern city of Kerch in the Crimea, which today follows straight along the seaside. Together with its suburbs, it includes the site of Panticapaeum, which was large by the standards of the time. It also contains smaller poleis: Myrmekion, Tyritake, Porthmion, Parthenion and Nymphaion. The Hellenes found this area valuable due to its good harbour, neighbourhood with crossing, sources of drinking water, fertile soil and numerous sources for building and crafts, especially given that the western coast of the Black Sea had already been settled.

In the 50 years after Panticapaeum was founded in the 580s BC , other cities appeared in eastern Crimea: Theodosia, Kyta, Porthmion, Kimmerikon, Akra, etc. These cities developed as independent poleis to begin with; some of them had autonomous coinage. In 480 BC they united within the Bosporan symmachia , although it was a process that lasted decades as the state was constantly growing due to neighbouring poleis joining. Nymphaion and Theodosia stayed separate for the longest. This union was of course caused by economic interests, but one of the most important was the necessity for joint defence from possible barbarian invasions.10

In the Dniester River estuary (called the Tyras River in those times), the city of Nikonion was founded in the last third of the 6th century BC . Its chora spread over the eastern bank of the estuary and it was greatly supported by Histria, a western Pontic city. In the 510s BC , the city of Tyras was founded on the opposite side of the river; it bore the name Ophiusa at that time. These cities experienced rapid development in the 4th century BC , having their own coinage, regular urban structure and active economic relations with Histria, Olbia, Athens, etc. The Macedonian general Zopyrion partly ruined Nikonion and attacked Olbia in 331 BC The inhabitants of the former moved to Tyras; they did the same in the 3rd century BC and, after one more renewal, left Nikonion for the last time.11

2019, etc.

1949; Анохин 1999; Grammenos, Petropoulos

20 03, p. 707ff., etc

The last city founded in the region was Chersonesos, which had all the features of an autonomous democratic polis. It experienced its greatest prosperity in the second half of the 4th and the 3rd centuries BC , when it occupied vast territories in northwestern Crimea, including the cities of Kerkinitis, Kalos Limen and lesser centres. Lands were divided between citizens, with some spaces put aside as public sanctuaries and property. The clear division system of Chersonesos’ closest chora is very well preserved and serves a good example for specialists. The loss of these lands due to an unstable military and political situation caused a rapid economic downturn. The increasing military threat from barbarians led to crises in polis and losses of land in the 2nd century BC . The city asked for help from the Pontic kingdom. Pontic garrisons were introduced into Chersonesos, Apollonia (in the western Pontus) and Olbia. Basileus Mithridates VI Eupator guaranteed their safety but demanded tribute. The troops were withdrawn at the beginning of the 1st century BC at the demand of the Roman Senate.

During this whole time, Bosporus was a part of the Pontic state. It became part of the state without conflict or objection due to fatigue from the resistance against the barbarians.12 Later, the rulers of Bosporus needed help from Rome to defend against neighbouring barbarians. After the defeat of the Pontic kingdom by Rome, Chersonesos found itself dependent on the Bosporus. It only received the rights of eleutheria after the unsuccessful campaigns of Pharnaces against Rome. Afterwards, Chersonesos became one of the strongholds of the Roman Empire.

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD , Roman troops, mostly comprised of Moesian soldiers, were located at Olbia, Chersonesos, Tyras and other points in order to defend against the Scythians and Sarmatians. Bosporus sent its soldiers to the Roman army and they took part in the wars with the Dakians and Alani, stayed in garrisons in neighbouring northern Pontic cities, etc. The military administration conducted significant building projects in their temporary locations. Roman provincial culture was developing in these cities; some of them turned to the new calendar and used Roman coins. At the same time, they preserved Greek language and traditions. Massive invasions of Goths and Huns in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD finally changed the history of Olbia and other centres in the region, as well as that of the whole ancient world. These invasions resulted in a gradual collapse of the states, cessation of coinage and a search for a way out of the crisis by providing harbours and ships to pirate associations of various tribes (whom the ancient authors simply called Scythians). After the final attack by the Huns, while the cities were not completely destroyed, they remained under the protectorate

1985;

2006.

12 Further see:

of the barbaric military union, which spread from Pannonia to the northern Caucasus.13

The Ancient Greeks left a great heritage in Ukraine. In the heyday of their cities, small settlements, sanctuaries and defensive points, they built many public buildings, fountains, statues, etc. Ancient centres were equipped with harbours, regular planned streets, pavements, water supply systems and markets; many of them had a theatre. In the Roman period, Roman administrative buildings and baths were erected. At choras ’ borders, strong defensive points were built. Cities issued their own coins and received and equipped ships with goods, ambassadors and news from all over the world.

Many of the achievements of these civilisations were borrowed by the populations living in the area. As a result of tribute, trade or other contact, goods produced in the Greek cities of the Pontus and Mediterranean were used far beyond the ancient centres. The products transported in amphorae, jewellery and tableware reached the north of modern-day Ukraine. Periods of prosperity and decline are illustrated by written and epigraphic documents, images of gods and their attributes (and later of divinised rulers) on coins, in sculpture and reliefs, and by the architectural and archaeological remains of public and private buildings.

Every year, new finds are discovered at the sites where permanent expeditions are working. Terracotta figurines are among them; they are one of the most representative sources for understanding the religious life and cultic and cultural development of the inhabitants and their relation to other close and distant ancient centres. Religion was the basis for life and death in traditional societies and was often the reason for public and private decisions.

The Pontic region was known to the Greeks by the time the oldest centres were founded there, due to the myths relating to this area. Taurica and the northern coast of the Black Sea formed a mythological locality situated close to Hades’ domain. One of Herakles’ labours relating to the Arimaspian gold, the Taurians’ sanctuary where Iphigenia conducted human sacrifices, and the locality related to Achilles, among other myths, were localised there. The tombs and places of activity of these heroes and deities served as landmarks given by the Delphian oracles to the new settlers. Later, the cities founded following the oracle’s advice worshipped Apollo as a patron of colonisation at the highest level: the level of polis.

It was Apollo, not Zeus, who was the main god of Olbia,14 Tyras and the cities of the Bosporus after their foundation. His biggest temple in the Pontic region was erected at Panticapaeum. In Chersonesos, he was

13 Further see: Зубарь 1998 with lit.

14 Further see: Русяева 1979.

depicted on coins. However, later on, the cities’ own events changed their relationships with the gods. The inhabitants of Chersonesos faced resistance from the mountain tribes and needed the protection of warrior gods. Artemis Parthenos became the sacral conqueror of Taurica.15 Heracles became a part of pantheon in some cities in the Bosporus. Kerkinitis also appealed for protection from Artemis and Herakles. Aphrodite Urania was worshipped by the civic communities of Panticapaeum, Theodosia, Nymphaion, Tyritake, Porthmion and Kimmerikon; she was their patroness of seafaring. Several dynasties of the Bosporan archontoi introduced the cults of their patrons, such as Dionysus. The Olbian pantheon was also changing, and in the first few centuries AD it was headed by the divinised Achilles, whom they called Pontarchos.

The Greeks in the territory of Ukraine worshipped the deities of rivers: Borysthenes, Tyras and the divine founders such as Chersonas in Tauric Chersonesos. Some cities had cultic names such as Nymphaion, Nikonion, Achilleion, etc. The temples in Pontic cities are preserved in remains and architectural details. Only one theatre has been archaeologically uncovered, in Chersonesos. Others, including the Olbian theatre, are known only from mentions in official inscriptions and written sources. The architecture did not differ much from the general appearance of Hellas, but the scale and size of structures were sometimes limited due to lesser wealth and threats from neighbouring barbarians.

Ancient centres in the territory of Ukraine contributed to the development of Ancient Greek culture. Knowledge of them was reflected in myths, art and literature. Today, toponyms are used in definitions of style in art developed in the region (Kerch vases, Scythian animal style in metalworks) and architecture (Olbian masonry). Visitors from northern Pontic cities brought rich offerings to the common Greek sanctuaries, participated in trade relations and constituted a link between the Mediterranean and non-Greek populations in the region.

Ancient Greek centres – including those in the Pontic region, though they were situated far from each other – shared similar rites and used the same terracotta types in these rites. This spread of similar cultic images could have been the result of common beliefs shared by the Hellenes. Small clay images were sometimes representative of large public sculptural depictions of gods. The analysis of collections of terracottas allows us to make certain conclusions about the religious and artistic life of the ancient populations of the region. The search for analogies in coroplastics relates to issues of trade and interchange of knowledge between the Greek colonies situated throughout these vast territories.

15 Further see: Shevchenko 2023.

One of the most important classical sites in the territory of Ukraine is Olbia. The city has a long history and a large territory and has been explored by archaeological excavations for more than 150 years. These excavations were interrupted in 1915–1923, 1941–1949 and again since 2022. The site is near the current frontal zone and is in danger of damage or destruction.

During the excavations, temenoi , an agora , public and residential buildings, defensive structures and a necropolis have been discovered. Many terracottas, moulds for their production and the coroplast’s workshop have also been found there. Olbia Pontica is one of the most important Ancient Greek centres in the northern Black Sea region (fig. 1 and 2). It played a significant role in the region’s history and culture. It was founded at the turn of the 7th and 6th centuries BC at the point where the Buh River flows into the Dnipro River (the Hipanis and Borysthenes in ancient times). Olbian chora strengthened the vast territories of the modern Odesa, Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts in Ukraine.16

There was a net of sub-urban and extra-urban sanctuaries, while several public sanctuaries functioned in the city.17 The so-called western temenos was the oldest; it housed the temples of Apollo Ietros and the Mother of Gods, the lesser temples of Dioskouri, Hermes and

et al. 1989.

1979.

Aphrodite, and that of Aphrodite with other gods.18 The eastern (central) temenos was in some ways a continuation of the western, having increased during the Hellenistic period. It became functional later, during the third quarter of the 6th century BC , and soon became a place for worship of Apollo Delphinios, Zeus and Athena.19 It seems that these two temenos constituted the elements of a single sacral zone and functioned simultaneously throughout the history of the polis. Public cult rituals were also performed at agora . Aphrodite had a sanctuary at the southern cultic precinct at the edge of the city’s eminence above the waters of the estuary. The gods of the polis were depicted on coins and large sculptures. They received dedications from all of civil society.

Cults of religious unions and separate families also existed in Olbia. Small images of gods presented in terracottas were used both in public and to a greater extent in private worship.

After long centuries of more or less successful interactions with surrounding barbarians, Olbia was in large part destroyed by the Getae in the mid-1st century BC . Its revival only covered a smaller area of the city, where life continued until the late ancient period. A Roman garrison was located there in the 2nd and 3rd centuries

18 Древнейший 2006.

19 Леви 1985, p. 71–88.

Fig. 1: Map of Pontic region

Fig. 2: Plan of the unit excavations, after

2017.

AD ; they renewed the citadel and built public structures such as a pretorium and principia . This population represented part of the Roman provincial world: it was Greek at its core but had a new material culture.

Collection of terracottas

The clay figurines found at Olbia Pontica represent various stages of the city’s history. These artefacts are a part of archaeological and cultural heritage. Their comprehensive analysis provides an understanding of cultural and religious life in the northeastern part of the Ancient Greek civilisation.

A collection of terracotta figurines, or simply terracottas, found during the excavations in 1935–1940 in Olbia is kept in the National Museum of the History of Ukraine. It includes more than 160 pieces preserved wholly or in fragments. They date from the 6th century BC to the 2nd century AD

These terracottas feature images of Ancient Greek gods and heroes, their worshippers and cult accessories. They find analogies in artefacts from many other regions where the Ancient Greeks settled and founded colonies. Most artefacts from this collection have never been discussed in the literature before. Their comprehensive scientific study is now becoming possible.

The study of this collection de visu , including description, measurements, photorecording, chronology and attribution of the items, was prepared in 2021–2022. After that followed the analysis, which included searching for analogies of the details in the images within the catalogues and corpora of terracottas kept in museum collections catalogued since the 19th century and within the excavation reports. This allowed us to verify the dating of the samples, the trade routes of certain types of terracottas and the local developments of the coroplastics in the region. The division of the images into groups by their cultic attribution allows an understanding of the religious peculiarities of the Ancient Greek city of Olbia. The analysis of the technology used to manufacture the terracottas shows the work of local coroplastic workshops and their development during the life of the city. Their division into groups by time periods illustrates how the course of historical events influenced changes in art, religion and other aspects of life in the region.

Finds from Olbia were passed to various museums during the 19th and 20th centuries; among these are the State Hermitage, the British Museum and others. The Olbian collection in the National Museum of the History of Ukraine consists of the items acquired during excavations in various areas of the city of Olbia, situated near the modern-day village of Parutyne in the Mykolaiv oblast. The fieldwork was carried out by the

Institute of Archaeology at the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR (called the Institute of Material Culture until 1938) from 1935 to 1940 under the general guidance of Lazar Slavin. While a brief description of the field areas will be provided in the chapter “Places of finds”, it should be clarified that the excavations of each archaeological unit were headed by various scholars who each prepared the report materials for their part of the work. Later they were granted increasing independence from their head; finally, in 1971, they transformed into separate projects and prepared separate reports. Slavin’s collection is representative due to its volume and organisation. Each category of archaeological material is separated, so the terracottas are also stored separately, although alongside several pieces of mouldmade wares and plastic vases. This simplifies the search for the material, but complicates the understanding of the context. The terracottas from further excavations headed by Slavin, which continued after 1946, are kept in the same order, partly at the National Historical and Archaeological Reserve (NHAR ) “Olbia” and partly at the Archaeological Museum of the Institute of Archaeology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (hereinafter the NASU ).

The publication of the collection in relation to the contexts of the items is an advantage of this book. Unfortunately, most well-known catalogues consider terracottas from excavations conducted in earlier times by looters or “antiquarian expeditions” to lack necessary archaeological control. In our case, all finds were discovered during authorised archaeological excavations, and the archaeological reports recorded the exact location of the finds and the objects found together with the terracottas (fig. 3 and 4), while the subsequent publications of the excavation participants and researchers from later generations provided an interpretation of the excavated premises and buildings of the city. Of course, the methodology of archaeological excavations has undergone significant development since the 1930s. It is not fully possible to reconstruct the information on the locations of finds and accompanying material based on the evidence available, as general reports do not usually mention them; only the report materials present some scarce data. Therefore, it is clear that this publication cannot answer all the questions the author would wish to raise, since the functions and precise locations of rooms where terracottas were found cannot be ascertained now, c. 90 years after the excavations. Nevertheless, the most necessary information for understanding the place of the figurines in time and space is available, which is extremely important to their analysis.

It was possible to restore some information about the exact locations of the finds from work with archival materials: excavation reports, diaries of expedition leaders, inventories of finds and photo albums. These

3: Excavation plan of unit “И” from L. M. Slavin’s report. Photo by A. Ivchenko. Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of the NASU.

Fig.

Fig. 4: A sheet from the Inventory Book of Finds of the Olbian Expedition of 1939. Photo by A. Ivchenko. Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of the NASU.

documents are stored at the Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology at the NASU ; since 2022 they have been digitalised by the Institute of Archaeology with support from the international community.

The full-scale military invasion of the entire territory of Ukraine, including Kyiv, which began in 2022, poses a threat to archaeological heritage, which is part of historical and cultural heritage. The teams of the NMHU and the Institute of Archaeology of the NASU are doing everything possible to reduce the risks of collection destruction and to spread information about the cultural value, often of world significance, located in Ukraine.

Fortunately, de visu analysis at the NMHU took place before 2022. This made it possible to process and prepare this collection for publication; the work was carried out at the University of Lausanne. The aim of this research was to publish a scientific account of the works of art found at the ancient Greek site located in southern Ukraine.

The history of Olbian coroplastic studies

Each type of terracotta has its own area within the literature, which cannot be avoided when discussing new samples. Certain features of the new terracottas allowed us not only to continue the study of the history, but also to support certain interpretations and sometimes to present new ones.

Studies of Olbian coroplastics materials have a long history and are also very selective. Among the materials, images of the best-preserved specimens have been published and republished, but only their frontal part and, unfortunately, usually in poor quality illustrations. The first catalogues of collections stored by the Odesa Society of History and Antiquities included materials said to be from Olbia, but as they were mostly purchases and presents, their provenance remains disputed. 20 With regards to materials from proper archaeological excavations, with the exception of a publication of photos

Fig. 5: Terracotta figurines stored in the NMHU’s repository.

of individual figurines with very brief information as part of a generalised study of the ancient centre, the first comprehensive work was a 1940 article by Mark Khudiak on terracottas found in buildings on the northern edge of the city. It provided the location of discovery, measurements, description of the image, etc. However, not all finds from the 1930s excavations at this site were listed.21 Today, information on the peculiarities of the figurines’ manufacture also needs to be supplemented, and the chronology and interpretation updated, accounting for new data and literature.

Detailed descriptions of a significant number of terracottas from various museum institutions is contained in Halyna Vinytska’s dissertation from 1949, which is available in the Scientific Archives of the Institute.22 However, that dissertation is not illustrated and has never been published. In 1955–1956, a bothros containing up to 2,000 fragments of terracottas was excavated in the territory of the central temenos of Olbia. Olena Levi wrote about the best-preserved specimens in the 1950s, analysed the development of coroplastics in the Hellenistic period, and, together with Oleksandr Karasiov, located a ter racotta workshop in the area of the Olbian temenos 23

The next significant step in the study of Olbian terracottas was the well-illustrated catalogues of collections from various museums and scientific institutions in Ukraine and Russia, published in the Corpus of Archaeological Sources in 1970. The authors were Olena Levi, Lazar Slavin, Varvara Skudnova and Isaak Kleiman.24 Anna Rusiaieva has continued to research Olbian coroplastics. Using the materials on which her study of the cults of Olbia25 was based, she published the book Ancient Terracottas of the North-Western Black Sea Region of the 6th – 1st centuries BC , 26 which analysed the development of Olbian coroplastics both in the context of neighbouring poleis in the region and in the general Greek context.

In 2009, when I became the curator of the Ancient Greek collection at the Scientific Repository of the Institute of Archaeology at the NASU , I began to study the terracottas stored there. Having experience in researching archaeological evidence of religious life in Chersonesos, also located in the northern Black Sea region, I managed to analyse several series of clay figurines from Olbia.27 The publication of a complete

21 Худяк 1940.

22 Виницкая 1949.

23 Леви 1985 with references.

24 Леви 1970; Леви, Славин 1970; Скуднова

1970.

25 Русяева 1979.

26 Русяева 1982.

27 Шевченко 2010; 2012; 2014; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020b; 2022; Shevchenko, T. M. 2020; 2021, etc.

catalogue of the terracottas stored in the Institute’s Scientific Repository is planned. Clay figurines are a valuable source base that allow us to draw conclusions not only about the development of art and culture, but also about the peculiarities of religion in a given period and especially the cultural and trade relations of Olbia with other, often very distant, ancient Greek centres.

Structure of the publication

This monograph on Olbian terracottas presents the study of a solid collection and contains a description of the figurines within the catalogue. Its structure is based on their chronological and typological division. When the best-preserved excavated layers where the terracottas were discovered are dated by Hellenistic and Roman times, the items from these periods are viewed type by type. Meanwhile, Archaic and Classical period terracottas are discussed prior to this division. The interpretation of images, considerations of their chronology, functions and possible cultic significance are incorporated into the catalogue description in order to facilitate searching for particular information within the book. Within the chapters, following general information about the type of image and its function and interpretation, the description of specific items is given in the following order:

– Field number assigned during the excavations, where the first part corresponds to the abbreviated name of the site (O – Olbia), the second to the abbreviated year of excavation (/35 – 1935), and the third to the sequence number in the list of special finds (fig. 6, next page).

– Inventor y number assigned when a storage unit is registered with the museum.

– Dimensions: height, width and relief height, of which the latter indicates depth as the third dimension of the image. If available, the diameter of the base is provided. In some cases, the width of the terracotta is given as the length of the piece. When measuring a fragment, its dimensions are taken only when the image is located according to its position on the complete figurine. Therefore, this system may differ from older publications, where the fragment itself was sometimes measured, placed obliquely to the image. If the find is fragmentary and it is impossible to determine the full image on the figurine, the dimensions are provided not in the form of “height, width, depth of relief”, but as the more general “dimensions”.

– Description of clay. The colour and composition of the material’s inclusions are indicated by visual inspection. Due to particular circumstances, it was not possible to determine the colour according to the

Mansell clay colour chart when studying terracottas de visu . However, it should be borne in mind that the colour of clay is still a relative indicator, as it varied not only due to regional peculiarities but also according to the time of firing. In addition, the very definition of colour according to the Mansell scale often does not correspond to the actual appearance of clay; it differs in various editions of the chart, which is currently being discussed at length by ceramic researchers. Thus, in the description, the colour is indicated by visual definition. Where the empirical experience of examining collections of terracottas from Olbia, Chersonesos and its chora settlements, Panticapaeum, Tyritake, Histria and other ancient centres allows, comments are made on the similarity of the clay’s features to terracottas from other centres. A detailed analysis of clay using natural science methods will be left for future research.

– Description of the surface. The presence of paint residues, pre-painting coatings, slip or limestone patina is indicated; this, until professional restoration, keeps these remains intact.

– Preservation. It is indicated which part of the image has survived and which parts are missing. Sometimes it is the absence of the top layer of clay that causes a loss of image clarity.

– Production technique. The method of manufacture is described (in a mould or by hand), from which and how many parts, the sequence of manufacture, the method of processing the parts and the finished item. The dimensions of vent-holes, protrusions, holes and rods for fixings, if any, are indicated. These features make it possible to compare catalogued examples with the regional and chronological characteristics of coroplast workshops.

– Information about archival materials and first publications of terracottas, if any: name of the archive, type of archival document (a folder, a photo), numbers if available; authors of the unpublished dissertation (Виницкая) or articles (Худяк), year, page numbers, and illustrations (or their absence within a publication). Differences in the interpretation provided by the first publication may also be indicated in parentheses.

Fig. 6: A sheet from the Inventory Book of Finds of the Olbian Expedition of 1935. Photo by A. Ivchenko. Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of the NASU.

Illustrations form a significant part of publications on artefacts. They include not only frontal views or views from the best-preserved side, but also the sides, often the back and a view from the bottom. This provides information on the technology of their production, evidences the descriptions of their types and functions, and enables further study of the artefacts. The technological peculiarities seen on other sides provides specialists in Greek coroplastics with valuable evidence that supports the description presented in the text. Such peculiarities provide essential information about the contemporary workshops and traditions of producing the terracotta images in various time periods.

Pictures taken both in a lightbox and with a side natural light were used due to their supplementary informativeness. The former are valuable for uncovering remains of paint, the nature of the surface and colour changes. However, such light conditions do not usually show the true colour of the clay and often hide the relief details important for interpretation. In this case, the

features discussed in the text might not be fully visible in the illustrations. This is where pictures taken with a side light provide great value. Furthermore, the option to retake pictures became limited after 2022.

The black and white background of the partially preserved items forms the reconstruction of a full image. It is based on the geographically and typologically closest analogies. If the image is common for the Pontic region, the geographically closest best-preserved items are taken as a base for the reconstruction. In the case of rare types, analogies from the wider Ancient Greek world are used. Due to the peculiarities of terracottas, creation of symmetrical reconstruction widely used for archaeological ceramics is only possible for certain types of arulae

Hopefully, this structure will help with the main aim of this book: to analyse and make publicly available the collection of Ancient Greek figurines found at Olbia Pontica.

Archaic period terracottas

1.A standing kouros.

The oldest figurine in the collection is a typical Archaic image of a standing man. The hairstyle, decorated with two high protrusions above the forehead divided in the centre, topped the statuette of a clothed man. At the bottom, the hair is styled with many braids, laid out on the shoulders, the long garment was fastened on the left shoulder, and the arms were lowered. Such figurines from Kamiros in Rhodes, Amisos (in the context of the sanctuary of the Mother of Gods) are dated between 540–520 BC and the beginning of the 5th century BC (Şirin, Kolağasıoğlu 2016, p. 25, fig. 25; Higgins 1954, p. 71–72, no. 151, pl. 30; Mollard-Besques 1954, p. 35, no. B200, pl. XV ; Rohde 1969, fig. 6:b; Vafopoulou-Richardson 1991, no. 6). It is believed that the image itself was formed on Samos or in Miletus; most of its analogies previously identified as from Rhodes actually come from Miletus (Bournias 2015, p. 27–28 with lit., fig. 3, 4, 6, 7). The closest analog ies, geographically, are a figurine and a fragment of another from Borysthenes (Institute of Archaeology, field no. АБ82/161; Кошеленко, Кругликова, Долгоруков 1984, tab. VII :3). Those found at sites in the territory of Ukraine are imported. The figurines of symposiasts from Delos have the same hairstyle (Laumonier 1956, no. 169, 170, pl. 20), although this type was not widespread in the northern Pontic region.

The clay of the analysed sample is not local, and the finished figurine with its figured relief areas had been in use for a long time. Most likely, there was a need for such images, which were not produced in Olbia at that time. The figurine was brought from another Ancient Greek centre and had been stored for a long time.

Mid-6th century BC

(О-37/1209, Б4-494). Site “НГ”, unit no. 14, depth 1.5–1.9 m. Together with: fragments of marble architectural detail with ovolos; red-slip ware and glassware; beads.28

Height 3.7 cm, width 3.3 cm, relief height 2.4 cm.

The clay is light brown, with abundant mica inclusions. The front side of the upper part of the figurine with the image

28 Context analysis relying on data preserved in archival documents and later publications is presented in the chapters “Places of finds” and “Finds accompanying terracottas”.

of the head has survived. The protrusions of the nose and lips are padded and obliterated. The right ear was obliterated while still in raw clay. The terracotta is made in a mould, hollow inside. A man is depicted with a high hairstyle divided in two parts in the centre. The face is broad, framed by hair around a squat forehead. The shape of the forehead, nose and lips, and hypertrophied ears are typical for the Archaic period. The head is placed on a massive neck.

Photo in the Scientific Archives of the Institute of Archaeology at the NASU, f. IIMK, nos. 99–103.

2.A female figure wearing a kekryphalos .

A goddess on a throne is the most common subject of coroplastics from the Archaic period. Here, she is depicted with her hair gathered at the back, wrapped in a kekryphalos and tied at the top. The hair around the face is formed in clear curls. The eyes are represented by massive convex protrusions and the lips are thin. The figurine was small, with the face painted white.

The spherical protrusions around the forehead represent the curls of the goddess on a one-sided terracotta of the late 6th to early 5th century BC found in Olbia (Леви 1970, p. 42, no. 1, tab. 15:1). The protome was found on an Olbian temenos , imported from the Ionian region. A closer analogy, with the hairstyle shown by large spherical protrusions and in a kekryphalos , is found on one or two goddesses from the same period on the throne from Kamiros in Rhodes, dated to the turn of the 6th and 5th centuries BC (Higgins 1954, p. 100, nos. 290, 293, pl. 49; Mollard-Besques 1954, p. 36, no B207, pl. XLIII –XXVI ), and from Smyrna in the first half of the 5th century BC , padded from a figurine (Mollard-Besques 1954, p. 112, no B176, pl. LXXXXI ). This method of rendering the curls became traditional in Tarentum coroplastics during the first half of the 6th century BC and was used in depictions of both women

and men, even a gorgon in the shape of an antefix (Mollard-Besques 1954, pl. XLVIII ). The analysed figurine was made in another centre, possibly using imported models. This depiction of hairstyle was still used in the 5th century BC ; curls became bigger, less schematic and more like wavy hair. This way of showing hairstyle can be seen on a protome from Asia Minor dated to the second half of the 5th century BC

Turn of the 6th and 5th centuries BC

(О-38/2954, Б5-2855). A random find.

Height 3.0 cm, width 1.8 cm, relief height 2.9 cm. The clay is light brown, with a beige tint, with small inclusions of mica. The surface has traces of white coating and white paint.

The head is padded from the figurine at the level of the collarbones. The terracotta is made in a mould, from solid clay. At the edge of the kekryphalos there is a notch formed while the clay was still raw.

Photo in the Scientific Archives of the Institute of Archaeology of the NASU, f. IIMK, nos. 99–103.

3.A figurine with handmade hands.

This most likely depicts a character with his arms stretched out in front. The hair is laid out in the form of ovolos . The eyes are almond-shaped, with the eyelids formed by a thin relief. In the mould, the relief survived only on the lower part of the right eye; the left eye has lost its clear outline. The mouth is plastically elaborated, the lips clearly shown, the chin rounded and protruding. The arms are joined asymmetrically, stretched forward. The body and neck have no plastic transitions. The neck is almost trapezoidal and the chest slightly prominent, which is typical for male and female figurines of this period. The disc-shaped protrusions at the bottom of the ears may indicate earrings, which gives grounds to view the figurine as a female character. A slight turn at the waist indicates that the figurine was depicted sitting. Sitting handmade figurines in this period depicted goddesses with attributes in their hands.

The same features are found in the production of figurines from Tarentum in the second half of the 6th century BC (Schmidt 1994, p. 133, pl. 38, no. 207) and from Rhodes in the mid-6th century BC (Higgins 1954, p. 88, no. 235, pl. 39). The moulded head is complemented by a handmade body with massive shoulders. The Olbian figurine is dated later: the plastically elaborated lips differ from the Archaic smile of its analogies, and the traditional hairstyle with many small curls laid out on the shoulders is not used.

The possibility cannot be excluded that the fragment belonged to an image of a symposiast, although this type was not quite commonly used at Olbia. The arms stretched forward do not fully follow the traditional gestures of such characters holding a cup in their left hand. Nevertheless, adding handmade arms allowed a coroplast to deviate from a common type.

Handmade terracotta details were used in Ancient Greek centres even after the introduction of moulded technology (Davidson 1952, p. 10–11, 22–29). The reason for this appearance of handmade terracottas in the times of more complex techniques could be lack of a professional coroplast, lack of moulds or other devices needed at one time or another, or inaccessibility of the coroplast’s products to all residents. The reasons for the latter could be various, including religious factors.

Turn of the 6th and 5th centuries BC

(О-38/5191, Б5-2854). “НГ” or “И” site. Information in the field documentation is missing.

Height 6.0 cm, width 4.0 cm, relief height 2.2 cm.

The clay is dense, brown, with minor and very small inclusions of mica. There are traces of white coating on the surface. The upper part of the figurine up to the waist level has survived. The arms are padded on the shoulders; there is a chip on the chin and nose. The head was made in a mould; handmade hands were attached separately. All elements are made of solid clay.

Published in: Скуднова, Славин, Клейман 1970, p. 49, no. 5, tab. 26:3: (the published field no. 5107 does not correspond to what is written on the terracotta; in the Inventory Description under this wrong no. there is an item made of metal).