НОВИЙ НАПИС ІЗ НЕКРОПОЛЯ ОЛЬВІЇ
NEW INSCRIPTION FROM THE NECROPOLIS OF OLBIA

Summary/Abstract: A new marble funerary inset (ἐμβολή) in a limestone stele from Olbia, featuring a fragmentary inscription in two lines [..........]ṂΕΔΩΝ / [...........]Ο̣ΚΛΕΟΣ, is introduced into scholarly circulation. The inscription was executed by a highly skilled engraver and, based on palaeographic analysis, dates to the 4th century BC. The onomastic reconstruction of the damaged name […..]μ̣έδων allows for multiple possibilities, including Κλεομέδων, Διομέδων, Καλλιμέδων, Ναυσιμέδων, Ἀλκιμέδων, Ἀστυμέδων, Λαμέδων, Λαομέδων, Ἱππομέδων, Αὐτομέδων, Μέδων, Πολυμέδων, Εὐμέδων, Εὐρυμέδων, Ἀμφιμέδων, Ἀγαμέδων, among others. A similar situation arises with the reconstruction of the fragmentary patronymic […]ο̣κλέος, which may correspond to Ἀγαθοκλέος, Ἀριστοκλέος, Αὐτοκ̣λέος, Στρατοκλέος, Δωροκλέος, Ἀνδροκλέος, Τιμοκλέος, Πυθοκλέος, Ξενοκλέος, Διοκλέος, Φιλοκλέος, Τηλοκλέος, Ἑκατοκλέος, Θεοκλέος, Νικοκλέος, Πατροκλέος, Δημοκλέος (Δαμοκλέος), and others. In Olbia, the names Πολυμέδων and Ἀλκιμέδων are attested and correspond to the ending […..]μ̣έδων, while a significantly greater number of names (and/or patronymics) correspond to the ending […]ο̣κλέος, including Ἀριστοκλῆς, Ἱπποκλῆς, Θεοκλῆς, Ἀγαθοκλῆς, Τειμοκλῆς, Νικοκλῆς, and Ἑκατοκλῆς. However, traditional onomastic reconstruction does not provide sufficient arguments for definitively restoring the fragmentary name and patronymic. Therefore, the optimal reading of the inscription is proposed as follows: vac. / [...]μ̣έδων / [...]ο̣κλέος / vac. A promising direction for a more precise reconstruction of this inscription may be the previously developed algorithm for prosopographical reconstruction, dating, and interpretation, based on the restoration of the eponymous chronology of Olbia from the 4th to the 1st century BC. However, this lies beyond the scope of the present study. It is traditionally believed that Olbia Pontica, in contrast to Chersonesus Taurica, produced significantly fewer funerary monuments. This is especially true for so-called ἐμβολή, marble insets in limestone stelae. Only one such example is known from Olbia—the funerary stele SEG 27: 444 of Epikrates, son of Isokrates, from the Posidonios family (340–320 BC) — along with several severely damaged fragments, including the one published here for the first time. In our view, the use of funerary monuments, particularly ἐμβολή, in both Olbia and Chersonesus did not exhibit substantial local differences; the apparent distinctions are merely the result of historical circumstances. According to Dio Chrysostom, Olbia’s necropolis suffered significant destruction by barbarian incursions, whereas numerous Chersonesian funerary monuments were concentrated within the multi-layered masonry of Zenon's Tower. Additionally, a hypothesis is proposed regarding the supply of high-quality τῶν ἐμβολῶν to the Northern Black Sea poleis from Greece.

• Details
• Contents