^1a Later monuments in comparatively large numbers are compared by Drexler, , Jahrb. für Phil. 1894, 325 f.Google Scholar; compare the same in Roscher's Lexicon, ii. 2, 2741, 2745; see also Smirnoff, The Phrygian Moon-god, a publication in honour of I. V. Pomialovsky, 107, 3; Hepding, , Attis, 120, 8.Google Scholar The typical shape of the stars or suns on our bust is not found on them. A bust of the Moon-god or Attis, contemporary with our bust and reproduced on one of the Hildesheim silver vessels (see Pernice-Winter, , Der Hildesheimer Silberfund, Berlin, 1901, Taf. V.Google Scholar), a pendant to the vessel with the bust of Cybele, has quite another kind of stars, differing in the technique of their workmanship.

² Expert numismatists ought to study from this point of view the whole series of these most interesting coins, as Orieshnikoff has done already in regard to the correlated series with the head of Dionysos.

³ It is interesting to compare with these coins a series of coins of the city of Tomi, with two heads of the Dioscuri on the obverse and their horses on the reverse (see Pick-Regling, , Ant. Münz. Nordgriechenlands i., Taf. V. 17, No. 2460; compare p. 602 f.Google Scholar). In style the rendering of the heads is extraordinarily close to the rendering of our head; very close are the caps, too—nearly similar in shape, with the same wreath, but, unfortunately, one cannot distinguish on the published reproduction whether the caps were ornamented with stars. It seems to me that I can distinguish some traces of them. The suggested correlation has great importance for the finding of the date of these coins, and also of the coins of the Scythian kings Acrossa and Charaspes (see on them Orieshnikoff, Excursions into the Region of Ancient Numismatics on the Shores of the Black Sea, i., Numismat. Collections, iii.). It is interesting to compare the coins of Tomi with the small coin from Chersonesus, with the heads of the Dioscuri on the obverse; see Orieshnikoff, , The Coins of Chersonesus in Tauris, etc., Numismat. Coll. ii. p. 29Google Scholar, f. 8. I must remark also that, on the grounds of the style of the head and of the character of the countermarks, I would have classed as belonging to the epoch of Mithradates the coin published in the same book, p. 36, f. 12.

⁴ See on these coins Imhoof-Blumer, , Griechische Müuzen, 40 f.Google Scholar, Nos. 9–26, Taf. III. 7–18; Zeitschrift für Num. xx. 254 f., 1–4, Taf. IX. 1–3; Giel, Chr., Beiträge zur antiken Numismatik, 1886, p. 5Google Scholar; Imhoof-Blumer, , Num. Zeitschr. 45 (1912), 184, No. 81, Taf. II. 31Google Scholar; Baldwin, Agnes, Rev. num. 1913, p. 285 f.Google Scholar, Pls. VII.–X. In the collection of the Grand Duke Alexander Michailovitch there is a number of unpublished interesting specimens.

⁵ See more on this matter in my work, Ancient Decorative Painting in the South of Russia, St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 45 f.

⁶ See Puchstein, Humann und, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, Berlin, 1890.Google Scholar

⁷ See on this relief the excellent remarks of Puchstein (i. 1, p. 299 f.); he speaks of the tiara on p. 300 f. Compare the tiara of Tigranes I. of Armenia, on the side of which a sun with eight rays is represented between two eagles: Gardner, Percy, The Seleucid Kings of Syria, p. 103 f.Google Scholar, and Babelon, , Les rois de Syrie, p. 213 f.Google Scholar, Pl. XXIX. 8 f.

⁸ In the collection of Nelidoff there are several dozens of gold pieces of divers dimensions and types with the same ornament in relief; probably they were sewn upon a leathern cuirass (see Pollack, L., Klassischantike Goldschmiede-arbeiten in Besitze A. I. von Nelidow, Leipzig, 1903, Nos. 492, 493, 494, 499, Taf. XIX.).Google Scholar Similar small gold pieces or squares have been found in a number of burials of the first century B.C. in the south of Russia (see Comptes-rendus de la Commission Impériale Arch. 1888, Atlas, Pl. I. 3.).

⁹ See on this Puchstein 1. 1., p. 329 f.

¹⁰ The coin of Dynamis has been published by Orieshnikoff, , Catalogue of Count Uvaroff's Collection, Pl. II. 471Google Scholar; compare Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 592, fig. 347; the coins of Pythodoris, see Babelon-Reinach, , Rec. i. 1, 20, Nos. 19–21Google Scholar; compare further the literature concerning the life and rule of this queen; coins of Antonia Tryphaena, l.c. p. 21, Nos. 22–28 (see Pl. IV. 1); coins of Gepaepyris, Buraehkoff, Pl. XXVI. Nos. 93, 94; Minns, , Scythians and Greeks, Pl. VII. 7 (see Pl. IV. 10, 11)Google ScholarKahrstedt, , Klio x. (1910), p. 300 f.Google Scholar, supposes that the head on the coin of Pythodoris is not the head of the queen herself, but the head of Livia, which is quite possible. The coin of Dynamis I reproduce from the unique specimen of Count Uvaroff's collection (see Pl. IV. 4).

¹¹ See my article, ‘Amaga and Tirgatao,’ in the Bulletin of the Society of History and Antiquities of Odessa, v. xxxii.

¹² All the ancient testimonies and the most important literature concerning the history of the Bosporus after Mithradates have been collected, after Boeckh, by Latysheff in his introduction to his publication of inscriptions from the Bosporus; see the latest, somewhat revised, edition of this introduction in Russian, Latysheff, Ποντικά 93 f.; the newest Russian literature, unknown to Brandis, the author of the articles, ‘Bosporus,’ ‘Chersonesus,’ and ‘Dynamis,’ published in the Encyclopaedia of Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, who gives the complete list of works on this subject published in Western countries, has been studied and made use of in its totality by Minns, E. H., Scythians and Greeks, p. 591 f.Google Scholar The article of Stein, ‘Gepaepyris,’ in Pauly-Kroll, R. E., must be added to his references, as also the excellent articles of Dessau in Prosopographia imperii Romani, and his article in Eph. ep. ix. 4, 691 f., De regina Pythodoride et de Pythodoride juniore and Reges Thraciae qui fuerint imperante Augusto. Amongst the newest numismatic literature great importance is to be attached to the article of Berthier-Delagarde, A. L., ‘On Coins of the Rulers of the Cimmerian Bosporus, identified by Monograms,’ Bulletin of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, v. xxix.Google Scholar, wherein the whole series of gold coins of the period, as also a number of bronze coins, partly unpublished before, belonging to the epoch that concerns us, are well published for the first time, and the whole literature is reviewed very thoroughly. A number of important indications are added in the work of Orieshnikoff, A., Excursions in the Region of Ancient Numismatics on the Shores of the Black Sea, Moscow, 1914, Numism. Collect, iii., especially p. 29 f., 57 f., 62 f.Google Scholar

¹³ App. B. civ. ii. 91; compare von Sallet, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Numismatik der Könige des cimmerischen Bosporus und des Pontus, Berlin, 1866, 6, footnote 8; more probable is the opinion emitted by Boeckh (C.I.G. ii. p. 94) and Voigt, V., De Asandro, Bospori rege, Kiev, 1884, p. 3Google Scholar, that Asandros became son-in-law to Pharnaces (Dio, 54, 24) before the catastrophe of 47 B.C.

¹⁴ Luc. Macrob. 17; Voigt, I. 1. 4. As the marriage of Dynamis was purely political, it is quite possible that at the time she was still in her childhood.

¹⁵ Strabo xiii. 4, 3, C. 625; B. Alex. 26 and 78; Dio, 42, 48.

¹⁶ See my article, ‘Caesar and the South of Russia,’ J.R.S. vol. vii.

¹⁷ I find no contradiction between the statements of Dio (l.l.) and pseudo-Lucian (l.l.) (compare Voigt, l.l. 7); it was quite possible that Asandros' army partly deserted to Scribonius, as pseudo-Lucian affirms, as it doubtless consisted to a considerable extent of Sarmatians and Scythians; later it was not they who removed Scribonius, but the Greeks from Pantieapaeum; see Dio, 54. 24, 5.

¹⁸ Dio, 54, 24, 6.

¹⁹ Strabo xii. 3, 29, c 556.

²⁰ The only exception is Minns, , Scythians and Greeks, 594, 1 and 601Google Scholar, who suggests the same construction, taken broadly, as I do, although as to details we differ in a number of points.

²¹ See Orieshnikoff, A., Excursions into the Region of Ancient Numismatics on the Shores of the Black Sea, 4Google Scholar, Coins of Caesarea and Agrippia, p. 37 f.

²² A. Orieshnikoff, l.l. 40.

²³ In addition to the statements of Orieshnikoff, I may say that both the above-mentioned series of coins (the gold ones with heads of Augustus and Agrippa, and the copper ones with the names Caesarea and Agrippia) coincide with the above-quoted series of inscriptions also in that on the obverse of the coins of Agrippia and Caesarea a woman's head is represented in the headgear of a goddess, but with features which are generally likened to the features of Livia. I cannot refrain from stating that I, personally, am reminded by this head with a diadem, on the coins of Agrippia, not of the features of Livia, with whom, to tell the truth, it has very little in common, but of the head of Dynamis herself on her coin, and of the features of our bust. Therefore I am disposed to suggest that the Agrippians and Caesareans ornamented their coins with the head of their queen, adorned with the consecrated headgear of the chief priestess of the principal goddess of Phanagoria and Panticapaeum. Possibly Dynamis coined the copper money of the state simultaneously with this municipal coinage. In my article, ‘The Copper Coinage of Dynamis and Aspurgos’ (Bulletin of the Scientific Record Commission of Tauris, 54 (1918)), I tried to prove that this copper was represented by the coins with the monogram B A E; see on them Berthier-Delagarde, A. L., Bulletin of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, xxix. (1916)Google Scholar, and Orieshnikoff, , Numism Collect, iii. (1914).Google Scholar

²⁴ See these coins in the above-mentioned article of Berthier-Delagarde, A. L., Bulletin of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, xxix. p. 111 f., Nos. 35–43 and Pls. II., III.Google Scholar; Mommsen, , Gesch. d. Röm. Münzw. 702Google Scholar, footnote; von Sallet, A., Beiträge, etc., 69 f.Google Scholar; but their historical explanation of the coins is unacceptable; compare Brandis, P. W., R. E. s.v. Dynamis, wherein the latest works of Mommsen are indicated, especially Eph. ep. i. 272.

²⁵ Quite possibly, even, the opposition with which Polemon was met on the Bosporus when he appeared there (Dio, 54, 24) may have been traced to Dynamis as its source, and only a direct order from Augustus forced her to make a temporary peace with Polemon and grant him her hand. Augustus and considered that marriage as the sole and unique guarantee of peace on the Bosporus. The great significance attached by Augustus to the Bosporan troubles is indicated by the number of honours awarded to Agrippa (Dio, l.l.) for arranging affairs on the Bosporus. This shows that Scribonius was not a simple adventurer and that his marriage to Dynamis was considered as a serious danger to Rome, as a threat of a renewal of the epopee of Mithradates.

²⁶ Bulletin of the Imper. Archaeol. Commission, 10, p. 15. Concerning the Aspurgians, see the remarks of N. Marr, of the Petrograd Academy, published in the Russian version of this article. As shown by these remarks, the regimen of life of the tribe, probably Sarmatian, to which the Aspurgians belonged was purely Iranian. Aspurgos, probably related by birth to the tribe including the Aspurgians, was followed in his advance into the country of the Bosporus by his young tribesmen, who formed the troop of his bodyguards. Domiciled in the country of the Sindi and Kerketai, evidently as landowners, and at the same time as bodyguards of the king (they played the same part later also), they assumed the name of ‘Aspurgians,’ i.e. sons of Aspurgos, corresponding to the ‘sons of boyards’ in Russia, and they gave their name to the country occupied by them, as shown by Strabo and the comparisons made by Marr.

²⁷ What was the link binding Aspurgos to the tribe to which the Aspurgians belonged? This link or bond, demonstrated by the support rendered by the Sarmatian tribes to Aspurgos and his son Mithradates VII., may be most easily explained by the supposition that Aspurgos was a Sarmatian king, the head of the tribe, whose support Dynamis bought by marrying him. Such a supposition seems to be contradicted by an inscription in honour of Aspurgos, wherein he is described as the son of Asandrochos. Usually Asandrochos is identified with Asandros (see I. O. S. P. E. ii. 36). Such an alteration of a name in an official inscription appears to me very strange indeed, and I am quite disposed, with Kiessling (P. W. K., , R.E. vii. 1628Google Scholar), to consider Asandrochos as a Sarmatian king who had nothing in common with Asandros. If this is true, then the reason is plausible why the descendants of Aspurgos occupying the throne of the Bosporus were so fond of giving their sons the name of Sauromates. They treasured the memory of their Sarmatian descent. It is, of course, however, possible that Aspurgos was a son of Asandros and Dynamis. The alteration in the name of Asandros may then be explained by the supposition that Asandros was not a Greek, but a Sarmatian, and that his Sarmatian name was Graecised. I cannot consider such an alternative as very convincing.

²⁸ See my article, ‘Strabo as a Source for the History of the Bosporus,’ in the collection of articles issued in honour of B. P. Buzescul, Kharkoff, 1914.

²⁹ It is characteristic that in this monogram no mention is made of the regal title of Dynamis.

³⁰ As, undoubtedly, the types of Bosporan coins at that time were specified, if not in Rome, then in any case by the representative of Roman power in the East, the new names of cities, and the types of coins as well, had to emphasise the fact of the vassalage of the Bosporus to Rome. My reconstruction of events and my explanation of their meaning also explain the reason why the head of Agrippa appeared on the Bosporan coins together with the head of Augustus, and why Phanagoria was renamed. It must be kept in mind that at that time Agrippa was already dead. All these honours, therefore, served only to immortalise his memory, which is confirmed by the type of the head, represented without any insignia. Augustus may have placed Agrippa very high in his esteem, but it is a great question whether he would have allowed the head of Agrippa to appear, while Agrippa was still living, on a whole series of coins together with the head of Augustus. Now, after Agrippa's death such reverence on the part of Augustus towards such a man of genius as his late collaborator, who had worked so hard for the welfare of the East, was quite comprehensible. It is true that during the life of Agrippa coins were minted in Rome with his portrait, as an honour granted to him by Augustus, but this is far from equal in meaning with the fact of coins being minted by a vassal kingdom in the names of Augustus and Agrippa and the simultaneous adoption of the names of Augustus and Agrippa by two principal cities of that kingdom.

³¹ I.O.S.P.E. ii. 362.

³² See Berthier-Delagarde, l.l., p. 112 f., Nos. 46–67, Pls. III., IV.

³³ Tac. Ann. xii. 18; Latysheff, Ποντικά, 108; Bullet, of the Imp. Arch. Commission, 37, p. 70, No. 7; Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 596 f.

³⁴ See Latysheff, , Ποντικά, 113, footnote 1.Google Scholar

³⁵ There is one argument only adverse to this suggestion: the age of his supposed mother. It must be supposed that in 14–13 B.C. he could not have been younger than forty-five. I do not consider this argument to be conclusive. A second adverse argument may be found in the fact that the above-mentioned emblems of Heracles and Poseidon appeared also on the coins of Mithradates, but this can be explained by the influence of Gepaepyris, a Thracian woman. It has to be kept in mind also that Heracles played a part in the mythology of the Tamanian peninsula, and Poseidon was always greatly honoured in the seaside cities of the kingdom of Bosporus.

³⁶ See the very reliable remarks of Berthier-Delagarde, l.l., p. 47 f., Fig. on p. 48, and Pl. II., Nos. 30–31.

³⁷ This similarity, as far as I remember, has never been duly appreciated, although the coin of Kotys, without the slightest doubt, is a literal reproduction of the coin of his mother (see Pl. IV. 11).

³⁸ The same solution of the question is given by Minns, , Scythians and Greeks, 601.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Tomaschek, , Die alien Thraker, 51Google Scholar; the same name appears in an inscription from Thracian Heraclea, in the epoch of Hadrian, as the name of a lady belonging to a distinguished municipal family; see I. gr. adr. R. p. 1, 785; Stein, P. W., R.E. vii. 1227 f.; Minns, l.l., 604.

⁴⁰ Dessau, , Eph. ep. ix. 4, 691 f.Google Scholar If an accidental coincidence does not delude me, I am quite inclined to see a certain likeness between Antonia Tryphaena and Gepaepyris, as represented by their portraits (see Pl. IV. 1 and 11).

⁴¹ On Polemon II. and his fate after his removal from the Bosporus, see Orieshnikcff, Numism. Collection, part i. (the Cilician coins of the king M. Antonius Polemon).

⁴² The conclusions of Kahrstedt's, work, ‘Frauen auf antiken Münzen,’ in Klio, x. (1910), 261 f.Google Scholar, agree completely with this reconstruction and explanation of the coins of Mithradates and Gepaepyris. The whole history of Hellenistic coins with the portraits of queens shows that the queens minted coins with their own portraits either as autonomous sovereigns (Dynamis, for instance, Kahrstedt, l.l., 261 f.), as guardians of their sons, or as conjoint rulers. Kahrstedt is right in supposing that the coins of Gepaepyris belong to the latter category (l.l., 303). The coins of Dynamis, acting as guardian, of her husband Aspurgos are also quite in the Hellenistic tradition.

⁴³ Compare Petrus Patr. Fr. hist. gr. iv. p. 185, fr. 3; Latysheff, , Ποντικὰ, 108, 2.Google Scholar The history of the revolt of Mithradates is told by Tacitus, , Ann. xii. 15 f.Google Scholar; compare Dio, 60, 8; Plin. N.H. 5, 17. It is characteristic that a last shelter and support were found by Mithradates amongst the Sarmatians, as was the case with Dynamis in her time.