Archaeological Studies of the Takil' Promontory

Translations from Russian into English of articles and books
on amphoras and related archaeological subjects.

Archaeological Studies of the Takil'
Promontory in the Eastern Crimea*

In 1975–76 a unit of the Kitei Expedition carried out an archaeological examination of the Takil' promontory which is situated 4 kilometres east of the Bosporan city of Kitei.[1] This work was undertaken for the purpose of checking the location of the Bosporan city of Akra, frequently mentioned by ancient authors[2] and placed by a number of researchers on this promontory.[3]

The Takil' promontory is located on the south-east end of the Kerch peninsula and consists of a rocky plateau with a slight descent towards the steppes. In its central part there are rocky projections which break off sharply into the sea. In the opinion of specialists the promontory was formed of rocks of Sarmatian limestone and has almost no abrasion.[4]

In the process of prospecting excavation of the promontory from south to north it became clear that the abundant ceramic material represented by fragments of Heraclean, Sinopean, Chian, and Pantikapaian amphoras of 4–3c BC existed only in a turf layer 10–15 cm deep, and does not form a cultural layer. Probably the abundant, easily raised, material, which provided the grounds for locating Akra at this place, gradually crumbled and was washed by the rains off the shore rocks, which border the promontory. The prospecting excavations done at the top of the rocky ridge and in the clefts confirmed this supposition. Further work was transferred to the south-west slope of the rocky ridge which dominates the area. The total area of the dig comprised 40 sq. m. Three layers of a total thickness of 75–85 cm were traced. The first one is a lumpy podsol humus of grey-brown colour, saturated with plant roots; thickness 20–25 cm.

* This paper was given by the author at the All-Union Archaeological Conference Dedicated to the Memory of V.F. Gaidukevich in Leningrad in February 1984.

1. Molev, Moleva 1977 p342; Molev, Moleva 1978 p85–86.
2. Strabo 11.28; Ps-Arr. 76; Pliny, HN 4.86.
3. Marti 1928 p130–131; Gaidukevich 1949 p119 f.

4. Zenkevich 1958 p193.

The second is a friable light-grey ash, with thin streaks of clay; thickness 35–40 cm. The third one is a light grey ash with particles of lime, bits of slag, and burned spots on the continental rock; thickness 20 cm.

All the layers are abundantly saturated with ceramics (more than 2500 fragments). The deeper one goes the higher the concentration (layer I, 583; layer II, 870; layer III, 1025 fragments). The predominant majority – 92% – are pieces of amphoras. Fragments of black-glaze kylixes constitute 5%. Pieces of thin-walled pottery dishes (plates, open lamps, salt dishes) constitute 2%. Fragments of moulded pots are rare. Apart from the ceramics, the layers have bones of household animals, and oyster and mussel shells.

Fragments of Chian and Thasian amphoras of 5–6c BC are predominant in layer I. The Chian amphoras are of three kinds: with a straight neck and dunce-capped toe (1/2 4c BC);[5] bulgy-necked with a constriction (2/2 5c BC);[6] and bulgy-necked, 1/2 5c BC.[7] The rims, handles, and bodies of the last are coloured with stripes of red paint.

The Thasian amphoras are of two types: biconic with a wine-glass shaped toe and triangular rim (1/2 4c BC);[8] and amphoras with an egg-shaped body, low, wide toe, and rims close to triangular in shape (2/2 5c BC).[9] Their rims are coloured with red-brown paint.

The fragments of Heraclean amphoras are not many; on one of them a part of an englyphic stamp of 4c BC is preserved.

Black-glaze ceramics are represented by fragments of large and small kylixes; the large ones have a low ring-like foot with handles slightly concave towards the top (1/2 5c BC);[10] the small ones are semi-spherical, deep, with a widely turned out rim and oval handles (mid 4c BC);[11] a part of an open Ionic lamp

5. Zeest 1960 p75–77 Table IV. 11-v, g.
6. Ibid. Table III. 10-a,b; 11-a,b.
7. Brashinskii 1980 p17.

8. Zeest, I.B. op. cit. Table VIII. 20-d.
9. Ibid. Table VII. 18-a, b; Brashinskii 1980 p19.

10. Brashinskii 1980 p59.
11. Ibid. p60; Agora XII nr 623.

with a strip of brown glaze along the rim and with a raised centre was also found. Such lamps are frequently found in complexes of beg 5c BC in the ancient centres of the North Black Sea Area.[12]

Pottery dishes are represented by fragments of plates (17) and by a sherd of a miniature, light-clay saucepan with a little rim for the lid. The plate fragments are analogous to similar finds from a layer of the 5c BC in Mimerki.[13]

Thus layer I (upper) may be dated to 5–4c BC.

In layer II fragments of bulgy-necked Chian amphoras with painted rolled and beaked rims dominate; ring-like drawings are found below them. Such amphoras are to be met with in the Bosporos and are dated to end 6–beg 5c BC.[14] The fragments of Thasian amphoras are characteristic for the beg 5c BC.[15] One of them has a stamp in the form of an impressed triangle, which is also a sign of early Classical times (1/2 5c BC).[16] Moreover, two water-glass shaped toes, and several fragments of the walls of amphoras made out of dense beige clay, which were imported into the Bosporan centres from the border 6–5c BC were found in the layer.[17]

Black glaze ceramics in the layer are represented by fragments of massive kylixes of the "bolsal" type, of 1/4 5c BC,[18] and kylixes with a low foot with handles slightly concave towards the top and evenly turned out rim (end 6–beg 5c BC).[19] Several fragments belong to black glaze kylixes with the remains of decoration in the form of vertical palmettes. Similar finds were made in the excavations

12. Levi 1964 p156–157 (hole 11). Fig. 25.

13. Gaidukevich 1952 p164 fig 52.

14. Brashinskii1980 p15; Blavatskii 1962 p11 fig 5.
15. Zeest I.B. 1960 p81 Table VI 16-a.
16. Gaidukevich 1952 p215 fig 142, 142-a.
17. Brashinskii 1983 p9.

18. Brashinskii I.B. 1980 p57.
19. Gaidukevich 1959 p180 fig 43,1; Levi 1964 p137–138, fig 4,4; Agora XII nr 398.

at Olbia,[20] Mirmeki,[21] Tiritaki,[22] Elizavetovskoe burial ground.[23] They are characteristic of the style of the master-potter Haimon, who worked in 1/4 5c BC.[24]

Nine fragments of a large moulded black polished vessel with a slightly turned-out rim, ornamented with slanted incisions were also found in the layer. Ceramics of this type are dated to 6–5c BC.[25]

On the whole the finds permit us to date layer II to end 6c–1/2 5c BC.

Sherds of early Chian amphoras also predominate in layer III. Apart from those described above, ["there were ones"? text missing tr] covered with a light slip with rolled rim, painted with brown glaze and decorated with thin strips of the same glaze on the neck, body, and along the handles. Such amphoras are dated to beg 6c BC.[26] On the toe of one of them there is a stamp in the form of an incised circle, confirming this date.[27]

Some of the amphora fragments come from a centre in Asia Minor. Their clay is brown, dense, with small particles of mica and on the outside it is covered with a lighter slip. White strips of brown glaze are painted along the body vertically and horizontally. Some scholars place these amphoras at the border of 7–6c BC.[28] Most archaeologists consider them the production of 1/2 6c BC.[29]

The black glaze ceramics in the layer are represented mainly by fragments of the kylixes of 6–5c BC described above. Two sherds have black-figure decoration in the form of a double row of palmettes connected by a wicker pattern, with the use of superimposed

20. Levi, E.I. op. cit., p152 fig 20–21.
21. Gaidukevich, Prushevskaia, Levi 1941 p13.
22. Knipovich, Slavin 1941 p57, fig 83.
23. Brashinskii 1976 p99 fig 1-2.
24. Gorbunova 1983 nrs 147–150.

25. Kastanaian 198 p30–31.

26. Khudiak 1962 p41 Table 4.
27. Grakov 1954 p16–18.
28. Blavatskii 1962 p10 fig. 4.

29. Zeest, I.B.1960 p69 Table I, 1; Khudiak 1962 p17–18 Table 6.

white paint. The size of the fragments, their slightly concave external surface, and the miniature decoration indicate that they belong to a small vessel, being part of a neck; perhaps it was a small decorated amphora of the Panathenaic type. Amphoras with such decoration on the neck are dated to last two decades 6c BC.[30] Several fragments of "Ionic chalice" – shallow vessels of light clay with horizontal strips of red and brown glaze – were also found. Analogous finds are characteristic for complexes of 6c BC, Berezan',[31] Taman' necropolis,[32] Mirmeki, and Tiritaki.[33]

In completing the survey of the ceramics of layer III, it is necessary to note two fragments of an open moulded black polished vessel with a carved geometric ornamentation, consisting of crossed, slanted, and horizontal lines. Such ceramics are connected with the descendants of the Cimmerians, who lived in the places of the appearance of ancient towns.[34] Its fragments were found in very ancient layers of Pantikapaion,[35] Nymphea,[36] and village settlements of the Bosporos.[37] They are dated to the end 7–1/2 6c BC.[38]

Apart from the ceramics, a fragment of an alabaster of Phoenician glass of a blue-yellow colour, and a small cowrie shell with a hole bored in it, which served obviously as an amulet, were also found in the layer. The bulk of the finds in the layer are dated to 6–beg 5c BC.

30. Gorbunova 1983 p189–190, nrs 164–165.
31. Kaposhina 1952 p230.
32. Gaidukevich 1959 p158 f.
33. Shmidt 1952 p239.

34. Kastanaian 1981 p20–28.
35. Marchenko 1954 p91, 95.
36. Skudnova 1954 p314, 317.
37. Kruglikova 1975 p49.
38. Kastanaian 1981 p12–14.

Apparently the ash layers saturated with ceramics, bones of animals, oyster and mussel shells, traced in the clefts of the shore rocks and on the southwest slope, were deposited beg 6c BC over 200, and perhaps even 300, years (later material of 4–3c BC is located at the base of the rocks). The resultant mound is caused by the systematic sliding down of ash and by the discarding of material

things – mainly ceramics connected with the use of wine and libations.

It does not seem possible to suppose a garbage dump in the uncovered monument, since no settlements were discovered by excavations within a radius of 3 kilometres.[39] And the place itself – beautiful rocks on the sea-shore – could hardly by used by Greeks for an ordinary garbage dump, since picturesque landscapes, particularly rocks and grottos, had an important place in their religion. Such places were most frequently selected for building a sanctuary. The sanctuary of Demeter in Nymphea, located between the rocks of the shore ridge, beyond the city limits,[40] as well as temples and altars of Greece, seen by Pausanias (Paus. 38.7), could serve as an example.

Judging by the structure of the layers and the composition of the finds, one can suggest an ash altar, resembling the altars of Zeus, Hera, Gaia, described by Pausanias (Paus. 5.13.8–11; 4.14.8, 10), in the monument discovered on the promontory of Takil'. These altars represent ash mounds formed from the remains of sacrifices. V.F. Gaidukevich proposed the working term "ash mound" for such monuments,[41] which has become generally adopted. Such ash mounds were discovered in Mirmeki and Kitei.[42] The Mirmeki one embraces 2/2 5–mid 3c BC, and the Kitei one end 5c–4c BC. The monument discovered on the Takil' promontory is much earlier in the time of its appearance. It functioned from beg 6c BC.

The Takil' ash mound is traditionally located in the shore region and occupies a territory of approximately 2000 sq. m., naturally limited by the rocks from the north, the east, and the south. Its mound, as in Mirmeki and Kitei, has a shallow-layered structure and its main component is ash. In all three ash mounds fragments of amphoras

and black-glaze ceramics, mainly kylixes, predominate.[43] The floor of the ash mound represents cleared and scraped continental rock with small depressions and burned spots next to them. Obviously a multitude of particles of lime on the bottom of the ash mound had formed during the clearing of the rock and the hollowing out of the depressions. Similar phenomena are observed as well in the study of the floor of the Kitei ash mound.[44]

At present it is as yet impossible to elucidate the connection of the ash mound with certain cults, as was done for Mirmeki. The excavated area is too small. It is hard to attribute this monument to one of the cities of the Bosporos, let alone to Akra. It is sufficient to remember that Pliny places this city not beyond Kitei, but beyond Zephiri (Plin. NH. 4.86), while Ps-Arrian, places it 30 stades from Kitei, i.e., at a distance more remote than the Takil' promontory (Ps. Arr. 76). A lot has been written and said lately about the location of this city, but so far it has not been found.

It is possible to suggest that the uncovered ash mound is connected not with the settlement but with the necropolis, and is of a chthonic character. A tumulus ridge, provisionally named by us Dzhurg-Oba after one of the tumuli, reaches the promontory. In the 30s on the Iu.Iu. Marti Promontory, "a warrior grave" was uncovered, and the objects from it were exhibited in the Kerch Museum before the war.

A final assessment of the nature of the ash mound on the Takil' promontory can be accomplished only by further excavations.

[References]

Brashinskii I.B. "Attic Decorated and Black Glaze Ceramics of the 5c BC from the Elizavetovskoe Burial Ground [Atticheskaia raspisnaia i chernolakovaia keramika V v. do n.e. iz Elizavetovskogo mogil'nika]" TGE [Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha] vol 18 (1976)

Brashinskii I.B. "On the Problem of Localizing a Group of Amphoras with the So-called Water-glass shaped Bottom [K probleme lokalizatsii gruppy amfor s tak nazyvaemymi stakanoobraznymi don'iami]" KSIA nr 174 (1983)

Maslennikov, A.A. "On the Localization of Some Cities of the European Bosporos in the First Centuries of Our Era [O lokalizatsii nekotorykh gorodov evropeiskogo Bospora pervykh vekov n.e.]," Questions of the Study of Sources, Historiography, and History of the Pre-Soviet Period [Voprosy istochnikovedeniia, istoriografii, i istorii dosovetskogo perioda] (Moscow 1979)

Molev, E.A.; Moleva, N.V. "Studies in the Region of Kitei and Akra [Issledovaniia v raione Kiteia i Akry]" Archaeological Studies in the Ukraine in 1976–77: Abstracts of Papers [Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na Ukraine v 1976–77 gg.: Tez. dokl.] (Uzhgorod 1978)

Archaeological Studies of the Takil' Promontor in the Eastern Crimea

Archaeological Studies of the Takil' Promontory in the Eastern Crimea*

[References]

Archaeological Studies of the Takil' Promontor
in the Eastern Crimea

Archaeological Studies of the Takil'
Promontory in the Eastern Crimea*