The Eagle On Dolphin On The Coins of Olb

DACIA
REVUE D’ARCHÉOLOGIE
ET D’HISTOIRE ANCIENNE
NOUVELLE SÉRIE
LXIV
2020
ACADÉMIE ROUMAINE
INSTITUT D’ARCHÉOLOGIE « VASILE PÂRVAN »
D A C I A
R E V U E D ’ A R C H É O L O G I E
ET D’ H I STOIR E A NC IEN N E
NOUVELLE SÉRIE
LXIV
2020
EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

RÉDACTION
Rédacteur en chef :
EUGEN NICOLAE
Rédacteur en chef adjoint :
LIANA OŢA
Collège de rédaction :
MARIA ALEXANDRESCU VIANU (Bucureşti), ALEXANDRU AVRAM (Le Mans), DOUGLASS W. BAILEY
(San Francisco), MIHAI BĂRBULESCU (Cluj-Napoca), PIERRE DUPONT (Lyon), SVEND HANSEN
(Berlin), ANTHONY HARDING (Exeter), RADU HARHOIU (Bucureşti), ATTILA LÁSZLÓ (Iaşi), SILVIA
MARINESCU-BÎLCU (Bucureşti), MONICA MĂRGINEANU-CÂRSTOIU (Bucureşti), VIRGIL MIHAILESCU-
BÎRLIBA (Iaşi), JEAN-PAUL MOREL (Aix-en-Provence), CONSTANTIN C. PETOLESCU (Bucureşti), IOAN
PISO (Cluj-Napoca), CLAUDE RAPIN (Paris), WOLFRAM SCHIER (Berlin), VICTOR SPINEI (Iaşi), GOCHA
TSETSKHLADZE (Llandrindod Wells)
Comité de rédaction :
IRINA ACHIM, CRISTINA-GEORGETA ALEXANDRESCU, IULIAN BÎRZESCU, ADINA BORONEANŢ,
DANIELA MARCU ISTRATE, ANDREI MĂGUREANU, ALEXANDRU NICULESCU, ADRIANA PANAITE,
ANCA-DIANA POPESCU, DANIEL SPÂNU, AUREL VÎLCU
Secrétaire de rédaction : RALUCA KOGĂLNICEANU
Rédaction éditoriale : VIRGINIA PETRICĂ, ANA BOROȘ

Informatique éditoriale : OFELIA COŞMAN
Toute commande sera adressée à :

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE, Calea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, sector 5, 050711, Bucureşti, România ;
Tél. 4021-318 8146, 4021-318 8106, Fax 4021-318 2444, E-mail : edacad@ear.ro
ORION PRESS IMPEX 2000 S.R.L., P. O. Box 77–19, sector 3, Bucureşti, România ; Tél./Fax : 4021-610 6765,
4021-210 6787, Tél. 0311 044 668, E-mail : office@orionpress.ro
S.C. MANPRESS DISTRIBUTION S.R.L., Piaţa Presei Libere, nr. 1, Corp B, Etaj 3, Cam. 301–302, sector 1,
Bucureşti, Tel.: 4021 314 63 39, fax: 4021 314 63 39, E-mail: abonamente@manpress.ro, office@manpress.ro,
www.manpress.ro
SORIRORI SOLUTIONS, Tel.: 0040765262077, 0040765166433; Internet: http://www.sorirori.ro; E-mail: sorin.
costreie@sorirori.ro, rosana.guta@sorirori.ro
Les manuscrits. ainsi que toute correspondence les concernant, seront adressés
à la Rédaction : Institut d’Archéologie « Vasile Pârvan », 11, rue Henri Coandă,
010667 Bucarest, Roumanie, E-mail : iab.redactie@gmail.com
Toute correspondance concernant les périodiques proposés en échange

sera adressée à la Bibliothèque : Institut d’Archéologie « Vasile Pârvan »,
11, rue Henri Coandă, 010667 Bucarest, Roumanie, Tél./Fax 4021 212 88 62,
E-mail : biblioteca.iabvp@gmail.com.
© 2 0 2 0 , E D I T U R A A C A D E M I E I R O M Â N E
www.ear.ro
ACADÉMIE ROUMAINE
INSTITUT D’ARCHÉOLOGIE « VASILE PÂRVAN »
D A C I A L X I V, 2 0 2 0
R E V U E D ’A R C H É O L O G I E E T D ’ H I S T O I R E A N C I E N N E
JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY
Z E I T S C H R I F T F Ü R A R C HÄO L O G I E U N D G E S C H I C H T E D E S A LT E RT U M S
SOMMAIRE
CONTENTS
I N H A L T
ÉTUDES
VICTOR SPINEI, Les tribus nomades de steppe dans l’espace carpato-danubien depuis la préhistoire jusqu’au début
du premier millénaire de l’ère chrétienne ........................................................................................................... 7
ALEXANDRU CIORNEI, WEI CHU, IZABELA MARIŞ, ADRIAN DOBOȘ, Lithic raw material procurement
patterns at the Upper Palaeolithic site of Românești – Dumbrăvița I (southwestern Romania) ........................ 67
ANCA-DIANA POPESCU, RADU BĂJENARU, MARTA PETRUNEAC, ROBERT SÎRBU, DUMITRU
HORTOPAN, DANIELA CRISTEA-STAN, MIRCEA LECHINŢAN, The deposition of bronze artefacts from
Preajba Mare (Gorj County, Romania) ............................................................................................................... 123
FLORINA PANAIT-BÎRZESCU, The eagle on dolphin on the coins of Olbia, Histria and Sinope. Its origin and
meaning .............................................................................................................................................................. 143
CRISTINA-GEORGETA ALEXANDRESCU, Zu den sog. Oinophoroi aus Greci und Tulcea (Kr. Tulcea, RO) ....... 163
MARIUS BLASKÓ, The early seventeenth-century hoard discovered at Zimnicea, Teleorman County (“Zimnicea I
and II”) ................................................................................................................................................................ 201
NOTES ET DISCUSSIONS
ALEXANDRU AVRAM, RENATA-GABRIELA TATOMIR, Un exemplaire de l’« inscription standard » du roi

Aššurnasirpal II au Musée National des Antiquités de Bucarest ........................................................................ 237
RENATA-GABRIELA TATOMIR, On the ushabti-box in the collections of the “Vasile Pârvan” Institute
of Archaeology ................................................................................................................................................... 245
DRAGOŞ HĂLMAGI, Three inscriptions from Callatis ............................................................................................... 269
ERGÜN LAFLI, EVA CHRISTOF, A new stele of a retiarius from Marmaris in Caria (southwestern Turkey) .......... 277
COMPTES RENDUS
Peter Högemann, Norbert Oettinger, Lydien. Ein altanatolischer Staat zwischen Griechenland und dem Vorderen
Orient, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2018, X + 511 S. (Liviu Mihail Iancu) ................................................................... 293
Norbert Kunisch, Die attische Importkeramik, Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahr 1899,
Bd. 5: Funde aus Milet, Teil 3, De Gruyter, Berlin – Boston, 2016, X+221 S., 130 Tafeln (Iulian Bîrzescu) ..... 298
Kirsten Hellström, Fibeln und Fibeltracht der Sarmatischen Zeit im Nordschwarzmeergebiet (2. Jh. v. Chr. – 3. Jh. n. Chr.),
Archäologie in Eurasien 39, Habelt Publishing House, Bonn, 2018, 284 pages, 94 plates (Daniel Spânu) ........ 300
Andrei Gândilă, Cultural Encounters on Byzantium’s Northern Frontier, c. AD 500–700. Coins, Artifacts and History,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, 376 Seiten, 40 Abbildungen und mit dem Anhang Corpus of
Early Byzantine Coin Finds in Barbaricum (Péter Somogyi) ............................................................................ 303
Георги Владимиров, Обеци с форма на въпросителен знак от средновековна България (XIII‑XIV в.) за материалните
следи от куманите и Златната орда в културата на Второто българско царство (Georgi Vladimirov,
Question Mark Shaped Earrings from Medieval Bulgaria (13th‑14th Century) on the Material Traces of Cumans
and Golden Horde in the Culture of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom), Sofia, 2019, 86 p. (Victor Spinei) ........ 314
IN MEMORIAM
Alexandru Barnea (17 février 1944 – 8 mai 2020) (Adriana Panaite) .......................................................................... 317
ABRÉVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 327

THE EAGLE ON DOLPHIN ON THE COINS OF OLBIA, HISTRIA
AND SINOPE. ITS ORIGIN AND MEANING
FLORINA PANAIT-BÎRZESCU*
Keywords: eagle, dolphin, coins, Olbia, Histria, Sinope, mythical foundations, local identity
Abstract: The article deals with the origin and meaning of an emblematic image that was struck on the coins of Histria,
Olbia and Sinope for a long period of time: the eagle on dolphin. After a short review of the hypotheses made so far, the
author takes into account the theory of a lost tradition about a foundation myth common to all three Milesian colonies.
Given the lack of written evidence about local Black Sea lore, the article proposes a comparative analysis of the complex
composition of iconographical motifs involving an eagle and dolphin in their historical context. The images on the coins
of Elis/Olympia and Acragas, which are the closest analogies, are put in relation not only to their historical context, but
especially to the mythological references to which they are related. These reveal the interpretation of the attacking eagle
as a favourable omen for victory. The attacked animal was replaced on the coins of the three Milesian colonies with a
dolphin, a symbol not of a particular deity, but of the sea itself. Therefore, the image of the eagle attacking a dolphin
can be read as a favourable omen for a victory over the unfriendly sea. The image is discussed both in the context of the
Ionian mythical narrative, and of the local tradition, traces of which can be seen in the representations on the obverse
of coins from these three sites.
Cuvinte‑cheie: vultur, delfin, monede, Olbia, Histria, Sinope, fondări mitice, identitate locală
Rezumat: Articolul tratează originea și semnificația imaginii emblematice bătute pe monedele cetăților Histria, Olbia
și Sinope pentru o lungă perioadă de timp: vulturul pe delfin. După o scurtă trecere în revistă a ipotezelor formulate
până în prezent, articolul ia în considerare teoria unei tradiții pierdute a unui mit de fondare comun celor trei colonii
milesiene. Imaginea monetară amintește de acel moment, funcționând ca o emblemă auto-reprezentativă a comunității
emitente. Având în vedere lipsa surselor scrise despre tradiția locală a coloniilor de pe țărmul Mării Negre, articolul
recurge la o analiză comparativă a compoziției complexe de motive iconografice, vultur și delfin, în contextul său istoric.
Imaginile de pe monedele cetăților Elis/Olympia și Acragas, care sunt cele mai apropiate analogii, sunt puse în relație
cu contextul lor istoric și mai ales cu subiectele mitologice la care fac referință. Acestea arată credința conform căreia
vulturul atacând este un semn de bun augur al victoriei. Animalul atacat a fost înlocuit pe monedele celor trei cetăți
milesiene cu delfinul, un simbol nu al unei anume divinități, ci un simbol generic al mării însăși. Prin urmare, imaginea
vulturului atacând delfinul poate fi citită ca un semn de bun augur pentru victoria asupra mării neîmblânzite. Această
imagine este discutată atât în contextul discursului narativ mitic ionian, cât și al tradiției locale, ale cărei ecouri pot fi
distinse în reprezentările de pe aversul monedelor celor trei colonii.
The image of an eagle on dolphin is a well-known reverse coin type of Histria from its first issues in
coin shape (not including the wheel-type coins) until Roman times. This composition appeared not only on
coinage, but also as a civic badge (parasemon), marking official acts of the city (decrees) or products of trade
(amphora stamps, weights). As a coin symbol it was also used at Olbia and Sinope, Milesian foundations
* “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Bucharest; e-mail: florina12@gmail.com.
DACIA N.S., tome LXIV, Bucarest, 2020, p. 143-162

144 Florina Panait-Bîrzescu 2
that belong together with Histria to the first wave of colonization of the Black Sea1.This fact has not passed
unnoticed, and a series of theories regarding the origin and meaning of this representation appear in the
scholarly literature.
The hypotheses advanced so far searched for either an economic or a political motivation in the choice
of the coin motif, most of them agreeing also on its religious meaning. The dolphin, a generic symbol of the
sea, which is on some issues replaced by what seems to be a fish (sturgeon?), inspired the hypothesis that
the iconography reflects the maritime domination of the three cities. This domination is not only over the
shipment of goods, but also over the rich fisheries of the sea and its deltas2. Another hypothesis favoured a
similar idea of supremacy, but read it in another key: the iconographical motif of an attacking eagle is seen
from a Persian perspective, where the eagle stands for Persians and the dolphin for the defeated Ionians, in
the context of the Persian war, when the Black Sea came under Persian domination3.
The historical context in which the eagle on dolphin motif was struck on coins coincides not only
with Persian conquest, but also with the victory of the Athenians over the Persians in the Persian War, after
which the Athenians were involved not only in trade matters in the Black Sea region, but also in the political
development of the Black Sea colonies, where they contributed to the abolishment of tyranny4. The change
of regime led also to a change in cult hierarchy, namely to the emergency of the cults of Zeus Eleutherios
and of Zeus Olympios, the last one probably under the Athenian influence, according to Anna S. Rusjaeva5.
Most of the hypotheses agree on the symbolism of the eagle itself, as an attribute of Zeus, and on
its attitude of attack as an allusion to the idea of power or domination of some sort. The puzzling part
of the image is represented by the dolphin. In the Black Sea colonies of Milesian origin, the dolphin is
commonly interpreted as attribute of Apollo Delphinios. Therefore, the most long-lasting hypothesis, that of
P.O. Karyškovskij, reads the image of eagle on dolphin as two separate attributes of Zeus and Apollo combined
into a single sacred image6. The principal argument against this interpretation, however, is that the cult of
Apollo Delphinios has not yet been attested in all three of these colonies7.
The most recent hypothesis, offered by J.G.F. Hind, starts from the Homeric analogy of the attacking
eagle, making, in my opinion, the correct assumption that the image of the attacking eagle is nothing but a
good omen for the supremacy over the sea claimed by the three Milesian colonies8. Yet his interpretation
1 A catalogue at Killen 2017, p. 200-203, pl. 16.5-9 (Histria), p. 211-213, pl. 18.7-10 (Sinope); see also Karyškovskij
1982, p. 80-92, fig. 1.1-8.

2 On various opinions, see Karyškovskij 1982, p. 85-89; Hind 1976, p. 6, n. 12; Hind 2007, p. 15-16. Hind
advances the hypothesis of a trade alliance under the protection of Zeus Ourios. A contrary opinion at Stolba 2005,
p. 115: “…can hardly be seen as an allusion to the marine resources of these cities (Sinope, Istrie, Olbia), but perhaps
to their coastal position”.
3 Fedoseev 1991, p. 103-104; a critical view at Ruscu 2001, p. 84; Hind 2007, p. 15.
4 Anohin 1989, p. 201: the striking of the image of an eagle on dolphin on coins coincides with the abolishment
of tyranny at Olbia, where the Molpoi were pushed away from power, and the cult of Zeus Eleutherios was installed.
About the abolishment of tyranny at Olbia and Sinope, see Vinogradov 1997, p. 193.
5 Rusjaeva 1992, p. 61-62, 65-70; Rusjaeva, Rusjaeva 1997, p. 35. The eagle is interpreted as a symbol of Zeus
Olympios, the helping deity of the Greeks in their war against the Persians. Its appearance on coins coincides with the
overthrowing of the tyranny at Olbia and Sinope with the help of Athens, after the campaign of Pericles in the Black
Sea. The aristocratic party seems to have been restored to power soon after, but the image of the eagle on dolphin
continued to be a city emblem. According to Rusjaeva, the replacement of the terrestrial animal from the Olympian coin
type with the dolphin took place during the war with the Persians, symbolizing naval victory. Yet this new image appears
neither on the Athenian nor on the Olympian coins, nor on any other coin issues outside the Black Sea. In the starting
mechanism for the horse races at the Olympic Games (Pausanias 6, 20, 10-19, see also Miller 2004, p. 81) mentioned
by Rusjaeva, the dolphin symbolizes Poseidon, a deity often associated with horses, rather than Zeus. Nevertheless, the
author admits the ambiguous character of the evidence in this demonstration that leaves it open to other hypotheses
(Rusjaeva 1992, p. 70).
6 Karyškovskij 1982, p. 80-98, esp. 91; Karyškovskij 1968, p. 84 about a city coat of arms, a symbol of its
prosperity; also, Chiekova 2008, p. 38; D’Arrigo 2012, p. 442.

7 On the cult of Apollo Delphinios in the Black Sea see Ehrhardt 1988, p. 130; Chiekova 2008, p. 37-39; for
Olbia see Rusjaeva 1992, p. 41-46.

8 Hind 2007, p. 10.
3 The eagle on dolphin on the coins of Olbia, Histria and Sinope. Its origin and meaning 145
continues to see an economic motivation behind the image choice, and also an alliance of the three cities
under the protection of Zeus Ourios9.
The present paper proceeds from the idea that the motivation for the choice of a coin motif, especially
of a parasemon, must have been related mainly to its representative character for the issuing community10.
The iconographic elements that compose the image, the eagle and dolphin, are generic symbols that are
semantically indeterminate individually, but in combination have an easily recognisable message that
functions as a descriptive epithet of the issuing authority. The coin image has the value of an identity brand,
and it should be analysed both in relation to the images of the obverse, which it complements, and of course
to the historic context in which the image consistently appears. This paper argues more comprehensively for
a hypothesis that has been suggested elsewhere in passing: that the eagle on dolphin iconography was meant
to recall a common tradition related to the foundation of the three Milesian colonies11.
THE EAGLE ON THE BLACK SEA COIN ISSUES: SOME ICONOGRAPHICAL NOTES
On most of the coin issues of Histria, Olbia and Sinope the eagle appears facing left and attacking a
dolphin with its beak and claws. On the Histrian silver issues, the beak is close to the dolphin’s head and
the intention of attack is clearly rendered (pl. I/1)12.With some exceptions13, the wings are folded tight
to the body, giving the impression that the eagle does not carry its prey in flight14, but rather sits on it.
Another observation regards the type of dolphin. On several coin issues its rendering would correspond, after
J.G.F. Hind15, rather to a large fish of the Danube delta, such as a sturgeon; therefore, this motif probably
started as a fish, and later received the common features of a dolphin. The iconographical details such
as direction, position of head and wings, dimensions, and style are rather constant, probably due to the
standardization inherent to a parasemon.
A completely different situation is to be found on the Olbian coin issues, which of all three colonies
present the highest variation of the iconographical type. Not only the position of the head and wings, the
perspective, the dimensions of the two animals, and the style, but also the direction vary throughout the
Classical and Hellenistic periods. A chronological evolution can only be assumed based on the extant
chronology of the coins, with the caveat that some coin types continue to be struck contemporaneously
with other variants. For example, the open-wings-and-raised-head type on the high denomination coins that
bear Demeter’s head on the obverse (pl. I/6)16 run at the same time as the closed-wings type on the small
denomination pieces (pl. I/5)17. Despite these overlaps, however, some chronological developments can be
identified with confidence. At Olbia, the earliest bronze issues with a gorgon head on the obverse render the
eagle in a particular manner: facing right, with wings spread wide open, the lower wing covering a barely
9 Hind 2007, p. 9-22, esp. 16: “… eagle and dolphin/fish motif may well symbolize the three cities’ economic
and religious interests in the late Classical period, employing visually a theme, which originally was inspired by the
omens in Homer’s poems. The eagle is in all three cases the bird of Zeus Ourios and the sea beast preyed upon is at first
the dolphin at Sinope, perhaps to begin with the sturgeon at Histria and Olbia, but increasingly represented as a dolphin,
perhaps influenced by Sinope’s leading position as commercial city and coin-mint”. For Zeus Ourios, the one who sends
favourable winds, and his sanctuary at the entrance in the Black Sea see Hind 2007, p. 11; also, Hind 1999, p. 48-49.
The sanctuary of Zeus Ourios at the entrance of the Black Sea of course had its importance, but the cult is nowhere to
be found in the Black Sea area. One would expect the presence of the eagle on dolphin motif in more Black Sea cities.
Yet it occurs only on the coins of the earliest Milesian foundations.
10 On reasons behind the choice of coin symbols, see Ritter 2002, esp. p. 150.
11 Ruscu 2001, p. 88; cf. Alexandrescu 1990, p. 51; Ruscu 2002, p. 205-206; Feraru 2006, p. 40; Talmațchi 2011,
p. 93.
12 SNG IX.1, cat. 225-260; SNG XI, cat. 134-185, 198-203.
13 On several Hellenistic issues the wings are half opened: SNG IX.1, cat. 262; SNG XI, cat. 189-193. A rarer
type with closed wings and risen, turned back head could be due to an Olbian influence: SNG XI, cat. 197.
14 Killen 2017, p. 143, n. 1570: “Das Anlegen der Flügel, wie es der Adler von Istros meist zeigt, spricht gegen
ein Wegtragen der Beute”.

15 Hind 2007, p. 14, 16.
16 SNG IX.1, cat. 434-438; SNG XI, cat. 359-361.
stylized dolphin (pl. I/2)18. This first attempt shows the difficulty of adapting a complex three-dimensional
composition to the limited visual field of a coin face. This image developed into a standing eagle on dolphin
facing left, wings wide open, head raised and hieratically turned backwards (pl. I/3, 4, 6)19. The absence of an
attitude of attack in this composition gives the impression that the intended message was not one of conflict,
but of cooperation between the two divine attributes20. In some series the eagle has half opened wings and
head parallel to the dolphin’s body21, similar to the Sinopean type, while in others it has its wings tightly
folded22, close to the Histrian type.
The typological variation shows deliberate attempts to create a coin motif, and a lack of standardization.
On the one hand the direction of flight varies, on the other hand the raised head of the eagle is far from the
idea of attack over the dolphin. Such changes could point either to an alteration of the initial symbolism of
the image, or to a different artistic convention. The motif of the eagle staying hieratically on an animal, a stag
or a bull, also appears in the iconography of Anatolia, such as for example on a relief from an underground
sanctuary of Roman period from Perrhe, Commagene, published by Michael Blömer and Charles Crowther23.
The two authors noticed that the iconographical motif “eagle perched on quadruped” has a long tradition
that goes back to the Bronze Age, and that it grew popular in central Anatolia (Commagene, Cappadocia)
and Cilicia during Roman times. They make a clear distinction between the two types, the attacking and
non-attacking eagle. While the first signifies the idea of power of the superior animal and the inevitable fate
of the attacked one, the “perched” motif is found in central Anatolia and is attributed a completely different
meaning: the marriage of the divine couple of the sky god and of the earth goddess24. Yet if this may be so
in the case of the sanctuary from Perrhe, in the Olbian context the coins show both types of rendering, and
it is hard to imagine that they conveyed also two different meanings. I would argue that they make reference
to the same story, using different artistic conventions. In addition, a possible influence between the three
colonies is not to be excluded, especially between the two neighbours, Histria and Olbia. That might explain
the hieratical-raised-head type at Histria and the tightly-folded-wings type at Olbia.
On the other side of the Black Sea, except for a series of the Hellenistic period, on which both the
head of the nymph on the obverse and the eagle on the reverse are frontally rendered25, the coin issues of
Sinope present more consistency not only in the rendering of the direction of the flight from right to left, but
also in the rest of the iconographical details and style. The eagle’s wings are half opened26, as if the bird was
descending to land (pl. I/8-9). The beak is not so close to the dolphin’s head as on the Histrian issues, yet the
attitude of the eagle is clearly one of attack. The earliest Sinopean coin issues27 have represented only the
eagle’s head with a small stylized dolphin underneath, no doubt an abbreviated form that corresponds to the
first attempts to represent the image to coins. These earlier issues could support the idea, already stated28,
that the first to adopt this monetary symbol was Sinope.
Whichever city was the first to adopt this iconography, the abovementioned characteristics show that
each city had its own particular approach in rendering the eagle on dolphin motif on its coins. It seems that
they developed an iconography independently of one another, and only later began to borrow types from each
other. There is a noticeable consistency in the details of the rendering of the motif on the coins of Sinope and
Histria, and a variation in that of Olbia. In particular, the inverted direction from left to right and the raised
head of the eagle on the Olbian series might point either to a lack of understanding of the initial meaning of
the image or to a different artistic convention.
18 SNG IX.1, cat. 379-384.
19 SNG IX.1, cat. 390-393.
20 Karyškovskij 1982, p. 83-84, cf. Hind 2007, p. 14. The contrasting attitude of the eagle noticed also by Killen
2017, p. 143, n. 1570.

21 SNG IX.1, cat. 394-399.
23 Blömer, Crowther 2014, p. 343-371.
24 Blömer, Crowther 2014, p. 352.
28 Karyškovskij 1982, p. 85; Hind 2007, p. 16. Yet their chronology according to some references are sensibly later.
THE EAGLE ON THE COINS OF OLYMPIA AND ACRAGAS
Apart from the coins of the three cities from the Black Sea, the image of an eagle attacking another
animal is represented, as has already been noted29, on the coin issues of Olympia struck in various types
between the end of the 6th century and the beginning of the 2nd century BC30. These present an eagle attacking
a snake, a rabbit, a turtle, or a ram. The attacked animal varies, while the eagle remains constant; on later
issues of the 4th to 3rd centuries BC, the eagle appears alone and static on a column on the reverse, while the
obverse shows the head of the main deity of the place, Zeus Olympios. On earlier issues of the 5th century BC,
the reverse bore either the image of Nike, an allusion to the Olympic Games, or the thunderbolt, a specific
attribute of Zeus Horkios (of the oath). His statue from Bouleuterion, where the Olympic oath was made,
represented him with thunderbolts in both hands31.
But the main quality of Zeus at Olympia is as the holder of the scales with which he weighs the
fortunes of war32, a role he is described as adopting several times in the Iliad. A certain representation
on the Olympian coins33 refers to a scene from the beginning of the Trojan War, known from Aeschylus,
Agamemnon, 104-159: two eagles attacking a rabbit34. It is an image that recalls the episode of Calchas’
prophecy before the departure of the Achaean army for Troy. The sight of two eagles was interpreted as
an omen predicting the victory of the army lead by the two Atreidai, Agamemnon and Menelaos (the two
eagles), against Troy (the rabbit).
In this manner can be read also the coin type struck by Acragas towards the end of the 5th century
BC: two eagles, one of which is tearing apart a rabbit, while the other shrieks with its head upturned on
its back35. On several series of tetradrachms, the eagles are rendered on the reverse, and on the obverse is
shown a Nike riding in a two-wheeled chariot towards the left36. These issues are usually connected to the
victory of Exainetos at the Olympic Games from 412 BC37. Nevertheless, as R. Ross Holloway38 has already
29 Rusjaeva 1992, p. 62, 67.
30 BMC Peloponnesus, p. 58-74, pl. 10-15, with sporadic issues after this date; SNG III, cat. 2383-2469; Franke,
Hirmer 1972, cat. 489-496, pl. 154-155.
31 After a sacrifice, by reading a text written on a bronze plaque in front of the statue of Zeus Horkios, all the
participants were making an oath that they will respect the rules of the games. Those who were catched cheating, had
to pay the value of a bronze statue for Zeus, on which it was written their name and offence, Pausanias 5, 24, 9, cf.
Miller 2004, p. 93, 120-121.
32 Seaford 2010, p. 178-192, esp. p. 184; about the relation of Zeus to the military victory, see Barringer 2010,
p. 155-177.
33 Franke, Hirmer 1972, cat. 491, 492, 496, 497, 501, pl. 154-157.
34 The eagle is a good omen for the observer, cf. Dillon 2017, p. 146, with other examples from the Homeric
poems. In the episode of Calchas’ prophecy the observers are Achaeans, but in the episode of the dispute between Hector
and Polydamas, a seer less famous than Calchas, who warned Hector about an eagle with a snake in its claws that
appeared over the Trojan camp, the eagle stands for the Trojans, the snake for the Achaeans. Iliad, XII, 200-250: the
snake bites the eagle and escape its claws, which would mean a hard fight with many loses and no wining, cf. Flower
2008, p. 120. In another Homeric scene, the conflict of Telemachus and Antinous in the assembly at the beginning of
the Odyssey, the appearance of two eagles fighting is an omen for the quarrel between the suitors of Penelope, and for
their defeat by Odysseus, Odyssey, II, 146-193, cf. Flower 2008, p. 134. Similarly, birds of prey depicted in scenes with
warriors on Attic painted pottery are clues that announce to the viewer the outcome of the story. On some vessels,
representations of an eagle and a snake make an explicit reference to the episode from Iliad, see ThesCRA III, p. 5;
Dillon 2017, p. 155-166. The eagle with a snake in its claws is also rendered on an Attic funerary stele for a manteis,
Kleoboulos, see Dillon 2017, p. 107-108, fig. 3.2. The image was interpreted as an “omen of Greek victory” and as a
symbol of the deceased’s pride in foretelling a military victory.
35 Franke, Hirmer 1972, cat. 173-183, pl. 59-65.
36 Franke, Hirmer 1972, cat. 176-178, pl. 61, cat. 180-181, pl. 64.
37 Kraay 1976, p. 226. The rendering of Nike in a two-wheeled chariot, of a club in the exergue, and of the name
of Acragas on a plaque above, are remainders of the horse races from the Olympic Games, where Acragas, as along
with other Sicilian cities, participated intensively during the 5th century BC. On the special relation between the tyrants
of Sicily and the sanctuary of Olympia, see Harrell 1998, p. 155-234.
38 Holloway 1991, p. 134.
noted, the type of the two eagles fits rather well with the payment of mercenaries in a confrontation worthy
of comparison to the war between the Achaeans and Trojans39.
The symbolism of the two eagles, one with a white tail and one with a black, tearing apart a pregnant
hare from the tragedy of Aeschylus does not only encompass the victory over Troy. It also points to other
details of the military campaign: the sacrifice of the unborn rabbit offspring roused the anger of Artemis,
who will bring delaying winds for the fleet of the Atreidai and require in the near future a sacrifice “without
law” (anomos) to quell them: that of Agamemnon’s daughter Iphigenia, which will be followed by that of
39 I assume that the good omen of victory was a later development of the symbol of Zeus’ divine justice, and
that both meanings were contemporaneous, the exact significance implied being established by the context, in which
the image appeared. This assumption is supported by the iconography of a limited series of decadrachms issued by
Acragas: on the reverse are rendered two eagles tearing apart a rabbit; on the obverse Helios is riding in a two-wheeled
chariot; an eagle with a snake in its claws appears above, and the crab under the ground line (Franke, Hirmer 1972, cat.
179, pl. 62-63). While the scene of the two eagles on the reverse sends to the story of Calchas’ prophecy about a promised
victory, the eagle with the snake on the obverse is related to oaths (see also infra note 39). There are few other elements
that support this interpretation. Beside the eagle with a snake, there is the central image of Helios, who is a main god
called as witness in the ritual of taking the oath (Jessen, RE VIII, 1, col. 59, s.v. Helios; about Helios in Iliad, see Zusanek
1994, p. 504-511). Then, there is the image of the crab (karkinos), a parlant coin type for Acragas. Towards the end of
the 5th century BC the crab receives human features (Franke, Hirmer 1972, cat. 168-172, pl. 59), or is completely
replaced by Scylla (Franke, Hirmer 1972, cat. 173, 175, 176, 177, pl. 60, 61; cat. 183, pl. 65). The crab seems to have
been equated with Scylla. Scylla appears in a myth about oaths as main character, namely as the daughter of Nisos, king
of Megara (Höfer, LexMyth IV, col. 1064, s.v. Skylla 2; Schmidt, RE III, A1, col. 655, s.v. Skylla 2). When the king of
Crete, Minos, besieged Megara, Scylla fell in love with him, and by cutting the purple lock of hair that ensured her
father immortality and invincibility, and offering it to Minos, the daughter sacrificed her father. The myth is built around
the idea of oath and betrayal: the purple lock of Nisos’ hair is the first sacrifice made in the ritual of oath-taking, before
the actual sacrifice (on oath sacrifices see Nilsson 1955, p. 139; Burkert 1977, p. 376-381; Graf 1996, p. 186-187;
ThesCRA III, p. 237; also, Parker 1983, p. 197). The sacrifice of the father performed by Scylla accompanies her betrothal
oath to the king of Crete. But being an unusual sacrifice, in itself a crime and an act of betrayal, it did not remain
unpunished. Terrified by the extraordinary crime, Minos drowned Scylla into the sea (for the literary sources see Höfer,
LexMyth IV, col. 1064, s.v. Skylla 2; Schmidt, RE III, A1, col. 656, s.v. Skylla 2). Chained by the ship prow by Minos,
and drowned: Apollodorus, The Library, 3, 15, 8; devoured by seabirds: Pausanias 2, 34, 7; transformed into a sea
creature bird/fish (keiris/kirris): Ovidius, Metamorphoses, VIII, 1-150. The earliest mention of this myth: Aeschylus,
The Libation‑Bearers, 613-622. The myth of Scylla is all about betraying one’s own father and fatherland and its terrible
consequences. The depiction of Scylla on the coins of the city might reflect this particular version of myth, which
probably belong to the Cretan-Rhodian inheritance of Zeus cult at Acragas (see Vonderstein 2006, p. 173-180 about an
extant “Rhodian impulse” in the cults brought by the colonists. Atabyrios belongs to the Cretan-Rhodian origins of
Acragantines. On Zeus Atabyrios brought in Rhodes by the Cretan colonists, see Zusanek 1994, p. 111-116, 137, 173.
Scylla could also be read as a complement of the obverse, namely an attribute of Zeus, guardian of oaths; Zeus Skyllios
was invoked in oaths at Priansos, Gortyna and Hierapytna in Crete; the epiclesis derives from a toponym, the mount
Skyllion, cf. Höfer, LexMyth IV, col. 1024, s.v. Skylios; LexMyth IV, col. 1072, s.v. Skyllios; see also the reference
about the relation between Zeus Skyllios and Skylla, cf. Fehrle, LexMyth VI, col. 659, s.v. Zeus Skylios; cf. Kock, RE
III, A1, col. 647, s.v. Skylios).
I presume that both sides of the coin are complementing each other and they should be read together in the
historical context, in which they have been struck: 406 BC, the year of the confrontation between Carthaginians and
Acragas. The Carthaginian threat determined the mobilisation of the Sicilian colonies, the issuing of these coins being
a part of their strategy. The chosen images must have been close related to it. The pair of eagles devouring a pregnant
hare speaks not only about the episode from the Trojan War, as it was already noticed, but also, in my opinion, about
the victory from Himera. A detail of the eagles rendering, namely the head of a lion on their back, a trait of Chimaera
iconography, is a feature that could be read as a parlant motif reminding of the victory of Acragas against the Carthaginians
at Himera in 480 BC. The message was rather a wishful thinking; the past deed of their ancestors had the aim to reinforce
the belief of the Acragantines in their power to won the war, that if they have defeated the Carthaginians once, they will
be able to beat them again. The reference to Helios and the myth of Scylla might point to the oath taken by the
Acragantines to defend their city.
Agamemnon after the successful end of the war. The two eagles embody here the unending circle of violence,
since one death or injustice leads to another40.
The eagles on the coins of Olympia and Acragas belong to a common heritage of myths and symbols,
which in different contexts may serve to express specific meanings. Every detail of the composition, in which
they appear, may nuance considerably the generic meaning ascribed to them. Also, their understanding is
incomplete without analysing the image on the other side of the coin. Last but not least, the message of
the coin images should make sense when taken in consideration the historical context in which they are
minted. Considering all these, the meaning of the image of the eagle on dolphin will be analysed in the
following chapters.
EAGLE ON DOLPHIN: THE GOOD OMEN OF A SUCCESSFUL COLONIAL ENTERPRISE
The interpretation of the omens given by birds (bird divination, or oionomanteia) was considered one
of the oldest forms of divination that preceded any major venture41. The type of bird, the direction from
where it appears to the viewer, and its action and cries were interpreted after written records. In the Greek
practice, it seems that there were controversies concerning, for example, which direction of flight indicated
a favourable outcome42. Nevertheless, an inscription from Ephesus dated towards the middle or the end of
the 6th century BC preserves several rules regarding this practice43.The occurrence of a bird of prey from the
right was a good omen for the viewer, while coming from the left a bad one. It was even a better sign if it
appeared carrying prey in its claws, especially in cases that implied conflict. The action in which the observer
was engaged was also as relevant to interpretation as the actions of the bird itself. Thus, a diving seabird
was a good omen for a fisherman, but a bad one for a sailor launching a ship, which by analogy would sink.
According to Poseidippos of Pella, an author of epigrams from the first half of the 3rd century BC to whom
the work Oionoskopika was ascribed, the best omen for a sailor would be a bird that flies high in the sky, as
40 Cf. Seaford 2010, p. 185-189. The eagles are not just messengers of Zeus, but also reminders of his divine
justice. The motif of the attacking bird of prey appears also in another literary text: Hesiod’s fable of “the hawk and the
nightingale”. The hawk, while holding in its claws the nightingale, says that “he is a fool who tries to withstand the
stronger” (Works and Days, 203-220). The moral of the fable is not omitted, but replaced with a long plea addressed to
Perseus (the hawk), Hesiod (the nightingale)’ brother, and the kings, who did him wrong, in which Hesiod expresses
his faith in a divine justice, and in the fact that wrong doing through oath breach and perjury that hurts others, when
these are weak and unable to defend themselves, Olympian Zeus will not left it unpunished (Hesiod, Works and Days,
260-265). In a similar way the fable about “the eagle and the fox” was used by Archilochus in a poem, fragmentary
preserved, in which he complained about a man Lycambes, who gave him his daughter, Neoboule, in marriage and then
broke his oath (ed. Swift 2019). According to the fable, the eagle and the fox had an agreement not to kill each other’s
offspring, but the eagle broke its oath; the fox appealed to Zeus, and the punishment of the eagle followed. The poem
makes general remarks about oath breaking and betrayal, a misconduct common both to Lycambes, and to the eagle
from the fable (Archilochus frg. 174-181 = Aesop no. 1). The persevered fragments of Archilochus suggest some sort
of divine vengeance, cf. Carey 1986, p. 60-67. The two poems of Hesiod and Archilochus used a fable as analogy for
a moralizing speech. Not only the presence of Zeus guardian of the oath is implied, but also the popularity of the story
during archaic period seems assured. As Walter Burkert remarked, this literary pattern from the Greek fables has a close
analogy in a Near Eastern tale, the story that introduces the myth of Etana, cf. Burkert 1992, p. 121-122. Here the eagle
and the snake have a similar pact that is eventually broken by the eagle. The snake turns for justice to Shamash, the sun
god, and retribution follows. The coins of Olympia rendering the eagle and the snake could suggest that the Near Eastern
variant of the fable was also known. The scene of the eagle with a snake in its claws illustrates the moment of the
transgression, which is representative for the entire story. The abovementioned literary sources speak of the sanctity of
the oaths and of the punishment of the law breaker, and probably the image of the aggressive eagle was a reference to
those fables about oath breaking and their consequences.
41 ThesCRA III, p. 5-6; Johnston 2008, p. 129-130; Dillon 2017, p. 139-166.
42 Flower 2008, p. 113.
43 Sokolowski 1955, p. 84-86, cat. 30; cf. Flower 2008, p. 32-33; Dillon 2017, p. 151.
for example a hawk44. These examples of the prophetic practice mentioned in the literature, as well as coin
images of Olympia and Acragas indorse the observation that the eagle was associated with omens of victory,
so it is reasonable to interpret the eagle on the Black Sea coins as a sign of victory. But of whom victory
and over what? The terrestrial animal attacked by the eagle on the Classical coinage of Elis/Olympia was
replaced with a dolphin on the coins of the Milesian Black Sea colonies. A long-lasting opinion regarding
its meaning reads it as an attribute of Apollo Delphinios, whose cult is attested in both the colonies and in
the mother-city45. Yet the dolphin does not represent Apollo alone, but is also the companion of Poseidon, of
Aphrodite, and even of Dionysus travelling by the sea46. As already noticed by other authors, and recently by
J.G.F. Hind47, its meaning in this context is merely a generic one, in strict connection with the sea. Therefore,
the image of the eagle on the dolphin might be read as a sign of victory destined by the gods48 not over a
certain territory or population, but over the sea in general.
In the colonial ventures, bird omens seem to be related to the moment of the arrival at the chosen
place, the bird indicating the way to or the place of the future settlement49. In our case, since the image of
the eagle and dolphin appears on the coins of three different cities, it may refer to signs that preceded the
departure of the colonists to the Black Sea. Whether there was actually any such divine prediction before
the departure of the Milesian colonists, however, is of little importance. What is relevant is that this image
became the emblem of a successful enterprise that led to the foundation of the first colonies of the Black
Sea. The fact that all three colonies share this motif is likely to indicate some shared memory or experience.
Since the most obvious common element between them is their mother-city, this motif could be understood
as a victory over the sea through colonization, expressed as a, possibly fictitious, shared memory of an omen.
According to the literary tradition, before Greek colonization Black Sea was referred to as Axeinos, but
afterwards became Euxeinos. It is generally accepted that this etymology masks an earlier name of Iranian
origin50. However, it might also have offered a direct meaning, which reflected the way the Greeks related to
the new environment. The existence of such myths regarding the colonization of the Black Sea is proved by
the story of the Argo’s51 entry into the Black Sea. Then the Argonauts received the help of another bird sacred
to Zeus, a dove52. At the advice of the seer Phineus, the Argonauts released the dove in front of the clashing
rocks (Symplegades) that marked the passage to the Black Sea. Only if the dove passed through successfully
could they follow. After their passage, the rocks stopped clashing and grew roots. The metaphor of the
moving rocks that became fixed after the passage of the first navigators corresponds to the transformation
of the untamed sea into a hospitable and friendly one53. The image of the eagle attacking a dolphin could
thus belong to an alternate version of the myth regarding the Black Sea colonization, in which the Milesians
44 A papyrus book roll discovered in Fayoum, Egypt, in 1992 was translated and first edited by G. Bastianini,
C. Gallazzi, C. Austin, Posidippo di Pella, Epigrammi, Milan, 2001 (non vidi). The chapter about bird divination
comprises fifteen epigrams, cf. Dillon 2017, p. 142-145.
45 Herda 2008, p. 14-18, 35 with the literature. Also, Ehrhardt 1988, p. 130; Chiekova 2008, p. 37-39; for Olbia
see Rusjaeva 1992, p. 41-46.

46 Petrișor 2009, p. 438-450.
47 Hind 2007, p. 9-22, with the literature.
48 Most probably by the oracle of Apollo from Didyma. On the contribution of Didymean oracle in the Milesian
colonization of the Black Sea, see Herda 2008, p. 24-31, with the literature.
49 Malkin 1987, p. 108-109: “The divination does not seem to be concerned with the decision to colonize, but
with the physical terrain of the site”. More on bird divination and colonization at Dillon 2017, p. 147.
50 Avram, Hind, Tsetskhladze 2004, p. 924, also for the literary references regarding Axeinos and Euxeinos.
51 The story of the Argonauts, known from different sources (see s.v. Argonautai, RE I, 1, col. 762), was best
preserved in the poem of Apollonius Rhodius. This put together the extant local foundation traditions of Propontis and
the Black Sea in a single enterprise carried out by a team of heroes led by Jason, constructed after the Homeric pattern
of Odyssey. Each city is mentioned in a kind a peripluum around the Black Sea with a special attention given, after the
Propontis, to the southern coast of the Black Sea: see Ehrhardt 1996a, p. 23-46; also, Thalmann 2011, passim, esp. p. 42,
171 about the poem not only as a mythical, but as a geographical map of the oikoumene.
52 Parke 1967, p. 34-43, esp. p. 35 about dove, an ancient divinatory bird from the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona.
53 Hunter 2008, p. 262: “The fixing of the Rocks by the Argo’s passage is a powerful symbol of achievement; it
marks the imposition of order and the creation of known space where before there was shifting and destructive disorder”;
cf. Thalmann 2011, p. 28. The fears of crossing the strait are related also to the Greeks’ conception of the geography of
the Black Sea, which was equated with the Ocean; for an extensive study about this topic see Ivantchik 2017, p. 7-25.
claimed the “conquest” of the new territory for themselves. The victory foretold over the untamed sea fits
rather to a created story, an “intentional history” that retrospectively legitimizes the priority of the Milesian
Black Sea colonies in the Black Sea area.
FOUNDATION MYTHS, LOCAL IDENTITY AND THE CHOICE OF COIN MOTIFS
There is some debate about the historical context that triggered such a monetary choice. Among the
events that marked the 5th century, scholars have singled out the growing influence of Athens in the Black
Sea area. Regime change in Sinope, Olbia and Histria, where the ruling aristocratic party was replaced by
a democratic one under Athenian influence54, coincides with the appearance of the eagle on dolphin motif
on coin issues. The adoption of the Attic weight standard and also of some other coin motifs has similarly
been interpreted as evidence of Athenian influence in the Black Sea55. Yet this approach has led to the
over-emphasis of the political events, since these are only peripheral to our question. Our most direct historical
evidence is obviously the issuing of the coins itself. The choice of the coin image was not a random matter.
First and foremost, the iconography chosen had to be representative for the issuing community. As a result,
coins became the best means of asserting local identity56.
Most of the first coin issues allude to foundation myths, of which the main aim was to create a venerable
past that could link the present to the heroic period, and thus legitimate control over a recently acquired
territory57. I have argued elsewhere58 that the obverse of the coin issues of these three Pontic cities was
reserved for local traditions (nymphs, river-gods, local heroes), while the reverse was meant to underline
their common Milesian origin (eagle on dolphin). The reverse was thus a complement59 for the obverse
representation; the latter can be read as a statement of local identity/autochthony, while the first of regional
identity/Milesian ancestry.
A previous attempt of the Milesian colonies to create a common coin symbol can be identified in the
pre-monetary tokens in the shape of arrowheads or laurel leaves60, a common feature of Borysthenes/Olbia,
Histria and Apollonia Pontica on the West coast of the Black Sea. The arrowheads/laurel leaves have been
related in the literature to the leading deity of the colonists, Apollo Ietros61. The shared cult of the three West
Pontic colonies has fostered the idea of syngeneia, of collective identity that was promoted through this
original type of monetary item. The common monetary symbols, sometimes connected to an alliance of some
sort62, are above all indices of a common heritage, and therefore could be interpreted as proves of a regional
identity. Whether this was accompanied by common religious, political or military actions is another matter.
54 Anohin 1989, p. 201; Rusjaeva 1992, p. 61-62, 65-70, who notes that the regime changing was short lived.
About the abolishment of tyranny at Olbia and Sinope, see Vinogradov 1997, p. 193.
55 For Histria: Poenaru Bordea 2000, p. 11, although other standards have been proposed, see Grămăticu 2015,
p. 24, with the literature. For Olbia, see Karyškovskij 1968, p. 157-158. The types of the first issues (owl, Athena,
Gorgo) would have been inspired by Athenian coin iconography by way of Cyzicus, which presents the same types
on some issues.
56 Ritter 2002, p. 150-154; Nollé 2009, p. 101-106; recently Killen 2017, p. 151.
57 Weiss 1984, p. 21-49; Dougherty 1993, passim; Malkin 1994, passim.
58 Panait-Bîrzescu 2016, p. 143.
59 The legend, certain details and the image of the reverse reinforced and clarified the identity of the figure of
the obverse, Ritter 2002, p. 155-156, 167.

60 Hind 2007, p. 12.
61 A connection between the iconography of the archer and Apollo Ietros has been noted in the oracular graffito
from Berezan, which speaks of “the friendly archer, gift of the healer (Ietros)”, and on a Hellenistic coin issue of
Apollonia Pontica that represents a statue of Apollo Ietros as archer next to a tree, see Rusjaeva 1986, p. 38-49. Another
pre-monetary token created at Olbia in the shape of a dolphin was related to the cult of Apollo Delphinios. A clearer
point was made recently by De Callataÿ: “…these dolphins and arrowheads are best conceived as originally created as
tokens for worshipers of Apollo (i.e. as payments for the god). And from than onwards, they may have functioned as
monetary tokens depending on the context…” (De Callataÿ 2019, p. 268; see also Topalov 1993, p. 10-11; Cojocaru
2012, p. 26-38).
62 Hind 2007, p. 16, with some examples of inter-city “alliance” coinages; recently D’Arrigo 2012, p. 443, about
an economic-monetary alliance.
When this identity took shape is a matter of debate. Little information on the local traditions of the
Black Sea colonies is preserved in the literary sources63. An analysis of the foundation myths of South Italy
led Irad Malkin64 to conclude that it was not until 5th century that the mythical tradition took shape, when
the historical founders were no longer sufficient to create a shared identity and when the need for a greater
antiquity was felt in colonies that were developing a sense of independent existence separate from their
mother cities. Even if attested for some cities, historical founders do not seem to have played a particular
role in the self-identification of Black Sea colonies. They seem to have been quickly forgotten, and an
interest in their presence is felt only later, beginning with the 4th century BC65. The 5th century was a turning
point in the development of the colonial narrative not only in the colonies, but also in the mother cities. The
Persian war, the fall of Miletus and the victory of Athens also had an impact in the creation of identity in the
Milesian colonies. The Athenians set the tone of a discourse that put Greeks in opposition to Persians and
anything associated with them66. The Ionians themselves, because of their common cultural heritage with
the populations of Anatolia, were caught in the middle, and had to revise their foundation myths in order
to correspond to the new propaganda67. If the Athenians had any influence in the Black Sea colonies, we
might expect to trace it in the mythical narrative of the Black Sea colonies advertised through coin images.
The obverse images of the coin issues with an eagle on dolphin on the reverse could shed some light on
this problem.
THE OBVERSE MOTIFS OF THE CLASSICAL COINS OF HISTRIA, OLBIA AND SINOPE
Sinope. On the obverse of the Sinopean coins is depicted the homonymous nymph of the city
(pl. I/8-9). The image is a reference to the earliest foundation myth as related by Pseudo-Skymnos68.The
story of the nymph Sinope abducted by Apollo, whose son, Syros, was the ancestor of the local population
(syroi/leukosyroi), recalled a “proto-history”, a time before the coming of the Greeks. Through the marriage
of Apollo and the local nymph, a mythic kinship was created between the indigenes and the new comers. On
the other side of the coin, the eagle on dolphin could remind the viewer of the historical Milesian foundation
of the colony.
63 For a repertoire of the local histories of the Black Sea cities see Dana, Dana 2001-2003. On the foundation
myths of the Black Sea South coast, see Ehrhardt 1996a; Ehrhardt 1996b; Ivantchik 1997; Ivantchik 1998. For the
Western coast, see Nawotka 1994; Panait-Bîrzescu 2016; on Pantiakapaion, see Balena 2013, p. 67-72.
64 According to Malkin 2006, p. 64-65, historical foundation references were replaced by mythical ones that had
the advantage of claiming an older history and a membership in a wider Greek network of identities. Evidence from
Olbia would point to an earlier date in the 6th century (see the opinion of Ivantchik 2016, p. 312 regarding the passage
on the origin of Scythians in Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women) or even the 7th century BC according to Rusjaeva
2007b, p. 95.
65 Ehrhardt 1988, p. 31, 55, 226; cf. Herda 1998, p. 10, who remarks that these are eponyms and gods, an interest
in such foundation stories starting from the 4th century BC and growing during the Roman period; see also Nawotka
1994, p. 326; Avram 2018, p. 455, n. 13; at least for Cyzicus the evidence for the eponymous founder was traced back
to the 5th century BC, see Nollé 2013.
66 Hall 1997, p. 44-47; Gehrke 2001, p. 302; Gehrke 2009, p. 88; Crielaard 2009, p. 73; see also Gruen 2011,
p. 9-52.
67 About the “clash of identities between the Ionians of Athens and the Ionians of Asia Minor” see Crielaard
2009, p. 73-74: “(…) in order to legitimize her leading role in the first Delian-Attic League (and substantiate her claims
on the eastern Aegean in reaction to Persia’s presence in the region), Athens seems to have appropriated the myth of
the Ionian migration, claiming to be the most Ionian city of all and to be the metropolis of all Ionians. The East Ionians
whose Ionian identity was contested seem to have fought back by means of a rigorous revision of the tradition. By
interweaving their common history with that of the Attic Ionians they could claim that they were at least as pure Ionian
as the Athenians were”. About the Athenian version of the Ionian migration, see also Prinz 1979, p. 317-376. The need
to connect with mainland Greece, and to set boundaries on Anatolian heritage, is present also in the mythical descent
of the Sinopeans from Thessalian ancestors through their founders, the Argonauts: see Ivantchik 1997, p. 40; Ivantchik
1998, p. 305-306; also, Curty 1995, p. 219; Dana 2007.
68 For the analysis of the entire recital of Sinope’s foundation myths, see Ivantchik 1997; Ivantchik 1998.
Histria. I have argued elsewhere69 that the two heads of youths on the obverse of the Histrian silver
coins could represent local heroes, namely Heloros and Aktaios, the sons of the river-god Istros (pl. I/1).
These appear twice in Philostratus’ Heroikos (23, 11-13 and 23, 21-22) in the context of the Trojan War, more
precisely in the battle on the Kaikos River. For the motif of the inversed head, I have brought into discussion
several iconographical analogies, among which the closest is represented by the figures of the two heroes
on panel 25 of the Telephos frieze from Pergamum. These references could reflect a local tradition about an
earlier mythical foundation of Histria. Thus, the abbreviated image of the two heroes on the coins could stress
both the autochthony of the Histrians and their connection with Anatolia since Homeric times.
Olbia. As already noted, the obverse of several Olbian coin types also alludes to a myth, namely the
myth about the Scythians’ origins70 related by Herodotus in two versions, a Scythian (IV, 5-7) and a Greek
one (IV, 8-10). According to the Scythian version, Targitaos, the son of Zeus and of a nymph, daughter of
the river-god Borysthenes, had three sons: Lipoxais, Arpoxais and Colaxais. Among these, only the youngest
brother, Colaxais, was destined to rule. In the Greek version of the story, Heracles arrived in Scythia while
driving the horses of Geryones. After losing the horses while he slept, he went to search for them and met
a half woman, half snake creature in a cave in Hylaia. This creature asked him to stay in exchange for the
horses, and from their union three sons were born: Agathyrsus, Gelonus and Scythes. The story continues,
as in the Scythian version, with a test to which each son is put in order to receive the right to rule over the
land, namely to bend the bow and to gird the girdle left by their father.
The characters of the myth, Heracles, Borysthenes and the nymph from Hylaia, appear also in cult
in a sanctuary near Olbia71 and on the Olbian coin issues. A particular representation of Heracles showing
the hero kneeling and pulling the bowstring has received special attention in the literature. The image was
struck on the city’s first silver coin issues in the third quarter of the 5th century BC72. The allusion these
coins made to the myth of the origin of the Scythians and the legend Eminako, a name of Iranian origin,
led to the theory that there was a Scythian protectorate over Olbia in this period73, and to the assumption
that the Scythians themselves contributed to the choice of the coin design. Thus, the Eminako series would
represent the legitimation of a local dynast’s rule over Olbia. The identity of the archer on these coins has also
been questioned: Greek hero or Scythian Targitaos? This is not, however, the only reference to the Scythian
origin myth on Olbian coins. From the same Scythian perspective have been interpreted also the Hellenistic
coin issues depicting Borysthenes/Scythian arms74 and the mural-crowned female deity/half-kneeling archer
types75. These are obviously related to the same myth, but in what way? According to P.O. Karyškovskij76,
69 Panait-Bîrzescu 2016.
70 For a thorough study of this myth, see Ivantchik 1999; Ivantchik 2001, p. 207-216; also, recently Ivantchik
2016, p. 305-320.
71 The existence of sanctuary in a woodland near the mouth of the Borysthenes is attested by a private letter
preserved in a graffito on a potsherd, the so-called “priest’s letter”, which mentions altars of Heracles, Borysthenes and
the Mother of the Gods, see Rusjaeva, Vinogradov 1991; also, Dubois 1996, p. 55-62, cat. 24. For more literary and
epigraphic evidence regarding the existence of this sanctuary from Hylaia, see Rusjaeva 1992, p. 124, 136, 145-146;
Ivantchik 2016, p. 311-314.
72 SNG IX.1, cat. 358; Karyškovskij 1968, p. 98-103, pl. LXIII; Zograf 1982, p. 10, fig. 2.1; Vinogradov, Kryžickij
1995, p. 93, fig. 85.6.

73 Vinogradov 1997, p. 202-204; Vinogradov, Kryžickij 1995, p. 89; based upon the observations of Karyškovskij
1968, p. 122-124, according to whom the short emission indicates that it was struck by private mints commissioned by
the city. That led to the assumption that the image of Heracles pulling the bowstring on the obverse was representing a
local dynast, while the wheel on the revers the city emblem. The tendency was to put in the same category of local
dynasts issuing coins at Olbia also other names, such for example Arichos, see Karyškovskij 1968, p. 34; Vinogradov
1997, p. 156, 209; cf. LGPN IV, s.v. ́̓Αριχος, p. 47; Dubois 1996, p. 8-9. The Eminako series would belong to the same
category of coin issues struck for other local dynasts in the West Pontic colonies during the Hellenistic period. See also
Zograf 1982, p. 5-12, esp. p. 11; Kullanda, Raevskij 2004; Ivantchik 2016, p. 315. For a critical view, Rusjaeva 2007a,
p. 16-23; Cojocaru 2008, p. 1-18; see also Rusjaeva 1992, p. 124-126; Rusjaeva 2007b, p. 96-98, who reads the kneeling
figure as the Greek Heracles and the legend as belonging to an Olbian magistrate.
74 SNG IX.1, cat. 451-533; Karyškovskij 1968, p. 95, pl. XII=B-XV=C.
75 SNG IX.1, cat. 534-549; Karyškovskij 1968, p. 104, pl. XII=A.
76 Karyškovskij 1968, p. 104-105, commenting the nudity of the archer, and unaware of the Skythian dress type.
the shooting archer type is evidence of a cultural borrowing, namely the archery contest, which reflected
a combat style characteristic of the Scythians that was integrated into the athletic games held in honour of
Achilles. More recently, Vladimir Stolba77 has pointed out that the half-kneeling position of the archer is
more typical for battle than for archery contests, which would require a standing position instead. Therefore,
the issue of large numbers of these coins during a short period of time coinciding with the siege of Olbia by
Zopyrion’s army could represent a commemorative issue for the Scythian military contribution to the defence
of the city78. All of these interpretations take the many references to the Scythian myth as direct proof of
Scythian involvement in the life of the Greek city.
Read as such, the representative value of the coin images has less relevance for the Olbian issuing
community, and more for their Scythian neighbours. But then why would the Olbians choose for their coins
the personages of a foreign myth, if these figures did not reflect their own identity? It is correct to say that
the coins served as propaganda to support claims to legitimacy, but whose legitimacy, and to whom was the
message addressed?
My opinion is that the Olbian coin images spoke for the issuing community, advertising its identity
to neighbours, who were simply spectators, interested mainly in the intrinsic value of the coins. One can
assume that the references to the Scythian origin myth at most promoted the idea of kinship between Olbians
and Scythians, but their primary purpose was to reflect the identity of Olbians living in Scythia. Therefore,
the characters of the Hellenised version related by Herodotus should be seen, as has been suggested by
Rusjaeva79, as the forefathers of the Olbiopolitans themselves. It has been noted that Heracles did not have
a central role in the Olbian pantheon, despite his presence as a cult figure in Hylaia and his appearance on
Olbian coins80. But as Stefan Ritter81 has remarked, coins do not always depict major poliad deities, so should
not be taken as evidence for the organization of a given city’s pantheon.
The answer to our question lies in the broader context of Olbian coin iconography. Most of the coin
representations are related to one another. They seem to be part of a larger program inspired by the same
mythical narrative. Frequently minted at Olbia during the 5th century BC are coin types that bear on the
obverse either the image of Gorgo82, or of a facing female head83. The prevalent opinion is that the female
figure on all the Olbian issues represents the same goddess: Demeter. The wreath of wheat ears that appears
on later issues with the female head in profile clearly points to the goddess of agriculture. Yet the identity of
the feminine figure on the Olbian coins is not so clear-cut. As Rusjaeva has argued84, both Gorgo (Pl. I/2) and
the facing female types (pl. I/3) are reminders of the same personage, namely the female creature from the
77 Stolba 2015, p. 48.
78 Stolba 2015, p. 52; Stolba 2019, p. 524, 530 about the Borysthenes coin type: “the chronology and very
indicative typology of these coin series make it possible to regard them as parts of the same iconographic programme
which aimed to commemorate the Scythian contribution to the liberation of the city from Zopyrion’s siege and the
following defeat of Macedonian troops”.
79 Rusjaeva 2007b, p. 95-98 about “(…) opposition of Greeks and non-Greeks as represented by the two central
figures, Heracles and Echidna. For Echidna, while mistress of her land and a mother, is nevertheless inferior to the
representative of Greek culture and not only in matters of appearance. For she herself decides nothing: she merely
follows Heracles’ advice and instructions. (…) the story also reflects a positive relationship with the non-Greeks through
the conclusion of the sacred marriage between the Greek hero and the local snake-woman, which could serve as an
archetype for mixed marriages between Greeks and Scythians (at least at elite level) and also a closer interaction more
generally between their separate deities and figures”.
80 Karyškovskij 1968, p. 103; Rusjaeva 2007b, p. 98.
81 Ritter 2002, passim, esp. p. 152: “Die gängige Ansicht, griechische Münzen zeigten grundsätzlich die jeweilige
‘Hauptgottheit’, suggeriert, daß es bei den Münzbildern von Gottheiten keiner Entscheidung darüber bedurfte, wer auf
die Münzen treten sollte: diejenige Gottheit, welche die Spitzenstellung innerhalb des lokalen Pantheons einnahm. Diese
Annahme ist indes nicht nur deshalb problematisch, weil sie den sehr unterschiedlichen Ausgangsbedingungen nicht
gerecht wird, sondern weil sie die Erwartung weckt, die Münzen ließen Rückschlüsse auf Funktion und Stellenwert der
dargestellten Gottheit innerhalb des münzpragenden Staates zu”.
82 SNG IX.1, cat. 379-389, 394-399; Karyškovskij 1968, p. 91, pl. XIV-XL, interprets it as an attribute of Athena,
who also appears on the first bronze issues, an influence of the Athenian coin iconography.
83 SNG IX.1, cat. 390-393; Karyškovskij 1968, p. 92, pl. XLI-LXII, as Demetra.
84 Rusjaeva, Rusjaeva 1997, p. 32-33; see also Hind 2007, p. 19-21.
Greek version of the legend. The Olbian coin issues show a gradual humanization of Gorgo. The bulging eyes,
the full cheeks, and the wavy hair of the facing female type are remnants of Gorgo’s features. Furthermore,
two lateral strands that stand out from the locks of hair are in fact snakes, while two other strands on the top
of the head are miniature wings of the same Gorgo type (pl. I/3). Yet the necklace of the facing female type
is the attribute of a nymph. The nymph of Sinope (pl. I/8-9), or the nymphs on the coins of Sicily and South
Italy, are richly adorned with jewels and lavish hairdressings. Compared to these, the Olbian nymph shows
bulging eyes and the undone hair of her wild, barbarian origin. Consequently, she was more likely the nymph/
snake-woman from the myth, worshipped in Hylaia as the Mother of the Gods.
The same hairstyle continues in the profile feminine head, but with more humanised facial features
and with the addition of a new element: two wheat ears on top of the head (pl. I/6)85.These iconographical
additions change the identity of the feminine figure, which is now closer to Demeter, or rather to her daughter
Kore/Persephone, an identification more consistent with the loose hair and the missing veil. A similar change
took place during the 5th and 4th centuries on the coins of several cities of Magna Graecia. The reed wreath
of the local nymphs was simply replaced with one of ears of wheat. Maria Caltabiano86 associated the image
remaking and rebranding with the historical events of the time. More precisely, the local deities gave way to a
goddess, who was more appropriate for new pan-Sicilian political tendencies: Kore/Demeter. The association
with the wild land of the newly founded colony was no longer relevant. Demeter was more suited to represent
the civilised and cultivated city and its territory.
Even if the same transition took place at Olbia, references to local myths did not cease to be made on
the later Olbian coin issues. On the contrary, now both obverse and reverse recall the Scythian origin legend
in the Borysthenes/Scythian arms and the mural crowned female deity/half-kneeling archer types (pl. I/7). The
eagle on dolphin motif of the reverse was put aside. It was of no relevance for the moment. Instead, both sides
of these coins stress a local identity. Therefore, the recent hypothesis of Vladimir Stolba87 is not so far-fetched.
Periods of crisis, especially when they involve external threats, foster local identity. However, rather than
being commemorative issues as Stolba suggests, these could be understood as payments to Scythian allies,
who were asked for help at a difficult time. The coin images made appeal to the mythical kinship between
Olbians and Scythians. At the same time, the goddess on the archer type received another element: a mural
crown. The deity who protects the city walls is clearly envisaged in this coin type, a function that suites the
Mother of the Gods even better than Demeter88.The wavy locks that spread wide in the pattern of octopus
tentacles are remnants of the Gorgo snake-hairdo, but are also characteristic of nymph representations (Olbia:
pl. I/5; Sinope: pl. I/8). I would argue that the feminine figure on the Olbian coins is one and the same
representative deity of the Olbiopolitans, Meter Theon in cult and nymph in the local lore, who at a certain
point was assimilated to Demeter/Kore. The wheat ear that appears under the eagle on dolphin on some series
with the humanised Gorgo head89 points in the same direction.
The reason for the incorporation of the Scythian origin myth into Olbian tradition has puzzled most
of the researchers, who have addressed this subject. However, the custom of integrating foreign local
myths and cults is frequently attested in Greek cities throughout their history90. One much-discussed case
of such borrowing involves the mythical history of Salamis. The takeover of the island by Athenians from
Megarians produced in myth a new identity for Ajax, the hero of the island. As John Wickersham91 put
it, myth became part of the strategy of war and conquest, contributing to a constant re-making of the past
85 SNG IX.1, cat. 434-450.
86 Caltabiano 2008.
87 Stolba 2015; Stolba, 2019.
88 On the other hand, it is worth noting the observation of Vladimir Stolba about a dedication of a wall to Demeter
and Kore from the 2nd century BC at Olbia (Stolba 2015, p. 46, n. 19).
89 Anohin 2011, cat. 241-243.
90 For the Black Sea, see the case of Parthenos cult from Chersonesos, Ivantchik 2016, p. 313. For another
example of cult borrowing, the cult of Palici deities from Sicily, as a strategy of the colonists of the archaic period to
claim rights to the new land, see Dougherty 1993, p. 89-90.
91 The act of rising altars and honouring local gods was the first step in claiming a foreign territory; cf. Wickersham
1991, esp. p. 23; also, Nilsson 1949, p. 237, recently Robu 2004-2005, p. 168.
that resulted in local, often contradictory, myth-historical variants labelled by historians as “intentional
history”92. The aim of such “intentional history” was to claim legitimacy, and I would argue that in our
case the ones, who were making the claim, were the very ones who made their own myth about the origin
of the Scythians, who raised a sanctuary for the local deities, and who choose the images on their coins:
the Olbians. Consequently, the iconography of the Olbian coins represents not the claims to legitimacy of
a local dynast ruling over Olbia, but those of Olbian Greeks over the territory they occupied in Scythia.
The Hellenised version of the Scythian origin myth was taken over by Olbians as part of their own past,
and became the myth of the earlier foundation of their city. In this way, Scythes could be both the son of
Heracles – and thus of Greek descent – and the eponymous ancestor of the Scythians. As Syros, the son
of Apollo and Sinope, was the ancestor of the local population on the Southern coast of the Black Sea, so
Scythes became the figure of a Greek epichoric myth. Following this argumentation, one can interpret the
turreted crowned female head as the goddess of Hylaia, the protective foremother of the Olbian city, and the
kneeling archer rendered either naked, or in Scythian attire, as Scythes himself. The different contrasting
renderings, Greek nudity versus Scythian clothing, stand for the double lineage of Scythes, Greek after his
father and Scythian after his mother.
As in the case of Histria and Sinope, the obverse image of the Olbian coin was meant to be a statement
of autochthony, while the eagle on dolphin on the reverse appealed to their common descent. The historic
context of the 5th century BC, in which the three Milesian colonies minted coins was full of challenges: their
mother-city fallen, the foreign maritime powers of Athens and Persia contesting dominance on the Black
Sea, and the growing forces of local dynasts fighting each other inland. It was in this situation of turmoil
and hostility that the identity of the Milesian colonies took shape93. They reacted to these new historical
circumstances with their own discourse modelled after that of their mother-city94. Since the myth of Ionian
migration is also a later development95, the eagle on dolphin motif as a metaphor for colonisation fits with
new ideas of Ionian identity of the time. The warlike connotation of the attacking eagle corresponds to a
Milesian tradition that valued the agonic/heroic spirit in its foundation myths96. Yet in this case the victory
announced by the eagle on the reverse claimed domination over the sea, while the legitimacy over the land
was given by the obverse image.
92 For myth as intentional history see Gehrke 2001, p. 298: “‘Intentional’ in this sense denotes the elements of
subjective and conscious self-categorization as belonging to a particular group, ethnic or of other sort. This
self-categorization, relevant to group identity, was regularly projected back into the past. Thus, even if it was very young,
indeed invented, it seemed to be given by tradition and was a fixed part of the mémoire collective. In this respect one
can describe such a picture of the past as intentional, avoiding terms which imply value judgements, such as ‘forgery’,
‘fictive history’, or ‘believed history’. Intentional history would then be history in a group’s own understanding, especially
in so far as it is significant for the make-up and identity of the group; or, alternatively, tradition has a ‘social surface’ in
the sense of modern social anthropology, it relates itself to a group which holds it as real.”; see also p. 304-308; also,
earlier Gehrke 1994.
93 See Malkin 1994, p. 135, about mythical foundations in the context of hostility.
94 On the earlier pre-Greek foundation tradition of Miletus, see Prinz 1979, p. 97-111; on the relation between
Karians and Greeks and the acknowledged “mixed blood” of the Milesian descent, see Sourvinou-Inwood 2005,
p. 268-309, esp. 303; also, Mac Sweeney 2013, p. 44-79, esp. p. 79. According to Mac Sweeny the violence in the
relation between local Karians and Greek migrants “does not necessarily mean that cultural difference was perceived
in oppositional terms”, but as “a crucial factor leading to the creation of the mixed and hybrid Milesian society of
Herodotus’ own day”. For more on Karians, see Herda 2013, p. 421-474, esp. p. 473.
95 The myth of the Ionian migration to West coast of Anatolia seems to have been a late development of the late
6 and early 5th centuries. The idea of being descendants of the colonists, who came from the mainland, saved the
th
Ionians of Anatolia from the shame of being Persian subjects from birth, cf. Crielaard 2009, p. 73-74; see also Prinz
1979, p 314-376.
96 Mac Sweeney 2013, passim, esp. p. 200. After an analysis of the Milesian foundation myths, of which violent
component is not confirmed by the historical reality, she concludes: “conflict was a crucial means of interaction, and a
way of constructing both shared past and futures (…) competition and rivalry were major contributing factors to a sense
of Ionian collectivity”. Furthermore, war and violence fostered collective identity, cf. Crielaard 2009, p. 58-59.
Pl. I. 1. Istros’ sons/eagle on dolphin, Histria, AR, 5th-4th century BC (SNG IX.1, cat. 228); 2. Gorgo/eagle on
dolphin, Olbia, AE, 4th century BC (SNG IX.1, cat. 383); 3. Gorgo/eagle on dolphin, Olbia, AE, 4th century BC (SNG
IX.1, cat. 392); 4. Nymph/eagle on dolphin, Olbia, AR, 350-300 BC (SNG IX.1, cat. 438); 5. Nymph/eagle
on dolphin, Olbia, AE, 350-300 BC (SNG IX.1, cat. 428); 6. Demeter/eagle on dolphin, Olbia, AR, 350-300 BC
(SNG IX.1, cat. 436); 7. Nymph/shooting archer, Olbia, AE, 3rd century BC (SNG IX.1, cat. 536); 8. Nymph
Sinope/eagle on dolphin, Sinope, AR, 410-350 BC (SNG IX.1, cat. 1439); 9. Nymph Sinope/eagle on dolphin,
Sinope, AR, 330-300 BC (SNG IX.1, cat. 1463).
CONCLUSIONS
The eagle on dolphin motif was a common symbol of the three Milesian cities, of which coin design
they seem to have created and developed independently of one another. The standardization of the coin motif
at Sinope and Histria is due to its prevalence as a civic parasemon, while the variation at Olbia might point to
a local particularity: other motives had priority on the coin reverse, while the hieratical non-attacking eagle
could indicate an alteration of the initial meaning of the image, or a different artistic convention. The motif
of the attacking eagle on the coins of Olympia and Acragas was an omen predicting victory that belongs to
a common heritage of myths and symbols.
If we start from the premise that the choice of coin motifs is dictated by the necessity of
self-representation, by the way the Black Sea colonists perceived themselves, then the eagle on dolphin
image is best read as the representation of a good omen for a successful colonial enterprise. The dolphin is
an innovative addition to the image of the flying eagle attacking a terrestrial animal, acting as a metaphor for
claims of dominance over the Black Sea made by the Milesian colonists. The moment of its appearance on
coins coincides not only with the supremacy of a new power in the Black Sea, the Athenians, but also with
a shift in the self-definition of the Milesian past, through the Ionian migration myth. The model of colonial
discourse seems articulated after that of the mother-city. The coins of the three earlier Milesian foundations
from the Black Sea contain references both to local identities, present in the river-gods, nymphs and local
heroes on the obverse, and to their common origin as Milesian foundations on the reverse, in the eagle on
dolphin motif. The awareness of common identity among the Black Sea foundations started with the initiative
of Olbia/Borysthenes, Histria and Apollonia, which cast their first monetary tokens in form of arrowheads/
laurel leaves, an allusion to the shared cult of Apollo Ietros. The choice of the eagle on dolphin motif on
later coins was intended to emphasize a similar idea. The symbol, suggestive of victory and conquest, was
a reminder of the colonies’ Milesian forefathers, whom the gods predestined in ancient times to tame the
unhospitable sea, an achievement their offspring could be proud of.
Acknowledgements
For language proofs, observations and suggestions, I am indebted to Adam Rabinowitz (University of Texas,
Austin).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ancient authors:
Aeschylus, vol. II. Agamemnon, Libation‑bearers, Eumenides, Fragments, translated by Herbert Weir Smyth, The Loeb
Classical Library, London – New York, 1926.
Apollodorus, The Library, vol. II. Books 3.10‑end. Epitome, translated by Sir James George Frazer, The Loeb Classical
Library, London – New York, 1921.
Äsop, Fabeln, herausgegeben und übersetzt von Rainer Nickel, Sammlung Tusculum, Düsseldorf – Zürich, 2005.
Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica, translated by Hugh G. Evelyn-White, The Loeb Classical Library, London
– New York, 1914.
Homer, The Iliad, translated by A.T. Murray, The Loeb Classical Library, London, 1928.
Homer, The Odyssey, translated by A.T. Murray, The Loeb Classical Library, London, 1945.
Ovidius, Metamorphoses, vol. I. Books 1‑8, translated by Frank Justus Miller, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge
(Massachusetts), London, 1951.
Pausanias, Description of Greece, vol. I. Books 1–2, translated by W.H.S. Jones, The Loeb Classical Library, London
– New York, 1918.
Alexandrescu 1990 – P. Alexandrescu, Histria in archaischer Zeit, in P. Alexandrescu, W. Schuller (eds.), Histria.
Eine Griechenstadt an der rumänischen Schwarzmeerküste, Xenia. Konstanzer Althistorische Vorträge und
Forschungen 25, Konstanz, 1990, p. 47-101.
Anohin 1989 – V.A. Anohin, Monety antičnych gorodov Severo‑Zapadnogo Pričernomor’ja, Kiev, 1989.
Anohin 2011 – V.A. Anohin, Antičnye monety Severnogo Pričernomor’ja. Katalog, Kiev, 2011.
Avram 2018 – A. Avram, Tomos, le héros fondateur de Tomis, Pontica 51, 2018, p. 453-466.
Avram, Hind, Tsetskhladze 2004 – A. Avram, J. Hind, G. Tsetskhladze, The Black Sea Area, in M.H. Hansen, Th.H.
Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 2004, p. 924-973.
Balena 2013 – I. Balena, The foundation of Pantikapaion: Greek colonists and native populations on the Northern Black
Sea coast, in M. Manoledakis (ed.), Exploring the Hospitable Sea. Proceedings of the International Workshop
on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 21‑23 September 2012, Oxford, 2013, p. 67-75.
Barringer 2010 – J. Barringer, Zeus at Olympia, in J.N. Bremmer, A. Erskine (eds.), The Gods of Ancient Greece.
Identities and Transformations, Edinburgh, 2010, p. 155-177.
Blömer, Crowther 2014 – M. Blömer, C. Crowther, Eagles on Stags. An Underground Sanctuary in Perrhe, Commagene,
in E. Winter (ed.), Kult und Herrschaft am Euphrat, Bonn, 2014, p. 343-371, pl. 53-60.
Burkert 1977 – W. Burkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, 2nd edition, Stuttgart, 1977.
Burkert 1992 – W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution. Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in Early Archaic
Age, London, 1992.
Caltabiano 2008 – M.C. Caltabiano, Il ‚ruolo’ di Demetra nel documento monetale greco, in C.A. di Stefano (ed.),
Demetra. La divinità, i santuari, il culto, la leggenda. Atti del I Congresso Internazionale Enna, 1‑4 luglio 2004,
Pisa – Roma, 2008, p. 123-131.
Carey 1986 – C. Carey, Archilochus and Lycambes, ClQ 36, 1986, 1, p. 60-67.
Chiekova 2008 – D. Chiekova, Cultes et vie religieuse des cités grecques du Pont Gauche (VIIe‑Ier siècles avant J.‑C.),
Bern – Oxford, 2008.
Cojocaru 2008 – V. Cojocaru, Zum Verhältnis zwischen Steppenbevölkerung und griechischen Städten. Das ʻskythische
Protektoratʼ als offene Frage, TYCHE 23, 2008, p. 1-20.
Cojocaru 2012 – V. Cojocaru, Vom Pfeilspitzen zu „skythischen” Münzen: Zu griechisch‑skytischen Beziehungen im
Spiegel des Geldumlaufs am Rande der Steppe, in L. Prager (ed.), Nomadismus in der ‚Alten Welt’. Formen der
Repräsentation in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Münster, 2012, p. 26-49.
Crielaard 2009 – J.P. Crielaard, The Ionians in the Archaic period. Shifting identities in a changing world, in T. Derks,
N. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The role of power and tradition, Amsterdam, 2009, p. 37-84.
Curty 1995 – O. Curty, Les parentés légendaires entre cités grecques. Catalogue raisonné des inscriptions contenant
le terme ΣΥΓΓΕΝΕΙΑ et analyse critique, Genève, 1995.
D’Arrigo 2012 – A. D’Arrigo, Il tipo monetale dell’aquila su delfino fra Mar Nero e Sicilia, in R. Pera (ed.), Il significato
delle immagini. Numismatica, arte, filologia, storia. Atti del secondo incontro internazionale di studio del Lexikon
Iconographicum Numismaticae (Genova, 10‑12 novembre 2005), Roma, 2012, p. 437-444.
Dana 2007 – M. Dana, Traditions de fondation dans l’épigraphie de Sinope, REG 120, 2007, 2, p. 511-525.
Dana, Dana 2001-2003 – M. Dana, D. Dana, Histoires locales dans le Pont‑Euxin ouest et nord. Identité grecque et
construction du passé, Il Mar Nero 5, 2001-2003, p. 91-111.
De Callataÿ 2019 – F. De Callataÿ, Did “Dolphins” and Non‑functional Arrowheads Massively Found in and Around
Olbia, Istros and Apollonia Have Ever Had a Monetary Function?, in V. Cojocaru, L. Ruscu, Th. Castelli, A.-I.
Pázsint (eds.), Advances in Ancient Black Sea Studies: Historiography, Archaeology and Religion, Cluj-Napoca,
2019, p. 257-279.
Dillon 2017 – M. Dillon, Omens and Oracles. Divination in Ancient Greece, London – New York, 2017.
Dougherty 1993 – C. Dougherty, The Poetics of Colonization. From City to Text in Archaic Greece, Oxford, 1993.
Dubois 1996 – L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont, Genève, 1996.
Ehrhardt 1988 – N. Ehrhardt, Milet und seine Kolonien. Vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen
Einrichtungen, Frankfurt/Main, 1988.
Ehrhardt 1996a – N. Ehrhardt, Ktistai in den Argonautika des Apollonios Rhodios. Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung
von Gründungstraditionen in Kyzikos, Kios, Herakleia Pontike und Sinope, in Studien zum antiken Kleinasien,
vol. III, Asia Minor Studien 16, Bonn, 1996, p. 23-46.
Ehrhardt 1996b – N. Ehrhardt, Illias B 508 und die Gründer von Heraclea Pontica, Hermes 124, 1996, 1, p. 101-103.
Fedoseev 1991 – N.F. Fedoseev, Semantika obraza orel’ kljujuščij del’fina, in A.V. Gudkova (ed.), Drevnee
Pričernomor’e. II. Čtenija pamjati professora Petra Ossipoviča Karyškovskogo, Odessa, 1991, p. 103-104.
Feraru 2006 – R.M. Feraru, Cultura în cetățile grecești de pe țărmul vestic al Mării Negre, Timișoara, 2006.
Flower 2008 – M. Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece, Berkeley – Los Angeles, 2008.
Franke, Hirmer 1972 – P. Franke, M. Hirmer, Die griechische Münze, 2nd edition, München, 1972.
Gehrke 1994 – H.-J. Gehrke, Mythos, Geschichte, Politik – antik und modern, Saeculum 45, 1994, p. 239-264.
Gehrke 2001 – H.-J. Gehrke, Myth, History, and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and Beyond,
in N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, Oxford, 2001, p. 286-313.
Gehrke 2009 – H.-J. Gehrke, From Athenian identity to European ethnicity – the cultural biography of the myth of
Marathon, in T. Derks, N. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition,
Amsterdam, 2009, p. 85-99.
Graf 1996 – F. Graf, Gottesnähe und Schadenzauber. Die Magie in der griechisch‑römischen Antike, München, 1996.
Grămăticu 2015 – S. Grămăticu, On the Metrology of the City of Istros in the Autonomous Period, Dacia N.S. 59, 2015,
p. 21-47.
Gruen 2011 – E. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, Princeton, 2011.
Hall 1997 – J.M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1997.
Harrell 1998 – S.E. Harrell, Cultural Geography of East and West: Literary Representations of Archaic Sicilian Tyranny
and Cult (Dissertation Princeton University), Ann Arbor, 1998.
Herda 1998 – A. Herda, Der Kult des Gründerheroen Neileos und die Artemis Kithone in Milet, JÖAI 67, 1998, p. 1-48.
Herda 2008 – A. Herda, Apollon Delphinios – Apollon Didymeus: Zwei Gesichter eines milesischen Gottes und ihr
Bezug zur Kolonisation Milets in archaischer Zeit, in R. Bol, U. Höckmann, P. Schollmeyer (eds.), Kult(ur)
kontakte. Apollon in Milet/Didyma, Histria, Myus, Naukratis und auf Zypern. Akten der Table Ronde in Mainz
vom 11. – 12. März 2004, Rahden/Westf., 2008, p. 13-75.
Herda 2013 – A. Herda, Greek (and our) Views on the Karians, in A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds.), Luwian
Identities. Culture, Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean, Leiden – Boston, 2013, p. 421-506.
Hind 1976 – J.G.F. Hind, The eagle‑head coins of Sinope, NC 16, 1976, p. 1-6.
Hind 1999 – J.G.F. Hind, Eagles and Dolphins. The Coins of Sinope, Istria and Olbia in the 5th and 4th centuries BC,
in Trade in the Black Sea in the Archaic and Classical Periods. Abstracts of Papers of the IXth Symposium at
Vani, Tbilisi, 1999, p. 48-49.
Hind 2007 – J.G.F. Hind, City Heads/Personifications and Omens from Zeus (the coins of Sinope, Istria and Olbia in
the 5th – 4th centuries BC), NC 167, 2007, p. 9-22.
Holloway 1991 – R.R. Holloway, The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily, London – New York, 1991.
Hunter 2008 – R. Hunter, The Divine and Human Map of the Argonautica, in R. Hunter, On Coming After. Studies in
Post‑Classical Greek Literature and Its Reception, Part I. Hellenistic Poetry and Its Reception, Trends in Classics,
Supplementary Volumes 3, Berlin, 2008, p. 257-277.
Ivantchik 1997 – A. Ivantchik, Les légendes de fondation de Sinope du Pont, REA 99, 1997, 1-2, p. 33-45.
Ivantchik 1998 – A. Ivantchik, Die Gründung von Sinope und die Probleme der Anfangsphase der griechischen
Kolonisation des Schwarzmeergebietes, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area.
Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, Stuttgart, 1998, p. 297-330.
Ivantchik 1999 – A. Ivantchik, Une légende sur l’origine des Scythes (Hdt. IV, 5‑7) et le problème des sources du
scythicos logos d’Hérodote, REG 112, 1999, p. 141-192.
Ivantchik 2001 – A. Ivantchik, La légende “grecque” sur l’origine des Scythes (Hérodote 4.8‑10), in V. Fromentin, S.
Gotteland (eds.), Origines gentium, Bordeaux, 2001, p. 207-220.
Ivantchik 2016 – A. Ivantchik, L’idéologie royale des Scythes et son expression dans la littérature et l’iconographie
grecque : l’apport de la numismatique, in A. Dan, F. Queyrel (resp.), Les concepts en sciences de l’Antiquité :
mode d’emploi. Chronique 2016 – Mythe, histoire, identités ethniques, DHA 41, 2016, 1, p. 305-329.
Ivantchik 2017 – A. Ivantchik, The Greeks and the Black Sea. The Earliest Ideas about the Region and the Beginnings
of Colonisation, in V. Kozlovskaya (ed.), The Northern Black Sea in Antiquity: Networks, Connectivity, and
Cultural Interactions, Cambridge, 2017, p. 7-25.
Johnston 2008 – S.J. Johnston, Ancient Greek Divination, Malden – Oxford, 2008.
Karyškovskij 1968 – P.O. Karyškovskij, Monetnoe delo i denežnoe obraščenie Ol’vii (VI v. do n.e. – IV v. n.e.), 2nd
edition, Odessa, 1968.
Karyškovskij 1982 – P.O. Karyškovskij, Ob izobraženii orla i del’fina na monetah Sinopy, Istrii i Ol’vii, in Numizmatica
antičnogo Pričernomor’ja, Kiev, 1982, p. 80-98.
Killen 2017 – S. Killen, Parasema: offizielle Symbole griechischer Poleis und Bundesstaaten, Wiesbaden, 2017.
Kraay 1976 – C. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, London, 1976.
Kullanda, Raevskij 2004 – C.V. Kullanda, D.S. Raevskij, Eminak v rjadu vladyk Skifii, VDI 1, 2004, p. 79-95.
Mac Sweeney 2013 – N. Mac Sweeney, Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia, Cambridge, 2013.
Malkin 1987 – I. Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden, 1987.
Malkin 1994 – I. Malkin, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean, Cambridge, 1994.
Malkin 2006 – I. Malkin, Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity, Mediterranean Historical Review 18, 2006,
2, p. 56-74.
Miller 2004 – S. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics, New Haven – London, 2004.
Nawotka 1994 – K. Nawotka, Melsas, the founder of Mesambria?, Hermes 122, 1994, 3, p. 320-326.
Nilsson 1949 – M. Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion, 2nd edition, Oxford, 1949.
Nilsson 1955 – M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 2nd edition, vol. I. Die Religion Griechenlands bis
auf die griechische Weltherrschaft, München, 1955.
Nollé 2009 – J. Nollé, Zu den Gründungstraditionen des thrakischen Hadrianopolis (Edirne), Chiron 39, 2009,
p. 101-161.
Nollé 2013 – J. Nollé, Bilder und Vorstellungen von einem Stadtgründer: Kyzikos und sein eponymer Heros, JNG 63,
2013, p. 29-57.
Panait-Bîrzescu 2016 – F. Panait-Bîrzescu, The Sons of Istros and the Classical Silver Coins of Histria, Dacia N.S. 60,
2016, p. 137-146.
Parke 1967 – H.W. Parke, The Oracles of Zeus. Dodona, Olympia, Ammon, Oxford, 1967.
Parker 1983 – R. Parker, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford, 1983.
Petrișor 2009 – G. Petrișor, Structures spatiales dans la pensée religieuse grecque de l’époque archaïque. La
représentation de quelques espaces insondables : l’éther, l’air, l’abîme marin (Dissertation University Montréal),
2009.
Poenaru-Bordea 2000 – Gh. Poenaru-Bordea, Atelierul monetar al cetății Istros în perioada autonomiei, in E. Nicolae
(ed.), Simpozion de Numismatică dedicat împlinirii a patru secole de la prima unire a românilor sub Mihai
Voievod Viteazul, Chişinău, 28‑30 mai 2000, București, 2001, p. 9-33.
Prinz 1979 – F. Prinz, Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie, München, 1979.
Ritter 2002 – S. Ritter, Bildkontakte Götter und Heroen in der Bildsprache griechischer Münzen des 4. Jahrhunderts
v. Chr., Berlin, 2002.
Robu 2004-2005 – A. Robu, L’affaire de Salamine, Dacia N.S. 48-49, 2004-2005, p. 161-172.
Ruscu 2001 – L. Ruscu, Despre reprezentarea vulturului pe delfin pe monedele de la Sinope, Histria și Olbia, in Studii
de istorie antică. Omagiu profesorului Ioan Glodariu, Cluj-Napoca, 2001, p. 81-91.
Ruscu 2002 – L. Ruscu, Relațiile externe ale orașelor grecești de pe litoralul românesc al Mării Negre, Cluj-Napoca,
2002.
Rusjaeva 1986 – A.S. Rusjaeva, Milet – Didimy – Borisfen – Ol’vija. Problemy kolonizacii Nižnego Pobuž’ja, VDI 2,
1986, p. 25-64.
Rusjaeva 1992 – A.S. Rusjaeva, Religija i kult’ty antičnoj Ol’vii, Kiev, 1992.
Rusjaeva 2007a – A.S. Rusjaeva, Polisni moneti Ol’vij z napisom Eminako: osnovni aspekti interpretacij, ArheologijaKiev
2, 2007, p. 16-25.
Rusjaeva 2007b – A.S. Rusjaeva, Religious Interactions between Olbia and Scythia, in D. Braund, D. Kryzhitskiy
(eds.), Classical Olbia and the Scythian World. From the Sixth Century BC to the Second Century AD, Oxford,
2007, p. 93-102.
Rusjaeva, Rusjaeva 1997 – A.S. Rusjaeva, M.V. Rusjaeva, Simbolika ta hudožni osoblivosti monet Ol’vij pizn’oarhajčnogo
časiv, ArheologijaKiev 4, 1997, p. 29-38.
Rusjaeva, Vinogradov 1991 – A.S. Rusjaeva, J.G. Vinogradov, Der Brief des “Priesters” aus Hylaia, in R. Rolle,
M. Müller-Wille, K. Schietzel (eds.), Gold der Steppe. Archäologie der Ukraine, Schleswig, 1991, p. 201-202.
Seaford 2010 – R. Seaford, Zeus in Aeschylus: the Factor of Monetization, in J.N. Bremmer, A. Erskine (eds.), The
Gods of Ancient Greece. Identities and Transformations, Edinburgh, 2010, p. 178-192.
Sokolowski 1955 – F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure, Paris, 1955.
Sourvinou-Inwood 2005 – C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Hylas, the Nymphs, Dionysos and Others. Myth, Ritual, Ethnicity,
Stockholm, 2005.
Stolba 2005 – V. Stolba, Fish and Money: Numismatic Evidence for Black Sea Fishing, in T. Bekker-Nielsen (ed.),
Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region, Aarhus, 2005, p. 115-132.
Stolba 2015 – V. Stolba, ‘Archers’ of the Blessed City: City’s Deliverance in the Coinage of Early‑Hellenistic Olbia,
Notae Numismaticae 10, 2015, p. 43–58.
Stolba 2019 – V. Stolba, Images with Meaning: Early Hellenistic Coin Typology of Olbia Pontike, in V. Cojocaru, L.
Ruscu, Th. Castelli, A.-I. Pázsint (eds.), Advances in Ancient Black Sea Studies: Historiography, Archaeology
and Religion, Cluj-Napoca, 2019, p. 523-541.
Swift 2019 – L. Swift, Archilochus. The Poems. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford, 2019.
Talmațchi 2011 – G. Talmațchi, Monetăriile orașelor vest‑pontice Histria, Callatis și Tomis în epocă autonomă:
iconografie, legendă, metrologie, cronologie și contramarcare, Cluj-Napoca, 2011.
Thalmann 2011 – W. Thalmann, Apollonius of Rhodes and the Spaces of Hellenism, Oxford, 2011.
Topalov 1993 – S. Topalov, Formes prémonétaires de moyens d’échange. Les flèches‑monnaies coulées d’Apollonie
du Pont VII‑Ve s. av. n.e., Sofia, 1993.
Vinogradov 1997 – J.G. Vinogradov, Pontische Studien. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte und Epigraphik des
Schwarzmeerraumes, Mainz/Rhein, 1997.
Vinogradov, Kryžickij 1995 – J.G. Vinogradov, S.D. Kryžickij, Olbia. Eine altgriechische Stadt im nordwestlichen
Schwarzmeerraum, Leiden, 1995.
Vonderstein 2006 – M. Vonderstein, Der Zeuskult bei den Westgriechen, Wiesbaden, 2006.
Weiss 1984 – C. Weiss, Griechische Flussgottheiten in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Ikonographie und Bedeutung, Würzburg,
1984.
Wickersham 1991 – J.M. Wickersham, Myth and Identity in the Archaic Polis, in D.C. Pozzi, J.M. Wickersham (eds.),
Myth and the Polis, London, 1991, p. 16-31.
Zograf 1982 – A.N. Zograf, Luk i strel’ba iz nego na monetah Severnogo Pričernomor’ja, in Numizmatica antičnogo
Pričernomor’ja, Kiev, 1982, p. 5-14.
Zusanek 1994 – H. Zusanek, Rhodos und Helios. Mythos, Topos und Kultentwicklung, Frankfurt/Main, 1994.
ABRÉVIATIONS
AA – Archäologischer Anzeiger. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin

ABSA – Annual of the British School at Athens, Athens
ActaArchCarp – Acta Archaeologica Carpathica. Polish Academy of Sciences – Cracow Branch, Kraków
ActaMN – Acta Musei Napocensis. Muzeul Național de Istorie a Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca
ActaMP – Acta Musei Porolissensis. Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă, Zalău
ActaTS – Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis. Institutul pentru Cercetarea Patrimoniului Cultural Transilvănean
în Context European, Sibiu
AÉ – L’Année épigraphique, Paris
AEM – Archäologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn, Wien
AIG – Anuarul Institutului Geologic
AIGG – Anuarul Institutului de Geologie şi Geofizică
AJA – American Journal of Archaeology. The Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America
AM – Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung, Athen
American Antiquity – American Antiquity. Society for American Archaeology, Washington
Anatolian Studies – Anatolian Studies. British Institute at Ankara, Ankara
Anatolica – Anatolica. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden
AnB (S.N.) – Analele Banatului (Serie Nouă), Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara
Antiquity – Antiquity. A Review of World Archaeology, Durham University, Durham
AnUBucureşti – Analele Universităţii Bucureşti, Bucureşti
AO – Arhivele Olteniei. Institutul de Cercetări Socio-Umane „C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor”, Craiova
Apulum – Acta Musei Apulensis. Muzeul Naţional al Unirii, Alba Iulia
ArhMold – Arheologia Moldovei. Academia Română, Institutul de Arheologie, Iaşi
ArheologijaKiev – Arheologija. Nacional’na Akademija Nauk Ukrajni, Institut Arheologij NAN Ukrajni, Kijv
ArheologijaSSSR – Arheologija SSSR: Svod arheologičeskih istočnikov. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut
arheologii, Moskva
ArchÉrt – Archeológiai Értesítő. A Magyar Régészeti és Művészettörténeti Társulat Tudományos Folyóirata,
Budapest
Argesis – Argesis. Muzeul Judeţean Argeş, Piteşti
BABesch – Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kennis van de Antieke Beschaving.
Archaeologisch Instituut, Leiden
Balcanica – Balcanica. Annuaire de l’Institut des Études Balkaniques, Bucarest
Banatica – Banatica. Muzeul Banatului Montan, Reşiţa
BASOR – Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, The University of Chicago Press
BayVgBl – Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter. Kommission für bayerische Landesgeschichte bei der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Verbindung mit dem Bayerischen Landesamt für
Denkmalpflege und der Archäologische Staatssammlung, München
BiblThrac – Bibliotheca Thracologica, București
BICS – Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Oxford University Press
BIFAO – Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo
BMC Peloponnesus – P. Gardner, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Catalogue of the
Greek coins: Peloponnesus, Bologna, 1981
BMSAES – The British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan. Department of Egypt and Sudan,
British Museum, London
BSNR – Buletinul Societăţii Numismatice Române, Bucureşti
Bucureşti.MIM – Bucureşti. Materiale de Istorie şi Muzeografie. Muzeul Municipiului București
Buridava – Buridava. Studii și materiale. Muzeul Judeţean „Aurelian Sacerdoțeanu” Vâlcea, Râmnicu Vâlcea
Caiete ARA – Caiete ARA. Arhitectură, Restaurare, Arheologie. Asociaţia ARA, Bucureşti
CCA, campania ….. – Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România
CCDJ – Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos. Muzeul Dunării de Jos, Călăraşi
DACIA N.S., tome LXIV, Bucarest, 2020, p. 327-330

328 Abréviations 2
CDLI – Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (https://cdli.ucla.edu/), 2020

CH – Coin Hoards, London
Chiron – Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, München
ClQ – The Classical Quarterly. The Classical Association, Cambridge University Press
CN – Cercetări Numismatice. Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucureşti
CNA – Cronica Numismatică și Arheologică. Foaie de informații a Societății Numismatice Române, București
CNI 1915 – Corpus Nummorum Italicorum, vol. VII. Veneto (Venezia, Parte I - dalle origini a Marino
Grimani), Roma, 1915
ComArchHung – Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest
Dacia – Dacia. Fouilles et recherches archéologiques en Roumanie, Bucureşti
Dacia N.S. – Dacia (Nouvelle Série). Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Académie Roumaine.
Institut d’Archéologie « Vasile Pârvan », Bucureşti
DHA – Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne. Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon
Drobeta – Drobeta. Muzeul Regiunii Porților de Fier, Drobeta-Turnu Severin
D.S. Inst. Geol. – Dări de Seamă ale Şedinţelor Institutului Geologic
D.S. Com. Geol. – Dări de Seamă ale Şedinţelor Comitetului Geologic
D.S. Com. St. Geol. – Dări de Seamă ale Şedinţelor Comitetului de Stat al Geologiei
EJA – European Journal of Archaeology. European Association of Archaeologists, Cambridge University Press
EphemDac – Ephemeris Dacoromana. Annuario della Scuola Romena di Roma
EpigrAnat – Epigraphica Anatolica. Zeitschrift für Epigraphik und historische Geographie Anatoliens, Bonn
EVO – Egitto e Vicino Oriente. Rivista della sezione di Egittologia e Scienze Storiche del Vicino Oriente,
Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere dell’ Università degli studi di Pisa
Gallia – Gallia. Archéologie de la France Antique. CNRS Éditions
Greece & Rome – Greece & Rome. The Classical Association, Cambridge University Press
Hermes – Hermes. Zeitschrift für Klassische Philologie, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart
Hesperia – Hesperia. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
IAph2007 – J. Reynolds, C. Roueché, G. Bodard, Inscriptions of Aphrodisias, 2007
IG IV², 1 – F.H. von Gaertringen, Inscriptiones Graecae, IV. Inscriptiones Argolidis, 2nd ed., fasc. 1,
Inscriptiones Epidauri, Berlin, 1929
IG IX, 2 – O. Kern, Inscriptiones Graecae, IX, 2. Inscriptiones Thessaliae, Berlin, 1908
IK Iznik – S. Şahin, Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia) / İznik Müzesi Antik
Yazıtlar Kataloğu (deutsch – türkisch), part 1, nos. 1‑633 (Stadtgebiet und die nächste Umgebung der
Stadt / Şehir ve Yakın Çevresi), Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 9, Bonn, 1979
IK Strat. III – M.Ç. Şahin, The Inscriptions of Stratonikeia, Part III, Inschriften griechischer Städte in
Kleinasien 68, Bonn, 2010
Il Mar Nero – Il Mar Nero. Annali di archeologia e storia, Roma
IOSPE I² – V.V. Latyshev, Inscriptiones Tyrae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae, aliorum locorum a Danubio
usque ad regnum Bosporanum, 2nd ed., Sankt Petersburg, 1916
ISIMU – Isimu. Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la Antigüedad, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Centro Superior de Estudios de Oriente Próximo y Egipto, Madrid
ISM I – D.M. Pippidi, Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae, I. Inscriptiones Histriae et viciniae,
București, 1983
ISM III – A. Avram, Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae, III. Callatis et territorium, București,
1999
Istros – Istros. Muzeul Brăilei „Carol I”, Brăila
IstMitt – Istanbuler Mitteilungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Istanbul
IzvestijaSofia – Izvestija na Nacionalnija arheologičeski Institut, Sofia
JARCE – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Lockwood Press
JAS – Journal of Archaeological Science, Elsevier
JAMT – Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Springer Science + Business Media, New York
JAR – Journal of Anthropological Research
JAS – Journal of Archaeological Sciences, London – New York
JDAI – Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin
3 Abréviations 329
JBL – Journal of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature, SBL Press

JHS – The Journal of Hellenic Studies. Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, Cambridge University
Press
JNES – Journal of Near Eastern Studies. The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago
JNG – Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte. Bayerischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft, München
JÖAI – Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, Wien
JRGZM – Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, Mainz
JRS – Journal of Roman Studies, London
KölnJb – Kölner Jahrbuch. Römisch-Germanisches Museum Köln, Archäologischen Gesellschaft, Köln
KSIAMoskva – Kratkie soobščenija Instituta arheologii, Moskva
LÄ 1984 – W. Helck, E. Otto (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, vol. V, Wiesbaden, 1984
LexMyth – W.H. Roscher (ed.), Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie, Leipzig,
1886-1937
LGPN IV – P.M. Fraser, E. Matthews (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. IV. Macedonia, Thrace,
Northern Regions of the Black Sea, Oxford, 2005
LIMC – Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, Zürich, 1981-1999
Litua – Litua. Studii şi cercetări. Muzeul Județean Gorj „Alexandru Ștefulescu”, Târgu Jiu
LSJ – H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones (eds.), A Greek‑English Lexicon, Oxford, Clarendon Press (9th
edition), 1940
MCA – Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice. Academia Română, Institutul de Arheologie „Vasile Pârvan”,
București
MEFRA – Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Antiquité, Roma
MFMÉ-SA – A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica. Móra Ferenc Múzeum, Szeged
Mousaios – Mousaios. Buletin Ştiinţific al Muzeului Judeţean Buzău
NABU – Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. Société pour l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien
NC – The Numismatic Chronicle. Royal Numismatic Society, London
OJA – Oxford Journal of Archaeology. School of Archaeology, University of Oxford
Olba – Olba. Research Center of Cilician Archaeology, Mersin University
Oltenia – Oltenia. Studii şi comunicări. Arheologie-Istorie, Muzeul Olteniei, Craiova
OMRO – Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden
Opuscula archaeologica – Opuscula archaeologica. Arheološki zavod Filozofskog fakulteta u Zagrebu, Zagreb
Paléo – Paléo. Revue d’Archéologie Préhistorique, Les Eyzies, France
PAS – Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa. Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Berlin
PBF – Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Seminar für Vor-
und Frühgeschichte der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Abteilung für Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche
Archäologie des Historischen Seminars der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, Münster
Peuce – Peuce. Studii și note de istorie veche și arheologie. Muzeul Delta Dunării / Institutul de Cercetări
Eco-Muzeale, Tulcea
Peuce S.N. – Peuce, serie nouă. Studii şi cercetări de istorie şi arheologie. Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale
„Gavrilă Simion”, Tulcea
Pontica – Pontica. Muzeul de Istorie Naţională şi Arheologie, Constanţa
Praehistoria – International Prehistory Journal of the University of Miskolc, Budapest
Quartär – Quartär. International Yearbook for Ice Age and Stone Age Research
RAN – Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise, Montpellier
RCAN – Revista de cercetări arheologice și numismatice, Muzeul Municipiului București
RCRFActa – Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta
RE – Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1893-
REA – Revue des Études Anciennes. Maison de l’Archéologie, Université Bordeaux Montaigne, Pessac
REG – Revue des Études Grecques. L’associations pour l’Encouragement des Études grecques en France,
Paris
RÉSEE – Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes. Academia Română, Institutul de Studii Sud-Est Europeene,
Bucureşti
Revista Arheologică – Revista Arheologică. Academia de Științe a Moldovei, Institutul Patrimoniului Cultural,
Chișinău
330 Abréviations 4
RM – Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Römische Abteilung, Rom

RMM-MIA – Revista muzeelor şi monumentelor - Monumente istorice şi de artă, Bucureşti
RRH – Revue roumaine d’histoire. Academia Română, Bucureşti
SA – Sovetskaja Arheologija. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut arheologii, Moskva
SAA – Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica. Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iaşi
Saeculum – Saeculum. Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte. Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen
SAI – Studii şi Articole de Istorie. Societatea de Științe Istorice din România, Bucureşti
Sargetia – Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis. Muzeul Civilizației Dacice şi Romane, Deva
SCIV(A) – Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie). Academia Română, Institutul de Arheologie
„Vasile Pârvan”, Bucureşti
SCN – Studii şi Cercetări de Numismatică. Academia Română, Institutul de Arheologie „Vasile Pârvan”,
Bucureşti
SNG III – E.S.G. Robinson, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, vol. III. The Lockett Collection, London,
1938-1949
SNG IX.1 – M.J. Price, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Great Britain, vol. IX. British Museum, Part 1. The
Black Sea, London, 1993
SNG XI – W. Stancomb, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Great Britain, vol. XI. The William Stancomb
Collection of Coins of the Black Sea Region, Oxford, 2000
SP – Studii de Preistorie, Asociația Română de Arheologie, Bucureşti
StCl – Studii Clasice, Societatea de Studii Clasice din România, Bucureşti
StComSatuMare – Satu Mare. Studii şi Comunicări. Muzeul Judeţean Satu Mare, Satu Mare
Stratum plus – Stratum plus. Arheologija i kulturnaja antropologija. Vysšaja Antropologičeskaja Škola, St.
Peterburg-Chișinău-Odessa-București
Suceava – Suceava. Anuarul Muzeului Național al Bucovinei, Suceava
ThesCRA III – Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, vol. III. Divination. Prayer. Veneration. Hikesia.
Asylia. Malediction. Profanation. Magic Rituals, and Addendum to Vol. II. Consecration, Los Angeles,
2005
Thraco-Dacica – Thraco-Dacica. Academia Română, Institutul de Arheologie „Vasile Pârvan”, Bucureşti
Transylvanian Review – Transylvanian Review. Centrul de Studii Transilvane, Cluj-Napoca
TÜBA-AR – Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi, Ankara
TYCHE – TYCHE. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Wien
Tyragetia – Tyragetia. Anuarul Muzeului Naţional de Istorie a Moldovei, Chişinău
Tyragetia International – Tyragetia International. Serie a Muzeului Naţional de Istorie a Moldovei, Chişinău
UPA – Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn
VAHD – Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku. Arheološki muzej Split
VDI – Vestnik Drevnej Istorii. Otdelenie istoriko-filologičeskih nauk Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk, Moskva
WVDOG – Wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Deutsche Orient-
Gesellschaft, 1900-1941, 1957-
Zargidava – Zargidava. Revistă de Istorie. Societatea de Științe Istorice din România – filiala Bacău, Fundația
Cultural-Științifică „Iulian Antonescu”, Bacău
ZfE – Zeitschrift für Ethnologie
ZPE – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bonn

The Eagle On Dolphin On The Coins of Olb

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Eagle On Dolphin On The Coins of Olb

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DACIA

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

Rédacteur en chef adjoint :

Secrétaire de rédaction : RALUCA KOGĂLNICEANU

Rédaction éditoriale : VIRGINIA PETRICĂ, ANA BOROȘ

Toute commande sera adressée à :

Toute correspondance concernant les périodiques proposés en échange

ALEXANDRU AVRAM, RENATA-GABRIELA TATOMIR, Un exemplaire de l’« inscription standard » du roi

ABRÉVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 327

* “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Bucharest; e-mail: florina12@gmail.com.

DACIA N.S., tome LXIV, Bucarest, 2020, p. 143-162

1982, p. 80-92, fig. 1.1-8.

prosperity; also, Chiekova 2008, p. 38; D’Arrigo 2012, p. 442.

Olbia see Rusjaeva 1992, p. 41-46.

ein Wegtragen der Beute”.

2017, p. 143, n. 1570.

THE EAGLE ON THE COINS OF OLYMPIA AND ACRAGAS

EAGLE ON DOLPHIN: THE GOOD OMEN OF A SUCCESSFUL COLONIAL ENTERPRISE

see Rusjaeva 1992, p. 41-46.

FOUNDATION MYTHS, LOCAL IDENTITY AND THE CHOICE OF COIN MOTIFS

the obverse, Ritter 2002, p. 155-156, 167.

1995, p. 93, fig. 85.6.

AA – Archäologischer Anzeiger. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin

DACIA N.S., tome LXIV, Bucarest, 2020, p. 327-330

CDLI – Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (https://cdli.ucla.edu/), 2020

JBL – Journal of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature, SBL Press

RM – Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Römische Abteilung, Rom

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi