In order to understand the issue of the need to draw up a document, ...
This country has no sights, with the exception of perhaps very large numerous rivers.
Herodotus
When describing Scythia, Herodotus mentions 17 large and small rivers, which served him as a guideline in describing the peoples of Scythia and the events of 512. The rivers replaced our traveler with the degree network of later geographers. Major rivers of Eastern Europe(Danube, Dniester, Dnieper, Don), in all likelihood, were known to Herodotus even before the trip, but he clarified information about them, he searched for the location of their sources, described tributaries and reported on many small rivers that, for one reason or another, interested him . The general list of rivers is as follows:
Istres (Danube) - §§ 48-50, 89, 99-101, 122, 128, 135, 139.
Tiarant (Seret), a tributary of the Danube, - § 48.
Arar, a tributary of the Danube, - § 48.
Naparis, a tributary of the Danube, - § 48.
Ordess (Ardyich), a tributary of the Danube, - § 48.
Porata Piret (Prut) - § 48.
Tyra (Dniester) - §§ 51, 82.
Gipanis (Southern Bug) - §§ 52, 81.
Exampai, a tributary of the Hypanis, - § 52, 82.
Borisfen (Dnepr) - §§ 53, 71.
Panticapa - §§ 54, 19.
Hypakyris - § 55.
Gerros - § 56.
Tanais - §§ 57, 100, 122, 123.
Girgis - §§ 57, 100, 123.
Oar - §§ 123, 124.
Lik - § 123.
Some of these rivers are easily compared with modern ones, and we, according to a long tradition, identify Tiras with the Dniester, Gipanis with the Southern Bug, Borisfen with the Dnieper, and Tanais with the Don. A very significant reservation should be made here: on the basis of the data we have, we have the right to speak only about the lower reaches of these rivers and about their mouths, deltas and channels. The sources of these rivers were not known to the ancient authors, which they repeatedly wrote about, and we cannot always be sure that the entire contour of the river is perceived by us now as it was perceived 2000-2500 years ago. I will give as an example the eastern name of the Volga - Itil. It would be a big negligence to completely identify these two names: the ancient Itil began south of Ufa (the Belaya, Belaya Volozhka rivers), then continued as a segment of the modern Kama from the confluence of the Belaya River into it and to the confluence of the Kama into the Volga, and only after that the lower reaches of the river. Itil coincided with the modern Volga from the Kama mouth to the sea. The entire Upper Volga from its sources to Kazan was considered as a right tributary of the river. Itil.
Disputes about the course of the Tanais-Don were going on even in the time of Strabo: “The writers who claimed that the Tanais originates in the regions of Istra and flows from the west do not deserve to be mentioned ... The assertion that the Tanais flows through the Caucasus to the north will be just as unconvincing. Nobody said that the Tanais flows from the east.
Rejecting the three directions of the Tanais flow, the famous geographer left only one: from north to south. Strabo wrote based on the materials of the time when the Sarmatian invasion cut off the flow of rivers from the coastal edge inhabited by the Greeks. But already a century and a half later, Ptolemy could give accurate geographical coordinates Tanais:
Translating Ptolemy's data onto a modern geographical map, we are surprised to learn that the author indicated to us the coordinates not of the Don in our understanding, but of the Seversky Donets plus the lower segment of the Don leading to the sea. The meridian of the origins of Tanais is the meridian of Panticapaeum; north coast It crosses the Sea of Azov somewhat to the west of modern Berdyansk. The sources of the Seversky Donets near Belgorod absolutely exactly correspond to the meridian of Kerch - Panticapaeum, which coincides with the coordinates of Ptolemy. The sources of the Don, in our understanding, are 160-170 km to the east.
The distance from the sources of the Tanais to the coast of Meotida according to Ptolemy is 484 km (5 ° 15 ′), and on the modern map from the sources of the Donets to the sea along the same meridian - 470 km. If we take the Don in the modern sense, then this distance (along the meridian 2 ° east) will be equal to 780 km. Consequently, according to the coordinates of Ptolemy, Tanais in his time was called not the Don, but the Seversky Donets, brought along the lower reaches of our Don to the sea. Of course, Ptolemaic calculations, even with such a double coincidence, cannot be fully trusted, but the medieval tradition reinforces the conclusion: in Kievan Rus, the Seversky Donets continued to be called the “Great Don”. Only in the XIV century. a modern understanding of the Don was established, and "Pimen's Walking to Constantinople" in 1389 gives us a geographical description of the Don, and not the Donets.
It is assumed that Borisfen did not fully correspond to our modern Dnieper, and that the ancients considered the r. Berezina. If this opinion is true, it should be considered that the ancient name of Borisfen has survived to this day: in its upper reaches (Berezina) and in the sea near its mouth - the island of Berezan.
The examples given are enough to treat with great caution the complete identification of ancient rivers with modern ones.
Another common issue related to rivers is the measurement of their "days of sailing". Unlike sea and land movements, where Herodotus argued his calculations in detail, here he did not say anything directly about the measurement of the day. river route. But, judging by two examples (Gypanis and Boristhenes), the counting of the days of navigation was carried out from top to bottom, along the course of the river, which is natural for the coastal Greeks, to whom the barbarians floated their goods down their rivers. For Herodotus, the day of sailing was a kind of average value, which he did not consider it necessary to specifically stipulate. Probably, his information about the number of days of sailing was simply a fixation of the actual time required to cover a particular distance.
Herodotus uses the "day of sailing" four times as an understandable and well-known measure. In three cases (§§ 18, 52, 53) his data require special consideration, and only in one paragraph (89) can we directly transfer them to a modern map. We are talking about a bridge across the Danube, built by the Greek Mandrocles for the Persian army in 512. The bridge was built at the "neck of the river, where it divides into branches." This place was separated from the sea for two days of sailing. In this detailed story there is a geographical certainty: the "neck" of Istra is the Danube above Tulcha, and the sleeve along which the Greek fleet, subordinate to the Persians, sailed, is obviously the main shipping arm of the Danube delta - Sulina. "Neck of Istra" is 70-75 km from the sea; therefore, one day of sailing = 36 km.
The resulting value, of course, is conditional, because we do not know the exact place where the bridge was built, and, in addition, it should be taken into account that the Greek fleet did not go down the river, but went up. No matter how slowly the course of the marshy Danube arms, but it could affect the speed of movement. At the same time, one should take into account the greater speed of the Greek ships compared to the rafts and shuttles of the barbarians. Most importantly, Herodotus does not say that the fleet sailed for two days on the river, but that the place where the bridge was built is “two days’ sailing” from the sea, using this as a definition of distance, not time (§ 89) .
Consider all 17 rivers of Herodotus in the order in which he himself placed them.
ISTR AND ITS LEFT TRIVITIES IN THE LOWER REACHES
The Danube (Istres), the largest European river, well known to the Greeks, serves Herodotus as a starting point for the Scythian spaces. “Having passed through all of Europe, Istres finally enters the borders of Scythia” (§ 49). "This is the first river in the Scythian land in the west" (§ 48). Herodotus knows about the division of Istra into branches at the mouth and even reports that the beginning of the Danube arms is two days away from the sea (§ 89). The right, southern bank of the Danube is inhabited by the Getae (§ 93). In the lower reaches, five rivers flow into the Istres on the left, "flowing through Scythia." Herodotus, departing from his usual system, names these rivers not from west to east, but, on the contrary, from east to west, from the sea deep into the mainland.
The first river in such a list was called Porata by the Scythians, and Piret by the Hellenes. This is, of course, the Prut. The second major river is Tiarant, obviously the Seret, as many scientists think. Between them (but it is not known in what order) three rivers are listed: Arar, Naparis and Ordess (§ 48). Of these, only Ordess-Ardyich is determined; the remaining two rivers are not found even on large-scale maps, where no rivers are indicated at all in the space between the mouths of the Seret and Prut.
It is important to note that Herodotus knew them.
Herodotus called all the five listed rivers the Scythian tributaries of the Danube, although some ambiguity arises here: in the southwestern corner of the Scythian square, the Agatirs, “a tribe similar in lifestyle to the Thracians” (§ 104) and not included in the Scythian union during the invasion, should live Darius. The presence of a Scythian name near the Prut ("Porata") confirms the spread of the Scythians to this river.
A detailed enumeration of rivers and streams near the mouth of the Danube may indicate a personal visit by Herodotus to this historical place, from where Darius began his Scythian campaign and where he returned, driven by the Scythians.
TIRA
Herodotus speaks of Tyre very sparingly: the river "flows from the north and originates from a large lake, which serves as the border between Scythia and Neurida" (§ 51).
The notion that rivers flow from lakes is one of the patterns of ancient geography that survived into the 17th century, but in this case there is some reason to talk about the lake: in the upper reaches of the Dniester between the Sambir and the mouth of the Bystritsy tributary, in an area of about 50 km, there are extensive swamps that could be considered a lake. These swamps are located near the junction of the Scythian (Zapadnopodolskaya group) and non-Scythian (Late Vysotskaya, Milogradskaya) cultures. The Milograd culture is very convincingly associated with Neurida.
Obviously, ancient Tyra can be completely identified with our Dniester.
At the mouth of the Tira, in the area of present-day Belgorod, "the Hellenes who are called Tirites live" (§ 51).
Somewhere on the banks of Tyra, “they show the foot of Hercules in the rock, similar to the footprint of a man, but two cubits long” (§ 82). Indirectly, this paragraph indicates the possibility of Herodotus visiting the land of the Tirites and personal acquaintance with the first sight that he met on his way.
HYPANIS
In contrast to the brevity in the description of the Dniester, Herodotus speaks in detail about Gipanis, reports exact distances and mentions such details that leave no doubt about his stay on the banks of the river in its middle course.
Hypanis is first mentioned in § 17, which lists different nations living "along the Hypanis to the west of Borisfen": callipids (Helleno-Scythians), Alazons, Scythians-plowmen, neurons. "To the north of the neurons, as far as we know, lies the desert." The list of peoples (to which we will return later) testifies to Herodotus' good knowledge of this river.
At the first acquaintance with the Herodotus text, there is bewilderment about the fact that the researchers, without any reservations, identified Gipanis with the contemporary Southern Bug.
Herodotus measured the entire course of the Hypanis from its very source from the lake to the estuary. It turned out to be equal to only nine days of navigation (§ 52), i.e., according to our calculations, about 324 km. The course of the Southern Bug from the sources (where there is no lake) to Nikolaev, where the salty estuary already begins, is almost 600 km. The discrepancy is so great that it requires first of all checking our standard of sailing day (about 36 km), obtained on the example of the Danube arm.
The exact distance, calculated in sailing days, is indicated by Herodotus for the Dnieper from its sources to the rapids: “It is known that Borysfen flows from the north to Gerr for 40 days of travel.” (§ 53). At the present time, it no longer makes sense to argue about the location of the "locality of Herr"; these are the Dnieper floodplains below the rapids with a large number of channels-girls and some space to the east and west of this bend of Borisfen, where the royal barrows of the Scythians were concentrated.
If we divide the entire course of the Dnieper-Borisfen from sources to rapids (neglecting small bends) into 40 parts, we will get a value of 32.5 km, which is very close to the Danube calculations and further enhances the contrast between the length of Hypanis of nine days of sailing and the actual the length (again, without small convolutions) of the Southern Bug, which in this case will be expressed in 18 days of navigation. Let's turn to full text§ 52:
“The third river that begins in the Scythian land, the Gipanis, also flows out of a large lake, around which wild white horses find pastures, and this lake is rightly called the mother of Gipanis.
After leaving this lake, the river Gipanis is shallow and has sweet water for 5 days of swimming. Starting from this point to the sea for 4 days of sailing, the water in Gipanis is extremely bitter from the bitter stream that flows into it. This source is so bitter that, for all its insignificance, it makes bitter the Hypanis, a river with which only a few can compare in length.
This stream flows on the border of the Scythian plowmen and Alazons. The name of the stream, as well as the area from which it flows, is Exampai in Scythian, and Sacred Ways in Greek.
Tyra and Hypanis approach their bends near the land of the Alazons; further on, both rivers make new turns and the space separating them becomes wider and wider.
An important addition contains § 81, where Herodotus conveys the legend of King Ariant, who once wished to determine the number of Scythian warriors: he ordered each Scythian to give him one arrowhead, and a giant memorial cauldron containing 600 amphorae was built from the many copper tips brought. Arianta's cauldron was placed in the Sacred Ways and Herodotus examined it:
“This is what they showed me with my own eyes: between the rivers Borisfen and Hypanis there is an area called Exampai ... In this area there is a copper vessel, 6 times larger than the bowl that is located at the entrance to Pontus on the Thracian Bosporus. For those who have not seen it, I will tell you the following: a copper vessel among the Scythians contains 600 amphorae, and its thickness is 6 fingers ”(§ 81).
The turning point of the Hypanis, dividing its current into fresh and bitter, is usually indicated at the mouth of the river. Sinyukha, which flows into the Southern Bug on the left, from Borisfen. And indeed, if we measure the section of the Southern Bug from Nikolaev to Pervomaisk (former Olviopol), we will get 150 km for four days of sailing. One day of sailing will equal 37 km, which is very close to our Danube calculations. But then the upper "sweet" course of Gipanis - 450 km should be determined not by five days of sailing, but by 12 days of 37 km each day. We again face a sharp contradiction between Herodotus' information about Gipanis and our information about the Southern Bug. Either Herodotus was very mistaken, or he called Gipanis a different combination of rivers than the one that we now call the Southern Bug. The stay of Herodotus on Exampai, somewhere near the mouth of Sinyukha, where he examined and measured the cauldron of King Ariant, is beyond doubt. Therefore, so blunder Herodotus is unlikely. Let's try to find the true Hypanis, based on the data of Herodotus: the upper course of the desired river should be about 180 km long, and this river should flow out of the lake.
The task is solved very simply. Such a river is Sinyukha itself and one of its sources is Gorny Tikich, flowing from several lakes. Sinyukha does not have its own source, but is formed from the confluence in one place of three rivers at once: Rotten Tikich, Gorny Tikich and Bolshaya Visi; any of them can be mistaken for the upper Sinyukha. Taking into account the indication of Herodotus that the water in the upper reaches of the Gipanis should be sweet, Rotten Tikich should be discarded and stopped at Gorny Tikich, flowing from a whole system of lakes. The total length of Gorny Tikich and Sinyukha is about 170 km (excluding small meanders), which almost coincides with the specified value of five days of sailing. On the map, Sinyukha (Sinitsa) is shown as a river much more powerful than the Southern Bug above its mouth. Judging by the cartographic data reflecting the actual width and fullness of the rivers, it is not Sinyukha that is a tributary of the Bug, but the Southern Bug, despite its great length, flows into the more full-flowing Sinyukha-Tikich.
So, Gipanis, a river in nine days of sailing, was found: it is Gorny Tikich flowing from the lakes, then Sinyukha, approaching at its modern mouth with the Tira-Dniester, and then, as the lower segment of the modern Southern Bug, flowing four more “days of sailing” until the general estuary of Gipanis and Borisfen.
This new understanding of the Herodotus Gipanis shifts the river in its upper reaches by about 100 km to the east, dividing the space between the modern Bug and the Dnieper in half. From the headwaters of the Hypanis to Borisfen - three days of overland movement.
Let us check two features associated by Herodotus with Gipanis: the placement of Scythian plowmen and the presence of wild horses at its sources.
In the upper half of the Gipanis, where the Scythians-plowmen live behind the Alazons, there must be a lot of Greek imported things, because. Herodotus specifically stipulates that they "sow bread for sale." If we take Hypanis in the old sense, i.e. like the entire Southern Bug, then the East Podolsk archaeological group should have corresponded to the Scythian plowmen. However, ancient imports to the Bug region are very insignificant. If we consider the combination of Tikich, Sinyukha and the lower reaches of the Bug that I proposed as Gipanis, then everything falls into place: the upper reaches of Gipanis flow through the most populated, richest areas of the agricultural Scythians (the Kiev archaeological group), and it is here that a colossal amount of imported Greek things is concentrated VI - 5th centuries BC. The second sign of the upper Gipanis is the presence of wild white horses there. The upper reaches of the Tikichi reach a narrow strip of meadow steppes running from west to east from Volhynia to the Ros basin. The Rosi basin and the Tikichi basin are in close contact, and it is for the Rosi region that we have precious evidence of the presence of wild horses there until the Middle Ages. Such evidence is the "Instruction" of Vladimir Monomakh:
“And behold, in Chernigov I worked: the horse of the wild with its hands tied me in the forests of 10 and 20 living horses. And besides, while riding along the Ros, I had the same wild horses with my hands.
So, Hypanis in the form I have proposed meets the following points in the description of Herodotus:
1. The length of the river is equal to 9 days of sailing.
2. The river flows out of the lake (Lake Tikich).
3. At a distance of five days sailing from the source, the river bends, approaching Tyra.
4. In the upper reaches of the river live rich farmers who widely trade with the Hellenes.
5. Near the lake and the source of the river there is a strip of pastures where wild horses lived until the Middle Ages.
All these approaches could be made only because Herodotus described in great detail and accurately the river that led him into Agricultural Scythia. We have no reason to doubt that Herodotus visited the Exampae, a tributary of the Gipanis, and "with his own eyes" saw the Arianta cauldron there - the detailed description of the Hypanis, its course, nature at its sources and the tribes along its banks eliminates all doubts.
If we want to tentatively, as a first approximation, determine the highest point of Herodotus' journey along Hypanis, then we should pay attention to the following words:
"These Scythian farmers occupy the space to the east for three days' journey." (§ 18).
East" of what? Where was his starting point?
The agricultural Scythian tribes exporting bread have already been discussed in the previous paragraph; there they were defined as "a people living along the Hypanis River west of Borysthenes". It is possible that the Dnieper was the eastern border of this Agricultural Scythia. Then the starting point should be about 100 km (three days' journey) west of the Dnieper. A line drawn parallel to the Dnieper, 100 km west of it, coincides for 50 km with the course of Gorny Tikich, which we took to be the upper reaches of the Herodotus Gipanis. These are preliminary considerations.
EXAMPAY
The insignificant river Exampai should be looked for at the place where Gipanis converges with Tyra (five days of sailing along Gipanis from the source), i.e. near the mouth of the Sinyukha, on the left, eastern bank of the Gipanis. This river is such that its waters poisoned good water upper Hypanis and made it bitter.
The left tributaries of the Sinyukha and the Southern Bug do indeed contain either phosphate or cuprous impurities, which worsen the drinking quality of water. The names of the tributaries are also interesting: Rotten Elanets, Mertvovod, Cherny Tashlyk. Geographically, the Black Tashlyk River, which flows into Sinyukha "from the side of Borysfen", 10-12 km from modern Pervomaisk, is closest to the mouth of Sinyukha. Its length is about 80 km. Herodotus gives a translation of the Scythian name of the river - Sacred Ways. It was here that the land of the Scythian plowmen ended and their trade caravans from Exampai went to the foreign land of the Alazons. The border position, probably, determined the presence here of some kind of sanctuary associated with the ways.
BORISFEN (DNEPR)
Borisfen in Herodotus is the core river of Scythia: from it, as from the meridian, the location of the peoples is noted, genealogical legends are associated with it (Zeus is the “son-in-law” of Borisfen), some of its tributaries are indicated (Herr, Pantikapa), the location of the royal mounds of the Scythians is marked by the Dnieper rapids . The mouth of Borisfen divides exactly in half the seaside side of the Scythian square:
"So from Istra to Borisfen 10 days of travel and the same from Borisfen to Meotida."
Borisfen, according to Herodotus, is the third largest river in the world after the Nile and the Danube, and the second after the Nile in terms of usefulness. Herodotus enthusiastically describes the Dnieper region:
“Of other rivers, the Borisfen is the most profitable: it delivers the most beautiful and luxurious pastures for livestock, the most excellent fish in great abundance.
Its water tastes very pleasant, clean, while the rivers next to it have muddy water. Along it stretch excellent arable fields or very tall grass grows in those places where grain is not sown.
At the mouth of the river, salt is collected by itself in huge quantities. In Borisfen there are huge fish without a spinal column, called antakayas and going for salting and many other things worthy of attention ”(§ 53).
Herodotus' description of the Dnieper does not contain scientific mysteries and is easily compared with the contemporary geographical map. The course of the river is divided into two parts:
"It is known that the Borisfen flows from the north to Gerr for 40 days of travel." (§ 53).
"... the river Gerr separates (splits off) from Borisfen in the place to which this last river is known" (§ 56).
“The tombs of the kings are located in Gerra, to which Borisfen is navigable ...” (§ 71).
The Dnieper rapids were not named by Herodotus, but they are so clearly implied in the words about the boundary of the Dnieper navigation and are so firmly fixed by the double mention of the “Herr region” with its mounds well known to us, that Herodotus has accurate information about the rapids beyond doubt.
Herodotus, who lived in the era of the primary knowledge of the Old World, really wanted to collect information about the sources of all the most important rivers. He himself was satisfied only with his knowledge of the sources of the Danube (II, § 34; IV, §§ 48, 49). According to the reports of the Egyptians, he traced the course of the Nile for a four-month journey from Egypt, but he had to admit that “no one is able to say anything about the sources of the Nile for sure” (II, § 34). Concerning the origins of Borisfen, he wrote: “Not only I, but it seems that none of the Hellenes can determine the origins of only Borisfen da Nile” (§ 53). This phrase should be understood as the lack of information about the land from which the Dnieper (Valdai Upland) flows: "and through whose land it flows is unknown." However, Herodotus knew that the upper and middle reaches of the Dnieper to the rapids require 40 days of sailing.
If it is permissible to decide on the basis of these 40 days the question of the Berezina as a possible upper course of the Borysthenes, then it should be decided as if in the negative. With the Dnieper version, the day of navigation is 32-33 km (excluding small meanders), and with the Berezinsky version - 24 km. In the examples we traced, the sailing day was equal to: on the Danube - about 36 km, on Gipanis - about 35 km, the Dnieper value of the sailing day (of course, approximate, not verified by Herodotus) - 32-33 km. The Berezinsky version stands out too sharply and therefore raises doubts. However, given the approximate nature of Herodotus' information, relying on a distance of 40 days is dangerous. The Valdai Upland, from where the Dnieper flows, seemed to Herodotus to be a desert.
Somewhere on the Dnieper, in the space of 10 or 11 days of sailing (§§ 18, 53), Scythian farmers ("borisfenites") were stationed. It is not clear what caused the discrepancy in the number of days. According to the Dnieper account of sailing days, this will be 325 km (for 10 days) and 357 km (for 11 days), and according to the Hypanis one - 355 km (for 10 days) and 390 km (for 11 days of sailing).
The space, equal in size to the land of the Borysphenites, does not fit in the lower segment of the Dnieper, below the rapids, because from Zaporozhye to the estuary is only 270 km, which is fifty kilometers less than the minimum calculation and 120 km less than the maximum. In the upper segment of the Borysfen, above the “Herr region”, an equal space can cover the course of the Dnieper from Kyiv almost to the mouth of the Vorskla at a minimum account and beyond the Vorskla, almost to Aurélie, at a maximum.
All this should be taken into account by us when deciding the question of the distribution of the peoples of Eastern Europe according to the information collected by Herodotus.
PANTICAP
One of the main mysteries of Herodotus geography is the river. Panticapa, important as a landmark in determining the Agricultural Scythia and nomadic Scythians.
Disagreements about the location of Panticapa began in ancient times. Pliny entered into a dispute with certain geographers who asserted that "the Panticap below Olbia merges with Borysthenes," and declared that those who recognize the confluence of Borysthenes with Hypanis are more right. But Pliny himself forced Gipanis to flow into Lake Buk, i.e. in Sivash. The writer, obviously, confused Gipanis with Hypakiris, and he did not say at all where Panticapa should flow. Possessing many data, but poorly knowing the real geography of the Black Sea region, Pliny could not understand Herodotus, got confused in the "hylaea", came up with some kind of "Sea of \u200b\u200bHilea" and very roughly outlined the geography of the coast. Abraham Ortelius drew attention to this confusion on his map of 1590, where he brought together the data of Herodotus, Pliny and Strabo.
For a long time (from the beginning of the 19th century to 1970), the Panticapae were identified with the left tributary of the Dnieper - the Konka, based on the fact that Herodotus listed the rivers in strict order from west to east and even numbered them (§§ 51-57) :
First - Istres
Second - Tira
Third - Hypanis
Fourth - Borisfen
Fifth - Panticapa
Sixth - Hypakyris
Seventh - Herr
The eighth is Tanais, into which Girgis joins.
The confusing description of Hypakiris and Herres by Herodotus, which made it difficult to identify them with modern rivers, confused the researchers and allowed them to neglect the strictness of the Herodotus system and assume that the Panticapae is not the left, but the right western tributary of the Dnieper, and precisely the Ingulets. Pliny also played a role.
Confidence in this was sometimes so great that it led to comical naivety. Panticapa "erroneously placed by Herodotus to the east of the Dnieper, while in fact (?) it is the right tributary of the river," wrote M.I. Artamonov, without providing any evidence in favor of this hypothesis. Sometimes Samara or Orel, or even the “Black Valley” in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, was mistaken for Pantikapa - a hollow filled with spring waters.
It makes no sense to cite and analyze the numerous and contradictory opinions about the location of Panticapae. We should reconsider the issue, relying on Herodotus and allowing only one reservation: at the first stage of consideration, do not proceed from the fact that the forest mentioned in connection with Panticapa (“hylaea”) is identical to “the so-called hylaea, which is near Achilles Run” (§ 76), because this forest or forests is the second riddle of Herodotus; until we take it out of the brackets.
Let's start with Herodotus' text:
“Following them is a fifth river called Panticapa, which also flows from the north and also from the lake. The space between it and Borisfen is occupied by Scythian farmers. It enters the woodland (“hylaia”) and, having flowed through it, merges with Borisfen” (§ 54).
“To the east of the Scythian farmers, on the other side of the Panticapy River, there live Scythian nomads who do not sow anything and do not plow. All this country, with the exception of the hylae, is treeless. The nomads occupy the region to the east for 14 days of travel” (§ 19).
The Panticapa River must satisfy the following conditions:
1. Panticapa should be the left tributary of the Dnieper, flowing "from the north."
2. The river flows out of the lake.
3. It passes through the forest and then flows into Borisfen.
4. Panticapa is located 14 days from the extreme eastern limit of the nomadic Scythians.
5. The Panticapa River is the border between the agricultural forest-steppe and the steppe.
6. In the corner formed by Panticapae and Borysthenes, the Scythians-Borysphenites must live.
In order not to mislead the reader, I must say that in this difficult case (as in some others) I resort to the system of advanced "proofs" mentioned above. So, for example, the exact geographical location I have not yet proved the Scythians-Borisfenites, but I was already forced in the analysis of Gipanis to introduce this concept, so to speak, mutually.
In the search for the Pantikapa River, such “leading evidence” will be the identification of Tanais with the Seversky Donets (and not with the Don), the adoption of the word “Gilea” in a common sense and the placement of Borysphenites. Without such a system, the analysis of the geography of Herodotus will turn into an attempt to solve one equation with many unknowns.
Let's start the search for the location of Panticapa from the point of our conditions, in which there are exact digital indicators of distances, from point 4. The land of the Scythian nomads ended at Tanais; from here to Panticapa it was 14 days of travel, or 500 km. Taking the bend of the Seversky Donets as the eastern end of the land of nomads, we get the following results:
From Tanais to Konka - 9 days of travel
From Tanais to Samara - 11 days of travel
From Tanais to Ingulets - 17 days of travel
From Tanais to Vorskla - 14 days of travel
All previously proposed options (Ingulets, Konka, Samara) did not fit. A river was revealed, exactly 14 days away across the open steppe, which makes the calculation of days the most reliable.
Let's check Vorskla according to the points of our conditions.
1. Vorskla is the left tributary of the Dnieper and flows from the north.
2. In the upper reaches of the Vorskla, a 10-verst map shows a number of lakes near the villages: Pokrovskoye (the very source), Vorsklovaya, Tamarovka and big lake 2 km across near Khotmyzhsk. All of them are in the upper reaches of the river.
3. The mysterious forest - "hylaea", through which the Panticapa flows, is easily explained when looking at the map of the restored vegetation cover. The Vorskla flows from its source for about 30 km along the meadow steppe, and then, using the words of Herodotus, “it enters the forest (hylaia) and, having flowed through it, merges with Borisfen.” This forest - huge, partially surviving and still oak forests - goes along the Vorskla for 220 km. In the middle reaches, forests are added to the oak forests, occupying about 60 linear kilometers (they are included in 220 km of the total length). At a distance of 90 km from the mouth, the Vorskla emerges from the forest and flows into the Dnieper almost exactly from the north. Thus, Herodot's phrase about Panticap is fully applicable to Vorskla.
4 and 5. Starting in the forest-steppe zone, the Vorskla in the lower third of its course follows the border of the real feather-grass steppe, separating the agricultural regions from the nomadic ones. In the era of Kievan Rus, Vorskla (annalistic "Voroskol") was the extreme limit of Russian agricultural settlements. Here was the extreme border point of Rus' - Ltava (modern Poltava) at the turn of the Polovtsian Field. Behind Vorskla there was a wide feather-grass steppe, where nomadic pastoralists were constantly in charge.
6. The last condition remains: between Panticapae and Borysthenes, in the right angle formed by them, the same Scythian farmers must live, as those living upstream along Borysthenes for 10-11 days of sailing, i.e. similar to the population of the Kyiv archaeological group of Borisfenites. The work of G.T. Kovpanenko on the study of Scythian monuments on the Vorskla led to the conclusion that these antiquities are “like an island of the right-bank early Scythian culture, which turned out to be from the 6th century. BC. surrounded by tribes with a culture of the embassy-Donetsk type. Colonization from the right bank to the corner between Borysthenes and Panticapae began as early as the 8th-7th centuries. BC.
So, all the conditions that the Herodotus Panticapa must satisfy are completely satisfied by the Vorskla, the border river of farmers and nomads, mentioned by Herodotus after Borysthenes because it flows east of the Dnieper. However, let me remind you that I conditionally included three points in the system of evidence: “hylaia”, the identification of Tanais with the Donets, and the location of the borisfenites on the Middle Dnieper. We will postpone the last point until a general consideration of the geography of all the tribes of the Dnieper region.
The question of Tanais, already partly considered at the beginning of this section, can be refined on the basis of the data just considered. Let's assume that Herodotus named Don in his modern understanding Tanais. At Tanais, the land of the Scythians ends: “on the other side of Tanais there is no more Scythia” (§ 21).
With a radius of 14 days of travel (504 km), we will describe an arc from the bend of the Don near the village of Kacha-linskaya. This arc will pass southeast of Kharkov to Izyum and in the south it will reach modern Zhdanov. The entire basin of the Dnieper will be outside this arc, which solves the problem of the Tanais and the tributary of the Borisfen Pantikape. The Don is too far east of the Dnieper, while a journey of 14 days from the Vorskla, a tributary of the Dnieper, definitely leads to the most remote bend of the Seversky Donets near its confluence with the Don. It was here that the eastern border of Scythia passed.
"GILEIA" ("Polesye", "Oleshya"). Herodotus uses this designation six times, and it is not always clear to us whether he gives this word the meaning of a proper name or a common noun (“forest, “woodland” or even “grove”).
The mistake of the researchers was that they believed that Herodotus in all six cases was talking about the same geographical point. However, it is not difficult to notice that Herodotus quite definitely has two different groups of references to Hylaea:
1. The vague name of "the land called Hylaea", in § 9, which says that in this wooded land Hercules found the mother of his future sons. Geographically, according to the text of Herodotus, this land is not clear to us, but it is likely that it was located on the site of the later Russian "Oleshya" ("Polesie") on the left, southern, bank of the Dnieper near its delta. The mention of Giley in § 55, where we are talking about the lower reaches of the Gipakiris River: the river flows, "leaving Polesie and the so-called Achilles Beg to the right." The mouth of the Hypakiris emptied into the Karkinit Gulf; therefore, Polesie-Gileya meant the same Oleshye in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, located, like Achilles Beg, west of Karkinit (see map).
In § 76, Herodotus describes the tragic death of Anacharsis, who betrayed his great-grandfather Scythian customs and arranged a festival in honor of the Greek Mother of the gods: “He retired to the so-called Hylaia, which is near Achilles Run, replete with all kinds of forests.” Here, as in the case of Gipakiris, we are talking about the same point - about Oleshya near the mouth of the Dnieper.
It is extremely important for us that Herodotus considers it necessary to warn the reader against confusion, making a special reservation: that is Polesie, that forest, "which is near Achilles Run." This means that he fully admits the presence of other forests, other Polesie - Giley. This is all the more interesting because in the previous text he had already spoken about forests twice, and in this case he needed to more accurately indicate to the reader which hylaea was referred to in the story of Anacharsis.
2. The forest, not connected in the text of Herodotus with the Achilles Run, is mentioned in §§ 18, 19, 54.
“If you cross the Borisfen from the sea, then, firstly, there will be Polissya, and Scythian farmers live upwards from it” (Borisfenites) (§ 18).
Researchers stubbornly ignore Herodotus' warning and, without reservation, consider this hylaia to be exactly the forest that grows in the lower reaches of the Dnieper. Therefore, the search for Scythian farmers turns into an insoluble task - in the barren and waterless Aleshkovsky sands (modern name) to find a rich agricultural area 350-400 km long along the Dnieper.
They also neglect the elementary calculation that for the lower reaches of the Dnieper, the coast to which you need to “cross the Borisfen from the sea” will not be the southern, left bank, where there are Oleshya-Gilei trees, but the opposite, northern Kherson coast, where there are no no forests, no bushes. This space between Ingul and Ingulets is still almost deserted.
If, however, by the hylaea of § 18 we mean that left-bank forest through which the Vorskla-Pantikapa flows (§ 54), then everything will fall into place: the reader, following the author’s thought, must cross the Dnieper, but not at the delta itself, but in the forest-steppe, where there was an original crossing to the left bank, at the mouth of the Vorskla. Behind the Dnieper there will be a two-hundred-kilometer hylaia of Vorskla, and “from it (Polesie) up” along the Dnieper on rich black earth and loess, borisfenite farmers will be located.
In § 19 it is said that the treeless lands of nomads follow Pantikapa: "... this whole country is devoid of trees with the exception of Polesie." There is nothing new here; Herodotus simply contrasts the already mentioned Vorsklinsky forest (and, perhaps, the concept of this hylaea also included the oak forests of the upper reaches of the Seversky Donets) with the treeless steppe of the nomads approaching it from the southeast.
So, the last obstacle to the identification of Vorskla (Voroskol) with Panticapa has been overcome.
The name of the Panticapı River has long been interpreted by linguists. V.I. Abaev, based on Iranian parallels, establishes the two-syllable nature of the name: "panti" - the path and "ka-pa" - the fish, i.e. "fish path". Jan Zbožil offered a different interpretation. Recognizing the first part as the designation of the Slavic P □ Th - the way, he raises the second part of the river's name to the Slavic root "cap", denoting "beginning" (Czech - zacatek). The etymology of the word as a whole remains unclear, but the connection with the concept of the path is easily explained by the geographical position of Vorskla. At the mouth of the river there is an old crossing over the Dnieper and still one of the villages is called Perevolochna (on the right bank of the Vorskla). The Vorskla delta bears the remarkable name "Leski". The ancient route from Gelon to Olbia was supposed to go through this crossing. If we count from Gelon (Velsky settlement), then the path went 4 days down the Panticapae, and after crossing the Borisfen at the mouth of the river (near modern Perevolochna), a new land segment of the path began, after 8-9 days leading to the marketplace of borisfenites.
Of all the supporting evidence, only the concept of “Scythian farmers” (“Borisfenites”) remained geographically unspecified, while the rest are quite consistent with the identification of Panticapa with Vorskla.
GIPAKYRIS AND GERROS
The location of the rivers Hypakiris and Gerros is indicated by Herodotus inconsistently. We should be interested in how true position them, and the causes of Herodot's errors.
Hypakiris (sixth river in general description hydrography of Scythia) are usually identified with the Konka, and Gerros (the seventh river) with the Dairy, which, presumably, is true, but does not quite agree with the text of Herodotus.
Hypakyris is mentioned after Boristhenes and Panticapae; consequently, it must be east of the Dnieper or its left tributary, flowing lower, east of the Panticapae. It is in good agreement with this that given river“crosses the region of the Scythian nomads”, but then it unexpectedly follows: “and then flows into the sea near the city of Karkinitida”, located far from Meotida on the other side of Perekop and Crimea (§ 55). Somewhere in the steppe part, Gerros must flow into Hypakiris. Such a river, which would take in a tributary located east of Perekop, and would flow into the Karkinitsky Bay, located west of the isthmus, is currently not in nature.
Ptolemy does not help us in this case, because he does not have the Hypakiris River in the geographical overview of the sea coast (and should not be if it is Konka). The confusion requires careful consideration against the background of the real hydrography of the Lower Dnieper region. Let us turn directly to the text of Herodotus:
“The sixth river, Gipakiris, begins from the lake, with its course divides the land of the Scythian nomads in half, flows into the sea near the city of Karkinitida, and on the right side limits Hylaea and the so-called Achilles Run” (§ 55).
“The seventh river, Herr, separates from Borysthenes in the place to which this last river is known. It separates in this area and bears the same name as the area itself - Herr. On the way to the sea, it delimits the lands of the Scythian nomads and the royal ones. Herr is poured into Hypakiris" (§ 56).
Let's begin to unravel this complex tangle. Let's not judge Herodotus too harshly, because. even we, people of the 20th century, who use accurate maps, do not always clearly imagine the intricate hydrographic situation of the Lower Dnieper: after the rapids, the Dnieper branches into hundreds of channels, either flowing from it, or returning and receiving the tributaries of the Dnieper. Channels-girls stretch for 100 km, forming a strip of floodplains 15-20 km wide. The Konka River, flowing from the depths of the Azov steppes, flows into this branched water system on the left. On our maps in atlases, this river is usually shown enveloping the floodplain (“Horse Waters”) and flowing into the Dnieper near Nikopol. And only after turning to large-scale maps do we find out that the river. The Konka stretches for another 220 km to the southwest, flows parallel to the Dnieper and flows into the Black Sea with the Zburievsky arm. It is with this peculiar river that the mysterious Hypakiris must be correlated, although, as we shall see, there is no identity here.
Herr was called, in all likelihood, both the entire branched system of girls ("mouths"), formed after the passage of the Dnieper through the rapids, and the wide surroundings of this band of girls. Therefore, we can allow the following decoding of Herodot's "Herrs". Firstly, Herr called the area on the sides of a wide strip of floodplains and girs. Here, indeed, were the royal mounds of the Scythians, and here was the northern boundary of the settlement of nomadic Scythians - "the most distant people of the Herrs." Secondly, those channels that "separate from Borisfen" were called Herr. Some of these channels really "pour into the Hypakiris", by this latter is meant that part of the Konka, which borders the girl system from the southeast.
Thirdly, Herr was the name of the river, the sources of which began in the “locality of Gerr”, and this river “on the way to the sea delimits the lands of the nomadic Scythians and the royal ones”. It was this river, flowing into the Sea of Azov, that Ptolemy noted at 49 ° 50 ′ north latitude and 61 ° east longitude. F.Brown, Yu.Kulakovsky and subsequent authors correctly identify this river with the Molochnaya, which flows into the Sea of Azov somewhat east of the Crimea with a wide mouth-estuary (7 km wide and 33 km long).
It probably makes sense to pose a question to linguists: is not the Herodotus name "herr" the designation of "vent" or "girl" in the common sense? Then it will be quite clear that the extended system of the Dnieper canals (where two villages are called "Girl") was called Gerr, i.e. vents, girdles.
"Gerra's area" is a name similar to the Zaporizhzhya Sich: this is how they called the floodplains, the islands, and the lands around the floodplains (for example, "Chertomlytskaya Sich") on both sides of the Dnieper.
In the second case, the name “Herr” will also be clear in relation to those first, northern channels that branch off from Borisfen at the very beginning of the “Herr locality”. The third case with the Molochnaya River can be explained in two ways: firstly, as a river flowing from the “Herr area”, and secondly, as a river with a wide and long vent. The Molochnaya-Herr River really limits the land of the royal Scythians from the east.
Only in this way, by dividing the Herodotus river into two independent, non-contiguous parts - the girl, flowing from the Dnieper immediately after the rapids, and the river flowing from the Herr area, can one make out the nonsense that arose under the pen of the great historian as a result of stories about numerous " Herrah "sometimes in a common noun, sometimes in the proper sense.
Let us analyze the fantastic course of Hypakyris. Konka-Gipakiris really flows from the depths of the desert steppes of the Scythian nomads. As already mentioned, numerous “herrs” really flow into it - the channels of the Dnieper in the floodplains of Horse Waters.
Konka, skirting all the floodplains from the south-east and then flowing into the Dnieper, then separating from it again, reaches the very sea, bearing here the same “horse name” Konka. But in Herodotus, the lower course of Hypakiris does not come close to Borisfen: the mysterious river flows into the well-known Karkinitsky Gulf, where Ptolemy designates the river Karkinitou with a length of over 150 km and with six cities on it. The river bends towards the Dnieper. F.A.Brown suggested that Gipakiris is a small river Kalanchak, the only one flowing into the Karkinitsky Bay, but because it is now too insignificant, he admits that the ancient Gipakiris was formed from a series of lakes, swamps and drying rivers between the floodplains of the Dnieper and Kalanchak. Brown's idea is correct; only under such an assumption is it possible to reconcile the contradictions of the description. But, taking into account the data of Ptolemy, the system of Hypakiris should be shifted somewhat to the west. If we draw the Karkinita River according to the coordinates of Ptolemy and take its lower leg as the modern Kalanchak, we will see that the upper course of the Karkinita will approach the Dnieper in the Kakhovka region. If we turn to the map of the state canals of the 1950s, we will see that the Ptolemaic Karkinit exactly coincides with the segments of these canals that branch off from the Dnieper near Kakhovka.
I will try to describe the general course of Hypakiris, as it can be supposedly imagined from the text of Herodotus and the coordinates of Ptolemy. The source of Gipakiris is the Konka River, which really divides the steppe between the Dnieper and the Seversky Donets in half. There are no lakes in its steppe sources. Further, Konka is woven into the most complex system of the Dnieper floodplains (girl-herrs), which could well be mistaken for a lake. Konka-Gipakiris received numerous ducts-girls, which, in all likelihood, explains the phrase that "Gerros pours into Gipakiris." To preserve geographical clarity, we need to admit that at this point the accuracy betrayed Herodotus and he was mistaken, taking the stories about the girls replenishing Konka as the source of a special river that bore the same name - Gerros (Milk).
Further, Gipakiris-Konka, having rounded the girl system, flows near the Dnieper along its eastern oxbow river, but retains its special name (as it is now). Approximately in the area of Kakhovka, in ancient times a channel separated from the Konka, which branched off the Dnieper to the left, to the southeast, and along the now dried-up channel reached the modern Kalanchak, leaving the Lower Dnieper Gilea and Achilles Beg on the right side, and flowed into the Karkinit Bay. By the time of Ptolemy, this branch from the Dnieper received the special name of the Karkinita River.
Today, insignificant fragments of this unusual water system do not allow us to understand the inclusion of Gipakiris by Herodotus among the major rivers, but if we look at the Gipakiris restored by us, stretching for 10 “days of sailing”, then we will understand the attention to it: starting in the steppe of the Scythian nomads, Gipakiris crossed the whole earth royal Scythians from the sacred mounds of Gerros to the sands near Oleshya and led to a special secluded harbor of Karkinite, the eastern border of "Ancient Scythia".
TANAIS
In the introductory words of this chapter, the question of Tanais was already raised in connection with the fact that the Greeks and Romans knew the lower reaches and especially the mouths of the rivers well, but they did not always clearly imagine the distant upper reaches of the rivers, and especially their sources coming out of the unknown northern forests. . Therefore, their ideas about the river as a whole are vague and indefinite and often diverge both from each other and from our modern understanding of the river, which we have already seen in the example of Gipanis, which cannot be completely identified with the Southern Bug. Strabo even has a rationalistic explanation for these contradictions of geographers: “The origins of Tanais are unknown. we know the mouths of the Tanais (there are two of them in the northern part of Meotida, 60 stades apart); however, only a small part of the river's course is known above the mouth due to cold weather and poverty. Also, nomads. blocked access to all accessible places in the country and to the navigable parts of the river.
I will put together what has been said about Tanais in various places of the previous
text.
The medieval tradition considered the Seversky Donets plus the section of the Don leading to the sea as the Great Don.
K. Ptolemy gives the coordinates of the Tanais (two mouths, a bend, sources), which correspond not to the Don, but to the Seversky Donets plus the same segment of the Don.
According to Herodotus, a distance of 14 days of travel should separate the eastern edge of Scythia (near Tanais) from one of the tributaries of the Borysthenes. The countdown from the bend of the Don shows that in 14 days it is impossible to reach any of the rivers of the Dnieper basin; the countdown from the Donets most accurately determines the wooded banks of the Vorskla-Pantikapa. This is not contradicted by the exact geographical data that Herodotus cites in the legend of the Savromats and Amazons (§§ 115-116). The Scythian youths, who wished to marry the Amazons, agreed to their proposal to find a new land for themselves outside of Scythia:
“Let's get out of here, go to the other side of the Tanais River and settle there (§ 115).
The young men agreed to this too, crossed the Tanais and retired 3 days east of this river and the same distance north of Lake Meotida. In this way they came to the same locality that they still occupy now, and settled there ”(§ 116).
It is very important for us, firstly, that numerical calculations are given, and secondly, that these calculations determine the place of the Savromats precisely in Herodotus' time, and not only in mythological time. However, when moving from a verbal description to a geographical map, we encounter the main difficulty - the fuzziness of orientation to the cardinal points. It is dangerous to understand every indication to the north or east too definitely, literally. Even Pto-Lemy, who transferred the entire land he described to a degree network, was very confused in orientation. We are interested in the "north of Meotida"; according to Ptolemy, the north-eastern corner of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, into which the Don flows, was considered north. The two mouths of the Don, from our point of view, - northern and southern - are respectively designated as western and eastern.
In all likelihood, Herodotus also imagined Meotida and the mouth of the Tanais in exactly the same way, because. otherwise, he could not have counted both from Meotida and from the river - after all, there is no Don strictly north of Meotida (where Berda, Mius, Kalmius flow).
Let's analyze the Herodotus legend about the Amazons point by point:
1. The camps of the Amazons should have been on the northwestern (according to our account) coast of Meotida, east of Kremnus, where, according to legend, the Amazons landed on the shore.
2. The crossing over the Tanais (from the right bank to the left) was to take place at the Don delta itself, because further readings are taken from the Sea of Azov. Having crossed over the Tanais, the young Scythians and Amazons found themselves outside the borders of the land on which the power of the royal Scythians extended (see § 20).
3. "Three days' journey north from Lake Meotida" we can only understand as a movement up along the Don, along its left bank. Three Herodot days lead us to the confluence of the Seversky Donets with the Don.
4. If in this place we set aside from the line of Herodot's "north" (i.e. northeast) perpendicular to it the line of Herodot's "east", then it will turn out to be going from the mouth of the Donets to the southeast and reach Manych approximately at that place , where Yegorlyk flows into it.
According to the latest archaeological data, kindly communicated to me by K.F. Smirnov, it was here, along the Manych depression, that the southwestern outskirts of the vast Sarmatian world passed, stretching further east through the Salsky steppes to the Volga.
5. There are also Sarmatian archaeological sites to the northeast of the Donets, confirming the words of Herodotus that “there is no more Scythia beyond the Tanais River; but the first land holdings there belong to the Sauromates” (§ 21). The words "beyond the Tanais River" could be understood as a definition of the left bank of the Don, but then Herodotus says that the Savromats live for 15 days to the north in the neighborhood of the forest area of the Boudins.
Between the upper reaches of the Seversky Donets and the Don there are many Sauromatian monuments really at a great distance from Meotida, which almost corresponds to 15 days in a straight line. There are also Sauromatian monuments directly behind the Seversky Donets on the rivers Kalitva and Bystraya closer to the bend of the Donets. Based on this, Tanais should be understood not as the Don, but as the Seversky Donets, because it is behind him, behind the Donets, that the real archaeological traces of the Savromats of Herodot's time are already beginning.
Without carping especially about Herodot's indications of the countries of the world, which could not then be accurate, without reproaching the historian for not knowing all the meanders of the rivers, we must admit that the Savromats really lived beyond the Tanais - the Seversky Donets, to the east of it , in the interfluve of the Donets and the Don, as well as to the southeast from the bend of the Tanais - Donets (modern mouth of the Donets) for a three-day journey, i.e. in the Salsky steppes along the Manych.
Tanais, the river that delimits Scythia and Sauromatia, separating Europe from Asia, on the basis of a stable thousand-year tradition, should be called the Seversky Donets plus the lower reaches of the Don (from the mouth of the Donets to the sea).
SIRGIS (GIRGIS?)
Twice Herodotus mentions the tributary of the Tanais, Sirgis (§ 123) or Girgis (§ 57). Judging by the fact that it is mentioned after Tanais, it must be located to the east of it, i.e. be a left tributary of the Tanais. If the Seversky Donets is recognized as the Tanais, then we should attribute the name Sirgis to the Middle Don, "flowing" into the Tanais. But it is quite possible that in this case the upper reaches of this Sauromatian river did not coincide with our idea of the Don. The nomads who owned the steppes could take for the source of the river that of the tributaries of the Don, which began in their steppes, the entire course of which they could follow. Such a tributary could be the Chir, the right tributary of the Don, flowing through the steppes until it flows into the Don for more than 200 km. The name Chir is linguistically close to Sirgis. If we accept this assumption, then the Herodotian Sirgis will appear before us as a medium-sized river with a length of about 450 km.
UAR & LIK
These two rivers flowing into Meotis are not mentioned by Herodotus in the general enumeration of the most important rivers Scythia. They appear only in the description of the climax of the Scythian-Persian war of 512, and probably only because here, on the banks of the Oar, Darius stopped the movement of the entire Persian army, erected a huge fortified area, and from here, "leaving half erected walls, turned back” (§ 124). The motive for mentioning these rivers is quite clear - the historian describing the campaign of Darius could not fail to mention such important detail theater of war.
Unfortunately, the thought of the researchers went down two wrong paths. Firstly, the opportunity to find Herodotus rivers on the northern coast of Meotida was denied. “We will not go into the analysis of the northern coast of the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov: it would be completely useless work,” wrote F. Brown. Secondly, it seemed tempting and possible to many scientists to compare the river Oar, important for Herodotus, with the Pa-Volga. But then it was necessary to assume that Darius extended his already long campaign by another 450 km in distance and for a whole month in time. This did not agree with the information about the two-month period of the campaign and did not fit well into Herodot's geography, where the Volga was not named among the largest rivers; in addition, one would have to admit that the Volga flows into the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov. It turned out a lot of absurdities, and from them an original conclusion was made: since Darius could not reach the Volga, then, therefore, his entire campaign was unreliable. In fact, only the identification of the Meotid river Oar with the Volga is unreliable.
Again, our guide, rescuing us from these contradictions, will be Claudius Ptolemy, who was attentive to the geographical notes of Herodotus and managed to indicate the coordinates of all Herodotus landmarks in the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov. True, more than six centuries passed between Ptolemy and Herodotus, but the living Hellenic tradition had not yet ended, and the Greek Ptolemy, who received detailed information about the Crimea and the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov, conveyed to us in a more accurate form what Herodotus mentioned.
On the reconstructions of the Ptolemaic map proposed by Yu. Kulakovsky and F. Brown and dating back to the first reconstructions of the late 15th century. (for example, a map of 1490), far from always carried out correctly coastline, and, in addition, Kulakovsky, like many other researchers, often proceeded from the assumption that Ptolemy plotted the largest rivers on his map, having carried out a kind of preliminary classification of rivers in general. Therefore, reenactors sometimes selected the most significant rivers on a modern map and looked for names for them in the Ptolemaic register, not taking into account the fact that the Greek geographer could have his own special considerations, in particular, a completely understandable interest in Herodotus' data. This assumption is supported by the fact that Ptolemy, in a small space of 30′ (about 38 km), indicated five geographical points, grouped around the Herodotus rivers Lik and Oar (Agar for Ptolemy), while on the rest of the coast The Sea of Azov to the Don itself, calculated by Ptolemy at 3 ° 20 ′ (over 125 km), there are only three points.
Ptolemy's data is as follows:
Of the 12 named points, let's take two that are easily identified on a modern map: Perekop and the "western" (in fact, the northern, right) mouth of the Don. These points, according to Ptolemy, are exactly 6° apart, but verification shows that in fact there are only 5°35′. Let's interpolate and plot the Ptolemaic grid on a modern map.
Of course, it is impossible to use this grid without taking into account the specifics of ancient geography, because Ptolemy, for example, imagined Maeotis as elongated not in the northeast direction, but in the north, and this affected the indicated distances. Still, to get a starting position, we should start by trying to use Ptolemaic degree distances.
Let us take as a basis the mouth of the Don as the most reliable reference point when measuring the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov and divide the space between the Don and Perekop into Ptolemaic degrees (with the amendment specified above). We will get the following preliminary picture:
Kremny - somewhere between Lake Dairy and the river Domuzgly. Judging by the fact that "Kremny" means "steeps", this city should be localized on the left bank of the river. Domuzgly at its very mouth, where there really are steep slopes.
R. Agar - shown on the same meridian with Kremny, but at a more northern latitude, should be somewhere northeast along the coast, approximately in the area of \u200b\u200bthe Korsak and Lozovatka rivers.
Cape Agar is a huge Obitochnaya spit 25 km long, enclosing from the east the bay into which all the rivers mentioned above flow. If we take the river Agar for the river. Korsak, then the distance between its mouth and the end of the cape will indeed be 30 ′.
R. Lik - at Ptolemy r. Lik is indicated on the same meridian (63°) with Cape Agar. On the modern map, on the same meridian with the Obitochnaya Spit and just like Ptolemy's, the mouth of the river is located much north of the cape. Obitochnaya, which, obviously, corresponds to the river. Face.
A bunch of geographical points to the west of the Obitochnaya Spit, being compared with nature, allows us to correct the old reconstruction of 1490, adopted by Kulakovsky, and offer a different version that reproduces (albeit with a violation of scale) the real configuration of this section of the Azov coast. East End The Sea of Azov is shown by Ptolemy as a bay, separated by a long narrow spit, extremely reminiscent of the one that exists to this day. In the 19th century this entire bay was called the Obitochnaya Quay. Inside the bay are the mouths of the Agar and Lik rivers, and between the mouths is the mysterious grove "God's Fishing". There are no groves on this sandy desert coast now, but just between the mouths of Korsak and Obitochnaya there is a river with interesting name Lozovatka, i.e. "Overgrown with willows, vines." The distance from Agar to the "Grove", where fish are caught, is 10' (i.e., about 12 km), the real distance from Korsak to Lozovatka is 11 km. I think that this clarifies our calculations and allows us to more confidently consider the Korsak River as the Agar River. The identity of the Herodotus Oar with the Ptolemaic Agar is hardly in doubt, since in both cases these are the rivers of the northern coast of Meotida, and each time the Oar-Agar is connected with the neighboring Lik River.
To the east of the considered Herodotian complex, only one river is mentioned - Porita, which, due to its very close phonetic similarity, should be brought closer to the river. Byrd.
As a result, we get the following identifications:
R. Agar (Oar) - r. Korsak;
Cape Agar - Obitochnaya Spit, opposite the river. Korsak;
Grove "Fishing God" - r. Lozovatka;
R. Lik - r. upholstery;
R. Porita - r. Byrd.
All these points are located on a space two days long on horseback, and the actual Herodotus complex (excluding the Ptolemaic Porita) occupies only 30-35 km, i.e. one day journey.
Identification of r. Oar with Pa-Volga made the story about the Scythian campaign of Darius completely meaningless and called into question the reliability of Herodotus' information in general. If we take into account the coordinates of Ptolemy, then the Herodotus text about the campaign of 512 (to which I will return in a special section) receives a clear and quite real interpretation: the main army of the king went deep into Scythia for no more than 20-25 days of travel, which fits well Xia in the terms indicated by Herodotus.
The review of the Herodotus rivers of Scythia is over. We must admit that Herodotus collected detailed and often very accurate information about the rivers that irrigate Scythia and in most cases connect it with Pontus and Meotida.
The Danube-Istr is shown as the southwestern limit of Scythia. Tiarant-Seret, Porata (Piret)-Prut and Tira-Dniester probably corresponded to our ideas about these rivers, because they do not have large tributaries that could in ancient times be taken by one or another people for the source of the river, which differs from what we now consider the source.
Unexpected, but, in my opinion, indisputable difference was the difference between the Herodotus Gipanis and the Southern Bug, with which he was usually identified. The most probable is the following composite species of Gipanis: Gorny Tikich - Sinyukha - the lower reaches of the Southern Bug. The length of the entire river - 9 days of sailing. The “insignificant river” Eksampai, in all likelihood, is the Black Tashlyk, the left tributary of the Sinyukha. The main river of Scythia - Borisfen-Dnepr - was described by Herodotus rather from the economic side than from the geographical one. True, the quite reliable length of the Dnieper flow from the sources to the rapids is indicated, twice Herodotus implies (but does not name) the Dnieper rapids, but he does not have a general holistic description of Borisfen.
Panticapa-Vorskla, a tributary of the Dnieper, delimiting the agricultural forest-steppe and the feather-grass steppe of pastoral nomads. The mention of this river, remote from the sea, is most likely due to the fact that at its mouth there has long been a crossing over the Dnieper, lying on the direct line of Olbia - Gelon, a city in which Greek merchants lived and Hellenic speech was heard.
The most difficult thing is to defend the reconstruction of the complex Hypakiris-Konka current proposed by me, because Herodotus made one oversight in the description - he did not specify the concept of "herra": it could be the proper name of the river, but, in all likelihood, it could also be the common name of the "channel", "girl". Herodotovsky Hypakiris - Konka, flowing into the "Horse Waters" of the Dnieper, then flowing close to the Dnieper and branching off from it in the lower reaches; this river flowed in ancient times (now this segment is dry) into the Karkinitsky Gulf and its remnant is Kalanchak. Gerros is r. Dairy, as long ago established by researchers on the basis of Ptolemy's coordinates.
Near Gerros there are two small rivers: Oar-Korsak and Obitochnaya-Lik, important for Herodotus as the location of the camp of Darius Hystaspes. For some reason, Herodotus ranks them among the large rivers, although they were hardly significant even in his time and could be full-flowing only in the spring flood.
The extreme eastern rivers mentioned by Herodotus are Tanais and Sirgis.
Tanais - the eastern border of Scythia; behind Tanais - Sauromatia. An analysis of heterogeneous data led me to the conclusion that Tanais was not the Don, but the Seversky Donets and the lower reaches of the Don, that the Sauromatian lands began beyond the Donets, to the east of it and to the southeast (behind our Don).
The Sirgis River could be the Don before the Donets flows into it, but it could also be the Chir in conjunction with a segment of the Middle Don.
The resulting river network of Scythia differs in a number of cases from our understanding of the rivers of the Black Sea basin, but without attempts to reconstruct Herodotus' understanding of the river system, we will not be able to start considering tribes and peoples, which is our main task.
Herodotus rivers are important for us as the only geographical landmarks that replace the later degree grid of Ptolemy.
29 Rybakov B.A. Russian lands on the map of Idrisi. - Brief messages. Institute of Material History. cult., 1952, No. 43.
30 Strabo. Geography, book. VII. M., 1964, p. 109-110, §6.
31 Op. by: Latyshev V.V. News of ancient writers about Scythia and the Caucasus. - VDI, 1948, No. 2, p. 235.
32 Rybakov B.A. Don and Donets in the Tale of Igor's Campaign. - Scientific report higher schools. Ser. Historical sciences. M., 1958, No. 1.
33 Latyshev V.V. News of ancient writers about Scythia and the Caucasus. - VDI, 1947, No. 2, p. 266, note. 3.
34 Melnikovskaya O.N. Tribes of southern Belorussia in the early Iron Age. M., 1967.
35 Brown F.A. Research in the field of Goth-Slavic relations. SPb., 1899, p. 231.
36 New desktop atlas of A.F. Marx. Pg., 1915, sheet 10, apt. AT 6.
37 Ibid., apt. C-7.
38 Terenozhksh O.1., 1lynska V.A. Shfsky perud. - In the book: Archeology of the URSR, v.11. Kyiv, 1971, p. 94-97 and map.
39 Onayko N.A. Antique imports in the Dnieper and Bug region in the 7th - 5th centuries. BC. - In the book: Code of archaeological sources. M., 1966, p. 45, fig. 7 (map).
40 Ibid.
41 Chronicle according to the Laurentian list. SPb., 1897, p. 242.
42 I will try to substantiate this hypothesis in more detail below.
43 Near the mouth of the Tashlyk there is Lysaya Gora, a tract with a definite ritual name. Was it not here that the sanctuary was located and the cauldron of King Ariant stood?
44 Latyshev V.V. News., p. 280-281.
45 Brown F.A. Research in the field of Goth-Slavic relations. 1. Goths and their neighbors before the 5th century. SPb., 1899, p. 215.
46 Artamonov M.I. Cimmerians and Scythians. L., 1974, p. 80.
47 Semenkovich V.N. Gelons and Mordovians. - Zap. Moscow archaeologist, in-ta, 1913, v. XXVII, fig. 10. Map p. Bogush-Sestrentsevich at the beginning of the 19th century.
48 This is clearly shown on all large-scale maps.
49 Great Soviet Atlas of the World, vol. 1. M., 1939.
50 Kovpanenko G.T. Tribes of the NSF time on Vorsklk Kiv, 1967; see also: Ilyinskaya V.A. Scythians of the Dnieper forest-steppe Left Bank. Kyiv, 1968, p. 173.
51 The forests here had a coastal, floodplain character and were associated with the freshwater delta of the Dnieper. Dion Chrysostomos spoke about them in his “Borisfenite speech”: “The banks of the estuary are swampy and covered with thick reeds and trees. Even in the estuary itself, many trees are visible, from a distance similar to masts, so that inexperienced shipbuilders are mistaken, ruling to them, as if to ships ”(Quoted from: Latyshev V.V. Izvestia. - VDI, 1948, No. 1, p. 355).
52 Abaev V.I. Scythian language. - In the book: Ossetian language and folklore. M., 1949, p. 237.
53 Zbozil Jan. Herodotova Skythie a sousede. - Slovenska Archeologia, 1959, VII-2, s. 374, 415.
In the Old Russian language, the word "cap" meant "image", "receptacle" (see: Sreznevsky I.I. Materials for the dictionary Old Russian language. SPb., 1883, stb. 1195).
54 Brown F. Searches., p. 218-224.
55 Strabo. Geography, book. XI. M., 1964, p. 468.
56 Brown F. Searches., p. 236.
57 See, for example: VDI, 1947, No. 2, p. 282. Note. commentator; Brown F. Searches., p. 244.
58 Latyshev V.V. News. - VDI, 1948, No. 2, p. 234, 235, 238.
Pliny argued with the opinion of those who placed Gipanis in Asia (east of Tanais-Don), that is, they identified it with the Kuban (Plin., IV, 88). At the same time, neither Herodotus, nor Pliny, nor Solinus speaks of Hypanis-Kuban, but this Hypanis is mentioned by all the authors of the tradition of Varro of Atatsin (Flacc., VI, 147; Amm. Marc., XXII, 8, 26; Honor., A , 33). Flakk, for example, indicates that Hypanis is forded by exomats, a people localized according to parallel sources east of Meotida (Ps.-Scymn., 878-879; Mela, I, 114; Polyaen., VIII, 55; Ptol., V, 8, 17).
Write a review on the article "Gypanis"
Notes
Literature
- Hypanis // Large Soviet Encyclopedia(in 30 volumes) / A. M. Prokhorov (editor-in-chief). - 3rd ed. - M .: Sov. encyclopedia, 1971. - T. VI. - S. 532. - 624 p.
An excerpt characterizing Hypanis
On the 25th in the morning Pierre left Mozhaisk. On the descent from the huge steep and crooked mountain leading out of the city, past the cathedral standing on the mountain to the right, in which there was a service and the gospel, Pierre got out of the carriage and went on foot. Behind him descended on the mountain some kind of cavalry regiment with peselniks in front. A train of carts with the wounded in yesterday's deed was rising towards him. The peasant drivers, shouting at the horses and whipping them with whips, ran from one side to the other. The carts, on which three and four wounded soldiers lay and sat, jumped over the stones thrown in the form of a pavement on a steep slope. The wounded, bound in rags, pale, with pursed lips and frowning eyebrows, holding on to the beds, jumped and jostled in the carts. Everyone looked with almost naive childlike curiosity at Pierre's white hat and green tailcoat.Pierre's coachman angrily shouted at the line of wounded to keep them to one. The cavalry regiment with songs, descending from the mountain, advanced on Pierre's droshky and blocked the road. Pierre stopped, clinging to the edge of the road dug up in the mountain. Because of the slope of the mountain, the sun did not reach into the deepening of the road, it was cold and damp here; over Pierre's head it was a bright August morning, and the chime rang cheerfully. One cart with the wounded stopped at the edge of the road near Pierre himself. The driver in bast shoes, out of breath, ran up to his cart, slipped a stone under the rear non-tired wheels and began to straighten the harness on his now horse.
One wounded old soldier with a bandaged hand, who was walking behind the cart, took hold of it with his healthy hand and looked back at Pierre.
In historical texts, there are often names and place names that are not known in modern language. For example, the question often arises: “Which river was called Borisfen?” This article provides information about this ancient river, as well as the origin of the word itself.
ancient river
Let's give a general answer to the question of which river the ancient Greeks called Borisfen. This is the ancient Greek name
For the first time this name (Βορυσθεvης) is mentioned in books in the 5th century BC - this is how the great historian Herodotus called the Dnieper, who described it as a Scythian "river from the north".
Roman historians gave their name - the name "Danapris" (Danapris), and the Slavs in the period Ancient Rus' called this river "Slavutich".
Description of ancient Borisfen
Herodotus writes about Borisfen in the country of the Scythians as one of the greatest rivers known in ancient world. In fullness, it is second only to the Egyptian Nile, the water is very clean and pleasant to the taste. There were a huge number of beautiful meadows and pastures along the banks of the ancient Dnieper, and there were a lot of fish in the river itself - the “antakai” (sturgeon) were especially tasty, which were caught near the mouth, where salt was also mined.
At present, the length of the Dnieper (after the construction of reservoirs and straightening of the channel) is 2201 km.
The Dnieper begins its course at and ends in the estuary of the Black Sea, where the river flows after its confluence with the Bug.
Knowing which river the Greeks called Borisfen, we can say that the Dnieper is still great river, which flows through the lands of three countries - Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, and on its banks there are more than 50 cities, including Kyiv - the capital of Ukraine and the "mother of Russian cities".
To the question Who will answer what kind of river this Hypanis is? given by the author papilla the best answer is This is the Greek name for the Kuban River, which flows in the Krasnodar Territory.
The Kuban, the largest river in the North Caucasus, is fed by the high-altitude rivers Ullukam and Uchkulan, which draw their source in the powerful glaciers of Elbrus, which rises to 5642 meters in the blue. First, the rivers playfully run apart in the rocky mountains, and then, merging into one huge stream, they give the source of our main waterway. Its upper reaches, feeding on dozens of small and big rivers, resembles a branched, blue, sparkling tree, which grows and grows, turning into a powerful middle current with an excess of mountain water. Here the Kuban receives several more large tributaries - Laba, Belaya, Pshish and others.
In high water, the river overflows its banks, galloping across the steppe, like a dashing horse that has broken loose from its leash. No wonder the Greeks called her "Gypanis" (Gippos - horse), and the Circassians - "Pshiz" - the prince of rivers. After the recession of the water, a lot of fertile silt remains, in which the boys like to mess around, and the floodplain places are covered with succulent herbs.
As a result of these floods, according to long-standing estimates, 350 estuaries were formed in the river delta and, starting from Krasnodar, hundreds of verst floodplains stretched. The well-known researcher of our main Danilevsky river back in the 60s of the last century said that the estuaries constitute "the most feature Limans are shallow desalinated fish lakes, overgrown with continuous reeds in the fall of spring water, where ducks, waders, geese comfortably nested, stomped in shallow water, pushing the thickets, herons.
From time immemorial, the Kuban watered and fed the people who lived on its banks. In the green meadows people grazed horses and bulls, here they grew bread, fished, built (for the summer period) temporary reed dwellings - huts, or "booths".
Kuban stretches for 870 kilometers. The river winds restlessly, changing its course, now compressing it to a converging loop, then again turning in a straight line. Roughness, frequent winding is a feature of our river.
It is curious to note that not so long ago the Kuban flowed into the Black Sea. In 1819, the Black Sea Cossacks, wishing to desalinate the waters of the Akhtanizovsky and Kurchansky estuaries, dug two artificial canals. The estuaries were desalinated, but since the slope of the plain to the north towards the Sea of Azov turned out to be greater, the main mass of the Kuban water rushed there. These were the first water structures in the Kuban, built by our enterprising ancestors.
The Kuban was navigable for more than 300 miles - from the city of Ust-Labinsk to Temryuk. As early as 1855, two military armed vessels, the Koshevoy Chepega and the Dzhigit, sailed across the Kuban. And the following year, a real shipping company arises: 35 thousand rubles were allocated from the Cossack treasury for the purchase of a steamship. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the Black Sea people undertook such a risky business, it must be said frankly. After all, for a long time it was not in vain that they were known as excellent, brave sailors, even when they lived on the Dnieper, on Khortitsa. and later, when they served on the Black Sea and showed examples of sharpness and military prowess in naval battles with the Turks.
Answer from Vadim Lifeld[guru]
Publius Ovid Naso. Metamorphoses
And - about a miracle! - meanwhile, as the rivers rush in the middle, The lyre sounds something sad, as if complaining ...
285 Well? And the Gipanis River, which arises in the Scythian mountains, is fresh at first, then is it not spoiled ...
BUKOLIKI. GEORGICS. AENEID
370 Among the thundering rocks Hypanis with Caikos of Moesia,
Gipanis - now the river Bug.
...
Answer from Neurosis[guru]
Gipanis - Southern Bug in ancient authors
Answer from Puppeteer[guru]
This is the Bug in Ingushetia that was called
Hypanis (Bug). It can be assumed that the hydronym Gipanis is from the two words “hypa” or “hipa” and “is”. The first part of the word “gipa” or “hipa” could mean “milk”, and the second part, together with the word-forming topofarmant “n+is”, could mean a river. in fact, in ancient times in the valley and in the floodplain of the Gipanis River there were many rich pastures, lush flood meadows, which determined the cattle-breeding nature of the Scythian tribes. Perhaps that is why the river got its name from the Scythians-Nakhs who lived on its banks “Milk River”.
Answer from Sweep[guru]
Gipanis - a river in Sarmatia, the current Bug.
I am an employee of the search help service of the intellectual search engine Nigma.ru, we try to help users with searches on the Internet.
found with
Hypanis on Wikipedia.
See the Wikipedia article about Hypanis
Herodotus, when describing Hypanis, reports a bitter spring called Exampey: “The third river, Hypanis, moves from [the limits of] Scythia, flowing out of a large lake around which wild white horses graze. This lake is correctly called the mother of Hypanis. The river Gipanis arising from it at a distance of five days of navigation is still narrow and [the water in it] is fresh, and from here to the sea at a distance of four days of navigation the water is extremely bitter. After all, a bitter source flows into it; so bitter that, although small in size, it lends its flavor to the Hypanis, one of the few large rivers. This source is located within the country of the Scythian plowmen and Alizons. The name of the source and the area from which it flows out is Exampey in Scythian, and Sacred Ways in the language of the Hellenes. Near the land of the Alisons, Tiras and Gipanis bring together their bends, but from here each of them turns and flows so that the gap between them expands” (IV, 52).
Then, in another place, Herodotus specifies that the Eksampei is a tributary of the Hypanis. Talking about numerical
140
sti Scythians, he reports the following: “I could not find out exactly the number of Scythians, but I heard various reports about their number: that there are a lot of them and that there are few Scythians as such. However, here's what they showed me. There is a place between the rivers Borysthenes and Hypanis, whose name is Exampaeus. [This area] I mentioned shortly before, saying that there is a source of bitter water in it; the water flowing out of it makes [the water] of Hypanis undrinkable. In this area there is a copper cauldron six times the size of the crater at the mouth of Pontus, which was dedicated by Pausanias, son of Cleombrotus. And for those who have never seen it, I will explain it as follows: a copper cauldron in Scythia freely holds six hundred amphoras; the thickness of this Scythian copper cauldron is six fingers. This [cauldron], as they said locals, made from arrowheads. Wishing to know the number of the Scythians, their king, whose name was Ariant, ordered all the Scythians that each bring one [arrowhead], and he threatened death to those who did not bring it. So a lot of tips were delivered, and he decided to leave a monument, making it from these [tips]. Of these, he made this particular copper cauldron and dedicated it to this Exampey. That's what I heard about the number of Scythians" (IV, 81).
As can be seen from the message of Herodotus, the area and the tributary of the Exampei were a trade and religious center among the Scythians. Where exactly was this place? The question is extremely important and interesting for studying the ancient history and geography of the Black Sea region. However, it is not so easy to answer it. From the information given, it is clear that the Exampey is the left tributary of the Southern Bug, which flows into it after four days of sailing to the sea. The indication, it would seem, is quite specific, but, despite this, the question of the localization of Exampey has been a subject of heated debate for more than 250 years and is still debatable. His searches attract the close attention of researchers, and primarily Scythologists, since important questions ethnography of Scythia, in particular the problem of accommodation of the Scythian plowmen and Alisons.
The localization of the Exampey is difficult, first of all, because among the left tributaries of the Southern Bug there is no one that would stand out for its salinity. And therefore, some researchers believe that the taste of water in Gipanis changed due to the surge of sea water into the estuary. And some of the scientists, based on this conclusion, generally deny the existence
141
Exampey as a specific tributary of the river. L. A. Elnitsky developed this idea even further and came to the conclusion that Herodotus' story about Exampey "originally referred to Gipanis-Kuban" 1 . But this categorical conclusion is not substantiated by anything and completely contradicts the information of Herodotus. The ancient Greeks really called both the Southern Bug and the Kuban Hypanis at the same time. But in this case we are talking, no doubt, about the Southern Bug. And we have no reason not to trust Herodotus. Therefore, the opinion of L. A. Elnitsky was not accepted. It is also unjustified to deny the reality of the existence of Exampey: after all, Herodotus does not give general reasoning, but quite specific information about a specific tributary of the Southern Bug. It is only necessary to find out what kind of inflow we are talking about.
This question for a long time caused lively controversy. Some researchers identified Exampey with Sinyukha, a small river flowing into the Southern Bug near the city of Pervomaisk. According to other scientists, we are talking about a small tributary of the Mertvovod, located below Sinyukha. These two points of view competed with each other for more than a century and a half, acquiring new supporters and opponents. Gradually, the identification of Exampey with Sinyukha was established.
But just recently, almost simultaneously, two new points of view have appeared. K. K. Shilik identified this tributary with the Rotten Elanets River, which flows into the Southern Bug below the Mertvovod 3 . Another point of view was expressed by B. A. Rybakov. In his opinion, the river Black Tashlyk was called Exampey 4 . Both researchers analyze the text of Herodotus in detail, argue their conclusions in detail, and the considerations expressed by them look very convincing.
Starting to search for the source, K. K. Shilik, following the majority of researchers, concluded that the water of Hypanis was salted by the sea. Developing this idea, he came to the conclusion that the source, which is attributed to salinization, “should have flowed into the river somewhere in the immediate vicinity of the top of the estuary - where the constant flow of the river ends and fresh water it was poured into a brackish estuary” (p. 452). Thus, the approximate location of Exampey is determined in advance - near the top of the estuary. The researcher then makes the following calculations. According to his calculations, one day of navigation along the river at Herodotus is equal to 52-57 km, and four days - 208-228 km, respectively. From this distance, he subtracts 80 km, since he believes that in ancient times the estuary was 45 km longer
142
due to the supposedly surface position of the Odessa Bank and another 35 km due to its greater sinuosity. As a result, it turns out that “the end of the four-day journey falls on a site located 128-148 km from Ochakov, and, consequently, on the same section of the Southern Bug valley below the rapids, where the top of the estuary was located in ancient times” (p. 453). Here, a small tributary of the Rotten Elanets flows into the Southern Bug. Therefore, concluded K. K. Shilik, he is Exampey.
Further, the researcher came to the conclusion that the length of Gipanis, according to Herodotus, does not coincide with the length of the Southern Bug, and, based on this, rejected the generally accepted identification of these rivers: “The fact is that the distance from the sources of the Southern Bug to the beginning of the estuary [that is, to Exampean, localized above] is approximately 750 km. With a daily rowing downriver trip of about 80 km [according to literature and other data], the passage of such a section along a calm river will take 9.5, not 5 days. But the Southern Bug is a very rapid river, and this significantly increases the passage time [days up to 12-13, and maybe more]. This contradiction can be eliminated with the help of the second, different from the generally accepted identification of Gipanis: the Southern Bug - Sinyukha - Rotten Tikich ”(pp. 453-454). These are, in brief, the main points of view of K. K. Shilik.
Let us now get acquainted with the conclusions of B. A. Rybakov. When considering Herodotus' information about the rivers of Scythia, he calculated that the day of navigation on the river is 36 km. Based on this figure, the scientist came to the conclusion that the length of the Southern Bug does not correspond to the length of the Hypanis indicated by Herodotus: “Herodotus measured the entire course of the Hypanis from its very source from the lake to the estuary. It turned out to be equal to only nine days of navigation, i.e., according to our calculations, about 324 km. The course of the Southern Bug from the sources [where there is no lake] to Nikolaev, where the salty estuary already begins, is almost 600 km” (p. 31). Such a discrepancy causes B. A. Rybakov to be “bewildered that the researchers, without any reservations, identified Gipanis with the contemporary Southern Bug” (ibid.).
In order to resolve this contradiction, the scientist decided to check the distances separately for the upper and lower parts of the river. He divided its course into two parts, based on the generally accepted identification of Eksampey with Sinyukha: “The turning point of the river. Hypanis, dividing its current into fresh and bitter, is usually indicated at the mouth of the river. Sinyukha, which flows into the South
143
Bug on the left, from Borisfen. And indeed, if we measure the segment of the Southern Bug from Nikolaev to Pervomaisk, we will get 150 km for four days of sailing. One day will equal 37 km, which is very close to our Danube calculations. But then the upper "sweet" course of Gipanis-450 km should be determined not by five days of sailing, but by 12 days of 36 km every day" (pp. 33-34). So B. A. Rybakov faced a sharp contradiction between the information of Herodotus and his own calculations. Trying to resolve this contradiction, he came to the conclusion that in ancient times not the entire Southern Bug was called Gipanis, but its combination with another river. The "True Gipanis" should flow out of the lake and have 180 km in its upper reaches. Such a river, in his opinion, is "the Sinyukha itself and one of its tributaries, the mountain Tikich, flowing from several lakes" (p. 34). So Sinyukha, in which Exampey is usually seen, became the upper course of Gipanis at B. A. Rybakov. Such an identification required a different identification of Exampaeus, which lost its usual localization in favor of Hypanis. But this tributary, according to the scientist, should still be sought "near the mouth of Sinyukha." And the nearest river is the Black Tashlyk, which flows into Sinyukha 10-12 km from Pervomaisk. It was he who was recognized by Exampey (pp. 36-37).
So, we met with two new points of view. Now, four candidates have been put forward for identification with Exampey: Rotten Elanec, Mertvovod, Sinyukha and Black Tashlyk. One of these rivers Herodotus called Exampey. What exactly?
It is not easy to answer this question. This is also evidenced by the disagreement of researchers, which became especially aggravated with the appearance of the last two points of view. If earlier the opinions of scientists fluctuated between the Sinyukha and the Dead Water located close to each other, now the Rotten Elanets, which is located about 100 km below the Sinyukha, and the Black Tashlyk, which is not a tributary of the Southern Bug, but the Sinyukha, identified with the upper course of the Gipanis, have become contenders. What is the reason for such significant discrepancies and how to find ways to eliminate them? Finding out the reasons does not require much thought. The stumbling block is that researchers define the mouth of the Hypanis and the distance in different ways. equal to a day swimming on the river. It is much more difficult to eliminate these causes - to find the right starting point and figure out what a day of sailing is.
Let's start with the search for the mouth of Gipanis. Majority
144
scientists believe that here one should keep in mind the Ochakov region, that is, the mouth of the Dnieper-Bug estuary. But some researchers measure the distance from the mouth of the Southern Bug, which is indicated near Nikolaev, that is, 75 km above the generally accepted point. With such an approach, of course, there can be no question of unity of opinion. Therefore, it is necessary first of all to decide what to consider as the mouth of Gipanis - the mouth of the river or the mouth of the estuary. Let's turn to Herodotus. In the said passage it is said that the water in Hypanis is bitter for four days of sailing to the sea [θαλάσσης]. But here it may be objected that the ancient navigators, they say, considered the estuary itself to be the sea. But such an objection is contradicted by another message from Herodotus: “Where the Borisfen flows near the sea, Hypanis merges with it, falling into the same backwater” (IV, 53). This phrase leaves no doubt that the "father of history" distinguishes the estuary, i.e. backwater [ελος], from the sea. Consequently, he measured the bitter course of Hypanis all the way to the sea, including here the length of the estuary. Therefore, the mouth of the Gipanis, undoubtedly, should be considered the mouth of the Dnieper-Bug estuary.
The Dnieper-Bug Estuary flows into the sea, as you know, in the Ochakov area. Most researchers believe that the mouth was located here in ancient times. But K. K. Shilik came to a different conclusion. According to him, in the second half of the 1st millennium BC. e. the level of the Black Sea was 10 m lower than the modern one, and the Odessa Bank was then a surface continuation of the Kinburn Peninsula and lengthened the estuary by 45 km 5. Its mouth is shown somewhat to the east of modern Odessa, near the village of Dofinovka. Let's see how these conclusions are consistent with the information of ancient authors.
So, according to the reconstruction proposed by K. K. Shilik, in the ancient Greek period, the distance from the mouth of the estuary to Olbia exceeded 80 km. However, ancient writers indicate other figures. So, for example, Pseudo-Scymnus (§ 804) reports that the distance from the sea to Olbia is 240 stadia (37 km). The same distance, as already noted, is given by Strabo (VII, 3, 17). It corresponds to a section of the road from Olbia to Ochakov. Consequently, the mouth of the estuary in ancient times was in the same place where it is now - in the area of \u200b\u200bthe Ochakov Cape.
It could be objected that, although the ancient Greek navigators pointed out the mouth of the estuary near Ochakov, the Odessa bank was still on the surface, but the water space limited by it, which was
145
the actual estuary was considered to be the sea. Let's check this assumption. In this case, the ancient Greek ships entered the estuary, in fact, already in the Dofinovka area. Then, in order to head to the Crimea after Olbia, they had to return again to Dofinovka and from there take a course to the east. In other words, it was necessary to go around the Odessa bank. And for this, it would be necessary to go 45 km (almost 300 stadia) from the Ochakov Cape to the west and the same amount in order to return to the longitude of the Ochakov Cape. But ancient authors testify that from Ochakov the ships were heading straight to the east, to the Crimean shores. Thus, for example, in the periplus of the Anonymous Author, reflecting the Hellenistic time, it is noted that the distance from the region of Achilles Beg to the mouth of Borysfen is 200 stadia, i.e. 32 km (§84). And Arrian gives an even smaller figure - 150 stadia, i.e. 24 km (§ 31).
So, according to the periples, the sea route from the Ochakovsky Cape to the Tendrovskaya Spit area is 24-32 km. These figures correspond to modern measurements. And according to the reconstruction of K. K. Shilik, the ship had to overcome 120-128 km (750-800 stadia). But such a distance contradicts written sources, the reliability of which is beyond doubt. Therefore, we have to admit that the reconstruction proposed by the researcher is not confirmed. The tip of the Kinburn Peninsula in the ancient Greek period was approximately the same as now. And in the area of the Odessa bank, only small islands could protrude above the water. Thus, in the second half of the 1st millennium BC. e. the mouth of the Dnieper-Bug estuary, that is, the mouth of Borisfen, was, as now, in the Ochakov region. Therefore, it is from here that we must measure the length of Hypanis.
Now you need to find out what the day of sailing is. Herodotus, unfortunately, says nothing about this. Most researchers also avoid this issue. Specific figures are given only by some scientists 6 . Let's get acquainted with several calculations by B. A. Rybakov (p. 29, 31-34).
In one of the cases, the indication of Herodotus (§ 89) about the construction of a bridge across the Danube by Darius was used: “And now navy, passing by Kiani, swam straight to Istria. Climbing up the river at a distance of two days' sailing from the sea, they began to build a bridge at the mouth of the river, from which the mouth of the Istra begins to branch. Here the calculations are based on the assumption that the Ionian fleet went up the Sulina arm
146
Danube, along which today from the sea to the "neck of Istra" 70-75 km. From this it was concluded that one day of sailing is equal to 36 km. This approach to indicating the source is undoubtedly correct. The calculations look quite convincing and, it would seem, deserve full confidence. But they turn out to be wrong, since they are based, as it turns out, on erroneous premises. The fact is that the Danube Delta is, as already mentioned, in constant evolution and over the past
2.5 thousand years has changed significantly. These changes cannot be ignored. The Sulina arm was indeed the "main, navigable arm" of the Danube. But that was in the 18th and 19th centuries. And in our century, the Kiliya branch became the main channel of the river. In antiquity, both of these sleeves were very insignificant, if at all, existed in the modern configuration. The main branch of Istria in ancient times was, as, for example, Strabo (VII, 3, 15) points out, Sacred - the southernmost branch of the delta. According to the geographer, Darius's fleet rose to the top of the delta along it. At present, this branch roughly corresponds to the Georgievskoe arm, along which 128 km from the sea to the "neck" of the delta.
But the delta is continuously pushed into the sea due to sediment. On the other hand, its coastal part is flooded as a result of sea level rise. Both of these factors must be strictly considered. Ptolemy can help us in these calculations (III, 10, 2). According to him, the length of the Sacred Arm in a straight line is approximately 77 km. And the modern winding segment of the Georgievsky branch of 128 km is 78 km in a straight line. Consequently, the Ptolemaic Sacred Arm along the fairway totaled approximately 127 km. This figure does not mean, however, that the delta here has hardly increased over the past time. She advanced significantly into the sea, but then was flooded, c. as a result of which its length has significantly decreased.
However, Ptolemy's data refer, as their comparison with other descriptions of the delta shows, to the Hellenistic time. About two centuries separate them from the campaign of Darius. During this time, the delta in the area sacred mouth, the main mouth of the river has certainly increased. It was growing, presumably, at about the same rate as is observed today in the area of the Kiliya branch, the main branch of the modern delta - 75-80 m/year 7 . For two centuries, the advance was approximately 15-16 km. Consequently, the length of the Sacred Arm of Istra during the campaign of Darius was approximately 111 - 112 km. This
147
the Ionian fleet covered the distance in two days. From this it follows that the day of navigation on the river at Herodotus is about 56 km.
Another attempt to calculate the sailing day is based on Herodotus' report that the Boristhenes flows from the north for 40 days of travel (§ 53). Here the upper course of the Dnieper was divided into 40 parts, from which it turned out that the day of navigation is 32.5 km. The calculations, as we see, are simple and, it would seem, reliable and beyond doubt. However, things are much more complicated. The fact is that an incorrect translation of the text made at the end of the last century by F. A. Brown (p. 231) is used here. In fact, 40 days of sailing determine not the upper, but the lower part of the Dnieper, from the sea to Herr. This is how almost all translators understand this place. Here, for example, is the latest translation: “Flowing from the north, it is known to the area of Gerr, to which it takes 40 days of navigation, but no one can say through the lands of which people it flows higher” (VI, 53). Undoubtedly, we are talking about the lower reaches of the Borisfen. Therefore, the above calculations should be recognized as erroneous.
Meanwhile, Herodotus makes it possible to calculate the day of sailing on the example of the Dnieper. He reports that the Scythian farmers occupy space for 11 days of sailing from the sea up the Borisfen, and then the desert, beyond which lives another, non-Scythian tribe, the Androphagi (§ 18). True, further Herodotus indicates a different distance - 10 days of sailing (§ 53). But this contradiction, as already noted by Yu. G. Vinogradov 8 , is apparent. It’s just that in the first case, Herodotus after the sea mentioned Gilea, and then the Scythian farmers, and in the second case, he counted the distance from the north and measured only the territory they occupied. From this it becomes clear that one day of the voyage falls on Gilea. So, the upper border of the Scythian territory was 11 days sailing up the Borisfen. In other words, these 11 days of sailing measure the Scythian territory. And in another place, Herodotus indicates the length of Scythia from the sea to the north in days of travel (§ 101). It is equal to 20 days of travel, or 4000 stages (a day of travel for Herodotus is 200 stages), i.e. 600-640 km. Therefore, this distance corresponds to 11 days of sailing. From here it is easy to calculate that the day of navigation on the river is approximately 55-58 km.
Another attempt to calculate the day of the voyage was made on the basis of Herodotus' data that Exampey is four days' voyage from the sea.
148
The calculations undertaken here are also simple. The section of the Southern Bug from Nikolaev, where the mouth is located, to Pervomaisk, where the course of Gipanis is divided into fresh and bitter, is measured at 150 km, from which a sailing day of 37 km was obtained. But here a mistake was made in choosing the starting point. The distance should be counted not from Nikolaev, but from the Ochakovsky Cape, which the ancient navigators, as already mentioned, considered the mouth of Borisfen. But we will not occupy ourselves with these calculations, so as not to close ourselves in a vicious circle - to search for Exampey with the help of measurements based on the identification of Sinyukha with ... Exampey.
Thus, we can assume that the main difficulties that prevented the exact localization of Exampey have been overcome. The mouth of the Borysfen is specified. This is the area of the Ochakovsky Cape. It was possible to calculate the day of the voyage. It is approximately 55-58 km. Now we can begin to analyze the existing points of view about the location of Exampey.
K. K. Shilik correctly determined the day of navigation at 52-57 km and found out that Exampey was 208-228 km from the sea. But he indicated the mouth of Gipanis not at Ochakov, but 80 km to the west. From there, I calculated the indicated distance. The consequence of such a mistake was the "displacement" of Exampey down the river and his identification with the Rotten Elants. And this, in turn, "lengthened" upper part Hypanis. The length of the Southern Bug to this place is 750 km. Such a distance is 12 days of sailing, not 5. Thus, incorrect localization led K. K. Shilik to a contradiction with the data of Herodotus. Trying to find a way out of this situation, he resorts to a methodologically unacceptable trick: he introduces another value for the upper part of the river for the day of navigation - 80 km. After all, the day of navigation, like the day of the journey, is an averaged constant, a well-known standard by which the necessary distances are measured. How can you increase or decrease this figure, and even more so combine it with different values, and even on the same river?! But even this inconsistency does not save the situation: it reduces the sailing time to only 9.5 days. Then the researcher tries to find another way out. He believes that not the entire Southern Bug was called Gipanis in the upper part, but its following combination: Rotten Tikich - Sinyukha-Southern Bug. For such an identification, in his opinion, there are "quite serious grounds" (p. 454). They boil down to the following points:
1. This route has a length of about 380 km, which is
149
It lasts 4.75 days at that swimming speed. This is very close to the five days of Herodotus.
2. Cases of mismatch modern titles along the entire length of the river with old names are known.
3. Sinyukha is not too deep, and this corresponds to Herodotus' instruction that the Gipanis River is still shallow in the upper reaches.
4. The upper reaches of the Rotten Tikich could be the lake from which Gipanis flowed. The river spreads widely there, the current is almost imperceptible.
Thus, K. K. Shilik resolved the contradiction that had arisen by increasing the day of navigation to 80 km for the upper part of the river and identifying the upper reaches of the Gipanis with Sinyukha.
Now about the point of view of B. A. Rybakov. At first, the researcher, in principle, one might say, joined in the identification of Exampey with Sinyukha and, based on this, tried to calculate the day of the voyage. But he determined the mouth of the Gipanis near Nikolaev, and by this he significantly “shortened” the lower course of the river, and ultimately the day of navigation. This led to a contradiction with the data of Herodotus. With such a reduced navigation day (37 km), the upper part of Gipanis, equal to five days of navigation, should have not 450 km, like the Southern Bug, but only 180 km. B. A. Rybakov resolved the contradiction that arose in the same way as K. K. Shilik, - identified Gipanis with Sinyukha and one of its tributaries - Gorny Tikich (p. 34). He supports his conclusions with the following arguments:
1. The length of Gorny Tikich and Sinyukha is about 170 km, and this almost corresponds to five days of sailing.
2. “On the map, Sinyukha [Sinitsa] is shown as a river, much more powerful than the Southern Bug above its mouth. Judging by the cartographic data reflecting the actual width and fullness of the rivers, it is not Sinyukha that is a tributary of the Bug, but the Southern Bug, despite its great length, flows into the more full-flowing Sinyukha-Tikich.
3. Gorny Tikich flows out of the lake, which corresponds to the instructions of Herodotus.
So, the incorrect definition of the mouth of the Hypanis and the day of navigation led the researchers to a contradiction with the data of Herodotus regarding the length of the upper part of the river. Trying to find a way out of this situation, they call Gypanis not the Southern Bug, but Sinyukha. The main argument in this case is put forward by the coincidence of distances with the data of Herodotus. But the given distances diverge too much from each other. Five days of sailing for K. K. Shilik are equal to 400 km, and for B. A. Ry
150
bakov - 180 km, and the total length of Gipanis - 608-628 and 330 km, respectively. Such significant discrepancies make one more cautious about the statement about “coincidence of distances”. After all, discrepancies with the length of the Southern Bug are the result of an incorrect definition of the mouth of the Gipanis and the day of navigation. It is there that the contradictions that have arisen should be eliminated.
Consider the statement of B. A. Rybakov that the Southern Bug, contrary to generally accepted opinion, is not the main river, but a tributary of the Sinyukha. Substantiating this such a categorical conclusion, the scientist writes: “On the map, Sinyukha [Sinitsa] is shown as a river, much more powerful than the Southern Bug above its mouth,” and refers to the well-known atlas of A.F. Marx 9 . We open the specified edition. Map No. 24 we need is a sheet of the 10th European Russia map on a scale of 1:2,000,000 (in versts). Here Sinyukha is indeed shown as a more powerful river. The Southern Bug above its mouth is marked with a thinner line than Sinyukha itself. All this is so. But let's not rush to the conclusion that the Southern Bug is its tributary. Let's take a closer look at the map. Here is the confluence of these rivers. Sinyukha's course can be traced back to its origins. Let us now turn to the Southern Bug. Its image above the mouth of the Sinyukha goes to the west and ... then the map breaks off. The line of the river stretches here for about 2 cm. This segment is shown to be less significant than Sinyukha. But on the adjacent sheet 9 (map No. 23), the rest of the upper course of the Southern Bug is depicted, as one would expect, much more powerful than Sinyukha. Why is there such a distortion on sheet 10? I think this can be explained by the mistake of the draftsman, and quite understandable. The fact is that when studying the map in question, and even more so when drawing it, one gets the impression that the Sinyukha, which completely fits on this sheet, is the main river, and the Southern Bug, represented only two centimeters above its mouth, seems to be one of its small tributaries . Therefore, the draftsman depicted this process with a thinner line. This is a mistake, so to speak, of a technical nature.
In the same atlas, on other maps (11, 12), where both rivers fit completely on one sheet, the Southern Bug is shown much more powerful than Sinyukha. Yes, it cannot be otherwise. After all, the Southern Bug, both in full flow and in length, significantly exceeds its tributary Sinyukha. Absolutely all cards show them like this. In this regard, I would like to quote one
151
N. I. Nadezhdina, one of the first researchers in the geography of Herodotus' Scythia: "Here, where it is a matter of localities, is it possible to take even a step without a lively conference with the localities" 10 . And those who have been at the confluence of these rivers and have seen well the much more powerful ancient valley of the Southern Bug will never claim that this river is a tributary of the Sinyukha.
Thus, it should be recognized that the identification of Gipanis with Sinyukha was made without any objective necessity and is not substantiated in any way. Moreover, on all its points it comes into sharp conflict with the data of Herodotus both about the Hypanis itself and about its location relative to other rivers, in particular Tiras. Let me remind you that Herodotus writes the following about this: “Near the land of Alisons, Tiras and Hypanis bring their bends closer together, but from here each of them turns and flows so that the gap between them expands” (IV, 52). Here we are talking, no doubt, about the Dniester and the Southern Bug. Their convergence can be seen on any map. For almost 200 km, both valleys run almost parallel. The distance between their axes is approximately 80 km, and both valleys are clearly visible from the watershed. This allows you to trace their configuration. Further, the rivers diverge up to 160 km.
The Dniester hardly comes close to Sinyukha. The distance between them somewhat decreases near its mouth. But this can only be determined by having accurate map or geodetic instruments, since the smallest distance between them is 135 km, and visual observation is excluded here.
As we can see, the data of Herodotus contradict the identification of Hypanis with Sinyukha. K. K. Shilik recognizes this contradiction, but tries to explain it by the fact that “there could be an overlap of information about the upper reaches of the Gipanis from two sources: from the inhabitants of the upper reaches of the Sinyukha [Zhuravskaya and Tyasma group of monuments] and the inhabitants of the upper reaches of the Southern Bug [Nemirovsky group of monuments]” (p. 455). But such an explanation cannot be considered convincing. Why, one wonders, accuse Herodotus, or rather, his informants, of such confusion? Wouldn't it be better to abandon the identification of Gipanis with Sinyukha, which is unfounded and absolutely unjustified?! After all, there are no objective reasons to reject the Southern Bug. This river is fully consistent with the Hypanis of Herodotus.
The length of the Southern Bug from its sources to the sea exceeds 800 km. That's more than nine days of sailing. But here we should keep in mind the mention of Herodotus that Hypanis "flows from a large lake." Rises
152
The question is how to deal with these words. B. A. Rybakov explains a similar message about the Tire in this way: “In the upper reaches of the Dniester between the Sambir and the mouth of the Bystritsa tributary, in an area of about 50 km, there are extensive swamps that could be considered a lake” (p. 31). In the same way, he imagines the lake from which the Hypanis flowed. A similar opinion is expressed by K. K. Shilik. But, identifying Gipanis with Sinyukha, they are looking for such a lake in the upper reaches of Gorny Tikich and Rotten Tikich. In fact, this lake should be sought in the upper reaches of the Southern Bug. And it is there.
Near Vinnitsa, the Southern Bug flows through a wide marshy valley. The fall here is very small. There are many lakes and ponds in the valley. In high water, it turns into one large lake, about which Herodotus writes. From here to the sea about 550 km. This distance is well within 9 days of sailing (495-522 km). As we can see, the length of the Southern Bug is quite consistent with the length of the Hypanis. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt their identity, as already pointed out
V.P. Yaylenko". There is also no reason to believe that "Herodotus had in mind only the upper and lower navigable parts of Gipanis, without mentioning its rapids middle course", and that therefore, they say, the nine days of navigation indicated by him are less than the length of the Southern Bug" 12. There is no need to resort to such an assumption. The data of Herodotus are fully consistent with reality.
Now you can finally start looking for Exampey. According to Herodotus, he was four days sailing from the sea. Knowing that one day of sailing is equal to 55-58 km, we get a distance of 220-232 km. Here it is time to say that Herodotus' information is supplemented by another source, which researchers for some reason almost do not attract. The Roman writer Vitruvius Pollio reports the following: “There are springs that originate from bitter earthly juice, with extremely bitter water; such is the river Hypanis in Pontus. This river flows from its source about 40 miles, having a very sweet taste of water, then reaches a place 160 miles from the mouth; there it takes a very small source. It, flowing into the river, makes the entire huge mass of water in it bitter, since it flows through such land and veins, from where sandaraka is mined, and the water in it becomes bitter ”(VIII, 3, 11; VDI, 1949, No. 1, p. 213-214). Although the author does not name the source, it is still undeniably clear that the reference is to Exampey. Comparison of two passages
153
shows that Vitruvius' data is independent of Herodotus's. In our case, this is very important. After all, we have another source that gives more accurate measurements - in miles. So Vitruvius places Exampaeum 160 miles (237 km) from the mouth of the Hypanis. True, he reduced the upper part of the river to 40 miles (59 km). This is apparently due to poor knowledge of the upper reaches. But the author does not pretend to describe Gipanis, because the focus of his attention is a bitter source.
Thus, Exampey must be sought 220-237 km from the mouth of the Gipanis, i.e., from the Ochakovsky Cape. This distance leads us to the mouth of Sinyukha. Here it is appropriate to consider the opinion of K. K. Shilik that since this area is located above the rapids and is inaccessible to ships from the side of the estuary, the localization of the mouth of the Exampey here is simply impossible from the point of view of hydrology (p. 455). The objection is rather categorical. But at the same time, it still remains unclear why ships must have approached Exampey. After all, neither Herodotus nor Pollio say a word about it. The assumption that in that place the bread was loaded from the Scythian wagons to the Olbian ships does not prove anything yet. Why, say, the Olbian merchants had to send vessels for grain, and not boats that could rise through the rapids? Or why the Scythians could not themselves deliver bread to Olbia in their shuttles? The data of Herodotus and Vitruvius completely remove this objection. The distance indicated by them leads precisely to the mouth of Sinyukha. Now about the salinity of Exampey. Most researchers explain this message, as already mentioned, by the penetration of sea water into the estuary. But Vitruvius quite definitely connects the cause of salinity with the land through which the river flows. Here, B. A. Rybakov quite correctly notes that all “left tributaries of the Sinyukha and the Southern Bug really contain either phosphate or cuprous impurities, which worsen the drinking quality of water” (p. 36). But these data do not explain why the Exampey stands out for its salinity among neighboring tributaries. Presumably, here he had his own, special salting agent. Let's try to find it.
In this area, long known for its salt marshes, there are still a lot of salty groundwater and small lakes, the so-called solonetzes. Valuable information about them was collected in the middle of the last century by A. Schmidt. He indicates several such lakes in the upper reaches of Sinyukha 13 . The water in them did not differ in salinity from the sea. Here, until the beginning of the 19th century.
154
Rice. 20. Hypanis according to Herodotus
salt was mined quite intensively. And in ancient times it was, of course, much more. It was she who salted the river and, in turn, changed the taste of the water in Gipanis, which attracted the attention of ancient authors. Over time, the salt reserves were exhausted (in recent centuries, people have thoroughly helped this), and the water in Sinyukh has ceased to be so exclusively salty.
So, Sinyukha in all respects corresponds to the description of Herodotus and Vitruvius. It is this river that most researchers identify with Exampey. It only remains for me to join the opinion of my predecessors and emphasize that doubting
155
there are no objective grounds for the correctness of this identification.
Now it is necessary to resolve the issue of the upper reaches of the Exampey. The fact is that Sinyukha does not have its own tributary and is formed from the confluence in one place of three rivers at once: Rotten Tikich, Gorny Tikich and Vysi. Which of these three rivers is the headwaters of the Exampey? Where was this locality of the same name, in which, according to Herodotus, the cauldron of Arianta stood? If we take such a factor as salinity, then the choice falls on Vys. It is in its valley that the mentioned salt lakes are located, in which salt was mined, it is in this area that there are many salt marshes and salty groundwater. In my opinion, these data are quite sufficient to consider the Vys as the headwaters of the Exampey. But for greater persuasiveness, let us turn to another sign. Since the area of Exampaeus (Sacred Ways) is unanimously considered a junction of trade routes, as well as a cult place of Scythia, there must certainly be a large number of Greek imports here. In this case, it is enough to look at the map of the distribution of Greek finds to make sure that there are no imports at all in the upper reaches of the Rotten and Gorny Tikichi, while the entire Vys basin is literally saturated with them, which stands out sharply throughout the Bug and Dnieper regions 4 . All this convinces that, most likely, the Vys is the headwaters of the Exampey. Apparently, at its origins one should look for the area of the same name, in which the Scythian sanctuary was located. Perhaps in time this sanctuary will be found. After all, no one has been looking for him closely yet. This outstanding monument of Scythian history is still waiting for its researcher.
Let us consider the questions of the ethnogeography of Scythia related to the localization of Exampey. Herodotus reports that, according to Hypanis, starting from the marketplace of the Borisfenites, “the first to live are the Callipids, who are Hellenic-Scythians; above them is another tribe called the Alisons. The Scythians-plowmen live above the Alisons... Above these live the Neuri, and above the Neuri, the land facing the north wind is deserted along the entire known stretch” (IV, 17). The localization of Exampey makes it possible to clarify some of the boundaries of the settlement of tribes. Let us return to the words of Herodotus that “near the land of the Alizons, Tiras and Hypanis bring their bends closer together, but from here each of them turns and flows so that the gap between them expands” (IV, 52). It follows that the land of the Alisons is located at the point of convergence of the Dniester and
156
Southern Bug. This section stretches from the Gaysin district to Savran. Consequently, the northern border of the alizones passed approximately in the area of Gaisin. And the southern border was near Savran, i.e., somewhat higher than the mouth of the Exampey. And the very mouth of Exampey lay, as Solin (XIV, 1; VDI, 1949, No. 3, p. 242), already lay within the limits of the Kallipidov.
That, perhaps, is all that can be said about Exam-pei and the historical-geographical and ethnographic questions connected with it.
1 Elnitsky L. A. Knowledge of the ancients about the northern countries. M., 1961, p. 87.
2 See: Dovatur A.I., Kallistov D.P., Shishova I.A. Peoples of our country ..., pp. 280-281.
3 Shilik K. K. Geographical aspects of Herodotus' message about the bitter spring on Gipanis. - In the book: Problems of ancient history and culture, vol. 2. Yerevan, 1979, p. 450-456.
4 Rybakov B. A. Gerodotova Scythia. M, 1979, p. 31-37.
5 Shilik K. K. To the paleogeography of Olbia - In the book. Olvia. Kyiv, 1975, p. 80, figure 15.
6 Dovatur A.I., Kallistov D.P., Shishova I.A. Peoples of our country ..., p. 236-237.
7 Zenkovich V P. Danube Delta, p. 23.
8 Vinogradov Yu. G. On the political unity of Berezan and Olbia. - In the book: Artistic culture and archeology of the ancient world. M., 1976, p. 79.
9 Marks A.F. New desktop atlas. Pg., 1915
10 Nadezhdin N. and Gerodotova Scythia, explained through comparison with localities-ZOOID, vol. 1, 1844, p. 4.
11 Yaylenko V.P. On the issue of identifying the rivers and peoples of Herodotus Scythia. - SE, 1983, No. 1, p. 55-56.
13 Schmidt A. Materials for the geography and statistics of Russia. Kherson province, part I. St. Petersburg, 1863, p. 230-234, 443-444.
14 Onayko N A. Antique imports in the Dnieper and Bug regions in the 7th-5th centuries. BC e. Collection of archaeological sources. D-1-27. M., 1966, p. 45, fig. 7.
