322 Gocha R. Tsetskhladze
the Archaeanactid tyranny. Any or all of these events could have been responsible for the
destruction of/in the cities in the Cimmerian Bosporus.
A paradox of Achaemenid rule is that it left a very light archaeological footprint. “Per-
sianization,” whatever it might entail, is hard to identify, not least on account of the
deliberate policy of leaving cultural and ethnic identities intact. What objects we have
from the outliers of the Achaemenid Empire are mainly gold and silverware, jewelry, and
arms, objects that are not only hard to date but whose provenance is difficult to identify.
All are examples of “Achaemenid international style,” but refining this further is prob-
lematic. From the archaeological and other evidence, it seems likely, on balance, that the
Bosporan kingdom and Scythia were at least peripheral parts of the Achaemenid domains
(Tsetskhladze 2013: 212–6).
In all parts of the Black Sea, from Thrace to Colchis, there was seldom much friction
between Greeks, Achaemenids, and locals (for a possible exception, destruction of the
temenosof Histria during the Achaemenid’s Scythian campaign [end of sixth century
BC], and further destruction there [ca. 492BC] possibly as punishment for presumed
Histrian involvement in the Ionian Revolt, see Alexandrescu 2010). For example, the
Great King allowed the Greek cities of the southern Black Sea to retain their own laws
and institutions until the beginning of the fourth centuryBC, additionally prohibiting his
officials and satraps from meddling in their internal affairs—his principal concern being
that the cities and the locals paid their taxes and tribute and provided his army with
manpower and provisions when required (Tsetskhladze 2008b).
The Black Sea offers a very good example of an ethnically diverse region. Its different
peoples had to find a way of accommodating each other and, as the Archaic and Classical
periods demonstrate, they did so without much confrontation or belligerence. If the
Greeks had to pay taxes and tributes to the locals for protection, the benefits were mutual.
REFERENCESAlexandrescu, Petre. 2010. “Achämenidsiche zaumzeugornamente in Istros. Perser, Skythen,
Saken.”Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, 42: 267–83.
Avram, Alexandru. 2009. “Héraclée du Pont et ses colonies pontiques: antécédents milésien (?) et
empreinte mégarienne.” In Mario Lombardo and Flavia Frisone, eds.,Colonie di colonie: le fon-
dazioni sub-coloniali greche tra colonizzazione e colonialismo, 209–27. Lecce: Congedo Editore.
Avram, Alexandru. 2011. “The Getae: Selected Questions.” In Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, ed.,The
Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First MillenniumBC, 61–75. Leuven: Peeters
Publishers.
Avram, Alexandru, John Hind, and Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. 2004. “The Black Sea Area.” In Mogen
Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielsen, eds.,An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis,
924–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bilgi, Önder. 2001.Protohistoric Age Metallurgists of the Central Black Sea Region: A New Perspec-
tive on the Question of the Indo-Europeans’ Original Homeland. Istanbul: TASK Vakfı.
Bouzek, Jan. 2000–01. “The First Thracian Urban and Rural Dwellings and Stonecutting Tech-
niques.” In Gocha R. Tsetskhladze and Jan G. de Boer, eds.,The Black Sea Region in the Greek,
Roman, and Byzantine Periods, 243–52.Talanta32–33. Amsterdam: Dutch Archaeological
and Historical Society.
Bouzek, Jan. 2005. “Urbanisation in Thrace.” In Jan Bouzek and Lidia Domaradzka, eds.,The
Culture of the Thracians and their Neighbours: Proceedings of the International Symposium in