Viktor N. Parfenov

Sergey Saprykin

The authors analyse and comment on the arguments used by G. Bowersock and C. Jones for dating and interpreting an encomium of a Bosporan military commander and statesman whose name has not been preserved. The encomium was found at the necropolis of Panticapaeum and dated to the late 1st century AD or to the first years of the reign of Sauromates I. The main argument for this was the expression used in the inscription: «the then emperor» (ΚΑΙΣΑΡ Ο ΤΟΤΕ). The authors of the fi rst publication of the monument believed that the words refer to Domitian, who after his death received a damnatio memoriae and thus could not be mentioned by name. However, according to the version of the American scholars, the encomium should be dated to the reign of Sauromates II (173–210 AD) and the expression in question must refer to Commodus, who was also subjected to damnatio memoriae in 192 AD. They put forward some arguments confirming this conclusion and refuting the arguments used by the authors of the first publication. The authors of the present paper critically review the commentaries made by the American colleagues and suggest a number of new variants of reconstruction. They come to the conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds for revising the date suggested earlier and that some obvious facts (paleography of the document, the political situation at the north-eastern borders of the Roman Empire, the terminology used in the text, etc.) speak strongly against the date of 194–195 AD.