In 1974. The North Crimean expedition of the Institute of Archeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR under the leadership of A. A. Shchepinsky unearthed an outstanding monument of Sarmatian culture - a rich tomb of a noble woman. Burial No. 18 was let into a Bronze Age mound (No. 5 according to field documentation; in the literature it is known as the Nogaichinsky mound). The shape of the grave pit has not been traced. The skeleton of the woman lay in a painted wooden sarcophagus, the bones of the hands were in silver keels. The upper part of the skeleton was covered with many golden plaques. Personal jewelry includes a gold hryvnia, a necklace, polychrome earrings, medallions, hand and anklets. There must have been a wooden box near his right shin. It contained gold toilet bottles and a jet pixide, two gold rings, two gold polychrome fibulas, an earthenware plate, a glass bowl, and various amulets. The inventory includes a silver Scythian cup of the IV century BC, a ceramic jug and balsamarium, an alabaster vessel, a bronze mirror with a bone handle, and many beads made of faience, glass, and semiprecious stones.

The author published brief information about the burial site shortly after the excavations (Shchepinskii, 1977), and his article on the monument was published only 17 years later (Scepinskii, 1994). Gold ornaments from the mound were studied in my monograph [Simonenko, 1993, pp. 70-74] and in articles by M. Y. Treister [Treister, 1997; Treister, 2000]. Later, this burial became the subject of works by V. I. Mordvintseva and Yu. P. Zaitsev [Mordvintseva and Zaitsev, 2003; Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, 2004; Mordvintseva and Zaitsev, 2004].

A. A. Shchepinsky, not being an expert on the Sarmatians, suggested a rather wide time interval - the end of the second century BC - the first century AD, i.e. within the then date of the Middle Sarmatian culture (Scepinskii, 1994, p. 96). I dated the burial to the second half of the first and beginning of the second centuries AD [Simonenko, 1993, p. 117]. M. Y. Treister showed that most of the jewelry from this complex belongs to the late Hellenistic era (end of the third and first centuries BC) [2000, p. 201]. However, to dispute my point of view Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva focused on the early date of gold jewelry and, despite the presence of later items in the complex, dated the monument to the beginning - the first half of the first century BC (Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, p. 97).

Among the items whose date is disputed are a gold ring with a glass gem, a bowl made of mosaic glass and an earthenware plate.

Ring with a glass gem. Two gold rings were found in a toilet box (?). One of them has a hollow, massive tire extending to the flap and a flat flap, on which is soldered a high truncated-conical socket shaped profile: the lower half of it with concave walls,

* The paper was prepared as part of the author's project under the Fulbright Academic Exchange Program.

** English and Russian versions of the same text.

*** The 2003 articles are English and Russian versions of the same text.

**** Then they specified the date: 50-40s of the first century BC [Mordvintseva and Zaitsev, 2004, p. 23].

page 57

Fig. 1. A ring with a gem. Photo by Brace White (from: [Scythian Gold..., 1999, p. 325]).

Figure 2. Drawing a ring with a gem.

3. Ring from the British Museum, inv. N GR 1917.5 - 1.1615 (Ring 1615). Photo by the British Museum (from: [Higgs, 2001, p. 99, cat. N 118]).

4. A ring from the Sarmatian complex near the village of Staraya Osota. Photo archive of IIMC RAS, negative Q 521, 16.

the upper one is convex. They are separated by a roller formed by two mortise lines. The edge of the socket is vertically bent and underlined with a mortise line. The edge of the edge and part of the upper wall of the nest are deformed. The dimensions of the flap on the outer edge are 4*3.9 cm. tires are 3*2.3 cm. The finger hole is almost round, flat on the inside, measuring 1.8* 1.65 cm. The weight of the ring is 10.7 g. An intaglio on dark purple translucent glass* is inserted into the socket-an image of a woman's head in profile. The front side of the insert is convex, the reverse side is slightly concave. The hairstyle of a woman with a knot on the back of her head, a roller on her forehead and curls on her neck is conveyed by deepened sharp lines. On the forehead above the hair roller, there is a clear image of Stephane. The eyes, nose, and mouth are outlined in rough, angular lines. Gem Sizes 3,35*2,37*0,65 1, 2). The ring is kept in the Museum of Historical Jewels of Ukraine (inv. N gas station-2866).

The ring from the excavations of V. Shkorpil in Kerch, kept in the Pilsen Museum (inv. N 13438), is very close to Nogaichinsky - its setting is only of a more complex profile. Most of these rings are found in southern Eastern Europe and Cyprus. Several specimens have been found in Bulgaria, Crete, and Syria. The shape of the shin is typical for the III-II centuries BC [Simonenko, 1993, p. 89; Ondrejova, 1975, p. 35-36, pl. I, 4; II, 4]. However, such rings are known later. Almost identical in shape to the Nogaichinsky ring of the first century BC made of gilded limestone with a glass gem (Fig. 3). allegedly found near the Rosetta Gate in Alexandria (British Museum, inv. N GR 1917.5 - 1.1615) [Higgs, 2001, cat. N 118]. The ring with a similar tire comes from the destroyed rich Sarmatian complex of the second half of the first century AD near the village of Staraya Osota, Kirovograd region. 4). Long-term use of such rings should not be surprising, since gold jewelry generally has a long age.

Based on the style of the gem, I assumed that it was made and inserted into the ring later - in Roman times [Simonenko, 2001, p. 192]. The condition of the item also suggested this idea: the gem is somewhat smaller than the frame and does not fit tightly; the edges of the frame are deformed, most likely in order to fix the insert that is not suitable in size. They believe that the intaglio depicts the Queen of Egypt Arsinoe III, deified by her son Ptolemy V, and on this basis date the gem to the second century BC (Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, p. 91). Indeed, the iconography of the Nogaichin intaglio coincides with the portrait of Arsinoe III on the coins (Figs. 5, 1). However, no one can guarantee that it is she who is depicted on the gem. The image of Arsinoe at the end of the Hellenistic era and in early Roman times was identified with Aphrodite-Venus [Plantzos, 1999, p. 50; Neverov, 1976, p. 173], while the iconography was preserved: a hairstyle with a knot on the back of the head, curls on the neck, a roller on the forehead and Stefan. This is how Arsinoe III is depicted

* The definition of gem material as carnelian given in my publication [Simonenko, 1993, p. 73], made by the senior probirer of the South-Western Inspection of Assay Supervision in Kiev, V. G. Zotina, was erroneous.

** For a summary of the findings, see [Ondrejova, 1975, p. 36, note 2].

page 58

5. The image of Arsinoe-Aphrodite on coins. Photo by the British Museum (from: [Cleopatra..., 2001, p. 84, 178, 224, 257, 205, 251, 253]). 1-gold octadrachm of Arsinoe III, 205-180 BC; 2-bronze coin of Cleopatra VII, 51-30 BC; 3-denarius of Julius Caesar, 47-45 BC; 4, 5-denarii of Octavian, 34-28 BC.

6. Gems with the image of Arsinoe III (according to [Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, p. 91]). 1-Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, inv. N 27.709; 2-private collection; 3-Antiquemuseum, Berlin, inv. N 1097 (by: [Plantzos, 1999, pi. 7, 35, 36, 38]).

on the gold octadrachs 202-180 BC of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, Cleopatra VII on the bronze coin 51-30 BC (Fig. 5, 2), Venus on the denarii of Julius Caesar 47-45 BC (Fig. 5, 3) and Octavian 34-28 BC. 5, 4, 5). Thus, there is no reason to see in the image on the Nogaichinskaya gem exactly the portrait of Arsinoe III, and even more so to date it to the time of the reign of this queen.

For dating, refer to the stylistic features of the image. As analogs of V. I. Mordvintsev and Yu. P. Zaitsev, the gems of Hellenistic time from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (Fig. 6, 1) and the British Museum (see Fig. 3), the Berlin Antiquemuseum (see Figures 6, 3), from a private collection (see Figures 6, 2). However, they are comparable to Nogaichinskaya only in plot - they all depict the same character with repeated attributes (hairstyle, Stefan, etc.)*. The style of these gems is completely different - we are looking at products of the classical portrait style, which has nothing in common with the style of Nogaichinskaya intaglio (Linearer Stil, in German terminology), which Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva explain the difficulty of carving on glass [2003, p. 91]. They are right in the sense that cutting intaglios on glass was not only difficult, but absolutely impossible - the structure of the glass does not allow you to draw any other deepened lines in it, except for straight grooves. Glass cameos were stamped in the mold, and intagliums were pressed out in a hot blank with a convex matrix. It is clear that in this case, the thread style of the matrix did not depend on the properties of the glass. To make sure of this, just look at the glass intaglio of the ring from Alexandria-it is stamped from a matrix cut in the classical portrait style (see Figure 3).

According to the conclusion of the expert-technologist on jewelry, associate Professor of the Department of Commodity Science and Expertise of Non-food Products of the National Trade and Economic University (Kiev), Candidate of Technical Sciences T. N. Artyukh, the insert of the Nogaichinsky ring was pressed in a special form made of clay or metal, the inner surface of which had a pattern depicted on the gem. The hot glass mass was placed in a mold and compressed with a punch. The relief pattern is completely reproduced on the outer surface of the gem. Distinctive features used by the expert to reconstruct the gem manufacturing process are: the presence of a slightly concave surface on the reverse side of the gem, which indicates the applied pressure of a metal or wood punch; a sufficiently large thickness of the product; traces of the preform

* The gem from the British Museum doesn't have Stephane on it, but it has a wreath instead.

page 59

Figure 7. Rough Styles gems (no: [Plantzos, 1999, pl. 38, 232; 40, 248; 43, 263, 266]).

Figure 8. Fine Wheel Style gems. 1-3-by: [Maaskant-Kleinbrink, 1978, p. 58, cat. N 300, 301]; 4, 5-by: [Neverov, 2001].

on the side faces of the gem; smoothed corners and rounded outlines of a woman's head, which is impossible in a carved glass product.

According to the conclusion of T. N. Artyukh, carving (correctly-engraving) on glass was carried out to a lower depth, using copper wheels mounted on a rapidly rotating axis, to which a thin emery is fed in oil. As a rule, such products are polished after engraving work to eliminate traces of emery or remain matte. These signs are absent on the gem surface*. Thus, the laboratory examination confirms that the Nogaichin intaglio (like all similar products) was not finished with a chisel "to the full illusion of a carved stone", as Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva believe [Ibid.] - the glass structure did not allow this.

In order to substantiate the dating of the gem from the Hellenistic period, V. I. Mordvintseva and Yu. P. Zaitsev compare it with the Rough styles group of gems identified by D. Plantzos [Plantzos, 1999, pp. 75-76]. However, in my opinion, there is little in common between them. D. Plancos believes that Coarse styles gems were made for cheap jewelry designed for a poor mass buyer [Ibid, p. 76]. It is unlikely that such a luxurious ring from the Nogaichinsky kurgan can be counted among them. Among the gems of this group, the images of Aphrodite, Apollo and Dionysus in full growth, with various attributes, predominate, but there are no portraits.

The style of images is also different: the figures are modeled roughly and disproportionately, but with rounded lines; there are no right angular furrows, as in the Nogaichin intaglio (Fig. 7). The only thing that brings the gems under discussion closer together is the size. Coarse styles products are quite large: the average size is 2.5-3 by 1.5-2 cm (we will return to this aspect below). In addition, the gems of this group date from the second half of the second century BC, which is somewhat at odds with the generally accepted date of the frame type (330-150 BC). It is unlikely that the assignment of the Nogaichinsky gem to Coarse styles products can be considered correct.

According to the plot, style and technique of drawing, the intaglio under consideration fully corresponds to the Fine Wheel Style group of the numerous Republican Wheel Style class, highlighted by M. Maaskant-Kleinbrink on the materials of the Royal Coin Cabinet in The Hague. Portrait images are well represented in this group (Figure 8). The researcher believes that Fine Wheel Style products were made in Asia Minor or by craftsmen from this region. Such gems are dated to the first century. B.C.-30s of the first century A.D. [Maaskant-Kleinbrink, 1978, p. 154]. It is not surprising that the analogs of the Nogaychinsky gem belong to this period. One of them is an intaglio on sardonyx of the third quarter of the first century BC from the German National Museum in Nuremberg (Weifi, 1996, p. 98, Taf. 29, 213). It is made in Fine Wheel Style, and the image of a woman's head (To. Weiss defined the character as Venus; comparable to the transformation of the image of Arsinoe-Aphrodite)

* I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to T. N. Artyukh for her help in this work.

page 60

repeats the Nogaichin intaglio down to the details (Fig. 9, 3). Very close to the Nogaichin intaglio on sardonyx of the first century BC - first century AD from the collection of the Museum of Art History in Vienna (Fig. 9, 2) [Zwierlein-Diehl, 1979. S. 118, Taf. 75, 1052, 1053] and intaglio on carnelian of the second half of the first century BC from Xanthene (Figs. 9, 4) [Platz-Horster, 1987, S. 38, Taf. 13, 68], depicting Venus. The gem of the middle of the first century BC from Oenone or Salona in Dalmatia (Figs. 9, 5), made somewhat more elegantly, is also stylistically close to the products under consideration. According to S. H. Middleton, it represents Juno or Venus [Middleton, 1991, p. 109, pl. 188]. It is noteworthy that all these gems, unlike the "analogs" of my opponents, date back to the early Roman period precisely on the basis of a style identical to that of the Nogaichin gem. This style (Linearer Stil, Fine Wheel Style) later, in the first centuries AD, became characteristic of Roman and provincial glyptics. Stylistically similar to Nogaichinskaya are the portrait gems of the Bosporan kings Sauromat II (see Figures 8, 5) and Kotis III (see Figures 8, 4), dating from the end of the second and beginning of the third centuries AD, respectively.

The only thing that distinguishes the listed gems from the Nogaichin gem is the size. All of them are small: the average size is 1-1.5 by 0.7-0.9 cm. This difference is quite understandable. In Roman times, large rings of the Hellenistic type were no longer made, and it was most likely difficult to find a suitable gem for replacement (especially in the Northern Black Sea region, on the periphery of the ancient world). Probably, for the Nogaichinsky ring, the master cut out a matrix according to the size of the frame in a familiar and popular style (Fine Wheel Style) and intaglio was pressed on it. Whether this happened in the second half of the first century BC - the beginning of the first century AD (the time of the Fine Wheel Style gems) or later (which is quite realistic, given the undoubtedly long life of jewelry), of course, cannot be specified. However, the chronological difference between the ring and the gem inserted in it is obvious, as evidenced by a slight discrepancy in the size of the frame and intaglio. Usually, the frame is made according to the size and shape of the insert, and not vice versa. Therefore, it was very difficult to accurately fit a new insert without removing the frames. A minor error in marking or an unexpected shrinkage of the glass during molding and cooling affected the accuracy of the fit - the gemstone did not fit tightly and the rim of the frame had to be slightly bent to fix it.

The analysis of glass and earthenware vessels should be preceded by some explanation. In the publication of A. A. Shchepinsky there is no description and drawings of these things. His report briefly describes an earthenware plate and glass bowl, and includes some very mediocre photos*. While the items were stored on the basis of the expedition (in the so-called Museum of Archeology of the Crimea on a voluntary basis), the author of the excavations did not allow them to be examined or even examined. In 1990, the "museum" was robbed and the items disappeared**. Their detailed description and drawings in the articles of Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva were made by the authors, according to their personal message, from diary entries and laboratory sketches. HRA place-

9. The Nogaichinsky kurgan gem and its analogs. 1-Nogaichinsky kurgan, border 18; 2-Museum of Art History. Vienna, inv. N IX 2020 (по: [Zwierlein-Diehl, 1979, S. 118, Taf. 75, 1052, 1053]); 3 - German National Museum, Nuremberg, SiSt 1663 (from: [WeiB, 1996, S. 98, Taf. 29, 213]); 4-Xanten Museum, inv. N XAV 2064, L 105 (from [Platz-Horster, 1987, S. 38, Taf. 13, 68]); 5-Oxford, Lord A. Evans Collection, sheet 6, 43, L (from [Middleton, 1991, p. 109, cat. N 188]).

* Shchepinsky A. Report on the work of the North Crimean archaeological expedition in 1974 Simferopol, 1978. - Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. f. e. 8365, fig. 94, 95.

** This is one of the versions that has not been documented. In any case, only the place of storage of gold items from the complex (National Museum of History of Ukraine) is officially known.

page 61

Fig. 10. Millefiori-type glass bowls from the Nogaichinsky mound, border 18.1 - according to the report of A. A. Shchepinsky, Fig. 94; 2-according to: [Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, Fig. 14, 6].

I do not know the contents of these documents, and the works of Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva do not indicate them. This "secrecy" of scientific information raises certain doubts about the reliability of descriptions and drawings. However, in the absence of others, they are used for analysis.

Glass bowl. In the box (?) or next to it was a bowl of mosaic glass. In the report of A. A. Shchepinsky, it is described more than briefly and unintelligibly: "A bowl made of glass with an internal pattern. Diameter 9 cm, height 5 cm" (collection inventory, p. 7, N 82). According to the description of Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva [2003, p. 80], the hemispherical bowl is made in mosaic technique from spiral sections of different sizes, pressed in a mold. The corolla is cut obliquely from the outside and inside. The surface inside and the edge outside are flattened. The high, massive pallet is shaped like a truncated cone. The background of the ornament is yellow glass; spiral swirls are made of translucent glass with the addition of gold flecks. The diameter of the whisk is 8.5 cm, the pallet is 4 cm, and the vessel is 5 cm high (Fig.

The Nogaichin cup belongs to a large class of millefiori, which has several varieties. V. I. Mordvintseva and Yu. P. Zaitsev attract as an analog a cup found at the site of a shipwreck that occurred near the island of Antikythera in 65 (+/- 15 years) BC [Weinberg, 1965, p. 37-39, N 7We believe that it is "completely analogous to the Nogaichinsky vessel" (Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, p. 86). This is not entirely true. First, the vessels compared have a different color scheme: the body of the Antikythera bowl is formed of purplish-white spirals with a blue dot in the center, with random inclusions of pieces of blank white glass (Weinberg, 1965, p. 37). Secondly, it is wider and squat, the lower edge of the pallet is not cut off, and a spiral roller of yellow, white and colorless threads runs along the corolla. E. Oliver combined vessels of this type into the "Antikythera" group and dated it to the first half of the first century BC (Oliver, 1968, p. 55-56). At the Nogaichinsky bowl, the corolla is pointed. The same or slightly curved corollas are typical of glass and red-lacquer bowls of the first half of the first century AD (Grose, 1989, p. 254, fig. 135].

10, 1) raises doubts about the reliability of the description of the bowl given by Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva. The spirals forming the body are completely invisible in the image. Perhaps the patina and very poor quality of the photo are to blame for this, but in the photo of the Antikythera vessel (also not of the best quality), the spirals are clearly visible. The bowl from the Nogaichinsky mound in the picture looks more like a millefiori of the early Roman period - with a single-color base, which is interspersed with multi-colored "splashes". Unfortunately, it is impossible to resolve these doubts - it is not found in the official archaeological repositories of Ukraine**.

So, I do not run the risk of unambiguously determining which type of millefiori the bowl from the Nogaichinsky mound belongs to. If this is a mosaic glass with a spiral ornament, then the color, proportions and lack of a roller on the corolla of the bowl differs from the vessels of the "Antikifera" group. If this is a millefiori with "splashes", then the vessels of this group can not be its analogues.

Millefiori glass was in fashion in the ancient world and was produced from the end of the Hellenistic era to the middle of the first century AD [Kunina, 1997, p. 34]. The shape of the bowl from the Nogaichinsky mound is closer to the products of the first half

* Such a detailed description implies either the presence of an equally detailed source of information, or a visual inspection of the item. Meanwhile, the location of the bowl is unknown, and the authors of the description confirmed this in a personal conversation.

** Recently, Yu. P. Zaitsev informed me that he has a photo of a bowl where the spirals are clearly visible, but he never showed it. It is not clear why the authors did not publish this photo to avoid any misunderstandings.

page 62

Fig. 11. Earthenware plates. 1-National Museum of Iran, Tehran (based on[The Splendour..., 2001. p. 391]); 2-Nogaichinsky kurgan, border 18 (based on [Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, Fig. 14, 2]).

12. Ornament "wreath" on earthenware plates. 1-Hellenistic faience; 2-plate from pogr. 18 Nogaichinsky kurgan. I century AD G. Davidson Weinberg cites vessels of the first century AD from Haltern, Vindonissa, Colchester as analogues of the bowl with Antikythera (Weinberg, 1965, p. 37). Mosaic glass bowls were found in Pompeii, and the most recent find (in Britain) dates back to Hadrian's coins (Isings, 1957, p. 16). Among the Sarmatians, millefiori vessels were very rare; such vessels or fragments of them were found in four other burials dating back to the second half of the first century AD (Simonenko, 2003, p. 44-15; Simonenko, 2006, p.137-138).

Thus, I see no reason to date the glass bowl from the Nogaichinsky mound (and the entire complex according to it, as Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva do) only to the first half of the first century BC. It is hardly possible to specify the time of its manufacture within the first century BC - first century AD. V. I. Mordvintseva and Yu. P. Zaitsev overlook that the date of the shipwreck at Antikythera is just a separate time point for more than 150 years of the existence of such vessels. Materials from Sarmatian burials often demonstrate the long existence of Greco-Roman imported items among nomads, and this should be taken into account when dating their monuments.

Earthenware plate. An earthenware plate was found next to the bowl, possibly also in a box (?) (Fig. 11, 2). In the report of A. Shchepinsky, it is described as follows: "A glazed plate with a Satyr's head in the center. Clay, blue glaze. Inner diameter 5.5 cm, rim width 1.2 cm, bottom diameter 2.5 cm" (collection inventory, p. 7, N 80). According to the description of Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva [2003, p. 80], it is a vessel made of white faience with a glossy mottled coating of greenish-blue color. The plate has a horizontal wide whisk, a shallow body and a slightly pronounced annular pan. A relief ornament in the form of a wreath runs along the corolla. On the bottom, framed by a raised "tourniquet", there is a low-relief image of a human face with a bandage on the forehead and rounded curls of the hairstyle. The diameter of the corolla is 8.2 cm, the bottom is 2.5 cm, the height of the vessel is 2 cm*.

The authors note that the vessel is unique and has no analogues. In their opinion, the combination of a white faience base with turquoise (in the description - greenish-blue) glaze is known on both Late Hellenistic and Early Roman products [Ibid., p. 97]. Agreeing with the latter conclusion (with the correction that such a combination has been known in Egypt since the Middle Kingdom), I can indicate an almost exact copy of the Nogaichin plate. This is a vessel from the National Museum of Iran in Tehran, found in Iranian Azerbaijan. Publishers date it to the Parthian period; there is no other data available [The Splendour..., 2001, p. 391]**. The diameter of this plate is 9 cm, i.e. almost the same as that of the Nogaichinskaya plate (Fig. The ornamentation and iconography of the relief head on the bottom also coincide. In both cases, the character has a tiara-like headband on his forehead , a detail known in sculptural images of Seleucid rulers. As for the "wreath" and "harness" ornamentation, it is more correct to consider the decor of both plates as an imitation of these elements, made with wide oblique relief lines. The ornament on the crown (two concentric circles of such lines at an angle to each other) conveys stylized leaves of an olive branch-a popular Late Hellenistic motif (Fig. 12). By opinion

* See note. to the description of the glass bowl.

** Usually in the English-language archaeological literature, the term "Parthian Period "is equivalent to our"Roman time".

page 63

13. Earthenware plates of the Roman period with a relief on the bottom (according to [Nenna, Seif El-Din, 2000, p. 129, fig. 48.49]).

14. Egyptian steatite terelks (according to [Parlasca, 1983, Taf. 20, 1 - 3; 22, 1, 3; 24, 3; 25, 3).

M.-D. Nenna and M. Seif El-Din, such stylization and relief images of a human head (Fig. 13) appear on faience in Roman times [Nenna, Seif El-Din, 2000, p. 108, 124, fig. 43, 4].

The plates under consideration should be compared with a group of votive Egyptian steatite bowls of late Hellenistic and Roman times [Parlasca. 1983, S. 151-160, Taf. 20, 1 - 3; 22, 1, 3; 24, 3; 25, 3]. The latter have the same shallow and flat body; the corolla is bent at right angles, usually with two segmented handles (unlike plates from Nogaychik and Iran). The corolla is decorated with an inset "wreath", the body outside and inside-with geometric and floral ornaments (including a "harness"). Inside the bowls - relief images of Isis, Serapis. Harpocrates, erotic scenes, crocodiles, bucranias (Fig. 14). Undoubtedly, the typological (except for the handles) and semantic similarity of these bowls with the Nogaichin plate (the same ornamentation of the corolla and bottom, relief images inside), and their dimensions are similar (Egyptian - from 7.5 to 10.7 cm in diameter). The context of most of the finds is unknown, so K. Parlaska dates Egyptian bowls in a fairly wide range-from late Hellenism to Roman times. The exhibition catalog in Wiesbaden lists more specific dates: in one case (Fig. 14, 1) - the first century AD, in the other (Fig. 14, 4) - the second century. Agypten Schatze..., 1996, S. 150, Nos. 113, 114].

It looks like the Nogaichin and Teheran plates are earthenware derivatives of Egyptian steatite bowls. These analogies tend to date both plates to Roman times.

Beads. Among the numerous beads made of jet, amber, chalcedony and other minerals, several glass and earthenware specimens were found in the burial. Their description is given in the collection inventory of A. A. Shchepinsky's report, but photos and drawings of beads are missing there, as well as in his publication. It is officially considered that the beads were stolen among other things in 1990 - in any case, neither in the Crimean Museum of Local Lore, which received the surviving items from the" museum " of A. A. Shchepinsky, nor in the funds of the Crimean branch of the Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine they are not. Therefore, it is not clear from what kind of nature Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva drew beads, illustrating their articles [2003, p. 74, Fig. 8; Mordvintseva, Zaitsev. 2003, p. 212 - 213, fig. 8]; they themselves do not explain this. According to their data, the burial was found: 65 beads of black glass "in the form of 18-sided"; teardrop-shaped bead of polychrome glass (Fig. 15, 48); cylindrical of red blind glass (Fig. 15, 35); barrel-shaped glass with internal gilding (Fig. 15, 36); transversely compressed from a glass paste; cylindrical polychrome piercing with a longitudinally wavy ornament made of blue, white, black and green glass (figs. 15, 11); two rounded beads in the same technique made of red, blue, yellow and white glass (figs. 15, 26, 2715, 25); two rounded "ocular" ones with sparsely set blue-white "eyes" and a translucent colorless base (Fig. 15, 25); a barrel-shaped "ocular" one with internal gilding and "eyes" arranged "in four rows of three" (Fig. 15, 24); a rounded bead made of black 15, 5); cylindrical polychrome thread with longitudinally wavy ornament and gold tips (Figs. 15, 10); blue faience beads - two ribbed (figs. 15, 13, 14) and one rounded (figs. 15, 23) [Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, pp. 73-74, fig. 8].

E. M. Alekseeva's code was used to determine the types of beads [1975, 1978, 1982]. Of course, without seeing them firsthand, I realize that my conclusions cannot be guaranteed to be accurate. There is insufficient data to determine the type and date of "polychrome glass teardrop beads", "glass paste beads", or "eye beads". Couldn't find any matching beads

page 64

made of black glass "in the form of an 18-sided rectangle". However, E. M. Alekseeva believes that faceted beads made of single-color glass were common in the first centuries of our era [1978, p. 62]. A cylindrical bead made of dull red glass belongs to type 57, typical of the I-IV centuries AD, especially for the I-III centuries. [Ibid., p. 67]; barrel - shaped with internal gilding-to type 2a, common from the III century BC to the III century AD [Ibid., p. 30]; rounded black glass - to type 1, popular in the I-IV centuries AD [Ibid., p. 63]. Yu.P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva kept silent about all these correspondences.

The authors ' analysis of polychrome beads is not quite correct. The justification of their date (mainly in the 3rd-1st centuries BC) by reference to p. 50 of the 2nd volume of the codex by E. M. Alekseeva (Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, p.94) does not correspond to reality. This page describes several types of cylindrical beads with a longitudinally wavy pattern that have different dates. There is no analog of polychrome beads from the burial in the vault, but they are close to type 291 with a slight difference in color scheme. A bead of this type from Panticapaeum is dated by E. M. Alekseeva to the first century BC-the third century AD, and from Kep to the second century BC. Rounded polychrome beads are considered on page 47 of the codex, and the closest type to Nogaichinsky is type 248, which originated at the end of the first century BC, and is widely found in the first and second centuries AD. Thus, the dating proposed by Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva is not confirmed by the work to which they refer.

Ribbed blue earthenware beads are most likely of type 16b (E. M. Alekseeva has a turquoise color, but it is possible that each person's perception of color is different; in any case, in Tables 12, 19, the bead of this type is blue). Such beads were found in burials of the third century BC - the first half of the second century AD, and most of them were found in complexes of the first century AD (Alekseeva, 1975, p. 34). A large round earthenware bead is similar to the type 3 samples. Two of the earliest specimens of this type were found in graves of the III-II centuries BC, and most of the complexes containing such beads date back to the I-II centuries AD [Ibid., p. 31].

Analysis of Nogaichin glass and earthenware beads (even taking into account its "virtuality") shows that they can most likely be dated to the first - first half of the second century AD. It is striking how Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva use the selection of analogs to justify their early date, and we learn, for example, that "large samples of glass and faience beads can be dated to the first-first half of the second century AD. round-ribbed beads made of various materials are quite often found in burials of the II-I centuries BC mausoleum of Scythian Naples " (Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, p. 94). I will add - and in the Sarmatian burials of the I-first half of the II century AD. This is not an argument. My opponents are silent about the fact that the spindly-shaped jet beads of type 25 and round-ribbed jet beads of type 74, similar to the Nogaichinsky ones, date back to the second century AD and were generally unknown before [Alekseeva, 1982, p. 31].

15. Beads from pogr. 18 of the Nogaichinsky kurgan (according to [Zaitsev and Mordvintseva, 2003, fig. 8]).

page 65

Thus, neither the gemstone ring, the millefiori bowl and the earthenware plate, nor most of the beads are unambiguous grounds for the date proposed by Yu. P. Zaitsev and V. I. Mordvintseva for the Nogaichinsky burial. Despite the presence of earlier items in the grave (Scythian silver cup of the IV century BC, Late Hellenistic gold jewelry and silver bowls), the funeral rite and other equipment do not allow us to date the Sarmatian burial in the Nogaychinsky mound earlier than the second half of the I century AD.

List of literature

Alekseeva E. M. Antique beads of the Northern Black Sea region. - Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1975. - Vol. 1. - 95 p.; 1978. - Vol. 2. - 101 p.; 1982. - Vol. 3. - 104 p. - (SAN; Issue G1-12).

Zaitsev Yu. P., Mordvintseva V. I. "Nogaichinsky" kurgan in the steppe Crimea // Vesti, ancient history. - 2003. - N 3. - p. 61-99.

Zaitsev Yu. P., Mordvintseva V. I. "Tsaritsa" iz Nogaichinsky kurgan: vozmozhnosti istoricheskikh rekonstruktsii ["Queen" from Nogaichinsky Kurgan: opportunities for historical reconstructions]. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 2004, part 2, pp. 290-297.

Kunina N. Z. Antique glass in the Hermitage collection. - St. Petersburg: ARS Publishing House, 1997. - 357 p.

Мордвінцева В. І., Зайцев Ю. П. Поховання цариці в Ногайчинському кургані // Археологія. - 2004. - N 3. - p. 17-25.

Neverov O. Ya. Portrait gems and rings from the Northern Black Sea region // Tr. Gos. The Hermitage Museum. - 1976. - Vol. 17. - p. 166-182.

Neverov O. Ya. Pamyatniki gliptiki iz Chersonese [Monuments of glyptics from Chersonese]. Sevastopol: Iskra Publ., 2001, pp. 132-133.

Simonenko A.V. Sarmatians of Tavria. Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1993, 143 p. (in Russian)

Simonenko A.V. O datirovke i proiskhozhdenii antichnykh zhezhnostey iz pogrebenii sarmatiskoy znati I - nachala II v. AD [On the dating and origin of antique jewels from the burials of the Sarmatian nobility of the I-beginning of the II century AD]. Bosporus phenomenon: colonization of the region, formation of polis, formation of the state]. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 2001. - Ch. 2. - p. 190-194.

Simonenko A.V. Steklo millefiori v sarmatiskikh pogrebeniyakh [Millefiori glass in Sarmatian burials]. To the 60th anniversary of Boris Aronovich Raev. Krasnodar: UNC RAS Publishing House, 2006, pp. 137-152.

Treister M. Y. About jewelry from Nogaichinsky kurgan // Vesti, ancient history. - 2000. - N 1. - P. 182-202.

Щепинський А. О. Скарби сарматської знаті // Вісник Академії наук УРСР. - 1977. - Вип. 10. - С. 75 - 76.

Agypten Schatze aus dem Wilstensand: Kunst und Kultur der Christen am Nil. - Wiesbaden: Pudwig Reichert Verlag, 1996. - 420 S.

Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth / Eds. S. Walker, P. Higgs. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. - 384 p.

Grose D. F. Early Ancient Glass: Core-formed, rod-formed, and cast vessels and objects from the Pate Bronze Age to the Early Roman Empire, 1600 B. C. to A. D. 50. - N. Y.: Hudson Hill Press, 1989. -453 p.

Higgs P. Pimestone ring with a glass intaglio showig a portrait of a woman // Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth / Eds. S. Walker, P. Higgs. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. - P. 98 - 99.

Isings C. Roman Glass from Dated Finds. - Groningen; Jakarta: J. W. Wolters, 1957. - 185 p.

Maaskant-Kleinbrink M. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems in the Royal Coin Cabinet the Hague: The Greek, Etruscan and Roman Colections. - Hague: Government Publishing Office, 1978. -380 p.

Middleton Sh. H. Engraved Gems from Dalmatia from the Collections of Sir John Gardner Wilkinson and Sir Arthur Evans in Harrow School, at Oxford and elswhere. - Oxford: Alden Press, 1991. - 167 p.

Mordvintseva V. L., Zaitsev Yu. P. The Nogaichik Burial Mound in the Steppes of the Crimea // Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. - 2003. - Vol. 9 (3/4). - P. 193 - 258.

Nenna M. -D., Seif El-Din M. Pa Vaissele en Faience d'Epoque Greco-Romaine, Catalogue du Musee Greco-Romain d'Alexandrie // Etudes Alexandrines. - Pe Caire, 2000. - N 4. -140 p.

Oliver A. Millefiori Glass in Classical Antiquity // J. of Glass Studies. - 1968. - Vol. 10. - P. 48 - 69.

Ondrejova I. Pes bijoux antigues: du Pont Euxin septentional. -Praha: Universiteta Karlova, 1975. - 83 p.

Parlasca K. Griechisch-Romische Steinschalchen aus Agypten // Das Romisch-Byzantinische Agypten: Akten des Internationalen Symposions 26. - 30. September 1978 in Trier. - Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1983. - S. 151 - 160.

Plantzos D. Hellenistic Engraved Gems. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. - 148 p.

Platz-Horster G. Die Antike Gemmen aus Xanten. - Koln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH, 1987. - 162 S.

Scythian Gold: Treasures from Ancient Ukraina. - N. Y.: H. N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1999. - 352 p.

Scepinskij A. A. Uber die Aristokratie der Sarmaten im nordlichen Schwarzmeergebiet // Zeitscbrift fur Archaologie. - 1994. - Bd. 28. - S. 87 - 106.

Simonenko A. V. Glass and Faience Vessels from Sarmatian Graves of Ukraine // J. of Glass Studies. - 2003. - Vol. 45. - P. 41 - 58.

The Splendour of Iran. - P.: Booth-Clibborn Editions, 2001. - Vol. 1: Ancient Times. - 544 p.

Treister M. Ju. Concerning the Jewellery Items from the Burial-Mound at Nogaichik // Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. - 1997. - Vol. 4 (2). - P. 122 - 157.

Weinberg G. D. Glass Vessels from the Antikythera Wreck // Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Ser. - 1965. - Vol. 5 5. - Pt. 3: The Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered. -P. 30 - 39.

Weiß C. Antike Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen. - Nurnberg: Verlag des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, 1996. - Bd. 5. - 162 S.

Zwierlein-Diehl E. Die Antiken Gemmen des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien. - Munchen: Prestel Verlag, 1979. -Bd. 2. -145 S.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 16.01.06.

page 66

Permanent link to this publication: