DOI: 10.55804/jtsuSPEKALI-18-16

Introduction

In the late 6^th century BC, the citizens of the small settlement on the northern Black Sea coast adopted the name. They would not be Borysthenites, named for the river Borysthenes [modern Dnipro] near the mouth of which their settlement rested and likely the name of the nearby and older site on modern-day Berezan from which some of their number had likely migrated, but Olbiopolitans, citizens of Olbia. It is tempting to posit that the choice of Olbia, the name shared with several other Greek colonies including sites in Spain, Italy and Libya, was initially motivated by the positive connotations of the word ολβίος, which meant ‘happy/prosperous/blessed’ [Vinogradov, 1994:19; Chaniotis A, 2013:341]. While quickly implemented in the city itself, this name was only adopted selectively by those outside the region. Herodotus, for example, gives both names, explicitly stating that ‘Olbiopolitan’ is the name by which the Greeks on the Hypanis [modern Southern Buh] call themselves [Hdt. 4.18], but elsewhere refers to these people, such as in the context of his narrative of Scyles, as Borysthenites [Hdt. 4.78-79]. Centuries later, at the end of the first century AD, another outsider, Dio Chrysostom, continued to call the city Borysthenes while visiting the now largely ruined polis [Or. 36, called the Borystheniticus; see Kirkland, 2022:160]. In the context of the present study, the interesting phenomenon observable of both  names Olbia and Borysthenes is that each acquired the theological significance over time: Borysthenes, as a river god, was worshiped from the 6^th century BC, for instance alongside  similarly deified Hypanis in the graffito of c. 400 BC [IGDOlbia 82, see also IGDOlbia 24, 57 and 90] , while in the Imperial period Zeus was venerated in the city by the epiclesis Olbios [IOSPE I² 42; Chaniotis, 2018:407-411; contra Drexhage. 2003:159-78, who interprets Olbios as a functional epiclesis]. The interplay of religion and the onomastic record of this site constitute the subject of this paper, explored through the corpus of theophoric names surviving from Olbia. 

Research Questions

Theophoric names are those which incorporate the name of a god, endowing their bearer with  protection of the given deity and displaying reverence. In practice, their identification is fraught with difficulties, their individuated significance debated and several aspects of their use as evidence remain contested in the classical scholarship [Parker, 2000:56-70; Guldager Bilde; 2009:322]. For this reason, the first section of this article consists of the description of the methodology adopted in this paper and its relationship to the proposed research questions: 1. To what extent does the onomastic record reflect the archaeological evidence of the religious practice in Pre-Getic Olbia? and 2. How far can these relationships be understood in the light of the wider geographic and cultural contexts of the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Greek world? The first question will be addressed in the section ‘Identifying the Gods’, in which it will be seen that, while a comparable range of deities are encountered in the archaeological and onomastic records, the relative distribution of their appearance in two datasets is not equal. The second section, ‘The Wider Greek Context’, will attempt to explain this phenomenon, seeking to demonstrate that the presence of wider onomastic fashions can be discerned in the material of the city, while also highlighting the instances of divinities whose presence in the material and onomastic records appears to indicate particularly to the local traditions. In this way, the limitations and potentialities of names as a resource for the study of the religious practices of ancient cities will be evaluated, as well as further light shone on the relationship of the city at the northern extreme of the Classical world with that of the rest of the Greek oikumene.

 Methodology 

Firstly, this paper choses the Pre-Getic period of the history of Olbia as its chronological focus. This follows the scholarly convention of using the Getic sack of the middle of the 1^st century BC recorded by Dio Chrysostom, as the most significant break in the thousand-year history of the site, and narrows the dataset considerably [Kryžickij… 1995:15]. Notionally, therefore, the chronological scope of this investigation begins at its foundation around the turn of the 7^th to 6^th centuries BC, although the names have only survived from the second half of the 6^th century BC onwards. Note that this article does not attempt to be a comprehensive history of Pre-Getic Olbia and thus the events and developments that marked this period will be discussed only in relation to the analysis of the onomastic record.

Secondly, while most examples relate to the later Post-Getic history of the site, those names of Iranian linguistic provenance that appeared in the 6^th-1^st centuries BC are excluded from this study in order to focus on Olbia’s relationship with the wider Greek oikumene [for studies of Iranian names in Olbia, see Zgusta, 1955:59-271 and Тохтасьев, 2013]. This does not exclude their theophoric significance; as Lucian tells us of Egyptian names, most are ‘from heaven’ [Pro Imaginibus 27 quoted in Parker, 2000:54; see also Dogaer… 2017] and the potential greater importance of the Scythian-Sarmatian context, rather than the Greek, of some theophoric names from the northern Black Sea has already been noted by others [for example: Ustinova, 1999:42-44]. 

Naturally, names that are not theophoric in nature are also excluded. Most regrettably, however, due to the constraints of space in this paper, it is impossible to cover all of the names in the corpus that may have a theophoric dimension. As a result, those names, whose divine connotations are more neutral [‘polytheistic theonyms’ as per Shevchenko, 2023:17, for example, Θεοκλῆς [five instances in the 4^th-3^rd century BC]] or potential [it could be that minor deities and personifications, such as Πόθος [IG II² 8423, 2^nd-1^st century BC] for example, were being explicitly evoked in their appearance in the onomastic record, or these could simply be names understood through their lexical meaning: in this case ‘yearning/desire’], are not included within this study. Priority is given to those names whose connection to individual deities is most direct, i.e. those that include or repeat precisely the name of a specific divinity or that of a prominent festival or epiclesis with a well-established association with a particular god or goddess. This enables the subsequent discussion to focus on the clearest body of evidence for the conscious evocation of deities in the onomastic record of Olbia.

The fourth volume of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names [Fraser… 2005] is a comprehensive catalogue of ancient onomastics from the Greek sites of Macedonia, Thrace and the northern regions of the Black Sea and is the main source for the data of this study. There are 1,324 entries listed from Olbia alone. In addition, this paper will also consider those from Leuke [5], Achilles Dromos [3] and Berezan [33] so as to assess patterns across the Olbiopolitan chora. In total, therefore, there are 1,365 onomastic entries for Olbia and its chora, ranging from the 6^th century BC to the 4^th century AD. Applying the restrictions discussed above to this material, 246 instances of 85 individual theophoric names of the Pre-Getic period [the 6^th-1^st centuries BC] can be identified from Olbia and its chora, and these are listed alphabetically by deity [according to the common English name] in Appendix A. 

Identifying the Gods

As can be seen in Appendix A, a range of deities are found in the onomastic record of theophoric names from Olbia and its chora. Among the datable inscriptions from the region are found the gods Aphrodite, Apollo, Artemis, Athena, Demeter, Dionysus, Hekate, Hephaestus, Hera, Herakles, Hermes, the Mother of the Gods, Nike, Poseidon and Zeus, in addition to Achilles, the Fates [Moirae] and the Dioscuri. This is remarkably similar to the deities, whose worship is attested in the archaeological and textual records, for example, of the major cults listed in Kryzhitsky and Vinogradov’s summative account of the site, only Kore-Persephone is missing from this inventory and this is easily explained by the Greek aversion to naming individuals after deities explicitly related to the Underworld [Kryzhitsky… 1995:109-121; Parker, 2000:54-55]. This is equally the case with Dubois’ [1996] study of the Pre-Getic inscriptions from the site. However, beyond this superficial similarity, two datasets reveal striking differences. This is most noticeable in the contrasting prominence of Apollo and Poseidon in the archaeological and onomastic records.

Apollo has long been recognized as the patron deity of Olbia [Hirst, 1902:252; Яйленко, 2002:43; Rusjaeva, 2003:93]. His name is evoked in votive offerings from the very earliest settlement layers of the site to the Hellenistic period and beyond, and he is the main dedicant of not only the Central Temenos, situated in the Upper Town immediately to the north of the agora, but the older Western Temenos  -  two most prominent religious sites in the polis throughout its Pre-Getic history [Kryžickij… 1995:109-111; Avram, 2010:376]. His prominence is in part a direct inheritance from the colony’s mother city, Miletus: as Delphinius the god received especial veneration there, and it was to Apollo Delphinius that the Central Temenos at Olbia was dedicated, as shown by several dedications from the late 6^th century onwards [Herda, 2008:78; Rousyaeva, 2010:66-67]. His delphinic aspect may also have played a role in the prominence of dolphins in Olbiopolitan numismatic iconography throughout the Pre-Getic period, although this is controversial [Hind, 2007:15-16; Panait-Bîrzescu, 2020:144]. Undeniably, Apollo himself was frequently depicted on coins and other media in the city [Карышковский, 2003:87-88]. His parallel role as Ietros, ‘the Healer’, also played a significant role in the religious life of the city, particularly in the early decades of the settlement in the 6^th century BC [Ustinova, 2009:249 ff.]. The Western Temenos seems to have been devoted to this guise of Apollo and the comparable and somewhat overlapping prominence of Apollo Ietros and Delphinius has given rise to the lively, if speculative, debate in scholarship concerning the divided loyalties of inhabitants of Olbia in the initial development of the polis [Solovyov, 1999:96; Rousyaeva, 2010:79; critiqued by Ustinova, 2009:263]. One name, Ἰητρόδωρος, relates directly to this epiclesis [Parker, 2000:56; Chaniotis B, 2013:220; contra Johnston, 1995/1996:100 n. 2 who suggests it relates instead to Achilles in a healer role]. Notably, this is one of only two attestations of this name in the LGPN; the other is found in Histria, the particularly apposite findspot given that the early 5^th century statue base from Olbia calls Ietros ‘Ἵστρō μεδέοντ̣[ι]’ [‘Lord of Histria’ IGDOlbia 58; Rusyaeva, 1994:102. Note the Doric variant Ἰατρόδωρος is known from Hellenistic Smyrna and Roman Cyrene]. Surprisingly, however, in the context of the larger onomastic record, Apollo is not especially prominent. Even with the inclusion of less direct and secure allusions to his worship [Κωμαῑος is an epiclesis of the god; Πυθαγόρης a reference to his role at Delphi, and Χάρμος is potentially connected to his grandson by Aristaeus: Diod. 4.82.4], the eleven theophoric names only position him as the tenth most popular god in the totality of Pre-Getic onomastics, ranking behind Dionysus [38], Hera [34], Zeus [26], Poseidon [24], Nike [19], Athena and Demeter [both 14] and the Mother of the Gods and Herakles [both 12].

Of these deities, the most surprising inclusion, with regard the wider understanding of religion in Pre-Getic Olbia, is Poseidon. In 1902, Hirst wrote: 

‘Strictly speaking, Poseidon can hardly claim to be considered as having a cult at Olbia at all, as no inscriptions bear his name, and it is doubtful whether he is represented on the coins’ [Hirst, 1902:40]

The subsequent twelve decades of excavation and research have done little to challenge the validity of her statement. Despite the dominant role Olbia played in the Pre-Getic period in the defense of the island of Leuke and its cult of Achilles [see further below], which, Philostratus records, traditionally derived from the gifting of the island by Poseidon to Thetis for her son’s immortal home [Philostr. Her. 54.5-8], Poseidon has remained an elusive figure in the material record of Olbiopolitan religious practice, while the argument that the aforementioned dolphin in the city’s coinage is an allusion to him seems considerably less likely than its identification with Apollo [Hind 2007, 15-16]. Moreover, the only surviving dedication to him of the building dates to the Post-Getic period [IOSPE I² 184]. The city’s location on the coast in the earthquake-prone area as well as its Ionian heritage might also suggest an affinity with Poseidon that has simply not proven visible archaeologically [Minns, 1913:476]. Indeed, some of the few pieces of evidence that attest to any presence of Poseidon outside of the onomastic record in the Pre-Getic polis, two ceramic calendar inscriptions dated to c. 450 BC, appear better explained as illustrations of the influence of the wider trends across Ionian cities than of the local cult veneration practices specific to Olbia itself. The first [IGDOlbia 99], found in 1975, lists all of the names of the months in Olbia, including Taureon. The second [IGDOlbia 100] concerns only Taureon, the name of this month deriving from Poseidon Taureos, the prominent Ionian epiclesis of the god [Herda, 2008:60]. The presence, on the same calendars, of the months Ἀπατουρι[ών], Ληνεών and Ἀνθεστηριών, each of which corresponds to the names in the city’s onomastic record, suggests a direct link between the calendrical theonyms and theophoric names in Olbia that might explain the presence of Ταυρίων in the city, although this could also be a geographic reference to the Crimea, known as Taurike in antiquity. Nevertheless, this singular explanation cannot adequately account for the prominence of Poseidon-inspired names in Olbiopolitan onomastics, particularly given the general rarity of Poseidon names in the theophoric corpus in relation to other Olympians [Parker, 2000:55].

Consequently, while there are superficial similarities between the onomastic record and the range of gods whose veneration is attested archaeologically, the distribution of this evidence within the two sources has not proven comparable in case of certain individual deities. In the discussed examples, Apollo, the patron deity of Olbia, is relatively poorly represented in the list of names from Olbia, while Poseidon emerges as the fourth most prominent god onomastically, despite his near absence from the archaeological finds of Olbiopolitan votive dedications and religious practice in the pre-Getic period.

The implications of these findings for our religious understanding of the city are unclear. Certainly, the preponderance of Poseidon-inspired names cannot be used to argue for an undiscovered but thriving Cult of Poseidon in the face of over two centuries of excavation that has unearthed no clear evidence of such veneration. On the contrary, the archaeological evidence must take precedence in this evaluation, and thus the disparity between the two serves largely to highlight the weaknesses of onomastic data in the reconstruction of the ancient belief. However, to disregard entirely the relationship between the practice of giving theophoric names and the function of Ancient Greek religion is also too extreme, particularly given that, as noted, direct equivalences have already been shown between the two [Ἰητρόδωρος and calendrical links]. In the next section, therefore, the question of the extent to which onomastic data can be used to understand the ancient religious practice will be foregrounded, as the data from Olbia is considered against that of the wider geographic and cultural networks of which the city was a part. It will be shown that, while the predominance of certain panhellenic deities [especially Olympians] in names more often relates to general fashions and mercantile relationships than localized religious practices, the onomastic record retains value as a source for understanding the veneration of more minor or regionally-specific divinities.

The Wider Greek Context

The preceding section identified Apollo as the tenth and Poseidon as the fourth most frequent deities in the Olbiopolitan onomastic record. While these examples displayed the contrasts between the local archaeological record and the list of theophoric names, it is essential to also consider those deities of comparable and greater prominence. Understood solely in relation to the evidence of Olbiopolitan worship, the inclusion of the data concerning Hera, Dionysus, Zeus, Demeter, Athena and the Mother of the Gods would have somewhat challenged the conclusions of the preceding section. On the one hand, the second most frequent deity, Hera, is generally as absent in the archaeological record of Olbiopolitan worship as Poseidon, unattested in the dedicatory inscriptions of the Pre-Getic city and known only from the 2^nd century BC relief vase with Zeus [Belin de Ballu, 1972:113] and in the Post-Getic period, the c. AD 100 vase with the Judgement of Paris [Minns, 1913:355] and the Roman period head in the Odesa Archaeological Museum [although note that Rousyaeva, 2010:75, suggests that Hera may have been equated with the Mother of the Gods/Rhea in Olbia]. Trading relationships, rather than local religious cults, may better explain her preponderance in the naming record: the names derived from this goddess were especially prevalent in the islands of Samos and Chios [Parker, 2000:71-73], the places from which Olbia imported wine, olive oil and other resources, as shown by the surviving amphorae of these poleis in the material record [Kryzhitskii… 1994:188].

On the other hand, the relationship between the surviving evidence for the local worship of Dionysus, Zeus, Demeter and Athena and their onomastic occurrence is significantly more equitable. Dionysus, for instance, whose derived name Διονύσιος serves as the single most popular theophoric name in Pre-Getic Olbia, had a prominent cult in the city, attested both textually and in the material record [Kryžickij… 1995:116-117]. Herodotus’ story of the demise of Scyles centres on his participation in the Dionysiac rites of the city and the historical validity of the performance of Bacchic rites in Olbia has only been strengthened by archaeological finds [Shevchenko, 2020; see too Braund, 2019 for the potential performance context of this story in the theatre at Olbia]. Demeter, similarly, is a prominent presence on coins and in dedications. Her presence in the onomastic record is as a result equally unsurprising, with the same true of Zeus and Athena [Kryžickij… 1995:112-115]. But any conclusions based on the relatively high correspondence between the names and the archaeological appearances of these divinities concerning the religious practices of Olbia are illusory. Bluntly put, these names were popular at Olbia, because they were popular everywhere: Διονύσιος and Δημήτριος are among the most common names in antiquity in practically every Greek region, while Zeus and Athena-inspired names were similarly widespread, although in more modest quantities [Parker, 2000:66]. No reasonable interpretations of the Olbiopolitan context can thus be drawn from the onomastic data of these gods. Taken together, these examples demonstrate that the choice of names inspired by Olympian deities at Olbia was influenced considerably more by the larger cultural trends and networks of trade than the religious practices within the polis. Thus, they ultimately serve only to support the conclusions of the preceding section concerning the weakness of onomastic data in reconstructions of the ancient religion.

However, this conclusion only concerns Olympian deities, whose worship was always panhellenic. Their preponderance in the onomastic record does not preclude the existence of cults venerating these individual deities which could have directly affected the choices of names for the inhabitants of Olbia. Simply, the dataset is too broad for this conclusion to have sufficient weight as an analytical observation. Parker identified this problem in 2000: his solution was to focus instead on the more minor and localized deities and the role that these figures played in the prosopography of the polis [Parker, 2000:73-78]. Olbia is an especially apposite case study for such an investigation as its position at the northern extreme of the Greek world means it can serve to demonstrate the extent to which the trends of the Greek mainland and Aegean heartlands penetrated to the further reaches of Greek culture. Its relationship with the Scythian world is also of interest, although, as has already been noted, this study excludes names of Iranian linguistic origin and the gaps in our knowledge of the Scythian pantheon would regardless impede any onomastic investigation of Scythian religious practices. Nevertheless, the appearance of the atypical divinities among the theophoric names of Olbia and especially their attestation in the unique or extremely rare theophoric forms, is useful to ascertaining the religious context of Pre-Getic Olbia. This is most clear in case of Achilles, the Mother of the Gods, Hekate and the Fates [Moirae].

The most well-known and long-lasting cult of a minor deity in the northern Black Sea region was that of Achilles. From the 7^th century BC, this figure has been referred to as ‘Lord of Scythia’ [Alcaeus fr. 354] and the tradition of his supposed posthumous relocation and resurrection on Leuke, an island in the mouth of the Danube, was widespread in antiquity [For instance, Eur. Andr. 1259-1262; Arr. Peripl. 21; Paus. 3.19.11-13; for other textual attestations in antiquity see Охотников, 2018:20-40]. This island became the centre for the panhellenic cult of the hero, but veneration of Achilles was always strongest in the northern Black Sea region [Hedreen, 1991:314-322]. Olbia, in particular, was a centre of such worship, not only appearing to assume guardianship over Leuke, but conducting festivals to the divinity in its more immediate surroundings, such as at the Tendra Spit [or ‘Achilles Racecourse’ as it was known to the Greeks: Hedreen, 1991: 318-19; Burgess, 2009:126-128]. The onomastic record of the city preserves the remnant of this peculiar reverence. For while Achilles-inspired names had existed elsewhere in the Greek world prior to the 1^st century AD, these rare examples tend to assume forms that either directly or near-directly lift the name [Ἀχιλλᾶς, one instance in Hierapytna, 1^st century BC-1^st century AD; Ἀχιλλεύς, twenty-three known from several sites including Athens, Olympia, Thessaly from the 5^th-4^th century BC onwards; Ἀχιλλῆς, one instance from Volcei, 1^st century BC] or frame Achilles in ancestral terms, for example in the form Ἀχιλλείδης [four instances known from Athens, Pirece and Teos, from the 5^th-4^th century BC] or the verbal adjectival form Ἀχίλλητος [three instance from Leukai and Smyrna, 380 BC – 75 BC]. In contrast, while the Olbiopolitan material is also meagre, two instances of Ἀχιλλόδωρος, Achilles + δῶρον = gift of Achilles, constitute the demonstrable theophoric dimension to the Achillean onomastic record, explicitly positioning the recipient as the result of the deity’s benefaction. Noteworthy too is the fact that this name is only attested in Olbia and Histria, where it appeared once in the 1^st century BC-1^st century AD, another northwestern Black Sea polis, suggesting that this donative-aspect may be an especially regional characteristic [Dana, 2019:185]. Caution must be exercised in evaluating this observation, as both the degree to which the precise linguistic meaning of such names mattered to parents or their bearers and their relative devotional significance in relation to other theophoric names [such as those which directly lifted the god’s name] have yet to be established [Parker, 2000:59-61]. Nevertheless, the Olbiopolitan material appears significant not only for this potential conceptual communication of Achilles’ divinity, but also for its early date, with one of the Ἀχιλλόδωροι dating to the 6^th century BC, earlier than any other attestation of an Achillean name in the Greek world. The onomastic evidence thus both further underscores the archaeological and textual record of the unique importance of Achilles in the religious life of the city and if the -δῶρος suffix is accorded semantic significance, may shed light on the thorny issue in scholarship as to whether Achilles was categorised by inhabitants of the northern Black Sea as a hero or as a full-fledged god [see Hedreen, 1991:313 ff; Ochał-Czarnowicz, 2011:272].

Two figures, whose god-status is not in question, are the Mother of the Gods and Hekate, yet their presence in the onomastic record evidences the similar idiosyncrasies to that of Achilles. The former, as has been noted above, is represented more than Apollo in the surviving corpus, yet her worship was, at least in the Archaic period, distinctly more regionally specific than the Olympian, emerging primarily from Asia Minor where she had previously existed as a Phrygian goddess [Parker, 2000:70-71; Bøgh, 2012:34-46]. Given the Milesian origin of the settlers of Olbia, the presence of the theophoric names of this deity is unsurprising and accords with the archaeological finds from the Western Temenos of her cult from the 6^th century, as well as textual attestations from the Archaic period onwards [for instance, alongside Borysthenes and Herakles in IGDOlbia 24; Rusyaeva, 1994:87-93]. Equally, as with the story of Scyles and Dionysus, the cult of the Mother of the Gods is specifically linked to Olbia by Herodotus, who relates the demise of the Scythian philosopher Anacharsis as a direct result of his erection of the altar to the goddess in the vicinity of the city, where he was killed by his brother whose anger was comparable to that of Scyles’s men [Hdt. 4.76]. Nevertheless, not only is the quantity of the names relatively high, so too is the range of their appearance in Olbiopolitan society. Bøgh [2012:39 ff.] critiqued the traditional conception of worshippers of the Mother of the Gods as occupying the fringes of Greek society, arguing that there was no distinguishable dimension of a social class amongst her adherents. She utilizes the archaeological evidence of naikoi from the Olbiopolitan Western Temenos in support of this point, but the onomastic evidence can equally be used to demonstrate the presence of her followers in the city’s elite: certain Μητρόδωρος was the father of Histicon, a member of the College of the Seven and overseer of the Treasury in 3^rd century BC Olbia [IOSPE I² 76], for example. Of comparable social importance are the bearers of the theophoric names related to Hekate, four [of nine] of whom are found on the single document listing Priests of Apollo from the 3^rd-2^nd centuries BC [IOSPE I² 201]. As with the Mother of the Gods, Hekate originated from Asia Minor, but the onomastic record of the names related to the worship of this goddess in Olbia is even more unique than that of the Mother of the Gods, evidencing one name that is found only once in the Greek world, Ἑκατεῶνυμος, and one, Ἑκατέων, that is known elsewhere in only a single instance [at 4^th century BC Chios], but is represented four times at Olbia. As the Greek aversion to naming people after the deities of the Underworld has already been noted, this prominence is the persuasive evidence that this deity’s worship in Olbia was not centred on this aspect of her cult [Parker, 2000:55]. The onomastic evidence of these two goddesses from Olbia, therefore, due in part to their relative infrequency in Greek onomastics, can be seen to suggest the tangible insights into their worship in the city, from the social makeup of their devotees to the precise conception of their cult locally. These conclusions seem significant even when the caveats concerning the limitations of onomastic data discussed above are considered, particularly in case of Hekate, whose unique and near-unique attestations in Olbia may seem to suggest a distinctive form of veneration of this deity in the polis.

Finally, another unique theophoric name encountered in Olbiopolitan onomastics concerns the Fates [Moirae]. Μοιραγόρης is known solely from a single instance in Olbia, while the other name in the record, Μοίρων, is only found twice more [in Kamiros and Korokondame], with these examples postdating the find at Olbia. Unlike Hekate, whose worship in Olbia may be said to be attested in the archaeological and textual material [for instance, an admittedly late text which mentions the grove dedicated to her in the Hylaia [Ptol. III 5.7; see Kryžickij… 1995:118; Stückelberger… 2006:298-299; however, see Dubois, 1996:104], and the 1^st-3^rd century AD relief featuring Hekate, Cybele and Hermes from Olbia: Goroncharovskiy, 2021:9], the evidence for the worship of the Fates at Olbia is extremely sparse. Terracotta figurines of the female figures are occasionally listed as such [for example, the seated figure holding the spindle and thread from Koshary in the chora is labelled Clotho by the excavators: Papuci-Władyka… 2008:30], but the identity/identities of the vast corpus of the female terracotta figurines from Olbia remains a highly contested issue [Guldager Bilde, 2010]. Votives explicitly dedicated to the Fates in Olbia itself or the wider chora are not known and the only literary reference to them playing a role in the area is from Philostratus’ description of the Temple of Achilles on Leuke, where he states that it is decorated ‘with images of Achilles and Helen, who were joined by the Fates’ [‘τὰ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀγάλματα Ἀχιλλεύς τε καὶ Ἑλένη ὑπὸ Μοιρῶν ξυναρμοσθέντες’ Philostr. Her. 54.3]. It is unclear from this passage if the Fates are to be understood as also figuring in the statue group, or if mention of their role is simply an explanation for the bringing together of these two Homeric characters. This final example from the theophoric corpus of Olbia and its chora, therefore, serves as the illustration of both the possibilities and the limitations of such data in the study of the ancient world. Not simply the presence of these divinities, but their attestation in the forms unique to Pre-Getic Olbia, suggests the existence of a small-scale, but nevertheless active cult to these minor figures operating in the city that has been lost in the archaeological, votive and literary record. But with neither corresponding evidence nor definitive answers to several of the major questions concerning the importance of theophoric names to the religious life of ancient cities, to assert the existence of such worship solely through reference to onomastic data is not possible, as seen also in case of Poseidon. Consequently, despite some evidence to the contrary concerning the worship of minor and localized, but otherwise attestable, divinities like Achilles, the Mother of the Gods and Hekate, the attempt to utilize this dataset in the investigation of the almost wholly obscure aspect of the local religious culture demonstrates how theophoric names alone remain an insufficient tool for gaining substantive insights into ancient polis religion.

Conclusion 

This article has explored the religious life of the single polis on the northern Black Sea coast from the surviving evidence of its onomastic traditions. In particular, discussion centred upon the corpus of theophoric names in the Pre-Getic [the 6^th-1^st centuries BC] period of life in Olbia, listed in Appendix A. It was noted in Section Two that the range of deities found in this record and those known from archaeological, inscriptional and literary sources were broadly similar, although the extended consideration of the evidence for Apollo and Poseidon names and attested cults in the polis found stark disparities. In the third section, a contextualization of the data from Olbia within that of the larger geographic and cultural networks of antiquity established the reason for this discrepancy. It was shown that the onomastic iterations of Olympian gods and goddesses were too numerous and widespread for meaningful interpretations of the religious character of specific poleis to be drawn, shown by the examples of the names evoking Athena, Dionysus, Demeter, Hera and Zeus. However, following the conclusions of Parker, discussion turned to the onomastic evidence of more minor and localized figures in the civic pantheon as a dataset showed greater potential for utilizing the evidence of names to understand the practical realities of religious life. The data pertaining to Achilles [framed as a gift-giver in Archaic Olbia], the Mother of the Gods [whose frequent onomastic appearances crossed social classes] and Hekate [who inspired especially rare names at Olbia] were found to have the potential to substantively contribute to the interpretation of their worship in the city. The example of the Fates [Moirae], however, whose appearance in the Olbiopolitan name record cannot be matched in any other sphere of the textual or archaeological record, showed the limitations of an investigation strictly focused on theophoric names. Ultimately, these problems will recur in any study that restricts itself to such a dataset, fundamental aspects of whose use remain unclear. Nevertheless, as shown here in case of Olbia, when used alongside other historical sources, the study of theophoric names does have the potential to provide a limited, but important contribution to our understanding of religion in the ancient Greek polis.

Appendix A