<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# A Scarab from Istros

Anca Dan, Dan Deac, Radu Petcu

► To cite this version:

Anca Dan, Dan Deac, Radu Petcu. A Scarab from Istros. Studii Clasice, 2025, LIII-LIV (2024-2025), pp.82-96. hal-05321808

HAL Id: hal-05321808

https://hal.science/hal-05321808v1

Submitted on 19 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
A SCARAB FROM ISTROS

Anca DAN

National Centre for Scientific Research (AOROC),
École Normale Supérieure,
University of Paris, Sciences & Letters
anca-cristina.dan@ens.psl.eu

Dan DEAC

Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
dandeac12@gmail.com

Radu PETCU

Museum of National History and Archaeology Constanța
radupetcuarheo@gmail.com

**Résumé** : Un petit scarabée en pâte égyptienne turquoise foncée a été découvert en 2001, dans les fouilles des fondations de la ‘Basilique épiscopale’ d’Histria (Constanța, en Roumanie). Par sa forme simplifiée et par l’inscription gravée avant cuisson sur sa base – Jmn-R’ , trigramme d’Amon complété par le signe solaire de Rê –, ce scarabée s’inscrit dans la série de ceux découverts à Naukratis ainsi qu’au bord de la mer Noire, à Berezan-Olbia, Panticapée, Orgamè et Mésambria. Le contexte tardif de bon nombre de ces découvertes par rapport à la ‘fabrique de scarabées’ fouillée par W.M.F. Petrie dans le sanctuaire de Naukratis et datée du début du VIe siècle av. J.-C. invite à un réexamen critique des fouilles, des voies de circulation et des significations de ces amulettes. Même s’ils ont pu être portés par plusieurs générations, on ne peut exclure que ces petits scarabées, égyptianisants plutôt qu’égyptiens, aient été fabriqués dans plusieurs ateliers d’Égypte et de l’Est de la Mer Intérieure, par des artisans qui reproduisaient machinalement un modèle remontant à la XVIIIe dynastie, mais qui ne connaissaient sans doute que de manière assez générale leur signification prophylactique.

**Abstract:** In 2001, a small scarab made of dark greenish-blue ‘Egyptian’ paste was discovered during the excavation of the ‘Episcopal Basilica’ foundations in Istros (Constanța, Romania). Its elementary shape and the inscription engraved on its base before firing – *Jmn-R*’ –, one of the many *trigrammata* of *Amun*, near the solar symbol of *Re* – show that this scarab belongs to a series of scarabs found at Naukratis but also on the Black Sea coast at Berezan-Olbia, Panticapaion, Orgame and Mesambria. Many of these finds are later than the ‘scarab factory’ excavated by W.M.F. Petrie in the sanctuary of Naukratis and dated by him up to the early 6th century BC. This calls for a critical re-examination of the excavations in which these amulets were found, their circulation paths,
and their possible meanings. The ‘Egyptian’ scarabs could be worn by several generations. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that these small scarabs were made in several workshops in Egypt and on the Eastern shores of the Inner Sea, by craftsmen who mechanically reproduced a model dating back to the 18th dynasty but who probably had a general knowledge of its prophylactic meaning.

**Mots-clés** : égyptomanie grecque, amulette égyptisante, cryptographie, Amon-Rê, Naukratis, Istros, Danube, mer Noire

**Keywords:** Greek Egyptomania, Egyptianising amulet, cryptogramy, Amun-Re, Naukratis, Istros, Danube, Black Sea

The Ancient Greeks used Egyptian and Egyptian-inspired objects long before the widespread use of the so-called 'Egyptian' cults during the Hellenistic and Roman periods<fnref n="1" />. The Pan-Hellenic *emporion* established at Naukratis in the late 7th century BCE played a pivotal role in producing and disseminating portable items all around the Internal Seas. The Black Sea region was no exception: before the Ptolemaic claims over the Western Pontus and the intensification of diplomatic and commercial ties with the Bosporan Kingdom, the *Aegyptiaca* reached the Black Sea via the Aegean (mostly Ionian and Carian) intermediaries as well as through the Assyrian and Achaemenid passes across the Caucasus. Among the most common items were amulets, particularly 'faience' scarabs, worn as jewelry with magic or prophylactic properties.

Dozens of small scarabs, which have close parallels among the scarabs and molds excavated in the so-called scarab factory of the early 6th-century BCE Naukratis, have been uncovered along the Western and Northern Black Sea coasts. The archaeological contexts range from Archaic tombs and houses (in Berezan, Olbia, and Bejkush in today Ukraine, as well as on the Taman peninsula, in Russia<fnref n="2" />)

<footnote n="1">¹ See lately A.M. Корчак, “Египетські культи в Північному Причорномор’їта Українському степу за даними пам’яток епіграфіки та археології (VI ст. до н. е. – IV ст. н. е.)”, in *Науковий центр “Історія релігії в Україні”*, 33.1, 2023, pp. 3–31; Vessela ATANASSOVA, *Egyptian Gods Around the Black Sea*, Athens, École française d’Athènes, 2024, and more generally the papers in eds Vessela ATANASSOVA, *Laurent BRICAULT, *Egyptian Cults on the Black Sea Coast*, Athens/Sofia, École française d’Athènes, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2024.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² For Berezan and Olbia, after E.M. АЛЕКСЕЕВА, *Античные бусы Северного Причерноморья*, Москва, Наука, 1975, *passim*, see especially A.O. Большаков, Ю.И. Ильина, “Египетские скарабей с острова Березань”, in *VDI*, 186, 1988, pp. 51–67; A.C. ОСТРОВЕРХОВ, В.В. НАЗАРОВ, “Скарабей из раскопок Борисфена 1991 г.”, in *Древнее Причерноморье*, 10, 2013, pp. 479–487; С.Б. Буйских, А.С. ОСТРОВЕРХОВ, “Навкратийский скарабей с античного святилища на Бейкушском мысу”, in *Чобручский археологический комплекс и вопросы взаимовлияния античной и варварской культур (IV в. до н.э. IV в. н.э.)*, ed. Е.В. Яровой, Тирасполь, 1997, pp. 69–71. For a 6th–early 5th century BCE domestic context in Berezan, see Д.Е. Чистов, Ю. И. Ильина, “Исследования экспедиции Государственного Эрмитажа на острове Березань в 2015 году”, in *Археологический сборник*, 41. Материалы и исследования по археологии Евразии, Санкт-Петербург, Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2017, pp. 177–216 (pp. 188–189, fig. 10.4). For the finds on the Taman peninsula and in the steppe, see lately Iryna SHRAMKO, Mykola TARASENKO, “Egyptian Imports of 6th Century BC in the Materials of Forest-Steppe Scythia”, in *Shodoznavstvo*, 89, 2022, pp. 139–180, doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/skhodoznavstvo2022.89.139, with bibliography.</footnote>
and deposits in sacred areas (in Istros<fnref n="3" />) to 4th century BCE houses (in Orgame<fnref n="4" />) and even 2nd century BCE tombs (in Mesembria, in today Bulgaria<fnref n="5" />). The late date of several Black Sea contexts (including the one from Istros, discussed in this paper) raises questions about the lower chronology of the Naucratis workshop – dated by William Matthew Flinders Petrie at the beginning of the 6th century (and up to 570 BCE according to the latest research by Alexandra Villing, Virginia Webb and their collaborators in the publications of the British Museum)<fnref n="6" />. One could also suppose the existence of additional workshops in Naukratis and in other Egyptian cities (like Memphis), which continued to produce faience even under the Roman Empire<fnref n="7" />. Furthermore, from Archaic up to Roman times, numerous small scarabs were disseminated and probably imitated in stylized forms in several ‘faience’ workshops from various spots of the Eastern Mediterranean (Near East, Aegean Greece) and maybe even on the Northern Black Sea shore<fnref n="8" />. Since no molds were found, the

<footnote n="3">³ Marcelle LAMBRINO, *Les vases archaïques d’Histria*, Bucarest, Fundația Regală Carol I, 1938, p. 35; Catrinel DOMĂNEANȚU, “Archaic Greek Faience Imports in the Black Sea Area”, in *Dacia, NS XXXII, 1–2*, pp. 21–25; cf. Christopher S. PARMENTER, “Egypt on the Steppe: a Gazetteer of Sixth Century Aegyptiaca from the North Black Sea”, in *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, 76.1–2, 2019, pp. 13–24.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Anca DAN, “Deux scarabées d’Orgamè/Argamum”, in *DHA*, 37.1, 2011, pp. 9–40.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ See the faience scarab with a representation of Harpocrates in the large string of beads from a second half of the 2nd century BCE tomb in Mesambria, in Mila CHACHEVA, “Aegyptiaca Pontica: Old and New Evidence from the West Pontic Coast”, in *Peoples in the Black Sea Region from the Archaic to the Roman Period. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity Held in Thessaloniki, 21–23 September 2018*, ed. Manolis Manoledakis, Oxford, Archaeopress, 2021, pp. 95–103 (pp. 99–100, fig. 6–7).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ For the date accepted now (600–570 BCE), see Aurélia MASSON, “Scarabs, Scaraboids and Amulets”, in *Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt. British Museum Online Research Catalogue*, eds Alexandra Villing, Marianne Bergeron, Giorgos Bourogiannis, Alan Johnston, François Leclère, Aurélia Masson and Ross Thomas, 2019, http://www.britishmuseum.org/naukratis; Virginia WEBB, “Faience Finds from Naukratis and Their Implications for the Chronology of the Site”, in *British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan*, 24, 2019, pp. 41–70.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ See A. MASSON, *art. cit.* (n. 6), pp. 32–33, with bibliography. For the later periods, Marie-Dominique NENNA, Merwatte SEIF EL-DIN, “Die ägyptischen Fayencewerkstätten in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit”, in *Türkis und Azur. Quarzkeramik im Orient und Okzident*, eds R. Busz, P. Gercke, Staatliche Museen Kassel, 1999, pp. 76–83; Marie-Dominique NENNA, Paul T. NICHOLSON, “Faience Technology”, in *Working in Memphis: the Production of Faience at Roman Period Kom Helul*, ed. Paul T. Nicholson, London, Egypt Exploration Society, 2013, pp. 133–146.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ For the Rhodian production, see Virginia WEBB, *Archaic Greek Faience: Miniature Scent Bottles and Related Objects from East Greece, 650–500 B.C.*, Warminster, Aris & Phillips, 1978; other potential production centers of faience in the Aegean are Ephesus or Miletus: see Virginia WEBB, “Faience Found in the Recent Excavations to the East of the Great Altar in the Samos Heraion”, in *AA*, 1, 2021, pp. 1–62, https://doi.org/10.34780/x4ej-yebf. For the supposed production of faience in the Black Sea area, in Roman times, see e.g. A.К. КОРОВИНА, “Фаянсовые подвески из некрополей Тирамбы и Фанагории”, in *VDI*, 119.1, 1972, pp. 104–112; A.C. ОСТРОВЕРХОВ, “Фаянсовые и стеклянные бусы в Скифии и Сарматии”, in *VDI*, 3, 1985, pp. 92–108; O.H. МоШЕЕВА, “Египетский фаянс в сарматских погребениях Нижнего Поволжья”, in *Нижневолжский археологический вестник*, 11, Волгоград, 2010, pp. 147–169; М.Ю. ТРЕЙСТЕР, “Фигурные пронизи и подвески из так называемого египетского фаянса в Евразии в I в. до н. э.–III в. н. э.”, in *Крым в сарматскую эпоху* (II в. до н. э.–IV в. н. э.), IV, ed. И.Н. Храпунов, Симферополь, 2018, pp. 9–49; M.O. TARASENKO, Z.V. KHANUTINA, “Scarab Amulet-Beads from 1st–2nd Century Children’s Burials at a Necropolis on the Iluraton Plateau, Eastern Crimea”, in *Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia*, 49/3, 2021, p. 51–59, doi:10.17746/1563-0110.2021.49.3.051-059.</footnote>
Aegean and Pontic fabrication places remain hypothetic. It is however certain that these objects were widely spread from the Pontic and Levantine coasts, often following the river valleys, until far away in Central Asia<fnref n="9" />.

The production of ‘Egyptian’ objects outside Egypt is not an innovation of the later periods. The so-called ‘Egyptian paste’ and the ‘Egyptian faience’, as well as the ‘Egyptian’ shape of the scarab have been borrowed, re-produced, re-interpreted, and widely spread by the Greeks from cosmopolitan communities such as Rhodes, since the early Iron Age, before the foundation of Naukratis<fnref n="10" />. Interpreted by modern researchers as evidence of Greek ‘Egyptomania’ and fascination with ‘Egyptian’ magic, the extensive array of Greco-Egyptian good luck charms discovered all around the Mediterranean and far into the Eurasian steppe is further proof of the Hellenic ability to adopt and adapt foreign items, transforming them into popular products and spreading them across their known world, for more than a millennium. We do not know to what extent the Greek and the Hellenised people who wore and

<footnote n="9">⁹ The first attempt to list these finds was done by Б.Б. Пиотровский, “Древнеегипетские предметы, найденные на территории Советского Союза”, in *Советская археология*, 1, 1958, pp. 20–27. The discoveries multiplied in the last years, as follows: for the Northern Black Sea, see О.Н. Мошеева, *art. cit.* (n. 8); О.Н. Мошеева, “Египетский фаянс на поселенческих памятниках северной периферии античного мира”, in *Нижневолжский археологический вестник*, 12, Волгоград, 2011, pp. 95–104; С.Б. Бурков, С.М. Гадальраб, “Описание амулетов из ‘Египетского’ фаянса с территории Ростовской области в печатных изданиях конца ХІХ–начала ХХІ в.”, in *Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Всеобщая история*, 9.3, 2017, pp. 272–288. doi: 10.22363/2312-8127-2017-9-3-272-288; И.Н. Анфимов, “Амулеты из египетского фаянса первых веков н.э. из Прикубанья”, in *Материалы по изучению историко-культурного наследия европейского Кавказа, 8. Крупновские чтения 1971–2006 гг.*, Москва/Ставрополь, Наследие, 2008, pp. 313–314. For the Caucasus region, see С.Б. Бурков, “Находки фигурных форм из ‘египетского фаянса’ и стекла эпохи раннего железно-го века с территории Чечни”, in *Археология и этнология Северного Кавказа*, 3, 2014, pp. 45–60; С.Б. Бурков, “Амулеты и талисманы из ‘египетского фаянса’ с территории Дагестана”, in *Stratum plus*, 3, 2015, pp. 321–334; С.Б. Бурков, “Из истории изучения амулетов и талисманов из т.н. ‘египетского фаянса’ с территории Северного Кавказа и сопредельных областей по изданиям конца ХІХ–начала ХХІ вв.”, in *Из истории культуры народов Северного Кавказ*, Ставрополь, 2016, pp. 53–62; С.Б. Бурков, “Амулеты и талисманы из ‘египетского’ фаянса с территории Краснодарского края. Источники и историография”, in *Вестник Пермского университета. История*, 1.52, 2021, pp. 49–60. For the Altai, E.С. Богданов, И.Ю. Слюсаренко, “Амулеты из египетского фаянса с территории Горного Алтая”, in *Археология, этнология и антропология Евразии*, 4.32, 2007, pp. 77–80; for the whole steppe, A.С. ОСТРОВЕРХОВ, “‘Египетські фаянс’ в Скіфії і їх місце в системі подібних старожитностей Східної Європи (досвід комплексного аналізу)”, in *Археология*, 1, 2014, pp. 41–60; М. Ю. Трейстер, “Фигурные пронизи и подвески из так называемого египетского фаянса в Евразии в I в. до н. э.–III в. н. э.”, in *Крым в сарматскую эпоху (II в. до н. э.–IV в. н. э.)*, IV, ed. И.Н. Храпунов, Симферополь, 2018, pp. 9–49. For Central Asia through a possible Achaemenid connection, see the 5th-century BCE female tomb in the Kyryk-Oba-II burial ground in Western Kazakhstan: К. ЭДЕР, “Скарабей Позднего периода из могильника Кырык-Оба-II”, in *Влияния ахеменидской культуры в Южном Приуралье (V–III вв. до н.э.)*, eds М.Ю. Трейстер, Л.Т. Яблонский, Москва, 2012, vol. I, pp. 189–191.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The ‘Egyptian paste’ or the ‘Egyptian blue’ is made of the pigment calcium copper tetrasilicate, CuO-CaO-4SiO₂, combined with crushed quartz, calcite and water. In order to make the scarab, the paste was put in a moistened mold and then retouched and incised with a sharp tool. The ‘Egyptian faience’ is a composition of silica, lime and natron, glazed by efflorescence, cementation or application. The difference is therefore the presence of a separate glaze layer in a section of the scarab: see A. MASSON, *art. cit.* (n. 6). The new scarab does not present this superficial glaze.</footnote>
later maybe produced such amulets were aware of the original symbolism of the scarabs and the precise meaning of the Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions, and other apotropaic symbols inscribed on them<fnref n="11" />. A corpus of the Black Sea scarabs remains a *desideratum*, difficult to achieve due to the huge number of finds disseminated through museums and excavation deposits in different countries. Yet, only such a corpus, including precise morphological descriptions and chemical analyses, could clarify the Greek diffusion of an Egyptian symbol far into the Scythian lands, a world ignored by the Egyptians themselves before the Persian and Macedonian domination<fnref n="12" />.

This brief note introduces an unpublished small scarab from Istros to the growing inventory of such finds<fnref n="13" />. First, we describe the discovery and its archaeological context at Istros, one of the oldest and most important Greek *poleis* on the Romanian coast of the Black Sea, south of the Danube delta (fig. 1–2). Second, we explain the significance of this scarab (fig. 3–4) in comparison with other finds from Naukratis and the Northern Black Sea shores (fig. 5–6). Our goal is not only to draw the attention of the scholarly community to these peculiar ‘Egyptian’ discoveries in Hellenic contexts but also to highlight the hybrid nature of the Greek connective culture, which enabled socio-economic and cultural exchanges between the Nile and the Danube river mouths.

<footnote n="11">¹¹ For the criticism of the term ‘Egyptomania’, in particular in the Roman context, see, e.g., Molly SWETNAM-BURLAND, “Egyptian Objects, Roman Contexts: a Taste for Aegyptiaca in Italy”, in *Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World* (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 159), eds Miguel J. Versluys, Paul G.P. Meyboom, Laurent Bricault, Leiden, Brill, 2007, pp. 113–136; Miguel J. VERSLUYS, “Exploring Aegyptiaca and Their Material Agency Throughout Global History”, in *The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization*, ed. Tamar Hodos, London, Routledge, 2017, pp. 74–89; Ann C. GÜNTER, “Aegyptiaca. Investigating Style and Agency in the Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean”, in *Beyond Egyptomania: Objects, Style and Agency*, ed. Miguel J. Versluys, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 2020, pp. 71–86. Cf. the unpublished PhD of Eva M. MOL, *Egypt in Material and Mind: the Use and Perception of Aegyptiaca in Roman Domestic Contexts of Pompeii*, Leiden University, 2015.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² For the diffusion of scarabs in the ‘Scythian’ hinterland, see I. SHRAMKO, M. TARASENKO, *art. cit.* (n. 2); for the Hellenistic and Roman times, see O.H. MOŠIEEBA, *art.cit.* (n. 8); lately, Е.С. ДЗНЕЛАДЗЕ, “Египетский фаянс у поздних скифов Нижнего Днепра”, in *Археология і давня історія України*, 2.19, 2016, pp. 68–73.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ There is no complete up-to-date corpus of the ‘Egyptian’ scarabs in the Mediterranean, after John D.S. PENDLEBURY, *Aegyptiaca: A Catalogue of Egyptian Objects in the Aegean Area*, Cambridge University Press, 1930; Nancy Joan SKON-JEDELE, *Aigyptiaka: A Catalogue of Egyptian and Egyptianizing Objects Excavated from Greek Archaeological Sites, c. 1110–535 B.C.* with *Historical Commentary*, PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1994. See especially the bibliographic inventories of Günther Hölbl, for example in Günther HÖLBL, “Die Problematik der spätzeitlichen Aegyptiaca im östlichen Mittelmeerraum”, in *Ägypten und der östliche Mittelmeerraum im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Akten des Interdisziplinären Symposions am Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität München 25.–27.10.1996*, eds Manfred Görg, Günther Hölbl, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2000, pp. 119–161. For the Black Sea, see Oleg Dmitrievich BERLEV, Svetlana Izmailovna HODJASH, *Catalogue of the Monuments of Ancient Egypt: From the Museums of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Bielorussia, Caucasus, Middle Asia and the Baltic States*, Fribourg/Göttingen, University Press/Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1998, pp. 237–275, and the references in A. DAN, *art. cit.* (n. 4). Most of the 6th-century BCE faience finds were reassembled by Ch.S. PARMENTER, *art. cit.* (n. 3), building on E.M. АЛЕКСЕЕВА, *op. cit.* (n. 2), and C. DOMÄNEANȚU, *op. cit.* (n. 3). Cf. also the regional inventory of the Western Black Sea coast by M. CHACHEVA, *art. cit.* (n. 5).</footnote>
This modest note is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Alexandru Avram, whose epigraphic and archaeological contributions to the study of Greek magic and Black Sea connectivity have left a lasting legacy in the field of Classics<fnref n="14" />. Deeply attached to Istros/Histria, the archaeological site he directed and where he passed away on August 4, 2021, Prof. Avram was also a member of the scientific committee of *Studii Clasice*, a journal in which he published numerous articles on the relationship between the Black Sea Greeks and the Others.

## The scarab and its Histrian context

The newly discovered scarab, currently in the National History and Archaeology Museum of Constanța (MINAC, inv. n° 42.728) is made of dark greenish-blue ‘Egyptian paste’ (fig. 3). It has an ovoid shape, with a length of only 9.5 mm, a width of 8 mm, and a maximum height of 5 mm. Its upper part was molded into the shape of a scarab with folded wings. The outline is simple: a single line divides the two elytra, distinguished from the prothorax by a V-shaped mark<fnref n="15" />. The head is delimitated from the clypeus by a pointed borderline. The feet are barely marked on the margins, by three small almost horizontal lines.

On the scarab’s flat basis, there is a hieroglyphic inscription, incised before fire (fig. 3–4). The inscription is composed of four signs: to the right, a simplified M17 (reed leaf, *j*); to the left, from the bottom upwards: N35 (water ripple, *n*) reduced to a line; Y5 (*mn*, Senet board game), and N5 (the sun, *r*')<fnref n="16" />. Although each letter could be considered as having its own meaning, the whole text must be read as ☞, *Jmn-R*', “Amun-Re”. It belongs to the series of *trigrammata* – inscriptions of three hieroglyphs in which Étienne Drioton recognize the hidden name of the god Amun (whose name meant “the hidden one”), together with the solar disk of Re<fnref n="17" />.

The clumsy form of the hieroglyphs indicates that the text was quickly written by someone who used to imitate a written model, without paying attention to the detail of each sign. Thus, the reed (M17, reading *j*) is reduced to a vertical bar, with extremities marked by folded lines, the superior one shorter and more horizontal in comparison to the inferior one. This could also come from a simplified Uraeus

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Relevant for the topic of the Black Sea relationships with Egypt are his *Prosopographia Ponti Euxini externa*, Leuven/Paris, Peeters, 2013, and his historical study “L’Égypte lagide et la mer Noire: approche prosopographique”, in *La Méditerranée d’une rive à l’autre : culture classique et cultures périphériques. Actes du 17ème colloque de la Villa Kérylos à Beaulieu-sur-Mer les 20 & 21 octobre 2006*, Paris, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2007, pp. 127–153.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ The design is similar to that of scarab-moulds from Naukratis: see the scarab-mould in Oxford, Ashmolean Museum AN1888.216.13, in A. MASSON, *art. cit.* (n. 6), fig. 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ M17, N35, Y5, N5, N18, V30 correspond to Alan Gardiner’s “List of hieroglyphic signs”, in Sir Alan GARDINER, *Egyptian Grammar, being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs*, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, 1957³ (reprinted 2007), pp. 438–548.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ See Étienne DRIOTON, “Trigrammes d’Amon”, in *Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes*, 54, 1957, pp. 11–33; more recently, François GAUDARD, “10. Ptolemaic Hieroglyphs”, in *Visible Language. Inventions of writing in the ancient Middle East and beyond*, eds Christopher Woods, Geoff Emberling, Emily Teeter, The Oriental Institute, Chicago, 2010, pp. 173–188 (p. 174); A. MASSON, *art. cit.* (n. 6), pp. 26–29.</footnote>
(erected cobra, I12) or an awkward drawing of a Maat (mí't) feather (H6), but the reading of the name of Amun implies that the first character must have been originally M17. This replacement appears on similar 'Naukratite' scarabs from Berezan and Olbia (fig. 6)<fnref n="18" />. The water ripple (N35) is a simple horizontal line, which could be confused either with N18 (i, sandy track or island) or with V30 (the basket, nb, meaning "Lord"). The board game (Y5, reading mn) has a cursive irregular shape and the solar disk (N5, r'), made by a single pointing with a sharp stylus, is placed above it.

Despite the sketchy form of the writing, one cannot be sure if the writer was or was not familiar with the correct shape of the hieroglyphs. Producers, merchants, and bearers of these scarabs, copied in great quantities for the Greek and Phoenician/Punic cities and their hinterlands, were probably aware of the general prophylactic function of the inscription, even if they could not read it sign by sign. Some of them could have just considered that its replication was a condition for obtaining a functional amulet. The scarab's longitudinal perforation, 1 mm thick, is typical for all these small faience beads even if the way of wearing them varies from ring stones in Egypt and some Mediterranean sites (where they could still be used as seals), to bracelets and necklaces mostly worn by women and children in the Greek, Phoenician, Persian and Scythian worlds.

The simplified shape and the "Amun-Re" inscription recall some small scarabs discovered, together with analogous molds by W.F. Petrie in Naukratis<fnref n="19" />. The Histrian scarab fits into the type XXVIIIB of Andrée F. Gorton, a type of late Egyptian scarab, attested in Naukratis as well as in the Punic and Greek world<fnref n="20" />. In the Black Sea, the best parallels for both the shape of the scarab and the 'Amun' hieroglyphic inscription were discovered in Olbia and Berezan (Alexeeva type 50.a, from the second half of the 6th and first half of the 5th century BCE)<fnref n="21" />, as well as in Orgame (fig. 6). This type

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ See E.M. АЛЕКСЕЕВА, *op. cit.* (n. 2), p. 42, tab. 9:11β, γ; А.О. БОЛЬШАКОВ, Ю.И. ИЛЬНА, *art. cit.*, p. 53, fig. 1.2–3; А.С. ОСТРОВЕРХОВ, В.В. НАЗАРОВ, *art. cit.* (n. 2), p. 479, fig. 1.2–3; p. 480 fig. 2.β, γ. The confusion seems frequent in the supposed Naukratite production for the Amun-Re inscription. See the examples of scarabs where H6 was written instead of M17: discovered in Taranto, they were published by Günther HÖLBL, *Beziehungen der ägyptischen Kultur zu Altitalien*, Leiden, Brill, 1979, II, n°s 1124–1126 (Tab. 125/4, 126/7). For a Perachora example with a similar error, see Matthew L. SKUSE, "*Aegyptiaca* in Action: Assessing the Significance of Scarabs and Other Egyptian and Egyptianizing 'Amulets' at Perachora and Beyond", in *Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections*, 32, 2021, pp. 39–81 (p. 46, fig. 6).</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ William M.F. PETRIE, *Naukratis I. 1884–5* (The Egypt Exploration Fund 3), London, Trübner & Co., 1886, pp. 36–37, pl. XXXVII/93 (drawing); Ernest A. GARDNER, *Naukratis II* (The Egypt Exploration Fund 6), London, Trübner & Co., 1888, pp. 71–72, pl. XVIII. For Petrie’s interpretation of the Amun scarabs, see William M.F. PETRIE, *Buttons and Design Scarabs*, British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1925, p. 21. Cf. now V. WEBB, *art. cit.* (n. 6).</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Andrée F. GORTON, *Egyptian and Egyptianizing Scarabs: a Typology of Steatite, Faience, and Paste Scarabs from Punic and Other Mediterranean Sites*, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 101–105. The inscription appears in Naukratis, on stone scarabs: W.M.F. PETRIE, *op. cit.* (n. 19), pl. XXXVIII.182; on faïence scarabs: E.A. GARDNER, *op. cit.* (n. 19), pl. XVIII.25 et 39 (fig. 6); cf. the slightly different inscriptions in W.M.F. PETRIE, *op. cit.* (n. 19), pl. XXVII.90–93. For the region of Carthage, see the scarabs of the 7th–6th century BCE with the name of Amun-Re, sometimes accompagnied by a basket neb, in Jean VERCOUTTER, *Les objets égyptiens et égyptisants du mobilier funéraire carthagoinois*, Paris, Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1945, n°s 174–188, pp. 137–140, and pl. V–VI.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ E.M. АЛЕКСЕЕВА, *op. cit.* (n. 2), tab. 9.11, especially A and Γ, with variants of the Amun-trigrammata. Cf. А.С. ОСТРОВЕРХОВ, В.В. НАЗАРОВ, *art. cit.* (n. 2), pp. 479–480 (fig. 1–2).</footnote>
of scarab, spread from Mesambria to Phanagoria (on the Taman peninsula), was imitated in the 1st century BCE–1st century CE, maybe in the Northern Black Sea area. The features of the beads recall the ‘Naukratite’ and other ‘Egyptian’ examples of the 7th–6th century BCE, but the hieroglyphic inscription is reduced to some incomprehensible comas and lines, possibly recalling the Uraeus (I12) with a scepter (S42) or a Djed-pillar (R11), a feather (H6), some bird (the Horus-falcon, G5 or the owl G17), the scorpion-Serket (L7) or the lion (E22). Examples were discovered in Olbia and Pantikapaion, and throughout the steppe<fnref n="22" />.

The scarab published here comes from a systematic excavation organized in the sector of the so-called ‘Episcopal basilica’ of Istros, the most important Milesian foundation at the mouths of the Danube. Alexandru Suceveanu planned several excavations in order to determine the various phases of the church and the previous buildings, including a late 4th–early 6th-century CE basilica, called ‘Basilica C’<fnref n="23" />. In 2001, Octavian Mitroi and Constantin Băjenaru dug a trench named δ, 7.80 m × 1.70 m, in the northern aisle of the northern transept of the basilica (fig. 2)<fnref n="24" />. The scarab was found at a depth of 1.80 m below the surface. Unfortunately, this layer mixing Classical and Hellenistic materials could not be properly dated and remained unpublished<fnref n="25" />. By comparison with the analogous trench α, the depth of ca. 2 m under the ‘Episcopal Basilica’ could correspond to Istros’ Roman levels (IB–IC), dated between the 2nd and the early 3rd century CE<fnref n="26" />. However, this scarab with parallels in the 6th-century Naukratis as well as in Olbia and Berezan can hardly be later than the Hellenistic times. Even if one supposes a long period of use, as it could have been the case in Orgame, there is no proof until now that this type of ‘Naukratite’ scarab was used until Roman times. The best hypothesis for the Histrian context is that the scarab could come either from a domestic layer that preceded the Early Roman restructuration of Istros urban structure or from the destruction of the so-called Sacred Zone of the city, by the middle of the 1st century BCE. In fact, in the precinct of the sanctuary of Aphrodite, archaeologists discovered another scarab “of the Sait period”, mentioned by Marcelle Lambrino and Catrinel Domăneanțu<fnref n="27" />. Unfortunately, this other scarab was lost before being published. But the fragment of an *aryballos* and the terracotta statuette of Bes discovered in the same context and

<footnote n="22">²² See E.M. АЛЕКСЕЕВА, *op. cit.*, pp. 41–42, table 9:5–10, 13–16.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ See Constantin BĂJENARU, “Histria. Bazilica C. Rezultate preliminare”, in *SCIVA*, 54–56, 2003–2005, pp. 149–165. For the chrono-stratigraphy of the sector, see Gabriel TALMAȚCHI, Dan VASILESCU, “Noi date privind descoperirile monetare de perioadă preromană la Histria (Basilica ‘C’, sector Basilica episcopală)”, in *Pontica*, 47, Supplementum III, 2014, pp. 329–341 (pp. 333–337).</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ For the description and the location of the test trench see Alexandru SUCEVEANU, *Histria XIII. La basilique épiscopale: les résultats des fouilles*, Bucarest, Editura Academiei Române, 2007, pp. 26–27, 50–51, Pl. XII–XIII.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ We express our gratitude to Constantin Băjenaru (National History and Archaeology Museum of Constanța), Mircea Angelescu (director of the excavations in Histria) and Adela Bâltâc (National History Museum of Romania, Bucharest) for the information provided on the context. For the chronology of the analogous ‘sondaj α’, see their paper, Mircea V. ANGELESCU, Adela BÂLTÂC, “Sondajul ‘α’ din basilica episcopală de la Histria”, in *Pontica*, 35–36, 2002–2003, pp. 85–122.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Mircea Angelescu, personal letter to Anca Dan, 22.12.2024.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ See *supra*, n. 3.</footnote>
still preserved today point to a date in the second quarter of the 6th century BCE. These Archaic finds prove that the scarab could have been imported to Istros since Archaic times, as a votive gift in one of the sanctuaries or as a trickle worn by one of the inhabitants.

## The signification of the scarab in the Black Sea and Mediterranean contexts

The small ‘Naukratite’ scarabs with Amun-Re inscriptions show the spread of religious – or rather esoteric – beliefs and superstitions invented at the crossings of the Greek, Phoenician/Punic, and Egyptian worlds, as well as the extension of the commercial and cultural Ionian networks through which these small objects could reach the Black Sea<fnref n="28" />. Egyptian scarabs were discovered already on Mycenaean sites. After a gap between the 11th and the early 10th century BCE, they were imported from Egypt and made in Aegean workshops during the 8th and the 7th century BCE. These are the Perachora-Rhodos (or Lindos) scarabs, some of them with inscriptions containing the name of Amun-Re, belonging to Gorton’s type XXIIA<fnref n="29" />. This Archaic ‘Aegean’ production is now well attested on the Turkish shores from Tarsus to Miletus<fnref n="30" />. In the 6th–5th century BCE, it was replaced by the so-called ‘Naukratite’ scarabs: these scarabs are similar to the scarabs and the molds discovered by W.M.F. Petrie in the early 6th-century factory in Naukratis and spread throughout

<footnote n="28">²⁸ See Anca DAN, “La Mer Noire et le Levant ancien: quelques domaines d’enquête”, in *Rivista di Studi Fenici*, 39.2, 2011, pp. 211–258, building on the work of Maria ALEXANDRESCU-VIANU, “Présences nord-syriennes et chypriotes en mer Noire à l’époque archaïque”, in *Ancient West & East*, 3.1, 2004, pp. 78–86; cf. Jan BOUZEK, “Phoenicians in the Black sea (II)”, in *Il Mar Nero. Annali di archeologia e storia*, 8.1, 2012, pp. 125–132.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ A.F. GORTON, *op. cit.* (n. 20), pp. 64–68. For the Rhodos production, see now Virginia WEBB, “Kamiros Faience: Imported or Local? Can We Have Both?”, in *Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections*, 32, 2021, pp. 82–117. Cf. Günther HÖLBL, “Zur kulturellen Stellung der Aegyptiaca in der mykenischen und frühgriechischen Welt”, in *Forschungen zur Ägäischen Vorgeschichte. Das Ende der mykenischen Welt. Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums 7.–8. Juli 1984 in Köln*, ed. Eberhard Thomas, Köln, E. Thomaschera, 1987, pp. 123–142; Günther HÖLBL, “Aegyptiaca aus vorhellenistischen Fundzusammenhängen in Bereich der türkischen Mittelmeerküste”, in *Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft. Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres von Herrmann Vetters, Wien*, A. Holzhausens, 1985, pp. 38–42; Günther HÖLBL, “Ägyptisches Kulturgut im archaischen Artemision”, in *Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis. Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums*, ed. Ulrike Muss, Wien, Phoibos, 2008, pp. 209–221 (pp. 213–214).</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ For Tarsus, see Günther HÖLBL, *Aegyptiaca aus Al Mina und Tarsos im Verbande des Nordsyrisch-südostanatolischen Raumes*, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017, n°s 133–134; the question of these late dates in the Eastern Mediterranean remains open, decades after the fundamental articles of Günther Hölbl: see, for example, Günther HÖLBL, “Die Problematik der spätzeitlichen Aegyptiaca im östlichen Mittelmeerraum”, in *Ägypten und der östliche Mittelmeerraum im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Akten des Interdisziplinären Symposions am Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität München 25.–27.10.1996, Ägypten und Altes Testament 44*, eds Manfred Görg, Günther Hölbl, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2000, pp. 119–161; Günther HÖLBL, “Ägyptisches Kulturgut in der griechischen Welt im frühen ersten Jahrtausend vor Christos (10.–6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.)”, in *Ägypten, Griechenland, Rom. Abwehr und Berührung. Städelsches Kuninst Institut und Städtische Galerie, 26. November 2005–26. Februar 2006*, eds Herbert Beck, Peter C. Bol, Frankfurt, E. Wasmuth, 2006, pp. 114–132.</footnote>
the Greek and the Phoenico-Punic worlds, from the European mainland (Italy<fnref n="31" />), the major Mediterranean islands (Sicily<fnref n="32" />, Sardinia<fnref n="33" />), Asia Minor (e.g. Miletus<fnref n="34" />, Ephesus<fnref n="35" />) with the islands close to its shores (Delos<fnref n="36" />, Samos<fnref n="37" />, Rhodos<fnref n="38" />), Northern Africa<fnref n="39" />, and the Black sea region.

However, despite the close parallels uncovered by W.M.F. Petrie, one cannot be sure that Naukratis was the only place where these scarabs were made. Small scarabs inscribed with Amun's name are common finds in Egypt, especially from the XVIIIth dynasty onwards<fnref n="40" />. Even if only a few faience workshops were discovered in the Hellenistic and Roman layers of the Egyptian sites and even if none of them seems to have produced scarabs, this data can change in the future<fnref n="41" />. The large chronology of these finds in the Black Sea area and their discovery in Ptolemaic and

<footnote n="31">³¹ See for example the scarabs discovered in Taranto: G. HÖLBL, *op. cit.* (n. 18), I, pp. 139–142 and Tab. 120–138.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Günther HÖLBL, “Ägyptisches Kulturgut im griechischen Sizilien in archaischer Zeit. Arbeitsbericht”, in *Mare Internum*, 8, 2016, pp. 39–50, with bibliography.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ Günther HÖLBL, *Ägyptisches Kulturgut im phönikischen und punischen Sardinien*, Leiden, Brill, 1986: “Die Naukratisgruppe und ihre nächsten Verwandten”, pp. 208–217, Tab. 120–124.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Günther HÖLBL, “Funde aus Milet. VIII. Die Aegyptiaca vom Aphroditetempel auf dem Zeytintepe”, in AA, 1999, pp. 345–371 (p. 354, fig. 10); cf. Günther HÖLBL, “Ägyptisches Kulturgut in Ionien im 7. Jh. v. Chr.: Der Beitrag Millets zu einem religionshistorischen Phänomen”, in *Der Beitrag Kleinasiens zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte der Griechisch-Römischen Antiken: Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Wien, 3.–5. November 2010*, ed. Josef Fischer, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2014, pp. 181–209 (p. 192, n. 137).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Günther HÖLBL, “Archaische Aegyptiaca aus Ephesos. Vorläufige Beobachtungen zu Neufunden aus dem Artemision”, in *Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre Kleinasiatische Kommission. Akten des Symposions vom 23. bis 25. Okt. 1990*, eds Gerhard Dobesch, Georg Rehrenböck, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993, pp. 227–253 (including the archaic ‘Aegean’ ‘non-Egyptian’ production which could be compared to the Histrian scarab, pp. 239–240, with Tab. XX, 3); G. HÖLBL, *art. cit.* 2008 (n. 29), pp. 209–221. More generally, Günther HÖLBL, “Ionien und Ägypten in archaischer Zeit”, in *Frühes Ionien: eine Bestandsaufnahme: Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı, 26. September–1. Oktober 1999 / Deutsches Archäologisches Institut* (MilForsch 5), eds Justus Cobet, Volkmar von Graeve, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, Konrad Zimmermann, Mainz, 2007, pp. 447–461.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Waldemar DEONNA, *Le mobilier délien. Exploration archéologique de Délos 18*, Paris, De Boccard, 1938, pp. 257–258.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Virginia WEBB, *Faience Material from the Excavations at the Samos Heraion* (Samos 13), Wiesbaden, Reichert Verlag, 2019, pp. 185–193.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ V. WEBB, *op. cit.* (n. 8). For the relationship between ‘Egyptian/Egyptianising’ scarabs and the ‘Phoenician’ or ‘Asiatic’ scarabs, see Günther HÖLBL, “Typology of Form and Material in Classifying Small Aegyptiaca in the Mediterranean during Archaic Times: with Special Reference to Faience Found on Rhodian Sites”, in *Early Vitreous Materials*, British Museum Occasional Papers 56, eds Mavis Bimson, Ian C. Freestone, London, 1987, pp. 115–126.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ J. VERCOUTTER, *Les objets égyptiens et égyptisants du mobilier funéraire carthaginois*, Paris, Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1945, *passim*.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ See Percy E. NEWBERRY, *Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. N°s 36001–37521. Scarab-shaped seals*, London, Archibald Constable and co., 1907, pl. VIII, n° 36684, small faïence scarab (1.5 cm L × 1.1 cm W × 0.8 cm H) with the horizontal inscription of the name of Amun, dated to the late XVIIIth dynasty; from the early and mid-XVIIIth dynasty, see the steatite glazed scarabs n°s 36502, 36678 inscribed with the name of Amun-Re and a basket (*neb*, meaning “Lord”); cf. also, n° 36687, a glazed pottery scarab dated to the late XVIIIth dynasty, with “two semi-circles below” the name of Amun.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ See *supra*, n. 7.</footnote>
Late Roman republican contexts (on the Adriatic shores<fnref n="42" />) raise questions about the possible imitation of the Naukratite products in other Egyptian or maybe other Greek workshops. In the Black Sea region, old and new scarabs could be mixed to produce the simplified small scarabs of the Late Hellenistic/Late Roman republican and Early Roman imperial times. The nomads spread them further, up to the actual territory of China, until the 4th century CE.

Therefore, the publication of this Histrian scarab is an invitation to a more extensive publication of these ‘minor’ finds in Greek cities and to a more careful dating of the contexts. It confirms the similarity between Istros and other Ionian sanctuaries in the Aegean, part of the same ‘Naukratite’ network of faience exportations that reached the Black Sea. This ‘Naukratite’ network can be easily distinguished from other Egypt-Greek or Egypt-Phoenician diffusion networks active in the rest of the Mediterranean<fnref n="43" />. Through the Milesian cities of the Black Sea, the ‘Egyptian’ faience reached the ‘Barbarian’ hinterland since Archaic times, becoming one of the characteristic goods exported on long distances, since the late 7th century BCE<fnref n="44" />. Therefore, this type of discovery recalls that what we call ‘Greek’ culture, is a culture full of ‘foreign’ influences: we do not know to what extent those who made such faience scarabs were Egyptians or related to Egypt, to the Levantine coast where the Sait dynasty was active in Archaic times or to some hypothetic Egyptian communities in the Eastern Mediterranean. We ignore if those who brought the scarab to Istros – just like those who made such ‘Egyptianising’ gifts in other Ionian sanctuaries – felt somehow related to Egypt<fnref n="45" />. The god Amun was probably known at Istros at least in Hellenistic times, considering his possible representation on a Greek relief (fig. 7)<fnref n="46" />. The Syrian goddess represented on Syro-Phoenician statuettes discovered in Istros seems to hold a scarab in her hands<fnref n="47" />.

<footnote n="42">⁴² Mladen TOMORAD, Joachim SLIWA, “Three Ancient Egyptian Scarabs from the Archaeological Collection of the Franciscan Monastery on Košljun, Croatia”, in *Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu*, 32, 2015, pp. 243–249; Mladen TOMORAD, “Catalogue of the Selected Artefacts Related to the Early Penetration and Diffusion of Ancient Egyptian Cults in Istria, Dalmatia, and Pannonia (1st Millennium BCE–4th Century CE)”, in *Egypt in Croatia. Croatian fascination with ancient Egypt from Antiquity to Modern Times*, ed. Mladen Tomorad, Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 43–70 (pp. 56–57).</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ The ‘Naukratite’ network was first observed for the distribution of the Archaic ceramics: see Petre ALEXANDRESCU, *Histria IV. La céramique d’époque archaïque et classique, VIIᵉ–IVᵉ siècle*, Bucarest/Paris, Editura Academiei R.S. Romania/De Boccard, 1978, pp. 20–21.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ For the Archaic exportations in the steppe, see A.C. OCTPOBEPXOB, *art. cit.* (n. 9); I. SHRAMKO, M. TARASENKO, *art. cit.* (n. 2).</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ Helga BUMKE, “Fremde Votiven oder Fremde Dedikanten? Ägyptische Weihgaben in Ionischen Heiligtümern und ihr Zeugniswert für Kulturtransfer”, in *Tryphe und Kultritual im Archaischen Kleinasien – ex oriente luxuria?*, ed. Linda-Marie Günther, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2012, pp. 11–31.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ See Maria ALEXANDRESCU-VIANU, *Histria IX. Les statues et les reliefs en pierre*, Bucarest/Paris, Editura Enciclopedică/De Boccard, 2000, pp. 112–113, n° 131, p. 58b: cf. Simona FARCAŞ, “Culte orientale la Histria şi în teritoriu”, in *Carpica*, 33, 2004, pp. 110–116 (pp. 113–114).</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ See Maria ALEXANDRESCU-VIANU, “Présences nord-syriennes et chypriotes en mer Noire à l’époque archaïque”, in *AWE*, 3.1, 2004, pp. 78–86, in complement of her fundamental article Maria ALEXANDRESCU-VIANU, “Aphrodites orientales dans le bassin du Pont-Euxin”, in *BCH*, 121.1, 1997, pp. 15–32.</footnote>
Since few Egyptian priests or believers traveled with the goods, we must imagine
other indirect ways of teaching women and children from Phoenician and Greek
cities about the scarabs' apotropaic and fertility functions<fnref n="48" />. Yet, we cannot say to
what extent the scarabs were perceived as 'Egyptian' in the Black Sea contexts,
even if the faience, the blue color, the shape of the *Scarabaeus Sacer* and the
hieroglyphic inscriptions were clear signs of otherness, both from an esthetic and
from a medical or magical point of view<fnref n="49" />. Yet, ideas about 'Egyptomania' (a term
which is probably inappropriate for the bearers of these scarabs) should be
advanced carefully<fnref n="50" />. Rather than 'Egyptianess', at the mouth of the Danube such
scarabs illustrate the wideness of the Greek maritime networks<fnref n="51" />. In the end, the
numerous and widely-spread 'Egyptian' and 'Egyptianising' scarabs cannot be
used as coins, for identifying the date and the commercial connections of a site;
yet, they prove the essential role of the cultural transfers in shaping the Hellenic
identities<fnref n="52" />. The Ionian communities, connected throughout the Internal Seas,
played an essential part in this process.

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ For the connection of Amun with navigation, see A. MASSON, *art. cit.* (n. 6), pp. 30–31. More generally, for the connection between scarab, the navigation and a birth of a child, see Dominique BARCAT, “Les Amulettes de type égyptien en contexte funéraire en Grèce et en Egypte: étude comparative”, in *Archimède: archéologie et histoire ancienne*, 6, 2019, pp. 222–238. For the Italic reception, see Enrico GIOVANELLI, “Aegyptiaca in Central Tyrrhenian Italy: Sea Routes, Traders and Ideas”, in *Archaeology and Economy in the Ancient World. Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Classical Archaeology*, eds Martin Bentz, Michael Heinzelmann, Vol. 54: Sessions 4–5, Heidelberg, Propylaeum, 2023, pp. 267–277, https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeum.1005.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Nathan T. ARRINGTON, “Talismanic Practice at Lefkandi: Trinkets, Burials and Belief in the Early Iron Age”, in *The Cambridge Classical Journal*, 62, 2016, pp. 1–30. For the magical function of the small *Aegyptiaca*, see e.g. Günther HÖLBL, “Egyptian Fertility Magic within Phoenician and Punic Culture”, in *Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean*, University of Malta, 2–5 September 1985, ed. Anthony Bonanno, Amsterdam, B.R. Grüner Publ. Co., 1986, pp. 197–205.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ See *supra*, n. 11.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ These were discussed especially in relationship with the major Ionian sanctuaries (Aphrodite’s and Athena’s sanctuaries in Miletus, Artemis’ sanctuary in Ephesos and Erythrai, Hera’s sanctuary on Samos, Athena’s temple in Smyrna) to which the Histrian temple of Aphrodite, with its faïence deposit, can be compared. See for example Helmut KYRIELEIS, “Intercultural Commerce and Diplomacy. Near Eastern, Egyptian and Cypriot Artefacts from the Heraion of Samos”, in *Cyprus and the East Aegean. Intercultural Contacts from 3000 to 500 BC. An International Archaeological Symposium Held at Pythagoreion, Samos, October 17th–19th 2008*, eds Vassos Karageorghis, Ourania Kouka, Nicosia, A.G. Leventis Foundation, pp. 139–143; Ioannis MYLONOPOULOS, “‘Fremde’ Weihungen in Heiligtümern der Ostägäis im 7. und 6. Jh. v. Chr., in *Austausch von Gütern, Ideen und Technologien in der Ägäis und im östlichen Mittelmeer. Von der prähistorischen bis zur archaischen Zeit*, ed. Apostolos Kyriatsoulis, Weilheim-Obb., Verein zur Förderung der Aufarbeitung der Hellenischen Geschichte, 2008, pp. 363–383; Hannah L. RINGHEIM, “Hera and the Sea. Decoding Dedications at the Samian Heraion”, in *Studia Hercynia*, 23.1, 2020, pp. 11–25.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² See Michel ESPAGNE, “Transferts culturels, comparatisme et sciences de l’Antiquité”, in A. DAN et al., “Les concepts en sciences de l’Antiquité: mode d’emploi. Chronique 2014 – Les transferts culturels”, *Dialogues d’histoire ancienne*, 40.1, 2014, pp. 239–305 (pp. 247–256). For scarabs, Vanessa BOSCHLOOS, “Traded, Copied, and Kept. The Ubiquitous Appeal of Scarabs”, in *Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond: Ancient Egypt and its Neighbors*, eds Pearce P. Creasman, Richard H. Wilkinson, New York/ Oxford, University Press, 2017, pp. 149–165; lately, see M.L. SKUSE, *art. cit.* (n. 18).</footnote>
## Illustrations

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Aerial photo of the Istros excavation area (© Marian Adochiței), with the situation of the ‘Episcopal Basilica’</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Excavation plan of the ‘Episcopal basilica’ with the ‘sondaj δ’, after A. SUCEVEANU, *Histria XIII...*, pl. XII</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Photo of the Histrian scarab</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Drawing of the Histrian scarab</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Parallels from Naukratis (after E.A. GARDNER, *Naukratis II...*, pl. XVIII.25, 38, and A.F. GORTON, *Egyptian and Egyptianizing Scarabs: a Typology of Steatite, Faience, and Paste Scarabs from Punic and Other Mediterranean Sites*, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 163, n<sup>os</sup> 68 and 161)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Parallels from the Black Sea area (Olbia, Berezan and Orgame: Olbia – E.M. АЛЕКСЕЕВА, *Античные бусы Северного Причерноморья*, Москва, Наука, 1975, tab. 9:11β, γ; Berezan – А.О. БОЛЬШАКОВ, Ю.И. ИЛЬНА, “Египетские скарабеи с острова Березань”, in *VDI*, 186, 1988, pp. 51–67, fig. 1.1–3; Orgame, after A. DAN, “Deux scarabées d’Orgamè/Argamum”, in *DHA*, 37.1, 2011, pp. 9–40)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** A possible representation of Amun, after M. ALEXANDRESCU-VIANU, *Histria IX...*, cat. 131</figcaption></figure>