Jesus Christ is victorious.

 

The circumstances of discovery are unknown. Only two photographs dated to 1940 are preserved at the Photo Archive, Institute for History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences (О.1529.81–82); they bear the following inscriptions: "Fragment of stone with inscription, at the Bakhchisaray Museum of Cave Cities." In Repnikov's report for 1940, the inscription is not mentioned (Manuscript Archive, Institute for History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences Ф. 35. 1940. № 175). My investigations in the archives of the Bakhchisaray Museum did not clarify the situation: inventory books for 1940 could not be located. According to the inventory of photographs compiled by the Crimean expedition of the Institute for History of Material Culture in 1940 (Photo Archive, Institute for History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences Ф. 47. Колл. 1099. С. 10), the stone was in the care of the Bakhchisaray Museum by then. Judging by its former place of storage, the inscription must have certainly originated in Mountainous Crimea. Pre-war epigraphic finds at the Bakhchisaray Museum, according to inventory lists, seem to have come only from Eski-Kermen and Mangup. Since there is no mention of this monument among the finds of the Eski-Kermen expedition (see Kharitonov 2004), Mangup should be considered the most likely findspot (see below).

The monument consists of two fragments of a nearly rectangular stone, split diagonally, and missing the top part. The exact dimensions of the monument are unknown: as far as we can tell from the photograph, its vertical dimension is wider than the width of a bench seat made of two planks. Thus both its original height and width exceeded 35-40cm. The stone is divided vertically into three approximately equal parts. A raised border is left along both the left and right sides. Along the height of the stone two fields, approximately equal in width and depth, have been inset. The central area has a different design - here was a deeper, but narrower and shorter inset field. On the photograph, we can see traces of the top corner of this inset field on the left side of the stone, which is preserved to the greatest height. The ratio of the length to the width of the central inset field is exactly 1:3. If the stone was originally symmetrical, then the ratio of the length to the width would be 1:1.2 (ca. 40cm х 48cm).

It is important to reconstruct the original size of the stone in order to estimate how much of text might have lost in each line. We should note that about halfway up the reconstructed height of the stone, in the left column, there are clear remains of a horizontal dotted line, which had been etched prior to the cutting of the inscription, because when the letter-cutter was inscribing the word ΤΟΥΔΟΥΝ in Text 2 he had to cut the letter nu over that line. The right column is not preserved as well at the same height, but there is a trace of a stroke, cut short by the break on the left, which might belong to the same etched line marking the horizontal axis of the stone. The stone's surface is also important for the assessment of the inscription's condition. It seems that the two vertical inset fields, cut specifically to bear inscriptions, originally did not have any visible defects - all damage in this area is of later date. The central bottom panel, which is raised in relation to inset fields, is where the original natural surface shows through — this part of the stone was less worked and the lime patina is heavier here. The least worked and most damaged are the vertical side borders — no text was originally meant to be inscribed there.

The exact function of the monument is unclear. Its central part was designed to have a depression, where an object of ca. 27x9cm and 10cm thick could be fitted. The most likely such object would be an icon, a reliquary, or a cross within a frame. The monument itself was also probably meant to be set into a wall.

The design of the monument (with a considerable depression in the centre) determined the circular positioning of the main text (as, e.g., on the frames of staurothekes) in combination with the crosswise. The main principles in dividing the text into parts are the formulae and the use of little crosses to mark them off. I am inclined to reconstruct the sequence of texts as follows (this slightly differs from the editio princeps (Vinogradov, Komar 2005a and 2005b) and is due to a careful examination of photographs, as well as observations communicated to us by K. Zuckermann): firstly, one line each was inscribed to the left and right of the central depression, at half its height (Text 1); the main text then followed on the left along the edge and under Text 1 up to a little cross (Text 2); at the end, on the free margins two invocations were inscribed: Text 3 - to the right, above Text 1, and Text 4 - to the right of Text 2. Text 5, which is positioned at the bottom, in the centre, judging by its syntactic structure can only be a continuation of another text: since the nearby Texts 2 and 4 end with little crosses, the only possibility would be a lost inscription that would have been above the central depression. On right border, at the bottom there are traces of uneven letters of smaller size; on the left border ther might be a ligature. At present, I refrain from offering an interpretation of these two texts.

The marking of stone with respect to its central axis suggests that a symmetrical formula could have been arranged on either side of the central deeply inset field. In our case, it is the traditional formula «Jesus Christ is victorious» (see Introduction IV.3.C.e). An erroneous abbreviation ΣΙ ΧΡ is analogous to that in V 132 (see also Vinogradov, Komar 2005а). Quite possibly, Text 1 originally might have been the only inscription on the stone and designed to accompany the object inset in the centre.

It cannot escape notice that the symmetry of the two halves of the inscription is upset. The formula ΙΣ ΧΡ | ΝΗΚΑ, inscribed prior to the main text, would typically force a letter-cutter to skirt it very closely while adding the main text due to the lack of space (cf. a golden reliquary at the Cleveland Museum of Art (Inv. № 1972.92)). In our case, the main text not only skirts the formula, but even displaces and runs over it. This must be due to the inexperience of the letter-cutter who did not estimate the size of the main text correctly.

 

[In the reign] of...outhos chagan (khagan), Ezos (?) (or: Erzos?), toudoun, a church of God was erected on 14th of April.

 

1–3. The beginning of the text is lost. According to our reconstruction of the height of the stone, two lines of text would appear to be completely lost in the left column. In line 3, at the break, on a small ledge, which has flaked to the depth of a cut letter, only the initial alpha and the bottom of the second letter are preserved - either о or σ. What follows is a slanting stroke — possibly from a cursive Σ or К (other letters are unlikely due to small space before the next letter), but the stroke continues down, to the break, and is possibly not a letter stroke, but a much later scratch. The second letter of this line appears slightly shorter than the preceding one, which as the rest of the inscription indicates, marks the use of larger letters in the top row. The reconstruction of the opening of the text is hypothetical. The mention of khagan and toudoun, which follows, is most likely given as part of a dating formula, allowing us to envision some such formula as Ἐπὶ βασιλείας.

4–6. Khagan is no doubt the ruler of the Khazar khaganate. Considering the fact that in the old Turkic tradition, a title of a person always follows that peson's name, and there is no name after toudoun in our text, we should take letters ΟΥΘΟΥ as the ending of khagan's name. If we reconstruct the opening as Ἐπὶ βασιλήας, then there is space only for two letters of khagan's name left in line 3. The final letters -ου might either be part of a root, or of the normal genitive singular ending in Greek. In the latter case, the name might have been formed on the model of (C)VC-ουθ. The loss of initial letters is fatal for our attempts at reconstructing a name. The only detail of note is the letter-cutter's use of the letter θ to convey a sound in the Khazar language, or to be more precise, of its analogue in the pronunciation of the local people. For further discussion of the possible name of the khagan, see Vinogradov, Komar 2005а.

6–8. The word Ἠζ(?)ου is represtend by means of two ligatures: one complex and another traditional: omicron-upsilon. The first ligature is non-standard and consists of eta and another sign that I interpret as a minuscule «ζ». It seems that in this case a zeta is is connected to eta simly through the extension of the latter's horizontal. Greek zeta was used in compsitions of the VII-Хth centuries in order to convey the Turkic sound «z» (Χαζαρία) и «g» as in George (Ζιέβηλ). On the etymology and meaning of the title toudoun, see Vinogradov, Komar 2005. The ligature ου at the end of Greek names usually signifies a genitive form, although in our case we have to note that the titles "khagan" and "toudoun" are used as indeclinable.

8–10. The verb ἀναχειρίζομαι had been attested only once prior to our case - Dio Cassius (38, 13): as far as one can judge by the context and etymology ("to act with hands," "to handle") it is thought to mean either "to interfere," or "to be in charge." That the latter is correct can be seen from the use of a cognate form ἀναχειροῖ, which is explained by Hesichius (s.v.) as οἰκειοῦται, that is, to "fit in," "adjust." In our case, it is synonymous with another verb conveying the sense of "erected." The mention of dedication of a "God's church," without any further specification, points apparently to Christ as the addressee.

16–17. The date in the month of April is introduced by the formula ἠς τὺ — a corruption of εἰς τήν, which is not otherwise attested in the Northern Black Sea region. Text 2, which ends with a cross, is clearly the main text on the stone since it announces an important event - dedication of a church, in which, no doubt, the inscribed stone would have been placed.

 

...for...kat... servant of the Lord.

 

4 or 5 lines of text are completely lost. The beginning of the first preserved line is also lost, but right at the break we can see the right half of a letter, above which a triangular indentation resembles the top of an omicron-upsilon ligature. Traces of the actual letter are preserved below. Considering that not a single chi of the inscription is cut symmetrically, a better match for the letter in question would be kappa. The density of letters in the line suggests that two letters were lost. In the line below, also two letters of medium size or one large letter are lost. In the line that follows, two initial letters were lost due to the break. The rest of the letters are clear and easily legible on digital photographs.

Due to the loss of 4-5 lines and damage to the rest, the text of the column cannot be fully restored, yet it is clear that we are dealing with an invocation, calling on God or a saint to help "kat-... servant of the Lord," who was apparently the ktitor of the church. A Greek name of this kind (nom. ...κατ..ας) does not spring to mind, perhaps it was not Greek, which would not be surprising judging by the dating formula of the inscription - according to Khazar rulers.

 

Visit (?), O God, four houses.

 

1–2. The inscription starts with an iota followed by a ligature consisting of a strange letter and an epsilon. A shadow on the photograph originally led me to see the strange letter as delta (Vinogradov, Komar 2005a), but digital enhancement clearly showed that there is no stroke that would have completed a delta. The ligature is cut in three strokes: first the long horizontal, then the left stroke, then the central stoke and the semi-circle of ε. A characteristic leftward litte loop of the first letter is seen in this inscription as applied only to upsilon, but the desire of the letter-cutter to embellish it raises questions and would be further rendered doubtful as we would end up with an impossible sequence of three vowels. We would have the same problem if we read an omega or an alpha instead, although with respect to the latter a similar sign is known from Cyprian Byzantine seals. Finally, a psi is doubtful due to a lack of a vertical, as well as because a similar ligature or abbreviation are unknown. In our table of letter types for this inscription, only the following are missing: β, ξ, ψ, that is, the letter-cutter must have simply used a variant lettershape (consider the variants of delta, sigma, upsilon and chi). The method of connecting letters with a central horizontal is characteristic of the minuscule of the IX-Xth centuries, where we find kappa and beta (more rarely) inscribed in this way. Since the reading ηβε would not add clarity, the only option is to read a minuscule kappa which had been in circulation since the VIIIth century.

3–4. "Four houses" — probably refers to four noble families of the city, who may have financed the construction of the church (it is unlikely that the word was used in the sense of "alms house"). A possible parallel might be a mention of πανενδόξου δόμου in the church of Agios Demetrios in Thessaloniki (Weitzmann 1979, cat. no. 500).

 

.. into Saugoatouchat (or: tou Chat).

 

1. The top of the first line (the lower field of the inscription) is chipped on the right. Despite the loss of the top, the initial letter "Η" is easily identifiable because the pi of the inscription has a rather specific shape. The second letter is also slightly chipped at the top, but its outline, in comparison with the sigma and upsilon, leaves no doubt that we are looking at an omicron. An abbreviation mark in the shape of two left-leaning parallel strokes follows tau and usually indicates τόν.

2. Upsilon and alpha are shallow cut, as well as the letters of the bottom row. At the top, omicron is crosscut with two parallel strokes, and alpha - with one; most likely these represent later damage.

3. Omicron is reduced in size and merged with the horizontal of tau, while upsilon is 2-3 times smaller than the standard size of letters in the text. Such practice is typical of manuscipt tradition with respect to the ends of words. All letters are cut shallow and become distinct only when digitally enhanced. Chi and gamma are reduced in size due to the letter-cutter's attempt to fit the inscription on the stone. At the end of the line we find a sign that I first took to be an epsilon, but the digital enhancement revealed that the sign, cut with a finer instrument, is in fact a cross with serifs at the ends of arms, standing a triangular pedestal - Golgotha - this sign no doubt signifies the conclusion of the entire inscription. On possible interpretations of Text 5, see Vinogradov, Komar 2005а.

On the historical context, see Vinogradov, Komar 2005а, with the exception of attribution to a basilica at Povorotnoe — my latest archival research suggests that we should most likely hypothesize some Khazar building activity at Mangup (see above). If this inscription does in fact originate at Mangup, then its information on the dedication of a church during the time of a khagan and toudoun could be correlated with the testimony of Byzantine sources on the Khazar presence in Mountainous Crimea. First of all, the testimony of Vita of St. John of Gotthia (BHG 891), which in chapter 4 informs about the capture of the fortress Doros by a Khazar khagan hortly after 784 or 787 C.E. and about the installation of a Khazar garrison there. At the same time, toudon, as a Khazar governor of Cherson is known already at the end of the VIIth century (Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia 379): he could have also been in charge of Mangup at the end of the VIIIth century. The Vita of St. John, chapter 8, also informs us that a "ruler Phoulai" brought his unbaptised son to bishop John — this ruler of the fortress where the rebellious bishop was held prisoner by a khagan, must himself have been an unbaptised Khazar. Considering this testimony of respect paid by a representative of Khazar administration to an Orthodox cleric, it seems possible to hypothesize that this inscription could have been cut during the construction of a church at Mangup which was under Khazar control some time at the end of the VIIIth or early IXth century. Due to the lack of archaeological context for the find, the location of the church is impossible to determine: of the buildings excavated shortly before 1940, the best candidate seems to be the Mangup basilica.