APPENDIX 539 Bosporus, too, was independent, but in the reign of Justin wo find it ac- knowledging the supremacy of New Rome (Procopius, B. P. i. h2). Near it was settled a small tribe of Huns (V Altziagirs). At the time of Justinian's suc- cession their king's name was Grod (tpmS, Malalas, Cod. Barocc. ; ropSas, Theo- jiliiinos, who took the notice from Malalas);" and he, desiring to become a ( 'lirifitian, wont to Constantinoj)le and was baptized. His journey had also a [lolitical object. Justinian gave him money and he undertook to defend Bos- l)orus. The great importance of Bosporus at this time lay in its being the chief emporium between the Empire and Hunland. It seems pretty clear that Bosporus was at this time threatened by the Kotrigurs, and the journey of Grod may have been rather due to an invitation from Constantinople than spontaneous. That danger threatened at this moment is shown b- the fact that .Tustinian also placed a garrison in Bosporus under a tribune. But Grod's con- version was not a success. The heathen jiriests murdered him, and this tragedy was followed b}' the slaughter of the garrison of Bosporus. We hear no more of JJosporus until it was taken by the Turks (Khazars) in a.d. .570. Kulakovski has well shown that Justinian had little interest in maintaining in it a garrison or a governor ( V^iz. Vrem. , ii. 1890, 8 sijC/. ), for it was never a centre for political relations with the lands east of the Euxine. Embassies between Constantinople and the Alans, or the Abasgians, or the Turks of the Golden Jfount went overland b_- the south coast of the Black Sea and Trebizond, and not ria Bosporus. After A.D. 570 Bosporus was subject to the Khazars. The inscription which was found in the region of Taman in 1803 and is printed in Boeckh's Corpus Inscr. Gr. 8740, is still mysterious. It has been recently dis- cussed by the two Russian scholars to whom I have already referred, Latyshev {loc. cit.) and Kulakovski (Viz. Vrem., 1890, 1 sqq.)J Only the three last letters of the name of "our most pious and god-protected lord" can be deciphered (KIC), and the favourite restoration is MaupiKi?. But this lord is certainly not the Emjjeror Maurice, as Kulakovski has shown, for (1) the shores of the Bos- porus after a.d. 570 were under the dominion of the Turks, and (2) an Emjjeror would not be described by such a title. The inscription shows that an officer named Eujjaterios, who styles himself " the most glorious stratelates and duke of Cherson," restored a kdisarioti or palace for a barbarian ])rince of unknown name, on the east side of the Bosporus, in some eighth indiction in the fifth or sixth century a.d. (for to such a date the writing points). The barbarian was clearly a Christian, and it is hard to see who he can have been but a chief of the Tetraxite Goths, who got workmen from Cherson. But it is very strange that an officer of Cherson should describe himself as the " loyal servant " of a Gothic prince.** (The subject of the Tetraxite Goths has been treated by Vasilievski, in the Zhurnal Min. Narod. Prosvieschenia, 195 (1878), p. 105 sqq.) 10. THE TURKS-(P. 349) The question of the origin of the Turks has been recently discussed hy a Chinese scholar, Mr. E. H. Parker (in the English Historical Review, July, 1890, ]). 431 sqq. on the l)asis of Chinese sources, with reference to the state- ments of Greek writers. " This name is not included in the list of Hun and Avar names in Vamb^ry's .-1 magyarok eirtli^te. ^ 7rpb5 TO?? AoiTTOi? j /lieyaAois Kal flau^aCTOi? | KaT0p8i<J(XO<rt Koi ToSe to | Kaixirpov ev Boocnropio | Kaiarapi.oi' aveve^KTev | [ . . . ] Kts 6 fiorejSe'cTTOTOs Kal fleo(|)vAo(CTOS Tj/iuv | Seo-n-OT))? Sta Tou yvq<Ti6v aiiToO | SovKov EiiTrarepiou ToD ei'SofoTarou | orpaTTjAaTOu (cai SoUKOS XtpaiulOS. 'Il'SlKTlCUJ'O? 7J.
- The inscription of the Caesar Tiberius Julius Diptunes of Bosporus, published in vol.
2 of Latyshev's collection of Inscriptions tNo. 39), cannot belong to Justinian's reign, as Latyshev now admits, but probably dates from the fourth or fifth century.
