The first Hellenic navigators appeared on the northern shores of the Black Sea around the 8th century BC. As is often the case, despite the harsh climate and inhospitable nature, the territory of Taurica was by no means empty and was inhabited, if not numerous, then by a very diverse ethnic group. However, unlike other colonizations, this time the Greeks faced not only their usual sedentary or semi-sedentary tribes of aborigines, but also a fundamentally new world represented by nomadic nomads. In their mobile way of life, psychological perception, disposition and customs, the steppe people were radically different from the Hellenes, accustomed to a settled life in fortified cities and feeding mainly on agriculture. It is obvious that the coexistence of two so different cultures could not do without conflicts and misunderstandings. But, as the history of the Northern Black Sea region has shown, the nomads and the Hellenes still managed to find common ground.
How did the relationship of such different cultures come about? What served as bonds in the relations of peoples, and what, on the contrary, alienated them from each other? How did this symbiosis end? And how did it affect the states located on the territory of the Northern Black Sea region at that time?
Unfortunately, there are no exact answers to these questions. The line is too shaky when it comes to understanding the archaeological and written finds of a society that lived almost three thousand years ago.
Nevertheless, scientists do not stop working on finding answers to these difficult questions. And some of the results seem to be quite valid.
Difficult path of colonization
First of all, it is worth mentioning that, having arrived to new lands, the Hellenes were faced with qualitatively new climatic and territorial conditions of the region. The vast expanses of the steppe, deep rivers and a cold climate seem to have caused a culture shock among the new settlers. The impression they experienced was even reflected in the famous "Odyssey" by Homer, who located the territory of the Northern Black Sea coast at the very entrance to the kingdom of the dead:
We finally swam the deep ocean.
There is a country and a city of Cimmerian husbands. Everlasting
There is dusk and fog. Never a luminous sun
Does not illuminate with rays the people inhabiting that land
Does it leave the earth, entering the starry sky, Or descends from the sky, heading back to earth.
A sinister tribe of unhappy people surrounds the night. (Translation by V. V. Veresaev under the editorship of Academician I. I. Tolstoy).
In the new realities, the polis way of life was forced to adapt to the environment. The uneven density of the local population and the migration lines of nomadic peoples made significant amendments to the colonization business in different parts of Taurica. Thus, in the Olbia region, at the earliest stage of its development, archeology records the rapid growth of agricultural settlements, in which traditional Greek houses were adjacent to the dugouts of the indigenous population, which indicated a fairly peaceful relationship between the colonists and local residents, with a low number of nomads in this area.
A much more complicated situation is observed in the area of the Kerch Strait in the territory of the future Bosporus kingdom. There, despite the abundance of fertile spaces, the settlements of the colonists huddled together around the fortified cities-fortresses on the banks of the strait, often located at a distance of direct visibility. The excavation data allow scientists to very confidently assume that the future kingdom was exactly on the path of large nomadic migrations of the Scythian tribes, who consolidated their power in these lands by the 6th century BC. NS. Only collective actions to build fortifications and joint defense of settlements, and, most likely, with the involvement of indigenous sedentary residents, helped to retain the reclaimed lands of Crimea and allowed the Bosporus to take shape in a full-fledged state formation.
There was another example of the development of new lands by the Hellenes.
Excavation data and written sources allow us to conclude that in the region of the IV century BC, the formation of the Chersonesos kingdom was accompanied by the ruthless destruction and displacement of local Taurian tribes into the mountainous regions of Crimea, who, before the arrival of the colonists, lived in fairly large settlements on the Heracles peninsula. Some archaeological excavations, in particular of the defensive walls, allow us to conclude that the early policy of Chersonesos itself was founded on the territory of some ancient pre-Greek settlement.
However, despite the fact that the colonists very closely interacted with the indigenous sedentary population, the main force that changed the cultural and ethnic background of the region was the relationship between the Greeks and nomadic barbarians.
Nomads and Greeks in Relationship Matters
Today, there are three main versions of the interaction of such different ethnic groups.
Supporters first version in their works they tend to deny any significant influence of the barbarians on the culture of the Greek city-states and the settlements surrounding them. In this situation, the steppe dwellers are assigned the role of external aggressors against which the colonists unite, as well as, to some extent, trading partners who consume goods with high added value in exchange for grain, furs and leather.
Adherents second version, based on practically the same reserves of data, adhere to the opposite point of view, arguing that the nomadic barbarian population of the region should be assigned a key leading role in the formation of not only the cultural, but also the territorial characteristics of Taurica.
With the emergence of new archaeological data and with the rethinking of the existing written sources, another third version events. Its supporters, without making radical conclusions and statements about the role of Greco-barbarian relations, tend to an uneven and cyclical process of integrating cultures into each other.
Be that as it may, but many researchers ultimately agree that the relationship between the nomads and the Hellenes was not simple.
The high level of ethnic self-awareness among both groups of peoples did not allow them to quickly come to compromises and find mutually beneficial solutions. The Greeks, due to the peculiarities of their society, considered all the surrounding tribes and states, even highly developed ones, to be barbarians, and treated them accordingly. In turn, the nomads, representing impressive military power and, in fact, who for a long time did not know severe shocks and defeats, most likely did not want to put themselves on a lower level of social development and responded to the colonists with mutual hostility.
An additional force hindering the development of mutually beneficial relations was the extreme political instability that reigned in the steppe zone of the region. The constant migrations of nomadic tribes in conflict with each other and the invasions of new associations from the depths of the Great Steppe have repeatedly changed the ethnic and political situation in the Black Sea region, breaking the established ties between Greeks and nomads. Each new strong nomadic group, as a rule, in search of a "new homeland" destroyed and suppressed in new territories any force capable of resisting the new masters of the region, and only after that began to pursue a policy of mutually beneficial coexistence. Such actions were often accompanied by mass extermination of the population and the destruction of settlements, which did not contribute to the rapid establishment of ties.
Unity of opposites of political systems
But, despite the fact that no matter how tense the relations between the peoples were, they never crossed the line beyond which the renewal of contacts became impossible. Already at the earliest stages of Greek colonization, ethnic groups were drawn to each other, both from the side of profitable commodity relations, and from the exchange of ideas and knowledge accumulated in various conditions of existence. In this case, a mixture of traditions and customs of ethnic groups seems inevitable. The indisputable Greek cultural domination over the rest of the peoples did not prevent them from adopting barbaric customs, elements of art, or even technology of survival. Good examples of such integrations are earthen and semi-earthen dwellings, animal images in paintings and decorations, as well as some religious burial cults found in the Olbia region.
Another factor that contributed to the establishment of Greco-barbarian relations, according to a number of scholars, was that, in essence, behind all the differences, nomadic and polis political systems had a number of common features. Namely: the inability to autonomous existence, parasitism and stagnation in development.
With all its merits, such an education as a polis, reaching a certain level, lost the ability to self-sufficiency and was forced to absorb or subjugate weaker and less developed neighbors. Likewise, the nomadic horde, growing to a critical scale, was forced to suppress and exploit neighboring societies to maintain their own existence.
Taking this into account, on the northern shores of the Black Sea, a situation developed in which a reciprocal system of exploitation of ethnic groups was observed in different regions of Taurica. The Greeks took advantage of the irrational exchange of goods, the subordination of the local indigenous population and the slave trade. The nomadic tribes, in turn, enriched themselves at the expense of constant raids, levying tribute, and all the same slave trade. Probably, each of the parties participating in this process tried to rebuild the system of relationships in their favor. But at the same time, both the Greeks and the nomads were interested in each other as a source of material gain. And for the sake of preserving their counterparty, they were ready to make any deals and compromises, if circumstances required it.
So is it the Greek or the barbarian population?
A separate point is to highlight the question of whether the population of the ancient cities of Taurica consisted of predominantly Hellenized barbarians or was it all the same from barbarized Greeks?
Guided by the data of burial excavations, as well as studies of household items in cities, scientists make assumptions that at the first stages of the formation of the states of the Northern Black Sea region, impressed by the possible quality of life and the benefits provided, nomads by whole tribes integrated into the culture of the Greeks, adopting a sedentary lifestyle and settling in cities, thereby providing additional population growth.
However, based on the rich Scythian mounds near the walls of the Hellenic cities, it is important to note that many traditions and rituals, having become settled, the nomads preserved and brought with them to new places for life.
At the later stages of the existence of ancient cities, especially in our era, with the growth of population and the inevitable mixing of the families of the Greco-barbarian elite, a bias towards barbarian traditions and a barbarian way of life over the Hellenic is recorded. This trend was also reinforced by regular waves of newcomers from the Great Steppe, which inevitably diluted the existing population.
Outcome
Despite the overwhelming advantage of the Hellenistic culture over the rest on the territory of Taurica, the Greeks still could not absorb and overshadow the indigenous and nomadic population of the region. This was partly due to the fact that in the new climatic conditions for themselves, the first colonists were forced to adopt the skills of survival from the local population, thereby entering into a certain merger with them. And partly because of the enormous military power of the nomadic world, which could not be ignored.
Both economically and culturally, all groups of the population were in one way or another interested in each other, deriving, albeit subtle, but still significant benefits from close coexistence.
The complex symbiosis of ethnic groups formed on the northern shores of the Black Sea was, if not unique, then a rather rare phenomenon in ancient history.
The system of interactions and political peculiarities was built in such a way that any significant imbalance in relations after a series of crises stabilized one way or another, returning to a bizarre form of power and trade ties.
Such an interesting structure, with certain transformations, existed for about a thousand years, which, even by the standards of history, is an impressive life span for a political system.
