CHAPTER FOUR

THE MOST HIGH GOD OF THE BOSPORUS AND IRANIAN TRADITION

The hypothesis connecting the Most High God of the Bosporus with an Iranian background rests on three main arguments. Tanais, which has produced the bulk of 77zeos Hypsistos documents of the Bosporus, was essentially a semi-barbaric city, with a growing proportion of Iranians in its population as well as in the membership of its colle­ gia. Further, the image of the horseman on the stele of thiasotes cel­ ebrating the Day of Tanais appears to belong to the indigenous tradition of representing a god as a cavalier. Finally, the hierarchy of the associations worshipping 77zeos Hypsistos seems to have been related to the Iranian tradition of warrior societies.

2.4.1 Tanais: Some Ethnic and Cultural Characteristics

Tanais1 was the least hellenized of the Bosporan cities. It was founded by the Bosporans in the third century BC in the northeastern cor­ ner of the kingdom as a trading station, linking the Scytho-Maeoto­ Sarmatian population of the area to large ports ( 7.4.5; 11.2.3). This emporium, surrounded by vast steppes and located far away not only from great Mediterranean cultural centers, but even from the Greek nucleus of the , was the northernmost settlement of the classical world at that time (Shelov 1970: 9; 26-45; Arsen'yeva, Bottger, and Vinogradov 1996: 54). Local traditions are responsible for numerous non-Greek features of Tanais. Construction techniques were extremely primitive: even defensive walls were built almost without foundations, and roof tiles were ignored and evidently superseded by thatched roofs, typical of indigenous settlements (Shelov 1961a: 114-115). Handmade and

I For the site and the history of its excavations see in Russian: Knipovich 1949; Shelov 1970; 1972; in Western languages: Arsen'eva and Selov 1988; Bottger 1995; 1996. 256 CHAPTER FOUR glossy pottery of local forms constitute about half the total pottery finds (Shelov 1961 a: 116-117). Local jewelry, mirrors, and other objects (Shelov 1961 a: 118), as well as Sarmatian brands incised on various household objects and on slabs with Greek inscriptions (eIRE 1237; 1241; 1243; 1248; 1249; 1250; Solomonik 1959: Nos. 1; 12-14; 38; Shelov 1961a: 113, 116) remain characteristic of the Tanais city site through its history (Shelov 1970; 1972, passim). The semi-barbaric character of the town is best expressed in the division of its population into two categories, "EAAllVE~ KUt TuvU£l'tat (eIRE 1243), each group headed by its own authorities: fAAllVapxO~ (eIRE 1242, 1237, 1247, 1248, 1251a) on the one hand, and apXffiv TuvuEnwv (eIRE 1237, 1242, 1245, 1251) and A6xuyo~ TUVUEt'twv (eIRE 1251a) on the other hand (Minns 1913: 615; Knipovoch 1949: 97-102; Gaydukevich 1949: 343-344; Boltunova 1964: 197; Shelov 1970: 213-217; 1972: 264-266).2 This division, attested by the second-third-century AD inscriptions, is reflected in the archaeolog­ ical evidence from the second-first centuries BC,3 showing a clear boundary between the hellenized and the barbaric quarters of the town (Shelov 1970: 215; 1989: 52). However, even during this ear­ lier period the Greek and indigenous cultural elements mutually influenced each other, which is demonstrated by the materials from the early necropolis of Tanais (Shelov 1970: 82-106) and from the town itself (Shelov 1970: 107-152). This picture changed drastically in the first century AD, as a result of two major events: the crushing defeat of Tanais by Polemo (Strabo 11.2.3) on the turn of the Christian era (Salac 1955: 231-217; Boltunova 1964: 198; Shelov 1970: 226; 1972: 268; Bottger 1996: 42) and the mass influx of into the town's population (Shclov 1970: 216; 1972: 238; Kostenko 1983: 80-81). To be sure, Sarmatian ethnic elements began to play an ever growing role in other Bosporan cities, as well (above, 0.2), but it was in Tanais where the changes were most profound.

2 This division is not always interpreted as purely ethnic (Ziebarth 1896: 27; Minns 1913: 615; Kolobova 1933b: 71; Knipovoch 1949: 98; Gaydukevich 1949: 343-344). Zhebelyov (1934: 43), as well as Ziebart in his later work (1929: 140), is inclined to consider all the inhabitants of Tanais as "EAAT)VEt;, and all the traders as TUVUEttat. 3 For a different approach see Dan'shin (1989), who suggests that the division into Hellenes and Tanaitai started in the mid-second century AD, owing to an incor­ poration of a new Sarmatian-Alanian group.