"Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia
The contribution discusses the artifacts of nomadic
 types from Central Anatolia which include weapons,
 horse equipment and objects made in the traditions of
 Scythian animal art style. They highlight the complex
 ethnic composition of the nomadic groups located here...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Археологія і давня історія України |
|---|---|
| Date: | 2022 |
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Інститут археології НАН України
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/187576 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Journal Title: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Cite this: | "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia / S.V. Маkhortykh // Археологія і давня історія України: Зб. наук. пр. — К.: ІА НАН України, 2022. — Вип. 1 (42). — С. 58-74. — Бібліогр.: 65 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| _version_ | 1860241407045795840 |
|---|---|
| author | Маkhortykh, S.V. |
| author_facet | Маkhortykh, S.V. |
| citation_txt | "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia / S.V. Маkhortykh // Археологія і давня історія України: Зб. наук. пр. — К.: ІА НАН України, 2022. — Вип. 1 (42). — С. 58-74. — Бібліогр.: 65 назв. — англ. |
| collection | DSpace DC |
| container_title | Археологія і давня історія України |
| description | The contribution discusses the artifacts of nomadic
types from Central Anatolia which include weapons,
horse equipment and objects made in the traditions of
Scythian animal art style. They highlight the complex
ethnic composition of the nomadic groups located here
in the 7th—6th centuries BC that does not allow attributing
all these archaeological materials to a single group,
for example, the Cimmerians.
Центральна Анатолія є однією з областей Передньої Азії, де фіксується найбільш значна концентрація
археологічних матеріалів, пов’язаних з перебуванням тут євразійських кочівників ранньоскіфського
часу. Рівнини Центральної Анатолії мали хороші
пасовища і здавна були зручні для комунікацій. У
VII ст. до н. е. ця область займала проміжне положення між Західною Анатолією з Лідією і східногрецькими центрами, а також Східної Анатолією, яка
входила в зону інтересів Урарту та Ассирії. На цій
території локалізувалися невеликі місцеві, фригійські або неохетські «князівства». Вони, ймовірно,
контролювалися добре озброєними і мобільними
загонами кочoвиків, які використовували цю територію в якості своєрідної бази для набігів на сусідні
і віддаленіші регіони. Матеріали ранніх кочoвиків
представлені в Центральної Анатолії предметами
озброєння і кінського спорядження, а також виробами, виконаними в скіфо-сибірському звіриному
стилі. Важливою і найчисленнішої категорією кочового інвентарного комплексу є бронзові втульчаcти
наконечники стріл, знайдені в похованнях провінції
Амасья, Сіваз, Імірлере, Гордіони, а також на місцевих поселеннях регіону (Богазкей, Каман Кале
Хоюк, Керкенес Даг). У статті запропонована їх типологія і наведені аналогії в євразійських пам’ятках
VII—VI ст. до н. е. Вивчення кочевніческіх комплексів з Анатолії показує, що вони мають синкретичний характер, включаючи вироби кіммерійського,
скіфського, центральноазіатського типів, а також
місцеві давньосхідні артефакти. Будучи зв’язаними
з різними культурними традиціями, ці комплекси
свідчать про неоднорідний етнічний склад кочівницьких угруповань, що локалізувалися в Малій Азії
у VII—VI ст. до н. е. Вони також не дозволяють приписувати виявлені тут матеріали якомусь одному з
цих народів, наприклад, кіммерійцям, в реальності
існування якого сьогодні вже ніхто не сумнівається.
|
| first_indexed | 2025-12-07T18:30:26Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
58 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
УДК 904.2(560.328)”638” DOI: 10.37445/adiu.2022.01.04
S. V. Маkhortykh
«cimmeRO-ScYthian» antiquitieS
fROm centRal anatOlia 1
The contribution discusses the artifacts of nomadic
types from Central Anatolia which include weapons,
horse equipment and objects made in the traditions of
Scythian animal art style. They highlight the complex
ethnic composition of the nomadic groups located here
in the 7th—6th centuries BC that does not allow attribut-
ing all these archaeological materials to a single group,
for example, the Cimmerians. 1
Keywords: Central Anatolia, Cimmerians, Scythi-
ans, 7th—6th centuries BC, bronze socketed arrowheads.
introduction. Central Anatolia is one of
Western Asia regions, where the significant
concentration of archeological materials re-
lated to the Eurasian nomads of the Early
Scythian period is fixed. This region is located
in the middle of modern Turkey and character-
ized by a flat landscape with some isolated low
mountain ridges. From the north, the Anato-
lian plateau is surrounded by the Pontic Moun-
tains, and from the south by the Taurus Moun-
tains. Central Anatolia is situated in the area
of dry steppes and semi-deserts with thickets
of low thorny bushes. The plateau is cut by a
few rivers flowing into the Black Sea, such as
Kızılırmak (Halys) and Sakarya (Sangarius).
In the past, these rivers were natural dividing
1. The article is prepared as part of a research project
carried out at Cornell University with the sup-
port of the Fulbright Program (USA) in Ukraine. I
would like to express sincere gratitude to A. Smith,
L. Khatchadourian and N. Russell for their assist-
ance in the realization of this project. I am also
grateful to K. Yukishima, S. Takahama and S. Adali
for consultations and sharing the publications about
the Kaman Kalehöyük and Büklükale sites.
lines between the cultural formations located
within the region.
The plains of Central Anatolia had good pas-
tures and from ancient times served for com-
munication purposes with land routes being
laid from the East to the West. The region is
located between Western and Eastern Anato-
lia, where two large cultural-historical areas
were presented: Lydia and the Eastern Greek
centers on the one hand and Urartu and As-
syria on the other hand. In Central Anatolia,
small local, presumably Phrygian or Neo-Hit-
tite «principalities» were localized, which did
not pose a serious threat to the nomads. Mobile
and well-armed nomadic units probably con-
trolled the local population and used this terri-
tory as a base for military raids on neighboring
and more distant regions, or hid here from en-
emies in case of danger. The materials related
to the early nomads are represented in the re-
gion by various categories of inventory: weap-
ons, horse harness and objects made in the
traditions of Scythian animal art style. These
finds come both from nomadic burials and local
settlements. The following paragraphs set out
the discussion of sites and / or burial complexes
that included objects of nomadic types in Cen-
tral Anatolia.
buRialS. (1) a tomb plundered in the
amasya province. It is located somewhere
between Tasova and Ladik (fig. 1: 2). The buri-
al belonged to a nomadic warrior and contained
250 bronze arrowheads (Ünal 1982, p. 69,
Abb. 3—7). This is the most numerous assem-
blage of nomadic arrowheads of the 7th century
BC found in the Near East. It consisted of five
bullet-shaped and 245 bronze socketed arrows,
of which 231 had barbs and only 14 were with-© S. V. МАKHORTYKH, 2022
59ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
Маkhortykh, S. V. «Cimmero-Scythian» Antiquities from Central Anatolia
out a barb. Biblade arrowheads are represent-
ed by no less than four different types, among
which items with oval and rhomboid heads
prevail (fig. 2: 1—14; 22—33). The arrowheads
differ in the width of the blades, socket length
and the presence or absence of a barb. The
length and the maximum width of the head of
the arrows in most cases varies from 4.2 × 1.1
to 4.8 × 1.5 cm. Arrowheads with a rhomboid
and laurel-shaped head, generally, belong to
the so-called cross-cutting types, that were dis-
tributed in the Near East and the South Cau-
casus during the most of the 7th century BC, as
well as, partly in the first half of the 6th century
BC (Karmir Blur, Ayanis, Cavuştepe, Assur,
Boğazköy, Kerkenes Dağ, Sardis, etc.).
One of the arrowheads with a rhomboid head
and a long socket (dimensions: 5.1 × 1.4 cm)
finds the analogies among the pre-Scythian
Novocherkassk type of the 8th—7th centuries
BC in southeastern Europe 1 (fig. 2: 33). Simi-
lar arrowheads are also known in the Early
Scythian context, for example, in kurgan 1 of
the Krasnoe Znamya cemetery in the Central
Ciscaucasia (Петренко 2006, табл. 55: 13).
The quiver set from the Amasya province
also contains biblade arrowheads with a rhom-
boid head with smoothed outlines. Such arrow-
heads are sometimes referred to as the ones
with an «oval-rhomboid» head (fig. 2: 34—42).
Such arrowheads are known in the Scythian
burials of Eastern Europe, where they are dat-
ing to the mid — second half of the 7th century
BC (Петренко 1990, рис. 1.Д: 5, 7, 8; Галанина
1995, рис. 2: 1; 3: 25).
1. For more information about the finds of arrowheads
of Cimmerian types in the Near East, see: Махортых
2000, c. 190, рис. 1.
An original group is formed by so-called
«syncretic» arrowheads. One blade of such ar-
rowheads has an oval outline and another one
a rhomboid form (fig. 2: 15—21). In my opin-
ion, the term «the arrowheads with an oval-
rhomboid head» suits them well. Such arrows
were found in the North Caucasus: Krasnoe
Znamya, kurgan 1; Zheleznodorozhny II, kur-
gan 2, burial 8; Novozavedennoe II, kurgan 2
(Петренко 1990, рис. 2.з: 4; 2006, табл. 55:
14; Лимберис, Марченко 2014, рис. 2: 2). Only
one similar specimen comes from the forest-
steppe Dnieper region — Zhabotin, kurgan 524
(Рябкова 2014, рис. 1.3: 1). The latter burial is
dated to the second and / or third quarter of the
7th century BC (Махортых 2014).
In Central Anatolia, the arrowheads with
«oval-rhomboid» heads were found at Boğazköy
and Kaman-Kalehöyük (fig. 6: 20; 8: 13; Boe-
hmer 1972, Taf. XXXI: 910; Yukishima 1992,
fig. 1: 8). In the eastern regions of Eurasia,
similar arrowheads are unknown.
It should be noted that the quiver set from the
Amasya contains a representative series (more
than 50 items) of biblade arrowheads with the
so-called «weighted» heads. They have a promi-
nent socket, often with a barb, and rhomboid or
oval-shaped head, which is divided into two sec-
tions in its widest part. An upper, striking half
of the head has a tetrahedral form, while the
lower part of the head has a flat biblade shape
(fig. 2: 43—58). Most exemplars vary in size
from 3.5 × 1 to 4.6 × 1.3 cm. Basic area of dis-
tribution of two-bladed arrows with a «weight-
ed» head in the Near East is Central Anatolia,
where they, having undergone certain changes,
existed throughout the 7th century BC. Mate-
rials from Kerkenes Dağ allow us to assume
that these items were also produced in the first
fig. 1. Distribution map of nomadic type artifacts of the 7th—6th centuries BC in Central Anatolia: 1 — Sivas prov-
ince; 2 — Amasya province; 3 — Imirler; 4 — Boğazköy; 5 — Kerkenes Dağ; 6 — Kaman Kalehöyük; 7 — Gordion
60 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
статті
half of the 6th century BC (fig. 9: 12, 14; Sum-
mers 2017, fig. 33.5: 1, 2). A small number of
biblade arrowheads with so-called «weighted»
heads of various modifications are known in
southeastern Europe, where they are dated to
the 7th—6th centuries BC (Velikoaleksandrov-
ka, kurgan 7; Osnyagi, kurgan 1; Zhabotin,
kurgan 524; Yagorlyk, etc.; Островерхов 1981,
рис. 3: 17; Кореняко, Лукьяшко 1983, рис. 10:
10—14; Шрамко 1987, рис. 71: 3; Рябкова
2014, табл. 2: 23). It is supposed that their ori-
gin is connected to Central Kazakhstan and the
fig. 2. Bronze socketed arrowheads from a burial in Amasya province (not to scale)
61ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
Маkhortykh, S. V. «Cimmero-Scythian» Antiquities from Central Anatolia
Aral Sea region (Рябкова 2014). It should be
noted that they are also known in more eastern
regions of Eurasia, for example, in Tuva (e. g.,
чугунов 2019). However, the archaeological
culture (Tasmolinskaya, Aldy-Belskaya, etc.)
and the territory with which the origin of such
arrowheads should be connected, as well as the
chronological dynamics of their distribution in
this vast area, remain uncertain.
In a quiver set from the Amasya province, a
separate group is formed by barbed arrowheads
with a prominent socket and tetrahedral heads of
oval (fig. 2: 59—63), rhomboid or smoothed-rhom-
boid shapes (fig. 2: 64—68; Ünal 1982, Abb. 3:
20—28). Their sizes vary from 3.6 × 0.9 to 4.5 ×
1.0 cm. A small number of similar items were
found at other sites in Asia Minor (Kerkenes Dağ,
Kaman-Kalehöyük; fig. 8: 30, 31; 9: 15, 16). The
arrows with a tetrahedral head can be considered
as a local feature of the Central Anatolian quiver
sets in the 7th century BC.
V. Ünal dated a burial assemblage from
the Amasya province to the 7th — the begin-
ning of the 6th century BC (Ünal 1982, s. 81).
А. Аlekseev and А. Ivanchik restricted its date
to the first half — the middle of the 7th centu-
ry BC (Алексеев 2003, с. 149; Иванчик 2001,
с. 49). These authors relied on the supposed
chronological affinity of three arrowheads with
a rhomboid head and casted relief decoration
in the form of a «bird’s footprint» from Amasya
with an arrowhead from Boğazköy (fig. 2: 24, 27;
6: 4). However, a item from Boğazköy was found
in the Büyükkale IIa/Ib layer dated to the mid-
dle of the 7th century BC (Boehmer 1972), that
does not allow us to attribute it and other simi-
lar arrowheads to the first half of the 7th century
BC 1. It should be pointed that the presence of
relief ornamentation is characteristic of the pre-
Scythian arrowheads of the 8th—7th centuries
BC in the south of Eastern Europe (Vysokaya
Mohyla, Malaya Tsimbalka, etc.). Relief marks
on the arrowheads with rhomboid heads from
Amasya and Boğazköy, probably, indicate their
Cimmerian origin, which is also the case of the
arrowheads of the Novocherkassk type from
the Gumarovo kurgan in the southern Urals 2
(Исмагилов 1988, рис. 6: 36, 40, 54).
1. An arrowhead from Amasya with a rare head form
finds analogies in the above-mentioned Boğazköy
layer. Its elongated, smoothed-rhombic shape reach-
es its maximum width in the lower part of the blades
(fig. 2: 39; 6: 5).
2. It should also be noted that M. Pogrebova and D. Rae-
vskiy argue that the burial assemblage of the Gu-
marovo kurgan is not indicative of the movement of
the Scythians to the west, from their homeland, as in
the case of grave goods from Arzhan and Chilikta, but
rather one of the directions of dispersal of the Cauca-
sian — West Asian carriers of the Early Scythian ma-
terial complex after the end of the Near Eastern mili-
tary raids (Погребова, Раевский 1993, c. 240, сн. 34).
The quiver set from the Amasya province is
quite representative. When dating it, one should
rely not on single items, but on the existing series
of arrowheads inside the assemblage. This quiver
set contains a significant number of barbed ar-
rows with an oval head, as well as a number of
syncretic, oval-rhomboid arrowheads and ar-
rowheads with smoothed-rhomboid heads. These
three variations of biblade arrowheads are not
typical for the most archaic burial complexes of
the European Scythia and the eastern regions of
Eurasia dated to the beginning — the first half
of the 7th century BC, as well as for quiver sets
dated to the end of the 7th century BC.
These facts and the respective analogies com-
ing from the Boğazköy layer dated to the mid-
dle of the 7th century BC allow us to attribute
the Amasya complex to the second-third quar-
ter of the 7th century BC.
The dating of Amasya complex can be further
specified by biblade specimens with smoothed-
rhomboid heads dated to the middle — second
half of the 7th century BC and arrowheads with
syncretic oval-rhomboid heads dated to the sec-
ond-third quarter of the 7th century BC.
All these analogies are dated to the middle-
third quarter of the 7th century BC. This proba-
bly was the time of the formation of the complex
from the Amasya province, which is one of the
oldest nomadic burials in Central Anatolia.
The combination of arrows with different
origins is one of key features of the quiver set
from the Amasya. The tetrahedral-biblade ar-
rowheads are close to the antiquities from the
eastern province of the Scythian world, while
the barbed arrowheads with oval and «syncre-
tic» oval-rhomboid heads are more characteris-
tic for the western one.
(2) quiver set from the Sivas province.
It was found between Dogansar and Koyul-
hisar and probably comes from a destroyed
burial (fig. 1: 1; Ökse 1994).
The set included 21 bronze socketed arrow-
heads, which are two-bladed and, with one ex-
ception, supplied with a barb. It includes two
arrowheads 4.1—4.5 cm long with a wide rhom-
boid-shaped head (1.4—1.5 cm) and a short
socket that finds analogies in a quiver from the
Amasya province (fig. 3: 1, 2). Besides that, an
arrowhead with a small rhomboidal head and
a long socket was discovered (fig. 3: 3). Most of
the arrows from Sivas have a narrow laurel-
shaped head with slightly protruding blades
and a massive socket, which is faceted or oval in
cross-section (fig. 3: 4—10). Exemplars with a
wider oval head are also known (fig. 3: 11—16).
The length of the arrowheads varies from 3.2
to 4.7 cm with a width of 0.9—1.3 cm. Arrow-
heads with a smoothed-rhomboid head form a
small group (fig. 3: 17—21).
In the Near East, close parallel to biblade ar-
rowheads with a narrow oval head are coming
62 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
статті
from Boğazköy, Kerkenes Dağ, Kaman Kale-
höyük, Carchemish and Karmir-Blur (Boehmer
1972, Taf. XXXI: 901, 913, 918, 924; Yukishima
1992, fig. 1: 1, 2; Рябкова 2009, рис. 3: 7, 25;
Szudy 2015, pl. 31, Summers 2017, fig. 33.2:
11—13). According to the archaeological con-
text, they usually dated to the second half — the
end of the 7th century BC. In the south of East-
ern Europe, quiver sets that include barbed bib-
lade arrowheads with rhomboid and oval heads
of various widths are known in the North Cau-
casus: Stavropol kurgan 1953; Novozaveden-
noe II, kurgan 2; Kelermes, kurgan 24; Kholm-
skiy I, kurgan 4, etc. (Петренко 1990, рис. 1:
Е; василиненко, Кондрашев, Пьянков 1993,
рис. 5—7; Галанина 1995, рис. 3: 4—9). These
complexes are usually dated no earlier than the
middle — the second half of the 7th century BC.
It is notable that barbed biblade arrowheads
with narrow oval heads are extremely rare in
the east of Eurasia in the Early Scythian time.
Thus, the Near Eastern and Caucasian paral-
lels determine the age of the quiver set from
the Sivas province as the middle — the second
half of the 7th century BC.
(3) burial near imirler (amasya prov-
ince) (fig. 1: 3). One of the most informative
nomadic complexes in Central Anatolia was lo-
cated near Imirler. In a square burial chamber,
the walls of which were covered with stone, a
bronze stirrup-ended bit, a long iron sword, a
bimetallic pickaxe and a bronze fluted handle
associated with it were found. The complex
also included 28 bronze arrowheads, of which
21 were unpublished, as well as a gold bracelet
kept in a private collection (Ünal 1982, s. 65,
Abb. 1; Hauptmann 1983; Коssack 1987; De-
rin, Muscarella 2001, p. 194; Иванчик 2001,
с. 42).
The quiver set from Imiler contains bib-
lade arrowheads with an oval head and a long
socket without a barb (fig. 4: 5—7), arrowheads
with a head of a similar shape and a shorter
socket with a barb (fig. 4: 8), barbed arrows
with a rhombic head (fig. 4: 9, 10) as well as
a single item with a so-called «weighted» head
(fig. 4: 11). Their sizes vary from 3.8 × 1.1 cm to
4.9 × 1.25 cm.
Some researchers dated a burial from Imirl-
er to the middle of the 7th century BC (Дударев
1998, с. 89; Алексеев 2003). Ivanchik consid-
ers it to be more ancient and relates this burial
to the early stage of the Kelermes period by
dating it somewhat earlier than Kelermes kur-
gans discovered by V. Veselovsky (Иванчик
2001, с. 48).
Ivanchik’s dating of the Imirler complex is
based on the arrowheads, which, in his opinion,
belong to the Kelermes type and find the clos-
est analogies in the Kelermes kurgans.
First, it should be noted that the assump-
tion about the existence of an early stage of the
Kelermes period, preceding the burial mounds
discovered by V. Veselovsky, is not supported
by any archaeological evidence related to the
Kelermes necropolis. According to the analy-
sis by L. Galanina, burial mounds discovered
by V. Veselovsky are associated with the old-
est stage of the Kelermes period in the Kuban
area, which precedes the pre-Kelermes stage,
identified by A. Jessen (Галанина 1997).
Secondly, the arrowheads from Imirler are
represented by several types, among which
there are exemplars with rhomboid, oval, and
«weighted» heads. Therefore, it’s incorrect to
combine them into one «Kelermes type» as
A. Ivanchik does.
Moreover, arrows from Kelermes tumuli are
mostly depasportized (Галанина 1995). They
are not connected with certain burial complex-
es, which makes their chronological position
unclear.
Thirdly, in Kelermes burial mounds there
are no tetrahedral-biblade arrowheads with
a «weighted» head, as well as the two-bladed
fig. 3. Bronze biblade arrowheads from the Sivas
province
63ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
Маkhortykh, S. V. «Cimmero-Scythian» Antiquities from Central Anatolia
specimens with a long socket and oval head
without a barb, which form the most numer-
ous group in Imirler (fig. 4: 5—7). In this re-
gard, the arrows from Kelermes cannot serve
as grounds for dating the burial from Imirler.
Furthermore, the arrowheads with an oval
head and a long socket, that is about half the
length of the entire item, are well known at the
burials of the beginning — the first half of the
6th century BC in Eastern and Central Europe:
Lebedi V, kurgan 11 burial 8 (Kuban area), Ki-
taigorod (Dnieper left-bank steppe), Bobritsa,
kurgan 35 (Dnieper right-bank forest-steppe),
Smolenice-Molpír hillfort (group IA, Slovakia)
(fig. 4: 12—17; Ковпаненко 1981, рис. 10: 17,
18; Hellmuth 2006, Taf. 1: 1, 2; Мелюкова 2006,
с. 28; Ромашко, Скорый, Филимонов 2014,
рис. 3: 23—29; Пьянков, Рябкова, зеленский
2019, рис. 4: 1, 2).
A bimetallic pickaxe is another important
chronological indicator from Imirler burial
(fig. 4: 3). Such weapons have been found in
fig. 4. Grave goods from а burial near Imirler and analogies to the bronze arrowheads found here: 1—11 — Imi-
rler; 12, 13 — Kitaygorod; 14, 15 — Smolenice Molpir; 16, 17 — Lebedi V, kurgan 11, burial 8 (not to scale)
64 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
статті
the Caucasus in the Perkalsk, Tsaishi and
Ergeta cemeteries, where they are dated no
earlier than the end of the 7th — the begin-
ning of the 6th centuries BC (Козенкова 2014;
Папуашвили, балахванцев 2016) 1. Judging
by the published drawing of the pickaxe from
Imirler, it can not be ruled out that the bird’s
head (?) in the junction of the socket and the
blade is highly schematized and transformed
into a simple loop that may also indicate a
rather young date for this object.
The expected age is also confirmed by other
objects from the Imirler complex, in particu-
lar, a long iron sword with a bar-shaped pom-
mel and «heart-shaped guard» (according to
Иванчик 2001, с. 42) or classic «bud-shaped
guard» (according to Алексеев 2003, с. 149).
Imirler’s sword in its proportions and the shape
of the pommel is close to the Scythian weapons
of the 7th—6th century BC known in the Cau-
casus (Karmir-Blur) and in the Dnieper forest-
steppe area (Starshaya Mohyla) (Пиотровский
1959, рис. 6; Ильинская 1968, табл. 1: 1).
All of the above-mentioned facts suggest that
the burial from Imirler should be attributed to
the end of the 7th century BC, or possibly to the
beginning of the 6th century BC.
An important feature of Imirler complex is
the presence of objects belonging to different
cultural traditions: Eastern European (iron
sword, bronze arrowheads with an oval head
and long socket), Volga-Ural (bimetallic pick-
axe) and Central Asian (arrowheads of tetrahe-
dral-biblade type).
The same cultural syncretism is typical for
the complex from Norşuntepe, which is another
highly informative burial of the nomadic type
in the Near East.
More than 60 % of its composition are Urar-
tian, Iranian and Transcaucasian items (bits
with twisted rods, fastener, axe). There are
also Cimmerian (a bronze ring with a broken
movable muff) and Scythian artifacts (bronze
zoomorphic harness attachment). The com-
bination of such diverse objects in one burial
does not support the identity of the cultures of
the Cimmerians and Scythians, but presuppos-
es their contacts in the Near East within the
framework of joint raids or actions, reliably ev-
idenced by written sources (Махортых 1998).
(4) a burial ground located in the vi-
cinity of the gordion, nearby the modern
Yassıhüyük, about 70—80 km southwest of
Ankara (fig. 1: 7). Some of the burials of this
necropolis are related to the Eurasian nomads.
First of all, tumulus J should be mentioned,
where a non-disturbed burial was arranged in
1. For more information about the origins and dis-
tribution of bimetallic pickaxes in Eurasia, see
Кузьминых 1983; Müller-Karpe 1995; Алексеев
2003; Таиров 2010; балахванцев 2014).
a wooden tomb built in a sub-square pit (Kohler
1995). The poorly preserved skeleton of a man
was oriented with his head to the east and laid
extended on the back. The burial contained nu-
merous grave goods. In addition to the «local»
categories of inventory (bronze jug, small caul-
drons with handles, bowl, various embossed
appliqués, etc.), it included objects of a nomad-
ic type: bronze arrowheads, an iron axe and a
spearhead, a whetstone, pair of cult knives, as
well as, presumably, fragments of bronze and
iron bits (fig. 5; Kohler 1995, fig. 25—27). Such
combination of multicultural artifacts in one
grave is exceptional for the Gordion necropolis
and it is not fixed in other burials. It suggests
that not a Phrygian, but probably a Scythian
warrior — a mercenary (Kohler 1995, p. 188,
213, 234) — was buried in tumulus J. It is
worth noting that imported East Greek pottery
was found in the burial too. Together with oth-
er artifacts, it allows to date this assemblage
to the end of the 7th century BC (Kohler 1995,
p. 59; DeVries 2005). This date correlates well
with other objects of nomadic type, and, in par-
ticular, with bronze biblade arrowheads 2.
In total, six socketed arrowheads were found
in tumulus J, five of which had barbs (fig. 5:
13—18). Their dimensions vary from 2.85 ×
1.0 cm to 4.6 × 1.1 cm, although most of them
did not exceed 4 cm in height and ranged from
3.0 × 1.05 cm to 3.8 × 1.2 cm. Arrowheads
from tumulus J, find the closest parallels in
the Early Scythian quiver sets of the west-
ern Ciscaucasia (fig. 5: 20; burial 2 near the
Lenin khutor) and the Dnieper left-bank for-
est-steppe area (fig. 5: 19, 21, 22; Starhaya Mo-
hyla) (Ильинская 1968, табл. 2: 30, 34, 35, 39;
Лимберис, Марченко 2012, рис. 110: 6б). Ac-
cording to the grave goods, these burials should
be dated to the beginning — the first quarter of
the 6th century BC (Махортых 2016; 2017).
SettlementS. (1) boğazköy (Çorum
province) (fig. 1: 4). The site is located near
the modern village of Bogazkale east of the
Kızılırmak river. On its territory, more than 50
(mainly biblade) bronze socketed arrowheads
were found (вoehmer 1972, Taf. XXX; XXXI;
Derin, Muscarella 2001, p. 194; Baykal-Seeher
et al., 2006, Abb. 25: 13—17).
A trilobate solid arrowhead with a promi-
nent socket and a head in the shape of a point-
ed leaf having an oval-shaped depression at the
base of rounded edges is related to the oldest
Büyükkale II layer, which is dated to the second
quarter of the 7th century BC (fig. 6: 1; вoehmer
2. It should be also mentioned two bronze socketed ar-
rowheads from the tumulus B, which is localized
near the tumulus J and close to it in time (Kohler
1995, pl. 11: F, G). The Lydian lekythos discovered
there dates the tumulus B to the 6th century BC
(DeVries 2005, p. 54).
65ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
Маkhortykh, S. V. «Cimmero-Scythian» Antiquities from Central Anatolia
1972, S. 111, Taf. XXXI: 933). The dimensions
of the item are 3.9 × 0.65 cm. Analogies to this
arrowhead are known in burial mounds of
southeastern Europe, where they are mainly
dated to the second half of the 7th — the begin-
ning of the 6th century BC (Krasnoe Znamya,
kurgan 1, southern tomb; Nartan, kurgan 16;
Аksiutintsy, kurgan 469, etc. (Галанина 1977,
табл. 19: 13; Махортых 1991, рис. 15: 20;
Петренко 2006, табл. 54: 73б).
Taking into account the analogies, the single
nature of this find, and the probability of ma-
terial being moved between the layers, noted
by R. вoehmer, it cannot be excluded that this
trilobate solid arrowhead originated from the
younger layer (Büyükkale IIa/Ib), which is dat-
ed to the middle of the 7th century BC.
The Büyükkale IIa/Ib layer also contains
nine barbed biblade arrowheads (вoehmer
1972, S. 110—114, Taf. XXXI: 901—909).
Among them there are items with rhomboid
and smoothed-rhomboid heads (fig. 6: 2—4, 6),
as well as the arrowheads with oval and oval-
rhomboid heads (fig. 6: 7, 9). Their sizes vary
from 3.7 × 1.2 cm to 5.25 × 1.4 cm.
Two rare specimens are distinguished: a
barbed arrowhead with a small oval-rhomboid
head and a long socket (fig. 6: 7; 4.5 × 1.1 cm)
and an arrowhead with a narrow sub-rhomboid
head and the largest width in its lower part
(fig. 6: 5; 4.65 × 1.05 cm).
19 bronze arrowheads are related to the
younger Büyükkale I layer, which is widely
dated to the 7th—6th centuries BC, or even the
5th century BC (No 886—893, 910—918, 934—
935) 1 (вoehmer 1972, S. 109).
Among them, there are six exemplars with
a rhomboid head, without or with a barb and
1. Ivanchik’s assertion that the most of the arrows of
the «Scythian» type were found in the Boğazköy
layer 1, which allegedly dates to the second quar-
ter — the middle of the 7th century BC is erroneous
(Иванчик 2001, c. 68).
fig. 5. Grave goods from tumulus J at the Gordion and analogies to the bronze arrowheads found there: 1—18 —
tumulus J; 19, 21, 22 — Starshaya Mohyla; 20 — burial 2 at the Lenin khutor (not to scale)
66 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
статті
sizes varying from 3.4 × 0.9 cm to 4.8 × 1.25 cm
(fig. 6: 17—19), as well as the two arrowheads
with smoothed- rhomboid heads without a barb
(fig. 6: 21, 22).
The collection in question also contains three
arrowheads with an oval head and a prominent
socket with a barb. Their sizes ranging from
3.85 × 1.2 cm to 4.75 × 1.15 cm (fig. 6: 11—13).
An item with a combined head was also
found. One of its blades has oval and other —
rhombic form (fig. 6: 20; 4.2 × 1.3 cm).
In addition, single barbed exemplars with an
asymmetric-rhombic head (4.0 × 1.2 cm) and
a tetrahedral head (3.9 × 0.95 cm) were found
(fig. 6: 14, 16).
Two arrowheads had combined, tetrahedral-
biblade heads and prominent sockets without
a barb (fig. 6: 25, 26; 3.95 × 1.15 cm and 4.0 ×
1.1 cm).
The forms of two biblade arrowheads are ex-
tremely rare and do not find analogies in Cen-
tral Anatolia. One of them has a vaulted head
and a flat socket (fig. 6: 24; 3.55 × 1.1 cm), and
another one has a narrow elongated head with
a slightly prominent socket (fig. 6: 23; 4.3 ×
0.9 cm).
Two bronze triblade arrowheads were also
connected with the Büyükkale I layer. One
of them has a narrow, leaf-shaped head and
a prominent socket without a barb (fig. 6: 27;
4.0 × 0.85 cm), and another one has a narrow,
vaulted head (fig. 6: 28; 3.9 × 0.85 cm).
Most of the biblade arrowheads from
Boğazköy are not related to specific layers
fig. 6. Bronze socketed arrowheads from the Boğazköy:
1 — Büyükkalе II layer; 2—10 — Büyükkalе IIa/Ib layer;
11—28 — Büyükkalе I layer (not to scale)
67ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
Маkhortykh, S. V. «Cimmero-Scythian» Antiquities from Central Anatolia
(22 items, fig. 7: 1—23). They belong mainly to
the same types with rhomboid and oval-shaped
heads as the ones discussed above (вoehmer
1972).
Besides the above-mentioned arrowheads,
two Early Scythian iron three-looped cheekpiec-
es of Г-shaped and arcuated form with bulges at
their ends have been found at Boğazköy (fig. 7:
24, 25; Boehmer 1972, S. 162, Taf. LVIII: 1695,
1697). By their origin, they are connected to
the North Caucasus and testify to the contacts
between this region and the population of Cen-
tral Anatolia in the 7th — the 6th centuries BC
(Эрлих 2013). It is also worth noting that such
elements of horse equipment are not known in
the eastern regions of Eurasia.
(2) Kaman Kalehöyük site is located 3 km
east of the Kaman city in the Kırşehir prov-
ince (fig. 1: 6). About 100 bronze socketed ar-
rowheads of «Scythian» types were found there
and they are mainly associated with the late
Phrygian layers, horizon IIa (Yukishima 1992;
1998).
Arrowheads are primarily represented by
bronze biblade exemplars (at least 80 items).
Among the best preserved finds several types
can be distinguished. Arrowheads with oval
and rhomboid heads as well as prominent sock-
ets with or without a barb prevail (fig. 8: 1—11,
20—28). Their sizes range from 3.85 × 0.95 cm
to 5.15 × 1.45 cm.
Several exemplars with syncretic oval-rhom-
boid heads have also been found. Similar items
were discovered at Boğazköy and in Amasya
province (fig. 8: 12—14, 19). Some sites of
Central Anatolia (Boğazköy, Kerkenes Dağ,
etc.) offer analogues for the arrowheads with
a tetrahedral and tetrahedral-biblade head as
well as a prominent socket with a barb (fig. 8:
29—30).
At the same time, arrowheads of a rare
type are presented at Kaman which analogies
not yet unknown in Western Asia. These are
barbed specimens with a flat socket and a tet-
rahedral head (fig. 8: 32, 33). Their dimensions
are 4.0 × 1.0 cm and 4.4 × 1.25 cm. These exem-
plars are probably a local original modification
of the bronze arrowheads with a tetrahedral
head and a flat socket, which were well known
in the eastern regions of Eurasia in the Early
fig. 7. Bronze socketed arrowheads (1—23) and iron
three-looped cheekpieces (24, 25) from the Boğazköy
(not to scale)
68 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
статті
Scythian period. Central Anatolian innovation
was the addition of a barb.
It is also worth mentioning an arrowhead
with a short prominent socket and a tower-like
head, which is quite rare in Western Asia (fig. 8:
34; 3.65 × 1.37 cm). It is similar to the finds
from the Cimmerian burials of the pre-Scythian
time in the Northern Black Sea region (Yuk-
ishima 1998, p. 185, fig. 4: 1; 8: 1; Махортых
2000, с. 190). Single arrowheads of the same
type were found in the Aral Sea area and in the
southern Siberia (Яблонский 1996, рис. 17: 60,
61), where they can be considered a result of con-
tacts with Eastern European nomadic groups.
The existence of such contacts is confirmed by
the finds from the Gumarovo kurgan (southern
Urals), in particular the Novocherkassk type ar-
rowheads, and Eastern European types of bridle
accessories found in the Aral Sea area (Uigarak,
kurgan 66; Махортых 2005, с. 94—95).
An original group of barbed arrowheads with
a sub-rhomboid head and maximum width in
its lower part is distinguished among the finds
from Kaman Kalehöyük (fig. 8: 3, 4, 15). The
sizes of these arrowheads vary from 3.4 ×
1.1 cm to 4.0 × 1.0 cm. Similar arrows were
found at Boğazköy and Kerkenes Dağ (fig. 6:
15; 9: 11), as well as in the south of Eastern Eu-
rope, for example, Hapry, kurgan 25, burial 1
(Ильюков, Пашиньян 1999). According to the
archaeological context, this burial is dated to
the first half of the 6th century BC that allows
us to attribute the aforementioned group of ar-
rowheads from Kaman Kalehöyük to the same
chronological period.
It is necessary to mention two unfinished bib-
lade arrowheads with an oval head and remains
of the funnel that suggests that they were man-
ufactured at Kaman by nomads or for nomads
(fig. 8: 24; Yukishima 1998, fig. 5: 2; 9: 10, 11).
fig. 8. Artifacts of nomadic type from Central Anatolia and their analogies: 1—42 — Kaman-Kalehöyük; 43 —
Büklükale; 44, 45 — Кеlermes, kurgan 2/в (not to scale)
69ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
Маkhortykh, S. V. «Cimmero-Scythian» Antiquities from Central Anatolia
Triblade arrowheads of different modifica-
tions (18 items) are rather numerous at Kaman
Kalehöyük. Their sizes vary from 3.4 × 0.8 cm
to 5.0 × 1.0 cm. Some of them have a long and
narrow oval head, as well as a prominent socket
without a barb (fig. 8: 35). Such arrowheads are
known from Boğazköy (Büyükkalе I layer —
fig. 6: 28), where they are dated to the second
half of the 7th — the 6th centuries BC as well as
from Iran (Nush-i Jan), Iraq (Grd-i Tle) and the
northwest Caucasus (Lenina hutor, burial 2)
(Dezső 2017, fig. 1: 1). The latter burial is dated
to the end of the 7th — the first quarter of the
6th centuries BC (Лимберис, Марченко 2012,
рис. 110: 2ж).
It is also worth nothing a triblate arrow-
head with leaf-shaped head from Kaman Kale-
höyük, which probably refers to the same time
(fig. 8: 37). Similar exemplars were found at
Carchemich and Sardis, where they are con-
nected with the destruction layers of these sites
(end of the 7th century BC or around the middle
of the 6th century BC) (Waldbaum 1983, pl. 3:
43; Szudy 2015, pl. 38: 19 Carchemish).
Most of other triblade arrowheads from the
Kaman Kalehöyük, including items with a
rhomboid head (fig. 8: 38, 39) are connected
with the arrows of the Achaemenid types (layer
1), which are dated to the 6th — the 5th centu-
ries BC (Yukishima 1992, p. 93, fig. 2: 9, 10).
In addition to the arrowheads, a bronze
zoomorphic harness fitting as well as a bone
button decorated in the Scythian animal style
were found at Kaman Kalehöyük 1 (fig. 8: 41, 42;
Takahama 1999, p. 178, fig. 1a; 3a; Махортых
2018, с. 39, рис. 6: 10). Striking similarity be-
1. It should be also mentioned a bone harness fitting,
decorated with an image of a coiled predator, dis-
covered at the Büklükale, located near Kaman Kale-
höyük (fig. 8: 43; Matsumura 2020, fig. 10). The clos-
est parallels to it are known among the zoomorphic
images presented in kurgan 2/B Kelermes cemetery
in the Kuban region (рис. 8: 44, 45; Махортых 2017,
рис. 11: 5, 6).
tween above-mentioned bone button and a sim-
ilar object from Sardis, which is associated with
the Eurasian nomads (Dusinbere 2010, fig. 2),
allow us to assume that an item from Kaman
Kalehöyük also is of nomadic origin.
(3) Kerkenes dağ in the Yozgat prov-
ince belongs to the most monumental sites of
the Early Iron Age in Central Anatolia (fig. 1:
5). It was founded by Phrygians and functioned
approximately from the end of 7th to the begin-
ning of the third quarter of the 6th century BC.
Kerkenes Dağ is likely to be associated with
the ancient city of Pteria mentioned by Hero-
dotus (Summers 2018).
Elements of nomad’s material culture found
at this site are mainly represented by bronze
socketed arrowheads (28 items; Schmidt 1929,
fig. 69; Summers 2017).
Biblade arrowheads are prevailed among this
category of inventory (19 items — 68 %). 11 of
these arrowheads have barbs. Nine triblade
arrowheads were also found, three of which
with a barb. Arrowheads ranged in length from
2.5 to 4.9 cm, although most were from 3.4 to
4.0 cm (Summers 2017, fig. 33.1—33.5).
Biblade arrowheads are presented by sev-
eral types. The most numerous are exemplars
with oval, wide or narrow, heads (8 items;
fig. 9: 1—7). Many of them have a slightly
prominent socket with a barb, and their length
varies from 3.7—3.9 to 4.0—4.3 cm. Bronze
socketed biblade arrowheads with an oval head
are well-known at such Urartian sites as Ay-
anis, Bastam, Karmir-Blur. In Asia Minor,
they have been found at Boğazköy (Büyükkale
layer I) as well as in the Amasya and Sivas
provinces (fig. 2: 1—11; 3: 4—16). Close par-
allels to the arrowheads with oval head and
a barb from Kerkenes are also presented in
the south of Eastern Europe, for example, in
burial 2 of Repyakhovataya Mohyla, which
is dated to the first half of the 6th century BC
(Ильинская, Мозолевский, Тереножкин 1980,
рис. 14: 16).
fig. 9. Bronze socketed arrowheads from Kerkenes Dağ
70 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
статті
Among the biblade arrowheads from
Kerkenes Dağ, there are also four exemplars
with a rhomboid head. They have a barb ex-
tends from the socket behind the blades and
their lengths vary from 3.2 to 4.3 cm (fig. 9:
8—11).
The aforementioned biblade arrowheads
with oval and rhomboid heads belong to the so-
called cross-cutting types that were used in the
Near East during the most of the 7th century
BC, and partly in the first half of the 6th centu-
ry BC. This is also confirmed by the Kerkenes
materials.
Among the examined arrowheads, there are
also three items with tetrahedral heads and a
prominent socket (fig. 9: 15—17). Their sizes
vary from 3.2 to 3.7 cm. Such arrowheads have
been mainly found in Central Anatolia (fig. 2:
59—68; 8: 30) (Amasya province, Kaman Ka-
lehöyük, etc.), while in the other regions of the
Near East they are practically unknown. This
makes it possible to consider these arrowheads
as the local features of the Central Anatolian
quiver sets in the 7th — 6th centuries BC.
The same interpretation can be also appro-
priate for the two original biblade arrowheads
without barbs, which have the so-called «weight-
ed» heads (fig. 9: 12, 14). The length of these ar-
rowheads is 2.9—3.4 cm. They represent one of
the latest varieties of arrowheads of this type,
which were distributed in the 7th—6th centuries
BC, mainly in Central Anatolia (Amasya prov-
ince, Boğazköy, Kaman Kalehöyük, etc.). It is
worth noting that in the more eastern regions
of Western Asia and in the Transcaucasia, such
arrows were not found.
Kerkenes triblade arrowheads are quite di-
verse and represented by several types. Among
them there are arrowheads, which are 2.5—
4.2 cm long with a laurel-shaped head, short
socket without a barb, as well as a exemplar
with a barb and long socket, that is about half
the length of the entire arrowhead (fig. 9: 18—
20). A latter arrowhead finds the closest paral-
lels in the Eastern European burial mounds of
the first half of the 6th century BC: Lebedi V,
kurgan 11 burial 8; Khapry, kurgan 25 buri-
al 1; Bushujka, kurgan 2 burial 10 (беспалый,
Парусимов 1991, рис. 6: 14; Пьянков, Рябкова,
зеленский 2019, рис. 4: 13—15). This fact tes-
tifies to the existence of contacts between the
East European nomads and the population of
Asia Minor, not only in the 7th century BC, but
in the 6th century BC too.
In Kerkenes Dağ, triblade arrowheads with a
short socket, rhomboid or laurel-shaped heads
with the maximum width in their lower part
as well as with or without a barb have been
also found (fig. 9: 21—23). Their lengths vary
between 3.2—4.6 cm. These arrowheads find
analogies in the south of Eastern Europe in the
burial mounds of the late 7th — the first half of
the 6th centuries BC (Kelermes, kurgans 1/Sh.
and 4/Sh.; Repyakhovataya Mohyla, burial 1;
Lebedi V, kurgan 11, etc. (Галанина 1995,
рис. 3: 36; Дараган 2015, рис. 13: 11; Пьянков,
Рябкова, зеленский 2019, рис. 4: 20, 21).
Arrowheads belonging to the Achaemenid
types, which became widespread in the Near
East and beyond in the 6th —5th centuries BC,
were also found at Kerkenes Dağ (fig. 9: 24, 25).
Such triblade arrowheads have either a flat or
a slightly prominent socket and a sub-rhom-
boid head. Similar specimens were also found
at Kaman Kalehöyük (fig. 8: 38, 39).
Narrow chronological limit of the Kerkenes
Dağ existence (the late 7th — the first half of
the 6th centuries BC) make it possible to define
the Scythian types of arrowheads used at that
time. It also makes them an important chrono-
logical and cultural indicator.
conclusions. Central Anatolia is one of the
regions of Western Asia, where a significant
concentration of archaeological materials of
the 7th and partly the 6th centuries BC related
to the Eurasian nomads is fixed on a rather
compact territory. These materials are repre-
sented by artifacts coming both from burials
(Amasya province, Imirler, Gordion, etc.) and
local settlements. The latter, in contrast to
the Urartian sites, are usually not connected
with destruction layers. Finds of nomadic types
from Central Anatolia include weapons (bronze
socketed arrowheads of various types, iron
sword and axe, bimetallic pickaxe) and horse
equipment (bits with stirrup-shaped loops on
the ends, three-looped cheekpieces, harness fit-
tings), as well as objects made in the traditions
of Scythian animal art style.
Eurasian nomadic assemblages from Anato-
lia are often syncretic in nature. They including,
in one way or another, artifacts of the Cimme-
rian, Scythian and Central Asian (Saka?) types,
as well as the local Near Eastern artifacts.
Being associated with various cultural tra-
ditions, both Eastern European and Central
Asian, they testify the heterogeneous ethnic
composition of the nomadic groups operated
here in the 7th—6th centuries BC, and do not al-
low us to attribute all the materials found in
Anatolia to one of these peoples, for example,
the Cimmerians.
If we consider the culture as a complex phe-
nomenon, covering a wide range of funeral rit-
uals and material culture, then the question of
the content and identity of the cultures of the
Cimmerians and Scythians cannot be currently
resolved on the materials of the Near East, first,
because of the lack of quite informative and
representative archaeological evidence here;
second, due to the localization of the main cent-
ers of nomadic communities of the 7th—6th cen-
turies BC on territories located to the north of
the Main Caucasian Ridge.
71ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
Маkhortykh, S. V. «Cimmero-Scythian» Antiquities from Central Anatolia
літерАтУрА
Алексеев, А. ю. 2003. хронография европейской
скифии. Санкт-Петербург: Государственный эрми-
таж.
балахванцев, А. С. 2014. биметаллический кле-
вец из бугуруслана и проблема становления ран-
нескифской культуры. в: Лукьяшко, С. И. (ред.).
Война и военное дело в скифо-сарматском мире.
Ростов-на-Дону: юНЦ РАН, с. 39-48.
беспалый, Е. И., Парусимов, И. Н. 1991. Комп-
лексы переходного и раннескифского периодов на
Нижнем Дону. Российская археология, 3, с. 179-195.
василиненко, Д. Э., Кондрашев, А. в., Пьянков,
А. в. 1993. Археологические материалы предскифс-
кого и раннескифского времени из западного закуба-
нья. в: Раев, б. А. (ред.). Понтийско-кавказские ис-
следования. Краснодар: Скифская галерея, с. 21-38.
Галанина, Л. К. 1977. скифские древности Под-
непровья. Москва: Наука.
Галанина, Л. К. 1995. Раннескифские стрелковые
наборы из Келермесских курганов. Археологический
сборник Государственного Эрмитажа, 32, с. 40-52.
Галанина, Л. К. 1997. Келермесские курганы.
Москва: Палеограф.
Дараган, М. Н. 2015. Наконечники стрел пред-
скифского и раннескифского времени: технология
изготовления, метрология и маркировка. Труды Го-
сударственного Эрмитажа, LXXVII, с. 127-169.
Дударев, С. Л. 1998. К вопросу о месте «кимме-
рийских» комплексов из западной Азии в системе
хронологических и культурных связей Причерномо-
рья, Кавказа и восточных районов Евразии. Вест-
ник древней истории, 4, с. 77-92.
Иванчик, А. И. 2001. Киммерийцы и скифы. Мос-
ква: Палеограф.
Исмагилов, Р. б. 1988. Погребение большого Гу-
маровского кургана в южном Приуралье и пробле-
ма происхождения скифской культуры. Археологи-
ческий сборник Государственного Эрмитажа, 29,
с. 29-47.
Ильинская, в. А. 1968. скифы Днепровского лесо-
степного Левобережья. Киев: Наукова думка.
Ильинская, в. А., Мозолевский, б. Н., Теренож-
кин, А. И. 1980. Курганы VI в. до н. э. у с. Матусов.
в: Тереножкин, А. И. (ред.). скифия и Кавказ. Киев:
Наукова думка, с. 31-64.
Ильюков, Л., Пашиньян, К. 1999. На краю Мео-
тиды. Ростов-на-Дону: Рим V.
Ковпаненко, Г. Т. 1981. Курганы раннескифского
времени в бассейне р. Рось. Киев: Наукова думка.
Козенкова, в. И. 2014. Хронология Перкальского
могильника в контексте новых материалов скифско-
го облика в Предкавказье. в: ххVIII Крупновские
чтения. Москва: ИА РАН, с. 160-162.
Кореняко, в. А., Лукьяшко, С. И. 1982. Новые ма-
териалы раннескифского времени на левобережье
Нижнего Дона. советская археология, 3, с. 149-164.
Кузьминых, С. в. 1983. Металлургия Волго-Ка-
мья в раннем железном веке. Москва: Наука.
Лимберис, Н. ю., Марченко, И. И. 2012. Меот-
ские древности VI—V вв. до н. э. Краснодар: Кубан-
ский университет.
Лимберис, Н. ю., Марченко, И. И. 2014. Новые
протомеотские комплексы закубанья. Археологичес-
кие вести, 20, с. 165-182.
Махортых, С. в. 1991. скифы на северном Кавка-
зе. Киев: Наукова думка.
Махортых, С. в. 1998. Киммерийцы и Древний
восток. Вестник древней истории, 2, с. 95-104.
Махортых, С. в. 2000. Об актуальных вопросах
раннескифской археологии. B: Гуляев, в. И., Оль-
ховский, в. С. (ред.). скифы и сарматы в VII—III вв.
до н. э. Москва: Дикий сад, с. 186-193.
Махортых, С. в. 2005. Уздечные принадлежности
юга восточной Европы в предскифский период. в:
Тишкин, А. А. (ред.). снаряжение кочевников Евра-
зии. барнаул: Алтайский университет, с. 92-95.
Махортых, С. в. 2014. Об одной группе раннескиф-
ских памятников Днепровского лесостепного Право-
бережья. Revista arheologica, 10 (1—2), с. 69-79.
Махортых, С. в. 2016. Скифские зеркала эпохи
архаики на Северном Кавказе и в лесостепном Под-
непровье. в: байтанаев, б. А. (ред.). Актуальные
проблемы археологии Евразии. Алматы: Институт
археологии, с. 297-323.
Махортых, С. в. 2017. Пронизи для перекрестных
ремней конской упряжи на юге восточной Европы в
VII—VI вв. до н. э. Археологія і давня історія Украї-
ни, 2 (23), с. 166-184.
Махортых, С. в. 2018. Распределители ремней
конской упряжи VII—VI вв. до н. э. в закавказье и
Передней Азии. Археологія і давня історія України,
2 (27), с. 35-50.
Мелюкова, А. И. 2006. По поводу скифских похо-
дов на территорию Средней Европы. в: Петренко,
в. Г. (ред.). Древности скифской эпохи. Москва: ИА
РАН, с. 25-40.
Папуашвили, Р. И., балахванцев, А. С. 2016. би-
металлические клевцы из могильников Колхиды.
в: балахванцев, А. С., Куланда, С. в. (ред.). Кавказ
и степь на рубеже эпохи поздней бронзы и раннего
железа. Москва: Ив РАН, с. 199-206.
Петренко, в. Г. 1990. К вопросу о хронологии ран-
нескифских курганов Центрального Предкавказья.
в: Мелюкова, А. И. (ред.). Проблемы скифо-сармат-
ской археологии. Москва: ИА РАН, с. 60-81.
Петренко, в. Г. 2006. Краснознаменский могиль-
ник. Москва: Палеограф.
Пиотровский, б. б. 1959. Город бога Тейшебы. со-
ветская археология, 2, с. 169-186.
Погребова, М. Н., Раевский, Д. С. 1993. Ранние
скифы и древний Восток. Москва: Наука.
Пьянков, А. в., Рябкова, Т. в., зеленский, ю. в.
2019. Комплекс раннескифского времени кургана 11
могильника Лебеди V в Прикубанье. Археологичес-
кие вести, 25, с. 206-228.
Ромашко, в. А., Скорый, С. А., Филимонов, Д. Г.
2014. Раннескифское погребение в кургане у села
Китайгород в Приорелье. Российская археология, 4,
с. 107-117.
Рябкова, Т. в. 2009. Наконечники стрел скифско-
го типа из Тейшебаини. в: Марченко, И. И. (ред.).
Пятая Кубанская археологическая конференция.
Краснодар: Кубанский университет, с. 328-334.
Рябкова, Т. в. 2014. Курган 524 у с. жаботин в сис-
теме памятников периода скифской архаики. Россий-
ский археологический ежегодник, 4, с. 236-296.
Таиров, А. Д. 2010. биметаллический чекан из
южного зауралья. Челябинский гуманитарий, 4
(13), с. 101-108.
чугунов, К. в. 2019. Классификация стрел
К. Ф. Смирнова и колчанные наборы раннескиф-
ского времени восточной зоны как хронологичес-
кий индикатор. в: Малышев, А. А. (ред.). Scythia et
Sarmatia. Москва: ИА РАН, с. 31-46.
Шрамко, б. А. 1987. Бельское городище скифской
эпохи (город Гелон). Киев: Наукова думка.
Эрлих, в. Р. 2013. Об одном трехпетельчатом пса-
лии из богазкея. в: Коваленко, А. Н. (ред.). Причер-
72 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
статті
номорье в античное и раннесредневековое время.
Ростов-на-Дону: юФУ, с. 46-49.
Яблонский, Л. Т. 1996. саки Южного Приаралья.
Москва: Наука.
Baykal-Seeher, A., Genz, G., Herbordt, S., Seeher,
J. 2006. Ergebnisse der Grabungen an den Ostteichen
undam mittleren Büyükkale-Nordwesthang, Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern.
Boehmer, R. M. 1972. Die Kleinfunde von Boğazköy
aus den Grabungskampagnen 1931—1939 und 1952—
1969. Berlin: Mann.
Derin, Z., Muscarella, O. W. 2001. Iron and bronze
arrows. In: Çilingiroğlu, A., Salvini, M. (eds.). Ayanis I:
Ten years excavations at Rusahinili Eiduru-kai 1989—
1998. Rome: Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-
anatolici, р. 189-217.
DeVries, K. 2005. Greek pottery and Gordion chro-
nology. In: Kealhofer, L (ed.). The archaeology of Midas
and the Phrygians. Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania, p. 36-55.
Dezső, T. 2017. The arrowheads from Grd-i Tle. Dis-
sertationes Archaeologicae, 3 (5), p. 97-112.
Dusinbere, E. 2010. Ivories from Lydia. In: Cahill,
N. (ed.). The Lydians and their world. Istanbul: Yapι
Kredi Kültür Sanat, p. 191-200.
Hauptmann, H. 1983. Neue Funde eurasischer
Steppennomaden in Kleinasien. In: Boehmer, R. M.,
Hauptmann, H. (eds.). Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Kurt Bittel. Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern, S. 251-270.
Hellmuth, A. 2006. Untersuchungen zu den sogenan-
nten skythischen Pfeilspitzen aus der befestigten Höhen-
siedlung von Smolenice-Molpir. Bonn: R. Habelt.
Kohler, E. 1995. The Gordion Excavations (1950—
1973). The Lesser Phrygian tumuli: the inhumations.
Philadelphia: University.
Kossack, G. 1987. Von den Anfängen des skytho-
iranischen Tierstils. In: Franke, H. (ed.). Skythika.
München: BAdW, S. 24-86.
Matsumura, K. 2020. Büklükale kazisi 2018. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantıları, 41 (3), p. 35-48.
Müller-Karpe, V. 1995. Atlı Göçebelerden Kalma
Anadolu’daki Kovanlı Savaş Kazmaları. In: Erkanal,
A., Erkanal, H (eds.). Memoriam İ. Metin Akyurt Ba-
hattin Devam Anı Kitabı. Eski Yakın Doğu Kültürü
Üzerine İncelemeler. İstanbul: Kanaat Matbaasi,
p. 227-232.
Ökse, T. 1994. Bronzerne Pfeilspitzen Scythischen
Typus aus Sivas. Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 64—65, S. 28-32.
Schmidt, E. F. 1929. Test excavations in the city
on Kerkenes Dagh. American Journal of Semitic Lan-
guages and Literatures, 45, p. 221-274.
Summers, G. 2017. Iron Age arrowheads from Ker-
kenes. In: Maner, Ç., Horowitz, M., Gilbert, A. (eds.).
Overturning certainties in Near Eastern archaeology. A
festschrift in honor of K. Aslıhan Yener. Leiden: Brill,
p. 645-664.
Summers, G. 2018. Phrygians East of the Red river:
phrygianisation, migration and desertion. Anatolian
Studies, 68, p. 1-20.
Szudy, M. J. 2015. Archery equipment in the Neo-As-
syrian period. Vienna: Vienna university.
Takahama, S. 1999. Bone ornaments with bird head
design excavated from Kaman-Kalehöyük. Anatolian
Archaeological Studies, 8, p. 175-178.
Ünal, V. 1982. Zwei Gräber eurasischer Reiternomaden
im nördlichen Zentralanatolien. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen
und Vergleichenden Archaologie, 4, S. 65-82.
Waldbaum, J. C. 1983. Metalwork from Sardis: The
finds through 1974. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Yukishima, K. 1992. Scythian type bronze arrow-
heads from Kaman-Kalehöyük. Anatolian Archaeologi-
cal Studies, 1, p. 89-100.
Yukishima, K. 1998. Metal arrowheads at Ka-
man-Kalehöyük. Anatolian Archaeological Studies, 7,
p. 183-204.
RefeRenceS
Alekseev, A. Iu. 2003. Khronografiia evropeiskoi Skifii.
Sankt-Peterburg: Gosudarstvennyi ermitazh.
Balakhvantsev, A. S. 2014. Bimetallicheskii klevets iz Bu-
guruslana i problema stanovleniia ranneskifskoi kultury. In:
Lukiashko, S. I. (ed.). Voina i voennoe delo v skifo-sarmatskom
mire. Rostov-na-Donu: IuNTs RAN, s. 39-48.
Bespalyi, E. I., Parusimov, I. N. 1991. Kompleksy perekhod-
nogo i ranneskifskogo periodov na Nizhnem Donu. Rossiiskaia
arkheologiia, 3, s. 179-195.
Vasilinenko, D. E., Kondrashev, A. V., Piankov, A. V. 1993.
Arkheologicheskie materialy predskifskogo i ranneskifskogo
vremeni iz zapadnogo Zakubania. In: Raev, B. A. (ed.). Ponti-
isko-kavkazskie issledovaniia. Krasnodar: Skifskaia galereia,
s. 21-38.
Galanina, L. K. 1977. Skifskie drevnosti Podneprovia.
Moskva: Nauka.
Galanina, L. K. 1995. Ranneskifskie strelkovye nabory
iz Kelermesskikh kurganov. Arkheologicheskii sbornik Gos-
udarstvennogo Ermitazha, 32, s. 40-52.
Galanina, L. K. 1997. Kelermesskie kurgany. Moskva:
Paleograf.
Daragan, M. N. 2015. Nakonechniki strel predskifskogo
i ranneskifskogo vremeni: tekhnologiia izgotovleniia, me-
trologiia i markirovka. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha,
LXXVII, s. 127-169.
Dudarev, S. L. 1998. K voprosu o meste «kimmeriiskikh»
kompleksov iz Zapadnoi Azii v sisteme khronologicheskikh i
kulturnykh sviazei Prichernomoria, Kavkaza i vostochnykh
raionov Evrazii. Vestnik drevnei istorii, 4, s. 77-92.
Ivanchik, A. I. 2001. Kimmeriitsy i skify. Moskva: Pale-
ograf.
Ismagilov, R. B. 1988. Pogrebenie Bolshogo Gumarovskogo
kurgana v Iuzhnom Priurale i problema proiskhozhdeniia
skifskoi kultury. Arkheologicheskii sbornik Gosudarstvennogo
Ermitazha, 29, s. 29-47.
Ilinskaia, V. A. 1968. Skify Dneprovskogo lesostepnogo
Levoberezhia. Kiev: Naukova dumka.
Ilinskaia, V. A., Mozolevskii, B. N., Terenozhkin, A. I.
1980. Kurgany VI v. do n. e. u s. Matusov. In: Terenozhkin,
A. I. (ed.). Skifiia i Kavkaz. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 31-64.
Iliukov, L., Pashinian, K. 1999. Na kraiu Meotidy. Rostov-
na-Donu: Rim V.
Kovpanenko, G. T. 1981. Kurgany ranneskifskogo vremeni
v basseine r. Ros. Kiev: Naukova dumka.
Kozenkova, V. I. 2014. Khronologiia Perkalskogo mogil-
nika v kontekste novykh materialov skifskogo oblika v Pred-
kavkaze. In: XXVIII Krupnovskie chteniia. Moskva: IA RAN,
s. 160-162.
Koreniako, V. A., Lukiashko, S. I. 1982. Novye materi-
aly ranneskifskogo vremeni na levoberezhe Nizhnego Dona.
Sovetskaia arkheologiia, 3, s. 149-164.
Kuzminykh, S. V. 1983. Metallurgiia Volgo-Kamia v ran-
nem zheleznom veke. Moskva: Nauka.
Limberis, N. Iu., Marchenko, I. I. 2012. Meotskie drevnosti
VI—V vv. do n. e. Krasnodar: Kubanskii universitet.
Limberis, N. Iu., Marchenko, I. I. 2014. Novye protome-
otskie kompleksy Zakubania. Arkheologicheskie vesti, 20,
s. 165-182.
Makhortykh, S. V. 1991. Skify na Severnom Kavkaze. Kiev:
Naukova dumka.
Makhortykh, S. V. 1998. Kimmeriitsy i Drevnii Vostok.
Vestnik drevnei istorii, 2, s. 95-104.
Makhortykh, S. V. 2000. Ob aktualnykh voprosakh ran-
neskifskoi arkheologii. In: Guliaev, V. I., Olkhovskii, V. S.
(ed.). Skify i sarmaty v VII—III vv. do n. e. Moskva: Dikii sad,
s. 186-193.
Makhortykh, S. V. 2005. Uzdechnye prinadlezhnosti iuga
Vostochnoi Evropy v predskifskii period. In: Tishkin, A. A.
73ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
Маkhortykh, S. V. «Cimmero-Scythian» Antiquities from Central Anatolia
(ed.). Snariazhenie kochevnikov Evrazii. Barnaul: Altaiskii
universitet, s. 92-95.
Makhortykh, S. V. 2014. Ob odnoi gruppe ranneskifskikh
pamiatnikov Dneprovskogo lesostepnogo Pravoberezhia. Re-
vista arheologica, 10 (1—2), s. 69-79.
Makhortykh, S. V. 2016. Skifskie zerkala epokhi arkhaiki
na Severnom Kavkaze i v lesostepnom Podneprove. In: Bai-
tanaev, B. A. (ed.). Aktualnye problemy arkheologii Evrazii.
Almaty: Institut arkheologii, s. 297-323.
Makhortykh, S. V. 2017. Pronizi dlia perekrestnykh rem-
nei konskoi upriazhi na iuge Vostochnoi Evropy v VII—VI vv.
do n. e. Arkheolohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy, 2 (23), s. 166-
184.
Makhortykh, S. V. 2018. Raspredeliteli remnei konskoi up-
riazhi VII—VI vv. do n. e. v Zakavkaze i Perednei Azii. Arkhe-
olohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy, 2 (27), s. 35-50.
Meliukova, A. I. 2006. Po povodu skifskikh pokhodov na
territoriiu Srednei Evropy. In: Petrenko, V. G. (ed.). Drevnosti
skifskoi epokhi. Moskva: IA RAN, s. 25-40.
Papuashvili, R. I., Balakhvantsev, A. S. 2016. Bimetalli-
cheskie klevtsy iz mogilnikov Kolkhidy. In: Balakhvantsev,
A. S., Kulanda, S. V. (ed.). Kavkaz i step na rubezhe epokhi
pozdnei bronzy i rannego zheleza. Moskva: IV RAN, s. 199-
206.
Petrenko, V. G. 1990. K voprosu o khronologii ranneskif-
skikh kurganov Tsentralnogo Predkavkazia. In: Meliukova,
A. I. (ed.). Problemy skifo-sarmatskoi arkheologii. Moskva: IA
RAN, s. 60-81.
Petrenko, V. G. 2006. Krasnoznamenskii mogilnik. Mosk-
va: Paleograf.
Piotrovskii, B. B. 1959. Gorod boga Teisheby. Sovetskaia
arkheologiia, 2, s. 169-186.
Pogrebova, M. N., Raevskii, D. S. 1993. Rannie skify i drev-
nii Vostok. Moskva: Nauka.
Piankov, A. V., Riabkova, T. V., Zelenskii, Iu. V. 2019.
Kompleks ranneskifskogo vremeni kurgana 11 mogilnika
Lebedi V v Prikubane. Arkheologicheskie vesti, 25, s. 206-
228.
Romashko, V. A., Skoryi, S. A., Filimonov, D. G. 2014. Ran-
neskifskoe pogrebenie v kurgane u sela Kitaigorod v Priorele.
Rossiiskaia arkheologiia, 4, s. 107-117.
Riabkova, T. V. 2009. Nakonechniki strel skifskogo tipa
iz Teishebaini. In: Marchenko, I. I. (ed.). Piataia Kubanskaia
arkheologicheskaia konferentsiia. Krasnodar: Kubanskii uni-
versitet, s. 328-334.
Riabkova, T. V. 2014. Kurgan 524 u s. Zhabotin v sisteme
pamiatnikov perioda skifskoi arkhaiki. Rossiiskii arkheolog-
icheskii ezhegodnik, 4, s. 236-296.
Tairov, A. D. 2010. Bimetallicheskii chekan iz Iuzhnogo
Zauralia. Cheliabinskii gumanitarii, 4 (13), s. 101-108.
Chugunov, K. V. 2019. Klassifikatsiia strel K.F. Smirnova
i kolchannye nabory ranneskifskogo vremeni vostochnoi zony
kak khronologicheskii indikator. In: Malyshev, A. A. (ed.).
Scythia et Sarmatia. Moskva: IA RAN, s. 31-46.
Shramko, B. A. 1987. Belskoe gorodishche skifskoi epokhi
(gorod Gelon). Kiev: Naukova dumka.
Erlikh, V. R. 2013. Ob odnom trekhpetelchatom psalii iz
Bogazkeia. In: Kovalenko, A. N. (ed.). Prichernomore v an-
tichnoe i rannesrednevekovoe vremia. Rostov-na-Donu: IuFU,
s. 46-49.
Iablonskii, L. T. 1996. Saki Iuzhnogo Priaralia. Moskva:
Nauka.
Baykal-Seeher, A., Genz, G., Herbordt, S., Seeher, J. 2006.
Ergebnisse der Grabungen an den Ostteichen undam mittleren
Büyükkale-Nordwesthang, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Boehmer, R. M. 1972. Die Kleinfunde von Boğazköy aus
den Grabungskampagnen 1931—1939 und 1952—1969. Ber-
lin: Mann.
Derin, Z., Muscarella, O. W. 2001. Iron and bronze arrows.
In: Çilingiroğlu, A.., Salvini, M. (eds.). Ayanis I: Ten years ex-
cavations at Rusahinili Eiduru-kai 1989—1998. Rome: Isti-
tuto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici, р. 189-217.
DeVries, K. 2005. Greek pottery and Gordion chronol-
ogy. In: Kealhofer, L (ed.). The archaeology of Midas and
the Phrygians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
p. 36-55.
Dezső, T. 2017. The arrowheads from Grd-i Tle. Disserta-
tiones Archaeologicae, 3 (5), p. 97-112.
Dusinbere, E. 2010. Ivories from Lydia. In: Cahill, N. (ed.).
The Lydians and their world. Istanbul: Yapι Kredi Kültür
Sanat, p. 191-200.
Hauptmann, H. 1983. Neue Funde eurasischer Steppen-
nomaden in Kleinasien. In: Boehmer, R. M., Hauptmann, H.
(eds.). Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens: Festschrift
für Kurt Bittel. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, S. 251-270.
Hellmuth, A. 2006. Untersuchungen zu den sogenannten
skythischen Pfeilspitzen aus der befestigten Höhensiedlung
von Smolenice-Molpir. Bonn: R. Habelt.
Kohler, E. 1995. The Gordion Excavations (1950—1973).
The Lesser Phrygian tumuli: the inhumations. Philadelphia:
University.
Kossack, G. 1987. Von den Anfängen des skytho-iranischen
Tierstils. In: Franke, H. (ed.). Skythika. München: BAdW,
S. 24-86.
Matsumura, K. 2020. Büklükale kazisi 2018. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantıları, 41 (3), p. 35-48.
Müller-Karpe, V. 1995. Atlı Göçebelerden Kalma
Anadolu’daki Kovanlı Savaş Kazmaları. In: Erkanal, A., Er-
kanal, H (eds.). Memoriam İ. Metin Akyurt Bahattin Devam
Anı Kitabı. Eski Yakın Doğu Kültürü Üzerine İncelemeler.
İstanbul: Kanaat Matbaasi, p. 227-232.
Ökse, T. 1994. Bronzerne Pfeilspitzen Scythischen Typus
aus Sivas. Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 64—65, S. 28-32.
Schmidt, E. F. 1929. Test excavations in the city on
Kerkenes Dagh. American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literatures, 45, p. 221-274.
Summers, G. 2017. Iron Age arrowheads from Kerkenes.
In: Maner, Ç., Horowitz, M., Gilbert, A. (eds.). Overturning
certainties in Near Eastern archaeology. A festschrift in honor
of K. Aslıhan Yener. Leiden: Brill, p. 645-664.
Summers, G. 2018. Phrygians East of the Red river: phry-
gianisation, migration and desertion. Anatolian Studies, 68,
p. 1-20.
Szudy, M. J. 2015. Archery equipment in the Neo-Assyrian
period. Vienna: Vienna university.
Takahama, S. 1999. Bone ornaments with bird head design
excavated from Kaman-Kalehöyük. Anatolian Archaeological
Studies, 8, p. 175-178.
Ünal, V. 1982. Zwei Gräber eurasischer Reiternomaden im
nördlichen Zentralanatolien. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen und
Vergleichenden Archaologie, 4, S. 65-82.
Waldbaum, J. C. 1983. Metalwork from Sardis: The finds
through 1974. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Yukishima, K. 1992. Scythian type bronze arrowheads
from Kaman-Kalehöyük. Anatolian Archaeological Studies,
1, p. 89-100.
Yukishima, K. 1998. Metal arrowheads at Kaman-Kale-
höyük. Anatolian Archaeological Studies, 7, p. 183-204.
S. V. Makhortykh
«cimmeRO-ScYthian» antiquitieS
fROm centRal anatOlia
Central Anatolia is one of the regions of Western
Asia, where the most significant concentration of ar-
chaeological materials connected with the Eurasian
nomads of the Early Scythian period is recorded. The
flat plains of Central Anatolia had good pastures and
served as a space where different cultures communi-
cated with each other since ancient times. In the 7th—
6th centuries BC this territory was located between
Western Anatolia with Lydia and the eastern Greek
centers and Eastern Anatolia, which was the zone of
interest of Urartu and Assyria. Small local «principali-
ties» were localized here. These «principalities» were
probably controlled by well-armed and mobile nomads,
who used this territory as a base for raids on neighbor-
ing as well as more distant regions. Finds of nomadic
types from Central Anatolia include weapons (bronze
arrowheads of various types, iron sword and axe, bi-
74 ISSN 2227-4952 (Print), ISSN 2708-6143 (Online). Археологія і давня історія України, 2022, вип. 1 (42)
статті
metallic pickaxe), horse equipment (bits with stirrup-
shaped loops on the ends, three-looped cheekpieces,
harness fittings), and objects made in the traditions of
Scythian animal art style. Most numerous category of
nomad inventory coming from the region is constituted
by socketed arrows found in burials in the province of
Amasya, Imirler, Gordion and on the local settlements
(Boğazköy, Kaman-Kalehöyük, Kerkenes Dağ). The
article introduces their typology and provides analo-
gies coming from the Eurasian monuments of the 7th—
6th centuries BC. The study of early nomadic complexes
from Anatolia shows their syncretic nature, which is
influenced by artifacts of Cimmerian, Scythian, and
Сentral Asian origin as well as the local Near Eastern
items. It highlights the complex ethnic composition of
the nomadic groups located here in the 7th—6th centu-
ries BC that does not allow attributing all these mate-
rials to a single group, for example, the Cimmerians.
Keywords: Central Anatolia, Cimmerians, Scythi-
ans, 7th—6th centuries BC, bronze socketed arrow-
heads.
C. В. Махортих
«кіММеро-скіФсЬкі» стАроЖит-
ності З ЦентрАлЬної АнАтолії
Центральна Анатолія є однією з областей Переднь-
ої Азії, де фіксується найбільш значна концентрація
археологічних матеріалів, пов’язаних з перебуван-
ням тут євразійських кочівників ранньоскіфського
часу. Рівнини Центральної Анатолії мали хороші
пасовища і здавна були зручні для комунікацій. У
VII ст. до н. е. ця область займала проміжне поло-
ження між західною Анатолією з Лідією і східног-
рецькими центрами, а також Східної Анатолією, яка
входила в зону інтересів Урарту та Ассирії. На цій
території локалізувалися невеликі місцеві, фригій-
ські або неохетські «князівства». вони, ймовірно,
контролювалися добре озброєними і мобільними
загонами кочoвиків, які використовували цю тери-
торію в якості своєрідної бази для набігів на сусідні
і віддаленіші регіони. Матеріали ранніх кочoвиків
представлені в Центральної Анатолії предметами
озброєння і кінського спорядження, а також виро-
бами, виконаними в скіфо-сибірському звіриному
стилі. важливою і найчисленнішої категорією кочо-
вого інвентарного комплексу є бронзові втульчаcти
наконечники стріл, знайдені в похованнях провінції
Амасья, Сіваз, Імірлере, Гордіони, а також на міс-
цевих поселеннях регіону (богазкей, Каман Кале
Хоюк, Керкенес Даг). У статті запропонована їх ти-
пологія і наведені аналогії в євразійських пам’ятках
VII—VI ст. до н. е. вивчення кочевніческіх комплек-
сів з Анатолії показує, що вони мають синкретич-
ний характер, включаючи вироби кіммерійського,
скіфського, центральноазіатського типів, а також
місцеві давньосхідні артефакти. будучи зв’язаними
з різними культурними традиціями, ці комплекси
свідчать про неоднорідний етнічний склад кочівни-
цьких угруповань, що локалізувалися в Малій Азії
у VII—VI ст. до н. е. вони також не дозволяють при-
писувати виявлені тут матеріали якомусь одному з
цих народів, наприклад, кіммерійцям, в реальності
існування якого сьогодні вже ніхто не сумнівається.
ключові слова: Центральна Анатолія, кіммерій-
ці, скіфи, VII—VI ст. до н. е., втульчасти наконечни-
ки стріл.
Одержано 04.05.2021
МАхортих сергій Володимирович, доктор іс-
торичних наук, провідний науковий співробітник,
Інститут археології НАН України,
Київ, Україна.
maKhORtYKh Sergiy v., Doktor of Historical
Sciences, Leading Researcher, Institute of Archaeol-
ogy, National Academy of Sciencesof Ukraine, Kyiv,
Ukraine.
ORCID: 0000-0001-7865-0263,
e-mail: makhortykh@yahoo.com.
|
| id | nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-187576 |
| institution | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| issn | 2227-4952 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-12-07T18:30:26Z |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | Інститут археології НАН України |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | Маkhortykh, S.V. 2023-01-12T13:03:31Z 2023-01-12T13:03:31Z 2022 "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia / S.V. Маkhortykh // Археологія і давня історія України: Зб. наук. пр. — К.: ІА НАН України, 2022. — Вип. 1 (42). — С. 58-74. — Бібліогр.: 65 назв. — англ. 2227-4952 DOI: 10.37445/adiu.2022.01.04 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/187576 904.2(560.328)”638” The contribution discusses the artifacts of nomadic
 types from Central Anatolia which include weapons,
 horse equipment and objects made in the traditions of
 Scythian animal art style. They highlight the complex
 ethnic composition of the nomadic groups located here
 in the 7th—6th centuries BC that does not allow attributing
 all these archaeological materials to a single group,
 for example, the Cimmerians. Центральна Анатолія є однією з областей Передньої Азії, де фіксується найбільш значна концентрація
 археологічних матеріалів, пов’язаних з перебуванням тут євразійських кочівників ранньоскіфського
 часу. Рівнини Центральної Анатолії мали хороші
 пасовища і здавна були зручні для комунікацій. У
 VII ст. до н. е. ця область займала проміжне положення між Західною Анатолією з Лідією і східногрецькими центрами, а також Східної Анатолією, яка
 входила в зону інтересів Урарту та Ассирії. На цій
 території локалізувалися невеликі місцеві, фригійські або неохетські «князівства». Вони, ймовірно,
 контролювалися добре озброєними і мобільними
 загонами кочoвиків, які використовували цю територію в якості своєрідної бази для набігів на сусідні
 і віддаленіші регіони. Матеріали ранніх кочoвиків
 представлені в Центральної Анатолії предметами
 озброєння і кінського спорядження, а також виробами, виконаними в скіфо-сибірському звіриному
 стилі. Важливою і найчисленнішої категорією кочового інвентарного комплексу є бронзові втульчаcти
 наконечники стріл, знайдені в похованнях провінції
 Амасья, Сіваз, Імірлере, Гордіони, а також на місцевих поселеннях регіону (Богазкей, Каман Кале
 Хоюк, Керкенес Даг). У статті запропонована їх типологія і наведені аналогії в євразійських пам’ятках
 VII—VI ст. до н. е. Вивчення кочевніческіх комплексів з Анатолії показує, що вони мають синкретичний характер, включаючи вироби кіммерійського,
 скіфського, центральноазіатського типів, а також
 місцеві давньосхідні артефакти. Будучи зв’язаними
 з різними культурними традиціями, ці комплекси
 свідчать про неоднорідний етнічний склад кочівницьких угруповань, що локалізувалися в Малій Азії
 у VII—VI ст. до н. е. Вони також не дозволяють приписувати виявлені тут матеріали якомусь одному з
 цих народів, наприклад, кіммерійцям, в реальності
 існування якого сьогодні вже ніхто не сумнівається. en Інститут археології НАН України Археологія і давня історія України Статті "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia «Кіммеро-скіфські» старожитності з Центральної Анатолії Article published earlier |
| spellingShingle | "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia Маkhortykh, S.V. Статті |
| title | "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia |
| title_alt | «Кіммеро-скіфські» старожитності з Центральної Анатолії |
| title_full | "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia |
| title_fullStr | "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia |
| title_full_unstemmed | "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia |
| title_short | "Cimmero-Scythian" Antiquities from Central Anatolia |
| title_sort | "cimmero-scythian" antiquities from central anatolia |
| topic | Статті |
| topic_facet | Статті |
| url | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/187576 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT makhortykhsv cimmeroscythianantiquitiesfromcentralanatolia AT makhortykhsv kímmeroskífsʹkístarožitnostízcentralʹnoíanatolíí |