1170-08_ANES(45)08_06_ Hellmuth 08-10-2008 12:05 Pagina 102 doi: 10.2143/ANES.45.0.2033166 ANES 45 (2008) 102-122 The Chronological Setting of the so-called Cimmerian and Early Scythian Material from Anatolia Anja HELLMUTH Cotheniusstr. 4 D-10407 Berlin GERMANY E-mail: [email protected] Abstract In the eighth and seventh century BC the first items of the so-called Cimmerian and early Scythian material assemblage appeared in the modern territory of Turkey. The two- and three-winged bronze arrowheads, in particular, has enabled researchers to reconstruct a historical picture of the invasion of early horse riding nomads from the Eurasian steppes into Europe and the Near East. Other weapons and horse harnesses of these early nomads (‘Cimmerians’ and ‘Scythian’) have been found in Turkey. The best parallels come from Siberia and are dated to the late ninth century BC. Accordingly, placing the material from Anatolia in the early eighth or maybe late ninth century BC, before the appear- ance of the first written sources about the Cimmerians and Scythians, is not unreasonable. For centuries there has been controversy surrounding the dating of mate- rial from Anatolia known as Cimmerian and early Scythian, in particular the two- and three-winged bronze arrowheads.1 Similarly, the ethnological classification of this material is also often highly controversial.2 The ques- tion therefore ariseswhether, on the one hand, an archaeological distinction 1 Derin and Muscarella 2001; Ivantchik 1997; Sulimirski 1954; Dyson 1965; Young 1967; Ghirshman 1964, 279; Burney 1966, p. 79; Cleuziou 1977, p. 190; Boehmer 1972, p. 111 ff. 2 Derin and Muscarella 2001, p. 202 f.; von der Osten 1937, p. 110; Sulimirski 1954, p. 308 ff.; Medvedskaya 1982, p. 90 f.; Piotrovsky 1959, p. 239; Ivantchik 1997. 1170-08_ANES(45)08_06_ Hellmuth 08-10-2008 12:05 Pagina 103 CHRONOLOGICAL SETTING OF CIMMERIAN AND EARLY SCYTHIAN MATERIAL 103 can be made between ‘Cimmerians’ and ‘Scythians’ at all,3 and, on the other, if and when corresponding cultural material (weapons and harnesses, in particular) were also adapted by other historically attested peoples.4 Indeed, there is a need to verify whether historical sources and archaeolog- ical finds can be integrated. Historical sources and the definition ‘Cimmerian’ and ‘early Scythian’ At the end of the eighth century BC mention is first made in written sources of the Near East of nomads from the Eurasian steppes as enemies of Urartu.5 Assyrian texts from the time of Sargon II tell of the Cimmerians invading from the Caucasus and threatening Assyria's opponent, Urartu. Rusa I, Urartu's ruler, fell during a defensive battle against the Cimmerians. Sargon II took advantage of the weakening of Urartu and, in 714, not only started a campaign against the Cimmerians, but against Urartu as well.6 Thereafter Cimmerians are presumed to have moved farther to the West, where they posed a threat to the Phrygians and Lydians. The Cimmerians supposedly bestowed themselves with the name Gimir- raia,7 a name that is allegedly denoted together with the name Iskuzaia in one and the same text which stems from the reign of Esarhaddon in the first half of the seventh century BC. In this context, Ivantchik refers in par- ticular to the oracle petition SAA 4, 24 to the god Samas.8 Accordingly, he points out that from the turn of eighth to the seventh century BC Akkadian sources would consistently distinguish between two groups of mounted warriors, the ‘Cimmerians’ and the ‘Scythians’.9 The theory that these were self-designations, which were documented in the Akkadian texts, is evi- denced by the fact that there is also a differentiation in Greek tradition between Kimmérioi and SkÔqai. Diakonoff, by contrast, sees collective names of units of mounted nomads in the descriptions.10 It is a fact that the designations Gimirraia and Saka are synonymously used as collective names in later Babylonian texts from Achaemenid times.11 Ivantchik, however, 3 Cf. Alexseev 2003, p. 413; Ivantchik 1997; Medvedskaya 1992, p. 105. 4 Cf. Derin and Muscarella 2001, p. 203. 5 Ivantchik 2001, p. 14; Nissen 1999, p. 98. Van Loon (1966, p. 15) maintains to have iden- tified mention of the Scythians in a Urartaian text dated to 774 BC. 6 Nissen 1999, p. 99. 7 Ivantchik 2001, p. 15; Ivantchik 1993, pp. 127–154. 8 Ivantchik 2001, p. 18. 9 Ivantchik 2001, p. 18. 10 Diakonoff 1981, p.118 f. 11 Ivantchik 1997, p. 14. 1170-08_ANES(45)08_06_ Hellmuth 08-10-2008 12:05 Pagina 104 104 ANJA HELLMUTH considers the fact that these Akkadian documents contain collective names such as umman manda or zer halqati, which not only include Cimmerians and Scythians but also the Medes, for example, as proof that these are not collective names in the texts.12 Researchers only raised the question as to whether the ‘Cimmerians’ and the ‘Scythians’ might have even been two different (albeit closely related) ethnic groups in the later twentieth cen- tury.13 The trust in Herodotus (Book IV), who reports of the Cimmerians being driven from the North Black Sea region by the Scythians, was far too great. In the course of discussions on the differentiation between Cimmeri- ans and Scythians in literary sources, scientific opinions became increas- ingly opposed regarding the material cultural remains. In particular, the old model in Russian research, according to which all older material is attrib- uted to the Cimmerians and finds of later date to the Scythians,14 cannot be upheld that simply.15 In his work with the programmatic title ‘Kimmerijcy’, Terenozkin ascribes the finds from the North Pontic steppes to the chrono- logical phases of Cernogorovka and Novocerkassk according to two discovery sites of important complexes containing bridle assemblages (Figs 1–2). In doing so he saw the Cernogorovka phase as chronologically earlier and attributed it to the Cimmerians, whereas he assigned the later Novocerkassk phase to the early Scythians. Recently, it has become increasingly clear that these two complexes are territorially rather than chronologically definable phenomena, which should be viewed as contemporaneous.16 Thus, with ref- erence to literary traditions, an attempt was made to locate an area in which Cimmerians and Scythians did not appear coevally, which would thus allow a more extensive differentiation of the material remains.17 Medvedskaya shares the opinion that the Cimmerians and the Scythians cannot be dis- tinguished by their material culture.18 She would, however, like to ascribe finds from the territory of Urartu as well as those from Media and eastern Luristan to the Cimmerians and those from the region of Lake Urmia to the Scythians. According to Ivantchik’s analyses of literary sources, refer- ences to Cimmerian and Scythian activities are nevertheless found in writ- ten documents for all areas in question.19 12 Ivantchik 2001, p. 18. 13 Cf. Medvedskaya 1992; Alekseev 1992; Ivantchik 1993 and 1997. 14 Cf. especially Terenozkin 1976. 15 Cf. Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, p. 39 ff. 16 Ivantchik 2001, p. 120. 17 Ivantchik 1997, p. 15; Medvedskaya 1992, p. 105; Alekseev 2003, p. 412 f. 18 Medvedskaya 1992. 19 Ivantchik 2001, p. 17 f. He finds support thereby in the oracle petitions: SAA 4, 24; SAA 10, 111 (for Manna); SAA 4, 35, 36, 39, 40, 65, 66, 71 (for Media); SAA 4, 23. 1170-08_ANES(45)08_06_ Hellmuth 08-10-2008 12:05 Pagina 105 CHRONOLOGICAL SETTING OF CIMMERIAN AND EARLY SCYTHIAN MATERIAL 105 The only area in which Ivantchik is certain of the sole presence of Cim- merians is Anatolia, basing his view on cuneiform texts, and aside from later Classical sources, which also mention the presence of Scythians in Anatolia.20 In the following discussion, a typological comparison of known ‘nomad monuments’ in Anatolia only re-examines their date, but also the question whether the Anatolian ‘Cimmerian’ material can indeed be differentiated from other material identified as ‘early Scythian’, and, moreover, whether it can be attributed unequivocally to a reputed Cimmerian ethnic group. Nomad monuments in Anatolia and their typological comparison Preliminary mention should be made here that a detailed and complete analysis of the extensive material obviously cannot be made within the strictly limited scope of this paper. In addition, material that is well-known has already been discussed at length by researchers.21 Thus, attention will here be directed towards the grave complex at Imirler and to its dating. The grave was discovered in the course of illicit excavations in 1971 near the village of Imirler (Vilayet Amasya) and can be considered one of the most prominent remains of mounted nomad material culture in Anatolia.22 It is a square stone chamber made in dry-wall technique and measures 2.80 x 2.80 m. The chamber floor is at a depth of 1.20 m and consists of firmly packed clay. The severely disturbed skeletal remains of one human and at least one horse were discovered during later excavations. Amongst the pre- served grave goods are an iron akinakes sword 78.8 cm in length, a bimetal- lic battle pick, a fin-shaped bronze chape, a bronze bit with stirrup-shaped ends and seven bronze two-winged socketed arrowheads (Fig. 3). A further 21 bronze arrowheads and a golden bracelet were sold. All of the Imirler grave goods as well as the grave complex itself represent something unfamiliar in the local context. Each of the individual grave goods finds its counterpart in pre- and early Scythian complexes in the North Black Sea region, across southern Russia and far into the steppes of Siberia. This becomes quite evident with respect to the bimetallic battle pick, which represents a typical commodity of the steppe area extending from the Aral region across the southern Urals and Volga region to Siberia 20 Ivantchik 2001, p.