f chocho row ski

Peregrinationes archaeologicae in Asia et Europa

Joanni Chochorowski dedicatae

Peregrinationes archaeologicae in Asia et Europa

Joanni Chochorowski dedicatae

Kraków 2012

Redakcja

Wojciech Blajer

Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

Wydawnictwo Profil-Archeo

Redaktor tomuWojciech Blajer

Sekretarz naukowyKarol Dzięgielewski

Współpraca redakcyjnaAnna Gawlik, Marcin S. Przybyła, Piotr Godlewski

RecenzentZbigniew Bukowski

Redakcja techniczna, skład i łamanieMagdalena Dzięgielewska

LayoutBeata Kulesza-Damaziak, Studio Grafiki Wydawniczej "Karandasz"

Projekt okładkiKarol Dzięgielewski, Beata Kulesza-Damaziak

KorektaKarol Dzięgielewski, Wojciech Blajer i autorzy

Tłumaczenia streszczeńRedakcja i autorzy

Korekta językowaPiotr Godlewski, Aeddan Shaw, Wojciech Blajer

Publikacja sfinansowana ze środków na działalność statutową Wydziału Historycznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

Wydanie I, Kraków 2012

ISBN 978-83-931345-4-0 (Profil-Archeo)ISBN 978-83-934218-2-4 (Instytut Archeologii UJ)

© Copyright by Wydawnictwo Profil-Archeo, Instytut Archeologii UJ & Wojciech BlajerKsiążka, ani żaden jej fragment, nie może być przedrukowywana ani powielana w jakiejkolwiek formie

bez pisemnej zgody wydawcy.The book, or any part of it, may not be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from the editor.

RedakcjaInstytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

ul. Gołębia 11, 31-007 Krakówtel. +48 12 663 12 72, 633 12 80

e-mail: [email protected]@uj.edu.pl

WydawnictwoWydawnictwo Profil-Archeo

ul. Jurajska 23, 32-087 Pękowice k/Krakowatel. +48 12 665 10 11

e-mail: [email protected]

Spis treści / Contents

List gratulacyjny Dziekana Wydziału Historycznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego........................................................9Tabula Gratulatoria........................................................................................................................................................................11Wykaz prac Profesora Jana Chochorowskiego ogłoszonych drukiem w latach 1970–2011..........................................13Svend E. Albrethsen

Do you remember? An archaeological excavation on Svalbard with Jan Chochorowski (Pamiętasz? O wykopaliskach w Svalbardzie z Janem Chochorowskim)...............................................................................................................................................21Roger Jørgensen

A Pomor outpost at Kapp Lee, Svalbard (Przyczółek Pomorców w Kapp Lee w Svalbardzie)..............................................29Jutta Kneisel

Gesichtsurnen und ihre Kopfbedeckung. Neue Erkenntnisse zum Phänomen der Gesichtsurnen im nordeu-ropäischen Kontext (Face-urns and their headdress. New studies on the phenomenon of face-urns in the North-European context)....................................................................................................................................................................................................39Agnieszka Krzysiak

Dwa miecze brązowe z Machowinka, pow. Słupsk (Two bronze swords from Machowinko, Słupsk district).......................57Radosław Janiak

Kamienna konstrukcja w kształcie łodzi na cmentarzysku kurhanowym w Nowej Sikorskiej Hucie, stan. 2, pow. Kartuzy (Stone setting in the shape of a boat from the barrow cemetery in Nowa Sikorska Huta, site 2, Kartuzy district)..............65Anna Bochnak, Tomasz Bochnak

Nieznane przedstawienie tarczy na ceramice kultury pomorskiej ze zbiorów Fundacji Książąt Czartoryskich w Krakowie (Unknown depiction of a shield on Pomeranian culture pottery from the collection of Princes Czartoryski Foundation in Kraków)............71Jacek Gackowski

Przełom epok brązu i żelaza w międzyrzeczu Wisły, Drwęcy i Osy w świetle nowszych odkryć i refleksji interpretacyjnych (The Bronze to Iron Age transition between the Vistula, Drwęca and Osa rivers in light of recent finds and interpretations).................77Jan Dąbrowski

Rola metalu w epoce brązu (The role of metal in the Bronze Age)...........................................................................................87Maciej Kaczmarek

Osady z epoki brązu na Nizinie Wielkopolsko-Kujawskiej – uwagi o stanie badań (Settlements from the Bronze Age in Nizina Wielkopolsko-Kujawska – remarks on the state of research)...................................................................................................93Tadeusz Malinowski

Zabytki kultury pomorskiej ze Szczepankowa w powiecie mogileńskim (Pomeranian culture artefacts from Szczepankowo in Mogilno district)................................................................................................................................................................................101Karol Dzięgielewski

Problemy synchronizacji danych paleoklimatycznych i archeologicznych na przykładzie tzw. wahnięcia subatlantyckiego (Problems of paleoclimatic and archaeological data synchronization as exemplified by the Subatlantic abrupt climatic shift)............109Jarosław Lewczuk

Cmentarzysko ciałopalne kultury łużyckiej z III okresu epoki brązu w Ośnie Lubuskim, stanowisko 17 (Cremation cemetery of the Lusatian culture from Bronze Age Period III at site 17 in Ośno Lubskie, Lubuskie Province)............................... 121

Peregrinationes archaeologicae in Asia et Europa Joanni Chochorowski dedicatae, Kraków 2012

Marek GedlUwagi o brązowych szpilach wrzecionowatych (Remarks on bronze pins with spindle-shaped heads)...............................129

Michał BugajNieinwazyjne badania osady obronnej w Wicinie (A non-destructive survey of the fortified settlement in Wicina).............135

Bogusław GedigaGrób kobiecy (?) wyposażony w militaria z Domasławia, pow. Wrocław (A female (?) grave from Domasław, Wrocław

district, furnished with elements of weaponry).......................................................................................................................................149Renata Abłamowicz

Wstępne wyniki ekspertyzy archeozoologicznej szczątków kostnych ze stanowiska 11 w Kornicach, województwo śląskie (Preliminary results of archaeozoological evaluation of bone remains from site 11 in Kornice, Silesia)...........................161Bogusław Chorąży, Bożena Chorąży

Uwagi o osadnictwie zachodniego Beskidu między Beczwą a Sołą w młodszej epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza (Remarks on the Younger Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlement in the Western Beskid (Beskid Zachodni) Mts., between the Beczwa and Soła rivers)....................................................................................................................................................................169Ondřej Chvojka, Tereza Šálková

Zur Deutung der urnenfelderzeitlichen streifenförmigen Siedlungsobjekte (An interpretation of linear ditch-objects from some Urnfield period settlements)......................................................................................................................................................183Michaela Lochner

Thunau am Kamp – eine befestigte Höhensiedlung der Urnenfelderkultur und der außergewöhnliche Fund eines Tonfässchens (Thunau am Kamp – a fortified hill site of the Urnfield Culture and the unique find of a clay barrel)................... 193Vladimír Podborský

Der neue Fund eines Deichselwagens aus der Ostslowakei (A new find of a cart model (Deichselwagen) from eastern Slovakia)..205Biba Teržan

Musterbilder auf Knochen – ein Element der Identität der früheisenzeitlichen Füzesabony-Mezőcsát-Kulturgruppe (Patterns on bones – an element of the identity of the Early Iron Age Füzesabony-Mezőscát-Group).......................................215Horia Ciugudean

The chronology of the Gáva culture in Transylvania (Chronologia kultury Gáva w Siedmiogrodzie).............................229Agnieszka Gil-Drozd

Rozwój obrządku ciałopalnego na obszarze Europy Środkowej w młodszej epoce kamienia i początkach epoki brązu (około 5500–2000 B.C.) (The development of the cremation rite in Central Europe in the Neolithic and beginnings of the Bronze Age (ca 5500–2000 B.C.)).......................................................................................................................................................................245Elena Miroššayová

Žiarový hrob s bohatou výbavou zo Ždane (Richly furnished cremation burial from Ždaňa, Slovakia)...........................253Йосип Васильович Кобаль

Знаки на керамiцi куштановицької культури (Signs on the pottery of the Kuštanovice culture)...............................263Renata Madyda-Legutko, Elżbieta Pohorska-Kleja

Uwagi o osadnictwie w Kotlinie Sanockiej u schyłku epoki brązu i w początkach epoki żelaza (Remarks on Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlement in the Sanok Basin).............................................................................................................273Piotr N. Kotowicz, Marcin S. Przybyła

Osada z przełomu epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Ladzinie, pow. Krosno, stan. 10 (The settlement from the Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition in Ladzin, Krosno district, site 10)................................................................................................. 283Sylwester Czopek

Nowe znaleziska „scyto-trackiej” ceramiki toczonej z wczesnej epoki żelaza na terenie południowo-wschodniej Polski (New finds of “Scytho-Thracian” wheel-made pottery from the Early Iron Age in south-eastern Poland).....................................297Marta M. Korczyńska, Klaus Cappenberg, Tobias L. Kienlin, Jakob Ociepka

Vorläufige Resultate und methodische Überlegungen zu der Prospektion bronzezeitlicher Fundstellen im mittleren Dunajectal, Kleinpolen (Current results and methodological remarks on the surveying of Bronze Age sites along the middle Dunajec River, Little Poland)........................................................................................................................................................ 307Paweł Valde-Nowak

Neolityczny łuk z Kamiennika (Neolithic bow from Kamiennik).......................................................................................... 323


Jacek Górski, Przemysław MakarowiczNowe datowania radiowęglowe kurhanów i grobów beznasypowych trzcinieckiego kręgu kulturowego z Małopolski

i Wielkopolski (New radiocarbon datings of the barrows and flat burials of the Trzciniec cultural circle from Małopolska and Wielkopolska )..................................................................................................................................................................................331Anna Gawlik

Pochówki szkieletowe ze st. 1 z Witowa – interpretacja obrządku pogrzebowego (Skeleton burials from site 1 at Witów – interpretation of burial rite)..........................................................................................................................................................341Ulana Gocman, Igor Pieńkos

Gospodarka hodowlana na terenie wielokulturowej osady w Zagórzycach, gm. Kazimierza Wielka (od III okre-su epoki brązu do wczesnego okresu wpływów rzymskich) (Animal husbandry in the multiphase settlement in Zagórzyce, Kazimierza Wielka commune ( from Bronze Age Period III to the Early Roman Period))........................................................349Marcin Biborski

Nowe odkrycia rzymskich mieczy zdobionych inkrustowanymi przedstawieniami figuralnymi i znakami symbolicznymi (New findings of Roman swords decorated with encrusted figural representations and symbolic signs)................359Piotr Kaczanowski, Judyta Rodzińska-Nowak

Hunowie na ziemiach polskich. Próba podsumowania problematyki (The Huns on Polish – an attempt to summarise).........371Elżbieta Małgorzata Kłosińska

A unique find of Scythian provenance from the Lublin region (Unikatowe znalezisko proweniencji scytyjskiej z regionu lubelskiego)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................379Sylwester Sadowski

Nowe znalezisko czekana typu scytyjskiego z południowo-wschodniej Polski (A new find of a Scythian battle-axe from south-eastern Poland).......................................................................................................................................................................385Katarzyna Ślusarska

Ikonografia społeczności wczesnej epoki brązu Północnego Nadczarnomorza (The iconography of the Early Bronze Age societies of the Northern Pontic zone)................................................................................................................................................391Віктор Іванович Клочко

«Гордіївський феномен» (“The Gordeyevka Phenomenon”)...............................................................................................395Maya Kaschuba, Marina Vakhtina

Moderner Stand der Untersuchungen des früheisenzeitlichen Fundmaterials aus der befestigten Anlage von Nemirov am Südlichen Bug (Current state of research over the Early Iron Age materials from the fortified settlement at Nemirov upon the Southern Bug)..................................................................................................................................................................................405Любовь Степановна Клочко

Уборы скифских жриц (памятники периода архаики из Днепровского Лесостепного Правобережья) (Scythian priestess dress (archaic period sites from the Forest-Steppe Right-Bank Dnieper))...........................................................................417Anna Zielińska

Rola kobiety w plemionach koczowniczych, czyli w poszukiwaniu prawdziwych Amazonek (The role of women in nomadic tribes, or in search of the real Amazons)....................................................................................................................427Вячеслав Юрьевич Мурзин, Виталий Григорьевич Шлайфер

Два уникальных акинака из Черкасской области (Two unique acinaces from the Cherkasy oblast)....................................435Владимир Григорьев, Сергей Скорый

Курганы у села Гладковщина – памятники эпохи скифской архаики в Левобережной Приднепровской террасовой Лесостепи (Kurgans at Gladkovshchina – monuments of the Scythian archaic era from the Left-Bank Dnieper terrace Forest-Steppe).....................................................................................................................................................................441Вячеслав Юрьевич Мурзин

Бельское городище (Belskoe fortified settlement)....................................................................................................................461Татьяна Михайловна Кузнецова

Солохский могильник в контексте скифской хронологии (The Solokha burial ground in the context of Scythian chronology).......................................................................................................................................................................................467Елена Евгеньевна Фиалко

Курган с захоронениями скифских девочек с оружем (Barrow with the burials of armed Scythian girls).....................475


Светлана Ивановна Андрух, Геннадий Николаевич ТощевМогильник скифского времени Мамай-Гора (Scythian Period cemetery at Mamay-Gora)............................................485

Vyacheslav I. MolodinThe Ob-Irtysh forest-steppe in the Bronze Age (Lasostep dorzecza Obu i Irtysza w epoce brązu).........................................491

Алексей Алексеевич ТишкинЗначение археологических исследований крупных курганов скифо-сарматского времени на памятнике Бугры

в предгорьях Алтая (The significance of archaeological research in the great Scytho-Sarmatian period mounds on the Bugry site in the foothills of the Altay)...............................................................................................................................................................501Лукаш Олещак

Погребения в каменных ящиках и культурная преемственность Алтая между раннескифским и хуннским периодами (Burials in stone cists and the problem of cultural continuity in the Altai mountains between the Early Scythian period and the Hunnu period)....................................................................................................................................................................511Заур Гасанов Гасан-оглу

Погребальный обряд как основа выявления собственно скифских курганов Азербайджана (Burial rite as a basis for the identification of proper Scythian kurgans in Azerbaijan).....................................................................................................519Сергей Леонидович Дударев

Из истории изучения конского снаряжения предскифского времени на территории Восточной Европы и Северного Кавказа (From the history of studies on Pre-Scythian era horse equipment in Eastern Europe and the North Caucasus)....................529Jan Bouzek

Central Europe and Caucasus in the Early Iron Age (Europa Środkowa i Kaukaz we wczesnej epoce żelaza)..................537Andrzej Mierzwiński

Achilles hiperborejski – esej o mitycznym spełnieniu (Hyperborean Achilles – an essay on mythical fulfilment)..............549Wojciech Machowski

Grecy czy Scytowie – kogo pochowano pod kurhanami na antycznych nekropolach Olbii i Pantikapajonu? (Greeks or Scythians – who was buried in the mounds of the ancient necropoleis of Olbia and Pantikapaion?)..............................................557Ewdoksia Papuci-Władyka

A Phoenician amphoriskos from Olbia in the collection of Jagiellonian University in Kraków. Notes on our research in the Ukraine (Fenicki amphoriskos z Olbii w kolekcji Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie. Uwagi o naszych badaniach na Ukrainie).................................................................................................................................................................565Maya Kashuba, Oleg Levitski

The Hallstatt house-building techniques of the Carpathian-Danube region and the emergence of circular pit-houses in the Early Scythian period in North-West Pontic (Techniki budowy domostw w okresie halsztackim na obszarach karpac-ko-naddunajskich i kwestia pojawienia się kolistych budynków zagłębionych w okresie wczesnoscytyjskim w północno-zachodnim Nadczarnomorzu)............................................................................................................................................................................573Joachim Śliwa

Aphek-Antipatris (Tell Ras el-‘Ain). Stanowisko z epoki środkowego brązu II i naczynie z kolekcji Instytutu Arche-ologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego (Aphek-Antipatris (Tell Ras el-‘Ain). A site from the Middle Bronze II and a ceramic vessel from the collection of the Institute of Archaeology of the Jagiellonian University).............................................................................583Krzysztof M. Ciałowicz

Nie tylko depozyty. Drobna plastyka figuralna z Tell el-Farcha (Not only deposits. Figural fine art from Tell el-Farkha)...589Małgorzata Smorąg Różycka

Szlachetny barbarzyńca chroni Rzym? Kilka uwag o interpretacji przedstawień na tzw. dyptyku Stylichona (The noble barbarian protecting Rome? Some notes on the interpretation of representations of the Stilicho diptych).......................................599Janusz A. Ostrowski

Dwa polskie XVI-wieczne opisy Campi Phlegraei (Two Polish descriptions of Campi Phlegraei from the 16 th century)...........................................................................................................................................................................................609


536

Peregrinationes archaeologicae in Asia et Europa Joanni Chochorowski dedicatae, Kraków 2012, 537–547

Jan bOUzEK

Central Europe and Caucasus in the Early Iron Age

Central Europe and Caucasus in the Early iron Age. The arti-cle revisits the question of the interrelations between the Cau-casus and Central Europe in the frame of mutual trajectories – some leading westwards and other eastwards – between the two areas, including those with the Balkans. The Sabatinovka and Belozerka cultures of the Late Bronze Age showed links with both the Caucasus and the Central European Urnfield cultures, including some acceptance of western and southern impulses, but contact between Central Europe and the Cau-casus and North Pontic areas reached a peak in HaB2–C1 (i.e. according to present chronology, to late 10th–8th century B.C.). The Cimmerian mounted warriors with bows and ar-rows brought with them bimetallic daggers, new more sophis-ticated horse trappings and symbolic objects connected with shamanism; they contributed to the collapse of several groups of the Urnfield culture complex in the eastern part of Central Europe and established themselves as a ruling class, at least in the group called the Mezőcsát culture in Hungary.

Europa Środkowa i Kaukaz we wczesnej epoce żelaza. Artykuł jest próbą powtórnej analizy wzajemnych powiązań pomiędzy obszarami Kaukazu i Europy Środkowej, a także kontaktów pomiędzy tymi regionami i obszarem Półwyspu Bałkańskiego. Choć już związane z późną epoka brązu kultury sabatinowska i biełozierska wykazują powiązania tak z obszarem Kaukazu, jak i ze środkowoeuropejską kulturą pól popielnicowych – adaptując przy tym niektóre zachodnie i południowe impulsy kulturowe – to największe natężenie kontaktów pomiędzy Europą Środkową, Kaukazem i strefą nadczarnomorską przypada dopiero na fazy HaB2-C1 (t.j. zgodnie z obecną chronologią od późnego X do VIII w. przed Chr.). Kimmeryjscy konni wojownicy, uzbrojeni w łuki i strzały, z ich bimetalicznymi sztyletami oraz nowymi, bardziej wyrafinowanymi formami ogłowia końskiego i symbo-licznymi przedmiotami związanymi z praktykami szamańskimi, przyczynili się do upadku wielu grup kręgu pól popielnicowych

we wschodniej części Europy Środkowej i osadzili się jako klasa przywódcza, przynajmniej w tzw. kulturze Mezőcsát na terenie Węgier.

The jubilee of our learned colleague, who devoted many years to the study of the

eastern relations of Central Europe in the Early Iron Age (esp. C h o c h o r o w s k i 1993; C h o -c h o r o w s k i ed. 2004; 2007) is a good occasion to once more sum up the evidence regarding relations between the Caucasus region and Europe which was outlined i.a. by the present author many years ago (B o u z e k 1974; 1983).

The predecessors

The area north of the Black Sea, between the Car-pathians and the Caucasus, was mainly steppe, and the steppe was rather free country. In the famous passage of Herodotus on Scythians, in which the Persian envoy asks why they do not fight for their country, the Scyth-ians reply that they have neither cities nor agricultural land to fight for (H e r o d . IV,127). For nomads the steppe was like the desert or the sea: a free space across

which various groups could move rather freely with their herds. This concerned the steppe, not

the forest-steppe north of it, and in this southern zone only the periods in which agriculture was not developed. We may remember the Neolithic Precu-cuteni-Tripolje culture in its early stages, and, partly, the Sabatinovka culture of the advanced Bronze Age. Otherwise, the Kurgan (Pit and Catacomb cultures, as well as the earliest Srubna culture), were largely pasto-ralist peoples without permanent settlements (cf. now esp. A p a k i d z e et al. eds 2009).

The horse had been a common domestic animal since the Eneolithic in the temperate zones of Europe and Asia and it was used to draw wagons. Relations be-tween the Caucasus and Central Europe in the Eneo-lithic were also connected with horses, as shown by the mace-heads in shape of a horse’s head, besides other ob-jects and pottery with impressions of cord, etc. Since ca. 2000 B.C. light-wheeled chariots has also been used for military purposes. The Mitanni and Hyksos who invaded Egypt were among the first to use war chari-


538 539

ots successfully on a large scale, but the real nomads in the full sense of this word only developed together with the mastery of horse riding, in which the rider can fully impose his will on the horse (cf. S c h a u e r ed. 1994; H ä n s e l, M a c h n i k eds 1998). This level of horsemanship was developed in the steppes north of the Caucasus and was first widely used by two groups of Pontic nomads, initially by the Cimmerians and later by the Scythians. Practically contemporary with the nomads of the European steppe were other groups between the Ural and northern China; many Early Iron Age elements of horse harness are distributed from northern China (Ordos area) to Europe (cf. esp. H ö l l m a n n, K o s s a c k eds 1992). The horse was the basic mean of transport for nomads, as well as a source of food and the main component of their mili-tary might. Riding enabled the much faster transport of men and women across large distances than previ-ously possible by foot or by means which were acces-sible to large groups of people, not only their leaders, like the earlier chariots.

The developed Srubna culture of the North Pon-tic area was divided (first by A.I. Terenožkin) into an earlier Sabatinovka culture, and a later Belozerka group (Te r e n o ž k i n 1965). The Sabatinovka culture rep-resented a floruit of the Pontic Late Bronze Age civili-sation, with large-scale agricultural activity and sophis-ticated metallurgy, while the Belozerka stage showed more modest occupation concentrated only along the main rivers, as the steppe dried up. The Sabatinovka culture can best be compared with BrC–D. This con-cerns also the cheek-pieces of horse-bits, like one from Susanskoje, with parallels in Central European HaA1–2 (G e d l 1994; O t r o š č e n k o 1998; K l o č k o 1998; K e m e n c z e i 1984; 1996).

The evidence of the Hordeevka cemetery in west-ern Ukraine is very important for the external relations both to the west and east (B e r e z a n s k a j a 1998). The amber beads of the Tiryns and Alumière types show connections with Greece and Italy, other items with Central Europe and with the east. Of particular importance are also the results of excavations of Valen-tina Kozenkova in the Caucasus area, the Zmejskoe set-tlement and the Seržen Jurt cemetery (K o z e n k o v a 1977; 1989; 1992; 1998), and those of the Tli cemetery in the central Caucasus (southern Ossetia – Te c h o v 1980; 1981; 1985; P r u s s 1993; 1994). A selection of Caucasian objects with good parallels in HaA–B cen-tral Europe, Italy and Greece is illustrated on fig. 1.

The Belozerka fibulae represent a phenomenon which is to some extent exceptional in the North Pon-tic area, as are other characteristics of the Belozerka culture. General surveys of them, especially those from Moldova and the western Ukraine, has been published by a number of scholars; most recently V.P. Vančugov (2008) brings an exhaustive survey of the Belozerka fibulae. The violin-bow fibulae with a double loop come from Lukaševski kurgan, Širokoe and Strumok, the

knee-shaped ones from Strumok, Sepnoj, Kazaklia, and Saharna, the early bow-shaped variety from Stepnoj and Kazaklia and the snake-shaped types from Lukaševskoe poselenie. All came from female graves, which also contained amber and glass beads (Va n č u g o v 2008, 210–214). They can be roughly compared to the Sub-mycenaean fibulae in Greece (fig. 1:1), but they are simpler in execution and apparently local products, although not without southern and western inspira-tion (B o u z e k 2011). This all allows for a similar date for the Ukrainian fibulae to be ascribed, so it seems to be more plausible to put the transition of the Sabati-novka/Belozerka to ca. 1100 B.C. (cf. Va n č u g o v 1996; O t r o š č e n k o 1998). While the Belozerka people still partly employed agriculture, the successive Cimmerian culture was typical for nomads. The Cim-merian culture belonged to the koine of Geometric styles, but here the newly accomplished art of riding was in foreground. The Caucasian fibulae are more closely connected with the Greek series (fig. 1:3,4,9) (B o u z e k 1983, 204–205).

Horse and riding, nomadism

Horse was an animal much admired in Greek and even other Indo-European mythologies. The winged horse Pegasus helped Perseus to win his victory over the Gorgon and also over the sea dragon menacing Andromeda, thus opening the way into the new Iron Age. Pegasus represented wisdom inspiring poetry, and the connection of the horse with the forces of wis-dom was equally valid for “normal” horses. Nomad-ism, in the fullest sense of the word as described by Strabo (G e o g r. VII,3,7 and XVII,4,6), only became possible with horse-riding in the steppes where it con-cerned cattle herdsmen. Cattle, horses and camels like long grass, while sheep and goats prefer short and do not move rapidly enough for real nomads.

This great invention in human history developed in the first centuries of the last millennium B.C.: its first masters emerged in the area north of the Cauca-sus and the Black and Caspian seas. From the 9th cen-tury B.C. on, the Assyrian army employed mounted archers. The groups of mounted warriors and squires in Assyrian reliefs show that the Assyrian army adapt-ed the old system of the charioteer and the warrior to the new concept of cavalry. But this innovation only became a decisive strike force after the refinement of horse harnessing and the skill of riding.

The 9th–8th centuries B.C. saw the first successful attacks by mounted warriors, first in temperate Eu-rope, and later in late 8th–7th century B.C., in Anatolia and the Near East. The military success of the Cim-merian and Scythian raids in the Near East struck fear everywhere: even the Jewish prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah used a simile of their raids (Gumurru) as exam-ples of the worst danger for their compatriots.

538 539


Of course, the mastery of riding was one of the achievements of the new Iron Age mind, of which the Greeks were the protagonists, but this particular role in the Early Iron Age drama was performed by the Pontic nomads, and the Greeks only followed their models slow-ly. Archaeologically, the area of the Eurasian steppes and neighbouring countries both in the West and the East (China) is marked by identical or similar types of harness: horse-bits (fig. 4:4), other metallic parts used for keeping leather straps in position, where they cross each other (fig. 4:7), and for decoration (phalerae, fig. 4:1), rattles (fig. 6:15) and the like (cf. B o u z e k 1997, 179–203).

The vast Eurasian area is also marked by horse buri-als. The sacrifice of horses to the dead, whose soul they should accompany, is sometimes marked only symboli-cally by placing bridles or yokes with the funeral chariot in the grave (most of the Hallstatt burials), while the cases of horse sacrifice of the kind described by Herodotus (IV, 72) cannot be uncovered archaeologically. Still, the area of distribution of horse burials is immense, reaching from China to Europe. The first horse burials in the Pontic area date from the 3rd millennium B.C. and, not much later, they also appear in Greece (the Middle Helladic Mara-

thon tumulus) and in the Middle East. From Dark Age Greece, we have first the Lefkandi Hero of the 10th cen-tury, but the majority of examples everywhere date from 8th to 4th century B.C.

Nearly as large as the distribution of horse burials is that of the specific types of Early Iron Age horse-bits. The so-called North Caucasian types after H.A. Potratz (= all A.A. Iessen’s types and also those of G. Kossack, here fig. 4:4) allow tighter control of the horse than the earlier types of the Bronze Age (Trancaucasian types after P o t r a t z 1966; cf. P o d b o r s k ý 1970), which were mainly intended for a team of horses drawing a chariot. On the Hungarian plain, these nomads found a land similar to their steppe and they seem to have stayed there for some time, before being absorbed by the local popula-tion, but their raids (like those of later Huns, Hungarians and Tatars) even reached France, and their impact was felt in Spain.

Mounted warriors brought to their neighbours not only their skill in cavalry warfare, but also their beliefs, connected with the Eurasian animal style and shamanism (E l i a d e 1957; R a e v s k i j 1975). The first, Geomet-ric stage of this style was transmitted by the Cimmeri-

Fig. 1. North Pontic and Caucasian objects of Balkan and Central European affinities (after B o u z e k 1983)

ryc. 1. Znaleziska z terenów północnego Nadczarnomorza i Kaukazu wykazujące związki z Bałkanami i środkową Europą (wg B o u z e k 1983)

Lukaševka, Moldova (1); Zmejskoe, Russia (2); Novyj Afon, Georgia (3); Abarchuk (4,6,9); Eščeri (5,12); Styrgaz (7); Tli, Georgia (8,10); Seržen Jurt, Russia (11)


540 541

ans and their allies. Among the objects connected with shamanism, one may mention rattles and bells, partly in openwork (fig. 6:11–19), and the so-called “jug-stop-pers” known in the Caucasian and Macedonian schools of bronzework (fig. 5:1–8,10), the crosswise objects char-acteristic of the Cimmerians (fig. 5:12–16), mace heads and pendants with protrusions (fig. 5:17–21), and wheels with spokes (fig. 5:24,26–28). Admiration for successful cavalry brought not only an imitation of the way of life of the Cimmerians by the leading military aristocracies of European final Bronze Age and Early Hallstatt cultures, but also an admiration for their beliefs: some symbolic motifs used in shamanistic rituals were transformed into personal ornaments (cf. M i t r e v s k i 1991; B o u z e k 1997, 197–205; 2007a) (figs. 5–6). The majority of the European and Greek Early Iron Age bits derive from the “North Caucasian-Cimmerian” series, which penetrat-ed into large parts of Europe, as studied by A.A. Iessen (1952), G. Kossack (1980), V. Podborský (1970): the

types Iessen I and III and the Szentes-Vekerzug horse-bits (fig. 2:2, 4:4) were also known in some parts of western Europe, including Spain (B o u z e k 1997, 197–199). It may be assumed that the nomadic impact of 10th–9th century B.C., deriving from “Cimmerian” raids, affected large parts of Europe and established another aspect of the koine of Early Iron Age Geometric styles, connected with horses and riding: this impact also inspired the life style of the new HaC aristocracy in large parts of temper-ate Europe.

Cimmerians and “Thraco-Cimmerians”

The main period of Central European contact with the Caucasus area is the period of “Cimmerian” raids and the beginning of the Thraco-Cimmerian bronzes in Central Europe, which has been dated independent-

Fig. 2. Generalized map of the distribution of Cimmerian and related bronzes: bimetallic daggers (1); horse-bits (2); sceptres (3); Cimmerian finds in Asia Minor (4); Thracian bronzes (5); area of the early Macedonian bronzes (MB); Koban and Kuban cultures (K); Colchis culture (C), Central Transcaucasian groups (TC) (after B o u z e k 1983 with addenda)

ryc. 2. Uogólniona mapa rozprzestrzenienia brązów kimmeryjskich i pochodnych: bimetaliczne sztylety (1); kiełzna (2); skipe-tary (3); znaleziska kimmeryjskie w Azji Mniejszej (4); brązy trackie (5); obszar wystepowania wczesnych brązów macedońskich (MB); kultury kobańska i kubańska (K); kultura kolchidzka (C); grupy centralno-transkaukaskie (TC) (wg B o u z e k 1983 z uzupełnieniami)

540 541


Fig. 3. Bimetallic daggers of the Golovjatino-Leibnitz (1–9) and Gamów-Berezovka (10–18) types (after B o u z e k 1983)

ryc. 3. Bimetaliczne sztylety typu Golovjatino-Leibnitz (1–9) i Gamów-Berezovka (10–18) (wg B o u z e k 1983)

Leibnitz, Austria (1); Klein Neundorf, Lausitz, Germany (2); Panad, Romania (3); Kamenomostskoe, Ukraine (4); Brigetio--Komárom, Hungary (5); Demkino, Volga area, Russia (6); near Kiev, Ukraine (7); Keskem, Hungary (8); Biljarsk, Russia (9); Abadzechskaja, Russia (10); Kotouč near Štramberk, Moravia, Czech Republic (11); Achmolovskij mogilnik, Upper Mari re-gion, Russia (12,16); Tatarskoe Burnaševo near Kujbyšev, Russia (13); Blagodarnoe, reg. Otradno, Russia (14); Gamów, Poland (15); Kolca Gora near Kislovodsk, Russia (17); Vysokaja mogila near Chişinău, Moldova (18)


542 543

ly by G. Kossack (1980) and myself (B o u z e k 1974; 1983) to the 9th century B.C., a date now further raised to late 10th century by dendrochronological studies in Switzerland and Germany. These are not much earlier than the dates given by A.I. Terenožkin (1976; 1981) for the earlier of both Cimmerian stages, Černogorovka (c. 900–750 B.C.), while the later stage Novočerkassk (after the Novočerkasskij hoard) should be dated, according to him, c. 750–650 B.C., a date which may also be probably slightly raised. The Thraco-Cimmerian objects in the eastern part of Central Europe are, according to Müller-Karpe`s chronology, typical of HaB3, but also the nearly complete absence of typical HaB2 hoards east of Bavaria suggests an earlier date for their arrival.

Cimmerian culture, as defined by Terenožkin (1976), had several roots: one of them was local, a certain de-gree of tradition from the previous Belozerka phase, a second was in the Caucasian (Koban culture) tradition, the third in the Volga-Kama area (C h a l i k o v 1977) and a fourth in the Ananino culture and the Minussinsk area. This all points to a shared, nomadic origin for Cim-merian culture and that of the later Scythians. The stelae (so-called stag-stones) and the daggers (fig. 2:1,3) show eastern links, most other bronze objects, including mace-heads with figural motifs (fig. 2:3; 4:2; 6), link the Cim-merians with the Koban culture, while pottery seems to show some degree of local Pontic tradition of the Belozer-ka phase. Graves of both stages of the Cimmerian culture

Fig. 4. Thraco-Cimmerian horse bit (4), sceptres (2,6), buttons (1,3,5) and cross-shaped tubular object (7) (after B o u z e k 1983)

ryc. 4. Trako-kimmeryjskie kiełzna (4), skipetary (2,6), guzy (1,3,5) i krępulec rurkowaty w kształcie krzyża (7) (wg B o u z e k 1983)

Adaševci, Croatia (1,3); Sárvíz canal and Ugra, Hungary (2,4); Nagyenyed-Kakasdomb, Hungary (5,7), Turiec area, Slovakia (6)

542 543


Fig. 5. Comparative chart of bronze objects from the northern Caucasus – Kuban area (1–4, 12, 17–18, 22–23, 26, 29–30, 37), from the Northern Balkans and Carpathian Basin (after B o u z e k 1974)

ryc. 5. Tablica porównawcza obiektów brązowych z północnego Kaukazu – regionu Kubania (1–4, 12, 17–18, 22–23, 26, 29–30, 37), północnych Bałkanów i Kotliny Karpackiej (wg B o u z e k 1974)

Adaševci, Serbia (5); Somlyóhegy, Hungary (6); Somlyóvásárhely, Hungary (13); Hungary (14); Ugra, Hungary (19); Prozor, Bosnia and Herzegovina (20); Nagyenyed-Kakasdomb, Hungary (24); Batina, Croatia (27, 31–32); Glasinac, Bosnia and He-rzegovina (22–34); Trilophon-Messimeri, Greece (7–8,16); Belasica, Macedonia (9); Kumanovo, Macedonia (10,39); Amphi-polis, Greece (11); Gevgelia, Macedonia (15); Chauchitsa, Greece (21, 34–35); Donja Dolina, Bosnia and Herzegovina (25); Radanja, Macedonia (28); Olynthus, Greece (36)


544 545

Fig. 6. Macedonian and Thracian bronzes and their parallels (after B o u z e k 1974)

ryc. 6. Macedońskie i trackie brązy oraz ich odpowiedniki (wg B o u z e k 1974)

Bulgaria (1); Kuban area, Russia (2, 4, 9); Stara Zagora, Bulgaria (3); Štip, Macedonia (5); near Rila monastery, Bulgaria (6); Tran-sylvania, Romania (7); Radanja, Macedonia (8); Prozor, Bosnia and Herzegovina (10); Luristan, Iran (11); Redkin Lager, Arme-nia (12); Upper Kuban, Russia (13); Rusanoviči, Glasinac, Bosnia and Herzegovina (14); Třtěno, Bohemia (15); Iljak, Glasinac, Bosnia and Herzegovina (16); Bex, Switzerland (17); Subingen, Switzerland (18); Staraja mogila near Kelermes, Russia (19)

544 545


are distributed over vast territories from the Kuban and Volga-Kama area over the Crimea, Ukraine and Moldavia to north-eastern Bulgaria (Belogradec, Endža; fig. 2). The most characteristic objects are daggers of the Gamów-Berezovka types, horse bits of the North Caucasian type according to H.A. Potratz, particular arrowheads and less specific spearheads (cf. B o u z e k 1997, 194–196; I v a n č i k 2001), while decorative parts of horse harness and personal ornaments are rare. Rattles in openwork (fig. 6:11–19) were probably ritual objects, and Maltese crosses seem to have possessed a particular symbolic sig-nificance (fig. 5:2–9), perhaps solar (understandable with a northern people who were neighbours to the mythi-cal Hyperboreans, cf. D i o d . S i c . II,47), or perhaps representing the centre of the universe, of the four-sided world like in Scythian mythology (R a e v s k i j 1979). G. Kossack, in a paper presented to the Schleswig confer-ence in 1991, found models of this ornament on Assyrian reliefs, which may be correct, but it does not explain the particular meaning of the motif in Cimmerian culture (K o s s a c k 1994). Cimmerian mounted warriors were the leading force in the movement to central Europe. The Mezőcsát culture is the archaeological name for the cen-tral region of this nomadic entity in the Hungarian basin, its impact in other parts of Central Europe is known un-der the name “Thraco-Cimmerian bronzes”; in both cases Cimmerian and Caucasian relations are clearly traceable (K e m e n c z e i 1984; 1996; K a l i c z, K o ó s 1998; M e t z n e r - N e b e l s i c k 1998; 2002; M a c h o r -t y c h 1998; S m i r n o v a 1998) (figs. 4–6).

Literary sources on Cimmerians and archaeology

There are two main groups of literary sources for the Cimmerians: Near Eastern and Greek. The former are mainly contemporary documents on wars within the Assyrian border zone, the latter mostly stories tak-en from old traditions or memories. Both are mainly concerned with those aspects of Cimmerian history which directly affected the civilized world, i.e. there are viewed from angle different from our position. For Homer (Odyssey I,14) the Cimmerians were a people living in a mythical land of fog and darkness, on the fringes of the inhabitable world (cf. S t r a b o I,2,9). The first references to the Cimmerians with the As-syrians date from 722–713 B.C. In a letter, Sancherib informs his father Sargon II about the presence of Cim-merians in the region of Urartu, and Scythians are also mentioned. During the reign of Sancherib (705–681 B.C.) the Cimmerians attacked Asia Minor and de-stroyed the Phrygian empire: the Phrygian king Midas committed suicide (cf. H e r o d . I,6,15). This presum-ably happened in 696/695 B.C. (Eusebius’ date) al-though a date twenty years later cannot be excluded. American excavations at Gordion uncovered consider-able destruction (dated, however, by 14C much earlier),

but no characteristic “Cimmerian” objects. A group of Cimmerians probably settled for some time near Sin-ope, and Asarhaddon mentions an Asssyrian victory over them in 679 B.C. The military leader of the Cim-merians in their 679/678 campaign is called Tušpa in Assyrian records.

Another group of Cimmerians probably entered Anatolia from Thrace. This is suggested by Strabo, when he speaks about an alliance between the Cim-merians and the Thracian Treres and Edoni (for Treres: S t r a b o I,1,10; I,3,21; VII frgs. 11 and 36; for Edoni: cf. XII,3,34, XII,8,7 and XIII,4,8), tribes later living in Central Bulgaria (Treres), in the area of the Thra-cian bronzes (fig. 2, 6:1–3) and in Chalcidice (Edoni), where the Macedonian bronzes developed (fig. 2 and fig. 5 right, fig. 6:5–6,14; cf. B o u z e k 1974; 2007a). The Lydian king Gyges even sought aid against them from Assurbanipal. A second attack on Lydia in 652 B.C. was successful and Sardis (with the exception of the citadel) was sacked and Gyges killed.

Traces of a similar impact on the Mezőcsát culture in the Hungarian basin and in the Thraco-Cimmerian bronzes are not recorded in written sources, but are traceable archaeologically. Herodotus explicitly men-tions Tyras (Dniestre) in present-time Moldova as the place where the Cimmerian kings fought a fratricidal battle and were buried, and from where the common people left their homes. After this, Herodotus describes the escape of the remainder of the Cimmerians along the Black Sea west of the Caucasus to the area of Sinope (IV,12), and this may be the story of one of their main military forces, while the other rather moved west-wards. Strabo’s reference to the Cimmerians joining forces with the Thracian Treres and Edoni (cf. above) makes it highly probable that some Cimmerians moved west from the Pontic steppes. The Edoni and Paeoni-ans shared the territory where the first canonical Mac-edonian bronzes with Caucasian relations started, and this could not have happened much after 800 B.C. The Thraco-Cimmerian bronzes in the eastern part of Cen-tral Europe originated ca. 900 B.C., i.e. about 150 years earlier than the first Assyrian reports of Cimmerians in the region of Urartu (B o u z e k 2007b).

The leader of the Cimmerian troops in 652 B.C. is named Lygdamis in Greek sources, and there is a paral-lel name Tugdamme in the Assyrian records. Accord-ing to Strabo, Lygdamis was later killed in Cilicia, and Assyrian archives probably confirm this report. This happened between 637 and 625 B.C. and the second foundation of Sinope in c. 630 B.C. may probably be a result of the defeat of the Cimmerians. Herodotus, however, mentions (I,16) that the last Cimmerians were only driven out of Asia Minor by Alyattes, in about 600 B.C. The Scythians, who followed them, were lords of Urartu between 625 and 585 B.C., and their Near East-ern campaign lasted, according to Herodotus (IV,1), 28 years. The “Pre-Scythian” arrowheads and other objects usually ascribed to the Cimmerians (rather than to Ear-


546 547

ly Scythians, cf. B o u z e k 2007b), have been found in several sites in Anatolia (cf. fig. 2:4).

If we restrict the name Cimmerians to military bands invading Anatolia and the Near East (L a -f r a n c h i 1990; I v a n č i k 1993; S a u t e r 2000), we do not respect other Greek sources mentioning them in the Pontic area. According to the latter, we are entitled to use the name of the Cimmerians in a sense similar to that in which Herodotus used the name Scythians, in rather general terms. This would also al-low us to explain why their military attacks in Europe brought similar impulses there as those of the Scyth-ians two centuries later. To reject other sources and stick only to Assyrian records, or to reduce their story only to its latest phase, and cut off the Černogorovka-Novočerkassk complex from their material heritage, creates more problems than it solves. The traditional explanation still seems to be more reasonable than lat-er attempts to change it, which only respect some se-lected part of the available archaeological and literary evidence. It should, however, be noted that the first Kelermes tumuli contained Novočerkassk type offer-ings; the transition from “Cimmerian” to Scythian style was fluent (G a l a n i n a 1997; D u b o v s k a j a 1997; B o u z e k 2001).1

Literature:A p a k i d z e J., G o v e d a r i c a B., H ä n s e l B. (eds), 2009 Der Schwarzmeerraum vom Äneolithikum bis in die Früheisenzeit (5000–500 v. Chr.). Kommunikationsebenen zwischen Kaukasus und den Karpaten (Prähistorische Ar-chäologie in Südosteuropa 25), Rahden/Westfalen.B e r e z a n s k a j a S.S., 1998 Hordeevka – ein bronzezeit-liches Kurgan-Gräberfeld am Südlichen Bug, (in:) B. H ä n -s e l, J. M a c h n i k (eds) 1998, 325–342.B o u z e k J., 1974 Macedonian Bronzes: their origins, distri-bution and relation to other cultural groups of the Early Iron Age, Památky archeologické 65, 278–341.1983 Caucasus and Europe and the Cimmerian Problem, Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae A 37/4, 177–231.1997 Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural interrelations dur-ing the Early Iron Age (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 122), Jonsered.2001 Cimmerians and Early Scythians: the transition from Geometric to Orientalising style in the Pontic area, (in:) G.R. Ts e k h l a d z e (ed.), North Pontic Archaeology. Recent discoveries and studies, Leiden, 33–44.2007a Macedonian Bronzes – 30 years later, Folia Archaeo-logica Balcanica 1, 97–111.2007b Cimmerians and Scythians in Anatolia, (in:) C. I ş ı k et al. (eds), CALBIS. Mélanges offerts à Baki Öğün, Ankara, 29–38.

1 The paper was prepared in the frame of project of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic no. P405/11/0098.

2011 The Belozerka fibulae in broader context, Tyragetia 5(22), 247–254.C h a l i k o v A.Ch., 1977 Volgo-Kamje v načale epochi ran-nego železa, Moskva.C h o c h o r o w s k i J., 1985 Die Vekerzug-Kultur. Charakte-ristik der Funde (Zeszyty Naukowe UJ 724, Prace Archeologi-czne 36), Warszawa-Kraków.1993 Ekspansja kimmeryjska na tereny Europy Środkowej (Roz-prawy Habilitacyjne UJ 260), Kraków.C h o c h o r o w s k i J. (ed.), 2004 Kimmerowie, Scytowie, Sarmaci. Księga poświęcona pamięci profesora Tadeusza Suli-mirskiego, Kraków.2007 Studia nad epoką brązu i wczesną epoką żelaza w Euro-pie. Księga poświęcona Profesorowi Markowi Gedlowi na pięć-dziesięciolecie pracy w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim, Kraków.D u b o v s k a j a O., 1997 Zur ethnischen und kulturellen Einordnung der Novočerkassk-Gruppe, Eurasia Antiqua 3, 277–328.E l i a d e M., 1957 Chamanisme et la technique de l’extase, Paris.G a l a n i n a L.K., 1997 Kelermeskije kurgany – Die Kurgane von Kelermes, Moskva.G e d l M., 1994 Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Über-gang von der Bronze- und Eisenzeit in Polen, (in:) P. S c h a u -e r (ed.), Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus (Regens-burger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 1), Regens-burg, 263–292.H ä n s e l B., M a c h n i k J. (eds), 1998 Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kul-turaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000–500 v. Chr.) (Südosteuropa-Schriften 20), Rahden/Westfalen.H ö l l m a n n T.O., K o s s a c k G. (eds), 1992 Maoqing-gou. Ein eisenzeitliches Gräberfeld in der Ordos-Region (Ma-terialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 50), Mainz.I v a n č i k A., 1993 Les Cimmériens au Proche Orient, Fribourg.2001 Kimmerier und Skythen. Kulturhistorische und chro-nologische Probleme der Archäologie der osteuropäischen Steppen und Kaukasiens in vor- und frühskythischer Zeit, Moskau.I e s s e n A.A., 1952 K voprosu o pamjatnikach 8.–7. vv. do n.e. v jevropejskoj časti SSSR, Sovetskaja Archeologija 18, 49–110.K a l i c z N., K o ó s J., 1998 Siedlungsfunde der Früheisen-zeit in Nordostungarn, (in:) B. H ä n s e l, J. M a c h n i k (eds) 1998, 423–436.K e m e n c z e i T., 1984 Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns (Archaeologia Hungarica 51), Budapest.1996 Angaben zur Frage der endbronzezeitlichen Hortfund-stufen im Donau-Theissgebiet, Communicationes Archaeologi-cae Hungariae 1996, 53–67.K l o č k o V.I., 1998 Die Süd- und Westbeziehungen der Ukraine rechts des Dniepers im 2. und frühen 1. Jt. v. Chr., (in:) B. H ä n s e l, J. M a c h n i k (eds) 1998, 343–351.K o s s a c k G., 1980 Kimmerische Bronzen, Bemerkungen zu ihrer Zeitstellung in Ost- und Mitteleuropa, Situla 20–21, 109–141.

546 547


1994 Neufunde aus dem Novočerkask-Formenkreis und ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte steppenbezogener Reitervölker der späten Bronzezeit, Il Mar Nero 1, 19–54.K o z e n k o v a V.I., 1977 Kobanskaja kul’tura – vostočnyj variant, Moskva.1989 Kobanskaja kul’tura – zapadnyj variant, Moskva.1992 Seržen Jurt. Ein Friedhof der späten Bronzezeit und der frühen Eisenzeit in Nordkaukasus (Materialien zur Allgemei-nen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 48), Mainz.1998 Material‘naja osnova byta kobanskich plemen (Svod ar-cheologičeskich pamjatnikov Rosii 5/2–5), Moskva.L a f r a n c h i G.B., 1990 I Cimmeri. Emergenza delle élites militari iraniche nel Vicino Oriente (VIII–VII s ec. a. C.), Padova.M a c h o r t y c h S.V., 1998 Neues über die Beziehungen der Kimmerier zur Karpaten-Donau-Welt, (in:) B. H ä n s e l, J. M a c h n i k (eds) 1998, 437–449.M e t z n e r - N e b e l s i c k C., 1998 Abschied von den Th-rako-Kimmeriern? Neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen karpatenländischen Kulturgruppen der späten Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzeit mit der osteuropäischen Steppenzo-ne, (in:) B. H ä n s e l, J. M a c h n i k (eds) 1998, 361–422.2002 Der „Thrako-Kimmerische Formenkreis“ aus der Sicht der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit im südostlichen Pannonien (Vorgeshichtliche Forschungen 23), Rahden/Westf.M i t r e v s k i D., 1991 Dedeli, nekropola od železnoto vreme vo Dolno Povardarje, Skopje.O t r o š č e n k o V.V., 1998 Die Westbeziehungen der Belo-zerka-Kultur, (in:) B. H ä n s e l, J. M a c h n i k (eds) 1998, 354–360.P o d b o r s k ý V., 1970 Mähren in der Spätbronzezeit und an der Schwelle der Hallstattzeit (Sborník prací Filosoficke fakulty Brněnské university), Brno.P o t r a t z H.A., 1966 Die Pferdetrensen des alten Orients (Analecta Orientalia 41), Vatikan.

P r u s s A., 1993 Zur Chronologie des Gräberfeldes von Tli, Georgica 16, 25–47.1994 Zur Chronologie des Gräberfeldes von Tli, Georgica 17, 13–22.R a e v s k i j D., 1975 Očerki ideologii skifo-sarmatskich ple-men, Moskva.S a u t e r H., 2000 Studien zum Kimmerierproblem (Saar-brücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 72), Bonn.S c h a u e r P. (ed.), 1994 Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nord-see und Kaukasus (Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 1), Regensburg.S m i r n o v a G.I., 1998 Die Ostkarpatenregion zur Vor-skythen- und Skythenzeit und die osteuropäischen Steppen. Kontakte und Migrationen, (in:) B. H ä n s e l, J. M a c h n i k (eds) 1998, 451–463.Te c h o v B.V., 1980 Tlijskij mogil’nik I, Tbilisi.1981 Tlijskij mogil’nik II, Tbilisi.1985 Tlijskij mogil’nik III, Tbilisi.Te r e n o ž k i n A.I., 1965 Osnovy chronologii predskifsko-go perioda, Sovetskaja Archeologija 31, 63–75.1976 Kimmerijcy, Kijev.1981 Kimmerier und ihre Kultur, (in:) D. E i b n e r, A. E i b -n e r (eds), Die Hallstattkultur: Bericht über das Symposium in Steyr 1980, Linz, 20–29.Va n č u g o v V.P., 1996 Das Ende der Bronzezeit im nörd-lichen Schwarzmeergebiet. Die Belozerka-Kultur, Eurasia Antiqua 2, 287–309.2008 Drevnejšie fibuly Severnogo Pričernomorja, (in:) E. P a p u c i - W ł a d y k a (ed.), PONTIKA 2006. Recent Research in Northern Black Sea Coast Greek Colonies. Pro-ceedings of the International Conference, Kraków, 18th March, 2006 (Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 11), Kraków, 205–217.

Jan bouzekCharles University, Institut for Classical Archaeology

Praha, Czech [email protected]

f chocho row ski

Documents