On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

167

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

Sergey V. Makhortykh

Abstract

Introduction

Contact between the Black Sea Coast and Central

Europe during the Early Iron Age has to be studied
together with the origin of nomadism in the steppe
area of the continent. The early 1st millennium BC
was characterized by the formative development of
nomad pastoralism throughout the Eurasian Steppes.
During this time, specialized nomadic economies developed based on the horse, so that most of steppe regions were occupied by groups of nomads with their
mobile way of life. Cimmerians played a vital part in
the transmission of the horse riding and in the development of a new bridle technique. Both innovations
were to have a major impact on European history.
The climatic changes, migrations, the introduction of horse on a large scale, trade contacts and
prestige goods exchange, changes in social structures
and the development of elites, are probably the most
significant factors which have to be included in the
analysis of the questions being considered.

A material culture of different peoples, whether it

has a closed or original character, in some way experiences the influence of other cultures, which are
neighbouring or in contact with it. Such influence
is shown in distribution of imported luxury goods,
mainly for the representatives of the supreme layers
of a society, as well as the utilitarian items, especially
those, which had the great advantages in a material,
form or technical characteristics.
During the period 900-700 BC a considerable
number of objects manufactured in eastern Europe
workshops appear in archaeological contexts in Central Europe. These materials are found associated
with Central European materials of the Late Urnfield
and Early Hallstatt periods in graves and hoards. The
Thraco-Cimmerian objects are concentrated in the
Carpathian Basin and penetrated as far west as Bohemia, Croatia, Lower Austria and North Italy. Most
of what came to Central Europe from the east was
connected with military equipment and horse gear,
and this fact, speaks for nomads.
At present, two stages in interactions between
the Cimmerians of East European Steppes and the
population of Central Europe can be distinguished
( 2003, 39f.). At the early stage (9th 8th
centuries BC) the contacts with the Upper and Middle Danube region prevailed (the Late Urnfield and
related cultures). They were reflected in weaponry
and horse harnesses. At the later stage (8th 7th centuries BC) the contacts of Cimmerians with the cultures of the Thracian Hallstatt and the northern Balkan become stronger, and they reflected in ceramics
and ornaments.

. .
..
.

,


.

, ,
.
.
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
.

1. Natural-climatic and social-cultural

changes in the early 1st millennium BC in
East European Steppes
It should be noted that the first centuries of 1st millennium BC are characterized by a significant activation
of contact between remote territories. In many respects, this has been caused by an appearance in the
historical arena of early nomads, one of which was

168
the Cimmerians. The end of the II the beginning
of the 1st millennium BC in steppe zone of northern
Black Sea area was accompanied by the transition
of its population to a nomadic way of life that was
caused by climatic and anthropogenous factors.
The Cimmerian period was marked by considerable changes in economic and social life of population of eastern Europe and belongs to an extremely
important time in the ancient history of this region.
The considered period is called by the name of people- the Cimmerians, who were the first historically
known nomadic tribe in eastern Europe. The necessity of studying the Cimmerians history and culture
is determined by the important role of this nomadic
people in historical development of eastern and Central Europe as well as the Near East.
It is evident that the emergence of Cimmerian
Culture coincided with climate changes in eastern
Europe. About the 11th century BC, in eastern Europe
a period of long climate aridity began (
1997, 56; / 1997). The
evidence of these changes is represented by the sea
level changes and the regressions of the Black Sea
and the Caspian Sea ( et al. 1987, 112).
These climatic changes were even more dramatic in
territory of the Kazakhstan Steppes, where different zones of vegetation moved almost 200 km to the
north (/ 1984, 35). As a result
of the changes in the ecosystem, the population of
the Black Sea and Aral-Caspian steppe regions was
affected by a common ecological crisis.
The worsening of climatic conditions had a
negative effect on the Pontic Steppe archaeological
cultures with mixed pastoral-agricultural economy.
The crisis might have been strengthened by the anthropogenous influence on the local environment as
well (e. g. intensive ploughing, destruction of steppe
vegetation due to grazing the animals, etc).
The collapse of such large Late Bronze communities as the Belozerka and the Post-Srubnaya
Sultures was a result of mentioned ecological crisis
( 1993, 42). The population of these communities had a complex economy based on agriculture and cattle-breeding. The drying of the climate
forced the steppe inhabitants to shift to nomadic cattle-breeding. It is probable that, already by the Late
Bronze Age, the cattle breeding shift in the economy,
which was gradually taking more mobile forms, began tointensify. The crisis in agriculture increased
simultaneously. In these conditions, the role of horse
is grew in the herds. This created the necessary preconditions for the transition to nomadic and to semi-

Sergey V. Makhortykh

nomadic pastoralism, which was soon spreading, not

though the inhabitants of Pontic Steppes, but though
the huge steppe regions of Eurasia.
A considerable part of the population, already
involved in nomadic cattle breeding, moved from the
Pontic Steppes into areas with a more favorable environment. These migrations probably took place in
several steps and were characterized by continuous or
camp types roaming with a non-closed cycle of excursions. This form of pastoral nomadism is an exception in nomadic way of life. It existed in conditions of
the ecological crisis caused by lack of foraging during the drought periods, or during the military events
( 1961, 2). The choice by the Cimmerians of
nomadic, semi-nomadic, or semi-sedendary forms of
pastoralism was determined by the ecological niche
they occupied. The migration of Cimmerians took
place in several directions. First of all it was the areas
which were located in zones with a positive level of
humidity. Among these areas were the Dnieper forest-steppe zone, the Crimea Peninsula, the northern
Caucasus and the Great Hungarian Plain. These new
centers were located in environmental areas of wetter
climate and their positions allowed them to play an
important role in the new condition.
The increase of the Cimmerian influences initiated historical and cultural changes in different parts
of eastern and Central Europe, and this is represented by the reorientation of long-distance exchange
networks and the changes in centres of metal production.
The nomadic impact on the Early Iron Age
cultures can be seen in the increasing importance of
the horse. The appearance of horse riding in the early 1st millennium BC brought about a revolution in
communications. The horse could be used to explore
new territories, in raiding and trading. Cimmerians
played a vital part in the transmission of the horse
riding and in the development of a new bridle technique. Both innovations were to have a major impact
on European history. A mobile life-style helped to
create a new set of cultural and social patterns of
behaviour. The great importance of horses and horse
riding is evident from the number of finds relating to
horse gear discovered in the Cimmerian graves (pl.
1,2). The previously mentioned changes also influenced warfare (the use of cavalry in battle requiring
well-trained horses), religious practices (the distribution of inhumation burials with horse harnesses), and
social structures (the appearance of elite groups of
mounted warriors who benefited from long distance
exchange).

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

2. Cultural and social changes in Central

Europe in the context of Cimmerian influence
The transformation of warfare and of prestige artefacts generated in the Cimmerian society, represented a new technological and social complex closely
connected to other forms of military tactics. These
tactics were based on riding and demanded more reliable control of horses. Simultaneously this process
was accompanied by the introduction of new types of
weapon and horse gear. The new Cimmerian bits consisted of two movable joint parts, meant for riding,
contrary to the rigid bits of Urnfield Culture which
were more suitable for traction (Balkwill 1973; Httel 1981). In comparison with the Urnfield bits with
a size usually of 7 cm, the new Cimmerian types
were 10 - 11 cm, implying larger breeds of horses
(Kossack 1998). The use of cavalry in war required
well-trained horses and skilful experts for the breeding and training of the animals. Wide distribution of
these innovations assumed either the presence of well
organized exchange between eastern-Central European elites, or the occurrence of new representatives of
Cimmerian nobility with their retinue and equipment
in the Carpato-Danubian region.
Oriented to the needs of mounted warrior, new
light types of military equipment (daggers, spears,
etc) had widespread distribution and simultaneously
became the prestigious categories of the weaponry of
Cimmerian epoch. The old heavy armaments of the
Urnfield Culture, especially as applied to a horse,
were not effective against the riders armed by the
light weapons.
During the Early Iron Age in Central Europe a
fairly clear demarcation between two centers of Cimmerian influences can be observed.
The first is located on the Great Hungarian Plain
and Southwest Slowakia as well as southern Moravia
(Patek 1974; Kemenczei 1984; Chochorowski 1993;
Romsauer 1999). Its sites show fundamental changes
in the cultural landscape in comparison with the previous epoch. Here are concentrated the monuments
of the Mezcst type, which reflects the spreading of the eastern traditions in burial rites (flexed
or stretched out inhumations), material culture and
economy. The Mezcst phenomenon could be interpreted as a result of the penetration of separate
Cimmerian groups in Hungary and neighbouring
territories and their mixing with the local populations. The East Carpathian Basin was a particular
bridgehead from which a local variant of Cimmerian
Culture spread its influences and developed contacts
with other regions of the Central and western Europe. The nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life of

169

the Mezcst population assisted in the transmission

of the technical achievements and ideology of Cimmerian Culture (horse harness, weaponry, symbols
of power, etc) through all Central Europe.
The second center of Cimmerian influence
unites the Late Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures which
continued to develop their economic and cultural traditions to the west of Danube (Patek 1993). Here, in
the western areas of the early Hallstatt world, the artifacts of Cimmerian type have been found mainly in
the burials, which reflect a high social status of their
owners. Contacts of nomads with the local populations have influenced the social structures of western Hallstatt population (Kristiansen 1998). These
changes in social models were accompanied by the
widespread introduction of iron and the adaptation of
new religious and symbolical values. A consideration
of the western area of the distribution of Cimmerian innovations allows us to assume the appearance
there in the 8th century BC of a new social organization for which there are typical fortified settlements
and kurgan burials (Pcs-Jakabhegy, Sopron, etc).
In the territories of both centers, the finds,
which could be considered as imports and imitations
of Cimmerian objects, are the most numerous.

3. Cimmerian imports and imitations in

Central Europe
The distribution of eastern imports in Central Europe was caused by several factors. Besides invasions, these include trade activities and the exchange
of prestigious things between elites. It is known that,
not only the nomadic cattle breeding and war, but
also trade mediation were among the components of
Cimmerian power ( 1996). Their monuments in the Pontic Steppe are located along the trade
routes and near river crossings. Most likely, the Cimmerians, just as other nomadic peoples, had a layer
of traders-middlemen who were engaged in trade and
exchange with fellow tribesmen and the populations
of remote regions. It is well known that the extensive
nomadic economy was not able to cause any large
division of labour in the nomadic society, except for
trade. The widespread development of trade was determined by the narrow economic base of nomadism,
which promoted an establishment of close interactions with agricultural civilizations. Therefore, active
participation and interest, both by ancient and medieval nomads in exchanges with settled agricultural
societies are well-known in history.
The written sources, in particular Herodotuss
account (IV, 24), provide grounds to assume the
presence of traders in a Scythian society. With help

170
of their mediation, the Olbia goods got to the Sarmatians ( 1996). Penetration of antique imports into the forest-steppe has also been connected
with trade activity of Scythians.
Of considerable interest is Strabons reference
(XI, V, 8) about the Sarmatian tribe (Aorsi), who
conducted a caravan trade with Indian and Babylon
goods, receiving them through an exchange with the
Armenians and the Medians. Written sources inform,
that the Avars were also thoroughly engaged in trade.
From the beginning of the Avarian period in Central
Europe they seized river crossings and crossroads
of trade routes ( 1986, 330). Similar examples of nomadic trade activity could be mentioned.
At the same time, the failure of satisfying the need
for exchange of the nomadic peoples frequently resulted in conflicts. So, the Mongols often were at
war with China, and demanded permission to trade
for nomads as the Peking government pursued a policy of the trade prohibitions in 15th 16th centuries,
providing a severe punishment for its infringement
( 1958).
The spreading of imitations of Cimmerian artifacts in Central Europe was determined by their
adoption by the local Central European craftsmen.
The separate elements of nomadic traditions that resulted in appearance of the syncretic artifacts. This
borrowing occurred as a result of direct contacts with
nomads or through acquaintances, with their finds
distributed by means of trade or prestige exchange.
The familiarity of the population of Central Europe
with nomadic advanced weapons and horse gear
caused the appearance of their own products to develop under the influence of Cimmerian traditions.
Some of the most important and informative categories of these finds will be considered below.
3.1. Daggers and swords
Central Europe belongs to the second region (after
the northern Caucasus) of the greatest abundance of
the Pre-Scythian swords and daggers with a crossshaped hilt. The main territory of their distribution
- western Hungary and adjacent areas of Matras
mountains and the East Alpine fringe as well as Silesia and East Germany. What almost all the Central
European finds (except for two completely bronze
daggers from Gamw and Klein Neudorf) have in
common is that they were made of the combination
two metals, the iron blades and the bronze hilts.
The origin of the bimetallic daggers is connected with the Pontic region where they and metal scabbard endings are already known in the monuments
of the Belozerka Culture in 12th 10th centuries BC
(Kalanchak, Kchkovatoe, Stepnoe, etc.) (

Sergey V. Makhortykh

2003, 42). Probably, due to contacts with steppe

tribes and migrations of the separate nomadic groups
to the North Caucasus, there bimetallic swords and
daggers of the Cimmerian type received a wide
distribution and further development.
The Pre-Scythian daggers with a cross-shaped
hilt from Central Europe could be divided into
several types. The first type is represented by the
daggers with knoblike or flat horizontal pommel, a
openwork hilt decorated by a single row of open rings
and a guard of right-angled or sub-triangular contours: Gamw (Poland), tramberk (Czech), Mtra
(Hungary) (Pftzenreiter 1936, ryc. 1-2 tab. VI,1-2;
Gallus/Horvth 1939, fig. 5; Podborsk 1970, tab.
35,5-11.76.6) (pl. 3,5.11).
Morphologically the previously mentioned examples are similar to a series of 10 daggers from the
North Caucasus: Klin-Yar, Psekups, Kislovodsk, etc.
( et al. 1980, fig. 1,20; 3,6;
1985, tab. 15,3). The fact that the majority of similar daggers have been found in the North Caucasian
area, allow us to assume their origin in the Ciscaucasian-Cimmerian environment, from where some of
them were distributed to other territories, including
Central Europe.
The second type of Cimmerian daggers is represented, in the Trans-Danube area, by a single example. It was found in the kurgan burial near the Pcs in
Hungary (Trk 1950, tab. 3-4; Marz 1978). The
dagger has a flat handle, which is decorated by a
double row of open rings (pl. 3,2). Such an ornament
is usually considered as later derivative from daggers
with a single row of decoration. However, a bronze
dagger with a similar decorated hilt was found in
the grave 15 from the cemetery 1 of Kislovodsk
( et al. 1980, fig. 2,12), which is dated
to the 9th 8th centuries BC ( 1992, 26).
This fact is evidence that some daggers of the second
and the first types existed simultaneously. It is also
interesting to note a similarity in the decoration of
guards with the isosceles triangles pattern on daggers
from Pcs-Jakabhegy (with a doublerow hilt) and
tramberk (with a single-row hilt), that probably, indicates their chronological similarity.
Concluding consideration this group of daggers, it is necessary to mention the bronze fittings for
sheaths decorated by similar a double-row pattern.
Such finds are known from a number of sites on territory of Hungary: Biharugra, Kakasd as well as in
the Hungarian National Museum (pl. 3,7-9).
Besides those previously discussed, there is
also other group of the bimetallic weaponry in Central Europe. They are represented by the daggers
and short swords of the third type with cap-formed
pommel, undecorated hilts of oval or rectangular sec-

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

tion and the straight advanced guard (variant Golovjatino after V. Podborsk or Leibnitz after J. Chochorowski). They have no local roots in Central Europe and their appearance is connected with the Cimmerian influence: Leibnitz (Austria), Klein Neudorf
(Germany), Szny (Hungary), Pnade (Romania)
(Podkowinska 1932-1933, fig. 2; Marton 1934, tab.
38,5; Podborsk 1970, fig. 26,1; Vulpe 1990, pl.
1,1) (pl. 3,1.3.4.6). From Austria (Stillfried cemetery) is known a find of the bronze hilt of a dagger
which, probably, belongs to this type (Strohschneder/Vahlkampf, 1980, tab. 55,1-4) (pl. 3,10).
Though the previously considered daggers belong to various types, together they form a compact
group, probably, relating to fairly narrow period of
time (9th - 8th centuries BC).
Not all of the Cimmerian daggers from the
Carpathian-Danubian region are imported from the
east. Some of them are imitations. The handle of a
dagger from tramberk, was made of local metal
which corresponds in the details with certain bronze
objects in the Chernotin hoard (Podborsk 1967,
220). Furthermore, other Central European finds
have morphological features that are not peculiar to
the East European items. These are a very narrow
blade or a round-shaped pommel on the daggers as
from the Klein Neudorf and Pnade. A short sword
from Leibnitz which has considerable widening of its
blade in the lower part, characteristic of Late Bronze
Age swords in Central Europe, but practically unknown among the East European bimetallic weaponry should also be mentioned.
Thus, in the Pre-Scythian time, there existed
the primary centers of manufacturing of daggers and
swords with cross-shaped hilts concentrated in eastern Europe, and secondary centers among which was
the Carpatho-Danubian area. As this takes place, the
secondary centers could themselves made local production spreading at the considerable distances.
3.2. Bits
3.2.1. Bits with single end-rings
During the Pre-Scythian epoch, there is a wide distribution in the Carpatho-Danubian area of bronze
bits with the ends in the form of circular rings. These
are known from the following finds of these elements
of horse gear in Central Europe: Austria (Seeboden,
Stillfried), Croatia (Batina, Legrad), Czech (Pltenice, Pedmice, Zbo ), Germany (Steinkirchen),
Hungary (Biharugra, Dinnys, Dunakmld, PcsJakabhegy, Szanda, Szeged, Fgd), Italy (Este),
Slovakia (Santovka), Romania (Cipu, Veti). In ad-

171

dition, no less than three examples without specifying the place of origin are kept in different Hungarian museums (Gallus, Horvth 1939, taf. 1,9; 9,13;
12,6; 10,18.19; 18,6; 20,13; Neviznsky 1985;
Kaus 1984, taf. 9,j; Kaus 1988/89, taf. 2,6.7; Chochorowski 1993, ryc. 1; 2; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994,
fig. 17a.5.6). All these bits consist of two parts connected by rings on their inside ends. The form of
their outside loops varies from a precise ring up to
oval or drop outlines, and the bars are frequently covered with incised line markings. Almost half of the
listed finds have extra elements in the form of the
buttons at the end for connection with a bridle rein
(pl. 4,1.6-9.11).
Bits of such form had a wide territorial distribution in the 9th 7th centuries BC. They are most
numerous in the south of East Europe and in Central
Europe. There are single examples found in Transcaucasia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia (
1994, 69ff.). In the eastern Europe and Caucasus
bronze bits with single end-rings are mainly dated to
the 9th - first half of 8th centuries BC. In 7th century
BC they were replaced by the iron bits of the same
type. In the Hallstatt Culture area the majority of
the bronze bits with the ends in the form of circular
rings are dated to the 8th - 7th centuries BC (Kossack 1954, 167 fig. 18,B1-2; 20,B1, C2; Pare 1991,
9 ff. fig. 9; Chochorowski 1993, 42 f., 54 fig. 1,13). It must be stressed that these bits consist of two
movable jointed parts whereas Central Europe was
for a long time dominated by a one-compound type
of a bit (Balkwill 1973). I have to agree with the majority of researchers who connect their origin with an
area of eastern Europe.
3.2.2. Bits with the ends in the form of a reverse
stirrup (D-shape)
Of particular interest are the bronze bits with outside
ends in the form of a stirrup. The basic territory of
their distribution is the East Alpine area and Pannonia, though separate finds are also known in Transylvania and the neighbouring areas of Hungary. At
present there is evidence about the following finds:
Austria (Alland, Haslau-Regelsbrunn, Pamhagen,
Stillfried); Germany (Steinkirchen), Croatia (Batina, Dalj), Romania (Cipu), Hungary (Biharugra)
(pl. 5,6-12). In addition no less than four examples
without specifying the place of origin are kept in the
Hungarian National Museum (Frey 1905, fig. A,7;
Gallus/Horvth 1939, pl. 11,5; 18,7; 46,4; 47,4;
Mller-Karpe 1959, pl. 143A,13-14; Foltiny 1961,
pl. 1; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, pl. 119,13; Kaus 1984,
pl. 9,m; Kaus 1988/89, pl. 2,5; Metzner-Nebelsick
1994, 398).

172
J. Chochorowski distinguished two variants of bits of
this type in Central Europe (Haslau-Regelsbrunn and
Batina) and stressed their rather early chronological
position among the Thraco-Cimmerian antiquities
(Chochorowski 1993, 49). This remark relates, first
of all to the classical examples (variant HaslauRegelsbrunn) where the stirrups form is underlined
expressively. It should be noted, however, that along
with this variant in the Haslau-Regelsbrunn hoard
there is also a second variant of this bit type that, in
my opinion, testifies to their synchronous functioning during the same chronological period.
Most likely, this type of a bit is a local Central
European version which originated there on the basis
of East European bits with stirrup ends and then,
already in the modified form, came back to the primary centre.
In the south of East Europe are four finds of
a bit with D-shaped ends: Rostov kurgan of 1939,
Kazazovo 3 and Pshish 1 cemeteries in the TransKuban region ( 2003, 88) (pl. 5,1-4). Bits
bars from Kazazovo 3 are decorated by an incised
firlike ornament, which is characteristic of Central
European items from Batina, Haslau-Regelsbrunn
and Stillfried.
3.3. Cheek-pieces
Bronze cheek-pieces of Pre-Scythian time through
the design of their openings or elements of fastening could be divided into three large sections: threeholed, three-looped, and three-muffed cheek-pieces.
Among them different types are distinguished as
well. Some of these will be considered below.
3.3.1. Three-holed cheek-pieces
These cheek-pieces are represented by the ones of
Chernogorovka type. They are made of bronze and
have a bar of round section with three oval holes,
placed in regular intervals on length of the bar, and
small caps on the ends. In Central Europe such objects are known from only a few hoards- Chernotin
(Czech) and Karmin III (Poland) (Seger 1907, fig.
59; Podborsky 1970, pl. 52,2-3) (pl. 6,16-18).
The cheek-pieces of the Chernogorovka type
are rather well represented in the Cimmerian complexes of Black Sea steppes (Biriukovo, Nikolaevka,
Slobodzeja, Chernogorovka), the lower Don area
(Balabinskiy, Novocherkassk), Trans-Kuban region
(Kazazovo 3, Krasnogvardejskoe II, Nikolaevskiy,
Pshish 1), Stavropole (Aleksandrovskoe), Kabardino-Balkariya (Germenchik) and the northern
Ossetia (Koban) (pl. 6,1-15). The majority of these
finds are dated to 9th first half of 8th century BC.

Sergey V. Makhortykh

However, taking into account a complex from Aleksandrovskoe which shows a combination of the classic version of the Novocherkassk bit with the ends
in the shape of double rings and the cheek-pieces of
the Chernogorovka type, it is possible to assume the
existence of single examples also in the second half
of 8th century BC ( 1981, fig. 1,2).
The bronze cheek-pieces from Karmin and
Chernotin belong to the earliest evidence of contact
between the northern Black Sea area and Central Europe. This is confirmed by the archaic character of
these complexes, in which there are objects (sickles,
socketed axes, etc), dated to Ha B2 (Chochorowski
1993; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994).
3.3.2. Three-looped cheek-pieces
These cheek-pieces are represented by several types
in Central Europe (Cskbereny, Posadka, etc), but in
the given article I will dwell only on one of them.
The Maikop type (after J.Chochorowski or
variant cof type after C. Metzner-Nebelsick)
is represented by a single example in the collection of
the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest) (Gallus,
Horvth 1939, pl. XLI,5-6). It is decorated by two
narrow relief bulges and an image of rhombic sign
entered in a circle (pl. 7,3).
The basic area of distribution of the cheekpieces of this type is the eastern Europe, in particular
the northern Caucasus where more than 25 examples
have been found (Kislovodsk, Kochipe, Koban, Fars)
( 1994; 1999) (pl. 7,4.5.8-10). They
belong to a number of archaic three-looped cheekpieces, which preceded the appearance of the classical Novocherkassk type. Attention is drawn to
the essential differences in dating the Hungarian
find by different researchers. So, J. Chochorowski
assigned this cheek-pieces to the period Ha B2 (Chochorowski 1993, 67 fig. 3) whereas C. MetznerNebelsick dated it to the middle - second half of 8th
century BC (Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 424 fig. 18).
In my opinion, of vital importance for resolving its chronology is an ornament in the form of the
Cimmerian solar sign (rhombus entered in a circle) which decorated this item. Such a motif, in an
already developed form, is characteristic of the end
of the Pre-Scythian time the beginning of the Early
Scythian period. It allows to date the given cheekpiece to the second half of 8th - the beginning of 7th
centuries BC.
3.3.3. Three-muffed cheek-pieces
These cheek-pieces represent a special research area
for the study of contact between the Pontic Steppes

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

and Central Europe. Among them can be distinguished several types which I have examined on different occasion ( 2002; 2003).
The cheek-pieces of the Kamyshevakha type
were found in the most ancient East European burials of the Pre-Scythian period dated to the 9th century
BC. In Austria, a find of the Kamyshevakha cheekpiece, the nearest in time to the oldest East European
objects, is known from the Haslau-Regelsbrunn hoard
(Mller-Karpe 1959). This type of cheek-piece had
undergone some morphological changes that continued to occur in Central Europe during the 8th century
BC (Chochorowski 1993; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994).
The Kamyshevakha type of cheek-piece is represented in Central Europe by a considerable amount
of finds (more than 30 examples). The majority of
such objects are found in Austria (Haslau-Regelsbrunn, Hohe Wand, Frg, Parndorf, Stillfried, Stockern) (Mller-Karpe 1959, pl. 143A,15-16; Kaus
1984, pl. 9,i.p; Adler 1985/86, fig. 188.189; Terzan
1990, fig. 50,4.5; Lochner 1991, pl. 94,1), Hungary
(Dinnys, Tolna, Fzesabony, Hungary (Gallus,
Horvth 1939, pl. 1,1; 9,10; 40,1; 45,4), Germany
(Urach-Runder Berg, Steinkirchen) (Holste 1940, 9
fig. 2,10-16) and Serbia (daevci, Rudovci, Mesic
(Vasi 1987, pl. 54,6.7; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994,
443). Similar in forms, but in single finds are known
in Bulgaria (Trojan), Romania (Cipu), Czech
(Ttno), Kroatia (Batina) and Slovakia (Okov)
(Eisner 1933, pl. 40,5; Gallus, Horvth 1939, pl.
41,2; Kytlicov 1991, pl. 55,6.7). It should be also
noted that three or four cheek-pieces probably found
in Hungary (Hallus, Horvth 1939, pl. 1,8; 41,3;
Kossack 1954, 135, fig. 11; Foltiny 1961, pl. 71,2)
(pl. 8,9-20).
The most numerous (more than 20 examples)
and morphologically close to the cheek-pieces of
the Kamyshevakha type is the Dinnys variant after
J.Chochorowski or type VI after C. Metzner-Nebelsick (Chochorowski 1993, 59; Metzner-Nebelsick
1994, 393). They are interpreted as the oldest and
dated to the period Ha B2.
As a later version of the Kamyshevakha type of
cheek-piece should be considered in the finds from
Batina (Croatia) and Hohe Wand (Austria).These are
characterized by the squared design of their openings which is typical for the cheek-pieces of the
Ha C period.
The cheek-pieces of Ttno type, characterized
by the biplane position of central and two farthest to
the ends tubular openings (Adaevci, Steinkirchen,
Ttno) belong to the independent modification of
the Kamyshevakha type of cheek-piece. Such objects
are considered as the younger ones and dated to Ha
B3 (Chochorowski 1993, 67 fig. 3). It is not im-

173

probable that part of the Kamyshevakha cheek-pieces

from Central Europe are imports, however, some
their versions (the cheek-pieces with decorated caps,
the Ttno type, etc.) must be interpreted as local
imitations.
3.3.4. Combined tubular-looped cheek-pieces
Among these is the Szanda type of cheek-piece (after
J. Chochorowski and type X after C. Metzner-Nebelsick) which is represented by bronze barlike cheekpieces with a bent end (pl. 7,11-14). Their endings are
decorated with semicircular or flat cups. Strap holes
facing in different directions were made in the form
of two round loops and one tubular opening. Such
cheek pieces are distributed on the Great Hungarian
Plain and the southern foothills of Carpathians. They
have been found in hoards (Biharugra, Szanda) and
burials (Gura-Padinii, Dalj) (Gallus, Horvth 1939,
pl. 10,14-15; 12,3; 37,4-5) Archaeologists attribute
this type of cheek-piece to a syncretic form developed in Central Europe as a result of meeting the
local three tubular cheek-pieces with eastern three
loop ones ( 1953; Chochorowski 1993, 71;
Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 395).
3.4. Cylindrical pendants
Interesting adornments represented by the cylindrical-blade pendants were found in two Pre-Scythians burials in Hungary: Czeged-thalom and Sirok
(Reizner 1904; Patek 1989-1990) (pl. 9,8-10). The
nearest parallels to them are known in steppe Cimmerian burials from the Lower Don (Balabinskiy
1, kurgan 10, grave 13; Novonikolaevka , kurgan
2, grave 7) and the Volga region (Mirnoe, kurgan
A1), as well as from the so-called Proto-Maeotic
monuments in Trans-Kuban area, some of them
have developed under influence of steppe traditions
of the North Black Sea area (Nikolaevskoe, Pshish I, Psekups) ( 1961; 1994;
1995; / 1996) (pl. 9,15). A single bronze pendant of this type in the Koban
culture is known from the Verkhniy Akbash cemetery (Kabardino-Balkariya) (pl. 9,6).
V. Kozenkova has attributed these pendants to the
Michalkov type ( 1990), whereas C.
Metzner-Nebelsick attributed them to the arengrad
type (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996). However, in my
opinion, the unification of the above mentioned
finds within the frame of these types (Michalkov
or arengrad) is not correct. Ornaments from the
Michalkov hoard from the Ternopol Oblast, relate to
the beads or fittings (Hadaczek 1904) (pl. 9,7). They
are made in the form of solid cylinders with bent

174
and flattened ends. They differed from the discussed
cylindrical-blade pendants which were usually used
as hair ornaments or ear-rings (Metzner-Nebelsick,
Chochorowski). It is necessary to note, that these
pendants can be divided into two groups.
The first group includes practically all the
East European objects and Hungarian pendants from
Szeged-thalom and Sirok (pl. 9,1-10). They are
constructed of two flat cylinders with one bent edge.
From the top both cylinders are connected with each
other by a loop. The second group is represented by
the pendants from the arengrad hoard and collective
tomb 2 on the Gomolava settlement (pl. 9,11-17).
They consist of one large cylinder with two bent edges. Furthermore, the edges of cylinder are connected
horizontally by a lug or a wire, and their external
surface is decorated in distinctive technique. These
examples are made from bronze (Vinski-Gasparini
1973, tab. 131,2-8). Virtually all the pendants of the
first group from the eastern Europe are dated to 9th
8th centuries BC ( 2003, 53). A similar
pendant from Hungary (Szeged - thalom), probably, marks a route of penetration of such adornments
in the west and further to the south, in the southeast Pannonia and to northern Balkans. The pendants of the second type revealed there (Gomolava,
arengrad) differ by their originality and, probably,
represent later derivatives. It is also evidenced from
their dating within the 8th century BC (Tasi 1972,
30 ff.; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 163 f., 210, 220;
Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 410, 420).

Conclusion
Cimmerian imports and imitations, spreading into
Central Europe in the Pre-Scythian epoch were a result of variety of factors connected with an appearance
of nomads on the historical arena and their impact
on settled agricultural communities. Trade contacts
and prestige goods exchange, eastern invasion and

Sergey V. Makhortykh

the adoption of separate elements of Cimmerian Culture resulting in appearance of the syncretic artifacts
manufactured by the local craftsmen are reflected
in a number of models of cultural contact between
the Cimmerians and Central European population
( 2003). They show the several stages in
a process of culture transfer and perception of its
elements, distinguished by R. Linton (Linton 1940).
Owing to exchange, trade, migration, and military
collisions, there was the initial adaptation to the new
kinds of horse equipment and Cimmerian weaponry
among the local inhabitants of Central Europe (the
first stage). Initial borrowing, besides the technical
preferences, occurred, probably, in expectation of
receiving advantages from the possession of new artifacts. Imports themselves often had high prestigious
value, and the growth of prestige was accompanied
by advantages in the field of the social status and political influence. The elite adopted new cultural elements, hoping to strengthen their social position and
for the improvement of warfare. As a result nomadic
weapons and horse gear were distributed in Central
European communities, where under the Cimmerian
influence there appeared a new social layer represented by the mounted warriors (the second stage).
In turn, its formation caused the distribution of new
ritual and social forms of behaviour that was possible
only as a result of direct contacts and long mutual
relations with Cimmerians, in contrast to the objects
of material culture which spread faster and did not
require direct contact (Linton, 1940). In due course,
the borrowed artifacts of Cimmerian origin were
modified by the local Central European populations
who developed their own versions of bits, cheekpieces and daggers and definitively integrated them
into their cultural system (the third stage). Thus the
examination of the relations between the two areas
has exceeded the limits of a purely archaeological
problem and also brought forward the necessity of
finding asolution of important questions connected
with the history of society and its social sphere.

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

References
Adler 1985/86
H. Adler, Urnenfelderzeit. Burgenland, Parndorf. Fundber. sterreich 24/25, 1985/86, 237.
1961
. . , .
, In: . . (ed.),
( 1961) 103
126.
Balkwill 1973
C. J. Balkwill, The earliest horse-bits of western Europe.
Proc. Prehist. Society 39, 1973, 425452.
1958
. ,
, ( 1958).
et al. 1987
. . /. . /. .

- ( 1987).
et al. 1980
. . /. . /. . ,
- In: . .
(ed.) ( 1980) 184199.
Chochorowski 1993.
J. Chochorowski, Ekspansja kimmeryjska na tereny Europy Srodkowej (Krakow 1993).
1997
. . ,
-
. 6, 1997, 364.
/ 1996
. . /. . ,
. In: . .
(ed.), -
( 1996) 102109.
1999
. . ,
-
( 1999).
Eisner 1933
J. Eisner, Slovensko v pravku (Bratislava 1933).
1953
. . , VIII-VII . ..
,
18, 1953, 49110.
Foltiny 1961
S. Foltiny, ber die Fundstelle und Bedeutung der angeblich aus Kiskoszeg stammenden hallstattzeitlichen
Bronzen des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in
Mainz. Jahrb. RGZM 8, 1961, 175189.

175

Frey 1905
J. Frey, A kiskzegi bronzlelet. Arch. Ertesit XXV, 1905,
189191.
Gallus/Horvath 1939
S. Gallus/T. Horvth, Un peuple cavalier prscythique en
Hongrie (Budapest 1939).
Hadaczek 1904
K. Hadaczek, Zote skarby Michaikowskie (Krakw
1904).
Holste 1940
F. Holste Zur Bedeutung und Zeitstellung der sogenannten
thrako-kimmerischen Pferdegeschirrbronzen. Wiener
Prhist. Zeitschr. 27, 1940, 732.
Httel 1981
H.-G. Httel, Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. PBF XVI/2 (Mnchen 1981).
Kaus 1984
M. Kaus, Das Grberfeld der jngeren Urnenfelderzeit
von Stillfried an der March. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen
1975-1977. Forsch. Stillfried 6 (Wien 1984).
Kaus 1988/1989
M. Kaus, Kimmerischer Pferdeschmuck im Karpatenbecken. Das Stillfried Depot aus neuer Sicht. Mitt. Anthr. Ges.
Wien 118/119, 1988-1989, 247257.
Kemenczei 1984
T. A. Kemenczei, Die Sptbronzezeit Nordostungarns (Budapest 1984).
1990
. . , :
, , ,
3, 1990, 6492.
Kossack 1954
G. Kossack, Pferdegeschirr aus Grbern der lteren Hallstattzeit Bayerns. Jahrb. RGZM 1, 1954, 111178.
Kossack 1998
G. Kossack, Horse and wagon during the Early Iron Age
in Central Europe -Technical considerations, nature of
evidence and conceptual content. In: B. Hnsel/A. Harding (eds.), Towards translating the past (Rahden 1998)
97106.
Kristiansen 1998
K. Kristiansen, Europe before history (Cambridge 1998).
Kytlicov 1991
O. Kytlicov, Die Bronzegefe in Bhmen. PBF II/12
(Stuttgart 1991).
1985
. . , . In: . .
(ed.), (
1985) 1664.

176
1991
. . , . In:
.. (ed.), . ( 1991)
76102.
Linton 1940
R. Linton, Acculturation in Seven American Indian tribes
(New York 1940).
Lochner 1991.
M. Lochner, Studien zur Urnenfelderkultur im Waldviertel
- Niedersterreich (Wien 1991).
Mrton 1905
L. Mrton, Scytha aranylelet gyomai halomsrbl. Arch.
Ertesit XXV, 1905, 234240.
Maraz 1978
B. Maraz, Zur Frhhallstattzeit in Sd-Pannonien. Janus
Pannonius Muzeum Evkonyve 23, 1978, 145164.
Maraz 1996
B. Maraz, Pecs-Jakabhegy. Ausgrabungsergebnisse und die
Fragen der Frhhallstattkultur in Sdostpannonien. In: E.
Jerem/A. Lippert (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur (Budapest
1996) 255265.
Marton 1934
L. Marton, Der Verwandtenkreis des Parierstangendolches
von Klein Neudorf, Kr. Grlitz. Altschlesien 5, 1934,
209214.
1992
C. . , .
1, 1992, 2331.
1993
. . ,
. In: . .
(ed.),
( 1993) 4151.
1994
. . ,
( 1994).
1996
. . , - . ..
. 4, 1996, 924.
2002
. . , .
In: . . /. . (eds.),

(- 2002) 9092.
2003
. . ,

( 2003).

Sergey V. Makhortykh

Metzner-Nebelsick 1994
C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Die frheisenzeitliche Trensenentwicklung zwischen Kaukasus und Mitteleuropa. In: P.
Schauer (ed.), Archologische Untersuchungen zum bergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und
Kaukasus. Regensburger Beitr. Prhist. Arch. 1 (Bonn
1994) 383446.
Metzner-Nebelsick 1996
C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Die Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit
in Sdostpannonien. Eine Region im Spannungfeld
zwischen Osthallstattkreis, karpatenlndisch-balkanischer
Eisenzeit und Steppenkultur. In: E. Jerem/A. Lippert
(eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur (Budapest 1996) 283314.
Mller-Karpe 1959
H. Mller-Karpe, Beitrge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nrdlich und sdlich der Alpen (Berlin 1959).
Neviznsky 1985
G. Neviznsky, Bronzov depot tzv. trcko-kimmerskeho horizontu zo Santovky. Arch. Rozhledy 37, 1985,
601606.
Pare 1991
C. Pare, Swords, wagon-graves, and the beginning of the
early iron age in Central Europe. Kl. Schr. Vorgesch. Seminar Marburg (Marburg 1991).
Patek 1974
E. Patek, Prskythische Grberfelder in Ostungarn. In: B.
Chropovsky (ed.), Symposium zu Problemen der jngeren
Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa (Bratislava 1974) 337362
Patek 1989/1990
E. Patek, A Szab Jns Gyz ltal feltrt preskta
sranyag. Egri Mzeum vknzve 25/26, 1989/1990,
61118.
Patek 1993
E. Patek, Westungarn in der Hallstattzeit (Weinheim
1993).
1981
. . , 8-7 . .. .

170, 1981, 7073.
Pftzenreiter 1936
F. Pftzenreiter, Oberschlesische Bronzeschwerter. Altschlesien 6, 1936, 7584.
Podborsk 1967
V. Podborsk, trambersk dka s kznovm jilcem a
otzka rozeni, puvodu a datovn tchto dk v Evrop.
Arh. Rozhledy XIX, 1967, 194220.
Podborsk 1970
V. Podborsk, Mhren in der Sptbronzezeit und an der
Schwelle der Eisenzeit (Brno 1970).

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

Podkowiska 1932/1933
Z. Podkowiska, Miecze bronzowe z Wojciechowic w
pow. Jdrzejowskim w woj. Kieleckim. Swiatowit XV,
1932/1933, 116168.
Reizner 1904
J. Reizner, Lebi, thalomi s obbai satsok. Arch. Ertesit 24, 1904, 7688.
Romsauer 1999
P. Romsauer, Zur Frage der Westgrenze der MezocsatGruppe. In: E. Jerem/I. Poroszlai (eds.), Archaeology of
the Bronze and Iron Age (Budapest 1999) 167176.
1961
. . ,
. 1,
1961, 215.
1995
.
.
,

-1. In: . . (ed.),

( 1995) 84107.
Seger 1907
H. Seger, Depotfunde aus der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit.
Schlesiens Vorzeit Bild u. Schr. IV, 1907, 943.
/ 1997
. . /. . ,
-

,
. In: . /. (eds.),
( 1997)
151170.
Strohscheider/Vahlkampf 1980
M. Strohscheider/G. Vahlkampf, Das spturnenfelderzeitliche Grberfeld von Stillfried. Verff. sterreich. Arbeitsgem. Ur- u. Frhgesch. XIII/XIV, 1980, 143145.

177

Tasi 1972
N. Tasi, An Early Iron Age collective tomb at Gomolava.
Arch. Iugoslavica XIII, 1972, 2737.
Teran 1990
B. Teran, Stareja elezna doba na Slovenskem tajerskem.
Katalogi in monografije 25 (Ljubljana 1990).
Trk 1950
Gy. Trk, Pecs-Jakabhegyi foldvar es tumulusok. Archa.
Ertesit 7, 1950, 49.
/ 1984
. . /. . , . In: .
. (ed.), -
( 1984) 3548.
Vasi 1987
R. Vasic, The chronology of the Early Iron Age in the
socialist republic of Serbia. BAR Suppl. Ser. 31 (Oxford
1987).
Vinski-Gasparini 1973
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura polja sa zarama u severvnoj
Hrvatskoj (Zadar 1973).
Vulpe 1990
A. Vulpe, Die Kurzschwerter, Dolche und Streitmesser der
Hallstattzeit in Rumanien. PBF VI/9 (Mnchen 1990).
1986
. , VI-XI . In: . /
. (eds.), ( 1986)
310346.
1994
. . ,
( 1994).

Sergey V. Makhortykh

178

Pl. 1.

Cimmerian burial from Slobodzeya (middle Dniester)

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

Pl. 2.

Cimmerian burial from Biriukovo (eastern Ukraine)

179

Sergey V. Makhortykh

180

Pl. 3.

Daggers and short swords of Cimmerian type and bronze fittings for sheaths
from Central Europe: 1. Szny; 2. Pcs-Jakabhegy; 3. Pnade; 4. Klein Neudorf;
5. Gamw; 6. Leibnitz; 7. Kakasd; 8,9. Biharugra; 10. Stillfried; 11. Mtra; 12,13.
Dunakmld

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

Pl. 4.

Bronze bits with single end-rings from Central and eastern Europe: 1. Seeboden; 2.
Slobodzeya; 3. Kochipe; 4. Sergeevka; 5. Pcs-Jakabhegy; 6. Veti; 7. Frg; 8. Still
fried; 9. Santovka; 10. Balabinskiy; 11. Steinkirchen; 12. Koban

181

Sergey V. Makhortykh

182

Pl. 5.

Bronze bits with the ends in the form of a reverse stirrup from Central and eastern
Europe: 1. Kazazovo 3; 2,3. Pshish 1; 4. Rostov; 5. Sakharna; 6. Batina; 7,8,12.
Stillfried; 9. Cipu; 10,11. Haslau-Regelsbrunn

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

Pl. 6.

Three-holed cheek-pieces from eastern and Central Europe: 1-7. Pshish 1; 8,10. Kazazovo
3; 9. Aleksandrovskoe; 11. Nikolaevskoe; 12. Balabinskiy; 13. Gurov; 14. Moschanets; 15.
Slobodzeya; 16,17. Chernotin; 18. Karmin III

183

Sergey V. Makhortykh

184

Pl. 7.

Bronze cheek-pieces: three-looped: 1. Gyula; 2. Tereze; 3. Hungary; 4. Koban; 5.

Khanskaya; 6,7. Purkary; 8-10. Fars; tubular-looped: 11. Biharugra; 12. Szanda;
13. Dalj; 14. Gura Padinii

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

Pl. 8.

Bronze cheek-pieces of Kamyshevakha type from eastern and Central Europe: 1. Ilinskaya; 2. Pshish 1; 3-5. Kazazovo 3; 6. Kamyshevakha; 7,8. Serzhen-Yurt; 9. Parndorf;
10. Okov; 11. Ismeretlen; 12. Dinnys; 13. Steinkirchen; 14. Tolna; 15. Ttno; 16. Haslau-Regelsbrunn; 17. Stillfried; 18. Frg; 19. Adaevci; 20. Urach-Runder Berg

185

Sergey V. Makhortykh

186

Pl. 9.

Gold and bronze adornments: 1. Nikolaevskoe, grave 5; 2. Pshish 1, grave 3; 3. Mirnoe,

kurgan A1; 4. Balabinskiy, kurgan 10, grave 13; 5. Novonikolaevka II, kurgan 2, grave 7;
6. Verkhniy Akbash; 7. Michalkov; 8. Sirok, grave 8; 9,10. Czeged-thalom; 11. Gomolava,
grave 2; 12-17. arengrad