ATA GFDL He TOS A Fibula from Hasanlu OSCAR WHITE MUSCARELLA During the 1962 campaign at Hasanlu in north- western Iran, jointly sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania and The Metropolitan Museum of Ant, a bronze fibula was found in a pit belonging to the Period III occupation of the mound. Part of the are was found loose in the fill and another frag- ment was recovered from some earth which was packed firmly in the bottom of a typical Period IIL bowl, found in the same pit (pl. 57, fig. 1). Both pieces joined together to form a complete arc (pl. 57, fig. 2). The fibula is the only one found at Ha- ‘sanlu to date (1963) and is one of the few non- ceramic objects found in the remains of the Period Ml city. ‘The arc of the fibula is U-shaped (HI. 3.5 cm, W. 4 cm.) and has a noticeable swelling at the center; the catch is small and plain and was cast with the arc. The pin, most of which is missing, consisted of a bronze wire. One end of the pin was wound around one arm of the arc forming a hinge; remains of its coil may still be seen. No spring was employed to create tension, Fibulae are unknown in Mesopotamia or Tran before the late eighth century 2.c.; they became very popular in the seventh century? They were pro- duced in this part of the Near East after an earlier development further west in Cyprus, Palestine, and Bowl Has, 62321. D. a6.0cmsy H. 9.6cmt D. base 7.5 cms buff ware with red matt lips burnished. For a pre- liminary note on the 1962 season see R, H. Dyson, “Hasanlu Discoveries, 1963," Archaeology 16:2 (1963) x31. 2D, Stronach, “The Development of the Fibula in the Near East" Iraq 21:2 (1959) 181, 185, 193. Relatively few sites in Iran have produced fulae but this scarcity may be due to the Timited number of Sth and 7th century sites excavated; Rbulae are t0 be seen in dealers shops in Tehran in some number. ‘To Stronach’ lst of published fibulae from Iran add A. Stein, Old Routes of Western tran (London 1949) 207, and pl ty, f, type IIL 9, from Tela; T. J. Are, “Luristan and the West," ES4 9 (1934) 277, type TV, 9, from Luristan; Stronach’s ‘entry on p. 203, pe IV, 3 from “Sasa should read Lristan, 3G. Blinkenberg, Fbuler grecquer et orentaler (Copenhagen 1926) (hereafter Filules) 205. Most of the Goo-odd fbulae found during the recent excavations at Gordion by the Uni- verity Museum are alto of the two-piece type. A. major excep- tion isthe type discused in a, 22. There is no basic elation ship in typology between the Phrygian and Near Eastern fbulae although both share some are moldings in common, and the PPhrygians may have learned of the separate pin technique fora PLATES 57-58 Syria. The fbulae generally in use in Iran were the same types as those used in Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia, with semicircular, arched, or triangu- lar-shaped arcs. All of these fibula made use of a spring, formed by twisting one end of the pin, and in most cases, if not all, the pin was made separate- ly and inserted into a socket at the arc’s end. This is a characteristic also shared by most Phrygian fibulac? Perhaps one of the earliest fibulae presently known in Iran is an example from Luristan, which is very similar to eighth-century specimens from Ha- ma and al Mina and seems to be an import from the east Another Luristan fibula has a split arc decorated with nipples or studs. Te is unique and apparently was manufactured locally. Although it cannot be easily dated, it probably is not earlier than the late eighth or early seventh century and may be later. It too makes use of a spring.’ In addition to the Near Eastern types of fibula employed in Iran, a hinged type occurs in the Southwest Caspian, Luristan and at Ziwiye in Kur- distan (pl. 58, fig. 3). It apparently occurs in some quantity at the latter site and usually in silver, al- though several in gold are reported.® ‘The arc has a flat bow-shape, with small ribbed moldings at the ends. The pin is looped once around one end of the arc and is then secured by being twisted several (Cyprus or Syria where tems to appear eave than in Phrygia hulae from Phrygia and Syria Mesopotamia were inspired by Cypriot and Aegean fibula type. ‘Sritan: Arae opti. (pra n- 2) 278, ig. 1; Stronach, copie. (aupra n. 2) 192. Hamas J. Ri Ler cimetbrer § ‘rémation (Copenhagen 1948) 133, 88-170. Al Minaz C. T Woolley, “Excavations st al Mina, Soeids,” JHS s8:r (3948) 238, fig. 17 1 ame, opie. (apes m. a) ay8, fg. 3 a. 4G. Comenas, R Ghinhman, Vilege perreachéménide (Paris 1954) 39, ple xix, 5, from Lorian; R. Ghinhman, “Le tue de Salkes” dribus Avge 13:3 (2950) 197, i. 25 et; C.K. Wilkinon, “More Deaile_on Ziwive,” Iraq 22 (96a) argf, pl. axe, 4 (our pl 58, fg- 3). If there is ob- jestion tothe atibution of the Sbulae to Lusitan and Ziviye fone may at least think of « western Iranian provenience. For ction relating to objcts atibuted to Luritan and Zimiye fee A. Godard, Le trésor de Ziwiye (Haatlem 1950) 135 128; “Apropos du ewéior de Ziwiye" Arbus Asce 14:4 (1951) 240. and asim; C.-K. Wilkinon, “Treasure from the Mane ean Land,” BMMA (Apr. 1965) 282 2.33234 times around the pin itself. A gold example from Ziwiye with two lions on the arc is unique but has the same looped pin? Recently an interesting hinged fibula was brought to the Near Eastern Section of the Uni versity Museum at the University of Pennsylvania (pl. 57, fig. 4). It had been purchased from a dealer in Tehran along with other bronzes, none of which were reported found with the fibula* The fibula hhas a flat disc-shaped arc which is decorated with repoussé dots. In the center of the disc is a rosette with a large central dot surrounded by smaller ones and eight petals, four plain ovals alternating with four ovals composed of four vertically contiguous dots; around the edge of the disc runs a row of small raised dots. The catch is plain and the pin is attached to the arc in the same manner as noted on the Ziwiye and Luristan fibulae, except that on the Tehran fibula the pin is looped twice around the arc. Other fibulae of this type are reported from the Southwest Caspian area, from the village of Tom- adjan. Unfortunately they were inadequately pub- lished so it is not possible to know all the objects which were found with them. A few of the ob- jects seem to suggest a date in the early 1st millen- nium a.c., a date I would generally consider carly for these fibulae. Disc-shaped arcs also occur on fibu- ae in Greece, Italy, and Europe but none are simi- ¥ trag a2 (1960) 220, pl. xx, 3, 8 Bought by Profesor H. Blodget, Department of English of the University of Pennsylvania. I” wish to thank Profesor Blodgett for permission to publish hie fibuls. D. of the are 33am, H. 15 am, SH. Samadi, Les découverte fortniter Klordasht, Garma- bak, Emam et Tomadjan, Bank Melli Iran (1959) 32, fig. 30 Apparently the fibulae are from Tomb 14 (p. 42) which also ‘contained the sword illusuated on p. 38, fig: 36. Note that the description of the fbulae does not agree with the fibulae itlutrated in fig. 30 and we may wonder whether the later are from Tomb 14! 4. Sundwall, Die alteren italizchen Fibela (Berlin 1943) (hereaiter Fibeln) 426, fig. 2245 130, fg. 1745 132) 7th-Gth century w.c. G. Schwantes, “Die Griber der itesten Eisenzet im éstlichen Hannover,” PZ 1 (1909) 4s figs. 25-255 Fibules 193f, type IX, 2, figs. 214-216; note ako the fat rectangular aes from Moussi Yeri in J. de Morgan, La préhistore orientale, IL (Paris 1927) 294, fig. 291, 5 and 6. 3B, L. B, Terrace, “Some Recent Finds from Northwest Persia,” Syria 39 (1962) 21off. For similar repowsé decoration con heads of northern Caucasian pins see F. Hancar, “Die Nadel- formen der Kaukasuspebietes," ESA 7 (1932) 359M, figs 23, 24, 28, 29; W. J. Dolbeschew, “Ausgrabungen aut der Graber- feldern von Kumbulta in Digonen (Kaukasus),” MAG 31 (1801) 67, fig. 96. 11K, Bitte, “Vorliufiger Bericht dber die Ausgrabungen in Bojazkdy 1939," MDOG 78 (1948) 48. Two hinged fbulac OSCAR WHITE MUSCARELLA [ATA 69 lar enough to suggest a direct relationship.” Orna- mental discs decorated with punched decorations similar to that on the Tehran and Tomadjan fibulae are known from Iran, Asia Minor, and the Cauca- sus.” They range in date from the late 3rd to the carly xst millennium ne. Perhaps the Tehran and Tomadjan fibulae are to be dated to a period before 800 or 850 2.c. but the evidence is by no means clear at the present time. It would seem to me that the nature of the hinge and its attachment to the are sug- gest that these fibulae are related typologically, and thus pethaps also chronologically, to the Luristan and Ziwiye fibulae (infra). At least three other areas in this part of the an- cient world used hinged fibulae: the northern and southern Caucasus, and Urartu. Some have been reported from Bojazkéy as coming from the upper layers on Biiyiikkale, but neither photographs nor any account of the quantity found have yet been published." Presumably, however, since the domi- nant fibula group at Bogazkéy was Phrygian these hinged types are imports from further east? Hinged fibulae from the northern Caucasian sites of Kamunta, Kumbulta, Ruthka, and Alagir, have crescent-shaped ares latin the vertical plane, or flat semicircular arcs (pl. 58, fig. 5):* Those from the southern Caucasus occur mainly in the Lelvar region, at Cheithan Dagh, Akthala, and Moussi Yeri, and in Georgia."* These fibulae are of two from Bogazkiy were seen by me in the Ankara Museum. They have semi-circular fat ares which are decorated with incised linear tines, similar to those feom Karmir Blur and Lelvar dise cused in the text ina 32 For Phrygian fibulae at Bogazkby see: K. Bittl, “Vorliufc age Bericht uber die drite Grabung in Bogazkiy,” MDOG 73 (2933) 3st MDOG 78 (1948) 48; with H. Guterbock, Bogen ey I (Berlin 1935) 254, 53; only Asia Minor (Phrygian) fibulae were reported at Bogzzkiy, but recent excavations have produced at least one fibula of type common on Cyprus ‘This fibula was seen by me in the Ankara Museum, no. 554/93, it is exactly like Fibuler 241, fig. 284. B. Chantse, Recherches’ anthropolosiques dans le Cau- case It (Pars-Lyons 1887) 9sff, pl. xv, 16, x¥1 1, 35 A Kale itinski, “Contribution 4 histoire de la fibule en Cavcas Recueil Kondakow (Prague 1926) (Rassian with brief French résumé) pl. vin, 26-30, our pl. 58, fg. i pl vith no. 27 is not clearly illustrated, 86], de Morgan, Mission ieniique au Caucaie (Paris 1880) 46f, 57, 66, xx6f, 117, figs. 86895 PF. Hlanear, “Kaukasus- Luritan,” B54 9 (1934) 74. One was found in the cemetery of Dvan in Georgia, B. B. Piotrowski, Kermir Blur I (Eriva 1950) 425 S. I. Makalatya, “Raskopki Dvanskogo mogil “aka,” Sovdrk 1% (1949) 226, 2298, figs. 1, 75 on p. 236 Makalatya mentions other fibulae of the same type from Santa, Georgia. 1 owe these Dyan cemetery references to the kindness of R. D. Barnet1965] types: those with semicircular flat arcs ornamented with geometric decorations, and those with solid semicircular arcs with tapering ends (pl. 58, fig. 6). Hinged fibulae were employed more extensively in the southern Caucasus than in the north, where it seems only a small quantity has been excavated. Fibulae which made use of a spring were also em- ployed on both sides of the Caucasus, but were ap- parently much more common in the north, espe- cially in the Koban region. In the southern Cau- casus the Lelvar and Trialeti regions, and the sites of Samthavro and Gori have yielded spring fibu- Jae" In all of these published examples where there is.a spring, the pin was cast with the arc. In section the arcs are usually solid and round, twisted or faceted. Some scalloped ares occur but it seems that the flat arc specimens were made only with hinges.” In certain areas of the Urartian kingdom hinged fibulae were used. At present only two sites in Urartu have produced fibulae: Karmir Blur and ‘Toprakkale.** Many have been found at Karmir Blur; only two are known from Toprakkale. Three basic are types are represented at Karmir Blur: a plain thick are with tapering ends (Karmir Blur I, fig. 18, right); a thick arc with central swelling (ibid. fig. 18, left); a semicircular flat arc with in- cised geometric decoration (ibid. fig. 18, center). OF the two from Toprakkale, one is like the first type at Karmir Blur, the other like the second. ‘The distribution of the varieties of hinged fibulae may be summarized as follows: 1) thick are with central swelling: Karmir Blur, Toprakkale, Hasan- lu; 2) thick ate with tapering ends: Karmir Blur, 25 La préhisore orientale 318, fig. 3243 Re Vichow, Dar Grierfeld von Koban (Beilin 1883) 2afh fiz 9, pls ty 24, 115M, 3S: 35 BW, 34s Vy 3-45 MU, 10T Xl 3-48. Schafer, Swatigraphie comparée (Oxford 1948). 537, Bg- 301, 1h, 13) 23; Ey Chante, Recherches I (ParisLyons 1886) 248, 668, pb. xxsaxi: Orignes et ancicnneté du premier ge da fer at Cenese (Lyons 1892) M, fig 93 A. Me Tallgren, “Caucaan Monuments.” BSA 5 (2930) 120M, 1516, 212, nos. Sor15 Kal fini pet (upea n. 13) pl ve Wt (our pl. 38 fits 7, 8) vm, nos. 31-345 Fidel 22 iz. 133, b, ye: "KaukasosLrise tan,” $5, 98; Dolberchew, op.ait (supra a. 10) 61 Same of these references reproduce the same example. 39B. A. Kuftin, Arehaclogicl Excavations in Traeti 1 (bits 1543) 52, Bg. 50,3, pl xan, 70, Fi. 743 Satigraphie comparde fig. 275, 5, fig. 277, Tombs 502, 600, Sg. 296, 1, fg. 295, si La préhizove orientale 94, fi. 291,13 Chante, Recherces Ml, x47, fig. 118, 149; F- Bayern, "Untersuchun ‘en ther tie altaten Griber und’ Schatafunde in Kavkaien ZEE-17 (885) Supplement, pl. x, 1 (cen 353) 2 Vinchow, opt. (supra a. 13) pl. hy 2 shows a spring fibula with an arc fat in the vertical plane. Virchow, 24, statee A FIBULA FROM HASANLU 235 ‘Toprakkale, Lelvar region; 3) flat semicircular arc with geometric decoration: Karmir Blur, Lelvar re- gion, Georgia, northern Caucasus; 4) flat_bow- shaped arc with incised decoration: Ziwiye, Luris- tan; 5) disc-shaped are with repoussé dot decora- tion: Southwest Caspian; 6) crescent-shaped arc, vertically flat: northern Caucasus. ‘Thus the Hasanlu fibula of type x is clearly re- lated to fibulae from two Urartian sites. The types listed under 2 and 3 were common to both Urartu and the southern Caucasus—a point to which we shall return shortly. ‘The fibulae from Luristan and Ziwiye (type 4) obviously were inspired by the types used in the southern Caucasus and Urartu, although they were probably manufactured in western Iran. ‘This conclusion is supported by the fact that the shape of the arc does not exactly parallel those from the north, and the catch in the form of a human hand reveals the influence of the type of fibula commonly used in Iran and areas to the west. Furthermore, the hand-shaped catch does not occur north of Iran and thus rules out the possibilty that the Luristan and Ziwiye specimens were imports from the Cau- casus.” This conclusion holds true also for the ‘Metropolitan Museum gold fibula from Ziwiye and for the Tehran disc fibula (type 5). ‘The crescent-shaped fibulae (type 6) from the northern Caucasus immediately suggest Greek Boe- otian or Ttalian-European influence.®* Recently, however, it has been demonstrated by excavations at Gordion that the Phrygians also made fibula shapes of this type? These latter apparently re- this was the only one of it type found. 38 Karmir Blur I, 41, fig. 283 Karmir Blur T (Bsivan 1952) fig. 18} RD. Barnett, W, Watson, “Russian Excavations in Armenia," tg 14 (1952) 142 and a. 2. The two from To- prakkale’ are ia the Ankara Museum. Bay Raci Temizer in- forme me by Teter that Dr. Y. Boysal wil publish them (see pote 252). WGhieshman in Avtibus Asiae 13: 3 (1950) 107 5099 this bur gives no reasons for his eoncasion. 2Chantee, Rechercher Il, pl. xv, 4 shows a fbula from the northern Cauctus in the form of a "bargue” with one ace fend terminating ina hand. The plate notes state that the hhand holds the spring and is not the catch, One should con- sider this fibula as exhibiting an influence feom Tran ot the Mesopotamian area and not vice vera SUR, Hampe, Frihe priechitche Sagenbilder in Bootien (Asens 1936) pls 1-55 Fbwler 385th; Fibeln 17, 324, fg. 17 6, 351 37 fig. 20, 1064, Bigs. 124, 125, 130 4 Fibules 186, fg. 200, 18,1 and bare Phrygian, not Boco- tian; Gand A. Keer, “Gordion, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900," Fanfter Ergdneungsheft,Idl (1904), 78, fi236 flect a Bocotian influence and are probably con- temporary. In both the Phrygian and Boeotian types, the pin was cast in one piece with the arc. ‘The Caucasian specimens could of course be a re- sult of some knowledge of either the Greek, the Italian-European, or the Phrygian fibulae, but the geometric decoration on the arcs and the use of a separate pin make it nearly certain that the Phrygi- an fibulae played no role here. It is significant that up to the present time no fibulae have been reported from any Urartian city except for the hinged examples at Karmir Blur and Toprakkale, whereas many were found to the north- cast in the Caucasus. This distribution suggests that fibulae were not generally employed by Urartians but were in common use among the peoples of the Caucasus. Moreover, when it is recalled that Kar- mir Blur is actually in the Transcaucasus arca and was apparently an Urartian outpost there, close to the Lelvar region, then the reason for the quan- tity of fibulae at Karmir Blur becomes clear. The excavator maintains that the population of Karmir Blur was composed of local peoples as well as trans- planted peoples from other lands, and surely one can accept the fact that some of the inhabitants were Transcaucasians:* The excavator also sug- gests that the thick arc fibulae found at Karmir Blur represent local Transcaucasian types, whereas the flat arc types are of Urartian manufacture?* Yet flat arc fibulac, as we have noted, are common to the Lelvar and Georgian regions. It seems quite possible that both the flat and the semicircular thick are fibulae found at Karmir Blur belong to the 4 103, fig. 80. Approximately 36 more have since been found at Gordian, 30 of which are from the late Sth century, the others from the 7th century. One is published in J 66:2 (1962) pl. 48, fig. 33. For another Phrygian example see ako CHE, Haspels, La cité de Midas, Phrygia MM (Paris 1951) Pleat, a0. 5. SHB B, Piotrowki, Ourarow, L’Orient ancien ilurtré (Paris 4954) a8, 38. For Uratian interest in the Tranicaucaus sce the map showing the provenience of Uratizn insriptions in A. Goetze, Kleinaien (Munich 1057) 188; F. Hancar, “Aus er Problematik Urartus," 40 x71" (3949) 298-3093 "Kauka- surLaritan” 48 36 Ourartow 38. 8 Bamett, Watson, loecit. (supea a. 18); Karmir Blur 1, 2 ‘S50 RD. Barnet’ valuable artle, “The Urarian Cemetery at Idyt." AnatSt 13 (1963) 1534, reached me too late to in Corporate into this study. He published two fibulae (205, fg 42) feom Nor-Aresh, which, as Darnete says ace similar to cer- {ain Greek ypes (Fibules, Group IV, 87f); the mejority of these types come from the islands. The Nor-Aresh fibulae have arcs which join the high eatch pater at the center, not at the telze, which seems characteristic of the Greek examples, More: OSCAR WHITE MUSCARELLA [ATA 69 local Transcaucasian population and to those Urar- tians who wore a local dress. They thus represent ‘Transcaucasian influences at Karmir Blur which, as may be seen from the published evidence, was by no means small. The fibulae from Toprakkale, then, may be tentatively considered as imports from the Transcaucasus or from Karmir Blur. Only fu- ture excavations at other Urartian sites and graves will demonstrate to what extent Urartians used fibulae and thereby resolve the problem.*** ‘The single fibula type represented at Karmir Blur which appears to be unparalleled in the Cau- casus is the one with the thick and central swelling. It may very well be that this particular type was ‘made locally at Karmir Blur. If this be so, we may conclude that the Hasanlu specimen is a direct im- port from Karmir Blur.** Whether it can be re- ferred to as an “Urartian” import is uncertain, but since the Urartians controlled Karmir Blur eco- nomically and politically, such a conclusion would not be unreasonable. It is of interest to note that this fibula type is one which shows a certain simi- larity to a Phrygian type, Blinkenberg’s XI, 11, which also has a central swelling on the arc? Thus the possibility of Phrygian cultural influence work- ing on the Karmir Blur fibulae manufacturers can- not be excluded. ‘The chronological range of most of the fibulae under discussion falls within the seventh and early sixth centuries .c. The chronology of the Lelvar tombs has been discussed often and with some dif- ference of opinion. Hancar, followed closely by Schaeffer, dates the tombs to 1000-900 and 1200-900 lover, the Nor-Aresh fbulae ate ali similar to certain fibulae found in the Koban region, here pl 58, fg. 8, no. 19.1 chink ‘we may interpre: these specimens as imports from the Koban region, Furthermore, the geographical location of Noe-Aresh (CTranscucasus, near Kami Blur) makes it ificuk to arrive ata diferent conclusion concerning the extensive use of fibulae by Urartians from that suggested in the preset study. If the Nor-Arech fibulae were used by Urarians, they may reflect local influences, as we have suggested. war the ease with the Karmir Blur Rule, and hence supply further evidence that Urartans in the Tramaucarue used fibulae—both hinged and spring pes, 26 Another objec at Hasanlu with a elote parallel st Karmir Blur is a bronze thyton in the form of a hones head, G. R. Meyer, “Die sowietischen Ausgrabungen in Texhebaiai und Ir(e)pini" Wiisenschatiche Annalen 12 (3987) 847, fig. 223 V.E. Crawford, “Hasanlu 1960," EMMA (Nov. 2961) 931, fg. 93. 15" Fbwles 218, fg. 247. Five more fibulae of this ype (ith 2 slghe are swelling) are naw known fem Goedion from 7eh- century tombs, unpublisheds one Tited by Blinkenberg comes from the late ‘7thcentury basis at Ephesus and, like fig. 247 from Prusa, has 2 pronounced arc swelling1965] ne. respectively.®* De Morgan dates them later, be- tween 900-400 .c.—a dating which has recently re- ccived renewed support? Perhaps the best evidence for a seventh-century date for some of the tombs at Lelvar has recently been put forth by Sulimirski in his paper dealing with Scythian arrowheads.” Some of the tombs which contained hinged fibulae also contained a few Scythian arrowheads.* On the basis of the chronology supplied by these arrow- heads, the fibulae need not necessarily be pre-sev- enth century. This seventh-century date is sup- ported by the results of the Russian excavations at the Georgian cemetery at Dvan. The graves from Dyan, some of which contained Scythian arrow- heads, were dated to the seventh-sixth centuries 03 only Burial 5 contained a fibula (but no ar- rowhcads) 2? ‘The Hasanlu fibula was found in a context that is not ideal for dating. Period TT at Hasanlu is represented by two phases, B the earlier, A the later. Period IITA, having been largely removed by cro- sion, is recognized only at certain parts of the mound. The pit in which the fibula was found was located in an area where only a surface full of pits represented the Period IIT occupation. Unfortunate- ly, not enough sherds were found in these pits to ‘establish their relative phase in every case. ‘The bow! (pl. 57, fig. x) with which the fibula was as- sociated is of a type found in both phases of the period. On the other hand no typical sherds of IITA type were found in the pit. As pits were most com- mon in phase IIIB it is quite probable that the pits belong to that phase. Two carbon-r4 assays yield an average date of 622 = 38 n.c. for IIB and 4go == 40 nc. for IITA, both on a halflife of 5730 years.* sukasus-Luristn”” 3 Stratigraphic comparde 501 2 Mission scientifique au Caucase 204f; R. Ghisshman, Fouilles de Siatk TL (Paris 1939) 96, ca. 800 2.0. See also m. tian Antiquities in Western As (1954) 282-318. 51 Mission scientifique au Cancare 654, figs. 24, 26; Salimis 16, epsit. (supra n. 30) 3003 he mentions Kuitin’s date of the ath century for Tomb 242 at Moussi Yer. On p. 308 Salimies- i dates the Lelvar graves which contained the arrowheads and fibulae to the “Tate 8th or early 7th century,” which is the date he proposes for the appearance of the ealicst Scythian arrowheads, p. 323. The arrowheads were common from the ‘th through the 6h century, and continued into the sth, 1. 309. The earliest dates for these arrowheads it still not «0 securely established as one would like. SMakalaya, opcit. (supra n. 14) 226, 229f, 240. SUR. Stuckenrath, Jr, “University of Pennsylvania Radio- ‘atbon Dates VI." (D. Iran), Radiocarbon (1963) 886 R. He Dyson, “The Hasanlu Project,” Science (Feb. 23, 1962) vo. Avis Asse x A FIBULA FROM HASANLU 237 The probable IIIB date for the fibula thus provides a late seventh- to early sixth-century range for its occurrence at Hasanlu. ‘The destruction of Karmir Blur is dated by Pio- trovski to ca. 585 n.c,"* at which time it is sug- gested that the Scythians were leaving Iran and the southern Caucasus for Russia, Several scholars, nota- bly Barnett and Sulimirski, have challenged the proposed date as too late. Barnett prefers a date of ca, 625 for the destruction.** Sulimirski supports a date of 653 n-. for the beginning of Scythian power in Iran and the Near East and, on the basis of his- torical interpretation, suggests that Karmir Blur was destroyed not when the Seythians were leaving Iran in defeat but when they were at the very beginning of their power. The date 653 x. is apparently based on Sulimirski’s acceptance of Ghirshman’s chronology for the deposition of the Ziwiye treasure to ca, 625 2., and on Ghirshman’s theory that the treasure was hoarded when the Scythians hurriedly left Iran. Thus 625 n.. plus Herodotus’ 28 years for the duration of Scythian power gives 653 n.. for the beginning of Scythian control, and the destruction of Karmir Blur. But the adding together of an historically recorded number of years and an ar- chaeologically estimated date, albeit to my mind a ‘good one, must be accepted with some caution. Un- til more finds at Karmir Blur yield better chrono- logical information it seems best to assume that the Urartian city was destroyed sometime in the late seventh or early sixth century nic, and accept this date for the fibulae found there. Finally let us consider the fibulae from Luristan and Ziwiye (pl. 58, fig. 3). It has already been suggested that these fibulae were made in Iran, and 135, 6b Both of thete give a chronology tased on the old halflife of 5568 years. The dates used in the text are calew lated by Stuckenrath for the newly accepted halflife of 5730 years which is now considered more accurate, "4 Ourartou 56, 63; according to Piotrowski the city fell shorly after the destruction of Toushpa, which he dates to (8. 590, D. 59. ‘8 "The Archaeology of Usarta," Compte Rendw du te Renconire Autyr. lternat., Patis 1952 (Leiden 1954) 17, dates the destruction to ca. 615; Barnet, Watson, op.it. (supra a. 18) 134, and “The Treasure of Ziwiye;" lrg x7:2 (1956) 114 for a ca, 635 date; "Median Art," Iraniea Antiqua 2:1 (1962) 93, states that the Seythiane were leaving northern Iran ca. Gro-s90 mc., but already had lost power % the Medes by 625 a. 36 Opccit, (supra a. 30) 31365 aggf for a review of the vari- fous dates suggested by different scholar for the 28 years of Seythian domination in Tran. The date 653 2.. for the begin- ning of Scythian power is now accepted by Barnet, ranica An- igus, leit. (sapea 2. 34)238 that they exhibit local Near Eastern characteristics in the form of the catch. The hand-catch was first used in the late eighth century, eg. at Hama, but it became more common only in the seventh and sixth centuries p.c." A comparison of the catches of these Iranian examples (especially the gold one in the Metropolitan Museum, which has the fingers and fingernails clearly articulated) with catches from the seventh or sixth century reveals a close re- lationship. On this basis alone a seventh- or sixth- century date for these Iranian fibulae may be ac- cepted. Moreover, most scholars accept a late sev- enth-century date for the deposition of the Ziwiye treasure, although Godard suggests the ninth-cighth century Ghirshman concludes, on the basis of the presence of fibulae, and on his belief that the treas- ture was a hoard left when the Scythians retreated before the Medes, that the deposition occurred ca. 625 2c. Barnett generally agrees with this date but thinks that it should be lowered to ca. 600 8.c due to a relationship of the bronze container which held the treasure to similar ones from Ur. Suli- rmitski accepts Ghirshman’s dates without revision, but more recently Wilkinson has maintained that the bronze container should be dated to the carly rather than to the late seventh century, and he sug- gests that it may actually have belonged to Sen- nacherib.* If the Ziwiye treasure is actually connected with the Scythian control of Iran then historical evidence alone provides a date in the second half of the seventh or early sixth century for the deposition.* Such an historical dating agrees with the archaco- logical dating suggested by the various arguments Stronach, op.cit. (supra n. 2) 195M for many examples ‘of the 7th century. Note alo the use of a hand at the base ff some bowls (oF stopperspoons) found in various pans of the Near Fast, but expecially in Syria and Palestine, The hand holds the Bowl just as it holds the pin of the fibula. See. Praeworki, "Les encenoire de la Syrie du nord et leurs proto types Eayptiens,” Syria 1x (1930) 133M Syria 35 (1934) 2236: M. van Loon, “A. Lion Bowl From Hasaals," Expediion (2962) aff; H. Walter, “Orientalische Kunstgrite.” thie 74,(1959) 69-74 "8 Le trévor de Ziwiye 12, 119. R. H. Dyson, “Archaco- logical Serap, Glimpses of History at Ziwiyes" Expelition 5:3 (1965) 35th presents some important new evidence for a dei- nite gth-centuryy and possibly earlier, occupation of the Ziwiye 9 Artibue Auize (1950) r97f, 2038. He correctly recognized the chronological value of the fbulae as indieting an Sth- century or later date. A. Godard in Avtbus Asie (2951) 242 ‘sarod with thie conclsion and cited Siraigraphie comparde 50% 1, to support his postion. However, Schaefer wat Aiseussing the chronology of the appearance of the fibulse in the Koban and Transat regions, sot Tan; furthermore, OSCAR WHITE MUSCARELLA [474 69 of Ghirshman, Barnett, and Sulimirski, and with the archacological date of the fibulae offered here. (On the basis of the evidence brought forward in this brief discussion of chronology it would seem that the earliest hinged fibulae in the Near East are either those from the Southwest Caspian, if we can agree that they are early 1st millennium in date, or the Transcaucasus. Here they occur per- haps as early as the late eighth century 8c. cer- tainly by the early seventh century B.. Kalitinski dated the appearance of the hinged fibulze in the northern Caucasus to the third cen- tury 8c," but this date is certainly too late. The crescent-shaped fibulae are related typologically to the late eighth or early seventh century v.c, Greek Bocotian fibulae and to the late eighth and seventh century Italian-European examples; so they are probably to be dated somewhere in the seventh century. Tt may be concluded that the hinged fibulae dis- cussed in this paper originated in the Transcauca- sus, Some hinged fibulae seem to have been manu- factured in neighboring areas or cities, such as Kar- mir Blur; other areas imported them. In Iran‘ and the northern Caucasus local types developed with different arc types or slightly different forms of pin attachment. Some scholars assert that the Caucasian hinged fibula was a development of the northern Cauca- sian spring fibulae, in particular those from the Koban region (pl. 58, figs. 7 8).7 The Keban spring fibulac were derived from various sources: Ttaly, Europe, Greece, and the Near East.!* These Schaefer was refering to fibulae with springs. ‘lag (956) tists Irion Antiqua 93t. He now believes ‘weasore to be from a. Median chic burial. H. Kantor, A Fragment of 2 Gold Appliqué from Ziwiye:" INES 19:1 (1960) seems to agree with a date in the second half of the sth century ‘1 Sulimiki, opt, (supra m. 30) 344s Ig (1960) 319 4 Salimisk, opt (pram. 30) 294 4 Opait (sopra 13) 6 #4 Godard, "Tes bronzes du Luritans” in Ars Asiatic, ay, Pat, 193% 75, sated thatthe Lorian fibulae probably Cline fem the’ Caucasus but he was discussing Near Eastern types which had their origin to the west, ia Gypras and in the Aegean area, “Mision Seietfque au Cancae 107; “Raukasus-Luritan” 8 ce naly: Chante, Rechercher, Mt 66, x50f, ako cits Eu- ropean influences; Europe: J. Wiener, “Vortrag aber fieisen- Zelliche griechsche Bronzen und thre auswartigen Bezichun- gen,” 4d (1939) 316; Fibeln, 23, cits Talstate as well 24 ‘Grek influences. Greece: “Kaukarue Laritan,” 8, derives Cau asian fibulae fom subMycenaean types; Tallgren, opait1965] Koban fibulae exhibit characteristics of fibulae from several areas, especially those from Italy, Europe, and, to some extent, Greece.” At the same time their shapes suggest that different periods are rep- resented in the repertory of the Koban spring fibu- Jae, and also in some of the spring fibulae from the southern Caucasus." Nevertheless, most of the northern Caucasus fibulae seems to belong to the eighth and seventh century since the incised ge- ‘ometric decoration on the are, the use of pendants, plastic decorations, and scalloped ares, suggest such a date. The Kazbek Treasure" which contained a sixth-century silver bowl is an important clue to the late date for many of the Koban fibulae, unless one is prepared to assume that fibulae were hoarded for several centuries. Te scems clear that fibulae with springs chrono- logically precede those with hinges and, although the arcs of the two fibula types are different, the former could have served as a model for the latter. However, all of the spring fibulae in the Caucasus area had their pins cast in one piece with the arc. (Gupra a. 15) 25tf, claims that the Greck models most have been Iter thin subMycenaean times: he dates the Kazbek fibule after 1000 wc Stratigraphic comparke 5375 502, ne 1 sees sub-Myeenaean inuence and apparently misunderstands ‘alleren's dating; Fibeln, 22, dates the Cavcasian fbulae after 1000 2.05 Kalitinski, opeit. (eupra n. 13) Gt, dates the ear list Cauersan fibulae after the beginning of the 7th century: F. Schichermeyr, "Materilen zur Geschichte der agaichen Wanderung,” thMitt qx (1916) 407, suggests that both Greck and Tualian fibulze influenced the development of the northern Caucasus fibula ca. 1200 a.0. Near East: Stronach, opeit. (supra n.2) 181, 187. The Gbula illustrated in Fibele 25, fig. 13 d, i not an Asia Minor specimen as Sundwall ‘maintained. For similar examples see A. Roes, “Merovingian Fibula,” Antiquity and Survival 2 (1955) 149, fg. 6, from the Migration period, "Compare the fuse cited in note x5 with fibulae of Italian, European, and Greek provenance illstrated in Fiber 79, Bis. 66, 673 78, fix. 88; 908, figs. 90-93: Fibeln 04, 0 00, 106, 108, figs. 103, 106, 110, 117, 123425, 128, 1305 sce also Fibeln 63, fig. 33; G. Karo in Eber’s Realesiton I (Bean 1925) pl. 104, ds R. Bele, "Die bronze und haltatt- zeichlchen Fibela.” Z/E 45 (1013) 684, fig. 30: E. Curtus, F. Adler, Olympia, Die Bronzen IV (Berlin 1890) pl. xx 342. The serpentine are fibula, La préhitire orientale 318, fig. 324, Fibein 60, fig. 30 a, Dolbeschew, opait. (supra n. 10) 68, fig. 98 are similar to Aibulae feom Crete, Phaistos Fibs, 56, fig. 28 (unstratified); J. Boardman, The Cretan Collection in Osjord (Oxford 1961) 3sf, fig. 16 a3 no specific proveni- fence; and Tanus, H. Gollan, Escreations at Kale, Tarsus ML (Princeton 1936) 286, fg. 432, 10. 243, found out ‘of context. A poorly illustrated bla in ‘La préhinoire orien: tale, 318, fig. 324, 4y seems to be very close toa fla found at Lindos Rhodes, Ruler 24 267, probely 7h cent “8 Compare Kalitinki, opcit. (supra a. 13) pl. vy 2 (Kor ban); Fibele 23, fig. 13¢ (Kohan); Stratigraphic comparée A FIBULA FROM HASANLU 239 In other parts of the Near East and in Anatolia, wwe have noted, pins were attached to the cast are through a socket in the butt of the arc. This tech- nique of the two-piece fibula might have become known to the Caucasus and adapted,” but none of the Caucasian fibulae exhibit influence from Near Eastern or Phrygian fibulae, the exception being the type with the central arc swelling found at Karmir Blur and in Anatolia. ‘Another area which employed both hinged fibu- Jae and spring fibulae was central Europe. The hinged type has an early history in the northern European Late Bronze Age but was further de- veloped, continuing into the Iron Age and spread- ing south.” Various arc shapes were used and the pin was looped around one arc end, although not placed in the same manner as the Caucasian exam- ples. Nevertheless, one particular are shape, the ‘oval or lozenge, is not dissimilar to some of the Caucasian types. The presence of the hinge, the arc shape, and the fact that European influence is to be seen on some of the Caucasian spring fibulae, 504; fig. 277, Tomb 591, 600, fig. 296, 11, Samtharro, with fbuise of sub-Mycenacan through Geometric date in. Fibules Goff, igs. 30, 31, 34. 35, 361 W. Kraiker, K. Kubler, Die Nekropolen der 13. bis 10. Jahrhunderts, Kerameikos 1 (Ber- Tin 1939), 47f ple 28, 83, figs 2 (Fight), 107, fig. 95 Fibela 28, figs 72-75, 8, fig. 78. None of the Caucasian fbulae referred to here need be considered earlier than the Prot seometic period. Tallgren, facet. (supra n- 15) and Suni wal, Fidel, loccit, are no doubt correct in their dating of the eaiet Aibulae in the Caucasus. “©Tallgren, opeit. (supra n. 15) x8of, dates the treasure to 1000-600 a.c, at last the major part of the objets. Kutin dated the treatire to the “early Achaemenian period,” ¥. Suliminki, opt. (supea n. 13) 300. 0 Kaukasus-Lurtan” 89; Hanear claimed that “East Greek" fibulae may have infuenced the "Sonderlormen,” fibulae of the Transeaseas; he follows Schachermeyr, op.it (sopra n. 46) 419. “East Greek” is too general aterm for ‘bulae found in Western Asia 1 Fibeln 3A 15, fig. Savcy G. Kosinna, Die denticke Vor- setchichte, Mannus Bibl. IX (1921) 48, figs. 08-101; Karo, fopccit.(supea n. 47) staf: Belz, opait. (supra a. 47) 6558, figs. 1-33 C. F.C. Hawkes, “Prom Bronze Age to Iron Age: Middle Europe, laly, the North and West.” ProcPS x4 (1948) 204, 2 Fieln 19, fig. 11a, bs 32, fig. 17 a: 475 fig. 25 05 Karo, opcit. (supra a. 47) 385, 287, figne roo-ror, Belt, opait (supra m. 47) 6756 figs. 318; 70r, Ben. 13, 14-16, 18 Apparently these types are the ones cited by’ Contenay and Ghieshman, opi. (supra n. 6) 59, as being the source for the Lurisan and Zivwiye hinged fbuine. A rare and interesting we ‘of hinge is to be seen on a fibula fren Crete, Fbuler oxf, fig. 93. The fibula originally had a. pin east together with the are, The pin and spring broke and was replaced with a pin which was twisted around the are end, Thus the hinge was an improvisation and perhaps meant to be temporary.240 OSCAR WHITE MUSCARELLA [ATA 69 suggests that the European hinged fibula played some role in the genesis of the Caucasian speci- mens. In any event, the people of the Caucasus— whether from Near Eastern or European prototypes —ereated their own form of hinged attachment. Similarly, we have noted, the Iranian hinged fibula was made with a form of attachment which dif- ferentiates it from the Caucasian type. ‘THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTPLATE 57 MUSCARELLA bi SW3L boyPLATE 58 © MUSCARELLA Fic. 5. Northern Caucasian hinged fibulae, After Kalitinski, pl. vue. 25, Tiflis district (southern Caucasus); 26, Lower Ruthka; 27, Kumbulta; 28, Kamunta; 29, Alagir; 30, Kamunta Fic. 7. Northern Caucasian spring fibulae. After Kalitinski, pl. vt. 1, Samthavro (southern Fra. 3, MMA s1gqu. Silver fibula from Ziwiych, Caucasus); 3, 3, 4, 7+ Koban; 5, Kumbulta; 6, Gift of Mr. Khalil Rabenow (courtesy Chegema; 8, Kortsa; 9, Chmi; 10, 11, 12, Kazbek ‘Metropolitan Museum of Art) Fro. 6, Southern Caucasian hinged fibulae. Fic, 8. Northern Caucasian spring fbulae, After ‘Alter Préhistoire orientale 294, fg. 291. Kolitinsk, pl. vit. 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, Koban; 1, 34, Cheithan Dagh; 2, 5, 6, Moussi Yeri 14, 15, 17, Kazbek; 16, 20, unknown provenience; 18, Terck area; 21, Chegema