The Scythians and Urartu

Sergey Makhortykh1

Abstract
The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of Scythian antiquities of the 7th-6th cen-
turies BC, which were found in two of the best-studied Urartian fortresses. One of them
(Ayanis) is located near the eastern shore of Lake Van (Turkey), and the other (Karmir-Blur)
on a hilltop in the outskirts of Yerevan (Armenia).

Introduction
The presence of Scythians in the Near East is due to important events in the early history of
this nomadic people. In the 7th-6th centuries BC nomads came into active contact with vari-
ous state formations of Western Asia, which undoubtedly had an impact on their historical
trajectory and material culture. A notable example was the interaction between Scythians
and the kingdom of Urartu, which emerged in the 9th century BC and occupied mountainous
areas stretching from eastern region of present-day Turkey through the territory of modern
Armenia to north-western Iran. The above-mentioned cultural interaction is reflected in
numerous archaeological finds of Scythian type recovered in Urartian fortresses. One of the
related issues, the fall of the Urartian kingdom and the disuse of the fortresses, is the subject
of ongoing debate. A discussion of the recovery of Scythian cultural materials at these for-
tresses is both timely and necessary.
This article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the recovered Scythian antiquities of
the 7th-6th centuries BC at two of the best studied Urartian fortresses. One of them, Ayanis,
is located near the eastern shore of Lake Van, and the other, Karmir-Blur, on a hilltop in
the outskirts of Yerevan. Both sites were founded in the first half of the 7th century BC by
the Urartian king Rusa II, 685-645 BC (Çilingiroğlu and Salvini 2001). Rusa II seems to
have been a well-regarded Urartian ruler, under whom Urartu was at the pinnacle of pros-
perity and military power. The reign of Rusa II is associated with active building activity,
expressed in the construction of several fortresses and irrigation systems (Salvini 1995;
Çilingiroğlu 2002; Kroll et al. 2012). Owing to skillful diplomacy, he managed to maintain
stable, and generally peaceful, relations with neighbors, including Assyria and the mounted
nomads visiting this region.
Several categories of the Scythian materials discovered in the Urartian fortresses are
presented in this paper: bronze socketed arrowheads, zoomorphic scabbard chapes, details
of horse harness (cheekpieces, harness fittings).

1 It is worth mentioning the single biblade arrows of other types with a long socket from Ayanis (Fig. 2.34-
35). There were also unearthed three bronze triblade and one trilobate solid arrowheads (Fig. 2.36-39)
(Derinsnd Muscarella 2001; Özdemir and Işıklı 2017).
2 Sergey Makhortykh

Bronze Socketed Arrowheads

One of the most representative collections of arrows found in the territory of Urartu was
recovered at Ayanis, which, due to ongoing excavations, continues to grow every year. This
collection numbers at least 160 socketed examples. Most of the arrowheads were found along
the fortification walls, on both sides of the west tower and outside the gate area. The location
of these arrowheads probably indicate they belong to enemies attacking the castle. Scythian
arrowheads were also unearthed within the site itself (temple and domestic areas) (Figs. 1,
2.1-39) (Derin and Muscarella 2001; Çilingiroğlu 2005; Özdemir and Işıklı 2017). The ar-
rows are mainly represented by socketed bibladed specimens with rhomboid or oval heads
as well as with or without a barb or spur extending from the socket behind the blade (Figs.
1, 2.1-33). The arrowheads are quite massive, varying largely from 4.2 to 5 cm in length.2
Analogies to biblade arrowheads from Ayanis, and in particular to rhomboid specimens
with a barb and oval-shaped ones without a barb, have been recovered at other Urartian
fortresses. For example, at Bastam such arrowheads have been found but are not numerous
(n=10) and often come from mixed layers, therefore they are not always connected with
reliable archaeological contexts (Kroll 1979; 1988: figs. 3-4, pl. 37.5).
Exemplars with rhomboid heads constitute the rather big group of arrowheads found at
Ayanis (Fig. 2.1-15). Taking into account the date of the destruction of the fortress (some-
time after 650 BC) (Çilingiroğlu and Salvini 2001; Derin and Muscarella 2001), these ar-
rows help clarify the chronological framework of similar arrowheads found in the south of
Eastern Europe, as e.g., in my opinion, those in Kurgan 524 near the Zhabotin village, dated
incorrectly to the middle of the 8th century BC (e.g. Ryabkova 2014).
In the Near East, the socketed arrowheads with rhomboid heads were also recovered at
Nineveh (end of the 7th century BC), at Kerkenes Dağ (first half of the 6th century BC) as well
as at other sites (Pickworth 2005: fig. 35; Summers 2017). In south-eastern Europe, these
arrowheads have been discovered in burials of nomadic individuals dating to the second
half of the 7th century BC and to the first half of the 6th century BC: Kholmskaya, Kurgan 4,
burial 1 (north-western Caucasus); Novoaleksandrovka, Kurgan 7, Burial 8 (Low Don area);
Karpusi, Kurgan 1, Burial 1 (Vorskla river basin), etc. (Маkhortykh 2021). However, such
arrows, due to the long period of their use, cannot serve as reliable markers for chronologi-
cally dividing sites into pre-Kelermes and Kelermes, as well as for restricting the date of the
archaeological assemblages to the middle of the 7th century BC.
Biblade arrowheads with rhomboid and oval-shaped heads were also found at Karmir-
Blur (Маkhortykh 1991; Ryabkova 2009). However, at this site, where more than 120 bronze
socketed arrowheads were unearthed, triblade specimens of various modifications dominate
the assemblages. This fact, along with other chronologically “late” Scythian materials, sig-
nificantly distinguishes Karmir-Blur from Ayanis. The presence of more archaic varieties
of biblade arrowheads at Karmir Blur can be explained by their long existence throughout
most of the 7th century BC or the recovery of diachronically diverse forms of Scythian mate-
rials at this site, which was used by nomads as a kind of base for a long period (Маkhortykh
2018: 46). Among the triblade arrowheads recovered at Karmir-Blur, the most numerous
specimens have an oval-shaped head, short and long sockets with or without a barb, as well
as the arrows of elongated proportions with the maximum width in the lower part of the
blades, which are often beveled (Figs. 3.1-4,12-19, 4.11-13) (Azarpay 1968; Ryabkova 2009).

2 See also https://www.barbier-mueller.ch/collections/collections/antiquite/art-des-steppes/?lang=en.

 The Scythians and Urartu 3
Other types of triblade arrowheads recovered are represented by small arrowheads with a
wide, triangular shaped head and a long socket, as well as other specimens with a vaulted
and trapezoidal head and a slightly prominent socket (Fig. 4.14-17).
The triblade arrowheads from Karmir-Blur find analogies in the destruction layers of
Near Eastern cities, such as at Assur, Nineveh, and Karkemish, dating to the late 7th cen-
tury BC (Fig. 4.1-9) (Woolley 1921; Andrae 1977; Pickworth 2005). Similar arrowheads
are also found in the Scythian burials of Eastern Europe where they refer to contemporary
or later periods (first half of the 6th century BC), including: Novozavedennoe II, Kurgans
5, 13; Nartan, Kurgans 15, 17, 23; Kitajgorod burial mound; Repyakhovataya Mogila, etc.
(Fig. 3.5-11,20-28). Biblade and triblade socketed arrowheads similar to specimens found
at Karmir-Blur were also recovered in layers of the first half of the 6th century BC, such as
at the well-stratified settlements of Berezan and Trakhtemirov in the Northern Black Sea
region (Ilina and Chistov 2012).
The above data on arrowheads from Ayanis and Karmir-Blur demonstrate their signif-
icant difference from each other, reflected in the study of the biblade and triblade arrow-
heads found at these sites, and in the identified different typological characteristics of the
latter. Chronological distinction between these types, as well as the historical events that
led to the fall of the Urartian fortresses, make clear connections between the forms of inter-
actions between Scythians and the Urartian fortresses discussed above. This conclusion is
confirmed by a comparative analysis of other categories of Scythian material culture from
Ayanis and Karmir-Blur, which will be discussed below.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that a hypothesis supported by some researchers (Kroll
1984; Medvedskaya 1992; Ivanchik 2001; Ryabkova 2009) about the simultaneous destruc-
tion of Urartian fortresses and the total collapse of Urartu around the middle or even at the
beginning (!) of the 7th century BC is not confirmed by archaeological evidence. It should
be also mentioned that B. Piotrowski (1959: 186) and I. Dyakonov (1956) dated the fall of
Urartu to the beginning of the 6th century BC. However, they relied to a greater extent not on
archaeological materials, but on the evidence of written sources. It is also worth mentioning
U. Hellwag’s paper that summarizes nearly all existing points of view about the dates and
causes of the fall of Urartu (Hellwag 2012).

Scabbard Chapes
A bone end of scabbard from Ayanis has a rounded shape with tapering and emphasized
upper edge that forms its orifice (Fig. 5.1). This object is decorated with an image of coiled
animal that has a massive head and elongated muzzle of sub-rectangular shape with an open
mouth, the ear arranged in the form of a semicircle. The eye, nostril, paw, and tail endings
are shaped of concentric circles. The front paw is raised up and tightly pressed to the neck,
while its end touches the base of the lower jaw. The tail and hind leg are situated parallel to
each other in the horizontal plane and adjoin the tail and the chin, and – the hind leg with
the knee joint of the front leg. The round shape and distinguished orifice connect the find
from Ayanis with the gold end of the scabbard from the Kelermes Kurgan 1/Sh, as well as
a bone chape, presumably originating from Iran and kept in the Barbier-Mueller collection
(Geneva, Switzerland) (Fig. 5.3-4) (Galanina 1997; Barbier 1996).3

3 The interpretation of an animal on the zoomorphic scabbard chape as an image of a horse (Çilingiroğlu
2018: 21) seems to me erroneous.
4 Sergey Makhortykh

Direct analogies to the image of an animal on the end of scabbard from Ayanis are not
known.4 However, in some pictorial details (a massive head with an open mouth, the decora-
tion of the eye, nostril, tail, and the ends of paws by emphasized circle), it resembles closely
the image of an animal on a gold sword belt tip from the Kurgan 1/Sh of Kelermes (Fig. 5.2).
The identity of the species is quite peculiar, being more reminiscent of a dog or wolf image
than of a feline predator, which must be accounted for when considering the origin of the
motif of a coiled animal in Scythian animal style art.
The same is true for some images of the heads of curled animals without clear signs of a
feline predator on bronze plaques from the Minusinsk Hollow in southern Siberia; many of
which, unfortunately, are chance finds, with the date of their manufacture unknown (Fig. 5.5-6).
A chape from Ayanis is the only known reliable example from the Near Eastern finds
that reproduces a curled predator, whose eye, nostril, tail, and paw endings are decorated
with concentric circles. The above-mentioned zoomorphic scabbard end from the Barbier-
Mueller collection, presumably originating from Iran, also attracts attention (Fig. 5.4). The
eye and ends of the predator’s paws on it are also depicted by concentric circles, and a large
tear-shaped ear, turned with a sharp end down, is similar to the ear of the famous Kelermes
panther as well as the boar from Ephesus.
In the eastern regions of Eurasia, the eyes, nostrils, and ends of the paws of images of
feline predators dated to the 7th century BC were rarely decorated with circular ornamenta-
tion. For example, they are presented on the horse harness from Kurgans 27 and 28 of the
Ujgarak cemetery in the Aral Sea area (Fig. 5.7-9). In my opinion, such images could have
appeared in this territory due to participation of the local Saka tribes in near eastern military
campaigns. The near eastern vector of contact is also confirmed by similar artistic styles
of the Ujgarak plaques, including emphasizing depictions of front paw musculature by a
highlighted line (Fig. 5.8-9).
The archaeological context allows us to consider the zoomorphic chape recovered in
Ayanis as the oldest Scythian image of a curled predator known in Western Asia.
A bone end of a scabbard, decorated with the image of a coiled animal, was also recov-
ered in Karmir-Blur (Fig. 6.1). It reproduces an animal with a hypertrophic, enlarged head,
that occupies almost the whole side of its surface. The eye, composed of concentric circles
with a dot in the middle, as well as an ear in the form of a horse hoof sole are visible on the
head. The front part of the animal’s muzzle is depicted in the form of two semi-ovals with
their tops facing in opposite directions.
Compared to the zoomorphic scabbard end from Ayanis, the image on the chape from
Karmir-Blur is more schematic. Stylization appears as enlarged representation of one ele-
ment (head) and the loss or levelling of others (tail). The closest parallels to the image of
a coiled predator on the scabbard end from Karmir-Blur, including the presence of hyper-
trophic elements (large head with an eye shaped in the form of concentric circles and heart-
shaped ear), are found on the zoomorphic chapes from Sardis (Turkey), Ziwiye (Iran) and
Darevka (Ukraine) (Fig. 6.2-4).
All these findings have a direct relation to the presence of East European nomads in
Western Asia. The images on the chapes from Karmir-Blur and Darevka are similar in
schematically depicted short paws that are situated parallel to each other, which are a con-
tinuation of the unnaturally placed thigh and shoulder of the animal. The listed objects from
Karmir-Blur, Darevka, and Sardis should be attributed to an independent and younger com-
4 See also http://ayaniskalesikazisi.com.
 The Scythians and Urartu 5
positional-pictorial group of images of coiled animals dating to the second half of 7 -early
th

6th centuries BC. The main territory of its distribution is Western Asia and south-eastern
Europe. This modification of the image in question does not find analogies in the eastern
regions of Eurasia in the Scythian archaic period.

Horse Harness
At Ayanis, bridle accessories are represented by an iron cheekpiece and a fragment of bone
zoomorphic psalia (Figs. 7.1, 8.8) (Işıklı, Öztürk and Parliti 2016).5
The iron cheekpiece belongs to three-looped, rod-shaped type with evenly cut ends. Its
closest analogies are known in Central Ciscaucasia: Krasnoe Znamya, Kurgans 1 and 3.
They are mainly dated to the second half of the 7th century BC (Fig. 7.2-3) (Petrenko 2006;
Makhortykh 2014).
Iron cheekpieces in the form of straight rods are also known in the Scythian burials of
the Dnieper forest-steppe area, including Zhurovka, Kurgan 406; Volkovtsy, Kurgan 12; and
Saranchevo pole, Kurgan 11 (Makhortykh 2014: fig. 8.1). However, in contrast to the North
Caucasian examples, their ends often have thickenings or knobs (Fig. 7.4). The date of these
objects is determined from the second half of 7th to mid-6th centuries BC.
As for the bone zoomorphic psalia from Ayanis, decorated with the image of a ram’s
head, its closest analogies are known among the bridle accessories of Kelermes tumuli 1/V
and 2/V in the Kuban region, which are presumably dated within the 660-640 BC time
range (Fig. 8.6-8) (Galanina 1997).
Iron and bone cheekpieces were also found at Karmir-Blur. Iron cheekpieces are repre-
sented by three-looped specimens with a curved upper end (Piotrowski 1950). Analogies are
well known in the Scythian burials of the North Caucasus and forest-steppe Ukraine, where
they were in use during the second half of the 7th and the first half of the 6th centuries BC
(Makhortykh 2014).
Bone cheekpieces belong to the three-hole type with an animal hoof on the lower end and
a wide rectangular protrusion in the middle of the bar (Fig. 7.6-7). The closest parallels to the
bone cheekpieces from Karmir-Blur are known at the Greek Berezan settlement (semi-dug-
out SK 44), that, due to numerous antique imports, are reliably dated to the first half of the
6th century BC (Fig. 7.5).
Besides the bits and cheekpieces, the representative series of harness fittings (more than
20 items) comes from Karmir-Blur. Among them the earlier and later varieties are distin-
guished. They are characterized by significant diversity, which is probably explained by the
long-lasting contacts between the nomads and local inhabitants of the fortress. Karmir-Blur
was probably used by nomads as a kind of base for quite a long time (including the 6th centu-
ry BC), leading to the deposition of Scythian materials from different chronological periods
(Маkhortykh 2018: 46).
Of interest is a bone harness fitting, decorated with ram’s head and beak of a bird of
prey recovered in room 11 of Karmir-Blur (Fig. 8.3). In Western Asia, typologically similar
objects have been found in a horse burial at Norşuntepe in the Upper Euphrates (Fig. 8.4-
5). At the same time, the fittings from Karmir-Blur and Norşuntepe differ from each other
by the presence or absence of an ear image, strongly or weakly curved beak, and plain or
ornamented horns protruding above the forehead or inscribed into the surface of the object.

5 Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.

6 Sergey Makhortykh

In addition, the number of holes for cross-belts differ. The formal-stylistic features noted
above likely indicate different chronological periods for these finds.
The harness fittings from Norşuntepe look more archaic and, given their similarity with
the North Caucasian and Ukrainian finds, can be dated to the middle – second half of the 7th
century BC, while the Karmir-Blur example is apparently later and belongs to the end of the
7th – beginning of the 6th centuries BC (Маkhortykh 2018).
In Karmir-Blur there were also several harness fittings decorated with a ram’s head re-
covered (Fig. 8.1-2). The main area of distribution of attachments of this type is southeastern
Europe (16 items) (Маkhortykh 2017). The specimens found have different iconographies
and materials of manufacture. In the Kuban area (Kelermes cemetery), the oldest zoomor-
phic bone fittings are concentrated and date to the second half – the end of the 7th century
BC. More schematic bronze bridle ornaments, most dating to the first half – middle of
the 6th century BC, are found in the Dnieper forest-steppe region (Popovka, Kurgan 10;
Zakhareikova Mogila; Gulyai-Gorod, Kurgan 38, etc.).
It should be noted that the bone and bronze harness fittings from Karmir-Blur also dif-
fer in detailed depictions of animals. For example, the bone specimen has a more detailed
muzzle and eye (Fig. 8.1-2). Simultaneously, the bone attachment with a ram’s head from
Karmir-Blur differs from the Kelermes bone specimens of the same type. Transcaucasian
fittings have a shorter and less curved horn inscribed into the surface of the object. They do
not have an ear image and their mouth and nose are less thoroughly elaborated. The latter
are either not highlighted or shown as a slot, in contrast with the double arcs depicting the
mouth and nose in Kelermes.
It is notable that analogies to the bronze harness fittings from Karmir-Blur, usually dec-
orated with the image of a ram’s head and a thin long beak-shaped protrusion, are found not
in the North Caucasus, but in the Ukrainian forest-steppe in burials of the 6th century BC
(Gulyai-Gorod, Kurgan 38; Zakhareikova Mogila; etc.). These parallels indicate the pos-
sibility of the presence of Scythian military units from the Dnieper forest-steppe area in
Karmir-Blur. They could carry out autonomous raids into Transcaucasia and the Near East
without the participation of nomads from the North Caucasus (Маkhortykh 2018).

Conclusions
Summarizing the above data, it is possible to make several observations. The Urartian for-
tresses Ayanis and Karmir-Blur contain numerous Scythian artifacts. These artifacts in-
clude weapons (bronze socketed arrowheads), trappings (iron and bone cheekpieces, har-
ness fittings, etc.), and other objects decorated in the Scythian animal style. They constitute
an important source of archaeological data and serve as an independent chronological in-
dicator that advances our current understanding of periodization and nature of the cultural
interactions between the nomads and various near eastern states.
The typological and chronological analysis of the Scythian antiquities in the Urartian
historical and cultural context indicates that these materials belong to different time peri-
ods. This analysis also allows us to identify earlier and later sets of artifacts. The evidence
from Ayanis refers to the oldest finds and are associated with earlier contacts between the
Scythians and Urartu in the second to the beginning of the third quarter of the 7th century
BC. These materials are represented by bilobate arrowheads with rhomboid and oval-shaped
heads, a scabbard chape decorated with the image of a curled animal without clear features
associated with feline predators, iron straight three-looped and bone zoomorphic cheekpiec-
 The Scythians and Urartu 7
es ornamented with an image of a ram’s head. By contrast, nomadic materials from Karmir-
Blur are more recent and are indicative of active contacts between the Urartians and the
Scythians in the second half of the 7th century BC and the beginning of the 6th century BC.
Artifacts from this chronological horizon include a wide range of bronze socketed arrow-
heads, in particular numerous trilobate arrowheads with various modifications, a bouterolle
decorated with a schematic image of a curled predator, three-hole bone cheekpieces with the
animal hoof on the lower end, and a rectangular protrusion in the middle of the bar, bronze
zoomorphic harness fittings ornamented with an image of a ram’s head, etc.
Thus, available data do not confirm the hypothesis about the simultaneous destruction of
Urartian fortresses and the complete destruction of Urartu in the middle of the 7th century
BC. New research will clarify the question of the historical fate of the various regional for-
mations within Urartu at the final stage of its existence, which were likely not identical and
had their own specifics in the areas adjacent to lakes Van, Urmia, and Sevan.

References
Andrae, W.
1977 Das wiedererstandene Assur, München.
Azarpay, G.
1968 Urartian Art and Artifacts: Chronological Study, Berkeley-Los Angeles.
Barbier, J. P.
1996 Art des steppes: ornements et pièces de mobilier funéraire scytho-sibérien dans les collec-
tions du Musée Barbier-Mueller, Genève.
Bobrinskoy, A. A.
1894 Kurgany i sluchajnye arkheologicheskie nakhodki bliz mestechka Smely, Sankt-Peterburg.
Bogdanov, Е.
2006 Obraz khischnika v plasticheskom iskusstve kochevykh narodov Tsentralnoy Azii, Novosibirsk.
Çilingiroğlu, A.
2002 The Reign of Rusa II: Towards the End of the Urartian Kingdom. In: R. Aslan, S. Blum,
G. Kastl, F. Schweizer and D. Thumm (eds.), Mauer Schau: Festchrift für Manfred Korfmann,
Remshalden, 483-489.
Çilingiroğlu, A.
2005 Bronze Arrowheads of Ayanis: Indicate Ethnic Identity?. In: Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal
III, Bochum, 63-66.
2018 Ayanis Fortress: The Day after the Disaster. In: A. Cilingiroglu and Z. Culha (eds.), Urartians:
A civilization in the Eastern Anatolia, Istanbul, 13-26.
Çilingiroğlu, A. and Salvini, M.
2001 Historical Background of Ayanis. In: A. Çilingiroğlu and M. Salvini (eds.), Ayanis I, Rome,
15-24.
Derin, Z. and Muscarella, O. W.
2001 Iron and Bronze Arrows. In: A. Çilingiroğlu and M. Salvini (eds.), Ayanis I, Rome, 189-217.
Dusinbere, E.
2010 Ivories from Lydia. In: N. Cahill (ed.), The Lydians and their world, Istanbul, 191-200.
Dyakonov, I. М.
1956 Istoriya Midii, Moskva.
Galanina, L. K.
1997 Kelermesskie kurgany. Moskva.
Ghirshman, R.
1964 The Arts of Ancient Iran: from its Origins to the Time of Alexander the Great, New York.
8 Sergey Makhortykh
Hellwag, U.
2012 Der Niedergang Urartus. In: S. Kroll, C. Gruber, U. Hellwag, M. Roaf and P. Zimansky
(eds.), Biainili-Urartu: the proceedings of the symposium held in Munich 12-14 October 2007,
Leuven, 227-241.
Ilina, Yu and Chistov, D.
2012 Nakhodki. In: D. Chistov (ed.), Materialy Berezanskoj antichnoj arkheologicheskoj eks-
peditsii, Sankt-Peterburg, 20-41.
Ilinskaya, V., Моzolevskiy, B. and Теrenozhkin, А.
1980 Kurgany VI v. do n.e. u s. Маtusov. In: A. Теrenozhkin (ed.). Skifiya i Kavkaz, Kyiv, 31-63.
Işikli, M., Öztürk, G. and Parliti, U.
2016 Van Ayanis Kalesi 2015 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantıları 38
(2), 587-598.
Ivanchik, A. I.
2001 Kimmerijtsy i Skify, Moskva.
Kroll, S.
1979 Die Kleinfunde. In: W. Kleiss (ed.), Bastam I. Ausgrabungen in den urartäischen Anlagen
1972-1975, Berlin, 151-170.
1984 Urartus Untergang in anderer Sicht, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34, 151-170.
1988 Die Kleinfunde. In: W. Kleiss (ed.), Bastam II. Ausgrabungen in den urartäischen Anlagen
1977-1978, Berlin, 155-160.
Kroll, S., Gruber, С., Hellwag, U., Roaf, M. and Zimansky, P.
2012 Biainili-Urartu: the Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich 12-14 October 2007,
Leuven.
Маkhortykh, S.V.
1991 Skify na Severnom Kavkaze, Kyiv.
2014 Коnskoe snaryazhenie vsadnikov Predkavkaz’ya i Ukrainskoj lesostepi v VII–VI vv. do
n.e. In: A. Оngar (ed.), Vsadniki velikoj stepi: traditsii i innovatsii, Аstana, 174-187.
2017 Pronizi dlya perekrestnykh remney konskoj upryazhi na yuge Vostochnoj Evropy v VII-VI
vv. dо n.e. Arkheologiya i davnya istoriya Ukrainy 23 (2), 166-184.
2018 Raspredeliteli remney konskoj upryazhi VII-VI vv. dо н.э. v Zakavkaz’e i Perednej Azii.
Arkheologiya i davnya istoriya Ukrainy 27 (2), 35-50.
2021 Ranneskifskie kolchannye nabory Severnogo Kavkaza. In: A.R. Galustov (ed.), Problemy
arkheologii i istorii Kavkaza i Evropy, Armavir, 95-105.
Меdvedskaya, I. N.
1992 Periodizatsiya skifskoj arkhaiki i drevniy Vostok. Rossiyskaya arkheologiya 4, 88-107.
Özdemir, M., Işıklı, M.
2017 Van Ayanis Kalesinden Ele Geçen Ok Uçları Üzerine Genel Bir Değerlendirme. Mimarlar
Arkeologlar Sanat Tarihçileri Restoratörler Ortak Platformu 8 (11), 46-62.
Petrenko, V. G.
1990 К voprosy о khronologii ranneskifskikh kurganov Tsentralnogo Predkavkaz’ya. In: A.I.
Меliukova (ed.), Problemy skifo-sarmatskoj arkheologii, Моskva, 60-81.
2006 Кrasnoznamenskiy mogilnik, Moskva.
Pickworth, D.
2005 Excavations at Nineveh: The Halzi Gate. Iraq 67, 295-316.
Piotrowski, B.B.
1950 Каrmir-Blur I. Erevan.
1959 Gorod boga Tejsheby. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 2, 169-186.
1970 Каrmir-Blur. Leningrad.
Piotrowski B., Galanina L. and Gratsch N,
1986 Scythische Kunst, Leningrad.
 The Scythians and Urartu 9
Romashko, V., Skorij, S. and Filimonov, D.
2014 Ranneskifskoe pogrebenie v kurgane u sela Kitajgorod v Priorel’e. Rossiyskaya arkheologiya
4, 107-117.
Ryabkova, Т.
2009 Nakonechniki strel skifskogo tipa iz Tejshebaini. V: I. Маrchenko (ed.), Pyataya Kubanskaya
arkheologicheskaya konferentsiya, Кrasnodar, 328-334.
2012 Uzdechnye prinadlezhnosti skifskogo tipa iz Tejshebaini. Rossijskiy arkheologicheskiy
ezhegodnik 2, 360-382.
2014 Kurgan 524 u s. Zhabotin v sisteme pamyatnikov perioda skifskoj arkhaiki. Rossijskiy
arkheologicheskiy ezhegodnik 4, 236-296.
Salvini, M.
1995 Geschichte und Kultur der Urartäer, Darmstadt.
Schmidt, K.
2002 Norşuntepe. Kleinfunde. Artefakte aus Felsgestein, Knochen und Geweih, Ton, Metall und
Glas, Istanbul.
Summers, G.
2017 Iron Age Arrowheads from Kerkenes. In: Ç. Maner, M. Horowitz and A. Gilibert (eds.),
Overturning certainties in Near Eastern archaeology, Leiden, 645-664.
Vishnevskaya, О. А.
1973 Kultura sakskikh plemen nizov’ev Syrdar’i v VII-V vv. do. n.e, Moskva.
Wolley, C. L.
1921 Carchemish. The Town Defences, London.
10 Sergey Makhortykh

Fig. 1: Bronze biblade arrowheads

from Ayanis (Çilingiroğlu 2005:
fig. 1)

Fig. 2: Bronze socketed arrow-

heads from Ayanis (not to scale)
(Derin and Muscarella 2001: fig. 7;
Özdemir and Işıklı 2017: figs. 3, 5)
 The Scythians and Urartu 11

Fig. 3: Bronze triblade

arrowheads from Karmir-
Blur and their East
European analogies: 1-4,
12-19 – Karmir-Blur; 5-11 –
Novozavedennoe П, Kurgan
5; 20-25 – Repyakhovataya
Mogila, Burial 2; 26-28 –
Kitaigorod (not to scale)
(Ilinskaya, Моzolevskiy
and Теrenozhkin 1980:
fig. 14; Petrenko 1990: fig.
2; Ryabkova 2009: fig.
1; Romashko, Skorij and
Filimonov 2014: fig. 3)

Fig. 4: Bronze socketed arrow-

heads from Karmir-Blur and its
Near Eastern analogies: 1-10 –
Karkemish; 11-18 – Karmir-Blur
(not to scale) (Wolley 1921: pls.
22-23; Ryabkova 2009: figs. 1-3)
12 Sergey Makhortykh

Fig. 5: Ends of the scabbards, plaques

and sword belt tip decorated with zoo-
morphic images:

1 – Ayanis;
2-3 – Кеlermes, Kurgan 1/Sh;
4 – Iran;
5 – Shunery;
6 – Yagunya, Kurgan 11;
7-8 – Ujgarak, Kurgan 28;
9 – Ujgarak, Kurgan 27 (not to scale)

(Vishnevskaya 1973: fig. 10; Piotrowski,

Galanina and Gratsch 1986: fig. 8;
Barbier 1996: fig. 7; Galanina 1997: pl.
9; Bogdanov 2006: fig. 2; Çilingiroğlu
2018: fig. 12)

Fig. 6: Bone and metal scabbard

chapes decorated with images of a
coiled animal:

1 – Karmir-Blur;
2 – Darevka;
3 – Sardis;
4 – Ziwiye (not to scale)

(Bobrinskoy 1894: fig. 13;

Ghirshman 1964: fig. 157;
Piotrowski 1970: fig. 96; Dusinbere
2010: fig. 2)
 The Scythians and Urartu 13

Fig. 7: Iron and bone cheekpieces:

1 – Ayanis;
2 – Кrasnoe Znamya, kurgan 1;
3 – Кrasnoe Znamya, kurgan 3;
4 – Saranchevo pole, kurgan 11;
5 – Berezan settlement
  (semi-dugout SK 44);
6,7 – Karmir-Blur (not to scale)

(Piotrowski 1950: fig. 61; Petrenko

2006: fig. 48; Ilina and Chistov
2012: fig. 53; Makhortykh 2014: fig.
8; Işikli, Öztürk and Parliti 2016:
fig. 6)

Fig. 8: Zoomorphic harness

fittings and ends of the
cheekpieces:

1-3, 9 – Karmir-Blur;
4, 5 – Norşuntepe;
6, 7 – Kelermes;
8 – Ayanis;
10 – Shumejko; (not to
 scale)

(Galanina 1997: fig. 22;

Schmidt 2002: pl. 68;
Ryabkova 2012: table 1;
Işikli, Öztürk and Parliti
2016: fig. 6; Makhortykh
2018: fig. 4)