4.3. Presentación de los resultados
4.3.2. Percepción de la población respecto a la comisión del delito de
Şevket DÖNMEZ*
Problem Definition
As archaeological findings about the existence of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads of Iron Age in Anatolia37 increase, new opinions with new publications about the matter increase accordingly. Evaluations on the nomad cultures in Iron Age, examined on the basis of Cimmerians and Scythians until now, bring new developments especially with the problems that have emerged on the existence of Cimmerians in Anatolia. Foundation of suspicions about the presence of Cimmerians in Anatolia is the fact that our information about Cimmerians depend on antique records rather than archaeological findings and especially the ancient Western source with a reference to the society is Herodotus (Historia, I, 6, 15, 16, 103; IV, 1, 11, 12, 13; VII, 20). According to the new opinions, it appears that many archaeologists and historians wrote their numerous publications on Cimmerians and their culture based on disputable data and findings.
The main problem with developed on these findings is that Cimmerian findings display Scythian art characteristics. In other words, archaeologically, it is very difficult to distinguish between Cimmerian culture archaeological findings and Scythian artworks38. Thus, it has been chosen to identify findings obtained until now from Anatolian Iron Age nomad art as Scythian39 and to name some findings thought to be from early nomad culture as Early Scythian.
In order to avoid the problem of identification of the Anatolian Iron Age nomad culture findings, incomplete because of these outlined disputes, the owner of this culture and findings as “Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads” in this article. This term is comprehensive enough for Scythian, Early Scythian, Proto-Scythian and Cimmerian cultural identities until the identification problem is solved.
* Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şevket Dönmez. İstanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology. Beyazıt 34134-İstanbul, Turkey. [email protected]
37 See San 1998 for Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads findings and extensive bibliography.
38 Tsetskhladze 1999: 483-485.
39 Hellmuth 2008: 102-122.
136 137
Findings
Some of the data and findings that make the topic of this article were revealed during the archaeological excavations at Maşat Höyük (Fig.3) and Oluz Höyük (Fig. 4). The other are preserved in İstanbul Archaeological Museums and a private collection in Berlin.
A horse harness piece, which is a strap distributor, with a wild goat figure40 (Fig.1), thought to have originated in İzmit, is made of bronze. The wild goat, contained in a private collection in Berlin, has its head turned back. An analogue of this work was obtained in the Lydian capital Sardis41. This horse harness piece with a wild goat figure from İzmit is an important work that indicates to the existence of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in the Black Sea Region but not accordingly evaluated until now. Another bronze strap distributor with a wild goat figure42 (Fig.2) is from Balıkesir and preserved in İstanbul Archaeological Museums but the wild goat does not have its head turned back and thusly distinguished from İzmit wild goat. The fact that it was found not far from İzmit indicates to dense Eurasian Nomads activity in the west of the Black Sea and close proximity.
A bronze figure of a double headed horse43, dating to the last quarter of 6th century BC and obtained in the 2nd Architectural Layer of Iron Age at Maşat Höyük (Fig.3), is quite striking. The horse figures are symmetrical but placed opposite and they are depicted in a natural manner with linear mane on their necks. Although function of the work could not be specified, it is possible that it is a harness piece. It has unfamiliar style and elements to Anatolian art and must be connected to Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads, like İzmit (Fig.1) and Balıkesir horsegear pieces (Fig.2).
A horse figure on a crater piece (Fig.5a-b) was found in the 2nd Architectural Layer (last quarter of 5th century BC - 3rd century BC) of Oluz Höyük (Fig.4), near Amasya and in 70km air distance from Maşat Höyük, can be evaluated as a nomad culture element. The sudden appearance of previously non-existent horse figures in Early and Middle Iron Age pottery in Halys/Kızılırmak Bend must be an influence by the nomads on pottery workshops. Point here to consider is that the nomads made this influence not with their arts but with their lifestyles. Horses of armed cavalries observed on the potsherds found at Maşat Höyük44 and Boğazköy Northwest Slope45 (Fig.6), which belong to the same culture area as Oluz Höyük, should be evaluated within this context. Scythian type bronze arrowheads, obtained at Oluz Höyük 2nd Architectural Layer (Figs.7a-b, 8a-b, 9a-b), point out to existence of the nomads in the settlement and its vicinity.
Scythian type arrowhead is a term for the generally bronze and sometimes iron arrowheads with cartridges, mostly single and rarely double spurs, sometimes two and sometimes three wings, which signal the presence of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in Anatolia and other regions of Near East in Iron Age. Basic discussions continue today on the identity of Scythian arrowheads which are observed in almost all regions of Near East, i.e. whether they belong to Cimmerians or Scythians or both societies used them and whether or not they were locally produced in Anatolia and Near East.
Also, horse bones with butchery traces and findings (Figs.12-14) on their slaughter, revealed in some pits (Figs.10-11) of the 2nd Architectural Layer of Oluz Höyük, suggest certain Asian traditions of Oluz Höyük Iron Age society like eating horse meat. It has been discussed that Eurasian Nomads melted in the Anatolian culture pot in time and settled; however, the matter was not supported with archaeological evidences. Oluz Höyük excavations are the only ones that currently provided data for the problem how and where Eurasian Nomads could have settled.
40 Otto 1941: Abb. 1/2; Waldbaum 183: Fig. 17/5-6; Ivantchick 2001: Abb. 37/3.
41 Hanfmann 1963: Fig.9; Waldbaum 1983: Fig.17/1-2; Ivantchik 2001: Abb.37/1.
42 Meriçboyu 1997: 6, Çiz. 10.
43 Özgüç 1982: 66, Lev. 62/15.
44 Özgüç 1982: Lev.74/10.
45 Genz 2007: 135-136, Fig.2a.
Şevket Dönmez
136 137 A close analogue of bird head shaped strap distributor from a bronze harness46 (Fig.15), preserved in İstanbul Archaeological Musems and recorded in museum inventory as originating from Samsun, was found in Sardis and Ephesos Artemision47. As the analogues from Western Anatolia pointed, this work must be in connection with Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads.
A rather small number of bird head shaped strap distributors, a harness piece which was produced and used by Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads, were published from Anatolia. Y. Akyay Meriçboyu, who dealt with the subject, stated that there could be many unpublished strap distributors in museums of Turkey48.
Bi-metallic battle picks49, the total number of which in Anatolia until today was three, are one of the most important finding group indicating to the presence of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in Anatolia. Surely, mostly bronze Scythian type arrowheads with cartridges and sometimes spurs50 are typologically the leader among the weapons the warrior nomads brought to Anatolia with them. These arrowheads were thought to be an object which were only produced and used by Scythians in early Scythian archaeology research; however, as the archaeological studies increased, these arrowheads also increased numerically and in area created the impression that the arrowheads were in time adopted and produced by the Anatolians. An evaluation of ours proposed that E and F residences at in Carchemish Outer Town were connected to local Scythian type arrowhead production in Anatolia51.
Although bi-metallic battle picks are a new weapon type which entered Anatolia with Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads like Scythian type arrowheads, scarce examples found until today give the impression that they, contrary to the arrowheads, were not adopted or used by Anatolian Iron Age societies. The barrow (kurgan) of Amasya-İmirler52, İstanbul Archaeological Museums example53 and Muş originated bi-metallic battle pick54 are unfamiliar to Anatolia in many ways in their forms and types and in production technology as bronze and iron were used in the same weapon.
Bi-metallic battle picks are actually in two parts. The main part of the weapon is a bronze shaft with cartridge with an iron barrel, attached 90o, and a nape. Generally, a stylized feral bird head figure is placed on the part where the barrel joins with the bronze shaft in a 90o angle. Eyes of the convoluted and pointy beaked bird are emphasized with round embossments. Rivet holes are located on the lower part of the shaft. These hilts, made with cartridges like the shaft, were produced in casting technique and their exteriors are usually decorated with vertical grooves. There are rivet holes on the mouth of the hilt, like the lower part of the shaft. Rivet holes on the shaft and hilt were mounted on the wooden shaft which was placed on the both sides with cartridges and formed a long shaft. The only example obtained with its hilt in Anatolia was a bi-metallic battle pick, revealed at the İmirler Kurgan during an illegal excavation and confiscated by Amasya Museum55. A bronze bi-metallic battle pick handle (hilt) found in Sinop56 is the second hilt found in Anatolia and is one of the most important evidences for Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in the Central Black Sea Region.
46 Akyay Meriçboyu 1997: 4-5, Çiz. 6.
47 Akyay Meriçboyu 1997: 5.
48 Akyay Meriçboyu 1997: Footnote 12.
49 Ivantchik 2001: Abb.22/8-9, 12.
50 See Dönmez 2002: 33-44 for Scythian type arrowheads bibliography.
51 Dönmez 2008: 225-234.
52 Ünal 1982: Abb. 1/2-3; Bilgi 2001: Tablo 12/098.
53 Müller-Karpe 1995: 233.
54 Müller-Karpe 1995: Res. 2/2.
55 Ünal 1982: Abb. 1/2-3; Bigli 2001: Tablo 12/098.
56 Dönmez 2011: Fig. 23.
New Evidences on the Exıistence of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in the Black Sea Region, Turkey
138 139
Kurgans (barrows) and Tumuli
Archaeological studies carried out until now have not yielded any settlements connected with Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in Anatolia. When we put aside the bi-metallic battle picks, arrowheads, harness pieces and similar findings, the most important data with architectural elements of Eurasian Nomads are the kurgans and tumuli. Kurgans and tumuli, revealed until today by illegal excavations or scientific archaeological research and excavations, are located at İmirler, near Gümüşhacıköy district of Amasya Province, Norşuntepe, within Elazığ Provincey borders, Gordion/Yassıhöyük, the Phrygian capital near Polatlı district of Ankara Province, and Demircihöyük, in Eskişehir Province.
The findings from the kurgan type tomb, disclosed by illegal excavations at İmirler, are an iron sword57, a bi-metallic battle pick 58 with its bronze hilt, a bronze bridle piece59 and seven bronze Scythian type arrowheads60. These findings were confiscated by Amasya Museum after the illegal excavations. As the examination on bone pieces gathered from the tomb found both human and horse bones and the presence of a bridle piece among the findings suggest that this kurgan61 belongs to a Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomad who was buried with his horse. The possibility that this warrior was a commander should not be ruled out. An article of A. Hellmuth, published recently, if the dating of İmirler Kurgan to the beginning of the 8th century BC or even the end of the 9th century BC is accepted, contrary to the prevalent idea, this would indicates that Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads started their activities in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey in the beginning of the Middle Iron Age. It is not surprising these groups, which we can call Proto-Scythians or Early Scythians, appeared this early in Anatolia. Surely it is natural for Eurasian Nomads existed, although in a small number, in an area they know.
Two horse skeletons were detected in a stone network wall at Norşuntepe, today inside Keban Dam Lake. These horse burials, dating to 7th century BC, 2 spearheads, 1 axe and 1 dagger with pierced hilts, 2 bronze horse bridle pieces, 1 harness connection, animal head shaped 2 harness pieces, 1 bracelet and 1 cutter stand out62.
KY (Küçük/Small Yassıhöyük) Tumulus, dating to the 7th century BC before the demolished layer at Gordion/Yassıhöyük, is 5m high with 100m diameter. KY Tumulus excavations results reveal that the wooden burial chamber was located near the centre but in the main soil63. However, the most significant aspect that distinguishes KY Tumulus from others is the two horse skeletons detected in the east side of tomb hill. Besides the skeletons, some bridle pieces and one bronze plate in each skull were found. KY Tumulus entirely reflects Phrygian characteristics with its tomb structure and wooden burial chamber. There are two possibilities to consider: The first is that the person buried inside KY Tumulus was a Phrygian and he was buried alone in the original tumulus; Horse burials were a second burial operation in a later time. The second and less likely possibility is that a Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomad and his horses were buried inside this tumulus, built in the Phrygian style.
A horse burial64 and a Scythian type arrow head65, found at Demircihöyük-Sarıket Cemetery in Eskişehir Province, the passage from Western Anatolia to Central Anatolia, the same region as Gordion/Yassıhöyük, constitute other important archaeological findings on the existence of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in the region.
Although other horse burials are known other than the ones at Norşuntepe, Amasya-İmirler, Gordion/Yassıhöyük and Demircihöyük-Sarıket, it is understood either they do not appeal to researchers of the subject or they were overlooked.
57 Ünal 1982: Abb. 1/1; Bilgi 2001: Tablo 25/162.
58 Ünal 1982: Abb. 1/2-3; Bilgi 2001: Tablo 12/098.
59 Ünal 1982: Abb. 1/4; Bilgi 2001: Tablo 4/056.
60 Ünal 1982: Abb. 1/-11; Bilgi 2001: Tablo 25/153, 156-158.
61 Ünal 1982: 65-81.
62 Hauptmann 1983: Abb. 4/1-10; Ivantchik 2001: 332, Abb. 5/1-10.
63 Young 1956: 266.
64 Seeher 1998: Taf. 9/1-2.
65 Seeher 1998: Abb. 2/4.
Şevket Dönmez
138 139 Th. Makridi Bey conducted excavation works on some tumuli in Ankara in 192566. During the excavations of a tumulus, the small one of the 2 tumuli which Th. Makridi Bey defined as “the tumuli behind Ankara Station”, he first detected horse teeth in a 1.5m deep space of probably a burial chamber, and as he expanded the space, a horse skeleton was revealed. Some bronze pieces which he found near the skeleton were specified as a horse headgear and bridle of a harness. Near there were found plates of shield and cloth ornaments and ivory buttons. These findings were understood to belong to a person. As the excavation report, published on Board of Education Magazine (Maarif Vekâleti Mecmuası) in 1926, was written in Arabic letters, these findings we mentioned escaped the notice of researchers for a long time. We reached the information when the report was transcribed, translated into modern Turkish and reprinted in 200167. Horse skeletons and other findings68 which greatly interested Th. Makridi Bey, remind the horse burials at Gordion/Yassıhöyük KY Tumulus. These tumuli are geographically close. When we consider the tumuli together and especially Ankara Tumulus, form an old but newly come up archaeological evidence for the Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads presence in Central Anatolia.
A horse skeleton was come across at Maşat Höyük (Fig.3), near Zile District in Tokat Province in the first period excavations of 1945 by E. Akurgal69. Although the skeleton was reported to be found in the Hittite layer, it is a small possibility that these burials belong to the layer they were found in because burials are placed after a hole is dug in the layer. Thus, it must be considered a great possibility that the horse skeleton was placed inside the Hittite layer by demolishing the layer in a later time. So, besides Scythian type arrowheads70 at Maşat Höyük, not very far from Amasya-İmirler Kurgan, a harness piece with a double headed horse figure71 and a potsherd with a Eurasian warrior depiction72, a horse skeleton once more reveals the existence of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads at Maşat Höyük and in the Central Black Sea Region.
Evaluation and Conclusion
This article made some contemporary contributions and comments on the data and findings of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads found in the Black Sea Region of Turkey until today. Maşat Höyük horse skeleton, not evaluated or overlooked until now, is especially important as it is the second example in the Black Sea Region after the horse skeleton from İmirler Kurgan. In addition, crater fragment with a horse figure (Fig.5a-b), obtained in the 2nd Architectural Layer (last quarter of 5th century BC - 3rd century BC) of Oluz Höyük (Fig.4), Scythian type arrowheads (Fig.7a-b, 8a-b, 9a-b) and horse bones with knife cuts (Fig.12-14) revealed in some pits (Fig.10-11) started to give contemporary archaeological data on the Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads, unknown where and when they settled. The immediate archaeological findings of Eurasian Nomads in the beginning phase of Oluz Höyük excavations show that future excavations are going to reveal much more data. When we consider in their entirety the strap distributors, one from İzmit with a wild goat figure (Fig.1) and one from Samsun in the shape of a bird’s head (Fig.15), and the harness piece with a double headed horse figure, obtained at Maşat Höyük, İmirler Kurgan findings, bi-metallic battle pick hilt found in Sinop, horse skeletons and Oluz Höyük findings, it indisputably proves the existence and routeing of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in the Black Sea Region during the Iron Age. The earlier dating of İmirler Kurgan findings to the beginning of the 8th century BC, or even, the end of the 9th century BC, contrary to what is believed, must be evaluated with a consideration that Eurasian Nomads strived to acquaint and discover Anatolia and Black Sea Region, where they were going to settle after the end of 8th century BC. We can draw a parallel between these activities and the Turkish flow system to the same country.
66 Makridi 1926: 38-48.
New Evidences on the Exıistence of Eurasian Horse-Riding Nomads in the Black Sea Region, Turkey
140 141
KAYNAKÇA/BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akyay-Meriçboyu 1997: Y. Akyay Meriçboyu. “At Koşumlarında Kayış Dağıtıcıları”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 76: 2-9.
Bilgi 2001: Ö. Bilgi. “Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi Protohistorik Çağ Maden Sanatının Kökeni ve Gelişimi”, Belleten LXV/242: 1-35.
Dönmez 2002: Ş. Dönmez. “Önasya’da İskitler”, Türkler, Cilt 4 (Ed. H.C. Güzel / K. Çiçek / S. Koca). Ankara: 33-44.
Dönmez 2008: Ş. Dönmez. “Kargamış D ve E Konutları Üzerine Yeni Gözlemler”, Prof.Dr. Aykut Çınaroğlu’na Armağan (Ed. E. Genç / D. Çelik). Ankara: 225-234.
Dönmez 2011: Ş. Dönmez. “An Overview of the 2nd Millennium BC and Iron Age Cultures of the Province of Sinop in the Lihgt of New Research”, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 16: 151-174.
Genz 2007: H. Genz. “Late Iron Age Occupation on the Northwest Slope at Boğazköy”, Anatolian Iron Age 6 (Eds. A. Çilingiroğlu/A. Sagona). Leuven: 135-151.
Hanfmann 1963: G.M.A. Hanfmann. “Fift Campaign at Sardis”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 170: 16-27.
Hauptmann 1983: H. Hauptmann. “Neue Funde eurasischer Steppenomaden in Kleinasiens”, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens Festscrift für K. Bittel. Mainz: 251-260.
Hellmuth 2008: A. Hellmuth. “The Chronological Setting of the So-Called Cimmerian and Early Scythian Material from Anatolia”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies XLV: 102-122.
Ivantchik 2001: A.I. Ivantchik. Kimmerier und Skythen. Kulturhistorische und chronologische Probleme der Archäologie der osteuropäischen Steppen und Kaukasiens in vor- und frühskythischer Zeit.
Moskau.
Makridi 1926: Th. Makridi. “Ankara Höyüklerindeki Hafriyata Dair Rapor”, Maarif Vekâleti Mecmuası 6: 38-48.
Makridi 2001: Th. Makridi. “Ankara Tümülüslerindeki Kazılar”, (Çev. M. Kanar), Arkeoloji ve Sanat 100: 38-44.
Müller-Karpe 1995: V. Müller-Karpe. “Atlı Göçebelerden Kalma Anadolu’daki Kovanlı Savaş Kazmaları”, In Memoriam İ.Metin Akyurt Bahattin Devam Anı Kitabı Eski Yakın Doğu Kültürü Üzerine İncelemeler (Ed. N.
Başgelen). İstanbul: 233-237.
Otto 1941: H. Otto. “Achamenidsche Kleinkunst in Anatolien”, Die Antike 17: 81-88.
Özgüç 1978: T. Özgüç. Maşat Höyük Kazıları ve Çevresindeki Araştırmalar/Excavations at Maşat Höyük and Investigations in Its Vicinity. Ankara.
Özgüç 1982: T. Özgüç. Maşat Höyük II. Boğazköy’ün Kuzeydoğusunda Bir Hitit Merkezi/A Hittite Center
Özgüç 1982: T. Özgüç. Maşat Höyük II. Boğazköy’ün Kuzeydoğusunda Bir Hitit Merkezi/A Hittite Center