Background
The Cimmerian period (10th–7th century BC) can be considered the very first period of Ukrainian history, due to the earliest written information (albeit scarce) regarding the inhabitants of the north Pontic region. The sources (primarily Herodotus in the fourth part of his Histories) tell the legend of how people (or rather a union of several peoples) called ‘the Cimmerians’ fell into civil war because of the imminent threat of Scythian tribes from the east. The survivors were later forced to depart, leaving the north Pontic region for Scythians to conquer (Herodotus, IV).
The modern archaeological data, however, suggest a somewhat more complex picture. By the beginning of the Early Iron Age, the north Pontic region was indeed inhabited by several local peoples, which I here consider as being represented by different archaeological cultures, whose origins can be traced deep into the Bronze Age. However the number of finds (both of military and civilian use) indicates extensive contacts with nomadic tribes from the eastern steppe region long before the 7th century BC, when the Scythian era fully began. These “proto-Scythians” — a name suggested by V.I. Klochko for many years (V.I. Klochko & Murzin Reference Klochko, Murzin and Chernenko1987; V.I. Klochko Reference Klochko and Bessonova2009) — most likely had integrated into Cimmerian society (at least partly), participating in several raids into central-eastern Europe (modern-day Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, Poland, Austria etc.). They also contributed to the formation of Cimmerian-period weapons and weaponry complexes. Among these items are the sheath-ends.
Previous work
In recent years the number of known sheath-ends has increased dramatically — in addition to the previously known types, three new ones have appeared. This calls for their analysis, as well as the revision of the old finds in a new light.
Although they are not the main subject, sheath-ends appear in many writings dedicated to Cimmerian weaponry, including works which are foundational to modern Cimmerian studies (e.g. Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976; Chochorowski Reference Chochorowski1993; Dudarev Reference Dudarev1999).
In his book Kimmerijcy, Terenozhkin (Reference Terenozhkin1976), who wrote about Cimmerians in Ukraine, briefly mentions several sheath-ends which were found in Ukraine, the central Caucasus and central Russia, as well as a single find from Romania. However, the author pays little attention to these artefacts, simply providing pictures and a brief description. One of the sheath-ends from Ukraine was even described as part of a belt (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, 63).
In his monograph, Chochorowski (Reference Chochorowski1993) focused on the Cimmerian invasion of central-eastern Europe and presents three sheath-ends. Each has a different appearance, thus they belong to three different types. One comes from the Czech Republic, two others from Hungary. The author named each of the types according to the place where they had been found. However, these names now require revision, as new finds suggest that these types did not originate in central-eastern Europe, but were brought there from the north Pontic region.
The article ‘Eastern objects or western imitations?’ (Szabo et al. Reference Szabo, Horvath, Barkoczy, Erdelyi, Juhasz and Gyongyosi2018) presents an up-to-date view of European archaeology on the Cimmerian sheath-ends. Unlike Chochorowski, the authors name one of the sheath-end types after a region in the northern Caucasus, probably after the dagger type which comes from there (Szabo et al. Reference Szabo, Horvath, Barkoczy, Erdelyi, Juhasz and Gyongyosi2018). However, this must be criticised, as there are currently no known connections between the daggers and the sheath-end, apart from a resemblance in the ornaments.
Currently, the subject of Cimmerian sheath-ends faces two main problems: first of all, the available information is largely outdated. Secondly, modern-day Ukraine — the core of the Cimmerian area — remains relatively unknown to many European archaeologists, which may well be the reason for suggesting inappropriate names (e.g. Szabo et al. Reference Szabo, Horvath, Barkoczy, Erdelyi, Juhasz and Gyongyosi2018). The goal of this paper is therefore to introduce new finds of sheath-ends and to create a new typology based on them. This requires the revision of the previously known artefacts, the incorporation of newly found ones, and the mapping of all of them.
Methods
The main method employed in this article is comparative or analogical. Unfortunately, all of the newly discovered items are stray finds without any archaeological context. The same is true for some of the previously published sheath-ends. Therefore, only the item itself is available for study, which makes a stylistic comparative method the most suitable one. After compiling all the known finds of Cimmerian sheath-ends, I divide them into several types based on their general similarities and differences. The number of sheath-ends affiliated to some of these types is enough to further subdivide the corpus into variants within the type, also based on their similarities and differences: size, specifics of the ornamentation etc.
The ornamentation itself is another subject of my analysis. By comparing it to the pictures on non-military items (mainly jewellery) it is possible to attribute the sheath-ends to certain archaeological cultures (which are here interpreted as representing groups of people) which resided in the north Pontic region. Different depictions of a given ornament on different sheath-ends can suggest which of the items were created first and which were later imitations, crafted as a result of exchange and trading. In addition to the division into types and variants (where possible), items are mapped to show the distribution of different types and variants throughout eastern Europe (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Distribution map of known sheath-ends. Yellow: Subotiv type, large variant. 3 Sumy region (Ukraine); 4 Brno-Obřany (Czech Republic). Orange: Subotiv type, medium variant. 1–2 Poltava region (Ukraine); 3 Caucasus (Russia); 4 Mohyliv Podilskyi (Vinnytsia region, Ukraine); 5 Kropyvnytskyi region (Ukraine); 6 Subotiv (Cherkasy region, Ukraine); 7 Huly (Kyiv region, Ukraine). Red: Subotiv type, small variant. 1 Kropyvnytsky region (Ukraine); 2 Luhansk region (Ukraine); 3–5 Lviv region (Ukraine); 6 Chernihiv region (Ukraine); 7 Zandak cemetery (Caucasus); 8 Serzhen-Yurt cemetery (Caucasus, Russia); 9 Unknown (Dagestan); 10 Echkyvash cemetery (Caucasus, Russia); 11 Psekup cemetery (Caucasus, Russia); 12 Hermenchyk village (Kabardino-Balkaria, Russia); 13 Kharkiv region (Ukraine). Blue: Dunakomlod type. 1 Kharkiv region (Ukraine); 2 Akhmylovo (Russia); 3 Dunakomlod (Hungary); 4 Unknown (Croatia); 5 Talne (Cherkasy region, Ukraine); 6 Bila Tserkva (Kyiv region, Ukraine). Green: Novomyrgorod type. 1 Novomyrgorod (Ukraine); 2 Ugra (Romania); 3 Akhmylovo (Russia); 4 Kakasd (Hungary); 5 Biharugra (Hungary). Violet: Ring-edged type. 1 Khmelnytskyi region (Ukraine); 2 Vinnytsia region (Ukraine); 3 Cherkasy region (Ukraine). Gray: Spiral-ornament type. 1 Chernihiv region (Ukraine); 2 Summy region (Ukraine); 3 Dnipro region (Ukraine); 4 Vinnytsia region (Ukraine); 5 Lviv region (Ukraine); 6–8 Poltava region (Ukraine); 9 Myrgorod (Poltava region, Ukraine). White: Triangular-ornament type. 1 Lviv region (Ukraine); 2 Suvorovo (Ukraine); 3 Kamianets-Podilskyi (Ukraine); 4 Artand (Hungary); 5 Murgesti (Romania).
Results
Currently there are six clearly distinguishable types of Cimmerian sheath-ends. Some of them were previously known, while others are being introduced for the first time in this article. The former include the Brno-Obrany type (or Subotiv type, which is a more suitable name for reasons explained below) (Figure 2), the Dunakomlod type (Figure 3 A), and the Kakasd (or Novomyrgorod) type (Figure 3 B). Newly identified types are the ring-edge type (Figure 3 C), the spiral-ornament type (Figure 3 D), and the triangular-ornament type (Figure 3 E). The number of Subotiv type finds allows us to distinguish three variants: large (c. 10–13 cm long) (Figure 2 A), medium (c. 6–9 cm long) (Figure 2 B), and small (c. 3–4 cm long) (Figure 2 C). Not only are the items of Subotiv type spread over a large area (from central-eastern Europe to the northern Caucasus), but they were also used over some duration, as indicated by the finds from the Subotiv settlement (Figure 5.1), an unspecified location in the northern Caucasus (Figure 5.5), the Echkyvash cemetery (Figure 5.8) and the Kropyvnytsky region (Figure 5.9). These sheath-ends were found with weapons of different variants and stages of bimetallic weaponry: in the first two cases bimetallic longswords, in the Echkyvash cemetery a developed variant of bimetallic daggers (with bent, sharp-edged cross-guard), and in the Kropyvnytsky region with a dagger of Kabardino-Pyatigorsk type, which evolved from the cross-shaped handle type of bimetallic weaponry.
Figure 2. Subotiv type sheath-ends: large (A), medium (B) and small (C) variants. A: 1–2 Unknown (Ukraine); 3 Summy region (Ukraine); 4 Brno-Obrany (Czech Republic) (Chochorowsky Reference Chochorowski1993, fig. 13.3). B: 1–2 Poltava region (Ukraine); 3 Unknown (Caucasus, Russia); 4 Mohyliv Podilskyi (Vinnytsia region, Ukraine); 5 Kropyvnytsky region (Ukraine); 6 Subotiv (Cherkasy region, Ukraine) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 50.4); 7 Huly (Kyiv region, Ukraine) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 37.5); 8 Museum of Ukrainian Arms and Armory (Brovary, Kyiv region, Ukraine). C: 1 Kropyvnytsky region (Ukraine); 2 Luhansk region (Ukraine); 3–5 Lviv region (Ukraine); 6 Chernihiv region (Ukraine); 7 Zandak cemetery (Caucasus) (Dudarev Reference Dudarev1999, fig. 168); 8 Serzhen-Yurt cemetery (Caucasus, Russia) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 68.7); 9 Unknown (Dagestan) (Metzner-Nebelsick Reference Metzner-Nebelsick and Lippert2001, fig. 11); 10 Echkyvash cemetery (Caucasus, Russia) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 69.6); 11 Psekup cemetery (Caucasus, Russia) (Dudarev Reference Dudarev1999, fig. 63); 12 Hermenchyk village (Kabardino-Balkaria, Russia) (Dudarev Reference Dudarev1999, fig. 154.14); 13 Kharkiv region (Ukraine); 14 Museum of Ukrainian Arms and Armory (Brovary, Kyiv region, Ukraine).
Figure 3. Sheath-ends of Dunakomlod (A), Novomyrgorod (B), ring-edge (C), spiral-ornament (D), and triangular-ornament (E) types. A: 1 Kharkiv region (Ukraine); 2 Akhmylovo (Russia) (Szabo et al. Reference Szabo, Horvath, Barkoczy, Erdelyi, Juhasz and Gyongyosi2018, fig. 5.7); 3 Dunakomlod (Hungary) (Chochorowsky Reference Chochorowski1993, fig. 13.2); 4 Unknown (Croatia) (Metzner-Nebelsick Reference Metzner-Nebelsick2002, pl. 97.13); 5 Talne (Cherkasy region, Ukraine); 6 Bila Tserkva (Kyiv region, Ukraine). B: 1 Novomyrgorod (Ukraine); 2. Ugra (Romania) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 95.2); 3 Akhmylovo (Russia) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 95.1); 4 Kakasd (Hungary) (Chochorowsky Reference Chochorowski1993, fig. 13.1); 5 Biharugra (Hungary) (Metzner-Nebelsick Reference Metzner-Nebelsick2002, pl. 135.8). C: 1 Khmelnytskyi region (Ukraine); 2 Vinnytsia region (Ukraine); 3 Cherkasy region (Ukraine). D: 1 Chernihiv region (Ukraine); 2 Summy region (Ukraine); 3 Dnipro region (Ukraine); 4 Vinnytsia region (Ukraine); 5 Lviv region (Ukraine); 6–8 Poltava region (Ukraine); 9 Myrgorod (Poltava region, Ukraine). E: 1 Lviv region (Ukraine); 2 Suvorovo (Ukraine) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 32.1); 3 Kamianets-Podilskyi (Ukraine); 4 Artand (Hungary) (Szabo et al. Reference Szabo, Horvath, Barkoczy, Erdelyi, Juhasz and Gyongyosi2018, fig. 5.11); 5 Murgesti (Romania) (Szabo et al. Reference Szabo, Horvath, Barkoczy, Erdelyi, Juhasz and Gyongyosi2018, fig. 5.10).
Figure 4. Examples of spiral and triangular decoration on Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age items. A: 1 Subotiv hillfort (Hershkovich Reference Hershkovich2016, fig. E4); 2 Hordiivsky cemetery, mound 16 (Berezanska et al. Reference Berezanska, Hoshko, Klochko, Klochko, Lytvynova, Potuphyk, Sliusarska and Shumova2011, figs 29–30). B: Hordiivsky cemetery, kurgan 31 (Berezanska et al. Reference Berezanska, Hoshko, Klochko, Klochko, Lytvynova, Potuphyk, Sliusarska and Shumova2011, fig. 58.5). C: Unknown (Dagestan) (Metzner-Nebelsick Reference Metzner-Nebelsick and Lippert2001, fig. 11). D: Kyiv historical museum (Ukraine) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 47). E: Stepantsi (Cherkasy region, Ukraine) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 42).
Currently, there are 26 finds of Subotiv type (four large, eight medium and 14 small ones), six of Dunakomlod type, five of Novomyrgorod type, three of the ring-edge type, nine of the spiral-ornament type, and five of the triangular-ornament type. Nineteen sheath-ends were previously published, while the rest are new finds. The analysis of sizes reveals an interesting (though imperfect) pattern: the length of sheath-ends decreases from west to east. In central-eastern Europe mostly large items were found, in the Caucasus mostly small ones. In the north Pontic region, however, this pattern breaks down: long sheath-ends are found mostly to the east of the Dnipro river.
Discussion
As the different types of Cimmerian sheath-ends have not previously been systematically studied, there is a problem with different naming systems in different works. As already mentioned, Chochorowski (Reference Chochorowski1993) names three types found in central-eastern Europe after the places where they were first discovered: Brno-Obrany (Czech Republic) (Figure 2 A.3), Dunakomlod (Figure 3 A.2), and Kakasd (Hungary) (Figure 3 B.4). Recently the latter type received an alternative name, which is even more inappropriate (see above). Therefore, new names are suggested in this article. Firstly, the Brno-Obrany type should be called the Subotiv type, after the eponymous hillfort (Cherkasy region, Ukraine) where a Cimmerian longsword with a sheath-end of this type has been found (Figure 5.1). This sword is considered one of the most famous finds of the Cimmerian period in Ukraine. In addition, most of the sheath-ends which belong to the type are found in modern-day Ukraine, which also calls for a Ukrainian name.
Secondly, a sheath-end of the Kakasd type was recently found in Novomyrgorod (Kropyvnytsky region, Ukraine) (Figure 3 C.1), along with a bimetallic dagger with cross-shaped handle. Such daggers were widespread in the north Pontic region during the Cimmerian period. This indicates that this type of sheath-ends might also have originated in what is now Ukraine, and thus a name associated with Ukraine seems pertinent.
The origins of the other types pose no less interesting questions. Three other sheath-ends, similar to the find from Dunakomlod, come from the Kharkiv region (Ukraine) (Figure 3 A.1), from Croatia (exact location unknown) (Figure 3 A.4) and from Akhmylovo (western Russia) (Figure 3 A.2). The first example is the smallest and could be the earliest. The third item could have been brought there as a trophy. The item from Croatia is the only known iron sheath-end of the Cimmerian period. This puts this artefact later than the ones from Hungary and Russia. A sheath-end similar to the find from Croatia was found in the Cherkasy region (Figure 3 A.5). It greatly resembles the shape of the Dunakomlod type in general, but has two major differences: first, its surface is covered in multiple tiny blisters; second, much like the sheath-end from Croatia, it is not cast in a mould, but made by collapsing the metal into a cone shape — in both cases this is indicated by the appearances of the inner sides of the sheath-ends. An item of somewhat different shape, but with similar blisters and crafted using the same technology was found in the Kyiv region (Figure 3 A.6). The small number of such finds complicates their interpretation. For now we can only speculate that the sheath-ends from the Cherkasy and Kyiv regions could represent one of the late variants of the Dunakomlod type, similar to the find from Croatia, or, perhaps, its bronze imitations.
The ring-edge type is represented by three finds from three neighbouring Ukrainian regions: Khmelnytskyi, Vinnytsia, and Cherkasy. The circle on the edge of each sheath-end is unique. The spatial clustering of all three might indicate that the type is a local tradition, while different ornamentation represents different, but culturally close groups.
The origin of two other types — the spiral-ornament and the triangular-ornament type — can be determined via their ornamentation. The decoration of the former has the shape of two connected spirals, placed next to each other. Such ornaments are quite common in the Chornolissia culture, the earliest finds come from the Final Bronze Age graves of the Hordiivsky cemetery. Another, more similar, example of this kind of ornament is seen on the bracelet from the Subotiv settlement (Figure 4 A.1). This means that the spiral-ornament type represents a local tradition and culture.
Figure 5. Sheath-ends associated with weapons. 1 Subotiv (Cherkasy region, Ukraine) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 50.4); 2 Unknown (Dagestan) (Metzner-Nebelsick Reference Metzner-Nebelsick and Lippert2001, fig. 11); 3 Zandak cemetery (Caucasus, Russia) (Dudarev Reference Dudarev1999, fig. 168); 4 Serzhen-Yurt cemetery (Caucasus, Russia) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 68.7); 5 Unknown (Caucasus, Russia); 6 Kizburun-1 (Caucasus, Russia) (Dudarev Reference Dudarev1999, fig. 15a); 7 Brno-Obrany (Czech Republic) (Chochorowsky Reference Chochorowski1993, fig. 13.3); 8 Echkyvash cemetery (Caucasus) (Terenozhkin Reference Terenozhkin1976, fig. 69.6); 9 Kropyvnytsky region (Ukraine); 10 Novomyrgorod (Ukraine); 11 Dnipro region (Ukraine).
Ornamentation in the form of several triangles is also found on the item from one of the burials in the Hordiivsky cemetery (Figure 4 B). Similar (though rectangular) ornaments are also present on the handle of a dagger which continues the tradition of the Late Bronze Age Bilozerska culture swords (Figure 4 D). Both triangular and rectangular ornamentation is also seen on the bronze handle of the Late Bronze Age post-Talysh type dagger (D. Klochko Reference Klochko2024) (Figure 4 E). All of this supports the idea that this type also originates in the north Pontic region. The set of triangles is also seen on a Subotiv-type sheath-end and piece of scabbard on a classic Cimmerian dagger found in Dagestan. However the context of this find is more questionable than for the items discovered in Ukraine. Interestingly, the form of the ornament on sheath-ends from Ukraine differs from that on the finds from Romania and Hungary, both in shape and location of the triangles. Since the ornamentation on the former is closer to the finds from the Hordiivsky cemetery, it can be suggested that sheath-ends from Romania and Hungary are imitations of examples brought by the Cimmerians from the north Pontic region.
Conclusions
The recent finds of sheath-ends extend our knowledge about this kind of weaponry. We can now divide the Brno-Obrany type (or Subotiv type) into three variants (large, medium and small) in respect to the size of the items. Also, several new types can be defined based on some of the newly found artefacts: the ring-edge type, the spiral-ornament type, and the triangular-ornament type. Various indications strongly suggest that most of the Cimmerian sheath-end types originate in the north Pontic region: most of the Subotiv type artefacts of different variants were found in Ukraine; the Kakasd type sheath-end was found in Ukraine along with a dagger of a type also mostly found in this area; and the decoration on the sheath-ends of spiral-ornament and triangular-ornament types continues the local tradition of the Chornolissia culture of the Final Bronze Age.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to his scientific supervisor V.I. Klochko for access to his personal archive, which included the unpublished finds of Cimmerian sheath-ends, as well as to Evgeniy Gredunov, owner of the Museum of Ukrainian Arms and Armory, for the opportunity to work with his collection.
Open access
