Talk:Cimmerians

Untitled

"In the early twentieth century the home of the Cimmerians in the Caucasus led to their association with the ancient Aryans."

Whatever is meant, it ought to be expressed clearly.

S.

-- alll i have to say is that ir eally love you!

User 194.44.198.45 inserted "Ukraine and" into the who lived in the south of modern-day Ukraine and Russia,. This sentence doesn't look consistent - if they lievd in the south of modern-day Russia, then they could live in the north of modern-day Ukraine. Despite it is possible that Cimmerians lived in territory of modern Ukraine too, I don't have documental evidences of this, and I wouldn't rely on words of 194.44.198.45 who is known for his biased Ukrainian nationalistic and often misleading changes. Therefore I revert insertion of Ukraine here. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 11:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't look consistent - if they lievd in the south of modern-day Russia, then they could live in the north of modern-day Ukraine.

Please note

Perhaps You forgot the Crimean peninsula is a part of Ukraine?

I'm really tired by you Ukrainian nationalists. I didn't mean that Crimea is a part of Russian Federation.

I have fixed the article, now it should look fine. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 21:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed totally unsubstantiated edits presented as fact

I reverted Moosh 88's edits that stated the following:

1. The Cimmerians were an ancient Indo-European, who are believed to have been of Thraco-Phrygian origin.

• We don't know for sure that they spoke anything like what we would call a Indo-European language, although if you have evidence that they did, or that they were Thracians, it would be relevant. Actually, the king name Sandakhshatra with -khshatra ending does seem to be Indo-European, but of the Indo-Aryan (satem) family, not Thracian or Phrygian (centum). Even so it is premature to conclude that the people were Indo-Europeans from this, since foreign-imposed kings often had such names, eg the Mitanni... More solid research needs to be added, not speculation.

2. The Cimmerians moved to the south of modern-day Ukraine (Crimea and northern Black sea coast) and Russia (Black Sea coast and Caucasus), a little after 1200 BC from an unknown location.

• More speculation. Cimmerians are not mentioned in any records until the 8th century (see article).

3. Some scholors {sic} believe that the Cimmerians either came from Hungary or Romania or, less hypothetically, inhabited those countries as well.

• Ok, this admits that it is speculation, so we might be able to stick this further along in the article, but probably not in the intro.

4. The Scythians took over the area around the 8th and 7th century BC.

• Actually, this traditional view is based mainly on Herodotus, but it has been more recently called into question, so all sides of the story need to be presented. Codex Sinaiticus 22:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5. something to speculate/ponder: I am 13 and did research in the Cimmerians. Most of their tools were crafted from wood or bone!

Celts/Germans

afaics, the question is whether Proto-Germanic or Proto-Celtic (or both) entered Europe with the Cimmerians. It's not a question of originating near the Black Sea, it likely originated there anyway, as PIE, but it's a question of reaching western Europe in 2000 BC vs. 700 BC. There may have been some influence by "Thraco-Cimmerians" on both Proto-Germanic and Proto-Celtic, but the point is that it was influence, not wholesale replacement. Incidentially, the arrival of the Indo-Europeans around 2000 BC will not have been wholesale replacement either. All these 'migrations' ever only concern a minority of population. The Anglo-Saxon invasion is considered an extreme case: They hardly interacted with the Britons at all, except for pushing them back. Yet genetically, only about 50% of the population was replaced. Less extreme invasions will replace even a lower percentage of the indigenous population. So even a Cimmierian superstratum of a few percent of the population could have changed the language completely. dab (ᛏ) 21:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, first off I'm really pleased with all the new information added to this article as more reliable knowledge comes in; I have learned much as the article is really starting to take shape. Thanks especially to dab and the others who have contributed lately.

There's no doubt a Cimmerian stratum might have been able to contribute in significant ways to the earlier strata; possibly even language itself. There is an Irish legend of a Phenius Farsa (abundant variant spellings) who allegedly "composed the Goidelic language and the Ogam alphabet" while in Scythia. Other lists do mention him as a king of Scythia, although ruling somewhat later on (the Irish legends place the events immediately after the fall of the Tower of Babel)... Then there is the "Germani" passage in Herodotus (detailing the makeup of the Scythian tribes). The link to "Regnal Chronologies" of the Cimmerians is particularly elucidating, tying in with the Sicambri. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 21:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the migrations where cultural, not wholesale movements of people that completely pushed out the natives. But I'm not suggesting that, it's those who identify Celts and Germans as being Cimmerian in origin that are. Hence the disclaimers "An intepretation of the spread of Indo-European culture and languages as being the result of large-scale migration rather than a transfer of ideas" and "this intepretation of pre-history is considered controversial.".

Interesting. You also have Snorri Sturluson's account that the Æsir came from the Don region and settled in Scandinavia in the first part of the Heimskringla. It is usually seen as his own invention, but who knows?--Wiglaf 06:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

very interesting stuff. We need a Phenius Farsa article. It's so charming because it's really at the edge of historical tradition. It seems quite clear that something came out of "Scythia". In Assyria, the Cimmerians were just barbarians who had to be driven back. In Europe, they (viz., their fellow migrants who were pushed west rather than south) made a lasting impression. The Urnfield culture starts to transform around 750 BC. The Nordic Bronze Age follows suit around 600 BC; it appears that the European Iron Age was triggered by this migration. I do not suppose that either the Celtic or Germanic language came to Europe then, we need them here earlier, for "Italo-Celtic" and "Balto-Germanic", as well as for Centum reasons. But both the Celts and the Germans thought that the migrants were so cool that they named their dynasties and tribes after them, as well as keeping legends of Scythian origin. I think this is comparable to the Varangian migration to Russia (where they established dynasties, while the language remained unaffected), and the Norman invasion of England (where there was some lasting superstratum influence on the language, but still the conquerors switched to the language of their subjects after 300 years or so). Is there an academic term for all this? Maybe we can gather it all on European Iron Age, since this article should probably remain confined to the Cimmerians that pushed across the Caucasus, not the European "para-Cimmerians" ("Thraco-Cimmerians"). dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi dab, it took me long enough, but I have finally made a Fenius Farsa article; just a stub for now, but click on "What links here" for that page to see all the variant spellings I have found (so far) across the wiki! There is so much data on this guy, let alone spellings of his name, that a lot could be added here, should be fun... Also we will have to get some info from "Regnal Chronologies"... ፈቃደ 17:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This article might interest you, although Thor Heyerdal puts the migration to a later date. I personally don't believe that 60 BC is reasonable because, Snorri aligns Fjölnir with Augustus and so Odin has to be several generations earlier. I must warn, though, that this is a favourite domain for crackpot amateur historians in Scandinavia.--Wiglaf 07:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of it :) Heyerdahl may have been a good sailor, but that theory is nonsense. The Aesir have a good Proto-Germanic etymology. "Azov actually did have a population at the time of the emigration of the Asas" so what? So did the Easter Island. We are looking at the Cimbri/Gundestrup cauldron connection of course; sure, there were connections between Eastern and Northern Europe all the time, but Germanic paganism must have almost reached its historical form by then. Not so in 600 BC, those are Proto-Germanic times, and the Cimmerian connection runs much deeper than a note by Snorri. Snorri may have borrowed a vague "Scythian" tradition when he tried to rationalize the Aesir as a historical dynasty. dab (ᛏ) 08:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is possible that Snorri recorded traditions of a group of tough Cimmerians who created the Yngling dynasty. That their location of origin was maintained intact is realistic. Hervarar saga shows that even numerous Black sea region place names could be maintained intact during 1000 years of oral transmission, and Scandinavia always had good contacts with the Black sea region (early chariots and stirrups).--Wiglaf 09:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

How is that for the appeasement of Anti-Normanist Pan-Slavicists? The Rus were really just Cimmerians returning home to the motherland after an extended Holiday in Denmark :p dab (ᛏ) 10:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The Cimmerians as the Aesir

There are actually a number of Swedish novels that set the immigration of the Aesir to Scandinavia at 700 BC, here is one of them.--Wiglaf 09:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The first lines say: War is approaching Vanaheim (i.e. Uppland). Farms are burnt down and pillaged by Aesir who have intruded from the east. The priestess Freya travels to the enemy to broker peace, but the meeting with the chieftain's son Thor changes everything. Because a more forbidden love has never been. It is all about the formation of Proto-Germanic culture and mythology at the end of the Nordic Bronze Age.--Wiglaf 09:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

interesting, and very Cimmerian-like :) but the Aesir of course were the PIE Ansuros, "deities, spirit-like beings"; they didn't just "intrude from the East" one morning. dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If it was derogative such as "demon", it could have been an effective ethnic slur :).--Wiglaf 12:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

you wouldn't dare to mock demons, in those days. If they help you, they are gods, if they harm you, they are demons, that's the whole difference. Of course you'd pretend even the demons would help you, not to give them any mischievous ideas :) wearing your horned bronze helmet, standing on a hilltop during a thunderstorm shouting "all Ansures are bastards!" was only for the lunatically brave dab (ᛏ) 12:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You could also explain it as ehumerism, like Snorri. Snorri wrote that the Aesir became gods after their deaths. Presumably, a Cimmerian aristocracy could become Aesir after their deaths. Still in the Viking Age, dead people could become elves.--Wiglaf 13:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

euhemerism it was; we would call it snorrism today, had Euhemeros not beaten Snorri to the idea :) of course even true pagans are "euhemerists" to a certain extent, in as much as they claim descent from gods for their royalty. So there may be something pre-Christian to Snorris tale: Wermund is, after all, Odin's grandson, and the great-great-grandfather of Icel. dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Dang, I never learn to spell that word. Nothing, though, beats the divine origins of the Yngling family tree ;-).--Wiglaf 13:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Possibly talking about Huns since the Cimmerians were too far down and Slavs were never really warlike NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cimmerians Britannica

Per people's information I found this in Britannica 2006:

begin:

Cimmerians

member of an ancient people living north of the Caucasus and the Sea of Azov, driven by the Scythians out of southern Russia, over the Caucasus, and into Anatolia toward the end of the 8th century BC. Ancient writers sometimes confused them with the Scythians. Most scholars now believe that the Cimmerians assaulted Urartu (Armenia) about 714 BC, but in 705, after being repulsed by Sargon II of Assyria, they turned aside into Anatolia and in 696–695 conquered Phrygia. In 652, after taking Sardis, the capital of Lydia, they reached the summit of their power. Their decline soon began, and their final defeat may be dated from 637 or 626, when they were routed by Alyattes of Lydia. Thereafter, they were no longer mentioned in historical sources but probably settled in Cappadocia, as its Armenian name, Gamir, suggests.

The origin of the Cimmerians is obscure. Linguistically they are usually regarded as Thracian or as Iranian, or at least to have had an Iranian ruling class. They probably did live in the area north of the Black Sea, but attempts to define their original homeland more precisely by archaeological means, or even to fix the date of their expulsion from their country by the Scythians, have not so far been completely successful. One theory identifies them with what is known to archaeologists as the “Catacomb” culture. This culture was ousted from southern Russia by the “Srubna” culture advancing from beyond the Volga just as the Cimmerians were ousted by the invading Scythians, but that upheaval took place in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, and a gap of several centuries separates it from the appearance of historic Cimmerians in Asia. Some authorities identify them with “Thraco-Cimmerian” remains of the 8th–7th century BC found in the southwestern Ukraine and in central Europe; these may perhaps be looked upon as traces of the western branch of the Cimmerians, who, under fresh Scythian pressure, eventually invaded the Hungarian plain and survived there until about 500 BC

Alyattes?

How could Alyattes II rout the Cimmerians in 637-626, if he was reigning from 619-560? Soczyczi 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Alyattes was a general before he became king. Or someone made a mistake with the dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.103.116 (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gomer?

"As the eldest son of Japheth and the father of Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah, his descendants thus represent one of the major branches of the Japhethic race."

There's no such thing as the Japhetic race. This is parahistorical nonsense. Whether "Gomer" and "Cimmerian" are related I don't know, but unless you're a biblical literalist, calling the Cimmerians "Japhetic" is ridiculous, and I think it should be removed as it's irrelevant. MaryJones (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also in agreeance that it should be removed. As to how you can put there is a reference to Cimmerians as Gomer is crazy as there is no solid eveidence to support this and there are many theories that contadict it.

One example of a theory is that the sons of Joktan were the original Iranian (Indo-European) people (i.e Samatians, Persians, Medes, Scythians etc). Surely the Cimmerians could have also fallen under these people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.96.74 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the line. It's irrelevant, and ahistorical. MaryJones (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's widely accepted that Gomer is a reference to the Cimmerians; the authors associate them with the Scythians (=Heb. Ashkenaz, Assyr. Ashkuza). The fact that the author(s) of Genesis 10 (probably 6th century BC in its final form) associate these two peoples would seem to confirm the Greek account of their association as well.

Although I agree that the "Japhetic" nonsense does not belong. --76.78.63.57 (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Iranian peoples?

I see no clear evidence that the Cimmerians were Iranians. The information cited in this article on an alleged Iranian connections amounts to some fanciful obscure claims by a single professor, Harmatta. A Thracian connection looks much more convincing.

J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.31.24 (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are much more sources to this.. see WP:OR --Nepaheshgar (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

Loads of uncited stuff, I've just removed one uncited statement that contradicts another. This is a controversial subject and the article is confusing. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

On Origins & Sympathies

Herodotus suggested that Gamir (the land of the Cimmerians) was located north of the Black Sea, and this was certainly believed for most of the 19th century, and is reflected in Britannica; but this is not where scholarship is at currently due to new source documentation. This is no longer believed to be true because absolutely no archaeological evidence has shown the existence of Cimmerians north of the Black Sea (Rolle 1977, Urartu und die Reiternomaden; John Pinkerton, Origin and Progress of the Scythians or Goths etc)., however much Assyrian archaeology has shown the existence of Cimmerians south of Lake Urmia (modern Oroumieh)(Umberto Cozzoli, I Cimmeri; Mirjo Salvini, Tra lo Zagros e l'Urmia et. etc) attacking the Mannaeans or Urartu. With respect to Ukrainian nationalism, although the Cimmerians did not hail from the Ukraine, they may have migrated through the Ukraine at some later point. However for this article to reflect current scholarship, Ukrainian sympathies with the Cimmerians should not be expressed in terms of Cimmerian origins, but rather show how the Cimmerians migrated into Europe at later points.FanOfAncient (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom where it belongs, and restored some times and text you somehow removed. I'm sure nationalism affects debates over Cimmerians but I don't know the details. You still haven't cited anything about recent archaeological evidence -- you need citations from reliable sources that can be verified, which for books means including page numbers.

You wrote "This combined with a lack of archeological evidence lends weight to the more recent assertion, the Cimmerians were south rather than north of the Caucasus, and therefore much closer to Urartu based upon earlier source material. Britannica does not yet reflect this more recent scholarship. Their origins have been established by Assyriological archeology to have been near Urartu south of the Caucasus; presumably they were a people conquered by the Assyrians." You need to cite the first bit about 'lends weight', you can't comment on Britannica as that is original research, see WP:OR and you need to site the archaeology you are referring to and a source for 'presumably', preferably saying 'so and so has argued that..' or something of the kind. I can find recent sources that the Cimmerians invaded Urartu, by the way. And have you seen this: "THE CURRENT STATE OF THE CIMMERIAN PROBLEM Author: Ivantchik, A.I. Source: Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, Volume 7, 1 , pp. 307-339(33)" Dougweller (talk) July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this to the bottom .. sorry I posted it to the top. With respect the "lends weight", I though I did cite the authors. Basically the article is reflects an outdated view that ignores Assyrian text.

In the 19th century, Sir Henry's Layard's discovered the Assyrian Royal archives and Assyrian clay tablets. Assyriology was at its infancy and was not yet understood. The only early source scholars had on the Cimmerians was Herodotus and legend. Herodotus belived that Cimmerians lived north of the Black Sea, north of the Caucasus. Scholars such as Sulimirski, Baschmakoff and others (in Das Problem der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit der Kimmerier und die kimmerische archäologische ) recognized that if the origin of the Cimmerians was where Herodotus said it was, there should be an abundance of archaeological records, Cimmerian place names etc which there was not. Renate Rolle showed that this Greek tradition posed a problem because no archeological support has been found (I cited R Rolle - Urartu und die Reiternomaden). For the sake of wikipedia etiquette I did not refute the other editor by mentioning that T. Sulimirski showed in 1954 (Scythian Antiquities in Western Asia: [1]) that the Timbergrave culture and the Cimmerians had nothing in common.

However all pre-Alexanderean research was Helleno-centric until Assyrian cuneiform could be understood. Once scholars started seeing the Cimmerians south of the Caucasus attacking Urartu from the south according to the Assyrian record it highlighted the problem further, and the Herodotus tradition challenged. The Assyrian records had much more to say about the Cimmerians than Herodotus, and were much more reliable being centuries older and foreign intelligence reports (A. T. Olmstead, Assyrian Historiography, History of Assyria; Piepkorn). On this basis Umberto Cozzoli (who I also referenced) refuted the tradition and concluded that the Cimmerians were south, not north, of the Caucasus near Urartu which they were known to have conquered from the south (I Cimmeri) IAW the Assyrian record. Independently, and without knowing Cozzoli's work, Mirjo Salvini came to the same conclusion in Tra lo Zagros e l'Urmia: richerche storiche ed archeologiche nell'Azerbaigian iranian; and so on.

The Britannica article has not kept up with the scholarship. The disassociation between the Cimmerians and the Srubna culture is almost 50 years old, content of the Assyrian record which has been available for nearly a century is not reflected in Britannica, and scholarship that has digested that record is not even mentioned. Basically Britannica has edited but not reviewed its Cimmerian article (possibly since the 30's). For this reason, it is considered out of date, as anyone who follows this stuff can attest. I only countered its worth because it was mentioned in someone else's edit (which I didn't want to remove) and reflects 19th century belief, though it is no longer current.

With respect to Askold I. Ivantchik's work, yes, I've also seen his articles including the one you cite and Kimmerier und Skythen and Les Cimmeriens au Proche-Orient. Although he continues to hold to a northern origin, he acknowledges the absence of an archeological record, and his friends Kiakonoff, and Lanfranchi both disagreed with his take on the whole matter as do other scholars (such as Hermann Sauter of Saarland University, Studien zum Kimmerierproblem (2000)).

I value your input. Would you like me to provide additional quotes or is the article as it stands still in need of clean up in parts? Where would you like to go with it? FanOfAncient (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about deleting stuff by other editors, as it says below this edit window, expect your work to be edited mercilessly. :-) Why not get rid of the Britannica stuff entirely? We can quote Herodotus but only to show what he thought at the time, not as evidence. We need to show that there is still controversy, we need to deal with the invasion comments, and show what current thought is, all referenced. Don't worry about deleting stuff, you can delete, rearrange, whatever, so long as you cite when needed, use reliable sources (which you are using), and follow WP:NPOV. I'm very pleased to see someone who knows something about this and has access to sources looking at it. I've known it was bad but not what to do about it and keep postponing even looking at it. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are more than enough sources in google books to make a good article here: [2][3][4][5]. It will require some time and effort though. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do the Cimmerians in Herodotus have any demonstrated connection to the Gimmeri in the middle eastern sources? Do these refer to the histories of two different groups, and if so, why not disambiguate between Cimmerians and Gimmeri? Marja Erwin (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Change Disputed Tag for Clean Up?

This article has changed significantly since someone put in the "Disputed" tag, back in the summer .. and it seems to have grown towards consensus; although it is still in fairly rough shape having no flow, structure and homogeneity. I recommend replacing the "Disputed" tag to a "Clean Up" tag. Does anyone object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.206.25 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed tag, but the tone of the article is still far to argumentative "Britannica does not reflect this more recent scholarship" etc. Paul B (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Who inserted Turkic into people dissappered from exsictence for 2800 years ?

and believed to be Iranic .

Please delete this trollery

¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture ?

Should there be a note that Robert E. Howard's "Cimmerians" are not based on any facet of the historical Cimmerians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.235.63 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is worded wrongly, but I'm not sure what it should be:

both peoples originally inhabited the northern shore of the Black Sea, and both were displaced about 700 BC, by invaders from the east. Whereas the Cimmerians would have departed this ancestral homeland by heading west and south across the Caucasus, the Thracians migrated southwest into the Balkans.

If you live north of the Black Sea, heading west and south won't take you into the Caucasus. Is this supposed to say "by heading east and south across the Caucasus", or is it supposed to say "by heading west into Europe and south across the Caucasus"?Wardog (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Not sure how to do this, but here goes.

In the article it states: "Some modern authors assert that the Cimmerians included mercenaries, whom the Assyrians knew as Khumri, who had been resettled there by Sargon".

And then fails to actually name a single one of these modern authors. So, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I'm saying

Citation needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark76 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)