Scythian sanctuaries of Ares: archaeological date and Herodotus' testimonies (in English)

ISSN 2408-901X Ukrainian Archaeology, 2013 19

Archaeological traces of cult and ritual practices of

the Scythians are extremely variegated and, togeth-

er with testimonies of ancient authors, in the first

place Herodotus, have been since long ago used for

the reconstruction of ideological and religious no-

tions of the Scythian society. Most often they are

registered as conglomerates of pottery fragments,

animal bones and other finds (so-called funeral

meals) in the mounds, on their surface and in the

ditches of kurgans containing human burials. In

this aspect, the attention is drawn to the mounds,

which from outside are similar to kurgans, but con-

tain only objects and no burials. Such mounds are

traditionally considered to be a special kind of an-

cient monuments: sanctuaries or sacred places.

Scythian sanctuaries are associated with the cult

of the god of war (Бидзиля та ін. 1977, с. 64—65;

124—125; Болтрик 1978; Субботин, Охотников

1981, с. 108—111; Лесков 1985, с. 38; Балонов

1987; Бессонова 1989; Ковпаненко, Бессонова,

Скорый 1989, с. 36; Абаев 1990, с. 89, 95; Кравец

1993, с. 162; Скорый 1997, с. 23, and others).

And it is not by chance, since it was this god that

Herodotus identified with Greek Ares, who was the

only god in the Scythian pantheon, to the honor

of which sanctuaries were erected. Listing Scythi-

an gods, Herodotus clearly states (IV, 59): «It is not

their custom however to make images, altars or tem-

ples to any except Ares…» 1

Archaeological information proves that similar

monuments are characterized by a certain structu-

ral variety, which is not limited, as believed by so-

me researchers (Беспалый, Головкина, Ларенок

1989, с. 159), to the presence or absence of foun-

dation ditches. However, at present the most urgent

task does not consist in the formal and typologi-

1 Hereinafter Herodotus is quoted from: Геродот. Історії в дев’яти книгах. Переклад, передмова та примітки А.О. Білецького. — К., 1993 [English translation by G. C. Macaulay].

© Ya.P. GERSHKOVYCH, O.V. ROMASHKO, 2013

Ya.P. Gershkovych, O.V. Romashko

SCYTHIAN SANCTUARIES OF ARES: ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA AND HERODOTUS’ TESTIMONIES *

The correspondence of structural and functional elements of kurgan-like complexes of the Scythian period (without human burials)

to Herodotus’ description of Ares’ sanctuaries has been established.

K e y w o r d s : Scythians, sanctuary, Herodotus, Ares, altar, sacrificial altar.

cal analysis of these ‘quasi-kurgans’, but in the so-

lution of the issue of their chronological and spa-

tial distribution in the Scythian world, as well as in

answering the question: to what extent they corre-

spond to Herodotus’ description. Some sites of this

kind have been explored in the 1970s—1980s in var-

ious areas of the Steppe zone of Ukraine. The most

representative one has been excavated in 1977 by

the Donetsk expedition of the Institute of Archae-

ology of the Academy of Sciences of the UkSSR

guided by S.M. Bratchenko in the North-Eastern

Azov region (Братченко та ін. 1979).

A Sanctuary near the Village of Kremenivka

The sanctuary was situated near the village of Kre-

menivka (formerly a Greek settlement of Cherdak-

li) of the Volodarka district, Donetsk region. Here,

along the ridge of the watershed of the Kalchyk and

Kalets Rivers (right tributaries of the Kalka River),

there were 25 mounds scattered for 2,3 km in the

direction North-West — South-East (Fig. 1, 1, 2).

In 1977 eight kurgans were explored, six of which

contained burials of the Bronze — Early Iron Age

(Братченко та ін. 1979; Гаврилюк, Гершкович

1982). Two mounds were situated apart from the

main group. They are labeled as ‘kurgans’ 5 and

7 in the field documentation. The analysis of ge-

omorphology of the area, performed on the basis

of a space photograph obtained from Google Earth

6.2.2.2.6613 system, showed that they gravitated

towards the upper part of a spur of a large ravine,

which falls into the Kalka River 2 (Fig. 1, 3).

‘Kurgan 5’, oval in plan, sized 32 × 26 m, with

a maximum height of 1.75 m from the ancient ho-

rizon level, has not been devastated (Fig. 2, 1)3.

By its longer axis, the mound is slightly elongated

2 On this map clearly distinguishable are places of some kurgans, excavated and planned in 1977, as well as un-excavated ones. Coordinates of ‘kurgans’ 5 and 7 are 47° 18.117' N. / 37° 27.975' E.

3 Excavations were guided by A.S. Shkarban.

* Ukrainian version of the article was published in № 1 of Arkheolohiia in 2013 — C. 61—75.

ISSN 2408-901X. Ukrainian Archaeology, 201320

along the line South-West — North-East. Its peak

is flattened, its Southern and Eastern slopes being

less steep than the other (Fig. 2, 3). The peak of the

mound, in its North-Western part, has a small de-

pression with a diameter of about 2,0 м, with stones

visible on its surface.

Excavations were performed in the following

way. First, using a T-74 bulldozer, a trench was

made through the center of the mound, up to the

loamy subsoil layer (Fig. 9, 2). After it had been es-

tablished that the ‘nucleus’ of the mound was con-

stituted by a solid stone structure, parallel trenches

with curbs left for stratigraphic surveys were made

from the West and from the East of this structure 4.

Then remains of the soil were removed from South

4 The choice of such methodology was conditioned by a strained rhythm of works in the area of new development, by the constant lack of equipment, as well as by the fact that excavations were performed at the end of the season, in September—October.

and North edges of the mound, and manual explo-

ration of the structure started.

Stratigraphy of the site (Fig. 3): a turf layer, with

stone inclusions in some places; an ancient hori-

zon, at a depth of 1,75 from the reference point

(P), on which a stone platform was erected, its edg-

es bordering with a mound consisting of humic soil

with stones on its surface; a loamy subsoil layer at a

depth of 2,0 м from P.

The platform is oval in plan, sized 17 × 14 m,

slightly elongated along the line North-East —

South-West (Fig. 2, 1; 8, 1). It had a shape of an

irregular truncated cone with a relatively flat sum-

mit tilting to the East (Fig. 2, 3). The height of the

platform in its Western part is 1,65 м, in its Eastern

part — 1,0 м. It was built from granite stones sized

0,9 × 0,6 × 0,4 m, between which powdered (due to

the presence of ash?) humic filling occurred. The

stones were laid unsystematically, but compactly

(Fig. 2, 2; 8, 2; 9, 1), the sides of most of them

Fig. 1. Kremenivka: 1 — localiza-tion of the village on a topographical map; 2 — plan of the kurgan group; 3 — view of the kurgans on a pho-tograph obtained from Google Earth 6.2.2.2.6613 system. Legend: a — ex-cavated kurgans; б — unexcavated kurgans


having sharp edges, probably due to their pit-run

extraction. Rounded stones also occurred, origi-

nating from adjacent slopes or outcrops of nearby

ravines.

The platform was surrounded by a bank pre-

venting the slipping down of lateral edge stones dis-

posed at an angle from 40 to 80°. The platform and

the bank were built simultaneously, as confirmed

by a clearly visible line of ancient horizon present

under them. The lowered level of the ancient hori-

zon (Fig. 3) on the edges (profiles I—IV) is caused

by peculiarities of the original topography.

The slope of the bank is covered with stones

constituting a ring with a width of 3,0—4,0 m in

its Western part and 5,0—6,0 m in its Eastern part

(Fig. 2, 1). During excavations, a hypothesis was

expressed that it originated from the destroyed up-

per part of the platform. However, the summit of

the platform is flat and relatively even (without tak-

ing into account the depression), that is, the stones

on the slopes of the bank represented an element of

a single structure made of stones and soil and served

as its cover. Noteworthy is a direct junction between

the stones of the ring and the platform on a low and

flat Eastern slope (profile V; Fig. 3), that is, in the

place of ascension/entrance into the platform.

No traces of burials were registered under the plat-

form. It was confirmed also by a control trench, deep

up to 3,0 m, dug in the loamy subsoil after the stones

had been removed 5. Only on the Eastern slope, under

the platform, at a distance of 5,0—6,0 m from Р, on

5 While planning backfills after the end of excavations, all stones were placed into this trench.

Fig. 2. Kremenivka, ‘kurgan 5’: 1 — plan; 2 — Eastern profile of the platform; 3 — profile of the platform along the line West — East (reconstructed on the basis of available profiles); 4 — amphora; Legend: 1 — limits of sketched section areas; 2 — the same in a mirror spread; 3 — numbers of profiles; 4 — reference point; 5 — turf layer with stones; 6 — the line of the ancient horizon on profiles; 7 — the same on the plan; 8 — outlines of the stone ring; 9 — loamy subsoil; 10 — molehills; 11 — the place where the amphora was found; 12 — the place of ascension into the platform


the level of the ancient horizon, a handle of a red clay

amphora with neck and body fragments was discov-

ered (Fig. 2, 4). The height of the neck of the ampho-

ra is 15,5 cm, the diameter of its rim being 9,0 cm.

‘Kurgan 7’ was situated very closely to the Eas-

tern slope of ‘kurgan 5’ 6. Its mound, heavily plough-

ed up, is oval in plan, with a maximum diameter of

about 30 m, its height not exceeding 0,7 m from the

contemporary surface (Fig. 4, 1). There were small

stones and tiny fragments of amphorae on its surface.

Excavations were performed by means of six trench-

es in the direction North-East — South-West.

The stratigraphy of the mound is as follows

(Fig. 4, 2): a ploughed up layer containing stones;

loamy subsoil, at a level of 0,9 from Р, with a gen-

tle, but perceptible lowering in its Western part; one

of the profiles (II) — shows darker pre-subsoil and

humic soil containing stones (some of them in the

lowering part) and amphorae fragments.

The lowered level of the loamy subsoil suggests

that initially on the place of ‘kurgan 7’ there was a

small, probably man-made, trough-shaped combe

6 These excavations were guided by M.L. Shvetsov.

(emerged due to the removal of soil to erect a bank

around the stone platform of ‘kurgan5’?). Observ-

able within its limits was a more compact black soil

filling — a result of repeated (seasonal?) precipita-

tions of mud 7. Profile II (Fig. 4, 2) shows granite

stones surrounding archwise the external outline of

the combe and coinciding with its upper edges. The

length of the arch is 35 m, its width at the edges be-

ing up to 1,0 m, and in the center — up to 3,0 m

(Fig. 4, 1), with some of its sections being dam-

aged by tillage. The bases of stones in Northern and

South-Eastern parts are bedded at a depth of 0,41

to 0,68 m, and in the South-Western part — at a

depth of 0,20 to 0,27 m, which corresponds to the

difference between levels of the combe bottom. The

distance between the ends of the arch was 9,0 m, it

is opened in the South-Western direction, towards

the descent/entrance into the middle of the arch.

It was in front of the entrance, along the North-

ern wall of the arch, that the majority of finds were

concentrated, scattered on the bottom of the combe

7 The excavations supervisor even compared it with the filling of robbery pits.

Fig. 3. Kremenivka, ‘kurgan 5’. Profiles of edgings and areas (enlarged) with humus filling (places where idols were installed?). Legend: 1 — reference point; 2 — platform; 3 — stone ring; 4 — turf layer; 5 — stones; 6 — buried earth; 7 — molehills; 8 — humus filling


(at a depth of 0,57—0,75 m from P). Directly in

front of the entrance, a cauldron (1) was found, ac-

companied by deposits of fragments of amphorae

and animal bones. Within the radius of 5,0 m from

the cauldron, the following finds were registered: a

mirror and amphorae fragments in the West; frag-

ments of black-slip vessels in the South-West; de-

posits of amphorae fragments and animal bones in

the North-East and the South-East. Bones include

those of the sheep/goat, tubular bones of the cattle

or the horse; some bones bear traces of cuts.

Above the bottom of the combe, on the stones,

a fragment of a bronze plaque was found, more to

the West there were bowls (3); outside the arch, to

the North-East from it — a frontlet (4), more to the

West — amphorae debris. When the central edging

was being dismantled, a whetstone (5) and an iron

buckle were discovered (6).

1. A bronze cast cauldron on an asymmetrical

conic hollow foot with a semi-spherical body and

two vertical loop-shaped handles with three conical

bulges (Fig. 5, 3). The edge of the rim is flattened,

with a flange outside. The surface of the cauldron

is porous, which testifies to the poor quality of the

bronze. The body is covered with metal flows and

patches emerged during casting and due to repeated

repairs. The total height of the cauldron is 16,5 cm,

that of the body – 12 cm, that of the tray foot —

4,5 cm, the diameter of the rim being 17 cm, that of

the base of the tray foot — 9,3—9,8 cm.

2. A bronze mirror in the shape of a flat round

disc with a slightly turned flange (Fig. 5, 1). On the

edge of the disc there are two openings for fastening

a handle. A bronze rivet survived in one of them.

The top of the disc is deliberately slightly bent. The

diameter of the disc is 14,5 cm, its thickness —

Fig. 4. Kremenivka, ‘kurgan 7’: 1 — plan; 2 — profiles of edgings. Legend: 1 — amphorae fragments; 2 — cauldron; 3 — debris of a black-slip vessel; 4 — mirror; 5 — bowl; 6 — marks of depths; 7 — frontlet; 8 — plate; 9 — animal bones; 10 — reference point; 11 — molehills; 12 — traced outline of the combe; 13 — entrance


0,12 cm, the diameter of opening for fastening the

handle being 0,4 cm.

3. A fragment of a black-slip bowl on a low pro-

filed tray (Fig. 6, 7). The edges of the sharpened

rim are turned inside. The bottom is decorated

with a stamped pattern in the shape of three con-

centric circles with rosettes and palmettos on their

ends. The slip is black, glossy, slightly dimmed.

The height of the bowl is 5,0 cm, that of the tray —

1,0 cm, the diameter of the rim — 13,3 cm, that of

Fig. 5. Kremenivka, finds from ‘kurgan 7’: 1—4 — metal; 5 — stone


the tray — 9,4 cm, the maximum diameter of the

body being 14,7 cm.

4. A bronze horse frontlet was folded (packed)

in four. Unfolded, it is a trapezoid plate, 22 cm

long and 9,7 cm wide in its bottom part (Fig. 5, 5).

Its upper edges are torn off, its surviving width is

12,3 cm. Below, in the center, there is an opening

with a diameter of 0,3 cm for fastening the head

piece on straps. On its upper and lateral edges, the

plate is ornamented with a fine tidy chased pattern

consisting of double strips of dots, the space be-

tween them being filled with double crossed wavy

lines executed in the same technique and forming

ovals with ‘pearls’ impressed from below.

5. A fragment of a sandstone bar of a subrec-

tangular shape with traces of wear, sized 13 × 5,0 ×

1,0 cm (Fig. 5, 4).

6. An iron deformed buckle of a rectangular

shape, sized 5,0 × 4,4 cm. It was made from wire,

oval-rectangular in section, 0,5 × 0,6 cm (Fig. 5, 2).

In various sections of the stone arch and outside

it, fragments or incomplete debris of at least 14 am-

phorae were found.

1. A Sinope amphora with a ‘swollen’, rela-

tively low cylindrical neck and a smoothly profiled

shoulder (Fig. 7, 4). Its shape and size have been

reconstructed graphically almost in full, except for

its bottom part. The diameter of its body is 33 cm,

that of its rim — 10,4 cm, the height of its neck is

17,5 cm, its surviving height being 62 cm, and the

diameter of its handle, oval in section, being 4,7 ×

2,5 cm.

2. A Kos amphora with a fungiform rim and

two-stemmed handles (Fig. 7, 1). Parts of its neck,

handle and body survived. Its foot is missing. The

diameter of its body is 45 cm, that of its rim —

14,5 cm, the height of the surviving part of the body

is 46,5 cm, and the diameter of its handle stems,

round in section, is 1,8–1,9 cm.

3. Heraclean amphorae:

a) with a pithos-shaped body, the contour of

which is outlined with rounded lines and high

shoulders above the maximum diameter (Fig. 7, 6).

Its neck and foot are missing. The diameter of its

body is 26,5 cm, that of its neck — 9,0 cm, its sur-

viving height is 43,5 cm, the diameter of its handle,

oval in section, being 4,3 × 2,0 cm;

b) an upper part of an amphora, reconstructed

graphically (Fig. 7, 2). The diameter of its body

is 23 cm, that of its neck being 9,0 cm. One of

its fragments has a small chain of openings on its

edge (Fig. 7, 3), representing, probably, traces of

repairs 8;

c) a piece of a neck with an out-turned rim

(Fig. 6, 4);

d) a piece of a ‘swollen’ neck with an out-turned

rim (Fig. 6, 5);

8 A.V. Buiskykh expressed her doubts regarding this suppo-sition.

Fig. 6. Kremenivka, finds from ‘kurgan 7’: ceramics


e) a fragment of a cylindrical neck (Fig. 6, 6);

the diameter of its rim is 11,6 cm, its surviving

height being 8,0 cm;

f) a fragment of a handle, oval in section (Fig. 6,

2), 9,8 cm long; the diameter of its section is 3,9 ×

2,3 cm;

g) a fragment of a handle, oval in section (Fig. 6,

3), 5,6 cm long; the diameter of its section is 3,5 ×

1,9 cm;

g) a fragment of a handle, oval-rhombic in sec-

tion (Fig. 6, 1), 9,0 cm long; the diameter of its sec-

tion is 3,8 × 2,3 cm;

4. Amphorae from unknown centers:

a) a fragment of a geometrically complex ribbed

handle (Fig. 6, 8), 9,0 cm long; the diameter of its

section is 3,5 × 2,2 cm;

b) a piece of a foot with its sole broken off

(Fig. 6, 9); its surviving height is 7,5 cm;

b) a piece of a foot with a semispherical de-

pression in its sole (Fig. 6, 10), its diameter being

7,5 cm.

Dating of the Sanctuary near the Kremenivka Village

‘Kurgan 5’ can be dated on the basis of fragments

of the upper part of a red clay amphora found under

the platform. S.V. Polin considers it as belonging to

amphorae from an unidentified center of the Pro-

pontis or Northern Aegeis, dated at present with-

in the limits of the middle of the first — the third

quarter of the 4th c. BC (Полин, Карнаух 2010,

с. 33)9.

Much larger basis for dating is provided by the

assemblage from ‘kurgan 7’. A black-slip bowl

(Fig. 6, 7), by its morphological features, belongs

to the Hellenistic type of bowls from the Atheni-

an agora of the last quarter of the 4th c. BC, but

not later than 300 BC (Rotroff 1997, 1, р. 162; 2,

№ 983—922).

By S.Yu. Monakhov’s typology, a Sinope ampho-

ra (Fig. 7, 4) belongs to pithos-shaped variant II-С

(Монахов 2003, с. 150, табл. 102, 2—4). The arti-

cles of this variant are the most frequent finds among

Sinope amphorae of the II type from the North Pon-

tic region and are dated to the late 4th — early 3rd c.

BC (Ibidem, с. 150, 158). A pithos-shaped Kos am-

phora may belong to the same period (Fig. 7, 1; see:

Туровский та ін. 2001, с. 43—44).

A Heraclean amphora (Fig. 7, 6) belongs to type

I of Pithos-shaped articles, most probably to its var-

iant I-4, most of which are dated to the first quarter

of the 4th c. BC (Монахов 2003, с. 128—131, 143,

табл. 88). Identified fragments of necks and han-

dles of other Heraclean amphorae, distinguished

by yellow-red color of clay and by the presence of

fine pyroxene and sand in it, can also be dated to

the first half of the 4th c. BC (Fig. 6, 1—6).

A bronze cauldron (Fig. 5, 3), by its vertical han-

dles on the rim, belongs to group C of Scythian ar-

ticles from the South of Eastern Europe (Ромашко

2010, с. 35). The Kremenivka item represents a

type, the main feature of which is an open semi-

spherical body, round in horizontal section. Simi-

lar cauldrons emerged as early as the archaic peri-

od. In particular, they are known in Kelermes kur-

gans 2 (Ш) and 4 (Ш), explored by D.H. Shults

and M.I. Veselovskyi. The chronological limits of

these sites are determined as the first quarter of the

4th c. BC (Галанина 1997, табл. 41, 32, 53).

Such cauldrons were the most widely spread in

the sites of the classical period. Kurgan 2 near the

village of Oksiutyntsi in the Vorskla area is dated to

the 5th c. BC (Ильинская 1968, с. 162, табл. ХVІ,

13); kurgan 20 near the village of Durovka in the

9 It should be added that this publication was not coordi-nated with the authors of excavations, which caused some errors. In particular, there is not any Mariupol district in the Donetsk region, and never has been; ‘kurgan 5’ did not contain either cromlech or a fragment of an ampho-ra from «an unidentified center» analogous to amphora 5 from ‘kurgan 7’; and there was no fragment of a stone dish in ‘kurgan 7’.

Fig. 7. Kremenivka, finds from ‘kurgan 7’: ceramics


Forest-Steppe Don area is dated to the 4th c. BC

(Пузикова 2001, с. 199—200, рис. 57, 1, 1a);

the kurgan Pantioniti in Crimea dates back to the

370s BC (Диамант 1962, с. 250, рис. 1; Монахов

1999, с. 631); burial 1 from kurgan 8 near the vil-

lage of Kupievakha in the Vorskla area (Бойко,

Берестнев 2001, с. 11—13, рис. 10, 2), kurgan 14

near the village of Chermushna on the Siverskyi

Donets (Гречко 2010, рис. 57, 1) and kurgan 14

near the village of Ternove-Kolobino in the Mid-

dle Don area (Савченко 2001, рис. 38, 25) dates

to the middle — third quarter of the 4th c. BC; kur-

gan 18 from the Pisochyn burial ground in the

Ukrainian Forest-Steppe Dnipro Right-Bank re-

gion (Бабенко 2005, с. 260, рис. 27) and kurgan 8

from the ‘Five Brothers’ kurgan group in the Don

area (Шилов 1961, с. 164) are dated to the second

half of the 4th c. BC. Such cauldrons are less numer-

ous in more recent sites: kurgan 3 from the Chastye

kurgans group (Либеров 1965, с. 24—32) and kur-

gan 16 near the village of Durovka (Пузикова 2001,

с. 197, рис. 50, 1) are dated to the 4th—3rd c. BC.

The typological series of cauldrons with verti-

cal handles and an open semispherical body, round

in horizontal section, clearly displays a certain

dynamics of proportions of the diameter and the

height of the body: the more recent is the cauldron,

the lesser is the ratio of these two parameters. For

instance, the diameter and body height ratio of the

cauldrons of the 6th c. BC is 1,5—1,9; that of the

cauldrons of the 5th — early 4th c. BC is 2,0—2,2;

that of the 4th c. BC is 1,5—1,8; and that of the late

4th—3rd c. BC is 1,5. This parameter equals to 1,4

for the Kremenivka cauldron. Thus, as far as this

parameter is concerned, it is closer to the caul-

drons from the late 4th—3rd c. BC, coinciding with

the dates of Greek ceramics imports.

Analogies of our frontlet are known in the Mid-

dle Dnipro area. A bronze gilded trapezoid plate

was found in kurgan 9 near the village of Prusy.

It has decorations in Greek style, its edges being

perforated by openings for fastening to a soft base.

One more analogy is represented by a silver trap-

ezoid plate from kurgan 63 from the village of Bo-

brytsia, decorated with a golden moon-like plaque

in its upper widened part. It should be noted that

V.H. Petrenko’s identification of these articles with

type I, characterized by a rhombic shape with a loop

on the reverse of the widened part of the plate, still

remains provisional. The identification of Bobryt-

sia and Prusy items with this type is, probably, due

to a scarce number of the series of trapezoid front-

lets. V.H. Petrenko registered not only morpho-

logical, but also chronological differences between

rhombic and trapezoid frontlets (Петренко 1967,

с. 39—40, табл. 28, 1, 4). According to the typol-

ogy of horse equipment from the Forest-Steppe

zone of Eastern Europe elaborated by O.D. Mo-

hylov, the frontlet from kurgan 63 near the village

of Bobrytsia is attributed to section I of subclass III

(Могилов 2008, с. 60).

Thus, the Kremenivka frontlet and other mor-

phologically similar articles constitute a separate

type, characteristic of the late period of Scythian

culture. This is confirmed by dating of their original

assemblages. Kurgan 63 from Bobrytsia and kurgan

9 from Prusy are dated by M.I. Rostovtsev to the

3rd and 3rd—2nd c. BC (Ростовцев 1925, с. 494—

495, 499). N.O. Onaiko dated them to the second

half of the 4th and 3rd c. BC (Онайко 1962, с. 69,

76), V.H. Petrenko — to the early 3rd or 3rd c. BC

(Петренко 1961, с. 90; 1967, с. 39), A.I. Meliuko-

va — to the 5th—3rd c. BC (Мелюкова 1964, с. 41,

67). P.D. Liberov and other researchers dated the

frontlet from kurgan 63 near Bobrytsia to the 4th—

3rd c. BC (Петренко 1967, с. 96; Ковпаненко,

Бессонова, Скорый 1989, с. 123, табл. 3).

Its engraved pattern is identical with the orna-

mentation on two passportless frontlets with curved

lateral facets, found during robbery excavations by

the ‘mine captain’ D.H. Shults in the early 20th c.

in the Kuban area. There are two points of view

regarding their dating. Some researchers see their

parallels in the assemblages from Kelermes kurgans

of the 7th—6th c. BC (Пиотровский 1955, с. 43;

Мурзин, Черненко 1980, с. 156, рис. 3; 4), while

others stick to an opinion that Kuban frontlets

should be referred to the 4th c. BC, instead of the ar-

chaic Scythian period (Галанина 1997, с. 122). As

we can see, the latter opinion seems more ground-

ed. Moreover, the Kremenivka find permits even to

consider a still later dating — early 3rd c. BC — of

frontlets from D.H. Shults’ collection.

Such dating is not contradicted by the bronze

mirror either. On the basis of openings, it can

be compared with mirrors having a lateral han-

dle attached by rivets of types 5 and 6 (accord-

ing to V.H. Petrenko) or of class II of section II

of groups 2—4 (according to T.M. Kuznietsova).

Such mirrors emerged in the Steppe and Forest-

Steppe zone of the North Pontic region in the 6th—

5th c. BC, but got widely spread in the 4th — early

3rd c. BC (Петренко 1967, с. 35; Барцева 1981,

с. 70; Кузнецова 1987, с. 39—46, табл. 1; 1989,

с. 109—110).

The above-mentioned facts suggest that the ter-

minus ante quem of ‘kurgan 7’ is late 4th — early 3rd

c. BC. The terminus post quem for ‘kurgan 5’ is the

middle of the first — third quarter of the 4th c. BC,

since the fragments of the amphora were found un-


der the platform on the level of the ancient surface,

i.e., it got there during its construction.

Archaeological Features of the Kremenivka Sanctuary and Herodotus’ Testimonies

Already during excavations, both ‘kurgans’ were

interpreted as components of a single cult com-

plex (Братченко та ін. 1977, с. 17), but, judging

by the differences of design, size and finds com-

position, the platform and the stone arch over the

combe had different purposes. They possess fea-

tures described by C. Renfrew as peculiar of cult

structures (temples). In his opinion, these features

manifest themselves in the same way in different

periods of time and on different territories (Ren-

frew 1995). They are associated with focusing of

attention, links between the earthly and the other

worlds, presence of a deity and collective actions

and sacrifices.

In our case, the focusing of attention was

achieved due to the disposition of the ‘kurgans’ out-

side the general linear system of the burial ground.

Evident is also their being connected not only one

with the other, but also with the adjacent ravine,

since the summit of the platform is well visible from

the ravine, and the ravine with the Kalka valley is

also well visible from the platform (Fig. 8, 2). It is a

sure thing that the stone platform stood out against

the kurgans of the area, although it was situated in

a lower place.

The presence of a deity and the link between

worlds usually are indicated to by indirect fea-

tures. Let us consider the Eastern orientation of

the platform. Like in more recent sanctuaries —

for instance, in ancient Rus ones — this can be ex-

plained by the fact that idols installed there were

turned towards the sunrise and water (Седов 1953,

с. 93), and in our case they were turned towards the

springs in the ravine bed or towards the river. The

idol (or idols) itself was not preserved; probably, it

was made from wood. If it was made from stone,

it could have been transferred or buried after the

sanctuary had finished functioning. There were at

least three place on the platform, where it (they)

could have been installed. These are a depression in

the North-Western part of the platform and an area

at 2,0—3,0 m to the North from P, where profile III

registered a gap between the stones filled with gray

humic soil; a similar gap was found at 5,0 m to the

North-East from P (profile IV; Fig. 3).

As far as collective cult actions and sacrifices

are concerned, their traces are clearly observable in

‘kurgan 7’. Noteworthy is the condition of artifacts

found here. They bear traces of prolonged use and

deliberate damage: the body of the bronze cauldron

is covered with patches and has several through

openings (Fig. 5, 3); lateral edges of the frontlet are

torn off, and it is folded in four, as if prepared for

smelting (Fig. 5, 5); the disk of the mirror and the

buckle are deformed (Fig. 5, 1, 2); some of the am-

phorae fragments bear openings, probably for re-

pairs (Fig. 7, 3). The deliberate damage of objects

used in burial and cult practices is a widely spread

phenomenon in the Scythian and Sarmatian mi-

lieu. Manifestations of such a ritual practice are

known also in other kurgan-like sanctuaries, for in-

stance in the Uliap kurgan 4/1982 (Балонов 1987,

с. 41). During the previous Late Bronze Age, such

a rite was registered at the final stage of formation

of the so-called ash heaps of the Bilohrudivka type

(Гершкович 2004, с. 105, 107).

But how does the obtained archaeological in-

formation correlate with Herodotus’ description of

Ares’ sanctuary? Let us turn to the respective chap-

ter (IV, 62), which mentions that the Scythians make

sacrifices to Ares in a different way: «In each district

of the several governments they have a temple of Ares set

up in this way: bundles of brushwood are heaped up for

about three furlongs in length and in breadth, but less

in height; And on the top of this there is a level square

made, and three of the sides rise sheer but by the re-

maining one side the pile may be ascended. Every year

they pile on a hundred and fifty waggon-loads of brush-

wood, for it is constantly settling down by reason of the

weather. Upon this pile of which I speak each people

has an ancient iron sword set up, and this is the sacred

symbol of Ares. To this sword they bring yearly offerings

of cattle and of horses; and they have the following sac-

rifice in addition, beyond what they make to the other

gods, That is to say, of all the enemies whom they take

captive in war they sacrifice one man in every hundred,

not in the same manner as they sacrifice cattle, but in

a different manner: for they first pour wine over their

heads, and after that they cut the throats of the men, so

that the blood runs into a bowl; and then they carry this

up to the top of the pile of brushwood and pour the blood

over the sword. This, I say, they carry up; and mean-

while below by the side of the temple they are doing thus:

they cut off all the right arms of the slaughtered men

with the hands and throw them up into the air, and then

when they have finished offering the other victims, they

go away; and the arm lies wheresoever it has chanced to

fall, and the corpse apart from it».

The available archaeological information cor-

responds to this description very accurately.

Kurgan-like sanctuaries in the North Pontic re-

gion are few, as compared with ordinary kurgans.

In the spatial aspect, the Kremenivka sanctuary is


situated in the Azov ‘government’ or ‘district’ in-

habited by Scythians.

The platform of ‘kurgan 5’ represents Ares’

sanctuary, but it is not made from brushwood, but

from stones, due to the poor availability of wood in

the steppe. However, one cannot exclude also the

presence of wooden structures or equipment (idols

or tents over the ground), the brushwood laid over

the stone platform, etc.

Some of the construction choices present in

‘kurgan 5’, in particular the strengthening of lateral

walls of the platform with soil, imply providing for

its ‘yearly’ use.

The platform is made in a way that its three

sides are vertical, while the entrance is made in its

fourth, sloping side.

The rites, evidently, were performed on two lev-

els: below, near the platform and on its summit.

‘Kurgan 7’ seems to have been the place where sac-

rificed persons were dismembered and animals were

slaughtered: amphorae found there contained wine

needed for ‘pouring’; it was there that animal bones

were discovered, while the black-slip bowl and oth-

er similar vessels could have served for keeping

blood and for carrying it up on the top for ‘pouring

over the sword’. On the whole, the platform can be

considered to be a sacrificial altar and ‘kurgan 7’ —

an altar for keeping sacred objects. The absence of

human bones on the platform, nearby and in ‘kur-

gan 7’ is quite logical: they remained in the open,

so they could have hardly been preserved. This ex-

plains also the lack of the iron sword. However,

finds of either dismembered human skeletons or

iron swords are known at other sites, similar struc-

turally and functionally.

We believe that the above comparisons suffice to

draw a conclusion that the Kremenivka structure

was exactly the same kind of Scythian sanctuary as

the one described by Herodotus. Differences in size

should not be taken into account. Still, we do not

know, as justly emphasized by M.V. Skryzhynska,

which stadium, Attic or Ionic, had in mind Hero-

dotus, but, generally speaking, the exact figures

«played a peculiar role in the oral tradition denoting a

qualitative adjective with the meaning of some plural-

ity, rather than an exact numeral» (Скрыжинская

2001, с. 123—124). Incidentally, Herodotus or his

informers, mentioning three stadia, could have

meant not the size of the sanctuary itself, but that

of the entire kurgan burial ground, within which or

near which it was erected. In this case three stadia

(either Attic or Ionic) seem to be a realistic value.

Herodotus clearly mentions long-time func-

tioning of Ares’ sanctuary, even although it was

built of brushwood. This is even more true for the

sanctuaries of the Kremenivka type. A certain di-

vergence in dates suggests it as well: the earliest

dates are attributed to the amphora from ‘kurgan

5’ and ‘Heraclean’ amphorae from ‘kurgan 7’, the

most recent ones concern Sinope amphorae, the

bowl, the cauldron, the frontlet and the mirror. On

the whole, the interval between these dates reaches

at least 50 years. It is hardly possible that the sanc-

tuary functioned during this entire period. But one

should take into account that the earliest dates for

some amphorae mark the time of their production,

while Scythians could have used them also later, es-

pecially in a permanent sanctuary, where ancient

objects were granted a special sacral meaning.

Scythian Sanctuaries of the North Pontic Region and Adjacent Areas

It should be noted that the Kremenivka sanctu-

ary is a unique site for the North Pontic region.

Other kurgan-like sanctuaries or sacred places are

known in the Ukrainian Forest-Steppe zone of the

Dnipro Right Bank (Ковпаненко, Бессонова,

Скорый 1989, с. 36, 41—42, 48—49; Скорый,

1997, с. 23), in the Middle Don area (Савченко

2001, с. 56—57, 113, рис. 3, 1—4; 43, 1, 2), in

the Steppe zone of the North Pontic region and

in the Lower Don area (Бидзиля та ін. 1977,

с. 64—65; 124—125, рис. 22, 1; 24; 25; Болтрик

1978, с. 61—62; Субботин, Охотников 1981,

с. 108, 111, 115; Ляшко, Фрідман 1987, с. 77—78,

рис. 5; Бессонова 1989, с. 53—54; Кравец 1993,

с. 160—165; Беспалый, Головкина, Ларенок

1989, с. 154—156, рис. 2, 14, 16). There is evi-

dence about their presence in Crimea (Бессонова,

Бунятян, Гаврилюк 1988, с. 74—76) and in Ady-

gea (Балонов 1987). Only several among them are

comparable with the Kremenivka one, in particu-

lar by the presence of two levels (upper and lower),

where ritual actions were performed.

There are good grounds to regard kurgan 7, in

the Nosaky tract near the village of Balky, Vasyliv-

ka district, Zaporizzhia region, as a sacrificial altar

(Бидзиля та ін. 1977, с. 64—65; 124—125, рис. 22,

1; 24; 25). It was 2.7 m high, its diameter being 42 m.

It was situated near kurgans 6 and 8 from the Bronze

Age and was linked with them with its sides. The

base of the altar, as believed by the authors of ex-

cavations, was constituted by a bank that connected

the mentioned kurgans and was erected in two stag-

es during the Bronze Age. An iron sword, covered

over with additional filling, was found on the sur-

face of the bank. The sword is dated to the 5th c. BC

(Бидзиля та ін. 1977, с. 125). However, the sanc-

tuary (as the entire Scythian burial ground as well)


can be also dated to the second half of the 4th c. That

the sword is dated to an earlier time is accounted for

by the fact that, according to Herodotus, an ‘an-

cient iron sword’ was used in rites dedicated to Ares

(Іbidem 1977, c. 64; Болтрик 1978, c. 61—62).

It is interesting that to the East from the bank

of this kurgan there was a trough-shaped depres-

sion, 39 m long and 16 m high, associated with the

erection of the bank (Бидзиля та ін. 1977, с. 64—

65; 124—125, рис. 22, 1; 24; 25). On its edge, on

the level of the ancient horizon, grinders of a robust

granite quern, a stone with traces of working and

animal bones of the Scythian period were found

(Гаврилюк 1999, с. 223). It should be noted that

in the burial rites of the bearers of the Pazyryk cul-

ture of Mountainous Altai of the 5th—2nd c. BC, the

presence of querns in kurgan mounds or in a stone

ring around them is considered to be an indicator

of their sacralization (Молодин 1992).

One more sanctuary was explored within the

kurgan burial ground of the Bronze and Early Iron

Ages between the villages of Semenivka and Star-

okozache, Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi district, Odessa

region (Суб ботин, Охотников 1981, с. 108, 111,

115). It was arranged near the North-Western side

of small kurgan 20 of the Catacomb culture. On the

areas of 4,5 × 4,0 and 7,0 × 4,5 m, two deposits of

fragments of amphorae and hand-made ceramics

were found, between which a group of iron arti-

cles was compactly disposed: fragments of sockets,

spear finials and numerous elements of horse har-

ness. Nearby there was a goblet made of cast glass,

filled with iron trilobate arrowheads and bronze

brackets. Near the goblet, from one side, there was

a bronze horse frontlet (!), and from the other side

there was an iron acinace or a dagger, set up with

its handle into the ground. By the presence of Kos,

Heraclean, Sinope and Rhodes amphorae, as well

as amphorae of Solokha I type, the period of func-

tioning of this assemblage was defined as late 4th —

early 3rd c. BC (Ibidem, с. 111). To the same time

belongs also the main part of Scythian burials of

the cemetery.

In some cases, finds of individual objects or char-

acteristic structural details of the mounds might

serve as a token of a sanctuary.

In 2004, in the city of Perevalsk, Luhansk region,

at approximately 30 m from the Northern slope of a

2,5 m high kurgan with a diameter of 25—30 m, lo-

cal inhabitants found a bronze cauldron, round in

horizontal section, with vertical handles, containing

several golden plaques in the animal style 10. It is pos-

10 This information was kindly supplied by Yu.M. Broven-der. The finds are stored in the laboratory of the Donbas

sible that the cauldron was associated with an altar,

and the high kurgan served as a sacrificial altar.

Interesting are structural elements of some of

Ulskiy and Uliap kurgans in the Kuban region

(Adygea) from 1898 excavations performed by

M.I. Veselovskyi and from 1981—1983 excavations

performed by O.M. Lieskov. Their mounds con-

cealed approximately 1,0 m high platforms, made

from ground, chips and brushwood, which, like the

platform of Kremenivka ‘kurgan 5’, had three ver-

tical sides and one sloping one (entrance ramp).

In F.R. Balonov’s opinion, it was through the en-

trance ramp that horses and other sacrificial ani-

mals were brought up on the summit of the plat-

form (Балонов 1987). In Ulskiy kurgan 1/1898,

there are traces not only of sacrifices of horses,

oxen, rams and donkeys, but also those of human

sacrifices (Ibidem, с. 40). The same is observa-

ble also in the Uliap kurgans (Уп 1/1981, 4/1982,

9/1983), in platforms and mounds of which dis-

membered human skeletons were found. In par-

ticular, in kurgan Уп 1/1981 a skeleton of a young

person without his/her right hand, the bones of

which were found in the other end of the plat-

form. This, alongside with the fact that there was

an iron sword near the displaced hand, suggests,

in F.R. Balonov’s opinion, that it would be oppor-

tune to collate the ritual traces registered here with

Ares’ cult (Балонов 1987, с. 40—44).

The lack of altars, similar to those from Kre-

menivka (‘kurgan 7’), Semenivka and Nosaky

tract, near the Ulskiy and Uliap sanctuaries may

be accounted for by the fact that the area between

the kurgans has not yet been explored. Generally

speaking, in the 1980s, and the more so in the late

19th c., it was not yet known that Scythian sanc-

tuaries have a complex spatial structure. The sites

discussed by us in the present article, the aspect

of which so clearly coincides with Herodotus’ de-

scription of Ares’ sanctuary, were not yet known in

that time.

Conclusions

The mentioned archaeological information is quite

sufficient to fully confirm the authenticity of Hero-

dotus’ reports about the existence of Scythian sanc-

tuaries dedicated to Ares. The tradition of their

erection existed during Herodotus’ epoch, i.e., in

the 5th c. BC, but it became the most widely spread

in the second half — at the end of the 4th and in

the early 3rd c. BC. Their structure consisting of two

Section of the Eastern Ukrainian Branch of the IA of the NASU on the basis of Donetsk National Technological University (Alchevsk).


parts — a high one (for sacrifices) and a low one

(altar) — was typical of that period. It cannot be

excluded that it were Scythians themselves that told

Herodotus about them, but they, unfortunately, did

not communicate him the name of their deity.

Having established archaeological features of

such sanctuaries (a pair of kurgan-like mounds,

shifted aside from the main bulk of adjacent kur-

gans, their location in the upper parts or spurs of

ravines, the presence of a sloping summit, etc.),

we will be able to identify similar sites in the en-

tire Steppe zone of the North Pontic region and

outside it. They will not be many, but in any case

they will correspond to sacred cult centers of in-

dividual ‘governments’ or ‘districts’ inhabited by

Scythians.

Acknowledgements. We consider it our duty to

say a good word about the supervisor of the Donet-

sk expedition Stanislav Nykyforovych Bratch-

enko, who granted us a permission to publish the

Kremenivka cult complex. Our sincere gratitude

goes out also to the doctor of historical sciences

A.V. Buiskykh, the leading research associate of the

Department of Classical Archaeology of the Insti-

tute of Archaeology of the NASU, for her kind help

in the identification of Greek ceramics.

Абаев В.И. Культ «семи богов» у скифов // Абаев В.И. Избранные труды. Религия, фольклор, литература. — Вла-

дикавказ, 1990. — Т. 1. — С. 89—96.

Бабенко Л.И. Песочинский курганный могильник скифского времени. — Харьков, 2005.

Балонов Ф.Р. Святилища скифской эпохи в Адыгее (интерпретация курганов на р. Уль) // Скифо-сибирский мир.

Искусство и идеология. — Новосибирск, 1987. — С. 38—45.

Барцева Т.Б. Цветная металлообработка скифского времени. Лесостепное Днепровское Левобережье. — М., 1981.

Беспалый Е.И., Головкина Н.Н., Ларенок П.А. Поминальные памятники IV в. до н. э. — III в. н. э. Доно-Кагальницкого

водораздела // СА. — 1989. — № 3. — С. 154—162.

Бессонова С.С. Культовые сооружения скифского времени в Побужье // I Кубанская археологическая конферен-

ция. Тез. докл. — Краснодар, 1989. — С. 53—54.

Бессонова С.С., Бунятян Е.П., Гаврилюк Н.А. Акташский могильник скифского времени в Восточном Крыму. —

К., 1988.

Бидзиля В.И., Болтрик Ю.В., Мозолевский Б.Н., Савовский И.П. Курганный могилник в уроч. Носаки // Курганные

могильники Рясные могилы и Носаки. — К., 1977. — С. 61—158.

Бойко Ю.Н., Берестнев С.И. Погребения VІІ—ІV вв. до н. э. курганного могильника у с. Купьеваха (Ворсклинский

регион скифского времени). — Харьков, 2001.

Болтрик Ю.В. Святилище Арея в урочище Носаки // Археологические исследования на Украине в 1976—1977 гг.:

Тез. докл. XVII конф. Института археологии АН УССР. — Ужгород, 1978. — С. 61—62.

Братченко С.Н., Кротова А.А., Швецов М.Л., Гершкович Я.П. и др. Отчет об исследованиях Донецкой экспедиции в

1977 г. // НА ІА НАНУ. — 1977/12a.

Братченко С.Н., Гершкович Я.П., Констатинеску Л.Ф. и др. Раскопки курганов в Северо-Восточном Приазовье //

АО 1977 г. — М., 1979. — С. 308—309.

Гаврилюк Н.А. История экономики Степной Скифии VI—III вв. до н. э. — К., 1999.

Гаврилюк Н.А., Гершкович Я.П. О погребениях финального этапа бронзового и раннего железного века в бассейне

р. Кальмиус в Северном Приазовье // Материалы по хронологии археологических памятников Украины. —

К., 1982. — С. 67—71.

Галанина Л.К. Келермесские курганы. «Царские» погребения раннескифской эпохи. — М., 1997 (Степные народы

Евразии. — Т. 1).

Гершкович Я.П. Феномен зольников белогрудовского типа // РА. — 2004. — № 4. — С. 104—113.

Гречко Д.С. Населення скіфського часу на Сіверському Дінці. — К., 2010.

Диамант Э.И. Скифский котел из кургана, открытого в Керчи в 1921 г. // ЗОАО. — 1962. — Т. ІІ (35). — С. 250—252.

Эрлих В.Р. Святилища некрополя Тенгинского городища II, IV в. до н. э. — М., 2011.

Ильинская В.А. Скифы Днепровского Лесостепного Левобережья (курганы Посулья). — К., 1968.

Ковпаненко Г.Т., Бессонова С.С., Скорый С.А. Памятники скифской эпохи Днепровского Лесостепного Правобере-

жья (Киево-Черкасский регион). — К., 1989.

Кравец Д.П. Скифское святилище на Крынке // Донецкий археологический сборник. — Донецк, 1993. —

С. 160—165.

Кузнецова Т.М. Зеркала из скифских памятников VІ—ІІІ вв. до н. э. (классификация и хронологическое распреде-

ление) // СА. — 1987. — № 1. — С. 35—47.

Кузнецова Т.М. Зеркала // Степи европейской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время. — М., 1989. — С. 109—110

(Серия «Археология СССР»).


Лесков А.М. Сокровища курганов Адыгеи. — М., 1985.

Либеров П.Д. Памятники скифского времени на Среднем Дону. — М., 1965 (САИ. — Вып. Д1-311).

Ляшко С.М., Фрідман М.І. Скіфська антропоморфна скульптура Нижнього Подніпров’я // Археологія. — 1987. —

60. — С. 71—77.

Мелюкова А.И. Вооружение скифов — М., 1964 (САИ. — Вып. ДI-4).

Могилов О.Д. Спорядження коня скіфської доби у лісостепу Східної Європи. — К.; Кам’янець-Подільський, 2008.

Молодин В.И. Надмогильные сооружения пазырыкской культуры: К реконструкции этапов погребальной обряд-

ности // Вторые исторические чтения памяти М.П. Грязнова. — Омск. 1992. — Ч. 1. — С. 103—106.

Монахов С.Ю. Греческие амфоры в Причерноморье. Комплексы керамической тары VII—II веков до н. э. — Са-

ратов, 1999.

Монахов С.Ю. Греческие амфоры в Причерноморье. Типология амфор ведущих центров-экспортеров товаров в

керамической таре: Каталог-определитель. — М., 2003.

Мурзин В.Ю., Черненко Е.В. О средствах защиты боевого коня в скифское время // Скифия и Кавказ. — К., 1980. —

С. 155—167.

Онайко Н.А. Античный импорт на территории Среднего Поднепровья // СА. — 1962. — №. 1. — С. 66—83.

Петренко В.Г. Культура племен Правобережного Приднепровья в VI—III вв. до н. э. // МИА. — 1961. — 96. —

С. 53—102.

Петренко В.Г. Правобережье Среднего Поднепровья в V—III вв. до н. э. — М., 1967 (САИ. — Вып. ДI-4).

Пиотровский Б.Б. Кармир-Блур. — Ереван, 1955. — Т. 3.

Полин С.В., Карнаух Е.Г. Скифские святилища IV в. до н. э. у с. Кременевка в Северо-Восточном Приазовье //

Проблемы истории и археологии Украины. Мат-лы VІІ Междунар. науч. конф. — Харьков, 2010. — С. 33.

Пузикова А.И. Курганные могильники скифского времени Среднего Подонья (публикация комплексов). — М.,

2001.

Ромашко О.В. Скіфські бронзові Казани Північного Причорномор’я з вертикальними ручками // Проблемы

истории и археологии Украины. Мат-лы VІІ Междунар. науч. конф. — Харьков, 2010. — С. 35.

Ростовцев М.И. Скифия и Боспор. — М., 1925.

Савченко Е.И. Могильник скифского времени «Терновое I—Колбино I» на Среднем Дону (погребальный обряд) //

Археология Среднего Дона в скифскую эпоху. — М., 2001. — С. 54—142.

Седов В.В. Древнерусское языческое святилище в Перыни // КСИА. — 1953. — 50. — С. 92—103.

Скорый С.А. Стеблев: скифский могильник в Поросье. — К., 1997.

Скржинская М.В. Скифия глазами эллинов. — СПб., 2001.

Субботин Л.В., Охотников С.Б. Скифские погребения Нижнего Поднестровья // Древности Северо-Западного

Причерноморья. — К., 1981. — С. 102—116.

Туровский Е.Я., Николаенко М.Ю., Горячук В.Н., Ладюков И.В. Древние амфоры в Северном Причерноморье.

Справочник-определитель — К., 2001 (Серия «Археология и история Северного Причерноморья а

древности». — 1).

Шилов В.П. Раскопки Елизаветинского могильника в 1959 г. // СА. — 1961. — № 1. — С. 150—167.

Renfrew C. The Archaeology of Religion // Renfrew С., Zubrow E.B.W. The Ancient Mind. Elements of Cognitive Archae-

ology. — Cambridge, 1995. — P. 47 — 54.

Rotroff S.I. The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American school of Classical Studies at Ath-

ens. — Vol. XXIX: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Tableware and Related Material. — Prin-

ceton, New Jersey, 1997. — 1—2.

Fig. 8. Kremenivka, platform of ‘kurgan 5’: 1 — view from above; 2 — view from the West (ravine in the background)

Fig. 9. Kremenivka, a detail of the platform of ‘kurgan 5’: 1 — view from South-West; 2 — profile III

Scythian sanctuaries of Ares: archaeological date and Herodotus' testimonies (in English)

Documents