#massagetae

According to Herodotus, elderly men of the Massagetae (A Scythian confederation or tribe of the Sakā (I think?) culture in central Asia) would be sacrificed along with cattle. The flesh would then be boiled and eaten. Herodotus says that "those who end their life in this way are considered the happiest", saying it is poor luck to die of illness before one can be sacrificed. He also describes another Scythian group, who he calls the Issedonians, mixing the flesh of a recently departed man with sheep's flesh cut in the same manner and consuming both sheep and man. Both rituals involve mixing the flesh of humans and livestock before consuming both as a death ritual, however it seems as though among the Issedonians only the livestock are sacrifices, made after the man's death instead of sacrificed alongside him.

DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS MY OWN THEORY WHICH HAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, PLEASEEE DONT SPREAD IT AS RELIABLE INFORMATION!

So my thinking is this: could the consumption of Massagetae elders and the Issedonian represent or be linked more specifically to the concept of the stag/prey in Scythian art? Possibly the blood-drinking as well? Burial and the afterlife were very important to the Scythians, as attested by the nobility's great kurgans and one Scythian king's assertion that the only way for the Persian emperor to force a battle with the Scythians that they would not simply evade was for him to interfere with the tombs of their ancestors - and in the case of the Massagetae, Herodotus at least seems to believe that this sacrifice is seen as the best ways for an old Massagetae man to die, which implies greater meaning to the cannibalization strong enough to make its subjects wish to be sacrificed and cannibalized. Clearly there was some greater religious or cultural meaning to this ritual: and we already have evidence of culturally significant consumption of bodies in the form of motifs of predators consuming prey. The stag, which seems to have generally represented prey in many of this art, is found everywhere from stone carvings to goldwork to priest's scepters to tattoos to arrowheads. So I guess my question is: was the ritual consumption of the flesh of Massagetae elders viewed as providing the same nourishment and acting in the same role as the sacred prey depicted in art?

Obviously my thoughts on this aren't much more than a hunch, and the evidence required to support or disprove them probably never existed. Plus Herodotus's information on people as far east as the Massagetae can be sketchy, and there are no known Scythian sources which can elaborate on the meanings of predator-prey motifs and ritual cannibalism. I mostly just wanted to write my thoughts down somewhere so I remember why I thought them. I'm not adding citations to this post because I feel I've been very clear about where I got the information I'm talking about, but if you want them let me know somehow and I can add them to the bottom of the post. Cunliffe discusses Scythian animal art in section 6 of chapter 10, and while I think he briefly mentions ritual cannibalism at other points in the book he engages with Herodotus's writings on the topic in section 9 of chapter 11.

Reading this book is my first real foray into Scythian history. It is long and can be dense at times but I find Cunliffe's style enjoyable and the book is very informative. If you're interested in the Scythians I highly recommend it as an introductory read - though I will warn other trans people that he doesn't go into much detail on the Enaree/Andrieis, the transfeminine priestesses everyone on this site has heard about. He does devote a decent section to Agrimpasa, who is often viewed as the Scythian equivelant of Venus/Aphrodite, who Herodotus says the Enaree worshipped. Also, as with any history book: if it's too much of a slog and you're reading for personal interest, skip to the parts you're most interested in and don't feel bad about it. I can't speak to the physical edition, but on the Google Play epub the index is clearly titled with working hyperlinks so hunting down a specific topic is a breeze.

I may take a break from the Scythians to read about the period before and after them in the history of the Eurasian Steppe, but I will be coming back and researching Scythia more thouroughly, and I will be doing a full deep dive into the Enaree with everything I learn.

I've included recumbent stags, stags topping scepters, as well as a drawing and a photo of what seems to be either a recreation of these ceremonial horse antlers or something very similar. I got these pictures off of pinterest so I don't know who photographed the artifacts, but the drawing was attributed to the National Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg and the photo of the recreation was posted on twitter by @lifeasmisse. Most Scythian artifacts are in two museums, one in St. Petersburg and one in Kiev. I'm not sure what happened to the Kiev collection with the outbreak of war, but if anyone who finds this does know I'm eager to hear.

Edit: I threw a goldwork and some leatherwork examples of the scenes of predators attacking prey that I mentioned in with the other images. Better examples of the competition I mentioned exist, but that's not what's crucial to this point.

“Tomiris is a 2019 Kazakhstani feature film directed by Akan Sataev, which tells the story of the queen of the Massagetae, Tomyris, and the Persian king, Cyrus the Great. The film co-stars Almira Tursyn, Aizhan Lighg, and Ghassan Massoud.

The film was commissioned by the Ministry of Culture and Sports of Kazakhstan. The idea to create a film about Tomyris was brought by Aliya Nazarbayeva, the youngest daughter of the first president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. She was later employed as a general producer of the film.

The premiere of the film took place in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan on September 25, 2019. The film received mixed reviews from critics and, as of July 2020, grossed $1.3 million against a production budget of $6.5 million.

Cast[edit]

Almira Tursyn – Tomiris

Aizhan Lighg – Sardana

Ghassan Massoud – Cyrus

Berik Aitzhanov – Kurtun

Adil Akhmetov – Argun

Zarina Yeva - Tana

Erkebulan Dayirov – Kharasp

Azamat Satibaldi – Kavaz

The film was ordered by the Ministry of Culture and Sports of Kazakhstan. The idea of a film about Tomyris was brought to creation by Aliya Nazarbayeva, the daughter of the first president of Kazakhstan.[8] Filming began in December 2017, and scenes were shot in different parts of Kazakhstan. The Massagetae heroes speak the ancient Turkic language, while the Persian heroes speak new Persian in the film, despite the fact that modern historians consider the Massagetae to have been a nomadic Iranian people.[9][10] The film's budget was 6,5 million USD.[7]

The plot of the film is built on the story of Herodotus, who called his version one of the many stories about the death of Cyrus the Great.[11] The filmmakers took into account many features of the culture and life of the Massagetae, in particular, their pointed hats and tribal meetings, at which the most important issues were resolved. However, the language spoken by the Saka nomads, which is an artificially created proto-Turkic language, is controversial. The clothes worn by the Massagetae in the film are also disputable, as they are probably too heavy for the Central Asian region. The vicinity of the Amu Darya River has a very hot climate, so the summer clothes were lighter and of a different style.[11]

Almira Tursyn, a psychologist, was chosen from 15 thousand people to play the role of Tomyris. She took professional lessons of horseriding and archery and learned to use swords and knives.[12]

Release and critical response[edit]

The film was theatrically released in Kazakhstan on October 1, 2019. The distribution rights of the film were sold to Blue Swan for Italy, SND Films for France, Art Mood for Spain, AT Entertainment for Japan, Gulf Film for the Middle East, Challan for South Korea, Paradise/MGN for CIS, Shaw for Singapore, Program 4 Media for Romania, Siyah Bayez Movies for Turkey, and Well Go USA for the United States.[13][14] Distribution in the United States and Canada was picked up by Amazon Prime Video.[15]

The film received mixed reviews, largely because Herodotus's version of events is not generally accepted by historians and researchers,[16] and unlike in the film, Massagetae are Scythian people speaking an Iranian language, while in the movie all characters are represented by modern Kazakh (featuring Mongolian physiognomy and speaking a Turkic language). Criticism came from both the Kazakh and Iranian public mainly for considering the film as a feminist approach to the history of both Muslim countries. The Iranian public also criticized the film for using Herodotus's description of King Cyrus's death.[16]

Some observers believe that the film was aimed to make Dariga Nazarbayeva's potential presidential bid in the future, the daughter of Kazakhstan's former leader Nursultan Nazarbayev, more acceptable among ordinary Kazakhstanis.[17]

The film won the Nouveau Genre Great Prize at France's 2020 L'Étrange Festival.[18]

As of July 2020, it had grossed $1.3 million against a production budget of $6.5 million.[19]

From the article of Wikipedia on the film Tomiris ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomiris_(film) )”

Ghassan Massoud as Cyrus the Great in the film Tomiris

“The Legend of Tomiris Rewrites History and Makes It More Kazakh 

By Javeed Ahwar - November 15, 2020

The Legend of Tomiris (2019) is a lame adaption of Herodotus’s account of Cyrus the Great’s encounter with a Steppe warrior Tomiris (See Rollinger 2012). There is no doubt that the film is a not a historically accurate adaptation, nor the intention of makers, I believe, have been making something based on historical facts. Tomiris (the film) is a prime example how arts become a tool for nationalist politics in today’s time. Regarding the ethnic origin of Scythians, there is almost a consensus among Turkologists and scholars of Central Asian studies about their Iranian ancestry. Distinguished Turkologist Svat Saucek defines Scythians as nomadic Iranians—the natives of Central Asian Steppes, who were driven out from this region by Kipchak Turks between the fourth and sixth centuries (2000, xii, 28). Furthermore, historian A.I. Melyukova writes, “From the end of the 7th century B.C. to the 4th century B.C. the Central- Eurasian steppes were inhabited by two large groups of kin Iranian-speaking tribes—the Scythians and Sarmatians” (2008, 97). Based on the existing scholarship, Massagetae, a sub-division of Scythians which Tomiris belonged to, were not a Turkic group, quite on the contrary, they were in war with the latter until they were fully replaced by them in the Steppes. The question rises if a moviemaker can go that far in manipulating historical facts and is it then fair to call it a historical drama. I leave it for the readers to decide.

Coming to the story of film, it is narrated by Al-Farabi, a universalist middle ages scholar of Iranian origin, who is introduced as “Al-Turki” and given a Kazakh phenotype in the film. Al-Farabi is shown sitting in a traditional office-like atmosphere in Damascus (Syria) while writing the story of Tomiris for the Arab world. The story starts with the birth of Tomiris and the maternal death of her mother, queen to the Massagetae tribe’s chief Spargap. Being the first child to her father, she gets treated as a prince and trained in hunting, sword fighting, archery and politics by her father. Spargap gets killed by his rival tribe leaders Kurtun and Kavaz, shown as loyal puppets to the neighboring Iranian Khwarazmians. Tomiris survives several assassination attempts and seeks asylum at Savromat tribe and marries with Argun, the prince of Saprap tribe. After avenging her father and brothers’ bloods, she unites the Steppe tribes in war against Khwarazmians, part of the Persian King’s domain. The interval scene begins with Tomiris receiving an invitation from Cyrus. Argun and his son Spargap decides to visit Babylon the quarter of Cyrus the Great. The conversation does not go well between the two. After rejecting Cyrus’s proposal to join Persia in their conquest of the Egypt, persuaded by his subject Gubar, Cyrus kills the entire delegates. Gubar, the messenger of Cyrus, brings their death bodies to Tomiris also proposing her to marry the king of kings. Tomiris, now a widow, not only rejects the marriage proposal of the Shahenshah, but also avenges the death of her son and husband killing the entire Persian delegates and declaring a war with Persia. Cyrus the Great putting his plan of conquering the Egypt on halt, wages a war with the Steppe tribes and gets killed at the hand of an ordinary warrior of Tomiris.

Why Tomiris? Aliya Nazarbayeva—daughter of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the ex-president of Kazakhstan and writer-actor Timur Zhaksylykov   have pinned down the story to cater to Kazakh youth who seek glory in the past. Tomiris (2019) not only makes a 700 B.C. historical figure speak Kazakh, it is supported by poor cast playing Persians and Khwarazmian. Neither the Kazakh nor the Persian dialogues are intelligible to present Kazakh and Persian speakers. Was it a deliberate move? It might be the case but saying “Bezugarid”— instead of “Bezugarid in the film” tells us the failure of writers and makers to integrate a Persian writer in the project and cast Persian speaking characters.

On the technical aspect of the film, starting with the cinematography, it is too monotonous to impress. It does not live up to the prestige of Tomiris and Cyrus the Great. In particular emperor Cyrus is portrayed as an understaffed king and with not much aura around him. Produced on a budget of USD 6.5 million, it is justifiable. Furthermore, Babylon looks not different from the depiction of Arabian lands in Hollywood movies. The tents and deserts where Tomiris and her tribe resides are shown in an egalitarian way all looking alike. The life conditions are shown very hard. I argue that Tomiris the film is an attempt by Kazakh artists to rewrite history in a problematic way. The film could be made about heroic deeds of nomadic tribes without making it ethnically Kazakh or Turk. Being a multi-ethnic and language country, Kazakhstan can claim heir to Scythians on territorial but not on an ethnolinguistic ground. What makes this film problematic is the makers attempt to give Scythians the Kazakh language, the Mongoloid facial features and calling Tomiris as “türk tarihinin ilk kadın hükümdarı”—the first female ruler in Turkish history.

The film is not supported by good casting including the leading character Tomiris played by Almyra Tursyn. Her performances in entirety and particularly in the emotional scenes fails to create an impact.  A Syrian actor Hassan Massoud fails to shine as the Cyrus the Great in the film. Leading characters like Tomiris, Argun, Spargap and Sardana remain superficial in their approach towards their characters. My best performed scene from this film is the labor scene when Spargap’s wife gives birth to Tomiris. She excels in that scene, the rest looks like a Turkish Soep opera with blunt expressions seen throughout. Considering this region’s multiethnic and multilinguistic and religious feature, I would like to see movies which moves beyond the chauvinistic, black and white, and fictitious treatment of history. Such a movie might please a historically uninformed Kazakh, but it definitely is not for a well-educated Kazakh or Central Asian.  

References cited:

Soucek, Svat. 2000. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press.

Melyukova, A. I. 2008. “The Scythians and Sarmatians.” In The Cambridge History of EarlyInner Asia, edited by Denis Sinor, 97-118. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press.

Rollinger, Robert. 2012. “Cyrus According to Herodotus” Encyclopedia Iranica, Vol. XII, Fasc. 3, pp. 260-262; available online at https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/herodotus-iv (accessed online at November 10 2020).

© Javeed Ahwar

JAVEED AHWAR

I am a persianate coming from Afghanistan. I completed my undergraduate studies at Kabul University in Law and Political Science in 2009. I obtained my first master degree from the OSCE Academy in Bishkek in Politics and Security in Central Asia in 2010. I obtained my second master degree [Advanced LLM in European and International Human Rights Law] from Leiden University/Netherlands in 2015. In 2018, I was able to acquire my third master degree/research master in Cultural Anthropology from Utrecht University in Netherlands in 2018. Since 2019, I am doing my PhD in Eurasian Studies, an inter-university PhD program between Humboldt University in Berlin and Nazarbayev University in Kazakhstan.”

I see that a new blog appeared on this site, with the username @antiquityroadsshow and with the title “Herodotus is my best friend”. I would like to welcome this new blogger (who is, as it seems, a classicist) to the family of Herodotus tumlbr blogs and to wish them a long and fruitful activity on this site. I am sure that they will post on Herodotus with seriousness and good faith, avoiding for instance the intellectually fraudulent practices of the obscure and now as it seems defunct anti-Herodotus blog with the (deceptive) username critical-of-herodotus.

But I read on a recent post of  @antiquityroadsshow  the following things, obviously referring to what Herodotus writes in Book I of Histories on the defeat and death of Cyrus the Great of Persia in the hands of Tomyris, queen of the Central Asian people of Massagetae, and the treatment of the dead body of Cyrus by Tomyris:

“Herodotus: I’ve got a story for ya

Me: oh yeah? Is it true?

Herodotus: No, but a queen cuts off a king’s head and there will be so many kooky dreams

Me: Well count me in, you funky little dude.”

Now,  @antiquityroadsshow   why are you so sure that Herodotus’ narrative about Tomyris and the death of Cyrus the Great is totally untrue and a fortiori that Herodotus told this story knowing it to be untrue? 

I remind that Herodotus writes ca 440-425 BCE for an event (Cyrus’ death) which happened about a century before (in 529 BCE) far away from the Greek world (in Central Asia). It is normal that many versions of this momentous reversal of fortune circulated in Herodotus’ time as oral traditions (as Herodotus himself says -some of them are recorded by later Greek authors), more or less distorted by tale (people who accuse Herodotus of creating things often forget that there was no dearth of stories of all kind circulating in his time about the important events of the past). There is no surviving Persian version of Cyrus’ death.

We know from other cases of conflicting traditions in Histories that Herodotus either chooses the most plausible among them or refrains from judgement, if there is no evidence for the superior credibility of one of these traditions. More specifically concerning Cyrus’ death, Herodotus says that he has chosen the tradition that he found the most credible, perhaps because he has heard it from sources that he deemed the most reliable. 

And nothing excludes that what Herodotus narrates on Cyrus’ death has an important kernel of truth, because what he writes on this topic is not implausible: for instance the very powerful Sargon II of Assyria was killed in a battle with the Cimmerians in 705 BCE and his dead body remained in the hands of the enemy, but also the mutilation of the body of a defeated and dead enemy was a practice of many peoples in the Antiquity. Now, the truth is that there is a tomb of Cyrus the Great in Pasargadae of Persia and it seems that Cyrus’ corpse was there when Alexander the Great visited the site. But it is not of course impossible that the Persians were somehow able to retrieve (through violence, diplomacy, or money) the remains of their dead king from the Massagetae and bury them in Persia, although Herodotus does not say anything about this, as he continues his narrative with a description of the customs of the Massagetae, before passing to Cyrus’ successor Cambyses and the Persian conquest of Egypt. However, we know from the last Book of Histories that Mardonius’ son spent a lot of money trying to find and get the remains of his father who had been killed fighting the Greeks at Plataea and we can infer from this story that the Persians took great pains to retrieve the bodies of their killed relatives which had remained in the hands of the enemies. 

Anyway, although we don’t have and perhaps we will never have a certain knowledge about the specifics of the death of Cyrus the Great, the truth remains that Herodotus’ narrative on Cyrus’ campaign against the Massagetae and Tomyris is a great story of excessive imperial ambition and hybris, of the determination of a “barbarian” people to fight for their freedom, of efficient female leadership (Tomyris), of tragic reversal of fortune for a great personality (Cyrus) and of punishment of the aggressor.

Question:

Why did Cyrus keep Astyages in his court after taking over that area? After everything Astyages had done, I assumed he would be killed on the spot; what was it that made Cyrus keep him around?

Side note: This act of keeping Astyages in his court is similar to how Cyrus later keeps Croesus around, only Croesus shows aid to Cyrus later; maybe parts taken out of the book show Astyages being of service to Cyrus?

Comment:

Women in History: Tomyris, the original Warrior Queen

Tomyris is perhaps the most accomplished and simultaneously least known warrior queen that appears on this list.  She predates the other women on this list by at least 500 years, having ruled over the Massagetae in and around the year 530 BC.  While both hers and the history of her people are primarily known through the works of Herodotus, other historical writers including Strabo and Jordanes.…