In Herodotus ' account of the Scythian invasion of Palestine, one can find echoes of three events of the seventh century BC: the existence of a threat "from the north" to the inhabitants of Syria and Palestine, the desecration of Palestinian temples, and the expansion of Egypt into Palestine. These events, which were reported to Herodotus in various ways, were interpreted by him in accordance with his concept of the presence of the Cimmerians and Scythians in the ancient East. Its essence is in the leadership of the Scythians. According to Herodotus, the Scythians, having conquered Media and spread their rule throughout Asia, went to Egypt. On the way there, in Syria, the Scythians were met by the Pharaoh Psammetichus, who persuaded them not to go any further. On the way back, the Scythians plundered the sanctuary of Aphrodite Urania (Herodotus, I. 105). The role of the Scythians in the political life of the ancient East and their military power was exaggerated by Herodotus, and the role of the Cimmerians was minimized. In describing the Scythians in detail, he mentions the Cimmerians only nine times, and in eight cases they are represented as outcasts, they are driven out from everywhere by the Scythians or the Lydian king Aliattes. Once Herodotus still reports that the Cimmerians reached Ionia and captured page 221 Sardis, but immediately makes a significant reservation: "The invasion of the Cimmerians ... it was not a prolonged conquest, but rather a simple raid to capture loot" (I. 6. 15). This one-sided interpretation of Scythian-Cimmerian history was probably the result of Herodotus ' familiarity with Scythian heroic traditions only. V. Parker, who showed that Herodotus knew much more about the Cimmerians than he had told about them in his "History", found it difficult to give the reason for Herodotus ' silence (1). It can be assumed that Herodotus kept silent about the Cimmerians because information about them turned out to be inappropriate in the light of hi ... Read more