Update on 1st Century Sarmatian Weapons

[Escobar]

I was in mind books of authors from ours time. Ancient sources I read long time ago.

[Alanus]

Ah! New stuff. Michael and I started a thread 2 years ago, I think it was titled, "Sarmatiana: References on the Sarmatians, Old and New." You can find it on the RAT SEARCH mode. A lot of the references are by modern authors, sometimes a collaboration of several writers. Sometimes the members wandered "off topic" or to related topics, but some of it should be helpful.
There's also an RAT thread on, "Alan Military Tactics." :-)

[Escobar]

Simonenko:

The swords of type 1 are grouping in three horizons. To the early one (2nd–1st century BC) belong the weapons of Chinese origin with the bronze guards. In Central Asia this kind of weapon connects to the retreat into the region of the Yuech-Chihs who were pushed there by the Hsiung-nu in the middle of the 2nd century BC. The Yuech-Chihs and Hu-sungs introduced this weapon to the Sarmatians (Скрипкин, 2000, p. 27–29).
A. M. Khazanov was right when he wrote that type 1 was formed as early as the early Sarmatian period (Хазанов, 1971, p. 19). We can only add that it was formed after the weapon’s prototypes of the Chinese origin and under its direct influence.

How it look like in comparison with Throusdale, who claims that this type of sword are pure Sarmatian?

[Alanus]

No man is an island.
If we study steppe influences on the Chinese, we discover the Type I sword was the end-result of 2.000 years of interaction between steppe cultures and the Chinese, who (in the beginning) were farmers. The Chinese were trading with Central Asian peoples during the formation of the earliest steppe cultures.

[attachment=12637]turbinoculture-mid2ndMillenniumBC.JPG[/attachment]
During the Turbino culture (early Second Millennium BC), we find imported Chinese nephrite and lapis lazuli jewelry alongside strange Turbino-origin curved knives that somehow found their way to the Karasuks and Chinese.

[attachment=12638]DSC_0130.JPG[/attachment]
By the end of the 2nd Millennium BC, these curved knives are found in abundance within Shang Dynasty chariot burials at Anyang. Note, one bronze knife has a typical central ridge that we also see on the early Sarmatian swords at Filippovka and the Zubov Farm kurgans.

[attachment=12639]DSC_0125.JPG[/attachment]
Sometime between the early Zhou Dynasty and the death of King Gaojian (500 BC), the knife-shape evolved into a very short bronze sword. The pommels and guards were distinctive. By 300 BC or earlier, the Chinese hired the Yue-Chi or Saka to reform their military structure. Lord Wuling ordered his army to learn archery, ride horses, and wear barbarian clothing. At this time, I believe that Saka iron sword blades were introduced to the Chinese. Also, at the same time, we see scabbard slides, and horses with crenelated manes and tail-coverings. These are all barbarian in origin.


[attachment=12642]DSC_0128.JPG[/attachment]
Now we have Gaojian's sword next to early jade sword fittings. They are smaller than Han-era fittings and have a single chilong (hydra dragon). This sword, with the addition of the Saka iron blade, becomes the proto-type of the Type I Sarmatian Sword. BUT it has many steppe features. It is not ALL Chinese, nor is it totally Sarmatian. It's a combination of interaction and trade between two cultures.

So, while Simonenko, Khazanov, and Treister, are all "correct" in noting the Type I sword has a Chinese "origin," so too is Trousdale in claiming it also has a steppe origin. We have to look at the Big Picture, not the short-term one; and when we do, we can see the extended evolution of just not the Type I sword, but also the crenelated mane, the scabbard slide, and the bound horse-tail. Everything is connected.

[attachment=12641]DSC_0136.JPG[/attachment]
A close-up of the original bronze hand-guard and the alternative jade version. Both styles are found from China to the Black Sea.

[Folkert van Wijk]

I belief I never posted my Niya Gorytos here before and in the mean time we finished the second one for and with a companion of mine.
The one with red is the first I made to be caried on the left hip (in know it's the wrong way) by means of an baldric.
The second one (mostly made by my companion) is the one with green, made to be caried on the right hip by means of an extra belt.





Cheers.

[Alanus]

Folkert, thanks for posting these photos!

You and your friend did a fine job. The Niya bowcase-quivers are just like the originals. I really love the second one, which would allow wearing a Type I Sarmatian sword at the outer left thigh.

As information for other RAT members, Niya is located at the southwestern corner of the Tarim Basin in the Takla Makan, Xingiang Province. We have no idea who actually owned the original artifact. It was found containing an eared bow, and the dry climate and salt-infused soil kept it from deteriorating. Although the bow has been called "Hunnic," it was developed in the late 3rd Century B.C. by the Sargatskya.

This type of bow case with two quivers can be dated back to the mid 2nd Century B.C. The Orlat Battle plaque shows this form of case accurately, and the plaque probably depicts combat between the Yuezhi and Sakarauli or the Wusun. All three tribes passed through Niya, as did the Xiongnu (early Huns). The style was carried into the Bosphorus by the earliest Alans, a cultural extension of the Yuezhi, Wusun, and Saka.

   
The bowcase as shown on the Orlat plaque. The combatants are wearing lamellar armor with a collar, a style borrowed by the Han Chinese. The cataphact at the right uses a Type I Sarmatian sword, developed by the Chinese and used extensively by the Saka-Alans. We are looking at borrowed technology by both groups.

   
A photo of the actual Niya bow case and double quiver. The majority of tumuli graves around Niya are those of the Sakarauli, so this case may have belonged to a member of that tribe.

Anyway, Folkert, I congratulate you on creating a couple of historically-accurate bow cases.