Back to you, Nathan
Exactly. The term "Sarmatian" was ambiguously used by the Romans in the same way they used "Scythians" which even included the Goths. Although the Iazyges were called Sarmatians, their choice of weapons was not typically Sarmatian. They built flat graves rather than Sarmatian-styled tumuli over shaft-graves. When we review their weapon styles and methods of burial, we see a culture that was not "Eastern." In other words, they did not originate east of the Urals as did all authentic Sarmatian/Alanic tribes.
They were a cultural anomaly. My point is this-- we should not use a cultural anomaly as a "typical" example of "Sarmatians." My criteria is perhaps narrower than many modern authors. True "modern textbook" Sarmatians brought Eastern weapon styles and armor into Europe. Starting as early as the Filipovka kurgan culture (Middle Sarmatian period), we see an Asiatic admixture which shows up most frequently in female skulls. I have never heard of an Iazyge skull classified as "Mongoloid."
Perhaps what we need is a new RAT thread on the origins of these so-called "Sarmatian" tribes, aka the Iazyges, Roxolani, and Taifali, as each subsequently arrives in Roman space. Unlike other "Enemies of Rome"-- like the Gauls, Britons, and Germans-- the Sarmatians appear suddenly from nowhere! Other tribes further east seem to disappear from the record: (1) the Siraces (Sirakes) which wore helmets like the Roxolani one I'm wearing and apparently became part of the Bosphoran Greek culture, (2) the Aorsi who at one time had camel trains following the Jaxartes River and then down into India, and may have been the "Kangju" recorded by the Chinese. The next tribe (3) appears to be the Wusun, often equated with the "Alans."
Starting with the Roxolani, these tribes have eastern roots (unlike the Iazages), and many of them have origins from the periphery of China and the Tien Shan. They are examples of a rapid cultural movement which influenced both Greeks and Romans. However, they are not understood by the average RAT member whom, I believe, still studies them under the inaccurate name of "Sarmatians." Starting with the Roxolani, all subsequent tribes should be termed "Alans," not "Sarmatians." We hear this from Ammianus Marcellinus who states they used many tribal names yet considered themselves as Alans. It's obvious the Alans were a confederation of many individual tribes. As such, they replaced two earlier confederations, the Massagetae and Saka. Again, both Ammianus and Casius Dio state the Alans were (once or the same as) the Massagetae-- same old Eastern culture, different name for their confederation. They knew who they were. They did not consider themselves "Sarmatians," nor did they call themselves "Sarmatians."
Exactly. The term "Sarmatian" was ambiguously used by the Romans in the same way they used "Scythians" which even included the Goths. Although the Iazyges were called Sarmatians, their choice of weapons was not typically Sarmatian. They built flat graves rather than Sarmatian-styled tumuli over shaft-graves. When we review their weapon styles and methods of burial, we see a culture that was not "Eastern." In other words, they did not originate east of the Urals as did all authentic Sarmatian/Alanic tribes.
They were a cultural anomaly. My point is this-- we should not use a cultural anomaly as a "typical" example of "Sarmatians." My criteria is perhaps narrower than many modern authors. True "modern textbook" Sarmatians brought Eastern weapon styles and armor into Europe. Starting as early as the Filipovka kurgan culture (Middle Sarmatian period), we see an Asiatic admixture which shows up most frequently in female skulls. I have never heard of an Iazyge skull classified as "Mongoloid."
Perhaps what we need is a new RAT thread on the origins of these so-called "Sarmatian" tribes, aka the Iazyges, Roxolani, and Taifali, as each subsequently arrives in Roman space. Unlike other "Enemies of Rome"-- like the Gauls, Britons, and Germans-- the Sarmatians appear suddenly from nowhere! Other tribes further east seem to disappear from the record: (1) the Siraces (Sirakes) which wore helmets like the Roxolani one I'm wearing and apparently became part of the Bosphoran Greek culture, (2) the Aorsi who at one time had camel trains following the Jaxartes River and then down into India, and may have been the "Kangju" recorded by the Chinese. The next tribe (3) appears to be the Wusun, often equated with the "Alans."
Starting with the Roxolani, these tribes have eastern roots (unlike the Iazages), and many of them have origins from the periphery of China and the Tien Shan. They are examples of a rapid cultural movement which influenced both Greeks and Romans. However, they are not understood by the average RAT member whom, I believe, still studies them under the inaccurate name of "Sarmatians." Starting with the Roxolani, all subsequent tribes should be termed "Alans," not "Sarmatians." We hear this from Ammianus Marcellinus who states they used many tribal names yet considered themselves as Alans. It's obvious the Alans were a confederation of many individual tribes. As such, they replaced two earlier confederations, the Massagetae and Saka. Again, both Ammianus and Casius Dio state the Alans were (once or the same as) the Massagetae-- same old Eastern culture, different name for their confederation. They knew who they were. They did not consider themselves "Sarmatians," nor did they call themselves "Sarmatians."
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
