Update on 1st Century Sarmatian Weapons

[koechlyruestow]

Hello Michael,

The word nadziak probably originates in the Arabic word nachakh, the battle-ax. The Middle East also knew a battle-hammer looking like the Polish weapon, but they called it (in Arabic) a latt, which seems to have originally been a weapon for infantry. Still, many weapons, or at least their names, went through a process of emancipation and ended up in the hands of the more elevated (literally and socially) cavalry, so this could have happene with the latt too. From the late Roman period to the Seljuk period however, the cavalry battle-hammer of the Middle East usually looked like a small hockey-stick with a zoomorphic head (a bull or feline).
The Polish lance is probably a unique development and not derived from Turkish or Tartar examples, because they used their lances in a very different way from the Poles.

[Alanus]

Hello Michael and Eduard,

Informative stuff. Incidentally, as you both probably know, the original bronze-age sagaris also had a partially zoomorphic head, usually a feline or gryphon.

I've been thinking of getting a mason's hammer and having it modified into a sagaris. Perhaps this is what Sutoris did.

[Sutoris]

I've been thinking of getting a mason's hammer and having it modified into a sagaris. Perhaps this is what Sutoris did.

That's what I did Alanus.
Finding a hammer with a round handle hole was not easy.
Posted the photo's in #332433.
I forged it but you can grind it down to the right shape.

[Alanus]

Sutoris,

Just up the road from where I live, there's a blacksmith. If I can find the right hammer (what brand?), I'll have this guy beat the crap out of it until it becomes a sagaris. :woot:

[Folkert van Wijk]

About bows:

Do I understand Mister Simonenko right, that Hunnish bows where more like an exception for 1st century Sarmatians? Hunnish bows being found mostly in rich grave's and could therefore be considered an (looted) exotic new type of bow for the 1st. century Sarmatians. And that well into the 1st century the most Sarmatians used the Scythian style bow without the "extra" siyahs either equally in length as asymmetric ?

Therefore making it a good choice for me to buy a Scythian bow to use for early Scythian reenactment as well as for my 1st. century impression...? :errr:

[Alanus]

Hello, Folkert

I don't agree with Simonenko on Hunnic bows. On the Orlat Battle plaque, we see to opposing sides using Hunnic bows. If one side might have been Huns, then why are all the enemies aslo using the same bow with siyahs? Don't make sense. Also, bows have always been an archaeological problem. Also, the Hunnic/Roman bows found in Wales were early second century. So, how did they spread so wickedly fast... bypassing the Sarmatians? :woot:

Simonenko dropped the ball on this one. :whistle:

[Folkert van Wijk]

Hi Alanus, I see the logic in your reasoning, never the less I would rather first go by archeological finds, then use period depictions and 21 century logic thinking en interpretations.
And because I am aiming to buy a bow for booth an early BC and late impression, I am wondering if there's also evidence for 1st. cent. use of the older type of (scythian) bows without the long siyahs...?

[Alanus]

Folkert,

Since bows with syahs show up in the 2nd century BC, I would think there would be an overlap in the early part of the 1st century. The Scythian bow was "slower" (in arrow delivery) than the new style. For that reason, I think just about everyone switched fairly rapidly. Old finds in the Takla Makan show that both the early Sarmatians (Yue-chi and Wusun) and the Chinese were making bows with syahs. The Iaz-Iazyage bow-- first one to arrive in Europe-- had syahs. By the early 2nd century AD, the Roman army had switched to the new style. This is confirmed by the pile of syahs found at Caerleon, evidently from abandoned bows by the 2nd Legion. I think the old bow died a quick and natural death. And I really don't know what promted Simonenko to make the statements he did.

If you are planning on a bow for both early and late impressions, a Scythian bow would be "extremely old-fashioned." illy:

[Folkert van Wijk]

There you go, Thanks.

[Escobar]

Alanus,
thanks for synthesis of 1st century Sarmatian sword. I was read Throusdale and Simonenko, but S. Botalov in Gunny i Tiurki giving analogies of two-handed early hunno-sarmatian swords and chinese swords and claiming, that early hunnic swords are of chinese origin. He didn't gave any dating in this comparison. For me, as for you, these swords are pure Sarmatian, for example the Saka owned long swords in VI - V century BC, long before China, as you said.

[Alanus]

Hello, Escobar

The idea that Hunnic swords originated in China is news to me. When the early Huns (Hsiong-nu) lived along the Chinese border, they were strictly bowmen who carried an auxiliary "knife-sword," probably single sided (a "dao") and not a long-sword. Does Botalov give archaeological illustrations?

I believe Trousdale had the right angle. The long iron sword ("Jian") and scabbard slide was developed by the Saka east of the Urals. The early swords found at Filipovka (southeast of the Urals) had a blade configuration identical to some later Chinese versions. Note the central ridge in the pic below.
[attachment=12574]EarlySarmatianswords002.JPG[/attachment]

Long swords (and the scabbard slide) arrived in China in the 4th century BC, and I have an original set of jade fittings for such a sword. The fittings are small and decorated by a single "chilong" dragon (called a "hydra by Trousdale). These are late Eastern Zhao, the slide pictured below.
[attachment=12575]DSC03202_zpslpegqvgg_2015-07-27.jpg[/attachment]

By the Han Dynasty, 200 BC to AD 200, the swords had fittings with two chilongs, one large and a "baby." These later Chinese fittings have been found in a Roxolani grave in Bulgaria, as shown below.
[attachment=12576]Chatalka_NephriteScabbard_2015-07-27.jpg[/attachment]

The interaction between the Chinese and Saka/Sarmatians/Wusun/Yu-Chi was through friendly trade. The early Huns were enemies of all concerned; and it seems highly doubtful that the Chinese were trading swords to a dedicated foe. Trading silks, yes, but not weapons. As of yet, I have not seen a "Hunnic" or "Migration" sword with jade chilong fittings. Of course, there's always tomorrow. ;-)

[Escobar]

Very thanks for reply.

they were strictly bowmen who carried an auxiliary "knife-sword," probably single sided (a "dao") and not a long-sword.

This is another interesting cause, origins of seax in Hunnic forces. Further here:
https://www.academia.edu/12533551/Kiss_P...14_111_144

https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...7601,d.bGQ

Whole comparison (fig. 55) in Gunny i Tiurki is based onarcheological findings, but without dating of each sword. Here http://www.istmira.com/istdr/gunny-i-tyurki/page/107/ is online version of this book. He claiming exactly : "Вероятнее всего, описанные типы раннегуннских мечей и кинжалов имеют китайское происхождение", what means "probably, described types of early hunnic swords and daggers are of chinese origin."

[Alanus]

I just studied the illustrated swords in Botalov's thesis. The longer-gripped ones in Figure. 55 are early, 1st Cent. BC to 1st Cent. AD. These are the swords described by Tacitus. No's. 18 to 24 in Fig. 55 are Chinese, found in Chinese burials. No. 24 is exceptional (I would love to have it!), perhaps about 1.5 cm long with an extremely long two-handed grip.

Several Russian authors have noted these long swords as being "Sarmatian." However, Botalov uses a "hybrid" expression, such as, "the Hun-Sarmatian burial [in] Tselinny." I really dislike this new term-- you cannot link Huns to Sarmatians; two entirely different cultures. In fact, I hate the term "Sarmatian," It first shows up under Roman authorship very late, after the Iazyges and Roxlani formed a coalition in Valens/Valentinian era Pannonia. There are no proofs that the Alans called themselves "Sarmatians," and the term is now widely misused by everyone.

Figure 56 shows "migration era" swords. These are late, and one-handed. Also shorter and wider blades. Are they "Sarmatian"? Perhaps, but they are also Hunnic and also Gothic. Not to stretch the connection, King Childric owed a beautiful example. So they are also Frankish. I hope you get the picture. Botalov is not specific and writes in generalizations. I wouldn't bother with this "connection." The Migration Era sword probably did grow out of the Alanic/Chinese sword, but it was an entirely different animal.

Remember, dear RAT fellow collectors. Don't throw away your nasty old Chinese swords. Send them to me. :whistle:

[Escobar]

The longer-gripped ones in Figure. 55 are early, 1st Cent. BC to 1st Cent. AD. These are the swords described by Tacitus

Which numbers?

In fact, I hate the term "Sarmatian," It first shows up under Roman authorship very late, after the Iazyges and Roxlani formed a coalition in Valens/Valentinian era Pannonia.

This is wery broad term, like "Tartar" later. I am a descendant of group of Lithuanian Tartars, which are of "Zawołżańscy Tatarzy" (Beyond-Volga Tartars) origin. In XIII - XV century they were part of Golden Horde. Earlier they were from Uysyn of Iranian origin. Even in XVIII century we called our peple "Ushens". But for Poles, Lithuanians and other neighbors we are Tartars.

King Childric owed a beautiful example. So they are also Frankish. I hope you get the picture.

This sword showing clear Hunnic and Sarmatian influence, not roman gladius, nor Germanic long sword. From Sarmatian and Hunnic sword emerged medieval european sword.

Someone, but I don't remember who, claimed that influence from the Warring States can especially be seen in Saka weaponry, as he notes that the Saka method of securing their sword belt and accoutrements were borrowed from the Chinese Warring States. ; he further notes that even the pommels, the guards, the loops or scabbard slides, the scabbard tips which were often made of jade, were all directly imported from China. He also indicates that these weapons had been used by both the Skythians and Persians, and by Chinese chariot fighters and infantryman, the latter two probably referring to the Qin chariot fighter from Qin Shihuang Di's famous mausoleum (3rd century BC) near Xian and also to the suits of armour made of large lacquered leather plates with the high neck-guard found from a tomb at Suixian, Hubei, just north of the ancient kingdom of Chu, dated to the 5th century BC. You know what is this source and whether is reliable?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

This sword showing clear Hunnic and Sarmatian influence, not roman gladius, nor Germanic long sword. From Sarmatian and Hunnic sword emerged medieval european sword.

The origins of the Childeric blade can be found in the Roman Spatha and the Hunnic Altlussheim or other similar cloisonne decorated blades, descended from Sassanid swords of the 4th and 5th centuries.

The blade of the Childeric sword is made distinctly in the Romano-Germanic style which appeared in the early 3rd century AD. It posesses a shallow fuller and a tapering blade, which is not at all characteristic of Hunnic blades. However, the adoption of Cloisonne decoration is a HUGE Hunnic influence.

Hunnic blades are long, straight, and always have a diamond or lenticular cross-section. TBH I'm not aware of any Cloisonne decorated Alanic blades.

The Migration era sword grew out of the Roman Spatha, which had grown out of long Celtic Blades such as the La Tene culture with examples like the 1st Century Hod Hill Spatha. It was influenced by Sassanian Blades which resulted in the Romans moving to a longer, tapering blade.

The Hunnic and Sarmatian influence was largely superficial: for example although Cloisonne lasted a very long time, the Pommel remained in use.