07-27-2015, 04:29 PM
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:
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:
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
