The Scots declare their Scythian connections...

[Ron Andrea]

Spelling is not one of my long suits.

Hard to believe Malcor could get much further out that the suggestions of From Scythia to Camelot, which basically claimed that all--not some, but all--the major themes of western medieval literature came from the Scythians. Not hard to believe a conscientious historian such as yourself would find that hard to shallow.

Still, the lack of concrete evidence of a Sarmatian Connection does not rule how the possibility of some cross-fertilization--in literature, if not in fact.

[Robert Vermaat]

Oh, I though the spelling error was Lacy's.. Nah, I'm not a great speller either.. :roll:

Yes, Malcor went a lot further. She postulated a 6000-strong Sarmatian army, freely roaming the north, but by some design deliberately kept out of the Roman army lists, so as not to spoil their 'original nomadic' character. hock:
To which I showed her all the examples where Sarmatians had in fact been settled (in Gaul and Italy) and had been assimilated into the population. True to character she would not hear of it.
Ribchester was to her just a small fort to leave the women and children, the rest of the army was patrolling the border without using forts, etc. Why they produced no visible signs such as funeral mounds etc. she never wished to explain.

I guess she's still dreaming of vast masses of Sarmatians, invisibly roaming hadrian's wall...

As to cross-fertalization in literature, these stories could have reached Britain through the Alans, who really were quite untamed Late Roman allies and fill the place reserved for the Sarmatians these days. But the Alans remain undervalued, I fear. Many stories must also have reached the nothern Germans, who also seem to have had strong links (cultutal, trade, intermarriage) with the Sarmatians. the kolbenarmring, typical of German warrior graves, seems to have been originally a Sarmatian fashion item.

[Ron Andrea]

Thank you, Robert. Now I see my error. I'd been under the impression that the Sarmatians and Alans were interchangeable splinter groups of Steppe horse soldiers (aka Scythians), the former seeing service in Britannia and the latter in the various continental provinces of Gallica, Germanica, etc.

Okay, I understand.

Six thousand!? Just wandering around like the Lone Ranger(s) seeking truth and justice? That is more than a little hard to reconcile with what little we know of that era. (It wasn't called the dark Ages for nothing, but, as you said, they should have left some trace.)

Nice torq.

Ave!

[philsidnell]

I too thought the Alans were a Sarmatian people. If it is wrong it is a very common error.

Phil Sidnell :oops:

[Treveri Gaul]

It alanian* really the szarmaták you live, equestrian people_nations just like that than the Scythian ones, Huns or the Hungarians.

He is only a little interest. The Hungarian kings punished it with a death in the 13. century who lived on Hungary according to Scythian laws, or practised his religion.

[Paullus Scipio]

In discussing the various groups/tribes/nations that wandered, fought, amalgamated, interbred or migrated over a span of a thousand years or so on "The sea of grass" or westward into Europe from time to time (and eastward into China for that matter!) we should be wary of the names/labels attached to them from time to time by 'civilised' observers.
The ethnic group which dominated the steppes in our period were indo-european/iranian nomads. They were known to the Greeks as 'skythians' and those further East as 'sauromatae'. By Imperial Roman times, the 'Sarmatians' had become the dominant group from the Danube to the Crimea. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, these 'Sarmatian' tribes, the 'Iazyges', 'Roxolani' and others were pushing west across the Danube (and were defeated by Marcus Aurelius,who threw them back across the Danube, and required them to contribute 8,000 cavalry to the roman army,some 5,500 of whom were apparently sent to Britain where they seem to have served in units of 500.Traces of these have been found at four sites so far, and genetically their descendants can still be traced in Northern England today)by pressure from the 'Eastern Sarmatians' or 'Alans' who then in turn occupied the trans-Danube to the Crimea.
The 'Alans' in their turn end up fragmented throughout the Empire (mostly in Gaul, where place names record their occupation), pushed west under germanic 'Gothic' migrations from the north, and Asiatic 'Hunnic' migrations from the East. Some 'Alans' serve the 'Hunnic' invasions as allies/subjects. One such tribe are supposedly the 'Serboi' who end up "guess where?" and eventually merge with subject slavic people. Similarly, the 'croat/Choroatus/khorvat' people are conjectured to be of Alanic origin. The Ostro-gothic and Hunnic supremacies do not last overly-long in historical terms.
By the end of the fifth century A.D. the Sarmatians, including the Alans cease to exist as a distinct ethnic group, but are still to be found in pockets fromHungary to Britain to Gaul and Spain and even North Africa in the train of the Vandals. One small enclave (the Ossetinians) still survive in the Caucasus highlands and still speak a modern form of 'Sarmatian'.The last 'Alans' disappear in the 12th-13th century A.D. invasions of the Caucasus by the Tartar/Mongols.
Phew ! Sorry about that, got a bit carried away........the point being that culturally, ethnically and linguistically the 'Alans' were a 'skythoi/Sarmatian' people.

[Robert Vermaat]

The last 'Alans' disappear in the 12th-13th century A.D. invasions of the Caucasus by the Tartar/Mongol

Erm.. I thought that Alanic mythology was still alive in the northern Caucasus, their last descendant being known as the Ossetians?

the point being that culturally, ethnically and linguistically the 'Alans' were a 'skythoi/Sarmatian' people.

Respectfully disagree (again). Culturally I agree up to a point, all these peoples were shaped by that steppe environment and the use of a the horse. Ethnically we can't tell, because it's way too early to determine if these people were pure enough (i.e., did they consist of one group or many groups?) to determine if their ethinicity can be compared. Linguistically, that's nothing but speculation. I mean, besides a few places and names, do we know 'the'Scythian language? Do we know 'the' Sarmatian language? Do we know 'the' Alan language? They are most likely Indo-European languages, but then, so are Germanic, Celtic and Latin. The Huns are nowadays suspected to have been showing Turkish influences, but how many group/influences were amalgamated on their way west we can't tell for sure. Same goes, of course, for the other groups we're discussing. Hungarians/Magyars speak an altogether diferent language, neither Indo-European nor Turkish.

So, were they all related - probably, through cultural exchange and similarities. How related? We can't tell. One people? Most likely or even surely not.

[Paullus Scipio]

The last 'Alans' disappear in the 12th-13th century A.D. invasions of the Caucasus by the Tartar/Mongol

Erm.. I thought that Alanic mythology was still alive in the northern Caucasus, their last descendant being known as the Ossetians?'

Err...mm, I don't think there is any disagreement here, Robert. I mentioned the surviving Alans pocket in the Caucasus, referring to them by another Russian version of their name (Ossetinians).It is correct that the last 'Alan' kingdom/independant states disappear in the 12th-13th century, as stated.

the point being that culturally, ethnically and linguistically the 'Alans' were a 'skythoi/Sarmatian' people.

Respectfully disagree (again). Culturally I agree up to a point, all these peoples were shaped by that steppe environment and the use of a the horse. Ethnically we can't tell, because it's way too early to determine if these people were pure enough (i.e., did they consist of one group or many groups?) to determine if their ethinicity can be compared. Linguistically, that's nothing but speculation. I mean, besides a few places and names, do we know 'the'Scythian language? Do we know 'the' Sarmatian language? Do we know 'the' Alan language? They are most likely Indo-European languages, but then, so are Germanic, Celtic and Latin. The Huns are nowadays suspected to have been showing Turkish influences, but how many group/influences were amalgamated on their way west we can't tell for sure. Same goes, of course, for the other groups we're discussing. Hungarians/Magyars speak an altogether diferent language, neither Indo-European nor Turkish.

Did you look at the Wikipedia site you referred to ?There are sufficient references to identify languages, and to refer to a'Scytho-Sarmatian' language, if you follow the links, and to identify 'Ossetian/Ossetinian as belonging to this language group. There is more information available than you imply. So linguistically, yes.There are, of course, no 'pure' races (unless one means human).All ethnic groups are mixtures of what was there before, and what comes after, a process still going on today - and the human race is all the better for this constant mixing.
The original skeletal studies (by Russian archaeologists ) identified the Scythian/Sarmatians as ethnically Indo-European/Iranian, with two sub-groups (i.e. essentially the same ) and that has apparently now been confirmed by D.N.A. studies ( again courtesy of the links from the site you referenced ).

So, were they all related - probably, through cultural exchange and similarities. How related? We can't tell. One people? Most likely or even surely not.

Here, again, I don't think we disagree - see my original opening remarks about the dangers of labels. To elaborate, Herodotus might have called all the nomad peoples 'skythians' but they wouldn't have recognised such a label.A 'skyth' might have said "I am Idanthyrsus, of the --- people, of the ---- tribe". A parallel can be drawn with North American nomads, called 'Indians/Redskins' by Europeans or a reference to the 'Sioux Nation' when a member would have called himself a'Lacotah' or an 'Oglala'.
I believe our viewpoints are the same, just that we are using slightly different definitions of e.g. 'people'. But if we can refer to a 'British' people, we can surely refer to a 'Skytho-Sarmatian' people.

[Paullus Scipio]

One further point should perhaps be noted.For this period ( say 500 B.C. to 500 A.D ), from the Crimea in the West to the Altai mountains in the East, the excavated tombs which form our primary knowledge base are remarkably similar (ergo, their beliefs are very similar ).Indo-european/Iranian skeletons ( and in some cases intact bodies), culturally similar, even identical artifacts (allowing for different trade goods - greek in the West, asian in the East.) etc, etc
If the different 'tribes/city states' of Greece/Sicily/Anatolia - Athenians, Spartans,Thebans.Halicarnassians,Syracusans etc can be called "Greeks", then the steppe nomads of this time can be called "Skytho-Sarmatians", wouldn't you agree ?(especially as they show more homogenity than the different "Greek" groups !! )

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Paul,

OK, we disagree less than I thought!
Yes, I missed your ref. to the Ossetians, but I assumed you implied that the Alan culture had vanished during the 12/13th c.

About the names, I agree if you put it like that. I was just worrying that you lumped them all together, as is done way too often these days. I'm glad i was mistaken. Yes, Athenians, Spartans, Thebans, Halicarnassians, Syracusans etc can be called "Greeks", sure. As can Britons, Italians, Armenians and Egyptians at some point in time all be called "Romans".

But I think you'll agree with me that there is a slight difference. Cultural identity, religious identity, citizenship of an empire - many different groups can receive a common denominator that way. But that does not mean they are similar. That's why i have reservations when Skythians, Alans, Sarmatians etc. are lumped togather too easily. Too share many similarities, but they are not one homogenous group.