Scythians - First Century AD

[Michael Kerr]

Although closely related and both were probably from the Sacian branch of Iranian peoples as distinguished from the other branch composed of Medes and Persians who were their bitter enemies. Even Herodotus makes a distinction between the Pontic Scythians and the Sauromatae and how they spoke a similar language to the Scythians but they spoke it incorrectly which indicates a slightly different dialect. He also mentions the Issedones who lived north of the Massagetae and some authors think that they could have been Sarmatians. To put language and dialect in a modern perspective, although they all speak a form of Iranic a Kurd would have trouble conversing with a Tajik or a Pathan from Afghanistan would not understand an Osset because separation, distance and time had altered their various dialects. Herodotus mentioned that the Scythians drove the Cimmerians out of the Pontic steppe after themselves being propelled westwards by the Massagetae in about the 7th century BC.

There were similarities in dress and lifestyle but there were also differences between the two groups besides language and they include methods of burials, tastes in artwork, religion and weaponry and methods of warfare. While Scythians seemed to be bearded, going by Trajan’s column most of the Roxolani seemed to have shaven faces. While the Scythians relied mainly on mounted archers the Sarmatian style of warfare was dominated by mounted charges with lance and sword and the bow was relegated to a secondary weapon, probably due to eastern influences.

Then we have the confusion of the terms Sauromatae and Sarmatae. Some think that the terms were only a point of difference between the Romans and the Greeks, however up to the mid third century the Sarmatians were referred to by Roman writers by their tribal names like Iazyges, Roxolani, Siraces, Aorsi and Alans and only were referred to as Sarmatians much later. To the Greeks the Sauromatae had a peculiar social system, the participation of women in war, religion and government and probably brought about the legends of the Amazons. However from Roman sources the Sarmatians and Alans seemed to be patriarchal warrior groups and there is no written evidence that women fought in their battles or participated in their political affairs. So the Sauromatae were probably a separate group that was eventually absorbed by the Sarmatians.

As to the various Sarmatian groups the main ones I know of are the Iazyges, Roxolani, Siraces, Aorsi and the Alans who were themselves probably a confederation of various smaller Sarmatian tribes. So due to fluctuating climatic conditions and war in the east we had a virtual conveyor belt of groups and tribes all moving west and colliding with their western neighbours all the way to Europe. I must admit I don’t know too much about the Urgi or Royal Scythians but the Urgi going by the Livius website settled around Kiev could have been a branch of the Roxolani who turned north west instead of south west like the main group and were referred to as the Spali by Pliny and later on Jordanes. So I don't think the Sarmatians were just another Scythian tribe. :-)

Regards
Michael Kerr