Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roxolani and Iaziges
#76
Of course whether we can go by Trajan's Column to accurately describe Sarmatian (Iazyges or Roxolani) weapons and armour is debatable. Just to look at the depictions of the Roxolani bodysuit armour as well as that of their horses can cast a doubt about their accuracy. Only one rider with a sword and no contus but the fact they are retreating could mean that after failing in their initial charge the Roxolani have discarded their contuses in their retreat. I don't think that there was ever a longer type sword  found in an Iazyges grave on the Hungarian plain so they must have been rare or bows found in graves but they have found arrowheads. I think Harmatta is assuming that the bone arrowheads were used for hunting only. I think there will always be debate on the differences between Iazyges and Roxolani but contact with their German neighbours and intermarriage must have influenced the dress and weaponry of the Iazyges. I think even Marcus banned the Quadi from having markets because he feared that Iazyges would be hard to distinguish from Germans. Smile
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#77
Just to look at the depictions of the Roxolani bodysuit armour as well as that of their horses can cast a doubt about their accuracy. 

I have always thought that they look just like what an artist would produce given the brief 'The warriors and horses looked like they were covered in scales like fishes; do them like that mate'.
Rodger Williams
Reply
#78
Maybe these two suits of armour found at the base of the column more accurately show how both the wealthy and the poorer Roxolani horsemen looked. The poorer ones wore suits made up of horizontal strips of leather attached to each other by buckles, at least that is what the authors of the paper think. Cool
Regards
Michael Kerr 


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#79
I believe I might have something to add to this discussion...

I was recently looking through Roman inscriptions from Ribchester, and came across this tombstone (see attachment). 

This guy is described as "Decurion of the Cavalry Regiment of Sarmatians" and...isn't that a contus? 

Full info on the tombstone here: 

http://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/595


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#80
Michael and Holly,

Thanks for your thoughtful posts. We have to believe somebody, especially a knowledgeable authority, and I'll go with Hermatta who specifically noted that Iazyge graves contained short swords, as opposed to the much longer 2-handed Roxolani style (the Late Sarmatian Type 1). To date nothing has been published that contradicts Janos Harmatta. In actual a priori documents, we find no mention of the Iaz (Jaz) using cataphract armor or a contus. Besides short swords, arrowheads are present in their graves. This indicates they were primarily bowmen. As a traditional Alanic-styled archer studying its roots, I'm aware that bows have not survived in European soil, not like they have in the Takla Makan or Western China.

I consider about 50% of Trajan's Column is inaccurate and based on verbal descriptions, while the other 50% shows piles of captured swords and armor taken from the battlefield. A good example would be the armor images just posted by Michael. Yet even the "accurate' stuff was collected at random, and we don't know what was Dacian or Roxolani. As such, the Column makes a poor visual source. You need to "chose carefully," as I did when I had Grygorz Kulig make my incredibly expensive helmet.   Wink  

At the time M. Aurelius sent Iazyges into Britain, they were not "Sarmatized" by shoulder to shoulder contact with the Roxolani. That blending on the Hungarian Steppe came later. I'm exceedingly leery of historians who refer to Iaz as "Sarmatians" without checking actual cultural customs and weapons. If there is a need for followers of this thread to find a "heroic" and shimmering Sarmatian example, then look more accurately toward the Roxolani, Aorsi, and Alans, all of whom had contingents of heavy cavalry and appropriate weapons-- the long sword, body and leg armor, and a contus.

The old reproduction of a "Decurio Alae Sarmatirum" posted by Holly is interesting, as it does show a contus or a long spear. It's also incredibly ambiguous for an inscription, because it refers to more than one ala. If we consider that an ala of Iaz would have been referred to as such rather than as "Sarmatians," then we have no idea which Sarmatian ala the deceased belonged to. The only extant example of the Notitia Dignitatum is late, circa 395. Among alae containing Sarmatians, we had a contingent of Cataphractarii, plus Taifali Iuniores and Taifali Seniores. There may have been other alae in Britian that evade my memory.

All I'm saying is please be careful in portraying the Iazyges accurately, and don't make Littleton & Malcor-styled errors in building the Iaz into something they weren't.  Confused
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
Reply
#81
(12-29-2015, 03:20 AM)Alanus Wrote: If we consider that an ala of Iaz would have been referred to as such rather than as "Sarmatians," then we have no idea which Sarmatian ala the deceased belonged to.

Roman writers consistently refer to Iazyges as 'Sarmatians', whatever they might have called themselves. But they were never that scrupulous about tribal names: Domitian's 'Suebic-Sarmatian' war of AD92 was probably fought against a coalition of Quadi and Iazyges...

There are plenty of Alae Sarmatorum (an Ala VII Sarmatorum in Egypt is, I think, the highest-numbered), together with numeri and equites, but no 'Alae Iazygorum' (or whatever), so the Roman army just referred to all these peoples, whatever their origin, as Sarmatae. Which is where the confusion comes in, I suppose!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#82
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."   Cool
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
Reply
#83
'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.'

Yes please.
Rodger Williams
Reply
#84
Thanks for the input, Rodger

If we start a new thread-- perhaps "Origin of the Alans"-- we can almost eliminate the term "Sarmatian" entirely. That's what I'd like to do; get rid of "Sarmatian" as a dead dinosaur. If so, then the Iazyges no longer fit, which is just as well. For info on Iazyges, this present and incredibly long thread would suffice for any future reference. Unfortunately, since modern authors (mostly Russian) use the term "Sarmatian," we still have to include it when describing cultural stages and weapons.

By leaving the Iazyges behind, we are left with the Roxolani and where they came from, as in their Alanic origin. Strangely enough, the migration of Alan tribes from the borders of China to the Aral and Pontic steppes was incredibly swift: accomplished in a single generation. We know this from the swords, which have a Chinese origin. And likewise, prototypes of the Chinese sword used by the Alans had a much earlier steppe origin, evidently from the Yue-chi (later evolving into the Kushans). Frankly, I'd like to start at the beginning with the formation of the Altai culture, the Sargats, the Saka, and the Massagetae whom Ammianus and Dio claimed were "Alans." These cultures were the Alanic "root;" and in exchange with the Chinese, they developed the Eastern armor and weapons we know as Alanic.

If we start another thread, I'll need help. I know Michael Kerr is out there somewhere in cyberspace, and I'm sure he'd like to give a welcomed hand. If anyone else could give solid input, we would be grateful. Hopefully, an "Origins of the Alans" thread will crystalize. But please remember that I'm also busy writing a book on an entirely different historical subject and it requires much of my time.

PS: Just got an email from Michael.
He shared info on Ribchester, the area where the memorial of the "Sarmatian" was found. In the 2nd Century, Ribchester was occupied by a Spanish cavalry ala. By the 3rd Century, if any of the fort's cavalrymen were Iazyges, they would have been heavily Romanized. The memorial shows a light cavalryman, no heavy armor, and I believe what we are looking at is your basic Roman cavalryman. By the 4th Century, Ribchester was under-manned, one gate was permanently closed, and the fort was in serious decline.
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
Reply
#85
I am not really sure what units served at Ribchester before Iazyges , I just remember reading that Ala II Asturum may have been based there for a while. Although they were renowned horsemen I don't think the Iazyges were heavy cavalry more light to medium to cover the Flavian military road from Carlisle to Manchester where it crossed an important E-W road running along the Ribble-Aire corridor, a job for cavalry. With 5500 horsemen though they would have been spread out to cover all the various "hot spots" in Britain at the time, a sensible option for a former enemy until they earned your trust.

 Ribchester does appear to have always been a strategically placed cavalry fort though with the discovery of the cavalry parade helmet on display at the British Museum (see attachment) which is dated from late 1st century to early 2nd century.

 The establishment of a veterans settlement near the fort Bremetennacum veteranorum would have suited Iazyges veterans as Birley wrote there was nowhere in the military zone of Britain where the Iazyges would have felt more at home than in the Fylde & Ribble Valley.

 I agree that Roman writers just didn't distinguish between all the Sarmatian groups although Emperors & Governors surely did. Trajan was at war with the Roxolani during the 1st Dacian war while the Iazyges were Roman allies. Hadrian made a treaty with the Roxolani in 117 after a combined attack on Roman forces but still kept hostilities going against the Iazyges for a while. Titles for emperors who won campaigns against various enemies, for example Marcus Aurelius & Commodus were given the imperial  titles Sarmaticus although they defeatwd the Iazyges (I am not sure what role the Roxolani played in Marcomannic wars but maybe they turned a blind eye when the Cosobocci raided Thrace & Greece) and although they fought various German tribes they had the titles Germanicus. Going back earlier Claudius had the Imperial title Britannicus even though there were numerous tribes arrayed against his forces. Smile

Regards
Michael Kerr


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#86
I agree that having a thread for each tribe is a good idea—it seems that others besides myself are still interested in the Iazyges (or whoever was occupying the Hungarian Plain during the Marcomannic Wars and subsequenty got sent to Britain) and it would be nice to discuss them in depth, not just in passing comparisons to other tribes.


But I'd like to follow up one of Alanus's points. (By the way, sorry the text is different in spots. It's not letting me fix it.)


At the time M. Aurelius sent Iazyges into Britain, they were not "Sarmatized" by shoulder to shoulder contact with the Roxolani. That blending on the Hungarian Steppe came later. I'm exceedingly leery of historians who refer to Iaz as "Sarmatians" without checking actual cultural customs and weapons.”


Actually, Hungarian and Romanian scholars are still divided about when the Iazyges/Roxolani blend happened—before, during, or after the Marcomannic Wars—and how many waves it came in. (Actually they're still divided on when the Iazyges themselves got to the Hungarian Plain, and how many waves they came in.) But Eszter Istvanovits and Valeria Kulcsar, the main Sarmatian experts from Hungary (mentioned by Michael Kerr) are quite confident that several “eastern” waves had occurred from the beginning of the 2nd Century or even the late 1st, and continued up to and through the Marcomannic Wars, meaning by the time 175 AD rolled around, the Iazyges were more than just brushing shoulders with the Roxolani/Alans. To support this, Istvanovits and Kulcsar point to similarities in burial rites and clothing.


For example, in their paper “The Barbaricum in the Roman Period” we learn several things about burial rites in the Hungarian Plain:


  1. Iazyges buried their dead oriented to the south, whereas those “arriving at the close of the 2nd century” oriented theirs to the north. They also cite “The position of the horse harness in the grave, the types of horse harness and weapons” as proof of “the arrival of a mounted group from the Don delta at the time of the Marcomannic Wars.”

  2. While “It was earlier believed that the custom of raising a mound over the grave, so widespread among the Eastern Sarmatian tribes, was not practiced in the Great Hungarian Plain,” this is not entirely true. “Burial mounds from this period have only been reported from two areas: the northern fringe of the Great Hungarian plain (known to be inhabited by a “late Sarmatian/Alan group”) and some areas of the Backa and the Banat. Few burial mounds, so-called kurgans, have survived in Hungary since most have been ploughed away. Some can still be seen in areas that have not been drawn under agricultural cultivation, in marshy or forested areas, such as the burial mound groups in the Hortobagy, the Sarmatian kurgans in the Godollo Hills and the in the Backa and Banat. Graves without a burial mound that were enclosed by circular ditches open to the south, a practice recalling eastern burial rites, were first observed in the Great Hungarian Plain in the early 1950s. It is generally assumed that a mound had originally been raised over the burials enclosed by ditches. The cemeteries containing burials enclosed by a circular ditch show a rather even distribution in the Great Hungarian Plain. Only a handful of sites with such graves were known until the late 1970s. By 1980, their number grew to thirty and today some fifty sites with graves of this type have been registered. Almost every larger Sarmatian cemetery contains such burials, suggesting that this custom was fairly widespread and that these grave ditches had probably been missed during earlier excavations. The number of cemeteries in which the burial rite could be clearly be observed has increased greatly. It could be demonstrated in several cases that the graves enclosed by a ditch occupied a central position within a cemetery or a grave group, indicating that these were the burials of the paterfamilias or the ancestors of an extended family. The simpler burials were arranged around these graves. In other cases, the burials lay a little farther away and were arranged into rows. Cemeteries of this type were unearthed at Tö- rökszentmiklós–Surány and Endrõd–Szujókereszt. At Lajosmizse–Kónya-major, the female and male burials lay in separate parts of the cemetery, while at Sárdorfalva–Eperjes the men and the boys were buried with their weapons in the central part of the small cemetery surrounded by a ditch, while the women and the lower ranking members of the community were buried around them.”


  3. Hungarian graves do “contain fewer finds” and “the burial rite itself is also less varied” but like the previously mentioned “lack” of kurgan burials, this seems to be at least partly due to the fact that the Hungarian Plain is more prone to cultivation/industrialization; meaning that prominent kurgans or graves were either robbed or ploughed over. (And of course, because of their location, they would be more reliant on “plain” Roman trade goods as opposed to the familiar and “fancy” eastern ones.)

  4. “A number of previously unknown elements of the Sarmatians’ burial rites could be observed in the cemetery section excavated at Szõdliget–Csörög in the mid-1990s. The postholes uncovered in one of the graves indicated that the deceased had probably been laid on a bier, a practice that has also been documented among the Avars. The remains of fire beside or inside some graves, perhaps the remains of a ceremony to commemorate the dead, were noted at this site for the first time in the Carpathian Basin.” Now, the body being placed on a bier is a Scythian thing, so I can see how some would take that as an indication that they were more closely related to the Scythians. But the exact dating of the this grave isn't mentioned, and it's apparently the only one with a bier. But the fire beside/inside the grave I believe is common to both Scythian and Sarmatian burials. (Would have to brush up on that.)

Now, on to clothing. As the only woman in this group, I've naturally been researching women's clothing, and found that we have a good idea of what was worn in the Hungarian Plain from 130 AD onward. The costume consisted of boots, trousers, and a dress—all heavily beaded around the hems, sleeves, and neck. Exactly the same as in the east. Women also wore lots of jewelry—carnelian was one of the most popular gemstones in both areas. One noticeable difference is that eastern women wore gold jewelry, while those in the Hungarian Plain switched to bronze and silver as time went on, and also incorporated Roman-style accessories. However, according to Istvanovits and Kulcar, more “eastern” accessories popped up again arounds the Marcomannic Wars, implying that new immigrants had arrived from the east.


As for men, it's true their burials are poorer and often weaponless (and when they do have weapons, they are ring-pommel swords and daggers) but we also have strap-ends with tamgas, and shoes with spurs, also from around the Marcomannic Wars.


So yes, Iazyges or “Hungarian Plain” culture was different in significant ways, largely due to the geographic corner they found themselves in, and who their neighbors were. But nothing I've read about the Iazyges/Hungarian Plain (which is more than I've cited here) screams that they weren't Sarmatian. If anything, it seems that they were trapped in a cycle of losing their Sarmatian-ness, then regaining it whenever new waves of easterners showed up.


Links to papers:
http://regeszet.org.hu/images/angol/a_009.pdf


https://www.academia.edu/14461567/Andrea_H._Vaday_Eszter_Istv%C3%A1novits_Val%C3%A9ria_Kulcs%C3%A1r_Sarmatian_Costume_in_the_Carpathian_Basin._Klio_71._1989._107_114


https://www.academia.edu/11553693/Some_C..._._193_228


The last one is a more in-depth look at religion in the Hungarian Plain, particularly the burial of a 3rd century Sarmatian “priestess” whose diadem may have been in use since an even earlier date. Also does a good job of establishing the Roxolani/Alan presence in the Hungarian Plain in the 2nd century.)


The Hungarians (primarily Istvanovits and Kulcsar) have published a lot of work in English on Academia, as has Vitalie Barca from Romania. (I'm in the process of going through all his work.)
Reply
#87
Hi, Holly!

Thanks so much for some "new" reading material. I'm always looking for steppe tribe references. Sorry for being tardy answering your post; we had a snowstorm which upsets the order of things, and then I went to bed.

My statement that Iazyges were "not Sarmatians" goes back to a much earlier post on this thread. I don't take stock in Roman authors who used the blanket term, but rather believe archaeologists. To understand exactly who the Iazages were, we need to retreat to the beginning, before they reached the Hungarian Plain and eventually became "Sarmatized" through elbow contact with the Roxolani. Lets reboot:

Significant original characteristics of Iaz graves and swords (in particular) place them akin to Western Scythians, and they appear to be Sauromatae... as opposed to Sarmatians. Tadeusz Sulimirski phrased it this way, "The newcomers to Scythia were undoubtedly of 'Sauromatian' stock, probably the original tribe whose name 'Sarmatians' was later applied to other kindred peoples who subsequently moved to the Ukranian steppe land. The Iazyges, who are first recorded under various names (Iaxamatae, Ixibatai, etc.), and placed south of the lower Don, seem to have belonged to the same group." (Sulimirski, pp 101-02).

So, what then, makes the Sauromatae different than Sarmatians? "Sauromatian stock" was related to the Western Scythians, and like them they comprised purely Europoid features. When we look at the Sarmatians, we see a whole 'nother people. Back in the 1920s, Roztovtsev was the first to write about the earliest (5th to 4th Century BC) Sarmatians. His archaeological designation called them the "Prokhorovka Culture" from the grave sites in Orenburg Province. A much larger group of sites was later excavated just south of Prokhorovka at Filippovka. The latter site received worldwide attention due to its richness, and it was studied in depth... including exactly what makes or does not make a "Sarmatian." The consensus arrives to this: Early Sarmatian Cultures came from Eastern stock. In any given population there was an "Asiatic admixture." This is why, to some extent, Sarmatian graves and weapons differed from Iazygean ones.

There are a lot of different views on the subject, several of them enforcing my hypothesis we may be looking at what might be called "proto-Alans." Referring to the Filippovka kurgans, Anatolii Pshenichniuk remarks, "They seem to be the creation of an independent nomadic culture that owes its origin not to Sauromatian culture but to the tribes of the Saka-Massagetae circle. Scholars have long noted the similarity of burial rites in western Siberia, the southern Urals, and Central Asia. This resemblance testifies not only to cultural ties or sporadic incursions by southern or southeastern tribes but also to a direct link between the nomads of the southern Urals and the Saka-Massagetae to the east." (Golden Deer, p 30)

Early Sarmatian Cultures at Filippovka and Zubov left behind iron swords upwards to 88 cm or roughly 36 inches, much longer than Iazyge examples and Roman gladii. These are the same iron swords that begin to show up in China at roughly the same period-- 400 to 300 BC.

Now we turn to Early Sarmatian racial characterristics through R.M. Iusupov, "The people buried in the Filippovka kurgans were basically European, of a proto-European racial type, with eastern Asiatic features in the structure of the facial and nasal bones... The Asiatic admixture was likely of Altai origin. In skull shape and facial structure the Filippovka skulls most resemble those of Saka from Kazakhstan and the Aral Sea region and those of the (W)Usuns from eastern Kazakhstan." (Golden Deer, p 39) 

The Asiatic admixture differentiates the Sauromatae from the clinical Sarmatians. It shows up most noticeably in female graves where these "Mongoliod" features are as high as 30%. And, after more than 3,000 years, it explains why Olga Kurylenko looks like she does.

These traits may have arrived through neighboring proto-Mongols, but a significant donor would be the Chinese, considering the trade unions and marriages between the early Wusun and Yue-chi with Chinese princesses. Iusupov claimed it may have begun in the Altai, where we find a noble Chinese woman married to a chieftain. But, it actually goes back to the Shang Dynasty when "imported" Karasuk nobles drove Fu-Hao's chariot, while Indo-Iranian "magi" deciphered King Wu-Din's oracle bones. The eastern contact zone dates back to at least 1,200 BC. This zone was 3,000 miles east of the Western Scythian and Sauromatian (aka Iazyge) steppes. And to me, this is why the Iazyges were not Sarmatians. Wink

I love the supposition by one of the authorities on Hungarian Plain graves that they're so often flat because they were "plowed over." Fireplace hearths within Saka-Sarmatian graves have been found throughout the steppe belt, even going back to the Yamnaya Culture. As a rule, females had round hearths while males had square ones. Same hearth set-up in Indo-Aryan graves, so this is an old and wide-spread Indo-European trait. Good work, Holly, on gathering this info. Big Grin
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
Reply
#88
Whew! Some big posts going on here.

Okay, I think I may have confused the point I was trying to make. Or the one you were making. Or both. Or something.

The MAIN point I was trying to make was that whether or not the Iazyges had the same origins as the other “Sarmatian” tribes (and I understand what you're saying about the Sauromatian/Sarmatian divide, and think you could very well be/are probably right), there were apparently plenty of opportunities for them all to intermingle/intermarry in the Hungarian Plain before the Marcomannic Wars. So, by that time, whatever the inhabitants of that area called themselves, and wherever they came from, they were essentially Sarmatian, albeit with a few regional oddities. (Roman and Germanic influence, etc.) The original Iazyges (and whatever their original customs were) may have been a minority or even completely absorbed, so I think we have to consider the fact that whoever was sent to Britain (notice I don't say “Iazyges”) may have been heavily armored. I'm not saying they WERE, just that they MIGHT have been. We just don't know, because there were so many Roxolani waves arriving before and during the Marcomannic Wars.

So: just pointing out that the Iazyges appear to have been influenced by/merged with/overrun by the Roxolani earlier than you thought. And if they were influenced that much, I don't see why we should dismiss them when discussing Sarmatians of the Hungarian Plain (maybe “Sarmatians of the Hungarian Plain” would be a good thread idea). Discussing the ORIGINS of the different tribes definitely merits it's own thread(s), but if one person is putting together a 2nd century Iazyges impression and one person is putting together a 2nd century Roxolani impression, we may not want to toss out all the “Iazyges” material which could be quite helpful to both. (Obviously not ALL of it would be interchangeable, but at least some of it.)

As for Ribchester...even more mysteries there. But some may be interested to know that the University of Central Lancashire is undertaking a 5-year archaeological dig there, so maybe we'll get some more answers soon.
Reply
#89
to you, Holly...

I'm certainly not opposed to continuing this thread on the Iazyges. That's why I'm still here. However, please remember I'm a curmudgeon and often critical of ambiguous "scholarly" writing as well as 90% written by Roman authors. (I trust Tacitus. I trust Ammianus when he speaks for himself, but become leery when he uses older material. Also, I will never forgive him for not explaining Fritigern as a Christian leader. He knew better.) 

Whether or not the Hungarian Plain witnessed hobnobbing between the Iaz and Roxolani during the Marcomannic Wars is still open to debate, probably due to the dearth of info. Cassius Dio mentions them in connection with trade as a consession from Marcus Aurelius just prior to his death. Later authors, including Ammianus, are no help at all when it comes to defining when the Roxolani moved up to Hungary.

Interestingly, we are left with the Historiae Augustae, just about the worst "historical" tract ever penned. Here we find 16 tribes from Gaul to Pannonia, all plotting against poor old Marcus. In his critical work Sources on the Alans, Alemany says, "The presence of Alans and Rhoxolani in the Marcomannic Wars (166-72; 177-80) under Marcus Auerelius, and the fabulous triumph of Aurelian is doubtful, bearing in mind the unreliability of the endless lists of barbarians."

Alemany also gives a geographical reference circa AD117-138, "In the time of Hadrian, they (Roxolani) were located North of the Danube and in both Dacia Inferior and Moesia Inferior under the authority of a rex." According to Dio, they were still there after the Marcomanni Wars when Marcus Aurelius gave trading concessions to the Iaz. Therefore, the Roxolani never intermixed with the Iaz until possibly (not probably) the last decade of the 2nd century. 

Maybe I missed all the good parts. For more really ambiguous writing, we can turn to The Barbaricum in the Roman Period. Here we can't find one date for any of the various graves discussed. Evidently, the Hungarians are too poor to mail samples to a radiologist for Carbon-14 dating. No sense to check cranial structure, either. A Mongoliod might show up! We also don't know who the "late arrivals" were, perhaps Roxolani, perhaps Germans, or maybe someone had trouble setting his Rolex. Likewise, the authors (Istvanovits and Kulcsar) simply won't give us the time. Dodgy

When scanning this document, we only know who was who when a ethno-typical sword stares us in the face.
Lets check out the illustrations for ambiguity at its best. On p.265, we have, "Fig.1 Coffin burial of a warrior from Mexoszemere." How informative. Was he perhaps the mayor's son? Probably not, a little too early. So who was he? Maybe he was a Roxolanus, just a wild guess after noticing his sword measures out to 1.5 meters. That's one long sword, but it fits the description of Tacitus to a tee. Then we move to p. 272 and have this handy caption, "Fig.9 Sword with ringed hilt from Ujszilvas." Wow! I'll bet everybody from Ujszilvas is proud of that! A real short ring-pommeled sword, just like the ones the Iazyges carried, but this one in tribeless, perhaps even cultureless.

Pardon my sick humor and criticism of a poorly done paper, or possibly the authors avoided ethnicity to be politically correct. Let's not offend a Roxolanus and get skewered by a 1.5 meter sword! I'll finish with something neat for you, Holly, because it can be positively dated and it's within your interests. This one is, "A ring pommel sword found at Pevensey, Britain, along with coins of Commodus." Big Grin

   
   
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
Reply
#90
  I must admit I would like to see more archaeological evidence to ascertain the weaponry of the Iazyges during the period up to the Marcomannic wars but so far not much has appeared. One reason could be that the landscape of Hungary has changed so much from the mid-2nd century to now. Various constructions of dams, land reclamations, mining and irrigation projects as well as a drier climate have changed the landscape immensely. For one thing the massive wetland areas of the Danube and Tizsa Rivers are much smaller with Hungarian historian and medieval expert Katalin Szende estimating that at present the wetlands of today comprise only about 10% of the corresponding wetland areas of the Roman and Medieval periods so grave sites would be hard to find. There were a lot more islands on the Danube back then and one of the conditions for peace that Marcus imposed on the Iazyges was that they could not occupy any islands on the Danube and could not use their own boats.

 Another allowance that Marcus gave the Iazyges to maintain peace was that as long as they had permission of the governor of the Dacias they could meet and trade with the Roxolani but I still think that this permission was just an acceptance of the fact that the Romans could not control this anyway and probably hadn't had things under control for a long time. Even in 117 when Hadrian became emperor he had trouble with both Roxolani and Iazyges  when he lowered the subsidy paid to the Roxolani where they seemed to be able to co-ordinate their forces and destroy a few Roman forts. Hadrian promptly rushed to the Danube and increased the subsidy paid to the Roxolani king Rasparangus to buy him off.

 I still think the Iazyges were formidable foes to the Romans no matter what their weaponry, featuring  disciplined cavalry charges and even Tacitus begrudgingly mentioned that their cavalry was their strong point in 69AD when he wrote "The ruling chiefs of the Sarmatian Iazyges were called into service with the army. These chiefs offered their people also and their force of cavalry, which constitutes their sole effective strength; but this offer was declined for fear that in the midst of civil troubles they might undertake some hostile enterprise." and it was only changes in military tactics and a bloody guerrilla campaign that probably wore down the Iazyges. In the battle on the ice Dio mentions that rather than continuing back to their homeland with their loot that the Iazyges were expecting and easy victory over the Romans but were caught out by the change in Roman tactics of forming a square and using their shields for footing and then managing to grab the bridles and reins of the leading attackers causing a conveyor belt effect on the charging Iazyges horses.

 The Iazyges, with their allies the Quadi seemed to have a major victory over the Dacian governor M. Claudius Fronto in 170AD and killed him. His epitaph records that he fought "a number of successful battles against the Germans and the Iazyges but he fell, bravely fighting to his last breath for the Republic". Sounds like he got lured by the classic steppe tactics of being drawn deeper into enemy territory before being killed.

 Going by the book on the column of Marcus, "Hate and War"  the Romans then took the war to the Iazyges and their Quadi allies camps, killing their livestock, their males and taking their women and children until the Iazyges sued for peace. Smile

 Just adding that in regard to the Sauromatae the Russian authors of the book "The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Ludmila Koryakova and Angrej Epimakhov believed that there were close connections between the Sauromatae and the Siracae, Aorces and the Alans and the Massagetae and the Roxolani.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply


Forum Jump: