12-31-2015, 03:40 AM
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.
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.
