|
|
|
SARMATIANS
AND PROTO-SLAVONIC TRIBES |
|
As early as
in the 2nd century BC Scythians' possessions shrunk
substantially, among others due to the pressure of the
Sarmatians (Sauromatae). Neither the name itself nor our
knowledge about its bearers does contain any satisfactory
precision; for sure it is only known, that the Sarmatians
constituted a complex of various tribes, mostly Iranian just
like the Scythians, which possessed vast territories from
southern regions of the West Siberia (between Ural and Tobol)
to the mouth of Danube. The Sarmatians employed themselves
mainly with shepherding and conducted a nomadic life, the
tillage was known only in those regions, which already knew
the agriculture in previous periods. The level of the
Sarmatian material culture was lower than the Scythian with
the similar in general mode of life, the process of
decline of tribal relationships, increasing class
stratification, inclination towards plundering raids, and -
simultaneously - maintenance of mercantile relationships with
urban centres. State forms were loose, and a big inconstancy was
characteristic of them; Sarmatian rulers took part in various
political systems and alliances, a big intensity characterized
their penetration into the |
 |
|
Transcaucasia. All that lasted long
time, for centuries, hence among others a big variety of both
names of epochs and activities of particular tribes. Towards
the close of the Old Age the name of Sarmatia replaced the
name of Scythia, although the Scythians did not cease to exist
- so it is also being said about Scytho-Sarmatian tribes. They
were also described by more detailed names: Roxolans, who
dislodged the Scythians from the steppes between Don and
Dnieper, and later moved even more westward; Iazyges - they
got as far westward as nowadays Hungary; Alani, a complex
system of Iranian tribes, which came to the front as late as
in the 1st century AD, between lower Volga and lower Don.
Alani should be reckoned among the most vital tribes, from
them came down members of the Sarmatian aristocracy, they went
at the farthest in their migrations, for as far as to the
Pyrenean Peninsula. No durable traces remained after any of
those tribes. Those, who ventured too far, vanished in foreign
ethnic environment; the settlements of others were razed to
the ground by the Goths and Huns. Only those Alani, who
evading the Huns hid in Caucasus
Mountains, have till now their ethnic continuation - the
Ossetians. The
proto-Slavonic, Scythian and Scytho-Sarmatian tribes from the
nature of the things had to influence each other, and in
result of the influence some similarities were arising, for
example in the sphere of the folklore, beliefs, living
conditions or military institutions; it cannot be excluded
that the mutual linguistic impact also occurred, to the very
small extent though. All the analogies relatively easily lead
to generalizations. There were attempts to link the Alani with
early Slavonic tribes, but such thesis cannot be regarded for
accepted. Individual similarities cannot constitute the basis
to adjudge about the basic problems of ethnogenesis. There is only
one certain thing: the neighbourhood. In the very Scythian and
Sarmatian period, namely at least in the final centuries BC,
and of course later, East Europe was a ground of activity and
development of autochthonous tribes, close one to another in
respect of language and habits, representing a certain, not
too low indeed, level of the cultural development. Those
tribes were the very ancestors of Slavonic tribes and thus
they may be called proto-Slavonic. Perhaps it would be
difficult to fix the chronology in a pragmatic way, and it is
probably not the most important since when one may use such a
name. It must be more essential to determine, since when the
completely certain information about those tribes begins to
appear in written sources. It is proper
to come back again to Herodotus, who mentioned among others
the Neuri and Budini. In the 6th and 5th centuries BC they had
their settlements to the north of Scythia: the Neuri along the
upper Dniester, upper Southern Bug and farther away to Pripet;
the Budini in the east, probably somewhere along the middle
Dnieper and Don. The information about the Budini is scarcer,
but the most eminent luminaries of scientific Slavonic studies
regard the Neuri for the ancestors of the Slavs and they
probably are right, although this is not indisputable. The
doubts appear no longer when it comes to later references,
dated from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, of Tacitus, Pliny the
Elder and the Greek geographer Claudius Ptolemy (100? - 168).
All these mentioned wrote about the Venedae. Tacitus places
them between the Germans and the Slavs, Ptolemy - in the
Vistula basin.
|
It is not baseless to suppose that the ancients used this
name for the Slavs in general, not only for later West
Slavs; anyway the prevailing majority of researchers
identifies the Venedae with the Slavs. Later Byzantine
writers used the name "Venedae" (also: "Venedi") to name
only the East Slavs, the Gothic historian Jordanes
(Jornandes) contrary - only the West ones. |
|
Qualification of the East Slavs as the Venedae or Venedi
had among the Byzantinians a temporary nature, as there
were in use also other names: the Antes, Sclavenians and
finally the Rus. By the name of the Antes Byzantine
writers described East Slavonic tribes of the period of
the 4th to 7th centuries. The territorial range of those
tribes, very wide one, cannot be marked completely
precisely; the name refers both to the inhabitants of the
northernmost lands and of the forest-steppes zone, where
social and economic relationships were already on higher
level of development. |
 |
|
The Antes were the resident people, they employed
themselves with agriculture and husbandry, knew iron
works, weaving and pottery, maintained trade with
Byzantine provinces, and used the money. The process of
class and property stratification developed incessantly,
the power of princes was shaped, and during the periods of
bigger strength aggressive campaigns resulted in
substantial intake of slaves. But the Antes did not get a
chance to form a homogeneous state, despite originally
favourable circumstances, actual traits of internal
development, combative spirit, and pretty good military
organization. In those very centuries the southern
outskirts of the East Europe were going through one
disaster to another; there was a long great migration of
nations and an exceptional rotation of destructions, which
made impossible any more or less serious stabilization. |
|
|
M.
Arushev
|
|
