Некоторые дискуссионные вопросы современного сарматоведения

SOME DEBATABLE QUESTIONS IN THE STUDY OF THE SARMATIANS

A.V. Simonenko

In several articles. S.M. Perevalov has attempted to revise the conventional answers to several questions concerning the Sarmatians, calling them historiography myths. But Perevalov's evidence is flawed.

Relying on his own interpretation of die text of Josephus Flavius, Perevalov asserts that the allies of Iberi and Albani in the war with the Parthians in 35 AD were Alans (the conventional view holds that they were Aorsi and Siraci). Deeming written material the mast informative evidence, however, Perevalov neglects to draw the archaeological finds to his arguments. In fact, these fail to support his flawed interpretation: Archaeological relics which can be identified as Alanic appeared no earlier than the middle of the 1^st century AD. suggesting Alans could not have been living in the Northern Caucasus in 35 AD. Only a minority of investigators identify the Sarmatian relics of this time in Ciscaucasia with Alans.

With regard to military arts among the Sarmatians, Perevalov – basing his findings on narrative sources – endorses the hypothesis of V.D. Blavatskij and A.M. Khazanov, who assert the existence of a special seat of Sarmatian cataphractarii (in which the torso is turned sideways, the rein is loosed, the lance is held with two arms). This seat, supposedly differing from that of other nomadic warriors, is held to account for the power of the Sarmatian cavalry. However, only an incorrect interpretation of the antique artistic iconography of Sarmatian times supports the existence or such a seat, whose fanciful nature is revealed by an examination of its dynamic characteristics. The spread of the massive lance attack as a tactic in Sarmatian times was in fact connected with the invention of the rigid saddle with high pommels, which enabled riders to stay in the saddle despite the recoil of the lance.