In 359 CE, the banks of the Middle Danube river bore mute witness to an unprecedented event. Somebody threw a shoe at Roman Emperor Constantius II. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, who recorded the incident in book 19 of his histories, the shoe and accompanying war cries prompted gathered Sarmatian tribesmen to mount a mad assault on the dais where Constantius was delivering an address as part of ongoing peace negotiations. Unsurprisingly, Roman troops guarding the imperial party reacted with extreme violence.274 As Constantius mounted a horse and fled to safety, his soldiers got to work butchering the Sarmatian rebels who, fighting on foot with no
273 Quae Limigantes licet properari sentirent, nihil tamen praeter preces fingentes, stabant incurvi, longe alia quam quae gestu
praeferebant et verbis altis mentibus perpensantes. (10) Visoque imperatore ex alto suggestu, iam sermonem parante lenissimum, meditanteque alloqui velut morigeros iam futuros, quidem ex illis, furore percitus truci, calceo suo in tribunal contorto, “Marha marha” (quod est apud eos signum bellicum) exclamavit, eumque secuta incondita multitudo, vexillo elato repente barbarico, ululans ferum, in ipsum principem ferebatur.
132
means of escape, perished to the last man. By all rights, the attack should never have been allowed to happen. Only a year earlier, a Sarmatian army had been defeated after threatening Constantius at a similar treaty ceremony.275 In the revenge-campaign that followed, Roman forces had located and destroyed Sarmatian villages deep within the marshlands at the confluence of the Danube and Tisza rivers.276 The tribesmen of 359 were the last holdouts and their previous requests for a treaty can, perhaps, partially explain the surprise of the eventual assault on the imperial tribunal.
Besides the intrinsic interest of so unusual a story, and its superficial resemblance to another, more recent shoe-related assault on a head-of-state,277 Ammianus’ narrative of the failed council and the events leading up to it is of particular importance because it describes Sarmatians in a manner quite distinct from the usual tropes of the Scythian nomad, weak or strong, discussed in the previous chapter. Although at other points in his history, Ammianus does describe Sarmatians and Scythians using various canonical tropes, his narrative of Constantius’ Sarmatian wars provides us with our only near-contemporary picture of something resembling daily life and warfare that doesn’t blatantly
275 A.M. 17.13.5-11. The similar events of the years 358 and 359 in Ammianus’ suggests the possibility that the historian has
divided the events of a single campaign into two, perhaps due to faulty source material. This is possible, since - as far as we can tell - the historian was not an eye-witness to the Danubian affairs he describes in books 17 and 19. Kovács argues persuasively against such a reading, however, noting a significant number differences between the two passages, most notably that while the Romans initiate the violence in 358 (17.13.8), it is the Sarmatians who strike first in 359, flinging shoes and shouting an unfamiliar war cry as they attack (19.11.10). Kovács rejects the reduplication argument and supports the long-held theory that Ammianus had access to official state documents related to the campaign upon which he based his narrative. Such a source would explain his inclusion of detailed, and accurate topographic descriptions, as well as place- names, and unusual details like the shoe incident, unfamiliar war cry, and the details of a Roman contingency plan at the first conference (Kovács 2016, pp. 115-119). Even if we prefer to see the historian relying on intermediate sources (as argued by Bleckmann 2007), it need not concern us overly. Duplication would simply indicate that Ammianus relied on multiple sources when piecing together his Danubian history and should not make us question the underlying reality of the events any more than we normally would. As for the shoe-flinger, it is such an unusual story that I personally doubt it could be a total invention, but perhaps this is an overly-optimistic view!
276 A.M. 17.13.1-20.
277 The incident in question is the 2008 assault on U.S. President George W. Bush at the prime minister’s palace in
Baghdad, Iraq. There, too, a frustrated local man used his shoes as missiles, although the outcome was far less bloody. When asked, the president remarked “all I can report is that it is a size 10.” Despite the obvious similarities between the ancient and modern incidents, the underlying ideologies were probably totally different (Meyers and Rubin 2008).
133
depend on age-old Scythian stereotypes. This chapter begins with Ammianus but the main goal is to attempt as full a reconstruction as possible of life in the Roman-era Hungarian Plain, a task that will quickly lead from the world of texts to that of material evidence. This investigation of the Hungarian Plain’s inhabitants during the Roman period represents an extended case study designed to highlight the many ways Rome’s Danube limes - cutting its way through the heart of the
north/west division of the Danube drainage basin with its supporting ideologies in tow - shaped the lives and culture of the people living in the transdanubian borderland. Further, the people of the Hungarian Plain are of particular importance to our larger study because, as discussed in Chapter Two, it was Rome’s experience dealing politically and militarily with the Sarmatian Iazyges during the first and second centuries CE that introduced the most significant innovations into the corpus of ethnographic tropes we have labeled as the Roman Scythian Logos, namely the ‘weak Scythian’ trope designed to justify imperial decisions not to annex the land between Pannonia and Dacia.
In this chapter, we will consider what life was actually like for the people living in this region Rome deemed too insignificant and impoverished for full inclusion within the community of
provinces. The picture that emerges is one of an agricultural society ruled by an aloof elite clinging tenaciously to memories of a more nomadic past on the Pontic Steppe. Relations between these immigrant Iazyges and the autochthonous village population were not always cordial, and the
massive economic and political power of Rome - looming large from just over the limes in Pannonia, Moesia, and Dacia - ensured that the people of the Hungarian Plain were kept in a perpetual state of dependency, able to be crushed militarily, or starved back into line through economic warfare, should they attempt any independent action.
134
Returning to Ammianus, the first item to note is that the Sarmatian warriors Constantius treats with at both his peace conferences consist mainly of foot-soldiers. There appears to be a cavalry wing in the first battle, but it is quickly overwhelmed by its Roman counterpart. In the second engagement, the Sarmatian cavalry is entirely absent.278 The larger context of these two battles is the revolt of the Limigantes, who, according to Ammianus, were the Sarmatian underclass. These Limigantes, it seems, had revolted and driven out their Roman-supported aristocracy over twenty years earlier, destabilizing the usually-predictable client-tribes of the Hungarian Plain, and leading ultimately to conflict with Rome.279 Although Ammianus was not an eyewitness to Constantius’ Sarmatian campaigns, his record of these wars was probably based on state documents available at Rome when he composed his history there in the 380s. Ammianus probably even have had access to Constantius’ official after-action report which the orator Themistius - who apparently read the version sent to Constantinople - described as a complete account of the war, its places, and events.280 For these reasons, we can put some faith in the details of his description of the Limigantes war, particularly in terms of military actions and the sort of topographical and ethnographic
information regularly reported to commanders in the course of routine military intelligence work. Drawing on this archival material, Ammianus describes the Limigantes dwelling in the lowlands around the confluence of the Tisza and Danube, that is, just over the border from the Roman province of Moesia Superior. Indeed, the barbarians appeared to be particularly attached to
278 cf. A.M. 17.13.9; 19.11.11-15.
279 A.M. 18.13.1; Orig. Const. 6.32.
280 Them. Or. 4.56d-57a. For analysis of the reliability of Ammianus’ account of these campaigns, see Kovács 2016, pp.
115-119. Ammianus’ reveals his access to state documents, in a diatribe condemning Constantius’ misrepresentation of his role in Roman victories for which he deserved no credit (A.M. 16.12.69-70). Although this level of access permits greater reliance on his history for reconstructing military events, we must remember that we are still getting a picture shaped by Ammianus’ personal hostility towards Constantius.
135
their specific homeland. Following raiding activity across the Danube into Pannonia - sure to rouse Roman ire - the Limigantes attempted to broker a new treaty of peace and clientage with
Constantius in 358. They offered the usual terms: annual tribute, recruits for the Roman army, and acknowledgement of their total subservience to Rome, but they absolutely refused to relocate from their homes as Constantius had earlier requested.281 The land these Limigantes were willing to fight and die for is described in some detail in Ammianus’ narrative. Far from inhabiting the stereotypical nomad steppe, these Sarmatians lived in a mosaic of islands, marshes and floodplains:
For the Tisza, rushing with winding course into the lands [where the Sarmatian Limigantes live], joins with the Danube. And while it flows alone and free, it slowly traverses a long, broad plain but near its mouth, flowing together into a narrow tract, [the Tisza] thus protects the inhabitants from Roman attack by means of the Danube’s channel, and makes them safe from inroads of other barbarians [other Sarmatians on the plain?] by its own obstacle, for the greater part of the region is marshy, and since it floods whenever the rivers rise, the area is full of pools and overgrown with willows, and therefore impossible to navigate except for those well acquainted with the area.282
The description of the topography and environment of the Danube-Tisza confluence appears to support our faith in Ammianus, for it is detailed and accurate. The floodplain is, indeed, characterized by a mosaic mixture of marsh and poplar/willow groves interspersed with scattered loess bluffs and islands where mixed grassland and oak/maple forests prevail.283 Such a landscape would not support a traditional pastoral, nomadic economy, but it would be well suited for sedentary or semi-sedentary communities engaged in a mixture of agriculture and short-distance
281 The Limigantes offer terms: A.M. 17.13.3. Verum aspectu primo exercitus tamquam fulminis ictu perculsi, ultimaque
cogitantes, vitam precati, tributum annuum delectumque validae iuventutis et servitium spoponderunt, abnuere parati si iuberentur aliorsum migrare, ut gestibus indicabant et vultibus, locorum confisi praesidio, ubi lares post exactos dominos fixere securi.
Constantius’ relocation plan: A.M. 17.13.2: Deliberatum est tamen, id quoque lenius vindicari, quam criminum magnitudo
poscebat, hactenus ultinone porrecta, ut ad longinqua translati, amitterent copiam nostra vexandi.
282 A.M. 17.13.4. Has enim terras Parthiscus irruens obliquatis meatibus, Histro miscetur. Sed dum solus licentius fuit, spatia longa
et lata sensim praelabens, et ea coartans prope exitum in angustias, accolas ab impetu Romanorum alveo Danubii defendit, a barbaricis vero excursibus suo tutos praestat obstaculo, ubi pleraque umidioris soli natura, et incrementis fluminum redundantia, stagnosa sunt et referta salicibus, ideoque invia, nisi perquam gnaris.
136
transhumance. Once again, Ammianus’ descriptions ring true. We catch a glimpse of some aspects of Sarmatian daily life as it comes to a violent end during Constantius’ first punitive campaign against the Limigantes in 358. The scene is worth including in full for its details of Sarmatian life, but also for the callous brutality of the Roman army:
Scarcely had the enemy horde been laid low, when the families of the slain, dragged from their miserable hovels, were led forth like cattle without regard to age or sex. [...] (13) Then, riled up by the heat of battle and the fruits of victory, [our soldiers] roused themselves to destroy those who had deserted the fight or were hiding in their huts. And coming there with a thirst for barbarian blood, the soldiers butchered [the Sarmatians] after tearing to pieces the light straw [thatching], and no house, even those built from the strongest timbers, saved any of them from the danger of death. (14) Finally, when everything was blazing and nobody could hide any longer, with all means of saving their lives cut off, they either perished obstinately [in their huts] by fire, or else fleeing the flames and emerging to escape one impending torment, were slaughtered by the hostile [Roman] blades. (15) But some did escape the weapons and the towering flames, and these plunged into the whirlpool of the nearby river, hoping to reach the opposite bank through skillful swimming. Of these, most lost their lives beneath the waves, but enough others were shot down with missiles that the whole course of the wide river foamed with blood flowing abundantly everywhere. And so, the wrath and bravery of the victorious Romans together annihilated the Sarmatians.284
The point of Ammianus’ description was not to paint an ethnographic picture of Sarmatian life, but in describing the carnage of the massacre he includes some incidental details. The first thing we notice is that these Limigantes live in houses (tuguria), not the wagons of the archetypal
Sarmatian or Scythian.285 Tuguria are always primitive dwellings, but they have no association with
284 A.M. 17.13.12-15. Vix dum populis hostilibus stratis, gregatim peremptorum necessitudines ducebantur, humilibus extractae
tuguriis, aetatis sexusque promiscui. [...] (13) Incitante itaque fervore certaminum, fructuque vincendi, consurrectum est in perniciem eorum qui deseruerant proelia, vel in tuguriis latitantes occultabantur. Hos, cum ad loca venisset avidus barbarici sanguinis miles, disiectis culmis levibus obtruncabant, nec quemquam casa, vel trabibus compacta firmissimis, periculo mortis extraxit. (14) Denique cum inflammarentur omnia nullusque latere iam posset, cunctis vitae praesidiis circumcisis, aut obstinate igni peribat absumptus, aut incendium vitans, egressusque uno supplicio declinato, ferro sternebatur hostile. (15) Fugientes tamen aliqui tela, incendiorumque magnitudinem, amnis vicini se commisere gurgitibus, peritia nandi ripas ulteriores occupare posse sperantes, quorum plerique summersi necati sunt, alii iaculis periere confixi, adeo ut abunde cruore diffuso, meatus fluminis spumaret immensi; ita per elementum
utrumque, Sarmatas vincentium ira virtusque delevit.
137
nomads in surviving usage.286 In their death-agonies, these cottages reveal their architecture. They are wood-framed (casa trabibus compacta firmissimis) and thatched with straw ([tecta] culmis levibus). Details are lacking, but it is clear from the scene that the Limigantes live in a nucleated settlement close to a wide river. Based on the earlier topographic excursus, we can confidently locate the village on a loess island in the marshland at the Danube-Tisza confluence. This riverine location is further reinforced by the desperate Sarmatians who attempt to escape the massacre by swimming.287 This is a river-person’s skill, not a nomad’s.
Taken together, the details of topography, habitation, lifestyle, and warfare gleaned from Ammianus’ narrative of the Sarmatian wars paint a picture of Sarmatian society distinctly at odds with virtually every earlier source. Far from the pastoral nomads of Herodotus or Ovid, the Limigantes are, essentially, peasants living a settled life in the floodplains and loess-land of the Hungarian Plain, and, presumably, practicing some mixture of agriculture and pastoralism. In the rest of this chapter, we will examine what archaeology can tell us about Sarmatian subsistence and culture, and, crucially, the often-fraught relationship between the transdanubian peoples and the power of Rome. Ammianus’ description is a piece of literature and cannot be accepted uncritically on its own, but an examination of Sarmatian settlements and burials from the Carpathian basin makes it clear that he got a lot more correct than he got wrong. Unsurprisingly, the ancient, ossified Scythian tropes still so prevalent in Ammianus’ day bore little resemblance to actual life among the people Rome labeled as Sarmatians.
286 OLD: “tugurium.” Sallust’s use of tugurium in the Bellum Jugurthinum is typical. He uses the term in several places to
describe rustic or slave dwellings among the Numidians (BJ 12.5, 19.5, 46.5, 75.5), and connects the word more explicitly with the local term for bararian huts (mapalia) in his own ethnographic history of the region (BJ 18).
138
We will begin with a discussion of how to responsibly approach the archaeology of a people whose actual group and individual identities have been almost completely submerged in a sea of Greco-Roman stereotype. In order to test the nomadic heart of the Scythian Logos, we will examine the faunal remains and domestic architecture from Roman-era settlements of the Hungarian Plain. The picture that emerges will be refined through an analysis of the region’s burial culture, which can only be properly understood in dialog with the evidence for subsistence and foodways. Finally, we will attempt to fit the pieces together and draw a hypothetical model of the social, political, and economic systems driving the society we catch a glimpse of in Ammianus’ battlefield narrative.