A Saka on a Fragment of a Parthian Fresco

[MeinPanzer]

I thought I'd share this with everyone. I don't know if the team has seen this one, but it's very nice, and one of the only colour sources I know of for the Saka. This is the most substantial fragment of a very poorly preserved fresco from Old Nisa. One panel shows two groups of horsemen approaching one another, and the one group fleeing on another portion. There are other small fragments of other, more "heroic" horsemen from this fresco, who are thought to represent the Parthians; this guy is one of the defeated horsemen who are fleeing. The most likely camp for this fellow then is the Saka. Probably 2nd-1st C. BC. Note the very interesting shield.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/images/saka.JPG

[Boyar Son]

Nice! I never knew there would be actual saka paintings (in fact I always thought they were tribal barbarians:sweatdrop: )

The EB team probably saw it since their job is to research on every nation and civilization.

[Justiciar]

Good find! A bit hard to make out, at first, but interesting none the less. I can't see what makes the figure unequivocally Saka though. :inquisitive:


I never knew there would be actual saka paintings
It's Parthian.

[The Persian Cataphract]

I have seen this one before, a very interesting piece indeed.

This Sakâë, or probably a Dahâë enemy is riding on a horned saddle, on boot wears a very Parthian kaftan/shirt held tight by a cummerbund/felt belt, and on the general scale bears clothing that is very similar to the bronze statue believed to be Rustam of the Sûrên-Pahlav (Surena):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/SurenaImage.jpg

Loose pants/leggings, and his hair is long, though untied unlike Surena, probably lost his bandana during combat (The loss may be represented symbolically as the losing part being in chaos and so forth...). One may speculate that this rider wore boots or gaiters. The shield is indeed an interesting observation, but here one must be very pragmatic and ask these questions:

How practical would it have been for a completely unarmoured man to bear a shield of such a size as to extending to the hands? For this man could certainly not have been equipped for melee, and prior to this era Scythians made use of a crescent-shaped shield, also known as the takâ, because of the practicality of the shape, allowing for some mobility and protection. We do not know that much more about the shield other than the size, or the possible shape. A hoplon? Hardly. It is probably made of wicker and thus primarily meant to stop arrows, and this is emphasized by the cavalryman's posture.

[Fondor_Yards]

Hmm I may be blind, but where is the shield? The half curve extending from the *from rider's pov* left side?

And is it just me, or is he black?

[The Persian Cataphract]

Yes, that's the supposed shield.

No, the rider does not have a black complexion, just a "poor" shade selection, as it is a rather stylized represenation. Also bear in mind that it is a rather damaged fragment. There are plenty of representations like these with similar corruptions in colours.

[MeinPanzer]

I have seen this one before, a very interesting piece indeed.

This Sakâë, or probably a Dahâë enemy is riding on a horned saddle, on boot wears a very Parthian kaftan/shirt held tight by a cummerbund/felt belt, and on the general scale bears clothing that is very similar to the bronze statue believed to be Rustam of the Sûrên-Pahlav (Surena):

It doesn't seem to be horned, but it definitely is a "Scythian" saddle.


Loose pants/leggings, and his hair is long, though untied unlike Surena, probably lost his bandana during combat (The loss may be represented symbolically as the losing part being in chaos and so forth...).

It's thought that the fillet was only worn amongst the Parthians by nobles and royalty. Besides, I don't even think we know if the Saka did wear the fillet.


One may speculate that this rider wore boots or gaiters. The shield is indeed an interesting observation, but here one must be very pragmatic and ask these questions:

There's another fragment which shows that the rider actually seems to be wearing a droopy sort of leggings. There's no clear "edge" painted on for a boot. I'll post it later.


How practical would it have been for a completely unarmoured man to bear a shield of such a size as to extending to the hands?

Very practical? As far as defending against archery goes, this fellow seems to have done OK - two or maybe three arrows in the shield and one in the neck (notice the blood running down onto his caftan, btw).


For this man could certainly not have been equipped for melee, and prior to this era Scythians made use of a crescent-shaped shield, also known as the takâ, because of the practicality of the shape, allowing for some mobility and protection. We do not know that much more about the shield other than the size, or the possible shape. A hoplon? Hardly. It is probably made of wicker and thus primarily meant to stop arrows, and this is emphasized by the cavalryman's posture.

Seems to me by the way it curves that it is some sort of oxhide/hardened leather shield which is circular or slightly oval in shape with a half-cylindrical cross section. I doubt that a shield of this shape without a rim of some kind would be made of wicker. You can see the other edge of the shield painted in black/dark grey underneath.


And is it just me, or is he black?

It was quite common for many ancient peoples to represent men as being very dark-skinned in art. Tons of funerary stelai showing soldiers show Macedonian men with very dark brown or red-brown skin.

[The Persian Cataphract]

It doesn't seem to be horned, but it definitely is a "Scythian" saddle.

Scythian it is, but if my vision does not betray me, there are four "stubs", in which three are directly visible and more so separated from each other through dark lines. The possibility is there, for we do not truly know the origins of the four-horned saddle (Oddly enough called "Roman"). Take a look at the saddle-blanket. It is not very "Scythian" if we imagine for ourselves the usually ornamented blankets.


It's thought that the fillet was only worn amongst the Parthians by nobles and royalty. Besides, I don't even think we know if the Saka did wear the fillet.

The fillet? The fillet served a similar function to the bandana, however the one civilization most associated with fillets would have been the Achaemenid Persians and specifically the "Ârshtibârâ" kinsmen, or the "Immortals" bearing highly decorated saffron robes, as seen from the glazed bricks excavated from Susa. Otherwise they would bear the kidaris. Nomads would on the other hand have often worn the bandana or a felt diadem for practical reasons, like the draco-banner/wind-sock. Surena in this statue does wear a fillet, but such a device would only have a function to keep the hair "fluffed" up. The fillet was quite common among Iranian nobility. The Sakâ on the other hand would have far rather have worn some leather cap, often of very elaborate designs, why the Persians called them "Sakâ Tigrâkhaudâ" or the "Scythians with arrow-shaped caps", and indeed, with examples such as the "Golden Prince" which features a magnificently ornamented pointed cap, the supposed Sakâ of this fresco looks awfully Parthian to my eyes. The kaftan, the leggings... Could this not simply have been a Dahâ from a hostile clan? This is often the theory brought forth on the table by Iranologists regarding this interesting piece.


There's another fragment which shows that the rider actually seems to be wearing a droopy sort of leggings. There's no clear "edge" painted on for a boot. I'll post it later.

I did not expect any boots either, to be frank with you. It would have been very interesting, as leggings and merely stuffed slippers would have been the norm. I am just commenting some possible corruptions with the fresco. I have seen heated debates erupt over this piece akin to the famous Dura grafito of a clibanarius bearing a face-mask or an open aventail (In which the middle-ground claims it is a veil-like defence). Just a heads up.


Very practical? As far as defending against archery goes, this fellow seems to have done OK - two or maybe three arrows in the shield and one in the neck (notice the blood running down onto his caftan, btw).

Very practical for a heavier cavalryman perhaps, but with that design, certainly not for a horse archer. An archer needs as much flexibility as possible and without solid ground beneath him, how effective would his archery have been if his whole left arm was confined to a rigid posture? It is possible that his "drawing hand" was right, but it kind of defeats the point of the takâ shield in which it was specifically made to solve this issue. Though the fresco does depict two arrows hitting the shield and one causing physical injury (Very astute observation by the way, the blood is a very nice touch), using a shield was certainly not common practice.


Seems to me by the way it curves that it is some sort of oxhide/hardened leather shield which is circular or slightly oval in shape with a half-cylindrical cross section. I doubt that a shield of this shape without a rim of some kind would be made of wicker. You can see the other edge of the shield painted in black/dark grey underneath.

This could be the case as well, though oxhide was more used by infantry and specifically Turkic foot. The size hints at oxhide and the curvature would have been easier applied with hides. If Sakâ, it could verily well have been possible, but to the Parthians who rarely used shields at all, wicker would have been more probable due to the fact that they were foremostly horse herders. Whatever the shield is made of, the size of it and its application is quite controversial.

[MeinPanzer]

Scythian it is, but if my vision does not betray me, there are four "stubs", in which three are directly visible and more so separated from each other through dark lines. The possibility is there, for we do not truly know the origins of the four-horned saddle (Oddly enough called "Roman"). Take a look at the saddle-blanket. It is not very "Scythian" if we imagine for ourselves the usually ornamented blankets.

Hey, you're right! I always thought that was just deterioration on the fresco itself, but it doesn't seem to carry over to the saddle cloth. Nice observation. The saddle cloth is of a type which is seen on many Bosporan stelai- it seems to have been designed to complement the shape of the saddle.


The fillet? The fillet served a similar function to the bandana, however the one civilization most associated with fillets would have been the Achaemenid Persians and specifically the "Ârshtibârâ" kinsmen, or the "Immortals" bearing highly decorated saffron robes, as seen from the glazed bricks excavated from Susa. Otherwise they would bear the kidaris. Nomads would on the other hand have often worn the bandana or a felt diadem for practical reasons, like the draco-banner/wind-sock. Surena in this statue does wear a fillet, but such a device would only have a function to keep the hair "fluffed" up. The fillet was quite common among Iranian nobility.

Sekunda writes a bit about why he thinks the fillet was reserved for nobility in his Montvert title and I remember seeing it elsewhere, too. I'm going to have to look it up, but in Greek cultures which came into contact with, and heavily affected, the Parthians and other nomads, the fillet was a mark of kingship, so it wouldn't be too strange if they either continued that tradition or picked it up after contact with them.


The Sakâ on the other hand would have far rather have worn some leather cap, often of very elaborate designs, why the Persians called them "Sakâ Tigrâkhaudâ" or the "Scythians with arrow-shaped caps", and indeed, with examples such as the "Golden Prince" which features a magnificently ornamented pointed cap, the supposed Sakâ of this fresco looks awfully Parthian to my eyes. The kaftan, the leggings... Could this not simply have been a Dahâ from a hostile clan? This is often the theory brought forth on the table by Iranologists regarding this interesting piece.

Well, as I said, we have so little archaeological information on such a wide-ranging group as the Saka that I don't think we can account for all variations in costume. Also, the caftan and the leggings could quite literally represent any Central Asian nomad at this time; both of those pieces of costume are by no means exclusively Parthian. The argument that these are Saka is derived from the fact that the Parthians were intensely combatting the Saka in the latter portion of the 2nd C. BC, which is believed to be around the dating of this fresco.


I did not expect any boots either, to be frank with you. It would have been very interesting, as leggings and merely stuffed slippers would have been the norm. I am just commenting some possible corruptions with the fresco. I have seen heated debates erupt over this piece akin to the famous Dura grafito of a clibanarius bearing a face-mask or an open aventail (In which the middle-ground claims it is a veil-like defence). Just a heads up.

Sorry, heads up about what? Whether they wore boots or not?


Very practical for a heavier cavalryman perhaps, but with that design, certainly not for a horse archer.

How do we know this isn't something else? I don't think that nomadic armies were purely cataphracts and horse archers... it wouldn't surprise me at all if they included some intermediate types of cavalry as well, including perhaps some lighter spear-and-shield or sword-and-shield armed horsemen.


An archer needs as much flexibility as possible and without solid ground beneath him, how effective would his archery have been if his whole left arm was confined to a rigid posture? It is possible that his "drawing hand" was right, but it kind of defeats the point of the takâ shield in which it was specifically made to solve this issue. Though the fresco does depict two arrows hitting the shield and one causing physical injury (Very astute observation by the way, the blood is a very nice touch), using a shield was certainly not common practice.

But how much information, archaeological or otherwise, do we have about Saka warriors in the 3rd to 2nd C. BC? Not a whole lot. I don't think we can say conclusively that use of such shields was uncommon. And the fact that we don't see a gorytus on this guy indicates to me that he may not be an archer at all.


This could be the case as well, though oxhide was more used by infantry and specifically Turkic foot. The size hints at oxhide and the curvature would have been easier applied with hides. If Sakâ, it could verily well have been possible, but to the Parthians who rarely used shields at all, wicker would have been more probable due to the fact that they were foremostly horse herders. Whatever the shield is made of, the size of it and its application is quite controversial.

Again, how much evidence do we actually have for Saka or Parthian cavalry during Hellenistic times? I don't think we have anywhere near enough to be able to say with confidence whether Saka or Parthians or Hsiung-Nu or whatever Central Asian cavalrymen carried shields of any kind or another.

The only shields that I know of for Central Asian warriors of any kind are those recovered from Sarmatian kurgans (which are not uncommon), which are almost always of wicker, and those wicker shields from the Pazyryk barrows which date to ~300-200 BC, not the 5th C. BC, according to this new C14 dating:
www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2000/3.pdf

[The Persian Cataphract]

My apologies for the late response to this thread.


Sekunda writes a bit about why he thinks the fillet was reserved for nobility in his Montvert title and I remember seeing it elsewhere, too. I'm going to have to look it up, but in Greek cultures which came into contact with, and heavily affected, the Parthians and other nomads, the fillet was a mark of kingship, so it wouldn't be too strange if they either continued that tradition or picked it up after contact with them.

You mean in the "Seleucid Armies"? The fillet, though a mainly "cosmetical" head-piece, had a function which is possible to date to Achaemenid times where the Medean fashion was the norm. Plutarch describes Surena as a man dressed in Medean fashions, as well as having "parted his hair in the Medean style". I think you are confusing the fillet with the diadem depicted in mints and in some very rare graphic depictions, which were merely symbolic and often depicting coronations and/or investitures. The diadem was often little more than a piece of fabric, only made a little more elaborate during Sassanian times, however by the time of Mithradates II The Great, a new type of regal headgear was introduced with strong Persian influence, and this was the tiara. The mints of Mithradates II The Great were so popular that they continued to even be copied by the Sassanians during the reign of Ardashir I. Otherwise the fillet has a longer story within Iran proper, in which one of key elements in ancient Iranian cosmetics was the grooming of hair, and additionally even facial hair. Looking at the statue of Surena reveals a very distinct hair-style, and looking at how the chin-strap is depicted in certain regalia of the Sassanians, I'd say that there is more to the issue.


Well, as I said, we have so little archaeological information on such a wide-ranging group as the Saka that I don't think we can account for all variations in costume. Also, the caftan and the leggings could quite literally represent any Central Asian nomad at this time; both of those pieces of costume are by no means exclusively Parthian. The argument that these are Saka is derived from the fact that the Parthians were intensely combatting the Saka in the latter portion of the 2nd C. BC, which is believed to be around the dating of this fresco.

"Saka" is very ambiguous and remains so as the Greeks made no distinguishment between Scythians (Besides the Massagetae and various other obscure tribes) and the Achaemenids were no different in their collective designation. The Parthians themselves were of Scythian origins (Pârnî means "exiled") and the Dahae too were in all possible aspects Scythian. The Parthians by this time fought a multitude of enemies, including the Dahae, and this could also imply that at periods there was internal strife as well. This piece was found in Mithradatkart, in the very heart of the Parthian homelands, in a time where the Parthians were not so aggressive in their expansion. There is a Soghdian Parthian belt plaque showing heavily armoured cavalrymen and infantrymen in the more classical "Eatern Scythian" style, including wide chaps and oven-man coats of lamellar.

More on this later.

[HFox]

K...to me i cant see a shield....but that may just be me.

What I think you mean by the black rim I take as his arm extending out to a hand cupping the end of a spear/lance. You can see what i think is the lance the lance extending back past the horses head, which itself has a face plate and a plume.

The arrows to me look like a set of scratches as they are parallel and of similar aspect.

The tack looks like it uses a ring bit.....but that may just be fading/chipping.

The horse may also have a breast plate....but that again may just be the chipping.

[MeinPanzer]

You mean in the "Seleucid Armies"? The fillet, though a mainly "cosmetical" head-piece, had a function which is possible to date to Achaemenid times where the Medean fashion was the norm. Plutarch describes Surena as a man dressed in Medean fashions, as well as having "parted his hair in the Medean style". I think you are confusing the fillet with the diadem depicted in mints and in some very rare graphic depictions, which were merely symbolic and often depicting coronations and/or investitures. The diadem was often little more than a piece of fabric, only made a little more elaborate during Sassanian times, however by the time of Mithradates II The Great, a new type of regal headgear was introduced with strong Persian influence, and this was the tiara. The mints of Mithradates II The Great were so popular that they continued to even be copied by the Sassanians during the reign of Ardashir I. Otherwise the fillet has a longer story within Iran proper, in which one of key elements in ancient Iranian cosmetics was the grooming of hair, and additionally even facial hair. Looking at the statue of Surena reveals a very distinct hair-style, and looking at how the chin-strap is depicted in certain regalia of the Sassanians, I'd say that there is more to the issue.

I don't see how you could effectively distinguish between the fillet and the diadem in many cases since they looked very similar.


"Saka" is very ambiguous and remains so as the Greeks made no distinguishment between Scythians (Besides the Massagetae and various other obscure tribes) and the Achaemenids were no different in their collective designation. The Parthians themselves were of Scythian origins (Pârnî means "exiled") and the Dahae too were in all possible aspects Scythian. The Parthians by this time fought a multitude of enemies, including the Dahae, and this could also imply that at periods there was internal strife as well. This piece was found in Mithradatkart, in the very heart of the Parthian homelands, in a time where the Parthians were not so aggressive in their expansion.

If this does date to the 2nd C. BC, then it would have been made in a time of considerable expansion within the Parthian empire. And in this fresco, there is apparently a difference in the colours and appearance of both horsemen, implying that one is a different group than the other (though, of course, different rebel groups would have been differentiated as well). Of course, since the dating of this piece is uncertain, "Saka" is just a guess; we will never be able to specifically identify this fellow or his companions.


There is a Soghdian Parthian belt plaque showing heavily armoured cavalrymen and infantrymen in the more classical "Eatern Scythian" style, including wide chaps and oven-man coats of lamellar.

Do you mean te Orlat bone plaque? The general consensus is that it dates to the 2nd-4th C. AD. Or are you referring to something else? Could you post a picture?

[The Persian Cataphract]

Continuing from where I left:


Sorry, heads up about what? Whether they wore boots or not?

No, heads up on the graphical ambiguity of the fresco from Mithradatkart. Folds and creases are depicted in a very realistic manner, but around the calf-area we can almost see some object wrapping around the calf, in a design very similar to gaiters (Or rân-ban), and taking the dark lines (Which may be a corruption of poor preservation) into respect, that area is highly interesting for most other depictions feature Parthians and neighbour nomads with "slippers" of cotton. Or it is merely an artistic mistake in the attempt of depicting "baggy trousers" by the lower end, though this does on the contrary make the shalwâr look "tightly-fitting". It is an attempt at realism yet it is very stylized.


How do we know this isn't something else?

What do you suggest? This is a man, lightly armoured, if armoured at all that is, mounted without stirrups, with something attached to his arm and that something has two sticks pointing outwards. Thanks to the "side-scroller" 2d perspective we don't know too much about the shield design at all. Ox-hide may give flexibility but there is no proof whatsoever that the Iranian cavalry ever used such a defensive tool, and it is more associated with foot-soldiers. Wicker? It is possible, wicker is more plausible than the hide of oxen, and if the artist intended to show the shape of the shield taking the perspective into context it would look like the wicker shields of the Pantodapoi in-game (Though that is a highly impractical design for a horse archer), only this one would have been covered with dyed leather. Another thing we know is that this depiction is thus far unique. Shields were never mentioned in Graeco-Roman sources regarding the Parthian cavalry, though that does not really cover any Parthian irregulars/auxiliary troops, so this was certainly not the norm among the bandegân/bandakâ of the clans. The early dating confirms this, and it could verily well have been the sustaining Scythian influence. Parthian light horse as indicated in Plutarch's biography on Marc Anthony may have used spears and this has indeed been depicted, not least of all the great parade of 2500 years of monarchy in Iran (Celebrated 1971) where some Parthian light horse were seen reconstructed with spears.

Cavalry shields however came quite late into the Iranian military, specifically late Sassanian times. Some reconstructions depict Parthian cataphracts with shields slung back to cover their rear, but that is mainly based of the treasure of the Sûrên-Pahlav clan in modern Iran (Claiming that they have the heraldic shield of general Rustam/Surena, in which the doors were opened to their community to only a few scholars during the 70's). Other than irregular elements/auxiliaries (In which we also know that the Parthians used elephants as well) Parthian strategy and tactics strictly revolved around two echelons: The cataphract and the horse archer.


But how much information, archaeological or otherwise, do we have about Saka warriors in the 3rd to 2nd C. BC? Not a whole lot. I don't think we can say conclusively that use of such shields was uncommon. And the fact that we don't see a gorytus on this guy indicates to me that he may not be an archer at all.

The Sakae are not my forte, but apart from the depiction being quite damaged, the horseman was a participant on the defeated side (He is retreating). The lack of a gorytos and a bow may imply that his equipment was lost/depleted during the fight. It may be argued that this could perhaps have been a nobleman or even the general of the defeated, for it was not uncommon that Iranian generals participated in battle as light horsemen. Feudalism would certainly not rule out shields, but the overwhelming majority of depictions of Parthian horsemen show them with no armour at all, which indicates another thing: Having a rigid thing attached to your arm is probably not an optimal solution at all. What is more interest than the shield itself is how it is attached to the arm. The cavalryman is stretching out his arm (Which would not have been necessary if it was of a more "successful construction, such as the Taka-shield). Length would have been of little importance if it was of a light material and could be suspended by the upper arms. Here he is seen stretching out his arm. Logically, we can't see the shield straps, nor if the horseman is holding a supposed handle at the end of the shield.

Look, we don't have too much evidence on things like these. There is plenty of "fill-in-the-blanks" and here context and the sense of identifying successful concepts will play a crucial role.


Do you mean te Orlat bone plaque? The general consensus is that it dates to the 2nd-4th C. AD. Or are you referring to something else? Could you post a picture?

Indeed, this ever so debated piece actually has no consensus regarding the dating. You may want to read this:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Art/sogdian_heroic_art.htm

Though to the defence of Dr. Nicolle I agree with him when he gives the dating of 2nd-1st century BCE, as I find it more plausible that this piece looks significantly more Saka than Xiong-Nu. It is also the basis for a reconstructed early Parthian heavy cavalry in Nicolle's "Sassanian armies", published by Montvert. For the Pârnî who came from the east, it is very plausible, though it is by no means definite. There seems to be two schools of thought regarding the Orlat plaques.


I don't see how you could effectively distinguish between the fillet and the diadem in many cases since they looked very similar.

The effective distinguishing is made on the basis of context. In Parthian numismatics where symbolism appears to be central, the ribbon or "fillet" is merely the symbol of absolute power, and having a look at these will clarify:

http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/diadem-4-parthian.jpg

http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/diadem-3-persepolitan.jpg

These are diadems. Both of these are based on mints and bas-reliefs. Here is a further reading on investiture during the Parthian dynasty:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/ashkanian/investiture_parthian.htm

The diadem was heraldic in every possible sense. The fillet merely a headgear. Surena bears a fillet, Orodes II bears a diadem. Contextual difference, even though the two may look very much alike. Parthians in the west tended to let their hair "out", but the hair-styles would at least require some form of suspension.