Printable View
The helmets found look much closer to that shown in the picture of the Scythian. The Attic helmets found in the east look a bit different in general from that shown in the first image: as you've noted, they have longer nasals, the cheek pieces have rounded protrusions in front instead of sharp points, and the transition from the earhole to the neckguard is smooth instead of pointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
Very interesting. Seems like the Attic helmets found in the east would offer better protection. It kind of "envelops" the head and face more thoroughly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
I never knew that Greek style helmets were popular in Armenia. (especialy during EB's timeframe) I had always thought that the Urartian design just modified itself throughout the ages.
A lot of the Parthian units in EB are also using spangenhelm style helmets. Are the Parthians in EB depicted incorrectly as well?
As I said before, I don't know if this kind of helmet was worn in Armenia or not. All I am suggesting is that since we don't actually have any finds of helmets from Armenia, these finds from nearby in Georgia could be used to fill in the blanks. Again, though, that's a big guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by artavazd
I've yet to see proper evidence for such helmets being used in the EB timeframe with the possible exception of a vaguely-modelled head of a terracotta figurine found at Kitab in Uzbekistan dating to the 2nd-1st c. BC. It is something I've always been curious about as far as the EB reconstructions go, and I'd be very curious to hear what evidence the team has used in this regard.Quote:
A lot of the Parthian units in EB are also using spangenhelm style helmets. Are the Parthians in EB depicted incorrectly as well?
If this could be that easy :wall:.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
This is one of the typologies (Gamber's). In my opinion it's strange, as it uses element of secondary or tertiary importance as main point of difference. Feugere assumes both types as one and divides them in 5 subtypes. Connolly, on the other hand claims that types should be divided on the basis of existence or lack of nasal.
I like classification made by Dintsis, who defines attic as helmet without nasal and with extruded forehead element ending in volutes. Chalcidian on the other hand have nasal and characteristic shape of upper part of helmet.
*makes mental note*
I need to resume this sometime soon.
will keep an eye on it...:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
Finally, some time to resume this.
The Assyrian-style helmet may find additional support in the bas-reliefs at Tang-i Sarvak, generally dated between 1st and 3rd centuries CE; a mounted cavalry in Block II depicting a hunt shows a crude scene with a skull-cap resembling a shorter Medean-cap, however featuring a pointy apex with a shallow concave feature; the Shishak-profile. Its dating is not yet established, however because the most distinguishable feature of Block II is a standing man before an altar, usually accorded to Orodes I of the Elymaean Kamnaskirid (?), or the later "Arsacid" dynasty (Ernie Haerinck, Encyclopaedia Iranica, January 6, 2005, Block II, Inscription 6), the dating may possibly be as early as the 1st century CE. Though it is crude, simple, and severely damaged, it differs substantially from other comparable depictions, of what may appear to be a lightly armoured horseman (Interestingly, Flandin and Coste reconstructed the relief like this).
If memory serves me correctly, there is also Roman "auxilia" helmet dated to the 2nd century CE, ascribed to "Syrian auxiliaries" and found to corroborate with the description of Syrian helmets being "tall"; this exhibit is located in the Archaeological Museum of Zagreb, in Croatia. It features a Shishak-profile (D. Nicolle, 1991), which was used to reconstruct a Palmyrene guardsman of the 3rd century CE. Unfortunately, I have no more records of this particular exhibit, and apart from an acquired catalogue of various Coolus and Gallic types in that collection, there is only one accredited to "Equestrian sports". That is pretty much it. If true, this is indeed a strong indication of a continuity of usage as far as the "Assyrian model" is concerned.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Equally, a throwback to the reliefs at Tang-i Sarvak, we find Block II also with inscriptions 2, and 3, reconstructed in this manner:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Is the central, reclining figure wearing a helmet with what appears to be a plume-holder?
I was about to mention this very funny terracotta...Quote:
Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This is about as ambiguous as far as "evidence" may go and may be a crude presentation of a peasant wearing a cap. It is difficult to extract any meaningful detail out of it, save for its conical design that may or may not be indicative to the "Parthian style". It might as well as be a continuation of the conical cap as worn by Skunkha of the Sacae in the Behistun relief.
The only "Spangenhelms" (In the sense of helmetry being composed of several pieces making up the protective body) we have dedicated to the Arsacid units are the late elite cataphracts (Late Clibanarius), and the Late Parthian Bodyguards which were meant to be part of an imperial reform. Largely hypothetical devices. Other Iranic cavalry use the aforementioned Assyrian style, Pylos, thimble-types as encountered in both an undated Parthian terracotta in the British Museum, and in Roman propaganda as featured in Augustus' coinage depicting Parthians. Other types are thoroughly Hellenistic (Such as the Attic helmet-type as seen on a bust excavated from Old Nisa), and in special cases (Such as Cardaces) based upon types seen in Lycian stelai, and that of Pharnabazus' satrapal coinage (As well as that of Megabyzus, and certain unique numismatic examples from late Achaemenid Cilicia). Parthian-Hellenic infantry use a helmet-type which has been encountered as late as the Trajanic era through selected coinage, and occasional Seleucid-inspired light infantry use Phrygian types.
I would personally interject with a very important detail that I feel has been overlooked in this discussion: A critical part in using this expansive breadth of different technologies and models, across an area several times larger than Scandinavia is dispelling the illusion of using uniforms or uniform gear beyond the reasonable criteria of organized armies. Therefore, I'd rather use sporadic evidence taken from as far as India, China, the Crimean area, and the stretches of Assyria than to nail myself arbitrarily to a certain Attic style and the thimble style and make a false suggestion of such conventions being used for centuries from Nisa, to the fortress-frontiers of Gedrosia, and the Euphrates, from the earliest nomadic traces to the middle-imperial era in a uniform manner. It doesn't work that way, and does not conform at all to a "confederate" empire famous in history for hosting a multitude of lesser kingdoms.
No, if memory serves me correctly, the Samarkand helmet has a peculiar wavy ridge/metallic crest, and appears more advanced than this example I'm referring to. Please refer to B. A. Litvinsky, Xûd (Helmet), Fig. 21. Very similar to previous "Elamite" findings as exhibited in the Reza Abbasi Museum, dated 13th century BCE.Quote:
Oh, I think I know which helmet you're referring to. What is its provenance? It's not the Samarkand helmet, is it?
Provenance, as with so many other objects typically found in Central Asia, remains a problematic matter. In fact, I do not have any more information on this particular piece, except for that both Litvinsky and Gorelik cite "Glasgow Museum" (Which doesn't say a lot at all).
Again, absolutely brilliant footage :2thumbsup:Quote:
You may be right that he's not wearing a helmet, but it seems a bit peculiar to me that this man (and his horse) would be so heavily armoured and yet he keeps an unprotected head. The knemides are much more certain, though. You can see that in this picture:
With that said, I have a problem trying to figure out the construction of this headgear, should it be a helmet. Upon closer inspection of certain details in the Canakkale sarcophagus, it seems that the artist made a few trivial mistakes: The horse does for instance not feature a bit, and instead the bridles appear to be connected to the chamfrôn; for heavy horse, substantial bits would have become a necessity.
Compare the headgear to this Parthian-era bas-relief reconstructed by Flandin and Coste.
The way the headgear wraps around the cheeks and chin of the exhibited material in the sarcophagus rather indicates a softer material. The fact that you mentioned that the sarcophagus may belong to the satrap to whom this work was dedicated by depiction, finds many parallels in other previous instances of Iranic art, and indeed, later Iranian works; a substantial portion of encountered Indo-Scythian coinage show other commemorative depictions of rulers clad in armour and with heads at most clad with caps.
Agreed. We do already have a number of other exhibits with parapleuridia/parameridia and written instances in the classics and fragmentary texts of chest-pieces, and thus the issue of late Achaemenid and early Hellenistic horse-armour doesn't become as problematic; the white "band" may simply have been fading... Or unfinished; the saddle-cloth doesn't appear to be suspended to anything.Quote:
Also note the wide white band running along the horse's breast - it could possible be a poitrel, though it would be strange that it was not carved in, like so many other minute details.
I might be wrong, but it appears there is a crease at the ankle-level; Iranian riding-boots as portrayed in Persepolitan reliefs are depicted differently. It is possible that these might be gaiters of the rân-bân type, however these came into more widespread usage during middle-late Sassanian times, several centuries from what appears to be an early Hellenistic sculpture resembling post-Achaemenid Cypriotic works.Quote:
However, do you really think he is wearing knemides? I can't make that out at all. I just see a man wearing trousers tucked into short boots.
The Tang-i Sarvak depiction is so badly worn that it can tell us nothing of what it was meant to originally depict. Even if it wasn't meant to show a cap, it very well could be meant to depict a Spangenhelm and not an Assyrian-style helmet.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
This is no evidence at all for the continuity of the "Assyrian model," as this is a Spangenhelm, which derives from a totally different (Siberian) source.Quote:
If memory serves me correctly, there is also Roman "auxilia" helmet dated to the 2nd century CE, ascribed to "Syrian auxiliaries" and found to corroborate with the description of Syrian helmets being "tall"; this exhibit is located in the Archaeological Museum of Zagreb, in Croatia. It features a Shishak-profile (D. Nicolle, 1991), which was used to reconstruct a Palmyrene guardsman of the 3rd century CE. Unfortunately, I have no more records of this particular exhibit, and apart from an acquired catalogue of various Coolus and Gallic types in that collection, there is only one accredited to "Equestrian sports". That is pretty much it. If true, this is indeed a strong indication of a continuity of usage as far as the "Assyrian model" is concerned.
Seems very unlikely, considering that he is otherwise unarmoured.Quote:
Equally, a throwback to the reliefs at Tang-i Sarvak, we find Block II also with inscriptions 2, and 3, reconstructed in this manner:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Is the central, reclining figure wearing a helmet with what appears to be a plume-holder?
Then we're in agreement that this almost certainly shows a cap.Quote:
I was about to mention this very funny terracotta...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This is about as ambiguous as far as "evidence" may go and may be a crude presentation of a peasant wearing a cap. It is difficult to extract any meaningful detail out of it, save for its conical design that may or may not be indicative to the "Parthian style". It might as well as be a continuation of the conical cap as worn by Skunkha of the Sacae in the Behistun relief.
And yet, through our debates you have yet to present any evidence that would suggest that such helmets were in use even during the last few decades of the EB timeframe. Don't you think they are inappropriate, especially considering that we don't find the first helmets of this form in its "horizon" region until the first centuries AD?Quote:
The only "Spangenhelms" (In the sense of helmetry being composed of several pieces making up the protective body) we have dedicated to the Arsacid units are the late elite cataphracts (Late Clibanarius), and the Late Parthian Bodyguards which were meant to be part of an imperial reform. Largely hypothetical devices.
While obviously the vagaries of time prevent us from getting a clear picture of usage in many different places from what we find, we should nonetheless take what is found and where into consideration.Quote:
Other Iranic cavalry use the aforementioned Assyrian style, Pylos, thimble-types as encountered in both an undated Parthian terracotta in the British Museum, and in Roman propaganda as featured in Augustus' coinage depicting Parthians. Other types are thoroughly Hellenistic (Such as the Attic helmet-type as seen on a bust excavated from Old Nisa), and in special cases (Such as Cardaces) based upon types seen in Lycian stelai, and that of Pharnabazus' satrapal coinage (As well as that of Megabyzus, and certain unique numismatic examples from late Achaemenid Cilicia). Parthian-Hellenic infantry use a helmet-type which has been encountered as late as the Trajanic era through selected coinage, and occasional Seleucid-inspired light infantry use Phrygian types.
I would personally interject with a very important detail that I feel has been overlooked in this discussion: A critical part in using this expansive breadth of different technologies and models, across an area several times larger than Scandinavia is dispelling the illusion of using uniforms or uniform gear beyond the reasonable criteria of organized armies. Therefore, I'd rather use sporadic evidence taken from as far as India, China, the Crimean area, and the stretches of Assyria than to nail myself arbitrarily to a certain Attic style and the thimble style and make a false suggestion of such conventions being used for centuries from Nisa, to the fortress-frontiers of Gedrosia, and the Euphrates, from the earliest nomadic traces to the middle-imperial era in a uniform manner. It doesn't work that way, and does not conform at all to a "confederate" empire famous in history for hosting a multitude of lesser kingdoms.
Keep in mind that some of the finer bridle detail was probably painted on.Quote:
With that said, I have a problem trying to figure out the construction of this headgear, should it be a helmet. Upon closer inspection of certain details in the Canakkale sarcophagus, it seems that the artist made a few trivial mistakes: The horse does for instance not feature a bit, and instead the bridles appear to be connected to the chamfrôn; for heavy horse, substantial bits would have become a necessity.
If you are referring to the representations of the Indo-Scythian kings on the issues of Maues, Vonones, Azes I & II, etc., then they are almost certainly wearing the closely-fitting helmets seen elsewhere on the figurine from Taraz and on the bracer from the collection of Peter I and not caps.Quote:
Compare the headgear to this Parthian-era bas-relief reconstructed by Flandin and Coste.
The way the headgear wraps around the cheeks and chin of the exhibited material in the sarcophagus rather indicates a softer material. The fact that you mentioned that the sarcophagus may belong to the satrap to whom this work was dedicated by depiction, finds many parallels in other previous instances of Iranic art, and indeed, later Iranian works; a substantial portion of encountered Indo-Scythian coinage show other commemorative depictions of rulers clad in armour and with heads at most clad with caps.
I think what you're seeing is just a scratch or a flaw on the surface; it certainly doesn't look to me like he's wearing greaves, and it would be extremely unusual for an otherwise unarmoured horseman to be equipped with such expensive armour.Quote:
I might be wrong, but it appears there is a crease at the ankle-level; Iranian riding-boots as portrayed in Persepolitan reliefs are depicted differently. It is possible that these might be gaiters of the rân-bân type, however these came into more widespread usage during middle-late Sassanian times, several centuries from what appears to be an early Hellenistic sculpture resembling post-Achaemenid Cypriotic works.