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.

[Boyar Son]

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

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.

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):



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.

[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.

[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.