Quote Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
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:
http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research...ual/2000/3.pdf