Continuing from where I left:

Quote Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
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/so...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:





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/Histor...e_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.