Institute of History and International Relations, Faculty of Humanities, Siedlce University
Department of Archaeology and History, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran Azad University
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets
The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
Edited by
Katarzyna Maksymiuk & Gholamreza Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Reviewers: Parviz Hossein TALAEE (Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran)
Leonardo GREGORATTI (University of Durham, United Kingdom)
Institute of History and International Relations
Faculty of Humanities
Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities
39 вЭЧТКΝSt.
POB: 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
Department of Archaeology and History
Central Tehran Branch
Tehran Azad University
No.4492, Damavand St. Imam Hossein Sq.
POB: 17117-34353 Tehran, Iran
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) were financed from the science grant granted by the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education
TСОΝBШШФΝТЬΝНОНТМКЭОНΝЭШΝ‘EDUCATIONAδΝPURPτSźS’
AХХΝЭСОΝТХХuЬЭЫКЭТШЧЬΝКЧНΝПТРuЫОЬΝТЧМХuНОНΝТЧΝЭСТЬΝЯШХuЦОΝКЫОΝpКЫЭТМuХКЫΝКuЭСШЫЬ’ΝЫОЬpШЧЬТЛТХТЭв
©ΝCШpвЫТРСЭΝЛвΝKatarzyna Maksymiuk, Siedlce 2017
Publishing House of Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities
ńιήńλΝ вЭЧТКΝSЭЫООЭΝίκ-110 Siedlce tel: +48 25 643 15 20 www.wydawnictwo.uph.edu.pl
ISBN 978-83-62447-19-0
Typesetting and text makeup: Anna Madej, Ed. I Size B-5
The rОХТОПΝШПΝSКХЦ Ь,Ν(KКЭКЫгвЧКΝεКФЬвЦТuФ),Νcover design: Adam Lech Kubik
Print: źБDRUKΝАШУМТОМСΝ uМСШаЬФТΝАṢШМṢКаОФ
TABLE OF CONTENS
Joanna SZKLARZ (Siedlce University, Poland)
Significance of the Helmet in fight between SШСЫ Л and żШЫН ПКЫТН ........................... 9- 19
Dan-Tudor IONESCU (Metropolitan Library of Bucharest, Romania)
The Use of the Tiara as symbol of Persian Achaemenid Kingship:
why Alexander the Great НТНЧ’ЭΝКНШpЭΝТЭς .................................................................... 21-33
Svyatoslav V. SMIRNOV (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia)
Revising Seleukid Iconography: A Person Wearing
Helmet and Conflict of Imageries .............................................................................. 35-42
Ulf JÄGER (Gronau-Epe, Germany)
Morion-type Helmets of żКЧНС Ыa. A rare Kuš Ч-period helmet-type
of the 1st to the 3rd / 4th century CE – A very first preliminary attempt ....................... 43-51
Mariusz MIELCZAREK (Polish Academy of Sciences, Łódź, Poland)
Arms and Armour on Kuš Ч coins. Royal images ..................................................... 53- 68
Patryk SKUPNIEWICZ (Siedlce University, Poland),
Marcin LICHOTA (Siedlce University, Poland)
Diadem on the head from Khalchayan battle scene and possible reconstruction
of the composition .......................................................................................................69-95
Katarzyna MAKSYMIUK (Siedlce University, Poland)
TСОΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝRОХТОПΝКЭΝSКХЦ Ь – New proposal ........................................................97-112
Vladimir DMITRIEV (Pskov State University, Russia)
RКЦ’ЬΝHШЫЧЬΝКЬ КΝRОХТРТШuЬΝźХОЦОЧЭΝШПΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝKТЧРЬ’ΝεТХТЭКЫвΝźquТpЦОЧЭΝ
(notes to Amm. Marc. XIX.1.3) ..............................................................................113-120
Kaveh FARROKH (University of British Columbia, Canada),
Gholamreza KARAMIAN (Tehran Azad University, Iran),
Adam KUBIK (Siedlce University, Poland)
Mandana TAHERI OSHTERINANI (Tehran Azad University,
Iran) An Examination of Parthian and Sasanian Military Helmets
(2nd century BC-7th century CE) ..............................................................................121-163
Ilkka SYVÄNNE (University of Haifa, Israel)
A Note on the Methodology regarding the Reconstruction
of the Late Roman Helmets in Art, Archaeology and Analysis ..............................165-182
Marta CZERWIENIEC-IVASYK (Siedlce University, Poland)
Helmet or a crown? – A few comments on the margin of the Sasanian coins
discovered in the Baltic Sea area ............................................................................ 183-194
Adam KUBIK (Siedlce University, Poland)
Sasanian lamellar helmets .......................................................................................195-210
Patryk SKUPNIEWICZ (Siedlce University, Poland)
On the Helmet on the Capital at q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч again ..............................................211-222
David NICOLLE (Nottingham University, United Kingdom)
One-piece Sasanian and Early Islamic Helmets ..................................................... 223-253
Sergei Yu. KAINOV (State Historical Museum, Moscow, Russia)
The Helmet from Krasnodar Territory ....................................................................255-261
Acknowledgements
First of all, we would like to thank all contributors to this book whose insightful
work we had the honour to edit. We would also like to express our gratitude to everyone
whose work helped to bring this volume to press, above all our sincere thank you goes to the
reviewers of the manuscript, Leonardo GREGORATTI (University of Durham, United
Kingdom) and Parviz Hossein TALAEE (Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran).
Last but not least, this undertaking would not have been possible without the abiding
support of Vesta SARKHOSH CURTIS (the British Museum, London, United Kingdom),
Michael Richard JACKSON BONNER (Toronto, Canada), Touraj DARYAEE (University
of California, Irvine, USA), Erich KETTENHOFEN (University Trier, Germany), Eduard
KHURSHUDIAN (National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia),
Aliy KOLESNIKOV (Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia),
Jerzy LINDERSKI (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA), Ciro LO MUZIO
(Sapienza University of Rome, Italy), Christian MIKS (the Romano-Germanic Central
Museum, Mainz, Germany), Valery NIKONOROV (Russian Academy of Sciences,
SЭέΝPОЭОЫЬЛuЫР,ΝRuЬЬТК),ΝσТМСШХКЬΝSźKUσDAΝ(UЧТЯОЫЬТЭвΝШПΝżНК ЬФ,ΝPШХКЧН)έ
Katarzyna Maksymiuk & Gholamreza Karamian
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Joanna SZKLARZ (Siedlce University, Poland)
Significance of the helmet in fight
between Sohrāb and Gordāfarid
Abstract
History of ancient Iran knows the case of female warriors, but war was steel domain of a man.
In Š С-n mК. The Book of Kings by Firdaws аОΝ МКЧΝ ПТЧНΝ КЧΝ ОбМОХХОЧЭΝ ОбКЦpХОΝ ШПΝ аШЦКЧ,Ν аСШ’ЬΝ
МШuЫКРОΝ КЧНΝ ПТРСЭТЧРΝ ЬФТХХЬΝ аОЫОΝ КЬΝ РШШНΝ КЬΝ ОбpОЫТОЧМОНΝ аКЫЫТШЫЬέΝ IЧΝ КΝ ЦКЧ’ЬΝ КЫЦШЫΝ КЧНΝ СОХЦОЭΝ
żШЫН farid entered the battlefield to face enemy of her country. In this article I try to answer
the question, how important for this fight was fact that she was wearing helmet.
Keywords: Iran, SШСЫ Л, żШЫН ПКЫТН, Firdaws , Š С-n mК, helmet
History of pre-Islamic Iran knows about female warriors, who were not less
courageous, intelligent an brave as the greatest man hero. Bahrami1 indicates, that even
around 10000 BC in the Iranian plateau women worked not only inside of their homes,
but also outside. ḴNot only did they bear children, which guaranteed family survival, but they
also participated in productive activities, in order to provide for the needs of their tribes.
TСТЬΝНuКХΝЫОЬpШЧЬТЛТХТЭвΝЦКНОΝЭСОТЫΝpШЬТЭТШЧΝЬЭЫШЧРОЫΝЭСКЧΝЭСОΝЦОЧΥЬέḵ2 According to Durant:
ḴThe differences in strength which now divide the sexes hardly existed in those days, and are
now environmental rather than innate: woman, apart from her biological disabilities,
was almost the equal of man in stature, endurance, resourcefulness and courage; she was not
yet an ornament, a thing of beauty, or a sexual toy; she was a robust animal, able to perform
arduous work for long hours, and, if necessary, to fight to the death for her children or
СОЫΝМХКЧέḵ3
Women were equal to man in physical, but their role as a mother put them higher
in hierarchy. Durant suggests that woman played the greater role in creation of first
civilization: ḴIt was she who developed the home, slowly adding man to the list of her
domesticated animals, and training him in those social dispositions and amenities which are
the psychological basis and cement.ḵ4 Discovers from Iranian plateau shows evidence,
that 4500 BC with a grown of civilization position of women still was higher than man.
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) were financed from the science grant granted by the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education; Institute of History and International Relations, Faculty of Humanities;
j.constans@op.pl
1
BAHRAMI, 2008: 25.
BAHRAMI, 2008: 25.
3
DURANT, 1942: 33.
4
DURANT, 1942: 34.
2
Page | 9
They were involved in art of spinning, architecture and they were performing spiritual
dances. In southern-east Iran near the Zabol in ancient Burnt City archeologist discovered
ТЧΝ КΝ аШЦОЧ’ЬΝ РЫКЯОЬΝ КΝ ХКЫРОΝ ШПΝ ЧuЦЛОЫЬΝ ШПΝ ЬОКХЬ,Ν аСТМСΝ ТЧΝ КЧЭТquТЭвΝ аОЫОΝ ШПЭОЧΝ ЬвЦЛШХЬΝ
of power and authorТЭвέΝ TСОΝ λίΣΝ ШПΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЬОКХЬΝ аОЫОΝ НТЬМШЯОЫОНΝ ТЧΝ аШЦКЧ’ЬΝ РЫКЯОέΝ
This indicates, how powerful they were in 3000-2000 BC. 5
In the first millennium BC situation started slightly change with the migration
of Indo-European people to Persia and Europe and discovery of the use of iron.6 During
the Median period the matriarch slowly began to give up to patriarchate. Women still
occupied positions of judgeship and of tribal leadership, king's daughter and son-in-law were
considered rightful successors to the throne, but in a favor for the male descendant. The role
of women still was important, but they often started to play supportive, not main role
in history like with the beginning of Achaemenid dynasty.7 They have right to choose their
husband and for heritage they were in equal terms as man. For both sexes, the rights in
the eyes of humans and gods lows, were the same. Greek influence after the fall
of Achaemenid dynasty have weakened the position of women, but in the time of Sasanian
with Zoroastrian revivalism, women regained their previous rights and privileges.
The women of the royal court were mention in official documents and commemorated
in reliefs.8 There can be no doubt, that in the pre-Islamic Iran, even in the times of influence
of Seleucid dynasty and Hellenism the political and social position of women was high. They
could become high rank officers like Artemisia, great admiral of Xerxes fleet. Herodotus
speaks of her: ḴI must speak of a certain leader named Artemisia, whose participation in
the attack upon Greece, notwithstanding that she was a woman, moves my special wonder.
She had obtained the sovereign power after the death of her husband; and, though she had
now a son grown up, yet her brave spirit and manly daring sent her forth to the war, when no
ЧООНΝЫОquТЫОНΝСОЫΝЭШΝКНЯОЧЭuЫОέḵ9
AЬΝ аОΝ МКЧΝ ЬОО,Ν ПШЫΝ żЫООФЬΝ аШЦКЧ’ЬΝ pКЫЭТМТpКЭТШЧΝ ТЧΝ ЦТХТЭКЫвΝ КМЭТЯТЭТОЬΝ аКЬЧ’ЭΝ
something common. Although Athena was a goddess of war, for Greeks battlefield was
domain of man. Intelligence, bravery and military capabilities of Artemisia had to make
a huge impression on Herodotus for him to mention about her in couple of chapters of
the History.10 Herodotus mention also Amazons, the warrior women Ḵwhom the Scythians
call Oior-pata or «man-slayers», as it may be rendered, Oior being Scythic for «man,»
and pata for «to slay»ḵέ11 The story about Amazons told by Herodotus is quite romantic
and shows their way of live which is unique for Hellenic society. In the request of Scythian
youth, whom they become weeded to live their village and come with them, Amazons
replied: ḴWe could not live with your women - our customs are quite different from theirs.
To draw the bow, to hurl the javelin, to bestride the horse, these are our arts of womanly
employments we know nothing. Your women, on the contrary, do none of these things;
but stay at home in their waggons, engaged in womanish tasks, and never go out to hunt, or
5
FARROKH, 2009.
BAHRAMI, 2008: 26.
7
BAHRAMI, 2008: 27.
8
BROSIUS, 2010.
9
Hdt. VII.99.
10
Hdt. VII.99-VII.88.
11
Hdt. IV.110.
6
Page | 10
ЭШΝ НШΝ КЧвЭСТЧРέΝ АОΝ ЬСШuХНΝ ЧОЯОЫΝ КРЫООΝ ЭШРОЭСОЫέḵ12 They live in motion, on a horseback,
with the bows and arrows, like warrior.
Amazons way of life was unheard for Greeks, but not for tribes of ancient Iran.
Archeological discoveries indicate that the female warrior were quite common. ḴThe burial
ЦШuЧНЬΝШПΝЭСОΝКЧМТОЧЭΝSМвЭСТКЧЬήSКФКΝФЧШаЧΝКЬΝ«KuЫРКЧЬ»ΝСКЯОΝШПЭОЧΝвielded the remains
of women warriors who were buried alongside their swords. These Kurgan mounds have
been discovered in various forms from the southern Ukraine all the way into the Caucasus
КЧНΝIЫКЧΝ(ЭШΝЭСОΝЧШЫЭСΝКЧНΝЧШЫЭСаОЬЭ)ḵ.13 The vast territory in which the graves were found
indicates the magnitude of this phenomenon in Achaemenid period. According to the custom
in Sasanian period Ḵroyal women accompanied the king on campaigns, traveling in carriages
for greater comfortέΝTСОΝаШЦОЧ’ЬΝpЫОЬОЧМОΝаКЬΝpЫШЛably to instill the army with confidence
in a victorious outcome of the impending battle, but in reality it exposed the women
ЭШΝ pШЭОЧЭТКХΝ НКЧРОЫḵ.14 This suggest, that in Sasanian era women have fool of authority
and rights, but Hellenic influence still ЫОЦКТЧОНΝКЬΝЭЫКНТЭТШЧΝКЧНΝЭСОвΝЫШХОΝКЬΝаКЫЫТШЫЬΝаКЬЧ’ЭΝ
that common like in time to the end of Achaemenid dynasty.
History of pre-Islamic Iran is vest in time and space. Even today, in 21th century,
we still discovering new information about it. Part of knowledge was irrevocably lost,
but some sources still remain. One of them is Š С-n mК. The Persian Book of Kings
by КФТЦΝ AЛ ΥХ-Q ЬТЦΝ ŻТЫНКаЬ Ν T Ь Ν (λζί-1020 CE). It is one of the greatest example
of world literature, written in 10th and 11th century, monumental story, that tails about
beginning and glory of Iran since creation of the world, to end of the Sasanian era.15
This remarkable, composed of approximately 50,000 rhyming couplets poem was created
to compile the stories of Iran in verse, but it become a living reserve of literature, customs
and history of one of the world's oldest civilizations. Written for more than twenty years,
he faced political change from favor of the S Ц ЧТНs to cold reception by ḠaznavidЬέΝ IЭ’ЬΝ
worth to consider, how much influence these changes have had, not so much on
the perception of the piece, but on shape of Š С-n mК. This question is important because
position of women is different between pre-Islamic Iran and clearly patriarchal Islam.16
A strong patriarch, despite apparent equality. determines social life in Muslim countries
which was present in Iran since 651. For this reason it is impossible to completely exclude
the influence of Islam on Firdaws 's work. It is also difficult to determine how strong they
were.
When we read this millennium old poem, we can see, that it is a story of great
passion and heroes, that gave inspiration for dozens of generations for Iranian, but also was
very important for Indian, Mongol, and even for people in Arabian and European countries.
About her popularity from Middle Ages for present Machalski writes: ḴWhat has assured
ЭСОΝ SС С-Ч ЦОΝ ТЦЦОНТКЭОХвΝ РЫОКЭΝ ЫОКНТЧР,Ν КЬΝ ОЯТНОЧМОНΝ ЛвΝ ТЭЬΝ ЧuЦОЫШuЬΝ ЦКЧuЬМЫТpЭЬΝ
and what makes it so popular today with unabated interest in the peoples of Iranian
and Iranian descent, is its political and socio-national tone, its constant topicality and its spirit
12
Hdt. IV.114
FARROKH, 2009.
14
BROSIUS, 2010.
15
MACHALSKI, 1970: 19.
16
KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH, 2012.
13
Page | 11
КЫОΝ ЭСШЫШuРСХвΝ ЦШНОЫЧ,Ν НОЬpТЭОΝ ЭСОΝ ПКМЭΝ ЭСКЭΝ ТЭΝ ЬТЧРЬΝ «аСКЭΝ ТЬΝ НТЦЦТЧР»,Ν ЭСОΝ НТЬЭКnt
КЧНΝТЫЫОЭЫТОЯКЛХвΝХШЬЭΝpКЬЭέḵ17
Regardless if Š С-n mК is home for Persian, who Ḵbasically did not have a home,
ОбМОpЭΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОТЫΝ ХТЭОЫКЭuЫО,Ν ОЬpОМТКХХвΝ ЭСОТЫΝ pШОЭЫвḵ18 or ḴЦТЫЫШЫЬΝ ПШЫΝ pЫТЧМОЬḵ19 the Book
of Kings is not only work of fiction, but also the great chronicle of pre-Islamic Iran. With this
it’ЬΝ КΝ ЬШuЫМОΝ ШПΝ ФЧШаХОНРОΝ КЛШuЭΝ СТЬЭШЫТМКХΝ ОЯОЧЭЬ,Ν ЛОХТОЯОЬΝ КЧНΝ ЬШМТОЭвέАЫТЭЭОЧΝ ШЧΝ КΝ ЛКЬОΝ
of legends, myths and documents Š С-n mК mixing historical facts and fantasy of poet.
ḴHeros of The Persian Book of King, both derived from historical figures and those whose
original pattern is the creation of mythology, they are presented with the same imagination
and exaggeration. While historical figures have acquired the supernatural characteristics,
the heroes of the myth are chiselled to the hardships and miseries of the earth. That is why it
ТЬΝЬШΝНТППТМuХЭΝПШЫΝuЬΝЭШНКвΝЭШΝНТЬЭТЧРuТЬСΝЭСОЦ…ḵέ20
For this reason there is difficult to put a line between truth and fiction or said without
hesitation, that some descripted events are historical facts. Nevertheless the Persian Book
of Kings is a source of knowledge about culture, customs and believes people, who made one
of the oldest and greatest civilization on Earth. It is an inspiration for poets and historian
to search and find knowledge about ancient times, Iranian heroes and kings. The great
amount of fights, battles and duels gives as opportunity to learn the pattern of this fights
and better understand mentality and tactics Iranian knights.
Fight, or duel, between SШСЫ Л and żШЫН ПКЫТН,21 is very specific because of it special
circumstances, process and significant of a żШЫН ПКЫТН’ЬΝ СОХЦОЭΝ ТЧΝ ТЭέΝ TСТЬΝ ШЧОΝ ТЭОЦΝ ЬООЦЬΝ
to be the one, that made this duel possible. One, not so big subject, gave the story of SШСЫ Л
and GoЫН ПКЫТН special meaning that made this story so important in present culture.22 Thanks
to this Rumi helmet we can read about bravery and fighting skills that presented Iranian
female warrior.
As it was mention before, in ancient Iran man and women were equal in the eyes
of the law and they participated in wars as a warriors. At yet in Š С-n mК only żШЫН ПКЫТН,
dotter of żКžНКСКЦ, is presented on battlefield. The other heroine of this poem are queens
and princesses, not warriors. żШЫН ПКЫТН was not of royal blood. Her father was a great
general, fame for his bravery. The girl from the Wight Fortress is unique on the background
of other women in Š С-n mК.
MACHALSKI, 1970: ńλμΝ „TШ,Ν МШΝ гКpОаЧТṢШΝ Sг С-n mО ШНΝ ЫКгuΝ аТОХФąΝ pШМгвЭЧШ ć,Ν ШΝ МгвЦΝ
аТКНМгąΝ ХТМгЧОΝ УОУΝ Ы ФШpТЬвΝ ТΝ МШΝ ЬpЫКаТК,Ν Т Ν МТОЬгвΝ ЬТ Ν ШЧКΝ pШΝ НгТО Ν НгТЬТОУЬгвΝ ЧТОЬṢКЛЧąМвЦΝ
гКТЧЭОЫОЬШаКЧТОЦΝ uΝ ХuНяаΝ ТЫК ЬФТМСΝ ТΝ ТЫК ЬФТОРШΝ pШМСШНгОЧТКΝ – УОЬЭΝ УОУΝ авН аТ ФΝ pШХТЭвМгЧШЬpШṢОМгЧШ-ЧКЫШНШав,ΝУОУΝЬЭКṢКΝКФЭuКХЧШ ćΝШЫКгΝУОУΝНuМСΝЧКΝаЬФЫШ ΝЧШаШМгОЬЧв,ΝЦТЦШΝТ ΝШpТОаКΝМгКЬвΝ
„МШΝЬТ Ν ćЦТṢвḵ,ΝШНХОРṢąΝТΝЧТОpШаЫШЭЧТОΝЦТЧТШЧąΝpЫгОЬгṢШ ćḵέΝ
18
NAFISI, 2007: 11.
19
ASKARI, 2013: 16.
20
DUδ BA, 1981: 11: „Bohaterowie KsТęРТ KrólОаskТОj,Ν гКЫяаЧШΝ аваШНгąМвΝ ЬТ Ν гΝ pШЬЭКМТΝ
historycznych, УКФΝТΝМТ,ΝФЭяЫвМСΝагяЫΝpТОЫаШЭЧвΝЬЭКЧШаТąΝЭаШЫвΝЦТЭШХШРТТ,ΝpЫгОНЬЭКаТОЧТΝЬąΝгΝЭąΝЬКЦąΝ
ПКЧЭКгУąΝ ТΝ pЫгОЬКНąέΝ PЫгвΝ ЭвЦΝ pШЬЭКМТШЦΝ СТЬЭШЫвМгЧвЦΝ НШЫШЛТШЧШΝ МОМСвΝ ЧКНpЫгвЫШНгШЧО,Ν ЛШСКЭОЫяаΝ
ЦТЭяаΝpЫгвФuЭШΝНШΝЭЫuНяаΝТΝЧТОНШХТΝгТОЦЬФТМСέΝDХКЭОРШΝЭО ΝЭКФΝЭЫuНЧШΝЧКЦΝТМСΝНгТЬТКУΝЫШгЫя ЧТć…ḵ.
21
KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH, 2002.
22
Fatemeh Habibizad, known as present żШЫН ПКЫТН is a first woman Naqqual (storyteller)
of Firdaws ΥЬΝ Book of Kings. As she says, the inspiration for her was żШЫН ПКЫТН from poem.
She specializes in story about SШСЫ Л and żШЫН ПКЫТН.
17
Page | 12
Title of Firdaws ’ЬΝpШОЦΝТЬΝthe Persian Book of Kings, not queens, according to that
Š С-n mК is first of all, de story of great Iranian man – kings, princes and heroes.
They shaping the world for its glory. It is about ŻОЫ Н Ч, legendary ruler of Iran, Rostam,
who is the greatest hero in Iranian tradition, S Ц and Г Х – РЫОКЭΝаКЫЫТШЫЬΝКЧНΝФТЧР’ЬΝЯКЬЬКХЬ,Ν
and many legendary and historical kings – they all shine as an example rulers and knights.
But behind every man stands woman. It is his mother, who teach him about duty
or his lover, who with her loyalty and wisdom gave him courage and strength. ḴWomen
in Shahnameh have changed the fate of the heroes. They played a critical role in shaping
ЭСОΝ МТЯТХТгКЭТШЧЬΝ КЧНΝ МuХЭuЫОЬέΝ АСОЧОЯОЫ,Ν ЭСОΝ ЦОЧΝ аОЫОΝ ЬЭuМФΝ up,Ν аШЦОЧΝ СОХpОНΝ ЭСОЦέḵ23
They are perfect in every aspect – beautiful, wise, loyal, loving, faithful, more like goddess
than a human. And like a goddess in the heroic myth, they do not play main character of this
poem, they are supportive. TСОЫОПШЫОΝ аОΝ ЬСШuХНΝ ЭКФОΝ ПШЫΝ МШЧЬТНОЫКЭТШЧΝ JКПКЫТ’ЬΝ ЭСОШЫв,Ν
that says: ḴShahnameh is not only a manly epic, but the woman plays essential role in its
heroine trends. Although, within combating events, the men have played the prime role, it is
not possible to consider the men as the only active characters in battle since we can see
in stories and myths about the fate of those women for whom the battle occurred or they are
filled with story of women, who have dealt with fighting in warfare outfit such
КЬΝżШЫНКПКЫТНέḵ24 But is the Pershian Book of Kings really an epic, where female heroes are
equal to man? In all of Š С-n mК there is none of women, who is the main character of any
МСКpЭОЫ,Ν ШЫΝ СКЯОΝ ЭСОΝ ЬКЦОΝ ТЦpШЫЭКЧМОΝ КЬΝ ЦКЧ’ЬΝ СОЫШέΝ DОЬpТЭО,Ν ЭСКЭΝ Ḵeach of them is
ЭСОΝ ШuЭЬЭКЧНТЧРΝ ОбОЦpХКЫΝ ПШЫΝ ЛОКuЭв,Ν аТЬНШЦ,Ν ЦКЧХТЧОЬЬ,Ν КЧНΝ МСКЬЭТЭвḵ25 they came from
ЭСОΝ ЬСКНШаЬΝ ШПΝ ЦКЧ’ЬΝ РХШЫвΝ ШЧХв for a brief moment. Just like żШЫН ПКЫТН, brave warrior,
saver of the Iranian knights, whom Firdaws gave only one leading scene. But in fact these
scene is spectacular.
The Iranian culture do not know the greatest hero than Rostam, son of Г Х, grandson
of S Ц. He is the dragon slayer, he killed a witch and white D ЯΝ and also saved king Kay
K ЯuЬ and his troops.26 εέΝSФṢКНКЧФШаКΝТЧНТМКЭОЬ,ΝЭСКЭμΝ ḴSam's connection with the heroes
of the Sistani seems rather the result of cyclization of legends in accordance with the wellknown mythical pКЫКНТРЦ,ΝТЧΝаСТМСΝЭСОΝЭвpОЬΝШПΝ«НКЫФ»ΝКЧНΝ«ЛЫТРСЭ»ΝСОЫШОЬΝКЫОΝТЧЭОЫаШЯОЧΝ
according to the old rhythm of time oscillating between the time of life and death divided into
two successive periods – аТЧЭОЫΝ КЧНΝ ЬuЦЦОЫέΝ AПЭОЫΝ «НКЫФ»Ν SКЦΝ ПШХХШаЬΝ «ЛЫТРСЭ»Ν Г Х,
follШаОНΝЛвΝRuЬЭКЦ,ΝаОКЫТЧРΝЭСОΝОЦЛХОЦΝШПΝКΝpuЫpХОΝНЫКРШЧέḵ27
According to her theory SШСЫ Л should have similar characteristics to Г Х, RШЬЭКЦ’ЬΝ
father, who had solar and birds symbolic. ḴThe son of Rustam was SШСЫ Л. He should be like
Zal bright and birdlike. But we know only, that he was gentle, though ЛЫКЯОΝ ХТФОΝ ГКХέḵ28
That puts SШСЫ Л in the line of most courageous and finest heroes in Iranian mythology.
23
LOVEIMI, 2016: 47.
JAFARI, 2014: 9.
25
JAFARI, 2014: 9.
26
SZKLARZ, 2017: 15-27.
27
SKŁADAσKτАA, 1984: 194: „pШṢąМгОЧТОΝ SКЦКΝ гΝ ЫШНОЦΝ СОЫШЬяаΝ ЬТЬЭК ЬФТМСΝ авНКУОΝ ЬТ Ν ЫКМгОУΝ
rezultatem cyklizacjТΝХОРОЧНΝгРШНЧТОΝгОΝгЧКЧвЦΝЦТЭвМгЧвЦΝpКЫКНвРЦКЭОЦ,ΝаΝФЭяЫвМСΝpЫгОpХКЭКУąΝЬТ Ν
ЭвpвΝ СОЫШЬяаΝ «МТОЦЧвМС»Ν ТΝ «УКЬЧвМС»Ν гРШНЧТОΝ гОΝ ЬЭКЫвЦΝ ЫвЭЦОЦΝ МгКЬuΝ ШЬМвХuУąМОРШΝ pШЦТ НгвΝ
МгКЬОЦΝ вМТКΝ ТΝ ЦТОЫМТ,Ν НгТОХШЧвЦΝ ЧКΝ НаКΝ ФШХОУЧШΝ ЧКЬЭ puУąМОΝ pШΝ ЬШЛТОΝ ШФЫОЬвΝ – zimy i lata.
PШΝ«МТОЦЧвЦ»ΝSКЦТОΝЧКЬЭ puУОΝ«УКЬЧв»ΝГКХ,ΝpШΝЧТЦΝRuЬЭКЦ,ΝЧШЬгąМвΝРШНṢШΝПТШХОЭШаОРШΝЬЦШФКέḵ
28
SKŁADAσKτАA, 1984: 196: „SвЧОЦΝRuЬЭКЦКΝЛвṢΝSШСЫКЛέΝPШаТЧТОЧΝЛвćΝШЧΝУКФΝГКХΝУКЬЧвΝТΝpЭКЬТέΝ
AХОΝаТОЦвΝЭвХФШ,Ν ОΝЛвṢΝṢКРШНЧв,ΝМСШćΝНгТОХЧвΝУКФΝГКХ.ḵ
24
Page | 13
He should become hero among heroes and he had potential to be so. Even, that no one know
about his providence, he already in very young age had support and admiration of Turanian
warriors.
Shortly after learning, that he is the son of famous Rostam, he decided, that he should
give his father the crown he was more worthy than KКвΝ K ЯuЬ. He gathered his troops
and marched toward Iranian border. The citadel guarding her was a White Fortress. As we
read in Š С-n mК: ḴIЭЬΝ ФООpОЫΝ аКЬΝ КЧΝ ОбpОЫТОЧМОНΝ аКЫЫТШЫΝ HОУТЫέḵ29 When he sow SШСЫ Л
leading his army on fortress, he battled him and lost. He was captured what brought him
shame. When żШЫН ПКЫТН, daughter of great warrior żКžНКСКЦ learn about it, she felt
ashamed as well, and decided to enter the battlefield. She did not know, that she will face
man of such great lineage, but knowing of defeat of Hojir, she did not have even a second
ШПΝ СОЬТЭКЭТШЧέΝ SСОΝ ФЧОа,Ν СШаΝ СТРСΝ аКЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЬЭКФОΝ ШПΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЛКЭЭХОέΝ АОКЫТЧРΝ КΝ ЦКЧ’ЬΝ КЫЦШЫΝ
and helmet she mounted her horse and set out on the battlefield. She challenged enemy
to a duel. SШСЫ Л accepted gladly. He prepared for the fight and faced his challenger.
Fight started on a horse buck. żШЫН ПКЫТН, when she sow her opponent, take a good
aim and send toward him an arrow. We can read: ḴWhen she saw him, she took aim with her
bow (no bird could escape her well-aimed arrows) and let loose a hail of arrows, weaving
to left and right like an experienced horseman as she did so. Shame urged Sohrab forward,
СТЬΝЬСТОХНΝСОХНΝЛОПШЫОΝСТЬΝСОКНΝЭШΝНОПХОМЭΝСОЫΝКЫЫШаЬέḵ30 He shortened his distance, so she laid
aside her bow and took a lance to middle distance fight. SШСЫ Л has a lance to. He struck her
in the waist. żШЫН ПКЫТН took a sword and split his lance in two. In this moment: ḴSohrab bore
down on her again and snatched her helmet from her head; her hair streamed out and face
shone like a splendid sun. He saw that his opponent was a woman, one whose hair was
аШЫЭСвΝШПΝНТКНОЦέΝHОΝаКЬΝКЦКгОН…ḵ31
AММШЫНТЧРΝЭШΝАṢέΝDuХ ЛК,32 the time of this duel historically may place in 6th century
B.C. KКвΝ K ЯuЬ, King of Kings in this part of Š С-n mК may be shaped on the image
of Cyrus The Great. I have already mention Grand Admiral Artemisia of the Persian Navy
and the Amazons, the excellent female warriors. It is almost certain, that Firdaws knew
about them and use them as an example to create żШЫН ПКЫТН. They were known
of the intelligence, fighting skills and beauty – perfect warrior that were admirable opponent
for the best of man.
And yet SШСЫ Л was shocked to see that his opponent was a female. Or maybe he was
amazed by her beauty, not by her sex? Seeing his confusion żШЫН Пarid НТНЧ’ЭΝСОЬТЭКЭОΝЭШΝuЬОΝ
this opportunity for her advantage. She used her intelligence and cleverness to influence him
more. She knew that the stake is lives of Iranian warriors and honor of young commander.
With the smile she said: ḴO lionhearted warrior, two armies are watching us and, if I led them
see my face and hair, your troops will be very amused by the nation of your fighting with
КΝЦОЫОΝРТЫХνΝаО’НΝЛОЭЭОЫΝНЫКаΝКЬТНОΝЬШЦОаСОЫО,ΝЭСКЭ’ЬΝаСКЭΝКΝаТЬОΝЦКЧΝаШuХНΝНШ,ΝЬШΝЭСКЭΝвШuΝ
аШЧ’ЭΝЛОΝКΝХКuРСТЧРΝЬЭШМФΝЛОПШЫОΝЭСШЬОΝЭаШΝКЫЦТОЬέḵ33
Š С-n
Š С-n
31
Š С-n
32
DUδ
33
Š С-n
29
30
Page | 14
mК, 2007: 191.
mК, 2007: 192.
mК, 2007: 192.
BA, 1981: 17-20.
mК, 2007: 192.
In own words of żШЫН ПКЫТН not only defeat by a woman, but just combat with her,
brings shame to the knight. We may only guess, is she have in mind both Iranian and Turk
army. She says: Ḵyour troops will be very amused by the nation of your fighting with a mere
РТЫХḵ,ΝЛuЭΝУuЬЭΝЦШЦОЧЭΝХКЭОЫμΝḴЬШΝЭСКЭΝвШuΝаШЧ’ЭΝЛОΝКΝХКuРСТЧРΝЬЭШМФΝЛОПШЫОΝЭСШЬОΝЭаШΝКЫЦТОЬḵέΝ
Living in a border she must have some knowledge about customs of Turks. Her words
ЬuРРОЬЭЬ,Ν ЭСКЭΝ ПОЦКХОΝ аКЫЫТШЫΝ аКЬЧ’ЭΝ ЬШЦОЭСing common in the lands of Iranian eastern
neighbors. What about the habits of Iran itself?
As it was pointed, history of Iran knows about many female warriors, but in Š С-n mК only
żШЫН ПКЫТН аОКЫЬΝКЫЦШЫέΝАОΝМКЧ’ЭΝПШЫРОЭ,ΝЭСКЭΝFirdaws was writing his poem in times, when
Iran was under Islamic rule. Proximity three and a half centuries of Islamic influence could
not pass without any changes in Iranian view of the world. The Persian Book of Kings
although was writhed as a chronicle, to save proud heritage of his nation from annihilation,
the content it gave, which gave pride to the Iranians, could undermine the social order
of current society. Where religion is a national law34 to undermine her dogma is equal
to treason. The time that Š С-n mК was made was a time of Iranian culture renaissance,35
but how much Firdaws was freed from the Islamic influences that permeated everyday life?
It is cultural paradigm, that ḴBecause of their patriarchal structures, Islamic and eastern
societies are expected to experience higher gender socialization. According to this
presumption, women are prepared to have activities at homes and play their roles as mothers
КЧНΝ аТЯОЬΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОЬОΝ ЬШМТОЭТОЬέḵ36 Placing a large number of female warrior would be
problematic and cause social anxiety. Woman should be beautiful, wise and loyal to her
father and husband. They should know that their place is at home. But Firdaws could not
forget about glory of female warrior in Iranian history. How could he, when there are part
of Iranian proud heritage? Therefore he made żШЫН ПКЫТН such splendid example of bravery
and military skills, the real Ḵmythical woman in history of IraЧḵ.37
SШСЫ Л, as young commander hungry for fame, could not allowed to be Ḵa laughing
ЬЭШМФḵέΝ HОΝ аКЬΝЫОpЫОЬОЧЭТЧРΝ КΝ РЫОКЭΝ ЧКЭТШЧΝ КЧНΝ ОбМОХХОЧЭΝ ЛХШШНΝХТЧОКРОέΝ He had to save his
face in eyes of his troops, but also in the eyes of intriguing woman, whose beauty completely
charmed him: ḴAs she spoke, her shining teeth and bright red lips and heavenly face were
like a paradise to Sohrab; no gardener ever grow so straight and tall a cypress as she seemed
ЭШΝЛОνΝСОЫΝОвОЬΝаОЫОΝХТquТНΝКЬΝКΝНООЫ’Ь,ΝСОЫΝЛЫШаЬΝаОЫОΝЭаШ ЛОЧЭΝЛШаЬ,ΝвШu’НΝЬКвΝСОЫΝЛШНвΝ
аКЬΝКΝЛuНΝКЛШuЭΝЭШΝЛХШЬЬШЦέḵ38
ŻОЫНШаЬТ’ЬΝ НОЬМЫТpЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ żШЫН ПКЫТН is maintained in suggestive tone of aesthetic
erotica.39 It was common in Iranian poetry, that erotism was subtle and gentle and it was
ЬСШаЧΝТЧΝНОЬМЫТpЭТШЧΝШПΝpОЫЬШЧ’ЬΝХШШФЬέΝḴThe hair, the face, the eyes, and the mouth are by far
the most important among the items in this catalogue of beauties. In lyrical poems
the attention is often excluЬТЯОХвΝПШМuЬОНΝШЧΝЭСОЦέḵ40 Firdaws also emphasizes the qualities
of beauty, not only her face, but also her body. ḴErotic descriptions do not always involve
aspects of wooing and love-making. Sometimes they deal simply with description
34
VON ESS, 1987: 69-75.
DAVIS, 2007: 16-18.
36
AKBARNEJAD, CHANZANAGH, 2011: 133.
37
LOVEIMI, 2016: 47.
38
Š С-n mК, 2007: 192.
39
KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH, 1998.
40
DE BRUIJIN, 1989.
35
Page | 15
ШПΝЭСОΝЛОКuЭвΝШПΝЭСОΝСuЦКЧ,ΝКЧНΝЦШЬЭΝЭвpТМКХХвΝЭСОΝПОЦКХО,ΝЛШНвέḵ41 In eyes of SШСЫ Л slim
body of żШЫН ПКЫТН, ḴЛuНΝ КЛШuЭΝ ЭШΝ ЛХШЬЬШЦḵ,Ν Ḵher shining teeth and bright red lips
and СОКЯОЧХвΝПКМОḵΝаОЫОΝОЧШuРСΝЭШΝЦКФОΝСТЦΝПООХ,ΝХТФОΝСОΝаКЬΝТЧΝpКЫКНТЬОέ
It is the second mention of how deep SШСЫ Л was moved by discovering żШЫН ПКЫТН
sex end beauty. In his research about esthetic and erotic in Iranian poetry Bruijin tells:
Ḵ…ЭСОΝМШЧЭЫКЬt between a light face and dark locks symbolizing the alternation of revealing
and concealing in the behavior of the Beloved; the curls forming a lasso to catch the Lover
or a chain to keep him as a captive; the eyelashes and the glances wounding his heart;
ЭСОΝ НТЦpХОΝ КЬΝ КΝ pТЭПКХХΝ ШЧΝ СТЬΝ аКвέḵ42 żШЫН ПКЫТН with her ḴСКТЫΝ аШЫЭСвΝ ШПΝ НТКНОЦḵΝ КЧНΝ
ḴПКМОΝ ЬСШЧОΝ ХТФОΝ КΝ ЬpХОЧНТНΝ ЬuЧḵ,Ν ОвОЬΝ ḴХТquТНΝ КЬΝ КΝ НООЫ’Ьḵ definitely could cutch not only
hard of a young man. According to poet it was nothing more than her beauty that inclined
SШСЫ Л to let her go free. Beauty, and maybe a little bit of aesthetic erotica. The moment
when her hair came out from under her helmet was the most important. Muslims women,
but also representatives of other Middle Eastern cultures wore some kind of headwear.
So was it, according to research of Movahed and Jafari in pre-Islamic Iran: ḴIt should be
noted that Iranian women in Sasanian and Ashkanian eras used a type of veil which dates
ЛКМФΝ ЭШΝ ЛОПШЫОΝ ОЦОЫРОЧМОΝ ШПΝ IЬХКЦέḵ43 The exposure of the hair and face to strangers was
a kind of taboo. It could be seen as an act of indecency, very suggestive in its erotic tone.
Therefore it seems, that żШЫН ПКЫТН’ЬΝRuЦТΝСОХЦОЭΝpХКвОНΝquТЭОΝТЦpШЫЭКЧЭΝЫШХОΝТЧΝЭСТЬΝ
scene. Helmet and armor gave żШЫН ПКЫТН the opportunity to cover her gender and fight with
SШСЫ Л in even terms. Without that disguise, he would never agree to this duel and brave
women would not receive a chance to regain honor of warriors from the Wight Fortress.
But when he fell off her head and uncovered her sex gave this scene additional meaning.
The moment of discovery of żШЫН ПКЫТН’ЬΝ ЬОбΝ аКЬΝ КΝ ЭuЫЧТЧРΝ pШТЧЭΝ ЧШЭΝ ШЧХвΝ ШПΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЬМОЧО,Ν
but also of SШСЫ Л's military campaign.
Firdaws ТЬЧ’ЭΝ ЬpОМТПТМΝ КЛШuЭΝ ЭСОΝ ХШШФΝ ШПΝ ЭСТЬΝ СОХЦОЭέΝ HОΝ ЫОpООН,Ν ЭСКЭΝ ТЭΝ ТЬΝ RuЦТ,Ν
ЛuЭΝЭСОЫОΝТЬЧ’ЭΝЦuМСΝЦШЫОΝТnformation about it. It seems, that translators had some difficulties
working on this scene, therefore there are some differences between translations.
The first mention about it is that: ḴЬСОΝНЫОЬЬОНΝСОЫЬОХПΝТЧΝКΝФЧТРСЭ’ЬΝКЫЦШЫ,ΝРКЭСОЫОНΝ
her hair beneath КΝRuЦТΝСОХЦОЭ,ΝКЧНΝЫШНОΝШuЭΝПЫШЦΝЭСОΝПШЫЭЫОЬЬ…ḵ.44 Nothing more. There is
nothing to indicate, how the helmet look like, is he had some kind of battle mask, visor or
cheekpieces. In translation of Atkins we can read: Ḵ…ЬСОΝ НЫОЬЬОНΝ СОЫЬОХПΝ ТЧΝ ЦКТХ,Ν AЧН,Ν
hasЭТХв,ΝЛОЧОКЭСΝСОЫΝСОХЦОЭΝСТНΝHОЫΝРХШЬЬвΝЫТЧРХОЭЬΝνΝНШаЧΝЬСО,ΝПЫШЦΝЭСОΝПШЫЭ…ḵ 45 And in the
АКЫЧОЫ’ЬΝЭЫКЧЬХКЭТШЧμΝḴConcealed her tresses underneath her mail, Secured her Ruman casque
upШЧΝСОЫΝСОКН,ΝAЧНΝМШЦОΝНШаЧ…ḵ46
In any of this translations there is no information at all that could point out and
characteristic of this helmet. Only in Polish translation we can read: ḴShe tucked her braided
41
KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH, 1998.
DE BRUIJIN, 1989.
43
JAFARI, MOVOHED, 2015: 99.
44
Š С-n mК, 2007: 191.
45
Š С-n mК, 1932: 184.
46
Š С-n mК, 1906: 132.
42
Page | 16
under armor, her Roman helmet tied under her chin. And came out of the fort like a lion ...ḵ47,
that quotation indicates possibility that helmet had some kind of cheekpieces.
In the beginning of the fight opponents were in a distance of arrow shot. They most
likely could not see each other faces. They were closing fast to the close distance combat,
and fight was also quick. TСОЫОΝаКЬЧ’ЭΝЭТЦОΝЭШΝРОЭΝКΝМХШЬОЫΝХШШФΝКЭΝШppШЧОЧЭέΝSШСЫ Л was very
вШuЧРΝЬШΝСОΝНТНЧ’ЭΝСКНΝЛОКЫН,ΝЬШΝКЧШЭСОЫΝвШuЧРΝЦКЧΝаТЭСШuЭΝЛОКЫНΝМШuХНΝКppОКЫΝШЧΝКΝПТОХНΝ
КЬΝ аОХХέΝ TСОЫОΝ аКЬΝ ЧШЭСТЧРΝ ЬЭЫКЧРОέΝ SШΝ ТЭ’ЬΝ pШЬЬТЛХОΝ ЭСКЭΝ СОΝ МШuХНΝ ЧШЭΝ ЫОМШРЧТгОΝ СОЫΝ
КЬΝКΝаШЦКЧΝОЯОЧΝТПΝСОЫΝПКМОΝаКЬЧ’ЭΝМШЯОЫОНέ Gender disclosure has occurred at the moment
of unveiling the hair. So not beautiful face, not slim figure but hair, that were covered
by helmet, betrayed her as a woman.
AХЭСШuРСΝаОΝНШЧ’ЭΝСКЯОΝКЧвΝНОЭКТХΝКЛШuЭΝХШШФΝШПΝЭСТЬΝСОХЦОЭΝаОΝСКЯОΝШЧОΝТЦpШЫЭКЧЭΝ
information – it was Rumi. SШСЫ Л in turn was wearing Chinese helmet. By using these
specific terms, the author has given them meaning.
In Š С-n mК there is a story, which tells of the origins of Iranian statehood. It is
a legend about ŻОЫ Н Ч and his three sons, between which he divided the kingdom. The eldest
son, Salm, was given the West, the junior, T Ы, received the East and the youngest, ЫКУ –
central land with the golden throne and suzerainty above lands of his brothers.48 Shahbazi
suggest, that division of the kingdom was Ḵbased on their ideals: Salm, who desired great
riches, received the [wealthy] land of R Ц; T Ы (Tōг),Ν аСШΝ КЬФОНΝ ПШЫΝ ЯКХШЫ,Ν ЫОМОТЯОНΝ
TuЫФКЬЭ Ч [the land of warriors], and ЫКУ ( ЫТг), who desired law and religion, (Н t u Н n),
received r nšКСr together with ŻОЫ ЭōЧ’ЬΝ МЫШаЧΝ КЧНΝ ЫШвКХΝ РХШЫвΝ (xᵛarənah), whereby
his descendants were destined to have the royalty and sovereignty over those
ШПΝ СТЬΝ ЛЫШЭСОЫЬέḵ49 A jealous Salm with T ЫΝ plotted conspiracy against ЫКУ and led
to his death. This infamous act gave a start to hostility not only between the descendants
of three brothers but also between the three states. Although the traitors paid for their crime,
her memory remained and occasionally it made itself known in relations between Iran
and neighboring countries.
Mutual affliction that has remained for centuries has been deeply rooted
in the Iranians consciousness. It was strong especially to the West witch in Š С-n mК
is called Rum. Therefore everything Western, Rumi, is perceived in a negative way.
In the opposition, the Eastern, Chinese, will be seen as positive, good. But we see, that Rumi
helmet was worn by żШЫН ПКЫТН, defender of Iran and Chienese was worn by SШСЫ Л, invader
from T ЫέΝτЧОΝЦuЬЭΝЫОЦОЦЛОЫΝКЛШuЭΝЭСОΝЭСОШЫвΝШПΝΝSФṢКНКЧФШаК,ΝаСТМСΝЬpОКФЬΝШПΝЭСОΝЛЫТРСЭ,Ν
birdlike origin of SШСЫ Л that place him as one of the positive heroes, despite, that he led
the invaders. Also in this period of time Iran was ruled by KКвΝK ЯuЬ,ΝаСШЬОΝЫОТРЧΝаКЬЧ’ЭΝ
just. SШСЫ Л was planning give the throne of Iran to his father, Rostam, who was more worthy
of that honor. He was the son of Rostam, Zal's grandson, S Ц's great-grandson, the fourth
straight SТЬЭ Ч hero. On the other hand, żШЫН ПКЫТН does not fit in the Š С-n mК pattern
ШПΝ ПОЦКХОΝ pЫШЭКРШЧТЬЭЬέΝ SСТ’ЬΝ КΝ ЫОЛОХХТШuЬΝ ОХОЦОЧЭΝ аСШΝ НШОЬΝ ЧШЭΝ ЬuppШЫЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЦКХОΝ СОЫШ,Ν
ЛuЭΝКПЭОЫΝHКУТЫ’ЬΝНОПОКЭΝЭКФОЬΝШЯОЫΝСТЬΝЫШХОέΝ
Š С-n mК, 1981: 146: UФЫвṢКΝ аКЫФШМгОΝ pШНΝ гЛЫШУą,Ν СОṢЦΝ ЫuЦЬФТΝ pШНΝ ЛЫШН Ν гаТąгКṢКέΝ IΝ авЬгṢКΝ
z warowni jak lew.
48
Š С-n mК, 2007: 36.
49
SHAHBAZI, 2004: 200-202.
47
Page | 17
żШЫН ПКЫТН is currently seen as a heroic character with all positive aspects. She is
a model figure for women struggling with the oppression of patriarchy. But was it the same
at the time of Firdaws ? As much as currently we like see in her picture of the greatest heroin
of Iran, real ḴЦвЭСТМКХΝаШЦКЧḵΝЛвΝpuЭЭТЧРΝШЧΝСer head Rumi helmet Firdaws made a small
suggestion, that in duel between SШСЫ Л and żШЫН ПКЫТН the right is not necessary on her side.
With the right of the poets, Firdaws does not impose on the reader the evaluation
of his heroes. In a way appropriate for each poet he leaves the reader a place to interpret.
The reader, on the basis of his own experiences and culture, will answer whether żШЫН ПКЫТН
is positive or negative hero of Š С-n mК. The Persian Book of Kings. The poet leaves him
only clues.
In the eyes of Islamic world żШЫН ПКЫТН’ЬΝ ЛШХН behavior will be a threat to social
order. For women fighting for equality is a model to imitate. For all Iranian, she will be
reminder of past glory. Firdaws was a poet, not militarist. He was studying legends
and books in order to preserve Iranian history. His goal was to tell the stories of great heroes
and kings to restore the memory of a Iranian greatness. The information about haw looked
like armor or helmet of the warrior one and a half millennium before his time was at most
ЬОМШЧНКЫвέΝ SuМСΝ НОЭКТХЬΝ НШОЬЧ’ЭΝ ЦКЭЭОЫέΝ TСОΝ ЫОКХΝ ТЦpШЫЭКЧМОΝ аКЬΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ ПКМЭ,Ν ЭСКЭΝ ЭСОΝ РЫОКЭΝ
commander, forth in the line of the greatest Iranian hero was stopped by one brave Iranian
аШЦОЧ,ΝаСШΝаКЬЧ’ЭΝafraid to fight to preserve honor and lives of her comrades. And here lies
the real significant of a żШЫН ПКЫТН’ЬΝ СОХЦОЭ – not in its shape or type just in the fact,
that wearing it, disguised as a man, female warrior could enter the battlefield and fight eye
to eye with enemy of her nation.
Bibliography
Sources
Firdaws ,ΝKsТęРК królОаskКṬ SгКСnКmО, tr. АŁέΝDUδ BA,ΝАКЫЬгКаКΝ1981.
ŻТЫНКаЬ ,ΝŠ С-n mК, vol. 2, tr. A.G. WARNER, E. WARNER, London 1906.
Firdaws , Š С-n mК, tr. D. DAVIS, New York 2007.
Firdaws , Š С-n mК, tr. J. ATKINSON, London 1932.
The History of Herodotus, tr. G. RAWLINSON, New York 1858.
Literature
AKBARNEJAT, M., CHANZANAGH, H.E. (2011), Do women have lower work ethic in an Islamic
society? A case-study in Iran, „International Conference on Humanities, Historical and Social
SМТОЧМОЬḵΝńι, 133-137.
ASCARI, N. (2013), TСО MОНТОvКl RОМОptТon oП FТrНКus ʿs SС Сn mКŚ TСО ArНКsС r CвМlО Кs
a Mirror for Princes, Toronto.
BAHRAMI, T.SH. (2008), The Social Position of Women in Old Persia, „SвНЧОвΝSЭuНТОЬΝТЧΝRОХТРТШЧḵΝ
1, 25-30.
BROSIUS, M. (2010): Women In Pre-Islamic Persia, , [in:] „źЧМвМХШpæНТКΝ IЫКЧТМКḵΝ
[http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/women-I (accessed August 10, 2017)]
DARYAEE T. (2009), The Study of Ancient Iran in the Twentieth Century, „IЫКЧТКЧΝ SЭuНТОЬḵΝ ζβέζ,Ν
579-589.
DAVIS, D., (2007), Introduction, [in:] Shahnameh. The Persian Book of Kings, New York, 13-37.
Page | 18
DE BRUIJIN, J.T.P. (1989), Beloved, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 4.2, E. YARSHATER (ed.),
New York, 128-129.
DUδ BA, W. (1981), MТęНгв mТtОm К СТstorТą, Warszawa.
DURANT, W. (1942), The Story of Civilization. Part One. Our Oriental Heritage, New York.
JAFARI, E., MOVAHED, A.A. (2015), Covering of Women in Ancient Iran, „Journal of Scientific
Research and DevelopmОЧЭḵΝβέβ, 98-99.
JAFARI, N. (2014), TСО InvОstТРКtТon КnН AnКlвsТs on CСКrКМtОr Four EППОМtТvО FОmКlО Тn FТrНКusТˀs
Shahnameh of Iran, „JШuЫЧКХΝШПΝAppХТОНΝźЧЯТЫШЧЦОЧЭКХΝКЧНΝBТШХШРТМКХΝSМТОЧМОЬḵΝζέη, 8-14.
FARROKH,
K.
(2009),
The
Persian
Lioness:
Iranian
Women
in
History,
[http://kavehfarrokh.com/iranica/the-women-of-persia/the-persian-lioness-iranian-women-inhistory(accessed August 19, 2017)]
KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH, D. (1998), Erotic Literature, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 8.5,
E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 558-560.
KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH D. (2002) Gordafarid, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 11.2,
E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 138.
KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH D. (2012), Women in the Shahnameh: Their History and Social Status
Within the Framework of Ancient and Medieval Sources, Costa Mesa.
LITVINSKY, B.A. (2012), Helmet I. In Pre-Islamic Iran, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 12.2,
E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 176-180.
LOVEIMI, S. (2016), Fateful Women in Ferdowsi Shahnameh, „źЧРХТЬСΝδКЧРuКРОΝTОКМСТЧРḵΝλέη,Νζθ53.
MACHALSKI, F. (1970), FТrНКusТ Т jОРo „Sг С-n mОʾ,ΝKЫКФяа.
NAFISI, A. (2007), Introduction, [in:] Shahnameh. The Persian Book of Kings, New York, 9-11.
SHAHBAZI, S.A. (2004), Iraj, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 13.2, E. YARSHATER (ed.),
New York, 200-202.
SKŁADAσźK, B. (1999), HТstorТК PОrsjТṬ Tom I OН МгКsóа nКjНКаnТОjsгвМС Нo nКjКгНóа ArКЛów,
Warszawa.
SKŁADAσKτАA, M. (1983), Bohaterowie, bogowie i demony dawnego Iranu, Warszawa.
SKŁADAσKτАA, M. (1989), Mitologia Iranu, Warszawa.
SZKLARZ, J. (2017), Rustam pokonujО BТКłОРo DОаК – oНаТОМгnК аКlkК НoЛrК гО гłОm а tОk МТО
i ikonografii, [in:] Istorыс rОlыРыj v UkrКэnыŚ nКukovТj šorыčnТk,Ν τέΝ KIRIČUK,Ν εέΝ τεźδΥČUKΝ (ОНЬέ),Ν
δΥЯыЯ, 15-27.
VON ESS J. (1987), Islam [in:] PТęć аТОlkТМС rОlТРТТ аТКtК, E. BRUNNER-TRAUT (ed.), Warszawa,
67-88.
Page | 19
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Dan-Tudor IONESCU (Metropolitan Library of Bucharest, Romania)
The Use of the Tiara as symbol of Persian Achaemenid
Kingship: why Alexander the Great didn’t adopt it?
Abstract
This study has as focus the political significance of the headgear worn by ancient Iranian
royalty (namely the high crown called by the Greeks tiara or kidaris) and the reason why Alexander
ЭСОΝ żЫОКЭΝ НТНΝ ЧШЭΝ ШЫΝ ЫКЭСОЫΝ МШuХНΝ ЧШЭΝ КНШpЭΝ ТЭέΝ TСОΝ pЫММТЬОΝ ЧКЭuЫОΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ФТЧРЬСТpΝ ТЧΝ AЬТКΝ
(including Egypt) is unclear for modern scholars: the most secure assumption is that his rule over
the former Achaemenid Asia was based on naked military hard power alone. A more subtle analysis
of the sources available could suggest that his sway over the conquered Persian Empire rested not only
on the spears and swords of his soldiers, but also on his willingness to adapt the court protocol and his
so called “court ТЦКРОḵΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЭЫКНТЭТШЧКХΝ εКМОНШЧТКЧΝ KТЧРΝ to the customs and laws (written
and unwritten) of his Asian subjects. He thus became by using “soft powerḵ not only a foreign
Macedonian-Greek conquering King, but also a kind of Egyptian Pharaoh, a Babylonian King,
and even a “KТЧРΝ ШПΝ AЬТКḵΝ аСШΝ МКЧΝ ЫuХОΝ ШЯОЫΝ ЬuЛУОМЭОНΝ ХОЬЬОЫΝ ФТЧРЬ,Ν НвЧКЬЭЬ,Ν pЫТЧМОЬ,Ν КЧНΝ ЬКЭЫКpЬΝ
(regional governors of noble blood). He even tried twice in Iran to become accepted by the Iranian
religious and political-military elites, the Magi priests and the warrior Iranian princes and aristocrats.
Both his main attempts, in 330 BC and in 324 BC proved eventually unsuccessful. Alexander tried
hard to adopt a mixed Median-Persian-Macedonian royal dress and a mixed Macedonian-Persian
headgear, in order to conciliate both his new Iranian subjects and his old Macedonian comrades
in arms. He finally failed with both: the Macedonians rebelled twice against his never ending desire
(pothos) for conquest and his perceived pro-Iranian policy (at Hyphasis in 326 BC and at Opis
in 324 BC). The Persian and Median Magi and the Iranian princes and noblemen never properly
crowned and accepted him as “King of KingsḵΝ ШПΝ IЫКЧέΝ TСТЬΝ КЫЭТМХОΝ ТЧΝ ЬСШЫЭΝ reflects the unsolved
НТХОЦЦКΝШПΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝKТЧРЬСТpΝТЧΝAЬТКέ
Keywords: Tiara, Kidaris, Kausia, Chlamys, Kandys, Anaxyrides, Basileus tes Asias
The idea of this brief communication (and hopefully also of this article) is to analyze
why Alexander of Macedon, according at least to the Greek and Latin sources available to us
nowadays, did not adopt the tiara ( δΪλα) as symbol of his (supposedly) Iranian Kingship,
after his decisive victory over Darius III at Gaugamela (1st of October 331 BC).
His subsequent conquests of Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Pasargadae apparently entitled
him to assume the Iranian royal title. He could become ḴKТЧРΝШПΝPОЫЬТКЧЬΝКЧНΝεОНТКЧЬḵΝКПЭОЫΝ
the conquest of the last free Achaemenid royal town, Ecbatana, the capital city of the satrapy
of Media in North-western Iran, in the late spring or early summer of the year 330 BC. It still
remained, however, a very true obstacle: Darius III Codomanus, as long as he was still alive,
was the lawful and rightful Iranian ḴKing of KingsḵέΝŻТЫЬЭ and foremost, what was the tiara
in the Iranian world of Darius and Alexander?! Judging by the Persepolis reliefs, it was
dantudorionescu@gmail.com
Page | 21
a kind of headgear, something in between an approximately cylindrical hat and a crown.
In the palace reliefs representing the Persian ḴKing of KingsḵΝ(ЛОΝТЭΝDКЫТuЬΝIΝШЫΝБОЫбОЬΝОЭМέ)Ν
at Persepolis palace, this was the distinctive cap reserved to the Iranian monarch. The trouble
is that, if we look attentively to these reliefs, the same headgear is also worn by other
characters, such as part of the ḴIЦЦШЫЭКХЬḵΝ(ЭСОΝОХТЭОΝЬШХНТОЫЬΝШПΝЭСОΝRШвКХήIЦpОЫТКХΝPОЫЬТКЧΝ
Guard) and some high royal dignitaries. Because of lack of proper and accurate descriptions,
either figurative or from literary sources, we cannot decide what a Persian royal tiara really
was and truly looked like in Achaemenid times. The figure which stands behind the throne
of the Persepolis ḴżЫОКЭΝ KТЧРḵΝ (ЛОΝ СТЦΝ ЭСОΝ ḴżЫОКЭΝ VТгТОЫḵ,Ν СТЬΝ ЬОМЫОЭΝ МШuЧЬОХХШЫ,Ν
or the Crown Prince, the designated Son and Heir apparent to the Persian tСЫШЧО,ΝЭСОΝKТЧР’ЬΝ
successor in other words) is also wearing the same type of headgear as the seated ḴKing
of Kingsḵ,Ν КЧНΝ КЬΝ аОХХΝ ЬШЦОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ PКХКМОΝ żuКЫНЬΝ КЧНΝ НТРЧТЭКЫТОЬέΝ δШШФТЧРΝ КЭΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЭвpОΝ
of archaeological and iconographical testimonies as the Achaemenid Palace reliefs, we are
still in the dark of how a Persian royal tiara truly looked like in Achaemenid times.
We however know, from Greek-Latin literary sources that crowning an individual with
the tiara was an essential ritual element in the crowning rite of Persian ḴKings of KingsḵέΝ
We should therefore return to our sources. Plutarch1 wrote that after the battle of Gaugamela,
AХОбКЧНОЫΝ СКЬΝ ЛООЧΝ pЫШМХКТЦОНΝ ФТЧРΝ ШПΝ AЬТКΝ (ία δζ ὺμΝ μΝ Ἀ έαμ).2 This happened after
the burning of Persepolis (in fact of the palace of Xerxes in Persepolis), allegedly done at
the request of the courtesan Thais (the mistress of Ptolemy son of Lagus), according also to
Plutarch,3 in order to avenge the misdeeds suffered by the Greeks by the hands
of the Persians, during the Persian Wars of the 5th century BC.
It is obvious that after the burning of Persepolis, there was great trouble
for Alexander to be able to proclaim himself King of Persia. The problem here is twofold:
why has Alexander remained so long in Persepolis (from December 331/January 330 BC
until April/May 330 BC)? The responses differ: the thesis of Engels4 is that he has been
retained by the ice and snow blocking the mountain passes of Zagros (Western Iran), while
Green5 supposes that Alexander patiently waited for the Persian (and Iranian generically
speaking) aristocrats and Magi to recognize Alexander as the ḴKing of KingsḵΝ ШПΝ IЫКЧ.6
1
Plut. Alex. XXXIV.1.
HAMMOND, 2003: 137-130: Alexander has assumed from the landing on the Anatolian shore and
the casting of his spear or javelin into Asian soil the quality of conqueror of Asia. At Gaugamela after
victory, this quality of overlord of Asia, assumed by Alexander after Issus in his correspondence with
DКЫТuЬΝ IIIΝ CШНШЦКЧuЬ,Ν СКЬΝ ЛООЧΝ ПuХХвΝ ЫОМШРЧТгОНΝ ЛвΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЭЫШШpЬΝ ЭСКЭΝ pЫШМХКТЦОНΝ СТЦΝ “King
ШПΝAЬТКḵέΝHAMMOND, 2003: 137-ńγλΝЬЭЫОЬЬОЬΝЭСОΝТЦpШЫЭКЧМОΝШПΝЭСТЬΝKТЧРНШЦΝШПΝAЬТКΝТЧΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ
political ideology, because he tried to focus the allegiance of his heterogeneous army and
of the heteroclite populations of his empire upon himself as their King; it was neither his intent
to conquer an Asian empire for Macedonians and/or Greeks nor to replace Darius with himself
as the new Persian “KТЧРΝ ШПΝ ФТЧРЬḵέΝ ŻШЫΝ ЭСОΝ ПТЫЬЭΝ pШЬЬТЛТХТЭвΝ СОΝ СКНΝ ЧШЭΝ ЭСОΝ КЯКТХКЛХОΝ εКМОНШЧТКЧΝ
and Greek manpower in order to colonize in depth all the lands of the Persian Empire; as for
the second, he moved not the supreme capital of his Asian Empire at Susa, Persepolis, Ecbatana,
or Pasargadae (although he continued to use these Persian royal residences, even the ravaged and half
ЛuЫЧЭΝPОЫЬОpШХТЬ,ΝКЬΝТЦpШЫЭКЧЭΝЬКЭЫКpТОЬ’ΝМКpТЭКХΝМТЭТОЬ),ΝЛuЭΝКЭΝBКЛвХШЧέΝTСОΝЫОКЬШЧЬΝПШЫΝСТЬΝchoice were
manifold and we shall not discuss them here.
3
Plut. Alex. XXXVIII.1-4 and especially Plut. Alex. XXXVIII.2-3.
4
ENGELS, 1978-1980.
5
GREEN, 1991.
6
ENGELS, 1980: 71-73 and 74-78; GREEN, 1991: 318-321. For Bessus becoming Artxerxes IV
or the V (if we consider Arses the successor of Artaxerxes III Ochus as Artaxerxes IV,). As for
2
Page | 22
The idea was essentially that Alexander patiently waited to be crowned by the Magi
and acclaimed by the noblemen of Persia as their Great King (i.e. of the Persians
and Medians). This fact, however, did not happen. Darius III Codomanus, although hidden in
the mountains of Media, in North-western Iran and present day Azerbaijan, was still
recognized by the majority of Iranian nobles as the true and lawful Iranian ḴKing of KingsḵέΝ
As long as Darius was still breathing, he was the rightful Persian King, although deprived
of the heartland of his Iranian Kingdom, Persis to the ancient Greeks or PКrs to the ancient
Persians (present day province of Fars in Iran). This explained perhaps both the extreme
action of Alexander the arsonist, the burning down of the palaces of Persepolis (on
the contrary, when he first entered Persepolis, in the early winter of 331/330 BC, Alexander
only allowed his soldiers to plunder the sacred city of Persia, but not to burn down the town),
and the pursuit of Darius across Media, Hyrcania, and Parthia (Parthyene)Ν ЛвΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ
troops. The capture (or killing) of Darius, Alexander thought, will free the Persian throne
of the King still considered legitimate by the great majority of Iranian nobility. The killing
of Darius by the hands of his satraps freed Alexander of a problem: he would not have been
endeared by the Persians if he directly killed or ordered Darius to be killed. A captured
Darius (even held in honourable captivity or turned into a high vassal prince
of the Macedonian King), on the other hand, would have been a nuisance on the long term
to Alexander, КЬΝ ЭСОΝ ПШМuЬΝ ШПΝ PОЫЬТКЧЬ’Ν ЭЫuОΝ КХХОРТКЧМОΝ КЧНΝ ЫОЬТЬЭКЧМОΝ ЭШΝ εКМОНШЧТКЧΝ
conquest.7 Only after the conquest of Hyrcania (placed by Plutarch8 after the finding
of Darius dying, who allegedly bestowed his Kingdom to Alexander, in his discourse
addressed to the Macedonian soldier Polystratus; an account however different from Arrian9
to Plutarch 10 and eventually to Curtius,11 who placed the death of Darius after the conquest
of Hyrcania by Alexander), in Parthia, Alexander has adopted for the first time the mixing
of Persian and Median clothes,12 but not the anaxyrides (trousers), and neither the sleeved
tunic or vest (named kandys), nor the tiaraέΝ TСТЬΝ ТЬΝ ОбpХКТЧКЛХОΝ ЛвΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ quКХТЭвΝ
of King of Asia, but not (or not yet) as King of Persia.13 His subsequent story is traversed
by this contradiction.
AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ uЬТЧРΝ ЭаШΝ ЬТРЧОЭΝ ЫТЧРЬ,Ν СТЬΝ ШаЧΝ ПШЫΝ źuЫШpОΝ КЧНΝ DКЫТuЬ’Ν ПШЫΝ AЬТК, (GREEN, 1991: 327334)έΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ МШТЧКРОΝ КЧНΝ ХКЭОЫΝ ЭСОΝ ЬШΝ МКХХОНΝ SТНШЧΝ ЬКЫМШpСКРuЬΝ КЫОΝ КХЬШΝ pШЫЭЫКвТЧРΝ AХОбКЧНОЫΝ
as a young Heracles (GREEN, 1991: 246-247) and therefore we cannot see any Iranian elements
ТЧΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝТМШЧШРЫКpСвΝаСКЭЬoever.
7
Plut. Alex. XLII.3-43.3.
8
Plut. Alex. XLIV.
9
Arr. Anab. III.21.9-10.
10
Plut. Alex. XLIII.1-3.
11
Curt. V.12-13.
12
Plut. Alex. XLV.2.
13
HAMMOND, 2003: 136-ńζίΝПШЫΝЭСОΝКЬЬuЦТЧРΝЛвΝ AХОбКЧНОЫΝШПΝ ЭСОΝquКХТЭвΝШПΝ ία ζ ὺϛ ϛ Ὰ έαμΝ
(“KТЧРΝ ШПΝ AЬТКḵ)Ν ЬЭКЫЭТЧРΝ ПЫШЦΝ ЭСОΝ ЯОЫвΝ ЛОРТЧЧТЧРΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ОбpОНТЭТШЧΝ КЧНΝ ЫОТЧПШЫМОНΝ ОЬpОМТКХХвΝ КПЭОЫΝ
the victories against Darius III at Issus and Gaugamela. The first victory at Granicus established not
ШЧХвΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝЦТХТЭКЫвΝЫОpuЭКЭТШЧ,ΝЛuЭΝТЭΝСКЬΝКХЬШΝЦКНОΝСТЦΝЦКЬЭОЫΝШПΝЭСОΝ “ЬpОКЫΝМШЧquОЫОНΝХКЧНḵΝ
(ΰ ολέε ομ)ΝТЧΝσШЫЭС-western Asia Minor. Alexander has never assumed the title “KТЧРΝШПΝФТЧРЬḵΝ
ЬpОМТПТМΝШПΝЭСОΝPОЫЬТКЧΝKТЧРΝ(ία δζ ὺμΝία δζΫωθ),ΝЛОМКuЬОΝШЧΝЭСОΝШЧОΝСКЧНΝТЭΝКХТОЧКЭОНΝСТЦΝПЫШЦΝСТЬΝ
fellow comrades in arms, Macedonians and Greeks alike, and on the other hand the title of King
of Asia, if backed by decisive military victories, signified that he could subject to his rule the Persian
“KТЧРΝШПΝФТЧРЬḵέΝAХОбКЧНОЫΝКЬΝKТЧРΝШПΝεКМОНШЧΝМКЧΝЛОΝКХЬШΝKТЧРΝШПΝAЬТК,ΝХТФОΝШЧМОΝεТНКЬ,ΝЭСОΝKТЧРΝ
of Phrygia, could claim himself overlord of Asia (for Gordion and Midas that Asia was reduced
to Anatolia). NYLANDER, 1993: 145-159; HAMMOND, 2003: 140 even thinks that Alexander would
Page | 23
AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝquКХТЭв of ḴKТЧРΝШПΝAЬТКḵΝТЬΝЦОЧЭТШЧОНΝЛвΝЭСОΝżЫООФΝКЧНΝδКЭТЧΝЧКЫЫКtive
sources used by Prof. N.G.L. Hammond in his study and is profusely quoted in this article;
his quality as a ḴKing of KingsḵΝi.e. his function of Great King of Persia is not specifically
mentioned by any ancient/antique historical sources whatsoever; we encounter here
a problem, because Alexander has been of course mentioned as King of Macedon (or rather,
King of the Macedonians), as King of Babylon, as Pharaoh of Egypt, by various literary,
epigraphic, and numismatic sources. He appears also as the King of Asia after winning his
three battles of Granicus, Issus, and especially of Gaugamela. He appeared mentioned
nowhere as the ḴKing of KingsḵΝШПΝPОЫЬТКЧЬΝКЧНΝεОНОЬέΝTСОΝЭТЭХОΝШПΝḴKТЧРΝШПΝAЬТКḵΝСКЬΝЛООЧΝ
used in mythical times by the Phrygian Kings Gordion and Midas, although they ruled only
a part of Anatolia and not even the whole of Asia known to the Greeks
in the 12th-8th centuries BC, the time span when they were supposed to have lived. This title
has been granted upon them by the will of Zeus (vide the legend of the Gordian knot
ТЧΝHОЫШНШЭuЬ’ΝHistoriae КЧНΝТЧΝAЫЫТКЧ’ЬΝAnabasis Alexandri).14
The idea advanced by Hammond in his above quoted study is even more extreme
than the general thesis of Alexander acting as the rightful successor of Darius III and even
of him as ḴЭСОΝ ХКЬЭΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ AМСКОЦОЧТНЬḵ,Ν КΝ МХКТЦΝ ЭСКЭΝ ЬЭКЫЭОНΝ аТЭСΝ JέBέΝ BuЫв’ЬΝ ПТЫЬЭΝ ОНТЭТШЧΝ
of A History of Greece 15 and is brilliantly defended and upheld by Professor P. Briant in his
many books and studies devoted to this theme.16 It stated that Alexander wanted only to be
recognized as ḴKТЧРΝ ШПΝ AЬТКḵΝ ЛвΝ КХХΝ IЫКЧТКЧЬ,Ν DКЫТuЬΝ IIIΝ CШНШЦКЧuЬΝ ТЧМХuНОН,Ν КЧНΝ ЭСКЭΝ СТЬΝ
adoption of a mixed Persian-Median attire when he reached Parthia-Hyrcania17 was designed
to accommodate the Asians with that idea, although it does not mean that he was the heir
of Darius as Persian ḴKing of KingsḵέΝIЭΝПuЫЭСОЫΝТЦpХТОЬΝЭСКЭΝЭСОЫОΝаКЬΝ(ТЧΝAМСКОЦОЧТН Asia,
including Egypt) still in use the idea of a ḴKТЧРЬСТpΝШПΝAЬТКḵΝЭСКЭΝаКЬ,ΝТЧΝЭСОΝЦТЧНЬΝШПΝDКЫТuЬ’Ν
former subjects, superior to the dignity of the Persian Great King or ḴKing of KingsḵέΝ
Moreover, when Darius had been decisively bested in battle by Alexander at Gaugamela,
he had lost for good this title (if Darius ever held this title) of ḴKТЧРΝШПΝAЬТКḵΝ(ФЧШаЧΝЭШΝuЬΝ
only from Greek sources) in favour of Alexander. PХuЭКЫМС’ЬΝ ЬШuЫМОΝ ТЧΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЫОЬpОМЭΝ ТЬΝ
considered to be Eratosthenes, who is at the distance of a century or so after Alexander, and it
is thought of as a source worthy of respect; on the other hand, the testimonies of Diodor,18
Justin19 and Curtius,20 КЬΝаОХХΝКЬΝAЫЫТКЧ’Ь21 regarding the adoption by Alexander of Persian
dress or of favouring the Persian way of dressing above the Macedonian, are seen as most
pЫШЛКЛХвΝНОЫТЯТЧРΝПЫШЦΝCХОТЭКЫМСuЬ’ΝЬЭШЫвΝШПΝAХОбКЧНОЫΝРЫКНuКХХвΝНОЭОЫТШЫКЭТЧРΝПЫШЦΝКΝЦШЫКХΝ
point of view under the Asian pernicious influence and of his growing despotic whims,
have let Darius III to continue as Persian “KТЧРΝ ШПΝ ФТЧРЬḵ,Ν uЧНОЫΝ ЭСОΝ ЬШЯОЫОТРЧЭвΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫΝ
as overlord and “KТЧРΝШПΝAЬТКḵ,ΝКЧΝКХХОРКЭТШЧΝаСТМСΝЬОems to me at least debatable.
14
Hdt. VIII.136; Arr. Anab. II.3.4-6; HAMMOND, 2003: 140: “When Alexander claimed on the shore
of Troad to be accepting Asia from the gods, he was speaking as as King of Macedon. He intended
ЭШΝМШЦЛТЧОΝЭСКЭΝKТЧРЬСТpΝаТЭСΝЭСОΝKТЧРЬСТpΝШПΝAЬТКḵέ
15
BURY, 1900.
16
HAMMOND, 2003: 140; BRIANT, 2001: 108-119; 118-119 although this very fact does not
contradict the primarily conqueror nature of Alexander the foreign warrior king who plundered
the Iranian Empire.
17
Plut. Alex. XLV.2.
18
Diod. XVII.77.4.
19
Just. Epit. XII.3.8,
20
Curtius. VI.6.4.
21
Arr. Anab. IV.9.9.
Page | 24
designed to humiliate his fellow Macedonians.22 τЭСОЫΝ ЦОКЬuЫОЬΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’Ь,Ν ЬuМСΝ
as using the signet ring or the seal of Darius for the letters destined for Asia and his own seal
ЫТЧРΝ ПШЫΝ ЭСШЬОΝ НОЬЭТЧОНΝ ПШЫΝ źuЫШpО,Ν СТЬΝ ОЧУШвТЧРΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ pХОКЬuЫОЬΝ ШПΝ DКЫТuЬ’Ν СКЫОЦΝ ШПΝ ЭСЫООΝ
hundred and sixty or three hundred and sixty five concubines, his indulging in the pleasures
offered by the eunuchs (the Bagoas case), even his (almost clearly invented) affair with
the Amazon Queen Thalestris,23 all these are seen as clear proofs of the unreliability
ШПΝCХОТЭКЫМСuЬ’ΝЭОЬЭТЦШЧвμΝКПЭОЫΝКХХ,ΝЭСОΝЬКЦОΝаТХХΝаЫТЭОΝЭСКЭΝAХОбКЧНОЫΝКЭΝBКЛвХШЧΝСКНΝШЧХвΝ
one seal ring and not two (anulum quo ille regni atque imperii res obsignare erat solitus)24.
There are different clues pointing to Alexander either assuming the title of ḴKing
ШПΝAЬТКḵΝШЫΝШПΝСТЦΝЭЫвТЧРΝЭШΝЬuppХКЧЭΝDКЫТuЬ as ḴKing of KingsḵέΝIЦЦОНТКЭОХвΝКПЭОЫΝЭСОΝЛКЭЭХОΝ
of Issus, the Macedonian victor ordered that gold coins were issued; these monetary issues
represented on the obverse the helmeted head of Athena and on the reverse a standing
goddess Nike. On the helmet of Athena has been represented a gryphon: although usually
the gryphon was represented as a fantastic bird-СОКНОНΝМЫОКЭuЫО,ΝЭСОΝРЫвpСШЧΝШПΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ
coins was a lion-headed fantastic animal. This lion-РЫвpСШЧΝШЧΝAЭСОЧК’ЬΝСОХЦОЭΝКЧНΝТЧΝżЫООФΝ
Art in general has been seen by G.F.Hill and by W.W.Tarn after him as a mythical creature
ОЧОЦвΝШПΝPОЫЬТКΝКЧНΝЭСОЫОПШЫОΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝМШТЧЬΝаТЭСΝЭСОΝХТШЧ-РЫвpСШЧΝШЧΝAЭСОЧК’ЬΝСОХЦОЭΝ
symbolized AlexandОЫ’ЬΝ ЬШЯОЫОТРЧЭвΝ ШЯОЫΝ PОЫЬТКέΝ σέżέδέΝ HКЦЦШЧН,Ν ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ШppШЬТЭОΝ ЬТНО,Ν
thought (more correctly) in my opinion that the coins issued by Alexander after Issus
and figuring on the one side the goddess Athena with helmet and lion-gryphon and on
the other side the goddess of Victory (Nike), represented only the victory of Alexander
against the Persians and against Darius III Codomanus (ultimately the victory of Macedon
against Persia) and therefore the enmity of the lion-gryphon (symbol of Macedon and Greece
or symbol of Alexander himself) against Persia and the Persian ḴKing of KingsḵΝ (КЭΝ ХОКЬЭΝ
ТЧΝ ЭСТЬΝ pСКЬОΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ МКЦpКТРЧ,Ν ТЦЦОНТКЭОХвΝ КПЭОЫΝ ЭСОΝ ЛКЭЭХОΝ ШПΝ IЬЬuЬΝ ТЧΝ γγγΝ BC) 25.
Hammond further based his argumentation on the last eighteen months of Alexander’ЬΝХТПО,Ν
when he did not act (at least ritually) as the successor of Darius III Codomanus. Alexander
had nevertheless restored the tomb of Cyrus the Great, the founder of Persian Empire and he
distributed money to the Persian women, when he returned from India to Persia.26 All these
symbolic gestures were characteristic gestures of a Persian Great King or ḴKing of KingsḵΝ
of Iran. Other symbolic gestures of a Great King of Persia Alexander did not perform. He has
not driven a royal Persian war chariot dragged by Nisaean grey stallions and, although he did
sit on the throne of Darius at Susa in 331 BC,27 he has never sat in full Iranian kingly attire on
ЭСОΝ PОЫЬТКЧΝ ЫШвКХΝ ЭСЫШЧО,Ν uЧНОЫΝ ЭСОΝ аТЧРОНΝ SuЧΝ DТЬФΝ ШПΝ AСuЫКΝ εКгН ,Ν ЫОМОТЯТЧРΝ
the proskynesis of his subjects and royal vassals (satraps, dynasts, and princes of the realm).
Even more so, by his burning oПΝ ЭСОΝБОЫбОЬ’Ν PКХКМОΝКЭΝ PОЫЬОpШХТЬΝ ТЧΝЭСОΝ ЬpЫТЧРΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ вОКЫΝ
330 BC he had cut short any possible full identification between him and his Persian
Achaemenid predecessor, the unfortunate ḴKing of KingsḵΝ DКЫТuЬΝ IIIΝ CШНШЦКЧuЬέΝ Most
interesting between these pros and cons remain the homage and honor paid by Alexander to
22
HAMMOND, 2003: 140.
Curt. VI.5.32.
24
Curt. VI.5.32.
25
HAMMOND, 2003: 142, n.51 and n.52.
26
Plut. Alex. LXIX.1 and Arr. Anab. VI.29.8.
27
After the battle of Gaugamela, (Plut. Alex. XXVII and LVI) for the episode of Demaratus
of Corinthus weeping in seeing Alexander on the Persian royal throne and Alexander being too short
КЧНΝ ТЧΝ ЧООНΝ ПШЫΝ КΝ ЬЭШШХΝ ЭШΝ ЫОЬЭΝ СТЬΝ ПООЭΝ аСОЧΝ ЬТЭЭТЧРΝ ШЧΝ БОЫбОЬ’Ν ШЫΝ DКЫТuЬ’Ν ЭСЫШЧОΝ КЧНΝ ЭСОΝ ЬКНЧОЬЬΝ
ШПΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝОuЧuМСЬΝКЭΝЭСТЬΝpТЭТПuХΝЬТРСЭ (Diod. XVII.66.3-7 and Curt. V.2.13).
23
Page | 25
the memory of Cyrus II the Great, as ḴПШuЧНОЫΝШПΝЭСОΝPОЫЬТКЧΝźЦpТЫОḵΝКЧНΝḴKТЧРΝШПΝAЬТКḵέ28
The Persian Empire and Asia appear as identical political and territorial entities
and by becoming ḴKiЧРΝШПΝAЬТКḵΝAХОбКЧНОЫΝМШuХНΝЛОМШЦОΝЫuХОЫΝКЧНΝЦШЧКЫМСΝШПΝЭСОΝPОЫЬТКЧΝ
Empire without having to be ritually crowned by the Persian and Median Magi and noblemen
as ḴKing of KingsḵΝШПΝIЫКЧέΝTСОЫОΝТЬΝКХЬШΝЭСОΝШЛЯТШuЬΝpЫШpКРКЧНКΝЬЭШЫвΝШПΝDКЫТuЬΝIIIΝpЫКвТЧРΝ
that Alexander should sit on the throne of Cyrus29 and the logos quoted by Arrian30
ЭСКЭΝ AХОбКЧНОЫΝ ЬСШuХНΝ ТЧСОЫТЭΝ DКЫТuЬ’Ν pШаОЫΝ КЬΝ KТЧРΝ ШПΝ AЬТКέΝ АОΝ ЬООΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЭТЭХОΝ ШПΝ ḴKing
ШПΝAЬТКḵΝuЬОНΝКЬΝКΝЬuЛЬЭТЭuЭОΝШЫΝОЯОЧΝКЬΝЦШЫОΝОЧМШЦpКЬЬТЧРΝЭСКЧΝthe title of ḴKing of KingsḵΝ
or ḴżЫОКЭΝ KТЧРḵΝ ШПΝ PОЫЬТКέΝ CuЫЭius31 even records that the Persians mourned Alexander
at Babylon in June 323 BC as being ḴЭСОΝЦШЬЭΝЫТРСЭОШuЬΝКЧНΝЦШЬЭΝРОЧЭХОΝЦКЬЭОЫḵΝКЧНΝОЯОЧΝ
as ḴЭСОΝ ЦШЬЭΝ ЫТРСЭОШuЬΝ ФТЧРΝ ШПΝ ЭСОТЫΝ ЫКМОḵ,Ν КΝ МХКТЦΝ НuЛТШuЬΝ КЭΝ ХОКЬЭΝ ТЧΝ HКЦЦШЧН’ЬΝ ОвОЬΝ
(he sees that as a story concocted after the event for propaganda reasons).32 The portent
ШПΝ ЭСОΝ uЧФЧШаЧΝ ЦКЧΝ ЬТЭЭТЧРΝ ШЧΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЫШвКХΝ ЭСЫШЧОΝ КЭΝ BКЛвХШЧΝ аКЬΝ НОЬМЫТЛОНΝ
by Aristobulus and his tale has been preserved by Arrian.33 The eunuchs seeing this event
СКppОЧТЧРΝ uЧНОЫΝ ЭСОТЫΝ ОвОЬΝ (ЭСОΝ uЧФЧШаЧΝ pОЫЬШЧΝ ЬКЭΝ ШЧΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ОЦpЭвΝ ЭСЫШЧОΝ КЧНΝ
this very fact, kata de tina nomon persikon, according to some Persian custom, made
the Asian eunuch attendants to beat their breasts in desperation and rent apart their clothes,
but dared not to interfere. This fact happened during a military parade, when Alexander
and his Companions oversaw the drafting of the new Persian and Iranian troops
into the existing Macedonian units or into the Macedonian army as a whole (the Iranian units
keeping thus their separate ethnic identity, although by this date they have been clearly
trained and armed according to Macedonian discipline and training standards and equipped
with Macedonian weaponry).34 This event of the unknown man who dared to sit on the empty
ЫШвКХΝ ЭСЫШЧО,Ν УuЬЭΝ ЛОПШЫОΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ НОКЭС,Ν СКЬΝ ЛООЧΝ ЯКЫТШuЬХвΝ ТЧЭОЫpЫОЭОН.35 The Asian
eunuchs, trained into the rigors of Persian etiquette and court protocol concerning the royal
throne, dared not to interfere with the unknown man (who proved to be a mentally deranged
person) and therefore did not attempt to stop him, but only lamented the bad omen.36
TСОΝ ЦШЦОЧЭΝ аСОЧΝ ЭСТЬΝ ОЯОЧЭΝ ЭШШФΝ pХКМОΝ аКЬΝ УuЬЭΝ ЛОПШЫОΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ НОКЭС,Ν ЛuЭΝ КПЭОЫΝ
the Macedonian mutiny at Opis and the weddings of Susa, where and when the alleged
Verschmelzungspolitik (policy of fusion) of Alexander was in full swing. We shall not dwell
here on the disputed issue of Blutvermischung (the mixing of Macedonians and Asians or
at least between Macedonians and Iranians) deliberate policy between Macedonians
КЧНΝ IЫКЧТКЧЬ,Ν ЛuЭΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ТЬЬuОΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЦТбОНΝ МШuЫЭΝ НЫОЬЬέΝ PХuЭКЫМСΝ ТЧΝ СТЬΝ Vita
28
Arr. Anab. VI.29.8.
Plut. Alex. XXX.
30
Arr. Anab. IV.20.3.
31
Curt. X.5.9 and X.5.17.
32
GREEN, 1991: 307-γίκΝПШЫΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝЬТЭЭТЧРΝШЧΝDКЫТuЬ’ΝЭСЫШЧОΝКЭΝSuЬКΝКЧНΝПШЫΝЭСОΝаОКЯТЧРΝpuЫpХОΝ
cloth sent in good faith as a present from Alexander to the Persian Queen Mother Sisygambis and
ЭСОΝ НКuРСЭОЫЬΝ ШПΝ DКЫТuЬΝ КЧНΝ SТЬвРКЦЛТЬ’Ν ЫОКМЭТШЧΝ ЭШΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ РТПЭΝ ЬООЧΝ ЛвΝ СОЫΝ КЬΝ КЧΝ ТЧЬuХЭΝ
КЧНΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝquТМФΝЫОКМЭТШЧΝЭШΝКpШХШРТгО,ΝЛОМКuЬОΝСОΝЧООНОНΝЭСОΝМКpЭuЫОНΝAМСКОЦОЧТНΝЫШвКХΝХКНТОЬΝ
in his future political designs; HAMMOND, 2003: 143 for the symbolic gestures done and not done
(res gestae et non gestae) by Alexander in order to legitimize his royal rule over Persia .
33
Arr. Anab. VII.24.1-3.
34
GREEN, 1991: 307-308.
35
It has been interpreted as a case of a kind of substitute king (ROSS, 2016: 96-100; FOX, 2016:
103-115). For a complete view on the link between Greek-Macedonian and Babylonian-Assyrian
methods of divination (UŁAστАSKI, 2016: 59-87).
36
HAMMOND, 2003: 143.
29
Page | 26
Alexandri 37 described that in Parthia or Hyrcania the Macedonian King has for the very first
time adopted some mixed elements from the Median and Persian kingly dress.
In the De Alexandri fortuna aut virtute I 8 (330 a)=FGrH 241 F 30, Plutarch explicitly quotes
on this very topic Eratosthenes.38 By closely reading Arrian39 one can see that after
the quelling of the Opis Macedonian mutiny (the late summer of the year 324 BC), Alexander
has publicly prayed and sacrificed to the gods for the homonoia te kai koinonia tes arches
(the mutual understanding and the community of dominion) between Macedonians
and Persians in ruling the empire. The Macedonians did not appear as taking lightly to heart
ЭСТЬΝ ХТЧОΝ ШПΝ КМЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ КЧНΝ ЭСОΝ ЬШΝ МКХХОНΝ ЫОМШЧМТХТКЭТШЧΝ КЧНΝ СКЫЦШЧвΝ ЛОЭаООЧΝ
ЭСОΝ εКМОНШЧТКЧЬΝ КЧНΝ ЭСОΝ IЫКЧТКЧЬΝ КЭΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ МШuЫЭΝ КЧНΝ ТЧΝ СТЬΝ КЫЦвΝ аКЬΝ ПЫКРТХО,Ν ЭШΝ ЬКвΝ
the least.40 AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝЦКЫЫТКРОΝЭШΝRСШбКЧОΝТЧΝγβκΝBCΝТЧΝЭСОΝЦТНЬЭΝШПΝСТЬΝBКМЭЫТКЧ-Sogdian
campaign of conquest and terror, the subsequent creation of the Iranian soldiers trained
and armed in the Macedonian fashion (the so called heirs or Epigonoi), the mixed banquet
between the Macedonian and Iranian comrades in arms after the end of the Opis revolt
of the Macedonian soldiery, and eventually the mass weddings of Susa were all steps seen
by modern historians of a deliberate policy of Alexander to reconcile and finally unite
the Macedonians and the Persians. There could be also an alternative thesis; all these
supposed steps of Alexander are being contingency measures in dealing with punctual
moments of crisis. We do neither intend to dwell here at length of the existence or nonОбТЬЭОЧМОΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝЦКЬЭОЫΝ pХКЧΝТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МЫОКЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ПuЭuЫОΝТЦpОЫТКХΝ ОХТЭОΝ КЧНΝ КЫЦвΝ аТЭСΝ
mixed origins nor on the Hypomnemata (Memoirs) read by Perdiccas in front
of the Macedonian soldiers at Babylon in June 323 BC, just after Alexander has died.
Diodorus Siculus, most probably drawing from his main source Hieronymus of Cardia, writes
that Alexander intended (according to the Hypomnemata read by Perdiccas at Babylon)
to mix the peoples of Europe and Asia and therefore create a cultural and racial unity
of mankind. This last point, the unity of humankind achieved by mixed marriages
КЧНΝ ЭЫКЧЬПОЫΝ ШПΝ pОШpХО,Ν ТЬΝ ТЧΝ ТЭЬОХПΝ СТРСХвΝ НОЛКЭКЛХОΝ КЬΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ШЫТРТЧКХΝ НОЬТРЧ.41
The innovations in the Macedonian simple court protocol and the adoption by Alexander
of the elaborate and complex Persian ceremonial at his itinerant royal court could be a sign
for Alexander trying to imitate and emulate his Persian royal predecessors. That does not
make him outright a Persian Achaemenid ḴKing of Kingsḵ,Ν ЛuЭΝ ТЬΝ КΝ ЬЭОpΝ ШЫΝ КΝ ЛЫТНРОΝ ЛОТЧРΝ
built between the Macedonian royal conqueror and the conquered but still noble born Iranian
aristocrats. Alexander firstly took into his entourage Asian staff bearers (rabdouchoi
Asiageneis) as chamberlains, Asian eunuchs as royal attendants; he used the services
of the harem of 360 royal wives and concubines of the defeated Darius III. He adopted from
the Median and Persian royal costume the diadem, the white stripped tunic, and the girdle
(КЧНΝ КХЬШΝ DКЫТuЬ’Ν ЫТЧРΝ seal). He surrounded himself with a body guard of distinguished
Iranian noblemen, along with his Macedonian somatophylakes, and Oxyathres the brother
of Darius, who distinguished himself with conspicuous bravery in the battle of Issus was
КЦШЧРΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’s noble body guards. Alexander had also distributed Persian scarlet robes
37
Plut. Alex.
BOSWORTH, 2003: 208-210, n.23.
39
Arr. Anab. VII.11.8-9.
40
Arr. Anab. VII.6.1-5; VII.8.2; VII.11.1-4; VII.11.8-9; Curt. X.3.5-6; Diod. XVII.109.3; Plut. Alex.
LXXI.4; Just. Epit. XII.12.1-6 apud BOSWORTH, 2003: 209, n.8-9.
41
BOSWORTH, 2003: 209, n.15 for Diod. XVII.110.2 and the creation of a mixed MacedonianIЫКЧТКЧΝ pСКХКЧбέΝ TСОЫОΝ ТЬΝ КХЬШΝ ЭСОΝ pШЬЬТЛХТЭвΝ ЭСКЭΝ PОЫНТММКЬΝ СКЬΝ ЭКЦpОЫОНΝ аТЭСΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ШЫТРТЧКХΝ
plans and inserted some ideas to make ЭСОΝ KТЧР’ЬΝ ХКЬЭΝ pХКЧЬΝ ЭСОΝ ХОКЬЭΝ pКХКtable to his Macedonian
troops.
38
Page | 27
and Persian horse harness to his Macedonian Companions (hetairoi). He is described as more
and more inclined to Asian license and luxury (tryphe).42 His mixed Macedonian
and Median-Persian attire in some occasions (such as combining the Macedonian hat
or kausia with the royal Persian diadem, the royal clothes which were the royal Persian tunic
and girdle, but not or not yet the upright tiara or kidaris/kitaris, and neither the purple
trousers nor the long-sleeved kandys shirt) could as well suggest that he has become
the ḴKing of KingsḵΝ КЧНΝ ḴKТЧРΝ ШПΝ AЬТКḵΝ КЬΝ аОХХ,Ν ЛuЭΝ КХЬШΝ ЭСКЭΝ СОΝ аКЬΝ ТЧΝ СТЬΝ СКЫНΝ МШЫОΝ
a Macedonian King assuming also the Kingship of Asia (Persia included); the wearing
of the Macedonian kausia with the Persian royal diadem suggested just that: the hat was
Macedonian, but the superimposed diadem (a royal strip of cloth) was Persian.43 Alexander
went even further and he even recreated the Persian royal military guard of melophoroi
for his own personal close protection and protocol use (as both a guard of honor and a body
guard of elite Persian soldiers).44 In all these respects, Alexander has acted in fact as a Persian
ḴKing of KingsḵέΝ εШЫОШЯОЫ,Ν КЭΝ ХОКЬЭΝ КММШЫНТЧРΝ ЭШΝ źpСТppus of Olynthus, a source usually
СШЬЭТХОΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ εКМОНШЧТКЧΝ KТЧР,Ν AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЦТбОНΝ МШuЫЭΝ НЫОЬЬΝ СКЬΝ ЛООЧΝ КΝ ЭКЫРОЭΝ ШПΝ СТЬΝ
εКМОНШЧТКЧΝ ЬШХНТОЫЬ’Ν МШЦpХКТЧЭЬΝ КЭΝ τpТЬΝ ТЧΝ γβζΝ BC.45 According to this narrative source,
Alexander has worn the Persian royal diadem on and around the Macedonian hat (kausia)
and he adopted also the Persian white-striped tunic, but over this Persian tunic he also wore
a Macedonian mantle or cloak, the chlamys.46 His mixing of traditional Macedonian
and Iranian attire was most probably intentional, in order to symbolize both the MacedonianEuropean and the Iranian-Asian kingship, in fact a double kingship, of Macedon and of Asia
(or Persia in the sense of the former Achaemenid Empire). The ambiguity of his Asian royal
power is thus reflected and signified by his mixed royal costume. This Macedonian-Iranian
mixed costume and the other court innovations were however a late phenomenon, dating
from the years 324-323 BC. In order to truly understand these protocol innovations
introduced by Alexander at his (after all) Macedonian itinerant royal court, one should return
to the summer of 330 BC after the assassination of Darius by his satraps Nabarzanes,
Barsaentes, Bessus, and Satibarzanes, as well as the adoption by Bessus (who immediately
fled to Bactria) of the high crown or royal tiara of the Achaemenid ḴKing of KingsḵΝКЧНΝСТЬΝ
assuming the royal name of Artaxerxes. He immediately turned to pursue Bessus to Bactria,
he captured and punished him, putting him to death as a regicide, a traitor to Darius, and
as an usurper. When he returned from India to Iran in 325-324 BC and learned that a certain
Orxines, descended directly from Cyrus II the Great has usurped his royal power in Persis,
while a certain Ordanes rose up in arms as leader of an insurrection in Southern Iran and
the Mede Baryaxes has assumed the royal tiara in the satrapy of Media, he immediately
reacted and punished them all by death.47 Apart from the challenge against his royal
42
BOSWORTH, 2003: 211, n.29-30 see Diod. XVII.77.4-7; Curt. VI.1-10; Just. Epit. XII.3.8-12.;
Plut. Alex. XLV.1-4 and Arr. Anab. IV.7.4-5. Even more so, Arr. Anab. IV.7.4 and the Itinerarium
Alexandri 88 stated that Alexander has allegedly adopted the upright royal tiara that is the kitaris
of a true Persian King. This in turn would have lead to Alexander being properly crowned
by the Iranian religious and lay aristocratic elite as a “KiЧРΝШПΝФТЧРЬḵ,ΝКΝПКМЭΝЭСКЭΝНШОЬΝЧШЭΝКppОКЫΝТЧΝКЧвΝ
of the preserved ancient Classical sources.
43
BOSWORTH, 2003: 213. According to Arr. Anab. IV.7.4 and VII.29.4, this adoption by Alexander
of the Persian dress (or of elements of it) was a stratagem, a sophisma or a trick to win over the so
called (by the ancient Greeks, of course) Persian barbarians (BOSWORTH, 2003: 211, n.31).
44
BOSWORTH, 2003: 215.
45
BOSWORTH, 2003: 214, n.60.
46
BOSWORTH, 2003: 214, n.60.
47
BOSWORTH, 2003: 212-213 and 213-214.
Page | 28
authority, it appears that the wearing of the high tiara meaning Kingship over Iran was seen
particularly offensive and dangerous by Alexander the Great. Other measures of Alexander,
such as the attempts to the introduction of the proskynesis ritual and his argument
at Maracanda in 328 BC with Cleitus the Black that resulted in the killing of this leading
Companion (hetairos) and Macedonian warrior or the trial and exccution of Hermolaus
and of the Royal Children (Basilikoi Paides) involved in the conspiracy (327 BC) and
the subsequent imprisonment and death of his personal historian and biographer Callisthenes,
all these were reactions of the most conservative faction of his Macedonian-Hellenic
entourage against his increased so to speak ḴIЫКЧТгКЭТШЧḵ.48 The creation of a close protection
body guard unit of Persian noblemen (numbering among them the brave Iranian noble
аКЫЫТШЫΝ τбКЭСЫОЬ,Ν DКЫТuЬ’ΝШаЧΝ ЛЫШЭСОЫ,Ν аСШΝ СКЬΝ НТЬЭТЧРuТЬСОНΝ СТЦЬОХПΝ КЭΝ IЬЬuЬΝЛвΝ МШЯОЫТЧРΝ
with his own body and heroic fighting the flight of his royal brother and who has killed
in combat many a Macedonian) as well as a Persian royal guard of doryphoroi or melophoroi
(exactly as Darius III once had besides his so called ḴIЦЦШЫЭКХЬḵ)Ν КЧНΝ ЭСuЬΝ НШuЛХТЧРΝ
his Macedonian somatophylakes and his Macedonian agema (the Guard Battalion/taxis
of the Hypaspistai/Shield Bearers or Argyraspides/Silver Shields and possibly also
the Ile Basilike/Royal Squadron of the Companion Cavalry/Hippeis Hetairoi and the Phalanx
Guard Battalion of the Pezetairoi)Ν аКЬΝ КΝ МХОКЫΝ ЬЭОpΝ ЭШаКЫНЬΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ТЧМЫОКЬОНΝ
ḴPersianizaЭТШЧḵΝКЧНΝКΝЦОКЬuЫОΝаСТМСΝОЧЫКРОНΝШЫΝКЭΝХОКЬЭΝШuЭЫКРОНΝСТЬΝεКМОНШЧТКЧЬέΝAННТЧРΝ
insult to injury, he distributed also among his Macedonian noble warriors and courtiers
(his hetairoi from Macedon) the traditional purple robes of the Persian Achaemenid courtiers
and high born or high ranking Iranians49. PЫШПОЬЬШЫΝAέBέΝBШЬаШЫЭСΝЬООЬΝЦШЫОΝТЧΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ
adorning of Macedonian aristocrats with Persian robes and pageantry a sign that
the Macedonians are the victors and conquerors, while the Iranians remained the vanquished
party, the defeated and the conquered people. Be it as this may, but the symbols
of the courtiers, their most visible sign and symbol being dress, were Persian and very soon
КПЭОЫΝ DКЫТuЬ’Ν НОКЭСΝ ТЧΝ PКЫЭСТКΝ PОЫЬТКЧΝ КЧНΝ εОНТКЧΝ КЫТЬЭШМЫКЭЬΝ ОЧЭОЫОНΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЬОЫЯТМОΝ
in his army as royal guards and even body guards and even as satraps (starting with Mazaeus
at Babylon, immediately after Gaugamela). After the Hyrcanian expedition in the summer
of 330 BC and after the death of Darius, during the rest of his troops in Parthia, Alexander
started to use the mixed Median-Persian royal dress. It was now autumn 330 BC and
Alexander was apparently the sole ruler of Iran and Asia. Suddenly he received back then
news that the regicide and traitor Bessus, now a fugitive towards his native satrapy of Bactria,
has assumed the royal kitaris or high tiara and the kingly name of Artaxerxes. He therefore
moves immediately his army and himself in pursuit of Bessus. During his stay at Susa,
Persepolis, Pasargada, and Ecbatana, the four capitals of the Persian Empire, we do not know
that Alexander was ever recognized as a Persian King and he in all probability was not
ritually crowned at Pasargadae as the heir and successor of Cyrus II the Great (his burning
of the PersОpШХТЬΝ БОЫбОЬ’Ν PКХКМОΝ ТЬΝ КΝ СТЧЭΝ ШПΝ СТЬΝ ПЫuЬЭЫКЭТШЧΝ аТЭСΝ PОЫЬТКЧΝ ЧШЛТХТЭвΝ КЧНΝ
especially with Persian and Median Magi, the Iranian religious elite).50 The last great acts
48
First Cleitus at Maracanda in Sogdiana and then Hermolaus had even openly reproached Alexander
just that during his trial (Plut. Alex. LI.2 cf. 71.3 and Curt. VIII.7.12 and VIII.10-13; BOSWORTH,
2003: 214, n. 57, 58).
49
The Phoinikistai or Purpurati Persian noblemen (Xen. An. I.2.20 and V.7-8; Curt. III.2.10, III.8.15,
III.13.13; BOSWORTH, 2003: 212, n.33).
50
BOSWORTH, 2003: 212, n.34-39 for the ancient sources used. For example, Hephaestion has been
appointed to the command of the Companion Cavalry in late 330 BC, afte the murdering of Philotas
and Parmenion (Arr. Anab. III.27.4) and at an unknown date he also became chiliarchos or Grand
Vizier, a Persian title meaning „CШЦЦКЧНОЫΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ τЧОΝ TСШuЬКЧНḵΝ (chiliarchus in Old Persian was
Page | 29
of internal policy of Alexander which hinted at a reconciliation and future cooperation
of Macedonian and Iranian elites were the peace banquet after the mutiny of Opis and
the weddings of Susa. It is worth mentioning that at Opis it was indeed a symposion
and prayers to the gods in order to insure the future (not present day yet) koinonia tes arches
between Macedonians and Persians. As for the weddings of Susa, Professor Bosworth is here,
in my humble opinion absolutely right: it was not an equal matrimonial union between
Macedonians and Iranians, but a union where only the Macedonian and Greek high ranking
army officers and courtiers (some eighty or ninety bridegrooms) were given Persian
and Iranian noble born ladies, Alexander himself marrying two Achaemenid princesses
and Hephaestion one Achaemenid princess; no Persian or generally speaking Iranian
nobleman was given any high born Macedonian or Greek lady, nay, not even a lower ranking
Macedonian or Greek woman. The bridegrooms were exclusively Macedonian (and in
a lesser proportion Greeks naturalized in Macedon like Nearchus of Crete) and the brides
were exclusively high born girls from the Iranian nobility. No Persian, Bactrian, Sogdian
or Median lord ever married then a Macedonian aristocratic lady or even a Greek
noblewoman. This divide was further reinforced lower in the military hierarchy
by recognizing as lawful the free unions contracted by Macedonian and other Balkan soldiers
ШПΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ(IХХвЫТКЧΝКЧНΝTСЫКМТКЧΝКuбТХТКЫвΝЦОЧ,ΝżЫООФΝЦОЫМОЧКЫТОЬΝКЧНΝЬШΝШЧ)ΝКЧНΝAЬТКЧΝ
girls and women; there were around ten thousand of such European-Asian couples
acknowledged by Alexander as rightful marriages at Susa, where the male was always
an European born soldier and the female an Asian girl: European husband and Asian wife
always, not the other way around. This can be hardly seen as an equal footing between
Macedonians and Europeans on the one side, and Persians, Iranians, and Asians on the other.
In wedding they remained separated by the cutting line between vanquishers and vanquished,
where the conquerors always took the women of the conquered and the opposite was never
true. Even the disposition in space of the troops around the central rallying point of the royal
tent of Alexander was revealing, the innermost ring of soldiers being always Macedonian and
the second circle being of Iranian warriors that entered Macedonian service. More so,
the Iranian counter army (antitagma) prepared by Alexander from fresh Iranian recruits
trained and armed in Macedonian style (the 30000 Epigonoi or Iranian youthful conscripts),
the Iranian cavalry of the Euakes or Euakai, his new mixed Macedonian-Iranian phalanx,
his Iranian body guards and so on and forth, all these military innovations Alexander used
only at Opis to frighten his own rebellious Macedonian veterans with displacement
and replacement. After the formal reconciliation between the King and his old Macedonian
warriors, the Iranian youths trained in Macedonian military ways were relegated to their usual
secondary position with respect with the older Macedonian fighters. Alexander trusted more
after all his elderly European and especially Macedonian fighting men than his newly
recruited Iranian boys and young men, brave warriors but inexperienced on the battlefield and
especially not so reliable as the Macedonians were and have proved to be. After all, they have
been conscripted first and foremost to deplete their satrapies of a potential source of armed
rebels and insurgents, to serve as hostages ensuring the loyalty of their respective families,
and to supply a trained force for the type of warfare the Iranians of the Upper Satrapies
practiced (especially in the case of the Eastern Iranian cavalrymen). The Persian and Iranian
brides served a wholly different purpose: they were destined to become the future mothers
of a mixed blood offspring and their sons and daughters will provide the new elite
ПШЫΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝЛЫКЯОΝЧОаΝаШЫХН,ΝЫОpХКМТЧРΝТЧΝЭТЦОΝЛШЭСΝЭСОΝШХНОЫΝεКМОНШЧТКЧΝКЧНΝIЫКЧТКЧΝ
known as hazarapatis)έΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝassuming some trappings of Persian royalty in Bactria is recorded
by Diod. XVII.77.4; Curt. VI.6.1; Plut. Alex. XLV.1.
Page | 30
nobility, too much linked to the Macedonian traditions and to the Achaemenid Persian past
respectively.51
To sum things up: it is unclear whether Alexander has ever assumed or not the high tiara
or kidaris/kitaris crown of the Achaemenid Persian ḴKing of KingsḵέΝ HТЬΝ pЫОЭОЧЬТШЧЬΝ
to Persian Kingship were dubious, to say the least, and entitled only through right of conquest
or the law of the sword. Might was and still is right, only as long as the conquered and ruled
think the conquerors are stronger than themselves and feel weak enough not being able to rise
up in arms, defeat their oppressors, and govern themselves. In all probability, Alexander
had not been ritually crowned by the Persian and Median Magi as ḴKing of KingsḵΝ
and acknowledged as such by the Iranian aristocracy. His title as ḴKТЧРΝ ШПΝ AЬТКḵΝ (Basileus
tes Asias) received by the acclamation of his victorious army at Gaugamela was after all
the result of a military pronunciamiento of his Macedonian troops, the only soldiers of his
army with the constitutional rights to acclaim their King as such. We ignore how much this
royal title signified a thing to his new Asian subjects. His stays in Egypt and Babylon had
nevertheless given him the aura of Egyptian Pharaoh and Babylonian King, monarchs who
аОЫОΝ ЭСШuРСЭΝ ЛвΝ ЭСОТЫΝ ЬuЛУОМЭЬΝ КЬΝ ЛОТЧРΝ аШЫХНΝ ЫuХОЫЬέΝ HТЬΝ (AХОбКЧНОЫ’Ь)Ν СОКНРОКЫΝ КppОКЫОНΝ
to have been a mixed one, combining the Macedonian hat (kausia) with the Persian royal
diadem (a strip of cloth worn around the head or around the headgear of the king; be it
helmet, hat, or ḴМЫШаЧḵ)έΝHТЬΝЦТбОНΝСОКНРОКЫ,ΝКЬΝаОХХΝКЬΝСТЬΝЦТбОНΝЫШвКХΝНЫОЬЬΝ(МШЦЛТЧТЧРΝ
Median, Persian, and Macedonian elements) signified both his double quality as Macedonian
King and as ḴKТЧРΝ ШПΝ AЬТКḵΝ (ЛвΝ AЬТКΝ ЦОКЧТЧРΝ ЦКТЧХвΝ ЭСОΝ ПШЫЦОЫΝ PОЫЬТКЧΝ AМСКОЦОЧТНΝ
Empire, the borderlands of Egypt, Northwestern India, and Eastern Iran-Southwestern
Central Asia being also under his sway, as they were in the heyday of Persia, during the reign
of Darius I) and his unsolvable dilemma: he could not play forever these two roles,
51
GREEN, 1991: 446-447 (and 453-ζηιΝКЛШuЭΝЭСОΝτpТЬΝЦuЭТЧв)ΝПШЫΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝpШХТМвΝШПΝЧШЭΝХОЭЭТЧРΝ
the Iranian ladies to marry Iranian noble born men, in order not to let very powerful and tremendously
rich Iranian families to form matrimonial alliances with one another and sometime in the not so distant
future to threaten to militarily displace the Macedonian conquerors. Every Iranian highly born
aristocratic lady married to a Macedonian high ranking gentleman meant less opportunity
for an Iranian nobleman to find a female match in an Iranian family equal or at least comparable to his
rank. He was therefore forced, in order to continue his lineage, to marry in the lower rank nobility
of Iran. As for the children resulted from the free unions between the Macedonian (and generally
European) soldiers and Asian concubines (and wives after the Susa mass marriages), the boys were
destined to becomОΝЭСОΝЧОаΝРОЧОЫКЭТШЧΝШПΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝЬШХНТОЫЬΝКЧНΝЦТННХОΝКЧНΝХШаОЫΝЫКЧФΝЛuЫОКuМЫКЭЬ,Ν
ФЧШаТЧРΝ ЧШЭСТЧРΝ ШЭСОЫΝ ЭСКЧΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЦТХТЭКЫвΝ МКЦpΝ КЧНΝ ТЭТЧОЫКЧЭΝ ЫШвКХΝ МШuЫЭ,Ν ФЧШаТЧРΝ ЧШΝ ШЭСОЫΝ
allegiance than that due to Alexander himself. For the dilemmas of AlexandeЫ’ЬΝФТЧРЬСТpΝ(BADIAN,
1996: 248-256). Alexander has married in fact a few Iranian aristocratic women, who served also his
purpose of binding their families to him: first the Iranian noble lady Barsine the widow of Memnon
of Rhodes and the daughter of Artabazus, who became short time after Issus his mistress and almost
his wife (out of this union was probably born his alleged son Heracles; GREEN, 1991: 245) and then
his hypothetical liaison with Stateira the captured wife of Darius, a love affair denied by all the ancient
Greek and Latin sources on Alexander (GREEN, 1991: 287); only after these dalliances followed his
marriage with Rhoxane in Bactria or Sogdiana in the year 328-327 BC and in the end his twofold
marriage at Susa with Stateira the daughter of Darius III Codomanus and with Parysatis the daughter
of Artaxerxes III Ochus (in order of being the royal husband of two Achaemenid Princesses, from two
different branches or lineages of the same Achaemenid royal family), while Hephaestion married
the youngest daughter of Darius III, named Drypetis (GREEN, 1991: 369-372), for Alexander s policy
in Bactria and Sogdiana in marrying Rhoxane and drafting the 30.000 Iranian youths
in the Macedonian army (GREEN, 1991: 447-448; SUCEVEANU, 1993: 148.
Page | 31
as the mutinies at Hyphasis first (326 BC) and Opis later (324 BC) showed him. We can see
that the so called ḴЫОЛОХЬḵΝ ШПΝ IЫКЧТКЧΝ КЫТЬЭШМЫКЭТМΝ ЛКМФРЫШuЧН,Ν ХТФОΝ BОЬЬuЬΝ ТЧΝ γγίΝ BCΝ
or Baryaxes and Orxines in 325-324 BC were obviously more entitled to the royal Persian
title in the contemporary Iranian eyes than Alexander ever truly was; every time when
a so called Iranian ḴЫОЛОХḵΝ ШЫΝ ḴТЧЬuЫРОЧЭḵΝ ЫТЧРΝ ХОКНОЫΝ ШЫΝ аКЫХШЫНΝ КЬЬuЦОНΝ ЭСОΝ КЭЭЫТЛuЭОЬΝ
of Persian Kingship (the high tiara crown called kidaris or kitaris), Alexander high geared
his offensive and decisively dealt with the so called ḴuЬuЫpОЫḵΝ (Тn fact a freedom fighter
chieftain and an Iranian dynast in his own right, perhaps even kin to the former Achaemenid
ЫuХТЧРΝ RШвКХΝ HШuЬО)έΝ TСШЬОΝ ПКМЭЬΝ ЬТРЧКХΝ ЭСОΝ ПuЧНКЦОЧЭКХΝ аОКФЧОЬЬΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ШаЧΝ
pretentions to rule not the Achaemenid Empire as a whole, but Persia or Iran, including Fars
(PКrs or Persis): in Persian and Iranian eyes, despite some collaborators from the high
КЫТЬЭШМЫКМвΝ ШПΝ IЫКЧΝ (КЧНΝ аСШΝ ЫОЦКТЧОНΝ КΝ ПОаΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ ОЧНΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЫОТРЧ),Ν
the Macedonian conqueror king never was a true ḴKing of KingsḵΝ НuЫТЧРΝ СТЬΝ ХТПОЭТЦОέΝ
AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ uЧЭТЦОХвΝ НОКЭСΝ КЭΝ BКЛвХШЧΝ ТЧΝ ОКЫХв-middle June 323 BC spared him from
the disillusions of a failed world empire, which could not be kept alive except from
ЭСОΝСШЫЬО’ЬΝЬКННХОΝЬШΝЭШΝЬpОКФνΝЛuЭ,ΝКЬΝШЧОΝШПΝCТЧРСТz-KСКЧ’ЬΝCСТЧОЬОΝШЫΝTuЫФТМΝКНЯТЬОЫЬΝШЧМОΝ
said (a long time after Alexander) that an empire is conquered on horseback, but it can never
ЛОΝ ЫuХОНΝ КХаКвЬΝ ЬТЭЭТЧРΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЬКННХОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ аКЫΝ СШЫЬО,Ν ЬШΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ПТЧКХΝ pХКЧЬΝ
of conquering the rest of the known world meant only that his empire was too brittle and frail
to last.52 Alexander has died in the chosen centre of his newly conquered empire, as
the Indian sage once told him to return from the edge of the known world to its centre and
consolidate his empire, a huge task even for Alexander the Great. He nevertheless could
not stand still and become the peaceful empire ruler and chief manager; he, as his ancestor
Greek heroes Achilles and Heracles, lived only for warlike deeds and conquest and died
young because of disease and possibly also foul play. In death, after a millennium or so,
he became what he always yearned for during his lifetime: the Š С Gahandar and
the Š С nš С in Persian Epics.
BADIAN, 2003: 258 states that Alexander has basically “had to remain content with an insecure
МХКТЦΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ СОЫТЭКРОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ AМСКОЦОЧТНЬḵέΝ AЬΝ ПШЫΝ ЭСОΝ КНЦШЧТЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ TuЫФТМ-Chinese counselor
to Cinghiz or Gengis Khan, see BRĂTIANU, 1988: vol. 2.
52
Page | 32
Bibliography
Sources
PlutКrМСˀs LТvОs VII, Demosthenes and Cicero Alexander and Caesar, tr. B. PERRIN, LondonCambridge, Mass. 1967.
Arriani Anabasis, ed. C. ALBICHT, Lipsiae 1889.
Marci Juniani Justini Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi, accedunt Prologi
in Pompeium Trogum, ed. F. RUEHL, A. GUTSCHMID, Lipsiae 1886.
Xenophon, The Anabasis of Cyrus, tr. W. AMBLER, New York 2008.
Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, tr. J. YARDLEY, London 1984.
The History of Herodotus, tr. G. RAWLINSON, New York 1858.
Diodori Bibliotheca historica, 5 vols., ed. F. VOGEL, C. TH. FISCHER, Lipsiae 1888-1906.
Literature
BADIAN, E. (1996), Alexander the Great between Two Thrones and Heaven: Variations on an Old
Theme, [in:] Alexander the Great A Reader, I. WORTHINGTON (ed.), London-New York, 245-262.
BOSWORTH, A.B. (2003), Alexander and the Iranians, [in:] Alexander the Great A Reader,
I. WORTHINGTON (ed.), London-New York, 208-235.
BRĂTIAσU, G.H. (1988), MКrОК NОКРră, Bucharest.
BRIANT, P. (2001), Alexandru cel Mare, Bucharest.
ENGELS, D.W. (1980), Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army,
Berkeley-Los Angeles-London
FOX, R.L. (2016), Alexander and Babylon: A Substitute King?, [in:] Alexander the Great and
the East: History, Art, Tradition, K. NAWOTKA, A. WOJCIECHOWSKA (edsέ),ΝАЫШМṢКа,Νńίγ-115.
GREEN, P. (1991), Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography, Berkeley-Los
Angeles-Oxford.
HAMMOND, N.G.L. (2003), The Kingdom of Asia and the Persian Throne, [in:] Alexander the Great
A Reader, I. WORTHINGTON (ed.), London-New York, 136-147.
NYLANDER, C. (1993), Darius III: the Coward King? Point and Counterpoint, [in:] Alexander
the Great: Reality and Myth, J. CARLSEN, B. DUE, O.ST. DUE, P. BIRTE (eds.), Rome, 145-159.
ROSS, M.T. (2016), Belephantes to Alexander: An Astrological Report to a Macedonian King?, [in:]
Alexander the Great and the East: History, Art, Tradition, K. NAWOTKA, A. WOJCIECHOWSKA
(edsέ),ΝАЫШМṢКа, 96-100.
SUCEVEANU, Al. (1993), Alexandru cel Mare, Bucharest.
UŁAστАSKI, K. (2016), The Methods of Divination used in the Campaigns of the Assyrian Kings
and Alexander the Great, [in:] Alexander the Great and the East: History, Art, Tradition,
K. NAWOTKA, A. WOJCIECHOWSKA (edsέ),ΝАЫШМṢКа,Ν59-87.
Page | 33
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Svyatoslav V. SMIRNOV (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow)
Revising Seleukid Iconography:
A Person Wearing Helmet and Conflict of Imageries
Abstract
The present paper focus on the coin type ḴNike crowning trophyḵ, which many scholars
believe to be the first original Seleukid type. It was issued for several years since 305 BC by the mint
of Susa. Despite its limitation to local eastern circulation, this motif seems to have had the potential
of playing a key role in constructing the royal image and expressing Seleukid ideological claims.
The main aim of the paper is to identify a portrait of a helmeted person, which occupies an obverse
type. Taking into account art symbolism and semantics of the portraitit seems most preferable not
to identify a person wearing helmet with someone precise Alexander or Seleukos, but to describe it
neutrally as a heroic figure assimilating Dionysos, Heracles, Alexander and Seleukos as conquerors
of India or widely the Orient.
Keywords: Seleukids, iconography, Hellenism, Alexander the Great, Heracles, Dionysos
Introduction
For decades, manyaspects of the Seleukid numismatic iconography permanently
attractedgreat scholarly attention. Since 19th century, when the first numismatic works were
published, the problems of the Seleukid iconography have caused much ink to spill. But even
being so deeply integrated into research to occupy a huge part of the Seleiukid studies, early
Seleukid numismatic iconography is still a field fordebates among numismatists
and historians. Recently the studies on this matter were put into context of the so-called
Ḵvisual turn studiesḵ that in its turn makes it possible to refocus common attention on various
components of visuality such as –visual narrative, visual culture, visual space
and environment, continuity and rupture of iconographic tradition etc. Following this, each
imagery should be widely regarded as a reaction to cross-cultural clashing of different visual
traditions.
This study mainly focuses on the Seleukid coin type – ḴNike crowning trophyḵ
or ḴVictoryḵ coinage of Susa.1 This coinage is of a great historical interest not only because
its originality – it is often taken as the first original Seleukid coin type, but also because its
iconographic uniqueness. Key subject of this paper is to seek the identification of a heroic
bust wearing a horned helmet, which occupies an obverse type of these coins.
1
Institute of World History; SmirnovSV3@yandex.ru
HOUGHTON, LORBER, 2002: nos. 173-176.
Page | 35
The coin type in question has traditionally received a significant scholarly attention,
but the accurate identification of a person wearing helmet is still debatable. Initially, a person
аОКЫТЧРΝСОХЦОЭ’ΝСКЬΝЛООЧΝТЧЭОЫpЫОЭОНΝКЬΝSОХОuФШЬΝIΝКЬЬТЦТХКЭОНΝЭШΝDТШЧвЬШЬέΝTСТЬΝЬuРРОЬЭТШЧΝ
was firstly given by Ḵfounding-fathersḵ of Hellenistic numismatic Imhoof-Blumer and
E. Babelon.2 Based on that very fact that this coinbore the name of Seleukos, they concluded
that a person wearing helmet should be identified as Seleukos. But some contradictions
seriously problematize this thesis. Firstly, this is the problem with physiognomy.The portrait
of helmeted head is much idealized and differs from that one of the commemorative coins
of Seleukos, which display Ḵmore realisticḵ portrait. Anyway, the interpretation of a helmeted
head as Seleukos was taken by many scholarsas locus communis for several decades
of 20th century.
In his paper of 1974 R. Headley challenged this view and provided new interpretation
of a person wearing helmet as Alexander assimilated to Dionysos.3 Hadley pointed out
that Seleukos I as well as later Seleukids never associated themselves with Dionysos,
and what is more important, Seleukos has not been deified until after his death. Based on this
suggestion, Hadley was suspicious of such an early evidence for his deification. For Headley,
a person wearing helmet most likely could be Alexander, who clearly cultivated
ЭСОΝ МШЦpКЫТЬШЧΝ аТЭСΝ DТШЧвЬШЬέΝ ŻЫШЦΝ HОКНХОв’ЬΝ ЬЭuНвΝ КЧНΝ ШЧ, this point of view became
common in historiography. In 1980 A. Houghton МШЦТЧРΝ upΝ аТЭСΝ HКНХОв’ЬΝ ЬuРРОЬЭТШЧ,Ν
contributed some new events to this interpretation.4 In 1999 he published a new tetradrachm
of Seleukos I from Ecbatana.5 Revers of this coin has a depiction of a rider, wearing a horn
helmet which reminiscent of that one of a helmeted head. Some attributes of the image
allowed Houghton to conclude that this depiction presents a non-remained till now mounted
statue of Alexander. But the connection of the rider with Dionysiac cult remain speculative –
ОбМОpЭΝ ЛuХХ’ЬΝ СШЫЧЬΝ КЧНΝ ОКЫЬΝ ЭСОЫОΝ КЫОΝ ЧШΝ ЦШЫОΝ DТШЧвЬТКМΝ ЬвЦЛШХЬέΝ τЧΝ ШppШЬТЭО,Ν КХХΝ ЭСОЬОΝ
symbols could be interpreted not only as Dionysiac, but rather associated with many different
Greek and non-Greek deities.6
In 2002 O. Hoover got back to the initial identification and added some
new arguments tothe interpretation of a person wearing helmet as Seleukos.7 He mainly
addresses to the organization of the royal cult of the early Hellenistic rulers. Hoover pointed
out that Seleukos was granted by divine honors and was proclaimed as Neos Dyonysos
by inhabitants of Greek cities or army on his return from the East. As a result, this deification
was later reflected on the issued coins. The ḴNike crowning trophyḵ type seems to have had
the potential of playing a key role in constructing the royal image and expressing Seleukid
ideological claims. However, the ideological background of this royal effort is still unclear.
For what reason and based on what considerations, Seleukos struck the first coins of the new
royal dynasty for such design (which no doubts had to be of a great ideological weight)
if he did not intend adopting the Dionysiac symbolism for his later coins and propaganda?
Thus, none of these points are fully evincible. The features of the iconography of this
coin call several problems with interpretation making each attempt to some extant
BABELON, 1890: БVέΝ SООΝ КХЬШΝ σОаОХХ’ЬΝ ТНОЧЭТПТМКЭТШЧΝ КΝ pОЫЬШЧΝ аОКЫТЧРΝ СОХЦОЭΝ КЬΝ SОХОuФШЬέΝ
ESM nos. 300-301.
3
HADLEY, 1974: 9-13.
4
HOUGHTON, 1980: 5-14.
5
HOUGHTON, STEWART, 1999: 27-35.
6
ERICKSON, 2012: 120-124.
7
HOOVER, 2002: 51-60.
2
Page | 36
speculative. The general question is whose portrait may adorn these coins. All debates
eventually come to two opposite opinions weather the helmeted head should be identified
as Alexander assimilated Dionysus or otherwise an idealized portrait of Seleukos wearing
Dionysiac attributes.
“Nike crowning trophy” type: general remarks
Before taking a close look at iconography, it would be useful to give a brief overview
concerning the coin type itself. The present coin bears the obvers type of a heroic bust
wearing a horned helmet, and a reverse displaying Nike crowning a trophy with a wreath.
This coin type was issued by the mint of Susa for several years since 305 BC. Coin hoards
evidence suggests that ḴNike crowning trophyḵ issues were in use at some eastern satrapies
(particularly at Persis) and had limited circulation. In fact, among 23 coin hoards contained
ḴNike crowning trophyḵ coins, 19 are from Persis that means a small area for its circulation.
B. Kritt supposes that these coins were struck to finance the military campaign of Seleukos
in Persis against rebellious local elites.8 But fortunately, there are some Persian imitations
of ḴNike crowning trophyḵ. This coinage is supplied by local Aramaic monograms, which
puггХОЬΝ ЭСОΝ KЫТЭЭ’ЬΝ ЬuРРОЬЭТШЧέΝ TСОЬОΝ ТЦТЭКЭТШЧЬΝ аОЫОΝ uЧНШuЛЭОНХвΝ ЫОХОКЬОНΝ ЛвΝ КΝ ХШМКХΝ
workshop for some economic reasons. But ideologically the decision to copy the coins
of the opponent does not seem reasonable enough. Moreover, these coins seemed to be
in circulation after Selekid power over Persia was defeated. From other hand,
the iconography of ḴVictoryḵ coins may be somehow familiar to locals and was explored
as a means to legitimize the power of new dynasty.
In terms of iconography, ḴNike crowning trophyḵ is typical victorious motif. This
iconographic motif was highly popular among many Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic rulers
to be displayed on their coins. This imagery was widely spread as far west as Sicily and as far
east as Drangiana. But this coin type was rarely reissued by later Seleukids. In fact, there is
only a single and modest issue of Antiochos I from Drangiana region.9 Occasionally the motif
of ḴNike crowning trophyḵ was employed for bronze reverse or for seals. However,
what should deserve principal attention and what with some regrets still could not be
adequately explained is that the main mint, which issued these coins and seals, wasa
workshop of Seleukia on the Tigris. Here the ḴNike crowning trophyḵ motif was struck on
rare bronze series under some Seleukid kings.10 The latest known ruler, who used this motif,
was Seleukid usurper Molon.11 Such a popularity of this motif brings us to that very idea that
it was a long-stand imagery tradition, which later was adopted by some local rulers for
legitimizing their power by referring to Seleukos I and probably to earlier tradition.
The detailed analysis of the reverse imagery deserves to be investigated as a principal study
and shall not occupy us here, whereas we will rather center upon a person wearing helmet.
A person in helmet: problems with physiognomy
Analyzing the iconography of ḴVictoryḵ coinage, many scholars usually address to
portrait features of a person wearing helmet. However, it is clear even at first sight that this
portrait is not personalized with some real individual features. As it was noted by O. Hoover,
the physiognomy of the helmeted head is not enough to provide a secure identification
8
KRITT, 1997: 82.
HOUGHTON, LORBER, 2002: nos. 226-228.
10
HOUGHTON, LORBER, 2002: nos. 388, 390, 457, 776.
11
HOUGHTON, LORBER, 2002: nos. 950.
9
Page | 37
of the portrait.12 Nevertheless, the physiognomic analysis is a highly-complicated matter
of research and needs to be investigated as careful as possible. Of course, this problem is far
too complex to discuss here, but it is important to remember that in the case of physiognomy
we are not actually dealing with the real portraits, but rather idealized images. In fact,
in many cases, the portrait on the coin is not virtually linked to any real person. Hence our
research could run into serious difficulty.
As it was noted, the Ḵrealḵ portrait features of Seleukos undoubtedly differ from those
of a person wearing helmet. We have some commemorating coins and seals at disposal
displaying a realistic portrait of a ruler, which is commonly believed to be that one
of Seleukos I.13 These coins and seals show a head of a man with a strict and heavy look,
deeply sunken eyes under strong brows, slanting down, prominent cheekbones – all these
traits are responsible for the severe expression of the face. At the same time, among the most
distinctive portrait traits of a person wearing helmetare strong chin and straight nose. In terms
of physiognomy we have two different portraits belonged to two different persons. Despite
such a clear difference in physiognomy, O. Hoover is optimistic about that idea that helmeted
head bears some very slight physiognomic resemblance to the famous bust of Seleukos I kept
now by Naples Museum.14 From one hand, there are indeed some common features
of the face like nose, chin and cheeks, but from other we are not completely sure whether we
are dealing here with two portraits of the same person, or just a wider iconographic tradition
and its later representation by unknown Hellenistic or Roman artist.
According to other opinion, physiognomic features of a person wearing helmet could
resemble the portrait of Alexander.15 However, here our research may turn out to be a blind
alley, because none of the known portraits of Alexander does not have any notableart features
which somehow correlated with a person wearing helmet. But anyway, it is nevertheless
possible to highlight some common traits between portrait of a person wearing helmet
and that one of Alexander conflated with young Heracles, wearing lion skin. The last
oneserved as popular silver reverse image of the coins of Alexander himself and of many
DТКНШМСШТΝКПЭОЫаКЫНЬέΝSШЦОΝЧuКЧМОЬΝШПΝЬЭвХОТЧΝНОpТМЭТЧРΝШПΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝМСТЧΝКЧНΝЧШЬОΝМШuХНΝ
strongly allude to a person wearing helmet. But in this case, there is no ground not to see
in this image a kind of composite, an idealized portrait, which was produced regardless
concrete personal or individual physiognomic traits.
No doubts that the study on physiognomy makes a clear sense for actual research.
However, conclusions based on the analysis of physiognomy are full of conventions
and ambiguities. R. Fleischer pointed out that the common features of the faces of many early
Hellenistic rulers are much too strong to be realistic.16 In other words, many Hellenistic
portraits present closely similar features of physiognomy and traits of the face. Most of them
emphasize severity and virtue. These portraits were clearly influenced by the representation
of Heracles, the prototype of a man who is still strong even in his mortality. It was the most
popular interpretation of Heracles, who was widely worshiped by Diadochoi.
The representation of such an energetic and strong hero seemed to guidemany Diadochoi.
12
HOOVER, 2002: 52.
HOUGHTON, LORBER, 2002: nos. 323.
14
HOOVER, 2002: 54.
15
HOUGHTON, 1999: 29.
16
FLEISCHER, 1996: 31.
13
Page | 38
Dionysiac symbolism
Despite its scientific value, the physiognomy is hardly able to be a key
for identification of a person wearing helmet while the analysis of art features could bemore
helpful. Consequentially, to solve the problem with the portrait it would be more successful
to turn our attention to the art symbolism of the helmeted head.
The picture presents the helmet covered with panther or leopard skin and decorated
аТЭСΝ ЛuХХ’ЬΝ ОКЫЬΝ КЧНΝ СШЫЧЬΝ ХТФОаТЬОΝ ЭСОΝ ЦКЧЭХОΝ ЦКНОΝ ПЫШЦΝ pКЧЭСОЫ’ЬΝ ЬФТЧΝ КЧНΝ ЭТОНΝ КЫШuЧНΝ
the neck. Many scholars univocally consider them as symbols of Dionysos. In Greek
mythology Dionysos was honored as conqueror of India. At first glance it is very tempting
to agree, that this Dionysiac symbolism, which clearly addresses to the conquest of India and
more widely the East, could have been perfectly adopted by Seleukos to present Dionysos
as a god protector of his young dynasty. But the main problem comes from that very fact
that later Seleukids never worshipped Dionysos in a special way, not to mention that
they never considered him as god-protector or dynastic deity. Based on this contradiction,
few scholars tend to assume that a person wearing helmet might have not been Seleukos but
opposite Alexander, who was associated himself with Dionysos.17
The Dionysiac symbols of the ḴVictoryḵ coinage seem to be very often taken
for granted. However, if the panther skin should be accepted as a symbol of Dionysos,
ЭСОΝЛuХХ’ЬΝОКЫЬΝКЧНΝСШЫЧЬΝМШuХНΝЛОΝЫОХКЭОНΝЭШΝНТППОЫОЧЭΝżЫООФΝКЧНΝ(аСКЭΝТЬΝЦШЫОΝЬТРЧТПТМКЧЭ)
non-Greek deities and more likely to ГОuЬέΝTСОΝЭЫКНТЭТШЧКХΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝТМШЧШРЫКpСвΝНШОЬЧ’ЭΝ
have any links to Dionysos at all. The famous horned portrait of Alexander, which has been
often represented by Diadochoi on their coins, is highly different from that one of a person
wearing helmet. It is obvious that in contrast to a person wearing helmet, which is
КММШЦpКЧТОНΝ аТЭСΝ ЭСОΝ ЛuХХ’ЬΝ СШЫЧЬ,Ν AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ pШЫЭЫКТЭΝ ТЬΝ КНШЫЧОНΝ ЛвΝ ЭСОΝ ЫКЦ’ЬΝ СШЫЧЬέΝ
In the light of Dionysiac discourses, such a difference is particularly significant. It seems
to be more reasonable to see in these horns a more general symbol of power in additional
horns.
IЭΝТЬΝаШЫЭСΝЧШЭТЧРΝЭСКЭΝЭСОΝНОМШЫКЭТШЧΝШПΝЭСОΝЫШвКХΝpШЫЭЫКТЭΝаТЭСΝЛuХХ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬΝТЬΝаОХХknown from the Diadochoi and on. Thus, we have a portrait of Dimetrios Poliorcetes adorned
by horns, celebrating his naval successes. In this context, the most illustrative is example
of Greco-Bactrian iconography. There is a great deal of portraits of more than six Bactrian
rulers, carried this art element. Apparently, there is no positive evidence to conclude that
ЛuХХ’ЬΝОКЫЬΝКЧНΝСШЫЧЬΝПЫШЦΝBКМЭЫТКЧΝpШЫЭЫКТЭЬΝЬСШuХНΝСКЯОΝЛООЧΝЬЭЫШЧРХвΝТЧЭОЫpЫОЭОНΝКЬΝНТЯТЧОΝ
attributes of Dionysos. Probably, this art device could have been a matter of double
interpretation.
TСОЫОΝ КЫОΝ ЦШЫОΝ ЫОКЬШЧЬΝ ЭШΝ ЬООΝ ТЧΝ ЛuХХ’ЬΝ ЬвЦЛШХЬΝ ЭСОΝ ХТЧФΝ ЭШΝ HОЫКМХОЬέΝ AММШЫНТЧРΝ
to Appian,18 ЬЭКЭuОЬΝ ШПΝ SОХОuФШЬΝ IΝ аОЫОΝ НОМШЫКЭОНΝ аТЭСΝ ЛuХХ’ЬΝ СШЫЧЬ.19 But Appian does not
associate it with the cult of Dionysos. Oppositely, he makes an allusion to the connection
of horns with the cult of Heracles.20 Appian reports that statues of Seleukos were horned
because he held a bull, which tried to escape during a sacrifice made by Alexander.
Interestingly, that the story certainly presents Seleukos as Heracles alluded both
ЭШΝЭСОΝSОХОuФШЬ’ΝЬЭЫОЧРЭСΝКЧНΝЭШΝHОЫКМХОЬ’ΝПКЦШuЬΝНООНέΝ
17
HOUGHTON, 1999νΝεØRKHτδε, 1991: 72.
App. Syr. 57.
19
About horned statues of Seleukos see: ERICKSON, 2012: 121.
20
MEHL, 1986: 9.
18
Page | 39
Helmet symbolism and Near Eastern iconographic background
The problem with the identification of helmeted head is that the helmet itself as a key
element of visual narrative never received principal attention. On the contrary, in the context
of the visual narrative of the imagery, its semantic significance is obvious. As far as we
know, the Hellenistic iconography rarely depicts a ruler wearing helmet. A virtual exclusion
was already-mentioned portraits of Bactrian rulers. Seleukid coinage provides only few
МКЬuКХΝ ОбКЦpХОЬέΝ AЦШЧРΝ ЭСОЦΝ ЭСОΝ ЦШЬЭΝ ТЦpШЫЭКЧЭΝ ТЬΝ ЭСОΝ ХТЦТЭОНΝ ЬОЫТОЬΝ ШПΝ DОЦОЭЫТШЬ’Ν IIΝ
bronzes issued by the mint of Seleukeia on the Tigris soon after the city was recaptured
by the Seleukid king from the Parthians. The obverses of three coin types bear three portraits
of Demetrios with three different headdresses – lion scalp, elephant scalp and helmet.21
These headdresses are of long-stay Hellenistic iconographic tradition to depict the Ḵtriumphal
motifḵ for celebrating a significant victory.
There are many reasons to agree with Arthur Houghton that a person wearing helmet
could have a double interpretation. The presentation of a ruler wearing helmet, notably
in horned helmet, was familiar to the eastern iconography. Thus, one of the earliest examples
of such iconographic tradition was the image of Acadian ruler Naram-Sin dated back from III
millennium BC.22 Under these circumstances, there seems to have been a broad near eastern
tradition to depict a ruler wearing horned helmet, which later give an influence over Seleukid
iconography. In this way, it could be predictably expected that the iconography of the first
Seleukid coins consciously targets both local and Greek population.
What is also significant is that the depiction of a ruler wearing helmet (or headdress
in whole) was widely used by the Achaemenid satraps from different parts of Persian Empire.
That the early Seleukids adopted some near eastern iconographic traditions, related
to satrapal coinage, is also very well known.23 Thus, in the context of the near eastern
imagery, the representation of a ruler wearing helmet as an obvers type became more
important for understanding the ideological claims of Seleukids. It could be also carefully
assumed that the image of a person wearing helmet can be traced back to the local eastern art
tradition. It is very reasonable to address to the coins of local eastern dynast Sophytes,
who was controlling Paropamisadae or Bactrian region during the first decades after
AХОбКЧНОЫЬ’Ν НОКЭС.24 TСОΝ НОЭКТХЬΝ ШПΝ SШpСвЭОЬ’Ν pШХТЭТМКХΝ КЧНΝ ТНОШХШРТМКХΝ ЛКМФРЫШuЧНΝ КЫОΝ ПКЫΝ
from clear. But whatever his origin and nature of his power, the coins of Sophytes offer
a great and fertile ground to research. Thus, his silver issue is characterized by the helmeted
portrait. O. Bopearachchi believes that the iconography of these coins was strongly
influenced by the ḴVictoryḵ coinage of Seleukos. The similarities between two portraits are
striking, but we know nothing about any relations between two rulers.25 Nor it is clear
аСОЭСОЫΝ SШpСвЭОЬΝ СКНΝ КЧвΝ ЫОКЬШЧЬΝ ЭШΝ КНШpЭΝ SОХОuФШЬ’Ν ТМШЧШРЫКpСвέΝ źЯОЧЭuКХХв,Ν ЭСОЫОΝ КЫОΝ
no proofs for such interpretation. At any case, it is not unreasonable to imagine that the coins
of Sophytes could have been influenced by already-existed pre-Seleukid satrapal (or any
other) iconographic tradition.
21
HOUGHTON, LORBER, 2002: nos. 1988, 1989, 1991.
HOUGHTON, STEWART, 1999: 30.
23
Seleukid most remarkable iconographic motif – “Apollo siting on omphalosḵ was undoubtedly
borrowed fronsatrapal coins of a Persian official Datames. See: BING, 1988: 41-76.
24
On the case of Sophytes see: BOPEARACHCHI, 1996: 19-32.
25
εØRKHτδε, 1993: 73 has noted that the coins of Sophytes correspond in weight to the Seleucid
issues from the Bactra mint. Based on this fact he assumed that Sophytes could be dynast under
Seleucid power.
22
Page | 40
Conclusion
As a conclusion, it is important to note that the interpretation of a person wearing
helmet may run in difficulty if the semantic connection between obverse and reverse motifs
will be neglected. For us, there are no doubts that the obverse and reverse of the coin
harmonize and must be interpreted in close connection with each other. Hence, the Nike
crowning trophy clearly direct to the triumphal and victorious motif of entire imagery.
This idea can be taken as a key point. In this way, a person wearing helmet, who was
intended to be a kind of fusion of different interpretations, had blended sematic realization.
Among different interpretation of this personage as Seleukos or Alexander, assimilated
to Dionysos or even to Heracles we recognize a clashing or rather a conflict of different
modes of viewing. But this conflict itself seems to be a key for the final interpretation.
This mix of different but concretely-someone-belonged attributes calls in mind the general
way of interpretation. From other hand, crucial element of this composition remains an Indian
background. Taking all these pieces together, it seems most preferable not to identify
a person wearing helmet with someone precise – Alexander or Seleukos, but to describe it
neutrally as a heroic figure assimilating Dionysos, Heracles, Alexander and Seleukos himself
as conquerors of India or widely the Orient.
Fig. 1. Coin of SeleuМuЬΝIΝσТМКЭШЫ,ΝBЫТЭТЬСΝεuЬОuЦΝТЧЯέΝЧШέΝβίίβ,ίńίńέńγηκ,Ν©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝ
British Museum.
Page | 41
Bibliography
Sources
Appiani historia Romana, ed. P. VIERECK, A.G. ROOS, Leipzig 1962.
Literature
BABELON, E. (1890), LОs roТs НО SвrТО, НˀArmцnТО Оt НО CommКРчnО, Paris.
BING, J.D. (1988), Datames and Mazaeus: The Iconography of Revolt and Restoration in Cilicia,
„Historiaḵ 47, 41-76.
BOPEARACHCHI, O. (1996), Sophytes, the Enigmatic Ruler of Central Asia, „Nomismatika
chronikaḵΝńη,Νńλ-32.
ERICKSON, K. (2012), Seleucus, Zeus and Alexander, [in:] Every Inch a King. Comparative Studies
on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, L. MITCHELL, C. MELVILLE (eds.),
Leiden, 109-127.
FLEISCHER, R. (1996), Hellenistic Royal Iconography on Coins, [in:] Aspects of Hellenistic
Kingship, P. BILDE, T. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, L. HANNESTAD, J. ZAHLE (eds.), Aarchus,
28-40.
HADLEY, R. (1974), Seleucus, Dionysos, or Alexander? „σuЦТЬЦКЭТМΝCСЫШЧТМХОЬḵ 14.7, 9-13.
HOUGHTON, A. (1980), Notes on the Early SeleucТН VТМtorв CoТnКРО oП ʿPОrsОpolТsˀ,
„Schweizeriche numiamatische RundschКuḵΝηλ,Νη-14.
HOUGHTON, A., STEWART, A. (1999), The Equestrian Portrait of Alexander the Great on a New
Tetradrachm of Seleucus I, „Schweizeriche numiamatische RundschКuḵ 78, 27-35.
HOUGHTON, A., LORBER, C. (2002), Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue, LancasterLondon.
HOOVER, O. (2002), TСО IНОntТtв oП tСО HОlmОtОН HОКН on tСО ʿVТМtorвˀ CoТnКРО oП SusК,
„Schweizeriche numiamatische RundschКuḵ 81, 51-60.
KRITT, B. (1997), The Early Seleucid Mint of Susa, Lancaster
MEHL, A. (1986), Seleukos NТkКtor unН sОТn RОТМСṬ IṬ SОlОukosˀ LОЛОn unН НТО EntаТklunР sОТnОr
Machtposition, Leuven.
εØRKHτδε, O. (1991), Early Hellenistic Coinage, Cambridge.
Page | 42
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
UХПΝJиżźR (Gronau-Epe, Germany)
Morion-type Helmets of Gandhāra. A rare Kušān-period
helmet-type of the 1st to the 3rd / 4th century CE – A very
first preliminary attempt
Abstract
For the short study here, the author has chosen a Kuš Ч -period type of helmet, which even
on żКЧНС Ыan sculptures and reliefs is more or less rare, but causes a special curiosity for everybody
interested in Kuš Ч arms and armament.
Keywords: Iran, Kuš Ч, żКЧНС Ыa, Morion-type, helmet
When it comes to discuss helmets of the Kuš Ч -period of the region of żКЧНС Ыa,
now part of modern Afghanistan and Northwest-Pakistan, our only real source mainly are
the sculptures of buddhist origin in schist and stucco, dating from the 1 st to the 3rd,
early 4th century CE.
Due to a lack of research within the last 37 years, caused by ongoing political turmoil
since late 1979, which did not, and does not allow scholarly archaeological research in both
countries any longer, we have not a single archaeological find of any type of Kuš Ч -period
helmet of any type at all. As a result, we fully have to rely on what the reliefs and sculptures
teach us, because a lot of Фuš Ч dress, cloth, arms and armament are shown on żКЧНС Ыan
reliefs and sculptures to understand what Kuš Ч warriors once used as such.
For the short study here, the author has chosen a Kuš Ч -period type of helmet, which
even on żКЧНС Ыan sculptures and reliefs is more or less rare, but causes a special curiosity
for everybody interested in Kuš Ч arms and armament.
That very helmet-type is one, which only can be compared to the Morion-type
of helmets, said to be of Spanish origin, and only dating back to the 16 th century CE,
when Hernan Cortez and Francisco Pizarro invaded the Inca-empire in the Ande-moutains
of Peru (Fig. 1).
Before we start to show and discuss those żКЧНС Ыan Ḵmorion-likeḵ-type of helmets
here, it should be said, that obviously much less is really known about the origin
and development of the Ḵrealḵ Spanish morion-helmets yet. While it is said that the real
Spanish morion-helmet of the 16th century CE possibly derived from the medieval Ḵkettleḵhat. Another idea is, that the Spanish word morion is based on moorish arms
ulfjaeger001@gmail.com
Page | 43
of the early 8th century CE and derived from Moro, the Spanish word for the early islamic
settlers of Spain of the early 8th century CE.
The Spanish morion consists of an iron conical top-part, and many have a sharp,
crescent-like crest on top; but more important are the upturned, two-parted rims on both
sides. These upturned rim-parts meet in shape of a pointed visor on the front, and at the end
of the helmets. Exactely the same helmet-design is shown on several depictions of warriorhelmets shown on buddhist żКЧНС Ыan schist-reliefas and as stucco-sculptures which must be
dated to the 1st to 3rd / 4th century CE.
If the title of this small article says ḴA very first preliminary attemptḵ this is not really true!
It was Albert von LeCoq, one of the organizers of the Royal Prussian Turfan
Expeditions before World War I, who in his Bilderatlas zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte
Mittel-Asiens first asked the question of the very origin of those żКЧНС Ыan morion-type
helmets, obviously shown copied from żКЧНС Ыan helmet-types on the wallpaintings
of buddhist sanctuaries at Kyzil near Kucha, on the Northern Route of the Silk Roads in
modern Xinjiang-Uyghur, PR China. It was also Albert von LeCoq who, in that very book,
asked if there might be a connection between those Spanish morion-helmets, and those
depicted in żКЧНС Ыa and on the Northern Route of the Silk Roads at Kyzil near Kucha,
dating to the 5th / 6th century CE.
We need to come back to this very question at the end of this article. Unfortunately
ЭСОΝ КuЭСШЫΝ МШuХНЧ´ЭΝ ТЧМХuНОΝ ЭСОΝ ЦШЫТШЧ-type helmets in his published PhD-degree thesis
of 2003 (2006), ЛОМКuЬОΝЭСОвΝаОЫОЧ´ЭΝШЧΝСТЬΝПШМuЬΝЭСОЧέΝ
In żКЧНС Ыan Art the here socalled morion-type helmets are not that very rare; one
of its most prominent depiction in schist is now housed in the Lahore Museum, Pakistan
under its modern Inventory-number: G-78 (old: 538), and depicts the Assault oП M КrК.
The warrior on the lower right hand side is clearly shown with his morion-helmet (Fig. 2).
The authors of various publications date this relief to the2nd / 3rd century CE.
In a schist-relief depicting the Temptation of Shakayamuni in the Freer Gallery
Washington DC, over there under the Inventory-number 49.9, we see a warrior playing
a drum on the left side of the Buddha wearing a similar morion-helmet (Fig. 3). Again this
relief in schist must be dated to the 2nd / 3rd century CE.
From the sacred area of Butkara I in Swat, Pakistan the Italian excavations
of Domenico Faccenna have brought to light several depictions in schist, again showing
the morion-helmets (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6). The site of Butkara I. usually is dated to the late
1st to the 3rd century CE.
Among the many stucco sculptures from the famous site of Hadda, close to modern
Jalalabad in Southeastern Afghanistan, excavated by the French Archaeological Delegation
VON LECOQ, 1925: 12-14, 52, fig. 46; 60, fig. 72; 62, figs.77 and 78.
JиżźR, 2006: 79-88.
INGHOLT, LYONS, 1951: 65-66, fig. 64; Gandhara, 2008: 225, fig. 163.
ROSENFIELD, 1967: fig. 81.
FACCENNA, 1962: pl. XXV, Inv.No. 3279; pl. XXVI, a) Inv. No. 3279; as well as FACCENNA,
1964: pl. CDLXXVII, b): Inv. No. 2212.
Page | 44
to Afghanistan in the 1920s, published by J.-J. Barthoux three very destinctive designed
warrior-heads, very likely once again part of depictions of the Assault oП M КrК must be
shown here (Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9). While our Fig. 7 shows the warrior with the morion and
a crested top, our Fig. 8 shows a more elaborated morion with a once tipped top and spiralled
back parts, and our Fig. 9 once again shows the morion of the warrior again with the typical
rim and crest. The absolute dates for the stuccoes from Hadda are still under debate,
but usually a date in between the 3rd and the early 5th century CE is most accepted.
A London Private Collection of Gandh Ыan Art, published by M. Wenzel in 2000,
contains a very similar head like the helmeted warrior-heads from Hadda, but it was made
of Ḵpeach clayḵ,which very likely means terracotta, and was dated 3rd to 5th century CE
(Fig. 10).
Taking all these żКЧНС ran morion-type helmets into consideration, the question
must be from which helmet-type these originate.
Looking around in the region of żКЧНС Ыa, one soon can come to the conclusion
that helmets like the one of the socalled ḴAthena of Lahoreḵ, a 2nd to 3rd century schist
sculpture of a standing goddess in the Lahore Museum, Pakistan, could show such
a prototype (Fig. 11), because it shows the upturned rim and the bowed crested top which
seems to signalize the two halves of the helmet from which these helmets seems to be
hammered from. The name Athena for this goddess, which ones hold a lance in its hands is
an old name given to the piece during the 19th century, but we actually have no real idea if
this really is true, so we have to leave open which goddess really was meant
by the żКЧНС Ыan artist.
One might come to the conclusion that the helmet of the ḴAthena of Lahoreḵ might
be that very helmet-type mentioned by J. Rosenfield for the avers-side of some rare coins of
the Kuš Ч ruler Kujula Kadphises (30 to 80 CE), for Kanishka I (127 to 153 CE), and some
of Huvishka (153 to 191 CE), called by Rosenfield ḴMacedonian soldierḵ-type (Fig. 12).
But even if this is true, the question is still open, what the prototypes of these ḴMacedonian
soldierḵ- type helmets are.
Inasmuch as we can assume, the most likely prototype for the żКЧНС Ыan moriontype like helmet is that helmet-type worn by the graeco-bactrian kings
Eucratides I (171-145 BC) and of Amyntas (85-75 BC) shown on their coins (Fig. 13). That
type of helmet seems to be the best candidate to shape as a prototype for this żКЧНС Ыan
morion-like helmet-type,because it is the only graeco-bactrian helmet-type that shows a broad
rim. As shown above, some of the helmets shown at Hadda are decorated with spirals
and tipped, pointed top-parts; these decorative elements could have been taken from phrygian
helmets.
BARTHOUX, 1930: pl. 103, d ; pl. 103, g; and pl. 104, i.
WENZEL, 2000: 158-159, fig. 60.
Gandhara, 2008: 138, fig. 65.
ROSENFIELD, 1967: 15.
JONGEWARD, CRIBB, 2015: 25, fig.1.
HOLT, 2012: pl.s 2 and 3; NARAIN, 1957/1980: 181.
PFLUG, 1989: 26, fig. 22,and 28, black-and-white drawing upper left.
Page | 45
On the other hand it seems to be necessary to admit, that there is also one other
possibility when it comes to think about the origin of this helmet-type: we cannot rule out
that there never was any prototype in metal, but were made from solid bend leather.
This would make sense in so far, if we think about the nomadic background of the Kuš Чs.
Nomadic societies use to have old traditions in leather-working, and could easily created such
morion-helmets.
Without any doubt the late-hellenistic world of Bactria and żКЧНС Ыa was very
creative and openminded to design new types of helmets like the żКЧНС Ыan morion-like one.
UЧПШЫЭuЧКЭОХвΝаОΝСКЯЧ´ЭΝПШuЧНΝЬuМСΝСОХЦОЭЬΝХТФОΝЭСОΝżКЧНС Ыan morion at any archaeological
site, but the same is true for the helmets shown on the coins of Eucratides I. and Amyntas.
For the future this does not rule out, that such helmets might come to light in excavations
as soon as regular, scholarly excavations will be possible in Afghanistan again.
The question remains, if żКЧНС Ыan morion-type like helmets could have influenced
the Ḵrealḵ 16th century Spanish morion. Theoretically there is one possibility only:
Early islamic troops could have adopted the żКЧНС Ыan morion-type like helmets during
the occupation of Central Asia in the 8th century. Soon after, they could have brought
this helmet-type to the far West of islamic Spain, which then would have inspired carolingian
illustrators to show warriors with such morion-inspired helmets. But again: unfortunately
neither any early islamic source, may it be book-illustrations or archaeological finds support
this idea! There is not a single Arab historical book-illustration of the 7th to 9th century CE
showing any warrior wearing such a helmet. Furthermore, we have no such early islamic
helmet-find neither from early islamic Central Asia, nor do we have any such helmet-finds
from early-islamic Spain. Last but not least it must be said that we have no idea why exactely
such morion-like helmets found their way into Carolingian book-illustrations. Now, does this
mean that the old theory by Albrt von LeCoq was a totally constructed one?
TСОΝКuЭСШЫΝШПΝЭСТЬΝКЫЭТМХОΝНШОЬЧ´ЭΝЭСТЧФΝЬШ,ΝЛuЭΝСОΝЛОХТОЯОЬΝЭСКЭΝаОΝЫОКХХвΝСКЯОΝЭШΝНШΝТЭΝ
with a total lack of archaeological information only. The day might come up that we get full
support for what Albert von LeCoq once theorized.
VON LECOQ, 1925: 62, fig. 78.
Page | 46
Bibliography
BARTHOUX, J.J. (1930), Les Fouilles de Hadda. III. Figures et Figurines. Album Photographique.
Memoires de la Delegation Archeologique Francaise en Afghanistan, Paris.
BOARDMAN, J. (2015), The Greeks in Asia, London.
FACCENNA, D. (1962), Sculptures from the Sacred Area of Butkara I, Roma.
GКnНСКrКṬ DКs BuННСТstТsМСО ErЛО PКkТstКnsṬ LОРОnНОn, KlöstОr unН PКrКНТОsОṬ EбСТЛТtТonCatalogue Berlin, Bonn and Zurich 2008-2009, CH. LUCZANITZ, M. JANSEN, M. STOYE (eds.),
Mainz am Rhein 2008.
HOLT, F. (2012), Lost World of the Golden King. In Search of Ancient Afghanistan, Los AngelesLondon.
INGHOLT, H., LYONS, I. (1957), Gandharan Art in Pakistan, New York.
JиżźR,Ν U. (2006), Reiter, Reiterkrieger und Reiternomaden zwischen Rheinland und Korea:
Гur spтtКntТkОn RОТtkultur гаТsМСОn Ost unН АОst, 4Ṭ- 8.Jh. n. Chr. Ein Beitrag zur Synthese von Alter
GОsМСТМСtО unН ArМСтoloРТО, Langenweissbach.
JONGEWARD, D., CRIBB, J., DONOVAN, P. (2015), Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite
Coins. A Catalogue of Coins from the American Numismatic Society, New York.
LECOQ VON, A. (1925), Bilderatlas zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Mitte-Asiens, Berlin.
NARAIN, A.K. (1957/1980), The Indo-Greeks, Bombay-Calcutta-Madras.
PFLUG, H. (1989), Schutz und Zier. Helme aus dem Antikenmuseum Berlin und Waffen anderer
Sammlungen. Antikenmuseum Basel, Schweiz, Basel.
ROSENFIELD, J.M. (1967), The Dynastic Arts of the Kushans, Berkeley-Los Angeles.
WENZEL, M. ( 2000), Echoes of Alexander the Great: Silk Road Portraits from Gandhara. A Private
Collection, London.
Page | 47
Picture captions
Fig. 1. Spanish morion-helmet of the 16th century CE (drawing by the author).
Fig. 2. Schist-ЬМuХpЭuЫОΝżКЧНС ЫК,Νβnd to 3rd century CE, of the ḴAssault of Maraḵ Lahore Museum,
Pakistan, Inv.No.: g-78 (old: 538), (after: Gandhara, 2008: 225, fig. 228).
Page | 48
Fig. 3. Schist-ЬМuХpЭuЫОΝżКЧНС ЫК,Ν
2nd to 3rd century CE, ḴTemptation
of Shakayamuniḵ, Freer Gallery of Arts,
Washington DC, (after: Rosenfield,
1967: fig. 81).
Fig. 5. Schist-sculpture żКЧНС Ыa
from Butkara, Swat, Pakistan, 2nd
to 3rd century CE, (after: Faccenna,
1964: pl. CDLXXVI, b) Inv. No. 2212).
Fig. 4. Schist-sculpture from Butkara,
Swat, Pakistan żКЧНС Ыa, 2nd to 3rd century CE,
(after: Faccenna, 1962: pl. XXV, Inv. No. 3279).
Fig. 6. Schist-sculpture from Butkara,
Swat,Pakistan, żКЧНС Ыa, 2nd to 3rd century CE,
(after: Faccenna, 1964: pl. CDLXXVII,
Inv. No. 2212).
Page | 49
Fig. 7. Stucco-head of a warrior from Hadda,
Afghanistan, 3rd to 4th / 5th century CE (?),
(after: Barthoux, 1930: pl. 103, d.).
Fig. 8. Stucco-head of a warrior from
Hadda,Afghanistan, 3rd to 5th century CE ( ?),
(after: Barthoux, 1930: pl. 103, g).
Fig. 9. Stucco-head of a warrior from Hadda, 3rd to 5th century CE, (after: Barthoux, 1939: pl. 104, i).
Fig. 10. Gandhāran schist-culpture of a goddess, called “Athena”, 2nd century CE, Lahore
Museum, Pakistan, Inv. No.Lahore Museum: G-132, (after: Gandhara, 2008: 138, fig. 65).
Page | 50
Fig. 11. Coin of Kujula Kadphises (30 to 80 CE), socalled `Macedonian soldier-type´. (After:
Jongeward, Cribb, Donovan 2015: 25, Fig. 1).
Fig. 12. Coin of Kujula Kadphises (30 to 80 CE), socalled ḴMacedonian soldier-typeḵ, (drawing
by K. Maksymiuk).
Fig. 13. Coin of the Graeco-bactrian king Eucratides I .( c. 171-145 BCE), (drawing
by K. Maksymiuk).
Page | 51
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Mariusz MIELCZAREK (PШХТЬСΝAМКНОЦвΝШПΝSМТОЧМОЬ,ΝŁяН ,ΝPШХКЧН)
Arms and Armour on Kušān coins. Royal images
Abstract
TСОΝpКpОЫΝТЬΝКΝЬСШЫЭΝΝНТЬМuЬЬТШЧΝШЧΝKuš ЧΝМШТЧΝТМШЧШРЫКСвΝТЧΝЫОХКЭТШЧЬΝЭШΝКЫЦЬΝКЧНΝКЫЦШuЫ,Ν
as the iconography found on coins has ЛООЧΝ ПЫОquОЧЭХвΝ uЭТХТгОНέΝ TСОΝ ТМШЧШРЫКpСвΝ ШПΝ Kuš ЧΝ ФТЧРЬΝ
ТЬΝpЫОЬОЧЭОНέΝTСОΝЦТХТЭКЫвΝОquТpЦОЧЭΝШПΝЭСОΝKuš ЧΝЫuХОЫЬΝЬСШаЧΝШЧΝЭСОТЫΝМШТЧЬΝТЬΝЭЫОКЭОНΝКЬΝКЧΝОХОЦОЧЭΝ
of iconographic propaganda.
Keywords: arms, armour, Kuš Ч, coins, iconohraphy
The use of images on coins of various periods has been used as a source
of information on the weaponry in use at that period of time. 1 The results of these attempts,
at least in the case of Polish mediaeval coins, have been on the whole very general, and have
been sometimes accompanied by the warning that coins are not a worthwhile source
of information on weaponry. The basic reason for such a situation to arise is, among other
conditions in force, above all the symbolism of the dominant ideology in force at the time,
different from period to period, which decide on what images were chosen to be displayed.
Among the wide-ranging studies that have been undertaken on Kuš Ч warfare,
the iconography found on coins has been frequently utilized.2 The data derived
from the analysis of images placed on coins,3 has, as a rule in turn been applied
to representations in sculpture and in painted scenes.4 In this presentation I shall seek
to present the military equipment of the Kuš Ч rulers shown on their coins as an element
of iconographic propaganda, addressed at a concrete readership. The message was
an important one, for there are grounds for believing, that in at least some cases,
mielmar@umk.pl
1
Selected from the huge literature available on the subject, two studies on mediaeval Polish coinage:
KAJZER, 1976: 21-45; NOWAKOWSKI, 1991: 28.
2
See PUGACHENKOVA, 1966 and NIKONOROV, 1997 vol. I: 50-61.
3
Catalogues of Kushan coins: ГźJεAδ’,ΝńλθινΝżнBδ,ΝńλκζνΝżнBL, 1993; JONGEVARD, CRIBB,
DONOVAN, 2015.
4
GORELIK, 1982: 82-112; ABDULLAEV, 1995a: 174-180; NIKONOROV, 1997 vol. I: 50-59;
ŻRнHδICH,ΝβίίημΝηλ-78; BOPEARACHCHI, SACHS, 2001: 321-355.
Page | 53
the representation of the ruler complemented the image of the gods shown on the reverse side
of the coin.5
τuЫΝЬЭuНвΝаТХХΝЛОРТЧΝКЫШuЧНΝńγίΝBC,ΝаСОЧΝBКМЭЫТКΝаКЬΝМКpЭuЫОНΝЛвΝЭСОΝВüОС-chih,6
until around AD 226 when the conquest of the Kuš Ч state by the Sasanians began. 7
The first emissions of the Kuš Чs following the capture of Bactria,8 naturally imitated
the emissions of the Bactrian Greeks. Greek influence (leaving aside factors such
as weight standards and the names of the denominations) is evident in the coinage of Kujula
Kadphises (c. 50-90 CE). At the same time designs drawn from Roman coinage were also
used.9 After crossing the Hindu Kush an iconography was adopted which was appropriate for
other aims,10 although after Wima Takto (c. 90-113 CE), the son and successor of Kujula
Kadphises, bronze coins were in circulation bearing the legend
ΙΛΕΤ
ΙΛΕΤΩΝ
ΩΣΗΡ ΜΕΓ . The emission of such coins was without doubt begun under Kujula
Kadphises, but the emissions become most numerous during the so-called fourth phase
according to the classification of Cribb.11 Their iconography is dependent on the Greek
system current north of the Hindu Kush.12 Inscriptions are in Greek and Kharoshthi script.
Coins with the legend ΩΣΗΡ ΜΕΓ are found equally to the north of the Amu-Daria,
as in the territory of Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India. In the designs on the coins
are visible elements drawn from the repertoire of the Bactrian Greeks, the Indo-Parthians
and the Indo-Scythians.13 In the place of a portrait appears the image of Mithra, in which
are to be discerned the influence of Roman monetary portraiture. During the reign of the third
successive ruler, Wima Kadphises (c. 113-127 CE), in the monetary iconography appear
elements clearly appropriate for nomadic peoples and Iranian influences. This ruler issued
gold and bronze coins bearing the image of the ruler in nomadic dress. The figure of the ruler
sacrificing at an altar appear first on coins at this time. Kanishka I (c. 127-151 CE)
abandoned legends written in the Greek language in favour of those written in Bactrian. 14
Greek influences in the iconography were replaced by Iranian ones,15 although the image
on the obverse surrounded by a legend (written in the Bactrian language) to a certain extent
harks back to Greek tradition. On coins bearing the images of deities (inspired to a great
5
See ROSENFIELD, 1967: 202-206.
BENJAMIN, 2007.
7
See CARTER, 1985: 215-281; NIKITIN, 1999: 259-263.
8
See henceforth the important book: STAVISKIJ, 1986.
9
SООΝżнBδ,ΝńλθίКμΝιη-λθνΝżнBδΝńλκιμΝńκη-191; CRIBB, 2007: 366. ROSENFIELD, 1967: VII f.
On trade and cultural relations, see for example: SHCHERKOVVA 1991.
10
CRIBB, 1998: 87.
11
ŻШЫΝ КΝ pЫОЬОЧЭКЭТШЧΝ КЧНΝ ЬuЦЦКЫвΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ НТЬМuЬЬТШЧΝ ШЯОЫΝ ЭСОΝ ‘uЧЧКЦОНΝ ЫuХОЫ’,Ν КЬΝ аОХХΝ КЬΝ
the conclusions, accepted in the present work, following on from an acceptance of the opinion
of Cribb: CRIBB, 2014. Cf. the discussion with O. Bopearachchi, CRIBB, 2014: 86-90.
12
CRIBB, 1998: 87.
13
For coins of this type see for iЧЬЭКЧМОΝŻRнHδICH,Νβίίκέ
14
żнBδ,ΝńλθίЛμΝλη-96; ROSENFIELD, 1967: 98; CRIBB, 1998: 83-89; SHENKAR, 2014: 99.
15
CRIBB, 1998: 83.
6
Page | 54
degree by Hellenistic and Roman iconography), 16 the deities are accompanied by their
names.17 This arrangement continues down to the end of the monetary issues of the Kuš Чs,
although Huvishka (c. 151-190 CE), the successor of Kanishka I, issued coins imitating
Roman coinage.
It is believed,18 that in the case of coins of Kanishka I the image of the ruler which
is placed on the obverse of the coin, and the image of the god located on the reverse
are interconnected. The ruler sacrificing (a motif derived from the coins of Wima
Kadphises)19 is regarded as evidence that the honours given to the god, is a demonstration
of the connection between him and the ruler expressed through the royal regalia. The gods,
presumably chosen according to the preferences of the ruler,20 demonstrate their friendship
with, and blessing bestowed upon the king. This interpretation, formulated
ПЫШЦΝ ЭСОΝ ЧuЦТЬЦКЭТМΝ ОЯТНОЧМО,Ν ЬООЦЬΝ ЭШΝ ЛОΝ МШЧПТЫЦОНΝ ЛвΝ ЭСОΝ НОМШЫКЭТШЧΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ḴKКЧТЬСФКΝ
ЫОХТquКЫвḵ,Ν НКЭОНΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ ЭТЦОЬΝ ШПΝ HuЯТЬСФК, 21 which is referred to many times in similar
situations. Here the ruler is shown in between Mao and Miiro. The way in which the king
is depicted, his gesture, and with whom he is shown points to the special, close, relations
enjoyed with the gods. One should notice, however, that the figure of the ruler is placed
below the garland held by putti, on which the god is shown. In the scene with the Buddha,
at the sides of which are shown Brahma and Indra, all the figures are placed above
the garland.
The devices on the coinage of Kujula Kadphises (c. 50-90 CE)22 are derived from
Greek, Indo-Scythian, Indo-Parthian as well as Roman coinage.23 Elements of military
ОquТpЦОЧЭΝ КppОКЫΝ ШЧΝ ЭаШΝ ОЦТЬЬТШЧЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЫuХОЫμΝ ШЧΝ ЬТХЯОЫΝ ḴHОЫКТШЬḵΝ МШТЧЬ,24 struck in the
lands north of the Hindukush, as well as on bronze coins bearing iconography in which
Roman influences are clearly visible. On the reverse of the tetradrachms (Fig. 1b) the ruler is
ЬСШаЧΝШЧΝСШЫЬОЛКМФΝТЧΝḴЧШЦКНΝНЫОЬЬḵνΝСТЬΝЫТРСЭΝСКЧНΝЫОЬЭТЧРΝШЧΝКΝХКЫРОΝḴSКЬКЧТКЧḵΝЛШа,ΝаТЭСΝ
its characteristically large ears,25 which are equally confirmed by archaeological examples,26
secured to the saddle. In the opinion of V. Litvinsky the bows held by the riders on the bone
plaque from Takht-i-Sangin have the same size, which is 2/5ths (62%) of the height
of the rider.27 The bow-ear, of the type as that shown on the coin, is attested wonderfully
16
SHENKAR, 2014: 62.
CRIBB, 1998: 89.
18
CRIBB, 1998: 90-91.
19
TANABE, 1993: 59.
20
SHENKAR, 2014: 62; GNOLI 2009, 142.
21
ROSENFIELD, 1967: 259-262; ERRINGTON, CRIBB, 1992: 193-197; CRIBB, 1998: 90-91;
ERRINGTON, 2002: 101-120; ERRINGTON, 2005: 77-79; SHENKAR, 2014: 107, 114.
22
Dates of his reign after JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015.
23
ROSENFIELD, 1967: 13-14; JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: 23.
24
CRIBB, 1993; cf. ALRAM 1999: 23-25.
25
See JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: no. 37.
26
NIKONOROV, 1997 vol. 1: 52-53; NIKONOROV, 1997 vol. 2: 17.
27
LITVINSKY, 2001: 141.
17
Page | 55
on the bone plate from Orlat (the hunting scene),28 as well as on the Takht-i-Sangin plaque
which has already been mentioned.29 The details of the dress are not visible, but he may be
wearing a kaftan.30 It is of the same type as that in the portrait of the ruler on the obverse
of the coin, which is only visible in fragments (Fig. 1a).31 The kaftan is similar to those
known from Khalchayan, accepting the dating of the latter to the times of Heraios, that is late
first to early second century AD,32 as well as those in which the riders are dressed
in the plaque from Takht-i-Sangin,33 and lots of other examples.34 The image of the Kuš Ч
ruler is very close to the image of the Indo-Scythian rulers Azilizes (c. 85-45 or 43 BC),35
who is shown in armour in other of his emissions, or Zeionises (c. 10 BC- CE 10), the satrap
of Chukhsa too.36 One should note, however, that in the majority of their representations the
Indo-Scythian rulers are shown in armour,37 as the aforementioned Azilizes,38 or Azes (c. 5812 BC).39
Fig. 1. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФК.
28
ABDULLAEV, 1995a: 179 and Fig.6 no. 10; ABDULLAEV, 1995b: 157-161; ILYASOV,
RUSANOV, 1997/1998, 107-157, drawings Pl. XIII; LITVINSKY, 2001: 146-149 for a summary
of the discussion on the chronology of the Orlat plate.
29
LITVINSKY, 2001: 137-ńθθνΝ ВATSźσKτ,Ν βίίń,Ν pКЬЬТЦνΝ JиżźR,Ν βίίθμΝ βń-34. See also
YATSENKO 2012.
30
YATSENKO, 2001: 88-92.
31
CRIBB 1993: 110, describes the reverse of the tetradrachm ЭСuЬμΝḴThe head of the man appears to be
the same as that shown on the obverseʾ.
32
LITVINSKY, 2001: 153.
33
LITVINSKY, 2001: 138 Fig. 2, 139 – description and Fig. 3, 144 Fig. 6.
34
YATSENKO, 2001: 86, 91.
35
For example SENIOR, 2001b: 2.32T=HOOVER 2013: 562; SENIOR, 2001b: 2.34T= HOOVER
2013: 562. Drawings SENIOR, 2001c.
36
SENIOR, 2001b: 2, 130.1 T; 2. 131.1T; 2. 132.10T2 = HOOVER 2013: 720, 721, 722. Drawings
SENIOR, 2001c.
37
NIKONOROV, 1997 vol. 1:50-54; BOPEARACHCHI, SACHS, 2001: 326-327. On different
opinions about the armour from Khalchayan PUGACHENKOVA 1971; MIELCZAREK 1993: 59, cf.
BERNARD 1987: 763; BOPEARACHCHI, SACHS, 2001: 327.
38
SENIOR, 2001b: 2.50.T=HOOVER 2013: 567; SENIOR, 2000-2006: 2.57T= HOOVER 2013: 569.
Drawings SENIOR, 2001c.
39
SENIOR, 2001: 2.98T=HOOVER 2013: 637. Drawings: SENIOR, 2001c.
Page | 56
Elements which could be taken to indicate that we are dealing with armour are absent
from the coin: armour such as the example known from the sculpture of Khalchayan.40 It is
worth citing the sculpture from Khalchayan at this point, not the least because it is believed
that the appearance of Heraios on his coins is close to that of the sculpture of Khalchayan.41
The interpretation of the images on the silver obols of Heraiois (Fig. 2) is ambiguous.
One can, however, take it that the standing figure facing right, is the same figure as
the horseman on the tetradrachms. He wears wide trousers and a kaftan.42
Fig. 2. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
On bronze coins minted in the Taxila region (Kujula Kadphises crossed the Hindu
Kush; no less than 2500 coins struck by that ruler were found at Taxila),43 the designs visible
on the tetradrachms are repeated. The only weapon shown on the coins of Heraios is an eared
bow.
A second group of coins are bronze tetradrachms (struck according to the Indian
ЬЭКЧНКЫНΝ ЛОКЫТЧРΝ ЭСОΝ ЛuЬЭΝ ШПΝ КΝ ЫuХОЫΝ ТЧΝ КΝ СОХЦОЭ,Ν аСТМСΝ ТЬΝ НОЬМЫТЛОНΝ КЬΝ ḴżЫКОМШ-BКМЭЫТКЧḵμΝ
(Fig. 3a). Two elements are visible on the crown of the helmet, as is also the case with
the helmet which Azilizes wears on his coins.44 These are doubtless a distant reminiscence
of the helmet of Eucratides, decorated with the ear and horn of a bull.45 In this context it is
also worthwhile referring to the figure of a waЫЫТШЫΝ(ḴżЫООФΝAЫОЬḵ)ΝШЧΝЭСОΝРШХНΝpХКquОΝПЫШЦΝ
Tillya-tepe.46 The proposition has been made, however, that the helmet shown may be
40
GORELIK, 1982; PUGACHENKOVA 1961; PUGACHENKOVA 1971; NIKONOROV, 1997.
LITVINSKY, 2001: 153; JONGEWARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: 26.
42
ВATSźσKτΝβίίńνΝJиżźR,ΝβίίθμΝβń-34.
43
KLIMBURG-SALTER, 1999: 3.
44
SENIOR, 2001c: 131 no. 16.
45
ALRAM, 1999: 23: “It Тs noа oЛvТous tСКt tСО МoТns oП HОrКТos, КММorНТnР to tСОТr nomТnКl vКluО
and type, are a heritage of the Graeco-Bactrian King Eucratides (c. 170-145 BC)ʾṬ On Kuš ЧΝhelmets
see GORELIK, 1982: 99-ńίζ,ΝШЧΝḴBШОШЭТКЧḵΝЭвpОΝСОХЦОЭЬμ 103-104.
46
SARIANIDI, 1985: 81-84; ABDULLAEV, 1995: 170, Fig. 3 no. 1.
41
Page | 57
ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЬСКpОΝ ШПΝ КЧΝ ОХОpСКЧЭ’ЬΝ СОКНέ47 On the other side of the coins the figure of a warrior
wearing a similar helmet and a cuirass, possibly a muscle cuirass, is shown holding a round
shield,48 and a spear (Fig. 3b). This motif, as was the case in the earlier one discussed, was
taken from the Indo-Scythians: the same image is found on the bronze coins of Azilizes,49
as well as Azes.50 The iconography of these coins copies images on Graeco-Bactrian coins. 51
We do not dispose of any evidence that the Kuš Чs made use of infantry in their armies,
although their existence may seem obvious,52 a similarly armed warrior is known
from żКЧНС Ыan art.53 The image on the coins of Kujula Kadphises does not reflect
the military equipment of the Kuš Чs, but Greek tradition. The same may be the case
in which an armed man, holding a shield in his left hand and a spear held vertically, is shown
on the bronze coins of Menander II Dikaiosa (c. 90-85).54 This representation has a symbolic
character. It comes as no surprise ЭСОЧ,ΝПШЫΝJέΝRШЬОЧПТОХНΝЭШΝЬuРРОЬЭΝЭСКЭΝТЭΝТЬΝКΝḴεКМОНШЧТКЧΝ
ЬШХНТОЫḵέ55 One may wildly speculate that it might represent Alexander the Great himself.56
Fig. 3. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
AЧШЭСОЫΝ ḴЬОЫТОЬḵΝ ТЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЯОЫвΝ ЧuЦОЫШuЬΝ ЛЫШЧгОΝ МШТЧЬΝ ШПΝ SШЭОЫΝ εОРКЬέ57 These
emissions, as was mentioned above, were already begun in the times of Kujula Kadphises,
47
ABDULLAEV, 1995: 170.
On Kushan shields GORELIK, 1982: 104-107.
49
SENIOR, 2001b: 2.38.1=HOOVER 2013: 581. Drawings SENIOR, 2001c.
50
SENIOR, 2001b: 2.79.1=HOOVER 2013: 684. Drawings SENIOR, 2001c.
51
SENIOR, 2001b: 32 n. 3, the sequence of coins Menander II, Azilizes, or Azes (contemporaries)
and then Artemidoros is clear.
52
NIKONOROV, 1997 vol. 1: 56.
53
TROUSDALE, 1975: 76 Fig. 53, 83 Fig. 63. See also GORELIK, 1982: 89-90.
54
BOPEARACAHCHI, 1991: Pl. 49 Q; BOPEARACAHCHI, 1999: 123.
55
ROSENFIELD, 1967: 15.
56
SENIOR 2001c: 131 no.16.
57
RτSźσŻIźδD,ΝńλθιμΝńκνΝεACDτАAδδ,ΝńλθκμΝpКЬЬТЦ,ΝКЧНΝГźJεAδ’,ΝńλκγμΝńθί-177.
48
Page | 58
but a decidedly greater proportion of the coins were produced in the reign of Wima Takto
(c. 90-113 CE),58 the son of Kujula Kadphises, the ruler who was supposed to have
conquered India.59 A novelty on the Soter Megas coins is the placing of tamgas on the coins,
which demonstrates Indo-Parthian influence. On the reverse of the Soter Megas coins
(the head of the god Miiro is placed on the obverse) is shown a rider dressed in kaftan
and trousers facing right. From the diadem and Iranian cap he wears, the figure is to be
regarded as that of a ruler.60 If this is the case, it is worth mentioning that there is no bow-ear
on the saddle, as is the case with coins of Kujula Kadphises. On certain coins (Fig. 4)
a pickaxe is clearly visible held by the ruler in the right hand,61 which is also shown on IndoScythian coins.62 Likewise a war-hammer is held by one of the warriors shown on the plaque
from Orlat (the combat scene).
Fig. 4. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
On the not so numerous bronze coins struck in the name of Wima Takto from
the territory of Tokharistan the figure of a ruler holding an arrow in his hand in the GraecoBactrian style, shown from the back, wearing a helmet whose prototype was the helmet
of Eucratides, is repeatedly shown on the coins of Graeco-Bactrian rulers (Fig. 5a), although
КХХΝ ФЧШаХОНРОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЬТРЧТПТМКЧМОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЬвЦЛШХТЬЦΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЛuХХ’ЬΝ СШЫЧΝ КЧНΝ ОКЫΝ НОМШЫКЭТЧРΝ
58
CRIBB, 2014: passim.
ГоRCHER, 1968: 367.
60
JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: 42, 44.
61
JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: Pl. 7 nos. 148, 178, 180 etc.
62
ŻRнHδICH,ΝβίίημΝιń-72, a pickaxe is also to be seen in the hand of the ruler seated on a camel.
59
Page | 59
the helmet seems to have been lost. On the opposite side is the figure of a ruler on horseback,
with the right hand holding a pickaxe (Fig. 5b).
Fig. 5. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
The successor of Wima Takto, Wima Kadphises (c. 113-127 CE), introduced the first
new devices on bronze coinage (he also started to issue gold coins),63 since the GraecoBactrian and Indo-Scythian issues. In numismatic iconography he abandoned the old models
referring back to Greaco-Bactrian or Roman prototypes. He commenced the emission
of bronze coins on which the figure of the ruler is shown standing aside a small altar,
on which he places his right hand.64 He is clothed in a long kaftan. With his left hand the
ruler clasps the hilt, the shape of which is obscured, of a long sword,65 carried on a belt by a
side-strap,66 placed in a scabbard around 1/3rd the height of the ruler (Fig. 6).67
Fig. 6. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
63
See BRACEY, 2009: passim, with special attention to forgeries.
ROSENFIELD, 1967: 25 as an ḴIЫКЧТКЧḵΝОХОЦОЧЭέ
65
TROUSDALE, 1975: 79.
66
See the important discussion of the Kuš ЧΝcoins as evidence for Kuš ЧΝscabbards - TROUSDALE,
1975: 77.
67
Kuš ЧΝswords, as well as Sasanian ones, have a lengthy bibliography. The basic work is
TROUSDALE, 1975: 71-85. See also MASIA 2000.
64
Page | 60
The motif of a ruler standing alongside an altar was continued by his successor (Fig.
7). The gold coins of Kanishka I (c. 127-151 CE) bore the same design.68 From the point of
view of a discussion about weaponry this is an important development, as there was an
increased concern to show detail when issuing coinage in precious metals.
Fig. 7. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
On the gold coins of Kanishka I (Fig. 8) one can clearly see the belt strapped onto
the belt in a distinctive side-strap. This method of showing the sword carried on a loose belt
agrees with what we see on a sculpture from the royal sanctuary in Mat, not far
from Mathura. The left hand of the ruler grasps a spear with a winged spearhead.
In the opinion of J. Rosenfield the spear should be regarded as a symbol of kingship rather
than a weapon of war.69 The presentation of the figure of Kanishka I is as a demi-god. At this
68
69
JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: 67-68.
ROSENFIELD, 1967: 54-55.
Page | 61
point it is worth focusing atЭОЧЭТШЧΝ ШЧМОΝ ЦШЫОΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ḴKКЧТЬСФКΝ ЫОХТquКЫвḵΝ аСТМСΝ аОΝ СКЯО
deliberately discussed beforehand.
Fig. 8. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
Page | 62
Huvishka (c. 151-190 CE), was the successor of Kanishka I. In the busts of the ruler
which are found on his gold coins,70 one can only make out the hilt of a sword, on which
the left hand of the ruler is resting, as well as a spear with a spear-head of the same as that
which appears on coins of Kanishka I (Fig. 9).
Fig. 9. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
The way in which Vasudeva I (c. 190-230 CE) is shown on his coins is different
from that of his predecessors. On gold coins the ruler is shown like Kanishka I, standing
in front of a small altar, with his left hand grasping a spear or trident. In contrast to his
predecessors Vasudeva I wears a richly decorated conical helmet, a long suit of armour
reaching down to his knees, and guards on his arms and legs. At his belt is a long sword
with a loose belt. On his gold coins one can make out more details. The suits of armour are
not uniform. It is perhaps a reflection of the skill of the die-carvers, or else the result
of striking the coinage in two different mints, in Bactria and Gandh ЫК.71 The same motifs
present in gold coins are repeated in the bronze issues.
70
71
JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: 251-258.
JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015:135.
Page | 63
It is difficult to form any conclusions as to the way in which the helmets
are constructed from their representations on the coins. Above all this is due to their
decoration, covering the entire surface of the skull of the helmet. The suit of armour, to judge
ЛвΝЭСОΝЫОpЫОЬОЧЭКЭТШЧЬΝШЧΝРШХНΝМШТЧЬ,ΝСКНΝКΝḴЭаШ-pКЫЭḵΝМШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧέΝIЭΝНТППОЫЬΝТЧΝЭСТЬΝПОКЭuЫОΝ
from the suits of armour shown on earlier coins, and that from Khalchayan, although the armguards are the same. On the coins of Vasudeva I the part covering the torso is constructed
of small armour plates, which are shown as circles. The part below the belt is made from
larger, rectangular plates secured to an under-garment (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
A whole suit of armour constructed of large, rectangular plates sewed in rows onto
a soft under-garment is shown on Indo-Scythian coins,72 or are known from żКЧНС ЫКn art.73
TСОΝ uЬОΝ ШПΝ ḴЭаШ-pКЫЭḵΝ ЬuТЭЬΝ ШПΝ КЫЦШuЫΝ ТЬΝ attested to by numerous representations
in żКЧНС ЫКn art,74 and confirmed a whole series of reliefs from żКЧНС ЫК.75 In the second
BτPźARACHCHI,ΝSACHS,ΝβίίńνΝŻRнHδICH,Νβίίηέ
GORELIK, 1982: 92-93 Fig. 7a.
74
GORELIK, 1982: 90-91 with comments, that this type is characteristic for żКЧНС ra.
72
73
Page | 64
case (the coin, which is described above was struck in the mint in Bactria) the suit of armour
is shown in such a way as to suggest that it was constructed in its entirety of small plates
(Fig. 11).
Fig. 11. Drawing by źέΝżяЫЬФКέ
Arm-guards were constructed, in a way that has often been described, from metal
ḴСШШpЬḵΝ ПКЬЭОЧОНΝ ЭШРОЭСОЫΝ ПХОбТЛХвμΝ ХОР-guards are shown in a similar fashion. If the armguards were manufactured from full hoops, which is confirmed by numerous archaeological
finds and representations, such as the sculptures from Khalchayan (the arm-guards were
painted white),76 the legs were probably only protected by plates on the outside, as is the case
with the leg-guards shown on the sculptures from Khalchayan.77 M.V. Gorelik has drawn
attention to this probability.78
The iconography shown on coins of Sasanian times is another theme to be
considered.
75
For instance TROUSDALE, 1975: 76 Figs. 52, 53.
PUGACHENKOVA, 1971: 60; on the construction and other examples GORELIK, 1982:84.
77
GORELIK, 1982: 84.
78
GORELIK, 1982: 84-85.
76
Page | 65
Bibliography
ABDULLAEV, K. (1995a), Armour of Ancient Bactria, [in:] In the Land of the Gryphons. Papers
on Central Asian Archaeology and Antiquity, A. INVERNIZZI (ed.), Firenze, 163-180.
ABDULLAEV, K. (1995b), Nomadism in Central Asia. The archaeological evidence (2nd-1st centuries
B.C.), [in:] In the Land of the Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian Archaeology and Antiquity,
A. INVERNIZZI (ed.), Firenze, 151-161.
ALRAM, M. (1999), Indo-Parthian and early Kushan chronology: the numismatic evidence,
[in:] Coins, Art., and Chronology. Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands,
M. ARLAM, D.E. KLIMBURG-SALTER (eds.), Wien, 19-48.
BENJAMIN, C.G.R. (2007), The Yuezhi. Origin, Migration and the Conquest of Northern Bactria,
Turnhout.
BERNARD, P. (1987), Les nomКНОs МonquцrКnts НО lˀОmpТrО РrцМo-ЛКМtrТОnṬ RцПlОбТons sur lОur
ТНОntТtцОtСnТquО Оt МulturОllО,Ν „CШЦpЭОЬΝ RОЧНuЬ,Ν AМКНОЦТОΝ НОЬΝ IЧЬМЫТpЭТШЧЬΝ ΤΝ BОХХОЬ-δЫЭЭЫОЬḵ,Ν
758-768.
BOPEARACHCHI, O. (1991), MonnКТОs РrцМo-bactriennes et indo-grecques, Catalogue raisonnц,
Paris.
BOPEARACHCHI, O. (1999), Recent coin hoard evidence on pre-Kushana chronology, [in:] Coins,
Art., and Chronology. Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands,
M. ARLAM, D.E. KLIMBURG-SALTER (eds.), Wien, 99-149.
BOPEARACHCHI, O., SACHS, C. (2001), Armures et armes des Indo-SМвtСОs НˀКprчs lОurs
цmТssТons monцtКТrОs Оt lОs НonnцОs КrМСцoloРТquОs, „TШpШТḵΝńńήń,Νγβń-355.
BRACEY, R. (2009), The coinage of Wima Kadphises,Ν„żКЧНСКЫКЧКΝSЭuНТОЬḵΝγ,Νβη-74.
CARTER, M.L. (1985), A numismatic reconstruction of Kushano-Sasanian history,Ν „AЦОЫТМКЧΝ
σuЦТЬЦКЭТМΝSШМТОЭвΝεuЬОuЦΝσШЭОЬḵΝγί,Νβńη-281.
CRIBB, J. (1993), TСО HОrКus МoТnsŚ tСОТr КttrТЛutТon to the Kushan king Kujula Kadphises,
c. AD 30-80, [in:] Essays in Honour of R. Carson and, K. Jenkins, M. PRICE, A. BURNETT,
R. BLAND (eds.), London, 107-134.
CRIBB, J. (1998), The end of Greek coinage in Bactria and India and its evidence for Kushan coinage
system, [in:] Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, London, 83-98.
CRIBB, J. (1999), The early Kushan kings: New Evidence for chronology. Evidence from the Rabatak
Inscription of Kanishka I, [in:] Coins, Art., and Chronology. Essays on the Pre-Islamic History
of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, M. ARLAM, D.E. KLIMBURG-SALTER (eds.), Wien, 177-205.
CRIBB, J. (2007), Money as marker of cultural continuity and change in Central Asia,Ν„PЫШМООНТЧРs
ШПΝЭСОΝBЫТЭТЬСΝAМКНОЦвḵΝńγγ,Νγγγ-375.
CRIBB, J. (2014), The Soter Megas coins of the first and second Kushana kings, Kujula Kadphises
and Wima Takto,Ν„żКЧНСКЫКЧΝSЭuНТОЬḵΝκ,Νιλ-122.
ERRINGTION, E. (2002), NumТsmtТМ ОvТНОnМО Пor НКtТnР tСО KКnТškК rОlТquary,Ν „SТХФΝ RШКНΝ AЫЭέΝ
КЧНΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝκ,Νńίń-120.
ERRINGTON, E. (2005), PrОuvОs numТsmКtТquОs КpportцОs р lК НКtКtТon Нu rОlТquКТrО НО «KКnТškК»
НО SС С-j -k -НСОr , [in:] Art Оt КrМСцoloРТО НОs monКstчrОs РrцМo-bouddhiques du Nord-Ouest
НО lˀInНО Оt НО lˀAsТО МОntrКlОṬ AМtОs Нu МolloquО ТntОrnКtТonКl Нu CrpoРК (StrКsЛourР,
17-18 mars 2000), Z. TARSI ET D. VILLANCOURT (eds.), Paris, 67-91.
ERRINGTON, E., CRIBB, J. (1992), The Crossroads of Asia. Transformation in Image and Symbol
in the Art. Of Ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan, Cambridge.
ŻRнHδICH,Ν CСέΝ (βίίη),Ν LК rОprцsОntКtТon Нu roТ МКvКlТОr sur lОs monnКТОs ТnНo-scythes et indoparthes: une approche numismatique,Ν„RОЯuОΝЧuЦТЬЦКЭТquОḵΝńθń,Νηλ-78.
ŻRнHδICH,Ν CСέΝ (βίίκ),Ν Monnaies indo-scythes et indo-partСОs Нu НцpКrtОmОnt НОs MonnКТОs,
MцНКТllОs Оt AntТquОsṬ CКtКloРuО rКТsonnц, Paris.
GOLDMAN, B. (1993), The later pre-islamic riding costume,Ν„IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТquКḵ,Νβκ,Νβίń-246.
żнBδ,ΝRέΝ(ńλθίК),Ν Roman patterns for Kushan coins,Ν„JШuЫЧКХΝШПΝσuЦТЬЦКЭТМΝSШМТОЭвΝ ШПΝIЧНТКḵΝββμΝ
75-96.
żнBδ,ΝRέΝ(ńλθίЛ),ΝZwei Neufunde in der Numismatik der Kushan,Ν„εТЭЭОТХuЧРОЧΝНОЫΝнЬЭОЫЫОТМСТЬМСОЧΝ
σuЦТЬЦКЭТЬМСОЧΝżОЬОХХЬМСКПЭḵΝńńέκ,Νλζ-96.
Page | 66
żнBδ,ΝRέΝ(ńλκζ),ΝSвstОm unН CСronoloРТО НОr MünгprтРunР НОs KušКnКrОТМСОs, Wien.
żнBδ,Ν RέΝ (ńλκι), ConstКntТn НОr GrossО unН InНТОnŚ НОr römТsМС-kuš nТsМСО GolНmОНКТllon
des British Museum in London, „Litterae Numismaticae VindobonensesḵΝ 3, 185-191.
żнBδ,Ν RέΝ (ńλλγ),Ν Donum BurnsṬ DТО Kuš n MünгОn Тn MünгkКЛТnОt BОrn unН НТО CСronoloРТО,
Wien.
GORELIK, M.V. (1982), Kushanskii dospekh, [in:] Drevnyaya Indiya. Istoriko-kulˀturnвО svвКгТ,
G.M. BONGARD-LEVIN (ed.), Moskva, 82-112.
HOOVER, O.D. (2013), Handbook of Coins of Bactria and Ancient India Including Sogdiana,
Margiana, Areia, and the Indo-Greek, Indo-Skythian, and Native Indian States South of Hindu Kush.
Fifth Century BC to First Century AD, Lancaster-London [The Handbook of Greek Coinage Series
12].
ILYASOV, J.Ya., RUSANOV, D.V. (1997/1998), A study on te bone plates from Orlat,Ν „SТХФΝ RШКНΝ
Art. aЧНΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝη,Νńίι-159.
JиżźR,Ν UέΝ (βίίθ),Ν Reiter, Reiterkrieger & Reiternomaden zwischen Rheinland und Korea:
гur SpтtКntТkОn Ost unН АОst, 4Ṭ-8. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Ein Beitrag zur Synthese von Alter Geschichte
un ArМСтoloРТО, Langenweissbach.
JONGEWARD, D., CRIBB, J., DONOVAN, P. (2015), Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite
Coins. A Catalogue of Coins from the American Numismatic Society, New York.
KLIMBURG-SALTER, D.E. (1999), From an art historical perspective: problems of chronology
in the Kuș ṇa period, [in:] Coins, Art., and Chronology. Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the IndoIranian Borderlands, M. ARLAM, D.E. KLIMBURG-SALTER (eds.), Wien, 3-18.
KAJZER, L. (1976), UгЛrojОnТО Т uЛТór rвМОrskТ а rОНnТoаТОМгnОj MКłopolsМО а аТОtlО źróНОł
ikonograficznych,ΝАЫШМṢКа-Warszawa-KЫКФяа-żНК ЬФέ
LITVINSKY, B.A. (2001), The Bactrian ivory plates with Hunting scene from the Temple of the Oxus,
„SТХФΝRШКНΝAЫЭΝКЧНΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝι,Νńγι-166.
MACDOWALL, D. (1968), Soter Megas, the king of kings, the Kushana,Ν „JШuЫЧКХΝ ШПΝ σuЦТЬЦКЭТМΝ
SШМТОЭвΝШПΝIЧНТКḵΝγί,Νβίκ-248.
MASIA, K. (2000), The evolution of swords and daggers in the Sasanian empire,Ν„IЫКЧТМКΝ AЧЭТquКḵΝ
35, 185-289.
MIELCZAREK, M. (1993), Cataphracti and Clibanarii. Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry
of the Ancient World,ΝŁяН έ
NIKITIN, A. (1999), Notes on the chronology of the Kushano-Sasanian kigdom, [in:] Coins, Art,
and Chronology. Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, M. ARLAM,
D.E. KLIMBURG-SALTER (eds.), Wien, 259-263.
NIKONOROV, V.P. (1997), The Armies of Bactria 700 BC-450 AD, I-II, Stockport.
NOWAKOWSKI, A. (1991), UгЛrojОnТО rОНnТoаТОМгnО а PolsМО (nК tlО roНkoаoОuropОjskТm),
TШЫu έ
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1966), O pantsirnom vooruzhenii parfianskogo i baktriiskogo voinstva,
„VОЬЭЧТФΝDЫОЯЧОТΝIЬЭШЫТТḵ,Νβ,Νβι-43.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1971), SkulˀpturК KСКlМСКвКnК, Moskva.
ROSENFIELD, J. (1967), Dynastic Arts of the Kushans, Berkeley.
SARIANIDI V.I. (1985), Bactrian Gold from the Excavations of the Tilya-tepe Necropolis in Northern
Afghanistan, Leningrad.
SENIOR, R.C. (2001a), Indo-Scythian Coins and History, vol. I. An Analysis of the Coinage,
Lancaster-London.
SENIOR, R.C. (2001b), Indo-Scythian Coins and History, vol. II. The Illustrated Cataloue of IndoScythian and Indo-Parthian Coins, Lancaster-London.
SENIOR, R.C. (2001c), Indo-Scythian Coins and History, vol. III. The Easy Finder Catalogue
of Types, Monograms and Letters Appearig on Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian Coins, LancasterLondon.
SENIOR, R.C. (2006), Indo-Scythian Coins and History, vol. IV Supplement. Additional Coins
and Hoards the Secuences of Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Kings, Lancaster-London.
SHCHERKOVA, T.A. (1991), EРТpОt Т KusСКnskoО tsКrstvo (torРovвО Т kulˀturnвО kontКktв), Moskva.
Page | 67
SHENKAR, M. (2014), Intangible Spirits and Graven Images: the Iconography of Deities
in the Pre-Islamic Iranian World, Leiden-Boston.
STAVISKIJ, B.Ja. (1986), LК BКМtrТКnО sous lОs KusСКnsŚ proЛlчmОs НˀСТstoТrО Оt НО МulturО, Paris.
TROUSDALE, W. (1975), The Long Sword and Scabbard Slide in Asia, Washington.
YATSENKO, S.A. (2001), The costume of the Yuech-chihs / Kushans and its analogies to the East
and to the West,Ν„SТХФΝRШКНΝAЫЭΝКЧНΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝι,Νιγ-136.
YATSENKO, S.A. (2012), Sogdian costume in Chinese and Sogdian Art. Of the 6th-8th centuries,
[in:] Serica-Da Qin, Studies in Archaeology, Philology and History on Sino-Western Relations
(selected Problems), G. εAδIστАSKI,Ν AέΝ PARτ ,Ν BέSГέΝ SГετσIźАSKIΝ (ОНЬέ),Ν АЫШМṢКа,Ν
101-114.
ГźJεAδ’,Ν źέVέΝ (ńλθι),Ν Monety Velikikh Kushan v sobranii Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha,Ν „TЫuНвΝ
żШЬuНКЫЬЭЯОЧЧШРШΝźЫЦТЭКгСКḵΝλ,Νηη-86.
ГźJεAδ’,ΝźέVέΝ(ńλκγ),ΝDrevnie monety Tadzhikistana, Dushanbe.
ГоRCHźR,ΝźέΝ(ńλθκ),Ν TСО ВüОС-МСТС КnН KКnТșkК Тn tСО CСТnОsО sourМОs, [in:] Papers on the Date
of Kani ka. Submitted to tСО ConПОrОnМО on tСО DКtО oП KКnТșkКṬ LonНon, 20-22 April, 1960,
A.L. BASHAM (ed.), Leiden, 346-390.
Page | 68
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Patryk SKUPNIEWICZ (Siedlce University, Poland)
Marcin LICHOTA
(Siedlce University, Poland)
Diadem on the head from Khalchayan battle scene
and possible reconstruction of the composition
Abstract
The sculpted battle scene from the complex in Khalchayan has survived only in fragments.
From the moment of excavation several attempts of reconstruction have been made. The below study
takes as a starting point the Hellenistic models of depicting mounted combat and the headgear
of the preserved personages. The analyze of the fixed compositions of the mounted victory
in Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic art allows to believe that the decorations might have consisted
of one, larger composition on the Western wall which is shorter and probably two battle scenes
on the longer Southern wall. The decoration of the Western wall might include combat or hunting
scene which is impossible to determine. The principles of depicting the scenes of mounted victory did
not allow presentation of the unarmored rider defeating armored opponent. The enemies were either
both armored/in cloth, or the winner was shown in armor while the defeated in textile. This might have
resulted from socilal function of armor hence the armored riders would be marked as socially superior
or it would symbolically emphasize the vulnerability of the defeated personage. The headgear
of the personages is an important symbolic factor as diademed personages are usually shown
as victorious, therefore the helmeted heads from Khalchayan must have belonged to the defeated
enemies rather than the vanquishers. Showing the victors bare headed or in diadems or crowns
was well attested in related artworks. Therefore the mounted victory scenes on the Southern wall
of room 3 in Khalchayan must have involved armored riders in diadems defeating armored riders
in helmets. The fragments of the torsos in kaftans might have belonged to the attendants of the both
sides or to the scene on Western wall which might include combat of unarmored opponents or
a hunting scene.
Keywords: Khalchayan, Kuš Чs, battle, art
The remnants of the mysterious structure in Khalchayan located in the valley
of the Surkhan Darya ТЧΝ ЦШНОЫЧΝ UгЛОФТЬЭКЧΝ СКЬΝ КЭЭЫКМЭОНΝ ЬМСШХКЫ’ЬΝ КЭЭОЧЭТШЧΝ КХЦШЬЭΝ Пrom
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) and No. 133/15/MN were financed from the science grant granted by
the Ministry of Science and Higher Education; Institute of History and International Relations, Faculty
of Humanities; varaz777@yahoo.com
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) were financed from the science grant granted by the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education; Institute of History and International Relations, Faculty of Humanities;
gil_galard@op.pl
Page | 69
the very discovery by G. Pugachenkova in series of excavations between 1959 and 1963.1
The function of the site remains disputable however it is usually related to early Kuš ЧЬΝ
or the Kuš ЧЬΝ of pre-imperial period.2 The iconographic program of the sculptural
decorations has been thoroughly researched in considerable detail however in many points
the results remain inconclusive or disputable. This article aims in re-examination
of the reconstruction of the battle scenes originally located on the Western and Southern
walls of the room 3, located to the left of the entrance.3 The headdress
of the preserved sculptures would allow their plausible position in the relief according
to composition formulae of Hellenistic and post Hellenistic art. Pugachenkova has already
identified relation of the details of Khalchayan sculpture with Hellenistic schools therefore it
would be impossible to expect that general compositions would follow different principles
than identifiable in Hellenistic art.4 These fixed designs in combination with identifiable
stock images of Hellenistic imagery of violence can serve as a formal clue to reconstruction
of the friezes. This method which focuses on the aesthetic structures rather than particular
details of workmanship, therefore it provides good base to place a specific piece within
the stream of similarly structured works of art however, as the structures are of lonРО НurОц,
the method does not provide any tool for precise dating.5 Also, this method will offer
plausible position of the personages within the composition but would not help
in identification of the depictions with any historical personages. The primal methodological
assumption of the method is that, as the sculpture of Khalchayan belongs originally to art,
than it should be perceived first of all as art, only secondly (if at all) as a historic source.
Therefore the natural environment of any work of art is art and the works of art are primary
sources to the art history, the development of techniques, formulae, schools, only secondary
they can be treated as the sources to the history of a region, a country or a state
(with exception of numismatics and sigillography where historical function is clear
and undisputed). If art and its principles is the first and natural environment of the work
of art, real life is secondary and is usually unless always subdued to aesthetic principles.
Unless inscribed, works of art use motifs, structures, employ stock images but whether they
depict historical events is mere assumption. Often events have reserved formulae which allow
to identify any viewer instant identification of the scenes which are usually of religious nature
and refer to certain holy narratives or carry immediate political, propagandistic meaning.
In depictions of violence however the formulae are applied in much less precise manner
and should not be treated as the means of final identification of the content.
The clay sculptures of Khalchayan were preserved incomplete. The fragments were
found in the debris on the floor where they landed after falling from the walls where they
were placed initially.6 The area is seismically active therefore the not only the damage was
greater but also the placing of the particular fragments on the floor is not particularly
instructive as neither the sequence nor direction of collapsing is unknown. This matters
PUżAČźσKτVA,ΝńλθθКμΝβι-43; PUGACHENKOVA, 1966b: 181-215; PUGACHENKOVA, 1971:
75-80; NIKONOROV, 1997: 11-12, 60-63, figs. 28-31.
2
ABDULLAEV, 1995a: 156-157; LO MUZIO, 2017: 122-129; NIKONOROV, 1997: 11-12, 60-63,
figs. 28-31.
3
MODE, 2013: 205, fig. 1-2.
4
PUGACHENKOVA, 1966a; PUGACHENKOVA, 1966b; PUGACHENKOVA, 1971.
5
Example of long duration of iconographic formulae: CIAFALONI, DELLA ROCCA DE CANDAL,
2011: 111-128; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b: 180-211; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2016: 57-75; the description
and discussion of depictions of violence in Hellenistic art: PIRSON, 2014.
6
PUGACHENKOVA, 1966a; PUGACHENKOVA, 1966b; PUGACHENKOVA, 1971.
1
Page | 70
especially to the corner areas which might include the fragments from two perpendicular
walls. Among the fragments of torsos and limbs in armor, horse barding and human bodies
in garments two types of life-sized heads were found: (1) two rather rigid, full of cold-calm
dignity, heads in diadems with faces wearing moustaches, these heads remind the heads
of the male personages from ḴМОЫОЦШЧТКХΝ ЬМОЧОЬḵΝ НОpТМЭОНΝ ШЧΝ źКЬЭОЫЧΝ КЧНΝ σШЫЭСОЫЧΝ аКХХЬΝ
of Room 3, seemingly they were placed frontally and are characterized by stiffness
or motionlessness, one of them had apparently proudly raised chin, the other seems fully
frontal (Fig. 1, Fig. 2); (2) and two expressive heads in helmets, including fragments
of armored collars with bearded faces with rather dynamic grimace (Fig. 3, Fig. 4).7
One of them, of clearly Europoid features has mouth slightly opened and certainly was
directed three-quarters to the viewer it seems that it was slightly bent backwards, the other
one, seemingly more Asiatic, also reveals some kind of emotion or arousal. The helmets seem
to consist of halves covering skull, ears and part of the cheeks, joined on top by the sheet
crowed by the remnants of the comb, the piece is falling in triangular finial over the face,
constituting thus a kind of short beak, all elements are gathered by horizontal band which
might also represent the diadem tied over the helmet. The closest parallel to the helmets can
be found on the mural in Dalverzin Tepe (Fig. 5) therefore they must represent a local
variation, however they also seem related to the helmets depicted on the bone plate found
in Orlat and the coinage of Indo-Scythian kings, which seem to derivate from Kuban-type
helmets which also covered ears and part of cheeks with the main body. Some examples
of Kuban-type helmets have the small combs and majority are shaped in two arches over
the eyes creating triangular protrusion over the nose.8 The latter element is no longer present
on Orlat battle scene (Fig. 6) but might evolve into the beak as seem on the Khalchayan
heads. Alternatively the Hellenistic helmets, with far reaching beaks and combs, might have
served as the source of inspiration here.9 The helmets of the personages depicted in Old Nisa
sculpture contain triangular protrusion over the nose, the small beak above and the decorative
comb on top of them.10 The latter being clearly Hellenistic, and apparently missing relation
with Kuban type, serves as example of combination of various elements in single piece.
The armors depicted in Khalchayan consist of long caftans covered with large square
plate, having the arms protected by laminar sleeves which reminds the armament
of the Indo-Scythian kings or the armor11 of the personage on Nooin Ula textile
or the fragment of the sculpted slab from Khumbuz Tepe.12 The large square pieces of armor
were fund in Old Nisa but may also be related to the armors of terracotta army of Qin Shi
Huang Di. In the latter group special attention attracts chariot rider who also has segmented
sleeves and high armor collar.13
7
PUGACHENKOVA, 1966a; PUGACHENKOVA, 1966b; PUGACHENKOVA, 1971.
BOPEARACHCHI, 2003: 19-44; BOPEARACHCHI, SACHS, 2001: 321-355; PUGACHENKOVA,
1966a; NIKONOROV, 1997: 11-12, 17, 60-63, 75, figs. 28-31, 43.
9
The most comprehensive discussion on the Bactrian helmets so far: PICHIKYAN, LITVINSKY,
2000: 62-95.
10
PILIPKO, 1989: 167-177; PILIPKO, 2006: 266, 288, fig. 17; PILIPKO, PUSCHNIGG, 2002:
NIKONOROV, 1997: 8, 49, fig.17.
11
MITCHINER, 1976: 848d.
12
POLOSMAK, 2010: 52.
13
BOPEARACHCHI, 2003: 19-44; BOPEARACHCHI, SACHS, 2001: 321-355; PILIPKO, 2006:
264-265, 286, fig. 13; ABDULLAEV, 1995a; NIKONOROV, 1997: 11-12, 17, 60-63, 75, figs. 28-31,
43; POLOSMAK, 2010; YATSENKO, 2012.
8
Page | 71
The possible reconstruction of the battle scene exited scholars, starting from
ЭСОΝ ПШuЧНОЫέΝ PuРКМСОЧФШЯК’ЬΝ ЫОМШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ ТЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЦШЬЭΝ МШЦЦШЧХвΝ ЫОpЫШНuМОНΝ ШЧОΝ КЧНΝ ТЬΝ
included almost in every book regarding art of ancient Central Asia or in numerous
publications on the development of heavy cavalry.14 She offered a powerful vision
of an armored horseman surrounded by the mounted archers. It is not clear who is fighting
whom unless all riders charge the same direction under the leadership of the main ḴФЧТРСЭḵέΝ
The impression is additionally emphasized by the couched manner of holding the lance which
strengthens European mediaeval sentiment. It must be reminded at the same time that
the reconstruction does not employ the elements in very selective way, it uses only
one helmeted head and combination of armor fragments. At the same time, despite attributing
the style of the Khalchayan sculpture as related to art of Pergamum, Pugachenkova did not
place the elements in structural frames of Hellenistic combat scenes. She interpreted
the scene as a parade of victorious Yuezhi warriors however, as it will be demonstrated
below, the depictions of the galloping armed riders without visible target of the attack are
reserved to Dioskuri or single personages. Bernard has pointed out that the scene might
represent a battle between lightly armed Yuezhi defeating armored Saka warriors.15 As it will
be illustrated later, there are no representations of unarmored warriors defeating armored
ones in Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic art. It is either combat between equally protected
opponents (be it armored or not) or the winning side is depicted armored in opposition to unarmored defeated enemies. This must be associated probably with the social function
of armor representing wealth and high rank. Bernard was also wrong associating the type
of armor with the Sakas only. The starting point of this idea must have been association
of the armor from Khalchayan sculpture with Indo-Saka coinage only. This ignores
the analogies with Dalverzin Tepe and, unknown to Bernard, textile from Nooin Ula which
depicts, most likely Bactrian/pre- Kuš ЧΝ аКЫЫТШЫέΝ АСКЭΝ ТЬΝ ТЧЬpТЫТЧРΝ ТЧΝ BОЫЧКЫН’ЬΝ ЯТОаΝ ТЬΝ
the idea that the helmeted heads might not belong to victorious personages.
For majority of the scholars who researched the Khalchayan battle scene, it seemed
rather a source towards ethnic identification of depicted personages, definition of the theme
of the scene and interpretation of the complex itself. Therefore the sculpture was not treated
as autonomous subject. Even most recent attempt of reconstruction by Marcus Mode ignored
possible structural frames of compositions and was focused on alleged narrative.16
His vision of main battle scene does not diffeЫΝ ЬЭКЫФХвΝ ПЫШЦΝ PuРКМСОЧФШЯК’Ь,Ν ЭСОΝ ЦКТЧΝ
difference is the limitation of the number of the riders and adding the bodies of the fallen
enemies. In the On the south wall he placed the figures of the three riders, one galloping with
the sword, on the left, one galloping with the severed head in his hand in the middle and one
with his arm extended on the right.17
Mode placed a warrior swinging sword on a horseback, which does not appear until
later Sasanian times and has been applied to hunting scenes only. Also diagonal position
of the sword behind the torso of the rider comes from an attempt of rational approach
to depiction of the sword blow, however whenever swords are depicted in action in Sasanian
and Sasanian-related art, they are depicted in three positions – (1) in an extended arm, already
sunk in the target after a cut, (2) thrusted into beasts body, which itself is held by
ЭСОΝpОЫЬШЧКРОЬΝХОПЭΝСКЧНΝШЫΝ(γ)ΝаТЭСΝЭТpΝЫКТЬОНΝЯОЫЭТМКХХвΝupаКЫНЬΝЛОСТЧНΝpОЫЬШЧКРО’ЬΝЛШНвέΝ
14
MODE, 2013: 207, fig. 4.
BERNARD, 1987: 760-761; ABDULLAEV, 1995a: 156-157.
16
MODE, 2013: 208, figs. 6, 8.
17
MODE 2006b.
15
Page | 72
On Orlat plaque with a battle scene the swords are depicted in non-canonical, assumedly
more realistic, ways however, as it will be demonstrated later, they should be regarded
as relatively distant, however legible, echoes of the Hellenistic models.18 In might be argued
that the sword in extended arm of the warrior in the upper register of Orlat plaque could
correspond with the ḴОбЭОЧНОНΝ КЫЦΝ pШЬТЭТШЧḵΝ ШПΝ ХКЭОЫΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ ЦШЭТПЬΝ СШаОЯОЫΝ
the sword in the bended arm of the warrior in the lower register refers to Hellenistic motif
transferred to CeЧЭЫКХΝAЬТКЧΝЬЭвХТгКЭТШЧΝКЧНΝЫОКХТЭвέΝAЧШЭСОЫΝПТРuЫОΝТЧΝεШНО’ЬΝЫОМШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ
of galloping rider holding a severed head in his extended hand does not find any reference
in related iconography. It is mere attempt of finding a rational place of the sculpted severed
head among the elements found in the debris. The closest depiction comes from Orlat battle
scene where the head is tied to the chest strap of the mount of the rider in the upper register.
The other occasion is the head presented to ṣ puЫΝon BТš p ЫΝfrieze. In none of the examples
it is shown in the hand of galloping rider. The similar gore elements of the column of Traian
are placed in clearly narrative environment and are linked to clearly identifiable events which
refer to more realistic way of depicting warfare in Roman monumental art as it was defined
by Tonio Holscher19. The example of BТš p ЫΝshows that combination of gore and glory was
not impossible and most likely common in real life however rare in art.20
The rightmost rider of the South wall was imagined by Mode with extended arm
and mounted on walking horse. Strangely, the small figure of Nike-like personage with
diadem appears behind the rider whose extended arm is empty. First of all, the combination
of the dynamic battle scenes with investiture or triumphal scenes within the same
composition is not known in Hellenistic or post-Hellenistic art. The exception could be
Strelka plate or the decoration of the back wall at
q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ grotto where the still
personages are shown in the register above the more dynamic scene of smaller scale however
they are most likely related to early Byzantine compositional formulae and clearly rank
the still figures as more important both by upper position and bigger scale.21 This is not
18
Such interpretation which assumes narrative rather than iconic nature of post-Hellenistic Central
Asian art does not seem practical if the standard icons of violence are found in the Orlat plaque. What
seems important is that the narrative compositions in Near Eastern/Central Asian art are practically
absent between Assyrian reliefs and Panjikent murals, perhaps they can be found on side walls
of q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ РЫШЭЭШέΝ εКУШЫТЭвΝ ШП Iranian art in Post-Hellenistic and pre-Islamic art seems iconic
rather than narrative in nature. MODE, 2006b.
19
HнSCHδźR,Νβίίγέ
20
This clearly corresponds with reality of the time and culture which can be illustrated by the episodes
ПЫШЦΝPХuЭКЫМСuЬ’ΝCrassus (XXV.33) where ЭСОΝSuЫОЧК’ЬΝаКЫЫТШЫЬΝНТХТРОЧЭХвΝМuЭΝШППΝЭСОΝСОКНЬΝШПΝPuЛХТuЬΝ
Crassus and his comerades and later on Armenian court where an actor and a soldier competed for
the right of handing over severed head to the ruler. Alleged practice of early Sasanian of placing
severed heads in AЧ СТЭ temple seem to contradict Zoroastrian principles of ritual impurity resulting
from the contact with the corpse but fits well in tradition of violent Iranian and Central Asian warriors
аСТМСΝ аКЬΝ ЬЭТХХΝ ХОРТЛХОΝ НuЫТЧРΝ ŻТЫНКаЬ Ν ЭТЦОЬέΝ IЭ should be noted that in code of honor depicted
in Š С-n mК (2007: 208) a warrior who was victorious in duel was decapitating the victim with
the dagger. Clearly the beheading of the defeated warrior was more about taking a trophy than simply
killing the opponent which could be achieved by other, simpler, means. The Iranian-nomadic practice
could be found on the pages of Herodotus and was more resilient than the principles of formal religion.
21
The great grotto in
q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ СКЬΝ ЛООЧΝ НТЬМuЬЬОНΝ ЭСШЫШuРСХвΝ ТЧΝ ХТРСЭΝ ШПΝ Iranian ideologies.
Its design seems under-researched. Winged creatures crowning the arch are known in Byzantine
churches. The composition of the apses often shares the scheme of upper zone with larger personages
(often placed in triads with dominant central figure) and lower of lesser importance. The side walls are
often dedicated to the scenes of minor importance.Similar scheme can be identified in ivory diptychs.
Page | 73
the case in reconstruction proposed by Mode, all riders seem equal except for the sequence
from right to left of from left to right. In narrative order one might see the events following
each other from left side – first scene of decapitation with the sword, than riding with
captured head and at the end triumphal parade. Such a Ḵcomic-ЛШШФḵΝЧКЫЫКЭТШЧΝМКЧΝЛОΝПШuЧНΝ
on Assyrian reliefs and Panjikent murals however the selected stages present close continuity
between scene one and two and a gap between two and three. The gap is not only defined
chronologically but also stylistically and thematically. Reading the sequence from right to left
(as per direction of the pace, the horses ride rightwards so the rightmost personage is the first
one) suggest the gradation of importance – from glorious triumphant rider to his also
victorious attendants. The problem with the latter is that the rider on the parade seems idle
and non-heroic in comparison to his side-kicks. The multi-figural scene of mounted victory
in Ż Ы г Л НΝ keeps the order of importance of the personages – first goes the king, than
the crown-prince and the difficult to identify personage goes as the last one, all are depicted
involved in victorious combat. Parade excludes the battle in the same scene, parade can occur
after the battle and it represents different kind of glory. Depicted personage cannot in
the same scene indulge the triumph and excel in combat skills. What is even less credible
ТЧΝ εШНО’ЬΝ proposal is that the triumphant rider has his arm extended towards the end
of the wall, he is not reaching for anything, He holds his arm extended allegedly towards
the short wall with the armored and two unarmored riders. Naturally Sasanian iconography
provides multitude of examples of the riders reaching their arm but they usually hold in
the hand the ring of investiture of the ring of mihr and in the riders with extended arm
in Indo-Saka coinage hold a symbol of power – a whip or an axe, also the personages
on the Kuš ЧΝcoins, when depicted with extended arm, hold an object in hand. Mode assumes
the narrative sequence, takes it for granted however the narrative function of monumental art
has not been anyhow founded.22
In order to suggest possible layouts of the Khalchayan battle friezes and the positions
of the helmeted and diademed heads within them the composition patterns of the mounted
combat scenes in Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic art should be shortly discussed. Firstly
the proposal of the principles of construction of the multi figural compositions of violence
will be presented, secondly the formulae of the particular scenes, either independent
or included into larger compositions, will be drafted.
The formula was translated to flat format. The winged figures crowning the arch occur, the larger
personages are depicted in upper register while the importance of the scenes diminishes vertically as if
the lowest register represented the walls. The scenes depicting fighting the beasts also appear there.
Berberini diptych depicts victorious rider and the zone of the beasts. In
q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ ЭСОΝ НОПТЧОНΝ
elements can be distinguished: winged genies, two registers of the back wall, the upper with the triad
of the larger scale personages, lower depicting an armored rider and sides dedicated to the hunting.
The structural correspondence with early Christian apses seems clear, the relation with the diptychs is
nonetheless interesting as it includes the figure of the rider and the hunting scenes.
Similarities appear also in toreutics: missorium of Theodosius, late/post-Sasanian Strelka plate.
This relation could be linked with historical events - КЬΝ КЧΝ КЭЭОЦpЭΝ ШПΝ БuЬЫō’ЬΝ НОМХКЫКЭТШЧΝ
of conquering Eastern Roman empire (the first siege of Constantinople) it is equally possible that they
resulted of long lasting cultural exchange between both states.
22
This methodology of prevalence of narration over icon has been presented by Mode in his study
of Orlat plate and development of the decorations of q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч; MODE, 2006a, 2006b.
Page | 74
Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic composition structures of the battle and hunt scenes
The depictions of violence, which involve the riders, dated to Hellenistic era are on
one hand rooted in the earlier traditions, on the other hand they survived, at least in elements,
in the arts of the cultures which developed after political Hellenism collapsed. Tonio
HöХЬМСОЫΝ НОПТЧОНΝ ШppШЬТЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ żЫООФΝ КЧНΝ ЬuЛЬОquОЧЭΝ HОХХОЧТЬЭТМΝ ЭЫКНТЭТШЧΝ ТЧΝ НОpТМЭТШЧΝ
of warfare, where battles were generally represented as the groups of duels,
with the principles of monumental Roman art, narrative and somehow more realistic
ТЧΝ ЧКЭuЫОέΝ TСОΝ pШТЧЭΝ аСТМСΝ HöХЬМСОЫΝ ЬООЦЬΝ ЭШΝ ЦТЬЬΝ ТЬΝ ЭСОΝ ПКМЭΝ ЭСКЭΝ RШЦКЧΝ НОpТМЭТШЧЬΝ
of combat were not limited to monumental narrations but can be found also on military
tombstones, which continue tradition of heroic single combat, but on top of that, even
the monumental Roman art employs Hellenistic ḴЬЭШМФΝТЦКРОЬḵΝаСОЧΝТЭΝМШЦОЬΝЭШΝНОpТМЭТЧРΝ
victorious riders. Survival of these elements in tradition, rightfully, defined as foreign only
proves their vitality. Perhaps, this phenomenon illustrates different functions of monumental
art in Greek and Roman mentality. Greek pictorial tradition mirrored the expectation
of immortal glory while Roman might follow tradition of painted panels of illustrating
the events of the war carried by the triumph. Individual victory has always remained in center
of Hellenic imagery while the technicalities of the maneuvers of the troops leading
to the victory of particular commander inspired Roman monumental art. Even than the detail
elements developed in Hellenistic iconography of military victory were occasionally
employed. Therefore ḴHОХХОЧТЬЭТМḵΝ КppЫШКМСΝ МШЦЛТЧОНΝ ЭСОΝ ЬМОЧОЬΝ ШПΝ ТЧНТЯТНuКХΝ МХКЬСОЬΝ
placed in several orders.
Vignettes. On the bodies of the ceramic vessels the combat scenes could be placed
in various geometrical orders depending on the significance of a particular scene or aesthetic
demand. Monumental pictorial art, in most cases fitted into actual architectural frames
or decorating sarcophagi, often imitating architecture, did not offer similar freedom. Usually
the scenes are fitted into elongated rectangular fields where the singular combat scenes are
located one by another creating a visual rhythm of accentuated centers. Even though
the scenes are not separated from each other by any architectural means like columns,
metopes or arches, they define distinguished centers of ḴЯТЬuКХΝРЫКЯТЭвḵέΝTСОΝЬМОЧОЬΝКЫОΝШПЭОЧΝ
linked by shared personages which emphasizes their organic connection, nevertheless, unlike
in later Roman multi-figurative battle scenes which often accentuate turmoil of the clash,
the scenes are clearly legible and separated in pictorial field. The examples of such layout can
be found on the mural with the hunting scnes from Vergina,23 long side
ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЬКЫМophagus from Sidon,24 Aemilius Paulus monument in Delphi.
In later Iranian art it can be observed in F Ы г Л НΝ frieze which in fact might be a bridge
between standard ḴЯТРЧОЭЭОḵ style and below ḴЭаТЧΝpТМЭuЫОḵΝЭвpОΝНОЬМЫТЛОНΝЛОХШаέ
Twin picture. The specific type of ḴЯТРЧОЭЭОḵΝ ЭвpОΝ ТЬΝ ḴЭаТЧΝ pТМЭuЫОḵΝ where
the rectangular field is divided into two equal, often symmetrical, sometimes repetitive
scenes. The source of inspiration for two almost identical scenes could be the belt
or leggings/shoes clasps or horse harness phalerae where the scenes were occasionally
repeated symmetrically. Such portable luxury objects were exchanged, traded, taken
as trophies and were perfect transmitters of motifs. The twin picture model can be found
on decoration of the elements of horse harness or objects of applied art as it can be exampled
by the scene on the bronze belt-plaque from Pergamon with two main personages whose
23
24
PALAGIA, 2015: 21, fig. 9b.
PIRSON, 2014: tab. 40.
Page | 75
large, round shields mark the two combats.25 the bronze fragment of the horse harness
ПЫШЦΝ SКЧК’КΝ аТЭСΝ ЭаШΝ КХЦШЬЭΝ ТНОЧЭТМКХΝ ЦШuЧЭОНΝ НuОХΝ ЬМОЧОЬΝ КЧНΝ ЭСОΝ pХКquОΝ ПЫШЦΝ τХНΝ σТЬКΝ
now lost, depicting two mounted lancers charging two infantry soldiers or a duel of foot
warriors and a rider chasing a fleeing infantryman.26 The composition was employed
in monumental art quite early and can be noticed on sarcophagus frШЦΝČКЧΝПЫШЦΝAМСКОЦОТЧНΝ
era,27 where on the long side there were two hunting scenes separated by a tree
of which only the right one depicting boar hunt was preserved in complete shape while
the left one depicting stag hunt remained in fragments only.28 Two separate duels were
depicted on the panel from Izraza. Also on fragments of Aemilius Paulus monument,
however damaged and difficult to interpret, the idea of twin picture seems to be prezent.29
Similar composition might have been used on the battle scene on the partly damaged sheath
from Takht-i Sanghin where infantry warrior in the right part is being attacked
by the mounted lancer while from the left part only another foot combatant is preserved.30
The same layout can be observed on the Parthian so-called żōНКЫгΝfrieze where two scenes
of mounted combat were placed in horizontal sequence. The object that matches
the compositional idea of the discussed type is (despite the difference in scale and in
the themes represented) the early Sasanian rock relief at SКХЦ ЬΝ with two repetitive scenes
ШПΝЦШuЧЭОНΝТЧЯОЬЭТЭuЫО,ΝаСТМСΝЯКЫвΝШЧХвΝТЧΝЭСОΝНОЭКТХЬΝШПΝЭСОΝpОЫЬШЧКРОЬ’ΝРОКЫέ31 Also, as was
mentioned earlier the battle relief at Ż Ы г Л НΝ falls into the category of the Ḵtwin ЬМОЧОḵΝ
as the depictions of AЫНКš ЫΝ and ṣ puЫ,Νvary merely in details, creating a visual impression
of doubling one and the same motif, however the figure of a Sasanian beardless personage
25
SEKUNDA, DENNIS, 2012: 5; SEKUNDA, 2013: 97-98; it is worth mentioning that the Aemilius
Paulus monument in Delphi seem to repeat the model of two combat scenes (most likely consequent
events shown in one place) separated by a space.
26
PILIPKO, 2001: 321-322, PILIPKO, 2006: 266, 287, fig. 16; The duel of the foot warriors seems
less likely because of the difference in the size of the two combatants and the lance position held
by the left figure underarm, targeting diagonally down. Underarm spear employment occasionally
appears in ЭСОΝТМШЧШРЫКpСвΝШПΝПШШЭΝЬШХНТОЫЬ,ΝЛuЭΝЭСОΝШЯОЫКЫЦΝЭСЫuЬЭΝpЫОЯКТХЬνΝПuЫЭСОЫЦШЫОΝЭСОΝаКЫЫТШЫ’ЬΝ
hand is moved far back behind his body, which is typical for mounted lance wielding warriors.
27
SźVIσк, KORPE, TOMBUL, ROSE, STRAHAN, KIESERWETTER, WALLRODT, 2001: 389390, fig 4, 5.
28
SźVIσк, KORPE, TOMBUL, ROSE, STRAHAN, KIESERWETTER, WALLRODT, 2001: 383420; MA, 2008: 243-254; WU, 2014: 247-249; Interestingly placing of the boar and stag hunt within
single object can be also found in the great grotto at q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝ which might point special attention
for these themes in pre-Islamic Iranian imagery however only boar hunt has been researched so far.
29
Because the arm of the rider is missing it is impossible to be fully certain about the direction
of the attack, however certain preference of symmetry which stabilizes dynamism of the particular
scenes can be observed in Hellenistic art, therefore it is difficult to accept that both rider and
the infantryman are charging right – outside of the field with no target of the attack. I believe that
the rider was directing his weapon against the infantryman chasing him. This would made
the composition more delicate and complicated – except for two heraldic horses marking basic
symmetry, the picture contains two running footmen. The innermost motion of the left one stabilizes
the outside movement of the left rider directed to the left, the right rider is directed to the right i.e.
the same direction as the attack of the footmen, therefore, in order to neutralize their motion outside
of the field the attack of the rider should be directed towards the center, against running infantryman.
This aesthetic device allows a delicate play with the visual and geometrical axis and is fully in line
with Hellenistic taste for theatrical effects.
30
LITVINSKY, 2001: 262, pl. 72/1; LITVINSKY, 2010: 31, pl. 31-32, fig. 3; the motif of an armored,
mounted lancer attacking a foot warrior is confirmed for 2 nd century BC Southern Arabia, see: POTTS,
1998: 187-189, fig. 3.
31
HINZ, 1965; SHAVAREBI, 2014.
Page | 76
in mounted wrestling with Parthian warrior changes the layout.32 It should be emphasized that
both the SКХЦ ЬΝ and the Ż Ы г Л НΝ reliefs belong to the early stage of development
of Sasanian art. The idea of the ḴЭаТЧΝ ЬМОЧОḵΝ НТНΝ ЧШЭΝ МШЦОΝ ex nihilo. It is most likely that
Sasanian artisans decided to use existing formulae from other media in creating a new
iconographic program for rock reliefs. It should be noted here that Hephtalite silver plates
provide examples of hunting scenes in a row however they are distributed over the rounded
body of the vessel, hence do not fall directly into to the category of twin picture however
might be inspired by it.33 The best known work of art which is composed of two scenes
НТЯТНТЧРΝЫОМЭКЧРuХКЫΝpТМЭШЫТКХΝПТОХНΝТЧΝСКХЯОЬΝТЬΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝεШЬКТМΝПЫШЦΝЭСОΝHШuЬОΝШПΝŻКuЧΝ
in Pompeii.34 Here, similarly as in case of the discussed shortly above panel
from Aemilius Paulus monument, we can observe the right side, belonging to Alexander,
dominated by the rapid inward movement balanced by the hit Persian and vertical tree;
and the left part, belonging to Darius, dominated by the external movement, neutralized
by the dramatic gesture of Darius. Even if such perception of the mosaic was correct, it does
not contain real ḴЭаТЧΝpТМЭuЫОḵΝas the topics of the scenes are different (mounted victory and
ḴКЛНuМЭТШЧḵ)ΝТЭΝЫОpЫОЬОЧЭЬΝРОЧОЫКХΝТНОКΝШПΝpХКcing symmetrical scenes within single format.35
Central scene of ḴПХКЧФОНΝЭЫТuЦpСḵΝis the composition device where the main scene
of heroic victory is flanked by the troops supporting both sides as it can be observed
on Achaemenid gems, battle scene from Tatarli tomb, reliefs from the epitaph of Payava
(Fig. 7), tympanum of the monument of Nereid from Xanthos, epitaph of Limyra
or the group of Etruscan urns. Occasionally, within the latter objects the role of the troops
assisting the main personages was taken over by the deities standing by both sides
of the scene or even panoplia vertically limiting the scene from both sides. Although heavily
damaged, the belt clasp from Tilla Bulak36 seems to follow this principle with two riders
approaching from each end and badly preserved central combat scene which might allow its
identification as Ḵvictim in the centerḵ type which will be presented below.37
Vignettes with dominant central scene. The composition which combines the features
of ḴЯТРЧОЭЭОЬḵΝ КЧНΝ Ḵflanked trТuЦpСḵΝ ТЧМХuНОЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЬОЫТОЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ МШЦЛКЭΝ ЬМОЧОЬΝ аТЭСΝ
the dominant, the main one in the center. This formula is represented the battle scene on short
side of Sarcophagus of Alexander from Sidon 9 the battle scene),38 scenes on Bithynian
stelae39 and on a group of Etruscan urns.40
Victim in the center. This formula is difficult to define whether it should be
classified as one of composition principles or particular scene layout. Also it is applied
to both mounted and on foot scenes and vast majority of the scenes belong to hunt rather than
32
BIVAR, 1972; ALLAN, 1986; GALL VON, 1990: 20-30; MIELCZAREK, 1993: 38-39, 49, 62-63;
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2006: 154-160; GALL VON, 2008: 149-150.
33
NIKONOROV, 1997: 18, 78, fig. 46; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2009: 58-59; 61.
34
CτHźσΝ ńλλινΝ PτδA SKI, 2002: 171-192; DUNBABIN, 1999: 38-52; BERNHARD, 1980:
462-477; HAVELOCK, 1972: 221-224; BOARDMANN, 1999: 253-257; PALAGIA, 2015: 8-9.
35
COHEN, 1997; PτδA SKI,Ν 2002; DUNBABIN, 1999; BERNHARD, 1980; HAVELOCK, 1972;
BOARDMANN, 1999; PALAGIA, 2015: 8-9.
36
żRUBźR,ΝIδ’ВASτV,ΝKAσIUTH,ΝβίńβμΝγηι,ΝПТРΝńζ.
37
żRUBźR,ΝIδ’ВASτV,ΝKAσIUTH, 2012: 339-375, fig. 14.
38
HAVELOCK, 1972: 191-192, fig. 150-152; BOARDMAN, 1999: 237-240, fig. 237; PALAGIA,
2015: 8-9; PIRSON, 2014: 248-349, tabl. 40-41.
39
PIRSON, 2014: 236, tabl. 25.
40
PIRSON, 2014: 252-274.
Page | 77
the combat. The name applied here is also misleading as the central, powerful figure can be
interpreted as a victim, a hero or a heroic victim of the scene. Unlike the scene layouts listed
below ḴЯТМЭТЦΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МОЧЭОЫḵΝ ТЬΝ КХаКys placed in horizontal, rectangular format and always
involves several dramatis personae. In most cases it is applied to hunting scenes where it
involves at least two hunters flanking a beast between them. One of them (either on foot
or mounted) normally uses a spear or javelin while another a battle-axe, often the scene is
enveloped from the right side by another rider. Sometimes the composition itself is flanked
the mounted figures which somehow associates it with ḴПХКЧФОНΝ ЭЫТuЦpСḵ. The examples
of this motif can be found in mosaics from Pella and Alexandria,41 murals from Thracian
Alexandrova tumulus42 or lion hunt on mural from Vergina.43 The same layout was applied
in the boar hunt scene on the Thracian rhyton from National Museum in Sophia.44 Especially
elaborated and rich formula ḴЯТМЭТЦΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МОЧЭОЫΝ ПХКЧФОНΝ аТЭСΝ КЭЭОЧНКЧЭЬΝ КЧНΝ ЯТРЧОЭЭОЬḵΝ
on the sides was applied on the other side of sarcophagus of Alexander from Sidon.45
This example shows that the discussed models were interchangeable and could employ
the elements from each other – the central scene of the mounted lion hunt with the assisting
footman with an axe has been enveloped by two riders behind whom the scene of stag hunt
on the right and two-figural foot scene on the left side were placed.46 In the upper register
of the Orlat plaque the formula was seemingly applied to battle scene where the place
of a boar or a lion is taken by the two riders turning around. The victorious rider on the left
hits his opponent with the lance while dismounted warrior on the right kills his opponent with
an axe hence fulfilling the principles of Hellenistic pictorial structures47. What seems
extremely interesting is that both flanking figures are hit by the warrior from the center. It is
difficult to determine whether this is an influence of the local, Central-Asian ḴTuЫКЧТКЧḵΝ
aesthetics or could be a result of ambiguity of the discussed layout where central figure is not
clearly defined as ḴЯТМЭТЦḵ.
Victorious mounted combat in Hellenistic art
When discussing Hellenistic repertoire of the ḴЬЭШМФΝТЦКРОЬḵΝЛОТЧРΝuЬОНΝТЧΝНОpТМЭТШЧЬΝ
of victorious and heroic riders in combat one should attempt a division between formulae
or the typical layouts of the scenes, usually compact, fitted into square or round format
and fixed ḴpЫШpЬḵΝ аСТМСΝ ЦТРСЭΝ ТЧМХuНОΝ ШЛУОМЭЬΝ ЭвpТМКХХвΝ КppОКЫТЧРΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЬМОЧОЬΝ КЬΝ аОХХΝ
as postures, gestures or dramatic details. These two groups are interchanging and naturally
influence each other however first group will be defined more as set of compositional
principles while the second group, as standard details filling them. Inevitable ambiguity
appears when the details are large enough to affect the composition but also appear in other
contexts.
41
DUNBABIN, 1999: 12-15, 22-26; PALAGIA, 2015: 6, fig. 7; SEKUNDA, 2013: 64-66, fig. 3, 6, 3,
7.
42
VASSILEVA, 2010: 39-44.
BRIANT, 1991: 211-255; PALAGIA, 2015: 4-7; BREKOULAKI, 2011: 209-213; BOARDMAN,
1999: 192-196.
44
ZHYRAVLEV, FRISOV, 2013: 148-149.
45
PIRSON, 2014, tab. 40.
46
HAVELOCK, 1972: 191-192, fig. 150-152; BOARDMAN, 1999: 237-240, fig. 237; PALAGIA,
2015: 8-9; PIRSON, 2014: 248-349, tabl. 40-41.
47
NIKONOROV, 1997: 17, 75, fig 43; OLBRYCHT, 1999: 204-207, fig 59 a-b, MODE, 2006: 419454; ILYASOV, RUSANOV, 1997/1998: 107-143; ABDULLAEV, 1995a: 151-162; ABDULLAEV,
1995b: 163-180.
43
Page | 78
The compositional formulae of victorious mounted combat scenes in Hellenistic art
Rider confronted with a standing infantryman. In this layout the winner is shown
usually galloping to the right side and occupying larger part of the pictorial format, while
the opponent plays a role of a vertical accent closing the format and visually ḴКЛЬШЫЛТЧРḵΝ
the energy of the attack of the rider. In the majority of cases, in order to strictly follow
the rule of isokephalia the infantryman is depicted as disproportionally taller than the rider.
Frequent prop appearing in these scenes is a large shield, in most cases an oval thyreos.
IЧΝЭСТЬΝаКвΝЭСОΝЯОЫЭТМКХ,ΝХТЦТЭТЧРΝЭСОΝСШЫЬОЦКЧ’ЬΝЦШЯОЦОЧЭ,ΝМСКЫКМЭОЫΝШПΝЭСОΝЬЭКЧНТЧРΝПТРuЫОΝТЬΝ
emphasized.The examples of this layout can be found on Graeco-Achaemenid gems,48 wall
painting from Kinch,49 the murals form Thracian tumulus from Alexandrova50 or golden
Scythian plaque from Geramesova kurgan51 and on several Etruscan urns.52 In later art
this motif is present in the bullae and metal decoration from Old Nisa53 as well as
in several examples of Sasanian silverwork.54 In search of the origin of the formula one might
recall the decoration of the golden sheath of the akinakes from the Oxus treasure which is
decorated with the rhythm of mounted archers discharging arrows against the lions standing
vertically on hind legs.55 The decoration of the Parthian or late Seleucid tile from Babylonia
(now in British Museum) shows the confrontation of the armored rider with an oversized
protome of the lion which allows avoiding depicting the beast extended vertically but clearly
marking the edge of the format 56.
Rider confronted with a standing infantryman with a figure extended
horizontally below the hooves of the mount. A popular development of the above formula
was addition of the body of an enemy below the hooves of the main personage. Pit is possible
that the layout discussed above might in fact be a limited version of currently discussed
however it should be also mentioned that the body of the dead opponent in one of the ḴpЫШpЬḵΝ
in foot combat or accompanies other scenes which include mounted clashes as the silhouettes
of the defeated enemies being trampled by the chariots in Assyrian and Egyptian art. It seems
that this formula has specifically Near Eastern origin and in this region it survived until
the latest. The oldest two examples the bronze sheet of Asurbanipal II currently in British
Museum and the seal of Cyrus (the grandfather of Cyrus the Great) from Anshan.57 Later on
the formula can be found on the reliefs of the Southern frieze of the temple
of Athena-Nike from Parthenon (now in British Museum), on several Athenian grave reliefs,
in relief on the mausoleum of Payava and several Greaco-Persian.58 Further on it is found on
the Bithynian stelae, Aemilius Paulus monument or silver decorations of the Thracian horse
48
BOARDMAN, 1970: 303-357; MA, 2008: 243-254; VASSILEVA, 2010: 37-46.
CHANIOTIS, 2005: 196, il. 10.1; MARKLE, 1982: 90.
50
VASSILEVA, 2010: 39-44.
51
PIOTROVSKY, GALANINA: 1986: 92-93, pl. 136.
52
PIRSON, 2014: 252-274.
53
GAIBOV, KOSHELENKO, 2008: 99-107; PILIPKO, 2001: 322; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2009: 49-65;
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015a: 235-265; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b: 180-211; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2016.
54
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2009; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2016;
HARPER, 1978; HARPER, 1983: 1113-1130; HARPER, 2006; HARPER, MEYERS, 1980;
PILIPKO, 2006: 266, 287, fig. 16.
55
STRONACH, 1998: 231-248; BOARDMAN, 2006: 115-119.
56
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2009: 49-65; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015a: 235-265; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2016.
57
HARPER, 2006: 14-18, 46, fig. 16.
58
PIRSON, 2014: 230, tabl. 34; MA, 2008: 244, fig. 3; NEFEDKIN, 2006: 8, fig. 3; BOARDMAN,
1970: 303-357.
49
Page | 79
harness from Letnitsa,59 аСОЫОΝ ТЭΝ аКЬΝ КppХТОНΝ ЭШΝ НОpТМЭΝ КΝ ЫТНОЫ’ЬΝ МШЦЛКЭΝ аТЭСΝ КΝ ЛОКЫέΝ TСТЬΝ
layout is the basic formula of so-called hunting scenes in Sasanian and post-Sasanian
toreutics but also on Palmyrean mosaic discovered by Gawlikowski.60 In majority
of later examples the discussed layout was applied to hunting scenes with an exception
of the Lombard or Byzantine plate from Isola Rizza where an armored rider was shown
attacking standing lightly armed opponent over a corpse of another.61
Victim shown diagonally. The formula od a rider dominating an opponent or a beast
which gained biggest popularity in ancient art and keenly copied in Renaissance and after
shows a rider on rearing horse or a galloping horse with hind legs on the ground and
the victim obliquely below the front hooves of the mount. The examples of this layout are
numerous and among them again one should list Athenian epitaphs, Achaemenid-Thracian
plate with bear hunt and clearly related to it silver plaque from Peicheva tumulus
КЧНΝ ЭСОΝ ЛКЭЭХОΝ ЬМОЧОΝ ČКЧΝ sarcophagus,62 further this formula was transferred
in Hellenistic, Etruscan and Roman art and its examples can be found among Sasanian silver
plates as well.63 Again its origin could be found in Assyrian art where it can be found
on the reliefs of Tiglah Pilaser, now in collection of the British Museum and at the decoration
of the mouth of the akinakes sheath from the Oxus treasure.64 Related formula with the rider
being attacked by the victim from the bottom right corner can be found on the hunting scene
ПЫШЦΝ ЭСОΝ ČКЧΝ ЬКЫМШpСКРuЬ,Ν ЬЭОХКΝ ПЫШЦΝ ВКЧТčФöвΝ КЧНΝ ВКХЧТгНКЦ, 65 on Alexander mosaic
and later it is present in Sasanian toreutics and stucco.66 Combination of both above
mentioned models can be found on Etruscan urns where diagonally placed victim
МШuЧЭОЫЬЭЫТФОЬΝаТЭСΝЭСОΝЬаШЫНΝЭШΝЭСОΝЛЫОКЬЭΝШПΝЭСОΝЯТМЭШЫ’ЬΝСШЫЬОέΝ
On the decoration of famous comb from kurgan Solokha67 the usual squarish or round
format was modified to flat triangle with the head of the rider defining its top angle, however
despite that all the elements of above discussed models are preserved however the body
of the dead enemy was replaced by the corpse of the horse. This shows
that the discussed formulae were not treated stiffly and artisans allowed themselves
interchanging the elements in search of greater artistic effect.
Victory over tumbling opponent. Addition of the dead horse of the opponent
of the main personage might have led to development of the formula which gained popularity
in Parthian and Sasanian Iran, ḴЯТМЭШЫвΝ ШЯОЫΝ ЭuЦЛХТЧРΝ ШppШЧОЧЭḵ,Ν where victorious rider
in the posture full of cold composure, somehow effortlessly, spears down the opponent
falling off the horse, often hit in the back which suggests that the action took place during
disgraceful and cowardly attempt to flee the charging hero. The examples of this model can
be found in żōНКЫг,Νrelief, Kosika vessel, Sasanian reliefs in Ż Ы г Л НΝКЧНΝσКqš-e Rostam.
59
Thracian Gold from Bulgaria, 2013: 180-201.
GAWLIKOWSKI, 2005: 1293-1304; HARPER, 2006. SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b.
61
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015a.
62
MA, 2008: 243-25; SźVIσк, KORPE, TOMBUL, ROSE, STRAHAN, KIESERWETTER,
WALLRODT, 2001: 383-420.
63
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b.
64
STORNACH, 1998: 231-248; BOARDMAN, 2006: 115-119.
65
KUBALA, 2006: 55-57.
66
MA, 2008: 243-254; VASSILEVA, 2010: 37-46; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b; COHEN, 1997;
PτδA SKI,ΝβίίβμΝńιń-192; DUNBABIN, 1999: 38-52; BERNHARD, 1980: 462-477; HAVELOCK,
1972: 221-224; BOARDMANN, 1999: 253-257; PALAGIA, 2015: 8-9.
67
KUBCZAK, 1978; KUBCZAK, 1995: 16, 19, 25; Scythian Art, 1986: fig. 128-129; Golden Deer of
Eurasia, 2000: 219-223.
60
Page | 80
I have suggested in other place that the techniques of causing the riders to collapse along with
the horses were practiced in Mediaeval Oriental mounted lance combat therefore these heroic
scenes might contain a dose of battle-field realism.68
Rider attacking an infantryman behind. This visual formula might be
an equivalent of the ḴParthian shoЭḵΝКЧНΝТЧНООНΝТЭΝРКТЧОНΝТЭЬΝРЫОКЭОЬЭΝpШpuХКЫТЭвΝТЧΝНОpТМЭТШЧЬΝ
of archers in Sasanian toreutics however the personages employing swords or lances also
occur.
Confrontation of two riders. Placing two riders symmetrically charging each other
did not gain great popularity in the ancient world, the examples from Izraza frieze, Nereid
monument from Xanthos and in later period from Dura Europos or decoration of horse
harness from Yemen and relief σКqš-e Rostam 5 create profound exceptions.69
The confrontation of the galloping riders was to become fixed motif in Sogdian art and later
in European Middle Ages. Iranian aesthetics seemed required clarity in identification
of the winner whom usually was king of kings therefore even when this formula was applied
(like in σКqš-e Rostam 5 ) it was important not to leave any doubts regarding
the identification of the glorious victor.
Rider hitting vertically downwards. This layout was developed most likely in later
antiquity and it is unlikely that it would affect visual layouts in Khalchayan. It might
originate from application of a formula of a man on foot thrusting downwards
from Achaemenid iconography.
Rider chasing fleeing mounted opponents. This layout seems yet another remnant
of Assyrian iconography (reliefs of Ashur Nasir Pala, Tiglath Pilasar and Sennaherib
from British Museum), which were transmitted through Achaemenid iconography
(Achaemano-Greek gems, the pectoral from Miho Museum70) to Hellenistic Asia Minor
(Stela from Bursa Museum71). Afterwards is ceases to exist, apparently being replaced
by ḴЯТМЭШЫвΝ ШЯОЫΝ ЭuЦЛХТЧРΝ ШppШЧОЧЭḵΝ which apparently marked clearly enough that
the loosing personage was defeated during dishonorable retreat and forcing the enemies to
flee became insufficiently heroic or definite.
Single rider. Iranian iconography offers the representations of the armored riders
either in gallop or on the slow pacing mounts who are not confronted with any opponent.
This model is known from graffiti from Dura Europos and К Ы ,, heavily reconstructed
stucco from Metropolitan Museum of Art, equestrian figure from the great grotto from
q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ and several examples of Sasanian toreutics which include the bullae
of sp СЛОНКn. It is unclear if the rider charging without any target could be interpreted
as a form of parade where he can display his equestrian skills however the representations
on standing or slow-paced horses do not leave any doubt about their ceremonial nature.
What attracts attention is that this model was initially reserved for the petty art and only
in late Sasanian period it was adopted for the monumental representations.
68
GALL VON, 1997: 174-197; GALL VON, 1998; GALL VON, 2008: 149-161;SKUPNIEWICZ,
2015a; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b.
69
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015a; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2016.
70
BERNARD, INAGAKI, 2000: 1371-1437; CASABONNE, GABRIELLI, 2006: 85-90; MOOREY,
1998: 155-171.
71
PIRSON, 2014: 230, tabl. 34.
Page | 81
“Props” in Hellenistic scenes of mounted combat
As it was said above, there are some repetitive elements of the Hellenistic and postHellenistic scenes of mounted combat. They do not appear in all scenes but constitute
the groups of motifs associated with the theme.
Main personage’s attendant. The foot assistant or assistants of the heroic rider are
one of repetitive elements of numerous depictions. Usually is shown as light armed
prodromos, which is in line with Greek tactics.72 In Hellenistic and Roman funeral art
the silhouette was shown visible in upper half over the rump of the horse. In Iranian art
he assistant or assistants were shown as small silhouettes placed over the rump and
in σКqš-e Rostam relief this personage was replaced by the mounted banner-bearer following
the king whose steed is shown only partially. In Tang-e Sarvak (Fig. 8) the archer started
appearing as an attendant what is visible on relief from Tang-e Sarvak and the continuity
of this tradition can be found on lower register of Orlat. Another weapon in hands
of the attendants of the victorious riders is an axe which might derive from the formula
described above as ḴVictim in the centeЫḵΝ аСОЫОΝ uЬuКХХвΝ ЧuНОΝ КбО-man is one
of the personages enveloping the central ḴЯТМЭТЦḵ. The sources of this motif can be searched
in Neo-Hittite iconography (relief from SКФčКРöгu,Ν KКЫРКЦТš),Ν СШаОЯОЫΝ ЭСОΝ аКвΝ ТЭΝ аШuХНΝ
found to early-Hellenistic, Thracian, Etrurian, Iranian and Central Asian imageries, remains
unknown. Perhaps the Hittite objects were observed in situ by travelling Greeks and adopted
to Greek content which was later ḴЭЫКЧЬХКЭОНḵΝ ЭШΝ ХШМКХΝ ЯТЬuКХΝ ХКЧРuКРОЬέΝ τММКЬТШЧКХХвΝ
personage behind the main rider is believed to be one of his opponents as it is the case
аТЭСΝČКЧΝЬКЫМШpСКРuЬΝМШЦЛКЭΝ scene and Solokha comb and be associated with mythical or
historical events.73 The development of the motif into clearly marking
the personage behind the hero as his attendant strongly suggests that his visual role did not
change, also the attendants in question follow the same direction as the rider and visually
belong to the same group. There is nothing in the scenes on the sarcophagus or the comb
that would support identification of the figures behind the rider as his enemies. The attempts
of alternative explanations come from assumption that the scene is linked to mythical scene
from Herodotus (Solokha) or depicts an event from the life of the dead personage (ČКЧ)έ74
Arms of the hero. In vast majority of the examples, the victorious rider wields a sort
of shafted weapon, would it be short late Achaemenid spears palta held over-head
of Hellenistic xyston, which is sometimes described as cavalry-sarissa, held single-handed
КЭΝЭСОΝСТpΝХОЯОХΝКХШЧРЬТНОΝШЫΝКМЫШЬЬΝСШЫЬО’ЬΝЧОМФέ75 In Sasanian toreutics in place of shafted
weapons often bows, long cavalry swords or even lariats are shown. This fact is hardly
surprising as the swords of the era were relatively short and were difficult to use
from horseback against foot warrior, especially already fallen or falling. The only known
to current author example of depiction of the sword being used from horseback against
an infantryman comes from Etruscan urn. Naturally one might bear in mind the examples
where the weapons were not preserved in the hands of the heroic rider but in these cases
the distance between the hand and the target implied shafted weapons and exclude swords.
Appearance of the swords in the panoply of Sasanian heroic hunt derives from the fact
72
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015a; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b.
SźVIσк, KORPE, TOMBUL, ROSE, STRAHAN, KIESERWETTER, WALLRODT, 2001: 383420.
74
MA 2008, 9-10
75
SEKUNDA, 2001: 13-41; MARKLE, 1977: 323-33; MARKLE, 1978: 483-497; MARKLE, 1982:
86-111; CONOLLY, 2000: 103-112.
73
Page | 82
of development of specific weapons with extended reach of Steppe origin or brought
by the Steppe Nomads from China. It should be pointed out that the swords were shown
in foot combat against the beasts or the humans in both Achaemenid and classical Greek art.
In many cases the hero is shown in armor and helmet however Alexander
on the Pompeian mosaic is shown bare-headed and the riders on Tang-e Sarvak relief
and Kosika cup are shown in armor but on heads they wear diadems of no protective value.
Both examples follow the principle of frontalism in presenting faces of the heroes,
a well-known feature of Parthian monumental art.76 On F Ы г Л НΝ ПЫТОгОΝ ЛШЭСΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ
КЧНΝṣ puЫΝЬООЦΝЭШΝаОКЫΝЭСОТЫΝЫШвКХΝСОКННЫОЬЬ,ΝКЬΝТЭΝТЬΝФЧШаЧΝПЫШЦΝЭСОΝМШТЧКРО,ΝЫКЭСОЫΝЭСКЧΝ
the actual helmets while their Parthian opponents wear protective headgear. Also elaborated
СОКННЫОЬЬΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПЬΝ ШПΝ σКqš-e Rostam seems rather insignial than protective, again
in stark contrast with the opponents and the attendants. The testimony of Xenophont
regarding the battle of Cunaxa reveals that, in ancient Iran, a king was attending battle bareheaded.77 This might have a practical reason as the fate of the armies was associated
to the kings who led them therefore clear identification of the ruler was important for entire
battle tactics. This phenomenon was not limited to ancient Iran, it is enough to remind
that when during ЭСОΝЛКЭЭХОΝШПΝHКЬЭТЧРЬΝКΝЫuЦШЫΝШПΝАТХХТКЦ’ЬΝНОКЭСΝЬpЫОКНΝКЦШЧРΝСТЬΝЭЫШШpЬΝ
he had to lift his helmet and present himself alive to prevent withdrawal and defeat.78
In the light of the above presence of the bare-headed archer on Orlat plaque should not be
associated with any of above observations. The archer does not wear diadem so his lack
of helmet seems originating in either incomplete understanding of the principle or from sense
of realism of an artisan working for Central Asian warrior and in fact could be the one.
The victorious rider is usually depicted in an armor of the time and culture when
an object was made. Sometimes the rider was depicted with no armor, what can be found
a realistic aspect of hunting iconography however when it comes to depictions of fighting
the human enemies, it seems to be an element of imbuing with hero-like qualities
of the personage. What is intriguing is that the protective elements were occasionally shown
on hunting scenes as it can be observed on terracotta from British Museum of post-Sasanian
stucco from Chal-Tarkhan.79 At the same time it should be pointed out that the victims are
usually unarmored whether attacked by an armored or an un-armored rider, occasionally they
wear armors but in these cases the rider is also armored. It appears that the costly element
of military-gear as armor had its social significance and marked the wealth of its wearer,
therefore showing unarmored rider attacking an unarmored foe could mark heroic values
of the main personage, also showing both the winner and the loser in armor could mark
equality of the opponents however showing the fallen enemy in armor while the rider
in cloths might mark inferior social status of the latter. Alternatively the lack of armor might
signify the defenselessness of the victim against fully armored victor.
Position of the defeated. As it was said above the warrior about to be defeated
by the heroic personage could be shown standing or running, confronted with the attacking
hero. Another, very popular way of depicting defeated warrior is to show him with bent left
76
GALL VON, 1997: 174-197; GALL VON, 1998; GALL VON, 2008: 149-161;SKUPNIEWICZ,
2015a; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b.
77
Xen. An. I.7.18-8.8.
78
GRAVETT, 1992: 69-70.
79
HARPER, 1978; HARPER, 1983: 1113-1130; HARPER, 2006; HARPER, MEYERS, 1980;
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2009: 49-65; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015a; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b; SKUPNIEWICZ,
2016.
Page | 83
ФЧООΝ КЧНΝ ОбЭОЧНОНΝ ЫТРСЭΝ ХОРΝ КЬΝ ТЭΝ МКЧΝ ЛОΝ ЬООЧΝ ШЧΝ ЫОХТОПΝ ПЫШЦΝ ČКЧΝ ЬКЫМШpСКРuЬ,Ν BТЭСвЧТКЧΝ
ЬЭОХКО,Ν źЭЫuЬМКЧΝ uЫЧЬΝ КЧНΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЦШЬКТМΝ ПЫШЦΝ PШЦpОТТέΝ TСОΝ ХШЧРОЯТЭвΝ ШПΝ ЭСТЬΝ pШЬЭuЫОΝ
can be evidenced ЛвΝ ЭСОΝ ЬМОЧОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЬuТМТНОΝ ШПΝ DОМОЛКХuЬΝ ШЧΝ TЫКУКЧ’ЬΝ МШХuЦЧΝ аСОЫОΝ
the Roman rider is extending his arm to capture the Dacian king before he manages to slit
his throat. Barbarized and somehow cumbersome version of the same posture can be found
on the scene in the lower register of Orlat plaque. In Western Mediterranean the defeated
enemy was shown crawled up on all fours what is sometimes interpreted as a reference
to sexual violence.
A missile in the eye of the victim. In several depictions a motif of a victim hit
аТЭСΝКЧΝКЫЫШаΝШЫΝКΝУКЯОХТЧΝТЧΝЭСОΝОвОΝШММuЫЬέΝTСОΝОбКЦpХОЬΝМШЦОΝПЫШЦΝČКЧΝЬКЫМШpСКРuЬ,ΝЬЭОХКΝ
from Kandyada, wall-painting from Old Nisa or the Orlat plaque. Perhaps blinding of the foe
before death was part of aesthetic or artistic topos of Indo-European character. What is
interesting king Harald was said to be hit in the eye with an arrow and killed afterwards
during the battle of Hastings80 and in Š С-n mК Rostam ЛХТЧНЬΝ źЬПКЧНТв ЫΝ аТЭСΝ КΝ НШuЛОΝ
headed arrow. One cannot exclude mythological/symbolic/archetypal connection
аТЭСΝPШХвpСОЦuЬΝШЫΝτОНТpuЬέΝτЧΝЭСОΝЬМОЧОΝШПΝЭСОΝЛШКЫΝСuЧЭΝČКЧΝЬКЫМШpСКРuЬΝТЭΝаКЬΝМКЫОПuХХвΝ
shown that the head of the spear reaches the eye of the beast, also on Achaemenid seal
discovered in Thebes and now in British Museum a lion hunt from the chariot was shown
where the predator is standing vertically on hind legs with an arrow stuck in its eye.81
Broken shaft. Broken or abandoned spear belonging to the victim is a relatively
frequent motif which might originate already from MeЬШpШЭКЦТКЧΝКЫЭΝаСОЫОΝШЧΝσКЫКЦЬТЧ’ЬΝ
stela, the defeated enemies of the ling hold broken spears which marks their helplessness
in front of victorious king. Broken shafts are shown on Alexander Mosaic, Bithynian stela
with the scene of battle with the Galatians but remain important element of the combat scenes
on the wall-paintings of Pantikapaion, Sasanian reliefs and is present on Orlat plaque.
Tree. A tree trunk or a bush is an element often employed to close the composition
from the right side or is used as a border between the combat scenes. In visual way it acts
similar way as running or standing oversized infantryman but it allows keeping the actual
proportions of the personages. This also allows to mark closing of the scene with a vertical
element but place the dying enemy diagonally or kneeling. The trees are frequent element
ШПΝЭСОΝЬМОЧОЬΝШПΝЦШuЧЭОНΝЯТМЭШЫвΝШЧΝźЭЫuЬМКЧΝЬЭОХКО,ΝЬКЫМШpСКРuЬΝПЫШЦΝČКЧ,ΝЬЭОХКΝгΝČКЯušФöвΝ
and later it would become the fixed motif in Sasanian hunting iconography. It is also clearly
ЦКЫФОНΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ЦШЬКТМΝ СШаОЯОЫΝ ТЭΝ НШОЬΝ ЧШЭΝ pХКвΝ ЭСОЫОΝ ЭСОΝ ЫШХОΝ ШПΝ КЧвΝ ЛШЫНОЫέΝ
Of course naturalistic explanation of the tree as an element of landscape or pars pro toto
placing the scene in forested area cannot be excluded.
Dead horse. Killed mounts, usually with visible missile protruding from their bodies
appear in three contexts: (1) as a dead horse ridden by the defeated personage, usually
depicted with one knee bent and extended other leg which seems the model from which
derived the ways of presenting mounted combat on Sasanian rock reliefs most likely
this model was used on the scenes on heavily eroded relief of żōНКЫг. Also incomplete wallpainting from Old Nisa depicting a warrior with an arrow in his eye does not allow certainty
that any of the formulae listed above were applied there however it should be assumed
that the ḴpЫШpЬḵΝаОЫОΝКppХТОНΝТЧΝХТЧОΝаТЭСΝШЧОΝШПΝХТЬЭОНΝpЫТЧМТpХОЬέ82 The longevity of the motif
80
GRAVETT, 1992: 77.
BRIANT, 1991: 220-222, 246; PORADA, 1962: 176, fig. 86.
82
PILIPKO, 2006: 267-268.
81
Page | 84
can be confirmed by the decoration of the silver cup of Kosika which refers in indirect
and barbarized way to the discussed pattern.83 The wounded horse there is shown in gallop
dragging the dead body of its rider however the protruding arrow is clearly shown. It is
possible that the artist making the Kosika cup combined the model of triumphant rider
with the depictions of chase after fleeing enemy. (2) A corpse of the dead horse is shown
between two riders with a single example of Bithynia stela. (3) Defeated personage is shown
actively resisting the main rider as can be seen on Solokha comb.
Opposing swordsman. In several cases the enemy who is being defeated still
opposes the rider with drawn sword. On the Etruscan urn the opponent is stabbing
ЭСОΝ ШppЫОЬЬШЫ’ЬΝ СШЫЬОέΝ TСОΝ ХШаОЫΝ ЫОРТЬЭОЫΝ ШПΝ the Orlat plaque and Solokha comb show
defeated personages with drawn swords. This proves that the sword in ancient mounted
combat played a role of the weapon of last, desperate resort and was used either
ЛвΝМШЦЛКЭКЧЭЬΝШЧΝПШШЭΝШЫΝТЧΝЦОХООΝКЬΝТЭΝТЬΝОЯТНОЧМОНΝШЧΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝЦШЬКТМέ
Discussion
The sculptural fragments which originally constituted the battle scene in Khalchayan
were found alongside Western and Southern walls of room 3, of which Western wall leaves
the space for short, horizontal, rectangular format while the Southern wall provides the space
for elongated, horizontal rectangular. The size of the walls is a decisive factor in selection
of the compositional formulae.
Western wall. Given the size of the preserved fragments the Western wall, with its
compact rectangular shape, could not fit any of the vignettes which require flat, long
rectangular, whether as a row of equally significant scenes or a central one flanked
by the inferior ones. Perhaps a ḴЭаТЧΝ ЬМОЧОḵΝ МШuХНΝ ЛОΝ ПТЭЭОНΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ АОЬЭОЫЧΝ аКХХΝ СШаОЯОЫΝ
it would require very tight form-fitting of the silhouettes. The wall could facilitate Ḵflanked
ЭЫТuЦpСḵΝ аТЭСΝ ЬТЧРХОΝ ЬuppШЫЭОЫΝ ШЧΝ ОКМСΝ ЬТНОΝ КЬΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МКЬОΝ ШПΝ źЭЫuЬМКЧΝ uЫЧЬΝ КЧНΝ ТЧΝ МКЬОΝ
ШПΝ ЫТНОЫЬΝ ЭСОΝ КЭЭОЧНКЧЭЬ’Ν ЦШuЧЭЬΝ МШuХНΝ ЛОΝ ЬСШаЧΝ ШЧХвΝ pКЫЭТКХХвΝ ЬСШаЧΝ ПЫШЦΝ ЛОСТЧНΝ
of the steed of the hero or figure of the defeated personage, also the main combatants could
be depicted armored while the assisting forces might be shown in cloth. The most closely
related to Khalchayan piece of ḴПХКЧФОНΝ ЭЫТuЦpСḵΝ аШuХНΝ ЛОΝ ЭСОΝ МХКЬpΝ ПЫШЦΝ TТХХКΝ BuХКФΝ
however as it was mentioned earlier the decoration of this piece is badly preserved and does
not provide definite arguments. Quite plausible seems the ḴЯТМЭТЦΝТЧΝЭСОΝМОЧЭОЫΝПШЫЦuХКḵΝаТЭСΝ
the fallen horse and defeated personage in the center flanked by two victorious opponents
of whom one should be a lancer and the other should hold an axe if the scene was to follow
the most orthodox layout. This option could involve all armored or all un-armored
participants. Also the ḴМОЧЭЫКХΝЯТМЭТЦḵΝЦТРСЭΝТЧΝПКМЭΝМШЧЬТЬЭΝof a whirl of two opponents like
in the case of upper register of the combat scene on Orlat plaque however then it would
involve more personages than preserved fragments allow. Probably the ḴМОЧЭЫКХΝ ЯТМЭТЦḵΝ
might be also a warrior desperately attempting to fight back from over the body of his dead
horse.
Southern wall. Elongated rectangle of the Southern wall offers sufficient space
for the ḴЯТРЧОЭЭОЬḵΝ ЛОΝ ТЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЫШаΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЬМОЧОЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЬКЦОΝ ТЦpШЫЭКЧМОΝ ШЫΝ аТЭСΝ КΝ МОЧЭЫКХΝ
dominant one. The number of the sculptural fragments contradicts such attribution as several
combat scenes would involve proportionally greater number of personages and horses. It is
possible that they disintegrated in the debris or even were partially painted with only central
83
GALL VON, 1997: 174-197; GALL VON, 1998; GALL VON, 2008: 149-161;SKUPNIEWICZ,
2015a; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2015b.
Page | 85
scene being sculptured but that is too vague assumption to be made. Considering that
the ḴЭаТЧΝ ЬМОЧОḵΝ ЦШНОХΝ аШuХНΝ ЛОΝ ЭСОΝ ЦШЬЭΝ pХКuЬТЛХОΝ ШpЭТШЧέΝ TСКЭΝ pЫШpШЬКХΝ МКЧΝ ЛОΝ
strengthened by the tendency of horizontal extension of the particular scenes
in the monumental art in IЫКЧΝ КЬΝ МКЧΝ ЛОΝ ОбКЦpХОНΝ ЛвΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПЬΝ ШПΝ σКqš-e Rostam. Also,
employment of any form of the ḴЯТРЧОЭЭОЬḵΝШЧΝЭСОΝХШЧРΝаКХХΝЦКФОЬΝКppХТМКЭТШЧΝШПΝ Ḵflanked
ЭЫТuЦpСḵΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЬСШЫЭОЫΝ аКХХΝ ЦШЫОΝ pХКuЬТЛХОΝ ЛОМКuЬОΝ ЭСТЬΝ ТЬΝ ЭСОΝ ШЫНОЫΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ formulae
on the Alexander’ЬΝЬКЫМШpСКРuЬΝ– ḴЯТРЧОЭЭОЬḵΝШЧΝЭСОΝХШЧРΝаКХХ,ΝКЧНΝḴПХКЧФОНΝЭЫТuЦpСḵΝШЧΝШЧОΝ
of the short walls. The elaborated, Ḵvictim in the center flanked with attendants
КЧНΝ ЯТРЧОЭЭОЬḵΝ ЦШНОХΝ ФЧШаЧΝ ПЫШЦΝ ЭСОΝ ХШЧРΝ аКХХΝ ШПΝ AХОбКЧНОЫΝ ЬКЫМШpСКРuЬΝ ЦТРСЭΝ КХЬШΝ ПТХХΝ
the Southern wall of room 3 in Khalchayan however than the Western wall would have to be
filled with a single combat scene, perhaps with attendants which is possible as it was
mentioned above. It is unlikely that both walls would contain the same formula, i.e. Ḵvictim
ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МОЧЭОЫḵΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ АОЬЭОЫЧΝ аКХХΝ КЧНΝ ОбЭЫОЦОΝ КЧНΝ ОХКЛШЫКЭОНΝ ЯОЫЬТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЬКЦОΝ
composition on the Southern wall. It should be also borne in mind that elaborated version
of ḴЯТМЭТЦΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МОЧЭОЫΝ ПХКЧФОНΝ аТЭСΝ КЭЭОЧНКЧЭЬΝ КЧНΝ ЯТРЧОЭЭОЬḵΝ КХЬШΝ ТЧЯШХЯОЬΝ Оmployment
of many figures whose remnants were not found. In my opinion the most plausible layout
for the long wall would be ḴЭаТЧΝ pТМЭuЫОḵΝ КЧНΝ ḴЯТМЭТЦΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МОЧЭОЫḵΝ ПШЫΝ ЭСОΝ ЬСШЫЭОЫΝ аКХХέΝ
Also, considering the Central Asian, cavalry-dominated heritage one would not expect
in the two ḴЯТРЧОЭЭОЬḵΝ КЧвΝ ЦШНОХΝ ТЧЯШХЯТЧРΝ pЫОЬОЧМОΝ ШПΝ ТЧПКЧЭЫвЦКЧέΝ RКЭСОЫΝ ШЧОΝ аШuХНΝ
expect a rider hitting an opponent sitting with his one leg bent and the other extended
on the body of his horse most likely with shown shaft protruding from the chest, perhaps
warrior would be holding a sword as a mark of his desperate position. Alternatively
the defeated warrior might be shown merely as a victim of the attack or tumbling down
together with his mount.
Personages. The two helmeted heads from Khalchayan room 3, according to
the principles presented above could belong to armored winners or defeated personages only
if both combatants were shown in armor. There is no depiction of unarmored rider killing
an armored one. As it was said above the opponents were marked as socially equal or social
inferiority/defenselessness of the defeated was marked by showing him not wearing
an armor. This custom was not fully abandoned in Late Antiquity, as is evidenced by Isola
Rizza plate, however is not confirmed in Iranian environment where all the defeated
opponents of the Sasanian kings are shown wearing armor. Apparently the splendor
of winning over dangerous, well-equipped, noble opponent worthy his royal adversary,
was an important factor in Iranian imagery. However as far as the depictions of bare-headed,
crowned or diademed victors are known, there is no evidence for a personage in a helmet
killing a bare-headed foe. It seems that the lack of helmet was itself royal prerogative
and diadem or a crown left no doubt about the highest status of the person. Also, important
feature of Iranian (Parthian and Sasanian) scenes of combat is calmness of the winner
contrasted with disordered dynamism of the defeated. What is also important, in Parthian
depictions, the faces of the winners are shown fully frontally, in search of the contact with
the viewer rather than realism of the scene. Therefore I believe that the helmeted heads
from Khalchayan, with their expressive dynamism, belonged to the defeated personages,
who however must have been defeated by the personages in armors although not wearing
helmets. The heads with the diadems could be attributed to the latter. The number of bodies
in clothes preserved in Khalchayan must have belonged to attendants from both sides, most
likely the archers or to the scene on the short, Western wall which would most plausibly fit
the depiction to ḴЯТМЭТЦΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МОЧЭОЫḵΝ ФТЧН. It cannot be fully excluded that the scene
represented hunting rather than additional combat which would explain the lack of armors
of so many personages.
Page | 86
Placing of the hunt scene on the short/Western wall together with the mounted
combat scenes on the long Southern wall, might support the idea of entire complex being
a kind of mausoleum, a cenotaph or an epitaph. Whereas the combination of the hunting
КЧНΝ ЛКЭЭХОΝ ЬМОЧОЬΝ ТЬΝ pЫОЬОЧЭΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЬКЫМШpСКРЬΝ (ČКЧ,Ν ḴAХОбКЧНОЫḵΝ ЬКЫМШpСКРuЬΝ ПЫШЦΝ SТНШЧ,Ν
BТЭСвЧТКЧΝ ЬЭОХКО),Ν ЭСОΝ pЫОЬОЧМОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ СuЧЭТЧРΝ КЧНΝ ЛКЭХХОΝ ЬМОЧОЬΝ ШЧΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ПuЧОЫКЫвΝ
coach was mentioned by Diodorus,84 therefore the program including the victories of two
personages and their hunting together might commemorate their prowess and virtues.85
It must be borne in mind that the combats scenes were often the sole subjects of the funerary
art (examples from classical Athens to Roman cavalry tombstones) however in complex
developments they were normally employed together. Also employment of the ḴЭаТЧΝpТМЭuЫОḵΝ
on the long wall and the ḴЯТМЭТЦΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МОЧЭОЫḵΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЬСШЫЭΝ аКХХΝ ЦТРСЭΝ ОЦpСКЬТгОΝ
the continuity of the two subsequent individual victors (a father and a son?) and their unity
as the hunters.
Bibliography
Sources
Firdaws , Š С-n mК, tr. D. DAVIS, New York 2007.
Plutarchi Vitae parallelae, 5 vols., ed. C. SINTENIS, Lipsiae 1908-1912.
Xenophon, The Anabasis of Cyrus, tr. W. AMBLER, New York 2008.
Diodori Bibliotheca historica, 5 vols., ed. F. VOGEL, C.TH. FISCHER, Lipsiae 1888-1906.
Literature
ABDULLAEV, K. (1995a), Nomadism in Central Asia. The archaeological evidence (2nd1st centuries
B.C.), [in:] In the Land of Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian archaeology in antiquity,
A. INVERNIZZI (ed.), Firenze, 151-162.
ABDULLAEV, K. (1995b), Armour of ancient Bactria, [in:] In the Land of Gryphons. Papers
on Central Asian archaeology in antiquity, A. INVERNIZZI (ed.), Firenze, 163-180.
ALLAN, J.W. (1986), Armor, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 2.5, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York,
483-489.
BERNARD, M.P., (1987), LОs nomКНОs МonquцrКnts НО l'ОmpТrО РrцМo-ЛКМtrТОnṬ RцПlОбТons sur lОur
ТНОntТtц ethnique et culturelle,Ν„CШЦpЭОЬ-ЫОЧНuЬΝНОЬΝЬéКЧМОЬΝНОΝХΥAМКНéЦТОΝНОЬΝIЧЬМЫТpЭТШЧЬΝОЭΝBОХХОЬδОЭЭЫОЬḵ,Νńγńέζ,Νιηκ-768.
BERNARD, M.P., INAGAKI, H. (2000), Un torquО КМСцmцnТНО КvОМ unО ТnsМrТptТon РrОМquО
Кu musцО MТСo (JКpon) (ТnПormКtТon),Ν „CШЦpЭОЬΝ ЫОЧНuЬΝ НОЬΝ ЬéКЧМОЬΝ НОΝ ХΥAМКНéЦТОΝ НОЬΝ IЧЬМЫТpЭТШЧЬΝ
et Belles-δОЭЭЫОЬḵΝńζζέζ,Νńγιń-1437.
BERNHARD, M.L. (1980), Sztuka Hellenistyczna, Warszawa.
BIVAR, A.D.H. (1972), Cavalry equipment and tactics on the Euphrates frontier,Ν „DuЦЛОЫЭШЧΝ τКФΝ
PКpОЫЬḵΝβθ,Νβιγ-291.
BOARDMAN, J. (1970), Greek Gems and Finger Rings. Early Bronze Age to Late Classical, London.
BOARDMAN, J. (1999), Sztuka Grecka, Warszawa.
BOARDMAN, J. (2006), The Oxus Scabbard,Ν„IЫКЧḵΝζζ,Νńńη-119.
84
Diod. XVIII.26.1-28.4.
ṣετTδÁKτVÁ,Ν βίńζμΝ γκ-49; SźVIσк, KORPE, TOMBUL,
KIESERWETTER, WALLRODT, 2001; KUBALA, 2006: 122-123.
85
ROSE,
STRAHAN,
Page | 87
BOPEARACHCHI, O., (2003), An Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coin Hoard from Bara (Pakistan),
Seattle.
BOPEARACHCHI, O., SACHS, C., (2001), Armures et armes des Indo-SМвtСОs Н'Кprчs lОurs
цmТssТons monцtКТrОs Оt lОs НonnцОs КrМСцoloРТquОs, „TopoiḵΝ11.1, 321-355.
BREKOULAKI, H. (2011), Painting at the Macedonian Court, [in:] Heracles to Alexander the Great.
Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy,
D. McCARTHY, E. STONE, E. WITHERS (eds.), Cambridge, 209-213.
BRIANT, P. (1991), CСКssОs roвКlОs mКМцНonТОnnОs Оt МСКssОs roвКlОs pОrsОsŚ lО tСчmО НО lК МСКssО
au lion sur la chasse de Vergina,Ν„DТКХШРuОЬΝН’СТЬЭШТЫОΝКЧМТОЧЧОḵΝńιέń,Νβńń-255.
CASABONNE, O., GABRIELLI, M. (2006), BrчvОs rОmКrquОs sur un torquО КМСцmцnТНО Кu musцО
Miho (Japan),Ν„CШХХШquТuЦΝAЧКЭШХТМuЦḵΝη,Νκη-90.
CHANIOTIS, A. (2005), War in the Hellenistic World. A Social and Cultural History, Oxford.
COHEN, A. (1997), The Alexander Mosaic. Stories of Victory and Defeat, Cambridge.
CONOLLY, P. (2000), Experiments with the sarissa - the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance a functional view,Ν„JШuЫЧКХΝШПΝRШЦКЧΝεТХТЭКЫвΝźquТpЦОЧЭΝSЭuНТОЬḵΝńń,Νńίγ-112.
DUNBABIN, K.M.D. (1999), Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge.
GAIBOV, V.A., KOSHELENKO, G.A. (2008), A horseman charging a foot soldier: A new subject
in Parthian glyptic art,Ν„PКЫЭСТМКḵΝńί,Νλλ-107.
GALL VON, H. (2008), The Representation of Foreign Peoples on the Rock Relief Bishapur II:
An Iconographic and Historical Problem, [in:] The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Persia. New Light
in the Parthian and Sasanian Empires, V.S. CURTIS, R. HILLEBRAND, J.M. ROGERS, (eds.),
London-New York, 52-58.
GALL VON, H., (1990), DКs RОТtОrkКmpПЛТlН Тn НОr ТrКnТsМСОn unН ТrКnТsМС ЛООТnПlußtОn Kunst
parthischer und sasanidischer Zeit, Berlin.
GALL VON, H., (1997), Scena poedinka vasadnikov na serebranoj vaze iz Kosiki, „Vestnik Dreniej
Istoriiḵ 2.221, 174-197.
GALL VON, H., (1998), Common Features in Ancient Sarmatian and Iranian Art, [in:] Voennaja
КrМСОoloРТjКṬ OružТО Т voОnnoО НОlo v ТstorТčОskoj ТsoМТКl'noj pОrspОktТvО, G.V. VILINBANOV,
V.M. MASSON (eds.), Sankt-Peterburg, 109-110.
GAWLIKOWSKI, M. (2005), L'КpotСцosО Н'OНОТnКt sur un mosКэquО rцМОmmОnt НцМouvОrtО
р PКlmвrО,Ν „CШЦpЭОЬ-reЧНuЬΝ НОЬΝ ЬéКЧМОЬΝ НОΝ ХΥAМКНéЦТОΝ НОЬΝ IЧЬМЫТpЭТШЧЬΝ ОЭΝ BОХХОЬ-δОЭЭЫОЬḵΝ ńζλέζ,Ν
1293-1304.
Golden Deer of Eurasia. Scythian and Sarmatian Treasures from the Russian Steppes, J. ARUZ,
A. FARKAS, A. ALEKSEEV, E. KOROLKOVA (eds.), New York 2000.
GRAVETT, C. (1992), Hastings 1066. The Fall of Saxon England, Oxford.
GRUBER, M., Iδ’ВASτV,Ν J., KANIUTH, K. (2012), A Decorated Ivory Belt from Tilla Bulak,
Southern Uzbekistan, „Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberiaḵ 18.2, 339-375.
HARPER, P.O. (1978), The Royal Hunter. Art of the Sasanian Empire, New York.
HARPER, P.O. (1983), Sasanian silver, [in:] The Cambridge History of Iran. The Seleucid, Parthian
and Sasanian periods 3. 2, E. YARSHATER (ed.), Cambridge, 1113-1130.
HARPER, P.O. (2006), In Search of a Cultural Identity. Monuments and Artifacts of the Sasanian
Near East, 3rd th 7th Century A.D., New York.
HARPER, P.O., MEYERS, P. (1980), Silver Vessels of the Sasanian Period. Volume One: Royal
Imagery, New York.
HAVELOCK, C.M. (1972), Sztuka Hellenistyczna, Warszawa.
HINZ, W. (1965), DКs sКssКnТНТsМСО FОlsrОlТОП von SКlm s,Ν„IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТquКḵΝη,Νńζκ-160.
HнSCHδźR,Ν TέΝ (βίίγ),Ν Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public
Memory and Cultural Symbolism, „JШuЫЧКХΝШПΝRШЦКЧΝSЭuНТОЬḵΝλγ,Νń-17.
ILYASOV, J.Yu., RUSANOV, D.V. (1997/1998), A Study on the Bone Plate from Orlat,Ν„SТХФΝЫШКНΝ
AЫЭΝКЧНΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝη,Νńίι-143.
KUBCZAK, J. (1978), Kurhany arystokracji scytyjskiej,ΝPШгЧК έΝ
KUBCZAK, J. (1995), АТгОrunkТ SМвtóа а ТkonoРrКПТТ nКНМгКnomorskТОj,Ν „AЫЭТuЦΝ QuКОЬЭТШЧОЬḵΝ ι,Ν
5-44.
KUBALA, A. (2006), Аpłвав РrОМkТО Т pОrskТО а sгtuМО AnКtolТТ,ΝKЫКФяаέ
Page | 88
LITVINSKY, B.A. (2001), KСrКm OksК v BКktrТТ ( uгСnв TКНгСТkТstКn)Ṭ TṬ2Ṭ BКktrТ skoО vooruгСОnТО
v dervnevostochnom I grecheskom kontekste, Moskva.
LITVINSKY, B.A. (2010), Problems of the History and Culture of Bactria in Light of Archaeological
Excavations in Central Asia, „Anabasisḵ 1, 23-48.
LO MUZIO, C., (2017), Archeologia dell'Asia centrale preislamica, Milano.
MA, J. (2008), MвsТКns on tСО кКn SКrcophagus? Ethnicity and Domination in Achaimenid Military
Art,Ν„HТЬЭШЫТКμΝГОТЭЬМСЫТПЭΝПüЫΝAХЭОΝżОЬМСТМСЭОḵΝηιέγ,Νβζγ-254.
MARKLE, M.M. (1977), The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor,Ν „AЦОЫТМКЧΝ JШuЫЧКХΝ
ШПΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝκńέγ,Νγβγ-33.
MARKLE, M.M. (1978), Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon,Ν„AЦОЫТМКЧΝJШuЫЧКХΝ
ШПΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝκβέζ,Νζκγ-497.
MARKLE, M.M. (1982), Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great,Ν „SЭuНТОЬΝ
ТЧΝЭСОΝHТЬЭШЫвΝШПΝAЫЭέḵΝńί,Νκθ-111.
MIELCZAREK, M. (1993), Cataphracti and Clibanarii. Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry
of the Ancient World,ΝŁяН έ
MITCHINER, M. (1976), Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage, Volume 6: The Dynasty of Azes,
London.
MODE, M. (2006a), Heroic Fights and Dying Heroes. The Orlat Battle Plaque and the Roots
of Sogdian Art, [in:] r n uН An r nṬ StuНТОs PrОsОntОН to BorТs IlˀТč MКršКk on tСО OММКsТon
of His 70th Birthday, M. COMPARETI, P. RAFFETTA, G. SCARCIA (eds.), Venezia, 419-454.
MODE, M. (2006b), Art and Ideology at Taq-i Bustan: The Armoured Equestrian, [in:] Arms and
Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer. The Steppes and the Ancient World from Helenistic World
to the Early Middle Ages, M. MODE, J. TUBACH (eds.), Wiesbaen, 393-414.
MODE, M. (2013), DТО SkulpturОnПrТОsО von CСКlčКjКnṬNОuО RОkonstruktТonvОrsuМСО гur Kunst
НОr ПrüСОn KusМСКn Тn BКktrТОn, [in:] Zwischen Ost und West Neue Forschungen zum antiken
Zentralasien. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium 30.9.-2.10.2009 in Mannheim,Ν żέΝ δIσDSTRнε,Ν
S. HANSEN, A. WIECZOREK, M. Tellenbach (eds.), Darmstadt; 205-220.
MOOREY, P.R.S. (1998), Material Aspects of Achaemenid Polychrome Decoration and Jewellery,
„IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТquКḵΝγγ,Νńηη-171.
NEFEDKIN, A.K. (2006), The Tactical Development of Achaemenid Cavalry,Ν„żХКНТuЬḵΝβθ,Ν5-18.
NICOLLE, D. (2017), Horse Armour in the Medieval Islamic Middle East, „Le cheval dans
la péЧТЧЬuХОΝAЫКЛТquОḵΝκ,Ν[http://cy.revues.org/3293 ; DOI : 10.4000/cy.3293; (accessed September 28,
2017)].
NIKONOROV, V.P. (1997), The Armies of Bactria 700 BC-450 AD, vol. 2, Stockport.
OLBRYCHT, M.J. (1999), Seleucydzi i kultura ich epoki [in:] Dzieje i upКНОk ImpОrТum SОlОuМвНóа,
JέΝАτδSKIΝ(ОНέ),ΝKЫКФяа,Ν135-208.
PALAGIA, O. (2015), The Impact of Alexander The Great on the Arts of Greece, Leiden.
PICHIKYAN, I., LITVINSKY, B.A. (2000), Helmets in Ancient Bactria, [in:] UNESCO International
Association for the Study of the Cultures of Central Asia. Information Buletin, Issue 22,
S. POTABENKO, A. DANI, D. ALIMOVA (eds.), Moscow, 62-95.
PILIPKO, N.V., PUSCHNIGG, G. (2002), The Second Helmeted Head from Old Nisa, „Iranḵ 40,
273-276.
PILIPKO, V.N., (1989), Glova v šlОmО Тг StКro NТsв, „VОЬЭЧТФΝDЫОЯЧО ΝIЬЭШЫТТḵ 3.190, 167-177.
PILIPKO, V.N., (2001), StКrК К NТsКṬ Osnovnв О ТtoРТ КrС ОoloРТčОskoРo ТгučОnТ К v sov ОtskТ pОrТoН,
Moskva.
PILIPKO, V.N., (2006), Arms and Armour from Old Nisa, [in:] Arms and Armour as Indicators
of Cultural Transfer. The Steppes and the Ancient World from Helenistic World to the Early Middle
Ages, M. MODE, J. TUBACH (eds.), Wiesbaen, 259-295.
PIRSON, F. (1996), Style and Message on the Column of Marcus Aurelius, „Papers of the British
School at Romeḵ 64, 139-179.
PIRSON, F. (2006), DКs vТОlПтltТРО BТlН НОs KrТОРОsŚ KКmpП unН GОаКlt Тn НОr lвkТsМСОn RОlТОПkunst
НОs spтtОn 5Ṭ unН НОs 4Ṭ JСsṬ vṬ CСr., [in:] The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia 07-10 November 2005,
KέΝ DнRTδоK,Ν BέΝ VARKIVAσк,Ν TέΝ KAHYA, J. des COURTILS, R. BOYRAZ (eds.), Suna,
639-646,
Page | 89
PIRSON, F. (2014), Ansichten des Krieges. Kampfreliefs klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit
im Kulturvergleich, Wiesbaden.
PτδA SKI,ΝTέΝ(βίίβ),ΝAncient Greek Orientalist Painters. The Literary Evidence,ΝKЫКФяаέ
POLOSMAK, N.V. (2010), My vypili somu, my stali bessmertnymi…, „σКuФКΝТгΝpОЫЯвФСΝЫuФḵΝγ. 33,
50-55.
PORADA, E. (1962), Alt-Iran. Die Kunst in vorislamische Zeit, Baden-Baden.
POTTS, D.T. (1998), Some issues in the study of the pre-Islamic weaponry of southeastern Arabia,
„Arabian archaeology and epigraphyḵ 9, 182-208.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1966a), O pКnМТrnom vooružОnТТ pКrПсnskoРo Т ЛКktrТjskoРo voТnstvК,
„Vestnik Drevnej Istoriiḵ 2, 27-43.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1966b), HКlčКвКn, Moskva-Tashkent.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1971), SkulpturК HКlčКвКnК, Moskva.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1978), Trцsors НО DКlvОrгТnО Tцpц, Leningrad
Scythian Art. The Legacy of the Scythian World: Mid-7th to 3rd Century B.C., B. PIOTROVSKY,
L. GALANINA (eds.), Leningrad 1986.
SEKUNDA, N.V. (2001), The Sarissa,Ν„AМЭКΝUЧТЯОЫЬТЭКЭТЬΝδШНгОЧЬТЬέΝŻШХТКΝAЫМСКОШХШРТМКḵΝβγ,Νńγ-41.
SEKUNDA, N.V. (2013), The Antigonid Army,ΝżНК ЬФέΝ
SEKUNDA, N.V., DENNIS P. (2012), The Macedonian Army after Alexander 323-168 BC, Oxford.
SźVIσк,Ν Νέ,Ν KτRPź,Ν Rέ,Ν TτεBUδ,Ν εέ,Ν RτSź,Ν CέBέ,Ν STRAHAσ,Ν Dέ,Ν KIźSźRАźTTźR,Ν
H., WALLRODT, J. (2001), A New Painted Graeco-PОrsТКn SКrМopСКРus Пrom ČКn, „Studia Troicaḵ
11, 383-420.
SHAVAREBI, E. (2014), A RОТntОrprОtКtТon oП tСО SКsКnТКn RОlТОП Кt SКlm s,Ν„IЫКЧΝКЧНΝЭСОΝCКuМКЬuЬḵΝ
18, 115-133.
SKUPNIEWICZ P., (2006), O CТężkoгЛrojnОj JОźНгТО SКsКnТНóа, „Acta Universitatis Nicolai
Copernici. AЫМСОШХШРТКḵ 30.379, 151-174.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2009), Shafted Weapons of Sasanian hunting Iconography,Ν „ŻКЬМТМuХТΝ
AЫМСКОШХШРТКОΝHТЬЭШЫТМКОḵΝββ,Νζλ-65.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2015a), The Iconographic Function of Armor in Sasanian Art,Ν „Ν RТЯТЬЭКΝ
НОРХТΝЬЭuНТΝШЫТОЧЭКХТḵΝκκ,Νβγη-265.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2015b), Tabriz Museum battle dish. Formal considerations,Ν „Ν εОЭКЦШЫpСШЬОЬΝ
ШПΝHТЬЭШЫвḵΝθ,Νńκί-211.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2016), TСО HТmвКrТtОʾ KnТРСtʾ КnН PКrtСo-Sasanian Art,Ν„HТЬЭШЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵΝη,Ν
57-75.
ṣετTδÁKτVÁ,ΝKέΝ(βίńζ),ΝIconographical themes on funerary monuments in Achaemenid Anatolia,
[in:] Turkey Through the Eyes of Classical Archaeologists. 10th anniversary of cooperation between
Trnava University and Turkish universities, E. HRσČIARIKΝ(ОНέ),ΝTЫЧКЯК,Νγκ-49.
STRONACH, D. (1998), On the Date of the Oxus Gold Scabbard and Other Achaemenid Matters,
„BuХХОЭТЧΝШПΝЭСОΝAЬТКΝIЧЬЭТЭuЭО,ΝσОаΝSОЫТОЬḵΝńβ,Νβγń-248.
Thracian Gold from Bulgaria. The Legends Become Alive, D.V. ZHURAVLEV, K.B FRISOV (eds.),
Moskva 2013.
VASSILEVA, M. (2010), Achaemenid Interfaces: Thracian and Anatolian representations of elite
status, „BШХХОЭЭТЧШΝНТΝAЫМСОШХШРТКḵ,ΝЯШХέΝЬpОМТКХОΝI,Νγλ-44
WU, X. (2014), O вounР mКnṬ ṬṬmКkО knoаn oП аСКt kТnН вou КrОˀŚ аКrПКrО, СТstory, and elite ideology
of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, „Iranica Antiquaḵ 49, 209-299.
YATSENKO, S.A. (2012), Yuezhi on Bactrian Embroidery from Textiles Found at Noyon uul,
Mongolia, „The Silk Roadḵ 10, 39-48.
Page | 90
Picture captions
Fig. 1. Diademed head from Khalchayan, (after: Pugachenkova, 1971: pl. 78).
Fig. 2. Diademed head from Khalchayan 2, (after: Pugachenkova, 1971: pl. 79).
Page | 91
Fig. 3. Helmeted head from Khalchayan, (after: Pugachenkova, 1971: pl. 77)
Fig. 4. Helmeted head from Khalchayan 2, (after: Pugachenkova, 1971: pl. 80).
Page | 92
Fig. 5. Mural from Dalverzin Tepe, (after: Nikonorov, 1997: 70, fig 38).
Page | 93
Fig. 6. Bone plate from Orlat with battle scene, a: (photo courtesy C. LoMuzio); b: (after: Nikonorov,
1997: 75, 43).
Page | 94
Fig. 7. Relief from the tomb of Payava, British Museum inv. no. 1848,1020.142,Ν©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝ
British Museum.
Fig. 8. Tang-e Sarvak frieze, (drawing by D. Nicolle).
Page | 95
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Katarzyna MAKSYMIUK (Siedlce University, Poland)
The Sasanian Relief at Salmās – New proposal
Abstract
TСОΝ ОquОЬЭЫТКЧΝ ПТРuЫОЬΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ ШПΝ SКХЦ ЬΝ СКЯОΝ ЛООЧΝ МШЦЦШЧХвΝ ТНОЧЭТПТОНΝ КЬΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ IΝ
(r. 224-βζβ)Ν КЧНΝ СТЬΝ ЬШЧ,Ν ṣ puЫΝ IΝ (ЫέΝ βζβ-272). The paper is an attempt of novel identification
of the sovereigns depicted on the relief, based on iconography and the analyze of literary sources.
Keywords: Sasanid ЫОХТОПЬ,ΝIЫКЧ,ΝSКХЦ Ь,ΝAЫЦОЧТК,ΝAЫНКš ЫΝI,Νṣ puЫΝI, ṣ puЫΝII,ΝAЫНКš ЫΝII
Introduction
TСОΝ ОquОЬЭЫТКЧΝ ПТРuЫОЬΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ ШПΝ SКХЦ ЬΝ СКЯОΝ ЛООЧΝ Мommonly identified
КЬΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ IΝ (ЫέΝ ββζ-242) and his son, ṣ puЫΝ I (r. 242-272). There is a discussion pending
amongthe scholars regarding the event which the relief was to commemorate. Below
considerations are an attempt of novel identification of the depicted personages,
the identification founded in the analyze of iconography and the literary sources.
Relief at Salmās
TСОΝ RОХТОПΝ ТЬΝ ХШМКЭОНΝ КЭΝ Б Ч-TКбЭ Ν ЯТХХКРО,Ν southeast of modern SКХЦ Ь,Ν ТЧΝ ЧШЫЭСwestern Iran (Fig. 1). He has been carved in embossed form near a mountain known as Sourat
Bourni. This monument carved into has faced a considerable destruction process due to its
pЫШбТЦТЭвΝЭШΝЭСОΝЬКХЭвΝUЫЦТКΝδКФОΝ(UЫ Ц вКС)έ1
It measures 5,20 m. in width and between 2,50 and 2,80 m. in height. It is carved
in shallow relief of about 1-5 cm.2 The taller silhouette of the equestrian figure on left
enforced convex edge over his headgear, in this place relief measures up to 2,80 m.
in height.3 Peculiar technique of the relief makes the relief two-dimensional depiction
(Fig. 2).
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) were financed from the science grant granted by the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education; Institute of History and International Relations, Faculty of Humanities;
szapur2@poczta.onet.pl
1
SAMANIAN, SHIRVANI, BAKHSHAEI, 2012: 213-224.
HINZ, 1965: 135.
3
LEHMANN-HAUPT, 1910: 318.
2
Page | 97
Fig. 1. PШЬТЭТШЧΝШПΝЭСОΝSКХЦ ЬΝЫОХТОПΝаТЭСΝЫОРКЫНΝЭШΝUЫЦТКΝδКФО, (source of image: Google Maps).
Fig. 2. TСОΝЫОХТОПΝШПΝSКХЦ Ь, (photo by E. Shavarebi).
The frieze depicts two similar scenes4 of the equestrian figures wearing similar crowns
consisting of the skull-caps surmounted by the korymbos and encircled by a diadems
with long ribbons. Their clothes are carved in the typical form of Sasanian royal robes.
On their lefts two standing men in Parthian attire were carved whom the kings hand
TСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ ПКХХЬΝ ТЧЭШΝ ЭСОΝ МКЭОРШЫвΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ḴЭаТЧΝ ЬМОЧОḵΝ КЬΝ ЭСОΝ НОpТМЭТШЧЬΝ ШПΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ КЧНΝ ṣ puЫΝ vary
merely in details, creating a visual impression of doubling one and the same motif; SKUPNIEWICZ,
2017.
4
Page | 98
over the rings with ribbons. The torsos of the riders were depicted in left profile while their
faces and shoulders were shown frontally (Fig. 3).5 The lack of inscriptions results
in identification of the personages and datation of the piece is based on the analogies with
other Iranian reliefs of both Parthian and Sasanian times. The equestrian figures have been
МШЦЦШЧХвΝ ТНОЧЭТПТОНΝ КЬΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ IΝ КЧНΝ СТЬΝ ЬШЧ,Ν ṣ puЫΝ I, 6 only Herrmann, based on specific
carving technique, closely related to late Parthian firezes, found the relief earlier than the one
in Ż Ы г Л Н КЧНΝЛОХТОЯОНΝЭСКЭΝТЭΝаШuХНΝМШЦЦОЦШЫКЭОΝЭСОΝОбpОНТЭТШЧΝШПΝAЫНКš ЫΝ IΝКЧНΝФТЧРΝ
σШНš ЫКР ЧΝ (Ἀ δαίβθά) to Armenia.7 The dispute among the scholars regards first of all
the two standing figures which are crucial to identificaton of the commemorated events
and subsequently the date of the relief. According to Ensslin they are the Armenians and
ЭСОΝ НОpТМЭТШЧΝ аШuХНΝ ЫОПОЫΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ ОЯОЧЭЬΝ ШПΝ ОКЫХвΝ ЫОТРЧΝ ШПΝ AЫНКš Ыέ8 Chaumont in his early
research associated the relief with the miХТЭКЫвΝ КМЭТШЧЬΝ ШПΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ КРКТЧЬЭΝ AЫЦОЧТКΝ КЫШuЧНΝ
228 CE,9 СШаОЯОЫΝ ЭСОΝ ЬТЭuКЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ AЫЦОЧТКΝ НuЫТЧРΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОТРЧΝ ШПΝ AЫНКš Ы question such
interpretation.10 Widengren ascribed the relief merely the regional function of the relief
and believed that it depicted the victory over НuЫЛ НКР ЧΝ (Ἀ λοπα βθά) rather than over
Armenia.11 Hinz argued that the man on the left is БuЬЫōΝ (Trdat II, r. 216/7-252),12
the Parthian ruler of Armenia and the relief should be associated with the victories of AЫНКš ЫΝ
over the Roman Emperor, Maximinus Thrax (r. 235-238).13
The interpretation of the relief based on technical, formal analogies is far from
convincing. HОЫЫЦКЧЧΝШЧΝЭСТЬΝРЫШuЧНЬΝЛОХТОЯОЬΝЭСКЭΝЭСОΝЫОХТОПΝШПΝSКХЦ ЬΝаКЬΝЭСОΝОКЫХТОЬЭΝЫОХТОПΝ
ШПΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ КЧНΝ ЬСОΝ НКЭОНΝ ТЭЬΝ МЫОКЭТШЧΝ ПШЫΝ ФТЧР’ЬΝ ОКЫХвΝ ЫОТРЧέ14 Based on the similarities
ШПΝ СШЫЬОΝ СКЫЧОЬЬΝ КЧНΝ ЫШЛОЬΝ (ТέОΝ ЭЫШuЬОЫЬ)Ν ТЭΝ ТЬΝ КЬЬuЦОНΝ ЭСКЭΝ ЭСОΝ ПТЫЬЭΝ ЫТНОЫΝ ТЬΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ I,
the discussed items are analogical to his investiture relief at σКqš-e Rostam (Fig. 4).
TСОΝЬОМШЧНΝЫТНОЫΝаШuХНΝЛОΝṣ pur I, because his trousers are identical as on the great Victory
Relief at σКqš-e Rostam (Fig. 5). Meyer was the first one to raise the doubts about such
КЧΝТНОЧЭТПТМКЭТШЧΝЛКЬОНΝШЧΝЭСОΝКЧКХвгОΝШПΝЭСОΝМЫШаЧЬΝЭСОΝЫОХТОПΝШПΝSКХЦ Ь in the context with
the Sasanian relief at D Ы ЛРОЫН.15 The simillarities between both reliefs are doubtless.16
However both datation and the identification of the king depicted at D Ы ЛРОЫНΝКЫОΝuЧМОЫЭКТЧΝ
and they themselves raise controversies.17 If the second rider on the relief in SКХЦ ЬΝ аКЬΝ
ṣ puЫΝIΝЭСКЧ,ΝЛКЬОНΝШЧΝЬЭвХТЬЭТМКХΝКЧКХШРТОЬ,ΝТЭΝЬСШuХНΝЛОΝКЬЬuЦОНΝЭСКЭΝЫОХТОПΝТЧΝD Ы ЛРОЫНΝКХЬШΝ
depicts ṣ puЫΝ IέΝ TСuЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ МКЧЧШЭΝ ЛОΝ НКЭОНΝ ЛОПШЫОΝ βθίέΝ σКЭuЫКХХвΝ ТЭΝ МКЧΝ ЛОΝ КЬЬuЦОН,Ν
following the view of Levit-Tawil that the relief D Ы ЛРОЫН does not commemorate any
5
SHAVAREBI, 2014: 117.
SARRE, HERZFELD, 1910: 246; LEHMANN-HAUPT, 1910: 318.; HERZFELD, 1920: 70;
HERZFELD, 1924: I/37; HERZFELD. 1941: 313; ERDMANN. 1943: 51; VANDEN BERGHE, 1959:
120.
7
HERRMANN, 1969: 74.
8
ENSSLIN, 1949: 6.
9
CHAUMONT, 1969: 175.
10
GHODRAT-DIZAJI, 2007: 88; MAKSYMIUK, 2018.
11
WIDENGREN, 1971: 749.
12
On problem with identification of this ruler see DODGEON, LIEU, 1991: 298, n. 10;
TOUMANOFF, 1969.
13
HINZ, 1965: 156-158; similarly: CALMEYER, 1976: 63; VANDEN BERGHE, 1984: 67;
LUSCHEY, 1986: 379; KLEISS, 1987: 219; VON GALL, 1990: 100.
14
HERRMANN, 1969: 74.
15
MEYER, 1990: 268-270.
16
GHIRSHMAN, 1971: 103; CALMEYER, 1976: 64.
17
TRоεPźδεAσσ,ΝńλιηКνΝHźRRεAσσ,ΝńλθλνΝδźVIT-TAWIL, 1992.
6
Page | 99
historical event and has purely symbolic meaning.18 This point of view raises a question
ШПΝаСКЭΝКХХОРШЫТМКХΝЦОКЧТЧРΝаШuХНΝSКХЦ ЬΝЫОХТОПΝМШЧЯОвςΝŻШХХШаТЧРΝСОЫΝКЫРuЦОЧЭΝТЭΝаШuХНΝ
be possible to assume that the standing representants of the Parthian (Pahlav) aristocracy
ЬuЛЦТЭΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ pШаОЫΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ PОЫЬТКЧΝ (P ЫЬ Р)Ν ФТЧРЬςΝ εШЯЬ ЬΝ БШЫОЧКМ‘Т informs that only
ЭСОΝ AЫЬКМТНЬΝ ШПΝ AЫЦОЧТКΝ КЧНΝ ЭСОΝ K ЫТЧΝ МХКЧΝ ЭШШФΝ upΝ ПТРСЭТЧРΝ КРКТЧЬЭΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ IέΝ TСОΝ ШЭСОЫΝ
Parthian dynastic families recognized the authority of the Persian usurper.19 Naturally this is
just one of several possible hypotheses which would explain the location of the relief.
The main problem in interpretation of the relief is depicting both sovereigns in almost
identical crowns,20 thus the supposition was made that the object could be made during
alleged co-ЫОРОЧМвΝ ШПΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ КЧНΝ ṣ puЫέ21 The iconographic material supporing in view
of some researchers the idea of the co-regency of both rulers are the emissions of the coins
ШПΝAЫНКš ЫΝаСОЫОΝСОΝТЬΝЬСШаЧΝЭШРОЭСОЫΝаТЭСΝСТЬΝЬШЧΝṣ puЫΝ(Fig. 6).
IПΝЭСОΝКЛШЯОΝТНОКΝТЬΝЛКЬОНΝШЧΝЭСОΝЧuЦТЬЦКЭТМΝОЯТНОЧМОΝаСОЫОΝAЫНКš ЫΝКЧНΝṣ puЫΝаОЫОΝ
depicted together than by the rule of analogy co-ЫОРОЧМвΝШПΝBКСЫ ЦΝIIΝ(ЫέΝβιθ-293) and his
BКСЫ ЦΝIIIΝ(ЫέΝβλγ)ΝаШuХНΝСave to be assumed (Fig. 7).
Without any doubt such a conclusion must be found incorrect and should be refuted.
The coins occasionally show the Š С nš Сs together with their sons, In these cases it is only
possible to state that the sons on the coinage are the ones whom the kings find worthy
inheriting the throne.
The other argument supporting the idea of the co-ЫОРОЧМвΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ КЧНΝ ṣ puЫΝ ТЬΝ
a fragment of the biography of Mani from Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis ḴWhen I was
twenty[-four] years old, in the year in which Dariadaxir, the king of Persia, subjugated
the city of Hatra, and in which Sapores, his son assumed the mighty diadem
[ δΪ βηα ηΫΰδ οθ]ΝТЧΝЭСОΝЦШЧЭСΝШПΝPСКЫЦuЭСТΝШЧΝЭСОΝДОТРСЭС]ΝНКвΝКММШЫНТЧРΝЭШΝЭСОΝЦШШЧḵέ 22
This account tels us only thet capturing of a Ы Ν ЭШШФΝ pХКМОΝ ЛОЭаООЧΝ ńζέΝ ίζέΝ βζίΝ КЧНΝ
31. 03. 241 r. 23 There is no mention of co-regency in the text, In Manichean texts a king's
accession is termed his ḴКЬЬuЦpЭТШЧΝШПΝЭСОΝНТКНОЦḵ,ΝаСТХОΝТЭΝНШОЬΝЧШЭΝСКЯОΝЭСОΝНТЫОМЭ,ΝЯОЫЛКХΝ
meaning but rather an idiomatic one which describes the attainment of royal sovereignty. 24
In this case the phrase the ḴЦТРСЭвΝНТКНОЦḵΝаКЬΝаТЭСШuЭΝКЧвΝНШuЛЭΝuЬОНΝЭШΝНОЬМЫТЛОΝКΝroyal
crown of Š С nš С, The crown that distinguished the monarch from predecessors and
from the other nobles, and was encircled by the diadem with ribbon ties, that symbolized the
divine blessing.25 The royal inscription of Narseh (r. 293-γίβ)Ν ПЫШЦΝ P ТФ Х Ν МШuХНΝ ЬОЫЯОΝ КЬΝ
a confirmation of such an idea.26
LEVIT-TAWIL, 1992L 177: “Thus the triumphal scene may represent an allegorical cosmic drama
in which Zoroastrianism, equated here with the "East" and manifested in the image of the Sasanian
ФТЧР,ΝаТХХΝpЫОЯКТХΝШЯОЫΝЭСОΝПШЫМОЬΝШПΝОЯТХḵέ
19
εШЯЬ ЬΝБШЫОЧКМ‘Т II.71; MAKSYMIUK, 2018.
20
On individual crowns of Sasanian kings in numismatics: ERDMANN, 1951: 87-123; AZARPAY,
1972: 108-115; PECK, 1993: 408-418; MOSIG-WALBURG, 2011: 446-473.
21
HINZ, 1965: 159; CHAUMONT, 1974: 136; SHAVAREBI, 2014: 122.
22
P. Colon. Inv. 4780.
23
MAKSYMIUK, 2017: 92-93.
24
RICHTER-BERNBURG, 1993: 78.
25
CHAUMONT, 1979: 217-221.
26
σPТΝβΝ§ζέ
18
Page | 100
Fig. 3. The relief of SКХЦ Ь, (after: Ker Porter, 1822: pl. LXXXII).
Fig. 4. TСОΝIЧЯОЬЭТЭuЫОΝШПΝAЫНКš ЫΝIΝat σКqš-e Rostam, (after: Ker Porter, 1821: pl. XXIII).
Fig. 5. The great Victory Relief of ṣ puЫΝI at σКqš-e Rostam, (after: Ker Porter, 1821: pl. XXI).
Page | 101
Fig. 6. CШТЧΝШПΝAЫНКš ЫΝIΝКЧНΝṣ puЫΝI,
(after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. II/20).
Fig. 7. Coin of BКСЫ ЦΝII and BКСЫ ЦΝIII,
(after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. IV/63).
КЛКЫ Ν КЭЭОЬЭЬΝ ЭСКЭ ḴКЧНΝ СОΝ ДAЫНКš Ы]Ν СКНΝ СТЬΝ ЬШЧΝ SС Л ЫΝ МЫШаЧОНΝ аТЭСТЧΝ СТЬΝ ШаЧΝ
ХТПОЭТЦОέḵ27 εКЬ uНТ mentions the abdication of AЫНКš Ыέ28 AММШЫНТЧРΝЭШΝBКХ‘КЦ , ṣ puЫΝаКЬΝ
МЫШаЧОНΝ ЭаТМО,Ν ПШЫΝ ЭСОΝ ПТЫЬЭΝ ЭТЦОΝ СОΝ аКЬΝ МЫШаЧОНΝ ЛвΝ AЫНКš Ы Ḵwith his own hand placed
СТЬΝ pОЫЬШЧКХΝМЫШаЧΝ upШЧΝ ṣ p Ы’ЬΝ СОКНḵ,29 while when he ascended the throne Ḵhe crowned
himself [anew]ḵ.30 Until the mid-5th century the Sasanian Š С nš С crowned himself.31
Therefore we can state that AЫНКš Ы had onХвΝ КppШТЧЭОНΝ СТЬΝ КЬМОЧНКЧЭΝ ЛОМКuЬОΝ ṣ puЫΝ СКНΝ
to fulfill after his death the full crowЧТЧРΝ МОЫОЦШЧвΝ аСТМСΝ МХОКЫХвΝ pЫШЯОЬΝ ЭСКЭΝ ЭСОΝ ПКЭСОЫ’ЬΝ
appointment was insufficient for legal acquisition of power.
The arguments allowing abolishment of the idea of the alleged co-regency can be
found in Iranian tradition. In this place we need to revoke the idea of the ḴЫШвКХΝ ПТЫОḵΝ КЧНΝ
the mode of instigating of the new kings. The Iranian Š С nš С started a ḴЫШвКХΝПТЫОḵΝКЭΝСТЬΝ
accession. This fire was announced only at the predecesЬШЫ’ЬΝ НОКЭСέΝ TСОΝ КЬcendant was
allowed to ignite his own fire oЧХвΝЭСЫООΝНКвЬΝКПЭОЫΝpЫОНОМОЬЬШЫ’ЬΝНОКЭСέ32 This procedure is
confirmed by the inscription at B š p Ы: ḴTСОΝ ЦШЧЭСΝ ШПΝ ŻЫКЯКЫН Ч,Ν ЭСОΝ вОКЫΝ ηκ,Ν (аСТМСΝ ТЬ)Ν
ЭСОΝ вОКЫΝ ζίΝ ШПΝ AЫНКš Ы’ЬΝ ŻТЫО,Ν (КЧН)Ν ЭСОΝ вОКЫΝ βζΝ ШПΝ ṣ ЛuСЫ’ЬΝ ŻТЫОḵέ33 The coin emissions
depicting AЫНКš Ы with ṣ puЫΝ МШЧЭКТЧ AЫНКš ЫΥЬΝ ШаЧΝ ПТЫОΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОЯОЫЬОέΝ TСОΝ ШЭСОЫΝ IЫКЧТКЧΝ
habit was election of the new king. Š С nš С was elected by the Royal Council and the king
in power could only suggest his ascendant. As an example could serve here accession
to the throne of Narseh,34 ШЫΝЭСОΝМТЫМuЦЬЭКЧМОЬΝШПΝФТЧРΝṣ puЫΝIIΝ(ЫέΝγίλ-379) accession, when
the Royal Council placed the crown on the womb of his mother when she was pregnant.35
AХЬШΝЬТЭuКЭТШЧΝТЧΝIЫКЧΝКПЭОЫΝKКа Н’ЬΝIΝ(ЫέΝζκκ-496, 498-531) death serves as a good example,
ЭСОЧΝεКСЛШНΝS Ы ЧΝНОЦКЧНОНΝЯШЭОНΝШЧΝКΝЧОаΝФТЧРΝОХОМЭТШЧΝПЫШЦΝЭСОΝRШвКХΝCШuЧМТХέ36
It seems that the main argument to refute the idea of the co-regency is Iranian
tradition which rejected such an option. There could be only one Š С nš С.
КЛКЫ Νκβίέ
εКЬ uНТ 219.
29
BКХ‘КЦ , 884.
30
BКХ‘КЦ , 886.
31
SHAHBAZI, 1993: 277-279.
32
SHAHBAZI, 1980: 131-134.
33
ṣVṣμΝЦ СΝПЫКЯКЫН ЧΝЬ ХΝηκ,Ν НuЫΝ ΝКЫНКš ЫΝЬ ХΝζί,Ν НuЫΝšКЛuСЫΝ Ν НuЫ ЧΝš СΝЬ ХΝβζ.
34
Agathias IV 24.6-8; NPi 2-7.
35
Agathias IV.25.2-5; КЛКЫ Νκγθέ
36
Procop. Pers. 1. 21. 20-22; MAKSYMIUK, 2015a.
27
28
Page | 102
Historical Background
τЫТОЧЭКХΝЬШuЫМОЬΝЦОЧЭТШЧΝAЫЦОЧТКΝКЦШЧРΝЭСОΝХКЧНЬΝМШЧquОЫОНΝЛвΝAЫНКš ЫέΝḴThen he
went from there to Hamadh n and conquered it by force of arms, as also the mountain region
(al-Jabal), Azerbaijan, Armenia, and [the region of ] al-Mawsil. The he went from al-Mawsil
ЭШΝ S ЫТЬЭ n, that is, the Saw Н,Ν КЧНΝ ЭШШФΝ pШЬЬОЬЬТШЧΝ ШПΝ ТЭΝ ПШЫΝ СТЦЬОХПέḵ37 The Author
of The NТС вКt Кl-Irab ОЯОЧΝ ЦОЧЭТШЧЬΝКΝ ЛКЭЭХОΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЛШЫНОЫΝ ШПΝ НuЫЛ НКР ЧΝ КЧНΝ AЫЦОЧТК,
in which AЫНКš ЫΝаКЬΝЭШΝНОПОКЭΝЭСОΝAЫЦОЧТКЧΝМШКХТЭТШЧ. ḴAХХΝТЭЬΝДAЫЦОЧТК’Ь]ΝФТЧРЬΝКЬЬОЦЛХОНΝ
ЭШΝ ПТРСЭΝ СТЦΝ ДAЫНКš Ы]Ν КЧНΝ ЭСОвΝ УШТЧОНΝ ЛКЭЭХОΝ ЭСОЫО,Ν ЛОЭаООЧΝ НuЫЛКТğКЧ and Armenia
and fought a violent fight, until the killed were numerous on both sides. But the victory
ЫОЦКТЧОНΝаТЭСΝAЫНКš ЫΝКЧНΝЭСОвΝКЬФОНΝСТЦΝПШЫ safety. And he gave them safety and pandered
them.ḵ38 It would seem that these accounts would perfectly serve as a source to explain
identification of the mounted personages on the relief from SКХЦ ЬΝ КЬΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ КЧНΝ ṣ puЫ,
especially in the place locating the victorious battle. We should bear in mind that these are
merely the accounts of a success of AЫНКš ЫΝТЧΝArmenia.
The picture of the events in Armenia in Armenian and Roman sources is comletely
НТППОЫОЧЭέΝ AММШЫНТЧРΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОЬОΝ КММШuЧЭЬΝ КПЭОЫΝ ЭСОΝ ЛКЭЭХОΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ pХКТЧΝ ШПΝ HШЫЦгНКР ЧΝ
ШЧΝγίΝεОСЫήβκΝApЫТХΝββζΝCźΝЭСОΝAЫЦОЧТКЧΝФТЧРΝБuЬЫō39 asked for help the Roman emperor
Severus Alexander (r. 222-235) and initiated arranging the coalition to defent the Arsacid
royal house.40 AЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЬТНОΝ ПΝ ЭСОΝ ЬШЧЬΝ ШПΝ AЫНКЯ ЧΝ IVΝ (ЫέΝ βńθ-224)41 stood except for
the Arsacids ШПΝAЫЦОЧТКμΝ НuЫЛ НКР Ч,42 AЫЫ ЧΝ(Ἀζίαθέαθ),ΝVТЫuг ЧΝ(żОШЫРТК,ΝἸίβλέα) and
the Huns allied with them.43 The plan assumed the attack of the allied forces at ЬōЫТЬЭ ЧΝКЧНΝ
ПТЫЭСОЫΝreaching Ctesiphon. TСОΝAЫЦОЧТКЧΝКММШuЧЭЬΝТЧПШЫЦΝКЛШuЭΝНОПОКЭТЧРΝШПΝЭСОΝAЫНКš Ы’ЬΝ
ПШЫМОЬΝin ЬōЫТЬЭ Ч which, according to the chronology of the Armenian chronicles should be
dated to 225/226.44 σОбЭ,ΝКПЭОЫΝЭСОΝЛКЭЭХОΝаТЭСΝAЫНКš Ы,ΝБuЬЫōΝаТЭСНrew to Armenia.45 Early in
226 when AЫНКš ЫΝ аКРОНΝ ЭСОΝ аКЫΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ AЫКЛТКЧΝ PОЧТЬuХК46 the allied forces under
ЭСОΝМШЦЦКЧНΝШПΝБuЬЫōΝpХuЧНОЫОНΝ ЬōЫТЬЭ Ч.47 After the failed attempt of capturing a Ы Νin
226/227 AЫНКš ЫΝ аТЭСНЫОаΝ ЭШΝ εОНТКέ48 In 227/22κΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ ЬОЭΝ аТЭСΝ СЬΝ КЫЦвΝ ПЫШЦ Media
pХКЧЧТЧРΝ ЭСОΝ КЭЭКМФΝ КЭΝ AЫЦОЧТКΝ КЧНΝ НuЫЛ НКР Чέ49 TСОΝ КЫЦТОЬΝ ШПΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ аОЫОΝ ЭШΝ ЛОΝ
demolished by the allied forces50 however the location of the battle remins unknown.
TСОΝ pШЬТЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ AЫЦОЧТКΝ ЭШаКЫНЬΝ AЫНКš ЫΝ ТЧΝ ПШХХШаТЧРΝ вОКЫЬΝ аКЬΝ ЬЭЫОЧРЭСОЧΝ by
the allience with Rome confirmed by the military actions Severus Alexander during
КЛКЫ Νκńλέ
NТС вКt Кl-Irab in: WIDENGREN, 1971: 770, cf. 721.
39
see note 12.
40
Agathangelos 1.19; εШЯЬ ЬΝKhorenats'i II.71-72.
41
Cass. Dio LXXX.3.3; Zonar. XII.15; εШЯЬ ЬΝБШЫОЧКМ‘Т II.71.
42
Zonar. XII.15.
43
Agathangelos I.19.
44
Agathangelos I.21; εШЯЬ ЬΝKhorenats'i II.72.
45
Agathangelos I.21.
46
КЛКЫ Νκńλέ
47
Agathangelos I.23.
48
Cass. Dio LXXX.3.2.
49
Cass. Dio LXXX.3.3; КЛКЫ Νκńλέ
50
Cass. Dio LXXX.3.3; Zonar. XII.15.
37
38
Page | 103
the war with Iran between 231-233.51 What is particularly important is that there is no
mention of direct participation of Armenian forces in this war.
The credibility od the account of NТС вКt Кl-Irab ТЬΝuЧНОЫЬЭКЭОНΝЛвΝТЧЬМЫТpЭТШЧΝШПΝΝṣ puЫΝIΝ
on the KК’ЛО-вОΝ ГКЫЭШšЭΝ at σКqš-e Rostam. Armenia was mentioned there within
the boundries of r nšКСr Ḵ ДI]Ν КЦΝ ЫuХОЫΝ ШПΝ Ы ЧšКСЫ,Ν ДΝ IΝ СШХНΝ ς]Ν ЭСОΝ ХКЧНЬμΝ P ЫЬ,Ν PКСХКЯ,Ν
Б гОЬЭ Ч,Νε š Ч,Ν Ь ЫОЬЭ Ч,ΝσШНš ЫКР Ч,ΝAЫКЛОЬЭ Ч,Ν НuЫЛ вКР Ч,ΝAЫЦТЧ…ḵ,52 however it
was to be conquered only in 252/253 r.53 The power over the country was taken over bвΝЭСОΝ
ЬШЧΝШПΝṣ puЫΝI,ΝHormozd-AЫНКšТЫΝЛОКЫТЧРΝЭСОΝЭТЭХОΝШПΝАuгurР Š С ArmТn n ḴGreat King ШПΝЭСОΝ
AЫЦОЧТКЧЬḵέ54
New Proposal
AЬΝ ТЭΝ аКЬΝ pЫОЬОЧЭОНΝ КЛШЯОΝ ЭСОΝ ТЧЭОЫpЫОЭКЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ КЭΝ SКХЦ ЬΝ ЫОЦКТЧЬΝ ЯОЫвΝ
МШЧЭЫШЯОЫЬТКХέΝ TСОΝ ЫОХТОП’ЬΝ МКЫЯТЧРΝ ЬЭвХОΝ МКЧЧШЭΝ ЬОrve to its datation. The similarities
of the relief with the Parthian art55 did not necessarily arouse from the time of the creation
of the object. Probably, it was sculpted by the provincial artists which makes the differences
of style with the reliefs fЫШЦΝŻ ЫЬΝЫКЭСОЫΝЧКЭuЫКХέΝCШЧЬТНОЫТЧРΝЭСОΝЬТЭuКЭТШЧΝТЧΝAЫЦОЧТКΝНuЫТЧРΝ
the reign of AЫНКšТЫΝ ЭСОΝ ТНОЧЭТПТМКЭТШЧΝ of the equestrian figures as the first two sovereigns
of the Sasanian dynasty appears doubtful. The question arises: what if the relief does not
depict AЫНКšТЫΝКЧНΝṣ puЫςΝАСШΝcould be the ЫТНОЫЬΝМКЫЯОНΝШЧΝЭСОΝЫОХТОПΝКЭΝSКХЦ ЬςΝ
The equestrian figures ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ КЭΝ SКХЦ Ь both wear similar crowns consist
of a skull-cap surmounted by the korymbos covered with thin cloth, probably silk, and bound
with a short fillet and encircled by a diadem terminated in long ribbons. This version
of the crown is a truly Sasanian crown (Fig. 8, Fig. 9). 56
The crowns of the Sasanian rulers were personalized,57 however what is important
for blow considerations, Š С nš С was not limited to single crown type. Already
ШЧΝЭСОΝМШТЧКРОΝШПΝAЫНКšТЫΝIΝаОΝПТЧНΝНТППОЫОЧЭΝМЫШаЧЬέ58 The way of identification of the kings
based on the numismatics (the crown and the name of the king) is not the ultimate formula
to interpret the reliefs as the rulers tended to repeat earlier types.59
51
Hdn. VI.5.1-8; VI.6.2-3; MAKSYMIUK, 2015b: 29-31.
ṣKГΝ ń-2/2/2-γέΝ Ы ЧšКСЫΝ бЯКН вΝ СКЦέΝ uНΝ Н ЫКЦ]Ν šКСЫΝ p ЫЬ,Ν pКСХКЯ,Ν ДС гОЬЭ Ч,Ν Ц š Ч,Ν Ь ЫОЬЭ Ч,Ν
ЧШНš ЫКР Ч,ΝКЫКЛОЬЭ Ч,Ν НuЫЛ вКР Ч,ΝAЫЦТЧΝή КЫв ЧбšКСЫΝбvКН вΝКСОЦέΝuНΝН Ы ЦΝбšКСЫΝp ЫЬ,ΝДpКЫγКЯ],Ν
С гОЬЭ Ч,Ν Ц š Ч,Ν Д Ь ЫОЬЭ Ч,Ν ЧШНš ЫКР Ч,Ν КЫКЛОЬЭ Ч,Ν КЫЛ КР Ч,]Ν AЫЦТЧΝ ήΝ ουΝ αλδαθωθΝ γθουМΝ
Мπο βМΝ δηδΝ εαδΝ εα χωΝ γθβΝ Π λМδ αΝ ΠДαλγδαθ]Ν ΟυДαβθ]βθΝ ΜДβМαθ]βθβθΝ ММυλδαθΝ δαίβθβθΝ
λαίδαθΝ ουλία βθβθΝ λη θδαθ
53
KETTENHOFEN, 1982: 83; MAKSYMIUK, 2007: 348.
54
ṣKГΝβγήńκήζί-41; KETTENHOFEN, 1995: 43-45.
55
HERRMANN, 1969: 74.
56
PECK, 1993.
57
ERDMANN, 1951: 87-123; żнBδ,Ν1971: 7.
58
żнBδ,ΝńλιńμΝTКЛέΝIνΝAδRAε,ΝńλλλμΝθι-76; HUFF, 2007: 209.
59
HARPER, MEYERS, 1981: 9.
52
Page | 104
Fig. 8. TСОΝЫОХТОПΝШПΝSКХЦ Ь, the first rider, (photo by the author).
Fig. 9. TСОΝЫОХТОПΝШПΝSКХЦ Ь, the second rider, (photo by the author).
*
The relief of the investiture AЫНКšТЫΝII’Ь (r. 379-383) is located at q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч near
KОЫЦ Чš СΝ ТЧΝ АОЬЭОЫЧΝ IЫКЧ.60 TСОΝ ЫОХТОП’ measures is approx. 4.07 m. in width and 3.9 m.
in height. The relief depicts four men – three standing and one lying below their feet
(Fig. 10). In the center of the relief was pХКМОНΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ IIΝ ЭuЫЧОНΝ ЭШаКЫНЬΝ ЭСОΝ pОЫЬШЧКРОΝ
identified usually as τСЫЦКгНΝ ШЫΝ ṣ puЫΝ II,61 from whom he receives a ring. Both stand
60
61
FUKAI, HORIUCHI, 1972: pl. LXXIV-XCII.
CALMEYER, 1977: 187-188.
Page | 105
on the body of the slain body of an enemy, whom most likely is a Roman emperor.62
TСОΝpОЫЬШЧКРОΝЛОСТЧНΝAЫНКšТЫ’Ь back holds the barsom bundle, and wears a crown adorned
with twelve rays of the Sun.63 Some scholars consider that this scene represents
ЭСОΝ ТЧЯОЬЭТЭuЫОΝ ШПΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ IIΝ ЛвΝ τСЫЦКгНΝ КЧНΝ εТЭСЫКέ64 The others have suggested that
the rock relief at q-ОΝ BШЬЭ Ч really portrКвЬΝ ṣ puЫΝ II,Ν МШЦЦОЦШЫКЭТЧРΝ СТЬΝ ЯТМЭШЫвΝ ШЯОЫΝ
Julian (r. 361-363), flanked by Mithra and Ohrmazd.65 Another interpretation believes
the scene to be a posthumous commemoration of ṣ puЫ’ЬΝ ЯТМЭШЫвΝ ШЯОЫΝ a Roman emperor
Julian.66
Fig. 10. The Investiture of ArdКš ЫΝIIΝat
q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч, (after: Ker Porter, 1822: pl. LXVI).
Fig. 11. TСОΝНОЭКТХΝШПΝЭСОΝЫОХТОПΝAЫНКš ЫΝII’ЬΝat
q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч, (photo by the author).
TRоεPźδεAσσ, 1975b; TANABE, 1985; the corpse of a Kuš Ч king pЫШpШЬОНΝЛвΝϟϧϞϢϡϜϡ,
1967: 6-33.
63
ERDMANN, 1943: 67-68; SHAHBAZI, 1986; CALLIERI,ΝΝ1990.
64
AZARNOUSH, 1986: 219-247.
65
TRоεPźδεAσσ,ΝńλιηЛμΝ107-111; AZARPAY, 1982: 184.
66
Amm. Marc. XXV.3.6; ADRYCH, BRACEY, DALGLISH, LENK, WOOD, 2017: 85-92.
62
Page | 106
*
The AЫНКšТЫΝII’ЬΝМЫШаЧ consist of a skull-cap surmounted by the korymbos, is almost
identical to the crowns ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ОquОЬЭЫТКЧΝ ПТРuЫОЬΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ КЭΝ SКХЦ ЬΝ КЧНΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ МЫШаΝ
of the king at D Ы ЛРОЫН. The personage on the right is usually identified as Ohrmazd but his
МЫОЧОХХКЭОНΝМЫШаЧΝХШШФЬΝХТФОΝЭСОΝШЧОΝаШЫЧΝЛвΝṣ puЫΝIIΝ(КΝЦuЫКХΝМЫШаЧΝКЧНΝКΝНТКНОЦΝКЛШЯОΝ
which a line of snail shell curls of hair is represented horizontally) 67 (Fig. 11). КЛКЫ Ν
ЦОЧЭТШЧЬΝЭСКЭΝṣ puЫΝЭЫКЧЬПОЫЫОНΝЭСОΝpШаОЫΝЭШΝСТЬΝЛЫШЭСОЫΝḴSС Л ЫΝЛОquОКЭСОНΝЭСОΝЫШвКХΝpШаОЫΝ
ЭШΝ СТЬΝ ЛЫШЭСОЫΝ AЫНКЬС Ыḵέ68 TСОΝ МШЧНТЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ НОКХ,Ν КММШЫНТЧРΝ ЭШΝ ŻТЫНКаЬ , was waiving
the power by AЫНКšТЫΝII ЭШΝṣ puЫΝIIIΝ(Ыέ 383-388) after the latter reached maturity.69 Based on
these accounts it can be assumed that the relief depicts both brothers: ṣ puЫΝIIΝКЧНΝAЫНКšТЫΝIIΝ
accompanied by Mithra acting as a guarantor of the oath.70
As it was mentioned earlier the way of identification of the kings based on
the numismatics (the crown and the name of the king) is not the ultimate formula to interpret
the reliefs as the rulers tended to repeat earlier types. This is confirmed by the series
of the coins of ṣ puЫΝII on which he was depicted in the crenellated crown associated with
ṣ p ЫΝIέ71 (Fig. 12, Fig. 13)
Fig. 12. Coin of ṣ puЫ I,
(after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. II/32).
Fig. 13. Coin of ṣ puЫ II,
(after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. VI/106).
AХЬШΝ ШЧΝ ЬШЦОΝ МШТЧЬΝ ШПΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ IIΝ ЭСОΝ МЫШаЧΝ ЫОЦТЧНЬΝ ЭСОΝ НШЦО-shaped crown
ШПΝAЫНКš ЫΝIέΝźЬpОМТКХХвΝТЧЭОЫОsting seems the fact of the presence of shorter form of the title
Ḵ’ЫЭСšЭЫΝ εδK’ЧΝ εδK’Ν ’вЫ’Ч / AЫНКšТЫΝ š С ЧΝ š СΝ Ы ЧΝ ήΝ AЫНКšТЫ,Ν KТЧРΝ ШПΝ KТЧРЬΝ ШПΝ IЫКЧḵ
on the coinage of AЫНКšТЫΝ II,Ν ТЧΝ МШЦpКЫТЬШЧΝ ЭШΝ ТЭЬΝ ПuХХвΝ ОбЭОЧНОНΝ ЯОЫЬТШЧΝ Ḵ’ЫЭСšЭЫΝ εδK’ЧΝ
εδK’Ν ’вЫ’Ч W nвЫ Ч ήΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ š С ЧΝ š СΝ Ы ЧΝ uНΝ КЧ Ы ЧΝήΝ AЫНКšТЫ,Ν KТЧРΝ ШПΝ KТЧРЬΝ ШПΝ IЫКЧΝ
and Non-IЫКЧḵέ72 Here we find a relation to the the founder of the dynasty not onlly
in iconographic but also ideological dimension. The same title was used in the inscription
of AЫНКšТЫΝ IΝ ШЧΝ СТЬΝ ТЧЯОЬЭТЭuЫОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ КЭΝ σКqš-e Rostam,73 аСТХОΝ ПЫШЦΝ ṣ p ЫΝ IΝ ШЧаКЫНЬ,Ν
the Sasanian rulers used the title of Š С nš С r n uН An r n.74
TRоεPźδεAσσ,ΝńλιηЛέ
КЛКЫ Ν846.
69
ŻТЫНКаЬ ΝVI. p. 360-364; MOSIG-WALBURG, 2000: 133-138.
70
CALMEYER, 1977; TANABE, 1985; SHAHBAZI, 1986; OVERLAET, 2012.
71
żнBδ,ΝńλιńμΝpХέΝVIΝήΝκκ-106.
72
żнBδ,ΝńλιńμΝιζέ
73
ANRm-a: ptkr-вΝ ГσpΝ ЦгНвЬЧΝЛРвΝ ’ЫЭСšЭЫΝεδK’ЧΝεδK’Ν ’вЫ’ЧΝεσАΝМЭЫвΝεσΝ вгН’ЧΝήΝ pКСТФКЫΝ ЧΝ
ЦКгН ЬЧΝ ЛКΰ КЫНКš ЫΝ š С ЧΝ š СΝ Ы ЧΝ Ф Ν č СЫΝ КгΝ вКгН ЧήΝ „TСТЬΝ ТЬ the image of the Mazda-worshiping
Majesty, AЫНКšТЫ,ΝKТЧРΝШПΝKТЧРЬΝШПΝ Ы Ч,ΝаСШЬОΝШЫТРТЧΝ(ТЬ)ΝПЫШЦΝЭСОΝРШНЬ…ḵ
74
ALRAM, BLET-δźεARQUAσD,ΝSKJÆRVØ,ΝβίίινΝАźBźR,ΝβίίινΝβίίκνΝβίίλνΝβίńίνΝβίńβέ
67
68
Page | 107
*
Adoption of Christianity in Armenia by Trdat (r. 298-330?) during the early years
ШПΝ ṣ p ЫΝ II’ЬΝ ЫОЬuХЭОНΝ Тn closure of the kingdom with Rome.75 Probably c. 336 ṣ p ЫΝ
succeeded in capturing King Tiran (r. 330?-338) КЧНΝ ЭСОΝ МЫШаЧΝ pЫТЧМОΝ AЫšКФέ76 In 338,
СШаОЯОЫ,Ν ṣ p ЫΝ КПЭОЫΝ СТЬΝ ПТЫЬЭΝ ЫОЯОЫЬОΝ ШuЭЬТНОΝ σТЬТЛТЬ77 agreed to the release of the royal
family and to the entСЫШЧОЦОЧЭΝ ШПΝ AЫšКФΝ II (r. 338-368).78 Ammianus Marcellinus testifies
ЭСКЭΝAЫšКФ УШТЧОНΝJuХТКЧ’ЬΝОбpОНТЭТШЧΝКРКТЧЬЭΝЭСОΝSКЬКЧТКЧЬέ79 The situation of Iranu on NorthWestern border changed radically only after Jovian (r. 363-364) was forced to settle the peace
treaty after the death of emperor Julian.80 One of the conditions of the treaty was withdrawal
of the Roman support for the kings of Armenia.81 In 364 ṣ p ЫΝ uЧНОЫΝ КЧΝ ОбМuЬОΝ ШПΝ СОХpΝ
for the naxararЬΝЫОЛОХХОНΝКРКТЧЬЭΝЭСОΝФТЧРΝAЫšКФ,ΝТЧЯКНОНΝAЫЦОЧТКέΝTСОΝФТЧРΝаКЬΝТЦpЫТЬШЧОНΝ
ТЧΝЭСОΝCКЬЭХОΝШПΝτЛХТЯТШЧΝТЧΝБ гОЬЭ ЧΝаСОЫОΝСОΝНТОНέ 82 ṣ p ЫΝЬОЧЭΝЭЫШШpЬΝТЧЭШΝAЫЦОЧТКΝКРКТЧΝ
in 370 and after log siege he captured the ПШЫЭЫОЬЬΝ ШПΝ AЫЭКРОЫФ аСОЫОΝ QuООЧΝ PСКЫКЧНгОЦΝ
and Pap (r. 371-γιζ)Ν ЭСОΝ ЬШЧΝ ШПΝ AЫšКФΝ IIΝ ЫОЬТНОНέ83 Only Pharandzem was taken prisoner
because Pap had fled to the Romans just before the end of the siege. In 371 Pap returned
to the country with the assistance of the emperor Valens (r. 364-378). The next year
the Roman forces, supported by Armenian contingents, decisively defeated the Iranians
in a battle at Bagavan.84 King Pap suspected of intention to set a secret deal with ṣ p ЫΝII was
assassinated in 374, maybe at the behest of the emperor.85 Then Valens introduced Varazdat
(374-378) to the throne just to be overthrown by Manuel Mamikonean. Manuel ruled
as (a)sparapet 86 КЧНΝ КΝ ЫОРОЧЭΝ ШПΝ PКp’ЬΝ ЭаШΝ ЯОЫвΝ вШuЧРΝ ЬШЧЬ,Ν AЫšКФΝ КЧНΝ VКṢКЫšКФέΝ
He concluded a treaty with ṣ p ЫΝ IIΝ аСТМСΝ ЫОЬuХЭОНΝ ТЧΝ Š С nš С sending diadems
to Zarmandukht and her sons and appointing S Ы Ч, the marzb n of Armenia.87 After
the death of Manuel Mamikonean Armenia was partitioned as a result f the agreement
between Theodosius I (378-395) and ṣ p ЫΝIII.88
Conclusion
Above cosiderations demonstrated that the identification of the equestrian figures
ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ ШПΝ SКХЦ ЬΝ КЬΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ IΝ КЧНΝ ṣ p ЫΝ IΝ ТЬΝ КЭΝ ХОКЬЭΝ НШuЛЭПuХ. The similarities
ШПΝЭСОΝЫОХТОП’ЬΝМКЫЯТЧРΝЬЭвХОΝЭШΝPКЫЭСТКЧΝКЫЭΝНТНΝЧШЭΝЧОМОЬЬarily arose from the date of the work.
Probably it was sculpted by the provincial artists and that makes the differences with other
Sasanian reliefs natural. Also the course of military actions taken by AЫНКšТЫΝКРКТЧЬЭΝAЫЦОЧТКΝ
do not confirm this interpretation. AЫНКšТЫΝ НТНΝ ЧШЭΝ РКТЧΝ КЧвΝ ЬuММОЬЬΝ ЭСКЭΝ аШuХНΝ УuЬЭТПвΝ
75
KETTENHOFEN, 2002: 45-104; SEIBT, 2002: 125-133; MAKSYMIUK, 2011: 48-56.
P'awstos Buzandac'i' III.20.
77
MAKSYMIUK, 2015b: 50-54.
78
Tiran lost his life to ṣ p Ыν CHAUMONT, 1986: 418-438.
79
Amm. Marc. XXIII.3.5; XXIV.7.8.
80
MOSIG-WALBURG, 2009: 283-304.
81
Amm. Marc. XXV.7.12; P'awstos Buzandac'i' IV.21; SEAGER, 1996: 275-284.
82
P'awstos Buzandac'i' V.7; MAKSYMIUK, 2011: 53.
83
Amm. Marc. XXVII.12.5-8; P'awstos Buzandac'i' IV.54.
84
Amm. Marc. XXIX.1.2; P'awstos Buzandac'i' V.4; żARSτÏAσ,ΝńλλιμΝλί-91.
85
Amm. Marc. XXX.1.18-21; P'awstos Buzandac'i' V.32; MAZZA, 2003: 405-440; δź SKI, 2007:
95-127.
86
mp. sp СЛОНṬ
87
P'awstos Buzandac'i' V.37-38.
88
P'awstos Buzandac'i' VI.1; BLOCKLEY, 1987: 222-234; GREATREX, 2000: 35-48.
76
Page | 108
ordering the relief in vicinity SКХЦ ЬέΝIЭΝаШuХНΝЬООЦΝЭСКЭΝЭСОΝФОвΝПКМЭШЫΝаШuХНΝЛОΝЭСОΝЦКЭЭОЫΝ
of personal crowns of the Sasanian rulers however the fact that the Š С nš Сs tended
to repeat earlier types does not allow final justification.
Employing similar criteria as other researchers towards the equestrian figures
with AЫНКšТЫΝ IΝ and ṣ p ЫΝ I,Ν IΝ аТХХΝ ЭЫвΝ ЭШΝ КЧКХyze identification of the personages
as the Sasanian rulers of 4th МОЧЭuЫвμΝ ṣ p ЫΝ IIΝ and AЫНКšТЫΝ IIέ Assuming that the location
of the relief, i.e. placing it away from main centers where the royal reliefs are located (P rs)
influenced its technique of it, it is justified to search for the analogies with the later reliefs.
τЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ТЧЯОЬЭТЭuЫОΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ II’ЬΝ КЭΝ q-ОΝ BШЬЭ Ч,Ν МОЧЭЫКХΝ ПТРuЫОΝ аОКЫЬΝ
a headgear almost ideЧЭТМКХΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ МЫШаЧЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ОquОЬЭЫТКЧΝ ПТРuЫОЬΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ КЭΝ SКХЦ ЬέΝ
IЧΝМШЦЛТЧКЭТШЧΝаТЭСΝЭСОΝПКМЭΝЭСКЭΝṣ p ЫΝIIΝТЬΝpЫОЬОЧЭОНΝШЧΝЭСОΝМШТЧЬΝТЧΝЭСОΝМЫОЧОХХКЭОНΝМЫШаЧΝ
КЬЬШМТКЭОНΝаТЭСΝṣ p ЫΝI,ΝТЭΝТЬΝpШЬЬТЛХОΝЭШΝpЫШpШЬОΝЭСКЭΝШЧΝЭСОΝЫОХТОПΝШПΝSКХЦ ЬΝаОЫОΝНОpТcted
these later kings. Such an interpretation is also founded in historical events. Unlike AЫНКšТЫΝI,
ṣ p ЫΝ IIΝ аКЬΝ ЬuММОЬЬПuХΝ ТЧΝ СТЬΝ pШХТЭТМКХΝ КЧНΝ ЦТХТЭКЫвΝ КМЭТШЧЬΝ ТЧΝ AЫЦОЧТКέΝ εШЬЭΝ ХТФОХвΝ
AЫНКšТЫΝ II,Ν аСШΝ аКЬΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ вОКЫЬΝ γζζΝ КЧНΝ γιθΝ the king of КǰКЛΝ (NoНš ЫКР Ч,Ν Ἀ δαίβθά)
participated in the wars of his brother on the North-Westen borders.89
AММШЫНТЧРΝЭШΝAЦЦТКЧuЬΝεКЫМОХХТЧuЬ,Νṣ p ЫΝIIΝУuЬЭТПТОНΝЭСОΝаКЫΝКРКТЧЬЭΝЭСОΝRШЦКЧЬΝ
to re-conquer what had belonged to his ancestor.90 The crown on his coinage and
on the reliefi at q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ ЬuРРОЬЭЬΝ ЭСКЭΝ СОΝ ЦТРСЭΝ СКНΝ ТЧЭОЧНОНΝ ЭШΝ ОЦuХКЭОΝ СТЬΝ КЧМОЬЭШЫΝ
ṣ p ЫΝIέΝSТЦТХКЫΝСвpШЭСОЬТЬ,ΝЛКЬОНΝШЧ similarity of the crowns and titulature with the founder
ШПΝ ЭСОΝ НвЧКЬЭв,Ν МКЧΝ ЛОΝ pХКМОНΝ ЭШаКЫНЬΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ IIέΝ TСОΝ ЫОПОЫОЧМОΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ ḴРШХНОЧΝ КРОḵΝ
of the first two Sasanian rulers in both iconographic and propagandistic sense must be noted.
PОЫСКpЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОХТОПΝ ШПΝ SКХЦ ЬΝ НОpТМЭЬΝ ṣ p ЫΝ IIΝ КЧНΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ IIέΝ IЭЬΝ ХШМКЭТШЧΝ аШuХНΝ ЧШЭΝ ЛОΝ
accidental. In local lore the memory of the defeat ШПΝAЫНКšТЫΝI by the forces of НuЫЛ НКР ЧΝ
КЧНΝ AЫЦОЧТКΝ ЦТРСЭΝ ЫОЦКТЧ,Ν ЭСuЬΝ ṣ p ЫΝ IIΝ КЧНΝ AЫНКšТЫΝ IIΝ МШuХНΝ КМЭΝ КЬΝ ЭСОΝ ПШuЧНОЫЬΝ
of the Christian churches who placed the temples in the places of pagan cult therefore
emphasizing current victory over the former use.
Bibliography
Sources
Acta Sanctorum Martyrum, I, ed. S.E. ASSEMANI, Rome 1748.
Agathangelos, History of the Armenians, tr. R.W. THOMSON, New York 1976.
Agathiae Myrinaei historiarum libri quinque, ed. R. KEYDELL, Berlin 1967.
Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt, ed. W. SEYFARTH, Leipzig 1978.
BACK, M. (1978), Die sassanidischen Staatsinschriften. Studien zur Orthographie und Phonologie
des Mittelpersischen der Inschriften zusammen mit einem etymologischen Index des mittelpersischen
Wortgutes und einem Textcorpus der behandelten Inschriften, Tehran-Leiden.
BКХ‘КЦ ,Νεέ,ΝT r б-О BКlʿКm ,ΝОНέΝεέTέΝBAH R,ΝОНέ 2 M.P. żτσ B D ,ΝTОСЫКЧΝβίίίέ
DТoˀs RomКn HТstorв, vol. 9, tr. E. CARY, London-Cambridge, Mass. 1927 (repr. 1955).
ŻТЫНКаЬ ,ΝŠ С-n mК, vol. 6, tr. A.G. WARNER, E. WARNER, London 1912.
HENRICHS, A., KOENEN, L. (1975), 'DОr KölnОr MКnТ-Codex (P.Colon. inv. nr. 4780),Ν„ГОТЭЬМСЫТПЭΝ
ПüЫΝPКpвЫШХШРТОΝuЧНΝźpТРЫКpСТФḵΝńλ,Νń-85.'
89
90
Acta Sanctorum Martyrum, 1748: I, 99, 105; SCHINDEL, 2004: 260.
Amm. Marc. XVII.5.5.
Page | 109
Herodian of Antioch, History of the Roman Empire, tr. E.C. ECHOLS, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1961.
εКЬ Н , Prairies d'or, eds. B. DE MEYNARD, P. DE COURTEILLE, Paris 1861-1877.
εШЯЬ ЬΝБШЫОЧКМ‘Т, History of the Armenians, tr. R.W. THOMSON, Cambridge, Mass. 1978.
P'awstos Buzandac'i', The Epic historie, tr. R. BEDROSIAN, New York 1985.
Procopius, Bella, ed. H.B. DEWING, Cambridge, Mass. 1914-1928.
КЛКЫ ,Νεέ,ΝThe History of al- КЛКr , vol. 5: TСО S s nТНs, tСО BвгКntТnОs, tСО LКkmТНs, КnН ВОmОn, tr.
C.E. BOSWORTH, New York 1999.
The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli, Part 3.1, ed. and tr. P.O. SKJÆRVØ,ΝWiesbaden 1983.
Zonaras, I., Epitome Historiarum, vol. 3, ed. L. DINDORF, Leipzig 1870.
Literature
ADRYCH, P., BRACEY, R., DALGLISH, D., LENK, S., WOOD, R., (2017), Images of Mithra,
Oxford.
ALRAM, M. (1999), The Beginning of Sasanian Coinage, „Bulletin of the Asia InstituteḵΝńγ, 67-76.
ALRAM, M., BLET-LEMARQUAND, M., SKJÆRVØ, P.O. (2007), Shapur, King of Kings
of Iranians and non-Iranians, [in:] Des Indo-GrОМs Кuб SКssКnТНОsŚ DonnцОs pour lˀСТstoТrО Оt
lК РцoРrКpСТО СТstorТquО, R. GYSELEN, (ed.), Bures-sur-Yvette, 11-40.
AZARNOUSH, M. (1986), Sapur II, Ardasir II, and Sapur III. Another Perspective, „AЫМСтШХШРТЬМСОΝ
Mitteilungen aus Iran, N.F.ḵ 19, 219-247.
AZARPAY, G. (1982), The Role of Mithra in the Investiture and Triumph of Sapur II, „Iranica
Antiquaḵ 17, 181-187.
AZARPAY, G. (1972), Crowns and Some Royal Insignia in Early Iran,Ν„IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТquКḵΝλ,Νńίκ-115.
BLOCKLEY, R.C. (1987), The division of Armenia between the Romans and Persians at the end
of the fourth century ad, „Historiaḵ 36, 222-234.
CALLIERI,Ν PέΝ Ν(1990), On the diffusion of Mithra images In Sasanian Iran. New evidence from
a sealin the British Museum, „East and Westḵ 40, 79-98.
CALMEYER, P. (1976), Zur Genese altiranischer Motive: V. Synarchie, „AЫМСтШХШРТЬМСОΝ
Mitteilungen aus Iran, N.F.ḵΝλ,Νθγ-95.
CALMEYER, P. (1977), Vom RОТsОСut гur KКТsОrkronОṬ BṬ StКnН НОr КrМСтoloРТsМСОn ForsМСunР
zu den iranischen Kronen, „AЫМСтШХШРТЬМСОΝεТЭЭОТХuЧРОЧ aus Iran, σέŻέḵΝ10, 168-190.
CHAUMONT, M.L. (1969), RОМСОrМСОs sur lˀСТstoТrО НˀArmцnТО, Paris.
CHAUMONT, M.L. (1974), CorцРОnМО Оt КvчnОmОnt НО SС СpuСr IОr, [in:] MцmorТКl JОКn
de Menasce, PH. GIGNOUX, A. TAFAZZOLI (eds.), Louvain 133-146.
CHAUMONT, M.L. (1979), A propos de la chute de Hatra et du couronnement de Shapur Ier, „Acta
Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricaeḵ 27, 207-237.
CHAUMONT, M.L. (1986), Armenia and Iran ii. The Pre-Islamic Period, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК,
vol. 2.4, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 418-438.
ENSSLIN, W. (1949), Zu den Kriegen des Sassaniden Schahpur I,ΝεüЧМСОЧέΝ
ERDMANN, K. (1943), Die Kunst Irans zur Zeit der Sasaniden, Berlin.
ERDMANN, K. (1951), Die Entwicklung der sasanidischen Krone,Ν„AЫЬΝIЬХКЦТМКḵ,Νńηήńθ,Νκι-123.
FUKAI, S., HORIUCHI, K. (1972), Taq-i Bustan II, Tokyo.
GALL, H. VON (1990), Das Reiterkampfbild in der iranischen und iranisch beeinflussten Kunst
parthischer und sasanidischer Zeit, Berlin.
żARSτÏAσ, N. (1997), TСО AršКkunТ DвnКstв, [in:] The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern
Times I. The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century, R.G. HOVANNISIAN
(ed.), New York, 63-94.
GHIRSHMAN, R. (1971), BьМСсpour, vol. 1, Paris.
GHODRAT-DIZAJI, M. (2007), Administrative Geography of the Early Sasanian Period: The Case
oП НurЛ НКР n, „Iranḵ 45, 87-93.
żнBδ,ΝRέΝ(ńλιń),ΝSasanian Numismatics, Braunschweig.
GREATREX, G. (2000), The background and aftermath of the partition of Armenia in AD 387,
„Ancient History Bulletinḵ 14, 35-48.
HARPER, P. MEYERS, P. (1981), Silver Vessels of the Sasanian Period I. Royal Imagery, New York.
Page | 110
HERRMANN, G. (1969), TСО D r ЛРТrН RОlТОП – ArНКsС r or SС Сpūr?Ś A DТsМussТon Тn tСО Context
of Early Sasanian Sculpture, „Iranḵ 7, 63-88.
HERZFELD, E. (1924), Paikuli: Monument and Inscription of the Early History of the Sasanian
Empire, Berlin.
HERZFELD, E. (1941), Iran in the Ancient East, London-New York.
HERZFELD, E. (1920), Am Tor von Asien, Berlin.
HINZ, W. (1965), Das sassКnТНТsМСО FОlsrОlТОП von SКlm s, „Iranica Antiquaḵ 5, 148-160.
HUFF, D. (2007), The 'Parthian' Bronze Bust in the Berlin Museum for Islamic Art, and ParthianSasanian aristocratic headgear, [in:] Facts and Artefacts - Art in the Islamic World. Festschrift
Пor JОns KröРОr on his 65th Birthday, A. HAGEDORN, A. SHALEM (eds.), Leiden-Boston, 205-229.
KER PORTER, R. (1821), Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia... during the years
1817-1820, vol. I, London.
KER PORTER, R. (1822), Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia... during the years
1817-1820, vol. 2, London.
KETTENHOFEN, E. (1982), DТО römТsМС-Persischen Kriege des 3. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. nach
НОr InsМСrТПt Š СpuСrs IṬ Кn НОr KКЛО-вО ГКrtošt ДŠKГ], Wiesbaden.
KETTENHOFEN, E. (1995), TТrН Н unН НТО InsМСrТПt von PКТkulТŚ KrТtТk НОr QuОllОn гur Geschichte
ArmОnТОns Тm spтtОn 3Ṭ unН ПrüСОn 4Ṭ JСṬ nṬ CСrṬ, Wiesbaden.
KETTENHOFEN, E. (2002), DТО AnПтnРО НОs CСrТstОntums Тn ArmОnТОn, „HКЧН ЬΝ AЦЬōЫОКвḵ 116,
45-104.
KLEISS, W. (1987), Azerbaijan: ii. Archaeology, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, vol. 3, E. YARSHATER
(ed.), New York, 215-221.
LEHMANN-HAUPT, C.F. (1910), Armenian Einst und Jetzt, Bd. 1, Berlin.
δź SKI, N. (2007), TСО CСronoloРв oП VКlОnsˀ DОКlТnРs аТtС PОrsТК КnН ArmОnТК, 364-378 CE, [in:]
Ammianus After Julian: The Reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books 26–31 of the Res Gestae,
J. DEN BOEFT, J.W. DRIJVERS, D. DEN HENGST, H.C. TEITLER, Leiden, 95-127.
LEVIT-TAWIL, D. (1992), The Sasanian Rock Relief at Darabgird – A Re-evaluation, „Journal
of Near Eastern Studiesḵ 51/3, 161-180.
LUSCHEY, H. (1986), ArНКš r IŚ ТТṬ RoМk RОlТОПs, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, vol. 2,
E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 377-380.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2007), ArmОnТК а polТtвМО pТОrаsгвМС SКsКnТНóа, „Antiquitasḵ 29, 345-354.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2011), Pogranicze persko-rгвmskТО а НгТКłКnТКМС Husrowa I Anuszirwana (531579)Ṭ GОnОгК proЛlОmóа polТtвМгno-religijnych w relacjach Iranu i Rzymu w okresie sasanidzkim,
Siedlce.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2015a), TСО PКrtСТКn noЛТlТtв Тn Бusrō I Anōš rv n Мourt, [in:] Elites in
the Ancient World, v. 2,ΝDέΝτKτ ,ΝP. BRIKS (eds.), Szczecin, 189-198.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2015b), Geography of Roman-Iranian wars: military operations of Rome
and Sasanian Iran, Siedlce.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2017), The capture a r Тn lТРСt oП mТlТtКrв КnН polТtТМКl КМtТvТtТОs oП ArНКš r I,
„HistoЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵ 6, 89-95.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2018), TСО АКr oП ArНКš r I КРКТnst tСО ArsКМТНs Тn ArmОnТК - New proposal,
(in press)
MAZZA, M. (2003), BТsКnгТo О PОrsТК nОllК tКrНК КntТМСТtрŚ notО su РuОrrК О НТplomКгТК nОllК
sОМonНК mОtр НОl IV sОМolo НṬC., [in:] DК CostКntТno К TОoНosТo Тl GrКnНОŚ МulturК, soМТОtр, НТrТttoṬ
Atti del Convegno Internazionale Napoli, 26-28 Aprile 2001, U. CRISCUOLO (ed.), Napoli, 405-440.
MEYER, M. (1990), Die Felsbilder Shapurs I., „JКСЫЛuМСΝ НОЬΝ НОuЭЬМСОЧΝ КЫМСтШХШРТЬМСОЧΝ IЧЬЭТЭuЭsḵ
105, 237-302.
MOSIG-WALBURG, K. (2009), RömОr unН PОrsОrṬ Vom 3Ṭ JКСrСunНОrt ЛТs гum JКСr 363 nṬ CСr.,
Gutenberg.
MOSIG-WALBURG, K. (2010), KönТРtum unН AНОl Тn НОr RОРТОrunРsгОТt ArНКsСТrs IIṬ, SСКpurs IIIṬ
und Wahrams IV, [in:] Commutatio et contentio. Studies in the Late Roman, Sasanian and Early
Islamic Near East, H. BнRε,ΝJέ АIźSźHнŻźR, (eds.), DüЬЬОХНШЫП, 133-158.
Page | 111
MOSIG-WALBURG, K. (2011), DКs « sКsКnТНТsМСО KronОnРОsОtг»Ś EntstОСunР unН EntаТМklunР
eines modernen Konstrukts. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Deutung des Reliefs Narses in Naqshi Rustam,
„KХТШḵΝλγέβ,Νζζθ-473.
OVERLAET, B. (2012), Ahura Mazda and Shapur II? A note on Taq-i Bustan I: the investiture
of Ardashir II (379-383), „Iranica Antiquaḵ 47, 133-151.
PECK, E.H. (1993), Crown II, From the Seleucids to the Islamic conquest, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК,
vol. 6.4, E. Yarshater (ed.), New York, 408-418.
RICHTER-BERNBURG, L. (1993), Mani's Dodecads and Sasanian Chronology: Kephalaia,
Sh pūrКР n, and Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis, „ГОТЭЬМСЫТПЭΝ Пür Papyrologie und EpigraphikḵΝ λη,
71-80.
SAMANIAN, K., SHIRVANI, M., BAKHSHAEI, H. (2012), Petrography, XRD and Wet Chemistry
on Sassanid Rock Reliefs at Khan Tahkti (230 a.d.), Iran: A Case Study, „Mediterranean Archaeology
and Archaeometryḵ 12.2, 213-224.
SARRE, F., HERZFELD, E. (1910), Iranische Felsreliefs, Berlin.
SCHINDEL, N. (2004), Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum, vol. 3.1, Paris-Berlin-Wien.
SEAGER, R. (1996), Ammianus and the Status of Armenia in the Peace of 363, „ChironḵΝ26, 275-284.
SEIBT, W. (2002), Der historische Hintergrund und die Chronologie der Christianisierung Armeniens
ЛгаṬ НОr TКuПО KönТР TrНКts (МКṬ 315), [in:] Die Christianiserung des Kaukasus: The Christianization
of Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Albania), W. SEIBT (ed.), Wien, 125-133.
SHAHBAZI, A. SH. (1980), An Achaemenid Symbol II. Farnah (God-given Fortune Symbolized),
„AЫМСтШХШРТЬМСОΝεТЭЭОТХuЧРОЧ aus Iran, σέŻέḵ 13, 119-147.
SHAHBAZI, A. SH. (1986), ArНКš r II, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, vol. 2.4, E. YARSHATER (ed.),
New York, 380-381.
SHAHBAZI, A. SH. (1993), Coronation, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, vol. 6.3, E. YARSHATER (ed.),
New York, 277-279.
SHAVAREBI, E. (2014), A Reinterpretation of the SasanТКn RОlТОП Кt SКlm s,Ν„Iran and the Caucasusḵ
18, 115-133.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2017), MountОН ComЛКt SМОnОs on К BronгО PlКquО Пrom SКnКˀК, (in press)
TANABE, K. (1985), Date and Significance of the So-Called Investiture of Ardashir II and the Images
of Shahpur II and III at Taq-i Bustan, „Orientḵ 21, 102-121.
TRоεPźδεAσσ, L. (1975b), TrТumpС üЛОr JulТКn ApostКtК, „JКСЫЛuМСΝ ПüЫΝ σuЦТЬЦКЭТФΝ
und Geldgeschichteḵ 25, 107-111.
TRоεPźδεAσσ,Ν δέ (1975a), DКs sКsКnТНТsМСО FОlsrОlТОП von D r Л, IrКnТsМСО DОnkmтlОr, RОТСe
II, Lief. 6, Berlin.
VANDEN BERGHE, L. (1959), ArМСцoloРТО НО lˀIr n КnМТОn, Leiden.
VANDEN BERGHE, L. (1984), RОlТОПs rupОstrОs НО lˀIr n КnМТОn, Bruxelles.
WEBER, U. (2007), HormОгН I, KönТР НОr KönТРО von r n unН An r n, „Iranica Antiquaḵ42, 387418.
WEBER, U. (2008), АКСr m I, KönТР НОr KönТРО von r n unН An r n (273-276 n. Chr.), [in:]
FОstsМСrТПt Пür ErТМС KОttОnСoПОn, O. TABIBZADEH, T. DARYAEE (eds.), Tehran, 171-221.
WEBER, U. (2009), АКСr m II, KönТР НОr KönТРО von r n unН An r n, „Iranica Antiquaḵ 44,
559-643.
WEBER, U. (2010), АКСr m III, KönТР НОr KönТРО von r n unН An r n, „Iranica Antiquaḵ 45,
353-394.
WEBER, U. (2012), NКrsОС, KönТР НОr KönТРО von r n unН An r n, „Iranica Antiquaḵ 47, 153-302.
WIDENGREN, G. (1971), The Establishment of the Sasanian Dynasty in the Light of New Evidence,
[in:] Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia nel Medioevo (Roma, 31 marzo-5 aprile
1970), Roma, 711-783.
ϟϧϞϢϡϜϡ, ϗέΝ(ńλθι),Ν
o
, „ϱЧuТЄϴЈuϾϴΝBЂЅЀЂϾϴḵ 18, 6-33.
Page | 112
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Vladimir DMITRIEV (Pskov State University, Russia)
Ram’s Horns as a Religious Element of Sasanian Kings’
Military Equipment (notes to Amm. Marc. XIX.1.3)1
Abstract
According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the battle headgear of ṣ p ЫΝ II was decorated
аТЭСΝЫКЦ’Ь СШЫЧЬέΝTСТЬΝТЧПШЫЦКЭТШЧΝМШЫЫОЬpШЧНЬΝЭШΝШЫТРТЧКХΝPОЫЬТКЧΝТМШЧШРЫКpСТМΝЬШuЫМОЬέΝRКЦ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬΝ
as sacral royal regalia first appeared in Iran after the campaign of Alexander the Great who brought
syncretic Greek-Egyptian cult of the ram-headed Zeus-AЦЦШЧΝЭШΝЭСОΝτЫТОЧЭέΝTСОΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝpЫКМЭТМОΝ
to use ram horns as an attribute of royal power was reborn in Sasanian times, but with a new religious
and ideological (viz. Zoroastrian) sense. Obviously, Sasanians ingenuously believed that by this way
they restored ancient Iranian tradition, while in reality they just filled with new content
the phenomenon of the Hellenistic epoch.
Keywords: Ammianus Marcellinus, Siwan Oasis, Alexander the Great, Sasanian Iran, ṣ p ЫΝII,
headgear, ЫКЦ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬ,ΝПКЫЫ,ΝГШЫШКЬЭЫТКЧТЬЦ,ΝЬвЦЛШХ
As we know, totemism was the earliest form of religious beliefs in human history.
Later, together with the rise of the ancient civilizations and the formation of developed
religious systems, toЭОЦТЬЦΝ НТНЧ’ЭΝ НТЬКppОКЫΝ МШЦpХОЭОХв,Ν ЛuЭΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ ПШЫЦΝ ШПΝ ЫОЦЧКЧЭЬΝ
penetrated into the new religions and became an integral part of all world religions.
In this regard, Sasanian Iran and Persian religion were not exceptions. Being the heir
and continuer of the culture of the Ancient Iran, Sasanian cultural tradition contained
the elements of ancient Iranian religious beliefs, including their totemic elements. It affected
ЯКЫТШuЬΝ КЬpОМЭЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ ЬШМТОЭвΝ ТЧМХuНТЧРΝ ЭСОΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ ФТЧРЬ’Ν ЬuТЭ,Ν ТЧΝ pКЫЭТМuХКr,
the headРОКЫΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ SКЬКЧТНЬέΝ ŻЫШЦΝ ЯКЫТШuЬΝ ЬШuЫМОЬ,Ν аОΝ СКЯОΝ ФЧШаЧΝ ЭСКЭΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ ФТЧРЬ’Ν
headgears were decorated with the imitations of some animal parts.
TСОΝ uЧТquОΝ ТЧПШЫЦКЭТШЧ,Ν ТЧΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЫОРКЫН,Ν МКЧΝ ЛОΝ ПШuЧНΝ ТЧΝ AЦЦТКЧuЬΝ εКЫМОХХТЧuЬ’Ν
Res gestae. Ammianus was the participant of the Roman-Persian wars and he personally
watched the Persian king ṣ p ЫΝ IIΝ (r. 309-379) during the siege of Amida in 359 CE.
AММШЫНТЧРΝ ЭШΝ AЦЦТКЧuЬ’Ν ЧКЫЫКЭТШЧ,Ν ЭСОΝ СОКНРОКЫΝ ШПΝ ṣ p ЫΝ was adorned with an imitation
ШПΝЫКЦ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬέΝTСКЭΝТЬΝаСКЭΝЭСОΝСТЬЭШЫТКЧΝаЫШЭОμ ḴInsidens autem equo ante alios celsior ipse
Faculty of History; dva_psk@mail.ru
TСТЬΝ КЫЭТМХОΝ ТЬΝ ЛКЬОНΝ ШЧΝ КuЭСШЫ’ЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОpШЫЭΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЬМТОЧЭТПТМΝ МШЧПОЫОЧМОΝ “The Religious Aspects
ШПΝАКЫḵΝСОХН May 16-ńκ,ΝβίńζΝТЧΝPЫuЬгМгΝżНК ЬФТΝ(PШХКЧН)έ
1
Page | 113
praeibat agminibus cunctis, aureum capitis arietini figmentum interstinctum lapillis pro
diademate gestans.ḵ2
The description of ṣ p Ы’ЬΝСОКНРОКЫΝЛвΝAЦЦТКЧuЬΝεКЫМОХХТЧuЬΝМШТЧМТНОЬΝаТЭСΝЬШЦОΝ
ФТЧРЬ’ΝТЦКРОЬΝТЧΝPОЫЬТКЧΝКЫЭΝШПΝЭСОΝSasanian period. For example, it is the famous silver dish
from the Hermitage, depicting the scene of boar hunting of the Sasanian prince
and simultaneously Kuš nš С (i.e. ruler of Kuš nš r) BКСЫ ЦΝ II (FТРέΝ ń)έΝ TСОΝ pЫТЧМО’ЬΝ
headgear (obviously, helmet) is decorated with ram horns in the manner described by
Ammianus.
Fig. 1. SТХЯОЫΝ НТЬСΝ ḴBШКЫΝ HuЧЭΝ ШПΝ Kuš Чš СΝ BКСЫ ЦΝ IIḵ (late 4th-early 5th centuries), The State
Hermitage Museum inv. no. S-24, (drawing by K. Maksymiuk).
AЬΝ КЧΝ ОХОЦОЧЭΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЫШвКХΝ МЫШаЧ,Ν ЫКЦ’ЬΝ СШЫЧЬΝ КЫОΝ pЫОЬОЧЭОНΝ ТЧΝ ЬШ-called Kuš ЧoSasanian coins,3 minted in the above mentioned Kuš nš r (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Copper drachms of P Ыōг III Kuš nš С (c. 350-375), (drawing by K. Maksymiuk).
Amm. Marc. XIX.1.3: “And he himself, mounted on his charger, and being taller than the rest, led his
аСШХОΝКЫЦв,ΝаОКЫТЧРΝТЧЬЭОКНΝШПΝКΝМЫШаЧΝКΝРШХНОЧΝПТРuЫОΝШПΝКΝЫКЦ’ЬΝСОКНΝТЧХКТНΝаТЭСΝУОаОХЬḵ.
3
About Kuš Чo-Sasanian МШТЧЬΝЬООμΝżнBδ,ΝńλθκνΝżнBδ,ΝńλκγμΝγββ-339; ALBUM, BATES, FLOOR,
1993; 14-ζńνΝϟϧϞϢϡϜϡ,ΝńλθιμΝńθ-γγνΝϛϙϝϠϔϟϰ,ΝńλθκμΝńί1-104.
2
Page | 114
Obviously, the ḴНТКНОЦḵΝ ШПΝ ṣ p Ы II described by Ammianus Marcellinus was no
ЦШЫОΝЭСКЧΝЭСОΝФТЧР’ЬΝСОlmet decorated with golden and jeweled ram horns.
АСКЭΝ аОЫОΝ ЭСОΝ ШЫТРТЧЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ pСОЧШЦОЧШЧΝ аСТМСΝ ТЬΝ ЫОПХОМЭОНΝ ТЧΝ AЦЦТКЧuЬ’Ν аШЫФς
I suppose that in order to answer this question, we should leave Sasanian Iran and go
to Ancient Egypt. Horns were one of the most common attributes of Egyptian deities. In this
regard, a special attention should be paid to Amun – the supreme god of the Egyptian
pantheon since the epoch of the New Kingdom (Fig. 3, Fig. 4).4
Fig. 3. Head of Amenhotep III (14th century BC) with ḴСШЫЧΝШПΝAЦuЧḵ, from the left (after: Bell, 1985:
266), ram-headed aegis on the poop of the sacred barque of Amon-Ra from a relief of Ramesses III
(12th century BC) from the right (after: Wainwright, Litt, 1951).
τЧОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЦКТЧΝ МОЧЭОЫЬΝ ШПΝ AЦuЧ’ЬΝ МuХЭΝ ТЧΝ Ancient Egypt was the Oasis of Siwa,
located in the Libyan Desert at the distance about 500 km to the west of the Nile Valley.
Here, in Siwa, the temple of the Oracle of Amun was situated,5 and, according
to Strabo, it was widely known not only in Egypt but also in the other countries
of Mediterranean,6 including Hellas. Moreover, as early as in the Classical period of Greek
history the cults of Zeus and Amun gradually merged into a syncretic cult of Zeus-Ammon,7
and images of Zeus-Ammon were often decorated with the so-called ḴAЦuЧ’ЬΝ СШЫЧḵ8
(Fig. 5).
Thus, by the beginning of the era of the Macedonian conquests, a developed syncretic
Greco-Egyptian cult of Zeus-Ammon had been formed in the Greek world, and one of its
main centers was the temple of Amun at Siwa. It is not accidental that during his Egyptian
МКЦpКТРЧΝAХОбКЧНОЫΝЭСОΝżЫОКЭΝЬЭЫШЯОΝЭШΝЯТЬТЭΝЭСОΝSТаКΝЭОЦpХОέΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝНОЬТЫОΝЛОМШЦОЬΝ
clear if we take into consideration that he deliberately inculcated in the minds
of contemporaries the idea of his divine origin and that his father was Zeus himself.9 It is
PIETSCHMANN, 1894a: 1855; WERNESS, 2006: 342; ϞϢϤϢϥϦϢϖϪϙϖ, 1976: 21-22.
About the temple of the oracle of Amun in Siwa see: DONNE, 1857: 457-458; PIETSCHMANN,
1894b.
6
Strabo. I.3.4.
7
COOK, 1903; WAINWRIGHT, 1930; CLASSEN, 1959; ϢϥϦϤϢϧϠϢϖ, 1896, 14-16; ϣϔϖϟϢϖϔ
1997.
8
WERNESS, 2006: 342.
9
Strabo. XVII.1.43; Just. Epit. XI.11.3; Plut. Alex. III.1; Arr. Anab. III.3.2; 4.9.9; Oros. III.16.12-13.
4
5
Page | 115
pОЫПОМЭХвΝМХОКЫΝЭСКЭΝAХОбКЧНОЫΝСШpОНΝЭСКЭΝAЦuЧ’ЬΝpЫТОЬЭЬΝаШuХНΝḴofficiallyḵ declare him to be
the son of Zeus-Ammon. And it is a well-ФЧШаЧΝ ПКМЭΝ ЭСКЭΝ AХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ ОбpОМЭКЭТШЧЬΝ аОЫОΝ
justified.10
According to Athenaeus11 (2th-3th centuries CE), who cited Ephippus of Olynthus
(4 -3 centuries BC), Alexander the Great used the horns of a ram as a sacred element of his
headdress: ḴAnd Ephippus tells us that Alexander used to wear even the sacred vestments
at his banquets; and sometimes he would wear the purple robe, and slit sandals, and horns
ШПΝAЦЦШЧ,ΝКЬΝТПΝСОΝСКНΝЛООЧΝЭСОΝРШНḵ.12 Besides, on the coins of at least one of the Diadochi,
namely Lysimachus (r. 324-281) the image of Alexander the Great wКЬΝНОМШЫКЭОНΝаТЭСΝЫКЦ’ЬΝ
horns, an attribute of Zeus-Ammon (Fig. 6). Thus, as early as in Early Hellenistic period
the image of Alexander the Great in ideology and culture was closely intertwined with
the image of his ḴСОКЯОЧХвΝПКЭСОЫḵΝ– Zeus (Ammon).13
th
th
Fig. 4. Granite statue of Amon in the form of a ram (7th century BC), British Museum inv. no.
EA1779,Ν©ΝTСОΝTrustees of the British Museum.
10
Diod. XVII.51.1-4; Just. Epit. XI.11.7-11, etc.
Athen. XII.53.
12
Thus, Alexander distorted the origТЧКХΝ(źРвpЭТКЧ)ΝЬОЧЬОΝШПΝЭСОΝЫКЦ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬΝКЬΝЭСОΝЬвЦЛШХΝШПΝЭСОΝ ka
and made them simply the sign of his divine lineage (BELL, 1985: 270).
13
See also: ANDERSON, 1927έΝIЧЭОЫОЬЭТЧРΝЭЫОКЭЦОЧЭΝШПΝЭСОΝpЫШЛХОЦΝШПΝЭСОΝAХОбКЧНОЫ’ЬΝ“two-СШЫЧОНḵΝ
image belongs to FULINSKA, 2014.
11
Page | 116
Fig. 5. Obverses of Greek silver coins with the image of horned Zeus-Ammon (5th-4th centuries BC),
British Museum inv. no. 1914,1003.3,Ν©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝBЫТЭТЬСΝεuЬОuЦ.
Fig. 6. Images of Alexander the Great on tetradrachm, British Museum inv. no. 1919,0820.1,Ν©ΝTСОΝ
Trustees of the British Museum (from the left) and stater of Lysimachus, British Museum inv. no.
1911,0706.27,Ν©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝBЫТЭТЬСΝεuЬОuЦΝ(from the right).
IЭΝЬООЦЬΝЭСКЭΝНuЫТЧРΝЭСОΝЫОТРЧΝШПΝSОХОuМТНЬΝКЧНΝAЫЬКМТНЬΝЭСОΝЫКЦ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬΝКЬΝКΝЬКМЫКХΝ
atЭЫТЛuЭОΝ ШПΝ ФТЧР’ЬΝ pШаОЫΝ аКЬΝ НТЬpХКМОНΝ ЛвΝ ЛuХХΝ СШЫЧЬ.14 But the situation changed when
in 3th century CE the power over Iran passed on to the Sasanians who were of Persian origin.
The main vectors of the Sasanid domestic policy were, firstly, the eradication
of everything that was related to their predecessors – Parthian Arsacids, and secondly,
the revival of ḴIЫКЧТЭвḵ,Ν ТέОέΝ ЧКЭТЯОΝ IЫКЧТКЧΝ ЬpТЫТЭΝ КЧНΝ ЭЫКНТЭТШЧЬ,Ν аСТМСΝ аОЫОΝ ḴpОЫЯОЫЭОНḵΝ
by the ḴТЧЬТНТШuЬḵΝ PКЫЭСТКЧЬέΝ TСОΝ SКЬКЧТНЬΝ ЬuppШЬОНΝ ЭСКЭΝ puЫОΝ ḴIЫКЧТЭвḵΝ ОбТЬЭОНΝ ЛОПШЫОΝ
the Arsacids, and therefore, they looked for true Iranian traditions in the pre-Arsacid epoch.
And in this point we confront with an interesting paradox: trying to revive native Iranian
traditions, the Sasanids in fact revived... the traditions of Hellenism!15 Why did it happen?
The plain truth is that the Sasanids and their IraniКЧΝ МШЧЭОЦpШЫКЫТОЬΝ НТНЧ’ЭΝ ФЧШаΝ
that before the Arsacids Iran was under the power of the Seleucids. The Persians supposed
14
15
OLBRYCHT, 1997; ϘϠϜϦϤϜϙϖ, 2013: 69-73.
DARYAEE, 2008; DARYAEE, 2009: 119; DARYAEE, 2010: 241; ϨϤϔϝ, 2002: 296, 316;
Page | 117
that the Arsacids became the sovereigns of Iran immediately after the death of Alexander
the Great. This representation of the chronology of Iranian history by the Persians
of Sasanian era is distinctly represented in various Persian literary sources (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7. AΝРОЧОЫКХΝНТКРЫКЦΝЫОПХОМЭТЧРΝЭСОΝМШЫЫОХКЭТШЧΝШПΝЭСОΝSКЬКЧТКЧЬ’ΝЯТОаЬΝШЧΝЭСОΝМСЫШЧШХШРвΝШПΝЭСОΝ
reign of the Iranian royКХΝНвЧКЬЭТОЬΝ(КММШЫНТЧРΝЭШΝBТЫuЧТ’ЬΝ The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries 16)
(above) and the modern scientific chronology of the ruling dynasties in Ancient Iran (below).
Besides, the Sasanids thought that Alexander himself was the member of the Iranian
royal dynasty of KКв ЧТ Чs (according to Š С-n mК, Alexander was the brother of Iranian
king D Ы who was killed by Alexander himself). Moreover, it is obvious that by the time
of the Sasanids the legend about ḴAlexander the Two-HШЫЧОНḵΝ (СОΝ аКЬΝ МКХХОНΝ ЛвΝ εuslim
authors Iskandar Dhul-Qarnayn) who, in addition, came to Iran from Egypt17 (!), had already
existed, and it was widespread in the world, including Iran.
At the same time, we should also keep in mind that according to Zoroastrian religious
tradition a ram symbolized the xwarrah of the KКв ЧТ Чs (also known under the names: farr,
farrah, xᵛarənah), the deity of royal power, victory, success, and fame.18 According
to the official Sasanian historical tradition reflected in the Middle Persian The Book of the
Deeds of Ardashir, Son of Papak, a ram accompanied the first Sasanid AЫНКš ЫΝI (r. 224-242)
in his victory over the last Parthian king AЫНКЯ ЧΝ IVΝ (ЫέΝ βńθ-224). It is noteworthy that
ЭСОΝТЦКРОΝШПΝЫКЦΝКЧНΝЫКЦ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬΝ(symbolizТЧРΝФТЧР’ЬΝxwarrah) began to spread in Persia as
a symbol of royal xwarrah just during the reign of ṣ puЫ II,19 and Ammianus brought to us
the first manifestations of this new tradition.
σШаΝ аОΝ МКЧΝ ОбpХКТЧΝ ЭСОΝ КppОКЫКЧМОΝ ШПΝ ЫКЦ’ЬΝ СШЫЧЬΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭΝ ШПΝ ṣ puЫ II,
mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus. Obviously, by using the attribute of the last
pre-Arsacid king (namely Alexander the Great) the Sasanids declared that, firstly,
they returned to the pre-Arsacid traditions, secondly, they were the genuine successors
of the ancient KКв ЧТ Чs as well as KКв ЧТ ЧЬ’Ν xwarra, and, therefore, thirdly, their main
purpose was to revive the ḴIЫКЧТЭвḵΝ ТЧΝ IЫКЧέΝ AЧНΝ ЧОТЭСОЫΝ ṣ puЫ II nor his contemporaries
or successors suspected that this ḴKКв ЧТ Ч ЫОРКХТКḵΝТЧНООНΝаКЬΝШПΝżЫОМШ-Egyptian origin and
in this sense, of course, was completely unrelated to ḴpuЫОΝIЫКЧТЭвḵέΝAЧваКв,ΝЭСОΝЫКЦ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬΝ
perceived just as the symbol of xwarrah and combined harmoniously with both the religious
beliefs and political ideology of Sasanian Iran.
AЛШuЭΝBТЫuЧТ’ЬΝЯТОаΝШЧΝSКЬКЧТКЧЬΝЬООμΝϘϠϜϦϤϜϙϖ, 2014.
ArН VТr г N mКР. I.3-11.
18
Yasht. 14.23.
19
ϟϧϞϢϡϜϡ (1969) 97. Thus, Sasanians second time (after Alexander the Great) distorted initial
meanТЧРΝШПΝЫКЦ’ЬΝСШЫЧЬΝКЬΝКΝsacral object.
16
17
Page | 118
Bibliography
Sources
Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt, ed. W. SEYFARTH, Leipzig 1978.
Arriani Anabasis, ed. C. ALBICHT, Lipsiae 1889.
Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists or Banquet of the Learned, 3 vols., tr. C.D. YONGE, London 1854.
Diodori Bibliotheca historica, 5 vols., ed. F. VOGEL, C. TH. FISCHER, Lipsiae 1888-1906.
Marci Juniani Justini Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi, accedunt Prologi
in Pompeium Trogum, ed. F. RUEHL, A. GUTSCHMID, Lipsiae 1886.
Pauli Orosii Historiarum libri VII, ed. C. ZANGEMEISTER, Lipsiae 1889.
Plutarchi Vitae parallelae, 5 vols., ed. C. SINTENIS, Lipsiae 1908-1912.
The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, tr. C.D. YONGE, London-New York 1894.
Strabonis Geographica, 3 vols., ed. A. MEINEKE, Lipsiae 1904-1909.
The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, 7 vols., ed. C.F. HORNE, New York-London
1917.
(1861-1996), ЄϹϸέΝϜέΝϖέΝϤϔϞ,ΝϥϴЁϾІ-ϣϹІϹЄϵЇЄϷ 1997.
ϔϵЇΝ ϤϹϽЉϴЁΝ ϕϼЄЇЁϼ,Ν
я,Ν ЃϹЄέΝ ϠέϔέΝ ϥϔϟϰϙ,Ν ІέΝ ńΝ (ϣϴЀГІЁϼϾϼΝ ЀϼЁЇ϶ЌϼЉΝ
ЃЂϾЂϿϹЁϼϽ),ΝϦϴЌϾϹЁІ 1957.
ϨϼЄϸЂЇЅϼ,ΝШ
,ΝЃϹЄέΝϪέϕέΝϕϔϡϧ-ϟϔϩϧϦϜ,Νϖέϗέ ϕϙϤϛϡϙϖ,ΝІέΝη,ΝϠЂЅϾ϶ϴ 1984.
Literature
ALBUM, S., BATES, M. L., FLOOR, W. (1993), Coins and Coinage, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ
6, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 14-41.
ANDERSON, A.R. (1927), AlОбКnНОrˀs Horns, „Transactions and Proceedings of the American
PСТХШХШРТМКХΝAЬЬШМТКЭТШЧḵ 58, 100-122.
BELL, L. (1985), Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka, „Journal of Near Eastern StudТОЬḵΝζζήζ,Ν
251-294.
CRIBB, J. (1990), Numismatic Evidence for Kushano-Sasanian Chronology, „Studia Iranicaḵ 19, 151193.
DARYAEE, T. (2008), Kingship in Early Sasanian Iran, [in:] The Idea of Iran, 3 (The Sasanian Era),
V.S. CURTIS, S. STEWART (eds.), London-New York, 60-70.
DARYAEE, T. (2009), Sasanian Persia. The Rise and Fall of an Empire, London-New York.
DARYAEE, T. (2010), ArНКбš r КnН tСО SКsКnТКnˀs RТsО to PoаОr, „Anabasis. Studia Classica
ОЭΝτЫТОЧЭКХТКḵ 1, 237-256.
DONNE, W.B. (1857), Oases, [in:] Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, 2, W. SMITH (ed.),
London, 457-459.
FULINSKA, A. (2014), Son of Ammon. Ram Horns of Alexander Reconsidered, [in:] Alexander
the Great and Egypt. History. Art. Tradition, V. GRIEB, K. NAWOTKA, A. WOJCIECHOWSKA
(eds.), Wiesbaden, 119-144.
żнBδ, R. (1968), Sasanidische Numismatik, Braunschweig.
żнBδ, R. (1983), Sasanian coins, [in:] The Cambridge History of Iran, vol.3.1: The Seleucid,
Parthian and Sasanian Periods, E. YARSHATER (ed.), Cambridge, 322-339.
OLBRYCHT, M.J. (1997), PКrtСТКn KТnРˀs TТКrК – Numismatic Evidence and Some Aspects
of Arsacid Political Ideology, „Notae Numismaticae. Zapiski NumizmatyczneḵΝβ,Νβι-65.
PIETSCHMANN, R. (1894a), Ammon (1), „Rźḵ,Νń,Νńκηγ-1858.
PIETSCHMANN, R. (1894b), Ammoneion, „Rźḵ,Νń,Νńκηκ-1860.
WAINWRIGHT, G.A., LITT B. (1951), The Egyptian Origin of a Ram-Headed Breastplate
from Lagos, „εКЧḵΝηń,Νńγγ-135.
WERNESS, H.B. (2006), The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in Art, New YorkLondon.
ϘϠϜϦϤϜϙϖ, ϖέϔέΝ (βίńγ),Ν
,
я
( ё
), „ϣЄЂϵϿϹЀЏΝϼЅІЂЄϼϼ,ΝЈϼϿЂϿЂϷϼϼ,ΝϾЇϿАІЇЄЏḵ 3.41, 64-79.
Page | 119
ϘϠϜϦϤϜϙϖ, ϖέϔέΝ(βίńζ),Ν
, „TЫКЧЬМКuМКЬТМКḵ 2, 19-26.
ϛϙϝϠϔϟϰ, ϙέϖέΝ(ńλθκ),
я
я(
),ΝϠЂЅϾ϶ϴέ
ϞϢϤϢϥϦϢϖϪϙϖ, ϠέϔέΝ(ńλιθ),Ν
я
,ΝϟϹЁϼЁϷЄϴϸ-ϠЂЅϾ϶ϴέ
ϟϧϞϢϡϜϡ, ϖέϗέΝ(ńλθι),Ν
, „ϱЃϼϷЄϴЈϼϾϴΝϖЂЅІЂϾϴḵΝńκ,Νńθ-33.
ϟϧϞϢϡϜϡ, ϖέϗέΝ (ńλθλ),Ν
Ṭ
III–V Ṭ
,ΝϠЂЅϾ϶ϴέ
ϢϥϦϤϢϧϠϢϖ, ϡέϣέΝ
(ńκλθ),Ν
Ṭ
(
„ϥЄϹϸЁϹϴϻϼϴІЅϾϼϽΝϖϹЅІЁϼϾḵ,ΝЅϹЁІГϵЄА,Νγ-23.
ϨϤϔϝ, ϤέϡέΝ(βίίβ),Ν
,ΝϠЂЅϾ϶ϴέ
Page | 120
),
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Kaveh FARROKH (University of British Columbia, Canada)
Gholamreza KARAMIAN
Adam KUBIK
(Tehran Azad University, Iran)
(Siedlce University, Poland)
Mandana TAHERI OSHTERINANI
(Tehran Azad University, Iran)
An Examination of Parthian and Sasanian military Helmets
(2nd century BC-7th century CE)
Abstract
This paper examines Iranian helmets from the 2nd century BCE Parthian era into the Sasanian
era in the 3rd to 7th century CE. Analyses involve excavated helmets, and depictions of helmets
on plaques, coins, bullae, metalworks and stone reliefs housed in museums, private collections
and auction houses. Clay sculptures and wall paintings in Central Asia, depictions on Roman victory
columns and the line drawings of Dura Europos as well as the reliefs in Iran provide additional
information on Iranian headgear and helmets. Sasanian helmets appear to have utilized a rank and/or
heraldry system with the possibility that helmets varied between the different regions of the Sasanian
Empire (especially between the western and northeast regions). Limitations to research due to limited
(especially Parthian) helmet samples are discussed with suggestions for further research
Keywords: Sasanian, helmet, Iran, Parthian, military
Overview of early-late Parthian (3rd century BCE-3rd century CE) and early Sasanian
(3rd century CE) helmets
One of the challenges facing studies of Partho-Sasanian militaria pertains
to the dearth of actual military equipment having been excavated in Iran, notably Parthian
helmets. One possible exception is the helmet housed at the Iran Bastan Museum excavated
at Talysh, northwest Iran in 1970 (Fig. 1A). The construction of the helmet is bronze
(in rusted condition at present) and stands at 29 cm in height. While the Iran Museum
identifies helmet as Parthian, this sample presents two challenges with respect to analysis
and assessments. First is the issue of chronology especially as the Parthian dynasty lasted
for nearly five centuries (c. 250 BCE-224 CE). As no date range is provided, chronological
considerations with respect to helmet are not possible at this time. The second issue has to do
manuvera@aol.com
karamianreza@yahoo.com
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) and No. 204/17/MN were financed from the science grant granted
by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education; Institute of History and International Relations,
Faculty of Humanities; atakan-al-vefa@wp.pl
mandanataheri@yahoo.com
Page | 121
with the style and appearance of this helmet, raising questions as to whether this is actually
ḴPКЫЭСТКЧḵέΝPuЭΝЬТЦpХв,ΝЭСТЬΝСОХЦОЭΝСКЬΝКΝЦШЫОΝКЧМТОЧЭΝКppОКЫКЧМО,ΝЬЭЫШЧРХвΝЫОЬОЦЛХТЧРΝpЫОAchaemenid Assyrian helmets of the conical-pointed type dated to the 8th to 7th centuries
BCE (Fig. 1B). Both helmets have a shaft like design at the top ending in a finial-type
decoration at the top, and holes at their bottom rims for suspending felt or leather.
These observations suggest for a reassessment of helmet from Talysh with respect to dating
its metals by the application of the latest scientific methods. Scientific results of such
a reassessment would be instrumental in re-ОбКЦТЧТЧРΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭ’ЬΝ МСЫШЧШХШРТМКХΝ МШЧЭОбЭΝ
(Parthian or pre-Parthian).
Parthian helmets are mainly known through artistic depictions, but as James has
noted ḴTСОЫОΝ КЫОΝ ЧШΝ ЫОКХХвΝ МХОКЫΝ НОpТМЭТШЧЬΝ ШПΝ СОХЦОЭЬΝ ШЧΝ PКЫЭСТКЧΝ ЦШЧuЦОЧЭЬḵέ1
One illustration (albeit not highly detailed) of a Parthian helmet is provided in the 3 rd century
BCE-2nd century CE clay plaque showing an armored (scale and/or lamellar) horseman
lancing a lion (Fig. 2). According to the British Museum, the helmet is described as being
of the Ḵcoal skuttleḵΝЭвpО,ΝЛuЭΝТЭΝаШuХНΝКХЬШΝЛОКЫΝЬШЦОΝЫОЬОЦЛХКЧМОЬΝЭШΝШЧО-piece 20th century
military helmets.
A possible depiction of a one-piece Parthian helmet bearing overall similarities
to the plaque at the British Museum (91908) may be seen at the relief of Khong-e Azhdar.
The mounted figure believed to be Mithridates I (r. 165-132), wears a one-piece headgear2
(Fig. 3). While the headgear may not necessarily be a military helmet and possibly
be ceremonial, its overall shape suggests a military function, with some similarities to a much
later (late or post-Sasanian?) find of a one-piece helmet from the Persian Gulf region
(Fig. 35). The shape of the Khong-e Azhdar headgear is also different from the British
Museum plaque (Fig. 2) in that it has a more simple round shape, in contrast to the more Ḵ
20th МОЧЭuЫвḵΝКppОКЫКЧМОΝШПΝЭСОΝХКЭЭОЫέ
An earlier depiction of Parthian helmets is seen with the 2nd century-1st century BCE
sample discovered in the regal Parthian residence and necropolis of Nisa in modern-day
Turkmenistan (Fig. 4). This helmet, seen on the head of a Parthian soldier (broken off from
its original clay sculpture), has a bowl shape with a high crest and a crenelated visor. With its
Hellenic appearance, the Nisa СОХЦОЭ’ЬΝТЧМХuЬТШЧΝШПΝЦШЯОКЛХОΝМСООФ-pieces, suggest western
(Greek) influence on Parthian military technology in the region at the time. 3 This may be
indicative of some type of contemporary Parthian military technological borrowings from
the Seleucids (i.e. cheek-pieces).
Another helmet that may have a Hellenic (or part-Hellenic) inspiration is the earlier
first century BCE helmet of the Khalchayan sculptures of Greco-Bactria depicting a helmeted
Saka warrior (Fig. 5).4 The Khalchayan helmet features a distinct ḴОРРΝ ЬСКpОḵΝ аТЭСΝ
a forward-protruding visor and what appears to be leather rims on the sides of the helmet
reaching the neck.
1
JAMES, 1986: 119.
The relief shows the king mounted on a horse and flanked with four warriors carrying daggers and
long swords.
3
LITVINSKY, 2003, has suggested that this type of Parthian helmet may be based on Greek models.
4
RAPIN, 2002: 333-339.
2
Page | 122
There are some depictions of later Parthian helmets, notably at Roman victory
displays and the joust relief scene at Ż Ы г Л Н. The exhibit at the Doric victory column
of Marcus Aurelius in the Piazza Colonna in Rome provides a surprisingly detailed display
of a Parthian helmet alongside a battle-axe, spear and banner5 (Fig. 6). According
to Hildinger, the Parthian helmet appears to be of the Spangenhelm type, usually constructed
by joining together four to six metallic segments with metallic bands.6 The Spangenhelm was
essentially invented to enable armies to equip large numbers of troops with effective metallic
military headgear.7 Scholars have generally attributed the origins of Spangenhelm technology
to the Iranian-speaking Sarmatians of ancient Eastern Europe.8 Nevertheless, the question
ШПΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЭОМСЧШХШРв’ЬΝ КМЭuКХΝ ШЫТРТЧЬΝ ЫОЦКТЧЬΝ МСКХХОЧРТЧРΝ ЭШΝ ЭЫКМОέΝ TСОΝ ЭОЧ-year excavation
at Sardis (1978-1988) unearthed an advanced form of helmet of the multi-segment type with
eight plates riveted together.9 The helmet has been dated to the 6th century BCE.10 Preceding
the multi-segment type helmets by at least eight centuries, the Sardis helmet exhibits fine
bronzework decorations covering joints between the riveted plates. Discovered in the rubble
ШПΝ КΝ МШХХКpЬОНΝ ЛuТХНТЧРΝ НuЫТЧРΝ CвЫuЬΝ ЭСОΝ żЫОКЭ’ЬΝ МКpЭuЫОΝ ШПΝ δвНТКΝ (ηζιΝ BCź),Ν ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭΝ
cannot be attributed to any ethnic or national group with certainty: this may have belonged
to either a trooper in the Lydian or Achaemenid armies or an allied warrior of either army.
The neck-guard of the Parthian helmet at the Marcus Aurelius column appears to be
a one-piece metallic appendage to the back of the helmet, as opposed to the plate-laced
system seen with the Parthian armoured cavalryman at Ż Ы г Л НΝ (Fig. 8B). Interestingly
a helmet identified as Dacian from the relief of Trajan dated to the 2 nd century CE features
a plate-laced lamellar type neck-guard similar to the Ż Ы г Л НΝpiece (Fig. 7).
More specifically, this is in reference to the Ż Ы г Л НΝjoust relief depicting the battle
between the Parthians led by AЫНКЯ ЧΝ IVΝ (ЫέΝ βńθ-224) and Sasanians led by AЫНКš ЫΝ I
(r. 224-242). This relief has a combat scene at its left panel in which an unidentified Sasanian
warrior and an unknown Parthian opponent are wrestling on horseback, with the Sasanian
having the upper hand by having trapped his opponent in a headlock.11 The Sasanian warrior
wears what may be a one-piece helmet or possibly a soft felt covering over a helmet
(Fig. 8A). There is a symbol or Tamga on the headgear, a possible indication of a military
uЧТЭΝ ШЫΝ МХКЧΝ НОЬТРЧКЭТШЧέΝ TСОΝ PКЫЭСТКЧ’ЬΝ СОХЦОЭΝ ТЬΝ СОЦТЬpСОЫТМКХΝ ПОКЭuЫТЧРΝ КΝ ЧОМФ-guard
apparently constructed of overlapping (metallic?) plates laced together onto a leather base
(Fig. 8B)ΝКЬΝаОХХΝКЬΝКΝНОМШЫКЭТЯОΝМuЫХΝpХКМОНΝШЧΝЭШpΝШПΝЭСОΝСОХЦОЭέΝIЧЭОЫОЬЭТЧРХвΝЭСОΝPКЫЭСТКЧ’ЬΝ
neck-guard avential system as seen at Ż Ы г Л НΝ bears a similar appearance to that seen
in the aforementioned helmet attributed as Dacian in the Trajan relief of the 2nd century CE
(Fig. 8C). This may allude to a wider and as yet unexamined wider military culture inclusive
of the Iranian realms of the Partho-Sasanians and as far west as Eastern and Central Europe
КЬΝ НТЬМuЬЬОНΝ ХКЭОЫέΝ TСОΝ PКЫЭСТКЧΝ аКЫЫТШЫ’ЬΝ ЭвpОΝ ШПΝ (ЧОМk-guard) technology was to endure
in Central Asia well into the medieval era with Mongolian and later Tibetan riveted helmets.
5
Next to the Parthian military gear can be seen various Dacian military gear such as a breastplate,
shield and quiver.
6
HILDINGER, 2009: 65.
7
FARROKH, 2005: 9.
8
BAUMER, 2012: 262; JAMES, 1986: 129.
9
GREENEWALT, HEYWOOD, 1992: 1-31.
10
Among methods used for dating were radiocarbon dating technologies.
11
At the right panel of the relief is AЫНКš ЫΝI lancing his opponent, AЫНКЯ ЧΝIV, whose horse topples
backwards; in the middle panel is prince ṣ puЫΝlancing his adversary, possibly Parthian vizier.
Page | 123
AЬΝ ЭСОΝ PКЫЭСТКЧΝ ЦТХТЭКЫвΝ ЦКМСТЧО’ЬΝ ЬuММОЬЬШЫΝ ЭСОΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ sp С (army) certainly
inherited the military technologies of their predecessors, including helmet construction.
Nevertheless, the Sasanians at Ż Ы г Л НΝ featured their own unique military characteristics,
notably with respect to their deployment of combination armor (mail, lamellar, laminated),
in contrast to the Parthians who lack mail.12 This is seen for example with respect to the
plate-laced construction of the aforementioned neck-РuКЫНΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ PКЫЭСТКЧΝ ФЧТРСЭ’ЬΝ СОХЦОЭΝ
(Fig. 8B). Mail is (possibly) seen among early Sasanian cavalrymen at B š p ЫΝ КЧНΝ ЦШЬЭΝ
certainly centuries later at q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝКЬΝНТЬМuЬЬОНΝХКЭОЫέΝ
The most recent discovery of a depiction of late Parthian or early Sasanian headgear
was made by the 2015 archaeological expedition of Gholamreza Karamian and Meysam
Delfan at Koohdasht in Lorestan, Western Iran.13 The team discovered a 27 x 27 cm relief
panel (known to locals as Panj-e Ali or Claw of Ali) displaying a mounted cavalryman
charging with a lance (Fig. 9).
Despite centuries of weathering upon the panel, it is possible to discern
ЭСОΝМКЯКХЫвЦКЧ’ЬΝСТРСΝpШТЧЭОНΝСОХЦОЭέΝIПΝЭСТЬΝТЬΝКΝЦТХТЭКЫвΝ(ЯОЫЬuЬΝМОЫОЦШЧТКХ)ΝСОХЦОЭ,ΝЭСОЧΝТЭΝ
could have been of the ridge type, constructed of separate parts and riveted together.
Contemporary scholarship is of the general consensus that the original design of the ridge
helmet is Parthian in origin.14 Nevertheless the same wearing pattern raises questions as to
whether the Panj-e Ali headgear is actually ceremonial rather than military in purpose.
IПΝ МОЫОЦШЧТКХ,Ν ЭСОΝ МКЯКХЫвЦКЧ’ЬΝ СОКНРОКЫΝ ЛОars a strong resemblance to Scythian or Saka
types, most notably like those seen with the Apadana stone relief of the Saka tigraxaud
(Saka with pointed hats or helmets) at Persepolis. The context of the Panj-e Ali relief
of the cavalryman charging with his lance however would suggest that the helmet is military
rather than ceremonial in function.
Dura Europos (mid 3rd century CE)
The Dura-Europos graffiti offer a number of detailed glimpses into Iranian
cavalrymen and their equipment. Scholars have traditionally proposed three distinct
chronologies for the Dura Europos graffiti. One school of scholarship dates this
to the late 2nd century to early 3rd century CE.15 Symonenko16 dates the graffiti
to the 2nd century CE with Herrmann17 and Mielczarek18 dating this
to the early 3rd century CE. Broadly speaking, the proposed dates would suggest
a cavalryman of late Parthian origin. Current scholarship however, now arrives at a date set
between 232/233-256 CE, chronologically situated in the early Sasanian era.19
The cavalrymen may thus be of the post-Parthian type serving in the Sasanian sp С, a likely
scenario as the majority of Parthian clans had joined the House of Sasan after the battle
12
BIVAR, 1972: 275; SHAHBAZI, 1986: 496.
FARROKH, KARAMIAN, DELFAN, ASTARAKI, 2015: 31-40.
14
OVERLAET, 1982: 190-ńλńνΝАÓJCIKτАSKI,ΝβίńγμΝβγη-236, n. 9.
15
ALLAN, 1986; BROWN, 1936: 195; COLLEDGE, 1977: 117, fig. 44B; ROSTOVTZEFF, 1933:
207-209; ROBINSON, 1975: 186; SHAHBAZI, 1986.
16
SYMONENKO, 2009: 119.
17
HERRMANN, 1989: 757.
18
MIELCZAREK, 1993: 36.
19
WÓJCIKOWSKI, 2013: .233-234; NIKONOROV, 2005: Note 12.
13
Page | 124
ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ pХКТЧΝ ШПΝ HШЫЦгНКР ЧΝ (ββζΝ Cź)έ20 The figures may also denote early Sasanian
Кsа r n/sКv r n cavalryman.
Graffiti depictions at Dura Europos show riders with conical helmets featuring rows
of metallic plates riveted together21 (Fig. 10). The conical shape may serve a key battlefield
adaptation with respect to close quarter combat with swords, notably against top-down sword
strikes. The conical shape would tend to deflect the power of (up-down) sword strikes
sideways, diminishing the possibility of a direct strike upon the apex of the helmet to then
split it asunder. Armenian cavalrymen for example are reported as having had this capability
with their swords in close quarter warfare.22 Whatever the intended utility of these conical
helmets, their overall design persisted into later Sasanian helmets excavated in modern-day
IЫКq’ЬΝσТЧОЯОСΝЫОРТШЧΝ(НТЬМuЬЬОНΝПuЫЭСОЫΝЛОХШа)έ
Early Sasanian helmets: the ridge helmet at Dura Europos
Dura Europos is also significant with respect to discoveries made with respect
to early Sasanian military equipment. Notable is the fallen Sasanian soldier in a Roman
countermine in Tower 19 during ṣ puЫΝ I’ЬΝ (ЫέΝ βζβ-272) operations at Dura Europos
in c. 256 CE.23 TСОΝЭЫШШpОЫ’ЬΝСОХЦОЭΝаКЬΝЛuТХЭΝШПΝЭаШΝpТОМОЬ,ΝКΝХОПЭΝКЧНΝКΝЫТРСЭΝЬТНОΝЫТЯОЭОНΝ
together with two iron bands24 (Fig. 11).
Termed as a ḴЫТНРОΝСОХЦОЭḵΝЛвΝАОЬЭОЫЧΝСТЬЭШЫТКЧЬ,ΝЭСТЬΝСОХЦОЭΝЬЭШШНΝКЭΝapproximately
25 cm in height. The helmet also featured mail suspended from its lower edges. Usage
of mail for helmets continued into late Sasanian times as seen with the late Sasanian knight
at the large vault or Квv n at q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч. As noted by D. Nicolle during the Third Baltica
Iranica Conference at Siedlce University,25 the helmet is very compressed with respect to its
width, making it too thin to be worn over the head. This is due to its burial and compression
by the weight of the earth for centuries before its excavation in the 20th century. While
the Dura-Europos ridge helmet apparently belonged to a Sasanian infantryman, this type
of helmet may have also been deployed by Sasanian cavalry. The case of the Dura Europos
ridge helmet may be one of the earliest examples of possible interactions between Sasanian
ЦТХТЭКЫвΝ ЭОМСЧШХШРвΝ КЧНΝ źuЫШpОέΝ TСТЬΝ НОЬТРЧΝ КppОКЫОНΝ КЦШЧРΝ źuЫШpО’ЬΝ ЧШЫЭСΝ IЫКЧТКЧΝ
Sarmatians, Ostrogoths (east Germanic) 26 and Roman troops especially after their battles
against early Sasanian armies.27
Select examinations of Sasanian headgear as depicted in Iranian Reliefs
The discussion of Sasanian helmets poses several challenges as research has been
confined to two general domains. The first are available iconographic depictions in reliefs
20
FARROKH, 2007: 180.
ROSTOVTZEFF, 1933: , 216, pl. XXXIII/2; GHIRSHMAN, 1962: figs. 62, 100, 165; GALL VON,
1990: 69; INVERNIZZI, 1999: 22-24, fig. 6, pl. A.
22
As reported by JALALI (1383/2004: 64) the Armenian Naxarar armoured cavalryman was able
ЭШΝЬpХТЭΝСТЬΝШppШЧОЧЭ’ΝСОХЦОЭΝаТЭСΝКΝЬаШЫНΝКХХΝЭСОΝаКвΝЭСЫШuРСΝСТЬΝОЧОЦв’ЬΝЧОМФΝКЧНΝЬСШuХНОЫЬέ
23
MAKSYMIUK, 2015: 35-39.
24
For a full discussion of this helmet consult JAMES, 1986: 120-128.
25
November 24-27, 2016.
26
JAMES, 1986: 117, 119, 126; GRANSCAY, 1963: 258.
27
PETERSON, 1992: 35.
21
Page | 125
within Iran, notably Ż Ы г Л Н, σКqš-e Rostam, B š p ЫΝ and σКqš-e Rajab. The second
domain pertains to archaeological finds of actual helmets dated to the 5th-7th centuries.
In addition to the Ż Ы г Л НΝhelmet discussed previously, there are a number of other
sites in Iran providing illustrations of Sasanian headgear. For the main part early Sasanian
reliefs from the 3rd-4th centuries CE display helmets of the hemisphere type with fastenings
at their basal areas. At σКqš-e Rostam for example is a headgear depiction in the relief
of the lance duel of Hormozd II (r. 302-309) (Fig. 12). In the center of this relief is the figure
of Hormozd II holding a large lance two-handed as he knocks off an enemy horseman
from his steed (the figure at right in the relief).
The helmet of Hormozd II’ЬΝ ПКХХТЧРΝ ШppШЧОЧЭΝ (ŻТРέΝ ńβΝ ТЧЬОЭ)Ν ЛОКЫЬΝ ЭаШΝ ЬТЦТХКЫТЭТОЬΝ
with the aforementioned Parthian warrior at the Ż Ы г Л НΝrelief entrapped in a wrestling lock
by his unknown Sasanian opponent (Fig. 8B). First, the helmet at σКqš-e Rostam has
the same shape as its counterpart at Ż Ы г Л Н. The second similarity is the near-exact
ЬТЦТХКЫТЭвΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ПКХХТЧРΝ ШppШЧОЧЭ’ЬΝ НОМШЫКЭТЯОΝ МuЫХΝ pХКМОНΝ КЭШpΝ СТЬΝ СОХЦОЭΝ аТЭСΝ ЭСКЭΝ
ШПΝЭСОΝОЧЭЫКppОНΝPКЫЭСТКЧ’ЬΝСОХЦОЭΝКЭΝŻ Ы г Л Н. This leads to speculations as to the identity
of the unhorsed opponent, which has been suggested as having been Papak of Armenia.
In the context of the similarity of his helmet to that of the entrapped Parthian at Ż Ы г Л Н,
the challenger may alternatively have been from a Parthian clan, but more studies are needed
to investigate this hypothesis.
There are also three distinct differences between the tumbling horseman
at σКqš-e Rostam and the entrapped Parthian at Ż Ы г Л Н. First, the helmet
at σКqš-e Rostam has a band (metallic or ceremonial cloth?) along its rim not seen with the
entrapped Parthian at Ż Ы г Л Н. Second is a distinct decorative motif on the side the helmet
of the unhorsed warrior at σКqš-e Rostam, which may designate clan or military status
or possibly be a Tamga-ЭвpОΝЬвЦЛШХέΝTСТЫН,ΝЭСОΝuЧСШЫЬОНΝаКЫЫТШЫ’ЬΝСОХЦОЭΝКЭΝσКqš-e Rostam
lacks the neck-guard seen with the entrapped Parthian at Firuzabad.
To the rear of Hormozd II stands a standard bearer wearing a highly decorated captype (one-piece metallic?) helmet or headgear featuring a bulb on its top. At the sides
ШЫΝЭОЦpХОЬΝШПΝЭСОΝЬЭКЧНКЫНΝЛОКЫОЫ’ЬΝСОКНРОКЫΝШЫΝСОХЦОЭΝКppОКЫΝЬШЦОΝЭвpОΝШПΝКЭЭКМСЦОЧЭΝаСТМСΝ
may be mail as Herrmann and Howell aver,28 however closer examination raises questions
as to whether this is indeed mail or some other type of system. While weathering does not
permit for decisive conclusions, it is possible that the structure may be some type of fixed
metallic attachment. If this is the case, then this could possibly have served the same function
as moveable cheek-pieces seen with the earlier Parthian helmet at Nisa.
An interesting find with possible connections to σКqš-e Rostam is the brass Iranian
helmet of the Kedaris type built either in Iran or Anatolia, measuring 34 cm in height
(Fig. 13). While unclear if the helmet is specifically Persian or Parthian, this has been dated
to the 1st-3rd centuries CE. As noted by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the Kedaris helmet
is decorated Ḵwith elaborately chased patterning imitating the quilted fabric, and rosettes
on the sides and pОКФḵέ
Another depiction of this type of headgear is located in a locally sculpted
late 2nd century CE Roman stone relief in Koblenz, Germany. This displays a bearded
28
HERRMANN, HOWELL, 1977.
Page | 126
Parthian with curly hair wearing what appears to be a Kedaris. The Parthian is offering
what Schneider suggests are gold bars on a tray (Fig. 14). Schneider suggests that
the headgear is a ḴPhrygian cap (without ear-ПХКpЬ)ḵ29 however the shape of the depiction
may alternatively suggest that the sculptor may have intended to portray a Kedaris type
headgear.
There may be variations of this Kedaris type helmet depicted at σКqš-e Rostam
at a non-combat relief of a standing BahЫ ЦΝ II (r. 273-276) where he is attended by eight
noblemen. Four of these in the presence of a BКСЫ ЦΝII wear headgear or helmets featuring
bulbous motifs at their front (Fig. 15). To the left of BКСЫ ЦΝ II (the direction in which
he gazes) stand two of five noblemen with such headgear.30 The headgear of the second
nobleman to the left of BКСЫ ЦΝfeatures at its bulbous point the bowed head of a feline-type
МЫОКЭuЫОνΝ ЭСОΝ ЛuХЛШuЬΝ pШТЧЭΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЧШЛХОЦКЧ’ЬΝ СОХЦОЭΝ ЛОСТЧНΝ СТЦΝ СКЬΝ КΝ НТППОЫОЧЭΝ ХОШЧТЧОΝ
creature motif. TСОΝХКЭЭОЫ’ЬΝСОКН-motif bears a more ḴSТЦuЫРСḵΝКppОКЫКЧМОΝаТЭСΝЭСОΝМЫОКЭuЫОΝ
not bowing but gazing forward. To the immediate right of BКСЫ ЦΝ II stand two noblemen
whose headgear at the top bears a Kedaris shape with the exception of lacking the bulbous
front seen with the Kedaris.
The headgear topped with animal-motifs of the two figures to the left of BКСЫ ЦΝ
II bear striking parallels with two helmets found in Romania (ancient Dacia). One of these
excavated in Ostrov, Rumania is stored in the Museum of National History and Archaeology
in Constanta, Romania (Fig. 16A) with the other (presumed) Dacian helmet housed
КЭΝЭСОΝεuЬООΝН’AЫЭΝCХКЬЬТquОΝНОΝεШuРТЧЬΝТЧΝPКЫТЬΝ(ŻТРέΝńθB)έ The two helmets, like the two
animal-motif headgear at σКqš-e Rostam (Fig. 16C), feature what appear to be eagle and/or
bird-like heads. The ḴПОКЭСОЫḵΝ ШЫΝ ḴVКЫЧКРКḵΝ ЦШЭТПΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ DКМТКЧΝ СОХЦОЭЬΝ КppОКЫЬΝ ШЧΝ ХКЭОΝ
Sasanian sword sheaths and handles such as those seen on late Sassanian gold sheeted sword
(Fig. 16D). This ḴVКЫЧКРКḵΝЦШЭТПΝКХЬШΝКppeared on later Sasanian helmets as discussed later
in this article.
It is likely that the two Dacian helmets were ceremonial rather than functional
(for the battlefield) as these were built of copper. As the σКqš-e Rostam display is regal
and ceremonial in nature depicting high-ranking officials and/or nobility, it is possible
that the Dacian helmets were also intended as symbols of status (i.e. commander,
high-ranking person, etc.).
More remarkable are the stylistic parallels between the Dacian helmets and
the depiction of ṣ puЫΝ I upon a Sasanian silver coin (Fig. 17). The coin shows ṣ puЫ’ЬΝ
headgear as having the head of an eagle at its top clasping a large pearl with its beak. ṣ puЫΝis
also seen wearing a diadem and earflap(s).
One hypothesis may be that these Dacian helmets had been manufactured in Romanoccupied Syria at the time, which would explain their strong Iranian characteristics alongside
some western influences such as dangling cheek-pieces. But even on these there appears to be
a shared wider culture. On the cheek-piece of the of Dacian (?) helmet (Fig. 18C) is a Nike
figure, an image with stylistic parallels in later Sasanian arts, notably at the entranceway to
the Квv n at q-ОΝ BШЬЭ Ч (Fig. 18A-B). These examples raise the possibilities of a wider
29
SCHNEIDER, 2007: 59, Fig.7.
It is possible that at least three of fivОΝПТРuЫОЬΝЦКвΝЛОΝBКСЫ Ц’ЬΝПКЦТХвΝЦОЦЛОЫЬΝКЬΝЭСОвΝКХХΝаТОХНΝ
regal diadems.
30
Page | 127
continuum of mutually interacting/influencing (military) culture encompassing the ParthoSasanian realms, the Caucasus and Eastern/Central Europe.
The field of Partho-Sasanian and European relations remains a domain with modest
research to date.31 Items of Iranian origin have been discovered among Gothic tribes.
One example is the Iranian belt buckle discovered in Wolfsheim, Germany that bears the
name ḴAЫНКš ЫḵΝ ТЧΝ PКЫЭСТКn (Pahlavi) script 32 (Fig. 19). The buckle had been discovered
alongside a coin of Emperor Valens (r. 364-378) who had been killed in the Battle
of Adrianople (August 9, 378 CE) in which Roman forces were defeated by Gothic troops
supported by their Iranian-speaking Alan cavalry allies.
Sasanian cavalry at B š p ЫΝ appear to wear a mix of one-piece military helmets
and ceremonial headgear.33 Notable are three figures to the bottom right of the triumph scene
of ṣ puЫΝI at the Tang-e Showgan section of B š p ЫΝ(Fig. 20). These strongly resemble mail
coifs, which in this case would have been worn under battle helmets. This practice apparently
persisted into late Sasanian times as discussed further below.
Another depiction at the same B š p ЫΝ site is the figure standing to the right
of the ṣ puЫΝI victory panel (Fig. 21): his arms are upright with his hands clasped together
in a prayer-like gesture. This is a warrior and/or nobleman with a tall Kolah or ceremonial hat
featuring a band along its bottom rim. This figure may possibly represent one of the Parthian
clans as these often acted as prime leaders of the elite professional Sasanian cavalry within
the sp СṬ.34
The σКqš-e Rajab site panel colloquially known as the ḴPКЫКНОΝШПΝṣ puЫḵ35 (Fig. 22)
has an interesting representation of headgear. Specifically, this is in reference to four standing
figures with scabbard slide swords situated behind the mounted figure of ṣ puЫΝ I.
The headgear of all four figures (presumably professional warriors and/or military leaders)
appears tall but unlike the B š p ЫΝ ḴpЫКвТЧРΝ ФЧТРСЭḵΝ НШΝ ЧШЭΝ ḴЛОЧНḵΝ ПШЫаКЫНέΝ IЧЬЭОКНΝ ЭСОвΝ
stand upright with a smooth rounding at the top. However the lack of detail and weathering
on the relief panel since the 3rd century CE prevents definitive observations as to their
construction. The hypothesis at this juncture would be that these were possibly ceremonial
helmets, as their shapes do not appear functional with respect to battlefield applications.
31
Some information is known, such as the 6th century links between the Sasanians and the Ostrogoths.
The Ostrogothic king Witiges for example, was hoping to encourage Sasanian military action against
his Romano-Byzantine enemies, and in this endeavour, had dispatched his ambassadors to the Sasanian
empire in 538 or 539 CE (AYVAZYAN, 2012: 42-43). Sasanian and Goth diplomatic exchanges did
ШММuЫ,ΝаТЭСΝБuЬЫōΝIΝ(ЫέΝηγń-579 CE) receiving Ostrogoth embassies from Italy (FRYE, 1984: 326).
32
GHIRSHMAN, 1962: 222. The reasons as to why this Iranian belt-buckle was discovered
in Wolfsheim remain unknown. It is possible that this arrived among a set of gifts bought for Gothic
chieftains by Sasanian officials into Europe. Brogan has noted of a hoard discovered in Pietrossa
(in modern Transylvania) which also included two vessels which he describes as possible “…pЫОЬОЧЭЬΝ
ТЧΝЭСОΝМШuЫЬОΝШПΝНТpХШЦКЭТМΝЫОХКЭТШЧЬСТpΝЛОЭаООЧΝżШЭСΝКЧНΝPОЫЬТКЧḵΝ(ńλγθ: 202).
33
FARROKH, 2005: 9.
34
CШЧЬuХЭΝ ПШЫΝ ОбКЦpХОΝ τХЛЫвМСЭ’ЬΝ ОбКЦТЧКЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ НвЧКЬЭТМΝ МШЧЧОМЭТШЧЬΝ ЛОЭаООЧΝ ЭСОΝ PКЫЭСТКЧΝ
and Sasanian royal houses (OLBRYCHT, 2016: 23-γη)ΝКЧНΝPШuЫЬСКЫТКЭТ’ЬΝМШЦpЫОСОЧЬТЯОΝОбКЦТЧКЭТШЧΝ
of the role of the Parthian nobility in the latter times of the Sasanian dynasty (POURSHARIATI,
2008).
35
TСТЬΝЬТЭОΝТЬΝЛОХТОЯОНΝЭШΝМШЦЦОЦШЫКЭОΝЭСОΝЯТМЭШЫТОЬΝШПΝṣ puЫΝIΝШЯОЫΝRШЦКЧΝКЫЦТОЬέ
Page | 128
One of the greatest challenges posed by earlier Sasanian iconography discussed
previously has to do with the issue of helmet/headgear construction, namely the question
of how the helmets were built (i.e. one piece, segmented, etc.). Simply put, this iconography,
especially with respect to earlier Sasanian periods (especially 3 rd-4th centuries CE), fails
to provide depictions of helmets constructed in the multi-segment Spangenhelm (riveted
construction type) and/or cross-band fashion. The exception to this type of iconography
occurs somewhat in the later Sasanian era. The visual depictions of headgear at F Ы г Л Н,Ν
σКqš-ОΝRШЬЭКЦ,ΝB š p ЫΝКЧНΝσКqš-e Rajab are of the Achaemenid ḴpЫШПТХОḵΝЬвЬЭОЦΝТЧΝаСТМСΝ
warriors are shown two-dimensionally from one side only. As a result, helmets can be seen
only from their side view, which could lead to the linear (if not questionable) conclusion that
all of these are of the one-piece type only. In such a visual system, two-piece helmets
for example like the Dura Europs type, would appear as if they were of one-piece
construction.
The status of Sasanian iconography is notable given that multi-segment type helmets
are strongly associated with the Sasanians. Interestingly other types of Sasanian weaponry
also appear ḴuЧаОХМШЦОḵΝТЧΝОКЫХТОЫΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝТМШЧШРЫКpСв,ΝЧШЭКЛХвΝЦКМОЬέΝTСТЬΝТЬΝКХЬШ,ΝХТФОΝ
the case of multi-segment helmets, notable as maces have played an iconic role among
Iranian armies since antiquity and has been a potent symbol in Iranian military culture. 36
Given these issues with iconography, Iranian arts of the late Parthian-early Sasanian period
cannot be used as the sole source of information on Iranian helmets of late antiquity.
As noted earlier, early Parthian depictions of helmets appear to be highly Hellenized.
The Sasanians developed their own style of canonical forms suggesting intent in wanting
to display a certain type of visual communication with respect to their militaria. In this case it
may be possible to hypothesize that Sasanian iconography may have been more concerned
with conveying to their audience the shape of helmets and headgear as opposed to providing
detailed technical information with respect to construction, etc. Thus in this type
of discussion, observations of iconographic imagery are made more effective with respect
to finds of actual Sasanian helmets.
Multi-segment Sasanian helmets (400s-600s CE)
The earliest known Sasanian depiction of the four-segment helmet has been found
at Tappeh Yahya dated to possibly the 300s CE.37 However as alluded to before, such helmets
may well have been produced earlier despite the lack of specific depictions of these in the arts
and iconography of early Sasanian reliefs in Iran. The Tappeh Yahya helmet bears some
ЫОЬОЦЛХКЧМОЬΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ ШЧОΝ ЬООЧΝ КЭΝ TЫКУКЧ’ЬΝ МШХuЦЧ,Ν аСТМСΝ ТЧΝ ЭuЫЧΝ ЛОКЫЬΝ ЬШЦОΝ pКЫКХХОХЬΝ аТЭСΝ
earlier ribbed Kuš ЧΝНОЬТРЧЬέΝŻТЧНЬΝШПΝКМЭuКХΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝ Spangenhelm type helmets generally
span between the 400s to late 600s CE. The 7th century CE helmets were presumably of the
types described by Islamic era СТЬЭШЫТКЧЬΝЬuМСΝКЬΝD ЧКаКЫ ,ΝBКХ‘КЦ ΝКЧНΝ КЛКЫ ΝаТЭСΝЫОЬpОМЭΝ
to the standard equipment of late Sasanian cavalrymen (c. 6th to 7th centuries CE) (Table 1).
36
37
KHORASANI, 2006: 251-258.
FARROKH, 2005: 10.
Page | 129
TКЛХОΝńμΝIЬХКЦТМΝОЫКΝHТЬЭШЫТКЧЬ’ΝDОЬМЫТpЭТШЧЬΝШПΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝСОХЦОЭЬ
Helmet
D ЧКаКЫ ,ΝAkhbar ol
Tawaal (ed. de
Guirgass, 1888), p.74.
BКХ‘КЦ ,ΝTarikhe
BКlˀКmТ (as cited by
Tafazzoli, 1993: 194.
КЛКЫ ,ΝTarikh al Rasl ol
Molook (ed. & De Goeje,
1879-1901), Vol. I,
p.964.
MiqfarνΝD ЧКаКЫ ΝКХЬШΝ
mentions Baiza
(difference with
Miqfar unclear)
Khud/Khod
Miqfar
Interestingly all of the helmets have been excavated in regions situated
ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ źЦpТЫО’ЬΝаОЬЭОЫЧΝ КЧНΝ ЧШЫЭСаОЬЭΝ ЫОРТШЧЬέΝ In general these were constructed
of four to six metallic segments or lobes fitted together by frame and bands, with rivets used
to fasten the pieces together. Sasanian Spangenhelms on average measured about 20 cm
in width with a height of approximately 22-24 cm. Decorative themes were often emphasized
as seen in the overlays of gold and silver sheets measuring at approximately 0.1-0.2 mm
thick.
One of the earliest known Sasanian helmets of segmented construction is
the 5th century CE sample housed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Fig. 23).
This helmet, originally lined with leather material, was constructed of bronze bands and iron
plates riveted together and overlaid with silver sheets. Holes are punched into the lower rim
ШПΝЭСТЬΝСОХЦОЭ,ΝpЫОЬuЦКЛХвΝПШЫΝСКЧРТЧРΝЦКТХ,ΝpЫШЯТНТЧРΝКННТЭТШЧКХΝpЫШЭОМЭТШЧΝПШЫΝЭСОΝаКЫЫТШЫ’ЬΝ
head and neck.
Another more recently discovered item is the conical Sasanian Spangenhelm helmet
dated to the 4th to 5th centuries CE. This was unveiled at the Gorny and Mosch GmbH Gallery
in Munich (Fig. 24). The base of this helmet features a horizontal band of iron with four ovalshaped plates of bronze connected together by vertical strips (also of bronze) converging
at its apex. Fastening of the segments has been achieved with ball-ХТФОΝЫТЯОЭЬέΝTСОΝСОХЦОЭ’ЬΝ
iron band exhibits minor denting and cracks. There are also 2-3 rivets missing along
the frontal rim at its right side. The helmet appears to have been purely functional (for battle
purposes) as it lacks decorative motifs. The color of the item is chestnut brown patina.
The Spangenhelm helmet dated to the late 6th-early 7th century CE housed
at the Royal Museum of Art and History, Brussels (Fig. 25) measures at 21.7 cm (height),
19.5 cm (width) and 22.5 (length). Discovered in Cheragh-Ali Tappeh (Marlik), Iran, this
particular iron Spangenhelm helmet is constructed of a headband with four sections covered
with a plate of embossed silver featuring a scale pattern (ḴПОКЭСОЫЬḵΝШЫΝpКХЦОЭЭОЬ)έΝTСОΝПШuЫΝ
riveted segments or plaques are covered in bronze, but also feature a scale or ḴЯКЫКЧРКḵΝ
pattern. There is also what appears to be a rosette type decoration at the top of the helmet.
A similar rosette pattern is evident at the front panel with a rectangle featuring a large
crescent moon.
TСОΝ СОХЦОЭΝ СШuЬОНΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ RöЦТЬМСΝ żОЫЦКЧТЬМСОЬΝ εuЬОuЦΝ ТЧΝ εКТЧг,Ν żОЫЦКЧвΝ
(Inv. O. 38823; Fig. 26) is dated to the late 6th-early 7th МОЧЭuЫвΝ CźέΝ DТЬМШЯОЫОНΝ ТЧΝ IЫКЧ’ЬΝ
Amlash region, this helmet was built of bronze, silver and Iron. The Varanga ḴПОКЭСОЫḵΝ (ς)Ν
Page | 130
and/or ḴЬМКХОḵΝpКЭЭОЫЧΝ(ς)ΝТЬΝКРКТЧΝОЯТНОЧЭΝКЬΝаШuХНΝЛОΝОбpОМЭОНΝШПΝХКЭОΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝСОХЦОЭЬΝПЫШЦΝ
ЭСОΝ ОЦpТЫО’ЬΝ АОЬЭОЫЧΝ ЫОРТШЧЬέ The band enclosing the bottom area of the helmet is also
decorated in the same Varanga/scale design. At the front of this area is a rectangle that has
within it two vertical ḴЬТЧОΝ аКЯОḵΝ РЫКpСТМЬέΝ AЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЛШЭЭШЦΝ ОНРОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЫТЦΝ МКЧΝ ЛОΝ ЬООЧΝ
punched holes, along with some cracks.
Unique in the case of this helmet is a crescent moon decoration like the one seen
on Figure 25 cited previously. Atop the rectangle with the two ḴЬТЧОΝ аКЯОḵΝ НОЬТРЧЬΝ
on the helmet from Mainz is an upright crescent motif apparently based on a much earlier
tradition; this is strikingly similar to the much more ancient 9th-7th century BCE one-piece
domed bronze helmet (possibly Kassite in origin) excavated in Luristan (Fig. 26). At the back
ШПΝ ЭСОΝ δuЫТЬЭКЧΝ СОХЦОЭΝ ТЬΝ КΝ ЫОpШuЬЬéΝ СШШФΝ КЧНΝ НШЭΝ pКЭЭОЫЧ,Ν аТЭСΝ КΝ ЧШЭМСОНΝ ЛКЧНΝ ШПΝ ПХОМФОНΝ
triangles appearing along the border.38 The frontal decoration attached on this helmet consists
of opposing mythological beast heads with a crescent ornament atop the figures.
IЧЭОЫОЬЭТЧРХв,Ν ЭСОΝ δuЫТЬЭКЧΝ СОХЦОЭ’ЬΝ МЫОЬМОЧЭΝ ЦШЭТПΝ КppОКЫЬΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЬКЦОΝ upЫТРСЭΝ ШЫТОЧЭation
as the Sasanian helmet suggesting a possible design motif spanning over 1000 years (Fig. 26).
Another late Sasanian helmet (dated 6th-7th century CE) housed at the RöЦТЬМСGermanisches Museum is from Marlik Tappeh (Cheraq Ali Tappeh) in Iran.39 This is (semi)
spherical in shape and may have been originally executed in leather. Of this helmet only
the frame has survived. The frame itself was built of thin silver and bronze plates lined
with a double row of embossed buttons. Unlike the helmet (Fig. 26) with the upright cresent
and sine wave patterns, this helmet does not feature any frontal decorations. The upper part
ШПΝ СОХЦОЭ’ЬΝ ЬТХЯОЫΝ МШКЭТЧРΝ ПТЧТЬСОЬΝ ТЧΝ КΝ СШХХШаΝ pЫШЭuЬТШЧΝ МЫШаЧОНΝ аТЭСΝ КΝ ЛЫШЧгОΝ ЛuЭЭШЧΝ
roughly resembling an infantry chess piece.
The late 6th-early 7th century CE iron helmet housed at the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art (Fig. 27) of segmented construction measures at 21.3 cm (height) x 17.8 cm
(width) x 24 cm (length) x 60.7 cm (circumference). This sample is covered entirely
with silver and bronze plaques. The silver plates feature a scale-pattern decoration
of engraved print which could be Varanga ḴПОКЭСОЫЬḵ or palm leaves. The decoration
of the bronze plates on the helmet are different as these feature dots and lines as well as
a rosette pattern of small silver discs which have been riveted. The condition of this sample is
fair with cracks evident along the helmet rim. The helmet sample is also of particular interest
as it appears to have been damaged in battle and later repaired (or restored) into service.40
Note that while the scale pattern decoration of the helmet would suggest that this helmet may
СКЯОΝШЫТРТЧКХХвΝЛОХШЧРОНΝЭШΝКΝСТРСОЫΝЫКЧФТЧРΝШППТМОЫ,ΝТЭ’ЬΝХКЭОЫΝЫОpКТЫОНΝШЫΝḴЬОМШЧНΝСКЧНḵΝЬЭКЭОΝ
may have resulted in it being subsequently issued to a lower level officer or trooper. If this is
the case, this may be indicative that the Sasanian military was cognizant of the economic
importance of minimizing waste of military hardware. Thus, instead of discarding damaged
inventory, these could instead be rehabilitated (or recycled) into service to help minimize
replacement costs for the sp С.
The three late Sasanian helmets (6th-7th century CE) housed at the British Museum
(Fig. 28, Fig. 30, Fig. 31) were excavated from the Nineveh region of modern-day Iraq.
38
For other types of Luristan helmets consult LITVINSKY, 2003.
MIKS, 2009: 425, fig. 17.
40
NICOLLE, 1996: 66, fig. 34-H.
39
Page | 131
The helmet (Fig. 28) was built of iron and copper with no discernable decorative motifs.
Interestingly, this helmet features remains of a neckguard constructed of mail.
źбМОpЭТЧРΝ ТЭЬ’Ν ХКМФΝ of a nose-guard, helmet (Fig. 28) bears a close resemblance
in overall shape, plate design and riveting to the 6 th-8th centuries CE Turco-Iranian/Central
Asian type helmet from the Nasser Khalili Collection (Fig. 29)41. The parallels between
helmet (Fig. 28) and the Nasser Khalili helmet (Fig. 29) are certainly indicative of ancient
IЫКЧ’ЬΝ ХШЧР-standing military ties with the nomadic peoples of Central Asia and Eurasia.
These same parallels however, also raise questions. For example, did this helmet belong to
an ally unit (Central Asian?) of the sp С or was that particular helmet an import from Central
Asia? Second, did he originally belong to a Khazar ally of Emperor Heraclius (610-641 CE)
during his final offensives against the Sasanian Empire, notably at the Battle of Nineveh
in 627 CE? What may be surmised at this juncture of the research literature is that this helmet
and the Khalili item are related by shape with the lamellar helmets of the Niederstotzingentype. Such ḴAvar helmetsḵ of the lamellar type were also absorbed by the Europeans in the
c.7th CE.42
The second Sasanian helmet at the British Museum is (Fig. 30), like the helmet
(Fig. 28), of iron and copper construction with an iron browband placed at its bottom rim.
The four iron plates (each 17 cm in length with a width of 6-7 cm) feature a peculiar Ḵshort
ЬСШЯОХḵΝКppОКЫКЧМОέΝRШuЧНΝЬСКpОНΝЫТЯОЭЬΝПКЬЭОЧΝЭСОΝСОХЦОЭ’ЬΝpХКЭОЬΝЭШРОЭСОЫέ
The third Sasanian Spangenhelm helmet at the British Museum (Fig. 31) bears close
parallels in construction to that displayed iЧΝ BКРСНКН’ЬΝ IЫКqΝ εuЬОuЦΝ (ŻТРέΝ γβ). The frame
of the helmet (Fig. 31) is composed of bands of copper alloy with rivets (each 0.7 cm across
at its head) used to fasten the iron plates onto it. The rivets (originally gilded) are situated
at 0.3-0.5 interval spaces from each other. At the bottom of the helmet is a browband (also
of iron) at 4 cm in height with its bottom coated with bronze.
The Sasanian Spangenhelm housed at the Iraq Museum (Fig. 32) is dated to the late
Sasanian era (6th-7th century CE) and like the British Museum helmets, also excavated at
Nineveh (modern-НКвΝ KШuвuЧУТФ),Ν ЬpОМТПТМКХХвΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ TОЦpХОΝ ШПΝ IšЭКЫέ43 Built of plates and
rivets of iron, the feather ḴVКЫКЧРКḵΝШЫΝpКХЦОЭЭОΝpКЭЭОЫЧΝЬООЧΝШЧΝЭСОΝpХКЭОЬΝЫОЬОЦЛХОΝМХШЬОХвΝ
those found on the sheaths of late Sasanian swords excavated in northern Iran.
TСОΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝСОХЦОЭΝСШuЬОНΝКЭΝЭСОΝεuЬООΝН’Art Classique de Mougins (Fig. 33) has
been dated by the museum to the 4 th-6th centuries CE. This features decorative upwardcrescent motifs (singly and combined with other motifs). Nevertheless close observation
of this helmet raises questions with respect to its chronology. Specifically, the construction
of this helmet is decidedly uneven in four ways: (1) deviation of the holes at the bottom
of the helmet, (2) misalignment of the coronal bands, (3) uneven riveting and (4) uneven
geometry overall. In contrast, excavated Sasanian helmets discussed in this study maintain
their geometrical integrity centuries after they were constructed. This raises questions as to
whether this helmet was actually built during the Sasanian era or possibly in the post-
41
KUBIK, 2016: 82, fig. 5.
One example of such “Avar lamellar of the Niederstotzingen-typeḵ helmet has been discovered
in the Kursk Oblast of Russia, RADIUSH, 2014: 40-51.
43
THOMPSON, HAMILTON 1932: 78.
42
Page | 132
Sasanian era? If the latter thesis is appropriate, then the helmet was possibly built as an item
inspired from what contemporaries were cognizant with respect to Sasanian-era helmets.
The helmet excavated from the waters off the coastline of Rig port (Fig. 34) located
just 25 km southeast of Genaveh in the Persian Gulf remains undated at the time
of Whiting.44 TСОΝ СОХЦОЭ’ЬΝЦОЭКХХТМΝ ЦКЭОЫТКХΝ КЧНΝ ТЭЬ’ΝЦОЭСШНΝ ШПΝ МШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ ЫОquТЫОЬΝ МХШЬОΝ
ОбКЦТЧКЭТШЧέΝ АСКЭΝ ЦКвΝ ЛОΝ ЬuЫЦТЬОНΝ ТЬΝ ЭСКЭΝ ЭСТЬΝ СОХЦОЭ’ЬΝ ЬСКpОΝ ТЬΝ КΝ ЯКЫТКЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЭвpОΝ
appearring on a МКЦОШΝ ЬСШаТЧРΝ ṣ puЫΝ IΥЬΝ ЯТМЭШЫвΝ ШЯОЫΝ źЦpОЫШЫΝ VКХОЫТКЧέ Helmets
of this shape and/or design continue to appear during the Arabo-Islamic conquests of Iran
and Central Asia in the 7th century CE.
Helmet Face Masks
Classical sources provide references with respect to facemasks mounted
on the helmets of armored Sasanian cavalry. The Aethiopica of Heliodorus describes
the 4th century CE Sasanian helmet with the metallic face mask as: Ḵcompacted and forged
in one piece and skillfully fashioned like a mask inЭШΝ ЭСОΝ ОбКМЭΝ ЬСКpОΝ ШПΝ КΝ ЦКЧ’ЬΝ ПКМОνΝ
this protects him entirely from the top of the head to the neck, except where eye-holes allow
СТЦΝЭШΝЬООΝЭСЫШuРСΝТЭḵέ45
Heliodorus is describing a one-piece helmet, however a key question pertains
to the specificity of its design: how was that helmet constructed to provide total protection
for both head and neck? Was this one-piece helmet a version of the ḴМШКХΝ ЬФuЭЭХОḵΝ
Partho-SОХОuМТНΝ ЭвpО,Ν КЧНΝ ТПΝ ЬШΝ СШаΝ аКЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЫТНОЫ’ЬΝ ЧОМФΝ pЫШЭОМЭОНςΝ АКЬΝ ЭСОЫОΝ pОЫСКpЬΝ
an aventail attached as seen with the Parthian armored cavalryman at F Ы г Л НΝ (ŻТРέΝ κB)Ν
ШЫΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ TЫКУКЧΝ ЫОХТОПΝ (ŻТРέΝ κC)ςΝ TСuЬ,Ν аСТХОΝ HОХТШНШЫuЬ’Ν ОЧЭТЫОΝ НОЬМЫТpЭТШЧΝ
of the Sasanian cavalryman of his time is suggestive of the sp С’ЬΝ ШЯОЫКХХΝ ШЛУОМЭТЯОΝ
of developing formidably armed and armored cavalry, the design and shape of the helmet he
describes is challenging to reconstruct. σОЯОЫЭСОХОЬЬ,Ν HОХТШНШЫuЬ’Ν НОЬМЫТpЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЦОЭКХХТМΝ
face-ЦКЬФЬΝ ЛuТХЭΝ ТЧЭШΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ СОХЦОЭЬΝ МШЦpХОЦОЧЭЬΝ AЦЦТКЧuЬΝ εКЫМОХХТЧuЬ’Ν ШЛЬОЫЯКЭТШЧЬΝ
with respect to ṣ puЫΝ II’ЬΝ СОКЯвΝ КЫЦШЫОНΝ МКЯКХЫв: Ḵon their heads were effigies of human
faces so accurately fitted, that their whole persons being covered with metal, the only place
where any missiles which fell upon them could stick, was either where there were minute
openings to allow of the sight of the eyes penetrating, or where holes for breathing were left
КЭΝЭСОΝОбЭЫОЦТЭТОЬΝШПΝЭСОΝЧШЬЭЫТХЬḵέ46
While both Ammianus and Heliodorus have described Sasanian facemasks,
the manner in which these would have been mounted onto the helmets raises questions.
Heliodoros states that the face masks were fashioned from the same helmet or Ḵforged in one
pТОМОḵέΝTСТЬΝКppОКЫЬΝЭШΝТЦpХвΝЭСКЭΝЭСОΝПЫШЧЭКХΝКЫОКΝШПΝЭСОΝШЧО-piece helmet was fashioned into
a facemask rather than being separately constructed and then mounted. Ammianus however
states that the masks were Ḵaccurately fittedḵέΝ IПΝ ЭСКЭΝ аОЫОΝ ЭСОΝ МКЬО,Ν аШuХНΝ ЭСОΝ ПКМО-masks
have been possibly riveted onto the helmets? This again raises questions as to whether
the cavalrymen Ammianus described wore helmets of the ridge, one-piece or the multisegment type. Whatever technology had been used to construct these facemask helmets,
44
TOFIGHIAN, NADOOSHAN, MOUSAVI, 2011.
Heliodorus, Aethiopica, IX.14, 3-15.1.
46
Amm. Marc. XXV.1.12.
45
Page | 133
the objective was to make these as robust as possible by affording maximum protection for
ЭСОΝЫТНОЫ’ЬΝСОКНΝКЧНΝЧОМФέ
Examples of helmet depictions on Late Sasanian seals
There are a select number of late Sasanian seals providing visual details of helmets
КЧНΝШЫΝСОКНРОКЫέΝτЧОΝШПΝЭСОЬОΝТЬΝСШuЬОНΝКЭΝBШЬЭШЧ’ЬΝεuЬОuЦΝШПΝŻТЧОΝAЫЭЬΝ(Fig. 35).
The helmet depicted on the bulla reveals a feather or ḴVarangaḵΝpКЭЭОЫЧΝЬТЦТХКЫΝЭШΝЭСКЭΝ
seen on Sasanian helmets such as the late 6th-early 7th century CE helmet at the Los Angeles
County Museum of Art (Fig. 27) and the helmet from the Amlash region, Iran housed
КЭΝЭСОΝRöЦТЬМСОs Germanisches Museum. The bulla is also of interest as it depicts large rivets
like those seen with the helmet unveiled at the Gorny and Mosch GmbH Gallery in Munich
(Fig. 24).
AЧΝ ТЧЭОЫОЬЭТЧРΝ НОpТМЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ КЧΝ КЫЦШuЫОНΝ СШЫЬОЦКЧ’ЬΝ СОХЦОЭΝ ТЬΝ pЫШЯТНОНΝ ТЧΝ ШЧОΝ
of the bulla from the treasury of the TКФТвК-ОΝ εШ ЯОЧΝ КХ-Molk in Kermanshah (Fig. 36).
DОЬpТЭОΝ ЭСОΝ ЛuХХК’ЬΝ ОЫШЬТШЧΝ ЭСОЫОΝ КppОКЫЬΝ ЭШΝ ЛОΝ КΝ pШЬЬТЛХОΝ ЫТНРОΝ МШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ ЬвЬЭОЦΝ ПШЫΝ
the helmet, possibly of two metallic ḴЬСОХХЬḵΝ ЫТЯОЭОНΝ ЭШРОЭСОЫέΝ IПΝ ЭСТЬΝ аОЫОΝ ЭСОΝ МКЬО,Ν ЭСОЧΝ
the closest approximation (from finds known at time of writing) would be the helmet housed
at the Yale University Art Gallery (Fig. 11). Mail appears to be depicted; this may be
of the coif kind worn underneath the helmet or suspended from the rim of the helmet.
Mail also appears to be protecting the face, like the late armored horseman at q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧέΝ
The horseman is also wielding a lance/spear, a tirdan dangling from the upper thigh area,
possible ring armor for legs (lower portion discernable) with horse armor and equestrian
decoration also evident.
The bulla from the private collection of A. Saeedi provides some information
on the helmet it displays (Fig. 37). This appears to show a two-piece helmet (note the ridge)
but significant erosion on the bulla prevents definitive conclusions. Of note are ḴПХКpЬḵΝ (ς)Ν
or metallic piece(s) protecting the temple(s); these may be riveted (?) to the helmet. Mail is
also seen for protection of the neck. The bulla provides additional information with respect
to ЭСОΝЫТНОЫ’ЬΝХКЧМОήЬpОКЫ,ΝКΝЭТЫНКЧΝ(quТЯОЫ)ΝЬuЬpОЧНОНΝПЫШЦΝЭСОΝuppОЫ-thigh level, Bargostvan
horse armor, equestrian decoration and horse bit/reins. The rider appears to be wearing a mail
shirt covering his upper arms (?) with his lower arms protected by ring armor (?).
Ṭāq-e Bostān (late 6th to early 7th century CE)
In q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝεuЬОuЦ,ΝПОКЭures two helmet depictions of interest, the first being
what appears to be a seated regal figure (commonly known as the mage of БuЬЫō) (Fig. 38)
and the armored cavalryman inside the Квv n or vault (Fig. 39). The headgear of the Mage
of БuЬЫō as seen on one of the capitals at q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝpЫШЯТНОЬΝКΝМХОКЫΝНОpТМЭТШЧΝШПΝКΝЦКТХΝ
coif possibly worn on the head underneath a lamellar helmet. Mail is also seen at the lower
abdomen area, indicative that the figure wears a mail vest. There appear to be plates fastened
at the side of the helmet, however these may be flaps instead. If these are actually plates then
ЭСТЬΝЦКвΝЛОΝКЧΝКЭЭОЦpЭΝКЭΝКППШЫНТЧРΝpЫШЭОМЭТШЧΝПШЫΝЭСОΝЬuЛУОМЭ’ЬΝЭОЦpХО(Ь)έΝRОРКХΝНОМШЫКЭТШЧЬΝ
are prominent such as a globular object (possibly metallic) sitting atop the helmet with
smaller ribbons in tow. There is also a double-row of ḴpОКЫХЬḵΝ (ς)Ν КХШЧРΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭΝ ЫТЦΝ
fastened at the back to a cloth (?) with two large regal ribbons.
Page | 134
The statue of the late Sasanian armored cavalryman and his steed at the vault at q-e
BШЬЭ ЧΝ (ŻТРέΝ ζλ) provides valuable information on late Sasanian helmets. Three new
developments can be observed with respect to helmet shape and construction. First,
in contrast to the ḴσТЧОЯОСḵΝШЫΝМШЧТМКХ-shape helmets (like Fig. 32) the q-e BШЬЭ ЧΝСОХЦОЭΝ
is distinctly spherical in shape. The construction method remains of the four-spangen
or segmented system.47 The second development pertains to facial protection. The iron mask
is now replaced with a protection of mail suspended from the ocular areas. This covers
the face and extends past the chin area. This design feature facilitates head mobility resulting
in improved observation in battlefield situations. Third, the helmet now features arch-like
openings with ḴОвОΝ ЛЫШаЬḵΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОТЫΝ ЭШpέΝ RОРal decorative motifs are also evident with
the helmet. There is a globular object sitting atop the helmet with ribbons in tow, a gem-like
ШЛУОМЭΝ pХКМОНΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ МОЧЭОЫΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭ’ЬΝ ПШЫОСОКНΝ аТЭСΝ ЭаШΝ ЫШаЬΝ ШПΝ pОКЫХЬΝ ПТЭЭОНΝ КЭΝ
ЭСОΝСОХЦОЭ’ЬΝЫТЦέ
The q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ СОХЦОЭΝ КХЬШΝ КppОКЫЬΝ ЭШΝ СКЯОΝ ЬТЦТХКЫΝ ЬЭвХТЬЭТМΝ pКЫКХХОХЬΝ ЭШΝ ЬКЦpХОЬΝ
recovered from Nordic-SМКЧНТЧКЯТКЧΝ ЛuЫТКХΝ ЬТЭОЬΝ ТЧΝ SаОНОЧ’ЬΝ VКХЬРКЫНОΝ КЧНΝ VОЧНОХΝ
regions48.
TСТЬΝ ХОКНЬΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ quОЬЭТШЧΝ КЬΝ ЭШΝ СШаΝ ЭСТЬΝ ЭОМСЧШХШРвΝ аКЬΝ ЭЫКЧЬЦТЭЭОНΝ ЭШΝ źuЫШpО’ЬΝ
Nordic regions. The most likely explanation for this transfer may have possibly been Turkic
peoples or their Iranic predecessors in ancient Eastern Europe who shared a similar military
tradition with the Sasanians.49 While more studies are needed, the Sasanians and Germanic
peoples had engaged in some formal exchanges as alluded to earlier in the discussion with
Dacian helmets.
The military innovation seen at q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝШПΝЦКТХΝКМЭТЧРΝКХЬШΝКЬΝЧОМФ-guard was
passed onto the Islamic era. This is attested to in a 13th century Seljuk-era miniature
of the Persian-language romance of Varqa va/o Golš С (originally written in the 11th century
CE?). This manuscript displays one of the riders with a type of aventail mail extending from
the helmet, protecting the neck and alongside two ḴХШЧРОЫΝ ПХКpЬḵ,Ν pЫШЭОМЭТЧРΝ ЭСОΝ ЭОЦpХОЬΝ
and upper neck50, making this very similar to the earlier depiction of the Ḵmage of БuЬЫōḵΝ
at q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝ(ŻТРέΝ38).
Eurasia, Central Asia and Sogdia: an Overview
The monumental art of Central Asia would suggest that the region was host to several
other types of helmets during the late Sasanian era (6th-7th centuries CE). The AПЫ ЬТв Л
murals of c. mid-7th century CE for example often depict Sogdian helmets being constructed
on metal frames, frequently mounted with cheek-pieces with mail protection for the face
as seen with the aforementioned armored knight inside the Квv n at q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч.51 The most
common type of helmet was the combined conical and sphere system: hemisphere-type in
the lower half, tapering to a cone-shape towards the top. There was also the Ḵone-pТОМОḵΝЭвpОΝ
47
FUKAI, HORIUCHI, 1984: 69-70.
As noted by Wilcox: “The resemblance between this [Sassanian] СОХЦОЭ…ПЫШЦΝ ЭСОΝ ПuХХвΝ КЫЦШЫОНΝ
king carved into the rock at Taq-i-Bostan near Kermanshah and those recovered from the Scandinavian
graves at Vendel and Valsgarde in Sweden is remarkableḵΝ(АIδCτБ,Νńλλλ: 47, pl. H1).
49
The transfer of Iranian and Hun-Turkic weapons technology to the European realms is a complex
domain currently under investigation by numbers of Western scholars.
50
NICOLLE, 1999: 443, fig. 558.
51
AZARPAY, 1981: 124-125.
48
Page | 135
of helmet with lamellar. Helmet rims were often decorated with festoons with a finial
decoration mounted atop the helmet. Construction was often of metallic plates with other
types featuring multiple scales mounted onto a leather base. Often featured were helmets with
a narrow bar for protection of the nose. Mail was attached to the helmet to afford protection
for the neck, shoulders, and face (excepting the eyes).
The equipment depicted in the Kulagysh plate from Perm province in Russia is
realistic and functional clearly showing lances, swords, archery equipment, small shields,
lamellar armor, mail ḴЬСТЫЭЬḵΝ аТЭСΝ ХШЧРΝ ЬХООЯОЬ,Ν КЬΝ аОХХΝ КЬΝ ЛЫШЧгОΝ or hard-leather armor
and maces.52
The tri-spire helmets on the Kulagysh plate raise a number of observations. At first
glance these appear to be non-functional and militarily impractical, perhaps signifying
a ḴЬвЦЛШХТМḵΝ ЬЭКЭuЬΝ ПШЫΝ ЭСОΝ аКЫЫТШЫЬέΝ АСТХОΝ ЭСОЬОΝ СОХЦОЭЬΝ КppОКЫΝ СОКЯвΝ КЧНΝ uЧЬЭКЛХОΝ
in battlefield situations, more studies and reconstruction experiments are required to assess
the possible function(s) of these items. Mail in the Kulagysh plate is realistically depicted
showing these for neck and shoulder protection, reminiscent of the aforementioned mage
at the q-ОΝ BШЬЭ Ч capital. The Kulagysh mail is either attached/suspended from the rims
of the helmet or is worn underneath the helmet. The ШuЭХТЧОΝ ШПΝ ЛШЭСΝ аКЫЫТШЫЬ’Ν ПКМОЬΝ аШuХНΝ
suggest they have metallic face-masks mounted onto their helmets.
The Palace of Panjikent (7th-8th centuries CE) provides further information with
respect to its wall paintings from the reception hall VI-1 (Fig. 40) and VI-41 (Fig. 41). There
is a painting fragment depicting combat between two champions in reception hall VI-1 much
like Kulagysh. However the helmets at reception hall VI-1 are very different from Kulagysh.
The helmet of the left warrior of reception hall VI-1 is framed and of segmented construction
with various decorations and a finial at its top. There may be a possible lamellar chin-strap
for fastening. Mail is again seen protecting the neck and shoulders. The helmet of the right
warrior has a long nasal piece and (like his opponent) mail for protecting his neck
and shoulders.
The wall painting from reception hall VI-41 has a detailed depiction of lance combat,
with the warriors shown being the party experiencing defeat. All of the cavalry warriors have
pointed helmets of segmented construction with short nasal protection. One has a more
spherical ḴIraq Museum Spangenhelm ЭвpОḵΝ аТЭСΝ КΝ НТЬЭТЧМЭΝ pШТЧЭОНΝ ЭТpΝ ЭСКЭΝ КppОКЫЬΝ ЭШΝ ЛОΝ
different from the others in his party (possibly mounted or riveted at top). Two
of the warriors have mail covering the face like the armored knight at the Квv n
of q-ОΝBШЬЭ Чέ
Insignia and Decoration of Sasanian helmets
One of the distinguishing features of Sasanian helmets are their decorative
and symbolic designations. A common theme was the use of the Varanga ḴПОКЭСОЫḵΝ КЧНήШЫΝ
ḴЬМКХОḵΝ pКЭЭОЫЧΝ ЬТЦТХКЫΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ ТЦpЫТЧЭОНΝ pКЭЭОЫЧЬΝ ЬООЧΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭЬ housed
at the Metropolitan Museum of Art at the New York (Fig. 23), the Royal Museum of Art
and History in Brussels (Fig. 25) and the Iraq Museum. 53 Earlier proposals pointing towards
decorative patterns in Baldenheimer type Spangenhelm helmets and metalworks of Hun
52
53
NICOLLE, 1996: fig. 29.
GRANCSAY 1963; OVERLAET 1982; 1998: 286, fig. 168.
Page | 136
origin, suggested a more widespread Eurasian Shaman tradition for this motif.54
TСОΝ КМКНОЦТМΝ МШЧЬОЧЬuЬΝ СШаОЯОЫΝ СКЬΝ ЛООЧΝ ЬаКвОНΝ ЭШаКЫНЬΝ żСТЫЬСЦКЧ’ЬΝ pЫШpШЬКХΝ ЭСКЭΝ
the patterns represent the feathers of the mythological Iranian bird-god Varanga, itself
a manifestation of Verethragna.55 As noted by Overlaet, while possible that the motif could
have originated outside of Iran, this became highly integral to Sasanian culture as evidenced
in metal works, textile and stucco designs, especially by the late Sasanian era,56 which also
influenced Roman and later European arts.57 The motif certainly endured into the late
and early post-Sasanian era as evidenced by finds of Sasanian lappet-suspension swords
ТЧΝ ЧШЫЭСОЫЧΝ IЫКЧ’ЬΝ DКТХКЦΝ ЫОРТШЧέ58 These show the same ḴПОКЭСОЫήЬМКХОḵΝ pКЭЭОЫЧΝ КЬΝ ЬООЧΝ
in Sasanian helmets at the Royal Museum of Art and History in Brussels (Fig. Inv. IR. 1315),
ЭСОΝ RöЦТЬМСΝ żОЫЦКЧТЬМСОЬΝ εuЬОuЦΝ ТЧΝ εКТЧг,Ν żОЫЦКЧвΝ (Fig. 26) and the Los Angeles
County Museum of Art (Fig. 28).
Cloth panels were used to decorate Sasanian helmets such as the helmet from
the British Museum (Fig. 31), with the fabric having been attached to the helmet by weave,
stem- or back-stick techniques. This would suggest that a section of the Sasanian textile
industry coordinated its production facilities with the metalworks sector producing helmets.
The aim of such production was evidently to display insignia pertaining to military units,
ranks and/or possibly clan/family membership. One example of a crest is displayed on
ЭСОΝСОХЦОЭΝШПΝЭСОΝКПШЫОЦОЧЭТШЧОНΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝФЧТРСЭΝКЭΝŻ Ы г Л НΝ(ŻТРέΝκA)έΝIЧΝpЫКМЭТМОΝТЭΝаШuХНΝ
appear that the leaders of Sasanian clans in command of sp С units were variously
distinguished by their system of Neshan (insignia) (Fig. 42) and medallions displayed
on (ceremonial) headgear, helmets and/or Brahmag Artesharih (Middle Persian: military
dress/uniform).
Jalali has identified two distinct classes of symbols worn on the helmets and headgear
of leading commanders hailing from the upper nobility: Afa-Sar and M С -Sar.59 The old
Iranic term Sar (head) has survived in West Iranic (Persian, Kurdish, etc.) and Northeast
Iranic (Ossetian). Afa-Sar60 was essentially a sun-symbol worn on headgear (or helmet)
or possibly also pinned like a medallion upon the Brahmag e Artesharih61. Interestingly
the term Afa-Sar has experienced a lexical transformation resulting in its modern Persian
meaning as ḴτППТМОЫḵέΝTСОΝM С-Sar62 was a moon-symbol also worn on headgear or helmet
and/or possibly pinned upon the Brahmag e Artesharih.63
As noted by the British Museum Ḵthe combination of bronze, gilt, iron, silver
КЧНΝМХШЭСΝСТЧЭЬΝКЭΝЭСОΝЯТЬuКХΝЬpХОЧНШuЫΝШПΝЭСОΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝКЫЦвḵέΝTСuЬΝЭСОΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝМШЦЛТЧКЭТШЧΝ
of colors and motifs with helmets resulted in what Ammianus described as ḴGlittering
СОХЦОЭЬΝКЧНΝЛЫТЬЭХТЧРΝКЫЦШЫḵ64 ТЧΝЫОПОЫОЧМОΝЭШΝЭСОΝКЫЦШЫОНΝХКЧМОЫЬΝШПΝṣ puЫΝIIέΝIЧΝЭСТЬΝЫОРКЫН,Ν
Sasanian helmets were not just functional (for the battlefield) but also possibly intended
54
WERNER, 1956: 42, 45-46, 51-53, 69-81.
GHIRSHMAN, 1963: 310; Verethragna is the Zoroastrian god of victory.
56
OVERLAET 1998: 290.
57
FARROKH, 2016: 86-110.
58
OVERLAET, 1998: 267-297.
59
JALALI, 1383/2004: 56.
60
The term Aft-ab means sun in Modern Persian.
61
JALALI, 1383/2004: 56.
62
The term Mah means moon in Modern Persian.
63
JALALI, 1383/2004: 56.
64
Amm. Marc. XIX.2.5.
55
Page | 137
to convey a type of ranking and/or system of heraldry. This would be consistent with
the observation that the sp С was a military organization on par with its contemporary
Romano-Byzantine rivals characterized by a high degree of structural organization, discipline
and hierarchical ranking.
Concluding Notes
This study leads us to the conclusion that the Sasanian military constructed several
types of helmets from the known early 3rd century CE ridge helmet (2-piece) to the later
multi-segment systems of the 5th to 7th centuries CE housed in European and US museums
and auction houses. Examination of the iconography of Sasanian sites leads to questions as
to whether other types of helmets, such as the earlier Parthian-Seleucid types, had been built
as well. Another complicating factor is the restraint required when interpreting the function
of helmets as displayed in iconography, as it cannot be ascertained if these these were
ceremonial or functional (for battle).
Different helmets were possibly used in equipping units from different regions.
If this was the case, then there may have been possible local technological variations in each
ШПΝЭСОΝОЦpТЫО’ЬΝПШuЫΝНОПОЧЬОΝЫОРТШЧЬέΝŻШЫΝОбКЦpХО,ΝЭСОΝ kust э баКrЛ r n (Western districts)
facing the Romano-Byzantine frontiers most likely equipped their units with helmets
of the segmented and ridge types (including the conical ḴσТЧОЯОСḵΝ ЦШНОХЬ)έΝ
The kust э НurЛ НКР n (North/Northwest district)65 facing Trans-Caucasia most likely
equipped its troops with helmets closely similar to the kust э баКrЛ r n. The kust э баКr s n
(northeast district) facing Central Asia most likely deployed helmets with Sogdian
and Central Asian influences along with local variations of Spangenhelm, segmented type
designs. The kust n mrōг: (Southern, Southeast district) which also faced the Persian Gulf
most likely had helmets of the segmented, Spangenhelm and ridge types as seen
at the kust э баКrЛ r n, with perhaps a local ḴЬШuЭСОЫЧḵΝ ЯКЫТКЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ШЧО-piece type
(Fig. 35).66
Another issue to be addressed is the relatively large proportion of Sasanian helmets
ОбМКЯКЭОНΝ ТЧΝ IЫКq’ЬΝ σТЧОЯОСΝ ЫОРТШЧέΝ TСОЬОΝ ПТЧНЬΝ ЦКвΝ ЬuРРОЬЭΝ ЭСКЭΝ ЭСТЬΝ аКЬΝ КЧΝ ТЦpШЫЭКЧЭΝ
military region for the Sasanian Empire. As a key northern flank for the defense
of Ctesiphon, Nineveh was certainly a strategic location. The region was critical in defending
Iraqi Kurdistan against Roman-Byzantine thrusts emanating from Eastern Anatolia.
One example of this is the Battle of Nineveh (627 CE) fought between the sp С’ЬΝПШЫМОЬΝХОНΝ
by Razutis and Emperor Heraclius whose victory allowed him to advance towards Ctesiphon.
The use of cloths and ḴПОКЭСОЫήЬМКХОḵΝЦШЭТПЬΝЦКвΝЛОΝЬuРРОЬЭТЯОΝШПΝКΝЦКЫЭТКХΝЭЫКНТЭТШЧΝ
with a system of ranking and heraldry shared with a wider and older Iranic tradition.
This would link the Iranian realms of the Partho-Sasanians with regions as far west as Eastern
and Central Europe and also with Central Asia, Eurasia and Caucasia. One example of such
similarities discussed in this paper were motifs on copper helmets unearthed in ancient Dacia
КЧНΝЭСОТЫΝpКЫКХХОХЬΝаТЭСΝЭСШЬОΝОЯТНОЧЭΝКЭΝσКqš-e Rostam.
The term КЛ бtКr (north) was generally avoided because of its negative religious connotation;
MAKSYMIUK, 2015b: 194.
66
As noted previously, issues of assessment are pending, notably with respect to accurate dating of the
helmet excavated from the Persian Gulf.
65
Page | 138
More research is required on the impact of technology exchanges between the Iranian
realms and Eastern and Central Europe, Central Asia, Eurasia and Caucasia. Sasanian
military technology certainly did not remain static as evidenced for example
by the introduction of the lappet system for sword suspension by the late 5 th or
early 6th centuries CE, an innovation of Central Asian origins. An example of late Sasanian
helmet technology is seen at the vault in q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝТЧНТМКЭТЧРΝЭСКЭΝЭСОΝНОЬТРЧОЫЬΝХШШФОНΝ
for ways at improving protection for the head and neck. Parallels in turn can be seen between
the same q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝСОХЦОЭΝКЧНΝЭСШЬОΝТЧΝЭСОΝХКЭОЫΝVТФТЧРΝЬТЭОЬΝШПΝVКХЬРКЫНОΝКЧНΝVОЧНОХέ
A fundamental challenge is the current limitation in research pertaining to Parthian
helmets. Another issue is the lack of finds of actual Parthian helmets inside Iran. For the one
actual helmet identified as ḴPКЫЭСТКЧḵΝЛвΝЭСОΝIЫКЧΝBКЬЭКЧΝεuЬОuЦΝ(ŻТРέΝńA),ΝquОЬЭТШЧЬΝМКЧΝЛОΝ
raised as to whether this sample is unambiguously Parthian. With respect to Sasanian
militaria, limited inventories of helmets are available but these are (excepting the Persian
Gulf sample) primarily confined to the Western and Northern regions of the Sasanian Empire.
Further archaeological expeditions are warranted in regions such as Northern Iran
(i.e. Dailam), Western Iran (i.e. Panj Ali), Khuzestan-Elam (i.e. Andika), Northern Iraq,
and Dura Europos.
There is also a need to reconstruct helmets for testing in simulated battlefield
situations (i.e. capacity to endure blows by swords, maces, etc.). These reconstructions would
need to utilize materials originally used (bronze, silver, iron) in the correct thickness,67
meaning that such projects would need to be closely coordinated with museums housing
Sasanian helmets. The helmet reconstructions can then be tested in simulated combat
scenarios by military historians in consultation with applied scientists (engineers, applied
physicists, etc.).
Bibliography
Sources
Ammianus Marcellinus, The later Roman Empire, tr. W. HAMILTON, London 1986.
Dinawari, Abu Hanifa, Akhbar al Tawaal. ed. V. DE GUIRGASS, Leiden 1888.
Heliodorus, Aethiopica, ed. R.M. RATTENBURY, T.W. LUMB, Paris 1960.
КЛКЫ ,,Ν AЛuΝ JККПКЫΝ εШСКЦЦКНΝ ЛТЧΝ JКЫТЫ,Ν Tarikh al Rasl ol Molook, ed. M.J. DE GOEJE, Leiden
1879-1901.
Literature
AHMAD, S.N. (2015), A nОа SКsКnТКn СОlmОt Тn tСО MusОО НˀArt ClКssТquО НО MouРТns, „Historia
ТΝ аТКЭḵΝζ,Νńγη-156.
ALLAN, J.W. (1986), Armor, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 2Ṭ5, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York,
483-489.
AYVAZYAN, A. (2012), The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire.: Conflict and Alliance
under Justinian and Maurice, Paris-Yerevan.
67
While current reconstructions provide visually similar models that closely resemble ancient Sasanian
helmets, these have not adhered exactly to the original materials used and the thickness of these.
Page | 139
AZARPAY, G. (1981), Sogdian Painting: The Pictorial Epic in Oriental Art, Berkely.
BAUMER, C. (2012), The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Steppe Warriors, London-New
York.
BIVAR, A.D.H. (1972), Cavalry equipment and tactics on the Euphrates frontier,Ν „DuЦЛОЫЭШЧΝ τКФΝ
PКpОЫЬḵΝβθ,Νβιγ-291.
BROGAN, O. (1936), Trade between the Roman Empire and the Free Germans, „TСОΝ JШuЫЧКХΝ
ШПΝRШЦКЧΝSЭuНТОЬḵΝβθ.2, 195-222.
BROWN, F.E. (1936), Arms and Armour [in:] Excavations at Dura-Europos, Premilinary Report
of Sixth Sezon of Work, October 1932- March 1933, M. I. ROSTOVTZEFF (ed.), New Haven,
440-457.
CERETI, C.G., MORADI, Y., NASROLLAHZADEH, C. (2011). A МollОМtТon oП SКsКnТКn МlКв
sОКlТnРs prОsОrvОН Тn tСО TКkТвК-О Mo vОn Кl-Molk of Kermanshah, [in:] Monografie
di Mesopotamia, XIV, C. LIPPOLIS, S. DE MARTINO (eds.), Firenze, 209-236.
CHRISTENSEN, A. (1907), LˀEmpТrО НОs SКssКnТНОsṬ LО PОuplО, LˀEtКt, La Cour, Copenhague.
COLLEDGE, M.A.R. (1977), Parthian Art., London.
DARYAEE, T., SAFARDI, K. (2012). A Bulla of the Eran-Spahbed of Nemroz, [in:] Namvarnameh:
Papers in Honour of Massoud Azarnoush, H. FAHMI, K. ALIZADEH (eds.), Tehran, 153-162.
FARROKH, K. (2005). Elite Sassanian Cavalry 224-651 AD, Oxford.
FARROKH, K. (2007). Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Oxford.
FARROKH, K. (2016). An Overview of the Artistic, Architectural, Engineering and Culinary
exchanges between Ancient Iran and the Greco-Roman World, „AGON: Rivista Internazionale
di Studi Culturali, Linguistici e Letterariḵ 7, 64-124.
FARROKH, K., KARAMIAN, G., DELFAN, M., ASTARAKI, F. (2016). Preliminary reports
of the late Parthian or early Sassanian relief at Panj-e Ali, the Parthian relief at Andika
and examinations of late Parthian swords and daggers, „HТЬЭШЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵΝ5, 31-55.
FRYE, R.N. (1984), The History of Ancient Iran, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft Dritte
Abteilung, Siebenter Teil, Munich.
FUKAI, SH., HORIUCHI, K. (1984), Taq-i Bustan IV, Tokyo.
GALL VON, H. (1990), Das Reiterkampf bild in der Iranischen und Iranisch beeinflussten Kunst
Parthischer und Sasanidischer Zeit, Berlin.
GHIRSHMAN, R. (1962), Iran, Parthians and Sassanians, London.
GHIRSHMAN, R. (1963), Perse. Proto-ТrКnТОns, MчНОs, AМСцmцnТНОs, Paris.
GRANCSAY, S.V. (1963), A SasaniКn CСТОПtКТnˀs HОlmОt, „Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum
of ArtsḵΝ21, 253-262.
GREENEWALT, C.H. Jr., HEYWOOD, A.M. (1992), A helmet of the 6th century B.C. from Sardis,
„Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchḵΝ285, 1-31.
HALL, H.R. (1928), Babylnian and Assyrian sculpture in The British Museum, Paris-Brussels.
HERRMANN, G. (1989), Parthian and Sassanian saddlery: New Light from the Roman West, [in:]
Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis: Miscellania in Honorem Louis Vanden Berge, L. DR MEYER,
E. HAERINCK (eds.), Gent, 757-809.
HERRMANN, G., HOWELL, R. (1977), Naqsh-i Rustam 5 and 8: Sasanian reliefs attributed
to Hormuzd II and Narseh, Berlin.
HILDIGER, E. (2009), Warriors Of The Steppe: Military History Of Central Asia, 500 BC
To 1700 AD, Cambridge.
INVERNIZZI, A. (1999), Sculpture di Metallo da Nisa: Cultura Greca e Cultura Iranica in Partia,
Leiden.
JALALI, I. (1383/2004), Arteshe Iran dar Asre Sassanian [The Army of Iran during/in the Sassanian
Era], Kerman.
JAMES, S.T. (1986), Evidence from Dura Europos for the origins of late Roman helmets, „Syriaḵ 63.
1/2, 107-134.
KHORASANI, M.M. (2006), Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar
Period, TüЛТЧРОЧ.
KUBIK, A.L. (2016), Introduction to studies on late Sasanian protective armour. The Yarysh-Mardy
helmet, „HТЬЭШЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵΝη,Νιι-105.
Page | 140
LITVINSKY, B.A. (2003). Helmet i: In Pre-Islamic Iran, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, vol. 12.2,
E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 176-180.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2015a), Geography of Roman-Iranian wars: military operations of Rome
and Sasanian Iran, Siedlce.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2015b), TСО PКrtСТКn noЛТlТtв Тn Бusrō I Anōš rv n Мourt, [in:] Elites
in the Ancient World, V. 2, D. OKτ , P. BRIKS (eds.), Szczecin, 189-198.
MIELCZAREK, M. (1993), Cataphracti and Clibanarii: Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry
of the Ancient World. Łяdz.
MIKS, CH. (2009), RОlТktО ОТnОs ПrüСmТttОlКltОrlТМСОn OЛОrsМСТМСtРrКЛОs?, „JКСЫЛuМСΝ НОЬΝ RöЦТЬМСżОЫЦКЧТЬМСОЧΝГОЧЭЫКХЦuЬОuЦΝεКТЧгḵ,Νηθ,Νγλη-538.
NICOLLE, D. (1996), Sassanian Armies: The Iranian Empire early 3rd to mid-7th centuries AD,
Stockport.
NICOLLE, D. (1999), Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050-1350, Vol. 2: Islam, Eastern
Europe and Asia, London.
NIKONOROV, V.P. (1997), Armies of Bactria 700 BC - 450 AD, Vol. 2, Stockport.
NIKONOROV, V.P. (2005), K voprosu o PКrП Кnskom nКslОНТТ v SКsКnТНskom IrКnОŚ voОnnoО НОlo,
[in:] TsОntrКl ʿnКТК AгТТК ot AkСОmОnТНov Нo TТmurТНovŚ ArkСОoloРТТК, IstorТТК, EtnoloРТТК, KulˀturК,
V.P. NIKONOROV (ed.), Saint Petersburg, 141-182.
OLBRYCHT, M.J. (2016), Dynastic connections in the Arsacid Empire and the Origins of the house
of Sasan, [in:] The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion, Proceedings
of a Conference held in Vienna, 14-16 June 2012, V.S. CURTIS, E. J. PENDELTON, M. ALRAM,
T. DARYAEE (eds.), Oxford-Philadelfia, 23-35.
OVERLAET, B. (1979), Pointed helmets of the Iron Age from Iran,Ν„IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТqКḵ,Νńζ,Νηń-69.
OVERLAET, B. (1982), Contribution to Sasanian armament in connection with a decorated helmet,
„IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТquКḵ,Νńζ,Νńκλ-301.
OVERLAET, B. (1998), Regalia of the Ruling Classes in Late Sasanian Times: the Riggisberg Strap
MountТnРs, SаorНs КnН ArМСОrˀs FТnРОrМКps, [in:] Fruhmittelalterliche Kunst Zwischen Persien
und China in der Abegg-Stiftung, K. OVTAVSKY (ed.), Riggisberg, 267-297.
OVERLAET, B. (2013), And man created God? Kings, Priests and Gods on Sasanian investiture
reliefs,Ν„IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТquКḵ,Νζκ,Νγńγ-354.
PETERSON, D. (1992), The Roman Legions Recreated in Color Photographs, London.
PILIPKO, V.N. (1994), Excavations of Staraia Nisa,Ν„BuХХОЭТЧΝШПΝЭСОΝAЬТКЧΝIЧЬЭТЭuЭОḵ,ΝσέSέΝκ,Νńίń-116.
PILIPKO, V.N. (2006), Arms and Armours from Old Nisa, [in:] Nomaden und Sesshafte, 4, Arms
and Armour as Indications of Cultural Transfer, M. MODE, J. TUBAH (eds.), Wiesbaden, 259-294.
POURSHARIATI, P. (2008), Decline and Fall of the Sassanian Empire: The Sasanian-Parthian
Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran, London-New York.
RADIUSH, O.A. (2014), ŠlОmв ОpoСТ pОrОsОlОnТс nКroНov Тг poНnОprovˀс, [In:] Voinskie TrКНТčТТ
v ArСКОoloРТčОskom KontОkstОŚ ot poгНnОРo lКtОnК Нo poгНnОРo srОНnОvОkovˀс, I.G. BURCHEV (ed.),
Tula, 40-51.
RAPIN, C. (2002). Greece viii. Greek Art in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Northwest India, [in:]
EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, vol. 11.3, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 333-336 & EnМвМlopæНТК
Iranica, vol. 11.4, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York,, 337-339.
ROBINSON, H.R. (1975), The Armour of Imperial Rome, London.
ROSTOVTZEFF, M.I. (1933). The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary Report of the Fourth
Season of Work, New Haven.
SCHNEIDER, R.F. (2007). Friend and foe: the Orient in Rome, [in:] The Age of the Parthians,
V.S. CURTIS, S. STEWARD (eds.), London, 51-86.
SHAHBAZI, SH. (1986), Army i. pre-Islamic Iran, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, vol. 2.5,
E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 489-499.
SYMONENKO, A.V. (2009), SКrmКtskТО vsКНnТkТ SОvОrnoРo PrТМСОrnomor' К, Kiev.
TAFAZZOLI, A. (1993). A list of terms for weapons and armour in Western Middle Iranian, „Silk
Road Art and Archeologyḵ 3, 187-198.
THOMPSON, R., HAMILTON, R.W. (1932), The British Museum Excavations on the Temple
of Ishtar at Nineveh, 1930-1931, „Liverpool Annals of Art and Archaeologyḵ 19, 55-116.
Page | 141
TOFIGHIAN, H., NADOOSHAN, F. KH., MOUSAVI, S. M. (2011). Sasanians in the Persian Gulf
according to archaeological data, „Sasanika Archaeologyḵ 4, 1-5 [http://www.sasanika.org/wpcontent/uploads/sas-arch211.pdf; (accessed September 12, 2016)].
VANDEN BERGHE, L. (1983), RОlТОПs rupОstrОs НО lˀIr n КnМТОnt, Bruxelles.
WERNET, J. (1956), BОТЭЫтРОΝгuЫΝAЫМСтШХШРТОΝНОЬΝAЭЭТХК-Reiches. Munich.
WILCOX, P. (1999), RomОˀs EnОmТОs (3)Ś PКrtСТКns КnН SКsКnТН PОrsТКns. Oxford.
АÓJCIKτАSKI, R.S. (2013). The Graffito From Dura Europos. Hybrid Armor in Parthian-Sasanian
Iran, „Anabasis: Studia Classica et Orientaliaḵ 4, 233-248.
Page | 142
Picture Captions
Fig. 1. [A] Helmet identified as Parthian in the Iran Bastan Museum, inv. no. 4461, (photo by
G. Karamian), [B] Assyrian helmet dated to the 8th-7th centuries BCE, Hermann-Historica, [C] Stelle
of Ashur-Nasir-Pal, Nimrud, (after: Hall, 1928: pl. XIII), [D] War relief of Tiglath-Pileser, Nimrud,
(after: Hall, 1928: pl. XXV). See also: OVERLAET, 1979.
Page | 143
Fig. 2. Flat fired clay perforated plaque showing in low moulded relief a heavily armoured horseman
(cataphract) wearing scale or lamellar armour and a ḴМШКХΝЬФuЭЭХОḵΝСОХЦОЭ,ΝЬpОКЫТЧРΝКΝХТШЧ,ΝSОХОuМТНΝ(ς),Ν
Parthian (?), 3rd century BCE-2nd century CE, British Museum inv. no. λńλίκ,Ν ©Ν TСОΝ TЫuЬЭООЬΝ
of the British Museum.
Fig. 3. From the left: Close-up of the headgear of possibly Mithradates (Mehrdad) I, (r. 165-132 BCE),
at the Khong-e Azhdar relief, (after: Vanden Berghe, 1983: fig. 12), Silver tetradrachm, head
of Mithradates (Mehrdad) I, British Museum inv. no. 1891,0603.2,Ν ©Ν TСОΝ TЫuЬЭООЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ BЫТЭТЬСΝ
Museum.
Page | 144
Fig. 4. Parthian helmet from Old Nisa Turkmenistan, 2nd century-1st century BCE, from the left (after:
Pilipko, 1994: fig. 7), from the right (after: Pilipko, 2006: fig. 17).
Fig. 5. Helmeted head of a Saka (?) warrior as depicted in the 1 st century BCE Khalchayan sculptures,
(after: Nikonorov, 1997: fig. 30.a).
Page | 145
Fig. 6. So called Parthian helmet as depicted on the Marcus Aurelius column, in Piazza Colonna,
Rome, Italy, (drawing by L. Rocceggiani, 1802).
Fig. 7. Helmet identified as Dacian from the Trajan Column, (photo courtesy Ch. Miks).
Page | 146
Fig. 8. Left panel of Ż Ы г Л Н battle of 224 CE, (photo: Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1971);
Drawings and slide design: K. Farrokh, 2016, [A] Early Sassanian helmet or felt cover (?), [B] Late
Parthian helmet; [C] Helmet identified as Dacian from the Trajan relief, (photo courtesy Ch. Miks).
Fig. 9. The Panj Ali motif, (photo and drawing by G. Karamian).
Page | 147
Fig. 10. Depiction of Iranian-type cavalry at Dura Europos, (after: Robinson, 1975: fig. 190).
Fig. 11. Sasanian ridge-helmet, mid. 3rd century CE, Yale-French Excavations at Dura-Europos, Yale
University Art Gallery, inv. no. 1938.5999.1000.
Page | 148
Fig. 12. Hormozd II (r. 303-309 CE) unhorses his enemy with lance; note outlined head and headgear
ШПΝHШЫЦШгН’ЬΝuЧСШЫЬОНΝopponent, (photo by J. Chamanara)έΝTСОΝМШЦpШЬТЭТШЧΝШПΝHШЫЦШгНΝII’ЬΝУШuЬЭТЧРΝ
scene is evidently derived from that of his great-РЫКЧНПКЭСОЫΝAЫНКš ЫΝIΝКЭΝŻ Ы г Л Нέ
Fig. 13. Iranian (?) Brass helmet, 1st-3rd centuries CE of the Kedaris type, Boston Museum of Fine
Arts, Sculpture in Stone and Bronze (MFA), no. 120, acc. no.1979.41.
Page | 149
Fig. 14. Late 2nd century CE stone relief from Koblenz depicting a Parthian man wearing either
a Phrygian cap without ear-flaps or a Kedaris, Rheinisches Landmuseum, Trier, (after: Schneider,
2007:59, fig. 7).
Fig. 15. BКСЫ ЦΝII (r. 273-276 CE) with large sword surrounded by an audience of nobles at σКqš-e
Rostam, (photo by J. Chamanara). Second and third to the left of BКСЫ ЦΝ stand noblemen wearing
headgear with leonine and simurgh bulbous fronts respectively. First and second to the right of BКСЫ ЦΝ
stand noblemen wearing Kedaris-shaped headgear without the bulbous feature at front.
Page | 150
Fig. 16. Helmet from Ostrov, 2nd century CE, Romania, Museum of National History & Archaeology,
Constanta, Romania, [B] Dacian (?) helmet, 2nd century CE, Musee Н’AЫЭΝ CХКЬЬТquОΝ НОΝ εШuРТЧЬ,Ν
MACM, [C] Close-up of noblemen at left of BКСЫ ЦΝ II at σКqš-e Rostam in the 3rd Century CE,
(photo by J. Chamanara), [D] Late Sassanian gold sheeted sword, British Museum inv. no. 135738,
©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝBЫТЭТЬСΝεuЬОuЦέ
Fig. 17. Silver drachm, Bust of ṣ puЫΝ I, 240 CE, British Museum inv. no. 1848,0803.240,
©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝBЫТЭТЬСΝεuЬОuЦ.
Page | 151
Fig. 18. [A-B] Yazata entities at the top of the archway entrance into the vault or Квv n
at q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч, (photo by J. Chamanara), [C] Nike figure with wreath at cheek-piece of Dacian (?)
helmet, 2nd МОЧЭuЫвΝCź,ΝεuЬООΝН’AЫЭΝCХКЬЬТquОΝНОΝεШuРТЧЬ,ΝεACεέ
Fig. 19. Iranian belt buckle discovered in Germany with Parthian Pahlavi script, Wiesbaden Museum,
Germany. This was discovered alongside a coin of the Emperor Valens, 364-378 CE.
Page | 152
Fig. 20, 21. From the left: Three Sasanian warriors with what appear to be mail or textile coifs
at B š p Ы, Tang-e Showgan section, ḴpЫКвТЧРΝ ФЧТРСЭḵΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЭЫТuЦpСΝ ЬМОЧОΝ ШПΝ ṣ puЫΝ I at σКqš-e
Rostam, (photo by M. Moradi).
Fig. 22. ḴParade of ṣ puЫΝ IḵΝ pКЧОХΝ КЭΝ σКqš-e Rajab commemorating the victories of ṣ puЫΝ I over
Roman forces, (after: Flandin, Coste, 1843-1854, t. 4, pl. 191).
Page | 153
Fig. 23. Mesopotamian or Iranian cross-bandhelmet, Rogers Fund, 1962, dated by the museum
to the 4th century CE (6th centur CE?), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no. 62.82.
Fig. 24. Sasanian cross-bandhelmet, dated to the 4th-5th century CE (6th-7th century CE?), Gorny &
Mosch GmbH, Gallery in Munich for purchase & sale of coins, medals and ancient artifacts and arts,
Number 88.
Page | 154
Fig. 25. Sasanian cross-bandhelmet, dated to the late 6th-early 7th century CE, possibly discovered
at Cheragh-Ali Tappeh, Iran, Royal Museum of Art and History, Brussels, inv. no. IR.1315, (after:
Overlaet, 1998:fig. 168).
Fig. 26. Sasanian cross-bandhelmet, dated to the 6th-7th century CE,ΝRöЦТЬМСΝżОЫЦКЧТЬМСОЬΝεuЬОuЦ,Ν
Mainz, Germany, Inv. O. 38823, from the left (after: Skupniewicz, 2007: fig. 1.3); Helmet from
Luristan, 9th-7th century BCE, Bonhams, from the right.
Page | 155
Fig. 27. Sasanian cross-bandhelmet, late 6th-early 7th century CE, Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
Hammer Building, floor 3, LACMA inv. no. M.76.174.149, (after: Overlaet, 1982: fig. 4.b).
Fig. 28. Iron and copper alloy Spangenhelmet with remains of iron ring-mail neck-guard, discovered
ТЧΝIЫКq’ЬΝσТЧОЯОСΝЫОРТШЧ,ΝBritish Museum inv. no. ββζλη,Ν©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝthe British Museum.
Page | 156
Fig. 29. Helmet of the Turco-Iranian/Central Asian type, 6th-8th centuries CE, Nasser Khalili
Collection, (after: Kubik, 2016: fig. 5).
Fig. 30. Sasanian cross-bandhelmet with ḴSpade-ХТФОḵΝЬОРЦОЧЭЬ,ΝНТЬМШЯОЫОНΝТЧΝIЫКq’ЬΝσТЧОЯОСΝЫОРТon,
British Museum inv. no. ββζλι,Ν©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝBЫТЭТЬСΝεuЬОuЦ.
Page | 157
Fig. 31. Sasanian cross-ЛКЧНСОХЦОЭ,Ν НТЬМШЯОЫОНΝ ТЧΝ IЫКq’ЬΝ σТЧОЯОСΝ ЫОРТШЧ,Ν British Museum inv. no.
ββζλι,Ν©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝBЫТЭТЬСΝεuЬОuЦέ
Fig. 32. [A] Sasanian cross-bandhelmet helmet, dated to the 6th century CE discovered at the Temple
of IšЭКЫ in Nineveh, northern Iraq, Iraq Museum, Baghdad, [B] close-up of ḴVarangaḵΝ
or feather/palmette pattern on sheath of late Sasanian sword, North Iran, (after: Overlaet, 1998:
pl. 5.b).
Page | 158
Fig 33. Sasanian or post-SКЬКЧТКЧ(ς)ΝЛКЧНΝСОХЦОЭ,ΝεuЬООΝН’AЫЭΝCХКЬЬТquОΝНОΝεШuРТЧЬ,Ν(КПЭОЫμΝAСЦКН,Ν
2015: fig. 1).
Fig. 34. One piece Sasanian or post-Sasanian(?) helmet, (after: Tofighian, Khademi, Mousavi, 2011:
fig. 3).
Page | 159
Fig. 35. Partly damaged clay bulla featuring a signet ring impression of the head of a Sasanian
nobleman and/or sp СЛОН, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, acc. nr. 1985.24.
Fig. 36. Bulla from the ЭЫОКЬuЫвΝШПΝЭСОΝTКФТвК-ОΝεШ ЯОЧΝКХ-Molk that reads: ḴАТЬЭКбЦΝ ΝСКг ЫЛОНΝuНΝ
СuУКНКР-HuЬЫКаΝ аuгuЫРΝ Ы ЧΝ ФuЬЭΝ Ν БаКЫ Ы ЧΝ Ьp СЛОНḵ,Ν АТЬЭКбЦΝ ЭСОΝ СКг ЫЛОНΝ КЧНΝ Ḵwell omened
СuЬЫКаḵ,Ν РЫКЧНОО,Ν РОЧОЫКХΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ quКЫЭОЫήЫОРТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ аОЬЭΝ ШПΝ IЫКЧ,Ν (КПЭОЫμΝ CОЫОЭТ,Ν εШЫКНТ,Ν
Narsollazadeh, 2011: 211, fig. 1).
Page | 160
Fig. 37. Bulla from the private collection of A. Saeedi which reads: ḴOhrmazd wuzurg Eran kust i
ЧОЦέέг…КЭΝ ЬpКСЛОНḵ, Ohrmazd, the grandee, Eran-Spahbed of the quarter of the southeast], (after:
Daryaee, Safardi, 2012: fig. 1).
Fig. 38. The Mage of БuЬЫōΝIIΝПЫШЦΝЭСОΝМКpТЭКХЬΝШПΝTaq-i-Bostan, (photo by J. Yousefi).
Page | 161
Fig. 39. Late Sasanian armored horseman in the interior of the vault or Квv n at Taq-i-Bostan, (photo
by J. Yousefi. inset: S. Mahabadi, 2003).
Fig. 40. Drawing of Panjekent wall painting, Reception Hall VI.1, (after: Nicolle, 1996: 60, fig. B).
Page | 162
Fig. 41. Drawing of Panjekent wall painting, Reception Hall VI.41, (after: Nicolle, 1996: 60, fig. C).
Fig. 42. SКЬКЧТКЧΝσОЬСКЧμΝ(ń)ΝAЫНКš ЫΝIΝКЭΝ Ż Ы г Л Н (2) unknown Sasanian clan or military unit (3)
Unknown Sasanian knight at Ż Ы г Л Н (4-5) unknown Sasanian clans or military units (after:
Christensen, 1907: 90) (6) AЫНКЯ ЧΝat Ż Ы г Л Н (7) ṣ puЫΝI at Ż Ы г Л Н (8) Xwar (sun) disc seen on
flagpoles and swords (9) Nobleman with BКСЫ ЦΝII at σКqš-e Rostam (10) unknown Sasanian clan or
military unit (after: Christensen, 1907: 90) (11) Hormozd II (12) Zoroastrian symbol of possible
Mithraic origin (13) ṣ puЫΝI, (drawing by K. Farrokh).
Page | 163
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
IХФФКΝSВVиσσź (University of Haifa, Israel)
A Note on the Methodology regarding the Reconstruction
of the Late Roman Helmets in Art, Archaeology
and Analysis
Abstract
The article seeks to give a general overview of the current state of research regarding the late
Roman helmets as seen by “КЧΝ ШuЭЬТНОЫḵ,Ν КΝ ЦТХТЭКЫвΝ СТЬЭШЫТКЧέΝ TСОΝ КЫЭТМХОΝ pЫШЯТНОЬΝ КΝ ЬuЦЦКЫвΝ
of the methodology used in the reconstruction of equipment and suggests that this quite sound
methodology has not been followed in practice in the analysis of the late Roman helmets because
archaeology has been given a place of preference over all other forms of evidence. The article argues
that there were far more varieties in helmets than is usually accepted for the late Roman period and that
we should really pay more attention to the representative evidence than is usually done. It also suggests
that the late Romans modified their traditional helmets to conform to the newer construction
techniques.
Keywords: helmet, Late Roman, military equipment
Current State of Methodology used in the Reconstruction of Late Roman helmets
The sources for the reconstruction of Roman military equipment are usually divided
into following categories1
a) Representational evidence (propaganda sculpture, funerary monuments, minor works,
misc., and non-Roman sculpture).
b) Archaeological evidence (hoards, water deposits and votive offerings, burials, excavation,
reconstruction archaeology and re-enactment).
c) Documentary evidence (literary sources, sub-literary sources like papyri and tablets,
epigraphy).
Each of these three types of sources is then analyzed according to its own specific
methodology, each of which has its own place and own special demands, but at the same time
the separation of these classes of sources into separate fields of research has resulted
in a number of problems. The main problem is that the methodology which is summarized
above and is basically sound is not being followed up in practice by most
1
ilkkasyvanne@yahoo.com
BISHOP, COULSTON, 2006: 1-47; ŻźUżÈRź, 1993/2002: 19-36, 183ff.
Page | 165
of the archaeologists and historians.2 When one reads the research literature devoted
to the subject of late Roman helmets, it becomes quite clear that in practice archaeological
evidence has been given the right of a veto over the other sources! In practice, it is only when
there does not exist archaeological evidence to counter the other sources that the works of art
etc. are accepted as valid sources for the late Roman period. On top of this, the analysis
of the works of arts suffers from additional methodological problems arising from
the pre-conceived assumptions regarding the evidence.
At the root of the problem there appear to be four modern phenomena. Firstly, it is
nowadays all too common for the art historians, numismatists, archaeologists and military
historians to conduct their work separately from each other, which means that there is not
enough cross-pollination between these different groups of people because they work
separately from each other in their own departments. Secondly, and equally importantly,
the interpretation provided by the archaeologists (which does not take fully into account
the works of art etc. thanks to the fact that they do not in practice follow the methodology
given above when treating the helmets) has become predominant in the field thanks to their
numerous publications and thanks to the influence of the re-enactors and wargamers. Thirdly,
the authors who are not archaeologists themselves (mainly historians, military historians,
art historians) are being forced to cater to the wishes of their audience by the commercial
publishers so that the works of art accompanying their studies perpetuate the interpretation
provided by the archaeologists. To a certain extent the same is also true of the academic
publishing in which it is difficult to get dissenting views published thanks to the practice
of peer reviewing. Fourthly, the research is being conducted in several different countries
with different languages which set limits to the spreading of new ideas and findings.
The problem is at least partially true for the entire Roman history because it is far too
typical for the historians/archaeologists to synthesize the evidence so that they represent
an overly simplified picture of the reality which is based on a limited body of evidence.
In truth, there was always more variety in equipment in the Roman armed forces than is
generally accepted thanks to the fact that the Romans employed foreign tribesmen
and soldiers as auxiliary forces and used captured equipment. However, the problem is even
worse for the late Roman period. It is this period that has been dominated by a single school
of thought, which is the British School of thought that is almost solely based on the limited
number of archaeological finds. The only good thing about this is that the latest
archaeological finds, of which the best example are the fourth century finds of so-called
2
In the following discussion most of the examples of this trend are taken from BISHOP, COULSTON
(2006: 208-209) because their work is the standard work (and the best overall treatment)
on the subject. This is to a certain extent unfair, because they usually follow the methodology that is
presented at the beginning of the book so that the works of art and literary sources are given equal
footing with the archaeological finds. A good example of this is their analysis of the types of armour
used during the late Roman period. The only problem is that this methodology/approach is not
followed in the analysis of the late Roman helmets (and shields), but my guess is that this will be
changed in the third edition of the book – and I hope that a third edition will follow in due course
of time. It should still be remembered that the book is a synthesis of the current consensus opinion
among the historians and archaeologists and it is because of this that the late Roman helmets
and shields are given a different treatment. My own educated guess is that the treatment of these items
is different thanks to the mistakes made in the very beginning of the English School so that every
historian/archaeologists after that has followed the same approach without paying adequate attention
to the inadequacies of this approach with the result that the synthesis of these opinions is equally
distorted.
Page | 166
lorica segmentata, are finally forcing the members of this school to start paying more
attention to the evidence provided by the works of art and also to the methodology presented
above.
Most of the research done on the late Roman military equipment has been done
by the archaeologists with the result that the re-enactors, artists, wargamers and other military
enthusiasts rely almost solely on these – we should not forget that some of these enthusiasts
then go on to write studies based on these and on their own re-enacting experience.3 On top
of this, most of the re-enactors, wargamers and military enthusiasts do not usually question
the evidence nor the methodology behind the analyses they read, but follow the consensus
view or the fashionable view, and this phenomenon is not entirely unknown to the academics.
They are equally prone to follow the fashionable view in their effort to fit in so that
they would obtain research grants and jobs. However, they are still in general better equipped
than the average military enthusiasts to recognize that there are no certain truths in research.
The problem with this is that commercial publishing seeks to cater to the views of this
amateur audience so that most of the published works seek to reaffirm the pre-conceived
ideas of this audience. The same is true also for most of the academic publishers. On top
of that, the peer reviewing of the material can sometimes result in the perpetuation of old
misunderstandings and false interpretations because humans are by nature prone
to disapprove automatically new ideas that challenge the accepted truths. I do not have any
solution to this problem, because peer reviewing is still needed and for example I have acted
as a peer reviewer for two publications and have been asked to do the same for others.
All that one can say regarding the peer reviewing process is that one hopes that all reviewers
would adopt an open-minded approach when they read the materials.
In addition to this, as noted above, the interpretation and views of the so-called
British School have achieved a dominant position among the archaeologists despite the fact
that very important (and all too often overlooked) research is being conducted also elsewhere.
This is related to the fourth problem I give above. It is largely thanks to the dominance
of the English language that this is the case. Most of the people understand English, but not
necessarily the Slavic or other languages. This problem is particularly relevant when
one remembers that the commercial publishers of military history do take into account
the expectations of their audience, which include very large numbers re-enactors
and wargamers.
It should be noted, however, that despite the dominance of the British School, there
are also some researchers who have not fallen victim to its methodology who include for
ОбКЦpХОΝRКППКОХОΝD’AЦКЭШ, David Nicolle and Andrei Negin who appear to give works of art
equal footing with archaeology in their analyses.
In addition to this, it is largely thanks to the lack of archaeological finds that we find
researchers of the so-called Byzantine era (c. 500-1500) to rely more on the works of art
3
This does not mean that I would not appreciate the efforts of the re-enactors, wargamers and others.
It is thanks to their practical experimenting and studies that a lot of new findings have been made.
What I am stating here is that some of them have too strict and indoctrinated views regarding
the evidence mainly thanks to the fact that they rely on acknowledged authors who are not always
right. Furthermore, this statement should not be taken to mean all of the enthusiasts. There are true
experts among them who are also quite open-minded regarding new ideas. I have met quite a few
of them over the years and it is thanks to their insightful comments that I have changed or corrected
my own views on occasion as can be witnessed from the forthcoming books of mine.
Page | 167
and literary sources. Similarly, there is a clear tendency among the Italians (note e.g.
D’AЦКЭШ),Ν аСШΝ ЬТЦТХКЫХвΝ ХКМФΝ КЫМСОШХШРТМКХΝ ПТЧНЬ,Ν ЭШΝ ЫОХвΝ ЦШЫОΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ аШЫФЬΝ ШПΝ КЫЭΝ КЧНΝ
literary sources for the early Empire up to the third century, but even some of the Italians
seem to discard this representational evidence when they describe the late Roman evidence.
AΝ РШШНΝ ОбКЦpХОΝ ШПΝ ЭСТЬΝ ТЬΝ εКЭЭОЬТЧТ’ЬΝ ЬЭuНвΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ RШЦКЧΝ ОquТpЦОЧЭέΝ HОΝ ТЬΝ quТЭОΝ ЫОКНвΝ
to accept the works of art as sources of evidence for the 1st to the 3rd century, but still follows
the standard British School methodology when he reconstructs the late Roman soldiers
on the page of 212 at the same time as he is quite ready to accept that the Praetorians used
those fancy Attic helmets. The late Roman helmets depicted on that page are the ridge
helmets of Intercisa and Berkasovo type. Regardless, I still recommend the reading of his
work for the many good illustrations and reconstructions it has.
I argue here that we should not discard the representative and literary evidence
for the late Roman period as is done all too often by those who follow the so-called British
School of thought contrary to their own methodology. In this article I will concentrate solely
on the representational evidence, which has all too often been discarded solely on the basis
of the following two pre-conceived ideas.4
a) Firstly, it is assumed that the conventions of art have resulted in serious falsification
of the evidence usually for propaganda purposes. In truth, this is an assumption that has to be
tested each and should not be taken for granted.
b) Secondly, it is all too often assumed that if there is no archaeological evidence
for a piece of equipment mentioned by a text or represented in a work of art that it cannot
have existed at the time. This approach fails to appreciate the fact that archaeological record
is not complete and it is therefore dangerous to make too far reaching conclusions solely
on the basis of this.
In shШЫЭ,Ν IΝ КРЫООΝ аТЭСΝ AЧНЫОТΝ σОРТЧ’ЬΝ ЯТОаΝ ЭСКЭΝ ЭСОΝ НОpТМЭТШЧЬΝ ШПΝ AЭЭТМΝ СОХЦОЭЬΝ
in the 4th century iconographic sources (e.g. Arch of Galerius, Arch of Constantine
КЧНΝ TСОШНШЬТuЬ’ЬΝ CШХuЦЧ) should be seen to represent a common type of helmet in actual
use:
ḴHowever, these monuments НОpТМЭΝ‘Attic’ type variants not yet known in any actual
findings, such as helmets with a protruding fillet, separating the occipital part of the bowl and
4
This is not to say that the historians, military enthusiasts and artists who reconstruct the period pieces
of equipment for various publications would not have discarded the literary evidence in like manner.
This is actually strange because it is generally accepted also among those who follow the British
School of thought and others that the late Romans used conical helmets of the spangehelme-type
(BISHOP, COULSTON, 2006: 7-8, 143-144, 215; CASCARINO, 2009/2010: 136-137;
CASCARINO, 2012: 137ff.) and there is also a reference to their use in Ammianus for the year 360
(SВVиσσź, I2015a: 379; Amm. Marc.20.21 conisque galearum). It is indeed a very rare thing
for these conical helmets to appear in the reconstructions of the fourth century equipment in any
publication even though their existence is almost universally recognized in research literature,
the English School included. The continued use of the single-piece conical helmets is less well
recognized, but it is unlikely that it would have been entirely discontinued after the third century when
we find it in use during the Byzantine era.
Page | 168
neck-guard. Apparently, it was a common type of helmet, but does not yet have an exact
analogy among archaeological finds.ḵ5
In my opinion it is in fact possible that there already exists solid archaeological finds
also for these helmets, but which have not yet been correctly identified! The interpretation
of archaeological evidenМОΝТЬΝЛвΝЧШΝЦОКЧЬΝПЫООΝШПΝЦТЬЭКФОЬέΝIΝОбЭОЧНΝσОРТЧ’ЬΝЯТОаΝЭШΝТЧМХuНОΝ
also other types of helmets like the so-called Pseudo-Corinthian/Thracian helmets (I use both
of these to mean helmets with a peak/visor)6 that have been dismissed as mere artistic
convention used for propaganda purposes that had no contemporary relevance. However, I do
not claim here that the ridge and spangenhelme types would not have been the principal
helmet types of this period. It is more than likely that they were. See my discussion
of the way how the earlier types of helmets were adapted to the newer types of construction.
What I am claiming here is that these were not the only types of helmets in use and that there
was greater variety of helmets in use than is usually accepted and that these are only partially
visible to us in the period works of art and literary texts.
A Case Study of the Detrimental Influence of the British School on Methodology:
The Arch of Constantine
It is generally accepted that the Arch of Constantine (and Arch of Galerius) represent
КΝ МСКЧРОΝ ПЫШЦΝ ЭСОΝ TЫКУКЧ’ЬΝ CШХuЦЧΝ ЭЫКНТЭТШЧ,Ν ЛuЭΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЬКЦОΝ ЭТЦОΝ ТЭΝ ТЬΝ МХКТЦОНΝ ЭСКЭΝ
all elements of continuity should be seen anachronistic to the period and this despite the fact
that the equipment in these (and other period works of art) contain new elements never before
seen. In the words of Bishop and Coulston: ḴOn the side of continuity, the Attic helmet still
appears without any reference to contemporary helmet types, and the unarmoured convention
pОЫЬТЬЭОНḵέ 7
The dominance of the British School of thought among the researchers of late Roman
equipment has meant that even those historians like Cascarino8 and McDowall,9 who think
that it is possible that the so-called Pseudo-Attican helmets continued in use in one form
or another, are forced to include caveats in their text that refer to the possibility that their
existence in the works of art could be an artistic convention that had nothing to do with
reality.
It is argued here that the above claims are entirely based on the set of false
assumptions arising from two things:
a) It is assumed that since these types of helmets have not been found in any quantity
for the late Roman period by the archaeologists10 that it follows from this that the late
Romans did not use Attic or peaked helmets and that the works of art describing these must
be anachronistic. It has also been sometimes claimed that the Attican helmets that have been
5
NEGIN, 2015: 31-46, quote on p. 39.
There exists a disagreement of how to call the helmet with a peak/visor so that Conolly calls such
helmets with the name Pseudo-Thracian while Mattesini calls such helmets with the name PseudoCorinthian.
7
BISHOP, COULSTON, 2006: 8.
8
CASCARINO, 2012: 142-143.
9
MCDOWALL, 1995: 21.
10
While it is still acknowledged that there may exist some examples and that the Guard Units at Rome
may have used e.g. Attic helmets during the Principate, e.g. BISHOP, COULSTON, 2006: 5.
6
Page | 169
found in late Roman context must be forgeries because these helmets supposedly did not exist
despite the finds.
b) A false set of assumptions is being used to analyze the works of art. This false set
of assumptions is based on a limited understanding of how soldiers were equipped and used
in combat, which in turn is based on the faulty analysis of the works of art, the helmets
included. This is where the work of military historians like myself would have corrected
the picture. In truth, the soldiers could always be equipped either without armour or with
armour so that the so-МКХХОНΝ ḴuЧКЫЦШuЫОНΝ МШЧЯОЧЭТШЧḵΝ ЬСШuХНΝ КМЭuКХХвΝ ЛОΝ uЧНОЫЬЭШШНΝ
to reflect reality.11
In fact, I argue here that even those reliefs that have been stolen from earlier Trajanic
or Hadrianic or Antonine reliefs for the Arch of Constantine should be seen to reflect actual
period equipment and are actually included in it for this very reason – it is unlikely to be
a coincidence that these include similar helmets. The fact that this Arch includes helmets not
seen before (or after) should really be understood as a proof that such peculiar equipment
(with the Attic helmets included) was really used by the Romans at the time the Arch was
sculpted.
In this context it is important to note the peculiar horned helmets alongside with
the ḴAЭЭТМΝ СОХЦОЭЬḵ,ΝХКЫРОΝЬСТОХНЬΝКЧНΝ ЭСОΝ ЭвpТМКХΝХКЭОΝ RШЦКЧΝ costumes! What is odd about
this is that Bishop and Coulston12 think that the horned helmets may allude to the Cornutiunits,13 but even though they make this quite correct observation of period relevance,
they still consider the Attic-helmets in the very same Arch not to be representative of period
equipment. This is not even the whole extent of the problem, because the very same reliefs
also depict ridge helmets and nobody doubts their existence for this period! (Fig. 1)
Note also that both cavalries (ConsЭКЧЭТЧО’ЬΝ МКЯКХЫвΝ КЧНΝ εКбОЧЭТuЬ’Ν МКЯКХЫв)Ν
are equipped with Attic helmets in the relief describing the Battle of the Milvian Bridge
in 312 CE. (Fig. 2)
The interpretation of the evidence in these images is also representative of another
phenomenon typical for the British School of thought. It is usually accepted that the scalearmour in these reliefs is an accurate reflection of the reality, but the light equipment
ШПΝCШЧЬЭКЧЭТЧО’ЬΝЦОЧΝТЬΝЬООЧΝКЬΝКЧΝОбКЦpХОΝШПΝЭСОΝКЫЭТЬЭТМΝЧШЧ-armoured convention. This is
really picking and choosing of what evidence to accept or not to accept in the very same work
of art, and should be seen to be an instance in which the pre-conceived set of assumptions
affect the interpretation of the evidence.
It is thanks to this false methodology that the historians who seek to reconstruct
ЭСОΝ ОquТpЦОЧЭΝ uЬОНΝ ЛвΝ ЭСОΝ CШЧЬЭКЧЭТЧТКЧЬΝ КЧНΝ εКбОЧЭТuЬ’Ν ЦОЧΝ ТЧΝ γńβΝ ЭСОЧΝ НТЬЦТЬЬΝ
the contemporary evidence presented by the Arch of Constantine with the result that
the contemporary evidence for thОΝ ОquТpЦОЧЭΝ ТЬΝ ОЬЬОЧЭТКХХвΝ ЫОpХКМОНΝ аТЭСΝ ШЧО’ЬΝ ШаЧΝ
imaginary equipment. This approach fails to take into account the regional varieties
in equipment, and the differences in equipment worn by different units (note e.g. the horned
helmet), and the period evidence. In truth, it is probable that there were even more variety
11
See e.g. the chapters referring to the equipment used in difficult terrain or against the Slavs
in SВVиσσź,Ν2004; SВVиσσź,ΝβίńηЛ.
12
BISHOP, COULSTON, 2006: 8, 214.
13
SPEIDEL, 2004: 47ff., sees no problem in identifying all of the horned helmets with the Cornuti.
Page | 170
in equipment than the extant works of art like the Arch of Constantine and the meager
archaeological record would let us know.
The results of this failure to follow the methodology in the analysis of the evidence
have naturally crept into the research literature devoted to the battle of the Milvian Bridge.
A good example of this is the recent and otherwise very good analysis of the battle
of the Milvian Bridge by Ross Cowan. It is thanks to this that it includes completely mistaken
reconstructions of the equipment worn by the soldiers of Constantine and Maxentius
at this battle. These reconstructions replace the Pseudo-Attic (and other types of helmets)
of the Arch with ridge-helmets acceptable to the British School of thought and add armour
to the soldiers of Constantine which are shown unarmoured in the Arch. In short, the period
evidence is used in such manner that only such evidence is accepted as valid as is currently
acceptable to the British School of thought.
This is not to say that there would not have been units equipped with the ridgehelmet. There certainly were units equipped with that type of helmet as is shown by the Arch
ЫОХТОПΝНОpТМЭТЧРΝεКбОЧЭТuЬ’ΝЦОЧΝТЧΝЭСОΝНОПОЧМОΝШПΝ the city of Verona, but it is still odd that
the reconstructions do not include any of the helmet types shown in the Arch in the context
of the actual battle of the Milvian Bridge. This is particularly troublesome in the context
ШПΝ CШЧЬЭКЧЭТЧО’ЬΝ МКЯКХЫв which is shown with the ridge-helmets and armoured,14 while
the Arch depicts them with the Attic-helmets and without armour. Similarly, it is very
ЭЫШuЛХОЬШЦОΝЭСКЭΝεКбОЧЭТuЬ’ΝЛШНвРuКЫНΝМКЯКХЫв,ΝаТЭСΝаСТМСΝСОΝаКЬΝНОЬЭЫШвОНΝШЧΝЭСОΝЛЫТНРО,Ν
is shown wearing the ridge helmets15 when they wear the Attic helmet on the Arch. However,
it is possible that at least part of the reason for this lays in the expectations of the audience
who would expect ridge helmets and other commonly accepted pieces of equipment
and in the suggestions made by the artist who drew the reconstructions – it is usually
the artists who makes the suggestions regarding the details and the author who then accepts
or corrects the material. We should not forget that the artists are usually not experts
of late Roman equipment and therefore rely on earlier studies, and it is all too easy
for the author to just go along with the suggestion because this is the easier option. It is
difficult to know whether any of these problems have played a role, but what is certain is that
the influence of the British School has had a role in this, because Cowan16 specifically refers
to the period ridge-helmets and to the helmets in the Arch of Galerius when explaining
the reasons for reconstructing the helmets of εКбОЧЭТuЬ’ „PЫКОЭШЫТКЧΝ МКЯКХЫвḵΝ КЬΝ ЫТНРОΝ
helmets.
Indeed, this tendency to replace evidence in the period works of art becomes even
stranger when most of the same researchers are ready to accept some parts of the Arch
of Constantine to be accurate and when they are similarly ready to accept the segmented
helmets of the Arch of Galerius to be accurate solely on the basis that their existence is
securely confirmed by archaeological record.17 This attitude gives precedence to archaeology
14
COWAN, 2016: 50-52; COWAN, 2014: 58-59.
COWAN, 2016: 82-84.
16
COWAN, 2014: 41, 58.
17
εвΝ ЭЫОКЭЦОЧЭΝ ШПΝ CШаКЧ’ЬΝ аШЫФΝ ТЬΝ ЬШЦОаСКЭΝ uЧПКТЫΝ СОЫО,Ν ЛОМКuЬОΝ НОЬpТЭОΝ ЦвΝ НТЬКРЫООЦОЧЭЬΝ
regarding some tactical and organizational matters, I still consider his works to be first class studies
that all historians conducting research on military matters should read. His treatment of the late Roman
helmet and armour follows the consensus view and is therefore understandable and acceptable to most
15
Page | 171
in a manner that is not justified – and this in a situation in which the very same sources claim
to follow the methodology presented above and when these can be shown to follow
the methodology in other places like in the reconstruction of period armour.
Notably the Arch of Galerius has precisely the same characteristics as the Arch
ШПΝCШЧЬЭКЧЭТЧОΝ(ЧКЦОХвΝЭСКЭΝТЭΝЧШΝХШЧРОЫΝПШХХШаЬΝЭСОΝМШЧЯОЧЭТШЧЬΝЬОЭΝupΝЛвΝTЫКУКЧ’ЬΝCШХuЦЧΝ
and includes material never before seen in any other work of art). Once again the researchers
pick and choose what they accept in the Arch to be representative of period reality
(those sections that portray Attic helmets are not). The source is either trustworthy or it is not.
One just cannot pick and choose whatever parts one likes! The accompanying illustration
gives an instance of the equipment that is accepted as valid for the period and I have nothing
against that interpretation. It is likely to represent what would have been typical equipment
ПШЫΝ żКХОЫТuЬ’Ν ОХТЭОΝ МКЯКХЫвΝ ПШЫМОЬΝ (pШЬЬТЛХвΝ ЭСОΝ PЫКОЭШЫТКЧЬ), but this not the entire picture
of the period equipment. It is usually recognized that there were regional varieties
in equipment and that there were also differences between diverse units and ranks of soldiers,
but oddly enough this generally known fact has not been taken into account when analyzing
the evidence. It is because of this that we should pay more attention to the equipment
in the Arch of Constantine.
The following scene shown in the S. Elpidio Sarcophagus (c. 315-320) includes
a similar situation in which there are simultaneously items that clearly identify
this Sarcophagus as late Roman (e.g. the hats and the possible ridge helmet) together with
the single-piece Pseudo-Attic helmets. It is unlikely that this would be an instance of artistic
convention in which the emperor would attempt to represent a propaganda image
to the populace of the capital as has been claimed for the arches! (Fig. 3)
In short, one should really pay more attention to what is in the period works
of art and what is in the period narrative sources! If the analysis of a source is based on a set
of pre-conceived ideas on how the evidence should be seen, (like that the portrayal of Attic
helmets is only an artistic convention that has nothing to do with reality) it is not analysis
at all, but an example of the researcher picking and choosing whatever evidence that fits
his/her preconceived ideas or rather the ideas given to him/her by the previous generations
of researchers.
My View: Let us follow up the Methodology to the letter and not fall into the trap
of giving archaeology a place of primacy over all the other sources of evidence
My view is that we should start to follow the methodology presented at the beginning
of this article in practice also when we analyze the late Roman material. Therefore, I suggest
that we should start to approach the sources with an open mind. It is quite clear that we
should start to accept that the period works, which depict the Attic and peaked helmets,
that have been dismissed as mere artistic convention based on Hellenistic examples, had very
real period relevance both in their original form and in a new adapted form. The period art
provides quite clear evidence that this was the case. On top of this, there also exists enough
researchers even if I think that the methodology behind this standard British School of thought is quite
unsound when it deals with late Roman helmets.
Page | 172
archaeological evidence18 now for even to the diehard archaeologists of the British School
to change their mistaken views.
The following discussion (with illustrations) gives some examples of how
the so-called Attic and Corinthian/Thracian helmets were actually adapted in the late Roman
period to the newer helmet construction techniques: the same helmet types were now
constructed by using the so-called ridge helmet construction technique by varying
the different parts used in the construction. However, this adaptation does not mean that
the original construction methods would have been discontinued. It is very likely that
the single-bowl pieces would still have been produced for example for some high-ranking
rich persons. Some of the works of art clearly continue to depict single-bowl helmets!
In short, despite the likelihood that at least some of the Attic and Thracian/Corinthian helmets
in the works of art were actually ridge helmets with additional parts, I would still suggest that
there were also “ЫОКХḵΝ ЬТЧgle-bowl Attic, or Thracian/Corinthian reproductions, and also
many other fancy types of helmets. We should always expect that there were more variety
than has been recognized by most researchers on the basis of our defective body of evidence
(archaeological finds, extant works of art and literature).
The Arcus Novus (293 CE) give two examples of unusual late Roman helmets
depicted in late Roman works of art for which we therefore have evidence, but we should
expect that there were even stranger helmets in existence. Note the single-bowl construction
of the star-helmet! (Fig. 4)
The key detail which proves the adaptation of older helmet types to the newer
construction techniques is the existence of a ridge in the helmets depicted in period art
(see also the Arch of Constantine) which suggests that the late Romans produced similar
standard pieces for the helmets all over the Empire that they then combined in different ways
to separate the officers from the rank-and-file and the different units from each other.
The analysis (Fig. 5, Fig. 6) presents some examples of this adaptation process mentioned
together with other examples of equipment that are not supposed to have been used in the late
Roman period, but were.
The so-called early 7th century David Plates from Cyprus (the Metropolitan Museum
of Art, NY) give us another good example of how we should pay more attention
to the evidence provided by the works of art for the late Roman period. These plates are
sometimes thought to be good examples of artistic conventions, but I agree with David
Nicolle19 that these plates should be seen to be relevant as evidence. He is hesitant about
the elaborate Roman equipment shown in the plates (not included here) and suspects that this
type of armour was primarily used by the imperial guardsmen. I agree that it is quite likely
that the guard units were equipped in archaic style equipment, but unlike him I would not rule
out the possibility that other units could also have worn such equipment. The best evidence
for this actually comes from the plates itself. The plates clearly show the men in late Roman
clothing on top of which it is clear that the peaked/visored helmets are covered with
decorative caps that have probably been borrowed from the Persians as is noted by Nicolle.
See the good quality photos of the plates available online at the Metropolitan website.
This proves that the artist or artists have updated the material with period clothing
and equipment which means that we should also accept the other depictions in the plates
18
19
See for example the referral in D’AεATτ,Ν2012: 47, to one of these finds.
NICOLLE, 1992/1997: Pl. E; NICOLLE, 1994: 18-19, 42.
Page | 173
as equally accurate for the period. As regards the helmets on the plates, it proves beyond any
doubt that the Romans continued to use the helmet with a peak throughout the late Roman
period (Fig. 7; Fig. 8; Fig. 9, Fig. 10).
In conclusion, we historians and archaeologists should start to follow the sound
methodological approach given at the beginning of this article also when we deal with late
Roman helmets and other period equipment, and not give archaeology or the faulty
interpretations of the previous generations of the British School the right of veto over
the other sources of evidence.
When analyzed in detail, the works of art actually prove that the older types
of helmets were refashioned so that these continued to be produced with the ridge
construction technique. However, the very same works of art also prove that the older
construction techniques (the single-bowl technique) persisted and were never entirely
abandoned even when the newer techniques were introduced. The works of art also show that
the Romans continued to use the helmet with the peak continuously throughout the period
but so that by the early seventh century they covered it with a Persian style decorative cap
(Fig. 11).
We should also always expect far more variety than the extant evidence would allow
us to expect. The extant evidence is by no means complete and it is therefore very odd that
the equally incomplete body of evidence provided by the archaeology has been given a place
of primacy over all the other sources of evidence for the late Roman period among those who
follow the methodology of the British School – and this contrary to the methodology these
researchers claim to follow. It is therefore a high time that the researchers would start
to follow the methodology they claim to follow also for the late Roman period and it is also
a high time for them to shed away the pre-conceived assumptions regarding the way how
the period works of art are analyzed!
Page | 174
Bibliography
Sources
Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt, ed. W. SEYFARTH, Leipzig 1978.
Literature
ANDREAE, B. (1980), Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs, Die Sarkophage mit Darstellungen
Кus НОm MОnsМСОnlОЛОn, ГаОТ TОТlОn, TОТl 2 DТО römТsМСОn JКРНsКrkopСКРО, Berlin.
BISHOP, M.C., COULSTON, J.C.N. (2006), Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to
the Fall of Rome, 2nd ed., Oxford.
CASCARINO, G. (2009/2010), LˀОsОrМТto romКnoṬ VolṬ III, Oxford.
CASCARINO, G. (2012), LˀОsОrМТto romКnoṬ VolṬ IV, Oxford.
COWAN, R. (2014), Roman Guardsman 62 BC-AD 324, Oxford.
COWAN, R. (2015), Roman Legionary AD 284-337, Oxford.
COWAN, R. (2016), Milvian Bridge AD 312, Oxford.
D’AεATτ,ΝR. (2012), Roman Centurions 31 BC-AD 500, Oxford.
ŻźUżÈRź,ΝεέΝ(ńλλγήβίίβ),ΝWeapons of the Romans, Charleston.
MATTESINI. S. (2006/2008), LОs LцРТons RomКТnОs, Rome.
MCDOWALL, S. (1995), Late Roman cavalryman 236-565 AD, Oxford.
NEGIN, A. (2015), Roman helmets with a browband shaped as a vertical fronton, „HТЬЭШЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵ 4,
31-46.
NICOLLE, D. (1992/1997), Romano-Byzantine Armies 4th-9th Centuries, Oxford.
NICOLLE, D. (1994), Yarmuk 636 AD, Oxford.
SPEIDEL, M.P. (2004), Ancient Germanic Warriors, London-New York.
SВVиσσź,ΝI. (2004), The Age of Hippotoxotai, Tampere.
SВVиσσź,ΝI. (2015), Military History of Late Rome Vol.1: 284-361, Barnsley.
SВVиσσź,Ν I. (2015), Scutarii, [in:] Encyclopedia of the Roman Army, Y. LE BOHEC (ed.),
Chichester.
SВVиσσź,ΝI. (2017), Military History of Late Rome Vols. 2-3, forthcoming
Page | 175
Picture captions
Fig. 1. The Arch of Constantine, Rome20 (Source: Public Domain21).
Fig. 2. The Arch of Constantine, Rome (Source: Public Domain22).
20
Note the peculiar ridge-СОХЦОЭЬΝШПΝЭСОΝεКбОЧЭТuЬ’ΝНОПОЧНОЫЬΝКХШЧРЬТНОΝаТЭСΝЭСОΝШЭСОЫΝСОХЦОЭЬ,ΝаСТМСΝ
should suggest to the researchers that the helmets in the Arch of Constantine should not be seen as
an example of any artistic convention, but as an attempt to represent the actual reality as accurately as
the artists could!
21
https://open.conted.ox.ac.uk/sites/open.conted.ox.ac.uk/files/resources/DSC_0659.JPG (accessed
June 15, 2017)
22
https://open.conted.ox.ac.uk/sites/open.conted.ox.ac.uk/files/resources/DSC_0657a.JPG (accessed
June 15, 2017)
Page | 176
Fig. 3. ḴHunting sceneḵΝthe S. Elpidio Sarcophagus, c. 315-320 (after: SвЯтЧЧО, 2017).23
Fig. 4. Boboli Gardens, Florence (after: SyЯтЧЧО, 2017).
23
The important point in this scene is that it portrays simultaneously typical late Roman pilleus
pannonicus (the fur hat) and the helmet with a nose-guard at the feet of the emperor/officer on the left
and the so-called Pseudo-Attican helmets to the right of it. This should prove beyond doubt even
to those who consider such images to be anachronistic that this is not so. The Romans continued to use
the Pseudo-Attican and in particular the Pseudo-Thracian/Corinthian helmets well into to the so-called
Byzantine era.
Page | 177
Fig. 5. Typical reconstructions of late Roman helmets based on the reconstructions of Miks (after:
SвЯтЧЧО, 2017).
Page | 178
Fig. 6. The suggestion for the reconstruction of some of the late Roman Attic and Corinthian/Thracian
peaked helmets (after: SвЯтЧЧО, 2017).
Page | 179
Fig. 7. Mosaics in Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, (after: D’AЦКЭШ, 2012: pl. H).24
Fig. 8. The Column of Theodosius, Constantinople (after: SвЯтЧЧО, 2017).25
24
Note the ridges in San Maggiore mosaics, which in this mosaic are particularly visible! These
mosaics contain several different types of helmets which are usually considered anachronistic by those
who do not accept works of art to be reliable sources. It is quite clear that the inclusion of the ridge
in the mosaics should be clue enough for their reliability. It is of note that of the various historians
researching military equipment (NICOLLE, 1992/1997: 16-ńινΝ D’AεATτ,Ν βίńβμPl. H with p.47)
have accepted San Maggiore mosaics to be relevant in the analysis of period equipment. They are
clearly researchers who have not fallen into the trap of accepting only evidence provided
by archaeology for the late Roman period.
25
Column of Theodosius (18th century drawing, column no longer extant): Note the various different
types of helmets. BISHOP, COULSTON (2006: 8-9) suspect in my opinion quite needlessly the socalled Hellenistic elements like the shield grips and Pseudo-Attic and peaked helmets in these reliefs.
The existence of equipment that can definitely be dated to the late Roman period in the drawings
of the same column should be evidence enough. This shows that the sculptors/artists sought
to represent relatively accurately the period equipment used by the forces participating the triumph.
Page | 180
Fig. 9. The Column of Theodosius, Constantinople (after: SвЯтЧne, 2017).26
Fig. 10. Based on Ilias Ambrosiana, (after: SвЯтЧЧО, 2017).27
26
Note the presence of the so-called lorica segmentata in the Column of Theodosius! There are only
three examples of this type of armor in this Column, which does suggest that it describes period
equipment and is therefore not any artistic convention. Furthermore, the lorica segmentata shown
in these scenes is not exactly like it was in the past, which once again suggests real period equipment
rather than some artistic convention (SВVиσσź, 2017; COWAN, 2015: 44-45).
27
Note the use of the curved rectangular shields in this 5 th century illustration which clearly describes
late Roman equipment (SВVиσσź,Ν 2017). The Romans clearly used these so-called archaic pieces
of equipment much later than is usually accepted.
Page | 181
Fig. 11. A coin of Probus (r. 276-282), (photo by the author), The helmet from David Plates (drawing
by the author).
Page | 182
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Marta CZERWIENIEC-IVASYK (Siedlce University, Poland)
Helmet or a crown? – A few comments on the margin
of the Sasanian coins discovered in the Baltic Sea area
Abstract
Discoveries of Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian coins gives a possibility to identified the kings
of Sasanian Empire and to show the importance of Sasanian silver at the trade market at the Baltic Sea
area. There is no evidence concerning similarities between Sasanian and Slavic ornamentation but it
ТЬЧ’ЭΝ ОбМХuНОНΝ КЭΝ КХХέΝ AЫКЛΝ КЧНΝ VТФТЧРΝ traders gave the big role in distribution of eastern silver
to the Baltic sea, although there is still a lot to be excavated.
Keywords: Sasanian, Eastern silver, hoards, crowns, Eastern coins, Baltic sea, silver hoards, middleages coin hoards, Arab-Sasanian
Introduction
The first come of eastern silver to Europe started in the end of 8th century and lasted
until the second half of 9th century. Coins were brought by merchandisers originally from
Khazaria, Arabic Caliphates and later by Scandinavian and Slavic traders. They travelled
from Transoksania to Khorezm and then by water and land routes to Itil – the capital city
of Khazaria. From that city the routes spread into several ones passing through Kam
Bulgharia to Kiev, Great Novograd and Baltic sea coast.
The Arabic traders very often travelled to the Central Europe for vax and honey,
amber, beaver furs, some types of wood. Because of exchanging these products northern
merchandisers often got silver coins. To the lands bordered by Baltic sea they brought also
aloe, cinnamon and other eastern spices, tropical fruits and wine. Persia was famous of their
vineyards. Unique present was given to prince Mieszko Ist in 986 – a camel.1
Coins travelled from Eastern Caliphates through Khazaria, Bulgaria and eastern
Russia to Poland and then by the Baltic sea coast to the Western Europe. There were about
eight trade routes starting from eastern cities like Khorezm or Buchara. Usually they passed
along north-eastern coast of Caspian Sea to Itil – the capital city of Khazaria. Then the routes
were dividing. One was passing by upper Volga river to mouth of Sheksna river, then
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) were financed from the science grant granted by the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education; Institute of History and International Relations, Faculty of Humanities;
genarch@vp.pl
1
STATTLER, 1948: 251-252.
Page | 183
by the upper Sheksna to White Lake. There was well know village Bieloziev from where
КЧШЭСОЫΝаКЭОЫΝЭЫКНОΝЫШuЭОΝЬЭКЫЭОНΝЛвΝτЯОРКΝδКФОΝКЧНΝЫТЯОЫΝ аТЫΝЭШΝδКНШРКΝδКФОΝКЧНΝЭШΝBКХЭТМΝ
sea. The other way passed through Kursk to Kiev (Arabic name – Kuraba) and then by Polish
lands to Czech ground and western Europe ШЫΝЛвΝuppОЫΝDЧТОpЫΝКЧНΝЛвΝŁШаКЭΝЫТЯОЫΝЭШΝżЫОКЭΝ
Novograd and to Baltic Sea (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian coin hoards
There are several finds of Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian coins counted in the Baltic sea
area, reclosed in Latvia, Estonia, European Russia, Poland, Germany and in Scandinavia
(in Sweden, Finland and on Danish islands). They were found alone or within hoards
consisting Arabic dirhams. Most of Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian coins found in the Baltic sea
coast are silver drachms. The most popular Sasanian coin representation are coins edited
by Xusrō I (r. 531-579), Hormozd IV (r. 579-590) and БuЬЫō II (r. 591-628) dated between
6th and 7th century (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5). The Arab-Sasanian dirhams provenience is usually
КЛКЫОЬЭ Ч but the coins were minted by different rulers. Nearly all of the finds are situated
at the nearby of trade routes.
źЯОЫвΝНКвΝI’ЦΝПТЧНТЧРΝТЧПШЫЦКЭТШЧΝМШЧМОЫЧТЧРΝЧОаΝНКЭКΝКЛШuЭΝЧШаКНКвЬΝНТЬМШЯОЫТОЬΝ
of eastern coins including Sasanian or Arab-Sasanian finds, f.e. in Truso2 or in Anklam.3
A lot of finds consist of cut coins. As the eastern silver was used for weight payments
(no importance for currency) at that time, the Slavs usually cut coins for slighter pieces. Finds
of such a small fragments might probably be misunderstood in the past.
Not all finds of Sasanian coins were properly documented, especially when they were
discovered in 19th or in the beginning of 20th century and were taken to private collections.
TСОΝSОМШЧНΝАШЫХНΝАКЫΝОТЭСОЫΝНТНЧ’ЭΝСОХpΝЭШΝЬКЯОΝЭСОЬОΝМШТЧЬέΝSКЬКЧТКЧΝКЧНΝAЫКЛ-Sasanian
coins found at the Baltic sea area are not so rare as it is normally thought. Till 2003 there
were discovered about 40 excavation sites with the number of almost 220 drachms
in 8 countries – Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Poland.
Till nowadays SasКЧТКЧΝНЫКМСЦЬΝаОЫОЧ’ЭΝЫОpШЫЭОНΝТЧΝδТЭСuКЧТКΝКЧНΝТЧΝσШЫаКвέΝPЫШЛКЛХвΝЭСОвΝ
аОЫОЧ’ЭΝ pЫШpОЫХвΝ ЫОМШРЧТгОНέΝ SШЦОΝ ШПΝ МШТЧЬΝ СКЯОΝ СШХОЬΝ КЧНΝ СКЧНХОЬΝ ШЧέΝ TСТЬΝ МКЧΝ give
a suppose that they were used as an element of jewellery as it was done with f. e. AngloSaxon coins.
The findings were more often occasionally found while field works than in hoards
excavated in old villages or cemeteries. More of finds contains Arabic coins, some of them
have also western currencies. A lot of treasures have been sold to private collections
so nowadays there are uncountable or hard to be identified. Some of them have been kept
as deposits in museums and are much easier to be documented. Most of coins were found
in 19th МОЧЭuЫвΝЬШΝЭСОЫОΝТЬΝКΝpШЬЬТЛТХТЭвΝЭСКЭΝКΝХШЭΝШПΝСШКЫНЬΝСКЯОЧ’ЭΝЛeen discovered yet.
TСОΝТЧЯОЧЭШЫвΝЭСКЭΝI’ЯОΝЦКНОΝТЬΝЬОХОМЭОНΝРОШРЫКpСТМКХХв,ΝЬЭКЫЭТЧРΝПЫШЦΝОКЬЭОЫЧΝМШКЬЭΝШПΝBКХЭТМΝ
Sea where merchandisers arrived earlier than to western parts of Baltic Sea, ending
on Gotland where was the biggest trade market in the then Baltic area. One of the first areas
where the eastern silver had flown to was the territory of present-day Finland. One
2
3
BOGUCKI, 2007.
MAYER, 2010.
Page | 184
of the trade routes led from Bulghar to the upper Volga river and then to mouth of Sheksna
river and finally do White Lake. That was the land of Finnish tribe of Vests. B. Granberg lists
two places where Sasanian coins were being found. In Gravfynd there were 18 eastern coins
found in a hoard. It contained 1 Sasanian dirham of БuЬЫō I, 4 coins of Hormozd IV and
13 dirhams minted by БuЬЫō II dated at the turn of 6th and 7th century. In other villages – Geta
and Svedjelandet - ЬТЭuКЭОНΝ ШЧΝ йХКЧНΝ ТЬХКЧН,Ν AЫКЛТМΝ МШТЧЬΝ СШКЫНΝ аКЬΝ ПШuЧН,Ν аТЭСΝ ЭСОΝ НКЭОΝ
of minting after year 842.4
HШЯéЧ mentions 1,663 eastern coins in Finnish museum among which there are just
18 Sasanian and 20 Arab-Sasanian dirhams.5 On the land of Russia there were found several
dozens of Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian coins. Most of discoveries are being found beside
rivers. That clearly shows that eastern merchandisers travelled along rivers. Here there are
a lot of finds on the Volga shores. This river crosses European part of Russia from the north
to south, starting in Valdaj hills, ending in Caspian Sea. This river route was one of the main
trade routes between East and Baltic Sea area, which helped to move forward to Scandinavia
and Western Europe. There are three archaeological sites situated near Baltic Sea coast,
where the Sasanian or Arab-Sasanian coins have been found. Two of them are placed
in St. Petersburg region – in Kniashchino (rus. ϞЁГЍϼЁϴ) and in Nowa Ladozka (rus. ϡo϶ϴГΝ
ϟϴϸЂϺϾϴ) and one is being held in Pskov region in the village Mala Struga (ЫuЬέΝ ϠϴϿϴΝ
ϥІЄЇϷϴ)έ
The biggest discovery was being found in Kniashchino. The village is located beside
ŁКНШРКΝ δКФОΝ КЧНΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ МШКЬЭΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ Хake there were few finds of eastern coins, later
on recognized as one hoard. There were more than 300 finds of eastern coins, but quite few
were recognized. Just two of them were represented by Hormozd IV and БuЬЫō II drachms
and one was signed to be a coin of Ziyad ibn abu Sufiyan – Arab-Sasanian coin, minted
in 673 CE. 6
In Nowa Ladozka the hoard have been found in the second half of 19th century
(1875 CE), so there so information about the circumstances of finding or the weight of whole
hoard. There were found 65 eastern coins, which consisted of 9 pieces of КЛКЫОЬЭ Ч,
33 Abbasid and 9 Ummayad coins, one piece of Idrysid and Spanish Ummayads. There was
also a representation of 8 Sasanian coins – 7 of БuЬЫō II and 1 of Yazdegerd III (r. 632-651).
The find of Yazdegerd III coin is very rare and was erroneously documented as ArabSasanian coins. Moreover Arab-Sasanian coins are represented by two coins and two pieces
ШПΝФТЧР’ЬΝUЛОУНuХХКСΝЦТЧМОЬέ7
TСОЫО’ЬΝ ЧШΝ ЦКЧвΝ ТЧПШЫЦКЭТШЧΝ КЛШuЭΝ PЬФШЯΝ ЫОРТШЧКХΝ ПТЧНΝ ТЧΝ εКХКΝ SЭЫuРКέΝ σОКЫХвΝ КХХΝ
of the explored coins were being sold to private collections and as Markov writes, there is
known only one Sasanian drachma representing king БuЬЫō II.8
Moving further south along the Baltic Sea coast we reach the border of Estonia.
In this country there were a lot of finds of eastern coins but only two of them consisted
ШПΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ МШТЧЬέΝ TСОЫО’ЬΝ ЧШΝ ОЯТНОЧМОΝ ШПΝ ПТЧНТЧРΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ МШТЧЬΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ Чearby the Baltic
4
GRANBERG: 32-35.
HOVEN, 1981: 119-129.
6
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 32; ϞϤϢϣϢϦϞϜϡ,ΝńλικμΝńńβνΝŁτSI SKI,ΝńλκκμΝńηβέ
7
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 32; NOONAN, 1981: 840-886.
8
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 39.
5
Page | 185
coast. By the bank of Peipus Lake where most finds were placed, where two sites with
SКЬКЧТКЧΝМШТЧЬέΝτЧОΝТЧΝPКuЧТФuХКΝКЧНΝЭСОΝШЭСОЫΝШЧОΝТЧΝVõõЬpuέΝPКuЧТФuХКΝТЬΝЭСОΝОбМКЯКЭТШЧΝ
site, where were found more than one hundred different coins from eastern and western world
like Byzantine, Arab, Saxon coins, jewels КЧНΝ ШЧОΝ uЧФЧШаЧΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ МШТЧέΝ IЧΝ VõõЬpuΝ
traditionally were found two БuЬЫō II drachms.9
In whole Latvia till the beginning of 20th century there were only 58 archaeological
sites excavated. These were fortifications, villages and cemeteries. On two cemetery sites
Sasanian coins were discovered. Latvian finds are similar to Finnish ones. Sasanian
and Arab-Sasanian drachms were deposited in graves. That can show that the coins played
ЭСОΝЫШХОΝШПΝНОМШЫКЭТЯОΝЬЭuППΝаСТМСΝСКНΝЛООЧΝКННОНΝЭШΝЭСОΝРЫКЯОέΝTСШЬОΝМШТЧЬΝНТНЧ’ЭΝМКЫЫвΝШuЭΝ
in trade market.
In Salaspils – Lauskola,10 on excavation site near Riga there was found a Sasanian
drachma (БuЬЫō I) with ЛЫШЧгОΝ ОКЫΝ puЭΝ ТЧΝ МЫОЦКЭШЫвΝ аШЦКЧ’ЬΝ РЫКЯОέΝ τЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЬОМШЧНΝ
site – in Doles – Vapienieshi, at the excavation of cemetery, in the sacrificial pit there was
found an Arab-Sasanian dirham, defined as minted by Omar ibn al-Ala from КЛКЫОЬЭ Ч.11
Moving forward to Poland we can observe that not all of finds of Sasanian coins are
situated exactly at the Baltic coast. There are three different territories where those minces
are being found. One is, like it should be – at the Baltic Sea banks, the other finds are located
in Great Poland where the Polish state was risen and the third, newest site is placed
in international merchandisers village.
The first represented group is situated in Pomerania, at the Baltic coast. There were
reported four finds found accidentally on the field either while building a road or just covered
in mug. Although there was explored two hoards with eastern coins, jewelleries and western
coins – in Bogucino12 and Horniki.13 In Grzybowo14 and Bierkowo15 there were found only
coins and because they were cut, there are only few recognized. There is also a place named
Evrov – located either in Poland or in Germany where the biggest number of БuЬЫō’ЬΝ IIΝ
drachms is being excavated. In other sites there were also discovered the same type
of money, excluding Bierkowo. There, in 1838 there were found two coins of AЫНКš ЫΝ I
(r. 224-242) (Fig. 6) and his son ṣ puЫΝIΝ(ЫέΝβζβ-272) (Fig. 7). This is the only place where
such an old currencies have been reported.
Further south – ТЧΝżЫОКЭΝPШХКЧНΝЭСОЫОΝКЫОΝКХЬШΝЬШЦОΝТЧЭОЫОЬЭТЧРΝЬТЭОЬέΝIЧΝKṢОМФШΝаОЫОΝ
found a hoard firstly mentioned in 1858 in a book about the city. In the hoard there were
found jewelleries,Ν ЛЫКМОХОЭЬ,Ν ОКЫЫТЧРЬ,Ν ЧОМФХКМОЬ,Ν ЛЫШШМСОЬΝ КЧНΝ МШТЧЬΝ ШПΝ ḴPОЫЬТКЧΝ SКЬКЧТНЬḵέΝ
No more information about, where how many. The hoard was hidden probably in the first
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 18; GUMOWSKI, 1953: 185.
ГARIŅA, 1992: 173-184.
11
BERGA, 1988: 14; ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 18.
12
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ,ΝńλńίμΝńβζνΝŁ żA,Νńλ30: 388; GUMOWSKI, 1953: 15.
13
KIERSNOWSKA, KIERSNOWSKI,Ν ńληλμΝ ηńνΝ żUετАSKI,Ν ńλίθμΝ βζζνΝ Ł żA,Ν ńλγίμΝ γλη-396;
STATTLER: 224.
14
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 127; KIERSNOWSKA, KIERSNOWSKI,Ν ńληλμΝ ηńνΝ Ł żA,Ν ńλγίμΝ γκκνΝ
SADOWSKI: 578; ϞϤϢϣϢϦϞϜϡ,ΝńλικμΝńńγνΝŁτSI SKI,ΝńλκκμΝńηηέ
15
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 124; KIERSNOWSKA, KIERSNOWSKI,Ν Ν ńληλμΝ γβνΝ Ł żA,Ν ńλγίμΝ γλńνΝ
LISSAUER, 1887: 198.
9
10
Page | 186
half of 10th century. Beside this, there were only Arab-Sasanian coins found on two
sites – Ziyad abu ibn Sufiyan (Fig. 8) minted in D Ы ЛРОЫН in 663-664 CE discovered in Stary
Dworek16 and in Obrzycko – a piece of a dirham representing king Ispehbed of КЛКЫОЬЭ Ч
(Fig. 9).17
The newest finds were made in Truso in 2003. Truso was a big trade village, situated
at the shore of Druzno lake, in former Prussia, where merchandisers from north and east
dealed with each other. The place was being described by an English traveller Vulfstana,
who reached Truso starting from Hedeby in Denmark in about 890 CE. There were excavated
just two pieces of Sasanian or Arab-Sasanian coin. It is very hard to recognize the right ruler
in spite of using the same minters at the beginning of Arab Conquest of the Persian world.
Most of the finds of Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian coins shown in Germany are being
discovered very close to Baltic sea shore. So there can be mentioned lands of Brandenburg,
Mecklenburg and Schleswig – Holstein. The hoards were found mostly beside field works.
Two of them (in Giekau18 and in Prerow – Darss19) were excavated while building
the construction of a dam. Each discovery weighted about 1 kg or more and contained coins
from variable places from Eastern and Western world. On almost all places there were found
drachms representing king БuЬЫō II but there are some finds with Arab-Sasanian dirhams.
German hoards consist of a huge number of eastern coins but instead of this Arab-Sasanian
coins are rather rare. In Alexanderhof and in Prerov-Darrs – in the land of Brandenburg,
there were found one whole and one piece of Arab-Sasanian coins representing king
AЛНuХХ С ibn Zubayr. There is also a very specific hoard found in Ralswiek20 on Rugen
Island. There was found a huge hoard with a weight of about 2,5 kg with uncountable number
of eastern coins with one whole drachma of AЫНКš ЫΝ I. That gave the suggestion that
the discovery is similar to the one, which was found in Bierkowo, Pomerania region
in Poland.
Very similar to that find is a hoard discovered in Anklam21 in 2009-2010 containing
silver coins, bracelets and slits with a weight of 200 gr. The earliest coin is dated for 610 year
that means that is representing King БuЬЫōΝ II. The largest land on which the Sasanian and
Arab-Sasanian coins can be found is Sweden. Sasanian dirhams within Arabic coins have
flown on the land of Sweden quite quickly. A lot of finds are being reported on the Gotland
Island which is situated on the Baltic Sea, at the east from eastern coast of Sweden.
The hoards found there confirm thesis of marine journeys of tradesmen. There are 34.648
eastern coins in Royal Coin Cabinet in Stockholm but just 326 coins are Sasanian or Arab
SКЬКЧТКЧΝ КЧНΝ МШЦОΝ ПЫШЦΝ γβΝ ПТЧНЬέΝ TСКЭΝ ЬСШаЬΝ ЭСКЭΝ IΝ pЫШЛКЛХвΝ НТНЧ’ЭΝ ЫОКМСΝ КХХΝ ПТЧНЬΝ
in Sweden. There were about 20 Sasanian coins found in Gotland. During the Viking Age,
hoards were deposited in the ground throughout Scandinavia, although the most common
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, ńλńίμΝ ńńινΝ δASKI,Ν TABACГВ SKI,ńληλμΝ θβ-63; GUMOWSKI, 1906: 208-209;
GUMOWSKI, 1953: 156; STATTLER, 1968: 225; MALMER, 1985: 52.
17
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 116; δASKI,Ν TABACГВ SKI,Ν ńληλμΝ ζηνΝ KIźRSστАSKI,Ν ńλθίμΝ ń-15;
SADOWSKI, 1877: 52; GUMOWSKI, 1906: 196-197; GUMOWSKI, 1953: 100; STATTLER, 1968:
225.
18
WIECHMANN, 1996: 133-136.
19
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 126; KIERSNOWSKI 1960: 54.
20
HERRMANN, 2008.
21
MAYER, 2010.
16
Page | 187
occurrence was on Gotland.22 A few Arab-Sasanian dirhams are reported in finds.
Nevertheless the most common Arabic coins are Abbasid dirhams.
Finds of Sasanian coins were being reported of Gotland Island since 19th century.
On August 1845, in Gerete23 village in Fardhem region while land works, there was found
a monetary hoard. It consisted of silver jewellery and 1732 coins. Between eastern dirhams
there was found one whole drachm of БuЬЫō IIΝЦТЧЭОНΝТЧΝṣRΝ(SСТЫКвКЧ)έ
In 1858 in Ammunde24 on one excavation site, in Burs province, there was found
a hoard containing 50 silver and gold objects hidden between 12th and 15th century. The hoard
was situated between three stones lying in a shape of triangle. Among the jewellery there was
found a Hormozd’ΝIVΝНТЫСКЦ minted in NY (Nemavand) in 10th вОКЫΝШПΝФТЧР’ЬΝЫuХОέ
Further in years there were found new hoards. Between 1896-1899 more monetary
finds, coЧЭКТЧТЧРΝ AЫКЛТМΝ КЧНΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ МШТЧЬΝ аОЫОΝ НТЬМШЯОЫОНΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ σШЫЫЛв’ЬΝ ХКЧН25
(ТЧΝ BУöЫФОΝ pЫШЯТЧМО)Ν while field works. There was discovered a dirham of Hormozd IV
minted in MB or in MR (Merv) in 10th year of his rule. There were also found two unknown
Sasanian coins which were lost before they were documented and of course the drachma
of БuЬЫō II was being found. It was minted in NY (Nemavand)Ν ТЧΝ βλΝ вОКЫΝ ШПΝ ФТЧР’ЬΝ ЫuХОέΝ
Moreover, all of hoards included silver and bronze bracteates, golden bracelets and 21
Arab-Sasanian and Abbasid coins minted between 680 and 818/819 CE.
IЧΝЭСОΝЬКЦОΝЭТЦО,ΝЛОЭаООЧΝńκλθΝКЧНΝńλίζ,ΝТЧΝЭСОΝЬКЦОΝЯТХХКРОΝШЧΝJКФШЛЬШЧЧ’ЬΝХКЧН 26
there were 14 different monetary finds found, recognized as a one or few hoards. Those
hoards consist of two drachms of XuЬЫō II. The first coin was minted in ART (AЫНКš Ы-Xorra)
in one of 39 years of БuЬЫō’ЬΝЫuХОέΝTСОΝЬОМШЧНΝШЧОΝаКЬΝПШuЧНΝТЧΝЭаШΝpТОМОЬέΝIЭΝаКЬΝЦТЧЭОНΝ
in 30th вОКЫΝШПΝФТЧР’ЬΝЫuХО (619/620 AD) in DA (D Ы ЛРОЫН).
Most of hoards were found accidently while fieХНΝ аШЫФЬέΝ IЧΝ σШЫЫРфЫНКΝ ШЧΝ żШЭХКЧНΝ
Island27 there was found the only one ṣ puЫΝ IΝ drachma seen in this land. It was excavated
in ground grave at a depth of 30 cm within uncountable number of Arabic and western coins.
In Gotland villages Norrkvie and Oxarve were discovered a lot of Sasanian and Ispehbed
coins but they are being counted together by Sternberger аСШ’ЬΝ аЫТЭТЧРΝ КЛШuЭΝ
ЭСОΝОбМКЯКЭТШЧЬ,ΝЬШΝаОΝЧШаΝШЧХвΝЭСКЭΝЭСОЫОΝаОЫОΝПШuЧНΝḴńίλ+γγβΝPОЫЬТКЧΝКЧНΝAЫКЛТМΝЦШЧОвḵέ
28
The most incredible silver hoard in Sweden was found in Spillings, in northern
Gotland. It consisted of 67 kg of silver, 14295 coins, especially from Islamic world
22
GUSTAFSSON, 2013.
CNS, 1982: V.1, book 4, 3; MALEK, 1993: 248, No 49 (4) (a).
24
CNS, 1977: V.1, book 2, p. 136, No 24; MALEK, 1993: 247, No 49 (2) (c); ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, 1910: 69.
25
CNS, 1977: V.1, book 2, p. 84, No 9; MALEK, 1993: βζι,ΝσШΝζλΝ(β)Ν(Л)νΝŁτSI SKI, 1988: 154;
STENBERGER, 1947: 25-26.
26
CNS, 1975: V.1, book 2, 80; MALEK, 1993: 247.
27
STENBERGER, 1947: 218.
28
STENBERGER, 1947: 76.
23
Page | 188
and bronze metal weighting over 20 kg. The deposit was hidden under floorboards of
a building identified as a shed. 29
There were identified 23 coins from Iran – starting with coins representing БuЬЫō II
and later Arab-Sasanian mints.
Finally in Denmark there were just three excavations of hoards containing Sasanian
coins, two in 19th century and one just before the Second World War. In Denmark there was
just a little number of hoards with the Sasanian coins found. One of a hoard was probably
discovered on Bornholm Island. Such a discovery can widen a marine map of water trade
routes of Middle-Ages merchandisers. Mr. Hoven, in his article about, gives a number
of eastern coins in Scandinavian museums. He writes about Denmark of 4000 dirhams
ТЧΝιγΝПТЧНЬέΝAЦШЧРΝЭСОЦΝЭСОЫОΝКЫОΝιΝḴPКСХКЯТΝМШТЧЬḵΝ– Sasanian or Arab-Sasanian. 30
Before 1849, in Enner, there was found a hoard consisting of 1306 coins. The hoard
had been hidden in the beginning of 11th century. The description about this discovery tells
КЛШuЭΝ ЭСОΝ ПТЧНΝ ШПμΝ Ḵ(…)Ν AЫКЛТМΝ ДМШТЧЬ]Ν аТЭСТЧΝ ЬШЦОΝ ШХНОЫΝ НТЫСКЦЬḵ.31 Such a description
pШТЧЭЬΝЭСКЭΝЭСОΝḴШХНОЫḵΝAЫКЛТМΝНТЫСКЦЬΝЦТРСЭΝЛОΝSКЬКЧТКn or Arab-Sasanian drachms.
Conclusions
Most of founded Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian coins were cut and parted so not much
of discoveries were properly identified. Finds reported from the beginning of 19th century
НШЧ’ЭΝ РТЯОΝ ЦuМСΝ ТЧПШЫЦКЭТШЧΝ МШЧМОЫЧТЧРΝ МШЧЭОxt of discoveries. There is no information
whether coins were being found separately or within other Eastern, Slavian or Viking
artefacts. More over coins are being now impossible to be reidentified because they were
differently distributed, f. e. in not existing museums or collections. Nowadays it is easier not
to separate coin finds from their archaeological context.
There is no evidence showing similarities between crowns and helmets in Sasanian
Empire. Some of early rulers crowns are being shown schematically alike helmets but there is
no any proof to be sure that they can be compared. Sasanian crowns were dedicated only
for kings and they are the basic of rulers identification. It appears that the crowns of Sasanian
rulers were personalized, 32 nevertheХОЬЬΝ ЭСОΝ ФТЧРΝ НТНЧ’ЭΝ СКЯОΝ УuЬЭΝ ШЧОΝ ЭвpОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ МЫШаЧ.
Starting with the first š С nš С AЫНКš ЫΝ I, it is clear that he had couple kinds of crowns. 33
For example, there cannot be a interpretation of Sasanian rock reliefs based just
on the Sasanian numismatics systematic because rulers tender to repeat earlier types
of crowns.34
This work on new excavations of Sasanian coins in the Baltic Sea area should help
to discover similarities and differences between the armour and crowns of the coinage
of Sasanian period. It is astonishing if Slavian rulers took any pattern on artefacts (f. e. coins
iconography ornaments) brought from the East. There are still a lot to be discovered. Some
29
WAUGH, 2011: 165-169.
HOVEN, 1981: 119-129.
31
GUMOWSKI, 1953: 33-34.
32
ERDMANN, 1951: 87-123; żнBδ,Ν1971: 7.
33
żнBδ,ΝńλιńμΝTab. I; ALRAM, 1999: 67-76; HUFF, 2007: 209.
34
HARPER, MEYERS, 1981: 9. MAKSYMIUK, 2017: 108.
30
Page | 189
ШПΝОКЫХТОЫΝПТЧНЬΝШПΝМШТЧЬΝКЫОΝЛОТЧРΝФОpЭΝТЧΝЦuЬОuЦЬ’ΝШЫΝТЧΝpЫТЯКЭОΝМШХХОМЭТШЧЬΝЛuЭΝЭСОЫОΝКЫОΝЧШЭΝ
being properly documented. By the finds of hoards in the Baltic Sea area and further
by the river banks there is a possibility to draw new Mediterranean trade routes that were
used in the past. Maybe someday there will be an answer to the question whether the Persian
reached Baltic Sea area by themselves, with their artefacts or armour or just within
the representation of their coins.
Bibliography
ALRAM, M. (1999), The Beginning of Sasanian Coinage,Ν„BuХХОЭТЧΝШПΝЭСОΝAЬТКΝIЧЬЭТЭuЭОḵΝńγ,Νθι-76.
BERGA, T.M. (1988), Monety w archeologicznych znaleziskach (datowane na IX-XII w.), Riga.
BOGUCKI, M. (2007), Coin finds in the Viking-AРО ОmporТum Кt JКnóа PomorskТ (Truso)
and the'Prussian Phenomenon', [in:] Money circulation in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern
times. Time, range, intensity, S. SUCHODOLSKI (ed.), Warszawa-KЫКФяа,Νιλ-108.
Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX-XI qui in Suecia reperti sunt, (1975), vol. 1-Gotland, book
1-AФОЛтМФ-Atlingbo, edit. B. Malmer, N.L. Rasmusson, Stockholm.
Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX-XI qui in Suecia reperti sunt, (1977), vol. 1-Gotland, book 2-BтХButtle, edit. B. Malmer, Stockholm.
Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX-XI qui in Suecia reperti sunt, (1982), vol. 1-Gotland, book 4Fardhem-ŻЫöУОХ,ΝОНТЭέΝBέΝεКХЦОЫ,ΝSЭШМФСШХЦέ
ERDMANN, K. (1951), Die Entwicklung der sasanidischen Krone,Ν„AЫЬΝIЬХКЦТМКḵ,Νńηήńθ,Νκι-123
żнBδ,Ν RέΝ (ńλθι),Ν Dokumente zur Geschichte der iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien,
Wiesbaden.
żнBδ,ΝRέΝ(ńλιń),ΝSasanian Numismatics, Braunschweig.
GRANBERG, B. (1966), FörtОМОrnТnР övОr vuПТskoР MвntПвnН I FТnlКnН,Ν „StuНТКΝ τЫТОЧЭКХТКḵΝ γζ,Ν
60-100.
GUMOWSKI, M. (1906), Wykopaliska monet polskich X i XI wieku (z 3 tabl.), KЫКФяаέ
GUMOWSKI, M. (1953), Polskie skarby monet z X-БI аṬ (MКtОrТКłв), Warszawa.
GUSTAFSSON, N.B. (2013), Casting Identities in Central Seclusion. Aspects of Non-ferrous
Metalworking on Gotland in the Early Medieval Period, Stockholm.
HARPER, P. MEYERS, P. (1981), Silver Vessels of the Sasanian Period I. Royal Imagery, New York.
HERRMANN, J. (2008), RКlsаТОk КuП RüРОnṬ DТО slКаТsМС-wikingischen Siedlungen und deren
HТntОrlКnНṬ TОТl VṬ DКs HüРОlРrтЛОrПОlН Тn НОn "SМСаКrгОn BОrРОn" ЛОТ RКlsаТОk, Schwerin.
HOVEN, B.E. (1981), On Oriental coins in Scandinavia, [in:] Viking-Age Coinage in the Northern
Lands. The sixth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, Part I, M.A. BLACKBURN,
D.M. METCALF (eds.), Oxford,, 119-129.
HUFF, D. (2007), The 'Parthian' Bronze Bust in the Berlin Museum for Islamic Art, and ParthianSasanian aristocratic headgear, [in:] Facts and Artefacts - Art in the Islamic World. Festschrift
Пor JОns KröРОr on СТs 65tС BТrtСНКв, A. HAGEDORN, A. SHALEM (eds.), Leiden-Boston, 205-229.
KIERSNOWSKI, R. (1960), Kilka uwag o znaleziskach monet аМгОsno rОНnТoаТОМгnвМС г PołКЛТК,
„SХКЯТКΝAЧЭТquКḵΝκ,Νńηι-192.
KIERSNOWSKA, T., KIERSNOWSKI, R. (1959), АМгОsno rОНnТoаТОМгnО skКrЛв srОЛrnО
г PomorгКŚ mКtОrТКłв 2,ΝАЫШМṢКаέ
ϞϤϢϣϢϦϞϜϡ,ΝϖέϖέΝ(ńλικ),Ν
IБ Ṭ
,
ϠЂЅϾ϶ϴέ
LISSAUER, A. (1877), DТО prтСТstorТsМСО DОnkmтlОr НОr ProvТnг АОstprОussОn, Leipzig.
Ł żA, W. (1930), KulturК PomorгК аО аМгОsnвm rОНnТoаТОМгu nК poНstКаТО авkopКlТsk, TШЫu έ
ŁτSI SKI, W. (1988), CСronoloРТК nКpłваu nКjstКrsгОj monОtв КrКЛskiej na terytorium Europy,
„SХКЯТКΝAЧЭТquКḵΝγń,Νλγ-181.
Page | 190
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2017), TСО SКsКnТКn RОlТОП Кt SКlm s – New proposal, [in:] Crowns, hats, turbans
and helmets. The headgear in Iranian history volume I: Pre-Islamic Period, K. MAKSYMIUK,
G. KARAMIAN (eds.), Siedlce-Tehran, 97-112.
MALEK, H.M. (1993), A survey on research on Sasanian numismatics,Ν„σuЦТЬЦКЭТМЬΝCСЫШЧТМХОḵΝńηγ,Ν
227-271.
MALMER, B. (1985), Some thoughts on the secondary treatment of Viking-Age coins found
on Gotland and in Poland, [in:] Nummus et historia. PТОnТąНг Europв rОНnТoаТОМгnОj,
S.K. KUCГВ SKI,ΝSέΝSUCHτDτδSKI, Warszawa, 49-56.
ϠϔϤϞϢϖ, ϔέΝ (ńλńί),
я
(
),
ϥІέΝϣϹІϹЄЅϵЇЄϷ.
MAYER, W.G. (2010), Arabic coins of the Middle Ages found in Germany,
[http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v13n37a18.html (accessed July 2, 2017)]
NOONAN, T.S. (1981), Ninth-century dirham hoards from European Russia: a preliminary analysis,
[in:] Viking-Age Coinage in the Northern Lands. The sixth Oxford Symposium on Coinage
and Monetary History, Part I, M.A. BLACKBURN, D.M. METCALF (eds.), Oxford, 47-118.
SADOWSKI, J.N. (1877), АвkКг гКЛвtkóа prгОНСТstorвМгnвМС nК гТОmТКМС polskТМС porгОМгК АКrtв
i Baryczy,ΝKЫКФяаέ
SKOVMAND, R. (1942), Die danske skattefund fra vikingetiden og demaeldeste Middelander inditill
omkring 1150, Stockholm.
STATTLER, E. (1968), Kontakty Polski z krajami arabskimi (IX-XI w.),Ν „SХКЯТКΝ AЧЭТquКḵΝ ńη,Ν
215-270.
STENBERGER, M (1947), DТО SМСтtгПunНО GotlКnНs НОr АТkТnРОrгОТt, vol. 1, Text, vol. 2, Fund
beschreibung und Taffeln, Lund.
δASKI,Ν Jέ,Ν TABACГВ SKI,Ν SέΝ (ńληλ),Ν АМгОsno rОНnТoаТОМгnО skКrЛв srОЛrnО АТОlkopolskТṬ
MКtОrТКłв I, Warszawa.
WAUGH, D. (2011), The Spillings Hoard in the Gotlands Museum, „TСОΝSТХФΝRШКНḵ 9, 165-169.
WALKER J. (1956), Catalogue of Muhammadan Coins in the British Museum, Vol.1, Arab-Sasanian
Coins', London.
WIECHMANN, R. (1996), Edelmetalldepots der Wikingerzeit in Schleswig-Holstein. Vom
„RТnРЛrОМСОr" гur MünгаТrtsМСКПt,ΝσОuЦüЧЬЭОЫέ
ГARIŅA,ΝAέΝ(ńλλβ)έΝDТО KontКktО НОr LТvОn mТt skКnНТnКvТsМСОn LтnНОrn nКМС den Schmucksachen
НОs GrтЛОrПОlНОs Кus НОm 10Ṭ-13. Jh. zu Salaspils Laukskola, [in:] Die Kontakte zwischen Ostbaltikum
unН SkКnНТnКvТОn Тm ПrüСОn MТttОlКltОrṬ IntОrnКtТonКlО KonПОrОnг, RТРК, 23Ṭ-25. Oktober 1990,
A. LOIT,ΝźέΝεUżURźVIČS,ΝAέΝCAUσźΝ(ОНЬέ), Stockholm, 173-184.
Page | 191
Picture captions
Fig. 1. Middle-ages trade routes in Europe (after: Stattler, 1968: 260).
Fig. 2. Finds of Sasanian coins at the Baltic Sea area (drawing by the author).
Page | 192
Fig. 3. A coin of БuЬЫō I (after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. XII/196).
Fig. 4. A coin of Hormozd IV (after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. XII/200).
Fig. 5. A coin of БuЬЫō II (after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. XIII/210).
Fig. 6. A coin of AЫНКš ЫΝI (after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. I/10).
Page | 193
Fig. 7. A coin of ṣ puЫΝI (after: żöЛХ, 1971: pl. II/32).
Fig. 8. A coin of Ziyad ibn abu Sufiyan (after: żöЛХ, 1967: 10).
Fig. 9. Arab-Sasanian coin from КЛКЫОЬЭ Ч (after: Walker, 1956: 156).
Page | 194
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Adam KUBIK (Siedlce University, Poland)
Sasanian lamellar helmets
Abstract
This paper discuss lamellar helmets from Iran and close neighbourhood (a specially from
current Dagestan) at the Sasanian period including helmet finds and art representations. I hope it will
put some new light on the mutual influences of the armour forms of Euro-Asiatic warriors.
Keywords: Sasanian, lamellar helmets, Iran, Tibet, Asia, Eastern Europe, Afrika
Introduction
Several helmets dating from the Sasanian period are already well known. Most
of them came from museum collections and share one type of construction, being cross-band
helmets. This construction clearly evolved from the band helmet form of construction where
the two halves of a helmet bowl were joined by the main band going from the back
to the front part. In the cross-band form each half of the helmet bowl was separated in two
pieces held together by the second band, itself consisting of one or two pieces. This style
in which the second band was of one or two pieces led Ch. Miks to differentiate cross-band
helmets into separate types. Namely band helmets with two side-spangs and proper crossbandhelme forms.1 However, in my publications I have used the term cross-band helmet
for both those helmets types.2
As was mentioned above, most of the well known Sasanian forms came from
museums and private collection and have no further archaeological data. There are, of course,
some exceptions, for example the 3rd century CE Sasanian helmet from Dura Europos
(currently held in the Yale University Art Gallery).3 This is of bandhelme construction,
having no lower band and possessing many features not seen in other well-known crossbandhelme Sasanian helmets. These differences led me to look for different forms of Iranian
armour, unlike what might be called the then ḴpШpuХКЫΝШЧОЬḵέΝτЧОΝШПΝЦвΝШЛЬОЫЯКЭТШЧЬΝХОНΝЦОΝ
to write the current study of lamellar helmets in Iran. But before I setting down my ideas on
this extremely interesting topic, I will try to explain some very basic typological
characteristics and differences of the main types of lamellar helmet.
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) and No. 204/17/MN were financed from the science grant granted
by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education; Institute of History and International Relations,
Faculty of Humanities; atakan-al-vefa@wp.pl
1
See: MIKS, 2009: abb. 4.
KUBIK, 2016a: 90.
3
JAMES, 1986: 120-121.
2
Page | 195
Lamellar helmets consists of long plates (lames) of the same size joined together
by leather straps or rivets. We can group them in two main groups. Group One will consist
of what Koreans call vertical-plate type (Jongjangpanju type, see Fig. 1),4 where we can see
the main lame at the front of the helmet. The lines of lames start from behind one edge
of the main plate, then goes around the warriors head and back to the other edge of the plate
lame. Group Two will consist of those forms where we cannot identify a main forehead lame,
all of the plates in such type ḴЛОТЧРΝ ОquКХḵέΝ TСОЫОΝ НШОЬ,Ν ШПΝ МШuЫЬО,Ν ОбТЬЭΝ ЬШЦОΝ ПuЫЭСer
characteristics of helmets construction, such us, for example, a lower band, an upper round
or smaller bowl-like form of finial, not to mention various lacing systems etc., which allow
the separation of these groups in various lamellar helmet types.
Fig. 1. Head of a warrior figure (the body is missing), with a fierce expression and wearing a Verticalplate type lamellar helmet. The forehead plate becomes longer than the other lames of this helmet
and creates a sort of nasal protection. Asia, China, Xinjiang (autonomous region), QКЫКšКСЫ, 6th-7th
century CE.5 British Museum inv. no. εASέńίθβέΝ©ΝTСОΝTЫuЬЭООЬΝШПΝЭСОΝBЫТЭТЬСΝεuЬОuЦ.
What is particularly interesting is that we can indicate that Group One of lamellar
helmets was far more popular in Eastern Asia whereas Group Two seems to be a typically
Western Asiatic form of construction, although this is, of course, an oversimplification.
During some historical periods both types produced some very individual forms and both
were also influencing each other, especially during the massive migrations and movements
of the Asiatic nomadic people. Furthermore, such correlations with other forms of helmet
4
5
KUBIK, 2016a: fig. 8.
STEIN, 1921: pl. CXXXV; WHITFIELD, 1985: fig. 17.
Page | 196
construction gave rise to some hybrid helmets which shared the main aspects of one type
of the helmets and the construction method of another.6
Here I must note one further type of helmets which I will use in this paper
as a comparison with a Sasanian lamellar helmet representations – namely ḴЬФОХОЭШЧḵΝ
helmets. These forms consist of a skeleton made of long spangs connected to the upper part
of the helmet with a rivet while smaller pieces are attached to the carcass construction.7 Such
carcass form helmets were popular among the Sarmatians in the northern Pontic region
during 1st-3rd century CE8 and themselves gave a rise to new forms of helmets known from
the furthers eastern regions in Europe and in pre-viking Scandinavia.9
The Shaikhān-Dherī helmet
It should be noted at present there no lamellar helmet has been found from Sasanian
Iran. But currently all known representations of such helmets came from Sasanian and related
art.10 Nevertheless, there is one find which can shed light on the possible construction
of lamellar helmets from r nšКСr territory.
In autumn 1963, during excavations in SСКТkС n-DheЫ ,Ν Ch rsКНК, in building
or shrine D, several metal objects were discovered.11 Among them were elements of arms
and armour including broken and incomplete fragments of a straight sword, scales, plate
fragments and a round helmet finial (Fig. 3). F.R. Allchin grouped them together and stated
that there were enough elements to permit a helmet reconstruction but, in his opinion,
not enough to belong to a larger piece of armour.12 That statement lead him to suggests
a reconstruction of the SСКТkС n-DСОЫ ΝСОlmet as something akin to a much later Rajasthani
helmet, then held in the Jaipur Palace Museum.13
A second, alternative, reconstruction was proposed by M.V. Gorelik who suggested
that some pieces could have been lost and that, in reality, the remains were part of a more
normal helmet.14 However Gorelik tried to use all the pieces of armour found in SСКТkС nDСОЫ Ν ТЧΝ СТЬΝ ЫОМШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ КΝ СОХЦОЭέΝ IЧΝ ЦвΝ ШpТЧТШЧΝ ЫОЬuХЭΝ ХОНΝ ЭШΝ ЦКЧвΝ МШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ
problems because the lacing system of the surviving plate fragments meant that M.V. Gorelik
reconstruction could not be possible. On the other hand, his observation is still very
important. In fact many elements were lost and for a hypothetical reconstruction we need
to look at other finds of segmented helmets.
Among the plates found at SСКТkС n-DСОЫ we can see five different types:
1. Circular plate with small holes around the edge and a single hole in the centre. Flat
cross-section and with convexity around the edge. Diameter – 7,8-7 cm.15
6
For hybrid forms of lamellar helmets, see for example: RADIUSH, 2014: ris 1; KUBIK, 2016a: fig.
8.
7
SYMONENKO, 2015: ris. 75.
8
SYMONENKO, 2015: 215-220.
9
δUR’ź,Νβίίλέ
10
KUBIK, 2016b: 619-622.
11
ALLCHIN, 1970: 113.
12
ALLCHIN, 1970: 113-115.
13
ALLCHIN, 1970: fig. 3-4.
14
GORELIK, 1982: 103; NIKONOROV, 1997: 14, pl. 34, t.
15
ALLCHIN, 1970: fig. 2.3.
Page | 197
2. Long triangular plate hole on the top and four holes towards the bottom. The bottom
part was clearly broken and in fact we cannot clearly state the length of that piece.
The transverse-section was curved. Length of surviving piece – 9 cm.16
3. Oblong plates of maximum 10 cm long and 2 cm across. With pair of holes along one
longer side and pairs of the holes on the shorter sides. It should be noted that some
broken pieces of another form of the plate were connected to the longer side
of a larger one of these plates. In fact only one of two such plates share these
characteristics, the second one being smaller and I cannot confirm whether there are
holes on the longer edge of the plate.17
4. Oval plates or scales averaging 7,5 by 3,5 cm with pairs of holes at upper and bottom
parts of it, plus four holes inside the plate.18
5. Scale form plates averaging 3-4,75/5,5 cm with a single hole in the top and bottom
parts of the plate and four holes in the middle of each.19
Let us start with plates nos. 4 and 5. The lacing form of these plates make it impossible
to connect them with an oblong plates of no. 3 which could to be a part of the lower band
of the helmet. A surviving fragment of the broken plate clearly had two holes on the bottom
part placed in horizontal line. What is more, scales from ShaikС n-DСОЫ ΝСКЯОΝКΝХКМТЧРΝПШЫЦΝ
which clearly corresponds with other scale finds from Euro-Asia during that period such as,
for example, plate forms from Dura Europos or Carnuntum.20 Most likely those scales never
belonged to the helmet bowl construction. The question is whether those scales could form
some part of the neck guard, as in the form proposed by the M.V. Gorelik. In my opinion it is
quite possible. As mentioned above, oblong plates have only upper connection where slightly
different plates were connected. The bottom part showed no evidence of any possible neck
guard lacing system. Of course we cannot exclude the possibility that some complicated
leather connection of the main bowl with a neck guard existed there or that only the front part
of the lower rim survived. However, a completely new view of that helmet comes from a new
find of similar lamellar helmet which had a scale form of neck guard which was discovered
near KТpčКФШЯШ21 (rus. ϞϼЃЋϴϾЂ϶Ђ) in Ryazan Oblast (rus. ϤГϻϴЁЅϾϴГ ЂϵϿϴЅІА)
of the Russian Federation (Fig. 2). It consists of a long lame connected at its upper part with
a circular plate finial. Here scales from the neck guard of the helmet were also discovered,
connected to each other by a form of lacing similar to the scales described as no. 5. What is
more, segmented cheek pieces made of oblong plates with a holes on the sides of them were
also found in the same place.
Thus we can state with confidence that only two first forms (1-2) belonged
to the helmet bowl construction. But what did such construction was look like? Plate 1 clearly
suggests that it was sort of round form helmet with a flat circular finial. This form
ТЧΝ ОЬЬОЧЭТКХХвΝ ЬТЦТХКЫΝ ЭШΝ ЭСОΝ KТpčКФШЯШΝ ПТЧН,Ν КЬΝ аОХХΝ КЬΝ ЭШΝ аОХХΝ pЫОЬОЫЯОНΝ ХКЭОЫΝ TТЛОЭКЧΝ
lamellar helmets (Fig. 5).22 Furthermore, as it was corrected stated by M.V. Gorelik, plate no.
2 is just one remaining piece from the long lames which created the main base of the helmet
bowl. Yet it was approximately twice as long and ended with a two hole lacing system. Most
16
ALLCHIN, 1970: fig. 2.4.
ALLCHIN, 1970: fig. 2.6.
18
ALLCHIN, 1970: fig. 2.1-2.
19
ALLCHIN, 1970: fig. 2.5.
20
See for example: BISHOP, COULSTON, 1993: pic. 51/VII.
21
ZUBOV, 1999: 47; ZUBOV, 2011: 68; ZUBOV, RADIUSH, 2014: ris. 1.3.
22
LAROCCA, 2006.
17
Page | 198
likely the oblong plates were part of segmented cheek pieces in the form known from
ЭСОΝKТpčКФШЯШΝСОХЦОЭΝ(ŻТРέΝζ),ΝЛОТЧРΝХКМОНΝЭШΝЭСОΝХШаОЫΝОНРОΝШПΝЭСОΝСОХЦОЭΝЛвΝКΝХОКЭСОЫΝЬЭЫКpЬέΝ
Of course we cannot exclude the possibility that there was also some sort of segmented lower
rim. There do exist some skeleton helmets from Eastern Europe on which we can observe
such lower rim forms. For example the helmet found in the Tarasovo burial23
(rus. ϦϴЄϴЅЂ϶ЅϾϼϽ ЀЂϷϼϿАЁϼϾ) in the Udmurt Republic (rus. ϧϸЀЇЄІЅϾϴГ ϤϹЅЃЇϵϿϼϾϴ)
of the Russian Federation. So that possibility cannot be excluded.
Fig. 2. HОХЦОЭΝПЫШЦΝKТpčКФШЯШΝаТЭСΝКΝЬМКХОΝЧОМФΝРuКЫН,Ν(ЫОМШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝby A.E. Negin, after: Zubov,
Radiush, 2014: ris. 1.3).
23
See for example: GOLDINA, BERNCH, 2016: ris. 3.
Page | 199
Fig. 3. SСКТkС n-DСОЫ ,ΝCh rsКНК, Pakistan, late Kuš Ч period, mid. 3rd century CE, helmet elements,
(after: Allchin, 1970: fig. 1-2: 1)έΝCТЫМuХКЫΝpХКЭОΝПТЧТКХέΝβέΝŻЫКРЦОЧЭΝШПΝШЧОΝШПΝЭСОΝСОХЦОЭ’ЬΝЦКТЧΝХКЦОЬέ
3. Fragments of segmented cheek pieces. 4. Scale neck guard form.
Page | 200
Fig. 4. Helmet from SСКТkС n-DСОЫ ΝаТЭСΝКΝЬМКХОΝЧОМФΝРuКЫН,Ν(reconstruction by the author).
Fig. 5. The Tibetan lamellar helmet, dated by the museum to the 13 th-15th century CE. Purchase, Gift
of William H. Riggs, by exchange, and The Sulzberger Foundation Inc. Gift, 1999. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, acc. no. 1999.158.
The Kalkni helmet
As it was shown with the above find from SСКТkС n-DСОЫ ,Ν ЭСОΝ ЦШЬЭΝ ХТФОХвΝ ЫШuЧНΝ
Iranian lamellar helmets had a flat finial. It is a very important contribution to further study
of Sasanian helmets because it is correctly excavated object and shares many characteristics
with later Sasanian representations. The datation of this object was based on the coins
and other objects found nearby which came from the late Kuš ЧΝpОЫТШН,ΝЦТНέΝγrd century CE,
Page | 201
which allow us to state that the Sasanians probably knew such construction forms from
the very beginning of the rise of their Empire. What is more, what will be shown below is
that later Sasanian helmets did not change much from the main construction of the SСКТkС nDСОЫ ΝСОХЦОЭέΝAХХΝФЧШаΝЫОpЫОЬОЧЭКЭТШЧЬΝЬСШаΝКΝЫШuЧНΝПШЫЦΝШПΝЭСОΝСОХЦОЭΝЛШаХέΝδШЧРОЫΝПШЫЦЬΝ
with a characteristic depression in the upper part of the construction being to appear in the so
called ḴАОЬЭḵΝ КЭΝ ЭСОΝ ЭuЫЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ θth-7th century CE,24 along with migrations of the nomadic
peoples, but they cannot be found in South-Western Asia, at least not in its lamellar forms.
However, there is one possible exception. Near the village of Kalkni25 (rus. ϞϴϿϾЁϼ)Νin the
Republic of Dagestan, Russian Federation, several burials dated to the 3rd-5th century CE were
discovered.26 In grave no. 3 several pieces of a fragmented helmet were found (Fig. 6); all of
these as well as a proposed reconstruction were published by B.M. Salihov in 1985. The
Kalkni helmet is currently held in the Institute of Archaeology, History and Ethnography in
Dagestan. That helmet is very important for the current studies as it shows some mutual
influences between the Roman Empire, the Caucasus and most likely Iran because part
of Dagestan belonged to the Sasanian Empire in the 4th-5th century CE. But to understand
ЭСШЬОΝМШЫЫОХКЭТШЧЬΝаОΝЧООНΝЭШΝРШΝЛКМФΝЭШΝBέεέΝSКХТСШЯ’ЬΝЫОМШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝКЧНΝЭШΝЬuРРОЬЭΝЭСКЭΝТЭΝ
is apparently incorrect. To pЫШЯОΝ ЭСТЬΝ аОΝ ЧООНΝ ЭШΝ ХШШФΝ ШЧМОΝ КРКТЧΝ ШЧΝ SКХТСШЯ’ЬΝ НЫКаТЧРЬέΝ
As already stated, in grave no. 3 of Kalkni burials several pieces belonging to the lamellar
helmet were discovered, namely:
1. A bowl form finial with small holes around (?) the edge and a single hole
in the centre. In his reconstruction B.M. Salihov proposed a loop at the ending of that
finial however we cannot see that feature on his drawing of the actual helmet
fragments. Diameter – 8,4 cm, high – 4,5 cm.27
2. Three bigger fragments of the main bowl. The first one consists of the lames
fragments connected by rivets. The second fragment consist of the bottom lame
fragment connected to the fragment of the lower rim of the helmet, including a piece
of the mail guard attached to the lower edge of the helmet band. The third fragment
consists of the bottom lame fragments connected by rivets to the forehead part
of the rim with a small nasal.28
3. AΝpКТЫΝШПΝЦОЭКХΝОКЫЬΝаСТМСΝТЧΝBέεέΝSКХТСШЯЬ’ΝШpТЧТШЧΝПШЫЦОНΝpКЫЭΝШПΝЭСОΝХШаОЫΝЫТЦέ29
The problem with B.M. SКХТСШЯ’ЬΝ ЫОМШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСКЭΝ pКЫЭТМuХКЫΝ ПТЧНΝ ЬЭКЫЭЬΝ аТЭСΝ
the high of the fragment of the lower rim with mail attachment.30 That mail piece clearly
ЛОХШЧРОНΝЭШΝЭСОΝСОХЦОЭ’ЬΝЧОМФΝРuКЫНΝаСТМСΝаКЬΝpХКМОНΝШЧΝЭСОΝЛКМФΝШПΝЭСОΝСОХЦОЭέΝTСОΝСТРСΝ
of the rim at that point is clearly the same size that of the forehead part of it. I can state
that the lower rim of the Kalkni helmet was the same size on entire edge of the helmet,
and for this reason I cannot agree that the ears were part of the lower band. Why then were
metal ears found in that burial? Most likely they were part of cheek pieces in a very Roman
style.31 What is more, we cannot identify any clear depression on the plates found in that
PAULSEN, 1967: 133-137; WERNER, 1988: abb. 15; JиżźR,ΝβίίθμΝКЛЛέΝńκ; δUR’ź,ΝβίńγμΝβι;
KUBIK, 2016a: fig. 5.
25
SALIHOV, 1985: ris. V.
26
BAKUSHEV,ΝβίίημΝζζνΝżAD IźV,ΝMALASHEV, 2014: 15.
27
SALIHOV, 1985: ris. V.1.
28
SALIHOV, 1985: ris. V.2-3,6.
29
SALIHOV, 1985: ris. V.4-5.
30
SALIHOV, 1985: ris. V.6.
31
See for ex ample: NEGIN, 2015: fig. 10-13.
24
Page | 202
Burial. The bowl of the Kalkni helmet was most likely in the round form, similar to the other
lamellar helmet finds from Ruthenian territory until the 6th century CE and never being as tall
КЬΝ ШЧΝ BέεέΝ SКХТСШЯЬ’ΝЫОМШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝЬuРРОЬЭОНέΝ ŻuЫЭСОЫЦШЫО,Ν ЭСОΝКppОКЫКЧМОΝ ШПΝЬШХТНΝ МСООФΝ
pieces, a small nasal form, and a bowl form of finial make that item extremely similar
to helmet represented on the Arch of Galerius in Thessaloniki in northern Greece (Fig. 6).
This arch was built in 298 to 299 CE and was dedicated in 303 CE to celebrate the victory
of the tetrarch Galerius over the Sasanid Persians.32 Among the Roman soldiers we can see
some untypical helmets of multi segmental construction.33 This have bowl form finials, small
nasals, cheek pieces and round helmet bowl exactly of the type presented by the Kalkni find.
Fig. 6. From the upper left: fragments of the Kalkni helmet, early 5 th century CE, (after: Salihov, 1985:
ris. V), helmet from Kalkni, (reconstruction by the author), Bottom: one of the helmet types shown
on the Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki turn of the 3 rd-4th century CE.
32
33
CANEPA, 2009: 79-99; MAKSYMIUK, 2015: 48-49.
See for example: NEGIN, 2007: ris. 11.
Page | 203
Sasanian lamellar helmets
In Sasanian territory there are only two representations known to me that can be
clearly identified as lamellar helmets. One more came from Tunisia and was most likely
of the same construction model. I will start my presentation of Sasanian lamellar helmets
by looking at the African example.
Fig. 7. Gypsum mold from the Northern or Central Tunisia, dated by M. Mackensen to the turn
of the 5th-6th century CE (6th-7th century CEς),Ν AЫМСтШХШРТЬМСОΝ SЭККЭЬЬКЦЦХuЧРΝ Museum, Munich.
inv. no. 1987, 995, (photo by St. Friedrich).
IЧΝ ЭСОΝ AЫМСтШХШРТЬМСОΝ SЭККЭЬЬКЦЦХuЧРΝ εuЬОuЦ,Ν εuЧТМС,Ν żОЫЧКЧв,Ν ЭСОЫОΝ КЫОΝ ЦКЧвΝ
interesting finds from North Afrika. Among them we can find gypsum molds, which were
published in 2005 by M. Mackensen.34 One of them, which came from northern or central
Tunisia, represents armoured rider (Fig. 7). He wears a tunic with a frontal decoration
in rectangular form. The round decorations were identified by M. Mackensen as a mail
shirt.35 However bigger round forms with a smaller decoration inside look similar to a textile
roundel decorative motifs which have evolved in Asia in to the so-called pearl roundels.36
There are also easy to see marks of such rings or pearls on the edges of the riders clothes
or armour. The same motifs were scratched onto a narrow belt with a large ring buckle.
What is more, a line of these rings or pearls can easily be seen on the lower rim of the helmet.
We cannot identify all those marks as mail rings. More likely those pearls are merely a sort
of decoration. On the other hand, the clear separation of the face from marks over the edge
of the possible tunic could represent a sort of the mail collar or coif on this art object.
We cannot exclude the possibility that some sort of armour was hidden under the tunic
as such fashion have had clear Iranian associations.37 However, the most interesting aspect
ТЧΝ ЭСТЬΝ РвpЬuЦΝ ЦШХНΝ ТЬΝ ЭСОΝ КЫЦШuЫОНΝ ЫТНОЫ’ЬΝ ПШЫЦΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭέΝ TСТЬΝ СОХЦОЭΝ аКЬΝ НОpТМЭОНΝ
as a multi segmental bowl consisting of long vertical lames and a sort of the rim decorated
with the pearl motif. There is no bowl form finial indicated, so it is possible that the helmet
34
MACKENSEN, 2007: 613-628.
MACKENSEN, 2007: 617.
36
See for example: KAGEYAMA, 2006: 322; SCHRENK, 2006: 24-25; BENAZETH, 2006: 158-159.
37
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2016: 251-281.
35
Page | 204
ended with a circular plate in a manner similar to the SСКТkС n-DСОЫ ΝШЫΝKТpčКФШЯШΝСОХЦОЭЬέΝ
But it is also possible that there was no finial at all and that this helmet was a version
of the form known, for example, from the helmet find from Andreevka 38 (rus. ϔЁϸЄϹϹ϶Ͼϴ)
in BШХšОТРЧКЭШЯЬФТ ΝDТЬЭЫТМЭΝ(ЫuЬέΝϕЂϿАЌϹϼϷЁϴІЂ϶ЅϾϼϽΝЄϴϽЂЁ) of Russian Federation. In that
burial a iron lamellar helmet was discovered and possibly did not have the round finial
typical for other finds of that type. Another interesting feature of the Tunisian find is the pearl
pattern on the helmet rim. The same characteristic can be seen on representations from Iran
which is further evidence that the helmet shown on the mold was of Iranian origin.
The clearest representation of a Sasanian lamellar helmet is found on the carved
column capital currently held in T q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч Museum and dating to the 6th-7th century CE
(Fig. 9).39 This column fragment was originally discovered at B ЬОЭ Ч40 and represents
a heavily armoured person wearing a cuirass,41 mail armour and a segmented helmet. In 2007
the depiction was the subject of a fully study by P.N. Skupniewicz.42 Nevertheless, many
features of the helmet from the T q-ОΝ BШЬЭ Ч capital remains to be discussed. It consists
of long lames cut in decorative way (Fig.10). Every single lame possesses a decorative ridge
in its central part. There is no visible finial on the helmet but only the front part of this relief
was carved in very detailed manner. Nor was there any visible circular plate on the finial part
of the helmet, as found on the Andreevka helmet. Furthermore, in the upper part we can
clearly see a sort of bar which possibly ended with a loop to which a decorative korymbos
and a silk scarf might be attached. It is possible that this was the purpose of the central holes
made in the circular finial plates known from various lamellar helmet finds. On the bottom
part of the helmet there is a clearly visible rim. Decorated with a double line of pearls
and rectangular gem stones.
Gem stones around the edge of a segmented helmet were seen on the find from
kurgan no. 13 oПΝ KТšpОФΝ ЛuЫТКХ43 (rus. ϞϼЌЃϹϾ) placed in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic
(rus. ϞϴϵϴЄϸϼЁЂ-ϕϴϿϾϴЄЅϾϴГ ϤϹЅЃЇϵϿϼϾϴ) of Russian Federation. In a princely grave there
a helmet was discovered which was of skeleton construction. The main construction
of this helmet is based on a frame consisting of four main spangs to which smaller spangs are
attached. It is a quite unique item and is generally thought to be imitating a lamellar helmet
construction. To the frontal part of this helmet four gem stones were attached. Two of them
were of ЫОМЭКЧРuХКЫΝ ПШЫЦέΝ IЧΝ ЫОКХТЭвΝ ЭСОΝ МШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ ПШЫЦΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭΝ ПЫШЦΝ KТšpОФΝ ТЬΝ
not lamellar and the gem stones were placed in slightly different places, but the appearance
of the gem stone on the long lame construction suggests that it is more closely related
ЭШΝЭСОΝT q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝМШХuЦЧΝМКpТЭКХΝПТЧНΝЭСОЧΝЭШΝЭСОΝРОЧОЫКХХвΝpЫШpШЬОНΝRШЦКЧΝBОЫФКЬШЯШ44
type helmets.
Also interesting is the fact that on this representation of a helmet we can see a double
form of neck protection. There is a small mail neck guard visible at the back part
38
ZUBOV, RADIUSH, 2014: ris. 1.2.
GALL VON, 1990: 100-110.
40
MOVASSAT, 2005: 5, 12-15.
41
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2016: 274-275.
42
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2007: 9-28.
43
BETROZOV, 1987: 11.
44
For Berkasovo helmet see for example: DAUTOVA-RUSEVLJAN, VUJτVIĆ, 2011: 8,
COULSTON, 2013: 470-ζιńέΝ PШХОЦТМΝ аТЭСΝ źuЫШМОЧЭЫТМΝ ЭСОЬТЬΝ ЬООμΝ VASIδ’źV,Ν KARIετV,Ν βίίκμΝ
238-246.
39
Page | 205
of the helmet, and furthermore the line of the neck guard becomes smaller on the front part
of the helmet. Nevertheless, it looks as if the mail was connected to the entire edge
of the helmet. Similar forms are known from a group of helmets dating from the 6th
to the 9th century CE discovered mainly in the Perm (rus. ϣϹЄЀЅϾϴГ ЂϵϿϴЅІА) and Tomsk
(rus. ϦЂЀЅϾϴГ ЂϵϿϴЅІА) regions of Russian Federation.45 Beneath the mail guard connected
to the helmet we can observe most likely a form of a mail hood or coif.
Plate lacing system have not been discussed because we cannot state in any clarity
whether the lames were connected with rivets or leather laces. It seems that the artist who
showed the most important aspects of construction either did not know or did not consider
important this particular aspect.
The last example of a lamellar helmet from r nšКСr territory appears on the gold
dinars of БuЬЫō the second (r. 591-628) (Fig. 8). On the obverse of this coin the bust of some
personage was presented in a very similar manner to that seen on the T q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝМКpТЭКХέΝ
The only protective armour shown is just the helmet, and there is no evidence of a mail neck
РuКЫН,Ν СШШНΝ ШЫΝ МШТПΝ КЬΝ ЬСШаЧΝ ШЧΝ T q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ ЫОpЫОЬОЧЭКЭТШЧέΝ TСОΝ ШЧХвΝ ТЦpШЫЭКЧЭΝ КЫЦШuЫΝ
remaining is a lamellar helmet. On its upper part there are clearly visible segmentations
of the helmet bowl, which was most likely made of long lames. There are no gem stones
on the lower rim. Instead there is just a double line of the pearl pattern. We can also see
a decorative korymbos and a silk scarf bow tied beneath it. Of course, many details of this
helmet could not be shown because the small size of the coin made it impossible.
Nevertheless, it remains very interesting that such a lamellar form of helmet become part
of Sasanian royal regalia in the late Sasanian period.
Of course, still we have very limited minor knowledge of Sasanian arms and armour
but representations of lamellar helmet show us that there existed more types of helmets used
on r nšКСr territory than simply bandhelme forms and its later cross-bandhelme
developments. Most likely Sasanian Iran took an active role in the evolution of multi
segmental helmet construction. But the question remains open concerning the degree
to which the Iranian Empire influenced nomads from the Ruthenian territory. At present we
ЬТЦpХвΝ НШЧ’ЭΝ ФЧШа,Ν ЛuЭΝ pОrhaps further studies on this topic will shed more light on that
interesting question.
Fig. 8. Dinar of БuЬЫō II (Slg. Deutsche Bundesbank, inv. no. 39/04), obverse. (drawing by the
author).
45
For example: LENZ, 1902: 92-93, OZHEREDOV, 1987: 114-120.
Page | 206
Fig. 9. Column capital discovered at B ЬОЭ Ч,ΝCОЧЭЫКХ-Western Iran КЧНΝМuЫЫОЧЭХвΝСОХНΝТЧΝT q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч
Museum, Central-Western Iran. Sasanian period 6th-7th century CE, (photo by K. Maksymiuk, drawing
by the author).
Page | 207
Fig. 10. From the left: T q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝХКЦОХХКЫΝСОХЦОЭ,Νθth-7th century CE, (reconstruction by the author),
The Tibetan lamellar helmet. China or Tibet, dated by The Royal Armouries to the early 15 th century
CE. Purchased 1 February 1986. Sold at auction Sotheby's New York, 20-1 September 1985. Ob. nr:
XXVIA.158, Leeds, Oriental GalleryέΝ©ΝRШвКХΝAЫЦШuЫТОЬέΝSООμΝδКЫШММК,ΝńλλλμΝПТРέΝγ,Νβίίθ,ΝσШέΝńń.
Bibliography
ALLCHIN, F.R. (1970), A piece of scale armour from Shaikhan Dheri, Charsada,Ν „JШuЫЧКХΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ
RШвКХΝAЬТКЭТМΝSШМТОЭвḵΝβ,Νńńγ-120.
BAKUSHEV, M.A. (2005), OЛr КН porčТ ТnvОntКrс v poРrОЛКlˀnвС pКmсtnТkКС DКРОstКnК AlКnoSarmackogo vremieni,Ν„VОЬЭЧТФΝIЧЬЭТЭuЭКΝIЬЭШЫТТ,ΝAЫСОШХШРТТΝТΝźЭЧШРЫКПТТḵΝγ,Νζβ-50.
BETROZOV, R.Z. (1987), KurРКnв РunnskoРo vrОmОnТ u sṬ KТšpОk, [in:] ArСОoloРТčОskТО isslОНovКnТс
na novostro kКС KКЛКrНТno-Blakarii 1972-1979, T. 3,ΝVέAέΝKUГσźČτVΝ(ОНέ),ΝσКХčвФ,Νńγ-25.
BENAZETH, D. (2006), LОs tОбtТlОs НО luбО, mКrquОurs НО lК roвКlТtц, [in:] Les Perses sassanides.
FКstОs НˀunО ОmpТrО ouЛlТц (224-642), F. DEMANGE (ed.), Paris, 157-160.
BISHOP, M.C., COULSTON, J.C.N. (1993), Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars
to the fall of Rome, London.
CANEPA, M.P. (2009), The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship Between Rome
and Sasanian Iran, Berkley-Los Angeles.
COULSTON, J.C.N. (2013), Late Roman military equipment culture, [in:] War and Warfare in Late
Antiquity, A. SARANTIS, N. CHRISTIE (eds.), Leiden-Boston.
DAUTOVA-RUSEVLJAN, V., VUJτVIĆ, M. (2011), Late Roman helmet from Jarak, Novy Sad.
żAD IźV,Ν εέSέ,Ν MALASHEV, V.YUέΝ (βίńζ),Ν «Knсгheskie» i elitne voinskie pogrebienia
pozdnesarmatskogo i gunskogo vremeni v Dagestane,Ν„KЫКЭФТОΝ SШШЛšОЧТ КΝ Instituta ArheologiiḵΝ234,
10-24.
Page | 208
GALL VON, H. (1990), The Figural Capitals at Taq-e Bostan and the Question of the so-called
Investiture in Parthian and Sasanian Art, „SТХФΝRШКНΝAЫЭΝКЧНΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝń,Νλλ-122.
GOLDINA, R.D., BERNCH, V.A. (2016), HronoloРТс muгhskТС poРrОЛОnТ III-V v.v. Tarasovskogo
Mogilnika, „Povolzhska ArheologiсḵΝńι,Νńι-58.
GORELIK, M.V. (1982), KušКnskТТ НospТОС, [in:] DrОvnсс InНТсŚ IstorТko-kulˀturn О svсгТ,
G.M. BONGARD-LEVIN (ed,), Moskva, 82-112.
HOWARD-JOHNSTON, J. (2010),
OSROW II, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК Iranica, online,
[http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii (accessed July 10, 2017)]
JAMES, S. (1986), Evidence from Dura-Europos for the Origins of Late Roman Helmets, „Syria
AЧЧėОḵΝθγ,Νńίι-134.
JиżźR,ΝUέΝ(βίίθ),ΝDer griechisch-hellenistiche Muskelpanzer und sein Fortlaben in Zentralasien, 4.
Jh. v. Chr. Bis 8./9. Jh. v. Chr. Ś EТn kurгОr BОТtrКР гum rüstunРstОМСnoloРТМСОn NКМСlОЛОn
des Hellenismus in Zentralasien, [in:] Arms and Armours as Indications of Cultural Transfer.
The steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages, M. MODE,
J. TUBACH (eds.), Wiesbaden, 19-42.
KAGEYAMA, E. (2006), Use and Production of Silks in Sogdiana, [in:] r n uН An r nŚ StuНТОs
PrОsОntОН to BorТs MКršКk on OММКsТon oП HТs 70tС BТrtСНКв, M. COMPARETI, P. RAFFETTA,
G. SCARCIA (eds.), Venice, 317-332.
KUBIK, A.L. (2016a), Introduction to studies on late Sasanian protective armour. The Yarysh-Mardy
helmet, „Historia ТΝ аТКЭḵΝη,Νιι-105.
KUBIK, A.L. (2016b), PrгОНstКаТОnТК koronṭtТКr ukКгКnО nК mКloаТНłКМС г ko МТołК poН аОгаКnТОm
аṬ MОrkurТusгК а mТОjsМoаo МТ LКlТЛОlК, EtТopТКṬ PoгostКło ć аpłваóа sКsКnТНгkТОРo IrКnu? [in:]
Istorыс rОlыРыj v UkrКэnыŚ nКukovТj šorыčnТk, τέΝKIRIČUK,ΝεέΝτεźδΥČUKΝ(ОНsέ),ΝδΥЯыЯ, 619-622.
LAROCCA, D. (1999), An approach to the study of arms and armour from Tibet,Ν„Royal Armouries
YearbookḵΝζ,Νńńγ-132.
LAROCCA, D. (2006), Warriors of the Himalayas, rediscovering the arms and armor of Tibet,
New York-London.
LENZ, E.E. (1902), Predmety vooruzhОnТс Т konskКРo uЛorК, nКjНОnО ЛlТгhˀsОlК DОmˀсnovkТ,
MОlТtopolˀskКРo uˀгНК, „IгЯ’ЬЭТсΝIЦpОЫКЭШЫЬФШТΝAЫСОШХШРТčОЬФШТΝKШЦЦТЬЬТТḵΝβ, 81-94.
LUR’E,
E.V.
(2009),
Šlemy
epohi
morovingov:
lesnoi
mir
i
germanˀčв.
[http://samlib.ru/l/lurxe_e_w/helme.shtml (accessed July 20, 2017)]
δUR’ź,Ν źέVέΝ (βίńγ),Ν ŠlОm Тг moРТlnТkК u sṬ KТšpОk Т klКssТПТkКМСТс šlОmov s sostКvnвm kupolom
rimskogo vremeni, [in:] TrОtˀс AЛСКгkКс mОгСНunКroНnКс konПОrОnčТсṬ PosvсšОnК pКm ati
GṬ KṬ ŠКmЛКṬ ProЛlОmв НrОvnО Т srОНnОvОkovoТ КrСОoloРТТ KКvkКгКṬ MКtОrТКlв konПОrОnč Т,
28 No КЛrс-1 DОkКЛrс 2011 РoНК, РṬ SuСum, VέṣέΝAVIDГBA (ed.), Suhum, 268-278.
MACKENSEN, M. (2007), SpтtКntТkО гаОТtОТlТРО GТpsmКtrТгО aus Nordafrika Пür Tonstatuetten eines
ЛОСОlmtОn östlТМСОn RОТtОrs, „JКСЫЛuМСΝ НОЬΝ RöЦТЬМСΝ żОЫЦКЧТЬМСОЧΝ ГОЧЭЫКХЦuЬОuЦЬΝ εКТЧгḵΝ ηζ,Ν
613-628.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2015), Geography of Roman-Iranian wars: military operations of Rome and
Sasanian Iran, Siedlce.
MOUVASSAT, J.H. (2005), The Large Vault at Taq-i Bustan. A Study in Late Sasanian Royal Art,
Lewiston-Queenston.
NEGIN, A.E. (2007), PoгНnОrТmskТО šlОmвŚ proЛlОmв РОnОsТsК, „AЧЭТqЯТЭКЬΝAОЭОЫЧКḵΝβ,Νγγη-359.
NEGIN, A.E. (2015), Roman helmets with a browband shaped as a vertical fronton, „HТЬЭШЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵΝ
4, 31-46.
NIKONOROV, V.P. (1997), Armies of Bactria 700 BC - 450 AD, Vol. 2, Stockport.
OZHEREDOV, YU.I. (1987), StКrčТnskТО nКСoНkТ, [in:] VoОnnoО НОlo НrОvnoРo nКsОlОnТс SОvОrnoТ
Aг Т,ΝVέźέΝεźDVźDźV,ΝВUέSέΝHUD AKτVΝ(ОНЬέ)ΝσШЯШЬвЛТЫЬФ, 114-120.
PAULSEN, P. (1967), AlКmКnnТМСО AНОlsРrтЛОn von NТОНОrstotгТnРОn, I, Stuttgart.
RADIUSH, O.A. (2014), ŠlОmв ОpoСТ pОrОsОlОnТс nКroНov Тг poНnОprovˀс, [in:] Voinskie TrКНТčТТ
v ArСКОoloРТčОskom Kontekste: ot pozdnego latena do pozdnego srednevekovˀс, I.G. BURCHEV (ed.),
Tula, 40-51.
SCHRENK, S. (2006), Silks from Antinoopolis, [in:] Central Asian Textiles and Their Contexts
in the Early Middle Ages, R. SCHORTA (ed.), Riggisberg, 23-33.
Page | 209
SKUPNIEWICZ, P.N. (2007), HОłm аojoаnТkК prгОНstКаТonОРo nК kapitelu w Tak e Bostan,Ν„AМЭКΝ
εТХТЭКЫТКΝεОНТКОЯКХТКḵΝγ,Ν9-28.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P.N. (2016), The iconographic function of armor in Sasanian art,Ν „RТЯТЬЭКΝ
НОРХТΝЬЭuНТΝШЫТОЧЭКХТḵΝκκ,Νβηń-281.
STEIN, M.A. (1921), Serindia: detailed report of archaeological explorations in Central Asia
and Westernmost China, Oxford.
SYMONENKO, O.V. (2015), SКrmКtskТО vsКНnТkТ sОvОrnoРo prТčОrnomorТК, Izd. 2. Kiev.
VASIδ’źV,Ν AέAέ,Ν KARAετV,Ν TέεέΝ (βίίκ),Ν ŠlОm Тг knсгheskogo pogreblenia u s. KТšpОk,
„σТгhЧОЯШХЬФТ ΝAЫСОШХШРТčОЬФТΝVestnik" 9, 238-246.
WERNER, J. (1988), Adelsgrтber von Niederstotzingen bei Ulm und von Bokchondong in Südkorea:
Jenseitsvorstellungen vor Rezeption von Christentum und Buddhismus im Lichte vergleichender
Archтologie, εüЧМСОЧ.
WHITFIELD, R. (1985), Textiles, Sculpture and Other Arts (The Art of Central Asia), vol.3, Tokyo.
ZUBOV, S.E. (1999), K proЛlОmО Оtnokulturno ТtОrprОtКčТТ pКmjКtnТkov КnНrООvskoРo-pТsОrКlˀskoРo
tipa, [in:] Issledovanija P. D. Stepanova I etnokulturna prochessy drevnosti I sovremiennosti:
materialy mezhНunКroНnoТ nКučno konПОrОnčТТ posvТКšОnnoТ 100-letniyu P. D. Stepanova,
σέεέΝARSźσT’źVΝ(ОНέ),ΝSКЫКЧЬФ,Νζζ-51.
ZUBOV, S.E. (2011), VoТnskТО mТРrКčТТ rТmskoРo vrОmОnТ v SrОНnОm PovolгhˀО (I-III v.v.),
SККЫЛЫüМФОЧέ
ZUBOV, S.E., RADIUSH, O.A. (2014), Šlemy Srednego Povolz'с v srednesarmatskoe vremс, [in:]
Sarmaty i vnešni mir. Materialy VIII Vserossi sko (s mezhdunarodnym učastiem) naučno konferenčii
«Problemy Sarmatskoi Arheologii i Istorii» IIJAL UNCH RAN, 12-15 Ma a 2014 g.,
L.T. JABLONSKI ,ΝσέSέΝSABźδ’źVΝ(ОНs.), Ufa, 94-104.
Page | 210
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Patryk SKUPNIEWICZ (Siedlce University, Poland)
On the Helmet on the Capital at Ṭāq-e Bostān again
Abstract
The helmet depicted on the capital at q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ ТЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЦКТЧΝ ОЯТНОЧМОΝ ПШЫΝ ОЦpХШвЦОЧЭΝ
of lamellar helmets by the Sasanian warriors. It seems that the decorated helmets of the kind were
the marks of high status and were adopted by the Iranian warriors from the steppe peoples, most likely
after recovery of control over the territories formerly conquered by the Hephtalites. Steppe nomads
popularized this form of military gear throughout Eurasia. Another depictions which seem related
to the personage on the capital at
q-e BШЬЭ ЧΝ КЫОΝ ЫОpЫОЬОЧЭКЭТШЧЬΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОЯОЫЬОЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ МШТЧЬΝ
ШПΝБuЬЫōΝII,ΝЬШЦОЭТЦОЬΝЧКЦОНΝКЬΝḴAЧ СТЭ ḵΝЭвpОέΝSТЦТХКЫТЭвΝЛОЭаООЧΝЭСОΝМШТЧКРОΝКЧНΝЭСОΝМКpТЭКХΝКХХШаЬΝ
to identify the personages as the same. This excludes the goddess as possible portrayed personage.
Similarly possibility to identify the personage as VərəγЫКΰЧК-BКСЫ ЦΝ ЬСШuХНΝ ЛОΝ ЫОПuЭОНΝ НuОΝ
ЭШΝ МШЧЧОМЭТШЧΝ аТЭСΝ BКСЫ ЦΝ ČōЛ ЧέΝ IПΝ ЭСОΝ ОЦТЬЬТШЧЬΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ МШТЧЬΝ аТЭСΝ ЭСОΝ pОЫЬШЧКРОΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ ХКЦОХХКЫΝ
helmet were to commemorate the revenge over the murderers of Emperor Maurice than mentioning
ЭСОΝ ЧКЦОΝ ШПΝ BКСЫ ЦΝ ТЧΝ pШЬТЭТЯОΝ МШЧЭОбЭΝ аШuХНΝ ЛОΝ ТЧКppЫШpЫТКЭОέΝ TСОΝ ЦШЬЭΝ ХТФОХвΝ ЬШХuЭТШЧΝ ЬООЦЬΝ
existence of secular system of allegories in Sasanian art which would allow transition of various
meanings without the refrence to the yazatas.
Keywords: Sasanian, helmet, Iran,
q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч,ΝB ЬОЭ Ч
AЦШЧРΝ ЭСОΝ ПТРuЫКЭТЯОΝ НОМШЫКЭТШЧЬΝ ШПΝ МКpТЭКХЬΝ ПЫШЦΝ B ЬОЭ Ч,Ν ЛОХШЧРТЧРΝ
to q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝМШХХОМЭТШЧ,ΝШЧОΝМКЧΝПТЧНΝНОpТМЭТШЧΝШПΝКΝПЫШЧЭКХХвΝpЫОЬОЧЭОН,ΝСКХШОН,ΝСКХП-figure
(reaching to upper-thighs) of a bearded personage in cloak and armor, who holds
the ring/wreath in his bent right hand while with the thumb and forefinger of his left hand he
touches the cloak clasp at the center of his chest (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). He wears a headdress
of vertical segments crowned with tufted korymbos, around the bottom band run two rows
of pearls, at the center of the forehead and on the sides, slightly behind the temples, the rows
are interrupted with the horizontal, rectangular gems. Below the rows of pearls starts a mailchain coif with additional, short, mail neck-guard. He has two small korymboi placed over his
shoulders. His face is partially damaged. His torso below the cloak is covered with a flat
surface which at the neck terminates with ridge collar and two rows of pearls. At the bottom
the torso cover is limited with the three rows of pearls from below of which hangs the chainmail skirt. The sleeves of his garment are richly embroidered and on the body of the helmet,
The results of the research carried out under the research theme No. 452/16/S (Army of ancient Iran
in comparative background) and No. 133/15/MN were financed from the science grant granted by
the Ministry of Science and Higher Education; Institute of History and International Relations, Faculty
of Humanities; varaz777@yahoo.com
Page | 211
over the temples the rectangular gems can be found. The object can be dated to late Sasanian
period – 6th-7th century CE.1
In my article published in Polish in 2007 I have identified the headgear
ШПΝ ЭСОΝ pОЫЬШЧКРОΝ ШЧΝ ЭСОΝ МКpТЭКХΝ ПЫШЦΝ B ЬОЭ Ч,Ν ЛОХШЧРТЧРΝ ЭШΝ q-ОΝ BШЬЭ ЧΝ МШХХОМЭТШЧ,Ν
as a hemispherical, lamellar helmet however I did not completely exclude that it could be
a kind of very early form of fluted helmets known from late mediaeval Ottoman and Safavid
panoply. I found the latter possibility much less convincing. The article clearly divided
the shape and the construction as separate categories, defined three basic shape principles
of Sasanian helmets: (1) kulahu/kolaf ШЫΝ ḴPКЫЭСТКЧḵΝ СКЭ,Ν (β)Ν МШЧТМКХΝ КЧНΝ (γ)Ν СОЦТЬpСОЫТМКХέΝ
The article discussed the depicted headgear in the light of other Sasanian helmets, either
preserved or known from iconography and suggested that the type might have derive from
Central Asian steppes, or at least it was brought to Iran by the Central Asian, most likely
Turkic nomads. The same route the lamellar helmets would find their way to Western Europe
where they were to be transmitted by the Avars however it is clear that this construction
principle was known already earlier and was applied by the later East Iranian-speakers
of the Western part of the Steppe – the Sarmatians and the Alans. This perhaps could point
at least two/three stages of popularity of lamellar helmets in Eurasia (Iranian and Altaic/
archaic, Hunno-Sarmatian and Turko-Avar) but this point was missed in the article which
was primarily focused on the Sasanian helmets and treated other examples as a secondary
material. At that stage defining of the Central Asian origin of the helmet seemed sufficiently
original. The shape of the lamellae, which are clearly incised, was also ignored in the article
which partly can be explained by the underdeveloped methodological ground at the time,
partly by the poor quality of the visual material I was working with.2
Another important feature which was missed were the gems present on body
of the helmet in q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧέΝTСТЬΝЫОХКЭОЬΝОЯОЧΝМХШЬОЫΝЭШΝЭСОΝХКЦОХХКЫΝСОХЦОЭΝПЫШЦΝKОЫМСΝЛuЭΝ
also to rich late Roman helmets from Berkasovo which in terms of body-construction seem
related to Iranian protective headgear. The presence of the gems on the helmet might be
a part of shared cultural elements between Late Empire and Sasanian Iran and be
an additional source for the circulation of the gems in Sasanian Iran.3
Methodological background of the construction proved to be the weakest part
of the article. Especially in the part regarding the types of construction of Sasanian protective
headgear proved rather intuitive and lacking depth. Since the time of publication several
important publications appeared which provide solid methodological ground and at least
allow employment of unified nomenclature. Important works of Ch. Miks, 4 D. Glad,5
A. Negin,6 P. Lurje,7 O. Radiush,8 N. Ahmad,9 my colleague A. Kubik10 or the group
of Authors in this volume,11 provide instruments to place the helmets in quite precise
1
COMPARETI, 2006; COMPARETI, 2016: 71; GALL VON, 1990; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2007.
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2007.
3
KUBIK, 2017.
4
MIKS, 2008.
5
GLAD, 2009; GLAD, 2012.
6
NEGIN, 2007; NEGIN, 2010a; NEGIN, 2010b; NEGIN, 2015.
7
LURJE, 2009; LURJE, 2013.
8
RADIUSH, 2014.
9
AHMAD, 2015.
10
KUBIK, 2016a; KUBIK, 2016b; KUBIK, 2017.
11
KARAMIAN, FARROKH, KUBIK, TAHERI OSHTERINANI, 2017; NICOLLE 2017.
2
Page | 212
methodological frames and even if their proposals vary one from another in details,
all together, the language to discuss the constructions of Sasanian or wider – late antique
helmets is now well-developed.
The object itself is better researched at the moment and more present
in the consciousness of the scholars thanks to works of M. Compareti,12 M. Shenkar,13
J.D. Movassat,14 A. Kubik and my own attempts. Whereas Compareti and Shenkar viewed
the depicted personages as iconographic source to the history of religion or history
of religious iconography,15 I tried to research available fragments of material culture offered
by the capital.16 Kubik published an article, loosely based on our earlier communication,
suggesting the ideological importance of lamellar helmets and providing a link between them
КЧНΝ źЭСТШpТКЧΝ ЛТЬСШpЬ’Ν ЭТКЫКЬέΝ AММОpЭКЧМОΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ПШЫЦΝ ШПΝ ЬОРЦОЧЭОН,Ν ЦОЭКХХТМΝ СОКНРОКЫΝ
as a symbol of status could follow Sasanian-Ethiopian conflict in Yemen or could result
in Iranian occupation of Egypt during the reign of XuЬЫōΝII PКЫЯ г (r. 591-628).17 Alternatively
they could be adopted only by means of iconography, this however would not explain
why the metallic material was used in Ethiopian religious headgear. It might be important
to mention that generally Christian hierarchies adopted Iranian headgear which strengthen
the suggestion of original Iranian military function of segmented tiaras of Ethiopian bishops.
In my articles from 2006 and 2015 I have identified the plain cover of the torso
of the personage on the discussed capital as cuirass of single metal sheet, a part of protective
gear which might not be used in battles at the time but containing specific symbolic meaning
associated with the highest status.18 Therefore the identification of the personage with
the rider in the grotto of
q-ОΝ BШЬЭ Ч who is shown with the face completely covered,
without the cloak and armed in the way which seems realistic for 6th, 7th century cannot be
taken for granted (Fig. 3).19 The closest analogy for the rider seem the depictions from
the sp СЛОНКn bullae however there are distinctive differences between these two types
of depictions (position of the lance, type of barding, lack of halo on the bullae).20
Cross-identification of the rider from the grotto, the personage on the capital would need to
include the riders on the bullae which involves different iconographic model (although it
cannot be totally excluded and will be discussed later). At the same time the discussed figure
is much more closely related to a personage from КЧШЭСОЫΝМКpТЭКХΝПЫШЦΝB ЬОЭ ЧΝ(Fig. 4) which
repeats the posture of the discussed capital however has damaged face with clearly visible
remnants of the mail coif.21 This personage is wearing the tunic under cloak instead of plain
cuirass. Another analogy are ЭСОΝНОpТМЭТШЧЬΝШПΝЭСОΝЬОЫТОЬΝШПΝЭСОΝМШТЧЬΝТЬЬuОНΝЛвΝБuЬЫōΝIIΝПЫШЦΝ
θńί,Ν ЬШЦОЭТЦОЬΝ КЬМЫТЛОНΝ КЬΝ ḴAЧ СТЭ ЬОЫТОЬḵ (Fig. 5).22 This relation has been rightfully
noticed by Compareti.23 It should be emphasized that the headgear of the personages
12
COMPARETI, 2006; COMPARETI 2012, 73-74; COMPARETI, 2016: 71.
SHENKAR, 2014.
14
MOVASSAT, 2005.
15
COMPARETI, 2006, 171; SHENKAR, 2014: 162.
16
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2007.
17
KUBIK, 2016b.
18
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2006; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2016.
19
COMPARETI, 2006.
20
GYSELEN, 2001; GYSELEN, 2007: 248-270; GYSELEN, 2010; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2017.
21
COMPARETI, 2006: 166-168.
22
żнBL, 1971 53-54; GYSELEN, 2000; MALEK, 2002.
23
COMPARETI, 2006: 168-169.
13
Page | 213
on the coins consists of narrow, vertical segments and is limited at the bottom by the two
rows of what reminds two rows of pearls on the capital. What is more – the two rows
of pearls run around the neck of the personages and the cloaks cover their shoulders above
which one can see (in some emissions) small korymboi (other emissions however clearly
show the tufts of hair of the personage). The headgear is topped with a small cupola which
in none of emissions could be identified as a korymbos, however the majority of lamellar
helmets in both East and West had a small bulbous finial at the peak of the dome. 24
This element allowed securing the crucial place of construction where all lamellae joined.
In none of the examples of Sasanian art female or male coiffure was depicted as row
as vertical lines, there are examples of similar stylization in Kuš Ч numismatics and
on the coinage of Farn Sasan however in Kuš Ч examples the lines do not join at the top
while the lines on the head of Farn Sasan may represent a coiffure or a type of headgear
nevertheless their style is much different from late Sasanian numismatics and the time gap
excludes possible genetic relation. The reverse type was later copied in the coins of Tegin,
king of Khurasan who ruled in the last decades of seventh and early eighth century (Fig. 6).25
The personages on the coins of XusЫōΝIIΝНШΝЧШЭΝСКЯОΝЛОКЫНЬΝШЫΝЦКТХΝМШТПЬ,ΝЭСОвΝНШΝЧШЭΝ
carry the ring either. The difference allowed identification of the personages on the coins
as AЧ СТЭ КЧНΝ НuЫΝ ШЫΝЭСОΝ pОЫЬШЧТПТМКЭТШЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ ЫШвКХΝ РХШЫвΝ (xwarrah). The identification
with AЧ СТЭ seems based solely on the lack of facial hair and habitual attribution
of all female figures as AЧ СТЭ .26 At the same time it must be mentioned that as far as
accounts of AЧ СТЭ being Sasanian dynastic deity are frequent in early Sasanian times, they
disappear in later times. The coins do not mention the name of the personage therefore it
would not be of importance, also the flamed halo would not match the aquatic nature
of AЧ СТЭ – the goddess of the waters, which was observed earlier by Gyselen27 who
examined possible relation of the theme with AЧ СТЭ ,Ν БuЬЫō’ЬΝ ЬpШuЬО,Ν εТЭСЫК,Ν НuЫΝ КЧН
xwarrah.28
In my opinion the depictions of both capitals and mentioned coinage are clearly
related formally, they have the same type of headgear which, most likely, was not
ideologically neutral, they wear similar cloaks and have rows of pearls. Despite the lack
of beards and mail coifs on the coins I believe that they represent the same personage.
The lack of the korymbos at the top of the helmet being replaced by a small cupola, which is
very realistic element of lamellar helmets, and ambiguity of the decoration over the shoulders
which in some emissions are clearly marked as tufts of hair and in other could represent small
korymboi are important variances however they do not prevail over similarities. Perhaps they
indicate the stages of the development of the iconographical model or derive from suitability
of certain elements for monumental art and other for coinage. It should be also emphasized
that the small cupolas on the helmets seem an element earlier than solid protrusions on which
korymboi might have been affixed, naturally the korymboi are much earlier element
of Sasanian regalia however the combination with the lamellar helmets was likely after Xusro
24
GLAD, 2009; GLAD, 2012; KUBIK, 2017; NICOLLE, 2017; RADIUSH, 2014; SKUPNIEWICZ,
2007.
25
REZAKHANI, 2017: 167-169.
26
BIER, 1989. Habitual attribution of female figures as AЧ СТЭ : COMPARETI 2012; KOULABADI,
MOUSAVI HAJI, ATAIE 2012a; KOULABADI, MOUSAVI HAJI, ATAIE, 2012b.
27
GYSELEN, 2000: 303-304.
28
GYSELEN, 2000: 302-308.
Page | 214
I’ЬΝ ЫОМШЯОЫвΝ ШПΝ Эhe eastern territories.29 If a top protrusion was indeed later element which
replaced flat disc and bulbous cupola,30 than it would be possible to believe that the coinage
pre-dated the capital, therefore the terminus post quem for it would be 610, i.e. the date
ШПΝЭСОΝПТЫЬЭΝОЦТЬЬТШЧΝШПΝЭСОΝḴAЧ СТЭ ḵΝМШТЧКРО,ΝаТЭСΝЬЭЫШЧРΝЬuРРОЬЭТШЧΝЭСКЭΝТЭΝаКЬΝЦКНОΝМШupХОΝ
of decades later but before the battle of Nivavand. Positive identification of the personages
on the discussed coins and on the capital at q-ОΝBШЬЭ ЧΝаШuХНΝЦШЬЭΝХТФОХвΝОбМХuНОΝAЧ СТЭ
as the personage on the capital wears a beard which, most likely would not be worn
by the goddess.31 AХЬШΝТНОЧЭТПТМКЭТШЧΝаТЭСΝ НuЫΝЬСШuХНΝЛОΝКЛКЧНШЧОНΝКЬΝПХКЦОНΝСКХШОЬΝКppОКЫΝ
only on the coins and the personages on the capitals have standard, round haloes.
The remaining options are Vərəγraΰna and xwarrah, especially in the light of the fact that
in the D НТst n Н n Р32 ТЭΝ ТЬΝ ЬЭКЭОНΝ ЭСКЭΝ BКСЫ ЦΝ ТЬΝ ЬООЧΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ ПТЫОέ33 This however might
easily refer to all of the yazatas who were worshipped through their sacred fires, not
to mention royal fires ignited in the processof assuming the power.34
The key factor to identify the personage in lamellar helmet seems the time of the first
emission of the discussed coins – θńί,ΝКΝвОКЫΝаСОЧΝБuЬЫōΝIIΝḴаШЧḵΝЭСОΝаКЫΝТЧЬЭТРКЭОНΝunder
КuЬpТМОЬΝШПΝЫОЯОЧРОΝШПΝεКuЫТМО’ЬΝНОКЭСέ35 In 610 Herakleios was successful in Мoup НˀОtКtО
and had overthrown and killed Phokas. Formally, the goal of the war was therefore achieved
КЧНΝ БuЬЫōΝ МШuХНΝ ЫТРСЭПuХХвΝ КЧЧШuЧМОΝ СТЬΝ ЯТМЭШЫвέΝ TСТЬΝ ПКМЭΝ НТНΝ ЧШЭΝ ЫОquire the war to end,
as the matter of fact the conflict continued successfully and in fact was gaining the
ЦШЦОЧЭuЦΝ ЬШΝ ЭСОΝ ФТЧРΝ ЫОЦКТЧОНΝ ḴЯТМЭШЫТШuЬḵΝ ТЧΝ ПШХХШаТЧРΝ ОЦТЬЬТШЧЬέΝ TСОЫОПШЫОΝ ЭСОΝ ЦШЬЭΝ
adequate personage, from mazdean pantheon, to commemorate Xusrō’ЬΝ ЦТХТЭКЫвΝ ЬuММОЬЬ,Ν
seems Vərəγraΰna – the god of victor. Alternatively it could be simply an allegory of military
victory with no religious connotation. Such a view might explain why the personage was
sometimes shown with and sometimes without distinctive male features and why it is not
ЦОЧЭТШЧОНΝТЧΝМШТЧЬ’ΝХОРОЧНέΝźЦpХШвЦОЧЭΝШПΝКХХОРШЫТМΝПТРuЫОΝТЧЬЭОКНΝШПΝНОТЭвΝаШuХНΝКХЬШΝКХХШаΝ
БuЬЫōΝIIΝЭШΝКЯШТНΝquШЭТЧРΝШЧΝСТЬΝМШТЧКРОΝЭСОΝЧКЦОήЭСОΝpКЭЫШЧΝШПΝСТЬΝpЫТЦКХΝОЧОЦвΝ– BКСЫ ЦΝ
ČōЛ Ч.36 It is possible that after eighteen years from his rebellion, the name of usurper ceased
being associated with him and gained back some neutrality. Perhaps the process
of mythologization of his mutiny and ascribing it to the devs, who deceived this, otherwise,
noble commander, as it is НОЬМЫТЛОНΝ ЛвΝ ŻТЫНКаЬ ,Ν КХЫОКНвΝ ЬЭКЫЭОНέ37 Perhaps his theophoric
name was never avoided and never associated with the mutineer in official communication
КЬΝ ЭСТЬΝ аКЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЧКЦОΝ ШПΝ ЬОЯОЫКХΝ SКЬКЧТКЧΝ ФТЧРЬ,Ν ЧОЯОЫЭСОХОЬЬΝ BКСЫ ЦΝ ČōЛ Ч was the only
usurper from outside of the family who was close to gain the throne and overthrow the ruling
dynasty.38 Although it is difficult to judge the semantics of the decorum of Sasanian official
language, using the name of the deity who was a patron of the rebel, who almost overthrew
PКЫЯ г in his early reign, and in fact had to prove the king being victorious over
29
NICOLLE, 2017.
KUBIK, 2017; NICOLLE, 2017.
31
This is not the definitive argument as the warrior heroines with facial hair, identifiable with AЧ СТЭ
appeared in mediaeval Iranian poetry. Also bearded Tychai from Parthian coinage should be recalled
in this pace.
32
D НТst n Н n Р, 31.7.
33
GNOLI, JANZADEH, 1988.
34
MAKSYMIUK, 2017.
35
MAKSYMIUK, 2015: 26, 86-89; MAKSYMIUK, 2018.
36
SHAHBAZI, 1988.
37
GNOLI, JAMZADEH, 1988; SHAHBAZI, 1988.
38
SHAHBAZI, 1988.
30
Page | 215
VərəγraΰЧКήBКСЫ Ц,ΝЬООЦЬΝЫТЬФвΝКЧНΝinappropriate. This seems abundantly clear if the coins
аОЫОΝ ЭШΝ МШЦЦОЦШЫКЭОΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОЯОЧРОΝ ШПΝ ФТЧР’ЬΝ ЭЫuОΝ ПЫТОЧНΝ – Maurice, whose only redeeming
quКХТЭвΝаКЬΝСТЬΝКЬЬТЬЭКЧМОΝТЧΝНОПОКЭТЧРΝBКСЫ ЦΝČōЛ Чέ39 It is tempting to assume that visual
language of Sasanian Iran employed personifications of abstract figures which had no direct
religious content. Also the fact that the motif was adopted on coins of Tegin, might suggest
that the religious content was either absent or negligible and the symbolism of power
prevailed. In fact overwhelming majority of the religious attributions in Sasanian art are
speculative. Considering the vast number of allegoric content in Roman art it would not be
surprising to perceive Iranian art of the era in terms of symbolism alternative to religion. It is
important that the religion might in fact be aniconic as it used sacred fires as visible
emanations of divine beings.
Also it is difficult to determine at what stage the lamellar helmet would become
an attribute of the victory and if the construction of the headgear remained legible element
of the meaning for long time. Had the construction been adopted through Eastern provinces,
it could obtain a symbolism of light or a kind of ethnic attribution, however this is merely
speculation. Perhaps helmet type was not a fixed element of visual language and was adopted
ШЧХвΝТЧΝБuЬЫōΝII’ЬΝЭТЦОΝКЬΝКЧΝОquТЯКХОЧЭΝШПΝМШЦЦШЧΝЦТХТЭКЫвΝСОКНРОКЫΝаСТМСΝЛОМКЦОΝpШpuХКЫΝ
after reconquista of the Eastern provinces and defeating of the kaganate by his grandfather
and also as a ЫОЬuХЭΝ ШПΝ ЦТХТЭКЫвΝ ЬuММОЬЬΝ ШПΝ BКСЫ ЦΝ ČōЛ Ч early during PКЫЯ г’ЬΝ ЫОТРЧέΝ
In that case the surficial similarity of the personage on the discussed capital and the rider
in q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч might indeed be explained as the figure of victory, just as much as the riders
on the sp СЛОНКn bullae which do not correspond with Sasanian idea of portraits which are
usually focused on heads in profile placed within round format and follow Roman, imperial
patterns.40 Their temporary visual importance might have coincided with the intervention
in Yemen, however more likely resulted in long-term occupation of the country and later
of near Egypt, by Iran,41 and this way it inspired the headgear of the Ethiopian episcopal
hierarchs.42 It should be borne in mind however that the combination of cuirass and lamellar
helmet was an actual gear of the men of status in far side of the Silk Road, namely in Korea
and Japan, in fourth and fifth centuries and remained such in Buddhist iconography of Tarim
Basin.43
39
HOWARD-JOHNSTON, 2010; SHAHBAZI, 1988.
SKUPNIEWICZ, 2017.
41
MAKSYMIUK, 2015: 86-89.
42
KUBIK, 2016.
43
BARNES, 2000: 63-ιγνΝJиżźR, 2006; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2007; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2007.
40
Page | 216
Bibliography
Sources
D НОst n Н n РṬ PКrt I, trКnsМrТptТon, trКnslКtТon КnН МommОntКrв, tr. M. JAAFARI-DEHAGHI,
Paris 1998.
Literature
BARNES, G.L., (2000), Archaeological Armor in Korea and Japan: Styles, Technology and Social
Settings,Ν„JШurnal of East Asian AssocТКМТШЧḵΝβ,Νγ-4, 61-95.
BIER, C., (1989), An СТt Тn tСО Arts, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 1Ṭ9, E. YARSHATER (ed.),
New York, 1003-1011.
CHAUMONT, M., (1958), LО МultО Н'AnСТt р StКбr Оt lОs prОmТОrs SКssКnТНОs,Ν „RОЯuОΝ НОΝ ХΥСТЬЭШТЫОΝ
НОЬΝЫОХТРТШЧЬḵ,Νńη3.2, 154-175.
COMPARETI, M., (2006), Iconographical Notes on Some Recent Studies on Sasanian Religious Art
(with an Additional Note on an Ilkhanid Monument, by Rudy Favaro),Ν„AЧЧКХТΝНТΝCК’ΝŻШЬМКЫТέΝRТЯТЬЭКΝ
НОХХКΝ ŻКМШХЭрΝ НТΝ lingue e letterature straniere deХХ’UЧТЯОЫЬТЭрΝ CК’Ν ŻШЬМКЫТΝ НТΝ VОЧОгТКḵΝ 45.3, (Serie
orientale 37), 163-208.
COMPARETI, M., (2012), TСО RОprОsОntКtТon oП An СТt Тn SКsКnТКn ArtŚ TСО CКsО oП TКq-I Bustan
Rock Reliefs and Figurative Capitals, [in:] Anahita. Ancient Persian Goddess and Zoroastrian Yazata,
P. NABARZ (ed.), London, 72-85.
COMPARETI, M., (2016), Observations on the Rock Reliefs at Taq-i Bustan: A Late Sasanian
Monument КlonР tСО “SТlk RoКНḵ,Ν„TСОΝSТХФΝRШКНḵΝńζ,71-83.
GALL VON, H. (1990), The Figural Capitals at Taq-e Bostan and the Question of the so-called
Investiture in Parthian and Sasanian Art,Ν„SТХФΝRШКНΝAЫЭΝКЧНΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝń,Νλλ-122.
GLAD, D. (2009), OrТРТnО Оt НТППusТon НО lˀцquТpОmОnt НцПОnsТП МorporОl Оn MцНТtОrrКnцО orТОntКlО
(IVe-VIIIО sṬ) ContrТЛutТon р lˀцtuНО СТstorТquО Оt КrМСцoloРТquО НОs КrmцОs КntТquОs Оt mцНТцvКlОs,
Venezia-Madrid-Aix-en-Provence-PКЫíЬ-Florencia.
GLAD, D. (2012), TСО EmpТrОˀs ТnПluОnМО on tСО ЛКrЛКrТКn ОlТtОs Пrom tСО PontТМ rОРТon to tСО RСТnО
(5th-7th centuries): A case study of lamellar weapons and segmental helmet, [in:] The PonticDanubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration, V. IVAσIṣźVIČ,Ν εέΝ KAГAσSKIΝ (ОНЬέ),
Paris-Beograd, 349-362.
GNOLI, J., (1988), BКСr m (VərəθrКγnК), [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 3Ṭ5, E. YARSHATER
(ed.), New York, 510-514.
żнBδ,Ν RέΝ (ńλθι),Ν Dokumente zur Geschichte der iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien,
Wiesbaden.
żнBδ,ΝRέ,Ν(ńλιń),ΝSasanian Numismatics, Braunschweig.
GYSELEN, R. (2000), Un НТОu nТmЛц НО ПlКmОs lˀцpoquО SКssКnТНО,Ν„IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТquКḵΝ25, 291-314.
GYSELEN, R. (2001), The Four Generals of the Sasanian Empire: Some Sigillographic Evidence,
Roma.
GYSELEN, R. (2007), Sasanian Bullae and Sealings in the A. Saeedi Collection, Leuven.
GYSELEN, R. (2008), The Great Families in the Sasanian Empire: some Sigillographic Evidence,
[in:] Current Research in Sasanian Archaeology. Art and History (BAR Series), D. KENNETT,
P. LUFT (eds.), Oxford, 107-114.
HOWARD-JOHNSTON, J. (2010),
osrow II, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, online,
[http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii (accessed July 10, 2017)]
JиżźR,ΝUέΝ(βίίθ),ΝDer griechisch-hellenistische Muskelpanzer und sein Fortleben in Zentralasien, 4.
Jh. v. Chr. bis 8./9. JСṬ nṬ CСrṬŚ EТn kurгОr BОТtrКР гum rüstunРstОМСnoloРТsМСОn NКМСlОЛОn
des Hellenismus in Zentralasien, [in:] Arms and Armours as Indicators of Cultural Transfer,
M. MODE, J. TUBACH (eds.), Halle, 19-42.
KARAMIAN, G., FARROKH, K., KUBIK, A., TAHERI OSHTERINANI, M.(2017), An Examination
of Parthian and Sasanian military Helmets (2nd century BC-7th century CE), [in:] Crowns, hats,
turbans and helmets. The headgear in Iranian history volume I: Pre-Islamic Period,
K. MAKSYMIUK, G. KARAMIAN (eds.), Siedlce-Tehran, 121-163.
Page | 217
KOULABADI, R., MOUSAVI HAJI, S.R., ATAIE, M., (2012a), Rock Reliefs Attributed to Anahita,
[in:] Anahita. Ancient Persian Goddess and Zoroastrian Yazata, P. NABARZ (ed.), London, 131-161.
KOULABADI, R., MOUSAVI HAJI, S.R., ATAIE, M., (2012b), A New Look at the Sasanian Silver
Ewer with Mythical Depictions, [in:] Anahita. Ancient Persian Goddess and Zoroastrian Yazata,
P. NABARZ (ed.), London, 162-183.
KUBIK, A.L. (2016a), Introduction to studies on late Sasanian protective armour. The Yarysh-Mardy
helmet,Ν„HТЬЭШЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵΝη, 77-105.
KUBIK, A.L. (2016b), Przedstawienia koron/tiar ukaгКnО nК mКloаТНłКМС г ko МТołК poН аОгаКnТОm
аṬ MОrkurТusгК а mТОjsМoаo МТ LКlТЛОlК, EtТopТКṬ PoгostКło ć аpłваóа sКsКnТНгkТОРo IrКnu?, [in:]
Istorыс rОlыРыj v UkrКэnыŚ nКukovТj šorыčnТk,ΝτέΝKIRIČUK,ΝεέΝτεźδΥČUKΝ(ОНЬέ),ΝδЯыЯ,Νθńλ-622.
KUBIK, A.L. (2017), Sasanian lamellar helmets, [in:] Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.
The headgear in Iranian history volume I: Pre-Islamic Period, K. MAKSYMIUK, G. KARAMIAN
(eds.), Siedlce-Tehran, 195-210.
LURIE,
E.V.
(2009),
Shlemy
epohi
morovingov:
lesnoi
mir
i
germantsy.
[http://samlib.ru/l/lurxe_e_w/helme.shtml (accessed July 20, 2017)]
LURIE, E.V. (2013), Shlem iz mogilnika u s. Kishpek i klassifikatsyja shlemov s sostavnym kupolom
rimskogo vremeni, [in:] Tretya Abhazkaya mezdunarodnaya konferentsya. Posvyashchena pamyati
G. K. Shamba. Problemy drevnej i srednevekovoy arheologii Kavkaza. Materialy konferencii,
28 Nyjabrja – 1 Dekabrya 2011 goda, g. Suhum, V.SH. AVIDZBA (ed.), Suhum, 268-278.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2015), Geography of Roman-Iranian wars: military operations of Rome
and Sasanian Iran, Siedlce.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2017), The Sasanian Relief at Salm s – New proposal, [in:] Crowns, hats, turbans
and helmets. The headgear in Iranian history volume I: Pre-Islamic Period, K. MAKSYMIUK,
G. KARAMIAN (eds.), Siedlce-Tehran, 97-112.
MAKSYMIUK, K. (2018), The Importance of Cyprus in military actions of Xusrō II, (In press)
MALEK, M., (2002), The Sasanian King Khusrau II (590/1-628) КnН An СТt ,„σ ЦО-вОΝIЫ ЧΝB ЬЭ ЧέΝ
The International Journal oПΝAЧМТОЧЭΝIЫКЧТКЧΝSЭuНТОЬḵΝβήń, 23-40.
MEADOWS, I. (2004), An Anglian Warrior Burial from Wollaston, Northamptonshire, Northampton.
MIKS, CH. (2008), SpтtrömТsМСО KКmmСОlmО mТt СoСОr KКmmsМСОТЛО, „JКСЫЛuМСΝ НОЬΝ RöЦТЬМСżОЫЦКЧТЬМСОЧΝГОЧЭЫКХЦuЬОuЦΝεКТЧгḵ, 55, 449-482.
MOVASSAT, J. D. (2005), The Large Vault at Taq-i Bustan. A Study in Late Sasanian Royal Art,
Lewinston.
NEGIN, A.E. (2007), Pozdnerimskie shlemy: problemy genesisa,Ν„AЧЭТqЯТЭКЬΝAОЭОЫЧКḵΝβ,Νγγη-359.
NEGIN, A.E. (2010a), K voprosu o vremeni poyavleniya v pozdnerimskoy armii shlemov s prodolnym
grebnyem, „VОЬЭЧТФΝσТгСОРШЫШНФШРШΝuЧТЯОЫЬТЭОЭКΝТЦέΝσέIέΝδШЛКМСОЬФШРШέΝIЬЭШЫТвКḵΝγέń,Νβγλ-244.
NEGIN, A.E. (2010b), Pozdnerimskiye shlemi s prodolnym grebnyem, „żОЫЦКЧТК-SКЫЦКЭТКḵΝ β,Ν
343-357.
NEGIN, A.E. (2015), Roman helmets with a browband shaped as a vertical fronton,Ν„HТЬЭШЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵΝ
4, 31-46.
NICOLLE, D., (2017), One-piece Sasanian and Early Islamic Helmets, [in:] Crowns, hats, turbans
and helmets. The headgear in Iranian history volume I: Pre-Islamic Period, K. MAKSYMIUK,
G. KARAMIAN (eds.), Siedlce-Tehran, 223-253.
PICHIKYAN, I., LITVINSKY, B.A. (2000), Helmets in Ancient Bactria, [in:] UNESCO International
Association for the Study of the Cultures of Central Asia. Information Buletin, Issue 22,
S. POTABENKO, A. DANI, D. ALIMOVA (eds.), Moscow, 62-95.
RADIUSH, O.A. (2014), ŠlОmв ОpoСТ pОrОsОlОnТс nКroНov Тг poНnОprovˀс, [in:] VoТnskТО TrКНТčТТ
v ArСКОoloРТčОskom KontОkstОŚ ot poгНnОРo lКtОnК Нo poгНnОРo srОНnОvОkovˀс,ΝIέżέΝBURČźVΝ(ОНέ),Ν
Tula, 40-51
REZAKHANI, K. (2017), ReOrienting the Sasanians. East Iran in Late Antiquity, Edinbourgh.
SHAHBAZI, A. SH. (1988), Bahr m VI ČōЛ n, [in:] EnМвМlopæНТК IrКnТМК, volṬ 3Ṭ5, E. YARSHATER
(ed.), New York, 514-522.
SHENKAR, M., (2014), Intangible Spirits and Graven Images. The Iconography of Deities
in the Pre-Islamic Iranian World, Leiden-Boston.
Page | 218
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2006), Sasanian Plate Armour,Ν„ŻКЬМТМuХТΝ AЫМСКОШХШРТКОΝ HТЬЭШЫТМКОḵΝńλ,ΝŁяН ,Ν
19-33.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2007), HОłm аojoаnТkК prгОНstКаТonОРo nК kКpТtОlu а TКk О BostКn,Ν „AМЭКΝ
Militaria MeНТКОЯКХТКḵΝγ,Νλ-28.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2016), The iconographic function of armor in Sasanian art,Ν„RТЯТЬЭКΝdegli studi
orientaliḵΝκκ,Νβηń-281.
SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2017), The bullae of the spahbedan. Iconographic remark,Ν„HТЬЭШЫТКΝТΝ аТКЭḵΝθ,Ν
107-120.
SYMONENKO, O.V. (2015), Sarmatskie vsadniki severnogo prichernomoria, Izd. 2. Kiev.
SВVиσσE, I. (2017), A Note on the Methodology regarding the Reconstruction of the Late Roman
Helmets in Art, Archaeology and Analysis, [in:] Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets. The headgear
in Iranian history volume I: Pre-Islamic Period, K. MAKSYMIUK, G. KARAMIAN (eds.), SiedlceTehran, 165-182.
TREVER, C. (1967), A propos НОs tОmplОs НО lК НцОssО AnКСТtК Оn IrКnsКssКnТНО, „IЫКЧТМКΝAЧЭТquКḵ
7, 121-132.
VASILYEV, A.A., KARAMOV, T.M. (2008), Shlem iz knyazheskogo pogreblenia u s. kishpek,
„σТгЧОЯШХЬФТΝКЫСОШХШРТМСОski vestnikḵΝ9, 238-246.
ZUBOV, S.E., RADIUSH, O.A. (2014), SСlОmв SrОНnОРo PovolгˀjК v srОНnОsКrmКtskoО vrОmjК, [in:]
Sarmaty i vneshnij mir. Materialy VIII Vserossijskoj (s mezdunarodnym uchastiem) nauchnoj
konПОrОnМСТТ «ProЛlОmв sКrmКtskoТ КrМСОoloРТТ Т ТstorТТ» IIJAL UNCH RAN, 12-15 Maja 2014 g,
δέTέΝJABδτσSKIJ,ΝσέSέΝSABźδ’źVΝ(ОНЬέ),ΝUПК,Νλζ-104.
Page | 219
Picture captions
Fig. 1. The helmeted and armored personage on the capital at
185, fig. 4).
Fig. 2. The helmeted and armored personage on the capital at
186, fig. 8).
Page | 220
q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч,Ν(after: Comapareti, 2006:
q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч, (after: Compareti, 2006:
Fig. 3. The rider from the large grotto at
q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч,Ν(КПЭОЫμΝCШЦpКЫОЭТ,ΝβίίθμΝńκι,ΝПТРέΝι)έ
Fig. 4. AΝpОЫЬШЧКРОΝПЫШЦΝКЧШЭСОЫΝМКpТЭКХΝПЫШЦΝB ЬОЭ Ч,Ν(КПЭОЫμΝCШЦpКЫОЭТ,ΝβίίθμΝńκλ,ΝПТРΝńβ)έ
Page | 221
Fig. 5. The personages on the reverses of the ḴAЧ СТЭ ΝЬОЫТОЬḵΝМШТЧЬΝШПΝБuЬЫōΝIIέΝ(after: żöbl, 1971: pl.
XIV/218).
Fig. 6. The personage on the reverses of the coins of Tegin, king of Khurasan, (after: żöЛХ, 1967: 208).
Page | 222
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
David NICOLLE (Nottingham University, United Kingdom)
One-piece Sasanian and Early Islamic Helmets
Abstract
Two recently discovered helmets from Iran and perhaps Afghanistan provide important
evidence for the manufacture, use and decoration of helmets of one-piece construction in the early
medieval period, both pre-Islamic and Islamic. They are compared with other early medieval examples
found in neighbouring regions, most of which were probably of early Islamic manufacture.
Documentary and pictorial evidence for one-piece helmets and their decoration is also discussed.
Keywords: baidah,Ν BКЧНКЫΝ RТР,Ν BuННСТЬЭΝ МuХЭuЫО,Ν Ż imid, finial, Ḡaznavid, gilded decoration.
SКПП ЫТН,ΝS Ц ЧТН,ΝŠ С-n mК, silver decoration
Introduction
A helmet, recovered from a shipwreck of the Iranian coast at Bandar Rig in the Persian
Gulf, has been described as probably of Sasanian origin.1 Its basic form is, however,
remarkably similar to that of a much more decorated helmet from eastern Iran that has been
pЫШЯТЬТШЧКХХвΝНКЭОНΝЭШΝЭСОΝМХШЬОΝШПΝЭСОΝSКПП ЫТНΝОЫКΝ(ХКЭОΝńίth century CE). The latter is currently
in a private collection and the owner does not yet want it to be fully published. However, I am
sure that it will acceptable for me to use simplified drawings and some pictures to illustrate
the helmet's construction.
If the helmet from the Persian Gulf shipwreck is indeed of Sasanian origin, then it must
be from the very late Sasanian era. But until I have an opportunity to study this helmet
in detail, along with the other objects which were recovered from the same location, I am
inclined to believe that the finds and the shipwreck in which they lay actually date from
the early Islamic period (8th to 9th centuries CE).
This article will compare the helmet from the Bandar Rig shipwreck with that from
eastern Iran, and also with other early medieval helmets of one-piece construction from Islamic
Egypt or North Africa, Central Asia and elsewhere. It will then focus on certain aspects
of the decoration of the two helmets. After considering the limited documentary evidence
concerning early Islamic helmets and their decoration, I will offer a survey of helmets
of apparently one-piece construction as they appear the art of this period.
david.c.nicolle@btinternet.com
1
TOFIGHIAN, NADOOSHAN, MOUSAVI, 2011: 1-5; TOFIGHIAN, 2014: 121-138 & (Abstract)
16-17.
Page | 223
Two one-piece helmets compared
The helmet which was found in a shipwreck of the Persian Gulf coast of Iran near
Bandar Rig, was described as Sasanian and is of one-piece construction (Fig. 1). It is decorated
with star-shaped, embossed silver elements which are riveted to the surface of the helmet.
It also has a decorative and perhaps also partially functional rim band, again of silver though
this time with two rows of embossed and closely spaced pyramid shapes. Available
information about the helmet from the Bandar Rig wreck suggests that it had probably been
slightly distorted over time, as is normal with helmets from almost any archaeological context,
although this can only be confirmed by closer inspection of the helmet itself. A suggested
Ḵcorrectionḵ of this presumed distortion (Fig. 2) will help when this article looks
at the presumed finial from the helmet (see below).
The helmet which was reportedly found during the construction of a road
in Afghanistan or eastern Iran has essentially the same shape and one-piece construction
as the helmet from the Bandar Rig wreck, as shown in a simplified drawing which does include
the helmet's superb decorative inscriptions (Fig. 3). Most of the surface of this helmet is
covered by a quick thick layer of silver, while the upper part of the helmet lacks this covering.
This crown or upper part (Fig. 4) goes beneath a richly decorated finial. The interior
of the helmet (Fig.5) in the private collection clearly shows not only the one-piece construction
of the basic iron or steel bowl, but also corrosion around a row of rivet-holes to attach
the decorative finial and a further hole at the very top of the helmet bowl.
A very decorated but initially unrecognised object was also found in the Bandar Rig
wreck, apparently separated from the helmet though the distance between the two objects has
not been published. I believe that this object (Fig. 6) was, in fact, the decorative finial
from the top of the Bandar Rig helmet. The published photograph was apparently taken before
the remaining marine encrustation was removed; indeed it is possible that this encrustration
was not removed because the object itself is delivate if not flimsy. It is simpler than the finial
that goes on the richer helmet in the private collection and less of it survives or has been
recovered, but is very similar in form and surviving dimensions. I offer a simplified drawing
how this partially surviving Bandar Rig helmet finial might look if all the marine encrustation
was removed (Fig. 7). Unfortunately I have only been able to consult the brief reports
in English concerning the Bandar Rig wreck finds, and these do not provide complete
dimensions. But if this object is indeed the helmet's finial, and if the relative proportions
between the helmet and its finial were comparable to those of the helmet and finial
in the private collection, then rivet hols in the Bandar Rig helmet and finial do appear to fit – at
least judging by the available photographs (Fig. 8).
The finial from the helmet currently in a private collection was found together
with the helmet itself. It is also a more elaborate object (Fig. 9) and, like the decorative rim
around the helmet it partially gilded as well as incorporating a an inscription which is not
shown in any of the accompanying drawings. In fact these bands of Kufic Arabic themselves
present a number of difficult problems.
There is an interesting similarity between the rows of embossed pyramid decorations
on the two helmets, although the Bandar Rig wreck helmet is somewhat simpler and thus,
perhaps, somewhat earlier. On the finds from the wreck the motif appears in two closely spaced
rows around the helmet rim (Fig. 10A) and a two rows separated by rows of other decorative
motifs around the finial (Fig. 10B). On the helmet and finial in a private collection a somewhat
Page | 224
more elaborate version of essentially the same decorative motif appear in two rows around
the rim separated by a band of inscription (Fig. 11A), two similarly spaced bands around the
lower part of the finial, and two more closely spaced bands around the upper part of the finial
(Fig. 11B).
When the helmet from eastern Iran or Afghanistan and currently in a private collection
is shown with its finial in place (Fig. 12), I believe that its similarity with the Bandar Rig finds
when helmet and presumed finial are put together (Fig. 8) is clear to see.
Archaeological evidence for early medieval one-piece helmets
Two examples of one-piece iron or steel helmets from the early Islamic period have
shaped which have much in common with each other, but are significantly lower in profile than
the helmets discussed above. One was found by the Soviet Uzbek archaeologist
M.K. Samibayev in the ruins of the Varakhsha Temple in Uzbekistan.2 The context dates it
to the early 8th century (Fig. 13). The other may also come from the eastern regions of the early
Islamic world or at least from Iran, has a deeply engraved or chiseled decoration and is
probably dated to the 8th or 9th century (Fig. 14). Two more one-piece helmets which have
noticeable similarities with each other come from the western provinces of the early medieval
Islamic world but again they do not have the same profiles as the Bandar Rig and related
helmets discussed above. Their dating is generally thought to be from the 10th to 12th centuries;
ШЧОΝЫОpШЫЭОНХвΝСКЯТЧРΝЛООЧΝПШuЧНΝТЧΝRКq НКΝЧОКЫΝKКТЫКаКЧΝТЧΝTuЧТЬТКΝ(Fig. 15) and the other,
despite having been found in Switzerland, probably having an Islamic origin (Fig. 16). Another
helmet of probable late Sasanian or more likely early Islamic origin was found in the oblast
or province of Perm in Siberia (Fig. 17). It has a very similar profile and exactly the same onepТОМОΝ МШЧЬЭЫuМЭТШЧΝ КЬΝ ЭСОΝ СОХЦОЭЬΝ ПЫШЦΝ RКq НКΝ КЧНΝ CСКЦШЬОЧ,Ν ЛuЭΝ СКЬΝ ЭСОΝ ЫОЦКТЧЬΝ
of an aventail directly attached to its rim like the somewhat lower domed helmet from
Varakhsha. On the other hand the method of attaching the uppermost rings of the mail aventail
is different and is, in fact, comparable to that on yet another one-piece helmet from Siberia
(Fig. 18). This latter example was found by chance in the oblast or region of Perm,
and the uppermost rings of its aventail were attached by rivets rather than going through holes
in the rim of the helmet.3 It is perhaps also worth noting that, despite lacking the uppermost
part of its skull or dome, the existing profile of the Perm helmet suggests that it originally came
almost to a point and as such had much in common with the helmet from the Bandar Rig wreck
and that which is currently in a private collection.
Archaeological evidence for helmet decoration related that that on the helmet
from eastern Iran or Afghanistan and now in a private collection is harder to find. The idea
of covering the surface with a thin sheet or sheets of silver clearly did exist in the late Sasanian
period but the best example known to me, on a helmet from a late Sasanian grave at Tepe
Cheragh Ali in Gilan (Fig. 19A, Fig. 19B), now in the ЧШаΝ ТЧΝ ЭСОΝ RöЦТЬМС-Germanische
Zentralmuseum, Mainz, makes use of several relatively small sheets rather than one large one.
Perhaps this indicates a significant degree of technological progress from the late Sasanian
6th or 7th century to the presumed 10th or early 11th century date of the helmet in the private
collection. Archaeological evidence for the finial of the latter helmet is rather more
straightforward, though generally from a somewhat later date. In fact the best example
of a comparable if simpler Ḵpagoda styleḵ finial is seen on a possibly Tibetan helmet
2
3
SAMIBAYEV, 1992.
ϟϙϡϪ, 1902: 92-93.
Page | 225
from the 8th to 10th centuries, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Fig. 20).
Such a Tibetan connection might be significant as pointing to a cultural link with Buddhist
culture which, if the helmet now in a private collection actually comes from Afghanistan,
might in turn suggest concepts of helmet decoration which persisted for several generations
after this area was conquered by Islamic forces.
Documentary evidence for one-piece helmets and helmet decoration
While archaeological evidence is the most important and reliable, there are also
interesting statements in the written record. For example, a 7th century CE papyrus from Egypt
noted that the Muslim Arab conquerors wore what has been translated as Ḵconical helmetsḵ.4
Though not particularly illuminating, the original writer clearly considered this simple fact
to be worthy of mention, perhaps suggesting that rounded rather than conical helmets had been
normal in Byzantine Egypt.
Scholarly discussion of the baidah or Ḵegg-likeḵ style of helmet in the pre- and early
Islamic periods has tended to focus upon whether it could refer to a helmet of one-piece
construction. However, there is no reason why the term baidah should not simply reflect
a helmet's rounded or Ḵegg-ХТФОḵΝ shape. There seems to be no strong reason why it must
necessarily be Ḵegg-ХТФОḵΝin being forged from one piece of metal. In this early period it seems
possible that the baidah was merely Ḵnot pointedḵ, or at least was less pointed than some other
forms of helmet.5
Then there is an interesting, but perhaps a generally mistranslated or misunderstood,
pКЬЬКРОΝ ТЧΝ AЛ Ν JКcfar Mu КЦЦКНΝ IЛЧΝ JКЫ ЫΝ КХ- КЛКЫ ΥЬΝ ЦШЧuЦОЧЭКХΝ History of the Prophets
and Kings. IЭΝ НОЬМЫТЛОНΝ КΝ МШЦЛТЧОНΝ TТЛОЭКЧ,Ν TuЫФТЬСΝ КЧНΝ HОpСЭСКХТЭОΝ (HКв ЭТХК)Ν КЭЭКМФΝ
on the Muslim Arab held citadel of Tirmiḏ (Termeг)ΝаСТМСΝаКЬΝСОХНΝЛвΝε Ь ΝIЛЧΝ cAbdullah
Ibn K ẓem in 704 CE. According to al- КЛКЫ ,ΝЭСОΝКЭЭКМФОЫЬΝЬuППОЫОНΝСТРСΝМКЬuКХЭТОЬ,ΝТЧМХuНТЧРΝ
those with baidah ḏ t qūnКs (or qawnas), but even more so amongst those with baidah
jКmm 'u. The former have been translated as wearers of Ḵpointed helmetsḵ and the latter
as wearers of Ḵrounded helmetḵ.6 N. Fries translates these phrases as helmets with and without
points,7 and notes the normal identification of the Arabic word qawnas as stemming comes
from the Greek chonos.8 In the Кm sК the word qawnas was again identified as the summit,
uppermost part or point of a helmet.9
However, I believe the words could be translated as helmets Ḵpossessing crowns
of the headḵ, and the latter as helmets Ḵbroughtḵ or Ḵgatheredḵ or Ḵassembled togetherḵ.
I would further suggest that al- КЛКЫ ΝаКЬΝНЫКаТЧРΝКΝНТЬЭТЧМЭТШЧΝЛОЭаООЧΝСОХЦОЭЬΝаТЭСΝКΝШЧОpiece crown or bowl, and those of segmented construction. This might also explain
why wearers of the latter - a generally weaker form - suffered greater hurt. It could also be
suggested that the baidah ḏ t qūnКs had additional crown-like elements. In other words that
they were much like the helmet which is the subject of this study. It is, of course, always
a foolish to assume that words written at the start of the 10th century CE meant precisely
4
CANARD, 1974: 47.
GESSLER, 1930: 127.
6
DUNLOP, 1973: 304.
7
FRIES, 1921: 59; КЛКЫ , 1879-1901: 1153.
8
FLEISCHER, 1988: 450 & fig. 6.
9
Кm sК, 1828-1861: 217 v.2; 283, v.4.
5
Page | 226
the same thing then as they did in later centuries. This is especially foolish when they concern
technical matters such as items of military equipment where terminology may well have been
colloquial or merely descriptive. Thus it could even be suggested that the mysterious Кjr s
mentioned by the 9th МОЧЭuЫвΝ аЫТЭОЫΝ AЛ Ν МUṯЦ ЧΝ cAmr Ibn Ba r al-J iẓ in the context
of military equipment may not actually have meant Ḵbellsḵ, at least not in a literal sense.10
Despite listing so many items of arms and armour for both men and horses, al-J iẓ
surprisingly makes no mention of helmets. Might it be possible that his use of the term Кjr s
reflected current, almost slang terminology amongst soldiers, and have meant Ḵbell-shapedḵ
helmets or helmets with one-piece bowls which looked like bells?
Pre- or early Islamic Arab poetry often referred to helmets decorated with gold. 11
One might reasonably assume that such a practice became yet more widespread during
the early Islamic period, at least in the eastern regions where, according to Ab Bakr
Mu ammad Ibn Jacfar σКЫšК (c. 899-959 CE), silver seems to have become increasingly
abundant from the initial Arab-IЬХКЦТМΝМШЧquОЬЭΝЭШΝЭСОΝS Ц ЧТНΝОЫКέ12 Chinese travellers also
noted an abundant use of silver on belts and knives amongst the Muslim Arabs, probably
refering to cAЛЛ ЬТНΝIЫКqέ13 Here Arab sources recorded that certain levels of such decoration
were reserved for men of a certain rank, the Caliph al-Mucta im (833-842 CE) rebuking one
man for wearing a sword and belt above his station.14
This abundance of decoration was clearly not reserved for the Caliphal court
or the Middle Eastern heartlands of the early Islamic world. The Ḵrebelḵ КПП ЫТНΝ НвЧКЬЭвΝ
(861-1003 CE) which dominated south-eastern Iran, extended Muslim rule deeper into
Afghanistan, and competed with the Ḵloyalistḵ S Ц ЧТНΝНвЧКЬЭвΝ(κńλ-1005 CE) for domination
of the eastern Islamic world, was notably flamboyant in this respect. For example, when
the founder of the КПП ЫТНΝНвЧКЬЭв,ΝВКcq ЛΝIЛЧΝδКвṯ al- КПП Ы,ΝЬОТгОНΝσ š p ЫΝТЧΝκ73 CE he
impressed a local delegation with a parade of two thousand ḡulams arrayed in two ranks before
the throne carrying gold and silver covered shields, swords and the captured treasury
and armoury of his
СТЫТНΝ ПШОЬέ The chronicler Ab 'l- asan cAl Ibn al- usayn Ibn cAl
c
al-Mas d Ν ПuЫЭСОЫΝ НОЬМЫТЛОНΝ ЭСОЬОΝ ЭаШΝ ЭСШuЬКЧНΝ éХТЭОΝ ЬШХНТОЫЬΝ КЬΝ СКХПΝ МКЫЫвТЧРΝ РТХНОНΝ ЦКМОЬ,Ν
half with silvered maces, though these weapons only ceremonial.15 Later КПП ЫТНΝ ЫuХОЫЬΝ СКНΝ
a guard corps of senior officers who wore equally ornamental belts .16
źЯОЧΝ ЦШЫОΝ ТЬΝ ФЧШаЧΝ ШПΝ ЭСОΝ МШЧЭОЦpШЫКЫвΝ S Ц ЧТНΝ МШuЫЭΝ КЧНΝ ТЭЬΝ éХТЭОΝ ЭЫШШpЬ,Ν ХКЫРОХвΝ
because so many of the military details which abound in the huge Š С-n mК verse epic
by akim Ab 'l-Q sim Firdaws T s (940-1020 CE) probably reflecЭΝЭСОΝХКЭОЫΝS Ц ЧТНΝКЫЦвέ
Although the Š С-n mК аКЬΝТЧТЭТКХХвΝаЫТЭЭОЧΝаТЭСΝКΝЯТОаΝЭШΝpЫОЬОЧЭТЧРΝТЭΝЭШΝЭСОΝS Ц ЧТНΝЫuХОЫ,Ν
it was eventually offered to the Turkish Sultan Ma Ц НΝШПΝḠazna who had overthrown the last
S Ц ЧТНέ TСОΝКЛuЧНКЧМОΝШПΝЬТХЯОЫΝТЧΝЭСОΝS Ц ЧТНΝЫОКХЦΝКЭΝТЭЬΝСОТРСЭΝаКЬΝЫОПХОМЭОНΝТЧΝЭСОΝХКЫРОΝ
КЦШuЧЭΝ ШПΝ S Ц ЧТНΝ ЬТХЯОЫΝ МШТЧКРОΝ аСТМСΝ аКЬΝ ЛЫШuРСЭΝ ЛКМФΝ ЭШΝ ЧШЫЭСОЫЧΝ źuЫШpОΝ
by Scandinavian merchants. Indeed oriental coinage, largely of silver and overwhelmingly
J iẓ, 1915: 646; θιńνΝJ iẓ, 1965: 19-20; 53.
GINDI, 1952: 159.
12
σКЫšК ,Νβίίι: 51-53.
13
MAHLER, 1959: 102.
14
КЛКЫ , 1951: 19.
15
BOSWORTH, 1968: 546.
16
BOSWORTH, 1968: 547.
10
11
Page | 227
S Ц ЧТН,Ν аКЬΝ ЯТЭКХΝ ЭШΝ ОМШЧШЦТМΝ ХТПОΝ ТЧΝ Russia, Central Europe, the Baltic lands
and Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries. Furthermore, this trade stopped abruptly
in the very early 11th МОЧЭuЫвΝCźΝПШХХШаТЧРΝЭСОΝПКХХΝШПΝЭСОΝS Ц ЧТНΝНвЧКЬЭвΝТЧΝńίίηΝCE.17
Returning to the Š С-n mК, most references to highly decorated arms and armour
mention gold rather than silver, as befits such an epic tale. Or perhaps silver decorated
equipment was too commonplace to be associated with warrior heroes. Like so much
of the Š С-n mК itself, these mentions can become repetative to modern ears but it is still
worth quoting a few:
RuЬЭОЦΝПТРСЭЬΝAПЫ ЬТв ЛνΝ
ḴHis flag and mail are black, his helm and brassards,
Of iron flecked with gold, his plume is sableḵ.18
When axes;
ḴCrashed on gold helm and shieldḵ.19
τПΝЭСОΝКЫЦвΝШПΝAПЫ ЬТв ЛΝаСТМСΝСКНνΝ
Ḵ.... golden helmets and golden shieldsḵ.20
Mention of helmet decoration;
ḴStruck with his sword the helmet of his foe,
Upon the crest, and death came there and thenḵ.21
asan Ibn cAl T s (1018-1092 CE) well known
Niẓ ЦΝ КХ-Mulk's Ab ' cAl
НОЬМЫТpЭТШЧΝШПΝКЧΝТНОКХΝРuКЫНΝМШЫpЬΝаКЬΝЛКЬОНΝupШЧΝаСКЭΝаКЬΝЬuppШЬОНΝЭШΝСКЯОΝЛООЧΝS Ц ЧТНΝ
concepts. IЭΝТЧМХuНОНΝКЧΝéХТЭОΝаТЭСΝРТХНОНΝЛОХЭЬΝКЧНΝЬСТОХНЬ,ΝКЧНΝКΝЬХТРСЭХвΝХКЫРОЫΝЧuЦЛОЫΝШПΝЦОЧΝ
with silvered belts and shields.22 Niẓ ЦΝКХ-Mulk also advised that a ruler should have twenty
sets of special jewel-studded, gilded and otherwise highly decorated arms ready in his treasury
to be used just for parade purposes.23
Of course the use of decorated military equipment for parade purposes did not end
with the Ḵsilver crisisḵ аСТМСΝМШТЧМТНОНΝаТЭСΝЭСОΝПКХХΝШПΝЭСОΝS Ц ЧТНЬέ TСОΝéХТЭОΝḡulams troops
of their Ḡaznavid successors reportedly had jewelled weapons with gold and silver
mountings,24 for example during the reception of cAЛЛ ЬТНΝ CКХТpСКХΝ ОЧЯШвЬΝ ПЫШЦΝ BКРСНКНΝ
in 423 AH (1031/2 CE). On that occasion two thousand palace troops had headresses Ḵshaped
like two hornsḵ, others had headgear with four plumes while various other items of equipment
were silvered.25 Even in their decline the later Ḡaznavids had access to the wealth of northern
17
SPULER, 1970: 17.
Firdaws , 1905, vol. 2: 13; Firdaws , 1877-1880: 301.
19
Firdaws , 1905, vol. 2: 15; Firdaws ,Νńκιι-1880: 303-304.
20
Firdaws , 1905, vol. 2: 17; Firdaws ,Νńκιι-1880: 307.
21
Firdaws , 1905, vol. 3: 104; Firdaws ,Νńκιι-1880: 1239.
22
Niẓ ЦΝКХ-Mulk, 1960: 96-97; Niẓ ЦΝКХ-Mulk, 1932: 67.
23
Niẓ ЦΝКХ-Mulk, 1960: 97; Niẓ ЦΝКХ-Mulk, 1932: 67.
24
BOSWORTH, 1963: 107-108.
25
KOHZAD, 1951: 48-51.
18
Page | 228
IЧНТКΝ КЧНΝ СОЧМОΝ ЭСОТЫΝ éХТЭОΝ ḡulams still wore gold or gilded belts when the occasion
demanded.26
Silver and gilded silver decoration was present on parade weapons and other
ОquТpЦОЧЭΝ НuЫТЧРΝ КΝ Ż imid parade in the late 11th early 12th century CE, though there was
no specific mention of helmets.27 Ż imid gilded helmets (galeros auratos) were nevertheless
noted by the First Crusaders in the aftermath of their victory outside Ascalon in 1099 CE.28
Christian warriors invading against al-Andalus around the same time also attributed gilded
and indeed jewelled helmets to their Muslim opponents, this apparently being regarded as an
alien fashion by the anonymous author of the Song of Roland.29 Further south in India,
the 13th century scholar Fa r-i Mudabbir, noted that the Hindus also decorated their swords
with silver.
Iconographic evidence for one-piece construction and helmet finials
Iconographic or pictorial evidence for helmet of one-piece construction from this
period is almost by definition rare, difficult to interpret and thus not particularly reliable.
However, I would draw attention to some possible example. The first is a series of seal
impressions from the late Sasanian period.30 These official seals were used by or
in the authority of a number of sp СЛОН frontier governors. Though small and lacking
in the finer details of militgary equipment they do appear to differentiate between helmets
of two-piece construction having a front-to-back band or comb (Fig. 21A), and those lacking
such a band which might have thus been of one-piece construction (Fig. 21B, Fig. 21C).
Just a few centuries later one of the finest, most detailed and best preserved of early medieval
Byzantine manuscripts surely seeks to show rounded helmets of one-piece construction. It may
also be worth noting that in these manuscripts, the Chludov Psalter of 829-837 CE
(Fig. 22, Fig. 23) and the 10th century Bristol Psalter (Fig. 24, Fig. 25) such helmets seem to be
associated with Ḵwickedḵ figures and might thus reflect the Byzantine artists' association
of round helmets of one-piece construction with Ḵwickedḵ infidels – namely the neighbouring
Islamic Khalifate. Early Islamic art does not provide the sort of details which could identify
a helmet's construction. So the earliest example that I would venture to suggest might show
one-piece helmets with low-domed profiles is a little known and perhaps rather controversial
engraved brass plate which might be from Ḡaznavid eastern Afghanistan or northern India
(Fig. 26A-C). Several of the helmets on this plate also have vertical finials that appear to be
attached to the helmets rather than being structural extensions of the helmet bowls.
Clearer representations of structurally separate finials attached to the tops of helmets
of varied form of construction appear quite frequently in the art of what became the eastern
Islamic world, the eastern Islamic world itself, and various neighbouring regions. There seems
to have been a clear distinction between the sort of bulbous finials seen in late Sasanian sources
(Figs. 27 to 29), some Inner Asian art (Fig. 30) and also in early Islamic art (Fig. 31, Fig. 32A,
Fig. 33), and the taller, more slender finials which date from after the Sasanian period
(Figs. 36 right to 41). Some of these more slender finials have horizontal divisions which could
perhaps be interpreted as forms of what I have described as Ḵpagodaḵ style finials (see above).
26
BOSWORTH, 1977: 70.
CANARD, 1952: 366-371.
28
Fulchres of Chartres, 1969: 363.
29
Turold, 1957: 81, 112; Turold, 1924: l. 1031.
30
GYSELEN, 2007.
27
Page | 229
However, it is worth noting that the remarkable silver-gilt plate which is widely considered
to have been made in the Semirechye area and which in my opinion dates from the 8th
to 10th centuries CE, includes helmets with both slender and bulbous finial, the former perhaps
tending to be associated with more prominent, leading and maybe thus senior figures.
Bibliography
Sources
Firdaws , Š С-n mК, ed. J.A. VULLERS, Leiden 1877-1880.
Firdaws , Š С-n mК, vol. 2, tr. A.G. WARNER, E. WARNER, London 1905.
Fulchres of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, tr. F.R. RYAN, Knoxville1964.
Кm sК [Hamasae Carmina], ed. and tr. F G.W.F. REYTAG, Bonn 1828-1861.
J iẓ,Ν AЛ Ν cUṯЦ ЧΝ cAmr Ibn Ba r al-, RКs 'Тl Кl-J iẓ,Ν ОНέΝ H R σ,Ν cABD AL-SAδ εΝ
MU AMMAD, Cairo-Baghdad 1965.
J iẓ,Ν AЛ Ν cUṯЦ n cAmr Ibn Ba r al-, [RКs 'Тl Кl-J iẓ ], J СТг oП BКsrК to Al-FКtС ТЛn KС q n on
the Exploits of the Turks and the Army of the Khalifate in General, tr. C.T. HARLEY-WALKER,
„Journal of the Royal Asiaic Societyḵ 1915, 631-697.
σКЫšК ,Ν The History of Bukhara [2nd edition with additional material], ed. and tr. R.N. FRYE,
Princeton 2007.
Niẓ ЦΝКХ-Mulk, SТв sКt N mК, ed. SAYYID cABD AL-RA εΝ AL Aδ ,ΝTОСЫКЧΝńλγβέ
Niẓ ЦΝКХ-Mulk, TСО Book oП RulОs Пor KТnРsŚ TСО SТв sКt N mК, tr. H. DARKE, London 1960.
КЛКЫ ,ΝThe Reign of al-MuctК Тm (833-842), tr. E. MARIN, New Haven 1951.
КЛКЫ , TКr al-Rusūl аК'l-Mulūk, volṬ 2, ed. M.J. DE GOEJE, Leiden 1879-1901.
Turold (attributed), The Song of Roland, tr. D.L. SAYERS. London 1957.
Turold (attributed), La Chanson de Roland, ed. T.A. JENKINS, London 1924.
Literature
BOSWORTH, C.E. (1963), The Ghaznavids, Edinburgh.
BOSWORTH, C.E. (1968), The Armies of the КПП rТНs, „Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studiesḵ 31, 534-554.
BOSWORTH, C.E. (1977), The Later Ghaznavids: Splendour and Decay, Edinburgh.
CANARD, M. (1952), La Procession du Nouvel An chez les Fatimides, „Annales de l'Institut
Orientalesḵ10, 364-398.
CANARD, M. (1965), L'EбpКnsТon ArКЛОś lО proЛlчmО mТlТtКТrО, „Settimane di Studi del Centro
Italianio di Studi sull'Alto MedioevoḵΝńβ, 37-63.
DUNLOP, D.M. (1973), Arab Relations with Tibet, „Islam Tetkikleri Enstitusu Dergisiḵ 5, 301-319.
FLEISCHER, H.L. (1988), Kleinere Schriften, vol. 3, Leipzig.
FRIES, N. (1921), Das Heereswesen der Araber zur Zeit der OmКТjКНОn NКМС TКЛКr ,ΝTüЛТЧРОЧέ
GESSLER, E.A. (1930), Der Kalotten-Helm von Chamoson, „Zeitschrift füЫΝ HТЬЭШЫТЬМСОΝ АКППОЧuЧНΝKШЬЭüЦФuЧНОḵ 3, 121-127.
GINDI, A.M.A. EL- (1952), MКrtТКl PoОtrв КmonР tСО ArКЛs Тn tСО J СТlТвКС, PhD. thesis, University
of London.
GYSELEN, R. (2007), Sasanian Seals and Sealings in the A. Saeedi Collection, Leuven.
KOHZAD A.A. (1951), Uniformes et Armes des Gardes des Sultans de Ghazna, „Afghanistanḵ 6,
48-51.
MAHLER, J.G. (1959), The Westerners among the figures of the T'ang Dynasty of China, Rome.
SAMIBAYEV, M. (1992), Notes on a Helmet from Varaghsar (in private correspondence, March
1992).
Page | 230
SPULER, B. (1970), Trade in the Eastern Islamic Countries in the Early Centuries, [in:] Islam and
the Trade of Asia, D.S. Richards (ed.), Oxford, 11-20.
TOFIGHIAN, H. (2014), Pazushi dar bar-rasi bastanshenasi zir ab suwahil Bandar-e Rig (Ganaveh),
„PКгСШСОЬС-ha-вОΝ BКЬЭКЧЬСОЧКЬТΝ IЫКЧḵΝ (AЫМСКОШХШРТМКХΝ RОЬОКЫМСОЬΝ ШПΝ IЫКЧ,Ν JШuЫЧКХΝ ШПΝ DОpКЫЭЦОЧЭΝ
of Archaeology, Faculty of At and Architecture, Bu-Ali Sina University, 4/6, 121-138 & [English
Abstract] 16-17.
TOFIGHIAN, H., NADOOSHAN, F.K., MOUSAVI, S.M. (2011), Sasanians in the Persian Gulf
According to Archaeological Data, „SКЬКЧТФКΝAЫМСКОШХШРвḵΝζΝń-5.
ϟϙϡϪ,ΝϱέϱέΝ(ńλίβ),Ν
я
,
я
,
, „Ϝϻ϶ϹЅІϼГΝϼЀЃέΝϔЄЉϹЂϿЂϷϼЋϹЅϾЂϽΝϞЂЀϼЅЅϼϼḵ 2, 81-94.
Page | 231
Picture captions
Fig. 1. Helmet found in the wreck of a Sasanian or early Islamic merchant ship off Bandar Rig on the
Persian Gulf coast of Iran, (photo by H. Tofighian et al.).
Fig. 2. Simplified drawing of the helmet from the Bandar Rig wreck showing its suggested shape after
distortion is removed, (drawing by the author).
Page | 232
Fig. 3. Helmet said to have been found by chance in eastern Iran or Afghanistan, probably from
the late SКПП ЫТНΝ ОЫК,Ν ХКЭОΝ ńίth century CE, shown without its decorative finial. Private collection,
(drawing by the author).
Fig. 4. Top of the probably late SКПП ЫТНΝ helmet showing the basic steel bowl and a layer of silver
which covers the experior of the helmet, except for the part which went beneath a decorative final.
Private collection, (photo by the author).
Page | 233
Fig. 5. The interior of the probably late SКПП ЫТНΝhelmet showing the steel bowl surrounded by a layer
of silver which is visible around the exterior of the rim. Private collection, (photo by the author).
Fig. 6. An object also found in the shipwreck off Bandar Rig which probably served as a decorative
finial for the helmet, (photo by H. Tofighian et al.).
Page | 234
Fig. 7. Drawing showing a provisional reconstruction of the probable helmet finial from the Bandar
Rig shipwreck, partially reconstructed and with marine encrustation removed, (drawing by the author).
Fig. 8. Drawing of the helmet from the Bandar Rig shipwreck with the probable finial in place,
(drawing by the author).
Page | 235
Fig. 9. Drawing of the partial finial of the helmet said to have been found in eastern Iran
or Afghanistan, with its Kufic Arabic inscription not shown, late 10th century. Private collection,
(drawing by the author).
Fig. 10 A-B. Drawings of part of the bands of pyramid-shaped embossed decorations on the helmet
and probable finial from the Bandar Rig shipwreck: A - on the brow-band of the helmet; B - the lower
row on the finial, (drawing by the author).
Page | 236
Fig. 11 A-B. Drawings of part of the bands of pyramid-shaped embossed decorations on the helmet
and finial from eastern Iran or Afghanistan: A - on one of the two rows on the brow-band
of the helmet; B - the lower row on the finial, (drawing by the author).
Fig. 12. Drawing of the helmet said to have been found by chance in eastern Iran or Afghanistan
and probably from the late SКПП ЫТНΝОЫК,Νwith its decorative finial but with the Kufic Arabic inscriptions
not shown, (drawing by the author).
Page | 237
Fig. 13. Helmet from the Varaghsah Temple with a one-piece iron or steel bowl, early 8th century
Sughdian or more likely Perso-Islamic. (drawing by the author after M.K. Samibayev).
Fig. 14. Helmet with a one-piece iron or steel bowl and chiselled decoration, Iran, 8th-9th century.
Furusiyah Art Foundation, inv. R-815, London; photograph courtesy of the Furusiyah Art Foundation.
Page | 238
Fig. 15. Helmet of one-piece constructionreportedly fouЧНΝ КЭΝ RКq НКΝ ТЧΝ МОЧЭЫКХΝ TuЧТЬТКΝ КЧНΝ ЭСШuРСЭΝ
to date from the 10th to 12th centuries. Museum of Islamic Archaeology, Kayrawan; photograph
courtesy of the Museum of Islamic Archaeology.
Fig. 16. Helmet of one-piece construction with cross-frame riveted to the surface and reportedly found
at Chamosen in Switzerland; the cross-pieces and brow band may have been added in European though
the basic helmet bowl is probably of Islamic origin, early 10 th or 12th century. Schweizerisches Landes
Museum, Zurich; photograph courtesy of the Schweizerisches Landes Museum.
Page | 239
Fig. 17. Helmet with a one-piece bowl found during the construction of a factory in the Perm region
of Siberia in the late 19th century; the mail aventail being attached by rivets to the rim of the helmet.
It is probably of very late Sasanian or early Islamic origin. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg,
(photo by A. Nikolaev).
Fig. 18. Helmet with a one-piece bowl and perhps originally an almost pointed summit; found
at Staritsa in the Tomsk region of western Siberia. Usually attributed to a Magyar 7 th to 10th century
origin, it may actually have been of early Islamic manufacture though similar date. State Hermitage
Museum, St. Petersburg, (drawing by the author after Yu. I. Ozeredov).
Page | 240
Fig. 19 A-B. The iron or steel bowl of the decorated late Sasanian period helmet found at Tepe
Cheragh Ali in Gilan has virtually corroded away. What remains largely consists is the surface
decoration consisting of several thin ЬСООЭЬΝ ШПΝ ЬТХЯОЫέΝ RöЦТЬМС-Germanische Zentralmuseum, Mainz;
photographs МШuЫЭОЬвΝШПΝЭСОΝRöЦТЬМС-Germanische Zentralmuseum.
Page | 241
Fig. 20. A helmet of possibly Tibetanan origin and segmented construction, dating from
the 8th to 10th centuries, has an early example of a Ḵpagodaḵ finial. This style may be closely associated
with Buddhist culture. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2002, 2002.226,
New York; photograph courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Fig. 21 A-C. Sealings or seal impressions in the names and authorities of late Sasanian sp СЛОН
military frontier governors, late 6th or early 7th centuries. Saeedi Collection, Bibliothчque Nationale,
Paris, (drawing by the author).
Page | 242
Fig. 22. ḴGoliathḵ, in the Chludov Psalter, Byzantine manuscript, 829-837 CE. State Historical
Museum, folio 141r, Moscow; photograph courtesy of the State Historical Museum.
Fig. 23. Goliath's helmet falled from his head in ḴDavid's victory over Goliathḵ, Chludov Psalter,
Byzantine manuscript, 829-837 CE. State Historical Museum, folio 148r, Moscow; photograph
courtesy of the State Historical Museum.
Page | 243
Fig. 24. ḴDavid slaying Goliathḵ in the Bristol Psalter, Byzantine manuscript, 10th century. British
Library, Add MS. 40731, folio 240r, London; photograph courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 25. ḴAbsolom pursuing Davidḵ in the Bristol Psalter, Byzantine manuscript, 10th century. British
Library, Add MS. 40731, folio 410r, British Library, London; photograph courtesy of the British
Library.
Fig. 26 A-C. Engraved brass plate, perhaps Ḡaznavid from northern India or Afghanistan, late 10th
to 12th century. Marjani Foundation Islamic Art Collection, Moscow, (drawing by the author).
Page | 244
Fig. 27. Rock-cut statue of a late Sasanian ruler, late 6th or early 7th century. In situ
(photo by the author).
q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч, Iran,
Page | 245
Fig. 28. Carved capital, originally from Bisatun, Sasanian late 6 th or early 7th century. Archaeological
Park, q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч, Iran, (photo courtesy A. Danashgar).
Fig. 29. Carved capital, originally from Bisatun, Sasanian late 6th or early 7 th century. Archaeological
Park, q-ОΝBШЬЭ Ч, Iran, (photo courtesy A. Danashgar).
Page | 246
Fig. 30. Figures of warriors on a wall-painting from a Buddhist temple at Kuхa, Turkish Central Asia,
6th century. Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, (drawing by the author).
Fig. 31. Helmet on a coin minted in the name of Abzay, an early Islamic governor in western Iran.
Present whereabouts unknown, photograph courtesy of Baldwin's Saleroom.
Page | 247
Fig. 32 A-B. Coin minted in the name of Yazid Ibn al-Muhallab right, governor of Gurgan in northern
Iran, 703-704 CE. Present whereabouts unknown, (drawing by the author).
Fig. 33. Ceramic bowl from eastern Iran, probably S Ц ЧТН, 10th century. Metropolitan Museum
of Art, inv. 40.170.23. New York, (photo by the author).
Page | 248
Fig. 34. S Ц ЧТН or B yid ceramic jar, Iran, 10th or early 11th century. Cultural Institute of Bonyad
Museum, Tehran; photograph courtesy of Cultural Institute of Bonyad Museum.
Page | 249
Fig. 35. Carved marble relief from Ḡazna, c.1100 CE. David Collection, inv. 22/1989, Copenhagen,
(drawing by the author).
Fig. 36. Silver-gilt plate showing a siege found in Siberia and thought to have be made in Semirechye
south of Lake Balkash, 8th to 10th century. State Hermitage Museum, inv. S-46, St. Petersburg, (photo
courtesy A. Matveev).
Page | 250
Fig. 37 A-D. Figures of mounted attackers and defenders manning the fortress wall on the silver-gilt
plate showing a siege, thought to have be made in Semirechye south of Lake Balkash, 8 th
to 10th century. State Hermitage Museum, inv. S-46, St. Petersburg, (drawing by the author).
Page | 251
Fig. 38. Ceramic bowl, S Ц ЧТН eastern Iran or Central Asia. Reza Abbasi Museum, Tehran, (drawing
by the author).
Fig. 39. SЭuММШΝ ЬЭКЭuОЭЭОΝ ПЫШЦΝ КΝ BuННСТЬЭΝ ЬСЫТЧОΝ КЭΝ SШЫхuФ,Ν TuЫФТЬС,Ν SТЧФТКЧРΝ κ th century. Museum
für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, (drawing by the author).
Page | 252
Fig. 40A-B PКТЧЭОНΝ ЬТХФΝ ПЫКРЦОЧЭΝ ПЫШЦΝ КΝ εКЧТМСКОКЧΝ TОЦpХОΝ ЧОКЫΝ KШхШ,Ν TuЫФТЬС,Ν SТЧФТКЧРΝ κ th
or 9th century. Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, (drawing by the author).
Fig. 41. PКТЧЭОНΝpКpОЫΝПЫКРЦОЧЭ,ΝUТРСuЫ,ΝПЫШЦΝВКЫΝЧОКЫΝKШхШ,ΝTuЫФТЬС,ΝSТЧФТКЧРΝλ th century. Museum
für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, (drawing by the author).
Page | 253
Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets.The headgear in Iranian history
volume I: Pre-Islamic Period
eds. K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian
Siedlce-Tehran 2017
Sergei Yu. KAINOV (State Historical Museum, Moscow, Russia)
The Helmet from Krasnodar Territory
Abstract
The article concerns and gives to the public a helmet presumably originating from
a demolished cemetery in Krasnodar Territory (Russia) and its dating. This item of military headgear
has a quite remarkable design, with its bowl plates featuring large semicircular cut-offs. Similar design
is found on three more helmets considered in the article; one is from Oskol burial (Belgorod region,
Russia), another from a destroyed cremation burial (?) in Ukraine, third one from Bezhtinsk burial
(Dagestan, Russia). All these helmets presumably date to mid-8th-10th centuries. Regarding this, as well
as probable relation of Krasnodar helmet to a cremation cemetery in Kuban and Black Sea region,
we can attribute the helmet as to second half of 8th-9th centuries.
Keywords: Helmets, Armour, Krasnodar Territory, Kuban, Seversky Donets
In 2009, A.N. Kirpichnokov released to the public a photo of a well-preserved iron
helmet kept in a private collection. The helmet is alleged to originate from Krasnodar
Territory.1 We were able to obtain complete information regarding constructional details
and dimensional specifications of this helmet, as well as a number of high-quality photos.
Taking into account perfect state of preservation of the helmet, we deem it necessary
to introduce it into scientific use and define its place in the series of military headgear found
in Eurasia.
In terms of construction, the helmet is preserved in full. Slight deformation was
caused to its bowl, as result of pressure put lengthwise, making transversal diameter greater
than longitudinal one. The pressure also caused cracks around overlapping plates. Besides,
the nasal is damaged and appears bent frontwards. The surface of the helmet is covered with
cinder, bearing evidence of it staying in fire; this, regarded together with most probable
location of discovery, proves the helmet was placed in a funeral pile. On the finial and
by the edges of some plates, insignificant metal loss can be observed, due to corrosion
process.
Entire helmet is made of iron. Its total height is 26,2 cm, with lengthwise diameter
20,2 cm and transversal diameter 21,1 cm. Its weight is 1,3 kg.
The helmet has a sphero-conical shape and is composed of the principal constructive
part (eight-part body) and supplementary constructive part (the finial attaching plates
1
Archaeological Department; skainov@mail.ru
KIRPICHNIKOV, 2009: fig. 33.
Page | 255
of the body on the top). Supplementary protective parts meant to increase protective qualities
of the headgear, include the nasal.
Fig. 1. The helmet from Krasnodar Territory, (photo by A.Baryshev).
The body of the helmet is composed of eight triangular-like plates, their tops covered
by the finial. Four inner plates are joined by other four plates with overlap (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Edges of the central parts of overlapping plates have deep semicircular cuf-offs (two for each
plate). All around each cut-offs there are four rivets for attaching outer to inner plates. Edges
of upper parts of outer plates are slightly concave, whereas the edges of lower parts are
straight and vertical.
Thickness of the plates reaches 1,5 mm, with 0,9-1,2 mm at the bottom edge. Along
the side edges of overlapping plates, there is a facet up to 2 mm wide. Rivets fastening
the plates have a conical-shaped head with a rounded top. The heads vary between 5
to 6,7 mm in diameter and 2,2 to 3,9 mm in height.
Page | 256
Along the lower edge of the bowl (excluding front area), on the outer side, 19 holes
are punched, each of them measuring about 4 mm in diameter. Seventeen of them, forming
one line 4 mm away from the edge, must have been used for hanging a camail. Two more
holes are found on overlapping side plates; these might have served for fixing chinstraps.
Fig. 2. The helmet from Krasnodar Territory, (drawing by the author).
Tops of the plates are attached by the finial fixed with eight rivets, shaped similarly
to those on the body. The heads of the rivals vary 5,2 to 5,9 mm in diameter and 3,2
to 4,3 mm in height. Total height of the finial makes 80 mm, with its diameter of the lower
edge being 46 mm. The finial consists of two parts. The lower part is cone-shaped and made
of a folded metal leaf 0,5-1,3 mm thick. Height of the cone equals 6,2 mm. Edges of the leaf
are brazed with copper-based alloy. The seam is situated at the side of the finial. Similarly,
through brazing, the lower cone-shaped part is joined to the upper part, the latter being
a reversed frustum made of folded leaf as well. On each of two opposite sides of the frustum
there is punched a hole 3,3 mm in diameter.
On the front plate, a T-shaped nasal is fixed with the help of four rivets having coneshaped heads. The nasal has curved eyebrow ridges ending in curls. Along the central part,
there runs a vertical rib. All around the nasal there is a facet 2 mm wide. The nasal is 12 cm
wide and 8 cm high (when unfolded), and 2,1-2,5 mm thick.
Lack of archaeological context and, actually, of any reliable information about
the site of discovery, makes us search for constructive and ornamental analogues that could
help forward chronological attribution of the helmet.2
The most remarkable feature of the helmet are deep semicircular cut-offs
on the plates forming the bowl. These cut-offs are shaped in a specific way and visually are
perceived as huge circles.
2
The helmet was allegedly found in a partly destroyed cemetery Leninsky Put, Krasnodar Territory,
Russia. It is presumed that some other objects derive from demolished burials of this cemetery, such
as a three-leaved iron arm-protector, dating according to analogues to second half of 8th-9th centuries
(ZOZULYA, BARYSHEV, 2014: 55). Leninsky put cemetery is one of cremation-type burial grounds
of 8th-9th centuries, found in KuЛКЧΝКЧНΝBХКМФΝЬОКΝRОРТШЧΝ(P’ВAσKτV,Νβίίń)έ
Page | 257
We can confidently regard at least one helmet having similar cut-offs on its plates.
It was found accidentally by peasants from Stolbishe village around the year 1869
in a demolished burial Ḵ4 miles westwards from the right bank of the Oskol river, in a ravine
near the top of Popov ŻШЫОЬЭḵ.3 In that inhumation burial, besides the helmet found
on the head of the buried person, there were discovered a chain armour, a sword (?),4 golden
Byzantine coins,5 golden and silver belt adornments and other objects6. According
to A.V. Komar, the burial dates back to 745-770 CE.7
Fig. 3. The Oskol helmet, (photo by K. Zhukov).
3
The discovery site has various names in written tradition. In this article the helmet is referred to
as Oskol helmet, as it was found not far from Oskol river (Belgorod region, Russia).
4
Straight blade about 70 cm long, its tip broken off. On the handle there are two holes for attaching
handle covers. The cross has a wider middle part (AFANASIEV, 1987: 199).
5
One coin dates back to reign of Feodosy III (716-717), another one refers to early type of coins
of Leo III Isavr and dates to 717-720.
6
AFANASIEV, 1987: 193-194.
7
KOMAR,1999: 129, 132.
Page | 258
But the helmet from Oskol differs from the one we are investigating now
in the constructive way the body is assembled (Fig 3). It is composed of four plates, with
front and back plates overlapping the side ones8. Edges of the front and the back plates have
deep semicircular cut-offs, similar to those we see on the helmet from Krasnodar. The helmet
is surmounted by a finial, its upper part missing. The lower cone-shaped part of the finial
and its straight edges are quite similar to those of the helmet in question. On the lower part
of front plate, a nasal is fixed with the help of three rivets; it is T-shaped, and has a partly
preserved vertical part for nose protection. The horizontal part is formed of curved eyebrow
ridges ending in curls that point upwards. Both horizontal and vertical parts have ribs.
Another specific feature to mention is that the heads of some rivets fastening plates
of the body and the finial, are covered with thin metal leaf of copper-base alloy.
Fig. 4. The helmet from Ukraine (photo from collections of the author).
The third helmet featuring deep semicircular cut-offs is only known by few photos
posted on a treasure-hunters’Ν аОЛЬТЭОΝ ТЧΝ UФЫКТЧОΝ (ŻТРέΝ ζ)έΝ TСОΝ СОХЦОЭ,Ν МЫuЬСОНΝ КЧНΝ ЛЫШФОЧΝ
into several pieces, was discovered together with other objects, including a bronze vessel that
left bronze oxides on the helmet. In terms of construction, this helmet resembles the one from
Oskol; its body is made of four plates, the front and the back ones having big semicircular
cut-offs. Its finial is composed of a cone-shaped lower part and pyramidal upper part, thus
being same as the finial of the helmet from Krasnodar and the preserved part of the helmet
from Oskol. The nasal is also T-shaped, its vertical part is similar to the one of Krasnodar
8
This is the earliest known dated helmet having specific constructive design that became wide-spread
in 9th-11th centuries and most of all in 13th-14th centuries.
Page | 259
helmet and has a high rib; however, the horizontal part looks different, as eyebrow ridges are
not that much curved and side curls are missing (they might have not survived).
Taking into consideration the most probable discovery site of the helmet (Ukraine),
its ritual deformation, as well as accompanying funerary equipment, we can relate it
to cremation burials of the Seversky Donets river valley, dating back to second half
of 8th-9th centuries.9 It is also remarkable that emergence of cremation burials in this region
might be caused by migration of population from regions of Kuban and the Black Sea (that is,
the area where Krasnodar helmet may originate from).10
Fig. 5. TСОΝСОХЦОЭΝПЫШЦΝЛuЫТКХΝ№κΝШПΝBОгСЭТЧЬФΝМОЦОЭОЫвΝ(after: Ataev, 1963: fig. 27, 5).
But most exciting analogy is another helmet featuring deep semicircular cut-offs on
ТЭЬΝpХКЭОЬέΝIЭΝаКЬΝПШuЧНΝТЧΝЛuЫТКХΝ№κΝШПΝBОгСЭТЧЬФΝМОЦОЭОЫвΝ(ОбМКЯКЭТШЧЬΝШПΝńληι).11 Judging
by the published drawing and the photo of the remaining plate,12 we can resolutely assume
that the body of the helmet is made up of four plates joined in same way as those
of the helmet from Oskol (Fig. 5). But the difference is that the helmet from Bezhtinsk has
the semicircular cut-offss on each of four plates, and when joined, they form circles 8 cm
in diameter, which were covered on the inside by round plates of some greater diameter.
TСОΝМТЫМХОЬΝаОЫОΝМШЯОЫОНΝаТЭСΝḴМШppОЫΝpХКЭОЬḵέΝTСОΝСОХЦОЭΝuЬОНΝЭo have a finial of unknown
design and a T-shaped nasal fixed with three rivets; it also has high eyebrow ridges.
9
AKSONOV, 2004: 46.
AKSONOV, 2004: 46-48.
11
ATAEV, 1963: 174-175.
12
I would like to express my thanks to A.L Kubik for the opportunity of seeing the fotos.
10
Page | 260
Description of the Bezhtinsk helmet and photos of surviving plate let us assume that heads
of the rivets attaching the body of the helmet used to be covered with a metal leaf of copperbase alloy.13
Constructive design of the bowl of the Bezhtinsk helmet is basically equal to that
of Oskol helmet, but there are four extra plates making the body eight-part; this resembles
the bowl of Krasnodar helmet.
Unfortunately, there was no exact dating proposed for the burial where the helmet
was found, thus we can only attribute it vaguely as 8 th-10th centuries, according to the dating
of the whole Bezhtinsk cemetery as determined in the publication of 1963.14 There should
be no doubt that this helmet, alongside with six other items of military headgear found
on same cemetery, needs thorough investigation of its own and may shed some light
on the emergence of certain helmet types in Eastern Europe.
All data considered, we can claim that the helmet from Krasnodar Territory ranks
among a series of military headgear notable for specific design of the plates having
semicircular cut-offs. Presumable dating for similar helmets, as well as probable discovery
of Krasnodar helmet in cremation burial, let us propose a most credible attribution for it
as second half of 8th-9th МОЧЭuЫвέΝ TСОΝ ЦКЭОЫТКХΝ КЯКТХКЛХОΝ ЛвΝ ЧШаΝ НШОЬЧ’ЭΝ ХОЭΝ uЬΝ ЫОХКЭОΝ
emergence of such helmets to East-European area. The way such helmets spread might
be traced by the one from Bezhtinsl burial.
Bibliography
AFANASIEV - ϔϨϔϡϔϥϰϙϖΝ ϗέϙέ (1987),
ё
(
), „ϥЂ϶ϹІЅϾϴГΝϴЄЉϹЂϿЂϷϼГḵ 1, 193-202.
AKSONOV - ϔϞϥϰϢϡϢϖΝϖέϥέΝ(2004),
я
Ś
, „ϕϹϿϷЂЄЂϸЅϾϼϽΝ ϼЅІЂЄϼϾЂ-ϴЄЉϹЂϿЂϷϼЋϹЅϾϼϽΝ ЅϵЂЄЁϼϾέΝ
ϫϹЄЁЂϻϹЀЁϴГΝϿϹЅЂЅІϹЃА-ϾЂЁІϴϾІЁϴГΝϻЂЁϴḵ 3, 36-50.
ATAEV - ϔϦϔϙϖ,Ν ϘέϠέΝ (ńλθγ),Ν
ŚД
],ΝϠϴЉϴЋϾϴϿϴέ
KIRPICHNIKOV - ϞϜϤϣϜϫϡϜϞϢϖΝϔ.ϡ. (2009),
ё
έΝϡЂ϶ЏϹΝ
ϡϴЉЂϸϾϼΝϼΝϡϴϵϿВϸϹЁϼГ,ΝϥϴЁϾІ ϣϹІϹЄϵЇЄϷ.
P’YANKOV - ϣϰϳϡϞϢϖ ϔέϖέ (2001),
Ṭ
, [϶:]
я
я
я
яṬ
Ṭ
, ϜέϜέΝϠϔϤϫϙϡϞϢΝ(ЄϹϸέ),ΝϞЄϴЅЁЂϸϴЄ- ϔЁϴЃϴέ
ZOZULYA, BARYSHEV - ϛϢϛϧϟϳΝ ϥέϥέ,Ν ϕϔϤϯϬϙϖΝ ϔέϖέΝ (2014),
я
я, [϶:]
Ś
я, ϦЇϿϴ, 54-61.
13
14
ATAEV (1963) 175.
ATAEV (1963) 179-184.
Page | 261