Crowns, Hats, Turbans and Helmets: The Headgear in Iranian History; Pre-Islamic Period 8362447192, 9788362447190

Citation preview

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 Żytnia St. 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 The Book is dedicated to ‘EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES’ All the illustrations and figures included in this volume are particular authors’ responsibility © Copyright by Katarzyna Maksymiuk, Siedlce 2017

Publishing House of Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities 17/19 Żytnia Street 08-110 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 relief of Salmās, (Katarzyna Maksymiuk), cover design: Adam Lech Kubik

Print: EXDRUK Wojciech Żuchowski Włocławek

TABLE OF CONTENS Joanna SZKLARZ (Siedlce University, Poland) Significance of the Helmet in fight between Sohrāb and Gordāfarid ........................... 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 didn’t adopt it? .................................................................... 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 Gandhāra. A rare Kušān-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 Kušān 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) The Sasanian Relief at Salmās – New proposal ........................................................97-112 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) ..............................................................................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 Ṭāq-e Bostān 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, St. Petersburg, Russia), Nicholas SEKUNDA (University of Gdańsk, Poland).

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 Šāh-nāma. The Book of Kings by Firdawsī we can find an excellent example of woman, who’s courage and fighting skills were as good as experienced warriors. In a man’s armor and helmet Gordāfarid 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, Sohrāb, Gordāfarid, Firdawsī, Šāh-nāma, 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. “Not 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. This dual responsibility made their position stronger than the men's.”2 According to Durant: “The 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 her clan.”3 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: “It 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.”4 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; [email protected] 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 in a women’s graves a large of numbers of seals, which in antiquity were often symbols of power and authority. The 90% of this seals were discovered in woman’s grave. 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: “I 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 need required her to adventure.”9 As we can see, for Greeks woman’s participation in military activities wasn’t 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 “whom the Scythians call Oior-pata or «man-slayers», as it may be rendered, Oior being Scythic for «man,» and pata for «to slay»”.11 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: “We 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

to do anything. We should never agree together.”12 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. “The burial mounds of the ancient Scythians/Saka known as «Kurgans» have often yielded 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 and Iran (to the north and northwest)”.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 “royal women accompanied the king on campaigns, traveling in carriages for greater comfort. The women’s presence was probably to instill the army with confidence in a victorious outcome of the impending battle, but in reality it exposed the women to potential danger”.14 This suggest, that in Sasanian era women have fool of authority and rights, but Hellenic influence still remained as tradition and they role as warriors wasn’t 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 Šāh-nāma. The Persian Book of Kings by Ḥakim Abū'l-Qāsim Firdawsī Tūsī (940-1020 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 Sāmānids to cold reception by Ḡaznavids. It’s worth to consider, how much influence these changes have had, not so much on the perception of the piece, but on shape of Šāh-nāma. 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 Firdawsī'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: “What has assured the Shāh-nāme immediately great reading, as evidenced by its numerous manuscripts 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

are thoroughly modern, despite the fact that it sings «what is dimming», the distant and irretrievably lost past.”17 Regardless if Šāh-nāma is home for Persian, who “basically did not have a home, except in their literature, especially their poetry”18 or “mirrors for princes”19 the Book of Kings is not only work of fiction, but also the great chronicle of pre-Islamic Iran. With this it’s a source of knowledge about historical events, believes and society.Written on a base of legends, myths and documents Šāh-nāma mixing historical facts and fantasy of poet. “Heros 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 is so difficult for us today to distinguish them…”.20 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 Sohrāb and Gordāfarid,21 is very specific because of it special circumstances, process and significant of a Gordāfarid’s helmet in it. This one item seems to be the one, that made this duel possible. One, not so big subject, gave the story of Sohrāb and Gordāfarid 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 Šāh-nāma only Gordāfarid, dotter of Gaždaham, is presented on battlefield. The other heroine of this poem are queens and princesses, not warriors. Gordāfarid 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 Šāh-nāma. 17

MACHALSKI, 1970: 19: „To, co zapewniło Szāh-nāme od razu wielką poczytność, o czym świadczą liczne jej rękopisy i co sprawia, iż cieszy się ona po dzień dzisiejszy niesłabnącym zainteresowaniem u ludów irańskich i irańskiego pochodzenia – jest jej wydźwięk politycznospołeczno-narodowy, jej stała aktualność oraz jej duch na wskroś nowoczesny, mimo iż opiewa czasy „co się śćmiły”, odległą i niepowrotnie minioną przeszłość”. 18 NAFISI, 2007: 11. 19 ASKARI, 2013: 16. 20 DULĘBA, 1981: 11: „Bohaterowie Księgi Królewskiej, zarówno wywodzący się z postaci historycznych, jak i ci, których wzór pierwotny stanowią twory mitologii, przedstawieni są z tą samą fantazją i przesadą. Przy tym postaciom historycznym dorobiono cechy nadprzyrodzone, bohaterów mitów przykuto do trudów i niedoli ziemskich. Dlatego też tak trudno nam ich dzisiaj rozróżnić…”. 21 KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH, 2002. 22 Fatemeh Habibizad, known as present Gordāfarid is a first woman Naqqual (storyteller) of Firdawsī's Book of Kings. As she says, the inspiration for her was Gordāfarid from poem. She specializes in story about Sohrāb and Gordāfarid. Page | 12

Title of Firdawsī’s poem is the Persian Book of Kings, not queens, according to that Šāh-nāma is first of all, de story of great Iranian man – kings, princes and heroes. They shaping the world for its glory. It is about Ferīdūn, legendary ruler of Iran, Rostam, who is the greatest hero in Iranian tradition, Sām and Zāl – great warriors and king’s vassals, 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. “Women in Shahnameh have changed the fate of the heroes. They played a critical role in shaping the civilizations and cultures. Whenever, the men were stuck up, women helped them.”23 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. Therefore we should take for consideration Jafari’s theory, that says: “Shahnameh 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 as Gordafarid.”24 But is the Pershian Book of Kings really an epic, where female heroes are equal to man? In all of Šāh-nāma there is none of women, who is the main character of any chapter, or have the same importance as man’s hero. Despite, that “each of them is the outstanding exemplar for beauty, wisdom, manliness, and chastity”25 they came from the shadows of man’s glory only for a brief moment. Just like Gordāfarid, brave warrior, saver of the Iranian knights, whom Firdawsī 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 Zāl, grandson of Sām. He is the dragon slayer, he killed a witch and white Dīv and also saved king Kay Kāvus and his troops.26 M. Składankowa indicates, that: “Sam's connection with the heroes of the Sistani seems rather the result of cyclization of legends in accordance with the wellknown mythical paradigm, in which the types of «dark» and «bright» heroes are interwoven according to the old rhythm of time oscillating between the time of life and death divided into two successive periods – winter and summer. After «dark» Sam follows «bright» Zāl, followed by Rustam, wearing the emblem of a purple dragon.”27 According to her theory Sohrāb should have similar characteristics to Zāl, Rostam’s father, who had solar and birds symbolic. “The son of Rustam was Sohrāb. He should be like Zal bright and birdlike. But we know only, that he was gentle, though brave like Zal.”28 That puts Sohrāb 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 SKŁADANKOWA, 1984: 194: „połączenie Sama z rodem herosów sistańskich wydaje się raczej rezultatem cyklizacji legend zgodnie ze znanym mitycznym paradygmatem, w których przeplatają się typy herosów «ciemnych» i «jasnych» zgodnie ze starym rytmem czasu oscylującego pomiędzy czasem życia i śmierci, dzielonym na dwa kolejno następujące po sobie okresy – zimy i lata. Po «ciemnym» Samie następuje «jasny» Zal, po nim Rustam, noszący godło fioletowego smoka.” 28 SKŁADANKOWA, 1984: 196: „Synem Rustama był Sohrab. Powinien być on jak Zal jasny i ptasi. Ale wiemy tylko, że był łagodny, choć dzielny jak Zal.” 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 Kay Kāvus. He gathered his troops and marched toward Iranian border. The citadel guarding her was a White Fortress. As we read in Šāh-nāma: “Its keeper was an experienced warrior Hejir.”29 When he sow Sohrāb leading his army on fortress, he battled him and lost. He was captured what brought him shame. When Gordāfarid, daughter of great warrior Gaždaham 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 of hesitation. She knew, how high was the stake of this battle. Wearing a man’s armor and helmet she mounted her horse and set out on the battlefield. She challenged enemy to a duel. Sohrāb accepted gladly. He prepared for the fight and faced his challenger. Fight started on a horse buck. Gordāfarid, when she sow her opponent, take a good aim and send toward him an arrow. We can read: “When 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, his shield held before his head to deflect her arrows.”30 He shortened his distance, so she laid aside her bow and took a lance to middle distance fight. Sohrāb has a lance to. He struck her in the waist. Gordāfarid took a sword and split his lance in two. In this moment: “Sohrab 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 worthy of diadem. He was amazed…”31 According to Wł. Dulęba,32 the time of this duel historically may place in 6th century B.C. Kay Kāvus, King of Kings in this part of Šāh-nāma 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 Firdawsī knew about them and use them as an example to create Gordāfarid. They were known of the intelligence, fighting skills and beauty – perfect warrior that were admirable opponent for the best of man. And yet Sohrāb 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 Gordāfarid didn’t hesitate to use 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: “O 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 a mere girl; we’d better draw aside somewhere, that’s what a wise man would do, so that you won’t be a laughing stock before those two armies.”33

29

Šāh-nāma, 2007: 191. Šāh-nāma, 2007: 192. 31 Šāh-nāma, 2007: 192. 32 DULĘBA, 1981: 17-20. 33 Šāh-nāma, 2007: 192. 30

Page | 14

In own words of Gordāfarid 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: “your troops will be very amused by the nation of your fighting with a mere girl”, but just moment later: “so that you won’t be a laughing stock before those two armies”. Living in a border she must have some knowledge about customs of Turks. Her words suggests, that female warrior wasn’t something 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 Šāh-nāma only Gordāfarid wears armor. We can’t forget, that Firdawsī 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 Šāh-nāma was made was a time of Iranian culture renaissance,35 but how much Firdawsī was freed from the Islamic influences that permeated everyday life? It is cultural paradigm, that “Because 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 and wives in these societies.”36 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 Firdawsī 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 Gordāfarid such splendid example of bravery and military skills, the real “mythical woman in history of Iran”.37 Sohrāb, as young commander hungry for fame, could not allowed to be “a laughing stock”. He was representing a great nation and excellent blood lineage. He had to save his face in eyes of his troops, but also in the eyes of intriguing woman, whose beauty completely charmed him: “As 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 to be; her eyes were liquid as a deer’s, her brows were two bent bows, you’d say her body was a bud about to blossom.”38 Ferdowsi’s description of Gordāfarid is maintained in suggestive tone of aesthetic erotica.39 It was common in Iranian poetry, that erotism was subtle and gentle and it was shown in description of person’s looks. “The 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 exclusively focused on them.”40 Firdawsī also emphasizes the qualities of beauty, not only her face, but also her body. “Erotic 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 Šāh-nāma, 2007: 192. 39 KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH, 1998. 40 DE BRUIJIN, 1989. 35

Page | 15

of the beauty of the human, and most typically the female, body.”41 In eyes of Sohrāb slim body of Gordāfarid, “bud about to blossom”, “her shining teeth and bright red lips and heavenly face” were enough to make him feel, like he was in paradise. It is the second mention of how deep Sohrāb was moved by discovering Gordāfarid sex end beauty. In his research about esthetic and erotic in Iranian poetry Bruijin tells: “…the contrast 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; the dimple as a pitfall on his way.”42 Gordāfarid with her “hair worthy of diadem” and “face shone like a splendid sun”, eyes “liquid as a deer’s” definitely could cutch not only hard of a young man. According to poet it was nothing more than her beauty that inclined Sohrāb 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: “It should be noted that Iranian women in Sasanian and Ashkanian eras used a type of veil which dates back to before emergence of Islam.”43 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 Gordāfarid’s Rumi helmet played quite important role in this scene. Helmet and armor gave Gordāfarid the opportunity to cover her gender and fight with Sohrāb 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 Gordāfarid’s sex was a turning point not only of this scene, but also of Sohrāb's military campaign. Firdawsī isn’t specific about the look of this helmet. He repeed, that it is Rumi, but there isn’t much more information 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: “she dressed herself in a knight’s armor, gathered her hair beneath a Rumi helmet, and rode out from the fortress…”.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: “…she dressed herself in mail, And, hastily, beneath her helmet hid Her glossy ringlets ; down she, from the fort…” 45 And in the Warner’s translation: “Concealed her tresses underneath her mail, Secured her Ruman casque upon her head, And come down…”46 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: “She tucked her braided

41

KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH, 1998. DE BRUIJIN, 1989. 43 JAFARI, MOVOHED, 2015: 99. 44 Šāh-nāma, 2007: 191. 45 Šāh-nāma, 1932: 184. 46 Šāh-nāma, 1906: 132. 42

Page | 16

under armor, her Roman helmet tied under her chin. And came out of the fort like a lion ...”47, 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. There wasn’t time to get a closer look at opponent. Sohrāb was very young so he didn’t had beard, so another young man without beard could appear on a field as well. There was nothing strange. So it’s possible that he could not recognize her as a woman even if her face wasn’t covered. 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. Although we don’t have any detail about look of this helmet we have one important information – it was Rumi. Sohrāb in turn was wearing Chinese helmet. By using these specific terms, the author has given them meaning. In Šāh-nāma there is a story, which tells of the origins of Iranian statehood. It is a legend about Ferīdūn and his three sons, between which he divided the kingdom. The eldest son, Salm, was given the West, the junior, Tūr, received the East and the youngest, Īraj – central land with the golden throne and suzerainty above lands of his brothers.48 Shahbazi suggest, that division of the kingdom was “based on their ideals: Salm, who desired great riches, received the [wealthy] land of Rūm; Tūr (Tōz), who asked for valor, received Turkastān [the land of warriors], and Īraj (Ēriz), who desired law and religion, (dāt u dēn), received Ērānšahr together with Ferētōn’s crown and royal glory (xᵛarənah), whereby his descendants were destined to have the royalty and sovereignty over those of his brothers.”49 A jealous Salm with Tūr plotted conspiracy against Īraj 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 Šāh-nāma 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 Gordāfarid, defender of Iran and Chienese was worn by Sohrāb, invader from Tūr. One must remember about the theory of Składankowa, which speaks of the bright, birdlike origin of Sohrāb 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 Kay Kāvus, whose reign wasn’t just. Sohrāb 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, Sām's great-grandson, the fourth straight Sistān hero. On the other hand, Gordāfarid does not fit in the Šāh-nāma pattern of female protagonists. Shi’s a rebellious element who does not support the male hero, but after Hajir’s defeat takes over his role.

47

Šāh-nāma, 1981: 146: Ukryła warkocze pod zbroją, hełm rumski pod brodę związała. I wyszła z warowni jak lew. 48 Šāh-nāma, 2007: 36. 49 SHAHBAZI, 2004: 200-202. Page | 17

Gordāfarid 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 Firdawsī? As much as currently we like see in her picture of the greatest heroin of Iran, real “mythical woman” by putting on her head Rumi helmet Firdawsī made a small suggestion, that in duel between Sohrāb and Gordāfarid the right is not necessary on her side. With the right of the poets, Firdawsī 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 Gordāfarid is positive or negative hero of Šāh-nāma. The Persian Book of Kings. The poet leaves him only clues. In the eyes of Islamic world Gordāfarid’s bold 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. Firdawsī 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 secondary. Such details doesn’t matter. The real importance was in the fact, that the great commander, forth in the line of the greatest Iranian hero was stopped by one brave Iranian women, who wasn’t afraid to fight to preserve honor and lives of her comrades. And here lies the real significant of a Gordāfarid’s helmet – 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 Firdawsī, Księga królewska. Szahname, tr. WŁ. DULĘBA, Warszawa 1981. Firdawsī, Šāh-nāma, vol. 2, tr. A.G. WARNER, E. WARNER, London 1906. Firdawsī, Šāh-nāma, tr. D. DAVIS, New York 2007. Firdawsī, Šāh-nāma, 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 Sciences” 17, 133-137. ASCARI, N. (2013), The Medieval Reception of Firdausī‘s Shāhnāma: The Ardashīr Cycle as a Mirror for Princes, Toronto. BAHRAMI, T.SH. (2008), The Social Position of Women in Old Persia, „Sydney Studies in Religion” 1, 25-30. BROSIUS, M. (2010): Women In Pre-Islamic Persia, , [in:] „Encyclopædia Iranica” [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/women-I (accessed August 10, 2017)] DARYAEE T. (2009), The Study of Ancient Iran in the Twentieth Century, „Iranian Studies” 42.4, 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:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 4.2, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 128-129. DULĘBA, W. (1981), Między mitem a historią, 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 Development” 2.2, 98-99. JAFARI, N. (2014), The Investigation and Analysis on Character Four Effective Female in Firdausi’s Shahnameh of Iran, „Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences” 4.5, 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:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 8.5, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 558-560. KHALEGHI-MOTLAGH D. (2002) Gordafarid, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 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:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 12.2, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 176-180. LOVEIMI, S. (2016), Fateful Women in Ferdowsi Shahnameh, „English Language Teaching” 9.5, 4653. MACHALSKI, F. (1970), Firdausi i jego „Szāh-nāme”, Kraków. NAFISI, A. (2007), Introduction, [in:] Shahnameh. The Persian Book of Kings, New York, 9-11. SHAHBAZI, S.A. (2004), Iraj, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 13.2, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 200-202. SKŁADANEK, B. (1999), Historia Persji. Tom I Od czasów najdawniejszych do najazdów Arabów, Warszawa. SKŁADANKOWA, M. (1983), Bohaterowie, bogowie i demony dawnego Iranu, Warszawa. SKŁADANKOWA, M. (1989), Mitologia Iranu, Warszawa. SZKLARZ, J. (2017), Rustam pokonuje Białego Dewa – odwieczna walka dobra ze złem w tekście i ikonografii, [in:] Istorìâ relìgìj v Ukraïnì: naukovij šorìčnik, O. KIRIČUK, M. OMEL'ČUK (eds.), L'vìv, 15-27. VON ESS J. (1987), Islam [in:] Pięć wielkich religii świata, 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 the Great did not or rather could not adopt it. The prccise nature of Alexander’s kingship in Asia (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 image” of the traditional Macedonian King to the customs and laws (written and unwritten) of his Asian subjects. He thus became by using “soft power” not only a foreign Macedonian-Greek conquering King, but also a kind of Egyptian Pharaoh, a Babylonian King, and even a “King of Asia” who can rule over subjected lesser kings, dynasts, princes, and satraps (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 Kings” of Iran. This article in short reflects the unsolved dilemma of Alexander’s Kingship in Asia. 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 (τιάρα) 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 “King of Persians and Medians” after 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 “King of Kings”. First and foremost, what was the tiara in the Iranian world of Darius and Alexander?! Judging by the Persepolis reliefs, it was 

[email protected] Page | 21

a kind of headgear, something in between an approximately cylindrical hat and a crown. In the palace reliefs representing the Persian “King of Kings” (be it Darius I or Xerxes etc.) 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 “Immortals” (the elite soldiers of the Royal/Imperial Persian 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 “Great King” (be him the “Great Vizier”, his secret counsellor, or the Crown Prince, the designated Son and Heir apparent to the Persian throne, the King’s successor in other words) is also wearing the same type of headgear as the seated “King of Kings”, and as well some of the Palace Guards and dignitaries. Looking at this type 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 “Kings of Kings”. We should therefore return to our sources. Plutarch1 wrote that after the battle of Gaugamela, Alexander has been proclaimed king of Asia (βασιλεὺς τῆς Ἀσίας).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 “King of Kings” of Iran.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 Darius III Codomanus, has been fully recognized by Alexander’s troops that proclaimed him “King of Asia”. HAMMOND, 2003: 137-139 stresses the importance of this Kingdom of Asia in Alexander’s 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 “King of kings”. For the first possibility he had not the available Macedonian 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 burnt Persepolis, as important satrapies’ capital cities), but at Babylon. The reasons for his choice 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 “King of Kings”. 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 Parsā 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) by Alexander’s 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, as the focus of Persians’ true allegiance and resistance to Macedonian 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 tiara. This is explainable by Alexander’s quality of King of Asia, but not (or not yet) as King of Persia.13 His subsequent story is traversed by this contradiction.

Alexander’s using two signet rings, his own for Europe and Darius’ for Asia, (GREEN, 1991: 327334). Alexander’s coinage and later the so called Sidon sarcophagus are also portraying Alexander as a young Heracles (GREEN, 1991: 246-247) and therefore we cannot see any Iranian elements in Alexander’s iconography whatsoever. 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: 136-140 for the assuming by Alexander of the quality of βασλεὺϛ τῇϛ Ὰσίας (“King of Asia”) starting from the very beginning of the expedition and reinforced especially after the victories against Darius III at Issus and Gaugamela. The first victory at Granicus established not only Alexander’s military reputation, but it has also made him master of the “spear conquered land” (γῇ δορίκτῇτος) in North-western Asia Minor. Alexander has never assumed the title “King of kings” specific of the Persian King (βασιλεὺς βασιλέων), because on the one hand it alienated him from his 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 “King of kings”. Alexander as King of Macedon can be also King of Asia, like once Midas, the King 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

Alexander’s quality of “King of Asia” is mentioned by the Greek and Latin narrative sources used by Prof. N.G.L. Hammond in his study and is profusely quoted in this article; his quality as a “King of Kings” i.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 “King of Kings” of Persians and Medes. The title of “King of Asia” has been 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 in Herodotus’ Historiae and in Arrian’s Anabasis 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 “the last of the Achaemenids”, a claim that started with J.B. Bury’s first edition 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 “King of Asia” by all Iranians, Darius III Codomanus included, and that his 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 “King of Kings”. It further implies that there was (in Achaemenid Asia, including Egypt) still in use the idea of a “Kingship of Asia” that was, in the minds of Darius’ former subjects, superior to the dignity of the Persian Great King or “King of Kings”. 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 “King of Asia” (known to us only from Greek sources) in favour of Alexander. Plutarch’s source in this respect is 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 as well as Arrian’s21 regarding the adoption by Alexander of Persian dress or of favouring the Persian way of dressing above the Macedonian, are seen as most probably deriving from Cleitarchus’ story of Alexander gradually deteriorating from a moral point of view under the Asian pernicious influence and of his growing despotic whims, have let Darius III to continue as Persian “King of kings”, under the sovereignty of Alexander as overlord and “King of Asia”, an allegation which seems 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 to combine that Kingship with the Kingship of Asia”. 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 Other measures of Alexander’s, such as using the signet ring or the seal of Darius for the letters destined for Asia and his own seal ring for those destined for Europe, his enjoying of the pleasures of Darius’ harem of three 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 of Cleitarchus’ testimony: after all, the same will write that Alexander at Babylon had only 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 “King of Asia” or of him trying to supplant Darius as “King of Kings”. Immediately after the battle 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-headed creature, the gryphon of Alexander’s coins was a lion-headed fantastic animal. This lion-gryphon on Athena’s helmet and in Greek Art in general has been seen by G.F.Hill and by W.W.Tarn after him as a mythical creature enemy of Persia and therefore Alexander’s coins with the lion-gryphon on Athena’s helmet symbolized Alexander’s sovereignty over Persia. N.G.L. Hammond, on the opposite side, 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 “King of Kings” (at least in this phase of Alexander’s campaign, immediately after the battle of Issus in 333 BC) 25. Hammond further based his argumentation on the last eighteen months of Alexander’s life, 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 “King of Kings” 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 the Persian royal throne, under the winged Sun Disk of Ahura Mazdā, receiving the proskynesis of his subjects and royal vassals (satraps, dynasts, and princes of the realm). Even more so, by his burning of the Xerxes’ Palace at Persepolis in the spring of the year 330 BC he had cut short any possible full identification between him and his Persian Achaemenid predecessor, the unfortunate “King of Kings” Darius III Codomanus. 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 and in need for a stool to rest his feet when sitting on Xerxes’ or Darius’ throne and the sadness of Alexander’s eunuchs at this pitiful sight (Diod. XVII.66.3-7 and Curt. V.2.13). 23

Page | 25

the memory of Cyrus II the Great, as “founder of the Persian Empire” and “King of Asia”.28 The Persian Empire and Asia appear as identical political and territorial entities and by becoming “King of Asia” Alexander could become ruler and monarch of the Persian Empire without having to be ritually crowned by the Persian and Median Magi and noblemen as “King of Kings” of Iran. There is also the obvious propaganda story of Darius III praying that Alexander should sit on the throne of Cyrus29 and the logos quoted by Arrian30 that Alexander should inherit Darius’ power as King of Asia. We see this title of “King of Asia” used as a substitute or even as more encompassing than the title of “King of Kings” or “Great King” of Persia. Curtius31 even records that the Persians mourned Alexander at Babylon in June 323 BC as being “the most righteous and most gentle master” and even as “the most righteous king of their race”, a claim dubious at least in Hammond’s eyes (he sees that as a story concocted after the event for propaganda reasons).32 The portent of the unknown man sitting on Alexander’s royal throne at Babylon was described by Aristobulus and his tale has been preserved by Arrian.33 The eunuchs seeing this event happening under their eyes (the unknown person sat on Alexander’s empty throne and 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 royal throne, just before Alexander’s death, has been variously interpreted.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 The moment when this event took place was just before Alexander’s death, but after 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 and Iranians, but on the issue of Alexander’s mixed court dress. Plutarch in his 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: 307-308 for Alexander’s sitting on Darius’ throne at Susa and for the weaving purple cloth sent in good faith as a present from Alexander to the Persian Queen Mother Sisygambis and the daughters of Darius and Sisygambis’ reaction to Alexander’s gift seen by her as an insult and Alexander’s quick reaction to apologize, because he needed the captured Achaemenid royal ladies 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 (UŁANOWSKI, 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 this line of action of Alexander’s and the so called reconciliation and harmony between the Macedonians and the Iranians at Alexander’s court and in his army was fragile, to say the least.40 Alexander’s marriage to Rhoxane in 328 BC in the midst of his Bactrian-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 nonexistence of Alexander’s master plan in the creation of future imperial elite and army with 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 and transfer of people, is in itself highly debatable as Alexander’s original design.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 “King of Kings”, but is a step or a bridge being 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 (and also Darius’ ring 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 among Alexander’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 MacedonianIranian phalanx. There is also the possiblity that Perdiccas has tampered with Alexander’s original plans and inserted some ideas to make the King’s last plans the least palatable 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 “King of Kings” and “King of Asia” as well, but also that he was in his hard core 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 “King of Kings”. Moreover, at least according to Ephippus of Olynthus, a source usually hostile to the Macedonian King, Alexander’s mixed court dress has been a target of his Macedonian soldiers’ complaints at Opis in 324 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 “King of Kings” and his 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 “King of kings”, a fact that does not appear in any 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 “Iranization”.48 The creation of a close protection body guard unit of Persian noblemen (numbering among them the brave Iranian noble warrior Oxathres, Darius’ own brother, who has distinguished himself at Issus by covering 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 “Immortals”) and thus doubling 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) was a clear step towards Alexander’s increased “Persianization” and a measure which enraged or at least outraged his Macedonians. Adding 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. Professor A.B. Bosworth sees more in Alexander’s 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 after Darius’ death in Parthia Persian and Median aristocrats entered Alexander’s service 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 Persepolis Xerxes’ Palace is a hint of his frustration with Persian nobility and 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 „Commander of the One Thousand” (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 of Alexander’s (Illyrian and Thracian auxiliary men, Greek mercenaries and so on) and Asian 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 for Alexander’s brave new world, replacing in time both the older Macedonian and Iranian known as hazarapatis). Alexander’s assuming 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 “King of Kings”. His pretensions 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 “King of Kings” and acknowledged as such by the Iranian aristocracy. His title as “King of Asia” (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 were thought by their subjects as being world rulers. His (Alexander’s) headgear appeared 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 “crown”). His mixed headgear, as well as his mixed royal dress (combining Median, Persian, and Macedonian elements) signified both his double quality as Macedonian King and as “King of Asia” (by Asia meaning mainly the former Persian Achaemenid 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 453-457 about the Opis mutiny) for Alexander’s policy of not letting 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 become the new generation of Alexander’s soldiers and middle and lower rank bureaucrats, knowing nothing other than Alexander’s military camp and itinerant royal court, knowing no other allegiance than that due to Alexander himself. For the dilemmas of Alexander’s kingship (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 “rebels” of Iranian aristocratic background, like Bessus in 330 BC 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 “rebel” or “insurgent” ring leader or warlord assumed the attributes of Persian Kingship (the high tiara crown called kidaris or kitaris), Alexander high geared his offensive and decisively dealt with the so called “usurper” (in fact a freedom fighter chieftain and an Iranian dynast in his own right, perhaps even kin to the former Achaemenid ruling Royal House). Those facts signal the fundamental weakness of Alexander’s own pretentions to rule not the Achaemenid Empire as a whole, but Persia or Iran, including Fars (Parsā or Persis): in Persian and Iranian eyes, despite some collaborators from the high aristocracy of Iran (and who remained a few at the end of Alexander’s reign), the Macedonian conqueror king never was a true “King of Kings” during his lifetime. Alexander’s untimely death at Babylon in early-middle June 323 BC spared him from the disillusions of a failed world empire, which could not be kept alive except from the horse’s saddle so to speak; but, as one of Cinghiz-Khan’s Chinese or Turkic advisers once said (a long time after Alexander) that an empire is conquered on horseback, but it can never be ruled always sitting on the saddle of the war horse, so Alexander’s final plans 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 Šāh Gahandar and the Šāhānšāh in Persian Epics.

52

BADIAN, 2003: 258 states that Alexander has basically “had to remain content with an insecure claim to the heritage of the Achaemenids”. As for the admonition of the Turkic-Chinese counselor to Cinghiz or Gengis Khan, see BRĂTIANU, 1988: vol. 2. Page | 32

Bibliography Sources Plutarch’s Lives 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. BRĂTIANU, G.H. (1988), Marea Neagră, 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 (eds.), Wrocław, 103-115. 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 (eds.), Wrocław, 96-100. SUCEVEANU, Al. (1993), Alexandru cel Mare, Bucharest. UŁANOWSKI, 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 (eds.), Wrocław, 59-87.

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 “Nike crowning trophy”, 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 “visual turn studies” 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 – “Nike crowning trophy” or “Victory” 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; [email protected] 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 wearing helmet’ has been interpreted as Seleukos I assimilated to Dionysos. This suggestion was firstly given by “founding-fathers” 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 “more realistic” 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 the comparison with Dionysos. From Headley’s study and on, this point of view became common in historiography. In 1980 A. Houghton coming up with Hadley’s suggestion, 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 – except bull’s horns and ears there are no more Dionysiac symbols. On opposite, all these 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 “Nike crowning trophy” 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 2

BABELON, 1890: XV. See also Newell’s identification a person wearing helmet as Seleukos. 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. 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 “Nike crowning trophy” issues were in use at some eastern satrapies (particularly at Persis) and had limited circulation. In fact, among 23 coin hoards contained “Nike crowning trophy” 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 “Nike crowning trophy”. This coinage is supplied by local Aramaic monograms, which puzzles the Kritt’s suggestion. These imitations were undoubtedly released by a local 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 “Victory” coins may be somehow familiar to locals and was explored as a means to legitimize the power of new dynasty. In terms of iconography, “Nike crowning trophy” 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 “Nike crowning trophy” 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 “Nike crowning trophy” 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 “Victory” 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 “real” 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 Diadochoi afterwards. Some nuances of stylein depicting of Alexander’s chin and nose could 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 with bull’s ears and horns likewise the mantle made from panther’s skin and tied around 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 “Victory” coinage seem to be very often taken for granted. However, if the panther skin should be accepted as a symbol of Dionysos, the bull’s ears and horns could be related to different Greek and (what is more significant) non-Greek deities and more likely to Zeus. The traditional Alexander’s iconography doesn’t 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 accompanied with the bull’s horns, Alexander’s portrait is adorned by the ram’s horns. 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. It is worth noting that the decoration of the royal portrait with bull’s horns is wellknown 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 bull’s ears and horns from Bactrian portraits should have been strongly interpreted as divine attributes of Dionysos. Probably, this art device could have been a matter of double interpretation. There are more reasons to see in bull’s symbols the link to Heracles. According to Appian,18 statues of Seleukos I were decorated with bull’s horns.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 to the Seleukos’ strength and to Heracles’ famous deed. 17

HOUGHTON, 1999; MØRKHOLM, 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 casual examples. Among them the most important is the limited series of Demetrios’ II 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 “triumphal motif” 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 Alexanders’ death.24 The details of Sophytes’ political and ideological background are far 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 “Victory” 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 whether Sophytes had any reasons to adopt Seleukos’ iconography. Eventually, there are 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 omphalos” 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 MØRKHOLM, 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 Seleucus I Nicator, British Museum inv. no. 2002,0101.1358, © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Page | 41

Bibliography Sources Appiani historia Romana, ed. P. VIERECK, A.G. ROOS, Leipzig 1962. Literature BABELON, E. (1890), Les rois de Syrie, d’Arménie et de Commagène, Paris. BING, J.D. (1988), Datames and Mazaeus: The Iconography of Revolt and Restoration in Cilicia, „Historia” 47, 41-76. BOPEARACHCHI, O. (1996), Sophytes, the Enigmatic Ruler of Central Asia, „Nomismatika chronika” 15, 19-32. 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? „Numismatic Chronicles” 14.7, 9-13. HOUGHTON, A. (1980), Notes on the Early Seleucid Victory Coinage of ‘Persepolis’, „Schweizeriche numiamatische Rundschau” 59, 5-14. HOUGHTON, A., STEWART, A. (1999), The Equestrian Portrait of Alexander the Great on a New Tetradrachm of Seleucus I, „Schweizeriche numiamatische Rundschau” 78, 27-35. HOUGHTON, A., LORBER, C. (2002), Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue, LancasterLondon. HOOVER, O. (2002), The Identity of the Helmeted Head on the ‘Victory’ Coinage of Susa, „Schweizeriche numiamatische Rundschau” 81, 51-60. KRITT, B. (1997), The Early Seleucid Mint of Susa, Lancaster MEHL, A. (1986), Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich. I. Seleukos’ Leben und die Entwiklung seiner Machtposition, Leuven. MØRKHOLM, 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



Ulf JÄGER (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 Kušān -period type of helmet, which even on Gandhāran sculptures and reliefs is more or less rare, but causes a special curiosity for everybody interested in Kušān arms and armament. Keywords: Iran, Kušān, Gandhāra, Morion-type, helmet

When it comes to discuss helmets of the Kušān -period of the region of Gandhāra, 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 Kušān -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 kušān dress, cloth, arms and armament are shown on Gandhāran reliefs and sculptures to understand what Kušān warriors once used as such. For the short study here, the author has chosen a Kušān -period type of helmet, which even on Gandhāran sculptures and reliefs is more or less rare, but causes a special curiosity for everybody interested in Kušān 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 Gandhāran “morion-like”-type of helmets here, it should be said, that obviously much less is really known about the origin and development of the “real” Spanish morion-helmets yet. While it is said that the real Spanish morion-helmet of the 16th century CE possibly derived from the medieval “kettle”hat. Another idea is, that the Spanish word morion is based on moorish arms



[email protected] 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 Gandhāran 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 “A very first preliminary attempt” 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 Gandhāran morion-type helmets, obviously shown copied from Gandhāran 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 Gandhāra 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 the author couldn´t include the morion-type helmets in his published PhD-degree thesis of 2003 (2006), because they weren´t on his focus then. In Gandhāran 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 of Māara. 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. JÄGER, 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 of Māara 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 Gandhāran Art, published by M. Wenzel in 2000, contains a very similar head like the helmeted warrior-heads from Hadda, but it was made of “peach clay”,which very likely means terracotta, and was dated 3rd to 5th century CE (Fig. 10). Taking all these Gandhāran morion-type helmets into consideration, the question must be from which helmet-type these originate. Looking around in the region of Gandhāra, one soon can come to the conclusion that helmets like the one of the socalled “Athena of Lahore”, 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 Gandhāran artist. One might come to the conclusion that the helmet of the “Athena of Lahore” might be that very helmet-type mentioned by J. Rosenfield for the avers-side of some rare coins of the Kušān 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 “Macedonian soldier”-type (Fig. 12). But even if this is true, the question is still open, what the prototypes of these “Macedonian soldier”- type helmets are. Inasmuch as we can assume, the most likely prototype for the Gandhāran 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 Gandhāran 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 Kušāns. 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 Gandhāra was very creative and openminded to design new types of helmets like the Gandhāran morion-like one. Unfortunately we havn´t found such helmets like the Gandhāran 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 Gandhāran morion-type like helmets could have influenced the “real” 16th century Spanish morion. Theoretically there is one possibility only: Early islamic troops could have adopted the Gandhāran 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? The author of this article doesn´t think so, but he believes that we really have to do it 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. Gandhara. Das Buddhistische Erbe Pakistans. Legenden, Klöster und Paradiese. ExhibitionCatalogue 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. JÄGER, U. (2006), Reiter, Reiterkrieger und Reiternomaden zwischen Rheinland und Korea: Zur spätantiken Reitkultur zwischen Ost und West, 4.- 8.Jh. n. Chr. Ein Beitrag zur Synthese von Alter Geschichte und Archäologie, 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-sculpture Gandhāra, 2nd to 3rd century CE, of the “Assault of Mara” Lahore Museum, Pakistan, Inv.No.: g-78 (old: 538), (after: Gandhara, 2008: 225, fig. 228). Page | 48

Fig. 3. Schist-sculpture Gandhāra, 2nd to 3rd century CE, “Temptation of Shakayamuni”, Freer Gallery of Arts, Washington DC, (after: Rosenfield, 1967: fig. 81).

Fig. 5. Schist-sculpture Gandhāra 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 Gandhāra, 2nd to 3rd century CE, (after: Faccenna, 1962: pl. XXV, Inv. No. 3279).

Fig. 6. Schist-sculpture from Butkara, Swat,Pakistan, Gandhāra, 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 “Macedonian soldier-type”, (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 (Polish Academy of Sciences, Łódź, Poland)

Arms and Armour on Kušān coins. Royal images Abstract The paper is a short discussion on Kušān coin iconograhy in relations to arms and armour, as the iconography found on coins has been frequently utilized. The iconography of Kušān kings is presented. The military equipment of the Kušān rulers shown on their coins is treated as an element of iconographic propaganda. Keywords: arms, armour, Kušān, 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 Kušān 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 Kušān 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,



[email protected]

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: ZEJMAL’, 1967; GÖBL, 1984; GÖBL, 1993; JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015. 4 GORELIK, 1982: 82-112; ABDULLAEV, 1995a: 174-180; NIKONOROV, 1997 vol. I: 50-59; FRÖHLICH, 2005: 59-78; 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 Our study will begin around 130 BC, when Bactria was captured by the Yüeh-chih,6 until around AD 226 when the conquest of the Kušān state by the Sasanians began. 7 The first emissions of the Kušāns 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 ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΩΝ ΣΩΤΗΡ ΜΕΓΑΣ. 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 ΣΩΤΗΡ ΜΕΓΑΣ 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 See GÖBL, 1960a: 75-96; GÖBL 1987: 185-191; CRIBB, 2007: 366. ROSENFIELD, 1967: VII f. On trade and cultural relations, see for example: SHCHERKOVVA 1991. 10 CRIBB, 1998: 87. 11 For a presentation and summary of the discussion over the ‘unnamed ruler’, as well as 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 instance FRÖHLICH, 2008. 14 GÖBL, 1960b: 95-96; 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 Kušāns, 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 from the numismatic evidence, seems to be confirmed by the decoration on the “Kanishka reliquary”, dated to the times of Huvishka, 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 equipment appear on two emissions of this ruler: on silver “Heraios” coins,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 shown on horseback in “nomad dress”; his right hand resting on a large “Sasanian” bow, with 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 Kušān 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 E. Górska. 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: 137-166; YATSENKO, 2001, passim; JÄGER, 2006: 21-34. See also YATSENKO 2012. 30 YATSENKO, 2001: 88-92. 31 CRIBB 1993: 110, describes the reverse of the tetradrachm thus: “The head of the man appears to be the same as that shown on the obverse”. 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 E. Górska.

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 standard bearing the bust of a ruler in a helmet, which is described as “Graeco-Bactrian”: (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 warrior (“Greek Ares”) on the gold plaque from 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 YATSENKO 2001; JÄGER, 2006: 21-34. 43 KLIMBURG-SALTER, 1999: 3. 44 SENIOR, 2001c: 131 no. 16. 45 ALRAM, 1999: 23: “It is now obvious that the coins of Heraios, according to their nominal value and type, are a heritage of the Graeco-Bactrian King Eucratides (c. 170-145 BC)”. On Kušān helmets see GORELIK, 1982: 99-104, on “Boeotian” type helmets: 103-104. 46 SARIANIDI, 1985: 81-84; ABDULLAEV, 1995: 170, Fig. 3 no. 1. 41

Page | 57

in the shape of an elephant’s head.47 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 Kušāns made use of infantry in their armies, although their existence may seem obvious,52 a similarly armed warrior is known from Gandhāran art.53 The image on the coins of Kujula Kadphises does not reflect the military equipment of the Kušāns, 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 then, for J. Rosenfield to suggest that it is a “Macedonian soldier”.55 One may wildly speculate that it might represent Alexander the Great himself.56

Fig. 3. Drawing by E. Górska.

Another “series” is the very numerous bronze coins of Soter Megas.57 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 ROSENFIELD, 1967: 18; MACDOWALL, 1968: passim, and ZEJMAL’, 1983: 160-177. 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 E. Górska.

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 all knowledge of the significance of the symbolism of the bull’s horn and ear decorating 58

CRIBB, 2014: passim. ZÜRCHER, 1968: 367. 60 JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: 42, 44. 61 JONGEVARD, CRIBB, DONOVAN, 2015: Pl. 7 nos. 148, 178, 180 etc. 62 FRÖHLICH, 2005: 71-72, 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 E. Górska.

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 E. Górska. 63

See BRACEY, 2009: passim, with special attention to forgeries. ROSENFIELD, 1967: 25 as an “Iranian” element. 65 TROUSDALE, 1975: 79. 66 See the important discussion of the Kušān coins as evidence for Kušān scabbards - TROUSDALE, 1975: 77. 67 Kušān swords, 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 E. Górska.

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 attention once more on the “Kanishka reliquary” which we have deliberately discussed beforehand.

Fig. 8. Drawing by E. Górska.

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 E. Górska.

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 Gandhāra.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 by the representations on gold coins, had a “two-part” construction. It differs in this feature 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 E. Górska.

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 Gandhāran art.73 The use of “two-part” suits of armour is attested to by numerous representations in Gandhāran art,74 and confirmed a whole series of reliefs from Gandhāra.75 In the second 72

BOPEARACHCHI, SACHS, 2001; FRÖHLICH, 2005. GORELIK, 1982: 92-93 Fig. 7a. 74 GORELIK, 1982: 90-91 with comments, that this type is characteristic for Gandhāra. 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 E. Górska.

Arm-guards were constructed, in a way that has often been described, from metal “hoops” fastened together flexibly: leg-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 nomades conquérants de l’empire gréco-bactrien. Réflexions sur leur identitéethnique et culturelle, „Comptes Rendus, Academie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lrttres”, 758-768. BOPEARACHCHI, O. (1991), Monnaies gréco-bactriennes et indo-grecques, Catalogue raisonné, 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-Scythes d’après leurs émissions monétaires et les données archéologiques, „Topoi” 11/1, 321-355. BRACEY, R. (2009), The coinage of Wima Kadphises, „Gandharana Studies” 3, 25-74. CARTER, M.L. (1985), A numismatic reconstruction of Kushano-Sasanian history, „American Numismatic Society Museum Notes” 30, 215-281. CRIBB, J. (1993), The ˁHerausˀ coins: their attribution 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, „Proceedings of the British Academy” 133, 333-375. CRIBB, J. (2014), The Soter Megas coins of the first and second Kushana kings, Kujula Kadphises and Wima Takto, „Gandharan Studies” 8, 79-122. ERRINGTION, E. (2002), Numismtic evidence for dating the ʿKaniškaʾ reliquary, „Silk Road Art. and Archaeology” 8, 101-120. ERRINGTON, E. (2005), Preuves numismatiques apportées à la datation du reliquaire de «Kaniška» de Shāh-jī-kī-dherī, [in:] Art et archéologie des monastères gréco-bouddhiques du Nord-Ouest de l’Inde et de l’Asie centrale. Actes du colloque international du Crpoga (Strasbourg, 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. FRÖHLICH, Ch. (2005), La représentation du roi cavalier sur les monnaies indo-scythes et indoparthes: une approche numismatique, „Revue numismatique” 161, 59-78. FRÖHLICH, Ch. (2008), Monnaies indo-scythes et indo-parthes du département des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques. Catalogue raisonné, Paris. GOLDMAN, B. (1993), The later pre-islamic riding costume, „Iranica Antiqua”, 28, 201-246. GÖBL, R. (1960a), Roman patterns for Kushan coins, „Journal of Numismatic Society of India” 22: 75-96. GÖBL, R. (1960b), Zwei Neufunde in der Numismatik der Kushan, „Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft” 11.8, 94-96. Page | 66

GÖBL, R. (1984), System und Chronologie der Münzprägung des Kušanareiches, Wien. GÖBL, R. (1987), Constantin der Grosse und Indien: der römisch-kušānische Goldmedaillon des British Museum in London, „Litterae Numismaticae Vindobonenses” 3, 185-191. GÖBL, R. (1993), Donum Burns. Die Kušān Münzen in Münzkabinet Bern und die Chronologie, Wien. GORELIK, M.V. (1982), Kushanskii dospekh, [in:] Drevnyaya Indiya. Istoriko-kul’turnye svyazi, 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, „Silk Road Art. and Archaeology” 5, 107-159. JÄGER, U. (2006), Reiter, Reiterkrieger & Reiternomaden zwischen Rheinland und Korea: zur Spätantiken Ost und West, 4.-8. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Ein Beitrag zur Synthese von Alter Geschichte un Archäologie, 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 Kușāṇa 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), Uzbrojenie i ubiór rycerski w średniowiecznej Małopolsce w świetle źródeł ikonograficznych, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk. LITVINSKY, B.A. (2001), The Bactrian ivory plates with Hunting scene from the Temple of the Oxus, „Silk Road Art and Archaeology” 7, 137-166. MACDOWALL, D. (1968), Soter Megas, the king of kings, the Kushana, „Journal of Numismatic Society of India” 30, 208-248. MASIA, K. (2000), The evolution of swords and daggers in the Sasanian empire, „Iranica Antiqua” 35, 185-289. MIELCZAREK, M. (1993), Cataphracti and Clibanarii. Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World, Łódź. 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), Uzbrojenie średniowieczne w Polsce (na tle środkowoeuropejskim), Toruń. PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1966), O pantsirnom vooruzhenii parfianskogo i baktriiskogo voinstva, „Vestnik Drevnei Istorii”, 2, 27-43. PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1971), Skul’ptura Khalchayana, 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), Egipet i Kushanskoe tsarstvo (torgovye i kul’turnye kontakty), 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), La Bactriane sous les Kushans: problèmes d’histoire et de culture, 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, „Silk Road Art and Archaeology” 7, 73-136. 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. MALINOWSKI, A. PAROŃ, B.SZ. SZMONIEWSKI (eds.), Wrocław, 101-114. ZEJMAL’, E.V. (1967), Monety Velikikh Kushan v sobranii Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, „Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha” 9, 55-86. ZEJMAL’, E.V. (1983), Drevnie monety Tadzhikistana, Dushanbe. ZÜRCHER, E. (1968), The Yüeh-chih and Kanișka in the Chinese sources, [in:] Papers on the Date of Kaniṣka. Submitted to the Conference on the Date of Kanișka. London, 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, Kušāns, battle, art

The remnants of the mysterious structure in Khalchayan located in the valley of the Surkhan Darya in modern Uzbekistan has attracted scholar’s attention almost from



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; [email protected]  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; [email protected] 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 Kušāns or the Kušāns 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 longe dureé, 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 1

PUGAČENKOVA, 1966a: 27-43; 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. 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 “ceremonial scenes” depicted on Eastern and Northern walls 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 the founder. Pugachenkova’s reconstruction is the most commonly reproduced one and is 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 “knight”. 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- Kušān warrior. What is inspiring in Bernard’s view is 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 differ starkly from Pugachenkova’s, the main 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 the personages left hand or (3) with tip raised vertically upwards behind personage’s body. 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 “extended arm position” of later Sasanian motifs however the sword in the bended arm of the warrior in the lower register refers to Hellenistic motif transferred to Central Asian stylization and reality. Another figure in Mode’s reconstruction 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 Šāpur on Bišāpūr frieze. 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 Bišāpūr shows 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān grotto. Majority of Iranian art in Post-Hellenistic and pre-Islamic art seems iconic rather than narrative in nature. MODE, 2006b. 19 HÖSCHLER, 2003. 20 This clearly corresponds with reality of the time and culture which can be illustrated by the episodes from Plutarchus’ Crassus (XXV.33) where the Surena’s warriors diligently cut off the heads of Publius 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 Anāhitā 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 which was still legible during Firdawsī times. It should be noted that in code of honor depicted in Šāh-nāma (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 Ṭāq-e Bostān has been discussed thoroughly in light of 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 “comic-book” narration can be found 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 Fīrūzābād 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 in Mode’s 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 Kušān coins, 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān the defined 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 - as an attempt of Xusrō’s declaration 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān; 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 Hölscher defined opposition of Greek and subsequent Hellenistic tradition in depiction of warfare, where battles were generally represented as the groups of duels, with the principles of monumental Roman art, narrative and somehow more realistic in nature. The point which Hölscher seems to miss is the fact that Roman depictions 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 “stock images” when it comes to depicting 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 “Hellenistic” approach combined the scenes of individual clashes 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 “visual gravity”. The scenes are often 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 of Alexander’s sarcophagus from Sidon,24 Aemilius Paulus monument in Delphi. In later Iranian art it can be observed in Fīrūzābād frieze which in fact might be a bridge between standard “vignette” style and below “twin picture” type described below. Twin picture. The specific type of “vignette” type is “twin picture” 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 from Sana’a with two almost identical mounted duel scenes and the plaque from Old Nisa 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 from Čan from Achaemeind 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 Gōdarz frieze 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 Salmās with two repetitive scenes of mounted investiture, which vary only in the details of the personages’ gear.31 Also, as was mentioned earlier the battle relief at Fīrūzābād falls into the category of the “twin scene” as the depictions of Ardašīr and Šāpur, vary 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 the iconography of foot soldiers, but the overarm thrust prevails; furthermore the warrior’s hand is moved far back behind his body, which is typical for mounted lance wielding warriors. 27 SEVINÇ, KORPE, TOMBUL, ROSE, STRAHAN, KIESERWETTER, WALLRODT, 2001: 389390, fig 4, 5. 28 SEVINÇ, 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān 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 Salmās and the Fīrūzābād reliefs belong to the early stage of development of Sasanian art. The idea of the “twin scene” did not come 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 dividing rectangular pictorial field in halves is Alexander’s Mosaic from the House of Faun 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 “twin picture” as the topics of the scenes are different (mounted victory and “abduction”) it represents general idea of placing symmetrical scenes within single format.35 Central scene of “flanked triumph” is 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 “victim in the center” type which will be presented below.37 Vignettes with dominant central scene. The composition which combines the features of “vignettes” and “flanked triumph” includes the series of the combat scenes with 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 COHEN 1997; POLAŃSKI, 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; POLAŃSKI, 2002; DUNBABIN, 1999; BERNHARD, 1980; HAVELOCK, 1972; BOARDMANN, 1999; PALAGIA, 2015: 8-9. 36 GRUBER, IL’YASOV, KANIUTH, 2012: 357, fig 14. 37 GRUBER, IL’YASOV, KANIUTH, 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 “victim in the center” is always 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 “flanked triumph”. 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 “victim in the center flanked with attendants and vignettes” 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 “Turanian” aesthetics or could be a result of ambiguity of the discussed layout where central figure is not clearly defined as “victim”. Victorious mounted combat in Hellenistic art When discussing Hellenistic repertoire of the “stock images” being used in depictions 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 “props” which might include objects typically appearing in the scenes as well 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 “absorbing” 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. In this way the vertical, limiting the horseman’s movement, character of the standing figure is 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 “props” 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 where it was applied to depict a rider’s combat with a bear. This 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 and the battle scene Čan 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 from the Čan sarcophagus, stela from Yaničköy and Yalnizdam, 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 counterstrikes with the sword to the breast of the victor’s horse. 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, “victory over tumbling opponent”, 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 Gōdarz, relief, Kosika vessel, Sasanian reliefs in Fīrūzābād and Naqš-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; SEVINÇ, 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; POLAŃSKI, 2002: 171-192; 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 “Parthian shot” and indeed it gained its greatest popularity in depictions 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 Naqš-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 Naqš-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 “victory over tumbling opponent” 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 Ḥaṭrā,, heavily reconstructed stucco from Metropolitan Museum of Art, equestrian figure from the great grotto from Ṭāq-e Bostān and several examples of Sasanian toreutics which include the bullae of spāhbedan. 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 Naqš-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 “Victim in the center” where usually nude axe-man is one of the personages enveloping the central “victim”. The sources of this motif can be searched in Neo-Hittite iconography (relief from Sakčagözu, Kargamiš), however the way it would 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 “translated” to local visual languages. Occasionally personage behind the main rider is believed to be one of his opponents as it is the case with Čan sarcophagus combat 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 (Čan).74 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 at the hip level alongside or across horse’s neck.75 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. SEVINÇ, 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 Fīrūzābād frieze both Ardašīr and Šāpur seem to wear their royal headdress, as it is known from the coinage, rather than the actual helmets while their Parthian opponents wear protective headgear. Also elaborated headdress on the reliefs of Naqš-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 the battle of Hastings a rumor of William’s death spread among his troops 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

knee and extended right leg as it can be seen on relief from Čan sarcophagus, Bithynian stelae, Etruscan urns and Alexander’s mosaic from Pompeii. The longevity of this posture can be evidenced by the scene of the suicide of Decebalus on Trajan’s column where 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 with an arrow or a javelin in the eye occurs. The examples come from Čan sarcophagus, stela 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 Šāh-nāma Rostam blinds Esfandiyār with a doube headed arrow. One cannot exclude mythological/symbolic/archetypal connection with Polyphemus or Oedipus. On the scene of the boar hunt Čan sarcophagus it was carefully 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 Mesopotamian art where on Naramsin’s 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 of the scenes of mounted victory on Etruscan stelae, sarcophagus from Čan, stela z Čavušköy and later it would become the fixed motif in Sasanian hunting iconography. It is also clearly marked on the Alexander’s mosaic however it does not play there the role of any border. 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 Gōdarz. 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 “props” were applied in line with one of listed principles.82 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 the oppressor’s horse. The lower register of 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 by combatants on foot or in melee as it is evidenced on Alexander’s mosaic. 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 “twin scene” could be fitted in the Western wall however it would require very tight form-fitting of the silhouettes. The wall could facilitate “flanked triumph” with single supporter on each side as in the case of Etruscan urns and in case of riders the attendants’ mounts could be shown only partially shown from behind 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 “flanked triumph” would be the clasp from Tilla Bulak however as it was mentioned earlier the decoration of this piece is badly preserved and does not provide definite arguments. Quite plausible seems the “victim in the center formula” with 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 “central victim” might in fact consist of 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 “central victim” 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 “vignettes” be it the row of the scenes of the same importance or with a central 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 “twin scene” model would be the most plausible option. That proposal can be strengthened by the tendency of horizontal extension of the particular scenes in the monumental art in Iran as can be exampled by the reliefs of Naqš-e Rostam. Also, employment of any form of the “vignettes” on the long wall makes application of “flanked triumph” on the shorter wall more plausible because this is the order of the formulae on the Alexander’s sarcophagus – “vignettes” on the long wall, and “flanked triumph” on one of the short walls. The elaborated, “victim in the center flanked with attendants and vignettes” model known from the long wall of Alexander sarcophagus might also fill 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. “victim in the center” on the Western wall and extreme and elaborated version of the same composition on the Southern wall. It should be also borne in mind that elaborated version of “victim in the center flanked with attendants and vignettes” also involves employment of many figures whose remnants were not found. In my opinion the most plausible layout for the long wall would be “twin picture” and “victim in the center” for the shorter wall. Also, considering the Central Asian, cavalry-dominated heritage one would not expect in the two “vignettes” any model involving presence of infantryman. Rather one would 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 “victim in the center” kind. 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 and battle scenes is present on the sarcophags (Čan, “Alexander” sarcophagus from Sidon, Bithynian stelae), the presence of the hunting and batlle scenes on Alexander’s funerary 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 “twin picture” on the long wall and the “victim in the center” on the short wall might emphasize the continuity of the two subsequent individual victors (a father and a son?) and their unity as the hunters.

Bibliography Sources Firdawsī, Šāh-nāma, 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:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 2.5, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 483-489. BERNARD, M.P., (1987), Les nomades conquérants de l'empire gréco-bactrien. Réflexions sur leur identité ethnique et culturelle, „Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres”, 131.4, 758-768. BERNARD, M.P., INAGAKI, H. (2000), Un torque achéménide avec une inscription grecque au musée Miho (Japon) (information), „Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres” 144.4, 1371-1437. BERNHARD, M.L. (1980), Sztuka Hellenistyczna, Warszawa. BIVAR, A.D.H. (1972), Cavalry equipment and tactics on the Euphrates frontier, „Dumberton Oak Papers” 26, 273-291. 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, „Iran” 44, 115-119.

84

Diod. XVIII.26.1-28.4. ŠMOTLÁKOVÁ, 2014: 38-49; SEVINÇ, 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-Scythes d'après leurs émissions monétaires et les données archéologiques, „Topoi” 11.1, 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), Chasses royales macédoniennes et chasses royales perses: le thème de la chasse au lion sur la chasse de Vergina, „Dialogues d’histoire ancienne” 17.1, 211-255. CASABONNE, O., GABRIELLI, M. (2006), Brèves remarques sur un torque achéménide au musée Miho (Japan), „Colloquium Anatolicum” 5, 85-90. 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, „Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies” 11, 103-112. 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, „Parthica” 10, 99-107. 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), Das Reiterkampfbild in der iranischen und iranisch beeinflußten Kunst parthischer und sasanidischer Zeit, Berlin. GALL VON, H., (1997), Scena poedinka vasadnikov na serebranoj vaze iz Kosiki, „Vestnik Dreniej Istorii” 2.221, 174-197. GALL VON, H., (1998), Common Features in Ancient Sarmatian and Iranian Art, [in:] Voennaja archeologija. Oružie i voennoe delo v istoričeskoj isocial'noj perspektive, G.V. VILINBANOV, V.M. MASSON (eds.), Sankt-Peterburg, 109-110. GAWLIKOWSKI, M. (2005), L'apothéose d'Odeinat sur un mosaïque récemment découverte à Palmyre, „Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres” 149.4, 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., IL’YASOV, J., KANIUTH, K. (2012), A Decorated Ivory Belt from Tilla Bulak, Southern Uzbekistan, „Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia” 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), Das sassanidische Felsrelief von Salmās, „Iranica Antiqua” 5, 148-160. HÖSCHLER, T. (2003), Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory and Cultural Symbolism, „Journal of Roman Studies” 93, 1-17. ILYASOV, J.Yu., RUSANOV, D.V. (1997/1998), A Study on the Bone Plate from Orlat, „Silk road Art and Archaeology” 5, 107-143. KUBCZAK, J. (1978), Kurhany arystokracji scytyjskiej, Poznań. KUBCZAK, J. (1995), Wizerunki Scytów w ikonografii nadczanomorskiej, „Artium Quaestiones” 7, 5-44. KUBALA, A. (2006), Wpływy greckie i perskie w sztuce Anatolii, Kraków. Page | 88

LITVINSKY, B.A. (2001), Khram Oksa v Baktrii (Īuzhnyī Tadzhikistan). T.2. Baktriīskoe vooruzhenie 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, „Anabasis” 1, 23-48. LO MUZIO, C., (2017), Archeologia dell'Asia centrale preislamica, Milano. MA, J. (2008), Mysians on the Çan Sarcophagus? Ethnicity and Domination in Achaimenid Military Art, „Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte” 57.3, 243-254. MARKLE, M.M. (1977), The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor, „American Journal of Archaeology” 81.3, 323-33. MARKLE, M.M. (1978), Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon, „American Journal of Archaeology” 82.4, 483-497. MARKLE, M.M. (1982), Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great, „Studies in the History of Art.” 10, 86-111. MIELCZAREK, M. (1993), Cataphracti and Clibanarii. Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World, Łódź. 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:] Ērān ud Anērān. Studies Presented to Boris Il’ič Maršak on the Occasion 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), Die Skulpturenfriese von Chalčajan.Neue Rekonstruktionversuche zur Kunst der frühen Kuschan in Baktrien, [in:] Zwischen Ost und West Neue Forschungen zum antiken Zentralasien. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium 30.9.-2.10.2009 in Mannheim, G. LINDSTRÖM, S. HANSEN, A. WIECZOREK, M. Tellenbach (eds.), Darmstadt; 205-220. MOOREY, P.R.S. (1998), Material Aspects of Achaemenid Polychrome Decoration and Jewellery, „Iranica Antiqua” 33, 155-171. NEFEDKIN, A.K. (2006), The Tactical Development of Achaemenid Cavalry, „Gladius” 26, 5-18. NICOLLE, D. (2017), Horse Armour in the Medieval Islamic Middle East, „Le cheval dans la péninsule Arabique” 8, [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 upadek Imperium Seleucydów, J. WOLSKI (ed.), Kraków, 135-208. 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, „Iran” 40, 273-276. PILIPKO, V.N., (1989), Glova v šleme iz Staroī Nisy, „Vestnik Drevneī Istorii” 3.190, 167-177. PILIPKO, V.N., (2001), Staraīa Nisa. Osnovnyīe itogi arhīeologičeskogo izučeniīa v sovīetskiī period, 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 Rome” 64, 139-179. PIRSON, F. (2006), Das vielfältige Bild des Krieges: Kampf und Gewalt in der lykischen Reliefkunst des späten 5. und des 4. Jhs. v. Chr., [in:] The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia 07-10 November 2005, K. DÖRTLÜK, B. VARKIVANÇ, T. 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. POLAŃSKI, T. (2002), Ancient Greek Orientalist Painters. The Literary Evidence, Kraków. POLOSMAK, N.V. (2010), My vypili somu, my stali bessmertnymi…, „Nauka iz pervykh ruk” 3. 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 epigraphy” 9, 182-208. PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1966a), O pancirnom vooruženii parfânskogo i baktrijskogo voinstva, „Vestnik Drevnej Istorii” 2, 27-43. PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1966b), Halčayan, Moskva-Tashkent. PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1971), Skulptura Halčayana, Moskva. PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. (1978), Trésors de Dalverzine Tépé, 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, „Acta Universitatis Lodzensis. Folia Archaeologica” 23, 13-41. SEKUNDA, N.V. (2013), The Antigonid Army, Gdańsk. SEKUNDA, N.V., DENNIS P. (2012), The Macedonian Army after Alexander 323-168 BC, Oxford. SEVINÇ, Ν., KORPE, R., TOMBUL, M., ROSE, C.B., STRAHAN, D., KIESERWETTER, H., WALLRODT, J. (2001), A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Čan, „Studia Troica” 11, 383-420. SHAVAREBI, E. (2014), A Reinterpretation of the Sasanian Relief at Salmās, „Iran and the Caucasus” 18, 115-133. SKUPNIEWICZ P., (2006), O Ciężkozbrojnej Jeździe Sasanidów, „Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Archeologia” 30.379, 151-174. SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2009), Shafted Weapons of Sasanian hunting Iconography, „Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae” 22, 49-65. SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2015a), The Iconographic Function of Armor in Sasanian Art, „ Rivista degli studi orientali” 88, 235-265. SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2015b), Tabriz Museum battle dish. Formal considerations, „ Metamorphoses of History” 6, 180-211. SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2016), The Himyarite” Knight” and Partho-Sasanian Art, „Historia i Świat” 5, 57-75. ŠMOTLÁKOVÁ, K. (2014), Iconographical 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. HRNČIARIK (ed.), Trnava, 38-49. STRONACH, D. (1998), On the Date of the Oxus Gold Scabbard and Other Achaemenid Matters, „Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series” 12, 231-248. 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, „Bollettino di Archeologia”, vol. speciale I, 39-44 WU, X. (2014), O young man. ..make known of what kind you are’: warfare, history, and elite ideology of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, „Iranica Antiqua” 49, 209-299. YATSENKO, S.A. (2012), Yuezhi on Bactrian Embroidery from Textiles Found at Noyon uul, Mongolia, „The Silk Road” 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, © The Trustees of the 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 The equestrian figures on the relief of Salmās have been commonly identified as Ardašīr I (r. 224-242) and his son, Šāpur I (r. 242-272). 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 reliefs, Iran, Salmās, Armenia, Ardašīr I, Šāpur I, Šāpur II, Ardašīr II

Introduction The equestrian figures on the relief of Salmās have been commonly identified as Ardašīr I (r. 224-242) and his son, Šāpur 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 The Relief is located at Xān-Taxtī village, southeast of modern Salmās, in northwestern 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 proximity to the salty Urmia Lake (Urūmīyah).1 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; [email protected] 1

SAMANIAN, SHIRVANI, BAKHSHAEI, 2012: 213-224. HINZ, 1965: 135. 3 LEHMANN-HAUPT, 1910: 318. 2

Page | 97

Fig. 1. Position of the Salmās relief with regard to Urmia Lake, (source of image: Google Maps).

Fig. 2. The relief of Salmās, (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 4

The relief falls into the category of the “twin scene” as the depictions of Ardašīr and Šāpur vary merely in details, creating a visual impression of doubling one and the same motif; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2017. 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 commonly identified as Ardašīr I and his son, Šāpur I, 6 only Herrmann, based on specific carving technique, closely related to late Parthian firezes, found the relief earlier than the one in Fīrūzābād and believed that it would commemorate the expedition of Ardašīr I and king Nodšēragān (Ἀδιαβηνή) 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 the depiction would refer to the events of early reign of Ardašīr.8 Chaumont in his early research associated the relief with the military actions of Ardašīr against Armenia around 228 CE,9 however the situation of Armenia during the reign of Ardašīr question such interpretation.10 Widengren ascribed the relief merely the regional function of the relief and believed that it depicted the victory over Ādurbādagān (Ἀτροπατηνή) rather than over Armenia.11 Hinz argued that the man on the left is Xusrō (Trdat II, r. 216/7-252),12 the Parthian ruler of Armenia and the relief should be associated with the victories of Ardašīr over the Roman Emperor, Maximinus Thrax (r. 235-238).13 The interpretation of the relief based on technical, formal analogies is far from convincing. Herrmann on this grounds believes that the relief of Salmās was the earliest relief of Ardašīr and she dated its creation for king’s early reign.14 Based on the similarities of horse harness and robes (i.e trousers) it is assumed that the first rider is Ardašīr I, the discussed items are analogical to his investiture relief at Naqš-e Rostam (Fig. 4). The second rider would be Šāpur I, because his trousers are identical as on the great Victory Relief at Naqš-e Rostam (Fig. 5). Meyer was the first one to raise the doubts about such an identification based on the analyze of the crowns the relief of Salmās in the context with the Sasanian relief at Dārābgerd.15 The simillarities between both reliefs are doubtless.16 However both datation and the identification of the king depicted at Dārābgerd are uncertain and they themselves raise controversies.17 If the second rider on the relief in Salmās was Šāpur I than, based on stylistical analogies, it should be assumed that relief in Dārābgerd also depicts Šāpur I. Thus the relief cannot be dated before 260. Naturally it can be assumed, following the view of Levit-Tawil that the relief Dārābgerd 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 TRÜMPELMANN, 1975a; HERRMANN, 1969; LEVIT-TAWIL, 1992. 6

Page | 99

historical event and has purely symbolic meaning.18 This point of view raises a question of what allegorical meaning would Salmās relief convey? Following her argument it would be possible to assume that the standing representants of the Parthian (Pahlav) aristocracy submit to the power of the Persian (Pārsīg) kings? Movsēs Xorenac‘i informs that only the Arsacids of Armenia and the Kārin clan took up fighting against Ardašīr I. The other 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-regency of Ardašīr and Šāpur.21 The iconographic material supporing in view of some researchers the idea of the co-regency of both rulers are the emissions of the coins of Ardašīr where he is shown together with his son Šāpur (Fig. 6). If the above idea is based on the numismatic evidence where Ardašīr and Šāpur were depicted together than by the rule of analogy co-regency of Bahrām II (r. 276-293) and his Bahrām III (r. 293) would have to be assumed (Fig. 7). Without any doubt such a conclusion must be found incorrect and should be refuted. The coins occasionally show the Šāhānšāhs 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-regency Ardašīr and Šāpur is a fragment of the biography of Mani from Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis “When 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 [διάδημα μέγιστον] in the month of Pharmuthi on the [eighth] day according to the moon”. 22 This account tels us only thet capturing of Ḥaṭrā took place between 14. 04. 240 and 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 “assumption of the diadem”, while it does not have the direct, verbal meaning but rather an idiomatic one which describes the attainment of royal sovereignty. 24 In this case the phrase the “mighty diadem” was without any doubt used to describe a royal crown of Šāhānšāh, 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. 293-302) from Pāikūlī could serve as a confirmation of such an idea.26

18

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 king, will prevail over the forces of evil”. 19 Movsēs Xorenac‘i 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 NPi 2 §4. Page | 100

Fig. 3. The relief of Salmās, (after: Ker Porter, 1822: pl. LXXXII).

Fig. 4. The Investiture of Ardašīr I at Naqš-e Rostam, (after: Ker Porter, 1821: pl. XXIII).

Fig. 5. The great Victory Relief of Šāpur I at Naqš-e Rostam, (after: Ker Porter, 1821: pl. XXI).

Page | 101

Fig. 6. Coin of Ardašīr I and Šāpur I, (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. II/20).

Fig. 7. Coin of Bahrām II and Bahrām III, (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. IV/63).

Ṭabarī attests that “and he [Ardašīr] had his son Shābūr crowned within his own lifetime.”27 Masʿudi mentions the abdication of Ardašīr.28 According to Bal‘amī, Šāpur was crowned twice, for the first time he was crowned by Ardašīr “with his own hand placed his personal crown upon Šāpūr’s head”,29 while when he ascended the throne “he crowned himself [anew]”.30 Until the mid-5th century the Sasanian Šāhānšāh crowned himself.31 Therefore we can state that Ardašīr had only appointed his ascendant because Šāpur had to fulfill after his death the full crowning ceremony which clearly proves that the father’s 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 “royal fire” and the mode of instigating of the new kings. The Iranian Šāhānšāh started a “royal fire” at his accession. This fire was announced only at the predecessor’s death. The ascendant was allowed to ignite his own fire only three days after predecessor’s death.32 This procedure is confirmed by the inscription at Bīšāpūr: “The month of Fravardīn, the year 58, (which is) the year 40 of Ardašēr’s Fire, (and) the year 24 of Šābuhr’s Fire”.33 The coin emissions depicting Ardašīr with Šāpur contain Ardašīr's own fire on the reverse. The other Iranian habit was election of the new king. Šāhānšāh 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 or the circumstances of king Šāpur II (r. 309-379) accession, when the Royal Council placed the crown on the womb of his mother when she was pregnant.35 Also situation in Iran after Kawād’s I (r. 488-496, 498-531) death serves as a good example, then Mahbod Sūrēn demanded voted on a new king election from the Royal Council.36 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 Šāhānšāh.

27

Ṭabarī 820. Masʿudi 219. 29 Bal‘amī, 884. 30 Bal‘amī, 886. 31 SHAHBAZI, 1993: 277-279. 32 SHAHBAZI, 1980: 131-134. 33 ŠVŠ: māh fravardīn sāl 58, ādur ī ardašēr sāl 40, ādur šabuhr ī ādurān šāh sāl 24. 34 Agathias IV 24.6-8; NPi 2-7. 35 Agathias IV.25.2-5; Ṭabarī 836. 36 Procop. Pers. 1. 21. 20-22; MAKSYMIUK, 2015a. 28

Page | 102

Historical Background Oriental sources mention Armenia among the lands conquered by Ardašīr. “Then he went from there to Hamadhān 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 to Sūristān, that is, the Sawād, and took possession of it for himself.”37 The Author of The Nihāyat al-Irab even mentions a battle at the border of Ādurbādagān and Armenia, in which Ardašīr was to defeat the Armenian coalition. “All its [Armenia’s] kings assembled to fight him [Ardašīr] and they joined battle there, between Ādurbaiğan and Armenia and fought a violent fight, until the killed were numerous on both sides. But the victory remained with Ardašēr and they asked him for safety. And he gave them safety and pandered them.”38 It would seem that these accounts would perfectly serve as a source to explain identification of the mounted personages on the relief from Salmās as Ardašīr and Šāpur, especially in the place locating the victorious battle. We should bear in mind that these are merely the accounts of a success of Ardašīr in Armenia. The picture of the events in Armenia in Armenian and Roman sources is comletely different. According to these accounts after the battle in the plain of Hormzdagān on 30 Mehr/28 April 224 CE the Armenian king Xusrō39 asked for help the Roman emperor Severus Alexander (r. 222-235) and initiated arranging the coalition to defent the Arsacid royal house.40 At the side f the sons of Ardavān IV (r. 216-224)41 stood except for the Arsacids of Armenia: Ādurbādagān,42 Arrān (Ἀλβανίαν), Viruzān (Georgia, Ἰβηρία) and the Huns allied with them.43 The plan assumed the attack of the allied forces at Āsōristān and firther reaching Ctesiphon. The Armenian accounts inform about defeating of the Ardašīr’s forces in Āsōristān which, according to the chronology of the Armenian chronicles should be dated to 225/226.44 Next, after the battle with Ardašīr, Xusrō withdrew to Armenia.45 Early in 226 when Ardašīr waged the war in the Arabian Penisula46 the allied forces under the command of Xusrō plundered Āsōristān.47 After the failed attempt of capturing Ḥaṭrā in 226/227 Ardašīr withdrew to Media.48 In 227/228 Ardašīr set with hs army from Media planning the attack at Armenia and Ādurbādagān.49 The armies of Ardašīr were to be demolished by the allied forces50 however the location of the battle remins unknown. The position of Armenia towards Ardašīr in following years was strengthen by the allience with Rome confirmed by the military actions Severus Alexander during

37

Ṭabarī 819. Nihāyat al-Irab in: WIDENGREN, 1971: 770, cf. 721. 39 see note 12. 40 Agathangelos 1.19; Movsēs Khorenats'i II.71-72. 41 Cass. Dio LXXX.3.3; Zonar. XII.15; Movsēs Xorenac‘i II.71. 42 Zonar. XII.15. 43 Agathangelos I.19. 44 Agathangelos I.21; Movsēs Khorenats'i II.72. 45 Agathangelos I.21. 46 Ṭabarī 819. 47 Agathangelos I.23. 48 Cass. Dio LXXX.3.2. 49 Cass. Dio LXXX.3.3; Ṭabarī 819. 50 Cass. Dio LXXX.3.3; Zonar. XII.15. 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 Nihāyat al-Irab is understated by inscription of Šāpur I on the Ka’be-ye Zartošt at Naqš-e Rostam. Armenia was mentioned there within the boundries of Ērānšahr “ [I] am ruler of Ērānšahr, [ I hold ?] the lands: Pārs, Pahlav, Xūzestān, Mēšān, Āsūrestān, Nodšēragān, Arabestān, Ādurbāyagān, Armin…”,52 however it was to be conquered only in 252/253 r.53 The power over the country was taken over by the son of Šāpur I, Hormozd-Ardašir bearing the title of Wuzurg Šāh Arminān “Great King of the Armenians”.54 New Proposal As it was presented above the interpretation of the relief at Salmās remains very controversial. The relief’s carving style cannot serve 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 from Fārs rather natural. Considering the situation in Armenia during the reign of Ardašir the identification 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 Ardašir and Šāpur? Who could be the riders carved on the relief at Salmās? The equestrian figures on the relief at Salmās 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, Šāhānšāh was not limited to single crown type. Already on the coinage of Ardašir I we find different crowns.58 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. ŠKZ 1-2/2/2-3. ērānšahr xvadāy ham. ud dāram] šahr pārs, pahlav, [hūzestān, mēšān, āsūrestān, nodšēragān, arabestān, ādurbāyagān, Armin / aryānxšahr xvadāy ahem. ud dārām xšahr pārs, [parθav], hūzestān, mēšān, [āsūrestān, nodšēragān, arabestān, āδarbāδagān,] Armin / του αριανων εθνουc δεcποτηc ειμι και κατεχω εθνη Περcιδα Π[αρθιαν] Ου[ζην]ην Μ[ηcαν]ηνην Αccυριαν Αδιαβηνην Αραβιαν Αδουρβαδηνην Αρμενιαν 53 KETTENHOFEN, 1982: 83; MAKSYMIUK, 2007: 348. 54 ŠKZ 23/18/40-41; KETTENHOFEN, 1995: 43-45. 55 HERRMANN, 1969: 74. 56 PECK, 1993. 57 ERDMANN, 1951: 87-123; GÖBL, 1971: 7. 58 GÖBL, 1971: Tab. I; ALRAM, 1999: 67-76; HUFF, 2007: 209. 59 HARPER, MEYERS, 1981: 9. 52

Page | 104

Fig. 8. The relief of Salmās, the first rider, (photo by the author).

Fig. 9. The relief of Salmās, the second rider, (photo by the author).

* The relief of the investiture Ardašir II’s (r. 379-383) is located at Ṭāq-e Bostān near Kermānšāh in Western Iran.60 The relief’ 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 placed Ardašir II turned towards the personage identified usually as Ohrmazd or Šāpur 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 The personage behind Ardašir’s back holds the barsom bundle, and wears a crown adorned with twelve rays of the Sun.63 Some scholars consider that this scene represents the investiture of Ardašir II by Ohrmazd and Mithra.64 The others have suggested that the rock relief at Ṭāq-e Bostān really portrays Šāpur II, commemorating his victory over Julian (r. 361-363), flanked by Mithra and Ohrmazd.65 Another interpretation believes the scene to be a posthumous commemoration of Šāpur’s victory over a Roman emperor Julian.66

Fig. 10. The Investiture of Ardašīr II at Ṭāq-e Bostān, (after: Ker Porter, 1822: pl. LXVI).

Fig. 11. The detail of the relief Ardašīr II’s at Ṭāq-e Bostān, (photo by the author).

62

TRÜMPELMANN, 1975b; TANABE, 1985; the corpse of a Kušān king proposed by ЛУКОНИН, 1967: 6-33. 63 ERDMANN, 1943: 67-68; SHAHBAZI, 1986; CALLIERI, 1990. 64 AZARNOUSH, 1986: 219-247. 65 TRÜMPELMANN, 1975b: 107-111; AZARPAY, 1982: 184. 66 Amm. Marc. XXV.3.6; ADRYCH, BRACEY, DALGLISH, LENK, WOOD, 2017: 85-92. Page | 106

* The Ardašir II’s crown consist of a skull-cap surmounted by the korymbos, is almost identical to the crowns of the equestrian figures on the relief at Salmās and to the crow of the king at Dārābgerd. The personage on the right is usually identified as Ohrmazd but his crenellated crown looks like the one worn by Šāpur II (a mural crown and a diadem above which a line of snail shell curls of hair is represented horizontally) 67 (Fig. 11). Ṭabarī mentions that Šāpur transferred the power to his brother “Shābūr bequeathed the royal power to his brother Ardashīr”.68 The condition of the deal, according to Firdawsī, was waiving the power by Ardašir II to Šāpur III (r. 383-388) after the latter reached maturity.69 Based on these accounts it can be assumed that the relief depicts both brothers: Šāpur II and Ardašir II 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 Šāpur II on which he was depicted in the crenellated crown associated with Šāpūr I.71 (Fig. 12, Fig. 13)

Fig. 12. Coin of Šāpur I, (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. II/32).

Fig. 13. Coin of Šāpur II, (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. VI/106).

Also on some coins of Ardašir II the crown reminds the dome-shaped crown of Ardašīr I. Especially interesting seems the fact of the presence of shorter form of the title “’rthštr MLK’n MLK’ ’yr’n / Ardašir šāhān šāh ērān / Ardašir, King of Kings of Iran” on the coinage of Ardašir II, in comparison to its fully extended version “’rthštr MLK’n MLK’ ’yr’n W ʾnyrʾn / Ardašir šāhān šāh ērān ud anērān / Ardašir, King of Kings of Iran and Non-Iran”.72 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 Ardašir I on his investiture relief at Naqš-e Rostam,73 while from Šāpūr I onwards, the Sasanian rulers used the title of Šāhānšāh Ērān ud Anērān.74

67

TRÜMPELMANN, 1975b. Ṭabarī 846. 69 Firdawsī VI. p. 360-364; MOSIG-WALBURG, 2000: 133-138. 70 CALMEYER, 1977; TANABE, 1985; SHAHBAZI, 1986; OVERLAET, 2012. 71 GÖBL, 1971: pl. VI / 88-106. 72 GÖBL, 1971: 74. 73 ANRm-a: ptkr-y ZNp mzdysn bgy ’rthštr MLK’n MLK’ ’yr’n MNW ctry MN yzd’n / pahikar ēn mazdēsn baγ ardašīr šāhān šāh ērān kē čīhr az yazdān/ „This is the image of the Mazda-worshiping Majesty, Ardašir, King of Kings of Ērān, whose origin (is) from the gods…” 74 ALRAM, BLET-LEMARQUAND, SKJÆRVØ, 2007; WEBER, 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010; 2012. 68

Page | 107

* Adoption of Christianity in Armenia by Trdat (r. 298-330?) during the early years of Šāpūr II’s resulted in closure of the kingdom with Rome.75 Probably c. 336 Šāpūr succeeded in capturing King Tiran (r. 330?-338) and the crown prince Aršak.76 In 338, however, Šāpūr after his first reverse outside Nisibis77 agreed to the release of the royal family and to the enthronement of Aršak II (r. 338-368).78 Ammianus Marcellinus testifies that Aršak joined Julian’s expedition against the Sasanians.79 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 Šāpūr under an excuse of help for the naxarars rebelled against the king Aršak, invaded Armenia. The king was imprisoned in the Castle of Oblivion in Xūzestān where he died. 82 Šāpūr sent troops into Armenia again in 370 and after log siege he captured the fortress of Artagerkʿwhere Queen Pharandzem and Pap (r. 371-374) the son of Aršak II resided.83 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 Šāpūr II 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 and a regent of Pap’s two very young sons, Aršak and Vałaršak. He concluded a treaty with Šāpūr II which resulted in Šāhānšāh sending diadems to Zarmandukht and her sons and appointing Sūrēn, the marzbān of Armenia.87 After the death of Manuel Mamikonean Armenia was partitioned as a result f the agreement between Theodosius I (378-395) and Šāpūr III.88 Conclusion Above cosiderations demonstrated that the identification of the equestrian figures on the relief of Salmās as Ardašir I and Šāpūr I is at least doubtful. The similarities of the relief’s carving style to Parthian art did not necessarily 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 Ardašir against Armenia do not confirm this interpretation. Ardašir did not gain any success that would justify 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 Šāpūr; 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; GARSOÏAN, 1997: 90-91. 85 Amm. Marc. XXX.1.18-21; P'awstos Buzandac'i' V.32; MAZZA, 2003: 405-440; LEŃSKI, 2007: 95-127. 86 mp. spāhbed. 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 Salmās. It would seem that the key factor would be the matter of personal crowns of the Sasanian rulers however the fact that the Šāhānšāhs tended to repeat earlier types does not allow final justification. Employing similar criteria as other researchers towards the equestrian figures with Ardašir I and Šāpūr I, I will try to analyze identification of the personages as the Sasanian rulers of 4th century: Šāpūr II and Ardašir II. Assuming that the location of the relief, i.e. placing it away from main centers where the royal reliefs are located (Pārs) influenced its technique of it, it is justified to search for the analogies with the later reliefs. On the relief of the investiture Ardašir II’s at Ṭāq-e Bostān, central figure wears a headgear almost identical to the crowns of the equestrian figures on the relief at Salmās. In combination with the fact that Šāpūr II is presented on the coins in the crenellated crown associated with Šāpūr I, it is possible to propose that on the relief of Salmās were depicted these later kings. Such an interpretation is also founded in historical events. Unlike Ardašir I, Šāpūr II was successful in his political and military actions in Armenia. Most likely Ardašir II, who was in the years 344 and 376 the king of Ḥaǰab (Nodšēragān, Ἀδιαβηνή) participated in the wars of his brother on the North-Westen borders.89 According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Šāpūr II justified the war against the Romans to re-conquer what had belonged to his ancestor.90 The crown on his coinage and on the reliefi at Ṭāq-e Bostān suggests that he might had intended to emulate his ancestor Šāpūr I. Similar hypothesis, based on similarity of the crowns and titulature with the founder of the dynasty, can be placed towards Ardašir II. The reference to the “golden age” of the first two Sasanian rulers in both iconographic and propagandistic sense must be noted. Perhaps the relief of Salmās depicts Šāpūr II and Ardašir II. Its location would not be accidental. In local lore the memory of the defeat of Ardašir I by the forces of Ādurbādagān and Armenia might remain, thus Šāpūr II and Ardašir II could act as the founders 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. Bal‘amī, M., Tārīx-e Bal‘amī, ed. M.T. BAHĀR, ed. 2 M.P. GONĀBĀDĪ, Tehran 2000. Dio’s Roman History, vol. 9, tr. E. CARY, London-Cambridge, Mass. 1927 (repr. 1955). Firdawsī, Šāh-nāma, vol. 6, tr. A.G. WARNER, E. WARNER, London 1912. HENRICHS, A., KOENEN, L. (1975), 'Der Kölner Mani-Codex (P.Colon. inv. nr. 4780), „Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik” 19, 1-85.' 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. Masūdī, Prairies d'or, eds. B. DE MEYNARD, P. DE COURTEILLE, Paris 1861-1877. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, 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. Ṭabarī, M., The History of al-Ṭabarī, vol. 5: The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakmids, and Yemen, tr. C.E. BOSWORTH, New York 1999. The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli, Part 3.1, ed. and tr. P.O. SKJÆRVØ, Wiesbaden 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 Institute” 13, 67-76. ALRAM, M., BLET-LEMARQUAND, M., SKJÆRVØ, P.O. (2007), Shapur, King of Kings of Iranians and non-Iranians, [in:] Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: Données pour l’histoire et la géographie historique, R. GYSELEN, (ed.), Bures-sur-Yvette, 11-40. AZARNOUSH, M. (1986), Sapur II, Ardasir II, and Sapur III. Another Perspective, „Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, N.F.” 19, 219-247. AZARPAY, G. (1982), The Role of Mithra in the Investiture and Triumph of Sapur II, „Iranica Antiqua” 17, 181-187. AZARPAY, G. (1972), Crowns and Some Royal Insignia in Early Iran, „Iranica Antiqua” 9, 108-115. BLOCKLEY, R.C. (1987), The division of Armenia between the Romans and Persians at the end of the fourth century ad, „Historia” 36, 222-234. CALLIERI, P. (1990), On the diffusion of Mithra images In Sasanian Iran. New evidence from a sealin the British Museum, „East and West” 40, 79-98. CALMEYER, P. (1976), Zur Genese altiranischer Motive: V. Synarchie, „Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, N.F.” 9, 63-95. CALMEYER, P. (1977), Vom Reisehut zur Kaiserkrone. B. Stand der archäologischen Forschung zu den iranischen Kronen, „Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, N.F.” 10, 168-190. CHAUMONT, M.L. (1969), Recherches sur l’histoire d’Arménie, Paris. CHAUMONT, M.L. (1974), Corégence et avènement de Shāhpuhr Ier, [in:] Mémorial Jean 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 Hungaricae” 27, 207-237. CHAUMONT, M.L. (1986), Armenia and Iran ii. The Pre-Islamic Period, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 2.4, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 418-438. ENSSLIN, W. (1949), Zu den Kriegen des Sassaniden Schahpur I, München. ERDMANN, K. (1943), Die Kunst Irans zur Zeit der Sasaniden, Berlin. ERDMANN, K. (1951), Die Entwicklung der sasanidischen Krone, „Ars Islamica”, 15/16, 87-123. 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. GARSOÏAN, N. (1997), The Aršakuni Dynasty, [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), Bîchâpour, vol. 1, Paris. GHODRAT-DIZAJI, M. (2007), Administrative Geography of the Early Sasanian Period: The Case of Ādurbādagān, „Iran” 45, 87-93. GÖBL, R. (1971), Sasanian Numismatics, Braunschweig. GREATREX, G. (2000), The background and aftermath of the partition of Armenia in AD 387, „Ancient History Bulletin” 14, 35-48. HARPER, P. MEYERS, P. (1981), Silver Vessels of the Sasanian Period I. Royal Imagery, New York. Page | 110

HERRMANN, G. (1969), The Dārābgird Relief – Ardashīr or Shāhpūr?: A Discussion in the Context of Early Sasanian Sculpture, „Iran” 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 sassanidische Felsrelief von Salmās, „Iranica Antiqua” 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 for Jens Kröger 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), Die römisch-Persischen Kriege des 3. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. nach der Inschrift Šāhpuhrs I. an der Kabe-ye Zartošt [ŠKZ], Wiesbaden. KETTENHOFEN, E. (1995), Tirdād und die Inschrift von Paikuli: Kritik der Quellen zur Geschichte Armeniens im späten 3. und frühen 4. Jh. n. Chr., Wiesbaden. KETTENHOFEN, E. (2002), Die Anfänge des Christentums in Armenien, „Handēs Amsōreay” 116, 45-104. KLEISS, W. (1987), Azerbaijan: ii. Archaeology, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 3, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 215-221. LEHMANN-HAUPT, C.F. (1910), Armenian Einst und Jetzt, Bd. 1, Berlin. LEŃSKI, N. (2007), The Chronology of Valens’ Dealings with Persia and Armenia, 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 Studies” 51/3, 161-180. LUSCHEY, H. (1986), Ardašīr I: ii. Rock Reliefs, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 2, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 377-380. MAKSYMIUK, K. (2007), Armenia w polityce pierwszych Sasanidów, „Antiquitas” 29, 345-354. MAKSYMIUK, K. (2011), Pogranicze persko-rzymskie w działaniach Husrowa I Anuszirwana (531579). Geneza problemów polityczno-religijnych w relacjach Iranu i Rzymu w okresie sasanidzkim, Siedlce. MAKSYMIUK, K. (2015a), The Parthian nobility in Xusrō I Anōšīrvān court, [in:] Elites in the Ancient World, v. 2, D. OKOŃ, P. 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 Ḥaṭrā in light of military and political activities of Ardašīr I, „Historia i Świat” 6, 89-95. MAKSYMIUK, K. (2018), The War of Ardašīr I against the Arsacids in Armenia - New proposal, (in press) MAZZA, M. (2003), Bisanzio e Persia nella tarda antichità: note su guerra e diplomazia nella seconda metà del IV secolo d.C., [in:] Da Costantino a Teodosio il Grande: cultura, società, diritto. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Napoli, 26-28 Aprile 2001, U. CRISCUOLO (ed.), Napoli, 405-440. MEYER, M. (1990), Die Felsbilder Shapurs I., „Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts” 105, 237-302. MOSIG-WALBURG, K. (2009), Römer und Perser. Vom 3. Jahrhundert bis zum Jahr 363 n. Chr., Gutenberg. MOSIG-WALBURG, K. (2010), Königtum und Adel in der Regierungszeit Ardashirs II., Shapurs III. und Wahrams IV, [in:] Commutatio et contentio. Studies in the Late Roman, Sasanian and Early Islamic Near East, H. BÖRM, J. WIESEHÖFER, (eds.), Düsseldorf, 133-158.

Page | 111

MOSIG-WALBURG, K. (2011), Das « sasanidische Kronengesetz»: Entstehung und Entwicklung eines modernen Konstrukts. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Deutung des Reliefs Narses in Naqshi Rustam, „Klio” 93.2, 446-473. OVERLAET, B. (2012), Ahura Mazda and Shapur II? A note on Taq-i Bustan I: the investiture of Ardashir II (379-383), „Iranica Antiqua” 47, 133-151. PECK, E.H. (1993), Crown II, From the Seleucids to the Islamic conquest, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 6.4, E. Yarshater (ed.), New York, 408-418. RICHTER-BERNBURG, L. (1993), Mani's Dodecads and Sasanian Chronology: Kephalaia, Shāpūragān, and Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis, „Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik” 95, 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 Archaeometry” 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, „Chiron” 26, 275-284. SEIBT, W. (2002), Der historische Hintergrund und die Chronologie der Christianisierung Armeniens bzw. der Taufe König Trdats (ca. 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), „Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, N.F.” 13, 119-147. SHAHBAZI, A. SH. (1986), Ardašīr II, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 2.4, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 380-381. SHAHBAZI, A. SH. (1993), Coronation, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 6.3, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 277-279. SHAVAREBI, E. (2014), A Reinterpretation of the Sasanian Relief at Salmās, „Iran and the Caucasus” 18, 115-133. SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2017), Mounted Combat Scenes on a Bronze Plaque from Sana’a, (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, „Orient” 21, 102-121. TRÜMPELMANN, L. (1975b), Triumph über Julian Apostata, „Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte” 25, 107-111. TRÜMPELMANN, L. (1975a), Das sasanidische Felsrelief von Dārāb, Iranische Denkmäler, Reihe II, Lief. 6, Berlin. VANDEN BERGHE, L. (1959), Archéologie de l’Irān ancien, Leiden. VANDEN BERGHE, L. (1984), Reliefs rupestres de l’Irān ancien, Bruxelles. WEBER, U. (2007), Hormezd I, König der Könige von Ērān und Anērān, „Iranica Antiqua”42, 387418. WEBER, U. (2008), Wahrām I, König der Könige von Ērān und Anērān (273-276 n. Chr.), [in:] Festschrift für Erich Kettenhofen, O. TABIBZADEH, T. DARYAEE (eds.), Tehran, 171-221. WEBER, U. (2009), Wahrām II, König der Könige von Ērān und Anērān, „Iranica Antiqua” 44, 559-643. WEBER, U. (2010), Wahrām III, König der Könige von Ērān und Anērān, „Iranica Antiqua” 45, 353-394. WEBER, U. (2012), Narseh, König der Könige von Ērān und Anērān, „Iranica Antiqua” 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. ЛУКОНИН, Г. (1967), Кушано-сасанидские мoнеты, „Эnuiрафuка Bосмока” 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 Šāpūr II was decorated with ram’s horns. This information corresponds to original Persian iconographic sources. Ram’s horns 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-Ammon to the Orient. The Alexander’s practice 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, Šāpūr II, headgear, ram’s horns, farr, Zoroastrianism, symbol

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, totemism didn’t disappear completely, but in the form of remnants 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 various aspects of the Sasanian society including the Sasanian kings’ suit, in particular, the headgear of the Sasanids. From various sources, we have known that Sasanian kings’ headgears were decorated with the imitations of some animal parts. The unique information, in this regard, can be found in Ammianus Marcellinus’ Res gestae. Ammianus was the participant of the Roman-Persian wars and he personally watched the Persian king Šāpūr II (r. 309-379) during the siege of Amida in 359 CE. According to Ammianus’ narration, the headgear of Šāpūr was adorned with an imitation of ram’s horns. That is what the historian wrote: “Insidens autem equo ante alios celsior ipse



Faculty of History; [email protected]

1

This article is based on author’s the report at the scientific conference “The Religious Aspects of War” held May 16-18, 2014 in Pruszcz Gdański (Poland). Page | 113

praeibat agminibus cunctis, aureum capitis arietini figmentum interstinctum lapillis pro diademate gestans.”2 The description of Šāpūr’s headgear by Ammianus Marcellinus coincides with some kings’ images in Persian art of the Sasanian period. For example, it is the famous silver dish from the Hermitage, depicting the scene of boar hunting of the Sasanian prince and simultaneously Kušānšāh (i.e. ruler of Kušānšār) Bahrām II (Fig. 1). The prince’s headgear (obviously, helmet) is decorated with ram horns in the manner described by Ammianus.

Fig. 1. Silver dish “Boar Hunt of Kušānšāh Bahrām II” (late 4th-early 5th centuries), The State Hermitage Museum inv. no. S-24, (drawing by K. Maksymiuk).

As an element of the royal crown, ram’s horns are presented in so-called KušānoSasanian coins,3 minted in the above mentioned Kušānšār (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Copper drachms of Pērōz III Kušānšāh (c. 350-375), (drawing by K. Maksymiuk).

2

Amm. Marc. XIX.1.3: “And he himself, mounted on his charger, and being taller than the rest, led his whole army, wearing instead of a crown a golden figure of a ram’s head inlaid with jewels”. 3 About Kušāno-Sasanian coins see: GÖBL, 1968; GÖBL, 1983: 322-339; ALBUM, BATES, FLOOR, 1993; 14-41; ЛУКОНИН, 1967: 16-33; ЗЕЙМАЛЬ, 1968: 101-104. Page | 114

Obviously, the “diadem” of Šāpūr II described by Ammianus Marcellinus was no more than the king’s helmet decorated with golden and jeweled ram horns. What were the origins of the phenomenon which is reflected in Ammianus’ work? 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 “horn of Amun”, 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).

One of the main centers of Amun’s cult in 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 “Amun’s horn”8 (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 campaign Alexander the Great strove to visit the Siwa temple. Alexander’s desire becomes 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 4

PIETSCHMANN, 1894a: 1855; WERNESS, 2006: 342; КОРОСТОВЦЕВ, 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; ОСТРОУМОВ, 1896, 14-16; ПАВЛОВА 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. 5

Page | 115

perfectly clear that Alexander hoped that Amun’s priests would “officially” declare him to be the son of Zeus-Ammon. And it is a well-known fact that Alexander’s expectations were 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: “And 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 of Ammon, as if he had been the god”.12 Besides, on the coins of at least one of the Diadochi, namely Lysimachus (r. 324-281) the image of Alexander the Great was decorated with ram’s 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 “heavenly father” – 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, © The Trustees 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 original (Egyptian) sense of the ram’s horns as the symbol of the ka and made them simply the sign of his divine lineage (BELL, 1985: 270). 13 See also: ANDERSON, 1927. Interesting treatment of the problem of the Alexander’s “two-horned” 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, © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 6. Images of Alexander the Great on tetradrachm, British Museum inv. no. 1919,0820.1, © The Trustees of the British Museum (from the left) and stater of Lysimachus, British Museum inv. no. 1911,0706.27, © The Trustees of the British Museum (from the right).

It seems that during the reign of Seleucids and Arsacids the ram’s horns as a sacral attribute of king’s power was displaced by bull horns.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 “Iranity”, i.e. native Iranian spirit and traditions, which were “perverted” by the “insidious” Parthians. The Sasanids supposed that pure “Iranity” existed before 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 Iranian contemporaries didn’t know that before the Arsacids Iran was under the power of the Seleucids. The Persians supposed 14 15

OLBRYCHT, 1997; ДМИТРИЕВ, 2013: 69-73. DARYAEE, 2008; DARYAEE, 2009: 119; DARYAEE, 2010: 241; ФРАЙ, 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. A general diagram reflecting the correlation of the Sasanians’ views on the chronology of the reign of the Iranian royal dynasties (according to Biruni’s 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 Kayāniāns (according to Šāh-nāma, Alexander was the brother of Iranian king Dārā who was killed by Alexander himself). Moreover, it is obvious that by the time of the Sasanids the legend about “Alexander the Two-Horned” (he was called by Muslim 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 Kayāniāns (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 Ardašīr I (r. 224-242) in his victory over the last Parthian king Ardavān IV (r. 216-224). It is noteworthy that the image of ram and ram’s horns (symbolizing king’s xwarrah) began to spread in Persia as a symbol of royal xwarrah just during the reign of Šāpur II,19 and Ammianus brought to us the first manifestations of this new tradition. Now we can explain the appearance of ram’s horns on the helmet of Šāpur 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 Kayāniāns as well as Kayāniāns’ xwarra, and, therefore, thirdly, their main purpose was to revive the “Iranity” in Iran. And neither Šāpur II nor his contemporaries or successors suspected that this “Kayāniān regalia” indeed was of Greco-Egyptian origin and in this sense, of course, was completely unrelated to “pure Iranity”. Anyway, the ram’s horns perceived just as the symbol of xwarrah and combined harmoniously with both the religious beliefs and political ideology of Sasanian Iran. 16

About Biruni’s view on Sasanians see: ДМИТРИЕВ, 2014. Ardā Virāz Nāmag. I.3-11. 18 Yasht. 14.23. 19 ЛУКОНИН (1969) 97. Thus, Sasanians second time (after Alexander the Great) distorted initial meaning of ram’s horns as a sacral object. 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. Авеста в русских переводах (1861-1996), ред. И. В. РАК, Санкт-Петербург 1997. Абу Рейхан Бируни, Избранные произведения, пер. М.А. САЛЬЕ, т. 1 (Памятники минувших поколений), Ташкент 1957. Фирдоуси, Шахнаме, пер. Ц.Б. БАНУ-ЛАХУТИ, В.Г. БЕРЗНЕВ, т. 5, Москва 1984. Literature ALBUM, S., BATES, M. L., FLOOR, W. (1993), Coins and Coinage, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 6, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 14-41. ANDERSON, A.R. (1927), Alexander’s Horns, „Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association” 58, 100-122. BELL, L. (1985), Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka, „Journal of Near Eastern Studies” 44/4, 251-294. CRIBB, J. (1990), Numismatic Evidence for Kushano-Sasanian Chronology, „Studia Iranica” 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), Ardaxšīr and the Sasanian’s Rise to Power, „Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia” 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. GÖBL, R. (1968), Sasanidische Numismatik, Braunschweig. GÖBL, 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), Parthian King’s Tiara – Numismatic Evidence and Some Aspects of Arsacid Political Ideology, „Notae Numismaticae. Zapiski Numizmatyczne” 2, 27-65. PIETSCHMANN, R. (1894a), Ammon (1), „RE”, 1, 1853-1858. PIETSCHMANN, R. (1894b), Ammoneion, „RE”, 1, 1858-1860. WAINWRIGHT, G.A., LITT B. (1951), The Egyptian Origin of a Ram-Headed Breastplate from Lagos, „Man” 51, 133-135. WERNESS, H.B. (2006), The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in Art, New YorkLondon. ДМИТРИЕВ, В.А. (2013), Рога Амона, культ быка и фарр Кеянидов (ещё раз к вопросу о царских коронах Сасанидов), „Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры” 3.41, 64-79. Page | 119

ДМИТРИЕВ, В.А. (2014), Бируни о Сасанидах, „Transcaucasica” 2, 19-26. ЗЕЙМАЛЬ, Е.В. (1968), Кушанская хронология (материалы по проблеме), Москва. КОРОСТОВЦЕВ, М.А. (1976), Религия древнего Египта, Ленинград-Москва. ЛУКОНИН, В.Г. (1967), Кушано-сасанидские монеты, „Эпиграфика Востока” 18, 16-33. ЛУКОНИН, В.Г. (1969), Культура сасанидского Ирана. Иран в III–V вв. Очерки по истории культуры, Москва. ОСТРОУМОВ, Н.П. (1896), Искандар Зуль-карнайн. (Александр Македонский), „Среднеазиатский Вестник”, сентябрь, 3-23. ФРАЙ, Р.Н. (2002), Наследие Ирана, Москва.

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 

[email protected] [email protected]  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; [email protected]  [email protected] 

Page | 121

with the style and appearance of this helmet, raising questions as to whether this is actually “Parthian”. Put simply, this helmet has a more ancient appearance, strongly resembling preAchaemenid 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-examining the helmet’s chronological context (Parthian or pre-Parthian). Parthian helmets are mainly known through artistic depictions, but as James has noted “There are no really clear depictions of helmets on Parthian monuments”.1 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 “coal skuttle” type, but it would also bear some resemblances to one-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 “ 20th century” appearance of the latter. 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 helmet’s inclusion of moveable cheek-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 “egg shape” with 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 Fīrūzābād. 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 of this technology’s actual origins remains challenging to trace. The ten-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 of a collapsed building during Cyrus the Great’s capture of Lydia (547 BCE), the helmet 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 Fīrūzābād (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 Fīrūzābād piece (Fig. 7). More specifically, this is in reference to the Fīrūzābād joust relief depicting the battle between the Parthians led by Ardavān IV (r. 216-224) and Sasanians led by Ardašīr 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 unit or clan designation. The Parthian’s helmet is hemispherical featuring a neck-guard apparently constructed of overlapping (metallic?) plates laced together onto a leather base (Fig. 8B) as well as a decorative curl placed on top of the helmet. Interestingly the Parthian’s neck-guard avential system as seen at Fīrūzābād 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 as discussed later. The Parthian warrior’s type of (neck-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 Ardašīr I lancing his opponent, Ardavān IV, whose horse topples backwards; in the middle panel is prince Šāpur lancing his adversary, possibly Parthian vizier. Page | 123

As the Parthian military machine’s successor the Sasanian spāh (army) certainly inherited the military technologies of their predecessors, including helmet construction. Nevertheless, the Sasanians at Fīrūzābād 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-guard of the Parthian knight’s helmet (Fig. 8B). Mail is (possibly) seen among early Sasanian cavalrymen at Bīšāpūr and most certainly centuries later at Ṭāq-e Bostān as discussed later. 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 the cavalryman’s high pointed helmet. If this is a military (versus ceremonial) helmet, then it 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. If ceremonial, the cavalryman’s headgear bears a strong resemblance to Scythian or Saka types, most notably like those seen with the Apadana stone relief of the Saka tigraxaudā (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 spāh, 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: 190-191; WÓJCIKOWSKI, 2013: 235-236, 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

in the plain of Hormzdagān (224 CE).20 The figures may also denote early Sasanian aswārān/savārān 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 Iraq’s Nineveh region (discussed further below). 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 Šāpur I’s (r. 242-272) operations at Dura Europos in c. 256 CE.23 The trooper’s helmet was built of two pieces, a left and a right side riveted together with two iron bands24 (Fig. 11). Termed as a “ridge helmet” by Western historians, this helmet stood at approximately 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 ayvān at Ṭāq-e Bostān. 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 military technology and Europe. This design appeared among Europe’s north Iranian 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 to split his opponent’ helmet with a sword all the way through his enemy’s neck and shoulders. 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 Fīrūzābād, Naqš-e Rostam, Bīšāpūr and Naqš-e Rajab. The second domain pertains to archaeological finds of actual helmets dated to the 5th-7th centuries. In addition to the Fīrūzābād helmet 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 Naqš-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’s falling opponent (Fig. 12 inset) bears two similarities with the aforementioned Parthian warrior at the Fīrūzābād relief entrapped in a wrestling lock by his unknown Sasanian opponent (Fig. 8B). First, the helmet at Naqš-e Rostam has the same shape as its counterpart at Fīrūzābād. The second similarity is the near-exact similarity of the falling opponent’s decorative curl placed atop his helmet with that of the entrapped Parthian’s helmet at Fīrūzābād. 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 Fīrūzābād, 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 Naqš-e Rostam and the entrapped Parthian at Fīrūzābād. First, the helmet at Naqš-e Rostam has a band (metallic or ceremonial cloth?) along its rim not seen with the entrapped Parthian at Fīrūzābād. Second is a distinct decorative motif on the side the helmet of the unhorsed warrior at Naqš-e Rostam, which may designate clan or military status or possibly be a Tamga-type symbol. Third, the unhorsed warrior’s helmet at Naqš-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 or temples of the standard bearer’s headgear or helmet appear some type of attachment which 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 Naqš-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 “with elaborately chased patterning imitating the quilted fabric, and rosettes on the sides and peak”. 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 “Phrygian cap (without ear-flaps)”29 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 Naqš-e Rostam at a non-combat relief of a standing Bahrām II (r. 273-276) where he is attended by eight noblemen. Four of these in the presence of a Bahrām II wear headgear or helmets featuring bulbous motifs at their front (Fig. 15). To the left of Bahrām 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 Bahrām features at its bulbous point the bowed head of a feline-type creature; the bulbous point of the nobleman’s helmet behind him has a different leonine creature motif. The latter’s head-motif bears a more “Simurgh” appearance with the creature not bowing but gazing forward. To the immediate right of Bahrām 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 Bahrām 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 at the Musee d’Art Classique de Mougins in Paris (Fig. 16B). The two helmets, like the two animal-motif headgear at Naqš-e Rostam (Fig. 16C), feature what appear to be eagle and/or bird-like heads. The “feather” or “Varnaga” motif on the Dacian helmets appears on late Sasanian sword sheaths and handles such as those seen on late Sassanian gold sheeted sword (Fig. 16D). This “Varnaga” motif also appeared 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 Naqš-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 Šāpur I upon a Sasanian silver coin (Fig. 17). The coin shows Šāpur’s headgear as having the head of an eagle at its top clasping a large pearl with its beak. Šāpur is 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 ayvān at Ṭāq-e Bostān (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 five figures may be Bahrām’s family members as they all wield 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 “Ardašīr” in Parthian (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 Bīšāpūr 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 Šāpur I at the Tang-e Showgan section of Bīšāpūr (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 Bīšāpūr site is the figure standing to the right of the Šāpur I 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 spāh..34 The Naqš-e Rajab site panel colloquially known as the “Parade of Šāpur”35 (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 Šāpur I. The headgear of all four figures (presumably professional warriors and/or military leaders) appears tall but unlike the Bīšāpūr “praying knight” do not “bend” forward. Instead they 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 occur, with Xusrō I (r. 531-579 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 “…presents in the course of diplomatic relationship between Goth and Persian” (1936: 202). 33 FARROKH, 2005: 9. 34 Consult for example Olbrycht’s examination of the dynastic connections between the Parthian and Sasanian royal houses (OLBRYCHT, 2016: 23-35) and Pourshariati’s comprehensive examination of the role of the Parthian nobility in the latter times of the Sasanian dynasty (POURSHARIATI, 2008). 35 This site is believed to commemorate the victories of Šāpur I over Roman armies. 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 Fīrūzābād, Naqš-e Rostam, Bīšāpūr and Naqš-e Rajab are of the Achaemenid “profile” system in which 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 “unwelcome” in earlier Sasanian iconography, notably maces. This is also, like 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 resemblances to the one seen at Trajan’s column, which in turn bears some parallels with earlier ribbed Kušān designs. Finds of actual Sasanian 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 historians such as Dīnawarī, Bal‘amī and Ṭabarī with respect 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

Table 1: Islamic era Historians’ Descriptions of Sasanian helmets

Helmet

Dīnawarī, Akhbar ol Tawaal (ed. de Guirgass, 1888), p.74.

Bal‘amī, Tarikhe Bal’ami (as cited by Tafazzoli, 1993: 194.

Ṭabarī, Tarikh al Rasl ol Molook (ed. & De Goeje, 1879-1901), Vol. I, p.964.

Miqfar; Dīnawarī also mentions Baiza (difference with Miqfar unclear)

Khud/Khod

Miqfar

Interestingly all of the helmets have been excavated in regions situated in the Sasanian Empire’s western and northwest regions. 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 of this helmet, presumably for hanging mail, providing additional protection for the warrior’s 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-like rivets. The helmet’s 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 (“feathers” or palmettes). The four riveted segments or plaques are covered in bronze, but also feature a scale or “varanga” 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. The helmet housed at the Römisch Germanisches Museum in Mainz, Germany (Inv. O. 38823; Fig. 26) is dated to the late 6th-early 7th century CE. Discovered in Iran’s Amlash region, this helmet was built of bronze, silver and Iron. The Varanga “feather” (?) Page | 130

and/or “scale” pattern (?) is again evident as would be expected of late Sasanian helmets from the empire’s Western regions. 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 “sine wave” graphics. At the bottom edge of the rim can be seen 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 “sine wave” designs 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 of the Luristan helmet is a repoussé hook and dot pattern, with a notched band of flecked 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. Interestingly, the Luristan helmet’s crescent motif appears in the same upright orientation 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 RömischGermanisches 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 of helmet’s silver coating finishes in a hollow protusion crowned with a bronze button 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 “feathers” 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 have originally belonged to a higher ranking officer, it’s later repaired or “second hand” state 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 spāh. 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. Excepting its’ lack 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 Iran’s long-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 spāh 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 “Avar helmets” 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 “short shovel” appearance. Round shaped rivets fasten the helmet’s plates together. The third Sasanian Spangenhelm helmet at the British Museum (Fig. 31) bears close parallels in construction to that displayed in Baghdad’s Iraq Museum (Fig. 32). 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-day Kouyunjik), specifically at the Temple of Ištar.43 Built of plates and rivets of iron, the feather “Varanga” or palmette pattern seen on the plates resemble closely those found on the sheaths of late Sasanian swords excavated in northern Iran. The Sasanian helmet housed at the Musee d’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-type” 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 The helmet’s metallic material and its’ method of construction requires close examination. What may be surmised is that this helmet’s shape is a variation of the type appearring on a cameo showing Šāpur I's victory over Emperor Valerian. 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: “compacted and forged in one piece and skillfully fashioned like a mask into the exact shape of a man’s face; this protects him entirely from the top of the head to the neck, except where eye-holes allow him to see through it”.45 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 “coal skuttle” Partho-Seleucid type, and if so how was the rider’s neck protected? Was there perhaps an aventail attached as seen with the Parthian armored cavalryman at Fīrūzābād (Fig. 8B) or the helmet at the Trajan relief (Fig. 8C)? Thus, while Heliodorus’ entire description of the Sasanian cavalryman of his time is suggestive of the spāh’s overall objective of developing formidably armed and armored cavalry, the design and shape of the helmet he describes is challenging to reconstruct. Nevertheless, Heliodorus’ description of metallic face-masks built into Sasanian helmets complements Ammianus Marcellinus’ observations with respect to Šāpur II’s heavy armored cavalry: “on 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 at the extremities of the nostrils”.46 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 “forged in one piece”. This appears to imply that the frontal area of the one-piece helmet was fashioned into a facemask rather than being separately constructed and then mounted. Ammianus however states that the masks were “accurately fitted”. If that were the case, would the face-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 the rider’s head and neck. Examples of helmet depictions on Late Sasanian seals There are a select number of late Sasanian seals providing visual details of helmets and or headgear. One of these is housed at Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts (Fig. 35). The helmet depicted on the bulla reveals a feather or “Varanga” pattern similar to that 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 at the Römisches 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). An interesting depiction of an armoured horseman’s helmet is provided in one of the bulla from the treasury of the Takiya-e Moʿāven al-Molk in Kermanshah (Fig. 36). Despite the bulla’s erosion there appears to be a possible ridge construction system for the helmet, possibly of two metallic “shells” riveted together. If this were the case, then 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān. 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 “flaps” (?) 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 the rider’s lance/spear, a tirdan (quiver) suspended from the upper-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 Ṭāq-e Bostān Museum, features two helmet depictions of interest, the first being what appears to be a seated regal figure (commonly known as the mage of Xusrō) (Fig. 38) and the armored cavalryman inside the ayvān or vault (Fig. 39). The headgear of the Mage of Xusrō as seen on one of the capitals at Ṭāq-e Bostān provides a clear depiction of a mail 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 this may be an attempt at affording protection for the subject’s temple(s). Regal decorations 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 “pearls” (?) along the helmet rim 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān (Fig. 49) 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 “Nineveh” or conical-shape helmets (like Fig. 32) the Ṭāq-e Bostān helmet 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 “eye brows” to their top. Regal decorative motifs are also evident with the helmet. There is a globular object sitting atop the helmet with ribbons in tow, a gem-like object placed in the center of the helmet’s forehead with two rows of pearls fitted at the helmet’s rim. The Ṭāq-e Bostān helmet also appears to have similar stylistic parallels to samples recovered from Nordic-Scandinavian burial sites in Sweden’s Valsgarde and Vendel regions48. This leads to the question as to how this technology was transmitted to Europe’s 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān of mail acting also as neck-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 Golšāh (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 “longer flaps”, protecting the temples and upper neck50, making this very similar to the earlier depiction of the “mage of Xusrō” at Ṭāq-e Bostān (Fig. 38). 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 Afrāsiyāb 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 ayvān at Ṭāq-e Bostān.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 “one-piece” type 47

FUKAI, HORIUCHI, 1984: 69-70. As noted by Wilcox: “The resemblance between this [Sassanian] helmet…from the fully armored 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 remarkable” (WILCOX, 1999: 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 “shirts” with long sleeves, as well as bronze 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 “symbolic” status for the warriors. While these helmets appear heavy and unstable 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān capital. The Kulagysh mail is either attached/suspended from the rims of the helmet or is worn underneath the helmet. The outline of both warriors’ faces would 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 “Iraq Museum Spangenhelm type” with a distinct pointed tip that appears to be 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 ayvān of Ṭāq-e Bostān. 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 “feather” and/or “scale” pattern similar to the imprinted patterns seen on the helmets 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 The academic consensus however has been swayed towards Ghirshman’s proposal that 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 in northern Iran’s Dailam region.58 These show the same “feather/scale” pattern as seen in Sasanian helmets at the Royal Museum of Art and History in Brussels (Fig. Inv. IR. 1315), the Römisch Germanisches Museum in Mainz, Germany (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 the helmet of the aforementioned Sasanian knight at Fīrūzābād (Fig. 8A). In practice it would appear that the leaders of Sasanian clans in command of spāh 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 Māh -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 “Officer”. The Māh-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 “the combination of bronze, gilt, iron, silver and cloth hints at the visual splendour of the Sasanian army”. Thus the Sasanian combination of colors and motifs with helmets resulted in what Ammianus described as “Glittering helmets and bristling armor”64 in reference to the armored lancers of Šāpur II. In this regard, 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 spāh 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 of the empire’s four defense regions. For example, the kust ï xwarbārān (Western districts) facing the Romano-Byzantine frontiers most likely equipped their units with helmets of the segmented and ridge types (including the conical “Nineveh” models). The kust ï Ādurbādagān (North/Northwest district)65 facing Trans-Caucasia most likely equipped its troops with helmets closely similar to the kust ï xwarbārān. The kust ï xwarāsān (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 ī nēmrōz: (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 ï xwarbārān, with perhaps a local “southern” variation of the one-piece type (Fig. 35).66 Another issue to be addressed is the relatively large proportion of Sasanian helmets excavated in Iraq’s Nineveh region. These finds may suggest that this was an important 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 spāh’s forces led by Razutis and Emperor Heraclius whose victory allowed him to advance towards Ctesiphon. The use of cloths and “feather/scale” motifs may be suggestive of a martial tradition 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 and their parallels with those evident at Naqš-e Rostam.

65

The term abāxtar (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. 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān indicating that the designers looked for ways at improving protection for the head and neck. Parallels in turn can be seen between the same Ṭāq-e Bostān helmet and those in the later Viking sites of Valsgarde and Vendel. 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 “Parthian” by the Iran Bastan Museum (Fig. 1A), questions can be 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. Ṭabarī,, Abu Jaafar Mohammad bin Jarir, Tarikh al Rasl ol Molook, ed. M.J. DE GOEJE, Leiden 1879-1901. Literature AHMAD, S.N. (2015), A new Sasanian helmet in the Musee d’Art Classique de Mougins, „Historia i Świat” 4, 135-156. ALLAN, J.W. (1986), Armor, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 2.5, 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, „Dumberton Oak Papers” 26, 273-291. BROGAN, O. (1936), Trade between the Roman Empire and the Free Germans, „The Journal of Roman Studies” 26.2, 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 collection of Sasanian clay sealings preserved in the Takiya-e Moʿāven al-Molk of Kermanshah, [in:] Monografie di Mesopotamia, XIV, C. LIPPOLIS, S. DE MARTINO (eds.), Firenze, 209-236. CHRISTENSEN, A. (1907), L’Empire des Sassanides. Le Peuple, L’Etat, 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 Letterari” 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, „Historia i Świat” 5, 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-iraniens, Mèdes, Achéménides, Paris. GRANCSAY, S.V. (1963), A Sasanian Chieftain’s Helmet, „Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum of Arts” 21, 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 Research” 285, 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, „Syria” 63. 1/2, 107-134. KHORASANI, M.M. (2006), Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period, Tübingen. KUBIK, A.L. (2016), Introduction to studies on late Sasanian protective armour. The Yarysh-Mardy helmet, „Historia i Świat” 5, 77-105. Page | 140

LITVINSKY, B.A. (2003). Helmet i: In Pre-Islamic Iran, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, 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), The Parthian nobility in Xusrō I Anōšīrvān court, [in:] Elites in the Ancient World, V. 2, D. OKOŃ, P. BRIKS (eds.), Szczecin, 189-198. MIELCZAREK, M. (1993), Cataphracti and Clibanarii: Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World. Łódz. MIKS, CH. (2009), Relikte eines frühmittelalterlichen Oberschichtgrabes?, „Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz”, 56, 395-538. 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 Parfīanskom nasledii v Sasanidskom Irane: voennoe delo, [in:] Tsentral ‘naia Aziia ot Akhemenidov do Timuridov: Arkheologiia, Istoriia, Etnologiia, Kul’tura, 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, „Iranica Antiqa”, 14, 51-69. OVERLAET, B. (1982), Contribution to Sasanian armament in connection with a decorated helmet, „Iranica Antiqua”, 14, 189-301. OVERLAET, B. (1998), Regalia of the Ruling Classes in Late Sasanian Times: the Riggisberg Strap Mountings, Swords and Archer’s Fingercaps, [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, „Iranica Antiqua”, 48, 313-354. PETERSON, D. (1992), The Roman Legions Recreated in Color Photographs, London. PILIPKO, V.N. (1994), Excavations of Staraia Nisa, „Bulletin of the Asian Institute”, N.S. 8, 101-116. 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), Šlemy epohi pereseleniâ narodov iz podneprov’â, [In:] Voinskie Tradičii v Arhaeologičeskom Kontekste: ot pozdnego latena do pozdnego srednevekov’â, I.G. BURCHEV (ed.), Tula, 40-51. RAPIN, C. (2002). Greece viii. Greek Art in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Northwest India, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 11.3, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 333-336 & Encyclopædia 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:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 2.5, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 489-499. SYMONENKO, A.V. (2009), Sarmatskie vsadniki Severnogo Prichernomor'īa, Kiev. TAFAZZOLI, A. (1993). A list of terms for weapons and armour in Western Middle Iranian, „Silk Road Art and Archeology” 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 Archaeology” 19, 55-116. Page | 141

TOFIGHIAN, H., NADOOSHAN, F. KH., MOUSAVI, S. M. (2011). Sasanians in the Persian Gulf according to archaeological data, „Sasanika Archaeology” 4, 1-5 [http://www.sasanika.org/wpcontent/uploads/sas-arch211.pdf; (accessed September 12, 2016)]. VANDEN BERGHE, L. (1983), Reliefs rupestres de l’Irān ancient, Bruxelles. WERNET, J. (1956), Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches. Munich. WILCOX, P. (1999), Rome’s Enemies (3): Parthians and Sasanid Persians. Oxford. WÓJCIKOWSKI, R.S. (2013). The Graffito From Dura Europos. Hybrid Armor in Parthian-Sasanian Iran, „Anabasis: Studia Classica et Orientalia” 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 “coal skuttle” helmet, spearing a lion, Seleucid (?), Parthian (?), 3rd century BCE-2nd century CE, British Museum inv. no. 91908, © The Trustees 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, © The Trustees of the British 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 Fīrūzābād 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 of Hormozd’s unhorsed opponent, (photo by J. Chamanara). The composition of Hormozd II’s jousting scene is evidently derived from that of his great-grandfather Ardašīr I at Fīrūzābād.

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. Bahrām II (r. 273-276 CE) with large sword surrounded by an audience of nobles at Naqš-e Rostam, (photo by J. Chamanara). Second and third to the left of Bahrām stand noblemen wearing headgear with leonine and simurgh bulbous fronts respectively. First and second to the right of Bahrām 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 d’Art Classique de Mougins, MACM, [C] Close-up of noblemen at left of Bahrām II at Naqš-e Rostam in the 3rd Century CE, (photo by J. Chamanara), [D] Late Sassanian gold sheeted sword, British Museum inv. no. 135738, © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 17. Silver drachm, Bust of Šāpur I, 240 CE, British Museum inv. no. 1848,0803.240, © The Trustees of the British Museum. Page | 151

Fig. 18. [A-B] Yazata entities at the top of the archway entrance into the vault or ayvān at Ṭāq-e Bostān, (photo by J. Chamanara), [C] Nike figure with wreath at cheek-piece of Dacian (?) helmet, 2nd century CE, Musee d’Art Classique de Mougins, MACM.

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 Bīšāpūr, Tang-e Showgan section, “praying knight” at the triumph scene of Šāpur I at Naqš-e Rostam, (photo by M. Moradi).

Fig. 22. “Parade of Šāpur I” panel at Naqš-e Rajab commemorating the victories of Šāpur 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, Römisch Germanisches Museum, 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 in Iraq’s Nineveh region, British Museum inv. no. 22495, © The Trustees of the 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 “Spade-like” segments, discovered in Iraq’s Nineveh region, British Museum inv. no. 22497, © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Page | 157

Fig. 31. Sasanian cross-bandhelmet, discovered in Iraq’s Nineveh region, British Museum inv. no. 22497, © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 32. [A] Sasanian cross-bandhelmet helmet, dated to the 6th century CE discovered at the Temple of Ištar in Nineveh, northern Iraq, Iraq Museum, Baghdad, [B] close-up of “Varanga” 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-Sasanian(?) band helmet, Musee d’Art Classique de Mougins, (after: Ahmad, 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 spāhbed, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, acc. nr. 1985.24.

Fig. 36. Bulla from the treasury of the Takiya-e Moʿāven al-Molk that reads: “Wistaxm ī hazārbed ud hujadag-Husraw wuzurg Ērān kust ī Xwarārān spāhbed”, Wistaxm the hazārbed and “well omened husraw”, grandee, general of the quarter/region of the west of Iran, (after: Cereti, Moradi, Narsollazadeh, 2011: 211, fig. 1).

Page | 160

Fig. 37. Bulla from the private collection of A. Saeedi which reads: “Ohrmazd wuzurg Eran kust i nem..z…at spahbed”, Ohrmazd, the grandee, Eran-Spahbed of the quarter of the southeast], (after: Daryaee, Safardi, 2012: fig. 1).

Fig. 38. The Mage of Xusrō II from the capitals of Taq-i-Bostan, (photo by J. Yousefi).

Page | 161

Fig. 39. Late Sasanian armored horseman in the interior of the vault or ayvān 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. Sasanian Neshan: (1) Ardašīr I at Fīrūzābād (2) unknown Sasanian clan or military unit (3) Unknown Sasanian knight at Fīrūzābād (4-5) unknown Sasanian clans or military units (after: Christensen, 1907: 90) (6) Ardavān at Fīrūzābād (7) Šāpur I at Fīrūzābād (8) Xwar (sun) disc seen on flagpoles and swords (9) Nobleman with Bahrām II at Naqš-e Rostam (10) unknown Sasanian clan or military unit (after: Christensen, 1907: 90) (11) Hormozd II (12) Zoroastrian symbol of possible Mithraic origin (13) Šāpur I, (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



Ilkka SYVÄNNE (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 “an outsider”, a military historian. The article provides a summary 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

[email protected] BISHOP, COULSTON, 2006: 1-47; FEUGÈRE, 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 example Raffaele D’Amato, 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’Amato), who similarly lack archeological finds, to rely more on the works of art and 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. A good example of this is Mattesini’s study of the Roman equipment. He is quite ready 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 short, I agree with Andrei Negin’s view that the depictions of Attic helmets in the 4th century iconographic sources (e.g. Arch of Galerius, Arch of Constantine and Theodosius’s Column) should be seen to represent a common type of helmet in actual use: “However, these monuments depict ‘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 (SYVÄNNE, 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.”5 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 evidence is by no means free of mistakes. I extend Negin’s view to include 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 a change from the Trajan’s Column tradition, but at the same time it is claimed that 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: “On the side of continuity, the Attic helmet still appears without any reference to contemporary helmet types, and the unarmoured convention persisted”. 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-called “unarmoured convention” should actually be understood 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 “Attic helmets”, large shields and the typical late Roman 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 (Constantine’s cavalry and Maxentius’ cavalry) 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 of Constantine’s men is seen as an example of the artistic non-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 the equipment used by the Constantinians and Maxentius’ men in 312 then dismiss the contemporary evidence presented by the Arch of Constantine with the result that the contemporary evidence for the equipment is essentially replaced with one’s own 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 SYVÄNNE, 2004; SYVÄNNE, 2015b. 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 relief depicting Maxentius’ men in the defence of 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 of Constantine’s cavalry 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 troublesome that Maxentius’ bodyguard cavalry, with which he was destroyed on the bridge, 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 Maxentius’ „Praetorian cavalry” as ridge 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 My treatment of Cowan’s work is somewhat unfair here, because despite my disagreements 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 of Constantine (namely that it no longer follows the conventions set up by Trajan’s Column 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 for Galerius’ elite cavalry forces (possibly the Praetorians), 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 “real” single-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’AMATO, 2012: 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 aus dem Menschenleben, Zwei Teilen, Teil 2 Die römischen Jagdsarkophage, 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), L’esercito romano. Vol. III, Oxford. CASCARINO, G. (2012), L’esercito romano. Vol. 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’AMATO, R. (2012), Roman Centurions 31 BC-AD 500, Oxford. FEUGÈRE, M. (1993/2002), Weapons of the Romans, Charleston. MATTESINI. S. (2006/2008), Les Légions Romaines, Rome. MCDOWALL, S. (1995), Late Roman cavalryman 236-565 AD, Oxford. NEGIN, A. (2015), Roman helmets with a browband shaped as a vertical fronton, „Historia i Świat” 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. SYVÄNNE, I. (2004), The Age of Hippotoxotai, Tampere. SYVÄNNE, I. (2015), Military History of Late Rome Vol.1: 284-361, Barnsley. SYVÄNNE, I. (2015), Scutarii, [in:] Encyclopedia of the Roman Army, Y. LE BOHEC (ed.), Chichester. SYVÄNNE, I. (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-helmets of the Maxentius’ defenders alongside with the other helmets, which 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. “Hunting scene” the S. Elpidio Sarcophagus, c. 315-320 (after: Syvänne, 2017).23

Fig. 4. Boboli Gardens, Florence (after: Syvänne, 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: Syvänne, 2017).

Page | 178

Fig. 6. The suggestion for the reconstruction of some of the late Roman Attic and Corinthian/Thracian peaked helmets (after: Syvänne, 2017).

Page | 179

Fig. 7. Mosaics in Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, (after: D’Amato, 2012: pl. H).24

Fig. 8. The Column of Theodosius, Constantinople (after: Syvänne, 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: 16-17; D’AMATO, 2012:Pl. 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: Syvänne, 2017).26

Fig. 10. Based on Ilias Ambrosiana, (after: Syvänne, 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 (SYVÄNNE, 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 (SYVÄNNE, 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 isn’t excluded at all. Arab and Viking 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; [email protected] 1

STATTLER, 1948: 251-252. Page | 183

by the upper Sheksna to White Lake. There was well know village Bieloziev from where another water trade route started by Ovega Lake and river Świr to Ladoga Lake and to Baltic sea. The other way passed through Kursk to Kiev (Arabic name – Kuraba) and then by Polish lands to Czech ground and western Europe or by upper Dniepr and by Łowat river to Great 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 Xusrō II (r. 591-628) dated between 6th and 7th century (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5). The Arab-Sasanian dirhams provenience is usually Ṭabarestān but the coins were minted by different rulers. Nearly all of the finds are situated at the nearby of trade routes. Every day I’m finding information concerning new data about nowadays discoveries 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. The Second World War either didn’t help to save these coins. Sasanian and Arab-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 Sasanian drachms weren’t reported in Lithuania and in Norway. Probably they weren’t properly recognized. Some of coins have holes and handles on. This can 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 century so there is a possibility that a lot of hoards haven’t been discovered yet. The inventory that I’ve made is selected geographically, starting from eastern coast of Baltic 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 Xusrō I, 4 coins of Hormozd IV and 13 dirhams minted by Xusrō II dated at the turn of 6th and 7th century. In other villages – Geta and Svedjelandet - situated on Åland island, Arabic coins hoard was found, with the date of minting after year 842.4 Hovén 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. Княщина) and in Nowa Ladozka (rus. Нoвая Ладожка) and one is being held in Pskov region in the village Mala Struga (rus. Мала Струга). The biggest discovery was being found in Kniashchino. The village is located beside Ładoga Lake and on the coast of the lake 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 Xusrō 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 Ṭabarestān, 33 Abbasid and 9 Ummayad coins, one piece of Idrysid and Spanish Ummayads. There was also a representation of 8 Sasanian coins – 7 of Xusrō 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 of king’s Ubejdullah minces.7 There’s no many information about Pskov regional find in Mala Struga. Nearly all of the explored coins were being sold to private collections and as Markov writes, there is known only one Sasanian drachma representing king Xusrō 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 of Sasanian coins. There’s no evidence of finding Sasanian coins in the nearby the Baltic 4

GRANBERG: 32-35. HOVEN, 1981: 119-129. 6 МАРКОВ, 1910: 32; КРОПОТКИН, 1978: 112; ŁOSIŃSKI, 1988: 152. 7 МАРКОВ, 1910: 32; NOONAN, 1981: 840-886. 8 МАРКОВ, 1910: 39. 5

Page | 185

coast. By the bank of Peipus Lake where most finds were placed, where two sites with Sasanian coins. One in Paunikula and the other one in Võõspu. Paunikula is the excavation site, where were found more than one hundred different coins from eastern and western world like Byzantine, Arab, Saxon coins, jewels and one unknown Sasanian coin. In Võõspu traditionally were found two Xusrō 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 the role of decorative stuff which had been added to the grave. Those coins didn’t carry out in trade market. In Salaspils – Lauskola,10 on excavation site near Riga there was found a Sasanian drachma (Xusrō I) with bronze ear put in crematory woman’s grave. On the second 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 Ṭabarestān.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 Xusrō’s II 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 Ardašīr I (r. 224-242) (Fig. 6) and his son Šāpur I (r. 242-272) (Fig. 7). This is the only place where such an old currencies have been reported. Further south – in Great Poland there are also some interesting sites. In Kłecko were found a hoard firstly mentioned in 1858 in a book about the city. In the hoard there were found jewelleries, bracelets, earrings, necklaces, brooches and coins of “Persian Sasanids”. No more information about, where how many. The hoard was hidden probably in the first 9

МАРКОВ, 1910: 18; GUMOWSKI, 1953: 185. ZARIŅA, 1992: 173-184. 11 BERGA, 1988: 14; МАРКОВ, 1910: 18. 12 МАРКОВ, 1910: 124; ŁĘGA, 1930: 388; GUMOWSKI, 1953: 15. 13 KIERSNOWSKA, KIERSNOWSKI, 1959: 51; GUMOWSKI, 1906: 244; ŁĘGA, 1930: 395-396; STATTLER: 224. 14 МАРКОВ, 1910: 127; KIERSNOWSKA, KIERSNOWSKI, 1959: 51; ŁĘGA, 1930: 388; SADOWSKI: 578; КРОПОТКИН, 1978: 113; ŁOSIŃSKI, 1988: 155. 15 МАРКОВ, 1910: 124; KIERSNOWSKA, KIERSNOWSKI, 1959: 32; ŁĘGA, 1930: 391; LISSAUER, 1887: 198. 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 Dārābgerd in 663-664 CE discovered in Stary Dworek16 and in Obrzycko – a piece of a dirham representing king Ispehbed of Ṭabarestān (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 Xusrō 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 Abdullāh 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 Ardašīr 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 Xusrō 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 Sasanian and come from 32 finds. That shows that I probably didn’t reach all finds 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

16

МАРКОВ, 1910: 117; ŚLASKI, TABACZYŃSKI,1959: 62-63; GUMOWSKI, 1906: 208-209; GUMOWSKI, 1953: 156; STATTLER, 1968: 225; MALMER, 1985: 52. 17 МАРКОВ, 1910: 116; ŚLASKI, TABACZYŃSKI, 1959: 45; KIERSNOWSKI, 1960: 1-15; SADOWSKI, 1877: 52; GUMOWSKI, 1906: 196-197; GUMOWSKI, 1953: 100; STATTLER, 1968: 225. 18 WIECHMANN, 1996: 133-136. 19 МАРКОВ, 1910: 126; KIERSNOWSKI 1960: 54. 20 HERRMANN, 2008. 21 MAYER, 2010. 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 Xusrō II minted in ŠR (Shirayan). 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’ IV dirham minted in NY (Nemavand) in 10th year of king’s rule. Further in years there were found new hoards. Between 1896-1899 more monetary finds, containing Arabic and Sasanian coins were discovered on the Norrby’s land25 (in Björke province) 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 Xusrō II was being found. It was minted in NY (Nemavand) in 29 year of king’s rule. 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. In the same time, between 1896 and 1904, in the same village on Jakobsonn’s land 26 there were 14 different monetary finds found, recognized as a one or few hoards. Those hoards consist of two drachms of Xusrō II. The first coin was minted in ART (Ardašīr-Xorra) in one of 39 years of Xusrō’s rule. The second one was found in two pieces. It was minted in 30th year of king’s rule (619/620 AD) in DA (Dārābgerd). Most of hoards were found accidently while field works. In Norrgårda on Gotland Island27 there was found the only one Šāpur I 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 who’s writing about the excavations, so we now only that there were found “109+332 Persian and Arabic money”. 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); МАРКОВ, 1910: 69. 25 CNS, 1977: V.1, book 2, p. 84, No 9; MALEK, 1993: 247, No 49 (2) (b); ŁOSIŃSKI, 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 Xusrō 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 in 73 finds. Among them there are 7 “Pahlavi coins” – 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 about the find of: “(…) Arabic [coins] within some older dirhams”.31 Such a description points that the “older” Arabic dirhams might be Sasanian 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 don’t give much information concerning context 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 nevertheless the king didn’t have just one type of the crown. Starting with the first šāhānšāh Ardašīr 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; GÖBL, 1971: 7. 33 GÖBL, 1971: Tab. I; ALRAM, 1999: 67-76; HUFF, 2007: 209. 34 HARPER, MEYERS, 1981: 9. MAKSYMIUK, 2017: 108. 30

Page | 189

of earlier finds of coins are being kept in museums’ or in private collections but there are not 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, „Bulletin of the Asia Institute” 13, 67-76. BERGA, T.M. (1988), Monety w archeologicznych znaleziskach (datowane na IX-XII w.), Riga. BOGUCKI, M. (2007), Coin finds in the Viking-Age emporium at Janów Pomorski (Truso) and the'Prussian Phenomenon', [in:] Money circulation in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. Time, range, intensity, S. SUCHODOLSKI (ed.), Warszawa-Kraków, 79-108. Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX-XI qui in Suecia reperti sunt, (1975), vol. 1-Gotland, book 1-Akebäck-Atlingbo, edit. B. Malmer, N.L. Rasmusson, Stockholm. Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX-XI qui in Suecia reperti sunt, (1977), vol. 1-Gotland, book 2-BälButtle, edit. B. Malmer, Stockholm. Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX-XI qui in Suecia reperti sunt, (1982), vol. 1-Gotland, book 4Fardhem-Fröjel, edit. B. Malmer, Stockholm. ERDMANN, K. (1951), Die Entwicklung der sasanidischen Krone, „Ars Islamica”, 15/16, 87-123 GÖBL, R. (1967), Dokumente zur Geschichte der iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien, Wiesbaden. GÖBL, R. (1971), Sasanian Numismatics, Braunschweig. GRANBERG, B. (1966), Förtecerning över vufiskog Myntfynd I Finland, „Studia Orientalia” 34, 60-100. GUMOWSKI, M. (1906), Wykopaliska monet polskich X i XI wieku (z 3 tabl.), Kraków. GUMOWSKI, M. (1953), Polskie skarby monet z X-XI w. (Materiały), 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), Ralswiek auf Rügen. Die slawisch-wikingischen Siedlungen und deren Hinterland. Teil V. Das Hügelgräberfeld in den "Schwarzen Bergen" bei Ralswiek, 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 for Jens Kröger on his 65th Birthday, A. HAGEDORN, A. SHALEM (eds.), Leiden-Boston, 205-229. KIERSNOWSKI, R. (1960), Kilka uwag o znaleziskach monet wczesnośredniowiecznych z Połabia, „Slavia Antiqua” 8, 157-192. KIERSNOWSKA, T., KIERSNOWSKI, R. (1959), Wczesnośredniowieczne skarby srebrne z Pomorza: materiały 2, Wrocław. КРОПОТКИН, В.В. (1978), О топографии кладов куфических монет IX в. в Восточной Европе, Москва. LISSAUER, A. (1877), Die prähistorische Denkmäler der Provinz Westpreussen, Leipzig. ŁĘGA, W. (1930), Kultura Pomorza we wczesnym średniowieczu na podstawie wykopalisk, Toruń. ŁOSIŃSKI, W. (1988), Chronologia napływu najstarszej monety arabskiej na terytorium Europy, „Slavia Antiqua” 31, 93-181.

Page | 190

MAKSYMIUK, K. (2017), The Sasanian Relief at Salmās – 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, „Numismatics Chronicle” 153, 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. Pieniądz Europy średniowiecznej, S.K. KUCZYŃSKI, S. SUCHODOLSKI, Warszawa, 49-56. МАРКОВ, А. (1910), Топогрпфия кладов восточных монет (сасанидських и куфичеських), Ст. Петерсбург. 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), Wykaz zabytków przedhistorycznych na ziemiach polskich porzecza Warty i Baryczy, Kraków. 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.), „Slavia Antiqua” 15, 215-270. STENBERGER, M (1947), Die Schätzfunde Gotlands der Wikingerzeit, vol. 1, Text, vol. 2, Fund beschreibung und Taffeln, Lund. ŚLASKI, J., TABACZYŃSKI, S. (1959), Wczesnośredniowieczne skarby srebrne Wielkopolski. Materiały I, Warszawa. WAUGH, D. (2011), The Spillings Hoard in the Gotlands Museum, „The Silk Road” 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 „Ringbrecher" zur Münzwirtschaft, Neumünster. ZARIŅA, A. (1992). Die Kontakte der Liven mit skandinavischen Ländern nach den Schmucksachen des Gräberfeldes aus dem 10.-13. Jh. zu Salaspils Laukskola, [in:] Die Kontakte zwischen Ostbaltikum und Skandinavien im frühen Mittelalter. Internationale Konferenz, Riga, 23.-25. Oktober 1990, A. LOIT, E. MUGUREVIČS, A. CAUNE (eds.), 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 Xusrō I (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. XII/196).

Fig. 4. A coin of Hormozd IV (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. XII/200).

Fig. 5. A coin of Xusrō II (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. XIII/210).

Fig. 6. A coin of Ardašīr I (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. I/10).

Page | 193

Fig. 7. A coin of Šāpur I (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. II/32).

Fig. 8. A coin of Ziyad ibn abu Sufiyan (after: Göbl, 1967: 10).

Fig. 9. Arab-Sasanian coin from Ṭabarestān (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 “popular ones”. One of my observations led me 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; [email protected] 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 “being equal”. There does, of course, exist some further 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), Qarašahr, 6th-7th century CE.5 British Museum inv. no. MAS.1062. © The Trustees of the British Museum.

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 “skeleton” 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 Ērānšahr territory. In autumn 1963, during excavations in Shaikhān-Dherī, Chārsada, 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 Shaikhān-Dherī helmet 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 ShaikhānDherī in his reconstruction of a helmet. In my opinion result led to many construction 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 Shaikhān-Dherī 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 LUR’E, 2009. 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 Shaikhān-Dherī have a lacing form 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 Kipčakovo21 (rus. Кипчаково) in Ryazan Oblast (rus. Рязанская область) 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 in essentially similar to the Kipčakovo find, as well as to well preserved later Tibetan 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 the Kipčakovo helmet (Fig. 4), being laced to the lower edge of the helmet by a leather straps. 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. Тарасовский могильник) in the Udmurt Republic (rus. Удмуртская Республика) of the Russian Federation. So that possibility cannot be excluded.

Fig. 2. Helmet from Kipčakovo with a scale neck guard, (reconstruction by A.E. Negin, after: Zubov, Radiush, 2014: ris. 1.3).

23

See for example: GOLDINA, BERNCH, 2016: ris. 3. Page | 199

Fig. 3. Shaikhān-Dherī, Chārsada, Pakistan, late Kušān period, mid. 3rd century CE, helmet elements, (after: Allchin, 1970: fig. 1-2: 1). Circular plate finial. 2. Fragment of one of the helmet’s main lames. 3. Fragments of segmented cheek pieces. 4. Scale neck guard form.

Page | 200

Fig. 4. Helmet from Shaikhān-Dherī with a scale neck guard, (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 Shaikhān-Dherī, the most likely round 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 Kušān period, mid. 3rd 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 ShaikhānDherī helmet. All know representations show a round form of the helmet bowl. Longer forms with a characteristic depression in the upper part of the construction being to appear in the so called “West” at the turn of the 6th-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. Калкни) in 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 those correlations we need to go back to B.M. Salihov’s reconstruction and to suggest that it is apparently incorrect. To prove this we need to look once again on Salihov’s drawings. 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. A pair of metal ears which in B.M. Salihovs’ opinion formed part of the lower rim.29 The problem with B.M. Salihov’s reconstruction of that particular find starts with the high of the fragment of the lower rim with mail attachment.30 That mail piece clearly belonged to the helmet’s neck guard which was placed on the back of the helmet. The high 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 24

PAULSEN, 1967: 133-137; WERNER, 1988: abb. 15; JÄGER, 2006: abb. 18; LUR’E, 2013: 27; KUBIK, 2016a: fig. 5. 25 SALIHOV, 1985: ris. V. 26 BAKUSHEV, 2005: 44; GADĪIEV, MALASHEV, 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. 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 as on B.M. Salihovs’ reconstruction suggested. Furthermore, the appearance of solid cheek 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 CE?), Archäologische Staatssammlung Museum, Munich. inv. no. 1987, 995, (photo by St. Friedrich).

In the Archäologische Staatssammlung Museum, Munich, Gernany, there are many 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 in this gypsum mold is the armoured rider’s form of the helmet. This helmet was depicted 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 Shaikhān-Dherī or Kipčakovo helmets. 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. Андреевка) in Bolšeignatovskiī District (rus. Большеигнатовский район) 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 Tāq-e Bostān Museum and dating to the 6th-7th century CE (Fig. 9).39 This column fragment was originally discovered at Bīsetūn40 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 Tāq-e Bostān 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 of Kišpek burial43 (rus. Кишпек) placed in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic (rus. Кабардино-Балкарская Республика) 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 rectangular form. In reality the construction form of the helmet from Kišpek is 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 to the Tāq-e Bostān column capital find then to the generally proposed Roman Berkasovo44 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, VUJOVIĆ, 2011: 8, COULSTON, 2013: 470-471. Polemic with Eurocentric thesis see: VASIL’EV, KARIMOV, 2008: 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. Пермская область) and Tomsk (rus. Томская область) 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 Ērānšahr territory appears on the gold dinars of Xusrō 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 Tāq-e Bostān capital. The only protective armour shown is just the helmet, and there is no evidence of a mail neck guard, hood or coif as shown on Tāq-e Bostān representation. The only important armour 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 Ērānšahr 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 simply don’t know, but perhaps further studies on this topic will shed more light on that interesting question.

Fig. 8. Dinar of Xusrō 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 Bīsetūn, Central-Western Iran and currently held in Tāq-e Bostān 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: Tāq-e Bostān lamellar helmet, 6th-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 Gallery. © Royal Armouries. See: Larocca, 1999: fig. 3, 2006, No. 11.

Bibliography ALLCHIN, F.R. (1970), A piece of scale armour from Shaikhan Dheri, Charsada, „Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society” 2, 113-120. BAKUSHEV, M.A. (2005), Obrīad porči inventarâ v pogrebal’nyh pamâtnikah Dagestana AlanoSarmackogo vremieni, „Vestnik Instituta Istorii, Arheologii i Etnografii” 3, 42-50. BETROZOV, R.Z. (1987), Kurgany gunnskogo vremeni u s. Kišpek, [in:] Arheologičeskie issledovaniâ na novostroīkah Kabardino-Blakarii 1972-1979, T. 3, V.A. KUZNEČOV (ed.), Nalčyk, 13-25. BENAZETH, D. (2006), Les textiles de luxe, marqueurs de la royalité, [in:] Les Perses sassanides. Fastes d’une empire oublié (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., VUJOVIĆ, M. (2011), Late Roman helmet from Jarak, Novy Sad. GADĪIEV, M.S., MALASHEV, V.YU. (2014), «Knâzheskie» i elitne voinskie pogrebienia pozdnesarmatskogo i gunskogo vremeni v Dagestane, „Kratkie Soobšeniīa Instituta Arheologii” 234, 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, „Silk Road Art and Archaeology” 1, 99-122. GOLDINA, R.D., BERNCH, V.A. (2016), Hronologiâ muzhskih pogrebeniī III-V v.v. Tarasovskogo Mogilnika, „Povolzhska Arheologiâ” 17, 17-58. GORELIK, M.V. (1982), Kušanskii dospieh, [in:] Drevnââ Indiâ: Istoriko-kul’turnīe svâzi, G.M. BONGARD-LEVIN (ed,), Moskva, 82-112. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, J. (2010), ḴOSROW II, [in:] Encyclopædia 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 Annėe” 63, 107-134. JÄGER, U. (2006), Der griechisch-hellenistiche Muskelpanzer und sein Fortlaben in Zentralasien, 4. Jh. v. Chr. Bis 8./9. Jh. v. Chr. : Ein kurzer Beitrag zum rüstungstechnologichen Nachleben 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:] Ērān ud Anērān: Studies Presented to Boris Maršak on Occasion of His 70th Birthday, 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 i Świat” 5, 77-105. KUBIK, A.L. (2016b), Przedstawienia koron/tiar ukazane na malowidłach z kościoła pod wezwaniem Św. Merkuriusza w miejscowości Lalibela, Etiopia. Pozostałość wpływów sasanidzkiego Iranu? [in:] Istorìâ relìgìj v Ukraïnì: naukovij šorìčnik, O. KIRIČUK, M. OMEL'ČUK (eds.), L'vìv, 619-622. LAROCCA, D. (1999), An approach to the study of arms and armour from Tibet, „Royal Armouries Yearbook” 4, 113-132. LAROCCA, D. (2006), Warriors of the Himalayas, rediscovering the arms and armor of Tibet, New York-London. LENZ, E.E. (1902), Predmety vooruzheniâ i konskago ubora, najdene blizh’sela Dem’ânovki, Melitopol’skago u’zda, „Izv’stiâ Imperatorskoi Arheologičeskoi Kommissii” 2, 81-94. LUR’E, E.V. (2009), Šlemy epohi morovingov: lesnoi mir i german’čy. [http://samlib.ru/l/lurxe_e_w/helme.shtml (accessed July 20, 2017)] LUR’E, E.V. (2013), Šlem iz mogilnika u s. Kišpek i klassifikachiâ šlemov s sostavnym kupolom rimskogo vremeni, [in:] Tret’â Abhazkaâ mezhdunarodnaâ konferenčiâ. Posvâšena pamīati G. K. Šamba. Problemy drevneī i srednevekovoi arheologii Kavkaza. Materialy konferenčīi, 28 Noīabrâ-1 Dekabrâ 2011 goda, g. Suhum, V.Š. AVIDZBA (ed.), Suhum, 268-278. MACKENSEN, M. (2007), Spätantike zweiteilige Gipsmatrize aus Nordafrika für Tonstatuetten eines behelmten östlichen Reiters, „Jahrbuch des Römisch Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz” 54, 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), Pozdnerimskie šlemy: problemy genesisa, „Antiqvitas Aeterna” 2, 335-359. NEGIN, A.E. (2015), Roman helmets with a browband shaped as a vertical fronton, „Historia i Świat” 4, 31-46. NIKONOROV, V.P. (1997), Armies of Bactria 700 BC - 450 AD, Vol. 2, Stockport. OZHEREDOV, YU.I. (1987), Starčinskie nahodki, [in:] Voennoe delo drevnogo naseleniâ Severnoi Azīi, V.E. MEDVEDEV, YU.S. HUDĪAKOV (eds.) Novosybirsk, 114-120. PAULSEN, P. (1967), Alamanniche Adelsgräben von Niederstotzingen, I, Stuttgart. RADIUSH, O.A. (2014), Šlemy epohi pereseleniâ narodov iz podneprov’â, [in:] Voinskie Tradičii v Arhaeologičeskom Kontekste: ot pozdnego latena do pozdnego srednevekov’â, 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), Hełm wojownika przedstawionego na kapitelu w Tak e Bostan, „Acta Militaria Mediaevalia” 3, 9-28. SKUPNIEWICZ, P.N. (2016), The iconographic function of armor in Sasanian art, „Rivista degli studi orientali” 88, 251-281. STEIN, M.A. (1921), Serindia: detailed report of archaeological explorations in Central Asia and Westernmost China, Oxford. SYMONENKO, O.V. (2015), Sarmatskie vsadniki severnogo pričernomoria, Izd. 2. Kiev. VASIL’EV, A.A., KARAMOV, T.M. (2008), Šlem iz knâzheskogo pogreblenia u s. Kišpek, „Nizhnevolskiī Arheologičeski Vestnik" 9, 238-246. WERNER, J. (1988), Adelsgräber von Niederstotzingen bei Ulm und von Bokchondong in Südkorea: Jenseitsvorstellungen vor Rezeption von Christentum und Buddhismus im Lichte vergleichender Archäologie, München. WHITFIELD, R. (1985), Textiles, Sculpture and Other Arts (The Art of Central Asia), vol.3, Tokyo. ZUBOV, S.E. (1999), K probleme etnokulturnoī iterpretačii pamjatnikov andreevskogo-piseral’skogo tipa, [in:] Issledovanija P. D. Stepanova I etnokulturna prochessy drevnosti I sovremiennosti: materialy mezhdunarodnoi naučnoī konferenčii posviašennoi 100-letniyu P. D. Stepanova, N.M. ARSENT’EV (ed.), Saransk, 44-51. ZUBOV, S.E. (2011), Voinskie migračii rimskogo vremeni v Srednem Povolzh’e (I-III v.v.), Saarbrücken. ZUBOV, S.E., RADIUSH, O.A. (2014), Šlemy Srednego Povolz'â v srednesarmatskoe vremâ, [in:] Sarmaty i vnešniī mir. Materialy VIII Vserossiīskoī (s mezhdunarodnym učastiem) naučnoī konferenčii «Problemy Sarmatskoi Arheologii i Istorii» IIJAL UNCH RAN, 12-15 Maīa 2014 g., L.T. JABLONSKIĪ, N.S. SABEL’EV (eds.), 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān is the main evidence for employment 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān are representations on the reverses of the coins of Xusrō II, sometimes named as “Anāhitā” type. Similarity between the coinage and the capital allows to identify the personages as the same. This excludes the goddess as possible portrayed personage. Similarly possibility to identify the personage as Vərəθraγna-Bahrām should be refuted due to connection with Bahrām Čōbīn. If the emissions of the coins with the personage in the lamellar helmet were to commemorate the revenge over the murderers of Emperor Maurice than mentioning the name of Bahrām in positive context would be inappropriate. The most likely solution seems 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, Ṭāq-e Bostān, Bīsetūn

Among the figurative decorations of capitals from Bīsetūn, belonging to Ṭāq-e Bostān collection, one can find depiction of a frontally presented, haloed, half-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; [email protected] 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 of the personage on the capital from Bīsetūn, belonging to Ṭāq-e Bostān collection, 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 or “Parthian” hat, (2) conical and (3) hemispherical. 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān. This relates even closer to the lamellar helmet from Kerch but 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 and Ethiopian bishops’ tiaras. Acceptance of the form of segmented, metallic headgear as a symbol of status could follow Sasanian-Ethiopian conflict in Yemen or could result in Iranian occupation of Egypt during the reign of Xusrō II Parvēz (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 Ṭāq-e Bostān 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 spāhbedan 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 another capital from Bīsetūn (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 the depictions of the series of the coins issued by Xusrō II from 610, sometimes ascribed as “Anāhitā series” (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 GÖBL, 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 Kušān numismatics and on the coinage of Farn Sasan however in Kušān 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 Xusrō II do not have beards or mail coifs, they do not carry the ring either. The difference allowed identification of the personages on the coins as Anāhitā and Ādur or the personification of the royal glory (xwarrah). The identification with Anāhitā seems based solely on the lack of facial hair and habitual attribution of all female figures as Anāhitā.26 At the same time it must be mentioned that as far as accounts of Anāhitā 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 Anāhitā – the goddess of the waters, which was observed earlier by Gyselen27 who examined possible relation of the theme with Anāhitā, Xusrō’s spouse, Mithra, Ādur and 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 Anāhitā: 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’s recovery of the 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 of the first emission of the “Anāhitā” coinage, with strong suggestion that it was made couple of decades later but before the battle of Nivavand. Positive identification of the personages on the discussed coins and on the capital at Ṭāq-e Bostān would most likely exclude Anāhitā as the personage on the capital wears a beard which, most likely would not be worn by the goddess.31 Also identification with Ādur should be abandoned as flamed haloes appear only on the coins and the personages on the capitals have standard, round haloes. The remaining options are Vərəθraγna and xwarrah, especially in the light of the fact that in the Dādistān ī dēnīg32 it is stated that Bahrām is seen in the fire.33 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 – 610, a year when Xusrō II “won” the war instigated under auspices of revenge of Maurice’s death.35 In 610 Herakleios was successful in coup d’etate and had overthrown and killed Phokas. Formally, the goal of the war was therefore achieved and Xusrō could rightfully announce his victory. This fact did not require the war to end, as the matter of fact the conflict continued successfully and in fact was gaining the momentum so the king remained “victorious” in following emissions. Therefore the most adequate personage, from mazdean pantheon, to commemorate Xusrō’s military success, seems Vərəθraγna – 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 mentioned in coins’ legend. Employment of allegoric figure instead of deity would also allow Xusrō II to avoid quoting on his coinage the name/the patron of his primal enemy – Bahrām Čōbīn.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 described by Firdawsī, already started.37 Perhaps his theophoric name was never avoided and never associated with the mutineer in official communication as this was the name of several Sasanian kings, nevertheless Bahrām Čōbīn 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 Parvēz 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 Anāhitā appeared in mediaeval Iranian poetry. Also bearded Tychai from Parthian coinage should be recalled in this pace. 32 Dādistān ī dēnīg, 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

Vərəθraγna/Bahrām, seems risky and inappropriate. This seems abundantly clear if the coins were to commemorate the revenge of king’s true friend – Maurice, whose only redeeming quality was his assistance in defeating Bahrām Čōbīn.39 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 only in Xusrō II’s time as an equivalent of common military headgear which became popular after reconquista of the Eastern provinces and defeating of the kaganate by his grandfather and also as a result of military success of Bahrām Čōbīn early during Parvēz’s reign. In that case the surficial similarity of the personage on the discussed capital and the rider in Ṭāq-e Bostān might indeed be explained as the figure of victory, just as much as the riders on the spāhbedan 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: 63-73; JÄGER, 2006; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2007; SKUPNIEWICZ, 2007. 40

Page | 216

Bibliography Sources Dādestān ī dēnīg. Part I, transcription, translation and commentary, tr. M. JAAFARI-DEHAGHI, Paris 1998. Literature BARNES, G.L., (2000), Archaeological Armor in Korea and Japan: Styles, Technology and Social Settings, „Journal of East Asian Associacion” 2, 3-4, 61-95. BIER, C., (1989), Anāhitā in the Arts, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 1.9, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 1003-1011. CHAUMONT, M., (1958), Le culte d'Anhit à Staxr et les premiers Sassanides, „Revue de l'histoire des religions”, 153.2, 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), „Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Rivista della Facoltà di lingue e letterature straniere dell’Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia” 45.3, (Serie orientale 37), 163-208. COMPARETI, M., (2012), The Representation of Anāhitā in Sasanian Art: The Case of Taq-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 along the “Silk Road”, „The Silk Road” 14,71-83. GALL VON, H. (1990), The Figural Capitals at Taq-e Bostan and the Question of the so-called Investiture in Parthian and Sasanian Art, „Silk Road Art and Archaeology” 1, 99-122. GLAD, D. (2009), Origine et diffusion de l’équipement défensif corporel en Méditerranée orientale (IVe-VIIIe s.) Contribution à l’étude historique et archéologique des armées antiques et médiévales, Venezia-Madrid-Aix-en-Provence-París-Florencia. GLAD, D. (2012), The Empire’s influence on the barbarian elites from the Pontic region to the Rhine (5th-7th centuries): A case study of lamellar weapons and segmental helmet, [in:] The PonticDanubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration, V. IVANIŠEVIČ, M. KAZANSKI (eds.), Paris-Beograd, 349-362. GNOLI, J., (1988), Bahrām (Vərəθraγna), [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 3.5, E. YARSHATER (ed.), New York, 510-514. GÖBL, R. (1967), Dokumente zur Geschichte der iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien, Wiesbaden. GÖBL, R., (1971), Sasanian Numismatics, Braunschweig. GYSELEN, R. (2000), Un dieu nimbé de flames l’époque Sassanide, „Iranica Antiqua” 25, 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), Ḵosrow II, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, online, [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii (accessed July 10, 2017)] JÄGER, U. (2006), Der griechisch-hellenistische Muskelpanzer und sein Fortleben in Zentralasien, 4. Jh. v. Chr. bis 8./9. Jh. n. Chr.: Ein kurzer Beitrag zum rüstungstechnologischen Nachleben 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, „Historia i Świat” 5, 77-105. KUBIK, A.L. (2016b), Przedstawienia koron/tiar ukazane na malowidłach z kościoła pod wezwaniem Św. Merkuriusza w miejscowości Lalibela, Etiopia. Pozostałość wpływów sasanidzkiego Iranu?, [in:] Istorìâ relìgìj v Ukraïnì: naukovij šorìčnik, O. KIRIČUK, M. OMEL'ČUK (eds.), Lvìv, 619-622. 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 Salmās – 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) and Anāhitā,„Nāme-ye Irān Bāstān. The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies” 2/1, 23-40. MEADOWS, I. (2004), An Anglian Warrior Burial from Wollaston, Northamptonshire, Northampton. MIKS, CH. (2008), Spätrömische Kammhelme mit hoher Kammscheibe, „Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz”, 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, „Antiqvitas Aeterna” 2, 335-359. NEGIN, A.E. (2010a), K voprosu o vremeni poyavleniya v pozdnerimskoy armii shlemov s prodolnym grebnyem, „Vestnik Nizhegorodkogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobacheskogo. Istoriya” 3.1, 239-244. NEGIN, A.E. (2010b), Pozdnerimskiye shlemi s prodolnym grebnyem, „Germania-Sarmatia” 2, 343-357. NEGIN, A.E. (2015), Roman helmets with a browband shaped as a vertical fronton, „Historia i Świat” 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), Šlemy epohi pereseleniâ narodov iz podneprov’â, [in:] Voinskie Tradičii v Arhaeologičeskom Kontekste: ot pozdnego latena do pozdnego srednevekov’â, I.G. BURČEV (ed.), Tula, 40-51 REZAKHANI, K. (2017), ReOrienting the Sasanians. East Iran in Late Antiquity, Edinbourgh. SHAHBAZI, A. SH. (1988), Bahrām VI Čōbīn, [in:] Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 3.5, 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, „Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae” 19, Łódź, 19-33. SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2007), Hełm wojownika przedstawionego na kapitelu w Tak e Bostan, „Acta Militaria Mediaevalia” 3, 9-28. SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2016), The iconographic function of armor in Sasanian art, „Rivista degli studi orientali” 88, 251-281. SKUPNIEWICZ, P. (2017), The bullae of the spahbedan. Iconographic remark, „Historia i Świat” 6, 107-120. SYMONENKO, O.V. (2015), Sarmatskie vsadniki severnogo prichernomoria, Izd. 2. Kiev. SYVÄNNE, 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 des temples de la déesse Anahita en Iransassanide, „Iranica Antiqua” 7, 121-132. VASILYEV, A.A., KARAMOV, T.M. (2008), Shlem iz knyazheskogo pogreblenia u s. kishpek, „Niznevolski arheologicheski vestnik” 9, 238-246. ZUBOV, S.E., RADIUSH, O.A. (2014), Shlemy Srednego Povolz’ja v srednesarmatskoe vremja, [in:] Sarmaty i vneshnij mir. Materialy VIII Vserossijskoj (s mezdunarodnym uchastiem) nauchnoj konferenchii «Problemy sarmatskoi archeologii i istorii» IIJAL UNCH RAN, 12-15 Maja 2014 g, L.T. JABLONSKIJ, N.S. SABEL’EV (eds.), Ufa, 94-104.

Page | 219

Picture captions

Fig. 1. The helmeted and armored personage on the capital at Ṭāq-e Bostān, (after: Comapareti, 2006: 185, fig. 4).

Fig. 2. The helmeted and armored personage on the capital at Ṭāq-e Bostān, (after: Compareti, 2006: 186, fig. 8). Page | 220

Fig. 3. The rider from the large grotto at Ṭāq-e Bostān, (after: Compareti, 2006: 187, fig. 7).

Fig. 4. A personage from another capital from Bīsetūn, (after: Compareti, 2006: 189, fig 12). Page | 221

Fig. 5. The personages on the reverses of the “Anāhitā series” coins of Xusrō II. (after: Göbl, 1971: pl. XIV/218).

Fig. 6. The personage on the reverses of the coins of Tegin, king of Khurasan, (after: Göbl, 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, Bandar Rig, Buddhist culture, Fāṭimid, finial, Ḡaznavid, gilded decoration. Saffārid, Sāmānid, Šāh-nāma, 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 provisionally dated to the close of the Saffārid era (late 10th 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.



[email protected]

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 “correction” 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; one reportedly having been found in Raqāda near Kairawan in Tunisia (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 onepiece construction as the helmets from Raqāda and Chamosen, but has the remains 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 now in the Römisch-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 “pagoda style” finial is seen on a possibly Tibetan helmet 2 3

SAMIBAYEV, 1992. ЛЕНЦ, 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 “conical helmets”.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 “egg-like” 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 “egg-like” shape. There seems to be no strong reason why it must necessarily be “egg-like” in being forged from one piece of metal. In this early period it seems possible that the baidah was merely “not pointed”, 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, passage in Abū Jacfar Muḥammad Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī's monumental History of the Prophets and Kings. It described a combined Tibetan, Turkish and Hephthalite (Hayātila) attack on the Muslim Arab held citadel of Tirmiḏ (Termez) which was held by Mūsā Ibn cAbdullah Ibn Kāẓem in 704 CE. According to al-Ṭabarī, the attackers suffered high casualties, including those with baidah ḏāt qūnas (or qawnas), but even more so amongst those with baidah jammā'u. The former have been translated as wearers of “pointed helmets” and the latter as wearers of “rounded helmet”.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 Ḥamāsa 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 “possessing crowns of the head”, and the latter as helmets “brought” or “gathered” or “assembled together”. I would further suggest that al-Ṭabarī was drawing a distinction between helmets with a onepiece 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 ḏāt qūnas 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; Ṭabarī, 1879-1901: 1153. 8 FLEISCHER, 1988: 450 & fig. 6. 9 Ḥamāsa, 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 ajrās mentioned by the 9th century writer Abū cUṯmān cAmr Ibn Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ in the context of military equipment may not actually have meant “bells”, at least not in a literal sense.10 Despite listing so many items of arms and armour for both men and horses, al-Jāḥiẓ surprisingly makes no mention of helmets. Might it be possible that his use of the term ajrās reflected current, almost slang terminology amongst soldiers, and have meant “bell-shaped” 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 Abū Bakr Muḥammad Ibn Jacfar Naršaḵī (c. 899-959 CE), silver seems to have become increasingly abundant from the initial Arab-Islamic conquest to the Sāmānid era.12 Chinese travellers also noted an abundant use of silver on belts and knives amongst the Muslim Arabs, probably refering to cAbbāsid Iraq.13 Here Arab sources recorded that certain levels of such decoration were reserved for men of a certain rank, the Caliph al-Muctaṣim (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 “rebel” Ṣaffārid dynasty (861-1003 CE) which dominated south-eastern Iran, extended Muslim rule deeper into Afghanistan, and competed with the “loyalist” Sāmānid dynasty (819-1005 CE) for domination of the eastern Islamic world, was notably flamboyant in this respect. For example, when the founder of the Ṣaffārid dynasty, Yacqūb Ibn Layṯ al- Ṣaffār, seized Nīšāpūr in 873 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 Ṭāhirid foes. The chronicler Abū'l-Ḥasan cAlī Ibn al-Ḥusayn Ibn cAlī al-Mascūdī further described these two thousand élite soldiers as half carrying gilded maces, half with silvered maces, though these weapons only ceremonial.15 Later Ṣaffārid rulers had a guard corps of senior officers who wore equally ornamental belts .16 Even more is known of the contemporary Sāmānid court and its élite troops, largely because so many of the military details which abound in the huge Šāh-nāma verse epic by Ḥakim Abū'l-Qāsim Firdawsī Tūsī (940-1020 CE) probably reflect the later Sāmānid army. Although the Šāh-nāma was initially written with a view to presenting it to the Sāmānid ruler, it was eventually offered to the Turkish Sultan Maḥmūd of Ḡazna who had overthrown the last Sāmānid. The abundance of silver in the Sāmānid realm at its height was reflected in the large amount of Sāmānid silver coinage which was brought back to northern Europe by Scandinavian merchants. Indeed oriental coinage, largely of silver and overwhelmingly 10

Jāḥiẓ, 1915: 646; 671; Jāḥiẓ, 1965: 19-20; 53. GINDI, 1952: 159. 12 Naršaḵī, 2007: 51-53. 13 MAHLER, 1959: 102. 14 Ṭabarī, 1951: 19. 15 BOSWORTH, 1968: 546. 16 BOSWORTH, 1968: 547. 11

Page | 227

Sāmānid, was vital to economic life in Russia, Central Europe, the Baltic lands and Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries. Furthermore, this trade stopped abruptly in the very early 11th century CE following the fall of the Sāmānid dynasty in 1005 CE.17 Returning to the Šāh-nāma, 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 Šāh-nāma itself, these mentions can become repetative to modern ears but it is still worth quoting a few: Rustem fights Afrāsiyāb; “His flag and mail are black, his helm and brassards, Of iron flecked with gold, his plume is sable”.18 When axes; “Crashed on gold helm and shield”.19 Of the army of Afrāsiyāb which had; “.... golden helmets and golden shields”.20 Mention of helmet decoration; “Struck with his sword the helmet of his foe, Upon the crest, and death came there and then”.21 Niẓām al-Mulk's Abū' cAlī Ḥasan Ibn cAlī Tūsī (1018-1092 CE) well known description of an ideal guard corps was based upon what was supposed to have been Sāmānid concepts. It included an élite with gilded belts and shields, and a slightly larger number of men with silvered belts and shields.22 Niẓām al-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 “silver crisis” which coincided with the fall of the Sāmānids. The élite ḡulams troops of their Ḡaznavid successors reportedly had jewelled weapons with gold and silver mountings,24 for example during the reception of cAbbāsid Caliphal envoys from Baghdad in 423 AH (1031/2 CE). On that occasion two thousand palace troops had headresses “shaped like two horns”, 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. Firdawsī, 1905, vol. 2: 13; Firdawsī, 1877-1880: 301. 19 Firdawsī, 1905, vol. 2: 15; Firdawsī, 1877-1880: 303-304. 20 Firdawsī, 1905, vol. 2: 17; Firdawsī, 1877-1880: 307. 21 Firdawsī, 1905, vol. 3: 104; Firdawsī, 1877-1880: 1239. 22 Niẓām al-Mulk, 1960: 96-97; Niẓām al-Mulk, 1932: 67. 23 Niẓām al-Mulk, 1960: 97; Niẓām al-Mulk, 1932: 67. 24 BOSWORTH, 1963: 107-108. 25 KOHZAD, 1951: 48-51. 18

Page | 228

India and hence their élite ḡulams still wore gold or gilded belts when the occasion demanded.26 Silver and gilded silver decoration was present on parade weapons and other equipment during a Fāṭimid parade in the late 11th early 12th century CE, though there was no specific mention of helmets.27 Fāṭimid 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 Faḵr-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 spāhbed 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 “wicked” figures and might thus reflect the Byzantine artists' association of round helmets of one-piece construction with “wicked” 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 “pagoda” 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 Firdawsī, Šāh-nāma, ed. J.A. VULLERS, Leiden 1877-1880. Firdawsī, Šāh-nāma, 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. Ḥamāsa [Hamasae Carmina], ed. and tr. F G.W.F. REYTAG, Bonn 1828-1861. Jāḥiẓ, Abū cUṯmān cAmr Ibn Baḥr al-, Rasā'il al-Jāḥiẓ, ed. HĀRŪN, cABD AL-SALĀM MUḤAMMAD, Cairo-Baghdad 1965. Jāḥiẓ, Abū cUṯmān cAmr Ibn Baḥr al-, [Rasā'il al-Jāḥiẓ ], Jāhiz of Basra to Al-Fath ibn Khāqān on the Exploits of the Turks and the Army of the Khalifate in General, tr. C.T. HARLEY-WALKER, „Journal of the Royal Asiaic Society” 1915, 631-697. Naršaḵī, The History of Bukhara [2nd edition with additional material], ed. and tr. R.N. FRYE, Princeton 2007. Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyāsat Nāma, ed. SAYYID cABD AL-RAḤĪM ḴALḴALĪ, Tehran 1932. Niẓām al-Mulk, The Book of Rules for Kings: The Siyāsat Nāma, tr. H. DARKE, London 1960. Ṭabarī, The Reign of al-Muctaṣim (833-842), tr. E. MARIN, New Haven 1951. Ṭabarī, Tarīḵ al-Rusūl wa'l-Mulūk, vol. 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 Ṣaffārids, „Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies” 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 Orientales”10, 364-398. CANARD, M. (1965), L'Expansion Arabe; le problème militaire, „Settimane di Studi del Centro Italianio di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo” 12, 37-63. DUNLOP, D.M. (1973), Arab Relations with Tibet, „Islam Tetkikleri Enstitusu Dergisi” 5, 301-319. FLEISCHER, H.L. (1988), Kleinere Schriften, vol. 3, Leipzig. FRIES, N. (1921), Das Heereswesen der Araber zur Zeit der Omaijaden Nach Tabarī, Tübingen. GESSLER, E.A. (1930), Der Kalotten-Helm von Chamoson, „Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenund Kostümkunde” 3, 121-127. GINDI, A.M.A. EL- (1952), Martial Poetry among the Arabs in the Jāhiliyah, 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, „Afghanistan” 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), „Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran” (Archaeological Researches of Iran, Journal of Department 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, „Sasanika Archaeology” 4 1-5. ЛЕНЦ, Э.Э. (1902), Предметы вооружения и конского убора, найденные близ села Демьяновки, Мелитопольского уезда, „Известия имп. Археологической Комиссии” 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 Saffārid era, late 10th century CE, shown without its decorative finial. Private collection, (drawing by the author).

Fig. 4. Top of the probably late Saffārid 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 Saffārid helmet 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 Saffārid era, with 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 found at Raqāda in central Tunisia and thought 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 sheets of silver. Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum, Mainz; photographs courtesy of the Römisch-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 “pagoda” 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 spāhbed military frontier governors, late 6th or early 7th centuries. Saeedi Collection, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, (drawing by the author).

Page | 242

Fig. 22. “Goliath”, 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 “David's victory over Goliath”, Chludov Psalter, Byzantine manuscript, 829-837 CE. State Historical Museum, folio 148r, Moscow; photograph courtesy of the State Historical Museum.

Page | 243

Fig. 24. “David slaying Goliath” in the Bristol Psalter, Byzantine manuscript, 10th century. British Library, Add MS. 40731, folio 240r, London; photograph courtesy of the British Library.

Fig. 25. “Absolom pursuing David” 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 Ṭāq-e Bostān, Iran, (photo by the author). Page | 245

Fig. 28. Carved capital, originally from Bisatun, Sasanian late 6 th or early 7th century. Archaeological Park, Ṭāq-e Bostān, Iran, (photo courtesy A. Danashgar).

Fig. 29. Carved capital, originally from Bisatun, Sasanian late 6th or early 7 th century. Archaeological Park, Ṭāq-e Bostān, Iran, (photo courtesy A. Danashgar). Page | 246

Fig. 30. Figures of warriors on a wall-painting from a Buddhist temple at Kuça, 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 Sāmānid, 10th century. Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 40.170.23. New York, (photo by the author).

Page | 248

Fig. 34. Sāmānid or Būyid 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, Sāmānid eastern Iran or Central Asia. Reza Abbasi Museum, Tehran, (drawing by the author).

Fig. 39. Stucco statuette from a Buddhist shrine at Sorçuk, Turkish, Sinkiang 8 th century. Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, (drawing by the author). Page | 252

Fig. 40A-B Painted silk fragment from a Manichaean Temple near Koço, Turkish, Sinkiang 8 th or 9th century. Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, (drawing by the author).

Fig. 41. Painted paper fragment, Uighur, from Yar near Koço, Turkish, Sinkiang 9 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; [email protected] 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 Kuban and Black sea Region (P’YANKOV, 2001). 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 “4 miles westwards from the right bank of the Oskol river, in a ravine near the top of Popov Forest”.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’ website in Ukraine (Fig. 4). The helmet, crushed and broken 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. The helmet from burial №8 of Bezhtinsk cemetery (after: Ataev, 1963: fig. 27, 5).

But most exciting analogy is another helmet featuring deep semicircular cut-offs on its plates. It was found in burial №8 of Bezhtinsk cemetery (excavations of 1957).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. The circles were covered with “copper plates”. The helmet used to 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 century. The material available by now doesn’t let us relate emergence of such helmets to East-European area. The way such helmets spread might be traced by the one from Bezhtinsl burial.

Bibliography AFANASIEV - АФАНАСЬЕВ Г.Е. (1987), Муравьёвский клад (к проблеме оногуро-булгарохазарских миграций в лесостепь), „Советская археология” 1, 193-202. AKSONOV - АКСЬОНОВ В.С. (2004), Салтовский кремационный могильник Сухая Гомольша: проблема этнической принадлежности, „Белгородский историко-археологический сборник. Черноземная лесостепь-контактная зона” 3, 36-50. ATAEV - АТАЕВ, Д.М. (1963), Нагорный Дагестан в раннем средневековье: [по материалам археологических раскопок Аварии], Махачкала. KIRPICHNIKOV - КИРПИЧНИКОВ А.Н. (2009), Раннесредневековые золочёные шлемы. Новые Находки и Наблюдения, Санкт Петербург. P’YANKOV - ПЬЯНКОВ А.В. (2001), Раннесредневековый могильник у п. Ленинский Путь, [в:] Третья Кубанская археологическая конференция. Тезисы докладов. Международной археологической конференции, И.И. МАРЧЕНКО (ред.), Краснодар- Анапа. ZOZULYA, BARYSHEV - ЗОЗУЛЯ С.С., БАРЫШЕВ А.В. (2014), Наруч из собрания Исторического музея, [в:] Воинские традиции в археологическом контексте: от позднего Латена до позднего Средневековья, Тула, 54-61.

13 14

ATAEV (1963) 175. ATAEV (1963) 179-184. Page | 261