Picturing Persian Victory The Painted Ba

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30 www.brill.
nl/acss
Picturing Persian Victory:

he Painted Battle Scene on the Munich Wood
Lâtife Summerer
Abstract
he present article analyses the battle scene on the painted beam in Munich, which originally
belonged to the ensemble of an extensively painted tomb chamber near Tatarlı, and reviews its
interpretation as an historical depiction that was proposed by the first editor Peter Calmeyer. he
author concludes that this battle scene bears no clear indications to connect it with a specific
historical event; rather, it seems to depict an exemplary Persian victory over enemies, who are
conveyed as a unified ethnic group by their uniform costumes and pointed caps.
he article analyses the evidence of the iconography in detail with particular regard to the
forms of narration and the context, and in the light of this review attempts to show alternative
ways how this painted Persian victory may be viewed and interpreted.
Keywords
Phrygia / Kelainai / Persians / Scythians / Battle / Wood painting / Iconography
Introduction1
In 1989 four pieces of wooden beams of unknown origin were handed over to
the “Archäologische Staatssammlung”2 as a gift and permanent loan. In 1993,
Peter Calmeyer published a first acquisition report in the „Münchner Jahr-
bücher”, unfortunately with inadequate and sometimes upside down illustra-
tions.3 Even though shortly thereafter two colour photographs of details of the
beams were published in the exhibition catalogue “Orient und Okzident”,
these pictures were reproduced the wrong way round,4 so that they were not
recognisable as a coherent scenic ensemble. Probably because of this inade-
quate photographic publication, scholars have hardly taken notice of these
important monuments of Achaemenid-era wood painting. Fourteen years
1
I owe thanks to Christopher H. Roosevelt for a critical reading of an early draft of this paper.
2
Formerly the “Prähistorische Staatssammlung”.
3
Calmeyer 1993, 7-18.
4
Zahlhaas 1995, pl. D.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157005707X212643
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 3 8/8/07 4:27:17 PM

4 L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30
after first being published, the Munich beams are still widely unknown. In
literature one finds only a few casual references to them.5 he author of this
paper was able to prove elsewhere that their original context was an extensively
painted wooden tomb chamber in a tumulus near the village Tatarlı, en route
from the royal residence of Kelainai to Gordion.6 he Tumulus in Tatarlı was
raided by the villagers in 19697 and excavated by the Museum of Afyon in
1970. Some beams of the walls were cut off and taken away during the raid-
ing, while the museum staff dismantled the remaining beams and brought
them to the Afyon Museum.8 Detailed technical studies on the planks in the
Afyon Museum showed that the beam with the battle scene was sawed off
from the east wall by the looters in 1969.9
he dimensions of the timber-lined tomb chamber are reported to be
2.50 m × 2 m in length and width and 1.85 m in height. he northern – i.e.
back wall – was made up of 8 beams, while the sidewalls – that is the eastern
and western walls – consisted of 4 beams and the gabled roof of 7 beams.
From the southern wall a door led to a stone barrel-shaped dromos. Addition-
ally, the wooden chamber was enclosed within a stone chamber before being
covered by an earthen mantle.
he Tatarlı wooden tomb chamber is the latest known example of the old
Phrygian tradition of the timber tomb construction. Unlike the earlier tumuli
of the necropolis of Gordion it has a stone mantle and a dromos leading to the
chamber.
he beam with the battle frieze is 221 cm long and 32 cm high and was
sawn in two in recent times, probably to make transportation easier. he two
parts which belong together are easily recognisable due to continuity in the
imagery (Fig. I). Only 1 mm is missing between the parts belonging together,
5
Casual mentions by Jacobs 1994, 138; Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 45; Boardman 2000, 247,
note 150. Borchhardt (2002, 95-96) includes the Munich beams in the catalogue of the histori-
cal scenes referring to Calmeyer’s interpretation. In his book “Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre”,
Briant (2003, 247, fig. 40) republishes a detailed photograph and a drawing of one of the beams
with the combat scene. he drawings are unfortunately faulty regarding some details, since they
have been created from inadequate photographs.
6
Summerer 2007, 115-164. It seems that along this natural route there were other imposing
grave monuments: Athenaeus (XIII, 574 f ) describes the grave monument of Alcibiades, who
was killed in 404 BC by the Satrap Pharnabazos in Melisse on the way between Synnada (Suhut)
and Metropolis (Tatarlı).
7
he raiding of the Tatarlı Tumulus must be seen in the context of the extensive looting of
Lydian tumuli in the years between 1966-1969: Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 12-13; 28-30. See also:
Roosevelt, Luke 2006, 173-174.
8
Uçankuş 1979, 306-334; Uçankuş 2002, 23-51.
9
Detailed architectural studies of wood construction by Alexander von Kienlin are forth-
coming.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 4 8/8/07 4:27:18 PM

L. Summerer / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30 5
destruction caused by the sawing process. On the smoothed surface of the

beam black outlines and red, black, white, brown, grey and blue paint spots
still remain. he preservation condition of the colours varies. he black col-
our, probably a carbonisation product, as well as the red colour, most likely
cinnabar, seems to be applied in thin layers.10 he fine particles of pigment
apparently penetrated the wooden surface so deeply that the colours are still
preserved today. On the other hand the compact fragments of brown, grey/
blue and white suggest that these colours were applied in thick layers, of which
only tiny traces remain.
Composition
A painted red band, which lines the top and the bottom of the frieze, frames
the composition (Figs. I, II). he figures fill the entire height of the frieze. Fol-
lowing the principle of isokephalie, the heads of all figures are rendered at the
same height, regardless whether they are mounted or on foot. he arrange-
ment of the figures is not balanced exactly: a concentration of figures can be
perceived on the left part of the beam. All figures are moving to a central point
in the middle of the frieze towards a triangular composition: two fighting war-
riors over the dead body of a third. he vertically drawn figures appear in full
profile.
Horizontal elements are accentuated mainly by the long bodies of the
horses, the outstretched arms of the archers and the dead bodies of two fallen
warriors. he composition gains an additional dynamic by the elongated shape
and the horizontal perspective of the frieze.
he curved draught pole, the extended forefeet of the cavalry horses raised
in the air and the rearing posture of the wounded horse form the diagonal
lines of the composition. Depth is visualized by the echelons of horse-riders
drawn in perspective.
Multifigured battle compositions with central duels are unknown in Achae-
menid art to date, but have parallels in Eastern Greek art, in particular on the
painted sarcophagi from Clazomenai.11 However, closer comparison shows
that in Eastern Greek art, battle compositions differ in terms of the setting of
the figures and in iconography. Unlike the Clazomenian friezes which are
10
Scientific pigment analyses are forthcoming by Stephan Demeter, Erwin Emmerling and
Heinrich Piening.
11
Cook 1981, 117-123. A silver alabastron from the Ikiztepe tumulus in Lydia also shows a
multifigured battle composition with central duel, which is closer to the East Greek tradition:
Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 124-125.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 5 8/8/07 4:27:18 PM

mainly based on Attic hoplite battles, the figures here are arranged strictly
symmetrically and in a static manner, general characteristics of Near Eastern
art.12 he design of the centrepiece, the riding groups and the infantrymen are
equally oriented towards the artistic traditions of Iran. Finally, some parts of
the composition are well known in Achaemenid art as isolated motifs, so it is
clear that the visual language of the wood painting is mainly based on the
Persian iconographic tradition.13
Style
he wood painting bears clear stylistic references to Achaemenid art. But the
image of the Persian leader (Fig. III), which is the best painted figure of the
whole frieze, displays facial details that are usually observed on Greek Vase
paintings (fig. 1).
Despite the carefully worked details of this figure, the proportions of his
body are not well balanced. he head is too big compared to the body. he
arms, in particular the right arm, are too long. In contrast to this, the limbs of
the warriors coming from the right are too short, in particular those of the
leader and of the first infantryman behind him, both of whom exhibit arms
that are more like stubs (Fig. IV).
Some figures have been executed in an elaborated way, in particular the
Persian riders, pointing at the contrast between light and dark parts perhaps to
suggest the effect of relief (Figs. V, VI); others have been drawn down sketchily
without care (Figs. VIII, XVIII).
he painter has been more successful in balancing the proportions and the
size of the horses and the riders (Fig. V). he horses all have beautiful dynamic
curvilinear bodies with exquisite modelling on the legs, in particular the soft
swelling of the knee joints. he rendition of the zigzag-pattern on the trousers
of the riders on the left, created by incising and alternating the colours pro-
vides a fully three dimensional feel (Fig. VI). he herring-bone patterns of the
bridle and collar are carefully painted as well (Fig. VII).
In contrast to the refined modelling observed on the figures coming from
left, the undifferentiated rendering of the warriors coming from the right is
conspicuous. he zigzag pattern of their trousers is neither incised nor multi-
coloured. However, their pointed tiaras, which slant backwards, are carefully
rendered with curved lines (Fig. VIII).
12
Particularly of Assyrian relief sculpture: Strommenger 1962, figs. 209-211; Ivantchik 2001,
figs. 131, 132.
13
For the discussion of the iconography see below.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 6 8/8/07 4:27:18 PM

FPO
Fig. 1. Detail of the cylix of the Penthesileia painter (Boardman et alii 1977,
fig. 140).
In style, composition and figure types, the painted battle frieze generally
corresponds to the seal images from Daskyleion and the Persepolis Fortification
tablets dated between 509 and 494 BC, i.e. during the reign of Darius I.14 But
despite its archaic elements, some details in the painting indicate a later date.
For example, the head of the Persian commander, the most elaborately painted
figure of the whole frieze, shows developed stylistic treatment (Fig. IX). he
eye with a long upper eye lash and an iris placed at the open end follows a
stylistic development which began in the Early Classical Period of Greek Art
(Fig. 1).15 On the other hand, in human representations of the late Archaic
period, eyes in profile faces are usually shown in frontal view, without any
foreshortening.16
14
Garrison, Root 2001, 1.
15
he kylix of the Penthesilea-painter of about 460 BC: Boardman et alii 1977, fig. 140.
16
See for example the faces on the wall paintings from Kızılbel (Mellink 1998, pl. 7, b),
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 7 8/8/07 4:27:18 PM

Regarding the diverging proportions and stylistic features, it can be assumed

that two different figural schemes are combined in this one figure in order to
bring up to date a conventional image model. he complex stylistic features of
the frieze, however, cannot be discussed in detail in the present article: they
merit detailed study by themselves.17
Iconography
In the battle scene two groups of warriors proceed towards each other (Figs. I, II).
he party coming from the left consists of at least twelve warriors.18 he party
on the right side has eleven warriors in total. he unequal number of warriors
and the corpses on the ground show that the right party is inferior, while the
left side is winning the battle. All warriors wear oriental costumes and are
armed with bows and quivers. Evidently, this is a depiction of a battle between
the Persians and another oriental group.
he Victors
he party on the left consists of three archers on foot, seven riders, and a driver
and one or two archers on a chariot.19 he warriors are grouped in formations of
infantry, cavalry and are led by a warrior who is the central focus of the frieze.
he Central Duel
In the middle of the depiction, the respective leaders of the two parties are
standing in front of each other and fighting (Fig. III). he left leader is thrust-
ing his dagger into the stomach of his opponent with his right hand, while he
is pulling him towards himself by the beard. He is depicted as larger than his
opponent. he right leader holds a red painted bow, which looks like an
Gordion (Mellink 1980, figs. 4, 5) and from the Aktepe tomb in Güre (Özgen, Öztürk 1996,
68-69, 71-72, Cat. 2, 3, 4, 7-8) which has been dated stylistically to the last decade of the
6th century BC.
17
he style of the frieze will be explored in detail in a future publication including all painted
beams of the grave chamber.
18
he presence of a thirteenth figure on the chariot cannot be established yet. See the discus-
sion below.
19
Calmeyer (1993, 13) lists only six riders and two archers on foot. He seems to have missed
the head of the archer on the outer edge and a rider.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 8 8/8/07 4:27:19 PM

FPO
Fig. 2. Cylinder seal, British Museum (Curtis, Tallis 2005, 229, Cat. 415).
attribute rather than a weapon ready for use. His destitute posture contrasts
with the nonchalant attitude of the leader on the left. his is a very well known
scheme in Achaemenid art. On the palace reliefs and on other depictions, the
so-called royal hero kills the rampant creature in the same manner: the hero
grasps the monster either by its horn or the throat with one hand, while he
thrusts his dagger into the stomach with his other hand.20 A variation of this
image type shows the hero with the lunged right arm holding the sword.21 he
image of the so-called combatant Persian or royal hero occurs in several varia-
tions in Achaemenid minor art, as numerous seals show.22 However, this kill-
ing motif seems to be used rarely in fighting scenes with human enemies.23 On
two cylinder seals in the Bibliothèque Nationale and in the British Museum,
the warrior is fighting against an enemy with pointed cap (Figs. 2, 3), as does
the Persian leader on the painted beam.24 Contrary to the depiction on the
wood painting, here he does not pull his opponent by his beard, but instead
grips him by the foresection of his headgear as if it were the horn of a rampant
creature.
Compared to other representations of the “combatant Persian”, the lack of
the winged sun disk over the composition is remarkable. Obviously, this Per-
sian religious symbol was not considered as important by the painter and so it
was omitted.
20
For example, Kaptan 2003, 65, DS 18; Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 26; Curtis, Tallis 2005,
82, Cat. 42.
21
Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 15.
22
Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 15; Garrison, Root 2001, 217-308, pl. 218, i; Kaptan 2003, 57-58
and vol. II, 157-164.
23
On a seal from the Oxus-Treasure in the British Museum there is a “combatant Persian”
thrusting his spear into the back of an enemy dressed in nomad style, but without headgear:
Boardman 2000, 160, fig. 5, 5; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29.
24
Ghirshman 1964, fig. 331; Curtis, Tallis 2005, 228, fig. 415; Lebedynsky 2006, 46.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 9 8/8/07 4:27:19 PM

FPO
Fig. 3. Cylinder seal, Bibliotheque National (Ghirshman 1964, fig. 331).
he Commander
Costume: he commander is wearing a fully sleeved and pleated red robe that
reaches down to the ankles. he appliqué edges sown onto the sleeves and the
pleats are indicated by short black lines (Fig. III). he drapery of this costume
is similar to the so called Achaemenid robe or court robe.25 he central fold of
its lower part runs down as a crosshatched line. he hemline is in the shape of
a sharp arch, leading to a pinched waist underneath.
However, the “Achaemenid robe” usually has wide pseudo-sleeves26 and not
long closely sewn sleeves as depicted on the wooden frieze. Peter Calmeyer
explains this peculiarity by claiming an inability of the painter to render
pseudo-sleeves,27 but it was obviously not the intention of the painter to depict
pseudo-sleeves here. Rather, he has indicated that he meant to show sown
25
Sekunda 1992, 4; Calmeyer 1988, 34-36. he origin of the “Achaemenid robe” is unknown.
Some regard it as being of Elamite origin (Calmeyer 1988, 27-51), while others think it was
native Persian. Some scholars identify the “court robe” with the Greek word kypassis: Bittner
1985, 100; E. Rehm in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 205.
26
Bittner 1985, 106-110; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 119. For the style of this costume see:
Koch 1992, 206, fig. 151.
27
Calmeyer 1993, 13.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 10 8/8/07 4:27:19 PM

sleeves using fine black lines. his oddity may merely reflect the unfamiliarity
of the painter with this garment typical of the Early Achaemenid period.28 On
the seal images the wide sleeves of the “Achaemenid robe” sometimes appear
in pushed up position due to the movement of the arms (Figs. 2, 3).29 he
painter, who was apparently not aware of this costume, reinterpreted his model
as closely sewn sleeves instead of depicting naked arms with rolled-up sleeves.
Shoes: Although the painting in the lower part of the scene is largely faded,
the red triple strapped shoes of the Persian leader are still visible (Fig. III).
Such strapped boots were worn by the so called royal hero or victorious war-
rior as well as by infantry soldiers.30 Deniz Kaptan has observed that in the
combat scenes on the seals from Daskyleion the victorious Persian is always
shown wearing strapped boots, while his opponent’s shoes are omitted.31 She
suggests that this iconographic detail was used to demonstrate the superiority
of Persian power.
Weaponry: he commander is equipped with a bow, a quiver and a dagger
(Fig. III). He thrusts his dagger into the stomach of his opponent. he dagger
has a large blade and a pommel with a convex bowed contour at the top.
Similar daggers are depicted on the Persepolis reliefs in the hands of the sec-
ond delegation, and frequently on clay seal impressions.32
he quiver and the bow extend symmetrically on the shoulder behind the
neck. he bow has a round shape and duck’s beak ends. he square shaped
quiver has three tied-down tassels that are hanging down from its rear.33 Such
28
It is supposed that this “court or Achaemenid robe” was discarded during the reign of
Darius I by the king and army in favour of the Median trouser costume. his suggestion is
mainly based on a comment of Herodotus (I, 135: “No race is as ready to adopt foreign ways as
the Persians: for instance, they wear the Median costume as they think it handsomer than their
own”, Xenophon (Cyr. VIII, 1, 40) confirms the change to Median dress, though he attributes
the change to the reign of Cyrus the Great. According to Sekunda (1992, 13) the “Achaemenid
robe” was impractical for riding and therefore it was discarded, but it is possible that it continued
to be used by the King for certain traditional ceremonies. he “Achaemenid robe” never appears
in representations on the Greek vases that follow the Persian Wars. herefore Sekunda (1992,
15) assumes that “the field army in the West ceased to use it some time during the first half of
the 5th century”.
29
Garrison, Root 2001, pl. 179.
30
Bittner 1985, pl. 9, 3; Calmeyer 1993, 14; Garrison, Root 2001, 129, PFS 301, Cat.
No. 54; Kaptan 2003, 60.
31
Kaptan 2003, 60.
32
Walser 1966, pls. 9, 36; Koch 1992, fig. 51; Head 1992, 18; Kaptan 2003, 60, pl. 9, A.
Such a dagger is also to be found on the statue of Darius from Susa: Boardman 2000, 114, fig. 3,
36a,b.
33
he function and meaning of the three tassels hanging down are not clear: Bittner 1985,
135 “Ein mit Glocken oder Metallstücken versehenes Schurgehänge“. hey are supposedly used
to clean arrowheads: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 11 8/8/07 4:27:19 PM

square shaped quivers together with round shaped bows appear with the
guardsmen on the glazed bricks of Susa and on the great relief sculptures of
Persepolis, as well as with the so-called combatant Persian on seals.34 his
weaponry was part of the Achaemenid robe, the typical outfit of Persian
warriors.35
Hair dress, beard and facial features. he leader has long hair shaped to a
chignon at the nape and a long and square-tipped beard (Fig. IX). He wears a
cylindrical crown with a horizontal band and points on the top. A round ear-
ring painted red is still visible on his earlobe. His facial profile has a long,
faintly curved nose line; his lower lip sticks out slightly. A curved eyebrow line
surrounds his large eye, which is angled at one end but open towards the front.
He has a heavy chin and a thick black mustache. he long beard extends over
the left shoulder down to his armpit. he neck is indicated at the back under
the hair, which is bundled in a full round shape.
Calmeyer calls the headgear of the victor a kidaris.36 he term kidaris is used
by Greek authors for a royal hat, the identification of which is still much
debated.37 Contrary to widespread opinion, the wearing of a dentate or crenel-
lated cylindrical crown was not reserved to kings.38 Such crowns were worn by
other noble Persians, so called royal archers, women, servants, sphinxes and
also by Ahura Mazda.39
34
Glazed-brick tiles of Susa: Boardman 2000, 112, fig. 3, 33; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 119.
Seals: Garrison, Root 2001, pl. 179, g; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 29, 55 top. Persian type round
bows: Calmeyer 1988, 33-34; Sekunda 1992, 20. he delegation of Elamites on the Apadana
reliefs bears such round bows with duck’s beak ends: Koch 1992, 260, fig. 186; Sekunda 1992,
10, top figure.
35
E. Rehm in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 206-208.
36
Calmeyer 1993, 13.
37
Referring to Calmeyer, Borchhardt goes even further and identifies this headgear as the
kidaris of the Great King: Borchhardt 2002, 95. For the latest discussion on the identification of
the royal hats, kidaris and tiara orthé, see: Ch. Tuplin, Treacherous Hearts and Upright Tiaras:
he Achaemenid King’s Head-Dress, which is to be published in: he Proceedings of he Celtic
Conference in Classis held at Rennes in 2004. I am grateful to the author for sending me his
unpublished manuscript.
38
Schlumberger 1971, 375-383. Latest discussion: Kaptan 2003, 58-60.
39
Dentate crowns on the heads of so-called royal heroes fighting against a monster animal:
Henig, Whiting 1994, Cat. 19-21. Dentate crowns on the heads of women: stele from Dasky-
leion (Nollé 1992, fig. 3 a, b); Pazyryk tapestry (Moorey 2002, 208, fig. 1); crowned beardless
palace attendants on the Persepolis reliefs (Roaf 1983, 132, fig. 132). Crenelated crowns on the
heads of the so-called royal archers: on coins (Stronach 1989, pls. 1-2); on silver vessels (Özgen,
Öztürk 1996, 87, Kat. 33); on seals (Vollenweider 1995, 38, Cat. 24). Sphinxes with dentate
crowns: Henig, Whiting 1994, Cat. 22; Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 85 a. Ahura Mazda wearing a
dentate crown: Boardman 2000, figs. 5, 9; 5, 18. Kaptan 2003, 58-60; vol. II, 157 ff.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 12 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

But the crenellated crowns are usually taller than the headgear on the
wooden frieze. A low crown with horizontal bands and top points as on the
painted beam is depicted on a painted pottery sherd from Gordion (Fig. X).40
As much as one can see on this small fragment, the bearded Persian is visibly
fighting with a spear. Presumably, this was also a depiction of the combatant
Persian.
he articulated features of his face distinguish the leader from the other
figures of the frieze, all of which equally show undifferentiated bird like faces.
he curved outline of the forehead, the aquiline nose and the emphasised
lower lip give an expression of an individual face, so we may be dealing with
an ideal portrait of a Persian. hese facial features once again have parallels on
the painted pottery sherd from Gordion (Fig. X).41
Chariotry
he two-wheeled chariot is pulled by a biga (Fig. XI). Red painted, eight spoke
wheel is studded with hobnails (Fig. XII). he spokes feature a decorative
carving about midway of their length. he axle end appears at the rear of the
box that is indicated as a red painted disc without decoration. he chariot
body is quite deep and its top edge is approximately at the hip of the occu-
pants. he side of the box is curved at the upper rim. he box is covered in
white, but its rim is carefully preserved in order to indicate nails with red and
black dots on the wooden surface. On the rear, two symmetrically incised
quivers are recognisable which are not further differentiated by the painting
(Fig. XIII). A short pipe-like object with a round shaped end extends from the
back floor frame (Figs. XII, XX). he function or the meaning of this object
remains obscure.
he draught pole seems to rise from the front siding of the box with a very
steep upward curve and ends at the necks of the horses. A small triangular
object is hanging at the draught end, which may represent a small bell.42 Two
black vertical lines connect the draught pole with the neck yoke (Fig. XI). he
40
Dimensions: 4,6 × 3,5 cm. Voigt, Young 1999, 197, fig. 1. I owe Mary Voigt thanks for the
permission to publish this pottery sherd in this article.
41
Gordian pottery fragment: Voigt, Young 1999, fig. 1. A grafitto incised on a relief in Perse-
polis (Nylander, Flemberg 1981/1983, 61-64; Boardman 2000, 157-158, fig. 4, 3) and on a red
figure bell crater in New York (Metzler 1971, 93, pl. 1, 6) is also comparable.
42
Bronze bells were found in the BT 89 tumulus in Bintepe (Lydia) together with parts of a
chariot. Kökten Ersoy (1998, 120, fig. 7, c, d ) suggests that they were attached to the harnessing
straps of the horses. Bronze bells in the graves of Eurasian nomads: Ivantchik 2001, 26.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 13 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

horses are long-bodied and ram-headed, with short, thick necks and heavy
crests. heir long tails reach the ground.43 he manes are indicated by short
black strokes. he harnessing is elaborately rendered with herring bone deco-
ration to indicate a woven structure. It consists of a neck strap, to hold the
yoke in place, and a backing element in the form of a strap that passes under
the belly and joins up with the yoke. Two further straps decorated with strokes
lead along the bodies of the horses and intersect each other under the horses’
tails and finally disappear under the box of the chariot. he paintings of the
cheekstraps are not preserved. Four reins, two red and two black, appear first
at the cheek of the horses, then pass through the ring at the yoke and finally
go back to the driver’s hands.
Remarkably, the horses are shown in ambling posture, which contrast the
galloping horses behind them. Ambling chariot horses are in fact typical for
convoy scenes,44 but quite odd in a battle scene.45 his oddity may indicate
that the motif of the chariot was borrowed from a procession scene, such
as the one that has been depicted on the north wall of the same tomb
chamber.46
On the chariot, a two-man-crew is clearly recognisable: an archer and a
horse-controller are differentiated by their garments (Fig. XII). he man in
the background has his right hand on the reins while he holds a whip with his
left hand. He wears a red tiara on his head. he upper part of his body
is painted in red, probably indicating a tunic. he lower part of his body is
covered by the siding of the chariot, but a fringe cuirass goad or pteryges, is
still visible (Fig. XIII).47 In the foreground an archer is stretching his bow
with his right arm (Fig. XII). Judging by the wide sleeves, which are hang-
ing down, he seems to wear a red “court robe”. A red painted tiara is clearly
indicated on his head. he combination of this headgear with the “court robe”
43
Libyan chariot horses also have such long tails on the Apadana Reliefs: Walser 1966, pl. 29.
Long tailed led horses: Walser 1966, pls. 24 and 26. See also Gabrielli 2006, 74, fig. 15.
44
Littauer, Crouwel 1979, fig. 80; Nefëdkin 2001, 332; Gabrielli 2006, figs. 5-6.
45
On the Assyrian battle reliefs the chariot horses are always shown in elongated gallop:
Strommenger 1962, figs. 209, 214; Yadin 1965, figs. 386, 387, 399; Littauer, Crouwel 1979,
figs. 53, 57, 58. Ambling horses usually occur in chariot procession scenes: Strommenger 1962,
figs. 210, 212, 214; Czichon 1992, pl. 50, 3; 51, 2; Postgate 2000, fig. 1; Nefëdkin 2001, 318,
319. Ambling chariot horses in a battle scene occur on some late Hittite reliefs (Nefëdkin 2001,
108, 279) and rarely on the Assyrian reliefs (Littauer, Crouwel 1979, fig. 56).
46
Summerer 2007.
47
he use of pteryges by the Persian soldiers is well attested: Stele from Bozkır (Sekunda 1992,
25), stele from Konya (Sekunda 1992, 24, top left; Sekunda 1996, 13, fig. 6), the grave stele of
a Persian military man in the Salihli Museum (Dedeoğlu 2003, 62) and the Alexander Sar-
cophagus (Sekunda 1992, 49).
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 14 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

is odd, since it was usually worn with a crenellated crown. his divergence is
probably a reinterpretation by the local painter of an originally Iranian model.
Another oddity with this figure is that he holds his bow with his right hand,
while all other archers do this with their left hands. An additional right arm
appears at the nape of the archer and draws the string of the bow. his arm
together with the outline of the head which runs parallel to his tiara’s outline
could have belonged to a second archer on the chariot. However, considering
other oddities noted already, it is more likely that the painter mistakenly
drew both arms of the archer as right arms and misguidedly outlined his head
twice.48
he type of chariot box with curved siding and the studded wheel with
eight spokes corresponds to Achaemenid chariot depictions.49 he quivers
incised on the siding of the chariot box occur often on the Assyrian armoured
chariots.50
he arch-shaped draught pole of the chariot and the harnessing of the
horses, however, are quite unusual. his war chariot type seems to be a par-
ticular one since it also appears on the northern rear wall of the Tatarlı tomb
chamber, but it is attested nowhere else.51
he role of chariotry within the Persian army as a whole is a much discussed
topic. Modern views of chariot warfare are especially confusing and contradic-
tory. According to some scholars, war chariots were primarily a “mobile firing
platform”. Others consider the chariot as a prestige vehicle of social standing.52
According to Littauer and Crouwel, the charioty “was designed to terrify the
enemy and break up his battle formation, thus enabling the mounted troops
and infantry that followed to charge and decide the battle”.53
Ancient authors mention the use of scythes on chariots in the Persian
army.54 hese were war chariots with blades attached both at the axle-housing
48
A figure with two left hands is drawn on the wall painting Karaburun II: Mellink 1971,
252, pl. 56, fig. 27.
49
Representations of chariots with eight spokes on Achaemenid seals: Boardman 2000, 5,
9-10; Garrison 2000, fig. 29. Chariot models in the so called Oxus Treasure: Curtis 2000, fig. 70.
50
Strommenger 1962, figs. 203, 204, 206; Yadin 1965, 386, 389.
51
Summerer 2007. he specialists in ancient vehicles have not yet analysed the chariot type
shown on the Munich wood so far. On Near Eastern chariot representations see: Littauer, Crou-
wel 1979; Nefëdkin 2001. Joost Crouwel (Amsterdam), after having studied the wood paintings
from photographs, kindly informed me that a chariot with such a curved draught pole is not
known elsewhere.
52
Head 1992, 44-45; Nefëdkin 2001, 427-448; Ch. Eder in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 136.
On the use of war chariots in the Assyrian army: Postgate 2000, 89-107.
53
Littauer, Crouwell 1979, 152.
54
Xen. Hell. IV, 1, 17-19; Dio XVII, 53, 2; Arr. Tact. 19, 4.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 15 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

and extending horizontally beneath the chariot box.55 Contrary to frequent

descriptions in ancient literature, no depiction, Greek or Persian, of scythed
chariots is known. Indeed, horizontally extending blades at the axles could be
rendered only in a three-quarter view of chariot, and, therefore, they might
have been omitted on chariots depicted in full profile.
At this point, it is possible to ask whether the painter of the wooden frieze
attempted to depict such a blade with the tube like object attached at the bot-
tom of the chariot box (Fig. XX), although there is no other evidence to sup-
port this interpretation.56
Cavalry
he chariot is followed by two formations of mounted archers, in two rows

behind each other. he first row consists of four riders (Figs. V, XIV), while
three riders form the second row (Fig. XV).57 All riders are wearing trousers
with multicolour zigzag patterns and black or red tunics. he heads of the
horsemen are covered by round comb tiaras which alternate between red and
brown. he equipment of the horsemen consists of double curved bows and
quivers. he quiver, only one-third of which is visible on the rider in fore-
ground, apparently represent a gorytos. Since the riders’ hands are engaged
with drawing the bows they are not holding the reins. hus, they seem to drive
the horses with their thighs, even though they are riding without spurs.
he ram-like, heavy headed horses, probably Nisaeans, are alternately col-
oured black, white and red (Figs. V, XIV).58 All 16 legs of the galloping horses
are rendered correctly in number and perspective. he tails are tied up accord-
ing to an Iranian custom.59 he fringed edge of the saddle covers suggests an
55
Xenophon (Hell. IV, 1, 17) describing the scythed chariots at the battle of Cunaxa says:
“hese had thin scythes extending at an angle from the axle and also under the driver’s seat,
turned to the ground”. On the scythed chariots: Rivet 1979, 130-132; Nefëdkin 2001,
268-349.
56
Indeed, the scythed chariots are said to have been drawn by a quadriga: Nefëdkin 2001,
271-281; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 134. he effectiveness of scythed chariots is not entirely clear.
It is believed that the scythed chariots could plow through infantry lines, cutting combatants in
half or at least opening gaps in the line which could be exploited. Nefiodkin (2004, 369-378)
proposes that the scythed chariots were first introduced at some point between 467-458 BC.
57
Mistakenly Calmeyer (1993, 13) only counts six riders. his error is also taken over by
Borchhardt (2002, 95).
58
Such horses are commonly suggested to be the Nisaean breed mentioned by Herodotus
(III, 106; VII, 40, 57-59): Gabrielli 2006, 29-30.
59
Gabrielli 2006, figs. 18-21, 28. In the burials at Pazyryk horses with tails both cropped and
tied up were found: Farkas 1967/1968, 67, note 37. Horses with tied up tails are depicted on
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 16 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

irregular zigzag pattern.60 he bridle and collar of every horse are painted in a
different colour. he neck strap is decorated, as with the chariot horses, with a
herringbone pattern, probably to suggest a woven structure.61 All the riders are
drawing their double-curved bows.
In the second formation there are three riders which have the same costume
and weaponry as the first row (Fig. XV). Only the colour of the horses varies.
he first horse is white, the second black and the third red. In contrast to the
riders in the first row, the bows of the riders are only rendered with simple black
lines and depicted with less accuracy, which may indicate their lower rank.
he trouser costume of the horsemen is usually called a Median or Iranian
riding outfit.62 he composite bows, which differ from the round bows of the
infantry, are considered to be of Scythian origin.63
he horsemen formed a vital part of the Persian army, which was comprised
of contingents of Persians as well as subject and allied peoples.64 Since the
mounted archers are distinguished from other Persian warriors by dress and
equipment they may represent mercenary cavalrymen. On the other hand,
this riding costume was also worn by Persians,65 hence, it does not allow us to
come to any conclusions as to the ethnic origin of the mounted archers.
While the presence of cavalry in the Persian army is certainly well docu-
mented in written sources, mounted archery seems to have been depicted
rarely, or at least not portrayed in monumental art. But the evidence of the
battle frieze from Tatarlı and isolated representations of riders with horses in
extended gallop in minor arts66 are suggestive of an iconographic tradition of
this motif within Achaemenid art.
seals and gems (Curtis, Tallis 2005, Cat. 416, 418; Kaptan 2003, 78, Cat. DS 68.71-
77.79.90).
60
Knauer 1986, 265-266.
61
Such bridle decoration is also to be found on a horse shaped rhyton: Gabrielli 2006, fig. 7.
62
Widengren 1956, 228-284; Bittner 1985, 180-198. Calmeyer (1993, 7) calls this costume
West Iranian-Cappadocian, because Medes, Armenians, and Cappadocians are wearing such
trousers on the Apadana reliefs.
63
Snodgrass 1999, 82; Brentjes 1995/1996, 180. he bows discovered in Xinjiang are as
important to the study of archery as the frozen tombs in Pazyryk were to the general studies of
the Scythians. Until these discoveries were made, only fragments of Scythian bows and represen-
tations could be studied. See for example: Wang 2001, 109.
64
According to written sources several Iranian tribes still living as nomads were used in the
army, for example Sagartians: Herodotus (VII, 85). he Battle of Marathon stiffened by some
Saka regiments (Hdt. VI, 113); Sekunda 1992, 20-21; Head 1992, 33.
65
Sekunda 1992, 12-13; Head 1992, 20-22. In Greek vase painting the Persians are usually
depicted with this trouser costume: W. Raeck in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 151-154; Ivantchik
2006, 248-252.
66
According to Farkas (1967/1968, 66-79), a continuity between horse rider motifs in the
Achaemenid minor arts and the horsemen-motif of Assyrian art is unlikely. She suggests that the
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 17 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

Infantry
As previously noted, two further archers on foot follow the horsemen

(Fig. XVI). hey are equipped with Persian type bows and quivers. Of the
warrior on the extreme left, only the head and outstretched left arm remains,
while his body must have been sawed off by the tomb raiders. hese two
archers have the same hair and beard styles and the same headgear as the leader
of the group. Also, they too are dressed in “court robes”. Since these figures are
painted with less detail, some fine points, such as the top of the headgear and
the pleats of the garments are not well indicated. he only real difference
between the commander and these infantrymen is the manner of carrying the
quiver. Instead of hanging over the back like the leader’s quiver, it hangs
around the waist. he uniform costume and weaponry of these two archers
indicate an infantry unit, to which the leader also belonged. Infantry regi-
ments of the Persian army were equipped with bows and spears, and thence
they were distinguished as “spear-bearers” (aršibara) and “bow-bearers”
(vaččačbara).67 he lack of the spear-bearers is remarkable in this battle-scene.
his is even more astonishing as they are depicted in a procession frieze that
accompanied the battle frieze in the same tomb chamber.68
he Defeated Enemy
he warriors coming from the right represent the defeated enemy: five archers
on foot and six riders are depicted (Figs. I, II). he leader of the group is about
to be killed by the Persian commander. One warrior on foot is already dead,
lying on the ground, while one of the riders has fallen off his injured horse
(Fig. XVII). he warrior on foot on the right hand outer edge has been hit in
the neck by an arrow (Fig. VII). Only the five horsemen in the middle seem to
be ready for battle (Fig. XVIII). But an arrow, which is flying in the air above
the injured horse (Fig. XVII), points out that these warriors too will be put out
of action in the next few moments. he first victim lying at the feet of the vic-
tor has been wounded or killed by two arrows which were presumably shot
from the chariot. Apparently, the Persian chariotry broke the ranks of the
enemies and inflicted a crushing defeat.
horse and rider motif could have originated in Eastern Greece rather than in Persia. Archers on
horseback on the bullae from Daskyleion: Kaptan 2003, II, 200, pls. 217-222.
67
On the Behistun relief infantrymen are shown either with spear or bow: Sekunda 1992, 10.
But on the relief sculpture the so-called guards bear both spears and bows: Curtis, Tallis 2005,
71, Cat. 28 (stone relief from Persepolis), 87-88. Cat. 51-52 (glazed bricks from Susa).
68
Summerer 2007.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 18 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

Unlike their Persian opponents, the right hand party does not have a war
chariot. All the warriors wear Median trouser costumes with simple zigzag
patterns and red painted tunics that look similar to those of the mounted
archers of the Persian army. However, these are distinguished from the cavalry
of the opponent group by their tall pointed tiaras which slant backwards
(Fig. XIX). hey are also armed with a double-curved composite bow and
gorytos. he warriors on foot additionally carry battle axes with pointed and
rounded ends which hang down from the waist.
he rendering of the enemies in uniform nomadic dress, headgear and
identical equipment surely qualifies them as a specific ethnic group. he
“otherness” of these enemies is expressed clearly by the pointed hat, since no
Persian warrior wears it.
Peaked hoods are usually associated with the Scythians and the Sacae,
because the Behistun inscription labels one of the rebel “kings” with the
exceedingly tall pointed tiara as “his is Skunkha, the Saca” in Old Persian.69
In addition, there is people in the list of the subject nations on the same
monument that is characterized as Sakâ tigraxaudâ, i.e. “hose who wear the
cap pointed”. Based on this evidence, delegation No. 11 in the so-called
tribute-procession of the Apadana, whose members equally wear the charac-
teristic tall hats, is also identified with the pointed-hat Sacae.70 But the pointed
type headgear was apparently worn by other Scythian tribes too. On the royal
tomb reliefs in Naqš-i Rustam there are different groups of throne bearers who
wear pointed headgear.71 hus, it is not sure that the Persians associated this
headgear only with one specific ethnic group.
In fact, the Persians, as well as the Greeks, referred to different northern
nomadic peoples with the ethnic name Sacae / Scythians.72 he Sakâ tigraxaudâ,
69
Shahbazi 1982, fig. 1; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 42; Lebedynsky 2006, 48. Latest discussion
on the Behistun inscriptions: Bae 2002, 16-30.
70
Walser 1966, 84-86, pls. 18, 56-58, 83; Shahbazi 1982, 226.
71
At Darius’ tomb in Naqš-i Rustam, there is a relief depicting the king standing on a three
step pedestal in front of an altar. his scene is supported by throne bearers representing the
twenty-eight nations of the empire. he trilingual cuneiform inscriptions on three panels of the
rock wall either enumerate the twenty-eight nations upholding the throne or glorify the king and
his rule: Schmidt 1970, 80-90. he throne-bearer Sakâ haumavargâ is shown in the 14th posi-
tion in the upper row, followed by Sakâ tigraxaudâ in the 15th position in the lower row. Others
are labelled with Sakâ paradraya (Sacae beyond the sea): Walser 1966, Falttaf. 1, 15; Shahbazi
1982, 210; Pracht und Prunk 2006, 49, fig. he pointed part of the cap was therefore bent into
an arc in order to avoid the asymmetry that the tall pointed tip of the cap would otherwise
produce.
72
Walser 1966, 35. he Sakâ tigraxaudâ (‘Sacae with pointed hats’) were defeated in 520/519
BCE by the Persian king Darius the Great, who gave this tribe a new leader. One of the earlier
leaders was killed; the other, named Skunkha, was taken captive and is visible on the relief at
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 19 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

the Orthocorybantians of Herodotus (of the pointed hats); the Sakâ hauma-
vargâ, the Amyrgioi Scythians of Herodotus (drinkers of the sacred haoma) and
the Sakâ paradraya (Sacae beyond the sea), probably the Scythians who lived
in the Northern Black Sea region.
he double-curved bow, which was composed of several parts, was an inven-
tion of Eastern or Northern Asia.73 Although it is usually called the Scythian-
style bow, its use was not limited to one specific ethnic group.
he double-headed battle axes are named as a characteristic weapon of the
Amyrgian Scythians by Herodotus (VII, 64). he armed delegation No. 17 on
the Apadana reliefs, therefore, is identified with sakâ haumavargâ, because its
members bear such battle axes.74
With the uniform equipment and costume and in particular the pointed
hats, the painter tries to convey that the enemies of the Persians were of a
specific nomadic ethnicity.75 he assumption might be justified, that they
represent the sakâ tigraxaudâ, but the evidence is flexible enough that it could
be made to fit with other Iranian Sacae entities as well.
Narrative Form
he painted frieze illustrates the complete collapse of the army of “the pointed
hats” in a narrative mode. heir formations of infantry and cavalry are dis-
solved; some warriors have perished, others have been disabled by wounds or
Behistun: Shahbazi 1981, fig. 1. Herodotus (III, 92) calls the Sakâ tigraxaudâ the Orthocoryban-
tians (‘pointed hat men’), and states that they lived in the same tax district as the Medes. his
suggests that the Sakâ tigraxaudâ lived on the banks of the ancient lower reaches of the Amudar’ya,
which used to have a mouth in the Caspian Sea south of Krasnovodsk: Shahbazi 1982, 223-226;
Nagel 1983, 169-189. he Sakâ paradraya (‘Sacae across the sea’) were living on the Northern
Coast of the Black Sea. In 514 /513 BC King Darius launched a disastrous campaign against the
Sakâ paradraya. Herodotus gives a long description of the Scythian campaign of Darius. he
latest discussions on this topic: Georges 1987/1995, 97-146; Jacobs 2000, 93-102; Lebedynsky
2006, 48-49.
73
Brentjes 1995/1996, 187; Lebedynsky 2006, 194-195.
74
he double bladed axes are usually called Scythian type: Bittner 1985, 176, note 6, pl. 14,
3. Double headed battle axes are found from Anatolia to Siberia in different regions, thus, it does
not seem to be specific for a region or ethnic: Ivantchik 2001, fig. 22; Lebedynsky 2006, 116
above right.
75
Analysing the representations on the Archaic Attic vases, Ivantchik (2006, 197-271), con-
cludes that the images of the archers with pointed caps were not associated with Scythians or any
other ethnic entity, but rather with the second rank character of the warrior. After the Persian
Wars, on the Attic vases the pointed hat became a characteristic for the Persians.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 20 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

left behind. he painter conveys the reasons for this disastrous defeat very
clearly: firstly the weakness of their leader; secondly the lesser standard of their
equipment and the inferior number of their army. Such an image of the enemy
might have been a reflection of the prejudices of the Persians. hus through
the portrayal of the weaker enemy, the viewer recognises the fact of the Persian
self-definition as the superior nation.
he representation celebrates the Persian victory. he Persian army shows
excellent leadership. he commander, who is obviously a recurrent determin-
ing factor in bringing victory, exercises his role on the battlefield by exemplary
fortitude. His superior tactical skill in face-to-face battle is conveyed on the
one hand by his purposeful thrust and on the other hand by the gesture of his
opponent, who is unable to defend himself. Confidence in his equipment and
self-confidence in front of his army show his quality in military virtues and his
leadership. he bond between leader and led is shown by the uniform costume
and equipment. he Persians win because of their superior battle discipline,
which is visible in the closed formations of their regiments. he superior
weaponry provides the Persians with the ability to outreach the enemy. Addi-
tionally, the hostile troops seem to suffer casualties under pressure from the
superior numbers of the Persians, which is indicated by one extra warrior.
Such an image must have created aversions against the enemy, but solidarity
with the victorious Persian army in the viewer’s mind. hus, from this narra-
tive the following “message” can be extracted: “We Persians are right and
destined to be victorious, while the enemy is in the wrong and destined to be
defeated”. It defines clearly oppositions between “the collective self and a
collective enemy”.76
Such a narrative mode of “speaking” battle scenes is unknown in Achaeme-
nid art to date, since illustrations of warfare are generally rare. he Persian
“superpower” is only conveyed in extremely abbreviated combat scenes mainly
on seal images (Figs. 2, 3), where the enemy can be depersonalized and dehu-
manized.77 he evidence of the Munich painting suggests that these abbrevi-
ated illustrations of “Persian victory” were possibly adopted from detailed
battle representations, which are not preserved for us.
76
For the Greek and Roman war representations Hölscher (2003, 4) singles out four basic
aspects: 1. War as reflection of psychological experience of threat, violence and death. 2. War as
creation of a distinction between a “collective self and a collective enemy”. 3. War as legitimised
killing. 4. War as a foundation of political power.
77
Garrison, Root 2001, 56-60; Kaptan 2003, 60-64.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 21 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

he narrative form of this battle frieze has parallels in the painted tomb
chambers and city-reliefs of Lycia.78 his artistic tradition in Anatolia is
supposed to have originated in Assyrian art.79
Is the Persian Commander the King?
Peter Calmeyer assesses whether the commander of Persians could be the

Great King (Figs. III, IX). With reference to the strapped boots he comes to
the conclusion that this cannot be the case.80 he smooth royal shoes are usu-
ally not strapped.81 Regardless of this discussion, Jürgen Borchhardt interprets
the Persian leader as the Great King in the framework of his “Dependenz-
heorie” and sees the archer on the chariot as the tomb owner, who, according
to Borchhardt, was a Phrygian aristocrat.82 Borchhardt only tries to justify his
identification with the headgear of the commander. he problem with the
identification of this headdress with the royal hat kidaris has been discussed
previously. As Bruno Jacobs and Wouter Henkelmann have shown independ-
ently of each other, the wearing of a crenellated crown was not a privilege of
the king, as such a crown can be found on the heads of numerous non-royal
figures, both so called Persian nobles and guards at Persepolis.83 Figures styled
similarly with court robes and crenellated crowns appear grouped or isolated
in different contexts.84 As has been discussed above, the battle scene provides
two more archers dressed in court robes, who also bear the same headgear, and
have the same hair and beard style as the leader.85 hus, the headgear provides
78
Painted tomb chambers in Karaburun and Elmalı: Mellink 1971, pl. 52, fig. 22; Mellink
1972, pls. 59-60; Mellink 1998. he “city-reliefs” of Lycia are considered to be historical repre-
sentations: Childs 1978, 91-97; Borchhardt 2002, 101-110. Also, it is known from written
sources that there was a tradition of historical representations in Anatolia, such as the painting
of Mandrokles and Bularchos (Hölscher 1973, 4-35; Borchhardt 2002, 91, 93-94). We know of
an Oriental love story that was depicted on walls of temples and private houses of Persians in
Anatolia from a fragment of Chares of Myteline quoted by Athenaeus (XIII, 575f.).
79
Childs 1978, 49-54, 89-91; Mellink 1998, 63-64.
80
Calmeyer 1993, 14: „ . . . wir müssen also überprüfen, ob der Vorkämpfer, offensichtlich
auch der Anführer der siegenden Partei ein Großkönig gewesen sein kann – und ob es Dareios I.
sein kann. Das ist nicht der Fall“.
81
Calmeyer 1988, 47-48; Koch 1992, 211, fig. 143.
82
Borchhardt 2002, 95.
83
Henkelmann 1995/1996; Jacobs 1994, 138. See also: Kaptan 2003, 58-60. On the crenel-
lated crowns of the kings on the Persepolis reliefs: Roaf 1983, 131-133.
84
For example, on the gem in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Sekunda 1992, 3 bottom figure)
and the silver phiale from the so-called Lydian Treasure (Özgen, Öztürk 1996, 87).
85
On the discussion of kidaris Jacobs (1994, 138) refers to the Munich wood painting and
argues against the interpretation of the crenellated headgear as the King’s crown.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 22 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

no good grounds for identifying the commander as the Great King. On the
other hand, Calmeyer’s argument, that the king never wears strapped boots,
can easily be rebutted since the royal smooth shoes appear in explicit sculp-
tural representation of the king in ceremonial guise and not in battle scenes.
he headgear is no evidence to support royalty, but neither are the shoes evi-
dence to the contrary.
As has been discussed above, the iconographic relation between the central
duel in the battle scene and the royal hero is evident; this is the most fre-
quently represented theme on the seals of the Persian court in the centre of the
empire. he antecedents of this very old theme originally lie in pre-dynastic
Mesopotamia.86 he iconography of the isolated motif of the combatant Per-
sian on Achaemenid seals has been discussed exhaustively. he recent scholar-
ship tends to see a royal hero rather than the king in such figures, an
ideological construct symbolizing the collective force of Persian power.87
On the painted frieze, however, the figure of the combatant Persian appears
as head of the Persian army for the first time. his particular context once
again raises the question whether the army could have been led by the king. A
close look at the contexts of images evidently representing the king may help
to clarify this question. In fact, Persian kings are rarely represented in direct
conflict with the enemy. he only example showing King Darius I triumphant
over rebels, is the Behistun relief.88 Based on this, comparanda images showing
the Persian warrior clad in the “Achaemenid robe” and crenellated crown
bringing captives, all tied by the same rope, on some seal images are suggested
to be representations of the king.89 On some seal representations, the trium-
phant Persian is shown thrusting his dagger or spear into an enemy while
standing on a corpse, as does the Persian commander on the wood painting.90
Some of them are labelled with the respective king’s name.91 But these names
have no iconographic significance for the interpretation of the crowned and
robed Persian in principle, since the inscribed name of the king does not nec-
essarily prove the presence of the king. hus, evidence for the representation
of the king actively engaged in a battle is lacking in Achaemenid art.
86
Kaptan 2003, 55-56 with literature.
87
Curtis, Tallis 2005, 228. Garrison and Root (2001, 57) suggest “that there were cultural
taboos in the Iranian tradition of kingship that inhibited explicit depictions of the king in any
position of potential vulnerability”.
88
Koch 1992, 1-3.
89
Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 5. he victorious Persian with Greek captives: Stähler 1992, pl. 5, 1.
90
Boardman 2000, fig. 5, 5; Stähler 1992, pl. 5, 2.
91
Garrison, Root 2001, 57; Kaptan 2003, 87.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 23 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

However, the most striking argument against the presence of the king on
the painted frieze is the presence of the two infantrymen on the far left, who
differ neither in outfit nor in equipment from the commander. As has been
discussed above, they apparently represent a military unit to which the com-
mander also belongs. For this reason, the interpretation of the leader as a tri-
umphal Persian or a brave warrior seems to be more likely than that of him
as king.
Is the Battle Scene an Historical Representation?
he important question at this point is whether this unique battle scene is

intended to be of historical significance in the sense that a specific historical
battle is represented, or whether an old iconographical tradition has been
altered to correspond with general Persian exploits without specific reference
to a particular event.
Past commentaries on the battle frieze voice no doubt that it depicts a
specific Persian campaign. his was first suggested by Peter Calmeyer who
linked the frieze with one of the Scythian campaigns of Darius I.92 Following
Calmeyer’s suggestion Jürgen Borchhardt adds the wood painting to the cata-
logue of illustrations of contemporary historical events (“zeitgenössische
Ereignisbilder”) and identifies the Persian commander as Darius the Great.93
Pierre Briant goes even further and compares the battle scene with the Alexander-
mosaic in Naples. Again referring to Calmeyer he puts his attribution in con-
crete terms and denotes the battle scene as an illustration of the second
campaign of Darius I against the Scythians in 513 BC in “the Ukraine”.94
92
Calmeyer 1993, 14-15. Indeed, Calmeyer titles his article „Zwei mit historischen Szenen
bemalte Balken der Achaemenidenzeit“, however, he considers only one of the beams, the one
with the battle scene, to be an historical representation.
93
Borchhardt 2002, 95: „Unter historischen Gesichtspunkten kommen die Feldzüge Dareios
gegen die Skythen in Frage. Mit anderen Worten, der Grabinhaber, in dem wir einen bedeuten-
den Aristokraten erkennen können, rühmt sich, einen der Feldzüge des Dareios mitgemacht zu
haben. Vor dem Streitwagen erscheint in Bedeutungsproportion eine persisch gekleidete Gestalt
mit Bart und zylinderförmiger, quergeriffelter Kopfbedeckung mit aufgesetzten Ornamenten in
der man die Kidaris des Großkönigs erkennen könnte“.
94
Briant 2003, 247: “Si l’on admet, avec le premier éditeur, qu’il s’agit d’une représentation
de la guerre menée par Darius Ier contre les Scythes d’Ukraine, la peinture pourrait dater des
alentours de 500 avant notre ère. Quoi qu’il en soit, sur l’image on distingue clairement, à
gauche, une première figure royale, qui, de son arc bandé, décoche des flèches contre des cavaliers
scythes. À l’avant, devant un char, on distingue plus clairement encore un Grand roi, qui porte
la longue robe perse (le kandys) et couronne crénelée, et qui, saisissant un Scythe par sa barbe,
lui plonge son épée courte dans le corps . . .”. However, these statements are incorrect in several
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 24 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

However, Pierre Briant makes no argument for the concreteness of his inter-
pretation. He seems to have misunderstood Calmeyer’s comment.
Advancing from the premise that the ethnic identity of the enemies is evi-
dent, Peter Calmeyer argues that the Perso-Scythian wars are only attested in
written sources for the last quarter of the 6th century and that in later times,
the Scythians played no role as enemies of the Persians. Consequently,
Calmeyer thinks, that the painted battle scene must have referred to one of
these events. But it is not clear whether Calmeyer primarily argues with the
dating of the painted frieze around 500 BC or whether he derives this date
from the supposed historical context. Equally, Jürgen Borchhardt is also not
precise about this point,95 but since he believes the wood to be firmly dated by
14
C to around 500 BC, he regards its painting as a depiction of a contempo-
rary historical battle between Persians and Scythians “with good reasons”.
However, this supposed historicity of the painting does not stand up to
criticism. As the previous discussion of the iconography has shown, the
fighting groups are systematically distinguished by their headgear. Addition-
ally, they are determined also by the direction in which they are fighting: the
victorious Persians come from the left hand the defeated nomads from the
right.96 hey meet in the middle, where the respective leaders stand opposite
each other in close battle. No details of the natural setting of the event are
rendered; thus, the locality of the battlefield remains obscure. None of the
warriors is personalised sufficiently to be named. Even the ethnicity of the
enemies cannot be determined precisely. he only information which can be
extracted from the narrative form of the depiction is the victory of the Persians
over a certain group of nomad enemies with attributes specific only to a cer-
tain degree, such as dress, armour or way of fighting.
It is not intelligible whether the Persians defeated their pointed hatted ene-
mies in a specific battle with particular circumstances, or whether such battles
occurred more often, always with the Persians emerging victorious.
Contrary to the comments of Borchhardt, the wood of the frieze is far from
firmly dated by 14C.97 Consequently, the date of the painting does not neces-
sarily coincide with the Scythian campaigns of Darius. Generally speaking,
respects: Firstly, the first editor Calmeyer does not state that the battle scene renders the war of
the Darius I in the Ukraine. Secondly the “figure royale” does not shoot arrows against “Scythes”.
And thirdly the dress of the “rois” is not a kandys.
95
96
Victorious warriors coming from the left side are a convention of battle representations:
Lushey 2002, 17-18.
97
Calmeyer 1993, 7; Borchhardt 2002, 95. he samples of the Munich beams were carbon
dated by H. Willkomm, of the C-14 Laboratory of the Institute for Pure and Applied Physics at
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 25 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

any conflict between Persians and Scythians or Sacae, known or unknown to

us from the written sources could be applicable to the battle frieze on the
wood. As Calmeyer himself points out, Strabo (XV, 3, 15) relates a legendary
battle between the Persians and Scythians that happened in Zela in Northern
Anatolia. According to this account, the Scythians raided and destroyed the
domains of the Cappadocians. However, the Persian generals stationed in
Cappadocia attacked the Scythians at night and repulsed them successfully.
We do not know when this event occurred, but it must have been formative
for the Persians, because there was an annual celebration, a cultic festival, up
to the time of Strabo. Also, the Scythians may have been conceptualised as a
generic enemy for the Persians long after the historical wars.98
As noted above, the latest stylistic elements of the painting point to a date
in the middle of the 5th century BC.99 A possible later date does not, however,
exclude the possibility that the battle scene might refer to an historical combat
between Persians and Scythians.100 Indeed, it is hardly believable that the
sophisticated composition of the frieze was first created for this artistically
undemanding wood painting. Plausibly, a celebrated battle painting was used
the University of Kiel. In his letter of 8th January 1991 addressed to Dr. Gebhard, Prof. Willkomm
writes the following results obtained by the tests of two samples:
Δ 13C  14
C-Age B.P. ± 1σ Calendar Years %95
–22,8 2420 ± 90 790-75 BC
23,2 2490 ± 65 795-415 BC
he first sample gives a date between 790 BC and 275 BC and the second one between 795 BC
and 415 BC. Willkomm explains the discrepancy of dating between the both samples due to
imprecision of the results. But he also stresses that a more precise dating could be reached only
through crossdating with tree rings. I am grateful to Dr. Gisela Zahlhaas for sending me a copy
of the letter of Prof. Willkomm. On the problem of dating of the Tatarlı wood see Kuniholm’s
appendix in Summerer 2007, 153-156.
98
he appearance of the battle scenes between Greeks and Persians on fourth century Greek
vases shows that the images of generic enemies could return regardless of actual conflicts:
W. Raeck in: Pracht und Prunk 2006, 157. See, for example, on the Athenian red-figured hydria
in the British Museum: Curtis, Tallis 2005, 213, Cat. 425.
99
he beams of the Tatarlı tomb chamber including the beams in Munich are scientifically
tested. According to the tests, carried out by Peter Kuniholm in cooperation with Bernd Kromer
in 1996, the timbers were cut in 451 BC±22. However, after the most recent radiocarbon results,
Kuniholm is now arguing strongly for an earlier date in the year 478 BC +4/±7. But he also
stresses that the precise dating of the Tatarlı tomb will remain open until more overlapping wood
material is found: see appendix in Summerer 2007.
100
he depiction of the battle of Marathon in the stoa poikile was commissioned thirty years
after the event of this war: Hölscher 1973, 50; Hannestad 2001, 112; Borchhardt 2002, 99.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 26 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

as a model. Depictions of historical events on so called tabulae are mentioned

by some ancient authors. According to Pliny (N.H. XXXV, 55), an historical
illustration of the defeat of the Magnesians was painted on wood by the Greek
artist Bularchos about 700 BC.101 Herodotus mentions wooden pinakes with
the representation of Darius’ floating bridge and the Persian army crossing the
Bosporus.102 Accordingly, it is quite possible that a painting of the subsequent
Scythian wars was also commissioned by the Great King or by one of his
officers. But any attempt to determine a concrete relationship between this
supposed historical depiction of Darius’ wars in 513/512 BC and the wood
painting in Munich is trapped in a vicious circle. Accordingly, the claim that
the battle scene on the Munich beam is “eine zeitgenössische Ereignisdarstel-
lung” of Darius’ Scythian wars cannot really be entertained.103
herefore, the depicted Persian victory should not be seen as an historical
documentation, but rather as a more generic battle “Persians versus enemy”,
perhaps an ideological construct which was determined by the warfare experi-
ence of Persians. he question whether the Munich wood depicts an historical
event or not is misleading. We should rather ask how it relates to Persian
military practice and how the experienced battle was perceived by the Persians
at the time of the Persian Wars.
To conclude, the Munich wood painting probably used a painting of the
Archaic period showing a battle scene between the Persians and their pointed
hatted nomad enemies as a model. But the question to what extent a specific
historical impulse played a role in this supposed prototype must remain open
since we have no means to exclude that it was completely a product of imagi-
native construction. At any rate, in the Classical period this Archaic model
was transformed and realised with details according to the ability and needs of
both painter and commissioner.
It is also worth of noting that the other known battle images from the Ana-
tolian funeral contexts such as the wall paintings in Karaburun tomb and the
grave-stele from Yalnızdam in Lycia as well as the relief on the sarcophagus
101
102
Hdt. IV, 88, 1: “Mandrokles [a Samian architect who made a floating bridge for the Per-
sians across the Bosporus] had a picture made with them, showing the whole bridge of the
Bosporus, and Darius [the Persian] sitting aloft on his throne and his army crossing; he set this
up in the temple of Hera, with this inscription: ‘After bridging the Bosporus that teems with fish,
Mandrokles dedicated a memorial of the floating bridge to Hera, having won a crown for him-
self, and fame for the Samians, doing the will of King Darius’”. he pinakes of Mandrokles are
considered as an historical depiction: Hölscher 1973, 36; Borchhardt 2002, 93-94.
103
According to Borchhardt (2002, 95-96) the archer on the chariot was the tomb owner or
commissioner of the wood paintings who participated on the Scythian campaigns of Darius
either in 519 or in 513 BC.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 27 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

from Çan in the Troas,104 depict a spear-bearing Persian riding down the Greek
enemy and follow a Greek iconographic model.105 In contrast to this, the Ira-
nian nomads with pointed hats oppose the Persians on the Tatarlı wall paint-
ings and the image follows here traditional oriental models, including clearly
connected to Persia. his particularity can be explained by vicinity of Tatarlı
to the Achaemenid royal residence Kelainai.
Bibliography
Bae, C.-H. 2002: Comparative Studies of King Darius’s Bisitun Inscription. Cambrige Mass,
Harvard Univ. Diss. 2001 (Ann Arbor).
Bittner, S. 1985: Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres (Munich).
Boardman, J. et alii 1977: Die griechische Kunst (Munich).
Boardman, J. 2000: Persia and the West (London).
Borchhardt, J. 2002: Narrative Ereignis- und Historienbilder im mediterranen Raum von de
Archaik bis in den Hellenismus. In M. Bietak & M. Schwarz (eds.), Krieg und Sieg. Narra-
tive Wanddarstellungen von Altägypten bis ins Mittelalter. Internationals Kolloquium. 29.-30.
Juli 1997 im Schloss Haindorf, Lanenlois (Vienna), 81-136.
Brentjes, B. 1995/1996: Waffen der Steppenvölker (II): Kompositbogen, Goryt und Pfeil. Ein
Waffenkomplex der Steppenvölker. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 28, 179-210.
Briant, P. 2003: Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre (Paris).
Calmeyer, P. 1988: Zur Genese altiranischer Motive. X. Die elamisch-persische Tracht. Archäolo-
gische Mitteilungen aus Iran 21, 27-51.
Bruns-Özgan, Ch. 1987: Lykische Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Tübingen).
Calmeyer, P. 1993: Zwei mit historischen Szenen bemalte Balken der Achaemenidenzeit. Münch-
ner Jahrbücher 43, 1993, 7-18.
Childs, W. A. P. 1978: he City-Reliefs of Lycia (Princeton).
Cohen, A. 1997: he Alexander Mosaic. Stories of Victory and Defeat (Cambridge).
Cook, R. M. 1981: Clazomenian Sarcophagi (Mainz).
Czichon, R. 1992: Die Gestaltungsprinzipien der neuassyrischen Flachbildkunst und ihre Entwick-
lung vom 9. zum 7. Jh.v.Chr. (Munich).
Dedeoğlu, H. 2003: he Lydians and Sardis (Istanbul).
Farkas, A. 1967/1968: he Horse and Rider in Achaemenid Art. Persica 3, 57-76.
Gabrielli, M. 2006: Le cheval dans l’Empire achéménide (Istanbul).
Garrison, M. B. 2000: Achaemenid Iconography as Evidenced by Glyptic Art: Subject Matter,
Social Function, Audience and Diffusion. In Chr. Uehlinger (ed.), Images as Media. Sources
for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium
BCE) (Göttingen), 115-164.
Garrison, M. & Cool Root, M. 2001: Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets I. Images of
Heroic Encounter (Chicago).
Georges, P. 1987/1995: Darius in Scythia. he Formation of Herodotus’ Sources and the Nature
of Darius’ Campaign. American Journal of Ancient History 12, 97-146.
Ghirshman, P. 1964: Iran. Protoiraner, Meder, Achämeniden (Munich).
104
Mellink 1972, 23-24; Bruns-Özgan 1987, pl. 20, 2; Sevinç et al. 2001, fig. 11.
105
Cohen 1997, fig. 11-16.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 28 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

Hannestad, L. 2001: War and Greek Art. In T. Bekker-Nielsen & L. Hannestad (eds.), War as
Cultural and Social Force. Essays on Warfare in Antiquity (Selskab), 110-117.
Head, D. 1992: he Achaemenid Persian Army (Stockport).
Henig, M. & Whiting, M. 1994: Classical Gems. Ancient and Modern Intaglios and Cameos in the
Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge).
Henkelmann, W. 1995/1996: he Royal Achaemenid Crown. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran 28, 275-293.
Hölscher, T. 1973: Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Beiträge zur Archäologie 6)
(Würzburg).
Hölscher, T. 2003: Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Mem-
ory, and Cultural Symbolism. Journal of Roman Studies 93, 1-17.
Ivantchik, A. 2001: Kimmerier und Skythen (Berlin, Moskau).
Ivantchik, A. 2006: „Scythian“ Archers on Archaic Attic Vases: problems of Interpretation.
Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12, 196-271.
Jacobs, B. 1987: Griechische und persische Elemente in der Grabkunst Lykiens zur Zeit der Achä-
menidenherrschaft. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 78) ( Jonsered).
Jacobs, B. 1994: Drei Beiträge zu Fragen der Rüstung und Bekleidung in Iran zur Achämeniden-
zeit. Iranica Antiqua 29, 125-67.
Jacobs, B. 2000: Achaimenidenherrschaft in der Kaukausus-Region und in Cis-Kaukasien.
Archäologische Mittelungen aus Iran und Turan 32, 93-102.
Kaptan, D. 2003: he Daskyleion Bullae. Seal Images from the Western Achaemenid Empire (Ach-
aemenid History 12) (Leiden).
Knauer, E. R. 1986: he Persian Saddle Blanket. Gleanings. Studia Iranica 15, 265-266.
Koch, H. 1992: Es kündet Dareios der König . . . . Vom Leben im persischen Großreich (Mainz).
Kökten Ersoy, H. 1998: Two wheeled vehicles from Lydia and Mysia. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 48,
107-133.
Littauer, M. A. & Crouwel, J. H. 1979: Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near
East (Leiden).
Lebedynsky, I. 2006: Les Saces. Les „Sycthes“ d’Asie, VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.- IVe siecle apr. J.-C.
(Paris).
Luschey, H. 2002: Rechts und Links. Untersuchungen über Bewegungsrichtung, Seitenordnung und
Höhenordnung als Elemente der antiken Bildsprache (Tübingen).
Mellink, M. 1971: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı 1970. American Jounal of Archae-
ology 75, 245-255.
Mellink, M. 1972: Excavations at Karata-Semayük and Elmalı 1971. American Jounal of Archae-
ology 76, 250-255.
Mellink, M. 1973: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük, Lycia 1972. American Jounal of Archaeology
77, 297-301.
Mellink, M. 1974: Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı. American Jounal of Archaeology
78, 351-359.
Mellink, M. 1980: Archaic Wall Paintings from Gordion. In K. de Vries (ed.), From Athens to
Gordion. he Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young (Philadelphia), 91-98.
Mellink, M. J. 1998: Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in Northern Lycia (Philadel-
phia).
Metzler, D. 1971: Porträt und Gesellschaft. Über die Entstehung des griechischen Porträts in der
Klassik (Münster).
Moorey, R. M. S. 2002: Novelity and Tradition in Achaemenid Syria. he case of the clay
“Astarte” plaques. Iranica Antiqua 37, 203-218.
Nagel, W. 1983: Frada, Skuncha und der Saken-Feldzug des Darius I. In H. Koch & D. N.
Mackenzie (eds.), Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der Achämenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben
(Berlin), 169-189.
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 29 8/8/07 4:27:23 PM

Nefëdkin, A.K. 2001: Boevÿe kolesnitsÿ i kolesnichie drevnikh grekov (St Petersburg).
Nefiodkin, A. K. 2004: On the origin of the Scythed Chariots. Historia 53/3, 369-378.
Nollé, M. 1992: Denkmäler vom Satrapensitz Daskyleion: Studien zur graeco-persischen Kunst
(Berlin).
Nylander, C. & Flemberg, J. 1981/83: A Foot-Note from Persepolis. Anadolu 22, 57-68.
Özgen, E. & Öztürk, J. 1996: Lydian Treasure. Heritage Recovered (Istanbul).
Pracht und Prunk 2006: Pracht und Prunk der Großkönige. Das Persische Weltreich. Catalogue of
the Exposition in the Historisches Museum der Pflaz Speyer (Stuttgart).
Postgate, J. N. 2000: he Assyrian Army in Zamua. Iraq 52, 89-108.
Rivet, A. L. F. 1979: A note on scythed chariots. Antiquity 53, 130-132.
Roaf, M. 1983: Sculptures and Sculptors at Persepolis (London).
Roosevelt, Ch. H. & Luke, Ch. 2006: Looting Lydia: the Destruction of an Archaeological
Landscape in Western Turkey. In N. Brodie et alii (eds.), Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and
the Antiquities Trade (Grainesville FL), 173-187.
Schmidt, E. F. 1970: Persepolis. III. he Royal Tombs and other Monuments (Chicago).
Schlumberger, D. 1971: La coiffure du Grand-Roi. Syria 48, 375-383.
Sekunda, N. 1992: he Persian Army. 560-330 BC (London).
Sevinç, N. et al. 2001: A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan, Studia Troica 11,
383-420.
Shahbazi, A. Sh. 1982: Darius in Scythia and Scythians in Persepolis. Archäologische Mittelungen
aus Iran 15, 189-235.
Snodgrass, A. M. 1999: Arms and Armor of the Greeks (Baltimore, London).
Stähler, K. 1992: Griechische Geschichtsbilder klassischer Zeit (Münster).
Strommenger, E. 1962: Fünf Jahrtausende Mesopotamien (Munich).
Stronach, D. 1989: Early Achaemenid Coinage: Perspectives from the Homeland. Iranica Anti-
qua 24, 255-279.
Summerer, L. 2007: From Tatarlı to Munich. he Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Cham-
ber in Phrygia. In I. Delemen & O. Casabonne (eds.), Proceedings of the International
Workshop in Istanbul. he Achaemenid Impact on Local Population and Cultures in Anatolia
(6th-4th B.C.), May 19-22 May, 2005 (Istanbul) 129-156.
Tallis, N. 2005: Transport and Warfare. In J. Curtis & N. Tallis (eds.), Forgotten Empire. he
Wold of Ancient Persia (London), 210-217.
Uçankuş, H. 1979: Afyon’nun Tatarlı kasabasında bulunan Phryg tümülüsü kazısı. Türk Tarih
Kurumu Kongresi (Ankara), 306-334.
Uçankuş, H. 2002: Afyon’nun Tatarlı kasabasında bulunan Phryg tümülüsü kazısı. Arkeoloji ve
Sanat 106, 23-51.
Voigt, M. & Young, T.C. [jr.] 1999: From Phrygian Capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: middle
and late Phrygian Gordion. Iranica Aniqua 34, 191-242.
Vollenweider, M.-L.1995: Camées et intailles. Catalogue raisonné. Les portraits grecs du Cabinet des
médailles I (Paris).
Walser, G. 1966: Die Völkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis (Berlin).
Wang, B. 2001: he Ancient Corpse of Xinjiang. he People of Ancient Xinjiang (Beijing).
Widengren, G. 1956: Some Remarks on Riding Costume and Articles of Dress among Iranian
Peoples in Antiquity. Arctica 11, 228-284.
Yadin, Y. 1963: he Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (New
York).
Zahlhaas, G. 1995: Orient und Okzident. Kulturelle Wurzeln Alteuropas 7000 bis 15 v. Chr. Exhi-
bition Catalogue Prähistorische Staatssammlung München (Munich).
ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 30 8/8/07 4:27:23 PM

Picturing Persian Victory The Painted Ba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Picturing Persian Victory The Painted Ba

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Picturing Persian Victory The Painted Ba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13 (2007) 3-30 www.brill.

Picturing Persian Victory:

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 3 8/8/07 4:27:17 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 4 8/8/07 4:27:18 PM

destruction caused by the sawing process. On the smoothed surface of the

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 5 8/8/07 4:27:18 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 6 8/8/07 4:27:18 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 7 8/8/07 4:27:18 PM

Regarding the diverging proportions and stylistic features, it can be assumed

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 8 8/8/07 4:27:19 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 9 8/8/07 4:27:19 PM

Fig. 3. Cylinder seal, Bibliotheque National (Ghirshman 1964, ﬁg. 331).

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 10 8/8/07 4:27:19 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 11 8/8/07 4:27:19 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 12 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 13 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 14 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 15 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

and extending horizontally beneath the chariot box.55 Contrary to frequent

he chariot is followed by two formations of mounted archers, in two rows

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 16 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 17 8/8/07 4:27:20 PM

As previously noted, two further archers on foot follow the horsemen

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 18 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 19 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 20 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 21 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

Is the Persian Commander the King?

Peter Calmeyer assesses whether the commander of Persians could be the

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 22 8/8/07 4:27:21 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 23 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

Is the Battle Scene an Historical Representation?

he important question at this point is whether this unique battle scene is

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 24 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 25 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

any conﬂict between Persians and Scythians or Sacae, known or unknown to

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 26 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

as a model. Depictions of historical events on so called tabulae are mentioned

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 27 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 28 8/8/07 4:27:22 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 29 8/8/07 4:27:23 PM

ACSS 13,1-2_f3_3-30.indd 30 8/8/07 4:27:23 PM

You might also like