Neo-Elamite figure of an archer

[Duncan Head]

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ija.20130103.11.pdf


An article from late 2013 about a silver statuette of an archer, from a cave in western Iran. There are neo-Elamite inscriptions on some of the associated finds, apparently associating them with Samati, which I think is a local Elamite kingdom.

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting to see that the Assyrians depicted all draw the bow to the right ear; the neo-Elamite draws a larger bow to the right shoulder.

[tadamson]

Actually, all the illustrations have the right hand at the same point..

The separate bowstring on the figure appears to have been mistakenly placed across his back...

[Patrick Waterson]

Sorry, have to respectfully disagree.

The Elamite has his draw hand on the point of his right shoulder and in line with his right armpit.  The Assyrians (and 'Hittite') have the draw hand between the neck and the right shoulder, in line with where the right nipple would be.  I do grant that the Elamite's bowstring is poorly executed, but the position of the draw hand seems clear enough.

Another oddity is that the Elamite is drawing his bow left-handed, as for that matter is the sketched Assyrian barefoot archer (fig 9 in the paper).  Not sure what if anything to make of that.

[aligern]

I think Tom is correct n that the bowstring is placed  wrongly  and should be on the other side of the figure.

The other figure in the text that is apparently left handed may be or perhaps it might be that the illustration has been reversed?
Roy

[aligern]

http://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/12-2.htm

Sanctifies the notion of left handed Biblical bowmen.  Of course being a leftie does not cause anywhere near  the problems that a sinister shield bearer would.

Roy

[aligern]

Actually in both Assyrian and Egyptian depictions chaps facing from the left of the picture are right handed and those from the right are left handed.... Suspiciously like an artistic convention.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Could well be.  Still not sure where this leaves a left-handed Elamite archer figure, unless he was maybe part of a group collection.

I think Tom is correct n that the bowstring is placed  wrongly  and should be on the other side of the figure.

I did give this due consideration (Tom does not make such judgements lightly), but the bow is being held in what looks very like a right hand grip - then again, so is the string.  Would the symbolic 'nipples' on the torso indicate the back or breast of the figure?

Here is an Assyrian rendering of an Elamite archer in action: the Elamite uses a standard left-handed grip on the bow; the artist has copped out of rendering the draw hand by hiding it behind the quiver, but he does seem to depict a draw to the right shoulder, while the Assyrian to the left of the relief seems from the angle of the string to have his draw hand between neck and right shoulder.  We may note in passing that part of the Elamite's bowstring seems to cross part of his back unless this is the bowstring coinciding with a thin strap for the quiver, as the bowstring does not pass behind the Elamite's head.

There are a couple of other items of interest in the Assyrian relief, including the use of axes and a mace in close combat rather than the ubiquitous short sword and the overarm thrust of the Assyrian spearmen.

[Sharur]

The Kalmakareh silver figurine has both hands rather poorly-crafted, making the whole a little "Escheresque". The two torso circles as nipples, and the general upper body modelling suggest he is shown with chest facing forwards, but there seem to be cuff and collar lines too, so it's unclear if he's intended to be wearing a fairly close-fitting shirt/tunic with sleeves, given the nipples would usually be an indicator of no clothing over that part of his body at all - and would not be generally shown if clothing were covering them. Maybe it was a cold day 

Given the model was apparently made in three main stages, a casting, followed by engraving of the finer surface details, then the addition of the bowstring-wire, it's possible a lack of attention or care during the engraving process resulted in this apparent "error".

However, if you think less about the bow being apparently placed in the left hand, and assume instead the bow has simply been wrongly cast behind the right hand (given that there are distinct, if faint, finger lines on the bow hand, as well as a lower, flat - filed down? - thumb; you can zoom in about 200% on the PDF before it starts to lose definition), the figure could actually be seen as quite dynamic, with the bow hand, bow arm and front leg all shown slightly larger than their trailing counterparts, as if slightly closer to the viewer. So perhaps it was an attempt to show the figure at a small oblique angle, not the truly "side-on" of the typical Assyrian, etc., reliefs.

It's a curious piece overall, and one surprisingly under-described by the paper. It's not a "statue" after all, but a flat, presumably one-sided, low relief figurine, so might show signs of attachment to something else on its rear surface. That in turn could have given further clues as to why it was constructed as it was. Odd too that the detailing is so weak given its relatively large size (45 mm tall, after all).

The 1 Chronicles citation could also be taken to imply ambidexterity, a useful attribute in combat without a shield.

Patrick's linked image of part of the Ashurbanipal Ulai River battle relief (in the Brit Mus, though they don't seem to have any detailed images; I found a nice zoomable extract photo of this part of the relief on the Global Art website though) gives the impression the archer's about to shoot his own head off, with his arrow, as sculpted. It doesn't look like anything except the bowstring to me - compare the separate quivers above and below this bowman on the Global Art image, and where their straps attach to the quiver, for example. Maybe the sculptors didn't realise - or assumed nobody would be paying enough attention to tell? Or maybe it was done deliberately...

Interesting too the club-men (maces, axes, etc.) don't use shields, and that's typical of many Near Eastern artworks showing melee combatants of similar type over the millennia BC, of course.