Infantryman with sickle-sword on a Persian seal?

[Duncan Head]

A nice seal I hadn't seen before at http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/an-achaemenid-chalcedony-cylinder-seal-circa-5th-early-2067320-details.aspx?intObjectID=2067320.

Despite Christies' suggestion that the "hooked device" is "possibly a sling", I suspect that it's a drepanon sickle-sword, and that he's some sort of Anatolian infantryman. Any thoughts?

[Erpingham]

I think the dog is interesting.  All Persian ranges should now come with a pack of wardogs - its more evidence than we have for putting them in Dark Age ranges.  On the sword, could it be a sica and could he be a Thracian peltast?

[Duncan Head]

Ah, I hadn't thought about Thracians. That might be possible. In general the sica doesn't have quite that much curvature, though some obviously curve more than others - in https://www.academia.edu/1143674/Thracian_sica_and_Dacian_falx._The_history_of_a_national_weapon the most curved blades are Dacian falxes, C1-2AD -  and one might have expected a crescent shield on a Thracian.

[Sharur]

The object certainly looks more like a sickle than a sling, though the image isn't wholly clear. It's quite similar to an object in the first photo in this initial Bladesmith's Forum posting from 2012, showing the mythological hero Perseus's sword.

Sickle-swords on other, non-Achaemenid, cylinder seals typically have much longer handles - e.g. this Neo-Babylonian example. This fits better with actual archaeological swords, like this Middle Assyrian one.

However, it's noticeable the curvature on the blades shown on cylinder seals often seems significantly greater than on any actual examples, so this may not be a particular guide to how curved the real blade was.

[Duncan Head]

Sickle-swords on other, non-Achaemenid, cylinder seals typically have much longer handles - e.g. this Neo-Babylonian example. This fits better with actual archaeological swords, like this Middle Assyrian one.

No, that "khepesh" style is a completely different, much older, sort of weapon. The Anatolian drepanon has the cutting-edge on the inside of the curve, as on the Trysa heroon - http://viamus.uni-goettingen.de/pages/imageView/big?Object.Id:record:int=7982

[Sharur]

No, that "khepesh" style is a completely different, much older, sort of weapon. The Anatolian drepanon has the cutting-edge on the inside of the curve, as on the Trysa heroon - http://viamus.uni-goettingen.de/pages/imageView/big?Object.Id:record:int=7982

Ah, right.

I'm not sure about the "Mesopotamian khepesh-style" weapon being much older though. Certainly its origins were probably third millennium BC, but it continued in art through to circa 500 BC at least. I can't find any suitable images online, but Dominique Collon's "First Impressions" (British Museum, 1987) has a useful selection in her chapter covering 1000-500 BC from various places, including seals 366-371 inclusive (Babylonia), 381 (Babylonia again; worn and the weapon is particularly indistinct unfortunately - it might be a club instead - dated perhaps to the 550s-530s BC) and 414 (Susa; again worn and indistinct, but with a probable crescentic blade).

There's also a particularly clear example of what looks nearer to "your" Anatolian drepanon-style weapon on her seal 425 from Pasargadae, Iran, dating from the post-500 BC period (so Achaemenid Empire), which seems a lot closer to the Christie's catalogue seal photo, albeit somewhat better-draughted.

[Duncan Head]

I'm not sure about the "Mesopotamian khepesh-style" weapon being much older though. Certainly its origins were probably third millennium BC, but it continued in art through to circa 500 BC at least.
...
There's also a particularly clear example of what looks nearer to "your" Anatolian drepanon-style weapon on her seal 425 from Pasargadae, Iran, dating from the post-500 BC period (so Achaemenid Empire), which seems a lot closer to the Christie's catalogue seal photo, albeit somewhat better-draughted.

Not a seal I know, thanks for the pointer. Am I correct in thinking that the khepesh style exists only in art after 1000 BC or so - that the only actual examples are earlier? And, therefore, that it is often thought to be an archaising feature in art, not a contemporary weapon?

Because I think that the Anatolian drepanon is a real  weapon: I am not aware of any surviving examples, but in art it occurs in a wide range of contexts, not just limited to gods and kings, and in literature Herodotos has the Karians and Lykians carrying them in 480 BC.

[Sharur]

Am I correct in thinking that the khepesh style exists only in art after 1000 BC or so - that the only actual examples are earlier? And, therefore, that it is often thought to be an archaising feature in art, not a contemporary weapon?

For your first question, in Mesopotamian art and archaeology, it's more probable the reverse is true, but it depends on your interpretation of the artwork. For example, this standing figure from the Standard of Ur may be holding an early form of Mesopotamian sickle-sword, and a similar interpretation has been put on the object held in the left hand of the figure in this ivory carving from Mari (which I showed as a sketch in Slingshot 266, p.27, Fig.17, but interpreted differently). Another is the object held by King Eanatum in his right hand on the Stele of Vultures. These examples are all dated to circa 2500 BC. (Links all originate from the "Weapons found in the Royal Tombs of Ur" page of the Sumerian Shakespeare website, incidentally.)

However, archaeological examples of swords from the same period all seem to be straight, moderately broad-bladed weapons (as the last linked page above conveniently illustrated for Ur), and most of the surviving examples of sickle-swords seem to be no earlier than the second millennium BC, like this famous Middle Assyrian example (Adad-Nirari I, c.1307–1275 BC) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Certainly, apparently similar-looking weapon-like objects, often with the blade (if that's what was intended) and handle forming a quite strong question mark, "?", shape, and commonly held by deities in cylinder seal and other art, feature from roughly the late third millennium BC into the mid second millennium or so, sometimes with a serpentine or draconic form (as found for instance alone on some later second millennium kudurrus, such as that of Eanna-shum-iddina from c.1120 BC or Melishipak II c.1180s BC). The kudurru examples could pass for maces instead, and their association with deities has led some to suppose they may have been symbolic, not real military, weapons.

Worse still, there are examples of mid-third millennium Mesopotamian axes which had convex, gently crescentic blades which were mounted on similarly curved wooden handles, weapons which looked quite similar in form to the "slightly curved" sickle-swords, but where the blade would have been on the outside of the curve, not the inside, so even this shape needn't be quite so definitive as might be supposed, especially when shown on tiny cylinder seal depictions. (There'll be an example of one of these axes in the Slingshot pipeline from my Mesopotamian Warfare Notelets series on warriors from Kish.)

[Jim Webster]

Back to the original seal I can see the sickle, and wondered about whether he was a Pisidian.
What do people think, is he bare-chested and bare legged with a kilt, of is it a longish tunic over long trousers?

Jim

[Duncan Head]

I'm tempted to say elbow-length sleeves.

[Jim Webster]

I'm tempted to say elbow-length sleeves.

Comparing the infantryman to the horseman, if the infantryman is bare chested then so is the horseman 

So my guess is that we have an infantryman with a long tunic and probably long trousers.

With shield and two javelins and sickle sword I'd be tempted to say 'Pisidian'

Jim

[Sharur]

What do people think, is he bare-chested and bare legged with a kilt, of is it a longish tunic over long trousers?

Comparison with similar seal designs for which there are clearer images suggests the footman is likely to have been wearing only a skirt/kilt. The leg musculature is typical for bare legs, and the technique on them, using edge lines for areas of bare flesh, seems repeated for his chest and at least upper arms. The chest isn't so clear in places, and might suggest a short- or no-sleeved tunic, but this could be simply poor carving or wear on the seal's surface.

There seems to be a similar line across the footman's wrist as at his elbow, suggesting this is just part of the carving technique, rather than a cuff line. The horseman's raised arm also has an "elbow line", yet his upper and lower arms seem to have been carved with the "bare" edge lines, for instance. The horse's front legs also seem "semi-detached" with a body line hiding the junction even for the nearer leg.

Overall, the style of this seal is quite crude compared to other Achaemenid cylinder seals (cf. the better, and better-imaged, examples in Collon's "First Impressions" Chapter 7), so it's probably unwise to try to read too much into its apparent detailing.

Edit: Forgot to add that if this period is of particular interest, it may be worth seeing (probably via inter-library loan, as Amazon has it at £150!) "Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals VI: Pre-Achaemenid and Achaemenid Periods", published by the British Museum Press in 2005, author Parvine H. Merrillees, ISBN 978-0714111582.