Mysians

[Jim Webster]

I was wondering about the infantry shown on the Altıkulaç Sarcophagus
I've seen one article which thought they were Mysians. Is there any concensus?

You cannot view this attachment.

[Duncan Head]

Not really. You still see either "Mysians" or "Greeks".

[Jim Webster]

I confess to not being convinced by the 'Greeks'. I can understand arguments about the shield and them being peltasts but the tunic doesn't look particularly Greek

[Adrian Nayler]

The initial publication of the Çan Sarcophagus is:

N. Sevinç, R. Körpe, M. Tombul, C. B. Rose, D. Strahan, H. Kiesewetter, J. Wallrodt, (2001) 'A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan' Studia Troica, Vol. 11, pp. 383-420.

It is available here:

https://www.academia.edu/4954596/A_New_Painted_Graeco_Persian_Sarcophagus_From_%C3%87an_Studia_Trioca_Band_XI_2001_383_420

A more recent account by Charles Rose, a co-author of the original paper, puts forward much the same view in:

Rose, C.B. (2014) 'The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy,' Cambridge University Press. (Pages 129-142)

In this view, both dismounted figures are interpreted as Greeks. That on the right, the defeated opponent of the horseman, is identified as Greek especially because of the white fillet about his head. I'm not clear exactly why this item is so important in this instance, especially as the second figure lacks one. The figure on the left is interpreted as a Greek mercenary and he is suggested to be a 'henchman' of the rider. He is thought to be carrying spare javelins for the rider. I'm not clear why they do not consider that the javelins could be the possessions of the footman rather than the rider, other than the alleged similarity of this figure to others in depictions of hunting scenes, for example that on a stele depicting a boar hunt and symposium from Çavuşköy.

I'm not entirely satisfied as to why the figure on the left has to be a friend rather than a foe given the similarities between the footmen. They interpret the henchman as fighting for the Anatolians as they believe he is wearing trousers (his legs are painted red whilst the opponent's are apparently not). But did not the Greeks regard wearing trousers as a particularly barbarous trait? They seem to believe that the Anatolian patron of the sarcophagus wanted an obvious difference of alliegance for that Greek and used an identifiable ethnic marker (trousers) to show this.

Other commentators have followed this line though I'm not sure whether they agree with the interpretation rather than merely repeating it. The principal proponent of an alternative view is John Ma. He argues that both dismounted figures are Mysians in:

Ma, J. (2008) 'Mysians on the Çan Sarcophagus? Ethnicity and Domination in Achaimenid Military Art,' Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 243-254.

He says on page 251:

"To sum up - on the Can sarcophagus, the Persian cavalryman's opponent does not fit canons for the representation of Greeks; there is no specific parallel for equipment and costume in the corpus of similar scenes. A possible solution comes from contemporary literary evidence and from historical geography: Xenophon suggests a suitable identification, a member of the recalcitrant populations of "wooded" Mysia or (less likely) Pisidia, being harried by Persian noblemen under the satrap of Daskyleion; the "henchman" might be an Iranized Mysian serving as an auxiliary in an expedition by satrapal forces."

Though Ma is cited in Rose's 2014 bibliography I could not find a discussion or rebuttal of his view in the text. Rose does mention in passing Ma's opinion in note 58 saying "Ma (2008) also identifies Mysians here." He also mentions there that (two years earlier than Ma) "Bieg (2006) has argued that the cuirassed rider represents Spithridates, the hyparch of the satrap Pharnabazos, fighting a Mysian, while the hunting scene shows Pharnabazos himself with Spithridates and a member of the latter's family." Again, no discussion as to why this might not be so.

The reference, which I have not seen, is:

Bieg, G. (2006) 'Die Perser in der Troas.' In Tekmeria: Archäologische Zeugnisse in ihrer kulturhistorischen und politischen Dimension. Beiträge für Werner Gauer, edited by N. Kreutz and B. Schweizer, 25–39. Münster.

So, no consensus amongst a small number of scholars on both sides of a Greek-Mysian divide. We must therefore take our pick!

Adrian.

[Jim Webster]

It was Ma's article I read which is written almost as a refutation of the previous work. So I rather wondered if anything new had appeared in the last sixteen or so years

[DBS]

The thing about the scene that strikes me is the cuirass of the rider.  The paper to which Adrian links describes it as "unprecedented in monumental art."  It seems to me rather reminiscent of the pronounced neck and shoulder armour depicted on the Orlat Plaques.  http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/mode.html

I know there is a great deal of distance, and probably in time (I am unsure just how firm the dating is for the Plaques), but the basic armour principle seems to be the same and rather distinctive.

[Duncan Head]

I find Ma's Mysian suggestion more convincing than Greeks, certainly.

Like Adrian, I am not convinced that the figure on the left - the "henchman", as both Sevinç et al and Ma term him - is in fact on the rider's side. Sevinç et al say that "his position, stance, and costume show him to be the rider's henchman", citing the hunt scene on the Çavuşköy relief as a parallel. But the Çavuşköy retainer is followinig on behind the horseman, moving in the same plane and the same direction as his master - a feature used in many later depictions of horsemen right up to the stelae of Roman Imperial cavalry with a groom following them. The kopis-wielder on the Çan Sarcophagus, however, is at the horseman's flank, not behind him, and is moving out of the background towards the horse - better placed to attack the horse and rider than to follow them. I suspect, therefore, that both of the footsoldiers are hostile Anatolians. (And the skeleton in the sarcophagus had his left thigh broken - some time before his death. It is probably too much to say that the scene depicts the event in which that injury occurred - but the kopis-wielder is well placed to do just that!)

[Duncan Head]

The thing about the scene that strikes me is the cuirass of the rider.  The paper to which Adrian links describes it as "unprecedented in monumental art."  It seems to me rather reminiscent of the pronounced neck and shoulder armour depicted on the Orlat Plaques. 

I'm afraid I struggle to see any resemblance between the Çan Sarcophagus armour and the Orlat armours. The Çan armour is very similar to cuirasses shown in Achaemenid seals and gems - just not in larger-scale "monumental" art until this sarcophagus.

[DBS]

Oh, I know there are other Achaemenid examples, just that this made me think immediately of the Orlat plaques.  I accept a very subjective opinion!  I have always been intrigued by the Orlat depictions.