The Achaemenids and the Tatarli tomb paintings

[DBS]

Firstly, apologies if this has been covered in depth here before and I have missed it!

I finally got round to an internet search for the Tatarli tomb paintings, having not found much a few years back when last I looked.  That led me to these images:

http://warfare.tk/Ancient/Tatarli_Tumulus_Frieze.htm

I wondered what were the considered views of people (esp Duncan of course) as to how they should be interpreted and what evidential weight should be placed upon them?

My observations would be as follows:

The chaps on the left of the beam are presumably Achaemenid, but specific ethnicity is less clear.  The figure in the centre would seem to be princely/noble; he is the only one engaging in manly hand to hand combat and he seems to be dressed in Persian costume comparable to that depicted at Persepolis and Susa.  His headgear is interesting, as it seems to be similar but not identical to the fluted caps seen at the palaces - is this just a squashed or less precise rendering of said fluted caps, an over elaborate fillet of some type, or something else (it almost looks like a crown)?

Behind him is a chariot.  Now, if I am right in assuming him to be the heroic noble, is this his chariot, from which he has dismounted to do the heroic hand to hand stuff?  The two men in the chariot are not wearing Persian robes but more normal Iranian garb.  Whether or not it is a nobleman's command chariot, it clearly has an active combat role with an archer firing from it.

The cavalry behind are also in Iranian garb, and are all horse archers, with no apparent evidence of a spear.  One wonders what ethnicity they are supposed to be?  Persians or Medes?  Tame Scythians or Kimmerians (if the latter are anything more than a legacy label)?  Other assorted Iranian types?

Then we have at extreme left a couple of infantry archers, who seem to be dressed the same as the "Persian" in the centre, including the posh hat.  If lesser nobles or guards, they seem to be placed in a rather inferior part of the composition, though in artistic symmetry there are a couple of enemy foot archers at extreme right.

The opponents are usually assumed to be Scythians, which seems reasonable given their pointed caps.  However, that raises the question as to what flavour of Scythian/Saka.  Pointed hats makes one think of the Saka Tigrakhauda, but they are a long way off to the east.  Perhaps the tomb commemorates a battle in which its occupant participated against them, a long way from home, or perhaps they are supposed to be Pontic Scythians who would be somewhat close to Tatarli?

Oh, and statement of the obvious, but not a single shield in play.

[Duncan Head]

I don't think we have discussed it in any detail, no. It's a very interesting find - one of three significant Achaemenid iconographic finds that have been made since I last wrote about the Achaemenids, the other two being the Miho museum pectoral and the Can (or Altıkulaç) sarcophagus.

Useful articles about Tatarli include several by Latife Summerer - here, here , and here. There's also Draycott on the "convoy" on the north wall.

(The hoplites on the north wall are also interesting - not in the Druzhina page that David originally linked to, but there's a drawing at the end of the Summerer paper in my first link, or see here. They look like Greek hoplites but also carry Anatolian drepana sickles - perhaps they reflect local Phrygians.)

[Duncan Head]

The chaps on the left of the beam are presumably Achaemenid, but specific ethnicity is less clear. ...
The cavalry behind are also in Iranian garb, and are all horse archers, with no apparent evidence of a spear.  One wonders what ethnicity they are supposed to be?  Persians or Medes? 

It may be worth noticing that the Achaemenid cavalry wear caps in mixed colours. Set this against the consistently yellow caps on the Alexander Sarcophagus, the Mosaic, and even the "Persian" carpet from Pazyryk, which led Sekunda to argue that they were an ethnic marker of Persians. If he's right, these aren't meant to be Persians. Or he's just mistaken, of course. (Summerer in the "Picturing..." article does suggest that the cavalry may be foreigners, since they're not in the "Persian" robe of the others.)

These horsemen do look to be unarmoured (unlike those on the Can sarcophagus and the Miho pectoral), and hence perhaps "light cavalry" as opposed to the generally cuirassed Persians. But that might always be putting too much trust in the artist's accuracy of detail? Then again, the charioteers do seem to wear some sort of armour - note the toggles on the chest - so the artist wasn't averse to indicating armour.

The figure in the centre would seem to be princely/noble; he is the only one engaging in manly hand to hand combat and he seems to be dressed in Persian costume comparable to that depicted at Persepolis and Susa.
...
Then we have at extreme left a couple of infantry archers, who seem to be dressed the same as the "Persian" in the centre, including the posh hat. 

We tend to think of Achaemenids wearing "Median" tunic and trousers to fight in. Herodotos explicitly says so, and it's what the majority of art shows. But some seals and the like do show combatants in long "Persian" robes; they might all represent the King (and his charioteer), though.

The opponents are usually assumed to be Scythians, which seems reasonable given their pointed caps.  However, that raises the question as to what flavour of Scythian/Saka.  Pointed hats makes one think of the Saka Tigrakhauda, but they are a long way off to the east.  Perhaps the tomb commemorates a battle in which its occupant participated against them, a long way from home, or perhaps they are supposed to be Pontic Scythians who would be somewhat close to Tatarli?

The obvious ID is Darius I's European Scythian campaign, but it may represent no more than a general preoccupation with the northern frontier - as does the Miho pectoral.

[DBS]

Duncan, thank you very much.  The Summerer papers in particular seem spot on to me - I think the only issue I have with them is the assumption that the painting of the battle scene must be a copy of a better work, which seems to me a tad snobbish towards the poor chap who painted the beams, assuming he was incapable of originality.  Regardless of whether on takes it to be portrayal of a Darian battle, I note that the dendrochronology seems to put the beams firmly before the mid 5th century, indeed possibly in close proximity to the great expedition to the west.

I was unaware of the "hoplite" scene, but as you say the drepana sickles are unmistakeable and just emphasises that Greeks did not have a monopoly on their supposed panoply...

[DBS]

We tend to think of Achaemenids wearing "Median" tunic and trousers to fight in. Herodotos explicitly says so, and it's what the majority of art shows. But some seals and the like do show combatants in long "Persian" robes; they might all represent the King (and his charioteer), though.

That was why I think the couple of chaps at extreme left are interesting; yes, the heroic central figure, if a prince or noble (or even the King of Kings), one would understand to be depicted in some finery, even on the battlefield, accurately or not.  But the two chaps off left are dressed the same way.  Since there are two of them together, it cannot be the argument sometimes advanced with ancient art that they are the central figure shown in a previous frame, as it were, advancing into the battle.  So we seem to have two very different dress styles, which surely must indicate either differing ethnicity or status; three if one counts the subtle differences, such as the possible armour, of the lads in the chariot.

[Andreas Johansson]

We tend to think of Achaemenids wearing "Median" tunic and trousers to fight in. Herodotos explicitly says so, and it's what the majority of art shows. But some seals and the like do show combatants in long "Persian" robes; they might all represent the King (and his charioteer), though.

Perhaps relevant that that scene doesn't strictly show a combatant but a hunter?