EQUESTRIAN EQUIPMENT Besides the Type of the Warrior Saint on Foot

CHAPTER FIVE EQUESTRIAN EQUIPMENT Besides the type of the warrior saint on foot, representations of them riding steeds of various colours continued to enjoy popularity in the art of the post-Iconoclastic period.1 From a costumological point of view, the equestrian equipment shown in these depictions comple- ments the saints’ armour and weaponry. In order to create a full pic- ture of the basis governing the iconography of the warrior saints it is therefore necessary to also analyze the methods of depiction of these equestrian elements. In contrast to weaponry, the production and dis- tribution of which remained under strict state control, horse tack was widely used and constituted a part of the broadly understood material culture of the Eastern Empire. It should be remembered that riding equipment is also shown in Byzantine art in non-military contexts; this issue, however, constitutes a broader iconographical problem that exceeds the bounds of the present work. Horse Tack Stirrups (skala, anavoleus) Our review of the component elements of horse tack in Byzantine art should begin with a newly introduced item, the stirrup, which determined the construction of the remaining elements, as well as the posture of the rider, and thereby his appearance. In antiquity stirrups were unknown; this had an influence on how the horse was ridden and the shape of the saddle. In Late Roman sculpture horsemen are depicted in a characteristic pose, with knees extended forwards grip- ping the flanks of the mount, and feet drawn to the rear (fig. 2, 4, 7a).2 1 A possible symbolic reading of the white colour of St George’s mount and the red-brown of St Theodore’s steed in the context of Christian aesthetics (based on the neoplatonic theory of Pseudo-Dionysios the Aeropagite) is pointed out by Scholz 1982, 248–9. 2 See e.g. the 3rd-C. AD funerary stele from Chester; the Late Roman gravestones of Flavius Bassus from Cologne, Romanius from Mainz, Rufus Sita from Gloucester, 380 chapter five The lack of support for the legs reduced the rider’s stability and made falls more likely, especially when tackling obstacles or galloping.3 For this reason in the second and first centuries BC in India and China the first attempts were made to create foot supports in the form of leather loops or hooks suspended from the sides of the saddle.4 The final form of the stiff stirrup, made from an arch fitted with a loop (for the stirrup leather) and a footplate, developed only in the second half of the fourth century AD on the Korean peninsula; and it was from there, via the Steppe nomads, that it reached Europe.5 The Byzantines adopted the stirrup from the Avars or (less prob- ably) from the Persians. This seems to have taken place before the second half of the sixth century,6 a dating confirmed by archaeological discoveries, as well as the earliest European references in Maurice’s Strategikon. Maurice advises medical orderlies (deportati) to attach stirrups to the front or back saddle-arch, on the left side of the saddle, to make it easier for wounded men who they are evacuating from the and Dolanus from Wiesbaden; and also the bas-relief (1st-C.-AD copy of a sculpture from the 2nd C. BC) of Curtius (Robinson 1975 figs. 301–304, 475 [= Gamber 1978, fig. 372]; Żygulski 1998, fig. 130). The absence of stirrups from the 4th/5th–C. horse furniture found at Qustul accompanying the burials of the kings of Nubia is noted by Steinborn (1982, 311), although without grounds he ascribes (p. 308) stirrups to Justinian I’s kataphraktoi and their Persian opponents. See also Żygulski 1998, 103. 3 As examples one might mention Ammianus’s tale (Ammian., 2:141 [XIX 8/7]) about a groom attempting to escape from Amida during the Persian siege of 359, torn apart when he fell from an unsaddled runaway horse, after tying his left hand to its halter; and Procopius’s account (1:52125–5222 [IV 21/27]) of the demise of com- mander of the mercenaries, Solomon, thrown by his mount during a battle with the Moors, and then killed. 4 See Świętosławski 1990, 20–3 (with examples and earlier literature on Far Eastern archaeological discoveries), and figs. 9–12; he also critically examines previous theo- ries on the Scythian origins of the stirrup. 5 The question of the origins of the metal stirrup in Korea (confirmed by archaeological finds from Yakmok cemetery in the southern kingdom of Silla and in the royal necropolis in the north Korean state of Kogurio) and its spread via the nomadic peoples is discussed by Świętosławski 1990, 25–8; Kirpichnikov 1973, 43, 47–8; Bivar 1955, 61–2; and 1972, 286–7, figs. 24–29. A group of stirrups with rounded and rec- tangular bodies dated to the 8th–11th C. is published by Iotov 2004, 139–58. 6 On the Avars’ role in the introduction of stirrups to Europe see Świętosławski (2000, 82–3; and 1990, 28–9); Bugarski (2007, 253–4). Kolias (1993a, 41) indicates that the Byzantines adopted stirrups from the Avars or the Huns; while Werner (1984, 148–50), Bivar (1955, 63–4; and 1972, 287) and after them Mango [M] (1987, 6), pre- fer a Persian route; Bivar however points out the lack of contact between the Sasanian monarchy and the Huns (which would favour the Avar route). Kolias (1988, 206) assumes that stirrups appeared in Byzantium in about AD 600..

Load more