sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cataphract

Bulletin of the Asia Institute

New Series/Volume 21

2007

Published with the assistance of the Neil Kreitman Foundation (U.K.) Contents

Penélopé Riboud Bird-Priests in Central Asian Tombs of 6th-Century China and Their Significance in the Funerary Realm 1 Pratapaditya Pal Evidence of Jainism in Afghanistan and Kashmir in Ancient Times 25 Alka Patel Architectural Cultures and Empire: The Ghurids in Northern India (ca. 1192–1210) 35 Mehrdad Shokoohy The Zoroastrian Towers of Silence in the Ex-Portuguese Colony of Diu 61 David Frendo Dangerous Ideas: ’s Persian Campaign, Its Historical Background, Motivation, and Objectives 79 M. Rahim Shayegan Prosopographical Notes: The Iranian Nobility during and after the Macedonian Conquest 97 Étienne de la Vaissière A Note on the Schøyen Copper Scroll: Bactrian or Indian? 127 Harry Falk Ancient Indian Eras: An Overview 131

Introduction to “Persia beyond the Oxus” (M. Rahim Shayegan) 147 D. T. Potts Cataphractus and kamandar: Some Thoughts on the Dynamic Evolution of Heavy and Mounted Archers in and 149 Frantz Grenet; Where Are the Sogdian Magi? 159 with Samra Azarnoush Richard Salomon Gandhari in the Worlds of India, Iran, and Central Asia 179 Nicholas Sims-Williams Some Bactrian Terms for Realia 193

Reviews timothy lenz. Gandharan Avadanas: British Library Kharo߆hi Fragments 1–3 and 21 and Supplementary Fragments A–C (Tyson Yost) 197 pavel b. lurje. Personal Names in Sogdian Texts. R. Schmitt, H. Eichner, B. G. Fragner, and V. Sadovski, eds., Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 2, Fasc. 8 (Yutaka Yoshida) 201 pratapaditya pal. The Elegant Image: Bronzes from the Indian Subcontinent in the Siddharth K. Bhansali Collection (Donald M. Stadtner) 206

Books Received 211 Abbreviations 213

Color plates including images from Penélopé Riboud, Pratapaditya Pal, and Frantz Grenet follow p. 34 in this volume.

v Introduction to “Persia beyond the Oxus”

On April 22, 2010, an international symposium occasionally lead to the neglect of the empire’s was held at UCLA on the theme “Persia be- eastern components, as well as the debt it owes yond the Oxus: The Circulation of Iranian Lan- eastern influences. Partially, in order to serve as guages and Cultural Practices in Central Asia,” corrective to this penchant, the conference pro- organized under the joint auspices of the Musa vided a glimpse at the stimuli synchronic and Sabi Term Chair of Iranian (2004–2009) and the diachronic perspectives on Iranian and Turanian UCLA Program on Central Asia (Asia Institute), exchanges could evince. and convened by Nile Green, History, UCLA; and The organizers would like to take this op- M. Rahim Shayegan, Near Eastern Languages and portunity to thank the distinguished speakers Cultures, UCLA. and discussants: Jason BeDuhn, Northern Ari- Bringing together specialists in philology, ar- zona University; Carol Bromberg, Bulletin of chaeology, art history, and religion, the confer- the Asia Institute; Michael Cooperson, UCLA; ence strove to assess the contributions of both Susan Downey, UCLA; Frantz Grenet, CNRS / Iran and Central Asia to the dispersal and vigor of École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris; Stepha- East and cultural practices, and nie Jamison, East Asian Languages and Cultures, thereby identify the processes and mechanisms UCLA; Daniel T. Potts, University of Sydney; of language dissemination and transculturation Richard Salomon, University of Washington; more generally in Iran and Turan. In particular, Martin Schwartz, UC Berkeley; Nicholas Sims- special heed was paid to factors favoring or ad- Williams, SOAS, London; and Ursula Sims-­ versely affecting the fortunes of Iranian and Cen- Williams, The British Library. It is furthermore tral Asian languages, such as Bactrian, Sogdian, my pleasure to acknowledge the Sabi family for and Gandhari, and their distinctive cultures in making this event possible, as well as for gener- Iran and Turan, as well as to the specific forces ously supporting the publication of the papers. I and mechanisms accounting for their circulation would also like to express my gratitude to, and and eventual demise. admiration for, Carol Bromberg for graciously The wider implication of a conference on Iran agreeing to publish them in the prestigious Bul- and Central Asia in (Late) Antiquity is related to letin of the Asia Institute with her usual care and recent developments in major fields of Iranian excellence. Studies. Over past decades, Late Antique stud- The following were among the papers presented ies have come programmatically to encompass during the symposium. the Iranian world in reconstructions of ancient In “Cataphractus and kamandar,” Daniel T. history, with mutual benefits to both disciplines, Potts investigates the origins and diffusion of allowing one to integrate the imperial other (the , the so-called catafractarii (kata- ) into “world” history, and Ira- phraktoi), in ancient Iran and Central Asia. The nian Studies to escape the isolating confines of four dominant schools of thought: Iranian, Tura- “Oriental” studies. The understandable but in- nian, Choresmian, and Parthian are considered. evitable westward inclination of scholarship de- Potts, however, proposes to see in the Neo-Assyr- voted to Sasanian Iran and its antecedents, may ian development of armor the predecessor of the

147 shayegan guest editor: Introduction to “Persia beyond the Oxus” kataphraktoi. Assyrian armor technology, the au- rain-making, testimony to the efforts of late Sog- thor argues, may have penetrated into Iran in the dian magi to appropriate the influential position wake of Assyrian campaigns against the of “rain-maker” in the context of Turkic political on the plateau, and thence into Central Asia, dominion. whence it was transferred back to Achaemenid In “Gandhari in the Worlds of India, Iran, and . Central Asia,” Richard Salomon provides a sweep- Frantz Grenet, in “Where are the Sogdian ing and brilliant survey of Gandhari not only as an Magi?,” draws attention to the relative incon- important administrative language and Buddhist spicuousness of Zoroastrian priests in Sogdian literary vehicle in its Indian homeland but also as documentation and provides a survey of evi- a significant frontier language in great parts of the dence, textual, visual, and archeological, attest- eastern Iranian world in the first three centuries ing to their presence and activities. The visual of the Common Era. The author, based on broad evidence appears in funerary art (Sogdian ossuar- documentary evidence in Gandhari (Buddhist and ies, tomb reliefs of Sogdian expatriates in China), other), clearly demonstrates how Gandhari rose where priests were clearly identified by their spe- to prominence, carried by the military might of cific long dress, their mouth protection (padam), successive states that occupied Greater Gandhara and their sacred girdle (kustig), but on mural before falling into disuse following the disintegra- paintings, the representation of the magis is less tion of the selfsame polities once responsible for marked, perhaps because of their adoption of an its rise in the region. accoutrement similar to that of their patrons. While “Some Bactrian Terms for Realia,” dis- Documentary evidence is provided by the fourth- cussed by Nicholas Sims-Williams, differs from century Sogdian Ancient Letter 1 and the mid- the original presentation of the author, it is in- eighth-century Mugh material from Panjikent, cluded as its content proves to be of pertinence in which two distinct titles, the bgnpt /bagnpat/ to the overarching themes of the symposium. In “temple chief” and the ­mgwpt /mogpat/ “chief this study the author follows the intriguing jour- magus” are reported. The direct contribution of ney of two Bactrian words, which although not Sogdian magi to Sogdian literature is chiefly lim- attested in extant Bactrian documents, ought to ited to several fragments, translated in appendi- be postulated, as they seem to occur as loanwords ces to the article. These consist of (1) two texts in other Middle and New Iranian languages; and a describing the ascent of Zarathustra to heaven third, this instance an attested Bactrian word that and another on the prophet’s questioning the su- the author derives from Chinese. preme God Adbag (= Ohrmazd) about the reunion M. Rahim Shayegan of family members in paradise; as well as (2) the Guest Editor longer Sogdian text P.3 that is concerned with

148 Cataphractus and kamandar: Some Thoughts on the Dynamic Evolution of Heavy Cavalry and Mounted Archers in Iran and Central Asia*

D. T. Potts university of sydney

“Their horsmen vse of mayle entrelaced with fethers: bothe for their owne defence, and the defence also of their horses. In times passed thei occupied no golde ne siluer, but only in their armour” —Boemus 1555, p. 56, on the Parthians

Introduction The mail-clad warriors of the Persians and related na- tions became known in the antique world under the Technology transfer in ancient is a chal- name cataphracti (κατάφρακτοι) or catafractarii, derived lenging field. Whether one considers cultivation from cataphracta, the designation of their defensive ar- mor. clad with such armor are represented techniques, irrigation, mining and metallurgy, on the Column of Trajan; actual fragments of armor of ceramics and kiln design, stoneworking, writ- this sort discovered in graves of southern Russia, and, ing skills, or any of the many other domains in further, the notices of classical authors, enable us to which human skill has excelled, fierce debates form some idea of the appearance of these suits of ar- and divergent views surround the chronology of mor. They consisted of a foundation of cloth or leather, technological origins and the directionality of to which scales or laminae of metal (copper or iron), technology and knowledge transfers in antiquity more rarely of horn or bone, were sewed on in such (for some examples, see Potts in press). In the a manner that the single rows overlapped, each row fields of weaponry and military tactics, many dif- covering the upper part of the row immediately below. ferent views have been advanced over the years The result, accordingly, was a type of scale armor . . . by scholars seeking to account for the origins singularly flexible, provided with sleeves, and envelop- ing the entire body except that portion of the thighs and diffusion of heavy cavalry—cataphractoi or which grips the horse. It was well adapted to the form catafractarii—and mounted archers in Iran and of the trunk, and permitted the soldier ample freedom Central Asia. The aim of the present contribu- of motion. The horses likewise were completely ar- tion is to critically examine the main schools of moured with the same kind of scales, though they were thought in this field and to suggest an alternative frequently caparisoned with leather only (Ammianus perspective grounded in an ancient Near Eastern XXIV.6), as they were handicapped by the weight of the perspective. metal. The man had to be lifted on his horse. He was equipped with a long spear, which was supported by a chain attached to the horse’s neck, and at the end by a fastening attached to the horse’s thigh, so as to get the Defining the Cataphract full force of the animal’s weight into the spear-thrust. At a given signal, the squadron composed of such horse- In 1914 the German-American Sinologist Ber- men dashed forth for the assault of the enemy, and was thold Laufer characterized the heavy cavalry of a formidable against the armed with and their tactics as follows: bows, as the body protection rendered the horsemen

149 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar arrow-proof. . . It is clear that this troop could be ef- In Laufer’s view, it was “essential to grasp ficient only as a united body and for the purpose of a the fundamental fact of the difference between surprise ; when successfully repelled, the result mounted archers and true cavalry, and the devel- must have been disastrous to the clumsy horsemen. opment of these two different arms and means The single ones were incapable of defending them- of tactics among the Iranians” (Laufer 1914, selves; and we hear that the who accompanied 218). Herodotus (Hist. 7.84), he felt, provided the army of Crassus practised the stratagem of seizing their and pulling them off the horses. The differ- a clear indication that, during the 6th and 5th ence in principle between the former mounted bodies cen­turies b.c., the Persians used mounted ar- of archers and this new system of cavalry is obvious: chers, basically infantry on horseback, not true the mounted infantry soldier was an individual, and as cavalry, when he wrote, “There are horsemen such an independent fighting-unit, able and mobile on in these nations, but not all of them furnished any occasion, be it charge, enduring battle, or pursuit; cavalry. Only the following did so: the Persians, this troop did not advance at command in any regular equipped like their infantry, except that some of alignments, but dispersed in open order, small bands them wore headgear of hammered bronze and suddenly sallying forth here and there, and as swiftly iron.” Thus, when they fought the Greeks, the turning round, now attacking, then feigning flight, ex- Persians “were only a body of infantry mounted hausting their opponents in pursuit, then rallying and on horses and chiefly depending upon their bows, pushing forward again till the contest was decided. The new cavalry troop was a machine set in motion by the at which Herodotus expresses astonishment by will and word of a single commander. It was effective remarking that, though horsemen, they used the as long as the body preserved the agility of its mem- bow; they were, accordingly, mounted archers” bers and worked with collective action as an undivided (Laufer 1914, 218). Herodotus also remarked upon unit. Its success was bound up with the speed, security, the absence of armour in Xerxes’ infantry at Plat- and force of its assault; when the charge failed, its case aea when he wrote, “what harmed them the most was lost (Laufer 1914, 221). was the fact that they wore no armour over their clothes and fought, as it were, naked against men In the scholarly literature, there are four ma- fully armed” (Hist. 9.63; cf. , The Malice jor hypotheses respecting the origins of heav- of Herodotus 43.874A, ed. Bowen 1992, 97). This ily armoured cavalry. For the sake of simplicity contrasts with the Persian infantry at Doriscus these are referred to here as the Iranian, Turanian, who, according to Herodotus (Hist. 7.61) wore Choresmian, and Parthian hypotheses. “on their bodies embroidered sleeved tunics, with scales of iron like the scales of fish in appearance” (cf. Jackson 1894, 96; Bittner 1985, 217–18). Ex- amples of such armour may be represented by the The Iranian Hypothesis clusters of armour scales, found mainly in the Treasury, at Persepolis (Schmidt 1957, pl. 77). The The Iranian hypothesis was perhaps best expressed clusters and loose iron and bronze plates from the by Laufer who, in his massive study of Chinese Tall-i Takht at Pasargadae (Stronach 1978, fig. 96) clay figurines from the Blackstone Expedition to are both Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid, but China, formulated the problem as follows: it is not clear that any of these finds relate to horse armour (contra Gorelik 1982a). It is . . . from the history of tactics that we must de- By 401 b.c., however, when Cyrus the Younger rive our understanding of the technique of armor. was defeated by his brother Artaxerxes II at The problem now set before us is, - What great move- Cunaxa, a change had occurred. According to ment in military tactics caused the radical transfor- Xenophon (Anab. 8.6–7), Cyrus the Younger’s mation of arms experienced by the peoples of China, cavalry were “armed with breastplates and thigh- Central Asia, and Siberia around the centuries of our pieces and, all of them except Cyrus, with hel- era? This movement, in my opinion, proceeded from mets . . . And all their horses had frontlets and ancient Irān. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that breastpieces,”’ (cf. Jackson 1894, 117 and Gabri- far-reaching tactical reforms were launched in Irān and deeply affected the entire ancient world, and that these elli 2006, 31; for the corresponding Avestan ter- innovations spread from Irān to the Turkish tribes of minology; also Malandra 1973, Tafazzoli 1994). Central Asia, and were handed on by the latter to the “Here, then, for the first time is the question of Chinese (Laufer 1914, 217). real cavalry,” Laufer suggested, “horse and man

150 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar being completely armored, and this new equip- case may be, Laufer concluded his discussion of ment being a sign of a new mode of tactics, while Xenophon’s testimony by noting, “When and by in the age of Herodotus the horse of the Persians whom this new mode of tactics was invented is was not yet caparisoned. Though the term ‘cata- unknown. We have seen that it existed in Persia at phracti’ is not used by Xenophon, the institution the time of Xenophon, and the idea seems to have described him is either the forerunner of the lat- indeed originated among Iranians. Subsequently ter or identical with them” (Laufer 1914, 219). we find it in the army of Antiochus Epiphanes; In contrast, Laufer and most other scholars (e.g. and from the time of Antoninus Pius it became Gabrielli 2006, p. 111, n. 111) have considered common in the armies of the Romans, soldiers the descriptions given by Xenophon in the of this description being frequently mentioned Cyropaedia of “mailed horses and riders” (6.1.50); in inscriptions of that period. Thus we see the “horses also with frontlets and breastplates” and Romans adopt the strategy of their adversaries. . . “-horses . . . armed with thigh-pieces” The Iranian mode of strategy with the peculiar (6.4.1); and the horses of Cyrus’ staff “armed for man and horse spread likewise with frontlets [prometopidios], breast-pieces to the . . . and to Siberia as far as the [prosternidion], and thigh-pieces [parameridia] of Yenisei” (Laufer 1914, 221). bronze” which “served to protect the thighs of the rider as well” (7.1.1), as anachronistic, reflecting Cyrus the Younger’s time, on the grounds that The Turanian Hypothesis Herodotus, for example, never describes such heavily armoured cavalry horses when discussing A complete contrast to Laufer’s Iranian hypoth- the armies of Cyrus, Darius I or Xerxes. In Laufer’s esis is presented by the work of the Hungarian opinion, the Cyropaedia was “nothing more than Byzantinist Eugene Darkó who, in 1935 and 1937, an historical romance, and the attribution to proposed the Turanian hypothesis. In a two-part the elder Cyrus of the new tactical principle is article on Turanian influences on the military plainly an anachronism” (Laufer 1914, 220). An tactics of the Greeks, the Romans and the Byz- alternative explanation is also possible. Some antines (Darkó 1935, 1937; cf. 1948), Darkó em- scholars believe that Xenophon’s discussion phasised the similarities in mounted warfare that of Persian military tactics in the Cyropaedia united the entire region from Siberia to the Dan- constituted a subtle proposal for Spartan military ube, and suggested that the tactics employed by reform in the 360s–350s b.c. (Christesen 2006). the Scythians against Darius were fundamentally As such, it is possible that what seem, at first the same as those used by the Parthians against glance, to be anachronisms in this case are not Crassus, Attila and his , or the later Avars anachronistic at all, since the description in and Turcs. Highlighting the importance of the question was never meant to be understood as Turanian plain, which he defined as extending a factual portrayal of Cyrus the Great’s forces roughly from the and encompassing the but a recommendation for how Spartan cavalry area between the Oxus (Amu Darya) and Jaxartes should be outfitted. If this were the case, then (Syr Darya), Darkó felt it was impossible to as- Xenophon may well have been describing the sign the development of the “Turanian tactic” sorts of armour used by Cyrus the Younger’s to a particular people or linguistic group within cavalry, just as he had done in the Anabasis. this region, emphasising instead what he called In the same way, Xenophon’s recommendation “a certain community of culture” (Darkó 1935, in The Cavalry Commander (1.6–7), “that both 444) that was responsible for the new battle tac- horses and men must be armed, so that, while tics. Acknowledging the Scythians as the first they are themselves thoroughly protected against mounted archers in history, Darkó, like Laufer, wounds, they may have the means of inflicting believed that the earliest Persian mounted archers the greatest loss on the enemy,” is considered a were only infantry archers on horseback (Darkó recommendation for the reform of the Athenian 1935, 447), and that it was ’s cavalry against Boeotia, Athens’ and Sparta’s recruitment of east Iranian (Bactrian, Sogdian, common enemy, perhaps similarly inspired by Scythian, Zarangian, Arian, and Parthian) cavalry Xenophon’s knowledge of Cyrus the Younger’s into his (Darkó 1935, 453), cavalry (Christesen 2006, 62). Whatever the as recorded by (Anab. 3.24.1, 5.12.2, and

151 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar

5.16.4) , that introduced the Turanian tactics and finds, thus later than Tolstov had proposed but battle formations to the army of Alexander, tac- still possibly pre-dating the Ai Khanoum material tics that were later to have a profound influence (apud Bernard et al. 1980, p. 63, n. 4). Moreover, on the armies of the Seleucids and the Romans a sherd from Khumbuz Tepe in southern as well (Darkó 1935, 454). Choresmia (Uzbekistan) which seems to show a parameridia and has been dated to the 4th or 3rd century b.c., might support an early date in The Choresmian Hypothesis the late Achaemenid or early for the development of horse armour in this area In the 1930s, the Soviet archaeologist Sergei (Gabrielli 2006, p. 31 and fig. 32; Nikonorov 1997, Pavlovitsch Tolstov (1907–1976) led a major fig. 4-g). expedition to Choresmia. Based on his excavation The Choresmian hypothesis was taken up in of a grave at Chirik Rabat that contained remains 1955 by the German Byzantinist Berthold Rubin of lamellar armour in the form of a 7 x 7 cm square who acknowledged probable Assyrian influence iron plate, as well as a stack of 14 iron plates, on developments in Choresmia (Rubin 1965, 265), possibly belonging to the covering of the upper and suggested, on the basis of Tolstov’s excavations arm (von Gall 1990, 73), Tolstov hypothesised and Herodotus’ reference to the bronze breastplates that heavily armoured cavalry was first developed of the Massagetan cavalry mounts (Hist. 1.215), in ancient Choresmia by sedentarized members that the Choresmian equivalent of the , of the (Tolstov 1961). According “einer geschlossenen Ordnung von Reitern in to Herodotus, “These Massagetae are like the Panzerhemden auf gepanzerten Pferden,” was Scythians . . . they are both cavalry and infantry. . . already developed during the 6th century b.c. by They equip their horses similarly, protecting “seßhaft gewordene Massaget. . . Und von hier their chests with bronze breastplates” (Hist. aus verbreitet sich die neue Kavallerietaktik im 1.215). Hubertus von Gall has even suggested Laufe eines Jahrtausends nach allen Seiten, um that the use of semi-armoured horses may have das Heerwesen vom Westen bis zum Fernen Osten been decisive in the Massagetae victory over mehr oder weniger gründlich zu beeinflussen, Cyrus in 530 b.c. which cost him his life (von paradoxerweise am oberflächlichsten im nah­ Gall 1990, 73). Tolstov, however, did not date the egelegenen Baktrien” (Rubin 1955, 264–65). Chirik Rabat finds to the late 6th but rather to However, in contrast to Darkó and Tolstov, the late 4th century, specifically to the time of Rubin also suggested that native Choresmian Alexander the Great’s campaign, and fancifully cataphracts underwent a further phase of suggested that the grave with lamellar armour tactical evolution in reaction to the tactics used that he had excavated was that of the individual by Alexander the Great. In Rubin’s opinion, the (or at least a member of the same tribe) referred Choresmian lancer and archer cataphracts of the to by Arrian when he described the death of a pre-Hellenistic period fought as separate units, Scythian cavalryman “pierced right through his whereas after Alexander’s campaign, they fought shield and corslet” (Anab. 4.4.4) by a missile from together (Rubin 1955, 265). a Greek catapult during a battle with Alexander’s forces near the banks of the Jaxartes. In 1980, however, Paul Bernard pointed out that The Significance of Alexander’s Tactics there was no compelling evidence to support the late 4th century date given to the Chirik-Rabat The notion that Alexander was both an innovator armour (cf. Dien 2000, p. 13, n. 15) and, although in his own army and an agent of change in the he did not suggest one himself, he did assert armies of his opponents is hardly new. In 1930 that the armour fragments from Chirik-Rabat W. W. Tarn suggested that, following battles of post-dated the fragments of cataphract armour Granicus and Issus, the Persians and the Greeks discovered in the arsenal at Ai Khanoum in 1978, both “borrowed from the other” (Tarn 1930, which he dated to ca. 150 b.c. (Bernard 1980, 71–72) and indeed the reforms introduced by 456). Writing at about the same time, F. Grenet, Darius III in 332 b.c. (Diodorus, Hist. 17.53.1–3; on the other hand, left open the possibility of a cf. Bittner 1985, 293–94) are usually seen in this date in the 2nd century b.c. for the Chirik-Rabat light. That Darius deployed both horses and riders

152 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar at Gaugamela with sewn, iron lamellar armour is The Parthian Hypothesis clear from Quintus Curtius (“Equitibus equisque tegumenta erant ex ferreis laminis, serie inter The last hypothesis to be considered is the Parthian. se connexis,” Hist. 4.9.33). As noted above, both While acknowledging that the modernisation the Scythian cavalrymen and their horses who of eastern cavalry traditions was a response to made up part of the Persian army defeated on the Macedonian phalanx, Marek Olbrycht has the banks of the Jaxartes wore defensive armour, suggested that it was the participation of Parthian according to Arrian (Anab. 4.4.4, cf. Herodotus, units in the armies of Alexander’s successors, Hist. 1.215). After the death of Darius III, the such as Antigonos Monopthalmos when he fought situation evolved rapidly. Prior to the battle of against Eumenes, that exposed the Parthians to the Hydaspes, Alexander recruited Bactrians, new battle tactics and troop formations, leading Sogdians, Scythians, Zarangians, Arians, and ultimately to the development of the Parthian Parthians into his Companion cavalry, both cataphracts (Olbrycht 1998, p. 75, n. 150). Indeed, hippakontistai (Anab. 3.24.1), or mounted javelin- Olbrycht explicitly attributed the later success men, and hippotoxotai (Anab. 5.12.2, 5.16.4), of the Parthians against the Seleucids to their or mounted archers, perhaps, as G. T. Griffith adoption of Seleucid battle tactics (Olbrycht suggested, as “an answer to problems raised by the 1998, 75). In a slight variant of this view, conditions of warfare first in Sogdiana and later Miroslaw Michalak has pointed to the presence in India, requiring the army to operate more often of cataphracts in the armies of Antiochus III at divided than united, and with frequent demands Panion in 201 b.c., and of Antiochus IV, accord­ for detachments of cavalry (among others) from ing to both and Livy (Hist. 16.18.6, the main body” (Griffith 1963, 73). Rattenbury 1942, 113). Michalak suggested, “It Conversely, it has been suggested by a number of is here . . . we should look for the prototype of scholars, including the late Galina Pugachenkova, the Arsacid cataphractarii, who appeared after the that cataphracts were an innovation of the Parthians had captured the Seleucid properties in Hellenised monarchies of Central Asia—the the East in the second half of the 2nd century Parthians and the Greco-Bactrians (Pugachenkova b.c.—Western Iran and Mesopotamia” (Michalak 1966; cf. Bernard et al. 1980, p. 63, n. 4). In the 1987, 75). words of Marius Mielczarek, “the appearance Clearly, this explanation is diametrically of the cataphract was the response of the East, opposed to that of Tarn. Rather than the Parthians where cavalry were [the] dominant arm, to the learning new tactics from the Seleucids, Tarn Macedonian phalanx” (Mielczarek 1998, 104; suggested it was the other way around, arguing cf. 1993). In support of this view one can point that Antiochus III “made the acquaintance of to the cataphract armour discovered in the the cataphract . . . when he invaded Parthia” Arsenal of Ai Khanoum in 1978 and noted above. (Tarn 1930, 76). A similar position was adopted Although their date is uncertain, they have been by Grenet in 1980 when he suggested that provisionally placed by the excavators in the mid- Antiochus III came away from his campaign 2nd century b.c. The finds clearly come from a against the Upper Satrapies with not only the Greek context, not a native Central Asian one, idea, but quite probably also some of the actual and Grenet has suggested that the Eucratids of cataphracts deployed in vain only a few years later Bactria may have been the first to adopt this new against the Romans. Whether Antiochus acquired technology (Bernard et al. 1980, 62). Similarly, this new innovation from the Parthians, the in 1992 Nikonorov and Savchuk suggested apro- Greeks in Bactria, or both, Grenet could not say pos some bronze fragments of body armour from (apud Bernard et al. 1980, p. 62, n. 4). Be that as Kampyr Tepe that the “corselet was undoubtedly it may, in seeking a Central Asian source for the introduced into the Middle East by the army of cataphract, Tarn, like Laufer and Darkó, stressed Alexander the Great” (Nikonorov and Savchuk the importance of Herodotus’s reference to the 1992, 52). The Kampyr Tepe finds have a termi- Massagetae, who protected the chests of their nus ante quem in the form of a silver drachm of horses with bronze breastplates (Hist. 1.215), and, Heliocles I, who reigned from ca. 145–130 b.c., to Xenophon’s description of Cyrus the Younger’s which was found on a floor just above the level cavalry as having “frontlets and breast-pieces” in which the armour fragments were discovered. (Anab. 1.8.7). Thus, Tarn suggested that the

153 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar origin of cataphract cavalry, “goes back to some Tavyürek 1975) were undeniably heirs to these of the nomad or semi-nomad peoples of Central developments. Although scholars like Darkó Asia . . . principally horse-archers,” suggesting, (1935, 448), Eadie (1967, 161–62), and Michalak “When the Parni from the originated (1987, 75), not to mention Laufer, Tarn, Tolstov, the Parthian monarchy, their aristocracy must and Rubin, were certainly aware of the older have brought this mode of fighting with them” Assyrian tradition of heavily armed cavalry, none (Tarn 1930, 73). Although he felt the Parthians of them ever managed to successfully integrate brought the idea of cataphracts to the West, Tarn this into the history of the cataphract. In fact, the also sensed they were drawing on a much older use of helmets and lamellar armour of bronze or tradition of armoured cavalry in the region, iron covering the torso was extensive amongst as Darkó had with his Turanian hypothesis and both the Assyrian , which included Tolstov with his Choresmian hypothesis. slingers, archers, spearmen, and bodyguards, and the cavalry (cf. in general Postgate 2000). It is gen- erally believed that the cavalry of Assurnasirpal’s Ancient Near Eastern Antecedents time wore no armour, unless one includes their wide bronze belts. However, in 1967 Richard There is, however, in all of these reconstructions, Barnett suggested that on a relief of Assurnasir- a missing element. None of the scholars who pal’s from the NW palace at (BM 124559, have written on this topic have acknowledged Room B, Slab 27), which he believed showed the that, from the 15th to the 10th century b.c., the Assyrian cavalry and in battle against an use of was widespread throughout Iranian group in the western Zagros—identified the , from Egypt and Cyprus to Syria as such mainly because of the backward turning, and , northern Mesopotamia and north- “Parthian shot” being offered by the non-Assyri- ern Iran. ans—both the Assyrian and Iranian horses appear In Iran, lamellar armour fragments have been to be wearing breastplates (Barnett 1967), a point found at both Choga Zanbil and Marlik. The finds taken up by Irene Winter 30 years ago in her pub- from Choga Zanbil were discovered in the eastern lication of a high-relief bronze horse breastplate part of the Kiririsha temple along with a num- from Hasanlu (Winter 1980, p. 4, n. 8). One should ber of bronze spear or lanceheads and arrowheads add, as well, that this recalls Herodotus’ reference (Ghirshman 1966, 101). Although Roman Ghirsh- to the use of bronze breastplates on their horses man was of the opinion that the bronze weaponry by the Massagetae (Hist. 1.215) referred to above. and armour in the Kirririsha temple had been gath- The first mounted spearmen wearing lamel- ered together by Assyrian soldiers when Assurba- lar armour and an armoured skirt extending nipal sacked the city in 647 b.c., this was pure down to the knees appeared in the reign of Ti- speculation. More recently, the Hungarian scholar glath-Pileser III (Dezsö 2006, 115). The horses Tamás Dezsö has supported a Middle Elamite, late of this period, however, wore horse trappings 2nd millennium b.c. date for the Choga Zanbil but no armour. Similarly, in the reign of Sargon armour and indeed the Choga Zanbil finds prob- II the horses were unarmoured, and apart from ably date to late 14th or 13th century b.c. (Dezsö helmets, the riders themselves were as well. A 2004, 320). The finds from Marlik are similar and possible reform, however, occurred in the reign come from tombs 36 and 44. In the latter case, of (704–681 b.c.). While horses re- the plaques, about 8.5 cm long, were found to- mained unarmoured, the cavalrymen wore lamel- gether with textile fragments (Negahban 1996, lar armour and helmets as well as boots (Dezsö 312–13), suggesting they formed part of a lamellar 2006, 117). Finally, in the reign of Assurbanipal armoured shirt or tunic. According to Piller, tomb (668–627 b.c.) horse armour was introduced for 44 dates to the late 12th or 11th century (Piller the first time, a development which “reduced the 2007, 239). Thus, Marlik and Choga Zanbil both loss in horses, increased the safety of the cavalry clearly participated in the broad trend of using la- in battles, and improved the supply of horses dur- mellar armour that characterised the Near East in ing campaigns” (Dezsö 2006, 117). Horse armour, the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. covering both the neck and the body of the horse, The Assyrians and their northern neighbours in this relief from Nineveh, was made in multiple the Urartians (Barnett and Gökce 1953, 125–26; pieces, probably of leather, fastened by hooks at

154 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar the neck, chest, and back of the horse, offering correct then the salt desert referred to by Esar- the enemy only small targets for attack. It was haddon is probably the Dasht-e Kavir or Kavir-e not until much later, for example on the audience Namak, the Great Salt Desert of eastern Iran (Val- hall relief at Khalchyan in Uzbekistan, from ca. lat 1987). a.d. 50 (Pugachenkova 1971, pl. 3; Gorelik 1982b; Moreover, another query to the sun god shows Litvinsky 1987; Dien 2000, 12), or at Dura-Euro- that Esarhaddon received a request from Bar- pos in the 2nd or 3rd century a.d. (James 2010, tatua, king of the Scythians, probably identical 129–32), that we find bronze and iron lamellar with the Scythian king Herodotus called Proto- armour housings for horses. Though heavy, they thyes (1.103), for one of his daughters in marriage were not as long as the famous graffito from Dura (Starr 1990, 24–25). There is no confirmation that suggests, and hence would not have interfered this marriage ever occurred, but the query is also with the free movement of the horse’s legs. The important in that it refers to a treaty and to the question is, is there a way to bridge the ancient movement of messengers between the Scyth- Near Eastern traditions, going back to the Late ian king and the Assyrian court. Whether these and the Neo-Assyrian period, and the Scythians lay to the north, towards the , Central Asian, so as to account for the appearance or towards the east, as suggested by their con- of partly armoured Massagetan horses in the 6th sistent association with the Medes, is not clear century and armoured Scythians in the 4th, at the but it is in the context of these contacts, with time of Alexander? the eastern Medes and Scythians, that the armour Tentatively, it may be suggested that Esarhad- technology of the Assyrians may have reached don’s reign in the early 7th century provides that the Massagetae and others in Central Asia. bridge. The Assyrians were obsessed with divina- As noted above, some scholars, like von Gall, tion and in this regard Esarhaddon was no excep- have suggested that it was the armour of the Mas- tion. He regularly posed queries to the sun god sagetae that provided a tactical advantage over Shamash seeking answers to questions like you the forces led by Cyrus the Great in 530 b.c. In- see here (Starr 1990): would the Scythians attack terestingly, Ran Zadok has suggested Cyrus ini- ; would they plunder what there is to tially conquered Choresmia early in his career, plunder, loot what there is to loot; would the As- possibly before Babylonia (Zadok 1981, 658). syrian officials sent to collect tribute in the form Zadok based this deduction on the fact that a of horses escape from the troops of the Scythians Choresmian in royal service named Dadaparna is and Medes? One query to the sun god shows that attested in Babylonia already in 534 b.c., just 5 Esarhaddon contemplated a raid to collect horses years after the submission of Babylon to Cyrus. from the Medes as far as the salt desert. It asks, Similarly Muhammad Dandamaev has suggested that Dadaparna “could have been in Babylonia [Should Esarhaddon, king of] Assyria, strive and plan?. . . only as a subject and a soldier of the Persian Should he sum[mon] the governor of [. . . along with king. . . And there can hardly be any doubt that men, horses and ar]my, as (great as) he wishes, and send Dadaparna had been a soldier of the Persian army [them to collect a tri]bute of horses? Should they go that occupied Babylonia in 539 bc” (Dandamaev [from the city . . . paka to the city Andarpati[anu, . . .] 1992, pp. 164–65). Achaemenid-period cuneiform [. . . .] as far as the salt desert?. . . If he sends them sources attest to the presence of other Chores- and they go, will they march about for as many days LÚ LÚ [as they wish] and collect [hors]es? Will they escape, mians— Hur-zi-ma-a-a—and Scythians— Gi- or save themselves from the[ troops of the Medes, mir-a-a (Zadok 1977, 113) in Babylonia as well from the troops of the Sa]pardeans, from the troops of (Dandamaev 1992, 159–65; Potts 2006, 268). In [the . . . , or from a]ny other [enemy]? [Will they stay fact, Donald McCown famously identified the alive and safe, and will they return] alive [and well, and burial of an adult male at Nippur (1B 134) found set foot on Assyrian so]il? (Starr 1990, 73–74) with a “cloth sash at waist, traces of leather per- haps indicating shoes, breeches, shirt and cap” The reality of that expedition is confirmed by as possibly that of a Mede or east Iranian sub- a royal inscription, associating the salt desert ject of the Achaemenids (McCown et al. 1967, with Patusharra and Mt Bikni (Borger 1956, 34 128, 146; Potts 2006, 269). Were the expatriate and 54). Many scholars identify Mt Bikni with Choresmians or Scythians responsible for the Mt Demawand (Zadok 2002, 55), and if this is introduction of armoured cavalry in Cyrus the

155 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar

Younger’s time? Given that we cannot otherwise and S. Veuve. “Campagne de demonstrate a derivation of Cyrus the Younger’s fouille 1978 à Aï Khanoum.” innovation via Assyria, because of the time gap, BEFEO 68:1–103. a transfer of Assyrian technology to Choresmia Bittner 1985 S. Bittner. Tracht und Bewaff- as a result of Esarhaddon’s campaign against the nung des persischen Heeres zur Zeit der Achaimeniden. distant Medes, and then of Choresmian technol- Munich. ogy back to Achaemenid Babylonia, is certainly Boemus 1555 [1888] J. Boemus. The fardle of a possibility. facions, conteining the Thereafter, it is certainly probable that the ap- aunciente maners, customes, pearance of the Macedonian phalanx in Central and lawes, of the peoples Asia stimulated further technological develop- enhabiting the two partes of ments which led to refinements in Central Asian the earth, called Affricke and armour that were eventually introduced in the Asie. Vol. 2, trans. W. Water- West when the Parthians, conquered Iran and man. Edinburgh. Mesopotamia. The cataphracts of the Seleucids Borger 1956 R. Borger. Die Inschriften and Romans, Parthians, and Sasanians were the Asarhaddons, Königs von ­Assyrien. Graz. inheritors of those refinements. But stimuli and Bowen 1992 A. J. Bowen. The Malice of technology moved in many directions over the Herodotus (de Malignitate course of a millennium and the story of technol- Herodoti). Warminster. ogy transfer between Iran and Central Asia, at Christesen 2006 P. Christesen. “Xenophon’s least in the realm of heavy armour for both horse ­Cyropaedia and Military and rider, was never a simple matter of diffusion ­Reform in Sparta.” JHS from East to West or West to East. 126:47–65. Dandamaev 1992 M. A. Dandamaev. Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia. Costa Note Mesa. Darkó 1935 e. Darkó. “Influences toura- * This article is based on a paper delivered at the niennes sur l’évolution de conference “Persia beyond the Oxus: The Circulation l’art militaire des Grecs, des of Iranian Languages and Cultural Practices in Central Romains et des Byzantins.” Asia” (UCLA, 22 April 2010), organized by Prof. Rahim Byzantion 10:443–69. Shayegan. Darkó 1937 . “Influences toura- niennes sur l’évolution de l’art militaire des Grecs, des Romains et des Byzantins References (cont.).” Byzantion 12:119–47. Darkó 1948 . “Le rôle des peuples Barnett 1967 R. D. Barnett. “Assyria and nomades cavaliers dans la Iran: The Earliest Representa- transformation de l’Empire tions of Persians.” In SPA, vol. romain aux premiers siècles 14, ed. A. U. Pope, 2997–3007. du Moyen Âge.” Byzantion London. 18:85–97. Barnett and R. D. Barnett and N. Gökce. Dezsö 2004 T. Dezsö. “Panzer.” RLA Gökce 1953 “The Find of Urartian Bronzes 10.3–4:319–23. at Altın Tepe, Near Erzincan.” Dezsö 2006 . “The Reconstruction Anatolian Studies 3:121–29. of the Neo-Assyrian Army Bernard 1980 P. Bernard. “Campagne de as Depicted on the Assyrian fouilles 1978 à Aï Khanoum Palace Reliefs, 745–612 BC.” (Afghanistan).” CRAI AAnASH 57:87–130. 1980:435–59. Dien 2000 A. E. Dien. “A Brief Survey of Bernard et al. 1980 P. Bernard, P. Garczinski, Defensive Armor across Asia.” O. Guillaume, F. Grenet, Journal of East Asian Archae- N. Ghassouli, P. Leriche, J.-C. ology 2:1–22. Liger, C. Rapin, A. Rougeulle, Eadie 1967 J. W. Eadie. “The Development J. Thoraval, R. de Valence, of Roman Mailed Cavalry.”

156 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar

Journal of Roman Studies Mielczarek 1993 M. Mielczarek. Cataphracti 57:161–73. and : Studies on the Gabrielli 2006 M. Gabrielli. Le cheval dans Heavy Armoured Cavalry of l’empire achéménide – Horse the Ancient World. Lódz. in the . Mielczarek 1998 . “Cataphracts—a Istanbul. Parthian Element in the Se- von Gall 1990 H. von Gall. Das Reiterkampf- leucid Art of War.” Electrum bild in der iranischen und 2:101–5. iranisch beeinflussten Kunst Negahban 1996 e .O. Negahban. Marlik, the parthischer und sasanidischer Complete Excavation Report. Zeit. Berlin. Philadelphia. Ghirshman 1966 R. Ghirshman. Tchoga Zanbil Nikonorov 1997 V. P. Nikonorov. The Armies of (Dur-Untash). Vol. 1, La Zig- Bactria, 700 BC–450 AD. Vol. gurat. Paris. 2. Stockport. Gorelik 1982a M. V. Gorelik. “Defensive Nikonorov and V. P. Nikonorov and S. A. Armour of the Persians and Savchuk 1992 Savchuk. “New Data on Medes in the Achaemenid Ancient Body-Armour (in Period.” VDI 161.3:90–106. (In the Light of Finds from Russian.) Kampyr-Tepe).” Iran 30:49–54. Gorelik 1982b . “Kushanskii dos- Olbrycht 1998 M. J. Olbrycht. Parthia et pekh.” In Drevnyaya Indiya, ulteriores gentes: Die poli- istoriko-kul’turnye svyazi, ed. tischen Beziehungen zwischen G. M. Bongard-Levin. Moscow. dem arsakidischen Iran und Griffith 1963 G. T. Griffith. “AN ote on the den Nomaden der eurasischen Hipparchies of Alexander.” Steppe. Munich. JHS 83:68–74. Piller 2007 C. K. Piller. ­Untersuchungen Jackson 1894 A. V. Williams Jackson. zur relative Chronologie “Herodotus VII. 61, or the der Nekropole von Marlik. Arms of the Ancient Per- Munich. sians Illustrated from Iranian Postgate 2000 J. N. Postgate. “The Assyr- Sources.” In Classical Studies ian Army in Zamua.” Iraq in Honour of Henry Drisler, 62:89–108. 95–125. New York. Potts 2006 D. T. Potts. “Disposal of the James 2010 S. James. Excavations at Dura- Dead in Planquadrat U/VXVIII Europos, 1928–1937, Final at Uruk: A Parthian Enigma?” Report VII. The Arms and Baghdader Mitteilungen Armour and Other Military 37:267–78. Equipment. Oxford. Potts in press . “Technological Laufer 1914 B. Laufer. Chinese Clay Transfer and Innovation in Figures. Pt. 1, Prolegomena Ancient Eurasia.” In “Global- on the History of Defensive ization of Knowledge and Its Armor. Chicago. Consequences,” ed. J. Renn. Litvinsky 1987 B. Litvinsky. “Armor ii. In Pugachenkova 1966 G. A. Pugachenkova. “The Eastern Iran.” In EnIr, online Body Armour of Parthian edition, 14 January 2010. and Bactrian Warriors.” VDI Malandra 1973 W. W. Malandra. “A Glossary 96.2:27–43. (In Russian.) of Terms for and Pugachenkova 1972 . Skul’ptura Khal- Armor in Old Iranian.” Indo- chaiana. Moscow. Iranian Journal 15.4:364–89. Rattenbury 1942 R. M. Rattenbury. “An Ancient McCown et al. 1967 d. E. McCown, R. C. Haines, Armoured Force.” The Classi- and D. P. Hansen. Nippur I. cal Review 56:113–16. Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quar- Rubin 1955 B. Rubin. “Die Entstehung der ter, and Soundings. Chicago. Kataphraktenreiterei im Lichte Michalak 1987 M. Michalak. “The Origins der chorezmischen Ausgrabun- and Development of Sassanian gen.” Historia 4.2–3:264–83. Heavy Cavalry.” Folia Orienta- Schmidt 1957 e. F. Schmidt. Persepolis. Vol. lia 24:73–86. 2, Contents of the Treasury

157 potts: Cataphractus and kamandar

and Other Discoveries. Vallat 1987 F. Vallat. “Expéditions orien- Chicago. tales des rois assyriens.” Dos- Starr 1990 I. Starr. Queries to the Sungod: siers Histoire et Archéologie Divination and Politics in 122:60–62. Sargonid Assyria. Helsinki. Winter 1980 i. J. Winter. A Decorated Stronach 1978 d. Stronach. Pasargadae. Breastplate from Hasanlu, Oxford. Iran. Philadelphia. Tafazzoli 1994 A. Tafazzoli. “A List of Terms Zadok 1977 R. Zadok. “Iranians and for Weapons and Armour in Individuals Bearing Iranian Western Middle Iranian.” Silk Names in Achaemenian Baby- Road Art and Archaeology lonia.” Israel Oriental Studies 3:187–98. 7:89–138. Tarn 1930 W. W. Tarn. Hellenistic Mili- Zadok 1981 . Review of E. N. von tary and Naval Developments. Voigtlander, The Bisutun In- Cambridge. scription of Darius the Great: Tavyürek 1975 o. A. Tavyürek. “Some In- Babylonian Version. Biblio- scribed Urartian Bronze theca Orientalis 38:657–65. Armour.” Iraq 37.2:151–55. Zadok 2002 . The Ethno-linguistic Tolstov 1961 S. P. Tolstov. “Les Scythes Character of Northwestern de l’Aral et le Khorezm.” IA Iran and Kurdistan in the 1:42–92. Neo-Assyrian Period. Jaffa.

158