11-20-2010, 07:26 PM
Hi Larry,
Just a quick reply. I thought Sekunda hypothesized that taka had two meanings: “(small leather) shield” and “(shield-like) hat”. The fact that Yauna Takabara both wore hats like this and fought with the taka would be a pun in Old Persian. Then the scribe who translated from Old Persian to Akkadian (assuming that this was the order) didn't understand the double meaning, was told “these Ionians wear taka on their heads” and translated taka as “shield” when in this context it meant “hat”.
Also, we don't know how many words for "hat" there were in Old Persian. So if "taka" did mainly mean "hat" as you suggest, it probably referred to a familiar style of hat which resembled the Greek petasos. The obvioius parallel is the Sakâ tigraxaudâ which Persian linguists think is literally “Saka with Pointed Hats” (found in Old Persian lists of nations like DNe). Or the comments by American soldiers in the 1960s that the Vietnamese wore "pyjamas" (which they found worthy of remark because American pyjamas were nightclothes, but the similar-looking Vietnamese outfits were outdoor clothes).
I addressed your argument that “targeteers” was not a very unique epithet here:
I'm not familiar with any argument that the Yauna Takabara were anyone but Macedonians. Can you elabourate? I agree it is confusing that most Yauna in Persepolitanian art wear similar hats.
I agree its a pity that lots of people think that *sparabara were definitely troops with big rectangular sticks-and-leather shields, and that takabara were definitely soldiers with small shields. I don't know of much that Sekunda has written on the Persians in the last decade: just The Persian Army (Osprey, 1992), “Achaemenid Military Terminology” (1988), “Some Notes on the Life of Datames” (1988), and Marathon 490 BC (Osprey, 2002). I agree that the 1992 Osprey isn't very nuanced, but that is their house style. Were you thinking of anything more recent? Its hard to find things because recent bibliographies on Achaemenid warfare are thin on the ground, and both the English books on the subject are 20 years old and weren't allowed a full bibliography.
Just a quick reply. I thought Sekunda hypothesized that taka had two meanings: “(small leather) shield” and “(shield-like) hat”. The fact that Yauna Takabara both wore hats like this and fought with the taka would be a pun in Old Persian. Then the scribe who translated from Old Persian to Akkadian (assuming that this was the order) didn't understand the double meaning, was told “these Ionians wear taka on their heads” and translated taka as “shield” when in this context it meant “hat”.
Also, we don't know how many words for "hat" there were in Old Persian. So if "taka" did mainly mean "hat" as you suggest, it probably referred to a familiar style of hat which resembled the Greek petasos. The obvioius parallel is the Sakâ tigraxaudâ which Persian linguists think is literally “Saka with Pointed Hats” (found in Old Persian lists of nations like DNe). Or the comments by American soldiers in the 1960s that the Vietnamese wore "pyjamas" (which they found worthy of remark because American pyjamas were nightclothes, but the similar-looking Vietnamese outfits were outdoor clothes).
I addressed your argument that “targeteers” was not a very unique epithet here:
Quote:Now I agree that its speculative, and that if the core meaning of taka is “shield” then Yauna takabara would be confusing to a Persian who didn't know the joke, but I don't think that's so unlikely.
I'm not familiar with any argument that the Yauna Takabara were anyone but Macedonians. Can you elabourate? I agree it is confusing that most Yauna in Persepolitanian art wear similar hats.
I agree its a pity that lots of people think that *sparabara were definitely troops with big rectangular sticks-and-leather shields, and that takabara were definitely soldiers with small shields. I don't know of much that Sekunda has written on the Persians in the last decade: just The Persian Army (Osprey, 1992), “Achaemenid Military Terminology” (1988), “Some Notes on the Life of Datames” (1988), and Marathon 490 BC (Osprey, 2002). I agree that the 1992 Osprey isn't very nuanced, but that is their house style. Were you thinking of anything more recent? Its hard to find things because recent bibliographies on Achaemenid warfare are thin on the ground, and both the English books on the subject are 20 years old and weren't allowed a full bibliography.
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
