Yuezhi from the frieze of Khaltchayan Reception Hall, north Bactria, 50BC-50AD

[druzhina345]

At Khaltchayan, in central Asia, a building datable to c. 50 BC-AD 50 - perhaps a reception hall - was built. It contained a six-column portico, a central hall entered (like a 'broad-room' shrine) through its long side, and a ('centralised'?) square inner chamber with two central columns, enclosed by corridors, but with roof edge ornaments (antefixes) and terracotta roof tiles of Greek type

Drawings of Yuezhi (Yue-Chi, later Kushan) costume & soldiers from the frieze of Khaltchayan (Khaltchayana or Khatchayan) Reception Hall, 50 BC-50 AD, north Bactria (southern Uzbekistan)

Traces of wall-painting including a head in the vestibule of the Khaltchayan 'reception hall' (c. 50 BC-AD 50) show a continuation of the style seen at Dilberdjin. The main reception chamber in the Khaltchayan hall was decorated with splendid wall reliefs in clay and stucco on a wooden frame ...
In the centre of the main wall sat a royal couple flanked by attendants; on the north side were further nobles, and a goddess on a chariot, while on the south were central Asian archers...{& a cataphract}
Most characteristic of this blended style is the great bronze statue of a Parthian grandee from the Shami sanctuary, variously dated c. 50 BC-AD 150; although Iranian in subject, the figure exhibits a Greek naturalism (Plate XIV). Thus in this period the hybrid has become completely predominant; and within the possibilities offered by this development, one has emerged pre-eminent: that in which different styles are completely blended.

MIRROR SITE
Drawings of Yuezhi (Yue-Chi, later Kushan) costume & soldiers from the frieze of Khaltchayan (Khaltchayana or Khatchayan) Reception Hall, 50 BC-50 AD, north Bactria (southern Uzbekistan)

Druzhina345
Ancient Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

[Tureuki]

Some of the figures are showing Asiatic features, I guess there was already a mix by that time.

[druzhina345]

The painted frieze and other statues from Khaltchayan are in museums in Tashkent according to Iranica online, but it doesn't say which ones.

Druzhina345
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

[Roma_Victrix]

Ah yes, the Yuezhi, who after consorting with the Chinese Han Dynasty and being kicked out of the Tarim Basin by the Xiongnu and Wusun nomads, ventured into Central Asia to eventually topple the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and then the Indo-Parthian Kingdom in what is now modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan. With their conquests into northern India they established the Kushan Empire, a major Buddhist power that encouraged the spread of Mahayana Buddhism to Han China. They were supposedly Indo-European Tocharians, but the artwork you've shared here certainly shows that their ethnic makeup was at least mixed by this point, given the distinctive East Asiatic facial features of high cheek bones and slanted eyes (i.e. Epicanthic folds if we're going to be scientific about it).

[druzhina345]

Thanks to 'emilio' at RomanArmyTalk, here are some photos of surviving fragments:
The seated ruler from Khaltchayan
The Khaltchayan armour-bearer
A Khaltchayan central-asian horse-archer
The Khaltchayan Cataphract
A head from Khalchayan

It is handy to have the cyrilic for Khalchayan: Халчаян

Druzhina345
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

[6644kp]

^ They look pretty Caucasian I'm pretty sure its the style that makes the look mongoloid. Realism in sculptures was after all only a Greco-Roman style and most other cultures added some style to their sculptures and painting. Look at Medieval Islamic paintings everyone looks Mongoloid in them.

[Roma_Victrix]

^ They look pretty Caucasian I'm pretty sure its the style that makes the look mongoloid. Realism in sculptures was after all only a Greco-Roman style and most other cultures added some style to their sculptures and painting. Look at Medieval Islamic paintings everyone looks Mongoloid in them.

That's actually a really good point, even the Ottoman Turks and Safavid Persians did this in their respective artwork. It didn't mean that their people were at all Mongoloid, it was just the artistic style, kind of like how ancient Minoans of Crete painted all men red and all women pasty white (for symbolic reasons in that case).

[6644kp]

That's actually a really good point, even the Ottoman Turks and Safavid Persians did this in their respective artwork. It didn't mean that their people were at all Mongoloid, it was just the artistic style, kind of like how ancient Minoans of Crete painted all men red and all women pasty white (for symbolic reasons in that case).

Exactly same goes with the Ancient Egyptians were men were shows as tanned whilst some female depictions were show as porcelain white. It about the style and what it meant to those people at the time. Ancient Egyptians statues are usually not accurate depictions of how the real life Pharaohs would have looked since the features have various meanings. Only a handful of artists in Ancient Egypt seemed to have bothered with realism. The reason though is that realism is very hard you only need to look at Greco-Bactrian coins and the barbarian imitations of them.

When you get it right it is epic, like having a portrait photograph of someone who lived 2000 years ago. When you get it wrong it looks a like a funny cartoon.

[ArmoredCore]

The area around Persia was a well known crossroads for many ethnic groups with various features. This is documented clearly in many of the surviving portraits and sculptures from the time. Keep in mind that the so called "Caucasian" phenotype was common place in Persia and areas to the North into what is now Russia. Look at the photo of Alexander in his victory over the Persians and you will see the people documented in this artwork. The style of dress and appearance is a common form going all the way back to the Greek sculptures of warfare against Persia, with Persians wearing cloaks, coats, trousers and Phygian caps. These various groups were at various stages at war with the Persians, paying tribute (Behistun/Perseipolis) or allies, depending on the time period. And by the time of the Islamic conquest there were many fragmented states among the various clans and ethnic groups. And this mixture of various Eurasian populations still exists in the former 'stans of central Asia: Afghanistan, Uzbekhistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and so forth. These people along with other ethnic populations from Central, Southern and Eastern Asia formed the backbone of the Silk road. And from a military perspective this combination of Persian and Scythian along with Asian and Indian traditions became the basis of the cataphract tradition in later Persian dynasties with offshoots in Armenia (Caucasus proper) and the Tang dynasty through trade and high level contacts. But these mini me kingdoms could not last as the larger Islamic empire expanded and absorbed some of these traditions and the Mongol hordes started marauding from the East, as Persia proper was worn down from constant warfare with Rome.

Colored images of the Alexander Sarcophagus:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Eastern Borders of the Persian Empire

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Alexander fresco from Pompeii:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[ArmoredCore]

Exactly same goes with the Ancient Egyptians were men were shows as tanned whilst some female depictions were show as porcelain white. It about the style and what it meant to those people at the time. Ancient Egyptians statues are usually not accurate depictions of how the real life Pharaohs would have looked since the features have various meanings. Only a handful of artists in Ancient Egypt seemed to have bothered with realism. The reason though is that realism is very hard you only need to look at Greco-Bactrian coins and the barbarian imitations of them.

When you get it right it is epic, like having a portrait photograph of someone who lived 2000 years ago. When you get it wrong it looks a like a funny cartoon.

Egyptian tombs are full of very realistic portraits of men and women. Just the old kingdom alone you could have hundreds if not thousands of portraits of a ruler, officials and deities in one tomb. Yes it was idealized and hardly ever were people shown as sickly or frail, but that is the case in all art, as in ancient Greek art. But I would not say that the images from ancient Egypt aren't generally accurate for the population as a whole. Just as Greek art is generally accurate for Greeks, Persian art is generally accurate for Persians and Asian art is generally accurate for Asians as well. Heck many scholars use the ancient depictions of various ethnic groups from Egyptian art as realistic depictions of various populations of the time, so it cannot be said that their work was not generally an accurate depiction of themselves or other populations.

And going back to the Persians and Bactrians it was common for these various cultures from Egypt to Persia and Asia to document the various ethnities and polities they interacted and fought with based on geographical, regional and cardinal points on the map reflecting the reach of said culture in terms of being a 'crossroads' and power based on the interaction with people and cultures in one form or another.

[6644kp]

Its an interesting subject. But except for Greco-Roman art the art of most cultures is not realistic in the same sense as Greco-Roman tbh. They are idealized stylized depictions of people.

What i mean is this:


Bactrian coin



The barbarian copy looks terrible whilst the original is crisp and clear like a photo, and when they go it alone they end up with this:



Realism is hard to pull off right.

[ArmoredCore]

The difference between Greco Roman and other cultures is that the Greeks then the Romans made an effort to produce fewer higher quality sculptures versus say the Egyptians or Babylonians. And the fact that very little of Greek art survives, albeit very high quality is because it takes more time to produce individual high quality statues. Whereas in Egypt and elsewhere there was sort of an assembly line for mass producing art and sculpture to cover every temple and tomb and because of that sheer quantity a lot more of those works survive to this day. And that was the point. But that doesn't mean that while they mass produced art that was very general purpose that they didn't have the ability to spend time to create high quality individual works. Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and elsewhere show evidence they were quite capable of producing high quality realistic sculpture if they wanted to.