TAMGAS, A CODE OF THE STEPPES. IDENTITY MARKS AND WRITING
AMONG THE ANCIENT IRANIANS
Niccolò Manassero
Torino, ItalyMof such marks through the major periods involved(mainly the Achaemenid, the Parthian and theSasanian empires). Rather, it will discuss their functions and social implications, especially their relationship to writing (methodological matters that are
more commonly investigated by anthropologists andsemiologists), and it will explore a few topics that deserve further research in the future.

y subject is a topic that has seldom been
discussed outside the specialized scholarly literature, although it has an important bearing on theoverall knowledge of the ancient history of Eurasia(Jänichen 1956; Ol’khovskii 2001; Yatsenko 2001). The
focus of the paper is a peculiar class of marks — identity marks — that have been used for centuries (andare still in use) by various populations in every period and area of the world: Iranians and Turks, Celts(Gambacurta 2013, p. 33, Fig. 1) and Vikings — just to
limit ourselves to the Eurasian continent — throughthe ages had wide inventories of identity marks of
their own. Heraldic insignia as the coats of arms of theEuropean aristocracy are still in use today (van Gennep 1905).

The peculiar identity marks of the ancient Iranians,that are composed by lines, circles, and geometricalshapes arranged in various ways, are usually called“tamgas,” using a Turkic word, inasmuch they werelater widespread among the Turks, Mongols, Kazakhs
and even Slavs.1 Mongolia and Kazakhstan are in fact
the two countries where tamgas (there called “tamagas”) are most often used today, where researchers can still observe their transmission and changes
through the generations and study the social premises and implications of their use (Waddington 1974).
The Turkish term “tamga,” strictly speaking, would
not be appropriate to describe the
pre-Turkic marks of the ancient Iranianpeoples, namely those which I will discuss here: the Iranian term “nishan” would
better match them. However, “tamga” hasgenerally met the favor of scholarship dealing with the ancient Iranians, therefore it
will be used in this paper too. The originof the word “tamga” lies possibly in the
Alanic language that is directly descended
from the earlier Scytho-Sarmatian language
and therefore belongs to the family of theEastern Iranian languages. According to
Vernadsky (1956, p. 189), “tamga” would
descend from the Alanic term “damyghœ,”meaning “clan emblem,” in its turn related
to the word “dœ myg,” meaning “yoursperm.” This word clearly relates to family and blood relations, i.e., the conceptual

In this paper I will deal specifically with the identity
marks used by the ancient Iranians, living in an area
extending from Eastern Europe to inner Mongolia,
from the Late Iron Age to pre-Islamic times (Fig. 1).
However, the paper, is not meant to track a history

Fig. 1. Examples of Sarmatian tamgas.
After: Yatsenko 2001, p. 164, Fig. 14.
The Silk Road 11 (2013): 60–69

60

Copyright © 2013 Niccolò Manassero
Xopyright © 2013 The Silkroad Foundationsphere where tamgas do belong. Moreover, an earlier
root for the word “tamga” has been recently proposed(Perrin 2010, p. 24, n. 1): a borrowing from the Greek
word “tagma,” involving metathesis, would bear on
the relevant fields of taxation and tagging. Whatever
the real origin of the word, the relevance of tamgas
within the fields of identity and blood relations, ownership and administration, can be established for every society within they were (and are still) used.2
Since time immemorial, man marks his own properties — lands, animals, stuff — in order to claim rights
to them and preserve them from theft or assault. Rooted in man’s biological legacy, such use descends fromthe animal instinct to mark the environment by meansof tracks, scratches and smells (Perrin 2010). As every
animal does it in order to inform about its presence,
to establish hierarchies, to claim rights to an area andto prevent struggles for it, so also do humans need tosignal their presence, to mark the areas where they
live basically for the same purposes. The animal instinct is developed into well codified customs withinhuman society: it has evolved and adapted to complex social conditions that require elaborated codes
and rules, that may lean on various kinds of distinguishing marks, and may be supported by language, avery important feature that is exclusive to the humanspecies. Since olfactory means are losing importance(being however not completely neglected), in humansocieties the reminders about identity and ownershipmay be expressed mainly by physical or visual means
and by linguistic means, namely by marks and words.

Scholars generally agree that tamgas have figurativeroots in the schematic depictions of meaningful objects or animals that may have some kind of relationship with the families to which they refer.4 Certain
scholars, however, think that tamgas share somethingwith writing, and have gone so far as to conclude thattamgas might indeed be some sort of alphabet (Nickel
1973). Thus it is important to present some considerations on the use of tamgas among the ancient Iranian
populations, reflecting on the social premises of theiremployment and their relationship with writing.
Both writing and tamgas were developed for thesame needs, namely for accounting. They are twodifferent responses, or rather two different steps ofthe same response to the demand for adequate social rules to regulate and guarantee personal properties. (Cf. Gelb 1968, p. 36: “Symbols used as property
marks are an important step toward writing.”) The
main difference is the following: while writing relies
on signs (graphemes) that make up different words
and may be combined in countless speeches on whatever subject, tamgas communicate just one kind of
information, that pertaining to identity and ownership. Tamgas arise in social milieus where written
communication is absent, where information is conveyed through spoken language or through visualand physical means. Such a characterization pertains
to pre-urban, agro-pastoral communities, whereas
writing arose with urbanization and specialization ofjobs, that led to the storing and accounting of different
kinds of goods (Schmandt-Besserat 1992).

A feature that has seldom been considered in thisMarks are a primitive, though very efficient way toregard is that the birth of writing was the birth ofconvey information on identity. These mnemonic decounting too: establishing the distinction between
vices that may be depicted on several kinds of objects
words and abstract numbers was an achievement of(seals, pottery, bricks and stones, head-gear, carpets,
sedentary peoples. With this consideration in mind,
dress and even skin3) are immediately understandable
we can observe that within pre-urban societies,
by people living within the same areas, even if theyconcrete counting is maintained through the use ofcannot read. Marks must not be read, but have to be
tamgas that take the place of abstract numbers: every
recognized. As we live in a world dominated by comanimal is branded and every jar, weapon and othermunication and advertising, we well know the value
valuable item marked, as they are concretely counted,
of clear and distinguishable brands as a key to profit
tamgas being the only means to claim ownership of(Mollerup 1997). Just like advertising marks (Fig. 2),
them. Obviously, thisidentity marks always
method of accounting
had to be clearly identiis adequate as long as
fiable. A lot of delicate
Fig. 2. Modern brands as tamgas.
the principal means of economic
matters might depend on prompt
After: Perrin 2010, p. 56, Fig. 18.
exchange is generalized reciprocity
recognition in the past too, such as
rather than hierarchical redistribution. That is, thesocial stability, peaceful relations with neighboring
method functions within families and clans relying on
populations, ensuring fairness in trade, and so on.
blood relations, but is inadequate within proper states.
However, the history of the Iranian populations shows
However, the appearance of the Iranian tamgas isthat the system of tamgas often survived and retained
seldom plain and geometrical as is that of the advermuch importance within the urban and literate
tising brands: rather, tamgas are often complicated,
contexts, as it represented a native way of thinking andasymmetrical and unclear, thus giving rise to many
managing, deeply rooted in their cultural legacy. We
different hypotheses about their meaning and origins.
61Fig. 3: Examples of Achaemenid Anatolian tamgas. After: Boardman 1998, p. 4, Fig. 4.

must not forget that alphabetization was a privilegeof few people even in the Achaemenid and Sasaniantimes, and Iranian people kept depicting tamgas on
administrative instruments such as coins and seals, as
they were easily understandable by everybody, bothliterate and non-literate people.
The fact that the earliest Iranian tamgas we know
come from urban, sedentary communities, even large
empires such as the Achaemenid one (Fig. 3; see thewestern Anatolian tamgas collected by Boardman
1998), is due to the nature of the objects on which
they are depicted. In fact, among nomads, tamgas areusually branded on animals’ skins and depicted on
carpets, felts, or clothing — in a word, on perishable
materials that are seldom preserved in archaeologicalexcavations. In contrast, within urban societies ownership and administration are regulated by durable
means such as coins and seals that are often brought
to light by archaeology.
Tamgas’ functions were retained when they
were depicted on objects used in the literate, urban
societies such as coins and seals. However, on coins
the identification and warranty purposes werealready accomplished by different devices. In effect,
the Greek monetary system often used letters andmonograms since its birth (Fig. 4): these alphabeticaldevices could have different functions, indicating
personal identities, identification of mints, or dates(see de Callatay 2012). Since the Greek and IranianFig. 4 a–d. Examples of monograms on Greek coins (a. Lysimachos; b. Antigonos Monophthalmos; c. Antiochos III; d. Demetrios
Poliorketes). After: <http://coinarchives.com>.

62

monetary systems met in the Hellenistic
age, tamgas and letters or monograms could
sometimes appear on the same coins, perhaps
with different purposes, or maybe with thesame function, namely to inform people withdifferent backgrounds — both literate andnot-literate — through the appropriate means,
namely words and marks. However, such coexistence led to a certain confusion in research,
as a notorious tendency of European scholarship isto interpret foreign civilizations in the light of theEuropean cultural legacy. Thus a number of scholars
interpreted tamgas as akin to monograms, because
the latter were better known from Greek and Romannumismatics. The eminent historian Helmut Humbach(1961) proposed to read a series of Sarmatian tamgas
as monograms of the Greek gods Zeus and Dionysos.
Some years later, in an article that had much resonancein Western scholarship, Helmut Nickel (1973) further
injected confusion into the debate, pointing out vague
similarities of tamgas with the earliest Slavic alphabet,
namely the Glagolitic letters and numbers, and with
Turkish tamgas and zodiac signs as well. Nickel’s
article, while stimulating, strengthened the tendency
to consider tamgas as mysterious, magic kinds ofsigns; in rather vague ways, it pointed to fascinating,though groundless, hypotheses.
What is by and large the current consensus
about Greek monograms holds that such devices
are first found on Greek coins beginning from the
5th century BCE. In the Classical age, plain letters,
usually the first two letters of a word, were often
displayed on coins. They were still neither ligated
nor assembled in any way; so we cannot actually
speak of monograms. Rather, they are abbreviations,cyphers. From the 4th century BCE, a certain taste
for aesthetic embellishment or intellectual games
led the minters to combine two or more letters invarious kinds of ligatures, arranging letters together
in a more or less geometric way. Here indeed lies the
beginning of monograms. Though different ideas are
expressed in literature as to what information they
contain, it is possible to discern a certain trend: i.e.,earlier monograms preferably referred to the nameFig. 5 a–d. Examples of monograms on Indo-Parthian, IndoScythian and Bactrian coins (a. Antimachus I; b. Maues; c.
Philoxenus; d. Azes). After: <http://coinindia.com>.

of the minting town, or the ethnic identity of people
settling the town, or the eponymous hero; later, moreor less from the Hellenistic age, monograms started
to hint at personal names. Whose names, however, ismatter of debate. Numismatists often identify officers
or magistrates of the ateliers, though I suspect they
have just avoided the problem by giving an answer
which relies on personal names for individuals whom
in fact we cannot know. Indeed, attempts to identify
town mints in the Hellenistic period have often been
unsuccessful, as the letters composing the monograms
do not always match those of the mint towns. While
Imperial Roman and Byzantine monograms almost
uniformly refer to the name of the Emperor, there arestill a lot of inconsistencies in attempts to interpretmonograms as abbreviations of personal names for
the Hellenistic coinage.
A similar or even worse situation prevails forthe less investigated Parthian, Bactrian and otherCentral Asian coinages where Greek monograms often
occur (Fig. 5). Cunningham’s effort (1892/1971) todemonstrate that the monograms on Central Asiancoins were related to the mint cities was a total
failure, according to Tarn (1951, p. 437), who instead
was convinced that monograms might indicatemoneyers, mint-masters or city-magistrates. As Richard
B. Whitehead has stated, “the truth probably lies
between the views of Cunningham and Tarn” (quoted
in Marshall 1951, pp. 830–31). But this, again, seems
to avoid the problem, and the truth is that nobody
has yet found a satisfying answer as to the meaning
and function of monograms on Hellenistic coins.
Moreover, one should keep in mind that the IndoScythian and Indo-Parthian coins are among the mostcoveted and expensive coins on the antique market.
Consequently, a great number of fakes may well havebeen issued in the last century, resulting in a numberof senseless monograms being credited, further
confusing research on them.
However, deciphering Greek monograms neither is
my aim nor falls within my expertise. Rather, I focus
here on the fact that, beginning in the Hellenistic

period, both tamgas and monograms were displayedon coins and seals of the Iranian populations(especially on Parthian coins, kharoshthi monograms
being first used on Kushan coins). Potentiallycomplicating the situation is the fact that Central
Asian coins often display symbolic devices of a thirdand different tradition, such as the Indian triratna or
nandipada (Fig. 6). However, since these are clearly
distinguishable, confusion should not arise. Now that

Fig. 6 a–b. Indian triratna or nandipada on Indo-Scythian andKushan coins (a. Vasudeva; b. Vima Kadphises).
After: <http://coinindia.com>.

several studies on tamgas have cleared confusion onthat point, one can see that monograms and tamgas
really share certain features in that they had a similarfunction, namely to affirm the validity of coins byreferring either to an individual or to a family who
might authorize their issue. In the first case, thatwould be an officer; in the second case, the ruling clan.
Nonetheless, to summarize, there also are two
substantial differences between monograms andtamgas, not only as regards their shapes, but more
importantly in the contexts of their use and their socialand cultural implications:
1) Monograms and tamgas were devised forcompletely different purposes, under completely
different social conditions: the former wereconceived specifically to affirm the validityof coins and seals, namely instruments of theadministration and trade, while the latter wereadopted from a different context, being originallydisplayed on properties and cattle, that is, the63objects of trade. Monograms were specificallycreated within a social order regulated byinstitutions not relying on blood-relationship.
In contrast, tamgas belong to small social orders
based on blood-relationship. Their use on coins
and seals is a secondary one, which starts when
nomadic, non-literate communities developed
new social structures under the external influenceof the urban, literate societies.
2) If we are to believe the interpretation given
by numismatists with regard to the Hellenistic
items, monograms are marks expressing identity
by an individual: they are in effect signatures.
Therefore the monogram of a son may often betotally different from the monogram of his father
and have a random relationship with it. Names
within a family do not usually relate to each other;
they are usually chosen by relatives according
to individual, non-predictable criteria. On thecontrary, tamgas are marks expressing identityand ownership by a clan, a group of relatives.
According to ethnological research conductedamong Mongols and Kazakhs, tamgas’ shapes
do not change very much as generations go by.
A well regulated grammar of additional signs
and rotations exists in the morphology of tamgas,
a grammar that allows everyone with a trained
eye to understand the relations within a clan andbetween different clans (Waddington 1974, pp.
480–83; Yatsenko 2001, pp. 15–16). By means ofwell regulated changes in the disposition of signs,
tamgas slowly change as generations go by, andfrom their disposition it is possible to understandthe status and relationship of a person within aclan.

It follows that tamgas might be an extremely useful
tool of research, if only the numismatists would
appreciate their value. Exceptions to this neglect oftamgas, largely by Western scholars of Central Asia,
are in the work of Ukrainian and Russian scholars
who have already studied them for many decades(see e.g., Drachuk 1972; Yatsenko 2001). In theWestern literature, the word “tamga” rarely appears;
instead we find a generic “device,” “symbol,” orworse, “monogram,” which thus confuses two
distinct categories of signs, with different origins,compositions, and referring to completely different
social structures with diametrically opposed weight
given to the individual and the community.
A related subject which deserves further researchis the so-called Sasanian “monograms” that are often found on Sasanian seals and coins (Fig. 7), andhave long been debated by eminent scholars (Unvala

Fig. 8. Sasanian monogram-tamga deciphered by RobertGöbl (1971, p. 111, Fig. 2).

1953; Bivar 1959; de Menasce 1960; Frye
1964; Göbl 1971). Even today some scholars may call such marks “monograms,”
without explaining which letters they candiscern, let alone how should they be read.
Readings have been attempted for just a
handful of them, where most of the extant
ones remain unclear. Robert Göbl (1971,
esp. pp. 110–11, Figs. 1–2) made some successful efforts, reading “pylwc gwšnsp,”
a personal name (here, Fig. 8). For otherexamples, Adhami (2003) derived a single
reading (the word “amargar,” i.e., an administrative office) for “monograms” having different shapes that are composed ofclearly different elements. So it would seemthat only a few of these marks might actuFig. 7. Examples of Sasanian “monograms.”
After: Unvala 1953, Pl. VI.

64ally be deciphered, the rest remaining unintelligible.
Therefore it is incorrect to label them all “monograms”
and suppose that they are consistently composed ofPahlavi letters, an idea which is at best partially valid.
A statement by Christopher J. Brunner (1978, p. 123)
best expresses the status of “Sasanian monograms”
between image and writing, viz.: “Later Sasanian devices show an increasing tendency to absorb monographic elements; this trend paralleled the freer useof abbreviations generally.” In other words, “Sasanian monograms” were actually tamgas. However, inthe late Sasanian age, some engravers began to adapt
Pahlavi letters to the layout of those tamgas, likely foraesthetic reasons and as an intellectual game — that is,for the same reasons that might have led Greek minters to create monograms as
signatures on coins. Yet what
we seem to have here is just a
few cases of virtuosity, whose
aim was to leave the structuresof tamgas intact, though they
were “written” by, or rather
included, Pahlavi letters.
In sum, the few Sasanian “monogram-tamgas” thatturn out to be actually composed by Pahlavi letterscan be considered as ingenious marks. They combine
the information on the individual name and the information on the clan, the latter remaining, however,
the main and immediately recognizable one. That is,
it is a mark that collects name and surname, a figurative signature indeed, that reflects the different social
premises of tamgas and writing to which I called attention above.
Now let us turn to a different matter, a meaningful
case of the attitude of Western scholarship towards
researches on tamgas: I refer to the so-called “frawahr
symbol,” appearing in the Sasanian period on a number of artifacts (Fig. 9). It is a schematic depiction
composed of a ring standing on two diverging lines,
Fig. 9. The so-called “frawahr symbol” carved in a niche at
Tāq-i Būstān. Photo: Archive Centro Scavi Torino.

crossed at the middle by a horizontal line. While there
has been some speculation about that symbol, whichvaguely recalls a cross (or, suggestively, a “twolegged Ankh”), it has never been the object of detailed
analysis. With reference to a suggestion by Silvestre
de Sacy, its interpretation as the “frawahr symbol”
was sustained in a series of recent publications by
Rika Gyselen, who however just labeled it so without discussing the matter at length (Gyselen 2003). In
contrast, Abolala Soudavar (2009, pp. 426–27) recently
proposed to read the device as “a caricature symbolof Apam Napat,” as he sees a certain similarity witha schematic drawing of a child. His arguments are
Fig. 10. The main Firuzabad relief. After: Vanden Berghe
1984, p. 63, Fig. 8.

hardly convincing, based as they are on a personal interpretation of that drawing. (We should note as wellthat Soudavar adduced inconsistent arguments for theso-called “cow-sign” [Fig. 10, second figure from theleft], whose shape should be rather compared with thewell-known Gondophares’ tamga and other tamgas of
the Parthian period.) Perhaps the most credible reading is that proposed once more by Göbl (1976, Nos.
567–68, Taf. 44), who read the symbol as an “Investiturschleife,” namely a “loop of investiture.” Indeed,a certain similarity exists between such a symbol andthe image of the bi-ribboned diadem symbolizing theinvestiture of the Sasanian kings on some rock reliefs(e.g., see Ardashir II invested by Ahura Mazda at
Tāq-i Būstān; Fig. 11). However I am convinced that
Fig. 11. The investure scene at Tāq-i Būstān.
Photo © 2010 Daniel C. Waugh.

65none of these interpretations might be correct, the real
purpose and implication of that symbol has possibly
been misunderstood, and a huge amount of historical information lost. I would suggest instead that thesymbol might be an identity mark, a tamga in all respects.
The Firuzabad rock reliefs are a fundamental document in this regards, as the so-called “frawahr symbol” is repeatedly depicted on the horse of the kingArdashir I (Fig. 10, second figure from the right). Significantly, however, three different symbols are also
depicted on the saddles and headgear of each one of
the mounted characters. A recent analysis of the Firuzabad reliefs by Maciej Grabowski (2011) has offered abetter understanding of the scenes and the characters,
based on the different marks displayed on their horses and headgear. However, in my view, Grabowski
stopped short of a full understanding of the true nature of
all those symbols: he explained
the so-called “frawahr” and“heir” symbols as, respectively,
divine and status markers. On
the contrary, I am convincedthat they are both identity
marks of the Iranian clans: thatwhich is allegedly considered
to be the Parthian dynastic
mark, depicted on the saddle of
Artabanus IV falling from his
horse, provides the key to suchan interpretation. For the sakeof the internal coherence of thescene, all the marks displayed
at Firuzabad should be betterinterpreted as identity marksof the Sasanian aristocracy. The
context indeed calls for suchan interpretation, as the intent
of those marks on the relief
was clearly to inform about theidentities of the figures, thus
allowing an immediate understanding of the scenes. In thisview it would be not appropriate to mix identity marks, status
marks and divine marks in thesame scene.
My interpretation mightalso provide different insights
on the coins and seals wheresuch marks are often depicted,
adding fundamental information on a number of historicalevents. The so-called “frawahr
66

symbol” has recently been found on several pawns
coming from an exceptional fire temple at Mele
Hairam, in southern Turkmenistan (Kaim 2011, fig.
at p. 313), but the lack of information on the contextsof the pawns in the preliminary publications preventsme from further speculation about them. Whatever
the meaning of the symbol, one can at least note thatif, as assumed, the temple of Mele Hairam was built at
the end of the Parthian period, that mark might possibly originate already in the Parthian period, and thus
not be an exclusively Sasanian mark. If I am correct ininterpreting it as a tamga, perhaps it could help in understanding the blood relations between the Parthianand Sasanian aristocracies at the turn of the dynasties.
Now for my final point. As just noted, the last Parthian ruler, Artabanus IV, is identified at Firuzabadby a tamga composed by a ring on the top of a verticalstaff (Fig. 10: first figure on theright). This mark, which first appeared under Orodes II and was
depicted on both obverses andreverses of Parthian coins, is a“sort of family crest” and is usually called “the Arsacid symbol”
by scholars (see Grabowski 2011,
p. 220; Sinisi 2012, p. 64).
There is a certain similarity between this mark and images froma series of recent finds which have
expanded the inventory of the
known Parthian tamgas. These
are marks depicted on a numberof clay sealings excavated in theSouthwest Building of Old Nisa,
Turkmenistan, where the Arsacid kings established a sacredcitadel with ceremonial purposesin the 2nd century BCE. Since 2009,a dozen stamp sealings (of bothjars and doors) have been found,bearing the impressions of possibly one and the same tamga,
represented with slight differences on each impression (Fig.
12; see Manassero 2010; Lippolis
2010, pp. 40–42, Fig. 6). No parallel may be found to these tamgas
in the previously known inventory of sealings from the SquareHouse of Nisa (cf. Masson andPugachenkova 1954). The main
image may be roughly describedas composed by a ring (or hook)
Fig. 12. Parthian tamgas on sealings
from Old Nisa (drawing by the author).

on a staff, with two straight diverging lines at the topof the staff, facing leftwards. One impression has asecond, smaller, mark on the right, composed of a ringstanding on two diverging staffs similar to legs. In my
previous publication I focused on the imagery of thosetamgas and suggested one recognize their figurative
origins in an ideologically meaningful image, namely
the club and mace — the symbol of the Greek god
Herakles, from whom the Arsacid dynasty claimed
to be descended. However, this was mere speculation, as the state of preservation of the sealings does
not allow reliable conclusions even today. Until there
are clearer findings (clearer impressions or the seals
themselves) to help resolve this matter, the real rootsof the Nisean tamga remain unexplained. The badly
preserved, crushed sealings with erased and faint impressions might even raise doubts that tamgas are infact depicted. However, the secondary mark on oneof the impressions (Fig. 12g), which closely matches
the tamga of Phraates IV (Yatsenko 2001, Fig. 33.b.4),
supports the idea that the main mark is a tamga too.
Whatever the exact subject hinted at by these new
tamgas, I cannot refrain from noting a certain similarity between them and the so-called “Arsacid symbol.” The tamga on the sealings from Nisa has quite adifferent shape, asymmetrical, with two straight anddiverging lines on the left, and a less abstract appearance that made me suppose that “it might preserve
some memory of the object originally depicted.”
However, the overall structure with an upper roundelement standing on a staff with a wider base is similar. Comparing the two marks, the diverging lines of
the Nisean one may perhaps be explained as added
signs to distinguish a branch of a clan, according to thepreviously mentioned rules regarding the changes oftamgas through the generations. As Nisa was the firstArsacid capital, established in their very homelandin the early Parthian period, I am inclined to supposethat the tamgas depicted on the newly found sealings
might be connected to some extent with the so-called“Arsacid symbol.” The ring-on-staff seems to be a recurrent element in both these Parthian marks, and in
the Gondophares’ tamga as well. Links with the Sasanian tamga featured by Shāpur I on the Firuzabad
relief (that which Soudavar called the “cow-sign”; see
the second figure from the left in Fig. 10) might be taken into consideration and lead to new results in historical research. Always bearing in mind the warningof Humphrey Waddington against automatically connecting distant tamgas by virtue of their shape, “wecan suppose that there is a common stock of brandmarks that can be used by different people simultaneously, as long as contiguity does not cause confusion.
This is like the use of proper names in our society or
the use of colors in making maps: adjacent countries
must be given different colors but further away thesame colors may be used again” (Waddington 1974,
p. 473).
In this paper I have tried to lay out some topics abouttamgas that have been seldom discussed by archaeologists and historians. In particular I have called attention to the relationship of tamgas to writing andto the social background they imply. In more specificexamples, I outlined some largely understudied topics that have emerged in the last decades which meritfurther research, since they may have important consequences for our knowledge of ancient Iranian civilizations. The recent studies on tamgas that are largely
the fruit of Russian scholarship point to a successful
trend in focusing on functional matters rather thanon the formal ones (Ol’khovskii 2001; Yatsenko 2001).
They have stopped speculating merely on what objects are or “might be” depicted; rather they are concerned with learning about their contexts of use andtheir circulation and historical implications. This must
be the agenda for future studies on tamgas. Scholars
may reach better answers if they focus on the functions and the evolution of tamgas in time and space, inorder to track the movements of people and increase
our understanding of events about which there are no
written sources.
About the author
Niccolò Manassero is an independent archaeologist
from the University of Torino, specialising in the art
and archaeology of pre-Islamic Central Asia. Since
2001 he works for the “Centro Scavi e Ricerche Archeologiche di Torino” on the excavations at ParthianNisa, Turkmenistan. He has published on the use ofrhytons and drinking horns among the ancient
Iranians, notably in his monograph Rhyta e corni potori
dall’Età del Ferro all’epoca sasanide. Libagioni pure e misticismo tra la Grecia e il mondo iranico (BAR International Series 1750, Oxford 2008), and also has publishedextensively on iconographic subjects of the Scythian,Parthian and Sasanian periods. His work on the newly found corpus of clay sealings from Nisa led him toinvestigate ancient identity marks. E-mail: <niccolo.
manassero@unito.it>.
References
Adhami 2003
Siamak Adhami. “Suggestions on Decipherment of Two
Series of Sasanian Sigillary Monograms.” Paitimāna, Essays
in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian Studies in Honour ofHanns-Peter Schmidt. 2 vols. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers,
2003, pp. 385–97.
Bivar 1959
A.D.H. Bivar. “Details and devices in Sassanian sculptures.”
Oriental Art 5 (1959): 11–14.

67

Boardman 1998
John Boardman. “Seals and Signs. Anatolian Stamp Seals of
the Persian Period Revisited.” Iran 36 (1998): 1–13.
Brunner 1978
Christopher J. Brunner. Sasanian Stamp Seals in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1978.
de Callatay 2012
François de Callatay. “Control Marks on Hellenistic Royal
Coinages: Use, and Evolution Toward Simplification?”
Revue Belge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie CLVIII (2012):
39–62.
Cunningham 1892/1971
Alexander Cunningham. Coins of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas
and Kushanas. Varanesi; Delhi: Indological Book House, 1971
(reprint of London, 1892 ed.).
Drachuk 1972
Viktor S. Drachuk. “Untersuchungen zu den tamgaartigen
Zeichen aus dem nordpontischen Randgebiet der Antiken
Welt.” Zeitschrift fur Archäologie 6/2 (1972): 190–227.
Evans Pim et al. 2010
Joám Evans Pim, Sergey A. Yatsenko and Oliver T. Perrin,
eds. Traditional Marking Systems. A Preliminary Survey.
London; Dover: Dunkling Books, 2010.
Frye 1964
Richard N. Frye. “Symbols, Monograms and Devices inAncient Iran.” Dr. J.M. Unvala Memorial Volume. Bombay:
Kaikhusroo M. Jamaspasa, 1964, pp. 181–84.
Gambacurta 2013
Giovanna Gambacurta. “I Celti e il Veneto.” Études Celtiques
XXXIX (2013): 31–40.
Gelb 1963
Ignace J. Gelb. A Study of Writing: the Foundations ofGrammatology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1963.
van Gennep 1905
Arnold van Gennep. “Notes sur l’héraldisation de la marquede propriété et les origines du blason.” Bulletin et Mémoiresde la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 6/1 (1905): 103–12.

Gyselen 2003
Rika Gyselen. “Dīwān et “Trésorerie” Sassanides: premières
attestations sigillographiques.” Studia Iranica 31 (2003): 123–
26.
Humbach 1961
Helmut Humbach. “Die sogenannte Sarmatische Schrift.”
Die Welt der Slaven IV/3 (1961): 225–31.
Jänichen 1956
Hans Jänichen. Bildzeichen der Königlichen Hoheit bei den
iranischen Völkern. Bonn: Habelt, 1956.
Jones 1987
C. P. Jones. “Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in GraecoRoman Antiquity.” The Journal of Roman Studies 77 (1987):
139–55.
Kaim 2011
Barbara Kaim. “Victorious Fire at Mele Hairam.” In: Historicaland Cultural Sites of Turkmenistan. Discoveries, Researches andRestoration for 20 Years of Independence, ed. Mukhammad A.
Mamedov. Ashgabat: Türkmen Döwlet Nesjryat Gullugy,
2011, pp. 303–13.
Kashghari 1982–1985
Mahmud al-Kashghari. Diwan Lughat al-Turk/Compendiumof the Turkic Dialects. Ed. and tr. Robert Dankoff and James
Kelly. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ., Office of the Univ.
Printer, 1982–1985.
Lippolis 2010
Carlo Lippolis. “Notes on Parthian Nisa in the Light of New
Research.” Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury [Magnitogorsk]
27/1(2010): 36–46.
Manassero 2010
Niccolò Manassero. “Tamga-like Images on Sealings from
Old Nisa.” Parthica 12 (2010): 17–29.
Marshall 1951
John H. Marshall. Taxila. An Illustrated Account ofArchaeological Excavations Carried Out at Taxila under theOrders of the Government of India between the Years 1913 and1934. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1951.

Ghirshman 1962
Roman Ghirshman. Arte Persiana. Parti e Sasanidi. Milano:
Rizzoli, 1962.

Masson and Pugachenkova 1954
Mikhail E. Masson and Galina A. Pugachenkova. “Ottiski
parfianskikh pechatei iz Nisy” [Impressions of Parthianseals from Nisa]. Vestnik drevnej istorii 4 (1954): 159–69.

Göbl 1971
Robert Göbl. “Die sasanidische Tonbullen vom Takht-iSuleiman und die Probleme der sasanidischen Sphragistik.”Acta Antiqua Academiae Hungaricae XIX/1-2 (1971): 95–112.

de Menasce 1960
Jean de Menasce. “Déchiffrement de motifs alphabétiquesde l’époque sassanide.” Bulletin de l’Institut Française
d’Archéologie Orientale LIX (1960): 309–14.

Göbl 1976_______. Die Tonbullen vom Tacht-e Suleiman: ein Beitrag zur
spätsasanidischen Sphragistik. Berlin: Reimer, 1976.

Mollerup 1997
Per Mollerup. Marks of Excellence: the History and Taxonomy ofTrademarks. London: Phaidon, 1997.

Grabowski 2011
Maciej Grabowski. “Ardašīr’s Struggle against the Parthians.
Towards a Reinterpretation of the Fīrūzābād I Relief.”
Iranica Antiqua 46 (2011): 207–33.

Nickel 1973
Helmut Nickel. “Tamgas and Runes, Magic Numbers andMagic Symbols.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 8 (1973): 165–
73.

68

Ol’khovskii 2001
V. S. Ol’khovskii. “Tamga (k funktsii znaka)” [Tamga: on
the function of the sign]. Istoriko-arkheologicheskii al’manakh
7 (2001): 75–86.
Orkun 1994
Hüseyn N. Orkun. Eski Türk Yazıtları [Old Turkish
inscriptions]. Ankara: Türk tarih kurumu basimevi, 1994.
Perrin 2010
Oliver T. Perrin. “Tamgas and Space. Territorial Mark andMnemotechnic.” In: Evans Pim et al. 2010, pp. 23–59.
Renaut 2004
Luc Renaut. “Marquage corporel et signation religieuse
dans l’Antiquité.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. 2 vols.
Paris: École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences
religieuses, 2004.
Schmandt-Besserat 1996
Denise Schmandt-Besserat. How Writing Came About. 1st
abridged ed. Austin: Univ. of Texas Pr., 1996.
Sinisi 2012
Fabrizio Sinisi. Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum. Vol. VII:
Vologases I – Pacorus II. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012.
Soudavar 2009
Abolala Soudavar. “The Vocabulary and Syntax of
Iconography in Sasanian Iran.” Iranica Antiqua XLIV (2009):
417–60.
Tarn 1951
W. W. Tarn. The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1951.
Unvala 1953
Jamshedji M. Unvala. “Sassanian seals and Sassanian
Monograms.” In: M. P. Khareghat Memorial Volume, Vol. 1.
Bombay, 1953, pp. 44–74.
Vanden Berghe 1984
Louis Vanden Berghe. Reliefs Rupestres de l’Irān Ancien.
Bruxelles: Les Musées, 1984.
Vernadsky 1956
George Vernadsky. “Note on the Origin of the Word
Tamga.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 76/3 (1956):
188–89.
Waddington 1974
C. Humphrey Waddington. “Horse Brands of theMongolians: A System of Signs in a Nomadic Culture.”
American Ethnologist 1/3 (1974): 471–88.

Yatsenko 2001
Sergei A. Yatsenko. Znaki-tamgi iranoiazychnykh narodov
drevnosti i rannego srednevekov’ia [Tamga-marks of the
Iranian speaking peoples in Antiquity and the Early Middle
Ages]. Moskva : Izdatel’skaia firma “Vostochnaia literatura”
RAN, 2001.

Notes
1. “Tamġa” is a Turkish word, also witnessed in Mongol
as “tamaga” or “temdeg.” The most ancient source witnessing a secondary form of the word is the so-called Ačura
inscription, coming from the Abakan region in the Yenisei
valley, that reads: “yirdeki tamqalıġ yïlqï bungsïz erti,”meaning “his herds marked on his lands were countless.”
Here we find a clear reference of the word to ownership andcattle-branding (Orkun 1994, p. 544). The Uighur lexicographer Mahmud al-Kashghari gives a full account of the Turkish tamgas as of the 11th century (Kashgari 1982–1985).
2. The articles published in Evans Pim 2010, a real milestone in the studies on tamgas, show the diffusion of theidentity marks among ancient and modern populations allaround the world, from Europe to South America and Africa.
3. The famous Pazyryk and Tarim mummies display different kinds of images (mythological subjects and astral
symbols), but we cannot exclude that identity marks weretattoed or branded on human skin in the past, as happens
today. We are familiar with a number of depictions of tattoed Iranians and Thracians on Greek vases, and sources
mention this practice among the Iranians, where it was notcondemned as in Graeco-Roman civilization (Jones 1987;
Renaut 2004).
4. Some scholars proposed to relate tamgas to the “deerstones” and the Bronze Age petroglyphs that are often foundacross Siberia in the vicinity of kurgans. Such relationships
must be carefully considered, as those petroglyphs might
often be of a votive and sacral kind. However, we may notice a certain affinity in the context of the so-called “encyclopaedias of tamgas,” that survive on some rocks in Ukraine
and Siberia (e.g., the lion statue from Olbia and the open-air
sanctuary of Bayte III; see Yatsenko 2001, pp. 68–83). Thesemonuments collect marks of the different clans that met
there to commemorate some event or stipulate some path.
Both these kinds of monuments establish a strong relationship between man and the environment. They are signaculain all respects, reminders that require no written accounts.

69