spear or pilum?

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert wrote:-

First of all an apology to Paul about ‘putting words in his mouth’, that was indeed far too hasty of me. The reason for writing that was based on a strong feeling that I got, because it seemed that everywhere I argued that anything else could have been used instead of a pilum, you would have none of it. But I was wrong there, I agree.

...and I in turn apologise if my views came across a little too ardently and vehemently so as to give the impression of dogma......

The tree has nothing to do with the interpretation. I don't care if the enemy is meant to sit on the lowest branch or in the top - it's how the Roman holds the spear. Either we say he is holding this spear at the very bottom of the shaft, as the metope seems to suggest, or we accept that he grips the shaft in a manner that will give him balance, and hence in a spot about halfway of the shaft, or higher. Judging from the length of the shaft compared to his arm, that will give a spear length of more than 2m.

..... As to weapon type, the photo I have was evidently taken some time ago - more detail is visible, such as the soldier's face,his braccae, more detail on the dead Bastarnae's torso etc.
I think there are two possible interpretations. Either the legionary is holding a 'pila' close to it's base ( because he is stabbing up into a tree), and the damaged 'bulge' visible is the joint between shaft and shank, with the shank hidden behind the archer's arm OR ( and in my view more likely, so we can agree there ) the damaged 'bulge' represents a leaf-shape spear-point and the weapon is being held at it's balance point ( roughly half way down), with the rear part of the shaft 'out of picture'. If you trace an imaginary shaft back beyond the hand, it is apparent that the weapon cannot be more than twice as long as the section shown ( because of the "ground"). By scaling this against the figure, ( swing it upright) it becomes apparent that the weapon is a lttle over the soldier's height - lancea length !
Now it is possible to argue that the sculptor, as often happens, has had to shorten the weapon to fit it in, but here he could have depicted a longer one if he wanted to, quite easily, by lowering it slightly and going under the archer's arm. So, while not entirely ruling out a longer weapon; on balance of probability, I'd say a lancea is shown here. 8)

On a more general note, I am getting the strong impression ( see e.g. enquiries on the 'Byzantine weapons' thread - though I wish I had a copy of Maurice! ) that like 'Hasta' in latin, 'kontos' has a generic meaning; in this case of, "any thick shafted weapon/shaft/pole, especially if tipped with iron".... and that its specific meaning depends on context, or whatever shafted weapon happens to be in vogue at a particular period....thus it can apply equally to a boathook, a punting pole/bargepole, a heavy cavalry spear, or a 'pilum' :? ) D