06-28-2010, 10:12 PM
Quote:The comparison is with the other peltae on the strip. We are doing exactly the same thing when we assume that there is a bottom to the thureos on the left, though it too is missing. Except there I doubt you will find much arguement.
And yet, as I've pointed out, there are clear differences between the other shields depicted on the strip, so I don't think it is as odd as you suppose that one might have a more substantial rim.
Quote:You are misunderstanding in "shield's rim at that point less than evident, , then I'm sure they would have left it blank". They did not leave it blank because they copied exactly what was still there (perhaps a rubbing?). What you are calling a "rim" has to be there and could not be left out because it is the outer edge of the shield's bottom, the missing part is the curve that would have joined the edge of the"rim' to the shield.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the drawing of the area indicated in red, between the blank spot beside the central decoration of the shield and the edge of the shield, is accurate, but only based on the relief as it was found, and not on the way it was originally intended to be?
Quote:The problem is that it is not hemisphirical, but a trapezoid with a rounded top if we accept what is seen uncritically. See below for 1,000 words or so worth of picture. The shield on the left is what it would look like as you advocate. The sides are too steep and too straight, once seen in toto it really just doesn't look right. Now if we add the upper curve of the shield that should be within the demi-lune, then we get the shield on the right. This shield is hemisphirical and follows the general curvature seen in all the other peltae on the strip. Note that there is still a little rim like that seen in the peltae on the opposite side of the strip and other reliefs. I have no problem with this.
It seems to me that the artist rendered the demi-lunes on these shields at irregular intervals, so I have no problem with seeing what is shown of the top demi-lune as simply the extreme edge, which then continues onto the other side of the shield, and that the shield is simply a steep dome shape.
Quote:Unless Macedonians were part Orangutang, no sarissaphoroi's forearm governed the diameter of a 74cm shield with a central porpax. At 6'3" my forearm is surely longer than most ancients, but any shield larger than 55-57cm is longer than my reach and my grip does not extend to/past the rim as Connolly recreated. That is measuring from dead center of the shield just ahead of my bent bicep, so it does not take the width of porpax into account.
So, either porpaxes were not central, the grip did not extend so close to the rim, or a compromise of the two.
See, this is why stringent testing is necessary - take a sampling of the average heights of Hellenistic males based on anthropometric evidence, then find men close to those heights and have them test shields of various sizes, shapes, and methods of suspension, and find out the results. Of course, this would be difficult to do, but it would shed much more light on the issue. And on top of this, these are only shields of 70-75 cm diameter - how long would a man's forearm be to be able to properly employ an 80 cm shields, like the Pontic one?
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
