08-27-2010, 03:16 PM
Dan,
But where's the evidence? Consider how Herodotus makes a special point of the iron scales of the Persian Cavalry commander killed at Plataea. Another wonder. With what evidence we do have, bronze appears to be the norm in Greece. The question that needs to be asked is why, if in other cultural contexts, such as the Assyrians, iron scale appears much earlier, why does Greece appear to remain bronze based for some time? This is particularly interesting as Greeks did have iron available locally, and imported more.
As that aspect of the supply and demand relationship, my personal belief is that it comes to the question of labour. Transforming a smelted iron bloom by hand into into almost anything is extremely labour intensive, particularly making thin sheets or chips. Bronze on the other hand is virtually effortless to transform by comparison. It can be cast into a thin sheet, then hammered for thickness for a small fraction of the labour required for iron.
And labour is a factor in the supply and demand equation. It's my feeling that the effort of transforming iron was greater than the return on investment when that effort could more productively applied elsewhere, such as the production of food, the staple of wealth in ancient Greece.
There may be another cultural variation that leads to the longevity or primacy of bronze in Greece. If you consider that the a significant naval component to Greek military activities, the advantages of bronze over iron are significant in terms of corrosion. An interesting cultural parallel is early renaissance Venice, where bronze armour enjoyed a great deal of currency with Venetian marines.
Theories these may be, but in the abscence of evidence for more widespread iron usage in armour in ancient Greece, the question worth talking about is why was it that way, rather than projecting the existence of something that is not in evidence.
Have fun!
Cole
But where's the evidence? Consider how Herodotus makes a special point of the iron scales of the Persian Cavalry commander killed at Plataea. Another wonder. With what evidence we do have, bronze appears to be the norm in Greece. The question that needs to be asked is why, if in other cultural contexts, such as the Assyrians, iron scale appears much earlier, why does Greece appear to remain bronze based for some time? This is particularly interesting as Greeks did have iron available locally, and imported more.
As that aspect of the supply and demand relationship, my personal belief is that it comes to the question of labour. Transforming a smelted iron bloom by hand into into almost anything is extremely labour intensive, particularly making thin sheets or chips. Bronze on the other hand is virtually effortless to transform by comparison. It can be cast into a thin sheet, then hammered for thickness for a small fraction of the labour required for iron.
And labour is a factor in the supply and demand equation. It's my feeling that the effort of transforming iron was greater than the return on investment when that effort could more productively applied elsewhere, such as the production of food, the staple of wealth in ancient Greece.
There may be another cultural variation that leads to the longevity or primacy of bronze in Greece. If you consider that the a significant naval component to Greek military activities, the advantages of bronze over iron are significant in terms of corrosion. An interesting cultural parallel is early renaissance Venice, where bronze armour enjoyed a great deal of currency with Venetian marines.
Theories these may be, but in the abscence of evidence for more widespread iron usage in armour in ancient Greece, the question worth talking about is why was it that way, rather than projecting the existence of something that is not in evidence.
Have fun!
Cole
Cole
