02-23-2009, 05:58 PM
Giannis,
Its been my experience that its critical that such discussions be bounded both temporally and geographically for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is what is the area of interest driving the conversation. In my case thats Marathon. At 1000 years remove, the Dendra panolpy is no more relevant than saying Da Vinci's tank is relevant to development of modern armoured combat vehicles.
Second, history shows us that things evolved and change as time passes, even on a microcosmic geographical scale. Consider the debate over whether the Boetian shield is "real" or an artifact surviving only in art.
In the case of body armour, what impact did the addition of wealth captured from the Persian wars, further development of the silver mines at Larium, and Athen's significant military efforts abroad after the Persian wars have on the availability of materials for the manufacture of non-metallic body armour have after the period?
Even more subtle effects are possible. Did exposure to other culture's armours abroad influence change after this period? Did increased expenditures to outfit soldiers drive change?
So, by narrowing your focus you can help remove the influence of factors that may change the nature of the discussion. Its entirely possible Athenian military adventurism abroad after the Persian Wars led to an increased availability of materials for fabric armours and an economic change that made them attractive. Its hard to say. But if the data points were to tend to indicate fabric armours in the Pelopennesian or Alexandrian wars, that doesn't really help you approach certainty in the late Archaic period...
Have fun!
Cole
Its been my experience that its critical that such discussions be bounded both temporally and geographically for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is what is the area of interest driving the conversation. In my case thats Marathon. At 1000 years remove, the Dendra panolpy is no more relevant than saying Da Vinci's tank is relevant to development of modern armoured combat vehicles.
Second, history shows us that things evolved and change as time passes, even on a microcosmic geographical scale. Consider the debate over whether the Boetian shield is "real" or an artifact surviving only in art.
In the case of body armour, what impact did the addition of wealth captured from the Persian wars, further development of the silver mines at Larium, and Athen's significant military efforts abroad after the Persian wars have on the availability of materials for the manufacture of non-metallic body armour have after the period?
Even more subtle effects are possible. Did exposure to other culture's armours abroad influence change after this period? Did increased expenditures to outfit soldiers drive change?
So, by narrowing your focus you can help remove the influence of factors that may change the nature of the discussion. Its entirely possible Athenian military adventurism abroad after the Persian Wars led to an increased availability of materials for fabric armours and an economic change that made them attractive. Its hard to say. But if the data points were to tend to indicate fabric armours in the Pelopennesian or Alexandrian wars, that doesn't really help you approach certainty in the late Archaic period...
Have fun!
Cole
Cole
