03-26-2010, 10:59 PM
Ruben wrote:
Another note of caution... :wink: When you say 'one version' and 'another version', do you mean the actual inscription is duplicated, or do you mean different attempts at translation of a worn and fragmentary inscription ? Again, some more information please. Is this a temple inscription?
Also, while we know that spolas/stole could be used with 'organic' armour other than leather ( see the felt armour example , probably a horse trapper, referred to above), could it be that in fact there is a lacuna or just a letter or two, which one translator/interpreter has left as a gap and in the other version, another interpreter, "knowing" that body armour/spolades was linen ( per Connolly), has 'restored'/emended/guessed the entry ? This would not be the first time a 'finder/archaeologist' has got it wrong....for example the measurements for certain examples of Greek/Macedonian feet were incorrectly measured by the excavator, which has ramifications for the "Length of the Macedonian sarissa" debate elsewhere ( I really must get around to posting this and other relevant matters on that thread ! )
Again, this is tantalising ! More information, please, Ruben !!
Quote:One version of this inventory list, in a new entry after "thorakia skutina, IIII," reads "linou(n)" (linen), and another version, in which the portion with "linoun" is missing, reads "spoladion" right after where that word should be. It seems very likely that this read something like "linoun hen spoladion," or "one linen spoladion"... which would mean that the spolas (spoladion is the diminutive version of spolas) could be either leather or linen!
Another note of caution... :wink: When you say 'one version' and 'another version', do you mean the actual inscription is duplicated, or do you mean different attempts at translation of a worn and fragmentary inscription ? Again, some more information please. Is this a temple inscription?
Also, while we know that spolas/stole could be used with 'organic' armour other than leather ( see the felt armour example , probably a horse trapper, referred to above), could it be that in fact there is a lacuna or just a letter or two, which one translator/interpreter has left as a gap and in the other version, another interpreter, "knowing" that body armour/spolades was linen ( per Connolly), has 'restored'/emended/guessed the entry ? This would not be the first time a 'finder/archaeologist' has got it wrong....for example the measurements for certain examples of Greek/Macedonian feet were incorrectly measured by the excavator, which has ramifications for the "Length of the Macedonian sarissa" debate elsewhere ( I really must get around to posting this and other relevant matters on that thread ! )
Again, this is tantalising ! More information, please, Ruben !!
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff