03-27-2010, 01:32 AM
Sorry, I think I should have been clearer when introducing these...
Yes, these are all temple or treasury inventories. Such inventories are found only in Athens and on Delos (owing to its Athenian connections). The whole study of these lists is very complicated and fraught with difficulty, but I am trying my hand at working through them because they are a treasure trove ( :wink: ) of information, owing to the fact that they are often securely dated and usually include fairly detailed entries. I know that this is still a temple dedication, and so the objects themselves cannot be solidly dated, but they are grouped together in like groups, and the other items mentioned alongside it include a thyreos, and so they are very likely Hellenistic. Besides this, in these entries arms and armour are usually qualified with ethnic terms (Illyrian and Achaean helmets and Celtic swords are mentioned, just to name a few examples), and so a lack of an ethnic term very likely means that these were simply considered "Greek" arms. Because of this, I would lean towards these items being Greek, and not foreign, though it's definitely not certain.
These are actual different versions. The way it worked was that the inventory was made and inscribed, and then at regular intervals new items were added to the list and it was then re-inscribed. The problem is that for the Delian lists of the best-represented period (314-166 BC), the new items are added into the inventory at random, meaning that it's left to the epigrapher to try and figure out what's new and what's not! However, this does mean that lacunae can be emended with certainty in a lot of cases.
The people who deal with this kind of stuff aren't usually involved in other areas of archaeology (otherwise they would have to be experts on just about every aspect of Greek material culture), but are just concerned with ordering the lists and making sense of the system and its implications for temple dedications, so the influence of someone like Connolly wouldn't really play into it.
Here's the raw info - bracketed portions are missing, "-" indicates the end of a line, and · indicates the end of a category:
ID 104(26)
...??????? ?????? :???: ????? ????????? :???: ?????????? :....: ??????? :?: ???]-
????? ??????? :????: ??????[? :?: ?????????. ???????...
ID 104(28)
...???[????] ?????? v ??? v ????? [????????? v ??? v ?????????? — — — — — — ?????]-
[??· ??????? ??????? v ???? v ?????? ??? ???]??????[?]· ???????...
ID 104(29)
[...??????? ?????? :???: ????? ??????]??? :???: ???[?]?-
[?????: — — ]: ??????? [:?:? ??????? ??????? :????: ?????? ???] ?????????· ?[??]???-...
As you can see, they are all pretty much the same but with minor differences. After spoladion the category (which is clearly arms and armour) ends, and the next entry (pedalia - a rudder) begins. If we were to make a synthesis from this of what we know for certain, it would look like this:
...??????[? — — — ] ?????????·
Now 104(26) shows an emendation in which linoun has been taken to have a number after it, marking it as a separate entry - that is, simply a linen object. However, this doesn't fit into the list (which would then end with the spoladion and move on). Therefore, it seems likely that this refers to a linen spoladion with a written number, as this is the last entry in the category, such as ??, one, and this is what is added in ID 104(28) above.
Quote:Just to sound a note of caution here.....helmets with horns were not necessarily restricted to "Kings", - they were fairly widespread in Italy, or among the celts, for instance.Nor can I think of any Hellenistic King who might have been in Delos around this time. Furthermore, the date is troublesome (165-157 BC ). This would be a late date for both these items being 'contemporary'. I'm curious as to where this inscription comes from....would it be a temple by any chance? If so, that greatly increases the possibility that this is a list of 'trophies' owned by the temple, like the linen cuirasses seen by Pausanias in a temple in Asia Minor in the 1 C AD.......
Yes, these are all temple or treasury inventories. Such inventories are found only in Athens and on Delos (owing to its Athenian connections). The whole study of these lists is very complicated and fraught with difficulty, but I am trying my hand at working through them because they are a treasure trove ( :wink: ) of information, owing to the fact that they are often securely dated and usually include fairly detailed entries. I know that this is still a temple dedication, and so the objects themselves cannot be solidly dated, but they are grouped together in like groups, and the other items mentioned alongside it include a thyreos, and so they are very likely Hellenistic. Besides this, in these entries arms and armour are usually qualified with ethnic terms (Illyrian and Achaean helmets and Celtic swords are mentioned, just to name a few examples), and so a lack of an ethnic term very likely means that these were simply considered "Greek" arms. Because of this, I would lean towards these items being Greek, and not foreign, though it's definitely not certain.
Quote: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?
These are actual different versions. The way it worked was that the inventory was made and inscribed, and then at regular intervals new items were added to the list and it was then re-inscribed. The problem is that for the Delian lists of the best-represented period (314-166 BC), the new items are added into the inventory at random, meaning that it's left to the epigrapher to try and figure out what's new and what's not! However, this does mean that lacunae can be emended with certainty in a lot of cases.
Quote: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 !!
The people who deal with this kind of stuff aren't usually involved in other areas of archaeology (otherwise they would have to be experts on just about every aspect of Greek material culture), but are just concerned with ordering the lists and making sense of the system and its implications for temple dedications, so the influence of someone like Connolly wouldn't really play into it.
Here's the raw info - bracketed portions are missing, "-" indicates the end of a line, and · indicates the end of a category:
ID 104(26)
...??????? ?????? :???: ????? ????????? :???: ?????????? :....: ??????? :?: ???]-
????? ??????? :????: ??????[? :?: ?????????. ???????...
ID 104(28)
...???[????] ?????? v ??? v ????? [????????? v ??? v ?????????? — — — — — — ?????]-
[??· ??????? ??????? v ???? v ?????? ??? ???]??????[?]· ???????...
ID 104(29)
[...??????? ?????? :???: ????? ??????]??? :???: ???[?]?-
[?????: — — ]: ??????? [:?:? ??????? ??????? :????: ?????? ???] ?????????· ?[??]???-...
As you can see, they are all pretty much the same but with minor differences. After spoladion the category (which is clearly arms and armour) ends, and the next entry (pedalia - a rudder) begins. If we were to make a synthesis from this of what we know for certain, it would look like this:
...??????[? — — — ] ?????????·
Now 104(26) shows an emendation in which linoun has been taken to have a number after it, marking it as a separate entry - that is, simply a linen object. However, this doesn't fit into the list (which would then end with the spoladion and move on). Therefore, it seems likely that this refers to a linen spoladion with a written number, as this is the last entry in the category, such as ??, one, and this is what is added in ID 104(28) above.
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
