Some Sarauter revisionism

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Wow,they look alike indeed! At first i thought that the artist had done a small mistake un drawing them,but hen i read that it was incribed in only three sides of the blade,so i suspected they were a different piece. In fact the last one is the one i mentioned above, with the inscription "Messenians from a Lacedaemonian", which is significant if you think about it...Many Messenians from One Lacedaemonian. Do you think it could be as late as the siege of Sphacteria? or earlier in the Siege of Messene from the Spartans? But if they dedicated it,they must have been victorious. My mind is stuck,when did the Messenians beat Lacedaemonians?
Khairete
Giannis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

A find that i had promissed to post a long time ago. It's a spear from Vergina,Prince's Tomb.All the other spears I saw there had only a small ring of gold sheet around the shaft just under the point or butt,but this one shaft was guilded. The spear points next to it are none from the same spear. The was another narrow spear point with another small bit of the guilded shaft preserved. It was a bit thicker than my index finger! You han see and compare the difference between the point and the butt and how tappered it was. I think the inscription said it was a sarissa. Note how small the sauroter is.
Many of the the spear "points" that were found in Vergina were actually sauroters,as Connolly justifies wellin his article about the "cavalry sarissa". That's why they are so big,thick and so wide.
For example see this photo:

In either side of the shield there are the remains of two different spears. Note that both they have a large and a small spear point. Also note that the large ones both have a gold sheet around the shaft. In the inscription of the museum they were calling them all spear points. But they are sauroters. I think that one of the small points had been found stuck on the wall near the roof,i don't know how,perhaps due to corrosion. The length was much more than an infantry spear but much less than a sarissa,which perhaps means that it was a "cavalry sarissa"
Two things to note about those photos: If you measure the shield,it is much off-centered,bothvertically and horizontally(i know it belongs to another thread).
About the first picture,was taken thanks to Athanasios Porporis. We had visited Vergina together. Much apreciated,since you all know that photos are not allowed in that museum!

[Paullus Scipio]

Great photos, Giannis - thank you very much for posting them....have you more? D

A word about the so-called "cavalry sarissa".

When Greek cavalry proper first appear in Southern Greece ( as opposed to Thessaly or Macedonia), circa mid 5 century BC, they appear to have been armed with javelins, and sometimes the ordinary doru of 7-8 ft( 2.1-2.4 m). By circa 400 BC a new weapon appears - a 10 foot (3m) long lance, quite thin, with a tapered shaft. It has a small spearpoint and a largish conventional sauroter, and is sometimes shown with javelins as well. It is called the kamax ( which originally meant a long thin shaft, such as a vine-pole). I suspect ( though I haven't looked into the matter deeply) that the tapered doru with small spearhead also evolved in parallel at this time.
From shortly after this we hear (in Xenophon) for the first time of a large cavalry lance called xyston( which originally meant a shaved pole or spear-shaft.) This is a sturdier weapon than the kamax, being longer at around 12 ft (3.6 m), and with a parallel-sided shaft. This is the weapon of Macedonian cavalry under Alexander ( and probably earlier). Some Successor cavalry are called xystophoroi(Xyston-carriers). The weapon appears to have a largish spearhead, balanced by an even larger spear-head shaped sauroter and thus appears 'double headed'. There are two well known depictions of this weapon, the often seen ( but now lost) fresco of an unarmoured Macedonian cavalryman (prodromoi/sarissaphroi? ) riding down a Persian from "Kinch's tomb" and of course Alexander carries one on the famous mosaic.( part of the sauroter is visible)

Whilst the 'off-centre' porpax on the aspis is interesting, despite the fact that it appears it may have corroded onto the re-inforcing ring, one should be cautious in assuming that it was 'off-centre' originally, since this may be the result of careless conservation/restoration, especially as it appears only the ring and porpax ( and probably smaller fittings) survived. Alternately, as the organic wood/leather rotted away, the porpax and/or ring may well have shifted 'in situ' before 'corrosion-welding' together - if they are indeed together.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul, I have no more photos from Vergina,unfortunately. Perhaps though this photo that is not mine can help compare the thickness of different shafts.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2464/362 ... 9bf7_b.jpg
About the porpax,it is clearly off centered for two reasons.Vertically because the upper band is smaller than the lower. Horizontally,because half of the circle has been presirved complete. The Porpax has indeed become one piece with the circle thus even if the other half of the circle is not complete, it doesn't play a role in the placement of the porpax as off centered by the curators. After all,it is more probable that if they had no indication,they would put the porpax ixactly centered. I have to say,though, that the other shiled in the same tomb,the golden porpax, it is completely centered. Thus in my opinion the artists weren't lieing,some times the porpakes were centered and some times not.This means that none of the two types should be unusable in battle. In fact i have my theory why this happened, which has to do with the method of placing the porpax and would explain why both types existed.
Khairete
Giannis

[Archelaos]

First of all thanks for those photos! How you were able to take those? There seem to be at least 1 museum worker per case and light is rather poor.

Now few points:
Tomb 3 in Vergina is suggested to be tomb of Alexander IV, child king. This may explain that sauroter is rather small - it is from smaller than normal, royal parade spear. It is winged type, though about 3/4-3/5 lenght of the majority examples of this type.

Maybe centre-off centre porpax is connected with weapon coming down the generations? If father was tall and his son shorter it seem to be simply cheaper to place porpax differently, but leave rest of the shield untouched than buying new, smaller aspis. Obviously shield have to survive that long, but I think there were quite a few hoplites who never crossed weapons with enemy, always standing in the middle-back of the phalanx.

Although I think Connolly is right about xyston head and butt, but his prime example (from tumulus psi in Vergina, original publication from Andronikos 1970) is problematic. I believe big spear head should be connected with winged butt, as other spear head is almost certainly from hunting spear.
There is a relief showing xyston, I think I saw it in National Archeological Museum in Athens.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Archelaos, I disagree. The sauroter from tomb 3 was not of the winged type. It was squared like conventional sauroters. I have seen much smaller smaller sauroters,both bronze and iron, from all eras! The tiniest i have ever seen come from Amphipolis,they were hellenistic,however they were identical in size and shape with hellenistic sculptures,like those from Pergamos.
In addition,the greaves that were found in the same tomb were no smaller than normal. No smaller than other greaves. The youth that was burried was supposedly about 13-14 years old,some children that age are not much shorter than other adults. So I don't see the use of any shorter model of a spear for parade!

The placement of the porpax has to do with two factors: The antilabe being near the rim (one spot) and the need for the hoplite to rest his shieldon on his shoulder while having his arm in a natural position.(two spots)
This drawing makes my point:

Now why some are off centered and some others not? Again two factors. First,the artist have beem accurate in showing both types of porpakes,and they must have been accurate in another thing: There was no specific rule for the size of the shield for each individual. Some shields almost reach the knees when the shield is resting. Some others barely cover all the thigh etc. So for the same man it is obvious that a smaller shield would require a more centered porpax,keeping the two rules above for the placment of the porpax.
The second factor is of course the individual's arm size. A man with long arms would have a more centered porpax for the same shield than a man with short arms. Similarly a man with a big shield and short arms would have a very off centered porpax while a man with smaller shield and long arms would have a centered porpax.
Small differences in arm lenght wouldn't make the shields unusuable by others,of course. You would just be more uncomfortable to rest the shield on your shoulder, and changing the rope of the antilabe would adjust the grip to the individual's will.
Lastly,there are even some other minor factors,like for example the antilabe is usually very near the rim,but how near varies every time,and in some rare occasions it isn't near at all.
And a more last note, if you have the porpax off centered, because of the width of your upper arm,it happenes that you don't hold the shield from the center of balance,but your upper arm is actually in the center vertically,so you're receiving blows and you can push with your arm being in the center actually. And although i have not tested it myself,it could also be that the vertically off centered porpax makes the shield "hung" better, like an apron from your arm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ancientgre ... 133671216/


Apologies for the VERY off-topic but since we happened to discuss it again here...

Khairete
Giannis

[Archelaos]

Archelaos, I disagree. The sauroter from tomb 3 was not of the winged type. It was squared like conventional sauroters. I have seen much smaller smaller sauroters,both bronze and iron, from all eras! The tiniest i have ever seen come from Amphipolis,they were hellenistic,however they were identical in size and shape with hellenistic sculptures,like those from Pergamos.
In addition,the greaves that were found in the same tomb were no smaller than normal. No smaller than other greaves. The youth that was burried was supposedly about 13-14 years old,some children that age are not much shorter than other adults. So I don't see the use of any shorter model of a spear for parade!

It is winged butt. I spent over an hour in front of this case on two different occasions, including one time when I spent few hours sketching all spearheads and butts on display so I can say I examined it as closely as possible without taking it out of case. The wings had rusted away, just like on the butt from Derveni, but traces of them on the edges and depressions on the sides of the "square" part prove they existed.
I do not say it is super small butt, but rather smallest of "winged" type, and while spear do not have to be much shorter, it should, I think, be lighter.

[PMBardunias]

I agree with Giannis as to that porpax and seemingly many others being off-set to the right (if looking into the bowl of a shield you are holding). Why they are off-set is another matter. Giannis is correct that if resting the rim on the shoulder is a concern then the vertical placement might have been altered to match biceps lengths, but this is not so for the horizontal displacement. The only reason to off-set them horizontally is if the antilabe had to be a set distance not from the porpax, but from the rim, and the porpax had to conform based on forearm length. It is hard to imagine why the antilabe should require such specific placement, but perhaps it does due to its being associated, either functionally or aesthethically, with that rope that runs around the rim.

The only other reason I can think of for off-setting the porpax to the right is if the the shield itself had to lay in a specific way across the body. Perhaps it is as simple as the shield not extending too far to the right- so as not to hit elbows for example :wink: . If I am at all correct in my other ramblings, perhaps the shield must lay across the upper chest and upper thighs. This requirement then sets the placement of the grips inside the shield.

I traced the placement of the offset porpax Giannis first posted and scaled the aspis to an assumption of a 5'6" hoplite, then superimposed it on one of the archaic hoplite statuettes I had an image of to show possible placement. I left the arm as it was in the statue, but it could be rotated up without drastically changing shield position. Notice the wounds will be most common in the thighs, genitals, throat, and feet, just as we most often see them in the histories. Of course this exact position with the shield on the chest is only for when the men are packed belly to belly, shield to shield. If spear fencing at some 5' from the enemy phalanx, they are free to raise and lower the shield to ward off blows to the face as well as rearing back to strike with the force of their twisting torsos.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Archelaos, I must admit that you might be correct about the sauroter being of the winged type. Although still i can't see any of the wings and when i saw it up close i didn't think of it, it does indeed look like other winged sauroter.
Hawever,just as the typical sauroters have basicly the same shape but varry much in size,i don't see anything significant in the small size of this sauroter. Especially since the shaft is so much tappered.

Paul, in fact our statements are not oposing necessarily. I said that for some reason the antilabe is usually near the rim. It seems that it's so often near the rim that one should think there must have been some reason. The position of the shield on your body is one of the most obvious reasons. This explains the horizontal off center porpax. Even if the vertical placement of the porpax was adjusted by the same factor,the position of the shield on your body when you hold it in fighting position, again it is clear from hundrets of representations that this positioning was such that you could comfortably rest your shield on your shoulder in a natural position. So my model of how the placement of the porpax MIGHT have been done i think is valid. In all,i don't believe that any of the porpakes were meant to be centered,it just happened that some of them were so close to dead center that in art they were represented centered. Also i think that it is implausible that the porpax ever got off centered to the left and down because hoplite shields never seem to have been small enough. Especially compared to the smaller than us ancient people. And the rare times that we do see it in art,i think they're so few that could be considered artistic lisense or mistake.
Paul,in your drawing the hand seems to be away from the rim but this is only because the original shield was not held completely in front of the body. If we turned the arm in the correct position the antilabe would get much nearer to the rim.
Also another thing that you achieve with an off centered porpax is that you can overlar shields better allowing more space for each man. I often notice it in some re-enactors with centered porpakes and antilabes away from the rim that when forming a shield wall each one is directly behind his own shield,not leaving mush space for the man to the right to get covered,and actually with much space to the left. And because the shield is big enough,it gives the impression that it offers better protection for the individual,but simply doesn't justify the sources.
Khairete
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Might I venture to suggest the simplest explanation is the obvious one? .....the off-centre porpax allows a man to deploy a slightly larger shield for a given forearm length.......and note that it is only slightly off-centre at that - too much unbalances the shield too much.

[PMBardunias]

Even if the vertical placement of the porpax was adjusted by the same factor,the position of the shield on your body when you hold it in fighting position, again it is clear from hundrets of representations that this positioning was such that you could comfortably rest your shield on your shoulder in a natural position.

Hey Giannis, I think we are largely in accord. The one issue I have with the idea that it was resting the shield on the shoulder that determined the porpax position is that you should always rest the shield on the shoulder at it's apex- otherwise the inner rim is resting at an angle against the shoulder. This certainly explains the porpax being slightly off-center, but brings up questions when it is either on center or more than slightly off set.

I often notice it in some re-enactors with centered porpakes and antilabes away from the rim that when forming a shield wall each one is directly behind his own shield,not leaving mush space for the man to the right to get covered,and actually with much space to the left. And because the shield is big enough,it gives the impression that it offers better protection for the individual,but simply doesn't justify the sources

I'm glad you said this and not me, because I hate telling people that there very expensive shields are perhaps innacurate :wink: I agree with what you said about maximizing overlap. Perhaps homogenizing shield size is the driving force. I, and 6'3", would hate to stand next to a 5'3" hoplite with a proportionally smaller aspis!

This begs the question of why the porpax is in the center in the first place since most/all later double-grip shields have the grips flanking the center in a manner that actually makes far more sense for a shield meant to protect an individual. Much of the left half of the aspis is wasted for individual protection- implying that it was for more than protecting just the man behind it.

If we turned the arm in the correct position the antilabe would get much nearer to the rim.

I agree that the hand should probably be quite close to the rim. I moved it that way and the shield still lays in roughly the same way, but I did not want to be accused of overmanipulating the image to make my point.

Might I venture to suggest the simplest explanation is the obvious one? .....the off-centre porpax allows a man to deploy a slightly larger shield for a given forearm length.......and note that it is only slightly off-centre at that - too much unbalances the shield too much.

There has to be some reason that the man cannot simply have his arm in a central porpax and move the antilabe closer to the mid-line. Only if the form of the aspis required a set distance between elbow and rim, or other such geometric concern, does moving the porpax rather than the antilabe make sense.

[Paullus Scipio]

Looking again at the picture of the back of the 'shield' you posted, Giannis, there is something very wrong....... the porpax seems to be attached to the back of the bronze shield facing directly, which should not be the case for a 'real battle shield'. ( if the organic wood and leather have rotted, the porpax should have been found loose, with maybe some loose clenched nails/rivets. Come to think of it, no real example would be found attached......unless the central part of the core survived, as in the Vatican shield popularised by Connolly)

What is the provenance of this example? Is it a miniature or full size? Could it be a purely votive item ( I believe it comes from Olympia)? Have restorers found the porpax and facing together but loose, and simply mistakenly 'stuck' the two together? In which case it may not have been off-centre originally at all.....

If it is correct that no porpax would be found attached,(unless part of the 'core survives, like the vatican example in Connolly) then it is pointless to speculate about just where the porpax was originally.... :?

BTW, does anyone have a photo of the rear of the second vatican shield? ( see attached)

[Paullus Scipio]

Getting back on topic.......here is an interesting sauroter, which was found in the course of a survey looking for remains of Darius' fleet which sank off the Athos peninsula in 492 BC. Fishermen in 1999 had found two classical helmets ( anyone got pics?), and a survey in the vicinity in 2004 produced an amphora, home to an octopus. The octopus had collected the sauroter, apparently, which was found inside.....

[Archelaos]

It seems to have weight attached to the socket and now badly rusted (iron?) just like the one shown already here, for ex post 2 on page 2, from NAM in Athens.

[Paullus Scipio]

No, I don't think so ....not big enough. The thickening is just the usual "ring" around the sauroter. I don't think it is iron either but rather bronze, with the usual 'concretion' found from immersion in the sea.