Some Aspis Revisionism

[Kineas]

So...

We've all seen a dozen or so photos of the Spartan Shield in the Agora museum. What none of those photos troubled to convey is that most of the green on that shield is putty, not bronze. There is surprisingly little left of the bronze facing, and what appears in an Osprey book to be a heavily dented, massive shield is actually covered with repousse'd bronze a little thicker than paper, but MUCH thinner than the 24 Gauge bronze we've been using here in Canada. .25 of a mm, I'd guess. For those not into bronze working--that's THIN. The whole face was repousse'd. I don't think one bit was smooth or polished. Where did that idea come from? Check out the pics and decide for yourselves, though.

Shield rims from Olympia and other shrines at the Nat. Arch. Mus. were as thin or thinner. ALL were repousse'd, although that may just be because they were the best and were thus offered to the god. The same may be true of the Spartan shield. Perhaps there were oithers that were smooth--my point is, these are NOT smooth. they are beautifully worked.

All of the porpax fragments were nicely worked, thin bronze sheet--between 20 and 24 gauge, I'd say. No cast parts at all. The same went for the shield fittings.
Odd that there's so much of this stuff and I've never seen it on the list.

First shot. Note that everything that isn't "bumpy" is preservation putty--NOT bronze. Even says so on the sign.




I think this is the best shot I managed. Shot through a polarizing filter.

[Kineas]

Another shield rim, this one from Olympia. Check out the similarities. Also note that these rims are THIN. i don't mean narrow-I mean the metal is basically decorative and for keeping moisture off the rim of your wooden shield.



And another, just as thin.



And a miniature from a figure--note the off-center porpax AND the antelabe far from the rim.

[Kineas]

And here's a few inside fittings:

Porpax:



Simple fitting:



Fancy fitting. The others were worked sheet, this one MAY be cast, but if so, it was the only cast fitting.



Sorry for the blurred image.

[Kineas]

Summary:
My observation from five museums is that almost all Aspis parts were made from thin sheet bronze. Bronze shield facings were paper thin or thinner. Porpax parts were very thin, and almost certainly fully backed in heavy leather, both under the "strap (which is a centimeter wide on one porpax, and 24 gauge, so very thin as well as narrow) and probably under the outer "triangles" as well. This would make a light, flexible porpax, like the ones we made first here in Canada... later, we convinced ourselves to make them heavier. oops.

The other fittings are thin and light and held to the shield back with small iron nails, so they were drive into wood, not clenched over a metal face. One fitting MIGHT have been clenched.

I'm still waiting for the Argive Shield book from Olympia, but what other people have shared from that book matches this evidence. these shields can't have been heavy. They aren't built heavy. They are lightly built, and I'll bet the cheap ones had leather porpaxes and antelabes. I don't even think that they were built to last long. Instead, what I see is a big, LIGHT shield, with every fitting made as lightly as possible. I'd accept that the fitting might have been light because the wood was so heavy... but my suspicion is that the whole shield was light (6 kilos or less) and used actively, not passively. But heck, you all know my hobby horses by now. I won't preach. Take the pictures for what they are, and tell me what YOU see.

[Paullus Scipio]

Well, most of what you observe simply confirms what is known already. To sound a note of conservatism, I have some doubts about the whole shield surface being repoussed. Could it be that the rim is repoussed, and the face, with so little of the original material, be merely corroded? How certain is this observation?
The Etruscan examples are certainly smooth-faced......

Secondly, the votive example you described with an off-centre porpax does not appear so to my eye; and measurement with dividers shows the porpax to be pretty much plumb centre.....

I share your suspicion that, over time, shields got lighter, and that later examples in particular ( such as the Olynthus example, which is reported to have been made od 'plywood' strips, like Roman scuta) were relatively light. This would be consistent with the general lightening of Hoplite equipment over the centuries.....

[Kineas]

if they were light in 520 BC, when were they heavy???

[Paullus Scipio]

"light" and "heavy" are relative terms....the construction method of the Olynthus fragments, dating from roughly Philip's siege (348 BC), and being of 'ply' i.e. criss-crossed strips would produce a thinner, lighter shield of a given strength than one using the earlier method of turning from solid wood......

[Kineas]

Dear Paul--I responded elsewhere about the drill. I'll just say--look at the most detailed photo of the shield, and you'll see the complex latice repousse covers all the fragments. It's even plainer when you look at it in "person.".

[PMBardunias]

but my suspicion is that the whole shield was light (6 kilos or less) and used actively, not passively.

I'm not sure we can extrapolate "active" use- by which I assume you mean lots of movement to parry- from the light weight. We could probably do so from heavy weight, but surely the large reed and rawhide shields of the Persians were pretty light and yet meant to be stood behind.

What is interesting is that, as I have opined for some time, the shield face does not do much to add protection from piercing. The whole shield was probably much weaker than generally credited- as Brasidas learned to his chagrin.

and you'll see the complex latice repousse covers all the fragments. It's even plainer when you look at it in "person.".

Is it the same Guilloche pattern as the rim? That pattern is very common on rims and Paul M-S once noted that it seems to represent wicker, which has ramifications for the ancestor of the aspis.

the construction method of the Olynthus fragments, dating from roughly Philip's siege (348 BC), and being of 'ply' i.e. criss-crossed strips would produce a thinner, lighter shield of a given strength than one using the earlier method of turning from solid wood......

Perhaps multiple methods survived concurrently, or the construction was cyclical, because I have a hard time not seeing lathe construction on the Chigi vase aspides.

Any sign of backing attched? How do you think the face wat attached to the shield?

[hoplite14gr]

Shields with ful mettall outer layuer were rarer than others in my opinion.
Both National Arhaiological Museum Athens m Olympia na Dodona Museums have exibits that show that most shields had a metal ring in the outer surface and a metalic shield device covered part of the outer shield layer.
The basis of the shield construction relied haevily on the "Vatican shield" and many people see it a s "rule of the thimb". (ONE example)
But we can never be sure what type of non metalic material was used based on period, availability, cost ans skill constrants at a given area.

From exparience any shield between 10 kgr (22 lbs) ro 14 kgr (27lbs) is usable in a phalanx.
And probably (still researching here) the pyrichios was an exersize to handle the shields weight.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Those are extreme weights,Stefanos. manning imperial and a Spanish recreation of fully brass covered shields with much heavier gauge plate weight about 9 kgr and are considered very heavy. I'm sure an ancient fully covered shield would weight less than 9 kg.

[MeinPanzer]

Well, most of what you observe simply confirms what is known already. To sound a note of conservatism, I have some doubts about the whole shield surface being repoussed. Could it be that the rim is repoussed, and the face, with so little of the original material, be merely corroded? How certain is this observation?
The Etruscan examples are certainly smooth-faced......

Secondly, the votive example you described with an off-centre porpax does not appear so to my eye; and measurement with dividers shows the porpax to be pretty much plumb centre.....

I share your suspicion that, over time, shields got lighter, and that later examples in particular ( such as the Olynthus example, which is reported to have been made od 'plywood' strips, like Roman scuta) were relatively light. This would be consistent with the general lightening of Hoplite equipment over the centuries.....

I find myself agreeing with Paul here. I can neither make out the repousse on the face (in contrast to the rim, it just looks corroded), nor does the porpax on the miniature seem off-centre. And this confirms what seems to have been the case for shields right down into the Hellenistic period, which is that the bronze facing was largely decorative in nature, and would have been too thin to confer much defensive capability.

[hoplite14gr]

Dear Giannis,
I used exterme weights on purpose. They might have been less than 9 kgr (20 lbs)
In our group we feel that the outmost exterme limit is 14 kgr (27 lbs)!

Off-centre porpax was not successfull in our experiments.
Any body had got differnt results?

Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

Off-centre porpax was not successfull in our experiments.
Any body had got differnt results?

Can you define "off center". Do you have an image?

[Kineas]

LOL!

Seriously, friends--I can see why you look at the photo and say the porpax seems to be centered, but if you look carefully and apply photometrics (I shot it at a 30 degree angle or so), you'll see it is WAY off center. And that doesn't mean it isn't artist error--it's not a deal-clincher--but when you look at it in the museum, it's so far off center that I (who am rigorously against off-center) had to turn to Giannis (my esteemed opponent, and champion of the off center porpax) and offer to eat my hat. This isn't an offer I make lightly, and as I hate to lose an argument as much as the next guy, I must beg you all to believe me. That porpax isn't on center.

As to the design on the shield face, I recommend you all go to the Agora museum. If you look at the lowest of my first three photos, though, you should see the lattice--four dots with a connecting repousse line, repeated over and over--pretty clearly on the fragments of the shield face.

That said, I also agree with Stephanos--I don't think bronze faced shields were common. I think that like the spoils at Olympia, this is the best of 280 shields or more from Pylos, right? The very best!

Also worth adding that there were several other "miniature" shields that showed three dimensional devices--which we know existed--some fantastically complex and using human figures (which was elsewhere debated on this forum). I'll put up two for fun.



and



Sorry it is blurry--I have a lot to learn--but you can see what a complex centauromachy it is (although it might by Chiron training Akilles). The date on it is 520 BC.

I will be the first to say that the metalsmith MIGHT have been using three d to represent flat paint--but if so, I'd expect him to use incised lines or even engraving, vice deep molded bas-relief. Besides, when you look at all the shield devices from Olympia--