10-16-2009, 12:56 AM
Contemporary means "from the time of the items in question" ie 6th, 5th, and 4th century BC. A contemporary source is one from the period under discussion. There are no contemporary mentions of linen armor, save the one line in Alcaeus, and he's Lesbian-Aeolian. Contemporary does NOT mean 3rd c. or 2nd c. or Roman or Medieval or an Osprey book. Okay?
I read Classical Greek. If you do not read Greek and you don't know the Greek sources, and if you think "contemporary" means "modern," I have to assume that you are not a trained historian. That's not a dis--please don't take it as such. I just want to know what to aim my arguments at!
The LSJ (That's Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon), is the world standard on the meaning of Classical Greek, lists both Spola and Stole--as interchangeable--but with the following meanings
????-? , h(, Aeol. ????? (q.v.): (??????):—
A. equipment, fitting out, “???????” A.Supp.764.
2. armament, Id.Pers.1018 (lyr.).
II. equipment in clothes, raiment, ib.192; ????? ??????? ?. S.Ph.224, cf. E.Heracl.130; “?????? ?????? ????????????” Hdt.1.80; “?. ??????” Ar.Ec.846; “???????” Hdt.4.78; “??????” E.Rh.313; “??????” X.Cyr.8.1.40; “?????????” Ar.Th.851, cf. 92; “??????” Pl.Lg.833b; “?????? ????? ?? ?? ????????” SIG1003.14 (Priene, ii B.C.): metaph. of birds, “?. ??????” Ach.Tat.1.15.
2. garment, robe, S.OC1357,1597, PCair.Zen.54.32 (pl.), 263.4,8 (iii B.C.), BGU1860.4 (i B.C.), etc.; ?. ?????, of the lion's skin which Heracles wore, E.HF465; ?? ?. ?????????? in full dress, M.Ant.1.7 (v.l. -??? ap.Suid.), cf. Ev.Marc.12.38.
3. act of dressing, ???? ??? ?. Orib.Syn.5.21.
and
?????? , ????, h(,
A. [select] leathern garment, jerkin, S.Fr.11, Ar.Av.933,935, 944, X.An.3.3.20, 4.1.18 (with v.l. ??????).
????? , h(, Aeol. for ?????, Sapph.55 (dub.).
I think you linen-o-philes should ask yourselves why in a country that grew virtually no flax, they would make armor from linen. I think you should ask yourselves what industry would make the armor--thousands of suits--without leaving a single trace of a trade in all of Greek literature. Shouldn't Aeschylus and Aristophanes at least mention the stuff? I think you should read Pausanias's descriptions, and all of the period references. Do a word count on the word "linothorax" on the Perseus Project. Find a mention of a man wearing a linen corselet in ANY period literature.
Against that, the evidence for leather is decent, even strong--and the evidence from reconstruction is, to me, conclusive, as it is simple, can be done with period techniques and tools, and plays to the strength of Athen's industry in period. And would have been cheap. And cheap must have been important, in period--important to a hoplite of 490, and still in 420, and doubly so to the tight-fisted managers of Alexander's treasury with 20K phalangites to armor...
As to the question of iron breastplates--Scott, I'm also going to assume you are not an archaeologist. Iron rusts away to nothing in about 200 years in most instances. In a 17th century grave, for instance, under ideal soil conditions, a gun barrel or a flintlock will leave a remain that can be identified as such. A 16th c. grave almost never leaves anything but a trace of oxidation. I suspect that unless conditions are truly ideal, the survivability of iron would be low. As an example, look in one of the standard sources--Battinger's 'Angriffeswaffen" from the Olympia series--and compare iron and bronze arrowheads. Any of the Scythian grave catalogs will give you the same result. Look at iron saurauters vs. bronze ones. It's not that they didn't exist--it's that bronze has a much higher survival rate.
I'm not arguing that there were thousands of iron thorakes--although I have heard it suggested and it is not impossible, by any means. One theory I rather liked was painted linen, or alum-tawed hide OVER iron. I can actually see that--not very different from the Wisby armor, really.
I think what really disturbs me about the linen armor of the linen-o-philes is that AT BEST linen, whether glued or sewn, would be a decent rival theory to the leather theory. The notion that so many people on this forum treat linen as a "fact" is too bad--bad history, and a tribute to the power of Connelly. AT BEST, we can say that we don't really know what those pale tube-and-yoke armors on vases are. Heck--they might have been bronze!
I read Classical Greek. If you do not read Greek and you don't know the Greek sources, and if you think "contemporary" means "modern," I have to assume that you are not a trained historian. That's not a dis--please don't take it as such. I just want to know what to aim my arguments at!
The LSJ (That's Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon), is the world standard on the meaning of Classical Greek, lists both Spola and Stole--as interchangeable--but with the following meanings
????-? , h(, Aeol. ????? (q.v.): (??????):—
A. equipment, fitting out, “???????” A.Supp.764.
2. armament, Id.Pers.1018 (lyr.).
II. equipment in clothes, raiment, ib.192; ????? ??????? ?. S.Ph.224, cf. E.Heracl.130; “?????? ?????? ????????????” Hdt.1.80; “?. ??????” Ar.Ec.846; “???????” Hdt.4.78; “??????” E.Rh.313; “??????” X.Cyr.8.1.40; “?????????” Ar.Th.851, cf. 92; “??????” Pl.Lg.833b; “?????? ????? ?? ?? ????????” SIG1003.14 (Priene, ii B.C.): metaph. of birds, “?. ??????” Ach.Tat.1.15.
2. garment, robe, S.OC1357,1597, PCair.Zen.54.32 (pl.), 263.4,8 (iii B.C.), BGU1860.4 (i B.C.), etc.; ?. ?????, of the lion's skin which Heracles wore, E.HF465; ?? ?. ?????????? in full dress, M.Ant.1.7 (v.l. -??? ap.Suid.), cf. Ev.Marc.12.38.
3. act of dressing, ???? ??? ?. Orib.Syn.5.21.
and
?????? , ????, h(,
A. [select] leathern garment, jerkin, S.Fr.11, Ar.Av.933,935, 944, X.An.3.3.20, 4.1.18 (with v.l. ??????).
????? , h(, Aeol. for ?????, Sapph.55 (dub.).
I think you linen-o-philes should ask yourselves why in a country that grew virtually no flax, they would make armor from linen. I think you should ask yourselves what industry would make the armor--thousands of suits--without leaving a single trace of a trade in all of Greek literature. Shouldn't Aeschylus and Aristophanes at least mention the stuff? I think you should read Pausanias's descriptions, and all of the period references. Do a word count on the word "linothorax" on the Perseus Project. Find a mention of a man wearing a linen corselet in ANY period literature.
Against that, the evidence for leather is decent, even strong--and the evidence from reconstruction is, to me, conclusive, as it is simple, can be done with period techniques and tools, and plays to the strength of Athen's industry in period. And would have been cheap. And cheap must have been important, in period--important to a hoplite of 490, and still in 420, and doubly so to the tight-fisted managers of Alexander's treasury with 20K phalangites to armor...
As to the question of iron breastplates--Scott, I'm also going to assume you are not an archaeologist. Iron rusts away to nothing in about 200 years in most instances. In a 17th century grave, for instance, under ideal soil conditions, a gun barrel or a flintlock will leave a remain that can be identified as such. A 16th c. grave almost never leaves anything but a trace of oxidation. I suspect that unless conditions are truly ideal, the survivability of iron would be low. As an example, look in one of the standard sources--Battinger's 'Angriffeswaffen" from the Olympia series--and compare iron and bronze arrowheads. Any of the Scythian grave catalogs will give you the same result. Look at iron saurauters vs. bronze ones. It's not that they didn't exist--it's that bronze has a much higher survival rate.
I'm not arguing that there were thousands of iron thorakes--although I have heard it suggested and it is not impossible, by any means. One theory I rather liked was painted linen, or alum-tawed hide OVER iron. I can actually see that--not very different from the Wisby armor, really.
I think what really disturbs me about the linen armor of the linen-o-philes is that AT BEST linen, whether glued or sewn, would be a decent rival theory to the leather theory. The notion that so many people on this forum treat linen as a "fact" is too bad--bad history, and a tribute to the power of Connelly. AT BEST, we can say that we don't really know what those pale tube-and-yoke armors on vases are. Heck--they might have been bronze!
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
