Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paralus]

...not sure what you mean.

Pretty much what I wrote I think. The curve of that shield neatly follows the arm curve in "fig. 10".

The circular shield of Ruben's post has neither rim ( so cannot positively be identified as 'aspis')...

Certainly seems large enough though the artistry / preservation seems "worse" than the Hatzopoulos / Juhel stele.

The image, even 'mirrored' certainly would not match the Hatzopoulos/Juhel one.Look how the rim comes well above the shoulder...over the neck and almost to the jaw-line. It also protrudes well behind the figure ( though one might argue obscured by billowing cloak on Hatzupolous/Juhel figure)

Seems you did understand what I meant. The cloak - and the figure - clearly would cover any other portions of a supposed shield in Hatzopoulos / Juhel.

[MeinPanzer]

A sarcophagus from Kilkis depicting an Antigonid cavalryman and his equipment.

And, were we to render that image the other way around, the shield would perfectly fit the "left arm" of the Hatzopoulos / Juhel fig.10!

I agree that one would need to actually see the stele; as I've said, the image just isn't clear enough for me to make any dogmatic claims. As Giannis has observed: my eyes aren't his (cheeky bugger).

Actually, I totally agree with you. Comparing the two images, the curvature does seem about the same. However, I still can't get past the fact that it seems to have a line or band one the upper arm in exactly the same place where on is on the other arm.

...not sure what you mean. The circular shield of Ruben's post has neither rim ( so cannot positively be identified as 'aspis'), nor a central 'spina'/barleycorn umbo ( so cannot be positively identified as 'celtic' type). It could be either, with either rim or 'spina/umbo' painted on.....

This type of shield, large and round but entire rimless and without boss or spina, is seen elsewhere in Hellenistic art. It's apparent that it was a type set apart from the spina shield and the aspis, since it is represented on detailed works in which it is apparent that the sculptor has chosen not to decorate it for a reason.

Different weaponry appears as decoration on the remaining parts of the sarcophagus - a different helmet, armour, and definite aspides.....

These pieces of equipment are clearly the arms and armour of an Antigonid cavalryman, and the shields depicted are undoubtedly aspides. There are other examples of this from Hellenistic stelai, where soldiers are depicted with arms and armour, but then a frieze or representation on the same stele shows different equipment. I guess it can be chocked up to rich individuals possessing a number of different pieces of armour or weapons and wanting to advertise that fact.

[Paullus Scipio]

There's still the fundamental problem that the curved edge of any supposed 'aspis' should appear well above the shoulder ( because of the shield's rim) - which it clearly doesn't in the hatzupolous/Juhel example, ergo, not an aspis depiction.....or a celtic one either, since, as Ruben's example shows, the edge of either shield would be well above the shoulder.....

Ruben wrote:

This type of shield, large and round but entire rimless and without boss or spina, is seen elsewhere in Hellenistic art. It's apparent that it was a type set apart from the spina shield and the aspis, since it is represented on detailed works in which it is apparent that the sculptor has chosen not to decorate it for a reason.

A THIRD type? This is getting confusing ( though it is possible that cavalry in hellenistic times used perhaps four different types of circular shield, plus later, the oval/oblong types)...but in any event, all types of large circular shield seem to have an edge which is well above shoulder height; clearly not the case in the H/J fig 10....unless you want postulate further types, or artistic inability to get the size right, or artists deliberately depicting shields smaller, to show more of the figure ( the latter definitely known to occur) ...or...... :? ? wink:

Sorry, I'm still convinced NO shield is shown. D

[Paralus]

Actually, I totally agree with you. Comparing the two images, the curvature does seem about the same.

There's still the fundamental problem that the curved edge of any supposed 'aspis' should appear well above the shoulder ( because of the shield's rim) - which it clearly doesn't in the hatzupolous/Juhel example, ergo, not an aspis depiction.....or a celtic one either, since, as Ruben's example shows, the edge of either shield would be well above the shoulder.....

Well, Ruben got the picture… so to speak. The curvature of the arm/aspis carries up to the neck in fig. 10 and no more is seen due to the rider and the cloak. We have no idea what is behind rider / cloak as stated earlier. That curvature looks – to my poor eyesight – little different to that in Ruben’s photo.

As I’ve said before, that does not necessarily an aspis make it. Again, I’d love to see a high resolution colour photo or, presently in my dreams, the real deal. Without having done so I fail to understand your rather dogmatic dismissal of the ideas of those who’ve worked with the actual piece.

[Paullus Scipio]

Without having done so I fail to understand your rather dogmatic dismissal of the ideas of those who’ve worked with the actual piece.

...what makes you think they are working from the 'real thing' rather than the same photos we have access to ?

[MeinPanzer]

Without having done so I fail to understand your rather dogmatic dismissal of the ideas of those who’ve worked with the actual piece.

...what makes you think they are working from the 'real thing' rather than the same photos we have access to ?

Because it says so right in the article:

A visit by Hatzopoulos to the estate of Topsin at that time [1982] yielded several inscriptions, four of which were walled in the doorposts of the two porches at the entrances to the estate. In 1986, Hatzopoulos copied the inscriptions and wrote descriptions of the reliefs that were then displayed at Topsin. By 2001, the estate of Topsin had been bought by the Greek Ministry of Defense to serve as a museum; when Hatzopoulos revisited it, he discovered that two of the four inscribed stelae had been removed. An investigated eventually revealed that they had been transported to the Kilkis Archaeological Museum, where they are currently displayed in the courtyard.

It also mentions later on that Juhel had also discovered the stelae independently of Hatzopoulos before they were moved, so both authors have made actual examinations of the stele.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ok....that saves me going through the article again..... :wink:

But of course it is still all a matter of interpretation, and I am still convinced that on balance of probability it is most unlikely to be a shield, especially if the earlier date the authors ascribe is correct....

[Paralus]

I don't think "letter styles" is a terribly accurate way of dating a stele ( which is the authors method)…

[…] and since the carving is inevitably worn, I don't think one can be positive that a long-sleeved tunic is worn …

[…] To me that line between rider and horses neck could just as easily be a short-sleeved tunic and arm….

[…] The helmet on the stele in question here, with it's slight peak/brow, the forehead 'notch' and low comb looks to me like a well-known and common Antigonid …

[…] On balance of probability, I would suggest this stele shows a shieldless cavalryman, but I would disagree with the authors over it's dating, and place it (probably)after 275 BC, largely because of the helmet.....

Sounds like “root and branch” to me. It would seem that you obviously think little of the scholarship involved in the paper.

Liampi's numismatical examinations are very good, and based on up-to-date evidence. By contrast, "Ancient Illyria" is a reprint of works that are over a century old (originally printed in 1885 and 1886)! I'm afraid in this matter I'm going to have to go with Liampi.

Fancy Paullus plumping for “old” interpretations?

[Paullus Scipio]

Given the 'rough' nature (literally) of the evidence, I am suggesting a less precise time period than the authors, that is all....as you can see from the fact that Ruben and I are largely in agreement here. I don't think the evidence entirely supports the very narrow time band the authors attribute to it.....considering there seems to be no associated finds that would help dating.....

[MeinPanzer]

Fancy you plumping for “old” interpretations.

I honestly don't know what this phrase means. Are you meaning to suggest that in the time between the first discovery of these mints (and Evans made clear in his introduction that the coins which he published were new finds in his day) and the modern day that more precise dating and more extensive understanding of the numismatic issues surrounding them has not arisen?

At any rate, I think that we are getting a bit mixed up as to who is for what. To summarize:

I think that this stele dates to c.300 BC, because the helmet worn by Nikanor is similar enough to examples of early Attic helmets to date to around that time.

I think that the cavalryman could wear a long-sleeved tunic.

I agree with you that the shape is right for the man to be carrying a large round shield.

However, I think that the photograph in the article makes quite clear that the vertical lines visible on the "shield" area, which look to be quite clear, mirror those on the left arm.

And so, I do not think that he could be carrying a shield.

[Paralus]

Fancy you plumping for “old” interpretations.

I honestly don't know what this phrase means. Are you meaning to suggest that in the time between the first discovery of these mints (and Evans made clear in his introduction that the coins which he published were new finds in his day) and the modern day that more precise dating and more extensive understanding of the numismatic issues surrounding them has not arisen?

I don't doubt it! It was actually directed to Paul Mac but I did not, in any way, make that clear. I was using your explanation of Liampi's work as opposed to the rather more than a century old view in Paul Mac's post. This is a gentle return of serve for those occasions when he has described my views (and secondary sources) as "outdated and old" for having been written in the seventies and eighties.

I have altered the confusing post.

And, yes, I largely agree with the rest of what you've written. I don't carry a candle for an aspis or arm and have no problem with the pair's dating or other conclusions. I wouldn't be prepared to so question the authors' conclusions based on a scanned photo (as my list in the previous would indicate) - particularly Juhel's whose (yet to be published) Phd dissertaion is centred on the equipment and accoutrement of Macedonian armies (Alexander's and Antigonid if I recall).

Personnally, I can't wait to lay hands on a copy!

[MeinPanzer]

I don't doubt it! It was actually directed to Paul Mac but I did not, in any way, make that clear. I was using your explanation of Liampi's work as opposed to the rather more than a century old view in Paul Mac's post. This is a gentle return of serve for those occasions when he has described my views (and secondary sources) as "outdated and old" for having been written in the seventies and eighties.

I have altered the confusing post.

And, yes, I largely agree with the rest of what you've written. I don't carry a candle for an aspis or arm and have no problem with the pair's dating or other conclusions. I wouldn't be prepared to so question the authors' conclusions based on a scanned photo (as my list in the previous would indicate) - particularly Juhel's whose (yet to be published) Phd dissertaion is centred on the equipment and accoutrement of Macedonian armies (Alexander's and Antigonid if I recall).

Personnally, I can't wait to lay hands on a copy!

Ah, I see what you meant. I was awfully confused there!

I noticed another problem with the article today: the authors state that the shield on Nikanor's stele is an aspis because it "seems to have a convex edge," failing to note that aspides, by their very nature, never have convex edges because the flat offset rim makes up the edge.

A summary of Juhel's thesis is online here:

http://www.paris-sorbonne.fr/fr/article ... ticle=4738

What I'm particularly curious to read about:

The elephant tower being introduced in 290 by Demetrius Poliorcetes instead of by Pyrrhus.

The "Seleucid" army of Ptolemy Ceraunos.

And I'm particularly interested in his treatment of the cavalry thureos in Greece prior to Pyrrhus, since I've done a lot of research on the thureos and its introduction into Greece and I've not yet found proof that it was in use by Greeks before 274 BC (either by cavalry or infantry). However, I think this is just a confused description of his argument, and when he writes of the cavalry thureos he instead just means cavalry shields in general, since in the article Juhel discusses proof that the aspis was in use among cavalry before 274 BC, but specifically contrasts that with the thureos! However, going by the evidence he cites in the article, he seems to have a pretty weak argument. His sole piece of evidence besides Nikanor's stele is a terracotta figurine from 4th c. BC Cyprus carrying an aspis. Unfortunately, this is neither proof of the thureos being in use before 274 BC, nor of the use of the cavalry shield in Greece (unless he wants to make a very strained argument that evidence from Cyprus supports its use on mainland Greece).

I'll wait to judge until I can see the final publication, though.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Sounds like “root and branch” to me. It would seem that you obviously think little of the scholarship involved in the paper.

Not at all - I agree with most of it, as I've said....and notice the use of words and phrase such as "probably","could just as easily", and "balance of probability"....

I largely agree with what the authors and Ruben above have said, save that I am reasonably sure that no shield is depicted, on balance of probability, because the common large shields of the era tend to all have rims well above the shoulder line, and are depicted so.....the only fly in the ointment being that artists were known to "shrink" shield sizes to display more of the figure.This is unlikely in this case though, since any depicted shield is behind, and does not obscure the figure. That the figure is probably unshielded is even more likely if the authors rather precise date is to be believed.

As to date, which has to be deduced from intrinsic evidence, there must be doubt about the "long" sleeves, the helmet type depicted could be of the type shown on the Alexander sarcophagus, but equally the later Antigonid type, especially given it's lack of crest, and with regard to the lettering, even the authors state:-

The markedly open omega in the name of the horseman Nikanor son of Herakleides, for the form persists well into the third century

To me, that gives a possible date range from, say c.310 - 250 BC, and conceivably later.

Two factors militate toward the earlier date - the fact that the stele was clearly from the same cemetary as the others - but no-one can say how long that was in use - and the close relationship in style to the other horseman I posted in Phrygian helmet from the Louvre dated mid-late 4th C BC.

The main factor for a later date is the helmet style, which most resembles the Antigonid crestless type to my eye, supported by the lettering date, which could also be from c.275 BC or later......therefore I don't think one can be any more certain than the range 310-250 BC.

Fancy Paullus plumping for “old” interpretations?

.....touche!... however, regardless of the nusmismatic dates, the point is still the same and Ruben is correct to say that the Illyrian coins were in imitation of Macedonian types in any event.

particularly Juhel's whose (yet to be published) Phd dissertaion is centred on the equipment and accoutrement of Macedonian armies (Alexander's and Antigonid if I recall).

Yes, I too am eager to see it, although there is enough in the article alone to make me have distinct reservations about his conclusions...... :wink:

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

What I'm particularly curious to read about:

The elephant tower being introduced in 290 by Demetrius Poliorcetes instead of by Pyrrhus.

The "Seleucid" army of Ptolemy Ceraunos.

And I'm particularly interested in his treatment of the cavalry thureos in Greece prior to Pyrrhus, since I've done a lot of research on the thureos and its introduction into Greece and I've not yet found proof that it was in use by Greeks before 274 BC (either by cavalry or infantry). However, I think this is just a confused description of his argument, and when he writes of the cavalry thureos he instead just means cavalry shields in general, since in the article Juhel discusses proof that the aspis was in use among cavalry before 274 BC, but specifically contrasts that with the thureos! However, going by the evidence he cites in the article, he seems to have a pretty weak argument. His sole piece of evidence besides Nikanor's stele is a terracotta figurine from 4th c. BC Cyprus carrying an aspis. Unfortunately, this is neither proof of the thureos being in use before 274 BC, nor of the use of the cavalry shield in Greece (unless he wants to make a very strained argument that evidence from Cyprus supports its use on mainland Greece).

I'll wait to judge until I can see the final publication, though.

Thanks for posting the link to the abstract of Juhel's thesis. It would seem we are both a little skeptical of some of Juhel's (likely) conclusions. From the article and the abstract, one gets the impression that Juhel wants to paint Demetrius Poliorcetes as a sort of Hellenistic "Marius", crediting him with several reforms to equipment etc ! ( but we shall have to wait and see). FWIW, I entirely agree with you regarding the introduction of the 'Thureos' into Greece.

As to the introduction of cavalry shields generally, and specifically 'aspides', doubtless a case may be made from the fact that Tarantines carrying them (as we know from coins) first served in Macedonian Armies under Antigonus Monopthalmus in 317 BC (Diodorus XIX.29 ), so perhaps Macedonian cavalry began using them before Pyrrhus' return from Italy in 275 BC, when he is later known to have carried one, or else they could have been adopted in the form of the 'Thureos' following the Celtic invasion of Brennus in 279 BC.....

One factor implying the earlier date is that both types seem to have been carried, though the 'thureos' type quickly seems to have become dominant.
On the other hand, the early Third C Kazanluk paintings, which show 'shieldless' Thracian cavalry have been used (by Duncan Head) as evidence that shields were not widespread at this time, favouring a later date for widespread use..... Shielded cavalry invariably used javelins, or 'longche', but unshielded Macedonian 'xystophoroi' armed with the 12 ft 'Xyston' and body armour at least continued in service, apparently, until the second C BC. Further East, their un-shielded compatriots in Seleucid service became even heavier, riding partially armoured horses and adopting 'manica' type armguards ( see pergamum reliefs), 'cataphract' style under Eastern influence....... whoops! Off-topic! Better stop there.... D

[MeinPanzer]

One factor implying the earlier date is that both types seem to have been carried, though the 'thureos' type quickly seems to have become dominant.
On the other hand, the early Third C Kazanluk paintings, which show 'shieldless' Thracian cavalry have been used (by Duncan Head) as evidence that shields were not widespread at this time, favouring a later date for widespread use..... Shielded cavalry invariably used javelins, or 'longche', but unshielded Macedonian 'xystophoroi' armed with the 12 ft 'Xyston' and body armour at least continued in service, apparently, until the second C BC. Further East, their un-shielded compatriots in Seleucid service became even heavier, riding partially armoured horses and adopting 'manica' type armguards ( see pergamum reliefs), 'cataphract' style under Eastern influence....... whoops! Off-topic! Better stop there.... D

A few points:

The thureos type is actually fairly rare in representational evidence of Hellenistic shielded cavalrymen. The aspis is by far the most common type found in the evidence where the type of shield carried can be discerned.

Though I haven't read up on it in a while, I believe the Kazanluk paintings are dated to the late fourth or early third century BC, and certainly not precisely, so they aren't really good evidence for the third century anyway. However, the Mustapha Pasha tomb painting and some Alexandrian stelae which definitely are early third century show shieldless cavalrymen. It is at any rate evident that even if cavalrymen did carry shields before Pyrrhus, it didn't become commonplace until after his time.

Shielded cavalry didn't invariably use javelins; there are quite a few representations of such cavalrymen carrying xysta, while the shieldless lancer all but disappears after the 3rd c. BC. What evidence do you have for their existence into the 2nd c. BC?