More glue - bah

[Tarbicus]

One need look no futher than Arrian [6.9]
"No Indian ventured to approach Alexander as he stood on the the fortress wall; but he was the target of every marksman in the neighbouring towers; men in the town shot at him too - and from no great distance either... That it was indeed Alexander who stood there was plain to all; his almost legendary courage no less than his shining armour proclaimed him."

I've never seen a single author describe leather or linen armour as "shining"

White linen, and clean at that? The pyramids were described similarly, IIRC, and they were covered in white limestone not metal (except the capstone of gold). What time of day was the description from?

[Paullus Scipio]

Rocktupac/Scott wrote:

There is certainly evidence of laminating in the ancient world.

I would challenge that statement .One of the major objections to ‘laminated glued linen’ is that there is no evidence of such a technology in Classical Greece. Peter Connolly, in an effort to overcome this fundamental objection, suggested that theatrical masks might have been made this way, but there is absolutely no evidence for this that I am aware of - especially since none survive.

Paullus Scipio wrote:We have been through the various words used in our sources before in some detail - we need only note that the Tube-and-Yoke corselet appears in Greek art after around 520 B.C.

This isn't quite true. After looking over the entire CVA we (Aldrete and myself) have compiled a database of c. 700 examples of what Jarva refers to as Type IV armor (or your "Tube-and Yoke"). The breakdown for total number of images by medium is as follows: black-figure 87, red-figure 389, white-figure 7, sculpture 116, bronze objects 30, painted frescoes 11 (note that these numbers are not up to date with our current database as even more images representing Type IV have been found since tallying was done). Of these, a number of vases dating from as far back as 575 BC show warriors wearing Type IV armor, and many more from 560 BC to 550 BC show depictions of it as well (for example, see: #302587 and #350869 in Beazley online catalog; ABV 65,33; in CVA Basel 1 Schweiz 4; ABV 201,18). In fact, about 25% of the total number of images of Type IV armor come before 510 BC, and is the second highest concentration of Type IV based on a chronological breakdown (500-475 BC being the highest at around 38%).

This is something of a digression, but it does say something about the way you have approached your research, Scott, so I will comment on these assertions. I’m afraid, probably as you would expect, that I am going to take issue with all of this too !
Firstly, neither of those Beazley examples you refer to unequivocally shows a ‘Tube-and-Yoke’ corselet. They are attributed to the same artist, and are early Attic Black figure executed in a semi-abstract style which makes it difficult to determine anything about the nature of the body armour. What I suspect you are choosing to interpret as ‘pteryges’ on the skirts are more likely to be the folds of the tunic – they are slanted, uneven, and there is no hemline beneath them, and the figures don’t appear to be ‘heroically nude ’below the waist either – they are obviously ‘dressed’. The clincher is that one of the figures is unarmoured, and the folds of his tunic on the torso are shown in exactly the same way. Further, there is no sign or indication of any ‘yoke’ on any of them. In addition, to me, the abstract shape, with its flared out waist is far more suggestive of the bronze ‘Bell-shaped’ cuirass. I’ll bet the same applies to all of your examples allegedly before 550 BC ( see comments below on dating).

Next, what you have written about dates is misleading. Dating is largely an inexact science, and archaeological artefacts such as pottery sherds are generally dated by the ‘strata’/layer they are found in, which is seldom accurate to within a hundred years. Thereafter, the object itself may provide some guide, either by its nature, if a’ terminus pro quem’ and/or ‘terminus ante quem’ exists. Sometimes, if a pot can be attributed to a particular artist who ‘floreat’/flourished in a particular period, say twenty years between date ‘x’ and ‘y’ it can be dated even more closely. In the case of these two pots by the same artist, we don’t know exactly when he worked. Thus Beazley 302587 is dated 575-525 BC, and Beazley 350869 is variously dated both 550-500 BC and “late 6C BC” despite them being attributed to the same artist!
Since black figure painting only becomes common circa 620-600 BC in Athens, and even then is largely modelled initially on Corinthian styles, 575 BC may be considered a little early, hence unlikely, and as per the second dating of the same artist’s work, a date after 550 BC more likely.
The earliest date for an unequivocal depiction of a Tube-and-Yoke corselet is by Exekias, variously stated as “born around 550 BC and floreat 530- 520 BC” and elsewhere “floreat 550-520 BC”, hence my rather casual “around 520 BC”, though elsewhere I have more correctly said “550-520 BC”

Paullus Scipio wrote:and that no writer from then on uses the Homeric term “linothorex” but rather, when describing foreign or Asiatic linen armour, “ horaces hoi lineoi”/lit: body-armour of linen and similar expressions.

Then again, did the Greeks have a specific word for their ‘bell’- or ‘muscle’-cuirass? This is not my specific area of interest, but I don’t think I have ever seen the ancient Greeks typologically assign a name to these types of armor. So the fact that the whole term “linothorax” wasn’t used again could be of little significance if there was also a lack of a proper term for the bronze cuirasses (were they simply called “body-armor of bronze” or “bronze thoraces”?). I could be wrong, I have admittedly little knowledge in this area. Could someone with better knowledge of the subject help me out?

‘Thorakes’ originally meant ‘body covering’, then ‘body armour’. By the 6C BC the bronze ‘bell’ cuirass with its out-turned flare was the common, ubiquitous, type. Because of this, just as in English, the word ”car” meant originally any type of conveyance for people, and needed to be specifically qualified e.g. cable car, dining car, jaunting car, motor car etc, once motor cars became universal, “car” became synonymous with ‘motor car’. In the 6C BC, I would suggest the term ‘thorakes’ similarly became synonymous with ‘bronze body armour’, and more particularly ‘bronze bell muscled cuirass’. If some other type of body-armour was being referred to then a ‘qualifier’ such as ‘thorakes hoi lineoi’(body armour of linen) became necessary. Thus we can infer that when Xenophon says ‘thorakes’ unqualified, he means bronze muscled cuirass, and that he uses ‘spolades’ ( as more convenient than say ‘thorakes hoi bursinos’) for 'body armour of leather'.

Paullus Scipio wrote:The clearest example is Xenophon who when speaking of Greek armour talks of just "spolades" and "thorakes", where from the context the latter refers most likely to bronze muscled corselets and the former to leather Tube-and-Yokes, some probably with metal scale re-inforcements.

I disagree with the identification of the spolas as Type IV armor. The definition of a spolas as being this type of armor is based mainly on a single source, the 2nd Century A.D. Onomasticon of Pollux. In a rather confused passage in this work, a spolas is defined as "a thorax of skin which hangs down from the shoulders, as Xenophon said 'and spolas instead of thorax.' Sophocles considers it a Libyan custom: a Libyan spolas, a leopardskin" (7.70). This description does potentially match well with the way that Type IV armor was worn and the prominence of the epomides. It also states that the spolas is one type of thorax. Because the word thorax is almost always used to mean body armor, this is good testimony that, at least at times, a spolas could be considered a type of armor.

Sorry, I find the term ‘type iv armour’ confusing and somewhat meaningless, not owning Jarva. What are types i-iii, and is there a type V and VI ? Can we stick to ‘Tube-and-Yoke, as has been customary in discussions here – this at least has the virtue of describing what is being talked about so that anyone can readily understand. Next, as Ruben has pointed out, the Pollux passage is most certainly not a “confused passage” as you would have it, but crystal clear. Nor is it a single source. If you have read previous threads on this subject you will know that at least one other lexicon defines ‘spolas’ as leather body armour, viz:

Hesychios lexicon (sigma 1542)

spolas: khitoniskos bathus skutinos; ho bursinos thorax

"little thick leathern chiton; the leathern thorax"

Still, even leaving this out, you apparently accept that there is “good testimony” for the ‘spolas’ being body armour of leather.

So where is your “good testimony” for ‘glued’; or ‘laminated’; or even’ linen’ at all being worn by classical Greek Hoplites?……and I mean contemporary, not Homer or Alcaeus or the like.


Unfortunately, there are almost no further mentions of spolades as armor. In Xenophon’s Anabasis, during an emergency, an impromptu group of cavalry is hastily equipped with "spolades and thorakes" (3.3.20).
It is interesting to note here that there are fewer than fifty ‘thorakes’ (bronze muscled cuirass, probably )in the army, and that some had to make do with ‘spolades’. ( leather Tube-and-Yokes, probably). The cavalry needed better body armour because they were shieldless. Further evidence that the ‘thorakes’ was heavier is provided a little later, when in response to a complaint, Xenophon jumps down from his horse, and carries the man’s shield for him. He is laden down even more by the fact that he is wearing his heavy ‘cavalry cuirass’ ( thoraka hippikos) - a 'thoraka' is clearly heavier than a 'spolas'.

Later, a soldier is killed by an arrow that pierces both his shield and his spolas (4.1.18).

Xenophon is here emphasising the power of the Carduchi ‘longbow’, and its three foot arrow ( Anabasis IV.2.28), which he says go straight through shields/aspides and cuirasses/thorakes (as well as spolades/corselets).The Greeks would use these huge arrows as darts/javelins.

As quoted above, the same passage of the Onomasticon refers to a possible fourth use of the term spolas, a lost fragment of Sophocles that depicts Libyans wearing spolades, although here it clearly and specifically means skins from leopards (fr. 11). Other than these three instances, the only other use of the word spolas by an ancient author occurs in Aristophanes' play, "The Birds", and there it plainly refers to a simple leather garment rather than a piece of armor. In "The Birds" (an exact contemporary of the majority of Type IV vase paintings), there is a witty exchange centering around the attempt to con a priest into taking off his spolas and giving it to a poet. (Birds 930-944)

Since it would be extraordinarily odd for a priest to be walking around in everyday circumstances wearing armor, spolas in this case clearly just means something akin to a leather shirt or jerkin. (This, in fact, is how the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott defines the word spolas--as a "leathern garment, jerkin." They do not suggest that it can be any form of armor. The spolas in Aristophanes' play, however, is clearly an outer garment of some kind since the priest subsequently also gives away his tunic, which he was wearing beneath the spolas.)

Evidently you are not familiar with Aristophanes’ play! This is wrong. In the play, after the priest is sent on his way and the protagonist looks to carry out the sacrifice of a goat himself, a poet in only a thin cloak interrupts and begs ‘alms’. To shut him up, Pisthetairos orders a slave to give him his ‘spolas’. The poet then complains he has a ‘spolas’ but no tunic. Pisthetairos obliges him once more by ordering the slave to give him his tunic, and then shoves him off-stage, so he can continue the sacrifice……
Deductions regarding priests in armour or not, are therefore immaterial!( FYI, it would not be at all unusual for a ‘priest’ to wear armour! These are not ‘priests’ in any modern sense.)
Note that there is no reason that the ‘spolas’ in question could not be an old Tube-and-Yoke’, though personally I doubt it and think a leather jerkin ( or even a fur animal skin) more likely, in accordance with the original meaning of ‘stole/spolas’.(see below) One wonders if the use by Aristophanes of the Doric form ‘spolas’ was a subtle joke?

It is also quite wrong to suggest that the LSJ does not suggest 'armour' as a meaning for stole/spola ( again you would know this if you had read previous threads on this subject);
Kineas wrote 12 mar 2009:
“Here is the LJ entry for Spola and Stole, which appear to be the same word in different dialects. See the following...

stol-ê , hê, Aeol. spola (q.v.): ( [stellô] ):--

A. equipment, fitting out, stratou A.Supp.764 .

2. armament, Id.Pers.1018 (lyr.).

II. equipment in clothes, raiment, ib.192; schêma Hellados s. S.Ph.224, cf. E.Heracl.130; hippada stolên enestalmenoi Hdt.1.80 ; s. hippikê Ar.Ec.846 ; Skuthikê Hdt.4.78 ; Thrêikia E.Rh.313 ; Mêdikê X.Cyr.8.1.40 ; gunaikeia Ar.Th.851 , cf. 92; toxikê Pl.Lg.833b ; stolên echein ên am boulêtai SIG1003.14 (Priene, ii B.C.): metaph. of birds, s. pterôn 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.; s. thêros, of the lion's skin which Heracles wore, E.HF465; en s. peripatein in full dress, M.Ant.1.7 (v.l. -liôi ap.Suid.), cf. Ev.Marc.12.38.

3. act of dressing, meta tên s. Orib.Syn.5.21.

Note the similarity in the generic ‘equipment’ to ‘hopla’/arms, and the reference to Heracles armour – the skin of the Nemean Lion which was weapon-proof….



The Xenophon citations are also problematic. The first states that the men are equipped with both spolas and thoraxes, implying that these are two different things (depending on reading). There are two alternative ways to read this passage: that each man gets both items, in which case the spolas would seem to be a leather shirt worn under metal armor;

This is a rather forced reading of Xenophon, I would suggest, –what evidence is there anywhere to suggest leather jerkins were worn under metal armour at this time?

or, that these are both types of principal armor, and some men got spolades while others were given thorakes. If one accepts the latter reading, it is just possible that the spolas could be Type IV armor, but this is not the usual way that this passage is translated.

“just possible?” I think the probability is rather more than that…..especially compared to the non-existent evidence for Greek Hoplites wearing linen, let alone ‘glued laminated linen’.
This is reinforced later when Xenophon refers to ‘cavalry thorakes’ worn alone, with no mention of “leather jerkins” worn beneath or at all !!!.

The second Xenophon citation is similarly ambiguous in that it is unclear whether the spolas was merely a leather jerkin or a more solid form of armor. That an arrow could still penetrate deep enough to kill the man after punching through his shield implies that his spolas could not have offered much protection and thus was unlikely to have been a substantial piece of armor. Thus not only is the term spolas itself extremely rare, but it is not even clear whether was used to refer to armor during the classical era.

See above….Xenophon is making the point that these Carduchi longbows with their large arrows were unusually powerful and could penetrate ‘shields/aspides’ and ‘body-armour./thorakes', as well as ‘spolades’ – which therefore should also be a form of body armour, an alternate type to ‘thorakes’ – which is exactly what Pollux says –“ so that Xenophon says 'and the spolas instead of the thorax.''”, then goes on to describe the ‘Tube-and-Yoke’ in the clearest possible terms, as reuben remarked(see above).

Finally, the Onomasticon passage itself is of questionable reliability. A confusingly jumbled string of citations from other authors, these lines contain nothing that unequivocally links the spolas specifically to Type IV armor. The fact that it is described as hanging from the shoulders is unremarkable, since this statement could be made of nearly every type of body armor. The quotations themselves seem to imply that it is something found only among primitive tribesmen. Finally, Pollux’s Onomasticon is a highly dubious source, even by the standards of ancient texts. Pollux was a pedantic antiquarian of the 2nd century A.D., and the original Onomasticon was lost and only survives in the form of summaries compiled and interpolated by Arethas, the archbishop of Caesarea around 900 A.D. All of this renders the application of this passage to Type IV armor (or your "Tube-and Yoke") and to the time when the vase paintings and other visual depictions were actually created questionable at best.

This is hardly objective scholarship but ‘special pleading’ !"Questionable reliability"? "Confusingly jumbled"? I think the meaning is clear enough, in fact just like any multiple entry in a modern dictionary. And why is Pollux 'unreliable' in this instance? Mention of Libyans means ‘found only among primitive tribesmen’, does it? What does that make the Greeks under Xenophon who wear it? Just because one meaning refers to Libyans and their skins ( a la Heracles) does not vitiate another meaning!
“ A highly dubious source”? Just because it survives via later copies? Do you realise that ALL our ancient texts come down to us in this way – through later copies down to the Middle Ages?
As Jona Lendering has remarked, it is not so much a wonder that so much ancient literature has been lost, but rather that so much has survived when it had to be copied again and again, every hundred years or so……

It is also surprising that you disparage Xenophon who is not only our major contemporary source for the period, but an actual General of Hoplites and Cavalry to boot!! You couldn’t get a more impeccable source!

Given that you are seeking to defend your views on ‘laminated glued linen armour’, I find it surprising, even astonishing, that the word “glue” does not appear once in your entire post! You don't even refer to the second half of my post
….And while disparaging good evidence from a contemporary Military writer with actual experience, who could be expected to get his terminology right, and the evidence of not one, but two, seemingly unrelated dictionaries you absolutely fail to put up a shred of credible evidence for Greeks wearing ‘glued laminated linen’ body armour…….
I'm afraid you give the impression that having accepted Connolly's un-evidenced idea as gospel, (like many, if not most, others,including me for many years! :oops: ) - you now find yourself, having based your own work on his, trying to defend a very weak position indeed, running as it does, against the grain of the evidence.......for which you have my sincere sympathy !! (
Indeed over the last few years, each new piece of evidence seems to add to the growing body in favour of mainland Greek Hoplites of the 5-4 C BC being generally equipped with leather 'spolades' ( such as the enigmatic Macedonian tomb finds) while there is nothing new in favour of linen ( at least so far! :wink: )

[Dan Howard]

I think Paul needs to sit down after that. Well said.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

If Iron was available, they would have used it, if bronze was, they would have used it too, if neither was available they would have come up with a solution, probably made using some glue (used the word now!)

Well put Paullus, but to be honest, personally i think that the availability of iron would have done the trick...

What era are we speaking about anyway? the entire archaic period? the hellenistic period?

Some quote Homer, who was definetely NOT Archaic.

i have so far not seen any chronology in the stories, nor any periodisation.

Are we speaking of the Minoan era? Greek city-states era? Macenonian era?

M.VIB.M.

[MeinPanzer]

Well said, Paul. In another few years you'll be able to rattle that one off while asleep...

If Iron was available, they would have used it, if bronze was, they would have used it too, if neither was available they would have come up with a solution, probably made using some glue (used the word now!)

Well put Paullus, but to be honest, personally i think that the availability of iron would have done the trick...

What era are we speaking about anyway? the entire archaic period? the hellenistic period?

Some quote Homer, who was definetely NOT Archaic.

i have so far not seen any chronology in the stories, nor any periodisation.

Are we speaking of the Minoan era? Greek city-states era? Macenonian era?

M.VIB.M.

The debate really only relates to the Classical and Hellenistic periods, and moreso the former than the latter. Everyone acknowledges that from the Minoan period down to the Archaic period linen armour was worn, but there is no evidence that this is the T&Y cuirass of Classical and Hellenistic art.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Would they have changed totally though? Seems there was a lot more going on in the 'dark ages' than they are given credit for?

[Dan Howard]

According to James, there is no "Dark Age". Just an outdated chronology.
http://www.centuries.co.uk/
I'm inclined to agree with him that the chronology we currently use is dodgy, but I'm not sure about his alternative suggestion.

It is fairly clear that fashion changed. The tube and yoke style armour appeared early in the classical era and remained popular right into the Roman period. As has been said, linen armour was worn in Greece during the Bronze Age but there are no illustrations that resemble the tube and yoke style.

[Paullus Scipio]

Dan wrote:

I think Paul needs to sit down after that.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Yes, you are right, Dan! I should apologise if I sounded a little strident.....but I do get frustrated when entrenched opinion seems to ignore the evidence.

Henk wrote:

What era are we speaking about anyway? the entire archaic period? the hellenistic period?

Paullus wrote:

The earliest date for an unequivocal depiction of a Tube-and-Yoke corselet is by Exekias, variously stated as “born around 550 BC and floreat 530- 520 BC” and elsewhere “floreat 550-520 BC”, hence my rather casual “around 520 BC”, though elsewhere I have more correctly said “550-520 BC”

To put this into context, this is 'the Age of the City-States'...Athens incurs the wrath of the Great King (498 BC) by supporting Ionian Greek rebels and the Persian Wars begin, lasting until roughly 465 BC when Xerxes is murdered in a coup. Meanwhile from the 470's Cimon 'liberates' the Aegean islands founding the Delian League - which rapidly becomes the Athenian empire. In Italy, Rome struggles with Etruscans to the North and encroaching 'Hill-tribes' of Volsci and Aequi to her East, aided by her fellow Latins of the Tiber valley. In Sicily, Gelon defeats Carthage. In China, the "age of the Warring States" begins and lasts over 250 years...The Peloponnesian wars are instigated by Athens growing aggression (459 BC- 404 BC). Around 450 BC, the Celtic 'La Tene' civilisation rises, and by 410 BC are migrating in all directions - including across the Alps into Italy. In 401 BC, Xenophon sets off with the 'Ten Thousand'......In 395 BC, Sparta confronts the rising power of Thebes and Boeotia. Meanwhile Rome makes its first conquest - the Etruscan city of Veii, across the Tiber, and pays its soldiers to campaign all year round for the first time.....In 390 BC, Rome is sacked by the Celts. By 371 BC Epaminondas breaks Spartan power once and for all at Leuktra....Carthage and the Greek cities of Sicily continue to struggle over the 'Great bread Basket'. 340 BC sees the rise of Philip of Macedon and at Chaeronea in 338 BC he defeats the combined might of Thebes and Athens... He is assassinated in 336, and Alexander succeeds, and proceeds to invade the Persian Empire, reaching India by 325 BC. Meanwhile in Italy Rome struggles in a series of Wars with the Samnites. By 323 BC Alexander is dead, and the Macedonian empire breaks up into the Hellenistic kingdoms, and the wars of the Diadochi/Successors drag on.....The 3C BC sees Rome dominate Italy, and then fight the first two Punic Wars, culminating in the defeat of Hannibal in 202 BC. The 2 C BC sees Rome turn her eyes East toward the glittering and rich Greek Hellenistic Kingdoms, still fighting among themselves ( e.g. Ptolemies and Seleucids at Raphia 217 BC, while Hannibal rampaged in Italy). Rome fights a series of Macedonian Wars (190 BC - 168 BC), destroying Macedon, then Antiochus and the Seleucid Empire. Carthage and Corinth are obliterated ( 146 BC). In China, the Han emperors rise, and expand their power under Wu Ti....

With the end of the Graeco-Macedonian States, the long history of the Tube-and-Yoke corselet comes to an end, and it disappears from History. Throughout the period, both leather 'spolades' in Greece and Italy, and in Asia minor and Persia 'thorakes hoi lineoi' were in use ( at least until Alexander's day), as we have seen.
Carthage (and perhaps Etruscans too, with their Middle East heritage) seem to have used linen also. ( According to Pausanias, Gelon of Syracuse dedicated three linen Carthaginian corselets at Olympia, after Himera in 480 BC - the same year Herodotus describes Phoenician marines in linen from the parent city).

AFIK, there is no mention of 'laminations' or 'glue' throughout the period, but perhaps those who wish to establish such a piece of equipment should be looking for evidence from Anatolia, Carthage and Phoenicia to support such a case.......OOps! Sorry again, guys, what started off as a short answer to Henk's question kinda ran away there......

[Matthew Amt]

If Iron was available, they would have used it, if bronze was, they would have used it too

Iron was certainly available, and yet helmets and (metallic) armor in the Greek Classical era were overwhelmingly bronze. Even the Romans were making helmets and armor (scale, e.g.) from copper alloys well into the 3rd century AD, though iron was quite common for those items. Chalk it up to fashion, I'd say!

if neither was available they would have come up with a solution, probably made using some glue (used the word now!)

*Probably* glue? Many cultures that had little metal simply did without armor, and many warriors in metal-rich cultures did, too. Many cultures made organic armor without glue. Why is glued linen the default, or such a strong assumption?

Would they have changed totally though?

Well, there are no Mycenaean depictions of tube-and-yoke cuirasses, nor of pteruges. There are illustrations of what look like short-sleeved tunics with lines of quilting. Helmets, shields, weapons, architecture, and many other things changed from Mycenaean times to the Late Archaic, so it's really no wonder that their organic armor did, too. It was a different society in many ways.

Oops, looks like others already said most of this!

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

Matt wrote:

Iron was certainly available, and yet helmets and (metallic) armor in the Greek Classical era were overwhelmingly bronze. Even the Romans were making helmets and armor (scale, e.g.) from copper alloys well into the 3rd century AD, though iron was quite common for those items. Chalk it up to fashion, I'd say!

...perhaps not just fashion. Iron helmets had been tried very early in the iron age in the Middle east, but we rarities, no doubt due to the difficulties of working it, which in turn would have made them very expensive, so they never caught on.

It was left to those great and innovative iron workers, the Celts, to perfect ways of making practical iron helmets, and it is after long contact with Celts and the conquest of Gaul that Rome finally took them up, though without entirely replacing the age-old bronze for several centuries......

[rocktupac]

Rocktupac/Scott wrote:

There is certainly evidence of laminating in the ancient world.

I would challenge that statement .One of the major objections to ‘laminated glued linen’ is that there is no evidence of such a technology in Classical Greece. Peter Connolly, in an effort to overcome this fundamental objection, suggested that theatrical masks might have been made this way, but there is absolutely no evidence for this that I am aware of - especially since none survive.

When I said there was "evidence of laminating in the ancient world," I by no means meant only to limit lamination to "Classical Greece" and I certainly did not mean to apply it only to laminating linen. Both Herodotus (2.86.6) and Polybius (6.23.3) mention lamination or a process identical to it; albeit the Herodotus reference does not refer to laminating in the traditional sense it, however, explains a process of layering strips of glued cloth (in this case linen), one on top of the other, in a way to form a protective wrapping. These are only two examples that I could think of off the top of my head and I'm confident that, if one were to dig deeper, more examples of various kinds of lamination would surface.

Firstly, neither of those Beazley examples you refer to unequivocally shows a ‘Tube-and-Yoke’ corselet.

I have to disagree with your interpretation. Having looked at the entire database (around 700 images) nearly two dozen times, and having studied the intricacies and evolution of the appearance of the Tube-and-Yoke (or Type IV ) in the vase paintings, these images (on the Beazley examples) clearly show (to me) the first appearances of the Tube-and-Yoke. I have also looked at the visual depictions based on their approximate date, organized in chronological order, and a clear evolution in the armor's portrayal is present. These, to me, seem like the prototypes to the more common form of the armor we are used to. I would theorize that the artist (Wraith painter) of the Beazley examples (who actually seems to be a rather poor artist compared to other contemporary black-figure artists) had little experience with the Tube-and-Yoke.

What I suspect you are choosing to interpret as ‘pteryges’ on the skirts are more likely to be the folds of the tunic – they are slanted, uneven, and there is no hemline beneath them, and the figures don’t appear to be ‘heroically nude ’below the waist either – they are obviously ‘dressed’. The clincher is that one of the figures is unarmoured, and the folds of his tunic on the torso are shown in exactly the same way. Further, there is no sign or indication of any ‘yoke’ on any of them.

Again, I have to disagree with your interpretation. Many of the vase paintings from all different time periods, and by different painters, show pteruges of uneven lengths and often having a slanting appearance. Also, many soldiers appearing throughout all the time periods appear on vase paintings 'dressed' and not 'heroically nude'. While many soldiers wearing the Tube-and-Yoke do display heroic nudity, it was by no means a requisite for wearing the Tube-and-Yoke. There are indeed unarmed soldiers in the paintings alongside armored soldiers, but their tunics are completely different on the bottom than the soldiers wearing armor. The armored soldiers have pteruges while the unarmored soldiers' tunics are straight on the bottom with what looks to be a cross-hatch pattern -- clearly different.

[Paullus Scipio]

Scott wrote:

Both Herodotus (2.86.6) and Polybius (6.23.3) mention lamination or a process identical to it; albeit the Herodotus reference does not refer to laminating in the traditional sense it, however, explains a process of layering strips of glued cloth (in this case linen), one on top of the other, in a way to form a protective wrapping.

I'm speechless ! hock: Herodotus description of the wrapping of Egyptian mummies, and Polybius' description of the 'plywood' construction of the Roman scutum is evidence for 'laminated glued body armour' in classical Greece ? I'm not even going to comment.......

Many of the vase paintings from all different time periods, and by different painters, show pteruges of uneven lengths and often having a slanting appearance.

This is a circular argument! You now maintain some (at least) have an uneven 'hemline' for the pteryges, with individual pteryges of differing lengths ? Therefore what you are seeing must be Tube-and-Yoke?

The armored soldiers have pteruges while the unarmored soldiers' tunics are straight on the bottom with what looks to be a cross-hatch pattern -- clearly different.

Oddly, I see some of these figures as armoured, but with artistic patterns to fill the 'empty spaces' ( or perhaps decoration on the depicted armour). Like I said, the depiction is so abstract, one can "see" whatever one wants, therefore worthless as evidence of anything.....

Scott wrote:

"Against such fixity of belief, one can make little progress..."

With this, at least, I can heartily agree !! D lol: :lol:

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Well thanx for the answers on the period question! clears up a lot for me in this discussion !

Ok here is a "funny" one.... Anyone thought of plywood armour in stead of Linen, Leather et cetera?

If later shields where made of plywood, glued, and use of organic material was extensive then why not armour made of wood type?

( i am referring to the similar use of Bamboo in the eastern world, China as well as Jomon Japan.)

M.VIB.M.

[Paullus Scipio]

...Hstory shows armour can be made out of anything that protects.....crocodile skin, shark skin, bark, paper....the list is endless, as is the ingenuity of Man when it comes to something as fundamental as protecting your life.... D

[rocktupac]

Scott wrote:

Both Herodotus (2.86.6) and Polybius (6.23.3) mention lamination or a process identical to it; albeit the Herodotus reference does not refer to laminating in the traditional sense it, however, explains a process of layering strips of glued cloth (in this case linen), one on top of the other, in a way to form a protective wrapping.

I'm speechless ! hock: Herodotus description of the wrapping of Egyptian mummies, and Polybius' description of the 'plywood' construction of the Roman scutum is evidence for 'laminated glued body armour' in classical Greece ? I'm not even going to comment.......

You missed the point again. Both passages speak of lamination techniques. Herodotus describes wrapping gum-soaked ("which the Egyptians mostly used instead of glue" -- meaning that sometimes they did use glue) linen strips around a dead body, and Polybius describes laminating together pieces of plywood together in the construction of a shield. This is simply a follow up to my statement that lamination was practiced in the ancient world. Nowhere did I mention body armor. I don't think I could be any clearer. And, as I also said previously, these are but two small examples that came to mind off the top of my head; many others probably exist (and better ones at that). Please read carefully before responding.