01-18-2010, 06:28 AM
Rocktupac/Scott wrote:
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.
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”
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'.
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: )
Quote: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.
Quote: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”
Quote: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'.
Quote: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: )
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
