Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades
Paul,

To my knowledge the only scale harness remnant found in a Greek context was found at Isthmia in 1989. Its a single bronze scale in a late archaic context. So only hen`s teeth and iron scales are rarer Wink

Roman contexts in Greece also are limited to bronze scale finds, although Roman finds elsewhere also include iron scales. Scythian-Greek contexts in Asia minor include bronze and leather scales.

Hence my money is on bronze scales for the Greeks in late archaic contexts when you combine this with Herodotus comments. Given the Scythian-Greek finds I`d say leather scales are more likely than Iron ones as a secondary hypothesis.

Have fun!
Cole
Cole
Reply
Quote:To my knowledge the only scale harness remnant found in a Greek context was found at Isthmia in 1989. Its a single bronze scale in a late archaic context. So only hen`s teeth and iron scales are rarer

This was my understanding as well, but I asked because sometimes these things slip past me Smile Given the far better survivability of bronze, one could even make a case that the lack of finds means that bronze was rare something more perishable like iron or leather the norm! ( I wouldn't make that case, but I merely point out how unhelpful archaeology is in this matter!)
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
Quote: Scythian-Greek contexts in Asia minor include bronze and leather scales.

What finds are these? Can you discuss them a little more?
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
Quote:As I indicated, it seems obvious the find-place is "unknown", and commentators have guessed 'Syria' ( meaning the Seleucid heartlands) or 'Mesopotamia' based on its supposed styles. But it could be either - or neither. The Louvre evidently think 'Syria'/Seleucid empire rather than Eastern/Parthian origin, hence my comment about THEIR 'best guess'. I wouldn't necessarily call the helmet type 'Iranian' either - simple conical type helmets had existed in the Greek/Hellenistic world for centuries - the Pergamum trophy relief has a ( presumably) captured Seleucid helmet very similar, but with mask.

I've gotten a hold of Rostovtzeff's monograph, and I think I know where the confusion comes from. He describes the statuette in these terms:

Quote:The figurine (Louvre AO1760) was acquired in 1888 and is said to have come from Mesopotamia.

And yet the image of it is labelled with the caption "Bronze: Statuette of an armed man, Syria.

So, the Mesopotamian provenance is not simply a scholarly assumption, but the provenance of the seller or dealer. The misidentification of it as a Syrian artefact in subsequent publications is probably a mistake based on this erroneous caption.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
Quote:So, the Mesopotamian provenance is not simply a scholarly assumption, but the provenance of the seller or dealer. The misidentification of it as a Syrian artefact in subsequent publications is probably a mistake based on this erroneous caption.

Maybe everyone is right. It could be that the statuette is from that part of Syria that is in between the Euphrates and Tigris. Dura itself is often considered to be in northern Mesopotamia, even though it is on the west bank of the Euphrates. Perhaps Rostovtzeff was being as specific as possible by referring to the Mesopotamian portion of Syria, while the caption simply mentions the country (or French Mandate) of origin. In any case, depending on exactly where and when the statue was made it could easily be either Parthian or Seleucid. Chances are their cataphracts could have looked very similar at the time; indeed many of the Seleucid cataphracts were probably of Iranian origin.
-Michael
Reply
Ruben wrote:
Quote:So, the Mesopotamian provenance is not simply a scholarly assumption, but the provenance of the seller or dealer. The misidentification of it as a Syrian artefact in subsequent publications is probably a mistake based on this erroneous caption.
To say that this object has 'provenance' is something of a leap too far. Its actual origin is, as I said, unknown. One needs to understand that when a museum is said to have "acquired" an object, it usually means 'bought from a seller or dealer' as you have rightly observed ( often the dealer has illegally acquired the object of course - witness the current troubles of the Getty Museum in this regard, though museums back then cared little for this - which some might describe as unscrupulous - but it was a different time....)

Because of this museums/archaeologists then use 'code' in its description thus "said to have come" means no more than "this is what we are told by the seller, but there is considerable doubt, and it may or may not be true."

Evidently, the Louvre drew their own conclusions, and their best guess was 'Seleucid' origins, hence 'Syria', but we will never know for sure where the two (don't forget!) similar statues truly originated.

Lysimachus wrote:
Quote:Maybe everyone is right. It could be that the statuette is from that part of Syria that is in between the Euphrates and Tigris. Dura itself is often considered to be in northern Mesopotamia, even though it is on the west bank of the Euphrates. Perhaps Rostovtzeff was being as specific as possible by referring to the Mesopotamian portion of Syria, while the caption simply mentions the country (or French Mandate) of origin. In any case, depending on exactly where and when the statue was made it could easily be either Parthian or Seleucid. Chances are their cataphracts could have looked very similar at the time; indeed many of the Seleucid cataphracts were probably of Iranian origin.

I think this is a very sensible suggestion, and quite a likely one, in all respects .
"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
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Spartan Aigis and the Spolades PMBardunias 16 4,205 09-01-2010, 11:15 AM
Last Post: hoplite14gr

Forum Jump: