Metal plate beneath Linothorakes or Spolades

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

The earliest image I have been able to find for a T-Y is on the Francois Krater. The scene is the Kalydonian boar hunt and the armor is worn by Atalanta (and perhaps the man behind her). This dates to about 575 BC, which to me puts it within sufficient proximity to Alcaeus's reference to a "corslet of new linen" to make the T-Y form possible, if not probable.

I am not as sure as Paul B. that Atalanta is shown in a Tube-and-Yoke corselet, on the Francois vase, which is usually dated "mid-sixth century BC", and sometimes as early as '570-560 BC', but I have not seen it dated quite so early as 575. The only feature of a T-and-Y that is visible are the 'epotides'/shoulder-pieces, which themselves are not of the usual T-and-Y form ( incidently, the Perseus description interprets these as a 'quiver'!). The trunk part seems to be looser than a T-and-Y, and extends only to the midriff/diaphragm. As Paul suggests, the lower trunk appears to be tightly girdled by a broad belt or belts, and crucially, there are no pteryges. I would suggest that since this is a hunting scene, what we are seeing is possibly an ancestor to the classic T-and-Y, perhaps in the form of a hunting jerkin. We might term this earliest form a proto-Tube-and-Yoke - an ancestor of the true Tube-and-Yoke corselet.

Alcaeus flourished in the last quarter of the 7C BC. He was probably born some time before 630 BC and some of his work can be dated to 615-600 BC. The latest possible date referred to in surviving fragments of his work is 590-587 BC ( a reference to his brother, who may have served as a mercenary of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in his Jewish War).

That means his work is something like 20-50 years before the Francois vase - not sufficiently proximate in my view to infer that the 'proto Tube-and-Yoke' on the Francois vase is "probably" linen, or that this "new" type of armour (the actual later T-and-Y) was "probably" linen......

The information we have is simply too tenuous to link up.....

[MeinPanzer]

I too was a little surprised when Ruben described the origins of this statuette as Mesopotamia since, as I vaguely recalled ( and posted), I was under the impression it was from the Syria region, so I did a little checking. Lysimachos' original posting referred to 'Syria' also. Duncan head, in AMPW (1982 - long before websites!) also states this bronze statuette is from Syria. OTOH, N. Sekunda, in "The Seleucid Army" (1994) states that it is from Mesopotamia, but goes on to say that Roztovtzeff thought it might represent a Parthian in 'Yale Classical Studies 5 (1935) p.234 and fig 46)....note that he does not say that Roztovtzeff thought it from Mesopotamia.....Sekunda then goes on to state that Seyrig also thought it Parthian (in SYRIA 47; 1970 pp109-110)

I don't have any photocopies or scans of Rostovtzeff's discussion of it, but I distinctly remember him stating that it was thought to come from Mesopotamia, and Sekunda is simply repeating this provenance. All sources discussing this piece ultimately go back to Rostovtzeff's coverage of it in "Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art" (1935). I have no idea where the notion came from that this piece is from Syria - at least, I've never seen that claim backed up by any evidence. Seyrig discusses it in an article on armoured Palmyran gods in under a heading of "Antiquites syriennes" in a journal called Syria, but he doesn't state that it is from Syria, nor does he cite any source other than Rostovtzeff. He simply cites it as an example of a cuirassed Parthian figure. I don't know why Sekunda states that Seyrig "thought it might be Parthian in date;" he covers it in a single sentence, and citing Rostovtzeff he simply states that it is "probably Parthian."

[Paullus Scipio]

"thought to come from Mesopotamia" sounds to me like a guess about an un-provenanced piece, and that appears to be all we have, and evidently Seyrig must have similarly supposed/guessed it to be 'Syrian' (Seleucid) if he discussed it under "Antiquites Syriennes".

It would appear that this piece, and its similar companion piece are 'origin unknown' and that the Louvre itself has gone with a 'best guess' of Syria.

Incidently, if the tubular arm defences are like those of the Pergamum relief, then they are unlikely to be of metal, having no elbow joints and having a sort of 'folded under' construction in part - at a guess they will have been leather.....

[MeinPanzer]

"thought to come from Mesopotamia" sounds to me like a guess about an un-provenanced piece, and that appears to be all we have, and evidently Seyrig must have similarly supposed/guessed it to be 'Syrian' (Seleucid) if he discussed it under "Antiquites Syriennes".

No, he didn't. The article was titled "Les dieux armés et les Arabes en Syrie," and for the majority of it he concerns himself with Palmyran representations of armoured gods. He discusses the fact that cuirasses Greek in form but made of lamellar seem to appear only in Palmyran art, but then discusses whether this was a Palmyran invention, or whether it was adopted from the Parthians. He then states that "save one very isolated exception (this figurine, for which he cites in a footnote only Rostovtzeff), nothing is known of the cuirasses of the Parthians, but the lamellar cuirass appears to be foreign to the monuments of Doura" (p. 110). He makes no note of its findspot, but simply cites Rostovtzeff. There is no reason to take it as being from Syria.

It would appear that this piece, and its similar companion piece are 'origin unknown' and that the Louvre itself has gone with a 'best guess' of Syria.

Why is Syria a best guess? Considering that this guy's helmet is almost identical to that worn by the Seleucia cataphract figurine, evidently an Iranian type, there's a good chance that he is Parthian, and therefore the best guess would be Mesopotamia.

Incidently, if the tubular arm defences are like those of the Pergamum relief, then they are unlikely to be of metal, having no elbow joints and having a sort of 'folded under' construction in part - at a guess they will have been leather.....

We can't see both sides of these arm defences on the Pergamon reliefs, so we can't know if maybe segments were missing around the inside of the elbow region to facilitate the bending of the arm. That's really all it would take to allow such defences made of metal to be able to be functional

[PMBardunias]

See below

[PMBardunias]

Francois vase, which is usually dated "mid-sixth century BC", and sometimes as early as '570-560 BC', but I have not seen it dated quite so early as 575.

I in fact chose a middle ground on the dating. 575-560 is what I found most commonly, but some push the date anywhere from 600 -550BC.

The only feature of a T-and-Y that is visible are the 'epotides'/shoulder-pieces, which themselves are not of the usual T-and-Y form ( incidently, the Perseus description interprets these as a 'quiver'!).

This "only feature" is the defining feature! A "T"ube and a "Y"oke. The only feature missing is pteryges, and you'll note we do not call it the T-Y-P for a reason. As for the shoulder flaps being a quiver, clearly this is silly. The whole suspension system is already fully developed.

The trunk part seems to be looser than a T-and-Y

I disagree, it only seems that way because she is wasp-waisted.

As Paul suggests, the lower trunk appears to be tightly girdled by a broad belt or belts, and crucially, there are no pteryges.

As I noted, not so crucial for a tube and yoke. The are simply a function of extending the torso armor lower. Since it is somewhat stiff, the tube has to be split into pteryges to allow bending. I actually have an image of a later scale T-Y without pteryges, presumably it was more supple than the usual.

I would suggest that since this is a hunting scene, what we are seeing is possibly an ancestor to the classic T-and-Y, perhaps in the form of a hunting jerkin. We might term this earliest form a proto-Tube-and-Yoke - an ancestor of the true Tube-and-Yoke corselet.

Either it is an armor possessing a tube and yoke, or it isn't. Coming up with a new "Proto-" designation or a specialized "hunting armor" is special pleading. It is simply an "early" T-Y from a time when, Just as with the bell cuirasse, armor for the thorax need not also cover the belly. A seperate piece would do this- like the belt Atalante wears. Later, again as with the bronze cuirasse, pteryges could be added to protect the abdomen. Both bronze and T-Y armors could have pteryges, so it is the yoke that truly defines the T-Y.

That means his work is something like 20-50 years before the Francois vase - not sufficiently proximate in my view to infer that the 'proto Tube-and-Yoke' on the Francois vase is "probably" linen, or that this "new" type of armour (the actual later T-and-Y) was "probably" linen.

By the most common dates, less than 20-30. Some push it to 250 as an absolute minimum, but these are countered by others, equally unlikely, who push the range back to 600BC. A quarter century is not very long. I leave it others to decide who they agree with, but for me, given that we have no better image for a possible organic corslet within the same period, I'd put my money on T-Y. I'm curious for other's opinions though.

[Dithrambus]

One thing that is certain, Atalante has much nicer legs than typically depicted in images of hoplites.. :lol:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I'm curious for other's opinions though.

I'm sorry Paul,but i just see a chiton there! I wouldn't rule it out completely that this is meant to be a yoke over there,but what i see is a stylized way to show the overlap of pinned cloth which is usually pulled a bit on the front. Since these early depictions are nothing like proportioned, the "little" can become much. In fact i also see the heavy female pins that she wears,though i admit i can't yet excuse the horisontal line that links them. The "tube" is just the folded and doubled fabric, a practice we see in later chitons, much like a peplos. The "belt" is just the embroidery that in early depictions is always wider than the later ones. In fact much of the embroidery of the lower garment is the same as in the portion above, even around the shoulder overlap.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

I'm curious for other's opinions though.

I'm sorry Paul,but i just see a chiton there! I wouldn't rule it out completely that this is meant to be a yoke over there,but what i see is a stylized way to show the overlap of pinned cloth which is usually pulled a bit on the front. Since these early depictions are nothing like proportioned, the "little" can become much. In fact i also see the heavy female pins that she wears,though i admit i can't yet excuse the horisontal line that links them. The "tube" is just the folded and doubled fabric, a practice we see in later chitons, much like a peplos. The "belt" is just the embroidery that in early depictions is always wider than the later ones. In fact much of the embroidery of the lower garment is the same as in the portion above, even around the shoulder overlap.
Khaire
Giannis

A shrewd interpretation, Giannis. On looking again I think you are right - the two typical large pins are clearly visible, and the top does closely resemble a folded over peplos or chiton, extending down in exactly the right way to the midriff/diaphragm area, and totally unlike any "tube" portion of an armour. Now that you have mentioned it, I have seen other depictions with round over-the-shoulder pieces , pins etc You are also right that the decoration on upper and lower portions is the same, including the over-the-shoulder parts. I would agree that Atlanta is wearing a peplos-type garment, with the skirt folded/tied up to facilate running.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B wrote:

I in fact chose a middle ground on the dating. 575-560 is what I found most commonly, but some push the date anywhere from 600 -550BC.

Dating is not an exact science of course, and I haven't seen any date estimated earlier than 570-560 BC, which is what it is labelled in the Florence archaeological museum.

Either it is an armor possessing a tube and yoke, or it isn't.

Clearly it isn't an armour at all in the light of Giannis' post and comparison with the typical female dress I posted - Atalanta merely has her skirts lifted to facilitate running. I had earlier remarked on the fact that there was no real 'tube', and that the 'yoke' might imply an ancestor of the true tube-and-yoke, but as soon as I saw Giannis' post I realised he was right - it is like the optical illusion which can appear as a vase or two faces in profile facing one another. There is no 'yoke' either! :oops:

Ruben wrote:

Why is Syria a best guess? Considering that this guy's helmet is almost identical to that worn by the Seleucia cataphract figurine, evidently an Iranian type, there's a good chance that he is Parthian, and therefore the best guess would be Mesopotamia.

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.

We can't see both sides of these arm defences on the Pergamon reliefs, so we can't know if maybe segments were missing around the inside of the elbow region to facilitate the bending of the arm. That's really all it would take to allow such defences made of metal to be able to be functional

Judging by the relief ( see attached) we can in fact see the 'inside' of one elbow - note the way they are bent- and metal simply wouldn't work. Note also the way both tubes seem to be of a spiral or wrapped form, which suggests organic material, though possibly the wristlet pieces are of metal.

Of further interest is the crested head-piece of horse armour, and the peytral of strips, also for a horse, suggesting what form early cataphract horse armour may have taken.

[MeinPanzer]

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'm going to get a hold of "Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art" once again and go over again what Rostovtzeff says exactly. That type of helmet - a rounded or conical bowl with "button" and a thick rim - is different from any Hellenistic Pilos or Konos type; the Pergamon weapons reliefs probably shows a captured helmet from an Iranian cataphract.

Judging by the relief ( see attached) we can in fact see the 'inside' of one elbow - note the way they are bent- and metal simply wouldn't work. Note also the way both tubes seem to be of a spiral or wrapped form, which suggests organic material, though possibly the wristlet pieces are of metal.

If you mean that we can see the inside of the elbow region of the one on top, then you are mistaken; there is no curvature to it, though it seems to be curved because of the slight misalignment of the two blocks, and it could be showing any side of the limb armour. The one lying below, however, is curved, though the area where the inside of the elbow should be is covered up by the one on top. There's no reason to doubt that they could be made of metal. And further, I think it's pretty clear that they're not spiral or wrapped, but simply hoops sewn or secured some other way to a leather or textile lining underneath, which we see on the side of the opening.

[Dan Howard]

Carved rocks are not photos. Without having a surviving example there are half a dozen things that the Pergamon relief could be depicting. Banded metal armour is one of the least likely interpretations IMO.

[PMBardunias]

I'm sorry Paul,but i just see a chiton there!

Since it is likely that the armored organic thorax grew out of a normal chiton, there may well be just an exaggeration of features with a heavier material involved. In comparison with the other women on the vase, these shoulders appeared to extend far lower and be attached by a thong, which to me in a combat/hunting context a thicker garment used as armor. Examining the other women on the vase though, I agree that the low extension could be exaggerated and I was unfamiliar with these long pins. These pins are not common on the women wearing this type of garment, but I have found some, luckily on a small panel of the same vase so there can be little doubt, that shows Giannis to be correct. The middle-right woman even shows a decorative string that could be connecting the pins. At least it is not a quiver...

[immortal]

The decoration on the garments is really nice. To be honest Paul, I thought you were correct, but Giannis has convinced me it is a chiton.
The way they are pinned down is visually very similar to the T&Y.. maybe something to look into?
Do you have a picture of the Skythian archer that is poking on the side of the vase? Im collecting Greek depictions of them.....

I found this image interesting. It shows 3 figures wearing the T&Y, but only two of them are white.

[PMBardunias]

To be honest Paul, I thought you were correct, but Giannis has convinced me it is a chiton.

Yea, me too! I owe Giannis a debt of gratitude for catching that and setting it straight.

The way they are pinned down is visually very similar to the T&Y.. maybe something to look into?

My assumption has been that the way material overlaps the shoulder like that on garments is how the T-Y attained its form. As it got thicker, it could no longer be pinned or buttoned directly and required the thong to attach it. This is why I thought the image above a "missing link" of sorts, but I had never seen those long pins. Once they became true shoulder "flaps" there were benefits to them extending down further. One might be that if short, a thick flap would be harder to get to flat against the chest- it is easier to bend a long stick than a short one for example. The of course their is added protection and padding as well as easier access to the securing point.