05-15-2012, 04:55 AM
Very interesting topic indeed...Seems like a vigorous argument between two members (I must say I both agree and disagree with both) that evolved into a very interesting topic.
I do think it is more question of polishing techniques than alloys that should interest us. Since it defines the surface and the look of the armor.
Color and antiquity is an extremely interesting topic, especially since I am not entirely convinced we are presented with the true picture in popular media.
For example, this clip is lengthy, but it is good one. It speaks about first reconstructions and how different from reality they were,and how many things are actually reconstructions...made then.in 19century.Historic Images of the Greek Bronze Age: The Reproductions of E. Gilliéron and Son http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/sea...adf3fabe61#
As for bronze armor and patina. My humble opinion is the following>
I agree with one of them saying all armor/bronzes had patina,and the dark shades are patina,not the ''real'' color..It doesn't have that much to do with alloy,although it does of course.
I agree with the other when he says> If ancient Greeks found high gloss mirror shine(if achievable back then) the only acceptable state of bronze then all bronzes would be in the same state.It is strange that they like regular patinated bronzes in every part of life,but dislike the same state of their battle armor - which is in addition the least artistic piece of them all,which unlike others serves clear,non artistic purpose.If beauty was the only criteria,then artistic pieces would be the first to be in that state .
Also, if those helots at Plateia knew only that state of bronze,they would clearly tell it apart, gold being very different than the material they are used to.. if they knew only bright yellow shiny bronze,they would be familiar with it enough not to mix it up with very soft and different looking gold. On the other hand, if they are used to bronze that is not that shiny and so golden in color, better say more dull bronze(regardless of the color) and are faced with the bronze which resembles gold in color or shine, those bronze pieces would not look familiar to them and they would mix up the gold and the bronze.I get that point.
We have no proof whatsoever of the state of armor in archaic or classical times in Greece. So more or less we are speculating. Armor was probably found in all sorts of shades and states of preservation.Depending on many factors.Some armor pieces are extremely crude,some are extremely fine.So naturally the finish was a specter of finishes.
BUt...The only clear purpose of polishing armor in that time is preservation, and cleaning. Not allowing it to develop the patina that hurts the material, and not allow dirt and other kinds of residue to remain on the panoply. More or less the same practice we have in modern armies...That is achieved with far lower polish than mirror shine. Was it nice, pretty, astonishing, frightening or none of those is pretty much a speculation..and comes down to a personal taste.
And all those literary evidence do not provide us with a clue on what exactly ancient Greeks meant by polished bronze, especially since every reasonably smooth and cleaned metal surface could be considered treated or polished,and gleams beautifully in the sun and fits into those ancient literary evidences as perfectly as mirrored bronze does..
The frightening part so often mentioned, comes not from the color or mirror reflection (which I doubt is a modern projection since there is no reason to believe mirror finish was appreciated in antiquity as it is today, and I am certainly puzzled as what exactly is frightening about mirror shine) but from the fact it is metal shining, which then means you are up against very well armored army/hoplite, which then means they are rich and therefore well trained and equipped hoplite/s, which then means you are in a big trouble. Since you all know full panoplia was not that common in ancient Greece, even in Archaic era.That is what is frightening about panoplia in the sun, not the polish or any other finish or the bronze color.
Patina or initial protective layer,not the pale green stuff, is developed in bronze pieces in a matter of days even hours, depending on conditions and alloy. It can not be preserved as it changes,as someone said,but the deterioration of material can be prevented by maintenance.
To keep the constant high gloss state of the bronze piece, one would be required to polish the piece at least few times a week.If not daily. An impossible task. And for what purpose?
Since every polish removes certain amount of material from the piece, what do you think how much material is removed in 10 or 20 year time of such often polishing, not to mention the inheritable pieces from fathers and grandfathers..Just calculate.
If they weren't polished so often, then the armor was in different state in different times of the year..usually in patinated state, and only sometimes mirror shine.Why giving it high gloss then at all? It makes no sense, especially with what is said above.That look has no correlation in the Greek art.
Also, as someone stated, much of the modern preservation techniques determine the look of some pieces of armor in museums. Do you think this is the original look of this piece in 5 BC? It isn't. http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/c...n_4330.jpg
Also there are ways in which the Hellenistic greaves from earlier posts can be preserved in that state in museums...But only because they are intentionally kept in that state, in controlled environment,today..They are not to be used outside for very tough purpose,as in antiquity.
Of course, we should differ the basic film developed on the bronze from poorly maintained bronze piece. All of those are called patinas,but are very different.
Also, what comes to my mind is ancient hoplites were not that gentle towards their equipment as we are today,especially that expensive one...same as those Germans weren't to theirs in WWII,yet I protect and preserve my WWII helmet as if it was made from glass.
So my verdict would be ancient armor was kept clean with relative ease and polished for that purpose, but not to a high gloss state, since it serves no purpose but damages the bronze in return. The actual color of the basic film would differ greatly, due to the many factors, and we could certainly not point the finger into one particular shade...Modern attempts to reconstruct and reenact serve other, more important purposes, than giving photographic image of antiquity,which is, in my opinion hardly achievable.
Anyway,we will need more investigation on the matter. Giving definite answers on this matter is very dangerous.
I do think it is more question of polishing techniques than alloys that should interest us. Since it defines the surface and the look of the armor.
Color and antiquity is an extremely interesting topic, especially since I am not entirely convinced we are presented with the true picture in popular media.
For example, this clip is lengthy, but it is good one. It speaks about first reconstructions and how different from reality they were,and how many things are actually reconstructions...made then.in 19century.Historic Images of the Greek Bronze Age: The Reproductions of E. Gilliéron and Son http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/sea...adf3fabe61#
As for bronze armor and patina. My humble opinion is the following>
I agree with one of them saying all armor/bronzes had patina,and the dark shades are patina,not the ''real'' color..It doesn't have that much to do with alloy,although it does of course.
I agree with the other when he says> If ancient Greeks found high gloss mirror shine(if achievable back then) the only acceptable state of bronze then all bronzes would be in the same state.It is strange that they like regular patinated bronzes in every part of life,but dislike the same state of their battle armor - which is in addition the least artistic piece of them all,which unlike others serves clear,non artistic purpose.If beauty was the only criteria,then artistic pieces would be the first to be in that state .
Also, if those helots at Plateia knew only that state of bronze,they would clearly tell it apart, gold being very different than the material they are used to.. if they knew only bright yellow shiny bronze,they would be familiar with it enough not to mix it up with very soft and different looking gold. On the other hand, if they are used to bronze that is not that shiny and so golden in color, better say more dull bronze(regardless of the color) and are faced with the bronze which resembles gold in color or shine, those bronze pieces would not look familiar to them and they would mix up the gold and the bronze.I get that point.
We have no proof whatsoever of the state of armor in archaic or classical times in Greece. So more or less we are speculating. Armor was probably found in all sorts of shades and states of preservation.Depending on many factors.Some armor pieces are extremely crude,some are extremely fine.So naturally the finish was a specter of finishes.
BUt...The only clear purpose of polishing armor in that time is preservation, and cleaning. Not allowing it to develop the patina that hurts the material, and not allow dirt and other kinds of residue to remain on the panoply. More or less the same practice we have in modern armies...That is achieved with far lower polish than mirror shine. Was it nice, pretty, astonishing, frightening or none of those is pretty much a speculation..and comes down to a personal taste.
And all those literary evidence do not provide us with a clue on what exactly ancient Greeks meant by polished bronze, especially since every reasonably smooth and cleaned metal surface could be considered treated or polished,and gleams beautifully in the sun and fits into those ancient literary evidences as perfectly as mirrored bronze does..
The frightening part so often mentioned, comes not from the color or mirror reflection (which I doubt is a modern projection since there is no reason to believe mirror finish was appreciated in antiquity as it is today, and I am certainly puzzled as what exactly is frightening about mirror shine) but from the fact it is metal shining, which then means you are up against very well armored army/hoplite, which then means they are rich and therefore well trained and equipped hoplite/s, which then means you are in a big trouble. Since you all know full panoplia was not that common in ancient Greece, even in Archaic era.That is what is frightening about panoplia in the sun, not the polish or any other finish or the bronze color.
Patina or initial protective layer,not the pale green stuff, is developed in bronze pieces in a matter of days even hours, depending on conditions and alloy. It can not be preserved as it changes,as someone said,but the deterioration of material can be prevented by maintenance.
To keep the constant high gloss state of the bronze piece, one would be required to polish the piece at least few times a week.If not daily. An impossible task. And for what purpose?
Since every polish removes certain amount of material from the piece, what do you think how much material is removed in 10 or 20 year time of such often polishing, not to mention the inheritable pieces from fathers and grandfathers..Just calculate.
If they weren't polished so often, then the armor was in different state in different times of the year..usually in patinated state, and only sometimes mirror shine.Why giving it high gloss then at all? It makes no sense, especially with what is said above.That look has no correlation in the Greek art.
Also, as someone stated, much of the modern preservation techniques determine the look of some pieces of armor in museums. Do you think this is the original look of this piece in 5 BC? It isn't. http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/c...n_4330.jpg
Also there are ways in which the Hellenistic greaves from earlier posts can be preserved in that state in museums...But only because they are intentionally kept in that state, in controlled environment,today..They are not to be used outside for very tough purpose,as in antiquity.
Of course, we should differ the basic film developed on the bronze from poorly maintained bronze piece. All of those are called patinas,but are very different.
Also, what comes to my mind is ancient hoplites were not that gentle towards their equipment as we are today,especially that expensive one...same as those Germans weren't to theirs in WWII,yet I protect and preserve my WWII helmet as if it was made from glass.
So my verdict would be ancient armor was kept clean with relative ease and polished for that purpose, but not to a high gloss state, since it serves no purpose but damages the bronze in return. The actual color of the basic film would differ greatly, due to the many factors, and we could certainly not point the finger into one particular shade...Modern attempts to reconstruct and reenact serve other, more important purposes, than giving photographic image of antiquity,which is, in my opinion hardly achievable.
Anyway,we will need more investigation on the matter. Giving definite answers on this matter is very dangerous.
Nikolas Gulan
