Leather Cuirass

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I continue...

Armed but not a hoplite nor in a fight with any monster.

In a fight,but the painter has done the pleats,though they're much fewer...and do you see the double line in the waist?

Clear pleats,but the rest of shape,hem lines etc is identical to the strange depictions

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And continue...

No pleats shown,but the "sleeve" is pinned in more than one spots and makes the efect of the strange garment

Same in this.Also,note the similarites with the older man's long chiton,though his,has pleats.

I posted this one because you see that the double line in the waist does not indicate anything.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And the last one.

This is what troubles me most.It looks indeed like an overgarment,it seems to long to be a chiton,but notice how bulcky it is in the waist and in the sleeve.Having seen all the previous ones,I'd say it's also a chiton,but I'm still not entirely sure...
Khaire
Giannis

[geala]

I will perhaps sometimes later try to upload something but in the meantime I'll restrict myself to two attached pictures. The rest is not so important.

Also you did already post two pictures which I wanted to show, Giannis.

In some of your pictures (and some others I have here) it is clearly seen that the chiton was also depicted with pleats above the belt which correpond with those below. That could be a hint that it is not the upper part of the chiton itself when it is shown without pleats but in the "wavy" manner instead. So I interprete the same pictures in just another way. :wink:

In the one of your pictures (with the quarrel between Aias and Odysseus about Achills armour) the depicted chitons interestingly do not show pleats at the lower end. Are it perhaps chitons from a thicker material? And do you see the second line parallel to the lower hem? Could be a reeding or another garment over the chiton; it is too low to be part of the normal bulk at the waist (it is perhaps just overinterpretation to mention the second line, I admit).

Of course one could say that the different appearance was only a different technique to show the same fact. However I see a little reason for distrust this theory when I find the both methods together in one picture, like in pic 1 below. All three divine persons in the foreground show the pleated lower end of a chiton in exactly the same way. The figures on the right and on the left have corresponding pleated chiton ends (wrong sleeves I presume) at the arm holes. But Hermes in the centre shows the "wavy" upper part appearance. Why did the artist chose this way if not another material/ upper garment should be shown?
And there are some other pictures even in my small data source which show warriors with "pleats below and pleats above" together with warriors with "pleats below and wavy above".

And let's take a look to pic 2: I am really not able to interprete the upper part as a part of the chiton whose pleats are shown below the belt. Or would you say it is the chiton with adornments? The upper part looks like an armoured jerkin for me. And it reminds me at the same time a bit of the other suspicious chitons.


And even if all the "pleats below and wavy above" garments are just two parts of the same chiton, its appearance is totally different to that garment in the picture posted from Kai and also in the picture with the three warriors posted from you, Giannis. They wear narrow upper garments which lack the bulky appearance of the "wavy" or pleated chitons. The curved lines at the belly, looking quite different compared with the lines of the bulky chitons (which show exactly that: the bulk which results from drawing up the chiton over the belt), for me clearly indicates separate upper garments, like leather or linen or maybe felt or wooly vests/overchitons.

In the end I think no interpretation can be set as a dogma.


Btw: your chiton looks great, Giannis. Did you only drape it for the picture or are the pleats stitched in some way?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hi Wolfgang.
I really enjoy this discussion!It's calm and with lots of visual proof.
My chiton is stitched in the waist(it shouldn't but I was afraid the pleats would not keep shape) and ironed under the waist.The pleats are originally stitched together in the shoulders,as shown in many vases.The pleats and the curves have a purpose.They allow free movements.If you notice,the pleats and curves exist in such place as to allow the thighs "open" the fabric,when the legs are spread.It's really comfortable!Also,ehen you sit,the frontal curve rests between your legs and covers spots that you want to remain private.It's a real pain to make though,and it took me three days to make,with the help of my mother who has experience in making clothes.
In the first picture,did you notice that Hermes' chiton has lots of small pleats.This clearly suggests that it is a very thin fabric,and in fact,linen.This,with the fact that Hermes is not obligated to wear armour,at least excludes the posibility that this garment is used as armour.
In the second one the only strange thing is that the upper part has dots(decoration)while the lower hasn't.But the belt is very clear,indicating that it is a chiton.Also,in most of the pictures the sleeves are made in the same way as in a chiton,And no matter how loose the sleeves are,we never see any portion of the undergarment.
As for the second parallel line near the waist,in my previous post I proved that in more than one cases,chitons with many pleats in the upper part,have that strange and unessesary line.
Many of the pics I posted look much like Kai's picture and I inerpretate all of them as chitons.
Finally,I believe that some chitons had the same pleats going all the way from the showlders to the lower hem,and some were made to have pleats only in the lower part,for the purpose I mentioned.And it is still possible that all paintings are actually trying to depict the same chiton(though I doubt)
Your interpretations are of course valid,proven by the fact that I posted 11 pictures without being able to convince you or the others.
Khaire
Giannis

[geala]

I don't know what the others think about it. I'm not convinced of both of the theories, if convinced means 100% sure. The bulkier a garment is shown at the waist the easier it could be explained as just the chiton.

For me the three warriors in the first picture posted by you and the one in my second picture wear a kind of jerkin, may it be protective or not. Many other pictures are debatable. I have pictures where the upper part could hardly be explained other than being the chiton itself. I only refuse to create a 100% explanation.

Could you say something about the painting with the three warriors (your first picture posted)? From where is the finding, what is presumably shown and what is the time frame?

Btw, I'm happy to reenact a more rural simple peltast who has not to care for complicated nice pleats or the hide of the private parts. :wink:

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hi Wolfgang.
Firt I'll post some more images(ehat a surprise!)But I think it's the best way to back up my posts.

This shows civilian clothing that acts like some of the non pleated other garments.

And this is Artemis with no pleats at all in the upper part!

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Now,well,when the Greeks wanted to show thick overgarments,they did it clearly.Also,you see that the overgarments were usually painted or paterned,like some Archaic thick chitons and cloaks shown in balck figure vases.The first one is a scene from a tragedy and you'd have a point saying it shouldn't be compared with anything else,howver I have examined better images of the vase and concluded that these are not intended to be linothoraxes.
The second one could also be a special clothe for the musician.None of those arguements though take the value that in both vases we have thick overgarments that are undoubtedly shown.In the musician,we even see the chiton beneath the thicker fabric.


Almost forgot it!That first pic I posted.I'd insist it shows chitons.First of all,when depicting very thin linen,the artists painted the body visible under the fabric.Some times the entire body with genitals is shown,and this is not unrealistic with white very fine linen.The same efect we have in the arm of the first hoplite.
Second,the hemlines in the neck and sleeves are identical with so many other chitons,and also pinned in the same way like other chitons.
Thirdly,I proved with more than three examples that the double line that lookes like a hem,in the waist,cannot be used as an arguement,as we see it clearly in pleated chitons.
Thirdly,the fact that it is not too bulcky in the waist is not enough to convince me it is not a chiton.After all,it's somewhat curved and could be interpreted either way.
Finally,I believe the Skythian is not supposed to be wearing the same garment.It is true that it behaves similarly with the other two,near the waist.However,it looks different in the neck,the hem being "single" and not double,and having a different angle.Also the sleeve is much different than the rest.And additionally we know that Skythians often wore a jack crossed in the chest,over their narrow underwear.
And after all this,shall I say that neither I am convinced,if convinced means 100% sure 8)
Khaire
Giannis

[Dan Howard]

Now,well,when the Greeks wanted to show thick overgarments,they did it clearly.

This is my problem. You take a couple of examples and extrapolate to say that ALL artists used the same style. All you can say for certain is that THESE artists showed overgarments when they wanted to. Unless you can prove that ALL artists used the same artistic conventions then this line of discussion is a waste of time. Same with so-called leather armour; same with visible stitching; same with undergarments; etc etc. Without supporting evidence from texts or the archaeological record, artistic evidence is worth very little.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

You see Dan,I only came to this "conclusion" because everything else that I've seen that to Wolgang and others seems more like an overgarment,to me seems more like a chiton.Now,I'd love to have any text explaining how a chiton would look like in vases,but I haven't.Nor do I have(you or anybody may have) text describing a thick shirt that looks like these vases.So,what do I have?The same characteristics of chitons on vases and sculptures,with those strange paintings,and it happened to have at least two pictures of something that is for sure a thicker piece of clothe,depicted in a much different way by two artists.Isn't that importand enough to post it in a forum(where it should be discussed)?
As for quilting etc,it isn't the appropriate thread,but let me say that you've very kindly shared much of you knowledge about quilting with all of us,and we've discussed a lot on many artistic scenes and texts,and still a considerable number of RATers still believe in both quilting and glueing.Do you really believe so many of us are just brainwashed by Connolly's first interpretation?May i say that at the moment I'm not taking a thesis on this matter,just thinking about how the "evidence" should be used.
Khaire
Giannis

[Sean Manning]

Now,well,when the Greeks wanted to show thick overgarments,they did it clearly.

This is my problem. You take a couple of examples and extrapolate to say that ALL artists used the same style. All you can say for certain is that THESE artists showed overgarments when they wanted to. Unless you can prove that ALL artists used the same artistic conventions then this line of discussion is a waste of time. Same with so-called leather armour; same with visible stitching; same with undergarments; etc etc. Without supporting evidence from texts or the archaeological record, artistic evidence is worth very little.

This line of argument can be used to 'disprove' any sort of evidence. Afterall, textual or archaeological evidence only shows that in one place or time, some armour with a particular feature was used. "You can't take a couple of finds and say all Roman scuta were made of plywood."

As always, we must go by the preponderance of the evidence and consider all types of it. We only know many fifth-century soldiers wore armour with this cut through artwork, after all! The most disturbing thing from that "leather linothorax" thread was the realization that we simpply do not know what Xenophon or Miltiades would have called a 'linothorax' other than "thorax." Systematically examining Greek conventions in depicting clothing is a promising approach, although one that would require a great deal of work.

Gluing does explain the consistent smooth appearance of 'linothoraxes' and the stiff shoulders. However, it would weaken the armour and be vulnerable to rain. Leather is poor armour for its weight and would be hard to paint, but would also look smooth. Quilted armour would have stitch lines that are absent on most artistic depictions, but was effective and common in other periods. Right now there is no theory that clearly explains all the evidence without serious problems. I'd be happy to leave it at that, but others seem to disagree.

[hoplite14gr]

Quilted armor?
http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visi ... otice=9875

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Stefanos,in the link you forgor an "h" in the front.
It looks more like scales to me...

[hoplite14gr]

OK matter of interpretation.
And "composite armor" was known in the 7th century B.C.
In the "treasure of the Sifnians" at Delfi dated at the time there are hoplites with both types of armor.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes,it seems from a bit earlier than 600 bc the linothorax was used.In the treasure of the Siphnians the armour must have been new...though if Homer mentions it in the 8th century,the Myceneans used it and it appears less than 200 years later in sculptures,then it's likely in never stoped being used.
Khaire
Giannis