11-23-2007, 09:59 PM
Paul, you often had to give your arguments about the appearance of the tube-and-yoke armour, the term "thorax" and that it is exclusively used for bronze armour. I understand that it must be a bit annoying to you. :wink:
Nevertheless, I have to say something again, because your dates are debatable. It is far from sure that the composite armour appeared around 520, as you argued earlier, and there are hints that it appeared also not around 550 but earlier still, at the beginning of the second quarter of the 6th c. BC. Different opinions exist, some scholars date the vases to the second half of the century, some earlier. I believe in the earlier dates and so for me the text from Alkaios and the appearance of the new composite armour fit perfectly.
The basis of your argument is therefore less definite as it should be. So I have still difficulties to identify only the spolas with the tube-and-yoke armour and exclude linen as a material. It could be that spolas is the name for leather variants of armour, including the tube-and-yoke-form or the name exclusively for the leather composite armour. But that does not mean that composite armour was made exclusively from leather.
I have also some problems with the connection of thorax and bronze. Xenophon is not clear, as usually. At least your strict connection is not in accordance with Pollux in Onomastikon who wrote: the spolas is a leather thorax (sic!) and Xenophon can say spolas instead of thorax. This means of course that thorax is not the term only for bronze armour, but a generic term, otherwise one could not say spolas instead of thorax. So there is room for other forms of thorakes too.
What do the lexica say about the term thorax?
Nevertheless, I have to say something again, because your dates are debatable. It is far from sure that the composite armour appeared around 520, as you argued earlier, and there are hints that it appeared also not around 550 but earlier still, at the beginning of the second quarter of the 6th c. BC. Different opinions exist, some scholars date the vases to the second half of the century, some earlier. I believe in the earlier dates and so for me the text from Alkaios and the appearance of the new composite armour fit perfectly.
The basis of your argument is therefore less definite as it should be. So I have still difficulties to identify only the spolas with the tube-and-yoke armour and exclude linen as a material. It could be that spolas is the name for leather variants of armour, including the tube-and-yoke-form or the name exclusively for the leather composite armour. But that does not mean that composite armour was made exclusively from leather.
I have also some problems with the connection of thorax and bronze. Xenophon is not clear, as usually. At least your strict connection is not in accordance with Pollux in Onomastikon who wrote: the spolas is a leather thorax (sic!) and Xenophon can say spolas instead of thorax. This means of course that thorax is not the term only for bronze armour, but a generic term, otherwise one could not say spolas instead of thorax. So there is room for other forms of thorakes too.
What do the lexica say about the term thorax?
Wolfgang Zeiler
