van Wees, H

English

UCL Discovery

The Classical Reviewhttp://journals.cambridge.org/CARAdditional services for The Classical Review:Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click hereGreek Armour E. Jarva:  Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour. (Studia Archaeologica Septentrionalia 3.) Pp. 176; 61 ills. Rovaniemi: Pohjois­Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys: Societas Historica Finlandiae Septentrionalis, 1995. ISBN: 952­9888­03­1 (ISSN: 0786­5066).Hans Van WeesThe Classical Review / Volume 47 / Issue 01 / April 1997, pp 154 ­ 155DOI: 10.1093/cr/47.1.154, Published online: 16 February 2009Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00300956How to cite this article:Hans Van Wees (1997). Review of E. Jarva 'Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour' The Classical Review,47, pp 154­155 doi:10.1093/cr/47.1.154Request Permissions : Click hereDownloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 144.82.107.47 on 07 Sep 2012154 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWor believe that there is not a more comprehensible way of 'operationalising theconcept of a "site"' (p. 28)? Nor is one easily convinced that 'dummy regressionanalysis' (p. 38) has much to do with history, long-term or other. Such pretentiousobscurantism is not unfamiliar, but it is certainly self-defeating in terms ofcommunicating ideas, and the end result is to make one suspect, perhaps unfairly, thatthe content is trivial.Also unappealing is the consistently negative attitude to the work of other surveyarchaeologists, though the repeated (and unconvincing) remarks of self-justification(Chapter 2) suggest that the authors are not as confident of their own stance as theywould have us believe.The insistence on model-based archaeology, too, is wearisome and unhelpful; itsresult usually to bypass genuine problems of historical investigation. The tendenciesto distortion inherent in such an approach have been effectively identified by C.Sourvinou-Inwood (in N. Marinatos and R. Hagg [edd.], Greek Sanctuaries: NewApproaches [1993], p. 1). The predicament of model enthusiasts is well illustrated by apassage (on p. 454 of Landscape..^), \..an efhnoarchaediogical perspective...\vfi> no\necessarily allow us to replace the old model with a more relevant but still simplemodel. More satisfactory models may need to become more complex and morespecific...'. If the need is to move in the direction of ever more detailed and individualmodels, the constructs become not models at all but multifaceted explanations ofhistorical circumstances—in other words, traditional historical research.There is much useful information in this book, but it is often well concealed andunattractively packaged.University of Edinburgh R. L. N. BARBERGREEK ARMOURE. JARVA: Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour. (StudiaArchaeologica Septentrionalia 3.) Pp. 176; 61 ills. Rovaniemi:Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys: Societas HistoricaFinlandiae Septentrionalis, 1995. ISBN: 952-9888-03-1 (ISSN:0786-5066).If you are going to do sums, you need to get the arithmetic right and have thecourage to stand by the results. X, after painstakingly cataloguing finds,representations, and descriptions of all archaic Greek armour except helmets andshields, engages in a series of interesting computations based on the finds of armourat Olympia. They do not always add up, and he does not always make them count.Take, for instance, his discussion of how widely various pieces of armour were used.Initially, it is argued that the number of helmets (c. 350) is larger than the number ofshields (c. 280) because the production of bronze-reinforced shields began much later;the numbers are said to be roughly the same if the earliest helmets are discounted (pp.111-12; cf. p. 125 n. 825 for more precise figures). Later, however, it is claimed that thelarger number of helmets indicates the existence of a group of soldiers equipped witha helmet but not with a shield (p. 145). If that is inconsistent, the calculations of thefrequency of use of bronze cuirasses are worse. Here the original assumption is thatthe finds are a random sample of the equipment used by hoplite armies, and that everymember of the phalanx would be equipped with at least a helmet and shield. Since© Oxford University Press, 1997THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 155there are only 33 bronze cuirasses as compared with 350 helmets, it is concluded thatrather fewer than one in ten hoplites wore a metal cuirass (pp. 112-13). Subsequently,the basis for calculations changes and it is assumed that the finds primarily representthe equipment of the front rank, not of the whole army, on the grounds that sometwo-thirds of casualties would occur among front-rank soldiers. The upshot of theconvoluted sums which ensue is that cuirasses now turn out to be worn by no morethan one in fifty hoplites (p. 128). J. appears unaware of the discrepancy.Computations of the use of leg armour are further marred by a simple oversight: likethe football commentator who spoke of substitutes as 'three fresh men, three freshlegs', J. forgets that every man has two shins and ankles. The numbers of greaves (225)and ankle guards (55), therefore, ought to be halved when comparing them with thenumber of helmets, and we accordingly arrive at half the ratios calculated by J. (p.125): roughly one pair of greaves for every three helmets, and one pair of ankle guardsfor every thirteen helmets.A failure to stand by one's own conclusions is most evident in the sections on theweight and effectiveness of armour. It emerges that so-called composite corslets,whether made of leather or linen, would have weighed no less than bronze cuirasses(pp. 135-6), and it follows that there is no basis for the common view that thecomposite corslet was introduced to reduce the burden of armour and allow greatermobility in action (p. 138). This is quite an important result, yet it is completelyignored by the author himself, who continues to speak of 'lightness' as an advantageof linen armour (p. 140) and of the 'lighter solutions offered by linen and leathercorslets' (p. 158). Even more striking is the argument, reprised from an unpublisheddissertation by P. H. Blyth, that bronze becomes harder to penetrate than leather onlyat thicknesses of over one millimetre, and that archaic bronze cuirasses, whichgenerally have a thickness of one millimetre or less, are therefore less effective thanleather corslets (pp. 142-3). J. does not acknowledge the big question raised by thisobservation: if leather corslets were the same weight as bronze ones but more effective,as well as more easily made (p. 37) and cheaper (pp. 153-7), why did the Greeks adoptbronze cuirasses in the first place? J. suggests elsewhere that in vase-paintings wearersof bronze cuirasses may be of higher social status than wearers of composite corslets(p. 146). Putting two and two together, one suspects that he is tempted to argue that abronze cuirass was a status symbol, which some hoplites chose to wear despite itsrelative ineffectiveness and because it was more expensive. Unfortunately, he shiesaway from actually saying so.I regret having to be so critical of this study, because it does offer extensive andoften stimulating discussions of the whole range of problems associated with thenature and origins of hoplite armour and phalanx warfare, as well as a schemefor dating armour on the basis of the density of perforations along the rim (pp.65-72), and catalogues which not only update and expand existing work on thefinds but also add a great deal to Hagemann's old study of representations of armourin art. If the use of English, by the author's own admission, is 'vacillating' (p. 5), we dogain something when the confusion between 'hole' and 'whole' (as in 'the hole lowerbody', p. 33) produces the comment that a simple pragmatic explanation cannotaccount for 'the hole phenomenon' of perforation (p. 66). The book is certainlyuseful, and several of its arguments are potentially quite important; if its arithmetichad been less reckless and its disposition otherwise more adventurous, it might havebeen very good. ********University College London (JftFI/r ^^*^ HANS VAN WEES

Greek Armour: E. Jarva: Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour. (Studia Archaeologica Septentrionalia 3.) Pp. 176; 61 ills. Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys: Societas Historica Finlandiae Septentrionalis, 1995. ISBN: 952-9888-03-1 (ISSN: 0786-5066).

Greek Armour: E. Jarva: Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour. (Studia Archaeologica Septentrionalia 3.) Pp. 176; 61 ills. Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys: Societas Historica Finlandiae Septentrionalis, 1995. ISBN: 952-9888-03-1 (ISSN: 0786-5066).

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery