Quote:Or perhaps an ancient hoplite 6'3'' was such an exception that nobody could stand next to him and looking normal

Quote:more to the right of the center,but further upand right.

Quote:Wait a minute.Why are you calling these "reconstructions"? Because the fittings have been placed in 'reconstructed' shield shapes, neither of which appears to be correct, and if memory serves, the fittings were not intact, but fragmented and ahve hence been put together or 'reconstructed'..This is the interior of Philip's shield and it's gold!
What do you define "later" aspis,Paul? ...can't be too specific - it is a bit arbitrary - call the seventh- mid sixth centuries'early', late sixth to mid-fifth ( the persian War period) "middle", and mid-fifth to middle third "late", say..... Because Philip's shield is indeed late,but would you call a 500 bc shield "late"? Because the majority of such circular reenforcements appear in pottery in the late archic/early classical period. Do you have a photo of the other example you mentioned? It would be nice to pinpoint this a little more closely - what are the dates for the pottery examples you showed - late fifth century?
What about the detachable porpax?Doesn't it seem to you that this one has hingesto which the porpax is attached/detached? Indeed I would agree.....though despite the experiences of modern re-enactors, I don't believe the 'thin' ringed porpaxes can be used to wield the shield properly even if it could be lifted - but even then, something could be improvised to pad the arm....so something like this would be what is being referred to for removable porpaxes...Yes,the 8-10 kgr is way too much.Modern bronze covered recontructions have shown that they weighted less than 8 kgrs(and they reached such weight because the brass coverwas probably thicker than the ancient one).They also proved that the thin arm band was not inappropriate for heavy shields,and imagine that the ancients put extra padding under the thin porpax,contrary to many modern re-enactors. See above...I would agree ( as does Connolly - see his books - that a felt or leather broader ring fitted inside the thin metal one...Paul,I'd need more data to take it for granted that later aspides were much lighter. After all there is a contradiction here: The idea for laminated aspides came from the chigi vase,one of the earliest representation of hoplites.And yet there is a tendency to believe that the later aspides were actually laminated and lighter.If the laminated construction went through all those centuries,then we can only presume that it was not lighter than the rest,because in all these periods it kept the name "heavy". I would agree more evidence is needed, but it is logical to assume thatlike all aspects of Hoplite equipment, the shield got lighter over time - the most obvious explanation for the re-inforcing ring is that if you look at the Vatican shield, it is thickest at the 'shoulders '( 3 cm aprox - see other thread) and if this became thinner to save weight, then there would be a need for this re-inforcing ring exactly where we see it.....it might also be noted that such a ring is consistent with Paul B's 'extreme shoving' hypothesis about [i]othismos....[/i]

Quote:I don't believe the 'thin' ringed porpaxes can be used to wield the shield properly even if it could be lifted - but even then, something could be improvised to pad the arm....so something like this would be what is being referred to for removable porpaxes

Quote:

Quote:I don't believe the 'thin' ringed porpaxes can be used to wield the shield properly even if it could be lifted - but even then, something could be improvised to pad the arm....so something like this would be what is being referred to for removable porpaxes

Just to be sure I understand you, I have wondered if the "detachable" portion of the detachable porpax is something that fit into the thin ring, which was permanent. Is this what you are saying?

I had never seen these hinged porpaxes before. I agree they are obviously removable, but this does not negate an earlier more primative solution.

Quote:Just to be sure I understand you, I have wondered if the "detachable" portion of the detachable porpax is something that fit into the thin ring, which was permanent. Is this what you are saying?
Yes, absolutely!

I had never seen these hinged porpaxes before. I agree they are obviously removable, but this does not negate an earlier more primative solution.

Quote:as I said, it would not be a perfect solution because something could be improvised....even cloth wound around the arm would probably suffice