04-14-2009, 04:59 PM
Sorry to have been away for a while, and let my part of the conversation lapse. Getting back on topic to the existence of the Boeotian shield in specific, I'll lead off with Paul MS's last statement on the topic:
Paul MS wrote:
>Without wishing to be categorical, I think the weight of evidence runs against
>the 'Boeotian' shield existing in Greece c. 500 B.C. - disappointing perhaps for those like
>Christian/Kineas who want to wield one in re-enactment !!
I'm going to break down my response into comments on specific criticisms of the Boeotian, then take a new tack on supporting it.
1. Artists depictions of the carriage of the Boeotian are inconsistent, implying that they were "making them up".
This argument is only strong if depictions of the aspis are uniformly accurate, which is far from the truth. A quick survey of the Beazely shows all sorts of innacurate depictions the aspis, from no porpax at all, porpaxes mounted in odd locations (half-way down the forearm), and so forth.
2. A corrolary to the first argument is the inconsistent shape of the boeotian, from oblong to round in various depictions, argues that its appearance is not based on fact.
A survey of the Beazely depictions of boeotian shields by date shows the the depiction of the shape of the boeotian is very consistent until 500 BCE. It appears that only in pottery of the period of 500-450 BCE that the Boeotian "rounds out". A number of different conclusions can be drawn from this for this late period, but prior to 500BCE consistent representation would seem to negate this argument.
3. None have been found in digs.
In the abscence of artifacts, we can either assume depicted objects did or did not exist. Two arguments weigh strongly against the position of their not existing. First is that depictions do tend to be representative of surviving artifacts, and second the sample set of surviving shields is not statistically significant.
Now, a different tack.
First, a chronology of Boeotian depictions versus all depictions of warriors from the Beazely archive:
625-575: 1 of 2
600-550: 15 of 41
575-525: 160 of 442
550-500: 518 of 1204
525-475: 247 of 1209
500-450: 23 of 548
So first and foremost, there is a strong representative sample of the shield in vase art. Based on that, and rather than attacking the point directly I'm going to look at a couple of corrolaries.
First is the chariot. Although the chariot is no longer an active battlefield participant in the late archaic period, it is depicted frequently in the vase art in the range above (over 4000 examples). When reviewing those depictions, we see that the chariot is depicted in both "heroic" scenes of combat, and "modern" scenes of chariot racing and processions. Although there are no surviving greek chariots from the period, there isn't any doubt that they existed and were used.
This being the case, it is not unreasonable to assume that the as the Boeotian shield is depicted in scenes that can be identified as heroic and more generic combat depictions, it also depicted.
Similar arguments can be made regarding the tube and yoke corselet in this period, as there are no survivals.
I have to run, but in closing, its worth noting that Occam's Razor applies well to this situation. The theory that the Boeotian existed requires only a single assumption; namely that artists were depicting a real object. To argue that it didn't requires far more complex assumptions which don't make the cut.
Have fun!
Cole
Paul MS wrote:
>Without wishing to be categorical, I think the weight of evidence runs against
>the 'Boeotian' shield existing in Greece c. 500 B.C. - disappointing perhaps for those like
>Christian/Kineas who want to wield one in re-enactment !!
I'm going to break down my response into comments on specific criticisms of the Boeotian, then take a new tack on supporting it.
1. Artists depictions of the carriage of the Boeotian are inconsistent, implying that they were "making them up".
This argument is only strong if depictions of the aspis are uniformly accurate, which is far from the truth. A quick survey of the Beazely shows all sorts of innacurate depictions the aspis, from no porpax at all, porpaxes mounted in odd locations (half-way down the forearm), and so forth.
2. A corrolary to the first argument is the inconsistent shape of the boeotian, from oblong to round in various depictions, argues that its appearance is not based on fact.
A survey of the Beazely depictions of boeotian shields by date shows the the depiction of the shape of the boeotian is very consistent until 500 BCE. It appears that only in pottery of the period of 500-450 BCE that the Boeotian "rounds out". A number of different conclusions can be drawn from this for this late period, but prior to 500BCE consistent representation would seem to negate this argument.
3. None have been found in digs.
In the abscence of artifacts, we can either assume depicted objects did or did not exist. Two arguments weigh strongly against the position of their not existing. First is that depictions do tend to be representative of surviving artifacts, and second the sample set of surviving shields is not statistically significant.
Now, a different tack.
First, a chronology of Boeotian depictions versus all depictions of warriors from the Beazely archive:
625-575: 1 of 2
600-550: 15 of 41
575-525: 160 of 442
550-500: 518 of 1204
525-475: 247 of 1209
500-450: 23 of 548
So first and foremost, there is a strong representative sample of the shield in vase art. Based on that, and rather than attacking the point directly I'm going to look at a couple of corrolaries.
First is the chariot. Although the chariot is no longer an active battlefield participant in the late archaic period, it is depicted frequently in the vase art in the range above (over 4000 examples). When reviewing those depictions, we see that the chariot is depicted in both "heroic" scenes of combat, and "modern" scenes of chariot racing and processions. Although there are no surviving greek chariots from the period, there isn't any doubt that they existed and were used.
This being the case, it is not unreasonable to assume that the as the Boeotian shield is depicted in scenes that can be identified as heroic and more generic combat depictions, it also depicted.
Similar arguments can be made regarding the tube and yoke corselet in this period, as there are no survivals.
I have to run, but in closing, its worth noting that Occam's Razor applies well to this situation. The theory that the Boeotian existed requires only a single assumption; namely that artists were depicting a real object. To argue that it didn't requires far more complex assumptions which don't make the cut.
Have fun!
Cole
Cole
