04-17-2009, 12:30 PM
Paul MS,
>So, then, you rely solely on the opinions of Boardman
Paul, you need to chill out a bit. This isn't a courtroom.
As I clearly just said it was a comment by Boardman that sparked my belief. Others have also influenced this opinion. I also do not discard out of hand the opinion of scholars like Snodgrass and so forth that argue against it. But in the balance, my feelings lie on the other side of the line from yours.
In part this is due to the lack of falsifiability of the arguments that it did not exist. Even a hypothetical archeological recovery could easily be dismissed as an oddity or parade shield, as it is unlikely that a battlefield recovery of a shield will be made. On the other hand, falsifiability of my position can be gained through constructing and experimenting with the Boeotian shield, hence my feeling that its important to be encouraging as opposed to discouraging.
For instance, if reconstructions were to tend to demonstrate that the argive shield is superior to a Boeotian in single combat, we would have a very valuable additional datapoint on which to further discuss the theories. Similarly, we could do more than theorize about is impractability in closer formations.
In this final comment lies the heart of the problem. These are all theories, and theories must be tested. Vase art is only one tool for examining theories, and not a conclusive one. Similarly traditional archeology can only tell us so much. Its for this reason that battlefield archeology (the greatest exploder of armchair theories I've yet to see) and experimental archeology have arisen as serious disciplines.
And while we may be amateurs, if we have the ability to experiment, we should, and should encourage others to do the same as opposed to dismissing options based on whatever theory we happen to hold dear.
After all, this isn't religion, although the acceptance of the beliefs of others practiced by the Greeks might be a good model for us to emulate
Have fun!
Cole
>So, then, you rely solely on the opinions of Boardman
Paul, you need to chill out a bit. This isn't a courtroom.
As I clearly just said it was a comment by Boardman that sparked my belief. Others have also influenced this opinion. I also do not discard out of hand the opinion of scholars like Snodgrass and so forth that argue against it. But in the balance, my feelings lie on the other side of the line from yours.
In part this is due to the lack of falsifiability of the arguments that it did not exist. Even a hypothetical archeological recovery could easily be dismissed as an oddity or parade shield, as it is unlikely that a battlefield recovery of a shield will be made. On the other hand, falsifiability of my position can be gained through constructing and experimenting with the Boeotian shield, hence my feeling that its important to be encouraging as opposed to discouraging.
For instance, if reconstructions were to tend to demonstrate that the argive shield is superior to a Boeotian in single combat, we would have a very valuable additional datapoint on which to further discuss the theories. Similarly, we could do more than theorize about is impractability in closer formations.
In this final comment lies the heart of the problem. These are all theories, and theories must be tested. Vase art is only one tool for examining theories, and not a conclusive one. Similarly traditional archeology can only tell us so much. Its for this reason that battlefield archeology (the greatest exploder of armchair theories I've yet to see) and experimental archeology have arisen as serious disciplines.
And while we may be amateurs, if we have the ability to experiment, we should, and should encourage others to do the same as opposed to dismissing options based on whatever theory we happen to hold dear.
After all, this isn't religion, although the acceptance of the beliefs of others practiced by the Greeks might be a good model for us to emulate
Have fun!
Cole
Cole
