12-18-2010, 11:22 AM
This is to shift the discussion(we had long ago) form the artwork section because I don't want to spoil it any more. I address all but since I had a conversation with Giannis I will address him directly.
Giannis,
Sorry for replying so late but I have drifted away from my hobby for a while..More importantly we agree on the most of the stuff,but I also agree we disagree one some.
1. If you think all all non yellow color on helmets is just patina, than it would have to be 'fine’ natural protective layer that would be visible on every bronze item,including the golden ones you provided,regardless of where they lay and how well they are preserved.(and I have seen better preserved helmets than those greaves)So it is obviously alloy that makes them different in appearance.
2. I may be wrong but how can we know what is,for LATE CLASSICAL Xenophon, polishing to preserve bronze from rust,and what is ''Manning imperial'' 2500rpm high polish? Patina is a natural protective layer of bronze but it too has to be maintained in order to keep the bronze healthy and not develop ‘bronze decease’. Low polish is not the same as ''Manning Imperial'' polish,but both are de facto polishes. I have seen the statue that is maintained by polish(not high polish),and will be happy to take pictures as soon as I can.
3. You gave good examples for greaves,but I argue that has to do with alloy only,not preservation (and are those archaic even?)..I have seen many south italian pieces made from softer bronze,even in 6th BC,and even in the poorest ones you can see golden color in some places.While Greek yellow ones mostly came from ‘cheap’ Classical times,that is hardly a coincidence..and especially 4th BC onward.Don't know why is that however,probably due to cost and overall cheapness of late Classical times.
4. If it was typical for bronze to be gold like don’t you think Helots would be able to tell apart those two very different metals after Plateia, and not mix them up.Since as even you say they would be in enough contact with bronze,either looking or polishing? But on the other hand if they are not used to golden appearance of bronze,they could have mixed it up with gold logically.
5. Why would they polish helmet for example to the high shine golden (and not all bronzes must be golden shine when high polished but never mind that for now) if all other bronzes even armor were not? From furniture pieces,garments,statues etc..many could not even be polished to high shine,even if someone wanted to..Laconian pottery samples are even painted in black to mimic the(grey olive color of) bronze? So according to you they have what - double standards to what is pretty?
6.What is the purpose of wearing golden pieces of armor or, on armor (heroes, kings), if everything already looks like gold,even the poorest hoplite?
7. And finally,how in a World do you high polish these? (please forgive for the number of pictures below and the length of post,I have more but restrained myself from posting all)
As for my assumptions, I base them on much stronger grounds than many ‘facts’ known about Spartans for example.
- What is the evidence of linen armor in late archaic or any other Spartan? (you defend this one)
- What is the evidence of checkered crest holders made of non metal material...pottery and absence of evidence right??
- What is the evidence of ‘red’ chiton uniformity prior to 430-420 BC?
- What is the evidence of so called ‘muscle curiass’ ever being used in Sparta,or any other city in Persian wars?
- Evidence of painting horsehair in vivid colors – there are few horsehair colors in horses, but I never saw bright red horse,or blue one ?
- And more controversially,what is the evidence of shield paintings in Archaic era...pottery??
I already debated colors in pottery had to be used both for materials and paint?How do we tell them apart?
They had to be used as symbols (purple armor could have been only symbolizing the high status hoplite,not his actual color)
And in most cases colors were just for the purpose of contrast and pure artistic license...And Aristotle put artists in a well deserved place... completely ignorant of their representations
Etc..not wanting a discussion really, just illustrating
I don’t argue golden is wrong(anymore) I rather argue it is far from uniform color of bronze,with probably 120 shades existing,from golden,over liverish to gray. And gray examples are not just natural patina. Asked...Same as I argue bronze devices are a standard and paint is a REPLACEMENT for those who could not afford it..Most could probably not afford breastplate but we don’t say breastplate was a parade luxury. :!:
I did stress over and over my respect to the reenactor work,especially of the few who actually do research. But to quote Athanasios Porporis, ‘’There will always be a difference of opinion between historical academia and reenactor’s (their poorer cousine)’’
And honestly I think much of the facts are twisted more or less to fit what reenactor can afford or are able to manufacture in modern times,very different than ancient.
Most of you probably think if you acknowledged the unrecoverable failure in some area,such as shield rimming,chiton material or devices you will become mediocres..(I don't think that by the way)
And because of that we have some theories out of nowhere such as bronze shield rims and devices are for parades only,and metal decoration in engrave or emboss is also for parade...and paint that we have never ever found for archaic hoplites is a way to go – because that is something reenactors can reconstruct, and afford..
What suits you, you will defend vigorously and try to milk the vaguest of pottery interpretations, but what doesn’t you will discard even if material evidence exists. And I think all went way to far in terms of credit for authenticity given to the reenactors,sorry to say that. I understood your work as reenactors as a hobby paying respect to the ancestors and enjoying making all the stuff yourself.But using you(reenactors) as a reference in history books, or tv is a bit over the top. You are not museum curators or work on museum reconstruction. That is what I think Porporis wanted to say,or I say at least. Again,no offense meant.
And I will not ever try to remedy that,as i realize I am in the shrine of reenactors. But that is the fact.
Again, you can answer but I am not asking for it.I barely have the time for this as it is,so my reply may come late.
But even though we disagree I hope our hot temper won’t cause it to go too far,as I still have much respect for your work of course,especially as a Greek.
Keep up the good work,Giannis,and I wish you all best
Giannis,
Sorry for replying so late but I have drifted away from my hobby for a while..More importantly we agree on the most of the stuff,but I also agree we disagree one some.
1. If you think all all non yellow color on helmets is just patina, than it would have to be 'fine’ natural protective layer that would be visible on every bronze item,including the golden ones you provided,regardless of where they lay and how well they are preserved.(and I have seen better preserved helmets than those greaves)So it is obviously alloy that makes them different in appearance.
2. I may be wrong but how can we know what is,for LATE CLASSICAL Xenophon, polishing to preserve bronze from rust,and what is ''Manning imperial'' 2500rpm high polish? Patina is a natural protective layer of bronze but it too has to be maintained in order to keep the bronze healthy and not develop ‘bronze decease’. Low polish is not the same as ''Manning Imperial'' polish,but both are de facto polishes. I have seen the statue that is maintained by polish(not high polish),and will be happy to take pictures as soon as I can.
3. You gave good examples for greaves,but I argue that has to do with alloy only,not preservation (and are those archaic even?)..I have seen many south italian pieces made from softer bronze,even in 6th BC,and even in the poorest ones you can see golden color in some places.While Greek yellow ones mostly came from ‘cheap’ Classical times,that is hardly a coincidence..and especially 4th BC onward.Don't know why is that however,probably due to cost and overall cheapness of late Classical times.
4. If it was typical for bronze to be gold like don’t you think Helots would be able to tell apart those two very different metals after Plateia, and not mix them up.Since as even you say they would be in enough contact with bronze,either looking or polishing? But on the other hand if they are not used to golden appearance of bronze,they could have mixed it up with gold logically.
5. Why would they polish helmet for example to the high shine golden (and not all bronzes must be golden shine when high polished but never mind that for now) if all other bronzes even armor were not? From furniture pieces,garments,statues etc..many could not even be polished to high shine,even if someone wanted to..Laconian pottery samples are even painted in black to mimic the(grey olive color of) bronze? So according to you they have what - double standards to what is pretty?
6.What is the purpose of wearing golden pieces of armor or, on armor (heroes, kings), if everything already looks like gold,even the poorest hoplite?
7. And finally,how in a World do you high polish these? (please forgive for the number of pictures below and the length of post,I have more but restrained myself from posting all)
As for my assumptions, I base them on much stronger grounds than many ‘facts’ known about Spartans for example.
- What is the evidence of linen armor in late archaic or any other Spartan? (you defend this one)
- What is the evidence of checkered crest holders made of non metal material...pottery and absence of evidence right??
- What is the evidence of ‘red’ chiton uniformity prior to 430-420 BC?
- What is the evidence of so called ‘muscle curiass’ ever being used in Sparta,or any other city in Persian wars?
- Evidence of painting horsehair in vivid colors – there are few horsehair colors in horses, but I never saw bright red horse,or blue one ?
- And more controversially,what is the evidence of shield paintings in Archaic era...pottery??
I already debated colors in pottery had to be used both for materials and paint?How do we tell them apart?
They had to be used as symbols (purple armor could have been only symbolizing the high status hoplite,not his actual color)
And in most cases colors were just for the purpose of contrast and pure artistic license...And Aristotle put artists in a well deserved place... completely ignorant of their representations
Etc..not wanting a discussion really, just illustrating
I don’t argue golden is wrong(anymore) I rather argue it is far from uniform color of bronze,with probably 120 shades existing,from golden,over liverish to gray. And gray examples are not just natural patina. Asked...Same as I argue bronze devices are a standard and paint is a REPLACEMENT for those who could not afford it..Most could probably not afford breastplate but we don’t say breastplate was a parade luxury. :!:
I did stress over and over my respect to the reenactor work,especially of the few who actually do research. But to quote Athanasios Porporis, ‘’There will always be a difference of opinion between historical academia and reenactor’s (their poorer cousine)’’
And honestly I think much of the facts are twisted more or less to fit what reenactor can afford or are able to manufacture in modern times,very different than ancient.
Most of you probably think if you acknowledged the unrecoverable failure in some area,such as shield rimming,chiton material or devices you will become mediocres..(I don't think that by the way)
And because of that we have some theories out of nowhere such as bronze shield rims and devices are for parades only,and metal decoration in engrave or emboss is also for parade...and paint that we have never ever found for archaic hoplites is a way to go – because that is something reenactors can reconstruct, and afford..
What suits you, you will defend vigorously and try to milk the vaguest of pottery interpretations, but what doesn’t you will discard even if material evidence exists. And I think all went way to far in terms of credit for authenticity given to the reenactors,sorry to say that. I understood your work as reenactors as a hobby paying respect to the ancestors and enjoying making all the stuff yourself.But using you(reenactors) as a reference in history books, or tv is a bit over the top. You are not museum curators or work on museum reconstruction. That is what I think Porporis wanted to say,or I say at least. Again,no offense meant.
And I will not ever try to remedy that,as i realize I am in the shrine of reenactors. But that is the fact.
Again, you can answer but I am not asking for it.I barely have the time for this as it is,so my reply may come late.
But even though we disagree I hope our hot temper won’t cause it to go too far,as I still have much respect for your work of course,especially as a Greek.
Keep up the good work,Giannis,and I wish you all best
Aleksandar Nikic
????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ? ???? .....
..said the 143 kg stone,for a testimony of still unseen feat of strenght.
????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ? ???? .....
..said the 143 kg stone,for a testimony of still unseen feat of strenght.