Detachable Porpax

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Supposedly the Spartans had invented a detachable porpax,which they kept safe when they didn't use their shields,in fear that the helots who took care of their masters' weapons could use them in a possible revolt.
But have you ever seen such a porpax? For a long time I though this porpax was in the type of the vatican shield,which clearly has placements for the aditional leather or felt lining.This is also clear in many sculptures and porpaxes with the thinner(later) metal band.In the two sides of this metal band there are curvatures of the metal which supported the detachable lining.
However,re-enactors have proven that the shield can be used without the lining,so not a very successful invention,right?
Now look in the interior of Philip's ceremonial shield.

I see the porpax missing,but I also see something like a cuirass' hinges,with the nail passed through them. I haven't got a better image,if anyone has... Any ideas? The most strange is that in the new museum in Vergina,the shield(and some other stuff) are desplayed differently,and the same porpax is seemingly restored there!

Khairete
Giannis

[hoplite14gr]

I have seen a reconstructed "sliding" version of the semi-circular "arm noose" but I do not know if it was aproporiate for the 8'10 kgr weight of the ancient specimens.

Kind regards

[Paullus Scipio]

I wonder if 8-10 kg is perhaps too heavy an estimate, especially for later Aspides. There are a couple of surviving circular re-inforcements on the interior such as this one.....and the fact that later Aspides seem to have had these, while earlier types ( like the Vatican shield) did not implies a certain lightening, and that they were likely thinner than the earlier type...... Thanks for the photos, Giannis.....I had not seen these reconstructions before !! D

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Wait a minute.Why are you calling these "reconstructions"? This is the interior of Philip's shield and it's gold!
What do you define "later" aspis,Paul? 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?
What about the detachable porpax?Doesn't it seem to you that this one has hingesto which the porpax is attached/detached?
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.
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".
Now,Paul M posted once an interesting article about an aspis found with remains of the wooden core.But of cource we'd need to see those wooden parts to decide for ourselves if it could have been laminated or something else. But we're getting off topic and we've descussed this before. What abou the detachable porpax?
Khairete
Giannis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

[PMBardunias]

There are a couple of surviving circular re-inforcements on the interior such as this one

I have an excellent image of the interior reinforcement of an aspis in an American Journal of Archaeology article: "An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on Ganos Mountain in Southeastern Thrace", 2006.

I cannot copy and paste from the article, but if anyone wants to see email me and I'll send the whole .pdf.

The reinforcement ring is 67 cm in diameter and its in the Tekirdag Museum, no. 1944. I don't know if its on dispaly, but Tekirdag on the North coast of marmarra is probably only a day trip for you Giannis!

You all knw my opinion by now, these reinforcements were too narrow to provide protection from puncture and were to keep the dome of the shield from being crushed.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes,and they appear perfect to have been holding planks of wood together.Paul,I suppose i'll find the pdf in my American journal files?or it's too recent one?
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Giannis, I just found it, so its not in the stuff I sent. Send me an email and I'll return it.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

No Gioi,this is how thin some porpaxes actually were(ok,thi one is also broken as you see the missing part in the center )
I just remembered this shield was also in philip's tomb,I saw it in Vergina. Damn,how do they get photos,it was restricted for me :evil:
Ehmm,does this porpax look like iron to you,too? And I find it strange than I didn't see any bronze cover in Vergina...
The vatican shield does not have a much wider porpax.
Khaire
Giannis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

OK the shield Paul B was talking about in the pdf file is this one.

It is the most interesting re-enforcement I've seen and it looks indeed like some vase painting I've seen.For example see Osprey The Greek Hoplite p.3,15,51 and others that may suit better.
the above shield dates to the last two decades of the fourth century bc
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Giannis, thanks for cut and posting that, I couldn't access it. Goio, where is that drawing from above? The porpax looks too far off center to the right. The ring-structure that we have shown above would imply a centering of the porpax- which of course leaves the elbow off center to the left. I have wondered about optimal porpax positioning. Much of it may have had to do with forearm length if the porpax didn't have to be central.

[PMBardunias]

belive me, the grip or porpax? is find, many pottery shows that grip not exactly at the center... so its how is meant to be

I'm a bit skeptical of taking such details from vase art. the need to show perspective can cause all sorts of illusions- as in the round shield that appears oval on another thread here.

For something like this, sculpture is probably more useful. I have no quarrel with the concept of an off-center porpax, but clearly that is not the case with the ring-shaped supports we see here. They must have been centrally placed.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,the most usual according to sculpture and vases and actual finds,is that the antilabe is very near the rim. Like the drawing above.Now this leaves the porpax to be placed in different spot for every individual. And I have at least one shield off the top of my head with the porpax that much off center like the drawing. I don't have time to find the picture now,maybe later. this does not mean tha centeredl grips did not exist. Just bend your arm in front of your chest,as if you're holding an aspis.To the end of your fist add the rim. Now brear in mind that the right side of the holite is describes as not so well protected by the shield,and that the left side of the shield could protect the fellow next to you. This is just a clue that the majority of shields had off centered grips. The sculptures show for sure that the antilabe is almost always placed just under the rim.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

Sculpture is much better. It's hard to imagine why a sculptor would place the porpax off center if it never was. It may seem like I am challenging you guys, but I agree with you.

You may have read, I have seen this many times, that the diameter of an aspis varied because of the different lengths of forearms of individuals. The flaw with this is that it is based on a situation where the porpax is always central- otherwise you take the same sized sheild and simply move the porpax, since, as Giannis said, the antilabe is near the rim.

There are advantages to a central porpax for the balance of the shield on your arm, and those rings above cannot be so symmetrical if they were not central, so surely some (most?) were. But perhaps not all.

If you had a short forearm perhaps you needed an off-center porpax. Afterall, who wants to stand to the left of a guy whose shield is of smaller diameter?!

[PMBardunias]

I'm 6'3" and I know how hard it is to share an umbrella with most people. I would have to be next to a guy whose shield was of a smaller diameter- then again, a short guy next to me would have his groin unprotected and not be able to see over my sheild!