Thracian Lancers presentation uploaded

[MeinPanzer]

I was looking at a Kazanluk image- the only one that showed up. I have seen this image reconstructed with the men holding Gallic-style barley corn bossed shields. The shield to me looks more like an adarga, a bilobed rawhide shield from N. Africa of a much later date. There is a clear indentation at the top and bottom, as well as groove down the face from top to bottom. Perhaps there is a clearer image that shows an elongated gallic boss.

I do not, but would like to know if the adarga pattern arises from some property of constructing the bi-layered rawhide shield that may have been the same back in Thrace or if it is simple style.

Those shields - a few are shown on the Kazanluk tomb paintings - are not thureoi (though there is one shield that seems like it could be a thureos, but it is different in form). Yes, it has two "scallops" on the top and bottom edges, but it doesn't have a groove running from top to bottom, but instead has two parallel lines running from side to side in the vertical middle of the shield. These shields are almost certainly representations of the same type of shield found in a 4th c. BC burial from Kyustendil (which can be seen in Chris' Osprey title). This shield is large, oval, and faced with bronze, but lacks any other apparent decoration.

Looking at other evidence for the thureos and its spread into this region, I think that these shields are an independent invention of the Thracians. They really have almost nothing in common with the thureos: they lack the vertical spine; they lack any kind of boss and, consequently, lack the standard thureos grip; they have that unusual scalloped shape at the top and bottom; and they have those unusual grips above and below the central grip.

[PMBardunias]

Ruben,

I was just looking at a clearer image of the above and there is no scallop on the lower edge, only at the top edge. This is interesting because a pelta is only scalloped at the top edge, though obviously much more deeply and round. The retention of a "scallop" in stylized form, it would be nice to know if this had any meaning to the thracians, may be evidence of an indigenous shield type as you say.

Chris: from the better image included in your .ppt presentation, it is difficult to reconcile the position of their hands and the angle of the blades if they are holding them and both blades seem to be behind the man on the left. Has there been some reconstruction that causes this?

[MeinPanzer]

Ruben,

I was just looking at a clearer image of the above and there is no scallop on the lower edge, only at the top edge. This is interesting because a pelta is only scalloped at the top edge, though obviously much more deeply and round. The retention of a "scallop" in stylized form, it would be nice to know if this had any meaning to the thracians, may be evidence of an indigenous shield type as you say.

Clearer pictures of this shield type depicted on in the Kazanluk frescoes:
http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... hield1.JPG
http://antiquemilitaryhistory.com/image ... hield2.jpg

I'm not so sure I agree with you on either count. The shield of the man in the reddish-brown exomis certainly does seem to be scalloped at the bottom, but the man's standing opposite him does seem flat. With such a subtle detail I don't know how much must unfortunately be written off as artistic license or laziness in this case.

As for the similarity with the pelta, I don't know how you could find any similarity whatsoever between the form of the shields seen here and that of the standard crescent pelta other than the fact that if these shields were intended to only be scalloped at the top, they are both vertically asymmetrical. The disparity between a very slight scallop as seen here and the deep crescent shape of the classical pelta is about as great as you can find between shields in the Graeco-Roman world at this time.

[PMBardunias]

I'm not so sure I agree with you on either count. The shield of the man in the reddish-brown exomis certainly does seem to be scalloped at the bottom, but the man's standing opposite him does seem flat. With such a subtle detail I don't know how much must unfortunately be written off as artistic license or laziness in this case.

Do you have access to the .ppt file? The image in the file seems to be different, so frankly I am confused. I thought perhaps there was reconstruction. Maybe Chris can weigh in.

As for the similarity with the pelta, I don't know how you could find any similarity whatsoever between the form of the shields seen here and that of the standard crescent pelta other than the fact that if these shields were intended to only be scalloped at the top, they are both vertically asymmetrical. The disparity between a very slight scallop as seen here and the deep crescent shape of the classical pelta is about as great as you can find between shields in the Graeco-Roman world at this time.

The outline shape, varing between round and oval, is one of the most easily malleable characteristics of shields. For example we see barleycorn pommel shields that are both round and oval. Features, such as a boss type, or perhaps a scallop, are much more reliable indicators of derivation. If there is a scallop, we must ask why? Is it functional as might be the case with pelta (unlikely and more probably a relic of what was once functional)? Is it simply fashion? An artifact of the way they were manufactured? The likelyhood of this emerging de novo are much lower than the reshaping of a shield from round to oval.

[MeinPanzer]

Do you have access to the .ppt file? The image in the file seems to be different, so frankly I am confused. I thought perhaps there was reconstruction. Maybe Chris can weigh in.

The images in the Powerpoint file are of the reconstructions of the actual paintings in place at Kazanluk to give tourists an idea of what the paintings actually looked like. What you see there is just a facsimile and not the actual fresco.

The outline shape, varing between round and oval, is one of the most easily malleable characteristics of shields. For example we see barleycorn pommel shields that are both round and oval. Features, such as a boss type, or perhaps a scallop, are much more reliable indicators of derivation. If there is a scallop, we must ask why? Is it functional as might be the case with pelta (unlikely and more probably a relic of what was once functional)? Is it simply fashion? An artifact of the way they were manufactured? The likelyhood of this emerging de novo are much lower than the reshaping of a shield from round to oval.

Firstly, the variability in shape between the oval thureos and round cavalry shields related to thureoi is much slighter than between a crescent pelta and these shields. Secondly, there isn't even a similarity between the small, heavily rounded scalloping seen on these shields and the pointed crescent shape of the classic pelta. Thirdly, you are not accounting for the other differences between these shields, such as the bronze facing and the horizontal "boss" (or whatever those parallel lines are).

[PMBardunias]

The images in the Powerpoint file are of the reconstructions of the actual paintings in place at Kazanluk to give tourists an idea of what the paintings actually looked like. What you see there is just a facsimile and not the actual fresco.

This image below is the reconstruction? Why reconstruct with less detail that the original? See attached.

there isn't even a similarity between the small, heavily rounded scalloping seen on these shields and the pointed crescent shape of the classic pelta. Thirdly, you are not accounting for the other differences between these shields, such as the bronze facing and the horizontal "boss" (or whatever those parallel lines are).

Were you to elongate a pelta into an oval shield it would look like this with a more heavily scalloped top. Since the scallop is no longer functional it degenerates into a small symbolic dip. This is a possible evolution of function to style that we see many times in ancient armor, for example Corinthian to Italo-corinthian helmet. It is one possibility, but it explains the scallop. If there is some other function of the scallop in this shield, then that would support an independant emergence.

As to a functional addition like a bronze face, variation in such is common in the aspis for example.

[MeinPanzer]

This image below is the reconstruction? Why reconstruct with less detail that the original? See attached.

Yes, that is the reconstruction. I don't know why they would reconstruct with less detail: laziness or lack of time, perhaps?

Were you to elongate a pelta into an oval shield it would look like this with a more heavily scalloped top. Since the scallop is no longer functional it degenerates into a small symbolic dip. This is a possible evolution of function to style that we see many times in ancient armor, for example Corinthian to Italo-corinthian helmet. It is one possibility, but it explains the scallop. If there is some other function of the scallop in this shield, then that would support an independant emergence.

Looking at the image you've attached of the reconstruction, I can see where you get this idea from. If you look at the images of the actual paintings I've attached, though, you can see that the shape is much less crescent-like, with much more rounded scallops.

[PMBardunias]

Thanks for clearing that up Ruben. I agree with your interpretation of the other image.