Question about the origin of the Greek hoplite shield

[Dan Howard]

I often wonder about the Sea Peoples and the Greeks. I found the armour in AW Vol III: issue 3 article "seven against Thebes" very similar to the armour depicted as being worn by the Sea Peoples.

That's because the speculative reconstructions in that article were based on Sea People illustrations - more circular reasoning.

[immortal]

Here we go...

These are Gangarians



This is the Sarangian. He can be identified as iranian because of his sleeved tunic, median leggins, shoes and butt orniment on the spear.


These are the Greeks at Persepolis.
The first is Ionian and the second Lydian



The last is a Neo-Hittite taken from an 8th century wall painting. He looks very much like an early Hoplite!

[Dithrambus]

Immortal wrote: The last is a Neo-Hittite taken from an 8th century wall painting. He looks very much like an early Hoplite!

Even down to the checkerboard pattern on the crest box. Very interesting!


Thanks

[Dithrambus]

Hm, I am dissapointed to see that this thread has sort of died out. And just when it was starting to get really interesting. :|

[hoplite14gr]

I have a question for the Neo Hittite.
Are there any pieces of evidence from other places to clarify if his shiled wad with boss or porpax antilave?.

If we narrow down on Herodotus Greeks Carians and Lykians used porpax/antilabe.

Is there any evidence for others?

Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

I have not seen a depiction in Assyrian art of a Neohittite with an obvious porpax. Usually they have round shields with bosses, but there are sometimes shields without bosses. Those without are generally very curved, so a hand-grip could be fitted without a boss.

That image above of the Ghandaran obviously has a double-grip, whether accurate or not.

[immortal]

Nigel has drawn it without a boss, so I would say none is present. Sheild bosses seem to be Uratian, rather than Neo-Hittite (remember this is a general term for a wide range of peoples). I doubt he has a porpax though.

Paul:
Double grips seem to be common in Iran, I have no reason to doubt their accuracy.

[PMBardunias]

Double grips seem to be common in Iran, I have no reason to doubt their accuracy.

There are all sorts of problems with that shield depiction, but this of course touches on another great debate: the reality of the boeotian shield. Any images of that shield type are welcome.

[immortal]

I dont think there is any reason to doubt this sheild existed. Nore can i see any problems with its design. A shield boss, matching the depicted one was found in Persepolis. Shields of this type can were used by the Hittites centuries earlier.
I don't think there is any like between this and the Boeotian shield. This has a boss and is not concave like the Greek designs.

[Dithrambus]

Any theroies on the 'cut outs' design shared between this example and the Boiotian? I believe we have to admit this one simularity.


Edit: The four rosettes in the boss are reminiscent of Greek shield devices.


Thanks

[immortal]

Any theroies on the 'cut outs' design shared between this example and the Boiotian? I believe we have to admit this one simularity.


Edit: The four rosettes in the boss are reminiscent of Greek shield devices.


Thanks

No one really knows. As spears were quite often thrown in the Near East, it could may be, so you could hold the shield sideways to cover the face, but still have an area to view out of? It's worth pointing out that they are offset from the centre on every shield (there are a huge amount of figures at Persepolis carrying these). It could be purely decorative.. who knows.
As I said before, they have a long tradition in the Near east of using this style of shield.

The boss is quite heavlily decorated.. rather than 4 rosettes, you could see it as a cross with flared edges? Either way, I dont think there is any relation between this and Greek shield devices.

[PMBardunias]

This has a boss and is not concave like the Greek designs.

That is the first problem, if it has a boss it probably does not have a porpax and a double grip- the boss usually, though not always covers the fist. For example, early greek shields had many "bosses". In that specific image the main problem is that the shield longer from porpax to top than it is from porpax to bottom, this would be very hard to handle as it would want to fall forward or back. The second image is better, with the cut outs being more robust in construction. If I had to guess, I'd say this is artistic error and the shield depicted had a single central grip- just like the Hittite shields and the Greek Dipylon. Also note the double grip system is oriented the opposite was as a greek Boeotian.

As to why the cut outs. I think for the same reason that thracian pelta are cresent shaped or the shields on the Warrior vase- this is simply two cresents in opposite directions. Have you noticed that hides take on this shape- even more like the old Hititie shields, when dried. Metal ingots shaped like hides look like this too.

[MeinPanzer]

That is the first problem, if it has a boss it probably does not have a porpax and a double grip- the boss usually, though not always covers the fist. For example, early greek shields had many "bosses". In that specific image the main problem is that the shield longer from porpax to top than it is from porpax to bottom, this would be very hard to handle as it would want to fall forward or back. The second image is better, with the cut outs being more robust in construction. If I had to guess, I'd say this is artistic error and the shield depicted had a single central grip- just like the Hittite shields and the Greek Dipylon. Also note the double grip system is oriented the opposite was as a greek Boeotian.

Though the Achaemenid style in which they were carved may lack naturalism, the attention to detail on the Persepolis carvings is immaculate, and the sculptors were clearly intimately familiar not only with Persian equipment and costume, but that of foreigners too. As Stephen has noted, the bosses on these "cutout" shields match very closely an actual example from Persepolis as well as at least one other from Samos, leaving little reason to doubt the depiction of such shields in these reliefs. A double grip shield having a boss is only a problem if you assume that a boss cannot serve a purpose other than protecting a grip hand. It very well could have been used to protect the structural integrity of the shield at its weakest point, or simply to provide added protection for the forearm which was held closest to the shield. There is no reason to doubt the fact that such shields had double grips.

[PMBardunias]

A double grip shield having a boss is only a problem if you assume that a boss cannot serve a purpose other than protecting a grip hand.

Not at all, as I noted there are many bossed shields in the greek tradition, for which the boss did not conceal the hand. The problem here for me is that this shield appears to be in a tradition of near eastern shields noted by Stephan, all of which show a boss in the exact same position and are obviously held in a single grip. This shield could be outside of the tradition, or a double-gripped extension of the earlier type, but I would not bet on that based on the evidence I have seen so far. One thing that would help indicate use is are the actual bosses domed or flat?

[MeinPanzer]

One thing that would help indicate use is are the actual bosses domed or flat?

They were flat, IIRC, though Stephen would be able to comment more readily on this I'm sure.