Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor - New Book

[Paul Bardunias]

Julius Pollux: ". "Spolas de thorax ek dermatos, kata tous omous ephaptomenos, hos Xenophon ephe "kai spolas anti thorakos" is about as clear as we could hope for."

Sure, but that reference can be satisfied by the vest-like cut of the garment shown above.  Moreso because the line that comes after it in Pollux compares to a Lybian leopard skin garment!

My point is simply that we need to acknowledge that we are interpreting a connection that is not explicitly passed down to us.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I agree with Paul B. Certainly the passage is not as clear as it gets, but to me indeed it points towards a tube and yoke thing. More so because the Lybian spolas is specified as something different than the common spolas.

Like we said about the shields, which some times are referred to as "the willow" because of its basic material, I believe the spolas literally somehow meant a leather something that covers your body, be it an apron or a leopard skin. Note that the two are most probably a different kind of leather, I don't think a butcher was wearing a fur apron, so the term is very general.
This does not mean that by classical times the word was not used to mean a "thorax ek dermatos", just like a willow was an aspis of willow.
So Greeks might have referred to their thorakes as "the leather"!

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert Vermaat wrote:
"I imagine the 'thorax conundrum' is very similar to the 'lorica conundrum'? Generic use of words in unclear sources, modern invented terminology? "
A good point, Robert. There are some interesting parallels between Greek and Roman literature. In Latin we have the term for mail body armour [lorica hamata] and the term for scale body armour [lorica squamata], but nowhere are we told the name of the early Imperial iron strip armour so familiar to all as 'Roman armour', so we have the relatively modern invented term 'lorica segmentata' ( and there are other examples of Roman equipment whose name we do not know).

The ancients, it seems, whether Greek or Roman were not overly good at using or explaining technical terminology when it comes to arms and armour.

However, there is one very important difference. Whilst we have ample evidence for the existence and use of the 'lorica segmentata' from iconography and archaeology, there is NO evidence of any sort for the existence of a Greek 'thoraka'/body armour made of multiple layers of glued linen and called a 'linothorax'.

Paul Bardunias wrote:
"One of my problems with this whole discussion is that even if we accept that the ancient Greeks had both linen and leather armor, it tells us nothing about if either or both were the Tube and Yokes we see on vases.  The Spolas reference could easily be satisfied by a garment cut like the leopard skin in the image below (it hangs from the shoulders), while the other two images can surely satisfy the term linothorax (note how thick that garment is over his shoulder in the last pic)."

I wouldn't agree that at all! Short of a pot showing a Tube-and-Yoke corselet with a label attached saying 'This is a spolas', one is simply not going to get absolutely conclusive evidence. I don't agree that the leopard skin "hangs from the shoulders" at all - otherwise ALL pullover garments do ! Nor do any of the three images satisfy the invented term 'linothorax'. A 'thorax' might describe any body-covering or garment, but none of your three illustrations show a hoplite, and the garments in question are clearly not 'armour'.

The leftmost figure with diamond patterned garment is too indeterminate to decide what he represents, the central figure with 'zig-zag' pattern is not a 'hoplite' but conceivably might be a hunter, if his garment is meant to be protective, and the rightmost figure is possibly a priest, perhaps Dionysiac given the attributes.

Interestingly, I do know of a hoplite shown in a protective(?) kilt/perizoma as his only protective gear aside from shield and Boeotian helmet. It is a depiction of Theseus fighting Amazons by the painter Polygnitos [floreat 440-430] on a  'Stamnos' vase. The 'perizoma' is depicted as smooth/uncreased and has the same 'zig-zag' pattern as your central figure, and it is clearly depicted worn over clothing. It is generally interpreted as being made of a thick blanket type material, perhaps felt.

Also of interest is that Theseus' companion Rhoikos has only his cloak draped over his arm for protection. [see attached].

As to 'spolas', the term only occurs twice;  in Xenophon's anabasis, at IV.1.18 when Xenophon tells us of the power of the Carduchi longbow when Leonymus the Spartan is killed by an arrow which penetrates his shield and 'spolas', and also at III.3.20 when the cavalry volunteers, being shieldless, are equipped with donated 'thorakes' and 'spolades'.

The second user is Aristophanes in his play "The Birds" when a character arranges a gift of a 'spolada' to keep out the cold for a poor poet he is trying to be rid of.[line 935] The poet then complains he has only the 'spolas', but no tunic, and is given a tunic as well.[945]
'Spolas' is usually translated as leather or fur jerkin in this instance ( as Giannis refers to).

---

Julius Pollux: ". "Spolas de thorax ek dermatos, kata tous omous ephaptomenos, hos Xenophon ephe "kai spolas anti thorakos" is about as clear as we could hope for."

Sure, but that reference can be satisfied by the vest-like cut of the garment shown above.  Moreso because the line that comes after it in Pollux compares to a Lybian leopard skin garment!

My point is simply that we need to acknowledge that we are interpreting a connection that is not explicitly passed down to us.

I don't believe that is true either, at least not entirely. As I have stated a number of times, we should adopt a 'holistic' approach wherever possible regarding all evidence - literary, iconographic and archaeological, for each has its weaknesses, especially if taken alone in isolation.
In this instance we have a number of iconographic depictions of Spartan hoplites, mostly from the archaic period in bronze 'thorakes', some in 'Tube-and-Yoke', and some late depictions in no armour ( the same is true of hoplites generally). The Spartan Leonymus was shot through his 'spolas' ( defined as leather body armour), and hence by elimination, this must refer to the 'Tube-and-Yoke' corselet ( unless you are going to postulate the unlikely possibility that it refers to some other type of armour, never recorded in the vast iconography! )

[Paul Bardunias]

I wouldn't agree that at all! Short of a pot showing a Tube-and-Yoke corselet with a label attached saying 'This is a spolas', one is simply not going to get absolutely conclusive evidence. I don't agree that the leopard skin "hangs from the shoulders" at all - otherwise ALL pullover garments do ! Nor do any of the three images satisfy the invented term 'linothorax'. A 'thorax' might describe any body-covering or garment, but none of your three illustrations show a hoplite, and the garments in question are clearly not 'armour'.

Interestingly, I do know of a hoplite shown in a protective(?) kilt/perizoma as his only protective gear aside from shield and Boeotian helmet. It is a depiction of Theseus fighting Amazons by the painter Polygnitos [floreat 440-430] on a  'Stamnos' vase. The 'perizoma' is depicted as smooth/uncreased and has the same 'zig-zag' pattern as your central figure, and it is clearly depicted worn over clothing. It is generally interpreted as being made of a thick blanket type material, perhaps felt.

Yes, the reason I showed that image is that to my eye it is the same material as the commonly seen perizoma, continued up into a vest-like garment.  That could easily be called linen armor.  What you describe a blanket type material may have been heavy twinned linen.

[Dan Howard]

In Latin we have the term for mail body armour [lorica hamata]...

Not really. I think the earliest use of this term is Jerome's Vulgate in 405 AD. We have no idea what earlier generations called this armour. Most of the other texts, such as Polybius and Josephus, use the Greek thôraka halusidôton.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul Bardunias wrote:
"What you describe a blanket type material may have been heavy twined linen."

Certainly that's a possibility, for as I've said, you can't determine what something is made of from iconography alone. However, given the great expense of linen, at the very time Thucydides records that the Athenians gave up their "luxurious" linen clothes, it would seem unlikely.


I attach another example of the 'perizoma' from the same period around the Peloponnesian wars by the Kleophon painter, this time worn over a chiton so perhaps therefore implying it is some sort of protective kilt.( or simply a Thracian fashion? see post).
 Incidently, 'perizoma' appears to be another made up word, we don't actually know from our source material what this garment was called.

On the other hand, I attach a different warrior arming and departure scene, with the black 'aspis', by the same painter showing a full length tunic of a similar material (not worn over a chiton), also patterned but not the same pattern as on the 'two 'perizoma'.

Lastly, a standing hoplite by the Achilles painter from the same period, also showing a full length patterned tunic, not worn over a chiton, with yet another pattern. Note he is wearing a 'new fangled' Thracian helmet. This is the clue to what we are seeing. At this time things Thracian were very fashionable, and young Athenians even dressed in full Thracian costume for riding. Bearing this in mind, it is clear that the two full length patterned tunics are simply typical Thracian tunics, made of warmer and thicker wool than those of warmer Athens, and not protective gear at all. Whether this also applies to the 'perizoma'/kilts cannot be ascertained - protective gear, or simply fashionable Thracian accoutrements? The patterns certainly imply the latter.....

---

In Latin we have the term for mail body armour [lorica hamata]...

Not really. I think the earliest use of this term is Jerome's Vulgate in 405 AD. We have no idea what earlier generations called this armour. Most of the other texts, such as Polybius and Josephus, use the Greek thôraka halusidôton.

That would be because Polybius and Josephus both wrote in Greek!

I believe you pointed out late last year here on RAT that a variation on the word 'hamata' namely 'hamis'/hooked occurs in Virgils 'Aneid' ( 1st C BC), and perhaps Jerome picked up on this.......

[Dan Howard]

I believe you pointed out late last year here on RAT that a variation on the word 'hamata' namely 'hamis'/hooked occurs in Virgils 'Aneid' ( 1st C BC), and perhaps Jerome picked up on this.......

Yep, but we don't know what term the Romans used to refer to mail armour before the 5th century.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul, while it is possible that their tunics are some Thracian fashion, the helmet of the Hoplite cannot be use as an argument for that. The name "Thracian" is once again a modern convention and I don't think there is any evidence that these helmets originated in Thrace. If nothing else, they first apear in Attic art.
Same is true about the later variant, the Phrygian helmet. It might represent a Phrygian cap (not Thracian) but the earliest depictions are in fact from Attic funerary stelae.
The Phrygian helmets do spear to be popular later on in Thrace, but this is the case also with bell cuirasses, Greek greaves and swords and even Corinthian helmets!

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul, while it is possible that their tunics are some Thracian fashion, the helmet of the Hoplite cannot be use as an argument for that. The name "Thracian" is once again a modern convention and I don't think there is any evidence that these helmets originated in Thrace. If nothing else, they first apear in Attic art.
Same is true about the later variant, the Phrygian helmet. It might represent a Phrygian cap (not Thracian) but the earliest depictions are in fact from Attic funerary stelae.
The Phrygian helmets do spear to be popular later on in Thrace, but this is the case also with bell cuirasses, Greek greaves and swords and even Corinthian helmets!

You are quite correct, Giannis!   This type of helmet first appears on mid-5BC Athenian red-figure vases, and was probably invented there, or at least became popular there as part of the fashionable craze for all things Thracian. However, you have misunderstood me, or perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was not implying that the helmet was invented in Thrace - after all, any bronze helmets were a real rarity in Thrace at this time. Rather, I was pointing out that the style or fashion of this type of helmet was heavily influenced by the Thracian cap, with its pulled forward poll, and long cheekpieces and it was another manifestation of the taste for Thracian fashion, which is why we refer to it as 'Thracian' today! ( see attached and compare to helmets on pot referred to above)
As to current names of helmet types, Peter Connolly wrote (Greece and Rome at War 1981) : "Terms such as Illyrian or Attic are used in archaeology to denote a particular type of helmet and do not imply its origin."
Thus 'Chalcidian' helmets did not originate in Chalcis, nor 'Illyrian' in Illyria. One possible exception may be 'Attic' helmets which first appear on Athenian  pots circa 500 BC, but may also have originated in Southern Italy.....

[Paul Bardunias]

I don't recall if I ever posted this little snippet I found In an old paper by Chrimes that cites a reference to the Spartan body armor as Aegis.

[Paullus Scipio]

Aldrete et al on the cost of linen armour.

To get back to the subject matter of this thread, back on page 7 I gave examples from Thucydides and Pliny on just how expensive linen could be, yet in the face of all the evidence the book claims a number of demonstrably false claims and so-called evidence, with regard to comparative costs of linen and leather, and availability. I’ll use this as just one example among many of the authors flawed methods and inadequate research.

“While such a hide may not have been extravagantly expensive to purchase, it is unlikely to have been an item the typical family farm had on hand......most small farms probably not have possessed a pair of oxen.”

This is an example of ‘special pleading’, a type of illogical fallacy. Note too that this is an assumption, with no evidence provided. Worse still, it is patently false! In Athens for example, the citizens were divided into four classes, the pentakosiomedminoi ( 500 bushell men – the richest),  the Hippeis ( wealthy enough to own a horse), the zeugites ( 200 bushell men) and the thetes, who did not own land and were the poorest. Now the zeugites  were the original ‘Hoplite’ class, the ‘middle class’ landowners ( a misnomer) and were defined as those who could afford a pair of oxen! These were needed because zeugites were NOT “small farmers” and needed oxen for ploughing! So, originally at least, all Athenian ‘hoplites’ owned at least a pair of oxen – who of course regularly reproduced, so the ‘hoplite’ did not need to wait until the end of the ox’s working life to obtain a hide, as the book asserts.
The other really flawed piece of arithmetic logic is that if you grew your own flax and used that to make your corselet, it was essentially "free" ! I hope the authors don't become economists ! Flax is a 'cash crop' and if it becomes personal use, then the farmer loses what it would otherwise have sold for i.e. its market price, which would be pretty substantial, so there wasn't much difference in cost between growing it or buying it in the market!

In addition, whilst flax was grown in Greece, because it was a poor country agriculturally, most of the arable land was put to food production, and relatively little to flax - certainly nowhere near the vast quantities needed to equip the tens of thousands of hoplites for all the different 'poleis'/cities.......

On cost, the book ignores the evidence of Thucydides and Pliny I quoted earlier on how expensive linen was  - either through poor research and being unaware of it, or through selectivity, both poor methodology. Instead, they refer to the Roman Emperor Diocletian’s price edict of 301 AD to make a comparative costing of linen v leather, despite acknowledging that “calculating costs was notoriously unreliable.” This edict was a failed attempt to stop inflation by dictating the maximum cost of everything. Note that it is over 500 years after the period under examination. Even using this ‘unreliable’ comparison, the authors “fudge” this evidence to come up with approximately equal costs for both, which is far from the case. I mentioned earlier there were many types of linen, and Diocletian’s edict quotes several prices. First quality linen’s maximum cost was 1200 denarii per roman lb; second quality 960 d /lb; third quality 840 d/lb. Coarse linen, suitable only for ‘canvas’ type clothing for slaves and the poorest, was 250  d/lb; 125 d/lb ; and 72 d/lb. Guess which figure Aldrete et al use, without mentioning the others? Yep, the absolute cheapest, 72d/lb. Is it likely, if such a thing had existed at all, it was made from the coarsest and cheapest material? Certainly the items the authors made were not from the coarsest material available!
And guess which price for leather they used ? Yep, you guessed it, the absolute most expensive, good quality, already dressed and tanned ox-hide at 750 d per hide. This is not comparing ‘like with like’ for the comparison is supposed to be the raw material, and an untanned ox-hide cost 3-500 d. Whilst Jarva reckoned on two corselets per hide, Aldrete et all use ‘special pleading’ again to reduce this to one corselet per hide.   ( cattle were small in ancient times, and hides vary in thickness and a uniform thickness would be needed – untrue, for every armour  varies in thickness, depending what part it is to protect. For instance, many Tube-and-Yoke corselets were double breasted, giving double thickness frontal protection, but evidently our authors don’t know that much about how armour works, it is seldom uniformly thick.....) They reckon on 9 lbs of linen, and thus come up with a figure of 750d for a leather corselet’s basic materials against 800d for a linen one (adding in the assumed cost of weaving). For a slightly different comparison, soldier’s tunics cost 1,000-1,500 denarii.
However, even the authors have to acknowledge that these figures are ‘highly speculative’, despite which they then use them to conclude the raw materials were “roughly equivalent in price” which is patently untrue! No-one would use the coarsest material to make a protective garment, for such would have a very poor resistance – and indeed the items the authors made were NOT such material. The only real conclusion we can draw from comparisons of Diocletian’s edict is that a linen corselet would cost many more times that of a leather one, and that is consistent with the other evidence that linen would be hideously expensive, ( over 7,500 denarii for the raw material if 3rd class linen were used) something only the wealthiest could afford, and certainly not the tens of thousands of ‘ordinary’ hoplites !!
This is but one example of the authors use of ‘evidence’ which turns out to be not evidence at all, selectivity and ‘fudging’ of evidence, and poor and fallacious logic. One could pretty much point to similar criticisms of the bulk of the book, but it would be tedious.......

---

Paul B. wrote:
"I don't recall if I ever posted this little snippet I found In an old paper by Chrimes that cites a reference to the Spartan body armor as Aegis. "

Thanks for that!   I was aware that apparently Spartans referred to body armour as 'Aegis', but never knew the primary source. If true, this, like the use of 'spolas' for a 'leather thoraka' will be 'slang' names derived from the fact that back in mythological times body protection could be primitive animal skins......

[Paul Bardunias]

This is not comparing ‘like with like’ for the comparison is supposed to be the raw material, and an untanned ox-hide cost 3-500 d. Whilst Jarva reckoned on two corselets per hide, Aldrete et all use ‘special pleading’ again to reduce this to one corselet per hide.  

I would be a giant of polyphemian proportions in ancient Greece at 6'3" and close to 300 lbs amd my TY was cut from one side of leather with quite a lot to spare.  Giannis can vouche for the hernia inducing weight of the thing- about 16 lbs.  I could have made two Giannis sizedT-Ys from what I had. On this note, because of the thickness and stiffness of the leather it really needs to be in a form like the T-Y, it cannot be used to make a simpler garment as more supple leather could.

[Creon01]

Eventually, it is new technologies such as this that will answer all our questions about the usage of glue with ancient textile armor. Will the physical evidence match the literary and artistic evidence available? I'm 100% sure they will find glue impregnated into linen. We can then debate what those linen artifacts were used for.

http://www.morana-rtd.com/e-preservation...azurek.pdf

---

"An alternative explanation might be that there had been several items of armour in the bathhouse, and that among them there may [my emphasis] have been, as already suggested above, one or more items principally of linen, perhaps even a linen corselet."

I can not find this quote in my copy of Wearing the Cloak.

[Paullus Scipio]

Eventually, it is new technologies such as this that will answer all our questions about the usage of glue with ancient textile armor. Will the physical evidence match the literary and artistic evidence available? I'm 100% sure they will find glue impregnated into linen. We can then debate what those linen artifacts were used for.

http://www.morana-rtd.com/e-preservation...azurek.pdf

The technology is interesting, though not that new, albeit nothing to do with ancient armour but rather ancient art, and it tells us nothing new, for the use of animal glues as sizing on certain types of painting has been long known. Indeed, it is still so used today......the source of Aldrete et als rabbit skin glue was an art store !

Your problem ( and that of the rest of the 'linophiles' ) is to find a linen artifact firmly dated to the right period, that can be positively identified as a piece of armour, then identify 'layers' and finally identify glue.......

I am 100% sure that if it was going to occur, it probably would have by now, bearing in mind we have the remains of a great many artifacts identified as Tube-and-Yoke corselets - hundreds in fact. All those that have been investigated so far show that the organic crumbs found in situ are of adipose tissue ( i.e. animal fat/leather) No traces of any linen examples.

Recovery of 'hoplite' armour from a southern Greek site is highly unlikely due to the burial customs involved.......

Even if one or even a few linen examples were found, that would not show that the 'typical' Tube-and-Yoke corselet was made of linen when compared to the hundreds of leather examples......

Your faith is touching but, but you are 'flogging a dead horse', especially when one looks at ALL the evidence!

---

Joe Balmos wrote:

"An alternative explanation might be that there had been several items of armour in the bathhouse, and that among them there may [my emphasis] have been, as already suggested above, one or more items principally of linen, perhaps even a linen corselet."

I can not find this quote in my copy of Wearing the Cloak. "

Hero Granger-Taylor's chapter is relatively short, so I'm surprised you can't find it. It is Chap.6 p. 68, right next to the photo (6.10) of the Dura greave.......

[Creon01]

You are once again missing the point, it's not about ancient art, it's about finding and analyzing a tiny bit of surviving organic substance and knowing for sure what it is. I am amazed at how easily you brush this off? Did you actually read the report? This is amazing technology. If this technology makes a claim, all the other evidence will be rendered irrelevant whether we like it or not if it contradicts the science. It's like gun shot forensics vs eye witnesses, the forensics always win.

Aldrete and Connolly are certainly not the first to speculate on the use of glue with linen as there are mentions of it over a hundred years before either of them learned to read and write. Neither discount the use of leather, yet some totally discount the possibility of the usage of glue with linen.

I'm still looking for that quote of yours in the book I mentioned.

And please point me to the 100's of Classical/Hellenistic Greek leather T&Y corselets artifacts?