Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: | ||
Hi Matthew, I'd be happy to incorporate contrary evidence if you have it -- I'd appreciate if you could point me to some alternate sources. As it is, I choose to keep such quotes in for now because: * In this case, at least, the quote comes from the Museum of Fine Arts' current (I photographed that label in 2011) display gallery of classical art and arms. While I share your skepticism of a 70lb panoply, I'm hesitant to dismiss it outright without solid contrary evidence in a quotable source. One hopes, at least, that the staff of a museum of the MFA's prestige includes curators who did their own research before writing such a label. I don't do primary research myself, so I rely on those who do, and on my own critical thinking to make judgments about whose arguments are most convincing. * It's a succinct, paragraph-length summary of the subject, which is what I want under each heading in my organizational scheme. It's surprisingly tough to get a short contextual description of Greek hoplites -- despite so much being written about them -- so I've taken the few I've come across so far. Weapon 2006 and Withers 2010 aren't the most rigorous of works either, but as you said, good sources are hard to find! |
It is important to be aware that historians can make false assumptions on functionality of gear based on inaccurate understanding of science. To use myself as an example, I studied history and avoided science so I have to rely on those who have personally investigated and handled iron, bronze, etc. to know their properties. As one not familiar with the properties of iron, I might assume that it must be exceedingly thick to be protective, etc. My point really is, we are all fallible because we all make assumptions based on our understanding, which is never perfect.