While its not my time period or location of interest, still a very interesting find:
http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_f...piece.html
The detail on the weapons depicted and their use in close combat is amazing - the use of the short Xiphos vs. the long spear is obvious.
Great reading, specially the links to other reports at thhe bottom.
Cheers
Michael
Oh, yes, isn't that something? A few of us have been geeking out over it. It seems to be a depiction of a particular episode from history or mythology, because there are a couple other seal stones that show the same scene. I'm *not* sure we can draw too many *tactical* lessons from it!
Definitely a fabulous find. It's practically a Frank Frazetta.
Matthew
Definitely a fabulous find. It's practically a Frank Frazetta.
Matthew
Not a xiphos I would say, Matthew would you agree it's a bit too early for that type of sword?
| Joe A wrote: |
| Not a xiphos I would say, Matthew would you agree it's a bit too early for that type of sword? |
Oh, yeah, probably a minor technical point, since "xiphos" is just Greek for "sword"! But yes, *I* tend to reserve "xiphos" for the Late Archaic/Classical hoplite sword. Whereas this is a much earlier bronze sword, looks like a Type C "rapier".
Geez, the details in that carving are just bananas...
Matthew
This scene isn't Homeric. The equipment and the style of fighting were phased out a couple of centuries before the Trojan War.
| Matthew Amt wrote: | ||
Oh, yeah, probably a minor technical point, since "xiphos" is just Greek for "sword"! But yes, *I* tend to reserve "xiphos" for the Late Archaic/Classical hoplite sword. Whereas this is a much earlier bronze sword, looks like a Type C "rapier". Geez, the details in that carving are just bananas... Matthew |
The NYT has it here and it is amazing https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/science/greece-griffin-warrior-archaeology-homer.html
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| This scene isn't Homeric. The equipment and the style of fighting were phased out a couple of centuries before the Trojan War. |
Let me see if I remember well from your book... ;) 15th century BC?
See the last page of this thread - http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=326200#326200
Sorry - like I said, not "my" period (which is more 10th to 11th century Anglo-Saxon Norse history) ... but still, an amazing find. Almost makes me want to delve into central/northern European late bronze age / early iron age material culture :-)
Anyway, thought you all might find it interesting.
Cheers,
Michael
Anyway, thought you all might find it interesting.
Cheers,
Michael
| Luka Borscak wrote: | ||
Let me see if I remember well from your book... ;) 15th century BC? |
Yep, but I think the chronology we are currently using is dodgy. If the bogus Dark Ages are removed then this sealstone dates to the 12th-13th C and the Trojan War occurred in the 10th C.
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||||
Yep, but I think the chronology we are currently using is dodgy. If the bogus Dark Ages are removed then this sealstone dates to the 12th-13th C and the Trojan War occurred in the 10th C. |
I meant traditional chronology. :)
| Luka Borscak wrote: |
| I meant traditional chronology. :) |
I know. I just don't like to miss an opportunity to hammer the case for revising the chronology :)
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
I know. I just don't like to miss an opportunity to hammer the case for revising the chronology :) |
Don't worry, I'm already a believer in it. :D
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
I know. I just don't like to miss an opportunity to hammer the case for revising the chronology :) |
Ever since I read "Centuries of Darkness" by Peter James, I've looked at the ancient timelines quite differently. He makes a strong argument, which the established historians don't seem to want to accept or even acknowledge, except by massaging the numbers a bit.
| Roger Hooper wrote: |
| See the last page of this thread - http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=326200#326200 |
Regardless of the date, function or academic value, it's a beautiful piece of art.
| Peter Lyon wrote: | ||||
Ever since I read "Centuries of Darkness" by Peter James, I've looked at the ancient timelines quite differently. He makes a strong argument, which the established historians don't seem to want to accept or even acknowledge, except by massaging the numbers a bit. |
Actually, it's not the "established historians" -- it's mostly the older ones. Many in the younger generation are more prepared to accept the Low Chronology thesis, and the "massaging" is because James probably did overstate his case somewhat.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| Actually, it's not the "established historians" -- it's mostly the older ones. Many in the younger generation are more prepared to accept the Low Chronology thesis, and the "massaging" is because James probably did overstate his case somewhat. |
Yeah. I think there is a very strong case for a reduction of at least 200 years but 300 years seems a stretch.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||||||
Actually, it's not the "established historians" -- it's mostly the older ones. Many in the younger generation are more prepared to accept the Low Chronology thesis, and the "massaging" is because James probably did overstate his case somewhat. |
So, which one of the younger historians are prepared to publicly accept the Low Chronology??? Names please, and I don't mean folks arguing that the period was not as "dark" as we once thought, those new historians only argue life was not so bleak not that the time period was 200-300 years shorter .
Trojan War in the 10th century? Brian Rose of the Penn Museum is the lead archaeologist there and has been working there his entire professional life, since 1988, and thinks that's a bit silly.
C'mon Peter, everyone who is serious has read "Centuries of Darkness" by Peter James and it's not ignored by mainstream ancient Historians and Archaeologists at all. At Dan's suggestion I read it and asked quite a few folks if they read it, seems like I was the last to read it. Snodgrass, apparently a mentor of sorts of James, has written at least two reviews of the book and just about everyone is required to read it in good grad schools here so they know what's the non-traditional pov. Unless better evidence is presented that refutes folks like Rose and Snodgrass, the conventional wisdom stands. Rose is quite open minded and fair and plugged in everywhere to everyone working on this sort of thing and his views have not changed much. There is no conspiracy to suppress this idea, it's just not considered accurate that's all.
For those curious: https://www.centuries.co.uk/index.htm
Kokkinos, N. 'Ancient Chronography, 'Eratosthenes and the Dating of the Fall of Troy' Ancient West and East 8 (2009) page 37-56.
Nikkos Kokkinos went back to look at the original Greek chronographers and his study concluded that the Greeks themselves thought that the Trojan War occurred in 940BC.
Furlong, P. J., Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600 – 700 BC), PhD Thesis, Melbourne University, 2007
Pierce Furlong studied the Assyrian chronology and his PhD thesis attempted to reconcile it with the Egyptian chronology. He concluded that the Egyptian chronology had to be reduced by 200 years.
"This chronological adjustment is achieved in two stages: first, the removal of precisely 85 years of absolute Assyrian chronology from between the reigns of Shalmaneser II and Ashur-dan II; and second, the downward displacement of Egyptian Memphite dates relative to LBA Assyrian chronology by a further 115 years."
Nikkos Kokkinos went back to look at the original Greek chronographers and his study concluded that the Greeks themselves thought that the Trojan War occurred in 940BC.
Furlong, P. J., Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600 – 700 BC), PhD Thesis, Melbourne University, 2007
Pierce Furlong studied the Assyrian chronology and his PhD thesis attempted to reconcile it with the Egyptian chronology. He concluded that the Egyptian chronology had to be reduced by 200 years.
"This chronological adjustment is achieved in two stages: first, the removal of precisely 85 years of absolute Assyrian chronology from between the reigns of Shalmaneser II and Ashur-dan II; and second, the downward displacement of Egyptian Memphite dates relative to LBA Assyrian chronology by a further 115 years."
Really a fantastic find. The craftsmanship of the past never ceases to impress. I wonder what this could affect long term as far as the perception of Greek artistry. They did mention that on a technical level it's nearly 1,000 years more advanced than they expected.
Good one!
| Matthew Amt wrote: |
| Definitely a fabulous find. It's practically a Frank Frazetta.
|
Good one!
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum