Based on my last post regarding the unlikelihood of vegetable-tanned leather in Achaemenid times, here is what I've come up with for leather goods:
Materials
Personally I would accept brain-tan or the nearest affordable
equivalent as a substitute for other fat-cured leathers. The nearest affordable equivalent
may include chrome-tanned "buckskin" or glove-tanned if it's of similar
physical properties, but, as always, check your group's authenticity standards before buying. I advise against suede or roughout (which are harder to clean; additionally, I believe machine splits are a 19th-century development) and, obviously, anything with an overtly unnatural finish.
I consider rawhide a given for any period. Also, if you already have pieces of kit in veg-tan that you've sunk a lot of money and work into, my feeling is keep them. Again, ask your group's leaders.
Gorytoi
Archaeological finds have indicated that they were made of soft leather supported with a wood spine or frame. So use fat-cured or equivalent. I imagine the type seen at Persepolis and frequently on Greek pottery, with a straight bottom and curved upper edge - the standard for Persian soldiers in our period - had a curved wooden spine sewn into the upper edge. This also means that the floppy-looking fringe seen hanging from gorytoi in Greek battle art may in fact be the same fitted cover seen at Persepolis; it is attached to the gorytos at the top edge, or just draped over it during battle.
Using soft leather also makes it unlikely that they were painted, unless the ancients had some method of painting dye directly onto the leather which I have been unable to discover (painting dye is a real technique but I'm told it's a modern one). The crenellated borders shown in Greek art would probably have to be appliqued in a contrasting leather or fabric, which is done most easily before the main seam is closed.
Scabbards
Wood, or some other hard, solid block of material carved to shape (as in the ivory one from Takht-i Sangin). The akinakes scabbard is attested as having been covered in embossed sheet metal. Otherwise, plain wood will make a good surface for carving. I could also imagine that a facing of glued fabric or parchment (thin rawhide) was used to add strength. All these materials will accept paint better than cured/tanned leather, too. Possibly, lighter sheaths (as for belt knives) were rawhide, maybe with a soft leather or fabric cover.
Shields
Shields of stick-and-hide construction, like the crescent ("taka") and pavise ("spara"), should almost certainly be rawhide, which resists puncture and cutting better than leather and which was used in the Dura-Europos shields that share the same construction method. I have heard it suggested to paint a thin layer of wax on top of the finished shield to prevent water absorption.
Shoes
The Persepolis reliefs and Alexander Sarcophagus seem to disagree about the presence of separate soles on the ankle-strapped shoes. It may be that both interpretations are correct: Again, I am reminded of these shoes' resemblance to Plains moccasins, which were produced both with integral (soft) and separate soles. Separate soles may have been soft leather or hard rawhide. The lack of additional soles on the shoes at Persepolis may explain why it was desirable to have a band running under the middle of the shoe, for arch support. In this use I'd be willing to accept veg-tanned leather for rawhide for expediency.
Ankle straps were fairly wide, and were likely soft leather thongs. I believe the greater width compared to modern leather laces was necessary because the latter are made of a firmer material (albeit not "rawhide" as they are often labeled; real rawhide is too stiff for shoelaces).
Other
Herodotus mentions Persians as having leather clothing (I.72) and this is plausible if it is a very soft buckskin-like material, though I believe that the assertion that leather made up all or even the majority of their clothing in Cyrus' day is an exaggeration; they had, after all, been settled in old Elam for several centuries and raised plenty of sheep. So I still recommend fabric first. Bags and pockets may also be either fabric or soft leather.
In the absence of moldable leather, drink containers should either be soft (like wineskins) or ceramic. Most of the clay canteens from Persepolis were flattened spheres with short necks, essentially like modern ones, even sometimes having cord ears (see OIP 69); those without ears could be carried in bags. I'm open to the possibility of gourd or wooden canteens, but won't actually recommend them until seeing some evidence.
There is only one item which I haven't found a solution for yet: the weapon belt. Because it has to support the weight of a fully-loaded bowcase, it must be a firm material with little stretch, so fat-cured leather would seem a bad choice, but it also has to flex to be worn like a belt, so rawhide doesn't look like a great idea either. In lieu of good evidence about what they were actually made of, I must continue to recommend veg-tan for this use alone.
Showing posts with label spara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spara. Show all posts
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Friday, May 25, 2012
Shield yourself from this
Update 12/10/13: This post contains information that is probably incorrect. Please see here.
The Achaemenids knew of four or five styles of shields: round or oval (possibly), violin-shaped, rectangular, crescent and the Greek Argive shield. Of these, only the rectangular style is attested as having been used in the Graeco-Persian wars period. In addition, some illustrations have been found of imperial troops (the Negro Alabastrons) and Persian hunters with cloaks draped over their left arms presumably as makeshift protection.
The only attested material for Persian shields is called by the Greeks gerrha ("wicker"). While to my knowledge no Achaemenid shields have been found, four shields dating to the Sassanid dynasty were found in the 1922-37 excavations at the Hellenstic (later Roman) city of Dura-Europos in Syria, and their construction could offer a model for that of earlier shields. They were not technically wicker, but consist of wood dowels (sometimes incorrectly referred to as reeds) woven vertically through a single sheet of soaked rawhide. The rawhide was folded over the ends of the sticks and sewn between them. One or two horizontal sticks were attached to the back, preventing the shield from rolling up as the rawhide dried, and the grip appears to have been a wooden rod tied to the back.
These shields were unpainted. The holes through which the sticks were threaded form chevrons down the shields' faces. There is a Greek vase showing a Persian soldier with a rectangular shield bearing an elongated checker pattern which could have been produced the same way.
Round or oval
An enigmatic, slightly elongated shield appears in at least one scene in the reliefs at Persepolis (middle, second from top). It's roughly the same size and shape as the violin. Its face is smooth, showing no evidence of wickerwork, boss or rim (though the violin shields in the same scene also lack rims, which they have elsewhere). If it's a representation of the Argive shield (and that's a big if), it would indicate that the Persians adopted this type far earlier than my research otherwise suggests. I suppose it's even possible that they are violin shields to which the artists for some reason didn't add the cutouts or bosses, but that seems very unlikely to me.
Violin
This double-gripped style is known, as far as I know, almost entirely from Persepolis. It had a rim (even around the cutouts, which were located halfway or slightly more than halfway down from the top of the shield) and had a round boss right in the middle with four round dimples or cutouts. It's shown with a smooth face and inside, unlike the rectangular shield (also shown at Persepolis, with its stickwork construction clearly visible), so it may have been made of wood planks and/or had a facing and lining of metal, leather or fabric. (In fact, a solid bronze shield facing of similar shape is or was held in the Axel Guttmann collection, although I can't find out much about it.) A bronze boss from one was found on the island of Samos off the coast of Turkey (close, in fact, to Mount Mycale). However, I've never seen it in battle art and never in Greek art of any kind. This at least suggests that it wasn't very typical of Persian arms in the war.
I can think of several reasons for this disconnect. The violin shield may have been relegated to parade wear, perhaps an artifact of a previous generation of soldiers, or it may have been inherited as an item of ceremony from an older culture, perhaps the Elamites. It may have still been in use, but not nearly common enough for the Greeks to think of it as "the" Persian shield. Search as I might, I can't find anything to back up any of these speculations.
Some people call this style the Dipylon or Boeotian shield, after similar types seen in Greek art. But I feel this is incorrect. These are Greek types, with significant differences in details: Persian shields had large bosses and cutouts that are almost full circles, while the Greek ones had no bosses and their cutouts were more semicircular. One may be copied from the other via intermediaries or they may derive from the same prehistoric source, but they could just as likely be totally unrelated.
Rectangular
Being perhaps up to five feet high, the rectangular shield was a kind of pavise which could be propped up to stand on its own and (according to Herodotus) attached to others to form a wall. Of course, against the press of a Greek phalanx, this structure couldn't stand up very long, but it likely served very well against showers of arrows, and would be useable in one-on-one spear combat.
From what I've seen, this type appears to be the most common Persian shield attested in Greek art. There's at least one picture of one at Persepolis as well. An RAT member once uploaded a photo of it, which has since been lost, but you can see a line drawing at Mark Drury's site.
This type of shield is usually referred to as a spara. This word comes from a glossary of Hesychius of Alexandria, who roughly a millennium later defined sparabarai as gerrhophoroi ("wicker-bearers"). While -bara meant "bearer" (and comes from the same PIE root as -bearer and -phoros), the Middle Persian word spar and its Modern Persian derivative sipar mean "shield," so it's possible that *spara also simply meant a shield of any kind. If, as I suspect, all types of Persian shields were what the Greeks would call wicker, then "wicker-bearer" doesn't indicate what type of shield a soldier bore. I suppose the reverse might also be true: that *spara did refer to a particular type of shield, but by Middle Persian had become more generic.
Crescent
Showing up in Greek art late in the 5th century, the crescent shield resembled the Thracian pelte and some Scythian shields. It could be single- or double-gripped and was somewhat smaller than an Argive shield (which is roughly two-and-a-half to three feet in width).
The Hoplite Association has reproduced crescent shields using 3mm (about eight-ounce) vegetable-tanned leather and wooden dowels; the edging is the same leather, laced on. Andy Cropper used two grip systems: one to be held in the hand and the other to be strapped to the arm, allowing archers to hold it while shooting.
In modern literature, this shield in Persian context is called a taka and its bearers takabara, but in fact we have no reason to think the ancients called them that. The word takabara comes from the Persian phrase Yauna Takabara ("taka-bearing Ionians"), found at Persepolis and generally thought to be a reference to the Macedonians (Yauna or "Ionian" being the generic Persian word for Greeks). Many researchers think that taka here refers to the petasos, or Greek sun hat, which was round and dished and shaped pretty much like a shield. The phrase is translated into Akkadian as "who bear shields on their heads." Nicholas Sekunda in Achaemenid Military Terminology states that taka means "hide," and should by extension be taken to mean a leather shield. It is, however, difficult to be certain, and of course the petasos isn't crescent-shaped.
Argive
One of the main tools of the Greek hoplite, eminently suited for phalanx combat. Putting aside the possibility that the round Perspolis shields are of this type, so far as I know Persians are only attested as using them in the 4th century, and then only rarely. Since a great deal of literature on the construction and use of the Argive shield is available elsewhere, I shall refrain from going into it here.
Next up: You'll need a few other things.
The Achaemenids knew of four or five styles of shields: round or oval (possibly), violin-shaped, rectangular, crescent and the Greek Argive shield. Of these, only the rectangular style is attested as having been used in the Graeco-Persian wars period. In addition, some illustrations have been found of imperial troops (the Negro Alabastrons) and Persian hunters with cloaks draped over their left arms presumably as makeshift protection.
The only attested material for Persian shields is called by the Greeks gerrha ("wicker"). While to my knowledge no Achaemenid shields have been found, four shields dating to the Sassanid dynasty were found in the 1922-37 excavations at the Hellenstic (later Roman) city of Dura-Europos in Syria, and their construction could offer a model for that of earlier shields. They were not technically wicker, but consist of wood dowels (sometimes incorrectly referred to as reeds) woven vertically through a single sheet of soaked rawhide. The rawhide was folded over the ends of the sticks and sewn between them. One or two horizontal sticks were attached to the back, preventing the shield from rolling up as the rawhide dried, and the grip appears to have been a wooden rod tied to the back.
These shields were unpainted. The holes through which the sticks were threaded form chevrons down the shields' faces. There is a Greek vase showing a Persian soldier with a rectangular shield bearing an elongated checker pattern which could have been produced the same way.
Round or oval
An enigmatic, slightly elongated shield appears in at least one scene in the reliefs at Persepolis (middle, second from top). It's roughly the same size and shape as the violin. Its face is smooth, showing no evidence of wickerwork, boss or rim (though the violin shields in the same scene also lack rims, which they have elsewhere). If it's a representation of the Argive shield (and that's a big if), it would indicate that the Persians adopted this type far earlier than my research otherwise suggests. I suppose it's even possible that they are violin shields to which the artists for some reason didn't add the cutouts or bosses, but that seems very unlikely to me.
Violin
This double-gripped style is known, as far as I know, almost entirely from Persepolis. It had a rim (even around the cutouts, which were located halfway or slightly more than halfway down from the top of the shield) and had a round boss right in the middle with four round dimples or cutouts. It's shown with a smooth face and inside, unlike the rectangular shield (also shown at Persepolis, with its stickwork construction clearly visible), so it may have been made of wood planks and/or had a facing and lining of metal, leather or fabric. (In fact, a solid bronze shield facing of similar shape is or was held in the Axel Guttmann collection, although I can't find out much about it.) A bronze boss from one was found on the island of Samos off the coast of Turkey (close, in fact, to Mount Mycale). However, I've never seen it in battle art and never in Greek art of any kind. This at least suggests that it wasn't very typical of Persian arms in the war.
I can think of several reasons for this disconnect. The violin shield may have been relegated to parade wear, perhaps an artifact of a previous generation of soldiers, or it may have been inherited as an item of ceremony from an older culture, perhaps the Elamites. It may have still been in use, but not nearly common enough for the Greeks to think of it as "the" Persian shield. Search as I might, I can't find anything to back up any of these speculations.
Some people call this style the Dipylon or Boeotian shield, after similar types seen in Greek art. But I feel this is incorrect. These are Greek types, with significant differences in details: Persian shields had large bosses and cutouts that are almost full circles, while the Greek ones had no bosses and their cutouts were more semicircular. One may be copied from the other via intermediaries or they may derive from the same prehistoric source, but they could just as likely be totally unrelated.
Rectangular
Being perhaps up to five feet high, the rectangular shield was a kind of pavise which could be propped up to stand on its own and (according to Herodotus) attached to others to form a wall. Of course, against the press of a Greek phalanx, this structure couldn't stand up very long, but it likely served very well against showers of arrows, and would be useable in one-on-one spear combat.
From what I've seen, this type appears to be the most common Persian shield attested in Greek art. There's at least one picture of one at Persepolis as well. An RAT member once uploaded a photo of it, which has since been lost, but you can see a line drawing at Mark Drury's site.
This type of shield is usually referred to as a spara. This word comes from a glossary of Hesychius of Alexandria, who roughly a millennium later defined sparabarai as gerrhophoroi ("wicker-bearers"). While -bara meant "bearer" (and comes from the same PIE root as -bearer and -phoros), the Middle Persian word spar and its Modern Persian derivative sipar mean "shield," so it's possible that *spara also simply meant a shield of any kind. If, as I suspect, all types of Persian shields were what the Greeks would call wicker, then "wicker-bearer" doesn't indicate what type of shield a soldier bore. I suppose the reverse might also be true: that *spara did refer to a particular type of shield, but by Middle Persian had become more generic.
Crescent
Showing up in Greek art late in the 5th century, the crescent shield resembled the Thracian pelte and some Scythian shields. It could be single- or double-gripped and was somewhat smaller than an Argive shield (which is roughly two-and-a-half to three feet in width).
The Hoplite Association has reproduced crescent shields using 3mm (about eight-ounce) vegetable-tanned leather and wooden dowels; the edging is the same leather, laced on. Andy Cropper used two grip systems: one to be held in the hand and the other to be strapped to the arm, allowing archers to hold it while shooting.
In modern literature, this shield in Persian context is called a taka and its bearers takabara, but in fact we have no reason to think the ancients called them that. The word takabara comes from the Persian phrase Yauna Takabara ("taka-bearing Ionians"), found at Persepolis and generally thought to be a reference to the Macedonians (Yauna or "Ionian" being the generic Persian word for Greeks). Many researchers think that taka here refers to the petasos, or Greek sun hat, which was round and dished and shaped pretty much like a shield. The phrase is translated into Akkadian as "who bear shields on their heads." Nicholas Sekunda in Achaemenid Military Terminology states that taka means "hide," and should by extension be taken to mean a leather shield. It is, however, difficult to be certain, and of course the petasos isn't crescent-shaped.
Argive
One of the main tools of the Greek hoplite, eminently suited for phalanx combat. Putting aside the possibility that the round Perspolis shields are of this type, so far as I know Persians are only attested as using them in the 4th century, and then only rarely. Since a great deal of literature on the construction and use of the Argive shield is available elsewhere, I shall refrain from going into it here.
Next up: You'll need a few other things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)