3 ms·

From the article: > People suspected the Dendra armor was ceremonial That's not true. I don't think that there was ever anything approaching a consensus that

From the article: > People suspected the Dendra armor was ceremonial That's not true. I don't think that there was ever anything approaching a consensus that the Mycenean Greek armor in question, the Dendra Panopoly, was entirely ceremonial. In fact, I've never even seen that view expressed. Many people believed that it would prove practical enough for infantry fighting. The old counter-argument -- which even then was speculative -- was that the armor was intended for charioteers. See: https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/encased-bronze-panoply-mycenaean-tomb-dendra/ https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/encased-bronze... What's more, people have been making and sparring in reproduction pieces for years: https://mindhost.tumblr.com/post/141243954157/dendra-panoply-mycenaean-armour-recreation https://mindhost.tumblr.com/post/141243954157/dendra-panoply... And especially: https://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm https://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour1.htm > "Some high fidelity reconstructions have demonstrate how this panoply, despite the huge aspect, was enough flexible and comfortable to be used also during fights on foot and not, as sometimes argued, exclusively by warriors fighting from the chariots."

hinkley 2y ago
I wonder if this was intraoffice politics. You work with two loud, tenured professors who both believe a certain thing that your advisor thinks is bullshit, and your dissertation or post doc publications become about how Steve and Mark are wrong. Suck it, Steve.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  That may be the case. There's also, assuredly, an element of that very recent controversy: "If it's not published in a peer review journal, it doesn't exist." Now that somebody has written up a report of people sparring in modern recreations of the Dendra Panopoly, and has had it published in a decent journal, the matter is settled. Before, despite dozens of people and groups doing the same exact thing, I suppose it wasn't! Goes to show.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    Reminds me of how I just saw a paper where scientists proved it was safe to eat double-yolk eggs, which I do all the time.
    - UberFly 2y ago
      Probably backed by a $50,000 grant.
    - ertian 2y ago
      Whew! Dodged a bullet there...
Archelaos 2y ago
The original paper does not state that there was a consensus that the armor was ceremonial, but lists it as one of several possibilities. From the introduction: "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?" From the conclusion: "The discovery of the Dendra panoply in 1960 immediately raised the issue of its function. Could it have been worn in battle [...]–as repeatedly demonstrated by the exploits of the warriors in the Iliad? Was its use restricted to those who rode to battle in chariots? [...]–again, a regular practice in the epic and indicated in the Linear B archives by the association of armour and chariots. Or was it too cumbersome to be worn except on ceremonial occasions [...], as stated, for example, in the caption to the pieces of armour from Thebes on display in the Archaeological Museum of Thebes?" The paper lists several references for the the positions mentioned (which I have not cross-checked). Among them is also the study that is provided as reference for the sentence you quoted. The author's of the paper summaris the result of this predecessor study as follows: "Sixty years on we now understand, despite its cumbersome appearance at first sight, that it is not only flexible enough to permit almost every movement of a warrior on foot but also resilient enough to protect the wearer from most blows", and explain what their own study has added to this insight: "In addition, our experiments have now demonstrated, we hope convincingly, that the armour is also of a weight and structure to permit extended use in combat, day after day, for up to 11 hours, without detriment to a fit warrior (although, apart from the Iliad, we have no accounts of battles of such duration)." Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301494 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  The first paragraph from the article linked in OP is: > "The Dendra armor, one of the oldest suits of bronze armor ever found, had been considered a purely ceremonial piece. It seemed impossible to use in battle due to its cumbersome design." Of course, this is completely false. It's more of a journalism problem than an issue with the study they're reporting on, of course. > "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?" This is a remarkably thin justification. If a set of armor can be used in combat, then its suitability for extended use hinges only on its weight and weight distribution. (Assuming the set doesn't include a closed helmet, as those can be troublesome in other respects; they can make it hard to breathe and hard to see.) A simple in silico ergonomics study, the kind that can be run in a single afternoon, could have answered their question. Though, admittedly, that would be less fun.
halJordan 2y ago
Don't think Ars is above creative editing and weasel words to chase engagement

hinkley 2y ago

I wonder if this was intraoffice politics. You work with two loud, tenured professors who both believe a certain thing that your advisor thinks is bullshit, and your dissertation or post doc publications become about how Steve and Mark are wrong. Suck it, Steve.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
That may be the case. There's also, assuredly, an element of that very recent controversy: "If it's not published in a peer review journal, it doesn't exist." Now that somebody has written up a report of people sparring in modern recreations of the Dendra Panopoly, and has had it published in a decent journal, the matter is settled. Before, despite dozens of people and groups doing the same exact thing, I suppose it wasn't! Goes to show.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Reminds me of how I just saw a paper where scientists proved it was safe to eat double-yolk eggs, which I do all the time.
  - UberFly 2y ago
    Probably backed by a $50,000 grant.
  - ertian 2y ago
    Whew! Dodged a bullet there...

Archelaos 2y ago

The original paper does not state that there was a consensus that the armor was ceremonial, but lists it as one of several possibilities. From the introduction: "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?" From the conclusion: "The discovery of the Dendra panoply in 1960 immediately raised the issue of its function. Could it have been worn in battle [...]–as repeatedly demonstrated by the exploits of the warriors in the Iliad? Was its use restricted to those who rode to battle in chariots? [...]–again, a regular practice in the epic and indicated in the Linear B archives by the association of armour and chariots. Or was it too cumbersome to be worn except on ceremonial occasions [...], as stated, for example, in the caption to the pieces of armour from Thebes on display in the Archaeological Museum of Thebes?" The paper lists several references for the the positions mentioned (which I have not cross-checked). Among them is also the study that is provided as reference for the sentence you quoted. The author's of the paper summaris the result of this predecessor study as follows: "Sixty years on we now understand, despite its cumbersome appearance at first sight, that it is not only flexible enough to permit almost every movement of a warrior on foot but also resilient enough to protect the wearer from most blows", and explain what their own study has added to this insight: "In addition, our experiments have now demonstrated, we hope convincingly, that the armour is also of a weight and structure to permit extended use in combat, day after day, for up to 11 hours, without detriment to a fit warrior (although, apart from the Iliad, we have no accounts of battles of such duration)." Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301494 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
The first paragraph from the article linked in OP is: > "The Dendra armor, one of the oldest suits of bronze armor ever found, had been considered a purely ceremonial piece. It seemed impossible to use in battle due to its cumbersome design." Of course, this is completely false. It's more of a journalism problem than an issue with the study they're reporting on, of course. > "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?" This is a remarkably thin justification. If a set of armor can be used in combat, then its suitability for extended use hinges only on its weight and weight distribution. (Assuming the set doesn't include a closed helmet, as those can be troublesome in other respects; they can make it hard to breathe and hard to see.) A simple in silico ergonomics study, the kind that can be run in a single afternoon, could have answered their question. Though, admittedly, that would be less fun.

halJordan 2y ago

Don't think Ars is above creative editing and weasel words to chase engagement