3 ms·

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

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.
- hoobastank_fan 2y ago
  It’s interesting that you pillory journalism here as if a crime has been committed, while simultaneously reading the least charitable interpretation of the words possible, then concluding absolutes like “completely false,” which is itself your interpretation and most charitable to you being the arbiter of truth here. And you’re on this horse regarding imagining what ancient armor was used for. You don’t know. The people quoted don’t know. Nobody knows. If the journalist talked to one guy who said you know, I think that’s ceremonial, blah blah, the quote is fair. One person thought it. One person told the reporter as much. You disagree. Journalism is working as intended. Tip for the future: “journalism is broken” is usually a synonym for “I’ve taken a position that differs, and I therefore overfeel that the world is doing things wrong”.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    A journalist is never supposed to report something they got from a single source with words like "it was considered". They're generally not supposed to report soemthing they got from a single source at all. But if they do, it should be "so-and-so believed it was purely ceremonial" or "we've spoken with one professor who believed it was purely ceremonial". But the job of journalists is to do the research. That's the whole purpose of good journalism: ask around, build some context on a story, then report it. Don't just tell me what one guy believed, I can find that out on my own. Tell me if others with context also believe the same: that's the part I don't have time for.
    - dumpsterdiver 2y ago
      Agreed. Applying the views of few to many displays a lack of journalistic integrity. It’s a distasteful pattern that has become pervasive, but even more disturbing is the fact that so many people seem to be comfortable with it.
  - smallnamespace 2y ago
    Anyone can make stuff up. I'll happily make up 19 different things and tell it to you with a straight face, all before lunch. It seems like the whole point of elevating a field of activity and dignifying it with a fancy term like journalism is that it has some sort of standards. Otherwise, what good is it to anyone? If it doesn't have standards, then we should just call it "people making up random stuff" instead. Then at least we'd be describing things with a bit more accuracy.

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.

hoobastank_fan 2y ago
It’s interesting that you pillory journalism here as if a crime has been committed, while simultaneously reading the least charitable interpretation of the words possible, then concluding absolutes like “completely false,” which is itself your interpretation and most charitable to you being the arbiter of truth here. And you’re on this horse regarding imagining what ancient armor was used for. You don’t know. The people quoted don’t know. Nobody knows. If the journalist talked to one guy who said you know, I think that’s ceremonial, blah blah, the quote is fair. One person thought it. One person told the reporter as much. You disagree. Journalism is working as intended. Tip for the future: “journalism is broken” is usually a synonym for “I’ve taken a position that differs, and I therefore overfeel that the world is doing things wrong”.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  A journalist is never supposed to report something they got from a single source with words like "it was considered". They're generally not supposed to report soemthing they got from a single source at all. But if they do, it should be "so-and-so believed it was purely ceremonial" or "we've spoken with one professor who believed it was purely ceremonial". But the job of journalists is to do the research. That's the whole purpose of good journalism: ask around, build some context on a story, then report it. Don't just tell me what one guy believed, I can find that out on my own. Tell me if others with context also believe the same: that's the part I don't have time for.
  - dumpsterdiver 2y ago
    Agreed. Applying the views of few to many displays a lack of journalistic integrity. It’s a distasteful pattern that has become pervasive, but even more disturbing is the fact that so many people seem to be comfortable with it.
- smallnamespace 2y ago
  Anyone can make stuff up. I'll happily make up 19 different things and tell it to you with a straight face, all before lunch. It seems like the whole point of elevating a field of activity and dignifying it with a fancy term like journalism is that it has some sort of standards. Otherwise, what good is it to anyone? If it doesn't have standards, then we should just call it "people making up random stuff" instead. Then at least we'd be describing things with a bit more accuracy.