The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Discuss the culture of Alexander's world and his image in art

Moderator: pothos moderators

The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Cornel
5
71%
Ash
2
29%
Other (leave response)
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:
There appear to be rimless phalangite shields either side of the entrance on the facade of Tomb III at Vergina/Aegae (the Prince's Tomb, i.e. Alexander IV - below). Andronikos identifies them as shields anyway. This tomb dates to the very early 3rd century BC.
Not that I know all that much about shields, but I'm popping into this thread because the above gave me a good excuse to finally take a look at Andronicos' Vergina: The Royal Tombs which has been sitting unread on a shelf for months. (Unfortunately I have been way too busy to do much reading lately.) Does Andronikos describe the shields as rimless elsewhere? In this book all he says is:
Two decorative relief shields are fashioned in stucco on the upper parts of the walls between the jambs and the pillars; their convex surfaces bear painted decoration poorly preserved; a garland of of leaves can be seen on the outer rim of one, and we suspect the existence of a Medusa at the center.
Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by Taphoi »

Hi Amyntoros,

I hope it is clear from your quote from his book that Andronikos is talking about the rim as meaning the edge of the convex area, whereas I believe rim is being used to refer to the fat, flat lip found on hoplite shields of the period earlier in this thread. I have only said that Andronikos calls them shields. It is I who is suggesting that they appear to lack a broad fat lip/rim.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by Paralus »

Rimless shields are not the issue; there is a depiction of a baldric fitted, rimless shield on a coin from the fourth century (somewhere in this house). A cavalryman, of all people, carries it. Nor is early third century dating. A rimless, 75-80 cm deeply bowled shield is.

As I say, Markle postulates that the rimmed hoplite aspis (80-90 odd cm) evolved into the deeply bowled rimless Macedonian unfantry aspis. This is an attractive idea. The idea that an infantryman could not use a sarisa with anything larger than the "classic" telamon shield of approximately 60-70, to which he is wedded, is a furphy though.

The other question is why this particular stone? If this comes from the Soma there willl have been blocks more suggestive of the great conqueror than one depicting greaves, xyston and infantry shield surely? Or are you thinking that is this the only survivor?

As for Andronikos, he was under much pressure at the time he was excavating. Tomb two had to be that of Philip II (had Perdiccas succeeded in transporting Alexander to Aegae, one suspects it might have had to be Alexander's). I agree with Sekunda that the large heads (53-55 cm) excavated are most unlikely to have been sarisa heads. The 55 cm head - rusted to the wall - shows that the shaft was of the length of a "hunting" spear.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:Hi Amyntoros,

I hope it is clear from your quote from his book that Andronikos is talking about the rim as meaning the edge of the convex area, whereas I believe rim is being used to refer to the fat, flat lip found on hoplite shields of the period earlier in this thread. I have only said that Andronikos calls them shields. It is I who is suggesting that they appear to lack a broad fat lip/rim.

Best wishes,

Andrew
I think it'll be clear to everyone that Andronikos was referring specifically to the edge of the shield - I just put in the quote because it gives a few details. From the photographs it doesn't appear that there's much else to add, but I thought you might know of further info in other articles of Andronikos. Although I haven't always shared all his opinions of the findings in the tombs I'm always interesting in reading more from those who did the actual excavations.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by Taphoi »

Paralus wrote:The other question is why this particular stone? If this comes from the Soma there willl have been blocks more suggestive of the great conqueror than one depicting greaves, xyston and infantry shield surely? Or are you thinking that is this the only survivor?
The trophy of arms motif was absolutely the central symbolism for the tomb of a Macedonian warrior. It was roughly the equivalent of a cross on a Christian grave. This is a contemporaneous quotation which makes the point:
FrGrHist 2.153 F4 = Freiburg Papyrus 7-8 wrote:It is fitting for the Macedonian spirit to bear witness to exploits with arms in fighting, and to fairness of the soul, so that trophies may proclaim the valour of the body, but opinions may testify to the soul’s nobility.
Therefore, in fact this kind of symbolism is what an expert would expect to find in closest association with the sarcophagus, just as trophies of arms were next to the top of Hephaistion's pyre.
amyntoros wrote:From the photographs it doesn't appear that there's much else to add, but I thought you might know of further info in other articles of Andronikos.
I don't know of any other article dealing with this specific point for these specific shields. What I do know suggests that there was no great evolution of Macedonian arms from the late 4th to late 3rd century BC.

Best regards,

Andrew
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:The trophy of arms motif was absolutely the central symbolism for the tomb of a Macedonian warrior. It was roughly the equivalent of a cross on a Christian grave.
Of which I'm well aware - no argument. All I'm suggesting is that there may have material more suggestive of the great conqueror than the one block in question. The "Alexander sarcophagus" - for Mazaeus, Abdolymos or whomever - is a virtual NYT proclaiming the stature of the occupant. While I’m well aware the comparison (sarcophagus to mausoleum) is not direct, I’d have thought there would be rather more “significant” images proclaiming Alexander III and so wonder at this particular block.
Taphoi wrote:I don't know of any other article dealing with this specific point for these specific shields. What I do know suggests that there was no great evolution of Macedonian arms from the late 4th to late 3rd century BC.
I’m not at all sure that Andronikos’ work is published or available if it is. For work on Macedonian shields (and other arms) the most in depth, that I’m aware of, are Minor M Markle’s. The paper Taphoi referenced above is a good start. It is one of a series of four (from memory) beginning in1978 (?). This was followed by two others and, most recently the above on the Veroia monument. Whilst I disagree with some of his logic and assumptions, it is a detailed look at the archaeological, artistic and iconographic material.

Sekunda’s “The Sarissa” is very good as well.

The hard drive on my PC at home has partitioning problems and I don’t have access to them until such time as it returns – healthy one hopes as there is far too much to bear losing.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
rocktupac
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by rocktupac »

MAINLY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED:

What made you vote the way you did? What evidence are you using to support your response? Could it have possibly been both?

Sekunda's argument is pretty well laid out and quite convincing, BUT I am still not entirely convinced either way (i.e. I believe it could be either wood type and a completely sound argument has not been made IMO or the evidence is lacking).

Anyone else is more than welcome to join in to give their opinion.
-Scott B.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by agesilaos »

quote]The trophy of arms motif was absolutely the central symbolism for the tomb of a Macedonian warrior. It was roughly the equivalent of a cross on a Christian grave.[/quote]

The trouble is your block does not show a trophy but the arms of the deceased, an equally common Macedonian sepulchral motif. These are not the arms of a king. The description of Hephaistion's pyre does give pause, but the block does seem to belong to the deceased's arms tradition rather than the decorative frieze of Diodoros.

Also, it is unlikely that the medieval Italian who procured it cared much for Alexander, he will have obtained it for either familial reasons, the star may have been the badge of the sponsoring house, or for Christian associations. Maybe there is something that associates it with the Saint they thought they were honouring, my hagiography is decidedly rusty.

Rocktupac, I voted cornel because that is what Theophrastos says and I like to stick to the sources where possible. :shock:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
rocktupac
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by rocktupac »

agesilaos wrote: Rocktupac, I voted cornel because that is what Theophrastos says and I like to stick to the sources where possible. :shock:
Are you referring to Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. 3.12.1-2)? He actually never does say that the sarissa is made of cornel, just that the height of the 'male' cornel tree is at most the length of the tallest sarissa.
-Scott B.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by Taphoi »

agesilaos wrote:The trouble is your block does not show a trophy but the arms of the deceased, an equally common Macedonian sepulchral motif.
We seem to be straying into semantics here. I am using "trophy arms" to refer to the general practice of using assemblages of arms on monuments and mausoleums to attest to the valour of deceased warriors. As the case of Hephaistion's pyre demonstrates, these could be either the arms of the deceased or his foes or both. Whereas you would be correct in pointing out that a trophy was originally an assemblage of the loser's arms set up on a tree or post by the victor at the turning point (greek = trope) of the battle, that would be to overlook the fact that the word later came to mean any monument to a famous victory or brave dead, not necessarily on the battlefield, but typically decorated with images of arms.

You would of course also be correct in insisting that the word stadium can only properly be used where there is a running track that is exactly a stade (~180m) in length, but such rigour in the use of terminology might confuse many, who thought it meant a large arena where their local football team played :wink:

Best wishes,

Andrew
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by agesilaos »

'Semantics'? Well, yes I suppose that is the accurate use of terminology :wink: Seriously though there is clearly a world of difference between the depiction of trophy arms, towhit those of an enemy, and those of the deceased. Lyson/Kallikles is clearly in the latter tradition and, given the similarities which you admit yourself it is hard not to interpret this block in the same way. Of course, nothing can be 100% certain. A full survey of funerary monuments would be useful and interesting, has anyone done this I recall a book 'The Honoured Dead' but only in a footnote; one can't read everything (Yes, Rocktupac that includes Theophrastos, secondary sources, eh? Who'd trust them?).

By the way, I tend to use the word 'soccer' (with a suitable sneer) for that amalgm of athletics and acting that passes as sport; this is common among rugger types (any mention of blood-capsules will be ignored). That is false semantics!

There would have been plenty of hellenistic funerary monuments other than Alexander's in Alexandria, I know of painted stelai are there any other carved ones? maybe this should move to another thread it seems unrelated to the sarissa. :?:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by Taphoi »

agesilaos wrote:Seriously though there is clearly a world of difference between the depiction of trophy arms, towhit those of an enemy, and those of the deceased. Lyson/Kallikles is clearly in the latter tradition and, given the similarities which you admit yourself it is hard not to interpret this block in the same way. Of course, nothing can be 100% certain. A full survey of funerary monuments would be useful and interesting, has anyone done this I recall a book 'The Honoured Dead' but only in a footnote; one can't read everything (Yes, Rocktupac that includes Theophrastos, secondary sources, eh? Who'd trust them?).
Fulgentibus Armis: Introduzione allo studio dei fregi d'armi antichi (ISBN: 8870629929)
by Eugenio Polito is a large scale survey of the use of assemblages of arms to decorate Hellenistic and Roman monuments - especially mausoleums. Although a clear distinction might be drawn between the deceased's own arms and those of his foes, in fact there was a virtual continuum of mixtures of one with the other on actual monuments. In general the ancients seem to have seen all such assemblages of arms as variations on the theme of commemoration of the bravery of the dead.
agesilaos wrote:By the way, I tend to use the word 'soccer' (with a suitable sneer) for that amalgm of athletics and acting that passes as sport; this is common among rugger types (any mention of blood-capsules will be ignored). That is false semantics!
Soccer and Rugby are surely both special cases of football, the former being slang for AsSOCiation Football?
agesilaos wrote:There would have been plenty of hellenistic funerary monuments other than Alexander's in Alexandria, I know of painted stelai are there any other carved ones? maybe this should move to another thread it seems unrelated to the sarissa. :?:
There are some tombs of modest scale found in Alexandria decorated with (Macedonian) arms: notably a Ptolemaic example in the Gabbari cemetery. However, the starburst shield block came from a major monument - probably royal in its scale and richness. Nothing else like it survives as far as I know. There would not have been many such tombs built in Alexandria in the later 3rd century BC - the Ptolemies mostly had long reigns at that time.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by amyntoros »

Hi Taphoi:
Taphoi wrote:
agesilaos wrote:There would have been plenty of hellenistic funerary monuments other than Alexander's in Alexandria, I know of painted stelai are there any other carved ones? maybe this should move to another thread it seems unrelated to the sarissa. :?:
There are some tombs of modest scale found in Alexandria decorated with (Macedonian) arms: notably a Ptolemaic example in the Gabbari cemetery. However, the starburst shield block came from a major monument - probably royal in its scale and richness. Nothing else like it survives as far as I know. There would not have been many such tombs built in Alexandria in the later 3rd century BC - the Ptolemies mostly had long reigns at that time.
Has it been proved (if that is even possible) or is there a consensus that the block came from a tomb or monument built in the later 3rd century BC? Earlier in this thread and in response to Paralus' question about provenance you answered:
Taphoi wrote:
The matter is vexed to say the least. Eugenio Polito assumed it had been imported to Venice from "the Eastern Mediterranean" and dated it to the third century BC. It is late Cretaceous limestone with rudist fossils, which may be found in the Roman Aurisina quarry 70 miles from Venice or in the vicinity of the lost pyramid at Abu Roash on the Nile, which was destroyed to provide sculptural stone in Ptolemaic Egypt.
Now if it hasn't been established beyond a doubt that the block was carved in the later 3rd century BC then is there any reason why it couldn't have come from a later, Ptolemaic tomb?

Agesilaos: Yes, I think it's a good idea to split this thread and I will try to do so tomorrow when I have more time.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by Taphoi »

amyntoros wrote:Has it been proved (if that is even possible) or is there a consensus that the block came from a tomb or monument built in the later 3rd century BC? ...if it hasn't been established beyond a doubt that the block was carved in the later 3rd century BC then is there any reason why it couldn't have come from a later, Ptolemaic tomb?
Obviously, nothing is certain and anything may be challenged. However, there seems to be an emerging consensus that the style and symbolism of the block is Macedonian of circa the third century BC. I say this because the group of University of Venice academics engaged by the Church to investigate the block have recently suggested that it represents a 1st century BC Roman notable seeking to imitate (even copy) iconography associated with Alexander the Great. They therefore seem to be conceding an association with Alexander and earlier sculpture, despite seeking to deny any specific connection between the block and the putative corpse of St Mark (a difficult balancing act this, which I'm watching with some wry amusement).

Best wishes,

Andrew

PS. I would advise against splitting threads except when absolutely necessary, because it is likely to de-prioritise both branches in the eyes of Search Engines and Pothos relies for much of its traffic on Search Engines directing enquirers to popular old threads.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: The Sarissa's Composition: Cornel or Ash?

Post by Xenophon »

...A most interesting thread, but I have come late to it and hardly know where to start with regards to a number of probable inaccuracies by various commentators here pertaining to Military Equipment.

One paper not thus far referred to here is that of Peter Connolly (whose name is doubtless familiar to members) in JRMES11, 2000:
"Experiments with the Sarissa - a functional view."
Connolly reconstructed both the weapons and formations of Alexander's Macedonians using all information available. He also canvases the ancient and modern sources of information. His arguments I find very persuasive, and I will summarise some of them relevant to comments here:

*Andronicos, followed by Markle, was wrong to identify the large 'spearhead' from the so-called 'Philip' tomb as the head of a 'sarissa' - it is much more likely to be the butt of a cavalry 'xyston' ( which was sometimes referred to by the slang name of 'sarissa' ) as shown on the Alexander mosaic and the Kinch's tomb painting.

* As to the length of the Infantry 'sarissa', only Theophrastus and Polybius were 'contemporary' with the heyday of the weapon, and although they give 12 cubits and 14 cubits respectively, it is likely that Theophrastus used Athenian 'cubits' ( 48.7 cm) whereas Polybius is using the 'military' cubit of 41.7 cm. This implies that both are describing 'sarissas' of 5.8 m/19.3 ft long, which also compares well with mediaeval and renaissance Swiss and English pikes 18-20 ft long, tapered, and with small heads ( to move the point of balance as far back as possible) which was considered the maximum practical length

*Markle's reconstruction is too heavy, and the large head cannot be lifted from the ground ! Connolly's reconstruction with the Vergina butt and sleeve but the smaller head, and with tapered cherry wood (similar to cornel/dogwood) shaft weighed 4.05 kg, or made of Ash was 4.22 kg with a point of balance just 350 mm in front of the leading hand position.
This implies either wood as suitable, and which was used probably depended on availability.
* A shield larger than 70 cm diameter cannot be used in conjunction with a 'sarissa', and Connolly considers the Getty museum example ( at around 80 cm diameter) to be a cavalry shield.
All the other surviving examples are less then 75 cm. Similarly, a 'rimmed' aspis shield cannot be used because the rim prevents the fore-hand in the antilabe from grasping the 'sarissa'.

* The 'synaspismos' formation, with one cubit (18 inches/45 cm) frontage per man was perfectly practicable, and could easily be formed by 'doubling' the file from 'close' formation, just as the Hellenistic manual says, but that marching and charging in this formation was all but impossible, again as the manual says...
Post Reply