Spyros Bakas

The Dendra panoply was originally discovered by Professor Paul Åström and Dr Nicolaos Verdelis, in tomb 12 in Argolis/Greece, near Midea citadel and is dated on LHIIB period. Since it is considered the first complete set of body armor that has ever been found in the archaeological records, it emerges a series of questions of how a warrior could perform under this panoply. The remit of this thesis is to investigate possible answers on the function and the nature of the Dendra panoply in terms of experimentation. The author uses the work of Åström and Verdelis as his primary source, but supplements it with other significant academic works on this subject. The research expands on the relevant archaeological findings and the Linear B ideograms concerning this type of armor. To better understand the function and effectiveness of the armour a series of experiments were conducted in which a replica of this armor was reconstructed and tested in the context of mobility, stability and in conjuction with the use of several weapons. This thesis mainly argues that this was intended for use by infantry who would use a spear as his main weapon, while his operational task could not have been conducted without the cooperation of light troops. It is highlighted that the Dendra panoply warrior needs a lot of open space and cannot operate efficiently in close-combat conditions. The ability of a Dendra panoply warrior to stand on a chariot, while on charge, remains doubtful.

The form and function of the ethnic Persian infantry of the Persian Wars is little explored, although there have been many issues correctly identified by a number of scholars. Such are stereotypes, an overeager use of Occam’s Razor and a distinct refusal to merge data from sources of less than 100 years apart under the silent pretext of possible reforms and resets. The combination of the report of Xenophon with that of Herodotus, and then with Arrian and Strabo, identifies the Persian draftees of the home guard and of the establishments/colonies of Persians abroad. These troops may have been called Kardaka and initially trained as sparabara archers of the standing army for a 10-year period, and then, when admitted to the citizen class as reserves, they were redelegated as close-quarter battle troopers, bearing body armour. This report by Xenophon and Strabo identifies the elusive Persian cuirassiers serving with Mardonius in Herodotus as the mobilised reserve Persian infantry and elucidates Arrian’s of Kardaka, suggesting a massive rearming effort by Darius III to hoplite standards.

This article presents data from an international experimental study on the reconstruction of the “compound” bow of Sintashta culture of bronze age South Ural, Russia. The project is carried out by a collective of researchers from Greece and Russia as part of the grant program of the world association of experimental archaeology EXARC - “Twinning program”. The article reviews the global context of the design features of bows of the Neolithic-Bronze Age. The features and parts of the Sintashta “compound” bow were considered, and the role of long-range weapons in the life of Sintashta society was discussed. Using authentic technologies and materials, the authors of the article managed to make four versions of the bow reconstruction prior to obtaining the correct version.
---

The content is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License. Archaeological Experiment on Reconstruction of the "Compound" Bow of the Sintashta Bronze Age Culture from the Stepnoe Cemetery exarc.net/issue-2021-2/ea/reconstruction-compound-bow-sintashta
----
Persistent Identifier: https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10579

The Hypaspist corps was an elite unit, most probably established by Philip II and inherited by Alexander the Great along with the other components of the Macedonian army. These troops were actively involved in every operation, be it pitched battle or light infantry mission, throughout the Asian campaign and with distinction, thus igniting the interest and curiosity of many scholars.

However, in many respects, the nature of the corps remains elusive. The absence of contemporary literature together with the huge time gap to the most militarily literate source available, Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander, combine with the evolving organisation and the restructuring of the Macedonian army under Alexander to shadow the facts. Before being reformed, as Argyraspides’ elite line infantry, the Corps, which was
different from the two guard formations, fulfilled a double mission, had a wider choice of weaponry and tactics and was organised into three units, while retaining double the strength of the conventional phalanx formations, the Taxeis of sarissa-wielding line infantry.

This paper aims to review some of the basic problems of this Corps’s identity, highlighting its origins, status, functional deployment, organisation, weaponry and evolution.

Ever since humankind first settled down in permanent settlements as the direct consequence of farming of grains and other crops and the raising of livestock in the Late Neolithic era, the territorial imperative has consistently dictated real or imagined threats from outsiders. Consequently, people always struggled to improve means of self defence, leading to the introduction of missiles such as sling stones, spears and arrows. In the Late Neolithic, humankind built enormous fortresses. This was soon followed by the emergence of the first chariots in Sumeria ca. 2,500 BCE. Cumbersome as they were, they represented a significant step forward in the early technology of warfare. The next millennium was to bring about the perfection of the chariot as a vehicle enabling much more efficient warfare. Chariots had become far lighter, more mobile and more battle-worthy than their much more ponderous Sumerian predecessors. All late Bronze Age chariots, including Egyptian and Mycenaean, had reached the zenith of perfection attainable for that era. The Linear B Lexicon for the Construction of Mycenaean Chariots, the only one of its kind, has been produced in partnership with Koryvantes, the Association of Historical Studies (Athens).

Archery had a dominant role in Bronze Age, especially in later period. The technological evolution from the self bows to the composites was a significant factor that affected the Warfare in several ways. Composite’s critical advantage was that they can be made smaller because they retain their strength through the correlation of different materials (wood, sinew, horn). They had more strength, far more range and their small
size results in more mobility than the self bows1. The first depiction of a probable composite bow lays in the victory stele of Naram-Sin of Akkad (23rd century BC)2. It was introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in the 18th Century. The earliest example of a composite bow was found in the tomb of Ahmose Penhant (16th century BC)3 while thirty-two more have been found in the tomb of Tutankhamen4. However we do not have any archaeological examples from the Aegean Bronze Age world. This brief study will try to approach the issue of the use of composite bows in the Minoan and Mycenaean Warfare attempting to include all the possible archaeological iconographical and textual evidence that could support this argument.

The Army of Alexander was an army made for campaigns, conquests and dedicated to the purpose of continuous expansion. But the Successors armies like the Seleucid army had a different mission. The army became ”institutional” and geared towards defense, aiming to the protection of the crown and the vast lands of the Empire. The Seleucid’s  “Royal Guard” is considered to have 10.000 men in various units, core of which were the “Argyraspides” (lit. Silvershields). The unit was continuing the tradition of Alexander’s “Hypaspists”, having a lot of functional similarities with the Persian “Immortals”. The “Royal Guard” was the permanent unit of the Seleucid army. The backbone of the “Silvershields” came from the Syro-Macedonian elite, or even original Macedonians called “klIrouchoi” (military colonists) who were settled in the Empire receiving land and privileges in exchange for military service.

Warfare was definitely one of the most bold elements  of the  Ancient Greek city-state of the Classical period. Even  if those societies weren’t characterized strictly as “militaristic” , nevertheless war was a regular part of life. Particularly it was a factor which determined the identity of the citizen and his ability to have social rights giving him the privilege to be a part of the “polis” (State). A metal-smith or farmer could be occupied during the Winter and Autumn on his work while on Spring and Summer time could serve as a hoplite (soldier). Sparta was a unique exception among all the Greek city states. The citizen had no other occupation except from war, thus he was serving the most part of his life as a hoplite. Sparta had thus the ability to provide a fully trained and functional army in any time of the year ready to confront enemies  both in land or through marine-warfare. But even if the famous Spartan phalanx had successfully ruled the battlefields against Persians and a series of other Greek states (Plataia 479BC, Mantineia 418 BC , Aegospotami 405 BC) , there  were examples that it was defeated  revealing  that it wasn’t invicible or unbowed. The modern military reformations  along with the straitness of the Spartan army to adopt to these changes gave some noticeable defeats (Sphacteria 425BC , Lecheon 390BC , Leuctra 371BC).

The Classical period even though it was only about 150 years long , it included a vast number of military realignments and reforms. So, during the Persian wars the Spartan hoplite was using a late type of the so-called “bell cuirass” along with a series of “tube and yoke” cuirasses. During the Peloponnesian war his body armor got lightened using mostly only a chiton/chlamys dress or some types of light “linothorax” cuirasses (body armor made of layers of linen). During the late Classical period the body armor got again “heavy” using types of “muscle cuirasses” or other light or composite “linothorax” cuirasses. The archaeological remnants of these body armors are extremely limited but along with the survived ancient Greek pottery depictions are enough to help us reconstruct a detailed appearance of those fierce warriors.

Experimental archaeology as a exceptional part of modern archaeology comes to fill the knowledge-gap and give life to those armors , answering critical questions about the nature and the functionability of those. In the following picture (Picture 1) there are some unique reconstructions of Classical Greek body-armor that could have be worn also by Spartan hoplites. The first hoplite wears a late Classical leather thorax reinforced with bronze plates and holds a heavy spear probably because he is a front-rank warrior. The second one wears a composite linothorax with mixed bronze and copper scales holding a functionable (?) double edged  axe. He could be a hoplite from the Dorian colonies in Crete using these types of axes as a cult symbol following the Minoan tradition . The trird cuirass is a full-metal linothorax with bronze scales and strips of linen. He also bears a horned helmet based on relevant findings in Southern Italy,  assuming that he could be probably a hoplite from a Sparta’s colony of Taranto in “Magna Grecia”. The fourth experimental  linothorax reconstruction is inspired by a red-figure vase of middle Classical period and is a “heavy” type having also copper plates and scales. The hoplite caries -fastened in his baldric - a “Kopis”, a sword with a forward curving blade which was  the most preferred sword among the Classical period Greek warriors.

"The Developmental Steps Of Experimental Archaeology In Greece Through Key Historical Replicative Experiments And Reconstructions"

Nikolaos Kleisiaris & Spyridon Bakas

----

Hellenic history, being the longest continuously recorded history of a nation and the one that formed the basis of our modern world, provides an ideal basis for the development of a prominent experimental archaeology sector in the country. Nonetheless, while experimental archaeology in Greece may count almost two centuries of life and some of the most important projects worldwide, it is still far from being called a mature field of knowledge.

Academic historians and archaeologists, in Greece as well as abroad, have largely focused on art philosophy and historiography and less on other more practical aspects of the Hellenic Civilisation. The only field providing standard applications with nuances of experimental archaeology is ancient monument reconstruction, yet, as this is considered a sector of its own, reference will be made only to the first of its kind that initiated the sector. The general lack of interest on archaeology’s applications resulted in Hellenic history being presented in a fossilised manner suffering visually and contextually in the hands of less-educated amateurs, propagandists, politicians and filmmakers who presented a distorted view to suit their own ends, often putting off the interest of the general public.

Yet for all the adversity and lack of proper frame of work, Greece presented in the last decades a number of highly interesting projects in the field of experimental archaeology. Individuals and organisations with public and private finance carried out experiments and/or created high quality historical reconstructions testing hypotheses on questions of the past, which had certainly an impact in reversing some of the negative prejudice against the employment of experimental archaeology in the study of Hellenic history.

In this text we, members of Association of Historical Studies KORYVANTES, are pleased to present you a non-exhaustive listing of Experimental aArchaeology work that took place in Greece in the last two centuries. It is a representative selection of the most notable instances, selected to satisfy the scope of discerning the evolution of the field in Greece, as seen from our 'non-academic' perspective. Following the tone set by our introduction, our aim is to provide a concise view of the environment in which that work took place, in order to comprehend better the actual status of experimental archaeology in Greece and thus better promote its employment in future.

‘ The evidence of use of the Composite  bows in the Mycenaean World”.

===========

Evidence for the use of the bow as a weapon in the Aegean area can be found from the Neolithic period, even though the Minoans and Mycenaeans never equaled the importance that bows generally had in oriental societies like in the Egypt or the Near Eastern military powers.

From the Aegean Bronze Age period, two main types of bow are known: the simple wooden bow (self-bow), and the composite bow made of wood, layers of horn and animal sinews. The combination of those materials enhanced the capability for longer distance,
powerful shots, and increased the stability of the draws. This evolved the simple self-bows into a more lethal weapon able to confront with great effectiveness heavy armored infantry,
while also supporting the use of Chariots as a platform of mobile-archery.

The presentation will focus on specific, but rare archaeological examples of the use of those advanced weapons in the Mycenaean Armies from the beginning of the Helladic Period
to the Collapse of the Mycenaean Palatial System while trying to answer critical questions:


-How composite bows were used against specific enemy units, and what was their effectiveness against various types of armors.

-Was it a rare weapon that was accessible only to the elite warriors or was it available to the mass of the common warriors?

-What were the various types of the Mycenaean composite bows and how were they connected to relevant types found in Egypt and the Near East.

-Is there any connection between a possible mass usage of Composite bows and other light infantry weapons, with the Bronze Age collapse?
-The presentation will be supported with a series of recent unpublished experimental reconstructions of Mycenaean armors, weapons and bows that will enhance the arguments.

«Hoplites and Ancient Greek Battle fair. From Experimental Archaeology to Experiential Learning. An insight view of Popularization methods »

====


The development in the archaeological world over the past several decades has been undoubtful and multidimentional. The several routes in which archaeology has been evolved in combination with other sciences has given us new dimensions on the understanding of an archaeological discovery. The modern needs on observing and examine the past and the history, demand new and not conventional presentational methods. Methods that have to involve the receiver and make him part of what is going to be presented.

Especially children, as the most related to this, have to be in the centre of those presentational methods and techniques. Experiential learning and interactive participations can help children to learn by  exploring, experiencing, and transact with the world around them. This form of education is not conventional. Children are allowed to learn naturally, on their own terms. Experiential education can occur via acts like creative workshops, playing, pretend playing, imaginative participations. One to one transaction enhances physical learning, a language that includes kinaesthetic activities, natural to most children.

Neuroscientists also confirm that learners who have been offered several modes of representation generate more brain activity, because they try to correlate these stimuli. Thus, stimulation of multiple sensory experiences (speech, actions, pictures, symbols) can offer deeper understanding of a new concept. This position is also reflected in Howard-Jones’ findings that simple learning games help students recall easily newly learned information. These results give rise to the elusive theory of ‘edutainment’ (experiences that combine education with the entertainment of games).
Furthermore, recent neuroscientific research adds new perspectives to better understand the role that kinaesthetic activities and movement plays in learning  stresses the importance of integrating movement activities into everyday learning.

According to him, brain-compatible learning means that educators should teach lessons along with movement, drama and the arts. Finally, a Johns Hopkins University neuroeducation research group found that intense training in visual arts, music and dance was associated with better geometric sensitivity performance . These promising results can help educators further their understanding of the ways their students learn and can provoke thinking with regard to broader educational issues.

Amateurs and archaeology. Experimental method or madness?
How do we share it all?

====

Until recently the archaeological community promoted acquired knowledge through conventional and traditional means of popularization, e.g., university publications, scientific magazines, academic conferences. Over the years the Koryvantes Association has managed through diverse activities and interactive participations to establish innovative ways of communication and new communicational channels enabling maximum effectiveness in transmitting the results of experimental archeology to the general public.