Unique Mycenaean suit of armor due for conservation

Kathimerini English Edition ^ | November 3, 2006 | Iota Sykka

[SunkenCiv]

The only complete example of a Mycenaean suit of armor ever found is to be sent for conservation work, 46 years since its discovery at Dendra in the Argolid, the Central Archaeological Council (KAS) has decided... [I]t is made up of four pieces: a neckpiece, two epaulettes, a breastplate and an articulated section with three straps to protect the rest of the warrior’s torso. Broad strips of metal were fastened to a leather lining which appears to have covered the body from neck to knee. At 15 kilos, its weight must have made it hard to move in and it is believed that it was not worn on the battlefield but in circumstances where a show of prestige was in order... [T]he suit of armor was an exceptional example of Mycenaean art, the only one known to have been found that predates the Geometric era.

[SunkenCiv]

---

The Mycenean suit of armor found at Dendra in the Argolid.

---

[SunkenCiv]

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[bannie]

WOW!!!!


Bronze?

[SunkenCiv]

Apparently.

[lesser_satan]

bump

[wildbill]

Modern writers always speculate that the suits of armor couldn't really have been worn in combat because they were so heavy and awkward and so forth.

I think they should accept the fact of the armor itself and the plethora of written accounts and stop projecting their own opinions on the past.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

The three graduated bands on the bottom puzzle me. I am not in any way an expert on armor, so maybe someone can enlighten me. It seems to me that the way they are constructed, with the opening on the top of each band instead of the bottom, would guide a sword or spear right into the body (since most blows would come from above, rather than below). That seems impractical, to say the least. Anyone have thoughts on this?

[Fraxinus]

The gap at the top of the bands is probably to make movement more practical, and the threat of blows coming in through the gap is minimal, as long (16+ft)spears cannot deliver a blow from that angle and most swords of the era were slashing weapons.

I doubt that many of these scholors have any clue how the weapons and armor were actually employed.

[Question_Assumptions]

I likely explanation for these suits of armor is that they were worn on chariots, where running around wasn't required.

[Dustbunny]

Wow, excellent find.

[bannie]

The bands are probably built on the principle of collapsible cups.

Only upside down.

[SunkenCiv]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[SunkenCiv]

The bands are arranged for ease of movement (walking or running forward). Also the warrior had a shield to fend off attack, and there was also a great deal of spear use in Mycenaean warfare, just as there was in later, classical Greece.

[SunkenCiv]

Whoops! Fraxinus said it first. :')

[SunkenCiv]

15 kilogram = 33.069 339 328 lb, lbs

thanks to:

http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_common.htm

[P H Lewis]

If the wearer was on foot, then I can understand you point about how the bands overlap, but if the wearer was in a chariot fighting against an opponent on foot, then he'd have a height advantage and the way the bands overlap would make sense. Also, if the wearer was in a chariot, the weight of the armor would be less of an issue. No expert here, just my two cents.

[annie laurie]

Modern writers always speculate that the suits of armor couldn't really have been worn in combat because they were so heavy and awkward and so forth.

I think they should accept the fact of the armor itself and the plethora of written accounts and stop projecting their own opinions on the past.

So true! This belief is a perfect example of the old quote, "It's not what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we 'know' that ain't so."

I watched a live fencing and swordsmanship demonstration a few weeks ago, and the presenters spoke about this very subject. Apparently the idea that "they couldn't possibly have really worn that heavy armor in battle" has become nearly universally accepted by the general public.

The presenters demonstrated fighting and running in a full suit of armor, and even performed "rolling somersaults" (in armor!).

I wonder how the "too heavy" silliness ever got started in the first place.

[wildbill]

How the 'too heavy' silliness got started in the first place?

Have you ever taken a good look at the musculature of the average professor? Or assessed his desire to become a warrior or live in a warrior society?

nuff said.

[annie laurie]

Hmm ... you may be onto something there ;-)

[Little Ray]

Anybody who thinks they can't fight in that armor needs to watch our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They could also go to an SCA event. Those guys do some pretty serious fighting in armor weighing 30 lbs and more. Just the helmet (for safety purposes) will weigh over 10 lbs.

Hell, the Minoans had it easy - they rode to their battle in a chariot, before having to fight on foot.

Its also important to realize that these guys were "heroes." They were the elite troops. No city state could field more than a few dozen.