some girls in my ancient greece class were complaining last week about that week’s reading assignment. they said it was too long and too densely detailed, and i gathered they thought it was boring as well. i can see how it could be boring. it’s full of maps and archaeological references that make very little sense, like this:
‘Thus, it no longer seems likely that the woodland zonation shown in Renfrew 1962, fig. 15.1 covered the entire Greek landscape after the Ice Age, or that there were only two universal phases of erosion which produced the ‘Older Fill’ and ‘Younger Fill’ (as proposed in Bintliff 1977, following Vita-Finzi).’
personally, i thought the reading was fascinating. true, the above sentence was not, and it can be tough to wade through sentences like that in order to get to the interesting stuff. but… i really liked it. i’m a true history nerd.
one of the gems i found describes a suit of armor. formerly armor was available only in the form of a large shield that covered the whole body, but this new armor was different.
‘…it is by no means as cumbersome as often suggested, but is a sophisticated piece of smithing, which provides protection from the lower face to the thighs and allows easy movement.’
sounds good, right? then he goes on to explain:
‘However, it would require heavy internal padding, could not be put on singlehanded, and would effectively prevent the wearer standing up again if he had fallen…’
it seems to me that the ability to get up after falling down is a singularly useful quality when one is involved in combat. however, i could be wrong.
in case anyone wants the source!
Dickinson, Oliver, The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 25, 205.
[This post was imported on 4/10/14 from my old blog at satsumabug.livejournal.com.]