pothos.org

I'm curious what everyone thinks the sarissa might have been made of. Is it the cornel wood as so many have claimed (e.g. Hammond, Lane Fox, Markle, etc.) or the ash as has been postulated by Sekunda? What do you think: cornel or ash?

It's looking very lonely in here....

Paralus wrote:It's looking very lonely in here....

It is, isn't it? I did vote, by the way; I just didn't write a message (as I didn't feel I had anything particular to say on the issue).

ATB

Yeah, what's going on here!

Admittedly, I wasn't looking for a big discussion (though it would be nice). I just wanted to know what the folks on the forum thought when it came to the makeup of the sarissa. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before (viz. cornel vs. ash) and I just wanted to throw it out there.

Nicholas Sekunda makes some interesting claims in the article "The Sarissa" (Acta Universitatis Lodziensis - Folia Archaeologica (23) 2001, pp.13-41) which counters the claims of others, including M. Markle. I'm just reading it a second time now to get a better understanding, but he makes some interesting points (e.g. the sarissa was made of ash, he's not convinced a sarissa spearhead or butt spike has been found or properly identified, the general shape of the sarissa-head).

He does not, however, touch on the supposed 'coupling' as identified by Andronicos. I was a bit disappointed by this as I am very fascinated with the sarissa's construction. Does anyone have any insight about the possible 'coupling'?

This is the infamous starburst shield sculpture from the foundations of the main apse of the Basilica di San Marco in Venice. Eugenio Polito suggested in 1998 that the spear shaft extending to the upper lefthand corner of the block is a sarissa. He did not say why, but I have made the following argument elsewhere. The point of the spearhead appears to extend precisely to the square upper lefthand corner, which is an original corner. Obviously the corners on the righthand edge of the block are not original, since it has been fractured away from another part on this side. However, symmetry arguments would suggest that the spear shaft should have terminated at the original bottom righthand corner. If so, then this shaft was about 3.5m in length. The shield appears to be a lifesize phalangite type (diameter 70cm). Hence the "spear" would fall into the length range for a sarissa. The spearhead is actually quite similar to the spearhead discovered in the warrior grave at Aegae together with a "connector" and sauroter.



The Aegae find appears to have been the basis for this reconstruction:



Not sure whether cornel or ash. What are the issues? Why not either or both, since it may have had two sections?

Best wishes,

Andrew

P.S. The images are slightly cropped by the Pothos window width, but you can right click on them, select properties and copy the address into your browser's address bar to see them entire.

Taphoi wrote: However, symmetry arguments would suggest that the spear shaft should have terminated at the original bottom righthand corner. If so, then this shaft was about 3.5m in length. The shield appears to be a lifesize phalangite type (diameter 70cm). Hence the "spear" would fall into the length range for a sarissa. The spearhead is actually quite similar to the spearhead discovered in the warrior grave at Aegae together with a "connector" and sauroter.

Firstly, that is damage to the stone to the right of the apsis? Difficult to make out just what it is.

Evidently the stone is rectangular and quite wide. I have not printed the photograph; merely measured where the “sarisa” would end in line with the bottom (extended) edge of the stone. If the aspis is 70cm my guesstimate is just short of 3 metres. That would make a 10 foot length. Were it 3.5 metres we have a spear of 11.5 feet. If these estimates are near to correct this is almost certainly a xyston of the sort depicted in the Kinch tomb or the Alexander mosaic.

The references to sarisae (Asclepiodotus / Theophrastus) indicate a length of between 15-18 feet or 4.6-5.4 metres. By the time of Polybius they had grown somewhat (18.29.2):

For since, when it has closed up for action, each man, with his arms, occupies a space of three feet in breadth, and the length of the pikes is according to the original design sixteen cubits (7.2m), but as adapted to actual need fourteen cubits (6.3m).

I don’t imagine we have a provenance for this stone? It would be interesting to know in which century it was sculpted. Why in Italy?

Either way, 3-3.5m is not long enough for a sarisa – if the measurements we are guessing are correct. One can imagine the Macedonian mustering officer exclaiming in a Sean Connery brogue: “Isn’t that just like an Amphipolitan; brings a xyston to a sarisa phalanx”.

Taphoi wrote: Not sure whether cornel or ash. What are the issues? Why not either or both, since it may have had two sections?

Sekunda quotes the famous passage (Hist. Plant. 3.12.1-2) from Theophrastus:

The wood of the male tree has no heart, but is hard throughout, like horn in closeness and strength; whereas that of the female tree has heartwood and is softer and goes into holes; wherefore it is useless for javelins. The height of the male tree is at most twelve cubits (5.4m), the length of the longest sarisa, the stem up to the point where it divides not being very tall.

Sekunda observes that the weapon actually under discussion is the javelin as the “female” tree is no good for making same. The male tree is though and is “at most” (that is, not always) the height of an 18 foot odd sarisa. The trunk is not – it splits early.

Sekunda’s argument (far more involved and citing much other evidence) is that the ash was a far more ready and reliable wood for the sarisa: easy to use and long of trunk. Such a tree enables the trunk to be split lengthwise providing many a “blank”.

Sekunda also addresses the pike point. The wide leaf shaped point claimed by Andronikos as sarisa is likely not. What is clear from the few descriptions of the weapon in use is that it was designed to penetrate defences: armour and shields. This is difficult to achieve with a wide blade. A narrower, smaller blade is much more adept at such work.

The shield is interesting: yet another “starburst”. Certainly could be phalangite at about 70cm though there are many shields in the archaeological record from hoplite aspis types to phalangite “pelte” and several in between (the deeply bowled types, etc). The "starburst" is not exactly that of the classic Macedonian type: they look like so many "nine-pins" as opposed to the quite pointed "rays" on extant Macedonian shield coverings, tomb art etc. Also no other decoration is present (or, as in the case of the successor kingdoms, dynast's "ID")





What is often forgotten is that the need to hold a sarisa with two hands did not mean a phalangite’s shield had to be 60-70cm. Larger shields were used as well.

Paralus wrote:Firstly, that is damage to the stone to the right of the apsis? Difficult to make out just what it is.

It is a pair of badly damaged greaves in high relief.

Paralus wrote:If the aspis is 70cm my guesstimate is just short of 3 metres. That would make a 10 foot length. Were it 3.5 metres we have a spear of 11.5 feet. If these estimates are near to correct this is almost certainly a xyston of the sort depicted in the Kinch tomb or the Alexander mosaic.

Since you are using xyston for what I would call a cavalry sarissa, I cannot disagree. The terms are used almost interchangeably. For instance:

Hammond, Philip of Macedon, p.19 wrote:He [Philip] planned also to equip the cavalryman with a counter-weighted lance (xyston or sarissa) some nine feet long...

Whereas xyston is certainly used to describe the lance of a Macedonian cavalryman, it is also used by Josephus, for example, to describe the throwing javelins of the Roman infantry. It is therefore a little ambiguous.

It is difficult to estimate the length of the sarissa in the sculpture exactly, because there is some perspective on the photos. It is true to say that 3.5m is an upper estimate and 3m towards the lower end. I agree this puts it in the middle of the range for a cavalry sarissa. This suits me well, since it associates the sculpture more directly with Alexander: as you say, he wields a cavalry sarissa in the Alexander Mosaic.

Paralus wrote:I don’t imagine we have a provenance for this stone? It would be interesting to know in which century it was sculpted.

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.

Paralus wrote:Sekunda also addresses the pike point. The wide leaf shaped point claimed by Andronikos as sarisa is likely not.

The rider in the Kinch tomb has a leaf blade spearpoint at the rear end of his lance (the mural was destroyed at its front end.) The sarissa found in the warrior grave at Aegae had a spike point end and a leaf blade end, as well as the connector. A spike point is better against metal plate armour, but a leaf blade may be better against other things (e.g. a linothorax?)

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

Paralus wrote:Firstly, that is damage to the stone to the right of the apsis? Difficult to make out just what it is.

It is a pair of badly damaged greaves in high relief.

I was adding the photos and a question to last night’s post composed whilst editing something for someone else. I thought possibly greaves but the image did not allow a reasonable guess. Thanks.

Taphoi wrote:Since you are using xyston for what I would call a cavalry sarissa, I cannot disagree. The terms are used almost interchangeably. For instance:

Hammond, Philip of Macedon, p.19 wrote:He [Philip] planned also to equip the cavalryman with a counter-weighted lance (xyston or sarissa) some nine feet long...

Whereas xyston is certainly used to describe the lance of a Macedonian cavalryman, it is also used by Josephus, for example, to describe the throwing javelins of the Roman infantry. It is therefore a little ambiguous.

Josephus aside, the ambiguity arises in classical times and into the first half of the fourth century. The xyston, as the cavalry weapon of the Macedonians, is settled by PhilipII and Alexander. They are clearly described in (the better attested) Alexander period as using same (the Granicus is a good example).

In the period after Alexander’s death the ambiguity is removed. This, l imagine, due to the fact we now have multiple dynasts and no single “companion cavalry” et al. At Gaza, for example, the Macedonian heavy cavalry is called xystophoroi. A term which, had it been applied by Alexander historians, might have scuppered Markle’s 15-18’ cavalry sarisa before it began.

Taphoi wrote:It is difficult to estimate the length of the sarissa in the sculpture exactly, because there is some perspective on the photos. It is true to say that 3.5m is an upper estimate and 3m towards the lower end. I agree this puts it in the middle of the range for a cavalry sarissa. This suits me well, since it associates the sculpture more directly with Alexander: as you say, he wields a cavalry sarissa in the Alexander Mosaic [...] Eugenio Polito assumed it had been imported to Venice from "the Eastern Mediterranean" and dated it to the third century BC.

Which answers the question of why Italy: Alexander in St Marks.

Taphoi wrote:The rider in the Kinch tomb has a leaf blade spearpoint at the rear end of his lance (the mural was destroyed at its front end.) The sarissa found in the warrior grave at Aegae had a spike point end and a leaf blade end, as well as the connector. A spike point is better against metal plate armour, but a leaf blade may be better against other things (e.g. a linothorax?)

I failed to mention that Sekunda argues that the cavalry xyston almost certainly possessed a wide leaf shaped blade (of the sort, if not size, of Andronikos). If we ignore the heroic (Homeric) descriptions of Alexander charging Persian royalty and transfixing them, the descriptions of the cavalry xyston in use are all of thrusting and stabbing – particularly at exposed regions: faces for example. This makes inordinate sense when on a horse with no modern saddle or stirrups. Therefore the blade was designed to inflict maximum injury. A wider leaf would achieve this whereas the slender point would bury itself.

Hence some of those wide large blades he ascribes to hunting spears: maximum wounding.

I would not worry too much over the size of things on this monument; at a scale of 1:1 the greaves are the same height as the shield diameter ie 70cms, that comes to my mid thigh, fine for cricket pads but too big for greaves. The fact that there are greaves and a shield would indicate that the equipment shown is an infantryman's and not a cavalryman's. It is a bummer that the portion with the interesting parts, viz the putative joiner and the butt-spike are missing.

The composition does recall, say, the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles so a Ptolemaic context seems likely given the stone. Unless Aemillius Paullus or Flaminius were from the Veneto, but then we would expect the original monument to exist in some form. Venice was trading with Egypt in the twelth century, going so far as to deflect the Fourth Crusade for her trading partner, what is the date of the structure where it now rests? A merchant with antiquarian leanings might well have picked it up as some decorative ballast. The sunburst may well have been thought symbolic of Christ and so the spear would become that of Longinus.

I have always seen 'lancea' rendered as 'longche', auxilia did use long thrusting spears too so Josephus by not be in error, is there a reference?

Hi Agesliaos,

agesilaos wrote:I would not worry too much over the size of things on this monument; at a scale of 1:1 the greaves are the same height as the shield diameter ie 70cms, that comes to my mid thigh, fine for cricket pads but too big for greaves.

There are two greaves staggered in height on the block. The individual greaves are to scale. So too is the kopis sword suspended from a taselled belt on the lefthand side. The monument is at precisely lifesize scale. Here are some more pix:

agesilaos wrote:The fact that there are greaves and a shield would indicate that the equipment shown is an infantryman's and not a cavalryman's.

Alexander, for example and according to certain Pothosians, fought on foot and as a cavalryman in various circumstances.

agesilaos wrote:The composition does recall, say, the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles so a Ptolemaic context seems likely given the stone.

Yes! I have made great play of this in The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great. Note especially that the kopis sword slung diagonally from a tasselled belt is present in both. Here is Lyson & Kallikles:

agesilaos wrote:Venice was trading with Egypt in the twelth century, going so far as to deflect the Fourth Crusade for her trading partner, what is the date of the structure where it now rests? A merchant with antiquarian leanings might well have picked it up as some decorative ballast. The sunburst may well have been thought symbolic of Christ and so the spear would become that of Longinus.

That won't play. The current Basilica in Venice dates to the later 11th century. The block was embedded in the foundations of the main apse, which was common to the original 9th century church of St Mark, constructed to house the putative remains of the saint from Alexandria. The block was embedded no later than the 11th century and may well have been put there at the time of construction in the 9th century.

agesilaos wrote:I have always seen 'lancea' rendered as 'longche', auxilia did use long thrusting spears too so Josephus by not be in error, is there a reference?

It's in Bellum Judaicum somewhere. I don't have an exact reference to hand. Received opinion is that he's referring to a pilum using xyston.

Best wishes,

Andrew

That gives perspective. My immediate thought is that this shield - if it is Macedonian - is not of a date that would see it as Alexander's. This is a deeply bowled aspis of the type depicted on the monument of Amelius Paullus and is unlikely to be contiguous with Alexander III. Further, the King will have had a more ornate shield than a simple phalangite model I would suspect.

As to fighting on foot, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Alexander, when required, comanded the infantry on foot; it is attested many times in the sources. That he did so with the average infantry aspis is unlikely though. Many proponents in the current debate argue strongly that the hypapspists carried the "Argolic apspsis" (hoplite shield). I would suggest they carried a shield in the order of 75-80 cm with porpax and rim grip - but that's another argument. The king will have surely carried something a little more ornate.

In any case, Alexander is unlikely to have been identified via "infantry arms"; particularly a shield of later Macedonian origin.

Can't say I can make out two greaves, but that's frequently easier to make out in situ rather than on a photo.

Thanks, for the heads-up on the dates, how inconvenient, but what's a bit of uninformed speculation among friends? Still a little unclear as to its location ; was the decorated side uppermost or was it merely being used as a block, the relief inwards? The supposed Christian symbolism (supposed by the Mediaevals,that is) would still apply. Were it just a block I should think the provenance were local; that sort of ad hoc work was done for convenience after all.

Due to the positioning of the kopis we clearly have the corner of a frieze, or possibly a monument, though I would say the unity of subject indicates otherwise.

I presume, Taphoi, you think it might be part of the 'Soma'; since the work obviously spanned many years arguments from the style of the shield must be moot, there is little to compare it with but coins show similar shields, certainly under Gonatus and probably earlier. Nor would the fact that the arms are not really Royal be an impediment; Diodorus describes the sixth level of Hephaistion's pyre as 'covered with Macdonian and barbarian arms' XVII 115 iv, such may have been considered suitable for Alexander's Mausoleum. It could just as easily be the tomb of a more lowly soul, however: probably more easily

paralus wrote:My immediate thought is that this shield - if it is Macedonian - is not of a date that would see it as Alexander's. This is a deeply bowled aspis of the type depicted on the monument of Amelius Paullus and is unlikely to be contiguous with Alexander III. Further, the King will have had a more ornate shield than a simple phalangite model I would suspect.

Deep bowling is not a problem for an early date for this shield, but I note that the Soma mausoleum in Alexandria was built by Philopator in 215BC. We cannot tell how ornate the starburst shield was, because it would originally have been painted, so could have had filigree decoration. Despite the fact that an ornate ceremonial shield was found in Tomb II at Aegae, we cannot be sure how ornate or otherwise Alexander's battle shields were. Starburst shields like this one appear on Macedonian coins and in several Macedonian mural paintings. Phalangite and hoplite shields are commonly interspersed on Macedonian monuments (see "A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of Macedonian Shield Types", Minor Markle, Hesperia 68.2, 1999)

agesilaos wrote:Can't say I can make out two greaves, but that's frequently easier to make out in situ rather than on a photo.

The bottom of the upper greave is at approximately the level of the lowest part of the star design.

agesilaos wrote:Still a little unclear as to its location ; was the decorated side uppermost or was it merely being used as a block, the relief inwards? The supposed Christian symbolism (supposed by the Mediaevals,that is) would still apply.

It was shield face upwards embedded in the stone foundation layer an on the level of the floor of the crypt - there is a diagram showing exactly where it was found in The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great.

agesilaos wrote:I presume, Taphoi, you think it might be part of the 'Soma'; since the work obviously spanned many years arguments from the style of the shield must be moot, there is little to compare it with but coins show similar shields, certainly under Gonatus and probably earlier. Nor would the fact that the arms are not really Royal be an impediment; Diodorus describes the sixth level of Hephaistion's pyre as 'covered with Macdonian and barbarian arms' XVII 115 iv, such may have been considered suitable for Alexander's Mausoleum. It could just as easily be the tomb of a more lowly soul, however: probably more easily

What we know is that this is a quintessentially Macedonian funerary frieze that lay within 8m of an ancient set of human remains brought from Alexandria to Venice in AD828 and was embedded in the oldest part of the foundations of the church built to house those remains. We can also see that it was of stupendous quality (though now horribly mutilated). The stone is virtually marble quality and toughness, yet its sculptor removed some 20cm in depth across its entire surface, apparently simply to get the profile of the shield right! It would be a reasonable inference that the sculpture might have been brought to Venice from Alexandria with the supposed remains of St Mark, just on the grounds that Alexandria had Macedonian rulers and Venice didn't. Eugenio Polito (a noted expert on Macedonian monuments) dated the sculpture to the third century BC or the very early 2nd century BC in 1998 without any suspicion of a connection with Alexander. The date of the Soma Mausoleum is at the precise centre of his range. I published my suspicions about the possible identity of the putative remains of St Mark before I knew most of these facts about the starburst shield sculpture. If the Venetians bothered to bring this block back from Alexandria, then it was probably because of some kind of association with the remains of St Mark (I don't accept the idea that the symbolism could be thought Christian - the greaves and the sword would be inconsistent at least). It is not so much a question of what I think as where the plain facts might lead us. At the very least, we are looking at a gigantic coincidence, since large chunks of Macedonian mausoleum are not exactly all that common.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote: Deep bowling is not a problem for an early date for this shield, but I note that the Soma mausoleum in Alexandria was built by Philopator in 215BC. We cannot tell how ornate the starburst shield was, because it would originally have been painted, so could have had filigree decoration.

Well that depends upon the definition of “early”. Without digging it all out, the earliest versions of these shields occur at the beginning of the third century – at which time they still possess aspis rims. By the time of the death of the phalanx they, seemingly, are reasonably pervasive and are rimless. Either way they likely do not reflect the time of Alexander III.

Perhaps Agesilaos is correct with the observation about Hephaestion’s pyre. If so, why this particular stone?

Taphoi wrote: Starburst shields like this one appear on Macedonian coins and in several Macedonian mural paintings. Phalangite and hoplite shields are commonly interspersed on Macedonian monuments (see "A Shield Monument from Veria and the Chronology of Macedonian Shield Types", Minor Markle, Hesperia 68.2, 1999)

Indeed they do – generally better defined “starbursts” that this one (as in the images). Tomb art and iconography depicts shields of varying diameters. The tomb of Aghios Athanasios would seem to show shields of some 76cm to near 90cm: both embossed outside of the central “starburst” and painted. The apsides of Veria are shallow – as are the smaller shields.

Minor M Markle is obsessed with Macedonian “hoplite” shields. His implied theory of hoplite shields evolving, eventually, into the deeply bowled Macedonian rimless shield is attractive. It is notable that it is Macedonian (or Successor kingdom) armies that are so fitted. Perhaps sarisa armed infantry ranged against each other inspired the “deflecting” bowl to prevent sarisae penetrating a flatter aspis?

It is interesting that Asclepiodotus describes the two foot diameter, shallow shield as “the best” one for phalanx work. Clearly there were others in use. It is here that Markle misses the point. He often repeats the mantra that infantry armed with “the long Macedonian sarissa” only ever “employed the smaller telamon shield” (p 241 of the article you cite above). He further states that “hoplite” shields can “be clearly identified by their central arm-rings (porpax) and rim grips” (ibid).

The first observation would be why would a “phalangite” shield have to lack a porpax? Is one to imagine that Alexander’s asthetairoi, when assaulting Tyre from ship gangways for example, slung their shields over their shoulders? Clearly they did not use a sarisa and, one might imagine, a porpax will have been handy with the longche (or similar) in the right hand?

A second observation is that Markle’s assumption that phalanx infantry could only use Asclepiodotus’ small telamon shield so as to carry the sarisa ignores some of the only literary testimony that clearly describes sarisa-armed troops and their shields. These shields, demonstrably, are not “two foot targets”.

All that aside, I do believe that Sekunda’s argument in favour of ash is correct; as is his argument for a smaller, narrower point for penetration. That latter – penetration – comes through clearly in the sources.

Paralus wrote:Well that depends upon the definition of “early”. Without digging it all out, the earliest versions of these shields occur at the beginning of the third century – at which time they still possess aspis rims. By the time of the death of the phalanx they, seemingly, are reasonably pervasive and are rimless. Either way they likely do not reflect the time of Alexander III.

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.



Best wishes,

Andrew