106–7) suggests that all of them could really be parts of an armoured shoe, as he has suggested for ankle guards. Only the earliest piece has perforations for a lining attachment, but Jarva (1995, pp. Even the earlier pieces would have been very awkward to wear, more so without the hinge at the toes, and it is hardly surprising that the item is rare.
These last may be connected with the high ankle guards and be of a ceremonial nature, since they appear to date from a period long after most bronze body armour had ceased to be used in Greece. Also from Olympia is the toe section of a hinged guard dating from about 500, and finally there is the complete pair of hinged foot guards in the British Museum, which come from Ruvo in south Italy and may be from as late as the fifth century. From Olympia we have two one-piece foot guards dating from c. However, these are much rarer than ankle guards, with only four known examples. I would think that the same was true for these long ankle guards, and that parade use only is more likely.Ĭlosely related to the ankle guards are foot guards, which covered the top of the foot and the toes. I am certain that greaves were never worn by cavalry because of possible damage to the horse, and because the rider needed to be able to grip the horse with his legs. Cavalry was being more frequently used in the fifth century, especially in south Italy and Sicily, and Jackson (personal comm.) has suggested that these long ankle guards may have been for use by cavalry. They were perhaps decorative and for non-combat situations only (Jarva 1995, p. Their size would have made them difficult to wear with greaves and their length would have made walking difficult, especially in a battle situation. However, they are nearly all from south Italy and Sicily (where a provenance is known), and may have been a local derivation from the earlier Greek ankle guard. These appear to date from after 525 and even through the fifth century, because they have no perforations at the edges. These guards are about 11–13cm in height, but there is a different group of ankle guards that are much higher at the back, up to 25cm (Jarva 1995, pp. There are no convincing illustrations in art. The perforations allowed for a backing to be attached, but Jarva suggests they might have been attached to a sandal or shoe as fortified footwear. Using his perforation-dating technique, Jarva has dated examples from c. There are embossed circles on each side to allow for the ankle bone. The ankle guards are relatively simple pieces of bronze moulded to cover the back and sides of the heel, with the bronze coming over the top of the foot to be fastened by laces. 38), that the guard has much to do with the myth of Achilles’ heel, has much to recommend it. I think the idea first suggested by Yalouris (1960, p. It is a great deal of work for a part of the body that is very unlikely to be hit in battle. To have had a guard for the ankle does seem strange. 650, as might also the Praisos piece: both comfortably later than Homer. I prefer to think of the word episphyriois as referring to the metal lacing seen on Mycenaean greaves, especially since the earliest Olympia ankle guard dates only from c. The Greek could mean that greaves were well fitted to the ankle pieces, making the two pieces essentially two halves of a matched item. 104–5), following Furtwangler, sees a possible connection to the silver ‘ankle clips’ mentioned in Homer. There are no Mycenaean forebears, but Jarva (1995, pp. The earliest example comes from Praisos and is dated to about 675/650 (Snodgrass 1965a, p. 101), making it the commonest item of armour after helmets and greaves. Not nearly as common as the greave, the ankle guard is nevertheless represented by over fifty finds from Olympia (Jarva 1995, p.
0 kommentar(er)
