The Mycenaean Dendra Panoply

In May 1960 Swedish archaeologists discovered the earliest example of a beaten bronze cuirass at Dendra, dated to the end of the fifteenth century BCE (Late Helladic IIIA - about 1400 BCE). It forms part of the Late Helladic Dendra Panoply, which consists of fifteen separate pieces of bronze sheet, held together with leather thongs, that encased the wearer from neck to knees. 

The panoply was found in tomb 12 of the Dendra necropolis and had been partially plundered at some point.  But in addition to the squashed armor, archaeologists were able to recover pottery fragments, a silver toggle pin (probably used to fasten an item of clothing), a bronze oinochoe (jug), as well as various other objects of bronze, including at least one knife and a dagger, a bronze mirror, a gold-plated ring, fragments of a silver cup, fragments of boar's tusk and a pair of swords inlaid with gold and ivory.

The panoply, when restored, was found to include a back and breast plate and six bronze plates, three in front and three behind along the bottom edge of the cuirass. A throat guard protected the wearer's neck and two triangular pieces were attached to the front of the breast plate to further protect the chest. The panoply also included two shoulder guards, two pieces of bronze to protect the the upper arms, a single greave and forearm guard.  Other bronze fragments were also found that may have been the remains of a second greave and forearm guard although classicist Diane Fortenberry argued that single greaves were used to indicate rank in Mycenaean Greece.

My first impression on seeing the panoply was that it resembled remnants of a robot from "Lost in Space." I couldn't visualize a Mycenaean warrior staggering around the battlefield in that armor! Although it is dated to about 100 years before the Trojan War, can you imagine Achilles fighting in it?

Apparently, my reaction has been shared by other scholars as well.  Some scholars tried to rationalize its use as armor worn by a chariot-mounted warrior.  Joost Crouwel observes,

"While it is certainly difficult to visualize a warrior thus equipped marching to and from a battlefield in the Greek summer, it is equally difficult to see him as fighting in a chariot. If we look at contemporary oriental armour, we see that the corselets worn by Asiatic and Egyptian chariot crews are long, flexible, short-sleeved tunics, covered with many scales of bronze or leather. This type of armour […] is much less cumbersome than the Dendra panoply."

Crouwell points out that the warrior wearing the Dendra panoply would not have fought with a bow as stretching a bow would have been extremely difficult, but used  a sword, dagger or thrusting spear, close range weapons which are rendered practically useless from a moving chariot.  Instead, Crouwel suggests the Dendra warrior may have been driven to the battlefield by a charioteer where he dismounted and fought as a swordsman, as evidenced by the two swords included in the grave goods. Piotr Taracha agrees and even points out that the warrior may have fought with two swords, even though there were skeletal remains of another male buried in the tomb as well.

Although we have only this one complete panoply to date, armor of similar type appears as an ideogram on Linear B tablets from Knossos, Pylos, and Tiryns and fragmentary armor of a similar type  was recovered in Thebes in 1964. No examples of such metal armor predate the Late Helladic II period and it disappears from the archaeological record at the end of Late Helladic IIA or beginning of Late Helladic IIB (about 1300 BCE) before reappearing briefly during the Dark Ages following the fall of Mycenaean palaces about 1200 BCE.

Read more about it:

https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/encased-bronze-panoply-mycenaean-tomb-dendra/

The Mycenaean Dendra Panoply found in tomb 12 of the Dendra necropolis dating to the end of 15th century BCE now in the Archaeological Museum of Nafplion (sometimes called Nafplio or Nauplion) courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Schuppi.

Mycenaean warrior wearing Dendra-type armor, 1400-1200 BCE, by artist Christian Jégou.

Mycenaean warrior wearing Dendra-type armor, 1400-1200 BCE, by artist Christos Giannopoulos.

Ajax, wearing Dendra-type armor, heaves a large boulder at Hector's shield. by artist Peter Connolly

Mycenaean warrior wearing Dendra-type armor, 1400-1200 BCE, by artist Giuseppe Rava

Mycenaean warrior wearing Dendra-type armor, 1400-1200 BCE, by artist Giuseppe Rava

Mycenaean warrior wearing Dendra-type armor, 1400-1200 BCE, courtesy of Lāwāgetās, @ArcGreek on Twitter.

Mycenaean warrior wearing Dendra-type armor as envisioned by artist Bizfuzz on DeviantArt.

Historical reenactor wearing Dendra-type armor courtesy of Pinterest.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Neutron diffraction offers non-destructive artifact analysis

I was doing some research on an image of a "killed" Greek helmet that I photographed at the Walters Art Museum several years ago and came across this article about a relatively new non-destructive technique for analyzing artifacts to see if they are a true antiquity or have been "tampered with".

"Neutron diffraction, an established diagnostic tool for materials analysis and non-destructive testing of engineering components, can also be used to characterise archaeological artefacts and museum objects. The phase and microstructural information obtained – without damaging an object of value – can help answer questions of authenticity, as recent investigations of 16th-century silver/copper coins and an obviously repaired 7th-century BC Greek bronze helmet show.

Neutron diffraction is a rather new diagnostic tool for studying archaeological materials. Neutrons easily penetrate through thick coatings or corrosion layers and provide information from the bulk rather than from surface areas; sampling techniques such as coring or even powdering for analysis some portion of a museum object can therefore be avoided. The large neutron beams generally used illuminate a considerable volume portion of the object and, as a result, average and representative structural information is obtained – the problems associated with the si0ngle-spot analysis of many conventional archaeometric techniques are therefore avoided. Neutron diffraction provides information on the mineral and metal phase compositions or corrosion products in objects, on the crystal structures of the constituent phases and on the microstructures. In the material sciences it is widely used for volume
texture analysis, i.e. determination of the orientations of the crystallites in polycrystalline material. Many
processes such as primary crystallisation or plastic deformations impose a characteristic texture on the
material which means that, for example, details of the production method may be imprinted in the
microstructure. Mapping grain orientation distributions – a technique called texture analysis –
reveals the creation and deformation history of an object. The crystallite distribution can be displayed
via ‘pole figures’, 2D projections of the spatial orientation distribution function that are obtained by
recording diffraction patterns for a multitude of sample orientations. The structure and texture
information can therefore provide clues on the type of material and the manufacturing techniques used
by the ancient craftsmen. " - Genuine or fake? Neutron diffraction for non-destructive testing of museum objects , Isis 2003 Science Highlights.

As for the helmet they analyzed, they discovered the nose piece had been replaced and, like the helmet I photographed at the Walters, had been ritually "killed".

"It was the custom for victorious Greek cities to dedicate tropaia, ‘trophies’ of armour from the defeated, in the sanctuary of one of the gods. When the trophy collapsed from age or when the sanctuary became too full the armour was buried, but first it was ‘killed’ as part of the process of offering it to the gods: the cheekpieces were bent
back and the noseguard turned up to render the helmet useless in this world. The finder of the helmet – probably in the 19th century and in order to sell it – straightened out the cheekpieces, which cracked at the edges and left a clear fold-line running across each of them. It is also clear that the noseguard had come off altogether, probably during
similar cosmetic straightening by the finder, for there is a clear overlapping join at the bridge of the nose."

I wonder if the Romans had any special rituals for disposing of war trophies? If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!