Spyros Bakas
University of Warsaw, Archeaology, Department Member
- History, Experimental Archaeology, Ancient Greek History, Traditional Archery, Archaeology, Reenactment, and 40 moreArchery, Living History, Hoplites, Ancient Greek Warfare, Greek and Roman Warfare, Horseback Archery, Open-Air Museums, Historical Reenacment, Open Air Musuems, Bow Archery Technology, Neolithic Archery, History of Archery, Greek Archery, Greek Vases, Scythians, Attic red-figure vases, Cultural Heritage, Heritage Tourism, Gender Archaeology, Tholos Tombs, History of Islamic Archery, Ancient Anatolia, Mycenaean era archaeology, Bronze Age Archaeology, Late Bronze Age, Aegean Bronze Age (Bronze Age Archaeology), Ancient Warfare, Mycenaean, Ancient Weapons and Warfare, Late Bronze Age Weaponry and Metallurgy, Aegean Late Bronze Age, Linear B, Aegean Archaeology, Aegean Prehistory, Mycenaean period, Mycenaean Greek, Minoan Archaeology, Hittite, Late Bronze Age archaeology, and Mediterranean prehistoryedit
- Spyros Bakas was born in Lamia, Greece in 1981. He holds an M.Sc. in Archaeology from the Archaeological Institute of... moreSpyros Bakas was born in Lamia, Greece in 1981. He holds an M.Sc. in Archaeology from the Archaeological Institute of the University of Warsaw/Poland specialising in Mycenaean Armor, and a BA in Political Science and Public Administration from the Kapodestrian University of Athens, specialising in European and International Affairs.
He has carried out extensive Academic research on Ancient Greek Archery, Mycenaean weaponry & body armors, Ancient Greek Warfare tactics, with a series of published Academic studies, lectures and presentations. He has been awarded with the International EXARC Twinning Experimental Archaeology Award (2019) for his research on the famous Bronze Age "Sintashta Bow".
He has worked as a historical consultant, stunt assistant, cast advisor in numerous International TV productions such as: History Channel "Spartan Vengeance", Ubisoft "Assasin's Creed Odyssey Live action Trailer", BBC2 "Who were the Greeks", ITV "Joanna Lumpley's Greek Odyssey", Russian Production "Arkaim, The Chariot of Time" , Hellenic TV "Skiritae, the Commandos of King Leonidas" and many more
He has lectured extensively around the world on Experimental Archaeology, Ancient Greek Warfare and Traditional Archery (i.e. Daejeon/S.Korea 2010, University of Warsaw/Poland 2010, Viminacium Museum/Serbia 2012, Lejre/Denmark 2012, Yencheon/S.Korea 2017, State Historical Museum of Moscow/Russia 2019). He has written or co-written many studies some of which have been published in British Archaeology Report (BAR-Archeopress) , SidestonePress and Nuova Antologia Militare (NAM).
He has participated in extensive archaeological missions conducted by the University of Warsaw, in Palazzolo Acreide (Sicily/Italy) and Sterdyn (Poland).
He is a member of the Society for the Promotion of Traditional Archery - SPTA (UK), member of the Society of Archer Antiquaries (UK), member of the EXARC international Organisation of Experimental Archaeology (DK) and member of the "Koryvantes" Association of Historical Studies (GR)edit
The Dendra panoply was originally discovered by Professor Paul Åström and Dr Nicolaos Verdelis, in tomb 12 in Argolis/Greece, near Midea citadel and is dated on LHIIB period. Since it is considered the first complete set of body armor... more
The Dendra panoply was originally discovered by Professor Paul Åström and Dr Nicolaos Verdelis, in tomb 12 in Argolis/Greece, near Midea citadel and is dated on LHIIB period. Since it is considered the first complete set of body armor that has ever been found in the archaeological records, it emerges a series of questions of how a warrior could perform under this panoply. The remit of this thesis is to investigate possible answers on the function and the nature of the Dendra panoply in terms of experimentation. The author uses the work of Åström and Verdelis as his primary source, but supplements it with other significant academic works on this subject. The research expands on the relevant archaeological findings and the Linear B ideograms concerning this type of armor. To better understand the function and effectiveness of the armour a series of experiments were conducted in which a replica of this armor was reconstructed and tested in the context of mobility, stability and in conjuction with the use of several weapons. This thesis mainly argues that this was intended for use by infantry who would use a spear as his main weapon, while his operational task could not have been conducted without the cooperation of light troops. It is highlighted that the Dendra panoply warrior needs a lot of open space and cannot operate efficiently in close-combat conditions. The ability of a Dendra panoply warrior to stand on a chariot, while on charge, remains doubtful.
Research Interests: Homer, Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, Aegean Bronze Age (Bronze Age Archaeology), Aegean Prehistory (Archaeology), and 15 moreMycenaean era archaeology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Ancient Greek History, Aegean Archaeology, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Minoan Archaeology, Mycenaean, Ancient Warfare, Warfare in the Ancient World, Sea Peoples, Ancient Weapons and Warfare, Ancient and medieval arms and armour, Ancient Greek Warfare, Homeric studies, and Troy Studies
The form and function of the ethnic Persian infantry of the Persian Wars is little explored, although there have been many issues correctly identified by a number of scholars. Such are stereotypes, an overeager use of Occam’s Razor and a... more
The form and function of the ethnic Persian infantry of the Persian Wars is little explored, although there have been many issues correctly identified by a number of scholars. Such are stereotypes, an overeager use of Occam’s Razor and a distinct refusal to merge data from sources of less than 100 years apart under the silent pretext of possible reforms and resets. The combination of the report of Xenophon with that of Herodotus, and then with Arrian and Strabo, identifies the Persian draftees of the home guard and of the establishments/colonies of Persians abroad. These troops may have been called Kardaka and initially trained as sparabara archers of the standing army for a 10-year period, and then, when admitted to the citizen class as reserves, they were redelegated as close-quarter battle troopers, bearing body armour. This report by Xenophon and Strabo identifies the elusive Persian cuirassiers serving with Mardonius in Herodotus as the mobilised reserve Persian infantry and elucidates Arrian’s of Kardaka, suggesting a massive rearming effort by Darius III to hoplite standards.
Research Interests: Ancient History, Achaemenid Persia, Greek Archaeology, Ancient Greek History, Pre-Islamic Persian History, and 13 moreHerodotus, Achaemenid History, Achaemenid archaeology, Greek Warfare, Achaemenids, Achaemenid Art and Archaeology, Hoplites, Ancient Weapons and Warfare, Ancient Greek Warfare, Ancient Military Tactics, Greco-Persian Wars, Battle of Thermopylae, and Battle of Plataea
This article presents data from an international experimental study on the reconstruction of the “compound” bow of Sintashta culture of bronze age South Ural, Russia. The project is carried out by a collective of researchers from Greece... more
This article presents data from an international experimental study on the reconstruction of the “compound” bow of Sintashta culture of bronze age South Ural, Russia. The project is carried out by a collective of researchers from Greece and Russia as part of the grant program of the world association of experimental archaeology EXARC - “Twinning program”. The article reviews the global context of the design features of bows of the Neolithic-Bronze Age. The features and parts of the Sintashta “compound” bow were considered, and the role of long-range weapons in the life of Sintashta society was discussed. Using authentic technologies and materials, the authors of the article managed to make four versions of the bow reconstruction prior to obtaining the correct version.
---
The content is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License. Archaeological Experiment on Reconstruction of the "Compound" Bow of the Sintashta Bronze Age Culture from the Stepnoe Cemetery exarc.net/issue-2021-2/ea/reconstruction-compound-bow-sintashta
----
Persistent Identifier: https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10579
---
The content is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License. Archaeological Experiment on Reconstruction of the "Compound" Bow of the Sintashta Bronze Age Culture from the Stepnoe Cemetery exarc.net/issue-2021-2/ea/reconstruction-compound-bow-sintashta
----
Persistent Identifier: https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10579
Research Interests: Archaeology, Experimental Archaeology, Greek Archaeology, Corded Ware Culture, Bronze Age, and 10 moreArchery, Sintashta, Traditional Archery, Ancient Weapons and Warfare, Scythian and other Eurasian Nomadic Horse Warrior Cultures, Old Russian archaeology, War chariot, Yamnaya, Experimental Archaeology Methodology, and Origin of the Composite Bow
The Hypaspist corps was an elite unit, most probably established by Philip II and inherited by Alexander the Great along with the other components of the Macedonian army. These troops were actively involved in every operation, be it... more
The Hypaspist corps was an elite unit, most probably established by Philip II and inherited by Alexander the Great along with the other components of the Macedonian army. These troops were actively involved in every operation, be it pitched battle or light infantry mission, throughout the Asian campaign and with distinction, thus igniting the interest and curiosity of many scholars.
However, in many respects, the nature of the corps remains elusive. The absence of contemporary literature together with the huge time gap to the most militarily literate source available, Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander, combine with the evolving organisation and the restructuring of the Macedonian army under Alexander to shadow the facts. Before being reformed, as Argyraspides’ elite line infantry, the Corps, which was
different from the two guard formations, fulfilled a double mission, had a wider choice of weaponry and tactics and was organised into three units, while retaining double the strength of the conventional phalanx formations, the Taxeis of sarissa-wielding line infantry.
This paper aims to review some of the basic problems of this Corps’s identity, highlighting its origins, status, functional deployment, organisation, weaponry and evolution.
However, in many respects, the nature of the corps remains elusive. The absence of contemporary literature together with the huge time gap to the most militarily literate source available, Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander, combine with the evolving organisation and the restructuring of the Macedonian army under Alexander to shadow the facts. Before being reformed, as Argyraspides’ elite line infantry, the Corps, which was
different from the two guard formations, fulfilled a double mission, had a wider choice of weaponry and tactics and was organised into three units, while retaining double the strength of the conventional phalanx formations, the Taxeis of sarissa-wielding line infantry.
This paper aims to review some of the basic problems of this Corps’s identity, highlighting its origins, status, functional deployment, organisation, weaponry and evolution.
Research Interests: Ancient History, Classical Archaeology, Hellenistic History, Greek Archaeology, Alexander the Great, and 15 moreHellenistic Bactria, Ptolemaic Egyptian History, Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Seleucid Empire, History of Ancient Macedonia, Ancient Warfare, Warfare in the Ancient World, Philip II of Macedonia, Ancient Weapons and Warfare, Hellenistic warfare, Ancient Greek Warfare, Ancient Macedonia, The Diadochoi (The Successors of Alexander III the Great), Greco-Persian Wars, and Ancient Greek Weaponry and Warfare
Ever since humankind first settled down in permanent settlements as the direct consequence of farming of grains and other crops and the raising of livestock in the Late Neolithic era, the territorial imperative has consistently dictated... more
Ever since humankind first settled down in permanent settlements as the direct consequence of farming of grains and other crops and the raising of livestock in the Late Neolithic era, the territorial imperative has consistently dictated real or imagined threats from outsiders. Consequently, people always struggled to improve means of self defence, leading to the introduction of missiles such as sling stones, spears and arrows. In the Late Neolithic, humankind built enormous fortresses. This was soon followed by the emergence of the first chariots in Sumeria ca. 2,500 BCE. Cumbersome as they were, they represented a significant step forward in the early technology of warfare. The next millennium was to bring about the perfection of the chariot as a vehicle enabling much more efficient warfare. Chariots had become far lighter, more mobile and more battle-worthy than their much more ponderous Sumerian predecessors. All late Bronze Age chariots, including Egyptian and Mycenaean, had reached the zenith of perfection attainable for that era. The Linear B Lexicon for the Construction of Mycenaean Chariots, the only one of its kind, has been produced in partnership with Koryvantes, the Association of Historical Studies (Athens).
Research Interests: Languages and Linguistics, Ancient Indo-European Languages, Aegean Bronze Age (Bronze Age Archaeology), Linguistics, Aegean Prehistory (Archaeology), and 24 moreMycenaean era archaeology, Aegean Archaeology, Minoan art and archaeology, Ancient Languages, Minoan Archaeology, Mycenaean, Aegean Late Bronze Age, Aegean Prehistory, Ancient Greek Language, Linear B, Linear A, Minoan and Mycenaean economy and administration, Minoan Linear A, Linear B, Ancient Greek Linguistics, Chariot in the Ancient Near East, Aegean Bronzeage, Chariots, Ancient Greek Warfare, Histprical Linguistics. IndoEuropean languages. Italic Group: Sabellian; Archaic Latin and Faliscan; generally Ancient Italy Linguistics and Epigraphy., Ancient Greek and Roman Warfare Archaeology and History, Mycenaean period, Linear B script, Bronze Age Collapse, and Ancient Greek Weaponry and Warfare
Archery had a dominant role in Bronze Age, especially in later period. The technological evolution from the self bows to the composites was a significant factor that affected the Warfare in several ways. Composite’s critical advantage was... more
Archery had a dominant role in Bronze Age, especially in later period. The technological evolution from the self bows to the composites was a significant factor that affected the Warfare in several ways. Composite’s critical advantage was that they can be made smaller because they retain their strength through the correlation of different materials (wood, sinew, horn). They had more strength, far more range and their small
size results in more mobility than the self bows1. The first depiction of a probable composite bow lays in the victory stele of Naram-Sin of Akkad (23rd century BC)2. It was introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in the 18th Century. The earliest example of a composite bow was found in the tomb of Ahmose Penhant (16th century BC)3 while thirty-two more have been found in the tomb of Tutankhamen4. However we do not have any archaeological examples from the Aegean Bronze Age world. This brief study will try to approach the issue of the use of composite bows in the Minoan and Mycenaean Warfare attempting to include all the possible archaeological iconographical and textual evidence that could support this argument.
size results in more mobility than the self bows1. The first depiction of a probable composite bow lays in the victory stele of Naram-Sin of Akkad (23rd century BC)2. It was introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in the 18th Century. The earliest example of a composite bow was found in the tomb of Ahmose Penhant (16th century BC)3 while thirty-two more have been found in the tomb of Tutankhamen4. However we do not have any archaeological examples from the Aegean Bronze Age world. This brief study will try to approach the issue of the use of composite bows in the Minoan and Mycenaean Warfare attempting to include all the possible archaeological iconographical and textual evidence that could support this argument.
Research Interests: Greek History, Composite Materials and Structures, Arms and Armor Studies, Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, and 31 moreAegean Bronze Age (Bronze Age Archaeology), Greek Archaeology, Mycenaean era archaeology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Ancient Greek History, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Minoan art and archaeology, Minoan Archaeology, Mycenaean, Ancient Warfare, Warfare, Warfare in the Ancient World, Bronze Age, Bow and Arrow Technology, Archery, Bow and Arrows Techniques, Late Bronze Age, The Bow and Arrow, Traditional Archery, Bronze Age warfare, Hoplites, Ancient Weapons and Warfare, Body Armor, Archery in Europe, History of Archery, Hoplite warfare, Ballistics and Armor Protection, Archaeology Archery, Aegean Bronze Age Warfare, Origin of the Composite Bow, and Composite Bow In Sumer and Akkad
Research Interests: Greek History, Anatolian Studies, Anatolian Archaeology, Greek Archaeology, Ancient Greek History, and 14 moreGreek Warfare, Bow and Arrow Technology, Archery, European Historical Archery, Traditional Archery, Ancient Greek Warfare, Traditional Archery of Middle Age, Longbow archery, History of Archery, Horseback Archery, History of Islamic Archery, Origin of the Composite Bow, Composite Bow In Sumer and Akkad, and Persian Archery
The Army of Alexander was an army made for campaigns, conquests and dedicated to the purpose of continuous expansion. But the Successors armies like the Seleucid army had a different mission. The army became ”institutional” and geared... more
The Army of Alexander was an army made for campaigns, conquests and dedicated to the purpose of continuous expansion. But the Successors armies like the Seleucid army had a different mission. The army became ”institutional” and geared towards defense, aiming to the protection of the crown and the vast lands of the Empire. The Seleucid’s “Royal Guard” is considered to have 10.000 men in various units, core of which were the “Argyraspides” (lit. Silvershields). The unit was continuing the tradition of Alexander’s “Hypaspists”, having a lot of functional similarities with the Persian “Immortals”. The “Royal Guard” was the permanent unit of the Seleucid army. The backbone of the “Silvershields” came from the Syro-Macedonian elite, or even original Macedonians called “klIrouchoi” (military colonists) who were settled in the Empire receiving land and privileges in exchange for military service.
Research Interests: Hellenistic History, Alexander the Great, Ancient Greek History, Seleucid Empire, Diadochoi, and 9 moreSeleucid kingdom, Roman Warfare, Hoplites, Ancient Greek Warfare, Greek and Roman Warfare, Seleucid Army, The Diadochoi (The Successors of Alexander III the Great), Greek hoplite, and Ancient Greek Weapons and Armour
Research Interests:
Warfare was definitely one of the most bold elements of the Ancient Greek city-state of the Classical period. Even if those societies weren’t characterized strictly as “militaristic” , nevertheless war was a regular part of life.... more
Warfare was definitely one of the most bold elements of the Ancient Greek city-state of the Classical period. Even if those societies weren’t characterized strictly as “militaristic” , nevertheless war was a regular part of life. Particularly it was a factor which determined the identity of the citizen and his ability to have social rights giving him the privilege to be a part of the “polis” (State). A metal-smith or farmer could be occupied during the Winter and Autumn on his work while on Spring and Summer time could serve as a hoplite (soldier). Sparta was a unique exception among all the Greek city states. The citizen had no other occupation except from war, thus he was serving the most part of his life as a hoplite. Sparta had thus the ability to provide a fully trained and functional army in any time of the year ready to confront enemies both in land or through marine-warfare. But even if the famous Spartan phalanx had successfully ruled the battlefields against Persians and a series of other Greek states (Plataia 479BC, Mantineia 418 BC , Aegospotami 405 BC) , there were examples that it was defeated revealing that it wasn’t invicible or unbowed. The modern military reformations along with the straitness of the Spartan army to adopt to these changes gave some noticeable defeats (Sphacteria 425BC , Lecheon 390BC , Leuctra 371BC).
The Classical period even though it was only about 150 years long , it included a vast number of military realignments and reforms. So, during the Persian wars the Spartan hoplite was using a late type of the so-called “bell cuirass” along with a series of “tube and yoke” cuirasses. During the Peloponnesian war his body armor got lightened using mostly only a chiton/chlamys dress or some types of light “linothorax” cuirasses (body armor made of layers of linen). During the late Classical period the body armor got again “heavy” using types of “muscle cuirasses” or other light or composite “linothorax” cuirasses. The archaeological remnants of these body armors are extremely limited but along with the survived ancient Greek pottery depictions are enough to help us reconstruct a detailed appearance of those fierce warriors.
Experimental archaeology as a exceptional part of modern archaeology comes to fill the knowledge-gap and give life to those armors , answering critical questions about the nature and the functionability of those. In the following picture (Picture 1) there are some unique reconstructions of Classical Greek body-armor that could have be worn also by Spartan hoplites. The first hoplite wears a late Classical leather thorax reinforced with bronze plates and holds a heavy spear probably because he is a front-rank warrior. The second one wears a composite linothorax with mixed bronze and copper scales holding a functionable (?) double edged axe. He could be a hoplite from the Dorian colonies in Crete using these types of axes as a cult symbol following the Minoan tradition . The trird cuirass is a full-metal linothorax with bronze scales and strips of linen. He also bears a horned helmet based on relevant findings in Southern Italy, assuming that he could be probably a hoplite from a Sparta’s colony of Taranto in “Magna Grecia”. The fourth experimental linothorax reconstruction is inspired by a red-figure vase of middle Classical period and is a “heavy” type having also copper plates and scales. The hoplite caries -fastened in his baldric - a “Kopis”, a sword with a forward curving blade which was the most preferred sword among the Classical period Greek warriors.
The Classical period even though it was only about 150 years long , it included a vast number of military realignments and reforms. So, during the Persian wars the Spartan hoplite was using a late type of the so-called “bell cuirass” along with a series of “tube and yoke” cuirasses. During the Peloponnesian war his body armor got lightened using mostly only a chiton/chlamys dress or some types of light “linothorax” cuirasses (body armor made of layers of linen). During the late Classical period the body armor got again “heavy” using types of “muscle cuirasses” or other light or composite “linothorax” cuirasses. The archaeological remnants of these body armors are extremely limited but along with the survived ancient Greek pottery depictions are enough to help us reconstruct a detailed appearance of those fierce warriors.
Experimental archaeology as a exceptional part of modern archaeology comes to fill the knowledge-gap and give life to those armors , answering critical questions about the nature and the functionability of those. In the following picture (Picture 1) there are some unique reconstructions of Classical Greek body-armor that could have be worn also by Spartan hoplites. The first hoplite wears a late Classical leather thorax reinforced with bronze plates and holds a heavy spear probably because he is a front-rank warrior. The second one wears a composite linothorax with mixed bronze and copper scales holding a functionable (?) double edged axe. He could be a hoplite from the Dorian colonies in Crete using these types of axes as a cult symbol following the Minoan tradition . The trird cuirass is a full-metal linothorax with bronze scales and strips of linen. He also bears a horned helmet based on relevant findings in Southern Italy, assuming that he could be probably a hoplite from a Sparta’s colony of Taranto in “Magna Grecia”. The fourth experimental linothorax reconstruction is inspired by a red-figure vase of middle Classical period and is a “heavy” type having also copper plates and scales. The hoplite caries -fastened in his baldric - a “Kopis”, a sword with a forward curving blade which was the most preferred sword among the Classical period Greek warriors.
Research Interests: Ancient History, Archaeology, Experimental Archaeology, War Studies, Sparta, and 10 moreSpartan history & modern reception, Ancient Warfare, Greco-Roman World, Hoplites, Ancient Weapons and Warfare, Ancient Greek Warfare, Greek-Persian relations, Hoplite warfare, Greco-Persian Wars, and Greek phalanx
"The Developmental Steps Of Experimental Archaeology In Greece Through Key Historical Replicative Experiments And Reconstructions" Nikolaos Kleisiaris & Spyridon Bakas ---- Hellenic history, being the longest continuously... more
"The Developmental Steps Of Experimental Archaeology In Greece Through Key Historical Replicative Experiments And Reconstructions"
Nikolaos Kleisiaris & Spyridon Bakas
----
Hellenic history, being the longest continuously recorded history of a nation and the one that formed the basis of our modern world, provides an ideal basis for the development of a prominent experimental archaeology sector in the country. Nonetheless, while experimental archaeology in Greece may count almost two centuries of life and some of the most important projects worldwide, it is still far from being called a mature field of knowledge.
Academic historians and archaeologists, in Greece as well as abroad, have largely focused on art philosophy and historiography and less on other more practical aspects of the Hellenic Civilisation. The only field providing standard applications with nuances of experimental archaeology is ancient monument reconstruction, yet, as this is considered a sector of its own, reference will be made only to the first of its kind that initiated the sector. The general lack of interest on archaeology’s applications resulted in Hellenic history being presented in a fossilised manner suffering visually and contextually in the hands of less-educated amateurs, propagandists, politicians and filmmakers who presented a distorted view to suit their own ends, often putting off the interest of the general public.
Yet for all the adversity and lack of proper frame of work, Greece presented in the last decades a number of highly interesting projects in the field of experimental archaeology. Individuals and organisations with public and private finance carried out experiments and/or created high quality historical reconstructions testing hypotheses on questions of the past, which had certainly an impact in reversing some of the negative prejudice against the employment of experimental archaeology in the study of Hellenic history.
In this text we, members of Association of Historical Studies KORYVANTES, are pleased to present you a non-exhaustive listing of Experimental aArchaeology work that took place in Greece in the last two centuries. It is a representative selection of the most notable instances, selected to satisfy the scope of discerning the evolution of the field in Greece, as seen from our 'non-academic' perspective. Following the tone set by our introduction, our aim is to provide a concise view of the environment in which that work took place, in order to comprehend better the actual status of experimental archaeology in Greece and thus better promote its employment in future.
Nikolaos Kleisiaris & Spyridon Bakas
----
Hellenic history, being the longest continuously recorded history of a nation and the one that formed the basis of our modern world, provides an ideal basis for the development of a prominent experimental archaeology sector in the country. Nonetheless, while experimental archaeology in Greece may count almost two centuries of life and some of the most important projects worldwide, it is still far from being called a mature field of knowledge.
Academic historians and archaeologists, in Greece as well as abroad, have largely focused on art philosophy and historiography and less on other more practical aspects of the Hellenic Civilisation. The only field providing standard applications with nuances of experimental archaeology is ancient monument reconstruction, yet, as this is considered a sector of its own, reference will be made only to the first of its kind that initiated the sector. The general lack of interest on archaeology’s applications resulted in Hellenic history being presented in a fossilised manner suffering visually and contextually in the hands of less-educated amateurs, propagandists, politicians and filmmakers who presented a distorted view to suit their own ends, often putting off the interest of the general public.
Yet for all the adversity and lack of proper frame of work, Greece presented in the last decades a number of highly interesting projects in the field of experimental archaeology. Individuals and organisations with public and private finance carried out experiments and/or created high quality historical reconstructions testing hypotheses on questions of the past, which had certainly an impact in reversing some of the negative prejudice against the employment of experimental archaeology in the study of Hellenic history.
In this text we, members of Association of Historical Studies KORYVANTES, are pleased to present you a non-exhaustive listing of Experimental aArchaeology work that took place in Greece in the last two centuries. It is a representative selection of the most notable instances, selected to satisfy the scope of discerning the evolution of the field in Greece, as seen from our 'non-academic' perspective. Following the tone set by our introduction, our aim is to provide a concise view of the environment in which that work took place, in order to comprehend better the actual status of experimental archaeology in Greece and thus better promote its employment in future.
Research Interests:
‘ The evidence of use of the Composite bows in the Mycenaean World”. =========== Evidence for the use of the bow as a weapon in the Aegean area can be found from the Neolithic period, even though the Minoans and Mycenaeans never... more
‘ The evidence of use of the Composite bows in the Mycenaean World”.
===========
Evidence for the use of the bow as a weapon in the Aegean area can be found from the Neolithic period, even though the Minoans and Mycenaeans never equaled the importance that bows generally had in oriental societies like in the Egypt or the Near Eastern military powers.
From the Aegean Bronze Age period, two main types of bow are known: the simple wooden bow (self-bow), and the composite bow made of wood, layers of horn and animal sinews. The combination of those materials enhanced the capability for longer distance,
powerful shots, and increased the stability of the draws. This evolved the simple self-bows into a more lethal weapon able to confront with great effectiveness heavy armored infantry,
while also supporting the use of Chariots as a platform of mobile-archery.
The presentation will focus on specific, but rare archaeological examples of the use of those advanced weapons in the Mycenaean Armies from the beginning of the Helladic Period
to the Collapse of the Mycenaean Palatial System while trying to answer critical questions:
-How composite bows were used against specific enemy units, and what was their effectiveness against various types of armors.
-Was it a rare weapon that was accessible only to the elite warriors or was it available to the mass of the common warriors?
-What were the various types of the Mycenaean composite bows and how were they connected to relevant types found in Egypt and the Near East.
-Is there any connection between a possible mass usage of Composite bows and other light infantry weapons, with the Bronze Age collapse?
-The presentation will be supported with a series of recent unpublished experimental reconstructions of Mycenaean armors, weapons and bows that will enhance the arguments.
===========
Evidence for the use of the bow as a weapon in the Aegean area can be found from the Neolithic period, even though the Minoans and Mycenaeans never equaled the importance that bows generally had in oriental societies like in the Egypt or the Near Eastern military powers.
From the Aegean Bronze Age period, two main types of bow are known: the simple wooden bow (self-bow), and the composite bow made of wood, layers of horn and animal sinews. The combination of those materials enhanced the capability for longer distance,
powerful shots, and increased the stability of the draws. This evolved the simple self-bows into a more lethal weapon able to confront with great effectiveness heavy armored infantry,
while also supporting the use of Chariots as a platform of mobile-archery.
The presentation will focus on specific, but rare archaeological examples of the use of those advanced weapons in the Mycenaean Armies from the beginning of the Helladic Period
to the Collapse of the Mycenaean Palatial System while trying to answer critical questions:
-How composite bows were used against specific enemy units, and what was their effectiveness against various types of armors.
-Was it a rare weapon that was accessible only to the elite warriors or was it available to the mass of the common warriors?
-What were the various types of the Mycenaean composite bows and how were they connected to relevant types found in Egypt and the Near East.
-Is there any connection between a possible mass usage of Composite bows and other light infantry weapons, with the Bronze Age collapse?
-The presentation will be supported with a series of recent unpublished experimental reconstructions of Mycenaean armors, weapons and bows that will enhance the arguments.
Research Interests:
«Hoplites and Ancient Greek Battle fair. From Experimental Archaeology to Experiential Learning. An insight view of Popularization methods » ==== The development in the archaeological world over the past several decades has been... more
«Hoplites and Ancient Greek Battle fair. From Experimental Archaeology to Experiential Learning. An insight view of Popularization methods »
====
The development in the archaeological world over the past several decades has been undoubtful and multidimentional. The several routes in which archaeology has been evolved in combination with other sciences has given us new dimensions on the understanding of an archaeological discovery. The modern needs on observing and examine the past and the history, demand new and not conventional presentational methods. Methods that have to involve the receiver and make him part of what is going to be presented.
Especially children, as the most related to this, have to be in the centre of those presentational methods and techniques. Experiential learning and interactive participations can help children to learn by exploring, experiencing, and transact with the world around them. This form of education is not conventional. Children are allowed to learn naturally, on their own terms. Experiential education can occur via acts like creative workshops, playing, pretend playing, imaginative participations. One to one transaction enhances physical learning, a language that includes kinaesthetic activities, natural to most children.
Neuroscientists also confirm that learners who have been offered several modes of representation generate more brain activity, because they try to correlate these stimuli. Thus, stimulation of multiple sensory experiences (speech, actions, pictures, symbols) can offer deeper understanding of a new concept. This position is also reflected in Howard-Jones’ findings that simple learning games help students recall easily newly learned information. These results give rise to the elusive theory of ‘edutainment’ (experiences that combine education with the entertainment of games).
Furthermore, recent neuroscientific research adds new perspectives to better understand the role that kinaesthetic activities and movement plays in learning stresses the importance of integrating movement activities into everyday learning.
According to him, brain-compatible learning means that educators should teach lessons along with movement, drama and the arts. Finally, a Johns Hopkins University neuroeducation research group found that intense training in visual arts, music and dance was associated with better geometric sensitivity performance . These promising results can help educators further their understanding of the ways their students learn and can provoke thinking with regard to broader educational issues.
====
The development in the archaeological world over the past several decades has been undoubtful and multidimentional. The several routes in which archaeology has been evolved in combination with other sciences has given us new dimensions on the understanding of an archaeological discovery. The modern needs on observing and examine the past and the history, demand new and not conventional presentational methods. Methods that have to involve the receiver and make him part of what is going to be presented.
Especially children, as the most related to this, have to be in the centre of those presentational methods and techniques. Experiential learning and interactive participations can help children to learn by exploring, experiencing, and transact with the world around them. This form of education is not conventional. Children are allowed to learn naturally, on their own terms. Experiential education can occur via acts like creative workshops, playing, pretend playing, imaginative participations. One to one transaction enhances physical learning, a language that includes kinaesthetic activities, natural to most children.
Neuroscientists also confirm that learners who have been offered several modes of representation generate more brain activity, because they try to correlate these stimuli. Thus, stimulation of multiple sensory experiences (speech, actions, pictures, symbols) can offer deeper understanding of a new concept. This position is also reflected in Howard-Jones’ findings that simple learning games help students recall easily newly learned information. These results give rise to the elusive theory of ‘edutainment’ (experiences that combine education with the entertainment of games).
Furthermore, recent neuroscientific research adds new perspectives to better understand the role that kinaesthetic activities and movement plays in learning stresses the importance of integrating movement activities into everyday learning.
According to him, brain-compatible learning means that educators should teach lessons along with movement, drama and the arts. Finally, a Johns Hopkins University neuroeducation research group found that intense training in visual arts, music and dance was associated with better geometric sensitivity performance . These promising results can help educators further their understanding of the ways their students learn and can provoke thinking with regard to broader educational issues.
Research Interests:
:“The Development of Classical Archery and it’s Athletes”
Research Interests:
Amateurs and archaeology. Experimental method or madness? How do we share it all? ==== Until recently the archaeological community promoted acquired knowledge through conventional and traditional means of popularization, e.g.,... more
Amateurs and archaeology. Experimental method or madness?
How do we share it all?
====
Until recently the archaeological community promoted acquired knowledge through conventional and traditional means of popularization, e.g., university publications, scientific magazines, academic conferences. Over the years the Koryvantes Association has managed through diverse activities and interactive participations to establish innovative ways of communication and new communicational channels enabling maximum effectiveness in transmitting the results of experimental archeology to the general public.
How do we share it all?
====
Until recently the archaeological community promoted acquired knowledge through conventional and traditional means of popularization, e.g., university publications, scientific magazines, academic conferences. Over the years the Koryvantes Association has managed through diverse activities and interactive participations to establish innovative ways of communication and new communicational channels enabling maximum effectiveness in transmitting the results of experimental archeology to the general public.
Research Interests:
"The Archery in Greece. More than 3.500 years of history" (In French)
"Tir à l'arc" Magazine,
Issue 51,
February-March-April 2021,
ISSN 1964-9576
Translated from English to French by Raphael Rambur
"Tir à l'arc" Magazine,
Issue 51,
February-March-April 2021,
ISSN 1964-9576
Translated from English to French by Raphael Rambur