Saw this wandering around in a museum...
Is there anything historical here? Where did they get the inspiration from?
Even if there's not, the miniature appeals me.
(https://i.imgur.com/iWJzd7P.jpg)
https://i.imgur.com/iWJzd7P (https://i.imgur.com/iWJzd7P)
Its Greek, 4th century BC.
Any indication who or what the rider is supposed to be? Conventional wisdom would have it that Greek cavalry adopted shields only in the 3C BC, and that's a curiously shaped shield.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 03, 2019, 11:30:51 AM
Any indication who or what the rider is supposed to be? Conventional wisdom would have it that Greek cavalry adopted shields only in the 3C BC, and that's a curiously shaped shield.
From my limited understanding of Greek artistic themes, it could be a mounted Amazon. They often have fancy shields and axes - a sort of fantasy Persian style.
One of the common weapon combinations for Amazons, though that "elaborated" pelte is a bit unusual for so early a date:
http://zeevgoldmann.blogspot.com/2008/08/vi-pelta-amazon-shield.html
Sekunda argued somewhere, IIRC, that the appearance of shielded Amazon cavalry in Greek art in the 4th century reflected an adoption of shields by some Persian cavalry. Not convinced myself. You can see Thracian cavalry with peltai - slung, not in use on horseback - in even earlier art (eg here (https://www.academia.edu/744900/Odrysian_Cavalry_Arms_Equipment_and_Tactics) figure 1).
If it is indeed Amazonmachy, is it pure fantasy?
Or like the helmet in this image, or the speculative suggestion mentioned by Duncan that the appearance of Amazon shields reflected the historical Persian adoption of shields, does that axe reflect something?
I am not particularly familiar with this period or the details of Amazonia.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 03, 2019, 11:49:15 AM
One of the common weapon combinations for Amazons, though that "elaborated" pelte is a bit unusual for so early a date:
Agree. It's rather stylised. More like this
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Orient_m%C3%A9diterran%C3%A9en_de_l%27Empire_romain_-_Mosa%C3%AFque_byzantine_-5.JPG/1024px-Orient_m%C3%A9diterran%C3%A9en_de_l%27Empire_romain_-_Mosa%C3%AFque_byzantine_-5.JPG)
Are they sure its so early?
Quote from: Dangun on January 03, 2019, 12:10:51 PM
If it is indeed Amazonmachy, is it pure fantasy?
Or like the helmet in this image, or the speculative suggestion mentioned by Duncan that the appearance of Amazon shields reflected the historical Persian adoption of shields, does that axe reflect something?
Offhand, I am aware of no excavated functional double-headed axes later than the Bronze Age, except for one iron example from Punic Sicily. So I think it is no more than an artistic expression. Could be wrong, though.
If I remember correctly, we do get occasional reference to sagaris-armed cavalry in classical authors. The term seems to have embraced both battle-axe and war hammer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagaris#/media/File:Skythian_archer_Louvre_G106.jpg), and Duncan and others may have rather more to say about it than I can muster, particularly whether the term could have embraced a double-headed axe.
Sagaris means, and as far as I can see only means, the Iranian/steppe weapon with a pick-point on one side and an axe-head or hammer-head on the other. The double-bladed axe would be either labrys or pelekys. So I don't think you'll find much help looking in that direction.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 03, 2019, 12:59:31 PM
Are they sure its so early?
No, sorry. Just read the label on the wall.
If its an entirely fictional motif, its a curiously stable motif, because I believe the date on that mosaic in your post is 400AD.
I know only two data points gives us a line with only very low confidence, it makes the double headed axe unlikely the inspiration of a single sculptor. But for a motif that has persisted for at least c. 700-800 years, I am surprised to not have seen it more often.
Quote from: Dangun on January 03, 2019, 10:57:44 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on January 03, 2019, 12:59:31 PM
Are they sure its so early?
No, sorry. Just read the label on the wall.
If its an entirely fictional motif, its a curiously stable motif, because I believe the date on that mosaic in your post is 400AD.
I know only two data points gives us a line with only very low confidence, it makes the double headed axe unlikely the inspiration of a single sculptor. But for a motif that has persisted for at least c. 700-800 years, I am surprised to not have seen it more often.
These are 2nd AD Roman. From two different sources but I think the same sarcophagus.
(http://capitolini.net/images/medium/0001.foto.col.10630.jpg)
(https://pre00.deviantart.net/6ae4/th/pre/i/2018/125/e/b/capitoline_sarcophagus_with_amazonomachy___16___by_svetbird1234-dcar39n.jpg)
Just to prove there are earlier examples of the double-axe, this is from Cyprus c.330-310 BC (note extra sleeves - a sleeved cloak?)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COkHyb3UcAAqqwc.jpg)
Add : This is the earliest Amazon with a three-lobe pelta I can find c. 300 BC
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Arpi_%28daunia_meridionale%29%2C_figurine_di_amazzonomachia%2C_300_ac._ca._04.JPG/631px-Arpi_%28daunia_meridionale%29%2C_figurine_di_amazzonomachia%2C_300_ac._ca._04.JPG)
Quote from: Erpingham on January 04, 2019, 08:59:31 AM
Just to prove there are earlier examples of the double-axe, this is from Cyprus c.330-310 BC.
The original one I posted was also from Cyprus and labelled as 4th C. BC.
The double headed axe is an interestingly persistent meme. I would love to know its origin.
Quote from: Dangun on January 05, 2019, 06:47:47 AM
The double headed axe is an interestingly persistent meme. I would love to know its origin.
This page (https://www.gransforsbruk.com/en/axe-knowledge/the-history-of-the-axe/) might be a start. Scroll down to the shaft hole axes ...
May be way off-beam here but do recall axes being mentioned in relation to Phrygians - this may be from a very ancient Funken book in the 70's so treat with caution
Quote from: Ade G on January 05, 2019, 12:18:32 PM
May be way off-beam here but do recall axes being mentioned in relation to Phrygians - this may be from a very ancient Funken book in the 70's so treat with caution
Armies and Uniforms 1 Ancient Egypt to 18th century, p29. "Phrygian with Double-Axe, a much favoured weapon"
The figure is dressed very like an Amazon in Persian dress - a case of mistaken identity? The ornate three-horned pelta also makes an appearance as a Phrygian shield.
IIRC, Garrison had an armoured Phrygian axe-man in their persian range.
FWIW, it seems to me we have two types of axes associated with Amazons - the steppe type with axe blade on one side and spike on the other and a "double-axe", which seems to hark back to the Greek bronze age past. Is the double-axe a real weapon or a sign we are dealing with the heroic past?
It was a bit sad that Garrison made the really neat Phrygian Axeman figure as there was soon discovered to be no basis for it.( except in some Victorian costume book. Similarly the Gepid two handed axeman, which I think was based on Robert Graves, did nor survive scrutiny.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on January 05, 2019, 06:38:26 PM
It was a bit sad that Garrison made the really neat Phrygian Axeman figure as there was soon discovered to be no basis for it.( except in some Victorian costume book. Similarly the Gepid two handed axeman, which I think was based on Robert Graves, did nor survive scrutiny.
Roy
From memory it's this book that is at fault
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Arms-Uniforms-Ancient-Egypt-Century/dp/0706318145
It appeared in 1972 and back then I suspect a lot of us bought copies. I'm pretty sure it included the Phrygian Axeman
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 05, 2019, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: aligern on January 05, 2019, 06:38:26 PM
It was a bit sad that Garrison made the really neat Phrygian Axeman figure as there was soon discovered to be no basis for it.( except in some Victorian costume book. Similarly the Gepid two handed axeman, which I think was based on Robert Graves, did nor survive scrutiny.
Roy
From memory it's this book that is at fault
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Arms-Uniforms-Ancient-Egypt-Century/dp/0706318145
It appeared in 1972 and back then I suspect a lot of us bought copies. I'm pretty sure it included the Phrygian Axeman
See Reply #14 above.
The other favourite of the time, Saxtorph's
Warriors and Weapons, has three Phrygians. None are axemen but one is clearly based on a non-Victorian source i.e.
(http://rubens.anu.edu.au/turkey/ankara/museums/anatolian_civilizations/architecturaal_decoration/phrygia/pazarli/DSCN0699.JPG)
It can be fun (and much easier with Google) to work out the unattributed sources of Funckens, which are often Victorian costume histories, Victorian reconstructions in museums and interpretations of finds. So, the Phrygian axeman is copied directly from (including colour scheme) a book from 1884 by Friedrich Hottenroth with added axe. Another costume book from 1882 provides the armoured warrior with three-horned pelta and the axe itself.
I was reading today about Minoan religion... and it added an interesting possibility for the source of the Amazonian axes meme/motif.
We actually have Minoan double-headed axes (e.g. the Arkalochori Axe), but apparently double-headed axes were apparently also religious symbols used exclusively by female deities. I wonder whether this gender association was the origin of double-headed axes being wielded by Amazons in later Greek art?
That is interesting, beacuse in the wider Near East the double axe seems to have been a substitute for the thunderbolt symbol carried by a number of the more smitingly-inclined male deities. Adad, for example, the storm god of Assyrians, Babylonians and Syrians alike, appears to start off holding two thunderbolts and then graduates to a double-headed axe and a thunderbolt. See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrys#Double_Axes_in_the_Near_East) for further details.
The Minoans were presumably not familiar with Adad, Teshub et. al. and may well have followed a different albeit related train of thought.
Quote from: aligern on January 05, 2019, 06:38:26 PM
It was a bit sad that Garrison made the really neat Phrygian Axeman figure as there was soon discovered to be no basis for it.( except in some Victorian costume book. Similarly the Gepid two handed axeman, which I think was based on Robert Graves, did nor survive scrutiny.
Roy
Funny you should mention those figures by Garrison. I just discovered 12 of them during my recent inventory of unpainted figures. The product code is PEA 4 if we are talking about the same figures. I was still intending to paint them up as a unit to add some color to my Persian army. I'll just use them as levy infantry even if they aren't historically accurate. They are a really neat figure. ;)
We can produce closer in time connections for two-handed axes and male deities in Asia Minor e.g. Zeus Labradeus and his sanctuary at Labraunda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labraunda) in Caria. However, it is difficult to see how this would be connected to Amazons. The Minoan Labrys having a connection with mythological womenfolk might be an explanation, though it would require evidence of a memory of this being preserved. Another possibility is that there was a double-axe variant of the more usual axe-and-spike weapon but we lack finds of this type. Over time this becomes associated with Amazons in the same way as the three-horned pelta.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 05, 2019, 12:35:54 PM
Quote from: Ade G on January 05, 2019, 12:18:32 PM
May be way off-beam here but do recall axes being mentioned in relation to Phrygians - this may be from a very ancient Funken book in the 70's so treat with caution
Armies and Uniforms 1 Ancient Egypt to 18th century, p29. "Phrygian with Double-Axe, a much favoured weapon"
The figure is dressed very like an Amazon in Persian dress - a case of mistaken identity? The ornate three-horned pelta also makes an appearance as a Phrygian shield.
IIRC, Garrison had an armoured Phrygian axe-man in their persian range.
FWIW, it seems to me we have two types of axes associated with Amazons - the steppe type with axe blade on one side and spike on the other and a "double-axe", which seems to hark back to the Greek bronze age past. Is the double-axe a real weapon or a sign we are dealing with the heroic past?
Such memories! Marvellous...
One feature of a double axe as a weapon is that there is more weight in the head than for a comparably-sized single axe and hence good armour (or helmet) penetration. A putative nation of women warriors might have found this aspect to be useful, as in all centuries prior to our politically correct times the generality of women were noted for being inferior in physical strength to men. A one-handed double axe could pack considerable punch and penetration for its size and could have been a better and handier weapon for women warriors than (say) an Egyptian khopesh or poleaxe or one of those Lydian swiping weapons depicted at Yazilikaya.
Not having handled one (a double-headed axe, not a woman warrior) I do not know if the balance would be any better thna the single-bladed version. Perhaps one of our members does.
I'm not convinced by Patrick's explanation. It seems too modern. It is hard for me to picture an artist sitting down and rationalising what sort of weapon would best suit a female warrior and coming down on a two-headed axe, which then became a standard way of depicting Amazons. I think it more likely that the image of the Amazon draws on tropes from the Black Sea and Asia Minor regions, where our artists would have believed Amazons originated. Many earlier images of Amazons wear Persian and Scythian style clothing and I believe the weapon set has the same influences. Whether the double-bladed version of the axe existed remains an open question but a two foot plus axe with blade and spike certainly did.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 09, 2019, 05:40:48 PM
One feature of a double axe as a weapon is that there is more weight in the head than for a comparably-sized single axe and hence good armour (or helmet) penetration. A putative nation of women warriors might have found this aspect to be useful, as in all centuries prior to our politically correct times the generality of women were noted for being inferior in physical strength to men. A one-handed double axe could pack considerable punch and penetration for its size and could have been a better and handier weapon for women warriors than (say) an Egyptian khopesh or poleaxe or one of those Lydian swiping weapons depicted at Yazilikaya.
Not having handled one (a double-headed axe, not a woman warrior) I do not know if the balance would be any better thna the single-bladed version. Perhaps one of our members does.
When you swing a single-bitted axe, the blade wants to turn the other way around in your hand because the balance point in not in line with your handle. This is known as wobble, and those guys who chop or throw in competitions make a big deal of it. It can be reduced by a counter-weight that puts the balance in line with the handle. This can be a poll (the hammer-like back on most axe blades) or a spike or another axe blade. The blade will index better in your grip and bite true into your target.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 09, 2019, 06:14:33 PM
I'm not convinced by Patrick's explanation. It seems too modern. It is hard for me to picture an artist sitting down and rationalising what sort of weapon would best suit a female warrior and coming down on a two-headed axe, which then became a standard way of depicting Amazons.
If one begins from the standpoint of assuming Amazons were an artist's invention, one could easily come to this conclusion. If on the other hand Amazons were at one point a historical phenomenon, the use of a double-bitted axe is easier to understand and does not require an imaginative classical artist thinking in modern terms.
QuoteI think it more likely that the image of the Amazon draws on tropes from the Black Sea and Asia Minor regions, where our artists would have believed Amazons originated. Many earlier images of Amazons wear Persian and Scythian style clothing and I believe the weapon set has the same influences.
Given the Amazons' reputed origin, one would expect Scythian style clothing and, to the extent they found it usable, armament. Their time as a significant power dates to the reign of Theseus in Athens, and Theseus appears to have ruled in the late Amarna period. Their appearance in the Trojan War shortly thereafter was probably their last as a significant power. In each case, they are operating around the periphery of the Black Sea littoral, so one would expect them to reflect the costumes and (apart from one signifcant aspect) the culture of that area.
Quote from: PMBardunias on January 10, 2019, 06:18:30 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 09, 2019, 05:40:48 PM
Not having handled one (a double-headed axe, not a woman warrior) I do not know if the balance would be any better than the single-bladed version. Perhaps one of our members does.
When you swing a single-bitted axe, the blade wants to turn the other way around in your hand because the balance point in not in line with your handle. This is known as wobble, and those guys who chop or throw in competitions make a big deal of it. It can be reduced by a counter-weight that puts the balance in line with the handle. This can be a poll (the hammer-like back on most axe blades) or a spike or another axe blade. The blade will index better in your grip and bite true into your target.
Interesting to know; thanks, Paul. I would see the adoption of the double-bitted axe as an intelligent choice by users who wish to maximise the effect of limited physical strength and not waste any on 'wobble'. This is the kind of detail unlikely to occur to an artist but intriguingly consistent with women warrior combatants free to use their own choice of weaponry.
If you want to increase armour piecing ability and reduce 'wobble' you'd go for a 'spike' not a bigger blade. Having a big blade on the 'back' as an alternative for dealing with unarmoured enemies and adding weight against the armoured makes sense.
Having two big blades doesn't
Outside Amazons, religious ceremonies and gods do we have and good evidence/illustrations of people using this double headed axe with the two big blades?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 10, 2019, 10:39:15 AMIf one begins from the standpoint of assuming Amazons were an artist's invention, one could easily come to this conclusion. If on the other hand Amazons were at one point a historical phenomenon, the use of a double-bitted axe is easier to understand and does not require an imaginative classical artist thinking in modern terms.
...
Given the Amazons' reputed origin, one would expect Scythian style clothing and, to the extent they found it usable, armament.
The fact that the earliest Greek representations of Amazons show them in Greek garb, and that it is only later - only in the 5th century? - that they start showing up in Persian-Scythian clothing argues to my mind against their "Scythian" portrayal having any historical value. It seems to be a late grafting on to an older tradition.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 10, 2019, 10:39:15 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on January 09, 2019, 06:14:33 PM
I'm not convinced by Patrick's explanation. It seems too modern. It is hard for me to picture an artist sitting down and rationalising what sort of weapon would best suit a female warrior and coming down on a two-headed axe, which then became a standard way of depicting Amazons.
If one begins from the standpoint of assuming Amazons were an artist's invention, one could easily come to this conclusion. If on the other hand Amazons were at one point a historical phenomenon, the use of a double-bitted axe is easier to understand and does not require an imaginative classical artist thinking in modern terms.
Even if we assume Amazons existed (or even an Amazon state existed), our evidence is presented by classical artists. Unless you are suggesting that these artists visited Themiscyra or they had access to detailed costume notes by someone who had (now lost to us), they are using their imagination to recreate a picture of Amazons. I would suggest they are using their artistic tropes for depicting people from the area the Amazons are supposed to have come from to do this. I'm willing to accept a double-headed axe unknown as yet to archaeology existed in this area, alongside the more commonly illustrated type. This does not require anyone, ancient or modern, to have to think what is the most effective weapon for a woman to use in hand-to-hand combat.
QuoteTheir time as a significant power dates to the reign of Theseus in Athens, and Theseus appears to have ruled in the late Amarna period. Their appearance in the Trojan War shortly thereafter was probably their last as a significant power.
In another thread you may wish to deploy your evidence for the existence of an Amazon state (though the appearance of Egyptian chronology in the legendary past of Athens doesn't bode well). Individual female warriors seem well attested out on the Steppes and down to the Black Sea, an organised Amazon state less so.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 10, 2019, 11:10:26 AM
Individual female warriors seem well attested out on the Steppes and down to the Black Sea, an organised Amazon state less so.
Is the warriorhood of these women based purely on grave goods, or is there other evidence, say of battle wounds or skeletal deformations attributable to habitual archery?
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 10, 2019, 10:50:27 AM
The fact that the earliest Greek representations of Amazons show them in Greek garb, and that it is only later - only in the 5th century? - that they start showing up in Persian-Scythian clothing argues to my mind against their "Scythian" portrayal having any historical value. It seems to be a late grafting on to an older tradition.
Useful to know. So, the assumption is Amazons started being shown in "Persian" style only after the Persian Empire became the main enemy and depictions of Persians themselves became common? Unfortunately, it doesn't help with the axe because this is shown later with both Persian and Greek dressed Amazons. Unless we have illustrations with Amazons pre-Persian style which have double-axes?
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 10, 2019, 10:50:27 AMThe fact that the earliest Greek representations of Amazons show them in Greek garb, and that it is only later - only in the 5th century? - that they start showing up in Persian-Scythian clothing ...
Actually a bit of checking suggests that Scythian clothing, at least, starts to be shown in the 6th century. Still not the earliest Amazons, though.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 10, 2019, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on January 10, 2019, 11:10:26 AM
Individual female warriors seem well attested out on the Steppes and down to the Black Sea, an organised Amazon state less so.
Is the warriorhood of these women based purely on grave goods, or is there other evidence, say of battle wounds or skeletal deformations attributable to habitual archery?
There are quite a few references to this in fairly reputable popular sources but the only academic piece I could easily find is this (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10597634.pdf). This comes down against female warrior burials in this cemetery except for one woman. Others may have better information. This (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/female-scythian-warrior-ukraine-0010634)seems to be a recent example, again with arrowheads rather than other weapons. Certainly, though, references to women's burials with weapons seem common enough not to dismiss the idea out of hand.
This article (http://www.dpcamps.org/Amazons.pdf) mentions evidence of battle wounds:
QuoteSeveral head wounds were discerned on the skull of this woman, resulting from cutting blows, and one bronze arrowhead was found inside the knee joint (Rolle 1989: 29).
In the principal grave of kurgan 13, near the city Ordzhonikidze (Ukraine), the bones of a woman with a bronze arrowhead at the left knee were discovered. It was evidently a battle wound.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on January 10, 2019, 12:28:02 PM
Is the warriorhood of these women based purely on grave goods, or is there other evidence, say of battle wounds or skeletal deformations attributable to habitual archery?
From
Women in Antiquity: Real Women across the Ancient Worldedited by Stephanie Lynn Budin, Jean Macintosh 2016
A fourth-century BC kurgan (Kurgan 16, Akkermen 1) on the Dniester River
(Ukraine) was excavated near ancient Tyras, a Greek colony (c.600 BC) in the
territory of the Tyragetae ("Getae or Thracians of the Tyras," Strabo 7; Ptolemy
3.525; Pliny 12.26). The grave belonged to a female warrior who died in combat
—a battle-axe had punctured her skull and a bronze arrowhead was still
embedded in her leg. A pair of iron lances were planted in the ground at the
grave's entrance (typical of Scythian warrior tombs) and two spear heads lay
near her, by a massive armored belt with iron plaques, a quiver, 20 bronze
arrows with painted wooden shafts, glass beads, pearls, silver and bronze
bracelets, bronze mirror, lead spindle-whorl, needle, iron knife, and a wooden
tray of food for the afterlife.
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 10, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
If you want to increase armour piecing ability and reduce 'wobble' you'd go for a 'spike' not a bigger blade. Having a big blade on the 'back' as an alternative for dealing with unarmoured enemies and adding weight against the armoured makes sense.
Having two big blades doesn't
Although the
sagaris does become the Scythians' weapon of choice, this happens during the iron age. The Amazons are contemporary with Theseus and the Trojan War, so their axes would have been bronze. A bronze weapon does not hold its edge quite as well as an iron one, and the kind of armour worn by Black Sea littoral cultures would not need a spike to pierce it, so having a second blade for when the first one dulled in battle seems like a good idea.
Interestingly enough, Aristarchus of Samothrace refers to Amazons using the
sagaris.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 10, 2019, 11:10:26 AM
Even if we assume Amazons existed (or even an Amazon state existed), our evidence is presented by classical artists.
Indeed. The obvious question is whether they had any material to work with, or were just making assumptions and presenting Amazons in 'modern dress'. This in turn leads to the question of just how much Scythian or related costume had changed over the intervening centuries: Scythians were great traditionalists, and what they wore in the 6th-5th centuries BC was probably not too different from what their forefathers (and Amazon offshoots) had worn a few huindred years earlier. So whether their portrayals were a few centruries too young may not be a question of great significance. Concerning weaponry, the Amazon double-headed axe is sufficiently persistent and sufficiently unique to suggest it was a characteristic weapon of the culture.
QuoteI would suggest they are using their artistic tropes for depicting people from the area the Amazons are supposed to have come from to do this.
They may well be. Do we have any evidence that these 'tropes' are actually misleading, or any reason to suppose the same?
QuoteI'm willing to accept a double-headed axe unknown as yet to archaeology existed in this area, alongside the more commonly illustrated type. This does not require anyone, ancient or modern, to have to think what is the most effective weapon for a woman to use in hand-to-hand combat.
Nobody requires us to think anything. I am just pointing out that it would be a good fit for women warriors.
QuoteIn another thread you may wish to deploy your evidence for the existence of an Amazon state (though the appearance of Egyptian chronology in the legendary past of Athens doesn't bode well). Individual female warriors seem well attested out on the Steppes and down to the Black Sea, an organised Amazon state less so.
It does not need another thread to cover the exiguous yet significant evidence for an 'Amazon state' (tribe, really). In addition to their 'legendary' invasion of Greece under Hippolyta in the time of Theseus and their participation in the Trojan war under Penthesilea, we have Herodotus IV.110-116 on the origin of the Sarmatians, which mentions the Scythian tradition about the Amazons, whom they called 'oior-pata', 'manslayers'.
A few Amazonian cultural aspects are described in Herodotus' passage.
"The Scythians could not understand the business; for they did not recognize the women's speech or their dress or their nation, but wondered where they had come from, and imagined them to be men all of the same age; and they met the Amazons in battle. The result of the fight was that the Scythians got possession of the dead, and so came to learn that their foes were women." - IV.111
It would seem that
contra the Greek artists Amazons dressed differently to Scythians, unless what is meant is that dress was broadly similar but certain details were different and puzzling. The fact that Amazons were not recognisable as women until the bodies were examined suggests clothing covering much of the person, in the Scythian and Median-Persian tradition.
"... the Amazons had nothing but their arms and their horses, and lived ... by hunting and plunder." - IV.112
This means they are unlikely to have left us any settlements. Burial customs are not mentioned.
"Now the men [Scythians] could not learn the women's language, but the women [Amazons] mastered the speech of the men" - IV.114
They came from a different linguistic group to the Scythians.
"We shoot the bow and throw the javelin and ride ..." -
idemNo mention of the axes which would seem
de rigeur if Herodotus was just following a
trope.
The Amazons in IV.110
et seq are three shiploads captured at Thermodon who were taken on board ship, overpowered the crews and landed in Scythian country. The cultural details are interesting, but the evident nomadic habits bode ill for any hope of discovering an Amazon 'settlement'. It may be more accurate to term the Amazons a tribe rather than a state, given that they had a queen but no cities; it may be more challenging to locate them, given that the Scythians prior to the incident mentioned by Herodotus had no knowledge of them and spoke a different language. That the culture existed is well attested by Greek authors (and Dares the Phrygian); where is existed has yet to be pinned down, but interaction with Greece and Troy together with absence of interaction with Scythians (prior to Herodotus IV.110
et seq) limit the possibilities.
One might note in passing that Herodotus IV.116.2 may reflect upon warrior women such as the one found near Tyras. Having related the tale of the origin of the Sarmatians from the shipwrecked Amazons, he adds:
"Ever since then the women of the Sauromatae have followed their ancient ways; they ride out hunting, with their men or without them; they go to war, and dress the same as the men."
Quote from: Erpingham on January 10, 2019, 11:10:26 AM
I would suggest they are using their artistic tropes for depicting people from the area the Amazons are supposed to have come from to do this. I'm willing to accept a double-headed axe unknown as yet to archaeology existed in this area, alongside the more commonly illustrated type. This does not require anyone, ancient or modern, to have to think what is the most effective weapon for a woman to use in hand-to-hand combat.
I would agree that the idea of a double-headed axe is more likely to have come from a historical source - an actual 2-headed axe.
But I don't think we need to limit the source to only the geography that the Amazons were meant to have come from.
For example, it could have been any exotic or barbaric weapon from an exotic or barbaric place.
Or it could have come from a geography that we actually do know have archaeological finds of double-headed axes, like Crete.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 10, 2019, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 10, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
If you want to increase armour piecing ability and reduce 'wobble' you'd go for a 'spike' not a bigger blade. Having a big blade on the 'back' as an alternative for dealing with unarmoured enemies and adding weight against the armoured makes sense.
Having two big blades doesn't
Although the sagaris does become the Scythians' weapon of choice, this happens during the iron age. The Amazons are contemporary with Theseus and the Trojan War, so their axes would have been bronze. A bronze weapon does not hold its edge quite as well as an iron one, and the kind of armour worn by Black Sea littoral cultures would not need a spike to pierce it, so having a second blade for when the first one dulled in battle seems like a good idea.
but is there any evidence for anybody other than Greek artists ever depicting one (other than Hittite gods) and has anybody ever found one?
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 11, 2019, 07:12:06 AM
but is there any evidence for anybody other than Greek artists ever depicting one (other than Hittite gods) and has anybody ever found one?
Oh yes.
The Wikipedia labrys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrys) article lays out the standard depictions:
In the Near East and other parts of the region, eventually, axes of this sort are often wielded by male divinities and appear to become symbols of the thunderbolt, a symbol often found associated with the axe symbol. In Labraunda of Caria the double-axe accompanies the storm-god Zeus Labraundos. Similar symbols have been found on plates of Linear pottery culture in Romania. The double-axe is associated with the Hurrian god of sky and storm Teshub. His Hittite and Luwian name was Tarhun. Both are depicted holding a triple thunderbolt in one hand, and a double axe in the other hand. Similarly, Zeus throws his thunderbolt to bring storm. The labrys, or pelekys, is the double axe Zeus uses to invoke storm, and the relative modern Greek word for lightning is "star-axe" (ἀστροπελέκι, astropeleki) The worship of it was kept up in the Greek island of Tenedos and in several cities in the south-west of Asia Minor, and it appears in later historical times in the cult of the thunder god of Asia Minor (Zeus Labrayndeus).It also adds:
A link has also been posited with the double axe symbols at Çatalhöyük, dating to the neolithic age.Çatalhöyük is the latest spelling of Catalhuyuk, the 7,000 BC city near Iconium. Double axe depictions go back a long way.
As for finding them, Europe contributes surprisingly well, notably:
The double-headed battle axe is a shaft-hole axe from around 3400–2900 BC. It occurred mainly around Rügen in Germany and on Zealand in Denmark, as the Battle Axe culture established itself in the surrounding areas. The axe has a flared edge that became very prominent among the later types, which also gained a flared butt. The double-edged axes were always made from hard and homogeneous stones such as porphyry, and they were also finely polished.The mention is from this site (https://www.gransforsbruk.com/en/axe-knowledge/the-history-of-the-axe/), Shaft Hole Axes section, just before the Battle Axe Culture section (and no, this was not one of women warriors!).
3rd century BC Babylonia gives us a ceremonial agate double axe head (http://www.palagems.com/babylonian-axe-head/); not sure if this really counts, but it shows willing.
The Lacus Curtius securis (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA%2A/Securis.html) entry shows a bronze bipennis (double-headed) axe from Italy.
So the bipennis seems to have been quite popular across Europe and Asia Minor; the latter apparently mainly for religion, the former for use. Given this, and the apparent lack of interaction with the Scythians prior to Thermodon, it is tempting to suggest a European origin for the Amazons.
QuoteSo the bipennis seems to have been quite popular across Europe and Asia Minor; the latter apparently mainly for religion, the former for use. Given this, and the apparent lack of interaction with the Scythians prior to Thermodon, it is tempting to suggest a European origin for the Amazons.
That's one small step for Patrick, one giant leap for archaeologists :)
The European cultures referenced are Neolithic and our earliest evidence of Amazons is Late Bronze Age at the earliest. The axe evidence, such as it is, is Classical Greek. I'd also query that we have evidence that the Neolithic axes are for "use" (whether forestry or warfare) rather than for symbol and status - it would need much more reading into the culture than a mention on wikipedia to know.
I think we are safer with either the theory that the weapon is introduced as an attempt to reflect a mythic or archaic element (perhaps related to the Labrys,with memories of its female associations) or it is based on a real axe variant, perhaps from Asia Minor, which existed alongside the Scythian style axe.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 11, 2019, 11:14:57 AM
I'd also query that we have evidence that the Neolithic axes are for "use" (whether forestry or warfare) rather than for symbol and status
As did the scientists who examined 'Otzi'. There was a lot of ink shed about his axe (a palstave, incidentally) being a 'status symbol' and that he might have been killed for it (an obviously weak conjecture as his body still had the axe), but upon examination it showed wear marks and replicas have proven well capable of cutting down trees. This is not to say that axes were not used for symbol and status - they were - but rather one should not assume that a particular form of axe was employed
exclusively for such purposes.
QuoteI think we are safer with either the theory that the weapon is introduced as an attempt to reflect a mythic or archaic element (perhaps related to the Labrys,with memories of its female associations) or it is based on a real axe variant, perhaps from Asia Minor, which existed alongside the Scythian style axe.
A small step for Anthony ... ;)
I think we tend to be keener on myth and archetype than were the Greeks themselves. The labrys has female associations, but seemingly only on Crete (unless one counts the Amazons themselves and various present-day lesbian movements). In Asia Minor, for example, it is associated exclusively with male deities of the thunderbolt-wielding persuasion.
Double-headed axes are well established in Europe as far back as the stone age. Continuity of use thereafter may have suffered owing to the introduction of the sword as a close combat weapon. The double-headed axe motif was present in Asia Minor as far back as the stone age. My best guess would be that the double axe, which handles well in a fight, would have been used as a weapon, especially by mounted warriors, and with the transition from the bronze to the iron age would have been replaced by the
sagaris, which fulfilled a similar role against better-armoured opponents.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 11, 2019, 10:25:30 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 11, 2019, 07:12:06 AM
but is there any evidence for anybody other than Greek artists ever depicting one (other than Hittite gods) and has anybody ever found one?
Oh yes.
The Wikipedia labrys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrys) article lays out the standard depictions:
In the Near East and other parts of the region, eventually, axes of this sort are often wielded by male divinities and appear to become symbols of the thunderbolt, a symbol often found associated with the axe symbol. In Labraunda of Caria the double-axe accompanies the storm-god Zeus Labraundos. Similar symbols have been found on plates of Linear pottery culture in Romania. The double-axe is associated with the Hurrian god of sky and storm Teshub. His Hittite and Luwian name was Tarhun. Both are depicted holding a triple thunderbolt in one hand, and a double axe in the other hand. Similarly, Zeus throws his thunderbolt to bring storm. The labrys, or pelekys, is the double axe Zeus uses to invoke storm, and the relative modern Greek word for lightning is "star-axe" (ἀστροπελέκι, astropeleki) The worship of it was kept up in the Greek island of Tenedos and in several cities in the south-west of Asia Minor, and it appears in later historical times in the cult of the thunder god of Asia Minor (Zeus Labrayndeus).
It also adds:
A link has also been posited with the double axe symbols at Çatalhöyük, dating to the neolithic age.
Çatalhöyük is the latest spelling of Catalhuyuk, the 7,000 BC city near Iconium. Double axe depictions go back a long way.
As for finding them, Europe contributes surprisingly well, notably:
The double-headed battle axe is a shaft-hole axe from around 3400–2900 BC. It occurred mainly around Rügen in Germany and on Zealand in Denmark, as the Battle Axe culture established itself in the surrounding areas. The axe has a flared edge that became very prominent among the later types, which also gained a flared butt. The double-edged axes were always made from hard and homogeneous stones such as porphyry, and they were also finely polished.
The mention is from this site (https://www.gransforsbruk.com/en/axe-knowledge/the-history-of-the-axe/), Shaft Hole Axes section, just before the Battle Axe Culture section (and no, this was not one of women warriors!).
3rd century BC Babylonia gives us a ceremonial agate double axe head (http://www.palagems.com/babylonian-axe-head/); not sure if this really counts, but it shows willing.
The Lacus Curtius securis (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA%2A/Securis.html) entry shows a bronze bipennis (double-headed) axe from Italy.
So the bipennis seems to have been quite popular across Europe and Asia Minor; the latter apparently mainly for religion, the former for use. Given this, and the apparent lack of interaction with the Scythians prior to Thermodon, it is tempting to suggest a European origin for the Amazons.
So looking at the links, the bipennis was either religious (Asia Minor, Crete,) or so far back in the early age of metals we genuinely haven't a clue what it was
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 11, 2019, 06:51:46 PM
So looking at the links, the bipennis was either religious (Asia Minor, Crete,) or so far back in the early age of metals we genuinely haven't a clue what it was
Except that it was, as Wikipedia puts it, "A common axe in the ancient world." Interestingly enough, it was introduced to America in the 1800s and gave considerable impetus to tree-felling capability, being much preferred to the traditional single-bitted European woodsman's axe.
At any rate, we appear to have answered the original question about whether anyone other than Greek artists ever depicted one, and whether anyone has ever found one. :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 11, 2019, 07:01:40 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 11, 2019, 06:51:46 PM
So looking at the links, the bipennis was either religious (Asia Minor, Crete,) or so far back in the early age of metals we genuinely haven't a clue what it was
Except that it was, as Wikipedia puts it, "A common axe in the ancient world." Interestingly enough, it was introduced to America in the 1800s and gave considerable impetus to tree-felling capability, being much preferred to the traditional single-bitted European woodsman's axe.
At any rate, we appear to have answered the original question about whether anyone other than Greek artists ever depicted one, and whether anyone has ever found one. :)
If it was a common axe in the ancient world, where are the secular and non-Amazon illustrations of it?
Yes I can agree it was a very common religious symbol, but its use in warfare seems remarkably scare. Indeed the fact that only American lumberjacks used it is interesting, but the fact that it never caught on amongst their European equivalents seems to indicate that it wasn't that much better
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 11, 2019, 10:46:35 PM
If it was a common axe in the ancient world, where are the secular and non-Amazon illustrations of it?
Perhaps an unfair question, as period illustrations of any weaponry outside Greece and the Near East are not exactly prolific, and even in the Near East one is often hard put to find any pre-900 BC illustrative material outside Egypt.
QuoteYes I can agree it was a very common religious symbol, but its use in warfare seems remarkably scarce.
The northern European finds appear to have been for use, not religion. Without a literary record, determining which were used as tools and which in warfare becomes a judgement call.
QuoteIndeed the fact that only American lumberjacks used it is interesting, but the fact that it never caught on amongst their European equivalents seems to indicate that it wasn't that much better.
Their European equivalents do not seem to have made the comparison, and there may be an underlying reason. In America, the aim was forest clearance. In Europe, the aim was forest management. The Americans found the double-bitted axe superior for forest clearance, i.e. taking down the maximum number of trees in the shortest possible time. European traditionalists were probably still mired in the idea that you wanted to cut down trees to use the actual wood. :) They were also largely working for someone else to a set pattern rather than carving out new land for themselves.
And then there is another aspect. From a blog on axes:
"Recently I had a discussion about Eastern European axes on a forum. The issue was trying to figure out the use of a Bulgarian axe based on its features. The problem of course was that we were doing that by applying what we know of design features on American axes. The two don't always coincide. Many of the axes we used to use back in Bulgaria were the way they were just because that was all that was available to us. Having the best features for the task wasn't really a choice. So, to determine why an axe has particular features, we have to look at the traditions of that country, not just superimpose our own understanding based on our traditions."So the Americans were in the position of actually having a choice.
Apparently a major reason the Americans favoured of the double-bitted axe was that you could sharpen each edge differently: one edge could be really sharp for ordinary work whereas the other could be rough-sharpened for dealing with knots etc. This, combined with smoother travel (no 'wobble') reducing the fatigue element, seems to have been appreciated by America's all-day woodcutters.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 12, 2019, 09:06:21 AM
So the Americans were in the position of actually having a choice.
Apparently a major reason the Americans favoured of the double-bitted axe was that you could sharpen each edge differently: one edge could be really sharp for ordinary work whereas the other could be rough-sharpened for dealing with knots etc. This, combined with smoother travel (no 'wobble') reducing the fatigue element, seems to have been appreciated by America's all-day woodcutters.
American tools and designs transferred back across the Atlantic
The American design of a scythe came back to the UK in the 19th century because men who'd used it across there brought it back with them when they came home
If the American axe had been notably better, it would have come back
As an aside, what people seem not to realise is how many men who when to the US or Canada to work did so for a few years and then came home
QuoteThe northern European finds appear to have been for use, not religion. Without a literary record, determining which were used as tools and which in warfare becomes a judgement call.
I'll quickly repeat the caveats - the existence of an axe in a cultural context does not mean that you can link it automatically to one at a different time, in a different place and using a different technology just because it looks similar.
That said, the axes of the Battle-axe (or Boat-axe) cultures don't seem to have been religious symbols and were practical enough to be used for killing and cutting down trees (experiments have been done). That said, their use as prestige or social ritual objects should not be dismissed, as they are very expensive objects in terms of the work in making them. Think Dark Age swords for example - very expensive, very practical for killing people but much of the time it's their status-defining properties that were to the fore, with their decorated hilts and scabbard fittings.
This article (https://www.societies.ncl.ac.uk/pgfnewcastle/files/2016/12/PA13.2-Scandinavian-battle-axe-culture.pdf) is quite helpful in the discussion of the Neolithic axes.
However, I don't think they have any connection to the subject at hand. It remains interesting that the only representations of this axe in Classical art appear to be either mythological or Amazonian (and even then, I'd suggest it doesn't become a defining Amazon item until later - most earlier representations show Scythian style axes or other weapons - spears and bows are popular and swords also appear). I'm saying this of course from only a general interest in the art of the period and someone who as studied it as a costume and weaponry specialist like Duncan may be able to correct this impression.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 10, 2019, 01:57:56 PM
There are quite a few references to this in fairly reputable popular sources but the only academic piece I could easily find is this (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10597634.pdf). This comes down against female warrior burials in this cemetery except for one woman. Others may have better information. This (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/female-scythian-warrior-ukraine-0010634)seems to be a recent example, again with arrowheads rather than other weapons. Certainly, though, references to women's burials with weapons seem common enough not to dismiss the idea out of hand.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 10, 2019, 02:29:17 PM
This article (http://www.dpcamps.org/Amazons.pdf) mentions evidence of battle wounds:
Quote from: Erpingham on January 10, 2019, 03:56:49 PM
From Women in Antiquity: Real Women across the Ancient World
edited by Stephanie Lynn Budin, Jean Macintosh 2016
Thanks 8)
Quote from: Erpingham on January 12, 2019, 10:29:31 AM
I'll quickly repeat the caveats - the existence of an axe in a cultural context does not mean that you can link it automatically to one at a different time, in a different place and using a different technology just because it looks similar.
I would agree there, but when simply asked if any such axes existed anywhere, the answer is yes, they did. If asked whether there is any discernible connection, that is another question. What we can tell is that the double axe seems to be well established as a European tool and weapon as far back as the late stone age. (Jordanes'
Getica, anyone?)
QuoteIt remains interesting that the only representations of this axe in Classical art appear to be either mythological or Amazonian (and even then, I'd suggest it doesn't become a defining Amazon item until later - most earlier representations show Scythian style axes or other weapons - spears and bows are popular and swords also appear). I'm saying this of course from only a general interest in the art of the period and someone who as studied it as a costume and weaponry specialist like Duncan may be able to correct this impression.
Can Duncan shed any light on this?
Meanwhile, and in line with the original purpose of the thread, does anyone actually have reason to consider a double-bitted axe unsuitable or impossible for use from horseback?
QuoteMeanwhile, and in line with the original purpose of the thread, does anyone actually have reason to consider a double-bitted axe unsuitable or impossible for use from horseback?
The issue would be about the weight of the head and the balance of the weapon. That said, I can't see an intrinsic problem if the head was reasonably small. The axe in the original image is clearly right out (reminiscent of the weaponry of a modern fantasy figure). I've tried to make sense of that and, taking into account the oddly proportioned bodies of the hoplite and the horse, I think it is from a frieze high on a temple wall. It would explain the poor detail on the hoplite (if he is a hoplite) and also the exaggeration of the classic Amazon weapons, the three-horned pelta and double axe, to aid interpretation of the scene.
A good observation. I have the impression that the axes grow larger as the centuries advance from BC to AD and the agency of representation shifts from Greece to Rome.
Quote from: Jim Webster on January 10, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
If you want to increase armour piecing ability and reduce 'wobble' you'd go for a 'spike' not a bigger blade. Having a big blade on the 'back' as an alternative for dealing with unarmoured enemies and adding weight against the armoured makes sense.
Having two big blades doesn't
Outside Amazons, religious ceremonies and gods do we have and good evidence/illustrations of people using this double headed axe with the two big blades?
The wobble is due to the axe being front heavy, so anything that adds mass to the side opposite the blade will reduce wobble. Spikes are a great addition that add versatility as you suggest, but both hammer faces and secondary blades work just as well. Spikes are fun, you can use them to hook, you can choke up on the shaft and have a punch dagger, and of course you can sweep it into heads and through armor. The down side is when you find yourself trying to work that pick out of said armor and skull to face the next guy. You can see on many medieval war hammers shapes that limit penetration for this reason.