So in practice a two-part sarisa isn't impossible, but there is also basically no evidence for it. We have a tube of unknown purpose which might have been involved. The problem here is that many for-the-public reconstructions present the tube as 'known' when it isn't. 26/31
-
-
...got a little longer over time, as the extra length was valuable in the post-Alexander landscape where the sarisa-phalanx was mostly fighting *other* sarisa-phalanxes. That's a tempting theory and could be right - but note how thin the evidence it is perched on it.
Näytä tämä ketju -
In any case, the sarisa-bits we have ought to match the earlier, slightly smaller one, since the royal tombs at Aigai are mostly late classical (the tomb the sarisa bits are associated with may actually BE the tomb of Philip II, father of Alexander).
Näytä tämä ketju -
Finally, I am aware of the Shafton Collection spear-butt which is shown by both Sekunda and Matthew in their books, inscribed 'MAK.' Could be real! but it has no secure provenance, so it could be fake! Date unknown! And so dangerous to extrapolate from.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Another flanged butt like the one pictured above was recovered at Isthmia, but I don't think complete measurements of it have been published, Rostoker & Gebhard, "The Sanctuary of Poseidon as Isthmia" Hesperia 49.4 (1980): 347-363.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Also, Jennifer Gates-Foster et al. presented at SCS/AIA a few years back a set of finds from a Ptolemaic fort which included what they identified as a sarisa element, but I think like (1) it's a xyston butt (also neat!); I don't know the current publication status of it.
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
28/31