MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108220470

Bows and Spears in Achaemenid Persia

2019· article· en· W3108220470 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James F. White

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Near East History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraQueen's University
KeywordsSpearPersianEmpireStyle (visual arts)Context (archaeology)HistoryAncient historyArchaeologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My dissertation focuses on weaponry in the Achaemenid Persian Empire (ca. 550-330 BC), with an emphasis on bows and spears. Scholars have long recognized the importance of archery in the ancient Near East generally, and the Achaemenid Empire more specifically, but no thorough study of archery has been undertaken. In the opening chapters, I examine weapons as physical objects. Chapter one describes the shape and size of the Elamite and Scythian style bows which the Persians used. I also consider other aspects of archery tackle, in particular arrows. Arrowheads are often the only evidence for arrows that remain, and their shape, size, and weight can reveal their purpose, the type of bow from which they were fired, and the potential range they could travel. \tChapter two discusses the physical properties of Achaemenid spears. Evidence suggests that Persians used both throwing and thrusting spears. The Persians may have used a single versatile type of spear, called in Greek a palton, that could be used either way, and is often associated with Persian cavalry. Evidence suggests the Persians used a fairly long spear, perhaps seven feet, which contradicts Herodotus’ description of short spears.\tChapter three focuses on the logistics of military archery, and to a lesser extent spearmanship, in an Achaemenid context. The study of archery is especially relevant to this topic due to the increased logistical needs involved in the manufacture of composite bows, and the constant need to supply arrows to soldiers while on campaign. I also examine the recruitment, training, and armament of spearmen in this section. Documentary evidence describes that the state distributed arable land in exchange for military service. This practice was carried over from the earlier empires that ruled in this region. Another source of recruitment attested in Mesopotamia, but perhaps used elsewhere, were the temples. Temple dependants worked these lands for the temple, but were also liable for military service. Temples also employed weapon manufacturing specialists, including bowyers and blacksmiths, who produced the weapons that armed the conscripted soldiers. In chapter four, I examine the gerrhon, a rectangular shield which the Persians are said to have used at the battle of Plataea and Mycale. The Greek term for these shields, gerrhon, can be translated as “wicker.” Many modern historians have taken this translation literally, and suggest that a wicker shield could not have been an effective form of defense. I challenge this hypothesis, and built shields using the same techniques as the Persians, and with materials that have similar properties to those available to the ancient Achaemenids. Finally, I consider how these shields were used on the battlefield, whether they formed a solid defensive wall or were arranged in an open pattern, and how many archers could have been protected by each shield.In the final chapter, I move away from bows and spears as weapons to discuss their symbolic value within the Achaemenid Empire. Both weapons appear as symbols of royal power on Achaemenid reliefs, coins, and seals, and in inscriptions. The bow is also used as an ethical symbol in many cultures, and may have been particularly suitable as a symbol of Persian morality. Bows produce power through the tension of opposing forces, the limbs. This source of power may have resonated with the Achaemenids, as their cosmology was based on opposition. Finally, I consider the possibility that the Achaemenids used weapons in rituals. There is no direct evidence for this practice, but some passages in Greek literature could reflect a misunderstanding of actual Achaemenid ritual practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicAncient Near East HistoryFrench-language works237,207