ΠΟΡΦΥΡΑ - Porphyra

A Prôtospatharios, Magistros, and Strategos Autokrator of 11 th cent.
the equipment of Georgios Maniakes and his army according to the Skylitzes Matritensis miniatures
and other artistic sources of the middle Byzantine period.
comparison with the lateral details of the armour in folio 213v -
possibly similar to those found in the Great Palace of
Constantinople by the Scottish finds of Talbot Rice 72 (fig.6 n.
2). These scale-coats looked really as scale- garments made of
big superposed feathers : the way of fastening is hovewer
difficult to understand. Looking in any case at the miniature of
the Armenian Imperial Officer Johannes from the Armenian
Adrianople Gospel of Venice, 73 we note that his κλιβανιον
(even though this latter is lamellar so of a different type than the
scale one worn by Maniakes) is fastened on the shoulders. Also
the feathered armour should have a similar way of fastening, i.
e. fastened on the shoulders by means of a system combining
loops and buttons, as those used to fasten on the shoulders the
sleeves of καβαδια mentioned by Praecepta Militaria I, 3
(fig.6 n. 3-4) 74 . At lower borders of the corselet the miniature
shows attached small kremasmata (tongues of the armour
border, in ancient time kymation) 75 of coarse silk and cotton
gold painted (fig.6 n. 1) 76 . For the πεταλα 77 (lamellae)
72
Talbot Rice, The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, Edinburgh 1958, pp. 98-100 and pl. 58. This is the unique
example of lamellar armour found until now in Constantinople. About the reconstruction of such a armour see Beatson
P., Byzantine Lamellar armour ; Conjectural Reconstruction of a find from the Great Palace in Istanbul, based on
early medieval parallels, in Varangian Voice n. 49 november 1998, pp. 3-8, and Nicolle, Arms and armour of the
Crusading Era, 1050 - 1350, London, 1999, II Voll. pp. 38-39 and fig. 41.
73
See note 69 above ; the miniature shows us the Officer closed in parade armour i.e. a golden lamellar kλιβανιον and
the officer sash around the breast.
74
κοµποθηλυκια ; s. Sylloge Tacticorum 38,4 ; Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos, 56,3 in Mc Geer, Showing, cit. pp.
89-163. Byzantine buttons of this period have been found both in Constantinople and in Corinth. See Hayes J.W.,
Excavations at Sarachane, in Istanbul, Vol. II, Washington 1988, p. 263-264 and figg. 546-552. The n. 4 of fig. 6 is
copied by n. 551. See also Davidson G.R., Corinth, the minor objects, Princeton 1952, 296-304, fig.2614-2634.
75
The word’s meaning is literally “hanging pieces” and it is used in Praecepta Militaria III, 4 and in the Taktika of
Nikephoros Ouranos 60, 4 to indicate the padded and quilted skirts made of cotton or coarse silk (κουκολιον and
βαµβακιον) hanging below a soldier’s cuirass to protect his legs. They looked apron like and this can explain the
archaic Roman appearance of many warriors represented in the art, see for example the Triptych Harbaville in the
Shuvalov Collection (Inv. Hermitage no. w ; s. Bank, Byzantine Art in the collections of the USSR, Leningrad-Moscow
1985, ff. 126-131).
76
The big debate in East-Roman military matters is the question of the archaic aspect of some armours are they artistic
licence reminiscence or do they really correspond to reality. Obviously the present author supports this second idea,
based upon the observation that so many details of armour and weapons, in art, are so close to the contemporary
archaeological evidence to exclude, in many cases, convention or a partial correlation to reality. For instance even the
spears with a pommel under the point, as those represented in the Psalter of the Boulgaroktonos in Cod. Marc. Gr. 17
have been found in Bulgaria (see Vitlyanov S., The Old Bulgarian Armament, Sofia 1996, pl. VII n. 15, in Bulgarian
with English summary). So may be the representation of military subjects in Byzantine art is not the fruit of convention
as many people said. My purpose is, in future contributions, to show the striking analogies among art and archaeology.
The same concept should be applied for the shape of all kinds of armours shown in the miniatures, either if scale or
lamellar Κλιβανια, thorakia or mail zabai : the unique way to solve this problem is a parallel use of art, archaeology
and literature, not examined in a separate way. So sometimes, but not as a rule, the diffuse use of leather and felt and
organic material as base for armour could have be done, sometimes, in the form presented by the East-Roman art, i.e.
an archaic but desirable way to present the Roman heritage of the army. A kind of scale could also be worn over a
muscled leather garment, because traditional does not always mean an obsolete type of armour. It is a fact that this
argument is in any case very difficult to solve. The problem with the East-Roman armour is that very few fragments
have been published or exposed, and the lack of archaeological specimens in felt or leather – together with the
difficulty of finding military material in the old lands which were the heart of the Empire – complicates the question.
Of course the true muscled leather (or metal) armour - which I believe as the late Mrs. Hoffmeyer (cf. The military
Equipment pp. 52-55) still used in XII century (and may be also later) as shown by the Matritensis (see for instance the
16