It must be admitted that the problem of pre-Homeric armour and Homeric armour must always be largely a matter of inference, based on a comparative study of the evidence literary and archaeological. Unless we are prepared to adopt the theory that the Homeric poems consist of a mosaic of interpolation informed by an archaizing editor, we must assume that they describe a single period of transition intermediate between the Mycenaean prime and the dawn of history proper. In this case we shall believe that the Homeric warrior has so far adapted to changing conditions the simple appliances of the Mycenaean that he has evolved a feeble corslet with minor pieces of body armour, while retaining the big double-bellied shield as a protection against the arrows which are still the chief weapon of the rank and file and are even used on occasion by the chiefs. If we further believe that the iron at his disposal was similar to that used by the Celts of Polybius, it is natural to believe also that he preferred the harder bronze for his weapons, though iron was common for domestic and other implements. On early Greek arms in general see, besides Reichel and Ridgeway _op. cit._: A. Lang, _Homer and his Age_ (London, 1906; and criticisms in _Classical Review_, February 1907); G.G.A. Murray, _The Rise of the Greek Epic_ (Oxford, 1907), chap. vi; R.M. Burrows, _Discoveries in Crete_ (2nd ed., London, 1907); Leaf and Bayfield, _Iliad_, i.-xii. Appendix A (follows Reichel); W. Helbig, _Homerische Epos_ (1884 and 1899), and _La Question mycenienne_ (1896); C. Robert, _Studien zur Ilias_ (Berlin, 1901); Chr. Tsountas and J.I. Manatt, _The Mycenaean Age_ (1897); V. Berard, _Les Pheniciens et l'Odyssee_ (Paris, 1902); Cauer, _Grundfrager d. Homerkritik_ (Leipzig, 1895); much valuable discussion will be found in articles in _Journ. Hell, Stud., Classical Rev._ and _Journ. of Anthropol. Instit_.; see also editions of _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ (espec. D.B. Monro), and works quoted under AEGEAN CIVILIZATION; HOMER; MYCENAE.