04-16-2013, 10:18 PM
Quote:Jori, that is the problem with the interpretation of art and archaeology in Asia, especially in the Middle East. Pieces of equipment disappear for centuries from the record. When they reappear, they are then attributed to European influence, because European art and archaeology shows a much more complete record. When Levantine lamellar reappears, you understandebly look for a contemporary Roman example. When round pectorals reappear on Sasanian royal armour, almost a thousand years after they were represented on Assyrian palace reliefs, Bivar and Speidel naturally assume a Roman example. And so on, and so forth. Because of the relative abundance of European art and archaeology, everything in Asia is seen from a European, and as I see it distorted, perspective.
Nikonorov has assumed a Saka origin (ultimately from the Near East though) for the round apezats in Sasanian iconography. They are not so much a component of armour as they are of jewellery IMHO. They were used until modern times in Central Asia and have been found on at least one (that I know of) 16th - 18th C Tibetan lamellar suit.
Anyhow, I digress :mrgreen:
Otherwise whole-heartedly agree.
Nadeem Ahmad
Eran ud Turan - reconstructing the Iranian and Indian world between Alexander and Islam
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
Eran ud Turan - reconstructing the Iranian and Indian world between Alexander and Islam
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan