05-07-2007, 11:10 AM
linothorax literally means "linen armour". There is no way that you can make the case for the word meaning "Egyptian style linen armour" since the same term has been used to describe Greek linen armour for at least a thousand years.
The Thebes find does not date to the Classical period. It dates to the end of the Bronze Age. It was used to prove that the term linothorax was intended to describe armour made from layered textiles. Homer uses different terms to describe hide armour.
If we limit ourselves to the classical period then there is nothing to suggest that the Greeks wore leather/hide armour. Leather was worn earlier. Homer mentions it. Leather was worn elsewhere. So what? Just because the Chinese ate rice doesn't mean that the Greeks did too. FWIW there is plenty of evidence for flax being grown in Greece since the Mykenaian period. According to Chadwick the Linear B evidence even lists the regions where it was grown. Most of female society was centred around the weaving industry.
It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. It is up to those who argue the positive case to provide the evidence. All that is required of the negative case is to look for holes in the argument for the affirmative.
Leather provides worse protection than layered textiles.
Leather is not cheaper than layered textiles though rawhide may have been.
Leather armour is not mentioned in any classical Greek text.
Leather armour cannot be demonstrated in any iconographical evidence.
The Thebes find does not date to the Classical period. It dates to the end of the Bronze Age. It was used to prove that the term linothorax was intended to describe armour made from layered textiles. Homer uses different terms to describe hide armour.
If we limit ourselves to the classical period then there is nothing to suggest that the Greeks wore leather/hide armour. Leather was worn earlier. Homer mentions it. Leather was worn elsewhere. So what? Just because the Chinese ate rice doesn't mean that the Greeks did too. FWIW there is plenty of evidence for flax being grown in Greece since the Mykenaian period. According to Chadwick the Linear B evidence even lists the regions where it was grown. Most of female society was centred around the weaving industry.
It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. It is up to those who argue the positive case to provide the evidence. All that is required of the negative case is to look for holes in the argument for the affirmative.
Leather provides worse protection than layered textiles.
Leather is not cheaper than layered textiles though rawhide may have been.
Leather armour is not mentioned in any classical Greek text.
Leather armour cannot be demonstrated in any iconographical evidence.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
