07-30-2004, 09:32 PM
Mr. Gray,<br>
<br>
As I have already stated, Robinson is useless in regards to lamellar research. His definiton is flawed and most instances in which he refers to "lamellar", he should actually be referring to "scale". I have personally attempted to varify every instance in which Robinson uses the term "lamellar" and the earliest one in which I might be in agreement is Dura Europas - though not because of the graffito. All earlier occurrences have turned out to be scale - including Persia and Assyria.<br>
<br>
Regarding his mention of Assyrian lamellar. I have in front of me a copy of the only Assyrian archaeological report I have ever found in which actual fragments of iron armour were handled rather than ambiguous pictures and sculptures. Austen Henry Layard, "A Popular Account of Discoveries at Nineveh." J. C. Derby. New York. 1854. p221<br>
<br>
<em>"The Arabs employed in removing the rubbish from the chamber with the kneeling winged figures,[9.17] discovered a quantity of iron, in which I soon recognized the scales of the armor represented on the sculptures. These scales were from two to three inches in length, rounded at one end, and square at the other, with a raised or embossed line in the center, and had probably been fastened to a vest of linen or felt. The iron was so eaten by rust, that I had much difficulty in detaching it from the soil. Two or three baskets were filled with these relics."</em><br>
<br>
The plates described in this passage belong to corselets of *scale* armour. The description is very similar to earlier extant samples made from bronze. I can find absolutely no evidence to confirm that the Assyrians ever used lamellar. I challenge you to find anything dating before the 1st C BC anywhere in the world that can be confirmed as true lamellar and not scale.<br>
<br>
Lucius,<br>
Regarding Osprey publications. These are not scholarly works. Some are excellent but the vast majority are poorly researched and error-prone. It would be unwise to call something "evidence" simply because you saw it in an Osprey book. Unless you are knowledgeable enough to cull the cream from the crap then you should keep away from Osprey. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 8/3/04 6:54 am<br></i>
<br>
As I have already stated, Robinson is useless in regards to lamellar research. His definiton is flawed and most instances in which he refers to "lamellar", he should actually be referring to "scale". I have personally attempted to varify every instance in which Robinson uses the term "lamellar" and the earliest one in which I might be in agreement is Dura Europas - though not because of the graffito. All earlier occurrences have turned out to be scale - including Persia and Assyria.<br>
<br>
Regarding his mention of Assyrian lamellar. I have in front of me a copy of the only Assyrian archaeological report I have ever found in which actual fragments of iron armour were handled rather than ambiguous pictures and sculptures. Austen Henry Layard, "A Popular Account of Discoveries at Nineveh." J. C. Derby. New York. 1854. p221<br>
<br>
<em>"The Arabs employed in removing the rubbish from the chamber with the kneeling winged figures,[9.17] discovered a quantity of iron, in which I soon recognized the scales of the armor represented on the sculptures. These scales were from two to three inches in length, rounded at one end, and square at the other, with a raised or embossed line in the center, and had probably been fastened to a vest of linen or felt. The iron was so eaten by rust, that I had much difficulty in detaching it from the soil. Two or three baskets were filled with these relics."</em><br>
<br>
The plates described in this passage belong to corselets of *scale* armour. The description is very similar to earlier extant samples made from bronze. I can find absolutely no evidence to confirm that the Assyrians ever used lamellar. I challenge you to find anything dating before the 1st C BC anywhere in the world that can be confirmed as true lamellar and not scale.<br>
<br>
Lucius,<br>
Regarding Osprey publications. These are not scholarly works. Some are excellent but the vast majority are poorly researched and error-prone. It would be unwise to call something "evidence" simply because you saw it in an Osprey book. Unless you are knowledgeable enough to cull the cream from the crap then you should keep away from Osprey. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 8/3/04 6:54 am<br></i>
