06-07-2012, 03:10 PM
Ah this again...
I think this is one of those dead debates really. I would say, however, that the lin B texts specifically mention bronze chiton fittings, but how those would fit together is unsure. Moreover, there have been one (or two, maybe more) finds of extra thick quilted linens from Knossos and, I think, Thebes. These were probably armaments in some fashion.
However, this means nothing for the Classical period and later.
Homer, of course, utilises the words linothorex. Leaving the usual caveats about using the Homeric texts for realien aside (which, seriously, why is it only professional Homerists acknowledge? common sense, please), this is clearly an appellative formation used to signify something like "armoured in linen", so again irrelevant.
Yes there is ample evidence for glues in the Aegean, though unlike the bronze age stuff its unlikely that the Classical versions would be as strong, however its completely feasible. It would not be a very sensible economic solution, however. In this sense I agree with Dan. There were myriad reasons to avoid using this method of assembly.
I'm also surprised about the comments on layered silk, above. I was under the impression mongols used lacquered armour with silk shirts to facilitate the removal of arrows. As for the Indian version I have some pieces of very old Indian armour. Whilst they seem to be of silk, that's a covering for a series of scales (Pangolin) fastened to leather underneath so not at all the same thing either.
I think this is one of those dead debates really. I would say, however, that the lin B texts specifically mention bronze chiton fittings, but how those would fit together is unsure. Moreover, there have been one (or two, maybe more) finds of extra thick quilted linens from Knossos and, I think, Thebes. These were probably armaments in some fashion.
However, this means nothing for the Classical period and later.
Homer, of course, utilises the words linothorex. Leaving the usual caveats about using the Homeric texts for realien aside (which, seriously, why is it only professional Homerists acknowledge? common sense, please), this is clearly an appellative formation used to signify something like "armoured in linen", so again irrelevant.
Yes there is ample evidence for glues in the Aegean, though unlike the bronze age stuff its unlikely that the Classical versions would be as strong, however its completely feasible. It would not be a very sensible economic solution, however. In this sense I agree with Dan. There were myriad reasons to avoid using this method of assembly.
I'm also surprised about the comments on layered silk, above. I was under the impression mongols used lacquered armour with silk shirts to facilitate the removal of arrows. As for the Indian version I have some pieces of very old Indian armour. Whilst they seem to be of silk, that's a covering for a series of scales (Pangolin) fastened to leather underneath so not at all the same thing either.
Jass
