09-16-2006, 11:55 AM
Robinson's definition of lamellar is different in Oriental Armour than it is in Armour of Imperial Rome. In the latter I agree with his definition. In the former he seems to think that anything is lamellar so long as the rows overlap upwards and the plates line up vertically regardless of whether a backing material is involved. Because of this, many of the armours described as lamellar in Oriental Armour are contrary to the definition of lamellar in his Roman work and should be classified as scale armour.
I agree that much of the armour on the terracotta warriors is unlikely to be true lamellar (depends on whether the backing is really used for articulation), however, I did not have these in mind. There were twelve suits of lacquered leather armour dating to the Warring States period. They were found in a tomb at Suixan, Hubei, just north of ancient Chu. See Armour in China before the Tang, by Albert E. Dien. JEAA, 2, 3-4, (Leiden: Brill, 2000). pp.23-59. If Dien's reconstruction is accurate, then I think they might qualify as true lamellar.
I agree that much of the armour on the terracotta warriors is unlikely to be true lamellar (depends on whether the backing is really used for articulation), however, I did not have these in mind. There were twelve suits of lacquered leather armour dating to the Warring States period. They were found in a tomb at Suixan, Hubei, just north of ancient Chu. See Armour in China before the Tang, by Albert E. Dien. JEAA, 2, 3-4, (Leiden: Brill, 2000). pp.23-59. If Dien's reconstruction is accurate, then I think they might qualify as true lamellar.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
