Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Guy hoping for some clarification
#31
Duncan,<br>
<br>
The only Qin armour on that page is the stone armour at the top. Yes I would define the stone armour as a type of lamellar but this was never worn on the battlefield. It was meant for funerary ornamentation only. Field armour dating to the the same time period made of leather and/or metal were not constructed in the same fashion. The plates were attached to a fabric foundation and as such should be classified as scale. Check out the Terracotta Warriors. They give a good selection of the types of armour worn during the Qin period. I haven't examined all of them yet but I haven't found anything that could be identified as anything other the scale so far. The rivets are usually quite clearly depicted.<br>
<br>
Regarding the finds at Leigudun, I have never been able to acquire decent pictures of the armour. If you have access to any I would be grateful. Most reports of the find spend so much time talking about the bloody bells that no more than a passing comment is made about the armour. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 8/3/04 11:40 pm<br></i>
Reply
#32
Daniel –<br>
<br>
I agree with some of your points, but I think that your assessment of Robinson’s definition of lamellar is more than a little unfair. He clearly understood that lamellar is more than just scale turned upside down, as is evident in his descriptions of lamellar and scale in “Armour of Imperial Rome.â€ÂÂ
Reply
#33
Well, with all the speculation and guesswork, and little evidence to prove otherwise, since I have a 4th-5th century impression, I intend to utilize true lamellar armour. My impression is from Britain, and since the Byzantines from my time period certainly were aware of lamellar, it makes sense that my impression could have worn it. <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i></i>
Lucius Aurelius Metellus
a.k.a. Jeffrey L. Greene
MODERATOR
Reply
#34
Gregg,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the detailed response. My problem with Assyrian lamellar is that I have seen bronze age scales matching Leyard's description and there is little doubt that these earlier samples were from scale corselets. Without knowing the layout of the holes on the Assyrian scales we will never know for certain, however because it will be impossible to attempt a reconstruction.<br>
<br>
Funny you mention Cyprus. For a while now I have been trying to collect as much information as I could about the armour found here. You are likely to be correct in that it does seem as though some of them might have been true lamellar, but I haven't enough detail to make an informed opinion. The central holes on many of these plates are larger than the edge ones implying the need for riveting rather than lacing.<br>
<br>
I have never said that lamellar never existed before the 1st C. I have said that I haven't been able to confirm any. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 8/4/04 8:23 am<br></i>
Reply
#35
Daniel,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the reply,<br>
<br>
I included only the link to the stone armour because it seemed likely that everyone knew of the Terracotta Army, and it seems to me that the stone style _is_ basically the same as most of the terracotta stuff, though with smaller plates. While the armour of the terracotta senior officers is attached to a fabric coat, the main infantry and cavalry styles don't seem to be. And I don't believe that any of the Qin styles include rivets. What the earliest accounts refer to as "rivets" are lacing-knots, passing in and out of adjacent holes and so only visible on the outside of the armour for a very short length. This seems to me to be clear from a reasonably close-up examination of one or two of the originals, they just don't _look_ like rivets, and is also the line taken in the article by our own esteemed Dr Bishop (in his 1989 article in Antiquity) and in the earlier work of Albert Dien (and possibly even by Yang Hong, nowadays?). That's why I've been wondering whether to call it "lamellar" - it does seem to be plates laced together without a fabric foundation, but they don't look like classic lamellae.....<br>
<br>
As for the Leigudun armour, have you seen the article on the armour reconstruction that Dien translated in, I think, "Chinese Studies in Archeology"? I've got a photocopy if you'd be interested - contact me off the board (as we're getting a bit off the Roman topic here) at Duncan[DOT]Head[AT]Misys[DOT]com with an address. <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "Ecis imm(unis)" clarification? ChrisZeichmann 2 1,525 09-26-2017, 05:13 PM
Last Post: ChrisZeichmann

Forum Jump: