03-05-2013, 07:11 PM
Kai wrote:
Coming back to philology, contrary to your writing the word grivban does exist in Pahlavi. The addition of the var-suffix is what one has problems to safely identify. The Latin words cribanus or clibanus in the meaning of armour are directly derived from grivban. Thus the Clibanarius term has a strong Persian root. This forces historians to take the persae reading into account. There is a nice paper by Ph. Huyse on that if you are interested (Vorbemerkungen zur Auswertung iranischen Sprachgutes in den Res Gestae des Ammianus Marcellinus, in: W. Skalmowski and A. Van Tongerloo (Eds.): Medioiranica, 1993)
I am sorry Kai, but Huyse does not seem to say exactly what you are saying. He mentiones Rundgrens association of the criban (-arius) to the Pahlavi grivpan, New Persian geriban, "neck-guard" (and in what seems to be an analogy with the hauberk - halsberg, "protection for the neck", Rundgren turns this into a horseman's armour), that much is true. However, both consider the association with clibanus to be a "Volksetymologie", and Huyse does not say aything about the later clibanon/clibanion, it might as well come from clibanarius.
Now the West European style of mail hauberk with an integrated mail coif can already be seen on miniatures from the early Carolingian period, so halsberg makes some sense. However, the grivpan / geriban was a seperate piece of armour, sometimes said to be a screen attached to the helmet, sometimes a collar attached to the metallic shirt. It would be quite a coincidence if the Persians made the same connections as the Franks to guarding the neck under such different circumstances. I must say I find Rundgrens connection somewhat forced.
And that is the problem with phylology, language is full of coincidences. For instance, the New Persian word for an oven is tanur, and tanurah denotes a suit of armour, causing a translator of Tabari to describe how a fleeing horseman pelted a pursuer with his helmet, then his shield and finally his field-oven! According to Huyse, these two words are not related either.
Coming back to philology, contrary to your writing the word grivban does exist in Pahlavi. The addition of the var-suffix is what one has problems to safely identify. The Latin words cribanus or clibanus in the meaning of armour are directly derived from grivban. Thus the Clibanarius term has a strong Persian root. This forces historians to take the persae reading into account. There is a nice paper by Ph. Huyse on that if you are interested (Vorbemerkungen zur Auswertung iranischen Sprachgutes in den Res Gestae des Ammianus Marcellinus, in: W. Skalmowski and A. Van Tongerloo (Eds.): Medioiranica, 1993)
I am sorry Kai, but Huyse does not seem to say exactly what you are saying. He mentiones Rundgrens association of the criban (-arius) to the Pahlavi grivpan, New Persian geriban, "neck-guard" (and in what seems to be an analogy with the hauberk - halsberg, "protection for the neck", Rundgren turns this into a horseman's armour), that much is true. However, both consider the association with clibanus to be a "Volksetymologie", and Huyse does not say aything about the later clibanon/clibanion, it might as well come from clibanarius.
Now the West European style of mail hauberk with an integrated mail coif can already be seen on miniatures from the early Carolingian period, so halsberg makes some sense. However, the grivpan / geriban was a seperate piece of armour, sometimes said to be a screen attached to the helmet, sometimes a collar attached to the metallic shirt. It would be quite a coincidence if the Persians made the same connections as the Franks to guarding the neck under such different circumstances. I must say I find Rundgrens connection somewhat forced.
And that is the problem with phylology, language is full of coincidences. For instance, the New Persian word for an oven is tanur, and tanurah denotes a suit of armour, causing a translator of Tabari to describe how a fleeing horseman pelted a pursuer with his helmet, then his shield and finally his field-oven! According to Huyse, these two words are not related either.
