Earliest Use of Lamellar by Romans

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Whats the earliest finds of lamellar in a Roman context?

[mcbishop]

Whats the earliest finds of lamellar in a Roman context?

Probably Catalka (there should be a caron over that 'C'), so 1st century AD. A grave full of alien artefacts (e.g. Chinese jade), so scarcely an indicator of what's normal, but it is the strict answer to your question, I think.

Mike Bishop

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Mr. Bishop,

In Robinsons book there is a photo of a statue of a God wearing what he says to be lamellar, and he dates it to the first century. Do you have any information on this?

Thanks,

[mcbishop]

In Robinsons book there is a photo of a statue of a God wearing what he says to be lamellar, and he dates it to the first century. Do you have any information on this?

It's a Palmyrene relief and Palmyra at this time was the ultimate cultural sponge. The tower tombs contain loads of silk from China, whilst the sculpture shows a sword of a gladius type (a type which was also copied in Scandinavia). Being next door to the Parthians, who used steppe-nomad-derived equipment, it's not surprising to find lamellar popping up. As with Catalka, it is Roman period, but not really Roman in context.

Mike Bishop

[Dan Howard]

It depends on how you define "lamellar". If you use James' definition then lamellar is restricted to scales laced/wired together so that no backing material is needed. Using this definition, the Palmyrene relief is more likely to be scale armour and not lamellar. The earliest example of true lamellar I have found anywhere in the world dates to the Warring States period in China. There was some true lamellar at Dura Europos. Can anyone post a photo of the Catalka example?

[Doug Strong]

Dan,
Not to derail this thread but is that your Dendra Panoply in your avatar? If so do you have larger pics?

[Dan Howard]

Hi Doug

Here they are.
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_C ... wtopic=347

[scott]

Dan is right. It was certainly around in the Qin Dynasty running 221 - 206BC as can be seen from the Xi-Yang village finds. Various types such as leather, jade and stone (possibly only ornamental) were discovered but as Dan states, it depends upon whose definition of lamellar you take.

Scott.

[Dan Howard]

Personally I would be happy if the term "scale" was not used and this type of armour was subsumed into a category of lamellar. Perhaps calling it "backed lamellar" or "reinforced lamellar".

[mcbishop]

Personally I would be happy if the term "scale" was not used and this type of armour was subsumed into a category of lamellar. Perhaps calling it "backed lamellar" or "reinforced lamellar".

The Palmyrene relief is lamellar because Robinson says so: remember he was first and foremost an oriental armour specialist, and only came to Roman stuff comparatively late in life. It is heavily stylised, but very different from depictions of scale, having as it does the horizontal lacing ridges shown between the rows of lamellae. As for the terminology, those suggested above are rather tautologous; here's what Robinson says:

...true lamellar armour wherein the small rectangular plates with rounded upper ends were laced into horizontal bands and joined into a flexible unlined defensive garment with a series of vertical laces. The Armour of Imperial Rome, 162

The Qin dynasty armour depicted on the terracotta warriors is not true lamellar (it is, amongst other things, apparently articulated on silk and has a complex system of overlaps on the plates). There is an article on it in Antiquity for 1989. Don't pay to access it; if anybody wants a copy I'll willingly let them have one.

I have some slides of the Catalka lamellar (I examined it in 1987) somewhere which I will try and dig out and scan them/it.

Mike Bishop

[Dan Howard]

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.

[Dan Howard]

The Qin dynasty armour depicted on the terracotta warriors is not true lamellar (it is, amongst other things, apparently articulated on silk and has a complex system of overlaps on the plates). There is an article on it in Antiquity for 1989.

Hi Mike, I have read your Antiquity article a couple of times (wonderful work) but can't find any mention of a silk foundation - just silk lacing. I was wondering whether I have missed something. I was also wondering whether anyone has attempted to make a physical reconstruction based on this paper?

[Chuck Russell]

paul is a farb. haha jk. nothing to see here... move along peoples